I know that you, dear reader, have probably never heard of UN Agenda 21. That's because you are not imbued in rightwing talk radio. So let me enlighten you: Agenda 21 is the latest conspiracy theory on the right, partner of climate denial, sister to birtherism and directly descended from the black helicopter UN conspiracy theories of the 1990s.
In
brief: at the UN environmental conference in Rio in 1992, 178
countries adopted Agenda 21, which “is a comprehensive blueprint
of action to be taken globally, nationally, and locally by
organizations of the UN, governments, and major groups in every area
in which humans directly affect the environment.” It sets as a goal
sustainable development (defined in 1987 by the World Commission on
Environment and Development as “Development that
meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs”) and
the assistance of the rich countries to the poor to help them meet
their development needs sustainably. The first paragraph of the
preamble reads
- Humanity stands at a defining moment in history. We are confronted with a perpetuation of disparities between and within nations, a worsening of poverty, hunger, ill health and illiteracy, and the continuing deterioration of the ecosystems on which we depend for our well-being. However, integration of environment and development concerns and greater attention to them will lead to the fulfillment of basic needs, improved living standards for all, better protected and managed ecosystems and a safer, more prosperous future. No nation can achieve this on its own; but together we can - in a global partnership for sustainable development.
which
is true enough. But - and this is a key point - Agenda 21 is legally
non-binding. It is up to each country to implement its goals in
keeping with its own and values, and there is a preference for
cooperative and international coordination efforts. It also call for
liberalized trade policies, which should be a winner for the
market-based among us.
But
what it says doesn't really matter. Agenda 21 was mostly a forgotten
corner of the UN universe until it became a cause celebre on the
right. It appears that every time a bikepath or a water management
issue is on the agenda at a planning committee, county commission, or
regional council in a red state, right wing activists come to
complain about Agenda 21, claiming that all sustainability planning
is but the thin wedge of a UN effort toward world government, the
elimination of private property, and surrender of the keys to our
cars.
Recently
this has risen (sic) to the level of legislative action. This article in Inside Climate News sums up all the action in the various (5)
states in which legislation has been introduced. In Kansas a florid
and alarmist resolution was recently passed by the House. The text is
here, but the gist is captured by the title:
A
RESOLUTION opposing and exposing the radical nature of United Nations
Agenda 21 and its destructiveness to the principles of the founding
documents of the United States of America.
They
removed the words “socialist and communist” to pretend at
compromise.
There
was also an incident at the county commission in Sedgwick County,
where Wichita is. An oped from the Wichita Eagle on the matter is here.
I
went to a hearing at the House Energy and Utilities Committee to
testify against the resolution, and I was struck by the alarmist
tenor of the comments by its proponents. The upshot is that if you
are trying to do any sustainability work in the state, you are either
a part of the UN conspiracy or an unknowing dupe. The idea that
planning officials could be doing their best to make responsible
decisions that benefit their constituents and tread lightly on the
earth is not one of the options.
Although
the resolution was tabled in the E&U committee, the proponents
got it through the more reliable Federal and State Affairs Committee,
and then it was passed by the House by a comfortable margin.
I
had to decide how serious an issue this was, whether it was deserving
of the effort it took to write and go to deliver the testimony. On
the one hand, it's rightwing crackpotism writ large, more appropriate
to mock than to be taken seriously (and in fact mockery was a large
part my approach, including the words “black helicopters” and "patent nonsense" into
the official record). On the other hand, a lot of mischief can be
done when no one's looking, and as it turned out in both committees I
was the only one to testify against the bill. (In the Fed and State
Committee my testimony was read into the record by Zack Pistora, the
Sierra Club's lobbyist. I was not available that day and chose not to
rearrange my life to chase this phantom.)
The
reason I took it seriously at all is because I see it as the next
beachhead for the climate denying, fossil-fuel serving, will-of-ALEC-doing crowd. With the wall of climate denial
breaking down ever so slightly, the next tactic is to take perfectly
reasonable public policies (bike paths) and tar them as but tactics
of the evil UN.
Just
to remind: sustainability is the effort to make sure that the
development decisions we make do not do harm to the earth as we take
what we need. There are numerous actions we can take, some simple and
some more complex, to mitigate the impact we have on the environment,
including transitioning to cleaner, renewable sources of energy,
lowering our reliance on fossil-fuel powered transportation, being
more conscious of our impact on creation with the development
decisions we make, and in general being better and more responsible
stewards of the earth which God has given us. It's a happy fact that
these activities can also help providing vital jobs and economic
activity throughout the state.
In
addition to the fevered-rightwing-imaginings aspect of this, there is
a cui bono aspect. There's a reason that there's no one
concerned about Agenda 21 who is not already a stone climate denier.
It is not a real issue at all, but rather a strawman, a tactic to be
used by those who have political, philosophical or economic
opposition to any kind of sustainable development, clean energy, or
Earth Care generally.
We have not heard the end of this. Next year it will come back with a limitation on state spending, and that's when the joke will be over and it will get serious.
Update: an article on Huffington Post on this whole thing.
