Vehicle Ownership And Private Property

21 Jun 2011 09:20 #1 by Nmysys
In the name of "environmentalism" people will be expected to relinquish all private vehicles under the proposed U.N. agenda 21


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8YCLzlpDlw&feature=player_embedded

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

21 Jun 2011 09:31 #2 by TPP
"Out of my COLD DEAD HANDS!!!!"

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

21 Jun 2011 12:23 #3 by ScienceChic
Taking some paranoid pills again Nmysys? :biggrin: U.N Agenda 21 says nothing about taking cars away from people. Feel free to read the entire Publication for yourself, it's Section II, Part B., Subparagraph 2, Section 9.15 that pertains to this particular misconception.

Activities

9.15. Governments at the appropriate level, with the cooperation of the relevant United Nations bodies and, as appropriate, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, and the private sector, should: (this pertains to the Masdar Initiative mentioned in the video - see below. This wording is important: "Governments, with the cooperation of relevant UN bodies, should...NOT "The U.N. will...")

(a) Develop and promote, as appropriate, cost-effective, more efficient, less polluting and safer transport systems, particularly integrated rural and urban mass transit, as well as environmentally sound road networks, taking into account the needs for sustainable social, economic and development priorities, particularly in developing countries; (now, why bother developing "sound road networks" if they're just going to take everyone's cars away from them???)

(b) Facilitate at the international, regional, subregional and national levels access to and the transfer of safe, efficient, including resource-efficient, and less polluting transport technologies, particularly to the developing countries, including the implementation of appropriate training programmes;

(c) Strengthen, as appropriate, their efforts at collecting, analysing and exchanging relevant information on the relation between environment and transport, with particular emphasis on the systematic observation of emissions and the development of a transport database;

(d) In accordance with national socio-economic development and environment priorities, evaluate and, as appropriate, promote cost-effective policies or programmes, including administrative, social and economic measures, in order to encourage use of transportation modes that minimize adverse impacts on the atmosphere; (notice the word "encourage", not "force")

(e) Develop or enhance, as appropriate, mechanisms to integrate transport planning strategies and urban and regional settlement planning strategies, with a view to reducing the environmental impacts of transport;

(f) Study, within the framework of the United Nations and its regional commissions, the feasibility of convening regional conferences on transport and the environment.


The video originally posted also talks about the Masdar Initiative , implying that these two ideas are somehow linked. The Masdar Initiative is a city being built by its government, and yes the U.N. is probably helping out in terms of what's stated above, but it's not a U.N. action being forced upon anyone. The requirements for the city are set by the Abu Dhabi government officials, not the U.N..

Established in 2006, Masdar is a commercially driven enterprise that operates to reach the broad boundaries of the renewable energy and sustainable technologies industry – there by giving it the necessary scope to meet these challenges.

Masdar operates through five integrated units, including an independent, research-driven graduate university, and seeks to become a leader in making renewable energy a real, viable business and Abu Dhabi a global centre of excellence in the renewable energy and clean technology category. The result is an organisation greater than the sum of its parts and one where the synergies of shared knowledge and technological advancement provide this commercial and results-driven company with a competitive advantage that includes an ability to move with agility and intelligence within an industry that is evolving at great speed.

This holistic approach keeps Masdar at the forefront of this important global industry, while ensuring it remains grounded in the pursuit of pioneering technologies and systems that also are feasible. As a result, it delivers innovation to the market while deriving profits for its shareholders.

Masdar is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Abu Dhabi Government-owned Mubadala Development Company, a catalyst for the economic diversification of the Emirate.


The whole premise of the U.N. coming in and taking our cars is yet again misplaced hysteria at a non-issue.

"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther

The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

21 Jun 2011 12:43 #4 by PrintSmith
Not really SC. The roads will still be necessary for the transportation of goods to the high density urban centers that the UN views as more "sustainable social, economic and development priorities". Also, one of the means to "encourage use of transportation modes that minimize adverse impacts on the atmosphere" is to tax the private use of automobiles heavily. That is precisely how FDR and his congressional cabal "encouraged" people to not purchase certain arms, by effectively taxing them at a level that was unaffordable for most of the populace. While not a direct use of force, it is force nonetheless.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

21 Jun 2011 13:14 #5 by ScienceChic
PS, show me in any of that language where it states that they are forcing people to give up their cars. That's the premise that this whole notion is built upon.

I agree that roads could be just for the movement of goods, but if they are building a sustainable community, with mass transportation and a focus on local self-support, then there should be no need for as much transportation as we currently have.

"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther

The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

21 Jun 2011 13:29 #6 by ScienceChic
Forgot to add: considering that gas should cost a lot more than it really does, (thanks to government subsidies that we pay for, and its effects that need to be mitigated not being factored in) that would curb people's driving habits more effectively than anything, and gas should reflect its true cost.
http://www.grist.org/list/2011-06-20-ga ... per-gallon
Gas should cost $15 per gallon
by Sarah Laskow
20 Jun 2011

http://centerforinvestigativereporting. ... f-gas-4865

"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther

The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

21 Jun 2011 13:33 - 21 Jun 2011 13:34 #7 by PrintSmith
No SC, the premise isn't that the UN is looking to directly outlaw private ownership of transportation anymore than FDR sought a way to directly outlaw certain arms. The premise is that they are looking for a way to require their vision be adopted by making any alternative too expensive for the vast majority of people. The federal government could cut automobile generated GHGs and "encourage" use of mass transportation with the imposition of a $10/gallon fuel tax. That would, in practice, take away the car from the individual, would it not? That would prevent most people from commuting to work in a private automobile - especially people such as myself who live in Bailey and work in the city - would it not? It would "encourage" me to live in a high density urban setting instead of a rural community, would it not? And all the while it would be adhering to the language as expressed in UN Agenda 21. "Encouraging", not forcing compliance. Oh sure, the AlGores of the world would still have the money to travel at leisure in their private cars and private planes - as would the rest of the ruling elite - but the rest of us would be effectively prevented from doing the same simply because we couldn't afford to do it.

You can still own an M-16 (pre 1986 model that is) that will empty a 30 round clip in 3 seconds - IF you have the financial resources to pay upwards of $15K for it that is. The government has "encouraged" the populace not to own one by making it unaffordable for the vast majority of people. They haven't "forced" you to give up owning it, they've simply "encouraged" you not to.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

21 Jun 2011 13:34 #8 by Pony Soldier

Science Chic wrote: Forgot to add: considering that gas should cost a lot more than it really does, (thanks to government subsidies that we pay for, and its effects that need to be mitigated not being factored in) that would curb people's driving habits more effectively than anything, and gas should reflect its true cost.
http://www.grist.org/list/2011-06-20-ga ... per-gallon
Gas should cost $15 per gallon
by Sarah Laskow
20 Jun 2011

http://centerforinvestigativereporting. ... f-gas-4865

So you are advocating $15/gal gas to force people to change their driving habits? Wow, that's crazy!

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

21 Jun 2011 13:38 #9 by PrintSmith

Science Chic wrote: Forgot to add: considering that gas should cost a lot more than it really does, (thanks to government subsidies that we pay for, and its effects that need to be mitigated not being factored in) that would curb people's driving habits more effectively than anything, and gas should reflect its true cost.
http://www.grist.org/list/2011-06-20-ga ... per-gallon
Gas should cost $15 per gallon
by Sarah Laskow
20 Jun 2011

http://centerforinvestigativereporting. ... f-gas-4865

And this is how the UN plans to "encourage" you to give up your private automobile SC. They want you to pay that $15 dollars per gallon that the regressives think it should cost.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

21 Jun 2011 13:44 #10 by Rick
Why don't we get our country healthy again if that's even possible at this point before we even consider some utopian ideas that would bankrupt us in a New York second? I'd love to see the UN scraped off our soil.

The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.174 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum
sponsors
© My Mountain Town (new)
Google+