by Iain Davis
In Electrifying the UK [8], a study led by Michael Kelly (Emeritus Prince Philip Professor of Technology at the University of Cambridge and Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Department for Communities and Local Government), an assessment was made of the raw materials and resources needed to power the UK's existing vehicle road fleet if limited to electric vehicles only.
Assuming no quantum leap forward in battery technology, at current levels, the UK alone would require a little less than twice the annual global production of cobalt. It would need three quarters of the world’s production of lithium carbonate, nearly the entire global production of neodymium and more than half the world’s production of copper. Then there is the problem of using renewable energy to generate the required electricity to charge all our vehicles in a net zero carbon economy.
Dinorwig Power Station is the biggest hydro-power plant in the UK. If its entire output were solely dedicated to charging cars it would be able to charge 150,000 small cars, which is about 0.7% of the current UK vehicle fleet. Windmills aren't going to cut it, which leaves us needing a massive increase in nuclear power, with all the additional environmental and health risks.
This calculation doesn't include the renewable energy we will need to heat our homes, cook food, manufacture goods, provide healthcare or any of the vast array of power requirements we routinely take for granted. As we race towards a net zero carbon future no one seems to care about what this actually implies.
Certainly none of this matters to climate change extremists as they would quite like us to eat each other, but for the rest of us this presents a tricky conundrum. If we consider transport alone, as the UK State franchise has committed to stop sales of all new petrol and diesel cars [9] by 2030, the expectation is either that we practically give up our freedom to roam and rely upon public transport, access to which will be conditional in the biosecurity state, or we won't need the current number of vehicles.
The extent of austerity caused by the deliberate crashing of the global economy probably means the vast majority of us won't be able to afford one. However, the RIIA's Futurescape also suggests the current demand for vehicles won't exist because we won't.
In 2035 we'll be eating meat alternatives and "experimental" food. Our behaviour will be tightly controlled. Social credit linked to digital currency issued by central banks is the planned control mechanism. The RIIA announce:
"Goodeeds department store only accepts Care Pounds. A government certified cryptocurrency earned through social contributions and time spent on community projects."
By 2060, either through some as yet undiscovered scientific miracle or much smaller demand, everything will be powered by renewable energy. Apparently sea levels will have risen so high that London has a canal transport system. Consumerism will be replaced by the exchange and recycle culture in the circular economy. Micro-farms will grow food locally and we will have to eat insects.
By 2090 homo sapiens will be extinct or nearing extinction. A new species of genetically modified humanoids with AI implants and cybernetic adaptations will prevail. Earthism is the new global religion. By 2021 everyone lives in smart cities and both individual humanoid lives and society is run by AI.
In this utopia, described by the RIIA, the people just accept that they have to eat insects and experimental food. They are happy to have no financial or economic freedom and enthusiastically embrace the compulsion to work in community projects. They also willingly submit to being genetically engineered and having AI controlled implants inserted into their bodies with their minds linked to the digital hive.
Who knows, perhaps this will prove to be the case? However, as Rose Abdollahzadeh pointed out, it all depends upon our compliance. We will either make it happen or, through our apathy, let it happen. If we don't want this future we need to act quickly as the pseudopandemic has been used to initiate our transformation towards the futurescape.
The new normal society will encourage us to eschew consumerism as a criterion for measuring success in favour of the joy we will experience through our achievement of sustainability. Amitai Etzioni was among the communitarians who suggested happiness as mensuration of social progress. He noted that faith was an important factor for improving people's level of contentment.
Etzioni considered that belief in a god wasn't necessary and that the reason why people with faith were found to be happier was due to their shared community spirit, higher levels of social interaction and sense of common purpose. This could just as easily be found in a commitment to environmentalism and sustainability. In The Surprising Link Between Sustainability and Social Justice [10] he wrote:
"Can one identify other sources of contentment for those who, while having achieved an income level that enables them to meet their 'basic' needs, will live in a more austere, less growth-centered, environment? What other sources of legitimacy can be developed that are not based on a continually rising standard of living? I see great merit in shifting the focus of our actions from seeking ever-greater wealth to investing more of our time and resources in social lives, public action, and spiritual and intellectual activities.. Such a society has a much smaller ecological footprint than the affluence-chasing society and hence helps cope with the triple challenge: the deteriorating environment, smart machines killing many jobs while generating few, and rising discontent."
The debt fuelled economic growth that has seen our absolute quality of life improve, is set to end. The monetary policies pursued during the pseudopandemic demonstrate that the parasite class have no long term plans for the global economy in its current form. The global depression we are about to embark upon will be unlike anything we have experienced before.
We face a future of long term austerity. The GPPP require us to have a new faith to replace our consumerism as we learn to own nothing and be happy. Devotion will be practised by working towards sustainable development goals (SDG's). It is essentially the worship of Gaia [11] or, as the RIIA call it, Earthism.
The 1987 Brundtland Report, which strongly advocated the eugenicist principle of population control, called for the creation of a “new charter” to set “new norms” to guide the transition to sustainable development. [12]. This led in 2000 to a special ceremony to launch the Earth Charter [13].
The Earth Charter is a quasi-religious document which has been endorsed by State franchise and civil society groups globally. It frequently strays into mystical claptrap as it attempts to seed the new faith. It is riddled with the catchphrases of global governance we are now familiar with:
"We must recognize that in the midst of a magnificent diversity of cultures and life forms we are one human family and one Earth community with a common destiny.. Humanity is part of a vast evolving universe. Earth, our home, is alive with a unique community of life.. The spirit of human solidarity and kinship with all life is strengthened when we live with reverence for the mystery of being."
It certainly offers one truth but, reading between the lines, that truth is the hard nosed global ambition of the GPPP. It promotes eugenic inspired population control, technocracy, biosecurity, communitarian austerity and above all global governance:
"The global environment with its finite resources is a common concern of all peoples.. The dominant patterns of production and consumption are causing environmental devastation, the depletion of resources,.. Communities are being undermined.. An unprecedented rise in human population has overburdened ecological and social systems. The foundations of global security are threatened.. when basic needs have been met, human development is primarily about being more, not having more.. We have the knowledge and technology to provide for all and to reduce our impacts on the environment. The emergence of a global civil society is creating new opportunities.. for a sustainable way of life as a common standard by which the conduct of all individuals, organizations, businesses, governments, and transnational institutions is to be guided and assessed."
A core tenet of the GPPP's new religion is their faith in financial te
chnology (fintech). To suggest that this is part of the restructuring of the global economy and that it is unrelated to combatting climate change is already heresy. Speaking in 2015, then Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), one of the leading architect of the Paris Climate Agreement, Christiana Figueres, stated the following [14]:
“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model.. the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years.. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change.. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation.”
Apparently, if you ever reference this statement you are spreading dezinformatsiya. We are expected to ignore it and pretend the U.N never said it. To question the motivations of those behind the climate change agenda is "anti-science," "climate denial" or something like that. We are also told that the numerous scientific doubts [15] about humanity’s impact upon climate change don't exist. We must have faith in the scientific consensus as expressed by the right scientists.
Speaking after US President Biden's Earth Summit, where he committed to halve US Co2 emissions in less than 9 years [16], UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson said that the pseudopandemic had presented us with the chance [17] of "building back greener." For Boris and other GPPP partners, sustainability means green finance.
The population have to combat climate change by giving up their freedoms and living a more austere, limited existence. The GPPP will combat it by creating a new global financial and monetary system which will enable them to steal all of the Earth's resources.
The global financial institutions and Central Banks also want to do the right thing. The UK State franchise is eager to set itself up as a global hub for green finance and created its UK Centre for Greening Finance [18] in February 2021. They will use computer models to predict climate change risks and advise banks, lenders, investors and insurers where to invest, creating new financial products that will combat climate change.
In 2018 the City of London Corporation partnered with the UK State franchise to create the Green Finance Institute [19] (GFI.) They say they want to channel global finance into local solutions to save mother Earth. The GFI bring together:
"Global experts and practitioners to co-design sector-specific solutions that channel capital towards an inclusive, net-zero carbon and resilient economy. We are the UK’s principal interface between the public and private sectors, identifying and unlocking barriers to deploy capital at pace and scale towards impactful, real-economy outcomes.. The Green Finance Institute works with finance practitioners, policymakers, business innovators, academics and non-profit professionals to identify the required policy, technology and financial pathways that will enable the transition to a green economy.. We also support the greening of the domestic and international financial system through close collaboration with financial regulators and policymakers, and international dialogue and partnerships."
The greening of international finance will require phenomenal levels of investment which will be extracted from us. With the US, China and France leading the world in issuing green bonds [20] the green bond market is set to achieve a value of $2.36 trillion by 2023 [21]. This is just the start. Speaking at the GFI launch, then UK Chancellor Philip Hammond said:
"If we are collectively to meet our global climate goals, we will need to mobilise $90 trillion by 2030 and it is my ambition that the UK leads the world in financing this investment."
Hammond had every reason to believe this figure would be achieved. It won't be possible for a business to operate unless they obey the State franchise regulations created to achieve global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs.) The cost of this transition to a resilient global economy will be beyond the reach of most small to medium size enterprises (SMEs).
