The Natural Asset Company

A recent tweet by WallStreetApes set Twitter alight.

Being the skeptical type, and having seen similar, alarmist claims before, I immediately set out to find the relevant legislation, which you can find here.

Yes, it’s real.

The NYSE even has a webpage on the topic, which conveniently also features a link to the Intrinsic Exchange Group, which you can locate over here.

And - as per usual - a website on a ‘new economy’ is incompete without some absurd claim about how large the market is. Nature’s economy - value $5,000 trillion. Take that, Bill Gates… of course, what this also means is that if these numbers are true, then your contibution is of even less significance.

In fairness, they have actually put together a decent page, outlining expressly what they propose to do, which you can find here. And - in very short - a Natural Asset Company will monetise natural resource production (water, timber, fish, foor production, …), but obviously sustainably so.

They even include a ‘biodiversity policy’, which will obviously be the Convention on Biological Diversity and their Ecosystem Approach, or a derivative thereof.

It’s at this stage you might protest ‘but that assumes ownership of the asset’ which in this case is the land. But alas - no. Ownership is not required, per this book by Joel Makower titled “The New Grand Strategy”, which furthermore opens up for the possibility of deriving income through selling carbon credits.

That’s right, in the future simply owning a forest will be an income stream.

Or will it? Because is the plan to make property ownership completely pointless, as the rights have been sent to the stakeholder?

Now, you might be surprised to find that this initiative actually has prior history. In 2014, this release outlines indiegogo investments, and potential B-Team interest. That’s where Richard Branson enters the stage, acting in the global public good.

Indiegogo investments, however, are somewhat at odds with contemporary interest, or more specifically - the likes of Rockefeller.

But this doesn’t really answer the question - from where does this initiative originate? And it doesn’t take long to locate the Nagoya Declaration from 2010, and what can be found in this is somewhat overwhelming -

First off, this is absolutely related to the Convention on Biological Diversity, it relates to the transition to a new global economy, it demands the valuation of natural capital into the frameworks of government accounts, it requests the regulation of use of a country’s natural wealth, and that all of this adopts the natural capital approach.

We also see a request for further financial support for the GEF, the establishment of an Access and Benefit Sharing Protocol, and further financial support for developing world nations.

Finally, they request a focus on education, subsidies, national policy instruments, and finally, the advancement of the GLOBE Natural Capital Action Plan.

The document is stamped with the ‘GLOBE International’ label, so this is probably a good next port of call - but let’s just get the Natural Capital Approach out of the way first - it’s more of the same.

And while I did manage to track down a late draft of the GLOBE Capital Action Plan, it’s not actually that important, as it’s pretty much covered by my prior articles, and the linked document above.

GLOBE International is a really interesting one. First off, here’s their website. Founded in 1992, it states, by Al Gore and counterparts in Europe, Russia and Japan. And GLOBE stands for ‘The Global Legislators Organisation‘.

Pretty obvious what this is about.

And for sakes of brevity, I will ignore that frequently, it’s worth paying attention to the side gigs during these big conferences.

But some confusion will arise should you visit their history page, because this details 1991 being the year of formation, detailing involvement of the US Congress, the European Parliament, the Japanese Diet, and the Russian State Duma.

So which year is correct? Is it 1992 or is it 1991?

Well, as it turns out, neither is correct.

Should you head over to wayback and track down the earliest copy of their webpage, they will list the same participants, but instead of 1992 or even 1991, the year 1989 is stated, which means before the collapse of the Soviet Union.

And I don’t know, but to me that’s actually a big deal, and not just because of the potential angle of communist infiltration.

Golly, and Gorbachev suddenly because an avid environmentalist, you say?

And I really am not kidding about Gorbachev, who went on to found the Green Cross International in 1993.

And - golly - they just happen to be focused on… environmental degradation, and ensuring a sustainable and secure future.

What an extraordinary coincidence!

But 1989 was also three years prior to the formation of the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the year when Al Gore penned this absurdity of a paper on climate change, in which he suggests a 5 degree swing in global temperatures will be observed by our children’s generation.

No, seriously - this is a legit paper.

But back to the history page, from which we establish that they jumped on the United Nations bandwagon from conception, to clearly lobby for what was to become the Convention on Biological Diversity.

‘GLOBE legislators were involved with the Rio Earth Summit… In the early 1990s… During this period members engaged actively in the series of UN summits, including the Cairo Summit on Population and Development and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Kyoto, Japan‘

Rio, of course, is the origin of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Now, the front page stated ‘Founded in 1992 by Senators Al Gore, John Kerry…‘, meaning that the US politician who pushed the Convention on Biological Diversity, also founded GLOBE which drove legislative lobbying efforts.

Golly, right?

And the above history even includes a picture of John Kerry, who at least ensured his daughter has a stable job.

Vanessa Kerry.

I could carry on detailing GLOBE, but I see no point, because we already have plenty of ways this can be linked up with prior articles.

But before we do move on, let’s check out their ‘partners’ page, on which we find that GLOBE partners up with…………… the expected list of suspects.

GEF, UNEP, UNDRR, and the Convention on Biological Diversity.

-

Look, this topic is actually important. Because what we have here, is the outline of how natural asset exploitation rights will be IPO’ed in the future, sustainable or not.

We have the history of how this initiative was launched, and by whom.

We see how this meshes with the United Nations, and specifically with a notorious convention supposedly about Biodiversity.

Further, their term for said ‘sustainable’ exploitation rights is ‘ecosystem provision’, and these are considered ‘ecosystem services’.

So what we need to file for an IPO in this regard is a valuation thereof, and this we can find here, in this UK House of Parliament note - ‘Ecosystem Service Valuation’.

And to ensure regulatory compliance, we also need accounting. Which we find over here in a different UK HoP note - ‘Natural Capital Accounting‘.

In fact, both GLOBE and the Convention on Biological Diversity are explicitly mentioned by these notes which, may I remind you, are official UK House of Parliament documents.

And as you might be aware — those two notes are the ones I covered over here.

ENviRON

And as for the corporate ecosystem, and the general stakeholder management structure underwriting the ‘new environment-centred economy’? We’ve discussed that repeatedly, but here’s one of the links again, on the Ecosystem Approach.

Predicting the unpredictable

The Ecosystem Approach ultimately comes down to 12 principles, and these underwrite the Convention on Biological Diversity -

The Ecosystem Approach

… going forward, the CBD recently produced their Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework targets -

Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework - 2030 Targets

And should you finally suspect that this will never happen, because how could they possibly determine this level of information, or even think that they can -

-

I really only have one final, primary substack article planned, and it relates to the epic transfer of wealth required in order to allow all of this to happen. I opened up for land ownership rights becoming pointless above, but I don’t think they would ever consider leaving this behind, because it could hypothetically lead to issues in the future, should things not pan out.

Consequenrly, I do think they will attempt to seize control of said 30% by 2030, as repeatedly outlined by the Terra Carta, and other documents. Consequently, what we are looking for is a mechanism, enabling this transfer.

Now, all of this is extremely difficult to source, of course, so a certain level of speculation is required. And in that regard - if ultimately proven correct, then 2008 was child’s play.

And it’s ultimately about blended finance.

-

I will leave you with one final thought -

If all of this was for the common public good, then why was the composition of the UK Task Force structured as such?

Who was there, acting in the capacity of the common, garden variety prole?