France Protestors Are Part Of Global Backlash Against Globalization

French protestors are ripping France’s oppressive carbon-based tax, and intend to topple the French president altogether. This is evidence of a world-wide movement that is totally fed up with global warming fraud and political chicanery. ⁃ TN Editor

The single most effective weapon in the fight against climate change is the tax code – imposing costs on those who emit greenhouse gases, economists say. But as French President Emmanuel Macron learned over the past three weeks, implementing such taxes can be politically explosive.

On Tuesday, France delayed for six months a plan to raise already steep taxes on diesel fuel by 24 cents a gallon and gasoline by about 12 cents a gallon. Macron argued that the taxes were needed to curb climate change by weaning motorists off petroleum products, but violent demonstrations in the streets of Paris and other French cities forced him to backtrack – at least for now.

“No tax is worth putting in danger the unity of the nation,” said Prime Minister Édouard Philippe, who was trotted out to announce the concession.

It was a setback for the French president, who has been trying to carry the torch of climate action in the wake of the Paris accords of December 2015. “When we talk about the actions of the nation in response to the challenges of climate change, we have to say that we have done little,” he said last week.

Macron is hardly alone in his frustration. Leaders in the United States, Canada, Australia and elsewhere have found their carbon pricing efforts running into fierce opposition. But the French reversal was particularly disheartening for climate-policy experts, because it came just as delegates from around the world were gathering in Katowice, Poland, for a major conference designed to advance climate measures.

“Like everywhere else, the question in France is how to find a way of combining ecology and equality,” said Bruno Cautrès, a researcher at the Paris Institute of Political Studies. “Citizens mostly see punitive public policies when it comes to the environment: taxes, more taxes and more taxes after that. No one has the solution, and we can only see the disaster that’s just occurred in France on this question.”

“Higher taxes on energy have always been a hard sell, politically,” said Gregory Mankiw, an economics professor at Harvard University and advocate of carbon taxes. “The members of the American Economic Association are convinced of their virtue. But the median citizen is not.”

In the United States – where energy-related taxes are among the lowest in the developed world – politicians, their constituents and their donors have repeatedly made that clear.

President Bill Clinton proposed a tax on the heat content of fuels as part of his first budget in 1993. Known as the BTU tax, for British thermal unit, it would have raised $70 billion over five years while increasing gasoline prices no more than 7.5 cents a gallon.

But Clinton was forced to retreat in the face of a rebellion in his own party. “I’m not going to vote for a BTU tax in committee or on the floor, ever, anywhere. Period. Exclamation point,” said then-Sen. David Boren, D-Okla.

The state of Washington has also tried – and failed twice – to win support for a carbon tax or carbon “fee.” In 2016, the state’s voters rejected a ballot initiative that would have balanced a carbon tax with other tax cuts. In 2018, a wider coalition sought backing for an initiative that would have poured fee revenue into clean energy projects, job retraining and early retirement plans for affected workers. The fee would have started at $15 a ton and gone up $2 a ton for 10 years. It, too, failed.

To be sure, some climate-conscious countries have adopted carbon taxes, including Chile, Spain, Ukraine, Ireland and nations in Scandinavia. Others have adopted cap-and-trade programs that effectively put prices on carbon emissions.

Only around 12 percent of global emissions are covered by pricing programs such as taxes on the carbon content of fossil fuels or permit trading programs that put a price on emissions, according to the International Monetary Fund.

Policy experts say that to some extent the prospects of carbon taxes may depend on what happens to the money raised.

Using the revenue for deficit reduction, as was planned in France, is a no-no.

“Even in the best of times, carbon taxes must be carefully crafted to avoid political pitfalls,” said Paul Bledsoe, a former Senate Finance Committee staffer and Clinton White House climate adviser. “In particular, much of the revenue raised must be recycled back to middle-income workers. Macron’s approach put the money toward deficit reduction, stoking already simmering class grievances.”

Last year, a group of economists and policy experts – including former treasury secretaries James Baker III and Lawrence Summers and former secretary of state George Shultz – advocated a tax-and-dividend approach. It would feature a carbon tax of $40 a ton, affecting coal, oil and natural gas. The revenue would be used to pay dividends to households. Progressive tax rates would mean more money for lower- and middle-income earners.

“Because the revenue is rebated equally to everyone, most people will get more back than they pay in carbon taxes,” said Mankiw, who is part of the group. “So if people understood the plan, and believed it would be carried out as written, it should be politically popular.”

So far the group, called the Climate Leadership Council, has not been able to generate much support from members of Congress.

But Canada is about to offer a test case.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has unveiled a “backstop” carbon tax of $20 a ton, to take effect in January, for the four Canadian provinces that do not already have one.

Trudeau was elected partly on a promise of this sort of measure, but it’s costing him more political capital than expected. Conservative premiers oppose the plan, which looks set to become an election issue.

Trudeau’s policy, however, is designed to withstand criticism. About 90 percent of the revenue from the backstop tax will be paid back to Canadians in the form of annual “climate action incentive” payments. Because of the progressive tax rates, about 70 percent of Canadians will get back more than they paid. If they choose to be more energy efficient, they could save even more money.

The first checks will arrive shortly before Canadian elections.

Climate policy doesn’t only suffer from lack of enthusiasm. It also arouses the ire of right-wing populist movements.

Many of the people most angry at Macron’s tax come from right-wing rural areas. The German right-wing opposition party Alternative for Germany has called climate change a hoax. And in Brazil, a new populist president had indicated he will develop, not preserve, the Amazon forests that pull CO2 out of the air and pump out oxygen.

President Donald Trump, who has said he does not believe climate science, also took to Twitter to say Macron’s setback showed Trump was right to spurn the Paris climate agreement.

“I am glad that my friend @EmmanuelMacron and the protestors in Paris have agreed with the conclusion I reached two years ago. The Paris Agreement is fatally flawed because it raises the price of energy for responsible countries while whitewashing some of the worst polluters in the world,” he wrote. “American taxpayers – and American workers – shouldn’t pay to clean up others countries’ pollution.”

Fuel taxes, however, generate revenue that stays inside home countries without going to pay for others’ pollution. And the Paris agreement placed much greater responsibilities on developing countries than ever before.

A member of Trump’s beachhead transition team at the Energy Department also took to Twitter to celebrate the collapse of Macron’s fuel tax plan.

Read full story here…




Democrats Introduce Massive Carbon Tax Legislation

It’s the “The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act of 2018” and it will face an uphill battle even though the House has a majority of Democrats. The mere fact that it is being reintroduced again demonstrates the persistence of global warming activists. ⁃ TN Editor
 

Democrat Florida Congressman Ted Deutch has introduced a carbon tax bill to impose a new national energy tax on the American people. The bill is a massive tax increase and would increase utility bills and the price of all products and services. In true politician-speak, Deutch has dubbed it “The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act of 2018.”

Voters across the USA — even in blue areas — have consistently rejected carbon taxes when faced with the issue at the ballot box. See the timeline here. On top of that, Paris is burning as hundreds of thousands of French citizens — yes even the French — protest that country’s own carbon taxes.

Despite all this, Democrat Deutch just can’t take a hint. Let’s look at the details of Deutch’s horrible bill:

Imposes a massive and continually racheting national energy tax, allowing politicians to raise taxes without ever having to vote. Just like the French proposal that starts with a big tax that gets more oppressive with time, the bill imposes a $15 per ton carbon (energy) tax, increasing by $10 per year into the future. Within five years the tax would automatically rise to $55 per ton. For reference, the carbon tax handily rejected by blue Washington state voters in November started at $15 and ratcheted up by $2 per year. Perhaps Deutch thinks the voters just want to be taxed at even higher rates.

Shovels taxpayer money into a giant vat for IRS, EPA, and State Department bureaucrats. The IRS and EPA will develop a cozy relationship — and what’s not to love about that — to siphon funds from the vat of taxpayer funds for what the bill calls “Administrative Expenses” and “Other Administrative Expenses.” For reasons unclear, State Department bureaucrats will also have access to the vat of taxpayer funds. What could go wrong?

Gives broad powers to IRS chief to find new products and entitites to be carbon-taxed. The IRS is directed to work with the EPA in order to find more tax targets: “Any manufactured or agricultural product which the [Treasury] Secretary in consultation with the [EPA] Administrator determines” is a tax target. The newly-carbon-taxed items will be added to the long list already specified in the bill: Iron, steel, steel mill products including pipe and tube, aluminum, cement, glass, fiberglass, pulp, paper, chemicals, and industrial ceramics.

Gives broad powers to the EPA chief. The bill gives czar-like powers to the EPA chief including the power to impose “monitoring, reporting, and record-keeping requirements” on Americans. The bill also gives the EPA chief power to conduct investigations and force “information collection.”

Establishes a creepy DC-based “Carbon Dividend Trust Fund” that seeks a backdoor two-child limit on families. The “Carbon Dividend Trust Fund” leftovers will somehow be routed from DC on a per-person basis and households with more than two children are considered unworthy: The legislative language specifically imposes “a limit of 2 children per household.”

Here it is, straight from the bill text:

“A carbon dividend payment is one pro-rata share for each adult and half a pro-rata share for each child under 19 years old, with a limit of 2 children per household, of amounts available for the month in the Carbon Dividend Trust Fund.”

Gives broad powers to the Treasury Department to issue even more rules and regulations. The bill language states:

“The Secretary shall promulgate rules, guidance, and regulations useful and necessary to implement the Carbon Dividend Trust Fund.”

Imposes income tax on the carbon tax “dividend.” Yes, the government fleeces the taxpayers and sends the carbon tax money to DC, where it is siphoned off by bureaucrats. Then a leftover “dividend” is supposedly sent out to the countryside where it is then subject to income tax! Here is the bill language:

 “(D) FEE TREATMENT OF PAYMENTS. — Amounts paid under this subsection shall be includible in gross income.

A tax on a tax, which will likely increase the complexity of your annual tax filing. Here’s an idea — how about not taking the money from taxpayers in the first place?

Greases the skids for a European-style Value Added Tax, a cash cow for big government by erecting a complex carbon tax border adjustment scheme.

Authorizes armed carbon tax enforcement agents. The bill authorizes armed carbon tax enforcement agents to collect the new tax on energy used by Americans. As if customs enforcement doesn’t already have enough on its plate, the bill states:

“The revenues collected under this chapter may be used to supplement appropriations made available in fiscal years 2018 and thereafter –

 “(1) to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, in such amounts as are necessary to administer the carbon border fee adjustment.”

Authorizes certain government sharing of Social Security information. The bill states:

“(B) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY. — The Commissioner of Social Security shall, on written request, disclose to officers and employees of the Department of the Treasury individual identity information which has been disclosed to the Social Security Administration as is necessary to administer section 9512

Americans for Tax Reform opposes the bill. “The proposed carbon tax is a gas tax and a tax on your electric bill. Worse, it increases automatically year after year so the politicians can raise your taxes without ever having to vote,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. “The tax will be hidden in the price of all goods and services. A hidden tax. A permanent tax. An uncontrolled tax that increases without end.”

The text of Democrat Deutch’s carbon tax bill can be found here.
 
Read full story here…



Trudeau’s Follies: The Coming Carbon Tax Showdown In Canada

Canadians who see through Technocrat PM Justin Trudeau’s carbon tax are getting some traction to spread the protest to a wider audience. Carbon tax is a disingenuous fraud that takes money from citizens and gives it to globalist cronies. ⁃ TN Editor

Not so long ago, Justin Trudeau’s energy strategy looked so simple. It rested on a Grand Bargain. Canada would build a pipeline or two, and the citizens would do penance in the form of carbon taxes that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Everybody –environmentalists, the oil industry and right-thinking Canadians – would be happy.

Today, that bargain is looking mighty shaky. Opponents of Trans Mountain aren’t interested in it. Alberta’s Premier, Rachel Notley, will probably lose her job next year because she has delivered carbon taxes but no pipeline. Her nemesis, Jason Kenney, is planning to abolish the carbon tax as soon as he beats her (as is likely). He points out that it has utterly failed to secure a social licence for pipelines. “Very expensive political theatre for Albertans,” he calls it. And now, the anti-carbon-tax crusader Doug Ford could well become premier of Ontario. It’s hard to see how Mr. Trudeau will impose his grand bargain on the provinces if Alberta and Ontario are in open revolt.

So what about the rest of us? Liberals, environmentalists and economists tell us carbon taxes are a virtually painless way to get us to act virtuously, by cutting down on fossil fuels. They are a good tax. Unfortunately, too many of us don’t like them anyway. As Mr. Ford likes to say whenever he has a chance, “A tax is a tax is a tax.”

 Carbon taxes are allegedly revenue-neutral because the money is returned to taxpayers in the form of rebates or offset by lower taxes elsewhere. But the reality is different. In fact, governments can’t keep their greedy mitts off the money. Even the model province of British Columbia is now diverting part of its provincial carbon tax to fund tax credits for preferred groups, such as filmmakers. In Alberta, only about a quarter of the amount raised by the carbon tax is rebated to taxpayers.t Sadly, there is a vast difference between the pure world of economic models and the grubby world of politics.

Another problem with carbon taxes is that you can’t possibly make them high enough to be effective. If you did you’d be voted out of office. Mr. Trudeau’s national carbon pricing scheme would start at $10 a ton, going up to $50 by 2022 – enough to be a nuisance, but not nearly enough to affect consumer behaviour in any meaningful way. Achieving real behavioural change, say environmental economists, would cost many times more. According to Simon Fraser University economist Mark Jaccard, carbon taxes can only have real impact if governments also introduce a bunch of costly and heavy-handed regulations.

In other words, carbon taxes can’t save the planet. Despite what politicians tell you, they basically amount to useless virtue-signalling. But Mr. Trudeau, Ms. Notley and Environment Minister Catherine McKenna aren’t going to tell you this because they want you to believe they have a plan and that the plan will work.

As the date for Mr. Trudeau’s carbon tax gets closer, taxpayers might start asking an even more basic question: What difference will this make in the big scheme of things? As India and China and the whole developing world ramp up energy use, and the U.S. extracts more fossil fuel than ever in its history, why are we getting this darn tax?

Read full story here…




Carbon Taxes Will Increase, Not Decrease, Global Carbon Emissions

If empirical evidence proves that carbon taxes increase global CO2 emissions, then there is clearly another agenda for calling for their implementation. Technocrats seek control and societal engineering, not protecting or saving the planet.  TN Editor

As the hysteria over global warming heats up, carbon taxes have become the “cool” option.  Environmentalists love them.  So do politicians, who are more than happy to raise taxes while scoring political points.

Carbon taxes, or other analogous pricing schemes, are now prevalent in Western Europe, and are making headway in North America.  For example, California recently joined forces with the Canadian Provinces of Ontario and Quebec to create an integrated cap-and-trade carbon market.

On top of this, many well-known economists support carbon taxes, thinking they’re the best way to mitigate man’s contribution to climate change.  A new report written by thirteen leading economists under the direction of professors Nicholas Stern and Joseph Stiglitz—who won a Nobel Prize in 2001—recommends the adoption of a global carbon tax.

The tax would value carbon emissions somewhere between 50 and 100 USD per ton by 2030, and would cost upwards of $4 trillion.  Theoretically, the tax would raise the cost of using carbon-intensive sources of energy, thereby nudging producers to switch from fossil fuels to “green energy” sources like wind and solar power.  Likewise, it would raise the cost of electricity, thus creating an incentive to use energy more efficiently.

This makes sense in theory.  There’s just one problem.  It won’t work.

In reality, carbon taxes are just that: taxes.  They’re a money-grab disguised with good intentions.  Worse still, carbon taxes will not reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

Instead, adopting carbon taxes in the West will actually raise global carbon emissions by offshoring economic activity from relatively environmentally-friendly places, like the USA and Germany, to places with lax environmental laws, like China:

Open Markets & Offshoring, or How Carbon Taxes Raise Global CO2 Emissions

Wealth is like water: it flows to the lowest possible point, and continues to do so until the level is equal.  This is why consumers chase cheaper goods, why investors look for undervalued companies, and why multinationals offshore to cheaper markets.  This last point—offshoring—is why Western carbon taxes will actually increase global emissions.

The underlying logic is fairly straightforward.  Pretend there are only two countries in the world: Germany and China.  The cost of doing business in them is identical, however China’s economy is twice as carbon-intensive as Germany’s.  In other words, it costs $1 to build a widget in either country, but the widget’s carbon footprint in Germany is only 1 kilogram of carbon, compared to 2 kilograms in China.

Clearly it’s better for the environment if widgets are made in Germany.

But Germany’s not satisfied: they want to further reduce their carbon emissions.  Therefore, they impose a carbon tax of 10 percent per widget.  This raises the cost of making widgets in Germany to $1.10.  Ideally, German widget-makers will invest in energy-efficient machinery, and the government can use the tax revenues to plant more trees.

Sadly Germany’s politicians forgot something: Germany is an open market.  This means that German consumers can simply buy Chinese widgets—which still only cost $1 to make.

At this point, Germany’s widget-makers have two options: (1) they can foreclose, since they’re unable to compete with artificially cheaper Chinese widgets, or (2) they can move their factories to China and import the widgets back into Germany.  Either way, China ends up building enough widgets for both China and Germany, and Germany doubles its carbon emissions.

Now imagine what our example would look like if China built widgets for $0.1 rather than $1, and they generated three times as much emissions per widget of Germany, since this better reflects reality.  Would a carbon tax in Germany have a hope of reducing global emissions?  No.

Empirical Evidence Suggests that Carbon Taxes Will Increase Global CO2 Emissions

Not only does the logic show that carbon taxes in the West will invariably increase global CO2 emissions, but so does the empirical evidence.

To begin with, data from the World Bank reveals that China, and other developing countries, produce far more carbon per dollar of economic output (at purchasing power parity) than do Western nations.  For example, China produced 0.6 kilograms of carbon dioxide per dollar of economic output in 2014, whereas America produced 0.3 kg of CO2, and Germany produced just 0.2 kg.

On top of this, China shows no signs of decreasing its emissions any time soon: China’s currently building hundreds of new coal-fired power plants, which will ensure its CO2 emissions continue to rise for decades to come.

Taken together, these facts suggest that every factory pushed out of the West due to carbon taxes actually increases global emissions dramatically, and this will continue to be the case for decades to come.

A number of other studies came to the same conclusion.

One important paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that carbon reductions alleged to the Kyoto Protocol were more than offset by increase emissions from imported products.  Glen Peters of the Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research said this of the research:

Our study shows for the first time that emissions from increased production of internationally traded products have more than offset the emissions reductions achieved under the Kyoto Protocol … this suggests that the current focus on territorial emissions in a subset of countries may be ineffective at reducing global emissions without some mechanisms to monitor and report emissions from the production of imported goods and services.

Essentially, local carbon taxes are not a useful tool for mitigating a nation’s carbon footprint.  If anything they actually raise global emissions.  The paper also notes that China accounts for some 75 percent of the developed world’s offshored emissions.

Another study published in The Guardian, found that “50 percent of the rise in Chinese emissions are the result of goods for foreign markets.”  This was echoed in a different study from the scientific journal Geophysical Research Letters, which found that cuts in carbon emissions by developed countries have been cancelled out “many times over” by increases in imported goods from developing countries—especially China.

Another study found that all of the trumpeted carbon reductions in places like Germany fall apart under closer scrutiny:

According to standard date, developed countries can claim to have reduced their collective emissions by almost 2% between 1990 and 2008. But once the carbon cost of imports have been added to each country, and exports subtracted – the true change has been an increase of 7%. If Russia and Ukraine – which cut their CO2 emissions rapidly in the 1990s due to economic collapse – are excluded, the rise is 12%.

In the same period, UK emissions fell by 28 million tonnes, but when imports and exports are taken into account, the domestic footprint has risen by more than 100 million tonnes. Europe achieved a 6% cut in CO2 emissions, but when outsourcing is considered that is reduced to 1%.

Together, these studies conclusively show that the offshoring of Western industry to China has actually increased global carbon emissions.  It is unreasonable to assume that a carbon tax, which will further increase the incentive for business owners to offshore, will magically reduce global carbon emissions.  There is no silver bullet.  Carbon taxes are a pipe dream.

Carbon Taxes Won’t Reduce Global CO2 Emissions—Now What?

Carbon taxes will not reduce global carbon emissions—they’ll only make things worse.  So what should we do?

First, I think we should stop and put things in perspective.  No matter your opinion on climate chance, we should begin with the assertion that carbon dioxide is not a harmful chemical in the traditional sense of the word.  It’s actually essential for all life on earth—plants need it to live.

The obsession with carbon emissions is allowing many real polluters to fly under the radar.  For example, fertilizers and pesticides runoff from our farms is creating gigantic “dead zones” downstream.  Algal blooms are choking out life a the mouths of major rivers throughout the world.  Likewise, deforestation is (often unnecessarily) stripping the world of its most precious habitats.

These are real environmental problems that aren’t getting attention because carbon dioxide is so ardently demonized.  It’s time we put things in perspective, triaged the situation, and started frying the biggest fish.

Read full story here…




Governments Begin Testing Cryptocurrencies As Cash Use Plummets

The globalist drive to remove cash from society is aided by the rise and acceptance of cryptocurrencies throughout the world. The ultimate touchstone for digital currency will be energy, which is the ultimate controller of economic activity.  TN Editor

Riksbank, Sweden’s central bank, is taking a serious look at Bitcoin. As cash use plummets and the amount of currency in circulation dwindles, central banks are looking to cryptocurrencies as government-backed money.

In Sweden, the number of banknotes and coins in circulation has fallen to its lowest level in three decades. Riksbank estimates that cash transactions made up only 15 percent of all retail transactions last year. That number is down from 40 percent in 2010, thanks in large part to massively popular mobile payment services. That leaves the bank wondering if a technology similar to that of Bitcoin’s could be implemented in Sweden.

Riksbank isn’t the only central bank taking a serious look at blockchain, the technology that makes Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies run. These systems, also called distributed ledgers, rely on networks of computers, rather than a central authority like a bank, to verify and record transactions on a shared, virtually incorruptible database. Government bankers across the world believe this has the potential to replace cash and make other payment systems more efficient. – Technology Review

Riksbank is investigating not only distributed-ledger technology (which it describes as unproven yet “progressing incredibly rapidly”) but also traditional, centralized accounting methods for its “e-krona” (pdf) project. Many central banks are looking into this type of currency, but Sweden appears to be at the forefront of the movement.

According to Rod Garrattan economics professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, a cryptocurrency that’s available to all consumers “opens up a whole host of issues” and would pose new challenges for makers of monetary policy.

First, there’s the question of who, exactly, should verify the transactions and maintain the distributed ledger. Even if that’s solved, the new system would be, in a sense, too streamlined, making it easier for bank runs to occur in a moment of crisis or panic. In most current financial systems, large-scale withdrawals of funds are naturally slowed by the time it takes for a central bank to produce the paper money people are demanding. But if the currency is purely digital, no such brakes exist—a panicked citizenry could empty their accounts almost instantly, leaving an entire country’s banking system all but penniless.

A new journal article (pdf) published by the Bank of International Settlements, a kind of central bank for central banks, suggests a more straightforward approach than trying to use cryptocurrency to replace cash. In the article, Garratt and Morten Bech, a researcher at the BIS, draw an important distinction between a “retail” cryptocurrency like FedCoin and a “wholesale” one that would only be used by banks. –Technology Review

China’s central bank has also begun testing of a digital currency. Speeches and research papers from officials at the People’s Bank of China show that the bank’s strategy is to introduce the digital currency alongside China’s renminbi. But there is currently no timetable for this, and the bank seems to be proceeding cautiously.

But the main issue for governments is that they are losing their grip and control on currency. Sweden’s dwindling cash usage is increasing reliance on mobile payment systems risks marginalizing people who don’t use them or can’t access them. Those systems are also run by private companies, which means that commercial forces, rather than government policies, could end up determining how effectively the financial system serves people and the economy.

Read full story here…




ICLEI Drives World’s Cities Into Global Carbon Reporting Machine

The Carbonn Climate Registry (CCR) was founded in November 2010 at the World Mayors Summit on Climate in Mexico City, but it is operated by the Bonn Center for Local Climate Action and Reporting. The latter is hosted by the ICLEI World Secretariat, also in Bonn. Accordingly, CCR states on its website:

The carbonn® Climate Registry is the leading global reporting platform for cities, towns and regions tackling climate change. It helps local and other subnational governments to track and report on their targets, actions and performance. This platform allows for exchange, learning and benchmarking among its 950+ registered entities while providing data that feeds into global climate negotiations through ICLEI as focal point for the Local Governments and Municipal Authorities constituency.

This video is a must-view intro to CCR’s program:

CCR has rifled through ICLEI’s city membership to get 950 cities from 82 countries to join their reporting scheme. They now claim to be covering 9.5 percent of the global population and 17,5 percent of the world’s urban population.

It also claims to be a ‘prime data partner’ of  UNFCCC’s Non State Actor Zone for Climate Action (NAZCA) Platform (NAZCA), another carbon reporting organization. NAZCA claims that over one-third of the 2,000 largest companies in the world are pledged to Carbon action.

Not surprisingly, CCR and NAZCA both claim to be ‘voluntary’ organizations:

The carbonn Climate Registry is the voluntary and public reporting platform for local and other subnational governments, enabling these entities to report and monitor their climate and energy commitments, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions performance, plans as well as climate change mitigation and adaptation actions.

Download CCR’s 5-year overview report here.

 




Bitcoin

The Global Elites’ Secret Plan for Cryptocurrencies

As an economic system, Technocracy needs an appropriate type of currency as an accounting system, and blockchain technology is a likely foil. However, Technocrats in the 1930s said that energy was the only appropriate accounting system. As I read this, I would fully expect to see a global blockchain system having some relation to, or ‘peg’, to either carbon or energy itself. Either way, the days of the ‘wild west’ for Bitcoin may be in jeopardy.  TN Editor

Interest in Bitcoin is red hot at the moment. It’s impossible to open a website, listen to a podcast, or watch a video in the financial space without hearing about the meteoric rise in the price of Bitcoin.

Maybe you know a “Bitcoin millionaire” who bought five hundred Bitcoins a few years back for $50,000 and is now sitting on a Bitcoin fortune worth over $2,000,000. It’s true, those people actually do exist.

Yet the crypto-hysteria is distracting you from a scary truth no one is talking about. There is every indication that governments, regulators, tax authorities, and the global elite are moving in for the crypto-kill. The future of Bitcoin may be a dystopia in which Big Brother controls what’s called “the blockchain” and decides when and how you can buy or sell anything and everything.

Furthermore, cryptocurrency technology could be the very mechanism used by global elites to replace the dollar based financial system.

In 1958, Mao Zedong, the leader of the Communist Party of China and China’s dictatorial leader was confronted with demoralized intellectuals and artists who were alienated by Communist rule. As a policy response, he declared a new policy of intellectual freedom.

Mao declared, “The policy of letting a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend is designed to promote the flourishing of the arts and the progress of science.”

This declaration is referred to as the “Hundred Flowers Campaign” (often misquoted as the “thousand flowers campaign”). The response to Mao’s invitation was an enthusiastic outpouring of creative thought and artistic expression.

What came next was no surprise to those familiar with the operation of state power. Once the intellectuals and artists emerged, it was easy for Mao’s secret police to round them up, kill and torture some, and send others to “reeducation camps” where they learned ideological conformity.

The Hundred Flowers Movement was a trap for those who placed their trust in the state. It was also a taste of things to come in the form of the much more violent and comprehensive Cultural Revolution of 1964–1974 in which all traces of Chinese bourgeoisie culture and much of China’s historical legacy were eradicated.

Something similar is going on with Bitcoin and the Distributed ledger technology (DLT) today. Governments have been patiently watching blockchain technology develop and grow outside their control for the past eight years.

Libertarian supporters of blockchain celebrate this lack of government control. Yet, their celebration is premature, and their belief in the sustainability of powerful systems outside government control is naïve.

Governments don’t like competition especially when it comes to money. Governments know they cannot stop blockchain, in fact they don’t want to. What they want is to control it using powers of regulation, taxation, and investigation and ultimately more coercive powers including arrest and imprisonment of individuals who refuse to obey government mandates with regard to blockchain.

Blockchain does not exist in the ether (despite the name of one cryptocurrency) and it does not reside on Mars. Blockchain depends on critical infrastructure including servers, telecommunications networks, the banking system, and the power grid, all of which are subject to government control.

A group of major companies, all regulated by government, have announced a joint effort to develop an open-source blockchain as a uniform standard for all blockchain applications. The group includes JPMorgan, Wells Fargo, State Street, SWIFT, Cisco, Accenture, the London Stock Exchange and Mitsubishi UFJ Financial. That’s not exactly five guys in hoodies working in a garage. That’s a sign of the corporate-state consortium taking over.

An elite U.S. legal institution called the Uniform Law Commission, that proposes model laws intended for adoption in all fifty states, has released its latest proposal called the “Uniform Regulation of Virtual Currency Businesses Act.”

This new law will not only provide a regulatory scheme for state regulators, but will also be a platform for litigation by private plaintiffs and class action lawyers seeking recourse against real or imagined abuses by digital coin exchanges and facilities. Once litigation begins, anonymity is the first casualty.

Cryptocurrencies and the Super-Elites Plan

Consider the following additional developments:

On August 1, 2017, the SEC announced “Guidance on Regulation of Initial Coin Offerings,” the first step toward requiring fundraising through blockchain-based tokens to register with the government.

On August 1, 2017, the World Economic Forum, host body to the Davos conference of global super-elites, published a paper entitled “Four reasons to question the hype around blockchain.”

On August 7, 2017, China announced they will begin using blockchain to collect taxes and issue “electronic invoices” to citizens there.

Perhaps most portentously, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has weighed in. In a special report dated June 2017, the IMF had this to say about blockchain:

“Distributed ledger technology (DLT), in particular, could spur change in the financial sector. …. DLT can be categorized as “permissionless” or “permissioned” depending on who can participate in the consensus-driven validation process. Permissionless DLTs allow anyone to read, transact on, and participate in the validation process. These open schemes (that underlie Bitcoin, for instance) could be very disruptive if successfully implemented. By contrast, in permissioned DLTs, the validation process is controlled by a pre-selected group of participants (“consortium”) or managed by one organization (“fully-private”), and thus serve more as a common communications platform.” (emphasis added).

IMF releases require expert translation because they are never written in plain English, and the real meaning is always hidden between the lines. But, the thrust of this report language is clear. The IMF favors “permissioned” systems over “open schemes.” The IMF also favors control by a “pre-selected group of participants” or “one organization,” rather than allowing “anyone” to participate.

This paper should be viewed as the first step in the IMF’s plan to migrate its existing form of world money, the special drawing right or SDR, onto a DLT platform controlled by the IMF. In time, all other forms of money would be banned.

These and other developments all point toward an elite group including the IMF, JPMorgan, the Davos crowd, the IRS, SEC, and other agencies converging to shut down the existing free-wheeling blockchain ecosphere, and replace it with a “permissioned” system under “consortium” control.

Big Brother is coming to the blockchain.

Regards,
Jim Rickards
for The Daily Reckoning

Ed. Note: Subscribers to The Daily Reckoning will get exclusive, forward-leaning commentary sent straight to their inboxes every day. What you’re reading here on our site is just a slice of the independent forecasts we offer our readers. Signing up is easy, costs you nothing — and aims to be the most entertaining and informative part of your day.

Read full story here…




Bitcoin Geneie

Cashless: The Globalist One World Currency Will Look A Lot Like Bitcoin

Brandon Smith is one of the first to suggest that the global banking oligarchy appears headed toward a single digital currency that resembles Bitcoin. I fully concur that this is the primary reason for removing physical cash from societies around the world. First, it forces everyone into the digital system and second, it paves the way to convert all the digital currencies into a single currency. Lastly, I fully expect that energy will be the touchstone regulator of the entire system.  TN Editor

This week the International Monetary Fund shocked some economic analysts with an announcement that America was “no longer first in the world” as a major economic growth engine. This stinging assertion falls exactly in line with the narrative out of the latest G20 summit; that the U.S. is fading away leaving the door open for countries like Germany and China to join forces and fill the power void. I wrote about this rising relationship between these two nations as well as the ongoing controlled demolition of America’s economy in my article ‘The New World Order Will Begin With Germany And China’.

I find it interesting that the IMF is once again taking the lead on perpetuating the image of a failing U.S., just as they often push for the concept of a single global currency system to replace the dollar as the world reserve. The most common faulty counter-argument I run into when outlining the globalist agenda to supplant the dollar with the Special Drawing Rights basket system is that “the IMF is a U.S. government controlled organization that would never undermine U.S. authority.” Obviously, the people who make this argument have been thoroughly duped.

The IMF is constantly and actively undermining America’s economic position, because the IMF is NOT an American controlled organization; its loyalty is to globalism as an ideology as well as the international financiers that dominate central banking. America’s supposed “veto power” within the IMF is incidental and meaningless — it has not stopped the IMF from chasing the replacement of the the dollar structure and forming the fiscal ties that stand as the root of what they sometimes call the “global economic reset.”

To illustrate how the IMF narrative supports the globalist narrative, I suggest comparing the 2009 “predictions” of George Soros on China replacing the U.S. as the world’s economic engine to the IMF’s latest analysis on the decline of America.

The IMF cares only about centralizing everything, from currency to trade to governance. If the sacrifice of the old world system (the U.S. dollar) is required to create their new world system, then that is what they will do. If you have read my article ‘The Federal Reserve Is A Saboteur — And The “Experts” Are Oblivious’, then you understand that the Fed is also perfectly on board with this plan for a global reset. The central bankers, regardless of the nation they happen to reside, stick together and function as agents of larger controlling organisms like the Bank for International Settlements.

The agenda is not really veiled in secrecy, as it has been openly admitted to on numerous occasions by globalist media outlets. Mohamed El-Erian, former CEO of PIMCO, recently praised the concept of using the IMF SDR as a world currency mechanism and as a means to combat “the rise of populism.” However, the most “honest” of these incidences of admission was, of course, the article Get Ready For The Phoenix published in the Rothschild controlled magazine The Economist in 1988; an article which announced the beginning of a new global currency mechanism using the SDR as a bridge starting in 2018.

I have noticed in the past month that there has been a concerted disinformation campaign on the internet attempting to debunk the article from The Economist by stating that it “never really existed” and is merely a product of conspiracy websites. So, I will put that claim to rest right now, permanently, by pointing out that magazine and research archives completely unrelated to “conspiracy theory” have the Phoenix issue on record. It is undeniable — the article was indeed published by The Economist and does in fact exist.

