• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Liberty Roundtable

  • LIVE LIBERTY NEWS RADIO
  • LRT ARCHIVE
  • ABOUT
  • ADVERTISE
  • DONATE
  • CONTACT
You are here: Home / Archives for Sustainable Development

Sustainable Development

January 28, 2022 By Sam Bushman

PLASTIC IS NOT A THREAT TOM DEWEESE

I am fed up to my burning ears with the carte blanche castigation of plastic. Plastic is one of the greatest inventions ever, not only for modern society, but also for the environment. If plastic seems to now pose an environmental threat, it’s not plastic’s fault – but the fault of the environmental movement itself.

The use of plastic reduces the need for other natural resources. Plastic bags, cups, and plates save the need for more paper. It saves the trees the greens are so concerned about. Plastic tables and chairs and lamps also save the demand for wood. Plastic bumpers on cars eliminate the need for chrome, a natural mineral the greens worried about a couple of decades ago – plastic provided the saving solution. And the use of plastic in cars makes them lighter and therefore more fuel efficient. Plastic makes heart transplants possible. Plastic is used in a wide variety of medical devises, without which people would either die or be denied happy, useful lives. There is no natural wood, paper, or glass substitute.

It’s interesting to note that the decade-old American obsession with bottled water resulted from environmentalist scares over possible chemicals in municipal tap water. Green radicals like the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) spewed horror stories of tap water full of rocket fuel, arsenic, germs, feces, lead, and pesticides.    Plastic bottles provided the solution. Now the pendulum has swung and we’re all supposed to forget the earlier scaremongering over tap water and obey the new scare over water bottles. Crisis to crisis – whatever keeps up the green fundraising and power-building.  It’s also interesting to note that one of the biggest promoters of the return to tap water is the National Conference of Mayors. Many cities are now taxing each bottle used. A classic move – right out of the government handbook. Vilify it and then tax it.

So the mantra goes, plastic bottles and products are filling the landfills. Says one ad (by a water filter company with an ulterior motive to compete with plastic water bottles), America uses enough plastic water bottles to ring the earth several times in a year. Plastic bottles don’t degrade, they say, so they will be in the ground forever. The collectively acceptable answer, of course, is that we simply must ban them and any other use of plastic, if possible.

One corporation using the anti-plastic propaganda is the Whole Foods super market chain which forces its suppliers to provide “sustainable” and recyclable packaging for their products or they will be banned from the store’s shelves. The chain also does not use plastic carrier bags. Instead, it uses either paper bags or encourages customers to bring in their own reusable cloth bags. Whole Foods is a large enough force in the grocery market that such policies force other chains to follow suit. That, of course, is its political strategy.

Whole Foods CEO, John Mackey, is a full-fledged promoter of Sustainable Development as a political policy. He talks of corporations “doing good,” through a policy of “Conscious Capitalism.”  I love the use of those words, “responsible;” “good,” “conscious.” Says who? Rather than a businessman, Mackey is ultimately promoting his own political agenda on the buying public. That isn’t free enterprise; it’s a form of activism designed to covertly enforce behavior modification techniques on the buying public.

In addition, Mackey’s drive to “do good” has a lot of unintended consequences. First, he has helped to perpetrate lies and prejudices to encourage lawmakers to ban valuable products. That causes job loss in that industry. Second, he is taking away the right of choice from those who don’t accept his position. Third, all so-called sustainable policies lead to one specific conclusion – higher prices for consumers. Fourth, his actions may well lead to endangering the health of many consumers. For example, removing plastic bottles for shampoos and conditioners and replacing them with glass bottles will be a hazard in the bathroom when they inevitably fall on the floor.

Finally there is a growing hypocrisy from the do-good faction. Some governments, such as in Fairfax County, Virginia are now charging 5 cents tax for every plastic bag, with the intention of returning us to the paper bags that were banned in the name of environmental protection for trees. The difference now is that the government will get to fill its coffers from the unnecessary regulations it imposed.

Of course, when political power is at stake, consumers are simply pawns to be manipulated. In San Francisco, where the city government banned the use of plastic bags, one resident wrote, “I remember when it began to rain last year while I was carrying my groceries home in a paper bag. As I chased my cans down the street, I cursed our idiot mayor and whoever among his stooges had decided to ban rainproof plastic bags in San Francisco. Paper is certainly biodegradable, for the process started even as I was carrying the bag home.” Where was her freedom of choice?

When one is driven by political correctness or globally-acceptable truth, one has a hard time looking past the “allowable” thought patterns to ask obvious questions. Are plastic bottles really a threat to landfills?  Is there another way to dispose of plastic other than throwing it in landfills? Is there any other reason landfills are filling up, and is there a solution? There are answers to these questions, but they will surely make the greens choke on their tofu as they read them.

The fact is, according to a 2010 report by Angela Logomasini of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, plastic bottles are not filling up landfills. They represent less than one percent of landfill waste. She goes on to agree that they don’t degrade, “but nothing does.”

In addition, we have an artificial shortage of landfills because environmental regulations prevent new ones. We have no lack of land in America and could open numerous new land fills to meet growing needs. Angela Logomasini agrees that we have plenty of landfill space and adds, “one large landfill 44 miles by 44 miles could manage 1,000 years of our waste. Simple enough, but completely politically in-correct in today’s attack on logic. It’s much more acceptable to regulate and ban valuable products. That has become the American way.

Those old landfills, once full, could be used for other uses. By researching the subject I found a list of 10 former landfills around the nation that were converted to parks, golf courses, playgrounds, soccer fields, and shopping centers. One in Virginia Beach, VA, was converted into a full-blown city park called Mount Trashmore. We’re supposed to envision landfills as a no man’s land of devastation and waste forevermore (hence the need to block the creation of new ones). But, again, it’s not true.

Finally, there are at least two possible scientific solutions to the disposal of plastic — first, heat. Plastic products are produced and shaped through the use of heat. It melts at a very low temperature. Instead of throwing massive amounts of money into propaganda to destroy the plastics industry, those concerned over the disposing of plastic could develop and purchase heat-generating machines (without smokestacks) and place them at every landfill. Then, melt the plastic into reusable liquid. Well, perhaps that’s not as much fun as bullying us with anti-plastic police forces.

In 2020, scientists working at the University of Portsmouth developed and even better solution. According to their findings, Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) is the most common thermoplastic, used to make single-use drink bottles, clothing, and carpets. Usually, PET takes hundreds of years to break down in the environment, the leading attack against plastic. However, scientists have re-engineered a plastic-eating enzyme called PETase into an enzyme cocktail. Incredibly, this new PETase process can shorten those hundreds of years of plastic breakdown into a matter of days. That will revolutionize plastic recycling and eliminate the environmental danger.

However, as many now understand, little in these attacks against industrial revolution products have anything to do with science or truth. The roots of the environmental movement’s agenda lay in the determination to destroy free markets. The use of fear of ecological Armageddon creates political power and massive funding for them. So, actually solving the problem means losing the power and the money. That’s why no headlines have promoted solutions beyond banning the products.

Instead, there is now a steady march by the stores, which have always provided the bags (whether paper or plastic) for free, to embrace government regulations that will ban the bags. Providing those bags for free to every customer is a considerable cost for the store. Now, however, with the government’s new tax, in the name of environmental protection, they are succeeding in getting consumers to purchase their own “reusable” bags which the store now sells to you for a profit. It’s a new profit center built on environmental guilt. “Conscious Capitalism,” indeed. Partnerships between government and private corporations, for the sake of political power, is more accurately called fascism, and truth and liberty always lose in that game.


TOM DEWEESE

Tom DeWeese is one of the nation’s leading advocates of individual liberty, free enterprise, private property rights, personal privacy, back-to-basics education and American sovereignty and independence.

Filed Under: 1News, Health Tagged With: Agenda, Environment, Environmental Danger, Landfills, Plastic, Sustainable Development, Tom Deweese, Whole Foods

September 18, 2021 By Sam Bushman

AGENDA 21: CANCEL CULTURE ON A WORLD-WIDE SCALE

by Kathleen Marquardt | Published 9-16-21

Since 1992, we, at American Policy Center have been pointing out that one of the major goals of Agenda21/Sustainable Development is to reduce the human population by over 90%. Yet many laugh and call us conspiracy theorists. What I don’t understand about this statement is that we had been hearing for decades that the world is overpopulated; that we will run out of space and room for everyone; that we can’t feed so many. At the same time that we were reading Paul Ehrlich’s Population Bomb and Population Explosion and the Club of Rome’s The Limits to Growth, America was being called the breadbasket of the world. Of the world! We were sending food all over the world to feed people. So, the problem was not about feeding us dirty hordes of skeptical people. It was, and is, that some of us – especially Americans – believe in the right to property and liberty, which prevents the globalist cabal from just taking all the land they want, reducing the whole world’s population by some 90+%, and living in “Marxist Nirvana” (contradiction of terms notwithstanding).

But because we never stopped saying that this catastrophic reduction of humans on the earth was a major part of the plan, we were seen as nut cases since, by then, they had already either got people to believe in their catastrophic scenario or because many more didn’t think a reduction was going happen. Nevertheless, the globalists have been using many methods to reduce the population for decades, but none as huge as COVID. Remember the Tuskegee Experiment from 1932 to 1972? For 40 years the goal was to “observe the natural history of untreated syphilis” in black populations, but the subjects were completely unaware and were instead told they were receiving treatment for bad blood when in fact, they received no treatment at all. And the Gates Foundation putting birth control meds in vaccines in Africa?

Then there is the fact that every day in the United States, abortions kill more humans than were killed in the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers. That is a substantial number, no matter what your view is on abortion. I would love to go into the Food Pyramid, school lunch programs, and others to show how the general populace is being lied to about health and diet. But I’m not. I do suggest that, if you are interested, check out Bedrock Living or Natural News.

Now, Bill Gates and the Chinese have bought up a great deal of America’s farmland. This globalist acquisition of farm and ranch land has also been in the works for years, but in the past few years, it has been accelerated greatly. Excuse me if I suppose that their aim is to starve us Americans to death – or capitulation (I expect it to be a lot of the former and a little of the latter). America is the only truly free nation in the world with a constitution that was written to protect the individual and his/her God-given rights – from other people and, especially, from the government.

The sad thing is that we are not – yet – leading the revolt against all the unconstitutional laws, edicts, and orders being levied on us and most of the world. I see three reasons for this:

  • Most of the population under 40 has been brainwashed and dumbed down in our education system that was set up for that very reason. (See Cancel Culture on Education.)[1]
  • The asymmetrical warfare we have been under attack from for decades is now on overdrive and many people are having a hard time coping with it psychologically.
  • Many, who do understand at least some of the problem, do not understand that we are in a mind-war, not an arms war, and they are waiting until they can begin firing. By the time we reach that stage, it will either be too late, or that the civil war to help erase a great number of us will have begun – either by provoking patriots who are itching for a fight, or for staging red flag events to precipitate the war. And this will help reduce the human population, whatever is used to ignite it.

So what I want to address are the reasons behind the reduction of the human population, who are instigating and carrying it out, and how it is being done.

According to Ted Turner, media mogul and a founder of the Club of Rome, “The total population of 250-300 million people is ideal. That means a reduction of 95% from present levels, which would be even more ideal.” Many of the other numbers I have heard from world leaders is usually around 500 million, which would be a reduction of only just over 90%.

World Wildlife Fund President Prince Phillip of the UK said, “Human population growth is probably the single most serious long-term threat to survival. We’re in for a major disaster if it isn’t curbed. We have no option. If it isn’t controlled voluntarily, it will be controlled involuntarily by an increase in disease, starvation and war.”

He went on to say: “I was in Sri Lanka recently, where a United Nations project set out in the late 1940s to eradicate malaria. It’s an island and it was, therefore, possible to destroy the mosquito carrying the disease. What people didn’t realize was that the malaria was actually controlling the growth (ital. mine) of the population. The consequence was that within about 20 years the population doubled.”[2] Definitely a negative outcome in his mind.

In 1971, the UN Population Commission designated 1974 as World Population Year and requesting the UN Secretary-General to “… study the possibilities of developing a global population strategy, including population movements, for promoting and coordinating population policy in Member States with the objective of achieving a balance between population and other natural resources (ital. mine).[3]

Now we are told, “The transferable birth quota plan proposes that scale and distribution of the rights to bear children be determined by the community at large, but that these rights then be traded in the free market.

“This plan is based on the perception that the right to reproduce can no longer be treated as a free good. It must be seen as a scarce good in a full world.”[4]

I could give you a hundred more quotes re population reduction needs, but let me just give one more, by Mr. Population Bomb himself, Professor Paul Ehrlich, in the prolog to his book The Population Explosion: “Our position requires that we take immediate action at home and promote effective action worldwide. We must have population control at home, hopefully through a system of incentives and penalties, but by compulsion of voluntary methods fail…. We can no longer afford merely to treat the symptoms of the cancer of population growth, the cancer itself, must be cut out.” (ital. mine)

But how many must die? What numbers will be allowed to live on this mortal coil if the Deep Greens, Deep State, and Globalists get their way? Let them tell you:

  • Ted Turner, “A total world population of 250-300 million, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
  • Mikhail Gorbachev, “We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren’t enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage.”
  • MIT professor Penny Chisholm, “The real trick is, in terms of trying to level off at someplace lower than that 9 billion, is to get the birthrates in the developing countries to drop as fast as we can. And that will determine the level at which humans will level off on earth.”
  • Jacques Costeau, “In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it is just as bad not to say it.”

Last, but not least, the co-founder of Earth First and founder of the ReWilding Institute, •Dave Foreman, “My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”

We were not lying about the globalist plan to reduce the world. It is a key to all the rest of the plan – “wilding” at least 50% of the earth’s surface, canceling the right to property, and establishing a one-world Marxist government. Just because we understand that a Marxist government can only destroy, not build or “build back better”, otherwise this one-world government will soon be on the ash heap of history, it doesn’t sit well with me that we will allow this.

Most people consider themselves environmentalists. And I would claim that the true environmentalist is a farmer, rancher, landowner, logger, fisherman, and all those who live closest to the land and work in symbiosis with it. Those who live in high-rise buildings, fight to “protect” nature from any human use, and, as Ted Nugent said, “never put their hands in a gut pile”, are fake environmentalists. They have little or no understanding of the biological workings of the flora and fauna on this earth. And they do not realize we humans are part of nature, part of the food chain. They speak of how important it is to save every little species – otherwise, the whole ecosystem of the world will collapse. Then, how much more important must it be to save one of the most prevalent species on earth? Where are the common sense, reason, and logic in their thinking?

For at least two reasons, I would suggest that they start using sound science, critical thinking, and logic and realize that 1. Human extinction will likely collapse the system, and 2. We “useless eaters” in their vernacular are the ones who make their world go round – produce not only the food but all the stuff that gives them great living standards – housing, clothing, computers, you name it.

We are on the verge of civilization collapse, but not for the reasons the environmentalists, globalists, and anti-humans believe. We are on the verge of collapse because of the evil, anti-humanity schemes, plots, and plans they are forever coming up with. Now is the time for us to throw the sabot into the machinery and stop the Marxist, Communist, Globalist plans, and bring back the Great American Experiment. And now is the time for people to wake up to the fact that we have tried to get through to them that a cataclysmic restructuring of the world is in the near future if people don’t finally accept that when the Globalists declared a needed reduction of the human population on a scale that is unfathomable to any thinking being, is a major part of their plan.

 

[1] https://americanpolicy.org/?s=cancel+culture+education

[2] “Environment”, People, December 1981, p.56 

[3] Claire Chambers, The SIECUS Circle: A Humanist Revolution, 1977, p.338.

[4] For the Common Good, by Daly and Cobb. 1994

Filed Under: 1News, Agenda 21, Communists, Human Rights, Population Control, Sustainable Development Tagged With: Agenda21, American Policy Center, COVID, COVID-19, Cultural Marxism, Earth First, Globalists, Human Population, Human Rights, Liberty, Overpopulation, Paul Ehrlich, Population Control, Sustainable Development, The U.N., United Nations

Primary Sidebar

Subscribe to Podcast

Apple PodcastsGoogle PodcastsAndroidby EmailRSSMore Subscribe Options

Get Posts via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to posts and receive notifications of new posts by email.

SIMPLE PLAYLIST

Archive

  • LIVE Liberty News Radio
  • LRT Podcast Feed
  • Advertise
  • Donate
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy

© 2004 - 2023    Copyright LIBERTY ROUNDTABLE    For Podcasts: You Have The Right To Copy - Please Do!

Scroll Up