Solutions #14: Making More Informed Voting Choices

Justin Trudeau’s election in 2015 was due to a few things: nepotism, foreign money, a cooing media, and decent looks. By any objective measure, he has been a disaster.

To be fair, having a “conservative” in office would have led to most of the same harmful and destructive policies. Trudeau, to his credit, is openly a globalist, while conservatives are more stealthy about it. Nonetheless, we need people asking the right questions before they vote.

1. Previous Solutions Offered

CLICK HERE, for #1: Offering something to the other side.
CLICK HERE, for #2: Canada should leave the UN entirely.
CLICK HERE, for #3: Dumping multiculturalism and feminism.
CLICK HERE, for #4: More births instead of replacement migration.
CLICK HERE, for #5: Restore 1934 Bank of Canada Act
CLICK HERE, for #6: Abolish Human Rights Tribunals Entirely.
CLICK HERE, for #7: Abolish Gladue, fix underlying problems.
CLICK HERE, for #8: Banning (political) corporate welfare.
CLICK HERE, for #9: Putting a total moratorium on immigration.
CLICK HERE, for #10: How to do research, investigative journalism.
CLICK HERE, for #11: Have proper entry/exit border system.
CLICK HERE, for #12: Maintain spiritual foundation of the West.
CLICK HERE, for #13: Refusing forced vaccinations/medications.

2. Views/Bias Of The Author

Everyone has their own political slant. To get this out of the way: the views of the author more generally reflect the views and content that are addressed on the site. The site is nationalist leaning, and rejects conservatism and libertarianism, which are really just globalism.

Modern “leftism” (if that if even a proper term) is a globalist ideology. Although not a complete list, here are some of the things they support

  • Population replacement of Europeans
  • Erasure of traditional culture and heritage
  • Languages other than English and French
  • Identity politics for certain groups
  • Foreigners in the government
  • Foreigners in the military
  • Forced multiculturalism
  • Replacement of Christianity in the West
  • Globohomo agenda world wide
  • Mutilation of trans-children
  • Abortion becoming normalised and mainstream
  • Destruction of families
  • Pro climate change scam, carbon tax
  • UN and other “multilateral” institutions
  • Islamification of the West
  • Foreign aid handed out everywhere
  • Foreign interventions (but somehow not war)
  • Won’t discuss cause of foreign debt (Banking Cartel)
  • Government control over all major aspects of business
  • Limiting ability to send jobs overseas
  • Restricting free speech rights
  • Strong gun control, seizures

Modern conservatism (or “Conservative Inc.”) supports many of the same globalist ideologies and principles as the left, or liberals. Although the tone and rhetoric vary, a lot of the content is the same.

  • LEGAL population replacement of Europeans
  • LEGAL erasure of traditional culture and heritage
  • Languages other than English and French
  • Identity politics for certain groups
  • Foreigners in the government
  • Foreigners in the military
  • Globohomo agenda world wide
  • Mutilation of trans-ADULTS
  • LEGAL forced multiculturalism
  • Abortion becoming normalised and mainstream
  • Destruction of families
  • Pro climate change scam, but against carbon tax
  • UN, while claiming it won’t erode sovereignty
  • Islamification of the West (just not radicals)
  • Foreign aid for some places (like Israel)
  • Foreign wars that aren’t in Canadians’ interests
  • Won’t discuss cause of foreign debt (Banking Cartel)
  • Business interests topping interests of people
  • Offshoring/Outsourcing jobs overseas
  • “Monitoring” the situation of free speech violations
  • Sometimes stand on the side of gun owners

From the listings, it doesn’t seem like Liberalism or Conservative Inc. are all that different. Now that the views and biases are disclosed, let’s look at ways you can help make informed choices about who to vote for

3. Candidates Asking The Right Questions?

To be an effective representative, candidates must be addressing the right topics, and asking the right questions. However, far too many deflect. Here are some examples of topics that serious candidates should discuss if they really represent the interests of Canadians.

(a) Illegal border crossings into Canada: This should be a no-brainer to be against illegal aliens entering the country, but it’s not for many. Even those who call for closing the loophole in the Safe Third Country Agreement are in favour of work permits for illegals. There is tepid opposition to using taxpayer funded social services. If a candidate is serious about stopping illegal crossings, why wouldn’t they support stripping away the financial benefits for doing so? And why aren’t they talking about the people fighting in court to rewrite laws, and those facilitating the illegal entries into Canada?

(b) True scale of immigration into Canada: Politicians typically mislead about the true scale of people entering the country LEGALLY. They mention the number of permanent residencies handed out (if that is even accurate), but deflect from the true scale of people entering. They don’t discuss the problems that multiculturalism and population replacement bring, nor the balkanization of communities.

(c) Outsourcing/offshoring Canadian industries: There is a lot of talk about the benefits of free trade (also called globalization or offshoring), but little about the harmful effects. Who cares about corporate profits when entire communities are gutted, when it becomes cheaper to ship their jobs and industries overseas? Sure, it lowers prices at Walmart, but there are larger social costs. These costs involve: trade deficits; job losses; outsourcing; wage stagnation; wage depression; increased foreign competition; higher unemployment; loss of control for critical industries, and more. Immigration and free trade (think CANZUK), are linked, in that it creates an INCREASED demand for work, but with a REDUCED supply of jobs available. Candidates who care about their people should address this openly and honestly

(d) International Banking Cartel: Politicians often play a sleight-of-hand with deficit/debt. They will talk about “eliminating the deficit”, without mentioning that it still doesn’t deal with the already accumulated debt. Even worse, if that they won’t address the banking cartel, which Canada has been part of since 1974. Yes, money is artificially created, but instead of borrowing from the Bank of Canada (borrowing from ourselves), subsequent governments borrow artificially created money from private banks, meaning we have to pay for it. Even left-wing politicians act as controlled opposition in avoiding the topic.

(e) Corruption behind corporate welfare: While some politicians lament the fact that Provincially and Federally, we still hand out tax-payer subsidies (corporate welfare), few will address the fraud, corruption, and cronyism that is essential to these handouts. The focus is on a symptom, not the disease. Theft is a crime, and it shouldn’t be considered less of one just because one of the thieves is an elected official.

(f) Climate Change Scam: Talk among major politicians seems to be over whether a carbon tax is needed, or what type or pricing is needed. What’s missing from the discussion is that the Paris Accord is a total hoax, a fraud meant to enrich a few. Talk about controlled opposition. No one mentions the climate bonds industry, or the predatory loans which carbon taxes finance. In relation to point “D”, we are going into debt — to private companies — to borrow money which we then give away, yet this isn’t addressed. And how does paying taxes improve the weather anyway?

This is by no means a complete list, just a few major points that potential voters need to think about when asking their candidates for information.

4. Arguing Over Trivial Matters

People running for various offices will disagree on many things. Often they will argue over DIFFERENT POLICIES. However, when one argues over different ways to implement the SAME POLICIES, it becomes a fair question as to how different they really are. Fierce debate over essentially the same positions is a dog-and-pony show, which doesn’t offer a real alternative to voters.

5. Opposition By Scandal

Don’t get the wrong idea. Governments in power do often have scandals, such as corruption, gross incompetence. While holding a government to account is important, it should not be the MAIN SOURCE of opposition. If someone seeks office, and their main points all have to do with pointing out current administration incompetence, then they likely have little to offer as a platform.

6. Check Who Really Funds Candidates

There are several ways to do this. Check them out to see if they have rich relatives. Check work history to see if there is a particular company or industry they will be pushing. See who lobbies them or donates to their campaign accounts. Effectively, do a background check on your candidates. At times, the candidate will shove it in your face. Take note.

To be fair however, Canadian politicians are influenced by a variety of foreign interests. The Prime Minister is (allegedly) the bastard son of the late Cuban dictator, Fidel Castro. The Deputy Prime Minister is the granddaughter of a Nazi collaborator. The Defence Minister is an Indian National, so is our Industry Minister. The former Immigration Minister is a Somali refugee who funnels tax payer money there. The Status-Of-Women Minister is a fake refugee and illegal alien from Iran. M103 was passed by a Pakistani Muslim who hates free speech. The Conservative Leader and (just departed) Green Party Leader are both Americans. The Bloc is a party that opposes Canada, and the People’s Party is headed by a former Quebec separatist. The NDP leader is a Khalistani separatist banned from entering India. There are plenty more.

Beyond national and ethnic loyalties, it’s also worth inquiring who finances their campaigns, and who is donating gifts. It will tell you far more than any brochure of platform.

7. Deflect With Personal Attacks

A person serious about running for office should be able to defend their ideas from criticism. However, when the person resorts to name calling, or continuously brings up the record of others — instead of answering direct questions — ask yourself if the person really believes in what they say. Also be aware of strawman arguments

8. Take The Time To Self-Educate

Unfortunately, it is true that the bulk of successful politicians are working for someone other than their constituents. It’s not fair, and it’s not something to be condoned. It’s quite understandable, the sentiment that voting is a waste.

There are a host of serious issues that either get downplayed, or ignored altogether. The media is complicit in helping this happen, and the public gets screwed.

However, this is (for now) the system of government we have. Learning more about the people who want to rule over you gives power. It creates awareness.

Protect yourself.

Who’s Pulling Elizabeth May’s Strings?

Elizabeth May joined the Trudeau Foundation in 2005. Could that be part of why the Liberal party has always been so friendly towards her?

May is also a supporter of the (still hypothetical concept) of a world government run by the United Nations. She’s one of many globalist Canadian politicians.

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Elizabeth May’s Wikipedia page.
http://archive.is/y1zO4
CLICK HERE, for May’s profile with Trudeau Foundation.
http://archive.is/YzXmZ
CLICK HERE, for Revenue Canada searches for charities.
CLICK HERE, for Office of the Lobbying Commissioner.
CLICK HERE, for Sierra Club of Canada.
CLICK HERE, for Sierra’s 180 turn on immigration.

2. Why Dig Into Elizabeth May?

In terms of globalist politicians in Canada, Elizabeth May largely gets a pass. A significant part of it is that the Green party of Canada has only 3 seats, and is not a prominent party. It’s growing, yes, but it still relatively small.

Another reason may be that May might be ignored, and no actual digging into her past, is who she is connected to. Shining some more sunlight onto her may serve the public interest well.

  • Sierra Club
  • International Institute for Sustainable Development
  • Various groups lobbying her as an MP
  • Trudeau Foundation
  • Eco demonstrating

While May seems like just a typical environmental supporter, her various associations and affiliations should give people cause for concern. She is not who she appears to be.

3. May Ex-Executive Director, Sierra Club

Between April 1997, and February 2006, there are 17 communications reports between Elizabeth May and the Federal Government. She is a prior eco-lobbyist, and spent nearly a decade trying to influence policies in Canada.

Also noteworthy: now a Member of Parliament, May is frequently lobbied by various groups. Guess it has come full circle. In total, Elizabeth May’s name is attached to 525 communications reports, on a wide variety of topics.

sierra.club.1.director.change
sierra.club.2.bylaw.copy
sierra.club.3.certificate.of.continuance

May’s lobbying as head of the Sierra Club seems to be all environment related, but it does raise an interesting question: When she sits as a Member of Parliament, is she acting as the representative of the riding, or as a member of the ideology?

Sierra Today
.
Today, the Sierra Club Canada Foundation (SCCF) is a national registered charity that includes four chapters: Atlantic, Québec, Ontario, and Prairie, plus the Sierra Youth Coalition, a group whose mandate is to empower young people to become community leaders.
.
On the national level, we have earned an excellent reputation for our thoroughly researched positions and our ability to serve as a spokesperson for environmental issues Canada wide. On a regional level, the commitment of our volunteers makes us an effective advocate on the environmental issues affecting Canadians in their communities.
Following in the footsteps of John Muir, we sponsor programs that help to bring nature into the lives of children and adults.

From it’s HISTORY page, Sierra claims to be an advocacy organization devoted to environmental causes, and bringing awareness to the general public. Elizabeth May used to be the head of this organization.

Interesting side note: The Sierra Club (not just in Canada), used to be against having high levels of immigration. The main reason being that increased numbers of people put more strain on the environment. However, for a $100 million donation from David Gelbaum, the Sierra Club was completely willing to flip its stance. It seems anything is negotiable. More information on Gelbaum is available.

Reporting Period Ending December 31, 2014
Receipted donations $284,311.00 (36.48%)
Non-receipted donations $37,392.00 (4.80%)
Gifts from other registered charities $314,732.00 (40.39%)
Government funding $34,287.00 (4.40%)
All other revenue $108,567.00 (13.93%)
Total revenue: $779,289.00

Charitable programs $625,543.00 (69.95%)
Management and administration $177,577.00 (19.86%)
Fundraising $24,599.00 (2.75%)
Political activities $6,563.00 (0.73%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $60,041.00 (6.71%)
Total expenses: $894,323.00

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$474,307.00

Full-time employees (7)
Part-time employees (13)

Professional and consulting fees
$22,677.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$1 to $39,999
$40,000 to $79,999 (4)

Reporting Period Ending December 31, 2015
Receipted donations $294,471.00 (46.34%)
Non-receipted donations $8,124.00 (1.28%)
Gifts from other registered charities $242,348.00 (38.14%)
Government funding $13,862.00 (2.18%)
All other revenue $76,647.00 (12.06%)
Total revenue: $635,452.00

Charitable programs $295,412.00 (52.37%)
Management and administration $189,330.00 (33.57%)
Fundraising $59,347.00 (10.52%)
Political activities $19,962.00 (3.54%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $564,051.00

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$271,281.00

Full-time employees (5)
Part-time employees (13)

Professional and consulting fees
$87,031.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$1 to $39,999 (4)
$40,000 to $79,999 (2)

Reporting Period Ending December 31, 2016
Receipted donations $269,907.00 (60.64%)
Non-receipted donations $7,471.00 (1.68%)
Gifts from other registered charities $0.00 (0.00%)
Government funding $26,251.00 (5.90%)
All other revenue $141,474.00 (31.78%)
Total revenue: $445,103.00

The Sierra Club claimed $434,604.00 in expenses in its T3010 filings

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$200,693.00

Full-time employees (6)
Part-time employees (9)

Professional and consulting fees
$128,893.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$1 to $39,999 (5)
$40,000 to $79,999 (1)

Reporting Period Ending December 31, 2017
Receipted donations $319,801.00 (58.98%)
Non-receipted donations $28,410.00 (5.24%)
Gifts from other registered charities $0.00 (0.00%)
Government funding $88,471.00 (16.32%)
All other revenue $105,526.00 (19.46%)
Total revenue: $542,208.00

The Sierra Club also claimed $551,737.00 in expenses that year — line 4950 in it’s T3010 for that year.

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$315,747.00

Full-time employees (5)
Part-time employees (17)

Professional and consulting fees
$128,912.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$1 to $39,999 (3)
$40,000 to $79,999 (2)

Reporting Period Ending December 31, 2018
Receipted donations $250,400.00 (43.92%)
Non-receipted donations $7,977.00 (1.40%)
Gifts from other registered charities $0.00 (0.00%)
Government funding $78,217.00 (13.72%)
All other revenue $233,593.00 (40.97%)
Total revenue: $570,187.00

Charitable programs $387,583.00 (61.61%)
Management and administration $114,807.00 (18.25%)
Fundraising $61,351.00 (9.75%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $65,327.00 (10.38%)
Total expenses: $629,068.00

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$337,381.00

Full-time employees (6)
Part-time employees (15)

Professional and consulting fees
$62,104.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$1 to $39,999 (3)
$40,000 to $79,999 (3)

The Sierra Club doesn’t take in anywhere near as much money as the Trudeau Foundation. Still, interesting to see how much it does get. The next one however, is swimming in money

4. Int’l Inst. for Sustainable Development

iisd.1.change.of.directors
iisd.2.organization.bylaws
iisd.3.certificate.of.continuation

Our big-picture view allows us to address the root causes of some of the greatest challenges facing our planet today—ecological destruction, social exclusion, unfair laws and economic rules, a changing climate. Through research, analysis and knowledge sharing, we identify and champion sustainable solutions that make a difference. We report on international negotiations, conduct rigorous research, and engage citizens, businesses and policy-makers on the shared goal of developing sustainably.
.
With offices in Winnipeg, Geneva, Ottawa and Toronto, our work impacts lives in nearly 100 countries. IISD is a registered charitable organization in Canada and has 501(c)(3) status in the United States.
.
IISD receives core and project funding support from numerous governments inside and outside Canada, United Nations agencies, foundations and the private sector. For more detail, view our annual report.
.
IISD’s work is organized around six programs and a core set of strategic goals. Our brochure provides a snapshot of our strategy and programs.

That is from the ABOUT section in the International Institute for Sustainable Development website. Much more information is available.

Reporting Period Ending March 31, 2015
Receipted donations $30,150.00 (0.17%)
Non-receipted donations $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts from other registered charities $0.00 (0.00%)
Government funding $2,695,846.00 (15.39%)
All other revenue $14,791,567.00 (84.44%)
Total revenue: $17,517,563.00

Charitable programs $15,178,878.00 (80.70%)
Management and administration $932,920.00 (4.96%)
Fundraising $1,398,027.00 (7.43%)
Political activities $969,206.00 (5.15%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $330,272.00 (1.76%)
Total expenses: $18,809,303.00

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$7,550,002.00

Full-time employees (55)
Part-time employees (10)

Professional and consulting fees
$6,609,852.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$80,000 to $119,999 (1)
$120,000 to $159,999 (4)
$160,000 to $199,999 (1)
$200,000 to $249,999 (1)
$350,000 and over (1)

Reporting Period Ending March 31, 2016
Receipted donations $58,330.00 (0.27%)
Non-receipted donations $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts from other registered charities $0.00 (0.00%)
Government funding $4,096,046.00 (19.09%)
All other revenue $17,303,126.00 (80.64%)
Total revenue: $21,457,502.00

Charitable programs $18,176,377.00 (88.66%)
Management and administration $868,967.00 (4.24%)
Fundraising $757,087.00 (3.69%)
Political activities $295,296.00 (1.44%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $403,270.00 (1.97%)
Total expenses: $20,500,997.00

Total compensation for all positions
$7,894,255.00

Full-time employees (55)
Part-time employees (9)

Professional and consulting fees
$7,051,688.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$80,000 to $119,999 (3)
$120,000 to $159,999 (4)
$160,000 to $199,999 (1)
$200,000 to $249,999 (1)
$250,000 to $299,999 (1)

Reporting Period Ending March 31, 2017
Receipted donations $58,313.00 (0.27%)
Non-receipted donations $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts from other registered charities $0.00 (0.00%)
Government funding $5,392,587.00 (25.14%)
All other revenue $15,996,324.00 (74.58%)
Total revenue: $21,447,224.00

Charitable programs $17,713,128.00 (84.06%)
Management and administration $1,318,103.00 (6.26%)
Fundraising $1,043,767.00 (4.95%)
Political activities $611,182.00 (2.90%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $385,607.00 (1.83%)
Total expenses: $21,071,787.00

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$8,488,461.00

Full-time employees (62)
Part-time employees (6)

Professional and consulting fees
$6,699,377.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$80,000 to $119,999 (4)
$120,000 to $159,999 (3)
$160,000 to $199,999 (1)
$200,000 to $249,999 (1)
$250,000 to $299,999 (1)

Reporting Period Ending March 31, 2018
Receipted donations $108,522.00 (0.45%)
Non-receipted donations $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts from other registered charities $369,353.00 (1.54%)
Government funding $8,278,278.00 (34.59%)
All other revenue $15,173,667.00 (63.41%)
Total revenue: $23,929,820.00

Charitable programs $20,661,401.00 (90.39%)
Management and administration $2,135,148.00 (9.34%)
Fundraising $58,686.00 (0.26%)
Political activities $2,450.00 (0.01%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $22,857,685.00

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$9,025,983.00

Full-time employees (75)
Part-time employees (6)

Professional and consulting fees
$7,462,609.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$120,000 to $159,999 (5)
$160,000 to $199,999 (3)
$200,000 to $249,999 (1)
$250,000 to $299,999 (1)

Reporting Period Ending March 31, 2019
Operations Outside Canada
10 countries
Other countries in Africa
Other countries in Europe
UGANDA
INDONESIA
CHINA
Other counties in North America
KENYA
JAMAICA
VIET NAM
Other countries in Central and South America

Receipted donations $168,502.00 (0.65%)
Non-receipted donations $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts from other registered charities $65,000.00 (0.25%)
Government funding $5,458,098.00 (21.17%)
All other revenue $20,088,179.00 (77.92%)
Total revenue: $25,779,779.00

Charitable programs $22,511,518.00 (90.91%)
Management and administration $2,133,829.00 (8.62%)
Fundraising $115,844.00 (0.47%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$9,945,650.00

Full-time employees (79)
Part-time employees (8)

Professional and consulting fees
$8,501,328.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$120,000 to $159,999 (5)
$160,000 to $199,999 (3)
$200,000 to $249,999 (2)

Here is their most recently available financial statement:
iisd.2018.2019.financial.statement

Should we be concerned that Elizabeth May’s former institution accepts money from the World Health Organization, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation?

Side note: The Azrieli Foundation is named after David Azrieli, the late Israeli media baron and billionaire. His grandson, Matthew Azrieli, owns the Post Millennial.

5. Lobbying Elizabeth May As An MP

The above examples are just a sample of the information that is available when searching “ELIZABETH MAY” in the lobbying registry. It seems that many eco-groups see an “in” for their cause with May in office. Of course May is being lobbied by other types of groups, but this bunch seems particularly prominent.

6. May Is Member Of Trudeau Foundation

Elizabeth May is an environmentalist, writer, activist and lawyer. She is a graduate of Dalhousie Law School and was admitted to the Bar in both Nova Scotia and Ontario. She has held the position of Associate General Council for the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, representing consumer, poverty and environment groups in her work. In 1986, she became Senior Policy Advisor to then federal Environment Minister, Tom McMillan.

Ms. May is the author of seven books, BudwormBattles (1982), Paradise Won: The Struggle to Save South Moresby (1990), At the Cutting Edge: The Crisis in Canada’s Forests (Key Porter Books, 1998), Frederick Street; Life and Death on Canada’s Love Canal (Harper Collins, 2000, co-authored with Maude Barlow,) How to Save the World in Your Spare Time (Key Porter, 2006), Losing Confidence: Power, Politics and the Crisis in Canadian Democracy (McClelland and Stewart, 2009), and, with Zoe Caron, Global Warming for Dummies (John Wiley and Sons, 2008). Recipient of many awards and honours, she became in 1998 the first chair-holder of the “Elizabeth May Chair in Women’s Health and Environment” at Dalhousie University. She holds honourary doctorates from Mount Saint Vincent University and the University of New Brunswick. In 2005, she became an officer of the Order of Canada.

Formerly the Executive Director of the Sierra Club of Canada, Ms. May is a past member of the board of directors of the International Institute for Sustainable Development, and a member of the advisory board to the Environmental Commissioner, Office of the Auditor General of Canada. She is leader of the Green Party of Canada.

Talk about controlled opposition. The (now former) leader of the Green Party is also a member of the Trudeau Foundation, which is named after Pierre Elliot Trudeau. Guess there isn’t really much ideological differences between the parties.

Justin Trudeau pushed for Elizabeth May to be included in the 2011 debates, despite the Greens not holding a seat at the time. The Liberal Party and Green Party also previously agreed to not run candidates in the ridings of the other’s leader. May has always seemed friendly with Trudeau and the Liberals, and her membership here offers another explanation as to why that is.

This isn’t all of them, of course, but a few that are available publicly.

Trudeau.01.Bylaws.2020
Trudeau.02.certificate.of.continuance
Trudeau.03.director.change.david.emerson.out.2016
Trudeau.03.director.change.macbain.out
Trudeau.04.notice.of.filing.return.2019

Other current and former members include:

  • Ex-Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin
  • Ex-Supreme Court Justice Thomas Cromwell
  • Ex-Supreme Court Justice Louis LeBel
  • Ex-Supreme Court Justice Marie DesChamps
  • Ex-BC Supreme Court Judge Lynn Smith
  • Ex-Senator Michael Fortier
  • Ex-NDP Leader Ed Broadbent
  • Ex-Opposition Leader Megan Leslie
  • Ex-Cabinet Minister Chuck Strahl
  • Ex-Attorney General Anne McLellan
  • Ex-Deputy Attorney General John Sims
  • Ex-Deputy Minister Michael Horgan
  • Ex-Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard
  • Ex-PEI Premier Wade MacLauchlan
  • SNC Lavalin Director Jacques Bougie
  • Roy. L Heenan (Heenan Blaikie Partner)
  • John H McCall MacBain (Euro Climate Founder)

The Trudeau Foundation comprises Justices, and many high ranking officials from across parties. Elizabeth May is just one of the people in this organization. So why isn’t this heavily reported by the media? Also, how much money does the Foundation take in annually?

From a search on Revenue Canada’s website, we are able to see that the Trudeau Foundation takes in millions annually. It is a registered charity, so the information is publicly available. Here is data from recent years.

Reporting Period Ending August 31, 2015
Here are the Directors at the time.

Receipted donations $617,210.00 (7.17%)
Non-receipted donations $16,251.00 (0.19%)
Gifts from other registered charities $1,000.00 (0.01%)
Government funding $0.00 (0.00%)
All other revenue $7,977,622.00 (92.63%)
Total revenue: $8,612,083.00

Charitable programs $5,891,783.00 (89.40%)
Management and administration $683,008.00 (10.36%)
Fundraising $0.00 (0.00%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $15,521.00 (0.24%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $6,590,312.00

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$971,144.00

Full-time employees (9)
Part-time employees (2)

Professional and consulting fees
$376,636.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$40,000 to $79,999 (5)
$80,000 to $119,999 (3)
$250,000 to $299,999 (1)

Reporting Period Ending August 31, 2016
Here are the Directors at that time.

Receipted donations $122,066.00 (2.72%)
Non-receipted donations $122,798.00 (2.74%)
Gifts from other registered charities $52,500.00 (1.17%)
Government funding $0.00 (0.00%)
All other revenue $4,191,679.00 (93.38%)
Total revenue: $4,489,043.00

Charitable programs $6,551,877.00 (88.80%)
Management and administration $686,611.00 (9.31%)
Fundraising $124,183.00 (1.68%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $15,250.00 (0.21%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $7,377,921.00

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$1,186,681.00

Full-time employees (9)
Part-time employees (3)

Professional and consulting fees
$349,738.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$40,000 to $79,999 (5)
$80,000 to $119,999 (2)
$120,000 to $159,999 (1)
$250,000 to $299,999 (1)

Reporting Period Ending August 31, 2017
Charitable programs $5,189,590.00 (85.03%)
Management and administration $733,680.00 (12.02%)
Fundraising $164,533.00 (2.70%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $15,200.00 (0.25%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $6,103,003.00

Strangely, very strangely, there is no REVENUE being reported here. Did they not take any in, or is it just missing from the filings that are available?

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$1,204,006.00

Full-time employees (11)
Part-time employees (2)

Professional and consulting fees
$409,860.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$40,000 to $79,999 (7)
$80,000 to $119,999 (2)
$120,000 to $159,999 (1)
$250,000 to $299,999 (1)

Reporting Period Ending August 31, 2018
Here are the Directors listed at that time.
Receipted donations $25,374.00 (0.42%)
Non-receipted donations $39,503.00 (0.65%)
Gifts from other registered charities $50,000.00 (0.82%)
Government funding $0.00 (0.00%)
All other revenue $5,996,497.00 (98.12%)
Total revenue: $6,111,374.00

Charitable programs $3,996,014.00 (72.03%)
Management and administration $1,124,793.00 (20.27%)
Fundraising $412,005.00 (7.43%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $15,000.00 (0.27%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $5,547,812.00

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$1,418,973.00

Full-time employees (10)
Part-time employees (8)

Professional and consulting fees
$801,966.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$40,000 to $79,999 (6)
$80,000 to $119,999 (2)
$120,000 to $159,999 (1)
$250,000 to $299,999 (1)

Reporting period ending August 31, 2019
Here are the Directors listed on the T3010

Receipted donations $7,917.00 (0.13%)
Non-receipted donations $135,618.00 (2.23%)
Gifts from other registered charities $0.00 (0.00%)
Government funding $0.00 (0.00%)
All other revenue $5,936,983.00 (97.64%)
Total revenue: $6,080,518.00

Charitable programs $5,560,040.00 (86.25%)
Management and administration $739,268.00 (11.47%)
Fundraising $135,708.00 (2.11%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $11,350.00 (0.18%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $6,446,366.00

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$1,361,701.00

Full-time employees (11)
Part-time employees (5)

Professional and consulting fees
$607,970.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$1 to $39,999 (1)
$40,000 to $79,999 (5)
$80,000 to $119,999 (4)
$250,000 to $299,999

As the data shows (and it’s all freely available on the CRA website), the Foundation takes in millions annually. Why isn’t the group and its donors more carefully probed by the media?

It could be that several members of the mainstream media in Canada are also part of the Trudeau Foundation. Can’t exactly hold these people to account when they are part of the swamp as well

Yes, this could very well be why the Canadian media seems to have little interest in digging into Elizabeth May, or into the Trudeau Foundation more broadly. Huge conflict of interest here.

There is a ton of information on the Trudeau Foundation that needs to be public. That will be the focus of a separate article. But since many members of the Canadian media are also affiliated with the Trudeau Foundation, they won’t do meaningful reporting into the organization.

Nor will they report of the huge conflict of interest that Elizabeth May has, in leading the Green Party of Canada, but being part of a group named after a Liberal ex-Prime Minister.

7. Trans Mountain Pipeline Protests

[1] THE COURT: Ms. May’s circumstances and her conduct do not fit the pattern of others who have pleaded guilty to criminal contempt in these proceedings and who have been subject to $500 fines or community work service orders. Ms. May is not only a member of parliament, she is also the leader of a political party whose purpose is to have increasing influence on public opinion on matters of importance in Canada. In this instance Ms. May has sought to influence others to disobey the injunction.

