Rio+20 is in fact the short name for the United Nations
Conference on Sustainable Development. As an Earth Summit addresses
environmental issues it is natural to assume that sustainable development relates
to preserving a sustainable environment. It does not. Sustainable development
is the banner of a drive for global government. The 2012 Earth summit website (earthsummit2012) is explicit about
this fact: “One of the two main themes for the Earth Summit is the 'institutional
framework for sustainable development'. Put more simply, this primarily refers
to the system of global governance for sustainable development.”
In 1992 the Rio Earth Summit was
in fact The United Nations Conference
on Environment and Development (UNCED) and led to what is most commonly
remembered as the outcome ‘The Rio Declaration’. The Rio Declaration consisted
of 27 principles intended to guide future sustainable development around the
world. It presents the illusion of an environmental concern; “Working
towards international agreements which respect the interests of all and protect
the integrity of the global environmental and developmental system.” When in
fact it is simply carrying forward an agenda established at Stockholm on 16 June 1972.
The
drive for a ‘One World Government’ (a New World Order) has used the fear of
climate change as a means to create a veneer of acceptability while hiding the
actual agenda. Environmental degradation is a serious issue and one that
demands pro-active engagement. Our industrialised culture continues to pollute
in extreme measure while the process of conferences and subsequent legislation
accomplish minimal impact in the real world situation. Extinction rates are
currently considered to be at least 27,000 species per year.
The European Environment Agency
(EEA) is responsible for environmental issues within Europe.
This agency should represent and act in accord with the communities of Europe. It does not. The EEA acts In order to carry through the agenda that has
been set for them. That agenda is ‘sustainable development’.
This
summer the European Union in its process of preparation for Rio+20, published 'Europe’s environment, an Assessment of Assessments'. It
does not foster trust that the EU is actively engaged in addressing pollutants
in the environment when the major output from the EEA is an assessment of
assessments. The very first sentence of the introduction to this publication establishes
the EEA’s purpose: "The European Environment
Agency (EEA) has produced four pan-European 'state of Europe's environment'
reports in support of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE)
'Environment for Europe' process."
The EU committed to transform Europe
itself into "a highly energy-efficient, low carbon economy” in March 2007
with an agreement to the EU 20-20-20 targets. An agreement allows Nation States
to determine how to meet their obligation of commitment. But the 'how' is later
given specific direction through legislation in 2009. EU Nation States are
legally bound to the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS), Biomass, and investment
in developing Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). None of which are effective in
addressing environmental degradation.
The
Sixth UN 'Environment for Europe' Ministerial Conference in Belgrade was also held in 2007. At this
conference commitment was re-affirmed to the Environment for Europe
(EfE) process:
“We are committed to further
environmental improvement in countries of the UNECE
region. We recognize the important
value of the EfE process as a unique Pan-European forum
for tackling our environmental
challenges and promoting broad horizontal environmental
cooperation as a pillar of
sustainable development in the region.”
(Economic and Social
Council, ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE, DECLARATION
“Building Bridges to the Future” by Ministers
of the region of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE)).
The EU acts in support of the United Nations
Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) 'Environment for Europe'
process.
UNECE, on its website, defines the process.
"The 'Environment for Europe'
process is a unique partnership of member States within the UNECE region,
organizations of the United Nations system represented in the region, other
intergovernmental organizations, regional environmental centers,
non-governmental organizations, the private sector and other major groups.”
|
 |
The EEA is not concerned about the environment as the assessment of
assessments itself states: "Thus, the EE-AoA is not a new assessment of environmental issues but an
analysis and assessment of the methods and underpinning information tied to the
policy debate." UNECE has already informed us that non-governmental
organisations, the private sector and other major groups form its
remit, and the EEA reports themselves are produced with the involvement of
UNECE, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP) and other international organisations such as the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
The Organisation for
European Economic Cooperation (OEEC) was established in 1947 to run the
US-financed Marshall Plan for reconstruction of a continent ravaged by war. It
became the OECD when the US
& Canada
joined in 1961. The OECD brings around its table 40 countries that account for
80% of world trade and investment, giving it a pivotal role in addressing the
challenges facing the world economy.
What
does the environment have to do with a process of ‘sustainable development’
that is pushed by interests of economy and trade?
The
environment doesn’t have anything to do with this process, the EEA deals with
information to service policy. "Environmental
information is an essential component of the environmental policy process. This
was recognised at the very first 'Environment for Europe' conference held at Dobris Castle
near Prague in
June 1991".
Although titled 'Environment for Europe'
(EfE) it clearly has little to do with environment and represents a
determination made for Europe by globalist
interests. Also attending the meeting
in 1991 were representatives of the Council of Europe, the Centre for Our
Common Future, the Conference on Security and Co-operation for Europe, the
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the European Free Trade
Association, the European Investment Bank, NATO, the Nordic Investment Bank,
the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United Nations
Development Programme, UNECE, the United Nations Industrial Development
Organisation, and the World Bank, to name only some.
So what was determined at the
very first EfE' conference held at Dobris
Castle near Prague in June 1991?
One thing that was agreed was that the Conference reaffirmed the importance of the Stockholm
Declaration of 1972. The Canadian Governments website summary of the Rio Earth
Summit referencing Stockholm
states: "This conference raised a
generation's awareness of an issue hitherto little talked about, the global
environment. The Stockholm
conference secured a permanent place for the environment on the world's agenda
and led to the establishment of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP).
The conference and its aftermath made known the international nature of the
environment and introduced the idea of the relationship between development and
the environment. It has been said that the only way to unite the countries of
the world is for them to face a common enemy; perhaps environmental degradation
will be that enemy” (History
of Rio Earth Summit, Canadian Govt.)
Since the 1972 Stockholm
conference there have been many international environmental agreements. In 1983
the UN General Assembly set up the World Commission on Environment and
Development, known as the Brundtland Commission after its chairperson,
Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland. Its aim was to link
environmental issues to the findings of the 1980 Brandt report on North-South
relations. The Brundtland report, published in 1987 as “Our Common Future”
declared that the time had come for a marriage between the environment and the
economy and coined the term ‘sustainable development’.
“Perhaps our most urgent task today is to persuade nations
of the need to return to multilateralism. The challenge of reconstruction after
the Second World War was the real motivating power behind the establishment of
our post-war international economic system. The challenge of finding
sustainable development paths ought to provide the impetus” (Our Common Future, Chairman’s
forward)
Gro Harlem Brundtland is also a member of the Club
of Madrid and has attended Bilderberg meetings. The Club of Madrid is a sibling of
the Club of Rome. In 1972 “The Limits
to Growth” was published by the Club of Rome. The book models the consequences
of a rapidly growing world population and finite resource supplies, and set the
stage for environmental disaster.
The Club of Rome is so named because the club was founded
in 1968 at David Rockefeller’s estate in Bellagio,
Italy.
Interestingly it was also in 1972 that the Rockefeller Commission Report made
the infamous statement: “After two years of concentrated effort, we have
concluded that, in the long run, no substantial benefits will result from
further growth of the Nation’s population, rather that the gradual stabilization
of our population through voluntary means would contribute significantly to the
Nation’s ability to solve its problems... By its very nature, population is a
continuing concern and should receive continuing attention. Later generations,
and later commissions, will be able to see the right path further into the
future.
In any case, no generation needs to know the ultimate
goal or the final means, only the direction in which they will be found.”
The 1972 Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human
Environment, Article 5 states: “The
natural growth of population continuously presents problems for the
preservation of the environment, and adequate policies and measures should be
adopted as appropriate to face these problems.”
From the origins of sustainable
development the inter-linking of economy, environment and population are
embedded. 20 years after the Stockholm
conference at the Rio Earth Summit, the
delegates reached agreement on Agenda 21, an action plan for developing the
planet sustainably through the twenty-first century. The primary goal of Agenda
21 is to ensure that development proceeds in a sustainable manner; “the system
of incentives and penalties which motivate economic behaviour must be
reoriented to become a strong force for sustainability." Another goal is
ultimately to eliminate poverty throughout the world, through better management
of energy and natural resources."
Sustainable Development = Agenda 21.
In 1993 the Club of Rome published “The First Global
Revolution”. This book re-affirms and establishes the threat of climate change
and further emphasises the issue of population within the context of its
‘problematique’.
“A central feature of the global situation is the
enormous increase in the totality of human activity during the present century,
which has necessarily led to a huge rise in the demand for raw materials and
energy. Much of this increase is due of course, to the spectacular growth of
the world population during this period, whose numbers will be added to in the years
to come by cohort after cohort of new inhabitants.”
It is also from this book that the better known Club of
Rome quote is sourced: “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a
new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of
global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.
All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and
it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
Ten years after Rio, in Johannesburg South Africa, the UN 'Plan of Implementation of the World
Summit on Sustainable Development' Conference occurs. In the report published
from this conference the UN assumes the position of representing the peoples of
the world: "We, the representatives of the peoples of the world, assembled
at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa
from 2 to 4 September 2002, reaffirm our commitment to sustainable development.”
In this report the stance of the UN is explicitly clear:
"Thirty years ago, in Stockholm,
we agreed on the urgent need to respond to the problem of environmental
deterioration. Ten years ago, at the United Nations Conference on Environment
and Development held in Rio de Janeiro,
we agreed that the protection of the environment and social and economic
development are fundamental to sustainable development, based on the Rio
Principles. To achieve such development, we adopted the global programme
entitled Agenda 21"
"The United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development held in Rio
de Janeiro in 1992,
provided the fundamental principles and the programme of
action for achieving sustainable development. We strongly
reaffirm our commitment
to the Rio principles, the full implementation of Agenda 21".
Therefore it is clear that the European Environment
Agency serves Agenda 21.
Agenda 21 directly links population growth and the environment;
"it is naive to believe that the population crisis is not a large problem
and the cause of much environmental degradation. The developing world must slow
its population growth and the developed world must use fewer resources per
person. Both approaches are important."
The
idea behind Sustainable Development is to foster a mentality of guilt in people
over the use of natural resources. It employs a warring perspective, creating
an enemy (environmental collapse or climate change) using an economic weapon of
control.
The
economic mindset is founded in scarcity and modelled on social response to the
crisis of World War II and the mobilisation of people in war time crisis. The
collective applied to industry under conditions of rationed (scant) resources. Now
climate change has been presented as the enemy to fear in attempting to drive
the collective in a specific and applied direction under conditions of resource
depletion and scarcity.
It is
sustainable development policy that the polluter pays.
Hence,
the ‘greening of the economy’ pushes through so called 'smart' metering.
By Rio+20 the UN has had 40 years to address environmental
contamination, which is a legitimate issue. It has not done so. Instead it has
deceived people with a ‘care for the environment’ guise, while pushing through
its own economically driven agenda, which serves profit motive and greed. If
the intent were truly benevolent we would already have infinite energy sourcing
that is wholly non-polluting.
The
strategies being furthered in Europe are the
EU 20-20-20 targets:-
20%
reduction of emissions
20%
energy sourced from renewables
20%
energy efficiency improvements
The strategy
for emissions reduction amounts to legally binding EU members to the Emissions
Trading System (ETS).
The strategy
for renewables is targeted at biomass with an allowance of acceptance for
solar, wind and hydro.
The
strategy for efficiency is driving through smart metering and smart grids as
usage control and surveillance.
The principle of Free Energy has been within
human reach since Nikola Tesla at the turn of the last century. The potential
has been developed within the last 40 years and is proven. Our scientific capabilities now are
phenomenal, yet the science and technology of zero point energy has been
vilified and suppressed throughout this period. It has also been demonstrated
that new energy technology is non-polluting with some research demonstrating
beneficial by-products from energy sourcing. A sincere approach to emissions
reduction would see this technology implemented at an industrial and domestic
level as soon as is necessary, which is now. In the same way that the perceived
‘necessary’ accomplished developing the nuclear bomb in World War II.
It
was J P Morgan who refused Tesla funding with the infamous quote “If you can’t
put a meter on it… “. The banking and private interests in the UNECE serve the same function.
Their policy is to create a tradable commodity of pollution.
The
maintenance of focus with renewables, while stimulating environmental fear through
climate change and natural disasters in the news and other media, representing
environmental doomsday scenarios, solar, wind and hydro alongside alignment
with the green agenda, allows consumer and producer to furnish a public profile
of correct and responsible behaviour. While pollution is an issue, energy
sourcing has become a problem of national security status. This drives
environmental control of land usage. Bio-mass was seen to be a profitable
strategy to compliment the green agenda profile. Bio-mass itself has a harmful
impact to the environment through ‘agri-business’, making a turn towards arable
land usage for mono-cropping genetically modified crops for bio-fuels and
bio-mass energy production; which exacerbates a further weapon of fear and
control, food shortage.
The
pressure to present a green profile denies the capacity of infinite energy
sourcing and the free energy potential that could furnish a strategy that would
not only erase concerns of energy security but also facilitate ending poverty
through the sharing of abundance, allowing communities to self organise and
prosper. New energy technologies present this opportunity, alongside the capability
to transform infrastructure and transportation through subsequent development
of new technologies such as anti-gravitic propulsion that will accompany the
advancement of new science.
If
efficiency were truly an imperative, then the sciences of over-unity would now
be developed.
Smart
metering ensures that energy users pay at the level of consumption, and
suggests that the burden of fuel cost can be managed through usage behaviour.
The thinking here follows a logic of ‘pollution is the problem’ - the consumer
drives production pollution by creating a demand, and simultaneously pollutes
with consumption waste, thus the consumer causes pollution. It is policy that
the polluter pays, which places the burden of cost with the consumer through
extreme levels of taxation, increased product cost and an absurd debt burden.
While passing the blame onto the people, the strategy is to amplify your
concern for the environment in order to socially sculpt behaviour patterns and
responses. The desired response is to accept the agenda, while also gaining
approval in the public and private sector for demonstrating correct ‘green’
behaviour.
Social
sculpting is very much the function of organisations such as ‘Common Purpose’.
The injection of words such as ‘smart’ and ‘sustainable’ into the collective,
manipulates opinions.
A
recent film advertisement was telling the world “Smart is Sexy” and of course,
that we should be concerned and have an opinion about the environment does
matter.
Social
influence of this nature, within the current manufactured global economic
crisis, presents us with the standard of “Greening the economy”. This is the
face of sustainable development and the implementation of Agenda 21.
The
EEA Assessment of assessments (AoA) defines greening the economy as: “Greening the economy: mainstreaming the environment
into economic development”.
UNEP defines it as: “[A] green economy [is] one that results in improved human well-being
and social equity, while significantly reducing environmental risks and
ecological scarcities.”
The EEA AoA goes on to state: “The
concept of green economy in the context of poverty eradication and sustainable
development, will attract further attention, as it will be one of two key
themes at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development to be held
in Rio in 2012”.
The nature of this
context of ‘poverty eradication and sustainable development’ is clarified in a subsequent
statement: “The green economy can also be viewed as a
set of principles, aims and actions, which generally include:
- equity and fairness, both within and between generations
- consistency with the principles of sustainable development
- a precautionary approach to social and environmental impacts
- an appreciation of natural and social capital, through, for example, the internalisation of external costs, green accounting, whole-life costing and improved governance
- sustainable and efficient resource use, consumption and production
- a need to fit with existing macroeconomic goals, through the creation of green jobs, poverty eradication, increased competitiveness and growth in key sectors.”
The
existing macroeconomic goals, presumably being Agenda 21, here associates
creation of green jobs with poverty eradication. Poverty eradication is a
persistent theme of Agenda 21. While the science of infinity presents abundance,
the concept of eradicating poverty seems to be a closed-system perspective that
fuels kleptocracy. The Club of Rome set the pathway for addressing population
with; “rather
that the gradual stabilization of our population through voluntary means would
contribute significantly to the Nation’s ability to solve its problems.”
Voluntary means implies consent which, within constructs of corporate law you
give by not responding to notice. How is it that Agenda 21 is hidden behind
sustainable development and a mass of beaurocratic agreements and directives?
Agenda 21 is global and behind massive vaccination programmes in so called
developing countries. Following the absurd changes to rules that defined a
‘pandemic’ virus associated with the H1N1 flu scare of 2009, and subsequent
attempts to mandate a potentially harmful vaccine; can a voluntary participation
with this process be trusted at any level?
In 2007
the ‘UK Green New Deal Group’ link three major enemies. In their own terms; the
financial crunch, the climate crunch and the coming global energy crunch.
Through a false economy founded on unsustainable debt which at the same time determines the directive of increased competitiveness and growth in key sectors, the true enemy, the people, are oppressed by austerity. The emotive response to natural disasters and environmental contamination, as witnessed in Japan and the Gulf of Mexico, keep the populace consenting to the implementation of this dysfunctional agenda through valid concern, thereby accepting the burden of its cost, and so are yoked to the poverty of debt. The energy threat of depleting oil reserves and inherent issues of energy security drives the need for solution towards the environmentally harmful practices of fracking and unconventional oil and gas extraction. It is also related to military action around the globe. At the same time there is a huge drive for infrastructure change through the implementation of the matrix of control; smart grids.
Through a false economy founded on unsustainable debt which at the same time determines the directive of increased competitiveness and growth in key sectors, the true enemy, the people, are oppressed by austerity. The emotive response to natural disasters and environmental contamination, as witnessed in Japan and the Gulf of Mexico, keep the populace consenting to the implementation of this dysfunctional agenda through valid concern, thereby accepting the burden of its cost, and so are yoked to the poverty of debt. The energy threat of depleting oil reserves and inherent issues of energy security drives the need for solution towards the environmentally harmful practices of fracking and unconventional oil and gas extraction. It is also related to military action around the globe. At the same time there is a huge drive for infrastructure change through the implementation of the matrix of control; smart grids.
This is
what the Environment for Europe process is
directing. Does it appear that Agenda 21 serves solution? This is sustainable
development, and Rio+20 is in fact the short name for the United Nations
Conference on Sustainable Development.
No comments:
Post a Comment