Paris Accord

.......The Paris Agreement is still officially framed around “keeping 1.5°C alive,” but the UN’s own emissions gap reports now place the world on a 2.3–2.9°C path even if current pledges are met. This article argues that Paris has quietly shifted from a climate-saving project to a global management system for finance, land, and risk: Article 2.1(c) is used to align money with modelled pathways while missed targets are papered over with overshoot, nature-based solutions, and 30×30-style conservation. In places like Newfoundland, that doesn’t look like high diplomacy; it looks like offshore zoning, wind-to-hydrogen schemes, and consultation theatre sold as “development” and “resilience,” even as local people lose control over land, water, and decisions. The world is off target, but Paris is still on script—and that script increasingly serves the system, not the communities written into it. Read More...

A deep look at how the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) turns the Paris Agreement’s finance clause, Article 2.1(c), into a powerful tool for shaping national policy through private capital. By embedding “Paris alignment” into banking, investment, and insurance standards, GFANZ can drive energy transitions without direct legislation — raising questions about sovereignty, market coercion, and who really decides the pace of change. Read More...

This isn’t about turbines — it’s about the deals behind them. Behind the Green Curtain lays out how Newfoundland’s wind and hydrogen push was never a local idea, but a package sold through global MOUs, federal net-zero targets, and climate branding that makes land grabs look like progress. From the 2022 hydrogen handshake with Germany to stacked agreements no one voted on, the groundwork was laid before the public ever saw a press release. This is the local paradox in motion — global ambitions delivered on our soil, with our resources, while our say in the matter is treated as optional. Read More...

This exposé reveals how international geopolitics—specifically Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement—played a direct role in the collapse of Newfoundland’s wind projects. Yet despite the scale of this influence, key voices within local activist groups actively suppressed the topic. Framed as “too political” or “divisive,” discussions about U.S. climate policy and global decarbonization financing were systematically silenced by moderators like Paul Pike. The article uncovers how tone policing, selective censorship, and the illusion of neutrality created a sanitized narrative—one that hid the project’s vulnerability to global market shifts. By stifling essential context, this strategy not only misinformed the public but shielded federal and corporate interests from scrutiny. The piece ties into broader themes from the Peer Pressure section, emphasizing how global agendas rely on local compliance—and how silence, enforced socially, becomes a tool of strategic misdirection. Read More...