COP climate talks were always going to be difficult: 200 countries in search of a plan to prevent catastrophic warming of the planet with time running out fast.
The backdrop of terrifying weather events had brought a renewed sense of urgency to the matter. Then, the energy crisis struck, leaving Asia and Europe scrambling for fossil fuels, forcing China to double down on coal, and giving climate laggards another excuse not to engage. In the U.S., President Joe Biden’s green ambitions have gotten bogged down in domestic politics, undermining his credibility as he tries to push others to curb their emissions.
The aim of COP — the acronym for the conference of parties that’s now in its 26th round — is to curb emissions, keep the goal of 1.5 degrees of global warming within reach, reduce coal use, sort out rules for a global carbon market and raise billions in climate finance. But at the heart of talks is the issue of fairness. Developing nations say rich countries wrecked the planet as they industrialized, and it’s now unfair they’re thwarting others’ economic progress — and failing to provide enough cash to help poor countries adjust. That’s why there’s so much talk about how much money will be on the table.
Where It All Begins: Rome COP will be held in Glasgow, Scotland. But the Group of 20 summit in Rome this weekend will set the tone as climate will dominate the agenda, with talks on coal use, net- zero goals and climate finance. So far, the G-20 — which includes major emitters China and India — has little to show for many summit hours. Meetings this month even showed signs of backsliding. If leaders can make progress, it will be a major boost for COP. They wrap up in Rome on Oct. 31, and head straight for Glasgow.
To Glasgow: Roll Call Some key leaders are going to be missing, including China’s Xi Jinping, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro. Still, almost 200 countries will be represented. Some delegates will be there in person, some will dial in from home, and there will be strict rules on masks, numbers allowed in negotiating rooms, and Covid testing. The pandemic has added extra obstacles, and some countries go into the talks resentful of what they perceive as unequal access.
Leaders Mark Their Homework Under the landmark Paris Agreement of 2015, countries have to regularly review their pollution-reduction pledges in order to ensure the world stays on track to limit the rise in temperature to close to 1.5 degree Celsius. The first promises — called Nationally Determined Contributions, or NDCs — were submitted in 2016, but it was clear that they were well short of what science says is needed.
While some nations have already submitted new pledges over the past year, several major economies, including China and India, haven’t. The plans made so far would lead to a 2.4-degrees increase in temperature by the end of the century, according to the nonprofit research group Climate Action Tracker. At the start of COP there’s a moment of taking stock — to see just how far away we still are from keeping 1.5 degrees within reach. U.S. climate envoy John Kerry has already acknowledged the plans probably won’t be enough, and one aim of Glasgow is to make sure countries keep coming back with improved goals. “We need to change and we need to change radically and we need to change fast,” says EU climate chief Frans Timmermans. “That’s going to be bloody hard; that’s the bad news.” A banner advertises the COP26 climate talks in Glasgow, U.K. Photo: Bloomberg.
The Goals The U.K. hosts describe the aims for this COP as “coal, cars, cash and trees.” That means ending the use of the most polluting fossil fuel; phasing out the internal combustion engine; raising cash to help developing countries transition to cleaner energy and protect against the ravages of climate change; and reversing deforestation. They also aim to figure out global rules for pricing and trading carbon globally. Expect posturing and grand statements in the first two days — along with perhaps some new pledges — then the leaders leave, and the real work starts.
Priority: Coal “My personal priority: coal,” says COP President Alok Sharma.
The U.K. presidency has set a target for the meeting to consign coal to history — and has been pushing for the goal at G-7 and G-20 meetings this year — with mixed success so far. But coal is still a massive part of the energy mix, and the recent surge in energy prices has forced countries into even greater reliance on the fuel. China is ordering miners to dig up as much as they can and in the U.S. a key lawmaker from coal-rich West Virginia is getting in the way of Biden’s plans.
The Key: Cash More than a decade ago, developed nations pledged that by 2020 they will raise $100 billion per year to help developing nations transition to cleaner energy. But they still haven’t delivered on the promise, a failure that enrages poor countries and undermines developed world leaders’ credibility as they push others to make expensive changes. Total climate finance was $79.6 billion in 2019, an increase of just 2% from 2018, according to the OECD. “We absolutely need to meet the $100 billion,” says Tina Stege, climate envoy for the Marshall Islands. “The delivery of that is a foundational element of the success at COP. ” Last month, Biden doubled the latest U.S. pledge to $11.4 billion annually beginning in 2024, but that still has to be approved by Congress, and activists argue it doesn’t come close to the U.S.’s fair share for the fund. ODI, a think tank, puts that figure closer to $43 billion, based on the U.S.’s wealth, emissions and population size.
Finance Day: Follow the Money Finance ministers, central banks and Wall Street bank CEOs will be in Glasgow on Nov. 3 for finance day, with a focus on how to green the global financial system and funnel money away from polluting industries and into cleaner ones. Watch out for pledges to phase out, or stop, financing for coal. Already we’ve seen a series of promises in the runup, including JP Morgan Chase & Co joining an alliance of lenders aligning their portfolios with net zero by 2050. As always, though, what matters is the detail, and just how rigorously investors hold companies to account.
Paris Loose Ends: Carbon Market The Paris Agreement left some unfinished business that negotiators still haven’t been able to tie up: how to standardize rules on carbon trading across the world. The buzzword to watch is Article Six — referring to those lines in the Paris deal that paved the way for a global carbon market but are so complex and controversial that they are yet to be finalized. The good news is negotiators are edging toward a deal on this.
The basic idea is to match carbon-sucking projects that reduce pollution with counterparties who need to reduce emissions, via a market of so-called offsets, which could be worth as much as $100 billion in 2030, according to some estimates. The mechanism in theory should drive money to places where the biggest gains can be made most cheaply.
“Offsets are becoming an increasingly important element of decarbonization strategies,” says Lidia Wojtal, of think tank Agora Energiewende.“While there are already various voluntary carbon markets that can provide such credits, a deal on Article Six would make a difference: it would guarantee a truly global standard.”
The difficulty is in creating a robust financial instrument that would translate work on national emissions-reduction pledges into comparable, exchangeable units. The framework needs to be flexible enough to attract investment, palatable to a range of countries with different priorities, and credible. Some negotiators say a bad deal would be worse than no deal if the rules that emerge aren’t robust enough. There are two big sticking points: one is the need to avoid double counting, the other is how to deal with old credits from a now-defunct system launched way back in 1997 under the Kyoto Protocol. A good deal would result in a net reduction of emissions globally — and the risk is that a bad deal does the opposite.
Broadly speaking, developing nations are eager to reap the funds that would come from a new program, while richer nations led by the European Union are focused on the integrity of the system.
The Endgame At the end of talks there’s likely to be some kind of Glasgow declaration. The U.S. and U.K. have both said they want to make sure countries keep ratcheting up their plans. While several leaders are framing COP as a "make or break" deal for the planet, the reality is probably more nuanced. A clear win on just one issue will probably count as success, and it’s possible there will be progress that can be built on down the line. Meanwhile the role of business and finance is increasingly important — banks are mobilizing finance to green the economy, and that momentum is likely to be sustained.
Saving Face: The Side Deals But as the main goals of ending coal and getting a net-zero commitment slip out of reach, work is under way to hatch a series of side deals that would go some way to salvaging the talks — or at least saving face. There’s a plan on curbing methane, for example, which the U.S. and EU are cajoling others to join, and others in the works on aviation and forests. The risk though is that if the main communique is so weak that all the action is in the mini deals, it raises questions about what’s the point of COP — and whether climate multilateralism is coming to the end of the road.
Source: https://www.supplychainbrain.com/articles/34003-what-is-cop26-a-guide-to-glasgow-climate-talks-2021
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COP26 & The Great Reset: The Not So Glorious Prospect Of Owning Nothing
Either you go along with the green program (that ignores nuclear as green) or you don’t get credit. Which is a policy that will, and is, quite predictably driving up energy prices.
There is a bit of panic flapping about over the number of heads of state who will not be attending, in person, the COP26 Conference that will be held starting on All Hallows’ Eve and lasting till November 12th.
The reason for the panic is because, in case you have been living in some bunker underground, we are in the midst of a very serious energy crisis along with hyperinflation, and there are growing murmurings that the very policies that COP26 wants to maximize to full throttle at this conference, are at the very source of what is causing this energy crisis. It is no secret that there will be the very vigorous attempt to strong arm the heads of state that do end up attending this conference into signing onto these fully maximized COP26 policies which are likely to only exacerbate the problem, with the projection that citizens across Europe are expected to spend a very cold and dark winter this year….during what we are told is an ongoing pandemic….and this apparently an acceptable thing.
Goldman Sachs has recently released a report confirming these fears, and warning that there is a blackout risk for European industry this winter. This is most certainly highly likely, however, the reason for why this is likely to occur is where the truth of the matter is getting very muddied. The thing is, such outright lies are rather easily verifiable, if one takes the time to look into things past your favourite echo chamber of MSM parroting mouthpieces. Presently, the popular line is once again to blame Russia. Yes I know, they should really fire the writers for this season’s epic drama series, season 2 looks awfully like season 1. With the money they are being paid you’d expect a little more panache. Instead what we get is the repetitive and boring tone-deafness of CNBC anchor Hadley Gamble who acted as the plenary session moderator for Russia’s Energy Week International Forum which was held just a week ago.
The best Hadley Gamble could seemingly come up with was to simply pretend she was not hearing the answers she was hearing from President Putin, it was quite something to behold, and not only called into question her level of competence and professionalism but also lost a lot of valuable time where a larger range of very important subjects could have been discussed. I highly recommend people read the entire transcript of the Q&A period for themselves, instead of the gossip column version that CNBC and others will undoubtedly report, spliced in between the subliminal Coca-Cola commercials. During the Q&A, one of the details President Putin had to repeat multiple times, since it fell upon deaf ears, was that contrary to the accusation that Russia has decreased its gas supply to Europe, it has in fact, increased its supply of gas to Europe, President Putin states:
“Gazprom has upped supplies by 10 percent, and in general, Russia has increased supplies to Europe by 15 percent. Pipeline gas is up by 10 percent, and LNG, up to 13 percent. We are increasing, not reducing deliveries. But other suppliers have cut deliveries by 14 billion cubic metres. US suppliers account for half of the cuts…We have not denied a single request, not a single one, and we are increasing supplies to Turkey, via Blue Stream and TurkStream; we are increasing supplies to the Balkans – they have been redirected through TurkStream now, but we are increasing deliveries via the existing routes as well. We have even increased supplies through the Ukrainian gas transportation system.” Despite the GTS equipment being 80% obsolete, and at risk to burst if pressure exceeds the present flow rate.
Yes you heard right, Russia has been actually increasing its gas supplies since the beginning of this year. It is not Russia that has cut down on its supply to Europe. This is easily verifiable information, it is open to the public for anyone who wants to verify this. Even outgoing Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel has confirmed this, as well as European Commission Vice President Frans Timmermans.
So where is the shortage coming from? Well for starters there was an inadequate amount of energy stored by wind and solar energy over the summer. Typically, the summer is when energy is stored for use during winter (since wind and solar are not effective energy producers during the cold season). Since the amount of energy gathered over the summer by wind and solar will not be enough to cover the energy needs during the winter, there has been an increased demand for gas supplies to cover this loss.
Many countries within Europe, but I would say most notably Germany, have cut down on their ability to generate energy other than from wind and solar.
In the case of Germany, its nuclear generation has decreased from 29.5% in 2000 to 11.4% in 2020 with the plan to shutdown all of their nuclear power plants by 2022.
It is presently Germany who risks suffering from the coldest and darkest winter this year. The absurdity of the situation, is that countries who have shutdown their alternative energy sources, are no longer self-sustaining but rather are now reliant on other countries supplying their energy needs, using the very energy forms that they have banned in their own countries.
This is why Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 are literally a matter of life and death for the German people. Not surprisingly, there is a lot of self-contradiction going on presently in the midst of this energy crisis. Only a few months ago, the US was sanctioning the go-ahead for Nord Stream 2. Then the US decided to waive it sanctions this past May, however, after only three months decided to sanction a Russian ship and two companies involved in the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline in an attempt to halt the project. This by the way, was against Chancellor Merkel’s wishes, the US was intervening on Germany’s ability to meet its energy demands and decide for itself.
Now Germany is headed for a very cold and dark winter and what are the MSM parrots squawking? That it is Russia’s fault that Germany and other European nations are not meeting their energy needs!
Hadley Gamble appeared to be suffering from multiple personality since in one breath she let off a critical tone over Putin and Merkel’s agreement on Nord Stream 2, and then in the next breath she was inquiring if Nord Stream 2 would be coming online soon to “assuage the gas crisis”.
President Putin answered that this was not up to Russia, that Nord Stream 2 could have been online a long time ago but presently there are still administrative barriers that are holding this up, stating:
“The German regulator must take the corresponding decision, but has not done so yet. Of course, if we could increase deliveries through this route, this would substantially ease tension on the European energy market. I am 100 percent sure about this. Of course, this would affect prices on the European gas market. This is obvious. However, we cannot do this so far because of the administrative barriers.”
Incredibly, President Putin also had to make the point that countries need to tell Russia whether they want the gas supply to be increased, that Russia is meeting the present contractual demands and that if there is a demand to increase the supply, Russia can do it, but it needs to be a contract. Russia is not simply going to increase its supply to European nations without their official request for such a thing.
So, thus far we have found out that Russia has increased its supply of gas to Europe since the beginning of the year, that the US accounts for half of the cuts to the supply to Europe, that the energy shortage in Europe was caused by an over-reliance on wind and solar energy and that Nord Stream 2 (which has been strongly opposed by the US and Green Energy advocates) has the capability to restabilize gas prices and meet supply demands, that Russia is willing to do this, but that there are ongoing European restrictions that are preventing this from happening.
In other words, what has occurred (and very predictably I might add) is an artificial shortage due to policy decisions and not from any lack of resources. It is a shortage that has been predictably created by the choice to go with one policy over another. COP26 wants to exacerbate this by calling for all countries to follow the German model of stripping themselves of all forms of energy production other than wind and solar.
I will further address the inflation of gas price in a little bit, but before that I want to address this push to cut down nuclear power. This is where the intention of COP26 is exposed for the hypocrisy that it is.
Nuclear energy is a clean source of energy. It does not make any sense that countries are being told that they need to dismantle their nuclear plants in order to be considered “green.”
As reported by Nuclear Newswire:
“According to Kirsty Gogan, cofounder of TerraPraxis and a senior climate and energy advisor to the U.K. government, ‘All three Green Zone applications by nuclear groups were rejected’… this example is just another inconsistency in the fight against climate change from governments and nongovernmental organizations around the globe, considering that a recent U.N. report shows that international climate objectives will not be met without nuclear power. Given that nuclear power currently produces 20 percent of the energy (and 43 percent of the zero-carbon energy) in the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) geographical scope, it is clear that it should be a big part of the global economy’s drive to net zero. Yet, nuclear advocates will be frustratingly left on the sidelines of the green zone at the upcoming COP26 megaconference.”
COP26 has shown a clear intention to continue to push out nuclear power as an acceptable green energy producer.
So, if we want to know one of the major reasons why China, Russia, India, Japan, Brazil, South Africa, Iran and Mexico have all had their heads of state opt out of attending COP26 in person, this is a likely reason as to why. South Korea has not confirmed yet whether their head of state will be attending.
All of these countries are pro-nuclear energy. Iran is by no means going to go along with shutting down their nuclear energy after their long fight to acquire that very thing to uplift the standard of living for their people.
Brazil and South Korea are no different, they too have had to fight for their acquiring of nuclear energy.
During the Carter Administration, American Vice President Walter Mondale was sent to France and West Germany to “inform” them that the U.S. would henceforth oppose the sale of nuclear energy technology to the Third World…and thus they should do so as well. This was in addition to the US attempts to sabotage West Germany’s nuclear deal with Brazil and France’s promise to sell nuclear technology to South Korea .
The fight for nuclear energy has always been about the fight for the right to develop one’s nation.
As President Putin stressed the point at the recent “Russia Energy Week International Forum”: “To reiterate, the rise in natural gas prices in Europe stemmed from shortages of electricity, not the other way around… Systemic flaws have been gradually introduced in European energy over the past decade, which led to a major market crisis in Europe.
As a reminder, when nuclear and natural gas-based generation were the leading energy sources, there were no such crises, and there were no grounds for them… Few people are aware of this, but the nuclear energy’s carbon footprint is lower than that of solar energy. I think even the specialists here are, perhaps, hearing this for the first time.” So why the opposition to nuclear? Why indeed… Let us now address the situation of increased gas prices.
As President Putin made the point in the above quote, part of the reason why gas prices have increased is because of the shortage of supply, which as I have already discussed is an artificially created shortage. Another reason he gave was that there is the manipulation of speculators on the spot market which are driving up the prices.
However, that is not the only reason why prices have been increasing.
Mark Carney, former director of the Bank of England has called for a “net zero banking alliance” in which banks have agreed not to lend to producers but only to put funds into the green bubble, the carbon bubble and so on. As a result, future energy production will drop even though there are ample resources available, creating further artificial scarcity.
In an interview with the Washington Post, Mark Carney stated that private banks in the financial sector must produce a change in the plumbing of the financial system in order to push liquidity into the speculative bubble while cutting investments to the productive economy. Carney said climate change must become the “fundamental driver of every investment decision or lending decision.”
In other words, either you go along with the green program (that ignores nuclear as green) or you don’t get credit. Which is a policy that will, and is, quite predictably driving up energy prices.
This is where the Great Reset agenda comes in, which will cause a further centralisation of how finance is already coordinated, into the hands of fewer and fewer controllers, giving increasing liquidity to the banking sector but no money for the productive sector. This policy of Mark Carney has already caused the bankruptcy of several energy companies across Europe, and there has been no correction to this policy despite Europe being in an energy crisis.
According to a Zerohedge article “Bailout? Or No Bailout? UK Gov’t Officials Offer Conflicting Views On Energy Crisis”, of the 55 companies that supply electricity in the UK, it is likely that the majority will be forced to declare bankruptcy in the very near future, “Five suppliers have already gone bust since the start of August as surging wholesale prices have left companies insufficiently hedged. Out of the 55 suppliers, only six to ten could be left after the smoke clears. Millions of Britons brace for natural gas and electricity inflation, soaring food prices, and possibly electricity shortages this winter.”
In addition, Wall Street on Parade has reported that they have reason to believe that the hyperinflation we are presently observing started back in Sept 2019 when a derivatives blow out occurred and to which the Federal Reserve stepped in through the repo markets to provide massive liquidity to banks such as Deutsche Bank, BNP, JP Morgan, Citibank, Bank of America etc.
This hyperinflationary money pumping did not just go to what is claimed to be solely for the covering of short-term corporate loans. The hypothesis of Wall Street on Parade is that the bulk of this money really went to covering up the derivatives blowout that they believe started in Sept 2019.
This is what is truly causing the hyperinflation and is being covered up by labeling it as a supply chain problem of raw material shortages and so on, when in fact it is due to the hyperinflationary money printing, combined with the green new deal policies, which are artificially driving up the prices of gas and coal.
You could keep all of this in mind and judge accordingly. Or perhaps it is best that we listen to the wisdom of Greta Thunberg, who is hailed as a genius by some, and whose most recent quote that is making the rounds consists of “Blah, blah, blah” give or take a “blah.” I think it a rather apt quote to be representing the thoughts and direction of Miss Greta Thunberg presently.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Next: 1,000 Private Jets Will Assemble In Davos To Execute The Great Reset
STORY AT-A-GLANCE > The wealthy elite travel to the World Economic Forum’s annual meetings via a “steady stream” of private planes and helicopters to discuss issues like global sustainability > By 2050, it’s estimated that aviation will contribute 22% of global carbon emissions; still, in 2019, more than 600 private planes arrived at the Davos Forum, and that doesn’t include the military planes that transported an additional 60 presidents and prime ministers > Jet-setters are carbon super-emitters; the idea that the elite can continue to pollute but simply purchase carbon credits to “offset” their pollution is a matter of smoke and mirrors > WEF and its partners are using the COVID-19 pandemic as “a unique window of opportunity” to rapidly usher in The Great Reset, which involves changing everything from future global relations and the direction of national economies to “the priorities of societies, the nature of business models and the management of a global commons” > Part of the plan involves ushering in stakeholder capitalism, in which private corporations — not elected leaders — become “trustees of society,” putting your privacy and data, your food and your freedom at risk
At the start of each year, the world’s elite hop into their private jets and descend upon Davos, Switzerland, a city prized not only for its luxury ski resorts but also for hosting the World Economic Forum (WEF) annual meeting.
Also known as the Davos Forum, the event takes on a different theme each year, providing a global platform for business leaders, government officials, academia and other members of society to discuss “critical issues.”1 WEF is one of the key players behind The Great Reset, with their “new normal” dictum that, by 2030, you will own nothing and be happy.2 In such a scheme, the world’s resources will be owned and controlled by the technocratic elite. All items and resources are to be used by the collective, while actual ownership is restricted to an upper stratum of social class. Just how “upper class”?
To even attend the WEF annual meeting, you must be privately invited or a member of WEF, which costs $60,000 to $600,000. The attendance badge for the meeting is extra and costs another $27,000 in 2020, just to get entrance to the conference.3
Arriving on Private Jets to Discuss Sustainability
The irony was palpable at Davos 2020, which brought in a “steady stream” of private planes and helicopters so their passengers could discuss the climate crisis and sustainability.4 In 2018, more than 1,000 private jets and helicopters similarly made their way to Davos and, in 2017, an estimated 200 private flights landed in the city each day during the event.5 By 2050, it’s estimated that aviation will contribute 22% of global carbon emissions. Still, in 2019, more than 600 private planes arrived at the Davos Forum, and that doesn’t include the military planes that transported an additional 60 presidents and prime ministers.6 But we needn’t worry about this indulgence of the upper classes at the expense of the environment, according to WEF. “Offering little self-awareness, leaders of the WEF claim that the jet-set class promises to purchase carbon credits to offset the emissions from their planes,” Forbes noted. This is yet another strategy of the technocratic elite to set up a new wave of colonization in the name of sustainability and “net zero” carbon emissions.
Rich Carbon Super-Emitters Plan to Buy Their Way Out
The deadline Bill Gates has given to reach net zero emissions is 2050.7 It’s another ironic statement coming from the jet-set elite. Gates lives in a 66,000-square-foot mansion and travels in a private jet that uses up 486 gallons of fuel every hour.8 As a result of buying up staggering amounts of farmland, he’s a major contributor to carbon emissions,9 and his jet-setting lifestyle also makes him a carbon “super-emitter.”10
But when it comes to the elite, it’s “do as I say, not as I do.” As explained by Vandana Shiva, in order to force the world to accept The Great Reset’s new food and agricultural system, new conditionalities are being created through net zero “nature-based” solutions, which are anything but good for the environment and favor the rich.
Navdanya’s report, “Earth Democracy: Connecting Rights of Mother Earth to Human Rights and Well-Being of All,” explains:11# “If ‘feeding the world’ through chemicals and dwarf varieties bred for chemicals was the false narrative created to impose the Green Revolution, the new false narrative is ‘sustainability’ and ‘saving the planet.’ In the new ‘net zero’ world, farmers will not be respected and rewarded as custodians of the land and caregivers, as Annadatas, the providers of our food and health.
… ‘Net Zero’ is a new strategy to get rid of small farmers in first through ‘digital farming’ and ‘farming without farmers’ and then through the burden of fake carbon accounting. Carbon offsets and the new accounting trick of ‘net zero’ does not mean zero emissions. It means the rich polluters will continue to pollute and also grab the land and resources of those who have not polluted — indigenous people and small farmers — for carbon offsets.” The idea that the elite can continue to pollute but simply purchase carbon credits to “offset” their pollution is simply a matter of smoke and mirrors. Speaking with Business Insider, Lucy Gilliam, with the European clean transport nonprofit Transport & Environment, stated, “You’re not actually removing the emissions that have been created by that plane. The plane will have burned that fuel, and the carbon has been released into the atmosphere.”12
Davos 2021: Execute The Great Reset
In 2021, due to the pandemic the Davos Forum was held virtually in January and again in person in Singapore in August. During the five-day January event, which was attended by 1,507 people from “the highest levels of leadership,” five domains of The Great Reset Initiative were discussed, including:13
Designing cohesive, sustainable and resilient economic systems.
Driving responsible industry transformation and growth.
Enhancing stewardship of our global commons.
Harnessing the technologies of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
Advancing global and regional cooperation.
It’s made clear that the COVID-19 pandemic has created “a unique window of opportunity” to rapidly usher in The Great Reset, which involves changing everything from future global relations and the direction of national economies to “the priorities of societies, the nature of business models and the management of a global commons.”14
The end goal is to “build a new social contract,”15 which sounds like a lofty goal while telling you exactly nothing. “Build back better” is a tagline that’s used often with The Great Reset, and though this is being played off as a new initiative, it’s actually a rebranding of terms for technocracy and the old “New World Order.”
Part of the plan involves the Fourth Industrial Revolution, which Schwab has been discussing since at least 2016,16 and which “is characterized by a fusion of technologies that is blurring the lines between the physical, digital and biological spheres.”
In terms of government, the Revolution will bring new technological powers that allow for increased population control via “pervasive surveillance systems and the ability to control digital infrastructure.”17 As for as its effects on people, Klaus Schwab, WEF’s founder and executive chairman, wrote in 2016:18
“The Fourth Industrial Revolution, finally, will change not only what we do but also who we are. It will affect our identity and all the issues associated with it: our sense of privacy, our notions of ownership, our consumption patterns, the time we devote to work and leisure, and how we develop our careers, cultivate our skills, meet people, and nurture relationships.
It is already changing our health and leading to a ‘quantified’ self, and sooner than we think it may lead to human augmentation. The list is endless because it is bound only by our imagination.”
Davos 2022: Ushering in Stakeholder Capitalism
Davos 2022 will take place in January 2022, with plans to continue The Great Reset narrative. The theme, “Working Together, Restoring Trust,” will focus on “accelerating stakeholder capitalism, harnessing the technologies of the Fourth Industrial Revolution and ensuring a more inclusive future of work.”19
Also known as stakeholder economy, Forbes described stakeholder capitalism as “the notion that a firm focuses on meeting the needs of all its stakeholders: customers, employees, partners, the community and society as a whole.”20 The idea of stakeholder capitalism has been around since at least 1932, and was also endorsed by nearly 200 CEOs of large corporations in August 2019.21 However, it is now being accelerated as part of The Great Reset.
“Business has now to fully embrace stakeholder capitalism, which means not only maximizing profits, but use their capabilities and resources in cooperation with governments and civil society to address the key issues of this decade. They have to actively contribute to a more cohesive and sustainable world,” said Schwab.22
However, forms of stakeholder capitalism have already been tried and failed, because balancing conflicting stakeholder claims was near-impossible and only led to mass confusion and poor returns.23 The failure of this strategy is what led big businesses to focus on maximizing shareholder value instead.
The Future of Food, Privacy and Freedom Are at Stake
In stakeholder capitalism, private corporations become “trustees of society,” as Schwab said, which he added is “clearly the best response to today’s social and environmental challenges.”24 But while it sounds like a good thing to have corporations looking out for their customers, suppliers, employees and society as a whole, the underlying theme is that private corporations take power over society — not elected leaders.
WEF is partnered with multinational corporations that lead the food, oil, technology and pharmaceutical industries. What does a future look like in which these corporations call all the shots? We’ve already seen snippets, such as the 2021 United Nations Food Systems Summit, which prompted boycotts from farmers and human rights groups over claims that it favored agribusiness interests, elite foundations and the exploitation of African food systems.25
In terms of Big Tech, it’s possible it would end up as its own global governing body, wielding increasing power over society. Your privacy and data, your food and your access to medications would all be under the control of these corporate “custodians.” As political scientist Ivan Wecke wrote in Open Democracy:26
“The plan from which The Great Reset originated was called the Global Redesign Initiative. Drafted by the WEF after the 2008 economic crisis, the initiative contains a 600-page report on transforming global governance. In the WEF’s vision, ‘the government voice would be one among many, without always being the final arbiter.’
… Instead of corporations serving many stakeholders, in the multi-stakeholder model of global governance, corporations are promoted to being official stakeholders in global decision-making, while governments are relegated to being one of many stakeholders. In practice, corporations become the main stakeholders, while governments take a backseat role, and civil society is mainly window dressing.
… If you value your right to public health, to privacy, to access healthy food or to democratic representation, be wary of the words ‘stakeholder capitalism’ when they pop up at the next Davos summit.”