By Vijay Jayaraj

As the presidential election nears, it is reasonable to ask why the U.S. continues to give away billions to “avert” a fabricated climate crisis to countries that have little interest in participating in the charade beyond accepting handouts.

The United States has been a significant contributor to global climate initiatives, most notably through its involvement in the Paris Agreement.

At the 15th U.N. Climate Conference in 2009, rich countries pledged to provide $100 billion a year in climate finance by 2020 to assist developing nations “fight” climate change. This target was said to have been achieved for the first time in 2022, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Having the world’s largest economy, the U.S. was expected to support a large portion of the Green Climate Fund (GCF), which resulted in a promise of $3 billion.

GCF claims to be the “world’s largest dedicated climate fund” with a portfolio valued at $12 billion, or $45 billion when co-financing of projects is included. According to the GCF website, the fund delivers “transformative climate action in 140 countries” to keep “average global temperature rise well below 2 degrees Celsius.”

To which one might respond: Poppycock! No “climate action” will have a significant effect on temperatures, and the 2 degrees cited hardly matter environmentally in any case. Climate policies “will have a trivial effect on temperature but disastrous effects on people worldwide,” concludes a recent paper by Drs. Richard Lindzen and William Happer of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Princeton University, respectively.

Besides, contrary to doomsday predictions, Earth is flourishing in many ways. Global poverty has decreased dramatically over the past few decades, and agricultural yields have increased significantly partly, because of higher levels of atmospheric CO₂.  Natural disasters — often cited as evidence of climate change — are causing fewer deaths than ever before, despite population growth and development along coastlines and other vulnerable areas.

The outrage of having taxpayer money poured down the climate rat hole is compounded by the fact that recipients of GCF grants include China and India, the world’s largest emitters of greenhouse gases that are rapidly expanding consumption of fossil fuels. Meanwhile, the bone-headed policy of the U.S. is to reduce the use of these affordable and abundant fuels to the detriment of household budgets, business profitability, electric grid reliability and national security.

So, instead of pouring billions into international climate projects, the U.S. should prioritize its own energy security. This means developing its oil, coal and natural gas and strengthening partnerships with reliable allies like Canada.

The United States’ vast reserves of natural gas have been made available through advanced extraction technologies such as hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, making the country one of the world’s leading producers. This abundance can ensure a reliable and cost-effective energy supply for other nations and reduce U.S. dependency on foreign sources, enhancing national security.

The intermittent nature of wind and solar power – both GCF darlings — necessitates backup power sources or massive battery storage systems that come with their own environmental and economic costs. The materials needed for batteries, for instance, are often mined in regions with poor environmental records or by using child labor.

By contrast, modern fossil fuel extraction in the U.S. and Canada is subject to some of the strictest environmental regulations in the world. Ironically, by outsourcing energy production to less regulated countries in the name of “going green,” the U.S. causes more environmental harm globally.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent energy crisis in Europe starkly illustrated the dangers of energy dependence. European countries, having underinvested in fossil fuel infrastructure and a reliance on Russian gas, found themselves in a precarious position.

This example alone is enough for the U.S. to reset its priorities. Promotion of failed and mostly unwanted “green” policies should be replaced with aggressive development of fossil fuel resources, as well as nuclear power, and building robust energy partnerships with allies.

This commentary was first published at Daily Caller on September 19, 2024.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO₂ Coalition, Arlington, Virginia. He holds a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University and an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia, both in the U.K., and a B.S. in engineering from Anna University, India.

The United Nations’ climate confab (COP 29) in Azerbaijan, of all places, will convene less than a week after America’s presidential election. It will be pretty glum gathering if Donald Trump returns to the White House. The jet-setting climate bureaucrats may be putting on a brave face claiming that “global climate action” isn’t dependent on who sits in the White House, but it’s easy to believe that they are already having nightmares.

What would Trump’s election do to the global climate agenda? The Heartland Institute’s H. Sterling Burnett, Anthony Watts, Linnea Lueken and Jim Lakely discuss on Episode #127 of The Climate Realism Show.

This panel discussion will be archived in WUWT Climate TV, a collection of over six hundred videos, featuring new interviews and analysis, and covering dozens of media sources discussing, debating and analyzing the latest in climate science, climate politics, and energy policy, including topics concerning temperature, sea level, polar bears, ocean acidification, extreme weather, censorship, wild fires, and more.