BEWARE CLIMATE COPS ARE GOING TO GET YOU

[Truthseeker Profile]

WELL I JUST HERD THIS ON ALEX JONES ON THIS SITE ABOUT CLIMATE COPS .
im from the uk and this scares me the bins are being checked all the time you can only put them out on set days and there emtied every 2 weeks in the majority of areas in the uk .
So know ive just cheked N POWER one of the suppliers of gas and electric and phones to uk house holds
so looking up google uk and wow i just found this .
Climate Cops And Green Shirts: The War On Global Warming
HEY kids, wanna play a game of green shirts and baddies?

NPower, the electricity people, want you, the Britisher Jungvolk, to inform on your mums and your dads if they disobey the rules on climate change.

Grab a gas mask, a tin hat and come closer. Baroness Young of Old Scone, head of the Environment Agency, says climate change is “World War Three”. And in zer war you want to be on the side of the good guys, right kidz? We vill take ze moral highground, and victory will be ours.

Attack the non-believer.

Says nPower: “CLIMATE change is threatening our world.”

We believe in climate change. We want to stamp it out. But some are resistant to our word. Say “global warming” to them and if they could grab a gun and shoot you in the throat, they would. These people are dangerous.

If only they could see climate change they’d know how terrible it was. For argument’s sake, let’s say climate change is a hook-nosed, long-fingered, bearded kiddie-messer called Abraham. He wants to drink your blood and then rinse his plate in the dishwasher.

Let’s get him!

You are the planet’s kinder Kinder. You are the climate cops. You can neutralise climate change. Only you can save the planet. You a Contra-arayan?

Change begins at home. Observe mother and father and list their crimes in a journal.

CLIMATE CRIME: “Leaving ze TV on stand by!”

CLIMATE CRIME: “Leaving a tap running!
Zere ist no escape.

CLIMATE CRIME: “Using a tumble drier on a sunny day”
Oh, the irony, of it all. But worse of all:

CLIMATE CRIME: not using energy-saving light-bulbs.

A team of spotters will enter all the UK’s dwellings under the guise of being “cubs”, “friends” or looking for a tommy ball knocked over a fence. Once inside you will set about looking for non energy–saving light bulbs.

The homes of non believers will be sprayed on the front door’s lintel with a yellow paint only visible to the eyes of the righteous.

When all properties have been logged, teams of the enlightened will go from house to house smashing the glass.

Are you with us? Join us before it is too late and the Mother Earth’s purity is lost…

Share and Enjoy:

Posted: 28th, July 2008 | In: Global Warming, Money, Online-PR. Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0

6 Responses to “Climate Cops And Green Shirts: The War On Global Warming”
JuneJohnson Says:
check it out this is big BROTHER .

[Truthseeker Profile]

HERES MORE

Climate Jugend via UK Libertarian Party July 30th, 2008 at 00:34
Energy supplier npower, owned by German utilities giant RWE (core business: running nuclear and coal-fired power stations), apparently placed advertisements in the papers over the weekend to launch their new Climate Cops website.Under the guise of teaching kids about the 'perils' of climate change, the Climate Cops initiative is encouraging youngsters to:Download the ‘Climate Crime’ cards and use them to search your home to make sure that none are happening under your own roof! Then build your ‘Climate Crime Case File’ and report back to your family to make sure they don’t commit those crimes again (or else)! You may need to keep a watchful eye over them by revisiting the case every week or two to make sure they don’t slip back into any of their old habits. You can spread...
Similar posts
Climate Cops And Green Shirts: The War On Global Warming via Anorak News | Climate Cops And Green Shirts: The War On Global Warming July 28th, 2008 at 16:35
HEY kids, wanna play a game of green shirts and baddies? NPower, the electricity people, want you, the Britisher Jungvolk, to inform on your mums and your dads if they disobey the rules on climate change. Grab a gas mask, a tin hat and come closer. Baroness Young of Old Scone, head of the Environment Agency, says climate change is “World War Three”. And in zer war you want to be on the side of the good guys, right kidz? We vill take ze moral highground, and victory will be ours. Says nPower: “CLIMATE change is threatening our world.” We believe in climate change. We want to stamp it out. But some are resistant to our word. Say “global warming” to them and if they could grab a gun and shoot you in the throat, they would. These people are dangerous. If only they could see...
In money, Global Warming, Online-PR
Similar posts
Those “climate crimes” via EU Referendum July 28th, 2008 at 15:05
Following our post yesterday on " Climate Nazis", reproduced on Watts up with that, a number of commentators – across both sites – have suggested we contact the Advertising Standards Authority.We contacted the ASA this morning and, as one might expect, making a complaint is not so simple. The basis of our complaint lies not so much in the advertisement (illustrated - click to enlarge) as in the campaign itself, which is essentially website based.The remit of the ASA, however, is limited to advertisements in the media and it cannot directly concern itself with the content of websites. Should we wish to complain about the npower website, we were advised to contact Trading Standards – which is unlikely to yield dividends.However, there is possibly a way forward. The advertisement...
Similar posts
npower - twats - kiddie exploiters - control freaks…. via An Englishman's Castle July 27th, 2008 at 22:23
EU Referendum: Climate Nazis is a; little disturbed by the latest campaign to be fronted by energy company npower. In a luridly-designed website, mimicking the style of "yoof" cartoons, it offers a bundle of downloads, including a pack of "climate crime cards", urging its recruits to spy on families, friends and relatives, inviting each of them to build up a "climate crime case file" in order to help them ensure their putative criminals do not "commit those crimes again (or else)!" In a system which has echoes of Hitler's Deutsches Jungvolk movement, and the Communist regime Pioneers, perhaps successful graduates can work up to becoming block wardens, then street and district "climate crime Führers", building a network of spies and informers. I would join in but the tossers at npower...
In greenery 2
Similar posts



Climate Nazis via EU Referendum July 27th, 2008 at 19:02
Can I be the only one more than a little disturbed by the latest campaign to be fronted by energy company npower?Launched today with large colour ads in the Sundays, it appeals directly to children, urging them to enlist as "climate cops", to root out "climate crimes", and thus "save the planet". In a luridly-designed website, mimicking the style of "yoof" cartoons, it offers a bundle of downloads, including a pack of "climate crime cards", urging its recruits to spy on families, friends and relatives, inviting each of them to build up a "climate crime case file" in order to help them ensure their putative criminals do not "commit those crimes again (or else)!"Quite what the "or else!" should be is not specified, but since the "climate cops" are being encouraged to keep detailed written...

[Truthseeker Profile]

THE TIMES OF ENGLAND AS DONE THIS I WONDER WHY .


Inside the cheating world of Npower’s rogue sales teams
Customers conned by fictitious tariff figuresDaniel Foggo and Claire Newell
THE salesman lowered his voice conspiratorially and shot a glance around to check nobody was listening. Aneel Khan, a 25-year-old acting manager, wanted a private word with the young female recruit before him.

He clearly felt the recruit, fresh from a training course on door-to-door selling techniques, needed to be told how to approach customers in the real world outside the classroom.

Leaning closer, he said: “Okay, two things: whatever I’m doing here you don’t have to discuss with anyone else, because if you’re going to be very honest we can’t sell anything.”

Without waiting for this to sink in, he went on quickly. He said the recruit must get residents to sign contracts agreeing to change their supplier of gas and electricity using whatever means necessary.

Related Links
Exposed: energy giant cheats its customers
“You have to tell them a few things which we aren’t really offering, but after signing it you’ll have to tell them everything. If I’m going to say [the truth] before signing it, nobody will [be] going to sign it.”

Khan cut a distinctive figure, his bright red shirt standing out against the grey tower blocks in the south London street. The shirt is the uniform of Npower, one of Britain’s biggest ener gy companies, which has been growing at a rate of more than 450 customers a day.

Much of the expansion is down to the efforts of people like him. Over the course of the next few hours and days, he proceeded to show exactly how he had achieved his position within the company: by relentlessly lying to everyone to whom he was selling. Nor was Khan the only such salesperson. Almost every Npower sales rep the newly recruited woman came into contact with behaved in a similar fashion.

Unfortunately for them, the new female recruit was an undercover reporter for The Sunday Times. She had joined Npower a week earlier to uncover the methods used by a company that has more than 6m customers.

The reporter had good reason to investigate. While Npower increased its profits from £403m to £571m last year, the company is also developing an unfortunate reputation.

“Npower is the worst performer in so many categories,” said Adam Scorer, campaigns manager for Energywatch, the consumer watchdog. “It comes bottom for disconnecting customers, for not helping poorer customers and for discrepancies between tariffs.”

Perhaps most worrying of all, Npower has the worst record when it comes to complaints about mis-selling on the doorstep. In the past five months Energywatch has been contacted by 429 people complaining about Npower’s direct selling techniques. The figure was two-thirds more than the number of complaints for the next highest company.

Because of the complicated system by which such complaints are processed, only a small percentage have been officially logged as “formal complaints”. The others are referred back to the company. Scorer believes, however, “the number of people who actually call us is just the tip of the iceberg”.

Mis-selling by utility companies is not a new phenomenon, but for years it has been considered, by the industry at least, a problem of the past.

It first emerged after the deregulation of the energy supplying industry in the late 1990s. In the resulting climate of fierce competition a number of companies’ salespeople misled customers as to their products and even their identities.

Three years after The Sunday Times first exposed the issue in 2000, a clamour for action resulted in a code of practice for face-to-face marketing being brought in by the Association of Energy Suppliers.

The code required, among other things, salespeople always to identify themselves clearly to potential customers and to explain what they were offering. They also “must not exploit a person’s inexperience, vulnerability, credulity or loyalties”, it says. Giving out misleading information over potential savings is particularly to be avoided.

Last year 5m customers in Britain were persuaded to change supplier, the highest figure since 2002, which was heralded by Ofgem, an industry regulator, as evidence of market forces working well. However, a study by the University of East Anglia found a third of those changing were now actually worse off as a result.

At the same time, complaints about Npower mis-selling to customers have rocketed. Since August last year it has consistently topped the Energywatch mis-selling league.

So what was the truth behind the new wave of mis-selling, and is it true that Npower’s sales staff are not to be trusted?

The reporter successfully applied to join the company as a sales adviser shortly before Easter. After a couple of interviews she was offered a position and told that her basic salary would be £11,000 a year, with commission on top.

This would accrue by signing up householders to become new customers. Depending on which utility and which precise package they sign for, an Npower sales rep could earn up to £134 for each customer. Their target was 40 sales a week.

Andy Warner, head of Npower’s sales teams in London, later gave a motivational talk in which he made it clear what was expected. “I would like it that you go out there, you work a few days, you don’t try particularly hard, you go and have a nice life and you earn £50,000 a year while you’re doing it . . . go out there, get on with it, do it and earn a fortune for all of us.”

First there was the training course, in which the reporter was taught to work in line with the code of conduct.

However, as soon as she was sent out into the streets of London to accompany a more experienced Npower salesperson, much of the training she had received was in effect thrown out of the window.

She was told to “shadow” Steve Dempster, an award-winning and highly successful Npower salesman. One of the first things he said was: “What you hear me say to customers doesn’t go anywhere, right?”

Dempster, who boasted that he earned £70,000 a year from working only two hours a day, three days a week, evidently did not want his sales secrets to get into the wrong hands.

The burly salesman then proceeded to demonstrate his standard doorstep “pitch” on residents in Hackney, east London.

“Hello, my love, electric board . . . I’m from the electric board. Just to let you know: we’ve taken over Tilbury and Dartford power stations.”

This was often accompanied by the phrase: “I’m not a salesman, all right, I’m not trying to sell you nothing.” Only occasionally did he mention that he was working for Npower, although he usually wore the red company uniform and, as with all salespeople, a name badge around his neck with Npower’s logo.

However, not only was Dempster very much a salesman but it was entirely misleading to suggest that Npower, let alone the “electric board”, had taken over either Tilbury or Dartford power stations. Tilbury and Dartford (its correct name is Littlebrook) had been owned by Npower since inheriting them from the old Central Electricity Generating Board, a spokeswoman confirmed last week.

Having established the urgent nature of the pretext for his visit, Dempster then told each customer that they were paying too much money.

He randomly chose figures to throw at them. Since Npower owned the local power stations, the customers, who were nearly all using “prepaid” meter keycards topped up with cash at high street outlets, could save by signing with them, he said.

“We’ve sold that to your supplier for £7, and they sell it to you for £10,” he said, and then went on to imply they could sell it to householders for wholesale prices. “What we’re going to do is . . . send you a new key, and you’re going to put £7 on the key, in the future, and that will give you £10worth of kilowatts.” On another occasion Dempster said the “supplier” bought the electricity for £8.

However, Energywatch figures show that Npower is in fact the most expensive supplier of electricity on prepaid meters. An average annual bill for such a customer would be £440. The cheapest, E.on, is £393.

After signing up a few new customers, Dempster showed that it was not only the householders who were being deluded. “Every single word I’m saying is true,” he said when asked about his pitch. “That’s why they can’t get me.” The next day, the reporter was tasked with accompanying Khan on his rounds. After his opening spiel, Khan showed that he was even less bothered about adhering to the truth than Dempster.

He also freely told householders in the Oval, south London, that he was from “the electricity board” but frequently went a step further and insisted this meant that his company owned all the others.

“We’re coming from the electricity board, the board who controls all the companies, British Gas, EDF and Npower, right?” he told one customer before giving him entirely fictitious figures about how much money he would save if he signed up.

“Yeah, but then I’ll be with Npower, innit?” said the woman, reading Khan’s name badge.

“No, the thing is you’re already with us, right?” said Khan.

“How am I already with you? I’m on British Gas,” came the reply. “Because we are from the electricity board and British Gas work for us,” said Khan.

Khan threw varying and incorrect “tariffs” at customers, claiming they were on the wrong one and he would change it and save them hundreds of pounds.

“Are you trying to tell me I must join another company?” asked one would-be customer. Khan replied: “You’re not going to join any other company.”

Asked what the “catch” was, Khan said there was none. “We’re just trying to save you money, simple as that,” he said.

In conversations with the reporter Khan confessed he knew what was he was doing was “bad” and not to tell anyone that he made up figures. He made it clear that whether or not the customer was saving money was irrelevant. “When they use it [the gas or electricity] for one month, like eight weeks, seven weeks, we’re gonna get the commission. After that, if they cancel it, who cares?”

Later the reporter watched Rekhi Dey, a former sales rep for British Gas, who had recently switched to Npower, deceive a homeowner on her doorstep by telling her that if she switched suppliers she would no longer have to pay a standing charge and her prices would be fixed for the next three years.

In fact, the 2011 price freeze is available only to customers paying by direct debit, which the householder, Dainora Tribaldoviele, a Lithuanian, was not doing. Dey later admitted to the undercover reporter that she had lied. She said: “We have standing charges . . . don’t worry about it. You could see that she was not able to speak good English . . . so you can just say there is no standing charges.”

She also admitted lying about the price freeze and said if the customer had been English, she might have lied, but would not have left any literature behind so that nobody could read the small print afterwards and then make a complaint.

Npower operates a two-tier complaints procedure. Minor indiscretions, which a spokesman said might be “entering someone’s house with muddy feet”, would result in a penalty point against the salesperson.

After accruing five points, the salesman would be subjected to some form of discipline, which might see them dismissed, or just “retrained”. Steve Conrad, a manager, told the undercover reporter that this process could last as little as 10 minutes. More serious offences would garner instant five-point penalties.

Richard Frost, an Npower spokesman, who insisted that the overall level of complaints against the company was “quite modest”, said the Sunday Times allegations would constitute five-point penalties. “We are concerned, this doesn’t happen every day of the week and we will basically shut down that sales team while we conduct a full investigation,” he said.

I feel betrayed, I was assured of saving money but my bill rose from £36 to £99 a month

Dainora Tribaldoviele was tricked into switching to Npower by the saleswoman Rekhi Dey last week.

Tribaldoviele, whose family live in Hounslow, west London, was seen as a soft target by Dey because she is from Lithuania and “not able to speak good English”.

Dey claimed she would not have to pay a standing charge for electricity if she swapped to an Npower meter keycard. This was untrue, as Dey later admitted to an undercover reporter. Dey also said prices would be frozen until 2011, but deliberately failed to mention that this applied only to direct debit payers, an option not even offered to Tribaldoviele.

Tribaldoviele said this weekend she would now cancel the contract: “The saleswoman was very confident and talking very quickly. I am not the sort to close the door on someone. That was my mistake.”

Morne Van Rensburg, 30, from south London, was a victim of Aneel Khan’s deceitful sales patter: “I got the drift he was from British Gas, because that is who I am with now . . . When I signed the forms I could see it said Npower and I said to him, who do you work for? But he blanked the question.”

The reporter recorded Khan telling Rensburg he was not switching his supplier as all the companies are part of the “electricity board”. Rensburg said this weekend he had not realised that Khan had indeed switched him to Npower: “I said to him, I don’t want to change supplier. He said, you don’t have to.”

Sharon St Claire from Cardiff changed to Npower last year after a visit from a “charming” salesman. But despite his assurances of saving her money, her £36-a-month bill rose to £99 two months ago. “How it can more than double is beyond me. I feel betrayed by Npower,” she said.

