Climate Change Scam Archives - Page 7 of 12

October 31, 2020October 19, 2022

CCS #6(B): Carbon Tax Challenge Is Designed To Fail At Supreme Court Of Canada

Originally featured as the resistance, this group is going through the motions of pretending to oppose a Carbon tax, and the globalist agenda as a whole. Now the Supreme Court of Canada is about to weigh in.

1. Debunking The Climate Change Scam

The entire climate change industry, (and yes, it is an industry) is a hoax perpetrated by the people in power. See the other articles on the scam, the propaganda machine in action, and some of the court documents in Canada. Carbon taxes are just a small part of the picture, and conservatives are intentionally sabotaging their court cases.

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruling.
CLICK HERE, for Saskatchewan Courts, info for users.
CLICK HERE, for Ontario Court of Appeal ruling.
CLICK HERE, for ONCA challenge documents, pleadings.
CLICK HERE, for Alberta Court of Appeal ruling.
CLICK HERE, for ABCA challenge documents, pleadings.
CLICK HERE, for Supreme Court of Canada constitutional challenge.

Listings Of Documents Filed With Court

3. Saskatchewan Court Of Appeal (May, 2019)

II. OVERVIEW
[4] The factual record presented to the Court confirms that climate change caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions is one of the great existential issues of our time. The pressing importance of limiting such emissions is accepted by all of the participants in these proceedings.

[5] The Act seeks to ensure there is a minimum national price on GHG emissions in order to encourage their mitigation. Part 1 of the Act imposes a charge on GHG-producing fuels and combustible waste. Part 2 puts in place an output-based performance system for large industrial facilities. Such facilities are obliged to pay compensation if their GHG emissions exceed applicable limits. Significantly, the Act operates as no more than a backstop. It applies only in those provinces or areas where the Governor in Council concludes GHG emissions are not priced at an appropriate level.

[6] The sole issue before the Court is whether Parliament has the constitutional authority to enact the Act. The issue is not whether GHG pricing should or should not be adopted or whether the Act is effective or fair. Those are questions to be answered by Parliament and by provincial legislatures, not by courts.

From the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruling. All parties, including those of Scott Moe, and his “conservative” allies, all admitted that climate change was a dire threat. The case was only over very narrow technical arguments. The junk science behind the Carbon tax was never questioned.

4. Ontario Court Of Appeal (June, 2019)

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
[6] Climate change was described in the Paris Agreement of 2015 as “an urgent and potentially irreversible threat to human societies and the planet”. It added that this “requires the widest possible cooperation by all countries, and their participation in an effective and appropriate international response”.

[7] There is no dispute that global climate change is taking place and that human activities are the primary cause. The combustion of fossil fuels, like coal, natural gas and oil and its derivatives, releases GHGs into the atmosphere. When incoming radiation from the Sun reaches Earth’s surface, it is absorbed and converted into heat. GHGs act like the glass roof of a greenhouse, trapping some of this heat as it radiates back into the atmosphere, causing surface temperatures to increase. Carbon dioxide (“CO2”) is the most prevalent GHG emitted by human activities. This is why pricing for GHG emissions is referred to as carbon pricing, and why GHG emissions are typically referred to on a CO2 equivalent basis. Other common GHGs include methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and nitrogen trifluoride.

[8] At appropriate levels, GHGs are beneficial. They surround the planet like a blanket, keeping temperatures within limits at which humans, animals, plants and marine life can live in balance. The level of GHGs in the atmosphere was relatively stable for several million years. However, since the beginning of the industrial revolution in the 18th century, and more particularly since the 1950s, the level of GHGs in the atmosphere has been increasing at an alarming rate. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are now more than 400 parts per million, a level not reached since the mid-Pliocene epoch, approximately 3-5 million years ago. Concentrations of other GHGs have also increased dramatically.

[29] On December 9, 2016, eight provinces, including Ontario, and the three territories adopted the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change (the “Pan-Canadian Framework”), which explicitly incorporated the Benchmark. At that time, British Columbia, Alberta and Québec already had carbon pricing mechanisms, and Ontario had announced its intention to join the Québec/California cap-and-trade system. Manitoba subsequently adopted the Pan-Canadian Framework on February 23, 2018. Saskatchewan did not adopt it. The Pan-Canadian Framework emphasized the significant risks posed by climate change to human health, security and economic growth and recognized carbon pricing as “one of the most effective, transparent, and efficient policy approaches to reduce GHG emissions”, promote innovation and encourage individuals and industries to pollute less.

[55] Ontario agrees that climate change is real, is caused by human activities producing GHG emissions, is having serious effects, particularly in the north, and requires proactive measures to address it. Ontario does not agree, however, that what it labels a “carbon tax” is the right way to do so. It says that Ontario will continue to take its own approach to meet the challenge of reducing GHG emissions.

[56] Ontario points to the success of its own efforts to reduce GHG emissions, the most significant of which has been the closure of all five of Ontario’s coal-fired electricity generation plants, which has reduced Ontario’s annual GHG emissions by approximately 22 percent below 2005 levels as of 2016.

[57] Ontario’s environmental plan (“Preserving and Protecting our Environment for Future Generations: A Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan”), released in November 2018, proposes to find ways to “slow down climate change and build more resilient communities to prepare for its effects”, but it will do this in a “balanced and responsible” way, without placing additional burdens on Ontario families and businesses.

[58] Ontario has committed to reducing its emissions by 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, which aligns with Canada’s target under the Paris Agreement. It will do so, for example, by updating its Building Code, O. Reg. 332/12, increasing the renewable content of gasoline, establishing emissions standards for large emitters, and reducing food waste and organic waste.

From the Ontario Court of Appeal ruling. The Ford Government does not question the climate change agenda in any way, shape or form. Nor do his partners. In fact, there is a lot of bragging that Ontario is already doing a great job combatting climate change.

5. Alberta Court Of Appeal (February, 2020)

I. Introduction
[1] Calls to action to save the planet we all share evoke strong emotions. And properly so. The dangers of climate change are undoubted as are the risks flowing from failure to meet the essential challenge. Equally, it is undisputed that greenhouse gas emissions caused by people (GHG emissions) are a cause of climate change. None of these forces have passed judges by. The question the Lieutenant Governor in Council referred to this Court though – is the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, SC 2018, c 12 (Act) unconstitutional in whole or in part – is not a referendum on the phenomenon of climate change.[1] Nor is it about the undisputed need for governments throughout the world to move quickly to reduce GHG emissions, including through changes in societal behaviour. The federal government is not the only government in this country committed to immediate action to meet this compelling need. Without exception, every provincial government is too.[2]

[2] Nor is this Reference about which level of government might be better suited to address climate change or GHG emissions. Or whether a uniform approach is desirable. Or who has the best policies. Or what are the best policies. Or who could do more to reduce GHG emissions in the world. This Court cannot compare causes with causes, means with means, provinces with provinces or nations with nations in the global struggle against climate change. But what it can do is offer our opinion on the constitutionality of the Act under Canada’s federal state.

[460] Alberta, according to Robert Savage, who has worked primarily in the climate change field for Alberta since 2004 and is now Alberta’s assistant deputy minister of the Climate Change Division of Alberta Environmental and Parks, “has long accepted the scientific consensus that human activity, in particular the production of … [greenhouse gases is] … a significant contributory factor to climate change, and that if action is not taken to reduce global … [greenhouse gas] emissions, the potential impacts of climate change will be more severe”.[346]

[461] Mr. Savage, with justification, asserts that “Alberta has been a pioneer in Canada and North America with respect to climate change initiatives, with a long history of innovative policies, regulatory schemes, and investments in technology targeted at reducing GHGs”.[347]

[462] He also claims that Alberta was one of the first Canadian jurisdictions to adopt “a comprehensive action plan to reduce GHG emissions”.[348]

[463] The 2002 Albertans & Climate Change: Taking Action plan dealt with better emissions management, enhanced technology to control industrial emissions, enhanced energy efficiency and the development of renewable energy sources.[349]

[464] The 2002 climate change plan contained ambitious components. It targeted a fifty percent reduction of 2002 emissions by 2020 per unit of gross domestic product. It directed large emitters to measure and report to government emissions data. It emphasized the need to manage carbon dioxide emissions and develop biological sinks. It encouraged Albertans to consume less energy.

From the Alberta Court of Appeal ruling. Once again, none of these “conservative” parties oppose the climate change agenda in any way. Instead, they argue for the right to implement their own programs. Now it may be poor wording, but this doesn’t exclude PROVINCIAL Carbon taxes at some point.

6. Federal Conservatives Support Climate Hoax

This interview clip with Alberta MP Garnett Genuis is from 2017. Then Leader Andrew Scheer whipped his caucus into voting for a motion to support the Paris Accord. Now Genuis tries to defend it, and fails.

However, the CPC would likely have still supported it if they were in power. Stephen Harper signed Agenda 2030 in September 2015, and there’s no reason to indicate he wouldn’t have signed the Paris Accord as well. Either Conservatives are unaware of the deeper globalist agenda, or they don’t care.

7. Supreme Court Of Canada: Ontario (Appellant)

PART I – OVERVIEW AND FACTS
1. This case is not about whether action needs to be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or the relative effectiveness of particular policy alternatives. It is about (1) whether the federal Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (the “Act”) can be supported under the national concern branch of the POGG power; and (2) whether the “charges” imposed by the Act are valid as regulatory charges or as taxes. The answer to both questions should be no.

2. The provinces are fully capable of regulating greenhouse gas emissions themselves, have already done so, and continue to do so. Ontario has already decreased its greenhouse gas emissions by 22% below 2005 levels and has committed to a 30% reduction below 2005 levels by 2030 – the same target to which Canada has committed itself in the Paris Agreement.

14. Internationally, while there is broad consensus about the importance of urgently addressing climate change, parties to the Paris Agreement are not required to implement carbon pricing as part of their efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Article 6.8 of the Paris Agreement specifies that the Parties “recognize the importance of integrated, holistic and balanced non-market approaches being available to the Parties.” The Act therefore imposes standards that are more stringent than the requirements of the Paris Agreement.

C. Ontario Has Taken and Will Continue to Take Strong Actions Across Its Economy and Society to Address Greenhouse Gas Emissions
.
15. Ontario agrees with Canada that climate change is real and needs to be addressed. That is why Ontario has taken steps to implement a made-in-Ontario plan to protect the environment, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and fight climate change. Ontario has set itself the goal of reducing Ontario’s emissions by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030.

Ontario’s Factum (as the Appellant). Although other parties are joining in as Intervenors, Ontario is officially the party that is appealing.

8. Supreme Court: Manitoba (Intervenor)

PART I – OVERVIEW AND STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. This appeal strikes at the heart of federalism. It provides this Court with an opportunity to further delineate the parameters of the test for the national concern branch of peace, order and good government (POGG), as set out in Crown Zellerbach over 30 years ago.

2. No one disputes that climate change and the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are of paramount importance. The issue is whether Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction to impose its preferred policy choice on the provinces. Manitoba agrees with the Appellants’ submissions that reducing GHG emissions lacks the singleness, distinctiveness and indivisibility necessary to support an exercise of the POGG power. If Parliament were to have jurisdiction under POGG to impose national standards to reduce GHG emissions as a matter of national concern, there would be virtually no limit to Parliament’s ability to legislate in areas of provincial jurisdiction, given the breadth of activities that create GHG emissions. This would substantially disrupt the balance of federalism.

6. Manitoba is fully committed to reduce GHG emissions and agrees that all governments must play a role and work cooperatively to implement effective solutions to combat and mitigate climate change. Climate change is one of the main pillars of Manitoba’s Climate and Green Plan, 2017 (Climate Plan), which aims to reduce GHG emissions, invest in clean energy and adapt to the impacts of climate change.

7. When first introduced, Manitoba’s Climate Plan included carbon pricing as one among many tools to help reduce GHG emissions. It recognized that free-market forces could be used together with smart regulation to tackle climate change and make meaningful emission reductions. In addition to other measures, Manitoba proposed to introduce a flat $25 per tonne carbon tax. The proposed carbon tax would start at more than double the initial federal price of $10 per tonne, and would remain constant at $25 from 2018 to 2022.

Manitoba has decided to enter the case as an Intervenor for Ontario. The “conservative” Brian Pallister supports the climate change agenda fully, but only objects to this specific tax. Ideologically, he is fully on board.

9. Supreme Court: Saskatchewan (Intervenor)

PART I – OVERVIEW AND FACTS
A. Introduction
1. This appeal concerns whether federal legislation that regulates provincial greenhouse gas (GHG) emission sources is constitutional. What is specifically at stake is whether the federal government has jurisdiction to unilaterally impose its chosen policy to regulate sources of GHG emissions on the provinces. The Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (the “GGPPA” or “Act”) functions as if the federal government is legislating in place of a province itself. It is supervisory, and its legislative machinery reveals that what the federal government is truly doing is passing provincial legislation in those provinces it feels have inadequately adopted the federal policy.

2. This appeal does not concern whether global climate change is real and concerning or if the provinces are taking sufficient action to reduce GHG emissions. All parties agree that global climate change is a significant societal problem and all provinces have and continue to take action to reduce GHG emissions. In the Courts below, many submissions, including those of the Attorney General of Canada, focused on the nature of climate change and the importance of carbon pricing as an effective method of reducing GHG emissions. However, the efficacy of carbon pricing is not relevant to the constitutionality of the GGPPA, which must be derived from whether it is within the legislative competence of the federal government.

That was from the submissions of the Attorney General of Saskatchewan, acting as an Intervenor in the Ontario appeal to the Supreme Court. Again, Scott Moe confirms that climate change is a threat to humanity, but that this particular tax is unconstitutional on technical grounds.

10. Supreme Court: Alberta (Intervenor)

A. Overview
1. In a case like this with profound implications for the division of powers, the court’s overriding concern must be maintaining the structure of our federal system of government.

2. The court cannot and should not base its decision on what it considers necessary to address a global problem such as climate change or what it believes are the best policy solutions for reducing greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions, particularly in light of genuine and reasonable policy disputes as to what approaches strike the right balance in particular contexts.

3. With respect, this was lost sight of in the majority decisions of the Courts of Appeal below. The majority judges in these cases appeared to conclude that the importance of addressing climate change justified the federal government controlling how the provinces exercise their jurisdiction over the regulation of GHG emissions under the national concern branch of the Peace, Order and Good Government (“POGG”) power.

As before, Alberta doesn’t actually challenge the climate change agenda in any way. The argument (as in all cases), is that Provinces should be left alone to come up with their own solutions. With everyone saying that climate change is a serious threat, the Court will never consider just how corrupt and fraudulent it really is.

11. Supreme Court: BC (Intervenor)

PART I: OVERVIEW OF POSITION AND STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The troubling question raised by these references is whether our system of federalism is an obstacle to addressing the existential threat of global climate change. Are we the only major emitting country in the world whose constitution renders it impossible to make national commitments to reduce greenhouse gases? Or can national targets be met using means compatible with the unity-in-diversity that characterizes Canada’s federal structure?

2. In British Columbia, the “future” of a climate transformed by human greenhouse gas emissions is here now. A major industry has already been devastated: people have already been forced out of their homes. The province has experienced an average temperature increase of 1.4°C since 1900 – the limit of what scientists tell us would destabilize biological and social systems globally. A succession of relatively warm winters in the 1990s led to the mountain pine beetle epidemic and, as a direct consequence, the loss of most of the merchantable pine volume in interior British Columbia by 2012. The worst forest fire seasons on record occurred back-to back in 2017 and 2018. The elevated risk is because of climate change. In coming decades, British Columbia can expect wildfires like California’s today. Melting permafrost will damage infrastructure in Northern British Columbia, especially for remote communities and Indigenous peoples. Sea level rise poses risk of unquantifiable flooding losses for coastal British Columbia, particularly Prince Rupert and the Fraser River delta, where 100 square kilometres of land are currently within one metre of sea level. This includes the City of Richmond, home to 220,000 people

The NDP Government of British Columbia openly supports the climate change agenda, as do so-called “conservatives”. But at least the NDP is up from about this.

That said, the part about forest fires needs to be addressed. The RCMP has stated — at least for the 2018 fires — that the bulk of them were intentionally set (arson).

Even if conservatives were in power, they seem to support the agenda.

12. Supreme Court: Quebec (Intervenor)

PARTIE III. EXPOSÉ DES ARGUMENTS
Introduction
8. La PGQ ne conteste pas que la protection de l’environnement constitue un enjeu fondamental qui nécessite une action de la part des deux ordres de gouvernement, comme la Cour l’a reconnu dans l’arrêt Hydro-Québec. La Cour a défini la protection de l’environnement comme étant une matière « diffuse », non expressément attribuée de manière exclusive à un ordre de gouvernement plutôt qu’à un autre Affirmant au premier chef la compétence de l’Assemblée
nationale de légiférer sur la protection de l’environnement, la PGQ ne remet pas en cause la compétence législative du Parlement fédéral à l’égard de cette même matière. La PGQ est d’avis que la protection de l’environnement requiert d’ailleurs une collaboration de la part de tous les acteurs concernés

PART III. STATEMENT OF ARGUMENTS
Introduction
8. The PGQ does not dispute that environmental protection is an issue fundamental that requires action from both levels of government, such as the Court recognized this in the Hydro-Québec decision. The Court defined the protection of the environment as being a “diffuse” matter, not expressly attributed exclusively to an order of government rather than another. Primarily affirming the competence of the Assembly to legislate on the protection of the environment, the QMP does not call into question the legislative competence of the federal Parliament with regard to the same matter. The PGQ is of opinion that the protection of the environment requires collaboration on the part of all actors involved

Francois Legault, the Premier of Quebec, is another “conservative” that does not actually oppose the climate change agenda. In fact, Legault seems content with Premiers imposing PROVINCIAL Carbon taxes everywhere.

