Advance Warning: EPA Plans to Implement Sustainability Model for American Economy at Rio Conference June 2011

The Environmental Protection Agency, the last time I checked a regulatory body charged only with enforcing legislation, is “deliberating” on expanding its own powers through the Rio Conference scheduled to be held in June 2011. That’s right, a government agency filled with unelected bureaucrats is effectively deciding whether or not it wants to make law and expand its own powers, all in the name of promoting “sustainability.”

What is sustainability? Why, it’s the new global environmentalist catch phrase implying that mankind will run out of resources if the distributocracy does not intervene to centrally plan the world economy. Sustainability is part-and-parcel of the insidious and very real Agenda 21 (see official website where it explains the intentions). It is telling that the UN quixotically states as one of its goals that the world should be “climate neutral.”

Why would the EPA seek to override the will of the people and unconstitutionally set its own regulatory powers and their scope?

First of all, there is waning public opinion that global warming is primarily the result of human activities (37% Democrats, 14% Republicans). Second, there is declining scientific certainty that such warming is even harmful, let alone constitutes a “crisis.” Third, there is only so long one can spout off apocalyptic rhetoric that the “sky is falling” before one starts to look like a New York City subway kook. Fourth, such releases as Climategate I & II have exposed that at least some scientists, non-profit organizations, and politicians have nefarious motives in supporting the theory. This view is bolstered by such claims that the UN needs $72 trillion in order to “fight” climate change. Fifth, it is unclear how the yielding of such immense sums of money to a global body would lead to a better climate. What would be the test? Sunny and 72 all year long, every day, everywhere? It still wouldn’t be worth it.

But more at stake is the country’s entire philosophy of governance. Is America to be a nation run by experts for our own supposed good? Or are we citizens going to possess the predominant amount of control over our own lives, provided we don’t harm others?

That’s where the insidious nature of the left-wing hive mind mentality comes to the forefront. With such scams as Obamacare (sure, it will save us money, but cost almost $2 trillion more over the next decade, according to the CBO), and manmade global warming (you will never see it reported in the MSM that man only has influence over about .30% of the greenhouse effect, based on DOE figures), it should make Americans, including tree-hugging lefties, wonder why such lies and distortions are needed for the government to institute more controls over people. The historical record is abysmal for those who blindly trust in the government, especially when they know they are being lied to.

The politicians and the bureaucrats believe themselves to be the sole repositories of power in our brave new post-constitutional, post-republic America. Don’t worry about an unelected government agency actually making law – it’s for your own good.


29 thoughts on “Advance Warning: EPA Plans to Implement Sustainability Model for American Economy at Rio Conference June 2011

  1. Michelle Bachmann is the only one I have heard specifically say she will not have America partake in Agenda 21 if she is president. She is also the only one I have heard admit there is a new world order out there and she has named George Soros as being behind it. Hopefully it did not hurt her to speak the truth. I think she deserves a long second look as our next leader.

      1. She is!! Thanks for the reply. She has said it on Hannity and also on Glenn Beck radio. I keep trying to point that out to people. Appreciate you noticing for others! If we get a president who will not participate in the elite agenda we will make it back. One other point, Michelle is also the only one who stuck to ‘NO’ on the debt ceiling debate to raise the ceiling. She said she stuck with NO because that was what the American people wanted her to do and she is working for us. I love her! Take care, Dawn

  2. Warming would create quite an upheaval. You know what all that flux of fresh water into the oceans would do to regional climates?

      1. an influx of fresh water would disrupt ocean currents rogue. why do you think it almost never snows in england? not surprised ur ignorant of this. we’ve already established ur a little light in the ass when it comes to science. and for the record I hate sci fi.

      2. Excuse me but ( i m dum ) no need to say anything else. Merry Christmas! Watch out for that tide. Ya know, 23 years on an island in the Gulf and with all that warming I should be under water, don’t ya think? The watermark on the seawall has not moved, same as it was 23 years ago. Go have some fun!

      3. it has nothing to do with rising tides. It has to do with water densities. the rising tide b.s. is for al gore acolytes anyhow. btw what island in the gulf?

      4. The density is the volume and if that were to grow it would have to raise the level, where else would the water go, higher levels or wider areas, all the shore lines would be eroding. Some areas here in SW Fl are getting shallower. ?? Pine Island, Sanibel Island, Estero Island, Captiva Island, N. Captiva Island, Yuseppa Island…there are several in Lee County alone. Ft Myers area. Today it was 83 degrees and sunny. No different from any other December. I do agree with ya on the ‘current’ thing. IF the Gulf stream were to be effected and change direction that would change things up, but there’s no temp.’s changing. This influence of fresh water you spoke about, has been going on forever. It sounded as if you felt it was something new? i.e. Our inter-coastal river has been a local issue since I came here in the late 80’s. In summer with lots of rain the lake in the center of the state gets too high for the residences surrounding it. So they do these fresh water releases into the river which empties into the Gulf. The amount of water released, the volume or density raises the tide in canals and river slightly but it is hardly detectable and when the rain stops the releases stop and the tides go back. The fresh water effects the salinity in the salt water canals and river to the point of changing the environment of sea life and it increases algae blooms. Red tide is also a concern. But none of the fresh water influence effects our currents ever. Maybe you could explain your connotation please.

      5. again rising ocean levels are the concern of liberals that don’t know what the hell theyre talking about. and density does not equal volume btw. the amount of fresh water that enters from Florida is minuscule plus river water contains more electrolytes than u think. The ice in the arctic contains practically none. Furthermore if all the arctic ice were to melt the ocean levels wouldn’t change at all. Now if the Greenland ice sheet or anarctic ice sheet were to melt that be a different story. Also ocean level is affected by gravity as well so there is complexity to the issue. But on to density. Fresh water is less dense and doesn’t sink. This would severely alter if not stop the thermohaline circulation. This circulation is dependent on water sinking and rising, not on gravity like the current in the intercoastal or rivers. so even though the temperature of the water remains the same, 0 degrees, the circulation would still be affected. this is simple science. p

      6. What do you do for a living? Are you a science major or something related? Not sure what the point is you are trying to make with all this. OK, fresh water may be less dense and does not sink. I can understand that as fresh water has no salt to possibly weigh it down. But you say if all the ice melted there would be no rise in sea levels, only if Greenland ice sheet or the Antarctic ice melted would there be problems. I saw a documentary on Greenland recently that said their ice has shrunk quite significantly, and continues to shrink in summers. When winter returns the ice grows back. So if it melts in summer why is it not effecting sea levels or currents as this is fresh water melting off the ice sheets? I think all this ice melting talk is a non-issue. The ice on our globe has been melting since the last ice age and compared to the amount of ice there was then, we should all be under water. The currents in the oceans are imperative to temps., yes, this is true, but no currents have changed. So what fresh water are you referring to that would cause such a disruption in the currents? Curious. Also, while we are on the subject of our planet…have you seen the gamma ray bubble coming at us from the center of the universe? It is on NASA’s web site. It is funny but that ‘bubble’ is supposed to hit our atmosphere on the same date as the Mayan calender end of 12/23/12. It is some kind of magnetic energy. Could disrupt satellites?

      7. and disrupting ocean current can cause an ice age. the last glacial maximum during the current ice age was caused by a change in ocean current from the geologic formation of the isthmus of panama. now mind you we are not on the brink of another glacial maximum. this is only to demonstrate how important ocean currents are.

      8. rogue? ur joking? u can’t be serious about why the Vikings called it Greenland? guess therere two things you don’t know much about. I’ve been to Greenland. Ain’t much green about it. not sure what the resistance is with conservatives wrt to science. You can accept scientific principles without being and GW freak rogue.

      9. yes dawn, if all the ice floating in the arctic sea were to melt that would not result in any sea level change. but wrt to an influx of fresh water; the problem comes not from fresh water melting into the salt water, it lies with the disruption of the current stasis. it would take vast amounts of fresh water to do this however, and it would take centuries for that much fresh water to melt. mind you an influx of salt water would disrupt the stasis as well. as far as ice ages go, most glaciologists agree we are still in one, however accelerated glacial melting has been observed over the last half century.

        basically the issue is that it is extremely unproductive to mix science with policy, as seen with kyle here. liberals are by far more of an offender but conservatives do the same. i argue with liberals about the efficacy of fracking using sound science based on isotopes but liberals don’t want to hear it. i get much the same response from them as im getting from kyle.

        look at the science and come to your own conclusions, don’t listen to rush, hannity, msnbc or al gore.

    1. “From 986 AD, Greenland’s west coast was colonised by Icelanders and Norwegians in two settlements on fjords near the southwestern-most tip of the island.[11] They shared the island with the late Dorset culture inhabitants who occupied the northern and eastern parts, and later with the Thule culture arriving from the north. Norse Greenlanders submitted to Norwegian rule in the 13th century, and the kingdom of Norway entered into a personal union with Denmark in 1380 and from 1397 was a part of the Kalmar Union.[12]

      The settlements, such as Brattahlíð, thrived for centuries but disappeared some time in the 15th century, perhaps at the onset of the Little Ice Age.[13] Interpretation of ice core and clam shell data suggests that between 800 and 1300 AD the regions around the fjords of southern Greenland experienced a relatively mild climate several degrees Celsius higher than usual in the North Atlantic,[14] with trees and herbaceous plants growing and livestock being farmed. Barley was grown as a crop up to the 70th degree.”

      Some right-wing website? No, it’s the typically left-leaning Wikipedia.

      Wahhh, wahhhh, wahhhhhhh.

      1. i wrote stasis btw. kyle, we’ve already seen you’re not the most aware when it comes to science but every year, as dawn pointed out there is an influx of fresh water as the ice melts, decreasing salinity then as the ice refreezes the salinity rebounds (the mineral structures of ice and salt are different therefore frozen sea water is actually fresh water). maybe the term status quo would make you understand a bit better. if the status quo of the ingress and subsequent egress of fresh water were to change, it would indeed affect the thermohaline circulation. if you find any errors, please let me know.

      2. But you are forgetting the thermourination circulation of migrating Orcinus orca, whose spawn are down .3% over the last decade due to man’s cruel whaling practices. That affects the salination at a factor of -Delta .000006734 per cubic centiler, again showing the ravages of man’s impact on the climate.

      3. all right all right. i guess dearth of science knowledge doesn’t necessarily mean lack of sense of humor! but can you tell me one thing? what is a cubic centiliter?

      4. Geez, you guys are still debating this! Imdumimdum, you really should change your username if you want to look credible, not saying your not, but the name denotes otherwise…just my opinion. Anyway, you both sound great and basically what is the point? We three and many more agree that taking our money to finance the uncertainty of ‘global melting, warming, climate change, whatever involving the earth and her marvels of naturalness, is only a scam to do just that. Take our money. Because even if any of this was for certain there is NOTHING man can do to control the natural wonders of the way the planet evolves, behaves and functions. So why bother arguing about it. We all need to be on the same team for one extremely important subject, to save our country and her constitutional laws. Terminate the commander n’ thief and all of his entourage in Nov. 2012. That’s it. Thanks!

  3. I know this. Again, what does this have to do with the current ice sheet? And great cut and paste skills btw. I see that’s about the extent of ur science knowledge. why don’t u refute what I said about the thermohaline circulation or about the increased buoyancy of fresh water? who cares about the history of Greenland which is a miss translation from ground not green. But if that isn’t in wikipedia you probably wouldn’t know that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s