Sustainable Development is often at the centre of things today, Maughold Brooghs being the most recent area to come into consideration. Undoubtedly, we all wish to protect the environment, natural habitats and wildlife. However, it seems advisable to take each case on its own merits and not to be swayed by the ubiqitous phrase Sustainable Development. To what extent do we wish to protect one species to the detriment of another? I was recently informed that a local farmer requires permission to use his tractor because of land having been declared as an ASSI. In some parts of the world – notably the USA – restrictions have become excessive. Some complain of being hindered in everyday life. For the above reasons I decided to revisit this topic. As a layperson I have not found it easy to locate the exact details about proposed ASSIs. We need to have all the information at hand.
Ramsey recently experienced an attempt at restrictions and control as a result of an area of the harbour being selected as an Area of Special Scientific Interest. Thankfully, the minister listened to all involved and decided to rescind the designation:
The difficulty I have with this process is that it is heavily influenced by the department from start to finish and it may appear to interested parties that they are being presented with a fait accompli, especially as once the designation has been notified and consultation completed the final decision still remains with the department.
Sustainable Development is related to Agenda 21, the basics of which were agreed at the Rio Summit in 1992. Tbh. the US is not the country that springs to mind when we think of an eco-friendly way of life. However, communities in the US have been very aware of the Agenda 21 initiatives for some time and what we hear from the other side of the Atlantic is that more and more communities are rising up in condemnation of Agenda 21 because of associated landgrab issues and the removal of public access to certain areas.
This is a global initiative and Tom DeWeese, a former editor of two newspapers and business owner, tells us that this is carried out in the US through ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability (formally, International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives).
“Agenda 21 proposes an array of actions which are intended to be implemented by EVERY person on Earth…it calls for specific changes in the activities of ALL people… Effective execution of Agenda 21 will REQUIRE a profound reorientation of ALL humans, unlike anything the world has ever experienced… ” (All emphases in this article Manxasthehills)
Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet (Earthpress, 1993). http://www.newswithviews.com/DeWeese/tom194.htm
“No one fully understands how or even, if, sustainable development can be achieved; however, there is growing consensus that it must be accomplished at the local level if it is ever to be achieved on a global basis.”
The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, published by ICLEI, 1996.
“Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective.” –
Harvey Ruvin, Vice Chairman, ICLEI. The Wildlands Project
You get the picture? Losing individual rights to the collective? (Please browse the site for more about collectivism) A further excerpt from Tom DeWeese’s article Agenda 21 in One Easy Lesson:
Hide Agenda 21’s UN roots from the people
“Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy- fixated groups and individuals in our society… This segment of our society who fear ‘one-world government’ and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined ‘the conspiracy’ by undertaking LA21. So we call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth.”
J. Gary Lawrence, advisor to President Clinton’s Council on Sustainable Development
Hmmm. How about open debate? Does that really sound like transparency and honesty when they work under various names in order to disguise who they really are?
Glen Beck has also explained things on Fox:
..a growing number of people are latching on to the idea of globalism…groundwork is being laid right now for government control on a global level. These people have mastered the art of hiding it in plain sight and then just dismissing it as a joke…such is the case with Agenda 21.
“a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.
This is where we could get out of our depth if we are not vigilant. There is a possibility that non-elected groups could dictate our livelihood and our quality of life. It’s inconceivable that this would ever be the intention of any of our local organisations but we need to be aware of how easily things can get out of hand:
Undoubtedly, many well-intentioned local groups work in harmony with the precepts of Agenda 21. Surely there can be no doubt that the aim of these groups is to preserve and protect our natural environment. Something we surely all feel is a worthy goal. There is no implied criticism of local groups whose members work tirelessly in the interests of environmental issues.
However, we need to read the small print and ensure that we really do share the same aims as those laid out in Agenda 21. We have to be sure that the path to sustainable development doesn’t include measures that we would not approve of. Above all we need to ensure that we still hold the reins and that environmentalists do not gain the upper hand to the extent that sustainable deveopment overrides our means of existence. Globalism goes local and vigilance is vital.