Saturday, February 27, 2010

Leaked UN Documents Reveal Plan For “Green World Order” By 2012

Massive $45 trillion transfer of wealth to fund creation of “global governance structure”

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
http://www.prisonplanet.com/leaked-un-documents-reveal-plan-for-green-world-order-by-2012.html
Friday, February 26, 2010

Leaked policy documents reveal that the United Nations plans to create a “green world order” by 2012 which will be enforced by a structure of global governance and funded by a gargantuan $45 trillion transfer of wealth from richer countries, as the globalists’ insidious plan to centralize power, crush sovereignty while devastating the economy is exposed once again.

As we warned at the time, the failure of Copenhagen in December did not spell the end of the global warming heist, but merely a roadblock in the UN’s agenda to create a world government funded by taxes paid by you on the very substance you exhale – carbon dioxide.

Using the justification of the vehemently debunked hoax that carbon dioxide is a deadly threat to the planet, the UN is already working to resurrect the failed Copenhagen agreement, with a series of new Copenhagen process negotiations set to take place in April, May and June.

Leaked planning documents (PDF) obtained by Fox News lift the lid on the UN’s plan to impose global governance by the time of their 2012 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Rio, which will mark the 20th anniversary since the notorious “Earth Summit” held in the same city.

“The new Rio summit will end, according to U.N. documents obtained by Fox News, with a “focused political document” presumably laying out the framework and international commitments to a new Green World Order,” reports Fox News’ George Russell.

“Just exactly what that environmental order will look like, and the extent of the immense financial commitments needed to produce it, are under discussion this week at a special session in Bali, Indonesia, of the United Nations Environment Program’s 58-nation “Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environmental Forum,” which oversees UNEP’s operations.”

The document outlines the globalist’s mission to enact a “radical transformation of the world economic and social order” by putting “a new treaty in place as the capstone of the Green World Order”.

This system will be managed by “an additional governing structure composed of exactly those insiders,” writes Russell.

“Moving towards a green economy would also provide an opportunity to re-examine national and global governance structures and consider whether such structures allow the international community to respond to current and future environmental and development challenges and to capitalize on emerging opportunities,” states the white paper (emphasis mine).

The imposition of such “global governance structures” will be achieved with the help of “vast wealth transfers” from richer countries (in the form of carbon taxes levied on citizens) to poorer nations, amounting to no less than $45 trillion dollars. The paper also outlines the need to change the “consumption patterns” of people living in richer countries, which undoubtedly is a euphemism for lowering living standards.

The policy proposes that the old economic model be discarded in pursuit of a new global green economy focused around “green jobs”.

As we have previously highlighted, the promise that the creation of “green jobs” will offset the inevitable damage to the economy that a 50 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions will cause is a complete fallacy.

The implementation of so-called “green jobs” in other countries has devastated economies and cost millions of jobs. As the Seattle Times reported back in June, Spain’s staggering unemployment rate of over 18 per cent was partly down to massive job losses as a result of attempts to replace existing industry with wind farms and other forms of alternative energy.

In a so-called “green economy,” “Each new job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs that are either lost or not created in other industries because of the political allocation — sub-optimum in terms of economic efficiency — of capital,” states the report.

As we have documented, a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 50-80 per cent would inflict a new great depression in the United States, reducing GDP by 6.9 percent – a figure comparable with the economic meltdown of 1929 and 1930.

The UN’s mission to create a legally binding treaty on the reduction of CO2 emissions is running parallel with measures already being enforced at state level in the U.S. which bypass stuttering federal efforts to impose the cap and trade fraud.

The very foundation of the global warming argument has been completely eviscerated by the Climategate scandal, which proved that United Nations IPCC scientists forged and exaggerated data to “hide the decline” in global temperatures while engaging in witch hunts to cull dissenting opinions from appearing in IPPC reports.

Despite this, control freaks intent on taxing the life-giving gas carbon dioxide have signaled that they no longer care about the truth behind man-made climate change and have resolved to slam through their totalitarian agenda anyway. EPA head Lisa Jackson told reporters this week that “The science regarding climate change is settled, and human activity is responsible for global warming,” even though she failed to refute the fact that there had been no global warming since 1995, as was admitted by CRU scientist Professor Phil Jones.

Saturday, February 13, 2010

VIDEO: NeoCons Subversive Infiltration Of The Tea Party Movement

VIDEO: Lord Monckton Explains The NWO Agenda

VIDEO: Go Back To Sleep, There’s No New World Order

You can trust us, we’re owned by the military-industrial complex; Newsweek says there’s no agenda for global government, as every globalist on the planet calls for it

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
http://www.prisonplanet.com/go-back-to-sleep-theres-no-new-world-order.html
Thursday, February 11, 2010

A major Newsweek hit piece against the Tea Party movement and Alex Jones claims that the move towards a global government and the fact that governments commit acts of false flag terrorism is all an invention of “conspiracist kooks” who wear “tin foil hats”. Like we’ve never heard that one before.

Self-described “conservative” Jonathan Kay invokes Obama regulation czar Cass Sunstein in railing against ideas he describes as “dangerously detached from reality” by labeling vehemently proven facts as “conspiracy theories” and thereby exposing himself as the only person dangerously detached from reality in his article, Black Helicopters Over Nashville.

In the hit piece, Kay smears Alex Jones as a “modern day prophet” of the Tea Party movement that he goes on to relentlessly attack as progenitors of “toxic fantasies”.

Kay contacted Alex Jones’ office nearly a year ago seeking an interview about 9/11 truth. Of course, he spewed the usual baloney about “wanting to understand our perspective” while all along preparing to unleash a vitriolic hit piece without one iota of the “balance” establishment journalists always claim that they adhere to.

When we explained to him that in order to understand the 9/11 attacks in context, a brief exploration of the documented and manifestly provable examples in history where western governments have staged attacks in order to advance their agenda was necessary, Kay wasn’t interested.

We’re talking about events such as Operation Northwoods, a plan signed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon to to “kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war”.

We’re talking about Operation Ajax, where the CIA instituted a program of false flag terror to crush Iran’s first democratic government in the 1950’s, killing around 300 people. Far from being a “conspiracy theory,” the CIA admits to the program on their own website.

We’re talking about Operation Gladio, a “decades-long covert campaign of terrorism and deceit directed by the intelligence services of the West — against their own populations” run by NATO in collusion with the CIA, a campaign which included the 1980 bombing of the Bologna train station which killed 85 people.

Kay wasn’t having any of it, he merely wanted to hang around Alex Jones for days on end and try and catch him out by seizing upon ambiguous one-liners that could be spun out of context to make us look like mentally unstable extremists, which is precisely the tactic he uses against several other people in his Newsweek article.

According to Kay, a one world government run by the United Nations that will implement greenhouse gas taxes is another “toxic fantasy” of those crazy Tea Party lunatics. In that case, I guess we must have all just imagined UN Secretary general Ban Ki-moon’s December 16 2009 Los Angeles Times interview during the Copenhagen summit in which he stated, “We will establish a global governance structure to monitor and manage the implementation of this.”

Ban Ki-moon’s October 2009 New York Times editorial in which he wrote that efforts to impose restrictions on CO2 emissions “Must include an equitable global governance structure” is also a figment of the imagination if you subscribe to Kay’s world view.

Yes – shocking as it is – top globalists like Herman Van Rompuy, Gordon Brown, Al Gore and others have all publicly and repeatedly called for a new world order and a global government. This is why even Bloomberg writers like David Reilly and former Democratic advisors like Dick Morris are finally admitting that those tin foil hat wearing kooks Kay derides in his article were right after all – a secret cabal of bankers and industrialists really does run the world.

Of course, if you still believe Kay’s fairytale make-believe world in which there is no “new world order” and no march towards a “global government” which would include a “global currency,” then the following You Tube compilation of top power brokers saying those very things since the 1950’s doesn’t exist either.







Of course, Kay’s dismissive scorn for so-called conspiracy theorists hasn’t stopped him from leeching off their increasing prominence by authoring a book about them to be published by HarperCollins.

We’ve witnessed a noticeable drop in the amount of hit pieces against us over the last 12 months as everything we said about the global government takeover and the financial meltdown comes to pass and our credibility soars while that of the mainstream plummets yet further.

However, there are still establishment lackeys precariously perched on their peanut gallery howling the same tired old clich├ęs about “kooks” wearing “tin foil hats” seeing “black helicopters,” completely oblivious to the fact that the rest of the world has come to accept the fact that yes – shocking as it is – powerful men do actually get together and conspire about how to increase their power over humanity.

Our message to Kay and his ilk is a simple one – dudes, it’s over for you!

The mainstream media has lost all credibility. Acting as apologists and liars for decades in service of the military-industrial complex that has you bought and paid for comes at a cost. You no longer dictate to the rest of us what construes reality when every single indicator screams from every single direction that you are wrong. 2 plus 2 will never equal 5, no matter how many times you insist that people who say it equals 4 are “dangerously detached from reality”.

The manifestly provable and universally acknowledged fact that the invasion of Iraq came as a result of a conspiracy to manufacture a phony pretext for war remains a fact no matter how many times people like Tony Blair claim it is nothing more than a conspiracy theory.

Governments do commit acts of terror to further their political agendas, and globalists have openly stated that they are centralizing power in order to create a system of global governance.

By continuing to deny and label those who talk about such brazenly obvious facts as conspiracy kooks only makes you look ridiculous, Mr. Kay.

Claiming that the idea of a global government run by the UN which controls greenhouse gas taxes is a creation of “militant oddballs” while the United Nations’ own Secretary General writes editorials and gives interviews saying those very things only confirms that the distance from which you are detached from reality renders your inane hackery completely irrelevant.

VIDEO: The Frankenfood Disaster

Thursday, February 11, 2010

The Dumping Begins: Chinese Reserve Managers Notified That Any Non-USG Guaranteed Securities Must Be Divested

What the hell did those idiots in Washington think would happen after they gave away our entire industrial base to the Chinese? You guessed it! Any sub-grade moron could figure out that China would turn right around and start dumping our worthless securities. Nothing else could have been expected......

Tyler Durden
Zero Hedge
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/china-dumping-begins-reserve-managers-notified-any-non-usg-guaranteed-securities-must-be-div
Wednesday, February 10th, 2010

It appears that this time China’s posturing is for real. Following up on our earlier post that Chinese military officials want to “punish” America by selling Treasuries, Asia Times Online is reporting that an explicit directive by the Chinese government has notified reserve managers to sell all risky US assets, including asset backed and corporates, and just hold on to explicitly guaranteed Treasuries and Agency debt. And from following TIC data we know that China’s enthusiasm for MBS/Agencies over the past year has been matched solely by that of one Bill Gross.

From Asia Times:

Dollar-denominated risk assets, including asset-backed securities and corporates, are no longer wanted at the State Administration of Foreign Exchange (SAFE), nor at China’s large commercial banks. The Chinese government has ordered its reserve managers to divest itself of riskier securities and hold only Treasuries and US agency debt with an implicit or explicit government guarantee. This already has been communicated to American securities dealers, according to market participants with direct knowledge of the events.
It is not clear whether China’s motive is simple risk aversion in the wake of a sharp widening of corporate and mortgage spreads during the past two weeks, or whether there also is a political dimension. With the expected termination of the Federal Reserve’s special facility to purchase mortgage-backed securities next month, some asset-backed spreads already have blown out, and the Chinese institutions may simply be trying to get out of the way of a widening. There is some speculation that China’s action has to do with the recent deterioration of US-Chinese relations over arm sales to Taiwan and other issues. That would be an unusual action for the Chinese to take–Beijing does not mix investment and strategic policy–and would be hard to substantiate in any event.

Furthermore, demonstrating just how seriously China is approaching a populist-driven adversarial stance with the US, was earlier speculation that instead of unpegging its currency (a move much desired by the US administration in its goal to further weaken the dollar and make China less competitive in the export market), China would reduce its trade balance not by the traditional way of currency inflation, but by the economic textbook footnote approach of raising salaries.

Higher labor costs would cut Chinese export competitiveness while boosting domestic spending power and sustaining economic growth, according to the bank. Premier Wen Jiabao’s government has been pressed by U.S. and European officials to end a 19- month yuan peg to the dollar to help diminish trade and investment imbalances that contributed to the credit crisis.
“Wage increases are a better option because they largely benefit Chinese workers,” Tao Dong, a Credit Suisse economist in Hong Kong who has covered the Chinese and Asian economies for more than 15 years, said in an interview yesterday. “Currency appreciation will only result in Chinese exporters losing out to competitors in countries such as Malaysia and Mexico.”
The strategy may limit gains in the yuan to 3 percent this year, according to Tao. This month’s 13 percent increase in minimum wage in eastern China’s Jiangsu province indicates that higher pay will play an important role in officials’ efforts to rebalance growth in the fastest-growing major economy, Tao said.
The wage decision “argues against a large one-off yuan revaluation,” Ben Simpfendorfer, an economist with Royal Bank of Scotland in Hong Kong, wrote in a note this week.

One thing is certain – China will now focus on doing precisely the opposite of what America would urge Chinese authorities to do, in order to establish itself as the focal point of negotiating leverage and increasingly humiliate the Obama regime. If this involves selling USTs or corporates (both fixed income and equities) so be it. This is further confirmed by carefully worded disclosure in today’s copy of China Securities Journal:

The China Securities Journal, a government-backed daily, accused the U.S. in a tough-worded front page editorial of playing the “exchange rate card.”
It said that, just as China didn’t interfere with Federal Reserve purchases of U.S. Treasuries, “the U.S. has no right to interfere in China’s exchange rate policy.”
“Whether or not to appreciate is our own business,” the newspaper said.
“Whether it will appreciate, when and by how much is an integral part of China’s monetary policy.”

It is not clear when the asset divestiture directive takes place or if it is already being enforced. Juding by the afterhours action in futures and the currency markets, some dumping may already be taking place. Alternatively, we now know just who it is that sell into every rally (yes, even in this market, every buyer is matched with a seller).

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

VIDEO: NeoCon Palin is New World Order Trash

VIDEO: How To Fix The Jobs Problem

VIDEO: War Is A Racket

VIDEO: Internet Censorship Is Coming

The war on the 1st Amendment and "free speech" is moving into high gear. This is an open display of hard-core tyranny. These control freak bastards need to be arrested, put on trial for high treason, and the put in jail for the rest of their lives!

Think Government Is Corrupt? You May Face 10 Years In Jail

South Carolina forces “subversives” to register with the authorities or do hard time

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
http://www.prisonplanet.com/think-government-is-corrupt-you-may-face-10-years-in-jail.html
Monday, February 8, 2010

Subversives who think government is corrupt and should be controlled by the people face 10 years in prison and a $25,000 dollar fine if they fail to register with authorities in South Carolina, in another chilling example of how free speech and dissent is being criminalized in America.

The state’s “Subversive Activities Registration Act” is now officially on the books and mandates that “Every member of a subversive organization, or an organization subject to foreign control, every foreign agent and every person who advocates, teaches, advises or practices the duty, necessity or propriety of controlling, conducting, seizing or overthrowing the government of the United States … shall register with the Secretary of State.”

Of course, the right to overthrow a government that has become corrupt, abusive and completely unrepresentative of its electorate is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence – that’s how America came to be a Republic in the first place – advocating or teaching that the people should “control” the government via their elected representatives is a basic function of a democratic society, but this law effectively makes it a terrorist offense.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness,” states the Declaration of Independence.

Under the sweeping terms of the law, members of tax protest organizations, the Tea Party movement and the States’ Rights movement based in South Carolina are all domestic terrorists if they fail to register their dissent with the authorities.

It is important to stress that the notion this law somehow only applies to “Islamic terrorists” is completely at odds with the fact that federal and state authorities now consider the main terror threat to be from informed American citizens exercising their constitutional rights in opposition to the big government agenda they are being subjected to.

As we saw with the MIAC report and a plethora of similar training manuals which were leaked over the last decade, police are being trained that libertarians, gun owners, Ron Paul supporters and anyone who is mildly political is a domestic extremist and a potential terrorist – these people are the real target of the subversives list in South Carolina.

The infamous Phoenix Federal Bureau of Investigation manual (page one, page two) produced in association with the Joint Terrorism Task Force listed “defenders of the U.S. constitution” and “lone individuals” as terrorists. Will anyone in South Carolina who defends the Constitution, the very bedrock of what America stands for, have to register with the authorities unless they want to be locked up for a decade?

Of course, since nobody is going to register as a “subversive” with South Carolina authorities, their failure to “comply” with the regulation will later be used against them as a means of eliciting criminal charges, in what represents a clear end run around the First Amendment.

The government isn’t going to just come out all guns blazing and ban free speech, they are simply going to make anyone who refuses to register for permission a criminal for failing to adhere to a separate mandate.

Just like people in places such as New York and Chicago were told that they had to get a license to purchase a gun – at first the process was a mere inconvenience but now the licensing process means they have to jump through 200 flaming hoops and the second amendment has effectively been outlawed in these cities.

They won’t hesitate to pull the same tricks with the First Amendment, and it’s already happening with calls to license Internet users and force them to get government permission to run a website.

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Carbon Currency: A New Beginning for Technocracy?

Global currency replacing all paper currencies, limiting manufacturing, food production and people movement

Canada Free Press
By Patrick Wood
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/19380

Introduction

Critics who think that the U.S. dollar will be replaced by some new global currency are perhaps thinking too small.

On the world horizon looms a new global currency that could replace all paper currencies and the economic system upon which they are based.

The new currency, simply called Carbon Currency, is designed to support a revolutionary new economic system based on energy (production, and consumption), instead of price. Our current price-based economic system and its related currencies that have supported capitalism, socialism, fascism and communism, is being herded to the slaughterhouse in order to make way for a new carbon-based world.

It is plainly evident that the world is laboring under a dying system of price-based economics as evidenced by the rapid decline of paper currencies. The era of fiat (irredeemable paper currency) was introduced in 1971 when President Richard Nixon decoupled the U.S. dollar from gold. Because the dollar-turned-fiat was the world’s primary reserve asset, all other currencies eventually followed suit, leaving us today with a global sea of paper that is increasingly undesired, unstable, unusable.

The deathly economic state of today’s world is a direct reflection of the sum of its sick and dying currencies, but this could soon change.

Forces are already at work to position a new Carbon Currency as the ultimate solution to global calls for poverty reduction, population control, environmental control, global warming, energy allocation and blanket distribution of economic wealth.

Unfortunately for individual people living in this new system, it will also require authoritarian and centralized control over all aspects of life, from cradle to grave.

What is Carbon Currency and how does it work? In a nutshell, Carbon Currency will be based on the regular allocation of available energy to the people of the world. If not used within a period of time, the Currency will expire (like monthly minutes on your cell phone plan) so that the same people can receive a new allocation based on new energy production quotas for the next period.

Because the energy supply chain is already dominated by the global elite, setting energy production quotas will limit the amount of Carbon Currency in circulation at any one time. It will also naturally limit manufacturing, food production and people movement.

Local currencies could remain in play for a time, but they would eventually wither and be fully replaced by the Carbon Currency, much the same way that the Euro displaced individual European currencies over a period of time.

Sounds very modern in concept, doesn’t it? In fact, these ideas date back to the 1930’s when hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens were embracing a new political ideology called Technocracy and the promise it held for a better life. Even now-classic literature was heavily influenced by Technocracy: George Orwell’s 1984, H.G. Well’s The Shape of Things to Come and Huxley’s “scientific dictatorship” in Brave New World.

This paper investigates the rebirth of Technocracy and its potential to recast the New World Order into something truly “new” and also totally unexpected by the vast majority of modern critics.

Background

Philosophically, Technocracy found it roots in the scientific autocracy of Henri de Saint-Simon (1760-1825) and in the positivism of Auguste Comte (1798- 1857), the father of the social sciences. Positivism elevated science and the scientific method above metaphysical revelation. Technocrats embraced positivism because they believed that social progress was possible only through science and technology. [Schunk, Learning Theories: An Educational Perspective, 5th, 315]

The social movement of Technocracy, with its energy-based accounting system, can be traced back to the 1930’s when an obscure group of engineers and scientists offered it as a solution to the Great Depression.

The principal scientist behind Technocracy was M. King Hubbert, a young geoscientist who would later (in 1948-1956) invent the now-famous Peak Oil Theory, also known as the Hubbert Peak Theory. Hubbert stated that the discovery of new energy reserves and their production would be outstripped by usage, thereby eventually causing economic and social havoc. Many modern followers of Peak Oil Theory believe that the 2007-2009 global recession was exacerbated in part by record oil prices that reflected validity of the theory.

Hubbert received all of his higher education at the University of Chicago, graduating with a PhD in 1937, and later taught geophysics at Columbia University. He was highly acclaimed throughout his career, receiving many honors such as the Rockefeller Public Service Award in 1977.

In 1933, Hubbert and Howard Scott formed an organization called Technocracy, Inc. Technocracy is derived from the Greek words “techne” meaning skill and “kratos”, meaning rule. Thus, it is government by skilled engineers, scientists and technicians as opposed to elected officials. It was opposed to all other forms of government, including communism, socialism and fascism, all of which function with a price-based economy.

As founders of the organization and political movement called Technocracy, Inc., Hubbert and Scott also co-authored Technocracy Study Course in 1934. This book serves as the “bible” of Technocracy and is the root document to which most all modern technocratic thinking can be traced.

Technocracy postulated that only scientists and engineers were capable of running a complex, technology-based society. Because technology, they reasoned, changed the social nature of societies, previous methods of government and economy were made obsolete. They disdained politicians and bureaucrats, who they viewed as incompetent. By utilizing the scientific method and scientific management techniques, Technocrats hoped to squeeze the massive inefficiencies out of running a society, thereby providing more benefits for all members of society while consuming less resources.

The other integral part of Technocracy was to implement an economic system based on energy allocation rather than price. They proposed to replace traditional money with Energy Credits.

Their keen focus on the efficient use of energy is likely the first hint of a sustained ecological/environmental movement in the United States. Technocracy Study Course stated, for instance,

Although it (the earth) is not an isolated system the changes in the configuration of matter on the earth, such as the erosion of soil, the making of mountains, the burning of coal and oil, and the mining of metals are all typical and characteristic examples of irreversible processes, involving in each case an increase of entropy. (Technocracy Study Course, Hubbert & Scott, p. 49)

Modern emphasis on curtailing carbon fuel consumption that causes global warming and CO2 emissions is essentially a product of early Technocratic thinking.

As scientists, Hubbert and Scott tried to explain (or justify) their arguments in terms of physics and the law of thermodynamics, which is the study of energy conversion between heat and mechanical work.

Entropy is a concept within thermodynamics that represents the amount of energy in a system that is no longer available for doing mechanical work. Entropy thus increases as matter and energy in the system degrade toward the ultimate state of inert uniformity.

In layman’s terms, entropy means once you use it, you lose it for good. Furthermore, the end state of entropy is “inert uniformity” where nothing takes place. Thus, if man uses up all the available energy and/or destroys the ecology, it cannot be repeated or restored ever again.

The Technocrat’s avoidance of social entropy is to increase the efficiency of society by the careful allocation of available energy and measuring subsequent output in order to find a state of “equilibrium,” or balance. Hubbert’s focus on entropy is evidenced by Technocracy, Inc.’s logo, the well-known Yin Yang symbol that depicts balance.

To facilitate this equilibrium between man and nature, Technocracy proposed that citizens would receive Energy Certificates in order to operate the economy:

“Energy Certificates are issued individually to every adult of the entire population… The record of one’s income and its rate of expenditure is kept by the Distribution Sequence, so that it is a simple matter at any time for the Distribution Sequence to ascertain the state of a given customer’s balance… When making purchases of either goods or services an individual surrenders the Energy Certificates properly identified and signed.

“The significance of this, from the point of view of knowledge of what is going on in the social system, and of social control, can best be appreciated when one surveys the whole system in perspective. First, one single organization is manning and operating the whole social mechanism. The same organization not only produces but also distributes all goods and services.

“With this information clearing continuously to a central headquarters we have a case exactly analogous to the control panel of a power plant, or the bridge of an ocean liner…” [Technocracy Study Course, Hubbert & Scott,p. 238-239]

Two key differences between price-based money and Energy Certificates are that a) money is generic to the holder while Certificates are individually registered to each citizen and b) money persists while Certificates expire. The latter facet would greatly hinder, if not altogether prevent, the accumulation of wealth and property.

Transition

At the start of WWII, Technocracy’s popularity dwindled as economic prosperity returned, however both the organization and its philosophy survived.

