For anyone who follows the efforts of environmentalists, their policies often have an ulterior motive.
They do not result in a better society, nor do they produce better habitats. Their policy preferences also do not take into account how land use improves the land for people and animals. Instead, many environmentalists advocate policies at the expense of farmers, miners, and others who derive useful, tangible, social benefits from the land. This often causes observers to wonder: What are environmentalists actually after?
The answer is power and money. It turns out that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) are quietly working on a rule that could prove this ulterior motive.
Watch Elon Musk Channel Alex Jones & Slam Environmentalist Death Cult
On September 29, the SEC, at the request of the NYSE, proposed a proposal rule that would create an entirely new type of company, a Natural Asset Company (NAC). Under the proposed rule, NACs “have the rights to environmental performance.” These companies would be licensed to control land, both public and private, and would be required not to engage in “unsustainable activities, such as mining, that lead to the degradation of ecosystems.” In effect, this means that these companies would somehow try to make a profit on the lands without using the lands. Whatever they do, it must be ‘sustainable’.
How can a company make controlling land profitable while the land is also not being used? The method is admittedly confusing, perhaps intentionally so. They benefit from ‘ecological performance’ such as ‘conservation, restoration or sustainable management’. These NACs would quantify and monetize these natural outputs (such as air or water). The best comparison would be to use the air we breathe as a kind of cryptocurrency. And these natural resources, which belong to all of us, would now belong to corporations run by what many would call environmental interests.
Another feature of these new companies is that land belonging to both sovereign nations and private landowners may be subject to the control of NACs. Sovereign countries, such as the United States government, can make their land available private investorsincluding that one outside the United States. For example, China could invest in a NAC and effectively be a stakeholder in our national parks. Russia could take control of lands currently leased to produce oil and make them off-limits to future natural resource development.
The Biden administration has already suggested it would transfer this power to the NACs. The Office of Science and Technology Policy has also developed a method to track nature’s values and place these so-called natural resources on the federal balance sheet. It described this effort as “the transition we need for sustainable growth and development, a stable climate and a healthy planet.” The Bureau of Land Management and the US Fish and Wildlife Service are taking similar steps to facilitate the enrollment of our federal lands in NACs.
Private landowners would also relinquish, possibly even involuntarily, their control of land to NACs, who in turn would require them to use the land in a ‘sustainable’ manner. NACs would prevent productive use of the land, which would hurt landowners financially, but also reduce the supply of minerals, food and other goods coming from the land.
Even the traditional methods of regulatory oversight must change to enable NACs. Traditional accounting standards would not be used to regulate NACs. This is likely because NACs do not withstand scrutiny under generally accepted accounting principles. Instead, a new accounting framework would be created by the Intrinsic Exchange Group (IEG). Not coincidentally, the NYSE is an investor in IEG and could benefit from IEG’s position as an accounting authority.
This effort would be a huge windfall for the federal government and the NACs. The government would create an entirely new revenue stream that would exclusively benefit the Davos-like masses that support the current government. Both big government and radical environmentalists benefit.
These efforts consciously prioritize environmentalism over human flourishing. IEG admits that “producing these essential goods and services and managing resources wisely is equally valuable, or perhaps even more valuablethan food production.”
These gains are far from insignificant. IEG has stated that the NAC economy will be four times larger than the entire economy today. Handing over the reins of an economy bigger than anything we’ve ever known is, in effect, handing over such great power.
Power and money. If this proposed rule is finalized, private investors who have neither America’s best interests nor the public’s economic well-being in mind would end up with both. They would control our countries and profit from them at the same time. Transferring the rights to America’s greatest national treasures — along with the air we breathe — to wealthy special interests may seem like an extravagantly outlandish idea, but we now have less than 45 days before it could be our reality.
BOMBSHELL: New Zealand whistleblower exposes COVID mass genocide plot