« The worst kind of catastrophism is not to announce catastrophes when one thinks they are coming, but to allow them to happen simply because one has not foreseen them and, even worse, because one has forbidden oneself to foresee them. This is why I would gladly classify as ‘catastrophists’ the countless authors who try to reassure the public, without questioning the world system, its dynamics and its evolution.

François Partant, La ligne d’horizon, essay on post-development.

« If we want to prevent a global catastrophe, we must take radical action now, and really act this time. But I don’t think we’re ready to do that. I think we’re screwed.

Stephen Emmott, 10 Billion.

« Our leaders are, in general, those who have best internalized the goals of the system and, therefore, are immune to arguments and evidence that might challenge it. »(1)

Clive Hamilton, Requiem for the Human Race.


The multiple signals that nature sends us as well as the general state of life and the Earth that hosts it indicate that we are in a period characterized by an unprecedented risk of large-scale disappearance of the human species.  » After a decade of almost no concrete action, even under the most optimistic assumptions about the likelihood of the world taking the necessary steps, and even assuming there is nothing we « don’t know, » climate change with dramatic consequences is all but certain « (2). The evidence is before our eyes: we are living through the sixth species extinction crisis and the first one caused by man, the previous one, the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction, having been characterized by a massive disappearance of animals and plants, notably the dinosaurs, 66 million years ago;  » the Arctic coastline is retreating by 30 meters per year in areas such as the Laptev and Beaufort Seas. Greenland and Antarctica are currently losing nearly 475 billion tons of ice each year to the ocean (…) The melting of ice resulting from our activities is releasing significant amounts of methane into the Arctic Ocean « (3); etc., etc.

 » A higher increase [de 2° de la température moyenne] eThis would entail the risk of catastrophic climate change leading to irreversible « points of no return », caused by phenomena such as the melting of the Greenland ice cap, the release of methane stored in the Arctic permafrost or the decline of the Amazon rainforest.(4). However, all studies show that we will exceed 2°.  » It is very likely that the increase will be in the order of 4°C — and it is not excluded that it will reach 6°C. A rise of 4 to 6°C in global temperature would be dramatic. It would lead to a climate change out of control, capable of tipping the planet into a radically different state. The Earth would become a hell « (5).  » The figures show that even rapid and sustained global action is unlikely to prevent the Earth’s temperature from rising by at least 3°. The melting of the Greenland ice will lead to a rise in sea level of about 7 meters, dramatically redrawing the geography of the planet « (6). The coral reef will soon be a distant memory, desertification is gaining ground everywhere, every day hundreds of hectares are deforested, species disappear forever.

At the social level, everything is the same, never has misery been so widespread: here, in the « North », in the households that survive; in our streets, with the homeless, left behind by globalization, who die alone while billions never pass through the state coffers, going directly to tax havens and while eight people own more than half of humanity. Further on, in countries that interest us only because they contain materials that allow the continuity of our ways of life « . We place dictators and other despots who will ensure our imports and, for those who would rebel and try to be independent, we will send them our troops in the name of human rights and other values of altruism.


Either, we know these figures, these facts, these images that the mass media passes to us with frequency, between two pages of advertisements, imposing this double schizophrenic dimension change/continuity, which ends up eroding our morale(7). But while this knowledge should enjoin us to do everything to stop playing the game, turning off our TVs and recreating agoras everywhere to think about the future, in the context of a state of ecological emergency revealing much more relevance than the anti-terrorist gesticulations of governments, the technocrats assure us of the  » change in continuity(8) « , promising the energy transition and the digital revolution, which are supposed to free us from the burden of work and ensure better communication between people. As Clive Hamilton explains,  » The world’s best climate scientists are now raising the alarm to a deafening level, because the deadline for action has almost expired, and yet it is as if the signal is inaudible to the human ear.(9)

One of the miracles of this « transition » would be the 5G, a technology coming after the 4G and which will allow to reach speeds in term of mobile telecommunication of several gigabits of data per second. And like the wind, the rain and the tides, there will be no question of questioning, except in the usual form of the show, where everything is already written but where we are made to believe in the possibilities of influencing the plot of the story: the option of refusal is not foreseen, so everything will be done (with the help of advertising propaganda in the streets, on television, on the radio, in the newspapers) so that you will have the impression of wanting to, of expressing your deepest self when you ask for the 5G In September 2018, did not Qualcomm, an American company active in the field of mobile technology (Revenue 25.3 billion dollars(10)), display in Tout Bruxelles, on the media owned by the company JC Decaux, the message:  » 5G will create many jobs. And our job is to create 5G « . From then on, there is no need for real contradictory debates. Telephone operators, politicians, media, committee set up by the Brussels Minister of the Environment, all are committed to 5G, some with doubts, others with confidence, but all convinced of what must be achieved. Our national channel, the RTBF, infatuated with this arbitrary and illusory belief that  » one does not stop progress « , illustrating under the argument of necessity the injunction of the history which writes itself:  » But there is a timing to respect. The European Commission wants every member state (and this also applies to Belgium) to have 5G coverage in at least one city by 2020. And by 2025, all urban areas will have to have 5G coverage. Including major roads. We are really in the home stretch « (11), before the wall…

At this level, an alien landed on Earth would not be convinced by anything we just said, because we haven’t said anything about 5G yet. If he is lucid and sane, he must think that 5G is probably something great, an antidote in a way, a remedy that will allow us to get out of this situation. We do not dare to explain to him what this innovation will really bring to man, so close to nothing:  » With 5G, users should be able to download a high-definition movie in less than a second (a task that can take 10 minutes with 4G). And wireless engineers say these networks will also spur the development of other new technologies, such as autonomous vehicles, virtual reality and the Internet of Things « (12).

In short, we should always measure novelty by George Orwell’s question:  » Does this make me more or less human? If we can show all that this technology will take away from man, it is impossible to say what it will bring him, when a large part of him already has nothing, and which will make him more human, that is to say, capable of living fully in harmony with nature, of being satisfied with the minimum, of grasping and understanding what he lives, of getting closer to others without seeking to have more. What’s human about downloading a movie in less than a second?


The one and only leitmotiv, always: growth, meaning more and more products from the exploitation of the land and people of the « South », coming by planes, trucks, supertankers : « The association between economic growth and progress is so deeply rooted in modes of thought — whether progressive or conservative, it is defended with such vigor, that it can only be based on a banal empirical link between increased material consumption and increased happiness of a country. »(13). Dominique Leroy, head of the telephone operator Proximus (a public company listed on the stock exchange, with the State as the main shareholder), was she not already moving in this direction in 2015, when she was invited to Parliament for a  » hearing on the future policy of Proximus « , she came back with this litany of « delay »:

 » Europe is currently lagging behind America and Asia in terms of technological developments and the level of investment in ICT. The main reason for the decline [in digital revenue growth in Europe] is that legislation is too strict and hinders innovation « (14). The argument is always the same: one compares oneself to the other and deduces that one must go faster(15). Then, the causes of the delay are identified («  too strict standards  ») and pressure is applied (lobbying, media propaganda, distribution of various « advantages », setting up of committees endorsed by the governments…). In this process, economic necessity is the law:  » Although price levels are important, there is a need for continuous investment in the digital economy (…) Only by investing and innovating is it possible to generate growth.

