2

Sustainability and the Roots of Controversy

Embedded in many of the underlying conceptions of sustainability are a variety of conflicting views and interpretations. The various conceptions of sustainability carry with them significant implications, many of which conflict with one another and (perhaps more important for this chapter) with social and political values that do not readily accommodate any conception of sustainability. This chapter focuses on a small number of these conflicts, especially those that have become the most politically salient in recent years. To the extent that moving toward becoming more sustainable requires accepting less individual freedom as such freedom is commonly defined, controversy seems inevitable. Much the same can be said if sustainability requires accepting less economic growth, less consumption, reductions in population growth, more government action, and a wide array of other changes. This chapter discusses two of these controversies with the understanding that they are merely immediate manifestations of inter-related challenges.

Traditionally, attitudes among the public and among political leaders have not reflected serious opposition to the pursuit of sustainability. Certainly, various conceptions of sustainability have had their skeptics. Many opponents and proponents have questioned whether it is possible to protect the biophysical environment and still achieve greater economic growth, one goal of sustainable economic development. Others have argued that it isn’t possible to move to a low-carbon economy quickly enough to prevent or mitigate significant climate change. Many other such skepticisms surround the idea of sustainability, though for the most part these skepticisms have not become serious political issues. The controversies outlined here are those that have become political issues, at least in the United States. And at their root these controversies voice concern about the role of the United States in the world and in the global economy.

In the United States, efforts by governments to pursue sustainability policies and programs typically have met with political opposition only when it has become necessary to define specific initiatives in particular places. For example, when some cities have tried to promote denser residential housing in an effort to become more energy efficient, neighborhood associations and homeowners associations have expressed opposition. When some cities have tried to create bicycle-ridership programs, some business owners have objected to the loss of vehicular traffic. When cities have tried to require conversion of local taxi fleets to hybrid vehicles, some cab drivers and cab owners have resisted. But the political opposition to such programmatic efforts by cities remained fairly localized and sporadic, at least until around 2009. At the national level, efforts to address sustainability have never been taken seriously by Congress. Political opposition to proposals for sustainability is more palpable at the national level, and is founded on rigorous defense of status-quo understandings of what is good for the economy and for “jobs.” Most policy proposals that would advance the cause of sustainability never make it onto the national public agenda and are never directly addressed by Congress. An exception to this may have occurred during the Obama administration, when a number of specific policy changes, such as a decision to regulate carbon emissions under the existing Clean Air Act and a decision to promote energy efficiency through the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block grant program, were made through regulatory or executive decisions. But the emphasis in this chapter is on the social and political challenges of moving the United States and other countries toward sustainability through their respective public policies, and on the implications of these challenges for subnational sustainability efforts. Understanding these challenges begins with understanding the role of the United Nations in promoting sustainability since the mid 1980s and perhaps since before then.

The United Nations and Agenda 21

As was discussed in chapter 1, the impetus for the pursuit of sustainability has its roots in the United Nations. In view of the actions of the UN’s World Commission on Environment and Development (the Brundtland Commission), the UN’s 1992 “Earth Summit,” and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (created under the auspices of the UN Environment Program), there is little question that sustainability has been a very high priority for the UN and for the vast majority of member countries.

The cornerstone of the UN’s efforts was the adoption of “Agenda 21,” a resolution agreed upon at the “Earth Summit.” Agenda 21 is a voluntary, non-binding statement describing how countries can work toward implementing various aspects of sustainable development (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development 1992). More formally known as the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and ratified by 178 countries (including the United States), Agenda 21 was designed to provide a wide array of guidance to countries wishing to pursue sustainability. Chapter 28 of Agenda 21, titled “Local Authorities Initiatives in Support of Agenda 21,” spawned the “Local Agenda 21” process, the foundation of the international organization called ICLEI—Local Governments for Sustainability. (The abbreviation originally stood for International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives.)

Although the imprimatur of the UN gave international legitimacy to the idea of sustainable development, it also carried with it the roots of controversy in the United States. The US, perhaps more than any other country, has had a difficult relationship with the UN. Much of the difficulty is based on distrust of the UN and of the countries that are thought to control its agenda, and on the view that those countries see the US as evil or imperialist. Those who distrust the UN see Agenda 21 as an instrument for reducing the influence of the US in world affairs, and for imposing a radical (socialist) agenda on US domestic politics and policy. Sustainability (at least, sustainability as practiced in some countries) is seen as a product of social-democratic or democratic socialist countries, particularly those in Scandinavia. When advocates of sustainability point to successes, they often refer to Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland, even though they are often not at the very top of the list of the most sustainable countries. Nevertheless, the idea that democratic socialist countries have been able to achieve high levels of sustainability and the US is not able to do so gives many people the impression that sustainability must represent something of an anathema to free-enterprise capitalism. Therefore, if the UN advocates sustainability, so the argument goes, it must be bad for the US. This view sows the seeds of controversy and political opposition in the US.

