OECD and IEA intensify their global warming propaganda - US is main paymaster

American taxpayers should realise that the United States is the main paymaster of two of the international organizations, The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the International Energy Agency (IEA), which are in the forefront of the global warming propaganda machinery.

Both organisations have during recent years increasingly focused on AGW scaremongering instead of concentrating on their original tasks - helping governments foster prosperity through economic growth and to meet their energy needs.

Both the OECD and the IEA have joined the warmist UN organisations, Greenpeace, WWF and similar groups in a more or less coordinated publicity campaign prior to the Durban COP17 climate change jamboree.

Here is how the OECD chooses to describe its "latest analysis":

According to OECD’s latest analysis, global greenhouse gas emissions are projected to double in the next 40 years. This would result in a 3-6 degree increase of the average global temperature by the end of the century unless governments take decisive action.

The OECD’s Environmental Outlook to 2050 (full publication in March 2012) paints a grim picture of the Earth in 2050 if we do not change our policies and behaviour to accommodate the 9 billion people it will have to support in the coming decades. For example, without new government policies, the mix of energy technologies will not change significantly by 2050, with the share of fossil fuel-based energy remaining at 85%. By 2050 the concentration of warming gases in the atmosphere could reach 685 parts per million (ppm) CO2-equivalents. This is well above the level of 450 ppm CO2e that scientists say is needed to have at least a 50% chance of achieving the 2°C goal.

“The economic costs and environmental consequences of political inaction on climate change are significant”—said OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría—“Governments have to break out of their national mind-sets and look at the global picture. They must speed up negotiations in Durban if we are to meet the internationally agreed goal to limit the global temperature rise to 2°C”.

And the IEA´s "New Policies Scenario" is at least as scary:

In the New Policies Scenario, cumulative CO2 emissions over the next 25 years amount to three-quarters of the total from the past 110 years, leading to a long-term average temperature rise of 3.5°C. China?s per-capita emissions match the OECD average in 2035. Were the new policies not implemented, we are on an even more dangerous track, to an increase of 6°C.
The world is locking itself into an unsustainable energy future which would have far-reaching consequences, IEA warns in its latest World Energy Outlook

"As each year passes without clear signals to drive investment in clean energy, the "lock-in" of high-carbon infrastructure is making it harder and more expensive to meet our energy security and climate goals," said Fatih Birol, IEA Chief Economist. The WEO presents a 450 Scenario, which traces an energy path consistent with meeting the globally agreed goal of limiting the temperature rise to 2°C. Four-fifths of the total energy-related CO2 emissions permitted to 2035 in the 450 Scenario are already locked-in by existing capital stock, including power stations, buildings and factories. Without further action by 2017, the energy-related infrastructure then in place would generate all the CO2 emissions allowed in the 450 Scenario up to 2035. Delaying action is a false economy: for every $1 of investment in cleaner technology that is avoided in the power sector before 2020, an additional $4.30 would need to be spent after 2020 to compensate for the increased emissions.

The politicians in the US Congress ultimately decide whether American taxpayers should continue financing this kind of global warming propaganda. And we are talking about considerable sums of money - the US pays about 25% of the combined close to 500 million USD budgets of the OECD and the IEA. (The German, British and French taxpayers´combined share is about the same as the US contribution). There might be better ways of using the money in these economically troubled times .....