SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT AND THE TRANSFER OF THE
WORLD’S WEALTH BACK TO THE BRITISH CROWN
A 15 year review of Agenda 21
Joan M. Veon
The Women’s
International Media Group, Inc.
Maurice Strong, the
secretary-general of the 1992 “Rio Earth Summit”
remarked at the close of the meeting, “We have
established a new global partnership. You must
translate Agenda 21 and the decision that you have
taken at the global level into your own national
policy and practices. We should consider new taxes,
user charges, emission permits, citizen funding all
based on the polluter-pays principle. The messages
from the children delivered as we opened this
assembly this morning, gathered during the 15,000
mile journey of Gaia.”
While no reasonable
person took serious the idea of citizens paying for
using or over-consuming the earth’s resources,
sustainable development is all about capitalism,
according to a meeting recently held at the Royal
Institute for International Affairs-RIIA in London.
In order to determine what kind of capitalism, we
must consider that the Programme of Action called
Agenda 21 which supported the 1992 UN Conference on
the Environment and Development, was all about a
total re-make and re-design of the world. It was all
about who will control the earth resources. Pretty
amazing that a global organization would lay stake
to the waters, oceans, lakes, forests, birds,
animals, earth’s land surface, the air we breathe
and the sky and space, as well as you and me!
Little by little,
the world is being re-organized using capitalism as
the global engine to also change the structure of
government from government to public-private
partnership which is a co-management of government
by business. At the heart of this philosophy is
Gaia which is paganism and the elimination of the
authority and dominion which God the Creator set in
place in Genesis 1 and 2.
Let’s consider
capitalism which is an “ism” like communism,
socialism, fascism or Marxism. Capitalism is the
ability to take a particular commodity and sell it
at a profit. But what IF the commodity you are
selling is literally “thin air”? The theory of
climate change says the earth is warming and we have
too much carbon being emitted from the use of oil.
The polluter pays principal says that corporations
should be taxed for consuming too much of the
world’s natural oil resources. Who determines how
much you should be using and what you should pay? A
group of chosen and corporately financed
non-governmental organizations: World Wildlife
Federation, Greenpeace, IUCN, Sierra Club,
Conservation International, Nature Conservancy,
Friends of the Earth, and The World Business Council
for Sustainable Development.
Fifteen years
later, the message at the “Sense and Sustainability
Conference,” is that “You can make a lot of money
from the environment.” Posing as Gaia’s
environmental guardians, these savvy opportunists
have changed their mantra and are now singing the
praises of capitalism with a transfer of wealth
melody.
Of course, they
cover their objectives by using Al Gore horror
flicks and a continual stream of the most latest
studies that says we must do something NOW. Behind
their message of despair is one of a transfer of
wealth and power to them. This tune began shortly
after the United Nations was founded in 1945. Since
then, nothing has been the same. The world appears
to have more problems than before and it is the
United Nations that is touting the environmental
agenda. Their solutions to the multitude of new
problems that they have found is to push the
envelope one step further, and to slowly grab more
and more power while transferring wealth at the same
time. If they are not Fabian Socialists, they must
be using Fabian Socialistic tactics.
Take for example my
interview with British MP Colin Challen who has
suggested that perhaps each one of us needs a carbon
allowance for the amount of energy we can consume.
Then when we use too much, we can pay an “allowance”
back to the government. He apparently does not like
the word “tax” because it is too negative while
“allowance” appears to convey that you and I have
been given an opportunity by government to emit a
certain amount of carbon and when it is used up, we
then need some kind of correction. Of course they
say it is only to change behavior but how many taxes
do you know that have gone away after we learned our
lesson?
He explained that
like corporations which use too much carbon,
individuals should also have the same kind of
allotment. When we use up our allotment of energy:
gas in the car, oil as result of too many airplane
rides, etc., we won’t have any more left on our
“card” and will have to buy more from someone who
has not used all of their [government] allotment.
Great scheme! How brilliantly demonic considering
the last time the world was taxed was when Rome
ruled. To quote him,
So if you were
driving your big SUV and went on foreign holiday’s,
you would need a lot more and consequently you would
have to go to the market which would easily be
accessible at Post Office or on the Internet or on
your mobile phone. You would have to buy the extra
emission to cover your emissions. If you didn’t buy
the extra units you would still have to pay for the
extra carbon because if you would run out and you
went to the petrol station and you didn’t have a
surplus in your account of carbon units you would
have to pay a bit more for your petrol and likewise
your electricity and gas. Over that period of time
you can adjust you can change your vehicles to a
hybrid, you can insulate your house, you can do a
whole range of those sort of technical fixes to
reduce your dependency on carbon intensive energy.
You might have more renewables, you may have a mini
wind turbine on the roof and solar panels and you
could have a heat exchange pump. You may decide to
use public transport more. Or have a smaller car
which is what I’ve done.
When I asked
Challen if the Fabian Society helped him with this
scheme, he thought for a moment said, “Well they
have their own inputs in the government. They
didn’t have any involvement on this particular
proposal.”
Another speaker,
Professor Daniel Estees Director of the Yale
Center for
Environmental Law and Policy, wrote a book that
describes the new green opportunities, Green to
Gold - How Smart Companies use Environmental
Strategy to Innovate, Create Value, and Build
Competitive Advantage. Ford Motor, you had
better read this book or you will not survive
Toyota’s rising market share!
When I asked Dr.
Estees about his evolutionary thinking with regard
to the environment, he told me
I think what we're
seeing here is a real sea change in attitudes
towards environmental protection, first with regard
to how society understands how progress gets made.
We are moving away from a model that has really been
dominant for 40 years where the government not only
sets the standards but is the primary actor in doing
the work of figuring out how we're going to protect
the environment, what technologies we need, and how
to development and then mandating very specifically
to the industry world what they have to do in the
way of technology for pollution control. We are
shifting down to a model that is based more on
economic incentives not command and control
mandate. And then this new model it will
involve both taxes for harms or charges for
emissions that are causing harm as well as
perhaps cap and trade pollution allowance systems.
We are going to see the private sector taking a
leading role in developing technologies.
When I asked him to
explain the capitalistic evolution of the
environment between 1992 and 2007, he said,
I think we are in a
sort of a slow roll revolution in terms of
understanding about how best to pursue environmental
protection. Agenda 21 is really a valuable
compilation of the full spectrum of things that we
need to think about in the realm of pollution
control and natural resource management. But because
it is so comprehensive it's not really an action
agenda and frankly it doesn't really serve the same
purpose in a world where private markets are going
to help drive us toward environmental solutions
so I think government setting standards on things
like greenhouse emissions, making companies pay a
price for the harms they cause, is a critical next
step to getting us going on the path toward solving
the climate change problems, getting innovation
going, harnessing the entrepreneurial spirit
that exists in America and across the world.
In 1995, I asked
Maurice Strong to define sustainable development for
me at the Gorbachev
State
of the World Forum and I specifically incorporated
the aspect of reducing the population of the earth
and the family dependency ratio, he told me,
We want to put
[sustainable development] in business terms. It’s
running Earth, Inc. with depreciation, amortization
and maintenance accounts so that we are not really
living off of capital. If we continue to equate
wealth creation with the liquidation of our natural
capital, we will be headed for bankruptcy and that
is the direction we are going NOW. We need all the
elements you mentioned and more to bring the
ecological systems and behavior towards them in line
with our economic and social aspirations.
Interestingly, I
remember interviewing Dr. Paul Jeffers from The
Royal Society for the Protection of the Bird at the
2002 Sustainable Development Summit in Johannesburg.
He told me that he and his colleagues have put a
value on all of nature worldwide and it totals
between $20T to $38T while others say that it might
be has high as $51T. So what is really happening
here?
In the old days
when the explorers discovered various parts of the
New World,
they planted their flag and said it belonged to the
king or queen of their respective country. Do you
think it is possible that the United Nations and a
small group of very, very powerful insiders have
just planted their Agenda 21 flag and are now they
are looking for ways to control their booty? Is
this possible? Have we become nothing but turnips
(since man no longer is sovereign) and now they can
tax us for every breathe of air, every shower, every
hot cup of tea, every yard we drive in our car,
every hour that we have a light bulb on, and every
carrot we plant and water?
Secondly, let us
consider for a moment the change in government.
Public-private partnerships-PPP were alluded to in
Agenda 21 and they were spelled out in Habitat II, a
global meeting that took place four years later. In
an interview I did at the 5 year follow-up to Rio in
1997 in Rio de Janeiro with Dr. Wally N’Dow, former
UNEP Director-General, he said with regard to this
concept of combining government and business,
In 1976, there were
subjects that were taboo. One could not discuss
subjects such as the role of the private sector
because we were still in the grips of the Cold War,
with ideologies contending over what was capitalist,
socialist, what was acceptable in the UN for and
what could not be discussed—the private sector and
land—and who owns it, how it is managed—these things
could not be discussed.
Basically when you
merge government and business together you get
fascism and that is what public-private partnership
is all about: a total re-ordering of government
because government at every level is broke and it
appears that business has the money and the power.
It also appears that business, especially
eco-friendly businesses, who are going to make their
next trillion dollars on the new green products they
have invented are the real saviors of the world.
Talk about re-tooling! Over 23 states here in the
United States have incorporated public-private
partnerships into their modus operandi. They
include: Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware,
Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri,
Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina,
Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.
What does it mean? It means that government no
longer governs, as in the old days. The new and
powerful player is business. Every time a
public-private partnership is set up—every time a
toll road, utility, or public asset is sold,
representative government diminishes because the
purpose of business is profit not service. Who will
government leaders listen to more? Business with
millions and billions of dollars or you and me?
We can see the rise in position of big business
which now holds their global meetings at every UN
meeting. They also now have legal input into the
global agenda, be it the United Nations General
Assembly, the Group of Eight, the World Trade
Organization or the World Bank. Bottom line: the
world is involved in global corporate fascism:
capitalism, government and business.
Related to this is
the fact that at every turn there is a transfer of
wealth taking place. As a result of U.S. government
policy, the U.S. taxpayer is financing environmental
projects around the world—nothing in our
Constitution provides for this kind of expense;
funding all of the incentives for big business and
their new eco-green schemes which we will be forced
to buy to be in compliance; and paying for our
participation in huge international public-private
partnerships with one, two, or ten other countries,
NGO’s, and corporations. Furthermore, there are
various calls by the UN, the Group of Eight and
others for the American taxpayer to increase foreign
assistance to poor countries. Lastly, the United
Nations supports Jacque Chirac’s call for a tax on
airlines tickets to eliminate global poverty. This
is just one of many other tax schemes planned in the
future.
Green is now king.
If a corporation does not incorporate green into
your company, you will not make it. Speaker after
speaker talked of the power of green stakeholders:
corporate shareholders, investors, consumers, and
activists. Some department stores are now
introducing “energy product labels” for their
products. Consumers are beginning to ask about the
kind of “carbon footprint” a company has that they
are interested in investing in or purchasing from.
And many major corporations now have a Corporate
Social Responsibility-CSR Department. CSR is now the
new mantra and right for business to be involved in
policy-making.
Stock exchanges are
now setting up green indexes with lists of
corporations that are eco-friendly. The Dow Jones
has one and the Sao Paolo Stock Exchange has their
new Corporate Sustainability Index. In other words,
if your corporation is not upholding sustainable
development, investors will not want to invest in
your company and you will be blackballed. The London
FTSE has adopted a definition of responsible
investment which is the “incorporation into the
investment management process (analysis and
research) and the on-going asset stewardship of
social, environmental, and corporate governance
related to matters.” In the UK the Pension Act of
2000 includes social environment and ethics into its
assets while the United Nations has created the UN
Principles for Responsible Investment which is a set
of principles agreed to by a group of the largest
institutional investors. Lastly, Then there are very
sophisticated investment firms that are developing
and trading in voluntary carbon trading units with
the goal of driving a new market and creating
liquidity in carbon trading. This must be the new
income fund of the 3rd millennium.
With regard to
Agenda 21, why has the entire agenda been so
secretive? Why didn’t the United Nations just “come
clean” and tell us of these problems? What were
they hiding? With regard to reading any of their
programs of action, only an insider could interpret
them because the words they use have a different
meaning than how the normally accepted use of a
word. Why so radical? Why take God’s place and
degrade the position God gave human beings as being
dominant over the earth? Only an agenda that would
seize control of the world’s assets and gather them
for a greater human power would do the things that
have been done over the last 15 years. This then
leads us to the last aspect to consider.
British aristocrat
Cecil Rhodes had a dream of making the world British
because in his opinion, “they are the finest race in
the world.” According to Georgetown professor, Dr.
Carroll Quigley who wrote The Anglo-American
Establishment, “Rhodes
in five previous wills left his fortune to form a
secret society, which was to devote itself to the
preservation and expansion of the
British Empire.
This society has been known at various times as
Milner’s Kindergarten, as the Round Table Group, as
the Rhodes
crowd, as The Times Crowd, as the All Souls
Group, and as the Cliveden set.” He explains that
while Rhodes was alive, he was the leader with
William T. Stead, Reginald Baliol Brett or Lord
Esher (friend and confident of Queen Victoria and
the most influential adviser of King Edward VII and
King George V), and Alfred Milner. He then
describes some of their achievements,
It plotted the
Jameson Raid of 1895; it caused the Boer War of
1899-1902; it set up and controls the Rhodes Trust;
it created the Union of South Africa in 1906-1910;
it has been the most powerful single influence in
All Souls, Balliol, and New Colleges at Oxford for
more than a generation; it has controlled The
Times for more than 50 years, with the exception
of 1919-1922; it publicized the idea of and the name
‘British Commonwealth of Nations’; it was the chief
influence in Lloyd George’s war administration in
1917-1919; it had a great deal to do with the
formation and management of the League of
Nations[now United Nations] and of the system of
mandates; it founded the Royal Institute of
International Affairs in 1919 and still controls it;
it controlled and still controls, to a very
considerable extent, the sources and the writing of
the history of British Imperial and foreign policy
since the Boer War (page 5).
What I am pointing
out is the Royal Institute of International Affairs
was organized by Lord Robert Cecil, known as
Viscount Cecil of Chelwood, along with Lionel Curtis
and others. Of those who started the RIIA, Lord
Robert Cecil and Lionel Curtis were in key insiders
with Cecil Rhodes. When you consider the fact that
the whole purpose of RIIA is to bring the world
under British control and that the League of
Nations, now the United Nations is part of their
planning, it causes you to wonder about just who
Agenda 21 is for. My research shows that at the
global level, the British Commonwealth with its 53
members has the potential to outvote the single vote
of the United States throughout the whole global
infrastructure. Furthermore, many of the early
environmental organizations were started primarily
in Britain: The Nature Conservancy was one of the
four official research bodies under the British
Privy Council, Prince Philip of Britain and Prince
Bernhard of the Netherlands founded the radical
World Wildlife Federation and later on in 1982, the
World Resources Institute was founded by grants from
the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. Prince Charles who is
known as the “eco-prince” worked behind the scenes
to get Agenda 21 to “go down” in at the Rio Earth
Summit and he started a major group of corporations
which have been setting up public-private
partnerships all over the world.
Bottom line, it
appears that all of the assets, including you and me
are going back to the Crown and we are nothing but
serfs, paying an allowance back to the government
for the right to use any of their resources! Call it
sustainable development, call it green, call it
climate warming, the real description for the
capitalistic global corporate fascism is feudalism.
|