From the December 2005 Idaho Observer:

Sustainable Development: The Real Agenda and our future

by Hari Heath

Independent news networks and the independent press are abuzz with "Agenda 21"—the UN’s "sustainable development" plan. These pontificators denounce this UN plan on nearly all of its points, and for many good reasons.

The would-be global governors have a plan to rule the Earth by declaring environmental disaster, inequitable and unsustainable consumption patterns, failure of our current infrastructures and management systems, and all manner of pending doom if the people and governments of this world don’t get onboard the UN’s good ship Agenda 21.

This extensive plan seeks to radically alter our relationship to everything, from our cultural and national boundaries, our property, to the water we use and the air we breathe. As proposed, it lays the foundation for the globalist’s ultimate takeover.

But we may be missing the mark and falling into a trap by denouncing Agenda 21. Let’s look and see if its essential components aren’t something we should be embracing instead—with a sovereign American twist.

The contents of Agenda 21

Agenda 21’s Table of Contents include:

International Cooperation

Combating Poverty

Changing Consumption Patterns

Demographics and sustainability

Protecting Human Health

Human Settlements

Protection of the Atmosphere

Planning and Management of Land Resources

Combating deforestation

Desertification Drought

Sustainable Mountain Development

Sustainable Agriculture

Conservation of Biological Diversity

Management of Biotechnology

Protection of the Oceans

Management and use of Water Resources

Management of Toxic Chemicals

Management of Hazardous Wastes

Management of Solid Waste

Management of Radioactive Waste

Preamble: Strengthening the Role of Major Groups

Global Action for Women

Children and Youth in Sustainable Development

Indigenous People

NGO Partners

Strengthening Workers and Trade Unions

The Role of Business Industry

Scientific Technological communities

The Role of Farmers

Financial Resources Mechanisms

Transfer of Technology

Science for Sustainable Development

Promoting Education Training

National Mechanisms International Cooperation

International Institutional Arrangements

International Legal Mechanisms

Information for Decision Making

Integrating environment and development in decision-making

Local Authorities Initiatives in Support of Agenda 21

Genuine concern

Many of the components of Agenda 21 are genuine areas of concern. We, as individuals and as the various human societies living on this planet, must consider and effectuate remedies for these challenges, if we and our progeny are to survive and prosper. Yet many independent press pontificators oppose Agenda 21 AND Sustainable Development.

Is international cooperation better than the current U.S. policy of pre-emptive strikes and corporate empire building? Isn’t combating poverty what we do every time we go to work? Do we live in an excessively consumptive society, which has a reckless disregard for resources? Is it wrong to protect human health?

Do our human settlements integrate environmental quality and sustainability in their design? Should we not protect the atmosphere and the oceans? Wouldn’t every responsible property owner wisely plan and manage their land resources? Do deforestation and drought pose a genuine threat in many areas? Isn’t it just plain common sense to grow our food in a sustainable manner?

Are toxic chemicals and wastes dangerous things, which require competent management?

Do we owe respect to the many and diverse life forms in our creator’s creation and should we live in a respectful manner so that they may continue to live also? Is water and our expanding use of it, coupled with the degradation of water resources by industrial societies, an issue of present and future concern to us all?

These are among the genuine issues to which the authors of Agenda 21 have quite cleverly attached themselves.

Misguided opposition

To a certain extent, when the pontificators in the independent media assail Agenda 21, they fall into a trap. We look like idiots when we oppose the many good and necessary components of Agenda 21. It puts a new twist on the old Hegelian dialectic of problem, reaction, solution.

When we oppose Agenda 21 and, therefore, the substantive issues it seeks to address, we become the "problem" because of our "reaction." If we offer no solutions, only a reaction, we are the "problem" and it leaves them, the UN, as the "solution." Maybe the Agenda 21 authors even predicted our response and planned such a "solution."

Sustainable Development

There are some grass roots groups organizing to oppose "Sustainable Development," like it’s a bad thing. Sustainable development is what our planet and its inhabitants need—and soon. The fascist/communist/capitalist oiligarchy permeating our current governmental forms is working hard to destroy everything sustainable. We need to develop independent, sustainable alternatives. Who, in their right mind, would be against sustainable development? Do we not want a future?

The Problem Agenda

The problem with Agenda 21 is not the problems it seeks to address, but the solutions it proposes, namely, that a cadre of Non Government Organizations (NGOs) should come charging to the rescue with "Local Authorities Initiatives, Financial Resources Mechanisms, [re]Education Training, International Institutional Arrangements" and "International Legal Mechanisms." Along with these abhorrent mechanisms is the UN’s arrogant presumption that it has any right, title or interest in any of this Earth’s property, oceans, atmosphere, nations or people. The UN will no doubt seek to subvert personal and national sovereignty in its’ quest to implement Agenda 21.

So let’s not attack "sustainable development." Let’s embrace it with all the passion ingenious Americans can muster. We shouldn’t oppose Agenda 21, but rather inform our "local authorities," whenever they are faced with an Agenda 21 "initiative," that those proposing such an initiative have a dubious, even genocidal history.

