American Digital News
“FOLLOW THE MONEY” SERIES…
and what a journey it is. Loops, turnarounds, cul-de-sacs, expressways, dirt tracks, and detours….
This ongoing series will include (to name a few) the following sections:
(1) U.S. contributions to the U.N. / International Aid
(2) Paris Agreement COP 21 / Green Climate Fund
(3) Department of State, Hillary Clinton term – $6 Billion missing
(4) Pentagon (Department of Defense) — $29-33 Trillion reported unaccounted for
(5) Puerto Rico 2017 Aid
(6) American Red Cross
(7) $768 Million U.S. Humanitarian Aid to Al Qaeda’s Arabian Peninsula Headquarters
(8) Illegal Immigrants Costs
(9) Obama’s Iran Deal – $400 Million Cash night flight flown to Iran plus $1.3 Billion transferred later for total of $1.7 Billion paid (for questioned ransom allegations)
(10) Sanctuary Cities and States
(11) Congress “SHUSH-FUND” for sexual harassment cases against members of Congress
(12) United Arab Emirates (UAE) Gulftainer 35-year cargo container terminal lease at PORT CANAVERAL (and other U.S. ports)
(13) Uranium One – Rosatom – ATOMREDMETZOLOTO, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, State Department, and Obama Administration
(14) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Clean Water Act v citizen’s stock pond/fire prevention reservoir pond
(15) Environmental Protection Act (EPA) negligence and accidental hazardous Waste Water Spill affecting 4 states, 2 rivers, and a creek
(16) Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land tyranny.
Some of these “Follow the Money” topics could easily fill a small library. We assure all of you, that you will experience: bewilderment, disgust, and anger while reading this collection of information. You will undoubtedly have many questions. Therefore, for those interested in learning more, a few search links are provided herewith.
(2) PARIS AGREEMENT COP 21 / GREEN CLIMATE FUND
a) THE “GREEN CLIMATE FUND” a/k/a “PARIS AGREEMENT COP 21” (the “PARIS ACCORD”)
June 2, 2017 — How much money have rich countries pledged?
Industrialized countries have voluntarily pledged $10.3 billion since 2013 to help poorer nations reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address the effects of climate change. The United States has pledged by far the most — $3 billion, twice that of the second-largest pledger, Japan. But on a per-capita basis, many other countries have offered more than the United States. Swedes, for example, will contribute nearly $60 each.
US Per Person Contributions to the Green Climate Fund
$9.41 per US citizen if fulfilled original $3 billion commitment
Where does the money go?
The fund has a portfolio of more than 40 projects, using $2.2 billion of its own money and $5 billion from development agencies and banks.
Approved Funding Proposals, as of October 2016
Among the latest projects: development of irrigation and groundwater replenishment systems in northeastern India, where climate change has made monsoon rains less reliable; a hydropower plant in the Solomon Islands in the South Pacific to eliminate diesel generators; and restoration and protection of Ugandan wetlands that are used by subsistence farmers.
b) Another Obama Legacy: Americans Will Pay Billions for a Useless Climate Agreement President Obama with world leaders at the COP21 conference in Paris by Oren Cass April 22, 2016
Unfortunately, not everyone was in on the joke. Determined to display “leadership,” President Obama made the classic mistake of the kid who hears everyone is going skinny-dipping, strips naked, plunges into the water, and then turns to find his dry and still-modest peers laughing from the shore as they run off with his clothes. While everyone else both literally and figuratively mailed in their commitments, the president pledged a dramatic reduction in U.S. emissions: 26 to 28 percent below their 2005 level by 2025. To further grease the skids of international diplomacy, he committed the United States to lead the transfer of $100 billion in annual “climate finance” from the developed world to the developing countries that are pledging nothing.
Most directly, taxpayers have already sent $500 million to the U.N.’s “Green Climate Fund,” and President Obama has committed billions more — that on top of the more than $10 billion spent annually on domestic green-energy subsidies.
c) June 3, 2017 — US Paid $1B to Green Climate Fund, Top Polluters Paid $0
The United States contributed $1 billion to the global Green Climate Fund, but the world’s top polluters contributed nothing, David Asman reported.
Asman said on “Forbes on Fox” that China, Russia and India contributed no money to the Green Climate Fund, yet that international community pressured the U.S. to join the Paris Climate Accord.
Steve Forbes said that the billion-dollar payment is another reason why President Trump was smart to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris agreement.
d) June 2017 – U.S. Paid $1 Billion To Paris Agreement Green Fund – All Other Nations Combined $0…
What ObamaCare was to our loss of healthcare individualism, so too is the Paris Treaty a political tool to deconstruct national economic individualism.
The Paris Treaty was/is always about distribution of economic wealth; and the convenient use of “climate phrases” as branding instruments used to create political policy favorable to multinational corporate interests who control the shifting of economic wealth.
Listen to the responses from participating EU corporate comptrollers discussing climate and the entire purpose of the Paris Treaty becomes self-evident. Example: “The preservation of our competitive position is the precondition for successful climate protection. This correlation is often underestimated.” ~ Matthias Wissmann, President of German Auto Industry Group VDA
The preservation of Germany’s competitive auto manufacturing position is contingent upon the U.S. exporting it’s wealth and handcuffing itself to a faux-climate treaty. Do not take my word for it, read Wissmann’s own interview.
The Paris Treaty is nothing about climate, and everything about economics and multinational corporate interests. ……
There are factually TRILLIONS of dollars at stake.
… Where exactly in the U.S. budget did this little $1 billion line-item expenditure come from?
Again, as we have done in the past, we draw attention to the secret meeting in Sea Island Georgia in 2016 when the billionaire vested participants gathered with the political class to discuss how they could stop candidate Donald J Trump.
