Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /bitnami/wordpress/wp-content/themes/the-newspaper/theme-framework/theme-style/function/template-functions.php on line 673

It’s called the “First Movers Coalition.” 

As so often is the case with modern “democracies,” average voters have virtually no say in the power that this NGO elite concocted group is wielding with governments and business sectors.

Under the guise of fostering new “green technologies,” which for many uses have trouble competing with oil, natural gas and clean coal, the First Movers Coalition is shifting energy wealth and power to elites like Bill Gates and George Soros.

How is the Coalition driving wealth and power to selected elites? Quite simply, by subverting traditional market processes of innovation to drive early adoption to technologies that aren’t actually better or more cost effective than the technologies they aim to replace.

This is the deviously ingenious secret behind the “green tech” revolution, as it has played out thus far in the 21st century.

The Inferior Tech Profit Model That Elites Are Using To Amass Wealth in the 21st Century

The World Economic Forum and elites like George Soros, Bill Gates, and Heinz husband magnate and longtime elitist politician John Kerry are some of the prime proponents of the First Movers Coalition.

The coalition, though not elected by any voters via any democratic process, and not constrained by any formal integration with any lawful government agency, nonetheless already is exerting enormous influence over the direction of policy in the U.S. and around the world.

As the WEF has proclaimed:

“[At] the COP26 meeting in Glasgow [in 2021], President Biden and the World Economic Forum launched the First Movers Coalition. Leading global companies are sending the biggest demand signal in history for technology innovation across the so-called ‘hard-to-abate’ sectors.”

The Coalition is designed to encourage governments to regulate and codify green energy demand into existence, precisely because the technology cannot otherwise succeed in displacing cheaper and more efficient forms of energy that already exist.

The coalition is specifically targeting what it has identified as several “worst offender” industries that must be transformed via regulation, to adopt currently inferior green technology processes:

A recent showcase article on the First Movers Coalition on the WEF website reported that governments and companies are actively implementing artificial demand structures to increase use of green energy technology, despite its shortcomings:

“The companies that have joined the First Movers Coalition recognize that there may initially be a premium cost for these emerging technologies. But they also recognize that creating early markets to scale up breakthrough technologies is by far the most cost-effective way for companies to speed the global energy transition.

“Companies need only devote a small fraction of their total purchasing power to make a critical First Movers Coalition demand commitment. As these technologies gain a market foothold, their costs will plummet, erasing the green premium and paving the way for massive global technology deployment.”

Of course, the real burden of the “premium cost” of forcing the use of inferior green energy technology will fall to citizens of the world, many of whom are already literally experiencing famine and other hardships due to constrained energy supply.

But The First Movers Coalition isn’t about producing cheap clean energy.  It’s about pursuing ideological objectives concerning “climate change,” and profiting off the imposition of “green technology.”

Virtually all the elite advocates of the “green energy future” happen to be heavily invested in—you guessed it—green energy.

Bill Gates, for example, started something called “Breakthrough Energy.”  According to Wikipedia, its an umbrella of several organizations, founded in 2015, that:

“aim to accelerate innovation in sustainable energy and in other technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It invests in a variety of startup companies that are attempting to commercialize new concepts such as nuclear fusion, large-capacity batteries to store renewable energy, and microbe-generated biofuels.”

The point isn’t whether such energy initiatives have merit. The point is that many elites pushing green energy are not merely dispassionate do-gooders. They have huge financial stakes in the game.

The pipeline of profit often flows not only via direct company creation and investment, but through investment by elite connected hedge funds and venture capital initiatives.

No wonder so many green advocates are on board with artificially creating demand for their investment portfolio.  Speaking about the push to have companies and governments sign on to green energy demand creation, the WEF article said: 

“These companies recognize that joining the First Movers Coalition represented a dual opportunity to take action on climate and seize competitive advantage at the same time. Thirty-five companies, representing $6 trillion in market value, made ambitious pledges across steel, aviation, trucking and shipping.

“These are precise purchasing commitments that will help bring emerging clean technologies to market by 2030. By creating early market demand for these technologies, companies can secure access ahead of their competitors to clean supply chains and next-generation technology.”

Innovation In Traditional Energy Sector Not Encouraged

Of course, a coalition seeking to implement positive improvements in pollution emissions might seek to incentivise cleaner forms of coal and oil production. There are certainly innovations possible there.

But “carbon” has been ginned up into such an ideological construct of evil, that it has become impossible for any rational, common sense approach to energy needs of the future. 

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and others have long advocated for a common sense “all of the above” approach to energy production.  Alaska has valuable oil and gas resources, and Palin innovated by making sure all residents of the state shared in the profits from the use of those resources.

But a more zealous view that only “green” (ie. non-end user carbon) forms of energy should be pursued, has taken over political and economic policy.

The relentless ideological push recently led Biden Administration Climate Envoy John Kerry to harp about the “opportunity” the Russia-Ukraine war presented to adopt green energy policies.

“The lesson is that we have to move faster to deweaponize energy anywhere in the world. It’s not the first time it’s been used as a weapon,” Kerry said to attendees of a London hosted climate event.

Kerry’s remarks were criticized for ignoring not only more central issues of the war, but being remarkably callous in the face of food and energy shortages being faced by millions of people as a result of war-related energy supply disruptions.

Subverting Traditional Innovation With Bogus “Science” Narratives, To Capture Markets And Profit

During the 19th and 20th Centuries, the way of technological progress was more or less driven by what might be called the manifest value of innovation.

In this age, there were countless amateur tinkerers and formally educated engineers who invented useful products that improved processes, introduced new products and services, and changed and even created industries.

Products which introduced an efficiency or a new ability could be exploited to provide a competitive advantage.  Adoption of technology was crucially related to market forces.

No one would willingly adopt a device, product or process that was less efficient and more costly than an alternative that was available to a competitor.

It would be a certain road to business extinction.

Companies vyed for innovations and patents that gave them a technological advantage in producing a superior product.  Companies could sell, based on the advantages and superiority of their designs and products, as compared with competitors.

Sometimes innovations meant they could produce similar, or only slightly inferior products at lower costs.

Consumers were left to pick and choose winners, in a more or less “free market”, where the hand of government regulation was relatively light, especially compared to what it would later become.

Yes, there was much unfair competition, business sabotage, stealing of ideas, the growth of advertising to influence consumers, and on and on.

The system was hardly perfect.

But the proofs of its overall systemic value, in improving lives and growing the overall level of prosperity of 1st world democracies during that time period, are abundantly clear.

Of course, many basic tenets of government regulation introduced during this period were meant to dissuade companies from engaging in practices that benefitted them narrowly while being destructive to the general welfare, via environmental pollution and waste dumping, child worker exploitation, union busting, etc.

As Investopedia notes regarding legitimate needs for business regulation:

“businesses have damaged the environment, abused labor, violated immigration laws, and defrauded consumers. Proponents say that is why publicly accountable elected officials are in charge of regulation in the first place. Furthermore, some rules are essential for civilized competitive businesses to flourish. Few legitimate firms wish to engage in racketeering or participate in the underground market.”

Unfortunately, the late 20th century saw trends toward greater efforts by business interests to leverage and weaponize government regulatory power to unfairly advantage and benefit themselves.

Many sincere regulation advocates fail to understand that business interests are often the biggest proponents of government regulation.  

In the current regulatory age, businesses compete on the playing field of regulatory frameworks, just as surely as they compete in the marketplace in selling their products and services against other competitors.

Businesses secure and even create markets for their products by appealing to government oversight and regulatory initiatives that attempt to favor some technologies and even industries while disadvantaging others.

There are obvious examples, like ethanol, a biofuel which required heavy government subsidy and regulation to “succeed.”

More recently, the battle over “Net Neutrality” pitted one group of industries vs. another in an attempt to skew and shape regulation to favor their business interests and goals.

One of the most audacious and catastrophic examples of regulating a technology into usage has been the mandates surrounding COVID mRNA gene therapies deceptively called vaccines.

Despite having no previous track record, and being rushed to the public via a panic fueled “Warp Speed” development, the mRNA and DNA technology was relentlessly pushed on the entire world.

Companies like Moderna, that literally were unknown and barely in existence just a few years ago, were suddenly minting new mega-billionaires as a result.  

Indeed, the WEF article on the First Movers Coalition referenced the government forced COVID experimental gene therapies as a model for how to implement greater green tech usage:

“Similarly, purchasing commitments by governments and non-governmental actors alike accelerated the introduction of life-saving COVID-19 vaccines. The First Movers Coalition is bringing that strategy to the hard-to-abate sectors of the energy transition.”

Endless boosters, unprecedented serious side effects, lies concerning efficacy, attempted cover-ups of trial data, vastly oversold claims regarding efficacy and the ability of the gene therapies to stop transmission, and on and on, have more than proven the manifest failure of forcing technology which is divorced from the essential voluntary feedback and uptake of the masses of humanity.

But the COVID gene therapies, of course, were wildly successful in terms of driving more wealth and power to elites.

And that is the artificial demand model of The First Movers Coalition.

NGOs Subverting Democratic Powers Of Citizens

By what legal standard the U.S. government can form adhoc partnerships with undemocratic mega-billionaire private organizations to design public policy, is something every citizen should ponder.

Indeed, it could be argued that only government agencies and political institutions, and organizations accountable to voters and the public should wield that kind of power.

But the murky, outsized influence of mega billionaires and their various non-government organizations is a pernicious anti-democratic phenomenon that has taken hold of the world.

Especially from the mid-20th century, the wealth of industrialists have been funneled via advantageously constructed government tax and regulatory frameworks, into powerful foundations and trusts.  

Many of the names, including the Ford, Getty, Kellog, Lilly and Hughes, are well known.  Via these organizations, the outsized political and social influence powered by the wealth of industrial magnates, literally can never die.

But billionaires have gone much further in more recent times.  Via NGOs, pioneered by politically minded influencers like George Soros and Bill Gates, billionaires have figured out a way to enjoy enormous tax advantaged, deeply anti-democratic political influence, while still alive.  Indeed, Soro’s Open Society and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation both currently rank in the top 10 of charitable trusts in the world:

The money influence is channeled through vast networks of charitable and non-profit orgs that work relentlessly to further the objectives of their prime funders.

Via these NGOs, mega-billionaires funnel vast amounts of money to causes that further ideological goals, and / or seed new initiatives from which the said billionaires can exploit and profit.

Think vaccines and Bill Gates.  Or George Soros and the manipulations of currencies (ie. British pound in the early 1990’s), central bank policies and financial markets (ie. fortuitous moves off the 2008 financial crisis).

Some say Soros merely recognized and took advantage of poor government policies to win his currency bets. Others argue that Soros bets helped manipulate and spur outcomes that imploded financial markets and even whole countries, while reaping profits for himself.

Soros himself admitted some influence, concerning his bets against the Thai Baht currency in 1997:

“The Malaysian Prime Minister later accused Soros of attacking Southeast Asian currencies, making a number of anti-Semitic comments against the hedge fund manager as well. Soros later clarified that he had sold those Asian currencies short early in 1997, months before the crisis. ‘By selling the Thai baht short in January 1997, the Quantum Fund managed by my investment company sent a market signal that the baht may be overvalued,’ according to Soros.” 

Like other moments of history, elites are not merely reacting to the challenges of energy production and environmental problems.  They are steering and gaming the system every step of the way, in order to maximally profit, whether directly, or indirectly, via increases in power over the “systems” of the future.

And initiatives like the First Movers Coalition, represents a prime example of how the game works.

Comments are closed.

Skip to content