Conserving energy is great, but the UN’s agenda is far from honorable.
Last August 28, I posted the first in a series on the UN’s “Agenda 21” and the whole green energy movement. Today’s post shows just how far out of control this has become. Looking back over last year, the greatest “out of control” display occurred in July when a naval exercise off the coast of Hawaii highlighted the culmination of the “Great Green Fleet” idea proclaimed by Navy Secretary Ray Mabus back in 2009. The demonstration featured a guided missile cruiser and two destroyers cutting their way through the ocean under the power of “experimental fuels” (a 50-50 mix of petroleum and biofuel derived from algae and used cooking oil) costing $12 million dollars.

According to Maybus, half the Navy’s fleet would be running on these biofuels by 2020. His enthusiasm should have been dampened when a Defense Department study determined that the initiative could cost the service an additional $1.9 billion per year.

That’s because at $26/gallon, the biofuels cost between five and six times more than conventional fuels. Despite these facts, Mabus proclaimed that the Green Fleet demonstration had been an unmitigated success.

Regarding the future of the endeavor, there’s good news and bad news. The good news is that based on the extravagant costs, both the House and the Senate wrote biofuel expenditures out of their versions of the Fiscal 2013 National Defense Authorization Act. The House went so far as to include a provision exempting the military from being bound by the latest carbon emissions requirements. This would allow the military to use cheap and plentiful fuel sources such as oil shale. Considering America’s financial crisis, such action was prudent to say the least. If we ever get our fiscal house in order, we can revisit the issue.

A handful of Republicans including Sen. Jim Inhofe (Okla.) and Rep. Randy Forbes (Va.) are

Green Logo

closely monitoring military green expenditures. It appears that they need to stay diligent since Navy leaders seem undaunted in their quest for green fuels. That’s the bad news, and so is the fact that just prior to the great fleet unveiling, the Obama administration announced that a partnership between the Department of Agriculture, Department of Energy, and the Navy would allow for an additional investment of $30 million to support biofuels development and research.

If you haven’t read my articles on Agenda 21 and its Sustainable Development Program, you may think I’m against conserving our natural resources and saving the planet. I’m all for solving real problems, but the way the Obama administration and the UN are using the “green movement” and sustainable development has nothing to do with the environment. Sustainable Development really means denied use of critical resources. By governmental edict, these resources are prohibited, frozen, or banned. Why is our President against the Keystone Pipeline? Why has he issued a moratorium on drilling in key areas? Why is he railing against the coal industry? The answer is that he is committed to Agenda 21. Sustainable Development can be described as the process by which America is being transformed into a state-run collectivist society using the environment as bait.

Agenda 21 began back in 1992 when Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN’s Rio Earth Summit, stated that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class were NOT sustainable. Making the list were using fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing. The list still applies. A lot of what we see happening, including Obama’s “Green Navy” initiative can be explained if we understand that the arguments for “saving our planet” are all a smokescreen to gain control. Sustainable Development is a masterful blending of socialism with its top-down control of the tools of the economy and fascism where property is owned in name only. “Going green” is the bait, and America (especially our Navy) has swallowed it hook line & sinker.


If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done?