This was written in 1998. I became aware of Agenda 21 when it was embraced by the U.S. at the Rio Conference on Sustainable Development in 1993. Berit Kjos at crossroad.to has not written a prophetic piece, merely reporting what was happening in 1998 based on the reality of the written document called Agenda 21– the blueprint for transformation in the 21st century. This is in full implementation now and you will relate to it in your own local area. Reading this will give you a much greater perspective of the world surrounding us today. Her thoughts and facts are nothing short of remarkable and she does so with a biblical perspective. I thank her since 1998 for expanding my world view in understanding the downfall of the environmental profession and public policy in general. Read this in full today or come back later when you have more time. It might change your life for the good.
Share this with others by using our new Share Button on the right panel. Please visit crossroad.to for more insight.
The U.N. Plan for Your “Sustainable” Community
By Berit Kjos – 1998
“…current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable. A shift is necessary. which will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including the United Nations…”  Maurice Strong , opening speech at the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development
Note: This global contract binds all nations and spreading regions to the the collective vision of “sustainable development.” They must commit to pursue the three E’s of “sustainability”: Environment, Economy and Equity referring to the UN blueprint for environmental regulations, economic regulations, and social equity.
Agenda 21, the UN blueprint for global transformation, sounds good to many well meaning people. Drafted for the purpose of creating “sustainable societies”, it has been welcomed by nations around the world. Political, cultural, and media leaders have embraced its alluring visions of social justice and a healthy planet. They hide the lies behind its doomsday scenarios and fraudulent science. Relatively few consider the contrary facts and colossal costs.
After all, what could be wrong with preserving resources for the next generation? Why not limit consumption and reduce energy use? Why not abolish poverty and establish a global welfare system to train parents, monitor intolerance, and meet all our needs? Why not save the planet by trading cars for bikes, an open market for “self-sustaining communities,” and single dwellings for dense “human settlements” (located on transit lines) where everyone would dialogue, share common ground, and be equal?
The answer is simple. Marxist economics has never worked. Socialism produces poverty, not prosperity. Collectivism creates oppression, not freedom. Trusting environmental “scientists” who depend on government funding and must produce politically useful “information” will lead to economic and social disaster. 3
Even so, local and national leaders around the world are following the UN blueprint for global management and “sustainable communities,” and President Clinton is leading the way. A letter I received from The President’s Council on Sustainable Development states that –
“In April 1997, President Clinton asked the council to advise him on: next steps in building a new environmental management system for the 21st century… and policies that foster U.S. leadership on sustainable development internationally. The council was also charged to ensure that social equity issues are fully integrated…” (Emphasis added)
Many of our representatives are backing his plan. In a 1997 letter congratulating the Local Agenda 21 Advisory Board in Santa Cruz for completing their Action Plan, Congressman Sam Farr wrote,
“The Local Agenda 21 Action Plan not only has local significance, it also will have regional and national impacts. As you know, the President’s Council on Sustainable Development is beginning Phase III of its work with an emphasis on sustainable communities.”4 (emphasis added)
This agenda may already be driving your community ís “development”, so be alert to the clues. Notice buzzwords such as “visioning,” “partners,” and “stakeholders.” Know how to resist the consensus process. Ask questions, but don’t always trust the answers. Remember, political activists, like self-proclaimed education “change agents”, have put expediency above integrity. As North Carolina school superintendent Jim Causby said at a 1994 international model school conference, “We have actually been given a course in how not to tell the truth. You’ve had that course in public relations where you learn to put the best spin on things.”5
To recognize and resist this unconstitutional shadow government of laws and regulations being imposed on our nation without congressional approval, take a closer look at its history and nature.
This global contract binds governments around the world to the UN plan for changing the ways we live, eat, learn, and communicate – all under the noble banner of saving the earth. Its regulations would severely limit water, electricity, and transportation – even deny human access to our most treasured wilderness areas. If implemented, it would manage and monitor all lands and people. No one would be free from the watchful eye of the new global tracking and information system
This agenda for the 21st Century was signed by 179 nations at the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Among other things, it called for a Global Biodiversity Assessment of the state of the planet. Prepared by the UN Environmental Programme (UNEP), this GBA armed UN leaders with the “information” and “science” they needed to validate their global management system. Its doomsday predictions were designed to excuse radical population reduction, oppressive lifestyle regulations, and a coercive return to earth-centered religions as the basis for environmental values and self-sustaining human settlements.
