Sustainable justice – Redistribution of scarcity

With “global warming” on the ropes, the latest buzzword from the would-be tyrants is “sustainability.” As far as I’m concerned, it’s simply another power grab.


“As the UN’s Rio+20 sustainability gabfest and attempted power grab moves through its agenda and strategy sessions, and toward the June 20-22 plenary sessions, American citizens and taxpayers – and people in the world’s poorest countries – should understand what is really going on in Rio de Janeiro … and why it is so important to our future,” says Paul Driessen.

“This article explains the stakes, outlining what the environmentalist, globalist and UN agitators are really trying to do – and how it will affect our lives, livelihoods, living standards, dreams, opportunities and human rights progress … if we allow it to succeed.”


“Sustainable justice” = redistribution of scarcity

The UN Rio+20 agenda means less freedom, happiness, true justice and human rights progress
By Paul Driessen and Duggan Flanakin

Presidential candidate Barack Obama promised that his Administration would “fundamentally transform the United States of America.” He gave a clue to exactly what he had in mind when he told now-congressional candidate Joe “The Plumber” Wurzelbacher: “When you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

Not necessarily – especially when activists, regulators, politicians and ruling elites do all they can to ensure there is less and less wealth to spread around.

Just this week, the Civil Society Reflection Group on Global Development Perspectives released a new report to the United Nations Rio+20 Earth Summit on Sustainable Development. The executive summary of No Future Without Justice begins with the heading, “The World Is in Need of Fundamental Change.” The document then offers “solutions,” which include “universal fiscal equalization” and a “massive and absolute decoupling of well-being from resource extraction and consumption.”

The 18-member Group includes no Americans – but condemns the US and other governments for their dedication to economic growth, rather than wealth redistribution, and demands that governments play a key role in promoting “sustainability” and welfare. They insist that all governments provide universal access to public health care, guaranteed state allowances for every child, guaranteed state support for the unemployed and underemployed, and basic universal pensions and universal social security.

It is, in short, the total nanny state – but with little or no resource extraction or economic growth to support it. In other words, it guarantees sustained injustice and redistribution of increasing scarcity.

The Group admits that human civilization “will still need some form of growth in large parts of the world, to expand the frontiers of maximum available resources for poor countries.” However, the massive investments needed to shift to a totally renewable energy and resource-based economy will require “massive de-growth (shrinkage) of products, sectors and activities that do not pass the sustainability test” – as devised by them, affiliated organizations and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

Key financial support for the push toward “sustainability” includes a “greener” and “more progressive” tax system featuring a financial transaction tax, abolition of subsidies for all but renewable energy, cutting military spending while dramatically increasing “stimulus” spending, a compensation scheme to pay off “climate debts” to poor countries supposedly impacted by hydrocarbon-driven climate change, a new regulatory framework for financial markets, a financial product safety commission, and still more regulations for hedge funds and private equity funds. The Group also demands public control of financial rating agencies and a government takeover of international accounting standards.

To ensure that “sustainable development” permeates every aspect of society, the Group proposes a new “Sherpa” for Sustainability (with cabinet rank), a parliamentary committee on policy coherence for sustainability, a UN Sustainability Council, a Universal Periodic Review on Sustainability, and an Ombudsman for Intergenerational Justice and Future Generations. It also proposes an International Panel on Sustainability that builds on the “success” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Of course, guiding all this would be the world’s premiere political body and bastion of freedom, fairness, democracy and human rights – the UN General Assembly.

To guide this “fundamental” shift toward the sustainability paradigm, the Group laid down eight principles – the key being the “precautionary principle,” which forbids any activity that might involve risk or “do harm.” Its own sustainability prescriptions are, of course, exempted from any reviews under the precautionary principle.

The objective, they state, is to build economies that drastically limit carbon emissions, energy consumption, primary resource extraction, waste generation, and air and water pollution. Society must also stop the asserted and computer-modeled loss of species and ruination of ecosystems.

All this naturally will require mandatory changes in consumption patterns and lifestyles (at least for the common folk), and the recognition that work (unlike capital) is not a production factor. Indeed, says the Group, work is not even a commodity. Moreover, only “decent” work qualifies under the sustainability paradigm. (While “decent work” is never defined, it presumably includes backbreaking sunup-to-sundown labor at subsistence farming, which under the Group’s agenda would be called “traditional” or “organic” farming and would not be replaced by modern mechanized agriculture.)

What is the source of all of this gobbledygook? Agenda 21, the centerpiece of the original Rio Earth Summit – which is being perpetuated, refined and redefined at parallel proceedings in Belo Horizonte, Brazil, while the main sustainability discussions are ongoing in Rio de Janeiro.

Agenda 21 states, for example, that “achieving the goals of environmental quality and sustainable development will require … changes in consumption patterns.” This too would be achieved under UN auspices because, as Earth Summit creator Maurice Strong has explained, the days of national sovereignty are over, and the world needs to embrace a system of wealth transfer to ensure environmental security.

In short, “sustainable development” is a system that requires a redefinition of business activity, away from the pursuit of personal profit – and of government activity, away from the pursuit of individual happiness and justice – and toward the pursuit of societal good, as defined by activists and the UN.

Simply put, as Brian Sussman points out in his new book, Eco-Tyranny, the ultimate goal of those who endorse the sustainability paradigm is to expunge “the most precious” rights expressed in the American Declaration of Independence: “that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among them are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness – that to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.”

The Agenda 21 and sustainability paradigm also rejects and undermines Adam Smith’s belief that mankind’s natural tendency toward self-interest, profit and self-improvement results in greater prosperity, opportunity, health, welfare and justice for all.

Most of all, the UN/Maurice Strong/ Civil Society Reflection Group vision is merely the latest embodiment of Plato’s Republic. Under Plato’s thesis, an educated, elite, but benevolent and mythical, ruling class acts on the belief that its self-appointed philosopher kings have all the right answers, and do not require the Consent of the Governed. The rest of humanity must fall into lockstep or face the consequences; however the results will be exemplary.

Unfortunately, as Alexander Hamilton observed, men are not angels. Moreover, it defies experience and common sense to suppose that the elitist UN, UNEP and environmental activist community will ever display wisdom detached from ardent ideology – or benevolence toward the humans they seek to govern.

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org and www.CFACT.tv) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death. Duggan Flanakin is director of research and international programs for CFACT.


18 thoughts on “Sustainable justice – Redistribution of scarcity

  1. “Unfortunately, as Alexander Hamilton observed, men are not angels. Moreover, it defies experience and common sense to suppose that the elitist UN, UNEP and environmental activist community will ever display wisdom detached from ardent ideology – or benevolence toward the humans they seek to govern.”

    The key part of that statement that I probably would take exception to is the last half of the last sentence. They do NOT seek to govern, they seek to suppress, and there is a significant different between even a repressive government and suppression of human rights and dignity.

  2. Sustainability and this green building nonsense are cottage industries created as cures for which there is no disease – global warming.

    Environmental organizations like academia, the media, and the bureaucracy were the magnets attracting refugees from the Communist Bloc countries after the fall of the Berlin wall. Communism didn’t die; it was swept under the rug of Capitalist society.

    Environmentalism is structured like watermelons; green on the outside, red on the inside.

  3. I cannot figure what has happened to the “hippies” I used to know.

    They wanted an alternate lifestyle, to be left in peace to pursue it. They wanted to be green and live simply and sustainably.

    They were mostly anarchists who wanted far less government interference – they were definately not the type of anarchists as supported, say, the Sex Pistols type of anarchy.

    How come todays “greens” support totalitarian government and demand the right to stuuf their thoughts down everybody elses throats ???

    Have they learned nothing from the past when totalitarian governments with an ideal have ruled ?

    Nazi Germany, Stalin’s USSR, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, the Balkans conflicts etc etc.

    The proposed world government these fools idolize would be the worst of them all.

  4. The worst thing about this proposed system, is like all other totalitarian regimes before it, it simply won’t work, and enough people will finally realize this, so that one way or the other, it will be ultimately be scrapped, but not, I fear, before a lot of other, less pleasant things have happened.

  5. History books will tell us power monger tyranical empires of the past with no good intentions fail.Pearl harbour trigerred a righteous conscience of America,Japans emperor stepped on the wrong toes”I think we’ve have awaken a sleeping giant”.The rest is history. Can not see a U.N.proposal even nudging a giant into some scheme,ww2 would still be in aftermath,if it were not for good ole North America. And as a controller(world police)of peace. America still calls the shots,never mind redistribution of ecos(economys)to the east,wealth,resources…they say history repeats,better times are ahead. In my opinion the banana republic united nations can fairy tale all they want,fact is American of good…can not,should not,better not be allowed to follow in the footsteps of past tyrant countries which still have a seat in the U. N. Building N. Y. Good will prevail.

  6. egad, what optimists, a quick search on the internet for the opinion of the very rich/powerful types, on the subject of ideal population levels for planet earth, a couple say less than 2 billion, MOST say 500 million, a few say 300 to 250 million, and the bible says 200 million! and that was written into the bible by the rich of another generation. The bush comment “one thousand points of light” , I was told, refers to one thousand cities at night that light the sky on planet earth. They mean to eliminate us. I suspect the survivalist types have gotten wind of the ill will of the power guys.

    • And yet they continue to push seatbelt laws, sin taxes, food and drug standards, gun laws, and a host of other policies designed to improve and extend our lives. How insidious.

  7. As Thomas Dolby sang “She blinded me with science”! Well that is what happened to the world concerning global warming. As a whole we were stunned and blinded. We put our collective trust in those that claimed expertise and objectivity. How foolish we were.
    Our eyes are open now. We cannot let loose of this. We cannot let them lead us down another rabbit hole. To quote the Who “We won’t get fooled again”!

  8. An equal share of an ever decreasing “cake”, ending in an equal share in nothing. Communism in a few words.

    Didn’t the Founding Fathers try the equal share of the produce from a communally worked plot of ground for a season or two and found that it just didn’t work, and then gave each family a plot to work for their own benefit? History repeats.

  9. dont knock govt supplied pensions and support or healthcare.
    if you pay a levy and reasonable taxes its workable, ensures less crime and less misery.
    it works well in australia, I and many others are amused by usa ians going nuts over it.
    it means if youre ill you DO get treated.
    whats better? to have to sell your home to get care? or pay ripoff health funds that jack prices UP to profit off the ill>?
    usa health system is a farce unless youre working and well paid. not many of them left is there?
    people who at least recieve enough to eat and share rent dont have to steal or live in drains, and then get ill etc.
    as for the rest ie banning resource use etc.
    let them who want to go without go somewhere and do it. and leave em in peace.
    the radical greens from decades back like suzuki and strong speak green act red. and we have too many of them here with a power fixation too:-(

    • Yes, as Margaret Thacher said, “Socialism works, until you run out of other peoples money.” The U.S. health system can be made better … by more competition, allowing the sales of health care across state lines (not allowed now) and other ways that many politicians will not allow (the receive campaign money from those against those ideas). But few in the U.S. go without needed health care. If you need it you can get it. And what about that little Canadian boy several years ago with a congenital heart problem. His parents couldn’t get him into the hospital and time was running out, so they decided to take him to the U.S. (where he would have gotten an operation right away). The Canadian governement was in a frenzy and convinced the parents to take the child to Toronto and he would be admitted to the heart hospital right away. When they got there, they were told that a room wasn’t ready. They had to wait 3 days. The boy died.

    • It works well in Australia, for now. You have a population the size of New York and a land mass roughly equivalent to the US with all its natural resources. That’s just a little different than here.
      Additionally I would gladly support more reforms like you talk about if everyone paid taxes. Unfortunately 90% of US tax revenues come from the top 10%. Not equitable at all.
      The other problem is that its never enough. If we had complete full medical coverage for everything under the sun including any alternative medicine you wish to try, including plastic surgery, including anything you can think of, the bottom feeders would want more. It never ends.
      In California you can get a college education for free. Thats not enough, so we pay stipends, thats not enough so we give food stamps, thats not enough so we provide health care and on and on and on. The people utilizing the programs do not pay into the system. Ever.

    • Additionaly I would rather pay the health care premium and get the treatment when I or my family needs it rather than an equivalant tax and have to wait months for it. I lived in Japan for 5 years and saw socialized medicine first hand. What a joke. And in a supposedly 1st world nation to boot.

  10. This is the same old idea: A small ruling elite at the top and the rest of us as expendable worker bees. In Russia and China they called it communism. But that was an obvious lie. Did Stalin and Mao “work according to their ability and take only according to their need.” Of course not. They were the new aristocrisy living the rich and good life. And that’s what the green agenda is all about today, creating a new aristocrisy and the rest of humanity be damned. And all the little green worker bees are so blind and ignorant. If this agenda is put into place (which I doubt — without one hell of a lot of wars and revolutions), those little green worker bees will be spat upon like the rest of us.

  11. The saddest part of all of this is that the radical environmentalests make every issue polarized so that either you are for them or you are fighting them all the way. We DO need to be more sustainable, clean up the air, water and soil, control our population and pay more attention to what we are doing to our environment if we are to survive as a species and still enjoy life. It is hard to keep focused on what is truly needful when people are calling for such extreme measures that will only destroy everything and fix nothing. When the only true option is to fight them with every thing you have, the true needs of the planet and the people are dumped by the wayside.

  12. Y eh I can see Clive Palmer and Gina Reinhardt (sic)going for this .That old song comes to mind”boy you gotta carry that weight” .

  13. I think they are only worried about the sustainability of their fraudulent activities and drive to tyranny.

Comments are closed.