Obama’s Science Czar Wants Self-driving Automobile Mandates to Further Agenda 21

Driverless cars will sacrifice freedom in place of vague sustainability. Clear evidence has emerged over the past few years that man does not cause global warming – which is why the environmentalists sneakily changed the phrase to “climate change” – yet these radical policies are still being adopted at great economic cost to taxpayers, both through taxes and rising personal expenses. While driverless cars could prove to be an innovative, cost-effective development for the future, implementing them as a mandate from government will destroy any benefit and serve to curtail our freedoms and further Agenda 21 and its associated UN control.


By Rachel Alexander | November 12, 2014


The ‘Driverless Cars’ of the future are here and Obama’s Science Czar, John Holdren, points the way for the president.

Obama appointed left-wing academic John Holdren as his senior advisor on science and technology issues in 2009. Holdren is a zealous proponent of sustainability measures and claims man is causing global warming. Holdren recently expressed an interest in implementing government regulations and mandates to coerce the use of self-driving automobiles.

One of the mandates proposed under the Obama administration is to require that new cars manufactured after a certain date contain self-driving technology. This would be incredibly expensive. Currently, the driverless cars made by Google sell for $75,000 to $85,000.

Promoting driverless cars is a sneaky, backdoor way to eliminate the ownership of cars. Driverless cars will ultimately end up being operated as a ridesharing or taxi service, with people calling to schedule one instead of actually owning a car anymore, due to savings on the purchase price, maintenance costs and parking. Holdren envisions a government role in the driving public’s future where nobody drives their own car anymore in order to help save the environment, cram everyone into smaller spaces, etc.

Driverless cars linked to climate change agenda

Advocates of driverless cars use the same language and promote the same vague sustainability goals as Agenda 21, the United Nations’ blueprint to control private property – and freedom – for the vague purpose of protecting the environment. This agenda primarily includes combating “global warming,” “reducing dependency” on oil and gas, and cramming people into cramped urban spaces.

The left-leaning Portland Transport blatantly admits the correlation, writing “widespread use of autonomous vehicles will be a net win for sustainability … it may make urban living more attractive and available as the size of the fleet is reduced.” The publication went on to complain about cars currently taking up too much space, using Agenda 21-ridden language,

A single-occupant vehicle (SOV) requires, on average, about 100 square feet of real estate (including some margin outside the vehicle’s footprint) to carry around the person it contains. That’s a 100-square-foot patch which must move down the streets at speed, while avoiding encroaching on any other 100-square-foot patch, and which must then be parked when not in use. This consumption of space is a major problem in dense urban areas; and a common solution–less density–makes things inconvenient by spreading everything out further, requiring cars (or other mechanized transport) for trips that might otherwise be easily accomplished on foot.

A proponent writing for the left-leaning Atlantic whined, “People have WAY more car than they need.” The author speculated that driverless cars will come with service plans authorizing a limited number of trips – further restricting people’s freedom.

Driverless cars come with a whole new host of privacy problems as well. The Information Daily, a public policy journal, noted the following possibilities,

  1. Hackers gain control of driverless car networks and shut them down, or cause crashes;
  2. Your partner’s divorce lawyer asks in court for a record of what journeys you have taken from your network provider;
  3. Your insurance firm wants to know why you have been to a certain part of town at night and terminates coverage when you refuse to say why.

Despite claims they are safer than regular cars, law professor Ryan Calo, who co-founded the Legal Aspects of Autonomous Driving center at Stanford, points out, “The first time that a driverless vehicle swerves to avoid a shopping cart and hits a stroller, someone’s going to write, ‘robot car kills baby to save groceries.’ It’s those kinds of reasons you want to make sure this stuff is fully tested.”

Holdren is not someone whose advice can be trusted

Holdren has a history of frightening views. He co-authored a book in 1973 entitled Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions. In it, he appears to hold the radical position that a baby is not human until around age two. Advocating for abortion as a method of population control, he wrote, “The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being.”

He said the U.S. should be “de-developed;” in other words, U.S. wealth redistributed to other countries to make everyone equally poor. If he’d had his way, the U.S. would be missing about one quarter of its population today. He wrote in 1973, “210 million now is too many and 280 million in 2040 is likely to be much too many.”

His radical views continued in a second book about population control he co-authored in 1977 with the same couple. In Ecoscience, he advocated for population reduction measures such as adding a sterilant to water or staple foods. Conservative commentator Glenn Beck pointed out one of the obvious absurdities of this ridiculously stupid and overreaching proposal – what if our livestock turned sterile from the drinking water?

Holdren also wrote that illegitimate babies should be taken from their mothers and put up for adoption, and suggested that the government implant contraceptive capsules in people. The book’s radical proposals are written stealthily, implying that the U.S. might not yet be at the stage where these involuntary measures must be implemented. But when taken in their entire context as presented in the book, there is no denying he was serious about them. For example, he wrote, “compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the alternatives may be much more horrifying.”

His drastic views continued many years later. In 2006, he warned that the sea level might rise as much as 1.3 feet by 2010 due to global warming. In reality, it rose about 5 mm over that period, proving him drastically wrong.

His left-wing credentials are impeccable

A Democrat, he was the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. He also taught at Berkeley. His work has focused on the causes and consequences of global environmental change, and he served as one of Bill Clinton’s science advisors for several years. He has written articles like “Convincing the Climate Change Skeptics” and “Meeting the Climate-Change Challenge.” During his Senate confirmation, he said we need to aim for “sustainable prosperity.”

He is sneaky and unafraid of breaking the law to promote his agenda, having been caught sending work emails from his personal email account to avoid scrutiny. Sounds familiar – think IRS and Lois Learner. Social scientist and population control expert Steven Mosher aptly described him:

What Obama’s new Science Czar really is, is a professional doomsayer along the lines of his mentor, Paul Ehrlich. He has prophesied one end-of-the-world scenario after another to advance his scientific career. He has been, one must admit, rather spectacularly successful at this, and now has the ear of the U.S. President. But he has been consistently wrong on the facts. And the fear mongering that he habitually engages in gives science, and scientists, a bad name.

Driverless cars will sacrifice freedom in place of vague sustainability. Clear evidence has emerged over the past few years that man does not cause global warming – which is why the environmentalists sneakily changed the phrase to “climate change” – yet these radical policies are still being adopted at great economic cost to taxpayers, both through taxes and rising personal expenses. While driverless cars could prove to be an innovative, cost-effective development for the future, implementing them as a mandate from government will destroy any benefit and serve to curtail our freedoms and further Agenda 21 and its associated UN control.


Rachel Alexander is the founder of the Intellectual Conservative and an attorney. Ms. Alexander is also a contributor to SFPPR News & Analysis.