Dan Flynn Editor’s Note: Now it’s 1 in 45! As the population of physicians grow, so do the need for more patients. As the population of specialized physicians grow, so do the need for m…
In One Easy Lesson
Awareness of Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development is racing across the nation as citizens in community after community are learning what their city planners are actually up to. As awareness grows, I am receiving more and more calls for tools to help activists fight back. Many complain that elected officials just won’t read detailed reports or watch long videos. “Can you give us something that is quick, and easy to read that we can hand out,” I’m asked.
So here it is. A one page, quick description of Agenda 21 that fits on one page. I’ve also included for the back side of your hand out a list of quotes for the perpetrators of Agenda 21 that should back up my brief descriptions.
A word of caution, use this as a starter kit, but do not allow it to be your only knowledge of this very complex subject. To kill it you have to know the facts. Research, know your details; discover the NGO players in your community; identify who is victimized by the policies and recruit them to your fight; and then kill Agenda 21. That’s how it must be done. The information below is only your first step. Happy hunting.
What is Sustainable Development?
According to its authors, the objective of sustainable development is to integrate economic, social and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity. Sustainablists insist that every societal decision be based on environmental impact, focusing on three components; global land use, global education, and global population control and reduction.
Social Equity (Social injustice)
Social justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people “to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment.” Redistribution of wealth. Private property is a social injustice since not everyone can build wealth from it. National sovereignty is a social injustice. Universal health care is a social injustice. All part of Agenda 21 policy.
Public Private Partnerships (PPP). Special dealings between government and certain, chosen corporations which get tax breaks, grants and the government’s power of
Eminent Domain to implement sustainable policy. Government-sanctioned monopolies.
Local Sustainable Development policies
Smart Growth, Wildlands Project, Resilient Cities, Regional Visioning Projects, STAR Sustainable Communities, Green jobs, Green Building Codes, “Going Green,” Alternative Energy, Local Visioning, facilitators, regional planning, historic preservation, conservation easements, development rights, sustainable farming, comprehensive planning, growth management, consensus.
Who is behind it?
ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability (formally, International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives). Communities pay ICLEI dues to provide “local” community plans, software, training, etc. Addition groups include American Planning Association, The Renaissance Planning Group, International City/ County Management Group, aided by US Mayors Conference, National Governors Association, National League of Cities, National Association of County Administrators and many more private organizations and official government agencies. Foundation and government grants drive the process.
Where did it originate?
The term Sustainable Development was first introduced to the world in the pages a 1987 report (Our Common Future) produced by the United Nations World Commission on Environmental and Development, authored by Gro Harlem Brundtland, VP of the World Socialist Party. The term was first offered as official UN policy in 1992, in a document called UN Sustainable Development Agenda 21, issued at the UN’s Earth Summit, today referred to simply as Agenda 21.
What gives Agenda 21 Ruling Authority?
More than 178 nations adopted Agenda 21 as official policy during a signing ceremony at the Earth Summit. US president George H.W. Bush signed the document for the US. In signing, each nation pledge to adopt the goals of Agenda 21. In 1993, President Bill Clinton, in compliance with Agenda 21, signed Executive Order #12852 to create the President’s Council on Sustainable Development in order to “harmonize” US environmental policy with UN directives as outlined in Agenda 21. The EO directed all agencies of the Federal Government to work with state and local community governments in a joint effort “reinvent” government using the guidelines outlined in Agenda 21. As a result, with the assistance of groups like ICLEI, Sustainable Development is now emerging as government policy in every town, county and state in the nation.
Revealing Quotes From the Planners
“Agenda 21 proposes an array of actions which are intended to be implemented by EVERY person on Earth…it calls for specific changes in the activities of ALL people… Effective execution of Agenda 21 will REQUIRE a profound reorientation of ALL humans, unlike anything the world has ever experienced… ” Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet (Earthpress, 1993). Emphases – DR
Urgent to implement – but we don’t know what it is!
“The realities of life on our planet dictate that continued economic development as we know it cannot be sustained…Sustainable development, therefore is a program of action for local and global economic reform – a program that has yet to be fully defined.” The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, published by ICLEI, 1996.
“No one fully understands how or even, if, sustainable development can be achieved; however, there is growing consensus that it must be accomplished at the local level if it is ever to be achieved on a global basis.” The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, published by ICLEI, 1996.
