Following the Trail from Sustainability…to Tyranny (Part 1)

by Tom

Stack em and Pack em

This is part-1 of a series that breaks down the “sustainability” movement, and explains how some in NH are working to constrain individual liberties with it.




Fellow citizen, please ask yourself these questions.

What if…..

  • The state began taxing your private well-water usage, declaring ownership of it?
  • You could no longer collect rain water on your property?
  • The state taxed you on septic design and annual usage?
  • You could not grow a vegetable garden without a permit?
  • You were taxed on the number of miles driven yearly in your car?
  • The state decided to build multi-story housing complexes in your town, for the purpose of housing low-income people from the nearest city?
  • You were taxed based on the amount of CO2 your house produced?
  • You could not choose the color of your house?
  • Single-family houses were banned, and your town was forced to build 20 housing units per acre?
  • Towns were required to keep 25% of their lands undeveloped?
  • Your town was sued by a private group, for not complying with diversity and equity standards…which your town legally agreed to?

What if the federal government could not make this happen directly, but found a back door?

These days, it seems we hear the word “sustainable” everywhere; in advertising, the workplace, school, and politics.  It has taken on a life of its own, often thrown around as an easy way to patronize the audience and consumer, giving the impression of an enlightened product, program, business, or candidate.  It has become the feel-good, do-good buzzword of the times.

So, where did it come from, and why is it suddenly so prevalent?

President Obama didn’t invent the term or the concepts but he and his administration have taken the “sustainable” paradigm to new levels, and are to blame for its sudden popularity – and this should concern us all, greatly.  Let me explain.

A Brief History

As far back at the early 1970’s, “sustainability” and “placemaking”, at the heart of the burgeoning environmental movement, evolved as concepts to address decaying cities and urban blight, and to get people to “see the world in a whole new way”.  Granted, a number of these problems were real, and the movement gets credit for improving facets of our environment – particularly in cities – but its methods and practice have reached beyond the city, into suburban and rural America, and provide the undercurrent of the “transformative change” we heard about so loudly and clearly in 2008.

In 1983, the United Nations commissioned the Brundtland Report (known as the World Commission on Environment and Development, or WECD) with a goal to “unite countries to pursue sustainable development together.”  The UN was concerned about “deterioration of the human environment and natural resources” as a result of industrialization and growth in developing countries, which could not compete with developed countries and thus “used cheaper methods with high environmental impact”.  In fact, is it said that the distortion the UN observed stemmed from increased involvement by the World Bank, in the economic policies and development of Third World countries throughout the 1960’s and 70’s.

The Brundtland Commission, striving to balance “prosperity with ecology”, and focusing on the years beyond 2000, identified three pillars of sustainable development: 1) Economic Growth, 2) Environmental Protection, and 3) Social Equity.

In the 1993, President Clinton kept the sustainability machine moving in America, when he formed the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD), which produced a document called “Sustainable America: A New Consensus for Prosperity, Opportunity, and a Healthy Environment for the Future”.  Using the Brundtland report (which became the father of Agenda21) as an ideological foundation, they pursued sustainability vigorously, right here at home.  The PCSD document produced 16 “We Believe” principles.  Principle #3 tells us most of what we need to know about this movement, and how it had shifted heavily towards the pillar of social equity:  “Steady progress in reducing disparities in education, opportunity, and environmental risk within society is essential to economic growth, environmental health, and social justice.”

In 1997, a progress report to this program was issued which made a series of recommendations.  Key to these suggestions were “enhanced interagency (Federal) collaboration” (Vice-President Gore’s primary focus), establishing “metropolitan/regional cooperation and problem solving”, and to “fully participate in international sustainable development activities”.

Play Buzzword Bingo: sustainability, consensus, workforce housing, equity, regional, metropolitan, opportunity, environment, prosperity, development, transportation, community, smartgrowth.

In the next installment (read part-2 here!), we will see how President Obama has taken the sustainability paradigm to new heights, and how he is using the concepts of “interagency-collaboration” and “regionalization” to (slowly and quietly) implement a level of social engineering and control that every radical leftist dreams of…

Leave a Comment

  • Art

    Sustainability is another way to impose socialism.  The premise of socialism is contempt for individual liberty.  Sustainability is anti-American in its dieology since our founding is squarely cetered on individual liberty and it bottoms-up feature.  Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to Madison, “When we get piled upon one another in large cities as in Europe, we shall become corrupt as in Europe, and go to eating one another as they do there”.  The problem that we have is that many Americans do not know nor appreciate what true freedom means- rights and responsibility.  Many today want to shun responsibility and let the government take care of them.

