There are some things that you look at, and just say to yourself:
“No Way. That’s Crazy Talk.” and ignore.
That had been my attitude toward “Agenda 21”. When I first ran into it, and took a glance. Yet Another UN Nutty Committee with Yet Another Crazy Agenda. So what?
Just some “feel good crap” folks were mumbling at each other in the UN.
From that point forward, as folks would bring it up, I’d think “I’m not going to get involved in running after Crazy Talk and be painted as a believer in Conspiracy Theories.
But when you find that folks in position of influence and power are, in fact, following Agenda 21, promoting it, working to it’s goals, and, dare I say it, to its “agenda”…
At some point you have to recognize that it is a real threat. Not a small one, either. It looks to do no less than enforce a global order of mass urbanization and depopulation of the countryside. The removal of personal property rights. The establishment of a kind of collectivization not seen since the Third Reich, Stalin’s Russian, and Red China of Mao. (That’s why I’d just written it off as “Crazy talk”…) Yet there is real evidence of folks working to pursue Agenda 21.
It has a pernicious infective attribute to it. A “train the trainer” kind of viral aspect. It works to influence “from global to local” so metastasizes into millions of local chapters, each under it’s own banner, so not seen as part of a whole. We see that in the Emails, too. Like terrorist cells, each cell is to pursue The Agenda in the local area. Find new recruits. Expand and control. Again, “Crazy Talk”. Yet we find one of them working to influence in the emails. How many times must something be seen to believe it real?
Some (very small) intro to Agenda 21
This video is interesting to me. It only had a bit over 4,000 hits when I watched it. It is a local meeting at a place near me of folks opposed to the Agenda 21 goals. Santa Cruz is just ‘over the hill’ and I’ve been there often. I’m modestly aware of goings on there. In particular, I know that what is said about the freeway and the train is true. I know that attempts to grow are strongly suppressed. I’d figured it was just Santa Cruz (home of the hopelessly whacky rabidly progressive University of California at Santa Cruz campus) manifesting the inevitable result of too many progressive loose screws in a small space. Well, there may be SOME of that, in that they have critical mass to endorse such things as Agenda 21… but so do other small groups. We will see that, too in the emails.
With that, here is a small video of a local group, faced with a Global Agenda. This is just the kind of video that I had thought was just Right Wing Conspiracy Theory stuff. As of now, I have to reassess that evaluation. Agenda 21 is real. People in power are pushing it. People at local levels are following it (as the “top down push” works). And we have evidence for this influence inside “The Climate Community” and inside UEA in particular. So watch the video, then we’ll see the emails. (Eventually, I’ll need to learn a whole lot more about the corrupting influence of the UN Agenda 21; but for now, I’m just starting the learning curve, and this is as good a place as any…)
FWIW, the wiki on Agenda 21 basically does say it is intended to do many of the things stated in the video, it just omits the ones that would be most inflammatory and wraps the others in Greenwash Happy talk. For example, the infiltration of education is readily admitted. It even has it’s own wike page:
I got to that link FROM the Agenda 21 wiki, so it’s not any kind of ‘leap’…
The U.S. Partnership for Education for Sustainable Development (USPESD) consists of individuals, organizations and institutions in the United States dedicated to education for sustainable development (ESD). It acts as a convener, catalyst, and communicator working across all sectors of American society.
The U.S. Partnership was conceived at a November 2003 “Open Space” gathering held in Washington, DC that included almost 100 participants from a diverse range of sectors including K-12 and higher education, science and research organizations, conservation and environmental NGOs, faith communities, living institutions, youth advocacy organizations, government agencies and others. Convened by the National Council on Science and the Environment and University Leaders for a Sustainable Future, the group met to respond to the call by the UN General Assembly for a Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005 through 2014) and to consider specifically:
So just WHY is the UN calling the shots, through NGO’s and ‘government agencies’ in how our children ought to be educated? How does math or English require a UN or Government wash to be taught? In order to meet the goals of Agenda 21.
Where you do see statements of “local goals” and “local customizing”, what they are saying is “Start the temperature under the Frog at a suitable local setting to not startle the frog”… The end goal stays the same.
How the Decade could be leveraged to advance education for sustainable development (ESD) in the United States;
What were the opportunities for collaboration within and across sectors; and
How could widespread engagement in the Decade by U.S. organizations be facilitated.
A subsequent strategic planning retreat on the campus of Gettysburg College in Pennsylvania gave shape to the emerging Partnership. Hosted by the International Center for Leadership Results and facilitated by Group Jazz, participants agreed upon the Partnership’s Vision – “sustainable development integrated into education and learning in the United States;” and Mission – to “leverage the UN Decade to foster education for sustainable development in the United States”.
What kind of traction has it gotten?
Professional organizations often produce their own standards and best practices lists. The North American Association for Environmental Education has produced a detailed “Guidelines for Excellence” in educational programming. Some educational institutions that focus on ESD include:
London South Bank University, with a Masters program in Education for Sustainability
Cloud Institute for Sustainability Education
St Francis Xavier College (Canberra)
Prescott College, with a PhD program in Sustainability Education
Hermit Park State School
Centre for Sustainability
Creative Change Educational Solutions
Learning for a Sustainable Future
Green Education Foundation
In other parts of the world, some active organizations are
SWEDESD, the Swedish International Centre of Education for Sustainable Development, Stockholm
Global Action Plan (GAP) International
The NOW! Organization
The important thing about this is not that these folks want a sustainable future, we all do. The important bit is that these things are NOT just growing up on their own, the natural outgrowth of local interests. They are the direct result of a Central Committee driving a cultural shift toward a specific agenda. One that defines human life as bad, free will and free choice as bad, private property as bad, and wishes to make everyone else think the same way. So at this point we can add the word “sustainable” to the long list of positive words corrupted by a progressive agenda into negative things. From here on out, to me, “sustainable” is roughly the same as “UN Collective Labor Camp”.
We can see the impact of THAT in the lack of moral compass and subservience of the culture of Science to the culture of the UN in the emails as well.
With that, on to the emails…
Foia search on “Agenda 21”
This listed 8 total emails with the token “Agenda 21” in them. Not really all that many out of over 5000. About 1/5 % but we don’t know how many that looked like simple SPAM were NOT in the F.O.I.A. email bundle to begin with.
They divide into roughly 3 types. Some are your basic SPAM from a True Believer advocating that folks take a look at something. In itself, not much of a worry. There is always some loose nut with a new passion sending junk around at work. HOWEVER…
These folks work at a government site. I thought one was discouraged from sending SPAM about? And these particular messages are about a UN Political Agenda. Isn’t there some kind of rule about pushing political agenda events inside the Government Workplace? Maybe things are different in the UK…
What interests me about these, though, is the email headers. They are broadcast ‘group wide’. Usually anything that is at all controversial gets “slapped down” in mass mailings and folks ask that there be a “cease and desist”. There is no evidence at all of that (though it might have ended up on the Foia editing floor…) IMHO, the final emails explain why. “Names” inside The Team are working with Agenda 21 via a local clone. The group culture is clearly not just tolerating this, they are endorsing it, IMHO.
The emails are here: http://dump.kurthbemis.com/climategate2/FOIA/
So you can ‘pull them up’ to ‘follow along’ if you so desire.
In my opinion, the SPAM forwards are: 1854, 2345, 5107
The “Pushing it a bit more” are: 2336, 3862, and especially 4462
While the “working together” are: 4803 and 2318
The first group are of the form ‘hey, look at this’
date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 10:27:41 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
from: Julie Burgess
subject: KERN InfoBrief: March 2001 – Renewable Energy: Experience and
MELISSA Program – Managing the Environment Locally in Sub Saharan Africa
KERN InfoBrief March 2001: Renewable Energy: Experience and Practice in Sub Saharan Africa
OK, 2001 is not all that recent, but it isn’t ancient either. I don’t know if Julie is a secretary or Lead Scientist ( or Cell Leader…) but she sends out a couple of these. KERN probably deserves a bit of investigation too. (Frankly, I would not care WHAT these folks spent there time on, except that they have this habit of sucking money, TAX Money, out of the government to pay for their fantasies…)
At any rate, whoever KERN is, they send out a periodic “InfoBrief”. This one includes some Agenda 21 stuff. Skipping over a bunch of “World” this and Global that and how to use biomass and wind…
There are a list of “Summits” and other “Workshops” for folks to attend (undoubtedly on YOUR dime and while collecting salary…) on various of the “Sustainable” themes. (Wonder where they get ‘their’ teaching materials…) we come to:
Commission on Sustainable Development, 9th Session New York, 16-27 April 2001 In 1992, more than 100 heads of state met in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). The Earth Summit was convened to address urgent problems of environmental protection and socio-economic development.
The assembled leaders signed the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity; endorsed the Rio Declaration and the Forest Principles; and adopted Agenda 21, a 300-page plan for achieving sustainable development in the 21st century. The Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was created in December 1992 to ensure effective follow-up of UNCED; to monitor and report on implementation of the Earth Summit agreements at the local, national, regional and international levels. The CSD is a functional commission of the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), with 53 members. It was agreed that a five-year review of Earth Summit progress would be made in 1997 by the United Nations General Assembly meeting in special session. Earth Summit + 5: The Special Session of the General Assembly held in June 1997 adopted a comprehensive document entitled Programme for the Further Implementation of Agenda 21 prepared by the Commission on Sustainable Development. It also adopted the programme of work of the Commission for 1998-2002.
