Focus on Agenda 21 Should Not Divert Attention from Homegrown Anti-Growth Policies

Abstract: Agenda 21, a voluntary plan adopted at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, unabashedly calls on governments to intervene and regulate nearly every potential impact that human activity could have on the environment. However, Agenda 21 is non-binding; it depends on governments for implementation. If opponents focus excessively on Agenda 21, it is much more likely that homegrown smart-growth policies that undermine the quality of life, personal choice, and property rights in American communities will be implemented by local, state, and federal authorities at the behest of environmental groups and other vested interests. Preventing American implementation of Agenda 21 should therefore be viewed as only one part of a broader effort to convince U.S. government officials to repeal destructive smart-growth programs and prevent the enactment of new ones.

Radical environmentalists, local business groups, and the ever-present Not in My Backyard crowd have been trying for decades to reshape American communities to conform to their preferred “smart growth” policies. These advocates work to impose land use regulations that would force Americans into denser living arrangements, curtail freedom of choice in housing, discriminate against lower-income Americans, and compel people to pay more for their houses and give up their cars in favor of subways, trolleys, buses, and bicycles.

These efforts—often described as “New Urbanism,” “sustainable development,” or “open land preservation”—have long been resisted by some members of the community due to their negative impact on economic growth, competitiveness, and the nation’s standard of living. As Heritage has documented, communities implementing smart-growth policies have significantly higher home prices, which precludes moderate-income households from homeownership. In turn, these high home prices have forced buyers to take on excessive levels of mortgage debt, which has contributed to the default and foreclosure problems that have led to the current recession. Indeed, the foreclosure problem is at its worst in states with the strictest land use constraints: Florida, California, Arizona, and Nevada.[1]

In recent years, however, many smart-growth opponents working at the local level have shifted their focus toward opposing the 1992 United Nations voluntary initiative called Agenda 21, which advocates many policies that reflect smart-growth principles. They should recognize that Agenda 21 is simply another facet of smart growth and not allow it to divert them from opposing the more ubiquitous, overarching agenda of homegrown environmental extremists.

Principles Outlined in Agenda 21 Are Smart-Growth Principles

Agenda 21 is a remarkably broad, ambitious action plan that was presented at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, and adopted by the attending nations as “a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.”[2] At well over 300 pages, Agenda 21 sets forth hundreds of specific goals and strategies that national and local governments are encouraged to adopt.[3] These policies are presented in four sections:

1. Social and economic dimensions (e.g., international cooperation to accelerate sustainable development in developing countries, combating poverty, changing consumption patterns, promoting sustainable human settlement development);
2. Conservation and management of resources for development (e.g., protection of the atmosphere, planning and management of land resources, promoting sustainable agriculture and rural development);
3. Strengthening the role of major groups (e.g., women, children, indigenous people, workers and trade unions); and
4. Means of implementation (e.g., financing, technology transfer, promoting education and public awareness, international legal instruments).

In sum, UNCED was explicitly focused on getting governments to “rethink economic development and find ways to halt the destruction of irreplaceable natural resources and pollution of the planet.… The Summit’s message [was] that nothing less than a transformation of our attitudes and behavior would bring about the necessary changes.”[4] Agenda 21 unabashedly calls on governments to intervene and regulate nearly every potential impact that human activity could have on the environment.

If implemented, the types of policies encouraged in Agenda 21 would significantly expand the role of government in economic decision-making, impede development and economic growth, and undermine individual choice and policy flexibility for local communities. Opponents should be concerned about efforts by the U.S. government to implement these policies, both nationally and locally.[5]

However, Agenda 21 is non-binding; it depends entirely on national, state, and local governments for implementation and therefore poses little threat in and of itself. It is the policies endorsed by Agenda 21 that are of most concern, and these policies are not confined to Agenda 21. On the contrary, those policies undergird the smart-growth agenda that has gained widespread acceptance in many parts of the U.S. to the detriment of local economies.

Radical Environmental Principles Predate Agenda 21 Proposals

The smart-growth policies echoed in Agenda 21 originated among liberal European and American intellectuals and significantly predate the adoption of Agenda 21. In fact, the British version of these policies—which had a strong influence on American liberals and the international environmental activists that largely wrote Agenda 21—had its origins in the 1920s. As Britain’s Prince Charles has written:

For more than eighty years, the Campaign to Protect Rural England has been leading the fight to preserve the remaining delicate fabric of the countryside. The foresight of the founding fathers was extraordinary—in 1926 Clough Williams-Ellis, whom I remember well and admire greatly, publishedEngland and the Octopus, an anti-sprawl polemic, and in the same year Sir Patrick Abercrombie wrote his paper, The Preservation of Rural England. The fight has continued since then and great successes have been won.[6]

These policies, embodied in the Town and Country Planning Act, enacted by a socialist government in 1947, which forced nearly all subsequent development into existing urban footprints, have been an economic disaster. The citizens of the United Kingdom now have the smallest and most expensive housing of any advanced country in the world.[7]

America’s smart-growth movement emerged in force in the early 1970s when communities in California and Oregon began to replicate Britain’s anti-sprawl policies through restrictive zoning practices to discourage suburbanization. Bit by bit, it spread around the country as more and more communities adopted polices to deter suburban growth for all but the well-to-do. Growth control efforts underway in these communities were driven not only by a distorted view of the environment, but also by the desire of those already in place to prevent newcomers from arriving and spoiling the rural ambience of their suburban communities.

By the 1980s, these policies led President George H. W. Bush to create a commission, overseen by Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Jack Kemp, to investigate the impact of these policies on growth and communities and make recommendations. Its report, “Not in My Back Yard”: Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing,[8] was a powerful critique of policies now known as “smart growth.”

Nonetheless, smart-growth policies continued to advance in the U.S. As they became more prevalent and restrictive, their impact on housing prices and construction likewise expanded. An explosion of exclusionary zoning throughout the U.S. encouraged many communities to adopt zoning policies to ensure that they maintained a certain demographic “profile.” Such zoning limited real estate development to higher-cost homes in order to “price out” moderate-income households, which included a disproportionate share of minorities.

In the wake of the bursting of the U.S. housing bubble, Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne wryly noted that Britain escaped the sort of housing bubble and crash that staggered America because, whereas America recklessly expanded its housing stock, “We were saved by the fact that you can’t build anything in this country.”[9] While recklessness was certainly a factor in the U.S. housing bubble, smart-growth policies played a major role in creating and exacerbating the bubble and the subsequent recession. In fact, the states and metropolitan areas with the strictest smart-growth land regulations were the ones that suffered the greatest home price bubbles (notably in California, Florida, Arizona, and Nevada) and the most serious foreclosure problems once the bubble burst.[10]

Missing the Real Target

Opponents of Agenda 21 should not be distracted from the more tangible manifestation of the smart-growth principles outlined in that document. If they focus excessively on Agenda 21, it is much more likely that homegrown smart-growth policies that date to the early 1970s and undermine the quality of life, personal choice, and property rights in American communities will be implemented by local, state, and federal authorities at the behest of environmental groups and other vested interests.

Adding to the problem, the Obama Administration has warmly embraced smart-growth policies and, more broadly, increased environmental regulation and restriction of use of natural resources. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood is the Administration’s point man in selling smart-growth policies to the American people.[11] He and other key Administration officials are abetted by state and local elected officials and numerous interest groups, including the Urban Land Institute, local Metropolitan Planning Organizations, Smart Growth America, the American Public Transportation Association, the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, and shortsighted local business associations.

