U. S. Department of Energy promotes "sustainable development" in accordance with United Nations' scheme

By Sue Forde, Citizen Review Online

August 17, 2002

The U. S. Department of Energy has joined in promoting the concept of "sustainable development", as revealed by their website.  One of the "solutions" offered is "relocation" of property owners.  This is something we are seeing on a local level here in Clallam County, Washington.[1]

“Sustainable Development” was first introduced by Maurice Strong, socialist, senior adviser to the Commission on Global Governance and driving force behind the concept of “sustainability”. When introducing the term at the 1992 Rio Conference (Earth Summit II), he stated:  Industrialized countries [Americans] have “developed and benefited from the unsustainable patterns of production and consumption which have produced our present dilemma.  It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption pattern of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning and suburban housing – are not sustainable.  A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns.”[2]  Strong also explains in an essay that the concept of sovereignty has to yield in favor of the “new imperatives of global environmental cooperative.”

Following are some alarming excerpts from the U.S. Department of Energy's website:


...Development continues unabated in the riskiest of areas, along the coasts
and floodplains in the U.S. Communities in these high-risk regions, by
definition, are not sustainable.
Residents cannot count on the communities'
survival for generations to come. Some live in fear that the next rain or
wind storm could mean the end of normal life. These are people and
communities at risk, locked in a costly, life-threatening gamble with the

...Sustainable development offers a way out. For some communities, the only solution is relocation, moving entirely off the floodplain, out of harm's way. For others, sustainable development means restricting new construction in particularly vulnerable areas, elevating structures to remove the threat of flooding, or building smarter, stronger buildings that are more hazard-resistant...

...While at first glance this facet of sustainable development may seem
unrelated to disaster prevention, in truth they're intricately tied. An
increasing body of evidence points to human energy use - specifically the
burning of fossil fuels - as a factor in global climate change. Global
climate change, in turn, may be at least partially responsible for the
increased number and severity of storms. By making efficient use of energy resources, disaster-prone communities that employ sustainable development are also doing their part to slow global warming and temper the very storms that threaten them....

...Striving for sustainability is a daunting task, even for those
communities that aren't disaster-prone. Changing the way we use resources and approach development is slow-going and often frustrating...

The Dept. of Energy bases much of its rhetoric on the false premise that humans are the cause of "global warming" - when in fact, global warming is a theory, not scientifically proven. See Global Warming Models Labeled 'Fairy Tale' By Team of Scientists.[3]

The insurance industry has been pulled into the game of “Sustainable Development”, too. The website states: “Increasingly, the insurance industry is taking an interest in global climate change as a possible contributor to the dramatic rise in costly natural disasters. Industry leaders share with advocates of sustainable development a desire to mitigate weather-related damages and make communities stronger. Insurance and The Natural Sciences: Partners in the Public Interest, a speech presented in September 1996 by Franklin W. Nutter, president of the Reinsurance Association of America, further explains this ‘insurance connection.’”

As a “public/private” partnership, the move toward fascism continues.[4]

The Dept. of Energy website refers the reader to the United Nations for more information. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, through Global Change, a magazine about climate change and ozone depletion published by the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security.

Action you can take:  Write to President Bush and request that he reverse the "Sustainable Development" trend in the agencies he controls.  Find contact information here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/


[2] Agenda 21 stresses “ Improving human settlement management; Promoting sustainable land-use planning and management; Promoting sustainable energy and transport systems in human settlements, to name a few – in other words, “managing humans” is the goal at a global level.

[3] See also Another Study Debunks Global Warming Two new studies of temperatures and ice cap movement in that same area indicate that is not the case.  In fact, Antarctica is becoming colder.  Dr. Peter Dorman and his team of scientists have determined that since 1986, temperatures have been dropping an average of 1.2 degrees Fahrenheit per decade and similar downturns have occurred since 1978 in the McMurdo Dry Valleys of east Antarctica.  When the scientists noticed that “glacial ice wasn’t melting, streams weren’t flowing, lakes were shrinking and microorganisms were disappearing, they decided to expand their data collection and discovered that “Antarctica as a whole had gotten considerably colder."  The study seems to confirm what 17,000 scientists have previously determined; there is no “global warming.”

[4] Fascism defined: “a governmental system with strong centralized power, permitting no opposition or criticism, controlling all affairs of the nation (industrial, commercial, etc.), emphasizing an aggressive nationalism.” (The American College Dictionary, c. 1951, P 438)

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. [Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]


Back to Current Edition Citizen Review Archive LINKS Search This Site