The Agenda 21 Hobgoblin

by William O'Keefe

The late H.L. Mencken once observed that the “whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed... by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of which are imaginary.” The volume of blogs and other communications from Tea Party members over the U.N. Agenda 21 make me think that the Tea Party has adopted Mencken’s definition of “practical politics” as a tactic to use fear to further anti-government objectives.

Most people regard the United Nations as so impotent and inept that it would have a hard time organizing a three-car funeral. And yet, the anti-Agenda 21 crowd sees it as an insidious threat to our freedoms. Is either of these views correct, or is this a case of cognitive dissonance?

Agenda 21 was a product of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro.  Although the United States attended the summit and supported its final report, Agenda 21 is not part of a Senate-ratified treaty. Hence, Agenda 21 is primarily a set of lofty goals that can be implemented only by state or federal action.  Here is a summary of what some of these goals are:

• Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development.  They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature.
  
  
• States have the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental and developmental policies.
  
  
• Development must equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations.
  
  
• In order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of the development process.
  
  
• To achieve sustainable development and a higher quality of life for all people, States should reduce and eliminate unsustainable patterns of production and consumption.
  
  
• Environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens at the relevant level of impact.
  
  
• States shall enact effective environmental legislation.  Environmental standards, management objectives and priorities should reflect the environmental and developmental context to which they apply. 
  
  
• National authorities should endeavour to promote the internalization of environmental cost... taking into account the approach that the polluter should, in principle, bear the cost of pollution… 
  
  
• Environmental impact assessment shall be undertaken for proposed activities that are likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment.

It is hard to understand why anyone would find these aspirational goals sinister or even objectionable. There is potential danger in their vagueness but most aspirational goals are vague and subject to different interpretations. What is important is how they are achieved. Is a balanced approach used or one that infringes upon individual rights, property rights, and the rule of law?

Some, perhaps many, Tea Party groups claim that “Agenda 21 is a threat coming from the United Nations that is invading every city and town in the nation. It leads to control over private property, energy use, water use.” This advocacy by paranoia reflects a deep lack of knowledge about the Constitution, Non-Governmental Organizations, and the history of environmental activism.

Agenda 21 is part of the Rio Treaty, which was signed by the first President Bush but never ratified by the Senate. It has no legal force in the U.S. However, President Bill Clinton did create the Council on Sustainable Development to achieve the objectives of Agenda 21. When he left office, the Council went with him. A critique by John Dernbach of the Weidener University School of Law concluded that the executive branch made little effort to implement the Council's policy recommendations. "The congressional effort to foster sustainable development during this period was even more meager.”

What Agenda 21 did achieve was provide cover and legitimacy for environmental activists to pursue their agenda by appealing to superficially sensible concepts. But that is not new. Environmentalists have been using that tactic for decades. In the 1970s, it was preventing the exhaustion of natural resources and our food supply. In the 1980s they took action to prevent cancers attributed to chemical products and use. Then they moved on to climate change. No matter what the threat, human activities are the cause and more central control is the solution.

The underlying premise of the activists’ environmental agenda is that economic growth and human activity is bad.  This philosophy has its roots in the core value of Thomas Malthus -- man as a destroyer, not a creator. A good reference book on the Malthusian ideology is "Merchants of Despair" by Robert Zubrin.

The Club of Rome, one of more influential 1970s advocacy groups, held the view that the “world has a cancer and the cancer is man.” The logical extension of this belief is that a class of elites is empowered to act to protect the planet from this cancer called man. Their motives may be honorable but their means are often not consistent with the principles of our Constitution. 

We are not engaged in a battle between U.N. conspirators and Patriots.  It is a battle between those who are pessimistic about human beings and the future and believe in an entitled ruling class and those who support constitutional constraints on government and are optimistic that technology, innovation, and education will make the world better.

The Tea Party served an important purpose in being a catalyst for uniting those who believe the government is too big, that government spending is out of control and that government is increasingly infringing on our liberties and Constitutional protections.  The battle to shrink the size of government, to put in place fiscal policies that encourage strong economic growth, and restore a healthy balance between the legitimate role of the federal government and states as guaranteed by the 10th Amendment is far from over. Diverting energy and attention to myths about a United Nations conspiracy could undermine the Tea Party’s ability to bring about constructive change.

The counter to environmental activism at the state and local levels is not using UN Agenda 21 as a weapon to instill fear. It is to get involved to ensure that goals such as smart growth and sustainability are accomplished in ways that do not diminish property rights and do not impose environmental costs that far exceed any benefits. 

There also needs to be a recognition that government is about governing and, as Henry Clay pointed out, governing is about compromise. Life in the real political world is not black and white; it is shades of gray.

William O'Keefe, a New Kent County resident, is CEO of the Marshall Institute.

• Share this:
• Email
• Print
• Facebook

Edit