Neither the common good nor the environment are ever invoked as higher principles(16). And this is only logical, because one cannot ensure economic growth and the common good at the same time. The element that dominates everything is the principle of growth, and therefore profit, and the rest must necessarily follow:  » The deployment of 5G requires a densification of the network, which means that in concrete terms, additional antennas must be installed. We are no longer in the realm of proposals that will have to be weighed later in a democratic debate, but in that of order, where reality will only have to adapt:  » Innovation, especially the Internet-of-things, including mobility and cybersecurity, will radically change the telecom landscape. « The landscape is thought, it only remains to find the painters. However, it is necessary to persuade the subjects that the painters are busy only for them and constantly ensure the spectacle of the common good by resorting to the professionals of the communication:  » Proximus’ mission is to keep people permanently connected to the world so that they can live better and work smarter.


September 11, 2018:  » The strategic committee officially handed over the National Pact for Strategic Investments (NPSI) to Prime Minister Charles Michel on Tuesday, during a ceremony with great pomp and circumstance, organized in the renovated Museum of Africa in Tervuren(17)a plan that weighs 150 billion projects by 2030(18). This strategic plan is mainly based on investments that are essential if Belgium wants to  » take the digital high-speed train  » (sic). On the subject of the strategic committee, Charles Michel will speak of  » a panel of non-political experts  » who will make  » concrete proposals to the various governments of the country « . The Prime Minister is playing the game of unity, where the common good is expressed from the outset, ignoring all the interests of employers:  » When we talk about energy transition or mobility, we are talking to the eleven million Belgians. Of course, it is for the good of all of us, but under no circumstances could we refuse it:  » New technologies, such as artificial intelligence and the Internet of Things, will radically change all facets of our lives and work, as well as society as a whole. The digital revolution is both a factor of disruption and an engine of growth for our economy »(19). On the fact of  » to bring together private and public decision-makers « with of the budgets of the different entities of the country, with the approval of the parliaments, and of the private sector « , the son of Louis will not explain this brutal conversion of the private sector suddenly forgetting the return on investment, henceforth concerned only with the good of the  » 11 million Belgians « , is surprising to say the least.(20)

Five sectors will benefit from this « Eldorado »: mobility, energy, education, telecoms and health. Your well-being as the measure of all things, the media-political-patronial complex will do everything to convince you of this, starting by presenting you with all that we would lose if it did not take place:  » Without it, it would be a loss of prosperity of the order of 50 billion euros « . This will be « for the benefit of everyone, and first of all, of our citizens « (21), Charles Michel repeats, if we had not understood him. These citizens, who have been fed media propaganda for years, on the  » competitive lag « ,  » the risk of losing billions and unprecedented personal advantages « , will be ready to accept this « innovation », no longer perceiving what is proposed to them, and it is even better if they ask for it, as what is imposed on them. 

However, it is difficult to understand why, born of a desire for the common good, the strategic committee includes only employers: Michel Delbaere, who is the Chairman, is CEO of Crop’s (production and sale of vegetables, fruits and frozen meals) and former boss of Voka, but also, among other multiple functions, chairman of Sioen Industries; Dominique Leroy, CEO of Proximus; Marc Raisière, CEO of Belfius; Michèle Sioen, CEO of Sioen Industries (world market leader in coated technical textiles and high quality protective clothing.), former president of the Federation of Enterprises in Belgium (FEB), Dutch-speaking manager of the year 2017, incidentally involved in Luxleak; Baron Jean Stéphenne, well established in academic and political circles, like his other acolytes, former vice-president and general manager of the pharmaceutical multinational GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, but also chairman of the board of Nanocyl, spin off of the universities of Liege and Namur, specialized in carbon nanotubes (batteries, cars, electronics…); Pieter Timmermans, administrator of the FEB. All of these individuals know each other, they meet the political decision-makers, being the ones who actually transmit the business interests to the politicians who transform them into political decisions, the voters still being convinced that they are the ones who decide. They will be there to convince you, like Marc Raisière, the banker, who will warn us, telling us  » If we don’t make these investments, it’s future generations who will be the victims, who will bear the consequences. »(22) All this  » is truly realistic, » says Dominique Leroy, CEO of Proximus, who is excited about the values of equality and justice. 

So « realistic », that the report of the committee of experts on 5G set up by the Brussels Minister of the Environment will conclude:  » A major obstacle to new installations is the opposition of a certain part of the public. It is therefore necessary to continue to inform and educate the public in an objective manner, and to dispassionate the debate as much as possible « . The members of the committee, who are supposed to make an impartial report aimed at protecting the population, will recommend  » de-fragmenting the debate « , to reduce « theopposition of a certain part of the public  » and to remove  » the brake on new installations « . The solution is to educate and inform us. We count on them.


If the public interest of technological innovations is never really questioned by those who have the responsibility to implement them, it is because the answers to these questions would reveal that, beyond the questions of health, equality or environment, the initiative of these projects emanates from minorities who alone will benefit from them: captains of industry and bosses of public enterprises, whose economic choices are put in place by zealous political servants who will derive from them, and sometimes their relatives, one day or another, a legal or hidden, but always illegitimate and indecent, advantage.

So who benefits from the deployment of technologies like 5G? Beyond all the technical considerations that are sold to us as progress, the real interest, the one that functions as the driving force, the objective of all things, remains the lure of gain. Without it, there is a high probability that no one would have heard of 5G, no scientific research would have been launched, no advertisements to « prepare » the subject. It is therefore obvious that those who hope to get richer will not advocate the precautionary principle, because they know that the environmental, social and health risks would be in contradiction with the best interests of finance. Those who will reap the benefits of growth also know that she has the entire political class with her, including the Ecolo party:  » Recognizing that the cult of growth was an immovable obstacle to climate action, environmentalists quickly capitulated and now claim that you can have the best of both worlds, namely both a healthy atmosphere and solid economic growth, and that in fact promoting renewable energy to replace fossil fuels could accelerate economic growth « (23). The alliances between liberals and ecologists in the last Belgian municipal elections are further evidence of this. Indeed, there is no longer a green office without its energy transition manager or its digital advisor. And for those aware that the transition is a chimera but that it serves temporarily to ensure the growth of their capital, they will take care to protect themselves from the objects they promote for others, as the bosses of Silicon Valley put their children in Waldorf schools without screens or tablets. The zealots of 5G will thus live in areas decontaminated from waves, protecting themselves and their children from the pollution they encourage.

