“As a back stop to control consumption, smart metering technology is increasingly used to cut off customers from non-critical electricity use, along with civil and criminal penalties for exceeding rations.”
Consider this “consumption control” with the following admission in mind from the “Clever & Caring” scenario:
“Planned obsolescence of technology has been replaced by planned durability and reuse.”
We have mentioned “planned obsolescence” previously, and posited that it is an enormous (and unnecessary) drain on energy, resources, business and personal spending. Thanks to OPEN:EU, it also now seems to be a matter of fact – but worthy of address in only one of their four scenarios.
If you still think Smart Meters are about more accurate bills, think again. Take a good look at Jurriaan Maessen’s article (below), the OPEN:EU report itself, consider where our current economic & political course is taking us and ask yourself honestly: ‘Which of the four scenarios do I think is most likely?’ [/]
2011 report, funded by the European Commission and World Wildlife Fund, models draconian population control measures, personal carbon taxes, government-controlled media, and the legalization of voluntary and assisted suicide in all EU countries.
A EU-funded think tank project named the One Planet Economy Network (OPEN:EU) produced a document in 2011 which has received no attention at all in mainstream or alternative media outlets. Until now, that is.
The document titled Scenarios towards a One Planet Economy in Europe consists of several scenarios or “paths” which the EU may follow to reach an envisioned “One Planet Economy”. Funded by the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme and the World Wildlife Fund the document meticulously follows an Agenda 21-type scenario. Within the document, saturated with terms like “sustainability” and “ecological footprint”, the author’s outline four different paths towards what the group describes as a “one planet economy”. As is stated at the very beginning of the report:
“There are four narratives that provide alternative, albeit not necessarily ideal, visions of the transition toward a One Planet Economy in Europe by 2050. They present both an illustration of life in Europe in 2050 and the policy settings that are necessary to support the transition to this common end point under different assumptions about the future.”
These four “narratives” are listed as follows:
1: Clever and Caring
2: Fast Forward
3: Breaking Point
4: Slow Motion
To get a clear image of the draconian means projected towards the envisioned global end it will be necessary to quote the authors here directly and fully, especially from the “Breaking Point” scenario. The “policy settings” mentioned within it include the following:
“The EU must take strong measures to limit population growth both in Europe, but more importantly in the rest of the world in the face of increasing demand at a time when technological innovation is stagnant and global shortages (e.g. of fossil fuels and agricultural land) are pushing up prices. In some European countries, life expectancy stagnates; in others it falls.”
A little further on, under the the header “Demographics” we read the following:
“Beginning in 2012, one of the measures taken to control population growth was to phase-out child benefits for multi-children families. By 2020, benefits were only provided for up to a maximum of 2 children. As the economy in general has become more labour intensive, immigration policies were relaxed in order to attract low skilled labour, especially for the agriculture sector. This further adds to social tension in the EU. Bilateral trade deals require trading partners to implement population control measures.”
Although the document shrouds its “policy-relevant” modeling under the intentionally vague term “scenario”, many of the measures mentioned are actually already being implemented. When the authors state that “bilateral trade deals require trading partners to implement population control measures”, it must be pointed out that such requirements are already in place. In my article UN & World Bank Strangle Sovereign Nations Into Accepting Global Population Reduction Dictates, I prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that such trade deals on the basis of population reduction objectives are already in place. In a 2007 World Bank “discussion paper” the role of the Bank in regards to such requirements is explained in some detail:
“The Bank has a potential comparative advantage to address these issues at the highest levels of country policy setting, not only with ministry of health counterparts, but also with officials from finance and planning. This is important given the increasing recognition that political economy is a critical factor in the implementation of population and reproductive health programs, particularly in high-fertility countries.”
The document states two nations which are currently under this population control regime by the World Bank. In the first example, Niger, the World Bank already has in place so-called “benchmarks” that the nation in question has to live up to in order to enjoy the continued support of the World Bank. In the case of Niger, considered by the IMF as a “Highly Indebted Poor Country”- and therefore easy to subdue- the document states:
“Population growth is documented and a population ESW (Economic and Sector Work) planned. A national Population and Reproductive Health Strategy is not only a CAS (Country Assistance Strategy) benchmark, but also a lending trigger, while reproductive health is included in one of the CAS pillars.”
“High fertility and rapid population growth were not only acknowledged as major problems, but fertility was also used as one of the CAS performance benchmarks. Moreover, a population ESW was planned and subsequently delivered. That ESW has been most instrumental in enhancing the in-country policy dialogue on population issues, and has led to a free-standing International Development Association (IDA) population operation, currently in preparation, which is the first population-specific operation in many years in the World Bank Africa Region. The preparation of a National Population and Reproductive Health Strategy was also a CAS benchmark as well as a lending trigger, while reproductive health was included in one of the CAS pillars.”
Within this typically technocratic language the true modus operandi is being explained, and the Bank’s partners in crime are being named quite openly:
“Other Bank partners such as the EU have joined the effort. Finally, population issues have also been given a high priority in the new Rural and Social Policy Reform (Development Policy Lending) Credit.”
Again. The 2011 document stresses that “trade has been limited with countries with no population control measures.” Another issue outlined under the “Breaking Point” scenario is a dramatic expansion of EU-government regulations:
“In 2050”, the document reads, “Europeans are forced to adopt green lifestyle habits– for example, via bans on non-essential individual long distance travel. By this stage, air travel has long been too expensive for the majority of people. The state controls or heavily influences all available channels of education, media and marketing to spread this message to continually reinforce its adoption and mould perceptions of sustainability.”
The Agenda 21-style population lock-up scenario is also being elaborated upon:
“Most Europeans live in densely populated urban areas in compact, efficient living quarters. Most households are comprised of three or less family members. Living quarters are modest, energy efficient, and contain smart meters which enable utilities to control load and the state to monitor use, enforce rations, or cut off electricity if necessary.”
Let’s have that again: the state will “monitor use, enforce rations, or cut off electricity if necessary.” Lovely, isn’t it. If you enjoyed the before mentioned issues, you will love this one:
“In 2015, voluntary and assisted suicide became legal in all EU countries.”
“By 2020, most media outlets were tightly controlled by the government and used to try to manage behaviour change, selling the “cool to play within the limits” and “green means growth” messages.”
Quoting current European Commissioner for the Environment Potočnik, who stated that he “attaches more importance to behaviour-changing policies such as green taxes rather than ‘reactive‘ policies that punish polluters”, I am reminded by recent comments made by this very same European commiszar in a speech posted on the European Commission’s website. In his speech Potočnik quoted his “good friend” Achim Steiner, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme, as saying the idea of governing markets was agreed upon when Agenda 21 was formally created in 1992 at the original Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro:
“Twenty years ago, we agreed what to do, now we have the tools to do it. If we do not go into the heart of economic policy, we will meet here at Rio+40 even more culpable. Markets are social constructs. They are not a force like gravity. They can be governed.”
In these couple of sentences effect, the UNEP Secretary-General reveals several things. First, that current economic disparity offers “the tools” to roll out an agenda (21) which was already “agreed” upon in the early 1990s; second, that our dear Secretary-General wants to go “into the heart of economic policy”; and third, that from the onset of Agenda 21 the idea was to govern free markets.
In response to the quote by his “good friend” at the UN, the European environmental commissioner piled some more absolutism onto this already formidable stack of proposals by stating:
“Yes they can be governed and they must be governed.”
The last scenario sketched out by the EU-funded project group, titled “Slow Motion” mentions that “European monetary policy is strongly aligned with the objectives of the One Planet Economy. The European Central Bank and the National Banks took on a role designed to steer the European economy towards a path consistent with the One Planet economy goals.”
The document lists many more things I have not even covered in this article. A challenge to readers: study this document, and other documents by the environmental radicals who are now neat little technocrats creeping about in Brussels. Agenda 21, under whatever name it is being proposed, is literally embedded within big corporations and government. For this reason all their statements and publications breath its inherent tyranny, and may therefore be exposed.