Opponents of these policies have been very effective in their work. A good example is the state of Florida, where Governor Rick Scott (R) and the state legislature repealed a 25-year-old smart-growth law a few months ago.[12]

If implemented, the types of policies encouraged in Agenda 21 would be detrimental to economic growth and prosperity. Thus, preventing American implementation of Agenda 21 at the national level and membership by U.S. counties, cities, and municipalities in the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), now called Local Governments for Sustainability, is worthwhile. But this effort should be viewed as only one part of a broader effort to convince U.S. government officials to repeal destructive smart-growth programs and prevent the enactment of new ones.

Click here to view ARTICLE and TALKING POINTS

Fisker Recalling 239 Karma Plug-In Hybrids for Fire Hazard

Fisker Automotive is recalling all 239 of its 2012 Karma luxury plug-in hybrid cars because of a fire hazard, according to a report filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Prices on the 2012 model start at $103,000, including the destination charge.

In a report filed recently on the agency’s Web site, Fisker said some hose clamps were not properly positioned, which could allow a coolant leak. “If coolant enters the battery compartment an electrical short could possibly occur, causing a thermal event within the battery, including a possible fire in the worse case,” the company told the safety agency.

Fisker said the problem was discovered on Dec. 16, when workers at the Valmet Automotive assembly plant in Finland noticed coolant dripping. Fisker said it was not aware of any consumer complaints, warranty claims or “any other reports related to this condition.” It said fewer than 50 vehicles were in the hands of consumers.

Under federal regulations dealers may not sell the remaining new models until the recall is completed.

In other recall developments:

• General Motors is recalling almost 4,300 of its new 2012 Chevrolet Sonics because they might be missing “the front brake inner or outer pad.”

In a filing with the safety agency, G.M. said this could “produce noise when the brakes are applied, result in reduced brake system performance and require a longer distance to stop the vehicle.”

The automaker said that it learned of the defect when an owner complaining of the car’s brake noise brought the car to a dealership at the end of November. G.M. said it was not aware of any accidents related to the Sonic’s brakes. The Sonic is built in Orion Township, Mich.

• Honda is recalling nine of its 2012 Odyssey minivans because a retention nut for part of the front, lower right suspension may loosen and result in a loss of steering.

In a filing Friday with the agency, Honda said if the nut came off, a bolt could come out and cause “the wheel assembly to shift to an extreme inward angle, resulting in a loss of steering.” Honda said it learned of the problem from a dealer on Dec. 1. There was no mention of any accidents.

• Piaggio Group America is recalling about 2,150 of its 2010-11 motor scooters with four-stroke, four-valve 50 cc engines because the engine could backfire and possibly catch fire. The models are the Fly 50; Vespa LX50 and Vespa S 50.

• N.H.T.S.A. said it was investigating possible rust-related safety problems on about 17,000 2003 Chevrolet Express vans and 63,000 2004 Ford Freestar and Mercury Monterey minivans.

The concern with the Express is leaking gasoline, while the Freestar/Monterey issue involves rear wheel arches rusting so badly that seat-belt anchors for the third row will not hold.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW ARTICLE

Federal judge invalidates part of California's greenhouse gas law

FRESNO, Calif. — A Fresno federal judge on Thursday dealt a setback to California's landmark global warming law, which went into effect this year with the goal of reducing the state's greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
U.S. District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill ruled that California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard violated the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause.
The standard aims to gradually cut the carbon content in gasoline 10 percent by 2020 and replace up to 20 percent of the total gasoline used annually in the state with renewable fuels such as ethanol.
Several groups - including the Fresno-based Nisei Farmers League and the Fresno County Farm Bureau - filed a lawsuit in December 2009 that challenged the state regulation, saying it violated the Commerce Clause by seeking to regulate farming and ethanol production practices in other states.
A similar suit that involved oil production was filed last year by groups including the National Petrochemical Refiners Association and the American Trucking Association. It was later consolidated with the first lawsuit.
It was clear Thursday that O'Neill's ruling will be appealed. But what will happen to the state's greenhouse gas law wasn't clear - representatives of both sides of the debate were still digesting O'Neill's complicated ruling.
In a joint statement released Thursday, Renewable Fuels Association President and CEO Bob Dinneen and Growth Energy CEO Tom Buis said California "overreached in creating its low carbon fuel standard by making it unconstitutionally punitive for farmers and ethanol producers outside of the state's border."
Renewable Fuels Association and Growth Energy are both organizations that represent ethanol producers. They were plaintiffs in the first case.
The state Air Resources Board and the Natural Resources Defense Council - which intervened in the case on behalf of the state - promised an immediate appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
"We respectfully disagree with the court's decision," ARB spokesman Dave Clegern said in a statement.
He called the state's Low Carbon Fuel Standard "an evenhanded standard that encourages the use of cleaner low carbon fuels by regulating fuel providers in California. It does not discriminate against any fuels on the basis of geography."
The global warming law - which was written in the state Assembly and is often referred to by its bill name, AB 32 - sets a statewide limit on greenhouse gas emissions.
David Pettit, a senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said a key decision will now be whether the 9th Circuit holds off on implementing O'Neill's order while it takes up the appeal.
If the appellate court lets the ruling stand while the appeal proceeds, he said it will be harder for the state to meet its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
"California's low carbon fuel standard will help reduce harmful air pollution from the fuels used by our cars and trucks, reduce our dependence in petroleum and protect public health," he said.
What O'Neill's ruling won't do, Pettit said, is completely derail the law.
Pettit said the Low Carbon Fuel Standard is only part of AB 32 and represents about 15 percent of all the greenhouse gas reductions that are part of the law.
He added that it hasn't generated the scrutiny of another part of the law - the cap and trade program. That program limits the amount of carbon emitted by the state's biggest polluters and creates allowances that can be bought and sold on an open market.
In the original lawsuit, the groups including the Renewable Fuels Association and the Nisei Farmers League said "one state cannot dictate policy for all the others, yet that is precisely what California has aimed to do through a poorly conceived and, frankly, unconstitutional (Low Carbon Fuel Standard)."
As with the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Pettit said he expects "a lot of litigation" coming on the cap and trade program that also will invoke the Commerce Clause and the argument that "California is trying to regulate out-of-state business."

CLICK HERE TO VIEW ARTICLE

OVERCHARGED

Meanwhile, a lesser-known but equally dubious energy tax break also expired when the year ended Saturday: the credit that gave electric-car owners up to $1,000 to defray the cost of installing a 220-volt charging device in their homes — or up to $30,000 to install one in a commercial location. As a means of reducing carbon emissions, electric cars and plug-in hybrid electrics are no more cost-effective than ethanol. What’s more, only upper-income consumers can afford to buy an electric vehicle (EV); so the charger subsidy is a giveaway to the well-to-do.

The same goes for the $7,500 tax credit that the government offers purchasers of electric vehicles, a subsidy that, alas, did not expire at year’s end. The Obama administration says that the credit helps build a market for EVs, which helps create jobs. Given the price of eligible models, like the $100,000 Fisker Karma, that rationale sounds an awful lot like trickle-down economics.

Backers of the charger tax credit may lobby Congress to renew it when lawmakers tackle the payroll tax extension issue again in the new year. We hope that Congress says no. Not only is it a case study in upward income redistribution, it also would represent a deepening of the taxpayers’ commitment to what looks increasingly like an industry not ready for prime time.

Sales of electric vehicles were disappointing in 2011, with the Volt coming in below the 10,000 units forecast. In addition to its high price, the Volt brand is suffering from news that some of its batteries burst into flames after government road tests. Meanwhile, Fisker, the recipient of more than half a billion dollars in low-interest Energy Department loans, repeatedly delayed the introduction of its ballyhooed Karma — while repeatedly raising the sticker price. And now Fisker has announced a recall of the cars because of a potential defect in its batteries — made by A123 Systems, another large recipient of Energy Department support.

