U.N. Agenda 21: ‘Land cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals’

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


2-nn-agenda-21-image-1In a recent issue of the County Compass, Hood Richardson, a Beaufort County Commissioner, wrote a very informative article about proposed state legislation known as House Bill 763.

Richardson argued that the law, if adopted by the General Assembly, would be bad for our state.


His article correctly labels this as a bad bill — which is not needed — and he spoke about the ill effects of federally imposed zoning and land use planning. Upon reading this article, I realized immediately that the true implications of this bill involved U.N. Agenda 21, which was an even more ominous threat than what was originally reported.

Most people have never heard of Agenda 21. But everyone has seen its manifestations in various contexts – from news reporting to a whole range of issues, many of which we will attempt to explain here.

Agenda 21 gave life to the concept of Sustainable Development. According to its authors, the objective of sustainable development is to integrate economic, social, and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity.

Supporters of sustainability insist that every societal decision be based on environmental impact, focusing on three components: Global land use, global education, and global population control and reduction.

Social Equity, also known as Social Justice, is described as the right and opportunity of all people to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment — such as redistribution of wealth. Private property is a social injustice since not everyone can build wealth from it. National sovereignty is a social injustice. Universal healthcare is a social justice. All of these things are part of Agenda 21 policy.

Public-Private Partnerships are special dealings between government and certain chosen corporations, which receive tax breaks, grants and the government’s power of Eminent Domain to implement sustainable policy. Government-sanctioned monopolies are another way to describe these business arrangements. Local Sustainable Development policies such as Smart Growth, Wild lands Projects, Resilient Cities, A regional Visioning Projects, STAR Sustainable Communities, Green jobs, Green Building Codes, Going Green, Alternative Energy, Local Visioning  facilitators, regional planning, historic preservation, conservation easements, development rights, sustainable farming, comprehensive planning, growth management, and consensus are all terms used interchangeably with elements of the Agenda 21 policy.

Local Governments for Sustainability  — formerly known as the International Counsel for Local Environmental Initiatives — is the forerunner of the Agenda 21 project. Communities pay ICLEI dues to provide local community plans, software, and training. Additional groups include American Planning Council, The Renaissance Planning Group, International City/County Management Group, aided by US Mayors Conference, National Governors Association, National League of Cities, National Association of County Administrators and many more private organizations and official government agencies. Foundation and government grants drive this process.

The term ‘Sustainable Development’ was first introduced to the world in the pages of a report in 1987 (Our Common Future) produced by the United Nations World Commission on Environmental and Development, authored by Gro Harlem Brundtland, VP of the World Socialist Party. The term was first offered as official United Nations policy in 1992, in a document called UN Sustainable Development Agenda 21. This report was issued at the UN’s Earth Summit and is today referred to simply as Agenda 21.

More than 178 nations adopted Agenda 21 as official policy during a signing ceremony at the Earth Summit. US President George H. W. Bush signed the document for the United States. In signing, each Nation pledged to adopt the goals of Agenda 21 in 1995, President Bill Clinton, in compliance with Agenda 21, signed Executive Order #12858 to create the President’s Council on Sustainable Development in order to harmonize US environmental policy with UN directives as outlined in Agenda 21.

The Executive Order directed all agencies of the federal government to work with state and local community governments in a joint effort to reinvent government using the guidelines outlined in Agenda 21. As a result, with the assistance of groups like ICLEI, Sustainable Development is now emerging as government policy in every town, county and state in the nation.

Some revealing quotes from the planners are as follows:

“Agenda 21 proposes an array of actions which are intended to be implemented by EVERY person on earth… It calls for specific changes in the activities of ALL people… Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of ALL humans, unlike anything the world has ever experienced.”

Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy is Save Our Planet.

The Agenda 21, with regard to Private Property asserts “ Land cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private Land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore contributes to social injustice. Private land use decisions are often driven by strong economic incentives that result in several ecological consequences… The key to overcoming it is through public policy.

“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class— involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air-conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.”

“We need a new collaborative decision process that leads to better decisions, more rapid change, and more sensible use of human, natural and financial resources in achieving our goals.”

“Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective.”

“We must make this a place that an insecure and in-hospitable place for Capitalists and their projects— we must reclaim the roads and plowed lands, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres were presently settled land.”

While all of the above quotes may seem extreme, several of these issues are in the news on a regular basis. People use the term Sustainable or Sustainability without an understanding the implications that go along with those words.

What follows is information about things that Agenda 21 says are not sustainable:

  • Ski runs
  • Grazing of livestock
  • Plowing of soil
  • Building fences
  • Industry
  • Single-family homes
  • Paved and tarred roads
  • Logging activities
  • Dams and reservoirs
  • Powerline construction
  • Economic systems that fail to set proper value on the environment.

So what exactly does all this mean?

There are a number of extremes that are included in the Agenda 21 policy that probably will never ever be implemented. But as you read this report, and listen to the news, there are many things in the Agenda 21 policy manual that are being implemented in this country today.

When I first read the article by Hood Richardson, I contacted State House Rep. Bob Steinberg and asked him about HB763. He stated that the authors of the bill probably never considered the Agenda 21 angle when they first produced it. Thank goodness the bill was not adopted! However, it did pass the House before dying in the Senate. Commissioner Richardson indicated his belief that the bill would be brought back up in the next session, so we are attempting to influence that situation negatively.

In the interest of preserving land for military purposes, the impact is that this could become the “camel’s nose.” We know that the federal government, under President Obama, is very environmentally conscious.

As you examine the map, provided by Commissioner Richardson, you notice a large swath of land that could be taken out of productivity and/or private hands, which has the potential to severely damage the agricultural industry in this state. We believe, as the County Commissioner has stated, that this is a bad bill and we will make every effort to defeat its passage when the state legislature convenes next year.