Reply
Honored Social Butterfly

'CLIMATE CHANGE' FIGHT HAS COST YOU MORE THAN $166 BILLION

'CLIMATE CHANGE' FIGHT HAS COST YOU MORE THAN $166 BILLION New report shows bill comparable to entire Apollo moon-mission program

 

By Joe Wilson

 

WASHINGTON – The U.S. government spent nearly as much fighting “climate change” between 1993 and 2014 as was spent on the entire Apollo program between 1962 and 1973, according to a new report.

 

A May 2017 report from the Capital Research Center (CRS) states that “from FY 1993 to FY 2014 total U.S. expenditures on climate change amount to more than $166 billion.”

 

The total includes more than $26.1 billion from President Obama’s 2009 stimulus bill, as well as regular annual budget amounts and federal tax credits distributed over a period of 21 years.

 

In comparison, the U.S. spent $200 billion, adjusted for inflation, on the Apollo space program, which ran from 1962 until 1973 and flew 17 missions, including Apollo 11, which put a man on the moon for the first time. Through the program, the U.S. sent seven men to the moon and back.

 

The CRS report comes just as President Trump has announced that the U.S. is withdrawing from the Paris climate accord. Under the agreement, the U.S. would have been obligated to pay $3 billion to a green fund by 2020, among other expected contributions.

 

The report shows that annual expenditures on climate change have increased 490 percent since 1993, and the annual amount going through the U.N. for combating climate change internationally has climbed by 440 percent.

 

Most of the money is not going to climate-science research but to control CO2 emissions based on inadequately tested hypotheses dating to the 1970s. The amount of money spent on further research and experimentation in climate science is $42.49 billion, according to the report. It’s little more than 25 percent of total expenditure on climate change, meaning that 75 percent of the U.S. climate-change budget is dedicated to “efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and their presumed, but not demonstrated, effects.”

 

The U.S. justification for such spending combating CO2 emissions is based on the 1979 Charney Report, published by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The Charney Report theorized that if CO2 in the atmosphere were to double, the earth’s surface temperature would increase by roughly 6 degrees Fahrenheit, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3 degrees. However, the Charney Report also predicted a more powerful warming trend caused by an increase in water vapor, earth’s dominant greenhouse gas.

 

The CRS report states: “In 1979, scientists lacked any comprehensive measurements of atmospheric temperatures, so the Charney Report’s guesses could not be confirmed or denied. But to cause this ‘top-down warming,’ the warming trends in the atmosphere would have to be more pronounced than surface warming trends.”

 

That’s because much of the energy from atmospheric warming is lost in space and doesn’t not affect surface temperature.

 

Despite the fact that the Charney Report’s data was unconfirmed, it heavily influenced the 1992 U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) signed by President George H.W. Bush and ratified, with stipulations, by the Senate. The treaty’s main goal was “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”

 

The UNFCCC aimed to combat the rise of greenhouse gas, even though insufficient data had been gathered to confirm the Charney Report’s hypothesis that greenhouse gases were contributing to global warming.

 

Meanwhile, “independent researchers have tested the Charney Report’s hypothesis against atmospheric temperature data, which now extends over 37 years, and found the hypothesis wanting,” the CRS report states.

 

New methods and equipment have been developed to test the hypothesis, and the data does not confirm it. As the report declares, “the hypothesis needs to be modified or discarded.”

However, the U.S. government continues to fund projects based on the faulty hypothesis.

 

Although it seems clear that the bulk of U.S. climate-change funding should go into research so that the actual cause of climate change, as well as its potential impact can be ascertained, more than $104.25 billion goes to projects other than scientific research, compared to only $42.49 billion sent to research projects.

 

Annual expenditures in research have increased by 200 percent since 1993, while other climate change-related expenditures have gone up by an astounding 850 percent. The combined cost of climate-change policy has been $166 billion from 1993 to 2014.

 

 

 

 

VIMTSTL
Honored Social Butterfly

Worried about $166 BILLION jimc ?  How about $880 BILLION Cut from our Senior's and Disabled needs and Nursing Homes ??? Those are your Republicans with their lack of compassion.

Hope your family is in the top 1 % so they dont have to die in the streets !!!

0 Kudos
721 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

   So sad to read such ignorance.    How many articles would it take to convince some here to accept the reality that both India and China are working to clean up their efforts to move away from Coal and towards Renvewable Energy Projects?      How many would they knee-jerk "fake news" because the article was not from Heritage or Heartland, etc?     Will the drag out the Southern Oregon signatory nonsense as "all the scientists" - when they have maybe one or two people who have written scientific papers that have been published in main-stream peer-reviewed journals?

 

       They will revert to the foot-dragging routine that Reagan employed to ignore the AID / HIV epidemic.    GOP Generational Genocide Plan is running full bore and the supporters seem not to care about their fellow Americans.     

PRO-LIFE is Affordable Healthcare for ALL .
0 Kudos
740 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

I had no idea the people trying to deny science were costing us so much money. 

0 Kudos
540 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

PC:   I doubt that Jim has bothered to read the report, but liked the headline.   Did he notice that the report that he was complaining about was years old.    More importantly, there is a group of individual who put aside all morals and values, saying that they are quite unimportant when it would cost money to address any possible problems.  

 

        They will obviously ignore the cost of doing nothing, and that cost is real and will affect everyone in the US in the form of costs of storms or water shortage / contamination.     Perhaps those who are complaining about "cost tax payers too much today' are assuming that they won't be around when problems arise because some US politicians sold the lie that Anthropomorpic Global Warming.   

 

      As a reminder, some of the biggest deniers in Congress are the biggest recipients of Oil / Gas donations.   One even admitted that he believed in AGW, until he saw the price tag.  

 

   1.  Hurricane damages: $422 billion in economic losses caused by the increasing intensity of Atlantic and Gulf Coast storms. 

 

   2.   Real estate losses: $360 billion in damaged or destroyed residential real estate as a result of rising sea levels.

 

  3.    Energy costs: $141 billion in increasing energy costs as a result of the rising demand for energy

 

   4.   Water costs: $950 billion to provide water to the driest and most water-stressed parts of the United States as climate change exacerbates drought conditions and disrupts existing patterns of water supply.

 

     Those costs make the whine by Deniers sound miniscule.      

PRO-LIFE is Affordable Healthcare for ALL .
Honored Social Butterfly

"Just looking at one of their claims (that $26.1 Billion of Obama's 2009 stimulus bill was funding climate change programs is very suspect and downright false.)

 

They have not backed up their $166 Billion with ANY facts of how they determined that figure."

 

Trump supporters never rely on facts, science, or the truth. 

Honored Social Butterfly


@jimc91 wrote:
The combined cost of climate-change policy has been $166 billion from 1993 to 2014.

 

 

 

About the same as Vietnam - a "police action" that was doomed to fail - but without a doubt nowhere close to the estimated four plus trillion that the convicted war criminals - Dubya and his utterly corrupt administration have cost us - so far - by attacking Afghanistan and Iraq...

That's not including the over five million lives lost as a result of those needless wars.

 

Stupid, stupid stupid...

 


44>dolt45
0 Kudos
554 Views
2
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@alferdpacker wrote:

 

About the same as Vietnam - a "police action" that was doomed to fail - but without a doubt nowhere close to the estimated four plus trillion that the convicted war criminals - Dubya and his utterly corrupt administration have cost us - so far - by attacking Afghanistan and Iraq...

That's not including the over five million lives lost as a result of those needless wars.


 



This has nothing to do with Vietnam, nor Dubya.  So what does this discussion have to do with either? 

0 Kudos
570 Views
1
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

 


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@alferdpacker wrote:

 

About the same as Vietnam - a "police action" that was doomed to fail - but without a doubt nowhere close to the estimated four plus trillion that the convicted war criminals - Dubya and his utterly corrupt administration have cost us - so far - by attacking Afghanistan and Iraq...

That's not including the over five million lives lost as a result of those needless wars.


 



This has nothing to do with Vietnam, nor Dubya.  So what does this discussion have to do with either? 


So sorry to see that you completely missed that plain and obvious connection of COST - something that is in the original topic title and is an essential part of the topic.

44>dolt45
0 Kudos
570 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@jimc91 wrote:

'CLIMATE CHANGE' FIGHT HAS COST YOU MORE THAN $166 BILLION New report shows bill comparable to entire Apollo moon-mission program



OMG!!!!!

 

Yet another post where the attribution is well hidden so as not to draw attention from where the article originated.

 

Once again, its origin is that of fringe web site, WORLDNETDAILY.

 

Known as a generator of conspiracy theories and described as an ALT-RIGHT racist site; the WORLDNETDAILY was the leader in questioning Obama's citizenship.

 

The Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League both describe this "shell of a resource" as an extremist group peddling WHITE NATIONALISM.

 

Is there not a legitimate web site available?

 

Why would one want to continue to use extremist sites where most readers would question the validity of almost anything published by those sites?

NO! IT'S CONSERVATIVES THAT ARE NUTTIER THAN SQUIRREL POOP!
0 Kudos
505 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

The bad news is we have already spent $166 Billion.

 

The good new is we have pulled out of the Paris Climate Accord.

 

End of post

 

 

 

VIMTSTL
0 Kudos
500 Views
1
Report
Recognized Social Butterfly


@jimc91 wrote:

The bad news is we have already spent $166 Billion.

 

The good new is we have pulled out of the Paris Climate Accord.

 

End of post

 

 

 


jimc91,  The title of this topic is very misleading.  WorldNetDaily pulled the $166 Billion number from a "study" by the CRC.  However, this "study" was not studying how much we have spent on climate change, it was rebutting the paper written by Sociologist Robert Brulle on where the funding for the "climate change countermovement" was coming from. 

 

The $166 Billion was one line of the "study" and is not broken down so you can determine how they came up with this figure.  Just looking at one of their claims (that $26.1 Billion of Obama's 209 stimulus bill was funding "climate change programs" is very suspect and downright false.  Here is a link to the amounts funded by the "stimulus", you tell me which of these programs qualifies as only a "climate change program".  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009#Energy_infrastructure

 

They have not backed up their $166 Billion with ANY facts of how they determined that figure.

 

 

Honored Social Butterfly

jimc--So, you don't think the planet is worth $166 billion dollars?  How incredibly sad

.  RE: ice age--Yup, we have all heard of it.  Have you heard that the planet is warming up at a record pace?  That the vast majority of scientists have noted this and concur that something other than natural occurances are taking place?

Did you know that the tipping point that triggered the ice age, is very close to the degree change we are seeing now, just in the opposite direction?

I'm sure you searched for evidence that this obvious event is not taking place.  Do yourself a favor, and search for evidence that it is--search for the truth.

Gee, I miss having a real President!!
0 Kudos
491 Views
8
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@pc6063 wrote:

jimc--So, you don't think the planet is worth $166 billion dollars?  How incredibly sad

.  RE: ice age--Yup, we have all heard of it.  Have you heard that the planet is warming up at a record pace?  That the vast majority of scientists have noted this and concur that something other than natural occurances are taking place?

Did you know that the tipping point that triggered the ice age, is very close to the degree change we are seeing now, just in the opposite direction?

I'm sure you searched for evidence that this obvious event is not taking place.  Do yourself a favor, and search for evidence that it is--search for the truth.


How many degrees Celsius has the earth warmed in the past 100 years?

 

 

 

VIMTSTL
0 Kudos
499 Views
7
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Jim your post reminds me of a story that I heard a long time ago, There was this soldier marching in this parade, and all of a sudden he looked around and said.
"Everyone is marching with a different step"
And that is what you remind me  of.  You are correct, the rest of the world is wrong. Good luck with that one. remember the Earth is not flat is actually round, remember what it took for many to accept that?

no name
Honored Social Butterfly

Rker-- What you see in "trump rangers" is the inability to see the macro environmental picture. These people seem to be unable to get past the microcosm of their very small community, unable to comprehend what global warming is doing to this planet.

Gee, I miss having a real President!!
0 Kudos
514 Views
1
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@pc6063 wrote:

Rker-- What you see in "trump rangers" is the inability to see the macro environmental picture. These people seem to be unable to get past the microcosm of their very small community, unable to comprehend what global warming is doing to this planet.


rker - what you are seeing is the inability of the radical left to consider any solution for any problem beyond "throw more money at it".

 

"Macro-" and "micro-" are meaningless to them. Only $ and a zeros at the end of a number has any meaning to them.

0 Kudos
562 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@Roxanna35 wrote:

Jim your post reminds me of a story that I heard a long time ago, There was this soldier marching in this parade, and all of a sudden he looked around and said.
"Everyone is marching with a different step"
And that is what you remind me  of.  You are correct, the rest of the work is wrong. Good luck with that one. remember the Earth is not flat is actually round, remember what it took for many to accept that?


What will change if we send our money to be spread among other countries as opposed to spending our money here?  We are doing our part and getting better at it each year.  What is wrong with expecting other countries to do their part?

 

Thank you for the insult.

 

 

 

VIMTSTL
0 Kudos
515 Views
1
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@jimc91 wrote:

@Roxanna35 wrote:

Jim your post reminds me of a story that I heard a long time ago, There was this soldier marching in this parade, and all of a sudden he looked around and said.
"Everyone is marching with a different step"
And that is what you remind me  of.  You are correct, the rest of the work is wrong. Good luck with that one. remember the Earth is not flat is actually round, remember what it took for many to accept that?


What will change if we send our money to be spread among other countries as opposed to spending our money here?  We are doing our part and getting better at it each year.  What is wrong with expecting other countries to do their part?

 

Thank you for the insult.

 

 

 


Sure we are, we just opened a new coal mine,  and I really have not seen any insults in my post. so I guess you must have misunderstood what I wrote.

no name
0 Kudos
518 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

jimc--From 1880-2012 the earth has warmed .85 degrees C, roughly 1.53 degrees fahrenheit--the tipping point is thought to be 2 degrees Farhenheit.  However, the LAST THREE DECADES, from 1983-2012 were the warmest 30 year period of the last 1,400 years  (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).

Gee, I miss having a real President!!
Honored Social Butterfly


@pc6063 wrote:

jimc--From 1880-2012 the earth has warmed .85 degrees, roughly 1.53 degrees fahrenheit--the tipping point is thought to be 2 degrees Farhenheit.  However, the LAST THREE DECADES, from 1983-2012 were the warmest 30 year period of the last 1,400 years  (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).


We should ALL sign petitions to China and India and explain why they should follow our lead and do as we have done over the past 30 years.  We are doing our part so its time for them to do theirs right?

 

The US can not single handedly control the worlds emissions can we?

 

If the majority of the worlds scientists agree, the China and India should have no problem.  Their scientist do agree don't they?

 

 

 

 

VIMTSTL
Honored Social Butterfly

Oh dear!!!! Jim are you trying to tell us now that you don't believe in climate change?

no name
0 Kudos
501 Views
10
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@Roxanna35 wrote:

Oh dear!!!! Jim are you trying to tell us now that you don't believe in climate change?


The climate has been changing for as long as the planet has been in existance.  Did you ever study about the Ice Age?

 

 

 

VIMTSTL
0 Kudos
495 Views
9
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

jimc91:   The climate has been changing for as long as the planet has been in existance.  Did you ever study about the Ice Age?

 

 

 

 

Sorry, but that argument doesn't hold water either.

 

 

 

"Let’s begin with climate change arguments. There are many that I could choose from here, but let’s start with the argument that the current warming is just a natural cycle because the climate has changed naturally in the past. If you like to use this argument, then I have several questions for you. Do you honestly think that climatologists never thought of this? Do you really think that the people who spend their lives collecting those data on past climates never even bothered to check and see if the current warming was part of a natural trend? I realize that I probably sound flippant here, but I’m actually asking these questions sincerely. Do you truly think that the entire scientific community is so hopelessly incompetent and stupid that they never even bothered to check the natural drivers of climate change? If you do, then I have news for you: they aren’t. Scientists have looked at past climate changes (Lorius et al. 1990; Tripati et al. 2009; Shakun et al. 2012), and they have very carefully looked at the natural drivers of climate change, and they have consistently found that the current warming does not match natural cycles and can only be explained by including our greenhouse gasses in the analyses (Stott et al. 2001; Meehl, et al. 2004; Allen et al. 2006; Wild et al. 2007; Lockwood and Frohlich 2007, 2008; Lean and Rind 2008; Foster and Rahmstorf 2011; Imbers et al. 2014)."

 

https://thelogicofscience.com/2017/04/03/scientists-arent-stupid-and-science-deniers-are-arrogant/

Honored Social Butterfly

Pan-- One thing you need to realize is that with the propaganda media spewing lies about the reality of climate change and donnie pulling out of the Paris Accord, trump Rangers are unable to see the truth beforevthem, choosing to follow  lies and fantasy,  rather then what is obvious. 

Great post! Thank you!!

Gee, I miss having a real President!!
0 Kudos
515 Views
7
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

pc6063: 

Pan-- One thing you need to realize is that with the propaganda media spewing lies about the reality of climate change and donnie pulling out of the Paris Accord, trump Rangers are unable to see the truth beforevthem, choosing to follow  lies and fantasy,  rather then what is obvious. 

Great post! Thank you!!

 

 

One thing is clear: the only group in the world who refuses to accept the science community's findings and conclusions on climate change is the American GOP. Odd isn't it that conservatives the world over understand what's at stake yet our people do not? It brings their behavior into focus by understanding that the GOP is a tool for the petroleum industry. But wouldn't you think that the base would be even a tiny bit angry with the assumption by their politicians that they are fools to be duped?

Honored Social Butterfly


@pc6063 wrote:

 

Paris Accord


Isn't compliance with the Paris Accord voluntary with goals set by every nation?  I note this in doing some research: ... there’s also no defined punishment for breaking it and the goals, as said, is up to each country.  What's the deal about staying in it?

 

But of course whatever, it would cost Uncle Sugar a bundle of money going to other countries.  Never fails.

 

Has science proved conclusively what causes extreme climate change?  Or is it just like other things, it depends on the current politically correct fad?

 

 

0 Kudos
514 Views
5
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@pc6063 wrote:

 

Paris Accord


Isn't compliance with the Paris Accord voluntary with goals set by every nation?  I note this in doing some research: ... there’s also no defined punishment for breaking it and the goals, as said, is up to each country.  What's the deal about staying in it?

 

But of course whatever, it would cost Uncle Sugar a bundle of money going to other countries.  Never fails.

 

Has science proved conclusively what causes extreme climate change?  Or is it just like other things, it depends on the current politically correct fad?

 

 


I believe that it has been proven by many scientist regarding global warming an the emmission of carbon into the athmosphere that is man made.
India, just passed a law that by 2030 the only cars that will be sold thee will be electric cars.
China is becoming the biggest producer of solar panels. There are cities and one of them is Mexico city that the smog is so great that is practically non breathable. Los Angeles, look what they have done regarding car emissions and if you live in LA smog alerts are quite frequent. and employers allow their employees to go home during those alerts.
To disregard everything that has been said by the world scientist is foolish. but, as usual, politics in this country takes precedent as to what is good for the country and what is not.

no name
0 Kudos
541 Views
4
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@Roxanna35 wrote:
 

To disregard everything that has been said by the world scientist is foolish. but, as usual, politics in this country takes precedent as to what is good for the country and what is not.


From what I understand, and as I have posted, the Paris Accord is strictly voluntarily but was to cost the United States some millions of dollars a year, naturally.  But even pulling out of it, many states and industries are going to remain in compliance.

 

I am aware of smog problems in the Far East especially, since I recall the first time I landed at Tokyo International Airport back in 1956, the air was so thick with smog one could hardly breath.   There was the smell of wood burning smoke in the air.

 

Now being asthmetic with emphysema, even with our air not being as contaminated, it is hard sometimes to breathe. 

 

But like many other things with science, theories are constantly changing.  Some interesting references:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

 

There are many references to climate changes through the ages, but of course many are debunked by those who want to make a case for present day climate change.

 

 

0 Kudos
556 Views
3
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@Roxanna35 wrote:
 

To disregard everything that has been said by the world scientist is foolish. but, as usual, politics in this country takes precedent as to what is good for the country and what is not.


From what I understand, and as I have posted, the Paris Accord is strictly voluntarily but was to cost the United States some millions of dollars a year, naturally.  But even pulling out of it, many states and industries are going to remain in compliance.

 

I am aware of smog problems in the Far East especially, since I recall the first time I landed at Tokyo International Airport back in 1956, the air was so thick with smog one could hardly breath.   There was the smell of wood burning smoke in the air.

 

Now being asthmetic with emphysema, even with our air not being as contaminated, it is hard sometimes to breathe. 

 

But like many other things with science, theories are constantly changing.  Some interesting references:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Periodhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

 

There are many references to climate changes through the ages, but of course many are debunked by those who want to make a case for present day climate change.
Tx, and they will continue to change. Science doesn't stand still. you know that. That means that the way we used to cure and manage Cancer is today completely different that what we used to do years ago. Climate  change or carbon emmission are very much still with us. There is global warming, we have seen quite a bit of changes in the weather. 
And things regarding our climate will continue to change. The problem lies in the fact that many don't want to accept what part of humanity is guilty for any change, no matter what anyone says,
California just reached an agreement with Germany in which they will deal with climate change with the rules of the treaty. so, I imagine that other States will do the same. or already have done the same by not accepting the rules that Trump wants to institute.  

 


no name
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Does AARP donate to political parties or endorse candidates?

AARP is strictly non-partisan and always has been. We never endorse or donate to candidates, political parties or political action committees.

Learn more.

AARP Members Only Games

Play members only games, like FIll Ins, Lumeno, 2048 and a collaborative, multiplayer Let's Crossword.

Play Now
AARP Members Only Games Logos
AARP Rewards

Solve Crosswords. Earn Rewards. Activate AARP Rewards to earn points for games, quizzes and videos. Redeem for deals and discounts.

Get started with AARP Rewards now!
/html/assets/Rewards-program-badge-355x224.png