The World Economic Forum has removed an article earlier this year by the Sri Lankan Prime Minister following the total collapse of that country.
Image Credit: Fajrul Falah
In the entitled article which is now deleted: “This is how I will make my country rich by 2025,” Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe laid out his vision to “strategically position Sri Lanka as the hub of the Indian Ocean” in part by imposing WEF-sponsored environmental policies.
Wickremesinghe said that the W.E.F. would be essential for achieving his goals.
“The 27th World Economic Forum on ASEAN in Ha Noi, Viet Nam, provides me with the opportunity to showcase the landmark changes in Sri Lanka and our growing economic interconnection with the ASEAN region and beyond,” he concluded. “It will build upon the foundations of the historical and cultural ties that have existed for many centuries, and which bind our people irrevocably.”
President Rajapaksa in Sri Lanka had also promised to grow food organically for the 2020s and beyond, with a nationwide ban on fertilizers & pesticides coming into effect in April 2021.
A few years on, the president of Sri Lanka fled the country and the prime minister resigned last week after public protests against them.
Before people stormed the presidential palace and overthrew the government, Sri Lanka was considered one of the country's that aligned best with ESG scores found in the world. This score could measure how sustainable and socially equitable a company for example is.
It really seems like the price of following the globalist's "green" initiatives is too high.
"The underlying cause for the government's downfall was the fact that their political leaders had fallen under the spell of green elites and banned modern fertilizers", this is according to Michael Shellenberger.
There has been a lot of discussion around ESG initiatives like banning fertilizer and how it could lead to not only the country’s rice crop decreasing by 20% within the first six months, but also crops productions falling by 40-50%. As a result of this, it is said that 500,000 more people fell into poverty.
“The decision to overnight shift away from synthetic fertilizers was an absolute disaster,” Economist, Peter Earle, noted. “To the extent that any part of this organic agriculture decision was made based upon some version of green or green from the ideologies, this is just the first of many unintended consequences we’ve seen from these kinds of policies.”