Kirsten Lombard - Agenda 21/Sustainable Development Talk

[pcosmar]

Are you kidding? It is being implemented all across the United States.

Exactly. It is a clear and present danger.
One might even say a done deal. It is so entrenched,, and codified in laws, that it would be difficult to remove at this point.

It is not something that is coming.. it is already here.

http://www.state.gov/e/oes/sus/
http://www.epa.gov/sustainability/
http://www.usda.gov/oce/sustainable/
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/international-affairs/us-codex-alimentarius
http://www.usoas.usmission.gov/development/susdev.html

It is not "coming". It is here.

 

[donnay]

Yep it's here and they have been using the Delphi-technique to further their agenda in every town, city and state.

 

[pathtofreedom]

Agenda 21 is my view a distraction, it is designed to create partisanship between the right and left. More over Agenda 21 has the effect of attaching "sustainable" and "environmentalism" to the United Nations, so that whenever people think of "sustainable development" they think of some sort of NWO or UN plot. For example if a city decides to build a bike path or decides to change land regulations, people will oppose it instantly and think that it is a NWO plot. The debate about it is controlled both sides of the debate are bought by the same people, the Rockefellers funds pro-agenda 21 stuff through the Rockefeller foundation and anti-agenda 21 stuff through Exxon Mobil and Chevron. Agenda 21 itself has been continually blocked and programs in it are often implemented without Agenda 21.

 

[Snew]

By sustainable development I mean development that take into account its environmental impact, is as self-sustaining in terms of energy production, waste management, as well as resource use and uses land to the highest possible efficiency.

I like New Urbanism, and I do believe that in a free market in which consumers demand ethical, sustainable, and environmentally conscious business practices on the part of real estate developers we would see development take that form. If you look at the way European cities developed over hundreds of years with almost non-existent centralised urban planning policy and land use regulations we get essentially what New Urbanism proponents advocate in a city's built form.

I get what you're saying, and I generally agree with it. Instead of New Urbanism, I prefer a type of "old urbanism." Just like those European cities you described. It's the epitome of a decentralized system; a free market. Of course, the government didn't have a part in this.

There's a difference between the government mandating people to live in a certain way or place (which I most definitely oppose) and real, voluntary, sustainable development that builds cities that last centuries (true sustainability). The current system of sprawl and the addiction to the automobile has roots in the government's policies of about a century ago. A truly free market would create cities built for people-- like the Old City of Jerusalem, or the ancient Peruvian city of Cusco.

 

[pathtofreedom]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcar_suburb
We need more cities and towns like this, with traditional styles and mixed usage.