As I have previously asserted, the current extreme weather is being driven by the HAARP network of ionospheric heaters situated in various locations all around the world. But the question many people ask – and quite rightly – is why? Why would national governments – or in reality, the elite interest groups who control national governments – allow their countries to be attacked by exotic weather weapons, given all the attendant ills that will inevitably ensue, i.e., the devastation experienced by local communities, infrastructure, the economy, etc. The answer, of course, is that said extreme weather is forcing whole communities to uproot from those habitats that the elites want to confiscate from the rest of humanity. This is otherwise known as the United Nations Agenda 21.
This is explicitly discussed in the United Nations Sustainable Development document, which anyone can find on the internet. I include below a small breakdown of the document:
In the section somewhat innocuously entitled “Demographic Dynamics” the authors discuss the impact of population growth on the environment. “The growth of world population…combined with unsustainable consumption patterns places increasingly severe stress on the life-supporting capacities of our planet…The increase in both the number and size of cities calls for greater attention to issues of local government and municipal management…Population policy should also recognise the role played by human beings in environmental and development concerns”. It is also noted, in somewhat sinister fashion, that “An assessment should be made of the implications of age structure of the population on resource demand and dependency burdens…An assessment should also be made of national population carrying capacity in the context of satisfaction of human needs and sustainable development, and special attention should also be given to critical resources, such as water and land, and environmental factors, such as ecosystem health and biodiversity”. (5.22, 5.23). The authors recommend that “National databases on demographic trends…should be built…Methodologies and instruments should be developed to identify areas where sustainability is, or may be, threatened by the environmental effects of demographic trends…”. (5.25, 5.26). (National population policy goals…should be established and implemented”. (5.31). “The capacity of the relevant United Nations organs, organizations, and bodies, international and regional intergovernmental bodies…should…be enhanced to help countries develop sustainable development policies on request”. (5.39).
In Chapter 7, entitled “Promoting Sustainable Human Settlement Development”, the authors assert that “In industrial countries, the consumption patterns of cities are severely stressing the global ecosystems” that countries should “develop and implement resettlement programmes that address the specific problems of displaced populations in their respective countries”. The programme areas covered by the chapter include improving human settlement management and promoting sustainable land use and planning management.
The authors even recommend the creation and development of new “eco cities” or “intermediate cities”. 7.18 In order to relieve pressure on large urban agglomerations of developing countries, policies and strategies should be implemented towards the development of intermediate cities which create employment opportunities for unemployed labour in the rural areas and support rural-based economic activities, although sound urban management is essential to ensure that “urban sprawl” does not expand resource degradation over an ever wider land area and increase pressures to convert open space and agricultural/buffer lands for development.
This, then, is the context in which one must locate the current extreme weather and the severe flooding afflicting many coastal areas and communities. The article below reveals how this flooding could have been easily avoided, but that the Environment Agency “came to adopt a strategy deliberately designed to allow flooding not just in Somerset but elsewhere in the country, all in the name of putting the interests of “biodiversity”, “sustainability” and wildlife habitats above those of farming and people“.
It was obviously somewhat reckless of Lord (Chris) Smith to visit the Somerset Levels on the very day that the floodwaters had risen a further three feet, whole villages were having to be abandoned and the residents had rather more on their minds than talking to the man whose agency they see as the prime cause of the disaster that has engulfed them. If there is one very large penny that has dropped since I first reported on this crisis five weeks ago, it is that this desperate mess has come about as a direct consequence of policies pursued by the Environment Agency (EA) for more than a decade, beginning with its refusal to dredge the rivers that could allow the floodwaters to escape to the sea.
But what has been emerging in recent days is another hugely important factor in bringing this disaster about: the extent to which the agency’s policy has been shaped and driven by the European Union. My co-author Dr Richard North, an expert researcher who writes the EU Referendum blog, has been combing through dozens of official documents to unravel just how it was that the agency came to adopt a strategy deliberately designed to allow flooding not just in Somerset but elsewhere in the country, all in the name of putting the interests of
“biodiversity”, “sustainability” and wildlife habitats above those of farming and people.
These have included the EU’s Natura 2000 strategy along with a sheaf of directives on “habitats”, “birds”, “water”, and not least the “floods” directive of 2007, which specifically requires certain “floodplains” to be allowed to flood. In 2008, when the EA was run by Baroness Young, this was reflected in a policy document which classified areas at risk of flooding under six categories, ranging from those in “Policy Option 1”, where flood defences were a priority, down to “Policy 6’’ where, to promote “biodiversity”, the strategy should be to “increase flooding”. The Somerset Levels were covered by Policy 6.
It was in that year that Baroness Young explained in an interview that creating wildlife habitats could be very expensive, but that by far the cheapest way was simply to allow natural flooding. As she gaily put it: “Just add water.” Around this time she was heard to say of the Somerset Levels that she would like to see “a limpet mine attached to every pumping station”.