by Jurriaan Maessen
Infowars.com
Unelected European commissioner for the environment calls for de-industrialization of the West and centralization of power to govern free markets
Speaking at a recent European summit on the future of plastics in the world economy, the European Commission’s “green” commissioner Janez Potočnik stated that markets can and must be governed by the European Commission if the earth’s resources are to keep up with global population growth.
In a transcript of his speech on the EC’s website, marked “check before delivery”, 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. And for that we need also your help and your support. Your vision which goes beyond the short term interests and takes into account the unavoidable changes needed in our production and consumption patterns.”, the commissioner said.
We may not be wholly surprised that the European Commission’s communication department wants this particular speech checked before delivery to the press. The commissioner is after all quite upfront about the prospect of a de-industrialization campaign under the guidance of unelected commissions. His talk is littered with words as “governed”, “growth models”- not to mention “overpopulation.”
O yes, the “green” commissioner starts out his speech by quoting population matters patron Jonathan Porritt, who wrote: “‘Human population growth and the per-capita consumption rate underlie all of the other present drivers for global change“. I know that Jonathan (Porritt) has long argued for attention to population and family planning in relation to sustainability, particularly as patron of the “Population Matters” charity. But this was quite an astounding statement… I repeat; it would “underlie all of the other present drivers for global change.”, Potočnik said.
The rest of Potočnik’s speech was related to the issue at hand, namely the future of plastics and what to do about all those consumers, especially in the West.
“I’m afraid that one cannot govern the world of the 21st Century without taking into account the longer term picture and consequences. It would be simply self-destructive. We need industry and investors on board. Rather than fighting the power of capital, or trying to legislate away its environmental downsides, we need to harness market forces to turn economies onto a track that is sustainable economically, financially, socially and environmentally. We need green economics… also in the plastic industry.”
The commissioner also stressed that for him “this is the new industrial policy. We must recognize that our future competitiveness will depend increasingly – perhaps overwhelmingly – on our ability to do more with less.”
More with less. Agenda 21 in a nutshell. More carbon taxes, less freedom. Or: more resources, less people. It’s important to point your attention to the pre-planned nature of this agenda unfolding, and the population-aspect dominating this agenda. A 1991 policy paper prepared for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) outlines a strategy for the transfer of wealth in name of the environment to be implemented in the course of 35 to 40 years. As it turns out, it is a visionary paper describing phase by phase the road to world dictatorship under Agenda 21. As the author Ignacy Sachs states in the policy paper:
“To be meaningful, the strategies should cover the time-span of several decades. Thirty-five to forty years seems a good compromise between the need to give enough time to the postulated transformations and the uncertainties brought about by the lengthening of the time-span.”
In his paper The Next 40 Years: Transition Strategies to the Virtuous Green Path: North/South/East/Global, Sachs accurately describes not only the intended time-span to bring about a global society, but also what steps should be taken to ensure “population stabilization”:
“In order to stabilize the populations of the South by means other than wars or epidemics, mere campaigning for birth control and distributing of contraceptives has proved fairly inefficient.”
In the first part of the (in retrospect) bizarrely accurate description of current events as they unfold, Sachs points out redistribution of wealth is the only viable path towards population stabilization and- as he calls it- a “virtuous green world”. Sachs:
“The way out from the double bind of poverty and environmental disruption calls for a fairly long period of more economic growth to sustain the transition strategies towards the virtuous green path of what has been called in Stockholm ecodevelopement and has since changed its name in Anglo-Saxon countries to sustainable development.”
“(…) a fair degree of agreement seems to exist, therefore, about the ideal development path to be followed so long as we do not manage to stabilize the world population and, at the same time, sharply reduce the inequalities prevailing today.”, the professor states.
“The bolder the steps taken in the near future”, Sachs asserts, “the shorter will be the time span that separates us from a steady state. Radical solutions must address to the roots of the problem and not to its symptoms. Theoretically, the transition could be made shorter by measures of redistribution of assets and income.”
