United Nations website shows documentation that in 2001 it did a review of Agenda 21 and implementation in 2001: Page 107 is the United States Review:
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd/csd9_bp17.pdf
Commission on Sustainable Development
Ninth Session
16 – 27 April 2001, New York
ASSESSMENT OF PROGRESS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION
OF AGENDA 21 AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL:
TABLE OF KEY COORDINATION MECHANISMS AND ACTIONS
COUNTRY
KEY NATIONAL
COORDINATION
MECHANISM(S) FOR
AGENDA 21
MEMBERSHIP / COMPOSITION MANDATE / ROLE SOME KEY POST-RIO ACTIONS
140. UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA
(2000)
C President's Council on Sustainable Development.
C 25-members from industry, government, and NGOs.
C US Departments of: Energy; Agriculture; Commerce; Interior; State; Education; Environmental Protection Agency; Council on Environmental Quality, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
C Institutions: Ciba-Geigi Corporation; Pacific Gas & Electric Company; Georgia-Pacific Corporation; Chevron Corporation; Citizens Network on Sustainable Development; General Motors Corporation;
S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc.; Enron Corp.; Growning-Ferris Industries, Inc.
C NGOs: National Resources Defence
Council; Sierra Club; The Nature
Conservancy; AFL-CIO; National Wildlife
Federation; Environmental Defence Fund;
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission.
Also in this UN document an offical discusses the need NOT to call this Agenda 21 but maybe "Smart Growth" instead:
.http://www.unedforum.org/publications/millennium/mill%20paper2.pdf
Page 5:
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.
Friday, July 8, 2011
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Normal's 2035 Report Pt 2
http://www.normal.org/files/sustainabilityplan.pdf
City of Normal 2035 Report Page 10.
"Normal gained prominence as the first city in the United States to require private developers to build to LEED standards (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design). "
http://www.architectmagazine.com/green-building/promise-vs-performance-a-deeper-shade-of-green.aspx
The truth is, the effect of the rating systems like LEED on actual performance has not been scientifically determined...yet.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/science/earth/31leed.html
The building’s cooling system, a major gas guzzler, was one culprit. Another was its design: to get its LEED label, it racked up points for things like native landscaping rather than structural energy-saving features
http://www.constructionweekonline.com/article-8577-leed-buildings-are-unhealthy-says-report/
“EHHI is especially concerned that the LEED program is now providing the false impression that the buildings it certifies protect human health. LEED’s highest rating, Platinum, is attainable without earning any credits for indoor air quality protection,”
http://www.finehomebuilding.com/item/5872/is-the-leed-program-a-fraud
The source of the debate is a study released a year ago that compared the energy performance of LEED-certified buildings with that of existing, noncertified buildings. The USGBC claims that the study shows LEED buildings to be 25% to 30% more efficient, but Henry says their methodology is flawed. According to him, the LEED buildings actually use 29% more energy than other buildings.
http://forms.iapmo.org/newsletter/green/2011/02/Gifford_amended.asp
According to the Gifford lawsuit:
1. USGBC's false advertising causes consumers of building design and construction advice to utilize a LEED-certified professional instead of Plaintiffs because consumers mistakenly believe that LEED-certified professionals will design a LEED-certified building that is verified by a third-party to be more energy-efficient than the building that Plaintiffs would design;
2. USGBC's false advertising causes consumers of building design and construction services to purchase the design and construction advice contained in the LEED certification system as opposed to purchasing Plaintiffs' design and construction advice;
3. Dollars spent on LEED are dollars not available for more productive, performance-based designs like the ones designed by Plaintiffs.
City of Normal 2035 Report Page 10.
"Normal gained prominence as the first city in the United States to require private developers to build to LEED standards (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design). "
http://www.architectmagazine.com/green-building/promise-vs-performance-a-deeper-shade-of-green.aspx
The truth is, the effect of the rating systems like LEED on actual performance has not been scientifically determined...yet.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/science/earth/31leed.html
The building’s cooling system, a major gas guzzler, was one culprit. Another was its design: to get its LEED label, it racked up points for things like native landscaping rather than structural energy-saving features
http://www.constructionweekonline.com/article-8577-leed-buildings-are-unhealthy-says-report/
“EHHI is especially concerned that the LEED program is now providing the false impression that the buildings it certifies protect human health. LEED’s highest rating, Platinum, is attainable without earning any credits for indoor air quality protection,”
http://www.finehomebuilding.com/item/5872/is-the-leed-program-a-fraud
The source of the debate is a study released a year ago that compared the energy performance of LEED-certified buildings with that of existing, noncertified buildings. The USGBC claims that the study shows LEED buildings to be 25% to 30% more efficient, but Henry says their methodology is flawed. According to him, the LEED buildings actually use 29% more energy than other buildings.
http://forms.iapmo.org/newsletter/green/2011/02/Gifford_amended.asp
According to the Gifford lawsuit:
1. USGBC's false advertising causes consumers of building design and construction advice to utilize a LEED-certified professional instead of Plaintiffs because consumers mistakenly believe that LEED-certified professionals will design a LEED-certified building that is verified by a third-party to be more energy-efficient than the building that Plaintiffs would design;
2. USGBC's false advertising causes consumers of building design and construction services to purchase the design and construction advice contained in the LEED certification system as opposed to purchasing Plaintiffs' design and construction advice;
3. Dollars spent on LEED are dollars not available for more productive, performance-based designs like the ones designed by Plaintiffs.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Normal's 2035 Report
http://www.normal.org/files/sustainabilityplan.pdf
City of Normal 2035 Report Page 10.
INTRODUCTION
During a February 2010 visit to Bloomington/Normal, United States Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood acknowledged Bloomington/Normal as "truly a livable community." Secretary LaHood’s assessment was carefully considered: he and his staff were at that time designing Livability Principles which would shortly thereafter inform his unprecedented, joint press release with the Secretaries of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regarding targeted stimulus funding that would support communities across the land.
http://www.cnsnews.com/node/70475
Republicans Blast ‘Livable Communities’ Bill As Washington-Based CENTRAL PLANNING for Cities and Towns
http://www.newsweek.com/2009/05/15/ray-lahood-transformed.html
For many generations—before automobiles were common, but trolleys ran to the edges of towns—Americans by the scores of millions have been happily trading distance for space, living farther from their jobs in order to enjoy ample backyards and other aspects of low-density living. And long before climate change became another excuse for disparaging America's "automobile culture," many liberal intellectuals were bothered by the automobile. It subverted their agenda of expanding government—meaning their—supervision of other people's lives.
By George Will.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/the_livable_communities_act_1.html
But social engineering is at the heart of the Livable Communities Act, where federal planners hope to reduce personal mobility as measured in vehicle miles traveled and shift housing patterns from single-family homes in the suburbs to small apartments in cramped central cities.
http://www.timesexaminer.com/political/353-sustainable-development-livable-communities-act-s-1619
“Dodd’s bill, like all sustainable development propaganda, paints a warm and fuzzy picture of what ‘livable’ or ‘sustainable communities’ should be,” said Lamb. “The propaganda fails to point out that in order to achieve this Marxist utopia, government has to enforce the vision.
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/obama-livability-initiative-really-a-ploy-to-stop-drivers
Yet those coercive techniques are a major part of the livability campaign, as shown by Portland, Oregon, which LaHood touted as “the example” of a livability program. The most important of these techniques is to divert highway user fees to expensive forms of transportation that receive little use. Portland is deliberately allowing congestion to grow while it spends money collected from highway users on streetcars and light rail. Not that Portland’s program is very successful. Despite spending more than $2 billion on rail transit since 1980, transit’s share of Portland-area commuting declined from 9.8 percent in 1980 to 6.9 percent in 2007. (The table says 6.5 percent but that includes the people who worked at home.)
by Randal O'Toole, CATO INSTITUTE
http://www.pantagraph.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_6314b06c-a750-11e0-aa1c-001cc4c03286.html
What's Next In Normal Tram Ride and No Cars?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/8411336/EU-to-ban-cars-from-cities-by-2050.html
EUROPE TO BAN CARS BY 2050.
Cars will be banned from London and all other cities across Europe under a draconian EU masterplan to cut CO2 emissions by 60 per cent over the next 40 years.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/06/28/car-clash-europe-vs-the-us
Europeans are doing all they can to discourage people from driving and parking their cars in and around cities
City of Normal 2035 Report Page 10.
INTRODUCTION
During a February 2010 visit to Bloomington/Normal, United States Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood acknowledged Bloomington/Normal as "truly a livable community." Secretary LaHood’s assessment was carefully considered: he and his staff were at that time designing Livability Principles which would shortly thereafter inform his unprecedented, joint press release with the Secretaries of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regarding targeted stimulus funding that would support communities across the land.
http://www.cnsnews.com/node/70475
Republicans Blast ‘Livable Communities’ Bill As Washington-Based CENTRAL PLANNING for Cities and Towns
http://www.newsweek.com/2009/05/15/ray-lahood-transformed.html
For many generations—before automobiles were common, but trolleys ran to the edges of towns—Americans by the scores of millions have been happily trading distance for space, living farther from their jobs in order to enjoy ample backyards and other aspects of low-density living. And long before climate change became another excuse for disparaging America's "automobile culture," many liberal intellectuals were bothered by the automobile. It subverted their agenda of expanding government—meaning their—supervision of other people's lives.
By George Will.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/the_livable_communities_act_1.html
But social engineering is at the heart of the Livable Communities Act, where federal planners hope to reduce personal mobility as measured in vehicle miles traveled and shift housing patterns from single-family homes in the suburbs to small apartments in cramped central cities.
http://www.timesexaminer.com/political/353-sustainable-development-livable-communities-act-s-1619
“Dodd’s bill, like all sustainable development propaganda, paints a warm and fuzzy picture of what ‘livable’ or ‘sustainable communities’ should be,” said Lamb. “The propaganda fails to point out that in order to achieve this Marxist utopia, government has to enforce the vision.
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/obama-livability-initiative-really-a-ploy-to-stop-drivers
Yet those coercive techniques are a major part of the livability campaign, as shown by Portland, Oregon, which LaHood touted as “the example” of a livability program. The most important of these techniques is to divert highway user fees to expensive forms of transportation that receive little use. Portland is deliberately allowing congestion to grow while it spends money collected from highway users on streetcars and light rail. Not that Portland’s program is very successful. Despite spending more than $2 billion on rail transit since 1980, transit’s share of Portland-area commuting declined from 9.8 percent in 1980 to 6.9 percent in 2007. (The table says 6.5 percent but that includes the people who worked at home.)
by Randal O'Toole, CATO INSTITUTE
http://www.pantagraph.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_6314b06c-a750-11e0-aa1c-001cc4c03286.html
What's Next In Normal Tram Ride and No Cars?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/8411336/EU-to-ban-cars-from-cities-by-2050.html
EUROPE TO BAN CARS BY 2050.
Cars will be banned from London and all other cities across Europe under a draconian EU masterplan to cut CO2 emissions by 60 per cent over the next 40 years.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/06/28/car-clash-europe-vs-the-us
Europeans are doing all they can to discourage people from driving and parking their cars in and around cities
Monday, June 20, 2011
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Bloomington Normal Central Planners Pt8
The City of Normal's defintiton of Sustainable Development directly states its connection to the Bruntland Commission.
From Normal's 2035 Report:
For the purposes of this project, we have used the widely accepted United Nations Bruntland Commission’s definition (1983):
Sustainability: (n) Meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
According to wikipedia the Bruntland Report is also known as "Our Common Future."
From Wikipedia :
The publication of Our Common Future and the work of the World Commission on Environment and Development laid the groundwork for the convening of the 1992 Earth Summit and the adoption of AGENDA 21, the Rio Declaration and to the establishment of the Commission on Sustainable Development.
This commission was chaired by Gro Harlem Bruntland, Prime minister of Norway and Vice-President of the World Socialist Party. According to the website World Socialist Party US their Objective is:
The establishment of a system of society based on the COMMON OWNERSHIP and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of society as a whole.
Is the city of Normal basing their ideas of Public-Private Partnerships, Social Justice and Economic Justice on the Objective of the World Socialist Party?
From Normal's 2035 Report:
For the purposes of this project, we have used the widely accepted United Nations Bruntland Commission’s definition (1983):
Sustainability: (n) Meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
According to wikipedia the Bruntland Report is also known as "Our Common Future."
From Wikipedia :
The publication of Our Common Future and the work of the World Commission on Environment and Development laid the groundwork for the convening of the 1992 Earth Summit and the adoption of AGENDA 21, the Rio Declaration and to the establishment of the Commission on Sustainable Development.
This commission was chaired by Gro Harlem Bruntland, Prime minister of Norway and Vice-President of the World Socialist Party. According to the website World Socialist Party US their Objective is:
The establishment of a system of society based on the COMMON OWNERSHIP and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of society as a whole.
Is the city of Normal basing their ideas of Public-Private Partnerships, Social Justice and Economic Justice on the Objective of the World Socialist Party?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)