13. Supreme Court: New Brunswick (Intervenor)

PART I – INTRODUCTION
1. The Intervenor, Attorney General of New Brunswick (“New Brunswick”) supports the position of the Attorney General of Alberta (“Alberta”) and adopts the arguments in Alberta’s factum. New Brunswick is also in general agreement with the climate data submitted by the Attorney General of Canada (“Canada”). Consistent with the previous references of the Attorney General of Saskatchewan (“Saskatchewan”) and the Attorney General of Ontario (“Ontario”) in their respective Courts of Appeal, this should not be a platform on which to debate climate change however real the threat may be. Climate data and warnings regarding the consequences of greenhouse gas emissions (“GHG emissions”) are relevant to the extent that such information dispassionately informs the constitutional question. Objectivity is paramount.

2. Much of Canada’s record and arguments support a resolve to deal with a looming existential threat; but it also provokes an emotional response – the natural result of contemplating any dire
circumstance. When imbued with the weight and gravitas it deserves, equally weighty solutions feel appropriate. In turn, it may feel appropriate to a layperson that the regulation of GHG emissions should be controlled by Parliament. Such may seem both harmless and practical. When a central control over the matter is cast in supervisory terms and is fixated on minimum standards, the layperson could believe that a benign form of federalism has been accomplished. But those conclusions would ignore the constitutional division of powers.

New Brunswick avoids the issue of climate change in the Supreme Court filings, but had this to say elsewhere: These hearings should not be used as a forum to question the science. Similar submissions were made in Ontario as well.

14. NGOs Meddling In Court Affairs

This was covered in the last article. There are several non-government organizations who are acting as Intervenors for their own reasons. It’s not just the Provinces and Ottawa involved.

15. SCC Challenges Are Designed To Fail

It’s difficult to see the Supreme Court of Canada ruling against the Carbon tax, though it’s possible in theory. Alberta was successful, although their courts are more tilted that way. There’s no real opposition to the theft being done under the guise of environmentalism.

What is even the point of doing this? Well, it’s not about stopping the public from being fleeced. It’s about APPEARING to stop the public from being fleeced, (or at least trying to). All parties support this hoax. As such, Canadians are being deceived.

One final thought: even if this challenge is ultimately successful, who’s to say that Provinces won’t start implementing their own Carbon taxes? Or who’s to say Erin O’Toole would actually drop the Federal tax if he became Prime Minister?

October 29, 2020October 19, 2022

CCS #7(B): NGOs Support Carbon Taxes In Court Cases, Have Other Interests

Originally featured as “The Resistance”, this group of politicians only pretends to oppose the fleecing of taxpayers. They endorse the climate change hoax 100%, and only argue against the Carbon tax on narrow technical grounds. Now this is finally at the Supreme Court of Canada.

But it’s not just politicians and their parties involved. A number of private groups are attempting to change the course, for their own selfish and ideological reasons.

1. Debunking The Climate Change Scam

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for the David Suzuki Foundation.
CLICK HERE, for Int’l Emissions Trading Ass’n.
CLICK HER, for IETA’s governance and leadership.
CLICK HERE, for Int’l Carbon Reduction Offset Alliance.
CLICK HERE, for ICROA’s partners and members.
CLICK HERE, for Smart Prosperity Institute.

(also see the last section for many more links to parties attempting to intervene in the Carbon tax challenges. Note: that list is not exhaustive.)

3. NGOs To Profit From Climate Scam

Amnesty International
Canadian Labour Congress
Climate Justice Saskatoon
David Suzuki Foundation
Intergenerational Climate Coalition
International Emissions Trading Association
Smart Prosperity Institute

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation opposes the Carbon tax, but stays pretty neutral on the issue of climate change itself. It’s worth a mention for 2 reasons: (a) CTF is part of the Koch-funded Atlas Network; and (b) CTF was once headed by Jason Kenney, now Alberta Premier. Now, let’s take a look at a few groups.

4. David Suzuki Foundation

Revenue (August 31, 2018)
Receipted donations $5,820,601.00 (49.84%)
Non-receipted donations $784,563.00 (6.72%)
Gifts from other registered charities $2,727,009.00 (23.35%)
Government funding $0.00 (0.00%)
All other revenue $2,347,296.00 (20.10%)
Total revenue: $11,679,469.00

Expenses (August 31, 2018)
Charitable programs $7,378,892.00 (70.41%)
Management and administration $638,154.00 (6.09%)
Fundraising $1,779,300.00 (16.98%)
Political activities $583,341.00 (5.57%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $96,578.00 (0.92%)
Other $4,234.00 (0.04%)
Total expenses: $10,480,499.00

Revenue (August 31, 2019)
Receipted donations $6,847,386.00 (53.92%)
Non-receipted donations $1,132,648.00 (8.92%)
Gifts from other registered charities $3,242,143.00 (25.53%)
Government funding $0.00 (0.00%)
All other revenue $1,476,568.00 (11.63%)
Total revenue: $12,698,745.00

Expenses (August 31, 2019)
Charitable programs $8,738,812.00 (75.28%)
Management and administration $808,096.00 (6.96%)
Fundraising $1,964,567.00 (16.92%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $93,302.00 (0.80%)
Other $4,234.00 (0.04%)
Total expenses: $11,609,011.00

According to the Canada Revenue Agency, the Suzuki Foundation took in $12.7 million in the period ending in August 2019, and $11.7 million the previous year. There is clearly good money, so where is it going?

Suzuki Foundation 2019 Annual Report
Suzuki Foundation 2019 Audited Financials

How does pricing carbon pollution build more sustainable communities?
.
Putting a price on carbon pollution through a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system helps speed the transition to cleaner, better energy solutions. We have low-carbon alternatives to our largest emissions sources that are improving by the day.

Working toward a fair and effective national price on carbon pollution
For more than a decade, the Foundation has been a leading voice in calling for a carbon price in Canada. Through research, policy work and public engagement, we built support for this foundational climate change policy.

The Foundation offered the B.C. government support to introduce North America’s first carbon tax in 2008. Our policy experts met with leaders at all levels of government and across industries to advocate for a national approach to carbon pricing.

The Foundation is an intervener in court cases in Saskatchewan and Ontario to support the federal government’s right to implement fair and effective climate policies that include carbon pricing.

In both cases, the courts of appeal agreed with us that the federal government has the power to take national action to tackle climate change. With Parliament and cities across the country declaring climate emergencies, including carbon pricing in the solutions toolkit is essential to meeting Paris Agreement climate commitments and avoiding the worst impacts of climate breakdown.

Can we assume that they either bribed or leaned on the B.C. Government to get that Carbon tax imposed? The Suzuki Foundation doesn’t come right out and say it (though it’s implied), that making certain comforts unaffordable by various carbon pricing schemes will lead to this great transition. It’s stated that causing a drastic change in the Western lifestyle is the only way to do this.

The Foundation is also involved with Youth Climate Lawsuit. This has young adults trying weaponize the Courts by forcing Governments to adopt their environmental demands. The claim is that ignoring climate change violates Section 7 of the Canadian Charter, which is security of the person.

And of course, the Suzuki Foundation has attached itself to the various Carbon tax challenges. It’s fair to assume that Suzuki’s donors are paying him to advance (by whatever means), policies that will lead to more money coming in. In a sense, it’s like paying a lobbyist.

Suzuki’s recent donors include: Power Corporation, the Bronfman Foundation, Tides Canada, Smart Prosperity Institute, several anonymous donors, and many more.

5. International Emissions Trading Association

IETA Economic Potential Article 6 Paris Accord
IETA Partnership For Market Readiness

IETA is the International Emissions Trading Association. It is an organization that tries to monetize the climate change agenda, by convincing countries to pay out money for “polluting”. A quote from their market readiness report:

Understand what emissions trading is:
emissions trading is a market-based approach to controlling pollution by providing an economic incentive to achieve CO2 emissions reductions. To succeed in managing such a cap-and-trade system, your company will need strategic, technical and financial skills.

Find the appropriate department to coordinate the organisation: emissions trading is linked to climate change strategy. Climate strategy often lies between the sustainable development and finance functions. Emissions trading is about financial management, but it also implies a deep understanding of regulation, CO2 management strategy and a good technical knowledge of industrial installations which fall under the cap. Whichever the appropriate department is, the most important thing is to have a project manager. Start a working group: the working group should be able as a first step to define whether or not emissions trading could be managed internally or outsourced. A cost/benefit analysis should be carried out to evaluate the choice between delegating trading to a specialised broker or to carrying it out internally. Such an approach gives the opportunity to create a “CO2 network” within the company.

Assess possible optimisation among installations: if entities are spread geographically, a centralised option could be considered. For example, in the European emissions market it is often the case that installations of one company are spread across a number of member states. Local exchanges with local brokers co-exist with European CO2 exchange platforms and may be able to offer more targeted solutions.

Understand that none of this actually helps the environment. It is simply a way to get wealthy under a misleading banner of cutting pollution. This is an expansive wealth transfer scheme.

IETA received legal non-profit status from the government of Switzerland in June 2000, and received United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change non-governmental organisation accreditation in October 2000.

It should trouble Canadians that this “non-profit” with financial motivations to keep the Carbon tax should be filing for intervenor status in four court cases (Saskatchewan, Ontario, Alberta, & the Supreme Court). Theie interests are different than ours.

6. Smart Prosperity Institute

The Smart Prosperity Institute has a number of government and private sector donors, and perhaps most notably includes the Tides Foundation. SPI writes extensively about transitioning Canada to a low carbon economy, and is promoting the green bonds industry, and have partnered with HSBC and the Climate Bonds Initiative. They also push the “sustainable finance” narrative, and are enthusiastic supporters of the UN.

Smart Prosperity Institute’s annual “Green Bonds – State of the Market in Canada” reports provide unique insight on the role of green bonds in funding environment and climate-related projects in Canada. The annual report is a special supplement to the Bonds and Climate Change: The State of the Market global report and is prepared collaboratively with Climate Bonds Initiative. Commissioned by HSBC, the report marks specific highlights from the current year, emerging trends, and identifies specific opportunities for market development of green bonds in Canada.

Keeping the Carbon taxes intact is very much in their interest, as it is tied to many of the initiatives that SPI advances. Another NGO that Canadians should be weary of meddling in local affairs.

7. Amnesty International

Amnesty International was founded by Peter Benenson, grandson of Russian banker, Grigori Benenson. The organization has been used to bring large numbers of people from the 3rd World to the West. The group appears to have no direct financial motive, but rather an ideological one. It argues that forced Carbon taxes amount to a human rights issue for the planet. Is this not foreign interference though? AI is based out of Britain.

8. Constitutional Challenges: SK, ON, AB, SCC

One common thread throughout these challenges is that all parties agree climate change is a threat to humanity. This includes parties challenging the Carbon taxes.

October 21, 2020February 22, 2022

Controlled Opposition “Conservatives” Prop Up Climate, Banking Cartels

So-called “fiscal conservatives” will talk about the problem of debt, but never the predatory banking system that causes it. Similarly, they will pretend to oppose Carbon taxes, but not address where this money ends up. They don’t want supporters grasping what really happens.

Politicians want people focused on the symptoms (debt, carbon taxes), and not on the diseases (banking and climate cartels). See the bigger picture.

1. Debunking The Climate Change Scam

The entire climate change industry, (and yes, it is an industry) is a hoax perpetrated by the people in power. See the other articles on the scam, the propaganda machine in action, and some of the court documents in Canada. It’s a much bigger picture than what is presented by the mainstream media, or even the alternative media.

But as we will see, so called “conservatives” do nothing to halt this scheme, and act as gatekeepers.

2. Alliance Between Climate, Banking Cartels

This may seem odd, but the banking cartel works with the climate cartel. They share a goal, which is to bleed wealth out of nations, and to the detriment of the citizens. Whether it is cloaked as “fiscal policy”, or as “stopping climate change”, the result is much the same. In fact, pushing climate bonds, the green agenda, green bonds, or heritage sites, seem to be a way to advance their agendas.

3. Climate Bonds A Growth Industry

Climate bonds are a growth industry, expected to top $100 trillion in value over the next several years. Granted, this does nothing to elimiate climate change, or make the air cleaner, but why should that be an excuse not to pay your taxes.

Incidently, the climate bonds are pushed by: Rockefeller Foundation, European Climate Foundation, and Climate Works Foundation (among others).

4. Central Banks Support Climate Hoax

The Bank for International Settlements fully supports the climate change industry. See here and here. They claim stopping climate change is essential to financial stability, but offer no specifics on how this is, or on how these bonds help. Check out the BIS site for more.

5. Carbon Taxes Finance Int’l Debt Swaps

UN.new.development.financing.2012.178pages

The UN laid out years ago where a lot of the money would be going. One of the big areas (besides climate bonds), is using various taxation methods making predatory loans to the 3rd World, then forcing them into debt-for-land swaps when they can’t afford to pay it back.

The kicker is that this money Canada (and other countries) give, is that it is borrowed to begin with. Canada borrows money (from private sources), to hand over to the UN, who then lends it out to other nations who can never pay it back.

But all conservatives will complain about is that a Carbon tax is ineffective. They miss the bigger picture.

6. Mark Carney (Ex-BoC), UN Climate Mobster

In the old days, the mafia would burn down your business if you didn’t pay your taxes. Now, people like Mark Carney (former head of Bank of Canada and Bank of England), are threatening to legally wipe out your business if you don’t play along with the climate mob. Interesting that a banker now leads the climate cartel enforcement.

Carney was actually touted as a possible successor to Paul Martin years ago. Now, do conservatives have anything to say about this threat to free enterprise? Nope.

7. Harper, Conservatives Defend Banking Cartel

Although a few parties are willing to talk openly about the International Banking Cartel, most are not. This happens even when politicians know about the scam, but choose to remain quiet. From 2011 to 2017, both Liberals and Conservatives fought in Federal Court to keep the usurious system intact.

8. Carbon Tax Court Challenges Are Rigged

This was addressed here and here. Provincial Premiers (and the Federal Conservatives) all claim to be against the Federal Carbon tax. However, a look through their court submissions shows that they don’t have any issue with the climate industry itself. Nor do they rule out their own Provincial taxes. This is all just a dog and pony show. Court documents are here.

9. Garnett Genuis Defends Paris Accord

This is a clip from Rebel News, in 2017. Here, CPC MP Garnett Genuis went on the air and publicly defended voting in a motion to support the Paris Accord. Although Genuis insisted this was the right decision, he couldn’t offer anything but the flimsiest of justifications. He also refused to admit that the vote was whipped.

As for abiding by the Paris Accord without taxes: read the agreement, starting with Article #9.

10. British Columbia Conservative Party

The BC Conservatives claim that greenhouses gases are an issue to be dealt with. They fully support the hoax, although claim to oppose a Carbon tax. There is no mention whatsoever of central banking.

11. United Conservative Party (Alberta)

Jason Kenney, prior to his 2019 election win, claimed to oppose the Federal (yes, the Federal) Carbon tax, but still plays along with the climate change hoax.

[1] Calls to action to save the planet we all share evoke strong emotions. And properly so. The dangers of climate change are undoubted as are the risks flowing from failure to meet the essential challenge. Equally, it is undisputed that greenhouse gas emissions caused by people (GHG emissions) are a cause of climate change. None of these forces have passed judges by. The question the Lieutenant Governor in Council referred to this Court though – is the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, SC 2018, c 12 (Act) unconstitutional in whole or in part – is not a referendum on the phenomenon of climate change. Nor is it about the undisputed need for governments throughout the world to move quickly to reduce GHG emissions, including through changes in societal behaviour. The federal government is not the only government in this country committed to immediate action to meet this compelling need. Without exception, every provincial government is too.

[2] Nor is this Reference about which level of government might be better suited to address climate change or GHG emissions. Or whether a uniform approach is desirable. Or who has the best policies. Or what are the best policies. Or who could do more to reduce GHG emissions in the world. This Court cannot compare causes with causes, means with means, provinces with provinces or nations with nations in the global struggle against climate change. But what it can do is offer our opinion on the constitutionality of the Act under Canada’s federal state.

[3] Greenhouse gases (GHGs) in quantity have been part of our atmosphere since the dawn of mankind. Every human and animal activity is a source of GHGs. GHG emissions have picked up pace since the industrial revolution and the rapid increases in the world’s population. GHG emissions result from virtually every aspect of individuals’ daily lives, work, social and personal, from how many children they have to what they eat and how much they consume; what car they drive and how far they travel for work and pleasure; how large their home is and what temperature they choose to live at; what kind of furnace, appliances and lighting they have; and on and on.

Jason Kenney never told the Alberta public that his government openly took the position that climate change was a threat to humanity. The challenge surprisingly succeeded, although there’s no legal impact to the ruling.

“Fighting” the carbon tax apparently also includes introducing one of your own, as Alberta did in late 2019.

12. Conservatives In Saskatchewan

Scott Moe criticizes the Carbon tax. But like most conservatives, he speaks out both sides of his mouth. He fully supports the climate change scam, but only argues on one small point.

[4] The factual record presented to the Court confirms that climate change caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions is one of the great existential issues of our time. The pressing importance of limiting such emissions is accepted by all of the participants in these proceedings.

[5] The Act seeks to ensure there is a minimum national price on GHG emissions in order to encourage their mitigation. Part 1 of the Act imposes a charge on GHG-producing fuels and combustible waste. Part 2 puts in place an output-based performance system for large industrial facilities. Such facilities are obliged to pay compensation if their GHG emissions exceed applicable limits. Significantly, the Act operates as no more than a backstop. It applies only those provinces or areas where the Governor in Council concludes GHG emissions are not priced at an appropriate level.

[6] The sole issue before the Court is whether Parliament has the constitutional authority to enact the Act. The issue is not whether GHG pricing should or should not be adopted or whether the Act is effective or fair. Those are questions to be answered by Parliament and by provincial legislatures, not by courts.

The Saskatchewan Government argued at the Court of Appeals, and still argues at the Supreme Court of Canada, that climate change must be dealt with. Any wonder why they lost?

Oh, and not a single mention of central banking and the endless debt it creates.

13. Conservatives In Manitoba

The Manitoba government will go to court over Ottawa’s imposition of a carbon tax.

Premier Brian Pallister revealed Wednesday his government will launch a legal challenge against the federal government, which imposed its new levy as promised on Manitoba, along with three other provinces, Monday.

“We’re going to court, sadly, to challenge the Ottawa carbon tax because Ottawa cannot impose a carbon tax on a province that has a credible greenhouse gas-reduction plan of its own, and we do,” he told reporters.

Manitoba’s Premier Brian Pallister, who also self-identifies as a “Conservative”, doesn’t challenge the history of valid predictions or climate models. Instead, his position (like the others), is solely that Ottawa doesn’t have the authority to impose a Carbon tax on the Provinces. Hear Pallister’s own words on this. He opposes OTTAWA imposing a Carbon tax, not the principle of a Carbon tax.

14. Conservatives In Ontario

6. Ontario agrees with Canada that climate change is real and that human activities are a major cause. Ontario also acknowledges that climate change is already having a disruptive effect across Canada, and that, left unchecked, its potential impact will be even more severe. Ontario agrees that proactive action to address climate change is required. That is why Ontario has put forward for consultation a made-in-Ontario plan to protect the environment, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and fight climate change.

11. Ontario released its climate change plan, as part of its overall environment plan, for a 60-day period of public consultation on November 29, 2018. The plan will be finalized following consideration of input from that consultation. Ontario’s plan will tackle climate change in a balanced and responsible way, without placing additional burdens on Ontario families and businesses

12. “[Greenhouse gas] emissions come from virtually all aspects of Ontario’s society and economy.” There are seven primary sectors in Ontario that produce greenhouse gas emissions: transportation; industry; buildings; land use, land use change and forestry; electricity; waste; and agriculture. All but the last (which is an area of concurrent federal/provincial jurisdiction) will be discussed in turn.

13. Canada itself has publicly acknowledged the wide range of activities that can generate greenhouse gas emissions – activities as varied as homes and buildings, transport, industry, forestry, agriculture, waste, and electricity.

In its “challenge“, before the Ontario Court of Appeals, the Ford Government argued that climate change was a danger, in full agreement with Trudeau. They repeat the same thing to the Supreme Court of Canada. These “conservatives” don’t oppose the climate change hoax, nor do they talk about the banking cartel which contributes to their Provincial debt.

What’s the point of these challenges if you don’t oppose the climate change scam? Is it just for show?

15. Conservatives In Quebec

The Quebec government is intervening before the Supreme Court in Saskatchewan’s challenge to the federal carbon tax.

Quebec Premier François Legault said his government is in favour of carbon pricing, but it must be exclusively a provincial responsibility.

“For us, it is important to protect provincial jurisdiction,” he said.

“I have been clear with the premiers of other provinces who are opposed for other reasons to this [federal] encroachment. We want to protect provincial jurisdiction to fight climate change.”

Currently, the federal carbon tax applies only to New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. In Alberta the tax would come into effect as of Jan. 1.

Quebec is not affected by the federal government’s decision since it joined a carbon exchange with California several years ago.

The “conservative” Quebec Premier says he will challenge the Federal carbon tax, but only on grounds that it should be the Provinces getting the money instead.

16. Conservatives In New Brunswick

1. The Intervenor, Attorney General of New Brunswick (“New Brunswick”) agrees with the factum of the Attorney General of Ontario (“Ontario”) regarding the nature of this reference and agrees with Ontario’s conclusions in every respect. New Brunswick also agrees with the climate data submitted by the Attorney General of Canada (“Canada”). This reference should not be a forum for those who deny climate change; nor should it be a showcase about the risks posed by greenhouse gas emissions (“GHG emissions”). The supporting data is relevant only to the extent that it is meaningfully connected to the constitutional question at issue.

2. The foundational climate change data provided by Canada, generally intended to portray the anticipated impacts of climate change in Canada, as well as the many references to international accord and commitments, leave an unquestionable impression of Canada’s a deep resolve to see the nation’s environmental footprint diminished. New Brunswick does not take issue with Canada’s commitment or with the importance of the overall subject matter.

3. What New Brunswick disputes is the way in which the federal Parliament has apportioned its resolve to diminish GHG emissions by imposing “backstop legislation”.

New Brunswick acted as an intervenor in the Ontario Court of Appeals case and submitted their own Factum. Above are some of the quotes. Higgs makes it clear he doesn’t actually oppose the agenda itself.

New Brunswick Premier Blaine Higgs is yet another “conservative” who is fighting the Carbon tax by introducing one of his own.

17. Elsewhere In The Maritimes

There doesn’t seem to be any real opposition (or mention) of the carbon tax by conservatives in Nova Scotia, PEI, and Newfoundland & Labrador. They don’t talk about the 1974 changes that Trudeau Sr. made to the banking system, either.

18. Fake Populist (Fake Party) Maxime Bernier

Even when running for the CPC leadership, Bernier played along with the climate change scam. His only opposition was to a tax itself. However, since losing in 2017, he finally admitted (somewhat), that it’s all a hoax.

Bernier talks a lot about the milk mafia, but doesn’t have much to say about the banking or climate mafias. Bernier was also in cabinet from 2011 to 2015 during the COMER case in Federal Court. Bernier claims to support balanced budgets, but never talks about the biggest obstacle.

19. Conservative Party Of Canada

While claiming to oppose a Carbon tax, the CPC still plays along with the climate change agenda. It does this to offer the illusion of choice in voting options. Harper signed Agenda 2030 in September 2015. Erin O’Toole supports the Paris Accord, as does Andrew Scheer.

Also worth pointing out, while Conservatives “pretend” to care about debt in opposition, they do little when in power. They also had a majority government in 2011 to 2015 when COMER attempted to dismantle Canada’s participation in the International Banking Cartel. The CPC fought the court challenge for years.

20. Leslyn Lewis’ Pro-UN/PA Dissertation

Leslyn Lewis PhD Dissertation, Paris Accord

As many readers will be aware, Leslyn Lewis recently ran for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada, and came 3rd overall. But what many supporters don’t know is her thesis, published in 2019, was very pro-UN, and pro-Paris Accord. This isn’t some ancient paper she wrote at age 19 or 20. It was her PhD dissertation, published at the age of 48.

This “social conservative” was also a Director at Women’s LEAF, a pro-death lobbyist and legal group. But that’s another story.

21. The Controlled Opposition Conservatives

(Originally featured as “the Resistance” in Maclean’s), these so-called leaders pretend to oppose the Carbon tax levied by Trudeau. But the devil is in the details. They actually ENDORSE the climate change industry overall, and don’t rule out Carbon taxes Provincially. Nor do they discuss where the money even goes. They only criticize Trudeau imposing a FEDERAL tax.

Nor do the “Resistance” seem to have any problem with the international banking cartel bleeding Canada dry through usury and private loans. They focus on a symptom (the debt), but never the disease (the banking system). The goal is to ensure the public never sees the big picture.

While climate change and central banking seem unrelated, there is a connection: so-called “opposition” politicians never come clean as to what is going on. Both are scams meant to bankrupt and enslave the people.

