Mark Carney is no stranger to high finance. He served as Governor of both the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England. He also positioned himself as a global leader in climate finance. In 2020, he joined Brookfield Asset Management, where he spearheaded their transition investing strategy. However, recent reports have exposed a glaring contradiction between his public stance and financial dealings. The controversy centers around Brookfield’s use of Bermuda, a notorious tax haven, for key investment funds.
Carney’s Role at Brookfield and the Bermuda Connection
During his time at Brookfield, Carney co-chaired two major funds: the Brookfield Global Transition Fund and its successor. Together, these funds amassed $25 billion, supposedly to drive the shift toward a net-zero economy. However, investigative reports by CBC and Radio-Canada in March 2025 revealed these funds were registered in Bermuda. That revelation sparked outrage. Why would a champion of fiscal responsibility and climate action use a jurisdiction best known for tax advantages?
Carney’s defenders insist that this is normal in international finance. Bermuda provides a tax-efficient structure, ensuring that returns flow back to Canadian pension funds and other investors without unnecessary double taxation. Carney himself has argued that taxes are still paid in Canada, claiming this is about avoiding redundancy, not dodging responsibility. But critics see it differently.
Brookfield’s Tax Avoidance History
This isn’t the first time Brookfield has faced scrutiny for questionable tax practices. A 2017 Toronto Star investigation estimated that the firm had dodged $5 billion in taxes globally. This history only strengthens suspicions about Carney’s involvement. A man who preaches economic fairness and sustainability is now linked to a firm known for tax avoidance. That’s not just bad optics; it raises serious ethical concerns.
Brookfield’s defenders might argue that Carney inherited existing financial structures rather than designing them himself. However, as a seasoned financial expert, he surely knew how Bermuda would be perceived. If he truly wanted to align Brookfield’s practices with his climate rhetoric, why not push for full tax transparency?
The WEF and Centralized Financial Control
Carney is also deeply involved with the World Economic Forum (WEF). He frequently speaks about climate risk and the role of finance in shaping a sustainable future. To some, his Bermuda involvement exposes an agenda that prioritizes financial consolidation over genuine environmental concern.
His WEF speeches emphasize green finance and global cooperation, which critics argue is a smokescreen for elite control. While linking him directly to a “globalist takeover” may be an overreach, the Bermuda controversy doesn’t help his credibility. If climate action is so urgent, why funnel money through a tax haven instead of using fully transparent, tax-paying structures?
Carney’s Justifications vs. Public Perception
Carney has not denied the Bermuda connection. Instead, he has justified it as standard financial practice. He insists that the funds ultimately benefit Canadian entities. Yet, this defense falls flat for many. Regular taxpayers don’t get to shift their obligations offshore. Why should an investment fund promoting sustainability get that privilege?
Public trust is fragile. Carney built his reputation on responsibility, transparency, and ethical finance. But this episode reinforces the belief that powerful figures play by different rules. For those already skeptical about climate finance’s motives, this fuels the perception that it’s more about profit than principle.
The Bigger Picture: Hypocrisy in Elite Climate Advocacy
Carney is not alone in this type of financial maneuvering. Many climate advocates have been caught in contradictions between their rhetoric and their financial choices. Al Gore, for example, has faced criticism for his lavish lifestyle while preaching carbon reductions. John Kerry has been called out for using private jets while advocating for climate policies that restrict ordinary people’s energy use.
The Bermuda scandal is not just about tax avoidance. It’s about trust. When powerful figures like Carney make financial decisions that contradict their public image, it damages the credibility of their entire agenda. If climate finance is truly about a better future, shouldn’t it start with ethical financial practices?
A Rigged Game?
Carney’s Bermuda connection leaves two possible conclusions. Either he is playing by the same rules as everyone else in global finance, or he is part of a system that benefits elites while imposing stricter rules on the public. Neither explanation is reassuring.
His defenders say it’s just business. His critics see a glaring contradiction. Regardless of which side you take, one thing is clear: Mark Carney now has serious questions to answer about his role in a financial system that rewards tax avoidance while demanding financial sacrifice from the rest of us.
35,204 hits
