By Michael Bielawski
Vermont’s energy policy may be largely dictated by ideas originating with the United Nations. A search of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy reveals that “United Nations” shows up in 11 documents or bills discussed in testimony within the committee.
The Climate Action Plan
For example, an approving reference to the U.N. appears in the “Initial Vermont Climate Action Plan” that the Senate committee look at in February of 2023.
In its text, it says that our carbon emissions must be controlled according to U.N. policy. It says, “Finally, update the state’s inventory to reflect guidance set by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the United Nations to account for net [carbon] emissions.”
Current efforts to curb carbon emissions via the “Clean Heat Standard” (S.5/Act 18) are stalling as policymakers have failed to produce a “check-back” report essentially telling Vermonters what economic impact they can expect from taxing conventional heating fuels.
Likewise in a search of the solons’ House counterpart, the House Environment and Energy Committee, “United Nations” shows up 18 times.
“Housing is a human right”
In a hearing on S. 100, a housing bill, the Vermont League of Cities and Towns in March 2023 reviewed their policy positions in a document referencing the U.N. It states, “They understand, as the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights established, that housing is a human right.”
The report continues that “The Vermont Housing Finance Agency has identified a need for 40,000 additional housing units. The question is, where will those homes be built?”
Vermont’s Climate Responsibility
A document titled “Assessing Vermont’s Climate Responsibility” authored by Energy Action Network (EAN) spokesperson Jared Duval was presented by him to the committee in January of this year. In it, he advocates for adherence to U.N. policy.
It states, “The significance of the 2025 obligation is that it mirrors the commitment the United States made in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Paris Agreement. Vermont’s 2025 target merely says that Vermont will do its part – taking responsibility for reducing the emissions created within our state borders – in meeting our national commitment.”
In its summary, it states, “In this paper, we also draw on concepts from moral philosophy and economics to understand climate responsibility as a collective action problem and a public goods dilemma.”
Money “from all sources” for climate?
In “The final text of the historic Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework” presented by Tara Mobergthe in April of 2023 the U.N. is mentioned. Among numerous objectives include to have “financial resources from all sources” be put towards climate mitigation.
Target 19 (out of 23 total) suggests to “Substantially and progressively increase the level of financial resources from all sources, in an effective, timely and easily accessible manner, including domestic, international, public and private resources, in accordance with Article 20 of the Convention, to implement national biodiversity strategies and action plans, by 2030 mobilizing at least 200 billion United States dollars per year.”
U.N. policy for land use
In the “TNC Testimony” (The Nature Conservancy) by Lauren Oates in April of last year, she testified on H. 126 which is titled “Biodiversity Protection & Community Resilience.” It notes that many other governments have signed onto U.N. land management policies.
It states, “188 governments (including the US) adopted a 30×30 Global Biodiversity Framework United Nation’s COP15 Summit, which elevates both terrestrial and aquatic targets.”
It continues, “President Biden’s America The Beautiful Initiative (30×30) aims to conserve 30% of lands and waters by 2030. Creating similar goals and targets for Vermont is key to elevating our efforts alongside the national initiative.”
“Community resilience and biodiversity protection”
The rest of the mentions of “United Nations” come from hearings on H.126 (or Act 59) which is “An act relating to community resilience and biodiversity protection.” It is sponsored by Rep. Amy Sheldon, D-Middlebury, and others.
In the bill’s text it reads, “According to the United Nations: (A) one million species of plants and animals are threatened with extinction; (B) human activity has altered almost 75 percent of the Earth’s surface, squeezing wildlife and nature into ever-smaller natural areas of the planet; (C) the health of ecosystems on which humans and all other species depend is deteriorating more rapidly than ever, affecting the very foundations of economies, livelihoods, food security, health, and quality of life worldwide.”
The bill continues with more ways that human impacts on the world are generally considered negative.
The author is a writer for the Vermont Daily Chronicle
Contribute to Vermont Daily Chronicle via Stripe.com – quick, easy, confidential
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Environment, Legislation
Next UN recommendations:
Since the lion’s share of pollution comes from China and from non-developed, 2nd- or 3rd-world nations, these groups should be eliminated, “FOR THE GOOD OF THE PLANET”. Western nations have low population growth, and should be rewarded!
And you know what would be HORRIBLE for the environment, then: effective universal health care and world peace. Less people dying is a problem, so why do the same politicians pretend to want to keep more alive?
What this really is at its core is a Colonialism reborn under the guise of environmentalism. The wealthy nations that can afford to live cleanly will subjega- LEAD the savag- LESS FORTUNATE nations of the world, because we have a “burden” to correct the errors of foolish sovereign peoples…
Excellent, informative article exposing the U.N. Church and its members in Vermont.
Take it from the voice of experience…if you think the swamp is bad, the UN makes the swamp look like the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.
I kid you not.
I entered the workforce in Vermont in 1965, just before the United nations visibly began implementing a structure of incremental controls that would eventually take over State Government.
The system used by the UN to take over Vermont is called Zoning!
Here in Vermont, “Zoning” is handed down to Municipalities from on high, much as the “Ten Commandments” were.
However, unlike the Ten Commandments, Zoning is not etched in stone.
Quite the contrary, zoning bylaws never stop changing or raining down new edicts.
