Tag Archive | "UNEP"

Findings & Forecasts 10/24/2012

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,


Tech­noc­racy and the IMF: New Global Mon­e­tary System?

Beware of a new trial bal­loon being floated by the Inter­na­tional Mon­e­tary Fund, that is, “The Chicago Plan Revis­ited.”

According to British jour­nalist Ambrose Evans-Pritchard,

The con­juring trick is to replace our system of pri­vate bank-created money — roughly 97pc of the money supply — with state-created money. We return to the his­tor­ical norm, before Charles II placed con­trol of the money supply in pri­vate hands with the Eng­lish Free Coinage Act of 1666.

Specif­i­cally, it means an assault on “frac­tional reserve banking”. If lenders are forced to put up 100pc reserve backing for deposits, they lose the exor­bi­tant priv­i­lege of cre­ating money out of thin air.

The nation regains sov­er­eign con­trol over the money supply. There are no more banks runs, and fewer boom-bust credit cycles. [Emphasis added]

At a time when some ivory-tower econ­o­mists are pre­dicting the end of cap­i­talism, any talk of mon­e­tary reform by global banking orga­ni­za­tions is worthy of atten­tion, if not alarm. The IMF has been one of the pri­mary engines of glob­al­iza­tion, having worked in con­junc­tion with the World Bank and the Bank for Inter­na­tional Set­tle­ments for decades.

The IMF has now dug up the so-called “Chicago Plan” from the Uni­ver­sity of Chicago dating back to 1936, and is seri­ously studying it for modern application.

Beware. As Patrick Henry once stated, “I smell a rat.”

First, the Uni­ver­sity of Chicago was orig­i­nally cre­ated with a grant from John D. Rock­e­feller in 1890, and has long been an aca­d­emic vassal of Rock­e­feller inter­ests. In 1936 during the heat of the Great Depres­sion, leading econ­o­mists were looking for alter­na­tives to cap­i­talism and mon­e­tary theory. Tech­noc­racy, for instance, was one attempt to sug­gest an alter­na­tive eco­nomic system, during the same time period. Nei­ther Tech­noc­racy nor the Chicago Plan were suc­cessful at the time.

According to the IMF’s study,

“The decade fol­lowing the onset of the Great Depres­sion was a time of great intel­lec­tual fer­ment in eco­nomics, as the leading thinkers of the time tried to under­stand the apparent fail­ures of the existing eco­nomic system. This intel­lec­tual struggle extended to many domains, but arguably the most impor­tant was the field of mon­e­tary eco­nomics, given the key roles of pri­vate bank behavior and of cen­tral bank poli­cies in trig­gering and pro­longing the crisis.

“During this time a large number of leading U.S. macro­econ­o­mists sup­ported a fun­da­mental pro­posal for mon­e­tary reform that later became known as the Chicago Plan, after its strongest pro­po­nent, pro­fessor Henry Simons of the Uni­ver­sity of Chicago. It was also sup­ported, and bril­liantly sum­ma­rized, by Irving Fisher of Yale Uni­ver­sity, in Fisher (1936). The key fea­ture of this plan was that it called for the sep­a­ra­tion of the mon­e­tary and credit func­tions of the banking system, first by requiring 100% backing of deposits by government-issued money, and second by ensuring that the financing of new bank credit can only take place through earn­ings that have been retained in the form of government-issued money, or through the bor­rowing of existing government-issued money from non-banks, but not through the cre­ation of new deposits, ex nihilo, by banks.” [Emphasis added.]

I have long argued that the Fed­eral Reserve Bank, estab­lished in 1913, is a pri­vate cor­po­ra­tion whose pri­vate stock­holders were the major banks of that time period. The Fed was a super-lobby that would work directly with gov­ern­ment to orches­trate lending and col­lecting on an orderly basis. At that time, the banks did not “own” the var­ious nations of the world, so they could not sum­marily dic­tate public policy.

The Frac­tional Reserve system that cur­rently spans the globe was never intended to be a per­ma­nent solu­tion to wealth dom­i­na­tion. By def­i­n­i­tion from the start, the lenders would even­tu­ally wind up owning every­thing (all the resources) in society, and the frac­tional banking system would become obsolete.

The IMF is sug­gesting that the day of the Cen­tral Bank (the Fed included) may be over, and that the power of cur­rency cre­ation and issuance should instead be given to the state. This would lit­er­ally pull the rug out from under all the cen­tral banks of the world, requiring their untimely disbandment.

But, so what? Corporation’s change strategy all the time. If the cen­tral banks are essen­tially a ser­vice provider to their major con­stituent banks, then they will be useful only as long as they can pro­vide a ben­e­fi­cial ser­vice; there­after, they are discardable.

The orig­inal Chicago Plan and the Chicago Plan Revis­ited make no ref­er­ence to the eco­nomic system of Tech­noc­racy (also from the 1930’s) or the use of Energy Credits as cur­rency. How­ever, during the 1930’s and beyond, the Uni­ver­sity of Chicago has been a hotbed of Technocracy.

For instance, Pro­fessor Patricio Silva wrote In the Name of Reason: Tech­nocrats and Pol­i­tics in Chile that the so-called “Chicago boys” (Chilean econ­o­mists edu­cated at the Uni­ver­sity of Chicago) brought Tech­noc­racy to Chile where it sur­vived sev­eral changes of polit­ical power.

The “Chicago Boys” were edu­cated by Milton Friedman and Arnold Har­berger as the result of a State Depart­ment ini­tia­tive called the “Chile Project” that was orga­nized in the 1950’s and finan­cially spon­sored by the Ford Foundation.

Thus, I will sug­gest that the IMF’s new plan could be an impor­tant and nec­es­sary stepping-stone toward tying the issuance of cur­rency to energy policy instead of eco­nomic policy.

This link is not trivial. A state that arbi­trarily deter­mines the nec­es­sary level of cur­rency required to make its economy work must have some form of linkage to a non-political and more stable touch­stone. For many years, gold was such a touchstone.

While gold is not in the imme­diate pic­ture for mon­e­tary policy, energy is!

The United Nations has been pushing hard for a new global “Green Economy” that would replace the cur­rent “brown economy” based on fossil fuel and over-consumption in devel­oped nations.

“A green economy implies the decou­pling of resource use and envi­ron­mental impacts from eco­nomic growth… These invest­ments, both public and pri­vate, pro­vide the mech­a­nism for the recon­fig­u­ra­tion of busi­nesses, infra­struc­ture and insti­tu­tions, and for the adop­tion of sus­tain­able con­sump­tion and pro­duc­tion processes.” [Emerging policy issues, UNEP, 2010, p. 2] [Emphasis added]

If mon­e­tary cre­ation is handed back to the state, the above “decou­pling” could easily become a reality. Con­versely, as long as the cen­tral bank system imposes a frac­tional reserve system on global mon­e­tary policy, it cannot become a reality.

Again I say, Beware! The argu­ments for scrap­ping the Fed will sound appealing to everyone: no more boom/bust cycles, no more bankster rip-offs, etc. Just remember that the global elite do not exer­cise influ­ence in order to ben­efit anyone except themselves.

In this writer’s con­sid­ered opinion, the next phase of global dom­i­na­tion will focus on the direct con­trol of resources, rather than indi­rect own­er­ship via debt-based money.

Defla­tion vs. Spending

An economy grows when spending occurs for goods and ser­vices. There are three gen­eral sources of spending: Per­sonal, busi­ness and government.

Since I have been talking about credit defla­tion for sev­eral years now, it is worth noting again that the only escape from defla­tion is spending. When spending caves in, the economy caves in with it.

Since Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke was appointed by George Bush on Feb­ruary 1, 2006,  his pri­mary nemesis has been defla­tion, not infla­tion. As the credit melt­down pro­gressed, con­sumer and busi­ness spending fled, leaving gov­ern­ment spending the only pos­sible source of rescue. This became painfully obvious as lending/borrowing activity did not pick up after interest rates were dropped to almost zero.

Thus, the var­ious stim­ulus and Quan­ti­ta­tive Easing pro­grams were directed to get the gov­ern­ment to spend, and hence, we now have a $16 tril­lion national debt and vir­tu­ally nothing to show for it. The economy has not recov­ered, jobs have not returned and global sen­ti­ment has rad­i­cally shifted to a policy of fiscal austerity.

Since 2007, the Amer­ican con­sumer has been limping along while slowly descending into the eco­nomic abyss. Wages are down, unem­ploy­ment is higher and banks aren’t lending. People are trying to spin the real estate market uptick as some kind of bottom, but the activity is more like oxygen-starved koi sucking for air in a stag­nant pond.

The fol­lowing excerpt from the October 2012 McAl­vany Intel­li­gence Advisor) aptly describes the state of the average consumer:

…con­sumers are in the worst finan­cial shape they’ve been in since the Great Depres­sion. One recent report showed that credit card bal­ances for the indebted (people who carry a bal­ance each month) have dropped nearly $2,000, from $16,383 in March 2010 to $14,517 in March 2012. This sounds like Amer­i­cans are finally get­ting a grip on their finances. Hardly. If you look at credit card debt for all house­holds, the average has only dropped from $7,219 to $6,772.

That’s not the worst news, though. The reason for the decrease is not that Amer­i­cans are paying off their debt. Tim Chen wrote on Forbes.com (5/30/2012): “The reality of the sit­u­a­tion is much grimmer. In 2010, credit card com­pa­nies wrote off seri­ously delin­quent debts, declaring a huge chunk of money uncol­lec­table. America’s credit card debt dropped. The charge-off rate, which is the per­centage of dol­lars that have been clas­si­fied uncol­lectible, jumped to 10.7% — a 300% increase from 2006.

