SOUND
THE ALARM AGAINST SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
PART 2 of 2
by
Tom DeWeese
March 1, 2010
NewsWithViews.com
Ecological Integrity
Under Sustainable Development there can be no concern over individual
rights, wants, or needs – as we must all sacrifice for the sake
of the environment. The UN’s Commission on Global Governance said
in its 1998 report: “Human activity…combined with unprecedented
increases in human numbers…are impinging on the planet’s
basic life support system. Action must be taken now to control the human
activities that produce these risks.” Harvey Ruvin, Vice
Chair of the International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives
(ICLEI) said, “Individual rights will have to take a back
seat to the collective.”
Under
Sustainable Development there can be no limited government, as advocated
by our Founding Fathers, because, we are told, the real or perceived
environmental crisis is too great. Maurice Strong, Chairman of the 1992
UN Earth Summit said: “A shift is necessary toward lifestyles
less geared to environmentally-damaging consumption patterns. The shift
will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including
the United Nations.”
Q: What parts of our lives is it targeting; it is really all
encompassing?
TAD: There are Sustainable Development papers, guidelines
and regulations to impose the ruling principle:
On our public education system – to prepare our
children to live in a sustainable world.
On our economy – to create partnerships between
business and government, making sure business becomes a tool to help
implement the policies.
On
the environment – leading to controls on private property
and business.
On health care – the new drive against obesity
is leading directly toward controls on what we eat. The current debate
on “rationed” health care is right out of the Sustainable
play book as it considers older people ad the sick to be no longer valuable
resources.
On farming – Sustainable Development policies
affect farmer’s ability to produce more crops by regulating precious
chemicals, biotechnology, and genetic engineering in the name of environmental
protection. To fully understand the folly of sustainable farming, there
are now agriculture courses in colleges and Ag symposiums on sustainable
farming that feature the use of Oxen as replacements for non-sustainable
tractors. Need I say more?
On our social and cultural environment – where
political correctness is controlling policy-hiring practices, immigration
policy, multiculturalism, marriage laws, and even what we can say. “Globally-acceptable
truth” dictates the science and knowledge we are allowed to pursue.
On our mobility – with emphasis on carpools and public
transportation. $4 per gallon gas is purely sustainable development
policies designed to ban the drilling of more oil in order to create
shortages and drive up the price to get us our of our cars and into
public transportation.
And on public safety – where the rule of law
and the court system are being challenged by new laws and regulations
that affect the right to privacy and unreasonable search and seizures.
REAL ID and the creation of a total surveillance society assures we
are bring properly sustainable in our daily lives.
It is important to understand that these leading issues we face today
are not just random concerns that accidentally find their way into the
forefront of political debate. They are all interconnected to the policies
of Sustainable Development and the restructuring of our way of life.
To quote a special Sustainable Development document prepared by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD): “A new ecologically balanced economics will drive the pursuit of Community Sustainability within modern society’s all-encompassing urban-rural industrial civilization…. This global marketplace is destined to recast the meanings of industry, work, play, health, agriculture, communications, learning and much more.”
Sustainable Development calls for changing the very infrastructure of the nation, away from private ownership and control of property to nothing short of central planning of the entire economy – often referred to as top-down control.
Sustainable
Development policy is built on something called the “precautionary
principle.” That means that any activities that might threaten
human health or the environment should be stopped -- even if no clear
cause and effect relationship has been established – and even
if the potential threat is largely theoretical.
Q: Is this concept essential to care for the environment?
TAD: In reality, Sustainable Development has very little
to do with protecting the environment. It has much more to do with redistributing
wealth. The basis for Sustainablist policy is global warming. The excuse
is that we must cut back on our carbon foot print. Yet, the Kyoto Accord,
if fully implemented, would have done nothing to reduce carbon emissions,
simply because it allowed some of the most industrialized nations like
China, India and Brazil to be exempt. Cap and Trade does the same thing.
How is the environment helped if there is no reduction of the pollutants
they say causes the crisis? In fact, Sustainable Development has nothing
to do with it. Instead, its policies specifically succeed in locking
away American resources, like timber, oil and minerals, forcing us to
import them from other countries. How does that help the environment?
Again, it is about redistributing American dollars to other countries,
reducing our power and independence. That forces us to rely on the global
economy, leading to stronger global governance.
Advertisement
Q:
Is there a rational basis for "sustainable development", I
mean are natural resources that in danger of being destroyed or consumed
out of existence?
TAD: Scientific research shows that there is no shortage
of natural resources. The United States appears to have more oil than
anywhere else in the world. But it is locked away. Science is beginning
to speak out quite forcefully about the lack of evidence of man-made
global warming. It simply doesn’t exist. America has more trees
today than in the last 200 years, simply because we no longer have to
maintain massive fields for horses – because of the invention
of the car. There is no shortage of land and there is no over population
crisis. In fact, all of the people in the world could today live in
an area the size of Texas, with a density equal to living in Paris,
France.
The reasons for the ever-growing poverty and horrible living conditions
in some parts of the world, is because of bad governments which refuse
to allow their people the ability to create their own wealth. Economists
such as Hernando deSoto advocate that ownership of private property
is the only way to eliminate poverty – exactly why America is
so rich and prosperous. Instead, these countries steal the labor of
their people, forcing them to live in hovels, making the water filthy
and scorching the fields where nothing will grow. Then the governments
look to other nations to bail them out and the environmentalists scream
about population explosions and destruction of the environment. The
UNs’ answer is aid, aid and more aid – taking from the producers
– giving to those with nothing – forcing them to live in
life-long bread lines. The UN and the “humanitarians” pat
themselves on the back for such compassion – as the poor continue
to suffer. Worse, Environmentalists work to stop development in Third
World countries, saying the growing use of energy is not sustainable.
They are much happier to have the poor live in their mud huts, walking
five mile a day for their dirty water. Through their Public/Private
Partnerships, many corporations and lending institutions now refuse
to build development projects in such areas, claiming them to be unsustainable.
They then give each other awards for their environmental stewardship.
Q:
To what extent is the promotion of "Sustainable Development"
fear-mongering?
TAD: Like its partner in crime Global Warming, Sustainable
Development is nothing but fear mongering. During the Cold Warm, the
Soviet Union tried to get us to accept Marxism. We refused, seeing how
horrible it was. But, when the Iron Curtain fell, many of the same policies
were proposed to the world wrapped in a neat green blanket. We were
warned that we had to “protect the environment” or we our
foothold in the universe – planet earth – would die and
us with it. Suddenly, the West started throwing its liberties on the
bon fire like a good old fashioned book burning.
Q: Are the promoters of "Sustainable Development"
cynical in their view of humanity, and in technology and mankind's capacity
to meet challenges and solve them radically with science, rather than
juridical strictures?
TAD: They basically take the attitude that man is not
part of the ecology and is a danger to the earth. If only man could
be eliminated, they say, the earth and the animals could have a chance.
Think that is too outrageous? I’ll let them tell you in their
own words:
“The native ecosystems and the collective needs of non-human
species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans.”
--- Reed Noss, a developer of the Wildlands Project
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrial
nations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
--- Maurice Strong, Chairman, 1992 Earth Summit
“Endangered species is the wedge for imposing a new land ethic
that compares land ownership to slaves and involves discarding that
concept of property and trying to find a different understanding of
the landscape.” --- Bruce Babbitt, former Secretary of the
Interior
“(We) will map the whole nation…determine development
for the whole country, and regulate it all…” --- Thomas
Lovejoy, scientific advisor to the Department of the Interior
“We reject the idea of private property” --- Peter
Berle, National Audubon Society
“Among environmentalists sharing tow or three beers, the notion
is quite common that if only some calamity could wipe out the human
race, other species might once again have a chance." --- Richard
Conniff, Audubon Magazine
Q: So, in a word, would it be wrong to say that "Sustainable
Development" is merely a code word for reorganizing society on
the basis of socialist principles and a statist view of civil government?
TAD: In a word – No – it would not be wrong
to say that. Al Gore, in his book Earth in the Balance, said we must
go through a “wrenching transformation of society” in order
to cleanse us of the Twentieth Century’s industrial revolution.
Sustainable Development is that wrenching transformation. When it is
over, if they succeed, our civilization may again be one of cave dwellers
responding to superstitions instead of knowledge.
Q: What do we most have to fear from the advocates of "Sustainable
Development", if they are only interested in peaceful lobbying?
TAD: There is no “peaceful” lobbying. The
Sustainablist are entrenched in our communities (ICLEI). They control
Congress and state houses across the nation. Sustainable Development
is the ruling principle in every city, town and county in the nation.