22. Documents On The Climate Change Scam

(A.1) SK COA Ruling On Carbon Tax
http://archive.is/tNe2k
(B.1) ONCA Ruling On Carbon Tax
http://archive.is/tbMTC
(B.2) ONCA Reference Documents
(B.3) ONCA, Ontario Factum, GGPPA
(B.4) ONCA, BC Factum, GGPPA
(B.5) ONCA, NB Factum, GGPPA
(B.6) ONCA, United Conservative Assoc
(B.7) ONCA, CDN Taxpayers Federation
(C.1) ABCA Ruling On Carbon Tax
http://archive.is/guxXF
(C.2) Jason Kenney Repeals Carbon Tax
http://archive.is/Q1gGb
(C.3) Kenney Supports New Carbon Tax
http://archive.is/wTYoE
(C.4) Kenney To Hike New Carbon Tax
http://archive.is/jbLjN
(D.1) SCC, Ontario Factum
(D.2) SCC, Sask Factum, GGPPA

Leslyn Lewis’s 2019 PhD Dissertation On Climate Change

October 8, 2020October 19, 2022

IBC #7: Debt For Nature Swaps, Usury & Exploitation Masked As Compassion

Some background information on how this process works (in theory at least). See here and here. Does it matter that many countries are unable to repay their loans? To the creditors, not really, as there is always another way.

These “swaps” involve selling a country’s debt (at a discount) to a 3rd party, but one who has its own agenda.

1. More On The International Banking Cartel

For more on the banking cartel, check this page. The Canadian Government, like so many others, has sold out the independence and sovereignty of its monetary system to foreign interests. BIS, like its central banks, exceed their agenda and try to influence other social agendas. See who is really controlling things, and the common lies that politicians and media figures tell. And check out the climate change hoax as well, as the 2 now seem intertwined.

New Development Financing, a bait-and-switch.

2. Important Links

UN New Development Finance Paper
UN.new.development.financing.2012.178pages

UNDP Explaining Debt-For-Nature Swaps

CLICK HERE, for World Economic Forum, debt swap support.
https://archive.is/LTw1r

World Bank Working Paper, March 1990

CLICK HERE, for World Wildlife Fund Climate fund page.
https://archive.is/43sHz

3. Debt Used As A Weapon Against Nations

This cannot be emphasized enough. Countries take foreign loans in times when they are desperate, and often are unable to meet the terms to pay them back. This is a form of predatory lending. What may end up happening is that those debts are sold to people and organizations who have their own agenda.

And where do these loans originate in the first place? Many are (debt financed) by countries like Canada, the U.S., and in Europe. Western nations — who use private parties to borrow money from — borrow money which is then handed over as loans to the 3rd World. Those loans are distributed to countries who can’t pay them back. They are then forced into options like debt-for-nature.

4. World Economic Forum & Climate Swaps

Debt swaps can be one solution to tackle both challenges at once. Traditionally, these instruments represent an exchange of the existing debt contract with a new one, where the previous contract is normally “written down”, or discounted. Usually, this action is associated with specific conditions for investments, agreed both by the creditor and the debtor. In the past, such instruments have also been used to achieve climate-related objectives.

The idea of a “debt-for-climate” swap was first conceived during the 1980s by the then Deputy Vice President of the World Wildlife Fund, Thomas Lovejoy, in the wake of the Latin American debt crisis. The idea was simple: an NGO would act as a donor, purchasing debt from commercial banks at its face value on the secondary market, hence providing a level of relief on the debt’s value. The title of the debt would then be transferred to the debtor country in exchange for a specific commitment to environmental or conservation goals, performed through a national environmental fund.

In 2018, the Seychelles government worked with The Nature Conservancy, Global Environment Facility (GEF), and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) to develop a debt-for-nature swap for $27 million of official debt, to set up vast areas of protected marine parks for climate resilience, fishery management, biodiversity conservation and ecotourism.

This came out just the other day. The World Economic Forum, which pushed for a declaration of a pandemic also goes on about how this can be used to advance the green agenda. But don’t worry, it’s not preplanned or anything.

5. UNDP Explains Risks And Consequences

Cons
.
-DNS have only resulted in relatively small amounts of debt relief, limiting their impact in reducing developing countries’ debt burden;
–Transaction costs might be high compared to other financing instruments; negotiations can be time-consuming, spanning several years and might result in limited debt reduction or discount rates. The length of the design and negotiation phase of a DNS can span one to three years, mostly depending on the willingness of the parties and the complexity of the deal.

Risks
.
-Lengthy negotiations. Disagreement between the creditor and debtor country on conservation goals or other details of the agreement can increase the costs of the operation.
–Currency exchange risks, the impact of which (and the response strategy) is dependent on the financial structure of the DNS. The currency risk can be mitigated, for example, by making payments in local currency at the spot rate on the day payments are due. In the latter case the risk is lower for the entity managing the DNS cash flow.
–Inflation risks, the value of future payments in local currencies might be highly by inflation. Mitigation strategies to inflation risks are similar to the ones for currency exchange risks.
-The DNS might prevent the possibility of negotiating a more comprehensive and favourable debt treatment (debt relief and restructuring).
-The debtor-country might not be able or willing to respect its commitments. Fiscal and liquidity crises can undermine the capacity of the debtor-government to meet its obligations.
-Management risks related to the capacity of the fund selected to administer grants from the DNS proceeds, including mismanagement, corruption and failures in the identification of good projects to be financed.
-While rarely reported, it is possible that the projects financed might create discontent in local communities (e.g. removal of access to resources by local communities).
-ODA substitution (no additionality). While a DNS is an option for increasing ODA, it might just substitute for other committed flows.
-The debtor-country may lose sovereignty in deciding about the spending of public resources. Grants may be disbursed according to donors’ preferences, which in turn might or might not better mirror local conservation needs. In most DNS the debtor-government decides in agreement with the creditor(s) about the modalities of funds’ disbursements, both participating in the boards of the trust fund responsible for grant-making.
-Debt swaps may be tied to the purchase of goods or services for the creditor(s).

There are an awful lot of drawbacks to getting involved with this sort of loan. Specifically, countries cede their sovereignty, are forced into conditions they don’t like, and it may not even result in much of a debt reduction.

6. World Bank 1990 Working Paper On Swaps

The first debt-for-nature agreement (Bolivia) was the only one in which land was set aside, and development restrictions adopted, as a result of the agreement. This deal was extremely controversial at first, as many Bolivians thought that the country had relinquished sovereignty to the international environmental group. There is, however, no transfer of land ownership, and development decisions are not based on agreements between the local environmental groups, the government, and the regional population. The Bolivian government has been slow in dispersing the local currency funds, and controversies have arisen over the development use of the buffer areas.

Finally, prior to the debt-for-nature concept, environmental groups had little or no direct contact with either commercial banks or debt countries’ finance ministers. Debt-for-nature swaps, however, have entailed intense negotiations between all three groups, leading to a network of relationships that may prove valuable to international environmental groups beyond simply debt-for-nature agreements.

Much of the interest in using official debt for debt-for-development swaps first began as a result of the 1988 Toronto Economic Summit, in which the G-7 countries established guidelines that allowed Paris Club Creditors to forgive debt to the poorest of the Sub-Saharan countries. One of three options given to Paris Club creditors was to forgive up to one-third of the debt of the developing country (with the other two being extended maturities and lower interest rates). France has generally chosen the first option, while the United States (until July 1989) has been reluctant to forgive debt.

World Bank Working Paper, March 1990

This scheme has been going back many decades. The basic principle is that countries are loaned money they cannot realistically afford to pay back. Loans are then forgiven — or reduced — but with strings attached. One such arrangement is the debt-for nature swaps.

Although the land isn’t officially ceded, for all practical purposes it is.

7. Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation, Seychelles

In 2017, the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation helped finance a debt-for-nature swap with the Republic of Seychelles to set aside some 400,000 square kilometers of water for conservation.

8. World Wildlife Fund Conservation Finance

Debt-for-Nature Swaps
WWF has worked with the U.S., French, German, Dutch, and other creditor countries to structure foreign debt-for-nature swaps, including the first one in Ecuador in 1987. Since 2001, WWF has helped design several debt-for-nature swap agreements under the Tropical Forest Conservation Act (and previously under the Enterprise for the Americas Initiative). Both mechanisms were formed to relieve the debt burden of developing countries owed to the U.S. government, while generating funds in local currency to support tropical forest conservation activities. Capital raised through debt-for-nature swaps can be applied through trust funds or foundations specifically set up to channel funding to local biodiversity conservation.

Carbon Finance
WWF believes that carbon finance, if used appropriately, will play a critical role in reducing global greenhouse gas emissions, contributing to biodiversity conservation, and promoting a range of local economic and social values. WWF is developing pilot carbon projects in Peru, Brazil, Central Africa, Indonesia and Nepal to capitalize on the rapidly growing potential for carbon finance. We contribute to these efforts by securing private and public financing for carbon projects and providing technical support to implement carbon finance mechanisms.

The World Wildlife Fund is quite involved in financing the nature-for-debt swaps. Should make Canadians wonder what is the real reason Trudeau and Butts present themselves as eco-warriors.

9. Gerald Butts, Megan Leslie Head(s) of WWF

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that Gerald Butts was once the President and CEO of World Wildlife Fund Canada. This conflict of interest isn’t limited to the Liberals though.

Megan Leslie used to be the Deputy NDP Leader, and was Deputy Opposition Leader for a time. Now, this Trudeau Foundation Director is also the head of the World Wildlife Fund.

It’s also worth a mention that Elizabeth May, the former Green Party Leader is also with the Trudeau Foundation. She was, at a time, Head of Sierra Club Canada. At least 3 of the major Federal parties are compromised, and in bed with the eco-lobby.

10. Mockingbird Foundation Of Canada

To see a little deeper just how many tentacles the Trudeau Foundation has, see these connections between the House of Commons, the Senate, the Courts and the media. Truly disgusting.

11. Usury Disguised As Humanitarianism

Despite what is said publicly, there is nothing compassionate about what is happening. Countries are taking loans they can’t pay back, and are forced to cede sovereignty in order to “service the debt”. Not at all what we are led to believe.

October 4, 2020December 16, 2022

IBC #6(C): Bank For International Settlements And Green Bonds

This is from a few years ago, but worth addressing again: the central banks are fully on board with the climate change agenda, and with the green bonds agenda.

The Bank for International Settlements in Switzerland is supposed to concern itself with fiscal policies. However, it has branched off into the climate change agenda and green bonds. This has nothing to do with its stated mandate, and is therefore, an important topic. Not a lot of evidence this even works, but who cares?

1. Green Bonds First Launched By World Bank

10 years ago, The World Bank issued the first-ever green bond then laid out the first blueprint for sustainable fixed income investing, transforming development finance and sparking a sustainability revolution in the capital markets. Green bonds have become a strategic priority for The World Bank as they support all Sustainable Development Goals. Watch this video to learn about the investors, evaluator, and Treasury behind the first green bond and how it turned into a $12 billion World Bank program 10 years later.

The green bonds industry was the first organized by the World Bank. It has expanded greatly over the last decade.

2. Green Bonds Potentially $100T Industry

In the Summer of 2019, the International Economic Forum of the Americas was held in Montreal. Several speakers discussed the rapid growth of the climate bonds, or green bonds industry. One predicted to be eventually become a $100 trillion industry.

3. BIS Mission Statement Excludes Green Agenda

BIS mission statement
Excellence in service to central banks and financial authorities
.
The BIS
.
-aims at promoting monetary and financial stability;
-acts as a forum for discussion and cooperation among central banks and the financial community; and
-acts as a bank to central banks and international organisations,

Strange, there seems to be no mention of using its power and influence to enact social change, and to facilitate the climate change agenda. Perhaps an oversight.

4. Green Bonds Already 3.5% Of Bond Market

Interest in green bonds and green finance – commonly defined as the financing of investments that provide environmental benefits (G20 GFSG (2016)) – has been increasing rapidly. Financial instruments that contribute to environmental sustainability have become a priority for many issuers, asset managers and governments alike. In particular, the market for green bonds has been growing fast. Global issuance surpassed $250 billion in 2019 – about 3.5% of total global bond issuance ($7.15 trillion).

Private institutions have developed green bond certifications and standards that grant issuers a green label if individual projects are deemed sufficiently in line with the Green Bond Principles (GBPs) of the International Capital Market Association (ICMA), and the use of proceeds can be ascertained.

A key issue for both policymakers and investors is whether existing certifications and standards result in the desired environmental impact (The Economist (2020)). While the GBPs define a broader range of environmental benefits, this special feature focuses on one particular aim: low and decreasing carbon emissions.

According to the Bank for International Settlements, so-called green bonds are exploding in popularity, and already make up over $250 billion of the total bond market, or about 3.5% overall. It’s unclear how any of this actually contributes to a cleaner environment, or combats climate change.

It’s disturbing how much money can be generated (or lost) on this industry. This 3.5% share is only expected to grow.

5. BIS: Climate Change Threatens Finances

Climate change poses new challenges to central banks, regulators and supervisors. This book reviews ways of addressing these new risks within central banks’ financial stability mandate. However, integrating climate-related risk analysis into financial stability monitoring is particularly challenging because of the radical uncertainty associated with a physical, social and economic phenomenon that is constantly changing and involves complex dynamics and chain reactions. Traditional backward-looking risk assessments and existing climate-economic models cannot anticipate accurately enough the form that climate-related risks will take. These include what we call “green swan” risks: potentially extremely financially disruptive events that could be behind the next systemic financial crisis. Central banks have a role to play in avoiding such an outcome, including by seeking to improve their understanding of climate-related risks through the development of forward-looking scenario-based analysis. But central banks alone cannot mitigate climate change. This complex collective action problem requires coordinating actions among many players including governments, the private sector, civil society and the international community. Central banks can therefore have an additional role to play in helping coordinate the measures to fight climate change. Those include climate mitigation policies such as carbon pricing, the integration of sustainability into financial practices and accounting frameworks, the search for appropriate policy mixes, and the development of new financial mechanisms at the international level. All these actions will be complex to coordinate and could have significant redistributive consequences that should be adequately handled, yet they are essential to preserve long-term financial (and price) stability in the age of climate change.

In a nutshell, this is BIS’ official reason for getting involved in the climate change industry, and into gree bonds: it threatens fiscal stability. But they have certainly found a profitable way to “stave off” this oncoming disaster. Very convenient.

6. Scaling Up: The Green/Banking Marriage

The four recommendations addressed to central banks and supervisors are:
.
(1) Integrating climate-related risks into financial stability monitoring and micro-supervision. This includes assessing climate-related risks in the financial system and integrating them into prudential supervision.
(2) Integrating sustainability factors into own portfolio management. The NGFS encourages central banks to lead by example in their own operations.
(3) Bridging data gaps. Public authorities are asked to share data relevant to Climate Risk Assessment and make these data publicly available.
(4) Building awareness and intellectual capacity and encouraging technical assistance and knowledge-sharing. The NGFS encourages all financial institutions to build in-house capacity and to collaborate to improve their understanding of how climate-related factors translate into financial risks and opportunities.

What is suggested here is nothing short of a full fledged marriage of the banking cartel and the climate cartel. Elements of the green agenda are to be embedded in every aspect of fiscal policies. This (shouldn’t) be what banks and bankers are involved with.

7. Bonds Are An “Investment” With No Real Product

It was interesting to see this “explanation” of climate bonds, which included vague references to “green industries”. No concrete examples were provided, nor was there any mention of the industries that would be lost as a result of this agenda.

This bonds scheme (like a Ponzi Scheme) only works as long as it is able to continuously get new funding. That won’t work, as eventually people realize this is a scam, and pulls their funds.

At 9:50, there is the not so subtle threat: change your business model, or go out of business. Former Bank of Canada Head Mark Carney (currently doing UN Climate Finance), said exactly the same thing. This isn’t opportunity, but the FORCED transition or shut down of many industries.

8. Green Bonds Already In Canada A While

If you thought this nonsense would never become a reality in Canada, you would be mistaken. Ontario has been issuing green bonds for several years, and it has continued under “populist” Doug Ford. It’s been happening Federally since at least 2014, when “conservative” Stephen Harper ran Canada. TD Canada appears to also have gotten in on the action.

Ontario and Canada aren’t doing anything revolutionary. They are just implementing what the World Bank started, and what the Bank for International Settlements is upscaling.

9. Bonds To Stabilize Financial System?

Although the idea of Green Bonds is not specifically mentioned in this BIS video, read between the lines. They talk about “alternative means” to stabilize economies after the 2008 collapse. BIS also refers to Green Bonds as necessary for fiscal stability. Two problems, one solution?

Cartel Marriage Shouldn’t Happen

The Bank for International Settlements offers the flimsiest of rationales for getting involved in the climate change and green bonds agendas.

While the idea that this aids fiscal stability, BIS never explains “how” exactly that is. It doesn’t delve into any of the many climate questions that need answered, nor does it explain how these bonds prevent climate change. BIS also won’t discuss how enriching a very few leads to overall equality.

It comes across as an attempt to (further) monetize the climate agenda, and to embed elements of it within national banking policies. As if national finances weren’t corrupt enough.

Canadians, and others, need to wake up to the collusion that continues to erode sovereignty. Do some research. The information presented above is just the tip of the iceberg.

September 14, 2020December 16, 2022

IBC #6(B): Bank Of Canada & Other Central Banks Promoting Climate Change Scam

Various central banks around the world — including the Bank of Canada — have fully embraced the climate change scam. They promote “green finance” as a way to enact larger social change.

1. BoC Fully Supports The GREAT RESET

https://twitter.com/bankofcanada/status/1296788907724623873

bank.of.canada.great.reset.agenda

The pandemic, central banks and climate change
• COVID-19 is a shock and an opportunity
• Pivot to a greener, smarter economy?
• Focus here on climate-related issues
• Our contributions to scenario analysis
• To start: how we view climate change risk

For those who are unfamiliar, the GREAT RESET is a plan hatched a long time ago, which involved using this “pandemic” as an excuse to bring about larger social change. Check out the previous piece on the World Economic Forum.

