Australian Taxpayers’ Lavish Funding of the Warming Scam

While warmists are always looking for and inferring vast sums of business funding devoted to the sceptics, the annual total is a matter of mere millions, a tiny percentage of that lavished on the promoters of global warming and emission reduction policies.

Jo Nova has a blog on the US government budget expenditure on promoting the issue and subsidising low emission alternatives.  For the five years ending the sum total was $68 billion. Much of this was under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009.  US spending other than ARRA amounts to about $8 billion a year.

In yet another example of plucky Australia “punching above its weight”, in an economy less than 10 per cent the size of the US, the Australian Government is this year budgetted to spend $2.7 billion.  As a share of GDP that is 3-4 times what the miserly Obama Administration spends!

In the good old days when the Rudd/Gillard Government was was keen to triumphantly parade its intended wasteful spending in pursuit of measures to ameliorate global warming and its associated floods, diseases and famines, the Climate Change Department used to add up and publish the expenditure numbers – albeit even then it understated expenditures by not including deaprtmental overheads or ad hoc spending by Departments like Treasury.

Nowadays this has to be retrieved from examinations of Budget documents.  For 2012/13 the breakdown of the numbers is:

 

Department Budgeted Spending 2012/3 ($M)
Agriculture 96
Climate Change 988
Foreign Affairs 140
Infrastructure 9
Industry 293
Energy & Resources 627
Sustainablility & Water 589
Total 2742

And the Australian numbers exclude the $20 billion of taxpayer’s money to be spent, borrowed or provided in guarrentees for non-fossil, non-nuclear energy  under the Clean Energy Fund.

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Australian Taxpayers’ Lavish Funding of the Warming Scam

  1. brc

    Really, if the newly formed Australian Taxpayers Alliance is any good, this information should be tallied up, broken down and then shown per taxpayer how much families are paying for this stuff.

    The Libs are too gutless to try and do this – besides they created half of these stupid programs in the first place.

    Of course, for every economic action there is an equal and opposite action. Every tax dollar borrowed and wasted on pointless exercises is a dollar that doesn’t go into something more useful.

    And, for all this, how much effect have we had on either the global climate, or on the grand project of convincing the world to agree to co2 self-flagellation?

    Absolutely zero.

    At least piling cash into big mounds and torching it would be fun to watch.

  2. Anon

    and doesn’t include the countless amount of money and time spent by local, state and federal agencies (as well as NGOs) on their climate change “strategies”.

  3. Baldrick

    I have a cunning plan,take the money from groin shit and foreign effersand put it into .health and infrastucture. Close universities establish collages of health.engineering a nd real science ,put the money saved intotrades education that mught work.

  4. Baldrick

    I have a cunning plan,take the money from groin shit and foreign effersand put it into .health and infrastucture. Close universities establish collages of health.engineering a nd real science ,put the money saved intotrades education that mught work.

  5. St Hubbins

    I have a cunning plan,take the money from groin shit

    Not sure what it is, but it sounds awful!

  6. Harold

    CSIRO, universities?

  7. Poor Old Rafe

    As an aside, how come the salariers in the Dept of Climate Change are astronomical? Don’t have the figures at my fingertips but someone else might. Something else for the ATA to explore.

  8. Annabelle

    Take of your oven mits before typing, Baldrick.

  9. manalive

    As an aside, how come the salariers in the Dept of Climate Change are astronomical…..

    This article is from 2010.

  10. Alan Moran

    Manalive

    Mainly because the Dept of Climate Change is heavily loaded with “policy” people who, claiming to be more cerebral, take advantage of the inflated grading system the public service uses.

    By and large the higher the grade in the public service the greater the negative value-added!

  11. Entropy

    I thought that was “growing shit” which might explain the typing skills. That or he just got an iPad and he is on a bus.

  12. Helen Armstrong

    he is on a bus

    and standing next to a lady with lots of shopping.

    Swannee could have had 2.4B or so for surplus then, if he just got rid of one department – which one was that now…

  13. 1)Rafe – We already have an FOI in at the moment regarding salaries in the Department of Climate Change

    2)BRC – Yes I agree, it is something we should do; I also suspect that there’s more funding hidden away that isn’t in the budget documents listed above. In anycase, I think per family/household is the better way of looking at things than per taxpayer (and I think $2.7b works out at about $335pa?). We’ll try to look into the detail of the data soon.

  14. ilma630

    The figure should be broken out not just into the amount per person, but how much per person in the private sector as it’s only these that generate the cash in the first place.

    It’s like the UN saying that $30bn of the $100bn they’re looking to raise in their climate fund should come from the private sector. Where do they think the public finds come from? Thin air?

Comments are closed.