The GBA concluded on page 763 that “the root causes of the loss of biodiversity are embedded in the way societies use resources.” The main culprit? Judeo-Christian values. Chapter 12.2.3 states that-
“This world view is characteristic of large scale societies, heavily dependent on resources brought from considerable distances. It is a world view that is characterized by the denial of sacred attributes in nature, a characteristic that became firmly established about 2000 years ago with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religious traditions.
“Eastern cultures with religious traditions such as Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism did not depart as drastically from the perspective of humans as members of a community of beings including other living and non-living elements.”6
Maurice Strong, who led the Rio conference, seems to agree. His ranch in Colorado is a gathering place for Buddhist, Bahai, Native American, and other earth-centered religions. Yet, while spearheading the restructuring of the United Nations (see ” World Heritage Protection?“), he also helped design the blueprint for the transformation of our communities. And in his introduction to The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, he called local leaders around the world to “undertake a consultative process with their populations and achieve a consensus on ‘Local Agenda 21’ for their communities.”
Achieving that consensus meant painting scary scenarios of a hurting, dying planet that frighten children, anger youth, and persuade adults to submit to the unthinkable regulations. (See “Saving the Earth“) It means blaming climate change on human activities and ignoring the natural factors that have – throughout time – brought cyclical changes in climate, storm patterns, wildlife migration, and ozone thinning (there has never been a “hole”).
Natural factors you seldom hear about:
Local Agenda 21
Chapter 28 of Agenda 21 specifically calls for each community to formulate its own Local Agenda 21:
“Each local authority should enter into a dialogue with its citizens, local organizations, and private enterprises and adopt ‘a local Agenda 21.’ Through consultation and consensus-building, local authorities would learn from citizens and from local, civic, community, business and industrial organizations and acquire the information needed for formulating the best strategies.” (Agenda 21, Chapter 28, sec 1,3.)
This tactic may sound reasonable until you realize that the dedicated “Stakeholder Group’ that organizes and oversees local transformation is not elected by the public. And the people selected to represent the ‘citizens’ in your community will not present your interests. The chosen ‘partners’, professional staff, and working groups are implementing a new system of governance without asking your opinion.
They probably don’t even want you to know what they are doing until the regulatory framework is well under way. You may read in your local paper about “visioning”, working groups, Total Quality Management, and partnership between churches, welfare and social service agencies, and other community groups. These are clues that, behind the scenes, the plan is moving forward.
The goals and strategies are outlined in Sustainable America, the report from our President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD). President Clinton’s PCSD is merely one of about 150 similar councils established by nations around the world, all following guidelines from the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development.
The same steps and strategies are detailed in The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide: An introduction to Sustainable Development. This “planning framework for sustainable development at the local level” was prepared by The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) in partnership with the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the International Development Research Centre of Canada. Remember, UNEP also prepared the GBA which supposedly proves the environmental “crisis.” Could there be a conflict of interest here?
ICLEI’s step-by-step plan for transforming communities was made available to reporters during the 1996 UN Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II). I started to read my bulky copy on the flight home from Istanbul. I soon learned how Stakeholders can broaden their working base and still maintain the original consensus: they simply seek partners who share their vision. After all, partners who challenge the Stakeholders’ ideology would cause gridlock and slow progress. (Such gridlock is one of many criticism of the American political system voiced at various global conferences.)
The ICLEI Planning Guide suggests that Stakeholders select two kinds of people to serve their agenda: (1) ordinary people who don’t have “a stake” in the old system and would expect to gain power by establishing a new political system, and (2) media, business, political, church, and education leaders who must be wooed and persuaded to promote the transformation within their sphere of influence. The following ICLEI list includes both:
A. Community Residents: women, youth, indigenous people, community leaders, teachers
B. Community-Based Organizations: churches, formal women’s groups, traditional social groups, special interest groups
C. Independent Sector: Non-governmental organizations (NGO). academia, media
D. Private/Entrepreneurial Sector: environmental service agencies, small business/cooperatives, banks
E. Local Government and Associations: elected officials, management staff, regional associations
F. National/Regional Government: planning commission, utilities, service agencies, financial agencies.7
All participants must embrace the collective vision of a “sustainable community”. They must commit to pursue the three E’s of “sustainable development”: Environment, Economy and Equity referring to the UN blueprint for environmental regulations, economic controls, and social equity.
“Sustainable development is a process of bringing these three development processes into balance with each other,” states ICLEID’s Agenda 21 Planning Guide on page 21. “The implementation of a sustainable development strategy therefore involves negotiation among the primary interest groups (stakeholders) involved in these development processes. Once an Action Plan for balancing these development processes is established, these stakeholders must each take responsibility and leadership to implement the plan.”
Meanwhile, opposing voices must be silenced. “Implementing the ‘sustainable agenda’ requires marginalizing critics,” says Craig Rucker, Executive Director of CFACT, a conservative public interest group in Washington, D.C. dealing with consumer and environmental issues. He explains,
“Distinguished scientists who disagree with the globalist agenda are ridiculed and said to speak for conservative interests or industry (whether or not they receive industry funding) and their scientific arguments are never heard. Some of these marginalized critics are very distinguished scientists, like Dr. Frederic Seitz, former president of the National Academies of Science and a sharp critic of ozone depletion and global warming theories, Dr. S. Fred Singer, who help establish the satellite and balloon measuring devices to track global warming, and Dr. Edward Krug, who served on NAPAAP, among others. Some, like Dr. William Happer were even fired from their jobs questioning environmental dogma (in his case, on the issue of ozone depletion).”8
Ignoring these facts, nearly two thousand communities around the world are following this UN blueprint for change with support from ICLEID – and subject to its tracking system. Apparently the Santa Cruz model is leading the way in the United States.
Local Agenda 21-Santa Cruz was birthed in 1993 by the local chapters of the United Nations Association and ACTION (Agenda 21 Community Team Work in Operation). The original stakeholders began to “envision a sustainable future,” choose compatible “partners”, and organize the twelve Round Tables which evolved into twelve Special Focus Areas (for summaries of each plan, read Local Agenda 21 Pt.2 -Santa Cruz – Key points from the twelve Focus Groups):
Biodiversity & Ecosystem Management
Resources and Recycling
Toxic Technology & Waste Management
Each item is linked to special interest groups, non-governmental organizations, and globalist advocates who have been given authority (by no elected official) to plan the regulations that will control our lives.
Would you like a glimpse of the special interest groups that guide this Agenda? Its list of donors and supporters includes feminist, globalist, environmental, and welfare organizations such as the Sierra Club, Earthlinks, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, Greener Alternatives, Pacific Bell, Peace Child, United Nations Association-USA, Environmental Ecological Services, Change Management System, Countywide Joint Task Force on Sexual Harassment, Prevention and Education, and the Human Care Alliance (about 80 service providers and community groups), and the Welfare and Low-Income Support Network. Remember, “welfare” means far more than caring for the needy. Social service leaders tend to push a socialist agenda and many have little tolerance for Christians who resist their intrusive family policies.
The National Organization for Women (NOW), The Regional Alliance for Progressive Policy, Women’s International League for Peace & Freedom, and Beyond Beijing (primarily feminists who attended the 1995 UN Conference on Women) are all part of a Task Force helping establish the guidelines for the Social Justice (Equity) and welfare branch of the Agenda. According to Local Agenda 21-Santa Cruz, their focus is the exploration of viable means to “alleviate the violence of poverty.”
To eliminate poverty and to create the laws and incentives that will establish environmental, social and economic “equity”, the people must embrace the new paradigm (or world view). They must accept the new global values touted by the GBA and learn to see social issues from a global perspective. “Local efforts should focus on community education and outreach, grassroots organizing, and monitoring the impacts of federal welfare reform implementation,” states Santa Cruz’ Local Agenda 21 Action Plan. Indeed, life-long education is the heart of the agenda. Who would willingly give up cars, private back yards, and freedom to hike in local forests unless they share a vision that’s worth the sacrifice?
The agenda for education. In the fall of 1994, President Clinton’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) came to the Presidio – the former army base in San Francisco that now houses the Gorbachev Foundation USA and dozens of other globalist and environmental organizations networking with the United Nations. Here, overlooking the Golden Gate Bridge, they met with The National Forum on Partnerships supporting Education about the Environment.
Their joint report, “Education for Sustainability,” became a model for sustainable education. According to the Santa Cruz Action Plan, it focused on 6 themes:
- Interdisciplinary approaches
- Lifelong Learning
- Systems thinking (See “World Heritage Protection?)
- Multicultural perspectives
To understand these terms and the new international education system they represent, you may want to read Brave New Schools. Those who don’t realize that today’s change agents hide globalist ideology behind traditional words, can easily be drawn into the web of deception by the noble sentiments. These arguments from the Education section of Santa Cruz Local Agenda 21 show how persuasive their propaganda can be to an unsuspecting public:
“In light of the current world situation, including the obvious degradation of the global ecosystem, population crisis, outbreaks of violence… there is an obvious need for education that puts forth a clear vision of a whole system of ecological thinking. In recent years, there has been a great deal of emphasis on environmental education and nature studies, but little has been done to teach about eco-efficiency, sustainable lifestyle practices, and the worldwide movement concerning sustainable development.
“The overall understanding is that we must learn from nature how to create sustainable communities— observing: interdependence and organization, form and substance, the pattern of life, cooperation and partnership, and diversity…. A broader perspective (beyond schools) must be encouraged, including proactive learning opportunities throughout the community.
“Educational and rewarding volunteer opportunities exist throughout SCC. Most Americans are ill equipped to make the lifestyle changes necessary to turn the degradation around. Our collective experience over time has shown that knowledge alone does not necessarily change behavior and incite people to action. Support structures and incentives are also needed.”
This UN directed education plan has already become familiar to many of us. The international system – built on the UNESCO goals that our government embraced with the introduction of America 2000 and the adoption of Goals 2000 – has already transformed our schools. Listen to these familiar policies listed in the Local Agenda 21.
“Educational systems encourage relevant, experiential learning and promote a sustainable, healthy life for all beings. Students embrace. global interdependence and the need to adopt fully sustainable practices locally and globally…. Focus is placed on teaching how to learn and how to enjoy learning. This involves:
- Cooperative learning in groups which is learner-directed, empowering and participatory
- Development of an integrated core curriculum at all levels which emphasized the theme of unity and interdependence of humanity, all species and the Earth.
- Development of an integrated core curriculum at all levels which emphasized the theme of unity and interdependence of humanity, all species and the Earth.
- Student participation in developing their own curriculum.
- Mixed age groups in the learning process.”
Learning that seems “democratic” (in contrast to authoritative) and cooperative (in contrast to individual) is key to winning the consent of the masses. All ages must participate, and each group member becomes accountable to the group – and to the politically correct “science” information used by the trained facilitator to move the dialogue toward the “right” choices and actions. Few realize the extent of the manipulation. See Brainwashing in America
In the Soviet Union, this Hegelian dialectic (consensus) process was used to shift the loyalties of Soviet children from absolute truths to the evolving soviet ideology. Today it is used in American schools, communities, and workplaces – with support and direction from the President’s Council on Sustainable Development and other NGOs that share its global vision.
Far-reaching Networks. Are you confused by all the organizations, programs, and buzzwords that fit into the big picture? Do you find it hard to match the pieces in this immense puzzle? I do. One reason so few people try to understand the patterns of change is its complexity. And it gets worse.
“Encourage networking,” states the Santa Cruz Action Plan. You saw the links between feminist, environmental, welfare, and government groups. But countless other groups and organizations are also involved in the endless web of deception. No wonder, since networking, like dialogue, helps spread the nets that will pull in the masses.
Last year, I received from the PCSD a published report titled Public Linkage, Dialogue, and Education. It was prepared by the PCSD Task Force on Public Linkage, Dialogue, and Education. To plan the initial draft, this group met in the Officers Club at the Presidio with various global, UN, and environmental leaders now housed at the former armor base. This draft included a call for a linkage between “job opportunities” and education standards for politically correct “understanding” of environmental, economic, and social issues from a global perspective:
“Develop essential learning standards on sustainable development for all students in order to promote a basic understanding of the interrelationship between environmental, economic and equity issues and a basic competency in sustainable living. Meeting learning performance standards will help ensure job opportunities in an emerging sustainable economy and promote responsible citizenry in a global, interdependent society.”9
Considering the background of this “international roundtable”, it’s no wonder that the final report calls for a shift in public consciousness from the old nationalistic-free enterprise system to the new globalist-socialist paradigm. Its main three objectives were to-
- Ensure that awareness, knowledge, and understanding of sustainability become part of the mainstream consciousness, both nationally and internationally.
- Awareness and concern about environmental, economic, and equity issues must become firmly rooted in public consciousness.
Engage key domestic constituencies in a dialogue about sustainability to produce consensus.
- Foster the skills, attitudes, motivation, and values that will redirect action to sustainable practices and produce the commitment to work individually and collectively toward a sustainable world.
- Individuals must bring their actions into accord with a sustainable future. Conflict resolution skills must be applied to organize groups to act on issues related to sustainability.”10
Remember, those who define the terms will write the rules. Those whose “science” will “educate” the masses, will control public beliefs and behavior.
In Santa Cruz, the PCSD Task Force on Linkage, Dialogue, and Education helped launch The Household EcoTeam Program and Sustainable Lifestyle Campaign in Santa Cruz County. Household EcoTeam? Sustainable Lifestyle Campaign? We know the government wants to train parents in politically correct child-raising. Do they also want to train households in politically correct lifestyles?
They certainly do. In partnership with Global Action Plan and ACTION-Santa Cruz, the above PCSD Task Force “helped participants implement sustainable lifestyle practices in their own households as they worked together on a team with a trained coach and followed a workbook focusing in 6 action areas” (reducing garbage, water efficiency, home energy efficiency, transportation, eco-wise consuming, & empowering others).11
Other links include the National Association of Counties and the U.S. Council of Mayors. Following recommendations from the PCSD, they “have established a Joint Center for Sustainable Communities to facilitate collaborative planning.”
Remember, the PCSD is linked to the UNCSD (UN Commission on Sustainable Development), which is linked to more than 150 other nations implementing Agenda 21, which are linked to ICLEID, which is linked to the Canadian government, which is linked to the United Nations, which Is linked to the Presidio, which is linked to ACTION-Santa Cruz, which is linked to Global Rivers Environmental Network, which is linked to the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, which is linked to the White House, which is linked to the Department of Education. and on and on.
Everything is linked to Total Quality Management, the process for managing and monitoring the development of human and natural resources as well as commercial products. Schools, corporations, and government are adopting TQM management, and Santa Clara County is no exception. The concept of “continual change” is central to TQM, and the Santa Cruz Action Plan follows suit. Every part of this list from its education plan relates to TQM:
“Continue to prepare students for rapid change by teaching: …critical thinking, creative thinking, problem solving, cooperative learning, student self assessment, multi-cultural equity, the use of interactive technologies to foster learning & collaborative problem solving.”
Social Justice. Remember the stakeholders that are defining social justice and preparing its standards? They include NOW, Beyond Beijing, social welfare leaders, environmental groups – all the voices that demand the abolition of Western culture, male leadership, and biblical absolutes. Look at their vision for Santa Cruz County:
“Desired State: A Paradigm Shift
We envision a community that stretches itself from its historical conditioning and ethnocentric comfort zones to increased cross-cultural empathy and understanding – a community that avoids oppressive hierarchies, but instead passionately advocates for inclusion, respect and cooperation with all members.”
Politically correct tolerance sets a new standard for communication and inclusiveness. It immediately disqualifies biblical Christianity as exclusive, hateful, patriarchal, and intolerant. Their list of practical suggestions for change matches their vision:
- Train facilitators for the “paradigm shift” to be wholistic supporters of the value of diversity
- Develop an interagency approach to intolerance abatement
- Encourage the business sector to hold managers accountable for promoting minorities and women into management.
- Create a design for teaching the principle of universal security
- Continue with forums, meetings, events, and expand our social justice library with books, tapes, video tapes for community TV, and literature available for interested people…
- Involve college students and professors in social justice issues
- Bring in speakers; support individual clubs.
Of course, their utopian plan won’t work. People aren’t naturally good. Fifty years ago, the Holocaust opened our eyes to human depravity, but many have forgotten its message.
Modern socialist leaders claim to know how to manipulate human nature. “We have to make better people,” urged Shirley McCune at the 1989 Governors Conference on Education. Nineteen years earlier, the ASCD (Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, the curriculum branch of the NEA) published To Nurture Humaneness in which Professor Raymond Houghton wrote,
“The critical point of behavior control, in effect, is sneaking up on mankind without his self-conscious realization that a crisis is at hand. Man will not even know that it is about to happen.”12
This horrendous mission is now pressing forward under the banners of Agenda 21 and its partners around the world. Only a solid, unshakable commitment to truth will enable us to stand our ground. Only a clear understanding of the evil forces driving this agenda will enable us to resist the mental manipulation used to induce compliance.
If we didn’t know that our God has the future well under His control, we would have every reason to fear. Many live in denial, refusing to face the painful facts that expose this covert revolution and the gradual loss of our freedoms – including the freedom to express our faith and share the gospel.
I don’t know when my Lord will return, but I have no doubt that Americans will soon face the hostilities that are part of the normal Christian life. “If they persecute me, they will persecute you,” said Jesus – and there is no reason to believe that Americans has somehow earned the right to escape the suffering that has molded faithful, single-minded, pure-hearted Christian for almost 2000 years.
As we stand together against the forces of evil, let’s pray that God show each of us how we can best serve His plan and purpose.
Let’s not get sidetracked by peripheral issues, but “let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus.” (Hebrews 12:1-2)
Remember, when Jesus told His disciples about the hard times ahead, He added these words of comfort,
“These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.” (John 16:33)
|For more information about the global education program and the role of the feminist movement in this transformation, read Brave New Schools and A Twist of Faith|
1 Henry Lamb, ” Meet Maurice Strong,” Eco-Logic, November/December 1995.
2 Ibid. Maurice Strong was vice-president of Dome Petroleum (by age 25), first executive director of the UN Environmental Programme, founder of Planetary Citizens, director of the World Future Society, founder and co-chair of the World Economic Forum, member of the Club of Rome, trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation and Aspen Institute, and member of the UN Commission on Global Governance. He heads the Earth Council, which works with the UN to implement an Earth Charter-a global code of conduct based on earth-centered spirituality and globalist values. Its publication, Earth Ethics, suggests that apes, our “fellow animals”, should be treated as “full members of the community of equals.”
3 Much of the “peer reviewed” science which “proves” that human activity causes ozone holes and global warming is countered by award-winning non-politicized scientists who are appalled that their names are used to validate the hoax. See “The UN Plan for Global Control.”
4 U.S. Congressman Sam Farr represents the 17th district in California. I have a copy of this letter written June 3, 1997 on Congressional stationary.
5 Cynthia Weatherly, “The Second Annual Model School Conference,” The Christian Conscience (January 1995); 36.
6 Global Biodiversity Assessment, 837-838, 839. This information was provided by a friend who has a copy of the GBA but is traveling abroad at this time. She had copied many quotations from this report and gave them to me along with chapter and page numbers. I cannot personally verify these references at this time. If you have a copy of the GBA and discover a mistake in my references, please inform me so that I can make corrections. Thank you.
7 ICLEID, p. 21. A similar list is given in the PCSD report, Sustainable America.
8 From a personal note from Craig Rucker, January 20, 1998. To contact CFACT for scientific data refuting ozone holes and global warming theories, write CFACT, P.O. Box 65722, Washington, D.C. 20035.
9 Booklet titled The Seventh Meeting of the President’s Council on Sustainable Development, The Presidio of San Francisco, April 27-28, 1995, p. 39.
10 Public Linkage, Dialogue, and Education (The President’s Council on Sustainable Development) 1997, p.16.
11 Local Agenda 21–Santa Cruz, Education section, p. 21.
12. Raymond Houghton, To Nurture Humaneness: Commitment for the ’70’s (The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development of the NEA, 1970).