Agenda 21 and Private Property
“Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore contributes to social injustice.” From the report from the 1976 UN’s Habitat I Conference.
“Private land use decisions are often driven by strong economic incentives that result in several ecological and aesthetic consequences…The key to overcoming it is through public policy…” Report from the President’s Council on Sustainable Development, page 112.
“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.” Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN’s Earth Summit, 1992.
Reinvention of Government
“We need a new collaborative decision process that leads to better decisions, more rapid change, and more sensible use of human, natural and financial resources in achieving our goals.” Report from the President’s Council on Sustainable Development
“Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective.” Harvey Ruvin, Vice Chairman, ICLEI. The Wildlands Project
“We must make this place an insecure and inhospitable place for Capitalists and their projects – we must reclaim the roads and plowed lands, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres or presently settled land.” Dave Foreman, Earth First.
What is not sustainable?
Ski runs, grazing of livestock, plowing of soil, building fences, industry, single family homes, paves and tarred roads, logging activities, dams and reservoirs, power line construction, and economic systems that fail to set proper value on the environment.” UN’s Biodiversity Assessment Report.
Hide Agenda 21’s UN roots from the people
“Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy- fixated groups and individuals in our society… This segment of our society who fear ‘one-world government’ and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined ‘the conspiracy’ by undertaking LA21. So we call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth.” J. Gary Lawrence, advisor to President Clinton’s Council on Sustainable Development.
“False Choice” – How Sustainable Development is Transforming Property Rights *NEW!*
U.S. House of Representatives Approves Participation in Agenda 21
In this October 2, 1992 session, the House of Representatives passed HC 353, a resolution calling for the U.S. to assume a strong leadership role in implementing the sustainable development recommendations of the Rio Earth Summit including Agenda 21. Hear sponsors E. Engel (D-NY), N. Pelosi (D-CA) and W. Bloomfield (R-MI).
How Agenda 21 Affects Your Property Rights:
Explanation of The Wildlands Project:
(Scroll down to see the categories below)
- Understanding Agenda 21/Sustainable Development
- Tracing the History of Agenda 21/Sustainable Development
- Legislation Addressing the Threat of Agenda 21/Sustainable Development
- Taking Action to Expose Agenda 21/Sustainable Development
- Examples of Agenda 21/Sustainable Development’s Impact on Property Rights
- Links to United Nations Websites
- Sources for Further Information
1. Understanding Agenda 21/Sustainable Development
This simplified Q&A answers basic questions about how a seemingly good idea like sustainable development can be bad for private property owners.
This single sheet makes the step by step connection between UN Agenda 21, sustainable development, Smart Growth and local planning activities. It includes sources so you can do your own checking.
Citizens can present the following two page document to their public officials. It contains suggestions for how to protect the rights of property owners and still keep the environment safe.
While conservation easements are widely praised as a way to save the environment and keep property rights, in fact, in the long term they often do neither. The article, “Big Meadows, Big Mistake” tells the “rest of the story” on Conservation Easements.
These are facts you need to know before entering into a Conservation Easement Agreement.
Here are more details about the pitfalls of Conservation Easements.
2. Tracing the History of Agenda 21/Sustainable Development
This conference created the baseline for the UN’s viewpoint and future actions regarding individual property rights. See pdf page 2 [document page 28] under, Land – Preamble, for their stance on private property. This position is reflected in policies being enacted across the U.S. today.
This definition easily identifies UN Agenda 21 related initiatives as it traversed from various reports to the U.S and into our federal agencies. The full report can be found here.
In this candid 1997 interview, ICLEI founder explains how he was tapped to create an organization to “make sure this agreement [Agenda 21/sustainable development] among nations actually will get implemented…”
The Rio Declaration outlines the framework of Agenda 21. It was agreed to by President George H.W. Bush in 1992, thereby establishing official recognition of Agenda 21 by the U.S.. The complete 40 chapter United Nation’s Agenda 21 report can be found here.
President Clinton signed Executive Order 12852 in 1993, which created the President’s Council on Sustainable Development. Here is a copy of that Executive Order.
This UN document shows that the President’s Council on Sustainable Development was created for the purpose of implementing Agenda 21 in the U.S..
This article in the Millennium Papers describes how the name Agenda 21 was replaced with terms such as Smart Growth, Growth Management and Comprehensive Planning to prevent Americans from recognizing the connection to the United Nations. See highlighted page 5.
