Chrystia Freeland 's Travel Carbon Footprint - Rules For Thee But Not For Me

For those of you who don't live in Canada, the nation's illustrious and somewhat controversial Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Finance and lover of all things Schwab, recently said this in response to a question about Canada's growing carbon tax burden:

 

One might almost think that this representative of the global ruling class was actually concerned about her personal carbon footprint which meant that she was willing to not own a vehicle and chose to travel by public transit, however, this would not be further from the truth.

  

Thanks to the Canadian government's proactive disclosure program, the travel expenses of senior government officials including Members of Parliament must be declared on a quarterly basis.  With that in mind, let's look at Freeland's disclosures for travel from June 2021 to May 2023 in her dual roles as Deputy Prime Minister (aka Prime Minister in Waiting) and Minster of Finance:

 

 

One interesting travel expense was her trip to the annual World Economic Forum meeting held in Davos, Switzerland in January 2023 which cost Canadian taxpayers $10,633.04 despite the fact that she actually sits on the Board of Trustees of the organization which can well afford to cover her travel expenses:

 

Now, let's look at her travel expenses as the Member of Parliament for the University - Rosedale riding starting in the quarter from July 1, 2022 to September 30, 2022, noting that I have eliminated some quarters were there was either minimal travel or no travel declared (which I find hard to believe):

 

Virtually all of these trips are flights between her riding in Toronto and her "job" in Ottawa.  In some cases, she is flying back and forth between the two cities every second or third day and, on top of her expenditures on flights, is billing Canadian taxpayers for accommodations in Ottawa even though many MPs have second residences in Ottawa that cost far less than $300 per night. You will also note that in several cases, her airfare between Toronto and Ottawa is in excess of $1000 meaning that it is quite likely that these trips were taken in business class, a more carbon intensive means of travelling by air.

 

While it may be true that Ms. Freeland is proud of the fact that she does not own a car and uses public transit, it is very clear that she has a personal carbon footprint that is far, far in excess of what most members of the serf class have even though she maintains that she does not own an automobile.  No matter what else she may be, her travel habits prove that without doubt that she is a shining example of the idiocracy's "do what I say not what I do" narrative and that global climate change is but an excuse for people like her to further trample the lives of the majority of those who sweat while they work for a living.

BRICS+ and De-dollarization

With the recent evolution of the BRICS into BRICS+ thanks to the addition of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Ethiopia, the United Arab Emirates, Argentina and Egypt projected to occur in January 2024, the appearance of this:

 

...on the website of the World Economic Forum particularly interesting given the group's history of promoting a multipolar world.

 

The WEF refers to an article that appears on the website of the Institute for Security Studies (ISS), "Africa's leading multidisciplinary human security organization" which was established in 1991 entitled "BRICS+ and the future of the US dollar":

 

Let's look at some quotes from the article which opens with this:

 

"Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and intensified United States (US)–China competition have had two important geostrategic consequences. They have blown new life into the European Union (EU) and North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and accelerated expansion of the Brazil-Russia-India-China-South Africa (BRICS) bloc’s role and membership, as confirmed at this week’s Johannesburg summit."

  

The article goes on to note that these trends have "hastened the shift away from a Western-led global order towards a new, still-to-be crafted era of more uncertain and fluid multipolar connections" and that the next 30 years will see this trend continue to unfold.

 

Here is an interesting quote:

 

"BRICS is cloaking itself in resentment against the West, particularly with the lingering effects of colonialism, imperialism and sanctions by leading Western countries. Another factor is the lack of global governance system reform, including the United Nations (UN) Security Council, World Trade Organization, and international finance institutions.

 

And although countries’ motivations for wanting to join BRICS differ, few global south nations will exchange one hegemon (the US) with another (China)."

 

While that may be true, one cannot deny the growing influence of China and shrinking influence of the United States in the global economy as shown here:

 

According to the author, the shift toward de-dollarization is likely to take place once the BRICS+ economy surpasses that of the West which is projected to occur in about two decades.  That said, the author notes that BRICS members are united in their desire to move away from the dollar-dominant international system for two reasons:

 

1.) when the United States Federal Reserve hikes interest rates, it can result in turmoil in smaller economies that are not a result of their own fiscal issues.

 

2.) the dollar provides the United States with an extremely powerful hammer with which to protect its own interests.

 

The author projects that rather than offering a single replacement for the U.S. dollar, the currencies of BRICS member nations will become increasingly powerful.  This is already occurring for two reasons:

 

1.) BRICS bilateral trade payments are already being fulfilled in each others' national currencies.

