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 endeavor 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? Read more.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.