2. BoC Calls Climate Change A “Vulnerability”

Climate change creates important physical risks both in Canada and globally. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the average world temperature in 2017 was around 1°C higher than pre-industrial levels and is projected to rise by 0.2°C per decade. One consequence is an increase in extreme weather events such as flooding, hurricanes and severe droughts. Insured damage to property and infrastructure in Canada averaged about $1.7 billion per year from 2008 to 2017, up from $200 million per year from 1983 to 1992. Canada is particularly affected—it is estimated to be warming significantly faster than the rest of the world.27

The move to a low-carbon economy involves complex structural adjustments, creating new opportunities as well as transition risk. Investor and consumer preferences are shifting toward lower-carbon sources and production processes, suggesting that the move to a low-carbon economy is underway. Transition costs will be felt most in carbon-intensive sectors, such as the oil and gas sector. If some fossil fuel reserves remain unexploited, assets in this sector may become stranded, losing much of their value. At the same time, other sectors such as green technology and alternative energy will likely benefit.

Both physical and transition risks are likely to have broad impacts on the economy. Moving labour and capital toward less carbon-intensive sectors is costly and takes time. Global trade patterns may also shift as production costs and the value of resources change. The necessary adjustments are complex and pervasive and might lead to increased risk for the financial system. In addition to insurance companies, many other parts of the financial system are exposed to risks from climate change. Banks have loans to carbon-intensive sectors as well as to connected sectors—for example, those upstream or downstream in supply chains. Asset managers hold carbon-intensive assets in and outside Canada. The Government of Canada’s Expert Panel on Sustainable Finance is studying these issues.

(From part 5), the Bank of Canada has written off the oil & gas sector, and others, in favour of “transitioning to a low carbon economy”. It would be nice for those people in Alberta, BC and Saskatchewan to have been made aware of this. It’s not like their communities will be gutted.

3. BoC & “Greening Financial System”

In response, central banks are stepping up efforts to assess climate-related risks. The current suite of central bank economic models, however, do not incorporate climate-change effects. Uncertainty over future developments related to climate change also makes assessing these risks challenging. These developments include policy developments, technological developments and changes in the natural environment.

Some central banks and private financial institutions are developing tools to carry out climate-related scenario analysis. Scenario analysis examines different plausible future states of the world. It forecasts a set of situations that could happen rather than predicts what will happen. It can help users evaluate a range of hypothetical outcomes based on different assumptions of what may occur. Scenario analysis is particularly useful for climate change, where the evolution of key variables is uncertain. To be the most useful, these scenarios should be extreme yet plausible. This will give a sense of the full range of possible risks.

Rather than focusing on monetary policy, which is its mandate, the Bank of Canada has decided to wade into the climate change agenda. The BoC alleges that climate change is directly tied to the financial health of the country.

4. Initiative Launched December 2017

The Network of Central Banks and Supervisors for Greening the Financial System (NGFS), was launched on December 12, 2017. It started off with 8 central banks, but has grown exponentially since. Many more, including the Bank of Canada, are now part of this group.

5. Central Banks “Greening Financial System”

founding.members.greening.of.financial.system

Joint statement by the Founding Members of the Central Banks and Supervisors Network for Greening the Financial System

Financing the transition to a green and low carbon economy consistent with the ‘well below 2°celsius’ goal set out in the Paris agreement and promoting environmental sustainable growth are among the major challenges of our time. In the process of responding to environmental and climate challenges, there are both opportunities and vulnerabilities for financial institutions and the financial system as a whole.

Post Paris, official sector and private-led initiatives have accelerated the awareness of climate related financial risks and the scaling up of green financing. The G20 Green Finance Study Group and the FSB Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures also recommended steps towards encouraging financial institutions to conduct environmental risk analysis and to improve environment- and climate-related information disclosure. We are very pleased to announce today that eight central banks and supervisors decided to collectively commit to establish a Network of Central Banks and Supervisors for Greening the Financial System. The Network will help to strengthen the global response required to meet the goals of the Paris agreement and to enhance the role of the financial system to manage risks and to mobilize capital for green and low-carbon investments in the broader context of environmentally sustainable development.

This group was started by the central banks of 8 countries. It has since grown to encompass many more. People should be skeptical that organizations involved in the monetary system are getting involved in the climate change industry.

6. NGFS Scaling Up “Green Finance”

This section provides an overview of the workstream’s mandate.
The workstream on scaling up green finance is structured around 3 main topics:

1) Promoting the adoption of sustainable and responsible principles in central banks’ investment approaches
2) Understanding and monitoring the market dynamics of green finance
3) Providing a joint central banks’ view on the various challenges climate change raises for the conduct of monetary policy

7. Mark Carney, Former Bank Of Canada Head

Mark Carney used to be the Head of the Bank of Canada, and later headed the Bank of England. Anyway, this man is now in charge of “UN Climate Finance”, and openly threatens to bankrupt companies who don’t play ball with the climate change scam. It used to be that gangsters would burn down your business if you didn’t pay. Now, they just pass laws to make it impossible to operate.

8. BoC Pushing Digital Currency

https://twitter.com/bankofcanada/status/1276160904456003584

You know all that hype about the Bank of Canada looking to push some form of digital currency to replace money? Well yes, they are actually looking into it.

9. Should Banks Push Climate Agenda?

Banks, like any institution, should stick to their assigned role and not meddle elsewhere. Why stray so far into unrelated areas? It’s because they have an agenda, and are just using the financial sector as a means and excuse of implementing that agenda.

1. Debunking The Climate Change Scam

2. Important Links

3. Saskatchewan Court Of Appeal (May, 2019)

4. Ontario Court Of Appeal (June, 2019)

5. Alberta Court Of Appeal (February, 2020)

6. Federal Conservatives Support Climate Hoax

7. Supreme Court Of Canada: Ontario (Appellant)

8. Supreme Court: Manitoba (Intervenor)

9. Supreme Court: Saskatchewan (Intervenor)

10. Supreme Court: Alberta (Intervenor)

11. Supreme Court: BC (Intervenor)

12. Supreme Court: Quebec (Intervenor)

13. Supreme Court: New Brunswick (Intervenor)

14. NGOs Meddling In Court Affairs

15. SCC Challenges Are Designed To Fail

Share this:

Like this:

1. Debunking The Climate Change Scam

2. Important Links

3. NGOs To Profit From Climate Scam

4. David Suzuki Foundation

5. International Emissions Trading Association

6. Smart Prosperity Institute

7. Amnesty International

8. Constitutional Challenges: SK, ON, AB, SCC

Share this:

Like this:

1. Debunking The Climate Change Scam

2. Alliance Between Climate, Banking Cartels

3. Climate Bonds A Growth Industry

4. Central Banks Support Climate Hoax

5. Carbon Taxes Finance Int’l Debt Swaps

6. Mark Carney (Ex-BoC), UN Climate Mobster

7. Harper, Conservatives Defend Banking Cartel

8. Carbon Tax Court Challenges Are Rigged

9. Garnett Genuis Defends Paris Accord

10. British Columbia Conservative Party

11. United Conservative Party (Alberta)

12. Conservatives In Saskatchewan

13. Conservatives In Manitoba

14. Conservatives In Ontario

15. Conservatives In Quebec

16. Conservatives In New Brunswick

17. Elsewhere In The Maritimes

18. Fake Populist (Fake Party) Maxime Bernier

19. Conservative Party Of Canada

20. Leslyn Lewis’ Pro-UN/PA Dissertation

21. The Controlled Opposition Conservatives

22. Documents On The Climate Change Scam

Share this:

Like this:

1. More On The International Banking Cartel

2. Important Links

3. Debt Used As A Weapon Against Nations

4. World Economic Forum & Climate Swaps

5. UNDP Explains Risks And Consequences

6. World Bank 1990 Working Paper On Swaps

7. Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation, Seychelles

8. World Wildlife Fund Conservation Finance

9. Gerald Butts, Megan Leslie Head(s) of WWF

10. Mockingbird Foundation Of Canada

11. Usury Disguised As Humanitarianism

Share this:

Like this:

1. Green Bonds First Launched By World Bank

2. Green Bonds Potentially $100T Industry

3. BIS Mission Statement Excludes Green Agenda

4. Green Bonds Already 3.5% Of Bond Market

5. BIS: Climate Change Threatens Finances

6. Scaling Up: The Green/Banking Marriage

7. Bonds Are An “Investment” With No Real Product

8. Green Bonds Already In Canada A While

9. Bonds To Stabilize Financial System?

Share this:

Like this:

1. BoC Fully Supports The GREAT RESET

2. BoC Calls Climate Change A “Vulnerability”

3. BoC & “Greening Financial System”

4. Initiative Launched December 2017

5. Central Banks “Greening Financial System”