“SUSTAINABILITY” – NOT A MYTH; A TROJAN HORSE
There’s a lot of talk these days about the concept of “sustainability,” and whether it’s good or bad for us, long-term or short. Before we can answer that question, let’s define the term. Whoops! Seems we can’t; there’s no settled definition – it’s still evolving. Maybe some research will help: the University of Wisconsin’s Institute for Environmental Studies periodical, “Environmental Management” (October, 2007 edition) made this attempt:
Sustainability is increasingly viewed as a desired goal of development and environmental management. This term has been used in numerous disciplines and in a variety of contexts, ranging from the concept of maximum sustainable yield in forestry and fisheries management to the vision of a sustainable society with a steady-state economy.
That’s a very wide spectrum, but let’s narrow it: on one end we have the kind of regular old conservation/husbandry that farmers everywhere practice; on the other, “the vision of a sustainable society with a steady-state economy.” And how does a society go about achieving a “steady-state economy”? Through top-down, centralized management and control, e.g., business regulation and taxing, and housing and land-use zoning. Does this sound paranoid enough yet? Try adding this in: the UN World Commission on Environment and Development, chaired by Maurice Strong (an oil billionaire and long-time associate of George Soros) and Mikhail Gorbachev, issued the “Earth Charter” in 2000, which speaks of “a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace.” [Note: “economic justice” means “Promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations.”] Is this beginning to sound familiar? Is the picture getting clearer? Is there a theme?
So, how does all this affect us, here in Carroll County and elsewhere in America? Initiated by President Bush (41), and implemented by the State Department, the EPA, and mayors everywhere (but totally bypassing the Constitutionally-mandated need for Congress’ treaty approval) the UN’s Agenda 21 and ICLEI focus on redistributing the wealth of America -- by eliminating our property use rights. That way, it’s not necessary to actually take our property, just take away our use rights. And the best way to accomplish this at the local level is through zoning. Hmm; might this be why the local sustainability people were so vigorous in their Pathways campaign?
So, we have: 1) an as-yet-undefined concept; 2) pushed top-down by the UN; 3) introduced and effected top-down by the Executive Branch; 4) by-passing Congress and any Constitutionally-mandated treaty process; 5) enforced bottom-up at the local level by zoning boards, “sustainability committees” “Urban Land Institutes,” etc.; all 6) without any public input, voting, or referendum process. What’s not to like?
One final note: Connecting the dots isn’t always easy – but it is always necessary. Absolutely everything above has been researched and is true and verifiable, and that which is not locally available is widely available through reputable resources on the ‘Net.
Take out the “forestry and fisheries management” part, and we have “developmental and environmental management… in the vision of a sustainable society with a steady-state economy.” (Here in America, that’s a working definition of zoning.)