Whose Agenda?

Remember, the UN is responsible for fostering genocide in Africa, both in the incitement and maintenance of tribal warfare and the spread of AIDs through vaccination programs. It is an expressed UN policy to promote planetary depopulation and Africa is just a starting point. It’s only a glimpse of its real agenda. There are very few volunteers for depopulation and the goal is a global population of under one billion.

The UN also helped to limit global oil supply, and thereby keep oil prices up, by imposing sanctions on Iraq after the Bush I War, and initiating the "food-for-oil" program—a program which created a still unresolved scandal reaching to the very top of the UN power structure—UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and his family members. The sanctions and the failed food-for-oil program have been attributed as the cause of death for an estimated 500,000 Iraqi children between the Bush I and Bush II wars.

The legacy of the UN is the trail of their engagements. In almost all cases, the UN is still engaged in every entanglement to which it has initiated or attached itself, and its stated mission has failed to achieve its publicly claimed goals. The UN may have achieved great success in the covert objectives: Global dominance by chaos creation and creeping control, but the overt premises of its entanglements are marked by long-standing failure.

The trail of failure

Is there peace in Korea more than 50 years after the "peacekeeping" action began there? Has Somalia achieved tribal tranquility and self-rule? Has slavery been eliminated in the Sudan? This is, after all, 2005. Has the UN reduced human rights abuses in Iran, or even inspected its alleged nuclear weapons program? Is Iraq a UN disaster area: Failed sanctions, failed programs, failed inspections, failed peace? Has the UN successfully mitigated the atrocities in Palestine? Has it stopped the genocide in Timor?

Has the UN ever left any of the conflict areas in which it has entangled itself?

The real UN agenda

And these are the people that pretend they will save us from ourselves by implementing their agenda—Agenda 21: "Changing Consumption Patterns, Human Settlements, Integrating environment and development in decision-making, Planning and Management of Land Resources, Conservation of Biological Diversity, Management of Biotechnology, Management and use of Water Resources, Global Action for Women, Indigenous People, NGO Partners, Local Authorities Initiatives, Financial Resources Mechanisms, Transfer of Technology, Education Training, Children and Youth in Sustainable Development, National Mechanisms, International Institutional Arrangements and Legal Mechanisms." Are you beginning to get a clearer picture of the UN’s "agenda?"

Remember, this is a wholly appointed body of bureaucrats who attend meetings and lavish dinners, write reports, make plans and get others to do their dirty work. Favors, bribes and special treatment is the norm for this elite class of ambassador/administrators. They propose to save us with "Sustainable Development" while sitting in their Rockefeller-Clan-provided seat of "government" in that most unsustainable development: New York City.

Sounds like a workable "agenda" to me— based on all previous UN examples.

The government problem

To paraphrase and combine, it has been said: "That government is best which governs least and closest to home." Or, as Ronald Reagan put it: "Government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem."

The UN is seeking to become a global super-government, as all experience and its own documents hath shown. Without any sovereign territory, consent of the governed, bona fide jurisdiction, or lawful authority, its officers are never the less sowing the seeds of their legal acceptance wherever they may take root. They have no intention of governing least or close to home. Were it not for the "generosity" of the benevolent Rockefellers, the UN would be homeless.

The federal government needs little mention here. The pages of this paper and its many previous editions have extolled the facts, in a multitude of areas, that the federal government has no intention of governing little, or close to home.

Our several state governments, while having greater authority for governance closer to home, reflect their status as agencies subservient to federal interests and mandates, with our county governments closely following suit. The problem is government and the UN is seeking to be one more overlay.

A natural equation

Bill Denman proposed the equation (The IO, Nov., 2005) that Man’s Material Wealth equals Natural Resources, plus Human Energy, times Tools, minus the Cost Of Government (MMW = NR + HE x T – COG).

In a sense, "Sustainable Development" requires that Mr. Denman’s equation result in a positive factor. The NR + HE x T component of the equation, if each element is more than zero, provides a positive factor. The only negative factor is the Cost Of Government. The quantity of available Natural Resources, Human Energy and Tools will limit the level which is "sustainable," but only government reaches to a negative factor, inherently destroying sustainability.

Is the UN’s proposal for sustainable development by super-government looking even more untenable?

The fascism factor

Compounding the equation is the fascism factor. Fascism, simply defined, is the merger of corporate interests with government power. There are substantial examples where corporate interests have manipulated government power to produce a result favoring the corporate interest and increasing the Cost Of Government. Most of government exemplifies the fascism factor. Contrary to the UN’s Agenda 21, real sustainable development will begin when most of government ends.

Real Sustainable Development

Many of the "problems" Agenda 21 seeks to attack are very real. Poverty historically has caused the destruction of resources for short-term necessities. Consumption habits often exceed the productivity of the natural resources from they are made. Human health suffers, largely because of government policies and the rapine corporate conduct they condone.

Our "settlements" leave much to be desired from the standpoint of efficiency, environmental responsibility and durability. Our land, water and atmospheric resources are often used for short-term benefit at the expense of long-term quality. Drought and deforestation are problematic in some areas. Our agricultural practices have been industrialized,depleting the soil of nutrients and the genetic and nutritional quality of crops. Our growth and expansion industrial/economic model has caused multiple lacerations of the natural world, irreparably devastating the biological diversity we ultimately depend upon. The accumulation of toxic chemicals and wastes is compounding our problems.

Continual and progressive environmental degradation of our habitat are simply the facts of our modern existence. If we don’t face them, in time, they will face us, in a manner that won’t allow us to look away.

Real sustainable development is not a UN program. It’s about human ingenuity, personal activism and responsibility. As they say, "Think global, act local." Do your part where you can—at home. Don’t organize to oppose Agenda 21, start your own sustainable development program, tailored to the needs of your community.

Close to home

Out here in barely-rural-any-more Idaho, development is at a fevered pitch. Subdivisions are saturating our forests and farmlands. The Uniform Building Code and a government mandated permit and approval system assures a marketplace for a vast array of industrial goods. Distant, non-renewable, centralized infrastructures provide the essentials of water, waste disposal, heat and light. Should these fail, most modern housing will be rendered unlivable. The fascism factor is alive and well.

Do we consider solar gain in our designs? Local energy sources? Alternative options like Earth sheltering, thermal storage and transfer and better personal waste management systems? Would you rather pay $10,000 for centralized power over 10 years or pay $10,000 for a solar/wind system that will last more than 10 years?

Most of our current "development" fails to incorporate sustainable components. Increasingly, major structural components in new houses are made from wood chips and glue. How long will the glue last and what happens then? Modern housing is designed for the short term and to impress people stuck in the Better-Homes-and-Gardens paradigm.

Sustainable development requires that we shift from being mindless consumers to participating producers of a world we consciously live in.

Going places

It takes the energy equivalent of 2,000 gallons of oil to produce a new car. Through advertising pressure, social conformity and egoic identity with our personal automobiles, we have fallen into a consumption pattern of newer and ever more complex transportation devices. Often, at a lesser cost than the value lost when a new car drives away from the dealer’s lot, or the cost of interest on a new, over priced auto, the complete powertrain, chassis and body components of an existing vehicle can be overhauled to new, or better than new condition.

We can make more sustainable choices, save energy and resources by not following the new car paradigm. Do you need an $800 computer (a hidden cost in new vehicles) operating an anti-lock brake system to compensate for the fact that some drivers do not know how to effectively use their brakes? Who can affordably and effectively maintain these new automotive techno-wonders?

What is the cost of government mandated emission systems, made necessary because of the additives put in our gas to foil the use of supercarboration systems capable of exceptional efficiency? Our new car emission systems tend to catalyze after the fact, in the exhaust system. Supercarborators are designed to catalyze fuel before combustion, making clean burning and 100+ mpg travel possible. Oil company’s fuel additives tend to saturate these supercarborator’s catalysts, rendering them ineffective in short order and relegating them to the status of a recurring myth. Meanwhile, tampering with emissions systems is an alleged federal crime.

This is an example of the fascism factor in action. Corporate interests are enhanced keeping fuel consumption high with industry installed additives, increasing the cost of new vehicles with elaborate, after the fact, government mandated emission systems, and enforcement against alternative improvements with federal anti-tampering statutes. Here, the Cost Of Government, multiplied by the fascism factor, equates to the suppression of clean burning fuel and 100 + mpg efficiency.

Real sustainable development begins where government ends!

Food and health

Two areas that already have a movement towards sustainability are food production and health care. The largest growing sector of both agriculture and the grocery industry is the organic market. This trend is likely to continue as more people realize their health problems are largely diet related. The petro-chemical industrial farmers are not going away yet, but they will continue to face increasing market challenges from consumers.

Big Pharma and the Medical Doctor’s cartel are under assault, both legally and in the marketplace. The cost of chemically-managed health care is becoming unsustainable. More people are realizing that the alternatives cost less, work better, have no harmful side effects and can sometimes be grown or gathered in their own yards.

Many natural therapies are becoming mainstream and medical doctors are incorporating more alternatives in their practices.

The green revolution

Many urban and developed areas have well-established green movements and even some Sustainable Development Commissions to advise local governments. The green movement is not limited to a vegan diet, hemp clothing, sandals and bicycles. There are many aspects to a sustainable future. Develop your own.

Going "Green" may be a bit too much for those that are "red" in the neck, but after we get past our seeming differences, we may find we have a lot to offer each other.

Cattle ranchers have been using windmills for centuries and "green" entrepreneurs now make better windmills. "Green" consumers want organic beef and will pay more for it. Cattle ranchers always grew organic beef until industrial ranching supplanted them. "Green" and "red" can help each other out.

Sustainable development: It’s what’s for our future!