This week heralds yet another UN talk-fest in Brazil – Rio + 20 at which the ruling classes will pontificate on what we need to achieve during the next decade. The strangest thing about Rio+20 is the virtual absence of global warming, or climate change, as the greatest and most urgent threat facing the earth. Instead poverty has assumed the issue of highest priority and it is via a green economic system that poverty eradication will be achieved.
So what happened to climate change?
Those of our readers who might be interested in catching up on the latest plots and ploys being hatched by the ruling class might visit the Rio+20 website on the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, and read the zero draft of the outcome document, “The Future We Want”.
Henry’s Wandering Geologist became alerted to this change of tack by the UN from watching and listening to an interview of Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley (for a Lord he is) by Alex Jones on YouTube recently, during which M of B pointed out that climate change is no longer the issue it once was but that poverty eradication is now uppermost in the minds of those running the UN. The key phrase is “sustainable development” and the Millennium Development Goals by 2015, supposedly improving the lives of the poorest peoples. However there is a problem with this, ostensibly, laudable goal – that of the means by which they intend to arrive at that goal.
It is important to also understand the origins of the United Nations organization, and its predecessor, the League of Nations, from that ghostly political entity of Fabianism. Indeed it is fashionable for the Fabians to gently mock anyone who dares conclude that the Fabian goal is world socialism by stealth rather than by the overt Bolsheviki methods at the end of an AK-47.
World socialism? Surely HWG has taken leave of his senses writing this gibberish, but alas, no, HWG is on the money with his opinion, especially when the Fabians write in plain sight that their goal is the reconstitution of society to a socialist one by eschewing violence or militant action. Writing in her introduction ofthe book Fabianism In The Political Life of Britain, 1919-1931, Sister M. Margaret Patricia McCarran, Ph.D. noted that while the founding members of the Fabianism wanted to transform society, they had no idea how to go about it, much in the same way that the Greens today have their vision splendid but lack any understanding of why their solutions are uneconomic and hence unworkable and unachievable. (The Green belief of sustainable development probably harks back to a previous utopian age when humanity lived in a Garden of Eden that was subsequently rendered by some global catastrophe, memorialized in some religions as the fall of man and original sin).
A conspicuous aspect of the proposed UN outcome document is the frequent use of the phrase Agenda 21, by which goals of sustainability are reached at the local municipal level, rather than a top down implementation from a central state. The point is that Agenda 21 is nothing other than Fabianism clothed in modernity.
Henry’s readers who own land and property might reflect on the ever increasing regulatory burden they have to bear for the privilege of owning private property. That’s Agenda 21 in action at the local level, the long term goal of the implementation of sustainable development that green guru James Lovelock describes as meaningless drivel. It’s also a Clayton’s private property where you have title, but you can’t do what you want with it. And is it then really private property?
Going back to the draft outcome document also confirms that:
Strong governance at local, national, regional and global levels is critical for advancing sustainable development. The strengthening and reform of the institutional framework should, among other things:
a) Integrate the three pillars of sustainable development and promote the implementation of Agenda 21 and related outcomes, consistent with the principles of universality, democracy, transparency, cost-effectiveness and accountability, keeping in mind the Rio Principles, in particular common but differentiated responsibilities.
b) Provide cohesive, government-driven policy guidance on sustainable development and identify specific actions in order to fulfil the sustainable development agenda through the promotion of integrated decision making at all levels.
c) Monitor progress in the implementation of Agenda 21 and relevant outcomes and agreements, at local, national, regional and global levels.
d) Reinforce coherence among the agencies, funds and programmes of the United Nations system, including the International Financial and Trade Institutions.
Strong governance at the local level? Does this mean that in order to achieve a state of meaningless drivel we need to have even stronger local governance? Do they mean more government and increased regulation of our activities at the local level? Whatever the goal, it is clear that it will involve a reduction in our freedom to act, for it also means an increase in the reach of government via the micromanagement of our activity. Socialism in other words.
As mentioned at the start of this article the UN is having another conference that Australia is attending so a visit to the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities’ Rio +20 web page is quite informative, for there we read what our priorities at Rio + 20 will be:
1. Ocean Issues
2. Sustainable Development Goals
3. Indigenous peoples
4. Food security
5. Gender equality
7. Disaster risk reduction.
And what happened to climate change this time?
I suppose it doesn’t matter anymore since we have the carbon tax embedded into our political system, but given the fact of rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere without a corresponding and accelerating increase in global temperature, one is led to the possibility that the whole thing was a political ploy from the start. Yet speaking with committed climate changers I gain the impression that the belief is sincerely held, and that they really, really do believe that our CO2 emissions will create a climate catastrophe unless drastic action is taken now.
So Monckton was right, climate change is indeed off the agenda, although wishy-washy references to it are still made in the draft outcome document, it does not, however, reach its previous sense of urgency or priority.And if it was a ploy all along, then what is the real game in play? Perhaps we should revisit that failed movement called Technocracy from the last century for an insight, for it seems that technologically we might have the technical means to implement it.
There is one other warning note to take heed of – the UN intends to also stick its nose into business, so Rick Moran writes in American Thinker blog for June 17, 2012. The trick term is “damaging corporate behavior” in respect of how corporations impact on “women’s emancipation, poverty eradication, social investment, renewable energy and sustainable food production” – as Moran notes, this new UN direction is not about the environment but about the exercise of power, the very issue that Monckton is also emphasizing.
The Economist this week also devotes much space to environmental issues. Here is a link.