The difference is, you have free will to follow the commandments, because they are only intended to judge your morality, not to control your behavior.
But what happens when the judge and the advocate for zoning changes are one in the same?
Will zoning goals become a primary method for controlling behavior?
And if so, will the stated purpose justifying zoning, be distorted in the process?
Keep in mind when you contemplate this type of control structure, it is by your consent, that you forfeit your free will to choose, so think twice before bowing to restrictions no matter how reasonable they might seem.
Zoning was first established in Vermont communities during the early 1970’s, so it’s been around for some fifty years. In the early days, Act 250 started things rolling toward installing Central Planning in our state. This planning system would eventually feed goals to municipalities through Regional Planning Commissions. To then be installed in town plans, and serve as a basis for local zoning regulations. The justification and purpose given for zoning was and is, to preserve Vermont values, its beauty and it’s way of life. We were told these goals would also protect property values and ensure public safety & health.
Over the past fifty years, we took down billboards and chopped up our farm land into ten acre parcels, to satisfy what we believed to be legitimate reasons for enacting zoning statutes and bylaws. Only to be blinded by reflections from meadows full of solar panels, frustrating the reasons for enacting zoning in the first place.
Consequently, it is becoming more and more difficult to validate motives for so many additional bylaws and definitions.
From the beginning Vermont regional planning commissions have worked independent of, and in parallel with state government. Though they look like government, their primary function is to lobby municipalities and encourage them to adopt control measures for compliance within local zoning bylaws. They also provide services, for a fee, to help secure available Grants and to coordinate planning and engineering of projects that result from obtaining these Grants.
So, you might say they have a vested interest in this arrangement.
Over the years, planning tools such as zoning bylaws have become much more emboldened and complex. Zoning bylaws, are now trending toward increased mandates at an alarming rate. And because of its complexities zoning now requires interpretation, rather than providing a clearly stated rendition of restrictions required for compliance.
Another alarming trend is, disputes between neighbors that are not of an environmental nature, may end up in environmental court as a result of one party looking to gain a vindictive advantage over their opponent.
Fifteen years ago a zoning document might have had a sum total of 20 definitions, to define words or terms in its text that were not of a customary meaning.
Today planners encourage adding an appendix with as many as 150 definitions, but rather than clarifying, they add confusion to the question of, what requires a permit?
Thus the need for an interpreter to translate what you are allowed to do with your property.
However, interpreting complicated bylaws may lead to an inconstant application of the law, depending on the understanding and the ability of the administrator.
This is partly do to the fact that some of these definitions read like regulations, in other words they attempt to regulate, which then has the potential of changing the meaning of an existing regulation. Or even worse, to create regulation out of thin air, where no regulation had existed previously, simply by inserting it as a definition.
Too many unnecessary definitions, just seems unnecessary, but to UN agendas it is merely a way of creating legalese, which provides more cover for their closed system of Government.
This system can only be seen when you come out of your compartment and look around, only to realize the good work you think you are doing is actually not as benevolent as you thought.
Open your eyes and see what’s really going on, the big picture will set you free, if you let it!
Ridiculous. Who here thinks their town would be better off with no zoning?
thank you lynn edmunds/// when you get a permit you enter into a contract with a government agency/// you are not smart enough to handle your own affairs/// the community will decide for you/// the vermont community has raised your property tax with the vote of 66 percent of the towns voting for
the increase/// pay your taxes or loose your property///
this is Agenda 2030, brought to you by George Bush
When you use the marxist decoder ring to understand this….it makes things easier.
Housing, they want you in government housing…renting, own nothing….Happy.
Environment, give us all your money, we’ll fix things, trust us we are the experts, that have been wrong every 10 years since 1970…
Biodiversity, we’ll take over all the land….own nothing.
Lobbyists hiding behind non-profits run the show, VPRIG, VNRC sorted other players.
It’s all a scam. It’s all for total control of your life and property, the bastions of all commies and dictators.
Rosa is amazing, check out her videos
These guys are clever…..will give them that.
Sudden zoning change, you can’t build a home on your 200 acres, it’s for conservation now. See how that works? They didn’t even have to buy it, they just made it worth very little money.
Now get back in your cubicle, here’s toothpick, you’ve got a bug in between your teeth. Get back to work, the collective needs your efforts.
NO you don’t need a new pair of pants, you were already rationed….get back to work.
the national guard is in new york city/// will they be needed in burlington vermont/// tel//// lie//// vision/// is not covering new york and the trucker operations/// national guard patrolling subways/// the governor of new york is a total fruitcake///
ops i forgot/// george bush is skull and bones/// he will forge a new world order///those were his words/// do the research///
Thanks Michael keep the articles coming! Time to wake up people and turn off the radio and television. The folks at the United Nations/DAVOS have openly stated that they own the legacy media narratives, which they use to drive public action through fear and manipulation to the desired outcomes.
qui bono?
Follow the money.
Follow a fascist…
What the heck does Vermont benefit the UN with?
Why: Being a guinea pig of course. If it goes in Vermont…it’ll go anywhere…they think…
Of course we do nothing to actually change all this… we just keep accepting and complying and groaning and moaning.
Noncompliance is the ONLY way, and to return to simplicity that is Vermont’s way… because its the better way.
God given.