March / April 1996
Table of Contents
|
Commentary Sustainable Freedoms IPCC Report Electric Society Has Global Population Exceeded |
|
Green Religion: From the UN to your Church Global Organizational
Structure UN Organizations Involved in Global Environmental Agenda NGO Hierarchy Promoting the Global Environmental Agenda Using "Earth Day" to bury
America |
About this edition...
For the first time in a while, we're sharing some of our letters. We hope you enjoy them as much as we did. The Conference in Kansas City was a smashing success. The brief report highlights the speakers to let you know what you missed. Of course, audio tapes are available and a complete printed text of the conference presentations will be available in about 60 days. You may order tapes for delivery in about four weeks, and reserve a copy of the Conference Proceedings for delivery in about 8 weeks.
Throughout this issue you will find samples of the conference. Floy Lilley's "Sustainable Freedom" presentation was awsome. An exerpt is on page 8. Dr. Jacqueline Kasun brought staggering documentation on the population issue, along with personal observations from her participation in global conferences. The essay on page 13 was submitted by a conference attendee. The article on page 22 is a sample of what the Proceedings will be like.
Two weeks before the release date, we secured a copy of an updated GAO study of federal lands between 1964 and 1994. The findings are fascinating, but we could print only a small portion of the information on page 30. We tell you where to get the complete report.
On page 17 there is an announcement about "mini-conferences." If your organization would like to schedule a workshop or a conference on any of the subjects covered at our National Conference, we can now provide you with speakers and materials in a conference designed especially for your group.
Watch your mailbox for an important announcement from the Sustainable Freedom Coalition.
The people in Kansas City wanted something special in October and the SFC is planning it.
Commentary:
By Henry Lamb
With this issue, we enter a new phase in the struggle to keep America free for the people who want to continue the experiment in self-governance launched by Jefferson, Madison, and a handful of visionaries more than 200 years ago. When ECO was founded in 1988, we chose as our motto: "people balancing the environmental equation." It served us well. It reflected what we were trying to do. Other organizations picked up the theme; some still use a variation of the idea. It is a needed and worthy objective. In the last few years, however, we have come to understand that the "environmental equation" is simply the current excuse used to justify policy initiatives designed to advance a much broader agenda. The ultimate contest is about how people should live; how societies should be organized; and how governments should relate to private citizens.
America is the first example in history of a nation emerging free from the grasp of a government or a despot. America was created by individuals who overcame overwhelming hardships and exercised incredible ingenuity to create the means to survive and flourish. Along the way, these individuals created a government, a limited government, to perform certain, enumerated tasks, delineated by the creators. Under that limited government, the individual citizens of America created an economy which elevated the standard of living for the entire world. What has been accomplished in this world, has been accomplished by individual human beings, not by governments. When problems arise, whether in a family or in a nation, it is individual human beings that find solutions. When a new challenge is conceived, whether a moon trip or a computer, it is individual human beings that translate concepts into creation. Human beings, not governments, advance society. It is appreciation of this fact that compels us to now change our motto.
America is confronting the most serious threat it has ever faced. Forces far more dangerous than Hitler's armies or Kruschev's missiles not only surround us, but have provided our policy makers with a strategic plan to replace limited government, controlled by individuals, with a massive, omnipotent government, which controls individuals.
The enemy is not a nation, an organization, or an institution; it is an idea. It is an idea that has spread through nations, organizations, and institutions around the world, and is now permeating our schools, the media, and our public policy. The idea is simply that people should live their lives according to a set of universal "core values," enforced by a universal authority, so all people, as well as all non-human life, can benefit equally from the earth's abundance.
We make no apology for holding human life superior to all other life forms on earth. To humans, and to every other species, there is no "core" value in this life higher than freedom. Freedom without responsibility is anarchy; responsibility without freedom is tyranny. Ordinary people, our forefathers, created an extraordinary government to maintain balance between anarchy and tyranny. In recent years, that balance has been lost. Individual freedom has all but vanished, and governmental tyranny is rampant. Individual freedom is a concept to be relegated to history unless individual human beings once again recognize the threat and summon the gumption to prevail against the onslaught of well-meaning, but misguided social engineers. Once again, it is Americans who must do it.
Free people in a free society can solve any problem, or achieve any goal that can be conceived. People in a managed society can do neither. The only way society can advance is by the unleashing of the creative power and endless energy of human beings, letting each solve his own problems while creating his own livelihood in a free world of free markets. Freedom begins with the ownership of property. Without property, there can be no freedom. Individual human beings created America. Individual human beings defended America from every previous threat to her freedom. Individual human beings must again save America from the present threat. And it will be individual human beings - American human beings - that pave the road to freedom for the entire world. For these reasons, henceforth, our motto will be "Celebrating human achievement!"
We will continue to focus on environmental issues. We will continue to search for the source of
ideas and policy initiatives that tend to diminish individual freedom. And we will continue to
provide our members with reliable information to empower the response and inspire the spirit.
Humanity's most magnificent achievement can never be realized outside the quest for freedom.
Letters
Just a brief note to let you know my appreciation for a fabulously well run and hugely informative conference that Kansas City turned out to be. Hats off to you and all those who contributed to the success of the conference.
We are already hard at work parcelling out the information to those who can make the best use of the information. Interestingly, Fred Olds was able to provide me with an important document on electrical transmission policy proposals that I have passed along to the Electrical Contractors Association of Ontario who are concerned about the potential privatization of Ontario Hydro. I have spoken with their president this week and have had the opportunity to bring to the Association's attention the backgrounds of those persons who are at the root of the initiative - Strong and a Bilderberger named Donald Macdonald.
I am in the process of spreading the education material to those parents groups I am aware of that are involved in the education issue here. In the process, I discovered and am waiting for the document which will comprise the new report card - a twenty-five page document that deals, not with academic ability, but with attitudinal and behavioral traits and engages personal information on parents, siblings, family attitudes, values and religious persuasion. Nasty stuff! Hence, Tom DeWeese's material is of real importance in uncovering the secrets to what is going on. The answers to the "secrets" have eluded parents to this point. With Tom's book, an English translation of the Russian book written by L. Turchenko - a copy of which I was able to secure with the able help of Willie Peterson, will be of enormous assistance.
The volume of material on the environment extremism is going out over the wires and in the mail. My postage bill is going to be of concern - but have to press on regardless! My very best to you and Irene along with the encouragement to continue in your endeavors. You and your organization are a credit to the "spirit of America."
Doug Hindson,
Ontario, Canada
The ECO conference in Kansas City was great -- good people and good information for us to use. I want to add some comments on the energy aspects of what the UN is proposing -- specifically on the proposed carbon tax and its impact on the U.S.
(1) Production and Consumption of Energy. The U.S. by far consumes more energy than any other nation. Eighty-eight percent of this is carboniferous fuels - coal, oil, and gas. Our total carbon tax would be huge.
(2) The Electric Society Develops. This is our electric society, unique in the world. Some 40% of our energy is used to generate electricity. A steep tax on fuel will be reflected in higher cost of electricity, which, in turn, likely will be reflected in our GDP.
As you read my short essay, (see page 13) think about the comments we heard at ECO about deindustrialization and the re-establishment of hunter/gatherer societies. The carbon tax and gaia-worship should do it.
Fred C. Olds,
Prospect Heights, Illinois
Approximately one year ago, you were kind enough to take time from your busy schedule to discuss the "green" issues with me by telephone. Though I have gotten side-tracked along the way with some family needs, it is still a top priority with me to understand what is happening enough to convince others.
As a small token of my appreciation for the time you took during not one, but several phone calls, I am sending you a copy of Storm Over Rangelands by Wayne Hage. You did not have a copy when we last talked. This book is important enough to have an extra to loan out. As you no doubt know, Wayne's case goes to court in March. I am sure you are covering this "takings" case.
I am also enclosing a check for a subscription to ecologic. I am looking forward to being even more informed. The copies you sent to me and those loaned by friends have certainly helped me to become enlightened. I especially appreciate the references at the end of most articles.
Thank you so very much for those copies and other materials. Thank you also for the candid and cogent way you explained the "drama behind the scenes." I have continued to delve into a wide variety of sources on both sides and am convinced that you are absolutely right. Your courage in publishing ecologic is also appreciated.
Lucille Whiting,
Cromberg, California
As a member of ECO for over a year now, and as a professional biologist and biological consultant who is quite familiar with the issues you cover, I commend you for your impeccable and critically important treatment of the global environmental agenda. Yours is, by far, the best resource I've seen in print regarding the frighteningly serious nature of this situation.
Here in Arizona, however, NGOs such as The Nature Conservancy, still hold sway amidst an appalling and collective lack of political will among our elected and appointed state public officials. Recently, I shared with many of these people your article (November/December, 1995) on the Wildlands Project which pointed out that this plan was developed with grants from The Nature Conservancy and the National Audubon Society.
Reaction from TNC was swift, and consisted of indignant denial accompanied by the allegation that ecologic's claims are nothing more than baseless lies perpetrated by radical conspiracy theorists. As for the Wildlands Project, its Director in Tucson, Rod Mondt, also denies any linkage with TNC and that the map detailing its plans for re-wilding the Southwest (May, 1995 issue) is a pure fabrication. Mondt also states that the Wildlands Project has not developed any maps detailing its plans.
At the present time, the strategy of denial employed by these NGOs coupled with the portrayal of ecologic and anyone else who questions their actual motivations as "conspiracy nuts" and "liars," seems to be holding sway among our policy makers who are now attempting to portray TNC and other GAGs of similar ilk as reasonable and the rest of us as extremists. Although the situation here is at best grim, it is not yet beyond salvage, which brings me to the point of this letter, and my sincere request for your help.
If you can send me documentable proof of TNC's involvement in financing the Wildlands Project and similar information regarding the Wildlands Project's map for re-wilding the Southwest, I am in a position to circulate this information among our policy-makers and elected officials in both Arizona and New Mexico. With such information in hand, it is very likely that these NGOs can be exposed for what they actually are and that the political support now enjoyed by them would likely evaporate in the face of documentable refutation of their present claims.
In closing, I trust that you will be able to provide me with the information requested. If there are any charges for this information, please bill me accordingly, and I will provide swift and prompt payment to you. Since time is of crucial essence in this matter, I would greatly appreciate your response to the request as soon as feasibly possible. Thank you for your time in consideration of this request.
Dennis Parker,
Patagonia, Arizona
We were able to supply Dennis with page 21 from Wild Earth, Special Issue, 1992, from an article entitled "The Wildlands Project," by Reed F. Noss. Noss said: "The ideas and words presented here are part of a continually evolving text, parts of which have appeared in unpublished reports prepared on contract with the National Audubon Society and The Nature Conservancy." Local TNC officials may deny all they wish, but the fact is that Noss publicly acknowledged TNC participation in the Special Issue of Wild Earth, published by Dave Foreman, Chairman of the Board of the Wildlands Project, and a member of the Board of the Sierra Club which published extensive maps of the Southwest and the rest of North America in a special edition of Sierra which embraced the Wildlands Project's "Bioregion" concept. Moreover, the Wildlands Project published maps of Florida in the Fall/Winter Patagonia catalog which illustrated how all states would be converted from private property to publicly owned and protected wilderness areas as prescribed by the Wildlands Project. All of these documents were provided to the attendees at the Kansas City conference.
Denial, deceit, misinformation, and outright lies are common weapons used by those who cannot win using scientific fact, truth, logic, and common sense. We cannot prevent their continual portrayal of us as "conspiracy nuts." We can, and will, continue to present scientific fact, truth, logic, and common sense. In the end, these virtues shall prevail!
A friend of mine taped the Dr. Norm Resnick program when Henry Lamb was a guest. I don't know when I have been so motivated to fight back. However, it was also so depressing. I am scared for my children and little granddaughters. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter but I didn't hear the amount of money. If you'd send me the amount, I'll mail you a check. Thank you for all your hard, dedicated work.
Sharon Gheen,
Canton, Ohio
Send your comments and letters to ecologic,
P.O. Box 191, Hollow Rock, TN 38342.
Unsigned
letters will not be used, but name may be withheld if requested.
Representatives from sixty-four organizations, some of which are international in scope,
assembled in Kansas City, March 21-23, for the National Conference on Global
Environmentalism: Agenda 21's Impact on America. An almost overwhelming array
of information and documentation was presented by speakers with national and international
credentials to demonstrate the magnitude of the global agenda and its impact on American life.
Attendees were given two, three-ring binder workbooks, each containing hundreds of pages of
actual UN and federal government documents, articles, reports, charts, and other material rarely
seen outside the inner circle of agenda proponents.
Session one set the stage by examining the major global issues that drive the agenda. Dennis
Avery, Director of the Center for Global Food Issues at the Hudson Institute, and author of
Saving the Planet with Pesticides and Plastic, addressed the claim that the population has
exceeded the earth's carrying capacity. Dr. Kent T. Adair, whose Ph.D. is in Forest Economics,
and is from the Stephen F. Austin State University, examined the issue of biodiversity loss. Dr.
Robert Balling, Director of the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University, and a
consultant to the UN, participant in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and
author of The Heated Debate, shed much light on the workings of the UN agencies that are
advancing the global warming myth. Floy Lilley, J.D., Program Director of the Murchison Chair
of Free Enterprise at the University of Texas at Austin, wrapped up the first session with an
overview of Sustainable Freedom. (See Lilley's presentation, page 8). A lively question and
answer period allowed participants to explore issues of personal concern with these international
authorities.
The second session examined the structure of the international organizations that are responsible
for the development and implementation of the global agenda. Dr. Michael Coffman, President
of Environmental Perspectives, and author of Saviors of the Earth, and Henry Lamb, Executive
Vice President of the Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO), led the group through an
extensive flow-chart of UN organizations and NGOs (non-government organization) which
revealed individual players as well as money sources that are effectively converting the world to
a form of bureaucratic tyranny under the control of the UN and NGOs.
One of the two workbooks was provided exclusively for the third session: Convention on
Biological Diversity. Led by Dr. Michael Coffman and Tom McDonnell, Assistant Director of
Natural Resources for the American Sheep Industry Association, this session tied together the
Biodiversity Treaty, the World Heritage Treaty, the Wildlands Project, the Biosphere Reserve
Program of UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization), and
the Ecosystem Management Policy of the federal government. The workbooks provided copies
of the actual treaties, copies of the actual UN guidelines, and copies of the internal working
papers of the Department of Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency which produced
the Ecosystem Management Policy. Copies of the Wildlands Project were also provided. A
thorough case study of Yellowstone National Park, and the process by which it was listed as a
World Heritage Site "in danger" was also included.
The fourth session focused on the UN Commission on Population and Development, led by Dr.
Jacqueline Kasun, Professor of Economics at Humboldt State University and author of the War
on Population. Kasun has attended the UN conferences and reported on the behind-the-scenes
maneuvering that takes place to produce the so-called "consensus" documents published by the
conference. Some of her findings are shared in an article which appears on page 14 of this
edition.
An unexpected conference highlight was session five: Global Forum for Spiritual Leaders and
Parliamentarians. Samantha Smith, researcher and author of Trojan Horse, and Goddess Earth:
Exposing the Pagan Agenda of the Environmental Movement, presented slides which graphically
traced the involvement of the Temple of Understanding at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine
through the UN, the White House, and the Gorbachev Summit in San Francisco to the National
Religious Partnership for the Environment and its program to indoctrinate 53,000 churches with
its gaia-based theosophy. Of particular interest was a slide depicting Vice-President Al Gore,
surrounded by elephants, jack-asses, camels and other animals brought to the Cathedral of St.
John the Divine to be blessed. Gore, dressed in red ministerial robes, shown with the leaders of
the gaia religion, delivered the sermon at the Cathedral.
Session six featured two of the world's most prominent scientists on the climate change issue: Dr.
Robert Balling, and Dr. Patrick Michaels, Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University
of Virginia, past President of the American Association of State Climatologists and Program
Chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society. Both are
participants on the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change and both decry the so-called consensus published in the IPCC
report. Both attended a recent meeting of
the World Bank which resulted in Michaels
declaring that the meeting confirmed the
fears of those who suspected the UN of
trying to develop a world government. (A
related article by Dr. S. Fred Singer appears
on page 12).
Jim Sheehan of the Competitive Enterprise
Institute presented session seven on Treaties
Affecting International Trade. Few
attendees imagined the magnitude of the
treaties already in place or the regulatory
control imposed on American trade by them.
Treaties dealing with wetlands, endangered
species, hazardous waste, seabed mining, as
well as NAFTA and the World Trade
Organization were examined.
The eighth session featured Cliff Kincaid,
Director of the American Sovereignty
Action Project, and Joan Veon, President of
Veon Financial Services, Inc., and focused
on global governance. Kincaid explained
the various global taxation proposals and
explained how a bill now in Congress,
introduced by Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) would
set the stage by creating a new domestic tax
on international currency exchange, that
would be enforced by European nations, and
which could easily be dedicated to financing
the UN operations. The day before her presentation in Kansas City, Veon attended a meeting in
Boston of the world's major bankers. Her report about the progress already made toward
globalizing the monetary system was chilling.
The final session examined the President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) and its
final report released March 15, after three years and six-million dollars spent in preparation.
Fred Smith, President of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, provided background and an
overview of the Council and its work. Attendees then divided into eight Task Force Workshops
to examine in detail the recommendations produced by the PCSD. Workshop leaders included:
David Rothbard, President of Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (C-FACT); Terry Ross,
Center for Energy and Economic Development; Tom McDonnell, American Sheep Industry
Association; Dr. Jacqueline Kasun, Humboldt State University; Floy Lilley J.D., University of
Texas at Austin; Tom DeWeese, President of the American Policy Center; Dr. Michael Coffman,
President, Environmental Perspectives, Inc.; and Paula Easley, Network for Environmental
Policy.
Each Task Force Workshop analyzed the recommendations of the PCSD's corresponding Task
Forces, and produced a series of alternative recommendations designed to promote "Sustainable
Freedom." These recommendations are being compiled in a final report to be presented to the
President and to Congress by the Sustainable Freedom Coalition later in the year.
Representative Helen Chenoweth (R-ID) keynoted the conference in her banquet speech.
Chenoweth recounted several examples of government excesses in a time which she compared
with the Biblical admonition that "Wrong would become right, and right would become wrong."
She said it was morally right for Ming Lin to plow his fields in pursuit of a livelihood. But the
government said it was wrong (because he ran over a kangaroo rat), and arrested Ming Lin and
his tractor. She praised the group for their dedicated work and promised to continue to help
restore to America the virtues of individual freedom, property rights, free enterprise and personal
responsibility.
Conference proceedings are being prepared and will be mailed to all attendees. A limited
number of the published proceedings will be available to non-attendees, but the cost is not known
at this time. Those wishing to order a copy are advised to reserve a copy by calling the ECO
office at (901) 986-0099. The proceedings will not include the workbooks.
- ecologic staff
Audio tapes on the National Conference on Global Environmentaism
may be ordered individually for $6 each, or the full set of 10 tapes
for $50. Send order and paymeent to ECO, P.O. Box 191, Hollow Rock,
TN 38342. (Please allow four weeks for delivery)
By Floy Lilley, J.D.
When Maurice Strong laments "isn't the ONLY hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"
Americans are hearing the strongest alert imaginable. After all, Maurice Strong is quite
possibly the most powerful man in the green crusade today.
As Secretary-General of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Strong calls "unsustainable"
the use of appliances, home and work-place air conditioning, suburban housing, high meat
intake, frozen and convenience foods, and fossil fuels.
The phrase `sustainable development' became a part of our culture when then-President Bush
became a signatory to Agenda 21 at the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992. A chief organizer of the
Earth Summit was Norway's Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland. Brundtland was also vice-president of the World Socialist Party.
The less-than-helpful definition given `sustainable development' is that which "meets the needs
of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."
Don't you think that goal is precisely what economic and political freedoms in a constitutional
republic had achieved for almost two hundred years?
What exactly will the Central Planners decide must be saved for the future one hundred years
from today? What physical resources would a Council on Sustainable Development one hundred
years ago have locked up for us today?
Well, as Jerry Taylor of the CATO Institute has researched, they would have locked up salt,
because everyone knew that there was no other way to retard food spoilage. They would have
locked up copper, because everyone knew that only copper wire could transmit communications.
They would have locked up whale oil, because everyone knew there was no other heating oil.
They would have locked up all types of horses, because everyone knew that there was no other
means of transportation.
And they would have been wretchedly myopic.
Central Planners have had six thousand years of history to demonstrate that they always leave out
of their projections the only resource which matters -- the ultimate resource which percolates
between our ears.
Do we find that same myopia in the report from the President's Council on Sustainable
Development, or does the report call for the individual liberty and economic freedom necessary
to engage our ultimate resource?
The Litmus Tests
Examine each vision statement and each action step being recommended in the report from
Clinton's Council. Ask, "Will the consequences of this action plan be to expand or to deny
individual liberty and choices?"
The second litmus test is to ask, "Will the consequences of the implementation of Clinton's
Sustainable Development Plan be to encourage or to restrict individual economic growth?"
Overwhelmingly, the litmus tests reveal that all visions and actions which the President intends
to implement will deny individual liberty and will restrict individual economic growth. In ten
thousand years of human history those `visions and actions' are the shopworn goals of despots.
Those are men who rule over the impoverished and busy serfs on the global plantation.
Yesterday's bread and circuses are today's entitlements and TV trials.
H.L. Mencken wisely understood that "a plan to save humanity is almost always a false front for
the urge to rule."
The Three Fundamental Premises
Underlying Clinton's plan are three fundamental premises. They deserve closer inspection.
The first premise is equitable redistribution. We know exactly how redistribution, collectivism
and egalitarian concepts of equity have ever played out. It doesn't matter if the name given is
sustainable development, socialism, communism, fascism or democracy (note: the Framers
established a constitutional republic, not a democracy). It is statism. Someone is in command
and control, be it a king or an oligarchy, or a Presidential Council on Sustainable Development,
or a United Nations. The controllers legalize plunder. The controllers plunder the producers.
Human liberty is plundered. Economic freedom is plundered. Political freedom is plundered.
Such forced wealth redistribution is a failed social experiment.
Frederic Bastiat knew that life, liberty and property are the three basic requirements of human
existence. "The preservation of one is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other
two. For what are our faculties but an extension of our individuality? And what is property but
an extension of our faculties? (The Law) Only by thinking, acting, and retaining what you
produce can you bring any reality to your inalienable rights to life, liberty and property."
