|
CHAPTER 7
The Global Green Regime
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea
that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages,
famine and the like would fit the bill.... All these dangers are
caused by human intervention.... The real enemy, then, is humanity
itself.1
• The First Global Revolution,
The Council of the Club of Rome, 1991
There are genuine ecological problems today challenging man’s
intelligence, wisdom, and resourcefulness. Very few will deny that
fact. One need not investigate very deeply into the organized
“environmental movement,” however, or examine the “science” on which
it hangs its hat, to realize that its repeated prophesies of
apocalyptic doom have far more to do with increasing and
centralizing government control over mankind than with protecting
man and nature from environmentally harmful practices. Over the past
two decades, a flood of books, articles, television documentaries,
and news broadcasts has given the public such a frightening forecast
of ecological catastrophe that far too many individuals now appear
willing to give up their freedom for “solutions” that seem always to
involve massive increases in government.
It is not our purpose here to present the hard, factual evidence
assembled by prominent scientific authorities to refute the many
false claims of the environmental disaster lobby. There are already
many excellent volumes that capably expose the fraudulent theories
about ozone depletion, global warming, pollution, pesticides, cancer
risks, nuclear power, PCBs, asbestos, acid rain, deforestation,
carbon dioxide, biodiversity, soil depletion, etc.2 Rather, we hope
to demonstrate convincingly that concerns about the environment
(some overblown, others completely fabricated) are being cynically
exploited by influential individuals and organizations whose goal
includes building a global tyranny.
Central Planning Nightmare
The horrifying political, economic, and social consequences wrought
by totalitarian government in the former communist world have been
so thoroughly exposed over the past several years that there are
very few today who will openly defend the Soviet economic model.
Meanwhile, mounting evidence of unparalleled ecological destruction
in lands formerly under communist rule has finally begun to persuade
even some environmentalists that too much government is as bad for
nature as it is harmful to man.3
It is now considered acceptable in
“politically correct” circles to talk of “market incentives” and
“market solutions” to environmental problems. But, amazingly, many
of those who use these terms envision a marketplace heavily or
completely regulated and controlled by government. In other words,
they have not really turned away from their
government-is-the-only-answer mentality.
Competitive Enterprise Institute president Fred L. Smith was one of
several who journeyed to Rio de Janeiro to bring a non-statist
perspective to the Earth Summit. At an “Earth Summit Alternatives”
conference held during the proceedings, he stated:
“Economic central
planning was a utopian dream, but it became a real world nightmare.
Today, the international environmental establishment seems eager to
repeat this experiment in the ecological sphere, increasing the
power of the state, restricting individual and economic freedom.”
Thus, Smith warned, despite the horrendous record of human, economic
and environmental destruction left as a legacy by these centrally
planned governments, “the world is moving decisively toward central
planning for ecological rather than economic purposes.”4 But the
determined environmentalists in Rio were not interested in these
warnings.
Decades of Persistent Globalist Planning
One of the noteworthy early calls for the creation of a global
environmental agency appeared in an advertisement sponsored by the
World Association of World Federalists (WAWF) in the January-
February 1972 issue of The Humanist, published by the American
Humanist Association. It read:
World Federalists believe that the environmental crisis facing
planet earth is a global problem and therefore calls for a “global”
solution — a worldwide United Nations Environmental Agency with the
power to make its decisions stick. WAWF has submitted a proposal for
just such an agency to be considered at the 1972 U.N. Environmental
Conference to be held in Stockholm.
That first UN Environmental Conference, held in Stockholm, Sweden
June 5-16, 1972, proved to be the launching pad for the worldwide
campaign to establish a UN planetary environmental authority. One
result of the conference was the establishment of a United Nations
Environment Program (UNEP) intended as the overseer of a future
monitoring system of the world’s environment. The man selected to be
the first executive director of the new agency was Maurice Strong, a
Canadian, who had served as secretary-general of the Stockholm event
and was at the time a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation.
This
same Maurice Strong was named 20 years later to serve as
secretary-general of the United Nations Conference on Environment
and Development (UNCED), the official name of the 1992 Earth Summit
in Rio de Janeiro. A millionaire businessman with a passion for
socialist, one-world causes, Strong is a radical environmentalist
and New Age devotee (see Chapter 12). He is also a major player in
such Insider circles as the Club of Rome and the Aspen Institute for
Humanistic Studies.
In the months leading up to the major event in
Rio, Strong grabbed headlines on several occasions with outlandish rantings against the United States and the middle class of the
industrialized countries. Though a Canadian, Strong maintains his
primary residence in the United States. During one ill-tempered fit,
he declared that “the United States is clearly the greatest risk” to
the world’s ecological health.
This was so, he said, because,
“In
effect, the United States is committing environmental aggression
against the rest of the world.” Including himself in the indictment,
he said, “We didn’t start doing this with any mal-intent.
