 |
|
Fatally flawed
By Henry Lamb © 2001
WorldNetDaily.com The concept of
sustainable development entered the world, officially, through the 1987 U.N.
Commission on Environment and Development. The event was chaired by Gro Harlem Brundtland, who
once was vice-chair of the International Socialist Party, and who was
appointed head of the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1998. The Commission's
report said simply, that sustainable development is "
… to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs." The concept was
given meaning in 1992 at another U.N. Conference on
Environment and Development in Among the
recommendations included in Agenda 21, was the call for each nation to create
a national council on sustainable development, which Bill Clinton did by
executive order in 1993. This President's Council on Sustainable Development
(PCSD) worked diligently to transform the federal government to comply with
the recommendations contained in Agenda 21. Although the PCSD
ceased operations in 1999, their work is continuing in almost every
city and every community through "Smart Growth" initiatives
that flaunt names such as NH2020 in These efforts to
create "sustainable communities" are destined to dismal failure
because the concept is flawed. The concept of sustainable development is
constructed on the foundational belief that government must manage the
affairs of its citizens in order to balance the three-legged stool of
sustainable development: (1) environmental protection, (2) economic
development, and (3) social equity. This is not a new
concept – it simply has a new name. The concept gained great popularity in
the first part of the 20th century; the last part of the 20th century
witnessed the catastrophic collapse of this concept when the Berlin Wall gave
way to the quest for freedom. The fatal flaw in
the concept of sustainable development is the absence of the principles of
freedom. Throughout the
literature of sustainable development, words describe expanded freedom
through transparent democratic procedures. Proponents of sustainable
development, however, consider expanded freedom to be a more liberal
government policy on what individuals may do. This view contrasts
sharply with the notion that individuals are inherently free, limited only by
government restrictions to which they consent through their elected
officials. The former view – individual
freedom dispensed by government – has produced the former The latter view –
inherent freedom limited only by consent – has produced the greatest society,
the most robust economy, the most envied nation in the history of the world. Putting a new name
on an old concept is like putting a coat of paint on the outhouse – it may
look better, but the smell is the same. Most, but not all,
of the elected officials who yield to the sweet-sounding language of
"Smart Growth" proposals do not want to transform America into a
collectivist state. They simply want to protect the environment, or stimulate
economic development or achieve social equity. Nevertheless, the result is a
quiet revolution that is, indeed, transforming The result of
Endangered Species protection is resulting in "rural cleansing"
that is as effective as the "ethnic cleansing" that took place in
the Balkans. Growth boundaries imposed upon cities result in government denial
of a basic human right – to live where one chooses to live. Superstructures
of regional commissions and stakeholder councils deny the fundamental
Constitutional right of every American to consent to the laws by which he is
bound – through his elected officials. Policies and rules adopted by
professional planners and appointed bureaucrats leave individuals without
recourse and no one to hold accountable. Government
ownership of land and its resources is a direct denial of opportunities for
future generations to have the "ability to meet their own needs."
CARA, the so-called Conservation and Reinvestment Act, is one of those
sound-good polices that results in rural cleansing and the confiscation of
resources that will doom future generations. This silent transformation
must stop. The only way that
future generations will be able "to meet their own needs," is to
have the freedom and the resources to create whatever solutions may be
required. Suppose for one moment, that a hundred
years ago, our forefathers had decided to let government decide where people
could live, what land could be utilized and which resources could be used. Freedom is the
essential ingredient in any formula for successful future generations. And
freedom is what is being sacrificed in order to implement sustainable
development. Help may be on the
way. Two years ago,
several organizations conceived the idea of a "Freedom 21 Campaign" to
"Advance the principles of freedom in the 21st century." At its
recent Freedom 21 Conference in Just as Bill
Clinton's PCSD conformed policy to the requirements
of Agenda 21, the group is asking President Bush to create a council that
will conform policy to the principles of freedom, as guaranteed in the U.S.
Constitution. Grassroots
organizations from across the country are rallying around the idea of a
positive response to the negative impacts of "Smart Growth" and
sustainable development policies as they are implemented in local
communities. No longer is it enough to simply identify the problems, it is now
time to take the offensive, and insist that the principles of freedom
underlie every policy adopted at every level of government! It's really quite
simple:
Henry
Lamb is the executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation Organization
and chairman of Sovereignty
International. |
