PDA

View Full Version : How to Fight Back Against The United Nations "Sustainable Development" Agenda




FrankRep
03-04-2011, 12:51 PM
Wikipedia: Agenda 21 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21)

Agenda 21 is an action plan of the United Nations (UN) related to sustainable development and was an outcome of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janerio, Brazil, in 1992. It is a comprehensive blueprint of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the UN, governments, and major groups in every area in which humans directly affect the environment.


http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/stories2011/11aFebruary/2704-agnda21.jpg (http://www.shopjbs.org/index.php/tna/subscriptions/1-year-standard-subscription.html)



How do we fight back against the United Nations' Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development in our local community? Here are some thoughts.


How to Fight Back Against
 Sustainable Development (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/opinion/967-tom-deweese/6565-how-to-fight-back-against-sustainable-development)


Related News:


Your Hometown & the United Nations' Agenda 21 (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/6235-your-hometown-a-the-united-nations-agenda-21)

In March 2010, Nor-Cal Produce, a family-owned produce business in West Sacramento, was fined $32,500 by the California Air Resources Board (ARB, or CARB), but was not charged with, or even accused of, illegal emissions, but merely for having failed to notice a new regulation posted by CARB requiring all semi-trailers, shipping containers, vans, and rail cars with diesel-powered refrigerators to file a report with the agency. by William F. Jasper


Maryland County Cancels Agenda 21 Participation (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/6542-maryland-county-cancels-agenda-21-participation)

Board of County Commissioners in Carroll County, Maryland, recently voted to abolish the county’s Office of Sustainability,and then speedily followed that move with a vote to quit the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), the front group launched by the United Nations to carry out Agenda 21.

Lucille
03-04-2011, 02:02 PM
Our progressive City Council is passing new Land Development Codes, which are evidently all the rage at the local level now.

Flagstaff too costly to be sustainable (http://azdailysun.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_76a09067-a242-50f9-853c-fd3e422272f8.html) (Wow. My comment actually made it through moderation).

"In an effort to regulate everything [self-starters] may easily be eliminated. They have been very nearly exterminated in Russia. Bureaucracy smothers them. And the set-up goes with them."
-Isabel Paterson (TGotM)

FrankRep
03-24-2011, 04:27 PM
Updates:



2011 - Montgomery County, Pennsylvania Dumps United Nations' Agenda 21 Participation (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/6819-pennsylvania-county-rejects-agenda-21)

Montgomery County, Pennsylvania will be letting its membership in ICLEI (International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives), lapse due to constituent pressure and dislike for ICLEI’s message.


2011 - Edmond, Oklahoma Dumps United Nations' Agenda 21 Participation (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/6783-edmond-oklahoma-dumps-agenda-21)

Edmond, Oklahoma has withdrawn membership in ICLEI as a result of constituent pressure and a local grassroots group, Govern Edmond Locally (http://gelok.org/) (GEL) were instrumental in supplying educated opposition.

2011 - Carroll County, Maryland Cancels Agenda 21 Participation (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/6542-maryland-county-cancels-agenda-21-participation)

Board of County Commissioners in Carroll County, Maryland, recently voted to abolish the county’s Office of Sustainability, and then speedily followed that move with a vote to quit the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), the front group launched by the United Nations to carry out Agenda 21.

2011 - Your Hometown & the United Nations' Agenda 21 (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/6235-your-hometown-a-the-united-nations-agenda-21)

In March 2010, Nor-Cal Produce, a family-owned produce business in West Sacramento, was fined $32,500 by the California Air Resources Board (ARB, or CARB), but was not charged with, or even accused of, illegal emissions, but merely for having failed to notice a new regulation posted by CARB requiring all semi-trailers, shipping containers, vans, and rail cars with diesel-powered refrigerators to file a report with the agency. by William F. Jasper

scottditzen
03-24-2011, 04:41 PM
To me, sustainable development makes absolute sense.

Then again, intelligent people can debate the definition of "sustainable." As with any laws affecting our property, in the wrong hands those laws can be oppressive. We have to stay vigilant and strike that balance between property rights and protecting the environment, as well as the rights of the neighbors.

ps. I've never heard of this U.N. bull...but I really don't think we have much to fear.

rnestam
03-24-2011, 08:37 PM
I second that, all for sustainable building. But like the wise Rand Paul said, I just don't want to be forced into doing it...

