Justin Trudeau has let it slip out that Liberals intend to implement the “Great Reset“. In short, this means using the fake pandemic as an excuse to accelerate Agenda 2030, the so-called “Sustainable Development Agenda”.
That isn’t going over so well in conservative circles. And why? Because it was Stephen Harper who signed Agenda 2030 on September 25, 2015. It was Harper who domestically implemented Agenda 21 in 2008 (which Brian Mulroney signed). In short, Conservatives had paved the way for the reset, and now Trudeau was stealing their thunder.
The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the “Great Reset“. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here. The media is paid off, and our democracy is thoroughly compromised, as shown: here, here, here, and here.
2. Conservatives Support The “Great Reset”
The Liberals want to “build back better.” Conservatives will “build back stronger.”
.
We are facing the greatest economic crisis of our lifetime.
.
Canada’s Conservatives led by Erin O’Toole will bring back certainty and stability.
.
The Liberal agenda is to launch a risky experiment with Canada’s economy.
.
Justin Trudeau says, “We are all in this together.” But, under the Liberals, Canada is more divided than ever before.
.
With the Liberals, it’s the haves over the have-nots.
.
It’s Bay Street over Main Street.
.
It’s those with a salary, benefits, and a pension over those without.
.
It’s those with Liberal connections over the outsiders who have to play by the rules.
.
Instead, Erin O’Toole’s Conservatives will fight for you and your family, and the countless Canadians left behind by the Trudeau Liberal government.
.
Sign below if you want to build back stronger!
The Conservative Party of Canada completely supports the “Great Reset”. In fact, they coined the term: “build back stronger” as a way to show how cool and edgy they are.
To be clear, Michelle Rempel-Garner and the CPC aren’t upset that the Great Reset is taking place. They just pretend to be because Trudeau and the Liberals will get credit for it.
3. Conservatives Support Increased Lockdowns
OTTAWA — Conservative leadership candidate Erin O’Toole called Monday for the country to be placed on “war footing” to combat the spread of COVID-19, the latest escalation of rhetoric in the race now thrown into flux by the rapidly evolving crisis.
O’Toole said the federal government should invoke the Emergencies Act so the federal government can prohibit travel, enforce self-isolation and control assemblies, while also mobilizing the military to back up the health system.
“Now is the time to put our government and our economy on a war footing, with leadership from the top,” he said in an email to supporters.
When O’Toole was running to be the leader of the CPC, he openly advocated for even more draconian measures that what Trudeau had done. So much for conservatives valuing freedom.
4. CPC Still Calls For Less Freedom
MOTION TEXT
That the Standing Committee on Health be instructed to undertake a study on the emergency situation facing Canadians in light of the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and that this study evaluate, review and examine any issues relevant to this situation, such as, but not limited to:
(a) rapid and at-home testing approvals and procurement process and schedule, and protocol for distribution;
.
(b) vaccine development and approvals process, procurement schedules, and protocol for distribution;
.
(c) federal public health guidelines and the data being used to inform them for greater clarity on efficacy;
.
(d) current long-term care facility COVID-19 protocols as they pertain solely to federal jurisdiction;
.
(o) the government’s contact tracing protocol, including options considered, technology, timelines and resources;
.
(p) the government’s consideration of and decision not to invoke the federal Emergencies Act;
Yes, Michelle Rempel-Garner is demanding to know why (among other things), the Emergencies Act hasn’t been invoked. She also supports contact tracing, and rapid test kits (even though the tests don’t work). These are clearly the actions of someone who supports the Great Reset deep down. No mention that when the long term care deaths are excluded, the death rate drops to almost nothing.
At no point do Conservatives complain that these measures are excessive, or question the highly dubious “science” behind it. The only objections are in how it’s carried out.
5. Rempel A Well Known WEF Globalist
Canadian Member of Parliament. Has served in Cabinet as a Minister of State in the government of Stephen Harper. Has also managed the sponsored research portfolio for one of Canada’s top research intensive universities. Has over a decade of experience in managing and commercializing intellectual property, and in management consulting. Named one of Canada’s Top 100 Most Powerful Women, Women’s Executive Network. Twice named as Parliamentarian of the Year – Rising Star, Maclean’s Magazine.
Can this woman really be trusted, given the glowing review the World Economic Forum has given to her? Keep in mind, WEF is one of the major pushers of the reset.
6. Agenda 2030 Signed In September 2015
In September 2015, Canada and all other 192 United Nations Member States adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development at the UN General Assembly. This initiative is a global call to action to end poverty, protect the planet and ensure that all people enjoy peace and prosperity by 2030.
The 2030 Agenda presents Canada, and the world, with a historic opportunity to positively shape how societies of tomorrow grow and develop sustainably and inclusively to the shared benefit of all.
Canada signed onto Agenda 2030 on September 25, 2015. This was less than a month before Stephen Harper was voted out of office.
7. Pierre Poilievre’s Bogus Petition
Lovely petition, but again, the Conservatives were in power when Agenda 2030 was launched. The “Great Reset” is just Agenda 2030. And why is he still flying a foreign flag in his office?
8. Conservative Inc. Media Obscures Truth
Founded in 1967 with the express goal to stand up for Canadian taxpayers and to champion small-C conservative values, The National Citizens Coalition is made up of a dedicated group of individuals working together to ensure the continued success of Canada’s largest non-partisan organization.
Keep the term non-partisan in mind. While claiming to be independent and non-partisan, the NCC leaves out that Stephen Harper (yes, the former Prime Minister), used to head the organization.
Fernando acts as cheerleader for Rempel-Garner, in opposing the “Reset”. However, he fails to mention that the former head of National Citizens Coalition, his organization, signed Agenda 2030 in the first place. That agreement helped drive the Reset in motion. He also omits Rempel-Garner’s award from the World Economic Forum.
An epic conflict of interest that isn’t disclosed.
9. Would Harper Have Pushed The Great Reset?
This is impossible to know for sure. However, looking at his past actions, it’s clear that he had no real concern for Canada’s sovereignty or well being. Here are some examples:
(a) He domestically implemented Agenda 21
(b) He fought COMER to keep the banking cartel intact
(c) He added over $100 billion to the national debt
(d) He signed FIPA without allowing full debate
(e) He set “emissions targets” regarding the climate change scam
(f) He signed Agenda 2030
(g) He left the loophole in the Safe 3rd Country Agreement, allowing illegal aliens to enter from the U.S.
Would Harper and the Conservatives be implementing the “Great Reset” if they were still in power today? Just an opinion, but yes they would. Michelle Rempel-Garner is just angry she doesn’t get credit.
Get ready for increased efforts to enforce taxation rules globally. While this is promoted as a means of stopping tax cheats, it’s unlikely stop there. Once the infrastructure is fully up and operational, what’s to stop organizations like the UN from simply imposing global taxes?
1. The United Nations’ Many Tentacles
The United Nations pushes an almost endless amount of agendas, nearly all with the goal of obtaining greater control. See some of their other documents, taxation efforts, and pandering to Islam. While a lot of this will seem harmless, and consist of minor issues, the loss of sovereignty creeps in incrementally.
2. More On The International Banking Cartel
Check this page. for more. The Canadian Government, like so many others, has sold out the independence and sovereignty of its monetary system to foreign interests. BIS, like its central banks, exceed their agenda and try to influence other social agendas. See who is really controlling things, and the common lies that politicians and media figures tell. Now, the bankers work with the climate mafia and pandemic pushers to promote their mutual goals of control and debt slavery.
OECD/UNDP Partnership
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) have joined forces to extend the global reach of Tax Inspectors Without Borders (TIWB) and to scale-up operations. The partnership was launched at the Third Financing for Development conference in Addis Ababa on 13 July 2015 and was welcomed by stakeholders from business, civil society, as well as OECD and developing country governments attending the conference. The Initiative was widely hailed as capable of assisting developing countries mobilize much-needed domestic revenues in support of the post-2015 sustainable development agenda. The TIWB Initiative facilitates targeted, tax audit assistance programmes in developing countries across the globe. The TIWB Initiative is a strong response to the attention given to effective and efficient mobilisation of domestic resources in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals and the commitments made by the international community in Addis Ababa to strengthen international tax co-operation
UNDP contributes in the following ways:
.
-Through its country offices, supports development and completion of TIWB programmes in developing, countries;
-Promotes lessons learned and the sharing of good practices of TIWB country programmes with the international development community;
-Manages a roster of tax audit experts;
-Manages designated donor financial resources for TIWB activities;
-Handles contracts for retired experts (or former tax officials) participating in TIWB programmes.
The OECD contributes in the following ways:
.
-Hosts the TIWB Secretariat at the OECD offices in Paris;
-Identifies and provides support to host tax administrations on technical taxation issues and assists host and partner tax administrations in the set-up of TIWB programmes;
-Provides technical support to UNDP on selection and quality assurance of the roster of tax audit experts;
-Develops manuals, tools and research on best administrative practices in tax administrations and for TIWB Programmes.
-Monitors, assesses and reports on results of TIWB programmes.
So it isn’t just about helping certain countries get their tax money. It’s also about achieving the UN Sustainable Development Agenda goals laid out in 2015. The OECD also made their announcement about the partnership.
In reality, this is the equivalent, (or soon to be the equivalent), of a global tax administration. Think of the Canada Revenue Agency, just on a worldwide scale. While there seems to be nothing wrong on the surface with stoppin tax cheats, it reeks of growing intrusion into national affairs.
5. TIWB Conference September 28, 2020
This high-level event provided an opportunity to engage with government ministers and senior officials and look at the TIWB approach of bringing countries together to tackle tax avoidance, evasion and Illicit Financial Flows. The panel reflected on how the experiences from the initiative can be utilised to recover from COVID-19 and re-imagining a new future, specifically in the context of the Financing for Development in the Era of COVID-19 and Beyond process.
.
The TIWB Annual Report 2020 was launched during the event.
.
This event took place in the margins of the 75th United Nations’ General Assembly on 28 September 2020.
The Panel talks about efforts that TIWB is undertaking, and about how they can help advance the UNSDA in light of the coronavirus pandemic. How convenient it is for them.
6. Tax Inspectors Without Borders’ Donors
Seems rather strange that the World Bank and the Open Society, (George Soros), would be contributing to such a program. Or perhaps it isn’t. There are several donor nations in Europe, and Japan, also contributing.
7. World Bank Global Tax Umbrella Program
The Global Tax Program (GTP) provides an umbrella framework for tax support and leads an ongoing program of activities at both international tax and country levels focused on strengthening tax institutions and mobilizing revenues at the international and domestic levels. The GTP Program is one of the Umbrella 2.0 pilots for Trust Fund Reforms recently undertaken by the WBG.
The international community has set ambitious goals to end extreme poverty and boost inclusive and sustainable growth by 2030. Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals requires massive investment in physical and human capital. Focus is needed on the quality, fairness, and equity of domestic tax collection.
To be clear, this isn’t simply about tax collection. It’s also about seeing that those taxes are used according to the goals set out by TIWB/OECD/UNDP. There are certainly strings attached.
8. Int’l Monetary Fund On Tax Avoidance
The IMF, or International Monetary Fund, has taken an interest in tax collecting, estimating that $12 billion is in corporate shells, and another $7 billion is hidden by people overseas.
Information from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), have allowed more research and study to take place.
9. Reported By Yahoo News In 2015
Yahoo reported the launch of Tax Inspectors Without Borders back in 2015. Short article, but it covered a lot of important points. Reuters and TaxConnections addressed it as well.
10. TIWB Ultimately Pushing Policy Change
Tax Inspectors Without Borders talks about how they are helping in the 3rd World with regard to tax evasion, but they minimize a very important issue. TIWB is interested in pushing policy changes in taxation, and they are trying to get more money spent on Agenda 2030. This isn’t altruism on their part, but is ideologically motivated.
With all of this in mind, one very serious question has to be asked: will TIWB (at some point), begin calling for global taxation schemes?
This should go without saying, but will be said anyway: DO NOT be belligerent, threatening, aggressive, or swearing when attempting this. Don’t be intoxicated in any way either. Business owners might look for any reason to ban you from the premises, and such behaviour may give them legitimate grounds.
The above warning applies even more so to large men talking to women working in the store. Yes, this is sexist, but play along anyway. You do not want to provide any excuse to boot you out.
Another bit of advice: if you concerned about getting kicked out for life, or burning bridges, start with someplace you don’t normally go. Even better if it is quite a ways away. Again, this is just to be careful.
3. Read Up On The Law In Advance
First, you will want to read up on the Human Rights Legislation in your province. From the British Columbia Human Rights Code, we see the following passages:
Discrimination and intent
2 Discrimination in contravention of this Code does not require an intention to contravene this Code.
Discrimination in accommodation, service and facility
8 (1) A person must not, without a bona fide and reasonable justification,
.
(a) deny to a person or class of persons any accommodation, service or facility customarily available to the public, or
.
(b) discriminate against a person or class of persons regarding any accommodation, service or facility customarily available to the public
.
because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or age of that person or class of persons.
.
(2) A person does not contravene this section by discriminating
.
(a) on the basis of sex, if the discrimination relates to the maintenance of public decency or to the determination of premiums or benefits under contracts of life or health insurance, or
.
(b) on the basis of physical or mental disability or age, if the discrimination relates to the determination of premiums or benefits under contracts of life or health insurance.
Using the BC Human Rights Code as an example, it is abundantly clear that a shop or store owner cannot discriminate against people based on any “physical or mental disability”. If wearing a mask makes breathing difficult, than that alone is enough to satisfy the requirement.
Businesses are required to make accommodations to people with disabilities. It isn’t optional.
Note: stores, shops and service providers are not allowed to pry into the specifics of what that disability may be. They are prohibited from trying to get that information.
An observant reader will notice Section 2. This states that no intent is required on the part of anyone to be discriminatory. While that (in many cases), may be open to abuse, it would be very helpful here.
4. Document Your Encounter With A Cellphone
A possible encounter might go something like this. Head to the establishment, and walk into the building as normal.
[A] If stopped by an employee telling you to wear a mask or leave, pull out your cellphone (or other such recording device). Audio is fine, and video may be off-putting.
[B] State the time, date, and location into your phone, and ask the employee to repeat him or herself. If you are asked if you are recording, admit it, and state that it’s legal under Canadian law.
[C] Inform the employee that you have a condition — but do not specify — which impedes your ability to wear a mask
[D] Inform the employee that the (specify) Human Rights Code requires employees in services available to the public to make accommodations.
[E] Inform the employee that there are always exemptions — regardless of whether it is a municipal bylaw, a provincial law, or simply store policy. Ask why those exemptions are not publicly displayed.
[F] If asked for details, inform the employee that it is private medical information, and they have no legal right to demand it in return for entry.
[G] If pressed, repeat to the employee that they have no right to demand this information.
[H] Reiterate that the (specify) Human Rights Code prohibits discrimination. Give the specific section number. If applicable, state that (other section) doesn’t require intent for there to be discrimination.
[I] If still not granted entry, ask the employee this question very deliberately: “Am I being refused entry because of my condition?”
[J] Feel free to ask a second time, just so there is no misunderstanding. Also, feel free to ask for the full name.
This is the critical point. The person will either: (a) admit you entry; or (b) knowingly state on tape that you are being refused because of your disability. It would take nerves of steel to tell a person “no” when pressed like this. However, if it does happen, you have a taped, documented case of discrimination.
Remember, this is not about picking a fight, but in enforcing your human rights to patronize businesses that you need to. If you are allowed in without a mask, accept the victory and move on.
Keep in mind, that many employees are stressed out, and don’t want a fight. If it becomes clear that you are prepared, and know the law, many (most?) will back down and let you go through. Try to understand their perspective.
If pushing the disability angle doesn’t suit you, bear in mind that human rights codes also allow for exemptions based on religion. Apparently, the virus doesn’t attack devout followers.
And again, see Part 2 about behaviour to not engage in.
Now, as for more information about the “planned-emic”, and other constructive suggestions (on various topics), see the sections below.
5. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”
The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the “Great Reset“. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here. The media is paid off, and our democracy is thoroughly compromised, as shown: here, here, here, and here.
6. Previous Solutions Offered
For serious suggestions offered, on many different subjects, check here. Complaining and criticizing is one thing, but real answers have to be proposed as some point. These proposals should be worth serious consideration.
Leslyn Lewis finished her PhD dissertation in May 2019 from York University, in Toronto. It covered a number of legal areas around climate change, the Paris Accord, intellectual property, and trade agreements. Months after finishing, she ran for the leadership of the CPC, as Andrew Scheer had been forced out.
1. About Leslyn Lewis’ PhD Dissertation
To start out: the quality of the writing is very good. The content is well organized and the paper well cited. This wasn’t just some mess hastily thrown together. This is not to question her reading or writing abilities — which are impressive — but to ask ideologically what she stands for.
However, the concern now starts to creep in. This wasn’t some undergraduate paper written 20 or 30 years ago, but Lewis’ PhD dissertation. She finished it in 2019, at the age of 48.
From the content of the paper, it seems clear that Lewis fully embraces the climate change scam as a reality. She supports the Paris Agreement, despite its explicit and repeated focus on “climate finance, and its focus on “alternative energy sources”. She appears to have bought into the green agenda. The paper itself discusses (among other things), how trade agreements and intellectual property disputes can impede efforts to fight climate change.
Less than a year later, Lewis, (a political unknown), would be running for the Conservative Party of Canada leadership. She finished 3rd. Like most “conservatives”, she sings the praises of the UNSDA and Paris Accord, only objecting to a Carbon tax.
Lewis also calls herself a “social conservative”, but was once a Director at LEAF, the Women’s Legal Education & Action Fund. LEAF is a pro-death, anti-family organization.
2. Offshoring, Globalization, Free Trade
The other posts on outsourcing/offshoring are available here. It focuses on the hidden costs and trade offs society as a whole has to make. Contrary to what many politicians and figures in the media claim, there are always costs to these kinds of agreement. These include: (a) job losses; (b) wages being driven down; (c) undercutting of local companies; (d) legal action by foreign entities; (e) industries being outsourced; (f) losses to communities when major employers leave; and (g) loss of sovereignty to foreign corporations and governments. Intellectual property also becomes a tricky issue. Don’t believe the lies that these agreements are overwhelmingly beneficial to all.
3. Debunking The Climate Change Scam
The entire climate change industry, (and yes, it is an industry) is a hoax perpetrated by the people in power, run by international bankers. Plenty has also been covered on the climate scam, the propaganda machine in action, and some of the court documents in Canada. Carbon taxes are just a small part of the picture, and conservatives are intentionally sabotaging their court cases.
4. Quotes From Lewis’ 2019 Dissertation
The dissertation consists of several chapters, each with its own abstract. The document itself is large enough to stand alone as a book. This review doesn’t really do justice to the volume of writing, but outlines the more interesting parts.
(screenshots from the dissertation)
[Page 112]
ABSTRACT Climate change abatement strategies are intrinsically linked to policies that encourage the use of alternative energy sources such as renewable energies. The importance of these strategies has been entrenched in various World Trade Organization (WTO) treaties including the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (“SCM Agreement”), Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (“TRIPS”), Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures (“TRIMs”), as well as pre-WTO treaties like the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (“GATT”). The issue of environmental subsides, specifically renewable energy subsidies, have resurfaced in a number of disputes before the WTO Dispute Settlement Body since its first green subsidy case, brought in 2010 by Japan against Canada’s Feed-In Tariff Program (“FIT Program”). In the initial case, Japan alleged that the Ontario FIT Program’s local content requirement was discriminatory against foreign renewable energy products. Moreover, discrimination amounted to a prohibited subsidy under the SCM Agreement and was simultaneously contrary to the most favourable nation status (“MFN”) under the GATT. This decision raises concern about whether the SCM Agreement poses a barrier to governmental policies promoting FIT Programs to encourage renewable energy usage and its impact on the developing world. Specifically, do treaties like the SCM Agreement impede the development of government climate change abatement policies by requiring these programs to meet a minimum standard of trade compliance? Should WTO treaties like the SCM Agreement be amended to include flexibilities to combat climate change, especially in light of the goals set in the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change? This paper will review the WTO subsidy rules and query whether flexibilities need to be entertained within the area of nonactionable subsidies. This mode of inquiry questions whether FIT Programs be classified as subsidies under the SCM Agreement. If FIT Programs are properly classified as subsidies, should these initiatives be granted an exemption under the SCM Agreement on the basis of public policy— with the goal of facilitating affordable renewable energy and climate change abatement in the developing world?
For better or for worse, there are a number of trade regulations, such as those imposed by the World Trade Organization. These set out guidelines for international trade. Lewis makes an argument that perhaps exceptions should be put into such rules in certain circumstances. In this case, she specifically refers to climate change and complying with the Paris Agreement.
[Page 171]
ABSTRACT
Intellectual property law was constructed to facilitate innovation and development by granting a limited monopoly in exchange for the public’s right to use an invention after the period of exclusivity expires. The trade-off of granting intellectual property protections in reward for the investment in an invention is intended to be a temporary benefit. Trade secrets have been thought of as the weakest form of intellectual property, because non-disclosure is the only form of protection. In other words, infringement of a trade secret occurs upon the unauthorized disclosure of the secret. However, absent reverse engineering and/or legitimate disclosure, protection over trade secrets may arguably extend the exclusivity rights in perpetuity. The debate on “evergreening” has focused largely on extending the life cycle of pharmaceutical patents to the omission of other forms of intellectual property, like trade secrets. The concept has also been widely ignored in relation to climate change abatement technologies. In this regard, considerations around evergreening and trade secrets have been substantially neglected. The loophole in international intellectual property treaties, like Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (“TRIPS”), may lead to inequalities between industrial nations and developing ones, especially for products like photovoltaic solar panels that rely heavily on trade-secret protection. In addition, this non-disclosure may also impact on green technology transfer and may impede climate change abatement strategies in the developing world. This paper will explore the practice of evergreening as it relates to the prospect that trade secret protection may extend beyond the 20-year limit, as prescribed in TRIPS, and the implications of this practice for developing countries that seek to meet climate change commitments as outlined in the 2016 Paris Climate Change Agreement (the “Paris Agreement”). Arguably, the absence of a fixed statutory period for trade secrets may enable patent owners to participate in creative ways to “evergreen” their products or processes, with the result of extending the life-cycle. The practice of evergreening through trade secrets may have a negative impact on the ability of developing nations to meet their national climate change objectives. Specifically, international treaties like TRIPS, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 1994 (“GATT”), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (the “UNFCCC”), and the Paris Agreement, have attempted to incorporate climate change flexibilities that assist developing countries in meeting their climate change goals. The efficacy of technology transfer provisions in international law will be examined within the context of how the lack of a fixed term for trade secrets impacts on actual green technology transfer. It will canvass whether trade secret protection of off-patent green technologies acts as an inadvertent barrier to technology transfer within the developing world.
Intellectual property is what it sounds like. When a person creates or discovers things, they have certain rights to it. This makes sense. Patents prevent others from scooping and using another’s inventions, at least for a number of years. Trademarks or copyright prevent others from using creations or designs (subject to fair dealing limitations).
Lewis raises the argument of making exceptions to these IP laws if they were used for a “greater good”, such as combatting climate change.
[Page 245]
ABSTRACT
A number of Conference of Parties (“COP”) to the United Nations Framework on Climate Change (“the UNFCCC”) have addressed the issue of climate change and its effect on the developing world. Energy insecurity must be addressed as a precondition to sustainable development, along with the regional factors that pose legal and institutional barriers to implementing of green energy projects in sub-Saharan Africa. Many sub-Saharan African nations have enacted renewable energy laws and regulations to increase investor confidence in green energy projects. Despite current regulatory enhancements, investors are still reluctant to invest in the region due to financing and political risks. Climate financing could potentially address investor concerns, however, initiatives like the Green Climate Fund (“GC Fund”) and the African Climate Change Fund need to be implemented in a manner that promotes confidence among investors in these high capital projects. Arguably, for climate financing to achieve its full potential in sub-Saharan Africa it must be implemented in an innovative fashion that contemplates the infrastructure, environment and social governance for investments as well as fulfilling the dual goal of development and balancing national commitments under the Paris Climate Change Agreement (COP 21).
In this chapter Lewis goes on to make the argument that “climate financing”, (which really means a variety of Carbon taxes), should be implemented in order to fulfill the Paris Agreement and promote development in the 3rd World.
Lewis doesn’t seem to have an issue with intellectual property or trade regulations on principle. She just argues that exceptions should be made for fighting climate change.
These, of course, are just abstracts of a few chapters, not the entire dissertation. The whole document is quite long, nearly 400 pages when all the references and citations are added in.
5. Paris Accord Will Kill Oil & Gas Industry
Just read Article #9…..
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 stocktake 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.
That is, of course, just Article 9. Here is an earlier review. Claiming to be able to implement the Paris Accord without Carbon taxes is disingenuous, as large parts of the Agreement specifically refer to climate finance.
While many could claim that they never actually read the Agreement, Lewis’ dissertation revolves around this and the Sustainable Development Agenda. She quotes it at length. She has clearly read and understood what is going on. The dissertation is very well written, and it’s clear a lot of work went into it.
So what does Leslyn Lewis actually believe when it comes to climate change, the Paris Agreement, and various UN taxes? Who knows?
Note: Since Lewis did run to become head of the CPC (and official Opposition Leader), and since she is still running for office, she is a public figure.
As an side: Alberta MP Garnett Genuis tried to defend voting for the Paris Agreement in 2017. It didn’t go well. Here is a clip of him with Ezra Levant from Rebel News.
People in the climate change movement frequently gaslight skeptics as “deniers” and “anti-science”. While they may be dismissed as ideologues, there is another angle to look at. This isn’t a grassroots organization, but one financed and supported by the banking industry. Under the guise of preventing climate change, it’s possible to further enslave humanity forcing even more debt upon them.
Side note: “Coalition of the willing” was an expression George W. Bush used to describe the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003.
1. More On The International Banking Cartel
For more on the banking cartel, check this page. The Canadian Government, like so many others, has sold out the independence and sovereignty of its monetary system to foreign interests. BIS, like its central banks, exceed their agenda and try to influence other social agendas. See who is really controlling things, and the common lies that politicians and media figures tell. Now, the bankers work with the climate mafia and pandemic pushers to promote their mutual goals of control and debt slavery.
Many believe that central banks are part of the government, but that often isn’t true. Many are private companies. These banks then “create” money out of nothing and then lend it (at interest) to the respective governments. There’s no public benefit to doing this, as the private banks become the only source that can lend money. The only way to make up a shortfall is to borrow more.
The modern climate change agenda is just another way to fleece the public. Under the pretense of “combatting climate change”, governments are subjected to rules and regulations, which cannot be fulfilled. For example, Carbon Dioxide is plant food — necessary for photosynthesis — and it cannot simply be removed from the atmosphere. However, so-called experts tell us that drastic changes are needed. Alternatively, simply pay fees (such as Carbon taxes), and all will be forgiven.
As will be shown, central banks are fully complicit in the climate hoax. The bankers fully support this, and are pushing for the narratives to be embedded into financial policies. After all, who would care about climate change if there wasn’t a lot of money to be made?
There are undeniably many well-meaning people who are against the disaster they are TOLD is happening. However, they are just being used as pawns. Vocal opponents are used to put public pressure on governments to shell out money in order to “do something”.
3. Koch-Funded Fraser Institute On Pricing
This was covered in an earlier piece. Joel Wood of the Fraser Institute gave a lecture on various climate pricing options. It was never really explained how any of this stopped climate change. Of course, Fraser isn’t a bank, but they do act as a “think tank” trying to influence public policy.
4. Climate Bonds Initiative On Central Banks
About us
Climate Bonds Initiative is an international organisation working solely to mobilise the largest capital market of all, the $100 trillion bond market, for climate change solutions
.
We promote investment in projects and assets necessary for a rapid transition to a low carbon and climate resilient economy.
.
The strategy is to develop a large and liquid Green and Climate Bonds Market that will help drive down the cost of capital for climate projects in developed and emerging markets; to grow aggregation mechanisms for fragmented sectors; and to support governments seeking to tap debt capital markets.
.
Climate Bonds Initiative is an investor-focused not-for-profit. Our work therefore is an open source public good and falls into three workstreams.
The Climate Bonds Initiative talks about climate change the way that bankers talk about credit risks. It pushes the idea that behaviour should be examined for risk, and rewarded or punished accordingly. Now, CBI has a financial stake in pushing climate bonds, which is a serious conflict of interest. CBI believes that climate bonds are an industry worth in excess of $100 trillion.
Not really about the climate, is it?
5. Bank Of Canada On Climate Change
Investment decisions are changing
More investors—from individual Canadians to big companies like those that manage pension funds—are looking at environmental factors when making investment decisions.
This shift in investor preferences can help in the move to a low-carbon economy, but investments in carbon-intensive industries may become less attractive.
Many businesses are choosing to report on their own carbon footprint and the risks they face from climate change. This transparency can help businesses better manage these risks and provide comfort to investors. Businesses that aren’t as transparent may be viewed as higher risk.
Why are central banks thinking about climate change?
The Bank of Canada is ramping up efforts to better understand climate change because of its important effects on the economy and prices (inflation). The Bank also needs to understand the risks from climate change on the financial system as part of efforts to help keep it safe for Canadians.
Central banks cannot solve climate change
Central banks do not set environmental policy; that’s the job of governments. But central banks are in a unique position to improve society’s understanding of the economic and financial system impacts of climate change and the policies to address it. This can help investors, regulators and everyday Canadians make informed decisions.
The Bank of Canada claims not to set environmental policy. However, it also admits to trying to drive behaviour by pushing for certain types of financial decisions. Interestingly, Mark Carney never gives a straight answer on what will happen to the oil & gas sector.
6. Bank Of England On Climate Change
Our response to climate change
The Bank’s response to climate change is motivated by its statutory objectives. The first involves promoting safety and soundness by enhancing the PRA’s approach to supervising the financial risks from climate change. The second involves enhancing the resilience of the UK financial system by supporting an orderly market transition to a low-carbon economy. We first set out our strategy for responding to these risks in an article published in the June 2017 edition of our Quarterly Bulletin.
We set up the Future of Finance project to look at how financial services might evolve over the next decade, and what this could mean for everyone who uses, provides or regulates them. Huw van Steenis led the review and published his findings and recommendations in June 2019. This included the recommendation for the Bank to promote the smooth transition to a low carbon economy. The Bank set out its response to that review and committed to take action to support an orderly transition.
Bank of England climate-related financial disclosure
The Bank published its own climate-related financial disclosure for the first time in June 2020. This sets out the Bank’s approach to managing the risks from climate change across its entire operations, and explains what it’s doing to improve its understanding of these risks. This forms part of the Bank’s work under its strategic goal on climate change. It reflects the importance that the Bank attaches to climate-related risk disclosure, and the high standards that it expects both of itself, and the firms it regulates.
Mark Carney has headed the Bank of England, in addition to the Bank of Canada. The BoE intends to make climate change a main factor its financial decisions. And some of England’s “dirty” industries are going to be phased out in favour of “green” industries. It doesn’t appear to be optional.
7. U.S. Federal Reserve On Climate Change
Let’s start with monetary policy. Increasingly, it will be important for the Federal Reserve to take into account the effects of climate change and associated policies in setting monetary policy to achieve our objectives of maximum employment and price stability. Monetary policy seeks to buffer the economy from unexpected adverse disruptions, or “shocks.” It is generally more challenging for monetary policy to insulate the economy from shocks to the supply side of the economy than to the demand side. So it is vital for monetary policymakers to understand the nature of climate disturbances to the economy, as well as their likely persistence and breadth, in order to respond effectively.
Although perhaps not done as formally as other banks, the Federal Reserve, (which is a private bank), has now stated that climate change will become an increasingly important component in the decisions it makes.
8. European Central Bank On Climate Change
The financial community’s most important action with regard to climate change has happened in the last few years: many stakeholders in the financial industry, and central bankers, too, have realised that climate change is not an issue for next century. It’s an issue for now, and it’s a topic not only for other sectors but also for the financial sector and for central bankers and supervisors.
The ECB is paying a lot more attention to climate risks, not least through its participation in the Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS). We think about and work on climate change-related risk from four broad perspectives:
.
-There is the question of how we use our micro-prudential supervisory arm to assess and address climate change-related risk in banks.
-There is the question of climate change-related risk and its impact on financial stability.
-There is the question of whether and how we take climate change into account in our investments in own funds and pension funds.
-And there is the question of how we assess the potential impact of climate change on the factors that are important to monetary policy.
The ECB, or European Central Bank, takes the stance that climate change needs to be factored into almost every aspect of finance and commerce. No skepticism whatsoever of the agenda.
9. Network For Greening The Financial System
Purpose of the Network for Greening the Financial System
The Network’s purpose is to help strengthening the global response required to meet the goals of the Paris agreement and to enhance the role of the financial system to manage risks and to mobilize capital for green and low-carbon investments in the broader context of environmentally sustainable development. To this end, the Network defines and promotes best practices to be implemented within and outside of the Membership of the NGFS and conducts or commissions analytical work on green finance.
This is essentially a coalition of central banks who have all bought into the climate change agenda, and who seek to embed it into every part of the financial sector. All of this is done with an eye towards the Paris Accord.
10. International Monetary Fund In 2019
This was from an October 2019 conference the IMF (International Monetary Fund held. The topic was whether or not central banks have a role to play in the climate change agenda. They all agreed, yes, and that financial pressures can be applied to get people to fall in line.
Climate change has potential to do significant economic harm, and poses worrying tail risks. It is a global externality—one country’s emissions affect all countries by adding to the stock of heat-warming gases in the earth’s atmosphere from which warming arises.
The process of climate change is set to have a significant economic impact on many countries, with a large number of lower income countries being particularly at risk. Macroeconomic policies in these countries will need to be calibrated to accommodate more frequent weather shocks, including by building policy space to respond to shocks. Infrastructure will need to be upgraded to enhance economic resilience.
Elsewhere, climate change can entail significant risks to macrofinancial stability. Nonfinancial corporate sectors face risks from climate damages and stranded assets—such as coal reserves that become uneconomic with carbon pricing—and the disruption could affect corporate balance sheet quality.
The IMF claims that climate change is a threat to both financial stability and to economic growth.
11. World Bank Introduces Green Bonds
In 2008, the World Bank launched the “Strategic Framework for Development and Climate Change” to help stimulate and coordinate public and private sector activity to combat climate change. The World Bank Green Bonds is an example of the kind of innovation the World Bank is trying to encourage within this framework.
The World Bank Green Bond raises funds from fixed income investors to support World Bank lending for eligible projects that seek to mitigate climate change or help affected people adapt to it. The product was designed in partnership with Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken (SEB) to respond to specific investor demand for a triple-A rated fixed income product that supports projects that address the climate challenge.
Since 2008, the World Bank has now issued over USD 13 billion equivalent in Green Bonds through more than 150 transactions in 20 currencies.
World Bank Green Bonds are an opportunity to invest in climate solutions through a high quality credit fixed income product.
The triple-A credit quality of the Green Bonds is the same as for any other World Bank bonds.
Positive environmental returns by supporting World Bank projects addressing mitigation and adaptation solutions for climate change
The World Bank launched the first green bonds over a decade ago. The stated goal was to be able to raise large sums of money in order to combat climate change, or to help people who have already been impacted by it.
Bit of a side note: the World Bank is also involved in selling vaccine bonds globally. It doesn’t add anything other than drive up the cost of the nations’ pledges, by adding in a bunch of middlemen.
12. Bank For Int’l Settlements, Green Bonds
The Bank for International Settlements is integrating climate change into its priorities, despite it not being within their mandate. See here, here and here. BIS is a “central bank for central banks”, and it should focus exclusively on monetary policy. However, like the individual banks, BIS apparently sees nothing wrong with getting involved in unrelated issues.
13. Mark Carney, UN Climate 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.
It was announced almost a year ago that Carney would be joining the UN once his current contract ended. This is the same Mark Carney who has been in charge of both the Bank of Canada, and the Bank of England. This is the same man who pushed the climate change agenda in both jobs. Now, he works for the United Nations Climate Action & Finance Division.
Carney also has made a not-so-subtle threat. Companies who don’t play ball with the climate change agenda will go bankrupt. This just seems like a modern version of the mafia.
14. A New Technique To Siphon Money
Do any of these measures make the environment cleaner, or stop climate change? No, but that isn’t their purpose. The goal is to use these measures as a means of extracting large amounts of money from countries.
Previously, private central bankers ripped off the public by having policies enacted that forced governments to borrow money at interest. (Well, they still do that). However, it seems the next iteration is to persuade governments to shovel money — usually borrowed — at climate change initiatives. How exactly this stops climate change is never really explained.
Yes, a lot of these payments simply disappear, but money also gets funneled into: (a) climate bonds; (b) is loaned to countries who can’t pay it back, resulting in debt-for-nature swaps; or (c) used for a variety of alternative purposes.
This isn’t environmentalism here. It’s just another scam that bankers are perpetuating on the unsuspecting public.
The Green Climate Fund is heavily pushing for countries to use this “pandemic” as a chance to implement widespread social changes. Others claim that climate change makes the world vulnerable to it happening again. If this wasn’t planned out, then at a minimum, it comes across as very opportunistic.
1. Debunking The Climate Change Scam
The entire climate change industry, (yes, it’s an industry) is a hoax perpetrated by powerful people colluding against national interests. See the other articles on the scam, the propaganda machine in action, and some of the court documents in Canada. Carbon taxes are just a small part of the picture, as the issue goes much deeper than what’s reported. Also, conservatives are intentionally sabotaging their court cases.
Letting the members speak for themselves might be the best option. They quite openly talk about how the Covid-19 “pandemic” creates an opportunity to implement broader social changes. It was never really about a virus, as that’s just an excuse. See here, here and here. Even giving them the benefit of the doubt, all of this comes across as very opportunistic.
4. UN Framework Convention On Climate Change
Background
At COP 16 held in Cancun, by decision 1/CP.16, Parties established the Green Climate Fund (GCF) as an operating entity of the Financial Mechanism of the Convention under Article 11. The Fund is governed by the GCF Board and it is accountable to and functions under the guidance of the COP to support projects, programmes, policies and other activities in developing country Parties using thematic funding windows.
The Green Climate Fund was a creation based on Article 11 of the UNFCCC, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, signed in December 2010.
[Article] 11. Agrees that adaptation is a challenge faced by all Parties, and that enhanced action and international cooperation on adaptation is urgently required to enable and support the implementation of adaptation actions aimed at reducing vulnerability and building resilience in developing country Parties, taking into account the urgent and immediate needs of those developing countries that are particularly vulnerable;
The Green Climate Fund was approved, (at least in principle), because of this article of the treaty.
5. What Is The Green Climate Fund?
The Green Climate Fund (GCF) is the world’s largest dedicated fund helping developing countries reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and enhance their ability to respond to climate change. It was set up by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 2010. GCF has a crucial role in serving the Paris Agreement, supporting the goal of keeping average global temperature rise well below 2 degrees C. It does this by channelling climate finance to developing countries, which have joined other nations in committing to climate action.
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 mobilisation 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.
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.
The Fund pays particular attention to the needs of societies that are highly vulnerable to the effects of climate change, in particular Least Developed Countries (LDCs), Small Island Developing States (SIDS), and African States.
GCF aims to catalyse a flow of climate finance to invest in low-emission and climate-resilient development, driving a paradigm shift in the global response to climate change.
Our innovation is to use public investment to stimulate private finance, unlocking the power of climate-friendly investment for low emission, climate resilient development. To achieve maximum impact, GCF seeks to catalyse funds, multiplying the effect of its initial financing by opening markets to new investments.
Balanced portfolio
GCF’s investments are aimed at achieving maximum impact in the developing world, supporting paradigm shifts in both mitigation and adaptation. The Fund aims for a 50:50 balance between mitigation and adaptation investments over time. It also aims for a floor of 50 percent of the adaptation allocation for particularly vulnerable countries, including Least Developed Countries (LDCs), Small Island Developing States (SIDS), and African States.
Unlocking private finance
The Fund is unique in its ability to engage directly with both the public and private sectors in transformational climate-sensitive investments. GCF engages directly with the private sector through its Private Sector Facility (PSF). As part of its innovative framework, it has the capacity to bear significant climate-related risk, allowing it to leverage and crowd in additional financing. It offers a wide range of financial products including grants, concessional loans, subordinated debt, equity, and guarantees. This enables it to match project needs and adapt to specific investment contexts, including using its funding to overcome market barriers for private finance.
On the surface, all of this sounds fine. The Green Climate Fund claims that it’s raising money to deal with environmental affairs. However, it’s not so straightforward. This isn’t about preventing climate change, but about using warnings and fears about it to make money.
While AOC is frequently mocked for low intelligence, the reality is that a lot of her actions are motivated by deceitfulness, not being naive. Take for example, House Resolution 109, the infamous Green New Deal. This was introduced in 2019, not long after she was elected to Congress.
Chakrabarti had an unexpected disclosure. “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal,” he said, “is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.” Ricketts greeted this startling notion with an attentive poker face. “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti continued. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”
That admission pretty much killed Resolution 109. It became clear at that point that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her staff didn’t actually believe in what they were pushing. Instead, this was a pretext to enact a much larger social agenda.
Ocasio-Cortez was just a puppet in a much larger scheme.
7. The GLOBAL Green New Deal
The head of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) on Thursday called for a global Green New Deal in which redirected financial flows usher in an age of sustainable, post-pandemic growth that takes the heat out of dangerous planetary warming.
“Climate action and COVID-19 recovery measures must be mutually supportive to be effective,” said GCF Executive Director Yannick Glemarec during an international conference in South Korea exploring how COVID-19 recovery efforts can be directed away from investments that are harming the planet towards those creating a global green economy.
The conference focused on South Korea’s national plans to counter the effects of the pandemic through economic recovery pathways leading to future carbon neutrality, while also reflecting on how similar “Green New Deals” are being adopted across the world.
Reflecting the urgency COVID-19 has brought to the need to take climate action, conference participants considered how the paths that countries take now in recovering from COVID-19 will determine whether the world achieves the Paris Agreement goals and a net zero emissions future.
The Government of South Korea, for example, seems to have fully embraced the Green New Deal. This is at least in part as a response to the coronavirus “pandemic”.
It certainly is convenient that this “pandemic” struck when and how it did. Otherwise, people might be a lot more hesitant to embrace the radical restructuring of their economy. Let’s be clear, this is just an excuse to implement their communist agenda.
While the focus here is on South Korea, the Green Climate Fund, (and their allies), support all countries adopting some version of the Green New Deal.
8. Climate-Related Financial Disclosures
Mandatory climate-related financial disclosures are already a reality in New Zealand, and is coming to Britain as well. And we are not too far off from adopting it in Canada. This is an initiative that the Green Climate Fund fully supports, just on a global scale. If fully implemented, many businesses (globally), would have to submit disclosure forms to the UN for their approval.
9. Canada’s Industries To Be Phased Out
The United Nations has officially asked for certain industries to be allowed to die off. In Canada, this certainly means the end of oil & gas, among others. It’s not like the Conservatives, and their modified “Build Back Better” expression will do much.
