Is Sustainable Development World Government?

‘Rio+20,’ a Green World Order Summit to Re-make Civilization

By Rick Brinegar


“The threat of environmental crisis will be the ‘international disaster key’ that will unlock the New World Order.” – Mikhail Gorbachev.


Rio+20, the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, was billed as an “unprecedented opportunity to build the future we want.” It marked the 20th anniversary of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (the Earth Summit), the birthplace of the Agenda 21 Sustainable Development Plan. Sustainable Development has been welcomed into virtually every aspect of national and local resource usage and land use planning worldwide. It is not something we should be on the lookout for. It is already here. And, the Rio+20 Summit was held to further accelerate globalization of nations and the indoctrination of yet more generations into the advantages of “social justice” over personal responsibility and free markets.


The Rio+20 Earth Summit was held from June 20-22, 2012, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Under the guise of avoiding catastrophic climate change and transitioning rapidly to a Green Economy that preserves biodiversity, Rio+20 attempted to dictate an expansive system of new powers in an attempt to re-make civilization. The planned outcome for Rio + 20 could be the greatest threat to national sovereignty and individual liberty the world has ever known.


What is “The Future We Want”?

“The Future We Want” is the title of a brochure prepared by the United Nations to promote the Rio+20 summit. The brochure introduces an assortment of noble-sounding phrases, such as “pathways to a safer, more equitable, cleaner, greener and more prosperous world,” and “lift people out of poverty, including support for developing countries that will allow them to find a green path for development.” The vision of Rio+20 is described in the brochure by United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon as “a sustainable green economy that protects the health of the environment while supporting achievement of the Millennium Development Goals through growth in income, decent work and poverty eradication.” Actually, according to Freedom Advocates, “it uses the environment as ‘bait’ and works to indoctrinate and prepare your children to live under a global collective.” In other words, it all sounds good, but, the reality of “the future we want,” and exactly who the “we” are in that phrase, is another matter.


Recruiting Children to Promote “Stable Development”

Though parents may not have heard much about Agenda 21, some may be aware that public schools are committed to developing our children and young people as global citizens through sustainable development education. Children and youth is one of the “major groups” the United Nations has targeted to recruit to promote the goals of Rio+20. In a recruitment video called “Introducing Children to Stable Development,” the original 1992 Earth Summit is portrayed as having failed to close the gap between rich and poor, and as having failed to obtain worldwide commitment to find new, green and equitable ways to develop our planet. The video quotes a “young girl” who attended the 1992 Earth Summit as saying,


“This conference has ensured increased domination by those who already have power. It has robbed the poor of the little power they had, and made us all victims of a market economy that has threatened our planet.”


The “Introducing Children to Stable Development” video goes on to describe the two themes that the United Nations put forth for this year’s sustainability summit, “the green economy” and “the institutional framework.” “The green economy” is about our everyday lifestyles, what we eat, how much energy we use and the impact of cities and transportation on the environment. “The institutional framework” is about how we are governed by local and global political structures and how they work. In other words, it seems, the United Nations wants influence over everything on earth related to how we live and are governed, and how we use the earth’s resources.


Millennium Development Goals

Adopted by a United Nations conference of nations and organizations in New York in 2000, the Millennium Development Goals, which United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon promotes, were established to combat poverty, hunger, disease, and gender inequality, and ensure universal primary education and environmental stability by 2015.


Origins of Agenda 21

The Club of Rome, a “think tank” composed of 75 industrialists, economists and heads of state, is best known for its 1972 book, Limits to Growth, which predicts a collapse of the world’s economy sometime in the 21st century. Limits to Growth attributes this future catastrophe to resource depletion, overpopulation and increased pollution.


“The common enemy of humanity is man,” according to the Club of Rome. “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…The real enemy then is humanity itself.” – From the Club of Rome’s “The First Global Revolution” p. 75, 1993.


Our Common Future, written by Gro Harlem Brundtland, Vice President of the World Socialist Party, was published in 1987 by the Club of Rome. It defined “sustainable development” as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”


The United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development challenged the UN General Assembly to transform its 1987 report into a global action plan for sustainable development. Just such a program was developed at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, or “Earth Summit,” in Rio de Janeiro. 178 Nations endorsed the Agenda 21 agreement, so called because it directed the course of the United Nations agenda for the 21st century.


The Secretary-General of the 1992 Earth Summit, Maurice Strong, set the tone of the proceedings in his opening speech, when he said, “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, the use of fossil fuels, electrical appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.”


Agenda 21 doesn’t just offer helpful hints about how to conserve earth’s resources. It decrees that, to save the planet, there must be a fundamental transformation of society. For example, consider the policy recommendation in Article 7:15: “…ensure sustainable management of all urban settlements…” This means that the people must be forced off the land and into high-density, planned communities. The logical conclusion of this way of thinking is that it is bad for the planet for people to live in suburbs. Governments call this “urban sprawl” and condemn the idea of people moving to the country, where they pollute and damage the environment beyond recovery.


Earth Summit “Soft Law”

Agenda 21 is not a treaty. It was published by the 1992 Earth Summit as a “soft law,” a set of policies and strategies, which were intended to be adopted by the individual nations of the world. President G. H. W. Bush signed these “soft law” policies in 1992 and pledged to implement them at the federal level. They were not fully implemented at the federal level, however, until President Bill Clinton created the President’s Council on Sustainable Development in 1993. The US Conference of Mayors adopted the Agenda 21 plan in 1997, and the National Governor’s Association came on board in 2007. Since then, Agenda 21 sustainability principles have been foundational to many federal laws, regulations, and grant programs. The current Obama administration has promoted the sustainability strategies even more forcefully, and, most recently, through Executive Order 13575, also known as The White House Rural Council.


The White House Rural Council

President Obama signed Executive Order 13575 on June 9, 2011, an Agenda 21-related plan that creates the White House Rural Council. According to The Blaze, it is designed “to begin taking control over almost all aspects of the lives of 16 percent of the American people.” The executive order contains the phrase “sustainable rural communities,” a key phrase in Agenda 21. Its stated goal is “creating ‘economic opportunities to improve the quality of life in rural America.’” Consider some of the wording from the executive order document that seems to apply to every aspect of the 16 percent of rural America that is not yet under federal regulation. The White House Rural Council will,


“…coordinate and increase the effectiveness of Federal engagement with rural stakeholders, including agricultural organizations, small businesses, education and training institutions, healthcare providers, telecommunications services providers, research and land grant institutions, law enforcement, state, local, and tribal governments, and nongovernmental organizations regarding the needs of rural America.”


The “Green Book”

In August, 2010, the National Academy of Science produced a detailed study of the US Environmental Protection Agency and Sustainability, which came to be known as the “Green Book.” The “Green Book” instituted the Sustainability Impact Assessment, which would be “used to analyze the probable effects of a particular project or proposal on the social, environmental, and economic pillars of sustainability.” Thus, it became apparent that the EPA was positioning itself as the primary federal agency for implementing Agenda 21 in the United States.


The Rights of Nature

A promotional video for the Rio+20 Summit, “Mother Earth has rights too! She’s our mother. She needs us.” proclaims:


She’s HOME





She’s our mother…

She’s worth loving…

She’s worth protecting…

She’s worth defending…

Be the voice for Mother Earth at the Earth Summit 2012, Rio+20 Assembly Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, June, 2012


The Global Alliance for Rights of Nature website urges viewers to sign a petition to value nature as a living being, to agree that “trees, oceans, animals, mountains have rights just as human beings have rights.” The Global Alliance for Rights of Nature also posts that they have submitted to Rio+20 a request for the adoption of the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth and laws securing the Rights of Nature so that the rights of ecosystems and natural communities are given “the highest societal value and protection in law.”


A Constitutional Moment

Based on the premise that humanity is demanding more of the earth than it can supply, political science professors and climate change scientists are proposing governance reforms required to put the planet on a “more sustainable path.” Human-induced environmental degradation continues, they say, reaching levels that propelled the International Council for Science to warn last year that we have “reached a point in history at which a prerequisite for development – the continued functioning of the Earth system as we know it – is at risk.”


Framework Convention on Climate Change

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change facilitates the creation of international agreements in response to global warming. It hosted the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, which failed to pass any binding emissions standards, but did approve the Copenhagen Accord, a voluntary “political agreement” which, according to global warming advocates, has produced little progress in halting or mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.


Intentional Concealment

Beginning when President Bill Clinton signed the executive order establishing the President’s Council on Sustainable Development in 1993, government began to exhibit a pattern of denial regarding any connection with the United Nations Agenda 21. PCSD’s statements and documents never referred to the UN and Agenda 21, even though it was obvious that the council was set up in support of the Sustainability Proposals of the UN’s ‘92 Earth Summit in Rio. A statement by J. Gary Lawrence, an advisor to the PCSD, in 1998, reveals an intentional plan of concealment:


“Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy-fixated groups and individuals in our society…. 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 [Local Agenda 21]. So, we call our processes something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth.”



While the United Nations decorates its publications with concerned, caring terminology, such as “cleaner,” “greener,” “more equitable income growth,” and “poverty elimination,” the truth is the people behind Agenda 21 want to drastically reduce the population of the earth. Ted Turner, CNN founder and Club of Rome member, announced in Audubon magazine in 1996, “A total population of 250 to 300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”


The United Nations policy of reducing population to prevent environmental catastrophe was re-affirmed as recently as March, 2009, when Jonathon Porritt, one of Gordon Brown’s leading green advisers, warned that Britain must drastically cut its population to 30 million if the country wants to feed itself sustainably.


Green World Order Global Governance

The United Nations is still pushing for global environmental control, according to United Nations documents recently obtained by Fox News. A United Nations meeting in Bali in February, 2012, had already discussed the formation of a global system of governance, and what amounts to the next stage of a radical transformation of the world economic and social order, in the name of saving the planet. The new Rio+20 summit, according to the recently leaked documents, hoped to produce a “focused political document” that will lay out the framework and international commitments to create a new Green World Order. “Global governance structures” will be put in place through “vast wealth transfers,” from richer countries to poorer nations, of at least $45 trillion dollars, through a global carbon taxation plan.


Local Sustainability

Founded in 1990 as “International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives,” ICLEI changed its official title in 2003 to “ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability.” Most residents of the more than 1,227 local governments worldwide, and more than 550 American cities, towns and counties, that are members of ICLEI, are probably unaware that almost all decisions that relate to zoning and land use, conserving resources, Sustainable Development education curriculum, building permits and more, comply with United Nations strategies. ICLEI provides community plans, software and training, funded by the dues paid by member communities. Government and foundations grants help support the relationships between ICLEI member communities. Agenda 21 Sustainable Development is clearly evident in many local projects that go by names that seem to obscure any connection to the United Nations or Agenda 21, such as Smart Growth, the Wildlands Project, Resilient Cities, Regional Visioning Projects, STAR Sustainable Communities, and most “green” initiatives including green building codes.


Private Property and Social Justice

The American Policy Center explains that Sustainable Development claims to advance the right of the people “to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment.” In other words, we need to redistribute wealth to achieve “social justice.” According to the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements, land cannot be treated as an ordinary asset. Private land ownership, subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market, is the primary method of accumulating and concentrating wealth, and therefore, promotes social injustice. Land use must be managed, they say, in the interest of society as a whole.


Local Governments Reject UN’s Agenda 21

The Board of Commissioners in Carroll County Maryland voted unanimously to abolish the county’s “Office of Sustainability” and withdraw from the ICLEI program in 2011. They withdrew from ICLEI because they found out that ICLEI is “an organization with extreme beliefs on global warming that promotes United Nations big-government socio-economic policies…. In reality, Agenda 21-based sustainability programs seek government control of land, labor and capital….” Edmond, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, have also pulled out of ICLEI.


The Maine Department of Transportation canceled plans for the “Gateway Project” in February 2011. Opponents claimed that it would create unnecessary linkages among 20 communities. Opponents also believed that the canceled project originated from Agenda 21 planning.


An anti-Agenda 21 bill was passed by the Arizona State Senate in March, 2012, but the measure died on May 3. House lawmakers were not able to bring the legislation to vote before the legislative session concluded that night. The bill would have barred all state agencies and political subdivisions from implementing or supporting any portion of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development plan. Senator Judy Burgess attacked the UN plan as a social engineering scheme that “will impact every aspect of our daily lives.” State Representative Terri Proud proclaimed that the UN plan “will take away our rights as Americans by allowing the United Nations to mandate laws on our soil…It’s very real and it is happening.”


Ocean County, New Jersey lawmakers passed a resolution condemning Agenda 21 in February, 2012. The county resolution states, “This United Nations Agenda 21 plan of radical so-called ‘sustainable development’ views the American way of life of private property ownership, single family homes, private car ownership and individual travel choices, and privately owned farms; all as destructive to the environment.” The document calls Agenda 21 “socialist/communist redistribution of wealth,” and warned that it represents, “extreme environmentalism, social engineering and global political control.”


College Station, Texas, withdrew from ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability in February, 2012. Critics of the Agenda 21 plan noted that, although it may sound nice at first, advocates of “sustainability” have much broader, outrageous goals that are dangerous to freedom. Critics pointed out that membership in ICLEI has declined from 600 local governments in 2009 to around 550 today.


In March, 2012, Irving, Texas, announced that it would no longer be a member of ICLEI. Lone Star Tea Party member Robert Kecseg had informed the Irving City Council, “What this city has joined is an organization that is a political organization founded by the United Nations with a specific agenda…When you read a little bit about it,” he explained, “and you learn what they’re all about, it goes well beyond the wonderful things of ‘green’ this and ‘green’ that.” Kecseg then went on to read from several UN Agenda 21 publications that documented, for example, the rejection of private land ownership as contributing to “social injustice,” and the plan to terminate all private land use by authorities under United Nations guidance.


State Senate and House lawmakers in Tennessee passed a non-binding joint resolution in April, 2012, denouncing Agenda 21 as an “insidious, socialist plot.” Supporters celebrated the passage of the resolution as a victory for liberty, private-property rights, and national sovereignty. The measure notes that the United Nations Agenda 21 is being implemented across the nation by stealth, that it is being “covertly pushed into local communities throughout the United States of America.”


Environmental Justice Green Police

An “environmental justice unit” has been created by the United States Department of Homeland Security. In tandem with local governments, it will enforce environmental regulations; leading critics to call the new department the “green police.” DHS defines “environmental justice” as “the commitment of the Federal Government … to avoid placing disproportionately high and adverse effects on the human health and environment of minority populations and low-income populations.”


What Sustainable Development is Really About

Though the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen failed to produce any binding emission targets, it actually took a step closer toward one-world government. When the content of the failed Copenhagen consensus draft treaty was finally brought to light, it revealed the additional goals of developing framework for a new world government, with massive income redistribution, and legal authority over all nations and people.


It is very likely that your local community is heavily involved with Agenda 21 strategies. Government officials may not even know that behind Sustainable Development, are those who want to establish a global government system. Members of your local community may think of themselves as advocates for the poor, and concerned about saving the planet. If you watch, however, and pay attention to what is going on locally, you can detect what many have already discovered: Agenda 21 is largely implemented at the local level. You do not need to promote a global government in order to be concerned about the health of the planet. It is entirely possible to be involved actively with conservation and earth-friendly strategies, without supporting a United Nations socialist global system that is masked by environmental issues.


Hidden Schemes

Hidden behind the idealistic-sounding goals of clean water, fresh air, healthy environments and elevating the poor, are some fiendish schemes. At the UN Summit at Rio in 1992, the Conference Secretary-General, Maurice Strong, said, “Isn’t the only hope for this planet that the industrialized civilization collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”


“America, as the center of the globalized financial markets, was sucking up the savings of the world. This is now over. The game is out,” George Soros told an Australian newspaper, adding that the time has come for “a very serious adjustment in American’s consumption habits.”


“The native ecosystems and the collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans.” – Reed Noss, a developer of the Wildlands Project


Sustainable Development sounds like the environmental cleanup of air, water and litter. It is not. Promoters of Sustainable Development mask their socialist, one-world government agenda by promoting the concept that man is a danger to the earth. “The earth and the animals could have a chance,” they seem to say, “if only man could be eliminated.”


Transitioning to a Collectivist Society

The Rio+20 Sustainable Development conference was about saving the planet from humanity by severely limiting human activity. This was about placing creation above God: “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things…Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator.” – Romans 1:22-23, 25.


Sustainable Development is a totalitarian plan to create a world that controls the actions and movements of every individual on the planet. The green cities will actually be prisons, and residents will unknowingly assist in the transition of the planet into a collectivist society, under the oppression of a world dictator that Bible students call the Antichrist.

2 replies

Comments are closed.