The UN Rio+20 agenda means less freedom, happiness, true justice and human rights progress
Guest post by Paul Driessen and Duggan Flanakin
Presidential candidate Barack Obama promised that his Administration would “fundamentally transform the United States of America.” He gave a clue to exactly what he had in mind when he told now-congressional candidate Joe “The Plumber” Wurzelbacher: “When you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
Not necessarily – especially when activists, regulators, politicians and ruling elites do all they can to ensure there is less and less wealth to spread around.
Just this week, the Civil Society Reflection Group on Global Development Perspectives released a new report to the United Nations Rio+20 Earth Summit on Sustainable Development. The executive summary of No Future Without Justice begins with the heading, “The World Is in Need of Fundamental Change.” The document then offers “solutions,” which include “universal fiscal equalization” and a “massive and absolute decoupling of well-being from resource extraction and consumption.”
The 18-member Group includes no Americans – but condemns the US and other governments for their dedication to economic growth, rather than wealth redistribution, and demands that governments play a key role in promoting “sustainability” and welfare. They insist that all governments provide universal access to public health care, guaranteed state allowances for every child, guaranteed state support for the unemployed and underemployed, and basic universal pensions and universal social security.
It is, in short, the total nanny state – but with little or no resource extraction or economic growth to support it. In other words, it guarantees sustained injustice and redistribution of increasing scarcity.
The Group admits that human civilization “will still need some form of growth in large parts of the world, to expand the frontiers of maximum available resources for poor countries.” However, the massive investments needed to shift to a totally renewable energy and resource-based economy will require “massive de-growth (shrinkage) of products, sectors and activities that do not pass the sustainability test” – as devised by them, affiliated organizations and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
Key financial support for the push toward “sustainability” includes a “greener” and “more progressive” tax system featuring a financial transaction tax, abolition of subsidies for all but renewable energy, cutting military spending while dramatically increasing “stimulus” spending, a compensation scheme to pay off “climate debts” to poor countries supposedly impacted by hydrocarbon-driven climate change, a new regulatory framework for financial markets, a financial product safety commission, and still more regulations for hedge funds and private equity funds. The Group also demands public control of financial rating agencies and a government takeover of international accounting standards.
To ensure that “sustainable development” permeates every aspect of society, the Group proposes a new “Sherpa” for Sustainability (with cabinet rank), a parliamentary committee on policy coherence for sustainability, a UN Sustainability Council, a Universal Periodic Review on Sustainability, and an Ombudsman for Intergenerational Justice and Future Generations. It also proposes an International Panel on Sustainability that builds on the “success” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Of course, guiding all this would be the world’s premiere political body and bastion of freedom, fairness, democracy and human rights – the UN General Assembly.
To guide this “fundamental” shift toward the sustainability paradigm, the Group laid down eight principles – the key being the “precautionary principle,” which forbids any activity that might involve risk or “do harm.” Its own sustainability prescriptions are, of course, exempted from any reviews under the precautionary principle.
The objective, they state, is to build economies that drastically limit carbon emissions, energy consumption, primary resource extraction, waste generation, and air and water pollution. Society must also stop the asserted and computer-modeled loss of species and ruination of ecosystems.
All this naturally will require mandatory changes in consumption patterns and lifestyles (at least for the common folk), and the recognition that work (unlike capital) is not a production factor. Indeed, says the Group, work is not even a commodity. Moreover, only “decent” work qualifies under the sustainability paradigm. (While “decent work” is never defined, it presumably includes backbreaking sunup-to-sundown labor at subsistence farming, which under the Group’s agenda would be called “traditional” or “organic” farming and would not be replaced by modern mechanized agriculture.)
What is the source of all of this gobbledygook? Agenda 21, the centerpiece of the original Rio Earth Summit – which is being perpetuated, refined and redefined at parallel proceedings in Belo Horizonte, Brazil, while the main sustainability discussions are ongoing in Rio de Janeiro.
