A Long-Term Vision for 2050
I’ve crossed paths with UNEP’s Global Environment Outlook before. Trouble is, I never actually bothered to read them. That was somewhat the mistake my part, because The Sixth Edition1 in short is in broad agreement with my interpretation of the contemporary situation.
It starts out identifying the problem - the Sustainable Development Goals aren’t quite sustainable enough, because there’s a distinct lack of precision in the language. But in order to produce that, we need to group those SDGs, and it just so happens that - broadly - these fit into three distinct groups; human well-being, sustainable consumption and production, and natural resource use. And these, of course, are bidirectional meaning one affects the other. No, in fact, it’s even simpler. Everything comes down to human well-being in the end. Everything is justified in the name or protecting you.
Some issues are more precisely defined than others, and - coincidentally - those related to climate change and biodiversity loss are better developed than others. Probably because the entire scam hinges around those two.
What we have to do, per document, is protect and manage the natural resource base, with the explicit aim of transformation towards long-term sustainability. And in that regard, GEO-6 is interestingly titled, Healthy Planet, Healthy People, and part A of the document is themed ‘State of the Global Environment’.
It goes to establish the UN conference in Stockholm in 1972 as the defining moment, where global politicians came together to agree that pollution shouldn’t exceed the planet’s ability to clean itself. Of course, at this stage only few realised that carbon dioxide - literal plant food - would be considered just that a few decades down the line. But since back then, a number of conferences have progressively established targets for environmental protection and sustainable human development.
Looking at the SDGs, we find that 12 promote human well-being through sustainable use of natural resources, and ten can only be achieved with sustantial improvement of natural resource use. And it’s in this regard that a greater interlinkage, synergy, is called for, as this should enhance the effectiveness of their implementation. And yes, this is where the call comes - for a Holistic Approach.
And this then leads to a nested structure of objectives, where human well-being is on top, sustainable production and consumption in the middle, and the natural resource base forms the base. All in all, these comprise 15 of the 17 SDGs, the final two relate to (global) governance, and the implementation of this entire scheme. Wait, the first can be even further simplified, with healthy people at the top, and a healthy planet down the bottom - hence the title of the report.
All of this, ultimately, is to provide the ‘minimum standards for human well-being’ through a ‘holistic approach’, establishing a ‘social floor’ and an ‘environmental boundary’. But it here loops in a reference to Herman Daly, 1973, to which we shall return.
The achievement of said well-being goals depends strongly upon… the economy, infrastructure, cities and industries, and the realisation of the secondary (planetary) goals rely on the condition of the climate, oceans, land, and biodiversity. All summed up as the planetary boundaries.
‘A major transformation to more sustainable consumption and production is needed to address these challenges. From a prodiction perspective, this requires a decoupling of economic growth from environmental degradation…’
… which is then identified -
‘From a consumption perspective it requires changes in lifestyles, consumption preferences and consumer behaviour'‘
It carries on, decrying the lack of data, to be solved through a range of indicators (making it obvious where we’re heading), and outlines that ‘selected targets need to be qualitative, requiring clear indicators accompanied by target values’. In case you don’t recognise this, we’re now solidly heading towards GEOSS, or more specifically GEO BON, or precisely, GBIOS - all three of which are abour global surveillance, and the Aichi targets.
It carries on, detailing that the selected targets for human well-being and the natural resource base are ‘endpoint targets, aiming for a healthy planet with healthy people’.
The document then carries on, discussing specific indicators but apart from detailing that the SDG framework by 2019 includes 232 indicators, I think we can skip the rest of this section, as they largely go into detail. Well, I suppose it’s worth including that some SDGs are better covered than others, amusingly with human health particularly poorly covered.
Of course, all of this is explicitly about the UNFCCC, the Paris Agreement, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the Aichi targets specifically (this is prior to the release of the GBF 2030).
The Planetary Boundaries framework is the mentioned, proposing ‘global qualitative limits for human disturbance of nine critical Earth-system processes’, in short, outlining ‘safe’ limits in regards to ‘global environmental change, based on Earth-system science’. Yeah, we’re definitely talking global surveillance here, even though said planetary boundaries are neither politically endorsed nor relying on any level of ‘settled science’. In fact, this entire fields is terribly underdeveloped, but I’m sure that’s no issue to these Bert Bolin types, promoting ‘no-evidence-is-evidence’ levels of quack science.
