Debunked: Agenda 21, ICLEI, Sovereignty, UN, Depopulation

[Mick West]

Agenda 21 (Agenda for the 21st century) is non-binding UN resolution adopted by 178 countries at the 1992 Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janerio, Brazil. It's an action plan, or series of recommendations and goals aimed at promoting sustainable development, reducing poverty, world hunger, pollution, and climate change.

While it is non-binding, many governments (both national and local) and institutions use agenda 21 as a useful set of goals and guidelines. At the local level, it's sometime referred to as Local Agenda 21, or LA21.

In reality the actual effects of Agenda 21 in the US over the last 22 years seem to have been almost zero. Searching for mentions of it on the internet almost entirely results in mentions from conspiracy and conservative organizations.

The largest "impact" seems to be that a variety of local governments have joined the ICLEI (International Council for Local and Environmental Initiatives) - an organization that includes Agenda 21 in it's goals, but really aimed at development in 3rd world countries. Any US municipality that joins ICLEI is really just affirming their environnemental credentials, and so is largely going to be those of a less conservative leaning. For example, in California, the liberal-leaning Los Angeles County is a member, but the more conservative Orange County immediately to the south is not.

Concerns regarding Agenda 21 and the ICLEI range from extreme conspiracy theories:

http://aircrap.org/alexander-bachman-agenda-21-depopulation-smart-meters/332267/

Agenda 21 is a big action plan by the world elite to usher in the technological grid. It is the implementation of "the beast" system. It is an artificial intelligence platform where all of our actions are being tracked in real-time by super computers in Belgium and in the U.S. These super computers are controlled by the National Security Agency (NSA).
They want to track all of our movements through "the chip." The chip is real.

Through the less extreme conspiracy theories of the Tea Party:

http://myteapartychronicle.blogspot.com/2011/06/tea-party-onto-agenda-21.html

Agenda 21 usurps sovereignty, property rights, economic liberty, and basically hands over power, resources and land to unelected elitists… to control the populations of every country in the world. Agenda 21 purports to address environmental issues, but calls for wealth redistribution, resource redistribution, food redistribution, energy restrictions, supposed social justice, and more. It is NOT about the environment, though it pretends to be. The phrase Sustainable Development became the popular term in America to define Agenda 21. It is a political ideology being infused into every level of government in America. In short, it's a Marxist plan for global control of everything.. with the United Nations at the head of central planning.

And has made it all the way up to mainstream political discourse:

http://floridaindependent.com/49425/newt-gingrich-agenda-21

In a town hall meeting sponsored by East Orlando Tea Party earlier this month in Orlando, former House Speaker Gingrich described his efforts to fight Agenda 21 if he were elected president.

"One of the things that is popping up, for example, is Agenda 21," he told the tea party audience, "which is not something I even knew about until we did a couple of conference calls. It's probably going to be one of the very first executive orders — is to seize all federal funding of any kind of activity that relates to the United Nations' Agenda 21."

(Newt said the above as an example of things that crop up when he gets more involved with grass-roots discussions. He was tailoring it as an example for his audience. When he mentioned it, a murmur rose in the room, and when he said he would cut funding, then he got a round of applause).

The problem is that Agenda 21 and the ICLEI have NOT ACTUALLY DONE ANYTHING. Newt is going to cut funding for something that really has no funding. Yes, there are programs that have goals that are similar to goals outlines in agenda 21, but those are programs that would exist anyway. Things like preventing pollution, suppling clean drinking water, and education in 3rd world countries.

Here's one of the biggest offenses that Newt would be addressing:

http://www.infowars.com/city-council-of-montana-city-illegally-enforces-un-agenda-21-on-taxpayers/

MISSOULA, MT – In a move that would have made Joseph Stalin jealous, the City Council of Missoula, Montana on Monday approved the use of local tax dollars to an organization out of state known as ICLEI (International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives).

Regardless of the majority of people's testimony against the ICLEI proposal, the sum of $1,200 will be taken directly out of the business and other tax funds and put in the hands of bureacrats. Money will go to "paying dues" to stop man-made Climate Change. Expect more city zoning, less property rights, and the gradual implementation of smart grid technology that can give a bureacrat the power to spy on how much energy you use in your house, and even turn off your power grid altogether.

Missoula, Montana is simply paying membership dues to the ICLEI. That's all.

