This is a picture of one of the hazards:
Also found on the golf course are owls, two-toed sloths, monkeys and a small crocodile. I think I would take up a different sport.
Fox News reported yesterday that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is seeking to expand its powers greatly to help America achieve “sustainable development.” “Sustainable development,” is the centerpiece of a global United Nations conference slated for Rio de Janeiro next June.
Sustainable development is a concept that has been with us for a number of years. A 1987 UN report, Our Common Future, released by the Brundtland Commission, defines sustainable development as:
…development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
That sounds really good until you look further. Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN’s 1992 Earth Summit stated:
Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class–involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing–are not sustainable.
The idea here is simple–rather than aspire to obtain a higher standard of living in countries without infrastructure, reliable electricity, and sanitation facilities, we will simply lower the standards of the western world. This is not about ecology–this is about redistribution of wealth.
The article at Fox News reports:
According to the study itself, the adoption of the new “sustainability framework” will make the EPA more “anticipatory” in its approach to environmental issues, broaden its focus to include both social and economic as well as environmental “pillars,” and “strengthen EPA as an organization and a leader in the nation’s progress toward a sustainable future.”
Whatever EPA does with its suggestions, the study emphasizes, will be “discretionary.” But the study urges EPA to “create a new culture among all EPA employees,” and hire an array of new experts in order to bring the sustainability focus to every corner of the agency and its operations. Changes will move faster “as EPA’s intentions and goals in sustainability become clear to employees,” the study says.
The National Academies and the EPA held a meeting last week in Washington to begin public discussion of the study.
One of the things we might want to remember here is that the EPA is not an elected body. They cannot easily be held accountable. They cannot be voted out of office. Regardless of how you feel about the environmental issues here, there is definitely a constitutional issue here.
“Sustainable development” is a UN program–it is not an American program. Americans have never had a chance to vote on it or any group implementing it. Giving the EPA any more power than they already have would be a drastic error in judgement. Please google “Agenda 21” for more information on what is behind the move toward sustainable development.