These pages from the Federal Register clearly indicate that the EPA’s Challenge Grant Program was created for the purpose of implementing Agenda 21 in the U.S.. See the highlighted section on page 2.
This scientific document shows, under the highlighted section,s how the EPA today still follows the basic definitions of sustainable development as defined by the UN’s Brundtland Commission, in their newest decision making process.
In 2009, these three federal agencies partnered using ‘livability’ principles to gain greater involvement in local planning and regulations. Read the ‘Livability Principles” and the “Partnership Agreement.” Notice the affect the federal government can have on your community. See more below.
This HUD Notice of Funds Available clearly shows that along with the grant money come mandates and requirements for social engineering in the form of social equity.
Pres. Obama signed this EO in June of 2011 giving each of the Federal agencies authority over the “food, fiber and energy” for all of rural America or 16% of the US. Control of resources is a key requirement of sustainable development as it enables the governing authority the power to manage their useage more efficiently than individuals and communites.
In March 2012, Pres. Obama signed this EO giving HUD the authority to engage in city, community and regional planning to “augment their vision for stability and economic growth…” This EO insures that “Federal assistance is more efficiently provided and used.” HUD now has the ability to create regulations to enforce that local and regional planning the government feels is beneficial to the fiscal stability of the US.
This partnership is changing the landscape of rural America. Once allowed into your community, the HUD-DOT-EPA partnership defines what qualities your “liveable” locality must include. More transportation choices invariably means more light rail transit and bicycles. The government defines the character, context and needs of each community with token input from citizens. Social enguineering is inherent in what the government calls, “equitable housing, sustainable strategies and value communities.” Most of the plans look appealing in slide presentations, but, once implemented, local citizens are stuck with regulations imposed by the government that offer little future variation and minimal if any opportunity to return to a way of living you may find more desirable. As one planner said, “You will be able to live in a rural area if you want to…but it will cost you.”
Here, in friendly sounding terms, the Secretaries of HUD, DOT and the EPA make it clear the federal government intends to manage your commuunity design, make it livable and environmentally green, all according to their needs and definitions. Each of the projects and grants, though verbally and graphically enticing, precisely echo the Vancouver Plan of Action. The results are exactly as defined in Vancouver in 1976.
In January of 2012, the EPA changed their decision making process to embrace sustainable development as defined in the UN’s 1987 Brundtland Report. In April 2012, the agency created plans to incorporate civil rights regulations in their environmental policy to establish a basis for environmental justice.
3. Legislation Addressing the Threat of Agenda 21/Sustainable Development
In January, 2012, the Republican National Committee unanimously approved an historic resolution exposing the dangers of United Nations Agenda 21, ICLEI and the loss of private property ownership, single family homes, private car ownership, individual travel choices and privately owned farms under the banner of “sustainable development” and Smart Growth.
For the first time, the leadership of one of the two major American political parties acknowledged that so-called “social justice” is robbing our society and the environment and replacing our sovereignty with a socialist/communist wealth redistribution scheme. Please read this document carefully and share it freely.
This bill enables the repeal of local comprehensive plans found to tamper with individual’s property rights.
New Hampshire’s bill prevent the state, counties, cities and towns from contracting with or accepting money from ICLEI, a large non-governmental orgnaization[NGO] implementing Agenda 21 throughout the U.S.
This bill prevents federal agents from inspecting or gathering information on private property wtihout a warrant.
This bill rejects the radical policies promoted by United Nation’s Agenda 21 and rejects any grant monies attached to the UN’s program.
The Property Rights Council provides a committee to review planning documents and agreements prior to acceptance to assure that property owner’s rights are not exploited by planners or governmental agencies. For further information, go here.
The EPA, under the Clean Water Act, expanded its control over citizen’s private property by redefining navigable waters to include certain artificially irrigated areas, artificial lakes and ponds used for irrigation, non-navigable tributaries to navigable waters, wetlands abutting relatively permanent waters and more. This bill defines “navigable” waters as those that are actually “navigable.”
This bill prohibits Alabama and its political subdivisions from adopting environmental and developmental policies that, without due process, infringe or restrirct private property rights of property owners. Further, it prohibits policies that are traceable to “Agenda 21″ as adopted by the United Nations in 1992 at its Conference on Environment and Development.
