No bias at all, Jim and no accountability in where the trillions of dollars collected by the UN have gone, who they supposedly helped and why after all this time fleecing countries for funds to correct” the issues anything has changed..

An interesting older article for consideration~~Why older?? Well there just isn’t much out there on all this money paid with no results and certainly no accountability.. Talk about a fleecing, good grief~~check out the extrodanary amounts if money involved..

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 c*****e c****e 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 c*****e c****es, 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 c*****e c****e technology research, foreign aid and tax breaks for “g***n e****y.” WTH??? Just to study mind you!!! Are we the only ones studying this garbage??

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 c*****e c****e programs and related activities within the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (or “Stimulus Bill”).

C*****e c****e 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 C*****e C****e Initiative (GCCI) aimed at helping developing countries address man-made g****l w*****g 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 C*****e C****e (UNFCC) negotiations in Cancun, Mexico, which formulated a package of ‘nationally appropriate’ measures toward the goal of avoiding dangerous c*****e c****e.” 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.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/23/the-alarming-cost-of-c*****e-c****e-hysteria/amp/

Where the hell is all the money really going????

And yet another worth the read~~still trying to find something that gives accounting of all the money the UN has gotten and how spent~~

complications for climate finance. Flickr/Adam F*gen
Last year, we looked at the extreme cuts to international climate finance the Trump administration put forward in their fiscal year 2018 budget proposal. Based on Trump's announcements, one might assume that U.S. climate finance has fallen to zero...Not true~~

Luckily, this is not the case. It is Congress that sets funding priorities in annual appropriations bills. Six months overdue, Congress has finally agreed an omnibus spending package to fund the entire government for FY18 (covering October 2017-September 2018).

For climate finance the budget is a mixed bag: some international climate funding has been preserved, some cut, and much left to the discretion of government agencies.

Good News: Congress Continues Some Climate Funding even with Trumps cut funding policies...

Congress has rejected some of the most damaging spending cuts proposed by the Trump administration, and some key funding items are largely in line with previous years:

Global Environment Facility (GEF): $139.5 million. Provides support not just for climate, but a host of environmental challenges, such as protecting biodiversity and tackling desertification. The US is the second-largest contributor in the GEF's current 4-year funding cycle, after Japan. Funding has been largely preserved, and stands at $7 million less than FY16 and 17 levels.

Montreal Protocol Multilateral Fund: $31 million. Supports developing countries to phase out ozone depleting substances, some of which are powerful greenhouse gases many times more potent than carbon dioxide. Funding is $1 million below FY17 levels, but the money that has been approved will have a big impact, increasing the fund's available resources by 38 percent.

Intergovernmental Panel on C*****e C****e (IPCC) and the UN Framework Convention on C*****e C****e (UNFCCC): No allocation. These bodies are responsible for synthesizing the state of the art of climate science and providing a space for climate diplomacy. Funding was cut completely in the FY17 budget. This led a number of European countries to increase their funding, and Bloomberg Philanthropies to pledge $15 million to make up for the U.S. shortfall. In a positive move, the Trump administration has said it now wants to fund these bodies. The House of Representatives didn't seem to get this memo, rejecting the Senate's bipartisan recommendation to restore FY16 funding levels of $10 million. The administration could, however, still fund the UNFCCC and IPCC from discretionary funds.

<snip> much more to read should you wish..

https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/03/us-2018-budget-and-climate-finance-its-bad-not-bad-you-might-think