The UN, Climate-Change Science, and Climate-Science Skepticism

Skepticism about climate change has become a matter of political controversy. Again, the controversy cannot be divorced from the actions of the UN. In 1988, the United Nations Environmental Programme created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The purpose of that organization was (and is) to bring together scientists working on research related to climate change in order to scientifically understand whether and to what extent climate change was occurring. As the efforts of the IPCC progressed, the mission included efforts to examine the extent to which observed changes might be said to be attributable to human activity and efforts to scientifically assess the many possible links between carbon emissions and climate change. Since 1988, the IPCC has issued many reports documenting its findings, presenting the evidence as it is understood and delineating areas of greater or lesser uncertainty for further research. These reports are unequivocal as to the two main findings. The first is that global temperatures have been rising. The second is that much of the increase is attributable to human activities, particularly the release of carbon dioxide and other chemicals into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels.

Responses to these findings are varied. Many people claim to be skeptical of the findings, suggesting that the scientific evidence is inadequate or insufficient to allow those conclusions to be drawn. For example, Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma has often referred to climate change as “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people” (Inhofe 2012). Sometimes people who take this position are referred to as “climate skeptics” or “climate deniers.” Although objections to the IPCC’s conclusions are often couched in rejection of its science, it is more likely that such objections are rooted in understandings of the implications for policies and for the behavior of individuals. For those who are heavily invested in the current American way of life, the implications seem untenable.

“Climate skeptics” seem to believe that the scientific community is deeply (and perhaps evenly) divided on the two main issues. Evidence of this division is often based on identifying a few scientists who disagree with the conclusions, or a few scientists who disagree with one small piece of the larger scientific question. For example, for years “climate skeptics” pointed to the questions raised by Richard Muller, a professor of physics at the University of California at Berkeley who articulated concern about some of the IPCC’s findings. Subsequently, Muller and some colleagues embarked on a huge independent project to analyze temperature data over a long period. Their findings suggested that global warming was more serious than even the IPCC had estimated, and that the observed warming could not be due to alternative explanations. In other words, they found that human activity was more clearly linked to global warming than had previously been reported (Muller 2012). This is but one example demonstrating how difficult it is for many people to come to grips with the apparent facts associated with climate change, and with the implications that these facts might have for the mitigation of climate change and for sustainability.

Much of the debate has centered on what proportion of scientists “believe” that climate change is either caused or affected by human activity. Some have cited a finding that 97 percent of scientists believe that human activity plays a significant role in determining the magnitude of climate change. “Climate skeptics” have taken issue with this finding and with the research used to produce it, although they offer no alternative research to support the claim that this percentage is a “myth.” The central issue, however, is how much of the relevant scientific research presents findings that are consistent with and supportive of the inference that humans play a significant role in climate change, and the results seem clear. As is discussed extensively in the IPCC’s reports, substantial scientific evidence exists to support the inference.

Ideologies and Values in Opposition to Sustainability

The significant opposition to sustainability in the United States and in some other countries is not due entirely to distrust of the United Nations. It is deeply rooted in public values and political ideologies that clearly conflict with the values and ideologies implicit in the achievement of sustainability regardless of which of the many conceptions might be at issue. In many respects, a cluster of reinforcing values and beliefs conspire to call into question whether the pursuit of sustainability is worthwhile. This cluster of values and beliefs includes fundamental adherence to the importance of individual liberties, belief in the efficacy of free markets, great distrust of governments (largely because of the belief that they impede individual freedoms and free markets), and (particularly in the US) concern about subordinating or sacrificing national sovereignty to international governance.

The issue of individual liberties permeates discussions of sustainability primarily because of the perception that in order to protect the biophysical environment some personal freedoms must be curtailed. Strong libertarians tend to believe in the primacy of individual freedoms even if the consequence is some amount of environmental degradation. Perhaps more important, libertarians tend to take the position that environmental protection and the pursuit of sustainability are acceptable only if they are the products of the exercise of individual freedoms without coercion or government intervention. Free-market issues are an extension of this libertarianism in which individuals and groups of individuals exercise their freedoms in pursuit of profit through interacting in competitive markets. Based on fundamental notions of neo-classical economics, this view sees the operation of such free markets as the only way to maximize aggregate social welfare and well-being. If sustainability requires markets to be restricted or constrained (as in the case of regulation of emissions of pollution into the atmosphere), it is seen as working against free markets. These ideas are reinforced by deep distrust of governments and governmental policies. Those who adhere to libertarian values share a general and almost universal view that governments get in the way of personal freedoms and that they impede rather than protect the operation of free and competitive markets, whether through restrictions on individual behaviors or through taxation powers. If government policies are designed to affect individual consumer choices, they represent an unacceptable restriction on individual freedoms. If government policy restricts land uses, as might be required to achieve greater sustainability, it is to be distrusted. Often these individualistic values are rooted in concern about erosion of national sovereignty. If the US was, perhaps more than any other country, founded on fundamental notions of individual liberty, then efforts to have the US conform to the values of other countries must be suspect. When the US engages in international agreements or treaties related to sustainability, it is interpreted as an unacceptable erosion of national sovereignty. These values and beliefs underlie various kinds of political opposition to sustainability that appear to be more prevalent in the US than in the vast majority of other countries, and these values foment distrust of the United Nations as an organization committed to undermining the sovereignty of the United States.

Manifestations of Political Opposition in the United States

As has already been noted, skepticism about climate science in the United States is linked, in part, to distrust of the United Nations in some segments of the population. Certainly, a majority of Americans think the UN does a “poor job” in trying to resolve various problems (Gallup 2014). As was noted earlier, some in the US see the UN as an organization captured by anti-US interests and countries. Thus, in a sense, those who distrust the UN view anything that the UN endorses with great skepticism. Although these views are not representative of the general population in the US, they do reflect concern among a small but vocal and active minority. These views about the UN in general and Agenda 21 and sustainability specifically have provided the impetus for state-level efforts to make the pursuit of sustainability illegal. A legislative resolution in Tennessee, legislative proposals in Kansas, Missouri, New Hampshire, Maine, and Arizona, and laws enacted in Alabama and Oklahoma have been designed to prohibit the use of public funds for purposes related to policies and programs on sustainability. Tennessee’s Joint House Resolution 587, passed by a vote of 72 to 23, singled out Agenda 21, sustainable development, smart growth, and resilient cities programs as “destructive and insidious” (Tennessee 2012). That resolution and a resolution passed in South Dakota are nearly identical to the Resolution Exposing United Nations Agenda 21 passed by the Republican National Committee during its winter 2012 meetings (RNC 2012).

In 2013, a bill to prohibit use of public funds to support any sustainability-related policies or activities was introduced in the state legislature of Kansas. In 2012, the Kansas House of Representatives had approved a resolution “opposing and exposing the radical nature of the United Nations Agenda 21 and its destructiveness to the principles of the founding documents of the United States of America.” The 2013 bill, HB 2366, contained the specific language quoted on page 70 below.

No public funds may be used, either directly or indirectly, to promote, support, mandate, require, order, incentivize, advocate, plan for, participate in or implement sustainable development. This prohibition on the use of public funds shall apply to: Any activity by any state governmental entity or municipality; the payment of membership dues to any association; employing or contracting for the service of any person or entity; the preparation, distribution or use of any kit, pamphlet, booklet, publication, electronic communication, radio, television or video presentation; any materials prepared or presented as part of a class, course, curriculum or instructional material; any current, proposed or pending law, rule, regulation, code, administrative action or order issued by any federal or international agency; and any federal or private grant, program or initiative. (Kansas 2013)

The bill was sent to the Committee on Energy and Environment. It stalled there for the remainder of the 2013 legislative session, and it was not subsequently re-introduced.

In 2012, Arizona’s legislature took up a similar bill, introduced in the state senate as SB 1507. This bill specifically targeted the UN’s sustainability-related activities:

The state of Arizona and all political subdivisions of this state shall not adopt or implement the creed, doctrine, principles or any tenet of the United Nations Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and the Statement of Principles for Sustainable Development adopted at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in June, 1992 or any other international law that contravenes the United States Constitution or the Constitution of Arizona. (Arizona 2013)

The Arizona bill came very close to passing.

In 2012, Alabama became the first state to enact into law a ban on the pursuit of sustainability. Using language almost identical to that of similar proposals in other states, Alabama’s law prohibits the state and “all political subdivisions” from adopting or implementing sustainable-development policies or programs:

The State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating in, or traceable to “Agenda 21,” adopted by the United Nations in 1992 at its Conference on Environment and Development. (Alabama 2012)

In 2013, the Oklahoma state legislature enacted a law similar to the one passed in Alabama. That law, like those proposed in Kansas, Arizona, and Alabama, and with language identical to that found in the Arizona and Alabama bills, targeted Agenda 21 and sustainable development:

The state or any political subdivision of the state shall not adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe upon or restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating in, or traceable to United Nations Agenda 21/Sustainable Development and any of its subsequent modifications, a resolution adopted by the United Nations in 1992 at its Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and commonly known as the Earth Summit and reconfirmed in its Rio+20 Conference held in Rio de Janeiro in June 2012. (Oklahoma 2012)

The appendix to this chapter contains the full text of the bills and resolutions introduced or enacted in Tennessee, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arizona, and Alabama.

In many of the states in which there have been legislative efforts to ban the pursuit of sustainability, local officials and groups have expressed opposition to these legislative efforts. As Arizona took up the bill that would have banned its municipalities from pursuing sustainability, the League of Arizona Cities and Towns (2012) and the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry both came out in opposition to the proposed ban on local sustainability programs, and Mayor Greg Stanton of the city of Phoenix wrote an editorial for the Arizona Republic in which he extolled the virtues of sustainable development for the city (Stanton 2012). Stanton’s argument was simple: Phoenix was already investing in an approach to economic development that relied heavily on the idea that sustainability would make the city a better place to live and work.

Where did the impetus behind these legislative efforts to ban public sustainability programs come from? As one commentator noted about the law enacted in Alabama, it doesn’t seem very likely that the average resident of that state knows or follows the activities of the UN. A blogger named R. P. Siegel suggested a possible source of the concern about Agenda 21:

I bet you were surprised to learn that the folks in Alabama were so well informed that they actually followed the proceedings of the Conference on Environment and Development. Well, in fact they didn’t. What they do follow, apparently in large numbers is the Koch Brothers’ paid public relations organization, otherwise known as the Tea Party, which has made Agenda 21 a centerpiece of their outrage. (Siegel 2012)

Indeed, a 2012 national public opinion survey sponsored by the American Planning Association asked more than 1,300 respondents whether they supported or opposed “United Nations Agenda 21.” Only 15 percent said they supported or opposed it; the other 85 percent said they had never heard of it. Among the 15 percent who had heard of Agenda 21, 6 percent said they opposed it and 9 percent said they supported it. Of course, the 6 percent who expressed opposition to Agenda 21 includes a significant number of vocal activists, and a large portion of those respondents reported identifying with the Republican Party (APA 2012: 22).

The Organized Opposition: The Tea Party and Related Groups

It is no coincidence that the various state legislative efforts to address Agenda 21 have nearly identical wording. The reason for this stems from the organized national efforts of a number of conservative and libertarian groups and individuals. These organized efforts are motivated by the perception that Agenda 21 represents a serious threat to the American way of life. Many see the pursuit of sustainability as an effort to restrict freedoms and property rights. When, for example, policies are proposed to create more opportunities for people to use bicycles as a means of transportation or to expand public transportation, this is seen as an effort to take people’s cars away from them. Rather than seeing this as a way to enhance the choices of those who wish to use these transit options, as suggested by the mayor of Phoenix, these actions are seen as undermining existing freedoms. This is the basic tenet of the organized opposition as reflected in the Tea Party movement, a loosely knit nationwide effort to provide mechanisms for like-minded people to express their views about various public policies. There is no single organization or political party; rather, there are a number of groups that have taken up libertarian causes, including especially the organization called Americans for Prosperity (spearheaded by Charles and David Koch), the Washington-based Freedom Works, the American Policy Center, and the 9/12 groups launched through the efforts of the conservative commentator Glenn Beck. The activities of these national groups spawned the formation of like-minded groups in many states. As was suggested above, much of the opposition to public policies on sustainability in state governments and legislatures can be linked to the legislative agendas of these groups. In turn, the state-level opposition to sustainability has been directed, in part, at local governments within the states. As will be discussed more fully in chapter 6, many cities around the US have decided to try to become more sustainable as a matter of public policy, and a number of state legislatures have now made it clear that they do not wish to permit the cities in their respective states to move in that direction.

City-Based Opposition to Sustainability

The state-level opposition to the pursuit of sustainability has been joined by local and metropolitan-wide counterpart efforts. Since 2009, many cities in the US have seen the establishment of their own Tea Party organizations or related organizations. These organizations have no formal ties to each other or to state or national counterparts; however, they do tend to share libertarian views, including opposition to sustainability. A 2011 article in the magazine Mother Jones argued that “tea partiers have trained their sights on a new insidious target: local planning and zoning commissions, which activists believe are carrying out a global conspiracy to trample American liberties and force cities into Orwellian ‘human habitation zones’” (Mencimer 2011). Yet Berry, Portney, and Joseph (2014) found that of the 55 largest cities in the US, three had no identifiable Tea Party groups and an additional seven had such groups in name only, with no evidence that they were active. Skocpol and Williamson (2012) found that many local Tea Party groups were highly energized and had dedicated and passionate leaders. Berry et al. (2014: 13–15) found that much of the energy associated with the newly formed groups had diminished, and in any case very few specifically focused their attention on city governments and city policies.

With these seemingly inconsistent findings, the central issue surrounding the role of local Tea Party groups remains whether they have had a discernible effect on the ability of cities to pursue sustainability policies and programs. A good deal of anecdotal evidence suggests that Tea Party groups have been able to get some local governments to reverse some aspects of their sustainability policies. For example, when the cities of Edmond, Oklahoma and San Marco, California held public hearings to entertain renewing their memberships in ICLEI, the international organization providing technical assistance on climate protection programs, local Tea Party activists showed up en masse to express vigorous opposition. Local policy makers have often acquiesced, electing to drop their memberships. In spite of this, Berry et al. (2014) found no evidence among the largest US cities that there was any real effect on the policy pursuit of sustainability. Cities with Tea Party organizations active in local elections have not seen a discernible decrease in policy efforts in support of sustainability.

The Roots of Controversy: A Summary

With the foundations of sustainability and sustainable development located in the actions of the United Nations, the stage has been set for political controversy. Particularly in the United States, proposals that would advance the cause of sustainability have been opposed by those who object to ceding authority to the international organization. Agenda 21 and its subnational counterpart, Local Agenda 21, provide the conceptual basis for national policies to combat climate change. As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has endeavored to assemble the best available scientific knowledge and information about climate change and its causes and consequences, “climate skeptics” have tried to undermine that group’s credibility. Taking advantage of public sentiment that is more than suspicious of big government and fearful of the erosion of personal freedoms, those with libertarian political ideologies have created a context in which national (federal) action in support of sustainability has been difficult. Concern that redressing climate change and pursuing sustainability will erode personal freedoms, such as private property rights and reliance on the personal motor vehicle, has reinforced the status quo. Even as many state and local governments have taken up the task, some states, including Oklahoma, Kansas, Alabama, Tennessee, and Arizona, have seen their state legislatures entertain outright bans on efforts within their states to pursue sustainability. In the face of these controversies, numerous governments around the world, including many in the US, have responded to the need by moving sustainability squarely onto the public agenda.

Appendix: Legislative Language of State Legislation Seeking to Ban Sustainable Development

Kansas House of Representatives Session of 2013

HOUSE BILL No. 2366 By Committee on Energy and Environment

AN ACT concerning the use of public funds to promote or implement sustainable development.

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Kansas: 

Section 1.

(a) No public funds may be used, either directly or indirectly, to promote, support, mandate, require, order, incentivize, advocate, plan for, participate in or implement sustainable development. This prohibition on the use of public funds shall apply to:

(1) Any activity by any state governmental entity or municipality;

(2) the payment of membership dues to any association;

(3) employing or contracting for the service of any person or entity;

(4) the preparation, distribution or use of any kit, pamphlet, booklet, publication, electronic communication, radio, television or video presentation;

(5) any materials prepared or presented as part of a class, course, curriculum or instructional material;

(6) any current, proposed or pending law, rule, regulation, code, administrative action or order issued by any federal or international agency; and

(7) any federal or private grant, program or initiative.

(b) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the use of public funds outside the context of sustainable development:

(1) For planning the use, development or extension of public services or resources;

(2) to support, promote, advocate for, plan for, enforce, use, teach, participate in or implement the ideas, principles or practices of planning, conservation, conservationism, fiscal responsibility, free market capitalism, limited government, federalism, national and state sovereignty, individual freedom and liberty, individual responsibility or the protection of personal property rights; and

(3) to advocate against or inform the public about any past, present or future governmental action that is violative of this act.

(c) For the purposes of this section:

(1) “Municipality” shall have the meaning ascribed to it in K.S.A. 75–6102, and amendments thereto; and

(2) “sustainable development” means a mode of human development in which resource use aims to meet human needs while preserving the environment so that these needs can be met not only in the present, but also for generations to come, but not to include the idea, principle or practice of conservation or conservationism.

Section 2. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after its publication in the statute book.

State of Arizona Senate

Arizona Senate Bill 1507

AN ACT PROHIBITING THE STATE AND ITS POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS FROM ADOPTING OR IMPLEMENTING THE UNITED NATIONS RIO DECLARATION ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT.

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:

Section 1. Rio declaration on environment and development; prohibition; definition

A. The state of Arizona and all political subdivisions of this state shall not adopt or implement the creed, doctrine, principles or any tenet of the United Nations Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and the Statement of Principles for Sustainable Development adopted at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in June, 1992 or any other international law that contravenes the United States Constitution or the Constitution of Arizona.

B. Since the United Nations has enlisted the support of numerous independent, non-governmental organizations to implement this agenda around the world, the state of Arizona and all political subdivisions are prohibited from implementing programs of, expending any sum of money for, being a member of, receiving funding from, contracting services from, or giving financial or other forms of aid to the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives or any of its related or affiliated organizations including Countdown 2010, Local Action for Biodiversity, European Center for Nature Conservation, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, and the President’s Council on Sustainable Development, enacted on July 19, 1993 by Executive Order 12852.

C. For the purposes of this section, “political subdivision” includes this state, or a county, city or town in this state, or a public partnership or any other public entity in this state.

State of Oklahoma

HOUSE BILL NO. 1412

An Act relating to property; defining term; prohibiting adoption of United Nations Agenda 21/Sustainable Development policies that restrict private property rights without due process; prohibiting state and political subdivisions from entering into certain agreements and expending and receiving funds to implement United Nations Agenda 21/Sustainable Development; providing for codification; and providing an effective date.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA:

SECTION 1. NEW LAW A new section of law to be codified in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 100 of Title 60, unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:

A. As used in this section, “political subdivisions” means any state, county, city, town, municipality, district, public local entity, public-private partnership or any other public entity of the state, a county, city, town or municipality.

B. The state or any political subdivision of the state shall not adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe upon or restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating in, or traceable to United Nations Agenda 21/Sustainable Development and any of its subsequent modifications, a resolution adopted by the United Nations in 1992 at its Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and commonly known as the Earth Summit and reconfirmed in its Rio+20 Conference held in Rio de Janeiro in June 2012, or any other international law or ancillary plan of action that contravenes the Constitution of the United States or the Oklahoma Constitution.

C. Since the United Nations has accredited or enlisted numerous nongovernmental and intergovernmental organizations to assist in the implementation of its policies relative to United Nations Agenda 21/Sustainable Development around the world, the state and all political subdivisions of the state shall not enter into any agreement, expend any sum of money, receive funds contracting services or give financial aid to or from any nongovernmental or intergovernmental organizations accredited or enlisted by the United Nations.

SECTION 2. This act shall become effective November 1, 2013.

Passed the House of Representatives the 13th day of March, 2013.

Alabama Senate Bill SB477

ENROLLED, An Act, Relating to due process; to prohibit the State of Alabama and its political subdivisions from adopting and developing environmental and developmental policies that, without due process, would infringe or restrict the private property rights of the owner of the property.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF ALABAMA:

Section 1. (a) As used in this section, “political subdivisions” means all state, county, incorporated city, unincorporated city, public local entity, public-private partnership, and any other public entity of the state, a county, or city.

(b) The State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating in, or traceable to “Agenda 21,” adopted by the United Nations in 1992 at its Conference on Environment and Development or any other international law or ancillary plan of action that contravenes the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Alabama.

(c) Since the United Nations has accredited and enlisted numerous non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations to assist in the implementation of its policies relative to Agenda 21 around the world, the State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not enter into any agreement, expend any sum of money, or receive funds contracting services, or giving financial aid to or from those non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations as defined in Agenda 21.

Section 2. This act shall become effective on the first day of the third month following its passage and approval by the Governor, or its otherwise becoming law.