Archive for May, 2011

Sustainability = UN Agenda 21 World Governance

May 13, 2011

Contra Costa Times editorial: Establishing sensible and sustainable growth
MediaNews editorial
Posted: 02/18/2011 12:01:00 AM PST

BACK IN 2003, Contra Costa County leaders pieced together a long-range plan that was designed to promote infill housing development near transportation centers. The purpose of the Shaping Our Future plan was to reduce the need to drive, make jobs and shopping more accessible, provide adequate low-income housing and protect open space.

However, much of the plan has been shelved because there was insufficient incentive for cities to follow it. With the passage of Assembly Bill 32 and Senate Bill 375, the strategies outlined in Shaping Our Future have been given new life.

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments will give final approval to a Sustainable Community Strategy in 2013, with a first draft to be released next month.

If cites do not adhere to it, they will risk losing funds for transportation projects.

The idea behind the plan is the same as it was under Shaping Our Future. Cities will be urged to plan housing, job centers and transportation infrastructure in a coordinated manner that reduces driving.

For many years, urban planners have been calling for a much closer link between transportation projects and land-use policies.

For the sake of efficiency as well as reduced air pollution and traffic, the Sustainable Community Strategy makes sense.

There already are some good examples of this so-called smart growth that are
compatible with the new planing goals.

For the past few years, Pittsburg has spent considerable effort in renovating its old downtown with new affordable housing projects, and is working on development of government offices and housing adjacent to the planned eBART station near Highway 4.

Other areas that have similar plans include the Concord Naval Weapons Station land, the areas around Walnut Creek and Pleasant Hill BART stations and downtown Lafayette and Martinez.

Sustainable Communities Strategies will have to account for a projected 900,000 new housing units in the nine-county Bay Area before 2035, many of which will have to be built near job centers.

Regardless of one’s views on the dangers of greenhouse gases, much of which are produced by motor vehicles, the Sustainable Community Strategy deserves support.

If we are to preserve open space in the region and build affordable housing that is conveniently close to jobs and shopping, better land-use policies are needed.

Suburban sprawl is expensive, promotes excessive dependence on driving, endangers the environment and reduces open space.

Replacing sprawl with intelligent growth choices should be the norm without the threat of financial penalties. But if that is what it takes to motivate city planners and developers — and, especially, city politicians — to build more intelligently, then so be it.

Ron Kilmartin

Re the CC Times editorial “Sustainable Growth”, 2/18/2011. Sustainability and Smart Growth are at their base, euphemisms for a major eco-socialist assault on our republican form of constitutional government. They are products of Agenda 21 which calls for total undermining of the U.S. Constitution. In the Agenda 21 utopia, there are no property rights, freedom, or liberty. People – the workers – live in urban centers, and the area outside these centers are wildlands, with no human activity allowed, except for the elites, who will have their country dachas. See the appalling utopia maps of America at

Agenda 21 is a plan for an overarching global governance under the U.N. Americans are particularly targeted to loose much of their wealth, which is to be transferred to the Third World.

The purported need for “sustainability” and Agenda 21 is based solely on the fraudulent theory that carbon dioxide has or will cause global warming. The facts are that there has never been any historic evidence of CO2 causing global warming. To the contrary, evidence against the CO2 fraud is overwhelming,

The hucksters of Agenda 21 have been extremely clever in setting up the entire world for the sustainability deception by focusing mainly on the world’s cities and mayors, for sedgewaying into local politics and setting up of dictatorial local councils of “stakeholders” – councils of mostly enviro-nuts with an agenda of population control.

Contra Costa County, Alameda County, and most of their cities are already members of the Agenda 21-sponsored International Council of Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI).

ICLEI operates surreptitiously out of the public eye, provides organizational and planning assistance to local governments, such as draft regulations that will channel the rulings of the local councils. Governments that sign the ICLEI charter surrender their sovereignty, a violation of the Constitution.

Readers are urged to contact elected member of their city council or county board of supervisors and demand that they tear up any agreements they have made with ICLEI. We should make our counties and cities follow the examples of Spokane, WA; Carroll County, MD; Broomfield County, CO; Edmund, OK; Arvada, CO; Amador County, CA; Monterey County, CA; North Little Rock, AR; and Austin, TX, all locations where people have risen up and demanded their politicians destroy ICLEI agreements and sustainability agendas.

Readers are further urged to go see the Freedom Advocates website for more details: You will be shocked.

Scott JokerstFeb 18
What we are finding is “sustainable” are those ordinarily private economic activities that can persist on their own without government subsidy. By that measure, if it made sustainable economic sense to develop infill housing and businesses near public transportation centers … then they will develop, and thrive on their own. Otherwise, these are ideas which may have some merit from a narrow, though perhaps laudable perspective, but which simply don’t stand the systematic test that is the only one that matters — what does the consumer want, and can afford, with money of their own that they are willing to spend.

All other subsidized activities are simply wealth redistribution strategies, either to the poor, or most importantly, to developers and other businesses that have something to gain from “the program.”

Consider something like high speed rail in CA? Why would one need it when one has, much more economically, access to auto and air transportation to anywhere a train could possibly go?

