The Green Tsunami: A Tidal Wave of Eco-Babble Drowning Us All

by Warren Duffy

  Hanna Strong was fond of meditating and chanting to her favorite goddess Maia (remember, that goddess of the earth’s creation). Just before her husband banged his gavel and called the 1992 Earth Summit to order in Brazil, Hanna held a three-week vigil at the family farm where she introduced her newly minted creation called, “The Sacred Earth Charter”. After she read it to those assembled, she buried the scroll on the property in something called “The Ark of Hope”. Those present described the Charter as the “Magna Carta” of the people of the earth. One can only imagine how closely this document resembled the body of work created a few weeks later by the United Nation’s Earth Summit. The scale of Hanna’s big event can best be understood when it was later learned her special guest to begin the vigil was the Dalai Lama of Tibet, one of her hubby’s old pals from the early days of his U.N. career.

  As Secretary General of the U.N.’s 1992 Earth’s Summit in Rio, Maurice Strong’s opening remarks quite candidly expressed the intentions of the U.N.’s global environmentalism agenda. “Industrialized countries have developed and benefitted from the unsustainable patterns of production and consumption which have produced our current dilemma. It is clear that current lifestyle and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class, involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air conditioning and heating and suburban housing, are not sustainable. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns.”

  “Sustainable” was a relatively new global environmental term in 1992, but can now be traced to one of the dots we collected earlier, The Brundtland Commission’s “Our Common Future” report. “Sustainable”, used throughout the 415-page report, quickly became the key code-word of the new global environmental movement.

  To those from the counter-culture of the 60s and 70s, Strong’s words seemed an attack. Many were already vegetarians, a choice for them that had nothing to do with a “sustainable” lifestyle to save Planet Earth. To those somewhat drug-compromised minds, frankly, eating meat seemed, well, cannibalistic. Also, during those days of anti-Viet Nam war protests, many drove Volkswagens to the big events. Was this new environmental movement being championed by the U.N. declaring war on their major form of transportation operated by fossil fuels? Riding a bike to a protest rally seemed like so much of a… well, a hassle. Was this counter culture that had rejected the values of “middle class” America from the 50s to 70s, now being lumped together as the enemy of the very environmental movement they started?

  At the ‘92 Earth Summit, Strong also introduced a new socialist concept he called, “Social Justice” that soon morphed into “Environmental Justice”. Whenever referenced at subsequent U.N. meetings, “social and environmental justice” included such blatantly socialist concepts as the abolition of private property, private transportation and the elimination of private farms in favor of “collectives”. But the element most shocking to everyone was an emphasis on population control, a concept that harkened back to Paul Ehrlich’s previously mentioned book, “The Population Bomb”. This new position of the global environmentalist movement was to control the growth of the earth’s population lest we over-populate the planet and are unable to “sustain” life (yet another reference to the new global goal of “sustainability”). Just how and what methods of control were they suggesting?

  When asked to explain in more detail exactly what his concept of population control might look like in practical terms, Strong told a reporter, “Licenses to have babies, incidentally, is something that I got in trouble for some years ago for suggesting even in Canada that this might be necessary at some point, at least some restriction on the right to have a child.”

  In another interview prior to the opening of the U.N.’s Earth Summit, Strong explained his fundamental belief in global government as, “The right and opportunity of all people to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment would be accomplished by the socialist/communist redistribution of wealth.”

  As I read those words in the 1990s, I recalled the writings of Karl Marx in 1875, “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”

  Surely, no American would embrace this new approach to a global environmental agenda with licenses to have babies and the redistribution of wealth so the rich would support the poor or, as America’s first black President would later say, “We have to spread the wealth around a little”.

  That old counter-culture of the 60s and 70s might not have agreed with American foreign policy, but we all strongly believed in American freedom; freedom of conscience, freedom to explore new ideas, freedom to live as an individual, to live wherever you wanted and to pursue your dreams, no matter where they might take you. That fundamental vision of American Freedom was obviously diametrically opposite to the goals of the new U.N. “Global Environmentalism Movement.” The more we have learned about it over the years, the more our fears have been confirmed.

  Maurice Strong, by the way, has now abandoned America and established his 21st century life in a new part of the world. He and Hanna did not return to the sprawling farm in New England where the “ark” is buried, or to native Canada. They did not even move to Tokyo where Strong serves as President of the United Nation’s University, the school that trains the next generation of U.N. global leaders. The couple now resides in the Peoples Republic of China in a compound of wealthy ex-pats. Mr. Strong’s speaking appearances are growing much less frequent as he advances in age, with his last muchanticipated talk in San Francisco cancelled at the last minute sending along regrets with an explanation of being “very busy with projects in China”.

  Meanwhile back at the U.N.’s June, 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, the meeting was preparing to adjourn and delegates including President George H.W. Bush, who at one time served as the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., signed a commitment to codify the new global environmental agenda as articulated by Strong and Brundtland. The new document would create a list of goals to be accomplished in the coming 21st century. Five years later, in 1997, that document was ratified at a U.N. follow-up environmental conference in Kyoto, Japan. “The Agenda for the 21st Century” was born, now known as “Agenda 21”.

  Though President H.W. Bush signed on to the commitment to the new environmental agenda, his defeat for re-election in 1992 did not permit him to carry out the obligation. However, with the election of Bill Clinton and Al Gore, this key environmental task was accomplished bypassing Congress. On June 29, 1993, President Clinton signed Executive Order, #12852 creating the “President’s Council on Sustainable Development”. Al Gore, who had already published his environmental best seller “Earth in the Balance”, was named to head the new council. When the names of members were published a few months later, it included the leaders of some of the world’s most aggressive global environmental organizations which we shall discuss in more detail a bit later.

  According to “Agenda 21”, the earth’s “unsustainability” was being dramatically threatened by seven gases that previously seemed perfectly harmless to scientists everywhere. These so-called Greenhouse Gases (GHG’s), now listed one by one in the Kyoto Accord and “Agenda 21”, created the latest dire threat to the planet, “Global Warming”. What a far cry from the “Ice Age” predicted at the first “Earth Day” in 1970.

  Now let’s identify those nasty greenhouse gases (GHG’s). The first is Carbon Dioxide (CO-2), a gas generated in greenhouses to make plants grow more abundantly. According to “Agenda 21”, carbon dioxide is the single largest threat to mankind. Lest CO-2 warm the planet and create mayhem in the universe, carbon dioxide must be controlled by a cooperative Global Government campaign at virtually any cost.

  The next gas is Methane. This is the gas produced in a mammal’s digestive system. Cows became the radical environmentalists “bullseye” (excuse the pun) and the manure piles on the world’s farms were labeled a threat to the future of mankind and the planet. Before long there would be
no more “California Happy Cows”.

  The third gas, Nitrous Oxide, is the one dentists use to ease patient’s anxiety during dental work. It is also known as “laughing gas”. N2O was no laughing matter to the environmentalists. Those three gases, plus four others (with long scientific names I can’t remember or pronounce), were supposedly combining to put Planet Earth into imminent peril unless the U.N. did something to control all of them.

  The second “global goal” of the U.N.’s “Agenda 21” program seemed completely unrealistic. All nations of the world must agree voluntarily to roll back their pollution levels to where they were in 1990. They were to accomplish the miracle by the year 2020.

  The third “goal” of the U.N.’s “Agenda 21” really pushed the envelope. It was an outlandish economic program that ordered the industrial nation’s of the world to “cap” their pollution levels at a predetermined figure. If they exceeded their caps, they would voluntarily transfer their wealth (send their money) to the non-polluting, still developing and very poor Third World Nations of the world.

  In other words, they would “trade” money to exceed their pollution “caps” and the scam became known as “Cap and Trade”. The redistribution of wealth under a form of social-communism that Strong articulated five years previously at the Rio Earth Summit had now become a formal component of the U.N.’s “Agenda 21” document.

  A fourth goal of Agenda 21 is “Social Justice” which we will detail later.

  Reflecting back to the 1970 Earth Day predictions of a coming “Ice Age” and the extermination of 80% of life on planet Earth had now been replaced by the new “Global Warming” threat to mankind. Unfortunately, few remembered those earlier years of history, just as Marcus Cicero warned.

  Those nasty pop top cans that concerned us in the 1970s had long ago been “retooled” by beverage manufacturers, gone and largely forgotten. Our 1970 challenge to grocery shoppers (“save the trees, use plastic”) was so far removed from the new United Nation’s environmental reality; they could not possibly belong to the same movement, could they? In point of fact, they did not.

  The Green Movement’s evolution over 25 years had developed so slowly and incrementally, so deliberately and almost invisibly, that the 21st Century began with a planet that feared Global Warming and environmental extinction.

  Like the Wizard of Oz who hid behind his curtain, pulled levers and made threatening noises that frightened the Cowardly Lion, the Tin Man, Dorothy and everybody in OZ, a small group of globalist wizards hiding behind a “Green Curtain” created one imagined environmental disaster after another. For two plus decades, the wizards scared everybody with their scientific eco-babble and demands for obedience to their Agenda for the 21st century. When they proclaimed “the science is settled”, we were to have little doubt as to the severity of this threat.

  The “Green Tsunami” began to build its strength around the planet with a giant and destructive wave of “green” rules and regulations, of do’s and don’ts for the have’s and have not’s. In the mind of U.N. global environmentalists, the problems they manufactured in the 80s and 90s could only be solved by the U.N.’s Agenda for the new 21st century, an “agenda” that was to continue until 2099.

  One might easily say, “This is just another conspiracy theory” since for many years “black helicopter” conspiracy theorists imagined a new world order was being secretly created at meetings of the Illuminati, or Freemasonry, or the Club of Rome. Perhaps, the Bilderbergers or the super-secret Tri Lateral Commission or even the New York City Council on Foreign Relations was at the heart of the global governance conspiracies.

  In reality, the real proponents of “Globalism” operate completely in the open, supported by our tax dollars, in their New York City headquarters a tall, thin skyscraper along the East River. If the planet is to be safe from the threat of global warming and climate change, the United Nations insists it knows what is best. They have set their global agenda for the next century and it is moving incrementally forward. In fact, I would be willing to guess their work has already crept into your local community.

  CHAPTER 3

  THE U.N. — ASSORTED SCANDALS AND CREEPY CHARACTERS

  Since the 1945 creation of the U.N., the organization has now grown into a global behemoth. Sadly, most of us don’t realize the size and scope of its global operations. There are six primary organizations, all functioning under the Secretary General’s office in New York. Under those agencies there are another fifteen worldwide organizations that carry out the U.N.’s work and employ an army of roughly 40,000 workers.

  The two most familiar operating bodies in the U.N. are the Security Council, where every member nation has the right of veto, and the General Assembly where the majority rules. Frankly, that majority of member nations are not America’s friends and allies.

  Largely, the U.N. is divided into two camps, the industrialized nations of the world and the developing, or Third World nations. The latter group sees the mission of the U.N. as “spreading the wealth around a little” seeking financial aid and development money from the more advanced industrial countries.

  One of those advanced industrial countries is of course America. Of the U.N.’s General Operating budget, 25% of it is paid by only one of the U.N.’s 192 member nations—the United States. There are 135 members, who all get a vote in the General Assembly, but contribute a meager 1% to pay the U.N.’s bills. The annual budget for the United Nation’s operation in NYC is $7 plus Billion.

  Since its beginning, the U.N. has grown astronomically. At The Hague in the Netherlands sits the International Court of Justice, a full-blown U.N. operation. The fifteen justices who hear cases that involve international law are all elected by the General Assembly. I am willing to bet not one America can name any of the 15 faceless justices.

  The court rules on such weighty controversies as crimes against humanity to matters involving genocide and war crimes. In the wrong hands, the U.N.’s International Court of Justice could decide that America’s pursuit of a terrorist enemy with a drone attack anywhere in the world was a war crime and a U.S. government official could conceivably be put on trial. If an American drone strike caused civilian casualties, could the incident be labeled a genocide crime with military or government officials prosecuted at the U.N.’s International Court of Justice?

  The World Court is but the first in a lengthy list of U.N. Agencies operating all over the world. Here is a fact worth noting. Although America pays a majority of the U.N.’s bills, few of the organizations operate within New York at the U.N. Headquarters, let alone anywhere inside our nation’s borders.

  For example, the U.N.’s Food and Drug Organization and U.N. Fund for Agricultural Development are both headquartered in Rome. The U.N.’s Civil Aviation Department is in Canada. UNESCO, the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization, is headquartered within the shadow of Paris’ Eiffel Tower. Offices for the U.N. Atomic Energy Commission and U.N. Office for Industrial Development are located in Vienna. Madrid, Spain is home to the U.N. office of International Tourism.

  Geneva, Switzerland houses the U.N. office of the International Labor Organization, the U.N. International Telecommunications Union, the U.N. High Commission for Refugees and the U.N.’s World Health Organization that outlawed the use of D.D.T. back in the 1960s (a decision that has cost millions of lives, to this day, in developing nations).

  Other Geneva offices include the World Intellectual Property Organization, the World Meteorological Association and the U.N. World Trade Organization. But before leaving Switzerland, we cannot forget the U.N.’s Postal Union in Berne. With so many U.N. offices already in Switzerland, is there any reason the entire U.N. operation should not be moved there? This would allow the Swiss to carry the financial burden.

  The United States has managed to land only a handful of U.N. global operations. The largest monetary organization of the United Nations located in Washington, D.C. is the International Monetary Fund. This mea
ns if the U.N. has a money problem, the IMF is based near the center of America’s monetary power. Then of course, there is the World Bank. Few realize that the World Bank is, in fact, a U.N. organization and under it three sub-operations; the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the International Finance Corporation and the International Center for the Settlement of Disputes. All are located in the sprawling and highly political innerbeltway of Washington, D.C. where U.S. currency printing operations are nearby.

  The U.N. continues to maintain its standing army of “Peacekeepers”. This global army currently has troops patrolling trouble spots in 117

  countries. The U.N.’s peacekeepers are supported by more than 5,800

  civilian staff members and the local civilian operations employ another 14,000. The annual budget for the U.N.’s standing army is more than $2 billion a year, again with America paying the largest percentage of the annual bill.

  At any given year, the annual meeting of the General Assembly can create “special funds” which the U.N. bills to its members. Therein lies a major problem that our government has complained about for decades—oversight. Essentially, there is none. The U.N. operates with no public records and there is no U.N. Freedom of Information Act. Requests for operating information and budget details are routinely denied. Litanies of corruption scandals over the years, involving the U.N. and the Peacekeeper’s army, have never been detailed. During the George W. Bush presidency, America’s dynamic U.N. Ambassador John Bolton broke the U.N. code of silence and released 447 documents containing thousands of pages of secret insider information. The revelations were startling: