Harbison: Sustainability Part IV

Jim Harbison

For the last few weeks I have written about the environmental activist’s efforts driven by the United Nations Agenda 21, under the guise of “sustainability”, to fundamentally change the nature of American society. It became very obvious that the general public has very little knowledge of the impacts of this UN agenda. Furthermore, few people, including our own City Council, have taken either the time or effort to understand the ultimate objectives of this program. Instead they see “sustainability” as a method of obtaining Federal dollars to achieve their own social agendas.

Sustainability is one of the UN’s environmentalist programs that advocate “social equity” which is another term for wealth redistribution. An underlying philosophy of UN’s Agenda 21 is that “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 principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore, contributes to social injustice.” Social equity is a remedy for the poor and minorities to reclaim lands that the middle and upper classes have allegedly stolen from them through economic means.

There are serious private property implications that are imposed by these theoretically beneficial sustainability initiatives. Cities across America have become willing participants in the attempt through the sustainability movement to fundamentally change the American concepts of private property rights. Cities belong to the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) and yet appear to be unaware of the major tenets of the organization or are deliberately concealing those objectives from the public.

The City of Las Cruces is complicit in this effort. It adopted the sustainability plan, stated it was well done and commended it for its “social equity” components. The plan requires the City to comply with the UN’s International Energy Conservation Code which is based on questionable global warming theory even though the United States government has refused to be regulated by this code. Unfortunately the City Sustainability Plan contained more than 22 policies that have not been brought before the Council or the public for comment. The Mayor told the Council that is was just a plan and would not have the impact of an ordinance. We all know how bureaucracy works and it won’t be long before we will be held accountable to the policies created by this Sustainability Plan. It becomes alarming when our elected officials summarily discount the unintended consequences of any plan which will drive the policies of the city for the next twenty years, or worse yet, deliberately attempt to deceive the public about them.

While I support efforts to improve our society I am deeply concerned when any government entity fails to disclose the true intent of any initiative that clandestinely attempts to destroy American private property rights no matter how noble the primary cause may seem to be. The old expression of it being “a wolf in sheep’s clothing” seems to be more than appropriate when it comes to adopting international sustainability initiatives. Developing local government policies and ordinances based on standards developed by the United Nations but not adopted by the United States government are inappropriate and unacceptable. I am not willing to forfeit US sovereignty for some perceived “higher” good which leads to a “One World” government that is permeated by those envious of the success and quality of life experienced by the American people. I would encourage everyone to go to: http://www.freedomadvocates.org to learn about the ‘good, bad, and ugly” implications of sustainability and let your local government know your opinions.

Harbison: Sustainability Part IV