Thinking about the foundations at the source of all creation therefore brings a certain lucidity and avoids certain considerations at first: no need here to talk about the environment, health, common goods… it is enough to verify if the religion of growth took precedence over everything else from the start. If we manage to demonstrate this, the conclusion is self-evident: the desire for economic growth in a capitalist society, where enrichment is based on a process of exploitation, is never in harmony with respect for nature, social justice, the common good and the interests of all. The spirit of profit always benefits only a minority and cannot be reconciled with a concern for life. The following illustrates the true interests of 5G.


In Belgium, operators (Proximus, Orange, Telenet) and their shareholders « must » be able to count on technological deployment, so they necessarily need the State to relax « too strict standards » and subsequently ensure the implementation of the necessary infrastructure throughout the country. But this cannot be done, as has been shown, without feigning the parliamentary democratic process; preparing the population (selling them the product before it is there); but also bringing in the credit of science, which the use of scientific experts will provide. The Brussels Minister of Housing, Quality of Life, Environment and Energy, Céline Fremault, will therefore set up a committee of « independent » experts in 2015.

But let’s stop for a moment at the telecom operators, of which we will only describe Proximus, a « public » company listed on the stock exchange. Since January 2014, Dominique Leroy has been the Managing Director and Chair of its Executive Committee. Prior to this position, which earns him a whopping €936,903 (2017 figure, equivalent to €78,075.25/month), Dominique Leroy worked for Unilever for 24 years, serving on the Unilever Benelux Management Committee(24). She is a member of the Board of Directors of BICS and Be-Mobile and Chair of the International Advisory Board of the Solvay Business School. She is an independent member of the Board of Directors of Lotus Bakeries and Ahold Delhaize. We know that the major parties share the directorships in the most important public companies: the National Lottery, the SNCB, Proximus, Vivaqua, not to mention the intermunicipal companies (Publifin being a perfect example). Stefaan De Clerck, who was a member of the Federal Parliament from 1990 to 2013, a minister on two occasions and mayor of the city of Kortrijk for 11 years, is now with Proximus(25). This political experience was not in vain and helped him to enter the company, where he wears many hats: he chairs the Board of Directors, is chairman of the Joint Committee, the Pension Fund and Proximus Art ASBL, and is a director of the Proximus Foundation and ConnectImmo. He is also a member of the Orientation Council of Euronext, the Strategic Committee of FEB, the Board of Directors of Voka, the BBR (Benelux Business Roundtable), the Advisory Board of KPMG and a member of the Board of the Eurometropole Lille-Kortrijk-Tournai. Why would Stefaan De Clerck find it excessive to receive €270,000 in parliamentary allowances when he leaves the Parliament for Belgacom(26). Wasn’t it Proximus that recently posted  » Make way for unlimited  » everywhere?

The former European Commissioner for Trade, Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs (2004–2009), Deputy Prime Minister (2008–2009) and European Commissioner for International Cooperation, Humanitarian Aid and Crisis Response (2009–2010) are still on the Board, Karel De Gucht, who is also a professor at the VUB, President of the IES (Institute of European Studies), member of the Advisory Board of CVC Capital and sits on the Board of Directors of ArcelorMittal NV and Merit Capital NV. The others come from or have passed through the Belgian holding company Ackermans & van Haaren, are directors of Pairi Daiza, BSB and Guberna (Pierre Demuelenaere); Liquavista (a technology company specializing in the creation of screens) Philips, KPN, Kroymans Corporation BV, Tom Tom, etc. (Guido J.M. Demuynck); from Alcatel-Lucent, associate director of Qbic Fund (an inter-university fund that focuses on turning technological discoveries into sustainable business), Barco, Caliopa, a start-up specialized in silicon photonics (Martin De Prycker); McKinsey & Co, Cockerill-Sambre, ABX Logistics, Aviapartner, bpost, FN Herstal, Investsud (Laurent Levaux); Schneider Electric (a global specialist in energy management and automation), Colt Technology Services (one of the leading pan-European telecom providers), BT Global Services, McKinsey, where the current director of Proximus has specialized in technology and telecom growth strategy for large multinationals (Tanuja Randery); CEO of Act III Consultants (consulting firm dedicated to digital transformations), former CEO of Vivendi Universal Publishing, McKinsey, Darty Plc and Neopost SA, Board of Directors of The French-American Foundation, The Women’s Forum and IDATE (Agnès Touraine); Chief Financial Officer of Elia, APX-ENDEX Management Committee, Coopers & Lybrand, Contassur (Catherine Vandenborre); imec; Technology and Strategy Committee of ASML, specialist in nanotechnology (Luc Van den hove); GIMV, Sidmar (Arcelor-Mittal), Sunparks (division of Sunair), Greenbridge Incubator (Ghent University) and Scientific Investment Board (Brussels University), bpost, Five Financial Solutions (corporate finance), member of the advisory board of several high-tech start-ups (Paul Van de Perre); member of the budget committee, the remuneration committee, the council of regency of the National Bank of Belgium, chairman of the board of directors of bpost, director of Belgacom sa; director of Invest Mons-Borinage-Centre IMBC; member of the audit committee of FOREM, Chief Financial and Accounting Officer at bpost, member of the board of directors of Ethias DC, professor of management and financial analysis at the university of Mons-Hainaut (Martine Durez); the last one, Isabelle Santens, brings the « fashion » touch to the Board, being Managing Director of Andres NV, a Belgian fashion company designing, producing and distributing the women’s clothing brands Xandres, Xandres xLine and Hampton Bays(27).

This description is a bit long, but it is essential to understand who is in charge and who will make the decisions that will have a lasting impact on society and nature. Driven by this team of technophiles linked to multinationals, investment funds, universities, banks, public companies, etc., Dominique Leroy and Stefaan De Clerck will present their strategic vision at the « Hearing on the future policy of Proximus », in front of an enthusiastic audience of parliamentarians. These directors, chosen by the Council of Ministers to represent the different parties, will decide on the main orientations of Proximus with the main aim of not harming the shareholders. Thus, it is the Board of Directors that will decide on the dismissal of 2,000 jobs, while Minister Charles Michel will pretend to be surprised, having placed his cronies in the lair of the telecom operator, following the example of the other « major » parties. Indeed, with the indispensable support of the media, it is necessary to simulate astonishment in order to give the impression that all this is not carefully thought out and strategically organized by a political-financial elite that aims at the same objectives. The show, always(28).

In short, did you see in the panel of Proximus administrators, an individual capable of introducing even a single doubt as to the relevance of deploying 5G in Belgium? Isn’t there a clear conflict of interest, given that Proximus remains a public company? How can we ensure the common good when the boss of Proximus earns €936,000/year, Stefaan De Clerck €186,244 for attending eight meetings of the Board of Directors and eleven of the various Proximus committees, Karel De Gucht €72,000(29) when the directors’ fees at Telenet’s Board of Directors are around €3,500, with fixed remunerations of €45,000/year, €120,000 for the Chairman of the Board(30) ? ; that Yves Leterme, Patrick Dewael, Siegfried Bracke, to name but a few, charged Telenet for advice rendered, respectively €55,000, €82,000, €66,000(31)?; that at Orange, the CEO had earned in 2016, €1.55 million(32)? Can there still be a concern for the common good and a pre-eminence of the precautionary principle in such cases?


