Returning to the Agenda 21, Sustainable Development issues etc. – you might be questioning the relevance again but remember the global to local plan? It has to be achieved locally because many communities would simply reject UN intervention in their daily lives. But we have already seen how this hurdle can be overcome – give different names to organisations and give them a local appearance and many people will co-operate. Indeed, the idea of environmentally-friendly reforms is fine in principle. The problem is that the following have been declared unsustainable:
Ski runs, grazing of livestock, plowing of soil, building fences, industry, single family homes, paves and tarred roads, logging activities, dams and reservoirs, power line construction, and economic systems that fail to set proper value on the environment.” UN’s Biodiversity Assessment Report.
Yes, everything’s all right. Let’s take a back seat to the collective!
So it would be understandable if citizens with prior knowledge of the agenda had rejected it. You’d have to know about it first though, wouldn’t you?
Over the past twenty years, the UN’s communitarian system was implemented in every nation. In some nations it was an open process, because their systems were not established as governments of the people. In the nations where the citizens elect representatives and have veto power over laws passed by their elected representatives, Local Agenda 21 was hidden.
It seems a reasonable assumption that most of us do wish to do our bit to help look after the planet. But how do we know who is really in charge of things? What if a praiseworthy ideal has been hijacked? Agenda 21 contains plans to impose enormous controls upon the human race. The aims are to prescribe how and where we live, what we eat and to restrict our travel. The threats of terrorism and possible damage to the environment are two topics that seem to effectively control our lives and curtail our freedoms. Unfortunately, we cannot even be sure that this is the true picture. Global warming has become so obviously inaccurate (a prolonged freeze this winter followed by a chill summer) that it has now been renamed climate change. Well, that’s fine if it’s just an opinion. But when it is being used as the basis for financial sacrifices and to curtail our freedoms then I for one would like a little more than a report based upon the data from selected scientists and given credence above other opinions to the contrary, especially when we learn that the report was based on bad science and inaccurate data which was not freely available to other specialists. Does this sound like fair and open, objective assessment to you?
Note: This is quite a long video so I don’t urge you to view it. It shows a seemingly very nice lady attempting to give an insight into environmental issues. It seems to me that there is an attempt to encourage us to change our ways but the audience suggest that corporations and business interests are the real culprits and that this side of things is conveniently ignored.
Restrictions and controls need to be looked at very closely before they are adopted as law. The Crown Dependencies Report states that:
The Island parliaments legislate for themselves. UK legislation and international treaties are only extended to them with their consent.
Say that again?