New Report: Climate Cheats

Geoff SimmonsApril 18, 2016Environment

Looking for our new report Climate Cheats II – The Dozen Dirty Businesses – Click here

Today we are launching a new report called Climate Cheats. It shows that New Zealand was by far the biggest buyer of fraudulent foreign carbon credits from the Ukraine. Now the Government is handing over these fraudulent credits to meet our international emissions reduction targets. We are calling on Government to protect our international reputation as being clean, green and free from corruption by dumping these junk carbon credits.

You can read the executive summary below, listen to an interview below or download a copy here.

Science media centre   https://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/2016/08/15/report-points-finger-at-climate-cheats-expert-reaction/

UPDATED: Report points finger at ‘climate cheats’ – Expert Reaction

Expert Reactions  |  Published: 15 August 2016

In its second ‘Climate Cheats’ report, the Morgan Foundation names 12 New Zealand companies that traded in ‘hot air’ carbon credits.

The report follows on from Climate Cheats, released in April, which outlined the rise of questionable carbon credits from Russia and Ukraine that New Zealand used to meet climate commitments.

The report is available via the Morgan Foundation’s website.

The SMC collected the following expert commentary. Feel free to use these quotes in your reporting.

Professor Ralph Chapman, director, Environmental Studies, Victoria University of Wellington, comments:

“This follow-up report, Climate Cheats II, by Simmons and Young, helps make clear how New Zealand’s emissions trading scheme (ETS) has been undermined by our sleight of hand. It is not conclusive, but strongly suggestive, in pointing to how a number of big NZ corporates appear to have profited from the loopholes in our emissions trading scheme – loopholes that the NZ government should have closed way sooner than it did.

“It is pretty clear that a number of corporates acted unethically – in my view – to make money out of the scheme, by buying fraudulent credits cheaply on the global credit market.

“I take four conclusions out of this report:

1) New Zealand corporates have a responsibility to act with environmental integrity even when the government is acting irresponsibly in setting the rules;

2) New Zealand’s reputation has suffered damage in this whole affair — something the government appears to be too blasé about.

3) We need to draw wider lessons about the ETS from this. As Z Energy, one of the players, says: ‘The system…had flaws’. The fact is that the ETS has never been simple or transparent, a reality that has helped corporates minimise their responsibility and helped the government in its pretence of running a serious climate change policy when in fact it’s been close to a farce — ineffective, most of the time.

4) New Zealand needs to repair as much as possible the damage done to our reputation, and the most critical thing is not to carry forward any surplus units past 2020. A comment in the report from an international expert on emissions trading and the international rules sums up the wider problem:

‘It does not reflect well on a small rich country if it allows for the purchase of offsets that are known to be of questionable integrity. If the same country then keeps pushing for lax rules at the international negotiations you have to wonder if the policy makers of that country have truly grasped the urgency and severity we face with the climate crisis.’

“Minister Paula Bennett needs to commit to putting this right now. New Zealand has to play a credible part in the international effort to responsibly and swiftly work to reduce carbon emissions.”

Professor Ralph Sims, director, Centre for Energy Research, Massey University, comments:

“There is no doubt that, in recent years, a lot of game-playing was going on by several major New Zealand businesses trying to protect their bottom line by purchasing “hot-air” emission reduction units (ERUs) to offset their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as identified in this latest analysis from the Morgan Foundation.

“It is certainly interesting in the report that, of the five transport fuel companies operating in NZ – Mobil – is shown to be the good guy by being the only one to avoid trading in ERUs. Yet its parent company, ExxonMobil, has been accused of undermining the climate science for many years. So who knows what goes on in corporate boardrooms?

“Buying of cheap ERUs as carbon credits for NZ businesses to offset their GHG emissions did little, if anything, to actually reduce GHGs being emitted to the atmosphere.

“A slow response to the buying of ‘hot-air’ by the government at the time (even though the EU had responded a couple of years earlier) enabled NZ businesses to benefit economically, but at the expense of GHG concentrations further increasing in the atmosphere.

“The practice continues to reflect badly on New Zealand’s current international reputation. We are now a country seen by many as one that is seeking any means possible to avoid actually physically reducing our domestic GHG emissions.

“However, it is now history that this delayed policy approach enabled businesses to put off any real mitigation actions at that time.

“Going forward, there is an opportunity for the New Zealand government to respond and make amends as the Morgan Foundation report clearly outlines – but I imagine most pundits would agree that this would be an unlikely event given the track record we have seen to date of dealing with the climate problem.

“The government has yet to give any leadership in how we might meet our relatively modest target to reduce GHG emissions by 11% below 1990 levels by 2030.

“There is little doubt we have the potential to turn around the continuing upward trend of GHG emissions in NZ and ‘do our fair share’.

“The Morgan Foundation reports help reinforce that now is the time for all businesses to make a real commitment to reducing their emissions and not continue to play games that enable them to shirk their responsibilities.”

This is an excerpt – Professor Sims’ full comments are available on scimex.org. Associate Professor Euan Mason, School of Forestry, University of Canterbury, comments:

“The second Morgan Foundation report on climate cheats is an interesting response to the government’s claims that:

1) The government did not know that the ETS was being rorted by the purchase of fraudulent credits until 2015; and
2) The blame for the purchase of fraudulent credits lies with credit purchasers rather than with government.

“Companies who imported fraudulent credits were operating within the law, but they were not operating morally.  They might respond that they have a moral imperative to maximize profits for their shareholders, but such an imperative is no defense when other, higher moral imperatives are weighed in the balance.

“There are many examples of companies refusing to profit from child labour, repression of workers, slavery, and environmental degradation even when such practices were legal.  I can only express my admiration for Mobil’s example, refusing to purchase fraudulent credits, and I know of no shareholders of that company who lodged complaints as a consequence.

“However, the government’s first premise, above, is false. The government clearly did know that fraudulent credits were being imported. In my submission, sent to the Ministry for the Environment in November 2012, I explained in detail that they were fraudulent.

“My submission was a careful, referenced account, explaining unequivocally why importation of ERUs from Russia and the Ukraine ‘does nothing to address climate change, and so by allowing these imports and keeping NZU prices low, New Zealand is failing to address climate change in any meaningful way’.  I also explained that such credits had been banned from the EU emissions trading scheme and that our ETS was being undermined by them.

“Ultimately the responsibility for New Zealand’s shameful performance on climate change, brought about in no small part by the failure of our ETS, lies with government.

“Our government knew that imported credits were fraudulent.  They knew that the domestic credit price had collapsed and exactly why it had collapsed. They knew that their policies allowed companies to act immorally and that many companies were acting immorally. Yet they failed to act.”

Professor Mason’s submission to MfE in 2012 is available on scimex.org.

Dr Ivan Diaz-Rainey, senior lecturer, Department of Accountancy and Finance, University of Otago, comments:

“Like its predecessor, the report uses fairly emotive language to try to provoke a policy response. This said I don’t think it is as provocative as the first one and I think it has some sensible suggestions.

“It still, however, calls ERU fraudulent – this is I think misleading. Yes many/most ERUs had little direct environmental benefit but they were the consequence of political expediency to get Kyoto ratified (basically to get Russia to ratify so that the Kyoto came into force). So this is what is called ‘hot air’. Without Russia and the ERUs, Kyoto would not have come into force.

“The report then acknowledges that companies behaved rationally in buying them [top of page 3] but then goes on to ‘name and shame’ those that it purports to be their biggest users of these units (though as it acknowledges there are serious issues with the data they have used to estimate who they are). “I think their suggestion that none of these units be used beyond 2020 is sensible. To do anything before then, as I think the first report implied, is just impractical.

“Again, the lesson from this sorry tale is that limits on importation are needed going forward (beyond 2020 if NZ ETS is linked internationally again). “Also, we should not be too downbeat on NZ ETS. No intervention, be it a tax or something else, is going to be straight forward. Currently, NZ carbon prices are double of those in the EU but carbon prices globally need to increase. There are plenty of ways NZ ETS could be improved e.g actually having a cap and by including a collar – a price floor and raising the current ceiling beyond $25.”

Catherine Leining, policy fellow, Motu Economic and Public Policy Research Trust, comments: “In using Kyoto credits to help meet its commitment for 2008-2012, the New Zealand government didn’t cheat. It followed the rules of an international agreement with weak targets and it passed those rules to participants in the NZ ETS.                       “The firms that took the high road should be applauded, but there are no grounds to punish those who did otherwise but complied with the rules of the time.

“This situation highlights exactly why we need a functional ETS. Effective emission pricing enables firms to remain competitive while producing lower-emission but higher-cost goods and services. The NZ ETS is a credible mechanism that would benefit from greater certainty on the future of domestic unit supply and rules on linking to global markets if that becomes feasible again.

“Fundamentally, New Zealand must safeguard the integrity of its global contribution to climate change mitigation. There are many reasons for making our future targets more ambitious, including but not limited to past use of Kyoto credits. “We should also consider our capacity to support global mitigation and the potential benefits from accelerating domestic decarbonization so our economy can thrive under global carbon constraints.”

RESEARCHER Cassie

WakeUpNZ

New Zealand has been accused of cheating in the way it fights climate change. The accusation comes in a report written for the Morgan Foundation of millionaire philanthropist Gareth Morgan.                            The Emissions Trading Scheme is supposed to make people and companies that emit greenhouse gases pay money to those that absorb greenhouse gases, such as forestry companies whose growing trees soak up CO2.    But the report, written by Geoff Simmons and Paul Young, says the New Zealand scheme is a fake.

Gareth Morgan..Morgan Foundation:- In a caustic foreword to the report, Gareth Morgan wrote “we are, without doubt, cheats”.

The report said New Zealand’s real greenhouse gas emissions have gone up since 1990, which was the date they were supposed to start coming down from. But New Zealand could get away with raising its emissions here by paying money to other countries where emissions were actually being reduced, the  report argues, emissions reductions in other countries were sometimes more apparent than real, and in some cases downright fraudulent.

“One type of credit (the Emission Reduction Unit) was overcome by fraud and corruption in Ukraine and Russia,” the report said….”Virtually all of the credits issued by these countries are ‘hot air’ – they do not represent true emissions reductions.”.. The report said New Zealand was proportionately by far the largest purchaser of these Ukrainian and Russian credits.

“This was due to deliberate decisions by the National-led Government to – unlike any other country – continue allowing unlimited use of these and other foreign credits for as long as the international community let us. “Our Government now plans to knowingly utilize all these fraudulent credits so it can claim we are meeting our international obligations through to at least 2020. Meanwhile our actual emissions continue to grow in excess of our targets.” The government has recently banned the purchase of these credits.

But the surplus built up earlier as a result of the purchases is allowed to be carried forward. This enables the government to claim that it will meet its targets for 2020, irrespective of greenhouse gases being poured into the atmosphere every day. The way the scheme operated was faulted for two other reasons…One was that the rush of cheap credits pulled the price of carbon down so low there was no incentive for people to plant trees…Second, smart people have been able to use the system to make large amounts of money overnight via arbitrage, instead of using it to improve the environment.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/301739/nz-accused-of-climate-change-‘cheating

WakeUpNZ

RESEARCHER Cassie

ACT deletes climate change policy from their website

ACT has removed their climate change policy from their website – reportedly on the same day leader David Seymour launched a blistering attack on the Green Party’s environmental record.  ….The 2008 policy, which claimed New Zealand was not warming and pledged to withdraw the country from the Kyoto Protocol, was unavailable on the ACT Party’s website as of Friday evening.

“New Zealand is not warming,” the Policy Paper said “If it were to warm moderately, we would likely benefit in terms of land-based production, human health and reduced heating bills. Arguments that we would lose from sea-level rise or more extreme events are unproven conjectures.”

Links to the policy are still catalogued by Google and a cached version is available. A user on Reddit said that the policy was available on the website as late as Friday morning, but this claim could not be independently verified.

Seymour released a scathing attack on the Green Party on Friday, stating they did “bugger all for the environment”.  Reached by telephone on Saturday morning, Seymour did not confirm or deny the deletion of the policy. David Seymour responded “The thing about websites is that you can always say that something was or wasn’t on a website at some point in the past,”….And added  “It’s the easiest thing in the world to claim and impossible to prove.”

Seymour called later to confirm that the policy had been on the website’s server but not actively linked to for “a long time – at least two years.”. He emphasized that his party was focusing on the 2017 election, not the past. He suspected that media were being tipped off about the deletion by someone in the Green Party, “who have been underperforming at representing NZ on the environment. …. Saying “I know which election I’m focusing on. If they want to focus on another one they are welcome to.”

The ACT Party are holding their annual conference at Orakei Bay this weekend, and a focus on the environment is suspected. Seymour said the party had never denied the existence of climate change. He described himself as a “luke-warmer. Saying that “I believe it is real, and a portion of it is manmade, but I question the extent to which it is dangerous,” he then said “Since the industrial revolution we’ve increased the concentration of C02 by about 100 part per million. No question about that.”

In the  first page of the deleted policy paper:- He called for a more scientific and mature discussion of the issue. Saying “I think it is time for a slightly more intelligent debate. Otherwise its a bit like being back in the playground – ‘Are you are a denier or are you a good person?  It’s all a bit puerile.” And – “It’s actually a scientific debate – and quite a complex one.”

Stuff

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/77338800/act-delete-climate-change-policy-from-their-website

David Seymour launches attack on Greens, says they’re ‘doing bugger all for the environment’

ACT leader David Seymour is talking up his green credentials, and trashing the Greens. . Photo: DAVID WHITE / FAIRFAX NZ

ACT leader David Seymour is readying to fire shots across the Green Party bow, accusing them of “socialist economics” and neglecting the environment. He said they also “just really piss me off”.  The rank and file behind the single-MP party will gather at Auckland’s exclusive Orakei Bay this weekend for their annual conference, which is expected to carry a heavy environmental theme. It’s understood Seymour will announce an environmental policy, geared around private enterprise playing a greater role in conservation.

It’s unclear exactly what that will include, but is expected to centre on Government incentives to increase private environmental custodianship, and moves to better define ownership. Seymour was keen to boost the party’s environmental credentials, saying they had gone under-reported in the past.

And he took issue with the “hypocrisy of the Greens”,  monopolizing environmental issues. “They have squatted on this piece of political real estate, while doing bugger all for the environment and often doing things that are counter-productive, because they don’t understand markets.

“They annoy me enormously, and I just think it’s wrong because I actually do care about the environment and I think it’s an important part of being a New Zealander,” he said. “What you’ve got is a group of people who are actually running a completely separate agenda which is socialist-economics, and neglecting [the environment]. “The reality is they just piss me off.”

He cited a bill by Green MP Gareth Hughes last year, which sought to regulate the buy-back rate that electricity retailers charged people selling solar power back into the grid. “If his bill had succeeded then you would have ended up with retailers saying we don’t want to be in business, and if you’d set it too low then people considering installing solar panels would have said the returns aren’t as good as they could be

“It’s one little example of a supposedly environmental party, with a supposedly environmental policy which if it had succeeded, would have actually reduced the uptake of solar one way or another, and increased emissions from the New Zealand electricity industry.”.. Green Party co-leader James Shaw declined to comment, but a Green party spokesperson said Seymour’s gestures appeared token. .. ACT seems to be claiming some kind of road to Damascus epiphany that the environment is worth saving.

“David could start by supporting our call for a moratorium on further dairy conversions on the Waikato River to help make it swimmable again.”.. Seymour’s keynote address would focus heavily on what he calls the four Ps of free-market environmentalism – private initiative, property rights, pricing and prosperity.  ACT members looking to flash their green side will also be able to book a ride in a Tesla S – an electric powered sports car that can outpace most high-performance sports vehicles.

Others lined up to speak at the conference would cover child poverty, the Government’s position on superannuation and victim support.

– Stuff

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/77288879/david-seymour-launches-attack-on-greens-says-theyre-doing-bugger-all-for-the-environment

Nick Kearney ACT Climate Policy 2008

In 2008, the ACT Party’s climate policy, supported by candidates like Nick Kearney (who stood for the party in the North Shore electorate that year), was rooted in climate skepticism and opposition to government intervention in the economy.

2008 ACT Climate Policy Highlights:-

Climate Skepticism: The party’s official 2008 policy paper explicitly stated that “New Zealand is not warming”. It argued that moderate warming would likely benefit New Zealand through increased land productivity and reduced heating bills.                                                                                                                                                                                                               Opposition to Kyoto Protocol: ACT pledged to withdraw New Zealand from the Kyoto Protocol, describing the arguments for sea-level rise and extreme weather events as “unproven conjectures”.

Opposition to the ETS: ACT was a vocal critic of the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) introduced by the Labour government in September 2008. To protest the legislation, the party famously performed street theatre featuring a “witch” whipping a “farmer” who was dragging a large cheque made out to Russia for $5 billion, representing the cost to taxpayers.

Alternative Energy: Rather than carbon mitigation, the party argued for investment in “proper alternatives” such as nuclear power, while dismissing renewable energy like wind and solar as unachievable and unnecessary for cutting emissions.  Nick Kearney’s Role in 2008:- Candidate Stance: As the ACT candidate for North Shore in 2008, Kearney adhered to the party’s platform of fiscal conservatism and limited regulation.

Review of ETS: Following the 2008 election, ACT entered a confidence-and-supply agreement with the National Party. A key condition of this deal was a formal review of the Emissions Trading Scheme, which ultimately led to the significant watering down of the scheme in 2009 (e.g., the “two-for-one” deal where emitters only paid for half their emissions).

NOTE: The 2 for one deal ‘ NZ the biggest Climate Cheats in the World’. Buying cheap Russian & Ukraine Carbon Units knowing they were fraudulent. Contid to do so whilst they were kept for profiting for a future date. (2 Gareth Morgan Reports)

Controversy: In 2010, it was revealed that Kearney, then an ACT Board Member, had been involved in sharing sensitive government papers regarding the ETS with political activists to encourage public opposition. By 2016, the ACT Party removed the specific “New Zealand is not warming” language from its website, shifting its focus toward the economic inefficiency of domestic targets relative to global emissions.

NICK KEARNEY’S STANCE:

Prioritization: In 2025 local body election surveys, Kearney rated climate change action a 7 out of 10 in importance for decision-making.   Core Beliefs: As a candidate for Christchurch City Council, he emphasized protecting the environment as a priority, alongside tackling rising rates and improving service delivery.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Economic Focus: Historically, Kearney has critiqued policies that he believes harm small investors, such as previous government attempts to remove rental tax write-offs, reflecting ACT’s broader economic-first approach to regulation.

ACT Party’s 2026 Climate Policies:  As part of the current coalition government, ACT has successfully pushed for significant revisions to New Zealand’s climate legal framework.

Weakening International Alignment: ACT advocates for “taking back control” by removing requirements for the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) to align with international targets under the Paris Agreement. The party argues that Paris is “broken” and that New Zealand should be prepared to walk away if reforms aren’t achieved.

Legislative Changes (2025–2026):-

Zero Carbon Act: ACT has long sought to repeal or significantly weaken the Zero Carbon Act and the Climate Change Commission.

Methane Targets  The government is introducing legislation to weaken the 2050 biogenic methane target from the original 24–47% reduction to a less ambitious 14–24%.

Carbon Neutral Government: The deadline for government organizations to achieve carbon neutrality was shifted from 2025 to 2050.

Agricultural Emissions: ACT firmly opposes emissions pricing for agriculture, arguing it would gut rural New Zealand for no global environmental gain.

Infrastructure over Mitigation: ACT proposes shifting focus from “wasting billions” on mitigation to building resilient infrastructure (stormwater, bridges, ports) capable of handling extreme weather events.

Energy Policy: The party supports lifting bans on offshore gas exploration and treating coal mining as any other mining to ensure energy reliability.

ACT Climate Change Policy (2008)

Goal:  That no New Zealand government will ever impose needless and unjustified taxation or regulation on its citizens in a misguided attempt to reduce global warming or become a world leader in carbon neutrality.

Background

• The Labour Government is determined that New Zealand will lead the world in the race to carbon neutrality even though nothing New Zealand could do, including disappearing off the face of the planet, would have any impact on global climate.
• New Zealand is not warming. There is no warming trend since 1970 and the slight warming trend since 1950 is not statistically significant.
• If it were to warm moderately, we would likely benefit in terms of land-based production, human health and reduced heating bills. Arguments that we would lose from sea-level rise or more extreme events are unproven conjectures.
• Policies to reduce emissions in New Zealand could not conceivably reduce global warming, even if warming were globally harmful.
• The Government ratified the Kyoto Protocol in advance of Australia for short-term political gain without the benefit of any supporting analysis from Treasury. New Zealand can expect to pay billions of dollars to foreign governments like Russia, for carbon credits to offset their emissions.
• Now the government wants to force us all to pay more for fuel and electricity beyond 2012.
• Treasury’s analysis of the Emissions Trading Scheme made no case that its benefits would exceed the costs. The scheme lends itself to corrupt allocations of permits and seedy MMP negotiations were necessary to ram it through parliament.
• It is reckless to distort the New Zealand economy in the cause of an ineffectual Protocol that expires in 2012 and won’t be rolled forward because its 1990 targets are unacceptable to China and the United States.
• The NZ Institute of Economic Research states in their 2008 study “The Impact of the Proposed Emissions Trading Scheme” that:
• Dairy land values will fall by 40%
• Beef and sheep land values will fall by 23%
• Annual household incomes will fall by $3,000
• The average hourly rate will fall by $2.30
• Annually 22,000 new jobs will be lost
• Only ACT opposes Labour in seeking to force New Zealanders to pay much more for energy and electricity.
• ACT believes that New Zealand can play a responsible role in the international community while keeping its powder dry. In particular, it should not move faster than Australia or the United States.

PRINCIPLES

Freedom – People should be free to live and work how they choose, including making their own decisions as to what light bulbs to use, unless there is clear scientific evidence that their actions are damaging the environment, or unless they are harming others

Put New Zealanders needs first – Until there is clear scientific evidence that we should do otherwise, energy policy should be primarily concerned with affordability and stability of supply.

Proceed with caution – The precautionary principle works both ways. „Green Business‟ opportunities which address non-existent problems and needs are not “business opportunities” but a massive risk and likely to destroy wealth on a massive scale

Do not make needless rods for our own backs – The government is globally unique including methane gas (produced by ruminants) in calculating our Kyoto commitments. This is extreme, contrary to all other member countries and should be amended

Distinguish between real pollutants and carbon dioxide – carbon dioxide is a vital and necessary greenhouse gas crucial for plant growth and human survival

Make decisions based on sound science – not on blind belief or ideology which is increasingly divorced from reason

A commonsense approach to Climate Change would recognize that:-

• There is no point destroying our economy in pursuit of „carbon neutrality‟ if carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are not driving global warming.
• Any carbon trading scheme is prone to fraud – and indeed invites fraud

POLICY DETAIL

• ACT will repeal the Emissions Trading Scheme and withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol
• Major investments in infrastructure will not depend on the anti-global warming hypothesis for their economic viability. (Hydro power and geothermal power stands on its own feet.)
• Reform the Resource Management Act and Local Government Act to be neutral on climate change and „sustainability‟ (often a code word for anti-global warming).
• Reform Transport legislation to make transport serve efficiency and mobility rather than „sustainability‟ unless a real issue of sustainability can be identified
• Ensure that government agencies and advisors acknowledge any conflicts of interest.

If you believe that New Zealanders should not be taxed on the basis of unproven global warming theories, then give ACT your Party vote, for better informed policy on climate change

www.act.org.nz

Authorized by Nick Kearney – 137 Beach Haven Rd Auckland

Act – The Guts To Do What’s Rights

file:///C:/Users/bette/Downloads/actclimatechange%20(3).pdf  (2 Pages )

Maurice strong one of his most famous quotes ‘What if a small group of World Leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? .. In order to save the planet, the group decides “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about> Maurice Strong

Canadian Maurice Strong began working for the United Nations in 1947 where he became a cohort of the uber wealthy and influential Rockefellers and Rothschilds. A self-professed “socialist in ideology but a capitalist in methodology” he organized the first UN Earth Summit, The Stockholm Conference in 1972 after being appointed as the head of the United Nations Environmental Panel (UNEP).

Canadian Maurice Strong began working for the United Nations in 1947 where he became a cohort of the uber wealthy and influential Rockefellers and Rothschilds. A self-professed “socialist in ideology but a capitalist in methodology” he organized the first UN Earth Summit, The Stockholm Conference in 1972 after being appointed as the head of the United Nations Environmental Panel (UNEP).

UNEP lead to the formation of more UN organizations: The Earth Council, Earth Charter, World Resources Institute, World Wildlife Fund (later headed by Gerald Butts), and the Commission for World Governance.

The Commission for World Governance was created by Strong who envisioned funding via a world-wide income tax on all monetary transactions of 0.5% which would have given the UN an annual income of $1.5 trillion (the equivalent of the entire U.S. GDP at the time!).

Strong’s plan was vetoed by the UN Security Council. Believe it or not, Strong actually tried to get rid of the Security Council, but when that failed he was forced to come up with a new strategy that would generate the financing for his UN Global Governance plan.

In 1989 Strong was appointed Secretary General of the Earth Summit. The 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, gave birth to UN Agenda 21 along with the World Conservation Bank owned by the Rockefellers and Rothschilds. It was there that he announced: “It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class — involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work place air conditioning and suburban housing are not sustainable.”

Then PM Brian Mulroney signed Canada on to the UN Agenda 21 deal.

Keep this statement in mind when you peruse the UN Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) because for all their environmental and humanitarian lingo, the reality check is that private property will be abolished, you will no longer be permitted to drive your own motor vehicle, energy will be rationed and there is a great likelihood you will not be permitted to have air conditioning or use a washing machine. We can probably figure on strict food control and rationing as well. This, of course, will not apply to the controlling class, the “small group of world leaders” who will continue to live their lavish lifestyles behind gated estates guarded by private security.

The UN World Conservation Bank controls the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC).

UN Agenda 21 was hailed as the comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society using environmental protection to induce Western societies to voluntarily surrender their current rights and freedoms on a mostly emotional appeal of “saving the environment”.

Paul Watson of Greenpeace declared “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”

In 2000 the UN held the Millennium Summit, launching the Millennium Project featuring 8 goals for global sustainability to be reached by 2015. When that failed to happen the UN held another summit in New York City in September of 2015, now outlining 17 goals to be reached by 2030.

PM Stephen Harper signed Canada on to UN Agenda 2030.

The original idea for the climate deception came from a theory first put forward in 1896 that had already been disproved and rejected by mainstream science in the 1950’s when Britain’s world-leading expert, C.E.P. Brooks and the American Meteorological Society declared that carbon dioxide can have no measurable impact on Earth’s climate (Brooks, C.E.P., 1951. “Geological and Historical Aspects of Climate Change”.)