Today, there are two principal websites representing Technocracy in North America: Technocracy, Inc., located in Ferndale, Washington, is represented at www.technocracy.org. A sister organization in Vancouver, British Columbia is Technocracy Vancouver, can be found at www.technocracyvan.ca.

While Technocracy’s original focus was exclusively on the North American continent, it is now growing rapidly in Europe and other industrialized nations.

For instance, the Network of European Technocrats was formed in 2005 as “an autonomous research and social movement that aims to explore and develop both the theory and design of technocracy.” The NET website claims to have members around the world.

Of course, a few minor league organizations and their websites cannot hope to create or implement a global energy policy, but it’s not because the ideas aren’t still alive and well.

A more likely influence on modern thinking is due to Hubbert’s Peak Oil Theory introduced in 1954. It has figured prominently in the ecological/environmental movement. In fact, the entire global warming movement indirectly sits on top of the Hubbert Peak Theory.

As the Canadian Association for the Club of Rome recently stated, “The issue of peak oil impinges directly on the climate change question.” (see John H. Walsh, “The Impending Twin Crisis – One Set of Solutions?, p.5.)

The Modern Proposal

Because of the connection between the environmental movement, global warming and the Technocratic concept of Energy Certificates, one would expect that a Carbon Currency would be suggested from that particular community, and in fact, this is the case.

In 1995, Judith Hanna wrote in New Scientist, “Toward a single carbon currency”, “My proposal is to set a global quota for fossil fuel combustion every year, and to share it equally between all the adults in the world.”

In 2004, the prestigious Harvard International Review published “A New Currency” and stated,

“For those keen to slow global warming, the most effective actions are in the creation of strong national carbon currencies… For scholars and policymakers, the key task is to mine history for guides that are more useful. Global warming is considered an environmental issue, but its best solutions are not to be found in the canon of environmental law. Carbon’s ubiquity in the world economy demands that cost be a consideration in any regime to limit emissions. Indeed, emissions trading has been anointed king because it is the most responsive to cost. And since trading emissions for carbon is more akin to trading currency than eliminating a pollutant, policymakers should be looking at trade and finance with an eye to how carbon markets should be governed. We must anticipate the policy challenges that will arise as this bottom-up system emerges, including the governance of seams between each of the nascent trading systems, liability rules for bogus permits, and judicial cooperation. [Emphasis added]

HIR concludes that “after seven years of spinning wheels and wrong analogies, the international regime to control carbon is headed, albeit tentatively, down a productive path.”

In 2006, UK Environment Secretary David Miliband spoke to the Audit Commission Annual Lecture and flatly stated,

"Imagine a country where carbon becomes a new currency. We carry bankcards that store both pounds and carbon points. When we buy electricity, gas and fuel, we use our carbon points, as well as pounds. To help reduce carbon emissions, the Government would set limits on the amount of carbon that could be used." [Emphasis added]

In 2007, New York Times published “When Carbon Is Currency” by Hannah Fairfield. She pointedly stated “To build a carbon market, its originators must create a currency of carbon credits that participants can trade.”

PointCarbon, a leading global consultancy, is partnered with Bank of New York Mellon to assess rapidly growing carbon markets. In 2008 they published “Towards a Common Carbon Currency: Exploring the prospects for integrated global carbon markets.” This report discusses both environmental and economic efficiency in a similar context as originally seen with Hubbert in 1933.

Finally, on November 9 2009, the Telegraph (UK) presented an article “Everyone in Britain could be given a personal ‘carbon allowance.’”

“… implementing individual carbon allowances for every person will be the most effective way of meeting the targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. It would involve people being issued with a unique number which they would hand over when purchasing products that contribute to their carbon footprint, such as fuel, airline tickets and electricity. Like with a bank account, a statement would be sent out each month to help people keep track of what they are using. If their "carbon account" hits zero, they would have to pay to get more credits”. [Emphasis added]

As you can see, these references are hardly minor league in terms of either authorship or content. The undercurrent of early Technocratic thought has finally reached the shore where the waves are lapping at the beach.

Technocracy’s Energy Card Prototype

In July 1937 an article by Howard Scott in Technocracy Magazine described an Energy Distribution Card in great detail. It declared that using such an instrument as a “means of accounting is a part of Technocracy’s proposed change in the course of how our socioeconomic system can be organized.”

Scott further wrote,

“The certificate will be issued directly to the individual. It is nontransferable and nonnegotiable; therefore, it cannot be stolen, lost, loaned, borrowed, or given away. It is noncumulative; therefore, it cannot be saved, and it does not accrue or bear interest. It need not be spent but loses its validity after a designated time period.”

This may have seemed like science fiction in 1937, but today it is wholly achievable. In 2010 Technocracy, Inc. offers an updated idea of what such an Energy Distribution Card might look like. Their website states,

“It is now possible to use a plastic card similar to today’s credit card embedded with a microchip. This chip could contain all the information needed to create an energy distribution card as described in this booklet. Since the same information would be provided in whatever forms best suits the latest technology, however, the concept of an ‘Energy Distribution Card’ is what is explained here.”

If you study the card above, you will also note that is serves as a universal identity card and contains a microchip. This reflects Technocracy’s philosophy that each person in society must be meticulously monitored and accounted for in order to track what they consume in terms of energy, and also what they contribute to the manufacturing process.
Carbon Market Players

The modern system of carbon credits was an invention of the Kyoto Protocol and started to gain momentum in 2002 with the establishment of the first domestic economy-wide trading scheme in the U.K. After becoming international law in 2005, the trading market is now predicted to reach $3 trillion by 2020 or earlier.

Graciela Chichilnisky, director of the Columbia Consortium for Risk Management and a designer of the carbon credit text of the Kyoto Protocol, states that the carbon market “is therefore all about cash and trading – but it is also a way to a profitable and greener future.” (See Who Needs a Carbon Market?)

Who are the “traders” that provide the open door to all this profit? Currently leading the pack are JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.

Bloomberg noted in Carbon Capitalists on December 4, 2009 that

“The banks are preparing to do with carbon what they’ve done before: design and market derivatives contracts that will help client companies hedge their price risk over the long term. They’re also ready to sell carbon-related financial products to outside investors.”

At JP Morgan, the woman who originally invented Credit Default Swaps, Blythe Masters, is now head of the department that will trade carbon credits for the bank.

Considering the sheer force of global banking giants behind carbon trading, it’s no wonder analysts are already predicting that the carbon market will soon dwarf all other commodities trading.

Conclusion

Where there is smoke, there is fire. Where there is talk, there is action.

If M. King Hubbert and other early architects of Technocracy were alive today, they would be very pleased to see the seeds of their ideas on energy allocation grow to bear fruit on such a large scale. In 1933, the technology didn’t exist to implement a system of Energy Certificates. However, with today’s ever-advancing computer technology, the entire world could easily be managed on a single computer.

This article intended to show that

* Carbon Currency is not a new idea, but has deep roots in Technocracy
* Carbon Currency has grown from a continental proposal to a global proposal
* It has been consistently discussed over a long period of time
* The participants include many prominent global leaders, banks and think-tanks
* The context of these discussions have been very consistent
* Today’s goals for implementing Carbon Currency are virtually identical to Technocracy’s original Energy Certificates goals.

Of course, a currency is merely a means to an end. Whoever controls the currency also controls the economy and the political structure that goes with it. Inquiry into what such a system might look like will be a future topic.

Technocracy and energy-based accounting are not idle or theoretical issues. If the global elite intends for Carbon Currency to supplant national currencies, then the world economic and political systems will also be fundamentally changed forever.

What Technocracy could not achieve during the Great Depression appears to have finally found traction in the Great Recession.

Bibliography & Resources

Scott & Hubbert, Technocracy Study Course, Technocracy, Inc., 1934

Hanna, Toward a single carbon currency, New Scientist, 1995

Victor & House, A New Currency, Harvard International Review, Summer 2004

Hannah Fairfield, When Carbon Is Currency, New York Times, May 6, 2007

M. King Hubbert & The Technocracy Technate Design – Historical blog

Everyone in Britain could be given a personal ‘carbon allowance’, Telegraph (UK)

Network of European Technocrats – website for Europe

Technocracy, Inc. – website for U.S.

Technocracy Vancouver – website for Canada

Association for the study of Peak Oil & Gas – website for Peak Oil