Wall Street’s planned theft of America’s lands and waters

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

When we are issued carbon allowances, owners of said lands will be able to claim tax deductions and will be able to sell carbon allowances to businesses, families and townships. In the simplest of terms, that’s where the money will be made. WE peons will be renting air from the richest people on earth.

Everything will be monetized and measured and traded, even you.

Up next on Wall Street’s exploitation list.

If not stopped, on November 17th, the U.S. government will pass a rule that allows for America’s protected lands, including parks and wildlife refuges, to be listed on the N.Y. Stock Exchange. Natural Asset Companies (NACs) will be owned, managed, and traded by companies like BlackRock, Vanguard, and even China.

Since the early 2000’s, outfits like Goldman Sachs have been trying to trade air, or specifically carbon without much success. Their 2005 carbon exchange staggered along until it was quietly discontinued, and their Climate Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF) is now facing delisting. “ESG” was the next attempt to monetize the un-monetizable, with the “E” part of that acronym standing for Environment, ill-defined as that was. Now ESG is failing. Market leaders say it is facing “a perfect storm of negative sentiment” and its U.S. investments fell by $163 billion in the first quarter of 2023 alone.

Its stepchild, Net-Zero, is so loathed, it looks like it might blow up the entire carbon scam. Says Australian senator Matt Canavan, “Net-Zero has absolutely carked it. It is a soundbite and totally insane. Almost everything we grow, we make, we do in our society relies on the use of fossil fuels.” Vanguard has pulled out of Net-Zero funds. The British government too is backing out of Net-Zero, saying “we won’t save the planet by bankrupting the British people.” New Zealand’s new government revised the country’s Net-Zero plans in its first week in office. In the hard hit Netherlands, the Farmer-Citizen movement is now the dominant party in the Dutch senate and every provincial assembly. Sweden has abandoned its 100 percent Net-Zero plans and Norway has announced another $18 billion in oil and gas investments.

Not going to happen.

Even in the submissive E.U. voters are turning from the “green” parties toward anti-E.U. parties. Renewables funds are seeing massive outflows because of rising interest rates and declining subsidies. Of course, the massive subsidies taxpayers have already given both “renewables” investors and “renewables” companies will never be clawed back. All we will get is a shrug as they move onto the next kill. Which is so obvious it is a wonder no one predicted it.

The entire universe envies the lush interior of the U.S. Increasingly empty, it is filled with a cornucopia of minerals, fiber, food, waters, extraordinarily fertile soil as well as well-ordered, educated, mostly docile people. Worth in the quadrillions, if one could monetize and trade it, financialize it, the way the market has financialized the future labor of Americans, well, it would be like golden coins raining from the sky.

On October 4th, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a proposed rule to create Natural Asset Companies (NACs). A twenty-one day comment period was allowed, which is half the minimum number of days generally required. NACs will allow BlackRock, Bill Gates, and possibly even China to hold the ecosystem rights to the land, water, air, and natural processes of the properties enrolled in NACs. Each NAC will hold “management authority” over the land. When we are issued carbon allowances, owners of said lands will be able to claim tax deductions and will be able to sell carbon allowances to businesses, families and townships. In the simplest of terms, that’s where the money will be made. WE peons will be renting air from the richest people on earth.

The following are eligible for NACs: National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, Wilderness Areas, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, Conservation Areas on Private and Federal Lands, Endangered Species Critical Habitat, and the Conservation Reserve Program. Lest you think that any conserved land is conserved in your name, the largest Conservation organization in the U.S., is called The Nature Conservancy, or TNC, which, while being a 501(c)3, also holds six billion dollars of land on its books. Those lands have been taken using your money via donations and government grants, and transferred to the Nature Conservancy, which can do with those lands what it wills.

If this rule passes, America’s conserved lands and parks will move onto the balance sheets of the richest people in the world. Management of those lands will be decided by them and their operations, to say the least, will be opaque.

μολὼν λαβέ, buddy.

Farm country is fighting back. American Stewards of Liberty, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, Kansas Natural Resource Coalition, Financial Fairness Alliance and Blue Ribbon Coalition have filed comments, Republican senators Pete Ricketts, James Risch and Mike Crapo have sent pointed queries to the SEC. This week, Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-WY) offered an amendment that would defund the SEC proposed rule to approve listing “NACs.”

Most of us ill-understand “financialization.” It is a complex set of maneuvers best explained by the behavior that crashed the economy in 2008 which bundled up questionable mortgages and brokered off the risk to dozens of different funds in order to share that risk. NACs are asset grabs. From ’09-’20, funds asset-stripped America’s manufacturing via debt obligations, buying the company, selling off the equipment, firing the most expensive employees, and gutting, if they could, pension funds. Then they upped the price and sold on the assets. Which were bundled and brokered off. These are called collateralized debt obligations and they thunder doom underneath the debt-fueled economy.

Natural Asset Companies are an attempt to grab hard assets to make up for an inevitable collapse. But taking more land out of production makes it certain that collapse moves ever closer. Land needs to be used, cared for, and maintained by the people who live on and use the land. Otherwise, it runs to desert and invasive species. The mad push to “green” and net-zero has triggered financialization, or a brokering of the future, because only energy spurs real growth — and energy has been increasingly restricted over the past twenty years. NACs are another destroyer of America’s heartland.

Elizabeth Nickson is a Senior Fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. Her studies and commentaries at the Frontier Centre can be accessed here. Follow her on Substack here. Her best-selling book Eco-Fascists can be purchased here.

Up Next

By-election Bombshell! Justin Trudeau’s Liberals lose safe Toronto riding

Don't Miss

Why is Trudeau sticking to the unmarked graves falsehood?

Todayville

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

Canada’s free speech record is cracking under pressure

International / 7 hours ago

100 Catholic schoolchildren rescued, Nigeria promises release of remaining hostages

Business / 10 hours ago

Taxpayers Federation calls on politicians to reject funding for new Ottawa Senators arena

Agriculture

Canada’s air quality among the best in the world

Published on December 8, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Annika Segelhorst and Elmira Aliakbari

Canadians care about the environment and breathing clean air. In 2023, the share of Canadians concerned about the state of outdoor air quality was 7 in 10, according to survey results from Abacus Data. Yet Canada outperforms most comparable high-income countries on air quality, suggesting a gap between public perception and empirical reality. Overall, Canada ranks 8th for air quality among 31 high-income countries, according to our recent study published by the Fraser Institute.

A key determinant of air quality is the presence of tiny solid particles and liquid droplets floating in the air, known as particulates. The smallest of these particles, known as fine particulate matter, are especially hazardous, as they can penetrate deep into a person’s lungs, enter the blood stream and harm our health.

Exposure to fine particulate matter stems from both natural and human sources. Natural events such as wildfires, dust storms and volcanic eruptions can release particles into the air that can travel thousands of kilometres. Other sources of particulate pollution originate from human activities such as the combustion of fossil fuels in automobiles and during industrial processes.

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) publish air quality guidelines related to health, which we used to measure and rank 31 high-income countries on air quality.

Using data from 2022 (the latest year of consistently available data), our study assessed air quality based on three measures related to particulate pollution: (1) average exposure, (2) share of the population at risk, and (3) estimated health impacts.

The first measure, average exposure, reflects the average level of outdoor particle pollution people are exposed to over a year. Among 31 high-income countries, Canadians had the 5th-lowest average exposure to particulate pollution.

Next, the study considered the proportion of each country’s population that experienced an annual average level of fine particle pollution greater than the WHO’s air quality guideline. Only 2 per cent of Canadians were exposed to fine particle pollution levels exceeding the WHO guideline for annual exposure, ranking 9th of 31 countries. In other words, 98 per cent of Canadians were not exposed to fine particulate pollution levels exceeding health guidelines.

Finally, the study reviewed estimates of illness and mortality associated with fine particle pollution in each country. Canada had the fifth-lowest estimated death and illness burden due to fine particle pollution.

Taken together, the results show that Canada stands out as a global leader on clean air, ranking 8th overall for air quality among high-income countries.

Canada’s record underscores both the progress made in achieving cleaner air and the quality of life our clean air supports.

Annika Segelhorst

Junior Economist

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute

Alberta

Net Zero goal is a fundamental flaw in the Ottawa-Alberta MOU

Published on November 30, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jason Clemens and Elmira Aliakbari

The challenge of GHG emissions in 2050 is not in the industrial world but rather in the developing world, where there is still significant basic energy consumption using timber and biomass.

The new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the federal and Alberta governments lays the groundwork for substantial energy projects and infrastructure development over the next two-and-a-half decades. It is by all accounts a step forward, though, there’s debate about how large and meaningful that step actually is. There is, however, a fundamental flaw in the foundation of the agreement: it’s commitment to net zero in Canada by 2050.

The first point of agreement in the MOU on the first page of text states: “Canada and Alberta remain committed to achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.” In practice, it’s incredibly difficult to offset emissions with tree planting or other projects that reduce “net” emissions, so the effect of committing to “net zero” by 2050 means that both governments agree that Canada should produce very close to zero actual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Consider the massive changes in energy production, home heating, transportation and agriculture that would be needed to achieve this goal.

So, what’s wrong with Canada’s net zero 2050 and the larger United Nations’ global goal for the same?

Let’s first understand the global context of GHG reductions based on a recent study by internationally-recognized scholar Vaclav Smil. Two key insights from the study. First, despite trillions being spent plus international agreements and regulatory measures starting back in 1997 with the original Kyoto agreement, global fossil fuel consumption between then and 2023 increased by 55 per cent.

Second, fossil fuels as a share of total global energy declined from 86 per cent in 1997 to 82 per cent in 2022, again, despite trillions of dollars in spending plus regulatory requirements to force a transition away from fossil fuels to zero emission energies. The idea that globally we can achieve zero emissions over the next two-and-a-half decades is pure fantasy. Even if there is an historic technological breakthrough, it will take decades to actually transition to a new energy source(s).

Let’s now understand the Canada-specific context. A recent study examined all the measures introduced over the last decade as part of the national plan to reduce emissions to achieve net zero by 2050. The study concluded that significant economic costs would be imposed on Canadians by these measures: inflation-adjusted GDP would be 7 per cent lower, income per worker would be more than $8,000 lower and approximately 250,000 jobs would be lost. Moreover, these costs would not get Canada to net zero. The study concluded that only 70 per cent of the net zero emissions goal would be achieved despite these significant costs, which means even greater costs would be imposed on Canadians to fully achieve net zero.

It’s important to return to a global picture to fully understand why net zero makes no sense for Canada within a worldwide context. Using projections from the International Energy Agency (IEA) in its latest World Energy Outlook, the current expectation is that in 2050, advanced countries including Canada and the other G7 countries will represent less than 25 per cent of global emissions. The developing world, which includes China, India, the entirety of Africa and much of South America, is estimated to represent at least 70 per cent of global emissions in 2050.

Simply put, the challenge of GHG emissions in 2050 is not in the industrial world but rather in the developing world, where there is still significant basic energy consumption using timber and biomass. A globally-coordinated effort, which is really what the U.N. should be doing rather than fantasizing about net zero, would see industrial countries like Canada that are capable of increasing their energy production exporting more to these developing countries so that high-emitting energy sources are replaced by lower-emitting energy sources. This would actually reduce global GHGs while simultaneously stimulating economic growth.

Consider a recent study that calculated the implications of doubling natural gas production in Canada and exporting it to China to replace coal-fired power. The conclusion was that there would be a massive reduction in global GHGs equivalent to almost 90 per cent of Canada’s total annual emissions. In these types of substitution arrangements, the GHGs would increase in energy-producing countries like Canada but global GHGs would be reduced, which is the ultimate goal of not only the U.N. but also the Carney and Smith governments as per the MOU.

Finally, the agreement ignores a basic law of economics. The first lesson in the very first class of any economics program is that resources are limited. At any given point in time, we only have so much labour, raw materials, time, etc. In other words, when we choose to do one project, the real cost is foregoing the other projects that could have been undertaken. Economics is mostly about trying to understand how to maximize the use of limited resources.

The MOU requires massive, literally hundreds of billions of dollars to be used to create nuclear power, other zero-emitting power sources and transmission systems all in the name of being able to produce low or even zero-emitting oil and gas while also moving to towards net zero.

These resources cannot be used for other purposes and it’s impossible to imagine what alternative companies or industries would have been invested in. What we do know is that workers, entrepreneurs, businessowners and investors are not making these decisions. Rather, politicians and bureaucrats in Ottawa and Edmonton are making these decisions but they won’t pay any price if they’re wrong. Canadians pay the price. Just consider the financial fiasco unfolding now with Ottawa, Ontario and Quebec’s subsidies (i.e. corporate welfare) for electric vehicle batteries.

Understanding the fundamentally flawed commitment to Canadian net zero rather than understanding a larger global context of GHG emissions lays at the heart of the recent MOU and unfortunately for Canadians will continue to guide flawed and expensive policies. Until we get the net zero policies right, we’re going to continue to spend enormous resources on projects with limited returns, costing all Canadians.