I’ve been investigating the word “Sustainable” for a decade or so and think that the following four definitions should help the reader understand what EcoFascists mean when they use it.
I urge the reader to ask greenies and Ecofascists for definitions and then make those definitions public. These definitions will expose the dishonesty of the whole project.
I claim that the EcoFascists deliberately constructed definitions that are absurdly open ended so as to allow them the maximum freedom to do harm to humans.
The Four Definitions
- Able to Be Sustained (over some time period)
- “Without compromising the ability…”
- “One Planet”
- Agenda 21 / 2030
Definition 1 :- Able to Be Sustained (over some time period)
I’ve lived in Brighton, Sussex (UK) for about 20 years. It is a city full of extreme environmentalists – (“greenies” and EcoFascists). Over the years I’ve tried to understand the bizarre agenda of these greenies by talking to them.
I’ve asked them what they mean by the word “sustainable” and been given as a definition that it means “able to be sustained for ever.” I stress the word “forever,” because it was only after I pointed out that “forever” is billions of billions (of billions) of years that they were willing to reduce that time period to one billion years.
The EcoFascists are being quite reasonable when they claim that the word “sustainable” means “able to be sustained (kept going) over some time period.” But they are completely un-realistic when they claim that the time period over which a city like Brighton can be sustained is at least one billion years.
It is important to realise that “sustainable” means “able to be kept going for at least a billion years” to understand why there is a difference between “recycle-able” and “renewable“. (see below)
Local EcoFascists believe:-
a) that they can make Brighton sustainable for at least one billion years and
b) that the way to do it is:-
- To implement a scheme for sustainability called “One Planet Brighton“
- To also implement another scheme for sustainability called “Agenda 2030“
Definition 2 :- “Without compromising the ability”
I got a different definition of the word “sustainable” from the then Minister for Climate Change called Ed Davies at a public meeting here in Brighton. In response to my request for a technical definition of “sustainable” he said:-
“Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the people of today without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs”
(This is a common definition originating in 1983 from the Brundtland Commission)
It is an astoundingly devious definition that is deliberately vague.
It is the second part of the definition – “without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs” – that is going to kill us all, so I would like to expand on it.
Ability and Needs
Let’s explore the brilliance of the vagueness of the words “the ABILITY of future generations to meet their NEEDS” We have no way of knowing what the ABILITIES of future generations are going to be, especially in one billion years time. These ABILITIES are not only un-known but are also unknowable.
For example – Humans might have the technology to create whatever they want similar to that imagined in “Star Trek’s” replicators and thus have the ABILITY to create whatever they want out of thin air. We have no way of knowing what their abilities will be.
Note also the devious brilliance of the vagueness of “the ability of future generations to meet their NEEDS” We have no way of knowing what the NEEDS of future generations are going to be, especially in one billion years time. These NEEDS are un-known and unknowable.
For example – Humans might not NEED any material resources at all – having perhaps become beings of pure light.
The use of the words “ability” and “needs” are so vague as to be meaningless and I believe that they were deliberately chosen so that they could be twisted into meaning anything at all.
The EcoFascists are interpreting the definition to mean that we must not reduce the amount of material resources that we leave future generations. This is just in case they might need it.
The only materials that we can use without reducing the quantity of are RENEWABLE materials, such as wood or cotton.
Renewable versus Re-Cycleable.
For example, if you cut a tree down to make a table you can plant another tree to replace the one that you have just destroyed. Nature “RENEWS” that resource for us.
In this way it is possible to leave to future generations exactly the same amount of wood as you inherited. Only if you RENEW completely all that you consume can you be sure that you will leave the maximum possible amount to future generations, just in case they need it all.
EcoFascists have decided that we have to leave future generations the MAXIMUM amount of resources that we can JUST IN CASE future generations need them. EcoFascists have decided that we certainly can’t reduce the amount of resources we leave them.
Not reducing the amount of resources that we leave future generations is only possible with RENEWABLE materials but it is not possible with non-renewable resources, like plastic and metal.
Non-renewable resources like plastic and metal are not RENEWED by some process of Mother Nature. They do not renew themselves “organically” in the same way that trees, cotton and bull-rushes do.
Plastic and metal may be RECYCLE-able but they are not RENEWABLE.
Re-CYCLING is a man-made process. For example we can re-cycle metal through smelting, but there is no (known) way to get Mother Nature to organically convert scrap metal back to pristine ingots of pure metal.
Each time we run metal through the re-cycling process we lose some of that metal into the environment – as oxides or as waste products from the smelting process.
And however small the amount that is lost in the recycling , we have COMPROMISED the ability of future generations to use that small bit to “meet their NEEDS.” Thus the practice of re-cycling without also renewing is thus “un-sustainable.”
Even digging the ores out of the ground and smelting them for the first time involves losing some of the metals into the environment and therefore involves possibly “compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs” because for all we know future generations may need every single atom.
In fact they might “need” more atoms of a resource than there are on the whole planet.
In a billion years time, future generations might even “need” more atoms of a resource than there are in the whole UNIVERSE.
Future generations might need nothing but they might also need everything – either way we mustn’t “compromise their ability to meet their needs.”
These imaginary “future generations” might possibly need every single atom of every single metal on earth, so the only way to be sure that these imaginary future generations can meet their imaginary future needs is to make sure that not even one atom is ever dispersed into the environment.
The only way to do that is to leave absolutely all the ores in the ground.
We can’t just Re-CYCLE materials, because whenever we do we lose a little every time we go round the cycle. If we keep re-cycling, then at some time in the next BILLION years we will have dispersed ALL our (non-renewable) material resources into the environment. And thus possibly have deprived future generations of them.
A refinement of this argument is the “peak oil” argument. “Peak Oil” says that we will eventually have extracted more oil from the ground than there is still left in it, because Oil is a finite resource that does not renew itself.
If our planning horizon is a billion years in the future than we will almost certainly have extracted all the oil by then, and in this way we will have deprived future-humans-in-one-billion-years-time of the oil that they might possibly need.
Humans in a billion years might not be able to meet their needs for oil. (Assuming that they want any oil, and assuming that humans still exist and are not beings of pure light.)
Thus using oil is UN-SUSTAINABLE because oil is a finite resource that is not RENEWABLE.
The same can be said for plastic, because plastic is derived from oil.
The same can also be said for metal. However much metal we have, if we use it we will certainly eventually run out of it, and thus deprive future generations of it (Assuming that they want it).
EcoFascists are interpreting “sustainability” to mean that we have to leave future generations not only all the metal that we think that that they might need, but ALL of the metal that we have now. Which means that we can’t use ANY metal at all, because how ever little we use that bit will eventually be lost to future generations.
To summarise:-
- We CAN only use materials that are sustainable for a billion years – such as wood, cotton and bull-rushes – but only if we also RENEW them
- We can NOT use materials which will run out in the next billion years – such as metal and oil. They may be recycle-able (a few times), but they are not RENEWABLE.
I can see many problems with that policy.
If we cannot use any metal at all what are we going to use to cut wood with. Would you like to cut a plank of wood with a saw-blade made of wood instead of metal?
Would you like to harvest bull-rushes with a sickle made so entirely of wood that it included no metal at all?
Would you like to fashion a curved sickle made entirely of wood using tools made entirely of wood (ie without any metal)? Making wooden tools using only wooden tools is going to make life very hard.
More immediate problems arise with electric cars. Electric cars require batteries made of METAL. And their electronic controls also require plastic and metal. So, clearly they are not “sustainable.”
Every electric car that we build deprives future generations of metal and plastic that they might conceivably need.
How could we be so selfish???
Electric cars are clearly NOT sustainable, however the cars used by the Flintstones might be.
Cars made entirely of renewable materials like wood would be sustainable. Although I am not sure whether rock is a RENEWABLE material, so even a Flintstones car might not be “sustainable”.
The first humans to live unsustainable lives were the ones who started using metals like copper. They selfishly did not consider that they were “compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.”
How could they be so selfish???
We have been living un-sustainable lives for thousands of years.
How could we be so selfish.???
SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT
No planes, no cars, no ships, the only trade is what you can carry on your back to market (because beasts of burden fart methane)
SUSTAINABLE FARMING
Farming without any machinery made of metal. Beasts of burden such as oxen will be illegal because it is cruel to animals and also animals fart methane.
PETA will punish farmers who use animals, but not those who use humans as beasts of burden.
Definition Three – “One Planet”
EcoFascists have developed a definition of “sustainability” that is so precise that they can derive a number from it. They have applied this definition to the city in which I live, which is called Brighton.
As you will see from my blog article, the local council have decided that Brighton consumes the material resources of three (3) planets and, since this amount of consumption is “un-sustainable,” the council have voted to reduce the amount of consumption of resources to the correct amount which is one (1) planet’s worth.
Hence the name of the plan which is “One Planet Brighton.”
What is wrong with One Planet Brighton is that it is two thirds less of a Brighton than three planets Brighton and three planets Brighton is what we had 2011 when the Council voted to implement the One Planet plan.
Since then the Council have systematically destroyed the city that they are supposed to look after. They are deliberately turning Brighton into a Ghetto and a Gulag. They call reducing a city into poverty and slavery “development.” In fact they call it “Sustainable Development“
Gentle reader – before you mock – you need to know that this “One Planet” war of attrition against humans is almost certainly being applied in your country.
Just for one example in the USA – Seattle – see – https://growbainbridge.com/
For more cities see:- https://www.bioregional.com/projects-and-services/influencing-wider-change/one-planet-cities
And watch:-https://youtu.be/eoF6Wi_0b7oagenda
Look for “One Planet” schemes in Canada, Denmark, South Africa and the UK.
NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT
The politicians deliberately make no attempt to show that their policies are sufficient to meet their claimed objective. They nowhere show that “One Planet” is enough to make anywhere “sustainable.” For example they nowhere show that “One Planet Brighton” is sufficient to ensure that Brighton will still be here in one billion years.
Nether do they show that all of the parts of the plan are necessary. For example they nowhere show that direct political control of happiness is necessary to ensure that Brighton is still here in one billion years.
Try asking EcoFascists to prove that their policies are either necessary or sufficient to achieve their stated goal.
Try asking them what percentage of scientists say that their policies are sufficient to ensure that (for example) Brighton will still be here in a billion years.
Try asking them what percentage of scientists say that their policies are necessary to ensure that (for example) Brighton will still be here in a billion years time.
The “One Planet” plan is neither necessary nor sufficient to achieve the stated goal. The whole thing is actually a fake rationale for a totalitarian government. A fake justification for a global totalitarian government.
The politicians first created a plan for totalitarian poverty and slavery then later fabricated a rationale to justify it. That rationale is “Sustainability”
“SUSTAINABILITY” is an excuse for totalitarian control.
- A vast depopulation.
- De-industrialisation.
- A totalitarian world government
Sustainability is voluntary compliance with artificial scarcity
Sustainability is shivering in the cold and dark so that in the future they can shiver in the cold and dark.
The Age of Green is a new and terrible Dark Age.
Definition Four – Agenda 21 and Agenda 2130
The terms “Agenda 21” and “Sustainable Development” seem to be pretty much interchangeable. See :- ” a global plan for sustainable development called Agenda 21.”
Agenda 21 was a GLOBAL plan for “sustainable development” that has recently been replaced by a newer GLOBAL plan called Agenda 2030
From Wikipedia we get the dates 1983 and 1992 by which to relate Agenda 21 and “sustainable development”
In 1983, the United Nations created the World Commission on Environment and Development (later known as the Brundtland Commission), which defined sustainable development as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.
In 1992, the first United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) or Earth Summit was held in Rio de Janeiro, where the first agenda for Environment and Development, also known as Agenda 21, was developed and adopted.
Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030 are programs to achieve a goal that is deliberately not defined.
EcoFascists deliberately do NOT define “SUSTAINABLE” even though it is the main goal of their gigantic global programs of enforced poverty and slavery.
They also deliberately don’t even attempt to prove that meeting the sub-goals specified in Agendas 21 and 2030 will actually achieve that main goal. They don’t even try because of course they couldn’t prove it.
Neither Necessary nor Sufficient
They don’t even try to prove that their sub-goals are sufficient to achieve their main goal.
They don’t even try to prove that any of their sub-goals are necessary to achieve their main goal.
They don’t even try because nobody is allowed to even ask them to try. If you ask them “What percentage of scientists say that you plan will make us sustainable” they refuse to answer, because the answer is that ZERO percent of scientists say that the plans will work.
Euphemisms
All of the United Nations documentation is written in euphemisms that make poverty and slavery seem attractive.
For example the Sustainable Development Goal number one is: “No Poverty”
But that turns out to mean NOT that the poor will be made rich, but that the rich will be made poor.
People enjoying the standard of living of the European middle class will be forced to reduce their standard of living by at least two-thirds. ( See my blog article about sustainable development in my home town :- Sustainable Happiness is no laughing matter )
The United Nations intend to eliminate poverty by making everybody equally poor, not by raising the poor up to the level of those who are richer.
Citizen Journalist 