In front of this display of indecency, the recourse to scientific expertise was going to be able to bring elements and to decide on the decision to be taken. But that was without counting on the fact that we were once again dealing with the convinced before their time — to have to judge who was going to compose the jury…

It was on June 19, 2015 that the Brussels government, on the proposal of the cabinet of Minister Fremault, in charge of the environment, thus approved the composition of the committee of experts on non-ionizing radiation. Although the committee is composed of nine members from several fields (medical, scientific, economic and technological)(33), this diversity obscures the reality of a committee that is globally committed to the technological cause, some working in a sector that promotes 5G, others being directly linked to the operators that finance them. This temporary group, assigned the task of evaluating  » the impact on health of GSM antennas on a continuous basis « , would have to decide on the health protection standards for the inhabitants of Brussels as well.

 » In order to ensure a satisfactory protection of the inhabitants of Brussels in the long term, this committee of experts is essential to evaluate the effects of electromagnetic waves with regard to the evolution of technologies and scientific knowledge, economic imperatives and public health.  »

Céline Fremault, Minister of the Environment


1. Three members with scientific expertise on the health and/or environmental effects of non-ionizing radiation:

- Isabelle Lagroye (IMS Bordeaux, Bioelectromagnetism) is French and a member of ICNIRP, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, whose « mission is to protect the health and safety of the public.his expertise is an international reference and is used as a basis by many Western countries, including France, to define a threshold limit for exposure to waves.(34). ICNIRP describes itself as an  » independent scientific commission to promote protection against non-ionizing radiation (NIR) for the benefit of the public and the environment « (35). Nice declaration of intent, but it would not have been complicated for the Parliament and the Brussels Government to discover the past conflicts of interest of the one of its members. Isabelle Lagroye finances her research with money from France Telecom, Alcatel, Bouygues telecom(36). More recently, we discover on the WHO website that it carries out studies financed by EDF. Isabelle Lagroye is also a member of the French Society of Radioprotection (SFRP),  » whose benefactors include Areva, GDF-Suez, IRSN and others.(37)which at the beginning was dedicated to propagating the idea that nuclear energy is safe, and now has a « non-ionizing radiation » branch, which continues the same propaganda work. 

- Luc Verschaeve (Institute of Public Health, Departement Biomedische Wetenschappen), is president of the Belgian BioElectroMagnetics Group (BBEMG), which under the tab « Independence and Scientific Integrity » notes, without humor:  » In scientific research, it is important to fight fraud and avoid conflicts of interest. This is all the more important when the research is subsidized by industry (sic). The best way to guarantee the quality of research and the integrity of researchers, even under performance pressure (sic), is to maintain an optimal research culture in which the observance of a strict ethical code is paramount « . And what could be more effective to counter this risk of scientific research serving those who pay for it, than to comply with the…  » code of ethics for scientific research in Belgium « , and to ensure that  » Researchers participating in BBEMG activities are committed to complete scientific honesty. The lobbies are trembling. Here we are reassured about the impartiality of BBEMG’s research, « the collaboration with Elia cannot exert any influence on it  » (…),  » the agreement clearly states that the researchers benefit at all times from a complete scientific freedom and that they are totally responsible for the results of their research.(38) Elia, the manager of the Belgian electricity transmission network, which represents a total of more than 8,600 km of lines and underground cables spread throughout the country and employs 1,300 people, certainly sees this code of ethics in a positive light, as it certainly puts the health and well-being of the population before its financial interests. Finally, this is perhaps not the opinion of the residents of Woluwé-Saint-Lambert who had mobilized against the dangers of electromagnetic emissions related to 150,000 volt trenches set up by Elia. The latter reproached the municipality for having accepted the organization of an information meeting where Elia presented Mr. Verschaeve as  » independent expert « , while they see him as « a this umpteenth warning protester who appears in the media or at conferences in order to discredit health warnings about radiation « .(39).

- Jacques Van Der Straeten does not seem to be the object of such conflicts of interest of a research supposedly at the service of the population while being financed by operators. This doctor, however, adopts the « intermediate » position, typical of the « false troublemaker » expert who, faced with the forward march of « inescapable » progress, advocates individual prudence, typical of our liberal societies: on the one hand, total laissez-faire to the multinationals that produce harmful objects, and on the other hand, individual choice of whether or not to protect oneself (as long as one can do so) from this harmfulness. This is the model of the cigarette pack and the morbid photos that accompany it, of this paradoxical double message in which we are sold poison while at the same time being invited to protect ourselves from it, if you like, a model that expresses the relationship of a State that no longer has a grip on social functioning, only there to guarantee a context that is conducive to investment and to add a few touches of palliative regulation to ward off the most visible effects and prevent total chaos that would contravene the interests of capital. So we let it go, then we’ll see:  » Since the use of GSM is currently widespread, an alternative to case-control type studies is the analysis of the evolution over time of the prevalence of brain tumors « (40). This is called  » taking people for guinea pigs « (41).

2. Two members with scientific expertise in non-ionizing radiation properties:

- Yves Rolain (VUB, Wireless Communications), chairman of the committee set up by Fremault, is a member of IEEE,  » the world’s largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity « , including  » The main objective is to promote excellence and technological innovation for the benefit of humanity. The table of directors alone gives an idea of the motivations of those at the head of the organization(42). The IEEE which will organize in October 2019, its 2nd forum on 5G (The 2019 IEEE 2nd 5G World Forum: « 5GWF’19 »), whose objective is to lead industrial, academic and research experts to exchange their visions as well as their advances on 5G. » So, as the IEEE headline reads, « Be part of the Global Collaboration Creating 5G for the Benefit of Society « (43). The mass is said, the information on 5G on the site resembling more a marketing offer than the results of « independent research », some « articles » having missed their publication in a Proximus folder, such as  » Everything you need to know about 5G « (44). Yves Rolain will receive an IEEE award in 2004, 2010, 2011, and 2012. But don’t think that this will erode its integrity…

Yet should we be surprised if in the 2016 report of the VUB’s Elec department, two projects that Yves Rolain is leading (one between 2014 and 2019, the other since 2005), we find in the « amount » box, the note « Confidential », while not even stipulating the donor organization?

- Véronique Beauvois (ULG, Applied and Computational electromagnetics), civil electrical engineer at ULiège, is also part of the BBEMG whose funder is Elia. An interview with her, published in a dissertation,(45) speaks volumes about the relationship between the two entities:

 » At the level of the BBEMG, how does it work?

- The BBEMG group is now funded by Elia. Projects are proposed to them and Elia may or may not accept to finance them. Once funding is awarded, researchers have the freedom to publish « .

She works at the Montefiore Institute, which is linked to a set of spin-off companies, which defines itself as  » a new company created from a research laboratory whose objective is to commercially develop a research result (a technology). In order to do this, the spin-off company is in principle linked to the university by means of a license agreement that establishes the conditions for the transfer of the technology from the laboratory to the company « (46). It’s hard to be more clear.

These include:

- The Association of Engineers of Montefiore (AIM), where the University of Liege (Ulg) rubs shoulders with sponsors such as Engie Electrabel, Lampiris, Euresis, Schneider Electric(47), Siemens, Sonaca, Tractebel ;

- Ampacimon, which works on all continents to optimize the network, where we find again as partners, Elia but also Alstom (rail transport), Pôle Mecatech (grouping of nearly 250 industrial and academic actors involved in joint projects of mechanical engineering), Cigré (world organization in the field of high voltage electricity), etc. ;

- Taipro, designer of microsystems, with partners such as Technord (specialized in electrical engineering, integrating new technologies of industry 4.0 to « guarantee optimal productivity and flexibility of its customers’ industrial processes »), Guardis (information systems and computer security), Biion (automation and supervision of industrial processes in pharmaceuticals and biotechnologies), Safran (international high-tech group specialized in aeronautics) ;

- Blacklight Analytics, which links IT skills to energy systems, working in particular in the area of artificial intelligence.

There is no need to describe the other four  » university spin-off industries « , once we understand that research serves industry, which in turn rewards university researchers. It is obvious that research is oriented, that programs are based on the interests of industry. A ULB scientist we interviewed told us(48):

- The university puts antennas on its roofs, and receives money to do so. She put wifi everywhere, in every auditorium and public place. Then to say that this technology is harmful, it cannot be done!

Kairos: Do you know that there is a contract between ULB and Huawei?

- Yes, I learned that. Mr. André Fauteux sent it to me, saying:  » You probably know it, Madam? - No « , I answered. It’s a contract to install 5G.

Kairos: Do you mean that the university can no longer say what it wants when it has economic interests with operators and producers of GSM?

- Yes, that’s exactly it. You can’t say that these things are harmful.

Kairos: Was that made clear to you?

Almost. The dean said to me, « There’s wifi here ma’am, and I don’t feel a thing, » implying: that’s what you should say too.

This pool of academic, industrial and political actors who are active in the field of high technology constitutes an indispensable guarantee for our governments who set themselves the sole objective of growth and unlimited accumulation of capital. Health, as well as nature, are never of any importance in the face of economic imperatives.

3. Two members with scientific expertise in micro- and macro-economic and social needs in mobile telecommunications:

We are here in the supra-social domain, where, after having received the reports they expected from the experts they had paid, the political relays,  » for the well-being of the population « , can act. 

- Laura Rebreanu, employer representative, member of the Chamber of Commerce and the Brussels Business Union, does not hide her enthusiasm for technology as an indispensable tool for the energy transition:  » To limit global warming to less than 2°C, the transition to a « low-carbon » society, limiting CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions, must be rapid and global. Smart meters are essential to achieve this. « (49) We’re saved! If we had known, as early as 1972, when the Meadows Report warned of the risks inherent in our model of society if we did not change course, that the solution was there, in front of us, in the smart meters.  » Resilient Enterprise « ,  » stop wasting « ,  » sustainable « ,  » urbanmobility »,  » co-creation « , the employer representative has perfectly adopted this vocabulary of the novlangue which ensures this  » change in the continuity  » where we give ourselves new words to make us believe that we are doing something else when we are continuing as before. Another particularity of this approach is that it is always about encouraging new technologies and good individual habits, while taking care not to implicate the largest companies responsible for plundering the planet.

- Walter Hecq, CEESE1/ULB, professor at the Solvay Brussels School of Economics and Management (SBS-EM), 75 years old, has been a member of all the commissions for decades, and participates in a few debates whose theme makes us wonder.(50)

4. Two members with scientific expertise in wireless communication technologies:

- Sophie Pollin (KUL, Telecommunications and Microwaves) did her PhD research at Imec (Institut de Micro-Électronique et Composants). After Santa Clara, Berkeley, she joined thewireless group at Imec in Leuven, where she is since 2012 assistant-professor. In her CV available on the Imec website, she writes:  » The Internet of Things promises more and more devices to connect. So we need solutions that fit perfectly with the density of nodes, that are intelligent, self-learning, heterogeneous. The complex field of wireless includes swarm networks, LTE cellular networks as well as future airborne mobile sensor networks. Lots of interesting challenges and opportunities together! « .(51) Sophie Pollin has undoubtedly crossed paths with Luc Van den Hove, President and CEO of Imec, who is also a member of the Proximus Board of Directors (see above). Let’s remember that Sophie Pollin is supposed to  » evaluate the effects of electromagnetic waves « , especially in terms of health, while she is an employee of a company whose leitmotiv is:  » The power of technology should not be underestimated. technology has the power to improve lives. That’s why we push the limits of technology « (52).

- David Erzeel works for the Belgian Institute for Postal Services and Telecommunications (BIPT), which regulates these two subjects. It was BIPT that on March 24, 2017 issued a press release that welcomed the fact that  » extended the rights of use of Broadband Belgium in the 3.5GHz frequency band for 5 years (…) 3.5GHz frequency band in question [qui] Is part of the 3.4–3.8GHz frequency band, designated by the European « Radio Spectrum Policy Group » in its opinion of November 9, 2016 as the main frequency band, together with the 700MHz and 26GHz frequency bands, to introduce 5G mobile technology in Europe « . No wonder then that  » BIPT should promote the introduction of 5G in Belgium. It is indeed about the interest of the consumer and the functioning of the internal market for electronic communications « (53). The former president of BIPT, Luc Hindryckx, has become a lobbyist at ECTA (European Competitive Telecommunications Association), an organization associated with many operators. This is not an exception, as former BIPT leaders frequently borrowed revolving doors between the public and private sectors (Belgacom, FranceTelecom, KPN Orange, etc.). When you know that the top functions come and go from Proximus, Orange and the other big operators, you understand who BIPT works for.

What can we say to these beings devoid of selfish interests who do everything possible to ensure our future and that of all living beings, except  » thank you « ?


Science and its academic temples have dedicated part of their activities to technological development, which is essential for the profit of multinationals and participates in the plundering of the planet. Among all the examples, Proximus, ULB (Université libre de Bruxelles) and VUB (Vrije universiteit van België) signed in Beijing in June 2015  » a technology agreement with Huawei « , Huawei which  » will provide the 5G infrastructure for the ‘campus of the future’ in Brussels « (54). If it does not even seem contradictory to associate an operator and a multinational with supposedly independent universities, it is because the latter are no longer independent at all. In France, an example among others, the IMS, laboratory of the integration of the material to the system attached to the CNRS,  » is working to develop this « miracle » chip that should eventually fit on the head of a pin. A creation that is only made possible, however, thanks to a partnership between an IMS laboratory and microchip giant STMicroelectronics « (55). It doesn’t matter that it takes  » about 72 liters of water to produce one of these small chips that power laptops, GPS, phones, iPads, TVs, cameras, microwaves and cars. In 2012, probably nearly 3 billion chips were produced. This represents nearly 200 billion liters of water. For semiconductor chips « (56).

The wish of Céline Frémault is therefore pious, when she delegates to her committee the task of evaluating electromagnetic waves  » with regard to the evolution of technologies and scientific knowledge, economic and public health imperatives « . It is a pure aporia to put  » economic imperatives  » and health issues in the same sentence: there is no health when competitiveness and growth are introduced. So it was not the Fremault committee’s assessment that would come to determine the deployment of 5G, but the decision already made by the multinationals to do so, supported by the political elites, that would determine the position of a scientific panel endorsing what to endorse. In short, Céline Fremault, like the others, is an executor. Technocracy thus dictates its choices to politicians who cannot, however, accept them without feigning the democratic process. The politician therefore sets up a committee of experts to give the illusion of an impartial decision, but chooses members who are already committed to the cause.

As early as 2010, the European Commission set its objectives in the « 2010 Digital Plan », which will lead to the definition of « the Digital Plan » in 2016. an action plan for 5G in Europe « , shamelessly titling its first paragraph  » the rapid deployment of 5G: a strategic opportunity for Europe « . It also states that already  » in 2013(57), the Commission launched a public-private partnership (PPP-5G) with €700 million in public funding, with the aim of ensuring the availability of 5G technology in Europe by 2020. However, research efforts alone will not be enough to ensure Europe’s leadership in 5G. Broader action is needed to make 5G and related services a reality, including the emergence of a European « home market » for 5G « . It was therefore already obvious that no public debate could take place, long before the declarations of intent to deploy 5G, and, above all, that no opposition could be heard.

While the press praises the  » undeniable advantages of 5G « , without ever expressing the slightest doubt, the political negotiations are carried out with surprising discretion. Is this surprising when we know that the media belong to large financial groups that have multiple and varied interests, especially in new technologies. Other authorities, however, point out the danger. In its resolution 1815 dated 2011, the European Parliament states in point 6:  » Waiting for sound scientific and clinical evidence before intervening to prevent well-known risks can result in very high health and economic costs, as in the case of asbestos, leaded gasoline or tobacco. » Nothing will do, the thing being economically too important, i.e.  » essential to ensure the continuity of the enrichment of the richest and a form of totalitarian control(58) « . It is obviously essential to let the game play itself out, since in a situation of deep crisis and metamorphosis of the capitalist system, the only possibility of ensuring its sustainability is to flee forward technologically. As a result, the « green » speeches and arguments in terms of social progress of decision-makers (politicians and employers alike) hide the windfall that technological transition represents.


The report of the Fremault Committee illustrates this reality, where doubt only benefits the beneficiaries of the « economic imperative », offering an anthology of assertions/counter-assertions, where on the one hand they cite the « worrying » results of scientific research, to better not worry about them, and evacuate them:

-  » This decision was taken by the majority of experts concerned, based on several studies showing an increased risk of glioma in cell phone users. There is no certainty, however, and recent studies tend to show that the link between exposure and gliomas is decreasing rather than increasing « .

-  » For the time being, however, it is too early to make a definitive statement, given that many cancers take years to appear and that cell phone use is still too recent at this stage (sic). There is even less evidence for brain tumors or other head and neck cancers… The only study (sic) that looked at cell phones and brain tumors in children and adolescents showed no effect « .

-  » Studies of potentially genetic effects (which may be indirectly related to cancer) have not shown clear effects. Alarming effects have been reported, but only in studies whose quality may be questionable. There is also insufficient evidence for other potential effects that may have some link to cancer « .

-  » Immunological effects have been found, but to date, the biological relevance of these observations is unclear, however .

-  » Because we hold our cell phones to our heads, there is concern that the radiation reaching the skull may have harmful effects on the brain (not just cancer). There are indications of effects on brain activity, sleep, learning or memory but the effects are limited and at this point it is not at all clear that they have any real impact on health (…) but the results are not consistent and probably have no functional significance. This is also the case for children, where questionable results have been recorded. No disruption of the thermoregulatory mechanism has been demonstrated in adults or children. Nevertheless, it is necessary to continue the research « .

-  » Several critical evaluations of these studies come to the same conclusion, namely that a disruption of the blood-brain barrier by (among other things) cell phone frequencies is possible, but only when the intensity of the exposure is high and thermal effects occur. No disruption of the blood-brain barrier is observed with « normal » (sic) use of mobile communication devices and therefore « normal » exposure. Laboratory experiments have not revealed any neurological disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease, contrary to what some people claim. Some studies on the subject show on the contrary a protective effect (sic) « .

-  » Studies have found effects on reproduction and development. However, no serious effects were observed at the exposure levels of interest. No significant effect could be observed in mice that were permanently exposed to radiation from wireless communication systems over four generations. It is unlikely that there would be any effects on the fetus of mothers exposed during pregnancy because of the extremely low levels of exposure. There is no serious indication of effects on sperm quality « .

-  » Some non-specific symptoms, such as headaches, fatigue, dizziness and others are sometimes attributed to exposure to radio frequencies. It is thus mentioned « electromagnetic hypersensitivity ». Earlier studies (sic), which have been supplemented by more recent studies, lead to the conclusion that there is no evidence that exposure to electromagnetic fields from e.g. cell phones has a causal link with these symptoms. On the contrary, there are indications of a « nocebo » effect « .

Concluding that despite numerous studies, « the question ‘Is exposure to electromagnetic fields from wireless communication systems harmful to health? », yet the decision to deploy 5G seems self-evident. They are also preparing for the future, anticipating the future demands of the telecommunications industry, which will obviously move towards ever greater  » Relaxation of standards « :  » It should be noted that the proposed exposure limit does not mean that real risks are to be expected above this limit. « As in the case of nuclear energy, there is no risk when economic interests take precedence, even if we talk about situations we do not know about(59). For the committee,  » there is no real scientific basis for such a strict standard. The goal has always been for the government to take into account not only the recommended values but also other considerations (e.g. economic) (sic), and therefore sets standards indicating the limit between acceptable and unacceptable levels of exposure (…) In view of current scientific knowledge, this relaxed standard does not seem unfair « .

The committee, which should rule on health risks, instead relies on a reality created by industrialists, advertisers and multinational telecoms companies, to warn of the inadequacy of infrastructure in the future:  » the growing use of smartphones and tablets is contributing to the increase in mobile data traffic (« data » in the broadest sense), and therefore to the increase in pressure on existing infrastructures, which are increasingly at risk of being under-capacity. Pointing out that  » the three drivers ofgrowth » are mobile data traffic, the introduction of tablets, laptops, smartphones and increasingly varied applications, the committee concludes that  » This evolution implies continuous upgrades of existing infrastructures and requires investments from the operators. 4G with « LTE capable » antennas are multi-band and operate in multi-frequency (…) is driving the global market and worth $4 billion in 2015 (ABI Research, 2015). It prefigures the arrival of 5G in 2020 with LTE‑B antennas « .

Did you say « committee of experts », many of whom are from the scientific world? Basically, they do the opposite of what we expect from scientists: they start from generalized behaviors (the massive use of mobile technologies) to conclude that they are a sign of society’s well-being(60)This is a generalization of the fact that a massive use is from the outset the proof of harmlessness (asbestos offering, at another level, a good counter-example). The committee raises the usual argument that no precautions should be taken in the deployment of new technologies because  » This would greatly slow down the development of the « smart city », which aims to improve the quality of life of city populations while contributing to a more efficient use of resources. The rest is the same, where it is explained that  » Economic studies show that each euro invested in broadband networks (fixed and mobile) generates €3 of GDP, and €1.5 of tax and social security revenues « , and that « it is not only a good idea to invest in broadband networks, but also a good investment for the future. It is therefore necessary to simplify the legislation and to reduce as much as possible the administrative steps and requirements « . For those who do not understand:  » The digital transition desired by the Brussels Government cannot be achieved without a favorable legal, fiscal and administrative framework « . Here, in every respect corresponding to « the regional policy statement (20 July 2014) « , which said it wanted to  » make Brussels a digital capital « ?

At the end of the report, the committee’s suggestions are astounding. About the IBGE website, the committee will say:  » In order to avoid a climate of distrust of all radiation, it is important to communicate clearly. The committee believes that the website can play an important role in this regard. The committee feels that the website deserves a higher profile « .

He adds: « Wave propagation is an abstract matter. Electromagnetic waves have the disadvantage of not being observable by our senses, which makes the general public receptive to both information and misinformation. Information sources related to the Region are sometimes perceived as biased by the public and are therefore not valued. The committee believes that there is a need for scientifically correct but popularized communication that is (sic) unbiased and whose impartiality is also recognized by the general public. Suggestion: Provide an independent and honest channel of information for this technical subject « .

When you know where they are talking from, it’s pure cynicism.


« Based on the data we currently have, the technology solution is anything but likely. »(61)

This model will eventually come to an end at the limits of the planet, but it remains unfeasible, even if those who want to implement it will push extractivism to its very limits, reviving mining activity in countries that had massively abandoned it, such as France. The reality of the finiteness of natural resources in particular, such as that of rare metals essential to new technologies, makes it necessary to recall a few facts.

In the myth of the energy transition, it all starts with the power that man obtains through the mastery of rare metals, as he had before with coal and then oil:  » Like demiurges, we have multiplied its uses in two areas that are essential pillars of the energy transition: technologies that we have called « green » and digital.(62). If the premises of the energy transition date back to the 80s in Germany, it is in 2015 that the great coalition of 195 States was made, during the COP21 in Paris, leading to the Paris Agreement where the States expect to counter climate change and contain warming below two degrees,(63) by substituting green energy for fossil fuels. In his book, which is the result of a 6‑year investigation, Guillaume Pitron imagines a wise man, an imaginary figure, who would go to the podium of the COP21 and say these words:  » This transition is going to put at risk entire sectors of your economy, the most strategic ones. It will precipitate into distress hordes of redundant workers who will soon provoke social unrest and repudiate your democratic gains (…) The energy and digital transition will devastate the environment in unprecedented proportions. In the end, your efforts and the toll on the Earth to build this new civilization are so great that it is not even certain that you will succeed « , concluding,  » your power has blinded you to such an extent that you no longer know the humility of the sailor at the sight of the ocean, nor that of the mountaineer at the foot of the mountain. But the elements will always have the last word! « (64). Guillaume Pitron underlines the most crucial questions, which none of the 196 delegations present asked themselves:  » How are we going to get these rare metals without which this treaty is useless? Will there be winners and losers in the new rare metals game, as there were once with coal and oil? At what cost to our economies, people and the environment will we manage to secure the supply « (65).

The author emphasizes the new dependency we will create for ourselves, even more dramatic than those we have created for ourselves previously:  » By wanting to emancipate ourselves from fossil fuels, by switching from an old order to a new world, we are in fact sinking into a new, even stronger dependence (…) We thought we were freeing ourselves from the shortages, tensions and crises created by our appetite for oil and coal; we are in the process of substituting them with a new world of shortages, tensions and new crises « (66).

In addition, there is the essential question of « clean here » based on « dirty there »: in graphite mines (a mining resource used in the manufacture of electric cars),  » Men and women, noses and mouths covered with simple masks, work in an atmosphere saturated with blackened particles and acid fumes. It’s hell « (67).  » This overview of the environmental impacts of rare metal extraction forces us, all of a sudden, to take a much more skeptical look at the manufacturing process of green technologies. Even before they are put into service, a solar panel, a wind turbine, an electric car or a low-energy lamp bear the original sin of their deplorable energy and environmental balance. We need to measure the ecological cost of the entire life cycle of greentech — a cost that has been precisely calculated « (68).

On the question of the impossibility of achieving this transition without massive consumption of energy and raw materials («  coal, oil, gas and nuclear power plants, wind farms, solar farms and smart grids — all infrastructure for which we will need rare metals  »), Guillaume Pitron has repeatedly tried to contact Jeremy Rifkin, the great theorist of the third industrial revolution and lauder of the energy transition, without success. And Guillaume Pitron’s explanation to this leak offers a more general meaning on the massive blindness and illusion of greentech, based on a major fact: the energy and digital transition has been thought out of the ground. Whatever its applications, each of them indeed  » proceeds first of all in a much more prosaic way from a crater cut in the ground (…) Basically, we are not solving the challenge of the impact of human activity on ecosystems, we are only moving it « (69).


To place our hopes in politicians, to implore them to « make the right decisions », is to give them the power to impose their solutions by using the media tools they control and which they will use to make us believe that these solutions are the result of our demands and for our sole good. So is the digital transition, driven by multinationals and their servants. The 5G, symbol of this race ahead, promises us hell.

It is the captains of industry, those who set up their letter-box companies in Luxembourg, the bankers and other agioteurs that Prime Minister Charles Michel has charged in the name of the Government to think about a National Strategic Investment Pact, whose sponsors are none other than the bosses of Belfius, Proximus, Sioens Industries, the Federation of Enterprises in Belgium… who are the real architects of the  » prepare our country for the next decade. This will require them to  » make a series of urgent investments over the next few years. These investments will strengthen the economy, innovation and employment. We need this additional prosperity to continue to fund education, health care and social protection. Let’s all get to work to make this happen. Let’s build our future together. Because the future is ours! « .
Certainly, it belongs to them alone, for the moment, who seek only one thing: to keep the power to revive growth in order to ensure their profits(70).

But it is the future of living species and nature, not that of an insatiable minority, imitated and supported by 10% of the population, that we care about. And to ensure this future, it will inevitably be necessary to move away from the imperative of economic growth and dare to make radical changes. We know what to reject and who to overthrow. Our survival is at this price.

Alexandre Penasse

Notes et références
  1. Respectivement, La découverte, 2007, p.104 ; Fayard, 2014, p.196 ; Les Presses de Sciences Po , 2013, p.64.
  2. L’auteur écrit en 2013… Clive Hamilton, Op. cit, p. 10–11.
  3. Stephen Emmott, Ibid., p.108–109.
  4. Ibid., p.142
  5. Ibid., p.143.
  6. Clive Hamilton, Requiem pour l’espèce humaine, Op. cit, p.20.
  7. Injonctions paradoxales, avec d’un côté l’ordre de consommer (le fameux pouvoir d’achat) et de l’autre celui de « sauver le climat », dont le pouvoir tente de résoudre la contradiction par le greenwashing , la propagation des « bons gestes » individuels et tout ce qui se rapproche de la supercherie du développement durable. Cela étant, la chose n’empêche pas de susciter chez le sujet une forte dissonance cognitive facteur de souffrance, du fait de ces contradictions « insolubles ».
  8. Cette expression est de Pierre Bourdieu. Voir notamment La production de l’idéologie dominante, Raisons d’Agir, Paris, 2008, p.107 ici.
  9. Clive Hamilton, Op. cit, p.16.
  13. Clive Hamilton, p.49.
  15. Il faut préciser que ce n’est pas vraiment une déduction, la comparaison entre les pays n’est pas la cause de la volonté de faire « mieux », elle n’est qu’un prétexte à la course. Ce n’est donc pas parce qu’ils voient les autres que les États veulent faire mieux, mais parce qu’ils veulent faire mieux qu’ils regardent les autres.
  16. Dans le pacte national pour les investissements stratégiques, véritable feuille de route pour le déploiement tous azimuts des technologies numériques, pas une seule fois le mot « climat » n’est employé dans son sens propre. Cela fait également partie de la novlangue, ce langage propre au pouvoir, qui consiste aussi à utiliser les mots dans des sens figurés qui petit à petit prendront un sens propre. Nous reviendrons plus loin dans notre analyse sur cette question. Dans la même veine, « L’accord de Paris sur le changement climatique ne mentionne pas une seule fois les mots « métaux », « minerais » et « matières primaires » », voir Guillaume Pitron, La guerre des métaux rares. La face cachée de la transition énergétique et numérique, Les Liens qui Libèrent, 2018, p.23.
  18. « Lancement du pacte national pour l’investissement en Belgique », 11/09/18,
  20. « Rudy Demotte absent de la présentation du plan d’investissements: « On n’est pas là pour lustrer le travail du fédéral » », 11/09/18, La Première,
  21. « Lancement du pacte national pour l’investissement en Belgique », 11/09/18,
  22. Ibid.
  23. Clive Hamilton, Op. cit, p. 55–56.
  24. Produits de grande consommation, 400 marques, 190 pays.
  25. Cette dynamique illustre ce jeu de chaise musicale où les partis placent leurs pions, à la fois pour les remercier et s’assurer leur fidélité, mais aussi pour contrôler l’entreprise publique et connaître ses secrets d’alcôve.
  26. « Stefaan De Clerck: « Je ne vois pas pourquoi je devrais renoncer à mes indemnités parlementaires » », 28/09/13,
  28. « Dans l’entourage de Charles Michel, il se dit (sic) que ce dernier est particulièrement remonté contre le management de Proximus. Le premier Ministre n’a été informé qu’en fin d’après-midi et s’estime mis devant le fait accompli », Le Soir, 09/01/2019.
  29. « Dominique Leroy voit sa rémunération gonfler de 8,2% », 15/03/18,
  30. « Telenet veut augmenter la rémunération fixe pour le président du CA », 25/03/17,
  31. « Scandale Telenet: qui a touché combien? », 25/03/17,
  32. « Stéphane Richard mérite-t-il son salaire de 1,55 million d’euros ? », 28/09/17,
  34. « Comment les lobbies nous font croire qu’il n’y a pas de problème avec les ondes électromagnétiques », Marie Astier, 23/01/14,
  37. « Lobby mode d’emploi ? », communiqué de presse de l’association française Robin des Toits – 09/01/2014,
  41. Voir l’article de Paul Lannoye du Kairos de novembre-décembre 2018, « Avec la 5G, tous cobayes ? »,
  42., consultée en décembre 2018, cette page n’est désormais plus accessible sans un identifiant et un mot de passe.
  45. L’environnement électromagnétique : son influence sur la conception architecturale, Marine Preud’Homme, p.168.
  47. Vous vous souvenez, entreprise dont Tanuja Randery, administratrice de Proximus, est présidente pour le Royaume-Uni et l’Irlande… nous n’avons ni la place ni le temps de développer les croisements entre tous les protagonistes de l’affaire et leurs divers liens avec les entreprises, mais il est assuré que cette recherche donnerait un tableau digne d’un empire mafieux.
  48. Interview à paraître dans le prochain Kairos d’avril-mai 2019.
  49. « Compteurs intelligents : un outil dans la transition vers une société bas carbone », 18/05/18,
  50. « Un management pour l’environnement, est-ce possible ? »,
  55. « La puce qui va ringardiser nos smartphones est conçue à Talence » ; 22/10/14,
  56. Stephen Emmott, Ibid., p.75.
  57. Un plan d’action pour la 5G en Europe, voir,
  58. Sur les nouvelles formes de contrôle que permettront ces nouvelles technologies, voir, notamment, le site internet de Pièces et main d’œuvre,
  59. Voir
  60. « Aujourd’hui, plus personne ne nie l’apport de la technologie mobile pour le bien-être de la société et le succès de son développement en est le reflet ».
  61. Stephen Emmott, p.169.
  62. Guillaume Pitron, La face cachée de la transition énergétique et numérique, Les Liens qui Libèrent, 2018, p.17.
  63. Pour deux degrés, c’est déjà trop tard.
  64. Guillaume Pitron, Ibid, p. 22.
  65. Ibid., p. 23.
  66. Ibid., p. 26.
  67. Témoignage anonyme d’une journaliste chinoise, Ibid., p. 42.
  68. Ibid., p. 55.
  69. Ibid., p. 69.
  70. Notons, et ce n’est pas rien, que lors d’une session parlementaire, Ecolo-Groen, MR, cdH, Open-VLD, NVA, PS, se disent enchantés du Pacte, sans même que la composition du comité ne les choque le moins du monde. Audition à la Chambre des représentants de Belgique, du 22 décembre 2017.

Espace membre

Member area