BenIsForRon
03-24-2011, 09:18 PM
Sustainable development is awesome, and one of the most awesome things about it is that it is an inherently local solution. If you're getting orders on how to be sustainable from a global or national government, then you're probably not moving towards sustainability.

pcosmar
03-24-2011, 09:54 PM
ps. I've never heard of this U.N. bull...but I really don't think we have much to fear.

There is a wealth of information available, It is well documented.
Educate yourself.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzEEgtOFFlM

Fox McCloud
03-24-2011, 09:56 PM
Sustainable development is awesome, and one of the most awesome things about it is that it is an inherently local solution. If you're getting orders on how to be sustainable from a global or national government, then you're probably not moving towards sustainability.

There's no need for any level of government, whether local, state, national, or global, to get involved in "sustainability". All these entities are totally incapable of making economic calculations of any rational sort--only the market, through its price system, is capable of allocating resources in a rational "sustainable" way.

TCE
03-24-2011, 10:03 PM
The problem is, some people take this too far and attack Organic produce, new farming techniques, and anything more environmentally friendly. The problem is the government mandating it, not companies and people taking part. A government mandating we all use electric cars is one thing, but choosing to buy organic food or purchase those electric cars is another. And yes, I am aware that electricity=coal, which is also environmentally poor, but I am throwing out examples.

scottditzen
03-25-2011, 07:52 AM
Educate myself?

That's why I'm visiting the smartest forum on earth!
:)


There is a wealth of information available, It is well documented.
Educate yourself.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzEEgtOFFlM

scottditzen
03-25-2011, 08:01 AM
There's no need for any level of government, whether local, state, national, or global, to get involved in "sustainability". All these entities are totally incapable of making economic calculations of any rational sort--only the market, through its price system, is capable of allocating resources in a rational "sustainable" way.

Then how do you account for overfishing?

It seems rational to me, that in the absence of laws preventing such, that people would exploit a resource until it is gone.

pcosmar
03-25-2011, 08:52 AM
Educate myself?

That's why I'm visiting the smartest forum on earth!
:)

COOL.
This subject has been posted several times and there is a wealth of information on the web.
From UN and Globalist supporting sites as well as those in opposition to a Globalist (NWO) takeover.
http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/

Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.

It has been ongoing, especially since the 1990s. You had said,

I've never heard of this U.N. bull...
It is the basis of many laws and programs today and many more planned.
Awareness is the first step.

pcosmar
03-25-2011, 09:00 AM
Then how do you account for overfishing?

It seems rational to me, that in the absence of laws preventing such, that people would exploit a resource until it is gone.

I don't.
Over fish an area and you will be OUT OF Business.
It has happened before.

Fox McCloud
03-25-2011, 10:20 AM
Then how do you account for overfishing?

It seems rational to me, that in the absence of laws preventing such, that people would exploit a resource until it is gone.

Perfect example of tragedy of the commons. No one owns the ocean, therefore, everyone has the incentive to get as much as he can for himself, because, if he doesn't get it, someone else will.

scottditzen
03-25-2011, 10:37 AM
Perfect example of tragedy of the commons. No one owns the ocean, therefore, everyone has the incentive to get as much as he can for himself, because, if he doesn't get it, someone else will.

Tragedy of the Commons...agree!

I remember reading some great ideas from Free Market enviromentalists back in college. Was refreshing to hear another viewpoint, even though I remember the professor, Dr. Socialism, act incredulous about it lol.

From what I remember, the weakness of the argument is the practicality of it, and difficulty of assigning a dollar amount to environmental consequences.

scottditzen
03-25-2011, 10:45 AM
I don't.
Over fish an area and you will be OUT OF Business.
It has happened before.

Yes, putting yourself out of business is irrational.

I guess my question is, even if you personally are responsible and rational in your actions, how can you prevent others from acting irresponsibly?

Or more aptly, without regulations, how do you prevent sheer numbers of people from depleting a limited resource?

This has happened on the Great Lakes with their fishing industry, with species of fish being wiped out completely.

specsaregood
03-25-2011, 10:48 AM
This thread title is full of fail; as there is nothing wrong with "sustainable development". But there is plenty wrong with globally mandated legislation controlled by global corporations and their petty dictators.

