Cultivated land continues to decline. Arable land is being extensified and renaturalised, and the wildness of cultivated land is already a desired direction of “agricultural policy” in European countries. As a result, food imports are increasing, while on the other hand supply chains are being deliberately torpedoed globally. Under such circumstances, there can no longer be talk in terms of food security through imports.
The SME economy is trying to generate some income from exports, while these earnings are being swallowed on the home front by a new form of colonial policy in the countries of origin.
In energy policy, existing production is being shut down before suitable alternatives have been established. Here, too, the dismantling of security of supply is being vigorously pursued. A conversion of the economy within the framework of a Green New Deal to a “green economy” and “green investments”, as demanded by the WEF and global policy circles, is intended to promote innovations that are to replace the missing returns from the de-industrialisation that is currently being pursued.
But how should this happen?
If, for example, agriculture is to be run ecologically, costs rise and yields fall under the current conditions. If energy is made scarcer and more expensive for the entire economy, costs will rise there as well. We remember exactly which arguments were used to push for the separation of power plants from the grids. Now this is one of the most vulnerable points of supply security. In short, such a policy of economic reform will never be profitable and will only further hamper the economy.
According to the World Bank, the value of real goods and services worldwide is 90 trillion dollars. In contrast, the bubble of the financial economy already amounts to more than 500 trillion dollars, which is being pushed around in circles outside the real economy by BlackRock and consorts and which is being fattened up by the banks and central banks with billions of dollars pumped into the financial system out of nothing. In the meantime, it has also become clear to these circles that this cannot continue.
So, what to do with this huge surplus of monetary assets before it crumbles?
Their idea is to use it to finance a Green New Deal.
But this does not answer the question of how the conversion to an ecological economy is ever supposed to be profitable in terms of investment compared to the growth economy?
This is to be achieved by buying up large areas of our planet, forests, water resources, agricultural land, in order to later demand lucrative levies on the “ecosystem services” associated with this property from the population at large as recipients of environmental services.
Investment banking estimates the value of nature’s ecosystems at 4 quadrillion (4000 trillion) dollars worldwide.
With the investment of 500 trillion dollars, a value of about 4000 trillion dollars can be acquired.
This makes it comprehensible how the governments of the USA and the EU are freely talking about several trillion dollars or euro that they want to pour into the “green economy” in the next few years.
What this might look like in detail is evident from the EU Taxonomy Regulation. It defines ecological standards for various economic activities that are to be applied in construction, agriculture and other areas that impact the environment. For example, this leads to banks only granting loans for sustainable investments and not charging any interest on them, which, given the lack of returns in the ecological economy, must lead to excessive debt financing by the banks. This promotes investments that would otherwise not be made by individual companies for purely imputed reasons. If interest rates rise later on, the bank can take possession of the property. The banks and investors want to profit from the difference in value of between 90 and 4’000 trillion dollars and, as the future owners of vast lands, forests, drinking water pipelines, cultivated landscapes converted into wild areas, etc., etc., they want to collect taxes on their “taxonomically” introduced “ecosystem services” that circumvent democracy, in the manner of feudal lords.
In any case, we now know why “green investments” are allegedly more profitable and why the financial sector warns so self-confidently that those who don’t take the big “upheaval” here will have to face heavy losses later on.
This will lead to a gigantic Bauernlegen far into the middle-class economy. There is only one thing to be done in the present situation: a clear constitutional policy of food security with its own agriculture and a clear rejection of political agendas which, under the guise of “ecology”, try to drive the entire utility economy into foreign dependency. •
cc. “Bauernlegen” means the expropriation and confiscation of farms by landlords in order to cultivate them as manor land. The buying up of free farms, often with the use of pressure, is also referred to as Bauernlegen. The breaking up of family farms led to the disappearance of independent farmers in certain areas. (cf. Wikipedia and https://www.spektrum.de/lexikon/geographie/bauernlegen/755)
If you want to prevent the setting of cookies (for example, Google Analytics), you can set this up by using this browser add-on.