[2] The rule of law is not a guaranteed feature of Canadian life. It needs constant vigilance to be sustained. It is not only judges who have that obligation; so does everyone else, most particularly those members of parliament who lead political parties. We can easily look to other places in the world to see where the rule of law has never existed or has been lost. The dire consequences are on the daily news that we all see. The law applies to everyone. Nobody is entitled to pick and choose the laws or the court orders they will obey because they believe they have a higher obligation. If they choose to do so and offer public defiance of a court order, the judges of this Court have a duty to respond to that defiance.

[3] As well as being a member of parliament, Ms. May is a lawyer. Lawyers enjoy privileges in our society such as that of professional advocates in the courts. With privilege comes responsibility. In this case Ms. May had a responsibility to obey the injunction and to persuade others to do so.

[4] I note that no law or order has prevented Ms. May or any other persons from protesting the building of the Trans Mountain Pipeline even near to the worksites. The injunction expressly preserves the right to peaceful, lawful and safe protest.

2018.BCSC.Elizabeth.May.fined.protest

On March 23, 2018, May violated a court order and staged a protest against the Trans Mountain Pipeline. She was arrested, and ultimately fined $1,500.

May has no problem with the illegal demonstration, even as she is a sitting Member of Parliament. How exactly does this help out her constituents?

8. Greens Support Wet’suwet’en Protests

The Official policy of the Green party is to support the protests against the Coastal GasLink Pipeline. However, even as the protests appear to be foreign funded, the Greens still support it. Included is a very interesting video by Rebel Media, exposing money coming in from the Tides Foundation, and other eco groups.

About Our Organization
The Office of the Wet’suwet’en was created as a central office for the Wet’suwet’en Nation. The Office offers many services throughout the traditional territories focusing on the main areas of Lands and Resources, Fisheries & Wildlife, Human and Social Services and Governance.
.
The Office of the Wet’suwet’en is located in Smithers, BC. Our office has been in its operation since 1994 however was affiliated with the Gitxsan Nation for many years. Our office is not an Indian band or tribal council. The Office of the Wet’suwet’en does not receive core funding (continuous funding from one year to the next) from any form of Government.
.
Based on the priorities set by the Board of Directors, staff must negotiate program funding through various sources from; federal and provincial governments and foundations. This situation creates added responsibility for management to ensure that programs meet goals to illustrate successes and generate support for continued funding. Accessing new monies requires proactive and persistent leadership while ensuring program goals are being met and growth is effective.
.
Our office is governed by the Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs residing throughout the traditional territories. The Chiefs meet at least monthly and often weekly to address specific issues that management needs direction for. Meetings are held throughout the territories in various locations.
.
As a non-profit society, the Office of the Wet’suwet’en does not provide donations due to shortage of funds.

The Office is not an Indian band or tribal council? So it is just a group of people masquerading as Band members. It is an open admission that the group is a total fake.

It relies on funding from Federal and Provincial Governments, and Foundations? Would be interesting to see which foundations are vested in seeing this group through, especially since it isn’t actually the people with land rights.

9. May Isn’t Who She Claims To Be

Elizabeth May is a “Mentor” at the Trudeau Foundation, named after Liberal PM Pierre Elliot Trudeau. It partially explains why the Liberal Party is so friendly towards her, as she is part of that same organization. If the media weren’t in bed with the Trudeau Foundation, they would have reported on just how deep this runs.

May is a former Executive Director with the Sierra Club of Canada, a charity which takes in about half a million a year from various sources. She’s silent about the donations received in order for Sierra to become neutral on the topic of immigration. While acting as the Director, she lobbied the Federal Government on at least 17 occasions for various environmental issues. Now, a sitting Member of Parliament, she is lobbied herself by a host of various special interest groups.

May also was with the International Institute for Sustainable Development, which receives many millions a year. The IISD gets money from places like the World Health Organization, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

She has been arrested for criminal contempt for violating a court order, and her party supports the obviously fraudulent protests in BC.

These items are not an exhaustive list, but should provide some insight into the interests who are really controlling May and the environmental movement as a whole.

Climate Propaganda In Academia — Some Big Players

 

1. Important Links


CLICK HERE, for an intro to the climate change scam.
CLICK HERE, for Disruptive Innovation Framework.
CLICK HERE, for humanizing transitions, energy justice.

CLICK HERE, for Max Boykoff’s article in Scientific American.
CLICK HERE, for Boykoff’s war on science, part I.
CLICK HERE, for Boykoff’s war on science, part II.

2. A Shoutout To Uppity Peasants


It’s only fair to cite the source of these articles, as in the person who shared them. They came from a Prairie Nationalist who’s frequently busy sharpening her pitchfork. Go check out Uppity Peasants for this and other topics.

3. Context For This Article


The topic of climate propaganda has been covered on this site several times (see links in Section #1). However, rather than doing a complete review for each of the remaining articles, a brief commentary will be added.

It’s downright creepy how the emotional manipulation and shameless hucksterism of climate change are treated seriously in academia. Rather than admitting there “may” be something wrong with climate research, the idea is to double down and look for alternative ways to sell the scheme.

Still, if plunging into the messed up world of climate propaganda appeals to you, then you have two options:
(a) Get professional help; or
(b) Keep reading more.

4. Heuristic Of Creative Destruction


Moving beyond the heuristic of creative destruction: Targeting exnovation with policy mixes for energy transitions Martin David Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Germany.

Scholars looking at policy mixes for the energy transition and seeking to facilitate a move away from fossil-based structures are increasingly addressing the opposite side of innovation. To describe this, the article introduces the concept of exnovation, referring to attempts to end fossil-based technological trajectories in a deliberate fashion. It applies a framework that encompasses innovation and exnovation alike in order to investigate the policy mix of the German energy transition. Beside finding that energy transition policy mixes need to emphasize regulatory instruments more in order to bring about decarbonization, the article also describes some general aspects of the policy mix design required to govern the innovation-exnovation nexus.

Typically, most people want to ADVANCE their societies, but this one considers doing the opposite: leading the public down a less developed lifestyle in order to combat climate change.

5. Bringing About Disruptive Change


A heuristic for conceptualizing and uncovering the determinants of agency in socio-technical transitions Mert Duygana, Michael Stauffachera, Grégoire Meylanb

There has been a growing interest in transition studies on the role of agency in bringing about disruptive change. Previous studies have examined how actors perform institutional work to create legitimacy and transform institutions. In doing so, they have provided insights into specific practices and strategies that actors follow. This paper seeks to complement existing studies by elucidating the foundations of agency that transforms institutions through institutional work. Drawing on institutional sociology and organizational studies, resources, discourses and networks of actors are identified as key elements enabling institutional work practices. The agency of each actor is conceived of as dependent on the configurations it possesses with respect to these elements. A heuristic is presented that helps to determine the configurations associated with a strong agency in empirical settings and use Swiss waste management as an illustrative case example. The heuristic enables a systematic analysis of agency across different organizational fields.

Some research into methods and techniques for bringing about serious and disruptive changes in Western society deemed necessary for environmental protections.

6. Disruption & System Transformation


Disruption and low-carbon system transformation: Progress and new challenges in socio-technical transitions research and the Multi-Level Perspective Frank W. Geels

This paper firstly assesses the usefulness of Christensen’s disruptive innovation framework for low-carbon system change, identifying three conceptual limitations with regard to the unit of analysis (products rather than systems), limited multi-dimensionality, and a simplistic (‘point source’) conception of change. Secondly, it shows that the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) offers a more comprehensive framework on all three dimensions. Thirdly, it reviews progress in socio-technical transition research and the MLP on these three dimensions and identifies new challenges, including ‘whole system’ reconfiguration, multi-dimensional struggles, bi-directional niche-regime interactions, and an alignment conception of change. To address these challenges, transition research should further deepen and broaden its engagement with the social sciences.

This gem takes the BUSINESS concept of disruptive innovative framework which is meant to introduce new products and technologies into the market. It then tries to apply it to the CLIMATE CHANGE industry in getting changes made.

7. Fighting Opposing “Regime” Against Change


Regime Resistance against Low-Carbon Transitions: Introducing Politics and Power into the Multi-Level Perspective
Frank W Geels University of Manchester and King Abdulaziz Universit

Abstract
While most studies of low-carbon transitions focus on green niche-innovations, this paper shifts attention to the resistance by incumbent regime actors to fundamental change. Drawing on insights from political economy, the paper introduces politics and power into the multi-level perspective. Instrumental, discursive, material and institutional forms of power and resistance are distinguished and illustrated with examples from the UK electricity system. The paper concludes that the resistance and resilience of coal, gas and nuclear production regimes currently negates the benefits from increasing renewables deployment. It further suggests that policymakers and many transition-scholars have too high hopes that ‘green’ innovation will be sufficient to bring about low-carbon transitions. Future agendas in research and policy should therefore pay much more attention to the destabilization and decline of existing fossil fuel regimes.

This paper views political and media types who are skeptical of the climate change industry as “resistance” and studies way around them. No real sense that they may bring up valid points. Instead, they are an obstacle to progress.

8. Humanizing And “Energy Justice”


Humanizing sociotechnical transitions through energy justice: An ethical framework for global transformative change
Kirsten Jenkins, Benjamin K. Sovacoolb, Darren McCaule

Poverty, climate change and energy security demand awareness about the interlinkages between energy systems and social justice. Amidst these challenges, energy justice has emerged to conceptualize a world where all individuals, across all areas, have safe, affordable and sustainable energy that is, essentially, socially just. Simultaneously, new social and technological solutions to energy problems continually evolve, and interest in the concept of sociotechnical transitions has grown. However, an element often missing from such transitions frameworks is explicit engagement with energy justice frameworks. Despite the development of an embryonic set of literature around these themes, an obvious research gap has emerged: can energy justice and transitions frameworks be combined? This paper argues that they can. It does so through an exploration of the multi-level perspective on sociotechnical systems and an integration of energy justice at the model’s niche, regime and landscape level. It presents the argument that it is within the overarching process of sociotechnical change that issues of energy justice emerge. Here, inattention to social justice issues can cause injustices, whereas attention to them can provide a means to examine and potential resolve them.

The social justice nonsense which universities push is about to get a new member, so-called “energy justice”. Consider this a bastardized child of cultural Marxism and the climate change scam.

9. Regime Destabilization, Pulp & Paper


Explaining regime destabilisation in the pulp and paper industry
Kersti Karltorp, Björn A. Sandén

abstract
.
A transition to a carbon neutral society will require a shift from fossil to renewable resources. This will affect the conversion of biomass and related industries such as the pulp and paper industry. The purpose of this paper is two-fold: first, to describe and analyse the transformation processes in the Swedish pulp and paper industry and the adoption of biorefinery options, and second, to demonstrate how conceptualisations from strategic management can be used to describe regime destabilisation. The industry’s adoption of biorefinery options has been modest so far, but there is development along two trajectories. The first centres on gasification and the second on separation and refining. Such diverging strategies in response to external pressure can be explained by differences that exist between firms. Signs of increasing firm divergence, or ‘regime fragmentation’, might indicate the entry into a phase of regime destabilisation, and a critical point in a transition.

Sure, let’s make the pulp and paper industry completely unprofitable and put all of those workers out on the street. Rather than finding better solutions, let’s sabotage what already exists. While it is true you can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs, this seems excessive.

10. Apply Pressure To Destabilize Industries


Sequence and alignment of external pressures in industry destabilisation: Understanding the downfall of incumbent utilities in the German energy transition (1998–2015) Gregor Kungla, Frank W. Geels

ABSTRACT
This article makes two contributions to the emerging research stream on regime and industry destabilisation in the transition literature. First, we replicate the multi-dimensional framework developed by Turnheim and Geels with a more contemporary study that has closer links to sustainability transitions. Drawing on a wide range of primary and secondary sources, we analyse the destabilisation of the German electricity industry, which faced multiple external pressures: renewable energy technologies, nuclear phase-out policy, the financial-economic crisis, and negative public debates. Second, we elaborate the role of multiple pressures in industry destabilisation, focusing in particular on their sequence and alignment. We inductively identify patterns such as the ‘masking effect’ of highly visible macro-shocks, ‘perfect storm’ pattern, a ‘killer blow’ effect, and spillover dynamics between external environments.

Not sure what to add to this. If industries are considered to be environmentally unsound, let’s apply various pressures in order to destabilize and destroy them.

11. Politically Accelerated Transitions


Conditions for politically accelerated transitions: Historical institutionalism, the multi-level perspective, and two historical case studies in transport and agriculture Cameron Roberts, Frank W. Geels

ABSTRACT
This article investigates the conditions under which policymakers are likely to decisively accelerate sociotechnical transitions. We develop a conceptual framework that combines insights from historical institutionalism and the Multi-Level Perspective to better understand the political dimension in transitions, focusing particularly on the mechanisms of political defection from incumbent regime to niche-innovation. We distinguish two ideal type patterns, one where external (landscape) shocks create a ‘critical juncture’ and one where gradual feedbacks change the balance of power between niche-innovation and regime. We also identify more proximate conditions such as external pressures on policymakers (from business interests, mass publics, and technologies) and policy internal developments (changes in problem definitions and access to institutional arrangements). We apply this framework to two historical case studies in which UK policymakers deliberately accelerated transitions: the transition from rail to road transport (1920–1970); and the transition from traditional mixed agriculture to specialised wheat agriculture (1920–1970). We analyse the conditions for major policy change in each case and draw more general conclusions. We also discuss implications for contemporary low-carbon transitions, observing that while some favourable conditions are in place, they do not yet meet all the prerequisites for political acceleration.

This is basically the same concept as before: gutting and destroying various industries. However, this one involves using political pressure in order to achieve it.

12. Plant Based Milk?


Rage against the regime: Niche-regime interactions in the societal embedding of plant-based milk
Josephine Mylana, Carol Morris, Emma Beech, Frank W. Geel

This paper engages with the debate on niche-regime interactions in sustainability transitions, using a study of plant-based milk and its struggles against the entrenched liquid dairy-milk regime, which has various sustainability problems. Plant-based milk isunder-studied, so our empirical contribution consists of an exploration of its diffusion in the UK. We make three conceptual contributions. The first calls for a bidirectional analysis that addresses niche-orientedactivities by incumbent actors, in addition to the outward-oriented activities by niche advocates presented in most studies of niche-regime interaction.The second contribution nuances Smith and Raven’s fit-and-conform and stretch-and-transform typology: using a societal embedding framework which distinguishes four environments, we suggest that hybrid patterns are possible in which innovations follow a ‘fit’ pattern in one environment but ‘stretch’ in another. The third contribution highlights th epotential role of cultural meanings in galvanizing transitions by eroding positive associations that support theregime and stabilise consumer purchasing.

 

Plant based milk?
Okay, hello unemployed dairy farmers.

13. Destructiveness Of This Agenda

Under the guise of “protecting the environment”, these academics conduct research in how to undermine and destabilize existing industries. There seems to be no concern for the workers and families who will be impacted if these efforts are successful.

Of course, there are many more authors doing this sort of work, but this is a fairly accurate representation of what is going on. Ways to impose their agenda on others.

These people are serious about it.
They really want to bring about the end of Western society.

CCS #10: Goldman Sachs, CCX, Obama, Climate Scam

(Goldman Sachs Exec-VP John Rogers served in Reagan Administration)

(Fox covered the collapse of Chicago Carbon Exchange)

1. Debunking The Climate Change Scam

CLICK HERE, for #1: major lies that the climate frauds tell.
CLICK HERE, for #2: review of the Paris Accord.
CLICK HERE, for #3: Bill C-97, the GHG Pollution Pricing Act.
CLICK HERE, for #4: in 3-2 decision, Sask. COA allows carbon tax.
CLICK HERE, for #5: controlled opposition to carbon tax.
CLICK HERE, for #6: controlled opposition Cons ==> Supreme Court.
CLICK HERE, for #7: climate bonds pitched as $100T industry.
CLICK HERE, for #8: Joel Wood pitching various pricing options.
CLICK HERE, for #9: Mark Carney and UN climate finance.

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Investopedia, 26 Goldman Sachs Execs.
http://archive.is/bTmOy
CLICK HERE, for Goldman Sachs Executive VP, Reagan staffer, John Rogers.
http://archive.is/wMH3n
CLICK HERE, for Goldman Sachs VP, Sarah Smith.
http://archive.is/kvX3d
CLICK HERE, for Beth Hammack, Goldman Sachs’ Treasurer.
http://archive.is/8QGbL
CLICK HERE, for Henry Paulson, former CEO of Goldman Sachs.
http://archive.is/FN28
CLICK HERE, for Fox News on CCX collapse, Obama connection.
http://archive.is/bpFDW
CLICK HERE, for Malcolm Turnbull, Australian PM.
http://archive.is/4CeSp
CLICK HERE, for Mario Draghi, head of Euro central Bank.
http://archive.is/ozhTd
CLICK HERE, for Euro Central Bank supports climate change.
http://archive.is/rYewy
CLICK HERE
CLICK HERE, for Shorebank, Obama, “What Really Happened”.
http://archive.is/F06YB
CLICK HERE, for Free Republic, on the Joyce Foundation.
http://archive.is/S8y33
CLICK HERE, for Obama helped found CCX as Director of Joyce.
http://archive.is/LFCT3
CLICK HERE, for Steve Bannon, Goldman Sachs to Trump Administration.
CLICK HERE, for Gary Gensler, Obama’s Commodity Futures Trading Commission head, and former partner for Goldman Sachs.
CLICK HERE, for CCX, Obama, Strong, Gore, Goldman Sachs.
http://archive.is/n88c7
CLICK HERE, for Cypress Times, connecting the dots: Chicago, CCX, Goldman Sachs, White House all working together.
http://archive.is/6ZASr

3. Founders Of Chicago Climate Exchange

  • American Electric Power (AEP),
  • Baxter International Inc.,
  • the City of Chicago,
  • DuPont,
  • Equity Office Properties Trust,
  • Ford Motor Company,International Paper,
  • Manitoba Hydro,
  • MeadWestvaco Corporation,
  • Motorola, Inc.,
  • STMicroelectronics,
  • Stora Enso North America,
  • Temple-Inland Inc,
  • Waste Management,Inc.

Source for the CCX founders is here.

4. Obama Was Director Of Joyce Foundation

The CCX was set up in 2000 in anticipation of the United States joining Europe and other countries around the world to create a market that would reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. Under the system, factories, utilities and other businesses would be given an emissions target. Those that emitted less fewer regulated gases than their target could sell the “excess” to someone who was above target. Each year, the target figures would be reset lower.

The Exchange was the brainchild of Richard Sandor, an economist and professor at Northwestern University, and it was modeled after a successful program that was launched in 1990 and helped control acid rain in the Midwest. It was initially funded by a $1.1 million grant from the Joyce Foundation of Chicago, and President Obama was a board member at the time.

After the Democrats won the White House, the House and the Senate in 2008, businesses and investors flocked to the exchange, believing Congress would quickly approve the program. And it almost happened.

This is a huge conflict of interest to be involved in. Barry Soetoro, (a.k.a. Barrack Obama) was a Director for an organization that helped establish the Chicago Climate Exchange. His policies (had it passed), been able to drive a great deal of consumer and tax money to the scheme.

CCX will administer this pilot program for emission sources, farm and forest carbon sinks, offset projects and liquidity providers in North America. To foster international emissions trading, offset providers in Brazil can also participate. The development of CCX resulted from feasibility and design studies that were funded by grants from the Chicago-based Joyce Foundation and administered by Northwestern University’s Kellogg Graduate School of Management. Environmental Financial Products, LLC conducted the research and development effort.

Source is here.

5. Endless Connections Of Goldman Sachs

John Rogers serves as Executive Vice President, the firm’s Chief of Staff and Secretary to the Board of Directors. He oversees Executive Administration and is responsible for the firm’s corporate affairs functions, including public, investor and government relations, as well as corporate engagement. Mr. Rogers is a member of the Management Committee, Firmwide Client and Business Standards Committee and Firmwide Reputational Risk Committee. He is also Chairman of the Goldman Sachs Foundation. Mr. Rogers joined Goldman Sachs in 1994. He was named Managing Director in 1997 and Partner in 2000.

Previously, Mr. Rogers served as Under Secretary of State for Management at the US Department of State from 1991 to 1993. From 1988 to 1991, he was Executive Vice President of the Oliver Carr Company. Earlier, Mr. Rogers served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury from 1985 to 1987 and as an Assistant to the President of the United States at the White House from 1981 to 1985.

John Rogers is Executive Vice President for Goldman Sachs, and spent time in the Reagan and George Bush Sr. administrations. He is very politically connected.

Ms. Smith previously served on the US Treasury Department’s Commission on the Auditing Industry. She is a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales.

Another Vice President of Goldman Sachs, Sarah Smith, also is a former member of the U.S. Government. She previously served in the Treasury Department.

Previously, Ms. Hammack was Global Head of Short Term Macro trading and global Repo trading. This included franchise market making in short dated G10 interest rate swaps, FX forwards, cross currency basis and repo. Before that, she was Co-Head of US Interest Rate Products cash trading, which included government bonds, agencies and mortgage pass-throughs. Ms. Hammack joined Goldman Sachs in 1993 as an Analyst in Capital Markets and then moved to the Interest Rate Products trading desk, where she traded a variety of instruments focused primarily on options and later agencies. She was named Managing Director in 2003 and Partner in 2010.

Ms. Hammack is Chair of the Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee and a member of the Treasury Market Practices Group. She also serves on the board of Math for America.

Yet another Goldman Sachs executive who also served with the U.S. Treasury.

Secretary Paulson arrived at Treasury in July 2006 well prepared for the challenges he would face. He came from a 32-year career in finance with a leading global investment bank, Goldman Sachs, where he served eight years as Chairman and CEO. Paulson assembled a team of experienced professionals and reinstituted regular meetings of the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets. The coordinated efforts of the PWG’s financial regulators would later prove critical to the U.S. government’s ability to prevent the collapse of the financial system.

Secretary Paulson’s non-partisan leadership enabled him to convince Congress to grant the unprecedented emergency powers necessary to stem the crisis. Looking to the future, Secretary Paulson and his Treasury team crafted a regulatory blueprint to fix an outdated financial regulatory structure, including reforms that ultimately became part of the Dodd/Frank financial reform legislation that would eventually be signed into law by President Obama.

Together with President Bush, Secretary Paulson established the G20 as the premier leaders’ forum for global financial reform and economic recovery, guiding the work of the first Summit that established the roadmap for future leaders meetings.

Yet another Goldman Sachs executive who ended up working for the Treasury Department. In fact, he was Treasury Secretary.

Formerly Gensler was chairman of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, leading the Obama Administration’s reform of the $400 trillion swaps market. He also was senior advisor to US Senator Paul Sarbanes in writing the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (2002) and was Under Secretary of the Treasury for Domestic Finance, and Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during the Clinton Administration. In recognition for his service, he was awarded Treasury’s highest honor, the Alexander Hamilton Award. He is a recipient of the 2014 Frankel Fiduciary Prize.

Gensler is currently a member of the New York Fed Fintech Advisory Group and was chairman of the Maryland Financial Consumer Protection Commission (2017-2019). He has worked on various political campaigns, most recently as CFO for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, as a senior advisor to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign, and subsequently as an economic advisor for the Obama 2008 campaign.

Prior to his public service, Gensler worked at Goldman Sachs (1979-1997), having become a partner in the Mergers & Acquisition department, headed the firm’s Media Group, led fixed income & currency trading in Asia, and lastly co-headed Finance, being responsible for the firm’s worldwide Controllers and Treasury efforts.

Gensler was was chairman of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, leading the Obama Administration’s reform of the $400 trillion swaps market. He is also now part of the New York Fintech Advisory Group.

6. Goldman Sachs & U.S. Gov’t Connections

John Rogers worked for the Reagan Administration.
John Rogers worked for the George Bush Sr. Administration.
Gensler worked for Hillary Clinton’s 2008 and 2016 presidential run.
Henry Paulson worked for George Bush Jr.
Henry Paulson’s work was used in Obama Administration.
Gensler worked for the Obama Admin, Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Steve Bannon works for the Trump Administration.
Sarah Smith served in the Treasury Department.
Beth Hammack served in the Treasury Department.

7. Australian PM, Goldman Sachs Partner

Former Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull was a partner in Goldman Sachs. No surprise, he pushed an energy policy which advances a carbon tax in all but the name. No surprise since Goldman Sachs is a huge beneficiary to the climate change scam.

8. Euro Central Bank, Goldman Sachs Exec.

Goldman Sachs Executive Mario Draghi has now been at the European Central Bank for 8 years now. It should surprise no one that the ECB supports the climate change agenda, and promotes various measures

9. Mark Carney, BoC, BoE, Goldman Sachs

As addressed in this previous post, Mark Carney is leaving the Bank of England for a UN position.

On 1 December 2019, in Madrid, Spain, the Secretary-General announced the appointment of Mr. Mark Joseph Carney, OC, of Canada as his Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance. As Special Envoy, he will focus on ambitious implementation of climate action, with special attention to significantly shifting public and private finance markets and mobilizing private finance to the levels needed to achieve the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement. This will include building the frameworks for financial reporting, risk management and returns in order to bring the impacts of climate change to the mainstream of private financial decision making and to support the transition to a net zero carbon economy.

We need unprecedented climate action on a global scale. And public and private financial systems must be transformed to provide the necessary finance to transition to low-emission and resilient systems and sectors. The Secretary-General will count on Mark Carney to galvanise climate action and transform climate finance as we build towards the 26th Conference of the Parties (COP) meeting in Glasgow in November 2020

Mr. Carney began his career at Goldman Sachs before joining the Canadian Department of Finance and later serving as the Governor of the Bank of Canada (2008-2013). He was born in Fort Smith, Northwest Territories, Canada in 1965. He received a bachelor’s degree in Economics from Harvard University in 1988. He went on to receive a master’s degree in Economics in 1993 and a doctorate in Economics in 1995, both from Oxford University.

Carney’s announcement sounds impressive, but let’s be clear: this is about wide scale wealth transfer. The claims about environmentalism and saving the planet are just pretexts for doing so.

It’s interesting to tap a former banker (heads of both Bank of Canada and Bank of England). Does he plan to use this “climate finance” agenda the same way that central banks control national finances?

Climate modelling over any length of time has never worked. Why? Because models are just guess, predictions. They aren’t proof of anything. And despite claims to the contrary, the people doing the estimating know so little about the environment that such precise predictions aren’t realistic. Also, scientific research is frequently politically driven.

See the official announcement, and the COP25 announcement in Madrid, Spain. Carney is to become the UN Envoy on Climate Finance Action.

A charitable take might be that Carney will lobby for more Carbon taxes to fund this scheme. A less charitable view might be that Carney will use his considerable power and influence to force nations to pay up.

And in keeping with the theme so far, Mark Carney was a Director at Goldman Sachs prior to working at the Bank of Canada, Bank of England, and now the UN.

10. Goldman Sachs, Chicago, CCX, White House Conspiracy

An interesting blogpost by Bob Beauprez ties a lot of it together, and connects the major players in this climate change scam. Please read the actual posting.

By Bob Beauprez
When it was announced that the leaders of Goldman Sachs would be sitting in front of Congress, getting grilled over the financial crisis, most people knew it was nothing more than an opportunity for politicians to grandstand while beating down a straw man.
But this? A corruption scandal that is bigger than any other in the history of the United States. It could explain the “why” behind the “Climategate” scandal that broke last year but was ignored by the American mainstream media. Not only are several former Goldman Sachs executives working inside the Obama administration, but the banking giant has a 10% stake in cap and trade technology via the Chicago Climate Exchange, an entity that Barack Obama helped form as a Board member of the Joyce Foundation.

Political commentator and former Colorado Congressman, Bob Beauprez (R), has gotten an insider’s look at political theater, but when the congressional hearings that took place with Goldman Sachs executives is viewed through the lens of this kind of conspiracy, it sheds a whole new light on what is really going on behind the curtain.

Glenn Beck broke the story on his April 26th television show and regardless of how you view Beck, the odds of all these connections between all of these entities, tying each back to a $15 Trillion scam are far too long to be strictly a coincidence.
Here are the players and their roles:

Joyce Foundation – A group founded in 1948 that took a sharp turn to the left after it’s founder, Beatrice Joyce Kean died in 1972.
Barack Obama – President of the United States and one time Board member of the Joyce Foundation. Largely responsible for creating the Chicago Climate Exchange by funneling money to it from the Joyce Foundation.
Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) – An exchange dealing exclusively with Cap and Trade passes, techonology, etc. It was formed largely due to Obama’s role as Board member on Joyce Foundation. Obama oversaw the funneling of money from that foundation to the CCX as well as to an entity headed by Bill Ayers’ brother.
Valerie Jarrett – Senior advisor to Barack Obama and current Board member on the Joyce Foundation.
Al Gore – Founder of London-based Generation Investment Management (GIM). London also happens to be in the same country where climategate broke. GIM owns 10% of the CCX.
Goldman Sachs – Banking giant that, like Gore, owns 10% of the CCX. Also worthy of note is that at least six former Goldman Sachs executives work inside the Obama administration while Congress puts on a dog and pony show, publicly chastising other Goldman execs about their supposed complicity in the financial crisis.
Franklin Raines – Former head of Fannie Mae. While there, Raines used taxpayer dollars from Fannie Mae to purchase cap and trade technology.

11. More On: Goldman, Chicago, CCX, White House

Another blogpost, called what really happened, further details the collusion and corruption between the Obama Administration, the City of Chicago, the Chicago Climate Exchange, Goldman Sachs, and the Clintons. Please check that out as well.

The connections between these parties are too great to ignore. The entire climate change industry is a scam, where environmentalism is used as a sales pitch.

So far so good; now the INTERESTING parts.
One ShoreBank co-founder, named Jan Piercy, was a Wellesley College roommate of Hillary Clinton. Hillary and Bill Clinton have long supported the bank and are small investors.

Another co-founder of Shorebank, named Mary Houghton, was a friend of Obama’s late mother. Obama’s mother worked on foreign MICRO-LOANS for the Ford Foundation. She worked for the foundation with a guy called Geithner. Yes, you guessed it. This man was the father of Tim Geithner, our present Treasury Secretary, who failed to pay all his taxes for two years.

Another founder of ShoreBank was Ronald Grzywinski, a cohort and close friend of Jimmy Carter.

The former ShoreBank Vice Chairman was a man called Bob Nash. He was the deputy campaign manager of Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid. He also sat on the board of the Chicago Law School with Obama and Bill Ayers, the former terrorist. Nash was also a member of Obama’s White House transition team.

(To jog your memories, Bill Ayers is a Professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He founded the Weather Underground, a radical revolutionary group that bombed buildings in the 60s and 70s. He had no remorse for those who were killed, escaped jail on a technicality, and is still an admitted Marxist).

When Obama sat on the board of the JOYCE FOUNDATION, he “funneled” thousands of charity dollars to a guy named John Ayers, who runs a dubious education fund. Yes, you guessed it. The brother of Bill Ayers, the terrorist.

Howard Stanback is a board member of Shorebank. He is a former board chairman of the Woods Foundation. Obama and Bill Ayers, the terrorist, also sat on the board of the Woods Foundation. Stanback was formerly employed by New Kenwood Inc., a real estate development company co-owned by Tony Rezko.

(You will remember that Tony Rezko was the guy who gave Obama an amazing sweet deal on his new house. Years prior to this, the law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland had represented Rezko’s company and helped him get more than 43 million dollars in government funding.Guess who worked as a lawyer at the firm at the time. Yes, Barack Obama).

Adele Simmons, the Director of ShoreBank, is a close friend of Valerie Jarrett, a White House senior advisor to Obama. Simmons and Jarrett also sit on the board of a dubious Chicago Civic Organization.

Van Jones sits on the board of ShoreBank and is one the marketing directors for “green” projects. He also holds a senior advisor position for black studies at Princeton University. You will remember that Mr. Van Jones was appointed by Obama in 2009 to be a Special Advisor for Green Jobs at the White House. He was forced to resign over past political activities, including the fact that he is a Marxist.

Al Gore was one of the smaller partners to originally help fund the CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE. He also founded a company called Generation Investment Management (GIM) and registered it in London, England. GIM has close links to the UK-based Climate Exchange PLC, a holding company listed on the London Stock Exchange. This company trades Carbon Credits in Europe (just like CXX will do here) and its floor is run by Goldman Sachs. Along with Gore, the other co-founder of GIM is Hank Paulson, the former US Treasury Secretary and former CEO of Goldman Sachs. His wife, Wendy, graduated from and is presently a Trustee of Wellesley College. Yes, the same college that Hillary Clinton and Jan Piercy, a co-founder of Shorebank attended. (They are all friends).

This blog, as with the last one, I do not claim to own. You should go check out the sites on your own for further information.

12. It’s All A Scam

Despite the media and political hype, this is a scam, and has been since day one. There is a collusion between corrupt parties who are ripping off the public based entirely on lies. Who are they? Well, the above 2 sections outline it pretty well.

Taxing the public and funnelling that money was never meant to prevent global warming, or climate change, or help the environment in any way. It was always a scam to fleece the public under the pretense of doing good.

Do your research.
Connect the dots.

Max Boykoff’s Revenge On Science: Creative Climate Communications, Part II

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for earlier review of book.

CLICK HERE, for the Climate Change Scam Part I.
CLICK HERE, for Part II, the Paris Accord.
CLICK HERE, for Part III, Saskatchewan Appeals Court Reference.
CLICK HERE, for Part IV, Controlled Opposition to Carbon Tax.
CLICK HERE, for Part V, UN New Development Funding.
CLICK HERE, for Part VI, Disruptive Innovation Framework.
CLICK HERE, for Part VII, Blaming Arson On Climate Change.
CLICK HERE, for Part VIII, Review Of Green New Deal.
CLICK HERE, for Part VIII(II), Sunrise Movement & Green New Deal.
CLICK HERE, for Part IX, Propaganda Techniques, Max Boykoff.
CLICK HERE, for Part X, GG Pollution Pricing Act & Bill C-97.
CLICK HERE, for part XI, Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai Explains Paris Accord
CLICK HERE, for Part XII, Joel Wood and Carbon tax “option”.
CLICK HERE, for Part XIII, controlled opposition going to SCC.
CLICK HERE, for Part XIV, Mark Carney, UN Climate Finance Envoy.
CLICK HERE, for UN global taxation efforts.

2. Why Focus On This Book?

Most “scientists” involved in the climate change business at least claim that their focus is on the science itself. However, a subset has emerged which focuses on the science of persuasion.

That’s right, the goal isn’t using scientific research to PROVE that climate change is a serious and ongoing global threat. Rather, the goal is using social science methods to CONVINCE people that the threat is real. These are two very different things.

In layman’s terms, this book reads like a propaganda manual for tricks and techniques of persuasion. There never appears a moment of doubt in Boykoff’s mind that climate change is urgent. He seems to views the public’s disengagement simply as a communications issue. As such, this book focuses on emotionally manipulative tactics to get around that.

The idea is creepy enough. The fact that there is an entire segment of academia that focuses on this area is very troubling. Unfortunately, Boykoff is entirely serious about his work. Also, the many, many sources he cites are serious.

3. About The Author, Maxwell Boykoff

His professional biography is available here.

Max’s research and creative work has developed primarily in two arenas:
(1) cultural politics of science, climate change and environmental issues = this refers to ways that attitudes, intentions, beliefs and behaviors of individuals and groups shape (and are shaped by) the perceived spectrum of possible action in the context of science-policy, climate change and environmental issues.
.
(2) transformations of carbon-based economies and societies (with emphasis on the interface of science and practical action) = this refers to decarbonization politics, policies and decision-making, with particular interest in how these activities find meaning in people’s everyday lives, as well as how they, in turn, feed back into science-policy decision-making.

4. Specific Examples From CCC Book

(Page 18) Boykoff cites some research suggesting that racial and gender politics should be injected into the subject. Supposedly, racial minorities are going to be disproportionately impacted, and that needs to be discussed openly. Also, female researchers are more likely to have their work ridiculed and mocked. Obviously that is because of sexism and not poor research. That’s right, race and gender are now dimensions in the climate change debate.

(Page 21) A technique called “pre-bunking” is introduced. This is a form of inoculation, which climate change pushers will attempt to pre-empt criticism or questions ahead of time. They do it to sew seeds of doubts in people who would otherwise see obvious problems with the research.

(Page 23) One idea is go beyond simply telling the truth. The focus here is to go beyond simply stating facts and conclusions, and to introduce a “story-telling” element to it. By doing this, people are more accepting of the story, and are less likely to pick up on deficiencies in the arguments themselves.

(Page 26) This is the start of Chapter 2. This chapter gets shifting the discussion away from a scientific one, and appealing to a more emotional issue. By framing it as a social issue, there is more of a focus on people’s ability to act. One technique suggested is to keep it “upbeat” so that others will remain optimistic that their actions will have consequences. Boykoff’s sources also suggest moving away from the “DOOMSDAY APPROACH”. This should have the effect of keeping people more engaged if their aren’t told it is hopeless.

(Page 35) There is more detail about how to turn climate change into stories. Stories in general have: main characters, villains, plot, description, complexity, some ambiguity, and conflict resolution. Boykoff talks about telling the “facts” of climate change as if it were a story. This will do wonders to keep people engaged. Interestingly, the approach is to water down the hard facts, and to focus more on a compelling narrative.

(Page 45) The book heads towards cultural politics and interdisciplinary communication. What this means is that taking different approaches, or combining approaches, may work best depending on who the specific audience is. Page 47, Boykoff begins to detail the actual communication training that climate change pushers are being given in order to more effectively market this concept. Yes, there is now formal training in how to peddle this.

(Page 50) Boykoff talks about a “building bridges” approach, something he also refers to as a “common ground” approach. This involves making some effort to find out what other people are interested in, and building a relationship with them. Climate change information will gradually be introduced via this relationship. The other people will eventually be sold on the agenda, but without realizing that was your goal all along. The entire tactic is emotional manipulation, and the worse form of bonding that can take place.

(Page 58) Boykoff discusses some of the research that has been done across demographic groups and across political leanings. He also explains that the climate change agenda can still be pitched to almost everyone, but the message needs to be shifted depending on which group you are addressing.

(Page 96) We get into the idea of adding visualizations (images) to help sell the climate change agenda. The idea here is that if people can actually see what is happening, it should compel them more strongly to act. Now, it doesn’t really matter if what people see is what is truly happening. What’s important is that they see what they should.

(Page 132) Boykoff talks about the framing climate change in certain ways. One is as a sacrifice v.s. benefits approach. This is one where the experts will outline the sacrifices needed (such as your standard of life) and various benefits that will come. Always, there is the bit about making the world a better place for those in developing countries. After all, they had no hand in this. This is a combination of guilt tripping and a call to patriotism, and put together beautifully.

(Page 190) Boykoff explains more of this “silver buckshot approach”, as opposed to the silver bullet. In short, there have to be multiple forms and paths to spread the message of climate change at any given time. Since no one technique will work on everyone, we need many streams ready to convince people of the cause. And really, that is what this book is: listing and detailing these multiple paths.

In short, Boykoff suggests inserting climate change into the discussion wherever possible. Though he doesn’t explicitly add this, it’s implied that it should be done even when the above issue has nothing to do with it.

Make the connections. And make the other people see those connections. Sometimes best if done subtly, as you don’t want your agenda to be too obvious.

The examples above are by no means exhaustive, but should demonstrate how devious and cunning the author is. He outlines technique after technique to push the narrative. And these techniques are lifted directly from psychological and sociological research. Boykoff is applying those findings in his quest to do a better job of selling climate change to the public.

5. Boykoff Avoids Actual Research

You will likely notice that Max Boykoff never gets into the so-called climate change science. He mainly avoids any real detail on how climate change research is conducted. Why is that?

It’s because this entire book shies away from telling people the hard and fast truth (at least as he perceives it), and focuses on indirect and roundabout ways of getting people on board. In short, this book is still intended to push the climate change agenda, but just shows ways to be more sneaky and dishonest about it.

Was this a worthwhile read? Yes, in the context of knowing how your enemies are lying and manipulating you. Boykoff gives an in-depth, well researched book on exactly that. If nothing else, he if very thorough in detailing these underhanded methods.

Int’l Banking Cartel #7: Mark Carney’s UN Role, Climate Finance, CCX

(UN: Mark Carney to become Special Envoy for Climate Action & Finance, once he leaves post at Bank of England)

(Notice, from COP25 in Madrid, Spain)

(Carney: businesses ignoring climate change will go bankrupt)

(Bank for International Settlements)

(Chicago Climate Exchange)

1. More On International Banking Cartel

CLICK HERE, for #1: restoring 1934 Bank of Canada Act.
CLICK HERE, for #2: Rocco Galati, COMER court case.
CLICK HERE, IBC #3: U.S. Federal Reserve, End The Fed.
CLICK HERE, for #4: questions to Finance Department.
CLICK HERE, for #5: globalist approved talking points.
CLICK HERE, for #6: response from the Bank of Canada.

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for UN announcement for Mark Carney.
CLICK HERE, for COP25 announcement in Madrid.
CLICK HERE, for a biography of Mark Carney.
CLICK HERE, for Carney: businesses ignoring climate change go bust.
CLICK HERE, for Carney: play ball or go bankrupt.
CLICK HERE, for Reuters article on Mark Carney.
CLICK HERE, for U.S. News on Carney: pay to play.

CLICK HERE, for the Chicago Climate Exchange.
CLICK HERE, for Wikipedia on Chicago Climate Exchange.
CLICK HERE, for a review of CCE.

3. Context For This Piece

Mark Carney is the current head of the Bank of England, and is the former head of the Bank of Canada. After he leave the BoE, he will take on a UN position as the Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance.

Carney will supposedly be working for a token $1/year, which means that money is not the motivation. Rather it is ideological. Okay, so why is he doing this? And why would the UN go an seek out a head of 2 Western central banks? Is there to become a “central bank” of carbon credits and emissions trading? Will nations who don’t cut Carbon Dioxide be hit with extra bank fees, or have their assets frozen or seized?

The Bank for International Settlements in Switzerland is sort of a central bank for central banks. Debt, credit, interest and monetary policy all come from the BIS. It’s an illusion that individual nations are sovereign. In fact, the Rothchild Family controls the banking for most nations on the planet. So it is extremely powerful. Now, why would a head of 2 central banks (England and Canada) be put in charge of climate action and finance?

Furthermore, Carbon Dioxide is not pollution, but a fundamental part of photosynthesis and respiration. An 8th grade science text book would confirm that. So the “science” is bogus, especially when the issue of solar activity is repeatedly ignored.

Also included is Chicago Climate exchange, which Wikipedia describes as “North America’s only voluntary, legally binding greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction and trading system for emission sources and offset projects in North America and Brazil”.

If these “carbon credits” are being bought, sold and traded just as another commodity, then one has to ask the obvious question: how much of this is about the environment, and how much is just a money-making gimmick?

4. Mark Carney, UN Climate Action/Finance

On 1 December 2019, in Madrid, Spain, the Secretary-General announced the appointment of Mr. Mark Joseph Carney, OC, of Canada as his Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance. As Special Envoy, he will focus on ambitious implementation of climate action, with special attention to significantly shifting public and private finance markets and mobilizing private finance to the levels needed to achieve the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement. This will include building the frameworks for financial reporting, risk management and returns in order to bring the impacts of climate change to the mainstream of private financial decision making and to support the transition to a net zero carbon economy.

We need unprecedented climate action on a global scale. And public and private financial systems must be transformed to provide the necessary finance to transition to low-emission and resilient systems and sectors. The Secretary-General will count on Mark Carney to galvanise climate action and transform climate finance as we build towards the 26th Conference of the Parties (COP) meeting in Glasgow in November 2020

Mr. Carney began his career at Goldman Sachs before joining the Canadian Department of Finance and later serving as the Governor of the Bank of Canada (2008-2013). He was born in Fort Smith, Northwest Territories, Canada in 1965. He received a bachelor’s degree in Economics from Harvard University in 1988. He went on to receive a master’s degree in Economics in 1993 and a doctorate in Economics in 1995, both from Oxford University.

Carney’s announcement sounds impressive, but let’s be clear: this is about wide scale wealth transfer. The claims about environmentalism and saving the planet are just pretexts for doing so.

It’s interesting to tap a former banker (heads of both Bank of Canada and Bank of England). Does he plan to use this “climate finance” agenda the same way that central banks control national finances?

Climate modelling over any length of time has never worked. Why? Because models are just guess, predictions. They aren’t proof of anything. And despite claims to the contrary, the people doing the estimating know so little about the environment that such precise predictions aren’t realistic. Also, scientific research is frequently politically driven.

5. Announcement From COP25 In Madrid

The UN Secretary-General has outlined the “increased ambition and commitment” that the world needs from governments during the coming days of the COP25 UN climate change conference which opens in Madrid on Monday, calling for “accountability, responsibility and leadership” to end the global climate crisis.

