UNITED NATIONS - PLAN FOR OUR FUTURE PART 3
United Nations Plan for Our Future - Part 3 Questioning Sustainable Development Goals
The United Nations wields an enormous amount of power, so much that it should make anyone nervous, or at the very least critical. The sheer size and scope of the organization is immense along with its not-so-subtle agenda and supporters.
Agriculture, being the lynchpin of every civilized society, is among one of the first industries to be caught in the UN’s crosshairs for global reformation. To put this into clear perspective, let’s examine how it gets caught up in the infamous 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development under the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
What Are the Sustainable Development Goals?
The 2030 agenda as we know it today was formally adopted by the UN in 2015. According to the UN, it “provides a shared blueprint for peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and into the future.” The core infrastructure revolves around the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which call all countries to act. These goals encompass a total of 169 targets, 3,110 events, 1,307 publications, and 5,489 actions.
Some of these goals seem commendable, for example, goals like “zero hunger,” “no poverty,” and “affordable and clean energy.” However, further examination shows a different view. The intent and implications of these goals is questionable to say the very least.
The most questionable goals for agriculture are:
• SDG 1 End poverty in all its forms everywhere
• SDG 2 End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture
• SDG 7 Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all
• SDG 15 Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss
Origins of Sustainable Development Goals
Where did the United Nation’s Sustainable Development goals come from and who put them together?
The SDGs were the result of decades of work, especially within the UN’s Department of Economic and Social Affairs. They were set into motion as early as 1992, when the infamous Agenda 2021 was adopted during the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro.
The mastermind behind the SDGs as we have them today is Maurice Strong, an industrialist billionaire who hosted the conference in Rio. In addition to his extremist social agenda, Strong also served as a board member of HSUS for many years. To this day, HSUS along with many other extremist NGOs, have their hands in the UN’s work and agendas.
It wasn’t until 2015, that the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development was finally adopted which hinges directly on the 17 SDGs developed by an Open Working Group.
Some key themes in these SDGs are climate, water, energy, science, and technology. These are overseen by the UN’s Division for Sustainable Development Goals (DSDG).
“DSDG plays a key role in the evaluation of UN system-wide implementation of the 2030 Agenda and on advocacy and outreach activities relating to the SDGs,” says the SDGs’ official website. “In order to make the 2030 Agenda a reality, broad ownership of the SDGs must translate into a strong commitment by all stakeholders to implement the global goals. DSDG aims to help facilitate this engagement.”
Who are some of these stakeholders and what engagement are they providing? The answer involves some alarming nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and powerful leadership. To understand that further, let’s closely examine some of the notable SDGs and how they are being leveraged to control agriculture for a globalist future.
Sustainable Development Goal 1 is “to end poverty in all its forms everywhere.” Under each goal is a list of targets to be achieved over the years. This goal is one of three that include land as being an important target. According to the UN, “land is acknowledged as a critical metric of progress in this shared worldwide agenda.”
The most unsettling targets to reach this goal regarding agriculture are:
• Target 1.4: “By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to basic services, ownership and control over land and other forms of property, inheritance, natural resources, appropriate new technology and financial services, including microfinance.”
• Targe 1.a: “Ensure significant mobilization of resources from a variety of sources, including through enhanced development cooperation, in order to provide adequate and predictable means for developing countries, in particular least developed countries, to implement programs and policies to end poverty in all its dimensions.”
o Target 1.a.1.: “Proportion of resources allocated by the government directly to poverty reduction programs”
The vagueness of these targets are alarming. There is a call upon local and national governments to help grant these so-called rights to those deemed poor and vulnerable (both of which are also very vague terms open to interpretation), but the practicality of such promises leave some glaringly obvious questions.
Where are governments supposed to obtain such resources and wealth? Can such finite resources be freely given without redistribution? Who has the right to oversee such distribution and redistribution and what about the rights of groups that are not deemed “poor and vulnerable?”
Also, who defines what “equal rights” means in this context? Is it equal distribution? Equal value? Equal amounts? Also, how will that equality be designated? Who will be taking the land and divvying it up to those who do not own land? In America we have the right to own private property which begs the question, will anyone be able to own private property under this agenda?
When discussing land and natural resources for developmental and implied improvement purposes, we in the U.S. might think about the battles between rural landowners and the government (both national and local) regarding ownership rights.
In Ventura County California, a board of supervisors passed a “wildlife corridors ordinance” which placed nearly a full third of the county – made up of both public and private lands – under extreme restrictions. In the name of “habitat connectivity,” this ordinance is seeking to stamp out rights (such as utilizing it for agriculture or hunting purposes) from private landowners without any compensation or provisions.
Unsurprisingly, animal extremist groups were quick to jump to the defense of the ordinance as Ventura County citizens entered a lawsuit to protect their rights.
This example is an eerie shadow of the types of situations that could easily present themselves in the name “equal rights access.”
If you need more reason to believe that more land grabs lie in store, let us reflect on the words of globalist Klaus Schwab, co-author of The Great Reset and founder of the World Economic Forum (that signed a “strategic partnership framework” with the UN in 2019):
“You will own nothing – and you’ll be happy about it.”
Besides tangible land, it’s also important to underline how these targets discuss “access to basic services” as well. By services, we know that entails a degree of human labor. How will access be determined and who will provide it? What determines equal access? And how will workers be compensated? All of these are questions have massive implications, especially when we consider those who provide services to the food and agriculture sectors.
Goal 2 will also have a large impact on land ownership and land use for agricultural production. This goal is to “end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture.”
Under this goal’s Target 2.3 we find:
“By 2030, double the agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers, in particular women, indigenous peoples, family farmers, pastoralists and fishers, including through secure and equal access to land, other productive resources and inputs, knowledge, financial services, markets and opportunities for value addition and non-farm employment.”
The first concern with this goal worth noting is how the UN defines “sustainable agriculture.” According to the UN, “Sustainable agricultural practices and food systems, including both production and consumption, must be pursued from a holistic and integrated perspective.” Based on its track record, the UN has not included large scale animal agriculture as part of this discussion.
In a 2006 newsroom post (since removed), the FAO summarized a conclusion drawn from the erroneous report Livestock’s Long Shadow:
“Evidence suggests [animal agriculture] is the largest sectoral source of water pollutants, principally animal wastes, antibiotics, hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers and pesticides used for feed crops, and sediments from eroded pastures.”
While the errors in the initial report were called out, most notably by Dr. Frank Mitloehner of the University of California-Davis, the dark mark left on public perception of large-scale animal production has since remained.
“When divorcing political fiction from scientific facts around the quantification of GHG from all sectors of society, one finds a different picture. Leading scientists throughout the U.S., as well as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA1) have quantified the impacts of livestock production in the U.S., which accounts for 4.2%2 of all GHG emissions, very far from the 18% to 51% range that advocates often cite. Comparing the 4.2% GHG contribution from livestock to the 27% from the transportation sector, or 31% from the energy sector in the U.S. brings all contributions to GHG into perspective. Rightfully so, the attention at COP21 was focused on the combined sectors consuming fossil fuels, as they contribute more than half of all GHG in the U.S.” -Livestock’s Contributions to Climate Change: Facts and Fiction Frank Mitloehner, Professor & Air Quality Specialist, Department of Animal Science, University of California, Davis
Certain stakeholders involved with the discussion around making animal agriculture more sustainable in the eyes of the UN are affiliated with the animal extremist movement. Partners in the UN’s Global Agenda for Sustainable Livestock include:
• The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
• World Animal Protection
• World Wildlife Foundation
• Humane Society International
The organizations listed above all have one thing in common: a lack of understanding regarding animal agriculture and animal welfare. This is not the only example of unqualified NGOs being involved with the UN’s agenda for food in agriculture as we will discuss in upcoming articles.
Affordable and Clean Energy
Similar to the land grab concerns under SDG 1, SDG 7 has the same glaring pitfalls regarding how energy will be made equitable and who will be paying for it. Goal 7 is to ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all.
Here are the two targets of special of interest.
• Target 7.1: By 2030, ensure universal access to affordable, reliable and modern energy services
• Target 7.b: By 2030, expand infrastructure and upgrade technology for supplying modern and sustainable energy services for all in developing countries, in particular least developed countries, small island developing States, and land-locked developing countries, in accordance with their respective programmes of support
While they are offering energy to more people under the guise of it being “affordable” we need to ask who determines affordability? If the globalists are left to determine affordability, will they have the power to make certain power sources unaffordable therefore making citizens more dependent on them?
Energy access, and its global control, is no small matter. It is especially paramount for the food and agriculture sectors to be able to meet demands. If the only sources made accessible are “clean energy” as defined by the UN and other globalist NGOs, entire industries have the potential to be left extremely crippled and entirely dependent.
SDG 15 covers ecosystems and habitats and focuses on how the UN and local governments can “protect, restore and promote” their “sustainable use.” It has the same issues regarding how resources to accomplish these goals and how private ownership will be preserved in a globalist world.
The most troubling targets are:
• Target 15.9: By 2020, integrate ecosystem and biodiversity values into national and local planning, development processes, poverty reduction strategies and accounts
• Target 15.a: Mobilize and significantly increase financial resources from all sources to conserve and sustainably use biodiversity and ecosystems
• Target 15.b: Mobilize significant resources from all sources and at all levels to finance sustainable forest management and provide adequate incentives to developing countries to advance such management, including for conservation and reforestation
This goal encompasses the same ends as the aforementioned SDGs, but it hides its motives under the guise of environmental sustainability. Using this type of language makes it easy for elite and extremist NGOs (WWF, HSUS, PETA, the Sierra Club, etc.) to justify their support and help to achieve this goal.
Again, we see the same vagueness. What are “ecosystem and biodiversity values” exactly? Who gets to define these values and enforce them in the “planning development processes, poverty reduction strategies and accounts?”
Within these targets we also see an increase in financial and natural resources, but we don’t see any explanation as to where these resources will come from and who will provide them.
It is also concerning to see that developing countries are specifically targeted and to be provided unnamed incentives to use UN-approved management for conservation and reforestation efforts.
A great example of how this goal can be leveraged as a method for control is to examine ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability. Consider the words of Strong in a forward to the ICLEI’s document The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide: AN INTRODUCTION TO SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PLANNING:
“…since 1992, more than 1,300 local authorities from 31 countries have responded to the Agenda 21 mandate by developing their own Local Agenda 21 action plans for sustainable development.
The task of mobilizing and technically supporting Local Agenda 21 planning in these communities has been led by the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) and national associations of local government. Now, with the further support of the International Development Research Centre and the United Nations Environment Programme, ICLEI is able to present the first worldwide documentation of Local Agenda 21 planning approaches, methods, and tools in this Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide.”
The UN has laid out its roadmap for the world’s future, and upon due inspection, it clearly isn’t one that upholds personal rights, property rights or private business.
The SDGs are a great illustration of how globalists use what seems like good intentions to amass power without public outcry.
Read our UN and Maurice Strong coverage HERE and HERE
See United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 1 HERE
Read about Ventura County Wildlife Corridor Land Grab Lawsuit HERE
Learn more about the role of land in the SDGs HERE
Read more about ICLEI HERE
Learn more about the World Economic Forum and UN Strategic Partnership Framework HERE
Read more about Schwab HERE
Read Dr. Mitloehner’s full white paper HERE
Read more about the SDGS involving food and sustainable agriculture HERE and HERE