‘The Future We Want’ offered sustained power and money grabs in name of sustainability
Guest post by Paul Driessen and Duggan Flanakin
The Future We Want outlined a “common vision” for planetary “sustainable development,” as proclaimed by the “Organizing Partners of the Major Group of NGOs,” to guide the taxpayer-funded Rio+20 summit that ended last week in disarray and acrimony.
The activist organizations that cobbled the document together filled it with hundreds of platitudes and pseudo-solutions to global warming cataclysms, newly reconstituted as threats to resource depletion and biodiversity – and presented as standards and mandates for countries, communities and corporations.
The terms “sustainable development,” “sustainable” and “sustainability” appeared in the original text an astounding 390 times. Like “abracadabra,” these nebulous concepts were supposed to transform the world into a Garden of Eden global community, under United Nations auspices, that will use less, pollute less, and save species and planet from their worst enemy: humans.
To glean the document essence, however, readers only needed to understand two concepts: control and money – to impose the future the activists wanted.
The NGOs and UN called for “donations” from formerly rich European Union and Annex II (Kyoto Protocol) countries, at 0.7% of their gross national product per year. With the combined GNP of the contributing nations totaling about $45 trillion in 2010, the transfers would total $315 billion per year, or $3.2 trillion per decade.
President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton had previously committed the United States to provide up to $105 billion annually, based on our $15 trillion GNP (and stressed-out line of credit). With US per capita GNP pegged at $47,340 – each American family of four would pay $1,325 a year. That may seem like chump change compared to TARP, Obamacare or the Obama Stimulus. But over a decade US citizens would involuntarily shell out well over a trillion dollars to UN sustainability schemes.
The UN claims it has already received more than $500 billion in pledges from governments and companies, to reduce fossil fuel use, increase renewable energy generation in poor countries, promote bicycle use in Holland, teach sustainability in universities, conserve water – and in passing reduce global poverty. Time will tell how many pledges are worth the paper they were printed on
To oversee this unprecedented wealth transfer to UN bureaucrats and NGO activists, The Future We Want architects sought to establish “an intergovernmental process” to assess financial needs, consider the effectiveness, consistency and “synergies” of existing instruments and frameworks, evaluate additional initiatives, and prepare reports on financing strategies. This grand scheme would be implemented by an intergovernmental committee of 30 “experts,” who will be accountable to – no one, actually, except perhaps the Secretary General of the esteemed United Nations.
The document reassured readers that “aid architecture has significantly changed in the current decade,” and “fighting corruption and illicit financial flows [has become] a priority.” Diogenes would search in vain for evidence of this.
Indeed, the very idea of still more aid must be questioned. “Has more than US$1 trillion in development assistance over the last several decades made African people better off?” Zambia-born economist Dambisa Moyo asks in her book, Dead Aid. “No,” she answers emphatically. What’s needed are investment, development, less regulatory red tape, and an unleashing of entrepreneurial instincts.
Nevertheless, the UN is determined to plow ahead, claiming that somehow, this time, they will get it right. Surely, the prospect of promoting sustainability and saving the planet and its species will convert scurrilous dictators, Western politicians and their cronies into honest leaders who would never divert eco-funding to political friends, Swiss bank accounts or crony-capitalist wind and solar projects.
With Rio de Janeiro’s Christ the Redeemer statue bathed in green light (to symbolize ecology – or was it money?) and the National Religious Partnership for the Environment proselytizing throughout the event, surely miscreants would sin no more.
Meanwhile, Statement 61 (of 283!) helpfully pronounced that “urgent action on unsustainable patterns of production and consumption … remains fundamental in addressing environmental sustainability” … and each country should “consider the implementation of green economy policies in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication.”
In essence, the Rio+20 message was, “You got a problem? The UN team has an app for that!”
From poverty eradication to food security, nutrition and “sustainable agriculture,” to water and sanitation, to energy, sustainable tourism and transport, and sustainable cities and “human settlements,” the Future We Want “framework for action and follow-up” had it covered! Of course, there were caveats.
Everyone has a right to safe, sufficient, nutritious food – but biotechnology, chemical fertilizers, insecticides and modern mechanized farming are unsustainable. Electricity is vital, but the 1.4 billion now without lights or refrigeration must be content with “green energy.” Health “is a precondition for, an outcome of, and an indicator of, all three dimensions of sustainable development,” but no DDT allowed.
The authors also promised “full and productive employment, decent work for all, and social protections” for workers, to clean up the oceans, stop illegal mining and fishing, and ensure that only “sustainable forest management” prevails (the cut-no-trees kind that produces uncontrollable wildfires).
The Future We Want also lauded women, the scientific and technological community, indigenous peoples, young people, workers, trade unions, small-scale farmers, NGOs and “civil society” – while placing new burdens on the corporations that will be expected to generate trillions to prop up these efforts.
The document also included multiple proposals for technology transfers – but deleted all references to protecting patents and intellectual property rights. It also excised language “respecting the right to freedom of association and assembly, in accordance with our obligations under international law.”
Thankfully – despite attendance by 45,000 delegates from 180 nations – the Rio+20 summit became just another gabfest, the mandates became even more ill-defined “goals” and “recommendations,” and the world dodged another Kyoto-style bullet.
The activists and bureaucrats will doubtless be back, in a couple more years, in an exotic new locale, with new plans for saving the planet from scary new catastrophes.
However, poor countries are slowly catching on that these UN events are little more than neo-colonialist, eco-imperialist schemes to control and restrict economic development – and poor families are beginning to realize they won’t get a dime from these sustainability pledges or derive any tangible benefits from the green schemes.
__________
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The UN (United Numpties) are world leaders in Antihumanism. Time to wind them up for the betterment of all mankind.
This too is alarming:
http://www.un.org/jsummit/html/sustainable_dev/p2_partners_other_areas/1208_env_law_iucn.pdf
—
“IUCN – The World Conservation Union
IUCN Environmental Law Programme Capacity Building Initiative”
“There is an agreed need to further progress the implementation of Agenda 21 but effective implementation will not occur without capacity building and effective governance. There is a need to develop and invest in a major new framework for environmental law capacity building at all levels, one that serves to forge links between existing institutions and processes and facilitates good governance for sustainable development.
To be effective, such a programme requires global coordination, regional and national delivery and effective collaboration through a partnership of leading international, regional and national organizations. “
—
Did you read what it says?
In case you missed it, it says “global coordination, regional and national delivery”
“global coordination”, that is the unelected UN and the unelected NGOs
“regional and national delivery”, Regional would be things line the unelected EU. National would be the bottom of the pile, the people that you could vote for.
This is an interesting organization:
—
“The IUCN (global) Environmental Law Centre (ELC) will facilitate co-operation, co-ordination and regional and national delivery.
IUCN’s Environmental Law Programme (ELP), established in 1958, is the world’s environmental law network. It has the ability to mobilise and co-ordinate the efforts of the best environmental lawyers and organisations from countries all over the world. The ELP includes the Commission on Environmental Law, a volunteer network of over 750 of the world’s leading environmental lawyers from 120 countries around the world. IUCN ELP has a long and successful track record of working in partnership with others to develop and deliver major capacity building projects and it is ideally placed to take the lead in the development of such a programme and related projects.
IUCN is a membership based organisation, with 79 State members, 112 government and 735 national and international NGO members (together with 42 regional and country offices, and a volunteer network of over 10,000 experts in six commissions), and can facilitate self assessment of capacity building needs from both a government and civil society perspective. “
—
Yea, they are serious, and have been for a long time.
Speak now or forever hold your peace.
“Like “abracadabra,” these nebulous concepts were supposed to transform the world into a Garden of Eden global community, under United Nations auspices…”
Yes, put the snakes in charge of the new Garden of Eden. What could go wrong?
Like finding a collasally huge footprint in a primordial mud, the question latter generations will ask when finding this drivel will be ‘….what the frick is this?????? Where did it come from???’ This is truely frightening stuff. The threat to western civilization is as clear as the first jack boots marching out of Germany. Where’s Winston Churchill when you need him!!!
The outcome is evidently UNsustainability.
I found this quite fascinating:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/25/antarctic_ice_not_melting
Food is a need, but it is not a right. By calling food a right, the sustainability bureaucrats get to take the position of being the granters of that right. Such power authority does not belong in the hands of mere mortals.
Such authority does not belong in the hands of mere mortals.
i’ve posted a number of CAGW-inspired disasters in Australia in Tips&Notes in the past few days, for example the third multi-billion dollar desal plant being mothballed because cylclical rains have filled almost every dam in the country, and we’re being drenched with more rains as i type.
however, the MSM has barely reported on the latest moth-balling of the Sydney desal plant – and i’ve seen nothing on TV – and the couple of media reports that are available online don’t even make a connection between the latest moth-balling and the two previous ones in Melbourne and Gold Coast, Queensland.
the construction costs plus the ongoing maintenance costs are unbelievably massive, yet you would never know it was alarmist PREDICTIONS by the likes of palaeontologist, Tim Flannery, (our Chief Commissioner of the Australian Climate Commission) which caused this waste in the first place.
meanwhile, our Govt is employing heavy-handed tactics to prevent the public from understanding it is not only their personal electricity bills (but everything) which will increase with the introduction of an absurd carbon dioxide tax on 1st July, something the MSM has not bothered explaining properly or at all.
the corruption of the MSM boys and girls who would be out of work if they did not follow the official meme of CAGW is almost total shameful:
26 June: Age: Jessica Wright: Abbott’s carbon tax flyer exposes businesses to fines: Bradbury
A flyer sent out by Tony Abbott has potentially exposed small businesses to fines of up to $1 million each.
