Agenda 21

Posted: October 8, 2012 in Agenda 21, Current Events, News
English: Emblem of the United Nations. Color i...

English: Emblem of the United Nations. Color is #d69d36 from the image at http://www.un.org/depts/dhl/maplib/flag.htm (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Agenda 21, is a United Nations program designed to create a world based on sustainability.  According to the Agenda 21 website, it was passed by 178  countries at a UN conference in Rio in June of 1992.
The Agenda 21 Website is here.

Agenda 21 may sound benign at first, but a little digging sheds a lot of light on this altogether frightening plan.  It is a 40 chapter guide to implementing voluntary environmental laws and regulations for a worldwide system of compliance.

Agenda 21 wikkipedia entry here.

Many communities in the United States are participating right now. The International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives, or ICLEI.  I found out my hometown spends money on this, does yours?

ICLEI wikkipedia entry here.

For those in Johnson County Kansas here’s a video link from NOlathe’s Blog: http://nolathe.net/2012/02/24/county-to-fund-iclei-research-and-development-project/

and the government site:

http://sustainable.jocogov.org/

Using the auspices of environmentalism, the ulterior motive of Agenda 21 may very well be the abrogation of personal property rights and the globalized redistribution of wealth and even (as crazy as it sounds) population redistribution into giant “intelligent” cities.

UNITED NATIONS PROTECTION FORCE

UNITED NATIONS PROTECTION FORCE (Photo credit: United Nations Photo)

Now, I’m not wearing my tin foil hat at the moment, and I don’t see Agenda 21 in the shadows of every coincidental happenstance, but the facts are alarming.  The United Nations has been crafting legislature on Agenda 21 for over 20 years, and it is here to be reckoned with because it will not go away on its own.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Advertisements
Comments
  1. Ed Darrell says:

    Boy Scouts of America are cooperating, too. They work for the Soil and Water Conservation Merit Badge, and they work on conservation projects across the nation. Girl Scouts are in, too.

    Farmers cooperate when they use contour plowing to reduce soil erosion by wind and water, and when they work to conserve water in irrigating.

    Sounds like sound conservation practices, to me.

    Why do you find conservation to be sinister? Soil and water conservation are serious issues, worldwide. Good cropland is a good idea. What’s the real complaint you have against Smokey the Bear?

  2. saneromeo says:

    Conservation is by no means a sinister practice. Conservation as a mask for socialism though may be a bit on the creepy side. Conservation as a mask for forced abortion and sterilization measures designed to depopulate the planet are also things I find sinister.

    • Ed Darrell says:

      Where is there any evidence of abortion, let alone forced abortion?

      Where is there any evidence of sterilization?

      Where is there any evidence of depopulation?

      I am reminded of those who opposed the Green Revolution because they thought Norman Borlaug had put mind-control drugs in the seeds. Today, we feed an additional two billion people — and there’s no mind control drugs in the grains that do it. Agenda 21 is concerned with making sure we have enough food to feed the humans on the planet, which requires that we make sure we’ve got the land to grow the food, which means we’d better take good care of that land. It’s a Biblical principal called “stewardship.”

      In short, it’s good Boy Scout practice. Shame on anyone who makes bizarre, counter claims — especially without evidence.

      Here’s the website for Agenda 21, and I dare you to find anything that provides substance to the claims you make here: http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/

      Humanity stands at a defining moment in history. We are confronted with a perpetuation of disparities between and within nations, a worsening of poverty, hunger, ill health and illiteracy, and the continuing deterioration of the ecosystems on which we depend for our well-being. However, integration of environment and development concerns and greater attention to them will lead to the fulfilment of basic needs, improved living standards for all, better protected and managed ecosystems and a safer, more prosperous future. No nation can achieve this on its own; but together we can – in a global partnership for sustainable development.

      What are you opposed to there? You’re opposed to humans being able to fulfill their basic needs?

      You’re opposed to “improved living standards for all?”

      You’re opposed to protected ecosystems?

      You’re opposed to a safer and more prosperous future?

      You’re opposed to Christian principles of stewardship?

      Really?

      • saneromeo says:

        I am opposed to a centralized planner telling 7 billion people the “Right” way to live.
        I am opposed to people being able to fulfill their basic needs off of the backs of other nations.
        I am opposed to improved living standards for all when they are enforced by men with guns and law degrees.
        I am opposed to protected ecosystems when they infringe on the rights of the human beings who own said ecosystems.
        I’m not sure where you get a safer and much more prosperous future from, so no, I’m not opposed to that one.
        I am opposed to the Christian principle of stewardship when it is twisted by the government as a catalyst to modify behavior based on inconclusive fear based science.

      • saneromeo says:

        1.4. The developmental and environmental objectives of Agenda 21 will require a substantial flow of new and additional financial resources to developing countries, in order to cover the incremental costs for the actions they have to undertake to deal with global environmental problems and to accelerate sustainable development.

        Redistribution is implied there, is it not? That was chapter 1 section 4. Money funneled from richer nations to poorer nations for any reason is the definition of redistribution.

  3. Ed Darrell says:

    Again I ask: Where in Agenda 21 does anyone tell anyone the right way to live? Where in Agenda 21 is there even a hint that anyone should take “basic needs off of the backs of other nations?” UN has no enforcement mechanisms. Why do you imagine “men with guns,” and what do you have against the profession of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and other liberators? Where does protection of ecosystems infringe on anyone’s rights — especially under any Agenda 21 program (remembering that the entire thing is voluntary)?

    How do we get to a safer and more prosperous future when people cast basic soil and water conservation as an evil conspiracy, and that conservation is absolutely necessary to expanding human populations? It sounds to me as if you’re proposing limits on population, and misery for those left out of your scheme.

    How is stewardship “twisted” by anyone in any conservation program?

    Section IV of the chief Agenda 21 document says:

    33.3. Economic growth, social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities in developing countries and are themselves essential to meeting national and global sustainability objectives. In the light of the global benefits to be realized by the implementation of Agenda 21 as a whole, the provision to developing countries of effective means, inter alia, financial resources and technology, without which it will be difficult for them to fully implement their commitments, will serve the common interests of developed and developing countries and of humankind in general, including future generations.

    33.4. The cost of inaction could outweigh the financial costs of implementing Agenda 21. Inaction will narrow the choices of future generations.

    * * * * *

    33.6. Economic conditions, both domestic and international, that encourage free trade and access to markets will help make economic growth and environmental protection mutually supportive for all countries, particularly for developing countries and countries undergoing the process of transition to a market economy (see chapter 2 for a fuller discussion of these issues).

    33.7. International cooperation for sustainable development should also be strengthened in order to support and complement the efforts of developing countries, particularly the least developed countries.

    33.8. All countries should assess how to translate Agenda 21 into national policies and programmes through a process that will integrate environment and development considerations. National and local priorities should be established by means that include public participation and community involvement, promoting equal opportunity for men and women.

    * * * * *

    33.13. In general, the financing for the implementation of Agenda 21 will come from a country’s own public and private sectors.

    * * * * *

    33.15. Investment. Mobilization of higher levels of foreign direct investment and technology transfers should be encouraged through national policies that promote investment and through joint ventures and other modalities.

    Section IV, the finance section, urges free enterprise and wise development. It is entirely voluntary. Again I ask, where is the drastic, draconian and authoritarian scheme you complain about? This is all voluntary. At no point is any nation threatened with any punitive actions, nor could there be any way of either making such a threat nor carrying out such a threat under the UN Charter and all related documents.

    In short, once again I ask where in the world you get the idea this is anything other than a bunch of people holding hands, singing Kumbayah, and hoping for the best? You seem so convinced — surely there must have been something that convinced you in the actual documents. In the 20 years since 1992, has any action come close to the dystopia you’ve imagined? Where? When?