Agenda 21 states, for example, that “achieving the goals of environmental quality and sustainable development will require … changes in consumption patterns.” This too would be achieved under UN auspices because, as Earth Summit creator Maurice Strong has explained, the days of national sovereignty are over, and the world needs to embrace a system of wealth transfer to ensure environmental security.
In short, “sustainable development” is a system that requires a redefinition of business activity, away from the pursuit of personal profit – and of government activity, away from the pursuit of individual happiness and justice – and toward the pursuit of societal good, as defined by activists and the UN.
Simply put, as Brian Sussman points out in his new book, Eco-Tyranny, the ultimate goal of those who endorse the sustainability paradigm is to expunge “the most precious” rights expressed in the American Declaration of Independence: “that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among them are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness – that to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.”
The Agenda 21 and sustainability paradigm also rejects and undermines Adam Smith’s belief that mankind’s natural tendency toward self-interest, profit and self-improvement results in greater prosperity, opportunity, health, welfare and justice for all.
Most of all, the UN/Maurice Strong/ Civil Society Reflection Group vision is merely the latest embodiment of Plato’s Republic. Under Plato’s thesis, an educated, elite, but benevolent and mythical, ruling class acts on the belief that its self-appointed philosopher kings have all the right answers, and do not require the Consent of the Governed. The rest of humanity must fall into lockstep or face the consequences; however the results will be exemplary.
Unfortunately, as Alexander Hamilton observed, men are not angels. Moreover, it defies experience and common sense to suppose that the elitist UN, UNEP and environmental activist community will ever display wisdom detached from ardent ideology – or benevolence toward the humans they seek to govern.
____________
Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org and www.CFACT.tv) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death. Duggan Flanakin is director of research and international programs for CFACT.
I just sent this to Anthony and a few other friends.
IS THIS TRUE?
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=9795
John O’Sullivan: UN Climate Scientists Plead for Immunity from Criminal Prosecution
Friday, June 15th 2012, 8:56 AM EDT
Climate researchers working for the United Nations have issued an astonishing plea for immunity from prosecution. Government-funded personnel sought the ruling on the eve of the latest round of international climate talks scheduled for Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (June 20, 2012).
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) issued it’s formal request for immunity from prosecution to “protect” researchers who have provided “evidence” supportive of the man-made global warming scare story. The perplexing plea will likely reverberate throughout the general scientific community as further affirmation that many climate scientists were not conducting honest research after all. John Bolton, a former U.S. Ambassador to the UN, questioned the motives, “The creeping expansion of claims for privileges and immunities protection for UN activities is symptomatic of a larger problem.”
High Price of Get Out of Jail Free Card
Especially worrisome is that in conjunction with the application for a sweeping “get out of jail free card” for all it’s scientists the UNFCCC is remorselessly promoting a mammoth Green Climate Fund, intended to help mobilize as much as $100 billion a year for projects to lower global greenhouse gases. At the Rio conference the UN plans to trumpet a new draft planning and agenda document, “The Future We Want,” that will compel American families to pay $1,325 per year to “stop” climate change.
Bolton, alongside many savvy taxpayers, is right to worry when such an organization seeking to manage a $100 billion a year fund based on dodgy science is at the same time demanding immunity from prosecution. Can you think of a better recipe for corruption?
Worse yet, climatologists have never provided any credible evidence to back their doomsaying claims that Earth’s climate is ‘catastrophically’ warming due to human emissions of carbon dioxide. Indeed, if anything the most telling graph of U.S. temperatures, as per the latest NOAA/NCDC temperature dataset, shows cooling for the last 15 years (H/T: C3Headlines). Regardless of all such facts the Obama Administration strongly supports the Green Climate Fund and its tax-hiking objective.
Climate Fraud Akin to Banking Fraud?
But critics argue the worst climate crime has been inflicted upon the poorest among us who are carrying the can for the global experiment into biofuels – Big Green’s alternative to CO2-emitting oil and coal. The least well off in our communities have been hit hardest by increased food and energy prices as biofuel production supplants food production – all at a time when well-funded climatologists continue to oppose any and all independent auditing of their computer climate models. It is little wonder such ‘scientists’ are increasingly cast in the same shadow as Wall Street banksters. Worse still, latest evidence from independent researchers here, here and here proves CO2 is not the bad guy and the greenhouse gas effect (GHE), the very cornerstone of global warming science, probably doesn’t exist.
Importantly, an increasing number of scientists are affirming the new findings which demonstrate it’s not possible for CO2 – or any so-called “greenhouse” gas – to “trap” energy in Earth’s atmosphere – a frequently cited claim of global warming alarmists. Critics of the GHE say the latest findings comport with satellite data and indicate that Earth emits as much infrared heat as it receives from the sun and thereby proves there is no magical atmospheric effect in play making our planet warmer than it would otherwise be. Despite these groundbreaking new findings dozens of government agencies are avoiding addressing them. Instead they remain contentedly clamped to the teat of the climate cash cow issuing ever more apocalyptic statements while insisting that our atmosphere really does act “like a greenhouse.”
Shamelessly, these “scientists” sustain the sham wholesale in their well funded institutions where, despite billions in funding, they still use outdated computer programs that model Earth as a flat disk lit by constant and frigid twilight. This government “flat earth modeling technique” has persisted since the early 1980′s when computers had far less processing power than today. But by stubbornly keeping their antiquated calculating method this embattled clique of climatologists think they can continue to get away with a fudge factor in their numbers that contrives an additional heating anomaly which they claim is the “trapped” energy of the GHE.
But 21st Century satellite and computing power is leaving the charlatans with no room to hide their bad accounting practices. For too long this tight-knit climate science community has gotten away with conducting a phony debate that only disputed the amount of warming from CO2. Never did they question the so-called “settled science” of the GHE – a monumental intellectual travesty.
Adept critics say that by sticking to their outmoded flat earth physics formula climatologists thus avoid the otherwise inconvenient fact that the sun actually shines on only half the planet. Is this important? Yes, because in our age of super computers, to continue to treat Earth as if it were a flat disk is a needless statistical anomaly (or perhaps a deliberate trick?). Climatologists thereby hide the fact that all gases in our atmosphere help to distribute solar energy around the globe and thus cool our planet. Without such gases the sun-facing side of our earth would become unbearably hot and the dark-side of our earth would be unbearably cold; an undeniable moderating effect by those gases (including carbon dioxide) that counters the pseudo scientific claims of the UN that more CO2 in the atmosphere results in more warming.
As eminent South African professor, Will Alexander recently stated (14 May 2012):
“The real tragedy is that the global warming community have showed no signs of changing their ways and entering into multidisciplinary discussions in a field where they have neither knowledge nor experience. Do they not realise that they have antagonised those of us in the engineering and applied sciences to the extent that we no longer trust their motives based on their attempts to silence all those who have contrarian views, and their deliberate departures from the truth?“
Freethinkers Oppose Flat Earth Climate Physics
Independent scientists such as those at Principia Scientific International (PSI) echo Professor Alexander’s words. It is concerned specialists from outside scientific disciplines and better skilled in math and thermodynamics who are the most outspoken. They say there is no excuse for the continued use of any computer model that treats Earth as a flat disk. They argue it is this ‘flat Earth physics,’ left uncorrected for so long, that has grown like a cancer infecting all corners of the infant science of ‘climatology.’
Now the penny drops with the UNFCCC. They understand that climate scientists have failed to prove their man-made global hypothesis and are facing increased legal scrutiny. Lawyers are sharpening their legal minds to dissect from the UN’s bloated climate science body the malignant tumor of man-made global warming. If the UNFCCC legal immunity gambit can be resisted we may yet see criminal prosecutions for the worst offenders in the climate fraud.
Regardless of any such remedy Third World starvation – a byproduct of asinine international climate policy over biofuels – will further increase as basic food staples continue to disappear. Such “progress” inflicted on us by the climate strategists to needlessly cut carbon emissions, has already accounted for the irrecoverable loss of six percent of all arable land. Thanks to the greed and hubris of a rich elite eager to profit from trade in carbon credits, global hunger skyrockets unabated and the masses remain otherwise duped by a dilettante mainstream media that still wants to believe it was for the noble cause of “sustainability” and “saving the planet.”
Quidsaipo~ Not to pile on, but, wasn’t there an 80-year-old woman who was told her carbon footprint was too large, due to a two-mile drive to her doctor?
And didn’t she then have to go looking for a doctor even further away?
As others have said, are you sure that’s what you want?
—
Here in Canada (I am a US citizen, wife is Canadian, we had to choose which direction to go in), there was a story some months back, of a woman who needs a Stent. Thanks to Canada’s ‘universal’ health care, the town she lives in decided they didn’t have the money for it. And that is just one of thousands of such medical miracles across Canada.
Now That’s sustainable Injustice, don’t you think?
Usually the proponents of wealth distribution are government employees paid from the public purse such as politicians, academics, teachers, employees of the publicly funded media outlets such as the ABC and the BBC. Those who generate the wealth that supports these government paid proponents are usually too busy growing their businesses and providing jobs to have much time for conferences in Rio. As for Lazy Teenager, will you tell us to which masters you are beholden?
The phrase “a massive and absolute decoupling of well-being from resource extraction and consumption” equals doublespeak for aiming to cripple physical production (consumption).
Economic prosperity primarily comes from physical goods. The top living expenses (residences, food, electricity, transportation, etc.) are predominately such. In fact, prosperity or not is mostly the ratio of one’s income to how much an amount of them cost. But, unless stopped by the efforts of smarter and less misanthropic individuals, these guys would have mankind’s electricity generation be limited to the current 2 TW average or decline below it (compared to 200000 TW of sunlight intersected by Earth and 400,000,000,000,000 TW output by the Sun), and everything from desalination of seawater to usage of materials in construction be crippled by their ideology founded on mathematical illiteracy, in utter contrast to the real picture, discussed here for instance:
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
Although superficially seeming unrelated, one of the great tragedies of post-WWII history is the implicit decision to never spend 1/1000th of GDP on directly trying to accomplish the first precursor step required to start a true Space Age, which would be to no longer consider acceptable launch systems having costs around 1000x the basic propellant costs (mostly liquid oxygen costing cents per pound) in favor of rather funding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarTram or http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/searagon.htm or the last part of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coilgun#Potential_uses or anything comparable for orders of magnitude change. Without a positive public vision of the future, the likes of these guys try to fill in a negative vision, and, if unchecked, will rot civilization.
“When you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
When you take wealth from one person and hand it to someone else, you remove the incentive for the first person to gain wealth in the first place. Hence in a Socialist world, all means of production must be owned by the state, with the people reduced to mere ants working to Government-set targets.
“When you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
But it’s someone else’s wealth being spread around. There’s a word for that: it’s called Theft.
“When you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
Imagine two brothers. Little Johnny goes out delivering papers, washing cars, and doing various odd jobs around the house for pocket money – and he’s reaping the rewards of his labour. In a few months he might even afford that new X-Box. His brother – little Billy – he’s alright, but he’s somewhat less driven than Johnny, has less ambition, and is happy to spend his free time playing with friends and watching TV – normal kid stuff.
Dad is a socialist. He believes in such things as “redistribution of wealth” and “universal fiscal equalization.” Johnny’s ready to buy his prized X-Box, but Dad can’t bear the idea that one kid will have more than the other – so he demands that Johnny hands over a proportion of his wealth to Billy. Billy feels a bit guilty, but being human doesn’t look this gift horse in the mouth. Johnny can no longer afford the X-Box and becomes disillusioned. Why even bother? He’s learned that gaining wealth is too hard because Pops just hands so much over to Billy, and he’s learned that personal success is clearly not a thing to aspire to.