But we’ve lost our innocence now.”5
In an UNCED report issued in August 1991, Strong wrote:
“It is clear
that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent
middle-class ... involving high meat intake, consumption of large
amounts of frozen and ‘convenience’ foods, ownership of motor-,
numerous electric household appliances, home and workplace
air-conditioning ... expansive suburban housing ... are not
sustainable.”6 “
A shift is therefore necessary,
” the UNCED chief
insisted, “towards lifestyles ... less geared to ... environmentally
damaging consumption patterns....”7
Of course, when Strong talks
about “damaging consumption patterns,” he exempts his own
globe-hopping, champagne-and-caviar lifestyle and that of good
friends like David Rockefeller, pillar of international banking and
the leading Insider of both the CFR and Trilateral Commission
elites.
Rockefeller and Strong teamed up to write, respectively, the
Foreword and Introduction to the revealing 1991 Trilateral
Commission book, Beyond Interdependence: The Meshing of the World’s
Economy and the Earth’s Ecology, by Canada’s Jim MacNeill, Holland’s
Pieter Winsemius, and Japan’s Taizo Yakushiji.
“... I have been
privileged to work closely with the principal author, Jim MacNeill,
for over two decades,” wrote the UNCED chief. “He was one of my
advisors when I was secretary general of the Stockholm Conference on
the Human Environment in 1972. We were both members of the World
Commission on Environment and Development and, as secretary general,
he played a fundamental role in shaping and writing its landmark
report, Our Common Future [a socialist/environmentalist manifesto
also known as The Brundtland Report].”
Moreover, revealed Strong, MacNeill “is now advising me on the road to Rio.”8 Beyond
Interdependence served as the Trilateral game plan for Rio, and it
had Strong’s full endorsement. “This book couldn’t appear at a
better time, with the preparations for the Earth Summit moving into
high gear,” said Strong. To stress its importance, he said it would
help guide “decisions that will literally determine the fate of the
earth.”
According to this head summiteer, the Rio gathering would
“have the political capacity to produce the basic changes needed in
our national and international economic agendas and in our
institutions of governance....” In his estimation, “Beyond
Interdependence provides the most compelling economic as well as
environmental case for such reform that I have read.”9
MacNeill’s
“reform” proposals are summed up on page 128 of the book so
enthusiastically endorsed by Strong. MacNeill and his co-authors
advocated “a new global partnership expressed in a revitalized
international system in which an Earth Council, perhaps the Security
Council with a broader mandate, maintains the interlocked
environmental and economic security of the planet.” “The Earth
Summit,” wrote MacNeill and his cohorts “will likely be the last
chance for the world, in this century at least, to seriously address
and arrest the accelerating environmental threats to economic
development, national security, and human survival.”10
The same globalist-socialist vision was presented in Global Economics and the
Environment: Toward Sustainable Rural Development in the Third
World, another Earth Summit guide published just prior to the UNCED
confab by the Council on Foreign Relations.11
The common apocalyptic
theme has been repeated innumerable times in environmental jeremiads
coming from a bevy of one-worlders ranging from David Rockefeller,
Henry Kissinger, and Helmut Kohl to Francois Mitterrand, Willy
Brandt, and Mikhail Gorbachev, and even to Ted Turner, Jane Fonda,
and Tom Hayden. It’s not possible to study the environmental
movement in any depth without repeatedly tripping over the recurring
connection between the socialist/communist left and the
corporate/banking elite personified by David Rockefeller and the
organizations he has led.
A diligent survey of environmentalist activity also leads one to the
conclusion that all of the official preparatory meetings and
negotiations leading up to the Earth Summit were really just so much
spectacle for public consumption. And the Rio gathering itself was
additional “consensus” sideshow to provide an aura of planetary
“democracy” for a program that was already worked out in detail by
the one-worlders long ago.
Consider, for example, Lester R. Brown (CFR), the supposed
anti-establishment ecofanatic who heads the very influential
Worldwatch Institute, one of the driving forces behind UNCED. His
best-selling 1972 book, World Without Borders, proposed a “world
environmental agency” because “[a]rresting the deterioration of the
environment does not seem possible within the existing framework of
independent nation-states.”12 His superagency would first “assess
the impact of man’s various interventions in the environment.”13 But
there’s no doubt that the conclusions to be reached were already
firmly cast in stone.
Brown then stated: “Once the necessary information and analysis is
complete, tolerance levels can be established and translated into
the necessary regulations of human economic activity.”14 His books
and statist solutions are hyped by the CFR-dominated media and CFR
academics, while the big CFRcontrolled foundations shower his think
tank with millions of dollars.
“Building an environmentally sustainable future,” Brown later said
of the Earth Summit’s mission, “requires nothing short of a
revolution.” This would involve “restructuring the global economy,
dramatically changing human reproductive behavior and altering
values and lifestyles.”15 At least no one can accuse these guys of
thinking small or hiding their ultimate goals!
In State of The World 1991, the annual doomsday report issued by the
Worldwatch Institute, Brown predicted that “the battle to save the
planet will replace the battle over ideology as the organizing theme
of the new world order.”16 And, with “the end of the ideological
conflict that dominated a generation of international affairs, a new
world order, shaped by a new agenda, will emerge.” The world’s
agenda, he wrote, will “be more ecological than ideological.”17
Over and over while presuming to speak for the entire environmental
movement, Brown indicated its intention to focus on the environment
as the justification for establishing controls over mankind. “In the
new age,” he asserted, “diplomacy will be more concerned with
environmental security than with military security.”18
Pushing the Line
How prescient! How did Brown know that a few months later the New
York Times would be reporting favorably in an editorial (“The New
World Army,” March 6, 1992) that the UN’s “Security Council recently
expanded the concept of threats to peace to include economic, social
and ecological instability”? Of course, it’s not difficult to seem
to be prescient if you are hooked into the Insider party line.
Ronald I. Spiers (CFR) was similarly prescient when he stated in the
March 13, 1992 New York Times:
“The [United Nations] Trusteeship Council should be changed from a
body dealing with the vestiges of colonialism to one dealing with
the environment, becoming in effect the trustee of the health of the
planet.”
An earlier purveyor of this line, CFR “wise man” George F. Kennan,
the author of our nation’s cold war policy of containment against
communism, explained in a Washington Post column appearing on
November 12, 1989 that we now live “in an age where the great enemy
is not the Soviet Union but the rapid deterioration of our planet as
a supporting structure for civilized life.”19
Jessica Tuchman
Mathews (CFR), vice president of the World Resources Institute,
followed with an article in the July/August 1990 EPA Journal
asserting that “environmental imperatives are changing the concept
of national sovereignty,” and “multipolarity [is] replacing the
bipolar U.S.-U.S.S.R. axis around which nations used to array
themselves.” Moreover, she wrote, “it is likely that international
problem solving in the decades ahead will for the first time depend
on collective management, not hegemony.
And it is to precisely this
form of governance that global environmental problems will yield.”
In an opinion column in the New York Times of March 27, 1990,
Michael Oppenheimer (CFR) warned darkly:
“Global warming, ozone
depletion, deforestation and overpopulation are the four horsemen of
a looming 21st century apocalypse.” He assured readers: “As the cold
war recedes, the environment is becoming the No. 1 international
security concern.”
It is vitally important to understand that the particular
environmental problems being addressed are either greatly overblown
or non-existent. As we stated previously, responsible scientists in
these fields are increasingly speaking out about the excessive and
fraudulent claims of the ecocrats. Yet, the cry for increased
government goes on and on, emanating from one Insider “expert” after
another and being shoved down the throats of the American people by
the Insider-dominated media.
Mikhail Gorbachev, who is the darling
of new world order promoters, has learned the line well. Addressing
the 1990 Global Forum in Moscow, he called for “ecologizing” society
and said: “The ecological crisis we are experiencing today — from
ozone depletion to deforestation and disastrous air pollution — is
tragic but convincing proof that the world we all live in is
interrelated and interdependent.”20 “This means,” Gorbachev
continued, “that we need an appropriate international policy in the
field of ecology. Only if we formulate such a policy shall we be
able to avert catastrophe. True, the elaboration of such a policy
poses unconventional and difficult problems that will affect the
sovereignty of states.”21
In other words, we’ll all have to get used
to the idea of a global EPA under the UN dictating policies about
spotted owls, wetlands, auto emissions, hair spray, barbecue lighter
fluid, and anything else affecting “the environment.” Which is
virtually everybody and everything. This is a theme to which
Gorbachev has frequently returned, much to the approbation of the
one-world Insiders. One of his greatest fans in this regard is New
York Times columnist Flora Lewis (CFR), who has praised him for
going “beyond accepted notions of the limits of national sovereignty
and rules of behavior.”
She is thrilled by his,
“plan for a global
code of environmental conduct,” which “would have an aspect of world
government, because it would provide for the World Court to judge
states.” This, she gushed with obvious delight, “is a breathtaking
idea, beyond the current dreams of ecology militants.... And it is
fitting that the environment be the topic for what amounts to global
policing.... Even starting the effort would be a giant step for
international law.”22 (Emphasis added)
Predictably, John Lawrence
Hargrove (CFR), executive director of the American Society of
International Law, was tickled pink over Gorbachev’s support for
compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.
