Having got this far, one must feel at least perplexed concerning the sequence of the philosophical downfall that slowly transformed the (somewhat) capitalistic system, posited by the liberal theorists of the 18th and 19th centuries, into the collectivist one we have to endure today. If that was not bad enough, the fact that the principal instigators for this ideological regression have been the very ones who everybody nowadays seems to associate with capitalism and its exploitative nature, surely, has to make one’s head spin. All the same, when one realises that the natural tendency of the elites, both economic and intellectual, is to gravitate towards the political apparatus so as to use its coercive power to encroach on the rest of society, incrementing and consolidating their wealth and status as a consequence, it all begins to make sense. This is precisely what I have been trying to convey in the last four instalments of this series, with this one being the seventh. Yet, there is a lot more to explore. As we have seen in those previous episodes, the international banking cabal, which I have exposed as being the force majeure of globalism (a.k.a. New World Order) and all its guises through the ages, has used the environmental movement and climate change hoax as a gigantic Trojan horse to overhaul the global economic structure entirely. To achieve their goals, which so happen to be the SDGs under the overarching Agenda 21 of the UN, they have to revolutionise the international monetary and financial system (IMFS) altogether. In the end, they hope to implement a system of global governance, using the concept of stakeholder capitalism. Nevertheless, there is still a missing piece to fulfil their totalitarian dream of a technocratic world government. Keep reading if you want to find out, although you may already have an inkling. The dialogue has shifted from viewing climate change as a risk, to seeing the opportunity, and really translating that into a single objective, which is to move our economies to net zero as quickly as possible. That’s a tremendously exciting development because what we have now in private finance is a focus on a clear goal – net zero – and finding the opportunities to advance that and to be rewarded by it.” Continuing the exposition commenced on the last chapter, the central banker and UN special envoy on climate change and finance Mark Carney has taken the initiative to reconstruct the IMFS. To begin with, he has, ostensibly, managed to transform the risks and costs of advancing the policies and projects regarding the green economy paradigm into a lucrative business proposition. Kudos for him! In that January 2021 interview for the UN, Carney talks about the need to employ private finance to achieve the objective of net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, where emissions produced equal those removed from the atmosphere. His talking points relied on the main elements of the globalist agenda that entail the reset of the global economic structure. To wit, he voiced the necessity of mandatory carbon disclosures (i.e., ESG metrics), the role of companies to pursue emissions reductions all the way across their value chains, the need for national climate plans, the importance of carbon offsets and the urgency of supporting the developing countries adapt to the new economic model. Through the course of this and the following posts, I am going to elaborate on each one of these points, resuming the elucidation under way from the previous episode. At any rate, what jumps out from that interview is when the interviewer makes reference to his claim that “the goal of net zero is the greatest commercial opportunity of our time.” In truth, Carney has been recorded affirming this at least twice before. The first instance was on February 27, 2020, even before the Covid ‘scamdemic’ and the Great Reset really started. Then, a few months later on November 8, of that annus horribilis, on occasion of the release of the pre-COP26 report Building a Private Finance System for Net Zero, he went on stating the same line. Looking at the reports made by the institutions that embrace the green agenda, it is easy to see why Carney feels this way. For example, on that pre-COP26 report presented at the Green Horizon Summit, which was hosted by the City of London Corporation with WEF’s backing, total investments required solely to enable a transition in the energy sector is estimated to be $3.5 trn a year, with 70% of that amount applied onto developing countries, while as much as $135 bn annually will flow to carbon capture and biofuel technology, and additional funds will be needed for the research and development of new technologies to boot. Albeit an outwardly high number, do not fret taxpayers. Insofar as the presumed costs of the business-as-usual scenario have been biasedly computed to be skewed on the high side, the inescapable conclusion is that, by 2030, “the benefits of shifting to a low-carbon pathway are estimated at $26 trillion.” Exactly the same skulduggery James Corbett clarified on an article that was glossed over on the previous episode. Notwithstanding, this is only, quite literally, half the story. In 2018, a report published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), in collaboration with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Bank, asserted that $6.9 trn per year, throughout the next decade, was needed to meet both the temperature targets of the Paris Agreement – to limit global temperature increase to well-below 2°C and towards 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels – and the SDGs. Assuming that global GDP grows at an average annual rate of 5.08% (using the figures from Statista) till 2030, totalling $149,022.16 bn, the proportion of spending on sustainable development is expected to be 4.63% of world GDP, being 6.88% in 2022 ($6.9/$100.2184). To give some perspective, global military spending in 2022 added up to 2.24% of world GDP ($2.24/100.2184). This is no random comparison. Owing to learning early on that war was the most efficacious means of inducing the intended changes, besides wealth consolidation, the globalist clique has in many ways approached this agenda with a war economy mentality. Per the then Prince Charles, speaking at the COP26 in Glasgow, “we need a vast military style campaign to marshal the strength of the global private sector, with trillions at its disposal far beyond global GDP”. Intriguingly, the globalist institutions appear to be very worried and interested in solving the problems, allegedly caused by man-made climate change, faced by the developing countries. Evidently, they are acting disingenuously. Unsurprisingly, Mark Carney and his financier cronies are not the only ones insisting that the amounts reportedly needed to aid the developing countries transition to the sustainable development model are in the trillions. As a matter of fact, these banksters are merely following the dictates imposed by the UN. In the wake of the 2009 COP15 held in Copenhagen, Denmark, “developed countries commit to a goal of mobilizing jointly USD 100 billion dollars a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries.” To make long story short, sadly for the banking cabal, this has been an abject failure. According to an expert report prepared at the request of the UN Secretary-General, released on December 2020, the $100 bn target was not being met (the latest available data for 2018 was $79 bn). Furthermore, Bonesman John Kerry, who currently acts as the US climate envoy, contended last year that the developed countries might finally meet this pledge this year. Seeing that this goal was not reached in due time, the globalist cadre has now been asserting that the efforts have to be multiplied to make up for those past sluggish undertakings. For missing their mark, that $100 bn a year is now to be seen as a floor. Thus, the estimates made by the UNEP suggest that “adaptation costs alone faced by just developing countries will be in a range of $140 billion to $300 billion per year by 2030, and $280 billion to $500 billion annually by 2050.” On top of that, by adding the costs of mitigation, decarbonisation and “global resiliency” – whatever that means –, for the entire world, “the annual cost will greatly exceed $500 billion and possibly even more than a trillion dollars.” Apparently, the UNEP is low-balling its figures since, as I have already shown, the annual expenditures, through this decade, will have to be close to $7 trn to fulfil the Paris Agreement and achieve the SDGs. Coincidentally, a November 2022 report titled Finance for climate action: Scaling up investment for climate and development, made by the Independent High-Level Expert Group on Climate Finance (IHLEGCF), claims that “[e]merging markets and developing countries other than China will need to spend around $1 trillion per year by 2025 (4.1% of GDP compared with 2.2% in 2019) and about $2.4 trillion per year by 2030 (6.5% of GDP),” to address the challenges “on mitigation, adaptation/resilience/damage, and natural capital.” In line with the OECD report. Interestingly, the IHLEGCF is supported by the UN Economic Commission for Africa, the Brookings Institution, and the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), besides some other foundations, which, this latter, was founded by some notable Fabian socialists, including Sidney and Beatrice Webb. This “independent” group was launched by the COP26 and COP27 Presidencies in July 2022, having Vera Songwe and Lord Nicholas Stern as co-chairs. This last character, Lord Stern, is an experienced trickster where mathematical models relating to the presumed costs of GHG emissions born by society are concerned. Following his stint as Chief Economist and Senior Vice-president of the World Bank, from 2000 to 2003, he went to work for Gordon Brown, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, until 2007. During this period, he conducted studies on the economics of climate change, a creative form of scientism. In October 2006, the Stern Review was published with much ballyhoo. In this landmark report, Stern and his team concluded the usual and expected verdicts that stopping anthropogenic climate change was of paramount importance and an international