From CFACT

By David Wojick

In a previous article, I gave three examples of Green Climate Fund (GCF) projects that clearly met immediate needs, so they were not funding adaptation to climate change. See “The Green Climate Fund is greenwashing normal foreign aid.”

Commenters correctly pointed out that this three-project selection was not sufficient to establish the general trend that was alleged. It could just be cherry picking. So here, I present a random sample of projects which is sufficient to draw valid statistical conclusions.

Statistical sampling theory is based on probability theory, so a random sample is necessary in order to draw valid conclusions about the population sampled. For example, the global and regional surface temperature statistics use what is called a convenience sample, which is not random, so they are invalid. But I digress.

The UNFCCC database of GCF projects lists them alphabetically by the lead country.

It is extremely unlikely that there is a bias in project goals based on the spelling of each country’s name, so taking all of the first few adaptation projects listed gives us a random sample of all such projects.

In this case, I have taken the first seven “adaptation” projects and briefly assessed each for meeting immediate needs versus adaptation to climate change. 100% of them address immediate needs, so we can validly infer that it is very likely that 100% of the entire population of “adaptation” projects are not about adaptation to climate change.

Here are the assessments of the first seven listed adaptation projects:

1. “ALBAdapt – Climate Services for a Resilient Albania

….develop a fully functional and well-resourced National Meteorological and Hydrological Service (NMHS) that complies with World Meteorological Organization (WMO) standards. The project also includes the implementation of a people-centered Multi-Hazard Early Warning System (MHEWS) and the foundation for ecosystem-based approaches to climate change adaptation (EbA) and disaster risk reduction (Eco-DRR).”

$40 million

So basically, weather forecasts and early warning of disasters. This is good stuff, but as they say in the project description, Albania is already subject to bad weather and floods, etc. It meets immediate needs.

2. “Empowering Women Groups to Build Resilience to Climate Impacts in the Province of Cunene in South West Angola (CREW Angola)

Angola, particularly the Cunene region, faces serious socio-economic challenges that increase its vulnerability to climate change. Rising temperatures, unpredictable rainfall, and frequent droughts threaten the region’s rainfed agriculture. Women, who are key contributors to agricultural production, are disproportionately affected due to limited access to resources.

This project aims to address these challenges by adopting a gender-transformative approach to enable communities to better adapt to changing conditions. It focuses on sectors most affected by climate risks, such as agriculture, water, and nutrition. It invests in financial literacy and improved farming technologies and innovation, both of which will directly contribute to enhancing local adaptive capacity and transforming food systems.”

$10 million

The serious risk of unpredictable rainfall and frequent droughts is already there, so this project is addressing an immediate need.

3. “Resilience to hurricanes in the building sector in Antigua and Barbuda

This project addresses the resilience of building construction in the country, in addition to climate information systems and post-disaster responses. It will climate proof critical public service and community buildings to improve resilience to, and recovery from, extreme climate events.”

$46 million

These folks are already battered by hurricanes and calling them “extreme climate events” does not change that. In fact, it is a marketing hoax. Resilience to hurricanes is a great idea, but it is an immediate need that does not arise from climate change.

4. “Integrated physical adaptation and community resilience through an enhanced direct access pilot in the public, private, and civil society sectors of three Eastern Caribbean small island developing states

Strengthening the resilience of three Caribbean islands to climate change-related threats by improving the hurricane resilience of community buildings, homes, and businesses, and through flood prevention measures.”

$22.6 million

As above, hurricanes are already happening, so preparing for them is an immediate need not a “climate change-related threat.”

5. “Multi-country Project Advancing Early Warnings for All (EW4All)

This project aims to strengthen the resilience of communities in seven countries (Antigua and Barbuda, Chad, Cambodia, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Fiji, and Somalia) by improving the production, dissemination and effective use of Multi-Hazard Early Warning Systems (MHEWS).”

$115 million

The project description says, “Hazards like heatwaves, floods, landslides, and droughts cause devastating loss of lives and assets, socio-economic instability, and inequality.” An early warning system is clearly a good idea, but it is an immediate need that has nothing to do with climate change adaptation.

6. “Scaling up national adaptive capacities for climate change-driven natural hazards through strengthening monitoring and early warning systems

Structured around three components, the project will modernize meteorological and hydrological observation and forecasting systems; strengthen early warning dissemination through multi-channel alerting and risk communication; and develop innovative resilience financing mechanisms, including forecast-based financing and climate micro-insurance, to sustain early action and encourage private sector engagement.”

$10 million

Another useful early warning system for existing hazards, not for climate change.

7. “Glaciers to Farms (G2F) Regional Program: Advancing Climate Resilience & Sustainable Development in Central and West Asia

G2F will deliver substantial, measurable improvements in climate resilience for communities and ecosystems. The programme aims to reduce the vulnerability of approximately 45 million people across nine countries by providing more stable water and food supplies, infrastructure that can withstand shocks, stronger social safety nets, and healthier ecosystems.”

$3.5 billion

The listed recipient countries are Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. In these poor countries, more stable water and food supplies are an immediate need without climate change.

Seven projects is a relatively small sample of the roughly 200 adaptation projects on the list, so I scanned the next 23 and found all 30 to be addressing immediate needs. 30 out of 200 is a sizable sample, which greatly strengthens the 100% inference.

Calling naturally occurring extreme weather “climate events” is a marketing trick. The Green Climate Fund is not funding climate change adaptation.

As I said in my prior article, the Green Climate Fund says that 60% of their billions in project funding is directed toward adaptation. They are really just meeting immediate needs which makes this greenwashing on a grand scale.

If the countries donating to the GCF think they are contributing to climate change adaptation, they should think again. It is just ordinary foreign aid which they would be better off doing themselves.