Jun 6

Written by: Steve Erbach
Friday, June 06, 2008 5:18 AM

Jo Egelhoff wrote a piece on her FoxPolitics.net blog the other day dealing with the upcoming Foth Conference on Sustainability: Balancing People, Planet and Profit, June 19th at the Radisson Paper Valley Hotel in Appleton.

She started off promisingly with "What the heck is 'sustainability?'" I figured that she might add a bit more oomph to the subject by actually saying what she thinks about it.

I was disappointed, however, to read the tepid:

Whether or not you believe global warming is a real and proven phenomenon, advocates say sustainability makes sense on a purely fiscal basis. And I’m all for that.

The Foth Conference will focus on the so-called Natural Step program, devised by a Swedish group.

I posted this comment:

Jo, I don't buy it.

To these eyes, The Natural Step (TNS) framework is simply a slickly-packaged attempt to implement central planning. There is no way to present a substantive counter-argument in a comment on your blog, but I know socialism when I see it.

I examined the TNS web site for which you provided a link. I thought that a couple statements in its oddly-worded (translation difficulty?) "System Conditions" were telling:

"Society's health and prosperity depends on the enduring capacity of nature to renew itself and rebuild waste into resources."

This is semantic, logical, and social gobbledygook. Whatever happened to "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."?

"Rebuild waste into resources"? Surely, we're already doing that ... but to include it in a credo as a major tenet is also surely a sign that somebody is interested in central control over commerce and freedom.

And this whole paragraph:

"All human beings have intrinsic needs. The goal of the social system is to provide the opportunity for all to meet those needs, as a precondition to a dignified way of life for everyone. 'What' we do and 'how' we do it matters. To make decisions which take us toward this goal, in consideration of any policy, product, marketing or investment, we should always identify in advance the people who are going to be affected, taking the widest possible systems view. We should ask ourselves: 'Would we like to be subjected to the conditions we create?' In addition, the manner in which we make these decisions should allow for participation, be transparent, hold actors accountable and be honest."

I would think that Americans, at least, would understand that this is a brazen, bald-faced attempt to destroy property rights, self-government, and individual liberty. It is socialism re-packaged in a sexy new wrapper.

I cannot react too strongly to this sort of nonsense. Consider: when TNS says, "We should ask ourselves: 'Would we like to be subjected to the conditions we create?' ", it says that the conditions under which America was created were insufficient and hollow. Those conditions created the most robust, advanced, and wealthy nation in the history of mankind. Now we're supposed to subvert our incredible accomplishments to "rebuild waste into resources"?

With apologies to Patrick Henry (remember him?): Is sustainability so dear, or biodiversity so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of dependence on sustainability "experts" and control by ecosystem mavens? Forbid it, Almighty God!

Tags: