A Primer On ICLEI, An Organization C.S. Will Withdraw From

Introduction: College Station Withdrawing from ICLEI

At last Thursday’s council meeting, I proposed to the council to withdraw College Station’s membership in the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) – an international organization founded in 1990 by the United Nations. Our city has been paying somewhere north of $1,000 to be a member of this organization, yet it is not to be found anywhere within the budget. Few have ever heard of ICLEI, and fewer still know that College Station has actually been a member since 2009.

I am truly excited to announce that the proposed 2013 College Station budget will not include funding for this organization. It is an insidious, extreme institution that does not represent our citizens, and for our taxpayers to continue to fund it would be ridiculous.

I applaud our management staff for their thoughtful decision to agree to withdraw from ICLEI in the next budgetary year. In particular, I’d like to thank Jason Stuebe, Assistant to the City Manager, for his extraordinarily thorough research into this and many other topics. Our staff has made the right decision here.

I also want to thank a citizen, Mary Oliver, for her steadfast efforts to bring this issue to my attention over the past couple of years. Without her interest in the subject this might not have been possible. College Station is blessed to have citizens like her who care about what goes on with their local government.

Before I knew that our staff would agree to withdraw from ICLEI, I had begun writing a primer on what this organization is and does, as well as some notes on its history and founders. Because ICLEI is an international organization that seeks to impose its policies at all levels of government, and because its policies have been adopted by many local governments, we must be aware of what it is and what it seeks to do, as well as guard ourselves for any future actions to involve ourselves in their initiatives.

This article, therefore, is intended to give a view into what ICLEI is and what its aims are. Given the new information about our withdrawal from ICLEI, let it serve as an explanation to our citizens why this organization is a threat to our individual rights and our local government’s sovereignty in decision-making.

ICLEI’s History and Its Founders

Before even beginning to consider ICLEI’s ideas and policies, and the implications thereof, the history must be understood. ICLEI has a history spanning more than two decades. Along with that history, the key figures behind the organization should be considered.

The history of ICLEI is given rather succinctly on its own website, which can be found here. The first paragraph of “the ICLEI story” is below:

ICLEI was conceived in 1989 when 35 local government leaders from Canada and the USA met with a leading atmospheric scientist to discuss the depletion of the ozone layer. They pledged to establish local laws to phase out chemicals that deplete the Earth’s ozone layer. Larry Agran, Mayor of Irvine, California, USA and Jeb Brugmann imagined an agency that could coordinate local government responses to global environmental problems.

One question immediately comes to mind: who are Larry Agran and Jeb Brugmann? They must be important to the history of ICLEI, considering that they are the first two people mentioned by name on its history page. Actually, there are only three people mentioned on that entire page. Therefore, getting a sense of who these individuals are, and more specifically, what they believe, would perhaps give us some insight on the organization.

Larry Agran, as mentioned, was at the time the mayor of Irvine, California. He has been active for many years in Irvine city politics and still is, currently as Mayor Pro Tem. He has written for The Nation, a left-leaning magazine. He was also at one point a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. In 1992, he ran a failed long shot bid for the Democratic nomination for president.

A March 1, 1992 article in the Seattle Times described Agran’s candidacy thusly:

A standard bearer of liberal politics, Agran favors new taxes on the wealthy, a Middle East peace plan that includes the establishment of a free Palestinian state, and expanded human-rights protections.

Prior to that campaign, and not long after the genesis for the idea that became ICLEI, Agran was interviewed for the Late Spring 1990 issue of In Context, an out-of-print “Quarterly of Humane Sustainable Culture,” for an article called “Local Politics, Global Issue.”.

In the interview, he spoke about his successful efforts passing local legislation in Irvine to ban “… production and use of CFCs and other ozone-depleting compounds.” About a third of the interview is a lengthy discourse criticizing the policies of Ronald Reagan, which Agran claimed necessitated municipal involvement in global affairs. Further along, he stated that “…cities that don’t chart a self-consciously internationalist course are going to wither.”

Jeb Brugmann, according to his personal website, “… is a strategist and innovation expert in the fields of business and development, serving major corporations, local governments, and non-profit organizations worldwide.” His biography goes on to cite him as having founded ICLEI, and notes that he was Secretary General of ICLEI from 1991-2000, as well as the interim Executive Director of ICLEI USA in 2009. He has also written a number of papers as well as a book.

The biography continues on to describe several other significant initiatives that Brugmann has been involved in, under three headings: “Urban sustainability,” “’Bottom of the Pyramid’ business development,” and “Global civil society organization.” The business related section is exactly as it sounds, while the other two shed a bit more light on Brugmann’s political involvements. A section from each is quoted below.

Under “Urban sustainability”:

He led the international community’s adoption of the Local Agenda 21 initiative at the 1992 UN Earth Summit, precursor to the engagement of more than 6,500 cities and towns in 115 countries. In 1992-93 he co-founded the Cities for Climate Protection campaign, a global program that created the methods and supported hundreds of cities to prepare inventories and mitigation plans for their greenhouse gas emissions.

Under “Global civil society organization”:

Brugmann responded to the legal marginalization and government harassment of war refugees in the United States by mobilizing scores of U.S. cities to become “Sanctuary Cities.”

The bio goes on to state that “Jeb’s work has been financially supported by the governments of Australia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, the European Union, Finland, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States, as well as the UN Development Programme, UN Environment Programme, UN-Habitat, the World Bank, hundreds of municipalities, and numerous private foundations.” He has also authored a book and numerous papers, both scholarly and non, among numerous other activities.

Without a doubt, both Agran and Brugmann are accomplished individuals. However, they also both share a particular view about the world, one that is decidedly left-wing. That is, of course, the prerogative of each of them respectively, to hold and advocate for what they believe in. However, as it relates to the international organization that they founded and which our taxpayers currently fund membership to, it paints a different picture altogether. We do not want to be funding organizations with taxpayer monies which advocate for particular points of view. If two of the notable founding individuals behind ICLEI hold this particular perspective, one would expect the organization’s perspective to be similar.

Going back to the first paragraph of the webpage describing the history of ICLEI:

ICLEI was conceived in 1989 when 35 local government leaders from Canada and the USA met with a leading atmospheric scientist to discuss the depletion of the ozone layer. They pledged to establish local laws to phase out chemicals that deplete the Earth’s ozone layer. Larry Agran, Mayor of Irvine, California, USA and Jeb Brugmann imagined an agency that could coordinate local government responses to global environmental problems.

The idea that created ICLEI was about trying to solve the worldwide problem of a shrinking ozone layer, which established a global focus for the organization from the get-go. Yet while the organization itself was to be global, its promoted ideals would be enacted via laws passed at the local level.

The founding World Congress, a gathering hosted with the UN Environmental Programme at UN headquarters in New York City, took place in Sept. 1990. A charter was adopted and officers appointed, and ICLEI commenced operations in March 1991. In 2003, ICLEI changed its official name to ICLEI–Local Governments for Sustainability. According to the website, this name change also accompanied a charter and mission change that gave “… a broader mandate to address sustainability issues.”

ICLEI’s Governing Charter

To really understand ICLEI, of course, history and people only go so far. One must take the time to look at the policies that the organization advocates for. After all, ICLEI is, first and foremost, an advocacy institution for policies to take place at the municipal level.

First, the ICLEI Charter, the governing document of the organization and, by extension, its members. The most recent charter was revised and approved by the ICLEI Council, the governing board of the organization, on October 21, 2011.

The mission statement, which is section 1.3 of the Charter, makes clear that ICLEI is an organization whose primary goal is to utilize municipal government policy to achieve a global objective:

The Association’s Mission shall be to build and serve a worldwide movement of local governments to achieve tangible improvements in global sustainability with special focus on environmental conditions through cumulative local actions.

An important word therein is “cumulative.” ICLEI’s goal is ultimately to build policies that develop over time, meaning that initiatives of today are the groundwork for initiatives of tomorrow. This focus on a long-term buildup of policy indicates rather clearly that the ICLEI’s policies directed towards furthering global sustainability are going to become greater in scope as time passes, not less. More regulations shall be added to existing ones, so that the policies promoting sustainability become more comprehensive.

From this, we see that ICLEI’s goal is not merely policy at the local level, but also the reinforcement of sustainability initiatives at all levels of government, including national and international governments (e.g., the U.S. Federal Government and the United Nations). Furthermore, the section specifically mentions that this advocacy is done on behalf of its members. To bring it to a local level, a city who is a member of ICLEI is therefore giving ICLEI the permission to represent them in front of the federal government as well as the United Nations.

The next section is the most important in the entire document, for it lays out the principles of the organization. In full, here is Charter 1.7 ‚ Principles:

The Association shall promote, and ask its individual members to adopt, the following Earth Charter Principles to guide local action:

(1) Respect Earth and life in all its diversity.

(2) Care for the community of life with understanding, compassion, and love.

(3) Build democratic societies that are just, participatory, sustainable, and peaceful.

(4) Secure Earth’s bounty and beauty for present and future generations.

(5) Protect and restore the integrity of Earth’s ecological systems, with special concern for biological diversity and the natural processes that sustain life.

(6) Prevent harm as the best method of environmental protection and, when knowledge is limited, apply a precautionary approach.

(7) Adopt patterns of production, consumption, and reproduction that safeguard Earth’s regenerative capacities, human rights, and community well-being.

(8) Advance the study of ecological sustainability and promote the open exchange and wide application of the knowledge acquired.

(9) Eradicate poverty as an ethical, social, and environmental imperative.

(10) Ensure that economic activities and institutions at all levels promote human development in an equitable and sustainable manner.

(11) Affirm gender equality and equity as prerequisites to sustainable development and ensure universal access to education, health care, and economic opportunity.

(12) Uphold the right of all, without discrimination, to a natural and social environment supportive of human dignity, bodily health, and spiritual well-being, with special attention to the rights of indigenous peoples and minorities.

(13) Strengthen democratic institutions at all levels, and provide transparency and accountability in governance, inclusive participation in decision making, and access to justice.

(14) Integrate into formal education and life-long learning the knowledge, values, and skills needed for a sustainable way of life.

(15) Treat all living beings with respect and consideration.

(16) Promote a culture of tolerance, nonviolence, and peace.

The Association shall develop, and encourage its members to use, a framework for measuring performance in the area of sustainable development and environment.

There is a lot here that could be commented on, so here we will only specifically consider a few that of are particular interest. It is well worth noting, however, that the principles espoused by ICLEI are much broader than simply the general goal of “sustainability.” In fact, some of these principles reach well into other policy areas. These “Earth Charter Principles” are enormous in scope, and if adopted by a local government could have a tremendous impact upon local policy (if they were followed).

Principle 3 states, “build democratic societies that are just, participatory, sustainable, and peaceful.” This is noteworthy because of its scope: it is calling for the rebuilding of society as a whole to embrace these particular concepts. It is not that having a just or participatory society is a bad thing, but to have an international organization call for such enormous change in society as a whole shows that its ends are far greater than just that of promoting the idea of sustainability.

Principle 9 calls for the eradication of poverty, a worthy goal. Again, however, the question of scope arises: what, exactly, does ICLEI seek to advocate here? Since these principles are not only those that ICLEI wishes to be reflected in local government policy, but also are those advocated for at the heretofore mentioned “national and international” levels of government, one must wonder what policies ICLEI actually wishes to advocate for.

The eradication of poverty is a significant and important aim, but some of the policies enacted for that goal might not be good policies. Some, in fact, could be rather destructive, including the redistribution of wealth, or perhaps, significant restrictions and regulations upon the economy. Since it is not addressed specifically, I will not ponder further what possibilities it could include. The noteworthy aspect here is that indeed, ICLEI allows itself a much greater role in its advocacy than just that of sustainability practices. As a representative of its member governments, it carries the influence they provide it into its advocacy of policies to eradicate poverty, among other things. Yet what those policies are is left undefined, meaning that they could be just about anything.

Principle 10 is to “ensure that economic activities and institutions at all levels promote human development in an equitable and sustainable manner.” We need not speculate as to what this means, as with the eradication of poverty. This is because to ensure that economic activities promote some thing or another is to ensure that governments restrict and regulate the economy in a given way; that is, to use the power of government to direct the resources of the economy.

Governments certainly have justifiable roles to play in the economy, and some regulations are doubtless necessary and important. However, to have ICLEI, an international organization, call for the regulation of the economy in such a broad way certainly is eyebrow-raising. ICLEI’s desired economic regulations would promote “equitable” and “sustainable” human development. In other words, the organization desires to subordinate economic activity to these broad goals. There is much wiggle room there as to what specifically those policies might be. However, all such policies would involve a greater involvement of government in the lives of its citizens.

Principle 16 seeks to “promote a culture of tolerance, nonviolence, and peace.” On the surface, a just and reasonable goal. Yet again, one wonders what place such a concept has in an organization whose primary goal is to promote the idea of sustainability. Further still, however, the idea of “tolerance”  is a concerning one as it relates to government policies.

We should all, as individuals, seek to be tolerant. However, “tolerance” as a policy should not be enforced by government. In that case, government officials decide what is, and what is not acceptable. The difficulty here is not that tolerance isn’t a good goal to have, but that ICLEI only functions to advocate for policies to be put in place by governments at all levels.

The rest of the charter primarily deals with organization structure, meeting policies, and so on. As we are concerned, the meat of the document is in the principles and mission statement. The charter document can be viewed here (PDF format).

By looking at the ICLEI Charter, we can conclude that this is an organization whose goal is primarily to advocate for the passage of policies to promote sustainability. However, the organization also desires to have the ability to advocate for many other kinds of policies. As a result, ICLEI sets itself up as an international advocate on behalf of its many member local governments for the policies that the governing board of the council sees fit to advocate.

ICLEI’s Strategic Plan

Another document which is undoubtedly more significant than the Charter in laying out the goals, values, and plan of the organization is its Strategic Plan. The most recent plan covers the years 2010-2015. It can be accessed online here.

Part I, “Moving in a changing environment,” states several facts about the world and the environment, including a paragraph statement on the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. It does not, however, contain policies or proposals.

That comes starting in Part II, “Responding to change – leading on change.” The first heading under this part is “Rapid action, radical solutions.” The points under this heading call for “an acceleration of local efforts,” and the final point concludes that “… we must act more rapidly and pursue more radical solutions.”

A bit further down, a heading called “Leading change” highlights a number of points designed to emphasize the sorts of action that ICLEI will engage in to pursue its goals. Among these points, a few of the more interesting ones include to “… raise and support pioneers, innovators and new champions among local governments worldwide,” to “… reach out to more local governments and seek more radical solutions to advance sustainability,” and to “… convince the international community to recognize and include local experiences and actions in global sustainability solutions and agreements.” From these points, it becomes clear that ICLEI wishes to move at a more rapid pace in attempting to achieve its policy goals, and to engage local governments to move more rapidly as well.

Part III is “Our organization,” primarily discussing the nature of global membership of local governments and how the ICLEI can work through its organization to achieve its goals. One interesting point comes from under a header “The power of global membership,” wherein is stated “the global network creates opportunities for advocacy at the United Nations and multilateral negotiating bodies…” It goes on further to discuss how member governments can advocate for policies at larger levels of government via the ICLEI organization.

Part IV, “Building capacity,” points to a few specific activity goals for the organization that are rather broad in scope. One that jumps out at me is a point stating that ICLEI desires to, “build the Young Municipal Leaders Initiative as a prime international networking and capacity-building opportunity on sustainability issues for young local-level politicians.” It seems ICLEI wishes to train young politicians to be leaders on the sustainability issue. That is a rather explicitly political goal, seemingly outside the scope of advocating for sustainability policies generally.

The next section, Part V, “Our partnerships,” mentions a few points of interest in how ICLEI relates to the connection between local governments ant international organizations. The second paragraph states:

We will continue connecting cities and local governments to the United Nations and other international bodies. We will forge multi-stakeholder partnerships, form strategic alliances and join forces with leading institutions from the academic, expert, business and NGO sectors.

That pretty well speaks for itself; ICLEI desires to have local governments go over the heads of their state and national governments to connect directly to the United Nations, among other international organizations. The rest of the section discusses this in a bit more detail.

Part VI, “Our advocacy,” continues the United Nations discussion by claiming that “ICLEI serves as a global entry point for cities and local governments to engage with the United Nations and international and national policy processes.”

Under the heading “Goals for 2010-2015,” it expands on this in three points, and the last two are particularly interesting:

  • Advocate increased powers of, and access to revenue by, local governments with the United Nations and governments.
  • Advocate direct access to climate finance and other funds by local governments and an inversion of climate finance mechanisms to enable the implementation of needs-driven local development.

ICLEI, therefore, is explicitly advocating for local governments to obtain grants from the United Nations for the promotion of sustainability. Including, of course, “climate finance,” among other things.

Part VII, “Our goals and programs,” is really the meat of the Strategic Plan. It contains a large number of proposals which are, to use ICLEI’s own language, quite “radical.” The nature of its desired effects is certainly global in scope, using local governments to enact policies with global effects. It is too long to effectively summarize here, but we will consider each of the points briefly.

The initial part of this section contains a number of things which ICLEI seeks to promote, including Local Agenda 21. Agenda 21 is a United Nations action plan that advocates for global change in a way that ICLEI itself could never achieve. By the mentioning of it in the Strategic Plan, however, ICLEI clearly sides with the plan. The plan is extreme, to say the least, and essentially advocates fundamental change in how government relates to the economy and the environment.

Goal 1, “Integrated sustainability policy,” among other things, desires to “engage members in calculating cities’ ecological footprints as an information and awareness raising tool for the public.”

Goal 2, “Resource-efficient city,” declares that “…all member local governments should practice an effective resource management.”

Goal 3, “BiodiverCities securing ecosystem services,” “… encourages cities, local and sub-national governments worldwide to commit to biodiversity action…”

Goal 4, “Low carbon and climate neutral cities,” states that “… ultimately, all member local governments should establish climate action plans and integrate the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions into their planning and investment structures.” In other words, this goal calls for cities to subordinate their municipal planning to the concept of reducing carbon footprint and overall carbon emissions.

Goal 5, “Resilient community,” discusses in essence several methods by which member cities will “get ready” for climate change and “adapt.”

Goal 6, “Green infrastructure,” calls on cities to build “green urban infrastructure,” and several specific methods therein.

Goal 7, “Green urban economy & jobs,” states that “a viable local economy will be based on cradle-to-cradle material cycles and an appreciation of human labor over energy-intensive technology.” This goal goes on to encourage members to stimulate “… the creation of green jobs,” and get involved in “… the planning of green events and initiatives…”

Goal 8, “Healthy & happy communities,” declares that “the ultimate goal is for local communities to enjoy health and happiness.” The first point therein as an activity for 2010-2015 is to “continue disseminating learnings and products from the Local Agenda 21 initiative…”

Bizarrely, one point in Goal 8 is also to “support local governments in introducing a local ‘happiness index’ drawing on the Kingdom of Bhutan’s experiences with replacing the GDP through ‘Gross National Happiness.'” Apparently, we should all look beyond economic benefit towards the “happiness” of our citizens, which presumably local governments can immeasurably benefit. How the Kingdom of Bhutan is a desirable role model for the world is not elaborated upon.

A Few Thoughts

ICLEI’s Charter and its Strategic Plan both reinforce what could already be surmised by examining its founding and history: this is an international organization with an extreme environmentalist bent, which desires to impose its vision of “sustainability” on the citizens of member cities and connect to the United Nations in a way that furthers that goal.

In addition, ICLEI’s goals reach well beyond sustainability, to the very question of how to create a better society. Agenda 21’s inclusion as part of the goals of ICLEI should make clear that the goal is no less than to remake society in a fundamental way, and ICLEI’s open-ended goals on such things as “eradicating poverty” lead to a question of what kind of policies are advocated for.

Ultimately, ICLEI is clearly not an organization that represents the interests of our citizens in College Station, and frankly, I don’t think it represents the interests of other local governments’ citizens, either. That is for them to decide. However, the reason why I proposed that we withdraw from ICLEI is that, among all of the things it stands for, I see little that is desirable in creating a better city government and a more efficient one, and much that would increase the size and scope of government and its role in our citizens’ everyday lives.

Our staff is to be applauded for so quickly responding to my request.

Assuming that the council does not object, then, I am proud to say that we will no longer be a member of ICLEI in this next budget year, and no longer fund their operations. It is a small amount, just over $1,000, but it is money well saved for our taxpayers.

The real challenge going forward from here is not merely keeping an eye on this organization and how its tries to influence its member governments, but in ensuring that the “sustainability” policies which it advocates for are guarded against. Because ICLEI is such a large and influential organization, its proposals will still have the potential to affect our local decision-making even if we are not members. In particular, some of the “model cities” that we consider when making new policies are very much subscribed to the policies of ICLEI, and therefore we must be able to recognize those policies which fall under ICLEI’s scope, and know what they truly are before considering to adopt them.

We do not need international organizations leading the way for us in how we develop our planning and development tools and regulations. It is better for policies to reflect the actual needs of our community than some amorphous concept of greenness or sustainability, promoted by an overarching international body.

As nice as it sounds to be sustainable, the real impacts of the policies advocated by ICLEI and many other organizations, as well as those that subscribe to such policies, are dangerous to our free market economy and to our taxpayers, and we must resist the urge to jump on the bandwagon. Fostering a respect for the environment is important and desirable, but governments too often go overboard in trying to promote it. Because governments’ only tool is to coerce people with force, we suffer a significant loss in individual rights if we attempt to impose the policies necessary to achieve ICLEI’s vision of a “sustainable future.”

It is far better to deal with the real problem of externalities in the marketplace; that is, the problem that some people create negative effects upon the properties of others. For that, we have the courts and sensible regulations, which can do much more to address the real issues without putting the rights of our citizens in jeopardy. We can also do much to ensure that our publicly held lands are respected, in that we preserve the natural environment where possible and ensure that a good balance of nature and use exists in how we develop policies relating to them.

Ultimately, however, we should always exert caution when using the force of government to promote any cause, because government is the only entity legally entitled to use force. As such, any policy which is not truly in the public interest, which undermines the free marketplace, or which creates undue cost and burden upon our citizens must be rejected.

In rejecting ICLEI, College Station has taken an important step to that end.

About these ads

15 responses to “A Primer On ICLEI, An Organization C.S. Will Withdraw From

  1. Pingback: - College Station, Texas Cancels ICLEI / Agenda 21 Membership

  2. Pingback: The may be crazy but they’re not stupid | The Bovine

  3. Pingback: College Station, Texas Cancels ICLEI / Agenda 21 Membership : Deadline Live With Jack Blood

  4. Pingback: ANOTHER CITY gives ICLEI the BOOT! COLLEGE STATION (TX) joins the WALL of HONOR! Thank Councilman Fields for his VISION! | Virginia Right!

  5. Pingback: Councilman Jess Fields and ICLEI | American|Writes

  6. Pingback: Councilman Jess Fields and ICLEI | The Bryan/College Station Tea Party

  7. Pingback: Texas City Withdraws From ICLEI, UN “Agenda 21” » New York Liberty Report

  8. Getting College Station out of ICLEI is a wonderful effort, but it is much harder to get ICLEI (or the mindset of your city staff) out of College Station. As a speaker against Agenda 21, which is in the process of changing itself into three new organizations, the education for most city planners and permit process agents is embedded in the classes they took to graduate.

    If I can be of assistance, please feel free to email me back. Have spoken to numerous patriot groups and churches. jmarler@marfam.com

  9. Thank you Jess, you are an inspiration to all of us resisting Agenda 21 and ICLEI.

    Also, here is my wife’s comment on Facebook regarding this post:

    This is an excellent article that shows a lot of research and understanding of ICLEI. I was surprised to learn that Jess Fields is the youngest College Station city council member ever elected there. If you read the article, check out the “about” section on his blog too. He has a very principled approach to governance that I wish all politicians would take. He says he has 3 tests he applies before casting any vote: 1) is it constitutional, 2) is it morally right and 3) are there unintended consequences. I think I’d vote for him too. Great Job Jess

  10. Jess Please familiarize yourself with “The Global 2000 Report”. This is the report which created the action plan known as “Agenda 21″. This is an important report. One needs to understand the timing of the report, the president who occupied the WH at the time, and his views, as well as the level of development of the UN at the time. The surrounding history of all these elements, including technology are important factors to formulate what their determinations were, and how they went about implementing a process, which we are now seeing manifested. These people want to remake the way mankind lives and uses the earth. The trick is knowing the difference between what they want for you vs. what they want for themselves. The plan is disguized as something good, but it is truly an evil plan.

  11. Pingback: Ocean County, New Jersey, Blasts UN Agenda 21 in Resolution » New York Liberty Report

  12. Pingback: Withdraw from the UN's Agenda 21. It's easy. Just follow the lead of College Station, Texas. | Christopher di Armani.com

  13. Pingback: Irving, TX, Becomes Latest City To Drop ICLEI & UN AGENDA 21 - ALIPAC

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s