Collusion Between Government and “Renewable energy”.

April 18, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Standing with rancher Cliven Bundy

Posted on 04/17/2014by windaction

Wind Turbine Syndrome, Calvin L. Martin
The other day, something significant happened in American history. This man stood up to the American government — and the government backed down. (The “American government” consisting of a small army of heavily armed cops.)

This is a story about a number of things: (a) The renewable energy scam. (b) A foreign energy company taking adverse possession of rangeland used by this rancher’s ancestors going back 150 years, give or take. (c) An unseemly collusion between a powerful U.S. Senator, the Director of the Bureau of Land Management, and a Chinese energy company.

The bullying and sleaze of wind energy companies inevitably come to mind.

In this case, it’s not wind energy, but another non-starter: solar energy. Involving U.S. Senator Harry Reid (Nevada) negotiating with a Chinese energy mogul to build a huge solar energy plant on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administered rangeland — right smack where this rancher and his forebears have traditionally grazed their livestock. The Chinese company being legally represented, incidentally, by Senator Reid’s son, a prominent Nevada attorney. Read article

The Collusion between the Wind Industry, and the Provincial Liberal Government!

April 18, 2014April 18, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

MUST LISTEN: MIKE CRAWLEY & FIT CONTRACTS — LIBERAL CORRUPTION MAKING MILLIONS

Tip o’ the hat to Robert Stocki for this find. Lowell Green from CFRA 580 in Ottawa, talks about the widespread corruption in the Liberal Party surrounding the FIT contracts. “Mike Crawley Liberal insider and NOW President Of International Power Canada once the Wind Power Guru Of the Dalton Mc Guinty Liberals Party and Past President of the Fderal Liberal Party is now on the RECEIVING END OF the Multi Million dollar FIT CONTRACTS he helped set up under the GREEN ENERGY SHAM….. this is the Crime of the Century and you will be paying for it for 20 years.”

Check out this video….a must see! *****Mike Crawley and FIT CONTRACTS Liberals Making Millions Off of Ontario …: http://youtu.be/e6Nti3z5k_Y via @YouTube

More on Climate Alarmism!

April 18, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Via.GREENIE WATCH.

17 April 2014

Crooked old Joe Romm defends Showtime’s Series On Climate Change

Note: Romm served as the series’ Chief Science Advisor. He doesn’t mention that in his article.

Romm also quotes “the country’s top climatologist” Michael Mann to support his temper tantrum. Mann is also a Science Advisor for the series. Romm didn’t mention that, either.

Romm repeatedly uses the word “they” rather than “we” to describe the film project.

The closest he comes to transparency is near the very end of the article when he writes, “I was not one of the producers of the show, but I have worked with them long enough to know that that sentence sums up their guiding philosophy.” True, he was not a “producer,” but his statement gives the impression he merely “worked with them” in some sort of minor, outside way. He never mentions just how central his role was as Chief Science Advisor.

Ironic that Romm’s article title accuses people who criticize the series as “dishonest,” yet he fails to be forthcoming about his role in the series and his lack of objectivity writing the article.

As soon as I saw the much discredited Michael Mann described as “one of the country’s top climatologists”, I stopped reading. Sometimes total detachment from the facts makes itself obvious — JR

The good news is the video of episode one of Showtime’s climate series, “Years Of Living Dangerously,” has been getting great reviews in the New York Times and elsewhere.

The bad news is the Times has published an error-riddled hit-job op-ed on the series that is filled with myths at odds with both the climate science and social science literature. For instance, the piece repeats the tired and baseless claim that Al Gore’s 2006 movie “An Inconvenient Truth” polarized the climate debate, when the peer-reviewed data says the polarization really jumped in 2009 (see chart above from “The Sociological Quarterly”).

As I said, “Years Of Living Dangerously” — the landmark 9-part Showtime docu-series produced by the legendary James Cameron, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Jerry Weintraub — has been getting great reviews. Andy Revkin, often a critic of climate messaging, wrote in the NY Times Monday:

“… a compellingly fresh approach to showing the importance of climate hazards to human affairs, the role of greenhouse gases in raising the odds of some costly and dangerous outcomes and — perhaps most important — revealing the roots of the polarizing divisions in society over this issue….”

George Marshall, “an expert on climate and communication,” — who is also often a critic of climate messaging — wrote me:

“What impressed me about the two episodes I watched was the respect that it showed to conservatives, evangelicals and ordinary working people…. it is still the best documentary I have seen.”

The New York Times op-ed is from the founders of the Breakthrough Institute — the same group where political scientist Roger Pielke, Jr. is a Senior Fellow. It pushes the same argument that Pielke made in his fivethirtyeight piece — which was so widely criticized and debunked that Nate Silver himself admitted its myriad flaws and ran a debunking piece by an MIT climate scientist.

Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, two widely debunked eco-critics who run The Breakthrough Institute (TBI), begin by asserting “IF you were looking for ways to increase public skepticism about global warming, you could hardly do better than the forthcoming nine-part series on climate change and natural disasters, starting this Sunday on Showtime.” But they never cite anything other than the trailer in making their case, dismissing the entire enterprise on the basis of 2 minutes of clips!

They base their entire argument on a misrepresentation of climate science and a misrepresentation of social science. They assert:

“But claims linking the latest blizzard, drought or hurricane to global warming simply can’t be supported by the science.”

I asked one of the country’s top climatologist, Michael Mann, to respond to that….

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/09/3424593/showtime-years-dangerously-response
/

Wind Company buys home of people suffering from wind turbines!

April 17, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Steven N Luann Therrien

7:11am Apr 17

4/15/2014 Wind Opponents Call The Nelsons Heroes, Predict More Buyouts Robin Smith Staff Writer

Wind opponents from across Vermont reacted to the settlement between Green Mountain Power and Don and Shirley Nelson of Lowell on Monday, calling them heroes.

They said they hope the buyout could spur more as the state begins to realize that industrial wind projects have an impact on human neighbors and they vowed to continue fighting them.

Luann Therrien of Sheffield, who also lives near industrial wind turbines, said she cried for joy when she heard the news that the Nelsons had struck a deal and would be paid for their property.

“We are so thrilled for them. We are so excited that they can get out and get healthy,” she said.

Her husband Steve said he had been to the Nelsons’ farm and understood their experience. “I wouldn’t have wanted to be there another day,” he said.

Therrien said he hoped that this settlement creates a pathway for others who are experiencing health impacts.

They have tried for years to get First Wind to purchase their property.

Steve Wright of Craftsbury, president of Ridge Protectors, said the Nelsons had the Vermont dream, until they were forced from their land by a foreign-owned corporation.

“Yes, they were paid for that property, but money runs a poor second to beauty, peace, quiet and a love for your land.

“Don and Shirley are heroes. They represent the long-held Vermont values that live on in the struggle for an energy policy we know is possible, one that doesn’t drive people from their homes, damage their health, and wither hope.

“The Nelsons are not the only ones forced off their land; already, at least three other families near the Lowell project have experienced a similar fate. More are expected,” Wright said.

Annette Smith of Vermonters for a Clean Environment said her group supports the Nelsons’ decision to agree to a settlement.

“At the same time, we and many others in the community know that they have been damaged by Green Mountain Power far beyond what any monetary settlement could provide,” Smith stated.

“Any time a utility has to buy out a neighbor, it is not a ‘win’ for the corporation.”

“We expect this is just the beginning of litigation and settlements … ,” Smith stated.

“We at Energize Vermont are saddened that the Kingdom Community Wind tragedy has driven Don and Shirley Nelson from their home,” executive director Mark Whitworth of Newark said.

GMP’s settlement “represents just the latest in the series of unanticipated costs” from the wind project that will be passed on to consumers “who are weary of hearing about the cost-effectiveness of wind-generated electricity,” Whitworth stated.

Neighbors are being hurt, Wright said, even though industrial wind projects have “no effective climate change benefit.”

“Industrial wind technology does not work on the New England landscape and the Lowell Project, in spite of GMP’s claims, is clear proof,” he said.