Evidence is mounting that President Obama was overly optimistic to pledge that there would be 1 million EVs on the road by 2015. Electric cars are not likely to form a significant part of the solution to America’s dependence on foreign oil, or to global warming, in the near future. They simply pose too many issues of price and practicality to attract a large segment of the car-buying public. More prosaic fuel-economy innovations such as conventional hybrids, clean-diesel cars and advanced gasoline engines all show much more promise than electrics.

The ethanol credit was on the books for 30 years before it finally died. Let’s hope Congress can start unwinding the federal government’s bad investment in electric vehicles faster than that.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW ARTICLE

BUFFER LAWSUIT VICTORY

For approximately 5 years, we have been battling DNREC over a "buffer zone" that we believe was established by them illegally. Today, December 29, 2011, the Delaware Supreme Court confirmed that we were correct.

The first 2 years of the fight were through resolutions in the Delaware General Assembly and direct negotiations with DNREC. Nevertheless, in October, 2008, then Secretary of DNREC John Hughes signed the Inland Bays Pollution Control Strategy into law, including buffers. This buffer zone went so far as to prevent lot lines from extending into buffers and forbade landowners from even applying to the Sussex County Council with a project until they had met DNREC dictates.

All of this was despite numerous warnings by the PGA and a variety of attorneys that these actions were illegal. DNREC's excuse was that "their deputy attorney general" told them it was okay.

Thus, the Positive Growth Alliance organized a lawsuit in Superior Court with several affected landowners as plaintiffs. At the same time, Sussex County government also filed to protect their statutory zoning power.

The Superior Court of Delaware ruled against DNREC on February 25, 2011, voiding the buffer provisions in the Inland Bays Pollution Control Strategy. Despite very clear legal language in the ruling, DNREC then appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court.

Today, the Supreme Court has rendered their opinion, fully confirming the previous ruling by the Superior Court. DNREC's buffer zone and associated provisions are void.

Furthermore, one of the Supreme Court justices went so far as to make a statement during oral arguments that even the Delaware General Assembly probably couldn't legally pass a law giving this authority to DNREC. This is because the Delaware State Constitution allows the General Assembly to delegate land use authority to the counties and municipalities, not the executive branch of which DNREC is a part.

For the Positive Growth Alliance, this battle has always been about the rule of law. It is shocking to us how many people both inside and outside the government have expressed the opinion that if DNREC says it will benefit the environment, then they should be able to do whatever they want whether it's legal or not.

In other words, they are apparently perfectly fine with the idea of hiring people that are supposed to serve us and then paying them to wield unchecked authority over us. In the case of buffers, they didn't even require proof that there would be any real environmental benefit, or more benefit than existing Sussex County buffer requirements!

As a matter of fact, due to the devastation in the housing market, virtually no DNREC buffers have yet been created. Very few knowledgeable people felt there would be for years into the future, either.

To be perfectly clear, if we citizens tolerate unelected state employees making up any law they like, there will soon be little that resembles the American concept of liberty. We vow to you that we will do all we can to prevent that from happening.

We have attached the Supreme Court ruling to this message. All landowners and lovers of liberty should carefully study the opinion.

P.S. Since the Superior Court voided the DNREC buffer regulation, DNREC has been doubling and tripling down. They are working on several ongoing rule-makings that will likely be impacted by this Supreme Court decision. We'll keep you posted as we move forward.

Link to Supreme Court decision.

GM Inflates Chevy Volt Stats With Fleet Sales

Click here to view video

December 19, 2011- Mark Modica, an Associate Fellow of the National Legal and Policy Center, discusses GM's apparent goosing of Chevy Volt sales figures. Mark is interviewed by Neil Cavuto on the Fox News Channel.

The Green War on the Poor and Middle Class

“Well, I don’t care what it costs, we need to save my grandchildren”, said the avid environmentalist with an agitated voice in response to someone who dared to say an offshore wind farm was too expensive. Never mind that there are other ways to lower pollution, reduce greenhouse gas emission, and actually lower electric cost. She could afford higher rates and didn’t care if it was a burden to the poor, the retired on a fixed income, or the unemployed.

It is this callous disregard for higher cost by the environmentally misguided that has Europe running away from green subsidies as fast as they can. Germany has cut subsidies six times in two years. The Netherlands has canceled green subsidies completely and will now build four nuclear plants.

Government regulations may double the cost of electricity and significantly increase car prices and those higher costs could eliminate millions of jobs. The impacts will fall hardest on the poor and middle class. Residential electric rates could be $1000 a year more than necessary and new cars could cost $7000 more.

· Delaware efforts to end local regulation of the electric generation industry and participate in a failed regional carbon dioxide cap and trade program already cost homeowners $400 a year in higher electric bills¹

· Delaware requirements that 25% of electricity come from expensive solar and wind power could add $275 a year to electric bills over the next decade²

· New federal regulations to incrementally decrease air pollution from coal fired electric generating plants could add another $200 to $300 a year to residential electric bills over the next five years³.

· The misguided coal regulations could also shut down 10% of our electric generating capacity seriously impacting grid reliability⁴

Gallup does an annual survey comparing concerns for the environment versus the economy. In 2000, 70% put the environment first. The last decade saw that support erode steadily and the March, 2011, survey showed support for the environment over the economy has been cut in half to 36%.

Certainly, worsening economic conditions played a major role in the decline of environmental priorities. However, support by environmental groups for questionable claims of imminent environmental disaster and for hastily adopting extremely expensive technical solutions, such as offshore wind and solar, has also been important. Two hundred people participated in the Fuel Cell Tariff public comment sessions and almost unanimously opposed the program to no avail. Increasingly, the poor see environmental policy as a direct attack on them by a wealthier elite largely unaffected by unemployment and the cost of their policies.

Efforts to legislate tighter environmental laws have failed recently for good reason. Pollution levels have fallen and our air and water quality have improved dramatically relieving the public’s sense of urgency for added environmental regulation. For example, the 1990 Clean Air Act required individual electric generating facilities to reduce air pollution 90% over a twenty year period. The goals were exceeded and the cost was about $27 billion⁵. Reducing the next 5%, required by bureaucratic fiat, allowing only three to five years for compliance, will cost over $300 billion⁴. Jobs will be lost and electric grid reliability will be reduced.

Another example is the federal requirement that fuel mileage must double to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. The Center for Automotive Research expects this to add $6700/vehicle. We can see this impact today. A Honda Civic hybrid costs $7600 more than a standard Civic including loan finance charges. Over a ten year period the hybrid only saves half the added cost in gasoline and if the battery pack needs replacing the fuel savings would be wiped out. Sales of hybrid vehicles in America have fallen by half to 3.8% of new vehicle sales.

Some people buy the more expensive hybrid to save the planet. Many more simply are paying a “fee” to drive by themselves in the High Occupancy Vehicle lanes on busy urban roadways. The poor don’t have that option. They will drive in stop and go traffic or take the bus. If they are buying a less efficient used car they will pay more for it now because of the “Cash for Clunkers” program. The program removed inefficient vehicles from the fleet but also reduced the availability of used cars and drove the average price up by $1800 according to Edmunds.com.

The health benefits of expensive environmental regulations are questionable. Incidence of asthma and chronic bronchitis have doubled since 1980. Yet, air pollutants tied to illness have dropped by 30% to 90%, depending on the pollutant, showing a negative correlation⁶.

As a result the U.S. House of Representatives has already passed a budget that prohibits the EPA from spending money to implement new environmental regulations. Other bills have been introduced to prohibit an activist EPA from enforcing these new regulations. In Delaware, a bill is stalled in committee to force Delaware to follow the New Jersey example and withdraw from the regional cap and trade scheme. Public support is needed to overcome majority party resistance to these efforts and rein in high energy costs.

David T. Stevenson

Director, Center for Energy Competitiveness

CLICK HERE TO VIEW ARTICLE