Brutalism på Nya Torget i Norrköping

nya torget

Botryggs nybyggnadsplaner vid Nya Torget

När jag fick reda på att delar av Nya Torget i Norrköping skulle bebyggas för att göra torget mer gemytligt blev jag först positivt inställd. Den nya bebyggelsen skulle dessutom skymma det anskrämliga äldreboendet Generalen som har förfulat torget med sina ondskefulla vibbar sedan 1979. Att Botrygg hade fått uppdraget att bygga kändes också betryggande med tanke på att de har haft förhållandevis god smak i sina val av arkitekter. Deras senaste bygge vid Norra Promenaden visar en viss hänsyn till den gamla staden. Chocken blev därför stor när jag fick se skisserna på det som är tänkt att pryda torget och ”skapa gemyt”. Tre fyrkantiga lådor som andas gamla Östberlin och en total avsaknad av fantasi och mänsklighet. Det tycks som att det bara är en gammal ritning från 1972 som har dammats av.

generalen

Äldreboendet Generalen från 1979

Den ogästvänliga Generalen ska döljas med ett ännu fulare hus! I den chock som uppstod hörde jag mig av till Botrygg för att meddela mitt missnöje. Deras VD tyckte det var tråkigt att jag inte uppskattade det arkitektoniska uttrycket och meddelade samtidigt att utformningen var kommunens val och att Botrygg bara skulle uppföra huset. På stadsbyggnadskontorets sida hittade jag skisserna där visionen beskrevs som att: ”Nya Torget ska utvecklas från att vara ett bortglömt underutnyttjat torg till att bli en vacker och livfull plats med uteserveringar och torghandel.

Jag betvivlar att så kommer att bli fallet när den arkitektoniska kvaliteten på nybyggnationen är undermålig och inte visar den minsta respekt för torgets äldre bebyggelse. Istället är det brutalmodernismens lådor som det tas ”inspiration från”. Det påminner om ett förortscentrum från miljonprogrammet. Jag vill samtidigt betona att det säkerligen finns människor som uppskattar det formspråket. Jag undrar dock hur många de är sett till stadens befolkning och funderar över vilka hus som valts ut om stadens invånare själva hade fått välja. Jag gissar att det hade förespråkats ett mjukare formspråk och en anknytning till den traditionella staden. När befolkningen tillfrågades om vad som skulle byggas på Strömsholmen så blev folkets val att bygga upp den gamla Jugendrestaurangen (som brann ned på 30-talet). De styrande lyssnade dock inte. Det var uppenbarligen ”fel” val. Istället är dessa val förbehållna en liten elit som anser sig veta bättre än de som bor, arbetar och lever i staden. Det är precis som det var under funktionalismens tidevarv när vetenskapligt rationella argument körde över folkets röst. Jag hade önskat att Sverige hade anträtt den nya tyska vägen med ett återskapande av den gamla och levande staden istället för den superrationella med hårdhänt planering från ovan. I städer som Frankfurt rivs de gamla modernistiska kuberna för att ge plats åt det vackra som fanns där innan andra världskrigets bombmattor pulvriserade stadskärnorna. I Sverige tog vi då efter den tyska vägen men massakrerade städerna på egen hand.

Återuppbyggda kulturmiljöer i Frankfurt am Main.

Återuppbyggda kulturmiljöer i Frankfurt am Main.

Nu behöver vi skicka våra stadsbyggnadsansvariga och byggherrar för att få inspiration av det som sker på kontinenten. För byggbolagen vore det en veritabel guldgruva att få återskapa det gamla uttrycket. Det finns sargade miljöer med misslyckade stadsomdaningar i hela landet att åtgärda. Tiden är mogen för det. Säg nej till fler lådor och låt oss som bor i städerna bestämma över innehåll och gestaltning. I dagarna pågår utställningen Urban Vision på Visualiseringscentrum i Norrköping. Där ska representanter från Stadsbyggnadskontoret finnas på plats och berätta om det som är på gång. Det pratas om en dialog om stadens rum. Jag ska ge dem en chans och berätta om mina visioner. Är dialogen ett äkta utbyte eller är det bara fernissa som ska förespegla en demokratisk process?

Nästa post om arkitektur kommer att behandla planerna för fängelseområdet i Norrköping. Ytterligare ett svek mot gamla kulturvärden och miljöer.

Hans Joachim Schellnhuber’s dream of a world government and geocybernetic control.

