International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives

[column size="one-fourth"]

[/column]

[column size="three-fourth" last="true"]
International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives – (ICLEI) describes itself as “the world’s leading association of cities and local governments dedicated to sustainable development,” on its own website. They continue, “ICLEI promotes local action for global sustainability and supports cities to become sustainable, resilient, resource-efficient, biodiverse, low-carbon; to build a smart infrastructure; and to develop an inclusive, green urban economy.” One of its leading programs, as listed on their Wikipedia page at least on Nov.27th, 2012, is Agenda 21.[/column]
[hr]
The international association was the result of a Sept. 1990 conference on sustainable development held by 200 local governments & 43 countries, at the World Congress of Local Governments for a Sustainable Future, at the United Nations in New York. Its practical application aims to circumvent local governments in order to administer “sustainable development” for what they deem as the greater green good. Though the headquarters for ICLEI is in Bonn, Germany, ICLEI has a U.S. branch located in Oakland, CA.

The ICLEI describes itself in its website’s FAQs as a pretty benign organization that just offers input on sustainability and green development, but how true is that? Well, let’s take a closer look at the Goals of Agenda 21.

Agenda 21 was the product of the United Nations Conference on Environment & Development
held in Rio de Janerio, Brazil, from the 3rd to 14th of June 1992. In order to breakdown this large document, let’s start by looking at the “Rio Declaration on Environment & Development.” This 19-page document was downloaded from the UNESCO’s website, and spells out their 27 Principles. More than a few of these Principles give cause for concern on where U.S. governmental ends and the U.N.’s control begins:

PRINCIPLE 2
States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental and developmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.

PRINCIPLE 3
The right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations.

PRINCIPLE 7
States shall co-operate in a spirit of global partnership to conserve, protect and restore the health and integrity of the Earth’s ecosystem. In view of the different contributions to global environmental degradation, States have common but differentiated responsibilities. The developed countries acknowledge the responsibility that they bear in the international pursuit of sustainable development in view of the pressures their societies place on the global environment and of the technologies and financial resources they command.

PRINCIPLE 8
To achieve sustainable development and a higher quality of life for all people, States should reduce and eliminate unsustainable patterns of production and consumption and promote appropriate demographic policies.

PRINCIPLE 13
States shall develop national law regarding liability and compensation for the victims of pollution and other environmental damage. States shall also co-operate in an expeditious and more determined manner to develop further international law regarding liability and compensation for adverse effects of environmental damage caused by activities within their jurisdiction or control to areas beyond their jurisdiction.

PRINCIPLE 15
In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

PRINCIPLE 24
Warfare is inherently destructive of sustainable development. States shall therefore respect international law providing protection for the environment in times of armed conflict and co-operate in its further development, as necessary.

PRINCIPLE 26
States shall resolve all their environmental disputes peacefully and by appropriate means in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

Following the Principles, under “Section 1: Social & Economic Dimensions” we find item #4:

4. CHANGING CONSUMPTION PATTERNS
“One of the most serious problems now facing the planet is that associated with historical patterns of unsustainable consumption, and production, particularly in the industrialized countries.” Social research and policy should bring forward new concepts of status and lifestyles which are “less dependent on the Earth’s finite resources and more in harmony with its carrying capacity.” Greater efficiency in the use of energy and resources–for example, reducing wasteful packaging of products–must be sought by new technology and new social values.

Does the U.N. panel make that determination or does the U.S.?

7. SUSTAINABLE HUMAN SETTLEMENTS
Addresses the full range of issues facing urban-rural settlements, including: access to land, credit, and low-cost building materials by homeless poor and unemployed; upgrading of slums to ease the deficit in urban shelter; access to basic services of clean water, sanitation, and waste collection; use of appropriate construction materials, designs, and technologies; increased use of high-occupancy public transportation and bicycle and foot paths; reduction of long-distance commuting; support for the informal economic sector; development of urban renewal projects in partnership with non-governmental organizations; improved rural living conditions and land-use planning to prevent urban sprawl onto agricultural land and fragile regions.

Remember, it would be an unelected, non-U.S. panel making these kinds of decisions about property owned in the U.S.

First, let’s start with the Agenda 21 Fact Sheet:
Agenda 21 is divided into 4 sections:

  • Social and Economic Dimensions –
    examining the underlying human factors and problems of development, along with the key issues of trade and integrated decision-making;
  • Conservation and Management of Resources for Development–
    the largest section of Agenda 21, presenting the range of resources, ecosystems and other issues, all of which must be examined in detail if sustainable development is to be achieved at global, national and local levels;
  • Strengthening the Role of Major Groups–
    looks at the social partnerships necessary if sustainable development is to be a reality. It recognises that Government and international agencies cannot alone achieve sustainable development and that the community, through representative and industry organisations, must be a key player in the development of policy and in achieving the necessary changes; and
  • Means of Implementation–
    examines the question ‘how do we get there?’. The section looks at the resources which must be mobilised in support of sustainable futures. While finance and technology are key elements, this section also deals with aspects of education, institutional and legal structures, data and information and the building of national capacity in relevant disciplines.

6.1, p.31 – Countries ought to develop plans for priority actions, drawing on the programme areas in this chapter, which are based on cooperative planning by the various levels of government, non-governmental organizations and local communities. An appropriate international organization, such as WHO, should coordinate these activities.

6.6, p.32 – The Conference secretariat has estimated the average total annual cost (1993-2000) of implementing the activities of this programme to be about $40 billion, including about $5 billion from the international community on grant or concessional terms. These are indicative and order-of-magnitude estimates only and have not been reviewed by Governments. Actual costs and financial terms, including any that are non-concessional, will depend upon, inter alia, the specific strategies and programmes Governments decide upon for implementation. (Also see section 6.4)

REMEMBER P.4 “* When the term “Governments” is used, it will be deemed to include the European Economic Community within its areas of competence.”

Executive Order #13575

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/DCPD-201100431/pdf/DCPD-201100431.pdf

In the June 21, 2011 Blaze article, Mike Opelka listed a number of cities across the country who have taken steps to remove ICLEI and Agenda 21 from their local governments:

Amador County, California: The Mother Lode Tea Party lead the successful effort to remove ICLEI form Amador County.

Montgomery County, Pennsylvania: Activists Ruth Miller and Maggie Roddin have raised awareness that lead to the removal of ICLEI.

Edmond, Oklahoma: Molly Jenkins motivated 200 people to attend the city council meeting and demand action against ICLEI.

Las Cruces, New Mexico: continues to debate the issue, but rational voices are gaining momentum in the community.

Spartanburg, South Carolina: City Councilman Roger Nutt successfully directed the effort against the program and Spartanburg became the 6th community to kick out ICLEI in a vote of 6-0 by City Council (with one abstention).

Is the Soros-Sponsored ‘Agenda 21′ a Hidden Plan for World Government? (Yes, Only it Is Not Hidden)“- from The Blaze:

There are two more, very good reasons to be wary of Agenda 21 and the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) that supports it: George Soros and the United Nations. Soros money has been tracked to funding parts of ICLEI ;

In 1997, George Soros’s Open Society gave ICLEI a $2,147,415 grant to support its Local Agenda 21 Project

As regards the UN, that organization’s problems with America’s appreciation of freedom and self-determination is one that needs no explanation.

Currently in California, Agenda 21 is working to implement plans to create plans for sustainable management of ‘open spaces.’ The definition of what is to be considered an ‘open space’ has sparked some heated exchanges between those directing the planning meetings and citizens who want private property rights to be respected and protected. (The East Bay Tea Party video featuring a Liberal Democrat arguing against ICLEI can be seen at the end of this article.)

This type of global plan could not be implemented without a large and well-funded group pushing through its priorities. For that, Agenda 21 has the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). And ICLEI is deeply entrenched in America;

ICLEI USA was launched in 1995 and has grown from a handful of local governments participating in a pilot project to a solid network of more than 600 cities, towns and counties actively striving to achieve tangible reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and create more sustainable communities. ICLEI USA is the domestic leader on climate protection and adaptation, and sustainable development at the local government level.

Over six hundred cities,towns and counties in America are members of ICLEI? Do you support your local government agreeing to rules and regulations set up by a UN-based organization that wants private property transferred to government control? If you would like to see if your community is a member of ICLEI, you can visit their website.

Austin, Texas is one city that seems to have fallen for the ICLEI/Agenda 21 and was heavily consuming the ‘Communitariasm’ Kool-aid. A local group called Texans For Accountable Government saw what was happening and attempted to stop the Austin City Council from adopting some Agenda 21-friendly initiatives. One of TAG’s members, John Bush, delivered a succinct presentation on ICLEI and Agenda 21 that was virtually ignored. Watch his short argument against the proposed local law immediately followed by the lopsided vote adopting the plan.

[hr]

I think the Wyoming Tribune Eagle did a pretty fair article, considering the lack of the full scope of understanding what Agenda 21 is trying to accomplish. I also think the article had a good description of what the challenge looks like in trying to educate others on this stealthy mandate.

The real challenge faced in trying to wake people up about Agenda 21 is drawing the correlation between Agenda 21 to sources of city planning guidelines to actual city planning results. In addition, this information must be packaged in a clear, concise format and presentation, be it graphs or bullet points, so the connections are obvious. I have not seen an example of this yet, but I believe as many more continue to dissect Agenda 21 and cities and towns continue to vote through these guidelines the connections will become more clear of where these development guidelines are leading.

Arguing against “the local mayor” wanting to build a bike path is not the solution. Focusing on the smart grid meter technology, for example, which will have the capability to monitor and turn off power is where the real fight should start. Illustrating the open-ended and vague statements connected with Agenda 21 and how they trickle into local planning guidelines is where the focus should be. In order to connect the points you need a map, and unfortunately for those who have not done their research, we are also going to have to create the map.

The ongoing dangers Agenda 21 poses to any nation’s sovereignty is, unfortunately, an ongoing battle that if won will not happen quickly. Here are a few articles that detail aspects of Agenda 21 in designed action, researched and written by Patch Adams:

Leave a Reply