Archive

ShareThis Page
The ‘Green Climate Fund’: An end run | TribLIVE.com
Editorials

The ‘Green Climate Fund’: An end run

Tribune-Review
| Friday, January 1, 2016 8:57 p.m.

The $1 trillion-plus federal spending bill gives President Obama the flexibility he needs to make his first contribution to the United Nations’ wealth-redistributing Green Climate Fund. But that move could backfire badly, observers say.

Mr. Obama has asked Congress to provide up to $500 million for the fund in 2016. The money is supposed to help developing countries pay for “green energy” initiatives under the Paris climate accord. Never mind how U.S. dollars passing through this sieve will be monitored.

All told, Obama has pledged $3 billion.

Although the GOP congressional majority has adamantly opposed the Green Climate Fund and the corresponding Paris agreement, nothing stops Team Obama from shifting funding from discretionary spending accounts. But future funding is no slam-dunk.

“Whatever funds are offered up for reprogramming purposes will be cut in the next round of appropriations since they are clearly superfluous,” says Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee.

Additionally, the administration’s Clean Power Plan, which dovetails with the Paris accord, could be torn asunder by lawsuits from states, energy companies and interest groups. Then there’s next year’s presidential election.

Better for America’s incoming commander in chief to put U.S. interests ahead of the parasitic Paris climate accord.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.