You are Here:
Global Carbon Currency Ponzi Scheme: A New Beginning for Technocracy

Author (Read 6374 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

 

Optimus

  • Globalist Destroyer
  • Administrator
  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1989
    Posts
  • CO2 is plant food!
    • This Forum
Carbon Currency: A New Beginning for Technocracy?
http://www.carboncurrencyfoundation.org/articles/carbon-currency-a-new-beginning-for-technocracy.html
Written by Carbon Currency Foundation



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

Carbon Currency: A New Beginning for Technocracy?
By Patrick Wood for CFP Tuesday, January 26, 2010

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. 

Technocracy
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.”

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.
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government."
- Patrick Henry
 

 

Optimus

  • Globalist Destroyer
  • Administrator
  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1989
    Posts
  • CO2 is plant food!
    • This Forum
Bank accepts carbon credits as currency
http://www.carboncurrencyfoundation.org/news/australian-bank-accepts-carbon-credits-as-currency.html

The idea of buying and selling carbon credits stored in trees on farms or in forests, has been adopted by an international merchant bank. Rothschild Australia is setting up a managed investment scheme, that aims to buy and sell carbon credits to multinational companies, to offset the companies' greenhouse gas emissions.

Rothschild's Simon Games-Thomas says the scheme is more about learning how to legally sell this new type of commodity, rather than turning a profit. “It’s less of a profitable enterprise than trying to get involved in the market place.
“There’ve been a lot of questions asked by clients of the bank about how the protocol or how working in a carbon constrained world is going to affect their business and in response to those questions we decided to put together the consortium.”
The move has been welcomed by Professor Snow Barlow, from the research centre for Greenhouse Accounting.
Professor Barlow says the process of trading carbon credits can earn money for farmers with tree lots, as well as having an obvious benefit for the environment. “I see it as another step along what is proving to be quite a long road towards actually giving a value to carbon – that’s what it’s all about.
“People that own land and who cultivate woody perennial vegetation are essentially farming carbon.”

Environmentalists argue the exchange of money for carbon dioxide (CO2) allows industry to 'pay for global cooling.'

Emissions trading, the selling of federally recognized "credits' from one industry to another, upped tempo following the 1998 Kyoto Accord on global warming - which called for a reduction in the worldwide CO2 emissions to below 1990 levels.

How does it work?

The proper term is 'carbon sequestration' - otherwise known as 'sinks'.

Coal-burning operations that lack the ability/technology to reduce emissions to Kyoto levels make a greenhouse trade with farmers or agri-businesses - who by growing trees 'absorb' the industrial carbon output.
A consortium of Canadian greenhouse gas producers - GEMCo work on the basis that one acre of farmland can absorb about one ton of carbon.

GEMCo pays an average of $1.50 a ton to obtain 2.8 million metric tons of greenhouse gas reduction credits. But this deal could eventually exceed $5 million because the credits become more valuable the longer they are held until the year 2008, the deadline for the Protocol.

What's the catch?

Carbon trading is still unregulated. Despite contracts being signed - not one national government has guaranteed that they will recognise the credits.
It's also argued that native forests will be lost in the haste to create 'tree farms'; and that plantation establishment is pursed in a helter skelter manner, without proper planning or thought of environmental sustainability.

Who's in?

There are several major players who have backed CO2 currency - Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom and the European Union.

In 2001, Australia set up the first official futures exchange in carbon credit trades.

In May this year, New South Wales mining company Centennial Coal made a deal to sell a major Japanese power utility carbon credits in what was believed to be one of the first trades under the Kyoto Protocol. The company who had several mining operations within the Lithgow district - paid landholders in the far west to grow salt bush in exchange for the carbon credits generated.

In some cases companies have bought large tracts of land to grow specially planted agri-filters. These trees face a life-expectancy of 30 - 35 years after which they'll be harvested in regional mills.

Source: www.abc.net.au
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government."
- Patrick Henry
 

 

Optimus

  • Globalist Destroyer
  • Administrator
  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1989
    Posts
  • CO2 is plant food!
    • This Forum
Carbon Credits: Another Corrupt Currency? The real hockey-stick graph
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/another_currupt_currency.html
Written by Joanne Nova   
Monday, 02 February 2009 13:26



For the Full Report in PDF Form, please click here.

Summary for Policy Makers

Carbon credits are a form of fiat currency, yet as calls for carbon trading grow, ironically, another fiat currency collapses—destroying life savings, wiping out jobs, and taking down historic institutions overnight. Fiat money has a long history of failure, corruption and fraud. The inevitable booms, busts and inflation act as an invisible tax, transferring wealth from people who work and save to speculators, middle men, and crooks. The US dollar—sovereign issue of a great capitalist, democratic nation—is on life support. So far at least eight hundred billion dollars has been created from thin air to stop the banking system from crashing.

Meanwhile, global warming alarmists are asking us to create another fiat currency, this time based on hot air. Large multinational conglomerates are already pouring billions into exchanges and derivatives in anticipation of carbon trading. There are ‘options’ to buy credits in the future.

There’s no longer any evidence that carbon matters much to our climate; and in the unlikely event that carbon might matter, the benefits of trading carbon don’t add up. If the US adopted Obama’s strict 80% reduction in emissions tomorrow, thus transforming the main energy source used by Americans since Columbus, the savings in carbon merely delay the claimed warmer-Armageddon by six years.

Currencies based on nothing are powerful tools that have reshaped civilizations. But they draw out the darkest elements of human nature. We open this Pandora’s Box with trepidation. Is the risk worth the benefit?
Last Updated on Monday, 02 February 2009 13:42
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government."
- Patrick Henry
 

 

Optimus

  • Globalist Destroyer
  • Administrator
  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1989
    Posts
  • CO2 is plant food!
    • This Forum
Technocracy and the New World Order: Part 1
http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5906-technocracy-resurgent-for-the-new-world-order-prospects-for-carbon-currency
Written by Steven Yates   
Thursday, 28 January 2010 15:00

The idea of a global currency has been kicking around for several years now, most visibly in last year’s G20 meeting in Pittsburgh — a clear sign that the march toward world government, also known as the “new world order,” is very much on track. A new investigation suggests that the global currency won’t be just another euro — a globalized fiat money. Instead, it will be based on carbon, and this will bring it into alignment with a variety of concerns, including fossil fuels depletion (also known as "peak oil") and anthropogenic climate change (ACC), as well as the belief among the new world orderlies that populations need to be monitored and controlled.

Patrick Wood — one-time collaborator with ace investigator Antony Sutton and founder of The August Review — is best known as one of the foremost authorities on the Trilateral Commission. He has here assembled circumstantial evidence that the global elite could soon begin considering a carbon currency as a live option: as, in his words, “the ultimate solution to global calls for poverty reduction, population control, environmental control, global warming, energy allocation and blanket distribution of economic wealth.” To think in these terms would be to revive technocracy, which Wikipedia defines as “a system of government where those who have knowledge, expertise or skills compose the governing body.”

What would result is an economic system based on energy allotments instead of price measured in terms of fiat currencies. The latter are slowly collapsing all over the world as individuals, corporations, and governments all drown in seas of debt accrued from living beyond their means. In other words, in the scenario Wood envisions, the global elite would move to eliminate money, understood as fiat money decoupled from backing by a commodity such as gold, and replace it with a system of carbon credits that would be allocated to every person, possibly monthly.

This would mean “authoritarian and centralized control over all aspects of life, from cradle to grave.” Each individual would receive a unique identifier at birth, possibly in the form of an RFID-embedded identification card. The global ID would follow him or her through life and record the specifics of the person’s schooling, test results, work history, physical location including travel history if any, consumption patterns, health and medical history, and so on. It could not be stolen, since the individual ID would be designed to work only for the person it is assigned to. The global ID could also be implanted under one’s skin. An implant would have the advantage that the person could never lose or misplace it.

Here is Wood’s speculation on how the system might 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.” In other words, there would no point in saving, as with cash. At the end of the cycle, any unused credits would immediately lose their purchasing power.

Wood continues, “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.”

One can guarantee that there would be intense pressure to embrace carbon currency. This could include economic coercion, e.g., trade restrictions, citizen travel restrictions, etc. Those refusing to use the new currency, either here or abroad, would eventually find themselves unable to obtain food, fuel, or shelter legally. The price tag of noncompliance would be immobilization and impoverishment.



Technocracy and the New World Order: Part 2
http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5908-technocracy-and-the-new-world-order-part-2
Written by Steven Yates   
Friday, 29 January 2010 08:00

The ideas that grew into technocracy go back at least to the British philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588 – 1679), author of Leviathan (1651), the first modern treatise in political philosophy. Hobbes believed in the necessity of a strong central government; in the context of his time, a monarchy. At least as important for the development of technocracy, Hobbes was a materialist who believed that the same methods being developed to study the natural order under the phrase natural philosophy could be used to study human beings and their social interactions; i.e., that what would today be called an empirical science of society was possible.

Two French thinkers, Henri de Saint-Simon (1760 – 1825) and Auguste Comte (1798 – 1857), pursued this line of thought further. The latter argued that disciplines such as physics or entire civilizations go through three stages: what he called a “theological or fictitious” stage which appeals for explanations to supernatural agencies such as God, a “metaphysical or abstract” stage in which philosophers spin grand systems out of their imaginations and appeal to non-empirical absolute principles such as those of morality, and a “scientific or positive” stage in which all such schemes are set aside in favor of the methods of empirical science: observation, hypothesis, experimentation, data collection, statistical projections, and so on. Comte believed that scientific results promised a better basis on which to build civilization than either religion or the speculations of philosophers. His system was positive in the sense of being optimistic, or forward looking. Having founded sociology on this basis, he is sometimes regarded as the father of all modern social science as empirical, data-driven, and eschewing notions such as original sin (belongs in the first stage) or abstractions such as private property rights (belongs to the second).

Comte’s positivism influenced later thinkers such as Wilhelm Wundt (1845 – 1920), the founder of the ‘experimental psychology’ of the Leipzig School, and Bertrand Russell (1872 – 1970), major British logician and philosopher, Fabian socialist, and promoter of the ‘scientific society’ in works such as The Impact of  Science on Society (1952) which consciously distinguishes the kind of education for those designated as elite from what will be dispensed to the masses. One should also mention Edward Bellamy (1850 – 1898), on this side of the Atlantic, who presented a technocratic utopia in his novel Looking Backward (1888), set in the year 2000. Would technocracy remain a utopian pastime, however—or become a public agenda?

In 1919, an organization called the Technical Alliance of North America formed in New York City, headed by consulting industrial engineer Howard Scott (1890 – 1970) and including economist Thorstein Veblen, physicist Richard Tolman, engineer William H. Smythe (who coined the term technocracy) and economist and banker Stuart Chase, among others. They set out to work out the nuts-and-bolts details of applying scientific and engineering achievements to the social universe, especially what they saw as the wasteful use of resources inherent in allowing Americans to make their own choices as sovereign consumers. They began a massive study of the energy and resources of the North American continent — meaning by that the territory extending from Panama to the Arctic Ocean. Their goal was a planned, systematic blueprint for bringing production and distribution under centralized control. They believed their plan, if implemented, would result in a higher standard of living across the continent along with less waste of non-renewable resources. They had planned to continue their study for four years but the group disbanded in 1921, its work unfinished.

In an interview that year, Howard Scott explained matter-of-factly, “The technicians … are the only group who know how people get things. They are not the only producers, but they are the only ones who know how production is accomplished. Bankers don't know. Politicians and diplomats don't know. If these fellows did know, they would have gotten the wheels started before this. They all want production−everybody does; but those who have been running things don't know how to run them, while those who do know how have not so far considered it their business.”

Technocracy enjoyed a period of popularity in the 1930s as a possible solution to the problems presented by the Great Depression. In 1933, Scott and an ambitious young geophysicist named M. King Hubbert (1903 – 1989) would form Technocracy, Inc. The two of them authored a major work entitled Technocracy Study Course published in 1934. This work became the bible of the movement.

Among their goals was to institute an economic system based on energy allocation instead of price. They proposed to replace money with energy credits. They saw themselves as opposed to every economic system in existence, capitalist or socialist, since each was based on a price system instead of an energy system. Each one — even socialism — involved buying and selling by individuals instead of centralized and monitored allocation of resources. The technocrats believed only the latter could eliminate poverty, for example, as well as ensure that resources are not wasted.

After World War II and the return of prosperity, interest in technocracy waned. Hubbert had earned a Ph.D. in geophysics in 1937, moved to Columbia University to teach the subject, and eventually developed the Hubbert Peak Theory, better known today as Peak Oil: the discovery of new reserves would eventually be outstripped by usage, causing massive increases in energy costs that would eventually destabilize all modern economies tied to fossil fuels.

The technocrats of the 1930s were disadvantaged by a simple fact: the technology to implement their ideas didn’t exist yet. Today, most of it does. And partly because of the popularity of Hubbert’s Peak Oil concept, partly because of the widespread promotion of ACC, and partly because the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression has turned eyes towards the drawbacks of fiat money, technocracy is making a comeback. Websites devoted to the subject exist here and in Canada, and an organization called the Network of European Technocrats formed in 2005 as “an autonomous research and social movement that aims to explore and develop both the theory and design of technocracy.”

All today’s technocrats need is a strategy to create and implement a carbon currency that can be picked up by the global elite. The idea of carbon credits was devised at the time of the Kyoto Protocols. The UK assumed the lead in establishing the first domestic economy-wide trading system. This system has grown rapidly.

Suggestions for developing a carbon currency abound in a growing literature. Patrick Wood’s study provides several examples.

For example, back in 1995 an article appeared in New Scientist entitled, “Toward a single carbon currency”; its author, Judith Hanna, proposed “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, Harvard International Review published “A New Currency” which opined, “For those keen to slow global warming, the most effective actions are in the creation of strong national carbon currencies….” 

In 2006 in the UK, Environment Secretary David Miliband suggested imagining “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.”

In 2007, The New York Times published Hannah Fairfield’s “When Carbon Becomes Currency.” Fairfield stated, “To build a carbon market, its originators must create a currency of carbon credits that participants can trade.” She shows how mandatory cap-and-trade policies fit into the larger picture of an economy based on control over energy usage.

In 2008, a global consultancy calling itself PointCarbon partnered with Bank of New York Mellon to assess rapidly growing carbon markets and published their findings as “Towards a Common Carbon Currency: Exploring the Prospects For Integrated Global Carbon Markets.” Wood notes that other elite banks have opened their doors to profits available through carbon markets: JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. In other words, this movement has dominant institutions working quietly on its behalf.

On Nov. 9, 2009, the Telegraph (UK) contended in an article revealingly entitled, "Everyone in Britain could be given a ‘carbon allowance," that, “implementing individual carbon allowances for every person will be the most effective way of meeting the targets for cutting greenhouse gas emission.” Here we come full circle, with people issued a unique number they would use when purchasing anything that contributes to their carbon footprint. As with a bank account, they would be sent a statement each month with a record of their usages. “If their ‘carbon account’ hits zero, they would have to pay to get more credits.”



Technocracy and the New World Order: Part 3
http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5907-technocracy-and-the-new-world-order-part-3
Written by Steven Yates   
Saturday, 30 January 2010 06:00

If we read between the lines, technocracy — both the old and the new — offers familiar utopian themes. Technocracy promises “complete economic security for every man, woman and child from birth to death; complete health care; modern, energy-efficient housing for all; education to the full extent of each individual’s ability; viable mass transit; employment for all who are able to work; careful stewardship of the Continent’s natural resources and environment.”

There is, of course, not a word about individual’s freedom here; nor a realization that real wealth must be produced and cannot simply be wished into existence by the creation of a new currency. There is not the slightest doubt about what F.A. Hayek called “scientism,” which expresses doubt that the methods applicable to the study and manipulation of natural phenomena can be imported into the study of human beings essentially unchanged. Thus there is no fear that the concentration of power would unleash a totalitarian nightmare akin to that of Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, or Orwell’s 1984.

Neither the early technocrats nor their present-day disciples have any interest in national sovereignty. People will not live in sovereign nation states but in Technates. Readers will have noticed the references to North America as a single political unit, or Technate. Howard Scott and his group were the first advocates of a North American Union before the idea had that name.

Behind the technocratic agenda, though, is the idea, rooted as it is in the materialism of the nineteenth century philosophers, that human nature is exclusively a product of its material environment and is therefore as malleable as potter’s clay and can be changed wholesale by changing the economic arrangements — an idea whose best known exponent was Karl Marx (“from each according to his ability; to each according to his need”). All that is needed to change human nature is skilled technicians of human behavior who know what interventions to make. For example, technocrats believe that crime can be almost eliminated by ending the price system:

As practically all crime of the Price System results from the attempts of individual to acquire the property of others illegally to alleviate their own insecurity, crime would practically cease to exist in a Technocratic society. Technocracy defines a criminal to be a human being with predatory instincts, living under a Price System, without sufficient capital to start a corporation.



In a Technate, human beings would be treated for the first time in social history, not as willful entities, subject to legalistic prohibitions, restraints and penalizations, but as energy consuming people whose capacities as producers and consumers necessitate the development of the highest state of both capacities in order that human beings may be conditioned to living in a world of plenty where man's advantage over his fellowmen will no longer be socially profitable.



All worthy social projects are implied in the one big objective of Technocracy, which is to give to every human being adequate economic security.

But in a Technate will human beings still be allowed to ask, "What about basic freedoms, such as personal financial privacy or the freedom to travel?"

Today’s technocrats have an answer for those who presently ask, “What do you propose to do with those who do not choose to live under technocracy?”

They answer disarmingly, “Nothing. We are seeking people who are intelligent and open-minded enough to embrace a new idea.  However, deteriorating economic and social conditions will force many people not presently interested to look in our direction.”

Read between the lines here. The elites who control the flow of resources through the economy now will be able to ensure that those not embracing the new status quo will pay dearly for what is therefore a Pickwickian choice at best.

“In the Technate,” the passage continues, “even the people who are not interested in Technocracy will enjoy the same high standard of living and increased leisure along with greater opportunity for cultural activities. Should they still prefer to live somewhere else, there will be no restriction on emigration.”

But under the world government that technocracy both imagines and requires, the obvious next question: where will would-be emigrants go?
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government."
- Patrick Henry
 

 

Powered by EzPortal