Obama’s Cap & Trade Executive Order: Redistribution via Agenda 21

ALERT:  also see newly released Obama video, calling for collectivism

by as Dawn sees it & Arlen Williams


Video, “Obama In 1998: ‘I Actually Believe In Redistribution’
 

Finally, in 2012, much is being made of a haltering soliliquy by Barack Obama in 1998, on the redistribution of America’s wealth, the audio provided above and an excerpt shown below.

…we do have to be innovative in thinking, what are the delivery systems that are actually effective and meet people where they live. And my suggestion I guess would be that the trick – and this is one of the few areas where I think there are technical issues that have to be dealt with, as opposed to just political issues – I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systerms that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution….

Agenda 21′s clutching hand

Throughout the Agenda 21 publication one sees talk of “developed” and “developing” countries. One soon understands they are referring to the United States as a “developed” country (rich, industrialized, oil consuming, and not good for the environment or the world overall, by its portrayals) while other nations are called as “developing” countries (the poorer countries). 

Below is an example in Agenda 21 which declares it is the richer nations which are putting an undue burden on poorer nations, through their “excessive demands and unsustainable lifestyles.”

Section I Social & Economic Dimensions Chapter 4 

A. Focusing on unsustainable patterns of production and consumption

Basis for action

4.5. Special attention should be paid to the demand for natural resources generated by unsustainable consumption and to the efficient use of those resources consistent with the goal of minimizing depletion and reducing pollution. Although consumption patterns are very high in certain parts of the world, the basic consumer needs of a large section of humanity are not being met. This results in excessive demands and unsustainable lifestyles among the richer segments, which place immense stress on the environment. The poorer segments, meanwhile, are unable to meet food, health care, shelter and educational needs. Changing consumption patterns will require a multipronged strategy focusing on demand, meeting the basic needs of the poor, and reducing wastage and the use of finite resources in the production process.

in Agenda 21

It does not take long to see out how the authors intend for the world to feel about our “developed” country. As contempt for the United States seems to be growing around the world (as well as amidst various groups inside our own country) it will not require much convincing to many, that our nation somehow owes the rest of the world.

On the other hand, this is all about “saving the planet” right? What a perfect opportunity to redistribute our wealth. But, how does one go about redistributing wealth gloabally? This is where Cap and Trade comes in.

Barack Obama issued an Executive Order on August 30, 2012, titled “Accelerating Investment in Energy Efficiency.” It is one of a surprising number of EO’s having to do with Agenda 21 and its redistributive effects. The word accelerate is a key. Why the need to push this through fast?

As much must be done as possible, as soon as possible, before many Americans catch on. Let us look at a few things in the Agenda 21 publication about energy (italics added) to begin to see how this is to be accomplished.

A. Integrating environment and development at the policy, planning and management levels

Basis for action

8.2. Prevailing systems for decision-making in many countries tend to separate economic, social and environmental factors at the policy, planning and management levels. This influences the actions of all groups in society, including Governments, industry and individuals, and has important implications for the efficiency and sustainability of development. An adjustment or even a fundamental reshaping of decision-making, in the light of country-specific conditions, may be necessary if environment and development is to be put at the centre of economic and political decision-making, in effect achieving a full integration of these factors. In recent years, some Governments have also begun to make significant changes in the institutional structures of government in order to enable more systematic consideration of the environment when decisions are made on economic, social, fiscal, energy, agricultural, transportation, trade and other policies, as well as the implications of policies in these areas for the environment. New forms of  dialogue are also being developed for achieving better integration among national and local government, industry, science, environmental groups and the public in the process of developing effective approaches to environment and development. The responsibility for bringing about changes lies with Governments in partnership with the private sector and local authorities, and in collaboration with national, regional and international organizations, including in particular UNEP, UNDP and the World Bank. Exchange of experience between countries can also be significant. National plans, goals and objectives, national rules, regulations and law, and the specific situation in which different countries are placed are the overall framework in which such integration takes place. In this context, it must be borne in mind that environmental standards may pose severe economic and social costs if they are uniformly applied in developing countries.

in Agenda 21

While most have been going about their daily lives unaware, the future of our country is being “transformed” into something that will not resemble the United States of America. The entire world is being transformed. To think that the United States will not be included in all these plans is naive at best.

And they have target dates for all that is being done; the date that keeps coming up is 2020. (Perhaps the name Rio+20 refers to this, as well as 2012′s twentieth anniversary of the Rio Accord’s adoption.) Below is an excerpt from the “IUCN World Conservation Congress”

10. We must mainstream sustainability in societal decisions, supporting the full implementation of the multilateral environmental agreements, including the Rio Conventions, and the recently established Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).

11. We must work with the public and private sectors to enhance the transfer of green technology, share knowledge, experience and skills to integrate biodiversity and ecosystem values into global production and consumption. We encourage governments and businesses to pursue inclusive and gender-responsive green growth that ensures social integration of vulnerable groups, helps eradicate poverty, and keeps humanity’s footprint within ecological boundaries.

13. All sectors of society must participate fully in implementing the outcomes of Rio+20 at all levels, including the formulation of well-targeted Sustainable Development Goals. We must mobilize all stakeholders for the implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and the Aichi Targets (adopted at the 10th meeting of the Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity) as important means to tackle the underlying causes of biodiversity loss and to enhance the benefits to all from biodiversity and ecosystem services.

in IUCN World Conservation Congress

Let us look at portions of the aformentioned Executive Order, “Accelerating Investment  in Industrial Energy Efficiency,” to see how the US  is doing in making the transfer to “green technology.”

Sec. 2. Encouraging Investment in Industrial Efficiency. The Departments of Energy, Commerce, and Agriculture, and the Environmental Protection Agency, in coordination with the National Economic Council, the Domestic Policy Council, the Council on Environmental Quality, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy, shall coordinate policies to encourage investment in industrial efficiency in order to reduce costs for industrial users, improve U.S. competitiveness, create jobs, and reduce harmful air pollution. In doing so, they shall engage States, industrial companies, utility companies, and other stakeholders to accelerate this investment. Specifically, these agencies shall, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law:

(a) coordinate and strongly encourage efforts to achieve a national goal of deploying 40 gigawatts of new, cost effective industrial CHP in the United States by the end of 2020;

(b) convene stakeholders, through a series of public workshops, to develop and encourage the use of best practice State policies and investment models that address the multiple barriers to investment in industrial energy efficiency and CHP;

(c) utilize their respective relevant authorities and resources to encourage investment in industrial energy efficiency and CHP, such as by:

(i) providing assistance to States on accounting for the potential emission reduction benefits of CHP and other energy efficiency policies when developing State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to achieve national ambient air quality standards;

(ii) providing incentives for the deployment of CHP and other types of clean energy, such as set asides under emissions allowance trading program state implementation plans, grants, and loans;

(iii) employing output based approaches as compliance options in power and industrial sector regulations, as appropriate, to recognize the emissions benefits of highly efficient energy generation technologies like CHP; and

(iv) seeking to expand participation in and create additional tools to support the Better Buildings, Better Plants program at the Department of Energy, which is working with companies to help them achieve a goal of reducing energy intensity by 25 percent over 10 years, as well as utilizing existing partnership programs to support energy efficiency and CHP;

in Executive Order — Accelerating Investment in Industrial Energy Efficiency

To put it simply this is “Cap and Trade,” iniatiated with the help of the EPA and other agencies, as shown above. For example, looking at the “emissions allowance trading program” one finds this is just another name for “Cap and Trade.”

The “Quick links” on the page lined below lead one to a treasure trove of information corroborative of this very extensive and encroaching set of policies, directed by Agenda 21, aimed at global redistribution of wealth, all under the control of those who control the United Nations.

Cap and trade is an environmental policy tool that delivers results with a mandatory cap on emissions while  providing sources flexibility in how they comply. Successful cap and trade programs reward innovation, efficiency,  and early action and provide strict environmental accountability without inhibiting economic growth.

Examples of successful cap and trade programs include the nationwide Acid Rain Program and   the regional NOx Budget Trading Program in the Northeast. Additionally, EPA issued the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) on March 10, 2005, to build on the success of these programs and achieve significant additional emission reductions.

at http://www.epa.gov/captrade

…I think there are technical issues that have to be dealt with, as opposed to just political issues – I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systerms that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution…
– Barack Obama

And will Mitt Romney commit to reversing this Executive Order?


PatriotPantry IBD GoFoods Free Sample

Comments

  1. This whole article is completely false in that, “distribution of the wealth” and “cap and trade” have absolutely nothing in common between them or have any connection with each other. This article seems to have been written with an agenda in mind and with the intent to deceive and completely misinform those who read it. Cap and Trade is a proposed environmental regulation that would allow companies that are unable to meet current air regulations, to buy credits from companies who’s air emissions are below current air quality requirements. The credits come from the difference between what a company is allowed to emit in pollutants, and what the actually emit. For example, if they’re allowed to admit 100 ppm of pollutants, but only emit 70ppm, they are 30 ppm below their ceiling. The 30 ppm is then allowed to be sold for a profit to a company that can’t stay below their allotted 100ppm of pollutants. Cap and Trade has been discussed for years, long before Obama ever became President. It also should be noted the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act that is the basis of the US EPA, was enacted during the Nixon and Ford administrations. Both Presidents strongly supported the two acts and without their influence would have never been enacted. Before they were enacted, the air smog in LA was at dangerous levels which caused health problems to many people living in the basin. As for the Clean Water Act, we had a river in Cleveland so polluted it actually caught fire. The environmental improvements from both acts caused a monumental improvement in air and water quality from where we were then to now to where we are now. I doubt there are very many people who lived and remember the situation back then who would advocate going back.

    Distribution of wealth is usually referred as the leveling of the playing field in wealth between the rich and the poor. It’s a societal belief vs. an environmental regulation. Anything claimed to be in common between the two is just false and completely inaccurate. The quotes by the President used in this article are taken completely out of context and used inappropriately to misinform the reader. In short, I’d wish there was enough space for me to go back and refute each and every point made in this article and point to the fallacies of each.

    • they have everything to do with each other. I would suggest you buckle down and read agenda 21, as well as, look up and understand Technocracy…the 1930′s movement that is the source of Cap and Trade. It is all about control of global resourses and that includes human resourses.

      • Sorry, but I’m very familiar with Cap and Trade being responsible for environmental regulations for pesticide manufactures. I agree with you in very general terms your explanation of Agenda 21, but you failed to provide the link between distribution of wealth and Agenda 21. In addition, the recording at the top of the article in which only a portion was made available, and was taken out of context at that, does not provide any explanation of what Obama is describing as “distribution of wealth” Obama is also talking about local and perhaps state issues, but never once mentioned anything about international concerns. In fact, it’s hard to understand why this recording has anything to do with Agenda 21. The same goes for the article. The article primarily refers to national affairs, and really has no relation to the international scope of Agenda 21.

        I stand behind my words from my first comment ,and unless you can demonstrate the relationship between Cap and Trade and the distribution of wealth, I have to assume there is none like I originally stated.

  2. The point missing in your argument is the simple fact that Cap & Trade does absolutely nothing to reduce so-called green house gases. What it does do, is create a government mandated (read forced monopoly) thin air, fiat money market for trading credits, whereby world central banking will transfer trillions of dollars in fees annually from consumer and business pockets to themselves. Al Gore, himself has bragged that he intends to be the first $1 billion net wealth, trader in carbon credits. Does that sound environmentally driven to anybody?

    Al Gore is a Global elite pied piper with close ties to BP, the late Enron and other large international energy monopolies that extend back for decades. Check on how many times Big Al met in the White House with Enron executives before their insatiable environmental greed caught up with them.

    The environmental movement has been largely co-opted to trick decent people who actually care about our environment into innocently and naively promoting a world socialist agenda whereby wealth is “controlled” by the elite – never “shared”. Please show me a socialist country in this world where the little people share in any wealth. The elite control through a reverse fascist state and live as kings of old, while the poor, uninformed socialist pawns live in feudal serfdom, surviving on state provided crumbs. If any of this nonsense seems good or to represent individual freedom to you, then I’m sorry for your uninformed ignorance.

    Please realize that the Marxist Left and the Establishment Right are just two sides of the same Globalist coin. They believe in money and power; nothing else, including the environment. Their rhetoric varies, but the goal is the same; a world wide Socialist Dictatorship and they will and have co-opted most movements such as environmentalism, gay rights, racism, haves and have nots, etc. to their singular purpose.

    We need to wake up and stop being uneducated pawns. Ignorance is never bliss except to a Globalist, where it reigns supreme. Cap and Trade is about money, control and power, nothing else.

    Bruce J. Kolinski, P.E.
    Licensed Civil and Environmental Engineer

  3. Oooppps! By “point missing in your argument”, I’m referring to m baker’s comment, not the article, which is spot on in every regard. You folks have been doing your homework on Agenda 21. Thank you so much. We are not all sheep waiting for our Globalist paddock to be completed.
    Thanks again,
    Bruce K.

Speak Your Mind

*