NACs (Natural Asset Companies) Another Threat To Tennessee Land And Liberty

There Is More Work To Be Done. We Need To Understand How These Goals Are Sneaking Into Our Cities. We Need To Answer How Do We Enforce The Law And Ensure Our Local Government Complies. We Need To Get These NGOs, NACs, SDGs, And These Unelected, Unaccountable Third-Party Organizations And Agencies Out Of Our Communities.  And Ensure Our God-Given Rights Are Upheld.

Image: Scenic Overlook on U.S. Hwy 70 near Sparta, TN – Virgin Falls State Natural Area Image Credit: Michael R. Hicks / CC

By Danielle Goodrich [Tennessee Stands / Tri-Cities Coaltion] –

The United Nation’s 17 SDGs (sustainable development goals) are in city plans across the state, across the country and across the world.

Liberty Infringing City Plans; Recognizing The 17 SDGs

And they may sound honorable but considering health to the UN meant mandates, stay at home orders, no guidance on addressing metabolic disorders, go home until you are cyanotic then come back to be vented, go to Wal-mart and the liquor store but close your business and don’t go to church, stay home,  let your loved ones die alone, mask children, mask at restaurants until you get to the table, anything but early treatment which had always been the standard, tyrannical orders ignoring the God-given rights of the people, most are right to be critical of their recommendations.

It looks like the true goal of the UN is to control all land, minerals, water, plants, food, construction, information, technology, surveillance, means of production and those who produce.

They are fulfilling Reagan’s 1967 warning. “Using the temporary authority granted by the people, in increasing numbers lately at all levels of government, have sought control even of the means of production as if they could do this without eventually controlling those who produce. And always they explain this as necessary to the people’s welfare. The deterioration of every government begins with the decay of the principle upon which it was founded. This was written in 1748, and it’s as true today as it was then.”

Except the UN isn’t a government and they haven’t been elected by anyone.

Due to the unconstitutional approach of the UN and other aligned non-governmental organizations like the WEF and WHO, Tennessee legislators had the good foresight to make the UN and net zero agenda unlawful in Tennessee via public chapter 479.

The UN agenda tentacles however reach far and wide via different organizations worldwide. On the website, it says they have 169 targets, 3863 events, 1347 publications and 7796 actions aligned with these events. Tentacles.

I dug into my local city plan and it is apparent the goals are there.

Despite being unlawful it’s still happening anyway. In Chattanooga as a chosen WEF Smart City.

In Johnson City with our smart poles and chosen to be a UNICEF child friendly city (CFC) which is a UN offshoot that shares in their goals. UNICEF mentions that the child friendly city is apart of SDG 11.

The form of government needed to accomplish these plans would have to be a humanist form of government. Where man, not God, is the highest authority. Where there are no God-given rights. Think socialism or communism. I discuss these things in my post “It’s the Bible Belt, if we can Keep it.”

It’s the Bible Belt, If We Can Keep It…

These plans all very tied into the now unlawful UN agenda. They focus on environment, climate, forms of governance, politics, health.

The topics mimic the UN’s 17 SDGs.

The United Nation’s 17 Sustainable Development goals are:

       1.      no poverty

        2.      zero hunger

        3.      good health and well being

        4.      quality education

        5.      gender equality

        6.      clean water and sanitation

        7.      affordable and clean energy

        8.      decent work and economic growth

        9.      industry innovation and and infrastructure

        10.     reduced inequalities

        11.     sustainable cities and communities

        12.     responsible consumption and production

        13.     climate action

        14.     life below water

        15.     life on land

        16.     peace justice and strong institutions

        17.     partnerships for the goals

Again these would be honorable if we didn’t have history to reflect on what these look like in policy.

You can read more of my concerns HERE.

We have a lot of people moving to Tennessee. I understand the need to plan accordingly. I’m not saying we don’t plan for growth. I’m saying we do it within the confines of a Constitution that protects God given-rights.

They write this is a global plan implemented locally. And that is just what they’ve been doing. Global plans instituted locally.

From one of the UN documents, “Governance and institutional settings. Complex governance arrangements and institutional structural rigidity can impede synergistic action and integration due to factors like overlapping authority, lack of mandate…”

The “rigidity” of our constitution is a hindrance to their ability to accomplish mandates and wield the authority to accomplish these goals.

Wealth redistribution would be needed to achieve their “no poverty and no hunger” goals and I’ll get into what their documents say about this later. Redistribution means what someone worked for they would have to go without, while someone who didn’t work gets to have. We’ve seen these policies before in China, Soviet Union, North Korea. And even California where they give free reign to criminals to steal what they need. Where they have race reparations.

Their rally cry for sustainability has an unsustainable economic ideology. How do you keep the producer motivated to produce when many receive without producing? Socialism. While private property would also be confiscated. Communism.

For these goals they outline the need for land conservation. We agree that we need trees to turn carbon to oxygen. So there does need to be planning including conservation. But the aggressive goals of the UN look to declare public land off use for humans while requiring humans to live in high density walkable areas. 15-minute smart cities. To have less sprawl (homes you drive to) which is mentioned on page 14 of Johnson City’s plan. And “high density and walkable” mentioned at the planning meeting.

When they say unsustainable they mean single-family residents, private vehicles, appliances, and eating meat.

Meat like cows which they say aren’t green despite cows being very efficient at turning carbon into 02 as they eat the grass and their manure creates biodiversity and it helps the grass to grow which turns the Co2 into O2. Cows are apart of a complex ecosystem. They acknowledge the ecosystem effect with bees. Yet don’t with cows?
Something new coming on the scene  involved in this is the development of a Natural Asset Company (NAC) on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). There had to be a rule change in order for the NYSE to adopt listing standards for this new category.

https://www.nyse.com/introducing-natural-asset-companies

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/10/04/2023-22041/self-regulatory-organizations-new-york-stock-exchange-llc-notice-of-filing-of-proposed-rule-change

“For purposes of proposed Section 102.09, a NAC is a corporation whose primary purpose is to actively manage, maintain, restore (as applicable), and grow the value of natural assets and their production of ecosystem services. In addition, where doing so is consistent with the company’s primary purpose, the company will seek to conduct sustainable revenue-generating operations. Sustainable operations are those activities that do not cause any material adverse impact on the condition of the natural assets under a NAC’s control and that seek to replenish the natural resources being used. The NAC may also engage in other activities that support community well-being, provided such activities are sustainable.”

The UN and these organizations see this as apart of the climate agenda which falls under SDG 13 “Climate Action.”

NACs would raise capital to purchase public and private land, such as forests, parks, and farms, and permanently lock it away from human impact, in the name of solving climate change.

“NAC’s control and seek to replenish the natural resources being used. Therefore, all NACs are prohibited from directly or indirectly conducting unsustainable activities, such as mining, that lead to the degradation of the ecosystems it is trying to protect. In conducting its revenue-generating operations, a NAC could monetize ecosystem services that have markets (e.g., through the sale of carbon credits)”

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/10/04/2023-22041/self-regulatory-organizations-new-york-stock-exchange-llc-notice-of-filing-of-proposed-rule-change

With the real goal being control of resources and people.

They discuss “regulating the climate” and “regulatory carbon markets.”

Regulating carbon falls under the net zero goal mentioned in TN public chapter 479 which makes net zero and the UN agenda unlawful. Net zero doesn’t mean zero carbon it means carbon credits.

The more land you have the more carbon credits you have. This might explain the elite land grabs happening with China looking to buy US farm land. With Gates buying up farmland.

The security concern of having China buy US land, having an international Super power that has had strained relations with the US as they compete for control of world markets, own land in the US is an obvious security concern that the Tennessee legislature addressed with HB 0040.

Lee Signs Bill Restricting Foreign Ownership Of Tennessee Land

However the NAC land control agenda comes with similar implications. NACs are currently trying to buy land in Tennessee.

We recently had a number of farmers come speak at our freedom meeting. Many discussed regenerative farming. They have abandoned the old way of using pesticides on their farms and antibiotics on their animals for more regenerative ways of farming where they utilize each animal on their farm to help improve biodiversity. Instead of treating the cow like a carbon creator and offering up the solution of get rid of the cow and build a lab to make lab made meat, these farmers are utilizing the cow manure which helps the grass grow.

But as apart of control resources and people the UN doesn’t want independent farmers. In a move to collectivism one of the first things that happen is they collectivize farming as Stalin did in the Soviet Union.

As part of the first five-year plan, collectivization was introduced in the late 1920s as a way, according to the policies of socialist leaders, to boost agricultural production through the organization of land and labor into large-scale collective farms. Except it didn’t boost anything, it led to starvation and millions dead. Perhaps that is the real goal considering they say there are too many of us.

Either not learning from passed failures or with the death and destruction of communism being the real goal.

The Netherlands’ government is driving to slash emissions, by taking over Dutch farms. Farmers have been staging protests over emissions reduction targets since October 2019.

Most of the UN agenda treats life as if it is the problem, treats the natural as if it is the problem, treats humans as if we are the problem. We are germ riddled therefore we must mask, use biocides, pesticides, vaccinations, isolate. This is a philosophy of death, a philosophy where if humans are the problem the easier answer is to get rid of the humans. Which again really seems to be what these goals look to be driving towards as these policies are not better for life.

Their Pharma contributing philosophy does not take into consideration that our microbiomes are made of millions of viruses and bacteria. The objective shouldn’t be kill life indiscriminately. It should be balance. The objective should be the same with the macrobiome. With farms.

But rather than regenerative farming, they look to claim the land unusable to humans and get rid of the cows, replaced with labs and lab made meat. Instead of decentralized local farming that leads to choices, centralized big AG farming that leads to none. Just like the centralized form of government they want.

Obviously not taking into consideration or not caring about the contradictions in their argument, that the lab will require power and will tax the grid. In the effort to become more “sustainable” they have become less sustainable. And less healthy. A lab is more green than a pasture? Lab made meat with bioengineered ingredients is more healthy than organic? I think not. Yet that is the narrative being sold.

I recently had an interesting example of this happen when taking my not even a year old Honda Odyssey to get an oil change. The brakes are skipping when going down hills. Not something you would expect from a new car. The man at the dealership knew what it was immediately. It was the rotors. I said well this car is barely a year old. I’m 40 years old, I’ve had many cars. I’ve never had this issue on a brand new car or even a used car. I said is this a defect? Something covered under warranty? As it turns out in an effort to make cars more gas efficient they had to make them lighter. Use lighter metals. Which means the quality is sub par. The rotors aren’t lasting. Not even a year! I said well the free market would take care of this as people wouldn’t choose a flawed low quality product but that won’t happen because it is being regulated to be this way. There is no choice. It is universal. Regulated to not last. Regulated to be poor quality. Across the board. So in trying to become more sustainable, we are instead less sustainable.

These NACs support the idea of net zero which they mention is carbon credits. If you are wealthy and own a lot of land you will have more carbon credits. Which means you can own a gas powered car. You can fly in your jet. In order to have a carbon credit system you can’t have the constitution protected right to move about freely. Because you won’t be able to unless you have carbon credits. For this reason this is being called a “neo-feudal” system. Just like kings used to own the land and everything in the kingdom and their serfs worked for the pleasure of the king and their wealth was sent to the kingdom, everyone else was a serf.

In their document they acknowledge this saying the carbon taxes will have a negative effect on lower income groups, “For example, climate mitigation measures like carbon taxes will exacerbate the effects on lower-income groups in the absence of proper channeling of tax revenue (Deng et al., 2017). Indeed, NDCs are projected to increase the global poverty headcount

by 4.2% in 2030 compared to the baseline scenario.”

Their answer is taxes and wealth redistribution, “international financial assistance in the form of sector-specific subsidies accelerates efforts to reduce poverty in most nations of the Global South. The funds improve the GDP of large recipient nations, which in turn lowers the frequency of poverty.”

“A climate support package has been launched by the French Ministry of Inclusive Ecological Transition to socially support the country’s national climate strategy including measures that offer financial assistance to socially disadvantaged households (Bouyé et al., 2018). This covers financial incentives for electric vehicles and energy-efficient renovations and includes provisions to mitigate the negative social effects of a carbon tax.“

“For example, in 2016, the Philippines passed the ‘Green Jobs Act’ to promote green jobs. The Act is intended to create, maintain, and provide incentives for green jobs in order to contribute to the growth of an eco-friendly economy.”

These people have obviously never opened a history book, read economics or read “Atlas Shrugged” to see how these policies don’t work. They aren’t even considering reality. As seen in Tennessee when they made a bad investment on Ford’s electric car mega site, promising jobs, yet quickly delivering layoffs. Or again, maybe that’s the point.

Like the El Salvador President said “When you look how the cities are eroding so fast, this has to be by design. I mean who would make so many stupid decisions?” Bukele asked. “They’re literally giving some people drugs in some us cities, or they say we’re going to give you money if you don’t work. They make all these laws that make no sense. If they have high crime, they say okay I have a solution, let’s defund the police.”

The first linked UN SDG document says “Emissions reductions through land use regulation, which also advances several SDGs, have been far more prominent in the Global South. In the Global North, synergies have more often been utilized through the region’s route to a clean energy transition..”

NACs are a land use regulation which aims to reduce emissions by instituting ESG scores and net zero, low-carbon policies. Acknowledging the goal of transitioning to “clean energy” that these local and state policies are pushing in an infringing, unconstitutional manner.

The federal register article goes on to say, “NAC would also be able to use its funds for activities that support local community well-being ( e.g., education, health), provided that such activities are sustainable.”

Again we know what they mean by health and education and their policies deliver neither.

The document mentions that the COVID crisis pointed to a need for more collaborative government. “National governments need to work in collaboration with international organizations and their partners to improve their resilience against the impacts of such crises by pursuing the agenda for synergistic action.”

Create problem, offer solution. In order to tackle any crisis they claim we need united policies instituted by one world government. Zero choices. No free market competition. So if they are wrong again there won’t be any alternatives. Complete control. There is not a single system without choice that operates freely. Chinas market may rebound but that’s because they have low prices due to slave labor. And that is what this government would look like.

They acknowledge the necessity of local infiltration several places “There is a globally recognized need to frame the progress and impacts of the 2030 Agenda and climate action at the local level to contextualize the synergies.”

“This localization of climate and development challenges, however, requires the adoption of multidisciplinary and systems approaches, and multi-stakeholder groups and processes, which demand awareness as well as commitment and capacity..”

And this is exactly what we have. These groups have infiltrated our communities. Are involved with helping our city plan.

The document mentions the need to “Strengthen science-policy-society interaction to advance synergistic action.”

Neglecting to acknowledge that the science community lost the peoples trust during COVID by not following the science yet demanding conformity to authoritarian policies.

They try and claim the climate crisis is backed by science but we have a similar challenge of the official narrative and supposed consensus to COVID policies. Not all experts agree. The ones who don’t are the ones who are discredited by the left leaning media and then censored.

Particularly concerning is the mention of the world bank and international financial institutions to help “educate”on the goals. In more of a re-education forced indoctrination meaning and as we can see how a social credit system can be used by these institutions to enforce behavior. “Prioritize the role of synergies in the work of the UN and international financial institutions, including an improved system for sharing information to help countries in their reporting responsibilities, enhanced cross-sectoral engagement in the UN’s intergovernmental and capacity building efforts, and focused attention on climate and development synergies as well as climate resilient development pathways in the IPCC AR 7. UN agencies, the World Bank, and IFIs have an important role to play, not only in providing funding for the enhancement of climate and development synergies, but also for the provision and sharing of data and information across sectors and geographies. “

Another way they are using funding to enforce and mentioned in the documents on NAC is ESG environmental social governance which much like diversity, equity, inclusion is neo-marxism. Equity firms are using these standards to rate companies that comply and then if they do they get a higher ESG score.

The higher ESG score allows them a line of credit to pay their bills. It is communistic. Holding funding hostage for compliance. It’s exactly what we saw during COVID. Holding federal funding hostage, holding jobs hostage for compliance.

It creates the same problem as the cheap rotors. It creates the same problem as good Doctors getting their board certifications taken away for offering better solutions. It creates the same problem as the healthcare monopoly we have here. There are no choices and therefore no need to answer consumer concern because they are all regulated by a communist government to offer the same thing. Reward those who comply with the UN agenda and dock those who don’t. https://tennesseeconservativenews.com/wokeism-is-marxism-dei-and-esg-are-stakeholder-capitalism/

Our city commissioner didn’t believe the policy recommendation to get rid of gas stoves was real despite NY adopting the policy and it being easy to prove. Cleaner cooking and cook tops is mentioned on page 30 of the synergetic solutions document.

So not only is it true, it’s an aligned goal of those creating the city plan. It’s an aligned goal with the strategic plan.

Part of the SDG gender equality goal included “3,500 rural women trained in renewable energy technology and micro-entrepreneurship alongside enterprise skills, financial inclusion, and health…”

Apparently gender equality means indoctrination into the SDGs. Training women to help institute these goals then demanding equity to get them into these positions.

“Financial inclusion” in that paragraph sounds like wealth redistribution and we know what they mean by health.

“Inclusive climate policies in the form of international aid, bioenergy taxes, or domestic revenue reallocation can avert the overall cost of addressing climate change in terms of global welfare (a 3.7% loss) and rather result in a 0.1% gain, at the expense of 0.5% decrease in GDP

of high-income countries used to cover the financial expenses of providing international aid” found on page 33.

Wait a minute, the US gets to fund climate efforts in other countries? They think that is sustainable. “Global welfare” “bio energy taxes”

More stealing in the name of the “greater good.”

“Achieving universal electricity access across sub-Saharan Africa by 2030 (SDG 7) would require an annual investment of USD 27 billion under existing climate policies, but would require an additional USD 6 billion without climate policies “

Do Americans get to weigh in on our money being spent on electricity in Africa or will it be rolled in unknowingly in some huge climate legislation.

“Moreover, actions to implement the Paris Agreement through a rapid shift to renewable energies, improvements in energy efficiency, and scaling up of the use of electric vehicles has the potential to generate 24 million jobs by 2030 (ILO, 2018). Thus, by committing to emission offsetting through improvements in energy efficiency, cities not only aid the worldwide effort to combat climate change, but may also profit locally by realizing several associated advantages.”

Governor Lee gave millions of Tennesseans tax dollars to the Ford’s electric mega site initiative. Shortly after receiving millions of tax dollars Ford lobbied against liberty legislation asking for continued ability to mask their employees.  Since then with decreased demand in electric cars the states investment proved unfruitful as the promised jobs and economic boost flopped, leading to Ford layoffs. The only way they can force the market would be to do what they did with healthcare monopolies and with regulating cars lighter to be more gas efficient. Remove people’s choices via regulation so they have to buy the crappy electric car.

COVID also helped advance this agenda “COVID-related stimulus policies and programs in many countries. The United States Inflation Reduction Act frames investments in climate change as part of a larger push for sustainable economic development and places a significant emphasis on job creation (United States White House, 2021).”

This begs the question is the state of TN receiving climate funding as apart of the inflation reduction act?

I’m thankful that the Tennessee legislature was able to pass legislation to counter this. But there is more work to be done. We need to understand how these goals are sneaking into our cities. We need to answer how do we enforce the law and ensure our local government complies? How can we get these NGOs, NACs, SDGs, these unelected, unaccountable third party organizations and agencies out of our communities? And ensure our God-given rights are upheld.