response was urgent and necessary, all to reduce the costs of the inevitable impacts of climate change, of course. Hence, Stern and his colleagues argued that “international frameworks” would have to be built to help each country play its part in meeting their assumedly common goals. In other words, what the UN and the WEF calls multistakeholder partnerships. Be that as it may, amongst other elements included in those future international frameworks, emissions trading would be a preeminent one. And if the decision to pollute is free, […] then the actual cost there are misleading you because you are seeing them as free. They are really not free. Due to gaining a great deal of popularity, policy makers from around the world began to consider the results of this review rather seriously. On February 13, 2007, Stern gave his testimony on his Review’s findings before the US Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Obviously, he seized this opportunity to profess the alarmist narrative, and open the door for a new market as well. Naturally, he claimed that if we carried on business as usual, the damage of climate change would take a toll of 5% on the global economy every year, on average. However, reducing the risks of that via controlling GHG emissions would only cost 1% of GDP per annum. Accordingly, the strategy to “correct the biggest market failure the world has ever seen” must firstly involve “[p]ricing carbon directly through either tax or carbon trading or implicitly through regulation”. In any event, he ended up determining that because of the “efficiency that comes from using economic instruments, developing a global price for carbon is crucial.” Ergo, an emissions trading scheme must be instituted. In the next month, it was Al Gore’s turn to appear in Congress. Needless to say, he took this chance to advocate for a cap-and-trade system. Basically, far from an expert opinion, it was a mere sales spiel. Nonetheless, this self-proclaimed expert had been working with Stern in his report. Hardly were these events happening in a vacuum. Around this time, there was a series of developments that kicked off in the 90’s and culminated with a bill proposal which, fortunately, never materialised. Despite that, this idea has always lingered around, waiting for the right timing. In 1991, in preparation for the Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro, the prominent ‘green oiligarch’ Maurice Strong inaugurated the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). Concurrently, a UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) study pushing for international trade in emissions was co-authored by Richard L. Sandor, another eminent character in the carbon trading ruse. Owing to his key role in engineering all sorts of financial derivative products, most noteworthy being the interest rate futures, when he was chief economist and vice president of the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT), he came to be known as the “father of financial futures”. As part of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment, the HW Bush Administration erected a market for trading allowances in sulphur dioxide (SO2) emissions, which are believed to cause acid rain. Guess who was put in charge of devising it? Unmistakably, Sandor took over, acting as chairman of the Chicago Board of Trade Clean Air Committee, from 1991 to 1994, developing the first spot and futures markets for SO2 emission allowances. If that was not enough already, he was also responsible for supervising the annual allowance auctions conducted on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). A few years later, in 1997, the COP3 in Kyoto, Japan, spawned a momentous agreement between the parties. The Kyoto Protocol was adopted on December 11, 1997, and due to a complex ratification process, it entered into force on February 16, 2005. Indeed, the process of ratification took a while because this covenant failed to persuade most governments to act. For instance, the US, under the W. Bush Administration, abandoned this treaty, even though the Clinton Administration had signed it in 1997. The justification was that “the incomplete state of scientific knowledge of the causes of, and solutions to, global climate change and the lack of commercially available technologies for removing and storing carbon dioxide” precluded him from ratifying this protocol, which “exempts 80 percent of the world...from compliance.” Succinctly, the Kyoto Protocol instructs the signatories to limit and cut GHG emissions in accordance with agreed individual targets. By binding emission reduction targets for only 37 industrialised countries and economies in transition and the European Union, the developed countries would have to carry all that burden. Overall, these targets add up to an average 5 per cent emission reduction compared to 1990 levels over the five year period 2008–2012 (the first commitment period). The second commitment period, which lasted from 2013 to 2020, was agreed upon at the 2012 COP28, bringing about the Doha Amendment. All the same, this amendment seems to have been totally futile. Recalling