2016 -Billionaires, tech CEOs and top members of the Republican establishment flew to a private island resort off the coast of Georgia this weekend for the American Enterprise Institute’s annual World Forum, according to sources familiar with the secretive gathering.
Apple CEO Tim Cook, Google co-founder Larry Page, Napster creator and Facebook investor Sean Parker, and Tesla Motors and SpaceX honcho Elon Musk all attended. So did Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), political guru Karl Rove, House Speaker Paul Ryan, GOP Sens. Tom Cotton (Ark.), Cory Gardner (Colo.), Tim Scott (S.C.), Rob Portman (Ohio) and Ben Sasse (Neb.), who recently made news by saying he “cannot support Donald Trump.” Along with Ryan, the House was represented by Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Fred Upton (Mich.), Rep. Kevin Brady (Texas) and almost-Speaker Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), sources said, along with leadership figure Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.), Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-Ga.), Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (Texas) and Diane Black (Tenn.). Philip Anschutz, the billionaire GOP donor whose company owns a stake in Sea Island, was also there, along with Democratic Rep. John Delaney, who represents Maryland. Arthur Sulzberger, the publisher of The New York Times, was there, too, a Times spokeswoman confirmed.
The main topic at the closed-to-the-press confab? How to stop Republican front-runner Donald Trump. (The meeting was not planned to be a strategy session on how to stop the GOP front-runner, but rather evolved into one, as a subsequently obtained agenda makes clear.)
d1) It Begins – German Auto Makers Fear Losing Competitive Advantage Over U.S… Posted on June 2, 2017 by sundance
For those following along over the past two years this will not come as a surprise. European manufacturers understand the entire foundation for the Paris Treaty was about economics, economic advantages and the transfer of economic strength away from the U.S., not climate. Specifically for Germany the outlook is especially troubling.
First, Germany will be the primary EU country to fill the financial void from the U.K. leaving the EU (Brexit); that financial hole is approximately €15 billion per year. Secondly, Germany will be faced with having to renegotiate trade deals with the U.S. while they remain encumbered with the regulatory burden of the Paris treaty, while the U.S. negotiators are not. This is a large advantage for Team America.
(READ THIS TWICE — THINK ABOUT WHAT GERMANY IS SAYING) — As such, today we see and immediate reaction. German auto manufacturers announce they are faced with losing a competitive advantage over the U.S. in the global market, and will now need to reassess their domestic production and manufacturing standards.
e) Trump is withdrawing the US from the Paris climate agreement. By Carly Sitrin Jun 1, 2017
Keeping a key campaign promise, President Trump announced Thursday that the US will be pulling out of the Paris climate agreement. Trump, speaking from the White House Rose Garden, decried the agreement as a “bad deal” and an effort to “redistribute wealth” from America to the rest of the world.
In condemning the agreement, Trump talked about his commitment to the “citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris,” to coal miners, and to cement workers. He also assured the nation that he “cares deeply” about the environment.
According to the same study by 2040, compliance with the commitments put into place by the previous administration would cut production for the following sectors: paper, down 12 percent; cement, down 23 percent; iron and steel, down 38 percent; coal, and I happen to love the coal miners, down 86 percent; natural gas down 31 percent. The cost to the economy at this time would be close the $3 trillion in lowered GDP and 6.5 million industrial jobs, while households would have $7,000 less income and in many cases, much worse than that.
So we’re going to be paying billions and billions and billions of dollars and we’re already way ahead of anybody else, many of the other countries haven’t spent anything. And many of them will never pay one dime.
In 2015, the United Nations’ departing top climate officials reportedly described the $100 billion per year as peanuts and stated that the $100 billion is the tail that wags the dog. In 2015, the Green Climate Fund’s executive director reportedly stated that estimated funding needed would increase to $450 billion per year after 2020, and nobody even knows where the money’s going to. Nobody’s been able to say, where is it going to? Of course, the world’s top polluters have no affirmative obligations under the Green Fund, which we terminated. – DJT
f) Aug 2016 – Paris deal will cost at least $1.28T — economist
With signals President Obama is on the verge of formally joining the landmark Paris climate agreement, an environmental economist is investigating whether the United States can actually afford to hold up its end of the deal.
The rough estimate for the cost of hitting the target ranges from $42 billion to $176 billion every year until 2050, according to Columbia University’s Geoffrey Heal.
Hitting the goal will require government policies. Heal suggests a carbon tax and financial incentives for updates to the electric grid as ways to help the government cut emissions by 50 percent. However, the pathway to achieve economy-wide reductions of 80 percent or more by 2050 — the ambitious target eyed by the Obama administration and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton — is more of a challenge, Heal notes.
Getting there will require massive investments, between $3.3 trillion and $7.3 trillion, in new energy generating capacity, energy storage and energy transmission, plus a faster transition to battery electric vehicles and “extensive progress” in replacing the residential and commercial uses of fossil fuels.
The total cost of decarbonizing might be as low as $1.28 trillion or as high as $5.28 trillion, Heal predicts.
The Obama administration has indicated it will treat the deal as an executive agreement rather than a treaty and will take steps within the executive branch to adopt it, rather than submit it to the Senate for advice and consent.
THE UNITED STATES IS ALWAYS HAS BEEN THE GREATEST CONTRIBUTOR to the Paris Agreement; yet often penalized. Many polluters contribute little and are unencumbered with regulatory burdens. …. NOT A GOOD DEAL FOR AMERICA. So…………………
Sources Section 2:
ADN Related Links:
Section 2 – Paris Agreement COP 21 / Green Climate Fund
Section 3 – Secr of State HRC missing $6Billion
Series 5 – Puerto Rico 2017 Hurricane Aid