Klaus Warns Americans: US Embrace Of Global Warming Alarmism Premised on Europe's Precautionary Principle Will Result In Sacrifice Of Liberty

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120494352520121491.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries


The Contrarian of Prague


By BRIAN M. CARNEY


March 8, 2008; Page A9


Wall Street Journal, New York


Being president of the Czech Republic is more like being England's monarch than the president of the United States. While the Czech president has veto power over certain types of legislation, his role is supposed to be mostly ceremonial.


But Vaclav Klaus -- who was re-elected last month after being chosen by the Czech Parliament as head of state in 2003 -- has not been content to confine himself to ribbon cuttings and state dinners.


Mr. Klaus has become a globally prominent voice of skepticism about what he calls global-warming "alarmism." This week, while in New York to address a gathering of fellow "non-alarmists" at a conference in Times Square, he took some time to sit down with members of the Journal's editorial board to offer his dissenting views on Russia, Kosovo, America and of course, climate change.


"I am not a climatologist," Mr. Klaus cheerfully admits. "I am not disputing the measurement of the temperature." Even so, Mr. Klaus believes that his many years of experience in the fields of economics and econometrics give him some insight into the nature of the problems faced by climatologists and policy makers. In climatology as in economics, he says, "there are no controlled experiments. . . . You can't repeat the time series." So, just as you can't run a controlled experiment to determine the effect of, say, deficits on interest rates, we can't directly determine the effect of CO2 on climate. All we have are observations and inferences.


Mr. Klaus is also interested in the politics of global warming. He has written a book, tentatively titled "Blue, Not Green Planet," published in Czech last year and due out in English translation in the U.S. this May. The main question of the book is in its subtitle: "What is in danger: climate or freedom?"


He likens global-warming alarmism to communism, which he experienced first-hand in Cold War Czechoslovakia, then a Soviet satellite. While the communists argued that we must all sacrifice some freedom in pursuit of "equality," the "warmists," as Mr. Klaus calls them, want us to sacrifice liberty -- especially economic liberty -- to prevent a change in climate. In both cases, in Mr. Klaus's view, the costs of achieving the goal, and the impossibility of truly doing so, argue strongly against paying a price of freedom.


Furthermore, the fact that there has been some warming over so many years does not, by itself, prove to him that this trend will continue indefinitely. "Undoubtedly there is some warming," Mr. Klaus allows. "But there has never been no change in climate, no change in global temperatures."


The world, he argues, is full of risks, and the risk of catastrophic climate change is just one of them. Therefore, we need a more measured approach to assessing the risks and the costs of mitigating them.


Cost-benefit analysis and the precautionary principle "are two different methodologies, two different

approaches, two different ways of thinking," he says.

The less desirable precautionary principle "as used by Al Gore and all his fellow travelers" says that "if you are afraid that there are risks to something, you may prohibit everything." He continues: "This is for me

absolutely unacceptable to think about."


Mr. Klaus's contrarian streak is not confined to climate change. He has been one of the few politicians in the European Union to publicly express doubts about the wisdom of recognizing Kosovo's recently declared independence from Serbia.


He fears that Kosovo's independence "will be a very good example for other parts of countries that are not happy with what is going on around them. A domino effect -- let's put it that way. So this is for me a very, very serious issue." He declines to be drawn out on specific examples of regions in Europe that could be emboldened to follow Kosovo's lead -- but it does not take much imagination to guess.


The Czech Republic has a sizable Hungarian minority that has been a periodic source of tension with its neighbor to the south for decades. Czechoslovakia, of course, also had its own unhappy experience with its German minority in the Sudetenland in the 1930s.


Even so, Mr. Klaus, steadfastly keeping to the level of generalities and hypotheticals, says: "I am . . . afraid that there are some countries where it's just the opposite -- a bigger country has a minority somewhere and wants to create a bigger original 'mother country' as it's sometimes called. And that's for me a problem because that could destabilize the situation in Europe."


When it comes to hosting American missile-defense facilities, Mr. Klaus's position is contrary to the dominant view in Europe. Opposition to the radar facilities is, in his view, nothing more than old-fashioned anti-Americanism.


"Some 'Old European' countries," Mr. Klaus says, pointedly borrowing the Rumsfeldian formulation that caused so much angst on the continent earlier in the decade, "take [the installation of the facilities] as our way of saying we are not just locked in Europe. We want to stand on two legs. One of them is the European and the other is trans-Atlantic. And they feel that this is our motivation, not Iran, not North Korea. . . . It's just that simple." For his part, "I want to have close ties with [the U.S.]," which is why he supports the bases.


Perhaps the most surprising and counterintuitive position he took during our meeting concerned Russia. The former Soviet satellites in Central Europe are often thought of as reliable skeptics of Russian intentions. But Mr. Klaus expresses a more sanguine view, even arguing that Western fears about Russia and Vladimir Putin are misplaced.


"I was one who always rejected the high-brow approach, [which says], 'Well, it's not good that they're not doing as well as some other countries in Central Europe.' That's a cheap criticism that I don't accept." So, does he not think that, through its supply of arms to Syria and Iran, and its obstructionism over Iran at the U.N. Security Council, Russia is once again picking a fight with the U.S. -- or at least in danger of doing so?


His response is at turns heated and pleading: "No one is thinking about that in Russia. Why do you think that's the way [they think]? Simply, Russia was totally lost and pushed to the floor and simply wants to be a normal country again. Don't interpret all the attempts to be accepted as a normal country as an aggressive position vis-à-vis the United States. This is not that way. I'm afraid that this is the mantra in the American newspapers but please, please, think about it twice because this is a tragic mistake."


What about the danger that Russia could use its role in supplying oil and gas to the rest of Europe as a weapon against EU economies? Again, the response is passionate: "I don't see it. This is for me . . . cheap, cheap headlining to say that, really. I live in a country where we are totally dependent -- we used to be totally dependent on Russian oil and gas. In my life, and I will be 67 this June, it has never happened for one minute that there has been cutting of deliveries of oil and gas. Please don't -- don't -- exaggerate that point. It's such cheap writing. Don't do it."


It's a strange moment. Here is a man who built his political career on his reputation for leading post-communist Czechoslovakia out of its socialist past, and who by his own account was banished into a kind of internal exile for championing liberalization ahead of the Warsaw Pact invasion of his country in 1968. Now he is urging his listeners to give Moscow the benefit of the doubt.


And yet when pressed, he pleads sudden ignorance of the country whose intentions he has just been defending. "You know, I am not an expert on Russia. You know more about it."


That seemed to end the matter, so we tried to return to global warming. But he interrupts to add a final thought on Russia: "Russia is more free now than in any time in its 2,000 years of history. So to speak about dictatorship is misusing the terminology, devaluing the terms that we use. This is something we should not say."


This is not to say everything is sunshine in Russia. "They are much less free than the Americans and the Czechs would accept. . . . Let's be clear about this. Is that clear?


"For me it is unacceptable to have such a relatively closed political system. Personally unacceptable, and being in Russia I would fight against it. But that's a different story than speaking of a dictatorship or not putting it in a proper historical perspective."


He goes on. "To say 'dictatorship' or to speak about Putin as the 'KGB man,' I would be [embarrassed] to use such a term. That is maybe for some boulevard journalist, but this is definitely much more complicated. Putin is a much more complicated and structured personality than just the 'KGB man.' And I'm sure you know it."


But here his account took an inexplicable turn. Mr. Klaus, by his own description "no expert" on Russia, points to "a growing decentralization in the country. The role of the individual regions and those governors, they create a different style of thinking and I see an evolution in Russia."


These are the same governors that, formerly directly elected, are now appointed by Mr. Putin himself, which hardly seems a recipe either for decentralization or independence from Moscow. Even so, Mr. Klaus argues that "to be blind . . . to the real changes that have been going on there probably would be a mistake."


In Europe, Mr. Klaus has the reputation of a firebrand, if not a loose cannon. This is a president, after all, who calls global warming "alarmism" a "radical political project" based in a form of "Malthusianism" that is itself grounded on a "cynical approach [by] those who themselves are sufficiently well-off."


"It is not about climatology," he insists. "It is about freedom." Mr. Klaus left his hosts with a clear idea of why he so infuriates his opponents. There's no doubt, either, that he enjoys his self-assigned role as a contrarian.

Liberty vs. Socialism: Can't US Politicians See The European Welfare State Writing On the Wall??

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080308/COMMENTARY/162106


Liberty vs. socialism


March 8, 2008


By Walter E. Williams


The Washington Times


- A fortnight ago, I wrote about Mississippi Legislature House Bill 282 that would have imposed fines or revoked licenses of food establishments that served obese people. Fortunately, the measure died in committee.


State Rep. Ted Mayhall, one of the bill's sponsors, said he wanted to bring attention to the fact that "Obesity makes people more susceptible to diabetes, which puts a further strain on the state's financially-challenged Medicaid program." His sentiments were expressed by quite a few readers who didn't necessarily support such a bill but opined that if a particular behavior or lifestyle imposes costs on others through tax-supported health care, government had a right to intercede.


Similar justification was used for laws requiring helmets for motorcyclists and bicyclists. After all, if one exercises his liberty to ride without a helmet and has an accident and becomes a vegetable, society must bear the expense of taking care of him. The fact that an obese person becomes ill, or a cyclist has an accident, and becomes a burden on taxpayers who must bear the expense of taking care of him, is not a problem of liberty. It's a problem of socialism where one person is forced to take care of another. There is no moral argument that justifies using the coercive powers of government to force one person to bear the expense of taking care of another. If that person is too resolute in his refusal to do so, what is the case for imposing fines, imprisonment or death?


You say, "Death. Aren't you exaggerating, Williams?" Say he tells the agents of Congress he will pay his share of constitutionally mandated government functions but refuses to pay the health costs of a sick obese person or a cyclist who becomes a vegetable, what do you think the likely course will be? First, he would be threatened with fines, imprisonment or property confiscation. Refusal to give in to these sanctions would ultimately lead to his being shot by agents of Congress.


Forcing one person to bear the burden of health care costs for another is not only a moral question but a major threat to personal liberty. Think about all the behaviors and lifestyles that can lead to illness and increase the burden on taxpayers. A daily salt intake exceeding 6 grams can lead to hypertension. A high-fat diet and high alcohol intake can also lead to diabetes. A sedentary lifestyle can lead to several costly diseases such as hypertension, diabetes and heart failure.


There are many other behaviors that lead to a greater health care burden, but my question is how much control over your life you are willing to give government in the name of reducing these costs? Would you want government to regulate how much salt you use? What about government deciding how much fat and alcohol you consume? There are immense beneficial health effects of a daily 30-minute aerobic exercise.


Would you support government-mandated exercise? You might argue that it's none of government's business how much fat, salt or alcohol a person consumes, even if it has adverse health care cost implications. I would ask: Wouldn't the same reasoning apply to helmet laws and proposed obesity laws? Last year, The Child Nutrition Promotion and School Lunch Protection Act was introduced in Congress. It's a measure to prevent schools from serving "junk foods" such as pizza, burgers and French fries. If the government protects children from "unhealthy" meals at school, would you want government to also protect them from unhealthy meals at home?


[SEE: Brown's 'Get Fit' Towns: Kim Jong-il Would Be Proud - http://itssdeconomicfreedom.blogspot.com/2008/01/browns-get-fit-towns-kim-jong-il-would.html By James Woudhuysen, Professor of forecasting and innovation, De Montfort UniversitySpiked OnlineMonday 5 November 2007 -- Gordon Brown’s UK government will now try to design urban areas that force us to exercise more – and that’s official. To tackle obesity with what he called a ‘large-scale’ approach ‘across the whole community’, Brown’s health secretary Alan Johnson has said that he wants to ‘make physical activity a normal part of everyday life’. (1) So before you go to work, school or your leisure destination, remember that your personal trainer, Alan, has instructed you to walk, run or pedal there.]


[SEE ALSO, In Looney Britain, Citizens Don't Even Have 'Property Rights' in Themselves!! , http://itssdeconomicfreedom.blogspot.com/2008/01/in-looney-britain-citizens-dont-even.html . British PM Urges No-consent Organ HarvestingBy Patrick HennessyArticle published Jan 14, 2008 January 14, 2008 \LONDON SUNDAY TELEGRAPH LONDON —Prime Minister Gordon Brown yesterday threw his weight behind a move to allow hospitals to remove organs from dead patients without explicit consent.Writing in the Sunday Telegraph, Mr. Brown said such a move would save thousands of lives and that he hopes such a system can start this year. The proposals would mean consent for organ donation after death would be automatically presumed, unless individuals had opted out of a national register or family members objected. But patients' groups said they are "totally opposed" to Mr. Brown's plan, arguing it would take away patients' rights over their own bodies.]

When I was 14 or 15 years old, smelling myself, I thought I could take over the house. My mother told me that as long as she paid the bills, I would do what she said. That's great for a parent-child relationship, but do we want the same relationship between government and its citizens?


Walter E. Williams is a nationally syndicated columnist and a professor of economics at George Mason University.


[PROFESSOR WILLIAM'S ARTICLE WAS PROMPTED BY THE NEWS REPORTS THAT FOLLOW]:


http://www.myeyewitnessnews.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=1dc81ea6-d115-46ac-9603-e362c0ebee64&rss=59


Bill Bans Obese Patrons From Mississippi Restaurants


Jackson, Miss. - The lawmakers who sponsored Bill No. 282 say they're not trying to discriminate against the overweight in Mississippi, they're trying to start a dialogue about how to fight the problem of obesity in the Magnolia State.


The proposed law would make it illegal for state-licensed restaurants to serve food to the obese.


Critics say government shouldn't try to be the food police and they say this latest attempt at public health legislation leaves a bad taste in the mouth.


"What kind of crap is that?" asks James Kelley of Clarksdale, Mississippi. "What do I think about it? Leave people alone. Let them eat what they want. Let them be."


Dedra Holley from Robinsonville, agrees. "How can you be serious?" she says. "So if they discriminate against obese people who are they going to discriminate against after that? People with long hair? Short hair? White people? Black people? I mean, that's absurd."


You'd be hardpressed to find any Mississippian who supports the idea. Even the man who sponsored the bill, Representative Ted Mayhall, says it should never pass.


"I do not have any intention of this becoming law," says the Desoto County Republican. "I don't think it has a Chinaman's chance. I'm against intrusive government. I don't think that's what we're here for and what we should be doing."


So why draft such controversial legislation?


"The reason I put the bill in," says Mayhall, "was to call attention to the seriousness of the obesity epidemic in Mississippi."


Mayhall says 30-percent of adults in Mississippi are obese. The state ranks number one in the nation for obesity three years running.


And with Mississippi's Medicaid program $168 million dollars in the red this year, Rep. Mayhall says illnesses related to obesity, including diabetes, are draining the state's budget.


His efforts to raise awareness about the issue have the national media calling with questions and constituents calling him out. By noon Friday, his answering machine was flooded with some not-so-nice messages and his cell phone was ringing constantly.


One caller told him, "Why don't you move to China or Russia instead of the U.S. Last I heard, this was still a free country."


There are plenty of skeptics who say Mayhall's plan to spark a change in the eating habits of Mississippians won't work.


"I don't think it's going to put a dent in the whole problem," says Dedra Holley. "I just can't believe it will."


"You're not going to be able to force someone to do something they're not ready to do," says James Kelley of Southaven. "Is this a Communist state?"


Despite the verbal attacks and all the doubters, Mayhall, a 68 year-old former pharmaceutical rep, says he's determined to stir up the debate.


"I'm a big boy," he says. "I can take anything that comes. I don't care. If it'll save three or four lives, it's well worth it."


Before Mayhall and Representatives John Read and Bobby Shows introduced their legislation, they got the green light from Mississippi's Public Health chairman and from Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour.


No one expects the bill to pass. They do expect a lively discussion in subcommittee about ways the state can solve its' obesity problems.




http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080203/NEWS/802030374


Some say obese bill has fat chance

By Natalie Chandler

February 3, 2008


A bill that would force some Mississippians to back away from the buffet, or any restaurant, has begun its trip through the 2008 Legislature.


House Bill 282 would prohibit restaurants from serving food to anyone who is obese, based on criteria from the state Department of Health.


Restaurateurs and an advocacy group say the legislation is a waste of time, and even one of the lawmakers pushing it doesn't expect it to travel very far.


State Rep. Ted Mayhall, R-Southaven, said he's simply hoping to "call attention to the problem."


"No one's doing anything about it," Mayhall said, referring to obesity. "They just keep on going to the buffets and eating."


Obesity makes people more susceptible to diabetes, which puts a further strain on the state's financially-challenged Medicaid program, he said.


A 2007 report put that state's obesity rate at 30.6 percent - the worst in the nation.
Mayhall said the bill has been referred to a House subcommittee. If it advances, it would be discussed in the House Public Health and Human Services Committee.


Dr. Ed Thompson, state health officer, has previously said Mississippi's obesity rate cost Medicaid alone $221 million each year.


On Saturday, Thompson said the Department of Health is monitoring the bill as it does all proposed legislation that could affect public health policies. However, Thompson said the department has "no position on the bill."


"The bill was not discussed with us but we will work with the sponsors to see if we can answer any questions along the way," he said.


The legislation would require the Department of Health to "prepare written materials that describe and explain the criteria for determining whether a person is obese and to provide those materials to the food establishments."


The department would be responsible for making sure restaurants follow the law, which would go into effect July 1. Permits could be revoked for failing to comply.


"I've seen a lot of crazy laws, but this one takes the cake. Literally," said J. Justin Wilson, a senior research analyst for the Center for Consumer Freedom. "Whether it is menu labeling laws, taxes on fattening foods, or Mississippi's new "you're too fat to eat here" proposal, the food police have gone too far."


Mississippi also ranks "dead last" in the country for physical activity, Wilson said.
"Maybe the state's Legislature should do something to help people burn more calories instead of pretending that eating out is a cardinal sin," he said.


McDonald's restaurant owner Mike Rutzer of Greenville agreed.


"It just staggers the imagination to think what our government will come up with next," he said. "It's discriminatory. Now we're picking and choosing who to serve?"


Jackson restaurateur LeRoy Walker said lawmakers should focus on "health care, education, overall economic reform for our state. People on the Coast are still impacted from Hurricane Katrina."


"I think the individual who may have some challenges with their weight needs to govern themselves accordingly with the choices they put on their plates," he added.


DeShawn Walker, who was eating an early dinner with his mother Saturday evening at Big Mama's Country Cooking Buffet in south Jackson, said the bill equals discrimination.
"It's wrong," he said. "And I think it would make restaurants lose money, too."


Walker's mother, Patricia, shook her head at the bill's premise.


"You can't tell nobody how to eat. People have got to decide for themselves to lose weight," she said. "But, you know, some people are big and happy."


David Simmons of Ridgeland had similar feelings toward the proposed legislation.


"(Obesity) is a problem, I know. But it shouldn't be the government's role to dictate what people are eating, just like government shouldn't dictate smoking or drinking," he said.


Mayhall acknowledges the bill is "bad legislation" and that it "won't go anywhere."
But he said, "The intent was to get it in committee and call attention to the problem."

Mr.Obama: Does Your Call for 'Change' Really Mean Malthusian 'Negative' Sustainable Development & Al Gore's 'Wrenching Transformation of Society'??

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1254


Sustainable Development: The Root of All Our Problems


By Tom Deweese


Tuesday, January 8, 2008


Canada Free Press


In his book, Earth in the Balance, Al Gore warned that a “wrenching transformation” must take place to lead America away from the “horrors of the Industrial Revolution.” The process to do that is called Sustainable Development and its’ roots can be traced back to a UN policy document called Agenda 21, adopted at the UN’s Earth Summit in 1992.


Sustainable Development calls for changing the very infrastructure of the nation, away from private ownership and control of property to nothing short of central planning of the entire economy - often referred to as top-down control. Truly, Sustainable Development is designed to change our way of life.


Many are now finding non-elected regional governments and governing councils enforcing policy and regulations. As these policies are implemented, locally-elected officials are actually losing power and decision-making ability in their own communities. Most decisions are now being made behind the scenes in non-elected “sustainability councils” armed with truckloads of federal regulations, guidelines, and grant money.


In fact, a recent study reported that elected city councils and commissioners have lost approximately 10% of their legislative power during the past 10 years, while, through the consensus process, the power of private groups called Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) has increased by as much as 300%. It is a wrenching transformation, indeed.


The Three Es


According to its authors, the objective of sustainable development is to integrate economic, social, and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity.


The Sustainablists insist that society be transformed into feudal-like governance by making Nature the central organizing principle for our economy and society. As such, every societal decision would first be questioned as to how it might effect the environment. To achieve this, Sustainablist policy focuses on three components; land use, education, and population control and reduction.


The Sustainable Development logo used in most literature on the subject contains three connecting circles labeled Social Equity; Economic Prosperity; and Ecological Integrity (known commonly as the 3 Es).


Social Equity


Sustainable Development’s Social Equity plank is based on a demand for something called “social justice.” It should be noted that the first person to coin the phrase “social justice” was Karl Marx. Today, the phrase is used throughout Sustainablist literature. The Sustainablist system is based on the principle that individuals must give up selfish wants for the needs of the common good, or the “community.” How does this differ from Communism?


This is the same policy behind the push to eliminate our nation’s borders to allow the “migration” of those from other nations into the United States to share our individually-created wealth and our taxpayers-paid government social programs. Say the Sustainablists, “Justice and efficiency go hand in hand.” “Borders,” they say, “are unjust.”


Under the Sustainablist system, private property is an evil that is used simply to create wealth for a few. So too, is business ownership. Instead, “every worker/person will be a direct capital owner.” Property and businesses are to be kept in the name of the owner, keeping them responsible for taxes and other expenses, however control is in the hands of the “community.”


Economic Prosperity


Sustainable Development’s economic policy is based on one overriding premise: that the wealth of the world was made at the expense of the poor. It dictates that, if the conditions of the poor are to be improved, wealth must first be taken from the rich. Consequently, Sustainable Development’s economic policy is based not on private enterprise but on public/private partnerships.


In order to give themselves an advantage over competition, some businesses - particularly large corporations - now find a great advantage in dealing directly with government, actively lobbying for legislation that will inundate smaller companies with regulations that they cannot possibly comply with or even keep up with. This government/big corporation back-scratching has always been a dangerous practice because economic power should be a positive check on government power, and vice versa. If the two should ever become combined, control of such massive power can lead only to tyranny. One of the best examples of this was the Italian model in the first half of the Twentieth Century under Mussolini’s Fascism.


Together, select business leaders who have agreed to help government impose Sustainablist green positions in their business policies, and officials at all levels of government are indeed merging the power of the economy with the force of government in Public/Private Partnerships on the local, state and federal levels.


As a result, Sustainable Development policy is redefining free trade to mean centralized global trade “freely” crossing (or eliminating) national borders. It definitely does not mean people and companies trading freely with each other. Its real effect is to redistribute American manufacturing, wealth, and jobs out of our borders and to lock away American natural resources. After the regulations have been put in place, literally destroying whole industries, new “green” industries created with federal grants bring newfound wealth to the “partners.” This is what Sustainablists refer to as economic prosperity.


Ecological Integrity


“Nature has an integral set of different values (cultural, spiritual and material) where humans are one strand in nature’s web and all living creatures are considered equal. Therefore the natural way is the right way and human activities should be molded along nature’s rhythms.”


From the UN’s Biodiversity Treaty presented at the 1992 UN Earth Summit.


This quote lays down the ground rules for the entire Sustainable Development agenda. It says humans are nothing special - just one strand in the nature of things or, put another way, humans are simply biological resources. Sustainablist policy is to oversee any issue in which man reacts with nature - which, of course, is literally everything. And because the environment always comes first, there must be great restrictions over private property ownership and control. This is necessary, Sustainablists say, because humans only defile nature. In fact, the report from the 1976 UN Habitat I conference said: “Land ...cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore, contributes to social injustice.”


Under Sustainable Development there can be no concern over individual rights - as we must all sacrifice for the sake of the environment. Individual human wants, needs, and desires are to be conformed to the views and dictates of social planners. The UN’s Commission on Global Governance said in its 1995 report: “Human activity...combined with unprecedented increases in human numbers...are impinging on the planet’s basic life support system. Action must be taken now to control the human activities that produce these risks.”


Under Sustainable Development there can be no limited government, as advocated by our Founding Fathers, because, we are told, the real or perceived environmental crisis is too great. Maurice Strong, Chairman of the 1992 UN Earth Summit said: “A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally-damaging consumption patterns. The shift will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including the United Nations.”


The politically based environmental movement provides Sustainablists camouflage as they work to transform the American systems of government, justice, and economics. It is a masterful mixture of socialism (with its top down control of the tools of the economy) and fascism (where property is owned in name only - with no control). Sustainable Development is the worst of both the left and the right. It is not liberal, nor is it conservative. It is a new kind of tyranny that, if not stopped, will surely lead us to a new Dark Ages of pain and misery yet unknown to mankind.


Posted 01/8 at 08:56 AM Email (Permalink)

Sarkozy Bans US Biotech Corn Based on Europe's Trade Protectionism Doctrine of Hazard (Not Risk-based) Precautionary Principle

Europe Trapped in the Vice of Downward Economic Growth and Limited Technological Innovation: Lashes Out at More Competitive Nations' Products and Technologies, Thus Exacerbating Trade Tensions


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120033608647888955.html?mod=fox_australian

U.S. Threatens Sanctions on EU Modified-Crop Bans In France, Elsewhere Increase Tensions

WALL STREET JOURNAL

By JOHN W. MILLER

January 15, 2008 BRUSSELS --

The U.S. said it will retaliate with trade sanctions unless European Union countries reverse illegal bans on planting genetically modified crops, threatening escalation in the long-running trans-Atlantic dispute over engineered foods.

