This is a pretty boring post because I am
reporting on a really boring report. If you have absolutely no interest in
Agenda 21, skip this post.
After seeing some really scary but stupid-sounding,
conspiracy-type stuff and after learning the force behind the anti-Agenda 21
movement was the wing nuts of the John Birch Society, I decided to actually read
Agenda 21 for myself. I would not have even bothered reading it, but not only
were the JBS warning of Agenda 21, but the Republican National Committee warned
about the danger of Agenda 21 and our state legislature passed a Joint House Resolution
warning of the dangers of it.
I started actually reading Agenda 21 about
two week few ago. To see my report on the first chapters I read, see Actually reading Agenda 21, Part 1.
I am trying to
withhold judgment on Agenda 21 until I have actually read it. When everything from reintroduction of wolves, to sidewalks, to smart meters, to
traffic roundabouts, and community policing are being denounced as part of the
Agenda 21 conspiracy, it is hard to not conclude the critics are just nuts, but
I am trying to read it objectively and withhold judgment to the end.
So far, I see
nothing very alarming. I see a document that pleases me in many ways when it
calls for free trade and end of agriculture price supports. When it calls for
using labor intensive construction methods, I think it was written by idiots.
I will update every time something new is
added to this review with a new post. The next post in this summary will be
"Actually reading Agenda 21, Part 3."
The scary stuff I am labeling "bad"
and other parts I may label as "good" or "suspect" or
"stupid" as the case may be. If you want to just skim my boring
report, this may help you find the more interesting parts. Also, I will be
using some underlining and bolding to help those who want to find the best
parts. In the report, actual quotes will be in black type and my comments and
summary in colored type.
You can go hereand find the text and then go to the numbered section if you want to
read my quotes or summaries in the document itself to make sure I am not
misrepresenting it. If you are really interested in Agenda 21, I urge you to
actually read the document as I am doing.
Reading Agenda 21, Part 2.
Chapter 3
This chapter makes the argument that an
environmental policy that focuses mainly on the conservation and protection of
resources must consider those who depend on the resources for their
livelihoods. Productivity dependent upon natural resources must be
"sustainable," says the report or sooner, or later those poor nations
depending on their natural resources will run into declining productivity.
Somehow those on the right who on a campaign against Agenda 21 have come to
think of "sustainability" as a code word for something else. I find
nothing to object to in advocating sustainability. Advocating sustainability seems
like a rational position to me.
In 3.1 the report says, "The eradication
of poverty and hunger, greater equity in income distribution and human resource
development remain major challenges everywhere." I know some people's antenna will go up when
they read "greater equity in income distribution" is a major
challenge. There is nothing frightening
in that statement. More capitalism and free markets bring about greater income
equality. To recognize that income inequality is a challenge is not a call for confiscatory
income distribution. I do not find this
a disturbing statement.
In 3.2 the report says, "An effective
strategy for tackling the problems of poverty, development and environment
simultaneously should begin by focusing on resources, production and people and
should cover demographic issues, enhanced health care and education, the rights
of women, the role of youth and of indigenous people and local communities and
a democratic participation process in association with improved
governance." Again I do not see this as disturbing. Advocating
"enhanced health care" is not a call for government nationalization.
The report just says it is needed; not how it is delivered.
(Suspect)
3.8.(e) says, "Governments, with the assistance of and in
cooperation with appropriate international, non-governmental and local
community organizations, should establish measures that will directly or
indirectly" .. "Set up an effective primary health care and maternal
health care system accessible to all." While "accessible to
all," may sound like a call to provide a socialist health care system, if
you read the qualifies underlined above it is not that strong of a statement.
There is a lot of wiggle room. I would have liked it better had they added
"and the private sector" as a qualifier but the sentence is not that
alarming.
(Good)
3.8 (n) says, "actively seek to recognize and integrate
informal-sector activities into the economy by removing regulations and
hindrances that discriminate against activities in those sectors." I am
not really sure what that means, but "removing regulations and
hindrances" sounds good to me.
The report
says "Governments, with the assistance of and in cooperation with
appropriate international, non-governmental and local community
organizations, should "(p) Provide the poor with access to fresh water
and sanitation;" and "(q) Provide the poor with access to
primary education." Again with the qualifiers, I do not have a problem
with this. I think providing the poor with water and sanitation and primary
education is a good goal. I am not alarmed.
3.11 says
there is a cost to doing these things. A cost estimate is not a bill; nothing
to get alarmed about.
Chapter 4
Chapter 4 says
the rich countries are consuming too much while the poor countries are not
having basic needs met. However, the report does not call for a specific action
and says "a better understanding of the role of consumption and how to
bring about more sustainable consumption patterns" is needed. That does not
sound that radical. A "better understanding" is not a bad thing.
This chapter
calls for "encouraging," "reducing the amount of energy and
materials used per unit in the production of goods and services." That
sounds reasonable. It also calls for recycling, reducing wasteful excess
packaging and other similar things, none of which sound unreasonable.
4.8 says
"(a) All countries should strive to promote sustainable consumption
patterns;" and," (b) Developed countries should take the lead
in achieving sustainable consumption patterns." Again, it is not a radical
call for action.
(Suspect) 4.11.
"Consideration should also be given to the present concepts of economic
growth and the need for new concepts of wealth and prosperity which allow
higher standards of living through changed lifestyles and are less dependent on
the Earth's finite resources and more in harmony with the Earth's carrying
capacity." While I am labeling that as "suspect," it is only
saying "consideration should be given to." I do not think it unreasonable to "give consideration".
(Very
Very Good) "Moving towards
environmentally sound pricing." "4.24. Without the stimulus of prices and market
signals that make clear to producers and consumers the environmental costs of
the consumption of energy, materials and natural resources and the generation
of wastes, significant changes in consumption and production patterns seem
unlikely to occur in the near future." I am convinced that misallocation of resources
occurs when government interferes in the market place such as subsidizing
wasteful consumption. If companies could dump their waste into streams untreated,
products would cost less. We know that , but we do not allow it. The cost of
the product includes the cost of cleaning up the mess of production. If people
can use water unmetered they use more. This a basic recognition of sound
economics. We should celebrate this.
Chapter 5
Demographic Dynamics & Sustainability
This chapter
is basically calling for more research and "Collaboration and exchange of
information." Nothing alarming there.
A noticeable
thing in this chapter is numerous references to "empowerment of
women." In the US we often hear complaints
about the unequal treatment of women. This concern with "women" is
used to advance a liberal agenda and used as identity politics to create a
victim mentality and create wedge issuess. In much of the world however, especially
the Muslim world, women are not much more than chattel and are terribly treated
and "empowerment of women" is
genuinely needed. The concern for the
status of women worldwide should not be colored by how organization such as NOW
and the Democratic party cynically use women for a political advantage in this
country.
5.3. "The
growth of world population and production combined with unsustainable
consumption patterns places increasingly severe stress on the life-supporting
capacities of our planet." I am not
alarmed by that statement. I think it is true.
As population of the planet
grows, we cannot do things the way we have always done them. I have a lot of
faith in freedom and markets and technology, however, and do not think we have
to give up our lifestyle to survive. As we progress, many problems will take
care of themselves. With proper market
signals people will voluntarily make the right choice as the market determines
the price of various choice. Also, as a free market economy lifts people out of
poverty, they will choose to have fewer children and population growth will
level off. One can agree with the statement above with advocating a totalitarian system of government.
5.49. says, "Reproductive health programmes
and services, should, as appropriate, be developed and enhanced to
reduce maternal and infant mortality from all causes and enable women and men
to fulfill their personal aspirations in terms of family size, in a way in
keeping with their freedom and dignity and personally held values."
This is not a call for abortion or forced sterilization or a one child policy.
Stay calm. Elsewhere in this chapter is calls for, "personally held values
taking into account ethical and cultural considerations."
Chapter 6
Protecting & Promoting Human Health
This chapter
calls for safe water and improved sanitation and control of communicable
diseases and control of food contamination and the goals are established for
the eradication of various diseases by certain dates. Goals are established for
having solid waste systems, water pollution control systems and air pollution
systems in place in major cities There are
few concrete calls for action. Things should be done "where
appropriate" and policies should be "encouraged" and
"promoted" and done with "respect for cultural, religious and
social aspects, in keeping with freedom, dignity and personally held values and
taking into account ethical and cultural considerations." How things are
to be done is not spelled out. There is nothing too alarming in this chapter.
(Good)
6.3 says "it is the very lack of
development that adversely affects the health condition of many people, which
can be alleviated only through development." This is not an anti
development document! Look, it recognized the positive contribution of development.
Chapter 7.
Promoting Sustainable Human Settlement
(Suspect) This
chapter observes that in industrialized countries we use a lot of resource and
in the non-industrialized countries they do not. And, "the environmental implications of
urban development should be recognized and addressed in an integrated fashion
by all countries, with high priority being given to the needs of the urban and
rural poor, the unemployed and the growing number of people without any source
of income." OK, I don't like that,
I would say, mind your own business. However it is just a report.
(Suspect) This
chapter goes on to say that there should be "human settlement
objectives" and then it list them, including "shelter for
all." I don't like the tone of this
chapter. Leaving human settlement to be guided by an invisible hand of the
marketplace can do more to provide shelter than the best planning. I think this segment is based on a faulty
premise but is nothing to be alarmed about. It is just a report based on a
believe than planning is superior to market forces. Wrong? yes. Dangerous? I
don't think so.
(Bad) 7.6
"The right to adequate housing as a basic human right is enshrined in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights."
Saying shelter or healthcare or food is "right" is simply a different
concept of what is a right. A right is a gift from God that extends from our
basic humanity. It is not a claim against another. Freedom of Religion is a
right; Adequate Housing is a claim against another. There is a basic difference between rights
and entitlements.
This chapter
observes that soon over half the world's population will be living in cities
and that there is a need to "address urban management issues." It calls
for "Adopting and applying urban management guidelines in the areas of
land management, urban environmental management, infrastructure management and
municipal finance and administration."
It calls for, " improvement and maintenance of urban infrastructure
and services," for "the creation of social infrastructure in order
to reduce hunger and homelessness," and some other similar things.
It calls for "Strengthening urban data
systems." It calls for "Encouraging intermediate city
development" which means developing services in rural areas rather than
encouraging everyone to move to the big city. And, cities should be developed
along a "sustainable path."
It calls for promoting "the formulation of environmentally sound
and culturally sensitive tourism programmes" among other things.
Maybe this should be labeled "suspect." Big cities in themselves are not evil. Hong Kong and New York City accommodate nicely a large number of people. However, it is just an opinion with which I may disagree. It is not an order.
It calls for
cities to cooperate: "7.21. Cities of all countries should reinforce
cooperation among themselves and cities of the developed countries, under the
aegis of non-governmental organizations active in this field, such as the
International Union of Local Authorities (IULA), the International Council for
Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) and the World Federation of Twin
Cities."
"7.29.
All countries should consider, as appropriate, undertaking a
comprehensive national inventory of their land resources in order to establish
a land information system in which land resources will be classified according
to their most appropriate uses and environmentally fragile or disaster-prone
areas will be identified for special protection measures." I know many find this frightening. I do not.
As population grows we must be concerned about protection of sensitive habitat
and water resources. We must be aware that unwise development at the headwater
of a drainage basin can have consequences downstream. I also do not want to see
the habitat of endangered species destroyed. A natural habitat and balance of
nature has practical benefits to mankind, in addition to the aesthetics of
wanting to see God's creation preserved. I think to slow the rate of species
disappeared is a good thing. This is not a new concept. Just because an Eagle
or Deer is on your property we do not accept that you have the right to kill
it. We already accept limits on our property rights in this regard. I do not support
confiscation of property and repealing of private property rights but a good
understanding of land resources can be important to proper management of
resources.
"(c)
Develop fiscal incentives and land-use control measures, including land-use
planning solutions for a more rational and environmentally sound use of limited
land resources." This is calling for fiscal incentives; not confiscation.
I support this.
The plan
advises that we seek greater energy efficiency and renewable and alternate
sources of energy. I do not think that objectionable but think markets will
naturally lead to alternatives as fossil fuel becomes more scarce and
expensive. I think nuclear energy use should be expanded. This study does not
address that.
"Integrate
land-use and transportation planning to encourage development patterns that
reduce transport demand." Some will
be alarmed at this, but if the, soon to be, 9 billion people of the world all
get automobiles and urban sprawl continues unabated, we cannot have highways
large enough to accommodate them. I do
not think this requires draconian measures however. As population grows and
reaches a critical mass people will choose mass transit and development nodes
will naturally occur around mass transit station. A little planning to anticipate the
transition is not a bad thing.
"(c)
Encourage non-motorized modes of transport by providing safe cycleways and
footways in urban and suburban centres in countries, as appropriate." Only if you are scared of sidewalks should
this scare you.
There is
also a call for promoting a "culture of safety" to better handle
natural and man-made disasters and to do "Pre-disaster planning" and
" post-disaster reconstruction and rehabilitation."
(Stupid) The
plan calls for promoting, "the use
of labour-intensive construction and maintenance technologies which generate
employment in the construction sector for the underemployed labour force found
in most large cities." In my view,
that is not dangerous but just stupid and shows ignorance of basic economics.
Society does not advance by doing things in a labor intensive fashion. Would
they have us make brick by hand so we could employ lots of people? Do they want
us to mix concrete by hand instead of concrete mixers? There are some other
equally silly things in this report. A lot of this segment sounds like it was
written by an idealistic but not very bright college intern. It is not so much
dangerous as just silly.
Chapter 8.
A. Integrating environment and
development at the policy, planning and management levels
This
chapter calls for, "better integration among national and local
government, industry, science, environmental groups and the public in the
process of developing effective approaches to environment and development." "To support a more integrated approach
to decision-making, the data systems and analytical methods used to support
such decision-making processes may need to be improved."
It
suggest that laws may need to be changed to encourage sustainable development.
An example is the "polluter-pays principle." It says, "market-oriented approaches
can in many cases enhance capacity to deal with the issues of environment and
development. This would be achieved by providing cost-effective solutions,
applying integrated pollution prevention control, promoting technological
innovation and influencing environmental behaviour, as well as providing
financial resources to meet sustainable development objectives."
It
says we need to "reverse the tendency to treat the environment as a 'free
good' and to pass these costs on to other parts of society, other countries, or
to future generations." I agree with that.
This
concludes my part 2 of my report on Agenda 21. I have covered 8 of the 40
chapters. If you believe we should pollute
without reservation and use up the
world's resource as fast as we can, then you will not like this report. If you
are convinced "sustainability" is a code word for socialism and
government control of our lives you will not like it. I am not yet frightened.
So far, I see very little that alarms me. Some of it I think is misguided, but
on balance I think it makes sense.
I
am going to continue reading and reporting, however, reporting in this much
detail is time consuming and I am not sure anyone is even reading. So, unless I
get some feedback that says this is beneficial to someone, I will do a much
more limited analysis in future reports.
If you have been to workshops that alarmed you about Agenda 21, I urge you to read it and judge for yourself.
Top Stories
Posts