Billy doesn’t get any more money out of Johnny, because Johnny doesn’t work any more, there’s no point. Besides, he gets a roof over his head and three squares a day for free – he’ll settle for that. And so there is finally genuine fiscal equalization of the two brothers. Both have f… all.
No one in their right mind would really bring up their kids this way. And yet socialists think it’s a good way to run society? Bloody arrogant fools.
Jim
The complete report and Executive Summary of “No future without justice“ are available at the Civil Society Reflection Group on Global Development Perspectives website (http://www.reflectiongroup.org/).
According to their summary “The report calls for fundamental changes to tackle the root causes of the multiple crises in the world and demands:”
“to draw lessons from the environmental, social and economic crises, to look beyond conventional development concepts and goals and to rethink fundamentally the models and measures of development and social progress – in the North and the South. Rio+20 and the emerging discussions on a post-2015 development agenda provide a unique window of opportunity to reconsider the current development paradigm and to changing the course towards a holistic, rights-based development approach that is based on equity and common but differentiated responsibilities.”
“Governments failed to bring their policies into line with the agreed principles of sustainability and human rights. Instead, policies are still too often sectorally fragmented and misguided, with an overreliance on economic growth and self-regulation of the ‘markets’. New concepts like ‘green growth’ are at best attempts to treat the symptoms of the problems without tackling their root causes. Instead, fundamental changes at three levels are needed:
• Changes in the mindset, the guiding concepts and indicators of development and progress.
• Changes in fiscal and regulatory policies at national, regional and international levels in order to effectively overcome social inequalities and the degradation of nature and to strengthen sustainable economies.
• Changes in institutions and governance mechanisms at national, regional and international levels.”
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT = AGenda 21 as far as I can work out which means a one world banking system with a one world governemnt all delivered by an unelected load of you know what’s out of the UN!
These demands are certainly not unique to the “Civil Society Reflection Group on Global Development Perspectives”! From the “High Level Panel’s” Future We Want to the current “Pre-Conference Informal Consultations ” – as opposed to the multitude of previously held “Informal Informal Consultations” [yes, you read that right: “Informal Informal”] on the “outcome document” – they keep cropping up all over the place! I guess that’s how they build “consensus” these days!
Here are some “book-end” excerpts from the quasi-official report of the June 18 deliberations:
IOW, everything but the kitchen sink is being thrown into the Rio+20 outcome document mix! And people are always at their best – with all their wits about them – at late night meetings after a long day, aren’t they?!
For the acronymically challenged:
IFSD = Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development
SDGs = Sustainable Development Goals
MOI [Sorry, can’t put my mouse on that one, at the moment; but suffice it to say that it is related to “mechanisms to deliver financing and technology transfer” ]
UNEP = United Nations Environment Program [Parent of the IPCC, UNFCCC and a gaziilion other acronymic offspring.]
There’s also a group called ECOSOC which has an NGO Branch … which, in essence is the doorway that NGOs pass through in order to obtain their “consultative status” And there’s a movement afoot to increase their role!
I’m sure that you’ll be as pleased as I was to learn that – in addition to the UN Commission on Sustainable Development and the Human Rights Council – ECOSOC also “feeds” the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. And one of this Commission’s “mandated priority areas” is:
I would guess that it’s probably a very short hop – or a mere skip and/or jump – from this “mandated priority area” to “sustainable justice”.
Btw, there’s also a big push to elevate the status of the UNEP within the UN “family”; it is worth noting that the UNEP has the distinction of being the UN’s highest-flying carbon-emitting agency. It’s also worth noting that in all the papers I’ve slogged through since January when they began gearing up for Rio, “climate change” is being given very short shrift!
I do have several links to posts on my blog for all this (with links to source material) … but they’d probably land this comment in the spam-trap!
This kind of story always reminds me of the Bert and I story from Maine, Downeast Socialism from
Marshall Dodge and Robert Bryan:
Eban Robay went into Boston to the Tremont Temple on Saturday night to hear Norman Thomas speak about socialism. Next Monday he was preaching socialism to Enoch Turner over the back fence:
“You know, Enoch,” he was sayin’, “under socialism people share everything.”