“Before Gorbachev,” said Hargrove, “this would have been regarded as
astounding.”23
To key Insider Richard N. Gardner (CFR), Gorbachev’s
proposals are “solid nuggets of policy that offer constructive
opportunities for the West.”24 Gardner, co-chairman of a
“Soviet-American working group on the future of the U.N.,” is one of
those globalists who, apparently, have been tutoring Gorbachev,
Yeltsin, and other Kremlin “progressives” in new world order
thinking and etiquette.25
It was Gardner, you may recall, who penned
the now famous article, “The Hard Road To World Order,” in the April
1974 issue of Foreign Affairs. One of the boldest calls for world
government ever to appear in the CFR’s journal, it called for
building the “house of world order” through “an end run around
national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece.”
Moreover, it set
out the CFR Insider plans for exploiting fears about environmental
calamity as a vehicle for expanding the UN’s power. In this 1974
article, Gardner wrote:
The next few years should see a continued strengthening of the new
global and regional agencies charged with protecting the world’s
environment. In addition to comprehensive monitoring of the earth’s
air, water and soil and of the effects of pollutants on human
health, we can look forward to new procedures to implement the
principle of state responsibility for national actions that have
transnational environmental consequences, probably including some
kind of “international environmental impact statement”.... [Emphasis
in original]
To any farmer, rancher, logger, miner, developer, businessman, or
property owner who has had to wrestle with the ordeal of attempting
to comply with local, state, or federal environmental impact
statements, the idea of a planetary EPA demanding similar compliance
must be a nightmare too horrible to contemplate. But to the
one-world corporate statists who plan on running the show, it is a
glorious vision of the future. Gardner was not indulging in idle
speculation and wishful thinking here.
As can be seen from currently
unfolding events, he was merely reporting on actual developments
that he and his fellow world order architects had initiated and were
nurturing along.
The Report From Iron Mountain
There are many pieces of evidence to demonstrate that the entire
environmentalist “movement” and all of its phony “crises” have been
created, promoted, and sustained by the Insiders for the singular
purpose of conjuring up a credibly terrifying menace to replace the
fear of nuclear holocaust as the impetus for world government.
Because of space limitations, we will focus on just one unique
document and quote from it extensively. But before we do so, it is
essential that we set it up by explaining briefly the Insiders’ New
Paradigm Shift.
The first try at “world order” came in the form of the League of
Nations at the end of World War I. If only the nations of the world
would come together in unity and begin the process of surrendering
national sovereignty to a world body, went the siren song, the
scourge of war would be vanquished. This type of propaganda almost
produced its desired effect, but not quite. The United States was
protected from armed invasion by ocean moats which made armed
invasion unlikely. Moreover, the spirit of nationalism and
independence still ran strong in American blood. A majority in the
U.S. Senate decided, after all of the debate and wrangling, to stay
out of the League of Nations. Our nation’s refusal to go along
doomed the League from its start.
The second try at world order followed World War II, and it
culminated in the creation of the United Nations. The arrival of the
atomic bomb and long-range delivery systems (bombers, missiles,
etc.), together with CFR dominance of the White House and growing
CFR influence in the media and the Senate,26 provided the Insiders
with the combination they needed to get the UN Charter ratified. But
a UN with no real authority was still just half, or even less than
half a loaf. Significant vestiges of national sovereignty still
presented real barriers to full-blown world government.
For 40
years, the Insiders relied on fear of “the bomb” to keep America
tied to the United Nations. If we dared quit the world body, went
their argument, there would surely be nuclear war with the
communists and global annihilation. Coexistence was our best
available option, at least until such time as the UN became powerful
enough to guarantee its version of peace. But, even while “the bomb”
was serving its purpose well, long-range planning was underway to
employ the threat of environmental cataclysm in future campaigns to
build the world organization into a world government. During the
summer of 1963, it appears that Insiders in the Kennedy
Administration convened a Special Study Group of 15 men who met at a
secret facility at Iron Mountain, New York. Their mission: Come up
with alternatives to war that would provide the same social and
political “stabilizing” function.27
Two and a half years later the
group produced its findings. They were not intended for public
consumption. One member of the group, however, felt it should be
made available for the American people. In 1967, therefore, it was
published without identifying any of its authors under the title,
Report From Iron Mountain on the Possibility and Desirability of
Peace.28 It proved to be an instant sensation and generated heated
public debate. Was it an authentic report? A brilliant satire? A
cruel hoax?
Subsequent events, plus the release of other government studies
(such as have been discussed in previous chapters) and the
admissions by many of those at the center of the environmentalist
movement concerning their true goals, argue for the report’s
authenticity. In addition, professor John Kenneth Galbraith later
admitted he was “a member of the conspiracy” (the words are his)
that produced the book.29 The Iron Mountain group found that
“Credibility, in fact, lies at the heart of the problem of
developing a political substitute for war.” Such a substitute “would
require ‘alternate enemies,’ some of which might seem ... farfetched
in the context of the current war system.”
