The Green Climate Fund: Where Does The Money GO?

Wind turbine companies are shuttering – Colorado, South Dakota, Pennsylvania, and Arkansas closed this year – with one moving operations to Spain and another to Mexico.   Their reasoning?   A.   tax benefits are nonexistent,   and B.   orders dropped 38%.  Prior to these closures, 50% of wind turbines in the US came from China.   Why? Because they were cheap.   But you won’t see these reports on MSM because they undermine everything Biden and Kerry.

According to a report released by the Green Climate Fund – if we act NOW we can still reach the 1.5 degree threshold established six years ago.   Because nothing has really changed in six years.  All that is needed is more money!   To the tune of a mere $100 billion annually.   In light of this call for money, South Korea’s Deputy PM, Hong Ham-ki, declared that they ‘plan’ to invest 3.5% of their GDP in “Green New Deal projects, including green infrastructure, renewable energy, and green mobility,” by 2025.  Ah.   A PLAN.

Isn’t it interesting that pledges are always based on an indeterminent future time. The Green Fund is flush with a $6.8 billion cookie jar left untapped.   The last year audited financial statements were prepared was 2019 wherein contributions dropped 62% over 2018 and expenses increased 89%.   But not to worry, their micro-lending interest increased by 590% while outstanding micro loans increased by 78% to $460 million. The increase in expenditures was a result of admin expenses, a new facility, funding actual grants, and ‘fees’.   Amazing they spent more money on themselves.   Only 1/6 of committed funds were actually disbursed.   Pledged. In addition 28% of their contributions remain a ‘receivable’.   IN the true business world this would be viewed as abysmal!  And everybody would be fired!   

Not to worry, the average annual pay for their 229 staff is nearly $160,000.   In addition to staff, an additional $13 million was shelled out  to contract labor and consultants.

It Gets Worse:   Apparently, their grants are not actually paid directly to an entity, but are channeled through ‘accredited entities’.   One such entity is the Asian Development Bank based in the Philippines with shares held by: Japan and the United States each holds the largest proportion of shares at 15.571%. China holds 6.429%, India holds 6.317%, and Australia holds 5.773%. The bank has come under substantial criticism for it’s ‘lending tactics’.   That gives us a warm and fuzzy feeling!

Another accredited entity is the UN Development Program which is the recipient of the 2nd largest block of funds.   UNDP lists 16 different funding initiatives.   The top five include:   Security System Management, HIV/AIDS, Public Sector Policy and Admin Management, Decentralization and Support to Subnational Government, Reconstruction Relief and Rehabilitation.  

In fact, within all 16 initiatives, there is no mention of Green grants to nations.   They do claim to reduce poverty by ‘expanding access to resources’   which is code for micro-lending at usury rates.   But apparently this gives the poor a voice.    Whimper whimper!   In addition, the UN Development Program ‘works with 8 countries to reduce their carbon footprint’ including Uganda.   Uganda’s carbon footprint is less than Amazons which exceeds 51.17 million metric tons per year. Apparently, another country in desperation is Ethiopia whose carbon footprint is 10.5 million metric tons – or 1/5 of Amazons.     Other identified footprints of concern would be Algeria, Albania, Peru, and  Columbia… Dastardly!

By comparison, China, the largest carbon footprint in the world emits 10.04 billion metric tons per year.   Xi Jinping says not to worry because China will be carbon neutral by 2060 when Xi is 107 years old.  So let’s divert Climate Funds to those countries emitting the least carbon footprint!   That’s the rational logic here.

Acumen Organization is a US NGO that also serves as an accredited recipient of Green Climate Funds as well as $3 million from government grants.   Acumen likens itself to being a unique organization given their primary activity is to ‘buy companies’ – pay no taxes – and spend 43.3% of their revenue on salaries.   Overhead would amount to roughly $4.43 million – 14.7%, and the loverly $2.252 ‘other’ – 7.5%.   The remainder is fluff to spend or horde.

While sitting on assets worth $135 million – not taxed. Of their total investments noted as outside of the US region, FS Notes declare that all grants they make go to related entities.   Meaning, literally, they grant money to themselves.

Grants given within the US are to algorithm tech companies and universities, most notably 60 Decibels, Inc. which they loaned over $4.5 million in exchange for their former CIO to own 35% interest???

Acumen has actually done absolutely nothing for any body.   ALL their movement of money is simply a strategy of tax free cash buying investment property for Acumen to reap the reward.

But this is the Green Climate Fund that Kerry declares is in desperate need of $100 billion per year in order to repair our global climate by 2030 when earth will collapse!   At which point Affiliated NGO’s will have accumulated wealth to the tune of roughly $15.5 trillion with compounded interest at 8% annually over a 10 year time.  And the climate will continue to do what climate does – CHANGE>

Not a Bad Take!   The Heist of the Century to be sure!

UN: Natural Disasters Exponential! MORE $$$$ Needed For Climate Change – FUND

UN HEADLINE:   Natural disasters occurring three times more often than 50 years ago: new FAO report:

“At no other point in history have agri-food systems faced more hazards such as megafires, extreme weather, unusually large desert locust swarms, and emerging biological threats, as during the past year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nor have they been seen at such frequency, intensity, and complexity, the agency said…”

This report is the precursor to divert ever more money to Africa via the Paris Accord Green Climate Fund.   But what is the Truth?

The Rothschild rag, The Economist, and by default the United Nations has revealed that in the last 50 years ‘Natural Disasters’ have risen by 400%.   So what’s the REAL story?

According to FEMA, the US natural disasters were in the range of 35-45 until 1996 when suddenly they were quoted at 158.   Of the 158, 80 were caused by fires (51%), 27 by floods, 28 by severe storms which also included flooding, 15 by snow, 6 by hurricane, and 2 as a result of water main break and a gas leak.   Then in 1997 the reports went back to normal – 47.   In 1998, they added the categories of; coastal storm, drought, mudslide, and tornado with a new tally at 128 for the year. The new categories covered 7 new disasters.   But fires still dominated with 44% of all disasters.

By 2000 the total number dropped even after severe ice storm and earthquake were added to the tally.  2003 numbers increased again with fires representing over 62%.    By 2014, numbers had dropped below 1996 tallies.   In 2020, FEMA had added 2 additional categories: Biological and Dam/Levee Break. The Biologic, aka CoVid19, accounted for 52% of the tally.    So, if we were to drop that category, natural disasters in the US would be below 1996.

Snore. Snort.

According to the UN, CoVid19, SARS, H1N1 are all considered ‘Natural Disasters’ as opposed to manufactured in a lab… Meaning someone ate an infected bat and then proceeded to infect the entire world and that is – natural.

But it isn’t even Biologic warfare that compromised the tallies over the last fifty years.   FIRES are what altered the numbers 50 years ago.   Fires account for 44% to 62% of ALL natural disasters – including fires that were human caused.  And that statistic did NOT exist 50 years ago.

The problem is that the cause of fires is predominantly arson or human negligence.   Of the 6 largest fires in history in Arizona, 5 were human caused. In New York City, of the 11 largest fires in history – all were human caused.   But they are still categorized as a ‘natural disaster’.

To address Africa specifics per the UN and Economist Fear Mongering:   1. Locusts have been a seven year occurrence since the beginning of time – everywhere.   2.   99% of fires in Africa are set purposefully on farm fields to rejuvenate the soil – and according to ‘scientists’ these fires are an ecological ‘good thing’.   So if they are a good thing and have been the means of ‘farming’ for thousands of years how and why would the UN suddenly make the determination that these fires devastate ‘agricultural livelihoods’ becomes an overtly obvious false statement.

Because the UN is lying.   And there is one massive justification – more money is necessary to bolster the Green Climate Fund to spend the money on Africa infrastructure and micro-loans.   The fund is depleted of new revenue.   The US pulled out. China has never proffered $1, and ‘pledges’ are often in the form of grants, promissory notes and loans, not cash. The largest donations to date have been made by Japan, UK, Germany and the US respectively.  Still, they greedily siphon off 75% of their total contributions into Asset hordings.

2019 is the latest year for which The Green Climate Fund prepared audited Financial Statements:

They immediately apologize for the fact that expenses increased by 89% year over year despite contributions falling 62%.   At the same time their assets totaling $6.8billion increased because earnings on ‘investments’ rose about 40%.   Perspective:   They claim to have roughly $8billion in donations or which $6.8 billion are still ASSETS!!!  UNSPENT FUNDS.

Which means they were putting more money in the bank than they spent on actual ‘projects’. Micro-loan interest also rose – 590%. The amount of actual ‘grants to countries’ was a mere $258 million which was disbursed to banks including the United Nations.   WHY?   The amount of actual country grants disbursed was $34,404,000.   The remainder was dedicated expenses to disburse the funds.

As with every NGO, programme expenses include overhead, salaries, payroll costs, pensions, etc… within the designated ‘programme offices’.    But the Financials are not transparent with regard to programme expense delineation.   However, they do acknowledge an odd caveat. While Board members are not compensated, it is a per se agreement:   “All transactions with the board are made at terms equivalent to an arm’s length transaction within the operational framework of the Secretariat.”   That is Gob Speak for transactions are not the same as compensation…  So Board Members may benefit financially, just not in the delineation of ‘compensation’.

Further, as an NGO, they are exempt from ALL Taxes.

One of my illustrious – pet peeves.   ANY charity that has excess income that accumulates is no longer a charity. And with literally $trillions on the books of these NGO-Charities, their status is obviously corrupted.

The Green Climate Fund is no exception.

What is not revealed is:   1.   The interest rate on their micro-lending schemes.   2.   A composite of actual climate spending to date.   By country.   3.   How much of their actual spending is in the form of literal payments to individuals benefiting. 4. How much of their programme expenses are ‘administrative and overhead?    5.   How has the carbon footprint been alleviated by their spending…?

Because these points are their entire FUNCTIONAL purpose.

Of course, the reality in all this is the fact that the Green Climate Fund is simply another scam.   And we are the scamees.   The payees.   And the peasants to be….   UNLESS –    

AFRICA: Follow The Money

Tomorrow in New York City the UN will host a start up fund for the “Global Compact for Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration (GCM)”.   Launched in September 2016, the intergovernmental pact supporting GCM was approved by164 countries and signed by 152. The countries that did not climb aboard the band wagon include: United States, Austria, Australia, Bulgaria, Chile, Czech Republic, Estonia, Italy, Hungary, Dominican Republic, Latvia, Israel, Poland, Slovakia, Brazil and Switzerland.   Russia signed the agreement but issued a statement repudiating aspects with regard to the ‘cause of mass exodus’ claiming if a nation created the migration they should take on the burden.

The basis of the pact is to allow complete Open Border policy.   Sound familiar?   In addition, the host country will ensure migrants can access basic services and make provisions for both full inclusion of migrants and social cohesion, while supporting multicultural activities through sports, music, arts, culinary festivals, volunteering and other social events.

In other words refugee status, immigration quotas, and immigration restrictions and conditions would be eliminated. Citizens and taxpayers would be required to pay for all the migrants as they acclimate while receiving free basic services.

Obviously, the UN and the Ted Turner UN Foundation have an agenda.

Over the last few decades’ enormous amounts of money have been injected into Africa for the purpose of revitalizing the infrastructure, building exclusive neighborhoods, and buying up large swathes of farmland – called ‘land grabs’.   In addition to billionaire dollars, the money has come in the form of the Paris Climate Accord and in the form of government funded charities and NGO’s, aka taxpayers.

Encouraging the outflow of Africans to other countries via immigration, war, and disease, vast portions of Africa then become enclaves available as home to the elite. Most of the urban revolution is occurring in the following locales: Cairo, Egypt – Casablanca, Marrakesh and Tangier Morocco – Accra, Ghana – Lagos, Nigeria – Cape Town, Johannesburg, Pretoria, and Durban, South Africa – Mombasa, and Nairobi, Kenya – Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

The elitist suburbs host the wealth of white expatriates while 93% of the unemployed remain black.   Over the last two years upwards of $3 billion has been invested into the renovation of Johannesburg alone. The city boasts a moderate climate, a burgeoning art world, modern shopping centers, a new commuter railway, three public and private universities, and crime surveillance camera’s on every city street corner which has halved the crime rate.

In 2016, for the first time ever a member of the Democratic Alliance Party became mayor of Johannesburg, Herman Mashaba.   The Democratic Alliance Party is comprised of English speaking Afrikaans and is considered Liberal supporting “Open Opportunity Society For All” .  Sound familiar?

Nairobi boasts a vibrant economy as well hosting headquarters for Coco-cola, World Bank, Citibank, BBC, CNN, Reuters, Deutsche Welle, Agence France-Presse, New York Times, and AP.

In 2010, Kenya drafted a new Constitution, the political system was overhauled and infighting became the norm since.   Morocco is predominantly Muslim, Lagos government shifted to the Socialist Party in 2019, and Ghana recently voted in the New Patriotic Party.  Of course, like other countries, the elections are highly contested with allegations of fraud and rigging common. Not unlike just about every country and state in the world now.

The Green Climate Fund which operates to expend donations for the Paris Accord has released its financial statements for 2017.   Of the $100 billion goal, they have collected a total of roughly $5 billion. In 2017, of the $1.9 billion collected, they spent $115 million – 6%. In 2016, of the $1.6 billion collected, they spent $31 million – 8%.   Where oh where does the money go?

The majority of the Green Fund ‘spending’ is in Africa to help women fight ‘climate change’.   ????   Many of the projects focus on Kenya and South Africa. The African continent’s carbon footprint is -0-.   Some of the projects are termed “multiple countries” and include Kenya, South Africa, Morocco and Egypt.

Coincidence?

Some of these projects in Africa are partnered with Agence Francaise de Development (AFD). In 2007, AFD was called into question for its deforestation in Africa. No legal proceedings were brought.   According to the Cameroon National Anti-corruption Commission (CONAC), two front companies, including one controlled by AFD, have been suspected of fraud.   How do they pass the inspection of the Directors in charge of the Green Climate Fund?  Deforestation would hardly benefit ‘Climate Change’.

It would appear that no one is truly auditing the Green Fund other than the Green Fund.   The two co-chairs are from Egypt and the UK.   Directors vary from Iran, Denmark, Germany, Tanzania, Nicaragua, France, Mexico, etc…  Why is Iran a Board Member in the Green Fund?

In order to become a resident of South Africa, one must have resided in the country for five years. Retirement visa’s are allowed if one can prove complete financial sustainability.

The US has the largest immigrant population in the world standing near 50 million. While other countries (Germany, Australia, Canada) boast a high percentage of immigrant population, their state of origin is rather different:   In the US – Mexico, India, Philippines, China and El Salvador dominate.   In Canada –  the UK tops the list with China, India, Italy and US close behind. In Australia – the UK, New Zealand, China, and Italy are the majority.

Why?

Because these countries require self sustaining, highly educated immigrants. Go figure.

Ultimately, an Open Borders For All scenario would cause the US to become a third world country – on the hind of Africa reaping the benefits of elitist money, development – and of course – $$$$$$ while maintaining a black unemployment rate and/or slave labor rate of roughly 40-93%.

THIS IS THE AGENDA.

Climate Change – Hurricane Madness

Remember the Paris Accord, the Green Climate Fund that was touted as the savior of the world – with the help of $100 billion annually?  Remember that fund that Germany and France and the EU described as all important to sustainability?  Remember how Trump was demonized when he pulled the US out of the agreement and the world chastised and ridiculed him?

Apparently, not even Germany gives a hoot any longer.

Why?  They can’t even begin to come close to meeting emission targets as presumed and simply have given up – the task is daunting, the funds ridiculously outside of reality, and the efforts lame.

According to the latest report by the OECD and NCE, they claim that ‘infrastructure spending needs to exceed $7 trillion per year through 2030’ in order to combat climate change.

Since it’s inception, the Paris Accord Green Climate Fund has raised a total of $10.3 billion in pledges – 20% of which came from the US under Obama.  The EU is not a contributor, Russia and China did not pledge anything, and some of the pledges are actually merely ‘loans’, not full cash gifts.  Based on the $7 trillion required per year since 2016, they are shy $21,989,700,000,000.

The Board at Green Climate has allocated 58% of its funds to Asia and Africa  through intermediaries.  These intermediaries are supposed to dole out the money toward specific goals and objectives. So who are the intermediaries?   World Food Program, The World Bank, United Nations Development Program, UN Food Program, Inter-American Development Bank, etc…

None of the allocated funds are utilized for actual climate change, they are simply redistributed to banks and organizations who have no requirement to delineate transparent use of funds.  In fact it appears that the UN and banks receive the far majority of funds and then disburse the funds as a loan to the project country with ‘commercial rates of interest’.  A win-win for Banks and a slush fund for the UN.

While infrastructure spending can help mitigate natural disasters, like sea-walls for hurricane flooding crisis’, the Green Fund projects seem more aligned to boost agriculture and energy projects – both of which help the underlying shift in land ownership in Africa which is concentrated in higher income locals with ties to the government, China, Middle East, Netherlands, UK and US.  Latin America is no different.  And in reality – has absolutely nothing to do with climate change.

The World Bank recently proposed instituting an annual land tax in Africa which they claim would be utilized to help the locals who are continually displaced due to the Land Grabs. Full Disclosure:  World Bank has been involved in the Land Grabs…

Does this mean that Climate Change is a farse?  No.  It means the Paris Accord was a sham, a Ponzi scheme to reroute funds to support land grab biofuel production while displacing hundreds of thousands of African people.

It means that banks are receiving the money, have absolutely no over-sight, and lend the money that was a gift while charging heavy interest fees that they pocket.

Germany’s carbon footprint has increased over the last few years, China’s is exploding, France and the Netherlands are tackling the problem by stating they will attempt to phase out diesel and petrol by 2040 and 2025 respectively.   Really?   Emissions per capita rank;  Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, Australia, US, Saudi Arabia and Canada as the highest.   Only a spattering of Africa countries even make the list…  Hence the new definition of Climate Change – Infrastructure.

Since the US pullout, most other countries have tabled caring, because it was never about caring, it was about lining banks pockets and free infrastructure in those areas of Africa where the land grabs required better access and more water.

And despite the massive number of hurricanes and cyclones pounding countries and wreaking havoc, no one mentions building sea-walls, canals, moats, gullies, etc… to mitigate damage control.

Weather manipulation has reached far greater capacities than we can imagine.   From radio frequency manipulation, to stratosphere solar deflection, to carbon capture, to cloud brightening techniques, climate geoengineering is very real and very destructive.

Harvard is apparently at the forefront of solar geo-engineering, partially funded by Bill Gates, Pritzker Foundation, The Open Philanthropy Project, and the Arnolds, the same Harvard that has accepted funding for such projects as Evolutionary Dynamics (infectious disease evolutions) for which Jeffrey Epstein was supportive.

Basically, it all evolves around the concept of the Greater Good, wherein only the select shall survive in the utilitarian view of the greater good central to hedonistic self pleasure and profit.

As in:  If we, the banks, can’t have WWIII, then we, the Cabal, will create profit from other destructive means.