BEWARE The Green New Deal!

Every citizen needs to educate themselves about the negative impacts of Agenda 21 and its corrolaries such as the Green New Deal, and the sooner the better. Those who claim that Agenda 21 and its corrolaries are nothing more that a right wing rant or somehow anti-semetic are at best seriously misinformed. Those who buy into the carefully crafted jargon of Sustainable Development, Smart Growth, Redevelopment and the "Green New Deal" are similarly misinformed and need to know that the environmental movement has in fact been highjacked by this program.

This page has plenty of links to original sources. It also incorporates some of the first hand "Sustainable Development" experiences of life-long Democrat and Agenda 21/Sustainable Development activist Rosa Koire, who has become one of the most well-known activists speaking out against this "plan".

Journalist Thomas L. Friedman is sometimes credited with being the original source of the term "Green New Deal" because in two 2007 articles, in the New York Times and The New York Times Magazine, Friedman connected FDR's "New Deal" to a new "green" economy, suggesting this might provide an economic stimulus program that could address economic inequality and climate change at the same time. Almost prophetically, Friedman also argued in earlier articles that an "iron fist inside a velvet glove" would be needed to maintain the coming new world order.

The same year the Friedman articles came out Green New Deal Group was formed. By July of 2008 this group came out with its Green New Deal Report which was originally published by the New Economics Foundation. A few months later, in October of 2008, Adam Steiner, who was Executive Director of the United Nations Development Programme (UNEP) unveiled the Global Green New Deal Initiative, the objective of which was to rescue the failing global economy by creating jobs in "green" industries, "funded" of course by the big banks.

Most recently the United States Green Party has adopted a "Green New Deal" platform. To its everlasting credit, the Green Party has also adopted monetary reform as one of its core planks, ending the banking system's privilege of creating the nation's money (as credit or debt) and returning the monetary privilege to the government where it belongs, without which reform no other reforms are possible. Other political parties would do well to adopt this most important objective, since this is the true heart of "populism" historically. However, the vast bulk of the Green Party platform bears a marked (and troubling) resemblance to the Green New Deal set out through the United Nations Agenda 21 Sustainable Development program.

The Green New Deal is in fact a part of a global "sustainable development" program that was officially rolled out at the "Earth Summit" held in Rio De Janeiro, Brazil in 1992. Out of that summit came Agenda 21: Earth Summit: The United Nations Program of Action from Rio, a 354 page document that can be purchased at Amazon, or viewed in pdf file format here.

Agenda 21 has been updated to include Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Develpoment and its offshoot "Sustainable Development" which is a program that was "commissioned" by the United Nations Environment Program or UNEP for short. This webpage has a map and outline of "partners." Effectively, Agenda 21 provides the template while Agenda 2030 gives the goals for achieving "sustainable development".

As uncovered by prominent activist Rosa Koire (more about below), Sustainable Development was originally created and defined by the United Nations in 1987. President George Herbert Walker Bush, along with leaders from 178 other nations, signed the "Action Plan" unveiled at Rio in 1992. This plan is anchored by the political philosophy of Communitarianism which holds that the individual's rights are a threat to the global community. The consistent rallying cry is "for the greater good," which can be defined any way that suits those in power. As Koire aptly explains, this translates to mean that our rights to property ownership, to personal mobility and life choices, to feed and clothe ourselves and more, will of necessity lead to food sheds and population control through nutritional restrictions, an ever-expanding domestic surveillance state, restrictions on free speech, corporate takeover of our political, legal and governmental systems, a mentality among promoters that "the ends justifies the means" and more.

Within six months of his election, former President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order #12852 thus creating the President's Council on Sustainable Development or PCSD. This Council ran for six years, 1993-1999. Its members included Cabinet Secretaries for Transportation, Agriculture, Education, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Small Business Administration, Energy, Interior, and Defense. CEO's of various businesses, such as Enron, Pacific Gas & Electric, BP Amoco, Dow Chemical and others also were included, as were environmental organizations, including the National Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, World Resources Institute, the Nature Conservancy, the Environmental Defense Fund among others.