The participants
considered a number of general social welfare programs as possible
substitutes: health, transportation, education, housing, poverty,
etc., but were not satisfied with any of them.
“It is more probable,
in our judgement,” they opined, “that such a threat will have to be
invented....”30
“When it comes to postulating a credible substitute
for war capable of directing human behavior patterns in behalf of
social organization,” said the researchers, “few options suggest
themselves. Like its political function, the motivational function
of war requires the existence of a genuinely menacing social enemy.”
The “alternate enemy,” they contended in the report, “must imply a
more immediate, tangible, and directly felt threat of destruction.
It must justify the need for taking and paying a ‘blood price’ in
wide areas of human concern.”31
With this in mind, the group felt,
the possible substitute enemies they were considering were
insufficient.
According to the report, however, “One exception might be the
environmental-pollution model, if the danger to society it posed was
genuinely imminent. The fictive models would have to carry the
weight of extraordinary conviction, underscored with a not
inconsiderable actual sacrifice of life....”32 These considerate
experts even determined to provide for the spiritual needs of those
they were “helping.” They believed that “the construction of an
up-to-date mythological or religious structure for this purpose
would present difficulties in our era, but must certainly be
considered.”33
Ecology seemed to be the best bet:
It may be ... that gross pollution of the environment can eventually
replace the possibility of mass destruction by nuclear weapons as
the principal apparent threat to the survival of the species.
Poisoning of the air, and of the principal sources of food and water
supply, is already well advanced, and at first glance would seem
promising in this respect; it constitutes a threat that can be dealt
with only through social organization and political power. But from
present indications it will be a generation to a generation and a
half before environmental pollution, however severe, will be
sufficiently menacing, on a global scale, to offer a possible basis
for a solution.34
With respect to the time required to create widespread fear of a
phony pollution crisis, that estimate seems to have been pretty
accurate. The schemers even suggested,
“that the rate of pollution
could be increased selectively for this purpose; in fact, the mere
modifying of existing programs for the deterrence of pollution could
speed up the process enough to make the threat credible much sooner.
But the pollution problem has been so widely publicized in recent
years that it seems highly improbable that a program of deliberate
environmental poisoning could be implemented in a politically
acceptable manner.”35
“Economic surrogates for war,” said the group’s report, “must meet
two principal criteria. They must be ‘wasteful,’ in the common sense
of the word, and they must operate outside the normal supply-demand
system. A corollary that should be obvious is that the magnitude of
the waste must be sufficient to meet the needs of a particular
society. An economy as advanced and complex as our own requires the
planned average annual destruction of not less than 10 percent of
gross national product if it is effectively to fulfill its
stabilizing function.”36
With this diabolical thought in mind, the seemingly insane EPA
mandates requiring the expenditure of billions of dollars on
minuscule or non-existent cancer risks, the sacrificing of thousands
of jobs and businesses for a variety of “endangered species,” and
all of the other seemingly crazy governmental policies begin to make
sense.
Pressure From Above and Below
Much more also begins to make sense. Like the long-standing
symbiotic relationship between the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Ford
Foundation, Council on Foreign Relations, Exxon, IBM, Procter &
Gamble, et al. on one hand, and Friends of the Earth, Nature
Conservancy, Planned Parenthood, Sierra Club, Greenpeace,
Environmental Defense Fund, et al. on the other. Pressure from above
and pressure from below: the American people caught in a pincer
attack.
At the Rio summit, this strategy was clearly discernible as the
ecofanatics and the corporate collectivists linked arms and called
on the United Nations to take charge of protecting the world’s
atmosphere, forests, oceans, fresh water, coastal areas, mountainous
areas — virtually the entire planet. But that’s not all.
The new
world order globalists want much more than just possession and
control of the material environment. They want possession of your
mind and soul as well. Echoing the dire warnings of eco-destruction
with which we’ve become familiar, the UNCED booklet In Our Hands:
Earth Summit ’92 asserted in its closing paragraph:
“The world
community now faces together greater risks to our common security
through our impacts on the environment than from traditional
military conflicts with one another.”
Then, with a pagan hubris that
would do credit to the Iron Mountain gang, it proclaimed:
“We must
now forge a new ‘Earth Ethic’ which will inspire all peoples and
nations to join in a new global partnership of North, South, East
and West.”37
Fallout From Rio The full meaning and significance of
the Rio summit, hailed as history’s largest gathering of world
leaders, will not become known for months, or even years. No one has
yet had a chance to read, let alone digest, all of the fine print in
the voluminous agreements and documents hammered out during its two
fractious weeks of negotiations. One thing is certain: What was
produced at Rio will be the source of much future argument,
negotiation, lobbying, and legislation. As Maurice Strong,
secretary-general of the conference, put it, “This is a launching
pad, not a quick fix.”38 The leaders of the huge environmental
lobbying network in Washington, DC fully realize this and are
gearing up for sustained warfare over the many issues addressed at
the summit.
The summit, unfortunately, did produce some “accomplishments.” We
list some (both official and unofficial) that will be around to
haunt, harass, and increasingly trouble us in the years ahead:
-
Agenda 21, the 800-page blueprint for governmental action
addressing everything from forests to deserts, oceans, rivers,
women’s rights, and health care, has set in motion a continuously
evolving process of environmental policy formation.39
-
A commitment was made to establish a new Commission on
Sustainable Development to monitor national compliance with the
environmental targets agreed upon at the summit.40
-
This new commission will also review the development assistance
contributions from the industrial countries to make sure they
provide sufficient funds to implement the Agenda 21 policies.41
-
A new International Green Cross organization was formed to
provide worldwide “emergency” environmental assistance. Mikhail
Gorbachev was named to lead it.42
-
President Bush called for an
international conference on global warming by January 1, 1993 at
which nations are to report on specific plans to reduce greenhouse
gases.43
-
President Bush pledged to double U.S. aid to
international efforts aimed at the “protection” of forests.44
-
The
neo-pagan cult of nature worship, long prevalent in environmental
and New Age circles, was formally launched as the new world religion
(see Chapter 12).
-
Environmentalism was elevated to new heights within the realm of
international statecraft.
New Green World Order
One of the major organizational players (both out front and behind
the scenes) at Rio and in the preparations leading up to the summit
was the Washington-based Worldwatch Institute. An interview with
Lester Brown (CFR), founder and president of Worldwatch, appeared in
the June 3rd issue of Terraviva, a special daily newspaper
distributed to participants during the Earth Summit. In it, Brown
predicted that “ecological sustainability will become the new
organising principle, the foundation of the ‘new world order,’ if
you will.”45 Brown actually admitted that the new world order he
sought meant giving up national sovereignty.
Here is how he put it:
One hears from time to time from conservative columnists and others
that we, as the United States, don’t want to sign these treaties
that would sacrifice our national sovereignty. But what they seem to
overlook is that we’ve already lost a great deal of our sovereignty.
We can no longer protect the stratospheric ozone layer over the
United States. We can’t stabilise the U.S. climate without the
cooperation of countries throughout the world. If even one major
developing country continues to use CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons), it
will eventually deplete the ozone layer. We can’t protect the
biological diversity of the planet by ourselves. We’ve lost
sovereignty; we’ve lost control.46
What it really gets down to, said
Brown, is that “we can no longer separate the future habitability of
the planet from the distribution of wealth.”47 No surprise there.
With socialists like Brown advocating the extremes of social
engineering, redistribution of the wealth is what it always gets
down to — ultimately. “But,” suggested the Terraviva interviewer,
“the current climate here in the U.S. seems very hostile to foreign
aid.” Acknowledging the dilemma, Brown responded: “It might take a
few more scares to get this country energised.”48
No doubt the
eco-saviors have “a few more scares” up their sleeves to “energize”
those of us non-believers who value our freedom.
The influential Worldwatch Institute study, After the Earth Summit:
The Future of Environmental Governance by Hilary F. French, has this
to say on the subject:
National sovereignty — the power of a country to control events
within its territory — has lost much of its meaning in today’s
world, where borders are routinely breached by pollution,
international trade, financial flows and refugees.... Because all of
these forces can affect environmental trends, international treaties
and institutions are proving ever more critical to addressing
ecological threats. Nations are in effect ceding portions of their
sovereignty to the international community, and beginning to create
a new system of international environmental governance as a means of
solving otherwise-unmanageable problems.49
What French then stated
has a very strong bearing on what additional mischief may result
from the summit:
[T]he past twenty years’ experience has yielded some instructive
lessons in environmental negotiations — which the world community
can now apply to the far larger challenges looming on the horizon.
Paradoxically, one way to make environmental agreements more
effective is in some cases to make them less enforceable — and
therefore more palatable to the negotiators who may initially feel
threatened by any loss of sovereignty.
So-called ‘soft law’ —
declarations, resolutions, and action plans that nations do not need
to formally ratify and are not legally binding — can help to create
an international consensus, mobilize aid, and lay the groundwork for
the negotiation of binding treaties later.50 [Emphasis added]
“Agenda 21,” said French, “an action plan on nearly all aspects of
sustainable development expected to emerge from UNCED, would fall
into this category [of so-called ‘soft law’].”51
She continued her
explanation of how the environmental treaty process will work:
When a binding treaty is necessary, the “convention-protocol”
approach, which was used in both the transboundary air pollution and
the ozone talks, is now the dominant model. Under this approach, a
“framework” treaty is agreed to first that generally does not
involve any binding commitment, but represents a political
commitment to take action at a later date. It also strengthens the
joint research and monitoring programs needed to build enough
scientific consensus and knowledge to convince countries to
eventually commit to specific targets. The framework treaty is then
followed by specific protocols on various aspects of the problem.52
Operators like French are not moaning because they didn’t get
everything they wanted in the Rio agreements and treaties. They got
their feet in the door, and that’s what matters most. New York Times
writer William K. Stevens recognized this important lesson as well.
In the June 14, 1992 Times, he noted that “blandness can sometimes
prove a surprisingly effective bludgeon.
The parcel of treaties
signed here have been portrayed by disappointed advocates as pitiful
gutless creatures with no bite. But they have hidden teeth that will
develop in the right circumstances.” That is why Richard E. Benedick,
the former State Department official who helped negotiate the ozone
layer treaty, has observed that the Earth Summit “should not be
judged by the immediate results, but by the process it sets in
motion.”53
And the Rio Summit has set a great many processes in motion. In her
aforementioned work, After the Earth Summit, Hilary French noted:
“Events in Rio also may lay the groundwork for a more ambitious
reform of the United Nations proposed for 1995. An independent group
of current and past world leaders including Willy Brandt, Jimmy
Carter, V‡clav Havel, Julius Nyerere, and Eduard Shevardhas
recommended that a World Summit on Global Governance be held that
year — the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the United
Nations.”54
Pretext for Control
Every call to action, every solution offered by the green globalists,
always leads to a loss of freedom and more power in government. The
final goal is always centralization of that power in the United
Nations. For those truly concerned with protecting the environment,
that is exactly the wrong direction to be heading. As Dr. Fred Smith
has explained and documented with many studies:
“Wherever resources
have been privately protected, they have done better than their
politically managed counterparts — whether we are speaking of
elephants in Africa, salmon streams in England, or the beaver in
Canada. Where such rights have been absent or suppressed, or not
creatively extended, the results have been less fortunate.”55
The
world should not be speeding toward a centrally-planned environment.
That is precisely what has been proven so ecologically destructive
throughout the world. Rather, we should be “extending property
rights to the full array of ecological resources that have been left
out in the cold”56 and rolling back the socialist controls that are
preventing people from finding solutions through voluntary
arrangements and freedom of choice in the open marketplace.
It is becoming ever more obvious that the plans of the planet
guardians and green globalists we have described have virtually
nothing to do with saving endangered species, protecting the ozone
layer, or whatever else they are using as cover for their real goal.
Instead, their plans have everything to do with
forging the chains for a UN-dominated world dictatorship.
Notes
1. Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider, The First Global
Revolution, A Report by the Council of the Club of Rome (New York:
Pantheon Books, 1991), p. 115.
2. See, for examples: Petr Beckman, The Health Hazards of NOT Going
Nuclear (Boulder, CO: Golem Press, 1976); Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D.,
Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: Earth in Transition (Tempe, AZ:
IBR Press, 1989); Jay H. Lehr, Rational Readings on Environmental
Concerns (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1992); Samuel McCracken,
The War Against the Atom (New York:
Basic Books, 1982); Dr. Dixy Lee Ray, Trashing the Planet (Chicago:
Regnery Gateway, 1990); Julian
L. Simon and Herman Kahn (eds.), The Resourceful Earth: A Response
to Global 2000 (New York:
Basil Blackwell, Inc., 1984); and S. Fred Singer, Global Climate
Change (New York: Paragon House,
1989).
3. See, for examples: Murray Feshback and Alfred Friendly, Jr.,
Ecocide in USSR: Health and Nature Under Siege (New York: Basic
Books, 1992); and Jon Thompson, “Eastern Europe’s Dark Dawn: The
Iron Curtain Rises to Reveal a Land Tarnished by Pollution,”
National Geographic, June 1991.
4. Dr. Fred L. Smith, in speech delivered at an Earth Summit
Alternatives conference held during the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de
Janeiro, recorded by author, portions of which appeared in his
“Solution’s from Rio,” The New American, July 27, 1992, p. 16.
5. Maurice F. Strong, quoted by Paul Raeburn, Associated Press,
“Ecology Remedy Costly,” Sacramento Bee (CA), March 12, 1992.
6. Maurice Strong, “The relationship between demographic trends,
economic growth, unsustainable consumption patterns and
environmental degradation,” an UNCED PrepCom report, August 1991,
quoted by GreenTrack International, Report 26 — August 15, 1991,
Libertytown, MD, p. 3.
7. Ibid.
8. Maurice Strong, Introduction to Jim MacNeil, Pieter Winsemius,
and Taizo Yakushiji, Beyond Interdependence: The Meshing of the
World’s Economy and the Earth’s Ecology. (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1991), p. ix.
9. Ibid., pp. ix-x.
10. Ibid., p. 128.
11. Roger D. Stone and Eve Hamilton, Global Economics and the
Environment: Toward Sustainable Rural Development in the Third World
(New York: Council on Foreign Relations Press, 1991).
12. Lester R. Brown, World Without Borders. New York: Vintage Books,
1972, p. 308.
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid., pp. 308-09.
15. Lester R. Brown, as quoted in the Arizona Republic editorial,
“Road to Ruin,” for March 26, 1992.
16. Lester R. Brown, “The New World Order,” in Lester R. Brown et
al., State of the World 1991: A Worldwatch Institute Report on
Progress Toward a Sustainable Society (New York: W.W. Norton, 1991),
p. 3.
17. Ibid., p. 18.
18. Ibid.
19. George Kennan, “This Is No Time for Talk of German
Reunification,” Washington Post, November 12, 1989.
20. Mikhail Gorbachev addressing the 1990 Global Forum conference of
spiritual and parliamentary leaders in Moscow in late January 1990,
quoted in “We must ‘ecolo’ our society before it’s too late,”
Birmingham [Alabama] News, April 22, 1990.
21. Ibid.
22. Flora Lewis, “Gorbachev Turns Green,” New York Times, August 14,
1991.
23. John Lawrence Hargrove, quoted in “The United Nations: Back to
the Future,” The Ford Foundation Letter, February 1989, p. 3.
24. Richard N. Gardner, quoted in “The UnitNations: Back to the
Future,” The Ford Foundation Letter, February 1989, p. 3.
25. See, for example: Ford Foundation Letter, February 1989, p. 3;
or Thomas G. Weiss and Meyrl A.
Kessler, “Moscow’s U.N. Policy,” Foreign Policy, Summer 1990, p.
100: “By reading recent Soviet
literature and speeches on the United Nations, one could easily come
away with the impression that
Soviet leaders and their senior advisers have been converted to
world federalism. For example ...
Gorbachev adviser Georgi Shakhnazarov wrote a striking article
optimistically appraising the possibility
of ‘world government.’ Gorbachev and Foreign Minister Eduard
Shevardnadze themselves liberally
pepper their speeches with references to ‘interdependence’....”
26. CFR membership lists and summaries appear in the Annual Reports
of the Council on Foreign Relations (58 East 68th Street, New York,
NY 10021). As examples, the August 31, 1972 edition reports 121
members in the journalism and communications professions out of a
total of 1,476, whereas the 1992 edition claims 327 members in this
category out of a total of 2,905.
27. See: Gary Allen, “Making Plans,” American Opinion, April 1971;
Report From Iron Mountain on the Possibility and Desirability of
Peace (New York: Dial Press, 1967), pp. viii, x-xi, xix, 14.
28. Report From Iron Mountain, op cit.
29. John Kenneth Galbraith, quoted in London Times per Associated
Press dispatch, January 5, 1968.
See also: Gary Allen, “Making Plans,” American Opinion, April 1971,
p. 19.
30. Report From Iron Mountain, pp. 66-67.
31. Ibid., pp. 70-71.
32. Ibid., p. 71.
33. Ibid.
34. Ibid., pp. 66-67.
35. Ibid., p. 67.
36. Ibid., p. 58.
37. UNCED booklet, In Our Hands: Earth Summit ’92, p. 23.
38. William K. Stevens, “Lessons of Rio: A New Prominence and an
Effective Blandness,” New York Times, June 14, 1992.
39. “Earth Summit: Press Summary of Agenda 21” prepared by
Communications and Project Management Division, Department of Public
Information, as part of the United Nations information programme for
the UN Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil, June 3-14, 1992.
40. “Parties to Earth Summit in Accord on Increasing Aid to Third
World,” New York Times, June 14, 1992, p. 6. See also, Daniel R.
Abbasi, “‘Development’ commission almost up,” Earth Summit Times,
June 7, 1992, p. 1.
41. Ibid. (New York Times and Abbasi)
42. Jack Freeman, “Gorbachev: Red head for the Green Cross,” Earth
Summit Times, June 8, 1992.
43. President George Bush, address to the United Nations Conference
on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, June 12,
1992. Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, June 22, 1992,
Volume 28 — Number 25, pp. 1043-44.
44. President George Bush quoted by Michael Wines, “Bush Leaves Rio
With Shots at Critics, U.S. and Foreign,” New York Times, June 14,
1992.
45. Lester R. Brown (interview of), “A transition to a new era?”
Terraviva, June 3, 1992, p. 10.
46. Ibid.
47. Ibid.
48. Ibid.
49. Hilary F. French, After the Earth Summit: The Future of
Environmental Governance, Worldwatch Institute Paper 107, March
1992, p. 6.
50. Ibid., p. 23.
51. Ibid.
52. Ibid.
53. Stevens.
54. French, p. 38.
55. Dr. Fred L. Smith, quoted by author’s on the scene report
“Solution’s from Rio,” The New American, July 27, 1992, p. 16.
56. Ibid.
Back to
Contents
|