I've sounded the alarm over the dangers of Sustainable Development and the agenda for top-down control through what proponents call the "Three Es," which includes the Environment, the Economy, and Social Equity. A fourth rail to imposing Agenda 21 is called Corporate Social Responsibility. It is the direct result of the merging of the Three Es. CSR is the map to understanding why corporations are actively promoting the "green" agenda – even to the detriment of their own business.
Picture, if you will, an Isosceles triangle. And label each point: 1. Government Power 2. Corporate Money 3. NGOs Agenda
The truth is, corporations aren't always willing players in the partnerships — neither is government, for that matter. Many times both are answering to pressure from activists with a specific agenda.
In the battle of environmentalists against business that began years ago in the United States, one of its latest victims is Birmingham, Alabama, coal mine owner Ronnie Bryant.
During a recent public hearing in Birmingham — called to consider whether to place a coal mine near a river that serves as a source of drinking water for parts of the Birmingham metro area — Bryant heard accusations by an overflowing crowd that businesses in the area were polluting the drinking water and causing cancer.
Though both state environmental officials and mine operators asserted that the mine would not pose a threat to the drinking water, environmentalists contended that it would.
Item: “The White House is negotiating new vehicle mileage and emissions standards with carmakers, labour unions and environmental groups, proposing rules that would sharply cut petrol bills for US drivers and put domestic manufacturers on a par with those in Europe and Asia,” reported London’s Financial Times for July 4.
Item: The New York Times for July 4 said, “Depending of the stringency of the standard, the deal could also reduce global warming emissions by millions of tons a year and cut oil imports by billions of barrels over the life of the program, cornerstones of President Obama’s energy policy.”
Correction: The government may be promising us a Rose Garden, but what it actually will deliver is a patch of painful thorns.
Life has many good things. The problem is that most of these good things can be gotten only by sacrificing other good things. We all recognize this in our daily lives. It is only in politics that this simple, common sense fact is routinely ignored.
In politics, there are not simply good things but some special Good Things — with a capital G and capital T — which are considered always better to have more of.
Many of the things advocated by environmental extremists, for example, are things that most of us might think of as good things. But, in politics, they become Good Things whose repercussions and costs are brushed aside as unworthy considerations.
According to internationally acclaimed author and highly regarded expert Lester Brown, writing in the January 10 issue of Foreign Policy magazine:
Tonight there will be 219,000 additional mouths to feed at the dinner table, and many of them will be greeted with empty plates.
Another 219,000 will join us tomorrow night.
In Sana’a, the capital of Yemen — home to 2 million people — tap water is available only once every 4 days; in [nearby] Taiz, it is [only available] once every 20 days.
Virtually all of the top 20 countries considered to be “failing states” [defined as suffering massive economic decline] are depleting their natural assets — forests, grasslands, soils and aquifers — [just to] sustain their … populations.
Like me, you’d probably find it creepy and extremely unsettling were a total stranger to obsess about you. Indeed, you might even degenerate from Peaceable Person to Screaming, Cursing Banshee Throwing Wild Punches were the guy to buttonhole you and dictate how many gallons your toilet may flush, the formulation of gas for your car, or the amount of fat and sodium permitted in your favorite chips.
But apparently few of our fellow serfs object to such bizarre behavior, judging by their reaction when a bunch of total strangers — and very strange, unsavory strangers at that — gossiped about which light bulbs we prefer. Two of the strangest, former Rep. Jane Harmon (D-Israel — if we go by this ostensible Californian’s largest donor) and Fred Upton (R-Electric Utilities — if we go by his. But it paid off: electric companies in Michigan can kill folks who fall behind in their bills) sponsored a bill that will force us to switch from incandescent bulbs to compact fluorescent (CFL) ones with the excuse that the latter are “cleaner” for the environment.
The U.S. House of Representatives is pushing legislation that would overturn a law that bans incandescent light bulbs and sets new energy-efficiency standards for the bulbs. Under President George W. Bush, a 2007 energy act was passed that requires efficiency upgrades in incandescent light bulbs, which have remained relatively unchanged since the invention of the light bulb in 1879. Republicans in the House contend that the law is a violation of personal freedom and are determined to overturn it. A vote on a bill to overturn the ban could come as early as today.
The Blaze reports:
Republicans say the new standards, signed into law by President George W. Bush, are a symbol of an overreaching federal government and people should have the right to buy the traditional, cheap and reliable incandescent bulbs. The Obama administration and environmentalists say new bulbs on the market will save American households billions of dollars in energy costs.
In recent decades such a large portion of scientific research has been funded by governments, either directly or through government-funded universities, that most people can scarcely imagine a world in which research is paid for solely by the private sector. Today, however, researchers are feeling the pinch of government cutbacks and, according to the New York Times, are turning to the Internet to raise funds for their research — a task that, while daunting, also holds rewards for both researchers and donors.
For example, biologists Jennifer Calkins and Jennifer Gee, seeking to travel to Mexico to study the elegant quail, set up a project on Kickstarter.com, a “crowd-funding” website. There they described their research project in detail and offered a variety of premiums to those pledging money for their project — everything from postcards to signed copies of the book based on the research, to outings with the researchers. The book, available for a donation of $35, proved to be the most popular premium. “It’s one thing to buy a book about quails,” Kickstarter community editor Cassie Marketos told the Times. “But to know that you played a small part in making it happen is a much different experience.”
JBS CEO Art Thompson's topics this week — The EPA Plays Punch and Judy with the American People; and Obama administration reaches out to militant Islam.
With the Western nations continuing their downward economic spiral, the advocates of the United Nations’ redistributionist schemes also continue to exploit the environmental agenda in their effort to fundamentally alter the global economy to serve their own ends.
Despite the failure of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference in December 2009 to achieve its goal of a treaty binding the industrialized world to an economic suicide pact, the "voluntary" agreements are still a threat to the West. The UN is engaged in an effort to use the imagined environmental crisis as the justification for a program of sweeping economic redistribution that would shift trillions of dollars from the industrialized nations to the Third World. The UN is now demanding an “investment” of $1.9 trillion per year in “green technology” to meet the goals that the Internationalists have set for the nations of the world. An AFP story entitled “World needs $1.9tn a year for green technology:UN” sets forth the lament of an elite for whom “real money” is measured in tens of trillions of dollars: