Uppity Peasants weighs in on Calgary Arena ultimatum. City given 1 week to accept deal, or the Flames may leave altogether. Not the most eloquent response in the tweet, but the point is clearly made. There are far more important things cities need than to be financing new stadiums or new arenas.
In a broader sense: to what degree should the public be financing private events or teams?
1. Important Links
CLICK HERE, for Rick Bell, & Calgary Flames’ ultimatum. CLICK HERE, for a lawsuit against the Prince George Canada Winter Games Host Society, claiming breach of contract.
CLICK HERE, for $5.23B Calgary Olympic bid estimate. CLICK HERE, for the $17.7M cost of Calgary’s Olympic bid. CLICK HERE, for Montreal’s Olympic costs, 40 years on. CLICK HERE, for Forbes article. Stadiums are a game that taxpayers will always lose. CLICK HERE, for the subsidy drain of “public” sports teams.
2. Flames Show Calgary No Loyalty
The estimated cost of the Event Centre, aka the new arena. $550 million.
The Flames pay $275 million, which was always their number. The city will put up $275 million, which was not always their number.
The city will also pay out another $15.4 million, including the lion’s share of the tab for the Saddledome demolition.
The city will own the arena and for 35 years the Flames will cover the operating costs and they won’t leave town.
And to rub salt in the wound, the article closes off by saying this.
The arena deal hits the street less than 24 hours before city council chinwags over $60 million in cuts to the city budget in the dog days of summer when many Calgarians have scrammed out of town.
Apparently Calgary was $300 million for a new arena for the Flames to play hockey, but $60 million had to be cut from city services. Does this seem like a fair use of taxpayer dollars?
It’s not as if the Flames don’t have an arena to play in. They do. They just want a newer and better arena. What better way to turn off your fanbase by threatening to abandon them in what amounts to a shakedown?
Fair question to ask: does it serve the public to be pouring limited dollars into areas which a very small percentage will actually use? Wouldn’t it be better to spend it on things like: hospitals, fire services, and road maintenance? This is a theme that will come up throughout the article.
3. Olympics Are A Money Pit
Continuing to use Calgary as an example. Let’s note that the city bid to host the 2026 Winter Games, at was to be an estimated cost of $5.23 billion.
The costs would be allocated:
$1B from the city of Calgary
$1B for the Province of Alberta
$1B from the Federal Government
Rest from private sponsors
CALGARY—The Calgary Olympic Bid Corporation says the city needs a new mid-sized arena and field house — plus $3 billion of government funding — to host the 2026 Olympics, which it expects to cost a total of about $5.23 billion.
The BidCo’s draft hosting plan, released Tuesday, says eight existing Calgary venues and three mountain venues also need to be updated and “modernized” to prepare for the Winter Games. Those funds come from the urban development cost for the Games, which would total $1.6 billion. BidCo says security costs are estimated at $610 million.
The $3-billion public cost would be split between the city, province and federal government. The remaining cost would be paid for privately through ticket sales, corporate sponsorship and a contribution from the International Olympic Committee. All figures are in 2018 dollars.
The bid was eventually shot down when a majority of Calgarians voted against it. While there was agreement there would be a temporary boost to the local economy, concerns lingered that the debt would never fully be paid off
However, even to “bid” on the games ended up costing over $17 million. Just to make an official bid.
Governments spent a total of $17.7 million on Calgary’s scrapped bid for the 2026 Winter Olympics, according to the city’s final report on the project.
Initially, $30 million has been committed, with roughly a third coming from each level of government.
But the exploration was cancelled after Calgarians voted against it during a November 2018 plebiscite vote — which cost $2.2 million, $2 million from the province and the rest from the city, according to the report which is set to be presented to city council on Monday.
This was just “to bid on” the Olympic games for 2026. It should also be noted: the Alberta and Federal Governments (or rather, taxpayers) coughed up about 2/3 of that bill. Even if the bid were successful, it is an event that areas outside of Calgary would not actually benefit from.
For a Canadian example, let’s take Montreal, which hosted the 1976 Summer Olympics. It cost (in today’s dollars), about $4 billion. So comparable to the proposed situation with Calgary. From the Globe & Mail:
Montrealers can only look upon the Olympic Stadium (which alone cost about $4-billion in today’s dollars) the way modern-day Romans see the Colosseum. It remains an awe-inspiring testimony to a headier time, when an entire civilization dared to dream big, but now serves no practical purpose and costs a fortune to maintain. At least the Romans once had an empire to pay for it all.
The article notes that it needs a constant infusion on cash in order to be maintained, removing is impractical. The few events that it hosts annually come nowhere close to making it a viable enterprise.
43 years later, Montreal still has the regret. But at least tourists can get their pictures taken.
4. Stadiums In General Fleece Taxpayers
This Forbes article debunks the notion that building stadiums or other arenas are a boon for public coffers. It is based on 2 main reasons: economic activity doesn’t not equate tax revenue, and money spent here can’t be spent elsewhere.
Economic impact is not the same as tax revenue…. Some of that tax revenue has to go toward government costs associated with the holding of sports events: extra police, traffic control, perhaps more public transit, etc. At the end of the day, only a very small fraction of total spending associated with stadium events is left over to help pay back the taxpayers for building a stadium.
A valid argument. Just because people may come from out of town, it doesn’t mean all (or even most) of their money will be going to that sporting event. Very little may. Also, there are extra public costs associated with the running the stadium.
On to the second point. When people spend money to go to a sporting event, they cannot just pull that money out of thin air (tragic, but true). Rather, the money comes from their family budget, meaning something else has to give. If I buy tickets to an Atlanta Hawks game, the result of that spending might mean several fewer trips to the movies, not going to a local amusement park, or not going to a local restaurant or two.
Also true, but very obvious. If a person (or family) is spending money on an overpriced sporting event, is that not money that would still have been generating economic activity anyways?
One more consideration: the average person cannot afford to attend professional sports events other than very rarely, if ever. So is it fair to force them to chip in for something they might never be able to be a part of?
5. Reality: It’s Always Subsidised
From the NPR article, it makes the “public cost, private profit” argument. Interestingly enough, that is the same logic used to object to bank bailouts in 2008/2009.
“Public subsidies for stadiums are a great deal for team owners, league executives, developers, bond attorneys, construction firms, politicians and everyone in the stadium food chain, but a really terrible deal for everyone else,” concludes Frank Rashid, a lifelong Detroit Tigers fan and college English professor. Rashid co-founded the Tiger Stadium Fan Club in 1987, and for the next twelve years he fought an unsuccessful battle against Michigan’s plans to spend $145 million in public funds to replace that historic ballpark. “The case is so clear against this being a top priority for cities to be doing with their resources, I would have thought that wisdom would have prevailed by now.“
Yes, a small number of people will get very rich off of starting and running a sports team. However, the public will keep paying, regardless of the percentage who are actually interested in the event.
One additional piece the article left out is the cost overruns. Construction projects are almost never completed on time and are typically well over budget. Contract language varies, but typically it is the public who eats the losses.
Sports fanatics would argue that the city or national prestige is worth it. However, those who have little interest would see it as a waste.
6. What Is City Or National Pride Worth?
This is something that each person has to answer on their own.
For the most diehard fans, this is worth it. For the average person, I suspect not.
Objectively speaking: “public” teams with private owners are always a losing deal financially for taxpayers. They require endless subsidies, cater to a niche crowd, and don’t offer anything concrete to the public. At best, a small number of seasonal jobs will be created. The tax revenue generated comes nowhere close to what the subsidies cost.
As seen with the Calgary Flames (though there are other examples), threat to pull a team from a city is a form of economic extortion. For most people it is an empty threat, though politicians will often cave.
When public services get cut to pay for sports events or subsidies, that is when people get angry.
Thank you for your correspondence dated July 5, 2019, in which you seek clarification on four distinct federal election topics. Please note that we cannot provide legal advice regarding specific factual situations. We can, however, provide guidance with respect to general principles of the Canada Elections Act (Act), which may be of assistance with your enquiries.
1. Voter Identification
In 2007, Parliament imposed, for the first-time, voter identification requirements for electors voting at the polls, giving them three options (see s. 143 of the Act):
provide one piece of identification issued by a Canadian government or agency (federal, provincial, or local) that includes their name, address, and photo (e.g. driver’s licence);
provide two pieces of identification from a list authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada (CEO), both of which must include the elector’s name and at least one of which includes their address; or
3. swear an oath or affirmation and be vouched for by another eligible elector with acceptable proof of identity and residence whose name appeared on the electoral list for that polling division and who had not previously either been vouched for or vouched for another elector in that election, prior to receiving a ballot.
In 2014, Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, replaced the vouching process (the third option above) with a new attestation process. Through attestation, an elector could provide two pieces of identification, each of which established the elector’s name, and have someone attest to their residence on oath in writing. The attestor’s name had to appear on the list of electors for the same polling division. The attestor had to know the elector personally, know that the elector resides in the polling division and be able to prove his or her own identity and residence without attestation. The attestor could not attest to the residence of another person. Both the elector and the attestor had to receive oral advice from the person who administered their oath of the penalty that may be imposed for contravention of the attestation rules.
