Last Updated:November 28 @ 07:44 am

Lamb: Confronting Sustainability

By Henry Lamb

Four communities have rejected “Sustainability” since the first of the year. More will surely follow. To confront sustainability in your community you should learn everything you can about it.

More than 600 American communities have entered into agreements with ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives), an international non-government organization created by the United Nations. ICLEI-USA was formed in 1995. ICLEI is a tool of both the U.N. and the federal government, used to transform American cities into “Sustainable Communities.”

What is, and is not, sustainable is defined in Agenda 21, a 40-chapter document adopted in 1992 by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. This document was translated into domestic policy through the President’s Council on Sustainable Development, created in 1993. Originally, the program was promoted as implementing “Local Agenda 21,” but soon ran into trouble.

J. Gary Lawrence, Director of the Center for Sustainable Communities at the University of Washington and Chief Planner in the City of Seattle, told a London audience that:

” In the case of the U.S., our local authorities are engaged in planning processes consistent with LA21 but there is little interest in using the LA21 brand. Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy-fixated groups and individuals in our society such as the National Rifle Association, citizen militias and some members of Congress. This segment of our society who fear ‘one-world government’ and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined ‘the conspiracy’ by undertaking LA21. So, we call our processes something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth.”

ICLEI took over where the PCSD left off, abandoning the LA21 brand, but delivering the same effect through comprehensive land use plans described as “smart growth” or “growth management.” With grants from the federal government, the American Planning Association produced “Growing Smart: Legislative Guidebook,” which provided model legislation which states could adopt.

This model legislation translated into law the recommendations in Agenda21 and those from the President’s Council on Sustainable Development, when adopted by states and local communities.
Sustainable development is the translation of the recommendations set forth by the U.N. in Agenda 21, and by the PCSD into regulations enforced by local, state, and federal government.
Stated more succinctly, sustainable development is that framework of rules and regulations that limits the behavior of individuals, businesses, and organizations to those activities approved by government.

By joining forces with National League of Cities, the U.S. Green Building Council, and the Center for American Progress, ICLEI has created what it calls its “STAR Community Index,” which it claims “…is a national, consensus-based framework for gauging the sustainability and livability of U.S. communities.”

ICLEI’s STAR is a device to measure just how “sustainable” a community might be. Stated more succinctly, STAR is a measurement of the degree of control a community has over its citizens.
Citizens in many communities have felt the chains of government tighten as they have watched their freedom evaporate. In this video, State Representative Joe Neal does an excellent job of explaining exactly how sustainable development affects his district in South Carolina. This booklet, “Sustainable Development or Sustainable Freedom,” details how sustainable development has affected people in several communities.

People in the communities that have successfully rejected government-imposed sustainable development have learned that confrontation must be based on factual knowledge that directly affects the community and the elected officials. Confrontation, to be effective, must come from a group of local citizens, all of whom are knowledgeable and are willing to work.

Confrontation with local elected officials should always be polite and respectful, whether or not they deserve it. Opposition must be based on factual implications for the local community. This requires intimate understanding of the proposed (or existing) comprehensive land use plan. Questions that should be answered before confronting elected officials include: (1) Is the plan mandated by state law? (2) Why is the plan being considered? (3) Who is guiding the plan’s development? (4) How and why was the person or agency guiding the plan chosen? (5) How will the plan be enforced? How much will implementation cost? (6) How will the funding be provided? These are just a few of the questions that should be answered by concerned citizens before confronting elected officials.

When confronting a city council or a county commission, it is rarely productive to even mention the U.N. It is far more productive to focus on the protection of private property rights and free markets in the development and implementation of any land use plan. It is difficult for advocates of sustainable development to oppose the protection of property rights and free markets. Once this principle is established as a value that must be protected for future generations, all specific recommendations can be measured against it.

To successfully confront and reject sustainable development in your community, read Agenda 21 and the PSCD’s material. Then read the plan that is proposed for (or being implemented in) your community. Highlight every plan feature that is similar to a recommendation in either Agenda 21 or the PCSD recommendations. Make sure that the members of your local group know about and understand your findings. Then arrange for a presentation to your local elected officials to make them aware of your findings. Demonstrate precisely how each recommendation infringes private property rights, individual freedom, or free markets.

When this is done in a polite, professional manner, and elected officials know that a group of local voters are behind the initiative, ICLEI is likely to get the boot while their STAR falls from grace.


Henry Lamb is the author of “The Rise of Global Governance,” Chairman of Sovereignty International , and founder of the Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO) and Freedom21, Inc..

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
Rate this post:
Rating: 9.9/10 (14 votes cast)
Lamb: Confronting Sustainability, 9.9 out of 10 based on 14 ratings

Don't leave yet! Add a comment below or check out these other great stories:


  1. Mort_fComment by Mort_f
    March 28, 2011 @ 9:46 am

    Sounds awful like Uncle Joe’s Five Year Plans. And all should know how those ‘awful’ plans worked out. I guess Kruschev was right when he said they would bury us, it is just a different shovel being used.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (5 votes cast)
  2. kathyComment by kathy
    March 28, 2011 @ 1:30 pm

    I applaud the approach suggested in this article with a reservation or two.  When you look for reasons to stop “sustainable growth” plans, REALLY THINK about ALL the information you uncover.  Just because an idea came from the UN, that does not automatically make it a bad idea.  Sometimes good ideas come from two or more sources at about the same time.  If we don’t trust folks hired by the UN to come up with ideas for handling problems (some of whom were no doubt Americans), then that’s fine, we can re-invent the wheel as long as we FIX THE PROBLEM, assuming we find one.  We are a nation of clever innovators.  If we find a way to make things better (and SOME of OUR people were looking for them LONG before the U.N. thought of it) while still maintaining our economy, then we win ALL the way around.
    How many of us have worried as urban sprawl takes away all of the open land through which we used to drive?  How often do we stop to think that as farm land is eaten up by cities and suburbs there is less and less left on which to grow crops?  How many thousands have become sick or died from factory and other wastes just dumped on open ground without thought of what is under it or will be on it next month or next year?  How many of the “super bugs” that are killing people are due in part to large amounts of antibiotics fed to our food while it’s still walking around?  The answers to some of these questions are not certain — at least yet — and may never be.  We as a group and as individuals need to think about them.
    Sustainable growth programs and environmental regulations must be monitored carefully to limit their impact on individual rights.  I do not believe in wholesale panicked jumping to, “That might kill a fish; it has to be stopped!”  I particularly think that naming something an “invasive species” that is to be banned must be carefully thought out including a consideration of the likelihood that such escape will occur.  Protecting animals and the environment as a goal in itself has limited value — unless the things that kill trees and animals also kill *us*.  On the other hand, if we let all the bugs (like bees) be killed off with the “bad” ones (like fleas), we will have a real food shortage.  We need to RETURN TO THE VALUES OF OUR FOREFATHERS with regard to protecting our land.  Our great-grandparents valued our land and made sure to keep the dangerous wastes away from where they lived and farmed LONG before the League of Nations or the United Nations were invented.  Caretaking our heritage is not “living under the U.N. Charter”, it is living “The American Way”.  As long as we do it CAREFULLY without infringing property rights any more than necessary.
    We have to remember, as I was taught in elementary school, “Your right to swing your arms ends at the tip of the other person’s nose.”  It’s a little trickier to see the “tip of the nose” when we’re talking about rivers and ground water and such, but the principle still applies.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 1.7/5 (6 votes cast)
    • Liberty4310Comment by Liberty4310
      March 28, 2011 @ 7:13 pm

      I fear, kathy, that you have completely missed the point.  Sustainable Development has little to do with preserving the land to keep it clean and pristine.  It is completely about total control over all human activities by governments.  It’s about taking away our liberties.  Under their control, we will be allowed to pay the bills, if we have anything to pay with, but not to control how we use our own property, if we still have any.  Government would control everything and own everything.  The rest of us would simply be the proletariat.  Of course, there would be an elite society that had everything and lived well, a relitively small but powerful group of people.  Read  George Orwell’s “1984″ and you’ll find out just what our world would be like.  That’s what we’re heading for if we don’t wise up and act to prevent it.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (4 votes cast)
  3. Mort_fComment by Mort_f
    March 28, 2011 @ 5:15 pm

    ‘Sustainable growth’ is merely a euphemism of total control by the government.

    Now look at the UN. Most are socialistic, or communist countries, which have totally controlled their economies. Of the 57 Islamic countries, can you find a ‘role model’? Look at the attempts of ‘city planners’ in California. can you find any ‘successes’? To even talk about ‘monitors’, is like asking the ‘fox’ to guard the hen coop.

    In the theater, it is the old maxim.   if you cannot sing, dance, or write  … then become a critic. The UN is the dumping pit for unemployed experts from many countries, especially third world that cannot provide any examples of successful accomplishments.

    ‘Uncle Joe’ was Joseph Stalin,  a ‘sustainable growth’ propenitor par excellence.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
  4. bobnipComment by bobnip
    March 29, 2011 @ 12:48 pm

    Americans for Prosperity is the name of the organization of the Tea Party faithful in Clackamas County, Oregon. I attended a meeting they held in Lake Oswego on February 12th. The speaker for the event, Holly Swanson, is the author of the book, Set Up & Sold Out, Find Out What Green Really Means.
    This outstanding book should be read by every American that cares about our Republic form of government and the precepts of the Constitution of the United States. The book is, in the author’s own words, “a revealing look into the secret side of environmental politics.”
    In her book, and in her speech, she asks the question, “How many Americans have heard the term sustainability?” She asked if we knew what that term meant in the context of “environmental greenness”. I have to admit I was one of those in the room that was not completely aware of its cloaked meaning.
    Let me premise what I am saying about our environment and this “need to be green” ideology with an assurance that I, too, want clean air and clean drinking water. I recycle and have taken rapid transit and carpooled on several occasions. I ride a bike, but it is entirely too far for me to commute to work. I would think, if you asked a majority of Americans about there environmental awareness, they would respond similarly.
    What most Americans don’t realize is how dangerous the term “sustainability” is and what the agenda truly is behind it. Many environmentalists, I would contend, don’t have a true picture of its meaning either. Ms. Swanson is not suggesting that all movement towards being green is a bad thing. She is, however, saying that there is, in fact, a faction of “the Green movement” that is a Communist front.
    Americans have been conditioned to believe “Green” is good, that we care about our future world’s condition. What Americans don’t understand is that these “Greens” advance their political plans as progressive solutions to environmental protection. Fear is generated through their rhetoric suggesting environmental doom to pass legislation that will, according to Ms. Swanson, “control individual opportunities and actions, control business, and end private property rights”.
    The slogan tossed around by the Greens is, “Think Globally, Act Locally.” This calculated political effort utilizes the fate of mankind to justify massive changes to our social and political society. Governmental control is manifest through law upon law being passed. That can only happen if public opinion allows it to happen. Khrushchev said, “America will accept socialist program upon socialist program until one day they wake up and find they are under Communist control.” His words are proving prophetic!
    The Green Communists are now attempting to bring a curriculum into our schools to finish the indoctrination of our children. They focus on the very young because they need their votes to carry on their agenda in the future. Look at any class using the term “sustainable environment” and you will discover exactly what I am talking about. It no longer refers to methods for recycling, or environmentally sound usage of our natural resources. It has become a plan for fundamentally changing our world to a “One World Government”.
    Previous articles I have written talked about the “Clinton Global Initiative.” I warned readers of the threat of that organization. The rhetoric coming from that group, made up of UN delegates and envoys, is one of education being controlled globally. Bill Clinton, himself, made that stated desire. In essence, our tax dollars will be spread worldwide so education becomes universal and controllable. The kid in Kenya gets the same education as the kid in Kansas City. It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to realize the quality of eduction will suffer greatly in America.
    If we allow this Green Communist movement to happen, International laws established will supersede America’s Laws and the Constitution will become void. The term being voiced at the UN is “Cumpulsory Green Living,” espoused by Jonathon Porritt, a well-known author, political activist and leader of the Green movement. While the masses will be required to lesson consumption by 75% to attain “sustainability”, one billionaire in particular, Maurice Strong, profits. Strong, a Communist, has shrewdly positioned himself, disguised as an environmentalist, to destroy American Industry. He literally pays well-meaning American environmentalists groups like the Sierra Club to file suits, perform environmental anarchism, and generally reek havoc on American Industry. We have seen this in the Timber Industry, Beef Production, Coal mining and now Off-shore Oil Exploration. Mean while, Strong is dumping millions into the Brazilian oil fields, along with George Soros, Bill Clinton, Mikhail Gorbachev and Al Gore. Some environmentalisrts, huh?
    Who is Maurice Strong? He is the author and creator of the sham called “Global Warming.” He is a former UN Envoy that got caught up in the “food for oil” controversy. He fled to Red China, and is now working with the Chinese government on ways to bankrupt America. The fact that America is now indebted to Red China in the amount of 960 billion dollars is only the start. It is imperative that Americans realize President Obama saying we should partner with the Communist Chinese is incredibly dangerous and a perilous road to hoe.
    It’s interesting, in looking at some of the dialogue coming out of the UN, while Americans will be required to lessen consumption of our natural resources by 75%, there are movements afoot to make Americans pay to bring such things as electricity, oil production, drinkable water plants and agricultural superiority to third world nations. I hope you heard that! Let me reiterate! We will be required to lessen consumption via this “green movement” and bring the very things they say we need to use less of to other countries! It’s called spreading the wealth, Folks! A basic precept of Communism.
    Are you willing to let this happen? We need people who still care about this country and our children’s futures to run for school board positions, City and County positions, State positions and put a stop to the Green Movement. Think of our children.


    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (3 votes cast)

Leave a Comment

  • "The only reason Hillary is in the running at all is that she has no competition. There have to..." Comment by lowlife
    Posted in Hillary Clinton, Underdog
  • "Hillary has two major assets, lock-step Democraps and an idiotic MSM. Consider Obama's RE-Election after a disaster of a first..." Comment by Mort_f
    Posted in Hillary Clinton, Underdog
  • ">> Boy are they in for a surprise when they get out in the real world. << Don't look now,..." Comment by thedove
    Posted in The Death of Free Speech

Network-wide options by YD - Freelance Wordpress Developer