 

2.) BRICS members are diversifying their foreign reserves away from the U.S. dollar into euros, Swiss francs, British pounds and Japanese yen.

 

The author concludes that the negative shift in the power of the U.S. dollar will occur once world oil and natural gas prices are no longer set in U.S. dollars (petrodollars).  The acceptance of both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates into the BRICS block is a significant move in this direction.  Rather than being replaced by a single BRICS-based currency, the world is likely to see a slow reduction in the power of the dollar as its importance is surpassed by currency blocs that are based on trade among nations in South America, West Africa, the Middle East and, most importantly, China.

Vaccinating the World - The Link Between the Idiocracy and the Never-dying COVID-19 Pandemic Narrative

According to CNA formerly known as Channel NewsAsia, a leading Singapore-based news channel which is owned by the nation's national public broadcaster Mediacorp, the Senior Minister of the Republic of Singapore Tharman Shanmugaratnam made the following comments at a joint press conference held with World Health Organization's Director-General Tedros Ghebreyesus on August 25, 2023:

 

"We have to move away from thinking about funding for global health security in terms of foreign aid, towards thinking about it as a strategic investment that all nations must make, not only for the good of the global community but because it is in each nation’s self-interest."

 

To that end, he added this in light of the supposed ongoing COVID-19 pandemic:

 

"The first and most urgent priority is to implement the action plan set out by the WHO, IMF and their multilateral partners to vaccinate at least 60 per cent of every country’s population over the next year....

 

The resources that need to be mobilised are larger than nations have collectively been willing to commit in the past. But they are very small investments compared to the costs of prolonging the current pandemic, and tiny compared to the costs of the future pandemics that we can avoid."

  

Now, you may think that, outside of Singapore, one of the world's smallest and least influential nations, Mr. Shanmugaratnam would have no influence.  You would be wrong in making that assumption given this:

 

 

...and this:

 

So, the man who wishes to see 60 percent of every nation in the world vaccinated against COVID-19 over the next year is a World Economic Forum insider and just happens to be the Co-Chair of the G20's panel Financing the Global Commons for Pandemic Preparedness and Response which was established in January 2021 as shown here:

 

 

The panel that he heads has made the following recommendations:

 

https://pandemic-financing.org/report/high-level-summary/

 

1.) nations must commit to a new base of multilateral funding for global health security based on pre-agreed and equitable contribution shares by advanced and developing countries. This will ensure more reliable and continuous financing, so the world can act proactively to avert future pandemics, and not merely respond at great cost each time a new pandemic strikes. 

 

This must include a fundamentally new way of financing a reformed and strengthened WHO, so that it receives both enhanced and more predictable resources. The Panel joins the call by the IPPPR for assessed contributions to be increased from one-quarter to two-thirds of the budget for the WHO’s base program, which will effectively mean an addition of about US$1 billion per year in such contributions.

 

2.) global public goods must be made part of the core mandate of the International Financial Institutions (IFIs) – namely the World Bank and other multilateral development banks (MDBs), and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). They should draw first on their existing financial resources, but shareholders must support timely and appropriately sized replenishments of their concessional windows and capital replenishments over time to ensure that the greater focus on global public goods is not at the expense of poverty reduction and shared prosperity. 

 

3.) a Global Health Threats Fund mobilizing US$10 billion per year should be established, and funded by nations based on pre-agreed contributions. This new Fund, at two-thirds of the minimum of US$15 billion in additional international resources required, brings three necessary features into the financing of global health security. First, together with an enhanced multilateral component of funding for the WHO, it would provide a stronger and more predictable layer of financing. Second, it would enable effective and agile deployment of funds across international and regional institutions and networks, to plug gaps swiftly and meet evolving priorities in pandemic prevention and preparedness. Third, it would also serve to catalyze investments by governments and the private and philanthropic sectors into the broader global health system, for example through matching grants and co-investments. The Fund’s functions should be defined to ensure that it complements rather than substitutes for financing of the MDBs’ concessional windows and the existing global health organizations.

 

4.) multilateral efforts should leverage and tighten coordination with bilateral ODA (Official Development Assistance), and with the private and philanthropic sectors. Better coordination within country and regional platforms will have greater impact in reducing pandemic risks, and enable better integration with ongoing efforts to tackle endemic diseases and develop other critical healthcare capabilities. It will be important to ensure that ODA flows mobilized for pandemic preparedness add to and do not divert resources from other priority development needs. 

  

In addition, the group states the following:

 

"Governments must collectively commit to increasing international financing for pandemic prevention and preparedness by at least US$75 billion over the next five years, or US$15 billion each year, with sustained investments in subsequent years. 

 

The Panel assesses this to be the absolute minimum in new international investments required in the global public goods that are at the core of effective pandemic prevention and preparedness. The estimate excludes other investments that will contribute to resilience against future pandemics while benefiting countries in normal times. These complementary interventions – such as containing antimicrobial resistance, which alone will cost about US$9 billion annually, and building stronger and more inclusive national health and delivery systems – provide continuous value. Furthermore, the estimated minimum international investments are based on conservative assumptions on the scale of vaccine manufacturing capacity required in advance of a pandemic. Larger public investments to enable enhanced manufacturing capacity will indeed yield much higher returns. 

 

The minimum additional US$15 billion per year in international financing for pandemic preparedness is still a significant increase. It is a critical reset to a dangerously underfunded system. "

 

So there you have it.  The G20 affiliated group which is charged with dealing with pandemics is headed by a man who plays a leadership key role at the World Economic Forum.  He is only too willing to spend your tax dollars to ensure that the response to the next pandemic follows the recommendations of the World Health Organization and the G20 panel for Financing the Global Commons for Pandemic Preparedness and Response.  This man is recommending that over the next year, 60 percent of the world should be vaccinated against COVID-19.  Given that only 32.5 percent of people in low-income nations have received at least one dose of the vaccines which have proven to be only marginally effective and that daily new confirmed COVID-19 cases have done this:

 

....the 60 percent vaccination target for all nations in the world is a tall and likely ineffective/unncessary order but one that the global ruling class wishes to impose on the rest of us. After all, the globalists including those affiliated with the World Economic Forum just can't let the COVID-19 narrative die a much-deserved death.

The global idiocracy is alive and well.

The World Economic Forum and Programmable Central Bank Digital Currencies - Our Dark Future

At the June 2023 World Economic Forum's 14th Annual Meeting of the New Champions (aka Summer Davos) held in Tianjin, China, Cornell Professor Eswar Prasad addressed the crowd with a speech entitled "The Future of Money".  During his speech, Prasad shared his views on the coming world of finance and how we are at the "threshold of major disruption that will affect corporations, bankers, states and all of us".  

 

Let's start with some background on Dr. Prasad to help us put his comments into perspective:

 

 

During the three day meeting, Eswar Prasad weighed in on the disappearance of physical currency as it is replaced by cryptocurrencies, particularly central bank digital currencies or CBDCs.  Here is the video which shows all of Dr. Prasad's speech entitled "The Future of Money" to the Summer Davos crowd of global insiders as it appears on the World Economic Forum's YouTube channel noting that the WEF proclaims that "the transformation of money will fundamentally rewrite how ordinary people live":

 

 

Here is the key quote which you can find at the 32 minute 41 second mark:

 

"If you think about the benefits of digital money, there are huge potential gains, it's not just about digital forms of currency.  You can have programability, you know, units of central bank currency with expiry dates .  You could have, as I argue in my book, a potentially better some people might say a darker world – where the government decides that units of central bank money can be used to purchase some things, but not other things that it deems less desirable like say ammunition, or drugs, or pornography, or something of the sort, and that is very powerful in terms of the use of a CBDC, and I think also extremely dangerous to central banks because ultimately if you have different units of central bank digital money with different characteristics or if you use central bank money as a conduit for economic policies in a very targeted way, or, more broadly for social policies, that could really affect the integrity of central bank money and the integrity and the independence of central banks.  So, there are wonderful notions of things that can be done with digital money but again I fear that technology could take us to a better place but equally has the potential to take us to a pretty dark place.”

  

At the very least, it's ironic that these comments were delivered in China, a nation that has already implemented both a social credit scoring system and a central bank digital currency that are tied together. You'll also note that Prasad does not particularly express concerns about the negative impact of CBDC programmability on individuals, rather, he is concerned about the impact of such policies on the central bank ecosystem itself.

 

In closing and as further background, the World Economic Forum is closely tied to the implementation of central bank digital currencies as shown here:

 

The transformation of money will fundamentally rewrite how ordinary people live.  Imagine this for a moment.   You are no longer in control of your money.  You cannot spend it where and on what you wish to spend it.  If you don't spend your savings within a certain time limit, the government will take it away from you.  If you express dissatisfaction with the government, you could have your "money" confiscated.  And, as an added bonus, the authorities can track every expenditure that you make.  While CBDCs are being sold to us as a means of increasing the speed of cross-border payments, in fact, such improvements affect almost none of the serf class.  The downsides to the implementation of these central bank currencies vastly outweigh the benefits to the common man/woman.

Welcome to our dark, dystopian future where money is programmable.  Our only hope is that governments and central bankers bungle the implementation of central bank digital currencies in the same fashion that they bungle politics and fiscal policies.

The High Cost of Financing The Net-Zero World

While I'm generally not a fan of McKinsey, an analysis entitled "Financing the net-zero transition: From planning to practice published in association with the Institute of International Finance":

 

...examines the cost of reaching net-zero greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050.  

 

The report opens by stating that "...financial institutions have a key role to play in channelling financing to the right place at the right time" to ensure that the net-zero goal is reached.  The cost of the transition to a green, decarbonized economy will be massive, requiring investments by several sectors of the economy.  The report notes that currently $5.7 trillion is allocated annually to fund the transition of physical assets to those that are deemed "climate acceptable".  While this may seem very substantial, the authors conclude that that is insufficient to meet the net-zero 2050 target and that investments will have to allocate an additional 30 percent above and beyond the $5.7 trillion figure if the world hopes to "save itself".

 

To get emissions to net-zero, between 2021 and 2050, $275 trillion will have to be spent on physical asset alone, averaging $9.2 trillion per year with most of this investment being front-loaded over the next five to ten years.  On an annual basis, one-third of this amount ($2.8 trillion) would be directed toward critical high-emission legacy obligations that cannot be completely phased out and two-thirds ($6.4 trillion) to new technologies including low-emission green technologies and assets that are transitioning to less carbon-intensive.  Over the entire timeframe to 2050, more than 85 percent of investments ($170 trillion) would be required for low-emission assets including mobility, power and buildings with the breakdown as follows:

 

1.) $62 trillion to develop EVs

 

2.) $3 trillion for EV and hydrogen infrastructure

 

3.) $57 trillion for power sector generation, storage, transmission and generation.

 

4.) $46 trillion for the building sector including heating and cooking equipment.

  

The share of investments in low-emissions technologies can be broken down as follows:

 

1.) EV technologies - 32 percent

 

2.) clean power generation and transmission - 25 percent

 

3.) technologies to decarbonize heating - 17 percent

 

4.) other low-emission technologies - 26 percent

 

So, where is all of this projected $6.4 trillion worth of annual funding for net-zero new technologies coming from?  Here is a breakdown of the annual average investment needs for low-emission assets between 2022 and 2050:

 

1.) private investors: 55 percent which breaks down to $950 billion to $1.5 trillion from institutional investors, private equity/venture capital funds and infrastructure funds and $2.0 trillion to $2.6 trillion from banks.

 

2.) households: 19 percent or $1.2 trillion

 

3.) state-owned enterprises: 11 percent or $700 billion

 

4.) development finance institutions: 7 percent or $430 billion

 

5.) governments: 4 percent or $300 billion

 

6.) state-owned finance institutions: 2 percent or $130 billion

 

7.) multilateral climate funds: 1 percent or $90 billion

 

8.) nongovernmental organizations: $4 billion

 

Given that households fund governments through their tax remittances, it would appear that households will ultimately be responsible for funding nearly one-quarter of the annual cost of the development and implementation of new net-zero technologies.  It should surprise no one but it is important to note that the wealthy will be very significant beneficiaries of these technological advancements since they are the ones that are most able to invest in private equity and venture capital funds.

 

The extremely high financial cost of achieving net-zero by 2050 is rather sobering given that these costs are rarely mentioned in public by the decision makers that are driving the global climate change agenda.  One way or another, society will pay dearly for the net-zero agenda which, in fact, will financially benefit the global ruling class and, of course, the global banking sector at the same time as it impoverishes the serfs.

Justin Trudeau - Family Privacy vs. Narcissism

When Canada's Prime Minister and his wife announced the end of their marriage on August 2, 2023 , this is what Justin Trudeau posted on his Instagram account:

 

 

When the announcement was made, I could fully understand why the Trudeaus appeared to be taking action to prevent and protect their children from being used as political pawns. 

  

Then, one would wonder why this was posted on Justin's Instagram account on August 6, 2023, posing with his oldest son Xavier:

 

And, as though the backlash from that posting wasn't enough, here's what he posted on August 8, 2023, posing with his daughter Ella:

 

 

Apparently, narcissism won out over privacy.

 

Narcissists gonna narcissist no matter what the costs are to their families.  Apparently, in Trudeau's world, you can have your cake and eat it too.

The World Economic Forum and the Global Central Bank Cabal

For anyone that has been paying attention over the past three plus years, it's pretty clear that Klaus Schwab has appointed himself as the architect of the new global reality, influencing politicians and corporate leaders to enact his wishes.  Another of his playgrounds is the central bank cabal, the subject of this posting.