Moving on…

Critics of the notion of a single global monetary framework tend to dismiss any evidence of the plan, usually due to their poor understanding of how currencies rise and fall and a poor understanding of the current monetary climate. They will argue that the SDR basket does not have the capacity to replace the dollar and that there is no other mechanism in the world with the liquidity to do so. In other words, “Where is this global currency going to come from?”

The fact is, it already exists, and it is right under their noses.

When The Economist wrote about a global currency being launched in 2018, they perhaps did not have a precise inkling back then on how it would come about. They do mention clearly the strategy of using the IMF’s SDR as a stepping stone to that global currency, calling it the “Phoenix,” as an example. They also mention the decline of the U.S. as being necessary in the wake of this shift into complete centralization.

These two events are taking place right now, with the American economy in steady and ever steeper destabilization, as well as the rise of the SDR basket as a “stopgap” for nations seeking to decouple from the dollar as the world reserve. But what about the currency itself? The SDR might be the framework that will reign in various nations under one nefarious economic umbrella, allowing the IMF to dictate currency exchange rates at will until their one world system can be established, but what will the average person ultimately be using as a unit of trade and how will the globalists maintain monetary subjugation over the public?

Cryptocurrency and the creation of blockchain technology is the answer.

When The Economist wrote about a global currency being initiated in 2018, they were not making a prediction, but a proclamation — a self fulfilling prophecy. This does not mean that the new currency will develop in an obvious and open way. In reality, I can’t think of very many 4th generation psy-ops as clever as cryptocurrencies.

Read full story here…




Xi Jinping Set For Big Gamble With China’s Carbon Trading Market

As a maturing Technocracy, China is following the prescribed course of action to control carbon and hence, energy. The carbon trading market has thus far failed in every instance, but that does not deter scientists who are certain that the ‘science is settled’. ⁃ TN Editor

As other countries look to China to take the lead in fighting global warming after President Trump’s rejection of the Paris climate agreement, President Xi Jinping is pushing ahead with an ambitious plan to build the world’s largest market for carbon emissions permits.

The start of a national carbon trading market in China by late this year has been years in the making, but is now shaping up as Mr. Xi’s big policy retort to Mr. Trump’s decision to quit the Paris accord. The Chinese government said in a greenhouse gas policy guide released on Wednesday that the 2017 start was on track.

“Carbon trading on a national scale will send a signal to the world that China is serious about this,” said Wang Yi, a professor at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing who also belongs to the national legislature and advises the government on climate policy.

But this is a high-visibility, high-stakes gamble for Mr. Xi. He seems eager to take the initiative from the United States on trade, multilateral cooperation and climate change. His record on the environment and market reforms, though, is mixed, and China’s carbon trading plan is not a sure bet to succeed.

Europe and California already use this cap-and-trade approach, which sets a ceiling for greenhouse-gas emissions and allows businesses to buy and sell emissions permits in the hope of unleashing market competition to save energy and embrace clean technology. But no one has tried this on the scale the government envisions for China, the world’s leading source of carbon emissions.

Making the trade run smoothly could take years and test Mr. Xi’s vows to let markets expand and to curtail polluting industries. Major setbacks in the nascent market could embarrass China and undermine global support for using cap-and-trade measures to reduce the greenhouse gases that are causing warming.

Read full story here…




Jerry Brown

Gov. Jerry Brown Heads To China On Cap And Trade Mission

California will tackle Global Warming and carbon mitigation all by itself as its Governor seeks to make his own deal with China. There is little wonder why some Californians refer to their own state as the ‘PROC’ – People’s Republic of California.  TN Editor

California Governor Jerry Brown said on Thursday he will discuss merging carbon trading markets in his state and China when he travels to Asia later this week, a sign of the governor’s ambition to influence global climate change policy.

Brown discussed his plans in a telephone interview after U.S. President Donald Trump announced he would withdraw the United States from the landmark 2015 Paris climate accord, a global agreement to fight climate change. The move fulfilled a major Trump campaign pledge, but drew condemnation from U.S. allies and business leaders.

Brown, who vigorously opposes the United States’ withdrawal from the pact, lambasted Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris accord as “insane.”

He has been working with states and provinces around the world to set voluntary agreements to address global warming. The governor heads to China on Friday for meetings focused on climate change.

California has the largest carbon trading system in the United States and has frequently hosted officials from China, which has launched seven pilot regional trading schemes.

China also plans to roll out a nationwide market later this year, but the launch faces possible delays amid unreliable data and other regulatory problems, according to a government researcher.

California’s system, which is known as “cap and trade,” is already linked to Canada’s Quebec market.

“I think that is a heavy lift to include Chinese provinces, but we are definitely taking that possibility very seriously,” Brown said.

“We want to make sure it has full integrity and know exactly what’s going on. And we can’t say that today,” he said. “Maybe we don’t put it right in the same cap-and-trade regime, maybe some parallel regime,” he added. “I am going to discuss that with the highest officials in China this week.”

Read full story here…