    • saneromeo says:

      24.3 (d) Programmes to promote the reduction of the heavy workload of women and girl children at home and outside through the establishment of more and affordable nurseries and kindergartens by Governments, local authorities, employers and other relevant organizations and the sharing of household tasks by men and women on an equal basis, and to promote the provision of environmentally sound technologies which have been designed, developed and improved in consultation with women, accessible and clean water, an efficient fuel supply and adequate sanitation facilities;

      (e) Programmes to establish and strengthen preventive and curative health facilities, which include women-centred, women-managed, safe and effective reproductive health care and affordable, accessible, responsible planning of family size and services, as appropriate, in keeping with freedom, dignity and personally held values. Programmes should focus on providing comprehensive health care, including pre-natal care, education and information on health and responsible parenthood, and should provide the opportunity for all women to fully breastfeed at least during the first four months post-partum. Programmes should fully support women’s productive and reproductive roles and well-being and should pay special attention to the need to provide equal and improved health care for all children and to reduce the risk of maternal and child mortality and sickness;

      Abortion in so many words…
      ————————————————————————————————————————-
      25.14(b) Ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child (General Assembly resolution 44/25 of 20 November 1989, annex), at the earliest moment and implement it by addressing the basic needs of youth and children;

      (c) Promote primary environmental care activities that address the basic needs of communities, improve the environment for children at the household and community level and encourage the participation and empowerment of local populations, including women, youth, children and indigenous people, towards the objective of integrated community management of resources, especially in developing countries;

      Destruction of the family unit perhaps….
      ————————————————————————————————————————-
      29.1. Efforts to implement sustainable development will involve adjustments and opportunities at the national and enterprise levels, with workers foremost among those concerned. As their representatives, trade unions are vital actors in facilitating the achievement of sustainable development in view of their experience in addressing industrial change, the extremely high priority they give to protection of the working environment and the related natural environment, and their promotion of socially responsible and economic development. The existing network of collaboration among trade unions and their extensive membership provide important channels through which the concepts and practices of sustainable development can be supported. The established principles of tripartism provide a basis for strengthened collaboration between workers and their representatives, Governments and employers in the implementation of sustainable development.

      Not communism?!? (gasp)
      ————————————————————————————————————————-

      So as I originally stated in my post, this agenda is a way to implement communism under the guise of environmentalism. Yes it is all voluntarily joined into. That is why we must educate and stop participation in it. Some of the ideas are sound, such as stewardship on an individual level and an overall care for the well being of our planet; but if ratifying the UN rights of the child, and ensuring more women are in leadership positions, and promoting worker’s unions have anything to do with environmentalism than I must not know what environmentalism means.

      • Ed Darrell says:

        25.14 – So helping educate kids by providing kindergartens is some sort of authoritarian plot? This is probably news to you, but Hitler forbade people from going to school when he took a disliking to them — like Jews. Einstein left because they were going to fire him and arrest him for not having a job.

        You think men helping with the dishes will be the downfall of the world? (I have a friend who works homicide — he says it is a fact that no woman has ever murdered her husband while he was doing the dishes.)

        You’re opposed to clean water. You’re opposed to health care for women. You think pregnant women should just “tough it out.” You’re opposed to breastfeeding, though every bit of research shows it makes healthier, smarter and happier kids.

        And somehow, you think education and good health care equals abortion.

        Your dictionary is broken. Perhaps that’s part of the cause, but your politics are seated in repugnant, anti-human rights bigotry.

        Why in the world do you hate your mother, sister and daughters so much?

      • Ed Darrell says:

        (e) Programmes to establish and strengthen preventive and curative health facilities, which include women-centred, women-managed, safe and effective reproductive health care and affordable, accessible, responsible planning of family size and services, as appropriate, in keeping with freedom, dignity and personally held values. Programmes should focus on providing comprehensive health care, including pre-natal care, education and information on health and responsible parenthood, and should provide the opportunity for all women to fully breastfeed at least during the first four months post-partum. Programmes should fully support women’s productive and reproductive roles and well-being and should pay special attention to the need to provide equal and improved health care for all children and to reduce the risk of maternal and child mortality and sickness;

        To which you commented, “Abortion in so many words.”

        Where? There’s not a word supporting reproductive rights there. A lot of words support reproduction, but nothing suggests any support for safe and legal abortion rights. If anyone should be concerned, it would be pro-choice advocates.

      • Ed Darrell says:

        Those documents carry no words about population reduction, but instead promote population expansion. They carry nothing to suggest enforced-by-gun rules on anything.

        Who told you this was anything more than a voluntary conservation program?

  4. saneromeo says:

    Its the same tired Malthusian arguments…if everything is finite in quantity except for human population, then plan all you want there is still a point where the earth cannot sustain humanity…

    I notice you’ve completely gone away from your argument that agenda 21 is not a cover for socialism to talk about depopulation…which is fine, because I did not state in the post anything about abortion, that was in a comment afterwards.

    Communism has given us 80-100 million dead people, forced sterilization, forced abortion, and genocides in the last 100 years. If agenda 21 is hidden socialism then it is only a matter of time before the government decides when Malthusa’s tipping point is to occur and how they are to stop it…Sorry if I jumped ahead in my inferences…

    Either way though I enjoy a nice debate until people start telling me what and whom I hate…

    • Ed Darrell says:

      Its the same tired Malthusian arguments…if everything is finite in quantity except for human population, then plan all you want there is still a point where the earth cannot sustain humanity…

      Agenda 21 is about finding another Green Revolution, to make a non-prophet out of Thomas Malthus once again. I cannot imagine how you do not see that.

      I notice you’ve completely gone away from your argument that agenda 21 is not a cover for socialism to talk about depopulation…which is fine, because I did not state in the post anything about abortion, that was in a comment afterwards.

      You haven’t net responded to my pointing out that socialism/communism and environmentalism are unrelated. You claimed they are related, but of course that ignores the entire history of conservation, which has been driven by capitalists like Teddy Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln and Laurance Rockefeller. I haven’t left the argument at all — you’ve not made a case to support your ahistorical claims.

      Communism has given us 80-100 million dead people, forced sterilization, forced abortion, and genocides in the last 100 years.

      If you’ve got a bone to pick with communism, pick away. But I though you were worried about Agenda 21? Agenda 21 is an anti-communist program, if anything. The communism that gave us so many dead, forced sterilization and other genocides is, like you, opposed to Agenda 21 — and opposed to all rational environmental protection (of three places left on Earth where DDT is manufactured and abused, two of them are communist, China and North Korea).

      There has never been an environmentalist streak in communism, nor is there today. Simiilarly, there are no communists in serious environmental protection.

      If agenda 21 is hidden socialism then it is only a matter of time before the government decides when Malthusa’s tipping point is to occur and how they are to stop it…Sorry if I jumped ahead in my inferences… Either way though I enjoy a nice debate until people start telling me what and whom I hate…

      I’m merely pointing out that any claims of authoritarian enforcement are bizarre and wholly unsupported; claims of Agenda 21 being socialist and/or communist are absurd, wholly unconnected with reality.

      You started out claiming one thing, but you’ve gone all over the political map, inconsistently, since. What do you like? I can’t tell for sure, other than you’re vaguely opposed to Agenda 21 for reasons wholly unconnected with the program of conservation of natural resources.

      What and whom do you like? That’s the critical stuff — can’t tell that, either.

  5. saneromeo says:

    Agenda 21
    In One Easy Lesson

    Awareness of Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development is racing across the nation as citizens in community after community are learning what their city planners are actually up to. As awareness grows, I am receiving more and more calls for tools to help activists fight back. Many complain that elected officials just won’t read detailed reports or watch long videos. “Can you give us something that is quick, and easy to read that we can hand out,” I’m asked.

    So here it is. A one page, quick description of Agenda 21 that fits on one page. I’ve also included for the back side of your hand out a list of quotes for the perpetrators of Agenda 21 that should back up my brief descriptions.

    A word of caution, use this as a starter kit, but do not allow it to be your only knowledge of this very complex subject. To kill it you have to know the facts. Research, know your details; discover the NGO players in your community; identify who is victimized by the policies and recruit them to your fight; and then kill Agenda 21. That’s how it must be done. The information below is only your first step. Happy hunting.

    What is Sustainable Development?

    According to its authors, the objective of sustainable development is to integrate economic, social and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity. Sustainablists insist that every societal decision be based on environmental impact, focusing on three components; global land use, global education, and global population control and reduction.

    Social Equity (Social injustice)

    Social justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people “to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment.” Redistribution of wealth. Private property is a social injustice since not everyone can build wealth from it. National sovereignty is a social injustice. Universal health care is a social injustice. All part of Agenda 21 policy.

    Economic Prosperity

    Public Private Partnerships (PPP). Special dealings between government and certain, chosen corporations which get tax breaks, grants and the government’s power of
    Eminent Domain to implement sustainable policy. Government-sanctioned monopolies.

    Local Sustainable Development policies

    Smart Growth, Wildlands Project, Resilient Cities, Regional Visioning Projects, STAR Sustainable Communities, Green jobs, Green Building Codes, “Going Green,” Alternative Energy, Local Visioning, facilitators, regional planning, historic preservation, conservation easements, development rights, sustainable farming, comprehensive planning, growth management, consensus.

    Who is behind it?

    ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability (formally, International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives). Communities pay ICLEI dues to provide “local” community plans, software, training, etc. Addition groups include American Planning Council, The Renaissance Planning Group, International City/ County Management Group, aided by US Mayors Conference, National Governors Association, National League of Cities, National Association of County Administrators and many more private organizations and official government agencies. Foundation and government grants drive the process.

    Where did it originate?

    The term Sustainable Development was first introduced to the world in the pages a 1987 report (Our Common Future) produced by the United Nations World Commission on Environmental and Development, authored by Gro Harlem Brundtland, VP of the World Socialist Party. The term was first offered as official UN policy in 1992, in a document called UN Sustainable Development Agenda 21, issued at the UN’s Earth Summit, today referred to simply as Agenda 21.

    What gives Agenda 21 Ruling Authority?

    More than 178 nations adopted Agenda 21 as official policy during a signing ceremony at the Earth Summit. US president George H.W. Bush signed the document for the US. In signing, each nation pledge to adopt the goals of Agenda 21. In 1995, President Bill Clinton, in compliance with Agenda 21, signed Executive Order #12858 to create the President’s Council on Sustainable Development in order to “harmonize” US environmental policy with UN directives as outlined in Agenda 21. The EO directed all agencies of the Federal Government to work with state and local community governments in a joint effort “reinvent” government using the guidelines outlined in Agenda 21. As a result, with the assistance of groups like ICLEI, Sustainable Development is now emerging as government policy in every town, county and state in the nation.

    Revealing Quotes From the Planners

    “Agenda 21 proposes an array of actions which are intended to be implemented by EVERY person on Earth…it calls for specific changes in the activities of ALL people… Effective execution of Agenda 21 will REQUIRE a profound reorientation of ALL humans, unlike anything the world has ever experienced… ” Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet (Earthpress, 1993). Emphases – DR

    Urgent to implement – but we don’t know what it is!

    “The realities of life on our planet dictate that continued economic development as we know it cannot be sustained…Sustainable development, therefore is a program of action for local and global economic reform – a program that has yet to be fully defined.” The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, published by ICLEI, 1996.

    “No one fully understands how or even, if, sustainable development can be achieved; however, there is growing consensus that it must be accomplished at the local level if it is ever to be achieved on a global basis.” The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, published by ICLEI, 1996.

    Agenda 21 and Private Property

    “Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore contributes to social injustice.” From the report from the 1976 UN’s Habitat I Conference.

    “Private land use decisions are often driven by strong economic incentives that result in several ecological and aesthetic consequences…The key to overcoming it is through public policy…” Report from the President’s Council on Sustainable Development, page 112.

    “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.” Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN’s Earth Summit, 1992.

    Reinvention of Government

    “We need a new collaborative decision process that leads to better decisions, more rapid change, and more sensible use of human, natural and financial resources in achieving our goals.” Report from the President’s Council on Sustainable Development

    “Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective.” Harvey Ruvin, Vice Chairman, ICLEI. The Wildlands Project

    “We must make this place an insecure and inhospitable place for Capitalists and their projects – we must reclaim the roads and plowed lands, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres or presently settled land.” Dave Foreman, Earth First.

    What is not sustainable?

    Ski runs, grazing of livestock, plowing of soil, building fences, industry, single family homes, paves and tarred roads, logging activities, dams and reservoirs, power line construction, and economic systems that fail to set proper value on the environment.” UN’s Biodiversity Assessment Report.

    Hide Agenda 21’s UN roots from the people

    “Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy- fixated groups and individuals in our society… This segment of our society who fear ‘one-world government’ and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined ‘the conspiracy’ by undertaking LA21. So we call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth.” J. Gary Lawrence, advisor to President Clinton’s Council on Sustainable Development.

    http://americanpolicy.org/agenda21/

    • Ed Darrell says:

      You’re not a farmer, and you don’t have anything to do with city zoning, right?

    • Ed Darrell says:

      You said:

      Economic Prosperity

      Public Private Partnerships (PPP). Special dealings between government and certain, chosen corporations which get tax breaks, grants and the government’s power of
      Eminent Domain to implement sustainable policy. Government-sanctioned monopolies.

      Where do you stand on the XL Tar Sands Pipeline? Where do you stand on eminent domain to force the pipeline across U.S. territory?

    • Ed Darrell says:

      Those are real squirrelly definitions, don’t you think? The definitions are not necessarily related to their use in common discussions, in law, or in science. For example, here’s a common definition of sustainable development that squares with how the Boy Scouts, the Nature Conservancy, farmers in Africa and India, and farmers in the American Midwest use it (from the very pedestrian Wikipedia):

      The term ‘sustainable development’ was used by the Brundtland Commission which coined what has become the most often-quoted definition of sustainable development as development that “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”[1][2] Alternatively, sustainability educator Michael Thomas Needham referred to ‘Sustainable Development’ “as the ability to meet the needs of the present while contributing to the future generations’ needs.”[3] There is an additional focus on the present generations’ responsibility to improve the future generations’ life by restoring the previous ecosystem damage and resisting to contribute to further ecosystem damage.

      The first consideration is human survival, in real usage. Your group suggests that is not even part of the package. For example, slash and burn farms in the Amazon don’t fit; they destroy delicate but very productive and diverse ecosystems, to replace them with a form of monoculture farming that cannot continue long without the rest of the destroyed rain forest and jungle (in the Amazon Basin, nutrients are tied up in living organisms, not in the soil; so once the forest is burned away, the soil is not fertile enough to farm for more than a few years — in other words, it is not sustainable).

      I think that it’s deceptive, and dishonest, to redefine terms outside their common use. If there is a case to be made against Agenda 21, it should be made on the terms of common discussion. Your source is trying to redefine terms, rather like if we were to say “American patriotism” means “animosity to all people of color, hatred of working people and despising of education, culture and women.” Who would be in favor of American patriotism if that were the definition? Of course, that’s not the definition, to any reasonable forum.

      Why not take a look at the definition used by the hard core, free market businessmen? The World Bank adopts the Brundtland Commission definition, which is miles away from the definition you offer.

      Your source tries to set up a straw man of Agenda 21, by twisting the definitions of terms beyond what they really mean. That’s dishonest, unfair, and no wonder you misunderstand and oppose Agenda 21 — you’ve been given bum information on it.

      There are real issues you appear to not care about– feeding people, for example, or getting clean water to people, to drink. Those are basic parts of Agenda 21, and basic parts of Christian stewardship and Christian charity over the centuries. The World Bank explained:

      Studying the puzzle raises a number of difficult questions. For example, can the long term economic objective of sustained agricultural growth be met if the ecological objective of preserving biodiversity is not? What happens to the environment in the long term if a large number of people cannot afford to meet their basic household needs today? If you did not have access to safe water, and therefore needed wood to boil drinking water so that you and your children would not get sick, would you worry about causing deforestation? Or, if you had to drive a long distance to get to work each day, would you be willing to move or get a new job to avoid polluting the air with your car exhaust? If we don’t balance our social, economic, and environmental objectives in the short term, how can we expect to sustain our development in the long term?

      By opposing Agenda 21, one says in effect we should not worry about sustained agricultural growth — but of course, if we’re not, then we condemn millions to starvation. Opposing Agenda 21 says we shouldn’t worry about what people do to meet their needs today, even if it involves polluting the stream you get your drinking water from, or cutting down the forest where live and breed the deer you feed your family from; that we shouldn’t worry about deforestation, even if it means the runoff will clog your hydropower dam downstream.

      “Sustainable development” isn’t exactly a benign and inert term — it requires that we act wisely. But it specifically does not require that we act stupidly, as suggested by the definition your group offers.

      We had a Council on Sustainable Development in the U.S. for a while; here’s how it defined part of its mission:

      “Our vision is of a life sustaining Earth. We are committed to achievement of a dignified, peaceful, and equitable existence. A sustainable United States will have a growing economy that provides equitable opportunities for satisfying livelihoods and a safe, healthy, high quality of life for current and future generations. Our nation will protect its environment, its natural resource base, and the functions and viability of natural systems on which all life depends” (Sustainable America, p. iv).

      Key terms there included, “growing economy,” “equitable opportunities,” “satisfying livelihoods.” Human needs first.

      Except where you offer definitions well outside the policies and offerings from the UN and other agencies, I still see nothing sinister in conserving land and water to make sure we all have enough to eat, roofs over our heads, and clothing to protect us. I can’t figure out what you’re on about.

      • saneromeo says:

        I can tell you feel passionately about this topic, and that I can appreciate, although I chafe at the tendency to tell another what they are thinking and feeling. I fear we may agree about problems (the hungry, the uneducated, women’s rights, the environment) but it is the solutions that we debate.
        I appreciate learning from gentlemen such as yourself, the fact that you care enough to source the information, and continue the dialogue is laudable.
        I have no group that I am a member of, (my last response just being one of the documents I read before posting originally on Agenda 21) nor am I an lawyer, and yes I understand that I am reading a legal document without the benefit of a legal education, which is why the actual post was very cautiously worded.
        Perhaps my information has been bum, but the information I have read does explain my feelings towards this topic. I hope though, that in my blog post itself I merely encouraged people to investigate Agenda 21 themselves and gave them links to do so.

  6. Ed Darrell says:

    They aren’t legal documents, for the most part. What I’m asking you to do is find, anywhere, in any document from the UN or affiliated Agenda 21 groups, the draconian measures you and others claim come from this program. There is no population restriction. There is no restriction on any land use. There is no UN enforcement provision, let alone an enforcement agency. There is nothing in the program that a smart farmer wouldn’t use, if she or he had the chance — and I rather resent the implication from the documents you post that U.S. farmers are all greedy, stupid, and don’t care about the land or the people they feed. I find that absolutely contrary to reality. I resent the implied criticism of the 4-H, Future Farmers of America, and Scouting movement, not to mention the criticism of our National Forests, and the ideas of National Parks and wise stewardship of lands.

    Yes, the information you have is “bum,” especially if it leads you to think there is some international conspiracy through the U.N. to take farmland and golf courses in the U.S. There are serious threats to local ownership of land — especially in Africa and Asia. Agenda 21 fights against tying up those lands, away from local production, for the benefit of larger, richer nations. Your opposition to Agenda 21 may, ironically and sadly, contribute to international groups taking over productive farmland and taking it away from local farmers, in other nations. Isn’t that the opposite of what you want to do?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s