Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Well, the rent-seekers, money-hungry NGOs, grifters, post-normal “scientists”, con-men, Eurotrash, Ameritrash, and the usual camp followers are gearing up again for another monumental waste of money. This time, it’s for the upcoming extravagarbonza, the new Rio+20 Climate Carnival.
Figure 1. The logo of the Rio+20 Climate Carnival, featuring someone being drowned in waves of green nonsense.
The meeting features the usual dangerous bafflegab, which conceals wholesale theft under layers of rhetoric like this:
Integrate the three pillars of sustainable development and promote the implementation of Agenda 21 and related outcomes, consistent with the principles of universality, democracy, transparency, cost-effectiveness and accountability, keeping in mind the Rio Principles, in particular common but differentiated responsibilities. SOURCE
As is typical with this kind of mealy-mouthed official doublespeak, we need a translation to see who is getting fleeced, and how.
First, what are the “three pillars of sustainable development”? Turns out, no one knows. One source gives us this:
Figure 2. The “three pillars of sustainable development” … or not.
That all seems good, or at least as though it might possibly be vaguely meaningful … but another source gives us this:
Figure 3. The “three pillars of sustainable development” … or not.
In other words, it’s just feel-good bullpuckey, dressed up to look like something real. “Viable”? “Bearable”? Nonsense. This is post-normal “science” at its most pathetic. At the end of the day, nothing is sustainable, that’s just green-washing.
Next, they say that they want to “promote the implementation of Agenda 21″. Now, “Agenda 21” was what started all of this nonsense. It was adopted at the original Rio Conference in 1992, and is as dangerous now as it was then.
The danger is highlighted by the recent meeting of the UN Chief, Secretary-General Ban-ki Moon, with his UN aides brainstorming about Rio+20. They talk about “moving toward a fairer, greener, and more sustainable globalization”, a very frightening thought. They talk about strengthening the UN “to manage the process of globalization better,” another scary idea. I don’t want globalization of any kind, and if I did, I damn sure don’t want the UN involved in any way.
To return to Agenda 21, let me take up just one tiny portion of the Agenda. (In passing, I doubt that they could have invented a more Orwellian name for this plan to take over the world’s economy than “Agenda 21” … but I digress.) Here is Section 9.8.(d) of Agenda 21:
Cooperate in research to develop methodologies and identify threshold levels of atmospheric pollutants, as well as atmospheric levels of greenhouse gas concentrations, that would cause dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system and the environment as a whole, and the associated rates of change that would not allow ecosystems to adapt naturally;
There are several things of note about this part of Agenda 21. First, in 1992 we didn’t know (and still don’t know now) if GHGs can cause “dangerous anthropogenic interference” with the climate system or not. For that matter, we don’t know what “dangerous anthropogenic interference” is when it’s at home. But despite that, the goal was not to find out what the actual effect of GHGs might be.
Rather than figuring out if there was a danger, Agenda 21 instructed people to establish an imaginary level of “dangerous interference”.
The same is true about “rates of change”. We have no evidence that changes in climate can keep ecosystems from “adapt[ing] naturally”. Despite that, we are instructed to determine the levels that do just that, with no hint about what that might be or how to measure it.
Finally, you can see how early this was—GHGs were not listed as a “pollutant”. This is in stark distinction to the EPA’s ruling that CO2 is a pollutant … go figure.
Anyhow, that’s just a little bit of the garbage in Agenda 21. It has already caused huge problems, including the formation of the IPCC and the assumption of GHGs as the main (if not only) driver of global climate change when there is no clear evidence (even today) if that is actually the case—that’s what the debate is about.
To leave Agenda 21 and return to the first bit of translation, they say they want to rip people off “consistent with the principles of universality, democracy, transparency, cost-effectiveness and accountability”. What this means depends on the tide, the phase of the moon, and the desires of the person invoking it. Basically, it means whatever they want it to mean, unless it happens to favor development, business, or human beings, in which case it means the opposite.
Next, they pledge allegiance to the “Rio Principles“. The “Rio Principles” were an unprincipled declaration of how they planned to achieve their global redistribution of wealth. Among the un-principles are the “Precautionary Principle“, along with the usual feel-good clauses and paragraphs about how they planned to spend the money.
Finally, in a wonderful understatement, they back the idea of “common but differentiated responsibilities.” This is UN-speak at its finest. The “differentiated responsibilities” part means “the poorest in the rich countries have the responsibility of providing the money to pay to the richest in the poor countries, whose responsibility is to spend it on Mercedes sedans for Government Ministers.” Seriously. That’s what “common but differentiated responsibilities” means, except the part about the Mercedes, I added that because it’s the inevitable outcome.
So yes, no surprise, they have learned absolutely nothing in the last 20 years. How could they, when 20 years ago they claimed they already understood it all? They are doubling down on their stupidity, planning to restructure the global economy and have the industrialized world pay the whole tab. I mean, somebody has to line the pockets of the NGOs and the third-world despots, and who better than … you?
I’m not sure how we can fight this, but fight it we must. I see they are planning to use “social media” to try to whip up the faithful, so we can expect lots of that, fluff on Facebook and the like. In any case, Rio+20 is the usual, and still very dangerous, conflux of the useful idiots, greedy activists, pimps, prostitutes, and pseudo-scientists who have caused so much damage in the past.
Head them off at the pass, harass their flanks, destroy their supply-wagons, cut them off from their water supply, I don’t know what … but this madness has to stop. You cannot redistribute your way to wealth, and as Margaret Thatcher is rumored to have remarked, “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”
A word to the wise … it’s your money that they are planning to run out of, in the process of propping up some of the planet’s most despotic regimes in the name of “combatting climate change” …
Regards to all, keep fighting the good fight,
w.
@ur momisugly Smokey says:
February 26, 2012 at 2:22 pm
RE: Gibson
=====================================================
Thanks for the update and link. I have a woodworkers interest in this.
The Ramayana is an ancient and even today, extremely popular myth of the Indian people which contains great tales of derring-do by its heroes the sun god, Rama, and the monkey god, Hanuman. Like all myths, its stories are metaphors for deeper philosophical teachings, but it is the battle scene between the sun god Rama and the evil serpent Ravana that I want to highlight here.
During the first few hours of pitched battle, Rama is losing badly. This is because Ravana has more than a thousand heads, and every time one of Rama’s arrows slices off one of Ravana’s heads, another grows in its place. Rama is becoming exhausted and in danger of losing the battle. But eventually, he is given wise counsel by a shaman. The shaman tells Rama that he has to hit Ravana in his ‘nectar pot’, which is just below the navel. So when Rama fires his arrow in that direction, and it hits Ravana’s nectar pot, the thousand-headed serpent falls instantly dead to the ground.
In this metaphor, the thousand-headed serpent Ravana represents the United Nations programme, Agenda 21. The heads that keep growing back again are all the different planks of the implementation of this program ~ and they include geoengineering (chemtrails), HAARP, genetically modified foods, the man-made global warming scam, biological terrorism, atmospheric terrorism and financial terrorism.
All of these programs solely exist as various planks to support Agenda 21 and so it’s a complete waste of time arguing with each of them, individually. In any case, the UN will have an unending supply of talking heads to role out and tie up the real scientists with their mock science and ridiculous computer models. Similarly they will feel totally justified in continuing to try to convince ordinary people that geo-engineering (chemtrails) is needed to protect us from global warming (while pretending that they’re only seeking permission to spray and not actually doing so) and that genetically modified foods are needed to feed the “population explosion” when they have patently never given a toss about the world’s starving millions before, otherwise why inflict on them such restrictive trade barriers and march into their countries and strip them of all their assets?
Added to that, even the UN’s own conservative demographic models show that the world’s population will level off by 2050 (which means, it will probably level off way before that).
The sole purpose of Agenda 21 is to remove our property rights and to drive us back into a feudal system, which is a euphemism for slavery. Under Agenda 21, all the land would be owned by the United Nations and administered by its own appointed committees.
The official report of the UN-funded Commission on Global Governance, Our Global Neighborhood, calls for placing “the global commons” under the direct authority of the UN Trusteeship Council, and defines “global commons” to be:
“The atmosphere, outer space, the oceans beyond national jurisdiction and the related environment and life-support systems that contribute to the support of human life.”
Moreover, the UN Trusteeship Council is to be selected from “civil society” representatives. The Commission on Global Governance also calls for the creation of a new “Petitions Council” which would receive petitions from “Stakeholder Councils” in each nation for the purpose of directing the petitions to the correct UN agency for resolution and enforcement actions.
From The UN and Property Rights, © Copyright 1997 Henry Lamb
These ‘Stakeholder Councils”, by the way, are unelected NGOs, appointed by UN bodies, and they already exist in our local neighbourhoods. Our Global Neighbourhood is the usual oxymoronic twisted doublespeak that comes out of these committees and is propagated throughout the mainstream media by further unelected ‘opinion formers and leaders’ such as Common Purpose.
Read more here ~ Agenda 21: A blueprint for global serfdom and slavery. http://ishtarsgate.wordpress.com/2012/02/26/agenda-21-a-blueprint-for-global-serfdom-and-slavery/
This is from the 1976 meeting in Vancouver. http://www.unhabitat.org/downloads/docs/3566_45413_HS-733.pdf where it all began.Willis you may want to talk to Rosa Koire,she has had some success helping towns and cities around the U.S. in fighting against agenda 21.It now goes under the I.C.L.E.I. She has a very informative site. http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/
A taste from Willis’ link above, “Agenda 21”
http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/dsd_sd21st/21_pdf/SD21_Study1_Synthesis.pdf
“Review of implementation of Agenda 21 and the Rio Principles.”
“Synthesis” report, since “a short and simple but all-encompassing summary seems to be missing.”
[But, thankfully, we here at “Stakeholder Forum” wanted more money to sustain ourselves and thus help save the world!]
“Study prepared by: Stakeholder Forum for a Sustainable Future”
[“Stakeholders” who don’t produce anything they want to “redistribute” and need to be sustained, eh? What could possibly go wrong?]
Study implemented by the UN, funded by the EU, and supervised by the UN, “but can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union.”
[No worries, proles. Just keep sustaining us Stakeholders and watch as our Utopia unfolds to further sustain us Stakeholders and thus save the EU and the World!]
Specifically under Agenda 21 we find from the Synthesis that its vaunted IPCC has produced a “global assessment”.
[Therefore, not only can humans control the climate-weather, as already ‘proven’…but if you proles sustain us Stakeholders in like manner, we can also direct your whole World for you toward our own ‘sustainable’ Utopia, just as our own Stakeholders’ IPCC has shown!]
But, “What happened to the Rio deal” to derail “this well-meaning deal” such that “some of the [Rio] principles have not succeeded in passing the test of inclusion in international and national law, or at least become the basis for accepted normal practices…critical to furthering sustainable development”?
Well, “Significantly developed countries did not curb their consumption patterns and failed to find sustainable development path built on sustainable production methods. As a result, pressure on the global environment continued to rise since 1992.”
[And, trust us, “mainstream” Climate Scientists have assured us all that climate change is happening and, likewise, the horrible results from inadequately Socializing the developed countries since 1992 are simply too graphic for us at the Stakeholder Forum to describe here in our “Synthesis”. But let us be clear: if you don’t continue to sustain us, we’re all gonna die!]
Smokey says:
February 26, 2012 at 2:22 pm
Oh, man, Smokey, don’t get me started on Gibson. I play an old ES-238 Gibson hollowbody, the whole story makes me nauseated.
w.
Goldie says:
February 26, 2012 at 2:46 pm
Thanks, Goldie. Don’t know if you noticed the link above to my piece “Climate, Caution, and Precaution“. The principle is good, it’s just widely and largely misunderstood.
w.
Earth Summit is doomed to fail, say leading ecologists
We can forget about fixing the planet’s ecosystems and climate until we have fixed government systems, a panel of leading international environmental scientists declared in London on Friday. The solution, they said, may not lie with governments at all.
snip
Key priorities
The top priorities, according to Watson, are ending the fossil-fuel era to curb climate change, and investing in limiting population by making contraception available to all.
But neither were likely to happen because, said Syukuro Manabe, a climate modeller at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “the political system is not motivated to worry about the future”.
The laureates said leadership was most likely to come from local government, NGOs and corporations, rather than national leaders or the UN. “Decision-makers should learn from and scale up grass-roots action and knowledge in areas like energy, food, water and natural resources,” the panel declared.
“We do believe that the political system can be reformed, and that there will be technical solutions. But time is not on our side,” Watson said.
http://tinyurl.com/77s7tso
Great writing, appreciate it Willis, as always. However, I didn’t see any mention of two important questions: will Peter Glieck be attending, and what is the weather forecast for Rio?
From times of the Greek culture it is known what a “fallacy” is: In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is usually an improper argumentation in reasoning resulting in a misconception or presumption
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy#Straw_man
The biggest fallacy of all is Evil disguised as Good
Thus, all their purposes seem “good” but are not. They have conceived their “goals” so as to convince good hearted, and not necessarily well informed, people.
Being doubtful, as “doubt” is a principle for correct reasoning, or rather being cynical, we cannot plainly believe in those “good intentions” and it follows to question ourselves: why is it behind such an altruistic preoccupation for me or you?. Say: Are THEY really worried with your health as to promote that you do not eat “trash food” (btw, one their latest campaigns)?, I just can´t believe it! what is it there behind this?. Do they really care for the world?
As Lord Monckton has affirmed, here in WUWT, their ONLY PURPOSE is GLOBAL GOVERNANCE, nothing else and nothing less. But, what for?, power?, but….what for?, Simply: Money, then it follows that a small group of people want to control the majority of the world´s means of production, not for the sake of a particular country but for themselves.
Then whenever a person, a group of people, an institution, suddenly begins to be “preoccupied” by our welfare we must and should suspect of it. These are the most dangerous people.
I find it telling that of the 83 responses so far (this should be the 84th), I don’t see a single comment by William Connolley, R. Gates, A physicist, Exp, or others from the AGW Control Freaks crowd. (And Agenda 21 is exactly why I’ve added the “Control Freaks” moniker to their “AGW” TLA.)
Now why is that? Why are such notables missing from the discussion? Are they like vampires that are repelled by the silver cross of an open discussion about the UN’s IPCC and Agenda 21?
It certainly appears that way–they’ve nothing to “contribute” to the conversation because this is a scathing expose` of what the “Global Warming” meme is truly all about. Scary stuff, Willis. But good stuff–we can’t fight an opponent we don’t understand, and this is an outstanding explanation of their nefarious scheme to elevate themselves at the expense (and you can take that word literally) of everybody else.
Gleick recently has admitted this is a war. And he is right–a war on individual freedoms, yours and mine. They’re traitors to the human race, these UN-sponsored AGW Control Freaks, and it is hard to stoop lower than that.
Jeesh, Smokey, you know how to get a guy to see red on a Sunday afternoon. Still, thanks for the heads-up on the Gibson case; I had no idea. At first I thought this is an elaborate spoof. I mean, what sort of an idiot would send armed agents to root around a factory and confiscate wood, of all things? Monty Python wouldn’t have made such nuttery up, it’s so bizzarro. Then I read a story about how even privately owned instruments could be confiscated under that regulatory provision, got all scared for my hand-made birchwood, maple and rosewood 1976 Norman dreadnaught (unvarnished) and had to spend about an hour of quality time with it to calm both of us down. Now I need an icepack for my fingertips.
