Mark Carney: The Perfect Person -- to not be Prime Minister of Canada

Mark Carney’s bid for Canada's top job pits a climate-globalist banker against the political and economic current in the West, increasingly rejecting those ideas.

Beware the politicization of business and capital. Larry Fink, head of the multinational investment firm, Blackrock, a noted and relentless advocate for “sustainability” in investing, is often considered the “originator” of the movement. But the same can be said of US billionaire and political nuisance, Michael Bloomberg. They have both toiled endlessly to advance ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance investing) along with the other “scams" ostensibly designed to make business and investing more “socially responsible.”

Yet, of all those responsible for this misuse of business and the capital markets, perhaps no one is more singularly responsible than Mark Carney. And this even though he is routinely overlooked by ESG’s critics. Carney is a banking and economics “name.” He was formerly Governor of the Bank of Canada (2008-2013) and Governor of the Bank of England (2013-2020). And it was in this latter capacity that, in September 2015, Carney gave a speech on climate change. Although often unnoticed as a threat by those on the “right,” this was one of the most influential speeches in the climate change-sustainability movement.

Appearing at an event in Berlin, Carney gave a carefully worded, polemical exhortation. He warned of the real dangers of climate change – framing it in fiscal and fiduciary terms. “A wholesale reassessment of prospects, as climate-related risks are re-evaluated,” Carney admonished, “could destabilize markets, spark a pro-cyclical crystallization of losses and lead to a persistent tightening of financial conditions: a climate Minsky moment.”

A “Minsky moment” is a financial expression named for the economist Hyman Minsky. It is employed to identify the point at which an advancing stock market has become so speculative and over-leveraged that it reaches its zenith and crashes.

What Carney meant by foretelling a climate-related Minsky moment was that given the inevitability of climate change – the global capital markets were already overleveraged and overbought. His reasoning? Once investors became aware of the “real” climate “crisis,” they would see how foolish their investments in “unsustainable” businesses were, leading to a collapse of the markets. In other words, the Governor of the Bank of England – was warning global investors and politicians that they had two choices: either force the business community to become environmentally sustainable (and immediately) or face a commercial and economic debacle of epic proportions.

It is virtually impossible to quantify just how destructive Carney’s speech and subsequent activism have been. Not only did he make the case that climate change posed a real and imminent threat to global economic well-being, but provided ESG advocates with the means to legitimize their social and political meddling. Consider this, here is a guy who had run two of the most important central banks in the world saying that “climate risk is essentially investment risk.” In doing so, he created legitimacy for those who wanted to use their economic prowess to affect political change but felt constrained by their ethical obligations to their investors and clients.

Carney’s speech was a pivotal event in global finance – it gave the globalist investment behemoths the opportunity to frame climate change as a risk management issue rather than just good corporate social policy. Henceforth, the Larry Finks and Michael Bloombergs of the world could claim the moral high ground; they could insist – contrary to the evidence – that what they were doing was in their clients’ legitimate interests and not just in the service of their own political agendas.

Carney subsequently has become one of leading spokesmen in Western political activism, using any crisis to advance his ideological projects. He advised both the British and Canadian governments on COVID policy (which ended up being wrong). Moreover, he and many of his fellow “sustainability” advocates used the pandemic to push for a “new” form of capitalism – one that would be, in their estimation – fairer, friendlier.

In 2020, after leaving the Bank of England, Carney became the United Nations envoy for climate action finance, which gave him a forum to say, “When you look at climate change from a human mortality perspective, it will be the equivalent of a coronavirus crisis every year from the middle of this century, and every year, not just a one-off event.”

Two years later, Carney, along with his friend Michael Bloomberg, helped create GFANZ – the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero – one of the most powerful advocacy organizations pressing governments and businesses to abandon fossil fuels. In 2024, former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau named him a special advisor and chairman of the task force on economic growth (something of which Canada has had very little for several years).

And now he wants to be the elected prime minister of Canada.

Despite never having held political office before, Carney is certain he’s up to the task of running Canada while Donald Trump sits in the White House.

Try as I might, I cannot think of anyone – save Justin Trudeau himself – whose politics and policies are less compatible with the current Zeitgeist in the West than Mark Carney. Throughout Western Europe, people are rejecting leaders who favor open borders, social justice politics and the economics of decline (as dictated by Net Zero energy policies). Carney embodies virtually all of the above. He is, in many ways, the perfect person – to not be prime minister of Canada.

Unfortunately, Donald Trump's advocacy for “Canadian statehood” and his caustic tariffs have worked to the advantage of Carney. It has stiffened the resolve of many Canadians against Trump and united them behind a prime minister who opposes Trump, and right now that is the globalist politician Mark Carney.

One of two things will happen. Either Carney’s candidacy will implode, proving that he is too out of touch even for leftist Canadians and others against the tariffs, or it will succeed. If the latter occurs, this will prove that leftist Canadians desperately want to corroborate H. L. Mencken’s cynical supposition that “democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.” If it’s the former, then perhaps Canada can resuscitate its lagging economy and become once more a global energy leader. If the latter, maybe Donald Trump is right – perhaps being number 51 is not such a bad idea.

Support Canada Free Press