The “social dimension” of climate change must also be paramount, so that national commitments include “a just transition for people whose jobs and livelihoods are affected as we move from the grey to the green economy.”

Mr. Guterres said at least $100 billion dollars must be made available to developing countries for mitigation and adaptation and to take into account their “legitimate expectations to have the resources necessary to build resilience and for disaster response and recovery.”

A statement from the Spokespersons’ office said his tasks would include “building the frameworks for financial reporting, risk management and returns in order to bring the impacts of climate change to the mainstream of private financial decision making and to support the transition to a net zero carbon economy.”

The Bank of England Governor has held numerous positions in finance in both the private and public sectors and will become a member of UN staff at the point at which he ceases to work for the Bank. He also served, from 2011 to 2018, as Chair of the Financial Stability Board and Governor of the Bank of Canada from 2008-2013.

“The Secretary-General will count on Mark Carney to galvanise climate action and transform climate finance”, as the UN looks to next year’s 26th Conference of the Parties (COP26), due to take place in Glasgow, Scotland.

COP25 in Madrid. Pardon the sarcasm, but these questions need to be asked: if climate change is such a pressing matter, why have they not accomplished their goals in 25 annual conferences? Why do we finish one conference and immediately schedule another? If burning fossil fuels is so harmful, then why do tens of thousands of people have to fly across the world? Why not video conference?

Guterres admits that at least $100 billion needs to be raised. Okay, very expensive agenda.

It’s also admitted that a lot of this money won’t be used for “climate change”. Instead, it will be used to pay off people whose livelihoods have been destroyed.

Carney is a former central bank head (UK and Canada), Is he in this role to remake the climate change scam this way? Is the UN going to establish a sort of “UN central bank” to regulate and control carbon taxes?

6. Is This Just A Protection Racket?

From a piece by YourNews.com:

LONDON (Reuters) – Businesses that fail to adapt to climate change will go bust, Bank of England Governor Mark Carney said on Wednesday, but others will be able to profit handsomely from funding green investment.

“Companies that don’t adapt – including companies in the financial system – will go bankrupt without question. (But) there will be great fortunes made along this path aligned with what society wants,” Carney told Channel 4 News.

From the Guardian:

Companies and industries that are not moving towards zero-carbon emissions will be punished by investors and go bankrupt, the governor of the Bank of England has warned.

Mark Carney also told the Guardian it was possible that the global transition needed to tackle the climate crisis could result in an abrupt financial collapse. He said the longer action to reverse emissions was delayed, the more the risk of collapse would grow.

From a piece by Reuters:

LONDON (Reuters) – Businesses that fail to adapt to climate change will go bust, Bank of England Governor Mark Carney said on Wednesday, but others will be able to profit handsomely from funding green investment.

“Companies that don’t adapt – including companies in the financial system – will go bankrupt without question. (But) there will be great fortunes made along this path aligned with what society wants,” Carney told Channel 4 News.

There are many more articles on the subject, but the above describes it bluntly. Carney, in his new role, is making it clear that businesses that don’t adapt will go bankrupt. In fairness, this could simply be grandstanding to make headlines. However, Carney could actually be sincere about it.

Now, this “could” be interpreted to mean that they will simply not be able to keep up with changing conditions. But a more likely meaning is that companies who do not play along will be shut down — one way or another.

If this is the latter case, then this is nothing more than an elaborate protection racket. Play along, pay your fees, jump through the hoops, etc… Or else, you won’t be doing business here (or anywhere) anymore. More sophisticated than mafia thugs who simply burn down your business, but the basic idea is much the same.

7. A New Form Of Central Banking?

For background information, please review the CENTRAL BANKING articles posted previously on this site. Lots of important detail is given in these other postings.

An interesting article by Christians For Truth suggests that Rothschilds’ central banking cartel is behind the move to force climate action. It quotes the Guardian article and then concludes:

The Rothschilds founded the Bank of England right after the Jews were readmitted to England after having been expelled for 300 years by King Edward I for usury and ritual murder. The BoE was the first central bank to issue money as unpayable debt, the world’s greatest Ponzi Scheme, and it has been the model of all central banks, including the Federal Reserve, since then.

And if you want to understand why the global warming or “climate change” propaganda is pushed 24/7 by the jewish-controlled media, now you know: the Rothschilds are using it as a way of keeping their ever-expanding Ponzi Scheme afloat, and they clearly intend to threaten and punish any businesses that won’t play ball.

While it seems easy to dismiss the article as conspiracy theory nonsense, it is worth a look. Does the Bank for International Settlements engage in this climate finance agenda? Are they getting in on the United Nations’ climate change scam?

And absolutely, BIS does involve itself in the climate change scam. A quick search of “climate finance” yields 1276 results. Search “climate finance Mark Carney” and 76 hits comes up. So it is not at all a conspiracy theory to see cooperation between the banking cartel and the climate cartel. It looks like they are cooperating to screw us over.

Let’s look at some of these articles.

https://www.bis.org/review/r191008a.htm
Mark Carney: TCFD – strengthening the foundations of sustainable finance

https://www.bis.org/review/r160523b.htm
Mark Carney: The Sustainable Development Goal imperative

https://www.bis.org/review/r120622c.pdf
Mark Carney: Financing the global transition

https://www.bis.org/review/r151130f.pdf
Klaas Knot: The role of central banks; the Netherlands Bank and sustainable finance

https://www.bis.org/review/r191029a.htm
Jens Weidmann: Climate change and central banks

https://www.bis.org/review/r190206b.pdf
Climate Change and the Irish Financial System

https://www.bis.org/fsi/publ/insights20.pdf
Turning up the heat – climate risk assessment in the insurance sector

https://www.bis.org/review/r181122b.pdf
Remarks at the Accounting for Sustainability Summit 2018

The above is just a small sample of what is on the Bank for International Settlements’ website. Again, just searching “climate finance” gets 1276 hits. So they are very active on this topic, and have been for years. It’s not at all a stretch to think that the BIS and the UN will collaborate to control Carbon taxes, and climate finance.

Of course, it’s not clear — yet — how exactly the BIS will be involved in running this scheme. But it’s disturbing, putting one of their operatives at head of the UN “climate finance action”.

8. Chicago Climate Exchange

We started out in 2000 with the idea of transforming the energy markets by creating an electronic marketplace that removed barriers and drove transparency and access.

By staying close to customers, we saw the demand for the efficiency that technology brings and expanded our electronic trading platform into new markets. At the same time we understood that along with liquidity, trust and integrity are central to the effective operation of markets and began investing to build and acquire clearing houses.

As our electronic markets and demand for clearing grew, access to new sources of information became central to our customers and data has increasingly become the lifeblood of markets. We saw this evolution and consistently we advanced our capabilities, building a data business which is complementary to every part of our solution.

Despite the word salad this is an organization that tries to effectively run a climate bond trading market. Setting aside the bogus science, this is an industry that can only survive as long as people keep buying into the scam. Sooner or later, it will collapse.

If we follow the time line on where Obama was during the funding of the Chicago Climate Exchange, he was still a lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School teaching constitutional law, with his law license becoming inactive a year later in 2002.

It may be interesting to note that the Chicago Climate Exchange in spite of its hype, is a veritable rat’s nest of cronyism. The largest shareholder in the Exchange is Goldman Sachs. Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley is its honorary chairman, The Joyce Foundation, which funded the Exchange also funded money for John Ayers’ Chicago School Initiatives. John is the brother of William Ayers.

This Canada Free Press article gives a damning critique of the operation. It also raises point that the biggest shareholder was Goldman Sachs. This is important as Mark Carney worked for Goldman Sachs, and in fact was their managing director of investment banking.

Read the Britannia piece for more information on Carney’s background, but the conflict of interest here is plainly visible.

(1) Carney was a Director for Goldman Sachs.
(2) Goldman Sachs was largest shareholder of Chicago Climate Exchange.
(3) CCE’s existence was based on the climate bonds industry.
(4) Carney is former head of Bank of Canada.
(5) Carney is current head of Bank of England.
(6) Carney used positions at BoC and BoE to promote climate change agenda
(7) Carney promotes climate change with Bank for International Settlements.
(8) Carney gets a UN post to push climate finance agenda.

Mark Carney has been going on about the dangers of climate change for years. Now, is he doing so as a concerned head of the Bank of Canada or Bank of England? Or is he doing so as a Director for Goldman Sachs, and part owner of the Chicago Climate Exchange? Pretty hard to tell, isn’t it?

9. Race To The Bottom (Andy/Fred)

For more info on Mark Carney and the Chicago Climate Exchange, this stream is well worth checking out. Video is loaded with facts and hard truths. Relevant topics are in the first hour of content.

10. Where Does This Lead?

Hard to say for sure. But it looks like the banking cartel and the climate change cartel are effectively working together. Perhaps this is just a way of centralizing and controlling the scheme more efficiently.

However, it is nonsense to think that paying taxes to the UN, or the Bank for International Settlements (or anyone) will make the climate better. It is a money grab, and junk science. Again, Carbon Dioxide, the most commonly cited “greenhouse gas”, is not pollution. It is necessary in order to sustain life.

Even if these taxes were to be avoided, the only way to do so would be to collapse the economy, and get rid of most (or all) of industrialization. If that is the goal, then it’s one that will effectively end Western civilization.

At what point can we call these people traitors?

CCS #6: Controlled Opposition “Conservatives” Take Act To Supreme Court

(Originally featured in Maclean’s as “The Resistance”)

(Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe. Read between the lines.)

1. Debunking The Climate Change Scam

CLICK HERE, for #1: major lies that the climate frauds tell.
CLICK HERE, for #2: review of the Paris Accord.
CLICK HERE, for #3: Bill C-97, the GHG Pollution Pricing Act.
CLICK HERE, for #4: in 3-2 decision, Sask. COA allows carbon tax.
CLICK HERE, for #5: controlled opposition to carbon tax.

2. Important Links

Court Documents Filed
CLICK HERE, for Ontario’s Supreme Court Factum.
CLICK HERE, for Sask’s Supreme Court Factum.

CLICK HERE, for Saskatchewan Court of Appeals ruling.
CLICK HERE, for Ontario Court of Appeals ruling.
CLICK HERE, for ONCA, Ontario Factum.
CLICK HERE, for ONCA, BC Factum, GGPPA.
CLICK HERE, for ONCA, NB Factum, GGPPA.
CLICK HERE, for ONCA, United Conservative Assoc.
CLICK HERE, for ONCA, CDN Taxpayers Federation.

Alberta Situation
CLICK HERE, for Jason Kenney Repeals Carbon Tax.
CLICK HERE, for Kenney Supports New Carbon Tax.
CLICK HERE, for Kenney To Hike New Carbon Tax.

CLICK HERE, for New Brunswick creating its own Carbon tax.

3. Reading Between The Lines

Throughout this interview, and any interview, Scott Moe never tells anyone that Carbon Dioxide is not pollution, and that it is used in photosynthesis. He never tells his interviewers that removing CO2 from the atmosphere will kill off plant-life, and by extension, ourselves. Moe never goes into any of the bogus junk science.

Why does this matter? Because Scott Moe, like Doug Ford in Ontario, Jason Kenney in Alberta, Blaine Higgs in New Brunswick, and Brian Pallister in Manitoba all claim to oppose the Carbon tax, but endorse the climate change scam itself.

Read through the filings throughout this article. These so-called “conservatives” thoroughly and completely endorse the UN IPCC warnings that catastrophe is imminent. They all agree that climate change will cause damage long term. They don’t (really) even oppose a Carbon tax. The issue is over who shall implement a “solution”, the Federal Government of the Provinces.

They cannot effectively oppose an agenda that they support in principle. All of these self-identified “conservative” Premiers are on board with the climate change scam.

4. Supreme Court Of Canada Filings

Let’s start with the pleadings filed by the Ontario Government, currently under the rule of Doug Ford. What does Ontario have to say about this?

The Ontario challenge previously, and this subsequent appeal, are limited to 2 very narrow and technical questions over taxation. There is nothing in either the ONCA challenge, nor this appeal, that suggest the Government takes any issue with the climate change agenda.

In fact, in the Court of Appeal challenge, the Ontario Government fully accepted the UNIPCC claims about climate change, and the need to act urgently on it. So, really, what is the point of doing these challenges in the first place?

Now let’s turn to Saskatchewan, which has joined as an intervenor in this case. Essentially, they are supporting Ontario’s challenge. What do they have to say about all of this.

Similar to Ontario, Saskatchewan does not challenge the climate change agenda in any way, shape or form. Instead, there are 2 extremely limited and technical questions put forward for the court to consider.

This is the state of opposition to Trudeau in Canada. Admit all of the major facts. Instead, argue over minor details, and insist this is a Provincial matter. Very petty.

(from the Ontario submissions)

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.

(from the Saskatchewan submissions)

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.

This entire façade is limited to technical questions over taxation. Nothing about the fake science behind these dire predictions.

And no, this is not limited to the Supreme Court of Canada. These players pulled the exact same stunt in their respective Provincial challenges.

5. Ontario Court Of Appeal Ruling

At the ONCA, the Province lost in a split decision to the Federal Government. The arguments were very similar to what happened in the Saskatchewan case. So what went wrong? Well, admitting that climate change is a threat to the world might not have helped.

Yes, in their own court challenge, Ontario agreed that climate change is a serious problem, and that real action has to be taken to prevent it from getting worse. So from that perspective, the court essentially had a case where the facts were all agreed to.

Don’t worry. It’s about to get much worse. Ontario was joined by several “intervenors” who were essentially there to reinforce their case. And they did just that.

Ontario was joined by New Brunswick. Not only did they endorse Ontario’s view that climate change is real and a threat, they said that this court forum should not be used by anyone who would deny climate change. So much for allowing different perspectives.

British Columbia also joins as an intervenor in the case. BC reiterates that climate change is real, and greenhouse gases are to blame. But instead of rejecting a Carbon tax, it touts its own as a model to emulate.

However, it is not just other Provincial or local Governments that were allowed to enter submissions for this hearing. Other groups were as well. Let’s take a look at a few.

The United Conservative Association entered the case, claiming that they agreed with the Attorney General of Ontario’s submissions. Thing is, the AG submitted that climate change was a threat to everyone and that action had to be taken. In essence, all of the facts were admitted once again. The only opposition was to prevent backlash and a unity crisis over the taxation.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation also joined in the Ontario matter. They argued that given their agenda, not wasting the money of taxpayers was a real concern. While true, they never addressed the elephant in the room: namely that the whole Carbon tax was predicated on lies.

Now, with every one of these parties saying that climate change is real and that human are responsible (or at least ignoring the issue), it should be no surprise how the court ruled. The ONCA said that yes, the Federal Government had the right to levy this tax.

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.

Quite predictably, Ontario lost their challenge at the Court of Appeals. Pretty hard to win when you admit all of the other side’s “facts” regardless of how absurd they are.

6. Saskatchewan Court Of Appeal

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.