Given our current state and municipal budget situation, we should hold off on Sustainable Development initiatives until we have enough in the bank to sustain the endless subsidy they entail.
Carri DealFeb 18
Nice Article. I just now got Coupons of my Favorite Brands at “Printapons” search online and start saving now
Facebook social plugin

* 1

Displaying all 3 posts.


A failed appeal to Governor Brown – no reply

May 6, 2011

Ronald F. Kilmartin
Consulting Engineer Tel 925 934 0378
415 Turrin Drive Fax 925 945 7187
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523

April 3, 2011

Governor Jerry Brown
Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA

Dear Governor Brown:

Before you sign SB X1 2 (Simitian), I would like to be sure that you are aware of the current science regarding CO2 and global warming theory.

It has been found that this theory is not supported by historical data. It is a false hypothesis.

This is shown by the attached graph of annual mean global temperature and mean CO2 concentration for the period February 1996 through February 2011. It can be readily appreciated that there is no relation, since temperature is topping and trending downward over this period, while CO2 concentration is trending upward for the entire period. An even more sharp divergence occurred from 1940 to 1980 when temperature was trending down while CO2 was trending up (when some sources were indeed predicting an ice age). Global mean temperature moves slowly up and down with a major influence from aperiodic solar activity, indirectly conveyed through diversion of galactic cosmic rays by solar winds.

Thus the attempt to control global warming through crunching down on CO2 production is doomed to fail. Global warming, and cooling, is a natural aperiodic phenomena which has been documented for paleo times with geologic records over millions of years and human records based on proxy data over the past 2000 years. The Medieval Warming was greater than the XX Century warmng, yet there was no Anthropogenic CO2.

The fundamental solar source of global temperature change is reflected in the movement of major oceanic currents, particularly the Pacific-Indian-Antarctic Oceanic masses, which have a combined area of about 2/3s of the planet.

A second graph attached is a time-series plot over the same period as the first chart, repeating the global temperature data (HadCRUT = Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature data, Univ. of East Anglia), together with the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI). The SOI index is related to Pacific Ocean temperatures and the El Nino and La Nina phenomena, movement of giant streams of ocean currents along the equator and in the Northwest and Southeast Pacific. The fundamental driver influencing these indexes is again solar. The concentric parallel tendency of these trends is obvious from the plots, confirming that the source of warming and cooling is natural.

There are similar results available linking periodic trends in various oceanic currents and indexes to aperiodic temperature and precipitation trends in nearby land masses.

Frankly, the various anti-CO2 laws are founded on sand that will blow away, and the whole anti-CO2 structure will eventually fall down – it is only a matter of time. It has been said that after political laws are created, the laws of economics take over. This happened the last time the legislature messed with energy economics. AB 32, S 375, and now SB X 1 2 promise havoc in the market place an order of magnitude greater than the previous debacle.

The real problem for California is that the threat of regulation under these bills is enough to make many businesses close their doors and move out, with the jobs, and with the tax revenue that the state needs to balance its budget. The SB X 1 2 bill will blow power costs through the roof. I can assure you that the green jobs expectation will come to nil. The gadgetry (wind mills and panels) have zero system reliability and a capital cost 10x or more conventional fossil power. They have a negative value in any electric power system. And the people will be required to pay for this boondoggle, the utilities will just pass it through.

We are short $26 billion in the 2011 state budget. What will the state be short when the impact of these bills is felt? Risk aversion will cause businesses to pack up and leave well in advance of CARB’s implementation plan. By the way, CARB’s director Mary Nichols has publicly stated that AB 32 will not affect global CO2 concentrations. How obvious can be the question then, why are we doing this?
Well you have my professional opinion. I have been engaged in large-scale water and power resources planning and hydrology for over 50 years. I have a keen sense of the operation, planning, and economics of hydro-thermal power systems, having participated and managed such investigations for long-term planning in Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Nicaragua and Luzon. As for climatic trends, I authored the first paper in English dealing with hydroclimatology as a needed cross discipline, a paper motivated by the recognition that climate has a major influence on water resources and needed to be inducted into the engineering planning process, which was not being done at the time (1960-70s).

I have no financial oar in this matter, other than hoping that I do not live to see California become a failed state, with all the adverse consequences to the people including my kids and grandkids. It would be a failure in my ethical professional duty, and my duty as a citizen, to sit silent in the face of the oncoming economic tsunami of these three pieces of legislation (including others which chase the carbon bogey man).

Please consider this plea to hold up on SB X 1 2 and AB 32 / S 375.


Ron Kilmartin, P.E.
Consulting Engineer
CA Civil 14411 Expires 3/31/2013

415 Turrin Drive
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523

Further discussion by this writer supporting the failed Proposition 23 can be found at

Enclosed: Two charts (from the C3 website 3/30/2011).

By the way, here is an interesting quote:

“ Some of the hysteric and extreme claims about global warming are [snip] a symptom of pagan emptiness, of Western fear when confronted by the immense and basically uncontrollable forces of nature. Belief in a benign God who is master of the universe has a steadying psychological effect, although it is no guarantee of Utopia, no guarantee that the continuing climate and geographic changes will be benign. In the past pagans sacrificed animals and even humans in vain attempts to placate capricious and cruel gods. Today they demand a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions…” Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop of Sydney, Islam and Western Democracies, February, 2006.

Gob Nrown do not sign 33 pct bill.doc