This Florida bill protects all state subdivisions from adopting any developmental policies that, without due process, infringe or restrict the private property rights of the property owner. It specifically mentions any policy recommendations traceable to Agenda 21 as adopted by the UN at the 1992 Conference on Environment and Development. This would include those policies recommended by Non-Governmental Organizations and Federal Agency regulations that are Agenda 21 related.
4. Taking Action to Expose Agenda 21/Sustainable Development
This handout provides information and links that will help you get active in stoppng Agenda 21/Sustainable Development in your community.
The Coordination Strategy can slow or stop planning processes that may endanger individual property rights. Most federal agencies are required by law to coordinate their plans that will impact the local community with local governments. Often this does not happen as most local governmens are not aware of this requirement, or do not know how to implement the process. When local governments assert coordination authority, the federal agencies must respond.
Recently, the American Planning Association circulated a fact sheet titled, Agenda 21: Myths and Facts. The APA is a large and highly respected planning organization, that often does exemplary work. But their “fact” sheet is rife with distortions, misconceptions and inaccuracies. This document provides information to respond to the APA’s errors.
The American Planning Association, rather than address critics’ concerns for private property rights, chose to re-brand their information by creating a new vocabulary. This transparent attempt to confuse the public while making it easier to implement their own chosen plans sidesteps citizens’ genuine concern for individual rights.
5. Examples of Agenda 21/Sustainable Development’s Impact on Property Rights
Form-based codes are a programmed method for replacing existing zoning regulations with boilerplate zoning and development code models. They make it easier to implement Agenda 21 type plan enforcement. Form-based codes often replace the need for local zoning ordinances and reduce the role of public officials. Once installed, form-based codes become the new laws governing a wide range of activities in your community.
Here is the introduction to a book describing form-based codes. When promoting this method of codification, promoters often show audiences live PowerPoint presentations of their current community followed by dazzling pictures of what their town can become. Most citizens are so impressed with the stunning design work, they overlook the draconian regulations and potential loss of rights that accompany the plans. Notice the fifth paragraph on page 14 in which Peter Katz, Pres. of the Form-Based Codes Institute, describes how to use the “charette” process to manipulate public responses.
6. Links to United Nations Websites
*Note the Preamble to “Land” under section “D”
*Note Chapter Two – “Towards Sustainable Development.”
7. Sources for Further Information
More Articles to Read
Good reading and hard to argue against this being much more true than false. Further this collectivism is being implemented in the US though UN Agent 21 Sustainability. I have been to the planing meeting and the goal is to eliminate most cars and put most people back in the inner cities; and it is being funded by the federal government
The individual vs. collective mind control
by Jon Rappoport
June 28, 2015
(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)
“Inside the mind, there is a landscape of reality. Its purpose? Maintaining personal stability. Society’s programmers feed that landscape, they provide it with more material to confirm that the overall portrait of reality is correct.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)
Under a big lie, the truth is the great shocker. I’ve been writing about one of these truths for years, and I always measure the reaction or lack of reaction.
I’m talking about the mass of mainstream evidence that, in the United States, every year, the medical system kills 225,000 people. This is a conservative assessment.
I point out that the death toll, when extrapolated to a decade, is 2.25 million Americans.
When I’ve presented these figures to mainstream reporters, doctors, scientists, some independent reporters…
View original post 2,239 more words
Darth Soros is it exactly and he is on evil dude and he is old enough that maybe we was actually the idea for Darth Vader think abbot that!
This is an incredible story of how we’ve got to this point of actually watching Bill Gates showing that, albeit indirectly, there are way too many people in the world which than implies de-population. At TED2010, Bill Gates unveiled his vision for the world’s energy future, describing the need for “miracles” to avoid planetary catastrophe from CO2 and the necessary goal of Zero carbon emissions globally by 2050.
Watch the first 12 minutes of this clip and listen to Gates talk about CO2 reductions and then read the rest of this review.
This perceived problem of CO2 had its beginnings in the United Nations (UN) Conference on the Human Environment, which met at Stockholm from June 5th to June 16th 1972. What happens over the next thirty years can be directly traced to this conference! The previous Video and the following discussion highlight only a few of the major events that have led many to believe that all life on earth is threatened by there being too many people a principle first proposed by Thomas Malthus, an early English economist. Malthus published and essay in 1798 titled An Essay on the Principle of Population where he proposed that sooner or later population growth will be checked by famine and disease, leading to what is known as a Malthusian catastrophe; which later technology prevented from happening.
The 1972 Stockholm conference led to European studies on the role of Carbon Dioxide and the environment such as the SCOPE 13 The Global Carbon Cycle paper published in 1979 by the Scientific Committee On Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) in Paris. This paper showed very dire results for increased levels of Carbon Dioxide, and reignited the old Malthusian catastrophe concept.
In conjunction with the Europeans climate work a request was made to the National Academy of Science (NAS) to study the issue. In 1979 the completed study, now called the Charney Report, agreed that there was a problem and justified their conclusions by defining a key number need in the science. They looked at the work of a young scientist working at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) James E. Hansen’s high estimate of 4.0 C and added .5 degrees C to it for uncertainty. Then they took another scientist working a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Syukuro Manabe’s low estimate of 2.0 C and subtracted .5 from it for uncertainty. Lastly they average the two which then gives us a 1.5 C Low value, an 3.0 C expected value and a 4.5 C high value as the CO2 sensitivity values which are what are still used today thirty five years later. Hansen and Manabe were the only two that had climate models that were reviewed in the Charney Report and Hansen’s paper was not officially published at the time.
James Edward Hansen while at NASA, was the driver for the US government’s push for control of energy. Hansen gave a presentation to the US congress in 1988 where he showed them what he thought would happen to Global Climate if we did not stop putting Carbon Dioxide (CO2) into the earth’s atmosphere. In the original 1988 paper, three different scenarios were used; A, B, and C. They consisted of hypothesised future concentrations of the main greenhouse gases – CO2, CH4, CFCs etc. together with a few scattered volcanic eruptions. Essentially, a high and low estimate that bracketed the expected value (B) which Hansen specifically stated that he thought as the “most plausible”. Hansen used the 1979 NAS report as justification for the logic used to build these three scenarios.
Shortly thereafter we had the creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which was set up in 1988 by the United Nations (UN) at the request of two of its other organizations; the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) formed in 1950, and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) set up after the Stockholm Declaration in 1972. The IPCC’s mission is to provide comprehensive scientific assessments of current scientific, technical and socio-economic information worldwide about the risk of climate change, specifically Anthropogenic Climate Change. A key point here is the IPCC was never charged with proving whether the Anthropogenic assertion true or not it was only charged with determining how bad it would be; in essence assuming it was true.
The next major event was the UN Conference on Environment and Development (Earth-Summit), held in Rio-de-Janeiro on June 13, 1992, where 178 governments voted to adopt the program called UN Agenda 21. This was a comprehensive blueprint for creating a “sustainable” world which went from world governance to local school boards and zoning boards which meant that “every” aspect of a person’s life was to be controlled by UN Agenda 21. This program based on Carbon Dioxide rising world temperatures beyond the point where humans could maintain a civilization completed all that was needed for implementation and we were off on a Quest to save the planet.
Enter Al Gore who while in Congress became interested in Climate Change and he was instrumental in getting Hansen funding from Congress to study the problem of Climate Change which was known as Global Warming back then. Gore was very active in the environmental movement while he was Bill Clinton’s VP. Gore continued to promote the movement, after leaving office, and his documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” was released in 2006; this documentary was a story about how the burning of fossil fuels were destroying the planet. It seemed to be targeted at young adults without the education to discern truth from fiction and it was very successful in achieving negative awareness on the subject. Unfortunately, the message in that documentary was not factually correct and appeared to be only an emotional appeal to support the regulation of Carbon Emissions’ (CO2) in some form of Carbon Tax.
An interesting fact, Al Gore was one of the investors that had helped set up a Carbon Trading exchange in Chicago along with a then young Barack Obama (on the board of the major investor The Joyce Foundation located in Chicago) that they named the Chicago Carbon Exchange CCX in 2003. When the American Clean Energy and Security Act was not passed by the US Senate in 2009 the CCX exchange folded the following year, 2010. Gore had been very vocal on this subject and if HR 2454 had been passed by the US Congress Gore would have become very wealthy; so the question is was his involvement in the movement because he believed what he was promoting or because what he was promoting would have made him very wealthy?
This brings us to Bill Gates with his Gates Foundation that has along with Al Gore taken up the cause of stopping Anthropogenic Climate Change which they believe will cause the planet to overheat and create a mass extinction and possibly even ending human life. This movement has now taken the look of a religion and therefore no debate allowed. A few years ago Bill Gates gave a presentation to a select group of supporters where as part of that presentation he showed described a simple equation to show what was needed to reduce Carbon Dioxide to save the planet.
The Gate’s equation is CO2 = P x S x E x C which is the amount of CO2 emitted is equal to the number of people (P), times the service they use (S), times the energy per service (E), times the CO2 per unit of energy. Gates after explaining this equation goes on to explain that we have to get the CO2 value to near “zero” which means that some of these numbers need to get close to zero. Gates doesn’t use any numbers and then he goes on to other subjects in the presentation.
The following numbers represent the estimated 2014 values for the US for the logic Gates presents and which we can then plug into Gate’s equation. GDP is around $18.0 trillion, there are probably 320 million people in the country, the energy we use is almost 100 quad and we produce 0.0000000663 metric tons of CO2 per BTU used. Multiplying all the values as shown in the following table gives 6.525 million metric tons of CO2 which is about what the US emits at present. Now looking at these numbers how are we going to going to get 6.525 million metric tons of CO2 even close to zero?
To properly look at Gates’ equation we must look at how all the variables, that he identifies, interact with each other to create Carbon Dioxide. Since this is a very simple equation it was easy to make four tables, one for each variable, and then vary the values to see how they changed the result. Each of the following tables is for one of Gates’ equation, for example the first one is Population (P). We see in the first line that population is 320,090,073 (the second column) and it’s identified as 100% (the first column) which is today’s number, and that using the Gates equation as shown in the table above equals 6,526.0 million metric tons of CO2. The next line down is 98% and each line down is reduced by 2% until we get to 80% in the last line. That represents a 20% reduction in the population to 256,072,058 people and 5,221.8 million metric tons of CO2.
The next three table for S, E and C follow the same logic although the reducing percentage is different for each. What we have then are 20% fewer people, 30% less GDP, 40% less energy and 50% less Carbon Dioxide if those levels can be obtained. The fifth table at the bottom of the page is the summary of the other four showing that if all those objectives were achieved Carbon Dioxide would be reduced by 83.2% to 1,096,368,000 million metric tons of CO2. I think that the reader can see that this draconian reduction would not be supported by the citizens.
The average person burns enough food in their body to release about 328.7 Kg of CO2 per year; so if there are 320 million people that’s 105.1 million metric tons per year. Unfortunately to get to zero emissions means there can be no people by definition. Further it’s obvious that the number of people is the driving force in the equation. But even that level (with no economy and no energy) is way more than Gates would like as we are still emitting 105.1 million metric tons of CO2 per year. So how does he propose to get to Zero without getting rid of almost all the people?
The Globalists like Gore, Gates, Soros, and others know that it’s not possible to get to zero human emissions as we showed in these tables. However they do want to reduce the world population to something close to 500,000,000 which is a 92.9% reduction which is not going to happen without a fight; not with 9 out of 10 people being eliminated!
The purpose of this paper and tables is to show that it isn’t possible to do what Gates and his friends say needs to be done — so what is their real motive if not to get rid of lots of people? Or maybe just like Jonathon Gruber they just think we are not smart enough to know they are trying to do something really bad?
The following U-Tube clip is taken from a Seminar that Mr. Gates gave back in 2010 if I remember it was over an hour long but this clip is the heart of it.
The purpose of this presentation is to show why CO2 must be eliminated and since its increase is a direct result of people using energy the only way to reduce CO2 is to reduce the number of people. — depopulation!
Depopulation is a word that progressives and environmentalists use as part of their plan to save the planet from humanity! The history of this belief goes back 200 years to an economist Thomas Malthus who believed that over population was inevitable and would lead the famine and war. The reasons he thought this way were never valid but others picked up on this thought and used concerns of the environment to hijack that thought and adapt it to modern concerns on the environment. Some of the environmental agenda was real and needed to be addressed but those that thought the reason problem was too many people took over.
The work to control population goes back into the early 70’s and that work lead to UN Agenda 21 adopted by the UN in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Those that wanted few people couldn’t say that so they came up with sustainability as the goal. The vehicle was Carbon dioxide being put in the atmosphere by power generation. And in the period from the 70 though the 90’s the planets temperature was increasing and these zealots convinced many that the increase was from CO2. Politicians seeing a way to line their pockets with money saw that a Carbon Tax could be used for that purpose; so they contracted with universities and others to come up with studies to show that CO2 was the cause of increasing temperatures.