“After losing a gar­gan­tuan number of pay­ments, credit card com­pa­nies began to exer­cise shrewder dis­cern­ment in issuing finan­cial prod­ucts. With credit cards more dif­fi­cult to obtain, average debt con­tinued to fall.

“So, no. A decrease in credit card debt does not indi­cate height­ened finan­cial lit­eracy, a recov­ering job market, or smarter spending habits. It means the sit­u­a­tion was beyond repair and required an arti­fi­cial reduction.”

The truth of the matter is that the Amer­ican con­sumer is com­pletely tapped out on credit. This was true before the housing crunch, as most home­owners used the equity in their home as a piggy bank to main­tain bloated lifestyles. When home prices dropped, they went under­water in a hurry. [Emphasis added]

So, do the math. Con­sumer spending is not recov­ering. Gov­ern­ment spending will shift due to inter­na­tional and internal demands for aus­terity. Busi­nesses are already cur­tailing spending on cap­ital goods and ser­vices. Who is left to spend? No one.

This is where we stand as of today. On the first of Jan­uary, how­ever, the employed uni­verse of workers are going to see sig­nif­i­cantly higher taxes taken from their pay­checks, thanks to the sunset of the Bush Tax Cuts of 2001.

A family with a $100,000 income will lose about $3,000, or 3 per­cent, of their spend­able income. Con­sid­ering how tight bud­gets are already, that $3,000 loss rep­re­sents a dis­pro­por­tionate per­centage of dis­cre­tionary spending… and it’s going to be painful to many households.

Thus, the spiral down into defla­tion continues.

— —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — –  Note: Addi­tional con­tent on this page is avail­able only to Pre­mium sub­scribers of Find­ings & Fore­casts.
To sub­scribe, please click here.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)

Smart Grid: The Implementation of Technocracy?

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,


By Patrick Wood

Intro­duc­tion

According to the United Nations Gov­erning Council of the UN Envi­ron­mental Pro­gramme (UNEP),  “our dom­i­nant eco­nomic model may thus be termed a ‘brown economy.” UNEP’s clearly stated goal is to over­turn the “brown economy” and replace it with a “green economy”:

“A green economy implies the decou­pling of resource use and envi­ron­mental impacts from eco­nomic growth… These invest­ments, both public and pri­vate, pro­vide the mech­a­nism for the recon­fig­u­ra­tion of busi­nesses, infra­struc­ture and insti­tu­tions, and for the adop­tion of sus­tain­able con­sump­tion and pro­duc­tion processes.” [p. 2]

Sus­tain­able con­sump­tion? Recon­fig­uring busi­nesses, infra­struc­ture and insti­tu­tions? What do these words mean? They do not mean merely reshuf­fling the existing order, but rather replacing it with a com­pletely new eco­nomic system, one that has never before been seen or used in the his­tory of the world.

This paper will demon­strate that the cur­rent crisis of cap­i­talism is being used to imple­ment a rad­ical new eco­nomic system that will com­pletely sup­plant it. This is not some new idea cre­ated in the bowels of the United Nations: It is a revi­tal­ized imple­men­ta­tion of Tech­noc­racy that was thor­oughly repu­di­ated by the Amer­ican public in 1933, in the middle of the Great Depression.

The Tech­nocrats have resur­faced, and they do not intend to fail a second time. Whether they suc­ceed this time will depend upon the intended ser­vants of Tech­noc­racy, the cit­i­zens of the world.

Indeed, the dark horse of the New World Order is not Com­mu­nism, Socialism or Fas­cism. It is Technocracy.

Back­ground

Founded by Howard Scott and M. King Hub­bert in 1932 during the Great Depres­sion, Tech­noc­racy pro­posed a rad­ical new solu­tion for the world’s eco­nomic ills. In 1932, Harry A. Porter wrote in Roo­sevelt and Tech­noc­racy,

“Just as the Ref­or­ma­tion estab­lished Reli­gious Freedom, just as the Dec­la­ra­tion of Inde­pen­dence brought about our Polit­ical Freedom, Tech­noc­racy promises Eco­nomic Freedom.” [Fore­ward, iii]

Porter’s plan included aban­doning the gold stan­dard, sus­pending the stock exchanges and nation­al­izing rail­roads and public util­i­ties. Freedom notwith­standing, Porter then called for President-elect Franklin D. Roo­sevelt to be sworn in as Dic­tator rather than Pres­i­dent so that he could over­turn the existing eco­nomic system in favor of Technocracy:

“Drastic as these changes from the present order of things may be, they will serve their pur­pose if only to pave the way for the Eco­nomic Rev­o­lu­tion — and Tech­noc­racy.” (p. 63)

If Tech­noc­racy had truly been extin­guished before the onset of WWII, we would not be con­cerned about it today. How­ever, when Zbig­niew Brzezinski wrote Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Tech­netronic Era in 1968, it was essen­tially a Neo-Technocratic trea­tise calling for a fourth and final stage of world his­tory, or the Tech­netronic Era.

When David Rock­e­feller picked Brzezinski to co-found the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion in 1973, it was with the spe­cific goal to create a “New Inter­na­tional Eco­nomic Order.” Without some knowl­edge of his­toric Tech­noc­racy, exactly what the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion ulti­mately had in mind with such a goal could not pos­sibly have been understood.

Today, it is nec­es­sary to rethink these issues in order to deter­mine a) if this rad­ical move­ment is still oper­ating, b) what are their goals and c) how do they plan to achieve their goals.

In Carbon Cur­rency: A New Begin­ning for Tech­noc­racy?, the sub­ject of his­toric Tech­noc­racy was intro­duced in the con­text of cre­ating a new eco­nomic system based on energy accounting rather than price accounting. An energy-based accounting system uses “energy cer­tifi­cates,” or Carbon Cur­rency, instead of dol­lars or other fiat cur­ren­cies. Peri­odic and equal allo­ca­tions of avail­able energy are made to cit­i­zens, but they must be used within the defined time period before they reach an expi­ra­tion date. Fur­ther­more, the ability to own pri­vate prop­erty and accu­mu­late wealth would be deemed unnecessary.

The pressing and unan­swered ques­tion is how would such a Tech­no­cratic system actu­ally be implemented?

This paper will now address the strategy, tac­tical require­ments and progress of estab­lishing an energy-based Tech­nate in North America. [“Tech­nate” is the term used to describe the geo­graphic region oper­ated according to Tech­noc­racy. Thus, a North Amer­ican Tech­nate would include Canada, Mexico and the U.S. and they would all be under common control. ]

Require­ments

The Tech­noc­racy Study Course, written by Howard Scott and M. King Hub­bert in 1932, estab­lished a detailed frame­work for Tech­noc­racy in terms of energy pro­duc­tion, dis­tri­b­u­tion and usage.

According to Scott and Hub­bert, the dis­tri­b­u­tion of energy resources must be mon­i­tored and mea­sured in order for the system to work — and this is the key: mon­i­toring and mea­suring.

They wrote that the system must do the fol­lowing things:

  • “Reg­ister on a con­tin­uous 24 hour-per-day basis the total net con­ver­sion of energy.
  • “By means of the reg­is­tra­tion of energy con­verted and con­sumed, make pos­sible a bal­anced load.
  • “Pro­vide a con­tin­uous inven­tory of all pro­duc­tion and consumption
  • “Pro­vide a spe­cific reg­is­tra­tion of the type, kind, etc., of all goods and ser­vices, where pro­duced and where used
  • “Pro­vide spe­cific reg­is­tra­tion of the con­sump­tion of each indi­vidual, plus a record and descrip­tion of the indi­vidual.” [Scott, Howard et al, Tech­noc­racy Study Source, p. 232]

In 1932, such tech­nology did not exist. Time was on the Technocrat’s side, how­ever, because this tech­nology does exist today, and it is being rapidly imple­mented to do exactly what Scott and Hub­bert spec­i­fied: Namely, to exhaus­tively mon­itor, mea­sure and con­trol every ampere of energy deliv­ered to con­sumers and busi­nesses on a system-wide basis.

It’s called: Smart Grid.

What is Smart Grid?

Smart Grid is a broad tech­nical term that encom­passes the gen­er­a­tion, dis­tri­b­u­tion and con­sump­tion of elec­trical power, with an inclu­sion for gas and water as well. America’s aging power grid is increas­ingly fragile and inef­fi­cient. Smart Grid is an ini­tia­tive that seeks to com­pletely redesign the power grid using advanced dig­ital tech­nology, including the instal­la­tion of new, dig­ital meters on every home and busi­ness in the U.S.

These dig­ital meters pro­vide around-the-clock mon­i­toring of a consumer’s energy con­sump­tion using con­tin­uous 2-way com­mu­ni­ca­tion between the utility and the consumer’s prop­erty. Fur­ther­more, meters will be able to com­mu­ni­cate with elec­trical devices within the res­i­dence to gather con­sump­tion data and to con­trol cer­tain devices directly without con­sumer intervention.

According to a U.S. Depart­ment of Energy publication,

“The Depart­ment of Energy has been charged with orches­trating the whole­sale mod­ern­iza­tion of our nation’s elec­trical grid… Heading this effort is the Office of Elec­tricity Delivery and Energy Reli­a­bility. In con­cert with its cut­ting edge research and energy policy pro­grams, the office’s newly formed, multi-agency Smart Grid Task Force is respon­sible for coor­di­nating stan­dards devel­op­ment, guiding research and devel­op­ment projects, and rec­on­ciling the agendas of a wide range of stake­holders.” (See The Smart Grid: An Intro­duc­tion)

This is a rel­a­tively new ini­tia­tive, but it is racing for­ward at break­neck speed. The Office of Elec­tricity Delivery was cre­ated in 2003 under Pres­i­dent George W. Bush, and ele­vated in stature in 2007 by cre­ating the posi­tion of Assis­tant Sec­re­tary of Elec­tricity Delivery and Energy Reli­a­bility to head it.

It is not clearly stated who “charged” the Depart­ment of Energy to this task, but since the Sec­re­tary of Energy answers directly to the Pres­i­dent, it is assumed that it was a direc­tive from the Pres­i­dent. There cer­tainly was no Con­gres­sional direc­tive or mandate.

Imple­men­ta­tion

On October 27, 2009, the Obama admin­is­tra­tion unveiled its Smart Grid plan by awarding $3.4 bil­lion awarded to 100 Smart Grid projects. According to the Depart­ment of Energy’s press release, these awards will result in the instal­la­tion of:

  • more than 850 sen­sors called ‘Phasor Mea­sure­ment Units” to mon­itor the overall power grid nationwide
  • 200,000 smart transformers
  • 700 auto­mated sub­sta­tions (about 5 per­cent of the nation’s total)
  • 1,000,000 in-home displays
  • 345,000 load con­trol devices in homes

This is the “kick-start” of Smart Grid in the U.S. On Jan­uary 8, 2010, Pres­i­dent Obama unveiled an addi­tional $2.3 bil­lion Fed­eral funding pro­gram for the “energy man­u­fac­turing sector” as part of the $787 bil­lion Amer­ican Rein­vest­ment and Recovery Act. Funding had already been awarded to 183 projects in 43 states, pending Obama’s announcement.

One such project in the north­west is headed by Bat­telle Memo­rial Insti­tute, cov­ering five states and tar­geting 60,000 cus­tomers. The project was actu­ally devel­oped by the Bon­neville Power Admin­is­tra­tion (BPA), a fed­eral agency under­neath the Depart­ment of Energy. Since it is point­edly illegal for a fed­eral agency to apply for fed­eral funds, BPA passed the project off to Bat­telle, a non-profit and non-governmental orga­ni­za­tion (NGO), which was promptly awarded $178 million.

It is inter­esting to note that BPA takes credit for orig­i­nating the Smart Grid con­cept in the early 1990’s, which it termed “Energy Web.” You can see from BPA’s graphic depic­tion that it is com­pre­hen­sive in scope from pro­duc­tion to consumption.

According to Battelle’s August 27, 2009 press release,

“The project will involve more than 60,000 metered cus­tomers in Idaho, Mon­tana, Oregon, Wash­ington and Wyoming. Using smart grid tech­nolo­gies, the project will engage system assets exceeding 112 megawatts, the equiv­a­lent of power to serve 86,000 households.

‘The pro­posed demon­stra­tion will study smart grid ben­e­fits at unprece­dented geo­graphic breadth across five states, span­ning the elec­trical system from gen­er­a­tion to end-use, and con­taining many key func­tions of the future smart grid,’ said Mike Davis, a Bat­telle vice pres­i­dent. ‘The intended impact of this project will span well beyond tra­di­tional utility ser­vice ter­ri­tory bound­aries, helping to enable a future grid that meets pressing local, regional and national needs.‘”

Bat­telle and BPA intend to work closely together and there is an obvious blur­ring as to who is really in con­trol of the project’s man­age­ment during the test period.

In a “For Internal Use Only” doc­u­ment written in August 2009, BPA offers talking points to its part­ners. It states that “Smart Grid tech­nology includes every­thing from inter­ac­tive appli­ances in homes to smart meters, sub­sta­tion automa­tion and sen­sors on trans­mis­sion lines.” [Emphasis added]

A Net­work of Things

As the World Wide Web (WWW) is to people, the Net­work of Things (NOT) is to appli­ances. This brand new tech­nology cre­ates a wire­less net­work between a broad range of inan­i­mate objects from shoes to refrig­er­a­tors. This con­cept is “shovel ready” for Smart Grid imple­men­ta­tion because appli­ances, meters and sub­sta­tions are all inan­i­mate items that tech­nocrats would have com­mu­ni­cating with each other.

For instance, In 2008 the Pacific North­west National Lab­o­ra­tory (PNNL) devel­oped this small cir­cuit board called a “Grid Friendly Appli­ance Con­troller.” According to a Depart­ment of Energy brochure,

“The GFA Con­troller devel­oped by Pacific North­west National Lab­o­ra­tory is a small cir­cuit board built into house­hold appli­ances that reduces stress on the power grid by con­tin­u­ally mon­i­toring fluc­tu­a­tions in avail­able power. During times of high demand, appli­ances equipped with the con­troller auto­mat­i­cally shut down for a short period of time, resulting in a cumu­la­tive reduc­tion that can main­tain sta­bility on the grid.”