The Opposition Leader wrote to thousands of small business owners warning them of the impact of the carbon tax. The letter, from Mr Abbott and opposition small business spokesman Bruce Billson, is accompanied by a flyer that shop keepers – specifically butchers – have been encouraged to place in store windows…
But the Assistant Treasurer, David Bradbury, has warned that the Liberal leader has potentially exposed shop owners to fines of up to $1 million each.
Mr Bradbury hit out at Mr Abbott, saying he was improperly giving ”businesses the green light to jack up their prices” and warned that shop keepers who put up their prices without due justification were risking large fines from the ACCC of more than $1 million for each infraction…
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/abbotts-carbon-tax-flyer-exposes-businesses-to-fines-bradbury-20120626-20ztc.html#ixzz1ytEC6Zf1
——————————————————————————–
I think the US needs to get out of the UN it is a useless organization however if they want to tax us (the US) I think they should go after a full five percent not the measly .7% they asked for. The one percent should be on the federal budget surplus not GDP.
I meant five not one in the last sentence.
What we know and read of the extreme eco-socialist agenda both explicit and implied, in UN Agenda 21 must surely be a mere shadow of that which is spoken about, aspired to, and plotted toward behind closed doors.
The tragedy is that those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat the same mistakes. The UN ardently pursue a vision of global eco-socialist collectivism as intently as others once pursued visions of a 1000 year Reich or the proletarian utopia of Marx. Such ardent pursuit slides into political imposition, which merges seamlessly into totalitarian enforcement. Have we really to face another long, miserable, destructive orgy of violence and mayhem addressing the homogenisation of humanity by yet another version of the Ministry-of-We-Know-Best?
As pointed out by various WUWT blog commenters, belief/disbelief in CAGW is not a “left”/”right” issue. There are several people who have commented on this blog that they are to the left of political center and strongly disagree with CAGW. It wasn’t long, however, after I started looking into CAGW that I came to the conclusion that CAGW advocates as a group seem to have left-leaning beliefs. Put it this way. Pick at random from a crowd two people–one who says he/she is is a political conservative and one who says he/she is a political liberal. I think I’d make a lot of money if I made an even money bet that if the liberal had an opinion about CAGW that opinion would be that CAGW is reality. I’d make some, but not as much money, if I took an even money bet that if the conservative had an opinion about CAGW, his/her opinion would be that CAGW is a hoax. The recent RIO+20 conference confirms my beliefs–at least relative to liberals. I believe that with the break up of the Soviet Union, people who advocate a socialistic form of government lost their power base and started searching for an alternative. They latched onto the environment as the horse they could ride to their socialistic utopia. Because global warming was the environmental issue that got all the press and money, a significant percentage of socialistic advocates latched onto CAGW. This doesn’t make CAGW a left/right issue, but it sure makes it seem that way.
“Scott Brown of Massachusetts”….I invite every Massachusetts resident to give that wimpy and ill-educated sumbitch a call or email and tell him that he is Elizabeth “Fauxcahontus” Warren Lite.
May I suggest a campaign slogan for him? Abumper sticker?
“Best of a Bad Lot”
If university education does not expand to five years, enough to require all candidates to take more basic science courses in chem , physics, math and biology (to get a B.A.), and more basic and B.S. candidates to take more liberal arts courses (history, literature, English composition, foreign languages etc —NOT GENDER AND RACE “STUDIES”.) , we will continue to be led by functional illiterates.
And if you can’t do the math to learn basic chem, physics, or math — don’t go to college!
(sez I, with a B.A. in History, a B.S. in Chemical Engineering, and a professional degree)
The fundamental definition of “sustainability” is “making omelets without breaking eggs.” I’m sorry, these folks have run face-first into the laws of entropy.
After enough years of human habitation, the ecosphere will resemble warm mud. Not much we can do about it except, well, leave.
Given this post, it can’t hurt to offer up my Future We Want (Dread) logo/cover redesign again:
RIO+20=PAIN
As noted, WUWT, CFACT, please feel free to make the image your own and use/modify at will (vector available by request). I’m biased, but I think my version is a better representation of SD than the UN’s. Keep up the pressure. COP18/Qatar is only 5 months away. They will eventually go down (I hope) but they will be kicking and screaming and screeching the whole way.
…”pseudo-solutions to global warming cataclysms”…
Until solar panels and windmills become non-pseudo solutions/options for producing energy in the multi-terawatt range on a state or national scale – which in 40 years they have not even remotely accomplished – all the platitudes in the world won’t elevate them a factor in anything global.
The proof is in the pudding, and the pudding is runny in the extreme.
Only high-energy-density solutions are worth talking about, much less putting public or private money into.
Pseudo solutions are like hyped up mine stocks: Cover your wallet if you can!
Steve Garcia
rio done, but we already have 700 meeting in melbourne about what? see if you can find any hint of CAGW in this Murdoch paper’s official AAP news agency article:
26 June: Herald Sun: AAP: Climate change taking hold, summit hears
National Breaking News
Queensland’s floods, Cyclone Yasi and the ongoing drought in Australia’s southwest are signs of the urgent need to adapt to climate change, a leading researcher says.
NATIONAL Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility (NCCARF) director Jean Palutikof says mankind has a lot of work to do to ensure it copes with the turbulence of a shifting climate.
“(Climate change) is insidious and essentially non-linear, and has the capacity to deliver shocks and surprises which we are currently not well protected against,” Professor Palutikof told the Climate Adaption in Action conference in Melbourne on Tuesday…
A host of national and international researchers are sharing their ideas on how individuals, businesses and governments can cope with the impacts of climate change.
CSIRO chairman Simon McKeon lamented mankind’s “love affair with fossil fuel”, saying that without it, the conference likely wouldn’t have been needed in the first place.
He also said endless debate in the media over the plausibility of climate change had hampered action.
“Change is hard enough, but when science isn’t given a fair go in the media it’s doubly hard,” he said.
Preventing food shortages and managing natural disasters are among the topics being tackled by some 700 people at the three-day conference.
Federal Climate Change Minister Greg Combet said in a brief video message that the impacts of climate change were increasingly demanding a more proactive approach to wild weather in Australia…
Indigenous Wurundjeri tribe elder, Aunty Diane Kerr, offered the simplest – and perhaps most telling – advice as she offered a traditional welcome to the land: “If you do care for the country, the country will care for you”.
The conference, jointly hosted by the CSIRO and NCCARF, continues until Thursday.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/climate-change-taking-hold-summit-hears/story-e6frf7kf-1226409286393
really and truly, it’s all over for our govt, media and scientific institutions.
It’s time all these NGO’s, on both sides of any argument, were barred from all lobbying etc. If they have something to say, let them stand for their parliament, house etc and let the public say if they agree or disagree with their proposals
——-From poverty eradication to food security, nutrition and “sustainable agriculture,” to water and sanitation, to energy, sustainable tourism and transport, ————-– but biotechnology, chemical fertilizers, insecticides and — modern mechanized farming are unsustainable.—– must be content with “green energy.”——————- also promised “full and productive employment, decent work for all,———-
Yes, women can again pull the plow and gather dung. A rickshaw and sedan chair on every street. Jobs for all. Abundant dried grass and twigs. Lights in the day time. Enviro -paradise. The occupy movement will love it!
Who is this “we” that they’re talking about?
The United States had the good sense to pull out of the League of Nations nearly 100 years back.
Let’s hope it has the good sense to pull out of the UN too, so killing it.
Either that, or we need another good old fashoined existential world war to wash out the ever-increasingly liberal BS and its purveyors from the UN system and the various NGOs (both national and international) as they are presently constituted.
It is self-evident that these organisations are aimed at undermining and ultimately destroying civilisation as we know it by whatever means – pseudo-science and enviro-mumbojumbo is just the latest vehicle.
To Reed Coray 9.30pm.
With respect Sir, I believe that there is little doubt where Green political philosophy lies.
In a thorough description ‘in their own words’ you will find written. Their particularly toxic hybrid of ecological Marxism drags ‘conventional Marxism’ to hitherto unplumbed depths of human subjugation :
“Many descriptions could be applied to the Greens, but none seems more accurate than Jack Mundey’s own description of “ecological Marxism”, which sums up the two core beliefs of the Greens. First, the environment or the ecology is to be placed before all else. This is spelt out in the first principle in the Greens Global Charter, to which the Australian Greens are subscribers: “We acknowledge that human beings are part of the natural world and we respect the specific values of all forms of life, including non-human species.”[34]”
“Second, the Greens are Marxist in their philosophy, and display the same totalitarian tendencies of all previous forms of Marxism as a political movement.”
‘The Greens’ Agenda, in Their Own Words’ Kevin Andrews
http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2011/1/the-greens-agenda-in-their-own-words
US national debt is approaching $16 trillion. See it in real time:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Foreign Assistance shows where the US is spending its money abroad. The Global Climate Change Initiative is an example from the website:
http://foreignassistance.gov/Initiative_GCC_2012.aspx?FY=2012
WTF says:
June 26, 2012 at 3:44 pm
Who wrote ‘The Future We Want’? Karl Marx?
____________________________________
Yes with ample help from Fabian Socialist George Bernard Shaw
Nice people aren’t they? Here is the United Nations connection.