In 1998 Maurice Strong hired a computer modeller, Michael Mann from Penn State University to create a graph purporting to show climate statistics for the past 1,000 years. This became a highly publicized image featured in the UN’s Third Assessment Report (2001). It showed what came to be called the “hockey stick” graph (a flat “handle” for the first 900 years, then a sharp incline at the end depicting monumental increases for the modern era). Mann’s graph flattened nine centuries of data by excluding the Medieval Warm Period and a later Little Ice Age.

The real data shows a modern period of cooling, not warming, which lead to the UN changing it’s tune from “global warming” to “climate change”.

A Little Ice Age occurred from 1645 to 1715. At that time there was a period of low solar activity, the “Maunder Minimum”. Mann solved this really inconvenient truth by making it disappear. His graph is being used by the UN IPCC to claim that a catastrophic planetary disaster will occur if carbon dioxide emissions — a trace gas crucial to plant life, but now portrayed as poison — were not curtailed through draconian cuts to business, farming, transportation and energy use in Western nations.

Maurice Strong cleverly put forth the notion of imposing a Carbon Tax to penalize the entire planet for its nasty “carbon emissions” hoping that the majority of people wouldn’t clue in to the fact that the supposed culprit is an inert trace gas that comprises less than 1% of the air we breathe.

The UN IPCC wasn’t prepared for the rebuttal of their sketchy “science” by retired University of Winnipeg Climatology Professor Dr. Tim Ball, who in 2011, declared that “Michael Mann belongs in the State Pen. not Penn. State!”

Based on unadulterated data, you can see the difference between Mann’s falsified data, and the true data shown by Prof. Ball:

Professor Ball then found himself being sued in a B.C. Court for alleged “defamation” by Michael Mann.

As the case unfolded, the B.C. Supreme Court directed Mann to turn over all the data he used to create his hockey stick graph by Feb. 20, 2017. He has yet to do so, putting himself in contempt of court. As Tim Ball explains:

“We believe that he (Mann) withheld on the basis of a US court ruling that it was all his intellectual property. This ruling was made despite the fact that the US taxpayer paid for the research and the research results were used as the basis of literally earth-shattering policies on energy and environment. The problem for him is that the Canadian court holds that you cannot withhold documents that are central to your charge of defamation regardless of the US ruling.”

Mann is in contempt of court, however the case has still not been concluded. It’s very likely that he and his multi-millionaire UN cohorts will face losing the court case rather than expose their massive fraud/deception.

In Tim Ball’s own words, “Agenda 21 was the overall environmental plan of the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP). It makes claims not supported by the evidence as an excuse to impose a world government.”

UPDATE AS OF AUG. 23/19 https://principia-scientific.org/breaking-news-dr-tim-ball-defeats-michael-manns-climate-lawsuit/

Maurice Strong died in Communist China in 2015 after being caught in a million dollar “Oil for Food” UN scandal in which he expropriated funds and was forced to flee Western society. He was accepted into China because his sister had enjoyed an intimate relationship with Chairman Mao. His name still appears on the Canadian Privy Council list.

What is truly shocking are the numbers of Canadians who have never heard about UN Agenda 21 or 2030, the fact that it was the CPC who signed Canada on to these destructive programs, or that ALL the mainstream political parties in Canada are supporting the destruction of our sovereignty using our tax dollars.

National Citizens Alliance is the only political party in Canada that is disseminating the truth. Please share this information with everyone in your social media network and support NCA in its mission to return Canada to a self-directed, self-sufficient country. This requires all of us working together to unite Canada.

For those who still have faith in the carbon dioxide/climate change theory consider that Canada’s Boreal Forest absorbs more CO2 than Canada will ever produce in the next 1000 years.

WakeUpNZ

RESEARCHER Cassie

https://blog.nationalcitizensalliance.ca/the-climate-change-hoax-was-engineered-decades-ago/

• Anti Globalism

The Climate Change Hoax was Engineered Decades Ago By  Stephen Garvey..

-April 5, 2019