Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

WEF has a plan to overhaul the global financial system by monetizing nature

Published

1 day ago

13 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Tim Hinchliffe of The Sociable

The WEF is plowing full steam ahead with the globalist agenda to monitor and monetize everything in nature, including the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the very earth we walk upon.

With billionaires Larry Fink and Andre Hoffmann as the new co-chairs, the World Economic Forum (WEF) publishes a 50-page blueprint on how to monetize everything in nature.

The WEF’s latest insight report, “Finance Solutions for Nature: Pathways to Returns and Outcomes,” provides “stakeholders” with dozens of financial solutions for monetizing everything in nature.

Nature pricing, biodiversity crediting schemes, natural asset companies, debt-for-nature swaps, and so much more are all packed into this agenda to overhaul the global financial system with nature-based activities:

The landscape of nature finance is rapidly evolving. From sovereign debt instruments and blended capital platforms to biodiversity credits and emerging asset classes, a growing range of mechanisms is being deployed to fund, finance and de-risk nature-positive action.

The WEF leadership page says that in their work on the board of trustees, “members do not represent any personal or professional interests.”

However, the target audiences for latest WEF insight report are “institutional investors, banks, asset managers, and development actors” – the very business interests that Hoffmann and Fink represent.

WEF interim co-chairs Larry Fink and Andre Hoffmann have everything to gain in their business dealings should the documentation, monetization, and tokenization of everything in nature ever come to full fruition.

And they are well on their way.

Hoffmann is also a key player in a whole host of so-called green financing initiatives, including biodiversity crediting schemes, through his various roles as founder, president, and chairman at several companies and NGOs such as: Innovate 4 Nature – the “accelerator for nature-positive solutions” and Systemiq – the “system change company” established specifically to advance U.N. Agenda 2030.

“The economy depends on natural resources. Their value derives not only from their use as direct inputs to production – such as timber for construction – but also for their benefits to society like living trees that help clean the air. Economists use the term “natural capital” to refer to the total value that natural resources provide to the economy and to people.” — BlackRock, Capital at risk: nature through an investment lens, August 2024

“Debt-for-nature swaps [DNS] are a financial mechanism that allow countries to restructure bilateral or multilateral debt in exchange for commitments to fund local conservation and restoration. They are also known as ‘debt-for-nature conversion.’” — WEF, Finance Solutions for Nature: Pathways to Returns and Outcomes, September 2025

Is your country millions, billions, or trillions in debt? No problem!

With debt-for-nature swaps, you can restructure your nation’s debt just by letting somebody else come in and take control of your natural resources under the guise of conservation and restoration, but what they’ll really be doing is forcing you to “take out private insurance policies to ‘mitigate the financial impact of natural disasters‘ as well as ‘political risk,’” as investigative journalists Whitney Webb and Mark Goodwin report in Bitcoin Magazine.

Don’t have any money, but want to create value out of thin air, water, soil, or trees? You can set up natural asset companies that can “convert the full economic value of nature into financial flows via equity models.”

Want to help asset managers, bankers, and hedge fund execs get extremely rich while leaving you with only a tiny fraction? Go ahead and get involved in a Payment for Environmental Services (PES) scheme, where financial incentives are provided to individuals or communities in exchange for maintaining or restoring ecosystem services, like carbon sequestration or biodiversity conservation

And if you’re compliant with their rules, you can be rewarded by producing “positive nature and biodiversity outcomes (e.g. species, ecosystems and natural habitats) through the creation and sale of either land or ocean-based biodiversity units over a fixed period” with biodiversity credits, aka “environmental credits.”

Prefer to be left alone and live on the property that you worked hard for all your life? You better be compliant with all the environmental regulations that are coming in the name of preserving biodiversity, so that the $44 trillion of economic value generated by nature doesn’t diminish.

“Environmental credits are verified units of positive environmental outcomes, including biodiversity, water, carbon and nutrient credits. Though developed independently, projects increasingly blend credits via stacking, bundling or stapling.” — WEF, Finance Solutions for Nature: Pathways to Returns and Outcomes, September 2025

“Nature is rapidly emerging as a strategic investment frontier and more institutional capital is flowing into new business models and projects.” — WEF, Finance Solutions for Nature: Pathways to Returns and Outcomes, September 2025

In keeping with the own self-interests of the co-chairs and their business relations, the report highlights “10 priority financial solutions” for these stakeholders to implement:

  1. Sustainability-linked bonds (SLBs):
    • Commercial bonds tying coupon rates to nature-related targets for corporates or governments.
  2. Thematic (or use-of-proceeds) bonds:
    • Bonds with proceeds earmarked for nature projects. Scaling-up requires clearer guidance and aggregation to improve outcomes for issuers and investors.
  3. Sustainability-linked loans (SLLs):
    • Flexible debt, linking interest rates to nature-related targets. SLLs need simpler verification, standardized metrics and stronger triggers to drive nature-positive lending.
  4. Thematic (or use-of-proceeds) loans:
    • Loans for specific nature-related projects. Greater clarity on taxonomies and aggregation is needed to enhance capital flows.
  5. Impact funds:
    • Funds investing in nature-positive outcomes, often accepting higher risk or longer pathways to returns.
  6. Natural asset companies (NACs):
    • Publicly and privately listed companies that convert the full economic value of nature into financial flows via equity models. NACs hold significant potential but need more transactions for price discovery and replicable investment blueprints.
  7. Environmental credits:
    • Tradeable certificates for verified environmental benefits, used in compliance or voluntary markets.
  8. Debt-for-nature swaps (DNS):
    • Mechanisms to restructure sovereign debt in exchange for conservation or restoration commitments, with investable components including bonds and loans.
  9. Payments for ecosystem services (PES):
    • Contracts rewarding conservation for specific ecosystem services, driven by the public sector. Private sector schemes require longer contracts, aggregation and supply chain integration to scale up.
  10. Internal nature pricing (INP):
    • Unexplored, voluntary shadow pricing or fee-based tools to incentivize nature-positive performance in companies or across investment portfolios, similar to internal carbon pricing (ICP).

“While some components of nature – such as food, timber and ecotourism are priced and traded in global markets, the value of many critical ecosystem services remains undervalued….

Carbon sequestration, water filtration, flood protection and pollination are often treated as ‘free’ inputs, despite underpinning our economies and societies.” — WEF, Finance Solutions for Nature: Pathways to Returns and Outcomes, September 2025

“The natural capital approach extends the economic concept of capital to the environment, conceptualizing stocks of natural resources as conventional goods worth restoring, maintaining and enhancing for their productive flows.

This approach includes both accounting – embedding nature in national and corporate balance sheets – and valuation – pricing nature’s contributions into cost-benefit and investment analysis.” — WEF, Finance Solutions for Nature: Pathways to Returns and Outcomes, September 2025

Putting prices on water, air, and soil is a hot topic among globalists at the U.N., the G20, the World Economic Forum (WEF), and the COP meetings.

At the WEF Annual Meeting in Davos this year, Singapore’s President Tharman Shanmugaratnam said that water credits and biodiversity credits should be “stapled” on to carbon credits.

The year prior, at the 2024 WEF Annual Meeting of the New Champions, aka “Summer Davos” meeting in communist China, University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership CEO Lindsay Hooper told the panel on “Understanding Nature’s Ledger” that every part of the economy depends on nature, and that in order to protect natural systems, one solution would be to “bring nature onto the balance sheet.”

In addition to putting “nature on the balance sheet,” another proposal coming at the end of the panel discussion suggested putting a tax on natural systems like water in the same vein as carbon taxes.

With putting prices on nature comes tokenization and derivatives.

At least that’s what former Bank of England adviser Michael Sheren said at COP27 in November 2022.

“Carbon, we already figured out, and carbon is moving very quickly into a system where it’s going to be very close to a currency, basically being able to take a ton of absorbed or sequestered carbon and being able to create a forward-pricing curve, with financial service architecture, documentation,” said Sheren.

And with carbon being close to a currency, “There are going to be derivatives.”

Now, under the newfound leadership of Fink and Hoffmann, whose personal business dealings stand everything to gain, the WEF is plowing full steam ahead with the globalist agenda to monitor and monetize everything in nature, including the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the very earth that we walk upon.

Reprinted with permission from The Sociable.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Business / 1 hour ago

BC Ferries: Emails Change Everything- Committee to Haul In Freeland & Co.

Business / 6 hours ago

PBO report projects soaring deficit and debt interest charges

Business / 6 hours ago

Canada’s Future May Lie In Continental Integration

Business

BC Ferries: Emails Change Everything- Committee to Haul In Freeland & Co.

Published on September 25, 2025

By

The Opposition with Dan Knight

Dan Knight's avatar Dan Knight

Freeland, Public Safety, Seaspan, Irving, Ontario yards and unions to appear as MPs probe what Ottawa knew and when.

In Ottawa they call it “arm’s-length.” Out in the real world, people call it duck-and-cover. At Meeting No. 6 of the House of Commons transport committee, MPs confronted a simple, damning timeline: Transport Canada’s top non-partisan official was warned six weeks before the public announcement that BC Ferries would award a four-ship contract to a Chinese state-owned yard. Yet the former transport minister, Chrystia Freeland, told Parliament she was “shocked.” Those two facts do not coexist in nature. One is true, or the other is not.

There’s an even bigger betrayal hiding in plain sight. In the last election, this Liberal government campaigned on a Canada-first message—jobs here, supply chains here, steel here. And then, when it actually mattered, they watched a billion-dollar ferry order sail to a PRC state yard with no Canadian-content requirement attached to the federal financing. So much for “Canada first.” Turns out it was “Canada… eventually,” after the press release.

Conservatives put the revelation on the record and asked the only question that matters in a democracy: what did the minister know and when did she know it? The documents they cite don’t suggest confusion; they suggest choreography—ministerial staff emailing the Prime Minister’s Office on how to manage the announcement rather than stop the deal that offshored Canadian work to a Chinese state firm.

Follow the money and it gets worse. A federal Crown lender—the Canada Infrastructure Bank—underwrote $1 billion for BC Ferries and attached no Canadian-content requirement to the financing. In plain English: taxpayers took the risk, Beijing got the jobs. The paper trail presented to MPs is smothered in black ink—hundreds of pages of redactions—with one stray breadcrumb: a partially visible BC Hydro analysis suggesting roughly half a billion dollars in B.C. terminal upgrades to make the “green” ferry plan work. You’re not supposed to see that. You almost didn’t.

How did the government side respond? With a jurisdictional shrug. We’re told, over and over, that BC Ferries is a provincial, arm’s-length corporation; the feds didn’t pick the yard, don’t run the procurement, and therefore shouldn’t be blamed. That line is convenient, and in a technical sense it’s tidy. But it wilts under heat. The federal lender is still federal. The money is still public. If “arm’s-length” means “no accountability,” it’s not a governance model—it’s a get-out-of-jail-free card.

The fallback argument is economic fatalism: no Canadian shipyards bid, we’re told; building here would have taken longer and cost “billions” more. Maybe that’s true, maybe it isn’t—but it’s the sort of claim that demands evidence, not condescension. Because the last time Canadians heard this script, the same political class promised that global supply chains were efficient, cheap and safe. Then reality happened. If domestic capacity is too weak to compete, that’s not an argument for outsourcing permanently; it’s an indictment of the people who let that capacity atrophy. And if you swear “Canada first” on the campaign trail, you don’t bankroll “China first” from the Treasury bench.

Even the process looked like a master class in delay. The committee repeatedly suspended to “circulate” and “review” lengthy motions, while edits ricocheted across the witness list. There were pushes to pare back which ministers would appear at all, and counter-moves to tuck sensitive testimony behind closed doors. In the end, members nudged toward a compromise—Public Safety in open session, other national-security witnesses in camera—but the pattern was unmistakable: every procedural minute spent on choreography was a minute not spent on the timeline.

And after all that stalling, here’s who they’re hauling in—because even Ottawa’s fog machine couldn’t hide the paper trail forever.

They moved to recall Chrystia Freeland herself—the minister who claimed to be “shocked” after her own department had a six-week head start. She’s the centerpiece witness, and rightly so.

On the security front, the Public Safety Minister is slated for an hour in public, followed by an hour with officials, while the national-security reviewers will give their evidence in camera—translation: the part you most want to hear will happen behind closed doors.

Industry voices are on deck too: Seaspan (the transcript garbles it as “C-Span”), Irving Shipbuilding, plus labour and trade heavyweights—the BC Ferries & Marine Workers’ Union, BC Building Trades, the BC Federation of Labour, the Shipyard General Workers Federation, and the Canadian steel producers—the people who can say, under oath, exactly what Ottawa knew and when the alarm bells rang.

They even tacked on Ontario shipyards via a “friendly amendment”—because apparently no one thought to ask central Canada’s yards until the story blew up.

And then the hedge: Liberals worked the amendments to pare back which ministers would face the lights—especially Revenue and Labour—prompting Conservatives to call the move “intolerable.” In other words, invite the easy witnesses, bury the consequential ones. The fight over those two remained live at that point.

So yes, the committee will finally hear from the people who matter—Freeland, Public Safety, shipyards, unions, steel. But notice the choreography: showcase the safe bits in public, tuck the sensitive parts out of view, and keep chipping away at the ministerial witness list. That’s not transparency; that’s stage management with a security badge.

Strip away the talking points and what remains are questions no serious government would duck. When did the minister learn the contract was going to China? What did her office tell the PMO and when? Why did a federal loan—the leverage Ottawa actually controls—carry zero requirement to build any of it here? And why are the documents that might answer those questions buried under redactions thick enough to pave a road?

Canadians are not children. They understand that ferries are essential and that delays are costly. They also understand something else: when a government runs on Canada first and then cheers from the dock as the jobs steam away, that’s not “arm’s-length.” That’s arm’s-length accountability—which is to say, none. Until the emails are unredacted and Chrystia Freeland answers the timeline under oath, the government’s position amounts to this: trust us, the money’s independent, the decisions were someone else’s, and the facts you’re not allowed to see fully vindicate us. Sure. And the check is in the mail.

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight

I’m an independent Canadian journalist exposing corruption, delivering unfiltered truths and untold stories.
Join me on Substack for fearless reporting that goes beyond headlines
Continue Reading

Business

PBO report projects soaring deficit and debt interest charges

Published on September 25, 2025

By

By Franco Terrazzano 

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is calling on Prime Minister Mark Carney to cut spending following today’s Parliamentary Budget Officer report forecasting the deficit to “increase sharply.”

“The PBO report should be a five-alarm siren to end the government’s debt-fueled spending spree,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “Carney must change course and cut spending because taxpayers can’t afford to pay more than $1 billion every week to cover the government’s debt interest charges.”

The PBO’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook projects this year’s “deficit to increase sharply to $68.5 billion.”

Carney’s annual borrowing will add about $255 billion to the debt over four years, according to today’s PBO report. For comparison, former prime minister Justin Trudeau planned on increasing the debt by $131 billion over those years, according to the most recent Fall Economic Statement.

Debt interest charges will cost taxpayers $55.3 billion this year, according to the PBO. That means the federal government will waste more money paying interest on the debt than it sends to the provinces in health-care transfers ($54.7 billion). Debt interest charges will cost taxpayers $82.4 billion in 2030.

“The federal debt-to-GDP ratio is projected to increase from 41.7 per cent in 2024-25, rising above 43 per cent over the medium term,” according to the PBO.

The Carney government’s spending is projected to increase by billions of dollars every year, according to the PBO.

“Carney sold Canadians on the idea he wasn’t like Trudeau and when it comes to the debt here’s the truth: Carney plans to borrow billions of dollars more than Trudeau,” Terrazzano said. “After a decade of out-of-control spending, Carney must make government more affordable and cut spending.”

The Carney government will release its first budget on Nov. 4.

Continue Reading

Trending

X