The Hidden Agendas of Sustainable Development Claptrap

Please Share This Story!

Sustainable Development is warmed-over Technocracy from the 1930s: a resource-based economic model that intends to manage all facets of production and consumption. It’s hidden agenda is a scam of historic proportions.  TN Editor

As President Trump downgrades the importance and relevance of Obama era climate change and anti-fossil fuel policies, many environmentalists are directing attention to “sustainable development.”

Like “dangerous manmade climate change,” sustainability reflects poor understanding of basic energy, economic, resource extraction and manufacturing principles – and a tendency to emphasize tautologies and theoretical models as an alternative to readily observable evidence in the Real World. It also involves well-intended but ill-informed people being led by ill-intended but well-informed activists who use the concept to gain greater government control over people’s lives, livelihoods and living standards.

The most common definition is that we may meet the needs of current generations only to the extent that doing so will not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their needs. Sustainability thus reflects the assertion that we are rapidly depleting finite resources, and must reduce current needs and wants so as to save raw materials for future generations.

At first blush, it sounds logical and even ethical. But it requires impossible clairvoyance.

In 1887, when the Hearthstone House became the world’s first home lit via hydroelectric power, no one did or could foresee that electricity would dominate, enhance and safeguard our lives in the myriad ways it does today. Decades later, no one anticipated pure silica fiber optic cables replacing copper wires.

No one predicted tiny cellular phones with superb digital cameras and more computing power than a 1990 desktop computer or 3-D printing or thousands of wind turbines across our fruited plains – or cadmium, rare earth metals and other raw materials suddenly required to manufacture these technological wonders.

Mankind advanced at a snail’s pace for thousands of years. As the modern fossil-fuel industrial era found its footing, progress picked up at an increasingly breathtaking pace. Today, change is exponential. As we moved from flint to copper, to bronze, iron, steel and beyond, we didn’t do so because mankind had exhausted Earth’s supplies of flint, copper, tin and so on. We did it because we innovated – invented something better, more efficient or practical. Each advance required different raw materials.

Who today can foresee what technologies future generations will have 25, 50 or 200 years from now? What raw materials they will need? How we are supposed to ensure that those families meet their needs?

Why then would we even think of empowering government to regulate today’s activities today based on the wholly unpredictable technologies, lifestyles, needs, and resource demands of distant generations? Why would we ignore or compromise the needs of current generations, to meet those totally unpredictable future needs – including the needs of today’s most impoverished, energy-deprived, malnourished people, who desperately want to improve their lives?

Moreover, we are not going to run out of resources anytime soon. A 1-kilometer fiber optic cable made from 45 pounds of silica (Earth’s most abundant element) carries thousands of times more information than an equally long RG-6 cable made from 3,600 pounds of copper, reducing demand for copper.

Read full story here…

Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The biggest problems that I see with sustainable development is: Those that have an agenda to promote their projects and clamp down on decent will not have any opposition. Also It makes it far easier to eliminate undesired people based on color, education, religious beliefs, and take away peoples ability to have an enjoyable life for most. I know that this is the opposite of what it says, but look at what happened to the idea of a better world as put forth in The Communist Manifesto, and how life was like for many living under a system. They had… Read more »

Jim Reinhart

As pointed out continually from this site, a culture of death, from either centralized socialism from the UN, or Government-Corporate monopoly, is never sustainable. Most groups are in it for wealth and power of a few (particularly the bankers that can purchase real goods and services from bytes of data stored on the central banks computer network i.e. real wealth for nothing!). I have found it hard to understand why agencies and the people that work for them that show one face to be green, has another face that does the exact opposite. Nothing new as Janus concepts are much… Read more »