Thanks for the format fix-up, Mr/Ms mod. Willis and Smokey got me all frazzled. We need more happy stories for Sunday evenings…like more warmies getting busted for fraud.
@ur momisugly Peter Kovachev says:
February 26, 2012 at 5:16 pm
Jeesh, Smokey, you know how to get a guy to see red on a Sunday afternoon. Still, thanks for the heads-up on the Gibson case; I had no idea. At first I thought this is an elaborate spoof. I mean, what sort of an idiot would send armed agents to root around a factory and confiscate wood, of all things?
===================================================================
The Lacey Act, under which the EIA functions, applies to any imported wood owned by anyone. Not just factories such as Gibson, and not just musical instruments. It applies equally to the lone woodworker making a keepsake box for his mother, and the giant factories, including automobile mfg. who may use such woods as interior trim on their cars and trucks. Look it up. It’s very scary.
Man oh man these guys have really lost the plot:
“The official opening ceremony was conducted by the Dalai Lama and centered around a Viking long-ship that was constructed to celebrate the summit and sailed to Rio from Norway. The ship was appropriately named Gaia. A huge mural of a beauiful woman holding the earth within her hands adorned the entrance to the summit. Al Gore lead the US delegation where he was joined by 110 Heads of State, and representatives of more than 800 NGO’s.
Maurice Strong, Club of Rome member, devout Bahai, founder and first Secretary General of UNEP, has been the driving force behind the birth and imposition of Agenda 21. While he chaired the Earth Summit, outside his wife Hanne and 300 followers called the Wisdom-Keepers, continuously beat drums, chanted prayers to Gaia, and trended scared flames in order to “establish and hold the energy field” for the duration of the summit. You can view actual footage of these ceremonies on YouTube. During the opening speech Maurice Strong made the following statements”
See: http://green-agenda.com/agenda21.html
God help us if we have crazy people like this running the world “establish and hold the energy field” WTF is that??? They are in two words “ALL MAD”
Every religion has its sacred rites.
What Penrod might have been pleased to refer to as the “rixual”.
(I’d be less concerned and more amused but for the unfortunate penchant towards human sacrifice.)
Willis writes:
One could say that, but one could also – perhaps even more cynically – suggest they’ve learned quite well: Riding on the wings of their empty slogans gets them closer to where they want to go! IMHO, it worked for them 20 years ago; and, sad to say, I think it’s still working.
The record clearly shows that the most “palatable” of these empty slogans are elevated to the “dressing” of choice for the bureaucratic word-salads they cook up – knowing full-well that few will ever examine the actual “ingredients”. Kinda like IPCC press releases and its actual reports, come to think of it!
One of the UN-generated slogans I’ve encountered during the past year or so is “Putting nature on the balance sheet” … it sounds so harmless but, in effect, it’s the “dressing” for new, improved “financial mechanisms”.
Another is “green economy” … what’s not to like, eh? But how many people know that even at the highest echelons of the UN, there is no agreement on what this slogan/”dressing” even means!
If I may be permitted to suggest some of my own explorations of the profusion and proliferation of panels and papers generating and endorsing approved slogans in the run-up to Rio+20, readers might be interested in:
On the road to Rio: Sustainability swamps climate change
Of hypocrites, high-level panels and … sherpas and silos
A profusion of panels and pronouncements en route to Rio+20
I think it might also be worth asking: what can one conclude when a respected scientific organization, such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), chooses “Flattening the World: Building a Global Knowledge Society” as the “theme” for its Annual Meeting ( and in its pre-meeting PR approvingly cites the IPCC as a “model”, as it did:
.
In light of the above, let us not forget that Pachauri’s 2009 “vision” for AR5 included:
And when one considers the very few degrees of separation between the organizational affiliations of luminaries such as Strong, Ehrlich, Suzuki and Hoggan, then the rational position of not subscribing to the ‘conspiracy theory of history’ becomes, well, increasingly unsustainable!
The mileage of others may vary, but my conclusion is that there is big, Big Trouble in River City. That’s Trouble with a capital T – and Big with a capital B.
Hilary Ostrov
I went to the Climate Works Foundation, which was mentioned in a post on the vast funding of greens, and there is a pdf called Design To Win.
Long, and in many ways familiar…but with 100s of millions of dollars talking, a little scary. This was done in 2007. There has been some blockage of their ambitions, but not much really. They give themselves until 2020 as their first stage….which is “Don’t Lose”. They want policy locked in by the end of that stage.
Well…it is only 2012. So far Obama has come up with 54 mpg CAFE standards and EPA is shutting down Coal. These are both thing that these foundations would strongly support. Then there’s Smart Grid.
Reading through the doc (or at least skimming it), it is filled with the half-baked nostrums of the eco-freaks. And, no, there’s not much mention of nuclear (it is too polarizing)
So the 100s of millions of dollars aren’t going into education for nuclear…oh, no…Wind, Solar, and Efficiency. Mass Transit, co-located homes/work and Bicycles they like.
Here’s my point, we have a minor victory in catching a perp that over-reached. We still have 100s of millions of Foundation $$$$$$…and public money arrayed to fundamentally change the world.
Curiousgeorge says:
February 26, 2012 at 6:03 pm
The Lacey Act, under which the EIA functions, applies to any imported wood owned by anyone….
jonathan frodsham says:
February 26, 2012 at 6:08 pm
….God help us if we have crazy people like this running the world “establish and hold the energy field” WTF is that??? They are in two words “ALL MAD”
=========================
Yeah, thanks guys; more cheerful stuff. As they used to say, “stop the world, I wanna get off.”
But since we can’t get off, the most pragmatic thing we can do is to work with what we have right here; a top-notch forum that’s gaining in readership by the day. So let’s cover the upcoming Rio+20 madness as best we can. We need to talk about what this twinkie-fest costs, who attends, how much of the dreaded CO2 will be farted out by the time it’s over, and how it’s vital for important people to spend, burn and waste, while we have to go blind with curley bulbs and reuse our old plastic shopping bags. We want pictures of the delegates zipping around in glossy cars, while homeless Rio kids stare and wave, of our betters getting drunk, pigging-out in restaurants and at dinners, dressing like peacocks. We need to post the nuttery they’ll speak and write, the wisdom they’ll impart to us, the unwashed peons. Not much, but better than zilch.
AdolfoGiurfa
Evil disguised as Good
GLOBAL GOVERNANCE
Agenda 21 has been associated with an alleged plot to impose a New World Order.
One of the alleged objectives of this New World Order is to reduce the human population to less than 500 million. There is a considerable degree of vagueness about what happens to the other 6500 million.
Conspiracy theories are fun to read about, even though most are thoroughly incredible. However, the climategate emails suggest that a conspiracy by a relatively small number of people can succeed in their orchestrating the circumstances favourable to imposing a collectivist regime and transferring vast sums of wealth to an existing elite, who craft the rules to suit themselves.
The CAGW / CACC scare stories all are supported by flawed computer models; not observed reality.
It would be naive to assume that the government could not create and assess other computer models which allowed proper assessment of the role of CO2, rather than arbitrarily setting it to be the cause of the impending alleged catastrophe.
There must be some political gain for some of our rulers that they should proceed to wreck western economies, without prior due dilligence.
Curiousgeorge says:
February 26, 2012 at 6:03 pm
Sounds like it give goons the right to invade your home or office looking for “imported wood” and if any is found, they’ll rip it out for ya. If not, they have still imposed their willful invasion on a populace that’s supposed to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure.
From now on, my “Control Freaks” monikor is going to be extended to more than just the AGW crowd.
Agenda 21 is just using the CAGW excuse to promote their Malthusian vision. Once AGW is dead (soon, very soon) then they will latch onto something else. All the while ignoring real solutions like LFTR. They want a lot less people on the planet and of course it isn’t them that have to check out early. They will never quit. They will keep changing stripes until they get what they want. Keep your guard up folks. The AGW battle is close to being won by the skeptics but the war if far from over.
Cheers
Forgot to ask. Is Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley going to skydive in? I think he’s earned a warm vacation in Rio for a bit. In his spare time there he can set the facts out between pina coladas 🙂
We here in the US have been protected in the past from crap from the UN by the Senate and our Constitution but our current President has shown that he has no respect for the Constitution and our Congress has shown that it has no intention of trying to curb him. Obama LOVES the idea of Rio and I suspect that he’s going to implement some of the more extreme recommendations and to h*** with constraints on the Government.
Curiousgeorge says:
February 26, 2012 at 8:02 am
EPA’s Lisa “Action” Jackson:
The challenge ahead of us is unlike anything we have faced before – as individual nations or as one planet. For the first time in human history, we are beginning to see that everyday activities – the things we buy, the way we keep the lights on, the ways we travel –have an impact on the health of our entire planet. For the first time in human history, more people are living in cities and urban areas than are living in rural areas. And over the next 30 years, most of the anticipated population growth is expected to happen in our cities.
Umm, Lisa old chum, this kinda exposes you for your ignorance of these matters a bit. Herding us into the cities is part of the UN AGW control-freak agenda you praise. It’s what your ilk and all good redistributionists want, and you’re getting it. Being caged up in our cities is good for Gaia. Haven’t you heard the news? “Containing” humanity in dense cities is eco-friendly after all.
C’mon now Lisa, Ms. Jackson if you’re nasty, this city stuff has been part of the Sustainable Development B1 agenda Willis writes about for quite some time now. From one of my favorite and personally most-cited IPCC scribblings touting SD:
Cities are compact and designed for public and non-motorized transport, with suburban developments tightly controlled. Strong incentives for low-input, low-impact agriculture, along with maintenance of large areas of wilderness, contribute to high food prices with much lower levels of meat consumption than those in A1.
That’s the same page that offers my all-time IPCC greatest hit:
Massive income redistribution and presumably high taxation levels may adversely affect the economic efficiency and functioning of world markets.
It’s a great read actually. Offers plenty of insight into the AGW tainted agenda. Tis a shame for you your prescriptions are Jonestown Kool-Aid, cuz most of us aren’t going to be drinking it willingly. I think I and most others will prefer to stick with the good old Golden Economic Age A1, thanks. So y’all best prepare for a fight, and a good old-fashioned whuppin’ I might add. The ideology of the anti-human brigade will fail. The jig is up. Cheers!
The three pillars are listed here – http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/futurewewant.html – in the PreAmble Section I No. 5. They are economic, social, and environmental The drawings up top would be accurate; so now you have confirmation.
I prefer to see them as Air, Sea, and Land. Air being Cap and Trade, or some other ‘carbon tax’ scheme to ‘value’ the air. Air would be implemented through governmental legislation or regulatory fiat (see US EPA). Agenda 21 would be the Land component. A21 encourages stacking of people in urban centers, abhors urban sprawl, and of course wants central planning at local levels of all property (which coincidently is for collective use). Finally we get to Sea.
For the Sea we have the World Bank. Not what you think of when you think ocean overlord, right? Just the other day in Singapore at an Ocean Summit, the Bank put forth another initiative to ‘help’ with sustaining the ocean. A21 entices cities, counties, and states with cash, and who turns that down right when you’re running for office and enjoy wealth. The World Bank is coercing nations, through financing, which in turn allows for ‘managing’ water areas. This is the most sensible, and therefore the most dangerous. Who wants the waters to lose their ecosystems right? So their eventual intent will be price controls to control consumption; which will include both food, and water itself. *** SPECIAL NOTE*** The new awesomeness is “OCEAN HEALTH”.
Now this is a skeptic site – http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-world-bank-wants-control-high-seas
World Bank, news section, allows access to more links than I care to list, around Feb 22/23/24 are the ocean links – http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,enableDHL:TRUE~menuPK:51062075~pagePK:64001221~piPK:51161268~theSitePK:4607,00.html