Bill C-76, the Elections Modernization Act, which came into force on June 13, 2019, reinstated vouching as a way for an elector who has no identification to prove identity and address. The person being vouched for does not require a piece of identification, however the elector vouching for them does. The elector must solemnly declare in writing that he or she resides at the address at which he or she claims to reside, ii) is at least 18 years old or will be on polling day, iii) is a Canadian citizen and iv) has not previously voted in the election. Anyone vouching for the elector must sign a written solemn declaration providing that i) they know the elector; ii) the elector resides in the polling division; iii) to the best of their knowledge the elector has not previously voted at the election; iv) the voucher is a Canadian citizen when the other elector votes; v) the voucher has not vouched for the residence of another elector at the election (an exception applies in institutions where seniors or persons with a disability reside); vi) their own residence has not been vouched for by another elector at the election. Warnings must still be provided to both the voucher and the person being vouched for as to the potential penal consequences for making a false declaration, voting or attempting to vote at an election knowing they are not qualified, or committing a vouching offence, although these warnings can now be provided in writing, and do not have to be read out at the polls.
2. Vote by Canadian citizens residing outside Canada
On January 11, 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in Frank v. Canada (Attorney General) that a Canadian elector, living abroad, who has previously resided in Canada, is entitled to vote by special ballot in federal elections regardless of how long they have been living abroad (see ss. 220-230 of the Act).
Elections Canada maintains a register of electors who are residing outside Canada. Electors may register by sending Elections Canada an Application for Registration and Special Ballot form.
The elector’s completed application must be received by Elections Canada in Ottawa no later than 6:00 p.m., Eastern Time, on the Tuesday before polling day. The application may be sent by fax and be accompanied by a photocopy of proof of identity (a copy – of pages 2 and 3 – of a Canadian passport, a birth or baptismal certificate attesting that the elector was born in Canada, or a Canadian citizenship certificate or card).
Once the elector’s application is approved, Elections Canada sends a voting kit to the elector. The elector then completes the ballot and inserts it into a series of envelopes in accordance with the instructions provided and ensures that Elections Canada receives it no later than 6:00 p.m., Eastern Time, on polling day in order to be counted. On one of these envelopes, the elector signs a declaration that states that the elector’s name is as shown on the envelope, and that he or she has not already voted and will not attempt to vote again in the election.
3. Social Media
You ask if the government should be looking into social media influence. This is an issue best addressed by Parliament’s legislative branch. Elections Canada is a neutral agent of Parliament that operates independently of the government. We invite you to write to your local Member of Parliament for further information on this matter.
Please note that Parliament recently added new provisions to the Act that define online platforms and impose obligations on them with respect to digital ad registries. Elections Canada (EC) has recently issued an online guide entitled New Registry Requirements for Political Ads on Online Platforms to assist online platforms in complying with the new requirements. The Act also requires certain ads placed by parties, candidates and third parties to bear tag lines saying who placed the ad (s.320, 349.5, 352 and 429.3). This applies to social media ads.
Bill C-76 also clarified and expanded existing provisions against some kinds of online impersonation, misleading publications as well as false statements about candidates (see ss. 91, 480.1 and 481).
Elections Canada’s role is to ensure that Canadians have easy access to accurate information about the voting process, including where, when, and how to register and vote. We will be monitoring the social media environment to enable us to rapidly correct any inaccurate information about the voting process. We have created an online repository of all of our public communications, so that citizens and journalists can verify if information that appears to be coming from Elections Canada truly is.
4. Cash-for-Access
Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (political financing), came into force on December 21, 2018. This bill introduces notice and reporting requirements for certain regulated fundraising events. The bill does not prohibit cash-for-access types of fundraisers, but it makes certain types of fundraisers subject to the scrutiny of the public or the media.
First, the fundraising activity must be organized for the benefit of a party represented in the House of Commons, or one of its affiliated political entities. Second, the activity must be attended by a leader, a leadership contestant, or a cabinet minister. Third, it must be attended by at least one person who has contributed over $200, or who has paid an amount of more than $200 that includes a contribution to attend.
If the fundraising event meets these conditions, two types of disclosure are required. First, notice of the event must be prominently posted on a party’s website for five days before it takes place. Second, a report must be provided by the party to the Chief Electoral Officer within 30 days of the fundraiser. During a general election, notice of fundraisers would not be required, and a single report for all fundraising events held during the election would be due within 60 days after polling day.
For more on this topic, we invite you to view Elections Canada’s online Guideline on Regulated Fundraising Events.
I trust that the above information is of assistance and thank you for your interest in the federal electoral process.
For more information about the Canadian federal electoral system, visit our website at elections.ca or call 1-800-463-6868, toll-free in Canada and the United States. Our hours of operation are from Monday to Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Time).
Conversations about climate change at the science-policy interface and in our lives have been stuck for some time. This handbook integrates lessons from the social sciences and humanities to more effectively make connections through issues, people, and things that everyday citizens care about. Readers will come away with an enhanced understanding that there is no ‘silver bullet’ to communications about climate change; instead, a ‘silver buckshot’ approach is needed, where strategies effectively reach different audiences in different contexts. This tactic can then significantly improve efforts that seek meaningful, substantive, and sustained responses to contemporary climate challenges. It can also help to effectively recapture a common or middle ground on climate change in the public arena. Readers will come away with ideas on how to harness creativity to better understand what kinds of communications work where, when, why, and under what conditions in the twenty-first century.
Includes strategies that help people have productive conversations about climate change that involve listening and adapting rather than just trying to win an argument
-Bridges sectors and audiences, bringing together important material for undergraduate and graduate courses
-Shows the importance of being creative in communications about climate change in the twenty-first century – many businesses, institutions, and collectives can benefit from this, not just students and academics
Reading through this, you will notice that the topic of additional reading and research never comes up. There is no push to understand other perspectives or review scientific findings.
Instead, the focus is on using sociological and psychological techniques to convert normies to your position, without actually providing evidence. This is all about language and emotional manipulation.
Ironically, there is science involved here. But instead of science relating to researching “climate change”, the research focuses on how to change people’s minds. Seems that the priorities are all backwards.
Item #1: Strategies that help people have productive conversations. Presumably this is ways to insert climate change topics into otherwise normal talks.
Item #2: Cram more of the propaganda into university classes.
Item #3: Be innovative about #1 and #2.
3. The Scientific American Article
From synthesizing this work, I distill these lessons into some important “rules of the road.”
-Be authentic.
-Be aware.
-Be accurate.
-Be imaginative.
-Be bold.
From there, additional features on the road map help to navigate toward resonant and effective communications.
-Find common ground on climate change.
–Emphasize how climate change affects us here and now, in our everyday lives.
-strong>Focus on benefits of climate change engagement.
–Creatively empower people to take meaningful and purposeful action.
–“Smarten up” communications about climate change to match the demands of a 21st-century communications environment.
The first items on this list would only make sense if truth was actually a goal. Be aware and be accurate are good principles.
However, climate change advocates tend to be extremely dismissive of different ideas, opinions, facts and research. A commitment to being accurate would undermine the sense of superiority that many possess.
Find common ground and emphasizing the effects are attempts to emotionally manipulate people by inserting the topic in places where it really doesn’t belong. Indeed, the goal seems to be to make “everything” about climate change. Make it an omnipresent issue.
Lately, climate change has imposed itself on the public sphere. Through extreme events linked to changes in the climate, new scientific reports and studies, and rejuvenated youth movements (along with many other political, economic, scientific, ecological, meteorological and cultural events and issues) climate change has been increasingly difficult to ignore.
.
But you wouldn’t really have picked up on that in the first round of the U.S. Democratic party primary debates that took place in Miami, Florida. As 20 candidates made their case to the American people, it was striking how minimally and shallowly they discussed climate change.
To be fair, in a debate (10 people each over 2 days), there isn’t much chance to give long answers.
However, the author, Max Boykoff, makes the point — and will repeatedly make this point — that everything is connected to climate change. He takes the Anita Sarkessian approach, though not with gender.
Sadly, this illustrates a contradiction we have been living with for some time. That is this: amid extensive research into the causes and consequences of climate change, climate communications—and thus, conversations about climate change in our lives—have remained stuck.
There are many reasons. Among them:
-Climate change is still regularly treated as a single issue. This was clearly on display in the debates, and even during the paltry time devoted to surface-level discussions of climate change.
-There has continued to be inadequate funding provided to support sustained and coordinated social science and humanities research into what constitutes more effective climate communications.
-We have all been short on creativity, and we generally have stuck to ineffective climate communications approaches (e.g. merely scientific ways of knowing) as we muddle along.
Interesting take on the problem. Max Boykoff goes on about how the science is sound, but that we just aren’t making any headway in communicating the solutions.
Yes, climate change is still treated as a single issue (that part is true). The author’s goal is to make it an issue of everything. Again, the Anita Sarkeesian technique.
All the money that we pay in various carbon tax schemes apparently aren’t needed for climate change research. Rather, they are needed to SHARE THE RESULTS of the climate change research.
Boykoff seems to believe that it is the “strictly scientific” approach to sharing research that keeps people from seeing what is before their eyes. Seems condescending.
<
p style=”padding:2px 6px 4px 6px; color: #555555; background-color: #eeeeee; border: #dddddd 2px solid”>Yet climate change is a collective action problem that intersects with just about every other area of life. It traverses critical issues such as public health, jobs, education, inequality, poverty, violence, trade, infrastructure, energy, foreign policy and geopolitics. While everyday people clearly have the capacity to care, they reasonably often focus on immediate concerns, such as issues of job security, local school quality, crime and the economy. In recent years, however, it has become more and more clear that these issues are interlinked with climate change.
So, in making these connections, we can more effectively get to the heart of how we live, work, play, find happiness and relax in modern life, shaping our everyday lives, lifestyles, relationships and livelihoods.
Apparently we are too naïve to see the forest for the trees. Ordinary people have lives to live. We don’t spend every waking moment trying to connect aspects of our lives with climate change.
Again the author assumes, with no evidence, that every major aspect of your life is connected to climate change. It must all be pointed out.
Of course, Boykoff will never get into the conflict-if-interest that plagues climate change research. Most of it is funded with a certain outcome expected. Remember, if you aren’t concluding that climate change is a threat to humanity, then you likely won’t be funded anymore. Why keep financing climate research if it isn’t an emergency?
There has been an urgent need to improve communications about climate change at the intersections of science, policy and society. With that in mind, I wrote Creative (Climate) Communications. It is essentially a handbook that bridges sectors and audiences to meet people where they are on this critical 21st-century challenge. In the book I integrate research from the social sciences and humanities that has provided insights into better understanding what communications work, where, when, why and under what conditions.
I also examine how to harness creativity for more effective engagement. I integrate these lessons by assembling what I call features on a “road map” along with “rules of the road.” The guide is then meant to help as researchers and practitioners proceed with both ambition and caution into struggles to effectively address the many issues associated with climate change.
Although Boykoff doesn’t come right out an say it, book is about marketing techniques. What tactics are most persuasive and under what circumstances? People can’t straight up accept “facts and truth”, it needs to be pointed out again and again.
In short, most people are too stupid to see the big picture. Boykoff implies it, but doesn’t not actually state it.
Through this guidance, I seek to help maximize effectiveness and opportunities and minimize mistakes and dead ends in a resource-, energy- and time-constrained environment. In putting this together, I also emphasize that successful and creative climate communications strategies must be tailored to perceived and intended audiences and can be most effective when pursued through relations of trust. And I underscore that context is critical; cultural, political, social, environmental, economic, ideological and psychological conditions matter.
Move away from hard data and facts. Use “soft techniques” to sell it. To once more point out the obvious, everything is connected to climate change.
I also argue that an expanded approach involves processes of listening and adapting rather than winning and argument or talking people into something. Authentically considering other points of view fosters meaningful exchanges and enhances possibilities for finding common ground. Facts established through scientific ways of knowing about climate change are important, but they are not enough. We therefore need to enlarge considerations of how knowledge influences actions, through experiential, emotional, visceral, tactile, tangible, affective and aesthetic ways of learning and knowing about climate change.
Facts aren’t enough. Tell people again and again, that climate change impacts everything. Look for more subtle ways to get your message across.
4. Reflection On This Article
To address the elephant in the room: it is darkly amusing to post in “Scientific American” about scientific methods to convince people to accept pseudo-science about climate change.
Boykoff mentions several times about considering other peoples’ perspectives. But this is hypocritical considering the amount of times “skeptics” or “deniers” are ridiculed or scorned for trying to find out the truth.
Boykoff also neglects any mention or idea that any of the “climate change” findings might be exaggerated or flat out wrong.
It seems the climate-change industry has given up on science, and instead focuses its efforts on trying to market their agenda.
Might be worth buying the book just to do a thorough debunking of it. Understand your enemy after all.
This article is not mine, but the creation of a YouTuber and writer who goes by the handle “BOLD Like a Leopard”. Feel free to check out the channel, there is some interesting content on it.
2. Important Links
CLICK HERE, for message from Mark Ruffalo and Bill McKibbons. CLICK HERE, for Bill Nye suggests jailing climate deniers. CLICK HERE, for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders wanting to declare “climate emergency”. CLICK HERE, for the climate emergency declaration. CLICK HERE, for manifesto “Lead Public Into Emergency Mode”.
CLICK HERE, for AOC’s June 2018 primary. CLICK HERE, for tweet claiming we can’t afford an economy that is based on use of fossil fuels. CLICK HERE, for Sunrise Philadelphia calling for a demonstration. CLICK HERE, for a live tweet. CLICK HERE, for Malcolm Nance. CLICK HERE, for Louise Mensch. CLICK HERE, for Momentum Core Team. CLICK HERE, for the Momentum trainers. CLICK HERE, for efforts to establish a “climate debate”. CLICK HERE, for Saikar Chakrabarti admitting the Green New Deal was about changing the economy, and the environment was just a pretext.
3. Sunrise Movement & Green New Deal
Once the domain of scientific debates and science fiction disaster movies, the subject of climate change and its influence on natural disasters has now become a major topic of contention among the Hollywood jet set, children’s cartoons, and naturally as a result public officials and policy makers. Much of the discussion over climate change has been shrouded in controversy largely due to acrimonious debate over who has the proper professional standing on how severe the crisis is, whether human activity is the main catalyst of current trends, and if or how government policy must be applied to address it. However, the organizing tactics, funding, and structure of the organizations pushing climate change legislation like the Paris Climate Accord and the Green New Deal suggests a larger goal in mind, one that involves a power grab far beyond environmental and industrial emissions policy. The Sunrise Movement is being cited as a fresh youth-infused answer to the fossil fuels industries, and it is being touted by climate change activism patriarch William McKibben as having “cracked the code of the American political system”. This statement is correct, and Sunrise is hacking into the mainframe of American politics, but if McKibben were truthful he would not be omitting his own role in their germination, as well as the intersection of the group with the Boston-based Ayni Institute and its Momentum Community program. The growing stake that these groups have in the political landscape are not a natural outgrowth of a changing public consciousness, but rather one more chess piece in a grand power grab.
We’ll see what happens. . .
In 2016 TV entertainer Bill Nye, host of the children’s show “Bill Nye the Science Guy” speculated that jailing “climate deniers” may be appropriate. “We’ll see what happens. Was it appropriate to jail people from the cigarette industry who insisted that this addictive product was not addictive, and so on?” Nye responded when asked.
Unfortunately, this high handed attitude toward the discussion shows that much of the climate change action side of the argument has despaired of properly making their case against their opponents, the “climate skeptics”. The activists scoff at accusations that they are “alarmists”, but their public statements show that they are ratcheting up statements consistently in order to create a sense of panic that climate trends are sloping toward an apocalyptic event:
On July 9 Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez introduced a joint resolution that they wanted Congress to declare a national emergency over climate change.
As documented by the Climate Emergency Declaration, there are 740 jurisdictions that have declared a climate emergency including Scotland, Wales, the Republic of Ireland, as well as London and the Australian cities of Sydney and the Australian Capital Territory among others.
There is now a group across Europe dedicated to whipping up the public into a climate emergency frenzy known as “Extinction Rebellion”. The movement is led by clinical psychologist Dr. Margaret Klein Salamon (the “Climate Psychologist”) and she published a manifesto called Leading The Public Into Emergency Mode originally in 2016.
Salamon’s manifesto was endorsed by Bill McKibben on the Climate Mobilization website where he is described as the “Movement Leader”.
According to one of its grant donors, the Guerilla Foundation, Extinction Rebellion (XR) was given between $20 and $40 thousand in order to promote “a fundamental change of the UK’s political and economic system to one which maximises well-being and minimises harm”. In the grant description point number 9 figures prominently in their Theory of Change: “Create a distributed organising model based in ‘momentum’ organising and holocracy (training from the Ayni institute / Carlos Saavedra). This is basically a hybrid of mass protest and structure based organising. Much of this is explained in the book This is an Uprising”. The book in question was written by the brothers Mark and Paul Engler, both of them former Occupy Wall Street activists themselves deeply affiliated with the Ayni Institute.
The Shame Game
While at times climate activists engage in rhetorical threats like Nye or grandstanding like Sanders and the other emergency sponsors, the value that they appeal the most to is shame. This is why the United Nations, European Parliament, Swedish Parliament and numerous other bodies have hosted the 16 year-old climate activist Greta Thunberg to speak about climate justice. Speaking about when she will be 75 years old, she asked whether her children would “ask why you didn’t do anything while there was time to act. You say you love your children above all else, and yet you’re stealing their future in front of their very eyes.” Thunberg went on to tearfully decry the 6th mass extinction of species and the acidification of the oceans.
Another statement that Thunberg makes echoes Salamon verbatim:
“Imagine there is a fire in
your house.
What do you do?
What do you think about?”
The idea of using children to shame adults for their poor policy is an understandably ingenious strategy, but it typically yields nothing in terms of policy. In 1982 a ten year old named Samantha Smith wrote to Soviet leader Yuri Andropov to ask him if he was going to vote for a war. Smith’s letter was personally answered by Andropov, and compared her to Tom Sawyer’s friend Becky and invited her to the USSR, where she spent two months as Andropov’s guest on a tour, and she was a “goodwill ambassador” for peace before dying in a plane crash at age 13 in 1985. By then both Andropov and his successor Konstantin Chernenko had both died of old age. Tragic as her story was, Samantha Smith’s story is a footnote in history as there was no major movement behind her personal initiative.
The shame tactic has been mass-produced by the Sunrise Movement in its push to promote the issue of climate change as being an issue of primary concern in the minds of the next generation of youth voters. Sunrise was formed ostensibly by two activists, Varshini Prakash and Sara Blazevic. Both of them are former activists of the Fossil Fuel Student Divestment Network, a campaign by college students to get their colleges to withdraw investments in energy companies. Both of them were involved in student sit-ins at their colleges, Blazevic at Swarthmore in 2015, and Prakash at UMass-Amherst in 2016 where activists were arrested for civil disobedience.
Now they are trying to take the climate change movement to a broader, and younger, forum. But in comments to Energy & Environment News (E&E News) they make it very apparent that their movement is a response to failures of previous groups that they have been active in. In it, their fellow co-founder Evan Weber openly muses about how Sunrise is attempting to compensate for the same flaws that he encountered while he was an activist with Occupy Wall Street. It should be noted that while Prakash and Blazevic are the face of the movement, Weber is listed on its 2016 IRS Form 990 (when it was named US Climate Plan) as the President and Executive Director, and he was listed by the climate action website Grist.orgGrist.org as a former Occupy activist and founder of the US Climate Plan. Weber had also been an activist along with fellow Wesleyan University activist Michael Lichtash for US Climate Plan who traveled to the COP20 Climate Talks in Lima, Peru in 2014. At the time they were already claiming that delaying the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to the US was “a step toward climate justice”. At the time all were in one way or another linked through McKibben’s 350.org organization.
The Guru of Green Activism
During the Obama Administration’s tenure, McKibben and 350.org fought doggedly to force the President and his cabinet not to let the pipeline proceed. In 2015 the Nebraska Supreme Court removed legal hurdles to building of the Keystone XL, meaning that it would need approval from several cabinet-level officials including Secretary of State John Kerry, himself a public advocate for climate change action by governments. Until then much of the process had been tied up as conservation and activism groups battled with TransCanada (the builder) in the courts. McKibben was asked if Kerry could salvage his reputation on climate change if he approved the pipeline. According to POLITICO he answered: “No. Keystone’s obviously a keystone,” he said in an email. “Approve that and the rest is happy talk — you can’t cut carbon without cutting carbon.” For months Kerry waffled over the decision while continuing to condemn fossil fuel producers, but in November 2015 he came through for McKibben and denied the pipeline’s permit application. However when Donald Trump was inaugurated as president he approved the Keystone XL pipeline within his first three days by executive order and continues to fight against challenges to it in court.
The issue at hand is not the activism itself, but the veneer of popular will. McKibben has made a long career out of claiming to be the underdog fighting against the corporate fossil fuel industry, and to be sure they are not exactly a sympathetic opponent. There’s also legitimate concern over carbon consumption and its effects on oceans and wetlands leading to extinction of species. He formed 350.org in 2007 based on the notion that 350ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would be the acceptable level in order to mitigate the harmful effects of climate change. However, the standing that McKibben has within the movement is not a result of any professional knowledge or accomplishment, he is in fact a former New Yorker writer who majored in journalism at Harvard. He then wrote The End of Nature in 1989, the book that is considered to have started the climate change movement. However, as Reason observed when reviewing his 2010 follow-up Earth, humans have adapted to the rising sea levels warned about by climate alarmists like McKibben, using the example of Boston which has reclaimed land consistently since 1775 despite rising sea levels. At one point McKibben and others climate alarmists like Jim Hansen used the global warming trends to raise public consciousness about environmental issues. But according to him, that was during a period when they were “naïve”. However, the new tactic of his supporters is to mask the existing climate movement that he began with The End of Nature in 1989 and institutionalized in the 2000s with 350.org through a youth activist group like Sunrise whose events he frequently headlines. As many climate skeptics point out the ability of climate alarmists to excite public attention diminishes when their predictions are not fulfilled, such as when Gore predicted in 2006 that the glaciers of Mt. Kilimanjaro would melt within a decade. Another member of 350.org’s board of directors, Naoimi Klein, has evaded responsibility for advocating for the Green New Deal while also being a long-time apologist for the Chavez regime that made Venezuela’s entire economy dependent on oil exports.
McKibben was also a major activist during the lead-up to COP21, the 2015 climate change conference where the Paris Agreement on Climate Change was drafted. On November 30 he wrote an opinion in Foreign Policy called “The Paris Climate Talks Will Be a Historic Success. And a Historic Disaster. ” Paris He participated in the climate marches occurring during the event, and even headlined with Klein the Pathway to Paris live concert on December 4 along with Radiohead lead vocalist Thom Yorke, Red Hot Chili Peppers bassist Flea and other rock superstars. But by December 13, as the conference had just wrapped up, he claimed that it had fallen short.
“The irony is, an agreement like this adopted at the first climate conference in 1995 might have worked. Even then it wouldn’t have completely stopped global warming, but it would have given us a chance of meeting the 1.5 degree Celsius target that the world notionally agreed on.”
Some on the political left were too jaded to take McKibben seriously, and began to characterize his activism as “greenwashing”. They noted that the agreement did much to boost the profile of the international NGO Avaaz that backed the climate march and other events, but little to accomplish anything. They also made it public that Dow Chemicals, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, and even BP had been sponsors the Climate Group that had organized the conferences. What McKibben needed to do was inject some steroids into the movement so as to gain ground on those detractors.
Why “grassroots”?
In the same article claiming Paris had fallen short, McKibben made a statement that demonstrated his intentions going forward: “But what this means is that we need to build the movement even bigger in the coming years, so that the Paris agreement turns into a floor and not a ceiling for action.”
McKibben’s influence is felt deeply largely due to the usefulness of his cause to various statesmen and former politicians. In 2010 he wrote an opinion article for GristGrist claiming that Al Gore was “kicking butt” over climate change. In 2016 he became a backer of Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign, and wound up on his five member delegation to the Democratic National Party’s platform writing committee for that year’s election. However this was a summit that led to nowhere as the party continued to accept contributions from the fossil fuel industry. Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton received $967,336 from them during that cycle, leading by far any other Democrat in any elected position. The crusade against fossil fuels had to enter a new phase, and the US Climate Plan (founded in 2014) went through a rebranding becoming Sunrise. Since then they have made several inroads in electoral politics including getting eleven state legislators elected throughout the US, including five in Pennsylvania.
Besides Sanders, the Green New Deal advocates can numerous other candidates for 2020 that have endorsed it or proposed their own versions of it:
New York Mayor Bill de Blasio announced in December 2018 a city-wide divestment from fossil fuel companies and a lawsuit against them, a measure cheered by McKibben’s 350.org. In March the Mayor named McKibben to the OneNYC Advisory Board. De Blasio’s new city-wide rules targeting energy usage by sky-scrapers were announced in May at Trump Tower.
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee has made climate change the centerpiece of his tenure in office and his presidential campaign vowing to commit to a 100% renewable energy system by 2035. This was praised by McKibben on May 3, and on May 30 another McKibben acolyte Elizabeth Kolbert of The New Yorker issued a raving review in Yale 360.
One candidate McKibben may be less bullish about is Tom Steyer, an erstwhile donor. In 2016 in the run-up to the election the two sat down for a joint interview on the need to make climate change a signature issue. Steyer’s TomKat Charitable Trust has given generously to 350.org, and at one point the former hedge fund manager and the environmentalist were joined at the hipjoined at the hip in their efforts to support fossil fuel divestment. Steyer’s public image has diminished since 2016 due to his sensationalist efforts to support the impeachment of Donald Trump including funding The Democracy Integrity Project (TDIP).
Not long after the 2018 midterm election Sunrise activists occupied the office of Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi, the incoming Speaker of the House. They also ambushed Sen Diane Feinstein (D-CA) in February. Within a day McKibben had written a response in the New Yorker saying he imagines that Feinstein “would like a do-over of her colloquy”. In the same opinion article, McKibben mentioned Ocasio-Cortez and Greta Thunberg, and claimed that the Green New Deal was hatched by the Sunrise Movement.
But this is untrue, and McKibben knows that. The original Green New Deal was written in 2008 by the New Economics Foundation when many of the Sunrise activists were not even in high school. The authors included Guardian editor Larry Elliott, Andrew Simms of the NEF, Caroline Lucas of the Green Party and others. Another version, the “Global Green New Deal” was adopted by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) in 2008. The American version of the Green New Deal is HR 109 which was introduced by Ocasio-Cortez. No one from Sunrise was involved in drafting it, and if everyone was being above board it would be admitted that there was no coherent “Green New Deal” when it was supported during the 2018 election cycle; so the activists and politicians were endorsing a policy proposal prior to its existence.
Messaging the GND
Does anyone really believe that it was Sunrise activists that wrote the legislation? Even in her own office, Ocasio-Cortez has four staff members, none of whom are members of it. Corbin Trent and Saikat Chakrabarti, her press secretary and chief of staff respectively, are former members of Justice Democrats, but not of Sunrise. The nexus that drives them all together is one of the policy’s most effective and most successful activists, Justice Democrats’ communications director Waleed Shahid who is also a senior leader of the Working Families Party. Based in Philadelphia, Shahid was instrumental in campaigning for the legislative election success in Pennsylvania as well as propelling Ocasio-Cortez to power by focusing on her June 2018 primary.
While McKibben is an overall mastermind of the movement, Shahid is often a point man that issues day to day messages that are often picked up by Ocasio-Cortez and other elected officials regarding climate change, while also directing the defense to the inevitable backlash. A case in point was a June 21 tweet where Ocasio-Cortez claimed that an oil refinery explosion and fire was evidence of an “existential crisis” due to climate change. Up until then very few had made that observation about the accident. However, Shahid had issued a tweet earlier that day claiming that “we can’t afford an economy based on fossil fuels”. Sunrise Philadelphia called for a demonstration within five minutes of Shahid’s tweet. During the confrontation with Sen. Feinstein during the middle of the afternoon on a Friday Shahid was live tweet echoing Sunrise Bay Area’s account in order to hype the event. He issued a total of 23 tweets that day (Feb. 22) regarding the incident, including fighting with delusional mainstream anti-Trump activists Malcolm Nance and Louise Mensch who accused Justice Democrats of uploading the video and using Russian disinformation tactics.
Like the Engler brothers, Shahid was one of the earliest core team members of the Ayni Institute and Momentum Community. Blazevic is also an alumnus of the Ayni Institute, and is a Momentum Trainer along with fellow Sunrise co-founders Will Lawrence and Diyanna Jaye. The derivative of the Momentum training is to create nominally decentralized cells (called “hubs” by Sunrise) that organize on the local level to push a progressive agenda.
But the decentralized organizing is irrelevant when the ideology of Sunrise is not dependent on the membership. The leaders of the movement all come from 350.org, the agenda is set by the ideologues like McKibben and Klein, and the day-to-day messaging is directed by the powers behind the throne like Shahid. Ultimately a green economy is a secondary goal of the movement. So far during the Democratic 2020 primary season, the movement has somewhat successfully lobbied for a “climate debate” between candidates. However, in a moment of surprising candour, Chakrabarti let slip the real truth:
“The interesting thing about the Green New Deal,” he said, “is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all. Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti continued. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”
So that leads to a concluding question: If McKibben, Salamon, and Klein were portraying the climate crisis as a global emergency on the level of World War II, then why are they pushing a piece of legislation that according to its main legislative advocate was not originally about climate change?
CLICK HERE, for #1: CPPIB invests $2B in Mumbai, India. CLICK HERE, for #2: CPP underfunded, money leaving Canada.
2. Important Links
CLICK HERE, for CPPIB Investing $2B In Mumbai, India. CLICK HERE, for earlier piece on Canada Pension Plan. CLICK HERE, for 2000 audit. $443B shortfall (Page 113) CLICK HERE, for 2006 audit. $620B shortfall (Page 73). $67.9B added as of 2009. CLICK HERE, for 2012 audit. $830B shortfall (Page 48) CLICK HERE, for 2015 audit. $884B shortfall (Page 48) CLICK HERE, for the 2019 CPPIB Annual Report.”
CLICK HERE, for getting your statement of earnings. CLICK HERE, for CPP benefits for 2019 year. CLICK HERE, for a generic investment calculator.
CLICK HERE, for a 2017 UN report on leveraging African pension funds for financing infrastructure development. CLICK HERE, for 2019 report on development financing. CLICK HERE, for closing infrastructure funding gap.
3. Obtain Your Statement Of Contributions
Any Service Canada should be able to help you apply for a copy of your statement of contributions. One tip is to do it after a tax assessment to get the most up to date information. You will need your social insurance number.
Also, you can request your statement by mail.
Contributor Client Services
Canada Pension Plan
Service Canada
PO Box 818 Station Main
Winnipeg MB R3C 2N4
Once you have received it, you will get a lot of new information you didn’t have before. Yes, I have mine from 2018, and am ordering a 2019 statement.
4. Information From Statement Of Contributions
A quote from the 2018 statement:
You and your employer each paid 4.95% of your earnings between the minimum of $3,500 and the maximum of $55,900 for 2018. These are called “pensionable earnings. Self employed individuals paid contributions of 9.9% on these amounts.
The maximum retirement pension at age 65 this year is $1,134.17 per month.
A few things to point out here:
You and your employer “both” paid 4.95% of your earnings between the minimum and maximum amounts. So if you made $25,000 then $21,500 of it would be taxable. Both you and your employer would have contributed $1,064.25 towards it. Combined is $2128.50.
Suppose you made over $55,900. Then $52,400 of it would have been taxable, and both you and the employer would have paid $2,593.80 into it. Combined is $5187.60.
Let address the elephant in the room. How much: (a) will CPP actually pay out for you; and (b) what would you make if you invested the CPP contributions yourself?
5. How Much Will CPP Pay Out For You?
Assuming retirement at age 65, and average life expectancy is 82. That gives 17 years, (204 months) of receiving pension contributions.
For the 2019 year, the maximum is listed as $1,154.58, and the average is $679.16. None of this covers Old Age Security (OAS) or Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS). Those are separate and fall outside of CPP.
The average earner:
($679.16/month)X(17 year)X(12 month/year) = $138,540
The top earner:
($1,154.58/month)X(17 year)X(12 month/year) = $235,534
For simplicity, inflation is ignored, as is indexing of contributions.
6. Invest Your Own CPP Contributions
Yes, contributions and interest rates vary, but for simplicity, let’s keep them consistent.
For the top earner, let’s do this scenario:
(a) Worked for 40 years
(b) Contributed full amounts
(c) Invested at 8% annually.
Yes, the interest is absurd, but CPPIB claims that is what it is getting. In fact, CPPIB states that it gets 6.6-18% interest on its fun each year.
Over $1.3 million. That is what you would have after 40 years, making full contributions, assuming those contributions (both yours and the employer’s) were fully invested. A far cry from the $235,000 that you would make from 17 years of CPP payouts. Over a million more in fact.
Even just a 3% return — which is very doable — would net you $390,000 over those 4 years. Almost double what CPP would be paying out.
For an average earner, let’s try different numbers:
(a) Worked for 30 years
(b) Earned ~$30,000 annually contributed $2,970
(c) Invested at 6% annually.
$235,000 the person would have earned. This is about $100,000 more than simply taking the average payouts from Canada Pension Plan.
Why the different numbers? Perhaps the person took several years off for childcare. Perhaps there were years with low earnings. And 6% is a more realistic return, although good luck getting that from a bank. To repeat, CPPIB claims 6-18% returns (after costs) annually.
To be fair, people who go decades without working are unlikely to ever be able to save and invest the equivalent of what CPP is paying out.
For example, my own statement of contributions estimates if I were magically 65 today. With only a decade of work, I would be getting $317/month. Over the next 17 years that would pay out about $65,000, far more than I would have put in.
But long term and steadily employed workers get screwed.
7. Performance CPPIB Claims In Investments
This was addressed in the previous piece. In the CPPIB Annual Reports, the Board claims to have staggering growth year after year. Of the years listed, the interest ranges from 6% to 18%.
Year
Value of Fund
Inv Income
Rate of Return
2010
$127.6B
$22.1B
14.9%
2011
$148.2B
$20.6B
11.9%
2012
$161.6B
$9.9B
6.6%
2013
$183.3B
$16.7B
10.1%
2014
$219.1B
$30.1B
16.5%
2015
$264.6B
$40.6B
18.3%
2016
$278.9B
$9.1
6.8%
2017
$316.7B
$33.5B
11.8%
2018
$356.B
$36.7B
11.6%
2019
$392B
$32B
8.9%
Also, as outlined in the last article, the accounting method used also changes how your pension plan comes across. You can select your data, and paint a rosy picture. Or you can take ALL assets and liabilities into account.
When the Canada Pension Plan was properly audited in 2016, it was found to have $884.2 billion in unfunded liabilities. The 2019 Annual report lists $392 billion as the value of the fund. However, with over a trillion dollars in liabilities, that illusion came crashing down.
$239 billion in growth over the last decade, an 11% annual increase. But in spite of that, CPP is not paying out retirees anywhere near what they have put in.
Why? Where is the money going?
8. CPP Unfunded Liabilities Swept Under Rug
Here are quotes from some of the actuarial reports. Interesting how they go out of their way to gloss over the truth about the CPP. In 2 of the reports, the total unfunded liabilities are reduced to a mere footnote.
