The UN’s Rio+20 agenda would harm health, welfare and nature – and make poverty permanent
Guest post by David Rothbard and Craig Rucker
Twenty years ago, the Rio de Janeiro “Earth Summit” proclaimed that fossil fuel-induced climate change had brought our planet to a tipping point, human civilization to the brink of collapse, and numerous species to the edge of extinction. To prevent these looming disasters, politicians, bureaucrats and environmental activists produced a Declaration on Environment and Development, a biodiversity treaty, Agenda 21 and a framework for the Kyoto climate change treaty.
In developed nations, government responses to the purported crises sent prices soaring for energy, increasing the cost of everything we make, ship, eat and do – and crippling economic growth, killing jobs and sending families into fuel poverty. In developing countries, governments restricted access to electricity generation and other technologies – forcing the world’s poorest families to continue trying to eke out a living the old-fashioned way: turning forest habitats into firewood, cooking over wood and dung fires, and living with rampant poverty and disease.
This year, recognizing that people are no longer swayed by claims of climate cataclysms, Rio+20 organizers repackaged their little-changed agenda to emphasize “sustainable development” and the need to preserve “biodiversity.” To garner support, they professed a commitment to poverty reduction, “social justice” and the right of all people to “fulfill their aspirations for a better life.”
However, mostly far-fetched or exaggerated environmental concerns remained their focal point, and (as always) they have been willing to address today’s pressing needs only to the extent that doing so will not “compromise the ability of future generations to meet their needs.”
Of course, no one can foresee what technologies future generations will develop, or which raw materials those technologies will require. Sacrificing the needs of current generations to safeguard unpredictable future needs thus makes little sense. Moreover, preventing energy and mineral exploration in hundreds of millions of wilderness, park and other “protected” areas today could well foreclose access to raw materials that will be vital for technologies of tomorrow – itself a violation of sustainability dogma.
It is equally difficult to determine what resource uses are “not sustainable.” If changing economics, new discoveries or new extraction methods (like hydraulic fracturing) mean we now have 100-200 years of oil and natural gas, for example, that would appear to make hydrocarbon use quite sustainable – at least long enough for innovators to develop new technologies and sources of requisite raw materials.
By contrast, wind, solar and biofuel projects impact millions of acres of wildlife habitats, convert millions of additional acres from food crops to biofuels, and kill millions of birds and bats. Calling those projects “eco-friendly” or “sustainable” may be inappropriate – a misnomer.
Of equal or greater concern, activists have repeatedly abused the term “sustainability” to justify policies and programs that obstruct energy, mineral and economic development, and thereby prevent people from fulfilling their “aspirations for a better life.” Set forth in a 99-page report, the UN’s latest “blueprint for sustainable development and low-carbon prosperity” continued this practice.
“Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A future worth choosing” (RP2) called for a global council, new UN agencies, expanded budgets and powers, greater control over energy development and other economic activities, and “genuine global actions” by every nation and community – supposedly to ensure “social justice,” poverty eradication, climate protection, biodiversity, “green growth,” renewable energy, an end to “unsustainable patterns of consumption and production,” and other amorphous and self-contradictory goals.
RP2 also sought to prevent “irreversible damage” to Earth’s ecosystems and climate, as defined and predicted by UN-approved scientists, activists and virtual reality computer models. Reports and campaigns by the UN, World Wildlife Fund, Sierra Club, Greenpeace and similar groups supported the agenda. To ensure that they would have sufficient funds to implement the agenda – without having to rely on dues or grants from developed nations – the Rio+20 organizers also wanted the power to tax global financial transactions and other activities, with revenues flowing directly to the United Nations.
Rio+20 was clearly not about enabling countries, communities and companies to do a better job of protecting environmental values, while helping families to climb out of poverty. It was about using sustainable development pieties to target development projects, limit individual liberty and market-based initiatives, and provide sufficient wind and solar power to generate and demonstrate modest improvements in developing countries’ living conditions – while ensuring that poor families never become middle class, and communities never actually conquer poverty, misery and disease.
Advancing “social equity” and “environmental justice,” in ways that Rio+20 sought to do, would actually have meant perpetuating poverty for developing countries, and reducing living standards in wealthier countries. The goal, as in all previous incarnations of Rio+20, was to ensure more equal sharing of increasing scarcity – except for ruling elites.
The real “stakeholders” – the world’s poorest people – were barely represented at Rio+20. Their health and welfare, dreams and aspirations, pursuit of justice and happiness were given only lip service – then brushed aside and undermined. The proceedings were controlled by bureaucrats who do not know how to generate new wealth, generally oppose efforts by those who do know, and see humans primarily as consumers and polluters, rather than as creators and innovators, protectors and stewards.
If Rio+20 had achieved what its organizers had set out to accomplish, citizens of still wealthy nations would now have to prepare for new assaults on their living standards. Impoverished people in poor nations would now have to prepare for demands that they abandon their dreams for better lives.
That is neither just nor sustainable. It is a good thing that the radical Rio+20 agenda was largely rejected. Now we must all work together to find and implement constructive and sustained solutions to the real problems that continue to confront civilization, wildlife and the environment.
______________
David Rothbard serves as president of the Washington, DC-based Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org and www.CFACT.tv). Craig Rucker is CFACT’s executive director.
This essay was originally published in National Review on June 20, 2012, as “The UN’s Rio+20 Agenda: The “sustainable development” agenda will harm health, welfare, and nature.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/303268/un-s-rio20-agenda-david-rothbard?pg=1
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The video clip showing the interview of some Rio+20 delegates, posted a couple of days ago somewhere could even have been here, who were asked for the definition of sustainable development did not get any meaningful answer.
Sustainable development is like asking a chef for a recipe to make an omelet without breaking any eggs.
Enough said.
It was twenty years ago today,
The Earth Summit taught the fools to play
They proclaimed that we can all do more
But that’s guaranteed to make us poor
So let me introduce to you
The lie we’ve known for all these years,
Anthropogenic climate chaaaaaaange….
My sincere apologies to the Beatles
Does anyone have a reference to the original Rio report? Or was there no official document? It would be an interesting read.
The real “stakeholders” – the world’s poorest people – were barely represented at Rio+20. Their health and welfare, dreams and aspirations, pursuit of justice and happiness were given only lip service – then brushed aside and undermined.
The whole point summed up. The NGO’s are unelected and unrepresentative of anyone or anything other than their own narrow point of view. Yet they are demanding the right? to rule the world as they see fit.
It should be strongly noted that they have been attempting to make themselves the equivalent legal status as the UN itself. By that they want to not be held responsible nor accountable for any of their actions. They want to be above the law. How is that a human right that enhances freedom and the human spirit?
It is past high time, these NGO’s were handed their hat and coat and told not to let the door hit them on the way out.
UN: zero transparency, 100% conspiracy.
[SNIP: Totally Off-topic and unrelated to the thread. -REP]
And, lest we forget, the fact that all the hardliners are publicly proclaiming all over the media how upset they are that their document “doesn’t commit anyone to anything” does not mean that the scary stories in it will not be implemented anyway. The idiot politicians turned up and signed, the UN is behind it and interpretations will be found to justify whatever they want.
Limits to Growth, Agenda 21, Global Warming,.Sustainable Development.
Plus ça change ….
I notice that it’s now the fault of all you American fatties, you’re equivalent to another billion people in the world!
CFACT, Thank you for representing our interests.
The worst part of “Sustainability” is the hamstringing of Human Ingenuity. The Earth is NOT warming in terms of the whole Holocence, rather it is cooling. 10,000 yrs greenland or 10,000 yrs greenland and 10,000 yrs Vostok
Geology has shown the transition from an interglacial to glacial is fast. 140,000 yrs Vostok Some such as Robert B. Gagosian,President and Director of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, say the change can occur within a decade or two.
It is no deep dark secret that we are nearing the end of the Holocene. The only question is When not IF See: WUWT: The End Holocene, or How to Make Out Like a ‘Madoff’ Climate Change Insurer
At the on set of cooling, whether another “Little Ice Age” or “The Big One, “Agenda 21 ~ Sustainability will condemn large parts of the human population to certain death. In the last cooling episode (Bond Event) called “the Dark Ages” Europe lost ~ up to 60% of her population and the world about 1/3. This is not “social justice,” and poverty eradication, instead it is just another reincarnation of the Eugenics movement this time aimed at most of the human race.
OH, and just in case you think the “Black Death is gone…
Oregon health officials think a man now in a Bend, Oregon hospital has indeed been infected with the “black death” plague…. His is only the fifth case of bubonic plague discovered in Oregon since 1995…. About 10 to 20 people a year on average in the U.S. are diagnosed with the plague and about 1 out of every 7 cases is fatal.
CHIEFIO on Bond events and 1/2 bond events
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/12/13/8-2-kiloyear-event-and-you/
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/intermediate-period-half-bond-events/
I read the pre conference document. Without being defined, “Sustainable development” was used 175 times (by my count) in the first 100 paragraphs of the document. It was interesting, however to note that “extreme poverty” is experienced, in the authors’ view, by 14% of the world’s population. If we want to feed the world (poverty eradication), consider this. 50% of the earth’s food production is wasted, either in harvest, storage, transportation, use as fuel, or thrown in the garbage post preparation. We don’t have an overpopulation problem, nor a production problem, nor a food shortage problem. We have a distribution problem. The world’s weathy nations spend hundreds of billions of dollars, euros, pounds, yen etc. on “green energy” and research and development into reducing humankind’s “carbon footprint”. A diversion of a small amount of that spending could result in a distribution and delivery system to solve world hunger and eradicate poverty. I didn’t see that in the report. Also, elevated levels of carbon dioxide have been proven to lead to yield improvements and drought resistence in crops, especially rice and wheat, two of the staples of the world’s total calorie consumption. If we intentionally increased the level of atmospheric CO2 (if we could), we may be able to increase food production in addition to providing a distribution and delivery system to feed the poor. Methinks, though, that the despots and bureaucrats that sponsor the philosophy espoused at Rio+20 and other such conferences and documents, realize that if poverty was eradicated they would have even less reason for existence. Is it possible that their desire to perpetuate their own meaningless existence exceeds their purported desire to help those less fortunate in the world. What does this have to do with climate? Well, a doubling of atmospheric CO2 content would likely have no measureable effect on the earth’s climate. “Warmists” would say it would warm the earth somewhat. Well, ok, a longer growing season in the major rice and wheat growing regions of the earth would be a good thing, if it happened. We seem to have survived the melting of Greenland and its subsequent re-freezing, so if it melted again, that might be a good thing. Anyway, I digress. Rio 1, Rio 2, the UN and the self serving Big Environment organizations that support them don’t have a solution. Let us hope they also lose their voice.
Do not follow (that is, do not highjack this post) Token’s comments at 5:41 regarding folks not mentioned in the text by
David Rothbard and Craig Rucker –
Sustainable Development: The latest UN scare
Please. I’ll be gone all day and when I return I would like to be able to read a good set of comments regarding David and Craig’s report.
Thanks.
“Sustainable development” is the notion that you should only use stuff you think won’t run out, because the stuff that might run out will never be replaced by alternatives when it runs out. So the alternative precedes the preferred because there will be no future alternative to the preferred – though there are present alternatives.
Whew. Got all that? I’ll say it another way.
Because there may one day be no more kerosene for our lamps, we should go back to using candles – or just skip the whole business of lighting because Peak Tallow is fast approaching.
It has taken about four decades of junk education at the highest levels to produce an intellectual class incapable of reasoning and common observation at the most fundamental levels.
Hence Rio+20.
Serf’s up! my opinion of where the UN wants to take US…
Maurice Strong is the “person of interest” regarding UN-sponsored “sustainability” (I put it in quotation marks because about the only thing it sustains is poverty).
Agenda 21 is now being implemented at the local level in many parts of the US. Beware of this insidious plan that renders private property ownership to the whims of the state!
Their use of the words…. sustainable development should be replaced with the words subsistance devolvment.
Saving the planet by replacing hardwood floors with dirt, by replacing labour saving devices with human physical labour, by replacing refrigeration with live animals in your house is not what people want, once they understand what the words Sustainable development truly mean.
When the conversation turns to saving the planet for your children and grandchildren ask the question, how long will it take your children to carry 10 gallons of water from the nearest creek each day. How long will it take them to chop the wood, to boil the water, to cook their food, to wash their cloths each day and how this will affect their life expectancy?
The functional equivalent of sustainability used to be taught in the subject of engineering economics. H.P. Gillette clearly summarized this more than a century ago in “Earthwork and its Cost” (Engineering News 1903): “It is the art of so designing these structures that interest upon their first cost plus annual depreciation plus annual operating expense shall be the least sum possible of attainment.”
Sustainability;
-A Newspeak term for that which cannot continue without subsidy or coersion by force of law.
The silly notion of sustainable development, of which my County seems to have more experts than it does postmen all of them ironically parasites living off NGOs or the government teat, applies only to contented middle class counties and locales that feel a bit of sacrifice, say of shopping bags, transportation, sanitation, or water flow (an interesting imposition in my County that literally has the most fresh water resources in America) allows them to feel like their third world brethren. It is guilt remediation.
“Chapter 27: Strengthening the Role of Non-Governmental Organizations – Partners for Sustainable Development
Introduction
Over the last decades, the importance of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in global governance has increased tremendously. Today, the UN and its agencies have grown dependent on NGOs to implement UN resolutions and goals, in a mutually beneficial relationship.”
Source: Review of implementation of Agenda 21 and the Rio Principles
http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/dsd_sd21st/21_pdf/Study_1_Agenda_21.pdf
So it appears that the united NATIONS thinks that Non-Governmental-Organizations (like the UN, Greenpeace, WWF, Tides, etc) are important to Global Governance. Your vote is unimportant, only your donations to ‘Charity’ and funding of the ‘United NATIONS’.
People, you should read the UN Agenda 21 plan, it is quite an eye-opener. They really want and they really believe the UN and the NGOs should have domain over national elected governments. Read it for yourself.
This is real ‘Big Brother’ type stuff. They are not kidding.
“NGOs to implement UN resolutions”
And you thought it was the United NATIONS, silly you.
Reading this I was reminded of the fundamental difference between the socialist and he who respects freedom.
The socialist believes in “the right of all people to fulfil their aspirations for a better life” and considers it the ruling elite’s mandate to ensure this right.
The freedom lover believes in “the right of all people to pursue their aspirations for better life” and considers it the ruling elite’s duty to protect this right.
Hence the former philosophy inevitably leads to tyranny, and the latter to freedom from tyranny.
Here ya go Richard M
http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/
It is very real and a very scary read..
I seem to recall back in the 1970s when environmental yo-yos like the ones at RIO+20 were the ones that banned the pesticide DDT which was effectively controlling the mosquito population around the world and keeping the instances of malaria down. Once the pesticide was banned, the malaria rate shot up in places like Africa causing many millions more to die of the disease — including children. Eventually, the malaria situation had gotten so much worse that the ban was reversed (if I recall correctly).
Today, as I understand it, the eco-groups still favor the banning of DDT. But do they have an alternative that is just as effective and keeps the instances of malaria at bay? Did they admit to making a mistake when they banned DDT in the first place and apologize to the world? Do they feel guilty about having done it?
If the RIO+20 Conference attendees plan on more such brainless ideas that they intend to impose on the world, God help us all.
Interior allows more time to weigh in on ‘fracking’ rule
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/234315-interior-slows-down-review-of-gas-fracking-rule%22
For those who want to utilize the opportunity for the public comments . . . this is a tester link:
http://search.usa.gov/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&sc=0&query=gas+fracking+rules+public+comments&m=&embedded=&affiliate=doi.gov&filter=moderate&commit=Search
Ah Anthony you put up a story on sustainable development with the UN’s decade of Education for Sustainable Development emblem without me.
I was off nailing down the UN’s subordination of higher ed globally through something called the Bologna Process and how it is coming to the US unless we adequately describe it in time. Consider that nailed down.
I can see why they think they didn’t need a treaty in Rio. Feds are using participation in the federal student loan program to ensure compliance with all these UN and OECD education agendas.
http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/if-facts-wont-cooperate-there-is-always-pedagogy/ is my story from about a month ago on the UN’s Education for Sustainable Development initiative and what it means to us.
The previous post from May 29 http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/you-mean-i-cant-teach-because-the-economy-should-not-grow/ explains the linkage of all these ed initiatives to the Green Growth that means no actual growth economy.
And again Ban Ki-Moon announced in May that the UN would be using education to get its agenda in place. Which is why I had gone off to nail down the higher ed story all th eway through with proof.
On Bloomberg this AM
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-22/un-gets-sustainability-pledges-worth-513-billion-in-rio.html
The United Nations obtained pledges worth $513 billion from governments and companies for projects aimed at reducing the strain on the planet’s resources, the biggest accomplishment at a meeting that world leaders and environmentalists assailed for not setting strong enough goals. The 692 individual commitments from governments are for projects that cut fossil fuel use, boost renewable energy, conserve water and alleviate poverty, Sha Zukang, secretary- general of the UN Conference on Sustainable Development, said yesterday in Rio de Janeiro.
UN officials said the voluntary pledges will be the central legacy of the Rio+20 meeting marking two decades since the first Earth Summit. They may accomplish more than the official accord from the meeting, 49 pages of recommendations that disappointed leaders, including French President Francois Hollande. “These huge numbers give a sense of the scale and growth of investment going into sustainable development,” UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, said at the conference late yesterday. “They are part of a growing global movement for change. Our job now is to create a critical mass, an irresistible momentum.”
This year’s gathering, the UN’s biggest ever, had 45,300 delegates from more than 180 nations. It produced a non-binding document, with nations agreeing to keep talking about still-undefined “sustainable development goals.”
HOPEFULLY “Non-Binding” and “Still-UNdefined” mean there is hope these idiots will be ignored in the long run!
Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
Sigh. When “global warming” made people roll their eyes, the alarmists trotted out “climate change.” Now, when the whole “climate whatever” edifice is crumbling, they fall back to “sustainable.” In the end, it’s all about control — of them over us.