[7] The Constitution Act, 1867 distributes legislative authority between Parliament and the provincial legislatures. Broadly speaking, a statute is valid if its essential character falls within a subject matter allocated to the legislative body that put the statute in place. Neither level of government has exclusive authority over the environment. As a result, Parliament can legislate in relation to issues such as GHGs so long as it stays within the four corners of its prescribed subject matters and the provinces can do the same so long as they stay within their prescribed areas of authority.

Quite inexplicably, Saskatchewan admitted, that climate change was a serious problem, and that real action had to be taken. Basically, they admitted that all of the Federal Government’s claims were true. All that the SKCOA had to do was answer some technical questions about whether this taxation format was legal.

Like Doug Ford, Scott Moe sabotaged his Provincial Reference Question by ceding to the pseudo-science that the UNIPCC puts out. Had he challenged it, it is quite likely that the Carbon taxes would have been gone by now.

7. Capitulation By “The Resistance”

The industry tax is being set at a higher level per tonne than Mr. Kenney promised during the spring election, $30 instead of $20, in a move to ensure that the provincial government’s plan is in compliance with the federal climate law. Due to the size of Alberta’s industrial base, especially the province’s large oil and gas industry, the expected reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from the plan will contribute significantly to meeting national targets.

Speaking with reporters on Tuesday before he tabled the legislation, Environment Minister Jason Nixon said industries across Alberta were close to unanimous that they wanted the province to set the tax at a level where the federal government would not take over and regulate their emissions.

The minister added that he will consult on future increases to the provincial tax. The federal carbon price for industry is set to increase by $10 annually until it reaches $50-per-tonne in 2022. If Alberta’s tax were to fall below the federal threshold, Ottawa would likely impose a higher tax under a provision in the federal law known as the backstop.

This is a strange version of fighting for your constituents: surrender and gouge them yourselves, so that Ottawa won’t be the one doing the gouging.

8. Federal Conservatives Not Any Better


The CPC policy declaration, Article 28 does explicitly state no Carbon tax. That said, it tacitly endorses the climate change scam by suggesting that Provinces should develop their own plan. In other words, the CPC supports it, but would not impose this one specific measure.

9. Elephant In The Room: Junk Science

Carbon Dioxide, CO2, is touted as a “greenhouse gas” which contributes to all kinds of environmental disasters.

”Global warming” is a term not used as much anymore, since “climate change” is more vague, and can be more easily adapted.

However, carbon dioxide occurs naturally, just from breathing.

The human body converts carbohydrates, fatty acids, and proteins into smaller “waste products” such as water and carbon dioxide in order to extract energy from them.

Carbon dioxide is not a “waste product” to be eliminated. It is a necessary resource plants use for photosynthesis

6 CO2 (carbon dioxide) + 6 H20 (water) + sunlight ===> C6H1206 (sugar) + 6 02 (oxygen)

While only plants engage in photosynthesis, both plants and animals respire

C6H1206 (sugar) + 6 02 (oxygen) ===> 6 CO2 (carbon dioxide) + 6 H20 (water) + usable energy

The photosynthesis and respiration cycles are not some big mystery. They have been taught in grade schools for many years.

CCS #8: Fraser Institute’s Joel Wood And The Carbon Tax “Options”

(For an audio of the talk)

(Joel Wood is a member of the Koch funded Fraser Institute)

(He is also a professor at Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, BC)

(At the library talk)

1. Debunking The Climate Change Scam

CLICK HERE, for #1: major lies that the climate frauds tell.
CLICK HERE, for #2: review of the Paris Accord.
CLICK HERE, for #3: Bill C-97, the GHG Pollution Pricing Act.
CLICK HERE, for #4: in 3-2 decision, Sask. COA allows carbon tax.
CLICK HERE, for #5: controlled opposition to carbon tax.
CLICK HERE, for #6: controlled opposition Cons ==> Supreme Court.
CLICK HERE, for #7: climate bonds pitched as $100T industry.

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Joel Wood’s announcement in May 2019.
CLICK HERE, for Joel Wood’s Fraser Institute profile.
CLICK HERE, for Joel Wood’s TRU profile.
CLICK HERE, for Joel Wood’s website.
CLICK HERE, for a paper Wood co-authored on co-fluctuation patterns.
CLICK HERE, for paper on raising the gas taxes.
CLICK HERE, for a paper on indoctrinating university students..

3. Publications Listed On TRU Biography

McKitrick,R. & Wood, J. (in press). An examination of the relationship between air quality and income in Canada. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics.

Tsigaris, P. & Wood, J. (2016). A Simple Climate-Solow Model for Introducing the Economics of Climate Change to Undergraduate Students. International Review of Economics Education, 23: 65-81.

Wood, J. (2015). Is it time to raise the gas tax? Optimal gasoline taxes for Ontario and Toronto. Canadian Public Policy, 43(3): 179-190.

Wood, J. (2015). When a ban is not a ban: The case of British Columbia’s log export restrictions. Economics Bulletin 35(2): 1071-1075.

Mckitrick, R.& Wood, J. (2013). Co-fluctuation patterns of per capita carbon dioxide emissions: The role of energy markets. Energy Economics, 39: 1-12.

Wood, J. (2013). The effects of bailouts and soft-budget constraints on the environment. Environmental & Resource Economics, 54(1): 127-137.

Recent Newspaper Commentaries:

Wood,J. (2016, Mar 2). Keep the carbon tax, but make sure it is revenue neutral. Vancouver Sun.

Wood,J. (2015, Sep 21). Raise the Gas Tax. National Post.

Wood,J. (2014, Jun 24). BC would gain from streamlined log export policies. Vancouver Sun.

4. Bogus “Science” At Core Of Scam

6CO2 + 6H2O + light ==> C6H12O6 + 6O2 (Photosynthesis)

C6H12O6 + 6O2 ==> 6CO2 + 6H2O + energy (Respiration)

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a necessary part in both photosynthesis and respiration. The idea that we must remove it from the atmosphere is moronic. Without an abundant supply of CO2, plants will die off.

Since “success” will mean the death of us all, it seems that “failure” will result in ever growing carbon taxes to combat this so-called existential threat to humanity.

Let’s take a look at some of the other publications that Joel Wood has released in recent years. What else has he been up to?

5. Paper On Co-Fluctuation Patterns On CO2

Our hypothesis is that energy prices transmit information across borders in such a way as to increase coordination of emission fluctuations. This is tested by examining the effect of energy prices on the index of homogeneity. We find evidence in support of the hypothesis; however, the pattern of emission fluctuations differs between developing and developed countries until the most recent time period (1984-2000). We then examine the effects of openness to trade and government intervention, and find that neither of these factors have an identifiable coordinating effect on emission fluctuations between countries. Overall the evidence suggests that emissions are strongly linked between countries, and we discuss what this may imply about future emission growth and global agreements to address climate change.

By finding out how pricing impacts energy usage, we will be able to manipulate and control behaviour to suit our agenda. After all, people can’t “pollute” if they can’t afford to do it. Never mind the bogus science behind all of this.

In the subsequent section we empirically investigate the co-fluctuation patterns of per capita CO2 emissions across countries, in particular looking at world energy prices as a coordinating mechanism for emission changes across countries. We then add in other indicators of openness to markets to examine the effect they play in coordinating emission variations.

When all of the wordiness is stripped down, it is one simple idea: manipulating energy prices in order to reduce “emissions” which means reduce usage of vehicles and equipment. In short, this is research into deliberately pricing machinery out of the reach of most people.

Source is here.

6. Paper On Raising Gas Taxes

This paper uses a representative agent model and Canadian data to calculate the
optimal gasoline taxes for Ontario and the Greater Toronto-Hamilton Area (GTHA) in
a second-best setting with pre-existing distortionary income taxes. The results suggest
a second-best optimal gasoline tax of 40.57 cents per litre in 2006 Canadian dollars
for the GTHA that is much higher than the current tax rate of 24.7 cents per litre,
and also higher than recently proposed increases
. The resulting value is insensitive to
whether the additional revenue is used to reduce taxes on income or to incrementally
fund increased public transit infrastructure
(The Big Move plan). However, in the
absence of a regional tax, the second-best optimal gasoline tax for Ontario as a whole
of 28.51 cents per litre in 2006 Canadian dollars is slightly higher than the current tax
rate and in-line with proposed increases.

Gasoline taxes to be jacked up, and one option is to use to fund more public transit. In short, make driving more and more unaffordable, so you have no choice but to take transit. Source is here.

7. Paper On Brainwashing University Students

In this paper we develop the simplest integrated assessment model in order to illustrate to
undergraduate students the economic issues associated with climate change. The growth model
developed in this paper is an extension of the Solow model and includes a simple climate model.
Even though the model is very simple it is very powerful in its predictions
. Students explore
various scenarios illustrating how economic activity today will inflict damages on future
generations. But students also observe that future generations will be richer than today’s
generation due to productivity growth and population stabilization. Hence, the richer future
generations will not be as rich as they would be without climate change
. Since the cost of action
is absorbed by the current generation and the benefits of action accrue to future generations
students can conduct a cost-benefit analysis and explore the importance of the discount rate.

Due to the persistence of GHGs in the atmosphere, the climate change problem is
characterized by the issue of inter-generational equity
: The current generation is imposing
external costs on future generations and would have to forego some economic growth to limit
those costs. But at the same time, it is also characterized by issues of intra-generational equity, for example, rich nations which are relatively GHG intensive are located in temperate climates
and have the funds and strong institutions to more easily adapt to climate change
; whereas,
poorer nations, say in sub-Saharan Africa, are expected to be hit relatively harder by the negative
impacts of higher temperatures.

Source is here.

As was shown in the Paris Accord (read Article 9 in particular), this climate change scam is all about a massive wealth redistribution. It was little, if anything to do with protecting the environment, and is just a way to levy global taxes.

8. Thoughts On The Kamloops Presentation

While a number of different “solutions” were proposed, they all came down to the same thing: paying huge sums of money to the government (and by extension the U.N.) for something that won’t make air quality better.

Interesting, Joel never once discussed the science behind the climate change agenda, only different patterns to implement tariffs and taxes. But then, that’s what it was always about.

Max Boykoff’s Revenge On Science: Creative Climate Communications, Part I

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for the Climate Change Scam Part I.
CLICK HERE, for Part II, the Paris Accord.
CLICK HERE, for Part III, Saskatchewan Appeals Court Reference.
CLICK HERE, for Part IV, Controlled Opposition to Carbon Tax.
CLICK HERE, for Part V, UN New Development Funding.
CLICK HERE, for Part VI, Disruptive Innovation Framework.
CLICK HERE, for Part VII, Blaming Arson On Climate Change.
CLICK HERE, for Part VIII, Review Of Green New Deal.
CLICK HERE, for Part VIII(II), Sunrise Movement & Green New Deal.
CLICK HERE, for Part IX, Propaganda Techniques, Max Boykoff.
CLICK HERE, for Part X, GG Pollution Pricing Act & Bill C-97.
CLICK HERE, for part XI, Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai Explains Paris Accord

2. US & Canadian Copyright Laws

Disclaimer #1: The Canadian Copyright Act has a “fair dealing” provision, which allows for copyrighted material to at times be used for specific purposes: research, private study, education, parody, satire, criticism, review and news reporting. Click Here and also Click Here for more information.

Disclaimer #2: The U.S. Copyright Act has a “fair use” provision, which states that the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. Click Here to read the text.

This should be obvious, but just to clarify, this article is about criticizing, commenting on, teaching and researching purposes.

3. About The Author, Maxwell Boykoff

His professional biography is available here.

Max’s research and creative work has developed primarily in two arenas:
(1) cultural politics of science, climate change and environmental issues = this refers to ways that attitudes, intentions, beliefs and behaviors of individuals and groups shape (and are shaped by) the perceived spectrum of possible action in the context of science-policy, climate change and environmental issues.
.
(2) transformations of carbon-based economies and societies (with emphasis on the interface of science and practical action) = this refers to decarbonization politics, policies and decision-making, with particular interest in how these activities find meaning in people’s everyday lives, as well as how they, in turn, feed back into science-policy decision-making.

Feel free to check into his other works.
Now for the book itself.

4. Table Of Contents

(1) Here And Now
(2) How We Know What We Know
(3) Do The Right Thing
(4) Ways Of Learning, Ways Of Knowing
(5) It’s Not You, It’s Me…. Actually It’s Us
(6) Academic Climate Advocacy & Activism
(7) Silver Buckshot
(8) Search For Meaning

5. Quoting Creative Climate Communications

(From back cover) 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.

One thing that will be clear right away: this is not about using scientific methods to PROVE that climate change is a serious threat. Rather, it is about using scientific methods to CONVINCE people that climate change is a serious threat. Very different things.

We live in remarkable times. Amidst high-quality and well-funded research into the causes and consequences of climate change, conversations in our lives — and climate communications — are stuck. Consciously or unconsciously, a feeling of complacency has often weighed on our collective and our individual selves.

Another point made early on, Boykoff expresses no doubt whatsoever in the “scientific findings” of the climate change movement. The entire focus of the book is about using social science and humanities research to persuade people this is a problem.

(Page 2) Responding to these emergent needs, in recent years has been a blossoming of valuable research in the peer-review literature addressing various elements of this larger challenge. More research groups, organizations, institutions and practitioners around the world have increasingly explored creative spaces of climate communication to better understand what works where, with whom (what audiences), when and why.

Boykoff makes an important note here. He is not by any means a revolutionary here. “Climate communications” is a growing field, with people all over the world trying to determine better methods for “selling” the climate change claims. In short, this is research about marketing. Not science.

(Page 2) Creative approaches involve the deployment of multimodal communications. A mode is a system of choices used to communicate meaning. What might count as a mode is an open-ended set, ranging cross a number of systems, including but not limited to language, image, color, typography, music, voice, quality, dress, posture, gestures, special resources, perfume and cuisine.

What superficial points are listed?

  • language
  • image
  • colour
  • typography
  • music
  • voice
  • quality
  • dress
  • posture
  • gestures
  • special resources
  • perfume
  • cuisine

We are still just on the second page, and already getting an introduction into the very superficial traits which can subtly be used to convince people of our arguments.

Forget facts, research, data, and logic. This is all about presenting a good sales pitch.

(Page 3) Among many elements seeping into the environments, I consider the dynamics that shape creative and potentially effective messages as well as messengers of those climate change communications. Over time, broad references to communications through media platforms have generally pointed to television, films, books, fliers, magazines, radio and internet for pathways for largescale communications.

Additional modes and manifestations of communications also include (analyses of) documentary films about dystopian futures, stand-up comedy about climate and cultures, podcasts about climate science and policy interactions.

Boykoff notes the traditional forms of media, but laments that they are not enough by themselves to do the job. The job of course, is “pitching” the climate change agenda.

(Page 4) Meeting people where they are takes carefully planned and methodical work. It does not mean “dumbing things down” for different audiences. Through this process of assessment of research and practice in these areas, conversations can more capably seek answers to a provocative question Mike Hulme posted in 2009, “How does the idea of climate change the way we arrive at and achieve our personal aspirations and our collective social goals?”

(Page 5) KNOW THY AUDIENCE
These creative (climate) communication endeavors must start with consideration of the audience. These may be imagined, (un)intended or actual audiences. Researchers and practitioners have increasingly paid attention to differentiated audiences as key components to deliberate development of effective communication.

Knowing who your audience is actually a useful piece of advice, regardless of circumstances. However, in context of this book, it comes across as manipulation.

(Page 6) Audience segmentation and consequent message alteration has been a part of marketing and associated communications strategies since the 1950s (Smith 1956, Slater 1996). Audience segmentation endeavours as they relate to climate change communications, have proliferated over the last decade (Leal Finho 2019).

This book is about marketing strategies of climate change “communications”. Nothing more. It is about manipulative techniques designed to persuade by non-factual means.

6. Where Things Go From Here

The book is 300 pages, the last 60 of which are references. No doubt that an awful lot of work has gone into this. Yes, the intro article is relatively short, but it is setting the stage for later. Sequels will be longer and quote much more.

As alluded to earlier, this is really a book about marketing. It’s not about research done to prove that humans are causing climate change, but rather research to CONVINCE people that they are.

Rather than going into environmental research, the book delves in sociological and social psychological research methods. It looks at work previously done in the fields of persuasion, and applies those principles to “climate communications”.

Boykoff appears to have no doubts about humans causing climate change. Nor does he seem to have any reservations about using these social studies techniques to pursue what is essentially a political goal. He straightforwardly admits that it’s a growing field, and many have contributed to this area of research.

Boykoff admits that this area is “selling” or “pitching” the climate change narrative. While acknowledging it is a start, he has no problems with it. Seems the scientists have given up on the research area of climate science, and are throwing their resources into the marketing aspect.

It’s both nefarious and creepy.

CCS #16: Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai On How The Carbon Tax Works

(Shiva Ayyadurai, Republican and former Senate Candidate explains how the Carbon tax work.)

(Alternative explanation: Cosmic rays and the sun contribute far greater to climate change than does Carbon Dioxide)

(“Conservative” Garnett Genuis defends Paris Accord)

(UN Green Climate Fund)

(Getting rich off Carbon credits)

The first video explains plainly in the first video how the UN IPCC system works. It is all about generating revenue in order to use in creating climate bonds. The money is acquired through underhanded and deceptive means.

The second video offers a much more plausible explanation for variations in temperature: Cosmic rays and the sun. This half hour video gets into it.

Although Dr. Ayyadurai explains this from an American perspective, the issues are much the same in Canada. As such, it is very related to our situation.

It’s a shame that he ended up losing to Elizabeth Warren in the Senate race. Dr. Ayyadurai would have made a fine Senator. But Pocahontis (or Faux-cahontis) has name recognition and is able to run on that alone.

1. Debunking The Climate Change Scam

CLICK HERE, for #1: major lies that the climate frauds tell.
CLICK HERE, for #2: review of the Paris Accord.
CLICK HERE, for #3: Bill C-97, the GHG Pollution Pricing Act.
CLICK HERE, for #4: in 3-2 decision, Sask. COA allows carbon tax.
CLICK HERE, for #5: controlled opposition to carbon tax.
CLICK HERE, for #6: controlled opposition Cons ==> Supreme Court.
CLICK HERE, for #7: climate bonds pitched as $100T industry.
CLICK HERE, for #8: Joel Wood pitching various pricing options.
CLICK HERE, for #9: Mark Carney and UN climate finance.
CLICK HERE, for #10: Goldman Sachs, Obama, Clinton, Chicago CX.
CLICK HERE, for #11: Coronavirus, Pirbright Inst, Gates, Depopulation.
CLICK HERE, for #12: AOC and the “Green New Deal”.
CLICK HERE, for #13: UN seeks new development financing.
CLICK HERE, for #14: New Development Fund, bait-and-switch.
CLICK HERE, for #15: UN exploring global taxation ideas.

CLICK HERE, for BOLD Like A Leopard Guest Posting.

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for the Paris Accord, full text.
CLICK HERE, for the UN Green Climate Fund.
CLICK HERE, for WEF explaining carbon credits and trading.
CLICK HERE, for a Forbes article explaining the carbon credit scheme..

3. Dr. Ayyadurai Video In Point Form

 

  1. (Pre-Carbon tax) Products are made
  2. (Post-Carbon tax) Products are still made. Now taxes charged.
  3. Carbon taxes are paid to UN IPCC, others
  4. UN IPCC issues “Carbon credits”. In essence, this is permission to “pollute”. Never mind that Carbon Dioxide isn’t pollution, but a natural byproduct of combustion, or even breathing. But anyway….
  5. So called “Carbon credits” actually go into the bond market, and allow the UN (and approved others) to use it as an investment vehicle. This is a trillion dollar industry.
  6. Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore once monopolized the market.
  7. UN IPCC used their PR branch (or propaganda arm) to pressure the US into playing ball with the Paris Accord, despite the obvious fraud.
  8. US pressured to create $100B “Green Fund”
  9. “Green Fund” used to bribe 190 other nations into joining Paris Accord, and thus legitimizing the UN scam. Odd wording here
  10. Advisors and NGOs who used US Green Fund money to influence joining of Paris Accord ended up enriching themselves in the process
  11. Scientists “alter” findings to make situation seem worse.
  12. Developing countries allowed to make situation worse. As an example, China puts out 11B tons/year now, and will be able to emit 22B tons in 2030.
  13. After 2030, China will be able to buy “Carbon credits”.
  14. UN paid “influencers” convince their nations to join Paris Accord
  15. Paying $100B to the influencers is pocket change, as the Carbon credit commodities market will generate trillions in the end. A great investment.
  16. This is really about virtue signalling.
  17. Environmental data manipulated to generate support.
  18. No conclusive evidence of temperature rise.
  19. 1st world nations will pay more for everything.
  20. 3rd world will (for years) be exempt.
  21. UN IPCC and allies are only ones who will benefit.
  22. Trump made right decision to pull out of Paris Accord.

Just 12 minutes in this video and Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai completely and thoroughly explained it. These Carbon taxes would end up in the UN, and go into the commodities market, generating trillions of dollars in revenue. The “Green Fund” is just a fund to bribe corrupt officials into playing along. And none of this would do anything to cut pollution.

One small criticism: it would have been nice to point out that Carbon Dioxide is not pollution. It is a naturally occurring compound. If it was reduced to zero, life would stop altogether.

However, in the other video provided, a sound and plausible explanation is offered. It is cosmic rays and solar activity that leads to significant variations in temperatures.

4. The Paris Accord: Articles 2, 4, 9

(Article 2)

1. This Agreement, in enhancing the implementation of the Convention, including its objective, aims to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change, in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty, including by:

(c) Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development.

(Article 4)

3. Each Party’s successive nationally determined contribution will represent a progression beyond the Party’s then current nationally determined contribution and reflect its highest possible ambition, reflecting its common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances.

4. Developed country Parties should continue taking the lead by undertaking economy-wide absolute emission reduction targets. Developing country Parties should continue enhancing their mitigation efforts, and are encouraged to move over time towards economy-wide emission reduction or limitation targets in the light of different national circumstances.

5. Support shall be provided to developing country Parties for the implementation of this Article, in accordance with Articles 9, 10 and 11, recognizing that enhanced support for developing country Parties will allow for higher ambition in their actions.

6. The least developed countries and small island developing States may prepare and communicate strategies, plans and actions for low greenhouse gas emissions development reflecting their special circumstances.

(Article 9)

1. Developed country Parties shall provide financial resources to assist developing country Parties with respect to both mitigation and adaptation in continuation of their existing obligations under the Convention.

2. Other Parties are encouraged to provide or continue to provide such support voluntarily.

3. As part of a global effort, developed country Parties should continue to take the lead in mobilizing climate finance from a wide variety of sources, instruments and channels, noting the significant role of public funds, through a variety of actions, including supporting country-driven strategies, and taking into account the needs and priorities of developing country Parties. Such mobilization of climate finance should represent a progression beyond previous efforts.

4. The provision of scaled-up financial resources should aim to achieve a balance between adaptation and mitigation, taking into account country-driven strategies, and the priorities and needs of developing country Parties, especially those that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change and have significant capacity constraints, such as the least developed countries and small island developing States, considering the need for public and grant-based resources for adaptation.

5. Developed country Parties shall biennially communicate indicative quantitative and qualitative information related to paragraphs 1 and 3 of this Article, as applicable, including, as available, projected levels of public financial resources to be provided to developing country Parties. Other Parties providing resources are encouraged to communicate biennially such information on a voluntary basis.

6. The global stock take referred to in Article 14 shall take into account the relevant information provided by developed country Parties and/or Agreement bodies on efforts related to climate finance.

7. Developed country Parties shall provide transparent and consistent information on support for developing country Parties provided and mobilized through public interventions biennially in accordance with the modalities, procedures and guidelines to be adopted by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Agreement, at its first session, as stipulated in Article 13, paragraph 13. Other Parties are encouraged to do so.

8. The Financial Mechanism of the Convention, including its operating entities, shall serve as the financial mechanism of this Agreement.

9. The institutions serving this Agreement, including the operating entities of the Financial Mechanism of the Convention, shall aim to ensure efficient access to financial resources through simplified approval procedures and enhanced readiness support for developing country Parties, in particular for the least developed countries and small island developing States, in the context of their national climate strategies and plans.

These are quotes directly from the Paris Accord. In particular, Article 9 makes it abundantly clear that this is all about “financial flow” and a transfer of wealth from the developed world to the developing world.

Actual environmental changes seem almost to be an afterthought. This is a giant wealth transfer scheme.

5. The Green Climate Fund

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) is a new global fund created to support the efforts of developing countries to respond to the challenge of climate change. GCF helps developing countries limit or reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and adapt to climate change. It seeks to promote a paradigm shift to low-emission and climate-resilient development, taking into account the needs of nations that are particularly vulnerable to climate change impacts.

It was set up by the 194 countries who are parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 2010, as part of the Convention’s financial mechanism. It aims to deliver equal amounts of funding to mitigation and adaptation, while being guided by the Convention’s principles and provisions.

When the Paris Agreement was reached in 2015, the Green Climate Fund was given an important role in serving the agreement and supporting the goal of keeping climate change well below 2 degrees Celsius.

Responding to the climate challenge requires collective action from all countries, including by both public and private sectors. Among these concerted efforts, advanced economies have agreed to jointly mobilize significant financial resources. Coming from a variety of sources, these resources address the pressing mitigation and adaptation needs of developing countries.

GCF launched its initial resource mobilization in 2014, and rapidly gathered pledges worth USD 10.3 billion. These funds come mainly from developed countries, but also from some developing countries, regions, and one city (Paris).

GCF’s activities are aligned with the priorities of developing countries through the principle of country ownership, and the Fund has established a direct access modality so that national and sub-national organisations can receive funding directly, rather than only via international intermediaries.

Source is right here.

To reiterate from before: the Paris Agreement isn’t really about reducing greenhouse gases. It is a way of extracting large sums of money from “polluters” in order to finance the UN’s various agendas.

While the website sounds well meaning enough, an important detail is left out: namely the huge profit that will be derived from using these funds. As such, the conflict of interest isn’t being disclosed.

6. A $100 Trillion Industry

This was addressed in a previous article. While the public is roped into supporting the agenda on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, the truth is quite different.

Climate bonds is an industry. It’s an industry that has potential for explosive growth, as long as governments keep pouring money into it.

The climate change agenda has nothing to do with protecting the environment. It is all about the “illusion” of protecting the environment. And money.

7. Carbon Credit Profiteering

Gore and Blood, the former chief of Goldman Sachs Asset Management (GSAM), co-founded London-based GIM in 2004. Between 2008 and 2011 the company had raised profits of nearly $218 million from institutions and wealthy investors. By 2008 Gore was able to put $35 million into hedge funds and private partnerships through the Capricorn Investment Group, a Palo Alto company founded by his Canadian billionaire buddy Jeffrey Skoll, the first president of EBay Inc. It was Skoll’s Participant Media that produced Gore’s feverishly frightening 2006 horror film, “An Inconvenient Truth”.

Still, the U.S. Government Accounting Office can’t figure out what benefits taxpayers are getting from those many billions of dollars spent each year on policies that are purportedly aimed at addressing climate change. A May 2011 GAO report noted that while annual federal funding for such activities has been increasing substantially, there is a lack of shared understanding of strategic priorities among the various responsible agency officials. This assessment agrees with the conclusions of a 2008 Congressional Research Service analysis which found no “overarching policy goal for climate change that guides the programs funded or the priorities among programs.

As noted in the Forbes article, Al Gore has been able to become extremely wealthy with this scheme. Huge sums of money are taken as “Carbon taxes” and then plowed into the climate bonds industry.

While this hunger for Carbon taxes is spun as necessary for the planet, too little attention is paid to the profiteering that goes on behind it. It is difficult to take these pleas seriously when there is such a compelling profit motive.

And as the Government has noted, it’s very unclear what — if anything — taxpayers are actually getting in return for their money. It also isn’t obvious what goals or direction these programs are actually working towards.

The answer is very simple: the people running the scam want it to stay operational as long as possible. The goal is money, not ideology.

This is just one article. A quick internet search will reveal more details and examples of cashing in on this “environmental” agenda.

Either we tax countries for continuing to “pollute”, or we force them to shut down significant parts of their economy. Since the latter can’t happen without dropping the standard of living, it becomes necessary to pay up.

It’s like the mafia, except disguised as environmentalism.

8. Various UN Taxation Schemes

(A) New Development Financing: Carbon Tax Alone Could Generate $250/year, 2012
(B) UN: “Int’l Tax” To Raise $400B, 2012
(C) Paris Accord “Financial Flows”, 2015
(D) Addis Ababa, Financing Devel’t, 2015
(E) Green Financing, Sust Develop, 2016
(F) Leverage African Pension Plans, 2017
(G) Finance 2030 SDG, $5-7T Needed, 2018
(H) From Billions To Trillions, 2018
(I) Sustainable Financing Report, 2019
(J) UN Enviro Program, Finance Initiative
(K) Capital Development Finance

A few of these have been addressed in other articles. Please visit the “Climate Change Scam” section on the righthand toolbar.

This should alarm people. The UN is regularly coming up with new and innovative taxation methods. This is only a handful of them.

The Paris Accord is hardly an isolated cause.

9. Closing Thoughts On Subject

Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai is right regarding his explanation of the Paris Accord. It is an elaborate scam. While billions are pumped into climate funds, that is not the whole story. Those billions are then used to entice other nations to join the Paris Accord, thus giving it more legitimacy. The final goal is the trillions that can be gained later.

Furthermore, his explanation that cosmic radiation and solar activity play a greater role in fluctuating temperatures seems to make sense.

The Paris Accord has nothing to do with improving the environment either. All of its “mitigation” strategies are just talk. The Agreement is about generating large transfers of wealth on a continuous basis. Read the Agreement, in particular Article #9. The text leaves no doubt that money is the driving force behind it.

Climate bonds, and related “investments” are a huge industry, worth perhaps $100 trillion. This is the reason behind it all. So much opportunity. But the Carbon taxes (and other related fees), are entirely based on false pretenses.

The real losers are consumers and taxpayers, particularly from the developed world. These Carbon taxes (or “price on pollution” as claimed in Canada) will be used to funding for the UN IPCC and select allies to enrich themselves.