  • Hunter Dan

    I’m all for requiring that you keep 25% of your land undeveloped.  Heck, I’m all for requiring that you keep 50-75% of your land undeveloped.  More land to hunt on!

    • 1nhhiker

       You would be until you understood that NO HUMANS would be allowed on that land!!!

    • C. dog e. doG

      Hunter Dan finds a new p.u. box in which to drop his pleas for more hunting grounds.  The key words here, Dan or “your” and “land”.  That means it’s not up to you to decide how the land owner decides to divvy up his land.  If you want hunting grounds, buy sum more land.  And if you want to big pieces on which to play Grate White Hunter, why not form a hunting cooperative, or a fellowship, say a fish and game club?
      – C. dog welcomes slingshots and arrows

    • allen

      this will end up like King’s Land…no hunting, no taking anything even sticks, and if you’re found there you’re dead. of course, we’ll all end up like peasants..we’ll hunt and forage there because if we don’t our meager food rations won’t get us through, and the heating fuel rations are just enough to keep the pipes from freezing.

      and don’t be surprised if they tie gun ownership (or any other basic freedom) to the rations..if you own guns, or want freedom of speech, or anything else…you can do that, but you don’t get rations. and there is no other way to get food or anything else.

      • simplulo

        No surprise there–some states are already drug-testing welfare recipients. On the surface that might sound logical, until you think about the inconsistencies and ramifications.

  • Medevac397

    Gee Tom,  what’s the problem? 
    We give up everything The Founders envisioned and sacrificed their lives and fortunes for,
    that which God created, and that which tens of thousands of veterans fought and died for . . .like Freedom, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness while helping the rest of The World overcome their  circumstance . . . seems like a small price to pay for ‘Sustainability’ . . .
    First we overcame Global cooling, then Global warming,
    Now we’re in ‘The fight of our life’  . . . Climate change!!  A totally new phenomenon!!
    We are the envy of the rest of the world, so why not just ‘give up our Rights and Liberties’ and join the rest of the world???  I’m pretty sure somebody will do the same for us, won’t they?

  • Hunter Dan, on the surface, I understand and agree.  However, it’s a BIG problem when an un-elected, un-accountable, Regional entity dictates its (with the Feds backing them in the shadows).  It would be even worse when they start forcing land owners to give it up or sell it, because they aren’t using the way they think it should be…that’s what I am talking about.  It’s like saying, “sure, I want affordable Healthcare” (who doesn’t) – but you have to ask how they plan to make it affordable?

  • Pingback: Following the Trail from Sustainability…to Tyranny (Part 2) — GraniteGrok()

  • I graduated High School in 1976.  We were indoctrinated to this green movement in JR High school.
    We were brainwashed into thinking we should only have 2 children when we got older, because of pollution and over population.  It seems to have worked, there is hardly a family that has more than 2 children.

  • Pingback: When the Left starts “Memory Holing” pictures and stories, you’re on the Right track! — GraniteGrok()

  • Pingback: Creeping Enviro-Tyranny…this time in Utah — GraniteGrok()

  • Pingback: A Model for the Rest of New Hampshire — GraniteGrok()

  • Pingback: Sustainable Development-101 — GraniteGrok()

  • Martha Spalding

    The UN does nothing as the devils on horseback, the Arab Muslims in Sudan, who have been hired by the Chinese who are building an oil pipeline through the south and west to kill the black African Christians in Darfur. they shout “kill the slave” as they burn little chilren alive b/c they are in their way in their rural villages where they once lived happily with their families and animals.
    Those who run the UN are hangerson and parasites.
    They also did nothing but watch as other innocent black Africans in Rwanda were slaughtered after trusting the UN to protect them.
    They will not be any different with people in the US.
    The UN says “Never Again”..
    What a bunch of fraudsters.

  • Pingback: Common Core is a top-down, centralized education takeover initiative — GraniteGrok()

Previous post:

Next post: