UN ‘Green Growth’ Education Envisions State Control of Private Property
The United Nations is promoting an agenda that is being used to transform American life and property rights around the country.
While the brave new world promised by the U.N. may be visible in two communities in Virginia, a hamlet in Alabama gives hope that Americans can fight back and win against the powerful interests pushing these changes in how we live.
I described in my book, “U.N. Agenda 21: Environmental Piracy,” what life was like in the EcoVillage in Loudon County, Virginia, then at the forefront of the smart/green growth agenda.
According to the Washington Post in 2011, the residents were “a typical middle-class mix of mostly white-collar workers.” The homes in this utopian paradise ranged from a foreclosed home of $359,000 all the way up to an $895,000 to $1.7 million price tag.
The roads leading to this community were unpaved, the terrain was rough, and the typical green lawns were replaced by wilderness grasses, which residents preferred in order to reduce their carbon footprints. Gravel roads substituted for unpaved roads, as this reduced car traffic and harmful runoff into the Potomac River. Parking was delineated to lots around the commune, not in front of people’s homes.
This green EcoVillage had been founded in 1996, way ahead of the mainstream global green-growth movement that now plagues every county in the nation.
Residents of EcoVillage, in a commune fashion, had to abide by strict ecological standards for building, lighting, and landscaping. “Villagers” could only pick from six approved house plans built in clusters of one-third to three-quarter-acre lots for a total of 14 houses. Each lot sold then for $80,000.
The founders of the EcoVillage have lived since 2001 in a “straw-bale house with timber beams, encased in thick stucco walls.”
A rooftop solar system heated the house with a complicated system of pipes and switches, and an electric backup for sunless days. Some homes had geothermal underground pipes and windows were strategically placed to capture more sun.
EcoVillagers planted 11,000 trees to replace flora with indigenous varieties. Any species of vegetation that was not local, according to National Geographic, represented “biological imperialism.”
The planted trees offered a haven for local birds, which prompted the Audubon Society to name the EcoVillage a Home Wildlife Sanctuary. “Eighty-five percent of its 90 acres are protected open space.”
Protected space is one of the goals of U.N. Agenda 2030, which aims to make most land protected and unavailable to further development.
The EcoVillagers admitted that costs weren’t effective; their choices were not about the money. They were well-off people trying to escape “the traffic and congestion of Vienna,” an upscale town with million-dollar homes.
The life of the village consisted of potluck suppers and tree planting parties. Adults and children were required to perform monthly community service in the EcoVillage commune. I am unsure if this EcoVillage living model is still thriving in Lovettsville, Virginia.
Not Serving American Dream
The U.N. Agenda 21, which has now morphed into U.N. Agenda 2030, had directed that growth had to be green and smart, with “locally centered lifestyles.”
But the lifestyles envisioned by the U.N. aren’t native to American soil or at home with the American spirit.
Americans have always loved their cars, the wide-open roads, mobility, their cities, and freedom and are not so much fond of village life. In order to search for the American dream, you had to be mobile.
The walking and biking everywhere that Agenda 21/2030 dictated, five minutes from work, play, shopping, and school, is not exactly what Americans desired. They had to be indoctrinated into such a lifestyle.
Look at the Chinese and their vast graveyards of bikes that the cities began to remove off the streets, when the fad of city bike-shares started to die off. From space, they look like fields of flowers but, in reality, they are fields of discarded, unclaimed, and unwanted bikes, most of them brand-new.
In Ashburn, Virginia, the Willowsford community was planned on a “4,000-acre development containing four villages where farming, history, family, fine living connect with gorgeous single-family homes,” says a community brochure.
Community living is a concept that the Willowsford founders created, to focus on healthy living and nature. As the brochure explained, “residents of Willowsford are able to choose their own fresh food, ‘farm-to-table’ style, and enjoy the produce grown right in their own neighborhood. The concept of sustainable community living is growing all over the country.
Indeed, U.N. Agenda 2030 goals espouse sustainable community living.
The unique feel of the expensive commune (home plans are in the $700,000 range and up) is enhanced by the stated goal that each of the four neighborhoods will have its own farm and become an “agri-hood.”
“In the months of May-November, Sundays are volunteer days for the community to help out on the farm fields.” It is hard to imagine wealthy Virginia bureaucrats, who could afford such expensive homes, farming for their food in a commune atmosphere more suited for communism.
Defending Property Rights
One of the most worrisome aspects of the U.N. Agenda 2030 is its attack on property rights.
The tiny town of Bayou LaBatre, the seafood capital of Alabama, was about to be turned upside down by powerful NGOs who were there with grant money, with strings attached, to tell them how they should live.
The quiet, happy, productive lives of the locals of 200-plus years were about to be fundamentally changed by the “visioning” of powerful environmental NGOs who knew better how private-property rights should be handled.
The predetermined “visioning” was the plan to reorganize communities around the nation, in order to control the land and how people live. They wanted to transform this town to “eco-tourism,” locking away land from development. As Tom DeWeese, President of the American Policy Council, described, “It means that every fly, snail darter, and mosquito has more rights than the people who own and live on the property.”
The town’s future had been carefully “visioned” by powerful NGOs with rules and regulations that never existed before. Bayou LaBatre would have had restricted growth, destruction of property rights, and no choice for residents who would have been forbidden to rebuild in the event of severe property damage or total destruction in a flood, fire, or hurricane.
“Instead, the property would be taken over and used for the eco-tourism plan—perhaps becoming a bistro for the tourists.”
With help from DeWeese’s organization, the townspeople were able to defeat the eco-tourism plan of the powerful NGOs. Local effort and education can successfully push back the U.N. Agenda 2030 goals.
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.