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

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

no name
0 Kudos
492 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
486 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
506 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
505 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
532 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
547 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
Honored Social Butterfly


@Roxanna35 wrote:


Science doesn't stand still.

 



I doubt it is science that isn't standing still, but our understanding of scientific facts.  Scientific theories are constantly changing because scientists don't full understand everything.  They could be compared to that of a child who is uncovering new things along the way of growing up.

 

And who cares if California has reached an understanding with Germany?  Are we now answerable to Germany? 

0 Kudos
562 Views
1
Report
Recognized Social Butterfly

Global Warming is not a theory,  It's called solid scientific observation of what is happening NOW.  And what has happened since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.  There is a graph that scientist use not politicians that shows what has happened in the last hundred thousands years and what has happened since the industrial revolution and anyone with any sense can read it.  Except for the Republican Party.  But I'm sure even the smart ones can understand it but refuse to accept it.  No we won't follow Germany's  or even China's energy plans, we will take a back seat while the rest of the world will follow their lead.

Recognized Social Butterfly

I looked at your link and noticed there was no link to the actual report.  I also went to the Capital Research Center site and could not find a report.  Any link to the actual report would be helpful.

0 Kudos
495 Views
2
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@sp362 wrote:

I looked at your link and noticed there was no link to the actual report.  I also went to the Capital Research Center site and could not find a report.  Any link to the actual report would be helpful.


Google search Results:

 

Screen Shot 2017-06-12 at 9.52.52 AM.png

 

 

https://capitalresearch.org/app/uploads/CRC_ClimateDollars_Study_finalv2.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

VIMTSTL
0 Kudos
494 Views
1
Report
Recognized Social Butterfly


@jimc91 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

I looked at your link and noticed there was no link to the actual report.  I also went to the Capital Research Center site and could not find a report.  Any link to the actual report would be helpful.


Google search Results:

 

Screen Shot 2017-06-12 at 9.52.52 AM.png

 

 

https://capitalresearch.org/app/uploads/CRC_ClimateDollars_Study_finalv2.pdf

 

 

 

 

 


jimc91,  A few quick notes about the study:

  1. It is not dated, but if people want to say it is from May 2017, that is fine.
  2. It does not list who authored the study.  That is troubling.
  3. I was trying to find exactly what dollars they were classifying as climate change dollars, but even looking at sub-links, the information is not there, only broad generalizations.

If you are interested I could go into more detail, especially where he got a lot of his estimates of $166 billion, when I have the time.

Honored Social Butterfly

A billion, in America, is a thousand million. That would be written like this:

1,000,000,000

If we wanted to make a book with a billion dollar signs, printed 1000 per page as before and with pages printed on both sides, our book would be 500,000 pages long.  Now that's a very long book!

 

Imagine $166 BILLION!

 

 

VIMTSTL
0 Kudos
495 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Fortunately this waste of taxpayer monies will end.

0 Kudos
260 Views
26
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

Fortunately this waste of taxpayer monies will end.


The waste of taxpayer money will never end - it is the nature of government.

 

As to climate change, I believe the efforts to clean up the environment will never end, and that is a good thing. What we will not be doing is send billions of taxpayer dollars to some global entity to be distributed around the world.

0 Kudos
261 Views
25
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@rk9152 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

Fortunately this waste of taxpayer monies will end.


The waste of taxpayer money will never end - it is the nature of government.

 

As to climate change, I believe the efforts to clean up the environment will never end, and that is a good thing. What we will not be doing is send billions of taxpayer dollars to some global entity to be distributed around the world.


That's exactly what I was referring to is Climate Change (waste of money).  Taxing the U.S. and transferring the money to Africa will never solve anything (except to the left).

Recognized Social Butterfly


@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

Fortunately this waste of taxpayer monies will end.


The waste of taxpayer money will never end - it is the nature of government.

 

As to climate change, I believe the efforts to clean up the environment will never end, and that is a good thing. What we will not be doing is send billions of taxpayer dollars to some global entity to be distributed around the world.


That's exactly what I was referring to is Climate Change (waste of money).  Taxing the U.S. and transferring the money to Africa will never solve anything (except to the left).


NOTHAPPENING,  Do you realize that included in the $166 Billion figure is the cost of giving taxpayers (mostly middle class) tax CREDITS (lower taxes) to install solar panels, windmills, etc.

Honored Social Butterfly


@sp362 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

Fortunately this waste of taxpayer monies will end.


The waste of taxpayer money will never end - it is the nature of government.

 

As to climate change, I believe the efforts to clean up the environment will never end, and that is a good thing. What we will not be doing is send billions of taxpayer dollars to some global entity to be distributed around the world.


That's exactly what I was referring to is Climate Change (waste of money).  Taxing the U.S. and transferring the money to Africa will never solve anything (except to the left).


NOTHAPPENING,  Do you realize that included in the $166 Billion figure is the cost of giving taxpayers (mostly middle class) tax CREDITS (lower taxes) to install solar panels, windmills, etc.


So you approve of Government determining what is good and what is bad and using taxes to punish the users of "bad" and reward the users of "good"?  No people want dirty air yet carbon taxes don't cover dirty air, just CO2 and the left hasn't proved that man makes more than the least amount of greenhouse effect.  I'm all for solar panels without government subsidies.  If you can afford them, then do it (if it saves you money).  Windmills don't work when there is no wind, make a lot of noise, chop up the birds pretty well, and don't seem to have much favor in the ocean off the coast of Hyannisport.

 

I guess you must know by now that I'm not in favor of taxing some to give to others.

0 Kudos
518 Views
22
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

 

I guess you must know by now that I'm not in favor of taxing some to give to others.


That is what taxes DO!!!!  They build roads. They fund schools, they support the military. All that is for the common good. 

0 Kudos
551 Views
12
Report
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