Larry Bell, Contributor
I write about climate, energy, environmental and space policy issues.
+ Follow
+ Follow
I am a professor and endowed professor at the University of Houston where I founded and direct the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture and head the graduate program in space architecture. My background deals extensively with research, planning and design of habitats, structures and other support systems for applications in space and extreme environments on Earth. I have recently written a new book titled "Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax". It can be previewed and ordered at www.climateofcorruption.com. Additional information about my book and views can be found on my YouTube address: http://www.youtube.com/climateofcorruption.
The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.
Image by Images_of_Money via Flickr
The U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) can’t figure out what benefits taxpayers are getting from the many billions of dollars spent each year on policies that are purportedly aimed at addressing climate change.
A May 20 report noted that while annual federal funding for such activities has been increasing substantially, there is a lack of shared understanding of strategic priorities among the various responsible agency officials. This assessment agrees with the conclusions of a 2008 Congressional Research Service analysis which found no “overarching policy goal for climate change that guides the programs funded or the priorities among programs.”
According to the GAO, annual federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010, amounting to $106.7 billion over that period. The money was spent in four general categories: technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, science to understand climate changes, international assistance for developing countries, and wildlife adaptation to respond to actual or expected changes. Technology spending, the largest category, grew from $2.56 billion to $5.5 billion over this period, increasingly advancing over others in total share. Data compiled by Joanne Nova at the Science and Policy Institute indicates that the U.S. Government spent more than $32.5 billion on climate studies between 1989 and 2009. This doesn’t count about $79 billion more spent for climate change technology research, foreign aid and tax breaks for “green energy.”
OMB pointed out that their previously noted agency budget compilations didn’t include revenues lost for the special deductions and tax credits intended to encourage greenhouse gas emission reductions. They attributed to those subsidies a cost of $7.2 billion in federal revenue losses during 2010 alone, ($16.1 billion since 1993), bringing the total since 2003 to $122.8 billion. Then there’s still another $26.1 billion earmarked for climate change programs and related activities within the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (or “Stimulus Bill”).
Climate change spending won’t slow any time soon"¦not so long as current Obama policies prevail. A proposed $1,328 million FY 2012 budget for its Global Climate Change Initiative (GCCI) aimed at helping developing countries address man-made global warming problems that we’ve allegedly caused represents a 557% increase since FY 2008 (then $202 million). Implemented through programs sponsored by the Department of State, Treasury, and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), it is funded by the administration’s executive budget. As stated, “The President’s FY2012 budget request follows on the December 2010 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) negotiations in Cancun, Mexico, which formulated a package of ‘nationally appropriate’ measures toward the goal of avoiding dangerous climate change.” This is part of “"¦a commitment to near-term and long-term climate financing for the least developed countries amounting to near $30 billion for the period 2010-2012, and $100 billion annually by 2020.”
You are logged in as $wp_login (log out)
Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.
Your article is disturbingly out of touch with climate science. I have never before read such a misinformed article in Forbes. Please find a new hobby, you have failed as a contributor.
About time somebody used some common sense about this issue.
Why does Forbes give a platform to a quack like this?
Why do we still have people who know better referring to “alleged” climate change in a supposedly reputable news outlet?
Why is there no acknowledgement that spending on climate change science and solutions is miniscule compared to both what is needed and what is spent annually subsidizing carbon emissions?
Why should we expect or want a single, unified theme for climate policy and programs, when the problems are so complex and multifaceted? The premise of this article is absurd.
Forbes should not be associating itself with this kind of propaganda.
awesterling:
I'm really not aware of anyone who refers to climate change as "alleged". I certainly have never done so.
Perhaps you might be able to locate such a misguided person and urge him/her to read one of my earlier articles?
“Breaking News: The Climate Actually Changes!” (May 4, 2011)
http://blogs.forbes.com/larrybell/2011/05/03/breaking-news-the-climate-actually-changes/
Breaking News: The Climate Actually Changes!" (May 4, 2011)
What a cheap shot.
Maybe you would like to quote a denier scientist or something. 97% of peer reviewed scientists know and believe that humans are causing climate change.
If you do represent the powerful conservative white base, the world is in trouble. Your little article will be archived and future conservatives will be able to see how wrong the small group of present conservatives are.
“”"”"My background deals extensively with research, planning and design of habitats, structures and other support systems for applications in space and extreme environments on Earth.”"”"”"
You are smart enough to understand climate science very well and yet idealistic enough to ignor overwhelming evidence collected by the scientists. This is what I find appalling.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-limits-economy.htm
Economic assessments of proposed policy to put a price on carbon emissions are in widespread agreement that the net economic impact will be minor. The costs over the next several decades center around $100 per average family, or about 75 cents per person per week, and a GDP reduction of less than 1%. Moreover, the benefits outweigh the costs several times over, as real-world examples illustrate.
################
THe conservative case ignors the obvious to exaggerate the worst case scenario.
Was the cost of extreme weather taken into account?
Many different studies show 1% or less of GDP, but all the conservative think tanks show devastating economic consequences. Who are the alarmists now exagerating problems.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Part_I_Introduction_group.pdf
Climate change is a result of the externality associated with greenhouse-gas emissions "“ it entails costs that are not paid for by those who create the emissions. It has a number of features that together distinguish it from other externalities: "¢ It is global in its causes and consequences; "¢ The impacts of climate change are long-term and persistent; "¢ Uncertainties and risks in the economic impacts are pervasive. "¢ There is a serious risk of major, irreversible change with non-marginal economic effects
#################
What this comes down to is that businesses want to be able to pollute for free as they always have and to never be responsible for it.
Its protecting our conservative white men so they can continue to be in their ivory towers. MOre and more businesses are ready to get on board around the world. The American ultra conservaitve business community is successfully dragging their feet and hurting the rest of the world in the process with higher and higher peak emissions of co2 coming down the pipe.
‘Forget about trying to stop natural climate change. It is the political climate responsible for these circumstances we really need to change. That's the threat that presents really serious reasons for alarm!’
Talk about ignoring the obvious.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.
#########################
This articel should be retitiled “Conservatives deny global warming because their ideology comes first”
Another big big thing being ignored is the savings of “Energy Efficiency” EE savings come back in 3 or more times the investment consistently.
Read Full Article »