Author Topic: CSIS white paper from 1997 outlines "Green" Eco-fascist agenda!  (Read 3523 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline birther truther tenther

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,726
  • Against all forms of tyranny
Enterprise for the Environment
Chaired by former EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus, the Enterprise for the Environment has built a broad-based consensus on the future shape of our nation's environmental protection system.

On January 15, 1998, the Enterprise for the Environment (E4E) released its final report entitled The Environmental Protection System in Transition: Toward a More Desirable Future. This report is the culmination of a two-year consensus-building project aimed at building a broad, durable, bipartisan agreement on improving the nation's environmental protection system. E4E developed policy recommendations in three areas: 1) transforming EPA's regulatory system; 2) increasing the use of economic and other incentives to encourage continuous environmental improvement; and 3) promoting higher levels of responsibility, accountability, commitment, and stewardship in the private sector. The project is now conducting an extensive outreach effort to interested parties.

Three institutions are collaborating in the Enterprise for the Environment: the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS); The Keystone Center; and the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA). CSIS convened an inclusive stakeholder process designed and facilitated by the Keystone Center. The stakeholder process developed the specific policy recommendations. CSIS and NAPA provided analytic support to the stakeholder process, including an independent NAPA panel report on efforts by EPA and others to promote more effective and efficient environmental management.

Leadership and Participation
The project is chaired by William D. Ruckelshaus, former Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Over 80 participants endorsed the final report, including a bi-partisan group of Congressmen, governors, mayors, and state regulators; leaders from the environmental and business communities; and three additional former EPA administrators (Doug Costle, William Reilly, and Lee Thomas). The Project Director is Dr. Karl Hausker, CSIS Senior Fellow.

Project Design
E4E had three major components: the Steering Committee, Action Groups, and the NAPA panel. Participants were divided into four Action Groups that worked on designated sets of issues. The Steering Committee guided the project as a whole and coordinated the work of the Action Groups. The project was augmented by an expert panel convened by NAPA which provided credible, authoritative analysis and insights to the Action Groups and the Steering Committee. Analysis was also provided by the CSIS International Perspectives Project (a series of roundtable discussions aimed at developing analytic insights from the environmental protection systems of other countries) and by a contractor report on how corporations are integrating business methods with environmental management.

The Environmental Protection System in Transition
Toward a More Desirable Future

Final Report of the Enterprise for the Environment

Published in cooperation with The National Academy of Public Administration and The Keystone Center

Project Chairman: William D. Ruckelshaus
Project Director: Karl Hausker



The following are excerpts from the report:

PDF Page 2:

About CSIS
The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), established in 1962, is a private,
tax-exempt institution focusing on international public policy issues. Its research is nonpartisan
and nonproprietary.
CSIS is dedicated to policy impact. It seeks to inform and shape selected policy decisions in government
and the private sector to meet the increasingly complex and difficult global challenges that
leaders will confront in the next century. It achieves this mission in three ways: by generating strategic
analysis that is anticipatory and interdisciplinary; by convening policymakers and other influential
parties to assess key issues; and by building structures for policy action.
CSIS does not take specific public policy positions. Accordingly, all views, positions, and conclusions
expressed in this publication should be understood to be solely those of the authors.
President: David M. Abshire
Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer: Anthony A. Smith
Executive Vice President: Douglas M. Johnston, Jr.
Senior Vice President and Director of Studies: Erik R. Peterson
Director of Publications: James R. Dunton

Special thanks is extended to the following agency, foundations, and corporations, without whose
contributions and support this report would not have been possible:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Charles Stewart Mott Foundation
Nathan Cummings Foundation
Amoco Corporation
BP America
Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc.
Browning-Ferris Industries
CH2M Hill Companies, Ltd.
Dow Chemical Company
DuPont Company
Duke Energy Corporation
Eastman Kodak Company
FMC Corporation
General Electric Company
General Motors Corporation
Emily Hall Tremaine Foundation
Surdna Foundation
Georgia-Pacific Corporation
Holsman International
Intel Corporation
Laidlaw Environmental Services
Monsanto Company
Novartis Corporation
Procter & Gamble Company
Safety-Kleen Corporation
SEACOR Smit, Inc.
Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.
Waste Management
Weyerhaeuser Company

PDF Page: 33

C H A P T E R 4
The Regulatory System in Transition
The transition from the existing environmental protection system to the improved
system envisioned by E4E should be made in a stepping-stone fashion, as
described in Chapter 1. Only a steady, step-by-step process of moving from the old
system to the new can generate the political support, trust, and knowledge necessary
for success.

Despite differences in opinion about the efficiency and effectiveness of the current
system, E4E participants agree that an improved system should allow for
“flexibility of means coupled with clarity of responsibility, accountability for performance,
and transparency of results,” as called for in the E4E vision. Traditional
regulatory mechanisms are by far the most common policy tools currently used
and will continue to form the bulwark of the environmental protection system even
as new approaches become more widespread (e.g., the economic and information
drivers and incentives discussed in Chapters 3 and 5). This chapter recommends
changes to the existing regulatory system that will move the United States steadily
toward that vision, without putting at risk the gains made in the past 25 years.
E4E participants focused their stepping-stone recommendations for the regulatory
system on five areas: (1) increasing the use of performance-based regulatory
mechanisms, where feasible; (2) improving and making better use of the permitting
process; (3) encouraging the adoption of expanded environmental management
systems; (4) implementing pilot projects, where appropriate; and (5) better
addressing the needs of the nation’s small businesses.

PDF Pages 44 through 48:

The following are specific examples of fiscal policy tools.

Vehicle Emissions Fees
Vehicle emissions fees use a price signal to encourage automobile owners to drive
lower-polluting vehicles and to drive less. For example, an emissions fee could be
assessed annually on a vehicle’s actual or estimated emissions levels (using EPA’s
emissions factors for average vehicles of that type and age) and mileage for that
year. The emissions fee could be phased in to allow drivers time to adapt. In order
to help mitigate the potentially regressive effects of such a fee, a specified number
of miles per year could be exempted from the mileage on which the fee is based.
The revenues generated by this fee could be used to offset annual registration
fees or inspection fees that are not proportionate to the environmental cost of each
mile driven. Drivers could reduce their cost by either limiting the miles they drive
or by driving cleaner vehicles. This policy tool could also encourage the development
of cleaner cars.
Recommendation: States and major metropolitan areas should explore
opportunities to replace fixed costs such as registration fees with revenueneutral
variable fees based on annual emissions.

Congestion Pricing
Traffic congestion results in lost productivity, wasted fuel, and pollution. Congestion
fees are tolls based on the increased costs automobiles impose during periods
of road congestion. Drivers are asked to bear part of the costs associated with
driving during rush hour or, preferably, change their driving behavior.
As drivers
change the decisions they make about the number of miles, route, and timing of
travel in response to the fee, the allocation of road capacity becomes more efficient,
less fuel is wasted, and pollution is reduced. Congestion pricing is currently
being implemented on at least one highway in California. New technology
allows tolls to be collected electronically so that cars are not required to stop, so
further congestion and delay would not be created by the toll-collecting process.

Congestion pricing could disproportionately affect lower-income drivers. Several
mechanisms could mitigate these impacts, including rebates or fee exemptions for
low-income drivers.
Recommendation: State and local governments should consider
congestion pricing of roadways to address problems associated with traffic

Emissions Trading
Emissions trading programs hold great promise as cost-effective methods for
achieving environmental goals and encouraging technological innovation. Trading
can be a useful policy tool with or without a cap on total emissions. By allowing
sources to negotiate individual emissions reduction responsibilities based on price,
these programs offer flexibility for least-cost solutions. Greater use of this method
could help solve a number of persistent environmental problems.
Emissions trading has been used in a number of instances by EPA, the states,
and localities in their air and water programs. Notable examples include the
national sulfur dioxide trading system, the RECLAIM program for trading ozone
precursors in California, and the Boulder Creek watershed trading program for
water pollutants in Colorado. Also, several states have implemented trading programs
for ozone precursors. These programs have resulted in some trades and are
strongly supported in their states.
Other potential emissions trading programs are currently under discussion. For
example, EPA’s Ozone Transport Commission established an emissions budget for
the 12 northeastern states, and the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management
has developed a model rule for state trading programs. In their June 1997
recommendations, the Ozone Transport Assessment Group advocated that EPA
establish an NOx emissions trading program in the eastern and central United
States. These programs can help states cost-effectively meet current and future
ambient air-quality standards, if structured properly.
Emissions trading is not always an appropriate tool, so policymakers should
consider the following.
1. The nature of the pollutant and the way it behaves in the environment must not
pose an unacceptable risk to communities through risk or burden shifting that
could result from trading.
2. The sources and pollutants involved in trading must be technically and economically
feasible to monitor or estimate with reasonable accuracy.
3. The allocation of emission allowances and tracking of emissions trades must
be administratively feasible.
When new emissions trading programs are incorporated into a pre-existing,
complex regulatory system, they pose significant design issues, such as establishing
baselines and emission caps through technology-based regulations that were
not initially designed for that purpose. E4E participants support the emissions trading
approach as a tool to achieve specific emissions reduction targets but did not
attempt to address these design issues. EPA should work with states and other
stakeholders to improve these programs so that they cover a sufficiently broad
array of sources and geographic areas to facilitate the development of vigorous
trading markets. The programs must include opportunities for meaningful stakeholder
participation in the design, implementation, and evaluation phases, in order
to maintain public confidence.
Development of new emissions trading programs will require that policymakers
establish fair initial distributions of allowances that take into account both
existing and new sources. Policymakers should consider auctioning emission
allowances for new programs. Auctioning emission allowances serves several purposes
besides raising revenue. It uses a price signal as an indicator of the economic
value of allowances and may thus provide a stronger economic incentive for emissions
reductions and enhancing economic efficiency. It also provides a market
means for reallocation of allowances among existing and new sources.

Recommendation: Policymakers should make greater use of emissions
trading considering the three conditions listed in this section. Where
emissions trading is not being incorporated into an existing regulatory
structure, but rather is being used as part of a new program, policymakers
should consider auctioning off or selling emission allowances.

PDF page: 55
Let's give the teleprompter-reader-in-chief dictatorial power:

Improving Coordination among Federal Agencies
Carefully coordinated efforts by multiple agencies are required to tackle some of
today’s toughest environmental problems. For example, the ISTEA provisions that
are designed to enhance environmental quality, described previously, depend on
programs implemented by both the Department of Transportation and EPA. Multiple
agencies have been enlisted on strategies to deal with problems ranging from
water quality to endangered species to climate change.
In recent administrations, coordination of environmental policy across agencies
has been done by different offices within the Executive Office of the President,
with varying levels of effectiveness. A key variable is presidential interest. In discussing
this issue, the former EPA administrators in E4E agreed that “if the president
wants it to happen, it will happen.”
However, even with presidential support,
the obstacles to better coordination are significant. Federal programs implemented
at the state and local levels face similar obstacles, often intensified by the lack of
coordination at the federal level.
Recommendation: The executive branch should place a high priority on
improving the coordination of the environmental protection activities of all
federal agencies.

PDF Page 62
Eco-FASCISM totally admitted:

Public-Private Collaborative Enterprises
A growing number of collaborative efforts between business and government have
been formed to educate the private sector about enhancing environmental performance
and improving efficiency. (Appendix C contains a description of these
activities.) Many of these efforts have been targeted toward small businesses. Trade
associations are working with regulators and assistance providers to develop compliance
assistance and pollution prevention materials for individual business sectors
and are participating in the development and operation of EPA’s compliance
assistance centers. Trade associations and businesses have worked with regulators
to provide on-site compliance assistance and pollution prevention assessments for
small businesses and have served as mentors to companies that are not as knowledgeable
about environmental performance. In addition, the printing and metal
finishing industries, two sectors made up primarily of small businesses, are participating
in EPA’s Common Sense Initiative. E4E participants encourage government
and industry to continue their collaborative efforts.
1. Industry and government should collaborate on ways to improve consumer
knowledge of environmental issues and share factual, relevant,
and meaningful information about the environmental attributes of products
in ways that will encourage knowledgeable purchase decisions.
New initiatives to promote consumer education about the environmental
attributes of products, and how consumers can use them in the most
environmentally sound way, should be explored. This could include
promoting voluntary labeling and advertising initiatives overseen by the
recently revised Environmental Marketing Guides of the Federal Trade
Commission, education programs, and other activities.64 It could also
include providing environmental information to government institutional
buyers, consistent with the draft EPA principles for Environmentally
Preferable Products procurement issued under Executive Order
2. Government should work with industry to provide industry-specific
training to pollution prevention assistance providers and involve trade
association and industry members in developing, reviewing, and/or
sponsoring assistance programs and tools. Assistance providers should
be trained in the pollution prevention techniques and best practices that
are pertinent to the industry sectors in which they work. In addition, if
an industry representative is directly involved in developing or reviewing
assistance tools, such tools will be more accurate, pertinent, and
gain greater acceptance and wider use. Jointly developed tools should
identify not only what is important to regulators, but what is important
to business—its operations and competitiveness. Similarly, businesses
may be more inclined to participate in government compliance assistance
and pollution prevention programs if trusted industry representatives
or trade associations are cosponsoring or participating in the
3. Government should collaborate with businesses to help businesses
become catalysts for action as well as spokespersons for stewardship,
eco-efficiency, pollution prevention, and enhanced environmental performance.

Testimonials by respected companies provide compelling
reasons for other firms to emulate good business practices. EPS’s Green
Chemistry Awards, Energy Star Program, and 33/50 program are examples
of initiatives that publicize company success stories

Please read the full report.

If you find anything else interesting, please post the excerpt with a PDF Page #.

Offline birther truther tenther

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,726
  • Against all forms of tyranny
Re: CSIS white paper from 1997 outlines "Green" Eco-fascist agenda!
« Reply #1 on: October 14, 2010, 03:43:24 am »
...and down the rabbit hole we go.

First up, this CSIS report was collaborated with the Keystone Center.

Inspiring Solutions

The Keystone Center seeks to solve our society’s most challenging environmental, energy, and public health problems. We bring together today’s public, private and civic sector leaders to confront these issues and we arm the next generation with the 21st Century intellectual and social skills required to effectively approach the questions they will face. Founded in 1975 by Robert W. Craig, The Center is a non-profit organization headquartered in Keystone, Colorado with offices in Denver, CO and Washington, DC.

The Keystone Center's Board of Trustees is very interesting; it's made up of big wigs of NWO corporations we constantly expose:

Board of Trustees


Dr. Rodger Bybee
Biological Sciences Curriculum Study
(Co-Chair of the Board)

Ms. Dede Hapner
Pacific Gas & Electric Company
(Co-Chair of the Board)

Peter Adler
The Keystone Center

Robert W. Craig
The Keystone Center

Mr. Shelby Coffey III
The Newseum

Mr. John Fitzgerald

Mr. John J. Hall
Hall Consulting, Inc.

Mr. David Nicoli

Mr. Glenn T. Prickett
The Nature Conservancy

Ms. Chris Shea
General Mills

Mr. Jerry Steiner

(updated June 2010)


Ms. Elizabeth Arky

Mr. Wayne Brunetti
Xcel Energy (retired)

Ms. Kateri Callahan
Alliance to Save Energy

Mr. Kevin Chavous
SNR Denton

Mr. John E. Echohawk
Native American Rights Fund

Mr. Curtis Frasier
Shell Energy Resources Company

Mr. Rick Frazier
The Coca-Cola Company

The Honorable Edward M. Gabriel
The Gabriel Company, LLC

Mr. David E. Greenberg
Denver School of Science and Technology

Mr. David I. Greenberg
LRN, Inc.

Dr. Millie Hamner
Summit School District

Dr. Neil C. Hawkins
The Dow Chemical Company

Ms. Karen Hollweg
North American Association for Environmental Education

Mr. Stewart Hudson
Emily Hall Tremaine Foundation

Dr. David Jhirad
Johns Hopkins University

Ms. Stacey Kennedy
Altria Sales & Distribution

Ms. Ann Klee
General Electric Company

Mr. Jonathan Lash
World Resources Institute

Mr. Doug Lovell
Keystone Resort

Ms. Felicia Marcus
Natural Resources Defense Council

Dr. Scott Marion
National Center for the Improvement of
Educational Assessment

Dr. Carlo Parravano
Merck Institute for Science Education

Ms. Cassie Phillips

Mr. Nicholas Reding

Dr. Benjamin Schwartz

Mr. Doug Sims

Mr. Gary Spitzer

Ms. Sherry Strong

Ms. Alison Taylor
Siemens Corporation

Mr. Mostafa Terrab
OCP Group

Ms. Susan Tomasky
American Electric Power

Mr. Keith Trent
Duke Energy

Mr. Clinton Vince
SNR Denton

Mr. Derek Yach

The founder of Keystone is also very interesting:

Bob Craig founded The Keystone Center in 1975 and served as the organization's president until 1997.

From 1953 to 1965, he was Executive Director, Vice President, and Chief Operating Officer of the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies, with responsibility for program planning, trustee relations, and development.

From 1965 to 1974, Bob was a principal in two planning and industrial design consulting firms. During this period he also owned and operated a family ranch outside Aspen, Colorado, specializing in commercial cattle production.

Bob received a Bachelor’s Degree in Philosophy and a B.S. in Biology from the University of Washington in 1949. He received an M.A. in Philosophy in 1951 and completed requirements for a Ph.D., ABD at Columbia University.

During World War II, he served in the western Pacific to the rank of Lt.J.G. in the United States Navy. From 1943 to 1946, he participated in four major amphibious operations. During the Korean War, he was a civilian consultant for the Department of the Army at the Mountain and Cold Weather Training Command, Fort Carson, Colorado.

As a mountaineer, Bob has participated in or led expeditions to a number of the world’s highest mountains, including K2, 1953; deputy leader, American-Pamirs/USSR Expedition, 1974; and leader, American-Tibetan Everest West Ridge Expedition, 1983.

Bob is listed in Who’s Who in America and Who’s Who in the West. His 1979 book, Storm and Sorrow, was made into a television docudrama and first broadcast in November 1990. He was also co-author, along with Charles Houston, M.D., of K2, The Savage Mountain, in 1954.

His active memberships include: American Alpine Club (past president); Bohemian Club (San Francisco); Cactus Club (Denver); Century Association (New York City); Denver Club; Metropolitan Club (Washington, DC); and The Washington Institute of Foreign Affairs.

Bob serves on the boards of the Aspen Center for Physics; American Alpine Club; Colorado Outward Bound; Santa Fe Institute; Snake River Health Services; Vail Valley Institute; Lowell Observatory; City Innovation; and Tomorrow Magazine.

Offline birther truther tenther

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,726
  • Against all forms of tyranny
Re: CSIS white paper from 1997 outlines "Green" Eco-fascist agenda!
« Reply #2 on: October 14, 2010, 12:38:41 pm »

Data in this post retrieved today, 2010:

About Us

    “Our society has reached a point where its progress and even its survival depend on our ability to organize the complex and to do the unusual.”

~ James Webb, former NASA Administrator and a Principal Founder of the National Academy ~

The National Academy of Public Administration was created to help public sector leaders meet the important and varied management challenges of today and anticipate those of the future. Chartered by Congress as an independent, non-partisan organization, the National Academy undertakes its important work on behalf of the public sector by anticipating, evaluating, analyzing and making recommendations on the nation’s most critical and complex public management, governance, policy and operational challenges. Through the trusted and experienced leaders that comprise its 680 Fellows and direct its projects and services, the National Academy improves the quality, performance and accountability of government.

What We Do

Under contracts with government agencies, some of which are directed by Congress, as well as grants from private foundations, the National Academy of Public Administration provides insights on key public management issues, as well as advisory services to government agencies.

Our diverse practice areas include:

    * Organizational Assessment and Design
    * Strategy Development and Implementation
    * Program Evaluation and Performance Measurement
    * Business Process Transformation
    * Change Management
    * Stakeholder Outreach and Collaboration

In addition to client-driven work, as an elected membership organization the National Academy provides opportunities for its Fellows to exchange and develop ideas on a variety of government management and policy issues. The Academy holds an annual meeting of its Fellowship and supports five Standing Panels that provide input to the Academy’s agenda of studies and serve as collegial forums for Fellows to exchange ideas and interact with experts outside the Academy, including senior government officials. Typically these issues cannot be resolved by a single government agency, a single level of government or even by the government alone, but instead require interdepartmental, intergovernmental and networked solutions.

Examples of our activities include:

    * Establishing benchmarks for environmental programs that extend across federal, state and local sectors;
    * Helping federal judiciary agencies create new budget processes;
    * Developing a peer review system for human resource programs at a statewide university;
    * Improving coordination and priority-setting for emergency response across jurisdictions;
    * Hosting an online Dialogue to solicit stakeholder ideas and comments for an agency’s strategic planning process;
    * Creating a management transformation plan for major federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies; or
    * Helping policymakers better understand the complex intergovernmental transportation system.
    * Evaluating and recommending approach, priorities, criteria for awarding research contracts and methods for gathering information about needs/requirements from customers in Homeland Security Science and Technology;
    * Assessing modernization action plans and risk mitigation steps for a branch of the Armed Services

Learn more about the National Academy’s Current Studies, Programs and Publications & Reports.

How We Work

Much of the National Academy’s work is requested by government agencies or Congressional committees that seek assistance with a particularly difficult or complex management problem.  Working with the client, the National Academy develops a scope of work and draws from its pool of Fellows to form a panel with experience relevant to the client’s needs.  The panel oversees the project, providing the high-level expertise and broad experience that clients seek.  The National Academy staff and consultants support the work of the panel with top quality research and analysis that merits its status as an independent, non-partisan organization with a focus on improving management of government.

In addition to client-driven work, the National Academy receives foundation grants from other organizations committed to good government, and charitable gifts to develop reports and convene forums and conferences to tackle some of the nation’s toughest challenges.  Most often, these issues cannot be resolved by a single government agency, a single level of government or even by the government alone, but instead require interdepartmental, intergovernmental or networked solutions.

The National Academy engages in a number of activities that support our goals of improved public administration, including:

    * In-depth studies, analyses and research projects;
    * Online dialogues that engage the government and the public;
    * Advisory services and technical assistance;
    * Forums and conferences;
    * Executive briefings; and
    * Congressional testimony.

Under the "Fellows" section, there are quite a few names, so I'll just re-post Ruckelshaus' biography

Fellows Biographies
William D. Ruckelshaus

(1987) – Strategic Director, Madrona Venture Group. Former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Browning-Ferris Industries; Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Senior Vice President for Law and Corporate Affairs, Weyerhaeuser Company; Deputy U.S. Attorney General; Acting Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: CSIS white paper from 1997 outlines "Green" Eco-fascist agenda!
« Reply #3 on: October 14, 2010, 01:14:12 pm »
You do not know the half of it...

Exposed: CSIS (Think Tank) says there is plan to exterminate 5 billion humans!
by Squarepusher 4/20/2010
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Cywar

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,156
Re: CSIS white paper from 1997 outlines "Green" Eco-fascist agenda!
« Reply #4 on: October 14, 2010, 01:40:56 pm »
Thanks for the links
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance."

—Albert Einstein