FrankRep
03-25-2011, 10:54 AM
This thread title is full of fail; as there is nothing wrong with "sustainable development". But there is plenty wrong with globally mandated legislation controlled by global corporations and their petty dictators.


Nothing wrong with the "Patriot Act" either! Are you against Patriots?

pcosmar
03-25-2011, 10:55 AM
This has happened on the Great Lakes with their fishing industry, with species of fish being wiped out completely.
What species?

I remember when pollution had killed Lake Erie. And I also remember that people cleaned it up and it supports vibrant life today.
That is in my lifetime.

It is true that you can over-fish to the point that it will not support an industry.
The Key West Turtle industry fished the turtles to the point that they went out of business. The abandoned cannery is now a museum.
And sea turtles are everywhere.

What species are extinct in Michigan? When did this happen?

specsaregood
03-25-2011, 11:02 AM
Nothing wrong with the "Patriot Act" either! Are you against Patriots?

I'm fairly certain that was my entire point.

jmdrake
03-25-2011, 11:03 AM
Sustainable development is awesome, and one of the most awesome things about it is that it is an inherently local solution. If you're getting orders on how to be sustainable from a global or national government, then you're probably not moving towards sustainability.

Did you bother to read FrankRep's first link?

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/6235-your-hometown-a-the-united-nations-agenda-21

Forget for a moment any prejudice you might have against the JBS. The article is well sourced and it talks about a "local" sustainable development board acting like the mafia. And "sustainable" industries have been hurt just as bad as the "evil polluters". Just because something is done by "local" government doesn't make it all right. I'm sure you've heard the saying "Think globally, act locally"? The "global government" (United Nations) sets the agenda and the local thugs (excuse me "activists") carry it out. If what the CARB board was doing in California was passed at an international or even national level people would more likely be aware and be able to fight it.

jmdrake
03-25-2011, 11:09 AM
This thread title is full of fail; as there is nothing wrong with "sustainable development". But there is plenty wrong with globally mandated legislation controlled by global corporations and their petty dictators.

I think where you and Ben are in disagreement with Frank, pcosmar and myself is the implication that the only thing wrong with the "sustainable development" movement is that it is globally mandated. It's kind of the same disagreement people start having about the first amendment especially with regards to religion. A state enforced religion (even if it were allowed initially) is bad just like a nationally enforced religion. Likewise locally "mandated" sustainable development is bad just like nationally or globally enforced "sustainable" development. If government wants to make sure any development that it does is "sustainable" that's just fine. There's nothing wrong with the government saying that all government buildings must use compact florescent lightbulbs (except for the fact that they are actually bad for the environment), but nobody should tell me what kind of light bulbs I have to buy whether they are operating at the global, state or local level.

jmdrake
03-25-2011, 11:10 AM
I'm fairly certain that was my entire point.

Would you support a local version of the Patriot Act? I wouldn't.

specsaregood
03-25-2011, 11:13 AM
I think where you and Ben are in disagreement with Frank, pcosmar and myself is the implication that the only thing wrong with the "sustainable development" movement is that it is globally mandated.

Not quite, the only real disagreement I have is with the thread title: "How to Fight back against Sustainable Development"
I have no problem with "sustainable development" itself and I certainly don't want to fight it. I have a problem with it being legislated because it is primarily about control and is corrupt.

It would be like being against the patriot act and setting the title of the thread, "How to fight back against Patriots".

FrankRep
03-25-2011, 11:18 AM
Not quite, the only real disagreement I have is with the thread title: "How to Fight back against Sustainable Development"
I have no problem with "sustainable development" itself and I certainly don't want to fight it. I have a problem with it being legislated because it is primarily about control and is corrupt.

It would be like being against the patriot act and setting the title of the thread, "How to fight back against Patriots".


Maybe Sustainable Development needs to be in quotes. Whatever I guess.


I've requested a Title Change.

pcosmar
03-25-2011, 11:23 AM
Maybe Sustainable Development needs to be in quotes. Whatever I guess.


I've requested a Title Change.

That is the problem with "Buzz Words".
They don't mean what you think they mean.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

specsaregood
03-25-2011, 11:25 AM
Maybe Sustainable Development needs to be in quotes. Whatever I guess.
I've requested a Title Change.

That's all I'm saying man. There are a lot of people that are going to wander into the forums, less educated. We want their initial reaction to be positive or neutral. As it reads currently, for many of them their gut reaction is going to be negative.

scottditzen
03-25-2011, 11:36 AM
What species?

I remember when pollution had killed Lake Erie. And I also remember that people cleaned it up and it supports vibrant life today.
That is in my lifetime.

It is true that you can over-fish to the point that it will not support an industry.
The Key West Turtle industry fished the turtles to the point that they went out of business. The abandoned cannery is now a museum.
And sea turtles are everywhere.

What species are extinct in Michigan? When did this happen?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_walleye


p.s. That's an interesting point about the sea turtles. I don't mean to get so into fish today lol. My point is simply that I believe we are clearly capable of hunting species into extinction. I don't see why we should wait for that event, or the collapse of an industry. Sometimes regulations are a necessary, we can debate (and most likely agree) where they could go overboard. I'm just not sure you can get around them if you want to support any kind industry.

Fox McCloud
03-25-2011, 11:48 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_walleye


p.s. That's an interesting point about the sea turtles. I don't mean to get so into fish today lol. My point is simply that I believe we are clearly capable of hunting species into extinction. I don't see why we should wait for that event, or the collapse of an industry. Sometimes regulations are a necessary, we can debate (and most likely agree) where they could go overboard. I'm just not sure you can get around them if you want to support any kind industry.

And who owns the Great Lakes? Who has incentive to not fish when less for you simply means more for the competition? Without property rights, even on water, it turns things into a zero sum game.

BenIsForRon
03-25-2011, 11:57 AM
You can't own a piece of the ocean. The water is constantly moving, the fish are constantly moving.

Local governments can set regulations on things like pesticide use, water use, and urban development. These types of regulations can be used to push a community in a sustainable direction.

specsaregood
03-25-2011, 12:01 PM
You can't own a piece of the ocean. The water is constantly moving, the fish are constantly moving.


You can own anything you can keep others from taking. Some of the newer projects of fishfarming/aqua culture involve netting off large expanses of ocean and farming inside of it.

acptulsa
03-25-2011, 12:06 PM
Maybe Sustainable Development needs to be in quotes. Whatever I guess.


I've requested a Title Change.

Thanks. And please do remember that back during the election the media slandered us with our own thread titles, and many of us work to keep that menu looking sensible.

Bogus Sustainability Projects, maybe, or Fight Abuses in Name of Sustainability

pcosmar
03-25-2011, 12:08 PM
Why hasn't the cattle industry run out of cows?

I agree that it is stupid to fish an area to exhaustion. And in some areas that have, fish farms are taking their place.
Much of the regulation of the past has been promoted by and for the industries who saw sport and recreational fishing as competition.
The fisheries in Michigan should have been run by businesses rather than the state as it was in their interest.
I expect that Fish Farming will replace commercial fishing eventually (the sooner the better) as it is simply more efficient. But that should be done by smart entrepreneurs and not forced by the state.

rnestam
03-25-2011, 12:27 PM
Why hasn't the cattle industry run out of cows?

I agree that it is stupid to fish an area to exhaustion. And in some areas that have, fish farms are taking their place.
Much of the regulation of the past has been promoted by and for the industries who saw sport and recreational fishing as competition.
The fisheries in Michigan should have been run by businesses rather than the state as it was in their interest.
I expect that Fish Farming will replace commercial fishing eventually (the sooner the better) as it is simply more efficient. But that should be done by smart entrepreneurs and not forced by the state.

Aquaponics...awesome stuff. Youtube it.

pcosmar
03-25-2011, 12:28 PM
"Sustainable Development" is a buzz word that I put in the same class as "National Defense" or "Officer Safety".

It does not mean (in real life) what it means in the dictionary.

RyanRSheets
03-25-2011, 01:00 PM
Sustainable development is awesome, and one of the most awesome things about it is that it is an inherently local solution. If you're getting orders on how to be sustainable from a global or national government, then you're probably not moving towards sustainability.

And there's an incredibly easy economic explanation for it, too. Living sustainably is knowing your products and knowing your products is much, much easier when you know the people who make them. Sadly, people are globalists these days and they can't let the world take responsibility.

teacherone
03-25-2011, 01:10 PM
My point is simply that I believe we are clearly capable of hunting species into extinction.

So?

jmdrake
03-25-2011, 01:42 PM
You can't own a piece of the ocean. The water is constantly moving, the fish are constantly moving.

Local governments can set regulations on things like pesticide use, water use, and urban development. These types of regulations can be used to push a community in a sustainable direction.

And here's where we differ. A local government telling me I have to have mercury filled compact florescent light bulbs because some idiot somewhere read a U.N. report about global warming is just as bad as Jim Jones forcing people to poison their children. You want to talk about "regulations on water use"? Our local water board just raised prices on everybody for dealing with "storm runoff" even though where I live I'm on a septic system so none of my run off is handled by their system. Oh, and who gets the "discount"? Corporations who jump through hoops for "green building design". It's a crock. It's stupid. And it's all happening in the name of "sustainable development". Regulations on pesticide use? You mean another "local" government bureaucrat to run my life? This time he can come snooping in my front yard or in my garden to make sure I don't use too much sevin dust? Thanks but no thanks. You want to "push" a community in a sustainable direction? Use the free market + the free marketplace of ideas. Go around and do lectures on why people shouldn't worry about mercury poisoning from their CFLs (if you can do that with a straight face) instead of trying to mandate it locally, statewide, nationally or globally.

BenIsForRon
03-25-2011, 01:48 PM
Sorry JM, if you live in the same town as me and you're dumping pounds of pesticide on to your lawn, and then rain washes that into our streams, then I'm going to support law enforcement throwing a fine at you. That's local government.

teacherone
03-25-2011, 01:50 PM
Sorry JM, if you live in the same town as me and you're dumping pounds of pesticide on to your lawn, and then rain washes that into our streams, then I'm going to support law enforcement throwing a fine at you. That's local government.

oh... didn't know you owned streams.

BenIsForRon
03-25-2011, 01:57 PM
They're not just mine, but also everyone else who lives in my town.

Fox McCloud
03-25-2011, 03:44 PM
You can't own a piece of the ocean. The water is constantly moving, the fish are constantly moving.

Nonsense. Water can be homesteaded just as land can be--animals migrate and move constantly on land, as well; this doesn't mean property rights on land are instantly invalidated; yes, I'm aware fish migrate and move, but this still doesn't change the fact that under our current regime, it's still a commons, and thus, subject to overfishing; even if fish are only in area X during one part of the year and area Y in another, both still have an incentive to prevent overfishing, because, if they don't, they won't have a business next year.

More on water privatization: http://mises.org/journals/scholar/waterprivate.pdf


Local governments can set regulations on things like pesticide use, water use, and urban development. These types of regulations can be used to push a community in a sustainable direction.

They shouldn't though--the local government setting how much water I can use or how a city should be built is just as much tyrannous as the federal government doing it--and as I pointed out earlier, they still don't have an incentive to allow the proper or correct amount, as they have no rational way of doing so.


They're not just mine, but also everyone else who lives in my town.

Under the current system, yes, but they shouldn't belong to everyone--they should belong to those who homesteaded it first.

BenIsForRon
03-25-2011, 04:25 PM
Have you ever heard of the term "exploitation"? Corporations do it all the time. They buy up a piece of property, strip it for all it's worth, then leave. It happens to rain forests, it happens in strip mines. What makes you think it wouldn't happen with the ocean?

You crazy.

jmdrake
03-25-2011, 04:40 PM
Sorry JM, if you live in the same town as me and you're dumping pounds of pesticide on to your lawn, and then rain washes that into our streams, then I'm going to support law enforcement throwing a fine at you. That's local government.

And say if the pesticides I'm "dumping" on my lawn aren't actually toxic? And did you even bother reading what I wrote? I'm freaking being charged extra money by your stupid precious "environmentally conscious" local thug government FOR PURE RAINWATER RUNNING OFF MY ROOF AND DOWN INTO THE WATER TABLE WHERE IT BELONGS! If you support that crap then you are indeed sorry.

jmdrake
03-25-2011, 04:42 PM
Have you ever heard of the term "exploitation"? Corporations do it all the time. They buy up a piece of property, strip it for all it's worth, then leave. It happens to rain forests, it happens in strip mines. What makes you think it wouldn't happen with the ocean?

You crazy.

And if you don't think that environmental boards don't exploit then you are the one who is crazy. Seriously. The EPA fines people for burning vegetable oil in their vehicles. They apparently prefer pollution as long as it's "controlled".

BenIsForRon
03-25-2011, 04:57 PM
And say if the pesticides I'm "dumping" on my lawn aren't actually toxic? And did you even bother reading what I wrote? I'm freaking being charged extra money by your stupid precious "environmentally conscious" local thug government FOR PURE RAINWATER RUNNING OFF MY ROOF AND DOWN INTO THE WATER TABLE WHERE IT BELONGS! If you support that crap then you are indeed sorry.

No I support what I said.

jmdrake
03-25-2011, 05:01 PM
No I support what I said.

Right. But what you said ignores the reality. You can easily see that corporations can exploit their power. But you seem not to so easily see local government that calls itself "environmental" as exploiting its power either through greed, ignorance or some combination of both.

Fox McCloud
03-26-2011, 02:36 AM
Have you ever heard of the term "exploitation"? Corporations do it all the time. They buy up a piece of property, strip it for all it's worth, then leave. It happens to rain forests, it happens in strip mines. What makes you think it wouldn't happen with the ocean?

You crazy.

It's when you make statements like this that really makes me wonder why you're around here in the first place; if you believe that this would happen on a widespread basis without government regulation/intervention, then I'm surprised you haven't made the short jump to all resources being "exploited", or workers, or heck, even consumers.


In either case, a lot of rain forest deforestation has nothing to do with large companies, but rather poor individuals clearing large amount of land for farmland or to build their homes with--I'm not sure of the specifics in this the rain forest case, but, if I recall, a lot of the forests are in the commons, in that area, thus perpetuating a tragedy of the commons scenario. Deforestation isn't something you're going to have to worry about in the US, primarily because it's not profitable to do so...cut down all the trees this year, and you won't have a tree crop next year to cut down. Is it theoretically possible a dumb company could cut down all the trees they owned? Sure, but they're also going to go out of business too, while the company who manages their trees exist for a long time to come.

Oceans would be no different---if people have an incentive to profit from it, they'll protect their long term interest...this is why you don't see farmers going into their barns and mowing down all their cattle (except when they go bankrupt, but that was a one time situation =p) and dumping the beef on the market...they'd be broke the next year. We don't need regulations to ensure we have a steady and "sustainable" cattle supply because there's private property incentive and the profit motive...land, air, or sea...it doesn't change this.

I don't see what's the big deal about strip mining either; if you legitimately own the land, why shouldn't you be able to do anything you want with it? It's yours---as long as what you do doesn't harm someone else's property.

BenIsForRon
03-26-2011, 08:55 AM
Sure, American timber companies replant, but it took them 100 years to figure that out, after they wiped out every piece of old growth forest in the Appalachian mountains. Now you see the same thing happening in the Amazon, and some of it is small farmers, but other parts are timber companies.

Now look at whaling. Even though the ocean is the commons, wouldn't you say that Japanese whalers should look after the whale populations and not over fish them? Well that's not happening. Besides even if you did own a section of the ocean, whales migrate thousands of miles.

Let me give you another example. Farmers in Iowa own their farms, but they still use the hell out of industrial pesticides and fertilizer, which destroy all the natural ability of their soil to produce. If oil shortages occur, and they can't afford to use the chemicals anymore, then they wouldn't be able to produce, period. Their soils are worthless.

Travlyr
03-26-2011, 09:08 AM
Let me give you another example. Farmers in Iowa own their farms, but they still use the hell out of industrial pesticides and fertilizer, which destroy all the natural ability of their soil to produce. If oil shortages occur, and they can't afford to use the chemicals anymore, then they wouldn't be able to produce, period. Their soils are worthless.

Have you researched this for yourself? It is my understanding that their soils are deep with loam.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Loam
http://urbanext.illinois.edu/soil/st_soils/ia_soil.htm

Also, why is industrial hemp not at the top of your list of promotion? Industrial hemp is the most sustainable environmentally friendly plant on earth.

BenIsForRon
03-26-2011, 09:15 AM
Yes, originally, the farmers had great soils, but they've slowly destroyed the natural fertility with industrial farming practices.

Travlyr
03-26-2011, 09:22 AM
Yes, originally, the farmers had great soils, but they've slowly destroyed the natural fertility with industrial farming practices.

Their soils are not nearly as deteriorated as you claim.

Also, what is your position on sustainability and industrial hemp?

Fox McCloud
03-26-2011, 11:09 AM
Sure, American timber companies replant, but it took them 100 years to figure that out, after they wiped out every piece of old growth forest in the Appalachian mountains. Now you see the same thing happening in the Amazon, and some of it is small farmers, but other parts are timber companies.

First off, if these were in the commons or were government lands licensed out to be cut, then it's of no surprise to me that most of the "old growth forest" was cut down...and again, as I pointed out with the Amazon, I don't know the specifics, but I'm fairly sure that the forests are government owned/in the commons, which explains the deforestation (I would point out, however, that deforestation has been consistently falling for a while now, however). Even so, there's going to be some "deforestation"---we can't grow crops otherwise...how well are third world nations supposed to grow their food? It's not viable to have forest mixed in with farmland.


Now look at whaling. Even though the ocean is the commons, wouldn't you say that Japanese whalers should look after the whale populations and not over fish them? Well that's not happening. Besides even if you did own a section of the ocean, whales migrate thousands of miles.

Why would they? It's the commons; if group A doesn't, group B will.


Let me give you another example. Farmers in Iowa own their farms, but they still use the hell out of industrial pesticides and fertilizer, which destroy all the natural ability of their soil to produce. If oil shortages occur, and they can't afford to use the chemicals anymore, then they wouldn't be able to produce, period. Their soils are worthless.

This isn't my area of expertise; thankfully, however, I have a friend who's an agronomist who does know quite a bit about this--he's called the 'burned out" soil argument that a number have made "very naive" and not that accurate--he acknowledged that we do use a lot of petrochemicals, but that the primary argument you're making isn't accurate in the slightest.


Maybe you don't understand how the price system works:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcWkN4ngR2Y

Of course, there's always this instance: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" -Upton Sinclair, so maybe its in your best interest not to.

jmdrake
03-27-2011, 10:27 AM
That's nice. So the way around that is for people to figure out who to do the same thing without chemical pesticides and fertilizers and when they can produce better crops while others can't they'll be able to show it and will be rewarded by the market. Oh wait a minute, it's already happened. IT'S CALLED THE ORGANIC FARMING MOVEMENT! Really, having a government bureaucrat going around telling people how they should run their lives because it's for the greater good is stupid and borderline evil. Al Gore, prophet of the environmental movement, should have led by example. Instead he had the highest electric bill in the state of Tennessee. And more recently he admitted to lying about the benefits of ethanol because it would help his farming buddies (who are all using chemical fertilizers and pesticides to grow their "green fuels"). Forced environmentalism is a sham. You want to promote sustainable development? Get off the grid your own self and produce your own energy for your own private transportation. When people see how much money you are saving they will naturally want to save money themselves and you can make money as a "sustainability consultant" and you can keep the stupid government, local, statewide, federal or global, completely out of the picture.


Sure, American timber companies replant, but it took them 100 years to figure that out, after they wiped out every piece of old growth forest in the Appalachian mountains. Now you see the same thing happening in the Amazon, and some of it is small farmers, but other parts are timber companies.

Now look at whaling. Even though the ocean is the commons, wouldn't you say that Japanese whalers should look after the whale populations and not over fish them? Well that's not happening. Besides even if you did own a section of the ocean, whales migrate thousands of miles.

Let me give you another example. Farmers in Iowa own their farms, but they still use the hell out of industrial pesticides and fertilizer, which destroy all the natural ability of their soil to produce. If oil shortages occur, and they can't afford to use the chemicals anymore, then they wouldn't be able to produce, period. Their soils are worthless.

FrankRep
03-31-2011, 12:15 PM
Austin, Texas City Council Gets Schooled On United Nations' Agenda 21


Texans for Accountable Government (http://www.tagtexas.org/)
March 10, 2011



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuyRx5mOUJY