Of course Newt was talking about the federal funding. What would that be exactly? It's hard to find any examples. But let's start with some numbers for comparison. Currently the US pays 22% of the UN's budget. The US is already paying $1.2 billion per year to the United Nations. Another approximately $14 billion goes to the USAID, many of the goals of which are similar to Agenda 21.

So what is the Federal Agenda 21 funding? There isn't any federal funding for Agenda 21. Everything I've been able to find so far has been federal programs that simply have some similar aspects to Agenda 21. For example - anything to do with energy conservation (like energy efficient light-bulbs, or solar power) will get lumped in with Agenda 21. Since there's no explicit funding, the conservatives are simply using it as an excuse to cut funding to programs they don't like.

Additional Resources:

Alternet: How Right-Wing Conspiracy Theories May Pose a Genuine Threat to Humanity - excellent article on the dangers of the "paranoid style" type fear of Agenda 21.

Debunked: Executive Order #13575 - —Establishment of the White House Rural Council - a related sub-conspiracy-theory, where an toothless council for facilitating communication is raised to be an evil tool of the New World Order.


[To be continued]

 

[Steve]

The women who has been pushing this conspiracy (Cassandra Anderson) works for G. Edward Griffin and has produced a few videos along with writing many articles on this subject. Here is one she made with Paul Wittenberg(The Great Culling)
:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsLD7W-l_FM
This is Michael Shaw also produced by Anderson.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZz1H6TWB5g&feature=related
Here is her website:
http://morphcity.com/agenda-21

 

[Mick West]

It's interesting to look at the history of conspiracy theories, to see how they got started, and how they spread. It also helps give perspective on whatever the current incarnation of a theory is.

In this case the conspiracy theory has a very well-defined start.

Agenda 21 was adopted in 1992, at the 1998 Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED, also referred to as Eco 92) held in Rio de Janerio, Brazil. Around this time, the Schiller Institute issued a white paper titled "'Eco 92' Must Be Stopped". The earliest reference to this paper is a usenet post from June 21, 1992. Rather oddly this is the ONLY place I could find the full text of the paper. There were some references, but the original web pages are now only found on archive.org.

Based on the text, it seems to have been written BEFORE the conference, in anticipation.

In June 1992, representatives of the 166 governments of
the world--including numerous heads of state--will be brought
together in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, for the United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). Also known as
the ``Earth Summit'' or ``Eco 92,'' the gathering is expected to
formulate a so-called ``Earth Charter'' and a parallel action
program, dubbed ``Agenda 21,'' intended to subject the
development aspirations, especially of developing sector nations,
to global environmental controls.
But the truth is that ``Eco 92'' is a giant fraud and hoax,
whose real objective is to consolidate the Malthusian New World
Order promoted by the Anglo-American financial elite, a New World
Order premised on:
* the continued looting of the developing sector by the
international financial community;
* the end of national sovereignty; and
* the final destruction of any hope for industrial
development in the nations of the South.
The Schiller Institute is issuing this White Paper to expose
the true intentions of the oligarchical architects of Eco 92; to
debunk the pseudo-scientific myths upon which it is premised; to
explain the historial roots of the Malthusian policies now
repackaged as ``sustainable development;'' and to urge the
international community to stop the ``Eco 92'' conference from
ever occuring.

Apparently one of the most important goals of the Eco 92 conference was, with all seriousness, "Paganism"

In one sense, the most important objective of ``Eco 92'' is
to consolidate a ``New Age'' cultural paradigm shift which has
been underway for two decades: to destroy the idea of ``man in
the living image of God,'' and thus capable of infinite
development, and replace it with pagan beliefs that equate man
with each and every other animal species.

The Schiller Institute is an organization of the LaRouche movement,

Unless this paper simply reflects the prevailing conservative attitude at the time, I'd suggest it's pretty likely that it's at the root of the Agenda 21 conspiracy theory.

 

[Mick West]

The Schiller paper describes it as a continuation of a deeper conspiracy - basically that of the "ecology" movement, plotting to take over the world under the guise of saving it.

The fact is that Eco 92 is the culmination of a several-decade Malthusian conspiracy which got its official start in 1972, with the simultaneous publication of the Club of Rome report ``Limits to Growth'' and the appointment of Canadian Maurice Strong as secretary general of the U.N. Conference on Human Environment, held in Stockholm, Sweden, that year. Club of Rome member Strong is today also the secretary general of UNCED.

The so-called Stockholm Conference was key to launching the global ecology movement in earnest. As Strong himself describes it, ``The Stockholm Conference put environment on the international agenda. The Earth Summit will move it into the center of economic policy and decision making.''

