CleanTechnica is the #1 cleantech-focused
website
 in the world.


Policy & Politics polluter-paid-congress

Published on February 19th, 2011 | by Susan Kraemer

11

Polluter-Funded GOP to IPCC – No Money for You!




The new polluter-funded GOP House majority continues to dance with those that brung them – international oil companies, gas companies and coal companies, and the many front group organizations they spawn that further their interests.

As a result, the latest “slashing” of the US budget completely eliminates funding for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, with a cut that will have virtually zero effect on the federal budget. According to Climate Science Watch, the vote passed by a party-line vote of 244-179.

The IPCC synthesizes the most up to date available science on climate change to help the public and policymakers know the current state of the evolving science, in order to plan, mitigate and prevent the very worst effects of climate change with good smart policy that incentivizes a move to clean non-polluting energy to safeguard our future. Hardly controversial in a sane nation. And cost-effective.

The level of US funding has fluctuated, depending on the year, between about $5.6 million under Democratic congresses, down to about $200,000 during the last GOP congress, in the first six years of the Bush administration. The current level is $2.3 million from last year’s “split” congress (Pelosi House, but Minority Rule Senate – the 60 vote hurdle created a de facto “McConnell” Senate).

The IPCC will probably do fine with no funding from us.

The organization is able to achieve as much as it does because the thousands of scientists from around the world who work on the reports receive no direct compensation for their considerable time and effort drafting, reviewing and editing the summary documents. The IPCC summaries are updated every 7 years.

After noting the previous vote to de-fund the EPA’s ability to collect greenhouse gas data on polluters, Waxman said: “Now we’re being asked to de-fund the work of international scientists to learn about the threat.

The assumption seems to be that there is no threat, and therefore let’s not study it. I think that is not a wise assumption. This is a very shortsighted proposal to cut these funds.

It’s like putting our heads in the sand, denying the science, and then stopping the scientists from working – because they might come to a different conclusion from the Republican Party’s ideology, in believing that there’s no problem and therefore we don’t need to know anything about it”.

Indeed. The paltry cuts are not about cutting the budget.

De-funding the IPCC is no big saving. But that is not the point. Even $200,000 is too much to give an organization that collects and publishes findings decidedly at odds with the interests of the international polluter cartel that controls the US GOP.

Susan Kraemer@Twitter

Print Friendly


About the Author

writes at CleanTechnica, CSP-Today, PV-Insider , SmartGridUpdate, and GreenProphet. She has also been published at Ecoseed, NRDC OnEarth, MatterNetwork, Celsius, EnergyNow, and Scientific American. As a former serial entrepreneur in product design, Susan brings an innovator's perspective on inventing a carbon-constrained civilization: If necessity is the mother of invention, solving climate change is the mother of all necessities! As a lover of history and sci-fi, she enjoys chronicling the strange future we are creating in these interesting times.    Follow Susan on Twitter @dotcommodity.



  • Scott Callaway

    Clean Technica, if you want your technica to be clean, PLEASE START USING AN ANTI-COMMENT-BOT technology of some kind. The comments are full of bot-troll comments.

  • Pingback: Polluter-Funded GOP to IPCC ? No Money for You! | raypearce250

  • genealogymaster

    Strange remarks. The climate alarmists are so afraid of losing their funding.

    Yet there has been no investigation to prove any technologies like wind and solar will work. Look at the trouble Spain is in.

    I can point you to countless religious rhetoric of the climate wackos and show you how shrill and preaching it is

    • http://cleantechnica.com/author/susan Susan Kraemer

      Your needless worries about the ability of renewables to clean our electricity supplies (“Yet there has been no investigation to prove any technologies like wind and solar will work. ” ) is coloring your ability to accept the evidence scientists all agree on, that we need to move away from fossil energy. We can do it.

      I have solar on my own house. No great investigation needed. It works. I used to have electric bills of about $110, this month’s? $4.89.

    • BlueRock

      > Look at the trouble Spain is in.

      You mean trouble like this:

      - Spain Generated 3% of its Electricity from Solar in 2010. Despite the solar fallout, Spanish solar systems are delivering billions of kilowatt-hours to the country. Wind power is now bigger than hydro and coal in the country. http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/01/spain-generated-3-of-its-electricity-from-solar-in-2010?cmpid=rss

      - In 2010, renewable energy met 35% of Spanish demand and was even exported to France. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/28/spain-renewables-energy-electricity-france

      Imagine how much “trouble” they will be in 5, 10, 20 years as their energy is increasingly supplied by clean, safe, never-ending renewable energy that makes them completely independent from other countries and completely insulated from rising fossil fuel prices?

    • Richard

      “I can point you to countless religious rhetoric of the climate wackos and show you how shrill and preaching it is”

      No you can’t. You can only show shrill and stupidly dishonest religious rhetoric of the climate deniers. And you’re probably one of the denier-bots that we read about here

      http://climateprogress.org/2011/02/20/denier-bots-live-why-are-online-comments-sections-over-run-by-the-anti-science-pro-pollution-crowd/

  • Stanley Livingston

    “… thousands of scientists from around the world who work on the reports receive no direct compensation for their considerable time and effort drafting, reviewing and editing the summary documents.”

    That is incorrect. The IPCC reports are generated by a staff of just over 50 bureaucrats, many of whom do not have any scientific training at all. Those ‘thousands of scientists’ write papers that go into the reports, but they aren’t directly associated with the UN.

    The IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific organization.

    • BlueRock

      > The IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific organization.

      Thanks for your fascinating opinion – but where is it wrong?

      The IPCC produces a synthesis of the best science available and is accepted and supported by *every* national science academy on the planet.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

      Global warming is fact – and only disputed by cranks and paid liars.

  • BlueRock

    Insane, immoral.

    > The IPPC summaries are updated every 3 or 4 years.

    It’s 6 or 7 years. Also, typo IPPC -> IPCC.

    • http://cleantechnica.com/author/susan Susan Kraemer

      Caught it, yeah, thanks.

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Polluter-Funded GOP to IPPC – No Money for You! – CleanTechnica: Cleantech innovation news and views -- Topsy.com

Back to Top ↑