Economy
Globalist Club of Rome urges massive ‘behavioral changes’ to address ‘climate change,’ poverty

From LifeSiteNews
The globalist Club of Rome, under its Earth4All agenda, has urged nations worldwide to reduce meat consumption, redistribute wealth, and adopt a circular economy in the name of tackling climate change and poverty.
As part of its Earth4All agenda, the Club of Rome is calling on nations to eat less meat, redistribute wealth, adopt a circular economy, raise taxes, restructure education, and charge high prices for fossil fuels.
For over 50 years the Club of Rome has been operating under the belief that there are “limits to growth” on a finite planet.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill […] All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself. — The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of the Club Of Rome, 1991
Without a traditional, militaristic enemy to enact their great reset-like agendas in 1991 the Club of Rome chose humanity itself as the greatest threat to planetary health, and that’s when the whole global warming and climate change narratives really began taking off – their solutions had finally found a problem.
"We see a switch to healthier, plant-based diets [..] The economic model everywhere is circular [..] Material consumption of unsustainable resources is reined-in, fossil energy phased out & we see a significant redistribution of wealth": Club of Rome co-president at EU parliament pic.twitter.com/yVCQ6KdIsT
— Tim Hinchliffe (@TimHinchliffe) May 15, 2023
All of the Club of Rome’s proposals are aimed at controlling humanity, such as telling people what they should eat, how their land should be used, what types of energy they should be allowed to consume, what they should do with their money, what type of economic system they should have, how schools should be run, and so on and so on.
They call this the Wellbeing Economy.
Now, the Club of Rome is focusing its efforts on influencing individual nation states with its Earth4All National Program.
Austria is the latest pilot country for this program.
In the Austrian modelling context, the lever ‘reduction of meat consumption’ was implemented as ‘behavioral change of consumers.’ — Club of Rome, Earth4All: Austria, July 2024
In its “Earth4All: Austria” report, the Club of Rome says that Austria must reduce its meat consumption in order to provide better nutrition to its citizens and to save the rain forests.
“People also consume almost twice as much meat per year as the global average. Reducing the consumption of animal proteins is essential in order to achieve a turnaround in nutrition,” the report reads.
And because animals in Austria are fed with grains that imported from tropical forests, the report says that raising livestock in Europe is killing the rain forests in places like South America.
According to the report, “Food consumption in Austria can also have an impact on land use in tropical forests. This applies in particular to meat, for which animal feed such as soya is imported, and all food products that use palm oil as an ingredient. Tropical forests are often cleared for this purpose, destroying important carbon sinks and biodiversity hotspots.”
State regulations that contradict familiar consumer behavior are often met with resistance. For example, many people resist ‘dietary regulations’ as soon as the importance of reducing meat consumption is emphasized. — Club of Rome, Earth4All: Austria, July 2024
Telling people what to do rarely goes over well, and the Club of Rome acknowledges this in the report while simultaneously telling governments what to do about changing their citizens’ behavior, so that they eat less meat.
In order “to change consumer behavior, reduce meat consumption or optimize and expand protein plant breeding,” the Club of Rome suggest that governments use coercive taxation measures and implement a “supply chain law for agricultural products” to make life difficult for those who do not comply.
Some of the tax measures include:
- Reduction of the reduced VAT rate for meat and sausage products and dairy products with socially acceptable compensation payments.
- Higher taxation of processed (fatty, sugary and animal-based) foods.
- Taxation of foods and food ingredients that are harmful to health, the environment and the climate.
While the proposals to limit meat consumption are geared toward Austria, they also reflect the overall strategy to incentivize, coerce, or otherwise manipulate human behavior into serving an unelected globalist agenda.
The same goes for the Club of Rome’s socialist vision for the redistribution of wealth.
Permanent wealth monitoring by the state and the public database on wealth and income based on this are an essential prerequisite for redistribution measures. — Club of Rome, Earth4All: Austria, July 2024
For the Club of Rome, the problem of wealth is that it “often goes hand in hand with influence,” so their solution is to abolish excess wealth and to redistribute it – the promise of every communist dictator.
According to the Austria report, “Increases in wealth therefore also lead to more influence – visible in politics, in institutions, even at universities.”
“It is therefore less about general redistribution than about reducing the extreme concentration of wealth among the top 0.1 percent of the population: it is about abolishing excess wealth.”
Redistribution will undoubtedly provoke resistance. But inequality and affluence also generate resistance among excluded and marginalized groups. — Club of Rome, Earth4All: Austria, July 2024
The unelected globalists at the Club of Rome are fully aware that their agendas are extremely unpopular.
For example, the Earth4All: Austria report says:
A particularly important point is the acceptance and perception of measures by citizens, farmers and entrepreneurs.
For example, price increases for products, the discontinuation of subsidies for fossil fuels or potentially higher energy prices – which could continue to rise due to higher infrastructure costs such as the expansion of the grid, storage facilities, etc. – may not be perceived well by people in the lower income bracket in particular based on their particular viewpoint.
In order to dupe the public into giving up their rights, their properties, their way of living, and their freedoms, the Club of Rome says that “communication of the cushioning measures will be needed,” especially with their whole Marxist approach to everything.
Redistributions are not yet considered appropriate. In future, much better, comprehensible communication of the cushioning measures will be needed here. — Club of Rome, Earth4All: Austria, July 2024
To give you an idea of the Club of Rome’s communication strategy, the Earth4All: Austria authors paint their communist views in such a way as to make them sound almost too good to be true:
By reducing structural inequality, income and wealth are distributed so fairly that there is hardly any monetary poverty anymore.
All people have a secure existence. They have access to work and a basic income so that they can afford to live well within planetary and social boundaries, which also has a positive impact on the regional economy, climate and nature.
Did you see that?
The benevolent regime will redistribute wealth so fairly that monetary poverty will be a thing of the past!
As your taxes skyrocket and your ability to drive a car or eat what you want to eat is stolen from you, they say that you’ll at least have a “basic income,” but not for buying goods of lasting value, no; not at all!
They don’t want that. They want you to rent everything from your corporate overlords, thanks to the circular economy.
More and more people are looking at new concepts for organizing the economy and measuring social wellbeing. Examples include the circular economy, the sharing economy, the ecological economy, the feminist economy, green growth, the steady state, degrowth and post-growth. — Club of Rome, Earth4All: Austria, July 2024
The Club of Rome sees the circular economy, with its Product as a Service business model, as being one of its most important agendas.
But the circular economy agenda is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Young people are not so crazy about owning things any longer; they want to share things; they want to benefit from services. — Dr. Anders Wijkman, Club of Rome Co-President, 2015
'You'll Own Nothing & Be Happy' Circular Economy is "The Most Important Agenda"
Club of Rome Co-President Dr. Anders Wijkman in 2015:
"Young people are not crazy about owning things. They want to share things. They want to benefit from services." pic.twitter.com/hMOkCaYAKs— Tim Hinchliffe (@TimHinchliffe) August 1, 2024
In the name of saving the planet for all humanity, proponents of the circular economy claim it will lead to more durable and sustainable materials, increased recycling, and lowered carbon emissions.
Sounds great, right?
However, the circular economy is the inspiration behind the infamous phrase: “You’ll own nothing. And you’ll be happy,” from the World Economic Forum.
As Royal Philips Electronics CEO Frans Van Houten explained to the WEF in 2016:
In circular economy business models, I would like products to come back to me as the original designer and manufacturer, and once you get your head around that notion, why would I actually sell you the product if you are primarily interested in the benefit of the product? Maybe I can stay the owner of the product and just sell you the benefit as a service.
'You'll own nothing & be happy' Product as a Service circular economy business model.
"Why would I actually sell you the product if you are primarily interested in the benefit? Maybe I can stay the owner & just sell you the benefit as a service”: Frans Van Houten, WEF, 2016 pic.twitter.com/EG9Kq5P2AR— Tim Hinchliffe (@TimHinchliffe) November 23, 2022
The most urgent step for sustainable growth in low-income countries is to increase funding for transformative research in the area of the circular economy in low-income countries. — Club of Rome, Earth4All: Austria, July 2024
The Club of Rome Earth4All: Austria report mentions circularity over 20 times, mostly in the context driving economic growth, reducing carbon emissions, and recycling.
The Austria report also cites the “Circularity Gap” report, which we’ve quoted here on The Sociable, which says the circular economy is about “moving away from ownership and accumulation” towards more service-based models.
And going back to 2015, Club of Rome co-president Dr. Anders Wijkman said of the circular economy:
I think this is probably the most important agenda that we have. New business models are going to happen, and we’re not going to buy a lot of stuff.
We are going to benefit from high quality services. That’s an aspect that I think will interest many, many people – not least young people who are not so crazy about owning things any longer; they want to share things; they want to benefit from services.
On a personal note, shortly after I wrote that the circular economy was “a top-down agenda coming from unelected globalists looking to reshape the world in their image” in March 2022, the WEF’s former managing director Adrian Monck referred to me as a “bad faith actor” for my criticism of “the Forum’s coverage of the circular economy.”
Then, last year the WEF published a joint report with Accenture that outright admitted that the circular economy was indeed a top-down agenda!
In fact they emphasized this top-down approach several times, for example:
- “Circular economy leadership needs to come from the top and extend company-wide.”
- “Since the circular economy demands significant strategic transformation, the call to action must be sponsored at the top of the organization.”
- “This systemic transition requires companies to embed circularity at all levels and functions throughout the organization. Starting from the top, there should be clear governance, leadership and accountability.”
Hypocrites, the lot!
In the end, circular economy business models risk creating a neofeudalistic, technocratic serfdom out of the ashes of the middle class, who like peasants and serfs, wouldn’t be able to buy things like houses, cars, and appliances, but rather rent them from their futuristic lords and vassals who would digitally track and trace every product they provided as a service.
The Club of Rome and the WEF are the main drivers of this agenda to eliminate ownership.
Socially acceptable climate protection measures can also include free access to nature, which may require the communitisation of private property. — Club of Rome, Earth4All: Austria, July 2024
The Club of Rome has been pushing degrowth agendas since its inception over 50 years ago, and many of its policy recommendations are based on Marxist ideologies.
They advocate for the redistribution of wealth, communitizing private property, reducing ownership, revamping education systems, embracing critical “feminist economics,” artificially inflating fossil fuel prices, and controlling what people eat.
Some Earth4All: Austria policy levers include:
- Redistribution of wealth and progressive taxation.
- Improving participation and equal opportunities in terms of workers’ rights and citizen’s assemblies.
- Changing diets, reducing overconsumption and waste and transitioning to sustainable food.
- Restructuring the education system.
- Significantly higher prices for fossil fuels.
The WEF’s great reset agenda is almost identical to the Club of Rome’s Earth4All agenda, but they differ in approach.
Whereas the Club of Rome is overtly Marxist in its march towards neo-feudalism, the WEF prefers a more techno-totalitarian approach to enact its version of neo-feudalism – with a heavy emphasis on leveraging emerging technologies of the so-called fourth industrial revolution to drive its great reset.
The WEF and the Club of Rome have a shared history going back over 50 years (as described in the video below by HelioWave).
The Club of Rome’s Earth4All: Austria report is a guide for all developed nations.
However, it is not the only pilot country in the Club of Rome’s nation program.
To see what the Club of Rome has in store for developing nations, check out the “Earth4All: Kenya” report and see what different means they want to use to achieve the same ends.
Business
“Nation Building,” Liberal Style: We’re Fixing a Sewer, You’re Welcome, Canada

Ottawa held a full-blown press conference to announce they unclogged a pipe in Toronto and called it a generational housing strategy.
You probably didn’t hear much about it unless you were watching Canadian state media but this morning, the Liberal government held a press conference in Toronto. It was billed as a “generational investment” in housing. That’s the phrase they used. In reality, it was a sewer project.
Gregor Robertson, the former mayor of Vancouver and now the federal minister of housing and infrastructure, stood beside Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow and a cluster of Liberal MPs to announce that Ottawa is spending $283 million to upgrade the Black Creek trunk sewer line. That’s a pipe. A very old pipe. And according to Robertson, that investment will “unlock” the construction of up to 63,000 new homes in the Downsview area.
If that sounds suspiciously like taking credit for doing your job, maintaining the basic infrastructure cities rely on, that’s because it is. No one has ever accused the Liberals of missing an opportunity to repackage civic maintenance as a national moral crusade. The sewer line is 65 years old. It overflows during storms. It’s been a known problem for decades. Fixing it is not bold housing policy. It’s plumbing.
But the political optics are irresistible. The Trudeau Liberals, now under the leadership of Mark Carney are desperate for a win on housing. Their record is catastrophic. Home prices have doubled. Rents have soared. Entire generations of Canadians have been priced out of ownership and locked into permanent renter status. And the architects of that disaster are now flying around the country handing out ribbon-cutting ceremonies and calling it reform.
Today’s announcement also included the unveiling of the first project under a brand-new federal housing agency, Build Canada Homes. Never heard of it? That’s because it didn’t exist until a few weeks ago. And who’s running it? None other than Ana Bailão a Liberal operative and former Toronto city councillor who spent years helping make the city unaffordable in the first place. Now she’s being rewarded with a cushy federal appointment, tasked with building modular housing and handing out contracts on public land.
And what exactly is Build Canada Homes building? Today, they’re launching 540 homes. Not 63,000… 540. Factory-built units that will be delivered at some undefined point in the future. That’s the big federal breakthrough. A housing crisis affecting millions of Canadians, and Ottawa’s answer is five hundred and forty modular homes in Downsview.
This is the pattern every time. The government breaks something, calls it a crisis, and then demands credit for fixing a fraction of it with your money. The numbers are staggering. According to the Parliamentary Budget Office, Canada needs 3.1 million more homes by 2030 to restore affordability. That means building over 430,000 units per year. Right now, we’re building maybe half that. The backlog gets worse every year. But today, we’re supposed to celebrate because they’re unclogging a sewer and firing up a couple prefab builds on federal land.
No one in the press asked the obvious question: why aren’t private builders constructing the 300,000 units that Toronto has already zoned and approved? Because they can’t. The financing doesn’t work. The cost of materials is too high. Interest rates have crippled developers. And cities like Toronto still impose hundreds of millions of dollars in fees, development charges, and bureaucratic red tape. That’s the real bottleneck. Not the sewer. And here’s what they definitely won’t say out loud: Canada’s housing disaster is not just about supply. It’s about demand, turbocharged by one of the fastest immigration intakes in the Western world. The Bank of Canada has warned repeatedly that immigration targets, set without any link to housing capacity — have blown demand wide open and put relentless upward pressure on rents and home prices.
Mayor Chow admitted it herself, sort of. She said the city has thousands of units ready to build but no takers. And instead of confronting the root causes, monetary policy, taxes, regulatory insanity, the government announces a pilot project and tells you to be grateful. That’s how disconnected they are from reality. They’ve regulated housing out of reach and now they’re posing for photos on a construction site, pretending to be the solution.
And just in case there was any lingering doubt about how deep this failure runs, Statistics Canada released its latest building permit numbers this morning and the trend is exactly what you’d expect in a country where the government makes building homes all but impossible.
The total value of building permits dropped again in August down $139 million to $11.6 billion. Residential permits alone fell 2.4%, driven by steep declines in Ontario and Alberta, the very provinces with the most acute housing needs. Single-family permits fell off a cliff — down more than 10% year-over-year. That’s not a slowdown. That’s a stall.
Meanwhile, British Columbia and Quebec where government intervention is particularly heavy barely managed to offset the damage. The number of new dwellings authorized actually shrank month over month. And this is happening in the middle of a so-called national housing push.
StatsCan didn’t sugarcoat it. They didn’t blame foreign investors or greedy landlords or some phantom market force. They just showed the raw data: Permits are falling. Housing starts are lagging. Builders are retreating.
So let’s just pause here and appreciate the sheer absurdity of what we witnessed. A parade of officials, flanked by branded podiums and tax-funded media handlers, standing in front of a construction site to announce, with straight faces, that they are upgrading a sewer line. And for this, we are told we are “building Canada strong.” Really? That’s the pitch? Fixing basic municipal plumbing is now a nation-building moment?
No! Let’s be clear, you’re not building Canada strong. You’re doing your job. A sewer upgrade in Toronto is not some heroic act of visionary leadership. It’s literally maintenance. It’s what functioning governments are supposed to do, quietly, competently, without a six-camera press choreography and a round of applause from party MPs.
But in Liberal Carney Canada the bar has been lowered so dramatically that simply clearing a permit backlog and patching old infrastructure is treated like a moon landing. They break the system, congratulate themselves for patching one pipe, and expect gratitude.
If you want praise for fixing aging civic infrastructure, something cities used to handle without a national press event, then that tells us everything. It tells us the Liberal government has become so hollow, so addicted to performance politics, that maintenance is now treated as achievement. That’s how far we’ve fallen in just ten years.
They didn’t rebuild a nation. They didn’t launch a housing renaissance. They unclogged a sewer, and are now demanded a standing ovation. And that, in a single image, is modern Liberal Canada: the total collapse of standards, repackaged as progress and sold back to you at full price.
Canadians don’t need more press conferences. They need homes, dignity, and a government that works without constant applause. And if unclogging a pipe is what passes for leadership now — then God help the country.
Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .
For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
Business
Your $350 Grocery Question: Gouging or Economics?

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois, a visiting scholar at McGill University and perhaps better known as the Food Professor, has lamented a strange and growing trend among Canadians. It seems that large numbers of especially younger people would prefer a world where grocery chains and food producers operated as non-profits and, ideally, were owned by governments.
Sure, some of them have probably heard stories about the empty shelves and rationing in Soviet-era food stores. But that’s just because “real” communism has never been tried.
In a slightly different context, University of Toronto Professor Joseph Heath recently responded to an adjacent (and popular) belief that there’s no reason we can’t grow all our food in publicly-owned farms right on our city streets and parks:
“Unfortunately, they do have answers, and anyone who stops to think for a minute will know what they are. It’s not difficult to calculate the amount of agricultural land that is required to support the population of a large urban area (such as Tokyo, where Saitō lives). All of the farms in Japan combined produce only enough food to sustain 38% of the Japanese population. This is all so obvious that it feels stupid even to be pointing it out.”
Sure, food prices have been rising. Here’s a screenshot from Statistics Canada’s Consumer Price Index price trends page. As you can see, the 12-month percentage change of the food component of the CPI is currently at 3.4 percent. That’s kind of inseparable from inflation.

But it’s just possible that there’s more going on here than greedy corporate price gouging.
It should be obvious that grocery retailers are subject to volatile supply chain costs. According to Statistics Canada, as of June 2025, for example, the price of “livestock and animal products” had increased by 130 percent over their 2007 prices. And “crops” saw a 67 percent increase over that same period. Grocers also have to lay out for higher packaging material costs that include an extra 35 percent (since 2021) for “foam products for packaging” and 78 percent more for “paperboard containers”.
In the years since 2012, farmers themselves had to deal with 49 percent growth in “commercial seed and plant” prices, 46 percent increases in the cost of production insurance, and a near-tripling of the cost of live cattle.
So should we conclude that Big Grocery is basically an industry whose profits are held to a barely sustainable minimum by macro economic events far beyond their control? Well that’s pretty much what the Retail Council of Canada (RCC) claims. Back in 2023, Competition Bureau Canada published a lengthy response from the RCC to the consultation on the Market study of retail grocery.
The piece made a compelling argument that food sales deliver razor-thin profit margins which are balanced by the sale of more lucrative non-food products like cosmetics.
However, things may not be quite as simple as the RCC presents them. For instance:
- While it’s true that the large number of supermarket chains in Canada suggests there’s little concentration in the sector, the fact is that most independents buy their stock as wholesale from the largest companies.
- The report pointed to Costco and Walmart as proof that new competitors can easily enter the market, but those decades-old well-financed expansions prove little about the way the modern market works. And online grocery shopping in Canada is still far from established.
- Consolidated reporting methods would make it hard to substantiate some of the report’s claims of ultra-thin profit margins on food.
- The fact that grocers are passing on costs selectively through promotional strategies, private-label pricing, and shrinkflation adjustments suggests that they retain at least some control over their supplier costs.
- The claim that Canada’s food price inflation is more or less the same as in other peer countries was true in 2022. But we’ve since seen higher inflation here than, for instance, in the U.S.
Nevertheless, there’s vanishingly little evidence to support claims of outright price gouging. Rising supply chain costs are real and even high-end estimates of Loblaw, Metro, and Sobeys net profit margins are in the two to five percent range. That’s hardly robber baron territory.
What probably is happening is some opportunistic margin-taking through various selective pricing strategies. And at least some price collusion has been confirmed.
How much might such measures have cost the average Canadian family? A reasonable estimate places the figure at between $150 and $350 a year. That’s real money, but it’s hardly enough to justify gutting the entire free market in favor of some suicidal system of central planning and control.
-
Daily Caller2 days ago
Utah Republican Senator Planning To Attend Big Globalist Climate Shindig Despite Trump’s Energy Policies
-
International23 hours ago
Number of young people identifying as ‘transgender’ declines sharply: report
-
Energy1 day ago
Indigenous Communities Support Pipelines, Why No One Talks About That
-
Business1 day ago
Finance Committee Recommendation To Revoke Charitable Status For Religion Short Sighted And Destructive
-
Business20 hours ago
“Nation Building,” Liberal Style: We’re Fixing a Sewer, You’re Welcome, Canada
-
Bruce Dowbiggin20 hours ago
Long-Distance Field Goals Have Flipped The Field. Will The NFL Panic?
-
Business2 days ago
Finance Titans May Have Found Trojan Horse For ‘Climate Mandates’
-
Alberta22 hours ago
The Technical Pitfalls and Political Perils of “Decarbonized” Oil