Rio+20 Fiasco - but Beware the Club of Rome and Agenda 21

UPDATES:
2012-09-17 The New American article "GOP Platform Rejects UN Agenda 21 as Threat to Sovereignty" (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/12675-gop-platform-rejects-un-agenda-21-as-threat-to-sovereignty) provides an interesting insight into the position of the Republican Party. It includes " .. We strongly reject the U.N. Agenda 21 as erosive of American sovereignty, and we oppose any form of U.N. Global Tax .. ”. Enjoy!
2012-09-24 Section "John Holdren and Agenda 21" added.
2012-12-27 and 28 Sections "The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide" and "Agenda 21, the Club of Rome, the UN, ENEP, UNESCO, et al." added.

*******************************************************************************

On 24th March 2010 I asked “Are Politicians Competent” (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/are-politicians-competent_2578.html). Christopher Booker’s Sunday Telegraph article today - 'Pathetic' Rio conference still leaves us with huge bill to pay -  provides a hint at the answer. I take the liberty of repeating it here. 

The great global warming scare has long been dying on its feet, but that sad fiasco of a conference in Rio last week saw it finally dead and buried. "It's pathetic, it's appalling," wailed a spokesman for WWF, one of the thousands of green activists who flew to Rio, many at taxpayers' expense, to see the last rites read over their lost dream. Their cause has even been abandoned by one of its most outspoken champions, the green guru James Lovelock of "Gaia" fame, who now admits that the warming scare was all a tragic mistake, and that talk "Sustainable development" is just "meaningless drivel".

But the "epic failure" of Rio, as Friends of the Earth called it, is an apt cue to recall how this leaves Britain as only country in the world committed by law to cut its emissions of carbon dioxide by 80 per cent in less than 40 years: The Climate Change Act, on the Government's own figures, faces us with a bill of up to £18 billion every year until 2050, making it by far the most costly law ever passed by Parliament.

More important still, however, this raises the question: how do all those MPs who voted almost unanimously for this target (only three voted against it) think we can meet this obligation without closing down virtually our entire economy?

This is the question which, in April, I invited readers to put to their MPs, and I am very grateful to all those who have now sent me the replies they received, from nearly 50 MPs. These, I fear, are even more depressing than I anticipated.

The question put to the MPs was simple. Since we depend on CO2-emitting fossil fuels for 75 per cent of our electricity and almost all of our transport system, how in practical terms can we reduce those emissions by four-fifths? It is no good pretending that we can rely on "renewables" such as wind and solar to fill the gap, since these are so intermittent that they would require up to 100 per cent backup from fossil fuels to keep our now largely computer-dependent economy functioning.

Not one of the 47 MPs who answered showed the faintest understanding of the question. Many simply relied on a form letter supplied by the Department of Energy and Climate Change, starting with the sentence: 

"Decarbonisation does not mean de-industrialisation." The more honest MPs sent on DECC's letter, others used cut-and-paste to pretend that this reply was all their own work.

Some, such as our climate change minister Greg Barker, chirped about "the Green Deal, Renewables Incentives and Smart Meters". Fiona Bruce (Con, Congleton) was "assured that onshore wind is by far the cheapest large-scale renewable energy source". Roberta Blackman-Woods (Lab, Durham) claimed "nearly a million people now work in the low-carbon economy, with the potential to create 400,000 green jobs by 2020".

The silliest response came from Oliver Letwin, who said that the quoted costs of the Climate Change Act had been greatly exaggerated (not realising that the figures come from DECC's own website), and predicted that solar, wind and carbon capture (as yet non-existent) will soon be so cheap that, in a few years, they "will be able to operate without subsidies". As reader after reader observed, not a single MP addressed the question. Not one had done any serious homework or showed the slightest practical grasp of how electricity is made and how our transport system is powered. They merely regurgitated irrelevant, jargon-ridden propaganda passed on to them by others. As one reader put it: "What is infinitely depressing is that all these 

idiots believe the nonsense they are fed."

They live in a bubble of make-believe which doesn't touch reality at any point. Yet these are the people who passed the most potentially damaging law in our history - in the name of a delusion which, in Rio last week, died the death.

