Editor’s note — Agenda 21 is a topic of conversation at Tea Party meetings and coffee shops. This is Part II of a four-part analysis series examining the issues associated with Agenda 21. Part I ran May 18.
“Gradually, by selective breeding, the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organized insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton.” (Bertrand Russell – The Impact of Science on Society)
Last October, the U.N. announced that the global population had reached 7 billion with nearly all of the increase occurring in sub-Saharan Africa. In developing countries in Asia and Latin America, the fertility rate now resembles that of the United States which is slightly above two children per woman.
One of the stated goals of Agenda 21 is population reduction to prevent a cataclysmic collapse of the ecosystem and changes to the climate that are claimed to be brought on by human activity.
Such alarmism is not new. Almost 250 years ago the Reverend Thomas Malthus warned that population growth would outstrip the earth’s resources unless something was done to rid the earth of undesirables.
In the West, reductions in fertility have come as a result of greater educational and employment opportunities for women, the commonplace use of contraceptives and abortion, and changes in cultural norms. The government has facilitated these changes by mandating that women be included in affirmative action programs and by paying for abortions and contraceptives.
The recently passed health care mandate, i.e. Obamacare, furthered the population reduction agenda by requiring most employers with health care programs to provide contraceptive, sterilization and abortion services. President Obama also repealed the “global gag rule,” a policy that requires all nongovernmental organizations that receive federal funds to refrain from performing abortions or citing abortion services offered by others.
Obama’s appointments are also telling. For example, his Science and Technology Adviser John Holdren admits to being a neo-Malthusian.
In 1977, Holdren wrote a book called “Ecoscience” in which he indicated support for forced abortions, putting sterilizing agents in the nation’s drinking water, forcibly removing or aborting illegitimate children, and creating an armed international police force to control people’s lives. All this in the name of protecting the planet and warding off global climate change.
Holdren later disavowed those views at his confirmation hearing, but he still takes the position that climate change skeptics are “dangerous” members of a “denier fringe.”
The green zealots
The global climate change movement has attracted its share of those who can argue their position rationally as well as zealots who brook no disagreement.
For example, Dr. Kari Norgaard, an Oregon University professor recently compared skepticism of global warming to racism. She went so far as to suggest that “cultural resistance” to AGW “must be recognized and treated an aberrant sociological behavior.”
Another zealot is Steve Zwick who is the Managing Editor of the Ecosystem Marketplace. In a recent Forbes Magazine article, he called for “denialists” to bear the price of their disbelief including allowing their homes to burn, taking their land away and making them pay for “breaking the climate.”
Others come up with even more extreme ideas. A new paper in the journal “Ethics, Policy and Environment” proposes biomedical modifications to humans as one way to reduce greenhouse gases. The lead author of the paper, S. Matthew Liao, is a professor of philosophy and bioethics at New York University. He claims that bioengineering is one solution to global climate change.
One proposal includes a pill or patch to make people sick if they eat meat since livestock farming is considered to account for as much as 51 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.
Another idea is for parents to use genetic engineering or hormone therapy in order to birth “smaller, less resource-intensive children.” One technique is called preimplantation genetic diagnosis which would select which embryos would be implanted based on height. Another would be to use hormone treatments to induce height reductions in children.
In an interview in The Atlantic Magazine, Liao said there should be a fixed allocation of greenhouse gas emissions per family. “If that’s the case, given certain fixed allocations of greenhouse gas emissions, human engineering could give families the choice between two medium-sized children, or three small-sized children … A family might want a really good basketball player, and so they could use human engineering to have one really large child.”
He even threw out the possibility of giving people cat eyes. “We figured that if everyone had cat eyes, you wouldn’t need so much lighting, and so you could reduce global energy usage considerably.”
While it would be easy to dismiss such people as being on the lunatic fringe, their ideas are often taken seriously by those who design public policy at both the international, national and local level. Totalitarian control has always had great appeal to those who live in a world where ideas are real and people are just an abstraction.
Taxes and carbon credit indulgences
For hundreds of years it was a common practice for sinners to gain relief by paying an indulgence to the Catholic Church. Today corporations pay an indulgence to the government to receive permission to pollute.
Indeed carbon and “greenhouse gas” trading has become such a big business worldwide that exchanges have been set up all over the globe.
Louis Redshaw, of Barclays Capital, has predicted that “Carbon will be the world’s biggest commodity market, and it could become the world’s biggest market overall.”
The world’s largest carbon offset market, the Kyoto Protocol’s clean development mechanism, is run by the U.N. and administered by the World Bank. Often accused of corruption and profiteering, the U.N. views the exchange as one way to fund itself as a global governing structure. Third-world countries also see carbon credits as a way to further their development by selling pollution credits to corporations and to first world countries.
However the U.N. is not limiting itself to just pollution credits to fund itself as a global governing structure. In the year 2000, the U.N. General Assembly passed the Millennium Goals which included different proposals to raise taxes for the organization.
These taxes would not only increase the number of mandarins at the U.N. but would also be a mechanism for shifting wealth from the West to less developed countries.
Schemes that were contemplated included an e-mail tax; a tax on fossil fuels like gasoline, coal, oil and natural gas; a tax on currency transactions which would have raised the cost of just about every good shipped or traded internationally; an international air transport tax; an aviation fuel tax; a tax on the international conventional arms trade; fines for ocean dumping; a tax on commercial fishing; a tax on Earth-orbiting satellites; a tax on the use of the electronic spectrum (television, radio, cell phones, etc.); a tax on the profits of international businesses; and even a tax on international advertising.
According to working documents for the upcoming U.N. Conference on “Sustainable Development” in Rio de Janeiro, plans are to “re-shape civilization, the global economy, and even people’s thoughts” in order to transition toward a so-called green economy.
Among the new proposals are imposing global carbon taxes, wealth distribution amounting to trillions of dollars per year and a barrage of new programs aimed at “global social engineering.”
A big part of this transition involves giving global institutions like the U.N. the power to print currency so it can fund a global governing structure. The other part is educating children about the danger of AGW so they believe that the U.N. is needed to solve the “problem.”
Since the “green program” anticipates that large numbers of people will become unemployed, built into the agenda is a global welfare program. So not only will people in America be subsidizing the poor in this country, they will be subsidizing them in Timbuktu as well.
Meet me in Cancun
The fact that AGW has been discredited has not changed the minds of its proponents one iota. Instead U.N. officials and their cohorts continue to meet in luxurious resorts to discuss how awful people are and that something simply must be done about them.
At the Copenhagen climate summit in 2009, for example, over 140 private jets were used to fly in VIPs while 1,200 limos were used to squire them around. The top hotels in the area were all booked, at a cost $1,000 a night, for the 11 day conference.
In attendance were 15,000 delegates and officials, 4,000 journalists and 98 world leaders along with the usual bevy of Hollywood celebrities who wolfed down scallops, foie gras and sculpted caviar wedges.
Luckily they were able to save on prostitution services. In a show of solidarity, the city’s prostitutes offered free sex to anyone with a delegate’s pass.
The conference, including travel, created a total of 41,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. But nothing is too good for these globe-trotting, fois gras eating hypocrites whose conferences are held at the best resorts including Rio de Janeiro, Cancun, and Durban, South Africa.
Apparently being an AWG believer means never having to go without a tan.
Contact Dawn Hodson at 530-344-5071 or email@example.com. Follow @DHodsonMtDemo on Twitter.