Replies

It means killing people because the environment supposedly cannot support them when we all know the environment is not central but engineering is central to development. Dominion over nature and not the reverse.

http://www.sierratimes.com/02/08/19/arsf081902.htm

U. S. Department of Energy promotes "sustainable development" in accordance with United Nations' scheme
By Sue Forde, Citizen Review Online
Published 08. 18. 02 at 20:26 Sierra Time

The U. S. Department of Energy has joined in promoting the concept of "sustainable development", as revealed by their website. One of the "solutions" offered is "relocation" of property owners. This is something we are seeing on a local level here in Clallam County, Washington.[1]

“Sustainable Development” was first introduced by Maurice Strong, socialist, senior adviser to the Commission on Global Governance and driving force behind the concept of “sustainability”. When introducing the term at the 1992 Rio Conference (Earth Summit II), he stated: Industrialized countries [Americans] have “developed and benefited from the unsustainable patterns of production and consumption which have produced our present dilemma. It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption pattern of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning and suburban housing – are not sustainable. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns.”[2] Strong also explains in an essay that the concept of sovereignty has to yield in favor of the “new imperatives of global environmental cooperative.”

Following are some alarming excerpts from the U.S. Department of Energy's website:

http://www.sustainable.doe.gov/disaster/disintro.shtml ...Development continues unabated in the riskiest of areas, along the coasts and floodplains in the U.S. Communities in these high-risk regions, by definition, are not sustainable. Residents cannot count on the communities' survival for generations to come. Some live in fear that the next rain or wind storm could mean the end of normal life. These are people and communities at risk, locked in a costly, life-threatening gamble with the environment.... ...Sustainable development offers a way out. For some communities, the only solution is relocation, moving entirely off the floodplain, out of harm's way. For others, sustainable development means restricting new construction in particularly vulnerable areas, elevating structures to remove the threat of flooding, or building smarter, stronger buildings that are more hazard-resistant... ...While at first glance this facet of sustainable development may seem unrelated to disaster prevention, in truth they're intricately tied. An increasing body of evidence points to human energy use - specifically the burning of fossil fuels - as a factor in global climate change. Global climate change, in turn, may be at least partially responsible for the increased number and severity of storms. By making efficient use of energy resources, disaster-prone communities that employ sustainable development are also doing their part to slow global warming and temper the very storms that threaten them.... ...Striving for sustainability is a daunting task, even for those communities that aren't disaster-prone. Changing the way we use resources and approach development is slow-going and often frustrating...

The Dept. of Energy bases much of its rhetoric on the false premise that humans are the cause of "global warming" - when in fact, global warming is a theory, not scientifically proven. See Global Warming Models Labeled 'Fairy Tale' By Team of Scientists.[3]

The insurance industry has been pulled into the game of “Sustainable Development”, too. The website states: “Increasingly, the insurance industry is taking an interest in global climate change as a possible contributor to the dramatic rise in costly natural disasters. Industry leaders share with advocates of sustainable development a desire to mitigate weather-related damages and make communities stronger. Insurance and The Natural Sciences: Partners in the Public Interest, a speech presented in September 1996 by Franklin W. Nutter, president of the Reinsurance Association of America, further explains this ‘insurance connection.’”

As a “public/private” partnership, the move toward fascism continues.[4]

The Dept. of Energy website refers the reader to the United Nations for more information. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, through Global Change, a magazine about climate change and ozone depletion published by the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security.

Action you can take:

Write to President Bush and request that he reverse the "Sustainable Development" trend in the agencies he controls. Find contact information here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

[1] See ‘Contentious’ river property owners unwilling to sell, but some feel they have no choice and Citizens speak out against river buyout; county to proceed with grant application anyway

[2] Agenda 21 stresses “ Improving human settlement management; Promoting sustainable land-use planning and management; Promoting sustainable energy and transport systems in human settlements, to name a few – in other words, “managing humans” is the goal at a global level.

[3] See also Another Study Debunks Global Warming. Two new studies of temperatures and ice cap movement in that same area indicate that is not the case. In fact, Antarctica is becoming colder. Dr. Peter Dorman and his team of scientists have determined that since 1986, temperatures have been dropping an average of 1.2 degrees Fahrenheit per decade and similar downturns have occurred since 1978 in the McMurdo Dry Valleys of east Antarctica. When the scientists noticed that “glacial ice wasn’t melting, streams weren’t flowing, lakes were shrinking and microorganisms were disappearing, they decided to expand their data collection and discovered that “Antarctica as a whole had gotten considerably colder." The study seems to confirm what 17,000 scientists have previously determined; there is no “global warming.”

[4] Fascism defined: “a governmental system with strong centralized power, permitting no opposition or criticism, controlling all affairs of the nation (industrial, commercial, etc.), emphasizing an aggressive nationalism.” (The American College Dictionary, c. 1951, P 438)

Sustainable development

Posted: March 30, 2002

By Joan Veon

I remember, when I heard the high schools in Montgomery County, Md., were advocating abortion and condom distribution to teens in the sex-education classes, how shocked I was. For five years prior to covering my first U.N. conference, I lobbied at the county and state level against these radical and immoral ideas. As I analyzed what our children were being taught, I was puzzled. I could see that these ideas came from the federal level to the state level and then down to the local level, but why? Where was our government getting these ideas?

