Energy as a Vehicle of Control and the War on Carbon

According to the globalists, climate change is the No. 1 threat to humanity, necessitating radical quality of life sacrifices and the total relinquishing of privacy and freedom. Germany’s health minister Karl Lauterbach, for example, in December 2020 proclaimed that addressing climate change will require restrictions on personal freedom, similar to those implemented to “flatten the curve” of COVID.¹

Similarly, British economics professor Mariana Mazzucato in September 2020 warned that “In the near future, the world may need to resort to lockdowns again — this time to tackle a climate emergency.”² The World Economic Forum (WEF), the United Nations and the World Health Organization have also published articles stating their intent to “fight climate change” by shutting down society.³

Climate change is also being used to explain away food shortages, justify the need to move people from the countrysides and suburbs into smart cities, and promote the replacement of beef with insects. The COVID-19 pandemic was even blamed on it.

Health, Climate and Energy To Be Addressed as One Issue

Just about anything is now being justified on the basis that it helps address climate change. Indeed, dietary controls, energy control, carbon restrictions and climate change are increasingly tied together, whether it makes sense or not, and the reason for this can be found in a September 2022 WEF article⁴ co-written by the director of WHO’s Environment and Health Department. As noted in this article, titled “How to Fight the Next Threat to Our World: Air Pollution”:

“[W]orld leaders must put health at the core of climate action and social equity. The fight for clean air can accelerate the reduction of climate-warming emissions, the shift to cheaper and more reliable energy sources and justice for the marginalized and most vulnerable communities … We can confront these crises more effectively and fairly if we address them as one …”

In other words, health (which includes both medicine and food, as government has now launched a “food is medicine” agenda), climate action and energy control are to be addressed not as three separate issues but as one. The potential implications of this are enormous.

If the WHO ends up having sole power over global health, combining health, climate and energy issues into one will automatically give the WHO the de facto power to seize control over society in general.

They could issue climate lockdowns, for example, on the basis that lockdowns reduce pollution, hence improving public health. That the WHO will jump at the opportunity to implement climate lockdowns in particular can be seen in the WHO “Manifesto for a Healthy Recovery From COVID-19,” which states:⁵

“The ‘lockdown’ measures that have been necessary to control the spread of COVID-19 have slowed economic activity, and disrupted lives — but have also given some glimpses of a possible brighter future. In some places, pollution levels have dropped to such an extent that people have breathed clean air, or have seen blue skies and clear waters, or have been able to walk and cycle safely with their children — for the first times in their lives …

Opinion polls from around the world show that people want to protect the environment, and preserve the positives that have emerged from the crisis, as we recover …

Decisions made in the coming months can either “lock in” economic development patterns that will do permanent and escalating damage to the ecological systems that sustain all human health and livelihoods, or, if wisely taken, can promote a healthier, fairer, and greener world.”

This manifesto also lays out many other aspects of The Great Reset agenda, including smart cities, travel restrictions, new food systems, a complete transition to green energy and more. But again, the thing that will really facilitate all of these changes is to have a centralized powerbase, and that is the WHO.

The WHO could also mandate individual carbon footprint tracking,⁶ as carbon emissions are claimed to be a primary contributor to climate change. A likely argument would be “We have to rein in our personal carbon footprint because pollution is deadly, and if you don’t, you’re responsible for the death of others.”

Sacrificing selfhood and the rights of individuals to “serve the greater good” is a hallmark call of authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, and they used this “care for others” argument during COVID to pressure people into compliance with everything from lockdowns and social distancing to wearing a mask and getting the jab.

The same narrative is also being used to prop up the “climate emergency.” We’re now told we have to sacrifice our standard of living because we have a responsibility both for others and for the earth itself.

However, while pollution is a reality that needs to be addressed, the solution the totalitarian cabal is offering is a gigantic scam designed to disempower and control everyone but the ones at the very top of the power pyramid, while accomplishing little in terms of producing a cleaner environment, let alone having a distinct effect on climate.

