Is this the introduction of “Agenda 21?” – Photo credit: Google Images
The United Nations is holding its’ “Conference on Sustainable Development” in Rio de Janero, Brazil, over three separate sessions in June, to which organizers, led by UN Conference Secretary-General of Rio+20, Sha Zukang [who ‘really doesn’t like Americans’], expect 193 attendees from governments, the private sector, NGOs and other stakeholders, according to the Sarah de Sainte Croix March 20, 2012 article in The Rio Times.
The stated themes of this colossal conference, which is structured around a 204-page report titled, “Working Towards a Balanced and Inclusive Green Economy, A United Nations System-Wide Perspective,” are “the green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication,” … [by and through] … “the institutional framework for sustainable development,” according to George Russell’s excellent and quoted-filled FOXNews article today.
More specifically, the debates will cover a … ‘breathtaking array of carbon taxes, transfers of trillions of dollars from wealthy countries to poor ones, and new spending programs to guarantee that populations around the world are protected–from the effects of the very programs the world organization wants to implement.
According to Russell, the Obama Administration officials have supported this “agenda,” which is designed to ‘make dramatic and enormously expensive changes in the way that the world does nearly everything—or, as one of the documents puts it, “a fundamental shift in the way we think and act.”
According to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, proposals on how the “challenges can and must be addressed,” include:
–’More than $2.1 trillion a year in wealth transfers from rich countries to poorer ones, in the name of fostering “green infrastructure … climate adaptation … other green economy” measures.’
–’New carbon taxes for industrialized countries [amounting to] about $250 billion a year, or 0.6 percent of [US] GDP by 2020. Other environmental taxes are mentioned, but not specified.’
–’Further unspecified price hikes … derived from agriculture, fisheries, forestry, or other kinds of land and water use [industries], all of which would be radically reorganized–[to] “contribute to a more level playing field between established, ‘brown’ technologies and newer, greener ones.”‘
– ‘Major global social spending programs, including a “social protection floor” and “social safety nets” for the world’s most vulnerable social groups for reasons of “equity.”’
–’Even more social benefits for those displaced by [this] green economy revolution—such as those put out of work in undesirable fossil fuel industries. The benefits, called “investments,” would include “access to nutritious food, health services, education, training and retraining, and unemployment benefits.”‘
–’A guarantee that if those sweeping benefits weren’t enough, more would be granted … “Any adverse effects of changes in prices of goods and services, vital to the welfare of vulnerable groups, must be compensated for and new livelihood opportunities provided.”‘
“Transforming the global economy will require action locally (e.g., through land use planning), at the national level (e.g., through energy-use regulations) and at the international level (e.g., through technology diffusion),” the document says.
It involves “profound changes in economic systems, in resource efficiency, in the composition of global demand, in production and consumption patterns and a major transformation in public policy-making.” It will also require “a serious rethinking of lifestyles in developed countries.”
This ‘UN guidebook for global social engineering,’ was prepared by the Geneva-based United Nations Environmental Management Group (UNEMG), a consortium of 36 U.N. agencies, development banks and environmental bureaucracies–all of which rely on the contributions, from tax collecting nations for their very existence–not a single entity engaged in the production of goods or services, producing a profit and owning singular wealth.
This UN doctrine seems to directly channel Marx and Engel’s scribe of 1848, “The Communist Manifesto,” wherein its’ organizational and operational structure appears to largely be a paraphrasical equivalent to the 10 short-term demands Marx prescribed in section II., “Proletarians and Communists.”
However, instead of the UN overthrowing the capitalist system, it simply wants to tie it to a leash and be subject to the UN … [a] ‘dictatorship of the proletariat,’ to redistribute wealth around the world to “magically elevate the poverty class to the middle class.
The United States, arguably the most fertile and favorable ground for such a massive experiment, has already spent $15 [T]rillion in taxpayer treasure over the past 47 years attempting to circumvent market forces and eliminate poverty–with no affect.
Additionally, study after study has revealed the UN to have grown into an impossibly dysfunctional gargantuan, having negligent management skills, metrics and accountability, and a source of financially wasteful pandering–second only to the U.S. General Services Administration.
Actually, as this directly smacks of the long-discussed “UN Agenda 21,” America must treat this audacity of the United Nations as a wake up call, and say “[last] check please”–then hit the UN exit doors without delay.