Rip-off inquiry

Andrew Duff, chief executive of RWE Npower, is having a good year. In February his company reported record profits of £571m, the equivalent of £83 per customer and a 41% rise.

His own earnings are also looking healthy. In 2006, the most recent figures available, Duff earned a salary of £780,435, boosted by an extra £20,000 for his pension pot and an undisclosed bonus.

While he has enjoyed a 15% pay rise, it is a very different story for his 6.8m customers. In January he raised average electricity prices by 12.7% and gas prices by 17.2%.

Within a month, four of the “big six” energy companies followed with almost identical rises. Many customers viewed the timing with suspicion - and with some justification.

The Sunday Times found that the “big six” had raised prices and reaped record profits by stifling competition. Industry insiders allege that smaller rivals were denied fair access to their power.

The allegations forced Ofgem, the regulator, to launch an investigation into the market. The companies will face further scrutiny in parliament from the business, enterprise and regulatory reform committee which will examine whether consumers are being ripped off.
THE NEW WAY TO TAKE YOUR MONEY CONTROLLED THIEFT .

[Tontodc Profile Website]

"Criticism of climate change is to criminalise"
http://translate.google.com/translate?u ... l=fi&tl=en

Original site of the news is in finnish, i know google translate isn´t the best, if you have questions about it, i can translate some of it here. Or i hope someone got link to english version of this?

I personally believe that global warming is 90% HOAX, and that 10% has something to do with the 2012.

[Truthseeker Profile]

H.A.A.R.P.

It's not only greenhouse gas emissions: Washington's new world order weapons
have the ability to trigger climate change.

By Michel Chossudovsky - Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa and TFF associate, author of The Globalization of Poverty, second edition, Common Courage Press

The important debate on global warming under UN auspices provides but a partial picture of climate change; in addition to the devastating impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the ozone layer, the World's climate can now be
modified as part of a new generation of sophisticated "non-lethal weapons." Both the Americans and the Russians have developed capabilities to manipulate the World's climate.

In the US, the technology is being perfected under the High-frequency Active Aural Research Program (HAARP) as part of the ("Star Wars") Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI). Recent scientific evidence suggests that HAARP is fully operational and has the ability of potentially triggering floods, droughts, hurricanes and earthquakes.

HAARP IS A MASS DESTRUCTIVE WEAPON - NOT PART OF ANY NEGOTIATIONS

From a military standpoint, HAARP is a weapon of mass destruction. Potentially, it constitutes an instrument of conquest capable of selectively destabilising agricultural and ecological systems of entire regions.

While there is no evidence that this deadly technology has been used, surely the United Nations should be addressing the issue of "environmental warfare" alongside the debate on the climatic impacts of greenhouse gases.

Despite a vast body of scientific knowledge, the issue of deliberate climatic manipulations for military use has never been explicitly part of the UN agenda on climate change. Neither the official delegations nor the environmental action groups participating in the Hague Conference on Climate Change (CO6) (November 2000) have raised the broad issue of "weather warfare" or "environmental modification techniques (ENMOD)" as relevant to an understanding of climate change.

The clash between official negotiators, environmentalists and American business lobbies has centered on Washington's outright refusal to abide by commitments on carbon dioxide reduction targets under the 1997 Kyoto protocol.(1) The impacts of military technologies on the World's climate are not an object of discussion or concern. Narrowly confined to greenhouse gases, the ongoing debate on climate change serves Washington's strategic and defense objectives.

"WEATHER WARFARE"

World renowned scientist Dr. Rosalie Bertell confirms that "US military scientists are working on weather systems as a potential weapon. The methods include
the enhancing of storms and the diverting of vapor rivers in the Earth's atmosphere to produce targeted droughts or floods."(2)

Already in the 1970s, former National Security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski had foreseen in his book "Between Two Ages" that:

"Technology will make available, to the leaders of major nations, techniques for conducting secret warfare, of which only a bare minimum of the security forces need be appraised... Techniques of weather modification could be employed to produce prolonged periods of drought or storm. "

Marc Filterman, a former French military officer, outlines several types of "unconventional weapons" using radio frequencies. He refers to "weather war," indicating that the U.S. and the Soviet Union had already "mastered the know-how needed to unleash sudden climate changes (hurricanes, drought) in the early 1980s." (3) These technologies make it "possible to trigger atmospheric disturbances by using Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) radar [waves]." (4)

A simulation study of future defense "scenarios" commissioned for the US Air Force calls for: "US aerospace forces to 'own the weather' by capitalizing on emerging technologies and focusing development of those technologies to war-fighting applications." From enhancing friendly operations or disrupting those of the enemy via small-scale tailoring of natural weather patterns to complete dominance of global communications and counterspace control, weather-modification offers the war fighter a wide-range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary. In the United States, weather-modification will likely become a part of national security policy with both domestic and international applications. Our government will pursue such a policy, depending on its interests, at various levels. (5)

THE HIGH-FREQUENCY ACTIVE AURAL RESEARCH PROGRAM - HAARP

The High-Frequency Active Aural Research Program (HAARP) based in Gokoma Alaska-jointly managed by the US Air Force and the US Navy-is part of a new generation of sophisticated weaponry under the US Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). Operated by the Air Force Research Laboratory's Space Vehicles Directorate, HAARP constitutes a system of powerful antennas capable of creating "controlled local modifications of the ionosphere".

Scientist Dr. Nicholas Begich-actively involved in the public campaign against HAARP-describes HAARP as: "A super-powerful radiowave-beaming technology that lifts areas of the ionosphere (upper layer of the atmosphere) by focusing a beam and heating those areas. Electromagnetic waves then bounce back onto earth and penetrate everything-living and dead." (6)

Dr. Rosalie Bertell depicts HAARP as "a gigantic heater that can cause major disruption in the ionosphere, creating not just holes, but long incisions in the protective layer that keeps deadly radiation from bombarding the planet." (7)

MISLEADING PUBLIC OPINION

HAARP has been presented to public opinion as a program of scientific and academic research. US military documents seem to suggest, however, that HAARP's main objective is to "exploit the ionosphere for Department of Defense purposes." (8) Without explicitly referring to the HAARP program, a US Air Force study points to the use of "induced ionospheric modifications" as a means of altering weather patterns as well as disrupting enemy communications and radar.(9)

According to Dr. Rosalie Bertell, HAARP is part of a integrated weapons' system, which has potentially devastating environmental consequences: "It is related to fifty years of intensive and increasingly destructive programs to understand and control the upper atmosphere. It would be rash not to associate HAARP with the space laboratory construction which is separately being planned by the United States. HAARP is an integral part of a long history of space research and development of a deliberate military nature.

The military implications of combining these projects is alarming. The ability of the HAARP / Spacelab/ rocket combination to deliver very large amount of energy, comparable to a nuclear bomb, anywhere on earth via laser and particle beams, are frightening. The project is likely to be "sold" to the public as a space shield against incoming weapons, or, for the more gullible, a device for repairing the ozone layer. (10)

In addition to weather manipulation, HAARP has a number of related uses: "HAARP could contribute to climate change by intensively bombarding the atmosphere with high-frequency rays. Returning low-frequency waves at high intensity could also affect people's brains, and effects on tectonic movements cannot be ruled out. (11).

More generally, HAARP has the ability of modifying the World's electro-magnetic field. It is part of an arsenal of "electronic weapons" which US military researchers consider a "gentler and kinder warfare". (12)

WEAPONS OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER

HAARP is part of the weapons arsenal of the New World Order under the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). From military command points in the US, entire national economies could potentially be destabilized through climatic manipulations. More importantly, the latter can be implemented without the knowledge of the enemy, at minimal cost and without engaging military personnel and equipment as in a conventional war. The use of HAARP-if it were to be applied-could have potentially devastating impacts on the World's climate.

Responding to US economic and strategic interests, it could be used to selectively modify climate in different parts of the World resulting in the destabilization of agricultural and ecological systems. It is also worth noting that the US Department of Defense has allocated substantial resources to the development of intelligence and monitoring systems on weather changes. NASA and the Department of Defense's National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) are working on "imagery for studies of flooding, erosion, land-slide hazards, earthquakes, ecological zones, weather forecasts, and climate change" with data relayed from satellites. (13)

POLICY INERTIA OF THE UNITED NATIONS

According to the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) signed at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro:

"States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction." (14).

It is also worth recalling that an international Convention ratified by the UN General Assembly in 1997 bans "military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects." (15) Both the US and the Soviet Union were signatories to the Convention. The Convention defines "environmental modification techniques" as referring to any technique for changing-through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes-the dynamics, composition or structure of the earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere or of outer space." (16) Why then did the UN-disregarding the 1977 ENMOD Convention as well as its own charter-decide to exclude from its agenda climatic changes resulting from military programs?

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ACKNOWLEDGES IMPACT OF HAARP

In February 1998, responding to a report of Mrs. Maj. Britt Theorin-Swedish MEP and longtime peace advocate--, the European Parliament's Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defense Policy held public hearings in Brussels on the HAARP program.(17) The Committee's "Motion for Resolution" submitted to the European Parliament: "Considers HAARP by virtue of its far-reaching impact on the environment to be a global concern and calls for its legal, ecological and ethical implications to be examined by an international independent body; [the Committee] regrets the repeated refusal of the United States Administration to give evidence to the public hearing into the environmental and public risks [of&] the HAARP program." (18.)

The Committee's request to draw up a "Green Paper" on "the environmental impacts of military activities", however, was casually dismissed on the grounds that the European Commission lacks the required jurisdiction to delve into "the links between environment and defense". (19) Brussels was anxious to avoid a showdown with Washington.

FULLY OPERATIONAL

While there is no concrete evidence of HAARP having been used, scientific findings suggest that it is at present fully operational. What this means is that HAARP could potentially be applied by the US military to selectively modify the climate of an "unfriendly nation" or "rogue state" with a view to destabilizing its national economy. Agricultural systems in both developed and developing countries are already in crisis as a result of New World Order policies including market deregulation, commodity dumping, etc. Amply documented, IMF and World Bank "economic medicine" imposed on the Third World and the countries of the former Soviet block has largely contributed to the destabilization of domestic agriculture. In turn, the provisions of the World Trade Organization (WTO) have supported the interests of a handful of Western agri-biotech conglomerates in their quest to impose genetically modified (GMO) seeds on farmers throughout the World.

It is important to understand the linkage between the economic, strategic and military processes of the New World Order. In the above context, climatic manipulations under the HAARP program (whether accidental or deliberate) would inevitably exacerbate these changes by weakening national economies, destroying infrastructure and potentially triggering the bankruptcy of farmers over vast areas. Surely national governments and the United Nations should address
the possible consequences of HAARP and other "non-lethal weapons" on climate change.

NOTES

1. The latter calls for nations to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions by an average of 5.2 percent to become effective
between 2008 and 2012. See Background of Kyoto Protocol at
http://www.globalwarming.net/gw11.html.

2. The Times, London, 23 November 2000.

3. Intelligence Newsletter, December 16, 1999.

4. Ibid.

5. Air University of the US Air Force, AF 2025 Final
Report, http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/ (emphasis added).

6. Nicholas Begich and Jeane Manning, The Military's
Pandora's Box, Earthpulse Press,
http://www.xyz.net/~nohaarp/earthlight.html. See also the
HAARP home page at http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/).

7. See Briarpatch, January, 2000. (emphasis added).

8. Quoted in Begich and Manning, op cit.

9. Air University, op cit.

10. Rosalie Bertell, Background of the HAARP Program, 5
November, 1996,
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/env ... eapons.htm

11. Begich and Manning, op cit.

12. Don Herskovitz, Killing Them Softly, Journal of
Electronic Defense, August 1993. (emphasis added). According
to Herskovitz, "electronic warfare" is defined by the US
Department of Defense as "military action involving the use
of electromagnetic energyƒ" The Journal of Electronic
Defense at http://www.jedefense.com/ has published a range
of articles on the application of electronic and
electromagnetic military technologies.

13. Military Space, 6 December, 1999.

14. UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, New York,
1992. See complete text at
http://www.unfccc.de/resource/conv/conv_002.html, (emphasis
added).

15. See Associated Press, 18 May 1977.

16. Environmental Modification Ban Faithfully Observed,
States Parties Declare, UN Chronicle, July, 1984, Vol. 21,
p. 27.

17. European Report, 7 February 1998.

18. European Parliament, Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Security and Defense Policy, Brussels, doc. no. A4-0005/99,
14 January 1999.

19. EU Lacks Jurisdiction to Trace Links Between
Environment and Defense, European Report, 3 February
1999.

Copyright by Michel Chossudovsky, Ottawa, November, 2000.

All rights reserved.

áPermission is granted to post this text on non-commercial community internet sites, provided the essay remains intact and the copyright note is displayed. To publish this text in printed and/or other forms contact the author at chossudovsky@videotron.ca, fax: 1-514-4256224.

Michel Chossudovsky
Department of Economics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, K1N6N5