Category Archives: Climate Change

William F. Jasper: Exposed: Media Collusion for Greta Thunberg and UN Climate Hysteria

by William F. Jasper

The Fake News Media has been caught again with pants down. The Daily Callerbroke the story on November 18, revealing that more than 250 U.S. news outlets and journalists had colluded in an effort to promote the idea that the planet faces a “climate crisis,” and to build support for the United Nations Climate Action Summit of world leaders held in New York City, September 15-23. Not that there was any paucity of lurid global warming propaganda; anyone who hasn’t assumed room temperature knows that we have been marinated in “news” stories proclaiming climate apocalypse for decades now.

However, there are still too many skeptical Americans who haven’t bought the over-heated hype and are not quite ready to accept the draconian government controls and pay the trillions of dollars we are told will be necessary to save the planet from man-made global warming. So “the good and the great” of the Fourth Estate decided they need to kick it up a few notches and really saturate the American public with intense fright peddling to drive home the new meme that we are facing a truly dire “climate emergency.”

Thus was launched Covering Climate Now, a massive effort to shape and coordinate an advocacy campaign camouflaged as news.  According to the organization’s own website, “Covering Climate Now is a joint initiative of The Nation and Columbia Journalism Review.” The Nation prides itself in being the oldest socialist magazine in America, and Columbia Journalism Review (CJR), flagship publication of Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, postures as a model of professionalism and journalistic ethics.

The Covering Climate Now website boasts: “Our initiative includes more than 350 outlets worldwide, and dozens of institutional and independent partners, with a combined audience of more than 1 billion people. We’re growing every day.”

“Covering Climate Now’s founders kicked off the project in April and announced in May that they would ask partners to devote a week to climate-related news, starting in September,” the Daily Caller reported. “The Nation environmental correspondent Mark Hertsgaard co-founded the project under the assumption that the news outlets don’t cover climate change as urgently as he thinks they should.”

“We believe that every news organization in America, and many around the world, can play a part,” CJR stated in May. ”Sometimes that will mean committing your newsroom to important and high-impact stories. Other times it will mean sharing your content, engaging your community, or adding a few lines of climate information to stories that wouldn’t otherwise have them.”

“Much of the group’s coverage leading up to the U.S. climate summit,” notes the Daily Caller, “focused on Swedish activist Greta Thunberg, a 16-year-old girl who traveled to the U.S. in August on a racing yacht. Her visit was designed to galvanize American support for policies that seek to tackle climate change.”

That the tsunami of Thunberg stories was a completely orchestrated affair comes as no surprise to anyone who glimpsed even a fraction of the staged “news” events for the bratty, self-righteous teen, who delivered her venomous “How dare you!” speech to world leaders at the UN. Her apotheosis from pigtailed schoolgirl to beyond-rock-star, messiah status was obviously a contrived, concerted effort that went beyond the usual “Leftward Ho!” herd mentality of the “mainstream” media pack.

Among the media “partners” listed on the Covering Climate Now website are: BuzzFeed News, Bloomberg, Scientific American, Slate, Vanity Fair, Variety, VICE Media, Vox, The Weather Channel Digital, The Weather Channel, Al Jazeera, CBS News, PBS NewsHour, Huffington Post, The New Republic, Newsweek, and Harvard Business Review. In addition to these liberal-left/globalist organs, the climate propaganda cabal also includes such extreme-left Marxist outfits as Mother Jones, In These Times, Democracy Now!, The Intercept, and The Young Turks.

Collectively, the cabal succeeded wildly in drenching the planet with a suffocating blanket of global warming hype. As one example, take BuzzFeed. The Daily Caller reports: “BuzzFeed News reached more than 27 million unique views between September and October, according to Quantcast, a website measuring audience size. BuzzFeed is owned by Jonah Peretti, an internet entrepreneur who founded the outlet in 2006 to track viral online content, and the left-leaning HuffPo is owned by Verizon Communications. Media tycoon Arianna Huffington originally founded HuffPo in 2005 with the help of Peretti.”

This not the first time the media mavens have been caught in flagrante delicto. Remember the JournoList scandal of 2008, the scheme by the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein that recruited hundreds of reporters and news organizations to promote and defend then-candidate Barack Obama?

Then there was the Gamechanger Salon scandal, in which lesbian “community organizer,” CNN commentator and Obama/Clinton crony Sally Kohn was ringleader to more than 1,000 activists from Planned Parenthood, Big Media, Big Labor, and other “progressive” centers of power.

Then, last year there was the very open collusion scandal of more than 100 newspapers agreeing to simultaneously run anti-Trump editorials.

The media collusion exposed in the Covering Climate Now scandal is but the latest revelation proving that most of the “legacy media,” as well as much of the newer “alternative media” are indeed Fake News, as President Trump has charged.

TNA: https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/34107-exposed-media-collusion-for-greta-thunberg-and-un-climate-hysteria


William F. Jasper is an American journalist and author, and a senior editor of The New American, and long-time member of the John Birch Society.

 

Tom DeWeese: Every Step Makes a Difference- A Really Great Month!

Every Step Makes a Difference- A Really Great Month! – “If this election has proven anything to us, it’s that those who have had power will stop at nothing to keep it.”

by Tom DeWeese

I founded the American Policy Center (APC) thirty years ago, back in 1986.  I had goals to accomplish and dreams for success. Mostly I just wanted to make a difference in protecting our culture and our unique American form of government as a republic that protects the individual, the free market and the security of our homes.

Over the years, I’ve focused on issues including personal privacy, illegal immigration, public education, and of course the assault on our very way of life through the UN’s creation of Agenda 21. I know that APC has had an impact on these issues. But I never really knew just how to measure our reach or success. Have I been able to make the difference I had hoped for? Have I changed lives? Well, over the past few weeks I was finally able to get an idea of my reach and it came in several very surprising ways.

As the results came in that Donald Trump had won his surprise victory to the White House, I saw that, finally, we had a definite opportunity to make a real difference. Finally, we could change the national direction that has been barreling unchecked toward a federal dictatorship. It was equally crystal clear that, as with the Obama Administration, under a Hillary Clinton administration there would have been no hope of affecting presidential policy.

So, my first reaction to the Trump victory was to help get the right people into positions in the Administration where they could affect policy. I quickly sent out an APC Sledgehammer Action Alert asking supporters across the nation to write to the Trump team in support of two very able local officials. I nominated one to serve in the EPA and the other to serve as Secretary of HUD. I felt nothing was more important than to have these two agencies run by people who would stop the assault on private property and industry. In fact, I believe that if that was the only accomplishment of a Donald Trump presidency then that would be enough to assure a strong future for our nation.

To my surprise, after issuing the alert, I received many emails from supporters telling me they had sent in my name to be HUD Secretary. That was very unexpected. It’s a heady feeling to know people have such respect for you. Of course, Ben Carson is now up for the job. But this was only the beginning of what was to come.

Next, a very powerful political leader from South Carolina contacted me to say he had offered my name to the Trump team for a position in the Department of Interior. Wow, I thought, I had never even considered such a thing. Yet, wouldn’t it be great for them to appoint me as head of the BLM. I’d free the Bundys from jail. I’d begin a process to give lands back to the states and open even more areas that has been locked away from human use. Yes, that would be interesting. I then posted this news on Facebook and was overwhelmed by the number of comments I received by very excited people who certainly wanted to see me in such a position.

Just a few of days later I was to receive the biggest shock of all. Richard Viguerie—the long time Conservative leader and Washington, DC icon—posted an article in his daily online report “Conservative HQ,” listing what new HUD Secretary Carson would need to succeed in that post. As I read the article my head almost blew off. It proposed three people Carson should add to his team. My name was included on that very short, impressive list. Said the report: “Mr. DeWeese has been a fierce opponent of HUD’s overreach and perhaps more than anyone has been able to capture the emotional impact Americans feel when they are deprived of their property rights by AFFH and other HUD overreaches.” Mr. Viguerie’s HQ Report is read by approximately 100,000 people, many of them are major Conservative and political leaders from around the nation. To be recognized by such a powerhouse is certainly an honor.

My heady couple of weeks in the sun was about to get even better as I was invited to attend a special Climate Change briefing sponsored by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), to be held in the Dirksen Senate Office Building hearing room on Capital Hill. CEI heads up a group called the Cooler Heads Coalition, which is made up of groups and policy makers working to expose the global warming scam and fight policy to enforce it.

There were three speakers for the event, including Dr. Timothy Ball, a Canadian. He is an author of several books exposing the global warming hype. The featured speaker for the briefing was recently elected Australian Senator Malcolm Roberts. He has caused quite a stir in the Australian government as he has already established himself as an aggressive opponent to that country’s climate change policies.
I had never met or corresponded with either of these men. While I was talking to a few folks by the hearing room, a man walked up to me and in his Australian accent said, “You’re Tom DeWeese, aren’t you?” It was Senator Roberts. Somehow he recognized me and complimented my “outstanding work.”  He said he had been reading my materials for years.

Read 
Tom DeWeese’s book, “Erase: A Political Thriller”

As the program opened, Dr. Ball began to speak, using his power point presentation. To my surprise he brought up a slide depicting the United Nation’s power structure clearly showing Agenda 21 as the center of the plans to enforce climate change policy and bring on global governance.

The reason that was such a surprise too me was the fact that, in the 20 years I have lead the fight against Agenda 21, I have been ignored and stonewalled by many leading conservative groups as they refused to even utter the words Agenda 21. Now, here in a Senate hearing room was a man they respected and had come to absorb his wisdom. And what was he saying? Exactly the message I had been trying to get them to hear all these years. After the program, I went up to thank Dr. Ball to talk about Agenda 21. I mentioned my struggle to reach some of these folks about Agenda 21. He said he understood. He said he didn’t believe the dire warnings about Agenda 21 at first either. Then he started to read my articles and that had led him to the truth. He said he knew my work well.

Next up was Senator Roberts to address the group. He was magnificent in his presentation. He hit all the right points on the global warming farce, backed by a genuine passion for the fight to stop it. But my biggest shock was about to be dropped on me. As he spoke, making his points, he suddenly said my name. In fact, not once, but three times! He told the crowd about how I was a leader in the fight, producing effective and important materials. To understand the significance of that fact, you must know the culture of Capital Hill. When someone of influence and respect, like Senator Roberts, starts pointing out your achievements, not once, but three times, it gets noticed! And it certainly was that day. Suddenly, after the program a lot of people wanted to say hello to me.

I tell these stories not to toot my horn, but to make a specific point. These two weeks of activity, being endorsed to serve in the new administration and recognized by strong leaders was vindication for the reach and impact that I and the American Policy Center have made. The excitement of so many supporters to accept that I might have an influence from inside the Trump Administration is a testament to APC’s never wavering battle to get the truth out. Senator Robert’s remarks simply confirmed to me that APC clearly has an international reach and is making a difference in world wide policy.  It certainly tells me that the fight thus far has been worth it. People are listening to APC and me. Now, with this new administration we really do have a once in a lifetime opportunity to restore our precious Republic and stamp out the growing tyranny that has threatened it.

There is another lesson in this for all the local activists who work so hard in their own communities; those who sometimes get discouraged because they don’t win the fight. Please learn this truth – what you do has an impact, no matter how insignificant you think your efforts may be. Writing a letter to the editor or speaking out in a meeting just might be the spark that moves someone else to take major steps forward, like a random article that moves a future Senator in Australia to lead the effort to change his nation’s policy.

I don’t know if I will get a position in this Administration. To tell you the truth, all I want is an open line into some of the agencies I have been fighting all these years, especially HUD. If I can become a resource of ideas to Secretary Carson I couldn’t ask for more. I shall pursue that opportunity to make it reality.

However, all of us on the front lines in the battle to preserve property rights and stop government tyranny must recognize one vital fact. A Trump presidency will not solve these problems for us. We must continue to be in the trenches fighting. If this election has proven anything to us, it’s that those who have had power will stop at nothing to keep it. If we now go home and think all is solved, nothing will change.

Those Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and planning groups operating in every community in the nation are not going to give up their power and influence – and the money that goes with it. We are going to have to fight trench warfare to boot them out and restore local control over government. We must fight in the grass roots to force the federal government to act against these runaway agencies. We must teach elected officials of the dangers and how to stand up against such policy. And we must organize local activists to back them up when they do take a courageous stand.

That is the mission of the American Policy Center in this new Era of Trump.

APC: http://americanpolicy.org/2016/12/20/every-step-taken-makes-a-difference-a-really-great-month/

Read Tom Deweese’s Biography

Obama’s Communistic Amerika?

Obama’s Communistic Amerika?

by Bill Lockwood

Prosecution against non-believers in government doctrine. Announcing on March 29 at a press conference in the once-free state of New York in the formerly-free America a group of state attorney’s general promised full-scale “investigations” into any company that denies the official state doctrine that “climate change is real” and is “human-caused.” This belief-system or dogma of Climate Change has the imprimatur of Barack Obama. American businesses who do not accept the tenets thereof will be labeled as heretics and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman spoke in behalf of a group of 17 attorney’s general when he said that companies are committing fraud by “lying” about the dangers of climate change and forthwith will be prosecuted. The 17 AG’s, like so many Jesuits of 16th century Spain, have coalesced into a society labeled “AG’s United for Clean Power”—a part of Obama’s enforcement arm. Members include AG’s from California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington State. Included in the list is the AG from the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands.
Harassment investigations against suspected heretic companies have already been launched by Schneiderman himself as well as Kamala Harris, the Attorney General of California. ExxonMobil heads their list. According to The Daily Signal allegations against the suspected oil company include “funding research that questioned climate change.” Exxon has defensively rocked back on its heels denouncing the accusations. Little matter. This is how communism works. Shut down any possible dissenting voice with heavy-handed government threats. One may not question official doctrine. Few patriots will let their voices squeak out against this Obama-driven onslaught.

Obama’s Fingerprints

Recall that our dictator-in-chief already has issued Climate Change proclamations, signaling to the Sustainability Socialists that he was ready to prosecute doctrine-deniers. His ex cathedra dictates followed recent encouragements from one of his colleges of cardinals. In a letter composed by a team of 20 professors Obama was urged to begin prosecuting heretics under the anti-mafia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). A heretic is one who does not believe the “debate is over” and denies that “climate change is real and human-caused.”

In that letter the professors stroke Obama. “We appreciate that you are making aggressive and imaginative use of the limited tools available to you in the face of a recalcitrant Congress.” [The people’s representatives are not buying Washingtonian Doctrine]. “One additional tool,” they go on to suggest, “is a RICO investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.” The only disseminator of knowledge must be government sponsored.

The United States Attorney General Loretta Lynch has indicated that the entire Justice Department has already been transformed into Obama’s heresy-hunters in which civil legal actions against climate change deniers are being sharpened. This, of course, explains why Hillary Clinton has not yet been indicted. Real and actual violation of law is not of interest to Obama’s Justice Department. Violation of law is secondary to transgressing the tenets of the King.

To alter the figure, Obama’s Amerika is rapidly taking on characteristics of the communist dictatorships of the twentieth century. Atheism was the “official dogma” of the Soviet Union and anti-religious propaganda was meant to demonize believers while fostering public hostility against Christians. Brainwashing was the recognized technique to soften peoples’ belief-systems and government force used to weaken resolve.

Various “public organizations” sprang up to assist the government indoctrinators. Komsomol, the Young Pioneers, the League of the Militant Godless, and others began linking denial of State Doctrine to psychological disorders which created more hostility against Christian people. Textbooks were composed to evoke contempt for Christianity as well as America. Learning was state-sponsored where real history could easily be “revised” to bring into into communistic line.

Sustainability

The official state dogma in America, conceived in the United Nations, is called “Sustainability.” It is defined as the ideological concept which seeks to curtail economic, political and intellectual liberty through government force resulting in the rationing of resources, goods and finances. Global Catastrophe (Climate Change) is the lever which supposedly makes this oversight necessary. According to the National Association of Scholars “sustainability” has become a discipline of its own in the University. There have been 1,438 degree programs at 475 colleges and universities in 65 states and provinces focusing on or relating to sustainability studies. For example, Middlebury College offers 422 courses in sustainability—about 25% of all course offerings.

Over five-hundred universities in the United States report to the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) where they are graded by a rating system. Points for each institution can be earned for such things as “growing organic gardens, subsidizing child care for employees, and offering gender-neutral housing.” Very little science is actually required for these studies. Changing behavior is the goal, not learning truth. That behavior is now moving from the suggestion stage to mandated stage as students are goose-stepping out of the universities chanting the tenets of Sustainability.

With less than a year remaining in office, Obama is “fundamentally transforming” a once-free republic, or what remains of it, into a totalitarian nation. Totalitarian– by definition –means even re-orienting the belief-systems of the people as well as their behaviors. Pressures from below at the educational- level is now beginning to squeeze citizens against the pressure from above—the Justice Department and the “AG’s United for Clean Power.”

Back To Homepage

Embracing the Black Widow

Embracing the Black Widow

by Bill Lockwood

Physicist John Droz warns against blindly accepting pronouncements by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He likens this to being “duped into embracing [a] Black Widow.” Referring to the fact that “science” is being distorted to support socialistic-style goals of government control worldwide, Droz addressed lawmakers in 2013 that the American populace is being “brainwashed to accept a new secular religion with its own value system.”

John Droz completed undergraduate degrees in Physics and Mathematics from Boston College and a graduate degree in Physics from Syracuse University. As a senior fellow at American Tradition Institute, Droz has earned the thanks of conservatives for his broadcasts of skepticism pertaining to Climate Change. At the same time, anyone who glances over his online detailed power-point presentation Science under Assault will readily understand how he has drawn the ire of many in the scientific community who have been co-opted by policy makers into becoming “advocates” of liberal positions.

A more recent publication by The Heartland Institute called Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming: The NIPCC Report on Scientific Consensus demonstrates the accuracy of Droz’s skepticism. This Non-Governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), edited by Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer, thoroughly documents the flawed methodology utilized by Climate Change scientists. It also puts the lie to President Obama’s “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.”

The purpose of this Oval Office non-sense is to drive America into world socialism managed by the United Nations. Jeffrey D. Sachs, director of the Earth Institute, a senior advisor to the United Nations, and a world-renowned advocate for Sustainable Development, says as much in his recent book The Age of Sustainable Development. Preaching the transfer of wealth from America to poorer nations including health coverage for all “world citizens” by American taxpayers, Sachs wants western nations to “curb human activities” that cause greenhouse gas and he is ready to empower a world government to ensure this is done.

The strongest factor in coming to the Sustainable Development position is not the scientific method, but political ideology.  This can be easily seen in what Droz calls “Using consensus to Imply Correctness.”

Consensus Science

Among Droz’s common-sense critiques of the “post-modern” scientific advocates is that “consensus” among scientists does not equal scientific fact. “It is a trick to get around real science.” Randy Guliuzza agrees. In an article entitled Consensus Science: The Rise of Scientific Elite Guliuzza warns, “Rarely are appeals to scientific consensus used in areas where experimental evidence is strong, but they are often favored on subjects where science is weak to non-existent (such as the reality of extra-terrestrials or parallel universes), and, especially, on divisive social issues that need scientific input.”

Why Scientists Disagree pointedly criticizes Obama’s 97% claim. “A 97% consensus claim is merely a ‘social proof’—a powerful psychological motivator intended to make the public comply with the herd; to not be the ‘odd man out’” (p. 19).

The late Michael Crichton, physician, producer and writer, also had much to say regarding “Consensus Science.” In a 2003 speech at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, CA he observed that scientific reviewers often use the phraseology of having a “consensus” in the field as justification for shutting down ideas not associated with their beliefs.

I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to a void debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, for you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What are relevant are reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

The late Dr. James D. Bales, writing of the Creation-Evolution controversy, made the same point. If  to be accepted by scientists “is all that is meant to establish something scientifically, then the only scientific method would be to count heads. If more scientists accept a position than reject it, the minority has been outvoted and the scientific truth is whatever the majority says that it is.”

But this in turn means that “all the talk about framing a hypothesis, the testing of the hypothesis by the scientific method, the retesting of the hypothesis by another, and the significance of prediction is just so much ritualistic talk and is unrelated to science. If enough scientists can be persuaded, regardless of what means of persuasion, that a certain position is true, the position has been confirmed scientifically.”

That last line of Bales strikes home in the Climate Change debate. Government funding from 2010 to 2013 is a whopping $64 Billion dollars paid for “scientific research” to prove Climate Change and man’s culpability. Little wonder liberals press that the “science is settled!”

Reaction to Droz

Following Droz’s presentation in which he warned of corruptions of the scientific method by Climate Change alarmists, Derb Carter of the Southern Environmental Law Center retorted, “Mr. Droz’s perspectives are not only outside the mainstream but on the very fringe.” So much for science in her remarks. We are back to counting heads.

Scientist Sam Pearsall, recently retired from the Environmental Defense Fund with a doctorate in “ecology,” observed of Droz that “he made absolutely no case that climate change is not happening, nor that it is not urgent, nor than it is not cause by human combustion of fossil fuels. There was no science in his talk.”

Perfect illustrations are these of those who have already been bitten by the Black Widow. Shifting the burden of proof to Droz to “make a case” that climate change is “not happening” is not only illogical, but is precisely one of the errors about which Droz warned. His presentation, Science Under Assault, was a critique and a common-sense caution about distorting the scientific method to fit political agendas. What “scientific method” is needed for that?

Those who advocate human-caused Climate Change have the burden of proof to establish scientifically that it is so. Yet, when Droz shows clearly that they have not done so but are instead “counting noses,” Pearsall wants him to “make a case that Climate Change is not happening” and Derb Carter quips that Droz is “outside the mainstream!” Apparently, Droz is right on target.

Back to Homepage

 

The Failure of the Green State Religion

The Failure of the Green State Religion

by Bill Lockwood

America does indeed have an official state church. It is the Green Environmental Sect which preaches the Gospel of Sustainability. Effectively, for all practical purposes, it has become the endorsed “religion” of the state and has supplanted Christian precepts in the minds of our indoctrinated youth. The ideals of the Sustainability Movement with a socialist-style utopia has displaced academic freedom and transformed students into firebrands for Global Governance.

It might be well here to remind ourselves that our nation repudiated the concept of a state-sponsored religion. The idea that tax monies would be confiscated to support a particular doctrine whether or not the citizens believed that doctrine was to fall into the same European trap from which the founders of this nation fled. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, if Christianity be true, allow it to compete in the free-marketplace of ideas. “Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of God,” he advised Peter Carr. Christian welcome this test.

Free-Marketplace of Ideas

It is precisely this test, the “free-marketplace of ideas,” where the Environmental Movement of the Green Gospel fails most miserably. Led by the powers-that-be in Washington, D.C. and the Academy of Professorships from Maine to California to the U.N., sustainability activists work through government force to impose their own version of a carbon-free economy.

What exactly is “Sustainability?” It is not simply care for the “environment,” though it includes that. The word “marks out a new and larger ideological territory in which it is claimed curtailing economic, political, and intellectual liberty is the price that must be paid to ensure the welfare of future generations” (Sustainability: Higher Education’s New Fundamentalism; An Executive Summary of a Report by the National Association of Scholars, 2015).

Jeffrey Sachs, one of the original analysts of “global development,” served for twelve years as director of Earth Institute at Columbia University and has spent thirteen years advising the United Nations secretary-general on the Millennium Development Goals, recently wrote a textbook calling for “global justice” entitled The Age of Sustainable Development. Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-Moon writes the forward. Sachs explains very clearly what is involved in Sustainability.

It is “governance” (read, “government”) that will “motivate” (p. 486) member-states to “End extreme poverty, including hunger” by “giving support for developing countries.” “Giving,” according to socialists, really means “forcibly extracting monies from citizens” to apply to projects in which they believe. This is how the Democratic Party has used the word “investment.” A cloaked concept meaning forced taxation. When you are forcibly taxed for their projects you are “investing!”

Involved in Sachs’ plan is the goal to “achieve gender equality…and human rights for all.” ObamaCare and Nationalized Health Care are small measures. He calls for “Universal health coverage” (p. 487) and implementation of global policies to “help individuals make healthy and sustainable decisions regarding diet, physical activity, and other individual or social dimensions of health.”

But all of that does not really spell out in one bottom line the question, “What is Sustainability?” Sachs unveils much of it with this: “Curb human-induced climate change and ensure sustainable energy” (p. 488). To accomplish this he finalizes plans to “transform governance for sustainable development” (p. 489). In other words, Sustainability means forcibly rationing resources and controlling human activity. And Sachs tells us what this requires: “GOOD GOVERNANCE” (p. 502). A clarion call for World Government.

Another founding father’s words come to mind here: George Washington. “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and fearful master.” World mastery over all human activity is what the global environmental movement is about.

The Brundtland Report

In 1987 a United Nations report was issued entitled Our Common Future. It is better known as the Brundtland Report. “It united environmentalism with hostility to free markets and demands for ‘social justice’” (NAS Report). The Brundtland Report defined Sustainable Development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

This means, of course, that a “global governing body” must “watch over” the amount of energy and resources that we use and forcibly limit those nations (America) that seem to splurge by utilizing too many natural resources. Freedom causes “splurging,” therefore the “splurgers” must be “mastered.” Those societies must be transformed from the top down. “Development involves a progressive transformation of economy and society.”

That transformation has been underway for a long period. There are over 1,400 degree programs at 475 colleges and universities in 65 states and provinces focused on or relating to sustainability studies. The number of institutions which are “signatories” of the American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment, obliging them to eliminate or offset 100% of all greenhouse gases emissions and to integrate sustainability into the curriculum is 697.

Middelbury College offers 422 courses in sustainability—about 25% of all course offerings. Cornell University offers 290 sustainability courses, 13% of all course offerings. More than 400 student-led fossil fuel divestment campaigns are active on campuses across the United States. These figures are just the tip of the iceberg.

A Religion

At root level, Sustainability is the primary doctrine of a failed Green Environmental Religion. It includes the preaching of virtue: “Thrift and forethought.” “Sin” is the selfish usage of resources. America is the chief sinner. “Places like the United States are causing far more damage and risk than other parts of the world” (Sachs, 394). “The United States, … needs to learn to live sustainably” (p. 485).

Not only is Environmentalism a religion, but it is a weak and failed religion that can only rely on government force to “sustain” itself. Its “sustainability doctrine” cannot depend upon mere persuasion and preaching in an open market-place of ideas but, like the Roman Church of the Middle Ages, depends upon government-enforced edicts.  Academic freedom is lost. “[On] matters such as global warming, the campus version of sustainability replaces debate with doctrinaire declaration and enforces the party line” (NAS Report, 3). No open discussion. No debate. No reasoning. No examining upon what evidence the pretensions of the ideas are founded. Only government edicts that “the debate is closed.” Collegiate indoctrination is all about the transfer of governing power: Global Governance.

Back to Homepage