Bummer: Killing USAID Is Bad For ‘Climate Change’

BTW, Trump has all the authority needed to kill the program, since it was created by Jimmy Carter with an Executive Order. Which means Trump creating DOGE is just fine

Ending USAID climate programs could increase security risks

The axing of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), which Elon Musk has vowed to “kill” with President Trump’s support, could destabilize regions where human-caused climate change is hitting particularly hard.

Why it matters: By ending humanitarian assistance and proactive climate resilience and adaptation programs, the U.S. military could get pulled into responding to more future crises.

Experts tell Axios that axing the agency completely, or even significantly downsizing it, would have security implications when it comes to climate change.

I don’t. Especially since we all know that most of the money will never end up where it is supposed to go. It’ll go in lots of people’s pockets. It’s a slush fund.

Zoom in: According to archived versions of USAID’s websites, the agency helps countries cut their emissions, conserve carbon-rich tropical rainforests and rely more on renewable energy sources.

“Climate change affects nearly everything we do at USAID,” its climate page stated as of Jan. 17, according to the Internet Wayback Machine.

“As such, the Agency mainstreams climate change considerations across much of our development and humanitarian assistance work.”

Don’t care. Time for USAID to die, and move on to all sorts of other agencies to cut.

What they’re saying: Curtailing USAID is “going to add substantially to the instability in these volatile regions, because vulnerable populations will be doing without,” Sherri Goodman, a senior fellow at the Wilson Center and board chair at the Council on Strategic Risks, told Axios.

Let them get their own money.

Also the cult

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Post a Comment or Leave a Trackback

6 Responses to “Bummer: Killing USAID Is Bad For ‘Climate Change’”

  1. Professor Hale says:

    Killing the slush fund that was paying Democratic party activists all over the globe is bad. All those people were counting on this money as a secure never ending stream of funds.

  2. Elwood P Dowd says:

    If one considers global warming to be a hoax/scam, one should kill USAID, NASA, NOAA etc.

    • ruralcounsel says:

      NASA? NOAA? Why should their primary missions have anything to do with climate change? They were established long before the scam got legs.

      And USAID is just a CIA front group for shoving our flawed foreign policies on other countries. They use climate change as a false front, the same way they use AIDS, LGBTQ, or DEI to justify their meddling.

      • Elwood P Dowd says:

        rc is correct that USAID is ALSO used by the CIA to keep an eye on other nations. Is that a bad thing?

        Why would America’s most capable technical/engineering groups study global warming??

        The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is charged with forecasting weather, monitoring oceanic and atmospheric conditions, and charting the seas.

        Scientific experts are in agreement that atmospheric CO2 (from burning fossil fuels) is causing the Earth to warm. There is no scientifically sound reasoning to expect the warming to stop until the Earth reaches an equilibrium between energy in to heat out. Just as there was a cult arguing that tobacco smoking was not harmful, we have a cult arguing that global warming is not harmful.

        Coincidentally, many of the pro-tobacco cultists are also making a living calling global warming a scam. In 1984 Frederick Seitz (formerly of RJ Reynolds), Robert Jastrow and William Nierenberg founded the George C. Marshall Institute, which basically did for climate change what the Tobacco Institute had long been doing for cigarettes. Seitz and his colleagues claimed that global warming was caused by natural variations. Fred Singer was another tobacco apologist turned climate “skeptic”. Heartland Institute is funded funded by RJ Reynolds and Altria.

        What really drives the denier cult are not objections to science but the religious/ideological/libertarian/”Deep State” beliefs that ANY government regulation of capitalism is akin to communism!! Former conservative George Will called environmentalism “a green tree with red roots”!! Teach expresses this sentiment often.

        John Galt lives!!

  3. Mad Celt says:

    The conmen got busted.

  4. Wylie1 says:

    Is Axios saying Palestinians who have unprotected sex with goats are going to cause air pollution?

Leave a Reply

Pirate's Cove