sustainability is everywhere

Controlling the frightened low information humans into the green compliance and indoctrinating the next generation into the smart growth of green

What Is Sustainability?

- Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh (Bio and Archives)  Tuesday, April 9, 2013

“Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.” - Professor Maurice King

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary lists “sustain” as “to give support or relief to, to nourish, to keep up, prolong. The Barnhart Etymological Dictionary (p. 1098) gives its Latin root of “sustinere” as “to hold up, keep up, support, endure,” as a variant to hold.

The word “sustainability” is another matter. It seems that environmentalists with a certain agenda have written the definition in Webster’s. Sustainable, besides “capable of being sustained,” is also a “method of harvesting or using a resource so that the resource is not depleted or permanently damaged, sustainable techniques, sustainable agriculture, and a lifestyle involving the use of sustainable methods.”

Wikipedia is even bolder and more complex in their definition ofsustainability—they are shamelessly preaching U.N. Agenda 21 goals. “Achieving sustainability will enable the earth to continue supporting human life.” I am not sure how the earth supported human life for eons, it must have been sheer luck, we cannot leave it to chance, and it must be controlled by the environmental non-government powers with plenty of government funding and regulations. Today we are doomed to fail miserably without sustainability. Wikipedia broadly explains and describes sustainability as:

• Wetlands
• Diversity
• Eco-economics
• Urban planning
• Lifestyles
• Ethical consumerism
• Eco-villages
• Eco-municipalities
• Sustainable cities
• Permaculture
• Green building
• Sustainable agriculture
• Green technologies
• Renewable energy
• Sustainable fission
• Fusion power
• Sustainable engineering
• Sustainable forestry
• Environmental management
• Environmental science
• Earth science
• Conservation biology
• Human consumption and resources

In addition to controlling the frightened low information humans into the green compliance and indoctrinating the next generation into the smart growth of green, there are fortunes to be made from the sustainability schemes and scams at the expense of the middle class: carbon taxes, carbon swaps, carbon footprint, electric cars, wind and solar energy generation, expensive regulations filling the coffers of government bureaucracies, of unions, and of a few elites who push the green scam zealously.

Since 1987, Sustainable Development of U.N. Agenda 21 has turned every economic activity possible into Sustainable Everything, from education to food. My local diner advertises food cooked with sustainable turkeys.

At the center of Sustainable Development are public policy objectives to “protect the environment, control economic development, and promote social equity.” Who can argue with protecting the environment and who does not want a pristine environment? It is how the environment will be protected to the detriment of humans, the economic control and the social equity goals that disturb higher information Americans.

Global warming is a political movement solidified by U.N. Agenda 21 to bring about global justice, equality, and wealth redistribution, power to a handful of global elites, total economic control, and population reduction to the levels that “consensus” scientists and journalists, who manufacture temperature data and misinformation, deem necessary to gain control of the uninformed and frightened masses.

The hoax of global warming as a political movement will bring about the fundamental transformation of America promised to us during the presidential campaign, the new world order/global governance.

Vice President Joe Biden said on April 5, 2013 at the Export-Import Bank conference in Washington, “The affirmative task we have now is to actually create a new world order because the global order is changing again and the institutions of the world that worked so well in the post-World War II era for decades, they need to be strengthened and some have to be changed.”

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” (Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment)

If the MSM repeats in tandem bold lies and misinformation enough times and with confidence, “It does not matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” (Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace)

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” (Timothy Wirth, President of the U.N. Foundation)

Paying a tax to reduce carbon footprint is meant to alleviate the guilt of the elites, liberals, politicians, the rich, and the hypocritical Hollywood celebrities who have not stopped “polluting” with their jets, huge mansions, and excessive, in your face, lifestyles. But the majority of middle class Americans can ill-afford these taxes.

Sustainable Development will solidify global governance as promoted by the World Core Curriculum. According to James Lovelock’s Gaia Hypothesis, “the earth is a living organism, the giver of life, every species is equal in value, and that both animate and inanimate objects have rights.”

Dr. Robert Muller, who developed the World Core Curriculum, claims that “every member of every species is a cell in the global organism and that the evolution of the United Nations represents the development of the earth’s brain.”

This curriculum teaches students that it is a sin to cut down a tree, that animals have rights, and humans (Americans in particular) are “killing” the earth by burning fossil fuels. God is greatly ridiculed and the faithful are marginalized. The “Earth Charter,” which seeks to replace the Ten Commandments with a global green religion, was promoted by Maurice Strong and Mikhail Gorbachev.

Maurice Strong, “a native Canadian who is widely deemed to be one of the key instigators of the global environmental movement, living a low-profile in China for the past half-decade,” is considered “the godfather of global environmentalism and organizer of the United Nations’ 1992 Rio environmental Earth Summit.” (George Russell, Godfather of Global Green Thinking Steps out of Shadows at Rio+20, Fox News Insider, June 20, 2012)

How will new world order/global governance be achieved through the political movement of Sustainable Development Everything? Aside from academic indoctrination into the scam of green, man-made global warming hoax, and learned helplessness, a massive change of zoning laws, severe regulations and restrictions of land use, home building, energy consumption, consumerism, fossil fuels exploration and use, visioning committees at local levels will change the face of western countries through “regional” shadow governments, unelected individuals who will dictate policy on every economic issue. “Regionalism must precede globalism. We foresee a seamless system of governance from local communities, individual states, regional unions and up through to the United Nations itself.” (U.N. Commission on Global Governance)

Various executive orders and laws have established regionalism and have already implemented U.N. Agenda 21 goals of Sustainable Development. There is no federal government body left that does not have plans for Sustainable Development. Most universities now offer degrees or have professorial chairs in Sustainable Development. Job titles have been renamed to contain the words “green growth” or “sustainable.”

We’ve reached this point of no return with the help of left wing journalists who have abandoned any pretense of objectivity. They are nothing but the propaganda wing of the Democrat Party - Democrat operatives, propagandists, political commentators, and lobbyists, politicizing anything that will grow the socialist government, including the manufactured science of global warming.

In criticizing and ridiculing global warming skeptics, disingenuous journalists cite the “science consensus,” not bothering to explain that science is exact, not a consensus. Conveniently forgotten is the fact that debunked scientists with an agenda (such as those at the University of East Anglia) promoted the false notion of man-made global warming by deleting data from climate computer models that contradicted their hypothesis.

(0) Comments

Listen to Dr. Paugh on Butler on Business (WAFS 1190), every Wednesday at 10:49 AM EST
Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh, (Romanian Conservative) is a freelance writer (Canada Free Press, Romanian Conservative, usactionnews.com), author, radio commentator (Silvio Canto Jr. Blogtalk Radio, Butler on Business, The Liberty Express, Free Market Radio, and Republic Broadcasting Network), and speaker. Her book, “Echoes of Communism, is available at Amazon in paperback and Kindle. Short essays describe health care, education, poverty, religion, social engineering, and confiscation of property. A second book, “Liberty on Life Support,” is also available at Amazon in paperback and Kindle. A third book, “U.N. Agenda 21: Environmental Piracy,” is a best seller at Amazon.com under Globalism, Politics, and Environmental Policy.
Her commentaries reflect American Exceptionalism, the economy, immigration, and education.Visit her website, ileanajohnson.com.Dr. Johnson can be reached at: ileana@canadafreepress.com

Affects of Anti GM

Lecture to Oxford Farming Conference, 3 January 2013

3 January 2013 532 comments

[Comments are now closed - it was getting impossible to manage them given the volume.]

NEW! German translation… Spanish translation… French translation… Vietnamese translation (shortened)… Italian version (also shortened)

 http://www.marklynas.org/2013/01/lecture-to-oxford-farming-conference-3-january-2013/

07 Mark Lynas from Oxford Farming Conference on Vimeo.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

     Finally some one who finds the truth and gets away from the politics, money and power.

     I still wonder if some things are going too fast.  I still want things to be studied, and tested. 

     The general people do not realize that the  old fashion terminator gene is just naturally there in hybrids, such as mating a horse with a donkey and the resultant hybrid offspring will not breed on ! !, as also  a cross between a sheep and a  goat.

     I still do think that some matches for so called gene modification is too far and so strict quarantine, impartial independent testing and time to study would be very important 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I want to start with some apologies. For the record, here and upfront, I apologise for having spent several years ripping up GM crops. I am also sorry that I helped to start the anti-GM movement back in the mid 1990s, and that I thereby assisted in demonising an important technological option which can be used to benefit the environment.

As an environmentalist, and someone who believes that everyone in this world has a right to a healthy and nutritious diet of their choosing, I could not have chosen a more counter-productive path. I now regret it completely.

So I guess you’ll be wondering – what happened between 1995 and now that made me not only change my mind but come here and admit it? Well, the answer is fairly simple: I discovered science, and in the process I hope I became a better environmentalist.

When I first heard about Monsanto’s GM soya I knew exactly what I thought. Here was a big American corporation with a nasty track record, putting something new and experimental into our food without telling us. Mixing genes between species seemed to be about as unnatural as you can get – here was humankind acquiring too much technological power; something was bound to go horribly wrong. These genes would spread like some kind of living pollution. It was the stuff of nightmares.

These fears spread like wildfire, and within a few years GM was essentially banned in Europe, and our worries were exported by NGOs like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth to Africa, India and the rest of Asia, where GM is still banned today. This was the most successful campaign I have ever been involved with.

This was also explicitly an anti-science movement. We employed a lot of imagery about scientists in their labs cackling demonically as they tinkered with the very building blocks of life. Hence the Frankenstein food tag – this absolutely was about deep-seated fears of scientific powers being used secretly for unnatural ends. What we didn’t realise at the time was that the real Frankenstein’s monster was not GM technology, but our reaction against it.

For me this anti-science environmentalism became increasingly inconsistent with my pro-science environmentalism with regard to climate change. I published my first book on global warming in 2004, and I was determined to make it scientifically credible rather than just a collection of anecdotes.

So I had to back up the story of my trip to Alaska with satellite data on sea ice, and I had to justify my pictures of disappearing glaciers in the Andes with long-term records of mass balance of mountain glaciers. That meant I had to learn how to read scientific papers, understand basic statistics and become literate in very different fields from oceanography to paleoclimate, none of which my degree in politics and modern history helped me with a great deal.

I found myself arguing constantly with people who I considered to be incorrigibly anti-science, because they wouldn’t listen to the climatologists and denied the scientific reality of climate change. So I lectured them about the value of peer-review, about the importance of scientific consensus and how the only facts that mattered were the ones published in the most distinguished scholarly journals.

My second climate book, Six Degrees, was so sciency that it even won the Royal Society science books prize, and climate scientists I had become friendly with would joke that I knew more about the subject than them. And yet, incredibly, at this time in 2008 I was still penning screeds in the Guardian attacking the science of GM – even though I had done no academic research on the topic, and had a pretty limited personal understanding. I don’t think I’d ever read a peer-reviewed paper on biotechnology or plant science even at this late stage.

Obviously this contradiction was untenable. What really threw me were some of the comments underneath my final anti-GM Guardian article. In particular one critic said to me: so you’re opposed to GM on the basis that it is marketed by big corporations. Are you also opposed to the wheel because because it is marketed by the big auto companies?

So I did some reading. And I discovered that one by one my cherished beliefs about GM turned out to be little more than green urban myths.

I’d assumed that it would increase the use of chemicals. It turned out that pest-resistant cotton and maize needed less insecticide.

I’d assumed that GM benefited only the big companies. It turned out that billions of dollars of benefits were accruing to farmers needing fewer inputs.

I’d assumed that Terminator Technology was robbing farmers of the right to save seed. It turned out that hybrids did that long ago, and that Terminator never happened.

Air Secure Bio-Safe Naked nonExplosive Travel

Security and Bio-Security has become a major issue in travel this century.

This is a jump ahead of making people into the lowest common denominator, so perhaps making you think, what price is freedom? having government constantly expanding. Just what Principles should your family, community, state, country, live by and I mean more than just flying issues. Why are our countries having these issues ? ? ?
Carbon foot prints are also supposedly a concern. minimal baggage.The planes will travel lighter, less fuel, per person.
People could be worked out on gender areas or family mixed sex of plane.

What cost to air line to set up plane.?
Handy disposable napkin/handkerchief if one needs to be more discreet for young guys
Why accept that people would not wear it. (it is so simple) Planes in Germany already travel naked, OK they are nudists and this is much more complex, but once thru put and number gear up efficiency should show great savings

As simple light cloth, washable or disposable be placed attached over seats.
Why do people travel carrying a paraphernalia of baggage that could be so easily acquired at their destination. clothing toothpaste shampoo?
People do a big shop up before they travel but why not buy in the country you will be travelling.
Surely if they travel and want to experience local food, culture why not the clothes and food that can be purchased there.
Even if things are imported to the country then it would more than likely have been carried much more economically such as sea transport.
Good for the countries business in supplying safe basic needs.
Opportunities shop (2nd hand clothes) and charity would be possibly as clothing could be much cheaper and available for poorer people of that country.


Less chance of hidden explosives.
No waiting, searching and checking baggage .
No more full body scanners and/or pat downsAny thing to declare? a quick pirouette. Only paper work of passport , cv camera discs laptop
Much less chance of smuggling drugs or explosives.
Much less chance of breaches of bio -security that can cost a country millions of $. in control or eradication or just the ongoing cost living with the problem.

No profiling, maybe certain types of people will not want to travel naked.
Not good for aero industry but may some groups of people we do not need would I think more than balance up the ones we would miss.

I sometimes watch "Border Security" and it is amazing the stupidity ignorance, argumentative and arrogance of people who do not declare food items that carry risk diseases, and hide them in their baggage and plead ignorance and only get slapped with a "wet bus ticket" of a fine. Also the drugs they are carrying and ongoing waste of time of step by step procedure to prove he is lying.

This way of travel would also stop "false positives", where a drug dog signals about a trace of a problem that needs further inspection. IF that person had been to a party where drugs have been used (whether or not he participated) he will not be hassled.

A full shower can be done at destination air terminal with disinfectants and foot-bathes, or even before with after standard perfumes in the mix?

Surely destination countries should be allowed to insist on this to save their own people in bio security and security of planes exploding over their country or terrorising their populations. There have been so over a dozen new exotic species/diseases (insects pathogens plants) come to NZ every year.

Save on custom staff and costs. transferred to other departments that are short of general search staff and could be more fine tuned to other areas of inspection such as containers and other imported goods.

Dare you to think of even think of more reasons.Sure think of reasons why not, then any solutions that may work.

Harder to smuggle drugs, concentrate on body cavity searches and internal x-rays/
Some symptoms and diseases of skin would be picked up.

Fruit weed/seed insect pests will have less chance of entering.

Admittedly I can not work out a cost benefit ratio at this stage but I believe it may not be wide of the mark, and may achieve greater efficiencies.

Business and Frequent Travellers may have a problem, but that may be overcome with lockers of their personal effects at destination airports and may be discounted because of regular/air-points.
Should it only be flights to NZ?

Would other countries follow.?

Certainly in NZ interests to be first and even better if no other country follows so what is purchased in NZ by a visitor is effectively an export product (purchased by over seas funds.

If you want to fly to NZ that would be part of the decision to accept.

Sorry at the moment I have not made this into a logical and coherent structure but just seem to keep adding issues, question and answers?

The only thing other thing is that I started this with tongue in cheek, but now it is sort of worrying that it may be closer to happening as these scanners see you nude now and pat downs almost and probably will soon in the future check the actual size of your anatomy.

It seems that more people are objecting to full body scanners and pat downs, so a prior step to the above proposal is just up the shirt/dress, down the under garment all in the queue, so it is quickly done. Hopefully the ugly will balance the cute so the security system people do not need any extra money for so called fugly people. Just a matter of " no shame ". Back to the "short arm inspection". Sure would keep the queue flowing as sheeple parade on thru, certainly should be no slower than the scanner.

The security systems staff is another way of building a private "civvy" army, little bits here and there to merge up later and all being paid agents thru government legislation. Over 65000 now employed in TSA.

Is the future with cavity searches as we swallow and allow camera probes in all sorts of openings.

18th November 2010
http://www.thelocal.de/sci-tech/20101116-31209.html
Germany scanning machines are not working on heavily clothed people so they have take off some garments. Then there are problems where there a creases or pleats on light clothing so they are still patted down and then go thru metal detectors. Sounds like very close to asking you drop all your duds(clothing)