global gov
Final stages of a technocratic global government https://twitter.com/_Escapekey_/status/1752006634069471726
Control the right to emit Carbon Dioxide
Temperatures must not be increased beyond a predetermined threshold (UNFCCC) To stay within said threshold we have to control emissions (CBD Convention on Biological Diversity)
Anyone emitting is considered a Carbon Source, (power generation, farming) Sinks are anything that absorbs (forests) Sources will be required to offset their emissions
Carbon Dioxide emissions are a kind of Ecosystem service rendered by a Natural Asset.
Natural Asset Company holds a lease on a sustainably exploited resource - ecosystem service
Natural Asset Company will be floated on the stock exchange. Exclusive focus on profit generation from a artifically scarce resource - carbon credits. Which push up the price of carbon sources and passing the cost onto the consumer.
UNESCO biosphere Reserve holding nature reserves set aside by many countries.
========================
What you see happening around you has been planned for generations. We’re now in the final stages, and the distractions will become increasingly outrageous.
Rather than get distracted, let me summarise what’s actually taking place, on how they plan to wrap up their multi-generational efforts to impose a technocratic, global government.
It’s about controlling the right to emit carbon dioxide. Because those who do, control economic activity without which you won’t be able to do much. And in this regard - the role of the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992 cannot be overstated.
There are two core components to this scam. The UNFCCC and the Convention on Biological Diversity, aka the CBD. The former declares that we must not increase temperatures above a certain - arbitrary - threshold. To stay within said - as claimed by the UNFCCC - we have to control emissions. This creates a scarcity of carbon dioxide emissions, which can then be exploited financially.
When a farmer works his field to produce food, or a power plant generates electricity, both will soon be required to ‘offset’ their carbon dioxide emissions. In this equation, anyone emitting is considered a carbon source, and the flip side of that coin is called a carbon sink. Carbon sinks comprise anything that absorbs carbon dioxide; we here talk about the likes of forests, and wetlands like mangroves.
And while the UNFCCC creates the scarcity, the CBD’s stated aim is to increase the pool of allowable carbon dioxide emissions - ie, alleviate said scarcity - through the restoration of biodiversity. Consequently, when governments set out to spend trillions of your taxes to improve forests, mangroves and so forth, the stated aim is to improve biodiversity, which will lead to an increase in carbon absorbed by said forests, which consequently will increse the pool of (allowable) carbon dioxide emissions.
Carbon dioxide emissions, in this regard, are a type of ‘ecosystem service’. And those are rendered by a ‘natural asset’. You might have heard this expression before, likely due to the NYSE ‘Natural Asset Company’ rule change, temporarily put on ice. These are a type of holding company which has lease on a sustainably exploitable resource, or in their terminology - an ‘ecosystem service’ - which futher count the likes of fresh water (think Nestle), Eco-tourism, or timber from a forest. However, this exploitation is only allowed provided that the ‘natural asset’ rendering said ‘ecosystem service’ is not damaged in the process.
This ‘Natural Asset Company’ will then in turn be floated on a stock exchange. Once floated, the imperative shifts eclusively to profit generation from the artificially scarce resource - carbon credits - translating into far higher prices for ‘carbon sources’ - such as farmers and power plant - who will have no option but to increase prices on the end consumer - and that would be you.
Large corporations and opaque financial constructs were in a rush to buy up aquifers and forests a few decades ago. This is why. Most of those investment opportunities were front-run, because the insiders knew where we’d be some 20 years down the line. However, buying large tracts of land turns expensive, and consequently, under the guise of ‘conservation’, a great many nations set aside ‘nature reserves’, and submitted these to the UNESCO Biosphere Reserve program, which at present holds an area of the world comparable to the size of Australia. And these reserves span a great many forests, and other areas of considerable worth from the perspective of monetising carbon credits.
And that’s where the Global Environment Facility enters the stage. What they do is to structure ‘blended finance’ deals for ‘ecosystem services’, using a ‘landscape approach’. And while you should be aware of the former, the latter - the ‘landscape approach’ is a description of an arbitrary geographic range. This, along with a duration - ie, a number of years - and the ‘ecosystem service’ requested, be presented to the Global Environment Facility, who will structure a such blended finance deal. The outcome is a lease for an ecosystem service, which will promptly be transferred to a holding company, and floated on the stock exchange as a ‘Natural Asset Company’.
Blended finance deals are named as such, because they comprise public (taxpayer), private (billionaire class), and philanthropic capital. Thing is, however, the later contribute virtually nothing. Their inclusion appears entirely motivated around taking credit. The private invests 5-20% depending on interest in offer, also depending on geographical region. In Africa, for instance, they have little to no interest, and consequently, the taxpayer contributes practically all in this regard. Commonly, however, the public puts in around 85-90% of the capital, except this goes through leveraging and consequenly, considerably less. What this does however outline is that there is fundamentally no reason why the private investor should be involved whatsoever, because their meagre contribution could just as well be picked up by the public (taxpayer).
That’s where the structure of these deals enters the stage. Because in spite of being much smaller, the private is ‘senior’ to the public, meaning in the event of bankruptcy, the private is in effect shielded; the public taxpayer will lose their money before the private will lose a penny. Think 2008, and CDOs - but this time, with your taxes as the sitting duck. Typically, this additional level of risk is compensated for through a higher interest rate, but not so in this regard. In fact, per GEF itself, it is not uncommon to find the private investor receiving 2-3x interest rate - while, as said, simultaneously running much less risk. In short - all of this is a colossal public transfer to the priviledged few. It’s a way to continuously squeeze every nation, and every person and business into bankruptcy, one after another, leaving only a few standing at the end. And all of this, under the guise of ‘saving the planet’.
And the central banks are in on this. Those CBDCs they currently seek to push through in an obviously coordinated manner? Yes, an increasing amount of documents outline how these will be coupled with carbon emissions down the road, meaning that almost certainly, you will receive the same ‘carbon credit allowance’ as everyone else, much like how the economy broadly worked - or rather, didn't - in the Soviet Union. This approach is furthermore clearly outlined by One World Trust’s ‘Charter 99’, where said OWT was founded in the wake of WW2, and included the likes of Clement Attlee and Winston Churchill.
Thing is, the whole thing is based on fraud, and that is no exaggeration. There’s a large reliance on the ‘Contingent Valuation Method’, which in no uncertain terms means asking a range of people what they would pay for a given item, and then valuing said on that account. Yes, really. But not only does this ‘ecosystem service valuation’ depend on this utter guesswork, but assigned values include deeply subjective values, such as valuing a stroll in a forest, regardless of how completely absurd that might appear.
The sheer quantities of information, further, is practically unlimited. To solve this problem, they propose a range of 'approximations' in a way comparable to improving neighbouring squares to cities, when playing a game of Civilisation on your PC.
We can then consider assigning carbon credits to a forest in the first place, which is nothing short of pure guesswork, and highly likely to be distorted in the direction of those insiders attempting to push through this system in the first place.
And then there’s the carbon consensus itself. No such existed in 1979, but was the result of a handful of ICSU cherry picked climate scientists, clearly evidenced by the resulting conference proceedings hinting at extraordinary levels of bias, plus the long-term planning of society in general clearly laid out through said proceedings. In fact, the quantity of papers pertaining to exclusively carbon dioxide itself was in a minority, which safe to say is a little odd, given that the event took place just 3 years after Bert Bolin - a primary driver of the narrative - in front of the US Senate unilaterally declared that the only thing they knew for sure, was that an increase in carbon dioxide led to increased plant growth. When asked if this led to global warming, he added this was ‘his personal opinion only’, and he further concluded by stating that professional climate scientists are the least likely to make predictions.
But, of course, as soon as this carbon dioxide narrative was established, annual temperatures suddenly went from being completely unpredictable, to rising in an almost linear fashion. This narrative was fabricated along the way with help from the ICSU and associated scientists, and their committees, which include the likes of SCOPE.
Incidentally, it was also SCOPE which set the course for the global surveillance they have progressively rolled out since 1972. But though that’s a story in itself, it does deserve a mention as this initiative - through GEO BON and GBIOS - will be used to uphold the Convention on Biological Diversity's centrally stated purpose. Restoring biodiversity.
Which private actors then turn around and monetise. 11:31 AM · Jan 29, 2024
A whole lot worse.
I’ve detailed the scam that is the 1979 carbon ‘consensus’, and how this leads into the UNFCCC/CBD ‘control lever’, which will be progressively tightened as we approach 2030 and hence incrementally make carbon emissions far more expensive, translating to a colossal increase in cost in terms of energy, food, and everything else you rely on. Of course, this will drive companies into bankruptcies, ensure a major loss in employment, and this in turn will drive families and individuals into bankruptcy and hence cause more state dependency - which is obviously the plan.
For those few still standing, this will translate into higher taxes. Further, the call for a massive increase in ‘biodiversity restoration’ expenditure which will promptly be seized upon by the billionaire class, who will monetise the ‘carbon credits’ from the forests and mangroves ‘restored’ paid for by your taxes.
In 2021, a little covered report by the Hank Paulson Institute - yes, the guy who demanded $700bn in 2008 for the banks, to fix issue caused by those same banks with absolute impunity - states that practically all farmer subsidies should be eliminated and redirected to ‘biodiversity restoration’. What this of course means is that food prices will again spike, translating to even higher costs, followed by farmers going out of business as well.
Then we have the elimination of wood burners and equivalents in a range of European nations, forcing more people into electric heating to avoid freezing over winter - though naturally, no capacity will be added to the electric grid nor generation. And as coal plants emit carbon dioxide, electricity prices will skyrocket as well as we inch closer to 2030.
But that’s not the end of it. Taxation on land will also increase, ensuring an increasing amount of people will not be able to afford their present house, and will be forced to sell and move into a flat. Which, naturally, will be on a ‘smart meter’ ensuring that you can be cut off as they see fit.
Inflation already started in early 2022. And while Biden and your other crooked politicians went on the television, blaming it on covid, on Russia, on Santa Claus, what should have been given more coverage was Mervyn King - former Bank of England governor - on a morning broadcast admitting that ‘all central banks committed the same error at the same time’. What he referred to, of course, was to support the lockdowns through a colossal amount of money printing.
And let me make clear - without those central banks, those lockdowns would have come to an end almost immediately, as periphery nations, already struggling with large debt loads would have been yields rocket almost immediately, rendering said lockdowns unaffordable. Those were the most costly ‘mistake’ in modern history.
But when all central banks ‘commit the same mistake at the same time’, it’s almost certainly coordinated. And there is a mechanism for coordination; the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland. A hugely controversial bank, that made its name through facilitating Hitler’s war machine.
The BIS in more recent times has through a series of reports starting in 2015 outlined Central Bank Digital Currencies. But as of late, they’ve started discussing using the ‘framework’ to include the likes of carbon trading, and ultimately, carbon allowances. And this is clearly going to happen. Your bank account will be directly coupled with your ‘carbon allowance’ ensuring you won’t be able to do much, while Bill Gates carries on flying his fleet of lear jets, as he can ‘offset’ his carbon emissions vs those forests he had the insider knowledge to buy decades ago.
In 1975, Henry Commager wrote his ‘Declaration of Interdependence’, in which he called for a new world order. I advise you read it. You can find it on the Global Interdependence Center’s website, which by sheer coincidence is hosted… by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. Needless to say, this bank is very much part of the same Federal Reserve, which is part of the Bank for International Settlements.
In 2017, the inaugural ‘One Planet Summit’ was held in France. This initiative was launched by ex-Rothschild banker, Emmanuel Macron, and at this very first conference the Network for Greening the Financial System saw the light of day. Their aim is to turn ‘finance green’, promising to use their financial prowess to push through climate change regulation throughout the part of the financial system which comply with this aim. And how many of the systemically important banks comply? 100%. Yes, 100%.
And I’m yet to work out exactly who broadened their remit beyond setting monetary policy only. And to me, this would appear sufficient reason for the termination of their charters, as this appears a gross violation of their mandate, fundamentally operating explicitly outside of democratic principles. 4:29 PM · Feb 3, 2024 · 20.6K Views