Page 113 in 2000 audit. Actuarial liability 486,682M Actuarial value of assets 43,715 or 9%, Unfunded liability 442,967M or 91% of total. That’s right, ten times as many liabilities as assets.
Page 73 in 2006 audit report. $619.9B in unfunded liabilities. Updated in 2009 to reflect another $67.9B on the interest (just the interest) of those unfunded liabilities.
Footnote from 2012 audit. When the “closed-group approach” is used to audit the program, the assets are $175.1 billion, actuarial liability of the Plan is equal to $1,004.9 billion, and the assets shortfall is equal to $829.8 billion
Footnote from 2015 audit. Using “closed-group approach” to audit, the actuarial liability of the Plan is equal to $1,169.5 billion, the assets are $285.4 billion, and the assets shortfall is equal to $884.2 billion
Despite the glowing reviews our politicians give, the Canada Pension Plan is not doing well. In fact, it has close to a trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities. This is not sustainable in the slightest.
Younger workers will be paying into a system they have no realistic hope of ever collecting on. Not a good social safety net.
By now you are probably wondering these things:
The CPP, for most people, will never actually pay out anywhere near the amount that the person contributes over their lifetime. This is on top of the nearly 1 trillion shortfall that the plan has. So if the plan won’t pay out fully, and yet is so broke, where is the money going?
Who is running the show?
9. Open-Group v.s. Closed-Group Valuation
The difference is this: Open-group valuation principles mean that a pension is solvent and in good shape as long as it’s current assets and payouts are able to keep up with the demands of retirees at the moment. It doesn’t require that the pension plan be fully funded. The reasoning is there is a “social contract”, and that the Government can raise more money (tax more) to cover the shortfalls.
Closed-group valuation principles require that “all” liabilities be taken into account. The is a far more accurate method, as payments from all workers are considered, if those who won’t retire for decades. The rationale is that private companies could go bankrupt at any time, and need to take the actual amounts into account.
10. CPPIB Board Members Well Connected
Heather Munroe-Blum
Principal and Vice Chancellor (President), McGill University
Current Director of the Royal Bank of Canada
Hydro One (Ontario)
Trilateral Commission
Ashleigh Everett
Former Director of The Bank of Nova Scotia
Premier’s Enterprise Team for the Province of Manitoba
William ‘Mark’ Evans
Former member of the Management Committee at Goldman Sachs
Co-founded TrustBridge Partners in China (2006)
Kindred Capital in Europe (2016)
Mary Phibbs
Standard Chartered Bank plc
ANZ Banking Group
National Australia Bank
Commonwealth Bank of Australia
Allied Irish Banks plc
Morgan Stanley Bank International Ltd
The Charity Bank Ltd
Tahira Hassan
Kathleen Taylor
Chair of the Board of the Royal Bank of Canada
Director of Air Canada since May 2016
Chair since April 2019 of Altas Partners
Karen Sheriff
United Airlines
Director of WestJet Airlines
Jo Mark Zurel
Not proof of any wrongdoing, but the board is certainly connected to other institutions.
11. CPPIB Holdings (Foreign & Domestic)
Here are CPPIB’s Canadian holdings.
Here are CPPIB’s foreign holdings.
$44M in from Power Corporation (Desmarais)
$17M in Hydro One Ltd (Heather Munroe-Blum is former board member)
$555M in RBC (Heather Munroe-Blum is board member)
$292M in Scotia Bank (Sylvia Chrominska is former chair)
In fairness, there are hundreds of companies CPPIB invests in. But always keeping an eye out for potential conflicts of interest.
But having all of these assets (both within Canada and abroad), doesn’t really explain the trillion dollar shortfall. There has to be something else that the CPPIB is wasting Canadian pensioners’ retirement savings on.
12. Pensions Sent For UN Development Projects?
Yes, this sounds absurd, but consider this report from the UN about using pensions to leverage development projects. True, this report refers to African pension funds. But it is entirely possible that Canada could get involved (or already be involved) in some similar scheme.
III. PENSION FUNDS DIRECT INVESTMENT IN INFRASTRUCTURE
International experience At 36.6 percent of GDP, assets of the pension funds in OECD countries are relatively large. As of end-2013, pension-fund assets were even in excess of 100 percent in countries such as the Netherlands, Iceland, Switzerland, Australia, and the United Kingdom (Figure 1). In absolute terms, pension funds in OECD countries held $10.4 trillion of assets.25 While large pension funds (LPFs) held about $3.9 trillion of assets, assets in public and private sector and public pension reserves (PPRFs) stood at $6.5 trillion.
Individual pension funds can be relatively large in some countries such as the Netherlands (ABP at $445.3 billion and PFZW at $189.0 billion) and the U.S. (CalPERS at $238.5 billion, CalSTRS at $166.3 billion, and the New York City Combined Retirement System at $150.9 billion). Similarly, PPRFs are relatively large in the U.S. (United States Social Security Trust Fund at $2.8 trillion) and Japan (Government Pension Investment Fund at $1.2 trillion). Among emerging markets, South Africa (Government Employees Pension Fund (GEPF) at $133.4 billion) and Brazil (Previ at $72 billion) have the largest funds in Africa and Latin America, respectively.
Pension funds can dedicate a share of their assets specifically to infrastructure. Such direct investment in infrastructure is implemented through equity investment in unlisted infrastructure projects (through direct investment in the project or through a private equity fund). Such investment can also take the form of debt investment in project and infrastructure bonds or asset-backed security. In contrast, pension funds can allocate a share of their funds indirectly to infrastructure through investment in market-traded equity and bonds. Listed equity investment can take the form of shares issued by corporations and infrastructure project funds while debt investment is often in the form of corporate market-traded bonds.
As is plain from the text, (Page 10), the UN views pensions as a potential investment vehicle for their agendas. And is clear from the pages in the reports, the UN has been sizing up pension funds from all over the world.
This is more than just an academic exercise
IV. OBSTACLES TO PENSION FUNDS INVESTMENT IN INFRASTRUCTURE
The extent to which pension funds can invest in infrastructure depends on the availability of assets in the pension system. Asset availability, in turn, is driven by a number of factors including the pension system’s environment, design, and performance. Even in a well-performing pension system with ample assets available for investments, the governance, regulation, and supervision of pension funds can restrict those funds’ ability to actually invest in infrastructure. If such constraints are lifted, then pension funds need to consider the risks of infrastructure projects and demand a fair, transparent, clear, and predictable policy framework to invest in infrastructure assets. Once this hurdle is overcome, pension funds will need adequate financial and capital market instruments to implement their investment decisions.
Simple enough (page 13). Lift the regulations, and the pension money will be free to flow to UN development projects. And after all, who knows better about spending other people’s money?
The endless foreign aid gestures that our government engages in: is that really our pension money being sent abroad?
We can see from Table 2 (Page 16) that the UN has been sizing up:
Canada Pension Plan ($173B in assets)
Ontario Municipal Employees ($62B in assets)
Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan ($128B in assets)
Quebec Pension Plan ($39B in assets)
The recent OECD policy guidance for investment in clean energy, which is based on the PFI illustrates how policymakers can identify ways to mobilize private investment in infrastructure (OECD, 2015c). The policy guidance focuses on electricity generation from renewable energy sources and improved energy efficiency in the electricity sector, and provides a list of issues and questions on five areas of the PFI (investment policy, investment promotion and facilitation, competition policy, financial market policy, and public governance).
(Page 31) Clearly the UN is pushing its enviro agenda and suggesting that public pensions be used to finance at least part of it.
13. So Why Is CPP So Underfunded?
A number of factors most likely.
(A) Most pension plans are ponzi-style. In order to stay funded, it requires an ever growing number of contributors in order to pay off older contributors. Rather than having members who can sustain themselves, this is dependent on infinite growth.
(B) Although a person contributing to a pension in their career would “theoretically” be self-sufficient, it is clear the interest and gains are not what CPPIB pretends. If the fund was growing at 10%+ year over year, it would be different. We are not getting the full story.
(C) Public sector pensions are not sustainable either. So, very likely that some CPP money is being diverted to help cover the shortfalls.
(D) Due to political pressure, the powers that be find it more convenient to downplay the serious shortfalls rather than meaningfully address it. No political will to ask the hard questions.
(E) There has to be money going to outside projects, such as the UN plot to use pensions to fund their development agenda. The UN is a money pit, and the waste is probably enormous.
(In 2019 Annual Report, the CPPIB claims that the fund is worth $392 billion as of March 31, 2019)
(2016, Chief Actuary claims CPP is sustainable)
(Ezra Levant of Rebel Media addresses CPP)
(Pension ponzi schemes explained)
1. More On Pension Plans/Funding
CLICK HERE, for #1: CPPIB invests $2B in Mumbai, India
2. Important Links
CLICK HERE, for Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB). CLICK HERE, for the 2019 CPPIB Annual Report. CLICK HERE, for the 2018 CPPIB Annual Report. CLICK HERE, for the 2017 CPPIB Annual Report. CLICK HERE, for the 2016 CPPIB Annual Report. CLICK HERE, for the 2015 CPPIB Annual Report. CLICK HERE, for the 2014 CPPIB Annual Report. CLICK HERE, for the 2013 CPPIB Annual Report. CLICK HERE, for the 2012 CPPIB Annual Report. CLICK HERE, for the 2011 CPPIB Annual Report. CLICK HERE, for the 2010 CPPIB Annual Report. CLICK HERE, for the 2009 CPPIB Annual Report. CLICK HERE, for CPPIB reports on “SUSTAINABLE” investing.
CLICK HERE, for 2016 Triannual Report from Canada’s Chief Actuary. CLICK HERE, for Chief Actuary’s 2016 Supplemental Report. CLICK HERE, for information on Canada’s “Green Bonds”. CLICK HERE, for a previous article on “green bonds. CLICK HERE, for previous article, $2B in CPP funds sent to India. CLICK HERE, for a Financial Post article suggesting CPP is being used to prop up public sector pensions. CLICK HERE, for a Fraser Institute article on CPP unfunded liabilities.
CLICK HERE, for Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, for sustainability of CPP. Using “closed door approach” there are $884.2B in unfunded liabilities. Turn to pages 46-50.
3. Glowing 2016 Press Release
The press release regarding, the Chief Actuary’s report on the sustainability of the Canadian Pension Plan.
Middle class Canadians are working harder than ever, but many are worried that they won’t have enough put away for their retirement. One in four families approaching retirement—1.1 million families—are at risk of not saving enough. That is why a stronger Canada Pension Plan (CPP) is a key part of the promise that the Government of Canada made to Canadians to help the middle class and those working hard to join it.
Today, Minister of Finance Bill Morneau tabled the Chief Actuary’s 28th Actuarial Report on the CPP in Parliament. The report confirms that the contribution and benefit levels proposed under the CPP enhancement agreed upon by Canada’s governments on June 20, 2016 will be sustainable over the long term, ensuring that Canadian workers can count on an even stronger, secure CPP for years to come.
On October 6, 2016, the Government of Canada delivered on its commitment to a stronger CPP with the introduction of legislation in Parliament to implement the agreement reached by Canada’s governments to enhance the CPP to give Canadians a stronger public pension that will help them retire in dignity.
This can’t really be taken at face value, as it is all self serving. The notice fails to even acknowledge the elephant in the room, which we will get into.
4. Quotes From Actuary’s 2016 Report
The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) invests base CPP funds according to its own investment policies which take into account the needs of contributors and beneficiaries, as well as financial market constraints. It is expected that a separate investment policy will be developed by the CPPIB with respect to the additional CPP assets. Since at the time of the preparation of the 28th Report there is no such separate investment policy in existence, the real rate of return assumption was developed to reflect the financing objective of the additional Plan. As the actual CPPIB investment strategy for the additional CPP assets becomes known, it will be reflected in subsequent actuarial reports by revising the real rate of return assumption
This is a bit troublesome. It will become “known” to the public, or it will become “known” to the people doing the investments? (Page 15 of report.)
(Page 30 of report.) The CPPIB estimates that the percentage of base contributions from investment profits will creep up, and that the additional CPP will eventually become mostly funded from investment income by 2075.
The future income and outgo of the additional CPP depend on many demographic and economic factors. Thus, many assumptions in respect of the future demographic and economic outlook are required to project the financial state of the additional Plan. These assumptions impact the contribution rates, cash flows, amount of assets, as well as other indicators of the financial state. This section discusses the sensitivity of the minimum first and second additional contribution rates to the use of different assumptions than the best estimate.
Can’t fault the report for admitting it has to make assumptions. However, the trends of the current government are not great. Admitting large numbers of “refugees” who are and will remain a burden will not contribute to public coffers. Nor will vast amounts of seniors or others who won’t work. Furthermore, making industrial projects more difficult (Bills C-48 and C-69), means additional Canadians not working.
The actuarial projections of the financial state of the Canada Pension Plan presented in this report reveal that if the CPP is amended as per Part 1 of Bill C-26, the constant minimum first and second additional contribution rates that result in projected contributions and investment income that are sufficient to fully pay the projected expenditures of the additional Canada Pension Plan would be, respectively, 1.93% for the year 2023 and thereafter and 7.72% for the year 2024 and thereafter.
This report confirms that if the Canada Pension Plan is amended as per Part 1 of Bill C-26, a legislated first additional contribution rate of 2.0% for the year 2023 and thereafter, and a legislated second additional contribution rate of 8.0% for the year 2024 and thereafter, result in projected contributions and investment income that are sufficient to fully pay the projected expenditures of the additional Plan over the long term. Under these rates, assets of the additional Plan would accumulate to $70 billion by 2025, and to $1,330 billion by 2050.
No real surprise. The report concludes that the changes that the Government wants to bring in are exactly what are needed to make the plan sustainable.
5. CPPIB Claims Plan Sustainable Past 2090
Within this strategic framework, fiscal 2017 was a good year for CPPIB. Our diversified portfolio achieved a net return of 11.8% after all costs. Assets increased by $37.8 billion, of which $33.5 billion came from the net income generated by CPPIB from investment activities, after all costs, and $4.3 billion from net contributions to the CPP. Our 10-year real rate of return of 5.1%, after all CPPIB costs, remains above the 3.9% average rate of return that the Chief Actuary of Canada assumes in assessing the sustainability of the CPP. In his latest triennial review issued in September 2016, the Chief Actuary reported that the Base CPP is sustainable until at least 2090.
CPPIB toots its own horn, stating that the plan is sustainable at least until 2090. Page 5 is a quote from the 2017 annual report.
6. Quotes From 2019 CPPIB Annual Report
This is a graph included at the beginning of the report (page 3). It projects that by the year 2040, the Canada Pension Plan will have over $1.5 trillion in assets. This is in comparison to the $393 billion that there currently is.
It shows that actual assets have been higher than projected assets for the last 3 years.
The most recent triennial report by the Chief Actuary of Canada indicated that the CPP is sustainable over a 75-year projection period. Projections of the CPP Fund, being the combined assets of the base and additional CPP accounts, are based on the nominal projections from the 29th Actuarial Report supplementing the 27th and 28th Actuarial Reports on the Canada Pension Plan as at December 31, 2015.
The report shows a graph with projected assets. However, it doesn’t seem to address liabilities. Specifically, the pension contributions of much younger people who are paying into the system and are entitled to get it out when they retire.
This is impressive. Over the last decade, $239 billion has been added to the fund, an equivalent of 11% annual growth. Of course, one may be forgiven for asking why premiums are so high if it’s all just going into a government fund.
7. CPPIB Claims Fund Is Worth Billions
Note: The sources for this data is in all of the annual reports, going back a decade, which are linked up in SECTION 1.
Inv. Income refers to investment income. This is money CPPIB claims that the funds make annually. Notice the rate of return varies from 6-18%. That is money that CPPIB makes, not money that YOU will be making from the pension plan.
Year
Value of Fund
Inv Income
Rate of Return
2010
$127.6B
$22.1B
14.9%
2011
$148.2B
$20.6B
11.9%
2012
$161.6B
$9.9B
6.6%
2013
$183.3B
$16.7B
10.1%
2014
$219.1B
$30.1B
16.5%
2015
$264.6B
$40.6B
18.3%
2016
$278.9B
$9.1
6.8%
2017
$316.7B
$33.5B
11.8%
2018
$356.B
$36.7B
11.6%
2019
$392B
$32B
8.9%
The value of the pension fund is skyrocketing? Isn’t it? Looking at the values from the annual reports, it has tripled in value in just a decade. This is incredible growth.
What then is the problem?
8. CPPIB Has Billions In Unfunded Liabilities
Not just billions, but hundreds of billions in liabilities.
The Plan is intended to be long-term and enduring in nature, a fact that is reinforced by the federal, provincial, and territorial governments’ joint stewardship through the established strong governance and accountability framework of the Plan. Therefore, if the Plan’s financial sustainability is to be measured based on its asset excess or shortfall, it should be done so on an open group basis that reflects the partially funded nature of the Plan, that is, its reliance on both future contributions and invested assets as means of financing its future expenditures. The inclusion of future contributions and benefits with respect to both current and future participants in the assessment of the Plan’s financial state confirms that the Plan is able to meet its financial obligations over the long term1 2
What is the difference between open group basis and closed group basis?
The open group approach addresses assets and liabilities with respect to their expectations v.s. reality. The closed group approach, however, measures total assets and liabilities. And to see how much of a difference it makes, see the following two screenshots.
If you use the open group approach, everything looks fine. Reality comes very close to what you are expecting. However, the “closed group approach” takes everything into account, not just expectations.
Remember, when younger workers are paying into CPP, the organization has the money, but it isn’t theirs. It belongs to the workers, even if they won’t retire for 20, 30, or 40 years. The only way “open group approach” works is if the CPPIB had no intention of paying younger workers back.
All things considered, Canada Pension Plan is short $884.2 billion (as of 2016). This is if you don’t use selective accounting.
Paying off current obligations, by taking money from new people. Isn’t that how a ponzi scheme works? To be fair though, there is “some” investing done by CPPIB. It’s just that the bulk of the new money comes from the younger suckersworkers.
Guess this partially explains why all parties are so pro-mass-migration. Workers are needed to be shipped in to contribute deductions to fund the shortfall.
9. Is CPP Used To Prop Up Public Pensions?
As the federal and provincial governments continue discussing changes to the Canada Pension Plan, it is worth recalling that there are no public discussions of the most important pension issue in Canada: The unsustainable gap between the pensions of public servants and most everyone else. In fact, some critics maintain that the push to expand the CPP is driven by an unspoken need to prop up public-sector pension plans a little longer. However, doing so will only delay the inevitable overhaul of both the benefits and the funding of public-sector pensions.
The key issues surrounding public-service pension-plan benefits are mostly unspoken, both to their members and to taxpayers. Public-sector unions allow their members to believe the fiction that members contribute a fair share of their own retirement benefits, when really, the vast majority is funded by taxpayers. Few people appreciate how the CPP is folded into public-sector pension benefits: since benefits are “defined” in advance, an increase in CPP benefits reduces the amount that a public-sector pension needs to pay out to retired workers (leaving unchanged the total benefit payout to public-sector retirees). Meanwhile, taxpayers are kept in the dark about the full measure of unfunded future benefits they will have to pay, even as they shoulder more of the burden for their own retirement.
That is a theory floated over the years. Unfortunately, it gets difficult to prove given how CPPIB will not be honest about their $884.2 billion in unfunded liabilities. Their annual reports seem designed to conceal the truth.
An interesting argument though. If public sector union workers are retiring (or are retired), then they have likely been promised a good pension. However, if those union funds can’t cover it, would CPP be dipped into to make up the difference?
10. CPPIB “Invests” 85% Outside Of Canada
(From page 11 of the 2019 report)
Our 2025 strategy With two decades under our belt, CPPIB has hit its stride and truly knows its potential as a global active manager of capital. Last year, I wrote about the Board-approved strategic direction for CPPIB in 2025. Over this past year, we’ve continued to refine this 2025 strategy, and chart the course for the coming years.
Pillars of our 2025 plan include investing up to one-third of the Fund in emerging markets such as China, India and Latin America, increasing our opportunity set and pursuing the most attractive risk-adjusted returns. We have reoriented our investment departments to deliver on this growth plan, to manage a larger Fund and to achieve our desired geographic and asset diversification.
To ask the obvious question: why is the CPPIB so eager to plow its money into FOREIGN ventures? Wouldn’t putting the bulk of it into Canadian projects make more sense?
This is not just a return-on-investment issue. Plowing that money into Canadian industries would help Canadians, and help drive Canadian employment, would it not? This is supposed to be a “Canadian” pension fund.
(From page 13 of the 2019 report). The CPPIB expects that by 2050, nearly 1/2 of all income to the pension plan will be from interest and dividends on its portfolio
For reference, the fund value is calculated using this rough formula
Employee & Employer CPP Contributions + Fund Investment Returns – CPP payouts = Value
So how much of CPPIB investments are in Canada?
That’s right, just 15.5% in Canada. The other 84.5% is invested abroad. Where specifically is this money going?
(1) Midstream joint venture United States US$1.34 billion Formed a joint venture with Williams to establish midstream exposure in the U.S., with initial ownership stakes in two of Williams’ midstream systems.
(2) Grand Paris development Paris, France Formed a joint venture with CMNE, La Française’s majority shareholder, to develop real estate projects linked to the Grand Paris project, a significant infrastructure initiative in Paris.
(3) Ultimate Software United States Total value: US$11 billion Acquired a leading global provider of cloud-based human capital management solutions, alongside consortium partners Hellman & Friedman, Blackstone and GIC. (4) CPPIB Green Bond Issuance Canada and Europe C$1.5 billion/€$1.0 billion First pension fund to issue green bonds in 10-year fixed-rate notes. Our inaugural Green Bond was a Canadian dollar-denominated bond, followed by a eurodenominated bond.
(5) ChargePoint United States Total value: US$240 million Invested as part of a funding round in preferred shares of ChargePoint, the world’s leading electric vehicle charging network.
(6) European logistics facilities Europe €450 million Formed a partnership with GLP and Quadreal to develop modern logistics facilities in Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands and Belgium.
(7) Companhia Energética de São Paulo (CESP) São Paulo, Brazil R$1.9 billion Together with Votorantim Energia, acquired a controlling stake in CESP, a Brazilian hydro-generation company.
(8) Pacifico Sur Mexico C$314 million (initial) Signed an agreement alongside Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan to acquire a 49% stake in a 309-kilometre toll road in Mexico from IDEAL.
(9) WestConnex Sydney, Australia Total value: A$9.26 billion Invested in WestConnex, a 33-kilometre toll road project in Sydney, alongside consortium partners Transurban, AustralianSuper and ADIA.
(10) Logistics facilities Korea Up to US$500 million Partnered with ESR to invest in modern logistics facilities in Korea.
(11) Challenger fund Australia and New Zealand A$500 million Partnered with Challenger Investment Partners to invest in middle-market real estate loans in Australia and New Zealand.
(12) Ant Financial China US$600 million Invested in Ant Financial, a company with an integrated technology platform and an ecosystem of partners to bring more secure and transparent financial services to individuals and small businesses.
(13) Renewable power assets Canada, U.S., Germany C$2.25 billion Acquired 49% of Enbridge’s interests in a portfolio of North American onshore wind and solar assets and two German offshore wind projects, and agreed to form a joint venture to pursue future European offshore wind investment opportunities.
(14) Berlin Packaging United States US$500 million Invested US$500 million in the recapitalization of Berlin Packaging L.L.C. alongside Oak Hill Capital Partners. Berlin Packaging is a leading supplier of packaging products and services to companies in multiple industries.
That’s right. Our Canadian pension fund is being used to prop up projects in: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Germany, Italy, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, South Korea, Spain and the United States.
We won’t invest in Canadian industries, but we will bail them out. Great idea.
What about item #4, those green bonds?
11. CPPIB Endorses Climate Change Scam
So called green bonds are now available for sale. So state the obvious, if climate change were really a threat to humanity, then this is blatantly taking advantage of it.
Support for environmental companies or projects and clean technology is a strategic priority for EDC as demand rises for goods and services that allow for a more efficient use of the planet’s resources. Opportunities to create trade are abundant in this sector and Canada possesses a large pool of both established and emerging expertise in clean technology subsectors such as water and wastewater, biofuel, and waste to energy, to name a few.
Eligible transactions will include loans that help mitigate climate change with clean technology or improved energy efficiency. They also include transactions that specifically focus on soil, or help mitigate climate change. Our rigorous due diligence requirements ensure that all projects and transactions we support are financially, environmentally and socially responsible.
What happens when it becomes politically untenable for these globalist politicians to keep wasting taxpayer money on this hoax? Will it collapse? Will we have to perpetuate the lie in order to ensure that our “investments” don’t disappear?
Another factor that is reshaping the global investment environment is climate change. As a long-term investor, understanding environmental impacts on our investments is a key consideration and we continue to chart both the risks and opportunities stemming from climate change. This year, we launched our inaugural Green Bond, becoming the first pension fund to do so. We followed that with a euro-denominated offering. These issuances provide additional funding for CPPIB as it increases its holdings in renewables and energy-efficient buildings as world demand gradually transitions in favour of such investible assets.
(From Page 10 of the 2019 report.) Perhaps no one informed them that the climate change agenda is a scam, and has become a money pit.
This is hardly the first time that green bonds have come up. It will not be the last either.
When they say “risks and opportunities”, what are the opportunities? Will it be investing in a bubble that is sure to burst? Will it be taking advantage of desperate people?
Euro-denominated offerings? Why, is it a bigger market there?
12. What You Aren’t Being Told
The CPPIB admits that the bulk of its fund (around 85%) is actually invested outside of the country. That’s right, Canadians’ pension contributions being used to finance foreign investments. People assume that their money will be recirculated locally, but that is not the case.
CPPIB admits that it embraces the climate change scam. It goes as far as to endorse so-called “green bonds”. Again, this isn’t something the average person would know.
There is a credible case to be made that CPP funds are being used to top of public sector accounts, which are underfunded.
The CPP Investment Board intentionally distorts the truth about the unfunded liabilities. Using the OPEN GROUP approach, they show that actual assets are very close to expected assets, and they can cover their liabilities.
However, the more honest CLOSED GROUP approach will address “all” assets and liabilities, not just current ones. As it turns out, in 2016, the Canada Pension Plan had $285.4B in assets, and $1169.5B ($1.169.5 trillion) in liabilities. This works out to a $884.2B shortfall.
CPP is grossly underfunded.
CPP is being used to top up public pensions.
CPP is being invested in “green” schemes.
CPP is mainly being “invested” out of Canada.
CPP requires ever growing populations.
In short, we are screwed.
