I. How Green Finance Is Changing the Earth (Corbett-Webb Interview, November 26, 2022)
Interview 1676 – Whitney Webb Exposes How Green Finance is Monopolizing the Planet
By: James Corbett
Whitney Webb returns to the program to discuss her recent work on the “green” transformation of the global financial system.
From NACs to GFANZ, Webb and Corbett break down the latest attempt to monopolize the world’s natural resources and how this financial scam represents the next step along the path to the Great Reset, 2030 Agenda and the 4th Industrial Revolution.
Related Articles by Whitney Webb:
II. UN-Backed Banker Alliance Announces “Green” Plan to Transform the Global Financial System
GREAT RESET, 22 Nov 2021
Whitney Webb | Unlimited Hangout – TRANSCEND Media Service
The most powerful private financial interests in the world, under the cover of COP26, have developed a plan to transform the global financial system by fusing with institutions like the World Bank and using them to further erode national sovereignty in the developing world.
5 Nov 2021 – On Wednesday [3 Nov], an “industry-led and UN-convened” alliance of private banking and financial institutions announced plans at the COP26 conference to overhaul the role of global and regional financial institutions, including the World Bank and IMF, as part of a broader plan to “transform” the global financial system. The officially stated purpose of this proposed overhaul, per alliance members, is to promote the transition to a “net zero” economy. However, the group’s proposed “reimagining” of international financial institutions, according to their recently published “progress report,” would also move to merge these institutions with the private-banking interests that compose the alliance; create a new system of “global financial governance”; and erode national sovereignty among developing countries by forcing them to establish business environments deemed “friendly” to the interests of alliance members. In other words, the powerful banking interests that compose this group are pushing to recreate the entire global financial system for their benefit under the guise of promoting sustainability.
This alliance, called the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), was launched in April by John Kerry, US Special Presidential Envoy for Climate Change; Janet Yellen, US Secretary of the Treasury and former chair of the Federal Reserve; and Mark Carney, UN Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance and former chair of the Bank of England and Bank of Canada. Carney, who is also the UK prime minister’s Finance Advisor for the COP26 conference, currently cochairs the alliance with US billionaire and former mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg.
GFANZ Leadership – Source: GFANZ
On its creation, GFANZ stated that it would “provide a forum for strategic coordination among the leadership of finance institutions from across the finance sector to accelerate the transition to a net zero economy” and “mobilize the trillions of dollars necessary” to accomplish the group’s zero emissions goals. At the time of the alliance’s launch, UK prime minister Boris Johnson described GFANZ as “uniting the world’s banks and financial institutions behind the global transition to net zero,” while John Kerry noted that “the largest financial players in the world recognize energy transition represents a vast commercial opportunity.” In analyzing those two statements together, it seems clear that GFANZ has united the world’s most powerful private banks and financial institutions behind what it sees, first and foremost, as “a vast commercial opportunity,” the exploitation of which it is marketing as a “planetary imperative.”
John Kerry in conversation with CNN’s Christine Amanpour at COP 26. Source: CNN
GFANZ is composed of several “subsector alliances,” including the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative (NZAM), the Net Zero Asset Owner Alliance (NZAOA), and the Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA). Together, they command a formidable part of global private banking and finance interests, with the NZBA alone currently representing 43 percent of all global banking assets. However, the “largest financial players” who dominate GFANZ include the CEOs of BlackRock, Citi, Bank of America, Banco Santander, and HSBC, as well as David Schwimmer, CEO of the London Stock Exchange Group and Nili Gilbert, chair of the Investment Committee of the David Rockefeller Fund.
Notably, another Rockefeller-connected entity, the Rockefeller Foundation, recently played a pivotal role in the creation of Natural Asset Corporations (NACs) in September. These NACs seek to create a new asset class that would put the natural world, as well as the ecological processes that underpin all life, up for sale under the guise of “protecting” them. Principals of GFANZ, including BlackRock’s Larry Fink, have long been enthusiastic about the prospects of NACs and other related efforts to financialize the natural world and he has also played a key role in marketing such financialization as necessary to combat climate change.
As part of COP26, GFANZ— a key group at that conference—is publishing a plan aimed at scaling “private capital flows to emerging and developing economies.” Per the alliance’s press release, this plan focuses on “the development of country platforms to connect the now enormous private capital committed to net zero with country projects, scaling blended finance through MDBs [multilateral development banks] and developing high integrity, credible global carbon markets.” The press release notes that this “enormous private capital” is money that alliance members seek to invest in emerging and developing countries, estimated at over $130 trillion, and that—in order to deploy these trillions in investment—“the global financial system is being transformed” by this very alliance in coordination with the group that convened them, the United Nations.
Proposing a Takeover
Details of GFANZ’s plan to deploy trillions of member investments into emerging markets and developing countries was published in the alliance’s inaugural “Progress Report,” the release of which was timed to coincide with the COP26 conference. The report details the alliance’s “near-term work plan and ambitions,” which the alliance succinctly summarizes as a “program of work to transform the financial system.”
The report notes that the alliance has moved from the “commitment” stage to the “engagement” stage, with the main focus of the engagement stage being the “mobilization of private capital into emerging markets and developing countries through private-sector leadership and public-private collaboration.” In doing so, per the report, GFANZ seeks to create “an international financial architecture” that will increase levels of private investment from alliance members in those economies. Their main objectives in this regard revolve around the creation of “ambitious country platforms” and increased collaboration between MDBs and the private financial sector.
DOWNLOAD GFANZ Progress Report PDF
Per GFANZ, a “country platform” is defined as a mechanism that convenes and aligns “stakeholders,” that is, a mechanism for public-private partnership/stakeholder capitalism, “around a specific issue or geography.” Examples offered include Mike Bloomberg’s Climate Finance Leadership Initiative (CFLI), which is partnered with Goldman Sachs and HSBC among other private-sector institutions. While framed as being driven by “stakeholders,” existing examples of “country platforms” offered by the GFANZ are either private sector-led initiatives, like the CFLI, or public-private partnerships that are dominated by powerful multinational corporations and billionaires. As recently explained by journalist and researcher Iain Davis, these “stakeholder capitalism” mechanism models, despite being presented as offering a “more responsible” form of capitalism, allow corporations and private entities to participate in forming the regulations that govern their own markets and giving them a greatly increased role in political decision making by placing them on an equal footing with national governments. It is essentially a creative way of marketing “corporatism,” the definition of fascism infamously supplied by Italian dictator Benito Mussolini.
In addition to the creation of “corporatist” “country platforms” that focus on specific areas and/or issues in the developing world, GFANZ aims to also further “corporatize” multilateral development banks (MDBs) and development finance institutions (DFIs) in order to better fulfill the investment goals of alliance members. Per the alliance, this is described as increasing “MDB-private sector collaboration.” The GFANZ report notes that “MDBs play a critical role in helping to grow investment flows” in the developing world. MDBs, like the World Bank, have long been criticized for accomplishing this task by trapping developing nations in debt and then using that debt to force those nations to deregulate markets (specifically financial markets), privatize state assets and implement unpopular austerity policies. The GFANZ report makes it clear that the alliance now seeks to use these same, controversial tactics of MDBs by forcing even greater deregulation on developing countries to facilitate “green” investments from alliance members.
The report explicitly states that MDBs should be used to prompt developing nations “to create the right high-level, cross-cutting enabling environments” for alliance members’ investments in those nations. The significantly greater levels of private-capital investment, which are needed to reach net zero per GFANZ, require that MDBs are used to prompt developing nations to “establish investment-friendly business environments; a replicable framework for deploying private capital investments; and pipelines of bankable investment opportunities.” GFANZ then notes that “private capital and investment will flow to these projects if governments and policymakers create the appropriate conditions,” that is, enable environments for private-sector investments.
In other words, through the proposed increase in private-sector involvement in MDBs, such as the World Bank and regional development banks, alliance members seek to use MDBs to globally impose massive and extensive deregulation on developing countries by using the decarbonization push as justification. No longer must MDBs entrap developing nations in debt to force policies that benefit foreign and multinational private-sector entities, as climate change-related justifications can now be used for the same ends.
BlackRock CEO and GFANZ principal Larry Fink talks to CNBC during COP26. Source: CNBC
This new modality for MDBs, along with their fusion with the private sector, is ultimately what GFANZ proposes in terms of “reimagining” these institutions. GFANZ principal and BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, during a COP26 panel that took place on November 2, explicitly referred to the plan to overhaul these institutions when he said: “If we’re going to be serious about climate change in the emerging world, we’re going to have to really focus on the reimagination of the World Bank and the IMF.”
“They are the senior lender, and not enough private capital’s coming into the emerging world today because of the risks associated with the political risk, investing in brownfield investments — if we are serious about elevating investment capital in the emerging world. . . . I’m urging the owners of those institutions, the equity owners, to focus on how we reimagine these institutions and rethink their charter.”
GFANZ’s proposed plans to reimagine MDBs are particularly alarming given how leaked US military documents show that such banks are considered to be essentially “financial weapons” that have been used as “financial instruments and diplomatic instruments of US national power” as well as instruments of what those same documents refer to as the “current global governance system” that are used to force developing countries to adopt policies they otherwise would not.
In addition, given Fink’s statements, it should not be surprising that the GFANZ report notes that their effort to establish “country platforms” and alter the functioning and charters of MDBs is a key component of implementing preplanned recommendations aimed at “seizing the New Bretton Woods moment” and remaking the “global financial governance” system so that it “promote[s] economic stability and sustainable growth.”
As noted in other GFANZ documents and on their website, the goal of the alliance is the transformation of the global financial system, and it is obvious from member statements and alliance documents that the goal of that transformation is to facilitate the investment goals of alliance members beyond what is currently possible by using climate change-related dictates, rather than debt, as the means to that end.
The UN and the “Quiet Revolution”
In light of GFANZ’s membership and members’ ambitions, some may wonder why the United Nations would back such a predatory initiative. Doesn’t the United Nations, after all, chiefly work with national governments as opposed to private-sector interests?
Though that is certainly the prevailing public perception of the UN, the organization has for decades been following a “stakeholder capitalist” model that privileges the private sector and billionaire “philanthropists” over national governments, with the latter merely being tasked with creating “enabling environments” for the policies created by and for the benefit of the former.
Speaking to the World Economic Forum in 1998, Secretary General Kofi Annan made this shift explicit:
“The United Nations has been transformed since we last met here in Davos. The Organization has undergone a complete overhaul that I have described as a ‘quiet revolution.” . . . A fundamental shift has occurred. The United Nations once dealt only with governments. By now we know that peace and prosperity cannot be achieved without partnerships involving governments, international organizations, the business community and civil society. . . . The business of the United Nations involves the businesses of the world.”
With the UN now essentially a vehicle for the promotion of stakeholder capitalism, it is only fitting that it would “convene” and support the efforts of a group like GFANZ to extend that stakeholder capitalist model to other institutions involved in global governance, specifically global financial governance. Allowing GFANZ members, that is, many of the largest private banks and financial institutions in the world, to fuse with MDBs, remake the “global financial governance system,” and gain increased control over political decisions in the emerging world is a banker’s dream come true. To get this far, all they have needed to do was to convince enough of the world’s population that such shifts are necessary due to the perceived urgency of climate change and the need to rapidly decarbonize the economy. Yet, if put into practice, what will result is hardly a “greener” world but a world dominated by a small financial and technocratic elite who are free to profit and pillage from both “natural capital” and “human capital.”
Today, MDBs are used as “instruments of power” that utilize debt to force developing nations to implement policies that benefit foreign interests rather than their own national interests. If GFANZ gets its way, the MDBs of tomorrow will be used to essentially eliminate national sovereignty, privatize the “natural assets” (e.g., ecosystems, ecological processes) of the developing world, and force increasingly technocratic policies designed by global governance institutions and think tanks on ever more disenfranchised populations.
Though GFANZ has cloaked itself in lofty rhetoric of “saving the planet,” its plans ultimately amount to a corporate-led coup that will make the global financial system even more corrupt and predatory and further reduce the sovereignty of national governments in the developing world.
Whitney Webb has been a professional writer, researcher and journalist since 2016. She has written for several websites and, from 2017 to 2020, was a staff writer and senior investigative reporter for Mint Press News. She currently writes for The Last American Vagabond.
III. Wall Street’s Takeover of Nature Advances with Launch of New Asset Class
A project of the multilateral development banking system, the Rockefeller Foundation and the New York Stock Exchange recently created a new asset class that will put, not just the natural world, but the processes underpinning all life, up for sale under the guise of promoting “sustainability.”
by Whitney Webb
October 13, 2021
7 minute read
Last month, the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) announced it had developed a new asset class and accompanying listing vehicle meant “to preserve and restore the natural assets that ultimately underpin the ability for there to be life on Earth.” Called a natural asset company, or NAC, the vehicle will allow for the formation of specialized corporations “that hold the rights to the ecosystem services produced on a given chunk of land, services like carbon sequestration or clean water.” These NACs will then maintain, manage and grow the natural assets they commodify, with the end of goal of maximizing the aspects of that natural asset that are deemed by the company to be profitable.
Though described as acting like “any other entity” on the NYSE, it is alleged that NACs “will use the funds to help preserve a rain forest or undertake other conservation efforts, like changing a farm’s conventional agricultural production practices.” Yet, as explained towards the end of this article, even the creators of NACs admit that the ultimate goal is to extract near-infinite profits from the natural processes they seek to quantify and then monetize.
NYSE COO Michael Blaugrund alluded to this when he said the following regarding the launch of NACs: “Our hope is that owning a natural asset company is going to be a way that an increasingly broad range of investors have the ability to invest in something that’s intrinsically valuable, but, up to this point, was really excluded from the financial markets.”
Framed with the lofty talk of “sustainability” and “conservation”, media reports on the move in outlets like Fortune couldn’t avoid noting that NACs open the doors to “a new form of sustainable investment” which “has enthralled the likes of BlackRock CEO Larry Fink over the past several years even though there remain big, unanswered questions about it.” Fink, one of the world’s most powerful financial oligarchs, is and has long been a corporate raider, not an environmentalist, and his excitement about NACs should give even its most enthusiastic proponents pause if this endeavor was really about advancing conservation, as is being claimed.
How to Create a NAC
The creation and launch of NACs has been two years in the making and saw the NYSE team up with the Intrinsic Exchange Group (IEG), in which the NYSE itself holds a minority stake. IEG’s three investors are the Inter-American Development Bank, the Latin America-focused branch of the multilateral development banking system that imposes neoliberal and neo-colonalist agendas through debt entrapment; the Rockefeller Foundation, the foundation of the American oligarch dynasty whose activities have long been tightly enmeshed with Wall Street; and Aberdare Ventures, a venture capital firm chiefly focused on the digital healthcare space. Notably, the IADB and the Rockefeller Foundation are closely tied to the related pushes for Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) and biometric Digital IDs.
The IEG’s mission focuses on “pioneering a new asset class based on natural assets and the mechanism to convert them to financial capital.” “These assets,” IEG states, make “life on Earth possible and enjoyable…They include biological systems that provide clean air, water, foods, medicines, a stable climate, human health and societal potential.”
Put differently, NACs will not only allow ecosystems to become financial assets, but the rights to “ecosystem services”, or the benefits people receive from nature as well. These include food production, tourism, clean water, biodiversity, pollination, carbon sequestration and much more. IEG is currently partnering with Costa Rica’s government to pilot its NAC efforts within that country. Costa Rica’s Minister of Environment and Energy, Andrea Meza Murillo, has claimed that the pilot project with IEG “will deepen the economic analysis of giving nature its economic value, as well as to continue mobilizing financial flows to conservation.”
With NACs, the NYSE and IEG are now putting the totality of nature up for sale. While they assert that doing so will “transform our economy to one that is more equitable, resilient and sustainable”, it’s clear that the coming “owners” of nature and natural processes will be the only real beneficiaries.
Per the IEG, NACs first begin with the identification of a natural asset, such as a forest or lake, which is then quantified using specific protocols. Such protocols have already been developed by related groups like the Capitals Coalition, which is partnered with several of IEG’s partners as well as the World Economic Forum and various coalitions of multinational corporations. Then, a NAC is created and the structure of the company decides who has the rights to that natural asset’s productivity as well as the rights to decide how that natural asset is managed and governed. Lastly, a NAC is “converted” into financial capital by launching an initial public offering on a stock exchange, like the NYSE. This last stage “generates capital to manage the natural asset” and the fluctuation of its price on the stock exchange “signals the value of its natural capital.”
However, the NAC and its employees, directors and owners are not necessarily the owners of the natural asset itself following this final step. Instead, as IEG notes, the NAC is merely the issuer while the potential buyers of the natural asset the NAC represents can include: institutional investors, private investors, individuals and institutions, corporations, sovereign wealth funds and multilateral development banks. Thus, asset management firms that essentially already own much of the world, like Blackrock, could thus become owners of soon-to-be monetized natural processes, natural resources and the very foundations of natural life itself.
Both the NYSE and IEG have marketed this new investment vehicle as being aimed at generating funds that will go back to conservation or sustainability efforts. However, on the IEG’s website, it notes that the goal is really endless profit from natural processes and ecosystems that were previously deemed to be part of “the commons”, i.e. the cultural and natural resources accessible to all members of a society, including natural materials such as air, water, and a habitable earth. Per the IEG, “as the natural asset prospers, providing a steady or increasing flow of ecosystem services, the company’s equity should appreciate accordingly providing investment returns. Shareholders and investors in the company through secondary offers, can take profit by selling shares. These sales can be gauged to reflect the increase in capital value of the stock, roughly in-line with its profitability, creating cashflow based on the health of the company and its assets.”
Researcher and journalist Cory Morningstar has strongly disagreed with the approach being taken by NYSE/IEG and views NACs as a system that will only exacerbate the corporate predation of nature, despite claims to the contrary. Morningstar has described NACs as “Rockefeller et al. letting the markets dictate what in nature has value – and what does not. Yet, it’s not for capitalist institutions and global finance to decide what life has value. Ecosystems are not ‘assets.’ Biological communities exist for their own purposes, not ours.”
A New Way to Loot
The ultimate goal of NACs is not sustainability or conservation – it is the financialization of nature, i.e. turning nature into a commodity that can be used to keep the current, corrupt Wall Street economy booming under the guise of protecting the environment and preventing its further degradation. Indeed, IEG makes this clear when they note that “the opportunity” of NACs lies not in their potential to improve environmental well-being or sustainability, but in the size of this new asset class, which they term “Nature’s Economy.”
Indeed, while the asset classes of the current economy are value at approximately $512 trillion, the asset classes unlocked by NACs are significantly larger at $4,000 trillion (i.e. $4 quadrillion). Thus, NACs open up a new feeding ground for predatory Wall Street banks and financial institutions that will allow them to not just dominate the human economy, but the entire natural world. In the world currently being constructed by these and related entities, where even freedom is being re-framed not as a right but “a service,” the natural processes on which life depends are similarly being re-framed as assets, which will have owners. Those “owners” will ultimately have the right, in this system, to dictate who gets access to clean water, to clean air, to nature itself and at what cost.
According to Cory Morningstar, one of the other aims of creating “Nature’s Economy” and neatly packaging it for Wall Street via NACs is to drastically advance massive land grab efforts made by Wall Street and the oligarch class in recent years. This includes the recent land grabs made by Wall Street firms as well as billionaire “philanthropists” like Bill Gates during the COVID crisis. However, the land grabs facilitated through the development of NACs will largely target indigenous communities in the developing world.
As Morningstar notes:
“The public launch of NACs strategically preceded the fifteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, the biggest biodiversity conference in a decade. Under the pretext of turning 30% of the globe into “protected areas”, the largest global land grab in history is underway. Built on a foundation of white supremacy, this proposal will displace hundreds of millions, furthering the ongoing genocide of Indigenous peoples. The tragic irony is this: while Indigenous peoples represent less than 5% of the global population, they support approximately 80% of all biodiversity.“
IEG, in discussing NACs, tellingly notes that proceeds from a NAC’s IPO can be used for the acquisition of more land by its controlling entities or used to boost the budgets or funds of those who receive the capital from the IPO. This is a far cry from the NYSE/IEG sales pitch that NACs are “different” because their IPOs will be used to “preserve and protect” natural areas.
The climate change panic that is now rising to the take the place of COVID-19 panic will surely be used to savvily market NACs and similar tactics as necessary to save the planet, but – rest assured – NACs are not a move to save the planet, but a move to enable the same interests responsible for the current environmental crises to usher in a new era where their predatory exploitation reaches new heights that were previously unimaginable.
Related Articles by James Corbett:
IV. And Now For The 100 Trillion Dollar Bankster Climate Swindle…
Corbett • 02/24/2016 • 6 Comments
carbontaxby James Corbett
February 23, 2016
Quick: what’s the first thing you remember about the climate conference in Paris last December?
The weather astrologers’ absurd resolution to control the amount of temperature rise the world will experience over the next century?
Politicians grandstanding on the freshly-dead victims of their latest false flag to proclaim that their global warming nonsense was a “powerful rebuke” to their proxy terror army in Syria?
The predictable (but no less retch-inducing) hypocrisy of the jetset glitterati descending on Paris in their private jets and limousine fleets to dine on banquet lunches from Micheline-starred chefs before lecturing humanity on how we’ll all have to tighten our belts for the new climate austerity?
Of course that’s what you remember. Because that’s what you’re expected to remember. As long as you never peek under the hood, never lift the lid to check what’s inside the COP21 documents, they’re perfectly happy for the usual drivel about saving the planet to be printed in the mainstream press. They’re perfectly happy for the progressive press to print the usual nonsense lamenting the fact that there isn’t a strong enough global government to save us from the weather demons. They’re even happy for the dissenters to debunk the flawed science and point out the hypocrisies and lambaste the silly political statements because all of these things miss the heart of the issue.
The heart of the issue (for those who need it elaborated) is this: the future of $90 trillion of energy infrastructure investments and the $1 trillion green bond market and the multi-trillion dollar carbon trading market and the $391 billion (and growing) climate finance industry hangs in the balance.
Of course it does. What else explains the convergence of interest in the organizations, structures and mechanisms for global governance that the magical global thermostat narrative affords?
It’s why Enron and Goldman Sachs pioneered the emissions trading swindles (that–surprise, surprise!–are a complete and total fraud from top to bottom).
rothschildnbcIt’s why General Electric, DuPont, Johnson & Johnson, Pepsi, Siemens, AIG and a host of other Fortune 500/CFR companies joined BP, ConocoPhillips, GM and a host of other oiligarch companies as founding members of the US Climate Action Partnership whose “Blueprint for Legislative Action” became the backbone of the Wall Street-backed Waxman-Markey bill of 2009.
It’s why the Rockefellers and Rothschilds are at the forefront of the climate hysteria.
It’s why over 400 global institutional investors worth over $25 trillion have decided to cash in on the bonanza with their “Investment Platform for Climate Actions.”
Heck, it’s why EDF, Engie, Air France, Renault, BNP Paribas and a host of other oiligarch companies footed 20% of the bill for the Paris conference itself (and why the French government bent over backwards to point out their “green” credentials).
Take just one structural element of the climate swindle: the Green Climate Fund. Never heard of it? Hardly surprising. It’s just the facility through which the UN is expected to be clearing $100 billion in climate funding per year by the end of the decade. That’s right: $100 billion per year. Every year.
The Fund was established at the 2010 edition of the UN Climate Conference (COP16) in Mexico in order “to support concrete mitigation actions by developing countries that are implemented in a transparent way,” which is UN Newspeak for “create a bottomless trough of pork for corrupt kleptocrats, bureaucrats, kakistocrats and tyrants to siphon off before funneling some loose change into some makework projects.” And it brags that it represents “a new and equitable form of global governance to respond to the global challenge of climate change” which you hardly need the globalist decoder to figure out. The Fund is headquartered in the Songdo Business District of Incheon, South Korea, because the Korean Secretary-General of the UN and the Korean President of the World Bank probably just threw darts at a map (since, as we all know, blatant political nepotism never happens at those institutions).
Even the Fund’s biggest supporters are criticizing the “transparent way” it is handling its first disbursement. The Fund claims it consulted indigenous communities before approving $6.2 million for a Peruvian wetlands resilience programme, but there is no verification that this ever took place. Worse, details of the projects it has decided to fund so far have not been publicly released, only proposal documents (and in two cases, only a summary).
But for those who still believe this money is being handled by angels with nothing but the best interests of humanity in mind, note this passage from the Nature article on the Fund’s shadiness:
“For some, another contentious issue is that the GCF is flowing its money mainly through international organizations, such as multilateral or private banks such as the World Bank and Deutsche Bank — rather than sending it directly to institutions in developing countries where the projects are taking place.”
For some? You mean, for people with their head screwed on straight?
Oh, and the kicker? The Fund’s Executive Director just happens to be an ex-Citibank investment banker. Who woulda thunk it?
Yes, the global climate swindle is well under way, brought to you by the same trustworthy folks in the banking industry and in the Fortune 500 / CFR / globalist jetset who have been steering us into the happy economic, political and environmental conditions that we enjoy today…
If there’s any bright spot in all of this it’s that so far the Fund has only managed to raise just over $10 billion in pledges from the developed countries. And even that is an inflated number which includes the $3 billion which Obama made a big show of pledging in 2014 but so far hasn’t actually delivered. It’s a long way to go to get to that $100 billion/year mark they’re hoping to reach by 2020.
Don’t feel too sorry for the globalists, though. Their game is a war of attrition, and as long as people continue to buy into the narrative that all of this money is going to help the poor and downtrodden (by way of the UN and the World Bank and their corporate crony Wall Street financial institutions) then it’s only a matter of time before this thin edge of climate cronyism turns into the full wedge of global kleptocracy.
Tagged with: banksters • climate change • un • world bank
02/24/2016 at 3:48 am
Excellent post. There are millions buying into this movement who only see the “green mask”. If what is behind the mask is revealed to a larger extent the anger released will be palatable and another huge swak of the populous may be awakened.
02/24/2016 at 8:05 am
Great work as usual James. It is a difficult subject as so many (including my own family) see the Climate Change movement as the big stand again fossil fuels and corporations – the only chance to “save” the environment. As they cling onto this ideology like a life-raft, they often refuse to even look sideways at anything that challenges this belief, no matter how much evidence is presented. *Sigh.
02/25/2016 at 6:03 pm
Thanks, James! Climate change as a political catalyst for transforming energy-markets is rife with pitfalls for everybody. Skepticism about human-induced carbon-based climate change is the high ground here. The standard argument is in no way a proven point.
Still, I think there is some logic to the possibility that atmospheric equilibrium could be disturbed by the industrial exploitation of coal, petroleum and natural gas on the scale as has occurred over the past century.
This is especially so in light of William Engdahl’s recently reviewed work, which explains the origin of “fossil fuels” – apparently a significant misnomer since these mined substances are more likely geologic in their origin, rather than the result of sedimentary deposits of biomass.
What that means though is that atmospheric levels of carbon have not just shifted due to biological degradation of the planets eco-systems, in other words the loss of vast tracks of forest grassland, wetland and jungle habitats that sequestered carbon in their biomass, but that new and enormous quantities of carbon have been introduced into the atmosphere that had previously always been geologically sequestered – a picture of very different proportions.
This reminds us that long, long before humans walked the earth, micro-organisms were transforming our atmosphere into the oxygen rich medium that makes human life possible today. Apparently, “biologic agents,” including humans, can inadvertently transform the basic equilibriums of the earth’s ecosystems.
At the same time, the current exploitation of carbon-based fuels has only been perpetuated as long as it has because of political realities most readily summarized by the word petrodollar, and naming the shadow government of crony capitalists that finance the world’s markets, a.k.a. banksters.
We know about the conspiracy to quash mass-transit systems in favor of the more lucrative automobile highway system. I have books that were published more than half a century ago that document alternative home-energy models that were very effectively shut-out of the housing development agenda in favor of maximizing carbon-based fuel consumption.
The business models for carbon-based fuels are ideal for the banksters. The alternative models tend to decentralize the energy economy and liberate individual households from having to pay into the traditional energy-market‘s daily-consumption revenue streams.
Now that the alternative energy-markets are ripe to the point that they can no longer viably be suppressed for long, the “powers that are, and shouldn’t be” want to shape the emerging new-energy-economy so that it remains inextricably biased in their favor.
This all points to the great hurdles we face in confronting the mass of activists that have been brain-washed into believing that a carbon-tracking energy-economy will save the planet – which is in the end just another way to ensure the enslavement of the mass of people to the banksters as you describe so well.
But I think all this makes the very complex “climate-change” debate moot?
The problem is the banksters and their deceptive shaping of markets so that they appear legitimate, but that in actuality manifests a shadow government that then employs the military-industrial complex to horrific effect – the modern police state and imperialist powers.
Perhaps if we emphasize as you do here how the energy-transition financiering institutions are corrupt and cannot lead on this transition, regardless of climate-change arguments, we’ll be better able to persuade earnest and misguided political activists and save them from inadvertently helping their worst enemies?
The fact that carbon-rationing and swapping has already been discredited amongst some leading green activists that do not question carbon-apocalypse-models is a good sign that the financier exposé strategy may have some efficacy – we don’t have to give up questioning climate-change science, but our lead might more effectively focus on the specifics of the banksters’ schemes.
For many the caveat to this is incentivized and even mandated transitioning, but in our defacto central-command-economy that is still preferable if the development models rely on decentralized distribution of on-site renewable energy, which will eventually transform society in any case.
03/08/2016 at 9:41 pm
I would state with emphatic emphasis that on the grass roots level people involved in trying to highlight the facts have never given any support to carbon trading. As always here there is this effort to paint real environmental activists as being duped into playing big oils game. This is not a fact. And I find it difficult to see why no effort is made to destinguish the real from the big oil sponsored. As I repeatedly point out here the only people locked up and prevented from being heard in Paris were environmental activists, many of them scientists, who have more or less the same !message as here but can and do demonstrate climate change is all to real.
Log in to Reply
03/09/2016 at 5:20 pm
A question for Corbett.
Sorry to be out of context.
Corbett is it possible that at some point you make a serious article or postcast or even small video about the control of human population through the control of fertility and birth rate by the development of Surrogacy,pesticides,Assisted reproductive technology and Artificial uterus ?
While we talk a lot about the Malthusian side of the oligarchy we often neglect the technical and political means they promote,fund and wanna set up or had set up to control human population through scientific and/or artificial reproduction.I believe surrogacy advocacy and artificial Uterus research are such means to ultimately allow facilitate and realize the scientific control of human population birth rate by making it acceptable for the public to differently procreate.Without doubt the scientific control of human population birth rate would be the ultimate way of controlling the human race.We should probably associate it to Biological patents though,but I believe that this is the ultimate aims of the globalists.More I think about it all more I see in all this push for surrogacy the Aldous Huxley’s vision of the world described in his famous book. Anyway I would love to see you talk about that.
Sorry for having been too long James.
V. Who Wants To Be A Carbon Trillionaire? (https://www.corbettreport.com/who-wants-to-be-a-carbon-trillionaire/)
Corbett • 09/26/2016 • 45 Comments
Eat your heart out, Al Gore. Being a carbon billionaire is so passé now that we’re in the age of the $100 trillion climate swindle. So the real question is who (or at least which corporate front) will be the first carbon trillionaire? Will it be a carbon eugenics-promoting Rockefeller or a global government-promoting Rothschild, or a carbon-divesting Saudi government, or one of the shady hedge funds that are spearheading weather derivatives and other Enron-developed financial instruments to try to cash in on the carbon fraud?
Whatever the answer, one thing is for certain: You won’t see this question asked (let alone answered) in the establishment gatekeeping press. Instead, you will see endless iterations of the accusation that anyone who disbelieves in the woo woo pseudoscience of climate catastrophism is funded by the very Big Oil oiligarchs who stand to benefit from the debunked climate scare.
VI. The (Second) Most Important Bank You’ve Never Heard Of
Corbett • 04/17/2016 • 15 Comments
What is the most important bank the public has never heard of?
My fine audience excepted, not one in a hundred people could name the Bank for International Settlements as the culprit, and fewer still could describe the BIS’ role as “the apex of the system” of world financial control (as Carroll Quigley so memorably put it).
But what about the second most powerful bank? How many people would even be able to venture a guess as to the identity of that institution? If they were told that its acronym was “GEF,” how many people would even know what that stands for?
Join me for this week’s subscriber newsletter to find out more about the GEF, its Rothschild/Rockefeller origins, and the true nature of international environmental finance.
The (Second) Most Important Bank!
Thanks James, the disclosure of this long overlooked financial link that supports an established and very troubling radical agenda will hopefully lead to it’s eradication. The true purpose of powerful entities like the World Bank and the United Nations, that remain under the full control of the eight Western Countries that sponsored their creation decades ago, remains a mystery to most of the planet’s population. I would hope that this private relationship among various wealthy oligarchs could be exploited to finally reverse a troubling trend that has basically blocked the progression of any and all meaningful scientific research and development as it promotes an atmosphere of reverse evolution !
I recently came across a relevant comment made by the late Dr. Madelyn Murray O’Hair at the close of her speech to the National Atheist Convention held in Florida in 1990;
“You all cry over human history, I know that I do as we see what religion has done to Western Cultures for over two thousand years.
Had we followed Paganism, had we adopted the Latin and Greek cultures with their emphasis on knowledge and science, it’s very likely that a Neil Armstrong predecessor would have walked on the Moon in the year 300 AD.”
04/18/2016 at 4:41 am
Well here is how a small elite will soon own most of the productive land in the world. The rest of us will just have to reside where ever they deem fit for us to live. Nothing like having your nation spend money, made up out of nothing and lent to them by these same banks, only to have the debt traded for the productive land of your nation. Productive land is the most useful kind of wealth next to the hours of your life. Whatever debt is left you and your kids are on the hook to pay back the rest through taxes(the hours of your life). This system is almost perfect if you are a global banker or one of their shills.
I am starting to think that leaders whom accrue unnecessary debt for their nation should be charged and tried for treason. It seems like the best way to loose sovereignty. When most of that debt just pads the pockets of the leaders and those whom help them into office. It seems like the perfect system for enslaving your nation and it’s people to a bank. In my opinion that is simply treasonous. I live in the Western U. S. and now I know what will happen to all these parks and the BLM lands when the government can no longer borrow.
Mohawk Man says:
04/18/2016 at 10:32 pm
Agenda 21 updated to Agenda 2030 now and being implemented before our eyes. (most are unaware and waiting for the next gadget, game etc to arrive, start–most don’t want to know..they turn away when told) Congress, well, all 3 branches of govt are clearly aware and complicit in this treason. The armed Pension Patrols are their enforcement agencies (and revenuers) on the ground as are the myriad of bureaucrats who are also paid off to harass the majority off peaceful people. A mixture of ideologues combined with the greedy is a dangerous combination. The anger is at unprecedented levels.
“I am starting to think that leaders whom accrue unnecessary debt for their nation should be charged and tried for treason.”—–Very obvious 98% of them are guilty and need to be……..dealt with. These are crimes against humanity. Genocide, in many cases and Supremacism of a select group who dominate many of these actions.
We are losing our humanity if it is not already gone.
04/18/2016 at 5:02 am
I hope you and yours are safe and sound and not damaged by the earthquakes.
04/18/2016 at 9:28 am
I second that, I have been wondering if James & family are OK.
04/18/2016 at 9:42 am
Yes give us a Corbett report update on when you are planning to retreat to safer diggs like say, Canada ;-). Y’all are running out of room over there, and living on volcanoes and major fault lines surrounded by ionizing radiation in your water, wind, soil and foods. Time for you and your family to come home James. Move to NFLD if you need an Island lol.
04/18/2016 at 5:57 am
In case Corbetters missed this, Ottmar Edenhofer, a former UN IPCC co-chair (2008-2015) has admitted global climate change policy is not about the environment:
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole”
[So what is the goal of environmental policy?]
“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer.
08/19/2017 at 5:00 pm
I must have been on vacation in April of last year as I missed this article!
Thanks phreedomphile! I’m very happy indeed to have this link!
Hope to be reading you again soon!
04/18/2016 at 9:21 am
In addition to Carbon Credits as a new form of cash grab and the looming prospect of a global currency, I believe we can see the emergence of a new version of economic theory and academic study that will switch from the consumption based economics of GDP and GNP in favor of a Natural Capital Accounting based valuation.
This all seems to be preparing to enter the mainstream public and academic radar, some time soon imho. Those who are designing it no doubt have their eye on how this new global geopolitical board game is best played even if we the plutocratic profane may not yet get it.
Assets formerly in the global commons and public domain are soon to be subject of investment under the guise of global eco-replenishment and natural custodial services as environmental caregivers, when in fact there is and will be a direct link to the control and ownership of such resources via the vested interests of projects and initiatives veiled under the auspices of GED and new World Bank strategies.
“Wealth Accounting and the Valuation of Ecosystem Services (WAVES) is a World Bank-led global partnership that aims to promote sustainable development by ensuring that natural resources are mainstreamed in development planning and national economic accounts.” (https://www.wavespartnership.org/en)
It will be interesting to see how this new form of wealth will manifest itself in the Global Capitalist Environment, and how a new version of Economics will need to evolve/adapt, beyond the the existing Austrian school (Micro/macro), Keynesian, Socialist, Communist conventional views of consumption based free-market economics.
04/18/2016 at 9:29 am
The reference to GED above should read GEF not GED. Mea culpa.
04/18/2016 at 11:12 am
We just had a Bob Standford come to our little town, Nelson, in British Columbia, to advise the local citizenry, heavy with environmentalist, on water, rising sea levels and people fleeing here. Standford is a big wig with the U.N. University of Water, Environment and Health out of Alberta. The background check I did shows this august institution is funded by…you guessed it, the Global Environment Facility. So the timing of your excellent article couldn’t have been better as I borrowed from it extensively in writing a letter to the Editor of our local, but 1% owned newspaper, exposing this connection with and of the GEF. Will my letter get published? Probably not due to editorial control and the embarrassment it might cause the reporting staff as they did a big right up on Stanford’s ludicrous claims and my fifteen minutes of research and expose would make them look rather negligent in their duties. Thanks for all your hard work James.
08/19/2017 at 5:03 pm
Any reply to your article sent to the paper?
11/03/2020 at 9:55 pm
I joined the report to specifically read this article. Excellent. A minor point is that it’s “Edmond” not “Edmund” de Rothschild.
Since I will be quoting you extensively on this, I would prefer not to write Edmund (sic) ?
( https://www.rt.com/news/465501-greta-thunberg-hates-you/ )
08/05/2021 at 11:32 pm
“…able to record Edmund de Rothschild describing…”
dead youtube link sadly
and couldn’t find it on archive
when loading the archive version of watchmybit it wants me to pay 0,19 $ with bitcoin lololol
UNCED 1992; George Hunt on archive still online though!
08/06/2021 at 12:28 am
“we are the living sponsors of the great Cecil Rhodes will”
“we stand with Lord Milners credo ” we too are British race patriots” ”
2nd Marshall Plan
17:12 they are all at Davos
Maurice Strong co-chairman of WEF (really was he at that time, didn’t remember)
21:40 who leads the environment movement
the convener of the summit Maurice Strong identifies Edmond de Rothschild as the creator of the environment movement
28:50 4th World Wilderness Congress audio (footage of papers)
V. What is the Future of (Bankster) Finance? – QFC
Corbett • 12/20/2019
Watch this video on BitChute / Minds.com / YouTube
This week on Questions For Corbett, James answers a question from Jim, who asks if the Bank of England’s vision for “The Future of Finance” supports the idea of a banker dictatorship, and whether this vision paves the way for the next bankster-directed war.