The Commission on Sustainable Development consistently generates a high level of public interest. Over 50 ministers attend the CSD each year and more than one thousand non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are accredited to participate in the Commission’s work. The Commission ensures the high visibility of sustainable development issues within the UN system and helps to improve the UN’s coordination of environment and development activities. The CSD also encourages governments and international organizations to host workshops and conferences on different environmental and cross-sectoral issues. The results of these expert-level meetings enhance the work of CSD and help the Commission to work better with national governments and various non-governmental partners in promoting sustainable development worldwide. CSD Secretariat: Secretariat of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development United Nations Plaza, Room DC2-2220 New York, New York 10017, USA Tel: + 1 212-963-3170 Fax: + 1-212-963-4260 E-mail: email@example.com
It goes on to fawn over Earth Day (and lists more ways the UN is “helping”…)
What kind of thing is “Great in ‘cru.all’ email”? An excerpt:
· The Human Rights and the Environment campaign defends powerless communities in developing countries who suffer human rights and environmental abuses when big oil companies extract and transport oil, coal and gas from and across their lands. Partners: Amnesty International, Sierra Club and Oilwatch.
· The Green Energy Funding campaign is steering the international funding that pours into developing countries away from polluting fossil fuel projects and towards clean, sustainable energy sources such as the sun, the wind, and hydrogen. Partners: Rainforest Action Network, IPS/SEEN, Friends of the Earth, and Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF).
· The Green Energy Commitments project is fostering government commitments to renewable energy, particularly in island nation states, whose very existence is threatened by the rising tides associated with global warming. Partners: Climate Institute, Counterpart International, and Winrock International.
· The Safe Power: No More Nuclear campaign aims to stop nuclear power, and all its associated dangers, from being accepted by the international community as part of the solution to global warming. Partners: World Information Service on Energy (WISE), and Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS).
No, not Agenda 21 by name, but singing from the same hymnal. I note in passing that many of these groups look to be eating from the same public money trough too…
It goes on for several pages in that same theme. It ends with an ‘invite’ to participate and ‘learn more’..
We invite you to contact the MELISSA Program for further information, contributions, comments and suggestions regarding the KERN InfoBrief at:
Program Co-ordinator, The MELISSA Program, c/o World Bank Country Office P O Box 12629,
Hatfield, 0028 Pretoria, South Africa. Tel +2712 349-2994 Fax: +27 12 349-2080 Email:
****firstname.lastname@example.org Website:  http://www.melissa.org
Am I against renewable power? Not at all. I love the tech and very much would like my own independent solar power system. I own stock in several alternative energy companies. HOWEVER, I’m very much against the UN or anyone else using TAX Money to advance an agenda and any particular technologies over any other.
Markets lead to efficiency. Mandates lead to tyranny. Thus has it always been…
Email 2354 is more of the same, but a different year.
date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 13:39:24 +0100 (GMT Daylight Time)
from: Julie Burgess
subject: KERN InfoBrief July 2001: Towards the World Summit on Sustainable
MELISSA – Managing the Environment Locally in Sub Saharan Africa
KERN InfoBrief July 2001:
Towards the World Summit on Sustainable Development:
There’s that “sustainable” word again… Good we now know what it really means…
I won’t quote as much of it. Just some bits. In case you were wondering if ICLEI was real (from the video) we have:
· Survey of Local Authorities by ICLEI
· Inviting WSSD Contribution from the MELISSA Network
In talking about the “Earth Summit” they have an eye to enforcement, too:
The upcoming World Summit on Sustainable Development will aim to answer the following questions, among others: What has been accomplished since 1992? What have the participating countries done so far to implement Agenda 21? Have they adopted the National Sustainable Development Strategies as they agreed they would by 2002? Have they ratified the conventions that aim to prevent loss of biodiversity or ensure women’s rights as they agreed to do in 1992? What obstacles have they encountered? What lessons have they learned about what works and what does not? What new factors have emerged to change the picture? What mid-course corrections need to be made to reach the goals? Where should further efforts be concentrated?
The summit gathering will not open Agenda 21 for revision, but will rather seek consensus on the current conditions, and on priorities for further action. A focused agenda will discuss the findings in particular environmental sectors (forests, oceans, climate, energy, fresh water, and so on) as well as in cross-sector areas such as economic conditions, new technologies and globalization. The gathering will also consider the impact of technology, biology and communications. New financial instruments, the functioning of international financial institutions and markets will also be evaluated for their implications for the future.
All types of citizens’ groups from business and industry to scientists, from indigenous people to young people, from community leaders to trade unions are urged to take part in the evaluation process that are now being launched in every nation.
Oh Dear, that “consensus” word too….
The final one has at least a bit of a ‘solicitation’ aspect in that it asks if anyone is interested. It, too, is from Julie Burgess and sent to ALL of CRU. Oddly, what I find of interest is that this one is dated the earliest at 2000. In the later ones, she does not ask if folks are interested. Guess she had her answer by then…
date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 09:55:35 +0100 (GMT Daylight Time)
from: Julie Burgess ***email@example.com
subject: IGFR and Global Futures Bulletin
Is this of interest to anyone?
— Begin Forwarded Message —
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 15:54:15 +0800
From: “Institute for Global Futures Research (IGFR)”
Subject: IGFR and Global Futures Bulletin
Sender: “Institute for Global Futures Research (IGFR)”
To: – Invalid Address –
Reply-To: “Institute for Global Futures Research (IGFR)”
Institute for Global Futures Research (IGFR).
P.O. Box 263E, Earlville, Qld 4870, Australia.
You have been referred to us as someone who is interested in
global futures, sustainable development, and social justice issues.
I interrupt to note that we have quite a Red Flag list of buzz words here. “Global Futures, sustainable development, and social justice”. Mark your playbook, those are now known “flag words” for a Global Socialist Agenda (21)… There’s a load more just a bit on:
The Institute for Global Futures Research (IGFR) arose out of a series
of meetings held during the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, 1992.
The IGFR was established in 1995 as an independent research
centre to explore urgent global issues and longterm future options.
The brief of the IGFR is to build a macro interdisciplinary
perspective by researching pivotal issues in the areas of peace and
social justice, the global environment and climate change, poverty
and Third World development, human rights and democracy,
population, resources, international relations, the global economy,
science and technology, urban planning, and comparative culture, to
mention but some of the key areas.
The IGFR coordinates an Open Research Program where research
teams comprising experts and advisers are grouped around
43 interest areas. Using futures and other methodologies as well as
non-methodological (intuitive) approaches, we draw results together
from different disciplines to identify major trends, global parameters,
continuities and discontinuities, and use this understanding to
generate options for the future.
GENERAL AREAS OF RESEARCH
1. development issues, theory and paradigms
2. peace and conflict resolution.
3. climate change
5. evolving world order
6. biodiversity and habitat
7. emancipation of women
8. megatrends in technology
9. comparative society
10. implications of globalisation
11. ethnic relations and multicivilisations
12. food and sustainable agriculture
13. international governance
14. Agenda 21
15. quality of life indicators
16. population issues
17. toxic waste
18. urban development
19. global finance
21. future generations – ethics
23. global parameters, scenarios, new dimensions
25. futures studies methodologies
26. history of the future
27. longwaves and macrohistory
28. industry trends, industrial ecology
29. new economics
30. corporate citizenship
31. alternative communities and lifestyles
32. cyberspace revolution
33. global conventions and international law
34. world summits
35. Gaia theory
36. world health
37. world systems theory
39. spirituality and religion
40. community development
43. deep futures
The IGFR produces a twice-monthly journal (Global Futures
Bulletin) disseminated via e-mail to all its members and
subscribers. Members and subscribers include students and
community leaders, members of various religious affiliations and
non-government activist organisations, scientific research centres,
university academics, and senior officials in the corporate sector,
government policy makers and multilateral organisations, in 76
We will shortly be sending you a copy of the Global Futures Bulletin.
The journal is multidisciplinary and succinct.
Recipient organisations include: World Bank, World Futures Studies
Federation (WFSF), United Nations Commission for Human
Settlement (UNCHS), United Nations Organisation, UNDP, Tellus
Institute, Stockholm Environment Institute, Millennium Institute,
International Human Dimensions Programme on Global
Environmental Change (IHDP), Institute for Alternative Futures,
Ford Foundation, Finland Futures Research Centre, FAO, EPA (US),
EPA (Australia), Applied Futures, numerous government agencies,
and researchers in 52 universities including Cornell, Harvard,
Cambridge and Oxford.
Geoff Holland, Director,
Institute for Global Futures Research (IGFR).
P.O. Box 263E, Earlville, QLD 4870, Australia.
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ
I think that’s pretty clear. Oh, it was also nice of them to include a list of the organizations that have bought into this… Now we know exactly where to go looking for sources of funds, agenda, and influencers.
That concludes the first group.
On To Group Two
The “Pushing it a bit more” are: 2336, 3862, and especially 4462
This one is from back in 1997. Clearly it did not generate enough “push back” to stop the others from coming..
date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 18:50:38 +0100 (BST)
from: “B.J.Matthews” ***firstname.lastname@example.org
subject: The Drowning Village: (about global climate change negotiations)
Again, we’ve all had this kind of Cute Email.. . Most organizations have rules against it. I’ll delete most of it, but realize that in this case it is part of a larger narrative. Note the greeting: “Climate Colleagues”… Sheesh..
Dear Climate colleagues,
I thought you might like this story from Titus Alexander
(please accept my apology if you get this message more than once)
The Drowning Village
An allegory about global climate change
“I don’t want to frighten you” said Ipsee, the village seer, “but if we don’t act now the village will be flooded. Spent Carbon Water is seeping into the soil. The ground water is rising and one day floods will force people from their homes and fields.”
“That can’t be true,” said Uncle Sam, self-appointed village headman. “Our life depends on Carbon Water. We can’t possibly live without Carbon Water!”
And so it was in Annex One, the district where the rich people lived.
“Why is Carbon Water bad?” asked little Bird Sam, the boy who knew everything about competitive baseball and always wanted to do the right thing.
“Carbon Water is wonderful! Our life depends on it” explained General MacSam, Uncle Sam’s powerful brother. “It is a magical fluid full of energy that comes from deep wells in the ground. We use Carbon Water to heat our homes, drive our cars and make ever
ything we want. Carbon Water is like liquid gold.”
General MacSam and his friends Olly Pec and Bull Carson owned most of the Carbon Water wells in the village.
“Look son” said Uncle Sam, “Carbon Water helps us win at baseball.”
“And spent Carbon Water?” asked Little Sam again. “What is that?”
“Oh, some nonsense Ipsee made up to cause trouble” snorted the General. “You can’t believe everything the old seer says.”
“Spent Carbon Water is what’s left when you use Carbon Water” explained Ipsee patiently. “It runs straight out into the ground and there is nothing we can do to catch it.”
“It can’t be true!” said Uncle Sam again. “What can we do?”
“More than half of all the Carbon Water is used by the fifteen families in Annex One. You could stop using so much Carbon Water” said Ipsee.
“We can’t do that!” said General MacSam. “We’ll go bust if we stop using Carbon Water.”
It goes on from there for a few pages of slamming the West in general an the USA in particular.
“Let us talk about all these problems together” said the Strong Man. “Rich or poor, we are all in trouble if the Carbon Waters rise. Where can we meet?”
And so the Brazza brothers invited one person from every family to the Rio Restaurant on the riverside to talk about poverty and the environment. There the villagers wrote a long list of things to do, which they called Action 21. Everyone agreed that the
danger of flooding from Carbon Water was the number one problem.
Well, now it’s Action 21… but as least “everyone agreed”… You remember agreeing, don’t you?
And so this chapter in the story ends with rich and poor families helping each other to create a village safe from flooding.
Let us make sure that the Climate Change negotiators learn the lesson of this little fable before it is too late.
Copyright 1997: Titus Alexander, 32 Carisbrooke Road, London UK, E17 7EF Please send comments to ****email@example.com
Non-profit organisations are free to circulate this story on the internet or in magazines for campaign purposes, provided credit is given and the following background notes and action points are included. Where writers are normally paid, please pay the usual rate to Titus Alexander. This material can also be adapted for use as a play or street theatre.
A cartoon version will be available.
Background note: interpreting the story
Global warming is the most serious threat ever faced by humanity. It is potentially more dangerous than World War 2 or the cold war. To avoid dangerous climate change, we need to devote at least as much effort to using less fossil fuels as went into defence over the past 50 years. […]
After the Story Time, he wraps with Things To Do!!!
Use the story to encourage people to talk and find out more about global warming. It can be reprinted or serialised in school and university magazines. It can be used as a basis for drama improvisation in youth clubs, schools, drama societies or street theatre. Science and drama teachers might be persuaded to work together on this topic.
As a play, you could develop the story to involve the audience in a discussion about the issues and ways of reducing use of fossil fuels.
Use the story to campaign for your workplace, university, school or town to use less fossil fuels. This could fit it with Local Agenda 21.
Get people to write to their MP and Robin Cook (Foreign Secretary) John Prescott (Environment Secretary) and Tony Blair (Prime Minister) to
• declare climate change to be a global security interest
• support proposals for a global limit on CO2 emissions and equal per capita CO2 emissions rights as the basis of an agreement at Kyoto
• support the government’s proposal for a minimum 20% cut in emissions by 2010
• urge the government to bring in measures to cut CO2
It think this matters. Using workplace resources for a:
DIRECT solicitation to work with and support your local Agenda 21 from a staff person at CRU.
Then again, maybe UK law and workplace rules are different.
Solicitations continue on into 2006. This one from UEA but not specifically CRU. Leaves me wondering what ZICAR is, though.
date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:53:43 -0000
from: “Gill Seyfang” ***firstname.lastname@example.org
subject: FW: ESRC seminar on local economic development and climate change
Please reply to Peter North
From: Economic Geography Research Group [mailto:ECONOMIC-GEOGRAPHY@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On
Behalf Of North, Peter
Sent: 30 November 2006 11:51
Subject: ESRC seminar on local economic development and climate change
Apologies for cross posting, but list members might be interested in the following ESRC seimar series starting 6th February in Liverpool.
Local economic development: Restructuring for climate change
6th February 2007, University of Liverpool.
The first in a two year ESRC-funded seminar series “Local economic development in the face of dangerous climate change and resource constraints.” This introductory seminar is the first of six which will examine what dangerous climate change and peak oil means for local economic development strategies. Critiquing growth-orientated perspectives of local economic development, the seminar series will examine which conventional growth options might be problematic in terms of a forthcoming ecological crisis, and what an alternative programme would look like.
The seminar series will investigate what it means to be radical in terms of economic strategy? Is it possible to define a radical local economic strategy? Does being radical need a radical movement, and what sorts of movements exist? It will examine experiences of radical local action, local initiatives, coalitions, social movements and previous forms of radical local economic action interacted with processes of large scale economic change in order to draw appropriate lessons from them. Do the lessons of the past still hold? How might we avoid past mistakes? This first seminar will scope the issues and set up the research seminar series, enabling discussions to be developed more fully over the coming two years.
Erik will explore the ecological apocalypse as a populist `strange attractor’ occluding an understanding of the pathologies of capitalism, and argue for democratic control of solutions to environmental problems.
Professor David Gibbs, University of Hull
Action on climate change is not new: it has been addressed by citizen action, campaigns against road building, dams and the like, for environmental justice, and through policies for sustainable development. Again, the effectiveness of local action in response to global challenges is an issue, as is the efficacy of institutional processes such as Local Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development policy when contrasted with campaigns with more overtly oppositional strategies. David will review experiences of Sustainable Development, similarly uncovering effective and more therapeutic approaches.
Ted Trainer, University of New South Wales, Australia
For some, more radical approaches are required. For example, James Lovelock argues that humanity has already done irremediable damage to the planet’s life systems, and we now need a managed retreat from industrialisation. Ted will argue that our industrial-affluent-consumer society is extremely unjust and ecologically unsustainable, and problems cannot be solved in a society that is driven by obsession with high rates of production and consumption, affluent living standards, market forces, the profit motive and economic growth. A sustainable and just world order cannot be achieved until we undertake radical change in our lifestyles, values and systems, especially in our economic system. The alternative we must work for is a `Simpler Way’, based on frugal “living standards”, co-operation, high levels of local economic self-sufficiency, and zero economic growth.
Co-ordinated by Peter North, Department of Geography, University of Liverpool.
***email@example.com Room details to follow.
The seminar is free, but prior registration is required. Lunch will be provided. There are limited number of ESRC-funded travel bursaries available on a strictly first come first served basis for postgraduate students and practitioners – applications to Peter North.
Yup. We have wonderful TAX Funded gabfests for folks to tell us we need to learn to live in poverty. In keeping with Agenda 21.
There is more in the whole email. What is clear to me, though, is that folks in the real world, with real jobs, hoping for a better life for their kids though improved productivity, are NOT invited to the party. What I’d expect to be laughed out of the room is, it would seem, central to the mind set of these folks. “Gloom, despair, and agony on me… Deep Dark Depression, burning misery…”
OK, so that’s just some sort of ‘small change’ office SPAM, right? It’s not like anyone is actually involved in those things? No?
I’ve taken a bunch of names in Germany off the CC list as I have no idea if they are private citizens or not. The sender has a .gov address and Mike Hulme is at UEA. What I want to know is who’s pocket is being picked for all these junkets to “World Summits” in order to tell us we need to live a more poverty ridden lifestyle? Maybe it’s time we let them try it for us first and report back in a decade?
date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 09:27:16 -0700
from: “Benedick, Richard E” ****firstname.lastname@example.org
subject: FW: International Eminent Persons Meeting – Sept 3 and 4, 2001,
to: “‘Hulme, Mike'” ***email@example.com,
I thought you might be interested in this press release on the meeting I’ve been invited to in preparation for the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development. Following further consultations in Tokyo, I’ll[…]
From: Jerry Velasquez [mailto:***firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 6:15 AM
To: World Summit on Sustainable Development Info Mailing List
Subject: International Eminent Persons Meeting – Sept 3 and 4, 2001,
14 August 2001
WSSD INTERNATIONAL EMINENT PERSONS MEETING ON INTER-LINKAGES
The United Nations University (UNU), in cooperation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japan, Ministry of the Environment, Japan, and Global Legislators Organization for a Balanced Environment (GLOBE) International, is organizing a World Summit for Sustainable Development (WSSD) International Eminent Persons Meeting on Inter-Linkages – Bridging Problems and Solutions to Work Towards Sustainable Development. The meeting will be held at the UN House in Tokyo, Japan, on 3 and 4 September 2001.
A year before the scheduled World Summit for Sustainable Development (WSSD), most experts agree that progress towards the goals set in Agenda 21 has been unsatisfactory. The world still awaits a modus operandi for ground-level action. It is not that we have misunderstood the problems, but that we have failed to prepare the socio-economic systems needed to deal with these complex, inter-linked issues. Our laws, conventions, treaties, institutions, mechanisms and information are all developed in isolation, and often segregated based on topic or theme. To promote the further implementation of Agenda 21, we must fill the gap between our perception of problems and our solution-making process through strategic approaches, such as Inter-Linkages, that can clarify the linkages between our ecosystems and our socio-economic institutions.
A number of eminent policy makers and scholars will participate in the meeting, including: Maurice Strong, Senior Adviser to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, Chairman of UN Reform and Secretary-General of UNCED; Jan Pronk, Minister of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment of the Netherlands, and President of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change’s COP6; Emil Salim, former Indonesian State Minister for Population and Environment, and Chairman of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development Bureau of the Preparatory Committee of the WSSD; Ambassador Richard Benedick, former US chief negotiator for the Ozone Convention and author of the book Ozone Diplomacy; Prof. Norman Myers, leading British ecologist and environmental economist and visiting fellow at Green College, Oxford University; Mr. Delmar Blasco, Director General of the RAMSAR Convention; Mr. Martin Kohr, Executive Director of Third World Network and one of the South’s most prominent social commentators; and Akiko Domoto, Governor of Chiba Prefecture and former President of GLOBE International.
Key issues to be deliberated in the meeting are the inter-linkages between the chapters of Agenda 21 (specifically, the linkages between globalization and sustainable development), the inter-linkages between multilateral environmental agreements and strategies for sustainable development. The outputs of the meeting will be fed into the WSSD preparatory conferences and meetings. Plenary sessions will be broadcast live on the Internet. Please visit http://www.unu.edu on the day of the conference to view the broadcast. IISD’s Sustainable Development will also cover the meeting. Please visit http://www.iisd.ca for photos, daily summaries and real-audio clips.
* * *
For further information, please contact:
The UNU Public Affairs Section: Tel. (03) 5467-1243 & -1246; Fax (03) 3406
Well, Guess Maurice and Kofi know a lot about a poverty level life style and know what’s best for the rest of us…
Clearly this isn’t just interoffice SPAM. These are folks involved in Agenda 21, working to make it happen, measuring ‘progress to goal’ and with every intent to implement it globally. OK, even if it looks whacky to me, these folks with big bundles of power and position are working to make it happen. That makes it real. That means I need to learn about it.
That they are ‘well connected’ inside UEA and CRU and that the agenda at least appears to be accepted and endorsed means that the UEA and CRU can NOT be unbiased custodians of the global temperature record nor provide unbiased policy advice. The UN connections and money are providing political corruption along with political correctness, in my opinion.
Group Three – Working Together
But just because someone has a seminar or a cushy VIP back slapping session, that doesn’t mean folks are actually working with Agenda 21, does it?
While the “working together” are: 4803 and 2318
date: Thu Nov 2 14:30:57 2000
from: Mike Hulme ***email@example.com
Not sure whether you’ll get the graphics on this, but they do look striking!!! Can you reply to him?
From: “hilles” ***firstname.lastname@example.org
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 14:04:45 -0000
Dear Dr Hulme,
I am very concerned by the strong correlations between UK Winter Rainfall and solar activity and the failure of the authorities to incorporate such data in their forward planning – we appear to be paying a bitter price for this here in Gloucestershire.
Your rainfall data had been previously been published to illustrate increasing UK rainfall due to Greenhouse Gas emission led Global Warming – there would appear to be a strong solar component to this also.
By failing to acknowledge this and incorporate this in our plans we are also failing to produce a cohesive argument for Sustainable Development – certainly as far as the petrol protesters are concerned!
Director Vision21 (Glos. C. C. Agenda 21)
Oh Dear! A local “Vision21” Director unhappy that the CO2 causality is getting a bit muddied by an apparent SOLAR component, and that is making it hard to push the Agenda 21 vision…
So when an Agenda 21 Local Director for action has an issue with the science… he calls up the folks who control the science to see what they can do to fix it for him… Golly.
So do they tell the guy to go take a hike? Oh, wait, we saw in one of the other emails that they needed to stamp out a solar causality and that the computer models were one tweak of a parameter away from saying Solar caused things and GHG was a non entity… While not a smoking gun, it’s a big “Dig Here!” to find those Inconvenient SOLAR truths (and key words in the emails) and see if this can be fleshed out.
date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 13:20:41 +0000
from: Tim Osborn ***email@example.com
subject: RE: intense precip
I replied to this guy on our behalf. I thought I’d bring you back into the picture – he wants to approach the Environment Agency to suggest a joint UEA-EA-WeatherAction project to sort out the greenhouse vs. solar problem. Not quite sure how to respond – any suggestions?
So, Minion did the contact, got a reply of “lets work together, shall we?” and is asking the boss how to proceed. Normal for folks you work with, I guess. The reply to Tim?
From: “hilles” ***firstname.lastname@example.org
To: “Tim Osborn” ***email@example.com
Subject: RE: intense precip
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 12:34:56 -0000
Thank you for your reply of the 6 November, very much appreciated.
Could it simply be that the solar signal is being produced by a combination of the improved resolution of your most recent winter precipitation data, together with the ever increasing levels of CO2 providing now greater and more pronounced greenhouse effects?
I have also asked Weather Action at SBU to provide longer time series correlations between solar activity and terrestrial weather related factors. We have used WA forecasts for planning the arable farming on 2500 acres here in Glos for several years – and they have been of great benefit. They seem to achieve similar accuracy to conventional forecasts at 5 days range, yet are produced months ahead, and are usually best at showing overall trends, as well as extreme storm events. I appreciate such forecasts could be produced by purely mathematical means; but the WA people seem very sincere in their claim that these forecasts are produced by correlations with solar activity – and certainly those graphs I originally sent you would indicate (well beyond the chance of coincidence) that such links do exist.
May I also mention my own perspective and vested interests, in addition to my Agenda 21 work. As a countryman and keen fisherman I have done what I could over the last twenty years to prevent the obvious deterioration in our local environment. It has become apparent that in addition to the greenhouse gas/solar debate on climate change and weather – there are also significant terrestrial factors that have a role, not only in the amelioration of the effects of weather/climate extremes, but also probably in the moderation of the actual weather extremes. I see little in the media relating to this and I strongly believe that we are thus failing to produce a cohesive and convincing strategy to meet such changes.
The graphic below, taken from one of my local studies shows some of these principles, to enable a relatively ‘cheap’ response to climate change:
I have had contact also with the Environment Agency regarding these issues, ranging from their neglect of the natural water management principles detailed in the graphic above through to their equally apparent disregard of the clear drought/flood cycles detailed in the public domain information I originally sent you. Such cycles have long been noted in the water industry; but not acted on. Dr Richard Bailey (former CIWEM president) tells me he was fully aware of the solar signal apparent in Yorkshire river flows over 30 years ago.
I am aware that there is a great difference of opinion regarding global warming between your department at UEA and Weather Action at SBU. Between you both you will have the expertise and data to more fully investigate the atmospheric/solar links – and WA has expressed to me a willingness to collaborate with you in this respect.
May I suggest to the EA that they should commission a joint UEA/WA/EA study of such links? Could I introduce you to WA researchers to develop such a proposal, if not for the EA, then I might find other sponsors?
I thank you in anticipation of your consideration of this.
With kind regards,
What did Tim say to get this response?
From: Tim Osborn [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: 06 November 2000 10:03
Subject: Fwd: intense precip
[Original request duplicate of above left out. ]
Mike Hulme asked me to reply to your email (copied above). The possible link between solar variability and winter precipitation intensity is very interesting – one of the scientific reviewers of our paper in fact asked us to add some comments about it to our original scientific paper. We declined to do so, however, mainly because we had a second record that covered the period from 1931-1997, though based on only 63 weather stations rather than 120 stations used to create the figure that appeared in the media. The second record showed a very similar trend to our main results over 1961-1995, and also showed the 11-year variability that indicates a link to solar activity over this period. *But* over the 1931-1960 period it showed no link at all to solar activity. It is quite possible that the 11-year oscillations over 1961-1995 are purely coincidental, and that the solar-climate link is weak or non-existent.
The range of scientific opinion is quite broad on the topic of how much climate variability and change is driven by solar variations. Nevertheless, as more observational data and improved statistical analysis techniques become available, it is becoming increasingly obvious that solar variations are important. For temperature, many scientists now feel that natural solar variations were the main contributor to the early 20th century warming that occurred between about 1910 and 1950. The dramatic warming since 1980, however, cannot be explained by changes in solar output. So, the role of solar variability is starting to be acknowledged, though it cannot explain all changes, and is much more uncertain than the greenhouse effect (in terms of quantifying past changes and in understanding physical/chemical mechanisms that can amplify a small change in radiation into a large climate response). It also does not imply that the greenhouse effect is necessarily weaker than is currently believed, so the best way to think of it might not be that climate change scenarios due to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases are wrong, but just that the level of natural variability that should be superimposed upon them is larger if solar variability is included. This is, of course, my personal opinion.
Dr Timothy J Osborn
Senior Research Associate
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Attachment Converted: “c:\eudora\attach\sustainwater.jpg”
I find this fascinating.
Some times the Sun DOES do it, sometimes it doesn’t. In the PAST the sun worked. Now, it’s CO2.
No wonder poor Tim was asking what to do next.
The key thing for this posting, though, is that there ARE local Block Commissars, er, Directors working on Agenda 21. It is real, and it is popular inside UEA and CRU as evidenced by the kind of ‘interoffice notices’ they happily circulate, with whom they work, and the fact that Friends Of CRU are invited to VIP Meetings and like to tell their friends about it.
This is a distressing thing to me for the simple reason that I don’t like to be wrong. One poster here had posted some links to Agenda 21 stuff and said, basically:
“It’s Agenda 21!”…
and I blew it off. I was wrong.
Now I’m playing ‘catch up’ to find out just how pervasive this is and where it’s going. Any pointers to a decent summary of “what is the evil part” appreciated. (I’m sure there are some good parts in it, there usually is some sugar mixed with the poison… but any time the UN wants to tell me to live in poverty for my Carbon Sin, well, that’s evil. Especially when they are having VIP Gabfests with dinner on the TAX Payer dime all over the planet.)
So that’s the Agenda 21 package. Maybe now I’ll be able to get back to the 5300 block… FWIW, I did a search on “Agenda 21”, so emails with “Local 21” or “Action 21” or that refer to the topic obliquely will have been missed. This is the minimal set, not the maximal..