According to PNNL’s website,

“The con­troller is essen­tially a simple com­puter chip that can be installed in reg­ular house­hold appli­ances like dish­washers, clothes washers, dryers, refrig­er­a­tors, air con­di­tioners, and water heaters. The chip senses when there is a dis­rup­tion in the grid and turns the appli­ances off for a few sec­onds or min­utes to allow the grid to sta­bi­lize. The con­trollers also can be pro­grammed to delay the restart of the appli­ances. The delay allows the appli­ances to be turned on one at a time rather than all at once to ease power restora­tion fol­lowing an outage.”

You can see how auto­matic actions are intended to be trig­gered by direct inter­ac­tion between objects, without human inter­ven­tion. The rules will be written by pro­gram­mers under the direc­tion of tech­nocrats who under­stand the system, and then down­loaded to the con­trollers as nec­es­sary. Thus, changes to the rules can be made on the fly, at any time and without the homeowner’s knowledge.

PNNL is not a pri­vate enter­prise, how­ever. It is “owned” by the U.S. Depart­ment of Energy and oper­ated by Bat­telle Memo­rial Institute!

All of this tech­nology will be enabled with Wi-Fi cir­cuitry that is iden­tical to the Wi-Fi-enabled net­work modems and routers com­monly used in homes and busi­nesses throughout the world. Wi-Fi  is a trade­mark of the Wi-Fi Alliance that refers to wire­less net­work sys­tems used in devices from per­sonal com­puters to mobile phones, con­necting them together and/or to the Internet.

According to the Wi-Fi Alliance, “the need for Smart Grid solu­tions is being driven by the emer­gence of dis­trib­uted power gen­er­a­tion and management/monitoring of con­sump­tion.” In their white paper, Wi-Fi for the Smart Grid, they list the spe­cific require­ments for inter­op­er­ability posted by the Depart­ment of Energy:

  1. “Pro­vide two-way com­mu­ni­ca­tion among grid users, e.g. regional market oper­a­tors, util­i­ties, ser­vice providers and consumers
  2. “Allow power system oper­a­tors to mon­itor their own sys­tems as well as neigh­boring sys­tems that affect them so as to facil­i­tate more reli­able energy dis­tri­b­u­tion and delivery
  3. “Coor­di­nate the inte­gra­tion into the power system of emerging tech­nolo­gies such as renew­able resources, demand response resources, elec­tricity storage facil­i­ties and elec­tric trans­porta­tion systems
  4. “Ensure the cyber secu­rity of the grid.

Thus, the bi-directional and real time Smart Grid com­mu­ni­ca­tions net­work will depend on Wi-Fi from end to end. This is easily under­stood from the two fig­ures included in the Wi-Fi Alliance white paper:

While the con­sumer is paci­fied with the promise of lower utility costs, it is the utility com­pany who will enforce the poli­cies set at the regional, national and global reg­u­la­tors. Thus, if a neigh­boring system has a shortage of elec­tricity, your ther­mo­stat might auto­mat­i­cally be turned down to com­pen­sate; if you have exceeded your monthly day­time quota of elec­tricity, energy-consuming tasks like washing and drying clothes, could be lim­ited to overnight hours.

Smart Grid and the utility’s con­trol extends beyond elec­tricity. Notice in Figure 1 above that there is a Wi-Fi linkage to gas and water meters as well!

Con­sumer Blowback?

Wall Street Journal reported “What Util­i­ties Have Learned From Smart-Meter Tests…” on Feb­ruary 22, 2010, and revealed sev­eral impor­tant early aspects of smart grid implementation.

  • A prin­cipal goal is to enable util­i­ties to restruc­ture rate plans
  • A prin­cipal goal is to force con­sumer behavior to change
  • Some utility exec­u­tives antic­i­pate and fear a con­sumer rebellion

Nev­er­the­less, the big carrot for utility com­pa­nies to go along with the government’s Smart Grid is to bal­ance elec­trical demand, cut back on new power gen­er­a­tion facil­i­ties and enhance their profit picture.

Before the dust set­tles on Smart Grid, both con­sumers and util­i­ties may learn some sharp lessons about gov­ern­ment inter­ven­tion: When the gov­ern­ment shows up on your doorstep and offers to help you save money, everyone knows that is an oxy­moron. Gov­ern­ment does not func­tion to help people or com­pa­nies to save money or to be more effi­cient; rather, it func­tions to main­tain and increase its own power and con­trol over its citizens.

Going Global

The UNEP report men­tioned above reveals that “15 per­cent of the fiscal stim­ulus funds com­mitted for 2009 – 2010, which exceed $3.1 tril­lion, can be regarded as green in nature… most green com­po­nents are ori­ented towards energy effi­ciency and renew­able ener­gies in a variety of sec­tors.

A Busi­ness­Week article, How Italy Beat the World to a Smarter Grid“  stated on November 16, 2009 that “After sev­eral false starts, 2010 finally could be the year when smart meters go global.”

Indeed, it is:

  • Italy has already imple­mented Smart Grid tech­nology in 85 per­cent of its homes nationwide
  • earth2tech.com reports that Smart Grid will gen­erate $200 bil­lion of global invest­ment in the next few years
  • The Inter­na­tional Elec­trotech­nical Com­mis­sion (IEC) has laid out a global roadmap to insure inter­op­er­ability of Smart Grid sys­tems between nations
  • Global com­pa­nies are rushing to gain their share of the global Smart Grid market: IBM, Siemens, GE, Cisco, Pana­sonic, Kyocera, Toshiba, Mit­subishi, etc.
  • China is spending $7.32 bil­lion to build out Smart Grid in Asia

Other coun­tries with Smart Grid pilot projects already launched include Ger­many, France, Eng­land, Russia, Japan, India, Aus­tralia, South Africa and a host of others. Regional orga­ni­za­tions such as SMARTGRIDS Africa have been set up to pro­mote Smart Grid in smaller countries.

Thus, the global rush is on. In every case, Smart Grid is being accel­er­ated by gov­ern­ment stim­ulus spending. The global ven­dors are merely lining up their money buckets to be filled up with tax­payer funds.

As is the case in the U.S., there was little, if any, pre­ex­isting or latent demand for Smart Grid tech­nology. Demand has been arti­fi­cially cre­ated by the respec­tive gov­ern­ments of each country.

Con­clu­sion

Smart Grid meets 100 per­cent of the Technocracy’s orig­inal require­ments as described above. In other words, it will mon­itor and con­trol both delivery and con­sump­tion of energy and other green resources such as water and gas.

The Smart Grid ini­tia­tive was devel­oped and funded by gov­ern­ment agen­cies and NGO’s. It was the Energy Department’s Bon­neville Power Authority that invented the con­cept in the 1990’s. It was the Depart­ment of Energy’s Pacific North­west National Lab­o­ra­tory that invented the Grid Friendly Appli­ance Con­troller. It was the Fed­eral Admin­is­tra­tion that show­ered bil­lions of dol­lars over the pri­vate sector to jump-start the nation­wide ini­tia­tive to imple­ment Smart Grid in every community.

If the Fed­eral gov­ern­ment had not been the ini­tial and per­sis­tent driver, would Smart Grid exist at all? It is highly doubtful.

Fol­lowing the same pat­tern as the U.S., many other indus­tri­al­ized nations are imple­menting Smart Grid at the same time, using their own stim­ulus money. This syn­chro­nized imple­men­ta­tion is cer­tainly by design, and as such, it implies that there must be a designer. Who might be pro­viding such top-down coor­di­na­tion on a global basis must be saved for another paper. One thing is cer­tain: The tech­nology being pur­chased world-wide all orig­i­nated in the United States and is being mar­keted by the same global cor­po­ra­tions as men­tioned above.

Lastly, there is an assump­tion throughout Smart Grid lit­er­a­ture that the Fed­eral Admin­is­tra­tion will have full vis­i­bility of all data within the Smart Grid, even down to the indi­vidual house­hold. They will also be in a posi­tion to set national, regional and local dis­tri­b­u­tion and con­sump­tion poli­cies, such as your “fair share” of avail­able energy, gas and water.

Inter­na­tional stan­dards cre­ated for Smart Grid will also enable the U.S. Smart Grid to be con­nected seam­lessly with Canada and Mexico, thus pro­viding a com­pre­hen­sive North Amer­ican energy man­age­ment and dis­tri­b­u­tion system.

Is Smart Grid des­tined to be a global phe­nom­enon? Yes. Is it designed to sup­port a new global Tech­no­cratic, resource-based eco­nomic system? Yes.

Tech­noc­racy must be seen for what it is: An attempt to impose a total­i­tarian, sci­en­tific dic­ta­tor­ship. In 1933, it called for the inau­gu­ra­tion of Franklin Delano Roo­sevelt as dic­tator in order to “pave the way for eco­nomic rev­o­lu­tion.” For­tu­nately at the time, they failed in their attempted coup.

If today’s Smart Grid is suc­cess­fully com­pleted, it will enable the con­ver­sion of our existing eco­nomic system into some­thing far dif­ferent and far worse. This is why the Amer­ican people repu­di­ated Tech­noc­racy in 1933, and this is exactly why we (and cit­i­zens around the world) should thor­oughly repu­diate it today.

