What you see happening around you has been planned for generations. We’re now in the final stages, and the distractions will become increasingly outrageous.
Rather than get distracted, let me summarise what’s actually taking place, on how they plan to wrap up their multi-generational efforts to impose a technocratic, global government.
It’s about controlling the right to emit carbon dioxide. Because those who do, control economic activity without which you won’t be able to do much. And in this regard - the role of the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992 cannot be overstated.
There are two core components to this scam. The UNFCCC and the Convention on Biological Diversity, aka the CBD. The former declares that we must not increase temperatures above a certain - arbitrary - threshold. To stay within said - as claimed by the UNFCCC - we have to control emissions. This creates a scarcity of carbon dioxide emissions, which can then be exploited financially.
When a farmer works his field to produce food, or a power plant generates electricity, both will soon be required to ‘offset’ their carbon dioxide emissions. In this equation, anyone emitting is considered a carbon source, and the flip side of that coin is called a carbon sink. Carbon sinks comprise anything that absorbs carbon dioxide; we here talk about the likes of forests, and wetlands like mangroves.
And while the UNFCCC creates the scarcity, the CBD’s stated aim is to increase the pool of allowable carbon dioxide emissions - ie, alleviate said scarcity - through the restoration of biodiversity. Consequently, when governments set out to spend trillions of your taxes to improve forests, mangroves and so forth, the stated aim is to improve biodiversity, which will lead to an increase in carbon absorbed by said forests, which consequently will increse the pool of (allowable) carbon dioxide emissions.
Carbon dioxide emissions, in this regard, are a type of ‘ecosystem service’. And those are rendered by a ‘natural asset’. You might have heard this expression before, likely due to the NYSE ‘Natural Asset Company’ rule change, temporarily put on ice. These are a type of holding company which has lease on a sustainably exploitable resource, or in their terminology - an ‘ecosystem service’ - which futher count the likes of fresh water (think Nestle), Eco-tourism, or timber from a forest. However, this exploitation is only allowed provided that the ‘natural asset’ rendering said ‘ecosystem service’ is not damaged in the process.
This ‘Natural Asset Company’ will then in turn be floated on a stock exchange. Once floated, the imperative shifts eclusively to profit generation from the artificially scarce resource - carbon credits - translating into far higher prices for ‘carbon sources’ - such as farmers and power plant - who will have no option but to increase prices on the end consumer - and that would be you.
Large corporations and opaque financial constructs were in a rush to buy up aquifers and forests a few decades ago. This is why. Most of those investment opportunities were front-run, because the insiders knew where we’d be some 20 years down the line. However, buying large tracts of land turns expensive, and consequently, under the guise of ‘conservation’, a great many nations set aside ‘nature reserves’, and submitted these to the UNESCO Biosphere Reserve program, which at present holds an area of the world comparable to the size of Australia. And these reserves span a great many forests, and other areas of considerable worth from the perspective of monetising carbon credits.
And that’s where the Global Environment Facility enters the stage. What they do is to structure ‘blended finance’ deals for ‘ecosystem services’, using a ‘landscape approach’. And while you should be aware of the former, the latter - the ‘landscape approach’ is a description of an arbitrary geographic range. This, along with a duration - ie, a number of years - and the ‘ecosystem service’ requested, be presented to the Global Environment Facility, who will structure a such blended finance deal. The outcome is a lease for an ecosystem service, which will promptly be transferred to a holding company, and floated on the stock exchange as a ‘Natural Asset Company’.
Blended finance deals are named as such, because they comprise public (taxpayer), private (billionaire class), and philanthropic capital. Thing is, however, the later contribute virtually nothing. Their inclusion appears entirely motivated around taking credit. The private invests 5-20% depending on interest in offer, also depending on geographical region. In Africa, for instance, they have little to no interest, and consequently, the taxpayer contributes practically all in this regard. Commonly, however, the public puts in around 85-90% of the capital, except this goes through leveraging and consequenly, considerably less. What this does however outline is that there is fundamentally no reason why the private investor should be involved whatsoever, because their meagre contribution could just as well be picked up by the public (taxpayer).
That’s where the structure of these deals enters the stage. Because in spite of being much smaller, the private is ‘senior’ to the public, meaning in the event of bankruptcy, the private is in effect shielded; the public taxpayer will lose their money before the private will lose a penny. Think 2008, and CDOs - but this time, with your taxes as the sitting duck. Typically, this additional level of risk is compensated for through a higher interest rate, but not so in this regard. In fact, per GEF itself, it is not uncommon to find the private investor receiving 2-3x interest rate - while, as said, simultaneously running much less risk. In short - all of this is a colossal public transfer to the priviledged few. It’s a way to continuously squeeze every nation, and every person and business into bankruptcy, one after another, leaving only a few standing at the end. And all of this, under the guise of ‘saving the planet’.
And the central banks are in on this. Those CBDCs they currently seek to push through in an obviously coordinated manner? Yes, an increasing amount of documents outline how these will be coupled with carbon emissions down the road, meaning that almost certainly, you will receive the same ‘carbon credit allowance’ as everyone else, much like how the economy broadly worked - or rather, didn't - in the Soviet Union. This approach is furthermore clearly outlined by One World Trust’s ‘Charter 99’, where said OWT was founded in the wake of WW2, and included the likes of Clement Attlee and Winston Churchill.
Thing is, the whole thing is based on fraud, and that is no exaggeration. There’s a large reliance on the ‘Contingent Valuation Method’, which in no uncertain terms means asking a range of people what they would pay for a given item, and then valuing said on that account. Yes, really. But not only does this ‘ecosystem service valuation’ depend on this utter guesswork, but assigned values include deeply subjective values, such as valuing a stroll in a forest, regardless of how completely absurd that might appear.
The sheer quantities of information, further, is practically unlimited. To solve this problem, they propose a range of 'approximations' in a way comparable to improving neighbouring squares to cities, when playing a game of Civilisation on your PC.
We can then consider assigning carbon credits to a forest in the first place, which is nothing short of pure guesswork, and highly likely to be distorted in the direction of those insiders attempting to push through this system in the first place.
And then there’s the carbon consensus itself. No such existed in 1979, but was the result of a handful of ICSU cherry picked climate scientists, clearly evidenced by the resulting conference proceedings hinting at extraordinary levels of bias, plus the long-term planning of society in general clearly laid out through said proceedings. In fact, the quantity of papers pertaining to exclusively carbon dioxide itself was in a minority, which safe to say is a little odd, given that the event took place just 3 years after Bert Bolin - a primary driver of the narrative - in front of the US Senate unilaterally declared that the only thing they knew for sure, was that an increase in carbon dioxide led to increased plant growth. When asked if this led to global warming, he added this was ‘his personal opinion only’, and he further concluded by stating that professional climate scientists are the least likely to make predictions.
But, of course, as soon as this carbon dioxide narrative was established, annual temperatures suddenly went from being completely unpredictable, to rising in an almost linear fashion. This narrative was fabricated along the way with help from the ICSU and associated scientists, and their committees, which include the likes of SCOPE.
Incidentally, it was also SCOPE which set the course for the global surveillance they have progressively rolled out since 1972. But though that’s a story in itself, it does deserve a mention as this initiative - through GEO BON and GBIOS - will be used to uphold the Convention on Biological Diversity's centrally stated purpose. Restoring biodiversity.
Which private actors then turn around and monetise.