Hans Joachim Schellnhuber

Hans Joachim Schellnhuber

“While the borders of nation states have become almost irrelevant to global economic players (for instance) after the end of the Cold War, human and natural rights are still confined and dominated by thousands of frontiers. This situation can only be overcome by giving up a good deal of national sovereignty and establishing a true regime of global governance. As a prerequisite, the rather symbolic parts and pieces of the UN system must be transformed into powerful supra-national institutions: allons corriger le futur!” (Hans Joachim Schellnhuber)

Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber is one of the top players within the faction of climate research viewing man as responsible for climate changes. He currently leads the Potsdam Institute in Berlin and has served as an advisor to the EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso and German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Schellnhuber has been given wide powers and is involved in numerous contexts. In addition to his advisory role to the political elite, he has been part of the World Economic Forum Global Agenda Council on Climate Change, the European Climate Foundation and editor of several scientific journals. Along with David Wasdell and others from the British Meridian Programme, he developed the ideas of ”Tipping Points” in the climate (Apollo Gaia Project), which predicted that small temperature increases could lead to disastrous consequences, for example by the tundra thawing and releasing large amounts of methane gas. Since then he has been involved in the World Bank report, Turn Down the Heat – Why a 4°C Warmer World Must be Avoided, which discussed the consequences of a mean global warming of 4 degrees Celsius.

Schellnhuber, however, was not only an advocate for the Tipping Points theory, but he also proposes large-scale solutions to the climate problem. This is, as the opening quotation illustrates, of ideas of a World Government and the associated global governance of environment and development. This is also illustrated by other statements by Schellnhuber. In order to curb the “climate crisis” he wants to establish a Constitution for the planet based on the UN Charter, a Global Council, and a Planetary Court. He sees this as a sophisticated version of the idea of a World Government. He also suggests that a number of national parliamentarians should be replaced by Global Ombudsmen. These should speak for future generations and stand as a counterweight to national interests. This has been criticized for being undemocratic practices. For, who chooses the ombudsmen?

Geocybernetic control

Geocybernetic control

How, then, shall this global governance be conducted? Schellnhuber referred in an article from 1998 to something he calls Geocybernetics. This is a form of geoengineering and is a great plan to ”create an acceptable and long-term interacting evolution (Coevolution) between nature and humanity.” The article describes that when the modeling of the ecosphere is complete, there will be a variety of sophisticated methods available for global control of Environment and Development.

This is not just about developing methods for controlling soil systems and hubris-reeking ideas about, for example, preventing future ice ages by pumping small amounts of ”designer gases” into the atmosphere in order to balance the system, but also about human aspects. How many people can the ecosphere support? How should mankind best be distributed in urban and rural areas? One example of geocybernetic fantasies about the management of people is FuturICT, funded by EU and George Soros. That is, however, a separate post and will be addressed later.

Implementing these plans requires, according to Schellnhuber, that nations give up large parts of their sovereignty. He refers to borders now being irrelevant to the global economic players. It is this global elite which Schellnhuber ultimately works for, despite his talk of a democratic society which protects the interests of the majority rather than of the rich minority. In actual fact, this rich minority have been highly involved in the whole process from the beginning. This is done by funding radical movements which then demand the very change the elite wants to achieve. Schellnhuber himself has been involved in the European Climate Foundation, created by Big Business, which funds numerous environmental organisations (and even creates new ones) in order to implement the Foundation’s long-term goals.

Today, the concepts have been developed even further. The Potsdam Institute is currently working closely with other institutions in a network by the name Planetary Boundaries Research Network. Here Johan Rockström and Stockholm Resilience Centre play important roles. Through Rockström nine planetary boundaries which may not to be transgressed were identified in 2008. It was claimed that if they were, global disasters may ensue such as drought, sea level rises and pandemics. Schellnhuber was one of the signatories to the article where the results were presented and then published in Nature. It all also touches on the concept which David Wasdell at Meridian Programme developed before the G8 summit in Glenaegles 2005. The problems could not be solved with the current system but required stronger global institutions. Getting support for this eventually required more alarming warnings than what the IPCC could deliver. This is also something which Anders Wijkman and the Club of Rome have long since embraced and towards which the World Bank report came as if to order.

The global solutions were discussed at the conference Planet Under Pressure 2012 which was organized prior to the UN environmental conference Rio +20. An article authored by the Chairman of the Earth System Governance Project, Frank Biermann, (and 31 other signatories) with suggestions for changes in global governance was presented at the same time. The article stated that ”Human societies must now change course and be steered away from the critical ‘Tipping Points’ in the Earth system that may lead to a rapid and irreversible change. This requires a fundamental reorientation and restructuring of national and international institutions towards a more efficient governance and planetary stewardship of the Earth system.”

Biermann and Schellnhuber had ten years earlier written a number of articles together about global environmental governance and both have been part of the German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU), a scientific committee created by the German Government in connection with the Rio Summit in 1992. At the same time PIK became active.  Both initiatives are closely interlinked with the objectives of Agenda 21, which was decided in Rio. WBGU publishes a flagship report entitled ”World in Transition” and Schellnhuber is one of the central Representatives since its inception. The title of the report indicates the basis of what it is about. Transforming the world.

Potsdam Institutet, WBGU and Schellnhuber were also involved in the conference, The Great Transformation – Climate Change as Cultural Change, in Essen 2009 together with Mercator Schtiftung and the Institute of Advanced Study. During this conference climate change as cultural change was discussed. This meant changes in people’s attitudes and the formation of a new participation culture. One of the sessions was about the future political direction and whether democracy had to be put aside in order to come deal with the ”climate crisis”.

Although Schellnhuber talks about creating a global democratic society, the thoughts that democratic institutions are not able to make the rapid decisions ‘required’ keeps being expressed. This also goes back to the Club of Rome ideas in books like The First Global Revolution. Individual nations’ interests are regarded as a problem. This mentioned by Schellnhuber in the WGBUs report from 2011 where a master plan for ”The Great Transformation” was presented. In this report a new political architecture, with a more authoritarian system of global governance that could oversee the plan, was called for.

”If we venture far beyond the 2 degrees guardrail, towards the 4 degrees line, the risk of crossing tipping points rises sharply. The only way to avoid this is to break the business-as-usual pattern of production and consumption.” (Hans Joachim Schellnhuber)

In order to implement the plans a rhetoric of threats is used, where we are given two options by ”the enlightened”. One is to continue with business-as-usual, and be led to out destruction in a fragmented world of independent nations, while the second option is the path to the ”sustainable paradise”, completed and implemented by a World Government that controls us from the geocybernetic control room.

What discussions are about is more what form this should take. How much muscle and what mandate should this global authority possess? Is it Thomas Hobbes’ ‘Leviathan’ that is needed? It is only to a very small degree about a genuine concern for climate change and the global weather system and more about how to create geocybernetic control of the climate. Ultimately, this is a work that has been going on since the end of World War II when the United Nations was created. The goal has been to gradually expand the organization and give it more power (the ideas for this utopia is described e.g.in Oliver Reiser’s The World Sensorium from 1946). It would be desirable if this was debated openly instead of being hidden behind cheap threat rhetoric where people are intimidated into submission. Now the wolves hide in the flock of sheep and play on people’s emotions and concerns for the future. Schellnhuber is then one of many false prophets blowing the doomsday trumpet.

Associations of Hans Joachim Schellnhuber:

PIK – Potsdam
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
University of East Anglia
External Professor at the Santa Fe Institute.
Commander of the Order of the British Empire
Max Planck Society
US National Academy of Sciences
Geological Society of London
International Research Society Sigma Xi
International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP)
German Advisory Council on Global Change
Chair of the Global Change Advisory Group for the 6th Framework Programme of the European Commission
Member of the Environment Steering Panel of the European Academies Science Advisory Council, EASAC
World Economic Forum Global Agenda Council on Climate Change
Grantham Research Institute Advisory Board
Member of the High-Level Expert Group on Energy & Climate Change advising J.M. Barroso, President of the European Commission.
European Climate Foundation (chair)
Chatham House
Aspen
GEA IIASA
Global Contract based on Climate JusticeMember of the Board of the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI)
Member of the Committee on Scientific Planning & Review of the International Council for Science (ICSU)
Member of the Editorial Boards of the scientific journals “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences” (PNAS), “Climatic Change”, “Climate Policy”, “Integrated Assessment”, “Systems Analysis, Modelling, Simulation”, and “Europe’s World”
Member of the Joint Advisory Board on Climate Change Research at Imperial College and LSE (Grantham Institute)

GLOBE International – The Political Tool of the Global Power Elite

Globe-International

How are political decisions made and anchored in the European Union? Whose interests are really being represented when we elect members of the European Parliament, and who profits from those decisions? The EU as an organisation is complex which is difficult to get an overview of. A plethora of lobbying organisations and NGOs operate in the background.

When I analysed EU politics I made unexpected discoveries about how the political game really works at this level. One was how NGOs have been completely incorporated into the political apparatus and largely just echo what the EU Commission itself wishes to implement. This is done through mechanisms of funding where the NGOs completely lack independence and undertake to comply with the Commission’s objectives in order to obtain grants. This has resulted in a host of new professional lobbyist groups while others have abandoned their  earlier, more deserving missions, to seeking out the problem areas which can provide the greatest economic contribution to them. The groups who really want to stand up for their independence and go their own way instead become marginalised.

Another ingenious design to implement a desired policy are phenomena such as the cross-parliamentary organisation GLOBE International. These have had a great influence over the EU’s energy and environmental policies by their members (within the subdivision GLOBE EU) being responsible in the EU Parliament for a number of directives in these areas.

“GLOBE EU members played a prominent role in all the dossiers included in the Package, representing the EP as rapporteurs or shadow rapporteurs in negotiations with the Council and the Commission. (GLOBE EU and Climate Change 2005/2009)

A substantial portion of the MEPs who have been working with environmental and energy issues have also been members of GLOBE. In this way the organisation and their clients have had a major influence on the climate and energy policies of the EU Parliament. GLOBE was deeply involved in the EU’s comprehensive climate and energy package. GLOBE [also] advocated for the ban of the incandescent lightbulb (which was replaced by products which in some cases were counterproductive from an environmental standpoint). This ban was also supported by green GNOs such as Greenpeace.

Besides being represented in the EU Parliament, GLOBE also has connections to a number of parliaments across the world, including the Swedish, Russian, Chinese and Indian. Unlike other similar organisations, it is not registered as a cross-political group in the EU. At GLOBE politicians who outwardly represent a number of different political parties and ideologies intermingle. Via GLOBE, liberals, socialists, conservatives and green all work for the same agenda and a legitimate question is how close they are the voters who have elected them for Parliament? This development has created a political class [caste?] which, despite different party affiliations, are closer to each other than to the electoral they are meant to represent.

So who and whose interests are really behind GLOBE?

In January 2013m GLOBE International’s ”Climate Legislation Initiative” was launched, which aims to support legislators worldwide between 2013 and 2015. The process coincides with the international climate negotiations culminating with the final Climate Summit in Paris 2015. The meeting brought together 100 delegates from all over the world and took place in the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). The meeting was also attended by the head of the UN Climate Change (UNFCCC). The event was sanctioned by the British Government and the material had been prepared by the Grantham Research Institute at the London School of Economics. Funding had already been provided by Zennström Philantropies (NGO by Niklas Zennström, the founder of  Skype).

According to their website, GLOBE (Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment) was originally founded in 1989 ”by legislators from the US Congress, European Parliament, Japanese Diet and the Russian State Duma with the mission to respond to urgent environmental challenges through the development and advancement of legislation.” The initiative focused on implementing the objectives of the Brundtland Commission’s ”Our Common Future”, related to global environmental problems requiring global solutions, such as climate, ozone, acid rain and waste management.

Initially, 28 members of parliament from three global regions convened, including American senators Al Gore, John Heinz, John Kerry and Dutch socialist Hemmo Muntingh. An important organiser at this early stage was the Englishman Edward Seymour-Rouse. Although it outwardly was an American initiative, the British from the beginning played a key role through Seymour-Rouse and his powerful clients in London. It also turned out that since 2004 the headquarters are based  in London and are under British leadership.

GLOBE is basically an Anglo-American project and represent political and economic interests primarily  in Great Britain, USA and the Netherlands. In the background we find the British socialist think tank Fabian Society from whose headquaters GLOBE operated for a time.

GLOBE also receives support from the European Commission, the governments of Norway, Denmark and Germany, several UN agencies such as the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), the Global Environmental Facility and the World Bank. It also works closely with the media (through COM +) and the London School of Economics. This makes GLOBE a powerful association with friends in high places.

The organization is also related to the Club of Rome, with several of its members in its ranks, and has since the G8 meeting in Gleneagles in 2005 been invited to global summits. This coincided with climate change being brought to the forefront of the international agenda via Tony Blair. During his time as an MEP for the Christian Democrats, Club of Rome’s current chairman, Mr Wijkman, was the Chairman of GLOBE EU.

What then are the organization’s origins and agenda?

The foundation of GLOBE International comes from a futurological direction. It all started as a project that was subordinate to the American think tank ”Congressional Institute for the Future”. This think tank was founded by the futurologist and New Age guru Barbara Marx Hubbard in 1979, along with Senators Al Gore, Newt Gingrich and John Heinz. The ideology was founded on trying to predict events in the future and, based on these predictions, providing programs and policy solutions. The goal was then to be able to create the desired development and future.

Hubbard

The ideas were taken from the World Future Society and futurologists such as Alvin Toffler. A number of conferences were organized by Hubbard in the 70s where these ideas were discussed. The goal was to implement a global shift from an industrial to a post-industrial society linked to a global awareness through information technology (the Internet). The future was considered by thinkers such as Toffler to require new policy responses and the elimination of nation states. These would be dismantled and instead international organizations such as the EU and UN would begin to take over. Toffler called this ”The Third Wave”. Ideas such as these had early been promoted by, among others, HG Wells (Fabian Society) and Jesuit priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. It was a dream of a global utopian society which, according to Teilhard de Chardin, was part of the Divine Plan. Besides in GLOBE, these ideas are also reflected in the ideological basis of the closely related Club of Rome (which I will return to in future posts).

The GLOBE project was also about seeking market solutions to identified environmental problems. Among other things, an international trading of greenhouse gases, was suggested early on. This was something that GLOBE’s first President Gore could then capitalise on. He came to both warn about the problem and deliver the solution.

Globe’s organisation was conceived as an international hotbed of information and legislation for environmental experiments which could be introduced in several countries and regions simultaneously. The basic philosophy was not about GLOBE becoming yet another think tank. It was about creating a concrete instruments for action where the action plan is really being implemented.

One example of this is the think tank The Bee Group which, since 2010, gathers market interests in the EU under GLOBE’s supervision. Here GLOBE has collaborated with and received funding from large corporations such as Unilever, Holcim, Michelin and Dow. These have been able to present their problem areas, suggest policy measures and how the issue may be raised politically. In the expanded network, environmental organisations have since been funded and activated in raising awareness and support for the implementation of policy proposals. This also follows the logic and recommendations of Pieter Winsemius book ”A Thousand Shades of Green: Sustainable Strategies for Competitive Advantage” and of the Dutch state transition experiments (Transition Governance).

“The Bee Group is a forum for MEPs on the one hand and business and industry partners on the other, whose aim is to propose alternatives inspired by innovation and a long-term vision. Its purpose is not to defend any specific interests in the short-term, but to think about the future.”

First, the agenda and what is to be implemented between the main actors is determined, thereafter the voter base is influenced by the media, NGOs and activist campaigns, politicians respond to the public opinion that is emerging, and then implement the goals which were already set at the beginning. It is a conscious control of the whole process in which the players are interconnected. It is similar to systems theory ideas and cybernetics. The problem is that this goes against an order where politicians really listen to the voice of the people and what they wish to implement politically. Instead, different techniques are used for manipulating public opinion to be in line with the interests of the ruling elite.

Large corporations, which are involved, order policies that create market advantages for them. Either through regulations that disadvantage competitors or because they are at the forefront of ”green” replacement technology. This is done with promises of saving the environment and the earth from destruction and gathers public opinion which at all costs wishes to avoid such a Doomsday scenario. It is an ideal construction which outwardly appears as kindness and care for the planet. Criticism of this is then interpreted as being against the planet’s wellbeing. Who can be against sustainable development? What is sustainable, however, differ depending on who the player is. The politicians who are members of GLOBE are mostly just tools in a bigger game where they become agents of the agenda of creating the ”global dream kingdom” while working for large corporations which deliver policy solutions to identified environmental problems. The question is whether any of the people who voted them into Parliament are aware of whose interests parliamentarians are really working for.

The EU has thus become controlled by interests who work outside the purely partisan in order to implement their goals. In the EU Parliament party groupings also do not play the same role as in national parliaments. GLOBE International can be said to represent an emerging system of global governance where mainly British, American and Dutch interests are represented. This applies to those countries’ financial and political elite. Just like the name suggests, GLOBE’s influence is global and they operate on all continents. The boundaries in the global political game are ever more blurred. The foundation is futurological, with political decisions based on scenarios of a desired future. The Great Utopia.

The policy guidelines are compiled centrally from London, in collaboration with institutions such as the London School of Economics. This is done partly based on the interests of large corporations but also on the visions of a post-industrial society without nation-states. Despite its obvious major influence, GLOBE is largely unknown among the general public, which begs questions about power and legitimacy. What would the reaction be if an organization like this operated from headquarters in China, Iran, North Korea or Russia in order to exert influence on parliaments in the West?

http://www.globelegislators.org/

liu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:572917/FULLTEXT01.pdf sid. 63-67