How bootlegger-baptist-dynamics encourage energy-industrial development in Dutch Natural areas; lecture for the German Wildlife Foundation (Berlin 14 december)
First read Part 1 on the Bootlegger-Baptist Game Theory and the theory in Dutch Practice.
Part 2 demonstrates how Dutch government and right wing politicians transformed ‘nature conservation’ into controlled oppossition by the use of subsidies and ‘nature compensation’.
We here conclude with the 3d and last part; the transformation of nature conservation to ‘environmentalism’, a techno-topian worldview favoured by World Economic Forum-related multinationals and bankers that use the ‘baptist’-NGO’s and academics as the moral and ‘scientific’ higher ground to gain private profits from public spending. (‘sustainable development’)
Public Money, Private Gain; The Role of the Netherlands in 2030 Agenda
Environmentalism offers an opportunity for new Keynesian and Collectivist Economics. Here government policies need 10 Trillion euro’s by 2030 for ‘Sustainable Development’.
Regulations and marketing that slush these public investments into private hands, are an explanation why billionaire-‘philantropy’ and government-agencies have been instrumental in inflating the environmental movement.
Some examples from current practice underline the theoretical outlook presented in the introduction. This figure of profit (from public money) of 10 Trillion Euro’s by ‘Sustainable Development’ was quoted on 17 march 2017 as the ‘profit’ by a new coalition of Dutch multinationals like Unilever, Heineken and Shell, the DGSC, presided by former Dutch prime-minister JP Balkenende.
Paul Polman of Unilever is also one of the ‘High Level Panel of Eminent Persons’ of the United Nations that formulated the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development from 2012 onwards.
This figure (12 trillion dollars) is cited by the World Economic Forum and the inventor of the slogan ‘People Planet Profit’, John Elkington. The World Economic Forum advocates ‘Blended Finance’, to meet the costs of ‘climate financing’. A Public-Private-Finance-construction where investment risks are public and profits are private.
The public has been getting used to this type of ‘economics’ through the banking-crisis where tax billions were used to cover the costs of the risks bankers took. PE, the Dutch goverment bought ABN Amro for 22 billion euro’s.
The current ‘Energy Deal’ to finance windfarm development in The Netherlands on land (6000MW) and at sea (9000 MW) involves the public financing of 73 Billion Euro’s through ‘Einspeise-gesatz’-type of subsidies.
And an other estimated 25 billion euro’s is needed for adapting the current power-network of Tennet to intermittend energy from windfarms and solar energy.
The energy-deal is enforced by the second minister of environment in The Netherlands, Ed Nijpels. It is the national policy following the Renewable Energy Directive of the European Commission (2009). This 100 billion euro’s alone is for 14% ‘renewable energy’ by 2020, with biomass-subsidies covering most of the target.
And that is just the starter.
The first contours for this type of ‘Climate Finance’ were dealt with at a conference of the OECD, the Dutch and Swedish Govermnent at Addis Abbeba in Ethiopia in july 2015, in advance of the Paris Agreement. The conference was titled ‘How to generate the trillions to finance Sustainable Development’. From the early ’70s the Dutch Government has been instrumental in promoting the ‘Sustainable Development’-concept.
It helped finance the Brundtland-report from 1984- ‘Our Common Future’ where the theorem of ‘sustainable development’ was defined, including ‘the needs’ of ‘future generations’ in current economic planning.
The Dutch Prime Minister Ruud Lubbers was member of the Club of Rome. The Dutch govermnent also supported the ‘Reshaping the International Order (RIO)’-report of the Club of Rome in 1977; how to put a price on ‘The Commons’, meaning natural resources like air, water, atmosphere by economist Jan Tinbergen. A concept that was already explored by Roefie Hueting.
This concept of the privatization of public space is know also known as ‘True Cost’ and ‘True Prize’ by Dutch NGO’s. The Rockefeller Foundation promotes the same concept under the title of ‘Natural Capital’ with pe Gretchen Daily, a pupil of the ‘Population Bomb’-salesman Paul Ehrlich.
The largest Business-lobbyists in the Netherlands VNO-NCW are now the most ardent supporters of 2030 Agenda. Traditionally they are seen as ‘right wing’ but the VNO-NCW supports ‘left wing’ politicians, like (former) Greenpeace-director Liesbeth van Tongeren of the Green Party. (Groen Links). Van Tongeren is supporter of ‘green’ subsidies for solar panels, that contribute to the profits of VNO-NCW-members like Uneto-VNI.
Public Good for Private Gain
As I showed in my presentation, the Environmental Movement – with it’s focus on globalist ‘catastrophic’ events- as we know it today could never have grown into the multi-million euro-marketing entity without the support of governments and big philantropy. The Dutch Government and elite have played a large role in inflating it’s standing through (public) funding. From the start, the environmental movement was an elite organisation.
Pe, the WWF got it’s first large donation from Prince Bernhard his ‘Club 1001’-trust, where his friends like President Mobutu donated 10 thousand dollar for his conservation-organisation. The WWF is presided by ‘Big Pharma’-giant Roche of Andre Hoffman, whose father Luc Hoffmann was co-founder of WWF with Godfrey Rockefelller.
This thesis has been further inquired by sociology-professor Donald Gibson in ‘Ecology, Ideology and Power’, and the phd-thesis of political scientist Jacob Nordangard (Nordangard 2012). The ‘grassroots’-image of environmentalism is more established on it’s marketing than based on historical fact. Governments and ‘big philantropy’ inflated Internatonal Environmentalism in the Post-War era, and it’s twin-sister ‘ecology’. (see also phd-thesis on Precautionary Principle and green Utopianism ‘Utopia and Gospel’ Hanekamp 2015)
With money from the legacy of Standard Oil, through the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Rockefeller Foundation many ‘green’ NGO’s have been erected (Pe, World Resources Institute, Worldwatch Institute, Oceana) or supported with millions of dollars per year.
Pe 350.org of Bill McKibben, Greenpeace, The Global Footprint Network, all receive millions of dollars from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and/or Rockefeller Foundation.
David Rockefeller (Founder Trilateral Commission) stated his interests were ‘internationalist’ and environmentalism served his agenda for a ‘globally interconnected world’.
Birds of a feather…
Thus the agenda of a globalist elite is advanced by organisations like 350.org that promote themselves as ‘grassroots’. And whose members in private may oppose globalist bankers and their agenda.
Seemingly contradictory interests – like environmentalists, governments and big business, pe energy-companies- that on the surface have opposing political views, may thus ‘cooperate’ for the taxation of the public and the industrialisation of natural areas. Because the outcome of the lobby on regulation and public funding for policies serves a globalist interest. In this way we see part of the Bootlegger-Baptist-theory in lobbying-practice, with green NGO’s serving the internationalist agenda as controlled opposition.
This ‘cooperation’ does not need to be a coordinated strategy, but more a ‘natural’ proces in Human Affairs, where ‘birds of a feather flock together’. And where public opinion is steered through the funding of a growing number of ngo’s promoting the same message.
Pe in The Hague, the European Climate Foundation was erected in 2008 by McKinsey-acolite Jules Kortenhorst (a Christian Democrat, now working at the Amory Lovins erected Rocky Mountain Institute; Amory Lovins served in anti-nuclear energy-campainging group Friends of The Earth in the early ’70s after the first Earth Day).
The ECF acts as a slush fund that provides 30 million euro’s of funding from ‘big philantropy’ (pe media-magnate John Mac Bain) tot other campainging-groups.
The strategy on the global level of ‘sustainable development’ is to enforce the topdown management of what was branded as ‘The Commons’ by the Garrett Hardin paper ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ in 1968; Public space, water, atmosphere and land should be fenced.
These are the so-called ‘Enclosures’. Natural Resources ( = ‘the environment’) should be privatised or put under technocratic control. The ‘Limit’s to Growth’ by the 1968-erected Club of Rome, seeded from the OECD (Alexander King) shares the same outlook.
The ‘enclosures’ are also branded as ‘Natural Capital’ by Gretchen Daily and the Rockefeller Foundation. The idea is that a price-tag should be put on ‘the commons’ like air, water etc.
Enclosures on the commons through a price-system is branded as ‘ecosystem services’ by Deutsche Bank-banker Pavan Sukhdev and The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB). This project is also sponsored by the Dutch Government.
A relatively small core group of influentials in academia, business and politics has shaped the debate on ‘green’ energy, with Environmental NGO’s parrotting their voice through resource-dependency. (Nordangard 2012)
Conclusion; Silent Spring?
Most environmentalists need not be involved in big business-affairs, and may vocally oppose ‘big business’, and vote ‘leftwing’-parties. But they may nevertheless serve interests of international finance by promoting a globalist outlook shared by the World Economic Forum, vote pro-EU-federalism and vocally protest against ‘populists’, those defending local values and (conservation) traditions.
If we apply 3 rules for investigation – as in this presentation- we may look beyond the ‘Cloak of Green’ of Environmentalism that has also been described by research-journalist Elaine Dewar (1992); how NGO’s are used by governments as Trojan Horse for Corporate and Governmental Interests in resource-rich countries (pe Brazil).
What people ‘say’ they believe to advocate is not as important as
1. who pays them to say it
2. what are the consequences and logic outcomes of the policies people propose
3. the outcomes, how ‘ineffectual’ and contradictory they may seem from a public and ecological perspective- reflect the original intentions of the policies
Public money on both the national and European level is used to lobby politicians for adopting the favoured policies like the Renewable Energy Directive (2009). This directive was established by Anders Wijkman, president of the Club of Rome as special rapporteur for the European Commission.
Wijkman is also connected to Globe EU, the European Branch of Globe International (of Al Gore) erected by the Dutch Socialist Hemmo Munting. The latter erected the LIFE+-subsidy-scheme in 1992 from which the European green lobby-coalitions are now sponsored.
From 2014-2020 green lobby-business is sponsored with 3,4 billion euro’s of LIFE+subsidies, and for the acquisition of territory in the Natura 2000-network. ‘Natura 2000’ it’s habitat-directive was adopted under Dutch EU-presidency and is therefore labelled ‘The Dutch Directive’.
For fear of losing European and national subsidies the ‘green’s in The Netherlands and on the EU-level thus serve as ‘controlled opposition’. Their public financing also helps to ‘sell’ policies that generate private profits financed by the public.
Thus the dystopian ‘Silent Spring’ of Rachel Carson (1962) may at last arrive. No more birds heralding the coming of spring. For all their breeding habitat has been destroyed in the name of ‘green’ energy and ‘environmentalism’. ‘The End of Nature Conservation’ with the use of ‘baptists’ like Bill McKibben, who have the most dangerous of all beliefs: that they are ‘well meaning’….
- The Renewable Energy Directive (2009) enforced by the Club of Rome with Anders Wijkman as ‘special rapporteur’ to the European Commission (and other Club of Rome/Globe EU-lobbyists) may thus have stimulated the greatest ecological catastrophe in modern history, of which the true magnitude is about to unfold.