the testimonies of Al Gore and Lord Stern before the US Congress, once the Kyoto Protocol expires at the end of 2012, there would be no need to wait for a new global treaty. To understand this, you have to know that this agreement constituted two market-based mechanisms to trade emission allowances, also known as carbon offsets or carbon credits: the Joint Implementation (JI) and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). Perfectly exemplifying the stupidity and uselessness of the cap-and-trade systems, these schemes were not only unsuccessful at limiting GHG emissions, but this pair actually provoked an increase during their implementation period. All in all, “the use of JI may have enabled global GHG emissions to be about 600 million tCO2e higher than they would have otherwise been.” One of the most misleading practices of historians has been to lump together ‘merchants’ (or ‘capitalists’) as if they constituted a homogeneous class having a homogeneous relation to state power. The merchants either were suffered to control or did not control the government at a particular time. In fact, there is no such common interest of merchants as a class. The state is in a position to grant special privileges, monopolies, and subsidies. It can only do so to particular merchants or groups of merchants, and therefore only at the expense of other merchants who are discriminated against.” Fascinatingly, this anti-business agenda, as one would normally regard it as, had the support of some of the largest corporations and financial institutions at that time. Instead of standing for the tenets of capitalism that enabled all the progress and growth we enjoy today, and which are in part thanks to the entrepreneurs that founded these companies, the scoundrels that later on began to permeate their boards have decided to take the path of least resistance and join forces with the state apparatus to consolidate and easily maintain their position in the market. After all, big business loves big government. As Murray Rothbard asserted, for being “in a position to grant special privileges, monopolies, and subsidies”, the state “can only do so to particular merchants or groups of merchants, and therefore only at the expense of other merchants who are discriminated against.” Having said that, by manufacturing the climate change scam which inevitably pertained to combined matters of politics and business, several oligarchical factions competed to get the upper hand. In spite of the environmental movement being captured since, essentially, its inception by the ‘oiligarchy’ and its cronies, they have never had total control over it, nor have they ever been a monolithic collective. For that reason, there has been now and then infighting among the various suits and tree-hugging hippie camps. Seeing that the UN’s institutions were (and still are) packed with pretentious and self-important socialists, the direction of the debate – if one can call it that – about climate change was being steered more and more so by the watermelon socialists. Amidst this struggle for power, the ‘oiligarchs’ and fellow financiers counterattacked, in 1989, with the formation of the Global Climate Coalition (GCC). Indubitably, this was a reaction to the creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the UNEP, plus the alarmist testimony before Congress by NASA’s very own James Hansen, where he attributed global warming to the greenhouse effect with a risible 99% confidence, both the year before. According to its website, their mission is “to coordinate business participation in the international policy debate on the issue of global climate change and global warming.” Simply put, to take the helm and steer it in favour of the cabal. To be fair, I am glad they did this, and so should you, because we would be living in squalor by now if those green-gilded comrades had their way. At least we have gained a few years. Nevertheless, this organisation and its members did not deny the greenhouse effect hypothesis nor the AGW/ACC theory. Yet, GCC took a lot of flak, which still goes on till this day, for their slight disagreement with the prevailing dogmas. However, in view of deeming the policy suggestions for tackling these issues as ineffective and destructive, they fought against them. First and foremost, as John Shlaes, the executive director of this institution, put it, the GCC was “concerned that carbon taxes are often promoted on the basis that they offer significant environmental benefits. What must be made clear is that carbon taxes will have little, if any, impact on global carbon dioxide emissions.” Continuing expressing his scepticism about the usefulness of carbon taxes, he argued that this would effect “a shift of carbon-intensive activities to countries without a carbon tax, thereby limiting or negating the desired effect of such a policy.” To finish off, he urged policy makers to acknowledge “that strong economic growth is a prerequisite for continued environmental protection.” Thus, GCC campaigned severely against the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. At any rate, more public-private partnerships and subsidies for green technologies, please! As soon as the US Congress and the Bush Administration rejected the Kyoto Protocol, for accomplishing its mission, the GCC was deactivated in 2002. Be that as it may, the cabal was about to face other challenges. Without surprise, new sham organisations soon crop up. Before we get to that, we ought to explore the major players behind the GCC. Colour me shocked because “the collection of energy companies, primarily from the coal sector, created the Global Climate Coalition to fight impending climate change regulations.” An instrumental founding member was the American Petroleum Institute, whose executive vice president became chairman of the GCC a few years later. Another powerful founding member was the largest oil company in the world, Exxon, which became ExxonMobil after the two sisters merged in 1999. Joining them were also automotive and other petroleum companies, as well as the National Association of Manufactures which represented both large and small enterprises. As this coalition proudly admitted, the GCC was the main instigators for the US rejecting the Kyoto Protocol. This much was revealed by some documents that emerged in 2005, where it was conceded that this was “in part based on input from you [the Global Climate Coalition]”. Aside from the GCC, there have been a myriad of environmental organisations founded and funded by the globalist clique, in one way or another, as I have evidenced and alluded to many times throughout this series. Inasmuch as the list would be too extensive to give a thorough account, check out this article that discloses, chronologically, the development the most illustrious of such entities. Instead, focusing on the essentials, notice that outfits of the sort of GFANZ, IBC and TCFD are not unprecedented. In reality, there have been institutions that have long tried to transform business practices to instil environmental awareness. One of such organisations was the Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies, or CERES, later rebranded as Ceres, having been founded in 1989. Right from its outset, the Ceres Principles were launched, consisting of “a ten-point code of corporate environmental conduct to be publicly endorsed by companies as an environmental mission statement or ethic.” In 1993, the oil company Sunoco became the first Fortune 500 member to adhere to this code. In addition, Ceres originated the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), in 1997, which fashioned the GRI Standards “for corporate reporting on environmental, social and economic performance.” By the way, its Global Sustainability Standards Board (GSSB) are the first global standards for sustainability reporting. As of 24 March 2022, GRI and the IFRS announced that they would collaborate to align the ISSB's – see previous episode – investor-focused Sustainability Disclosures Standards for the capital markets with the GRI's multi-stakeholder focused sustainability reporting standards. Through its Investor Network on Climate Risk (INCR), now simply labelled Ceres Investor Network, Ceres works with multiple institutional investors, which are 220 of them managing $60 trn in assets, to force corporations to accept the ESG model. Lastly, Ceres has also been very active in producing reports to persuade investors, corporations and financial firms to join the crusade against climate change, promising to be a profitable endeavour. Essentially, these studies are just an exercise in wishful thinking. As Warren Buffett implied, the forecasts always have the authors’ biases embedded into them. Forecasts usually tell us more of the forecaster than of the future.” In any event, the GCC was an exception to the rule. Almost every other group endorses and helps to formulate the professed “scientific consensus” on climate change and its policy agenda. Lamentably, only a few emasculated conservative- and libertarian-inclined think tanks, such as the Heritage Foundation, the Heartland Institute which hosts the annual International Conference on Climate Change, the Institute for Energy Research or the Cato Institute, have had the courage to stand up to these well-funded green behemoths. Notwithstanding, on account of having been financed by some big crony capitalists, including oil barons and businesses like Charles Koch and Exxon, their opposition efforts are gravely restricted. Consequently, the fundamental principles and hypotheses grounding the climate change hoax and the environmental movement in general, are never allowed to be debunked once and for all. As a result, the globalist clique slowly, but incessantly, keeps on fulfilling its plan. On that account, the push for a cap-and-trade system seriously ramped up in the turn of the century. Abiding to the pledge of cutting GHG emissions made in Kyoto, the WBCSD and the UNCTAD, drawing from the latter’s study co-authored by Richard Sandor, referred to above, instituted the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA), in 1999, “to establish a functional international framework for trading in greenhouse gas emission reductions.” Then, starting in 2003, Ceres, through INCR, has hosted conferences to attract institutional investors to the environmental honeypot. In collaboration with the UN, it was called Institutional Investor Summit on Climate Risk. Although it has changed its name as years went by, and the UN collaboration has been on and off, these conferences are still held with the participation of the corporate and financial habitués. Simultaneously, Sandor, the derivatives guru and director on the board of the London International Financial Futures Exchange, founded the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) with Maurice Strong on the board, listed on the Chicago Board of Trade. The owner of the CCX is the Climate Exchange Plc group, which in turn owns the European Climate Exchange (ECX). The ECX was launched in 2005 to capitalise on the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) that was initiated that same year, following a 2003 directive from the European Commission. In 2001, the International Petroleum Exchange (IPE), the world’s leading energy futures and options exchange, was acquired by the Intercontinental Exchange Inc. (ICE), a literal offshore financial centre based in London. A year later, in November 2002, Sandor joined the board of directors of ICE, which so happened to be two months before he debuted the CCX. After CCX and IPE signed a co-operation and licensing agreement on September 21, 2004, it was now possible to trade cash and futures products of carbon emissions in an efficiently liquid venue, the ECX; only in 2010 did the ICE bought out the CCX and its affiliates. All was left to do was to replicate that European model in the US and, then, spread this idea worldwide. Having founded, in 1998, the Environmental Financial Products LLC (EFP), which specialised “in inventing, designing, and developing new financial markets”, this was the predecessor to the CCX. While Sandor was teaching at the Kellogg Graduate School of Management at Northwestern University, he received two grants in 2000 and 2001, totalling $1.17 million “to examine whether an emissions market was feasible in the United States to facilitate significant greenhouse gas reductions.” These funds came from the Joyce Foundation, on whose board of directors the uppity state senator of Illinois Barack Obama sat from 1994 through 2002. Curiously, the treachery behind the cap-and-trade systems was pioneered by the corporate poster child of corruption, Enron. Without Enron, a founding member of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change’s Business Environmental Leadership Council, which was a leading industry front group pushing the Kyoto agenda, the Kyoto Protocol might have never occasioned. Owing to its entire business model being based on dodgy emission allowances, it lobbied governments and UN entities to limit GHG and pollutant discharges, creating more emissions trading markets in the process. Having found stupendous success with the EPA’s $20 billion per year sulphur dioxide cap-and-trade scheme, Enron sought to dominate the US energy market. In view of being a major natural gas trader, if a carbon trading programme was forced on industry, the electric utilities would be pressed to switch from coal to natural gas, producing a gigantic profit windfall for Enron. For having gone against the interests of major industrial and manufacturing companies, like Exxon, it got more than it had bargained for. In the end, the rapacity, cheating and mismanagement caught up to them, and the company closed its doors in 2001. To sum up, Kenneth Lay and his associates loved green a tad too much, becoming too greedy. Established in 1998, the Pew Center on Global Climate Change and its Business Environmental Leadership Council have aimed at advancing the now familiar sustainable development scam. As of 2011, this organisation renamed itself as the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES) and is chaired by the investment banker and CFR member Theodore Roosevelt IV, the great-grandson of the former US President, who was also Chairman of Lehman Brothers’ Council on Climate Change from February 2007 until its bankruptcy. Once again, the year 2003 comes to the forefront. That year, the C2ES partnered with Senators John McCain (R, AZ) and Joseph Lieberman (D, CT) to introduce in Congress the first bipartisan bill with provisions for a carbon cap-and-trade system, the Climate Stewardship Act. Due to failing to gain support, these senators tried a total of three times to pass such a bill through Congress, but always with the same outcome – whoopee! – in which the last attempt was co-sponsored by Senator Barack Obama (D, IL). While this was going on, a bunch of corporations, seen by many as some of the biggest polluters – in their brainwashed heads CO2 is a pollutant – in the world, and environmental organisations, including C2ES’ predecessor, teamed up to institute the United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), so as to “recommend the prompt enactment of national legislation in the United States to slow, stop, and reverse the growth of greenhouse gas emissions”. To make good on that promise, USCAP members released a report titled A Blueprint for Legislative Action, suggesting a detailed framework for legislation to address climate change. Visibly, this became the backbone of the Wall Street-backed American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. More commonly known as the Waxman-Markey bill, after its sponsors, the rat-looking Henry Waxman (D, CA30) and Ed Markey (D, MA7). This bill was the last one of a series that commenced, as we have seen, in 2003 and continued with the Safe Climate Act of 2006 and 2007, both by Waxman, then the Lieberman-Warren Climate Security Act of 2007 and, at last, the President Obama’s campaign promise. All the same, the American Petroleum Institute, which had been reigned by Standard Oil’s successor, ExxonMobil, issued a letter to Congress expressing its disagreement with this bill, reasoning that it would be too punitive for consumers and the economy. Seeing that the USCAP had in its ranks fossil fuel giants of the likes of British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell, it is funny how after a century, the Rockefellers and the British and Dutch royal dynasties still bicker with each other to see who reaches the top of the heap. Plainly, Exxon has dominated, being consistently at the top echelon in terms of market capitalisation in America. Finally, another vital character in this tale was Goldman Sachs. In an effort to construct a repeat of the derivatives and the commodities market casinos that had been highly generous to this investment bank, these banksters had gone to great lengths to engender a carbon emissions trading outlet for many years. In fact, they were the most pronounced propellers of this agenda. We don't have a lot more time to deal with climate change… We need the right balance between regulation and market-based approaches.” On the one hand, they were pushing for legislation to create a cap-and-trade programme and producing documents for regulators and politicians to that effect. On the other hand, Goldman was distinctly invested on ‘environment-friendly’ ventures, in carbon credit firms and in the CCX, besides its future owner ICE.
Moreover, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, David Blood, along with two other Goldmanites, Mark Ferguson and Peter Harris, got together with the prophet/profit Al Gore and his minion, Peter S. Knight, to set up the London-based investment fund, Generation Investment Management (GMI), which insiders cleverly styled as “Blood and Gore”. Taking advantage of the hoax they, especially Al Gore, helped to fabricate, the GMI has invested in putative green projects and businesses that accumulate carbon credits. Therefore, selling these offsets through the carbon emissions markets has been exceedingly lucrative to eco-banksters Hank Paulson and his ilk. No wonder they have been hyperactive in pushing these schemes. Subsequent to his lengthy run on the Defense and State Departments, Paul Wolfowitz, the Straussian neocon of the Project for the New American Century that got its “new Pearl Harbor” wish realised, remained in the DC swamp and became president of the World Bank from June 2005 to June 2007. In this period, Wolfowitz forged the Carbon Finance Organization, which still carries on under the label Climate Change Fund Management Unit. In the midst of those 2007 congressional hearings alluded to above, Wolfowitz bang the drum for $100 bn aid for carbon-reducing programmes to the developing countries. Furthermore, he avowed to push for a global carbon emissions trading system, within a year, worth $200 bn. On the next day, Jeroen Ven der Veer, the then CEO of Royal Dutch Shell, replicated the call for a global cap-and-trade system. As luck would have it, these schemes were constantly hampered, with CCX being dissolved in 2010, though the EU ETS regrettably survived. Perhaps, it was because of the people, particularly the non-elite “merchants” – hinting at Rothbard’s quote –, and some reporters wising up and seeing through this despicable profiteering. After all, the truth always comes out sooner or later and, that being the case, occasionally some of the racketeers bite the dust, as it happened to the CEO of the biggest carbon credit certifier, Verra, where former Goldman Sachs’ carbon chief, Ken Newcombe, is a director. Alternatively, the GFC might have conceded us a reprieve. Were it not for the economic debacle that ensued, maybe they could have already promoted this cap-and-trade swindle, plus the broad Agenda 21, successfully by now. As a silver lining, the banking cabal’s hubris spawned one scheme too many and, consequently, it delayed the implementation of the globalist plan. Be that as it may, as the saying goes, if at first you do not succeed, try, try again. Alas, they definitely have kept at it, even though the Kyoto Protocol expired in 2012. As Al Gore pointed out in his testimony to Congress, they were already preparing for this, adamantly pressing for voluntary initiatives. Still, their tenacity is really something to behold. But so is mine. Until next time!
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorDaniel Gomes Luís Archives
March 2024
Categories |