Yesterday's announcement came just two days after French President Nicolas Sarkozy said he would join a handful of other EU countries in banning permanently the only genetically modified crop the EU has licensed for cultivation -- Monsanto Co.'s MON810, a corn used for animal feed.

The U.S. threat of retaliation is the result of an early U.S. complaint against EU member Austria, which missed a World Trade Organization deadline to lift its ban on the corn Friday. Mr. Sarkozy's decision, however, has bigger implications.

France is the second-biggest user of MON810 in Europe and the EU's agriculture powerhouse. Its decision to ban the corn would be a significant defeat for U.S. biotech companies, already struggling to get a piece of the EU's $7 billion seed market. [TRADE PROTECTIONISM]**

"We are taking steps necessary under World Trade Organization rules to preserve our right in the WTO to suspend trade concessions," said Gretchen Hamel, a spokeswoman for the U.S. trade office. "It is hard to overstate our disappointment with this new biotech ban announced by the government of France."

The U.S. won a suit two years ago at the WTO over Austria's refusal to allow cultivation of MON810. Under WTO rules, a country can prohibit a product only for safety reasons, but the EU's own food-safety watchdog has said MON810 isn't dangerous to human health. Austrian officials say they have no plans to lift their ban on the corn. [SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE RUNS COUNTER TO THESE CLAIMS]**

Under WTO rules, the U.S. retaliation could take the form of punitive trade tariffs on popular goods from Austria, such as the soft drink Red Bull, which is produced by Red Bull GmbH. Now that France has joined the ban, the U.S. could extend its trade sanctions to French wines or other sensitive goods. The U.S. also could ask the EU to lower some of its tariffs on U.S. goods in specific markets, as compensation.

"There are no grounds whatsoever" for France to ban MON810, said Jonathan Ramsay, a lobbyist for Monsanto in Brussels. Monsanto will explore "all legal remedies," he added.
Environmentalists, however, welcomed the French move. "It's the first time one of the big EU countries is making the right choice," says Marco Contiero, policy director for Greenpeace in Brussels. [GREENPEACE & OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL EXTREMIST GROUPS HAVE PROMOTED THIS ACRIMONY AS PART OF THEIR EFFORTS TO SECURE EU CONTROL OVER 'GLOBAL REGULATORY GOVERNANCE']***

EU farmers have been growing more and more MON810 corn since it was approved for use in 1998. Last year, the bloc grew 110,000 hectares of the corn, up from 62,000 in 2006.

Under EU law, countries can opt out of an EU regulation if they can show it goes against a core national interest. As evidence, French officials cite a report released last week by a commission Mr. Sarkozy formed to review the safety of Monsanto's corn. The report says pollen from MON810 is too easily transmittable to neighboring crops and can infect nearby butterflies and worms.

Many French farmers say they need the corn to cut their pesticide bills. MON810 generates a protein that kills the European corn borer, which destroys corn crops. The EU's executive body, the European Commission, said it will challenge the French ban.



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/business/worldbusiness/15biofuel.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print

NEW YORK TIMES

January 15, 2008

Europe May Ban Imports of Some Biofuel Crops

By JAMES KANTER

PARIS — In a sign of growing concern about the impact of supposedly “green” policies, European Union officials will propose a ban on imports of certain biofuels, according to a draft law to be unveiled next week.

If approved by European governments, the law would prohibit the importation of fuels derived from crops grown on certain kinds of land — including forests, wetlands or grasslands — into the 27-nation bloc.

The draft law would also require that biofuels used in Europe deliver “a minimum level of greenhouse gas savings.” That level is still under discussion.

Currently, most of the crops for biofuels used in Europe consist of rapeseed (commonly known as canola in the United States) grown in parts of Europe, according to Matt Drinkwater, a biofuels analyst at New Energy Finance in London. Europe also imports some palm oil from Southeast Asia, soy from Latin America, ethanol from Brazil, and produces some ethanol domestically using wheat and sugar beets, he said.

The ban would primarily affect palm oil and possibly the Latin American imports.

Amid rising prices for gasoline and diesel and worries about climate change, countries around the world have started using more fuels produced from crops or agricultural wastes.

The amount of ethanol used in the United States represents about 5 percent of total gasoline consumption, according to Matt Hartwig, a spokesman for the Renewable Fuels Association in Washington. Ethanol produced from sugar cane is widely used in Brazil. In Europe and to a lesser extent in the United States, vegetable oils have been converted into a type of diesel by a simple chemical procedure.

But a flurry of studies has discredited some of the claims made by biofuel producers that the fuels help reduce greenhouse gases by reducing fossil fuel use and growing carbon-dioxide-consuming plants. Growing the crops and turning them into fuel can result in considerable environmental harm.

Not only is native vegetation, including tropical rain forests, being chopped down in places to plant the crops, but fossil fuels, like diesel for tractors, are often used to farm the crops. They also demand nitrogen fertilizer made largely with natural gas and consume huge amounts of water.

Already, the draining and deforesting of peatlands in Southeast Asia — mainly to make way for palm plantations — accounts for up to 8 percent of global annual carbon dioxide emissions, said Adrian Bebb of Friends of the Earth, an environmental group.

In Indonesia, he said, more than 18 million hectares of forest, or 44 million acres, have already been cleared for palm oil developments. Environmental groups say the developments are endangering wildlife like the orangutan and the Sumatran tiger, and putting pressure on indigenous peoples who depend on the forests.

Western scientists are increasingly pointing out the need to distinguish between types of biofuels. On Monday, for instance, the Royal Society, a national science academy in Britain, said requirements to use a certain percentage of biofuels were not sufficient. Instead, the society said, there should be specific goals for emissions reductions.

“Indiscriminately increasing the amount of biofuels we are using may not automatically lead to the best reductions in emissions,” said John Pickett, head of biological chemistry at Rothamsted Research, a research center in Britain, who helped write the report for the Royal Society. “The greenhouse gas savings of each depends on how crops are grown and converted and how the fuel is used.”

Last week, scientists at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Washington also warned that biofuel production can result in environmental destruction, pollution and damage to human health.

“Different biofuels vary enormously in how eco-friendly they are,” said William Laurance, a staff scientist at the institute. “We need to be smart and promote the right biofuels.”

Experts say certain types of fuels, particularly those made from agricultural wastes, still hold potential to improve the environment, but they add that governments will have to set and enforce standards for how the fuels are produced. With its new proposal, Europe appears to be moving ahead of the rest of the world in that task.

The draft law probably would have the greatest impact on palm oil growers in countries like Malaysia and Indonesia, according to Mr. Drinkwater. [DISGUISED TRADE PROTECTIONISM -- SEE ITSSD STUDY AT BRITISH LIBRARY DIRECT at: http://direct.bl.uk/bld/PlaceOrder.do?UIN=215946290&ETOC=RN&from=searchengine .

“Some developments in Southeast Asia will almost certainly be blocked by these provisions,” he said, adding that the rules would make it much harder to plant on recently deforested land or to export fuels whose production process cause significant amounts of greenhouse gases to be released.

But farmers growing corn for ethanol could also be affected, because the European rules contain provisions on preserving grasslands, said Mr. Drinkwater.

The text, which could change before European commissioners meet on Jan. 23 to adopt a final version, also emphasizes that areas like rain forests and lands with high levels of biodiversity should not be converted to growing biofuels.

The European Union does not want to completely abandon biofuels because they could still contribute to reducing Europe’s dependence on fossil fuels.

In part, that is because biofuels — a blanket term covering fuels grown from crops to manufacture substitutes for diesel and gasoline — are seen as Europe’s main weapon in lowering emissions from transportation. And transportation has the fastest growing levels of greenhouse gases among all sectors of Europe’s economy.

On Monday, in answer to a reporter’s question, an organization representing major growers of crops for biofuels in Malaysia said the E.U. should be cautious before imposing new rules. It said that farmers in the region were adopting more sustainable practices, and warned that restrictions on imports could cause trade tensions.

“The Malaysian government is very concerned about the E.U. scheme for sustainability of biofuels,” said Zainuddin Hassan, the manager in Europe for the Malaysian Palm Oil Council in Brussels. The measures “should not be a trade barrier to the palm oil industry and it should comply with the W.T.O. rules as well,” he said, referring to the World Trade Organization.

Verifying that only environmentally sound biofuels are being imported into Europe would be left to individual countries. But the draft law calls for penalties for violating the rules, like exclusion from tax breaks, to be enforced across the region.

The draft law also says that biofuels should be tracked from origin to use “so that biofuels fulfilling the sustainability criteria can be identified and rewarded with a premium in the market.”

The measures are part of a plan for Europe to implement a binding target of making 10 percent of the transport fuels consumed by 2020 from renewable sources — most of which are expected to be biofuels.

Ferran Tarradellas Espuny, spokesman for Europe’s energy commissioner, Andris Piebalgs, said that European countries that used more than 10 percent of biofuels in their transport fuel mix could use their progress to help them to reach other European environmental targets. Those include a goal of a 20-percent share of renewable sources in overall energy consumption by 2020. [NUANCED REFERENCE TO KYOTO PROTOCOL & UN LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION (UNCLOS)]*******

Europe already has a suggested target of making biofuels 5.75 percent of fuels used for transport by 2010. But that target is not going to met, according to the draft law. Biofuels were just 1 percent of transport fuel in 2005 and, if present trends continue, would account for 4.2 percent by 2010.

Shaping Our Fears With the Right Information

The Role of Information in the Development of Fear Beliefs: End of Award Report

By Andy Peter Field and Robin Banerjee

Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) (July 2005) (Excerpts)


“Results showed that both positive and negative information changed fear beliefs…The Source of Information did not interact with the effect of the information, either explicitly in the FBQ scores or implicitly in the Affective Priming measure. This was in contrast to previous work which found that information was only effective at altering fear beliefs if it came from an adult rather than a peer (Field, Argyris & Knowles, 2001). Experiment 3, however, matched the faces and voices of the different informants much more closely and presenting them via the computer may also have reduced the felt difference between the informants…Fear beliefs did increase significantly after negative information compared to after no information and after positive information. Source of Information did not moderate or influence the effect of information in any way.

Affective Priming also showed differences between the negatively and positively portrayed situations, showing that the information had had an effect at an implicit level as well as at the explicit level…changes in fear beliefs did alter causal learning.

Specifically, negative information increased the rate at which a congruent causal
relationship was detected, and led to an overestimation of the frequency of negative outcomes when the causal relationship was incongruent with information and the actual frequency of negative outcomes was only 20%. For positive information, the results were broadly similar. Participants were quicker to detect the 80% frequency of positive outcomes after they had been given positive information about the situation and, when the outcomes were incongruent (that is, 80% negative and only 20% positive), participants consistently overpredicted the frequency of positive outcomes. This suggests that information can interact with causal learning experiences, and may in some cases have a protective effect.

Even after 40 trials of an 80% negative outcome, positive information led to an underestimate of the likelihood of a negative outcome…A key feature of clinical phobias and excessive fears is that they do not respond to verbal reassurances and show a resistance to extinction. That is, despite repeated experiences of the phobic object not leading to aversive outcomes, the fear persists.

...Further research should look at whether the type of fear learning that results from information is resistant to extinction or whether it can easily be reversed by contrary experience or information. The results of the causal learning experiments suggest that information can bias the processing of subsequent contrary evidence to minimise its evidential value. Elucidating the processes that lead to the persistence of fears and phobias in the face of contradictory evidence could have very useful therapeutic implications.”

Brown's 'Get Fit' Towns: Kim Jong-il Would Be Proud

By James Woudhuysen

Professor of forecasting and innovation, De Montfort University

Spiked Online

Monday 5 November 2007


Gordon Brown’s UK government will now try to design urban areas that force us to exercise more – and that’s official. To tackle obesity with what he called a ‘large-scale’ approach ‘across the whole community’, Brown’s health secretary Alan Johnson has said that he wants to ‘make physical activity a normal part of everyday life’. (1) So before you go to work, school or your leisure destination, remember that your personal trainer, Alan, has instructed you to walk, run or pedal there.

Johnson’s ‘fit towns’, as they have been called, are enough to leave you breathless. Yet although his announcement was picked up by mass media as far afield as China and India (2), it was – like so much of Labour policy – not entirely new. As spiked pointed out nearly six months ago, when Brown announced his plans for five eco-towns, the Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) had committed itself to urban growth based on public transport, cycling, walking and a reduced need to travel, ‘especially by car’ (3). Moreover the CLG’s July Eco-towns Prospectus registered a desire to ‘deliver physical and mental health benefits’, offer ‘choices for healthy living’, and go about ‘encouraging healthy behaviours’ (4). So what has Johnson added? You could say that he has formally medicalised urban design, annexing it as a Department of Health issue, and you’d be right. But the real novelty of Johnson’s innovation is his drive to get us stretching our limbs at Labour’s behest.

Barely two weeks ago, Johnson insisted that Britain’s potential obesity crisis is one that’s on the same scale as the crisis of climate change. That comparison was ridiculous enough (5). Now, he has said that both Labour’s eco-towns and other urban areas should be adapted to improve people’s health. Through their layout, facilities and construction, eco-towns could also be ‘healthy towns’. If successful, such an approach ‘could also apply to areas undergoing housing growth and renewal’ (6).

This is a regime for national fitness worthy of North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. Not for nothing has Johnson claimed a past allegiance to Stalinism (7).




















In an absolutely illiberal and inhumane manner, Johnson wants urban areas designed so that people’s behaviour cannot at all consist of their own freely decided ‘choices’. Instead, behaviour will be relentlessly controlled by the state. What the Russian psychologist Ivan Pavlov did to salivating dogs, or the stimulus-response experiments conducted by US psychologist BF Skinner did to hungry rats, Johnson wants to do to us. Johnson’s view of human freedom is degraded.

The confusions within Labour’s urban policy, and the logic of Johnson’s approach, make his proposal ludicrous and unworkable. But that should not blind us to his authoritarianism.

For some time now, Labour has crammed what few new houses it has built into the same fenced-in urban areas, so as to keep the masses in their place, protect Britain’s rural spaces and lower vehicle emissions as a means of saving the planet. And Labour’s brownfield brutalism does not stop there. So ludicrously convinced is Johnson that architectural space really does determine physical slimness, we might expect him to contradict his boss, Gordon Brown, sooner or later.

When Brown first floated the idea of eco-towns, he said that their homes, roads and bus routes should be constructed ‘in the most environmentally sustainable way’ (8). But if obesity is, as Johnson says, on a par with climate change, then dispensing with roads and public transport altogether would be the best way to reduce people’s waistlines. And why doesn’t Johnson decree that the whole of Britain become a TV-free zone, too? After all, TV supposedly encourages us to be couch potatoes, so giving the National Health Service more fatties to treat.

In the walk-to-work office blocks of Johnson’s vision, perhaps there should be no lifts. Lifts would only encourage sloth – especially among slackers who are over 60. And surely doorways should be specially narrow, so as to encourage dietary restraint?

In announcing his intellectual breakthrough, Johnson made much of the flab-fighting successes of cities in Australia, Finland and especially France. Yet in fact Obesogenic Environments: Evidence Review, a highly relevant and recent report commissioned by the Foresight programme of the UK Office of Science and Innovation, makes no mention of either Finland or France. The report records that in Perth, Western Australia, there is evidence that, ‘after adjustment for confounding factors’, being overweight is associated with living on a highway and living on streets with no pavements and with a perceived lack of paths within walking distance. Being obese in Perth is likewise associated with perceived lack of paths within walking distance, poor access to four or more recreational facilities, and with a lack of pavements or shops within walking distance. But that’s about it. Indeed with regard to obesity, the report concludes that, ‘influences of the environment are probably small and mechanisms remain unclear… At present, there is scant evidence on whether the environment might have different effects on people with contrasting levels of physical activity and body weight.’ (9)

Clearly Johnson can’t be bothered with such a careful analysis. His intent, rather, is simply to stigmatise those who cannot afford to eat well and subject them to a kind of sweaty urban treadmill. The government’s attempt to make us live zero-carbon, zero-carbohydrate lifestyles squeezes two ridiculous aims into a failed policy – housing. Recently, Labour has engineered a decline in the number of new homes built in Britain; but its ambitions to police us all through social engineering know no limits.

The construction of towns around the tyranny of health is a frightening new departure. Yet we have not heard the last of the Johnson doctrine. Britain’s 2012 Olympics doesn’t just advertise itself as a low-carbon affair, but insists that it will increase Britons’ ‘awareness’ of cycling and walking as healthy means of travel (10).

In Labour’s camp, no aspect of our public or private lives escapes the government guards – or Alan Johnson, the demented doctor.

Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair Behind Loss Of UK Sovereignty to EU Continentals

Everyone must love the EU... says Tony Blair

Thisislondon.co.uk - The Entertainment Guide

From the Evening Standard

Last updated at 22:22pm on 02.12.06


A multi-million pound propaganda war to force the British people to love the European Union and Brussels bureaucrats is to be launched by Tony Blair as part of his legacy as Prime Minister, it has been revealed.

The operation to overcome strong opposition to the EU in Britain and soften them up in the event of fresh moves to forge closer links with Brussels was secretly agreed by Mr Blair and his Ministers at last week's Cabinet meeting.

Details of the plan, obtained by The Mail on Sunday, show how the Prime Minister is so frustrated at his failure to persuade voters that the EU is a good thing, he is to spend a fortune from public funds in a final attempt to brainwash them before he resigns next year.

They include banning Ministers and officials from referring to unpopular EU institutions like the European Commission, places such as Brussels and Strasbourg, the euro currency, terms like 'Eurocrat' and 'EU directive' and controversial policies such as the Common Agricultural Policy and the EU constitution.

Instead they have been ordered to try to promote the 'EU brand' by linking to popular European events and institutions such as the Eurovision song contest, the Cannes Film Festival and the UEFA soccer organisation that runs the Champions League tournament - even though none of them has anything to do with the EU.

Every Whitehall department is to appoint a spin doctor responsible for promoting the EU. And Downing Street will draw up an 'EU Grid' to make sure stories portraying Brussels in a good light are leaked to the media on a regular basis.

The leaked plans state that propaganda must be tailored to win over all groups by encouraging them to think that 'as a tourist, as a mother, as a birdwatcher, as an entrepreneur... the EU is relevant and can make a difference.'

More controversially, it suggests Ministers should not waste their energies trying to win over the elderly and people with few academic qualifications.

It says the 'young and educated' have much more appetite for learning about Europe than 'the old and uneducated'.

The plans were drawn up on Mr Blair's instructions by Whitehall's £180,000-a-year head of communications Howell James, a close friend of EU Commissioner Peter Mandelson.

Mr James had a relationship with Mr Mandelson's partner, Brazilian Reinaldo da Silva, before Mr Mandelson met him.

Mr Howell's links with Mr Mandelson are thought to have been a factor when he was appointed as Whitehall's first permanent secretary in charge of media relations two years ago.

At last week's Cabinet meeting where the EU propaganda campaign was approved, Ministers were told it was needed because of a growing expectation that Brussels would revive plans for an EU constitution, further reducing Britain's ability to govern itself.

The constitution was abandoned last year after it was rejected by voters in France and the Netherlands.

They will shortly receive a 'new core script and toolkit' suggesting that issues such as climate change, Blue Flag beaches, cheap flights and cheap mobile calls when abroad should be emphasised with the EU downplayed.

The paper presented to the Cabinet by Mr James complained of the continuing 'negativity and euro scepticism' among British voters, adding: "Indifference and apathy remains significant." Ministers must claim victories for Brussels, not Britain. "There is a risk of overplaying the UK's role and achievements at the expense of the EU,' it stated.

The new pro-EU message will be dumbed down, using a 'reframed and compelling narrative with accessible and "friendly" themes, wherever possible steering away from institutions, politics and legislation'. And pro-European politicians should be replaced by pro-European celebrities with a 'range of non political voices'.

In one of the most controversial sections on 'rebranding the EU', the Cabinet paper provides a chart showing the most unpopular aspects of the EU: the constitution, the commission, Brussels, Strasbourg, the Common Agricultural Policy, Eurocrats and the euro, described as issues towards which the public feels 'cold'.

They are contrasted with popular - or 'warm' - aspects of Europe, including UEFA, the Eurovision Song Contest, the Cannes Film Festival and Liverpool, Europe's "Capital of Culture' for 2008, though none have EU links. The best-known 'warm' EU topics were its Pet Travel Scheme and the EU-sponsored "Blue Flag' clean beaches.

Titled Reframing The Debate, the paper says Ministers must use 'themes with a "natural" European dimension to maximise impact and increase familiarity with Europe'.

The objective is to 'realign the EU brand via alliances with familiar, trusted organisations and brands'.

A new network of Whitehall spin doctors with orders to promote the EU has been created, with one senior "Press co-ordinator' in all 23 Government departments.

They will help No 10 draw up a 'rolling grid of upcoming EU issues' to ensure British voters are fed with a constant diet of pro-EU news.

Mr James told Ministers Press releases about the EU must be censored, removing references to the EU and its directives.

Instead they would refer to 'Europe' - which Mr James describes as 'a European sub brand' which people warm to.

UNESCO Promotes Behavior Modification For Sustainable Future Through Universal Mandatory Education

Globalization and Education for Sustainable Development: Sustaining the Future

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(2006)

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001492/149295E.pdf

UNESCO and the international community in general, believes that we need to foster – through education – the values, behavior and lifestyles required for a sustainable future. Indeed, sustainable development is not so much a destination as a process of learning how to think in terms of “forever”. Sustainable development involves learning how to make decisions that consider the long term future of the economy, ecology and equity of all communities. Building the capacity for such future-oriented thinking is a key task of education.

Teaching and Learning for a Sustainable Future is rooted in a new vision of education, a vision that helps students better understand the world in which they live, addressing the complexity and interconnectedness of problems such as poverty, wasteful consumption, environmental degradation, urban decay, population growth, health, conflict and the violation of human rights that threaten our future.

This vision of education emphasizes a holistic, interdisciplinary approach to developing the knowledge and skills needed for a sustainable future as well as changes in values, behavior, and lifestyles. This vision requires us to reorient education systems, policies and practices in order to empower everyone, young and old, to make decisions and act in culturally appropriate and locally relevant ways to redress the problems that threaten our common future. Teaching and Learning for a Sustainable Future will enable teachers to plan learning experiences that empower their students to develop and evaluate alternative visions of a sustainable future and to work creatively with others to help bring their visions into effect.

...By requiring us, individually and collectively, to make difficult choices about how we live, sustainable development is an ethical and moral challenge as well as a scientific concept...Ultimately, the Decade’s goal is to integrate the values inherent in sustainable development into all aspects of learning strong>to encourage changes in attitudes and behavior that allow for a more sustainable and just society for all.

...Sustainable development means that we need to embrace the values, behaviors and
lifestyles required for a sustainable future. We need to transform mentalities and visions; and be able to transform those visions into reality.

...What path can humans follow in order to achieve prosperity and sustainability? Most people believe they need only adjust and adapt to local society. This represents a basic type of diversity, whose needs are addressed through basic education covering reading, writing, math, and a rudimentary understanding of science and social behavior. However, advanced education, starting at the high school level and continuing onward, develops each person’s unique, innate abilities in order to spur progress towards a sustainable society.

...UNESCO and the international community in general, believes that we need to foster – through education – the values, behavior and lifestyles required for a sustainable future. Indeed, sustainable development is not so much a destination as a process of learning how to think in terms of “forever”. Sustainable development involves learning how to make decisions that consider the long term future of the economy, ecology and equity of all communities.

...This vision of education emphasizes a holistic, interdisciplinary approach to developing the knowledge and skills needed for a sustainable future as well as changes in values, behavior, and lifestyles. This vision requires us to reorient education systems, policies and practices in order to empower everyone, young and old, to make decisions and act in culturally appropriate and locally relevant ways to redress the problems that threaten our common future.

...What is the state of best practice in e-learning today? Today’s best practice is being shaped by mobile, ambient technology. It is changing the dynamics of how we will live, work, and learn in the future. These new experiences will shape behaviors, practices, and social groupings for knowledge sharing.


...Doing first what matters most is another way of describing priority analysis, which leads to the question of who is going to hold the most influence at the end of this decade and beyond. It will likely be people in their late twenties and thirties who will be shaping how we view business and politics in the future.

...The vision of education for sustainable development is a world where everyone has the opportunity to benefit from quality education and learn the values, behavior and lifestyles required for a sustainable future and for positive societal transformation: every world citizen must learn to contribute to a sustainable future for all humankind.

More Disguised Protectionism Justified on False Pretense of Environmental Hazards Allegedly Posed by Air Transport

Fresh Organic Produce Shipped By Air Could Soon Be The Next Target Of The Environmental Campaigners

By Roger Turney

AirCargoWorld Online at: http://www.aircargoworld.com/regions/euro_0108.htm


As if the debate over carbon emissions weren't enough, airlines could soon face a challenge over their organic footprint amid calls to virtually ban the shipment of all air shipments of organic produce.

The startling move comes from the United Kingdom's Soil Association, the country's leading campaigner and certification organization for organic food and farming. It verifies the organic credentials of 70 percent of the UK's $4 billion organic produce market, with most imported produce coming into the country from Africa and South America.

Less than 1 percent of organic imports into the UK come by air, but this market already valued at $84 million a year and growing rapidly.

But the association claims more than 80 percent of the volume is grown in low-income countries. Said Anna Bradley, chair of the Soil Association's standards board: "It is neither sustainable nor responsible to encourage poorer farmers to be reliant on air freight, we need to seek alternative markets for these producers, so that they are no longer dependent on air freight to get their produce to market."

The Soil Association is seeking to impose stringent standards on all organic produce flown into the UK, which would demand that all producers not only meet tougher ethical trade standards, but that they agree to reduce any remaining reliance on air freight.

The association's ultimate goal, said Bradley, is to minimize the use of air freight for all imported produce.

Sans Airlines

In recent months, the association conducted a series of studies and meetings with input from more than 200 interested parties, including growers, suppliers and importers. Notably, no airlines were consulted. Ken Hayes, standards research manager for the Soil Association, said the group is concerned about the long-term impact that shipping produce by air could have on the environment.

"We recognize that a general ban could potentially inhibit growth in the organic market and focusing on the environmental impact of air freight could be considered disproportionate and unfair when in the UK, for example, the majority of carbon dioxide emissions for food transport
occurs on UK roads, not in the air," Hayes said.

A selective ban might work, he said, but that would be difficult, involving social and political judgments that would be extremely difficult for an organic certification body to make.

"But that would at least allow us to make the call allowing the shipment of organic produce by air in justifiable situations, such as guaranteeing year round supply," Hayes said.

One suggestion is to push the decision onto the end customer by labeling all organic produce shipped by air. Hayes said this labeling would "prick the conscious of the customer," but does not help resolve the complex debate over the safest form of transportation.

The association could consider carbon offsetting as a way to balance its priorities with the business demands of the fast-growing UK organic produce market. "The only problem is that no national standard for offsetting yet exists," said Hayes.

After further consultation through 2008, the new standards are set to be applied from the start of 2009.

Over Top

But is some organic produce suppliers believe the Soil Association might be in danger of overreacting.

Anthony Pile is chairman of Blue Skies, an organic produce supplier, which imports fresh pineapple into the UK from Ghana in West Africa. "We have always felt that focusing on air freight in the organic food audit trail grossly simplifies the issue and does not take into account
the social and economic impact of organic farming in somewhere like Africa."

He called for the UK Soil Association to commission a more detailed study into the environmental impact of organic food production."We need to get across the message that measuring environmental impact is not as simple as counting the, 'food miles' or targeting the
airplanes," said Pile. "It is about looking at the whole story from when it is grown to when it is eaten."

Environmental groups have targeted what has become known as food miles as one example of problems growing out of globalization, arguing that food shipped around the world has had a troubling impact on the environment. One study showed food imports into the UK doubled in the 1990s and industries such as the strawberry and apple farms have been sharply cut back while imports soared.

Pile insists Blue Skies only exports products from Ghana using passenger aircraft on existing scheduled services. "If we were to stop flying organic produce, the planes would still fly and the extra space left in the belly holds would probably be filled by non-perishable goods, which do not necessarily need to be flown," Pile said.

Although not consulted, the airfreight industry also has a viewpoint. "There is a great deal of noise surrounding the issues of organically produced and ethically sourced perishables," said Ed Searancke, general manager of customer delivery for British Airways World Cargo. "But there
is also a lack of industry data, which is needed to enable us to have an informed debate."

BAWC handled 115,000 tonnes of perishables through London Heathrow last year. With year on year growth rates of between 5 percent and 10 percent, perishables now represents a fifth of the airline's cargo tonnage. Don't expect the carriers to go all-organic any time soon.

Americans Targeted for Behavior Modification

By Paul Walter *

November 16, 2004

http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/nov2004/16/ameicans.htm


"Fifty years is ample time in which to change a world and its people almost beyond recognition. All that is required for the task are a sound knowledge of social engineering, a clear sight of the intended goal - and power." -- Arthur C. Clarke, Childhood's End.

A recent measure in Santa Cruz, California was a prime example of how the people are being manipulated at the local level through what's called 'sustainable development' being done incrementally. Measure J was defeated by the people, but it is imperative that Americans fully understand that 'sustainable development' is the blueprint for destroying liberty and private property rights. Americans should make no mistake about the seriousness of this issue and how it will affect your life. Like a giant octopus spreading its tentacles, this type of measure and similar legislation is spreading across this country like a cancer.

[See, e.g.: The Image of the UN 'LOST' Leviathan, at: http://itssd.blogspot.com/2007/11/lost-leviathan.html ].

['Negative' Sustainable Development] can be defeated by an educated citizenry as was demonstrated by the voters in Santa Cruz on November 2, 2004.

Measure J in Santa Cruz exemplified the underpinnings of 'sustainable development' by using local laws deceptively presented, but which were in fact, mini steps in behavior modification. This statement is validated by Linda Wilshusen, who was Executive Director of the Transportation Commission from the seventies until a short time ago expressed her opinion in 1988 when she said, "This concept of 'traffic management' has very little to do with science and engineering and a lot to do with sociology, marketing and behavior modification, as well as land use, parking and fuel availability, demographics and the like."

Wilshusen wasn't the only person to let the cat out of the bag. On September 16, 2004 during a presentation on Measure J to their local Chamber of Commerce, Supervisor Ellen Pirie insisted that the HOV lane proposed was needed: “If we add this lane, then we have more possibilities, because then we have a way of getting people out of their cars.” This is behavior modification through the back door.

Sustainable development should be the subject of discussion all across America, but most people don't know what it means, how it's being implemented and that the federal government is a willing participant in destroying our Republic. While some may automatically knee-jerk over such a statement, America's continued participation in the UN and programs like UNESCO spell even further destruction of our sovereignty and standard of living. Whether it's a 'traffic control' measure or one pertaining to the environment, non-governmental organizations, the worker ants of the globalists, push ahead each day in pursuit of world wide communism disguised by various labels. All of this is being kissed and blessed by local city fathers and state governments.

In his excellent piece titled 'Social Engineering for Global Change,' Carl Teichrib further educates on the 'International Baccalaureate Organization:

"Originally, the IBO was established to provide a common educational basis for international students that would be acceptable to universities around the world. With this in mind, IBO curriculum has, for over 35 years, emphasized that its students broaden their understanding of various cultures, languages, and points of view.

"Understanding other's points of view, cultures and languages is, in itself, a noble task - it's something that I work at pursuing and instilling within my own children and in myself. But underlining IBO's philosophy is something deeper; according to George Walker, the Director General at IBO, "International education offers people a state of mind: international-mindedness. You've got to change people's thinking." Hence, "students develop an awareness of moral and ethical issues and a sense of social responsibility...fostered by examining local and global issues."

"This is not simply ambiguous language. In advancing the international-mindedness of IBO, the organization has endorsed the Earth Charter - an earth-centered declaration which venerates global political-ethical-moral and spiritual unification. Some, such as Mikhail Gorbachev, have gone so far as to compare the Earth Charter with "those 10 or 15 Commandments which we all know about...those famous testaments."

"Providing the Earth Charter initiative with advanced support, the International Baccalaureate Organization has agreed to become an Earth Charter partnership entity, along with such groups as the Association of World Citizens, Friends of the Earth, Global People's Assembly, Rain Forest Action Network, the U.S. branch of the United Nations Association, and the World Parliament of Religion.

"Furthermore, IBO Deputy Director General, Ian Hill, sits on the Earth Charter Initiative Education Advisory Committee. Going further, IBO is currently looking at ways to incorporate the Earth Charter into the following curriculum areas; Theory of Knowledge, Environmental Systems, Environmental Science, Technology and Social Change, Peace and Conflict Studies, Experimental Science, Philosophy, Geography, History, Math, and the Arts.

"None of this would be very remarkable if the IBO were a small entity stuffed somewhere in a forgotten corner of the world - but it's not. Presently, almost 1,300 schools around the globe are authorized to offer IBO programs. And in the U.S. and Canada, just under 650 schools are tied in to the IBO, with 473 in the U.S. Adding to this, the IBO is linked into a number of United Nations' functions beyond the U.N. inspired Earth Charter and UNESCO - where it holds a special consultative status. The IBO has been involved in prep work for the U.N.'s World Summit on Sustainable Development, it's involved in a number of U.N. International Schools, and the organization works with a variety of United Nations Model programs. In other words, it's an organization with considerable "social change" inroads at the international level.

"Funding for the body also reflects this global-local-global approach. During the month of October, 2003, in a monetary show of support, the U.S. Department of Education awarded the IBO a grant of $1.17 million. According to the IBO press release, these U.S. taxpayer funds were to be specifically channeled into setting up IBO programs "in six middle and high school partnerships in disadvantaged areas in Massachusetts, New York and Arizona."

Fighting back means fighting smart. I urge you to educate yourself , your family, friends, neighbors and work colleagues on this issue. As time is precious for Americans working hard each day to bring home the bacon and familial obligations, NWVs has a fine six-hour video presentation on sustainable development that will help you and everyone you know understand this issue from the inside out. This excellent series should be shown at meetings for all groups and organizations. This is an American issue that affects you, your family, our liberty and freedoms.

Order: Liberty or Sustainable Development
© 2004 Paul Walter - All Rights Reserved

Paul Walter was born in socialist Yugoslavia in 1945. He and his family emigrated to America in 1959. He served 3 years in the U.S. Armed Forces and became a U.S. citizen in 1963.

'SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT': THE EVIL FACING AMERICA

By Tom DeWeeseAugust 6, 2004

NewsWithViews.com

http://www.newswithviews.com/DeWeese/tom13.htm


On July 23, 2004, Tom DeWeese, president of the American Policy Center, addressed the fifth annual Freedom 21 Conference in Reno, Nevada. The following is the first of two parts of his address on the agenda, the threat, and the defeat of "Sustainable Development."

All of us just want to live in an America where our rights and pursuit of happiness is protected. And so we fight. And now we've found ourselves here today in a room with hundreds of others in the same boat.

I have one thing to tell you. You are not going to win. Because the other side has cut us up into little pieces. They've divided us and conquered us.

They've succeeded because you think your fight is against gun control. Because you think your fight is against bad schools. Because you think your fight is against the Endangered Species Act and roadless programs, and wetlands regulations, and water rights and Heritage Areas. Because you think your fight is against Democrats and not Republicans. Because you think it's a fight between evil liberals and good guy conservatives.

You're wrong. Your fight is against a well-planned, well orchestrated agenda for the complete transformation of America. And unless you learn that fact now, today... and unless you fully educate yourselves to every aspect of that agenda and fight it on the proper terms… then you cannot win!

I'm here to tell you that every one of these issues you are facing is interrelated. There is an agenda being implemented before your very eyes. It's called Sustainable Development.

And I will tell you now, if you want to keep your guns, your property, your children and your God… if you love liberty… Then Sustainable Development is your enemy!

So what is Sustainable Development? Imagine an America in which a specific "ruling principle" is created to decide proper societal conduct for every citizen.

That principle would be used to consider everything you eat, what you wear, the kind of homes you live in, the method of transportation used to get to work, the way you dispose of waste, perhaps the number of children you may have, even your education and employment decisions.
Sustainable Development is that "ruling principle" for the implementation of what former Vice President Al Gore said we must all suffer through in order to purify our nation from the horrors of the Twentieth Century's industrial revolution.

In his book, "Earth in the Balance," Gore called it a "wrenching transformation of society." Those are pretty powerful words that should concern anyone who values liberty. It's a warning that the rules are changing. That a new power elite is taking control.
Perhaps you are beginning to notice such changes as you go about your daily routine, but haven't understood where those changes, and the ideas behind them, are coming from. But Sustainable Development is a very difficult concept to grasp. It's written in an almost foreign language - designed to mislead and refrain from alarming you.

Let me put it in the simplest language I possibly can. The Atkins Diet is not sustainable. Now, why do I say that? Because on page 350 of the UN's Global Biodiversity Assessment Report it says that the grazing of livestock, including cows, sheep, goats and horses is not sustainable. One reason for that concept is because Sustainablists contend that the animals pollute and damage the banks of streams.

Getting us to stop eating beef is a major effort needed to fully implement the Sustainable Agenda. Since they are cowards who fear your reaction to an outright banning of eating meat, they have to try to trick you into thinking that not eating meat is your idea. So they use scare tactics. For years they have told you that eating meat raises your cholesterol. Fat is bad for you. Meat causes heart attacks. With PeTA's help they were succeeding in turning us all into little sissies eating salads.

Then along comes Dr. Atkins who shows us that a low carb beef diet will help you lose weight in a healthy way. Suddenly the nation has gone Atkins crazy. Beef sales are sky rocketing. The Sustainablists are in a tail spin. They've lost control of your eating habits.

Now watch what they are doing to get you back on track. Suddenly reports are being published in leading women's magazines about Atkins being dangerous to your health. Lawsuits have begun to pop up against the diet.

Do you see how it works? That's how the Sustainable Development agenda is implemented. Behavior modification based on fear. Freedom of choice is not part of Sustainable Development. And so I repeat, - the Atkins Diet is not sustainable.

Now, perhaps you'll understand why there are Sustainable Development papers, guidelines and regulations to impose the ruling principle:

On our public education system - to prepare our children to live in a sustainable world.
On our economy - to create partnerships between business and government, making sure business becomes a tool to help implement the policies.
On the environment - leading to controls on private property and business.
On health care - the new drive against obesity is leading directly toward controls on what we eat.
On farming - Sustainable Development policies affect farmers' ability to produce more crops by regulating or banning precious chemicals, biotechnology and genetic engineering in the name of environmental protection.
On our social and cultural environment - where political correctness is controlling policy hiring practices, immigration policy, multiculturalism, marriage laws, etc.
On our mobility - with emphasis on carpools and public transportation and away from the freedom of personal transportation.
And on public safety - where the rule of law and the court system is being challenged by new regulations that affect the right to privacy and unreasonable search and seizures.

It's important to understand that these leading issues we face today are not just random concerns that find their way into the forefront of political debate. They are all interconnected to the policies of Sustainable Development.

And you must understand that Sustainable Development is the official policy of the government of the United States of America - and every state, city and small burg in the nation. [THIS IS NOT TRUE - ESPECIALLY SINCE THERE ARE TWO PARADIGMS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT - ONE POSITIVE, BASED ON ECONOMIC FREEDOM, INDIVIDUALISM, TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION & GOV'T DECENTRALIZATION; THE OTHER NEGATIVE, BASED ON LUDDISM, COMMUNITARIANISM AND TOP-DOWN CENTRAL PLANNING.]

It is completely bi-partisan. It is being equally implemented by Republicans and Democrats. No matter the outcome of any election - the Sustainable Development agenda moves forward unabated. [THIS IS NOT TRUE - MALTHUSIAN 'NEGATIVE' SUSTAINABLE IS BEING PROMOTED PRIMARILY BY ONE POLITICAL PARTY IN THE U.S.] **

What we are telling you here today, my friends, is that Sustainable Development isn't just some land use policy. It is a complete transformation of American society; away from the rule of law; away from the ideals of property ownership, free enterprise, free travel and even free association.

Sustainable Development. It's a life plan. Planned by someone else. Not you. And Sustainable Development is not a myth, or a theory or a conspiracy - as I've heard some in our own movement call it.

Since the 1970's literally hundreds of issue papers, charters, guidelines and treaties have been presented at scores of international meetings, each becoming a building block in the creation of what would eventually become Sustainable Development.

Finally in 1992 the UN's Earth Summit in Brazil brought all of these ideas together in two major documents called "Agenda 21" and the "Biodiversity Treaty." Here the ideas were officially presented to world leaders that all government on every level, needed to be transformed into top-down control over housing, food production, energy, water, private property education, population control, gun control, transportation, social welfare, medical care, and literally every aspect of our lives.

To get the full picture, add to these the UN's Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, both of which create UN-mandates on abortion, child rearing and government interference on families.

In 1993 President Clinton created the President's Council on Sustainable Development. From that Council came a flood of policy papers and recommendations to enforce it as government policy.

And the Clinton Administration didn't need Congress to get into the act. All Cabinet officials had to do was change some wording of existing programs and reroute already-approved funding to begin to implement the agenda - without Congress and without debate. Former Commerce Secretary Ron Brown told a meeting of the President's Council that he could implement 67% of the Sustainable Development agenda in his agency with no new legislation. Other agencies like Interior, EPA, HUD and more did the same thing. To help it all along, Clinton issued a blizzard of Executive Orders.

The American Heritage Rivers Initiative was born that way. So were roadless policies designed to stop logging in national forests. National parks have become core biosphere reserves designed to shut out any human activity. And the buffer zones around them are designed to shut off existing human activity, allowing the core to continually grow like a cancer tumor.
Any possible excuse to control human development or activities began to sprout up - from rails-to trails bikeways - to wet lands regulations - to historic preservation projects. Endangered species, real or made up, have been used to close down industry and steal private lands. Valuable natural resources have been locked away in national parks and preserves.

In this way an international agenda to transform the world into global governance under Sustainable Development policy took hold and became official policy of the United States of America.
© 2004 Tom DeWeese - All Rights Reserved