They have organized business into partnerships where “going green”
is the mantra of the day. They are banning products like incandescent
light bulbs, so they can make more money from the new, dangerous, mercury
filled “green bulbs.” They are using programs like the “Wildlands
Project” to lock away land, destroying ranches and the timber
industry, in turn destroying whole towns. In that way they are herding
people into human habitat areas – massive cities. In those cities
they are forcing homeowners to make their homes “sustainable,”
forcing them to put on new roofs, new windows, new appliances –
all so they comply with sustainable regulations. In Oakland, CA, such
new sustainable rules will force homeowners to spend an average of $35,000
per home. Smart Growth polices are locking away land outside the city,
putting a premium on land, forcing housing costs to skyrocket and forcing
the need to control populations inside the designated area. Soon, if
allowed to go on, we sill see government enforcing population control
on the number of babies a family may have. Use your imagination as to
how that will be done. Some Sustainablists advocate that the Earth can
only sustain a population of about 250 million.
Meanwhile
in rural communities, farmers and land owners are unable to make money
from their lands because of taxes, global “free trade” pacts
like NAFTA, and strict regulations that are killing their ability to
survive. So they are signing things like conservation agreements and
selling their development rights, thinking these things will save their
land. What they don’t understand is that groups like the Nature
Conservancy are getting rich and powerful trading and selling those
Easements to their fellow environmental groups. The farmers, thinking
they have preserved the land to hand down to their children find to
their horror that they have nothing to hand down. They no longer own
the land. And if they try to sell it, they find no buyers, because no
one wants to buy something they can’t control.
Q: What are some of the code words which advocates of "Sustainable
Development" use to make it appear a worthwhile cause?
TAD: Partnership building, Consensus, Urban Redevelopment,
Community Development, Land use, Collaborative Approaches, Purchas of
Development Rights (IPDR), “Maintaining a strong diversified local
economy,” Preserve open space, Preserving our heritage, Heritage
Corridors, Heritage Areas, Historic Preservation, Quality Growth, Smart
Growth, Innovative new development, Tax-free Zones, Use of Eminent Domain,
Regional Governments, Regional Planning Boards, Water Control Boards,
Urban Forest, Non-governmental Organizations (NGO), Conservation Easements,
Sustainable Farming, Comprehensive Planning, Visioning Process, Growth
Management, Resource Use, Social Justice.
If
you hear your locally–elected leaders using these terms, Sustainable
Development is what they mean.
Q: To what extent has this concept of "Sustainable Development"
already been incorporated in our Federal and State laws?
TAD: First of all, Sustainable Development is not a
partisan issue. It is being implemented equally by both Republicans
and Democrats. Most of the Sustainable policy coming from the federal
level has not been through legislation from Congress. Instead, it has
come from Executive Order from the Administration. Under the Clinton
Administration, nearly every department of the government moved to impose
sustainable development by using existing programs and funding. Former
Commerce Secretary Ron Brown stated that his department could impose
60% of the policies they wanted in his department without any new legislation.
In that way, Clinton was able to enforce almost the entire Biodiversity
Treaty, even though is has never been ratified by the Senate.
Meanwhile,
the UN has worked directly with local communities to recruit mayors
and county commissioners to create Sustainable policy on their own.
The National Conference of Mayors is a major promoter of Sustainable
Development. Of course, with ICLEI in over 500 cities, literally every
single local and state government is now involved in putting these polices
in place.
Q: Is there anything more you would like to add?
TAD: Understand, it is not environmental protection
that is the culprit – it is the PROCESS of Sustainable Development.
Communities have dealt with local problems for 200 years. Some use zoning,
some don’t. But locally elected town councils and commissioners
which meet and discuss problems with the citizens are how this nation
was built and prospered. Today, under Sustainable Development, NGOs
like ICLEI move in to establish non-elected boards, councils and regional
government bodies.
They answer to no one and they are run by zealots with their own political agenda imposing international laws and regulations. Local homeowners have no say in the process and in most cases are shut out. Sometimes they are literally thrown out of council meetings because they want to discuss how a regulation is going to affect their property or livelihood. Essentially, this process of a series of non-elected councils and boards enforcing policy is the perfect description of a soviet.
| Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts! |
Today, those who are taking to the streets in TEA Party protests are focusing on federal issues like taxes and health care. They must learn that they can never restore the Republic if their local community is a little soviet. This is the root of our fight against Sustainable Development. For part one click below.
Click here for part -----> 1,
� 2010 Tom DeWeese - All Rights Reserved