The ESG Scam

One of the globalists’ fraudulent solutions to the purported climate crisis is Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance (ESG) investing, first popularized in 2004.⁷ In more recent years, ESG funds have gained steam and now make up about 10% of all invested assets.⁸

A company’s ESG score is supposed to tell investors how socially conscious the company is, based on its behavior within the environmental, social and corporate sphere. For example, does the company have safeguards in place to protect the environment or policies to address climate change?

How “equitable” is its relationship with employees, suppliers, customers and the local community? And how does it stack up in terms of company leadership, executive pay, audits, internal controls and shareholder rights?

Has the company taken steps to eliminate conflicts of interest that encourage self-dealing by executives? Does it conduct independent audits and is there a traceable line of fiduciary duty? And so on.

ESG investing is supposed to encourage companies to act responsibly, but it’s actually having the opposite effect. Somehow or other, companies are greasing the right hands and getting great ESG ratings, only to later turn out to have the worst governance possible and/or a track record of environmental destruction.⁹

One of the latest in a long line of scandals is that of FTX, a cryptocurrency exchange that went belly up overnight while its CEO, Sam Bankman-Fried absconded with up to $2 billion of client funds.

John Ray, the appointed CEO of FTX’s bankruptcy stated: “Never in my career have I seen such a complete failure of corporate controls and such a complete absence of trustworthy financial information as occurred here.”

FTX’s ESG score really ought to have been nonexistent. Cryptocurrencies are extremely energy-intensive and wasteful (the “E” in the score), customer satisfaction (part of the “S” in the score) within the crypto space had been tanking for over a year, courtesy of the repeated evaporation of wealth.

As for the “G,” FTX had no board of directors, an “irregular ownership structure,” was rife with conflicts of interest and self-dealing, and had no financial controls whatsoever. Bankman-Fried didn’t even keep an accurate list of accounts. Yet at the time of FTX’s demise, it had a higher governance score than Exxon Mobil. As reported by Forbes:¹⁰

“Of the many dimensions of the FTX fiasco, the most shocking is the comprehensive failure of corporate governance, now becoming clear as the bankruptcy process unfolds. Sloppy and likely illegal management practices at FTX have raised doubts that extend beyond the company to call into question the whole crypto premise. They also cast doubt on the integrity of the ESG rating business …

ESG — broadly, let us call it ‘virtuous investing’ — is now a big business in the investment world. ESG ratings … purport to score capitalists (i.e., private-sector profit-driven corporations) against a melange of ‘goodness’ indicia of all sorts. Does the company’s business model help or hurt the Amazon forest?

Does the firm have enough ADA-rated bathrooms? Does it offer paternity-leave to its employees (regardless of gender)? Does it have board members who check all the right diversity boxes? …

ESG has captivated many, on both the ‘buy-side’ of the market … and on the ‘sell-side’ … But ESG is still a fluid concept, and much has been made recently of the inconsistencies and discrepancies in the ratings. For many, the core of ESG is G … Governance is the tip-of-the-spear when it comes to creating sustainable business models. It all starts from the top, which guides every other aspect all the way down …

According to a recent academic study of six prominent ESG rating agencies … ‘ESG ratings from different providers disagree substantially…’ Most of the divergence/confusion arises from differences in measurement methodology and execution. But there is also evidence of bias: ‘we detect that the rater’s overall view of a firm influences the measurement of specific categories’ …

The panoramic failure of FTX this month highlights a flawed governance framework, which today’s simplistic virtue metrics fail to reflect accurately — hence the absurd rankings cited for FTX vs Exxon and others.”

FTX isn’t alone in falling short of expectations though. According to a September 2021 report by climate change think tank InfluenceMap, more than half of the 723 funds marketed using ESG claims failed to meet the Paris Accord rules on carbon emissions and clean energy, and more than 70% of funds with broad ESG goals failed to meet global climate targets.¹¹

Similarly, a May 2021 report¹² by the Economist concluded some of the largest ESG funds in the world are “stuffed full of polluters and sin stocks.” A 2019 report by the Wall Street Journal¹³ also noted, “Eight of the 10 biggest U.S. sustainable funds are invested in oil-and-gas companies, which are regularly slammed by environmental activists.”