The hidden agendas of sustainability illusions

By |2017-02-10T05:56:21+00:00February 9th, 2017|CFACT Insights|47 Comments

As President Trump downgrades the 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 more 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.

In 1947, the world’s proven oil reserves totaled 47 billion barrels. Over the next 70 years, we consumed hundreds of billions of barrels – and yet, in 2016 we still had at least 2,800 billion barrels of oil reserves, including oil sands, oil shales, and other unconventional deposits: at least a century’s worth, plus abundant natural gas. Constantly improving technologies now let us find and produce oil and natural gas from deposits that we could not even detect, much less tap into, just a couple decades ago.

Sustainability dogma also revolves around hatred of fossil fuels, and a determination to rid the world of them, regardless of any social, economic, or environmental costs of doing so. And we frequently find that supposedly green, eco-friendly, and sustainable alternatives are frequently anything but.

U.S. ethanol quotas eat up 40% of the nation’s corn, cropland the size of Iowa, billions of gallons of water, and vast quantities of pesticides, fertilizers, tractor fuel, and natural gas, to produce energy that drives up food prices, damages small engines and gets one-third less mileage per gallon than gasoline.

Heavily subsidized wind energy requires standby fossil fuel generators, ultra-long transmission lines and thus millions of tons of concrete, steel, copper, rare-earth metals, and fiberglass. The turbines create chronic health problems for people living near them and kill millions of birds and bats – to produce intermittent, wholly unreliable electricity that costs up to 250% more than coal-based electricity.

For all that, on a torrid August 2012 day, Great Britain’s 3,500 giant wind turbines generated a mere 12 megawatts of electricity: 0.032% of the 38,000 MW the country was using at the time.

The United Kingdom also subsidizes several huge anaerobic digesters, intended to convert animal manure and other farm waste into eco-friendly methane for use in generating electricity. But there is insufficient farm waste. So the digesters are fed with corn (maize), grass, and rye grown on 130,000 acres (four times the size of Washington, DC), using enormous amounts of water, fertilizer – and of course diesel fuel to grow, harvest and transport the crops to the digesters. Why not just drill and frack for natural gas?

That brings us to the political arena, where the terminology is circular, malleable, infinitely elastic, the perfect tool for activists. Whatever they support is sustainable; whatever they oppose is unsustainable; and whatever mantras or protective measures they propose give them more power and control.

The Club of Rome sought to build a new movement by creating “a common enemy against whom we can unite” – allegedly looming disasters “caused by human intervention in natural processes” and requiring “changed attitudes and behavior” to avoid global calamities: global warming and resource depletion.

“Building an environmentally sustainable future requires restricting the global economy, dramatically changing human reproductive behavior, and altering values and lifestyles,” said Worldwatch Institute founder Lester Brown. “Doing this quickly requires nothing short of a revolution.”

“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, the use of fossil fuels, electrical appliances, home and workplace air conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable,” Canadian arch-environmentalist Maurice Strong declared.

“Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvements in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change,” former Vice President Al Gore asserted – “these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary.” Environmental activist Daniel Sitarz agreed, saying: “Agenda 21 proposes an array of actions intended to be implemented by every person on Earth. Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all humans, unlike anything the world has ever experienced.”

“Sustainable development,” the National Research Council declaimed in a 2011 report, “raises questions that are not fully or directly addressed in U.S. law or policy, including how to define and control unsustainable patterns of production and consumption, and how to encourage the development of sustainable communities, biodiversity protection, clean energy, environmentally sustainable economic development, and climate change controls.” In fact, said Obama science advisor John Holdren, we cannot even talk about sustainability without talking about politics, power, and control. Especially control.

Of course, the activists, politicians and regulators feel little pain, as they enjoy salaries and perks paid by taxpayers and foundations, fly to UN and other conferences at posh 5-star resorts around the world, and implement agendas that control, redesign, and transform other people’s lives.

It is We the Governed – especially working class and poor citizens – who pay the price, with the world’s poorest families paying the highest price. We can only hope the Trump Administration and Congress will dismantle and defund sustainable development, the alter ego of cataclysmic manmade climate change.


  1. Immortal600 February 9, 2017 at 3:20 PM

    “In fact, said Obama science advisor John Holdren, we cannot even talk about sustainability without talking about politics, power, and control. Especially control.”

    That is the most pertinent quote in the article. It hits what AGW is all about, CONTROL. Economic control. Not really saving the planet but control of people’s lives. The AGW sheep can’t see it, of course.

  2. Ian5 February 10, 2017 at 1:13 AM

    More recycled rubbish from Paul… intentionally designed to mislead and misinform. Outrageous claims that are never substantiated.

  3. Brian February 10, 2017 at 2:03 PM

    Agenda 21 – United Nations Sustainable Development Rio de Janerio, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992.

    Jan 23, 2009 Agenda 21 explained very well.

    Including implications it will have on humanity. Opinions within the video come in some cases from those that were in on the negotiations. Truly an interesting watch.

  4. MILES E DRAKE February 10, 2017 at 6:47 PM

    There is no doubt that global warming and all its phony permutations are a marxist hoax, intended to justify the imposition of a one-party one-world socialist government and the permanent rule of a collectivist hierarchy. Its main apparatus, the so-called United Nations, must be defunded and driven from our shores and its grotesque headquarters torn down and replaced by something useful.

    • Dano2 February 10, 2017 at 8:08 PM

      HOX ever’buddeh!

      Clearly there is still a market among the Faux/Breitbartian faithful for claiming that:

      o Thousands of scientists;

      o across a century and a half;

      o in a wide range of specialties;

      o in dozens of countries;

      o on six continents;

      o speaking scores of languages;

      o having over ten thousand peer-reviewed papers;

      o are involved in a complex plot to ‘fake’ AGW.

      And, to hide their scam, scientists have recruited the natural world into going along with their plot, namely:

      o Scientists have tricked animals and plants to move up and poleward;

      o scientists have tricked plants to bloom earlier;

      o scientists have tricked seasons to begin earlier;

      o scientists have tricked the ocean into acidifying;

      o scientists have tricked carbon to change its isotopic signature from natural carbon to fossil carbon in the atmosphere, corals, and plants to further the scam;

      o scientists have tricked the tropopause to rise;

      o scientists have tricked the oceans to warm rapidly and sea levels to increase their rate of rise;

      o scientists have tricked the outgoing spectra of the earth into emitting less EM waves in the GHG wavelengths;

      o and all have been exposed by a few intrepid bloggers and fossil fuel billionaires.

      Has there ever been – ever – a less likely conspiracy theory ever than this one? In the history of the world?



      • Tom Austin February 10, 2017 at 11:29 PM

        Dano, Funny you being here. Back under your bridge troll before someone actually takes notice of your rantings.

        • Dano2 February 11, 2017 at 8:00 AM

          Don’t have a sads because I laughed at the ‘hoax’ assertion. Turn that frown upside down!




      • youkeepthechange February 11, 2017 at 7:45 AM

        Yep, the Ice Age ended thousands of years ago and the changes you outlined have been occurring naturally ever since!

        • Dano2 February 11, 2017 at 7:58 AM

          False. You can’t show it is true.



          • youkeepthechange February 13, 2017 at 12:34 PM

            Whoa, how thick is the glacier where you are?

            • Dano2 February 13, 2017 at 6:07 PM

              That’s not showing. Try again.



        • Ian5 February 11, 2017 at 5:44 PM

          Completely false. Inconsistent with climate science and global climate data. If you have other data to support your ridiculous statement, please point us to it.

        • Li D February 12, 2017 at 12:12 AM

          There is the clearest difference between more of the same and not more of the same. Jeez.
          Theres a pretty good handle on major and minor
          influences. We know which
          ones are in play and which
          ones are not and have pretty good idea by how much.
          A completely ignorant argument. Go to a library will ya.

          As to what poster Dano2 is
          saying, my thoughts are that its typical of mentality of conspiracy theorists to think the whole world is against them.

      • wally12 February 12, 2017 at 1:15 PM

        @Dano: I see the troll is back with his normal line of BS.

        • Dano2 February 12, 2017 at 1:42 PM

          You can’t refute a word of these facts. Not one byte.




    • Li D February 11, 2017 at 3:23 AM

      You are funny.
      Almost a caricature of a conspiracy theorist.

      • J T February 11, 2017 at 9:09 AM

        You are brain-dead.

        • Li D February 12, 2017 at 12:20 AM

          Mate i could go out into the street and ask a thousand random Australians what Drakes spiel typifies. And i promise you 999 replies would be ” loony conspiracy theory ” and
          the other single one would be ” could you repeat that, i forgot my hearing aid “.

    • AllenBarclayAllen February 11, 2017 at 2:35 PM

      No Miles is a realist ! A lot of see this phoney build up to the next communist power Europe ! But we’re not buy into their idiot logick !

  5. Bob Armstrong February 10, 2017 at 6:56 PM

    Craig Rucker summarized : “Pivot to an eco-campaign that defies any objective measure of objectivity whatsoever: “Sustainability.”

    I think it is objectively measurable and John Christy stated the prime criterion very clearly :

    If it’s not economically sustainable , it’s not sustainable .

    • Dano2 February 10, 2017 at 8:06 PM

      That simply shows your ignorance of the topics of natural sciences and of sustainability.


      The environment can exist without human economies. Human economies, however, are utterly dependent on the environment.

      10th graders learn these basics.



      • Bob Armstrong February 10, 2017 at 9:09 PM

        Did you make that silly image or did you copy it from somewhere ?

        Sustainability without reference to human welfare is meaningless .

        • Tom Austin February 10, 2017 at 11:33 PM

          Don’t feed the troll and he may go away. Dano is an “expert” on everything. Everyone else is ignorance incarnate, (sarcasm off)

        • Dano2 February 11, 2017 at 7:56 AM

          The image shows how your assertion is utterly incorrect. Human society is utterly dependent on the environment for survival. It is not dependent on an economy for survival.



          • Bob Armstrong February 11, 2017 at 9:41 AM

            I will feed the troll just once more .

            “Human society is utterly dependent on the environment for survival.”

            DUH !! .

            ” It is not dependent on an economy for survival.”

            SO STUPID IT HURTS .

            • Dano2 February 11, 2017 at 10:17 AM

              Let us know when you enroll in and attend your very first natural science class.



      • Brin Jenkins February 11, 2017 at 6:33 AM

        I think you mean your own ignorance Dano, now please explain for all the new guys how exactly C02 and infra red work to cause warming.

  6. MyRoseHasTHORNS February 10, 2017 at 9:22 PM

    “Sustainability” has become embedded in Scouting projects and community service and on school campuses (high school and colleges)

  7. J T February 11, 2017 at 9:09 AM

    So clear even brain-dead Dano could understand it, no?

  8. AllenBarclayAllen February 11, 2017 at 2:16 PM

    Mentily illness of liberal globalist suffering from vegan dementia lack of zinc projecting there illness on the rest of the world !
    Werd how the mind does that when imballenced thinks it’s seperior to all others ! Consoling in others with the same dementia to form a collectivity of intolectual stupidity to commit sociatle suiside like Lemmings hesterically running for the first cliff to jump off !
    In there lack of science knowledge they actually become the greatest contributes of polution from all I’ve studied ! Agenda 21 sustainability global warming climate change all madness of a self extinction of a people that stand by and let it happen to them !
    Yet their leaders at the top believe none of their drool drabel ,but find it convenient to build a new world communist order with carbon tax bent only on taxing fossil fuel from only because free energy sources perduce no revinue ! And their are plenty ! But as usual establishment rich only invest to put a stop to them from the start ! The answers to their mental carbon problem they in setting up this communist government will never persue ! A kingdom of liars bent on self destruction with no intention of using free energy or cheaper than coal bloom energy !
    So goes the al Gore ,the Obama’s , the George SOROS all this generation of madness of mentally ill attempting to rual a would they couldn’t possibly understand especially mentally disabled with a zinc deficiency of veganism !

    But George SOROS just picked up some bargain coal stocks Obama left him ! Hmmmmmm ! So how Mutch of this b*ls**t of theirs should I buy !!!?????????????

  9. wally12 February 13, 2017 at 12:00 AM

    Excellent article Mr. Driessen: What I have become to believe is that most liberals accept this B.S. but also some republicans. What I don’t known is why. I suspect that liberals accept these concepts because that is what they they have been trained to do and are supposed to do. I suspect that some republicans accept these concepts because they are in it for the money and are it means they are invested in green energy, are simply liberals in disguise, or they are simply looking to show their basic liberal counties or state that they are for you before they are against. In other words, elect me first and I’ll do anything you want.

  10. Immortal600 February 13, 2017 at 1:03 PM

    For the AGW sheep.

    “We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s
    imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified,
    dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us
    has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and
    being honest.”
    – Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports

    • Dano2 February 13, 2017 at 10:16 PM

      Smart ppl know this is a quote-mined passage. No word on why poor hapless Isandlwhana doesn’t know it.



  11. Tuaca1107 February 22, 2017 at 2:30 AM

    Well we don’t have to worry about fossil fuels and we can use as much oil as we need at a much cheaper price. Joyful news, oil is renewable!!! That’s right so put your fossil fuel worries to rest!!! Besides people, how many dead dinosaurs do you think there were?!

Comments are closed.