4.8.MAJOR FINANCIAL STAKES

In 2015, the 200 page Climate Change Consulting Report was delivered by the Climate Change Business group, editor of the Climate Change Business Journal410 (CCBJ) for $995.

The question raised by Driessen (2015) “So how do White House, EPA, UN, EU, Big Green, Big Wind, liberal media, and even Google, GE and Defense Department officials justify their fixation on climate change as the greatest crisis facing humanity? How do they excuse saying government must control our energy system, our economy and nearly every aspect of our lives – deciding which jobs will be protected and which ones destroyed, even who will live and who will die – in the name of saving the planet? What drives their intense ideology?” is easily answered in the aforementioned report: the annual revenue of the Climate Crisis and Renewable Energy Industry has become a $1.5-trillion-a-year business!

This tax-payer funded carbon tyranny will take control of each and every aspects of your lives through all facets of economic activity, including low carbon and renewable power, carbon capture and storage, energy storage (such as batteries), energy efficiency, green buildings, transportation, climate change adaptation, and consulting and research and the future biggest commodity market based on carbon trading (don't forget that if you trade corn on the CME you are a shameful speculator but if you trade carbon emission rights you help mankind redeem its sins).

As it grows at a [17-24%] rate annually (Harper, 2015) and considering an average growth rate of 20%, one immediately sees that we talk most probably of a monster-industry wasting in 2020 (at 20% discounted growth rate over five years) and at a global scale sort of (1.25=2.488) 2.48*1.5=3.73 trillion-a-year (in USD). Yes an industry the size of the GDP of Germany (3436 B€ in 2019), based not only on vested interests but on massive forced spoliation of the taxpayers and deliberate delusion of the citizens, as Nova (2015) explains “it’s the only major industry in the world dependent on consumer and voter ignorance. This is not just another vested interest in a political debate; it’s vested-on-steroids, a mere opinion poll away from extinction. You can almost hear the captains of climate industry bellowing: Keep ‘em ignorant and believing, or the money goes away!”. Furthermore, as Delingpole (2016) states “I call climate change 'the gift that goes on giving' because day in day out I get an endless stream of stories to write about the corruption, incompetence, skullduggery of the climate alarmism industry. (…) Can it be right that people who have worked hard for their money should have it taken from them and then wasted in so spectacular fashion?”.

In the guise of saving the world’s environment, massively funded green-lobbies and ideas could advance and impose all their usual obsessions: control, regulation, state intervention, moralistic Troyan horses, compulsory impoverishment but though this time with a smiling, fluffy face, because all these hardships are for the sake of your salvation and that of your children ; the string is big but works wonderfully, brainwashed people kept in the constant climate-scare gale ask for more.

As reminded by Yeo (2019a) “Estimates of how much climate finance is flowing around the world depend on who is doing the counting. The Climate Policy Initiative (CPI), an international thinktank that publishes annual analyses, says that total climate-related financing was $510 billion to $530 billion in 2017, the latest figures available, up from $360 billion in 2012. The UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), put it at $681 billion in 2016”, but already in 2014, the Standing Committee on Finance (SCF) of the UNFCCC estimated “ the current volume of climate finance worldwide to be in the range of 340 to 650 billion dollars. Within this amount, the flows from North to South countries are estimated in the range of 40 to 175 billion dollars of which public flows total between $35 to 50 billion ” also see for a confirmation of some figures (OECD-G20, 2015). This is no small money, but as never enough, it is stated in (IPCC, 2018b), D.5.3. p.24, that an annual investment of $2.4 trillion is needed in the energy system alone until 2035 to limit temperature rise to below 1.5 °C from pre-industrial levels, that is around 2.5% of the world’s economy (Yeo, 2019a). And the effort to tackle climate change goes beyond transforming energy systems: it includes spending on so many other things, as for example reforestation, coastal-defense systems and many other wasted efforts to cut emissions and adapt to rising temperatures.

410https://ebionline.org/climate-change-business-journal/

But it does not stop there: who funds the Green Climate Fund411? U.S. President Obama committed the US to contributing US$3 billion to the fund. In January 2017, in his final 3 days in office, Obama initiated the transfer of a second $500m installment to the fund, leaving $2 billion owing. It happens that the new Trump administration stopped the waste of monies but this did not prevent many other countries to double their pledges so that the fund would grow to an actual 9.8 billions USD (Yeo, 2019b). As amazing as it may seem, many of the contributing countries that have doubled their pledges actually run major fiscal deficits whereas their own populations have already been substantially impoverished by years of statism, big government policies and as we will see in the next section an increase of the price of the energy and electricity particularly that strikes the most the middle class that has problems making ends meet. As we will see later, Naomi Seibt is silenced to the pretext that she should not receive any funding from abroad as this would mettle into domestic politics (see p.368) but the Germans export massively their green-inspired disaster in the making throughout many institutions, one of the prominent of them being the Heinrich Böll Foundation 412 (i.e. HeinrichBöll-Stiftung e.V.), affiliated with the German Green Party, and having offices worldwide.

They state that their main tenets are among others ecology and sustainability and democracy and human rights. This puts in crude light the vision of democracy the foundation promotes when one listens to Liane Schalatek, an associate director at the Heinrich Böll Foundation, a non-profit organization in Washington DC who states “For a government like the Trudeau government, which has prided itself on pushing the climate agenda forward, I think this is definitely not good enough”, of course never be thrifty with your people's money when they are bludgeoned with taxes, then she adds that “now that the election is over, there is nothing to prevent the Canadian government from increasing its GCF contribution” (Yeo, 2019b). Read this last sentence again, what a sleaze understanding of democracy, now that the election is over the government can decide to do whatever it pleases and waste as much money as the Sirs Humphreys think appropriate for your well-being. The only correct value of this foundation seems to be their motto “Meddling is the only way to stay relevant” and they have been far better at doing it and influencing, better say distorting people's views and understanding of the matter, than climate-realists who have been pushed aside and ridiculed. Congrats for manufacturing a fake climate-crisis, congrats for siphoning off people's money with or without their will throughout taxes, congrats for your making of a high-style lavish living on the back of gullible and manipulated peoples. As Sir Humphrey would say it, they well deserved it, clueless as they are.

Furthermore, as acknowledged by the U.S. Government Accountability Office413 "Over the past 20 years, the federal government has spent billions of dollars to address climate-related risks. Coordination and planning are critical to effective and efficient efforts"; well given that according to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reports, federal climate change funding was $13.2 billion across 19 agencies in 2017, one can easily imagine that we rather talk of several hundreds of billions over 20 years, just to fund climate-oriented research. This is of course how you get reports like USGCRP (2017, 2018); how could this populace of well tax-payer funded scholars conclude something else than the world end is nigh if their credits are not renewed and if ever more stringent policies are not always enacted?

How funny then when the climate-purists come with their suspicions of coy virgins and keep relentlessly asking of where the monies of the climate-realists come from. We talk of pennies or not even (sometimes nothing as for myself) and certainly not of nearly four trillions of $, as most of these isolated resistants fund themselves through blogs, sales of books or small life-lines supports from contrarian institutes. This sheds new light on the statement already mentioned of Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva of Arizona who asked for complete disclosure of David Legates and Roger Pielke Jr. fundings because he stated that “My colleagues and I cannot perform our duties if research or testimony provided to us is influenced by undisclosed financial relationship" (Schwartz, 2015). As already reported, but it needs to be reminded here, hundred of inquiry letters were signed by Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, Barbara Boxer of California and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and sent to fossil fuel companies, trade groups and other organizations asking about their funding of climate research and advocacy blaming the "best junk science money can buy" but they do not see any problem with the 3.73 trillion dollars a-year industry that they have, themselves and their peers, created by the force of the law worldwide and do not notice that $13.2 billion a year across 19 agencies is where lies in plain sight the best junk science money can buy as no ethics can resist such a funding gorilla.

The operating costs of IPCC over the years, approaching now the 200 millions $, appear paradoxically in this deluge of wasted monies not as shocking as they should. The operating costs, as described in (IPCC, 2020), corresponding to the contributions to IPCC (Fund 430200) since inception (1989) as at 30 November 2019 amounts to: 173,659,184 CHF (in

411https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Climate_Fund 412https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Böll_Foundation 413https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/climate_change_funding_management/issue_summary

Swiss Francs). The IPCC receives funding through the IPCC Trust Fund as aforementioned, established in 1989 by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), but costs of the Secretary and of housing the secretariat are provided by the WMO, while UNEP meets the cost of the Deputy Secretary. This of course is more than enough to produce the biased IPCC reports and to keep the circus going, while inquiring like the inquisition on the pennies dissenters might have been given as a minuscule support.

The same dystopian policies are followed by the European Union and on December 11, 2019, the European Commission, never short of bad ideas, presented the 'European Green Agreement' whose ambition is to make the EU the world's first climate neutral bloc by 2050. The cost of the green pact is known to be astronomical. One hundred billion € over seven years to overcome the reluctance of Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary, plus 1,000 billion € that the European Investment Bank promises to mobilize over ten years. In addition, the Commission has acknowledged that at least 260 billion € of additional investment will be needed annually between now and 2030 (or about 1.5% of the GDP of 2018), which can only come from national budgets. This soviet-like tyranny will impose its views on the member states that will have to comply with the EU so-called “recommendations”. Still surprised of the Brexit?

Lindzen (2013, 2016) summarizes well this extraordinary web of special interests leading to a crazy machine feeding itself with its own delusions to keep fundings flowing and starts with the image “The Sad Tale of the Iron Triangle and the Iron Rice Bowl”, i.e. 1) Scientists make meaningless or ambiguous statements => 2) Advocates and media translate statements into alarmist declarations => 3) Politicians respond to alarm by feeding scientists more money => GO TO 1. Lindzen (2016) adds: “Of course, scientists are hardly the main beneficiaries. The current issue of global warming/climate change is extreme in terms of the number of special interests that opportunistically have strong motivations for believing in the claims of catastrophe despite the lack of evidence. In no particular order, there are: • leftist economists for whom global warming represents a supreme example of market failure, as well as a wonderful opportunity to suggest correctives; • UN apparatchiks for whom global warming is the route to global governance; • Third World dictators, who see guilt over global warming as providing a convenient claim on aid, in other words the transfer of wealth from the poor in rich countries to the wealthy in poor countries; • environmental activists, who love any issue that has the capacity to frighten the gullible into making hefty contributions to their NGOs; • crony capitalists, who see the immense sums being made available for ‘sustainable’ energy; • government regulators, for whom the control of a natural product of breathing is a dream come true; • newly minted billionaires, who find the issue of ‘saving the planet’ appropriately suitable to their grandiose pretensions; • politicians, who can fasten on to CAGW as a signature issue where they can act as demagogues without fear of contradiction from reality or complaint from the purported beneficiaries of their actions (the wildly successful London run of ‘Yes, Prime Minister’ dealt with this); • etc., etc. All of the above special interests, quite naturally, join the chorus of advocates”.

What would be kind of ironic is that after having spent trillions of $/€ trying to figure out whether CO 2 had any impact on the climate and coming up with a nonsensical consensus and fudged temperature series as the only proof of it and kept frightening people of future "imminent" death in 2100 requiring immediate remediation policies based on brutal and coercive policies, mankind would really disappear further to one of the many real catastrophic hazards that we face, including for example a deadly encounter with a NEO that nobody would have seen coming in time. But dangerous asteroids, and there are certainly many more than we know of as reminded p. 139, represent a real danger to mankind long term survival but do not benefit (yet) of an entire international organization dedicated to frighten populations and leverage politically on their fears (whereas the danger is here real and not hypothetically far-fetched) to divert by taxation and phony regulations nearly four trillions a year.