Why does the UN want immunity from prosecution for its Global Warming Fund?

The UN is pushing hard for agreements with nations to extend immunity from prosecution to their global warming piggy bank.

Why do they need this?

These sorts of rear guard actions lend credence tot he suspicion that there is some sort of misfeasance going on already and they are trying to head off prosecutions.

The Green Climate Fund, (GCF) a United Nations-affiliated piggy-bank  intended to finance climate change projects around the world, is determined to win sweeping U.N.-style immunities from prosecutions for its global operations–even though  the U.S., its biggest contributor, opposes the idea, and the U.N. itself says its own diplomatic immunities can’t cover the outfit.

The immunities issue could well spark even deeper opposition from Republican lawmakers in next year’s Congress to the Obama Administration’s aggressive climate change policies–which include a recent $3 billion pledge to the Fund.

“We would definitely be opposed to any extension of immunity to the Fund,” said a senior aide to Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, who will chair the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works starting in January.

“What do they need protection from?” he asked. “In essence, they are doing business development projects. If you look at the way millions of people do transactions across national borders, they do it without immunity and very successfully.”

Apparently undeterred, fund officials told Fox News that they are now trying to hammer out “bilateral agreement templates” that could be laboriously negotiated with each country where it operates—a total that could eventually reach the great majority of  the U.N.’s 193 members.

The Fund has already negotiated one agreement of immunity—with its new host country, South Korea, as a condition of moving its headquarters there last year.  


If the GCF succeeds in its broader negotiations, not only billions but eventually trillions of dollars in climate funding activities could fall outside the scope of criminal and civilian legal actions, as well as outside examination, as the Fund, which currently holds $10 billion in funding and pledges, expands its ambitions.

The shield would cover all documentation as well as the words and actions of officials and consultants involved in the activity documentation—even after they move on to other jobs. As a tasty side-benefit, the “privileges” attached to such “privileges and immunities,” as they are known in diplomatic parlance, mean that employees get their salaries tax-free.

Just why the GCF needs the sweeping protections is not exactly clear. In response to questions from Fox News, Michel Smitall, a Fund spokesman, provided mostly opaque answers.

“Privileges and immunities are intended to facilitate GCF activities in countries in which it operates and the GCF’s ability to use contributions by donor countries in an effective and efficient manner that serves the objectives agreed by its member countries,” he said.

Smitall added that it is “premature” to give out any information on the specific scope of  privileges and immunities, because these “would be negotiated bilaterally with countries in which the GCF operates.”

The immunities, however, “are expected to cover a range of issues,” he said,  “such as protecting GCF staff members acting in their official capacity and facilitating their official travel and protecting taxpayer dollars contributed by donor countries.”

The GCF, he added, “functions in a transparent manner, with strong oversight by its [24-member] Board. To the extent that there are civil or criminal actions against the GCF, we would work closely with the authorities of the relevant country.”

Dodgy is as dodgy does, and no one does dodgy like the United Nations.


– Fox News


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • All_on_Red

    Oh, say, protection from prosecution if they inadvertently destroy ancient relics when they cover it with their propaganda?
    And of course they don’t do this for the money which is why they want tax free status.
    Hippycrites one and all.

  • JC

    A $76 trillion Green fund over 40 years is all the justification you need to desire immunity. $6 trill goes to the corrupt dictators in the 3rd world and the UN/World Bank plus NGOs will siphon off the bulk of it.

    And yes, that half imagined thought is correct.. green political parties will also be recipients one way or another.


  • timemagazine

    This is nothing but unaccountability and leaching from the tax payers world wide. Typically marxist behaviour.

  • Sooty

    Why do you think Helen trotted of there!

  • Michael_l_c

    The UN is corrupt. They want protection for when they breach criminal & civil law. Think they can build what they want with no restriction, Ruataniwha dam with no restrictions. Build on your land with no rddress. Bribes & backhanded. Insider trading. All they will need is a death star & they control the universe. If they aren’t planning to be bad why do they need immunity.

  • caochladh

    Presumably as The Green Climate Fund is an entity in its own right, it should be producing a balance sheet and yearly accounts – has anyone seen them or know how to get them, or if in fact they exist?

  • Wallace Westland

    There’s got to be a way I can get my grubby little snout into that HUGE trough just waiting for me.
    I know…using wind farms to drill for water while powering generators to pump it…hmmm…nope…the wind farms will cost more to build, erect and run than the value of the water and power they could produce……soooooo……(lemme see..immunity from prosecution..directors fees consultants fees…)


  • JKV

    Absolutely spot on Cam. They want immunity because they know that this whole global warming/climate change scam is a scam. We desperately need a solid Republican president who will put an end to the funding of this corrupt organisation.

  • Benoni

    One of the “woes” caused by the measured increase in CO2 has been the increase in dissolved CO2 in the oceans over the last 100 years which has increased the acidity of the oceans an increase in carbonic acid in the oceans. This lowering of the ph is supposed to be causing coral reef death, fish death, and all sorts of collateral damage. Now it seems that the data from 1900 through to the 1970s has been “made up” and their has actually been no increase in ocean acidity (decrease in ph) in that time.
    Here is the graph fro wattsupwiththat. I find that such a large fraud in the science of global warming hard to believe except for the fact of the obvious fraud and misrepresentation of the temperature record increase. Anyways here is the graph

    • xennex

      Michael Wallace’s claims are based on pre 1989 technology differences. I doesn’t explain post 1989 differences.

      Can you explain the sea level change? At least the tape measure has not changed in the last century.


      • Benoni

        ph has been accurately measured since 1900 or earlier. The graph shows those accurate ph readings from 1900 to now and shows a slight decrease of ocean acidity (increase in ph) during that time (blue line).
        The red line showing the fake increasing ocean acidity from fake and non existing data is the one that was referenced for years by all the global warming panickers. Accurate data was available but never used . Instead fake data was “interpolated” to fit in with the human caused global warming theory. The global warming panickers have been fooled by their own desire to “believe the myth” of human caused environmental catastrophe brought on by a slight increase in CO2 in the air . The nescessary CO2 which sustains all plant life on Earth!

        • xennex

          Anything after 1989 was not ‘fake data’.
          When Wallace publishes a peer reviewed paper in an accepted journal I’ll believe it. Until then it is a unproven theory and speculation.

  • Rick H

    The “United Nations” as well as the “Greens” – “Greenpeace” etc are so irrelevant.
    It beggars belief why so many countries bought into it.
    They have had zero effect on any plague, famine. whatever over the last 30 years.
    Except the effect of taking trillions of dollars of cash from countries such as NZ who actually want the world to be a better place.

    Complete and utter useless outfit.