In June of 2019, the World Economic Forum — a private group of elite billionaires — signed a strategic partnership with the United Nations, an intergovernmental organization. This highly questionable partnership was formed with the explicit goal of “accelerating the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.”
This move was seen by many across the world as a “corporate takeover” on the United Nations and was opposed by hundreds of NGOs, non-profits, think tanks, and government officials. An open letter in September of 2019, signed by these organization, detailed the the problem with such a move:
The provisions of the strategic partnership effectively provide that corporate leaders will become ‘whisper advisors’ to the heads of UN system departments, using their private access to advocate market-based profit-making ‘solutions’ to global problems while undermining real solutions embedded in public interest and transparent democratic procedures.
Since that fateful day in June of 2019, the WEF’s influence has grown and their relevance and power within the government has vastly increased.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the WEF put out their mission, entitled The Great Reset, to use the pandemic to push what they say is a need for “global stakeholders to cooperate in simultaneously managing the direct consequences of the COVID-19 crisis ” to “help inform all those determining the future state of global relations, the direction of national economies, the priorities of societies, the nature of business models and the management of a global commons.”
The Great Reset was written off by fact-checkers as a conspiracy theory despite the WEF advocating for it publicly and the head of the WEF, Klaus Schwab, literally writing a book with that title — advocating for these very initiatives.
After amassing massive government influence for years, the group, which openly refers to themselves as “elites” has come to the same conclusion that Bill Gates has come to years ago — we need to block out the sun to slow climate change.
“Space-based solutions would be safer – for instance, if we deflect 1.8 per cent of incident solar radiation before it hits our planet, we could fully reverse today’s global warming.”
Another advantage of this particular solar shield is that it is reversible, as the bubbles could be deflated and removed from their position.
The spheres would be made from a material such as silicon, transported to space in molten form, or graphene-reinforced ionic liquids.
For now, the plan is a working hypothesis and scientists behind it are only conducting experiments in the lab. Citing the highly controversial nature of such geoengineering plans, the WEF fell back on their relationship with the UN to justify it.
Geoengineering has proven controversial, but the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said it is a necessary Plan B if temperature rises can’t be capped at a manageable level.
Indeed, regardless of the assurances of the elite, many scientists and government bodies are making moves to prevent such actions. Some countries have even banned the practice.
Last year, the nation of Sweden recanted on their plan to test Bill Gates’ plan to spray particles in the sky to test blocking out the sun — citing disagreements among scientists.
Others simply want to compensate anyone who is harmed by these projects.
David Keith, a professor of applied physics and public policy at Harvard University, recognizes the “very many real concerns” of geoengineering, according to a report in Forbes. To offset these risks he has proposed the creation of a “risk pool” to collect funds for the risks associated with playing mother nature — up to and including cooling an area so much that inhabitants are unable to grow food.
As Forbes reports:
Again, these temperature decreases bring with them serious risks. Freezing temperatures in 1815 led to failed crops in near-famine conditions. British scientists have cited stratospheric aerosols from volcanic eruptions in Alaska and Mexico as the potential cause of drought in Africa’s Sahel region. Major disruption of the global climate could bring unintended consequences, negatively impacting highly populated regions and engineering another refugee crisis.
David Keith has proposed the creation of a “risk pool” to compensate smaller nations for collateral damage caused by such tests, but such a payout might be little comfort to those displaced by unlivable conditions.
Indeed. No amount of money would compensate for a family losing all of their land to freezing temperatures and being forced to relocate to another country. But these are some of the risks involved in weather modification — which is why a small group of global elites who are not scientists — should not be making these decisions for 8 billion people.