Prior to his departure from the post of governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney warned [22] that companies unable to meet the SDG regulatory standards "will go bankrupt without question." In other words, lines of credit, without which even multinational corporations cannot hope to function, will be limited only to those who can afford to implement the required changes. Carney reinforced his message [23] and signalled to his GPPP partners how the new financial system would benefit them:
"There will be industries, sectors and firms that do very well during this process because they will be part of the solution. But there will also be ones that lag behind and they will be punished."
These are times when the strong can get stronger.
The promise from world leaders at the Earth Summit was that achieving SDGs would create jobs. This only refers to the new forms of employment, it says nothing about whether these new jobs will be in sufficient numbers to replace the old jobs lost to the green revolution.
All the evidence indicates that the net zero economy won't be based upon anything close to the employment levels we are accustomed to. Leaving families reliant upon the State franchise Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) doled out in the form of Universal Basic Income (UBI.)
The RIIA have already modelled this. In their Futurescape the remaining population work a four day week. Low levels of employment are factored in to GPPP driven model of sustainability. The planet might be protected but we will face increased risk and uncertainty.
In 2018 PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), GPPP partners in both the RIIA and the WEF, modelled the Workforce of the Future [24]. They presented a number of scenarios based upon megatrends and their assessments of how we might adapt to these apparently unavoidable impositions. Whichever model they outlined the common theme was increasing automation and AI domination of the workplace. Job losses are unavoidable they say, although new jobs will be created.
However, the scope and range of these new jobs appears to be extremely limited. These created jobs will be done by what they describe as "pivotal people" with a very particular skill-set who will be valuable to their corporate employers. They predict:
"Those workers performing tasks which automation can’t yet crack, become more pivotal – and this means creativity, innovation, imagination, and design skills will be prioritised by employers. This view is supported by business leaders worldwide who responded to our most recent CEO survey.. These are the ‘pivotal’ people.. Finding and keeping these pivotal people will be a huge challenge.. That’s why organisations will need to pay careful attention to the employee value proposition – the reasons why these extraordinary people were attracted to working with them in the first place."
It seems there will be meagre employment opportunities for the rest of us in our sustainable future. The few remaining jobs will be limited solely to those tasks that cannot be performed by automation or AI. Only the extraordinary people, with skills suited to the GPPP, will be of any value. There are many reasons to place considerable credibility in the 2013 study by Oxford University researchers [25] which predicted that 47% of all jobs will be lost.
Again we can look to the RIIA think tank to understand what this will mean for us. The RIIA commissioned the Royal Society to conducted a review [26] of the available literature on the impact of AI and automation. They found a distinct lack of research assessing the implications for us as individuals. They observed:
"This evidence shows that the use of digital technology in work is linked with increasing polarisation of work between jobs mainly performed by workers with low levels of formal education (‘low-educated’) and jobs performed by high-educated workers.. Individual losses from displacement related to automation have not yet been estimated but a broader literature suggests that these losses can be significant and persistent.. This may nevertheless lead to significant increases in inequality, particularly if employers have significant market power."
The economic respon
se to the pseudopandemic has ensured that some employers have increased their already significant market power towards market domination. They are among the corporate members of a GPPP which has exploited the pseudopandemic to transition us all into the stakeholder capitalist led market.
In this sense, lockdowns have also been used to introduce younger people to the concept of a low employment society. Those of us who lived through the 1980's are already familiar with that experience and the social and economic deprivation it guarantees.
The new stakeholder economy is not based upon mass employment. Carney’s successor as Governor of the Bank of England (BoE) Andrew Bailey has already stated that it would be important to get rid of “unproductive jobs” and that job losses, as a result of the "COVID 19 crisis," were inevitable [27].
No job is unproductive for the person who receives payment for doing it. For them it provides the means to live and support their family.
The intrinsic theme running throughout everything branded sustainable is population reduction. It is very difficult to see how an entire civilisation with slowing but appreciable population growth can be fully automated without a corresponding increase in energy demand. While the GPPP promise a sustainable, greener future, as yet no one has explained where an AI designed automated society of cybernetically and genetically engineered humanoids will get its energy from if not fossil fuels.
For example one of the targets for the European Union's (EU's) European Green Deal [28] (EGD) is to achieve zero carbon steel production by 2030. In addition to the staggering amount of energy needed to extract, ship and process iron ore to make pig iron, steel manufacturing is an incredibly energy intensive process. The idea that current technology could enable this process to be carbon neutral is ludicrous. Steel production is just one of the thousands of high energy industrial processes we need.
The EGD doesn't even mention nuclear power instead saying "a power sector must be developed that is based largely on renewable sources." It is entirely reasonable to wonder what on Earth they are rambling on about. Unless we intend to relinquish our grasp of reality entirely and replace it with nothing but a mystical faith in Earthism, it seems the only way to reach this sustainable nirvana without nuclear power is to massively reduce demand.