  

Here is a recent news release from the Bank of England:

 

 

While most of us have never heard of Sarah Breeden, Klaus Schwab is certainly familiar with Breeden:

 

 

Here's what she had to say about the necessity of reaching government's arbitrarily dictated net-zero greenhouse gas goals:

 

Ms. Breeden is clearly a player in the global central bank "business" as quoted in this speech from April 19, 2023 which appears on the website for the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the central bank for central bankers:

  

"The latest IPCC synthesis report provides yet another stark warning of the impact that climate change will have on our planet. We are now a third of the way through the decisive decade; a decade where we will need to cut global emissions by over 40%, if we hope to limit warming to 1.5C. And yet global CO2 emissions continue to rise.

 

For us to meet this challenge, we need to collaborate and to take individual responsibility for the role we each play.

 

For the Government, it is to set out the pathway to net zero. For each of you here today – and the firms you represent – it is to apply those pathways in boardroom decisions; decisions that will not only help facilitate an orderly transition, but also help ensure the long-term relevance and value of the companies you lead. For the finance sector, it is to support and enable that transition. And for the Bank of England, it is to work within its objectives to ensure the financial system is resilient to the risks from climate change and supportive of the transition to net zero.

 

With that in mind, today I wanted to reflect on a speech I delivered in 2020 on how to move beyond rhetoric to make climate action a reality.

 

I had split our journey into three phases. Firstly, recognising and identifying the financial risks climate changes poses. Secondly, building capabilities to enable us to turn aspiration into action. And thirdly, making business decisions to advance the transition."

  

And, here are her four challenges to meeting net-zero goals:

 

1.) The first challenge is that filling capability gaps in the transition finance infrastructure takes time, so we need to continue to take urgent steps now.  Collectively we need to equip the financial sector with forward-looking information from the real economy to allocate capital effectively and mobilise finance at scale.

 

2.) The second challenge is that the world does not stand still. We have seen unexpected political and economic headwinds and it seems prudent to assume more will come.  With unexpected headwinds and limited bandwidth, longer-term issues can end up deprioritised. Issues do not though go away – quite the opposite, they build in the background. So we all need to be nimble and adaptable in our responses to the near-term whilst continuing to make progress on the long-term.

 

3.) The third challenge is that it is difficult, but essential, for real economy and financial firms to make transition-driven business decisions in the absence of complete clarity on our pathway to net zero.  It is easy for me to stand here and tell you that you should be making decisions now that stretch many years into the future, to manage the risks and seize the opportunities of net zero, without full clarity on the policy path to get there. But we need to recognise that setting clear and comprehensive policy will take time, likely years. The recent Green Finance Strategy takes us forward in a significant way, but the extent of policy making is formidable.

 

4.) And the fourth challenge is that system wide change is complex as the actions of one are dependent on actions of others, so it is important to coordinate action throughout the supply chain.  Each firm should be stretching its horizons – building capabilities now that enable action to drive long-term reductions in emissions through their value chain. That does not mean immediately ceasing to deal with high emission counterparties and suppliers. That does not necessarily remove emissions, perhaps chasing them into the shadows instead.

  

..and her conclusions, focussing on the role that central banks will play in amplifying government climate policies:

 

"We know the costs of transition to a net-zero economy are lowest with early and well-managed action. And we are making good progress in supporting that transition, arguably more than we might have expected given the shocks we have faced.

 

But there is still much more to do. We have not yet reached the tipping point where we have built the capabilities and the transition finance infrastructure that will support the right strategic decisions in an unavoidably uncertain transition.

 

We all have a role to play in driving progress. Governments globally have the key role in developing the policy paths and infrastructure that deliver the transition and draw us closer to this tipping point. Central banks and regulators can operate within their objectives to catalyse, complement and amplify those policies. And, business and finance can – indeed in order to manage their future risks will need to – make progress whilst policy is developing, ahead of clarity on sectoral paths and regulatory practice. Be assured that the difficult conversations that follow are a sign of success on our pathway to net zero, not a sign of failure."

 

While Ms. Breeden's connections to the World Economic Forum may appear to be minimal, the fact that her pontifications on the global climate change battle appeared on the group's Twitter feed in any fashion speaks volumes about her connections to the global ruling class.  Her beliefs parallel those of the world's wannabe rulers and her connections to Mark Carney, a former member of the World Economic Forum's Board of Trustees from 2010, current United Nations Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance from 2020 and Co-Chair of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero as shown here:

...cannot be denied as they would have worked together for many years during Carney's tenure as the Governor of the Bank of England between 2013 and 2020.