“Complicit in this sad tale is the Shumlin administration, aided and abetted by the so-called ‘environmental’ community. Together, they continue to advance statewide energy policy that even the Public Service Board acknowledges worsens Vermont’s carbon footprint,” Wright stated.

“The negative impacts of the Lowell turbines are far greater than Green Mountain Power has disclosed and the benefits to society that they promised will never be realized,” Whitworth stated.

“The turbines will have no impact on global climate change. Their damage to the land is permanent,” Whitworth stated.

“Wind energy generation is simply inappropriate for Vermont,” Smith stated.

“It does not live up to the promises of ‘free fuel,’ but instead comes at tremendous and unaccounted-for costs. The harm done to the Nelson’s property which now has no value in the real estate market, to Don and Shirley’s health and quality of life which is degraded on a daily basis, and to the wildlife, water resources and landscape are evidence that big wind turbines have no place in Vermont,” Smith stated.

The Nelsons will remain “a symbol to the rest of Vermont” of the sacrifices demanded of those who are forced to live near wind turbines. “In the end, we believe the Lowell wind turbines must come down,” Smith said.

“The Nelsons are not the only Vermonters who have suffered ill health and financial damage because of industrial wind turbines,” Whitworth stated.

“We call upon Green Mountain Power, First Wind, and Georgia Mountain Community Wind to make reparations to the other Vermont victims of their industrial wind projects.

Steve Therrien said he has asked First Wind three times to buy them out.

They have tried to find an attorney who would work for free to help them sue the developer but have not been successful.

April 16, 2014April 16, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Why I’m cheering for fossil fuels this Earth Day

By John Stossel

“The heavens reek, the waters below are foul … we are in a crisis of survival.” That’s how Walter Cronkite and CBS hyped the first Earth Day, back in 1970. Somehow we’ve survived since then, and most of life got better, although I never hear that from the worrywarts. Of course, some things got better because of government: We passed environmental rules that got most of the filth out of the air and sewage out of lakes and rivers. Great — but now we’re told that we’re in big trouble because greenhouse gases cause global warming. I mean, climate change.

Time and again, environmentalists oppose the energy production most likely to make the world cleaner and safer. Instead, they persuade politicians to spend billions of your dollars on symbolism like “renewable” energy.

“Crop yields are down, deaths from heat are up,” says the Los Angeles Times. The “Worst Is Yet to Come,” warns The New York Times. This hype is not new. Alarmists always fool the gullible media. They once fooled me. A few years back, we were going to be killed by global cooling, overpopulation, pesticide residues, West Nile virus, bird flu, Y2K, cellphone radiation, mad cow disease, etc. Now it’s global warming. Reporters don’t make these scares up. The recent hype about global warming comes from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Most of its members are serious scientists. But reporters don’t realize that those scientists, like bird flu specialists, have every incentive to hype the risk. If their computer models (which so far have been wrong) predict disaster, they get attention and money. If they say, “I’m not sure,” they get nothing. Also, the IPCC is not just a panel of scientists. It’s an intergovernmental panel. It’s a bureaucracy controlled by the sort of people who once ran for student council and are “exhilarated by the prospect of putting the thumb of the federal government on the scale.” Actually, that wasn’t a quote from a global warming alarmist. It’s from anti-marijuana alarmist and former Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare Joe Califano. But it’s the same crisis mindset. Scientists who disagree, who are reluctant to put their thumbs on the government scale, don’t feel welcome in the IPCC. It’s possible climate change may become a problem. But even if industrialization brings warming, we’ve got more important problems. On my TV show this week, statistician Bjorn Lomborg points out that “air pollution kills 4.3 million people each year … We need to get a sense of priority.” That deadly air pollution happens because, to keep warm, poor people burn dung in their huts. Yet, time and again, environmentalists oppose the energy production most likely to make the world cleaner and safer. Instead, they persuade politicians to spend billions of your dollars on symbolism like “renewable” energy. “The amazing number that most people haven’t heard is, if you take all the solar panels and all the wind turbines in the world,” says Lomborg, “they have (eliminated) less CO2 than what U.S. fracking (cracking rocks below ground to extract oil and natural gas) managed to do.” That progress occurred despite opposition from environmentalists — and even bans in places like my stupid state, New York, where activists worry fracking will cause earthquakes or poison the water. Do environmentalists even care about measuring costs instead of just assuming benefits? We spend $7 billion to subsidize electric cars. Even if America reached the president’s absurd 2015 goal of “a million electric cars on the road” (we won’t get close), how much would it delay warming of the Earth? “One hour,” says Lomborg. “This is a symbolic act.” Symbolic. Environmentalism is now more religion than science. It even comes with built-in doomsday stories to warn people about what will happen if they disobey — a bit like the movie “Noah” that’s in theaters now. While environmentalists lament that our time is running out, environmental indicators get better, technological improvements reduce carbon dioxide, water gets cleaner for millions, and human life expectancy goes up. This Earth Day, instead of attacking those who sell fossil fuels, I will applaud them for overcoming constant environmental hysteria — while providing affordable energy that will allow us to fight poverty, which is the real threat to the people of the world. John Stossel joined Fox Business Network (FBN) in 2009. He is the host of “Stossel” (Thursdays at 9 PM/ET), a weekly program highlighting current consumer issues with a libertarian viewpoint. Stossel also appears regularly on Fox News Channel (FNC) providing signature analysis.

The people of Toronto have Wynne to thank for our lousy electricity system!

April 16, 2014April 16, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Getting off of coal, is not the problem….we could have easily replaced it with a combination of gas, nuclear, and hydro. The problem is, the money which should have gone into updating our aging infrastructure, was wasted on unreliable, inefficient, unaffordable faux-green energy. They made this expenditure, complete with crippling 20 year contracts, without even doing a cost/benefit analysis, to see if it was a worthwhile endeavor, and if it would be any improvement to our environment whatsoever. They did not do the cost/benefit analysis, I am afraid, because they would not want the public to know the answer! Shellie Correia

Ontario goes coal-free: Toronto suffers a blackout within 24 hours

Posted: April 16, 2014 by Rog Tallbloke in Carbon cycle, government, humour, Incompetence,Legal, Nuclear power, Politics, Robber Barons, wind

From the too not-funny to be as funny as it should be dept:

Ontario is now the first jurisdiction in North America to fully eliminate coal as a source of electricity generation. The Thunder Bay Generating Station, Ontario’s last remaining coal-fired facility, has burned its last supply of coal. Operated by Ontario Power Generation, Thunder Bay Generating Station was the oldest coal-fired station in the province. The plant is scheduled to be converted to burn advanced biomass, a renewable fuel source.

The province has replaced coal generation with a mix of emission-free electricity sources like nuclear, waterpower, wind and solar, along with lower-emission electricity sources like natural gas and biomass. The move to bio-mass rather than to natural gas has raised concerns in Thunder Bay. NOMA and Common Voice Northwest, and the City of Thunder Bay have all expressed concerns.
See more

But then…

TORONTO – A large swath of the city’s west end was left in the dark for a few hours Tuesday night as a blackout hit the area. The outage began around 9 p.m. and ended about 11:30, Toronto Hydro said. The area affected was bound by Yonge St. in the east, Mississauga in the west, Lawrence Ave. to the north and Dupont St. to the south.

The power utility said the outage was caused due to a Hydro One transmission issue.

Subway service was back up and running as of 11:05 p.m., the TTC said, after having been suspended between Jane and St. George Stations due to signal problems in relation to the outage.

from Rog Tallbloke….thanks Rog!

April 16, 2014 / 1957chev / 3 Comments

Energy Australia pulls the plug on Robertstown wind farm project

Great news for the tight little South Australian farming communities of Robertstown and Point Pass as Energy Australia pulls the plug on its plans to slam 40 giant fans into the heart of highly productive farming and grazing territory in SA’s Mid-North.

Here’s the story – as told by STT Champion, Mary Morris:

Colin Schaefer and Mary Morris celebrate a victory for common sense.

Colin Schaefer (Brady Creek) and Mary Morris (Buchanan) give the thumbs up to Australian Radio Towers workers as they dismantle an Energy Australia wind monitoring mast near Point Pass in the Mid North of South Australia.

Going, going …

This wind monitoring mast for the proposed Robertstown wind farm was taken down today by contractors under direction from Energy Australia. It was erected in 2009, a mere 500 m from a neighbouring farm house and close to the township of Point Pass and dozens of hobby farms and lifestyle blocks.

A second tower will be removed tomorrow near Inspiration Point, west of the township of Robertstown.

Initially local landowners were supportive when invited to take part in the project in 2005. However, local opposition to the proposed wind farm took off in late 2010, when the nearby Waterloo wind farm started operating and landowners who had signed up for Robertstown wind farm realised they could hear and feel noise and vibration from 8 km away.

Nine of the fourteen contracted Robertstown landowners believe they were misled about the impacts of the wind farm – especially noise – and no longer want to be part of the project. Colin Schaefer (pictured) was one of the contracted landowners who changed his mind when Waterloo wind farm started operating. He had worked on the construction at Waterloo and thought it was great idea – until the turbines started turning and his sleep was frequently disturbed.

A petition with 345 local signatures against any more turbines being built in the area south of Burra was presented to Energy Australia at a public information session at Marrabel in May 2012.

At the site today, Mary Morris thanked Clint Purkiss (Energy Australia) for removing the mast and asked him for his reasons for doing so. He replied “it’s fair to say, we listened”.

Mary Morris
14 April 2014

…. gone!

And here’s a Channel 7 News report on the victory:

****

Truth be told, a whole host of factors lined up to kill off the project.

In the end, Energy Australia didn’t have the land-holder agreements it needed to make the project viable.

One local farmer and grazier, Jim Dunstan (seen in the Channel 7 report) bought out a substantial property where the former owner had signed a land-holder agreement and was set to host a large number of turbines for Energy Australia. Jim managed to get rid of the contract, which meant the developer immediately lost the ability to erect a substantial part of its planned project. Nice work Jim!

Jim Dunstan is an avid environmentalist with a burning passion for Australia’s native birds and animals. He’s campaigned for years to keep a raft of planned giant fans from being built on the hills behind Robertstown – that would run North to Stony Gap and Burra – in order to prevent the destruction of the last-remaining habitat of the critically endangered Pygmy Blue-Tongue lizard (see below) – as well as to avoid having his many feathered friends sliced and diced by giant fans. So this retreat must be a doubly sweet victory for him.

No longer threatened by bulldozers, another local breathes a sigh of relief.

And, of course, the economics have caught up with wind power. Built and maintained on the mandatory Renewable Energy Target and the steady stream of Renewable Energy Certificates – that have been driving up retail power prices and upon which the whole fiasco critically depends – the wind industry is facing the very real prospect of the subsidy trough drying up quite a bit sooner than it budgeted on.

The RET Review will almost certainly spell the end of the current 41,000 GW/h annual target. On current forecasts showing declining demand, that figure will end up with renewables notionally supplying more than 27% of total demand. Demand for sparks has fallen in the last few years – and will continue to fall – as industry, minerals processors and manufacturers – belted by escalating power costs – shut their doors and bolt for cheaper places to operate overseas. The target was meant to be 20% by 2020 – so there can no justification for the current figure.

The Panel in charge of the review are all keen advocates of real (ie stand its own 2 feet) business and the Coalition have made plain their avid dislike of corporate welfare – which is precisely what the RET/REC scheme reduces to – as Angus “the Enforcer” Taylor put it: “corporate welfare on steroids”.

Energy Australia would not have secured a Power Purchase Agreement for its Robertstown project – in the absence of which it will never secure the finance to build.

In the end, the decision to drop the project was probably more about avoiding throwing good money after bad – than about “listening” to locals. But, whatever killed it, the locals are over the Moon.

How to Be Successful in Your Endeavors!

April 16, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

7 HABITS OF HIGHLY EMOTIONALLY INTELLIGENT PEOPLE

PEOPLE WITH HIGH EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE TEND TO DO BETTER AT WORK. SO WHAT HABITS DO THEY HAVE THAT SET THEM APART?

BY HARVEY DEUTSCHENDORF

It has increasingly become accepted that emotional intelligence is an important factor in our success and happiness, not only at work, but in our relationships and all areas of our lives.

So what sets emotionally intelligent people apart? Here are seven habits that people with high EI have:

1. THEY FOCUS ON THE POSITIVE

While not ignoring the bad news, emotionally intelligent people have made a conscious decision to not spend a lot of time and energy focusing on problems. Rather, they look at what is positive in a situation and look for solutions to a problem. These people focus on what they are able to do and that which is within their control.

2. THEY SURROUND THEMSELVES WITH POSITIVE PEOPLE

People with a lot of emotional intelligence don’t spend a lot of time listening to complainers and tend to avoid negative people. They are aware negative people are an energy drain and are not willing to let others exhaust their vitality. Because they always look for solutions and the positive in situations, negative people quickly learn to avoid positive people as misery loves company.

Emotionally intelligent people spend time with others that are positive and look upon the bright side of life. You can spot these folks as they tend to smile and laugh a great deal and attract other positive people. Their warmth, openness, and caring attitude leads others look upon them as more trustworthy.

3. THEY ARE ABLE TO SET BOUNDARIES AND BE ASSERTIVE WHEN NECESSARY

Although their friendly, open nature may make them appear as pushovers to some, people with high EI are able to set boundaries and assert themselves when needed. They demonstrate politeness and consideration but stay firm at the same time.

They do not make needless enemies. Their response to situations, in which there may be conflict, is measured, not inflated, and managed appropriately to the situation. They think before speaking and give themselves time to calm down if their emotions appear to become overwhelming. High EI people guard their time and commitments and know when they need to say no.

4. THEY ARE FORWARD THINKING AND WILLING TO LET GO OF THE PAST

People with high EI are too busy thinking of possibilities in the future to spend a lot of time dwelling upon things that didn’t work out in the past. They take the learning from their past failures and apply it to their actions in the future. They never see failure as permanent or a personal reflection of themselves.

5. THEY LOOK FOR WAYS TO MAKE LIFE MORE FUN, HAPPY, AND INTERESTING

Whether it is in their workplace, at home, or with friends, high EI people know what makes them happy and look for opportunities to expand the enjoyment. They receive pleasure and satisfaction from seeing others happy and fulfilled, and do whatever they can to brighten someone else’s day.

6. THEY CHOOSE HOW THEY EXPEND THEIR ENERGY WISELY

While these enlightened people are good at moving on from the past when things didn’t work out as expected, they are also able to move on from conflicts involved with others. High EI folks don’t hold on to anger over how others have treated them, rather use the incident to create awareness of how to not let it happen again. “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me,” is their motto. While they move on and forgive, they don’t forget and are unlikely to be taken advantage of again in the same set of circumstances.

7. CONTINUALLY LEARNING AND GROWING TOWARDS INDEPENDENCE

Highly emotionally intelligent people are lifelong learners, constantly growing, evolving, open to new ideas, and always willing to learn from others. Being critical thinkers, they are open to changing their minds if someone presents an idea that is a better fit. While they are open to ideas from others, and continuously gathering new information, they ultimately trust themselves and their own judgment to make the best decision for themselves.

The truth about Agenda 21!

April 16, 2014April 16, 2014 / 1957chev / 1 Comment

Agenda 21? What is Agenda 21?

April 15, 2014

Most people have never heard of Agenda 21. If they have heard of it, they likely believe it to be a vague United Nations program that will never see the light of day, or they believe it is imagined by conspiracy theorists. Yet, the principles contained in Agenda 21 are at the heart of many of our federal programs since the late 1990s. They reach every corner of the United States and impact millions of Americans who don’t even realize the document exists.

Although Agenda 21 was decades in the making, it was showcased to the world at the 1992 UN “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro. It was there that President George H. Bush, along with leaders from 177 other nations, signed onto this “non-binding” UN action plan that was purportedly designed to assist governments at the local, national and international level implement the principles of so-called “sustainable development.” The “21” in the name refers to the 21^st Century.

Agenda 21 made its way into the U.S. the following year when President Clinton quietly established the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD). The PCSD codified Agenda 21 into U.S. policy through a program called Sustainable America. Today, nearly all federal programs dealing with land management, education, environment and much more are linked to Agenda 21 through Sustainable America.

Because of grassroots pushback, the federal government today rarely uses the term Agenda 21 or Sustainable America anymore – especially with any program it is promoting. Instead, programs which administer Agenda 21’s sustainable development principles are given warm and fuzzy titles like the America’s Great Outdoors Initiative, Partnership for Sustainable Communities, Obama’s Climate Action Plan and many more. Even the newest education fad,Common Core, is linked to Agenda 21, as are the new Next Generation Science Standards.

Google has over 300 million references to Agenda 21, yet it’s hard for most people to get the truth about Agenda 21 because of the truckloads of smoke and misinformation generated by government bureaucrats and the progressive media. This UN program is indeed real and it is an affront to our personal liberties.\Agenda 21 is supposedly designed to make the world “sustainable” by limiting human activities that environmental extremists believe are harming the planet. That may sound fine to many people – until they understand what it means in practice. In order to protect the environment, Agenda 21 instructs governments to micromanage virtually all human activity – which the governments either severely restrict, or regulate to the point that such activity can be minimalized.

A good case in point took place in California recently, which as has been widely reported, experienced a major three-year drought. In mid-March 2014, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld federal guidelines that guaranteed minimal flow of the Sacramento River to benefit “endangered” Delta Smelt – totally neglecting the needs of local farmers. Most farmers are getting no water even though most of them have long-term contracts guaranteeing it to them.

Ironically, the Delta Smelt have survived many severe droughts in the past when farmers got virtually all the available water from the Sacramento River. Yet today the smelt get the water and the farmers don’t – even though many of the farmers will not survive the cutbacks. Seeing the needs of nature as being in conflict with the needs of people is a principle that is at the very heart of Agenda 21.

This is no small matter. Thousands of workers are being put out of work in California, and up to 700,000 acres of prime farmland will be removed from production. Since one-third of America’s fruit and vegetables originate in California’s Central Valley, this means that food prices could jump as much as 3.5%. While that may not seem like much to the more affluent in our society, it could be devastating to seniors and the poor who may no longer be able buy essential fruits and vegetables.

Simply stated, the only way Agenda 21 can work is to deny private citizens their private property rights. This should surprise no one since the UN has maintained that “public control of land use is…indispensable” since the 1976 Habitat I Conference in Vancouver, British Columbia. Yet, recent research sponsored by the World Bank has shown that legally protected private property rights drastically reduce corruption, while establishing the foundation for wealth creation. This in turn also helps the environment as weathier nations spend more on environmental protection than poorer ones. The research stressed that “since these people do not have access to a comprehensive legal property system, they cannot leverage their assets to produce additional wealth.” The bottom line? “Nearly five billion people are legally and economically disenfranchised by their own governments,” reports the Bank.

The vast bulk of this is occurring, of course, in the developing world – but not all. The same thing is happening in the U.S. as Agenda 21 principles are adopted into policy. It has already had devastating effects. According to the Fraser Institute and CATO’s Economic Freedom of the World, the legal-system and-private-property-rights ranking for the U.S. plummeted from number one in 1980 to38th in 2011; which not unsurprisingly has occurred since Agenda 21 principles began to be implemented in the 1990s. The U.S. combined economic ranking in the world from 1980 to 2000 was second or third place behind Hong Kong and Singapore. It plummeted to 19th between 2000 and 2011—mostly due to federal spending, debt, skyrocketing regulations (especially from EPA) and, most importantly, loss of a stable legal system and property rights.

Is it any wonder the current “economic recovery” is so anemic. Certainly not all of the economic woes we have experienced since President Obama’s election can be blamed on Agenda 21 policy. But Agenda 21 is no doubt a big factor in ravaging the U.S. economy. Citizens can begin to restore America’s health by supporting rational candidates at every level of government that are committed to ridding this nation of Agenda 21’s “sustainable development” policy plague.

About the Author: Michael Coffman

Michael Coffman, PhD, is CEO of Sovereignty International and has worked to raise awareness about the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, one of the key goals of Agenda 21

Climate Alarmists Have an Agenda…..and it is NOT a Good One!