1

Sweden Ditches Agenda 2030’s Climate Change Scam

Ulf Kristersson was elected Sweden’s Prime Minister on October 17, 2022 and promptly eliminated the entire Ministry of Climate and Environment, marking the first time in 35 years that Sweden does not have a specific climate ministry. Instead of following through on plans to implement Agenda 2030, the new government is prioritizing nuclear power initiatives that will make it increasingly difficult to shut down existing plants while using €36 billion to build new nuclear power stations.

On 17 October 2022, Ulf Kristersson was elected Sweden’s Prime Minister.  The next day Prime Minister Kristersson made it clear there would be no climate and environment minister – he dissolved the Ministry of the Environment. Environmental issues have been relocated to the Ministry of Enterprise and Innovation.

Two weeks before, the Ministry of the Environment Sweden issued a press release stating it was “supporting efforts of developing countries on emission reductions, climate adaptation, capacity-building and technology transfer.”  In other words, supporting the implementation of Agenda 2030.

In June 2019, the World Economic Forum (“WEF”) and the United Nations (“UN”) signed a strategic partnership framework to accelerate the implementation of the 2030 Agenda.  WEF has a Strategic Intelligence platform which includes Agenda 2030’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals (“SDGs”). You can explore the interactive map for SDG13 (climate action) HERE or the map for “climate change” HERE and it will soon become obvious that the “climate change” agenda’s aim is not to protect wildlife or the environment nor is it about “saving the planet.”

Republished from Armstrong Economics

New Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson is not heeding to the Green agenda. He promptly eliminated the entire Ministry of Climate and Environment, marking the first time in 35 years that Sweden does not have a specific climate ministry. People are crying that the world will crumble without funding bureaucrats who pretend they have the ability to alter the weather cycle with enough funding.

Klaus Schwab’s plans for Agenda 2030 are in jeopardy. “Environmental issues are going to be given a disadvantage at the same time when we have a huge challenge in Sweden when it comes to biodiversity and forestry,” stated Stockholm University professor Karin Bäckstrand. “We won’t meet the Agenda 2030 goals on biodiversity.”

Democratic leader Ebba Busch will serve as the new Minister for Energy, and 26-year-old Liberal Romina Pourmokhtari will serve as the Minister for the Environment. The Nationalist Sweden Democrats do not support the goal of achieving net zero emissions.

Instead, the new government is prioritising nuclear power initiatives that will make it increasingly difficult to shut down existing plants while using €36 billion to build new nuclear power stations. The new government is also considering reopening two nuclear power plants that discontinued operations in recent years. Yet another example of how Agenda 2030 and Schwab’s plan to alter the world will fail.

Read full article here…




Louisiana Strikes Blow Against BlackRock’s Radical ESG Climate Policies

Louisiana State Treasurer John Schroder sent a letter to BlackRock, Inc. investment firm CEO Larry Fink saying he will divest all treasury funds from BlackRock.  To date, $560 million has been divested and a total of $794 million will be removed by year’s end. Schroder said his action is in response to “net zero” ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) investment strategies that would destroy the state’s natural gas and oil industry. Fink has more than $10 trillion in assets under management to push for ESG standards.

Utah and Arkansas each have divested $100 million or more from BlackRock, while West Virginia has pulled out $20 million. Texas placed the money manager on an “energy boycott” list that bars local and state entities from doing business with the company.

Louisiana will divest nearly $800 million in state funds by the end of the year from BlackRock over its pivot away from fossil fuel investments, the state’s treasurer informed the company’s CEO on Wednesday.

The saga marks the latest red state to target the world’s largest money manager over what Republicans call “woke” investment principles based on environmental, social and governance issues, or ESG, that take into consideration climate and social factors beyond simply financial returns.

“Your blatantly anti-fossil fuel policies would destroy Louisiana’s economy,” Louisiana State Treasurer John Schroder, a Republican, wrote in a letter to BlackRock CEO Larry Fink. “This divestment is necessary to protect Louisiana from actions and policies that would actively seek to hamstring our fossil fuel sector.”