Enoch then asked, “You mean, Eban, if you had two farms you’d give me one of them?” “Ayup, Enoch, if I had two farms, I’d give you one of them.”
“And Eban, if you had two hay rakes you’d give me one of them?” “Ayup, Enoch, if I had two hay rakes I’d give you one of them.”
“Now Eban, if you had two hogs would you give me one of them?” “Darn you Enoch, you knows I got two hogs!”
oops I am very sorry also meant to include this in above comment
I have to say, I’m not too concerned about an agenda like that. I’d be much more concerned if they’d actually proposed something reasonable. Plainly, an agenda like that, doesn’t stand a snowflake’s chance in hell of being accepted. It’s just a great example of the environmentalist bunker mentality in action. Another self-inflicted wound …
Pointman
They want to “spread the wealth” and at the same time destroy the ability to create it. It is both diabolical and madness at the same time. This is the logical extension of attacking “carbon”, the basis for all life. The end result of their schemes will result in untold human misery, loss of human dignity and freedom, and millions of deaths. Perhaps that is what they want.
quidsapio says:
June 19, 2012 at 2:45 am
“But what’s wrong with universal health care? I’ve lived in the US and the UK and I know which one I’d prefer to get sick in. It doesn’t have to mean a “nanny state” and when people talk like that they’re being as irrational as any Warmist.”
Man, what’s wrong is this is a Government monopoly forced on us against our will with our own money, because Government knows what’s best for us. You may value your health, but you obviously don’t value personal freedom.
Whenever the the word “justice” is prefaced by an adjective, look for the agenda, there will always be one. Justice in and of itself requires no elaboration – it exists, or it doesn’t. Justice with an adjective describing it means special treatment for someone at the expense of someone else. Justice, by definition, can not be dispensed at the expense of anyone, or it’s simply not justice. The socialist left needs to be called out on this every time they trot out their “qualified” justices. Justice for whom? At the expense of whom? Who speaks for justice for those who’ve had theirs taken away to satisfy the agenda?
As was so often the case, H. L. Mencken succinctly nailed the phenomenon:
“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”
@DirkH – having to pay for an ambulance, x-rays, CAT scans because you are unlucky enough to have an accident; having to re-mortgage your home to finance healthcare because your insurance decided you had a pre-existing condition; you want that?
At least in the UK (I live here) you can get your hip replacement free of charge; in the US if you can’t pay you don’t get it at all.
And “British teeth”? Please. We don’t do lazy-thinking and cliches here! We leave that to Skeptical Science.
I have always thought that socialism is about the re-distribution of the cake and capitalism is about making a bigger cake. History shows us that the best outcome for the “common man” is capitalism with some degree of legislative oversight. What these people seem to be proposing is the re-distribution of a smaller cake. This is frightening. How do these delusional fools get into positions of power ?
If they want to create justice around the world they must allow under-developed countries to develop. This cannot be achieved without cheap and abundant electricity which can only come from fossil fuels or nuclear. Why not ?
Objection (1) is that we have to cut down on CO2 emissions to stop global warming. This hypothesis has been discredited in so many ways by the real world data. Climate change is happening but it’s mild, it’s not unprecedented and it’s not a problem, cf Medieval Warm Period.
Objection (2) is that resources are being depleted and we cannot continue this way. But mankind has never run out of any resource. Man is constantly researching new and better ways of doing things and before any resource is exhausted it is rendered unnecessary by new developments. Why would we expect man’s ingenuity to suddenly stop.
It is well known that developed countries have lower birth rates. In an underdeveloped country your children are your provision for old age whereas in developed countries with wealth creating infrastructure people can make advance financial provision privately or through the State. Thus there is a double benefit of development in reducing the growth in the world’s population.
If the philosophy from the Rio conference were implemented then there is no way that the current population of the Earth could be sustained. There would have to be a population reduction measured in billions. It is incumbent on those at Rio to acknowledge this and to explain to the rest of the world how they propose to bring this population reduction about.
quidsapio
I don’t know about the UK system but here in Tasmania my cousin was told a 6 year wait for cataract surgery.Needless to say she is going private and paying the difference herself.
And still no mention of stakeholder forum. How have these people remained so unnoticed?
The elitists RIO+20 political watermelon narcissists have their job cut out for them if they think they are going to force their ideological and tyrannical cult onto the rest of the world.
It appears that even the local Rio women are awake to their scheming!
The great Watermelon cult of the Green elite is dying although the stench of it’s slow decay will stay around for many years yet unfortunately.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/women-march-rio-protest-green-economy-174353168.html
Women march in Rio to protest ‘green economy’
Thousands of women representing social and farm movements marched in central Rio Monday to rail against the “green economy” advocated by the Rio+20 conference on sustainable development.
Behind a large banner from the international peasant movement Via Campesina proclaiming “the peoples are against the mercantilization of nature”, they marched several miles to the Flamengo park, the venue for the “People’s Summit” organized by civil society groups on the sidelines of the Rio+20 event.
Several hundred men closed off the march to show their solidarity.
Perched atop a truck fitted with loudspeakers, a female activist howled: “This is a march of urban and rural women against this Rio+20 charade.”
“No to green capitalism! Yes to an economy based on solidarity, yes to people’s sovereignty,” she added.
“They insist that all governments provide universal access to public health care, guaranteed state allowances for every child, guaranteed state support for the unemployed and underemployed, and basic universal pensions and universal social security.”
Reminds me of this cartoon from 4 years ago…
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-0JdLFZkxKh8/Tmi6zWCcKkI/AAAAAAAABsc/8teyEaFkkx0/s1600/obama%2Bjobs%2Bcartoon.jpg
Neil Jones says:
June 19, 2012 at 2:38 am
This is the EU writ in blood.
________________________________
Very much so. From what I can see the Soviet Union and the EU were trial balloons. The Soviet Union bombed and was cut but the EU was seen as a “success” As Pascal Lamy states the European construction is the most ambitious experiment to date in supranational governance.
In the magazine the GLOBALIST: How the world really hangs together, is an
article where “Pascal Lamy, Director-General of the World Trade Organization, outlines the lessons that the world can learn from Europe.”
Annotated with [coments by me ~ gc]
Most of us are familiar with Maurice Strong and “Sscientists” like Phil Jones and Mike Mann but I think few outside of Europe have paid attention to Pascal Lamy another mover and shaker on the global governance scene. So who is Pascal Lamy and what are his tie-ins?
TRANSCRIPT OF PRESS CONFERENCE WITH EUROPEAN UNION TRADE COMMISSIONER PASCAL LAMY – European Commission Delegation Washington, DC, November 4, 2003
Is Europe’s left ready to govern?: If a new social democratic era is to be ushered in, the left must find new answers and strategies – or this chance will be wasted
And anyone who thinks this “CHANCE” was not manufactured has been living in a closet with the door closed.
There is the European Socialist Party and Fabian Society tie-in.
If you do not think this effects the USA here is Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke’s speech at the London School of Economics: The Crisis and the Policy Response
(A Transcript, Press Cuttings, Podcast and Video, available at LSE – http://www2.lse.ac.uk/publicEvents/events/2008/20081203t1159z001.aspx )
Sounds like Lamy doesn’t he?
Unfortunately, Agenda 21 and subsequent grand plans to reconfigure human society on a global scale are not widely known among the general public. Which means that they will be pursued with little resistance, until such time as they impinge directly on the billions of individuals inhabiting this rock. Leading up to that, we will see many wars, uprisings, social discontent, revolutions, and overall social, financial, and political chaos. Which is the goal of course. The old must be destroyed to bring in the new, is the motto.
Read the news lately?
‘Sustainable Justice’
It was only a matter of time before they came up w/that vile & disgusting Orwellian phrase.