Jame E. Hansen in a 1988 presentation to the US Congress showed how the world would be in serious trouble within 20 years based on his radiative transfer models. Soon after this presentation the UN Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed. And its purpose was to shown the damage that increased Temperatures would cause. Keep in mind it was never established to find the cause of the warming. Money began to flow and with that came the pollution of science as to many were will to accept the money and forget the science.
Unfortunately Mother Nature had her own mind and was not following what these silly men thought! Although CO2 has a small effect on climate the many drivers are thermal flows of heat through the oceans and atmosphere of the planet from around the equator to the poles. These flows have well documented cycles and when, as in the period fro 1970 to 2000, they were in ascendance it gave these zealots the illusion that there was cause and effect. Now that Mother nature is cooling the planet there theories are unable to explain why. The current cooling cycle with last about 20 years to 2035 or so and then another warming period will began.
The real agenda for which CO2 reduction is the means is depopulation as is shown in this clip of Bill “Microsoft” Gates.
This is only a short clip of a hour long plus talk that he gave back in 2010. This depopulation is a direct result of UN Agenda 21 and it is being implemented right now. I have been to planning meeting and the stated goal is to complete the process by 2040.
Accumulation of fraudulent EPA regulations impacts energy, economy, jobs, families and health
Guest essay by Paul Driessen
Call it the Gruberization of America’s energy and environmental policies.
Former White House medical consultant Jonathan Gruber pocketed millions of taxpayer dollars before infamously explaining how ObamaCare was enacted. “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” he said. “It was really, really critical to getting the bill passed.” At least one key provision was a “very clever basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.”
The Barack Obama/Gina McCarthy Environmental Protection Agency is likewise exploiting its lack of transparency and most Americans’ lack of scientific understanding. EPA bureaucrats and their hired scientists, pressure groups and PR flacks are getting rich and powerful by implementing costly, punitive, dictatorial regulations “for our own good,” and pretending to be honest and publicly spirited.
EPA’s latest regulatory onslaught is its “Clean…
View original post 1,262 more words
This short video is 100% true; I have been researching this for a while now and also attended planning meeting in Ohio last year as they were starting to implement UN Agenda 21 in Northeast Ohio which is basically Cleveland Akron. The Program is being run by NOACA with offices at 1299 Superior Ave, Cleveland, OH 44114. The program itself is called VIBRANT NEO 2040 and its offices are in the same building. This program is funded by the US Federal Government and its goal is to move the people back into the central cities so that they will not need cars and they will not need property nor large homes; like the Chinese they (the common man) will live in complexes where they work This is being done by zoning at this time and 2040 is when the program is to be completed.
The big picture as i understand it is the implementation of UN Agenda 21 (in all its forms) for the goal of depopulation as being promoted by Bill (Microsoft) Gates and has shown in the George Gide Stones. Do yur own research i have and you will find the truth!
The Gruber story is more important than anyone I listen to seems to realize. It literally pulls back the curtain to the ‘big picture’ I have been trying to help people see and understand. Not even Beck seems to understand just how revealing this story actually is. I suspect this is because the Gruber story is too big for most people to see it in its entirety — and I include myself in this. I do not believe I can see everything that has been revealed here, but I do believe I see more than most. That is because it is so big and so few of us today study enough disciplines to make the necessary connections. We have become a society of specialists, and we are all very good in our fields. But, if…
View original post 133 more words
Over the past several decades a great deal of international effort has been undertaken to show that anthropogenic (man made) CO2 is causing climate change on the planet by raising the planet’s temperature. The increased temperatures will then change the world’s climate patterns which will then result in the melting of the world’s glaciers, increased storms and probably loss of valuable crop lands by rising sea levels. The implied result on the world’s civilizations will be catastrophic and therefore there will be a significant loss of life from both the climate change and the probable wars that will be fought over dwindling resources. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been given the primary task of showing how this will happen by the United Nations (UN) and this research is being done primarily by NASA and NOAA in the United States and the Met Office and Hadley Center in the United Kingdom.
To show what is happening on a planetary scale very complex computer models have been constructed by some of the world’s best scientists and those models have shown that the temperature of the planet will hit unprecedented levels possibly as soon as 2050. To prevent this from happening the “United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, having met at Stockholm from 5 to 16 June 1972, having considered the need for a common outlook and for common principles to inspire and guide the peoples of the world in the preservation and enhancement of the human environment” established a set of principles and an international forum the first of which was held Rio de Janiero in June 1992 and then later Kyoto in 1997 where goals for a reduction in the CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels primarily from petroleum, coal and natural gas were agreed to by the parties. Efforts to date have been totally unsuccessful and CO2 levels have now reached 400 ppm and the level is increasing at an accelerating rate that is currently at ~2 ppm per year.
The first major program to began the task of changing how the entire world would adapt to the required reductions in Carbon Dioxide was made public at the UN Conference on Environment and Development (Earth Summit), held in Rio de Janeiro on June 13, 1992, where 178 governments voted to adopt the program called Agenda 21. The final text was the result of drafting, consultation, and negotiation, beginning in 1989 and culminating at the two-week conference. Agenda 21 is a 300-page document divided into 40 chapters that have been grouped into 4 sections that was published in book form the following year:
Section I: Social and Economic Dimensions is directed toward combating poverty, especially in developing countries, changing consumption patterns, promoting health, achieving a more sustainable population, and sustainable settlement in decision making.
Section II: Conservation and Management of Resources for Development Includes atmospheric protection, combating deforestation, protecting fragile environments, conservation of biological diversity (biodiversity), control of pollution and the management of biotechnology, and radioactive wastes.
Section III: Strengthening the Role of Major Groups includes the roles of children and youth, women, NGOs, local authorities, business and industry, and workers; and strengthening the role of indigenous peoples, their communities, and farmers.
Section IV: Means of Implementation: implementation includes science, technology transfer, education, international institutions and financial mechanisms.
The goal of UN Agenda 21 is to create a world economic system that equalizes world incomes and standards of living and at the same time reduces Carbon Dioxide levels back to the levels that existed prior to the industrial age of ~300 ppm. We are now at 400 ppm and growing at 2 ppm per year and at that rate we will reach 500 ppm in 2050 at which point the UN Climate models say we will have an ecological disaster. There are only two ways to achieve this reduction back to the ideal ~300 ppm and they are not mutual exclusive. One is to reduce the world’s population and the other is to either reduce energy consumption or make a switch to non carbon burning fuels such as solar PV or wind turbines. Agenda 21 is the driver for all the sustainability programs that are being implemented at this time; which means that if the belief that Carbon Dioxide is the ultimate reason for changes in global climate is not true that untold trillions of dollars and massive economic restructuring would be unwarranted.
According to the International Energy Agency (IEA) we are using about 500 quad of energy world wide right now of which maybe 15% is classed as sustainable, and there are estimated to be 7.0 billion people on the planet. That means that 425 quad of energy usage is not sustainable and the world’s population could reach 9.0 billion by 2050. By then we would be using 900 quad of energy of which probably 650 quad will not be sustainable if nothing major changes. The goal of Agenda 21 is therefore to find ways to reduce the number of people or significantly reduce how much energy they use. Carbon taxes and the redistribution of wealth from rich countries to poor countries are the means to achieve this but there are no engineers on the planet that would say it would be possible to produce 650 quad of sustainable generating capacity in 35 years (335% more than now), especially since no real effort has yet been made.
To put this in perspective if we could make 250 quad of sustainable energy annually that would mean that we could only have maybe 1 billion people on the planet and even those would not be able to live as well as we in the US do now. Prior to the 2008 collapse the US used about 100 quad and had 300 million people. If the goal is 250 quad and 1 billion people that means a 25% reduction in the standard of living for the advanced socialites. Since this is what is required to achieve the stated goals of preventing 500 ppm from happening it’s obvious that there is a major problem brewing.
There are a great number of leaders in government and industry had belief that if we don’t do what was described in the previous paragraph e.g. reduce the population of the planet to under one billion that we will all die. Some think we can make more than 250 Quad of sustainably energy and others think we need to drastically reduce the population. Both of these views are will lead to war for obvious reasons hence the need to educate the citizens as to the real reasons that things are on the path they are!
Do your own research and you will find that all that is presented here is 100% true, in fact there is much more that you will find that I have not put here as it is way too much for any one to start with. Good luck and God bless you and lets hope they realize they are wrong before its to late.