Somewhere along the way, if our country is to survive, that Climate Change Act will have be thrown into the dustbin of history. But judging by their letters, these MPs will be the very last people to realise it. As the man from WWF said, "It's pathetic, it's appalling." 

One couldn't put it better.

John Holdren, Agenda 21 and the IPCC

An interesting article "John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet" (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/#white_house_statement) discusses opinions expressed in a 1977 book "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment" (http://www.questia.com/read/98156598/ecoscience-population-resources-environment). This presents the proposals of  co-authors Paul Ehrlich, Anne Ehrlich and John Holdren on subjects such as global government, population control and environmental management. Few of these proposals are acceptable to those of us who reject the idea of independent nations handing over authority to unelected organisations such as the UN.

The article includes scans of 18 pages from the book that are referenced in the article and the Questia page provides a useful search facility. This disclosed that the opinions and proposals offered by Holdren and the Ehrlichs include:

- “ .. Even more than the resources of the oceans, the atmosphere is shared by all human beings -- and other organisms as well. It is crucial to preserve the atmospheres quality and the stability of global climate .. But that these are now threatened and should be protected by international agreement is only beginning to be recognized in a few quarters. Should a Law of the Sea be successfully established, it could serve as a model for a future Law of the Atmosphere to regulate the use of airspace, to monitor climate change, and to control atmospheric pollution. Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime -- sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration.. (Page 943)

- “ .. there must be a transition to a size-controlled eventually declining population, an internationally regulated Planetary Regime for the global commons, and something resembling the dynamic equilibrium economy espoused by Herman Daly and Emile Benoit .. ” (Page 944),

Holdren's representatives have claimed that the book was simply a text book covering proposals from various sources and not be regarded as his personal opinions (Note 3) however, that is not the only controversial book that Holdren co-authored with the Ehrlichs (Note 4).

So it seems that under the pretext of protecting global environments Holdren wants to see global laws (such as a Law of the Sea, Law of the Atmosphere, Population Law - "Ecoscience .. " Pages 941 & 837) for the purpose of monitoring controlling human activities and transferring wealth from developed to underdeveloped economies, all managed by a Global Government (Note 5). Perhaps that explains his enthusiasm for supporting the UN's IPCC (set up by UNEP and the WMO).

In her 9th Feb 2011 article "John Holdren’s IPCC Myths" (http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/02/09/john-holdrens-ipcc-myths/) Donna Laframboise made some interesting comments about Holdren and the IPCC.   

"Ecoscience .. " opens with a preface by Harrison Brown (see also Notes 1 and 2) which says “ .. It is clear that the future course of history will be determined by the rates at which people breed and die, by the rapidity with which nonrenewable resources are consumed, by the extent and speed with which agricultural production can be improved, by the rate at which the underdeveloped areas can industrialize, by the rapidity with which we are able to develop new resources, as well as 
by the extent to which we succeed in avoiding future wars. All of these factors are interlocked.”

The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide

"...current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake use of fossil fuels, appliances, home andwork-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable. A shift is necessary. which will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including the United Nations..." [1]  Maurice Strong , opening speech at the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development

An interesting article - Agenda 21 The U.N. Plan for "Sustainable" Communities - By Berit Kjos - 1998  (http://www.crossroad.to/text/articles/la21_198.html) advised " .. Note: This global contract binds all nations to the collective vision of "sustainable development." They must commit to pursue the three E's of "sustainability": Environment, Economy and Equity referring to the UN blueprint for environmental regulations, economic manipulation, and social equity. It linked to a related contemporary article - Habitat II

The UN Plan For Human Settlements = also by Berit Kjos, June 1996 - that began " .. 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 and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable.... ... Bicycles instead of cars? Dense apartment clusters instead of single homes? Community rituals instead of churches? "Human rights" instead of religious freedom? .. " 

Are these simply "Conspiracy theories" or real political agenda?

Let's look at what in May 2011 Australian Graham Williamson considered to be happening under the Labour-Green coalition headed by Julia Goddard “ .. The Australian government is still rushing to implement every requirement of their United Nations masters. Their task, is to proceed to give the United Nations a stranglehold over Australia while simultaneously reassuring Australians, with some cash handouts and rewards, that all is under control and Australia is headed for a bright and bold new future…”
“The United Nations future, as implemented by the Australian government, is one where the legal system will give priority to distributive justice (people thousands of miles away have a claim on you if you possess more than them), intergenerational justice (the law will become clairvoyant and grant rights to people who do not yet exist), and animal rights (land owners will have to face animal lawyers in court disputes over property use). Further, lack of scientific evidence will be no defence because of the precautionary principle. Opponents will be silenced by a campaign of vilification and intimidation .. ” (http://tome22.info/Submissions/GW-AgendaFor21stCentury.htm).


More recently he says " .. This paper demonstrates various ways in which the Australian government has put the interests of Australia last in the interests of globalisation & the instructions of the UN. Though some consider the Australian government to be incompetent or “accident prone” the evidence indicates their actions are planned & deliberate & their purpose is to promote globalisation, certainly not strengthen Australia’s autonomy & independence. This being the case, it is concluded they are performing their task brilliantly.

But for all those patriotic Australians who care about the next generation & who would like to see a strong independent democratic prosperous Australia with high moral values and a high standard of living, then the future is very bleak indeed.

In an  astonishing display  of  the degree  of corruption  of  traditional  legal  and  moral  principles which  has  already  occurred,  some  politicians  or  legal  experts  even  seek  to  use  environmental excuses  to convict  ordinary  Australians  of  committing  a  crime when  the  victim  cannot  be  named, does  not  exist,  and  his/her  degree  of  suffering  cannot  be  determined.

This  is  but  a  small  sign  of  what  is  to  come .. ” (see here).

Graham has just released his report "Politicians Act as Agents for the United Nations to Enforce Agenda 21  Upon Australians". Anyone interested in seeing it should ask Graham (grahamhw AT iprimus.com.au).

Agenda 21, the Club of Rome, the UN, ENEP, UNESCO, et al.

Although at first glance these may appear to be quite distinct groups with different agenda that is not the reality. A single umbrella embraces them and is recognised by the term Global Governance. 

The Club of Rome (where the buck stops)

QUOTE .. So, what exactly is the Club of Rome and who are its members? Founded in 1968 at David Rockefeller’s estate in Bellagio, Italy, the CoR describes itself as “a group of world citizens, sharing a common concern for the future of humanity.” It consists of current and former Heads of State, UN beaureacrats, high-level politicians and government officials, diplomats, scientists, economists, and business leaders from around the globe .. UNQUOTE (http://agendatwentyone.wordpress.com/2010/06/28/the-club-of-rome-where-the-buck-stops/).

Many of those named in the article will be familiar to most readers. The links given are worth following. This quotation in one of the comments is worth considering " .. “Whenever an ideal, ANY ideal, gets its hands on the real levers of power —you get pure EVIL.” -D H Lawrence 1922

New World Order I: World Communism, Club of Rome Tells G20 AUGUST 29, 2009

This article (http://nwoobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/new-world-order-i-world-communism-club-of-rome-tells-g20/) says QUOTE: .. 

Summary: This is a review of a speech made by Club of Rome´s secretary-general before UNESCO at a meeting  on 15 June. The Speech was presented to the G20  in London on 2 April – and to the G8 and the G5 as well. The secretary-general says that the Club of Rome has  moved on to influencing world politics directly. He wants a strong climate policy, communist distribution of wealth in the world, sustainability, reduction of our consumption, stop population to growth, radical restructuring of the world government now. Problems can only be solved together: global government for global problems. Otherwise  unimaginable disaster awaits us. UNESCO will be used to indoctrinates world population accordingly.
.. the threats of climate change and ecosystems collapse are real and imminent and .. an inequitable and polarised world of rich and poor is morally unacceptable and presents major dangers of conflict, then it will be evident that the connected challenges of the 21st Century will only be contained and resolved through a radical redesign and reform of the architecture of global governance .. UNQUOTE

That final paragraph pulls into context much of what is discussed on this Global Political Shenanigans blog.

