More climate change news - follow the money
Looks like some governments are finding out that money spent to support climate change doesn't yield any tangible results.
From Australia's
The Sydney Morning Herald:
Anger as green projects slashed, funds diverted to help cattle exports
Australia has all but dumped $75 million worth of projects regrowing forests in the developing world and shelved a $100 million forest carbon partnership with Indonesia.
Simultaneously, millions of dollars in foreign aid will be channelled into the live cattle export trade, sparking claims by the Greens that aid money is being misused to help the embattled industry.
Australia's contribution to global environment programs will drop from $74.1 million in 2012-13 to just $1.5 million next year, the budget papers reveal.
Come back when you have something concrete to show me. As for partnerships in Indonesia, if these are anything like the other 99% of the 'partnerships', the majority of the funds disappear into off-shore bank accounts while a small tranche of the funds are used to set up a
Potemkin Village somewhere for visiting dignitaries to ohhh and ahhh over.
Next, from
The Wall Street Journal:
Vote Leaves EU Emissions Trading in Tatters
The European Union's flagship program to fight global warming�a regional carbon-emissions trading system�suffered a major blow Tuesday when legislators rejected a proposal aimed at saving the market from collapse.
After the European Parliament's rejection, spooked investors drove the already depressed price of carbon emission permits down by nearly half. Benchmark electricity prices also fell.
The legislature derailed�at least temporarily�a plan to revive prices by postponing the issuance of any new permits for between five and seven years. Electricity generators and some other industries must buy the permits to cover their carbon dioxide emissions.
Europe's Emissions Trading System, launched in 2008, was intended to protect the environment by raising the cost of polluting and encouraging businesses to invest in cleaner technologies.
Emphasis mine -- no, the intention was to make some oligarchs more wealthy, the effect of climate on the common man was never even on the table. That is just how it was sold -- as a sop to account for the increase in cost of electricity, gasoline, heating fuels, etc...
Nice to see this house of cards collapsing -- wonder what the next
watermelon environmentalist claim will be.
Posted by DaveH at May 18, 2013 12:03 PM