Sustainable Development: What's in A Name?

By John Anthony

What could be more wholesome, than a term like sustainable development?  Saving forests, protecting species and caring for future generations are worthwhile efforts.

Yet citizens across the nation are rejecting sustainable development plans.  Local communities and even states are passing resolutions and laws that severely restrict sustainable development. 

So, what is happening in America?  Have we rejected environmental concerns, or, is there something else?  The answer lies in the vocabulary.

To most people, sustainable development is loosely defined.  It may mean healthy living, organic eating or energy-saving thermostat settings.  To others it signifies responsible living, bundling trips to the store to save fuel or adding solar panels to cut electric bills and protect the environment. 

While most people are content with their own definitions of sustainability, several organizations have a far more aggressive meaning with towering objectives in mind.

This second definition began in Vancouver on a chilly overcast afternoon in May of 1976.  Thirty-six year old William K. Reilly was an American delegate to the UN conference.

Eleven days later, Reilly signed off on a rather unusual plan.  The Vancouver Plan of Action held that private property was too valuable to remain in citizen's hands, that the wealth it created was socially unjust, and that developed countries needed to build human settlement zones rather than allow sprawling land use.

Several years later, the UN's Brundtland Commission rough-sketched the plan Reilly signed in a report titled, Our Common Future.  It declared that social equity, environmental justice and economic prosperity could come together to create "sustainable development," if humans and property were managed properly. 

The report coined the official definition of sustainable development as, "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."

This broad slogan concealed a radical program of wealth transfer and acquisition of private property by public agencies formerly unseen in American history. 

The Senate refused to approve the accompanying treaty, but three important events did happen:

• In the late 1980's, UN recognized groups collaborated to transform the Brundtland report into a global action plan called Agenda 21. It was introduced to the world in 1992.
• Two years later, Pres. Clinton, by Executive Order, formed a council to implement the plan in the U.S. through Federal agencies.
• Since 1994, Federal agencies have worked with the authors of Agenda 21 to jointly write regulations implementing this brand of sustainable development throughout the U.S.

The results are programs like the, HUD-EPA-DOT, Partnership for Sustainable Communities, EPA's Community Challenge Grant programs and the expansion of EPA authority under the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts.  Executive order 13575 gave all Agencies authority over our nation's rural lands and 13602 gave HUD the authority to bypass local and state governments to directly engage in community planning.

Groups like the American Planning Association and even local zoning boards often unknowingly allow the Brundtland version of sustainable development into their communities through Federal grants.  Once a grant is accepted, the wording defines open spaces, Liveable Communities, urban lifestyles, social equity and even the number of vehicle miles that can be travelled for work and play. 

Community by community, the plans are nearly identical.  Rural expansion is discouraged, monies are allocated for urban living and private property regulated or consumed by land trusts and federal agencies.  These are the very prescriptions described in the Vancouver Action Plan and agreed to by Mr. Reilly.

No, citizens are not against protecting the environment.  They are rejecting an aggressive definition of sustainable development that, for 30 years has used socially friendly jargon and cherry-picked successes to capitalize on American's concerns for the environment; while replacing them with the confiscation of their wealth and freedoms.  Sustainable Development: There is a great deal in a name.