In researching this issue, I’ve come upon some interesting theories. One idea, posted by Karl Denninger on Market Ticker, is that the climate change initiative is nothing more than a veiled taxing system:
“The real reason to impose carbon taxes and similar nonsense is to disadvantage the west and our modern society for the purpose of control while giving huge sums of money to favored people to redistribute under the guise of ‘leadership.’ What it really amounts to is theft at gunpoint used for ‘global welfare payments’.”
Whether you believe in the One World Order conspiracy or not, Denninger’s tax theory still has merit considering how the money will be moving. Essentially, countries that lack the infrastructure to monitor their greenhouse emissions would receive money from…you guessed it…the US taxpayer! It had been hoped by some that private investors would make up the bulk of the funding, but it remains to be seen whether enough funds could be collected from the private sector.
Green Bonds were created around 2010 as one way to attract private investors. The idea is that the purchase of a Green Bond at a flat rate would provide investment funds for climate-friendly initiatives. Thus, one could achieve yields with a clear conscience. It is essentially a 2-for-1: you get to make some money and still be cool to all your friends because you can legitimately wear your “I Heart The Environment” t-shirt made with organic, slave-free cotton.
According to Kieran Cooke:
“The Green Climate Bonds would, in effect, be another form of money creation similar in some respects to what’s called quantitative easing – increasing money supply to stimulate the economy. Only in the case of the climate bonds, this new money would be used to combat climate change.”
But, there are a few problems with these bonds. The most obvious issue is oversight. Just because you are told that funds are used to help the planet does not necessarily mean they are. A PR tool called “greenwashing” is used to make an entity look more environmentally friendly that it actually is. Another problem is more meta-, more macro-, more economics-as-Godzilla. That is to say, the current status of the bond market, in general, as well the on-going creation of more and more debt makes one loathe to encourage the bank creation of new asset bonds.
For those of you who are starting to feel as though the climate initiative is the brain child of the Bilderberg group, you’ll be delighted to learn who the key players are in the Green Bond market:
“BlackRock joins the likes of Barclays, Citi Group, and HSBC to partner with the Climate Bonds Initiative. BlackRock manages $4.5 trillion in assets globally. According to the Climate Bonds Initiative, the Bank of America Merrill Lynch has been the largest underwriter for labelled green bonds in the first three quarters of this year, followed by JP Morgan and the Citi Group.”
The jury is out on the nature of Green Bonds; they are part noble idea, part fraud, part investment strategy, part central bank bullshit. Yet, they are easily avoidable. If you don’t want it or don’t trust it, you don’t have to buy it. There is, however, a more sinister aspect to the financing of the climate initiative. In Kent Covington’s interview with Christopher Monckton on The World and Everything in It, Monckton says:
“Governments want new ways of raising taxation. They want some kind of moral justification for the very excessive amounts of taxation they now tend to levy worldwide. When this global warming story came out, it was manna from heaven for governments and for bureaucracies and for scientific and academic establishments. This was money all around from the ordinary, poor taxpayer. … This was a huge transfer of wealth and power away from democratic control by ordinary people keeping the money in their own pockets and deciding what kind of light bulbs they could use and how much petrol to use. Now all of this is prescribed by governments, which have grown huge, new bureaucratic enterprises to tell people exactly how much carbon dioxide they’re allowed to [emit]. You soon won’t be allowed to fart without permission in quintuplicate from some bureaucrat somewhere. It’s gotten completely out of hand. But what is interesting is that there is no—and I mean no—scientific basis for the exaggerated predictions of future global warming that the usual suspects have been making.”
Now, plenty of people accuse Monckton of being a crackpot. Maybe he is a loon, but that doesn’t mean he’s wrong about this. Actually, I believe he has hit the nail on the head. And Monckton is not alone on an island with this viewpoint, though the media would like you to think that. There are others who are wondering what the true motivations are for the climate initiative. Quoting the post “Nobel Chutzpah Prize 2015: UN, World Bank need ‘$89 Trillion’ to fix climate” on joannenova.com:
“Part of the trick for such a grand grab is the invisibility of the bill. The bureaucrats sneak silently into bank accounts around the world, a dollar here and a dollar there. Funds come from taxpayers and then through higher electricity, fuel and grocery bills, the money flows from seniors, retired folk, children and the unemployed. Through loans issued by governments and central banks, the payments come through silent inflation, as the value of purchasing power and currencies fall. The payments are almost never labeled. No product is ever produced that needs to be delivered. No one gets a bill in the mail to change the weather.
If they did, there would be riots in the streets.”
The thing is, Nova and Monckton are the very people mocked and ridiculed by the mainstream media these days. If you don’t fully believe the climate theories, you’re accused of being uneducated, blind, or politically motivated. But their arguments are very sound. We see the silent inflation, the devaluation of currency, the lack of a checking mechanism, vested interests, and the transfer of wealth that Nova and Monckton warn us about. If it’s blatantly all around us, how can we go blindly along with the climate initiative?
To close, I’d like to end with a parting shot against the climate fear-mongering. Here is another chart demonstrating the natural ebbs and flows of the climate. The Modern Warm Period is not the highest peak. Note also that there are plenty of relative ice ages. Humans can come up with complicated financial systems and they can fuck up politics and world affairs, but I am not convinced our invention of Aqua Net has irreparably affected Earth’s climate cycles.
http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/klima-anzeige/teil-8-dynamisches-sonnensystem-die-tatsaechlichen-hintergruende-des-klimawandels/ (in German) English Translation Link.