It was not until I went to Cairo, Egypt, to cover the U.N. Conference on Population and Development that I realized the abortion/condom/sex-education agenda as well as the pro-homosexual agenda came from the international level – the United Nations. I was amazed. Just who was the U.N. to tell us what our children should and should not do? I remember the press briefing by the powerful president of the World Bank, Lewis Preston. Dressed in a suit costing thousands of dollars, Preston told reporters that all future loans from the World Bank to developing countries would be dependent on whether or not they were reducing their population. Furthermore, as he discussed what goes on in a person's bedroom, I was appalled.

In Cairo, then Vice President Al Gore spoke, "As we reach a new stage of human history, there is a new urgency to tackle world-population questions … [A] holistic approach must be applied to other problems such as the persistent high level of poverty. The solution to that problem will be found in a comprehensive approach that combines democracy, economic reform, low rates of inflation, low levels of corruption, sound environmental stewardship, free and open markets at home and access to markets in the developed countries." He reiterated over-population. It was the headline of the Sept. 13, 1994, conference paper, TERRAVIVA, that said it all: "Redefining the family, Nations embrace bold initiatives."

The phrase that summarizes the above agenda is "sustainable development," which comprises a major part of the radical environmental agenda. Where does it come from and what does it mean?

In 1974, the U.N. General Assembly called for the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources – now called the World Conservation Union, and the World Wildlife Fund [co-founded by Prince Phillip, who said if he were reincarnated, he would like to come back as a virus to take care of the overpopulation problem] – to "develop guidelines to help governments in the management of their living resources through the formulation of a world conservation strategy."

When it was finished in 1980, the aforementioned groups had also collaborated with the Food and Agricultural Organization and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization to prepare the "World Conservation Strategy." The aim of this roadmap is to "help advance the achievement of sustainable development." In 1980, the General Assembly endorsed the WCS. In 1983, the 38th session of the U.N. passed Resolution 38/161 that called upon the secretary-general to appoint a commission "to propose long-term environmental strategies for achieving sustainable development."

Known as the Brundtland Commission, after co-chair Gro Harlem Brundtland, its definition of sustainable development has been embraced throughout the U.N. family and world. Let me give you my quick definition:

The world has too many people, and if we do not reduce the number of people on the planet, they will use up and eat up all of the earth's resources so that future generations will be left without any resources. The United Nations is the only global body to monitor, manage and preserve the resources of the planet.

This concept fits hand and glove with the gaia hypothesis: [link at WND site] It inverts – perverts – Genesis 1, 2 and 3. When I finally realized what sustainable development is, I understood what was happening in the schools and what our children are being taught.

In an effort to understand the philosophy behind sustainable development, I ended up looking at the 1977 Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I found my answer in Chapter 2, Article 18, which states: "In the interests of the present and future generations, the necessary steps are taken in the USSR to protect and make scientific, rational use of the land and its mineral and water resources, and the plant and animal kingdoms to preserve the purity of air and water, ensure reproduction of natural wealth, and improve the human development." </b This basically describes the definition by the Brundtland Commission. Once I understood this, I had confirmation as to the roots and origination of the radical environmental agenda that is reshaping not only personal-property rights in America but also the value and meaning of family. Unfortunately, the Clinton administration set up the President's Commission on Sustainable Development.

Interestingly enough, one of the first people to commend the Brundtland Commission for bringing "sustainable development" into all our vocabularies was Prince Charles. He has been a major power behind Agenda 21 and sustainable development, pushing and shoving at every turn. For this reason, I have dubbed him, "the Sustainable Prince." You now hear "sustainable" being attached to everything: "sustainable agriculture," "sustainable economics" and "sustainable financing." When you see "sustainable," know that it implies complete control.

Joan Veon has done extensive research on the United Nations and their agenda and has attended dozens of U.N. conferences.

Extract from the 1916 Congressional Record Senate

Senator Owen: I wish to put in the Record the secret treaty of Verona of November 22, 1822, showing what this ancient conflict is between the rule of the few and the rule of the many. I wish to call the attention of the Senate to this treaty because it is the threat of this treaty which was the basis of the Monroe doctrine. It throws a powerful white light upon the conflict between monarchical government and government by the people. The Holy Alliance under the influence of Metternich, the Premier of Austria, in 1822, issued this remarkable secret document:

AMERICAN DIPLOMATIC CODE, 1778-1884
The undersigned, specially authorized to make some additions to the treaty of the Holy Alliance, after having exchanged their respective credentials, have agreed as follows:

ARTICLE 1. The high contracting powers, being convinced that the system of representative government is equally as incompatible with the monarchical principles as the maxim of the sovereignty of the people with the divine right, engage mutually, in the most solemn manner, to use all that their efforts to put an end to the system of representative governments, in whatever county it may exist in Europe, and to prevent it being introduced in those countries where it is not yet known.

ARTICLE 2. As it can not be doubted that the liberty of the press is the most powerful means used by the pretended supporters of the rights of nations to the detriment of those of princes, the high contracting parties promise reciprocally to adopt all proper measures to suppress it, not only in their own States but also in the rest of Europe.....................

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/verona.htm (I can't seem to make a link)..................

***********************************************************

Pentagon Sustainable Design http://renovation.pentagon.mil/sustainabledesign.htm