Agenda 21: The Orchestrated Conspiracy

The fly-over region of the United States has taken arms in recent weeks over a 20 year old UN resolution called Agenda 21.  Legislators from Tennessee to Texas have been deliberating whether the UN sponsored initiative promoting sustainability through the foundation ICLEA is in fact an attack on civil liberties.

Agenda 21 is a comprehensive sustainability plan designed to be implemented on a global, national, and local level.  The document was adopted by more than 178 Governments at the United Nationals Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janerio, Brazil in 1992.  Agenda 21 details methods for conservation and management of resources for development, strengthening the role of major social groups, and means of implementation.

In the US, the recommendations of Agenda 21 are not legally binding unless the government—at any level—adopts it into law or local ordinance.  Usually this method is accomplished through seeking membership in the Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI) and complying with Agenda 21 in local ordinances order to do so .  The recommendations in Agenda 21 are similar to those outlined in Smart Growth, Sustainable Communities, Greenways, and similar programs that pursue similar initiatives.

So why this sudden outcry? Environmental sustainability has been a growing iniative for some time.  It seems as though Agenda 21 has become the whipping boy for a larger underlying issue. For decades, citizens have rallied against eminent domain and expanding powers of government. The fight had remained at a simmer until the recent Kelo case where the state thrust personal property rights under the proverbial bus of corporations. The backlash has taken an interesting tangent.

The proponents of Anti-Agenda 21 agendas are often fervent patriots with a crystallized, idealized set of values regarding American life, personal rights, and strict adherence to the Constitution.  As a group of outliers, the party could not build the momentum needed to appeal to a larger audience and condemn the US Government for protecting public interest through eminent domain. In order to attack the concept and pool support, the party had to appeal to a larger demographic with a similar enemy. The enemy in common happened to be the UN.

Many Conservative Americans believe the United Nations is a corrupt organization who is part of a greater conspiracy to reduce the sovereignty of the United States.  Agenda 21, being a product of this "corrupt" body, is an idea target.  Opponents have orchestrated a loud (and often disruptive) effort to keep any item within the Agenda from passing into legislation.  Chalres P. Pierce explained best when he said

"There is a visceral, eminently exploitable feeling around the anti-Agenda 21 people that nobody really wants to be told what to do, even if what is being said to them is only a recommendation."

Pierce goes on to state, "It's childish, but it's real, and it's powerful."  And he's right. The recommendations of Agenda 21 are not by any means radical.  There is no call to value the environment above man. In fact, many of the categories are environmental efforts that communities have been partaking in already.  Smart Growth did not arise from Agenda 21, nor did New Urbanism or any other planning method.  These efforts are all existing forms of land management, and occasionally they employ the use of eminent domain.

The irony is that the elements of Agenda 21 actually benefit the very people attacking it.  In practice, it assists communities in saving energy and money, creates more transportation choices, preserves clean air and brings economic prosperity in the process.

Just last week the state of Tennessee approved legislation condemning the document as "destructive and insidious".  A review of the anti-sustainability bill by the Tennessee Fiscal Office of the Legislature found that its impacts would be disastrous for the state: loss of federal funding and state and local revenue; the invalidation of existing state air- and water-protection laws. Luckily the bill has not yet progressed beyond committee.  Arkansas mayor Patrick Henry Hays surmised the legislation best.

"...the message sent last Thursday by the Tennessee House of Representatives to local elected officials: Do not attract new business investment by making your community a great place to live. Do not pursue economic opportunity that also benefits the environment. And by no means should you plan ahead for what kind of community you want to leave your children and grandchildren."

Thousands local representatives nationwide understand the truth about sustainability. Balancing economic, environmental, and social concern while considering the future outcomes of today's actions is imperative for a healthy and prosperous nation.  The environment is an integral element to our prosperity and I am certain sustainable initiatives will survive this insidious attack

Its Not That Easy Being Green

Its not easy being green

Its not that easy being green.

Four years after then candidate Obama announced his enthusiastic campaign to make green jobs and alternative energy R+D a key fixture of his presidency, city leaders are realizing their high expectations of a green revolution have fallen short. Cities across America are struggling to maintain their ambitious local efforts to fight global warming, in part due to a continually sluggish economy. Many are being force to abandon their green-at-all-costs approach.

College Station, home of Texas A&M, is one of the most recent communities forced to retreat. The College Station City Council decided last month that its green efforts should be "fiscally responsible" and create "a real and tangible return of investment to the city."  They have abandoned their goal to be a leader in energy efficiency and the reduction of green house gases.

In Paolo Alto, CA, the city is struggling to support their environmentally conscious residents.  After initiating a recycling program, the city  was forced to hike trash rates twice in one year.  Paolo Alto uses money from collecting garbage to pay for the recycling process, but since residents have been so supportive of the recycling program the solid waste management department has gone broke keeping up with demand.

Thousands of communities of all sizes and scales have signed the U.S. Conference of Mayors' agreement which asks for cities to reduce their CO2 emissions below 1990 levels over the coming years.  In return for the counties and states to receive grants specifically to fund energy-efficiency projects. Recently, however, those funds have run dry. College Station for example, received $791,000 from the federal government in 2009 to enact some of their green initiatives, including purchasing a fleet of hybrid cars.

A study of 396 cities highlighted financial constraints as the biggest obstacle to their ambitious environmental agendas. Uncertainty on the return rates of new technology coupled with high initial infrastructure costs have further thwarted community efforts. In addition, a recent uprising against sustainable initiatives packaged as Agenda 21 have drawn negative attention to the topic.

Being "green" has become a catch phrase for residents and politicians alike, but the realities of climate change in an economic recession are stark.  Many cities. like Albuquerque, for example, have relaxed their environmental standards until the economy recovers in a hope to encourage development.  Regions of Ohio are embracing natural gas fracking, a topic once avoided for its detrimental and immeasurable environmental outcomes.  One can't help but wonder if these communities are abandoning sustainable practices that don't only help the planet but their budgets as well.

Not everyone is giving up on the green dream.  Popular Science recently released a survey highlighting model communities who are producing successful and rapid sustainable change.  Small, incremental policy changes can have significant results without burdening cities in a financial crunch. Changing light bulbs, turning off unneeded electronics, and limiting the use of indoor climate control in public buildings not only reduces the carbon footprint but saves the city money! It might not be flashy or come with a banner that reads, "We are the best," but it works.  Electric cars are relatively new to the market and don't have much infrastructure to support an entire fleet. Maybe College Station could have allocated their grant into a better developed form of sustainable innovation?

The fact remains, climate change isn't going away and neither will the green movement.  Residents and businesses can continue to minimize their personal impact while communities sturdy their treasuries and plan for smarter, more effective change. As one fine green friend of mine once said,

"When green is all there is to be
It could make you wonder why, but why wonder why?
Wonder, I am green and it'll do fine, it's beautiful!
And I think it's what I want to be."
-Kermit the Frog

Masdar: The Sustainable City

In 2007, the government of Abu Dhabi announced its plans for the first carbon neutral city in the world. A plan for a new city, Masdar, would blossom from the sands to house over 40,000 residents a perfectly square and perfectly sustainable community. Skepticism was high, especially considering nearby in the UAE sat what could arguably be the least sustainable city on the planet, Dubai. The tallest structure ever built, indoor ski slopes, and man-made islands seemed to detour the environmentally conscious conspicuous consumers. Leaders choose to pursue an alternative route to lure Westerners into the desert, sustainability.

The community is situated 17km from the nearby metropolis of Abu Dhabi.   Masdar-Abu Dhabi Future Energy Company and the Mubadala Development Company commissioned this carbon neutral city to lure top research institutions, R&D program and highly skilled graduates. Ultimately, Masdar will become a powerful technology cluster where global renewable energy systems and clean technology industries develop, test and implement their ideas.

It seems as though money is no object to this oil rich nation.  Designed by Foster and Partners, a firm known for their technological and environmental innovation (see Reichstag),  Masdar City claims to provide the highest quality living and working environment with the lowest possible carbon footprint.  The city is oriented northeast-southwest to maximize local wind and sun patterns.  Inspired by architecture and planning of traditional Arab cities, Masdar incorporates narrow streets, window shading, thick walled buildings, court yards, and wind towers. Residential, recreational, civic, retail, leisure, commercial, and light industrial areas are intermixed in the master plan to coincide with public transportation networks. This completely walkable community attempts to eliminate the need for cars and trucks; therefore, reducing pollution and emissions and promoting cleaner air.  Narrow roads allow buildings to be cited closer together producing more shade while still allowing access to natural light. Green parks separate the built up districts to reduce solar gain and direct cool breeze into the center of the city.  The commercial and residential spaces are designed to maximize day lighting and reduce the need for air-conditioning.

Street view of Masdar

Masdar has already received numerous awards for its design initiatives, but one has to ask… is it truly a sustainable city?

The first residents of Masdar began relocating in September of 2010, and already a glaring issue became present.  NICOLAI OUROUSSOFF reported it in his New York Times critique, “(Masdar’s) Utopian purity, and its isolation from the life of the real city next door, are grounded in the belief—accepted by most people today, it seems—that the only way to create a truly harmonious community, green or otherwise, is to cut it off from the world at large.”  This Dinseyland-esque style of a totally integrated development does not leave much space for organic evolution or connection to existing communities.

The other issue brought to light is how this over-sized gated community can provide services for a cross section of residents that include laymen and scientist.  Social and Cultural sustainability are also factors to recognize in a truly “sustainable” city.  The design claims to denounce social exclusion, but in this high tech world affordable housing for support staff seem like an afterthought.  The design is mainly geared for students, researchers and their families.  No one of lesser means can afford the cost of housing or services within Masdar.  The society cannot claim to be self sufficient if it cannot support all member of its community and provide a range of living options.  This utopia then is in fact a façade, sustained by laborers and factors outside of the city.

Ouroussoff asked, “how a project like Masdar can ever attain the richness and texture of a real city?” Masdar has limited relevance to the modern world and its issues of equality or humanity.  The result instead, is a super-scale version of something all are far too familiar with, economic polarization and segregation.  The wealthiest and educated middle class are able to wall themselves off within “sustainable” utopias while the huddled masses are relegated to the polluted slums.

Technologically, the project is a sustainable success.  The city does in fact have a minimal carbon footprint, even though it is greenfield (or sand-field) construction it seems to have no negative environmental impact on its surrounding communities. Sociologically it is a failure.  Like every utopia that has come before, the community cannot be self sufficient without proper diversification.  It is a level of unattainable altruism.