American Style Consumerism

By Jack Miller, Chapter Vice Chair

One of the greatest threats to our planet is American style consumerism. While the resources of the planet are limited, our appetite for more, newer, and bigger stuff has no limits. This consumer virus is spreading throughout the world. To meet our appetite for stuff we will need several more planet earths.

The corporations and their propagandist advertisers spend billions of dollars each year to keep us spending in search of that "new smell". They have so indoctrinated us that we equate life satisfaction with the acquiring of new stuff. It matters little if we have no need for these items or they replace perfectly good items. Through artificial devices like "style" the corporations create massive waste. Perfectly usable items now must be discarded. We seem to be unable to distinguish between real needs and the artificial "needs" that advertisers create. It seems that shopping is our greatest form of recreation. 

The basic economic measure of health used in this country is the Gross Domestic Product. It purports to measure the total of goods and services in a given time period. It is not a measure of our growth as a society. It gives equal measure to dollars spent on items that will shortly end up in the trash as to dollars spent on preventive immunizations. It gives equal value to money spent on insulation as it does for money spent for wasted heat and energy. It is a measure that the corporations love because it like them only cares about money spent and their profits.

American's desire for more stuff is nothing new. It was a major criticism of Henry Thoreau more than 150 years ago. He could not understand why the Christian Churches did not preach against their congregations' desire to accumulate stuff, when Jesus preached against the laying up of treasure's on earth where moth and rust corrupt. We hear virtually nothing from religious leaders today on American consumerism and its destructive results. Our blind consumerism is as emotionally destructive as it is environmentally destructive.

Before you go to purchase something, consider what all is involved. Probably the item was made from some natural resource that had to be destructively ripped from the earth. Then the factory had to use energy and cause pollution it its production. Then it was shipped to the retailer where the item is bought. Within 6 months 99% of all that went through this stream of production, sale, and use will end up in a landfill or incinerator. Pretty sober to consider before we buy. We can't forget the presence of so many toxic chemicals in the production and waste of these products.

We Americans seem to think that we are entitled to the resources of the world; none more than oil. One of the reasons we have over 700 military bases around the world is to have access to so many raw materials. We remain blind to the social and environmental damage we cause to so many people around the world including people in the sacrifice zones of this country. Most of these people are poor people who we exploit for our comfort.

We can never find real satisfaction by becoming part of the consumer society. After the new smell wears off we are forced to buy again. There will always be a new, bigger, fancier, and exciting gadget to be had and we won't be happy until we have one. Styles will change with each season so the only way to be in style is to buy again. It is a never ending treadmill that our friendly corporations have created.

We all must be consumers. There are real needs to be meet. There are also those "tools" that we use to bring ourselves some joy. If you love to play tennis you certainly need a tennis racket, but you don't need a new one every time a manufacturer comes out with a new model. The person holding the racket will determine the outcome of the match, not the racket! Being an environmentally sensitive consumer requires a lot of thoughtful action and often inaction.

The economic crash 2008 was primarily caused by the greedy, selfish, and criminal actors of Wall Street. I don't want to shift the blame from them, but many families suffered more than necessary because of their living the life of the American consumer. Beginning in the 1970's wages for middle class employees flattened. Even as productivity of each worker increased their wages did not increase as prices rose. The increased profits of corporations went to the already wealthy. To keep up with their past consumer habits, too many people borrowed more on their homes and when the economic crash came they found themselves "under water" with their mortgages.

It is time for the old time values of thrift and the purchase of quality products that are functional, meet real needs, and are durable. We should consider where the product is produced. What types of materials of which is it produced. Is it made of recycled materials? Can it be recycled or passed on to another user like an out grown child's toy? We can no longer be blind consumers brainwashed by corporate propaganda. Are we willing to give up something so that there is enough for others now and in the future? We must find real joy in living life. Joy can't be found by filling our attics, garages, and rental storage units with more stuff.

IT’S SYMBIOSIS, STUPID

We, the people, get it.  Why not our leaders?

By Tom Church & Sheila Gallagher

        We were just back from the D.C. rally - Forward on Climate - attended with 40,000+ of our friends and neighbors. Marching past the White House, past the fence where several days before Sierra Club’s Executive Director Michael Brune, the Club’s President Alison Chen, 350.org’s Bill McKibben had hand-cuffed themselves.  How seriously do they take the concept of Global Warming?  These scary, awesome weather events and impacts to our homeland that continue to occur at astounding rates.

Bill was arrested last summer.  But this was the first time in the 120-year history of the Sierra Club, that the usually non-combative organization, went beyond their lobbying role … allowing Mike and Alison to take  “one giant step for mankind,” outside our legal system, and plunge themselves into civil disobedience.  Polls now show that most people believe, not only that the climate is changing, but that we humans are responsible and that we continue to dig a hole we may never be able climb out of.   Most of our “leaders” are still sitting on their hands.  They are not leading.  In fact, they are not even following.  Not following the science or common sense.  They were elected to protect the interests of the people they “serve”.  Who are they serving if not the “people?”  The “personification” of corporate business interests is affirmed by the Citizens’ United Case? Following their tails?  We don’t really know.  They don’t get IT!  Yet!

      Not too long ago, people, and yes, the corporations were asked to recycle.  Many dragged their feet.  Some even lay down and had tantrums. Others had to be dragged kicking and screaming.  Remember the TV ad that had an employee telling his boss being green by recycling saved his company money?  Saved money is made money.   Suddenly, the executive was growing leaves.  Getting on the bandwagon.  Getting with the program.  Getting IT.

      All over the world other governments are taking Global Warming challenges very seriously, making serious headway toward sustaining their futures.  Meanwhile our supposed “leaders” are stuck in their uncompromising gold-plated bubbles.  Or if they somehow believe that the ice caps are melting and the seas are rising, they also believe some miracle will preserve their status quo.

       Guess what?  We won’t beat Mother Nature.  We can’t even compete. We’re not in the same league.  We are the “wanna bes” and if we don’t join Her team we are surely gonna be the “has beens.”  We think we’re winning in a Universe we’re still struggling to understand?   Parasites sucking the bodily fluids, mining the minerals, and pumping toxic wastes into our host as She suffers, and eventually dies.  We continue to kill our pollinators and poison our food supply with pesticides, or worse.   Why?  Have we not learned anything from the ancient civilizations?  They succeeded in destroying themselves.  We study them, criticize them, and skip merrily down the same path.  But this time, it’s our planet Earth that’s at stake, not the Roman or the British Empires.  This is the only Earth we have.  Or are you counting on the one leader we haven’t found yet?  Do you expect to be transported to some other “pie in the sky” when we are done eating this one?

     In our house we’ve stopped reading the newspaper.  We’ve stopped listening to the politicians on the TV.   It’s akin to watching the Marx Brothers or the three Stooges make fools of themselves.  We liked watching the old comedians.  They were supposed to be fools. They made a great living being fools.   Well, come to think of it …. our leaders have too. As we marched down the street toward the White House, Tom spouted stories about working for a natural gas company back in the 1980s and 90s, experiences that that might have funny if they weren’t so dysfunctional and upsetting.

      It is time for all of us to transition from the parasites we’ve become.  It’s no longer a “want;  it’s now a “need.”. We need to be hanging out with others from around the world laughing and telling stories.  Real ones. Funny ones.  Sipping Margueritas cooled by our renewably, naturally powered refrigeration.  Getting it FREE because our energy links are harnessed to nature - the solar, the wind, the waves.    We can’t continue to exist on Mother Earth without consequences, without sacrifices on our part.  Sprinting toward disaster is stupid. If we aren’t aiming our incredible ability to solve problems to achieve a symbiotic relationship with our Host, that is insanity!

    Will we, with our “leaders” still be standing here in our dirty coveralls, screaming to be heard over the din of the drilling rigs, over the “dirty” politicians and the naysayers of the “Know Nothing” parties? 

The State of Ignoranance

By Jack Miller, Chapter Vice Chair

There are some real advantages to living in a state of ignorance. One doesn't have to trouble themselves with issues of conscience. We can live in a blissful state of ignorance. We can bury our head in the sand of trivial life issues like who will NCAA basketball tournament. We can live in our own little Eden where our eyes have not yet been opened to good and evil. If some real information seeps through our defensive filters we can just turn to denial to protect ourselves from dealing with issues which may trouble our conscience and force us to ponder and act.

We have long figuratively left the Garden of Eden and there are so many issues and problems with which we must deal. We as a nation are in denial about so many of them. While the focus here is on environmental and health issues, since as John Muir said everything is hitched together, these issues permeate a wide range of our lives. We face life altering environmental decisions each day that we don’t have to trouble our conscience with if we are ignorant or in denial.

Life is often a difficult struggle. Many times our difficulties are of our own creation. We are great at making “mountains our of mole hills.” We don’t want to burden ourselves with issues that may seem beyond ourselves, but each of our individual actions has implication that go beyond our immediate selves. Your decision to turn on a light switch has implication for the asthmatic child somewhere up the power line grid. It may be a crushing thought to some, but most decisions we make have a moral content. No wonder ignorance appears to be such a key to happiness.

One of the keys of life is finding a balance between concerned action and finding joy in our everyday lives. Sometimes we will find this balance and sometimes it will slip away for a while. Dealing with the concerns and problems we face can be most satisfying and rewarding. A simple decision that I don’t need a perfect lawn dependent on chemicals can reward us with simple satisfaction many times. Knowing that the electrons we use are renewable, clean energy can reward us many times when we think about no child becoming ill because of my use of electricity.

At first the thought that a large number of the decisions we make have environmental and health implications, may seem daunting and overwhelming. It doesn’t have to be so. Just as we deal with many of the everyday decisions of life with routine almost automatic behavior, we can develop habits which are environmentally positive. It we are personally committed to lighten our footstep of the planet, then, many decisions require little consideration.

Some of most revolting people for me are those who become deniers to promote their own selfish greed. The tobacco industry knew as early as the 1950’s that cigarettes caused cancer yet for decades they muddied the scientific water to protect their profits. Climate deniers financed by Big Carbon have purposely attacked the truth that the best climate scientists have discovered through dedicated research. They have been joined by the politicians whose pockets they line. It’s a whole lot easier for many others to accept the lies than to take responsible actions to lighten their carbon footprint and demand that government and industry take action.

Our need for knowledge and awareness goes beyond just our individual actions. As citizens we also have responsibility for the decisions our political leaders make. Our desire for cheap energy blinds us to unspeakable devastation. The price of gasoline seems to be one of the greatest concerns of our citizenry. We disregard the destruction of the environment and human health if the price is right. I wonder how many Keystone XL Pipeline supporters have any concept of total earth devastation that occurs when the tar sands are ripped out of the earth.

Do they understand that billions of gallons of toxic water in lakes that can be seen from space already exist? They blow mountains out of existence so we can have cheap coal and cheap electricity. What kind of people are we?

We seem to worry a great deal about our style of life which is too often confused with quality of life. Even though the amount of stuff we have and the energy we use have grown almost exponentially since the 1950’s, studies show that we are less satisfied with our lives. Our happiness hasn’t grown with the size of our houses. Will a few less TV’s and a few less square feet in our houses really lower the quality of our lives? Why are we entitled to such a disproportionate share of the earth’s resources? We have to destroy the notion that more and bigger are the keys to happiness.

We have to learn to live with more joy and less stuff. We have to realize that our individual decisions have effects which radiate beyond us. Can we use energy with restraint? Can we live with less so that some who have little can live with a little more? Can we accept the demands that living a conscientious and caring life demand? Can we learn to accept these challenges knowing that we sometimes will fall short?

PRACTICING WHAT WE PREACH

By Tom Church 

         It’s hard. Sometimes it’s impossible. Doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. The great Gospel singer Mahalia Jackson sang “ I'm gonna live the life I sing about in my song , I’m gonna live for the right and always shun the wrong;  you can't go to church and shout on a Sunday, go out and get drunk and raise Hell on a Monday”.

     
   But we all have trouble doing “the right thing” sometimes. We're not Saints. Sometimes doing the right thing isn't easy. It’s relatively easy to point out what’s wrong but quite another to propose an alternative. One that you and others can buy into.

        In my household we’re concerned about the environment in so many ways. Do we have a hybrid or electric car? Do we have solar panels on our house for electricity and water heating? Do we even make sure we turn off lights and unplug power drains when we don't need them on?

        Ray, the instructor in a Solar Voltaic course I took, told a story of a guy who hired him to put in a bank of panels. The next year the guy called and wanted more. When the installer showed up at the house it was lit up like a Christmas tree.  TV’s were on with nobody watching. You know the scene. Ray suggested they make some changes in their habits. They cut back for about six months. Then called back. Let’s install the extra panels. It was too hard to be so careful. Where’s that at? “Doing the right thing” was too hard.

        Or sometimes we're forced into doing the right thing.

        There’s a lake in the Poconos where the association of property owners was told that a group of investors were seeking permission, and probably going to get it, to install a large electrical turbine at the dam to sell electricity to the power company. What happened? The owners were able to come up with the money to do it themselves and maintain their control. How many of us could have done that? Some years later they were selling enough that they were making money on their investment. They were forced into it, but it paid off for them in the long run. How many of us have the foresight and resources to do this? Not many.

        Speaking of resources, what about the finite resources available to us on this planet. Charles Eisenstein’s book “Sacred Economics” is about this common wealth of resources, how they've been stolen, and labeled private commodities and sold for private gain. These thieves mine and sell this common wealth, minerals and water and whatever they can think of, until it’s exhausted. Then they move on to the next higher hanging fruit. Some even advertise that they are doing good things for the environment. Go figure. Free Enterprise. Yes, it costs them to exploit us and they provide services, but this killing the tree to get the fruit is not good for anyone. Except them. Not their grandchildren.

        We're on a budget. Like any household.  Just because we have it doesn’t mean we should spend it until it’s gone. And like any other household, we have to renew our resources to continue. And it’s been proven through the short history of man that we have the ingenuity to change our focus and solve problems in new ways. To go to resources that can be renewed. We need a major re-focus to “do the right thing” before we’re not here to do anything.

        Maybe it’s time for me to go back online and check on those hybrids and solar panels.

Do you practice what you preach? in the comments section please let us know what you are doing to conserve

Rock Run A beautiful wild and natural area, about to be destroyed by Gas Drilling

Rock Run is an exquisitely beautiful, exceptional value stream that runs through the heart of the Loyalsock state forest. It has been called the prettiest stream in Pennsylvania.

But all of that may change!

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation may soon be drilling for natural gas in this area!  

A patchwork of mixed mineral rights ownership lies under much of the Loyalsock. That's because while Pennsylvania Lumber Company sold the land to the state, it sold the mineral rights to others. The state ultimately acquired some rights, while rights to other tracts were bought by others and have been bought and sold over the years.

But  an unusual deed restriction gives the state DCNR an opportunity to restrict development on 18,870 acres of the Loyalsock where the state does not own mineral rights, including a portion of the Rock Run headwaters.

The mineral rights to that tract were once owned by  Clarence Moore. The wording in the deed contains an unusual restriction in which the right of the mineral rights owner to access oil and gas from the surface was terminated after 50 years — in 1983.

This 50-year limitation on surface access was challenged by Moore, but upheld by Commonwealth Court in 1989 which concluded that "access subsequent to March 28, 1983, is controlled by the Commonwealth." That conclusion was upheld again by the state Board of Claims in 1999.

The state has a unique opportunity to protect Rock Run and a sizable chunk of Loyalsock State Forest, although we are are worried the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, which manages the Loyalsock and other state forests, will not exercise its authority on the matter.

In a letter to the DCNR, The Sierra Club and other groups feel the DNCR needs to specifically grant a right-of-way to Anadarko to work on the surface, but it cannot do so under state law if the right-of-way would "so adversely affect the land as to interfere with its usual and orderly administration." The letter states drilling would likely adversely affect Rock Run, which is designated an exceptional value stream. DNCR officials confirm that they are still in negotiations with Anadarko over drilling in the area.

Recently the DNCR held a a closed-door meeting with with invited "stakeholders", which were certain elected officials, a representative of the Sierra Club and a select few other environmental groups to discuss drilling for natural gas on nearly 25,000 acres in the Rock Run area of McIntyre Township.

During that meeting we delivered a letter to former DCNR Secretary Rick Allen repeating our request for the agency to hold a public hearing on its gas drilling plans. 

The letter was signed by 28 conservation, recreation and environmental organizations. 

Secretary Allen made it clear that his agency is interested only in hearing from those it chooses to. Participants said Allen told them that the closed-door meeting was the public meeting. 

The spectacular and unique resources of the Loyalsock draw visitors from all over the state. It includes some of the best hiking trails in the state forest system and the watershed of the exquisite Rock Run. 

Taxpayers bought this land pay for its maintenance.

The public owns it. DCNR should be listening Its  owners (all citizens of Pennsylvania)  but as the Corbett administration keeps bowing  to the Gas Drillers  This precious resource that The DNCR is charged with protecting,  is in grave danger.

And what does DCNR imply?  Pennsylvania citizens, you're not welcome. Your input on the outcomes is less important than that of the ones who want destroy it. 
















If you feel this area is too important to drill, then click here to sign the petition to tell the Corbett Administration: Listen to the People's Voice - No Drilling in the Loyalsock State Forest

UPDATED: June 26, 2013 - 12:23pm

Photos courtesy of friends of rock run

President Obama should reject Keystone XL Pipeline: As I See It

By John Rossi

The U.S. State Department recently produced a draft environmental impact statement which gives a preliminary green light to the construction of a Canada-U.S. pipeline that will complete the link of the tar sands of Alberta to America’s Gulf Coast refineries and port facilities.

After a 45-day public response period, the Department will finalize its impact statement and pass it on to President Obama for his decision to approve or disapprove a permit for the pipeline. The president should not approve the pipeline. The petroleum it will carry is among the dirtiest produced in the world. The pipeline will vastly expand tar sands mining operations that are creating or exacerbating multiple environmental catastrophes. Here’s why.

To understand the environmental problems with the Keystone pipeline, we need to start with the raw material and how it is produced. The Athabasca tar sands in Canada’s Alberta province are the world’s largest and cover an area the equivalent of Florida. These sands contain bitumen, a semi-sold form of petroleum, a tarry-like substance, mixed with sand, clay, and water.

There are two major methods to turn this product in to oil. During the late twentieth century the end product was called “synthetic crude,” because of the huge amount of processing involved.

The main form of processing is mining. The tar sands are dug up in vast open pit mines. The “shallow surface layer,” about 250 feet of water-logged bog-like soil, clay and sand, are scraped off and the bitumen is removed by enormous earth-moving machines. The world’s largest surface mine by area is the Syncrude mine at its Mildred Lake complex. It covers about 33 square miles and is visible from space.

The mined “ore” is crushed and then very hot water is added to help transport it in slurry form to a separator. There, more hot water and chemicals are used to remove the petroleum. The resulting separator output is a mix of bitumen (60 percent), water (30 percent) and solids–mostly sand and clay (10 percent) which must be “cleaned” to remove the non-petroleum parts. Approximately 90 percent of the bitumen is recovered through this process.

The wastewater is sent to tailing lakes. The largest is about 31.5 square miles in size and is one of the world’s biggest man-made structures. It too is visible from space.

In-situ is the other method of bitumen extraction. It requires that wells be drilled through the formation and then steam injected into the wells to melt the bitumen. The resulting hot oil is pumped out. About 60 percent of the bitumen is recovered in this process which is much less destructive than mining.

Whatever method is used, all of this processing takes enormous amounts of energy; about 700 cubic feet of natural gas are used to produce a barrel of oil from bitumen in mining and about 1,200 cubic feet for a barrel of oil from the in situ process. In total the amount of natural gas being used to extract bitumen from Alberta’s tar sands is enough to heat about 3 million homes.

Dr. Marlo Raynolds, senior advisor to the Pembina Institute, a Canadian environmental research group that supports environmentally responsible development of the Alberta tar sands observes the perverse logic of current tar sands extraction: "What bugs me about oil sands is that it is a resource that is being inefficiently used. We're using natural gas, which is the cleanest fossil fuel, to make a dirtier fuel. It's like using caviar to make fake crabmeat."

Burning all this natural gas means that producing a barrel of oil from bitumen, the Pembina Institute notes, releases over twice as much air pollutants such as nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide as extracting a barrel of conventional crude. Greenhouse gas emissions from extraction are between 3.2 and 4.5 times greater per barrel.

Simply put, extracted oil from the Alberta tar sands is one of the most wasteful and environmentally destructive methods of producing petroleum on the planet. And, this is not counting greenhouse gas emissions.

The Keystone pipeline allows an enormous expansion of tar sands oil extraction and vastly increases the scale of environmental devastation. Americans will not allow this kind of environmental ruination in our country and we should not import oil that facilitates it in Canada.

Consequently, President Obama should say no to the Keystone pipeline permit. To do otherwise is morally wrong and hypocritical, particularly from a leader who claims to support clean energy.

This article also appeared in the Harrisburg Patriot-News Online on March 29, 2013

John Rossi is the Climate Change Committee Co-Chair of the Pennsylvania Chapter of the Sierra Club. He can be contacted at jpr2@psu.edu.

Take Action on the Keystone XL Pipeline NOW!

 Email the State Department at “keystonecomments@state.gov“. The Department then, by law, has to respond to your written comment. Do this before April 15!

1. Send a copy of your comments in letter form to President Obama.
2. AND COPY this letter to John Kerry, Secretary of State.
3. AND send a copy to Senator Robert Casey:
4. AND send it as a letter to the editor to your local paper.

THANKS!

Pennsylvania communities are facing a coordinated assault on environmental planning.

By Tom Au,  Pennsylvania Chapter Conservation Chair

Many Pennsylvania communities are facing a coordinated assault on  environmental planning. This takes the form of a campaign to "stop UN social engineering and communitarianism" by adopting resolutions and local ordinances to undo community planning and zoning.  Glenn Beck has released a book called " Agenda 21" arguing that Americans need to stop this "United Nations plot."

Agenda 21 is a non-binding, voluntarily implemented action plan of the United Nations with regard to sustainable development

Agenda 21: A Guide for the Perplexed

by John Dernbach

At a local government meeting on a land use plan, officials hear opposition based on the claim that it is tainted by Agenda 21.  A state public utility commission considering smart meters hears similar claims.  They are confused: what is Agenda 21 and why does it matter?

A well organized campaign against Agenda 21, spread by the Tea Party, Glenn Beck, and the John Birch Society, exists well outside the realm of ordinary environmental law work.  But it is beginning to affect that work.  The real target of this campaign, moreover, is not Agenda 21 but sustainable development—a common sense approach to reconciling environment and development that provides the basis for our environmental and land use laws.  Environmental lawyers thus need a basic understanding of what Agenda 21 is and what it is not.     

Agenda 21 is a comprehensive public strategy for achieving sustainable development. It was endorsed by the U.S. (under the presidency of George H.W. Bush) and other countries at the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development in 1992.  Agenda 21 stands for two broad propositions: 1) environmental goals and considerations need to be integrated into all development decisions, and 2) governments and their many stakeholders should work out the best way to integrate environment and development decisions in an open and democratic way. 

Agenda 21 contains an almost encyclopedic description of the best ideas for achieving sustainable development that existed in 1992.  On land use, it specifically counsels respect for private property.    It contains a detailed description of the role that many nongovernmental entities, including business and industry, farmers, unions, and others, should play in achieving sustainability. 

Agenda 21 endorses, and to a great degree is based upon, ideas that were already expressed in U.S. environmental and natural resources laws.  Its core premise is espoused in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.  Long before Agenda 21, NEPA set out "the continuing policy of the Federal government" to "create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans" (42 U.S.C. § 4331). 

Ironically, Agenda 21 was never taken seriously as such in the United States; there has never been much enthusiasm here for following international agreements.  It is not a legally binding treaty; it contains no provisions for ratification, for example.  Agenda 21 also says nothing about new ideas like green building, smart growth, and smart meters.  But sustainable development as an idea—achieving economic development, job creation, human wellbeing, and environmental protection and restoration at the same time—is gaining traction. 

In response, opponents are attacking sustainability by making false statements about Agenda 21.  They say that Agenda 21 is opposed to democracy, freedom, private property, and development, and would foster environmental extremism.  For many opponents, the absence of a textual basis in Agenda 21 for such claims (in fact, the text explicitly contradicts all of these claims) is not a problem.  First, they are attacking a document that is not well known, and so they count on not being contradicted.  Second, the false version of Agenda 21 fits a well known narrative that is based on fear of global governance and a perceived threat of totalitarianism, and on distrust of the United Nations.  Indeed, the absence of information to support such fears only deepens their perception of a conspiracy.  According to this view, moreover, people who talk about sustainable development without mentioning Agenda 21 are simply masking their true intentions.  

Far-fetched, you say?  Well, consider this: in 2012, Alabama adopted legislation that prohibits the state or political subdivisions from adopting or implementing policies "that infringe or restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating in, or traceable to 'Agenda 21'" (Ala. Code § 35-1-6).  This, of course, could chill a variety of otherwise ordinary state and local decisions.  Similar bills are pending in state legislatures across the country. 

In a variety of other places, elected officials and professional staff who have worked with stakeholders for years to produce specific land use and energy proposals find their work mischaracterized as the product of Agenda 21, even though they have never heard of it.   Agenda 21's lack of direct relevance to the specific proposals should, but does not always, provide an answer to such claims. 

The campaign against Agenda 21 has no serious empirical or textual foundation.  But it can work against sustainability and good decisions—and cost time and money—when clients and their lawyers don't recognize it for what it is.

Reposed with the permission of John Dernbach, who posted this article March 27, 2013, for the American College of Environmental Lawyers.

http://www.acoel.org/post/2013/03/27/AGENDA-21-A-GUIDE-FOR-THE-PERPLEXED-.aspx