The EU's Climate Change Effort is Comically Exaggerated


The EU is at the head of the pack in climate change cheating and hypocrisy.

Climate Change Cheating and Hypocrisy 

Eurointelligence comments on the EU's Exaggerated Climate Change Sp[ending.

We note that the European Court of Auditors is becoming increasingly nervous about the European Commission's overblown claims about its programmes. 

The auditors specifically looked at agricultural policies and structural funds, and concluded that the proportion of funds earmarked for climate change is almost comically exaggerated. The worst offender is agriculture. The plan had been to reserve half of the €100bn spent on agriculture for climate protection. The Commission counts subsistence payments to farmers as climate spending, so long as the farmers fulfil some nominal climate standards which almost every farmer does. 

On spending programmes, the EU uses an old-fashioned rounding trick. The OECD has recommended a simplified category whereby governments count the climate-protection share of their expenditures in steps of 0, 40% or 100%. What the Commission does is to round expenditures up to the next level.

Over the years, we have noted an increasing tendency by the Commission to make dishonest claims about its programmes. This is also why we have become very sceptical about any headlines coming out of Brussels. The headline numbers usually conflate different categories of money, and do not translate into reality.

US Gasoline Reduction Effort Underway

If people don't work, they don't drive to work. 

On that basis, we should should count every penny of pandemic assistance as part of our global warming effort because pandemic assistance enables people to not work. 

That's $3 trillion and counting. What did the EU spend?

Also note that Work-From-Home Will Reduce Driving by 270 Billion Miles Per Year.

270 billion miles divided by 15 miles per gallon = 18 billion in gasoline reduction. If we round that to the nearest 30 billion then we save 30 billion of gas every year. 

Want a bigger reduction? 

We can save 27 billion gallons annually by lowering the MPG estimate to 10 miles per gallon. 

Rounded to the nearest 50 billion gallons, 27 billion morphs into a reduction of 50 billion gallons of gas per year.

Trump vs the EU

By the EU's methodology, Trump clobbers the EU by orders of magnitude when it comes to money spent to defeat global warming. 


Comments (51)
No. 1-9

Climate change is estimated to kill at least 250k people yearly from 2030-2050. WHY aren't we closing down business and all economies until we have this figured out to prevent those deaths?!?

More Than 250,000 People May Die Each Year Due to Climate Change
17 January 2019


Some people have laughed at Global Warming, claiming it is a Hoax (Sound familiar?). But not so laughbal if it is related to CoronaVirus.

"The coronavirus may have been lying dormant across the world until emerging under favourable environmental conditions, rather than originating in China, an expert has claimed.

Dr Tom Jefferson, from the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) at Oxford University, has pointed to a string of recent discoveries of the virus’s presence around the world before it emerged in Asia as growing evidence of its true origin as a global organism that was waiting for favourable conditions to finally emerge.

Traces of COVID-19 have been found in sewage samples from Spain, Italy and Brazil which pre-date its discovery in China. "


l’m sorry, but dealing with global warming has never been a priority for most governments, other than to pay it lip service, and pretend they care about it.

The only exceptions are mostly local governments that have to directly deal with the effects of global warming such as sunny day flooding, abandoning communities, wildfires, droughts, migration, etc

Plus, government focus in many countries has shifted to a more immediate problem, which is dealing with the pandemic. One problem at a time please.

There are a lot of reasons why we haven’t done much about global warming for the last 30 years:

  1. It’s a problem that will keep getting worse for the next hundred years (and then some), but because we won’t be around in a hundred years it is easy to dismiss it.

  2. Being a global problem, it will require global solutions. That means cooperation and agreement by virtually every country and government. And that is simply not going to happen during my lifetime.

  3. People are comfortable with the status quo, and don’t like to change things till they have to. Particularly if they are told that it will cost them 1x money today, to save it costing their children 10x later, or their grandchildren 100x in 50 years.

I could easily list a lot more, but most people know them already.

As a realist, I am certainly aware of the problem of global warming. I am also aware of what is required to solve the problem. And finally, I am aware that we are not going to solve it anytime soon. All I can do is to focus on how best to prepare my loved ones for what is coming in their lifetimes.


Well, we have about a thousand million years to figure how to migrate to another planet as the sun expands, but maybe earth's orbit can be changed by then.


Maybe some day the EU and US can get together and agree that both have a major share of the loonie population of the planet. The shrinking population share of both (discounting legal and illegal migration), makes their climate antics a complete laughing stock.
That does not mean the climate/environment disaster isn't real, just that the wrong people are freaking out about it.


Covid may solve all climate issues.


I'm about half way through Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All, by Michael Shellenberger. For me it's more of a review, especially when it comes to electricity and renewable energy but new to me is all the incest going on within the oil industry and California politicians (or at least their families). But of corse it's not just Jerry Brown and Gavin Newsom, Al Gore Sr worked for Occidental Petroleum, and of course the oil-dollar trade lets the federal government export inflation. And California is the heart of the no-nukes crowd, Hollywood specifically scaring everyone over 50 with fear of nuclear waste zombies and other horrors. But The China Syndrome was pure fiction, no one died when TMI 2 melted down, and it's looking more and more like the reaction to the Fukushima disaster will have greater harmful impact to people than the meltdown.


This is what happens when you have people who don't understand science trying to solve a scientific problem. I doubt more than few even know what branch of science global warming falls under.


Global Warming is a complete waste of Time . . . We will never beat Mother Nature . . . Now Global Pollution that is a Real Problem which we can do something about and to start with the first thing is to get rid of all the Politicians !

Global Economics