Louisiana is one of the top domestic oil and natural gas producers. Nearly one-quarter of the state’s gross domestic product is tied to the industry, according to an analysis commissioned last year by industry lobbying firm American Petroleum Institute.

BlackRock did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The company has previously pushed back against “inaccurate” accusations from GOP officials,  saying that the transition to clean energy will present more long-term and lucrative endeavors and that BlackRock still maintains large investments in the fossil-fuel industry.

Mr. Schroder said the state has already divested $560 million and plans to pull out all $794 million of its holdings with BlackRock by year’s end.

“I fully realize, as your representatives noted during our recent meeting, that BlackRock currently invests in oil and gas companies,” Mr. Schroder wrote. “Nonetheless, your consistent public messaging has made very clear what BlackRock is demanding from fossil fuel company CEOs and every other company they invest in.”

Utah and Arkansas each have divested $100 million or more from BlackRock, while West Virginia has pulled out $20 million. Texas placed the money manager on an “energy boycott” list that bars local and state entities from doing business with the company.

Read full article here…

KTBS:    https://www.ktbs.com/news/louisiana-treasurer-divesting-794m-from-blackrock-investment-firm/article_a1265b9a-459f-11ed-bc52-538ca4638f53.html




The Federal Reserve Announces Major ‘Pilot Exercise’ for ESG Social Credit Score System

The Federal Reserve is working with six big banks, Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo, in a climate risk analysis exercise set to begin next year. Scenario analysis will be used to examine the resiliency of financial institutions under different hypothetical climate scenarios and claims it will not have “capital consequences.” The climate narrative is the primary tool to implement the ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) movement. Journalist Jordan Schachtel says that Pro-ESG institutions are committed to attacking free market principles by means of deception, making way for a small group of technocratic elites to manipulate society. ESG rules are akin to the Chinese social credit score, intended to be used to coerce businesses, and, by extension, individuals, into specific actions and behaviors.

The Federal Reserve has taken a major step in the direction of facilitating an ESG compliant monetary network that effectively acts as a parallel system to that of the Chinese Communist Party’s infamous social credit scoring system.

The Fed said in a statement Thursday:

“Six of the nation’s largest banks will participate in a pilot climate scenario analysis exercise designed to enhance the ability of supervisors and firms to measure and manage climate-related financial risks. Scenario analysis—in which the resilience of financial institutions is assessed under different hypothetical climate scenarios—is an emerging tool to assess climate-related financial risks, and there will be no capital or supervisory implications from the pilot.”

In other words, The Fed is working with the big banks to monitor their ability to comply with the ruling class’s preferred enviro statist technocratic tyranny.

The unaccountable people behind the American money printer claim that this exercise is “exploratory in nature and does not have capital consequences.”

The statement adds that the “scenario analysis can assist firms and supervisors in understanding how climate-related financial risks may manifest and differ from historical experience.”

What exactly does this mean?

The Fed is clearly leaning in to the climate hoax narrative, or the pseudoscientific idea that humans are catastrophically impacting the climate, but not because they somehow care about the environment. The climate narrative is the chief rhetorical facilitator for the ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) movement.

ESG acts as a trojan horse for the continuing centralization of the American financial system. ESG finance, popularized by hyper political asset management behemoths like BlackRock and Vanguard, acts to prevent outsiders from challenging the regime-connected insiders on Wall Street and in Washington, under the guise of acting to manifest a healthier planet. In other words, pro-ESG institutions are committed to attacking free market principles by means of deception, preferring the CCP-style “stakeholder capitalism” that allows for a small group of technocratic elites to make broad determinations about society.

Read full article here…

Washington Examiner:    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/economy/six-banks-fed-climate-risk-pilot




Hollywood Celebrities ‘Caught Out’ in Climate Hypocrisy

Australian news channel shows how Hollywood celebrities that include Harrison Ford, Steven Spielberg, and Leo DiCaprio, and climate czar John Kerry, and Prince Harry, use excessive fuel for luxuries while admonishing the public about global warming.




California to Ban the Sale of New Cars that Run on Gasoline by 2035

California’s Air Resources Board (CARB) has voted in favor of banning the sale of new gas-powered vehicles in the state by 2035 in the name of phony climate change. The plan, known as the CARB Advanced Clean Cars II rule, requires all new vehicles sold after 2035 to be zero-emission. There is also a plan to enforce zero-emission medium and heavy-duty vehicles by 2045. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation is concerned that the goal of the plan is too ambitious to achieve due to external factors such as inflation, charging and fuel infrastructure, supply chains, labor, critical mineral availability and pricing.

A Clean Air Act waiver giving California legal authority to set auto pollution and mileage rules that are tighter than federal standards. Once in place, the California rule is expected to influence a new federal standard that the EPA expects to introduce next year, further encouraging automakers to build and sell more electric vehicles.

California’s Air Resources Board (CARB) has voted in favor of banning the sale of new gas-powered vehicles in the state by 2035.

“This is monumental,” CARB board member Daniel Sperling told CNN Wednesday. “It’s important not just for California, but it’s important for the country and the world.”

The goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles was introduced as an executive order by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2020. The plan, known as the CARB Advanced Clean Cars II rule, requires all new vehicles sold after 2035 to be zero-emission.

“Emissions from motor vehicle engines hurt public health, welfare, the environment, and the climate in multiple interrelated ways,” the staff report on the Advanced Clean Cars II rule says. “These emission reductions will help stabilize the climate and reduce the risk of severe drought and wildfire and its consequent fine particulate matter pollution.”

After the vote Thursday, the CARB board tweeted a commitment to increase Californians’ access to zero-emissions vehicles.

Read full article here…

Dnyuz:    https://dnyuz.com/2022/08/24/california-to-ban-the-sale-of-new-gasoline-cars/




Supreme Court Justice Kagan Warns the East Coast Could be “Swallowed by the Ocean”

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan warned in her dissent against removing the authority from the EPA to regulate power plants, she wrote: “If the current rate of emissions continues, children born this year could live to see parts of the Eastern seaboard swallowed by the ocean.” A critic pointed out that in 1986, the EPA predicted that Florida would be two feet under water by 2020. Leftists Barack and Michelle Obama own homes in Hawaii and Martha’s Vineyard, illustrating that they don’t believe the global warming hoax. Climate regulations are used for political control rather than helping the environment.

Following SCOTUS’ recent decision, Democrat Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) suggested getting rid of the Supreme Court. She promotes the Green New Deal and claimed in 2019 that “Climate change is here + we’ve got a deadline: 12 years left to cut emissions in half.”

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan warned parts of the East Coast could be “swallowed by the ocean” in a dissenting Supreme Court opinion in an environmental regulation case Thursday.

“If the current rate of emissions continues, children born this year could live to see parts of the Eastern seaboard swallowed by the ocean,” Kagan wrote in her dissent.

Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Kagan’s dissent in the 6-3 case.

“Today, the Court strips the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the power Congress gave it to respond to ‘the most pressing environmental challenge of our time,'” Kagan wrote.

SUPREME COURT DEALS BIDEN CLIMATE AGENDA SERIOUS BLOW WITH EPA DECISION

Kagan said the dangers of rising temperatures and, as a result, devastating environmental effects, including, “Rising waters, scorching heat, and other severe weather conditions [that] could force ‘mass migration events[,] political crises, civil unrest,’ and even state failure.'”

Kagan elaborated that the Earth was “now warmer than any time” in modern history, highlighting the importance of scientific research on carbon dioxide contributing to global warming. She also wrote global warming could be the cause of “4.6 million excess yearly deaths.”

Read full article here…




US Supreme Court Removes the EPA’s Power to Regulate Greenhouse Gases

The Supreme Court issued a ruling 6-3 limiting the reach of the EPA over the Clean Air Act, the nation’s main anti-air pollution law that’s used to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants that are claimed to contribute to global warming. Power plants account for roughly 30% of carbon dioxide output. The move limits the ability of Biden to stop or end fuel production and hands the responsibility to regulate back to Congress, or an agency delegated on its behalf. The decision also could have a broader effect on other agencies’ regulatory efforts, from education to transportation and food.

The Supreme Court’s climate change ruling on Thursday is likely to hinder the Biden administration’s plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by the end of the decade and to make the electric grid carbon-free by 2035.

In its major decision, the court limited the reach of the nation’s main anti-air pollution law that’s used to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. The 6-3 ruling declared that the Clean Air Act does not give the Environmental Protection Agency broad authority to regulate emissions from plants that contribute to global warming.

Power plants account for roughly 30% of carbon dioxide output.

The decision also could have a broader effect on other agencies’ regulatory efforts, from education to transportation and food.

Leaders in coal-state West Virginia welcomed the ruling. But President Joe Biden called it “another devastating decision that aims to take our country backwards.” He said he will continue to use his authority when possible to protect public health and address climate change.

A look at how the court ruling could impact efforts to slow global warming and other regulatory actions by the executive branch.

What did court say?

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court, said the Clean Air Act doesn’t give EPA the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions in a way that would force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity, and that Congress must speak clearly on this subject.

“A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body,” he wrote.

The Clean Air Act, which EPA used in its rulemaking, was passed in 1970, when global warming was little known.

“It’s almost as if the court needs Congress to make a new law every time a new problem emerges, which is ridiculous and dangerous,” said Georgetown University Law Professor Lisa Heinzerling, a former EPA official. She authored winning arguments in a 2007 case in which a previous high court found that greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act and can in fact be regulated by the EPA.

Read full article here…

Fox Business News:   https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/kagan-warns-parts-east-coast-swallowed-ocean-dissent-epa-case




Holland: Farmers Protest Govt. Policy to Shut Down Farms to Reduce Nitrogen

Dutch farmers are fighting for their very livelihoods, taking to the streets over a climate change policy that will cap nitrogen emissions, and will lead to mass job loss across the 54,000 agricultural businesses. The policy requires Dutch businesses to reduce nitrogen emissions nationwide by 50% and up to 95% in some provinces by 2030. Cows and fertilizers are significant contributors of nitrogen oxide and ammonia. A government statement admitted that “The honest message…is that not all farmers can continue their business.” Drastically reducing herds will reduce the food supply. The government will buy some of the farms.

A small group of farmers protested outside the home of Christianne van der Wal, the Cabinet minister overseeing the Netherlands’ reforms to curb pollution and spread manure on a nearby street. At another protest, farmers attacked a police car. Other farmers have protested by using their tractors to block traffic on highways.

Dutch farmers are fighting for their very livelihoods, taking to the streets over a climate change policy that will cap nitrogen emissions and lead to mass job loss.

Video shows several farmers on the streets attacking police and emergency vehicles with sledgehammers while others chase the vehicles down and launch kicks against the windows.

According to Bloomberg, yesterday, several farmers also brought their cows to parliament to protest the policy, going so far as threatening to slaughter them on the spot.

“If the nitrogen measures are adopted, one of these two ladies [cows] will not go home but will receive a one-way ticket to the slaughterhouse,” farmer Koos Cromwijk told Dutch news agency ANP outside parliament.

The policy in question will require Dutch businesses to reduce nitrogen emissions nationwide by 50% and up to 95% in some provinces by 2030, with cows and fertilizers being significant contributors.

“The honest message … is that not all farmers can continue their business,” a government statement reads.

The agriculture industry isn’t the only one being targeted, though — aviation has also come under fire.

According to Climate Change News, by the end of 2023, Schipol airport, one of the busiest in Europe, will be forced to limit annual flights to accommodate just 440,000 passengers (12% less than the number of flights in 2019).

Read full article here…

ABC:   https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/dutch-pm-condemns-farmers-protests-ministers-home-85914491

Yahoo News:   https://news.yahoo.com/explainer-why-dutch-farmers-protesting-122334722.html




Kansas: 10,000 Mysterious Cattle Deaths Blamed on ‘Climate Change’

Kansas: Last Monday, an estimated 10,000 cattle reportedly died due to a high temperatures over 100 degrees with 18% to 35% humidity. Some reports blamed the deaths on lack of water and care for the cattle while others blamed extreme heat from climate change. It is curious that only cattle died, as there have not been any reports that humans or other animals died from the heat. Tennessee congressional candidate Robby Starbuck said that he spoke with multiple ranchers that insisted on the need for an investigation as they believe “there’s no way heat caused 10,000+ cattle to drop dead.” The deaths of the cattle coincide with numerous disasters at food production plants that affect the food supply chain.

Link for video:   https://www.bitchute.com/video/uscdY6UI3u1S/

The 10,000 cows died all at once because of heat story is just not adding up. Wait till you hear one of the possible theories behind this sudden mass death wave which according to David DuByne is a “statistical impossibility.”

David DuByne and Mike Adams discuss the latest on this bizarre story plus a number of other food and world news events.

Cows have died before in a mass death wave in Cameroon in recent memory, but what you notice in that story is that people and animals both died, not just one air breathing species. The Lake of Death was due to a mass methane release which killed humans and animals alike, not just one set of 10,000 cows on one farm only.

That is what makes the Kansas mass cow death 10,000 all at once completely beyond normal scales suspicious for any clued in observers.

If the heat killed the cattle, why did people not also die? How does that make any sense? Was no human outside that day and did anyone die? So far no reports of any mass human death because of the heat, but could this be on its way. It is also totally implausible that this heatwave in Kansas so extreme that it could kill in this way.

Read full article here…

Big League Politics:    https://bigleaguepolitics.com/breaking-10000-cattle-suddenly-dead-in-kansas-ranchers-its-not-heat/

Western Journal:    https://www.westernjournal.com/10000-head-cattle-killed-kansas-us-faces-skyrocketing-prices-potential-food-shortages/




Bill Gates Says Next Pandemic Likely to be Caused by Climate Change

Billionaire Bill Gates told a Spanish news agency that there’s a 50% chance the next pandemic will be caused by man-made climate change or will be deliberately released by a bio-terrorist. The prediction that climate change will cause a virus which will then require another global vaccine rollout seems convenient for Gates as he is heavily invested in both areas.

Billionaire Bill Gates says there’s a 50 per cent chance the next pandemic will be caused by man-made climate change or be deliberately released by a bio-terrorist.

The Microsoft founder made the comments during an interview with Spanish news outlet El Diario.

Asserting that the next major pandemic is likely to occur within 20 years, Gates said, “It could be a virus made by man, by a bioterrorist who designed it and intentionally circulated it. That is a very scary scenario because they could try to spread it in different places at once.”

“Or it could be something that makes the leap from the natural world. The human population is growing and we are invading more and more ecosystems. That is why I calculate that there is a 50% chance that we will have a pandemic of natural origin in the next 20 years, as a consequence of climate change,” he added.

The prediction that climate change will cause a virus which will then require another global vaccine rollout is somewhat convenient for Gates given that he is heavily invested in both areas.

Read full article here…




HSBC Suspends Head Of Responsible Investing Over ‘Nut Job’ Climate-Alarmist Comments

Stuart Kirk, the global head of responsible investing at HSBC Asset Management, was suspended after he gave presentation titled “Why investors need not worry about climate risk” argued that climate crisis warnings are “unsubstantiated, shrill, partisan, self-serving, apocalyptic warnings are always wrong.” He said, “there is always some nut job telling me about the end of the world.” Although Kirk agreed with the phony ‘science’, he called out central bankers and the UN for exaggerating the financial risks of climate change.

HSBC has reportedly suspended a senior executive after he questioned the risk climate change plays on financial markets, arguing investors shouldn’t worry about it, according to Financial Times.

Stuart Kirk, global head of responsible investing at HSBC Asset Management, told an audience last week in London at a Financial Times Moral Money conference, “there always some nut job telling me about the end of the world.”

The title of Kirk’s presentation — “Why investors need not worry about climate risk” — referred to climate crisis warnings as “unsubstantiated, shrill, partisan, self-serving, apocalyptic warnings are always wrong.” He called out central bankers and the UN for exaggerating the financial risks of climate change.

“Who cares if Miami is six meters underwater in 100 years? Amsterdam has been six meters underwater for ages and that’s a really nice place,” he said later in the presentation.

Even though the riveting presentation had been cleared internally, top HSBC management were forced to denounce the presentation as a public relations controversy unfolded.

Read full article here…




How Democrats Helped Spike Gas Prices

Democrats in Congress pressured oil executives to decrease outputs using the excuse of climate change. In October 2021, the House Oversight and Reform Committee called in the CEOs of Exxon, BP, Shell, and Chevron to explain what steps they are taking to produce less oil and gas. Some Democrats, such as Representative Ro Khanna of California have demanded that domestic oil companies dramatically curtail their domestic operations. At the same time, he called for the US to end its dependency on oil imports from countries such as Russia. Democrats are now feigning surprise and are trying to evade responsibility.

Meanwhile, Khanna’s family made big investments in ExxonMobil and Chevron, and in the natural gas companies Dominion Energy, Duke Energy, and ConocoPhillips.

Despite reassurances from the White House that it is doing nothing to discourage oil companies from opening new drill sites, President Joe Biden’s allies in Congress just months ago pressured oil executives to decrease outputs because of climate change, raising questions about the Democratic Party’s strategy to lower prices for consumers.

In late October, for example, the House Oversight and Reform Committee called in the CEOs of Exxon, BP, Shell, and Chevron to explain what steps they are taking to produce less oil and gas, with Rep. Hank Johnson (D., Ga.) alleging that “the world can’t wait” any longer. At the time, gas prices were hovering around a 10-year high.

The hearing has gained new relevance as a global gas shortage has pushed prices to an all-time high. Prices are rising even more due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, with no sign of falling after Biden’s announcement that the United States will no longer accept Russian oil imports. Those facts have left Democrats scrambling for a solution before the November midterms as Republicans demand that the White House encourage domestic oil drilling operations.

The president said on Tuesday that his administration’s policies are not “holding back domestic energy production,” echoing comments from Press Secretary Jen Psaki, who said that “federal policies are not limiting the supplies of oil and gas” before mentioning the thousands of unused pre-approved oil and gas drilling leases.

“You can draw a direct line from how the Democrats marauded energy production yesterday to the unprecedented pain Americans are feeling at the pump today,” said CounterPoint Strategies president Jim McCarthy, a policy adviser for leading energy companies.

Some Democrats, such as Rep. Ro Khanna (Calif.), have demanded that domestic oil companies dramatically curtail their domestic operations. At the same time, Khanna has called for the United States to end its dependency on oil imports from countries such as Russia.

In one exchange during the October hearing, Khanna pressed Shell president Gretchen Watkins on whether she agreed that “under the Paris agreement that … we need to have oil and gas production declining every year.” After she answered that the company believes “that hydrocarbon demand needs to reduce if we’re going to get to net zero [emissions] by 2050,” Khanna demanded to know whether Shell will decrease its production by 2 percent each year, a figure initially offered by the company in 2019.

“This is what happens when left-wing Democrat fantasies meet reality. Khanna and other Democrats spent most of the fall trying to strangle the life out of oil and gas companies and are now feigning surprise and evading responsibility at the outcome,” said McCarthy.

Khanna also demanded to know whether Chevron CEO Michael Wirth was embarrassed that his company has increased production while “the European counterparts are going down.” When Wirth said that global demand has increased, Khanna asked for a commitment to help “bring the actual demand of oil production down.”

Read full article here…

Newsweek:    https://www.newsweek.com/ro-khannas-wife-invests-chevron-exxon-stock-while-he-advocates-green-new-deal-1636813