The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 4: The Rockefeller Connection

(This is a video presentation of the following analysis.  Click here for an .mp3 audio version)

In this part of the series of 'The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy' we are going to take a look at many of the groups behind CT climate change policy, and their curious connection to the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, which will be referred to as RBF from this point on.  We are going to start by following the timeline of the implementation of Connecticut climate change policy.

The first action taken by the state in regards to "global warming" was in 1990 with the passing of Public Act 90-219 "An Act Concerning Global Warming", but we will start this analysis in the year 2000 as that is when the state's focus on climate change and global warming began in earnest and significant action began to be taken.

In the year 2000 an alliance of New England Governors met with Premiers from Eastern Canada to adopt "Resolution 25-9 concerning global warming and its environmental impacts."  These New England Governors were brought together through a forum named CONEG, or the Coalition of North Eastern Governors. According to their website, "CONEG works with the governors and their staff and policy advisors to examine current and emerging regional issues, develop effective solutions, and undertake cooperative actions that benefit the individual state and the region."  CONEG polices are identified, formulated, and carried out by their staff at the CONEG Policy Research Center Inc.  Various official documents from the RBF show that they were funding CONEG Policy Research Center Inc. from its inception in the mid-1970's through the 1980's.  Therefore the RBF has had an influential connection to Connecticut climate change policy from its inception.

In 2001, this coalition of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers came together once again to create a Climate Change Action Plan for the region.  This plan called for each state to create their own climate change plans, programs, and policies.  As a result, the governor of Connecticut at the time, John Rowland, in 2002, created a Steering Committee "to coordinate Connecticut’s actions on climate change."

The same year that Governor Rowland created the Steering Committee, the Commitee met at the The Pocantico Center, in Tarrytown, New York.  This land at Pocantico was originally purchased by John D. Rockefeller, and is now managed by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

At this meeting it was stated that one of the first steps that Connecticut needs to do to address climate change is to have an inventory of "greenhouse gas" in the state.  It was announced that Connecticut had approached the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) to develop this greenhouse gas inventory for the state, and in 2003 NESCAUM released their report titled "Connecticut Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990-2000".

NESCAUM is an organization cited throughout the state documents in relation to climate change.  The Rockefeller Brothers Fund has given multiple grants to NESCAUM, funding various studies put out by the organization.

In the 2003 report on Connecticut Greenhouse Gas Inventory, written by agents of NESCAUM, the origins of the concern over "greenhouse gases" is detailed, and they cite the starting point when "[i]n 1992, the United States joined more than 160 other countries in signing and ratifying the [United Nations] Framework Convention on Climate Change. [UNFCCC]"

As detailed in the report Agenda 21: The Rockefellers Are Building Human Settlement Zones In Connecticut, the UNFCCC was a specific aspiration of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, as they admittedly "organized and funded some of the earliest meetings of advocates addressing climate change."  One of those early advocate organizations that has played, and continues to play, a leading role in the climate change debate is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  The IPCC operates under the auspices of the United Nations, and has been a highly influential organization propagating the belief that man-made global warming is a real and serious threat.  The IPCC is known as an "internationally accepted authority on climate change."  IPCC reports are cited  throughout the many Connecticut official documents relating to climate change policy.  The IPCC was co-funded into existence by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 3: The War on Cars

(This is a video presentation of the following analysis.)
(Click here for an .mp3 download of this presentation)

In the first two parts of this series we discussed the fallacy that man-made global warming is a fact, as well as how the methodologies that the state is using to calculate its supposed effects are not accurate.  We are now going to examine one of the proposals that is constantly offered by state officials as a combative action towards fighting man-made global warming; the reduction of private motor vehicles.

Regular readers of The Goodman Chronicle are already aware that the state of Connecticut has a policy of reducing private motor vehicle usage.  A recent example of this happened on December 3, 2014, when Connecticut state officials met with "transportation advocates" to discuss the future of transportation in Connecticut.  The discussion mainly focused on ways to further restrict private motor vehicle ownership, and usage, through measures such as an increase in the gasoline tax, toll roads, and more.

This analysis will show, using Connecticut climate change documents, how this anti-car philosophy in the state is derived from the idea that man-made global warming is a real and pressing issue in our society.

(It should be pointed out in the beginning of this analysis that this desire to reduce the amount of private motor vehicles is only one part of a much larger plan to concentrate people into highly regulated, dense neighborhoods, with public transportation being the main form of transportation.  This type of centralized planning is known as "smart growth", and will receive its own analysis in a later section of this multi-series report.)

The state believes that they need to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) by one million metric tons per year, over the next forty years.  According to their calculations this is equivalent to the emissions from over 190,000 passenger vehicles each year.

One option that the state has considered to deal with the GHG coming out of vehicles is to increase the taxes on cars that emit high levels of GHG, and offer tax breaks to consumers who purchased low GHG emitting vehicles.  This is known as a feebate program.  As a result of this policy, governments hope to encourage auto manufacturers to produce cars with less GHG emission.  Connecticut has yet to pursue this policy, however the federal government does have a similar program that offers tax incentives to consumers of "eco-friendly" cars.

Encouraging car manufacturers to make cars with less GHG emission is an option that the state continues to pursue, however they admit that this will not be enough to reach their target goal, in terms of passenger vehicle GHG emission:

"Connecticut’s increasingly cleaner cars will be overshadowed by the fact that we continue to drive more"

Because making cars "cleaner" will not be enough to reduce GHG emission to the level that the state would like, they pursue a policy of forcing people out of their cars and onto public transportation.  This is done by increasing the cost of driving:

"Implement a tax on driving (gasoline, toll, or mileage-based insurance) that would be channeled in its entirety to a dedicated fund to subsidize mass transit, walking, and bicycling."

Throughout the Connecticut climate change documents, there are various tactics recommended to state agencies in an effort to discourage the use of private motor vehicles.  One of these tactics includes adding tolls to roads.  Formulas have been developed to calculate how much of an increase in the cost of driving is needed to reduce private motor vehicle trips, as can be seen by this excerpt taken from a 2004 state document pertaining to climate change:

"A recent Connecticut report completed an analysis of travel demand mode shifts that would result from a value-pricing toll of $0.20 per mile in the southwest Connecticut corridor.  ConnDOT’s travel-demand model predicted that this pricing measure alone would create a 6 percent reduction in drive-alone trips, an increase in new rail trips of 72 percent, and an increase in bus use of 25 percent. The results are consistent with the results of the 1994 COMSIS Transportation Control Measure study, which indicated that a highway value toll of $0.10 per mile was expected to reduce VMT by 3.5 percent." 

The 2005 Connecticut Climate Change Action Plan states that getting us out of our cars will not only be good for the environment, but it will also improve our health as a society.  The idea seems to be that if the state can get people to use their bicycle or walk instead of taking their car, this will have health improvements for the individual.

"Health benefits from increased mobility. Auto­centric development patterns have  decreased mobility among adults and children, reducing opportunities for walking and  bike riding. The Surface Transportation Policy Project released a report this year  demonstrating a statistically significant correlation between sprawl, obesity, and  hypertension. Research suggests that people in compact, mixed­use areas reap benefits from increased opportunities to integrate walking and biking into their everyday  routines.  Smart growth seeks to encourage centralized, mixed­use communities with well­ developed pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. Given the myriad health costs associated with inactivity, creating opportunities for increased mobility through smart  growth has a clear (although unquantified in this analysis) economic value."

Of course taking your bicycle, or walking, to the park, on a nice sunny day, instead of using your car sounds like a nice idea, but when it is raining, cold, or snowing, and you have to get work, school, appointments, etc., waiting around for public transportation would be a terrible scenario, and in many cases, unfeasible.  The many positive benefits of having your own private motor vehicle is never stressed in these documents.

The possible list of quotes and citations from these Connecticut climate change documents pertaining to the reduction of private motor vehicles is nearly endless.  We could go on, but you get the point.  The state of Connecticut has taken the position that the Earth is warming, humans are causing the warming, and reducing the number of cars on the road will help stop the warming.

In the next analysis we will take an inquisitive look into the groups behind the creation of these policies and their curious connection with Rockefeller family-related organizations.

Previous reports on Connecticut climate change:

• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 1: Is Man-Made Global Warming Real?
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 2: Inaccurate Data

Connecting the Ford Foundation to the Implementation of Agenda 21 in Connecticut

Much has been written on the Ford Foundation, and its influence, past, and present, on American society.  References to various literature on the Ford Foundation will be listed throughout this analysis, and readers should follow those references if interested in gaining a greater understanding of the foundation.  The purpose of this analysis is to focus specifically on the Ford Foundation's connections to UN Agenda 21, and its implementation in the state of Connecticut.

As detailed in the report A Critical Analysis of Agenda 21 - United Nations Program of Action, Agenda 21 is a collectivist plan for world government, based on the concept of "sustainable development".  The concept of sustainability and sustainable development was brought into the public debate in 1987 with the publication of the Our Common Future report.  This report lists The Ford Foundation as a significant financial contributor. (For a more detailed explanation of the Our Common Future report, and how it relates to United Nations Agenda 21, read A Brief Examination of "Our Common Future": The Report That Gave Birth To Agenda 21)

Another direct connection of Agenda 21 to the Ford Foundation comes from the Foundation's open support of civil society organizations (CSO's) that advance "the sustainable development conventions associated with the 1992 Earth Summit", the event where Agenda 21 was introduced.

In an effort to make this analysis easy to follow, various aspects of Agenda 21 will be broken down into categories, the connection to the Ford Foundation of each of these categories will be discussed, and later a description will be given of how it is being implemented in the state of Connecticut.

World Government 

Long before Agenda 21 was introduced, plans for world government have been discussed by various people, and organizations.  In relation to the Ford Foundation, the idea of a world government was propagated by former associate director of the Ford Foundation, Robert Hutchins.

The views and influence of Robert Hutchins deserve their own in-depth analysis, especially when discussing the Ford Foundation connection to United Nations Agenda 21, but for the sake of brevity we will just briefly discuss his legacy.  Robert Hutchins served in various influential positions in American society including President of the University of Chicago, associate director of the Ford Foundation, and chairman of the Fund for the Republic.  Hutchins was a proponent of world government, and while serving as President of the University of Chicago, was the head of the Committee to Frame a World Constitution.  This is how the Chicago Tribune, in 1948, described Hutchin's World Constitution:

"The 'declaration of duties and rights' of this world constitution, which is not called a 'bill of rights,' does not even mention freedom of speech or of the press, guaranteed in the 1st amendment to the United States Constitution, nor does it enumerate more than two of the 22 specific items of freedom, or limitations upon government, established in the first ten amendments which make up the American Bill of Rights.

Along with the 'duties,' which limit the 'rights' in the Hutchins committee's draft, is the declaration that all property, including private property, 'is the common property of the human race,' and that private property shall be subordinated to "the common good," which is to be established by the new 'world government'."

In the book The Ford Foundation: The Men and the Millions, author Dwight MacDonald discusses how some Americans threatened to boycott Ford cars because they considered the Ford Foundation to have a "liberalistic flavor", and viewed Robert Hutchins, and former President of the Ford Foundation, Paul Hoffman, as "wild-eyed One Worlders".  MacDonald also discusses how some of the Ford Foundation trustees found various decisions by Hoffman to be objectionable:

"Some of the trustees are also said to have objected to Hoffman's "controversial" personal activities, such as his enthusiasm for the United Nations and UNESCO, his support of ex-Senator Benton when the latter was sued by Senator McCarthy, and his politicking to win the Republican nomination for Eisenhower. " (pg. 149)

A Brief Examination of "Our Common Future": The Report That Gave Birth To Agenda 21

To understand the complexity of the United Nations Agenda 21 Program of Action, a serious study needs to be conducted not only of the Agenda 21 plan itself, but also of the various reports, conventions, treaties, etc., that are referenced throughout Agenda 21 literature.  The World Commission on Environment and Development, also referred to as the Brundtland Report, or "Our Common Future", is one of the essential reports, related to the Agenda, that needs to be read, to further develop an understanding of the ideas, and goals, of the planners, who are implementing this massive agenda for the world.  (To view the 300-page online .pdf version of Our Common Future, off of the United Nations website, click here.)

According to the description on the back cover of the hard copy version of "Our Common Future":

"The World Commission on Environment and Development, headed by Gro Harlem Brundtland, Prime Minister of Norway, was set up as an independent body in 1983 by the United Nations.  Its brief was to re-examine the critical environment and development problems on the planet and to formulate realistic proposals to solve them, and to ensure that human progress will be sustained through development without bankrupting the resources of future generations"

We know this report played a key role in the creation of Agenda 21, from references to it, in various Agenda 21 affiliated literature.  For example, in the Introduction section of the children's version of Agenda 21, Rescue Mission: Planet Earth, the Brundtland Report, Our Common Future, is credited with "set[ting] out the idea of Sustainable Development."  Of course the term 'sustainable development' is key, as nearly every chapter of the Agenda 21 Program revolves around the idea of creating, what they refer to as, "a new global partnership for sustainable development."

Another example to show this report's connection to Agenda 21 comes from a newsletter released by a highly-influential organization in the area of regional planning, the American Planning Association (APA).  In an article titled, How Sustainable Is Our Planning?, land use planner Robert Odland, discusses the origins of the term 'sustainable development', how it is being used more frequently by planners, and it's connection to Agenda 21.

"[A] new family of terms is appearing more frequently in planning : sustainable development, sustainable cities, and sustainable growth.  What do these terms mean and what are the implications for planners?   The concept of sustainability and sustainable development came into the public debate with the publication of the World Commission on Environment and Development report, Our Common Future, (often known as the Brundtland Report).  This report defined sustainable development as the ability to meet the needs of the current population without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."

Continuing with the article written by Robert Odland in the APA newsletter, Odland goes on to explain the connections with sustainability and Agenda 21:

"Vice President Gore’s book, Earth in the Balance addressed many of the general issues of sustainability. Within the past year, the President’s Council on Sustainable Development has been organized to develop recommendations for incorporating sustainability into the federal government. Also, various groups have been formed to implement Agenda 21, a comprehensive blueprint for sustainable development that was adopted at the recent UNCED conference in Rio de Janeiro (the ‘Earth Summit.’).”

Providing a full, detailed analysis of Our Common Future, would be a futile task, as nearly every concept proposed in this report, is also proposed in Agenda 21, and the report A Critical Analysis of Agenda 21 - United Nations Program of Action does a sufficient job of describing, and analyzing, those key concepts.  It is important, though, to highlight certain excerpts, and details of the Brundtland report, that may help in providing a greater understanding of the overall Agenda.

There were 21 members on this commission, all representing different countries, including such prominent figures as the previously mentioned former Prime Minister of Norway, Gro Harlem Brundtland, former EPA administrator and FBI director, William Ruckelshaus, and Canadian businessman Maurice Strong.  Another notable member of the Commission, representing Guyana, is Shridath S. Ramphal, who is quoted in the children's version of Agenda 21 promoting population control, and criticizing anti-abortion groups like the Catholic Church.  Separate, extensive studies should be conducted on the different members of the Commission, especially on Gro Brundtland and Maurice Strong, to find various interesting connections, but for the sake of brevity, we will move on from looking at the particular members of the commission.

In Response To Michael Nicastro's Criticism of Agenda 21 Conspiracy Theorists

On August 1, 2014, former President of the Central Connecticut Chamber of Commerce, Michael Nicastro, wrote an article in the Bristol Observer where he criticized those residents, and elected officials, of the city of Bristol who are calling for a referendum, or a public vote, on the Renaissance proposal for the redevelopment of the downtown area.  As a Bristol resident, I have my own views on referendums, as well as what I would like to see happen in the downtown area, however, I would like to use this posting to address another issue that Nicastro brought up in his article: United Nations Agenda 21.

In the article, Nicastro denounces an unnamed group of Bristol residents, who are opposed to the Renaissance proposal, calling them "conspiracy theorists", for their concern about Agenda 21:

"One of the more vocal anti-investment in downtown groups is born out (and now tries to downplay or hide) of the UN Agenda 21 conspiracy theorists.  You know the ones where the government of the world (code the UN) is trying to steal our homes, force us all to live in dense urban environments, take away our cars, and mandate that we all use public transportation"

Nicastro suggests that this group "seriously find a different hobby", "stay off the internet", and concludes by calling Agenda 21 "bunk", or nonsense, saying "it has no place in the discussion about our downtown".

It is important to point out why Agenda 21, and its associated programs, and organizations, do have a place in the discussion of major redevelopment projects taking place across the state of Connecticut, including Bristol's downtown.

Agenda 21 in Connecticut: The Tri-State Transportation Campaign

You have probably never heard of The Tri-State Transportation Campaign, but if you live in Connecticut, New York, or New Jersey, you should start doing your research.  This group states that their mission is to reduce car dependency in the tri-state, but upon deeper examination, we learn how this seemingly virtuous goal, and organization, is actually part of a much larger nefarious plan, which originated at the United Nations, known as Agenda 21.

Without diverging to far from our examination of The Tri-State Transportation Campaign (TSTC), it is important for the reader to have an understanding of what Agenda 21 is.  There are many resources available online, and in print, to help a person become familiar with "United Nations Agenda 21", and I highly encourage everyone to do their own research.  In short, Agenda 21 can be described, as one expert has stated, as "the action plan implemented worldwide to inventory and control all land, all water, all minerals, all plants, all animals, all construction, all means of production, all energy, all education, all information, and all human beings in the world."

To control the world, which essentially is what the Agenda 21 plan is, the United Nations must first usurp the sovereignty, or decision making power, of each individual country, state, county, city, and town.  This is done slowly, and incrementally.  The United Nations agenda comes into your local area through various NGO's (Non Governmental Organizations) and non-profit organizations, like The Tri-State Campaign, each assigned with a task of implementing a small part of Agenda 21, by influencing legislators, and effecting changes in local law, rules, and regulations.

We will see how The Tri-State Transportation Campaign's mission to "reduce car dependency", is really Agenda 21's mission to, as Rosa Koire, author of "Behind The Green Mask: U.N. Agenda 21", puts it, force people out of their private cars, and onto their bikes.

If the The Tri-State Transportation Campaign was just made up of a bunch of people that thought cars were ruining the earth, that people should be walking, or using a bicylce, more than they are right now, and the way they pushed their belief was to set an example, by walking, or biking, or attempting to educate the public, through pamphlets, videos, literature, etc., I would have no problem with this organization.  The problem with The Tri-State Transportation Campaign is that they believe we should be FORCED out of our vehicles, instead of persuaded.

The Tri-State Transportation Campaign is constantly lobbying the Connecticut state legislature, to implement rules, regulations, and programs, that would make it more difficult to own, and operate, a vehicle in the state. The Tri-State Campaign has lobbied the state to implement red-light cameras, a massive revenue generating operation, that one judge in Ohio called "a SCAM that motorists can't win".  The TSTC has also teamed up with the Connecticut Sierra Club, to push for tolls to be put up on "all Connecticut Interstate Highways and the Merrit Parkway."