Resources

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

Back­ground paper for the min­is­te­rial con­sul­ta­tions, Gov­erning Council of the United Nations Envi­ron­mental Pro­gramme, December 14, 2009

The Smart Grid: An Intro­duc­tion, U.S. Depart­ment of Energy

Pacific North­west National Lab­o­ra­tory, web site

2010 Strategic Plan, Office of Elec­tricity Delivery & Energy Reliability

The Net­worked Grid 100: Movers and Shakers of the Smart Grid

Meloan, Steve, “Toward a Global ‘Internet of Things’”, Oracle Soft­ware, November 11, 2003

Wi-Fi for the Smart Grid, Wi-Fi Alliance, 2009

Obama Announces $3.4 Bil­lion Invest­ment to Spur Tran­si­tion to Smart Energy Grid, Depart­ment of Energy Press Release

NOTE: To help us reach thou­sands more with the warning about Tech­noc­racy and Smart Grid, please con­sider a dona­tion to be used in our spe­cific Internet adver­tising campaign.


VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)

Globalization of California Forum

Globalization of California

Premium Subscriber Access

Email:
Password:
Remember   

Forgot Password

News & Analysis

  • Transhumanism, Technocracy, Total Surveillance Society

    Tran­shu­manism, Tech­noc­racy and Total Sur­veil­lance Society are show­cased in this 3 hour radio pre­sen­ta­tion with Patrick Wood, Carl Teichrib and Kaye Beach. It is a good primer and helpful to bring the lis­tener to a solid basic under­standing of what it … Con­tinue reading

  • Is Trayvon Sparking a Communist Revolution?

    Are you puz­zled by the over-reaction and civil unrest over the George Zim­merman trial? Con­sider this: Com­mu­nist front groups are throwing every­thing they have at fomenting and con­tin­uing the protests for their own agenda. Many of these groups have no … Con­tinue reading

  • Risk of Global Financial Freeze-up Rising

    If you thought it couldn’t happen again, get ready: A new global finan­cial freeze-up could be straight ahead. It’s too bad that eco­nomics, trade, finance, etc., are such boring topics to most people. Well, they actu­ally are boring because they … Con­tinue reading

People want to know…

faq

What is Globalization?

It is the col­lective effect of pur­poseful and amoral manip­u­la­tion that seeks to cen­tralize eco­nomic, polit­ical, tech­no­log­ical and soci­etal forces in order to accrue max­imum profit and polit­ical power to global banks, global cor­po­ra­tions and the elit­ists who run them. It is rapidly moving toward an full and final imple­men­ta­tion of Technocracy.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

What is the Tri­lat­eral Commission?

Founded in 1973 by David Rock­e­feller and Zbig­niew Brzezinski, the Com­mis­sion set out to create a “New Inter­na­tional Eco­nomic Order”, namely, Tech­noc­racy. The orig­inal mem­ber­ship con­sisted of elit­ists (bankers, politi­cians, aca­d­e­mics, indus­tri­al­ists) from Japan, North America and Europe. Col­lec­tively, they have dom­i­nated and con­trolled trade and eco­nomic policy in their respec­tive coun­tries since at least 1974.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

What is Technocracy?

Tech­noc­racy is a move­ment started in the 1930’s by engi­neers, sci­en­tists and tech­ni­cians that pro­posed the replace­ment of cap­i­talism with an energy-based economy. Orig­i­nally envi­sioned for North America only, it is now being applied on a global basis. Authors Aldous Huxley and George Orwell believed that Tech­noc­racy would result in a Sci­en­tific Dic­ta­tor­ship, as reflected in their books, “Brave New World” and “1984″.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

What is Smart Grid?

Smart Grid is the national and global imple­men­ta­tion of dig­ital and Wi-fi enabled power meters that enable com­mu­ni­ca­tion between the appli­ances in your home or busi­ness, with the power provider. This pro­vides con­trol over your appli­ances and your usage of elec­tricity, gas and water.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Who is M. King Hubbert?

Hub­bert was a geo-physicist who co-founded Tech­noc­racy, Inc. in 1932 and authored its Tech­noc­racy Study Course. In 1954, he became the cre­ator of the “Peak Oil Theory”, or “Hubbert’s Peak” which the­o­rized that the world was rapidly run­ning out of carbon-based fuels. Hub­bert is widely con­sid­ered as a “founding father” of the global warming and green movements.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Who is R. Buck­min­ster Fuller?

A pio­neer in global eco­log­ical theory, Fuller (1895 – 1984) was the first to sug­gest the devel­op­ment of a Global Energy Grid that is today known as the Global Smart Grid. Fuller is widely con­sid­ered to be a “founding father” of the global green move­ment, including global warming, Sus­tain­able Devel­op­ment, Agenda 21, etc.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Is the Venus Project like Technocracy?

The Venus Project, founded by Jacque Fresco, is a utopian, modern-day iter­a­tion of Tech­noc­racy. Like Tech­noc­racy, it scraps cap­i­talism and pro­poses that “a resource-based economy all of the world’s resources are held as the common her­itage of all of Earth’s people, thus even­tu­ally out­growing the need for the arti­fi­cial bound­aries that sep­a­rate people.” The appli­ca­tion of tech­nology is the answer to all of the world’s prob­lems, including war, famine and poverty.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)