Skip to content

Climate Fund Smoke & Mirrors

January 19, 2018
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

Readers may recall this story from last month, about Britain’s largesse  at the latest Paris climate summit:

 

image

The UK will pledge a £140m fund to tackle the effects of climate change on poorer countries, at the One Planet Summit in Paris today. 

The announcement comes as the UK international trade secretary Liam Fox pledged £18m to help 51 countries “trade their way out of poverty”, at the World Trade Organisation’s Ministerial Conference in Argentina on Monday.

Prime minister Theresa May will announce the £140m funding to show the UK’s commitment to climate change, which is expected to be a “boost” to poorer communities around the world most affected by climate change.

Impacts on these countries include deforestation, vulnerability to natural disasters and climate extremes.

May said: “Tackling climate change and mitigating its effects for the world’s poorest are among the most critical challenges that we face.

“That is why I am joining other world leaders in Paris today for the One Planet Summit and committing to stand firmly with those on the front line of extreme weather and rising sea levels.”

Fox said trade was one of the “greatest liberators of the world’s poor”, adding that global trade had transformed countries while creating more jobs.

He said: “As we prepare to leave the EU, we can move forward with more purpose, supporting developing countries to transform their economies through trade and resisting attempts to put up barriers to the open and free trade which has already benefited millions worldwide.”

At the climate change summit, May will also announce £15m of support for the reconstruction on the island of Dominica in the Caribbean, which is most affected by extreme weather conditions caused by climate change. The European Union also pledged €9bn (£7.94bn) at the summit.

The UK will also give £8m of additional funding to other individual countries and territories in the Caribbean to help them become more resilient, including better crisis and response operations, training and improvement to communications systems, casualty management and mapping high risk areas, the government said.

The funding will include an additional £30m through the Department for International Development’s (DfID) Building Resilience and Adaptation to Climate Extremes and Disasters programme.

The UK will also commit to a further £87m through the DfID’s Forest Governance, Markets and Climate programme to help local communities, who depend on forests in the fight against illegal logging, and support trade in legal timber. 

http://www.publicfinanceinternational.org/news/2017/12/uk-pledges-cash-climate-change-and-tackling-poverty

 

Intrigued, I FOI’d the DfID, with two questions:

 

image

 

The answers came back yesterday:

 

image

image

 

Spread over four years, £140 million does not appear quite so generous.

But the real news is that, as I suspected, this is not “new money” at all, as it simply comes from the existing overseas aid budget. To spend this £140 million on these doubtlessly worthy projects (which have little to do with “climate change” anyway) will mean that less money is spent on other aid projects.

If that means less money is siphoned off into dictators’ Swiss bank accounts, then fine.

But it is certainly not the “new money” that developing countries feel they were promised at Copenhagen, and again at Paris in 2015.

 

As ever, the UK Government may talk the talk, but it rarely walks the walk!

Advertisements
13 Comments
  1. Tim permalink
    January 19, 2018 6:46 pm

    It seems to me that, so long as it just talks the talk, and doesn’t walk the walk, it is likely to do much less damage. Personally, I think some of them don’t believe the nonsense anyway but daren’t antagonise the brainwashed green voters at present

    • mikewaite permalink
      January 19, 2018 7:35 pm

      After this winter, and it is not over yet, with people dying on makeshift beds in hospital corridors, even the greens might think it advisable to put Britain first and spend that money (which is borrowed anyway because we are in debt to nearly 2000 billion pounds) in-house.
      After all even the most ardent warmist will die one day and they will surely prefer to do it in a clean hospital bed than on a pile of blankets in the hospital carpark.
      Whether it is old or new money we should spend it on the casualties of our own disfunctional society- and preferably earn that money-first before May jets around the world throwing out millions from hard pressed taxpayers with nary a thought to the injustice of it.

    • sean2829 permalink
      January 20, 2018 11:45 am

      Put anther way, when the cure is worse than the disease, it’s better to get the placebo.

  2. Jack Broughton permalink
    January 19, 2018 8:16 pm

    The overseas aid has always been a political football, but never before has it been so tied to a self-righteous philosophy as now. To insist that everyone who gets aid uses it on climate change related technology is effectively cutting the aid budget.

    Most of the countries that need aid need basic improvements in education, medications, water and food availability far more than they need windmills and solar panels. Diluting their budgets in this way is disgusting and would be pilloried on the media if our news reporters were made of sterner stuff and questioned the outpourings of the governmental agencies.

  3. Richard Woollaston permalink
    January 19, 2018 8:30 pm

    Well it is ‘our’ money so I’m rather glad it isn’t ‘new.’

  4. buffin47 permalink
    January 20, 2018 8:02 am

    Well done the British government (not something we can often say these days!), and well done Paul for digging this out.

  5. Robert Fairless permalink
    January 20, 2018 9:45 am

    I think I would have preferred it if they believed in witches again; without the thousands of executions of course. It must be part of the human condition to believe in nonsense.

  6. Bitter@twisted permalink
    January 20, 2018 9:59 am

    Personally I would cut all foreign aid to zero.
    We have our own problems and charity begins at home.

  7. Rowland H permalink
    January 20, 2018 10:03 am

    It’s just another excuse to strut the world stage, in this case again in gay Paris, declare one’s righteousness on the matter in hand while enjoying a paid for jolly courtesy of taxpayers.

  8. Henning Nielsen permalink
    January 20, 2018 12:59 pm

    Not even peanuts compared to the “promise” of 100 billion dollars for the UN Green Fund, every single year. The media have been very quiet abut this for a long time now. But in less than two years, all those billlons are supposed to flow. Every year.

  9. January 20, 2018 1:13 pm

    Budgets are the way to defeat virtue-signalling politicians. If they opt to spend more money on X then that leaves less money for everything else. Whenever a politician announces more money for X they should be obliged to define the Y that will get less money.

  10. January 20, 2018 1:15 pm

    A real tragedy is those dying in African countries because these goons prevent them from building power plants which burn their OWN coal. In my mind, it is beyond a tragedy and basically criminal.

    When they do not mind exterminating people in their own country, they can hardly be expected to not exterminate people in other countries. If this does not define criminal, I do not know what does.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      January 20, 2018 5:48 pm

      Luckily the Chinese are on hand, assisted by the Japanese, to fund and build coal power stations that will work when it is dark and not windy, and will extend the Chinese influence in Africa helping to ensure they get first call on their minerals.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: