A UNFCCC/CBD synthesis.
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change paved the road for what was to come.
So let’s have a look at four key documents of theirs; the three treaties (the 1992 UNFCCC Framework, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, and the 2015 Paris Agreement), along with the less visible, but potentially most significant of them all - the 2009 Copenhagen Accord.
And as for the Convention on Biological Diversity? Well, as it transpires, that and the UNFCCC both have a common ancestor.
We previously went through the UNFCCC/CBD mechanism, which will be used to progressively squeeze life out of the West, making carbon dioxide emission permits an ever scarcer resource, in turn causing an increase in taxation levels leading to higher prices, as we inch ever-closer to 2030.
And all of this will be facilitated through carbon trading; offsetting sinks (forests, wetlands) vs sources (agriculture, industry, power generation), with the UNFCCC progressively reducing available emission permits, thus facilitating the eventual transition to Net Zero by 2050. Or so they claim, anyway.
The primary article of importance in the 1992 Framework Convention1 is Article 4, outlining the commitments of the parties, and these can broadly be outlined through three fields; the objectives, the approach, and the financial flows.
The objectives - once you eliminate the padded, obfuscated wording - boil down to ‘establishment of inventories of greenhouse gas sinks and sources, the conservation of carbon sinks’, and the importance of ‘integrated plans for coastal zone management, water resources and agriculture, and for the protection and rehabilitation of areas - particularly in Africa - affected by drought and desertification, as well as floods’. To aid this objective, surveillance is required, calling for free exchange of information, and education.
The approach broadly outlines methods of limiting emissions allowing a joint return to 1990 levels of net emissions through conservation of carbon sinks (again), the calculations thereof through the best available science (as outsourced to the IPCC), and the development of relevant economic instruments to achieve this objective.
Finally, the financial flows outlines that the developed world should pay for this transformation. More on that later.
What I get at is that beyond emission reductions, already in their founding document, the focus was on offsetting emissions. They might not have stated this outright, but the mention of sinks vs sources where the former should be preserved, the development of relevant economic instruments, and this all hinting at being carried out using what essentially constitutes a landscape approach makes this crystal clear.
Surveillance at this stage was largely up and running through GEMS. And the educational aspect was discussed already in 1975, through the release of the Belgrade Charter2 outlining 'life-long education', a 'global ethic' relating to the world's environment, ‘an equitable distribution of resources‘, and the obligatory call for ‘balance and harmony between humanity and the environment’ first outlined by the 1968 UNESCO Biosphere Conference proceedings.
Finally, the calls for conservation of carbon sinks relate to 'biodiversity restoration' in general - and that's where the Convention on Biological Diversity enters the stage - which just like the UNFCCC was also established at the Earth Summit in Rio, 1992.
And that both were released at the same time… that really is no coincidence.
The Kyoto Protocol [1997]3.
The primary focus of the Kyoto Protocol is the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, to be carried out by developed nations.
Article 3 sets legally binding emission reduction targets, but these are typically small, and generally won’t have much of an impact early on. The objective is to lull nations into these mechanisms, and then tighten the noose later on.
Article 5 relates to obligatory national monitoring of emissions, ensuring accurate and globally compatible data. And this, of course, ensures that the data can be used in a global context.
Article 7 relates to the submission of annual reports, detailing GHG inventories and efforts towards meeting set objectives. This, interestingly, appears somewhat in line with Tony Blair’s Third Way, suggesting that local councils should submit reports which will then later be used, holding said councils to account. It’s quasi-similar to having employees write a ‘job description’.
Article 8 outlines a compliance mechanism through expert review teams, key question here obviously being who said ‘experts’ are.
Article 18 details the issue of non-compliance, though this was largely left blank at this stage. No need to scare off early involvees.
And articles 6 and 17 finally relate to the carbon emissions trading mechanisms. These are outside the scope of this article, but do deserve a mention.
And though the protocol was originally adopted in 1997, it didn’t become effective until 2005, with the first round of reductions set within the 2008-2012 timeframe - ie, more than a decade after adoption. And - coincidentally, and probably conveniently - it entered force just as the world’s financial markets were crashing.
The Copenhagen Accord [2009]4.
The media no doubt told you about the alleged scale of failure in Denmark5, but what the Copenhagen Accord actually did was create the public financing mechanism, which will eventually be used to drain every penny out of the West.
The Guardian, for instance, stated unequivocally -
‘The UN climate summit reached a weak outline of a global agreement in Copenhagen tonight, falling far short of what Britain and many poor countries were seeking‘
And should you be the sort who reads these in reverse, this is what you found -
‘Lydia Baker of Save the Children said world leaders had "effectively signed a death warrant for many of the world's poorest children. Up to 250,000 children from poor communities could die before the next major meeting in Mexico at the end of next year."‘
Now, that didn’t happen, now did it Lydia?
However, if you actually looked for it, you’d find -
‘The deal aims to provide $30bn a year for poor countries to adapt to climate change from next year to 2012, and $100bn a year by 2020‘
$100bn/yr by 2020. Those are your taxes, being handed over - and chances are you weren’t even informed.
'We recognize the crucial role of reducing emission from deforestation and forest degradation and the need to enhance removals of greenhouse gas emission by forests and agree on the need to provide positive incentives to such actions through the immediate establishment of a mechanism including REDD-plus, to enable the mobilization of financial resources from developed countries.'
This emphasises that ‘biodiversity restoration' projects will be kicked into overdrive, and that developed (western) nations will pay for said alleged restoration. And this very much is taking place at this very moment.
'Scaled up, new and additional, predictable and adequate funding as well as improved access shall be provided to developing countries, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, to enable and support enhanced action on mitigation, including substantial finance to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD-plus)'
Solidly Convention on Biological Diversity territory, that is. Of course, said forests are then monetised for carbon credits (ie emission permits) through GEF blended finance constructs, benefiting almost exclusively the 'private investor' class... but setting that aside; REDD+ was established in 20136. The Copenhagen Accord quite literally gave them a blank slate, to be filled in later.
'The collective commitment by developed countries is to provide new and additional resources, including forestry and investments through international institutions, approaching USD 30 billion for the period 2010–2012 with balanced allocation between adaptation and mitigation'
That, right there, is the sound of the vulture class powering up their lear jets, heading to Switzerland, because this is the first public, official document with express, stated targets of public (taxpayer) financing of the climate agenda.
And - incidentally - this is what took place following said conference. The number of annual NGO registrations with ECOSOC absolutely exploded7 to currently stand at no less than 6,494.
'In the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation, developed countries commit to a goal of mobilizing jointly USD 100 billion dollars a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries. This funding will come from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance'
Those proceeds are then used in hugely one-sided GEF 'blended finance' agreements, used for sakes of alleged 'biodiversity conservation' etc.
'We decide to pursue various approaches, including opportunities to use markets, to enhance the cost-effectiveness of, and to promote mitigation actions. Developing countries, especially those with low emitting economies should be provided incentives to continue to develop on a low emission pathway.'
And within just a few years it became clear that those 'approaches' indeed do indeed include blended finance, and that 'use markets' can be interpreted to mean floating emission permits on the stock exchanges via Natural Asset Companies.
The 2015 Paris Agreement8.
The ultimate alleged objective is to keep global temperature increase below an arbitrary 2 degree celsius threshold relative to pre-industrial levels - as measured by them. It’s a partially legally binding instrument only, in which -
Article 2 outlines the global temperature threshold.
Article 4 requires countries to prepare and submit national climate action plans (NDCs), which should further be updated every 5 years.
Article 9 releates to financial support, provided the developing world.
Article 13 outlines the legally binding transparency requirements relating to monitoring, reporting and verifying estimates.
Article 15 is an update on the compliance mechanism. This revision is further detailed relative to that from 1997, but it does not seek monetary damages or other compensation in case of non-compliance. That, no doubt, will follow.
In general, though the agreement is not legally binding in core areas, it’s a substantial step towards broad, global compliance with centrally stated objectives. With a few revisions, those targets become legally binding with monetary damages… say, for EcoCide crimes?
When taken together, these four agreements go together in pairs. The 1992 framework convention was a ‘passive’ agreement, a ‘soft law’ without any real ‘bite’. That followed in 1997, when the hinted-at carbon emission targets and trading became very real through binding legislation. Sure, it was an early effort, and the teeth were that of a baby, but it’s a significant step either way, because it created a template. And this two-step pattern repeated, as the ‘passive’ Copenhagen agreement became ‘real’ through Paris.
In fact, this two-step process is a common theme should you study United Nations treaties - the first institutes the principles, and the second carries these into action. This generally escapes not only attention, but also fault, because your democratically elected often will point fingers, rightfully claiming that ‘it was my predecessor’ who by then has escaped to a beach in the Bahamas, living off interest. But the above four actually somewhat loses informational granularity, and thus, it would appear reasonable to outline a brief chronology, detailing further UNFCCC developments -
1992 - UNFCCC9.
Adopted at the Rio Summit, the UNFCCC formalised global cooperation on climate change, and outlined the financing mechanism, the protected carbon sinks, and various related aspects.1997 - Kyoto Protocol10.
Introduced legally binding emission reduction targets for developed nations.2009 - Copenhagen Accord11.
Introduced the finance commitment to be met by developed nations, constituting $100bn per year by the year 2020, ultimately to be used through blended finance constructs.2010 - Cancun Agreement12.
Created the Green Climate Fund, which went on to become a major instrument for climate finance in general.2012 - Doha Amendments to the Kyoto Protocol13.
This established the second period for the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, thus extending the legally binding targets which applied to developed nations only.2013 - Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage14.
This document laid the ground work for the eventual development of the alleged crimes15 of EcoCide16, alleging to address loss and damage associated with climate change impacts. And this will be used against the West, forcing large enterprise to repay fictitious gains. Jeff Sachs stated as much in ‘Ethics in Action for Sustainable Development’, even provided detailed instructions in regards to who to sue, for what, and how… in an ethical way, of course.
2014 - Green Climate Fund Operationalised.
Established in 2010, the fund was fully operational by 2014, using blended finance for alleged sakes of climate finance for developing countries.2014 - Lima Call for Climate Action17.
Early work creating guidelines for countries to submit nationally determined contributions (NDCs) relating to the Paris Agreement. Though outside the scoope of this article, NDCs are targets set by nations which they expect to hit - but will be used as frameworks for comparison, should they fail.2015 - Addis Ababa Action Agenda18.
Formalisation of blended finance instruments to be used in context of Sustainable Development - including climate action. That means alleged biodiversity restoration projects, climate projects and so forth.2015 - Paris Agreement19.
The global landmark agreement, aiming at allegedly limiting future global temperature rise below 2 degrees, emphasising the need for billions and billions and billions and billions of funds, raised on the back of the Western taxpayer.
Do you grasp it? What they claimed to do was to protect you, but what they actually did was to progressively create the blended finance framework set to milk you dry, previously described step-by-step via this article on PPPs.
And I previously mentioned the Convention on Biological Diversity. They are related alright, but before detailing how, let’s do a related chronology -
1992 - Convention on Biological Diversity20.
Established at the Rio Earth Summit, this aimed to conserve biodiversity, and promote sustainable use of resources.1995 - Jakarta Mandate on Marine and Coastal Biodiversity21.
Though not important in itself, this document was the first in CBD capacity to outline the pivotal Ecosystem Approach - never mind that said wasn’t yet defined… in CBD capacity. Because this just happened to be the year where an Interagency Task Force founded under Al Gore with remarkable levels of precision outlined the principles in detail.2000 - The Ecosystem Approach22.
Technically referred to as the 12 Malawi Principles, these provide the mechanism for top-down integrated landscape management, where the Landscape Approach provide the spatial and temporal description of individual leases for a given type of ecosystem service (where carbon emission credits contemporarily stand out).2010 - Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing23.
Defines the rules for fair and equitable sharing of benefits from the use of genetic resources, which also appears in the WHO Pandemic Agreement down the line.2010 - Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and Aichi Biodiversity Targets24.
This plan introduced 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets aimed at halting biodiversity loss, ultimately to be upheld through indicators and thus GEOSS derivatives GEO BON25 and GBIOS26. The document further integrated biodiversity into national plans - a topic on which they collaborated with GLOBE Legislators.
2012 - Biodiversity Finance Initiative (BIOFIN)27.
Technically launched by the UNDP, it aims to close the biodiversity financing gap, supporting countries in developing national biodiversity finance plans.2022 - Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework28.
Updating the Aichi Biodiversity targets with new objectives for 2030 and 2050, including a commitment to protect 30% of global land and marine areas by 2030, using blended finance as a strategy to support conservation.
![WHO Pandemic Agreement [April, 2024]](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_140,h_140,c_fill,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep,g_auto/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fb69c8066-0498-4924-af63-1344abb2ec85_1206x612.png)
These two - the Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations Framework Concention on Climate Change - spawned the development of a specific, new type of finance industry, all centred around blended finance, which ultimately is about transferring public funds into private pockets. And in that regard, let’s now consider what came next -
2017 - One Planet Summit29.
Launched in Paris by Emmanuel Macron, this event led to the Climate Finance Partnership30, promoting investment in climate solutions, including related infrastructure.
2017 - Network for Greening the Financial System31.
At the very first OPS, central banks and financial supervisors got together, announcing an initiative, for the management of climate related risks, and to promote sustainable development through blended finance.2018 - One Planet Summit Wealth Fund Framework32.
Encourages sovereign wealth funds to align investments with the Paris Agreement goals, and channel capital into climate solutions.2019 - Joint MDB Climate Finance Roadmap33.
The multilateral development banks committed to increase climate financing in line with OPS objectives, using blended finance.2021 - Glasgow Climate Pact34.
This even not only saw the launch of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), focusing on mobilizing private sector finance toward achieving net-zero targets, but further acknowledges the shortfall in meeting the $100bn target by 2020, thus developing into a call for the doubling of adaptation finance by 2025.2021 - One Planet Summit for Biodiversity35.
Focused on the role of blended finance in supporting nature-based solutions and climate adaptation, especially in developing regions.
As soon as the ink was dry on the Sustainable Development Goals signed in 2015, they created the industry, set to progressively milk us dry, with central banks signing up to this concept already in 2017 through their Network for Greening the Financial System initiative. And the one man you are sure to find here, there, and everywhere in this regard is Mark Carney, who went on to become named ‘United Nations Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance‘36.
I stated early on that the simultaneous launch of the CBD and UNFCCC was no coincidence. Time to back up that claim. And first, let’s check out the ‘2050 CBD Vision‘ from 202137, obviously featuring everyone’s favourite soapboxing Hollywood hypocrite - Leonardo DiCaprio.
‘The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) aims to ensure the conservation, sustainable use and equitable sharing of the benefits of biological diversity. Securing Earth’s biological diversity is a moral obligation‘
… and it’s a moral call. Solid collectivist territory. Whenever you spot a ‘moral call’ you can rest assured that the morals to which they refer do not match yours.
‘Scientific studies show the need to link the goals and actions of CBD and UN Framework Convention on Climate Change‘
Do try to at least feign surprise.
‘Therefore we call for science-based targets that set aside political demarcations and are guided by a global prioritization…‘
Uhuh, sure.
‘In particular, we call for a milestone of 30% of Earth to be protected by 2030, and an additional 20% designated as Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures (OECMs).‘
The 30% target is commonly observed - you can also spot it in HRH Prince of Wales’s Terra Carta38, which of course also drags in the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Paris Agreement, the SDGs and so forth.
In full disclosure, when I originally went through this document, I suspected the Crown was involved in directing this grand scheme. Given the continuous humiliation rituals they experience at the hands of especially the Fabian Parasites, I don’t actually believe they are at this point. I suspect they are being blackmailed. And if I’m right on this, then they should logically speak up, as these vultures will not stop until they’ve destroyed everything.
But either way - you know those targets they set, 30% in this case? Those are not meant to be reached. But if they are (or not), the solution always is yet another goalpost move. And if we meet the 50% objective by 2050 - thus, leading to the WILD Foundation’s 2009 report, ‘Nature Needs Half’39 - the goalpost will so obviously immediately be shifted yet again. To quote that movie from 1983 -
The only way to win is not to play.
The ‘vision’ carries on -
‘To meet this vision, the entire planet must be managed sustainably, supported by truly sustainable production and consumption, a circular economy, and the sustainable and equitable sharing of benefits from nature‘
For the entire planet to be managed sustainability, 50% will not do. Only 100% will suffice. They will not stop until they have destroyed quite literally everything.
But further… this all sounds unmistakably like ‘A Long-Term Vision for 2050’40… and the top-down management philosophy outlined by the Ecosystem Approach… and, well, the Circular Economy in general.
Now, the Sustainable Development Goals commonly emphasize the integration of economy and ecology, especially in conversations relating to the ‘green economy’ or ‘climate action’. And as for the Bank for International Settlements… they are well ahead in that regard - though obviously through different terminology.
Planetary Boundaries is yet another related initiative41 -
‘Derived as it is from thermodynamics, ecological economics (EE) has always espoused a biophysical understanding of economic systems‘
Thermodynamics, you say?
In more consumer facing terms, we also see a number of initiatives currently seeking to merge ecology with economy - notably through carbon-backed CBDCs. But the thing is, there’s not just one type of those. There are two.
One type is backed by carbon emission permits, while the other is backed by… carbon sequestration.
And what exactly does the UNFCCC claim to do? Regulate emissions. And the CBD? Broadly, plant trees, leading to sequestration. Consequently, we have one type of CBDC leading to carbon sequestration and thus the Convention on Biological Diversity, with the other leading to emission permits, and hence the UNFCCC.
And you know, a very, very similar system was described in 1936, through Technocracy Inc’s ‘Energy Certificate’42 - though with a somewhat contempory… resonance…
‘The certificate is valid only for the purchase of items individually consumable. Means of production and distribution are not obtainable by the individual. The individual owns nothing beyond his immediate personal implements and apparel.‘
[Mentally insert a picture of Ida Auken here]
Technocracy Inc’s primary report came through the ‘Technocracy Study Course’43, originally released in 1936 from which we learn -
‘… production of plant substance is chemically exactly the opposite from the burning of wood. Since energy is released when wood is burned, then an exact equal amount of energy must have been required when the wood was formed in the first place‘
Thus, the process of turning sequestered carbon into atmosphetic (theoretically) releases the exact same quantity of energy as it took, turning said atmospheric carbon into wood.
Thermodynamics.
In other words, should we stop burning fossil fuels, then we can estimate global combustible energy consumption through concentration of carbon in the atmosphere - which is where Keeling’s experiments in 1957 enters the stage (incidentally, an experiment initiated by Roger Revelle, whose $1m grant from the Rockefeller Foundation must have been somewhat of a record at the time).
And in what can best be described as yet another astonishing coincidence, the primary author of that study course was none other but Marion King Hubbert - the very man who proposed the ‘Peak Oil’ theory in 195644, which indirectly suggested that we… had to cut oil consumption.
Do realise the implication here. Should it be possible to control the process of turning combustibles into energy, and the reverse process, then global energy use can be ultimately measured leading to control… through regulating the use of fossil fuels. But there was just one minor issue. See, around the same time, nuclear power started to take off, and that conversion process is much, much harder to control, relative to measuring carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Consequently, if nuclear somehow could be throttled… and it was this effort I outlined in the latter part of the article on the Total Human Ecosystem… at the hands of the Union of Concerned Scientists. The very same who told you about 1,700 scientists… hyperventilating in 199245.
Don’t worry, chaps. After all, ‘No more than one or a few decades remain before the chance to avert the threats we now confront will be lost and the prospects for humanity immeasurably diminished‘. We are well past that point, you can stop your ludicrous lies, now.
Consequently, could there possibly have more to the story, when the various organisations were formed in this order -
1957 - International Atomic Energy Agency.
Works on nuclear safety, the monitoring of nuclear materials to ensure they are used for peaceful purposes, security, and non-proliferation, providing guidelines and conducting inspections to ensure compliance with international treaties.1974 - International Energy Agency.
Initial focus on energy security relating to its members, but its role progressively expanded to include energy policy recommendations, research, the monitoring of global energy markets, supply, and demand, and analysis across a wide range of energy sources, including renewables and nuclear power1998 - International Emissions Trading Association.
Works closely with policymakers, companies, and international bodies to ensure the integrity of carbon trading systems, and supports the development and transparency of carbon markets by helping to establish rules, frameworks, and best practices for monitoring, reporting, and verifying emissions reductions.
But rather than engaging in ‘conspiracy theory’, let’s return to the fusion of the CBD and UNFCCC, not just through the CBD vision for 2050, nor Planetary Boundaries, nor even the economy-ecology integration commonly called for by various documents relating to the SDGs. Because the two further have a common ancestor. And it’s one we’ve frequently discussed.
The Global Environment Facility.
Via the 1992 UNFCCC framework document46 - ‘The Global Environment Facility of the United Nations Development Programme, the United Nations Environment Programme and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development shall be the international entity entrusted with the operation of the financial mechanism referred to in Article 11 on an interim basis‘
And via the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversiry equivalent47 - ‘Provided that it has been fully restructured in accordance with the requirements of Article 21, the Global Environment Facility of the United Nations Development Programme, the United Nations Environment Programme and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development shall be the institutional structure referred to in Article 21 on an interim basis‘
How… incredibly fortunate, no? The GEF, providing the financing mechanism for both, had only recently come into being - in perfect time for both the CBD and UNFCCC to capitalise on.
The GEF was first suggested by France in 1989, with pilot projects floated in 1991 - including the absolutely abysmal failure that is Iwokrama.
Or at least, that’s the official narrative. The actual truth is that the idea was proposed by Michael Sweatman to the Brundtland committee in 1986, and fully proposed at the Fourth World Wilderness Congress in 1987 - an event at which both David Rockefeller and Edmund de Rothschild participated. However, it wasn’t proposed under that name but rather the World Conservation Bank.
And in context of Michael Sweatman48, ‘He was President of the Mercantile Bank of Canada, and previously CEO of Barclay's Industrial Finance Company‘. I suppose we can count it another extraordinary coincidence that he also chaired the WILD Foundation49 around the same time. And if that foundation doesn’t ring a bell I invite you to scroll up to find the report, proposing that ‘Nature Needs Half’.
But should we step back even further in time - to 1977 to be exact - we find that Edmund de Rothschild himself participated at the first World Wilderness Congress, even delivered a talk50, outlining exactly how destructive a species humanity is. It’s the same garbage we’ve seen repeatedly outlined.
And though the paper itself is fairly tedious, the final page delivers -
‘In 1976 a Wilderness Leadership Foundation was established in the United Kingdom with Laurens van der Post, Edmund de Rothschild and Katherine Littman playing leading parts.‘
But that’s not quite all -
‘About a hundred years ago the famous German philosopher Nietzsche wrote “Inescapably, hesitatingly, terrible like fate, the great task approaches: how should the earth as a whole be administered? To what end should man, no longer a people or a race, be raised and bred?‘
For some reason, I get the idea that he’s already drafted the ‘answer’, and my suspicions are certainly not extinguished by the discovery of what comes next -
‘Teilhard de Chardin, the French theologian, so very wisely wrote: "Some day after mastering the winds, the waves, the tides and gravity, we shall harness for God the energies of love, and then for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire."‘
Well, Edmund, someone does appear to be playing with fire indeed.
The 6th World Wilderness Congress51 conference proceedings provides further detail on the matter -
‘The Ist WWC brought delegates from twenty-seven countries... It introduced the wilderness concept as an international issue of importance, as well as incorporating economics and banking as major issues on the conservation agenda. The presence and presentation by Edmund de Rothschild, the banker, played a major role.‘
Gee, are you suggesting that he was instrumental in coupling economics with the conservation agenda?
‘Through Michael Sweatman, Edmund de Rothschild, and others, the 1987 WWC proposed the establishment of a World Conservation Bank, which eventually led to the 1.1 billion U.S. dollar Global Environment Fund of the World Bank.‘
So much for the lies, claiming the GEF and WCB are not connected.
… but should you go fully conspiratorial, perhaps, just perhaps, George Hunt told the truth about the Fourth World Wilderness Congress in 1987?
The contemporary conservation agenda under the umbrella of the United Nations started with UNESCO’s Julian Huxley founding the IUCN52. And who do we find in their founding document?
The World Conservation Bank was floated at the 4th World Wilderness Congress - at practically the same time, Lovejoy’s Debt-for-Nature Swaps were piloted.
In brief, the way those work is through nations submitting nature reserves as collateral in return for, essentially, bridge loans which will continuously require refinancing on progressively worse terms. But one day, these will fail to refinance, at which stage the question becomes - what happens to said collateral?
My conclusion is that they - or related ‘ecosystem service’ rights - likely are submitted to the UNESCO Biosphere Reserves for ‘conservation’. And consequently - George Hunt indeed did tell the truth. It’s just that even the truth was somewhat more… multifaceted… opaque than he realised.
And it’s said reserves which will be monetised for various sorts of ‘ecosystem services’, where the initial - and very visibile one - is ‘carbon emission permits’. But others will follow, including fresh water, timber, even eco-tourism.
They have, in fact, invented a whole new type of economics, based on claims of being able to forward predict chaos theory - which is absolutely mathematically impossible even if our world is deterministic (which it appears not to be), thus encouraging nothing short of egregious fraud by those in control. The ultimate stakeholder, so to speak.
But who ran the trial balloon related to agroforestry blended finance? Why, if it wasn’t Edmund de Rothschild’s own hedge fund, Moringa. It appears just a tad hard to belive this is all coincidental, but even if it was, how come this doesn’t constitute a case of trading on insider information?
So, allow me to recap before wrapping up -
At the first World Wilderness Congress in 1977, Edmund de Rothschild spoke of the future administration of Earth, the destructive tendencies of mankind, and finishes off by quoting Teilhard.
In 1987, Michael Sweatman of the Rothschild-connected WILD Foundation floats the idea of the World Conservation Bank, which ultimately went on to become the GEF.
Debt-for-Nature Swaps are piloted i 1987, with collateral likely going to the UNESCO Biosphere Reserves in the event of default.
The Global Environment Facility is suggested by France in 1989, with pilot projects launched in 1991.
At the Earth Summit in Rio, 1992, the Convention on Biological Diversity and the UNFCCC are simultaneously launched, both drawing on the GEF as financing mechanism.
Though the founding convention hints at a trading mechanism, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol institutes a binding framework relating to carbon emissions trading, and emission reduction to be progressively introduced, more than a decade down the line.
The Copenhagen Accord of 2009 floats public sector financing of climate projects to the tune of $100bn by 2020.
Rothschild’s Moringa fund is launched in 2010, being an exceptionally early blended finance project with a focus on agriforestry.
Blended Finance as a concept is finalised in Addis Ababa in July, 2015.
The Sustainable Development Goals are finalised, September 2015.
The Paris Agreement is signed in December, 2015.
At the foundational One Planet Summit in 2017, the central banks collaborate through the Network for Greening the Financial System.
The Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) is launched in 2021 by Michael Bloomberg, and Mark Carney, former Bank of Canada and Bank of England governor. And at this very same event, a doubling of public finance is called for, demanding $200bn/yr from the Western taxpayer by 2025.
It’s a little hard to not go ‘conspiratorial’ here. Because it appears - just a tad - as though they first created the mechanism to fill those ‘reserves’ using Debt-for-Nature Swaps eventually destined to fail (at an opportune moment), and through blended finance arrangements likewise structured to fail (likely taking out public finance in the process, similar to those CDOs wiped out pension funds in 2008), harvesting carbon emissions from said ‘reserves’ floated before the progresssive UNFCCC squeeze is applied, thus ensuring spiking prices, ultimately serving to gradually destroy the Western middle classes. And to ensure everyone goes along, the central banks will progressively clamp down on any enterprises refusing to play ball. A true public-private-partnership, indeed, because big business will eventually be shafted along with everyone else.
And while many reject the use of ChatGPT altogether, these tools exist for a reason. And there is essentially no-one living who I can bounce off the above hypothesis.
‘It’s worth noting that while this analysis aligns with certain critical perspectives, it’s important to consider the complexities and varied motivations of the stakeholders involved.‘
I’ll take that, as there’s precisely 0% likelihood it would agree on first pass.
‘The trend towards integrating environmental goals with economic mechanisms, however, is real and has profound implications for global governance and climate action‘
Indeed, it does.
But before moving on -
‘Yes, it is absolutely possible that such a scenario could unfold… Ultimately, while direct evidence of a coordinated agenda remains debated, the potential for such strategies is embedded in the systems and mechanisms already in place‘
Thus, it is absolutely not outside the realms of possibility. And that is extremely concerning in itself, because the system likely was constructed to explicitly facilitate this outcome.
No, it really is a little hard to not go53 conspiratorial54 indeed55. Oh wait, Julian Huxley began his grebe research in 1912 on the estate of… yet another coincidence.
On occasion, it appears - just a little bit - as through the crazy conspiracy theories I used to laugh at… perhaps, just perhaps, contain a grain of truth.
But who knows. Perhaps it really is all just a coincidence. Perhaps this ultimately will have all been in vain. Besides, what is all that preposterous nonsense about ‘a global ethic’56 and Paul Carus’s ‘interfaith’57 I keep going on about?
And General Systems Theory and Spaceship Earth? It just all comes across virtually insane, and you should definitely walk away before they label you, too58.
What an extraordinary feat pulling all this together. Thank you!