World Economic Forum Says Water, Soil, And Oxygen Should Not Be Infinitely Accessible. They Are Assets That Should Be Included In Global Economic Balance Sheets
- 3 hours ago
- 10 min read
Source: Wine Press
“The More Smog in the Sky, The More People Will Buy!” -Mr. O'Hare. All of these things must and will be tokenized, reducing everything to datapoints and lines of code.
The World Economic Forum says that the essential building blocks of life and the ecosystem — water, air and soil — all need to be commodified and must be accessed in limited and permissible quantities to the public. Carbon pricing and taxing is certainly not a new concept for the likes of the WEF, or those at the United Nations or the International Monetary Fund (IMF), but how that is defined and what it might look like in the new global economic system was only partially explained by those speaking at the WEF.
These views were expressed during a panel discussion at the Annual Meeting of the New Champions, held in Dalian, China, in 2024. The title of the discussion is called “Understanding Nature’s Ledger.”
The moderator, Magdalena Skipper, Editor-in-Chief for the journal Nature, began the talks by saying the panel “will emphasize the need to move beyond current economic indicators to mainstream natural capital in decision-making,” and “the need for proper accounting for ecosystems services.”
“Natural Capital” refers to “the stock of renewable and non-renewable natural resources (e.g., plants, animals, air, water, soils, minerals) that combine to yield a flow of benefits to people.”
Skipper added that “valuing economic models that prioritize assets such as clean water, clean air, nutritious food, human well-being is imperative.” “The good news, there is good news,” she added, “is that there are coordinated international efforts to expand beyond the traditional concepts of capital and profit.”
The first of the panelists to speak was Lindsay Hooper, the CEO at Cambridge Institute for Sustainable Leadership.
Hooper did not take long to establish that this natural capital, particularly water, air and soil, needs to be turned into commodities put into new digital accounting, and access must be limited because the earth’s resources are finite.
In a lengthy remark, she stated (emphasis mine):
When we talk about capital, we tend to think only about financial capital, about cash, financial assets. But we know that’s not the only value on which our economies depend. We know that every aspect of every part of the economy is fundamentally dependent on nature, as you highlighted. The air that we breathe, the water we drink, the soil, the oceans that we need for the food that we need to consume, the minerals that we need as inputs to technology and to infrastructure. And without these forms of value, these forms of natural capital, we won’t have economies. They are the fundamental building blocks of our economies.But the ways, as you said, the ways in which we have grown our economies, our models of economic development, have been incredibly successful for global prosperity.
But the unintended consequences of current models of growth are simply not sustainable on a finite planet.The amount of resource[s] that we are drawing in to our economies, Earth’s resources, and the amount of pollution and waste that we’re pumping out, whether that’s through greenhouse gas emissions, whether that’s sewage into our water, whether it’s plastics into the ocean, is beyond the Earth’s carrying capacity. And we know that that’s leading, as you said, to very significant direct impacts for society, but very significant financial costs for the economy. And you can look at that as you have and calculate that at a macro level.But the way that that’s showing up as we’re breaching these boundaries and breaching these limits and undermining nature is showing up in very practical ways that are showing up for financial risk for institutions. Lack of water is leading to disruption of operations of supply chains, where water is needed as an essential input for manufacturing or power production.
The degradation of soil is leading to reduced agricultural yields. The decline of pollinator species is also having an impact on agriculture. So that’s leading to direct financial risks for organizations, for businesses, and ultimately for investors. And as you said, ultimately the reason for this is at the moment the way that decisions are made on an everyday level within businesses and financial institutions is because we’re looking only at financial data, financial metrics that are not factoring in nature.Nature is treated within the economy as though it’s unlimited and predominantly as though it’s free. And the risks and harms are simply not costed in financial terms. We can cost them at a macro level. They’re not costed into day-to-day decision-making. And the result is as a consequence we’ve put all of our economies at fundamental risk.
We can’t do business on a dead planet.If we’re going to protect natural systems, one of the solutions is to bring nature onto the balance sheet, to bring nature into the ways that decisions are made within business to allocate a value to it and to bring it into accounting and financial mechanisms. You also asked about how that will lead to better decision-making. I think it’s just good business.It’s just about good long-term value creation. And importantly, it’s about resilience for the long term. It’s about moving from a landscape of growing risk to more resilient organizations.And businesses, investors, by better mapping, assessing, integrating, that understanding of their dependencies and associated risks, the impacts and associated risks, can make better decision-making to protect themselves, position themselves for the future.
During the Q&A session, Hooper was asked about how “nature being integrated into regulations.” According to her, Hooper said (in part) that this transformation “require government action and ambition, a whole range of other ways, subsidies, taxes, penalties, advanced procurement will require more of that. So we’re seeing a lot of business support in Europe, for instance, where we’re looking at the next five years to say, can we get more effective government action around nature?”
Hooper was not the only one with these ambitions.
Song Changqing, Deputy Director-General, Department of Resource Conservation and Environmental Protection, National Development and Reform Commission, explained how this new natural capital pricing model is already being adopted in China with what they refer to as “ecosystem product value realization” (EPVR). Speaking in Chinese, translated to English by an interpreter, he explained how this works:
First of all, what is the ecosystem product? So first of all, we know the natural ecosystem can provide us with some physical product and intangible services for the consumers, and we call them all, in a general idea, ecosystem product. So how can we understand it?Every day, every one of us is enjoying the convenience of nature, but maybe we never think about what we need to pay for them. We are enjoying all these conditions for free. Maybe until one day, when we are drinking the clear water, and when we are no longer drinking the clear water and breathing the clear air, we might be able to think of this value that we need to pay for it.
He went on to break it down into three categories: physical elements, which include “timber, the herbs, and so on;” the second being “some service that can regulate our environment, for example, the ocean, the carbon sink, and so on;” and the third one being “cultural service,” referring to “some well-being service that can give us some entertainment, some tourism that enjoy in close contact with the nature.”
Li Pengcheng, Executive President at Mengniu Group, later remarked that in order to do all this repricing of natural assets more data collection is required. “The second challenge is the lack of data, because for any accounting to be reliable, you need a lot of data. But we have yet to build a reliable data set or data bank.”
At the end of the discussion, Skipper reflected on the remarks given and she drew some conclusions. She noted the “need for a very harmonized understanding of how and what to integrate into accounting systems so that there's comparability, so that there is equity, and there is engagement across the economic systems that we have today.”
She also referenced how the commoditization of nature could be integrated into broader carbon taxation.
“And beyond carbon, let’s think about other aspects of nature that are easier to quantify. We probably will not be able to quantify everything on day one, but what about water? That’s also quite possible for us to start integrating systematically into current trading carbon pricing mechanisms.“So that’s my second reflection, which is the need for harmonization, dialogue, collaboration, given that the economic systems that we have today are global in orientation.”
The WinePress has previously reported that featured economists and central bankers at the WEF, and the IMF, have urged the necessity of international carbon taxes.
The former head of Nestle has previously said that having free access to water is an “extremist” position and that it should only be sold. Citing a report by Truthout, the publication wrote:
Water, Brabeck correctly pointed out, “is of course the most important raw material we have today in the world,” but added: “It’s a question of whether we should privatize the normal water supply for the population. And there are two different opinions on the matter. The one opinion, which I think is extreme, is represented by the NGOs, who bang on about declaring water a public right.” Brabeck elaborated on this “extreme” view: “That means that as a human being you should have a right to water. That’s an extreme solution.” The other view, and thus, the “less extreme” view, he explained, “says that water is a foodstuff like any other, and like any other foodstuff it should have a market value. Personally I believe it’s better to give a foodstuff a value so that we’re all aware that it has its price, and then that one should take specific measures for the part of the population that has no access to this water, and there are many different possibilities there.” The biggest social responsibility of any CEO, Brabeck explained:
“is to maintain and ensure the successful and profitable future of his enterprise. For only if we can ensure our continued, long term existence will we be in the position to actively participate in the solution of the problems that exist in the world. We’re in the position of being able to create jobs… If you want to create work, you have to work yourself, not as it was in the past where existing work was distributed. If you remember the main argument for the 35-hour week was that there was a certain amount of work and it would be better if we worked less and distributed the work amongst more people. That has proved quite clearly to be wrong. If you want to create more work you have to work more yourself. And with that we’ve got to create a positive image of the world for people, and I see absolutely no reason why we shouldn’t be positive about the future. We’ve never had it so good, we’ve never had so much money, we’ve never been so healthy, we’ve never lived as long as we do today. We have everything we want and we still go around as if we were in mourning for something.”
AUTHOR COMMENTARY
In 2012, Dr. Seuss’ The Lorax was readapted into a movie, and it featured people living in a smart city that was all plastic and synthetic, and was governed by a rich CEO who commodified fresh air, called O’Hare Air, and at one point his executives pitched the idea of selling pop cans full of this fresh air. His slogan: “The more smog in the sky, the more people will buy!”
That’s the cartoonish level we are dealing with with the WEF and these movers of globalist sedition. You don’t own anything, you have no rights to anything, we must bow down and buy the rights of life on earth from them.
Lamentations 5:4 We have drunken our water for money; our wood is sold unto us. [5] Our necks are under persecution: we labour, and have no rest.
How will their insidious goal be achieved? Simple: TOKENIZATION.
If you have been following my coverage on tokenization, when these ‘elites’ tell you that everything will be tokenized, they mean EVERYTHING.
This will not happen overnight, but the foundation is being deployed right now in front of everyone’s faces, and yet so few understand. Through 5G/6G technology, AI in everything and everywhere via the Internet of Things and Internet of Bodies technologies, merged with blockchain, everything will eventually be reduced to data and a token that is owned and controlled by a select few.
The WEF’ians on stage say they need more data infrastructure. Again, harken back to the words of Oracle CEO Larry Ellison, who told the World Governments Summit last year that he wants to combine everyone’s private data and DNA into giant datacenters so AI systems can understand and have access to everything. He said:
“Question is how do you take advantage of these incredible AI models?“The first thing a country needs to do is to unify all of their data so it can be consumed and used by the AI model.“I want to ask questions about my country, what’s going on in my country? What’s happening to my farmers? I need to give it my climate data. Now it probably has your climate data already, but I need to know exactly what crops are growing and which farms [for] me to predict the output.“I have to take satellite images, I have to take those satellite images from my country and feed that into a database that is accessible by the AI model. I have to tell the AI model as much about my country as I can. You tell part of the story with these satellite models, you get a huge amount of information. You tell it where roads are, where borders are, where utilities are, so you need to provide a map of your country, for the farms, and all of the utility infrastructure, and your borders, all of that you have to provide.“If you want to improve population health, you have to take all of your healthcare data, your diagnostic data, your electronic health records, your genomic data.“[…] We have to take all of this data we have in our country and move it into a single, if you will, unified data platform so we [can] provide context. When we want to ask questions we’ve provided that AI model with all the data they need to understand our country, so that’s the big step, that’s kind of the missing link.“We need to unify all of the national data, put it into a database where it’s easily consumable by the AI model, and then ask whatever question you like.”