Beware the Club of Rome and Agenda 21

NOTES:

1) See "Population Control: John Holdren Also Wants to Sex You Down" (http://theintelhub.com/2012/02/15/population-control-john-holdren-also-wants-to-sex-you-down/) which says QUOTE: .. The Preface of Ecoscience opens with:

“Since the first edition of Population, Resources, Environment was published seven years ago [1970], the population of the world has grown by almost one-half billion people…. The realization has dawned that seemingly disparate events in the economic, environmental, and political spheres are interconnected. That civilization has entered a period of grave crisis is now doubted only by those afflicted with incurable Micawberism; everyone who is alertable is alerted.”

“It is clear that the future course of history will be determined by the rates at which people breed and die, by the rapidity with which nonrenewable resources are consumed, by the extent and speed with which agricultural production can be improved, by the rate at which the underdeveloped areas can industrialize, by the rapidity with which we are able to develop new resources, as well as by the extent to which we succeed in avoiding future wars. All of these factors are interlocked.” — Harrison Brown in the opening quotation for Ecoscience (p. 1, 3rd Ed.)

Whole chapters of Ecoscience are devoted to population growth and sexual reproduction. Clearly, there are too many of you and something must be done .. UNQUOTE.

2) See "Study in contrasts: Christian scientist vs. eco-mad scientist" 

By Michelle Malkin, July 15, 2009 (

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/07/15/study-in-contrasts-christian-scientist-vs-eco-mad-scientist/) 

which says 

QUOTE: .. 

I have indeed read one of Holdren’s recent works that reveals his clingy reverence for, and allegiance to, the gurus of population control authoritarianism. He’s just gotten smarter about cloaking it behind global warming hysteria. In 2007, he addressed the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference .. 

Holdren admitted that his “preoccupation” with apocalyptic matters such as “the rates at which people breed” is a lifelong obsession inspired by scientist Harrison Brown .. UNQUOTE.

3) QUOTE: .. his staff gave The Washington Times a statement that said, "This material is from a three-decade-old, three-author college textbook. Dr. Holdren addressed this issue during his confirmation when he said he does not believe that determining optimal population is a proper role of government. Dr. Holdren is not and never has been an advocate for policies of forced sterilization." .. UNQUOTE (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/#white_house_statement). 

4) Their 1973 book "Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions" says QUOTE: .. De-development means bringing our economic system .. into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation .. Resources must be diverted from .. overdeveloped countries to .. underdeveloped countries .. This effort must be largely political .. but the campaign should be strongly supplemented by legal and boycott action against polluters and others whose activities damage the environment. The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge. They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being .. UNQUOTE (Page 279.see http://www.questia.com/library/5788193/human-ecology-problems-and-solutions).

There is an interesting related article - White House Science Czar Says He Would Use ‘Free Market’ to ‘De-Develop the United States’ - (http://utahclimate.org/articles/white-house-science-czar-says-he-would-use-%E2%80%98free-market%E2%80%99-to-%E2%80%98de-develop-the-united-states%E2%80%99#more-1587).

5) It seems that Holdren is on the same wavelength as eco-extremist Polly Higgins who believes that "Trees Have Rights Too" (http://treeshaverightstoo.com/) and is trying to pursuade the UN to introduce a 5th Crime against Peace, the Crime of Ecocide (http://www.pollyhiggins.com/Polly_Higgins/Ecocide__5th_Crime_Against_Peace.html)!

Further Reading

"U.N. Agenda 21 - Sustainable Development" (http://americandeception.com/index.php?action=downloadpdf&photo=PDFsml_AD2/UN_Agenda_21-Debbie_Niwa-2012-265pgs-GOV-POL.pdf&id=552)

"WHAT IS AGENDA 21? AFTER WATCHING THIS, YOU MAY NOT WANT TO KNOW" (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/what-is-agenda-21-after-watching-this-you-may-not-want-to-know/)

"Your Future: Take a look at the EU" (http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/1/post/2010/09/your-future-take-a-look-at-the-eu.html)

"ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN THE EUROPEAN UNION" (http://www.un.org/esa/agenda21/natlinfo/countr/ec/Eco.htm)

"What is U.N. Agenda 21?" (http://www.endagenda21.com/)