Finally, some of the indicators are even revealed to not be qualitative in the slightest, instead aiming to ‘improve efficiencies’ which honestly calls this out for being ‘science’ created for political purpose more than anything, and naturally, this relates to ‘sustainable consumption and production’, which in the context of ‘sustainable development’ appears outright absurd.
The conclusions wrap up that this is about creating a long-term vision for sustainable development to ‘influence policies at the global, regional, national, and local levels’, which is where again those two SDGs - 16 and 17 - relating to (global) governance and implementation enters play.
It’s worth adding that the above is from the Global Environment Outlook 6 document, and tht they currently work on the 7th iteration. And from that webpage2, we - as per usual - learn that regardless of what or how much we do, things are in fact deteriorating much faster than anticipated, consequently, we need to press that self-destruct button much, much faster than expected.
The triple planetary crisis, of course, refers to pollution (of which, of course - ludicrously - carbon dioxide is considered one) and loss of biodiversity, leading to those other two; the UNFCCC and the CBD, and thus ultimately, the Grand Plan.
And do note the use of the word ‘critical’ in that regard. It always is. Always. But why it’s critical is because their plans depend on those corrupt politicians pushing this through in spite of voter wishes, which I suppose some might consider… not being treason…?
And then there’s the matter of that Herman Daly reference from 19733. Well, that’s a reference to a book by the title of ‘Toward a Steady-State Economy’, contributed to by a range of familiar faces on the topic of General Systems Theory.
We have Paul Ehrlich - who wrote ‘The Population Bomb’4. We have Kenneth Boulding, who was the first president of the Society for the Advancement of General Systems Theory5. And we have Jørgen Randers6 of Club of Rome and Limits to Growth fame, which incidentally was released the year prior. There are other relevant faces, but let’s keep things short.
Because apart from ‘Sustainable Development’ - which is General Systems Theory (GST), the pyramid outlined early on above also makes fairly clear how Manhattan Principle 2 (One Health)’s focus on ‘decisions relating to land and water use’ relate to the ‘natural resource base’ affecting human well-being within the context of the ‘Holistic Approach’.
And then we have the matter of the ‘Circular Economy’, which relate to better use of natural resources, and the ‘Ecosystem Approach’, which is the active component here, the framework for making said decisions using adaptive management.
And these - Sustainable Development, One Health, the Circular Economy, and the Ecosystem Approach are all examples of GST, along with the catch-all term, Spaceship Earth, ultimately being about our stewardship of Planet Earth and hence the Planetary Health of said.
And recall the central theme here - ‘Healthy Planet, Healthy People‘. Well, given this is in the context of our stewardship, what we really talk of is ‘Planetary Management of Planetary Health‘. And that phrase was first seen in a 2016 WWF document detailing the Codex Planetarius7, with a link sending us all the way back to 1969.
And that 1969 link? Yeah, that’ll be the UNESCO Courier issue outlining… well, that8, along with an inclusion of the as-yet undefind ‘Ecosystem Approach’… and that Courier issue was called for in 1968…
… at that 1968 UNESCO Biosphere Conference, which further included mention of ‘Spaceship Earth’… and so much more. So, so, so much more.
Anyone who could plow through this pile of UN-speak and still remain sane deserves a medal!
I'm hoping for some breakthrough AI tech which would allow us to build a low-cost, high-speed system that could digest the whole load in a week, strip away the fluff, analyze the hypocrisy and the contradictions, map out the network of self-serving entities behind all of it, generate some hard-hitting videos to expose the entire scam, and train an expert-level chatbot to tirelessly answer any question on the subject with facts and sources.
Then we can set it loose on the next target. The list is endless, for example: world101.cfr.org/understanding-international-system/global-governance/what-liberal-world-order
Interesting, isn't it, that natural plant food = CO2 = dangerous toxic substance, so to make the plants grow in a CO2 starved environment we need to use more chamical agents.
No money for them in CO2 see, whereas agrochemicals OTOH and all the other big industry related infrastructure that goes hand in hand with that keeps the money and control in their hands.
bestr solution? Grow grass in CO2 rich environment, eat the grazing animals, it's self perpetuating, no imputs needed. Healthy soil, healthy animals, healthy people. It has worked since time immemorial. However, it means there is No money for them, and that's why they don't like it. If we can't see this for what it is then we are on an accelerating ride to total destruction.