On all counts we have the intellect to know how false this premise is. In the 2nd century,
Tertullian was proclaiming that there were just too many people on earth and that we had
exceeded all capacity to feed them. St. Jerome repeated this proclamation 200 years later, as did
St. Thomas Malthus in 1798 and Paul Ehrlich in 1972. Yet, all the people on the planet could fit
quite nicely into the state of Texas. Only three percent of the land area of America is urban.
There are not too many people; there is too little liberty.
Reported rates of species' extinctions range from 7 species in twenty-one years to 40,000 per
year. Julian Simon and Aaron Wildavsky have questioned whether this discrepancy provides any
sound basis for public policies which result in the destruction of individual liberties.
A third underlying premise behind Clinton's Council on Sustainable Development is now
showing up in every treaty, every memorandum of understanding, every convention and every
agreement. It is being added to those that existed without it. It's called the Precautionary
Principle. Michael Fumento calls it the "better safe than sorry principle." It's here in Sustainable
Development. That principle states that when we don't know, we must not wait to know. We are
told we must implement immediately massive global agendas to solve non-problems in order to
be "safe rather than sorry."
Be skeptical of the precautionary principle as a fundamental premise. It is as wasteful and
corrupt as the equally unscientific criterion which demands proof of a negative.
Choices
The single word which Clinton's Council uses that belongs to liberty is the word `choice'. Choice
is what economic and political freedom is all about. Choice cannot exist without a limited
government functioning to preserve contracts and intellectual, personal, and real property.
To be free is to be responsible; and to be responsible, we must be free to make choices.
Thus, `choice,' which does appear in the document, is a powerful word in the rebuttal of the
report's global socialism. We know how people meet their needs. We know how people allocate
resources. We know how people build a prosperous social order based upon what Mises and
Hayek successfully defended as the economics of free enterprise and the logic of human action.
As we create the blueprint for sustainable freedoms in America, we individually must revisit the
economics that is emerging from human action. We must understand Austrian economics.
We've been deliberately dumbed down in America, and thus, that intellectual link between
property and liberty has been lost.
The link is lost in the notion of `public goods'. The entire planet has become the public good that
no market, critics say, can supply or enhance. Thereby, we must have a global government
supplying this public good of wildness and absence of human footprints. This global program is
to be funded through a global taxing power which is being proposed through the United Nations
as a global tax on all currency transactions. Such taxation was proposed in Copenhagen at the
World Summit for Social Development last March and is sure to be revisited this year at Habitat
II in Istanbul.
In a Blueprint for Sustainable Freedoms, we must use the word `price'. Prices function to reflect
what it is that we value subjectively. Prices can only reflect human values if they are based on
protected personal, intellectual and real property rights.
We have the historical record of the abject failure of collectivism, statism, socialism, and
despotism. We have the facts. These are not the 1930s when they sang the tune "Oh, if we just
had kinder, gentler central planners we would have had utopia."
The evidence is clear that egalitarianism is totally destructive of the Earth as it is of the human
spirit. Liberty has the high road. The central planners and their globalism are not only
financially bankrupt but also morally bankrupt. Sensing the bankruptcies, they are embarked
upon frenzied attempts to seize global control and extinguish the only fountainhead of human
liberty that has ever flourished.
We must provide the blueprint and the words for Americans willing to defend and deserve
liberty. We must seek and find truth for those who do understand that this is a battle for men's
minds. We must bring about our vision of sustainable freedoms. It is our heritage to do nothing
less.
(Floy Lilley, J.D., is the Program Director of the Clint W. Murchinson, Sr. After nearly three years and more than six million dollars spent, the President's
Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) has issued its final report: a
blueprint for the reorganization of society into a politically correct, centrally planned and
managed "civil society," precisely as prescribed by Agenda 21, fully integrated into the "global
neighborhood" as described by the Commission on Global Governance.
The concept of "sustainable development" entered the world officially in 1987 in the report of the
UN Commission on Environment and Development entitled Our Common Future. The
Commission was chaired by Gro Harlem Brundtland, Prime Minister of Norway and vice-president of the World Socialist Party. The PCSD adopted the Brundtland Commission's
definition of sustainable development which is "...to meet the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." Then they refined the
definition: "Sustainable development is the framework that integrates economic, environmental,
and social goals in discourse and policies that enhance the prospects of human aspiration."
What these words mean in practical terms is anybody's guess. Some light may be shed on the
meaning by examining what is not sustainable.
Maurice Strong, a member of the Brundtland Commission, Secretary-General of Earth Summit I
and II, former Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and a member
of the Commission on Global Governance, told the gathering at Earth Summit II in Rio de
Janeiro: "It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class -
involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use
of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are
not sustainable." (Emphasis added).
The PCSD final report sets forth 154 specific action recommendations to achieve 38 specific
goals, all of which are designed to accomplish "sustainability" as described by Maurice Strong.
The lengthy document skillfully paints a picture of global doom and gloom that can only be
remedied by "policies that enhance the prospects of human aspiration." The key word here is
"policies." To ordinary people, that means more laws and regulations restricting the activities of
free people. The recommendations proposed by the PCSD cover the full range of human
activities: from building permits to the bedroom (population control); from wilderness to waste;
from behavior modification instead of education to a "managed" economy instead of free
enterprise. The PCSD expects to convince society that it must submit to central planning and
management in order to save the planet. But there is a new ornament on this tired old socialist
shoe: "civil society."
The report says: "Our most important finding is the potential power of and growing desire for
decision processes that promote direct and meaningful interaction involving people in the
decisions that affect them." This rather bland statement is given more meaning: "We need a new
collaborative decision process that leads to better decisions; more rapid change; and more
sensible use of human, natural, and financial resources in achieving our goals." The new
collaborative process is called "consensus building." In fact, the PCSD report is entitled
Sustainable America: A New Consensus.
It is no surprise that the PCSD's most important finding is the need for a new collaborative
decision process. The Global Biodiversity Assessment, published by the United Nations
Environment Programme, and the report of the Commission on Global Governance, Our Global
Neighborhood, both describe extensively the process and the need to develop consensus-building
mechanisms as a means to by-pass elected officials. Collaboration and consensus-building may
sound good, but in reality, it is a tightly controlled process designed to produced a predicted
outcome which can be said to be the will of the people.
The PCSD itself is a perfect example. According to The New York Times (February 12, 1996),
Bill Clinton plans to use the report as the basis of his "environmental" plank in the reelection
campaign, claiming that it was created by consensus between industry and environmental groups.
An examination of the Council reveals that the members were chosen, not to produce an honest
consensus, but to produce a predicted outcome. Co-chair, Jonathan Lash, is President of the
World Resources Institute, whose former President, Gus Speth, now heads the United Nations
Development Program which oversees the UN Commission on Sustainable Development. The
CEOs of nine of the nation's most influential NGOs (non-government organizations) are
members of the Council, including Jay D. Hair, former President of the National Wildlife
Federation and now President of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
The IUCN is the world's largest and most powerful NGO, which, along with the World
Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) are responsible for the
Convention on Biological Diversity and the other documents presented at Rio in 1992. Nine of
the members are government officials, including Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Department of
Interior, formerly head of the League of Conservation Voters, and Carol Browner, Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency, formerly Al Gore's protege and head of Florida's
Environmental Protection Agency. The seven representatives from industry are all major
contributors to the green movement, and one industry representative is William D. Ruckelshaus,
the former EPA Administrator who banned DDT despite his own scientific committee's
recommendation to the contrary. Ruckleshaus was also on the Board of Directors of Maurice
Strong's American Water Development Company in Colorado. Council member, Pacific Gas &
Electric Company CEO, Richard A. Clarke, operates the wind-mill farm in California and has
received the benefits of grants made by the Department of Interior to the Environmental Careers
Organization. Kenneth Derr, another Council member, and CEO of Chevron, is also a member
of Maurice Strong's 50-member Business Council for Sustainable Development.
The members from industry who had concerns and reservations were overwhelmed by the greens
and the government officials. In both the Energy and Transportation, and Sustainable
Agriculture Task Forces, industry representatives refused to accept the recommendations offered
by the facilitator. They were not permitted to file dissenting reports. Instead, the Council staff
ignored their objections and published the report as if a consensus had been reached.
This process is called "collaboration" by the stakeholders until a consensus is reached. It is the
process recommended by the PCSD, and by the United Nations. The process is already being
used extensively in the Ecosystem Management Policy of the Clinton Administration.
Management Boards and "stakeholder" councils are carefully selected to include enough real
people to suggest fairness, but in truth, they are always dominated by individuals whose opinion
is well known, and whose vote is predictable.
The report lists John Ehrmann of The Keystone Center as "Facilitator." The Keystone Center in
Keystone, Colorado received grants from the Department of Interior to develop policy
recommendations on "Biodiversity," and on "Ecosystem Management." In both instances, the
collaborators were carefully chosen from environmental groups and government officials, with
only a few token dissenters. The process is deceitful and well-calculated to produce the desired
outcome behind the cloak of collaboration and consensus-building.
Collaboration and consensus-building, as practiced by the PCSD and the UN organizations, is
designed to avoid accountability and by-pass duly elected officials. The democratic process in a
Constitutional Republic allows anyone to propose any idea to any level of government. Elected
officials debate and decide. Decisions are recorded by individual voting records. People may
reelect or unelect those officials based on the decisions they make. Where is the accountability
for an Ecosystem Management Policy, developed by the Keystone Center, and implemented by
appointed government officials who were formerly activists in environmental organizations?
How are bad decisions rectified when they originate in Switzerland, are amplified in Rio de
Janeiro, articulated by a stacked-deck Council in America, and implemented by bureaucrats in
the field - all without input, review, or oversight by any elected official?
The PCSD, like the UN Commission on Sustainable Development, and virtually every other UN
initiative, seeks to integrate economic, environmental, and social policies into a system of
governance by "civil society," which is defined in UN documents to be NGOs accredited by the
UN. Of course, most of the American main-stream environmental organizations are affiliated
with accredited NGOs, and are, therefore, the "civil society" which is expected to play a major
role in governance through the new, collaborative, consensus-building, decision-making process.
At the heart of the PCSD report is the assumption that society must be managed; it cannot be
allowed to move freely as the result of individual decisions. The report says: "The narrow and
immediate interests of individuals, organizations, or government officials do not necessarily
coincide with the long-term interests of a larger community at home or abroad." The whole
notion of individual freedom, private property rights, free enterprise, and personal responsibility
are obsolete concepts which are barriers to the new "earth ethic" of a global neighborhood. The
PCSD recommends restructuring the educational curriculum into a process of behavior
modification, rather than a search for truth. Other recommendations would "harness market
forces" through a system of punitive taxes on consumer goods and government subsidies for
activities deemed to be "sustainable." Stewardship is defined to be participation in the
collaborative process, not personal responsibility. The PCSD recommends that stakeholder
councils, dominated by environmental NGOs, create "community visions" that plan every facet
of human activity within the community, forcing people to live in urban clusters, use mass transit
or non-fossil-fueled vehicles (bicycles or horses), and engage in only approved businesses which
produce zero waste and are certified to be sustainable and socially responsible by an NGO
appointed by the government.
The PCSD, appointed by Bill Clinton and Al Gore, has produced the American version of policy
recommendations which are being duplicated in 100 nations by Maurice Strong's Earth Council,
and Gus Speth's UN Commission on Sustainable Development. Under the Clinton
Administration, America is pushing the global agenda toward global governance. At the lighting
of the Olympic torch, even Hillary announced that "we are all a part of the global family."
Nowhere in the global agenda, nor in the PCSD report, is there any reference to individual
freedom or individual excellence, or private property rights, or free enterprise - the virtues and
principles that made America flourish. Instead, sadly, America is promoting policies advanced
by the vice-president of the World Socialist Party, behind the banner of sustainable
development.
- ecologic staff
By S. Fred Singer, Ph.D.
I attended the recent Madrid and Rome meetings of the United Nations-sponsored
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on behalf of The Science &
Environmental Policy Project, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research group. We wanted to
document how the nearly 200 governmental delegates from some 120 nations went about
fashioning a summary from an underlying scientific report prepared by mainly Western academic
scientists. The impression I gained is rather different from the one projected by Richard A. Kerr
("It's official: First glimmer of greenhouse warming seen," News, 8 December, p 1565).
The IPCC summary report1 presents selected facts and omits important information:
This negative result from the real atmosphere should be compared with what climate models
predict: A "best" warming rate of 0.30C per decade, according to IPCC's 1992 summary - newly
reduced to 0.20C per decade in the 1995 summary. With climate models lacking validation, why
then should we trust any of the forecasts about future warming, sea level rise, and other claimed
impacts - or use them as the basis for costly policies?
GCMs consider only the "direct" effects that involve scattering of solar radiation and thus an
increase in albedo. It is generally acknowledged, however, that the indirect effects, involving the
nucleation of cloud droplets, are more important and far reaching. Unfortunately, these are also
difficult to model reliably. To the extent that pollution control by major emitting nations is
reducing the creation of sulfate aerosols, one would expect the current average warming rate to
be greater than 0.30C per decade, and one would expect to see enhanced regional differences,
making the disagreement with observations even greater.
In view of the above, it is difficult to give credence to the statement that "over recent decades the
observed spatial pattern of temperature change increasingly
resembles the expected greenhouse-aerosol pattern" 1 (emphasis added). The research has not yet, to my knowledge, appeared in
the peer-reviewed literature, violating a major rule of the IPCC. More important, there has not
been time for an independent scrutiny to see, for example, whether the resemblance really
"increases," irrespective of the GCM and aerosol scenarios that are used.
1. Reference: "Working Group 1 report of the IPCC," available from Bruce Callander,
bacallander@mail.meto.govt.uk.
(This article was prepared for and published in Science, Vol. 271, February 2, 1996. By Fred C. Olds
The American people have come to regard an ample supply of electricity as almost a right.
This is because of the way our society has grown. I want to review a little bit of history of
how we got where we are.
We are a unique electric society in the world. No other nation developed the way we developed.
None. We did it with market forces, private sector activities, technological innovators. When
the Pilgrims came here 376 years ago, this country literally was forests and rivers, plains, deserts,
mountains. There were no cities, no manufacturing, no electric lights, no telephones, no roads.
It was a wilderness, and the people came here on their small sailing vessels, and they built their
new homeland.
From the first landings in 1620, it took the new settlers only 155 years to reach the point where
they felt strong enough to declare themselves a nation with the Declaration of Independence. At
that time, this country still was very much an undeveloped nation - well below the standards of
the advanced nations of the world. But between necessity and entrepreneurship, progress was
impressive. During the next hundred years or so, the U.S. caught up with and surpassed the other
industrial nations of the world. By the 1950s and 1960s, we, with just five percent of the
population of the world, were producing and using one-third of all the energy being produced and
used in the world of four billion people. At that time, we owned 80 to 90% of all technology in
the world. We developed it, we owned it. We were the largest food exporter. We produced
25% to 30% of all the world's goods and services. We were able to do this because people were
free to find and develop and use the resources that were here in this country, and because they
were ingenious and they were persistent and they were industrious. And because they produced
electricity.
I think I shall insert an example here - the development of the world's oil industry. Following the
discovery of oil in the U.S., the industry rather soon outpaced the rest of the world in oil
technology. Although Mid-East oil reserves are enormous - many times larger than ours - it was
only the with application of U.S. technology that today's production rates from the Mid-East
fields became possible.
We became able to lead the world in so may areas because we developed as an electric society,
not one of just raw energy, or human energy. A 1,000 MW electric power plant generates
electricity which is equivalent to the energy produced by 25 million laborers. That is a measure
of the importance of electricity. In the U.S. today, the average use of energy per person is equivalent to the energy in 14 tons of coal. That's 25 times the energy use
of an average inhabitant in half the world today. We rose to our position of pre-eminence in the
world because we developed as an electric society with an independent and free market economy.
We are obligated, as I see it, to help others gain the benefits of the electric way of life.
By Jacqueline R. Kasun, Ph.D.
(Dr. Kasun is Professor of Economics Emeritus, and The reason why it is so easy to make people believe we face a crisis of overpopulation and
environmental destruction is that we all know we are crowded. And most people on earth
are becoming more crowded every day. To quote a famous authority: "the world is...full,
and the population is too large for the soil."1 Another famous thinker has decried "our teeming
population. Our numbers are burdensome to the world, which can hardly
support us..."2 These
men, however, were not speaking about Kansas City or Bangladesh in our time, but about
Carthage and Rome almost two thousand years ago. The first speaker was St. Jerome, and the
second was the great church father, Tertullian. Neither of these men could soar over their cities,
as I just have, and see that outside of their immediate view there were vast empty spaces with
almost no people at all.
It is estimated that the area occupied by human beings amounts to no more than 1 percent of the
earth's land surface.3 If all of the people in the world moved into the state of Texas, each person
could be given the space available in the typical American home, and all the rest of the world
would be empty.4 The population density of this giant city would amount to about 20,000
persons per square mile; San Francisco has about 16,000 persons per square mile; inner London
has about 20,000, and Brooklyn has more than 30,000.5
Few people realize how rapidly the rate of world population growth is declining. In Europe and
the United States, fertility has been below replacement for almost two decades, and population is
declining in several countries. Relative to their numbers, women of child-bearing age in the
United States are having little more than half as many babies as they did in the late 1950's. The
typical American woman in 1960 would have between 3 and 4 children during her lifetime. By
1992, she would have only two. Fertility has declined to even lower levels throughout Europe,
where women now have fewer than two children each. The typical Spanish woman in 1960
would have almost 3 children; by 1992, this number was only 1.4, while
in Italy it was 1.3.6 The
U.S. population is headed toward decline, although it is not yet declining.
Similar changes are occurring in the less-developed world. In 1960, the typical woman in the
developing world was having more than six children during her lifetime; by 1992, this number
was less than four.7 In Mexico, for example, the typical woman in 1992 would have 3.3 children
during her lifetime, about half as many as the typical woman in 1960. Women in South Korea
now have 1.7 children on average, less than a third as many as in
1960.8
If these trends continue in the developed and the developing worlds, world population growth
will approach zero when it is less than double its present size before the end of the next century.
By that time, the size of the populations in some of the presently industrialized countries -
including Spain, Italy, Germany, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands and Japan - are likely to be
significantly smaller than they are today.9
There are solid reasons why this trend toward zero growth of the world population is likely to
continue or accelerate, whatever policies of government population control may be. Great
increases in agricultural productivity during this century have made it possible for a very few
farmers to feed a great many other people. In 1929, more than one in five American workers, or
22 out of 100, worked in agriculture. By 1993 it was less than 3 out of 100. The United Nations
estimates that in 1965, 22 percent of the labor force in industrial countries worked in agriculture,
but by 1990-1992, it was only 9 percent. During the same period in the developing countries,
the percentage fell from 72 to 58.10
This world-wide shift from rural to
urban living causes great changes in
family life. Farm women raise their
children while they do their work. But
most city work is not done in the home;
it is done in a factory or office that is
away from home, and this means that it is much harder to raise children in the city than in the
country. To try to raise a child in the city means that the mother usually must give up her job and
the income it provides. Therefore, as countries industrialize and urbanize, fertility declines, as
we observe now throughout the world.
This decline can be very large, as, for example, in Spain and Italy and South Korea, and highly
resistant to public efforts to reverse it, as has been shown in the case of France, which has tried
energetically to increase fertility but without much success. In my judgment, this, and not "over-population", is likely to be the real population problem of the twenty-first century, to try to
induce people to produce enough young taxpayers to support the constantly growing public
bureaucracy in its accustomed manner.
There is another factor that will reinforce the inexorable trend toward stabilization or decline of
world population: as fertility declines, the average age of the population rises. As it does, the
proportion of young people in the population falls, while the proportion of the aged increases.
Because the older populations in all countries have higher death rates than younger populations,
the death rate rises.
Take Sweden as an example. Because fertility in Sweden, a relatively wealthy country, has been
low for many years, almost a fifth of the population is older than 65, while in Mexico, only 4
percent of the population falls into this age group. As a result, the death rate in Sweden is 12 per
thousand, about the same as the birth rate, while in youthful Mexico, the death rate is only 5 per
thousand, less than a fifth as high as the birth rate.12 In the future, as economic development and
urbanization continue, Mexico, will, demographically speaking, become more like Sweden.
Increasing world urbanization has yet another effect: it means that a growing proportion of world
population lives in the necessarily crowded urban conditions, and is therefore easily persuaded
that the world is "over-populated", even though the countryside is virtually empty of people.
Can the world feed a population twice as large as at present? Every honest scholar who has
addressed this question has concluded that agricultural resources are fully adequate for the task.
Not only do farmers use only a fraction of the world's arable land - perhaps a third to a half,
comprising about one-ninth of the earth's land area13, but they also use the available agricultural
resources at only a fraction of their productive capability. Roger Revelle, former director of the
Harvard Center for Population Studies, has estimated that the less-developed continents, those
whose present food supplies are most precarious, are capable of feeding 18 billion people - or
more than four times their present population.14
Studies published within the past three years by Rockefeller University and the World Bank have
similarly reached optimistic conclusions regarding world food-raising
capabilities.15 Nor would
an increase in food output require the destruction of forests and wilderness preserves; Colin
Clark of Oxford University estimated that food could be raised for several times as large a
population as at present, while leaving half the earth's land surface
in wilderness areas.16
Other resources are similarly adequate to support an increase in world population. According to
the UN Food and Agriculture Association, approximately 30 percent of the earth's land area is
forested, about the same as in 1949 and 1950, when the the agency
published its first estimates.17
In the United States, 33 percent of the land area is forested, and net timber growth is more than
three times as large as in 1920, exceeding harvest by 33 percent. Forty-seven million acres of
American forest land, or an area equivalent to the states of New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and
New Hampshire, is reserved from timber harvest, in
wilderness, parks and other classifications.18
Other resources exist in equally abundant quantities. People who want to create a panic look at
the reported numbers for various mineral reserves, divide them by the annual usage, and then
announce that in 5 or 10, or some other short period of years, we will be completely "out" of
copper or lead, or some other important metal. Thus Paul Ehrlich predicted that at 1965 rates of
extraction, the world would run out of lead in 1983, and zinc in
1985.22 What such people do not
tell their worried hearers, is that the business of proving reserves is quite costly and, therefore,
companies usually do not do it for more than a rather short period ahead of need. This is why, if
you look at the figures over a number of years, you will find that reserves have not changed very
much, even though a great deal has gone into production. There is no reason to doubt the
conclusion of researchers at Resources for the Future, that "in the long run, most of our metal
needs can be supplied...from essentially inexhaustible
sources."23
According to the best authorities, there is enough natural gas and coal on earth to satisfy demands
for at least a thousand years to come.24
Indeed, now that so many of their forecasts have proved wrong, the population alarmists no
longer say so much about resource "exhaustion." But they now use the ozone hole, global
warming, and the spotted owl for the same purpose.
If, then, the human population is very far from straining or even approaching the limits of
resource availability, why is there so much poverty, hunger, and misery? For the answer, we
might consider Ethiopia, where the Marxist government set out to "socialize" the farming sector,
which had supported the Ethiopian population and provided food for export for centuries.
Traditionally, private traders had bought the farm surpluses in good years, stored them,
transported them by donkey trains, and sold them in years of drought. This system, described in
the Biblical story of Joseph, enabled the country to endure centuries of cycles of rain and
drought.25
Determined to stamp out private trade, the Marxist government seized the traders' stores of grain
and exported them to the Soviet Union in exchange for arms. The government also seized the
traders' animals, which then perished, because no one was interested in caring for a socialized
donkey.
When the inevitable drought arrived and crops failed, there were no buffer stocks to feed the
hungry and no means for transporting and distributing the food aid that arrived from abroad. The
civil war, which raged throughout the three decades after 1962, added
to the horrors.26
Elsewhere in Africa, governments have ruined their economies by excessive government
spending, high taxes on farmers, inflation, restrictions on trade, too much government ownership,
over-regulation of private economic activity, and government creation of "powerful vested
interests" who enrich themselves at the expense of the majority of the
people.27
Meanwhile, in other developing countries, such as India, Mexico, and China, the governments
appointed themselves as chief buyers of food, paying less than cost for food to subsidize
politically-active consumers living in the cities. This policy drove farmers into poverty, resulting
in insufficient harvests, and ultimately famine in India and China. It also triggered an exodus of
destitute farmers who abandoned their fields and sought their fortunes in the cities whenever they
were permitted to do so.
Not surprisingly, when the governments increased payments to farmers, food production
increased. But for the most part, the governments continued to channel their money in other
directions and subsidize factories, which were headed by those with close political ties to the
parties in power. At the same time, the governments continued to strangle private business with
taxes and licensing requirements, even as they restricted private trade. In short,the governments
manipulated their economies to the advantage of a few elite and the
misery of the many poor.28
Aid pouring in from foreign sources supported much of this so-called "development" by
transferring valuable resources from the poor of the rich countries to the rich of the poor
countries. When the inevitable failures of this subsidized "development" occurred, there was a
need for an alibi. "Overpopulation" supplied that need. Many governments and international
agencies, most notably the World Bank, have used this excuse.
If "overpopulation" were the reason for poverty and misery, we would find that the most heavily
populated countries were the poorest. But this is very far from the case.
India has promoted strenuous programs of population control, including compulsory sterilization.
However, Stanley Fischer, First Deputy Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund,
departing from the line of the World Bank, explains India's poverty on other grounds. He says,
"the tentacles of the Indian government reach too far, and help stifle the potentially creative
private sector." He says that India's restrictions on farm marketing and independent businesses
and labor markets create poverty and unemployment. He says that were it not for these policies,
the Indian economy could be as successful as the Asian "tigers" - Taiwan, Korea, Singapore, and
Hong Kong.29
To conclude, if the people of the world are floating in a lifeboat, it is a mammoth one, quite
capable of carrying many times its present passengers. An observer, in fact,
would get the impression that he was looking at an empty boat, since the present occupants take
up only 1 percent of the boat's space, and use less than one-ninth of its ice-free land area to raise
their food and other agricultural products. The mythical observer from Mars would surely be
astonished to find such a people in a dither about "over-population."
1. Jerome, The Principal Works, cited in Jacob Viner, Religious Thought and Economic Society,
(Durham: Duke University Press, 1978), pp. 33-34.
2. Tertullian, De Anima; A Treatise on the Soul, cited in Viner, op. cit, p. 34.
3. Peter M. Vitousek, Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich, and Pamela A. Matson, "Human
Appropriation of the Products of Photosynthesis," BioScience, Vol. 36, No. 6, June, 1986, p. 369;
See also C.A. Doxiadis and G. Papaioannou, Ecumenopolis, the Inevitable City of the Future,
(New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1974, p. 179.
4. 5.6 billion world population divided by 262,000 square miles of land in Texas = 21,000
persons per square mile or 1300 square feet per person.
5. Based on city sizes and populations given in Encyclopedia Britannica.
6. U.N. Development Programme, Human Development Report, 1994, Table 45.
7. U.N. Development Programme, op. cit., Table 45.
8. Ibid., Table 23.
9. Eduard Bos et al, World Population Projections 1994-95, World Bank: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1994.
10. U.N. Development Programme, op. cit., Table 17.
11. Ibid., Table 44.
12. Population Reference Bureau, World Population Data Sheet 1995.
13. Roger Revelle, "The World Supply of Agricultural Land" in Julian L. Simon and Herman
Kahn, eds., The Resourceful Earth: A Response to Global 2000, (Oxford, England: Basil
Blackwell Inc., 1984); Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, FAO
Yearbook: Production, annual).
14. Revelle, op. cit.
15. Paul Waggoner, How Much Land Can Ten Billion People Spare for Nature? (New York:
Rockefeller University, Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, 1994); Donald O.
Mitchell and Merlinda D. Ingco, The World Food Outlook, (Washington, D.C.: World Bank)
Nov. 1993.
16. (Colin Clark, Population Growth: The Advantages (Santa Ana, California: R. L. Sassone,
1972)
17. FAO Yearbook, op.cit.
18. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Resources of the United States, 1992.
19. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, California's Forests and Rangelands:
Growing Conflict Over Changing Uses, 1988, p. 313; the U.S. Forest Service gives a figure of
1.3 million acres, which probably reflects a difference of definition; see Forest Resources of the
United States, op. cit..
20. California Department of Forestry, op. cit., p. 322.
21. California State Board of Equalization, Timber Tax Division, California Timber Harvest,
annual.
22. Quoted in Clark, op. cit., pp. 7-9.
23. Ronald G. Ridker and Elizabeth W. Cecelski, "Resources, Environment, and Population:
The Nature of Future Limits", Population Matters, New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers,
1990, p. 90.
24. Ridker and Cecelski, op. cit., p. 26; Julian Simon, Population Matters, New Brunswick:
Transaction Publishers, 1990, p. 90.
25. Yonas Deressa, "The Politics of Famine," Biblical Economics Today, VIII (April/May),
1985.
26. Ibid.
27. Christine Jones and Miguel A. Kiguel, "Africa's Quest for Prosperity: Has Adjustment
Helped?" Finance and Development, June, 1994.
28. Sven Rydenfelt, A Pattern for Failure: Socialist Economies in Crisis (New York: Harcourt
Brace, 1984; Gregory C. Chow, The Chinese Economy (New York: Harper & Row, 1985; Luis
Pazos, "Why is Underdeveloping Mexico
Going Backwards," report presented by Luis
Pazos at the Mont Perlerin Society,
Indianapolis, September 7, 1987.
29. Stanley Fischer, address at Tenth Exim
Bank Commencement Day, Bombay, March
27, 1995, excerpted in IMF Survey, Vol. 24,
No. 10, May 11, 1995, pp. 166-168.
After more than five years of
preparation, the National
Religious Partnership for the
Environment (NRPE) became a
reality in September, 1993. By April, 1994,
"Education and Activity Kits" were being
sent to 53,000 American Congregations
reaching an estimated 100 million
congregants. Throughout America, churches
are being used to advance the global
environmental and social agenda. Paul
Gorman, NRPE's Executive Director says:
"Progress will be gradual and cumulative.
But how people of faith engage the
environmental crisis will have much to do with the future well-being of the planet, and in all
likelihood, with the future of religious life as well."1
Gorman is right. An examination of the belief system upon which the NRPE is constructed
suggests that religious life throughout the world may well be at the brink of a transformation that
dwarfs other religious milestones. The emergence of Buddha, Christ, and Mohammed are
pivitol points in history for world religions. Constintine and Martin Luther are major milestones
in the history of Christianity. All of these are but steps toward a new religious enlightenment
now being proclaimed by the NRPE as a part of the global agenda that seeks to encompass all the
world's religions into a new "global ethic" the center of which is the protection, preservation, and
even the worship of nature.
The Temple of Understanding is directed by an international Board of Directors and Advisors.
Among them are Dr. Robert Muller, who served as a Assistant Secretary General to three
Secretary-Generals at the United Nations. He is now Chancellor of the UN University of Peace
in Cost Rica and is the author of the World Core Curriculum used by UNESCO and other UN
educations programs, and is the foundation for "Goals 2000" also known as "Outcome Based
Education" in America. Muller's book, New Genesis: Shaping a Global Spirituality, prompted
the Temple of Understanding to convene a meeting of world religious leaders on Mount Sinai in
October, 1984. In a 1995 interview with the World Goodwill Newsletter, Muller said: "The UN
is humanity's incipient global brain, and it is part of its global nervous system (media, NGOs,
etc.) We still need a global heart ... and we still need a global soul, namely our consciousness
and fusion with the entire universe and stream of time."4 What Muller means is clarified in
another speech delivered to World Goodwill. Muller says: "we are temporary living
manifestations or incarnations of this earth. We are the living earth. Each of us is a cell, a
perceptive nervous unit of the earth. The living consciousness of the earth is beginning to
operate through us."
"You as cosmic and earth cells, are part of a vast biological and evolutionary phenomenon
which is of first importance at this stage, namely humanity as a whole, the whole human species,
has become the brain, the heart, the soul, the expression and the action of the earth. We now
have a world brain which determines what can be dangerous or mortal for the planet: the United
Nations and its agencies, and innumberable groups and networks around the world, are a part of
this brain. This is our newly discovered meaning. We are a global family living in a global
home. We are in the process of becoming a global
civilization."5
According to The Florida Catholic (February 14, 1992), Berry says: "We must rethink our ideas
about God; we should place less emphasis on Christ as a person and redeemer. We should put
the Bible away for 20 years while we radically rethink our religious ideas. What is needed is the
change from an exploitative anthropocentrism to a participative biocentrism. This change
requires something more than environmentalism." Berry is an editorial advisor to Creation
magazine, which says: "...the world is being called to a new `post-denominational,' even a post-Christian belief system that sees the earth as a living being - mythologically, as Gaia, Mother
Earth - with mankind as her consciousness. Such worship of the universe is properly called
cosmolatry."7
Lovelock, Muller, and Berry are convinced that the gaia hypothesis is the inescapable, universal
truth which has been distorted and forgotten by the human species. Only now, with the
emergence of the gaia hypothesis, is the world beginning to rediscover the truth so easily
recognized by the ancient mystics, shaman, and pagan worshipers of the past. Berry says that
"This new period in history might be called the Ecozoic era. It requires that we return to the
mythic origis of the scientific venture. We feel the scientists must participate to some extent in
shamanic powers. We might say that the next phase of scientific development will require above
all the insight of shamanic powers."8
While James Lovelock is generally credited with originating the gaia hypothesis, Anodea Judith
says that the concept was first published several years before Lovelock's book, in a publication
called Green Egg in an article entitled Theagenesis: The Birth of the Goddess (Vol V, No. 40),
by Otter Zell. It is significant because the publication describes itself to be "The official journal
of the Church of All Worlds, whose mission is to evolve a network of information, mythology and
experience that provides a context and stimulus for reawakening Gaea, and reuniting Her
children through tribal community dedicated to responsible
stewardship."9
In a Green Egg editorial, entitled On the Occasion of Bill & Al's Excellent Election, Otter Zell
writes: "We are neo-pagans - implying an eclectic reconstruction of ancient Nature religions,
and combining archetypes of many cultures with other mystic and spiritual disciplines - and our
beliefs and values are no different from those you describe as your own. We ask no special
favors; we wish nothing more than that you be true to yourself, and to your own values and
ideals as expressed in Earth in the Balance. Know that there are half a million American
NeoPagas out here who support you, who voted for you, and who will rally to the aid of your
policies for the salvation of the Earth and the reunification of the
Great Family."10
Judith further explains the gaia hypothesis in language similar to Muller and Berry. She says:
"The basic evolutionary pattern in biological organisms is movement toward greater
consciousness. When all parts of Gaia recognize each other as participants in paralel growth
heading for an Omega point of coalescence and intergrative harmony, then the global
consciousness of this planet will have awakened to a realization of identity as a global being.
Gaia's evolutionary thrust is reflected in the spiritual goals of
self-realization."11 The goal of the
new "Earth Ethic" being promoted by the National Religious Partnership for the Environment is
this "self-realization" that comes from acceptance of the gaia hypothesis as the reason why
human behavior must be modidfied to protect, preserve, and even worship the earth goddess -
gaia.
Herein lies a glimpse of the belief system that initiated the National Religious Partnership for the
Environment. These beliefs are not held in a vacuum. The entire program of the Cathedral of St.
John the Divine is devoted to "sacred ecology." The cathedral is visited by 750,000 people each
year who see an "Earth Shrine" which includes a 25-foot high wall planted with forest flora -
bromeliads, orchids, ferns, mosses, and aquatic plants - from rain forests, and blue crabs, striped
bass, mussels and an assortment of other animals from New York's estuaries and wetlands.
Morton, Dean of the Cathedral, says the Earth Shrine Habitat is a symbol of ecotheology. The
Amicus Journal (Winter, 1993) says: " Morton shares Berry's belief that an ecological
interpretation of the cosmos requires a corresponding re-interpretation of the story of creation.
The new scientific evidence about the origins of life made me realize that we could no longer
deal with the human story as something apart from the life story, or the earth story, or the
uiverse story."
Al Gore not only facilitated the Washington meetings and provided special private meetings with
Congressional leadership, he also delivered the sermon at the Cathedral's annual celebration of
St. Francis. The service featured the Blessing of the Animals. Among the animals led down the
aisle to be blessed at the altar was an elephant, llama, camel, a python so large that two men had
to carry it, birds, algae (brought by Paul Mankiewicz, Director of the Gaia Institute), and a bowl
full of worms and compost. In his sermon, Al Gore declared that "God is not separate from the
earth."12
With a full-time staff of 12, a firm written agreement which binds four of the nations leading
religious organizations (U.S. Catholic Conference; National Council of Churches of Christ;
Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life; and the Evangelical Environmental Network),
and five million dollars supplied by the nations most prestigious
foundations,13 and the blessings
of the Vice President of the United States, and the nation's most prestigious scientists, the
National Religious Partnership for the Environment has begun spred its belief system and its
social agenda through the churches in America.
The NRPE is not content to simply preach its gospel and welcome converts who come
voluntarily; their mission is to promote a social agenda which will result in publc policies that
force people to live by their tenets. In June, 1994, 40 NRPE-affiliated staffers met with 25 senior
White House officials (including the Vice President, Secretary Bruce Babbitt, EPA Administrator
Carol Browner, and Under Secretary of State, Tim Wirth) to begin an ongoing process of
dialogue and appropriate collaboration. The NRPE provides policy updates and action alerts to
participating congregations.
Amy Elizabeth Fox, Associate Director of the NRPE, says: "We are required by our religious
principles to look for the links between equity and ecology. The fundamental emphasis is on
issues of environmental justice, including air pollution and global warming; water, food and
agriculture; population and consumption; hunger, trade and industrial policy; community
economic development; toxic pollution and hazardous waste; and
corporate responsibility."14
The social agenda is of the NRPE is, in fact, the global environmental agenda as set forth in the
Rio Declaration and reflected in the Convention of Climate Change, the Convention on
Biological Diversity, the President's Council on Sustainable Development, the recommendations
of the Commission on Global Governance, and virtually all of the other UN-initiated documents
that are impacting America. The entire agenda has been developed by those people who have
experienced the so-called "enlightenment" which occurs upon acceptance of the gaia hypothesis
as the universal truth that transcends all other religious beliefs. The NRPE seeks to convince its
religious partners to modify their belief systems to embrace gaia. Individual members of
congregations who truly convert will not mind modifying their behavior to conform to the
requirements of the new "earth ethic." Those who do not voluntarily convert, will be constrained
by new laws, regulations, and international agreements.
1. National Religious Partnership for the Environment, "Statement of Goals," 1047 Amsterdam
Avenue, New York, 10025, (212) 316-7441, Fall, 1995.
2. The Temple of Understanding: A Global Interfaith Association, 1047 Amsterdam Avenue,
New York, NY 10025 (212) 865-9117, (Promotional Brochure mailed June 1, 1992 with cover
letter from Eileen Laurence, Assistant to the Executive Director).
3. Shared Vision, Global Forum of Spiritual and Parliamentary Leaders on Human Survival,
Number 1, 1989.
4. World Goodwill Newsletter, No. 2, 1995, p.3.
5. Robert Muller, A Cosmological Vision of the Future, World Goodwill Occasional Paper,
October 1989, World Goodwill, P.O. Box 722, Cooper Station, New York, NY 10276.
6. Wanderer Forum Quarterly, Restructuring the Church Into Their Own Image - The Link
Between RENEW and the New Biblical Scholarship, by Frank Moriss; from p.43, RENEW Small
Christian Communities, Paulist Press, Mahwah, NJ, p.10.
7. Donna Steichen, Ungodly Rage: The Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism, Ignatious Press,
1991, p. 237.
8. Thomas Berry and Brian Swimme, The Amicus Journal, "The Universe Story: A new,
celebratory cosmology," Winter, 1993, p.30.
9. Masthead, Green Egg. Vol. XXVI, No. 100, Spring, 1993.
10. Ibid, p.2.
11. Ibid, p.17.
12. Cathedral, News of the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, Fall, 1994, Volume 8, No. 2, p.7.
13. Funding supplied by: The Bauman Foundation; Peter and Mimi Buckley; The Nathan
Cummings Foundation; The Ford Foundation; The W. Alton Jones Foundation; The Joyce
Mertz-Gilmore Foundation; The Moriah Foundation; The C.S. Mott Foundation; The New World
Foundation; The Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation; The Pew Charitable Trusts; Stephen C.
Rockefeller; The Surdna Foundation; and the Turner Foundation.
14. Cathedral, op. cit., "St. Francis in the Cities," p.7.
Presentation of Henry Lamb, Two parallel, complementary forces are at work in the world, working together to advance a
global environmental agenda. Throughout this conference, you will learn about several
major agenda items and the impact the agenda is having on domestic policy and American
life. In this session, we will examine the structural mechanism of the forces which are gaining
power and influence throughout the world. Those forces are: (1) international governmental
organizations affiliated with the United Nations, and (2) NGOs (non-governmental
organizations) accredited by the United Nations.
Here it is necessary to pause and recognize that any critical discussion of the United Nations is
countered by UN supporters with immediate denial and charges of fanaticism. It is not politically
correct to challenge the UN. Therefore, those who do are frequently painted with a broad brush
and labeled as right-wing extremist wackos. Madeleine Albright, Ambassador to the United
Nations, is quoted in The Arizona Republic as saying: "This is not a world government and the
people who say that are trying to create a bogeyman...it is really a
complete figment...."1 But
within three weeks of this denial, the Commission on Global Governance released its three-year
study which provides a 400-page blueprint to achieve global governance by the year 2000.
This defense strategy has been very effective; many people are reluctant to even discuss United
Nations activities for fear of being labeled wacko-extremist. At the outset, I want you to know
that there is no conspiracy at work. There is no group of powerful men pulling the strings of
agency puppets. There is no invasion on the horizon. There is no sinister, private plot to take
over the world. Yet, those who have expressed such fears over the years are now vindicated. It
is now clear, through the public documents published by a variety of official agencies that the
objective of the global agenda is nothing short of global governance. By examining the structure
of the forces driving the agenda it will become clear how global governance can be accomplished
without the violent take-over that many people fear and Ms. Albright and others ridicule.
The United Nations Charter came into force October 24, 1945, created by 50 nations meeting in
San Francisco. The World Bank, created in 1944, and the GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade), created in 1947, were the beginning of a United Nations System that now includes
185 member nations and more than 130 organizations and agencies around the world. The public
perception of the United Nations includes a magnificent building in New York where the world's
leaders assemble periodically to discuss lofty matters of state. Other images reflect television
coverage of endless Security Council debates, and compassionate relief efforts in distant famine-stricken countries. Beyond that perception, the UN is an unknown entity with little chance of
discovery.
The UN system is governed by four special councils: (1) the Security Council, (2) the Economic
and Social Council (ECOSOC), (3) the Trusteeship Council, and (4) the International Court of
Justice. You may wish to refer to the organizational chart in your workbook (item number 2-1).
This chart is greatly oversimplified and includes only a few of the more important organizations
within the UN system. The International Court of Justice is a voluntary court; members may or
may not submit conflicts to this court, and if they do, the court's decision is not binding. Later in
the conference, you'll learn that the Commission on Global Governance would change the
voluntary status of the court.
The Security Council consists of 15 members. Five nations, China, France, Russia, the U.K., and
the United States, hold permanent member status and power to veto any resolution. It is in this
Council that decisions are made about peacekeeping forces and other military operations.
Changes are also in the wind for this council. The Trusteeship Council was charged with the
responsibility of overseeing those nations in transition after the war from colonies to
independence. The last of those transitional nations gained independence two years ago, and
since then, the Council has been looking for a reason to justify its existence. The Commission on
Global Governance has a whole new agenda in mind. We'll look into that in another session.
The fourth governing Council is the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). This body
oversees the activity of a host of UN organizations and agencies, a few of which are shown on
the chart. We will focus on three of these organizations: UNESCO, UNDP, and UNEP. These
are the organizations through which much of the global agenda is advanced. Each of these three
UN organizations has its own governing board. Each operates with a wide range of
programmatic freedom, governed mostly by the appropriations function. Each operates a wide
range of programs, some of which overlap and are duplicative.
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization) administers the
World Heritage Treaty and the Man and the Biosphere Program. This organization recently sent
a delegation to evaluate Yellowstone National Park. Their recommendation resulted in the
listing of the park on their "in danger" list. There are now 19 World Heritage Sites in the United
States. Forty-seven of UNESCO's 328 Biosphere Reserves are also located in the United States. The U.S.
formerly withdrew from UNESCO in the 1980s over disagreements about population programs.
The U.S. has continued, however, to fund selected UNESCO programs, and under the Clinton
Administration, has reinstated funding for population activities.
UNDP (United Nations Development Program) is headed by Gustave Speth. Speth served in the
Carter Administration, then served 11 years as President of the World Resources Institute, then
for a brief period, was a member of Clinton's transition team, before moving to the UNDP. The
US contributes more than $100 million per year to UNDP which operates such programs as the
World Summit on Social Development, the Commission on Sustainable Development, and a host
of other social programs. The UNDP provided the initial funding for the Commission on Global
Governance. UNDP is governed by a 48-member board that reports to ECOSOC.
UNEP (United Nations Environment Program) is the catalyst for the global environmental
agenda. It is governed by a 58-member board that reports to ECOSOC. The first UN
Conference on the Human Environment (Earth Summit I) was held in 1972, and was chaired by
Maurice Strong. The Conference recommended the creation of UNEP which was created
January 1, 1973. Maurice Strong was named the first Executive Director. Among UNEP's first
programs was the creation in 1975 of the Global Framework for Environmental Education which
included Robert Muller's World Core Curriculum which is the foundation for the controversial
"Outcome Based Education." UNEP is unique among UN organizations in that its responsibility
lies in getting things done more than in the doing of them. The organization is designed to truly
be a catalyst and it has been very effective.
In 1979, UNEP created the DOEM concept. DOEM is an acronym for Designated Officials on
Environmental Matters. Every single UN organization and agency has an official assigned to
coordinate with UNEP. Through this mechanism, UNEP has the capability of coordinating its
agenda through virtually every other UN entity. This mechanism is the reason similar issues and
language appear in documents produced by the World Bank, or the Women's Conference, or in
the Biodiversity Treaty. UNEP effectively dominates the agenda and work program of all the
UN operations. UNEP provides the staff for more than 300 environmental treaties. Since the
second Earth Summit, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
(UNCED), treaties have come with their own administrative mechanism, established, of course,
by UNEP. The Framework Convention on Climate Change, which you will learn more about in
another session, creates a "Conference of the Parties" (COP) which has its own administrative
staff. The COP promptly created its own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
which has its own staff. The function of the COP is to develop Protocols, or regulations, with
which participating nations are bound to comply. Let's examine this structure a little more
closely, looking especially for accountability.
Madeleine Albright is our appointed representative to the UN, one of 185 votes in the General
Assembly. ECOSOC is selected from members of the General Assembly. The UNEP board is
selected by members of ECOSOC. The US representative to a Conference of the Parties to a
particular treaty is somebody who works for somebody who was appointed. The protocols
developed by these COPs ultimately carry the weight of law. The Montreal Protocol of the
Vienna Convention on Ozone Depleting Substances increased the price of freon three-fold
immediately, and now has denied freon from use by future generations. A detailed analysis of
UNEP is included in your workbook (item 2.2). UNEP is truly the driving force in the
organizational structure that is implementing the global environmental agenda. But it is not
working alone. Examine the list of UN Organizations in your workbook and you will begin to
see how pervasive global governance has become (item 2.3).
Governmental organizations are effective because of the support they receive from non-governmental organizations. The grandaddy of them all is the IUCN (International Union for the
Conservation of Nature). Sir Julian Huxley was the prime instigator of UNESCO, in 1946. He
was also one of the creators of the IUCN in 1948, along with Sir Peter Scott and other leaders of
the British Fauna and Flora Preservation Society. The IUCN is organized around six
commissions that focus on different aspects of preservation. Their work tends to be behind the
scenes, scientific in nature, and closely aligned with the UN. To increase the cash flow of the
IUCN, another, more public organization was created in 1961. It was called the World Wildlife
Fund. Prince Philip agreed to head the group which was announced in the Daily Mirror with a
picture of a black rhino and an appeal to readers to send money to help save the endangered
species. Since then, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) has become the World Wide Fund for
Nature, but still uses the acronym WWF, and has switched its logo to the panda and has chapters
around the world. In 1982, Russell Train was the President of WWF-USA. He saw the need for
still another non-government organization and was instrumental in amassing $25 million in
grants to create the World Resources Institute which selected Gustave Speth as its President.
Yes, the same Gustave Speth that now heads the UNDP. (See item 2.4)
Three extremely important UN documents have been
published as a joint effort with these NGOs. They are:
World Conservation Strategy, published in 1980 by UNEP, IUCN, and WWF; Caring for the
Earth, published in 1991 by UNEP, IUCN and WWF; and Global Biodiversity Strategy,
published in 1992 by UNEP, IUCN, and WRI. These documents contain the principles and
recommendations that now provide the basis for virtually all the international agreements we are
considering at this conference.
To better understand just how the NGOs influence the development of public policy on both the
international and national scenes, let's follow the development of a single treaty, the Convention
on Biological Diversity. The treaty was first proposed by the IUCN in
1981.2 Many of the ideas
contained in the treaty proposal surfaced in the 1987 report of the World Commission on
Environment and Development chaired by Gro Harlem Brundtland, also known as the
Brundtland Report, but officially entitled Our Common Future. This report also introduced the
concept of sustainable development.
UN resolution 44/228, December 22, 1989, set into motion a chain of events which culminated in
the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janerio in
June, 1992. Maurice Strong was designated Secretary-General of the event, and a Preparatory
Committee was designated. The committee divided itself into a variety of "Task Forces" to begin
the process of preparing documents for presentation at the conference. Between December, 1989
and June, 1992, hundreds of PrepComs were conducted around the world. Only accredited
NGOs are allowed to participate in the PrepComs. Moreover, all communications among UNEP,
the Conference Secretariat, and participating accredited NGOs, were handled under an exclusive
contract with an NGO known as IGC-APC, which are acronyms for the Institute for Global
Communications, and the Association for Progressive Communication. This organization was
funded by the Tides Foundation and created expressly to facilitate communications among their
17,000 users in 94 countries.3 Immediately prior to the official UN conference in Rio, accredited
NGOs held what is called a "Forum," which is in reality, a pep-rally designed to inform and
instruct the participants in the lobbying strategies to be used during the official meeting the
following week. At Rio, 1400 NGOs4 were officially accredited to the UN, and thousasnds more
certified to participate in the lobbying effort. Nearly 40,000 people were on hand cheering for
the adoption of the documents which their leaders had developed. The Convention on Biological
Diversity is only one of several documents adopted by the UNCED, all of which have profound
influence on domestic policy.
We have discussed only three of the more influential NGOs. The IUCN's membership consists
of 53 international NGOs, 550 national NGOs, 100 government agencies, and 68 sovereign
states. The U.S. State Department contributes more than $1 million per year to the IUCN, and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is also listed as a source of
financial support.5
The current President of the IUCN is Dr. Jay Hair, former President of the National Wildlife
Federation in the United States. The immediate Past President is Shirdath Ramphal, who stepped
down to assume co-chairmanship of the Commission on Global Governance. Communication
and coordination through IUCN member NGOs is swift and thorough, using the IGC-APC
network. When policy objectives arise, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, the
NGOs shift into high gear and wage massive public relations and lobbying campaigns at the
national level.
The World Resources Institute provides a similar function. Through a publication called the
NGO Networker (item 2.5), accredited NGOs are kept informed about global meetings and which
NGOs are coordinating activities around each issue. The WRI, however, does much, much more.
WRI's current President, Jonathan Lash, is co-chair of the President's Council on Sustainable
Development, and Maurice Strong is a member of its Board of Directors. When UNEP launched
its Global Biodiversity Assessment back in 1992, it turned to the WRI and named Kenton Miller
of the WRI staff to coordinate the development of Section 10, which specifically identifies the
Wildlands Project as the ideal to be followed in the implementation of "protected areas" required
by Article 8 of the treaty.
These three NGOs originate the global environmental agenda, and infuse it into the policy and
programs of the international governmental organizations. With the help of thousands of
national NGOs, these policies are promoted and lobbied into law at the national level. Virtually
every major mainstream environmental organization in America is affiliated with these three
NGOs. Coalitions of NGOs are formed freely to pursue specific policy objectives. And the role
NGOs play in the implementation of the global agenda is increasing.
The Commission on Global Governance describes accredited NGOs and "civil society."
Activities of non-accredited NGOs are described as "populist actions" that can destroy years of
work. Recommendations contained in the Commission's report, Our Global Neighborhood, as
well as in the Global Biodiversity Assessment, and other UN documents, call for the elevation of
authority and responsibility of accredited NGOs. Before the end of the century, the Commission
on Global Governance wants the UN Trusteeship Council to be restructured to consist of
representatives from no more than 23 NGOs which will have "trusteeship" over the global
commons. The Commission calls for the creation of a new "Assembly of the People" elected
directly from "civil society", and a new "Petitions Council" consisting of five to seven
representatives of accredited NGOs, whose responsibility will be to screen petitions from
national NGOs and recommend corrective action to be taken by the UN. Accredited NGOs are
to be given direct funding by the UN and given administrative and management responsibilities
at the national and bioregional level, as is now the case with the IUCN and the WWF in Peru,
Ecuador and other nations. We'll examine global governance much more closely in another
session.
In America, the structure is already under construction. Led by The Nature Conservancy, the
Sierra Club, and the Wildlands Project, the map of the United States is being redrawn into 21
Bioregions, consisting of interconnected core wilderness areas, buffer zones, and zones of
cooperation. Within each of the Bioregions, "management boards" dominated by NGOs are
being created to address transboundary environmental and resource management issues. The
laboratory for the development of this NGO-dominated system of governance is the Biosphere
Reserve Program of UNESCO. The usual pattern is for the management board to evolve into a
not-for-profit corporation, an NGO, with a board of directors dominated by representatives of
accredited NGOs such as The Nature Conservancy, the Sierra Club, and others. As we will learn
in the session on the Biodiversity treaty, the ultimate objective is to eliminate existing county and
state boundaries, and operate each Bioregion as a separate, self-sufficient community, governed
by a Bioregional Council consisting of selected representatives from the various management
boards. In New Zealand, political boundaries have already been redrawn for Bioregions, and the
process is underway throughout the world. Bioregional Councils will have direct access to the
UN enforcement machinery through the proposed new UN Petitions Council. And the new
proposed "Assembly of the People" will consist of individuals elected from each Bioregion.
We have looked at the governmental and the non-governmental organizational structure of the
international machinery advancing the global agenda. Let's now look briefly at the process that
has become extremely effective. The process is to convert, not to conquer. Therefore, time is an
ally of agenda proponents. The Convention on Biological Diversity was first proposed in 1981.
It contained radical ideas, much too radical to be immediately accepted. But the ideas were
repeated, over and over again through the efforts of thousands of cooperating NGOs. Finally, the
ideas were refined into an official "soft law" document called Agenda 21, an 800-page document
which almost no one read. From Agenda 21, 27 principles were distilled and adopted as the "Rio
Declaration." (Workbook item 2.6) Nothing in either of these documents is binding upon any
nation. But when more than 100 heads of state adopted the Declaration at Rio, the principles
became the basis for action. Those principles were then incorporated into specific treaties,
which, when ratified by each nation, became international law, binding member states to specific
actions such as the creation of "protected areas" as later defined by the Conference of the Parties.
The Convention on Biological Diversity has now been ratified by 130 nations. The United States
narrowly avoided ratification in the 103rd Congress, but the Convention will not go away. The
United States has ratified other treaties, including the Climate Change, and Ozone treaties.
Dozens of other treaties are now being developed, including the treaties that will result in global
governance.
The report of the Commission on Global Governance, Our Global Neighborhood, is in the same
stage that the Brundtland Commission report, Our Common Future, was in 1987. Then,
"sustainable development" was just a concept. Now it is the object of the UN Commission on
Sustainable Development, and the President's Council on Sustainable Development, and the
Earth Council, an NGO created by Maurice Strong, is coordinating the implementation through
councils in 40 nations. Recommendations from the President's Council will be examined in
another session.
This same process is applied to various aspects of the global agenda. The International
Conference on Population and Development, held in Cairo in September, 1994; the World
Summit on Social Development, held in Copenhagen, in March, 1995; the UN Commission on
Sustainable Development meeting in New York, in April, 1995; the Fourth World Conference on
Women, held in Beijing, in September, 1995 are all surrounded by their own set of NGOs,
working to advance international agreements and treaties which are, collectively, the global
agenda. The Commission on Global Governance has called for a world conference in 1998 to
present the agreements and treaties that will achieve global governance by the year 2000.
The final phase of the international organizational structure is funding. The United Nations
system is funded by the voluntary contributions of member states. The UN General Assembly
assesses members the portion each is expected to pay. The minimum contribution is .01 percent
of the total budget; the maximum is .25 percent. Half of the members, about 90, pay .01 percent.
An additional 60 members pay between .01 and 1 percent. Eight nations pay 74 percent of the
total cost of the UN. America pays the maximum, plus as much as 60 percent of some regional
programs, and as much as one-third of some peacekeeping operations. The U.S. contributes
about $2.3 billion per year to UN operations. Total UN expenditures average about $11 billion
per year. Recommendations of the Commission on Global Governance call for global taxation
measures to replace the voluntary system. One proposed scheme would produce $1.5 trillion per
year, 150 times more than the current annual expenditures.
The NGO community is funded by a combination of sources, primarily from foundations, the
U.S. government, and from membership fees and the sale of merchandise. The Rockefeller
foundations coordinate what is called the Environmental Grantmakers Association. Every year,
this group of nearly 160 funding sources meets to decide which NGOs are to be funded. These
foundations and corporations dispense an estimated $500 million annually in support of selected
NGOs.
The U.S. government is another source of NGO funding. Between 1993 and 1995, the
Department of Interior awarded $242 million to selected NGOs, according to the Federal Awards
Assistance Data system. This amount does not include grants made by other government
agencies, nor does it include contracts for services provided by NGOs. The Nature Conservancy,
the National Audubon Society (both of which contracted with Reed Noss to develop the
Wildlands Project) are major recipients of federal grants, as is the Tides Foundation and many of
the other NGOs that actively promote the global environmental agenda.
We have seen how the governmental and non-governmental organizations work together in a
process that is continually developing and implementing a global agenda, funded largely by the
American taxpayer and philanthropic organizations. Throughout the balance of this conference,
you will see the various elements of that agenda in very concrete terms, and more importantly,
you will see the impact that agenda is having on America and its people.
1. The Arizona Republic, "Right-wing contempt for U.N. off base, envoy Albright says," October
7, 1995, p. A-36.
2. Global Biodiversity Assessment, Section 10, September 2, 1994 Draft, Chapter 10.6.4.2,
p.243.
3. ecologic, "How the GAG's do it," May, 1995, p.24.
4. Our Global Neighborhood, Report of the Commission on Global Governance, Oxford
University Press, 1995, p.34.
5. IUCN Annual Report, 1993, p. 36.
6. Ecuadorian government resolution JM-259-FN, October 8, 1987.
7. "Extractive Reserves," IUCN Bulletin, Number 3, 1994, p.17.
Conference Report
Conference Tapes
Dennis Avery, Hudson Institute
Dr. Kent Adair, Stephen F. Austin University
Dr. Robert Balling, Arizona State University
Floy Lilley, J.D., University of Texas at Austin
Dr. Michael Coffman, Environmental Perspectives, Inc.
Henry Lamb, Environmental Conservation Organization
Dr. Michael Coffman, Environmental Perspectives, Inc.
Tom McDonnell, American Sheep Industry Association
Dr. Jacqueline Kasun, Humboldt State University
Samantha Smith, researcher, author
Dr. Robert Balling, Arizona State University
Dr. Patrick Michaels, University of Virginia
Jim Sheehan, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Cliff Kincaid, American Sovereignty Action Project
Joan Veon, Veon Financial Services
Fred Smith, Competitive Enterprise Institute
David Rothbard, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
Terry Ross, Center for Energy and Economic Developmeent
Tom McDonnell, American Sheep Industry Association
Dr. Jacqueline Kasun, Humboldt State University
Floy Lilley, J.D., University of Texas at Austin
Tom Deweese, American Policy Center
Dr. Michael Coffman, Environmental Perspectives, Inc.
Paula Easley, Network for Environmental Policy
Representative Helen Chenoweth
Sustainable Freedoms
The second major underlying premise that our quest for sustainable freedoms scrutinizes is the premise that man
exceeded the carrying capacity of the earth. What Dave
Foreman describes as "sliding into biological poverty" is an
interpretation of the state of the planet accepted by too
many. Massive loss of biodiversity is enshrined as
scientific truth. Thus, Foreman's Wildlands Project seems
the very least humans can do if their presence has been the
cancer upon the earth. Foreman has said in effect `Stop the
planet. I want you to get off.' Jacques Cousteau thinks that
350,000 people should be eliminated every day.
Chair of Free Enterprise at
the University of Texas at Austin.)
PCSD: Final Report
IPCC Report
Dr. Singer
is a member of the ECO Advisory Board and is a frequent contributor.)
Electric Society
Has Global Population Exceeded the Earth's Carrying
Capacity?
Director of the Center for Economic Education at Humboldt State University in Arcata,
California,
and was a speaker at the National Conference on Global Environmentalism.)
Human beings crowd together, now as in ages past, not because of lack of space on the planet but
because we need to work together, to buy and sell, to give and receive services from one another.
Our cities and towns have always thronged with people and traffic - horses, donkeys and camels
in ages past, motor vehicles today.
Therefore, people have moved away
from the rural areas to the cities to work
in factories and other urban occupations.
In 1960, 39 percent of the population in
industrial countries lived in rural areas;
by 1992 this proportion had fallen to 26
percent. In the United States during this
period, the rural percentage fell from 30
to 24. The UN Development
Programme estimates that more than a
third of the population of developing
countries is now urban, and that by the
turn of the century, the proportion will
be almost half.11
Forests cover 40 percent of my state of California.
According to the State Department of Forestry, there are 2
million acres of redwoods in the state.19 More than
200,000 acres were in public parks and forests where they would never be cut, even before the
present severe restrictions were imposed.20 The volume of timber cut in California fell from 4
billion board feet in 1990 to 2.3 billion board feet in 1994.21
Endnotes:
Green Religion: From the UN to your Church
The NRPE is located at 1047 Amsterdam Avenue in New York City. The Gaia Institute is
located at the same address, as is the The Temple of Understanding. The building at this address
is an enormous gothic cathedrial, built in 1893, known as the Cathedral of St. John the Divine.
The Dean of the Cathedral is The Very Reverend James P. Morton, who is also on the Board of
Trustees of the NRPE, and President of the Temple of Understanding. The Temple of
Understanding is an accredited NGO to the United Nations.2 The Global Committee of
Parliamentarians on Population and Development, funded by the United Nations Development
Program, and the Temple of Understanding co-sponsored the Global Forum of Spiritual and
Parliamentary Leaders for Human Survival in 1988. The featured speaker at the Forum was
James Lovelock, author of The Ages of Gaia. Lovelock told the gathering that the earth - Gaia -
"is the source of life everlasting and is alive now; she gave birth to humankind and we are a part
of her."3
As Robert Muller defines the emerging world religion in terms of the gaia hypothesis applied to
the United Nations, The Reverend Thomas Berry defines the theology. Berry is, perhaps, the
leading evangelist for the gaia hypothesis and the the "earth ethic" the hypothesis has spawned.
The Wanderer Forum Quarterly says: "Father Thomas Berry, C.P. claims that it is now time for the most significan
change that Christian spirituality has yet experienced. This
change is part of a much more comprehensive change in
human consciousness brought about by the discovery of the
evolutionary story of the universe. In speaking about a new
cosmology he reminds us that we are the earth come to
consciousness and, therefore, we are connected to the
whole living community - that is, all people, animals, plants and the living organism of planet
earth itself."6
Shortly after the Global Forum, Morton launched what was
called the Joint Appeal on Religion and Science for the
Environment. Then-Senators Al Gore and Timothy Wirth
orchestrated a bipartisan Congressional gathering to enlist
support for the Joint Appeal. Bolstered by their reception
in Washington, Paul Gorman, then Public Affairs Director
at the Cathedral, recruited well-known scientist Carl Sagan,
to invite other prestigious scientists to meet with
prestigious religious leaders invited by Morton. They met
at the Cathedral in 1991. Another meeting was scheduled
in Washington at which 75 religious leaders and 50
scientists (including Paul Ehrlich and Sherwood Rowland) presented their concerns along with a
letter of support signed by the leaders of eleven major environmental organizations including the
National Audubon Society, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, the
Environmental Defense Fund, and the World Resources Institute.
Endnotes:
Global Organizational Structure
National Conference on Global Environmentalism,
Kansas City, March 22, 1996
Governmental organizations
Non-government organizations
These three NGOs form the non-government triumvirate that originates the ideas and the
strategies that ultimately result in international treaties and protocols. In 1968, the IUCN was
successful in its efforts to gain quasi-official status with the UN. As the result of IUCN lobbying
efforts, ECOSOC adopted resolution 1296 which grants "Consultative" status to NGOs. The
significance of that consultative, or accredited status will become apparent as
we proceed. Each of the three primary NGOs have
consultative status. The IUCN has consultative status with
six different UN organizations.
The World Wide Fund for Nature shares a headquarters
building with the IUCN in Gland, Switzerland. In addition
to specific programmatic activities, such as their war on
chlorine, led by their staff member Theo Colburn, the
WWF, along with The Nature Conservancy, is in the
business of managing protected areas. Thomas Lovejoy
designed the debt-for-nature swap concept while working
for the WWF. He now works for the U.S. Department of
Interior. Fundacion Natura, a WWF offspring in Ecuador,
trains the staff and actually manages two protected areas as a condition of the debt-swap
agreement with the government of Ecuador.6 Both the WWF and the IUCN are involved in the
management of protected areas around the world. In Peru, a protected area called the RCTT
embraces 44 villages. The area, organized very much like the biosphere reserves described in the
Wildlands Project and the Global Biodiversity Assessment, consists of core wilderness areas,
buffer zones, and zones of cooperation.7 In America, The Nature Conservancy is taking the lead
in developing and managing protected areas.
Global governance by "civil society"
The process
Funding
Conclusion
Endnotes
U.N. Organizations Involved in Global Environmental Agenda
NGO Hierarchy Promoting the Global Environmental Agenda
I.U.C.N. ***World Conservation Union 53 International NGO's, 550 National NGO's, 68 Sovereign Nations, 100 Government Agencies, created in 1948. State Department contributes more than $1 million per year; recently given "privileges and immunities" by Executive Order 12 |