To further facilitate the transformation Clinton awarded the American Planning Association a multi-million dollar grant to write a land use legislative blueprint for every municipality in the U.S. Completed in 2002, this blueprint is entitled Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook with Model Statutes for Planning and the Management of Change. As Koire tells us, this guidebook is being used in every university, college and government planning office in the nation. (Of note here is that the powerful and politically connected American Legislative Exchange Council or ALEC also develops "model legislation" for local, state and national government.) And as part of the Common Core program for the younger set, former Vice President Al Gore helped write Rescue Mission Planet Earth: A Children's Edition of Agenda 21.

In 2012 "H Concurrent Resolution 353" was discussed by the U.S. Congress. A short, 8 minute video clip shows various members, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, rising in support of H CON Res 353, which "expressed the sense of the Congress that the U.S. should take a strong leadership role in implementing the decisions made at the Rio Earth Summit by developing a national strategy to install Agenda 21 and other Earth Summit agreements through domestic and foreign policy. . ."

As Koire relates, the goal of this was and is to change public policy so as to bring it into alignment with the Agenda 21 plan.

Agenda 21 is a global plan that is to be implemented locally via "soft law". Despite the fact that this agenda would have far reaching material impact on each and every one of us, the U.S. citizenry was not given the opportunity to study or vote on any of the various facets of Agenda 21. Moreover, the vast majority, out of deep concern for the planet, are effectively neutralized by the jargon, buzz words and slogans with purposely obscure definitions, all of which are dreampt up by the best PR firms money can buy. Many of us also convince ourselves that because we haven't heard about it or encountered the negative implications in our daily lives that it isn't happening. Perhaps even worse, as Rosa Koire, who has experienced negative ramifications in her Santa Rosa community, writes in Behind the Green Mask:

The irony is that UN Agenda 21 [and its subsidiaries Agenda 2030, Sustainable Development and the Green New Deal] mandates more citizen involvement but does it by creating so many boards, commissions, regional agencies, non-profits, meetings and programs that it is impossible to stay on top of what is happening. We're too burned out to fight more than one issue at a time. So we become, necessarily, more fragmented, less of a neighborhood, exhausted and isolated because we can't keep up. The so-called citizen involvement is dictated by phony neighborhood groups with paid lobbyists and facilitators running them. The boards and commissions are chosen based on 'team players' or shills selected to push through an end game by running over the few actual unconnected citizens. These groups are the 'prescreening groups' for candidates for public office. THEY are the ones who get donations at election time. It's doubtful that anyone will get on the ballot who doesn't play ball.

There were 17 official sustainable development goals (or SDGs) for the new 2030 Agenda that was universally adopted by the nations of the world at the United Nations plenary meeting in New York on September 25, 2015. These SDGs do not replace Agenda 21 that was produced by the first Earth Summit held in 1992 in Rio. . . The 2030 Agenda clearly states, “We reaffirm all the principles of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, including, inter alia, the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.”

A short article unveils some of the actual consequences of the Agenda. It is titled Agenda 2030 Translator: How to Read the UN's New Sustainable Development Goals. To start you off, Goal 1 AS STATED: End Poverty in all its forms everywhere. Goal 1 AS TRANSLATED: Centralized banks, IMF, World Bank, Fed to control all finances. Goal 2 AS STATED: End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture. Goal 2 AS TRANSLATED: GMO. And so on

Another article shows how big "S" Sustainable Development will affect the farmer:

If you own livestock and they can drink from a creek, then they want you to permanently fence off your own land to prevent any upset of potential fish habitat. . .
Vegetarianism is a major tenet of Sustainable Development. Agenda 21 focuses on the goal of eliminating meat consumption and using pastures to grow wheat, corn and soy for human consumption. To get us to comply, we’re told in endless propaganda campaigns that meat is dangerous and the vegan lifestyle is the only healthy alternative.
. . . “Grazing livestock” is listed as “unsustainable” in the UN’s Global Biodiversity Assessment Report. In the same document, agriculture and private property are listed as “unsustainable.”
. . .All the private property and water rights infringements we have been seeing come directly out of the Sustainable Development programs. They come in a wide variety of names to throw people off, such as Comprehensive Planning, Growth Management, Smart Growth, and so forth.
Sustainable Development is a term used to describe a new form of collectivist global ecogovernance: a process of governing every action people take on a basis of people’s impact on the environment, often based on junk science. It elevates nature above man, and is being used to drive farmers, ranchers and people living in rural areas off their land to force people into urban areas.
The end goal of the people-pushing of this agenda is to have vast areas made off limits to human beings and to cluster people into envisioned futuristic “sustainable” hive-like cities inside which every aspect of our lives is to be dictated, and from which travel is to be very highly restricted. . .
The good news is that there is a growing bipartisan American movement to stop this criminal agenda. Starting with Carroll County, Maryland, at least one hundred thirty-eight counties and communities have booted ICLEI. Alabama has voted as a state to remove itself from ICLEI.
I urge everyone you know to contact their state legislators urging passage of legislation similar to the bill that passed in Alabama, which blocks any federal or state agency from seizing anyone’s land without due process of law. See http://legiscan.com/gaits/text/645326.

The local government implementation of Agenda 21 was prepared by ICLEI (which stands for International Council for Local Environment Initiatives) for the Earth Council’s Rio+5 Forum held April 13–19, 1997 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; for the 5th Session of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development; and for the UN General Assembly’s “Earth Summit+5” Special Session. . . Out of this came The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide put out by ICLEI and the United Nations. (This planning guide is separate from that commissioned by Bill Clinton entitled Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook with Model Statutes for Planning and the Management of Change.)

ICLEI is the international environmental agency of local governments. Founded in 1990, the Council’s mission is to build and serve a worldwide movement of local governments to achieve and monitor tangible improvements in global environmental conditions through cumulative local actions. It is a membership association and also is formally associated with the International Union of Local Authorities (IULA), serving as its environmental arm.

Resilient cities are part of ICLEI. According to its website the organization was founded in 2010 by ICLEI (now known as Local Governments for Sustainability), the affiliated World Mayors Council on Climate Change and the similarly affiliated City of Bonn, Germany. Resilient Cities is billed as the first forum on cities and adaptation to climate change. In 2012 Resilient Cities was renamed as Global Forum on Urban Resilience and Adaptation.

Other groups and organizations subscribing to Agenda 21 and its augmentations continue to proliferate. These organizations include those that formulate "Climate Action Plans" now being adopted by local communities worldwide. The Center for Climate Solutions is one such organization and the California based Institute for local Government is another. You can google your state, city or county plus "Climate Action Plan and Resilient Plan" to learn more about how this is taking place in your own community.

It is perhaps worth mentioning here that the explosive, worldwide rollout of 5G networks, "makes smart cities a reality" despite recognized and significant associated health risks. By September of 2018, thanks to an FCC ruling and carrier lobbying, twenty states, seemingly under cover of night, had already passed legislation to strip their cities of the power to regulate 5G rollouts. The FCC ruling in particular has sparked considerable push back, because not only will the FCC’s move force taxpayers to subsidize industry access to publicly owned infrastructure but, as chief information officer for New York City Samir Saini declared: the FCC is threatening the public’s right to control public property, and dozens of cities, states, and towns from New York City to Lincoln, Nebraska to Anchorage, Alaska are ready to defend that right on behalf of our residents and taxpayers.

An offshoot of the Regional PLanning Association is America 2050 whose focus is on planning for the emergence of mega-regions, or high density urban areas, along with infrastructure development, with the aim of "shaping the infrastructure investment plan" and "providing leadership on a broad range of transportation, sustainability, and economic-development issues impacting America's growth in the 21st century." FEMA feeds into the development of megaregions through its "Hazard Mitigation Program" through which it, as well as HUD, provide grants to assist, at taxpayer expense, state and local communities with the purchase of properties located in high fire risk, high flood risk, high erosion risk, high mudslide risk areas.

"Redevelopment" is another buzzword to look out for, as it in truth represents "an unknown government". As Koire writes:

The little 40 page book (linked above) lays out the ugly truth with charts, cartoons and hard data . . .Supported by powerful lobbyist groups fronting bond brokers, lawyers, and debt consultants, the trend of designating more and more redevelopment areas is also supported by government agency staff members and private businesses that profit from redevelopment. Diverting property taxes to these bloodsuckers is big business: by 2006 redevelopment agencies statewide (in California) had amassed $81 billion in bonded indebtedness, a figure that is doubling every 10 years. And don't think that this is only in California - it's in nearly every city and county in the United States. Because the agencies can sell bonded debt without voter approval (unlike school boards) and the city's general fund is responsible for any over-extended debt, these are cash cows for bond brokerage firms.

Other organizations tasked with promoting "sustainable development" and its corrolary the "Green New Deal" include the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (or OECD), and the World Resources Institute.

The World Resource Institute recently published a "synthesis report" entitled "Creating a Sustainable Food Future" which was produced "in partnership with the World Bank, UN Environment (UNEP), Un Development Programme and the French agricultural research agencies CIRAD and INRA." On its publication announcement page, it asks whether we will be able to produce enough food sustainably to feed the estimated 10 billion people that will exist on the planet by 2015.

As explained in fair detail in Climate Change, Land Use and Monetary Policy the answer is a resounding YES! Contrary to Agenda 21 fears, we will be able to sustainably feed, conservatively, 20 to 30 billion people worldwide IF WE CHANGE THE WAY WE DO AGRICULTURE, which MUST include holistically managed livestock! Not only that but we will DRAMATICALLY reduce the amount of land now devoted to industrial agricultural systems and the amount of pollution generated by such systems - ALL WHILE PUTTING CARBON BACK IN THE SOIL WHERE IT IS NEEDED to sustain life on this planet. A wide variety of highly esteemed experts whom most of us have never heard of, but who live with this question up close and personal on a daily basis, agree.

At first glance the recent World Resources report also seems to agree, as the headline of a recent article in the San Francisco Chronicle relays the report's findings that "drastic changes in food production and consumption" are key to sustainability. The article goes on to summarize the report:

The core recommendations of the 96-page report line up with many of the innovations that are already happening, sometimes at a small scale, at many Bay Area farms, food companies and tech startups. That includes the development of plant-based meat substitutes, companies and local governments that focus on reducing food waste, and farms that are making changes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. . .
The report calls on governments to fund research and development and to provide “flexible regulations” for new technology such as plant-based meat substitutes and innovations in plant breeding like genetic editing. . .
Individuals should make changes to their diets, too, the authors say, especially in wealthy countries like the United States where the majority of animal-based foods are eaten . . .
A lot of the technological advances the report urges are happening in the Bay Area. The region has become a global hub for the creation of plant-based meat substitutions, including those made by Impossible Foods of Redwood City. . .A new batch of companies is developing lab-grown or “cultured” meat that will be made of chicken, beef or fish tissue from cells but won’t require raising or killing animals.

Various other departments, agencies and activities of the United Nations also play a role in fostering not only "sustainable development" but also today's special brand of hyper-globalization. For example, the online organizational chart of the UN shows the WTO as a “related organization” and the UN's sustainable development page informs us that “Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and groups in every area in which human activity impacts the environment.”

In 1962, long before Agenda 21 was ever finalized yet another unelected commission known as Codex Alimentarius, which is responsible for the development of an international code of food standards, was created by the UN's Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and the UN's World Health Organization (WHO). Its stated purpose is to "harmonize" world food trade and its recommendations are incorporated into free trade agreements through what is known as SPS or Sanitary Phytosanitary Measures.

The proposed rules under Codex seek, in a series of steps, to "regulate everything from farm to fork" throughout the world. Due in part to the undemocratic way in which the Codex Commission has been structured (and not unlike that manner in which Agenda 21 and its so-called "green" initiatives as well as the free trade agreements have been developed) “voluntary” Codex Rules in practice have nothing to do with protecting or promoting human health and everything to do with lining the pockets of the world's largest banks, financiers and investors in multinational food, drug, chemical and defense corporations.

The 1992 Rio "Earth Summit" spawned a series of world summits on sustainable development sponsored by the UN. In 2012 a summit celebrating the 20th anniversary of the Rio summit was dubbed Rio + 20. Its focus was "the Green Economy" with the specific purpose of ushering in global economic growth by putting market values on environmental services and environmentally-friendly production and consumption. This plan led to the term green grabbing which refers to the appropriation of land and resources for environmental ends.

In Climate Change, Land Use and Monetary Policy some excerpts are provided which were taken from a 2012 article titled Green Grabbing Our Future at Rio + 20 which at that time was posted on the Food First website. It was written by Eric Holt-Gimenez, Executive Director of Food First. The most relevant and highly illuminating excerpts from that article:

“The Rio process itself has been steadily privatized under the weight of 20 years of neoliberal globalization. As the global contradictions between economy and environment have intensified, nature itself is becoming a source of profit. . . What was once a state-oriented, regulatory framework has morphed into a market-based, corporate initiative. Convinced of the power of the global marketplace to conserve biodiversity, Rio+20’s institutions are pushing the commercialization of ecosystem services through market mechanisms like markets for ecosystem services, carbon derivatives, and the ‘sustainable’ certification of forests, soybeans, palm oil and agrofuels.
The corporate trend to privatize and commercialize ecosystem services and resources in the name of environmental protection is known as “green grabbing” as these schemes can result in local communities losing resource rights. . . It is the favored approach of the big conservation organizations like World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Conservation International (CI) and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), who have thus guaranteed their place at the Rio+20 negotiating table alongside neoliberal governments and powerful multinational business interests.
In contrast, in the UNCSD’s largest parallel event, The People’s Summit social movements fighting for food sovereignty, climate justice, environmental justice, human rights and the rights of indigenous peoples, women, youth and labor are actively protesting official Rio+20 proposals and proposing grassroots alternatives. . .
Almost everyone inside (and outside) Rio+20 agrees that a truly sustainable agriculture can and should increase yields, and help farmers adapt to and mitigate climate change by either reducing emissions or sequestering carbon. . . There is profound disagreement, however, on whether Rio’s combination of carbon markets, bio-char and agrofuel plantations and “sustainable intensification” (e.g. micro doses of fertilizers and GMO seeds) will actually deliver social, economic and environmental benefits, or whether they simply open up agricultural resources to financial speculation for corporate profit. . .
The Green Economy concept that determines the content of all submissions [for the Zero draft report] was itself created by a group led by Pavan Sukhdev a former senior banker from Deutsche Bank and head of UNEP’s Green Economy Initiative. This is a reflection of a long trend in partnering between the CBD, big environmental organizations and corporate representatives i.e. the World Business Council on Sustainable Development, the International Chamber of Commerce, CI, WWF, IUCN etc.
The purpose of these partnerships is to ‘make nature pay for its own conservation’ by turning it into a new commodity and by creating new markets where it can be traded through mechanisms like REDD+/Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation. (This mechanism is a carbon credit market for avoided emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. With REDD+ polluters can get commercially tradable credits for not causing carbon pollution they theoretically would have emitted in the future.)
The dubious justification for bringing nature to Wall Street—where credits and shares of ecosystem services, biodiversity derivatives, avoided emissions and even wildlife species banking can be chopped up, repackaged and resold along with debt, mortgages, hedge funds and the like—is that the best way to save nature is to sell it. In doing so, we are told, we will grow the economy and this in turn will benefit the poor, thus ending poverty and hunger.”

Essentially Agenda 21 is a global plan implemented locally through ICLEI (and other bodies and organs) using "soft law". In this 17 minute video presentation, Stacy Lynne of Fort Collins, Colorado clearly and succinctly explains how Agenda 21 is implemented locally via ICLEI.

In Climate Change, Land Use and Monetary Policy you will find excerpts from an article titled UN's Agenda Targets Your Mayor which provides a useful example of how this "targeting" occurs:

“From June 1 through 5, 2005, the city of San Francisco was the site of an international conference called "World Environment Day." But the agenda of this conference was much bigger than just another hippy dance in the park. This meeting of the global elite had a specific target and an agenda with teeth. The goal was the full implementation of the UN’s Agenda 21 policy called Sustainable Development, a ruling principle for top-down control of every aspect of our lives – from food, to health care, to community development, and beyond. This time, the target audience is our nation’s mayors. The UN’s new tactic, on full display at this conference, is to ignore federal and state governments and go straight to the roots of American society. Think globally – act locally. . .
Here’s a quick look at a few of the 21 agenda actions called for. Under the topic of energy, action item number one calls for mayors to implement a policy to increase the use of "renewable" energy by 10% within seven years. Renewable energy includes solar and wind power.
Not stated in the UN documents is the fact that in order to meet the goal, a community would have to reserve thousands of acres of land to set up expensive solar panels or even more land for wind mills. Consider that it takes a current 50 megawatt gas-fired generating plant about 2-5 acres of land to produce its power. Yet to create that same amount of power through the use of solar panels would require at least 1,000 acres. Using wind mills to generate 50 megawatts would require over 4,000 acres of land, while chopping up birds and creating a deafening roar. The cost of such "alternative" energy to the community would be vastly prohibitive. Yet, such unworkable ideas are the environmentally-correct orders of the days that the mayors are being urged to follow.”

Rosa Koire, mentioned earlier, is one inspiring example of a highly dedicated, amazingly energetic, well-credentialed individual who has taken the fight against Agenda 21, and its "sustainability" initiatives beyond her Santa Rosa, CA community to nations around the world. Now retired, she was a forensic commercial real estate appraiser, specializing in eminent domain valuation. Her 28 year stint as a District Branch Chief for the California Department of Transportation where she served as an expert witness on land use and property valuation and her venture into local politics led to her effort to expose the impacts of Sustainable Development on property property rights and individual liberty.

She is the author of the well-received, highly recommended book Behind the Green Mask, and she has two websites, Democrats Against Agenda 21 and The Post Sustainability Institute where you can find information about who funds Agenda 21 along with sample flyers to use in your neighborhood, plus plenty of additional information. She helped form another group called Santa Rosa Neighborhood Coalition which has additional information, including how to recognize whether a group is being manipulated, usually via the Delphi Technigue which was developed by the Rand Corporation in the 1960s.

She has become a presence on youtube, where you can watch her in action at her city council meetings or watch her being interviewed by people and groups around the world. When asked for a short-hand description of what Agenda 21 and its "Green New Deal" Sustainable development plan will do when fully achieved she answers with words to this effect:

Have you wondered where these terms 'sustainability' and 'smart growth' and 'high density urban mixed-use development' came from? Doesn't it seem like about 10 years ago you'd never heard of them and now everything seems to include these concepts? Is that just a coincidence? That every town and county and state and nation in the world would be changing their land use/planning codes and government policies to align themselves with...what? With Agenda 21, essentially.
The problem that almost no one sees is that UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is the action plan to inventory and control all land, all water, all minerals, all plants, all animals, all construction, all means of production, all information, all energy, and all human beings in the world. Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is about INVENTORY AND CONTROL!

BEWARE Agenda 21 and its Green New Deal!