Even as people are awakening to the UN Agenda 21, and its effects on private property and the way we live our lives, its still plodding forward slowly driven by the inertia of roughly 20 years.  In 1992, we were told that the rest of the world was poor.  And poor, not because of their own despotic governments, central planning, or inefficient socialist tendencies, but rather as a result of our (U.S.A.'s) own successes.

And Bill Clinton couldn't wait to sign on.

And on June 29, 1993, The "President's Council on Sustainable Development" was established by Executive Order No. 12852.

Its mission described as "solely advisory in nature" though since that time, countless federal grants and incentives to local governments through COG functionaries ('Council of Government' - Non government organizations, but partnered with government) have been given.  Those non profit NGOs have then acted to finance the implementation of zoning and planning rules that wouldn't have had the interest without the seed money feeding planners and local officials who express a desire for cool cities, village centers etc..

A21 and its accompanying Rio Declaration are pretty clear.

"Principle 8

To achieve sustainable development and a higher quality of life for all people, States should reduce and eliminate unsustainable patterns of production and consumption and promote appropriate demographic policies.

We have been wondering up here in the hinterland why some rural communities and townships would EVER consider hiring urban planners to work full time.  Perhaps it was the free money to start doing so?  One of those MSU trained planners locally developed an ordinance for campgrounds locally that restricted the ability of a family to live on the campground they built to only September.  Stating "It would be a Residence then..", the planner pointed to it as a zoning argument.

Yeah, because an owner living on his own camping property violates everyone else's rights.

And in the upper peninsula, the ongoing concern for a coal plant should be ringing the alarm bells like a catholic church on Sunday morning.  I wrote about it last December:

"And manufacturing is what Michigan has always been about. No Utopian vision of cool cities and green 'great societies' where we are all fed like pigs with a trough, can undermine the fact that Michigan's secret to success has always been its ability to craft, create, or build, and its secret to recovery will be the same.  A higher cost to manufacturers translates directly into either higher cost of goods, a few less people on the line, or even more devastating a loss of a company altogether.  According to a September SMU study, energy could be particularly hurtful to Upper Michigan's core industry, paper.

"For each manufacturing job lost, many other dependent jobs will also exit the economy. One in eight private sector jobs rely upon our manufacturing base. For energy intensive manufacturing industries, the relationship is even higher. For example, models show each job lost in iron and steel, 12.3 jobs are lost elsewhere, pulp and paper, 9.7 jobs and refining, 36.3 jobs"

A higher cost of energy in the Midwest, means higher costs to mine ore, produce steel, means losses of jobs there, and results in double whammy to the upper peninsula paper producers.</span></span>Oh, and costs WILL be higher.  Even directly to the consumers in the UP by the actions of this administration's EPA, the cost of electricity will likely increase by 4 cents per KWH.  A shutdown of this particular plant in Marquette will require the building of a transmission system from Wausau, WI at a cost of a Billion bananas.

Typically, those costs are passed along to buyers of electricity, ya know?

When considering the cause and effect of such overreaching regulatory efforts on Michigan's working class, one might consider such factors to be important. If overall health concerns are truly paramount, then the cause and effect might matter to a discerning leader.  If  economic health concern is a part of the equation then any leader who feigns ignorance of such effect is derelict in his or her service representing us.

And therein lies the problem."

And now, under the guise of a local environmental initiative, the 25x25 plan is trying to force us out of even more. The initiative would mandate that by 2025, 25% of the state's electricity must come form renewable resources. In one of the strange twists of the environmental movement, those resources by the way, DO include hydro electric power,   yet all the previous enviro-babble (25x25.org does not) has stated it is NOT a renewable.  The proposal was filed by Michigan Energy, Michigan Jobs on January 12, 2012, and turned in July 6 for the November ballot. Indeed it follows the UN Rio Declaration principles and guides us toward a more complete compliance with A21:

Principle 15

In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

The radical  25x25 initiative is a way to get us out of the manufacturing business. (A global agenda) And it is unworkable. The Environmental Council has the MSU Green sheet Jobs report states:

" ... Beginning no later than 2025, at least 25% of each electricity provider's annual retail electricity sales in Michigan shall be derived from the generation or purchase of electricity produced from clean renewable electric energy sources. The foregoing clean renewable electric energy standard shall be implemented incrementally and in a manner that fosters a diversity of energy generation technologies. Facilities used for satisfying the standard shall be located within Michigan or within the retail customer service territory of any electric utility, municipally-owned electric utility or cooperative electric utility operating in Michigan.

Consumers shall be charged for electricity from clean renewable electric energy sources in the same manner and on the same basis as for electricity from other sources.

To protect consumers, compliance with the clean renewable electric energy standard shall not cause rates charged by electricity providers to increase by more than 1% in any year. Annual extensions for meeting the standard may be granted, but only to the extent demonstrated to be necessary for an electricity provider to comply with the foregoing rate limitation."

And the claim of jobs creation has already been debunked.  Spain tried it, and has since suspended its support for such things:

"The results in Spain were even more stark than in Germany: a study conducted in 2009 found that for every 1 "green" job that Spain created, 2.2 jobs were destroyed elsewhere."

"At least 74,495 Michigan jobs will be created if the Michigan Energy Michigan Jobs renewable energy ballot proposal passes in November, according to a new report from researchers at Michigan State University.

The study also found the higher renewable electricity standard would create more than $10 billion in new investments. "

"The Michigan Environmental Council's press releasesaid that the Michigan Energy, Michigan Jobs renewable energy ballot proposal would create 74,495 jobs.However, the report never said it would create 74,495 jobs, but instead said it would create that many "job years." It's an important distinction in economic analysis that the MSU report acknowledges.

Yep, things are indeed looking up.

Up, as in Cost to produce goods, unemployment, wealth and technology transfer overseas, and overall misery index.

Forget about it.