...
Funding for this international Malthusian conspiracy comes from the same place as its policy line: the blue-blood ``Establishment'' foundations in Great Britain, the United States, and a handful of other countries.
...

 

[Steve]

Apparently the Republican Nation Committee doesn't agree with your assessment Mick:
http://www.republicanassemblies.org/rnc-adopts-resolution-exposing-agenda-21/
This could turn into a major political mistake once the debates start between Obama and whoever is nominated by the Republicans. It seems the Republicans are attacking anything that benefits the environment and becoming more and more anti-science.

 

[Mick West]

I don't see anything official from the RNC. That seems to be a version of a resolution just introduced in Tennessee and Georgia (SR 730) state senates:

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Bill/HJR0587.pdf

http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20112012/118946.pdf

It's like a bizarre reanimation of the anti-communist paranoia of the 1950s.

WHEREAS, according to the United Nations Agenda 21 policy, social justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people to benefit equally from the resources afforded by society and the environment which would be accomplished by socialists and communist redistribution of wealth.

It's a poor political decision as there's nothing actually objectionable in Agenda 21, and it's not at all binding in the US. What they are complaining about is what they imagine is happening based on what they imagine it means.

This line is very conspiracy theorist:

[We] recommend exposing to the public and public policymakers the dangerous intent of the plan

How exactly are they going to do that?

Newt mentioned Agenda 21. They are all just trying to appease their base without really understand what it is they are protesting against.

Of course it's only a political mistake as long as the majority of people recognize it for the paranoia it really is.

 

[Steve]

The United States put out its own assessment in response to Agenda 21 under the Clinton administration back in the late 90s:
http://www.un.org/esa/agenda21/natlinfo/countr/usa/eco.htm
It's just a little alarming to me that something that's obviously conspiracy bunk is now making inroads and merging with the new right-wing tea-party block of the republican party. I'm definitely seeing signs that the majority of the people of the republican party won't view this as just paranoia but rather a real threat from the evil communist greens of the UN. It will be interesting to watch how this plays in the coming election year.

 

[Unregistered]

Debunked? Where? I saw in another thread Steve sayin how "conspiracy theorists" like to pigeon hole people - but that's precisely what you folks are doing here.

Opinions = debunking? Well I'll be! Pigs fly out of my ass, debunk that!

 

[Mick West]

Pics or it didn't happen!

But seriously, Agenda 21 is one of those conspiracy theories that's rather intangible. The debunking is unfortunately going to mostly consist of pointing out that there's no evidence to support the theory.

I can't prove that Agenda 21 is not a communist conspiracy, because it very hard to prove the absence of anything. I can't prove that public libraries are not a communist conspiracy, however I can quite reasonably point out in both cases that there's little evidence that they are.

And your pigs example is actually quite good. I can't prove that pigs don't fly out of your ass. However you could prove they do, very easily, with just one video.

And I can debunk the pig theory by noting that:

A) It's physically improbably
B) You give no evidence, even though a simple video would suffice.
C) If pigs were flying out your ass, then it is highly probably that there would be evidence.
D) There's no evidence of it ever happening to anyone, ever.

Of course some highly unusual pigs could secretly be flying out your (probably highly unusual) ass, and you could be covering it up, for some reason. So debunking has to stop short of absolute proof of absence.

 

[Steve]

Just to show you how disruptive the new tea party Agenda 21 folks are take a look at what they are doing to public meetings up in the SF bay area. It's a great example what happens when a certain section of the population believe in a conspiracy theory to it's fullest and act upon it at these meetings.:
http://ppjg.me/2012/02/06/agenda-21-attack-on-property-rights-california-one-bay-area/
The videos are very long but very engrossing because of the boiling hostility and distrust these tea party types have toward their local government.. These people are stirring up a lot of trouble at many local government outreach meetings not only here in this country but all over the world. It is a fear of the comic book hyper competent overarching UN elites greens that can at a whim take away their property, cars and way of life that is the heart of this movement..

 

[Hotakyuu]

It looks like they are afraid of this Agenda 21 because of it's pro environment language. I'm reading it now and there are some things that would threaten the oil and gas tycoons, for instance, the effort to shift to clean energy. It also focuses on helping third world countries, which is something that does not interest big business.
The whole "microcrip" thing is just fear mongering to scare people into believing we are in the "end times". That way, if people do not care about their future, the companies can do whatever they want because people think there is no tomorrow anyways.
As fas as depopulation, I can debunk that by simply pointing out the high number anti abortion/contraception bills that are being pushed right now. It doesn't make sense to try and kill everyone if you're wanting every single fertilized egg to be born.

 

[Mick West]

And depopulation in general does not seem to be working very well.

 

[Hotakyuu]

Shhh don't give them any ideas!!

 

[Unregistered]

It's real it's taking peoples property and swallowing up farm land. It has been put in place by executive orders from all presidents since George HW Bush..... WAKE UP!

 

[George B]

It looks like they are afraid of this Agenda 21 because of it's pro environment language. I'm reading it now and there are some things that would threaten the oil and gas tycoons, for instance, the effort to shift to clean energy. It also focuses on helping third world countries, which is something that does not interest big business.
The whole "microcrip" thing is just fear mongering to scare people into believing we are in the "end times". That way, if people do not care about their future, the companies can do whatever they want because people think there is no tomorrow anyways.
As fas as depopulation, I can debunk that by simply pointing out the high number anti abortion/contraception bills that are being pushed right now. It doesn't make sense to try and kill everyone if you're wanting every single fertilized egg to be born.

Don't know enough about Agenda 21 to comment; however, it is interesting you acceptance an implied conspiracy of the oil and gas industry to manipulate the political debate but make light of the same possibility that environmentalist may be doing the same thing . . .

 

[MikeC]

What you call "conspiracy" is what most people call lobbying - which may or may no be all above board of course - and everyone does it.

It isn't going to stop soon - people naturally express opinions that are favourable to their own position - expecting anything else is pretty stupid IMO.

So to point out some obvious linkages and opponents doesn't seem like "implying" conspiracy at all to me - it seems like stating the bleedin' obvious!

 

[George B]

What you call "conspiracy" is what most people call lobbying - which may or may no be all above board of course - and everyone does it.

It isn't going to stop soon - people naturally express opinions that are favourable to their own position - expecting anything else is pretty stupid IMO.

So to point out some obvious linkages and opponents doesn't seem like "implying" conspiracy at all to me - it seems like stating the bleedin' obvious!

LoL!!!!! If you don't think lobbying is a conspiracy you need to wake up . . . When million dollar projects become billion dollar projects. . . Please?????

 

[Mick West]

LoL!!!!! If you don't think lobbying is a conspiracy you need to wake up . . . When million dollar projects become billion dollar projects. . . Please?????

I fear a veer into semantics here.

Lobbying in itself is not a conspiracy. It's a tool that's used by some of those who are engaging in conspiracies.

Even the most benign activity involving more that one person includes conspiracy at some level. Charities "conspire" on how to fund-raise. Advertisers "conspire" on how to influence buying decision. Environmentalists "conspire" on how to save the spotted owl.

But there's a big difference between

A) Executives in the oil industry attempting to influence individual pieces of legislation, or get particular projects approved, so they can, as individuals, make more money.

and

B) A decades long plan that "usurps sovereignty, property rights, economic liberty, and basically hands over power, resources and land to unelected elitists… to control the populations of every country in the world.[...] a Marxist plan for global control of everything.. with the United Nations at the head of central planning."

 

[George B]

I fear a veer into semantics here.

Lobbying in itself is not a conspiracy. It's a tool that's used by some of those who are engaging in conspiracies.

Even the most benign activity involving more that one person includes conspiracy at some level. Charities "conspire" on how to fund-raise. Advertisers "conspire" on how to influence buying decision. Environmentalists "conspire" on how to save the spotted owl.

But there's a big difference between

A) Executives in the oil industry attempting to influence individual pieces of legislation, or get particular projects approved, so they can, as individuals, make more money.

and

B) A decades long plan that "usurps sovereignty, property rights, economic liberty, and basically hands over power, resources and land to unelected elitists… to control the populations of every country in the world.[...] a Marxist
plan for global control of everything.. with the United Nations at the head of central planning."

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1618683/pg1

I simply disagree, you are cherry picking the definition to fit your own personal definition. . . The public accepts a wide range of complexity, participants, and relative importance as to what is accepted as a conspiracy. . . .

 

[Mick West]

George, I'm not sure what your point is. Maybe that you need a better word than "conspiracy", as it's too general?

Why argue about the word. Why not just describe what is happening?

 

[MikeC]

LoL!!!!! If you don't think lobbying is a conspiracy you need to wake up . . . When million dollar projects become billion dollar projects. . . Please?????

In that case everything that is a co-operative effort by human beings is a conspiracy, and the term becomes meaningless in common use.

 

[George B]

In that case everything that is a co-operative effort by human beings is a conspiracy, and the term becomes meaningless in common use.

No, the difference is the intent to form a group to gain unfair advantage or cooperation to conduct illegal, unethical and/or immoral goals . . . Lobbying may not be illegal but many times its purpose is to gain unfair advantage. . . .ergo it may fall within the definition of a conspiracy . . . Especially in its most egregious forms. . . .

 

[Mick West]

No, the difference is the intent to form a group to gain unfair advantage or cooperation to conduct illegal, unethical and/or immoral goals . . . Lobbying may not be illegal but many times its purpose is to gain unfair advantage. . . .ergo it may fall within the definition of a conspiracy . . . Especially in its most egregious forms. . . .

"Unethical and/or immoral" are somewhat subjective. But what about Agenda 21 do you consider to be unethical, and/or immoral? Or do you think there's a hidden motive?

Really you could say ANYTHING has a hidden motive. That's why I try to focus on actual evidence.

 

[George B]

George, I'm not sure what your point is. Maybe that you need a better word than "conspiracy", as it's too general?

Why argue about the word. Why not just describe what is happening?

The point is you and your group think . . .seem to be using semantics to color activities you disagree with as evil or a conspiracy and other similar or identical activities you might agree with . . . as lobbying or a less pejorative connotation . . .

 

[George B]

"Unethical and/or immoral" are somewhat subjective. But what about Agenda 21 do you consider to be unethical, and/or immoral? Or do you think there's a hidden motive?

Really you could say ANYTHING has a hidden motive. That's why I try to focus on actual evidence.

I do not have enough knowledge of Agenda 21. . . .but if it is similar to "Bio-Diversity" a concept which seems to be code for removing or limiting access to private property or by limiting private property's use to make it almost useless or worthless to the rightful and legal owners . . . I feel it could be a a very sophisticated tool of a conspiracy to return private property to wilderness or natural conditions. . . .

 

[Mick West]

The point is you and your group think . . .seem to be using semantics to color activities you disagree with as evil or a conspiracy and other similar or identical activities you might agree with . . . as lobbying or a less pejorative connotation . . .

Let's rephrase things then.

You think that it's odd that I think the oil industry is taking actions aimed at increasing their profits, including deliberately misrepresenting the magnitude of the downward pressure on global oil prices of increase US production and distribution, yet I don't think that "Agenda 21 usurps sovereignty, property rights, economic liberty, and basically hands over power, resources and land to unelected elitists"

I think the former because I see very clear evidence, motive, and opportunity. It's something you would naturally expect the oil industry to do, and something they have done many times before.

I don't agree with the latter because there's no evidence of it happening, and no clear reason why someone would want to do that, or be able to.

 

[MikeC]

The point is you and your group think . . .seem to be using semantics to color activities you disagree with as evil or a conspiracy and other similar or identical activities you might agree with . . . as lobbying or a less pejorative connotation . . .

Certainly I see lobbying as a less pejorative term - as long as it is legal and above board. I am sure there is dodgy lobbying which might well deserve the term "conspiracy" and there are many such cases known, and presumably many still secret.

but looking at hte definitions of conspiracy from Dic.com:

con·spir·a·cy
[kuhn-spir-uh-see] Show IPA

noun, plural con·spir·a·cies.
1. the act of conspiring.

2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.

3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.

4. Law . an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.

5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

There is a heavy emphasis there on illegal, unlawful and evil.

Def'n #5 however is broad enough to include every co-operative endeavour by humanity ever - and I find that a pretty useless definition!


So to me when you say something is a conspiracy, yes, I immediately think you are talking about something that is illegal, unlawful, evil and generally undesirable and probably surreptitious.

Why would you be bothered with conspiracies that are not these??

 

[George B]

Let's rephrase things then.

You think that it's odd that I think the oil industry is taking actions aimed at increasing their profits, including deliberately misrepresenting the magnitude of the downward pressure on global oil prices of increase US production and distribution, yet I don't think that "Agenda 21 usurps sovereignty, property rights, economic liberty, and basically hands over power, resources and land to unelected elitists"

I think the former because I see very clear evidence, motive, and opportunity. It's something you would naturally expect the oil industry to do, and something they have done many times before.

I don't agree with the latter because there's no evidence of it happening, and no clear reason why someone would want
to do that, or be able to.

You have evidence of price fixing by the oil companies?? . . . The only cooperation I can prove is OPEC setting production ceilings to guarantee a minimum price base for their oil. . . .what is your evidence? . . . You don't think there is other manipulation going on like maybe oil futures speculation and spot oil prices being artificially manipulated so someone could get a windfall . . .?

 

[Mick West]

At the risk of getting all lee-like, where did I say I thought they were price fixing? I just said

I think the oil industry is taking actions aimed at increasing their profits, including deliberately misrepresenting the magnitude of the downward pressure on global oil prices of increase US production and distribution

Most of the action they take is lobbying. The misrepresentation is perhaps arguable, but I think that things like the following are pure spin, where on perspective is emphasized over another - where the goal is eventually to increase profits for Ken Cohen and his associates.

[ex=http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2012/01/27/what-am-i-paying-for-in-the-price-of-a-gallon-of-gasoline/]

There are many global factors that affect the crude oil market. But adding more supplies of crude oil to the global marketplace can help put downward pressure on the price of a barrel of oil. The United States has abundant supplies of oil, from the deep-water regions of the Gulf of Mexico to the tight oil resources throughout North Dakota and Montana. Combined with Canada's oil resources (one of the largest in the world), North America has enormous potential to add new reliable supplies to the market. And, the U.S. has one of the largest and most advanced refinery systems in the world.But first, the oil needs to get to market. There, we've often seen economics trumped by politics – even as the U.S. economy remains weak. The recent moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico, as well as the decision to deny the permit for theKeystone XL pipeline from Canada to U.S. refineries, are just two examples of U.S. political decisions that serve to keep supplies out of the market.The economics behind a gallon of gas are pretty straightforward. It's the policies behind access to U.S. energy resources that are less certain – but critical to our energy future.​

[/ex]

Everything there is correct (except for the economics being simple, since as he notes, "there are many global factors that affect the crude oil market."), but is it an honest assessment of what's best for America, or a push for more oil revenue?

 

[George B]

At the risk of getting all lee-like, where did I say I thought they were price fixing? I just said



Most of the action they take is lobbying. The misrepresentation is perhaps arguable, but I think that things like the following are pure spin, where on perspective is emphasized over another - where the goal is eventually to increase profits for Ken Cohen and his associates.

[ex=http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2012/01/27/what-am-i-paying-for-in-the-price-of-a-gallon-of-gasoline/]

There are many global factors that affect the crude oil market. But adding more supplies of crude oil to the global marketplace can help put downward pressure on the price of a barrel of oil. The United States has abundant supplies of oil, from the deep-water regions of the Gulf of Mexico to the tight oil resources throughout North Dakota and Montana. Combined with Canada's oil resources (one of the largest in the world), North America has enormous potential to add new reliable supplies to the market. And, the U.S. has one of the largest and most advanced refinery systems in the
world.But first, the oil needs to get to market. There, we've often seen economics trumped by politics – even as the U.S. economy remains weak. The recent moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico, as well as the decision to deny the permit for theKeystone XL pipeline from Canada to U.S. refineries, are just two examples of U.S. political decisions that serve to keep supplies out of the market.The economics behind a gallon of gas are pretty straightforward. It's the policies behind access to U.S. energy resources that are less certain – but critical to our energy future.​

[/ex]

Everything there is correct (except for the economics being simple, since as he notes, "there are many global factors that affect the crude oil market."), but is it an honest assessment of what's best for America, or a push for more oil revenue?

So do you think there is a "Conspiracy" to raise oil profit for the few or to push society into less oil dependent status. . . .?

 

[Mick West]

So do you think there is a "Conspiracy" to raise oil profit for the few or to push society into less oil dependent status. . . .?

I think that many of the "the few" want to raise oil profits, and they take actions towards that end. They do not do these things entirely in isolation. They often talk to each other. This all rises past the lowest dictionary level of conspiracy, and in some cases it likely rises to the level of "an unlawful plan by two or more persons, hatched in secret".

I think also there are many people who want society to be less oil dependent. They to take actions towards this goal. They often talk to each other. Some of them conspire at various dictionary levels.

I think it's a mistake to talk about "a conspiracy", as the world is not comprise of "them" vs. "us", or even a few groups. The world, and the world's elites, are comprise of individuals. Individuals do "conspire". I conspire, you conspire, they conspire, we all conspire.

So to ask if there's conspiracy to raise oil profits, or decrease the incidence of cancer, or sell more whiskey, of win a game of football, or have less dolphins caught in nets, or stay in power, - that's redundant. If there's anything in the world that people want, then it's a natural and expected consequence that they will take actions to further their goal, and they will talk with people who share that same goal (or mutually beneficial goals), and they will not tell those opposed to that goal what is happening.

It's far more productive to talk about specific actions. What happened? Why might it have happened? Is it illegal? Is it immoral? Is there something people should know about? Is there something claimed that is wrong? Is there information missing?

Why did Ken Cohen write that article? Was it because that's what he believes? Was it a natural part of his job as an industry avocate? Was it part of a decades long plan to turn North America into a wildlife refuge? I think it's just a company doing business, adding normal spin to further its goals.

 

[firepilot]

So do you think there is a "Conspiracy" to raise oil profit for the few or to push society into less oil dependent status. . . .?

Isnt that what every company does, they try to increase their profits? Thats what a company exists for, to generate more revenue than expenses. I do not know of any company trying to lessen their profit, or to not make a profit.

And I disagree with the terminology of "the few". These are publicly traded companies, with shareholders. Apple, Google and Facebook probably have more profits and higher margins. Maybe Apples new iPad, is just a ploy to increase company profits for the few.

 

[Mick West]

Arizona.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...e-to-passing-anti-un-sustainability-bill?lite

 

[George B]

Arizona.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...e-to-passing-anti-un-sustainability-bill?lite

Your correct. . . .why would anyone be fearful of international cooperation on such noble causes. . . Seems we can all trust the motives of those organizers to protect and not usurp benefit from such processes. . . History is full of such beneficial cooperation. . .

 

[Mick West]

It's one thing to not trust everyone. It's one thing to be fearful.

It's quite another thing to point blank refuse to, as an independent state, adopt any of the principles of of the Rio Declaration, or to have ANY contact with bodies tangentially related to it.

[ex = http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/50leg/2R/adopted/S.1507JUD.pdf]
Fiftieth Legislature Judiciary
Second Regular Session S.B. 1507
COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
SENATE AMENDMENTS TO S.B. 1507
(Reference to printed bill)
1 Strike everything after the enacting clause and insert:
2 "Section 1. Rio declaration on environment and development;
3 prohibition; definition
4 A. The state of Arizona and all political subdivisions of this state
5 shall not adopt or implement the creed, doctrine, principles or any tenet of
6 the United Nations Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and the
7 Statement of Principles for Sustainable Development adopted at the United
8 Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro,
9 Brazil in June, 1992 or any other international law that contravenes the
10 United States Constitution or the Constitution of Arizona.
11 B. Since the United Nations has enlisted the support of numerous
12 independent, shadow organizations to surreptitiously implement this agenda
13 around the world, the state of Arizona and all political subdivisions are
14 prohibited from implementing programs of, expending any sum of money for,
15 being a member of, receiving funding from, contracting services from, or
16 giving financial or other forms of aid to the International Council for Local
17 Environmental Initiatives or any of its related or affiliated organizations
18 including Countdown 2010, Local Action for Biodiversity, European Center for
19 Nature Conservation, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, and
20 the President's Council on Sustainable Development, enacted on July 19, 1993
21 by Executive Order 12852.
[/ex]



Have you read the 27 Principles?
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm

Here's the first three

Principle 1
Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature.

Principle 2
States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental and developmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.

Principle 3
The right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations.

Principle 2 seems like the sort of think they would like (except perhaps the part about caring about their neighbors)

I can see why you might not want to adopt them as part of the state constitution, but to refuse to implement anything that might be related to them? They way this law is worded it makes it illegal for Arizona to notify another state if there's a natural disaster in Arizona. It makes environmental impact studies illegal. It makes any kind of environmental legislation illegal.

It says right in the bill that they think there's some kind of big conspiracy, so they are blindly lashing out, shutting down anything that resembles taking care of the environment. It's a thoughtless and backward law driven by ideology and fear.

 

[firepilot]

I was reading an article about that too, that it can make energy efficiency programs illegal in Arizona too, or sustainability programs.

 

[George B]

It's one thing to not trust everyone. It's one thing to be fearful.

It's quite another thing to point blank refuse to, as an independent state, adopt any of the principles of of the Rio Declaration, or to have ANY contact with bodies tangentially related to it.

[ex = http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/50leg/2R/adopted/S.1507JUD.pdf]

Fiftieth Legislature Judiciary
Second Regular Session S.B. 1507
COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
SENATE AMENDMENTS TO S.B. 1507
(Reference to printed bill)

1 Strike everything after the enacting clause and insert:
2 "Section 1. Rio declaration on environment and development;
3 prohibition; definition
4 A. The state of Arizona and all political subdivisions of this state
5 shall not adopt or implement the creed, doctrine, principles or any tenet of
6 the United Nations Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and the
7 Statement of Principles for Sustainable Development adopted at the United
8 Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro,
9 Brazil in June, 1992 or any other international law that contravenes the
10 United States Constitution or the Constitution of Arizona.
11 B. Since the United Nations has enlisted the support of numerous
12 independent, shadow organizations to surreptitiously implement this agenda
13 around the world, the state of Arizona and all political subdivisions are
14 prohibited from implementing programs of, expending any sum of money for,
15 being a member of, receiving funding from, contracting services from, or
16 giving financial or other forms of aid to the International Council for Local
17 Environmental Initiatives or any of its related or affiliated organizations
18 including Countdown 2010, Local Action for Biodiversity, European Center for
19 Nature Conservation, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, and
20 the President's Council on Sustainable Development, enacted on July 19, 1993
21 by Executive Order 12852.
[/ex]



Have you read the 27 Principles?
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm

Here's the first three

Principle 1
Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature.

Principle 2
States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental and developmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.

Principle 3
The right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations.

Principle 2 seems like the sort of think they would like (except perhaps the part about caring about their neighbors)

I can see why you might not want to adopt them as part of the state constitution, but to refuse to implement anything that might be related to them? They way this law is worded it makes it illegal for Arizona to notify another state if there's a natural disaster in Arizona. It makes environmental impact studies illegal. It makes any kind of environmental legislation illegal.

It says right in the bill that they think there's some kind of big conspiracy, so they are blindly lashing out, shutting down anything that resembles taking care of the environment. It's a thoughtless and backward law driven by ideology and fear.

Hmmmmm. . . seems China and many other countries are already not complying with the provisions of 'Principle 2' with their air pollution . . . so when does the UN get the authority to enforce voluntary compliance . . . 2016????

 

[haarp]

You say the people or organisations like the 'tea party' who are against Agenda 21, or the name ' Sustainable Development ' most commonly used by politicians, are simply lashing out due to fear or have conflicts of interest with business and could not possibly have no legitimate concern. But why must a sovereign country adopt U.N policies? Why can't the U.N be there just for advice? Why don't they promote the use of industrial Hemp which can create 100% biodegradable plastics, fuels, wood, paper, concrete and tens of thousands of other uses. You make it sound like blasphemy that a state dare reject U.N philosophy when in truth what this will do is shut down local businesses and strengthen the monopoly on fossil fuels and energy even more. So I think people have a right to be skeptical of the utopia Agenda 21 is promoting and it's got as much to do about the environment as it has with solving world hunger.

If they truly cared about the environment they'd already be promoting real alternative energy sources, but it seems the U.N is just another bureaucratic organisation constantly wanting more power over Western countries. As said above, China doesn't seem to give a damn. Why isn't the U.N going after China like an attack dog? They view the West as more of a problem? How did they come to that conclusion?

 

[Mick West]

It's voluntary. People in the US are choosing to adopt the guidelines in a non-binding way. It's just a handy blueprint.

In opposing the UN, you are not really opposing the UN, you are opposing the people in the US who think the UN is a good idea. It's really just a continuation of the debate of State rights over Federal rights. There are differing opinions there too. But here the UN has almost zero power over the US.

Consider that international agreements have ALWAYS been signed, since the dawn of civilization. Some of the first things the US did was sign agreements with other countries.

I think this attack on the UN is a distraction, deliberately fanned by people who are also opposed to any environmental restrictions.

As said above, China doesn't seem to give a damn. Why isn't the U.N going after China like an attack dog? They view the West as more of a problem? How did they come to that conclusion?

How do you come to that conclusion? I don't see why you'd say the UN thinks of the West as a bigger problem than China? Agenda 21 is a suggested agenda for ALL countries. The UN is quite active in on Cinese environmental issues.

 

[haarp]

What do you make of this article Mick:

http://www.newswithviews.com/DeWeese/tom214.htm