The Sustainable Development Goals
I used to see clips making sensational claims about the Sustainable Development Goals, often triggering strong emotional responses. And, sure, these can be infuriating - that’s part of their appeal. The trouble is, though, that many of these claims are questionable, and others are outright false. But my primary issue is that they generally explain absolutely nothing. They’ll make vague references to particular goals, but on closer inspection, these claims do not carry much water.
So let’s go through the document in detail -
Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development1.
This is another lengthy read, I fear. The aim here is to be thorough, going in-depth as needed, and providing detailed commentary. But, sure, it’s entirely possible that I missed a few points, or that your interpretation differs. Feel free to voice your disagreement, though I do expect rational discourse or at least credible sources - appeals to authority will absolutely not suffice. Where claims are pivotal - and not stated as speculative - I generally reference original documents, and never rely on appeals to any alleged authority. Either way, the first 4 pages are… perfectly fine to skip for sakes of brevity, so let’s do just that.
The preamble states that this ‘is a plan of action for people, planet, and prosperity’ (note the three-P’s), aiming to ‘strengthen universal peace in larger freedom’, which strikes me as entirely utilitarian, meaning a collectivist vision, pursuing something akin to ‘maximum justice’. During the Brexit debate we frequently were served irrational claims relating to ‘pooled sovereignty’, which were transparent attempts to shift the goalpost relating to the meaning of the word, ‘sovereignty’. The document further emphasises ‘peace’ as the ultimate objective - the purpose, so to speak. And all adaptively managed scenarios need one of those.
It continues ‘All countries and all stakeholders, acting in collaborative partnership‘, revealing the recurrent theme of top-down stakeholder collecticism, reinforced through ‘We are determined to take the bold and transtormative steps‘ which could easily be interpreted as ‘revolutionary’, followed by the common line ‘no one will be left behind‘. And they really do love that phrase, but key to understanding here is that this is not about them caring for you, no, it’s rather the opposite, implying that no-one is allowed to opt out.
‘The 17 Sustainable Development Goals and 169 targets… are integrated and indivisible and balance the three dimensions of sustainable development: the economic, social and environmental.‘
Economics. Social. Environment. In this context, let’s address the ‘Three-P’s’. Because from a business perspective, ‘people, planet, and prosperity‘ describes is the triple bottom line2, which further adds -
‘Through a systems theory lens, the three “P’s” are all interconnected. Given that the foundation of sustainability is systems thinking, a single initiative that falls under people, planet or prosperity will also create an impact in the others‘.
… that this is systems theory on a planetary scale, thus it logically follows that this must be about Spaceship Earth.
In the ‘people’ segment of the Triple-Bottom Line description we find -
‘The connection with corporate social responsibility (CSR) is central to this segment of the triple bottom line‘
… CSR, thus leaving only ESG - Environmental, Social, and Governance. And given that the two former are included in the TBL… that leaves only governance
And that ‘governance’ should be ‘good’3. Good Governance - which is a defined term, ultimately centred around systems theory and… ethics.
In the ‘people’ section of the SDG document we find that -
‘… to ensure that all human beings can fulfill their potential in dignity and equality and in a healthy environment‘
Dignity relates to you accepting your role and contributing to ‘the common good’ in accordance with the ‘equity’ position you’re given, which also considers intergenerational justice. These are best understood through a Marxist Approach to Social Justice, and a brief introduction is provided in the early part of the post on ‘Good Governance’ linked above. As for the ‘healthy environment’, that’s one of the more contentious issues (which is why they hid it well). See, these ‘healthy environments’ per a 2024 document courtesy of the OHCHR on ‘The Right to a Healthy Environment’4 -
'... the right also guarantees environments that are ecologically healthy, regardless of direct impacts on people.'
And that is not hyperbole. That is an express quote from page 8.
The next section on ‘planet’ details ‘sustainable consumption and production’, ‘managing its natural resources’, ‘taking urgent action on climate change’ and ‘the needs ot the present and future generations’. The former consists of economic aspects, the following two relates to the environment, and the final relates to ‘human well-being’, ie social. It’s the triple bottom line, three-P’s, or you could even consider it the UNEP GEO6 Vision for 2050, with ‘Natural Capital / Assets’, ‘Ecosystem Services’, and ‘Human well-being’.
The next part, on ‘Prosperity’, explains that this is about ensuring ‘that all human beings can enjoy prosperous and fulfilling lives and that economic, social and technological progress occurs in harmony with nature‘. The final point is significant, as the utilitarian undertones, the system theory perspective, and the triple-bottom line all suggest that the real objective is to maximise economic output (economics; ecosystem services) by balancing nature (the environment; natural assets) with human-well-being (social).
And this was incidentally outlined through Recommendation 3.3 in the 1968 UNESCO Biosphere Conference Proceedings (not ignoring the mention of ‘zoonotic disease’ in recommendation 3.2) -
‘… the establishment of the necessary balance between man and his environment in relation to the maintenance of his health and well-being in their broadest connotations.‘
… but also in the currently negotiated WHO Pandemic Agreement -
‘(b) "One Health approach" means an integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems’
![WHO Pandemic Agreement [April, 2024]](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_140,h_140,c_fill,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep,g_auto/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fb69c8066-0498-4924-af63-1344abb2ec85_1206x612.png)
Thus, the overriding objective here is to stabilise the global ecosystems, and objective which should be carried out through the balancing of human impact on nature, where human impact is generally considered5 too6 large7.
This, in turn, will lead to fewer ‘ecosystem services’, which through a ‘market force approach’ will yield vastly higher prices (and costs, borne by the consumer), thus leading to ‘degrowth’8, a narrative even forwarded by the Club of Rome9, which then lead to ‘the end of fossil fuels’ and ‘planetary boundaries’. And this is again not exaggered in any way as the Club of Rome article confirms -
‘In mid-May 2023, the European Parliament hosted a major conference on degrowth, sparking a wide range of reactions in the media… Degrowth advocates argue for phasing out the fossil fuel industry…‘
And as for Planetary Boundaries10… that comes back to input-output analysis of the various ‘boundaries’, with those ‘indicators‘… well, more on these later, and -
‘Akbulut’s conception of degrowth is focused on ethics and this includes criteria based on justice, particularly as they apply to governance. Governance should be based on the “right relationship”‘
… where a ‘right relationship’ means rights vs responsibilities, and -
‘Neoclassical economics has proven to be incapable of respecting PBs. To work within PBs we need an ecological economy, which means degrowth needs to scale…‘
… carbon-backed CBDCs which couple ecology with economy, and finally the end of capitalism - as outlined by many, including Zev Naveh.
Incidentally, you’ll be pleased to know that the ‘unknown’ Planetary Boundaries were located… in the same year as the above article was penned. And obviously, these new-found ‘boundaries’ were an immediate cause of preposterous exaggerated, alarmist claims11.
I would actually go so far to posit an alternative, hypothetical explanation regarding ‘planetary boundaries’ - these could be politically expedient for sakes of drumming up synthetic, fake grass-roots led calls, demanding further monetisation of nature - and thus costs, applied to you. So before we continue, let me bounce that idea off ChatGPT… and yes, it is definitely within the realms of possibility.
One Health is another example of systems thinking12, which further drags in General Systems Theory which I personally prefer to put down to Kenneth Boulding, who beyond his 1956 paper structuring Bertanalffy’s GST within a hierarchy, ‘The Skeleton of Science’, also penned the 1966 paper, ‘The Economics of the coming Spaceship Earth’13, looping in closed systems; thus being an early precursor of the Circular Economy.
But back to the SDG report, and the section on Peace which adds this being the ultimate purpose - ‘There can be no sustainable development without peace and no peace without sustainable development.‘
In Partnerships we find - ‘We are determined to mobilize the means required to implement this Agenda through a revitalized Global Partnership for Sustainable Development, … with the participation of all countries, all stakeholders and all people.‘
Recent posts should make clear where this is heading, but we’ll return to that soon enough. In the Declaration we find more… hints of revolutionary spirits - ‘… comprehensive, far-reaching and people-centred set of universal and transformative Goals and targets.‘
… before item 5 goes to add -
‘This is an Agenda of unprecedented scope and significance. It is accepted by all countries and is applicable to all, taking into account different national realities, capacities and levels of development and respecting national policies and priorities. These are universal goals and targets which involve the entire world, …‘
… that your politicians sold you out, as they never truly let you in on where said ‘transformative goals’ would logically lead.
‘The Goals and targets are the result of over two years of intensive public consultation and engagement with civil society and other stakeholders around the world, …‘
… and of course CSOs are involved, as they not only drive this process, but they - per plan - in the future will be in charge of… setting the political direction, globally.
The following section on Our Vision includes a lot of buzzwords -
‘In these Goals and targets, we are setting out a ambitious and transtormational vision. We envisage a world free of poverty, hunger, disease and want, where all life can thrive. We envisage a world free of fear and violence. A world with universal literacy. A world with equitable and universal access to quality education at all levels, to health care and social protection, where physical, mental and social well-being are assured.‘
It’s an impressive list of Aesopian language, where ‘a world free of… want’ somewhat facetiously could suggest we’re all dead, ‘all life can thrive‘ supports said, ‘quality education‘ meaning biased quack science inserted into educational material and pushed through UNESCO (more on that later), ‘health care‘ meaning Universal Health Coverage (top-down control of information, education, drugs and vaccines), and with ‘physical, mental and social well-being‘ interestingly straddling three levels - empirical, pragmatic and normative - of Erich Jantsch’s Inter- and Transdisciplinary University14.
The buzzword bonanza carries on -
‘A world where we reaffirm our commitments regarding the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation and where there is improved hygiene; and where food is sufficient, safe, affordable and nutritious. A world where human habitats are safe, resilient and sustainable and where there is universal access to affordable. reliable and sustainable energy‘
In UN capacity, the ‘right’ to anything generally means something quite different to what you’d expect; a good example is their ‘right to food’, which does not mean being handed free food15, but rather you being allowed to live on a plot of land owned by… well, certainly not you. The claim of ‘nutricious’ can be understood in a number of ways16; it could be taken to mean ‘plant-based’ (and never mind whether this is correct or not), or it could be understood as ‘in an environment with lower atmosphetic concrentration of carbon dioxide’. Generally, however, it centres about applying a combination of the principles set out by the UNFCCC (emissions), and the CBD (land management), which further ties in with the mention of ‘human habitats‘, which per 1976 UN conference means… the central planning of land17. And finally, the false claims relating to ‘affordable energy’ of course is entirely a matter of definition... unfortunately to be set by, ie, the IUCN, or an ECOSOC-registered General Consultative Status NGO.
Through item 9 we see -
‘A world in which consumption and production patterns and use of all natural resources - from air to land, from rivers, lakes and aquifers to oceans and seas — are sustainable. One in which democracy, good governance and the rule of law, as well as an enabling environment at the national and international levels, …‘
The sustainable production - ecosystem services - will result from the balancing of nature with mankind (discussed above), consumption will… naturally flow, it’s just a matter of cost borne by the consumer, and ‘Good Governance’ is a defined term, also linked above. The ‘enabling environment’ relates to favourable policy environment and cash incentives - leading to blended finance deals, relating to the monetisation of ‘Ecosystem Services’ rendererd by ‘Natural Assets’ on UNESCO Biosphere Reserves.
The ‘international law’ part could relate to the ‘decentralisation’ efforts - also known as ‘subsidiarity’ - where the ‘lowest appropriate extent’ of ‘decentralisation’ relating to ‘climate change’ of course means global institutes. And the final item of their vision further more than hints at this being an application of systems theory -
‘The challenges and commitments identified at these major conferences and summits are interrelated and call for integrated solutions. To address them effectively, a new approach is needed… linked to each other and are interdependent.‘
Our world Today starts with boilerplate disaster projections, making sure to drag in natural resource depletion, land degradation, biodiversity, as well as the global health threats allegedly justifying WHO’s drive for a pandemic agreement.
Item 15 adds -
‘The spread of information and communications technology and global interconnectedness has great potential to accelerate human progress, to bridge the digital divide and to develop knowledge societies, as does scientific and technological innovation across areas as diverse as medicine and energy.‘
… a key component here is global surveillance. We will return to that at a more appropriate time, because this really only touches upon the topic. It’s worth adding that by ‘bridging the digital divide’, those fibreoptic cables laid can also return surveillance information back in the opposite direction. And item 17 includes mention of the ‘integrated approach’, which really does lack the key word ‘holistic’ -
‘It also promises more peaceful and inclusive societies. It also, crucially, defines means of implementation. Reflecting the integrated approach that we nave decided on, ….‘
Next follows The new Agenda, which promises -
‘… every State has, and shall freely exercise, full permanent sovereignty over all its wealth, natural resources and economic activity… in a manner that is consistent with the rights and obligations of States under international law‘
Thing is, said law includes phrasing on transboundary pollution, and consequently, should you seek to actually develop said natural resources then you’ll be taken to an international court for polluting the global environment, a crime soon be known as ‘EcoCide’. And that legitimately is no joke, the ICJ is currently contemplating exactly this case18, and even the chief hack - the Collegium International man-of-action UN SecGen, Antonio Guterres - has opined on just that19, not forgetting Jeffrey D Sachs serving the entire strategy on a silver platter for those who read this book.
And item 21 states -
‘The new Goals and targets will come into effect on 1 January 2016 and will guide the decisions we take over the next 15 years. All of us will work to implement the Agenda within our own countries and at the regional and global levels, …‘
… that all nations will work to implement these goals. All of them. And item 24 then includes mention of the Rome Declaration on Nutrition20 and the Framework for Action from which we learn21 that malnutrition can be caused by socioeconomic and environmental changes, the impacts of climate change, desertification and pandemics, resource scarcity as well as unsustainable production and consumption patterns, and to address we need conducive policies, including trade.
And all of this in spite of the scale of the issue actually declining, though true to form (of gross, intellectual dishonesty), they neglect to consider that global population has grown over considered period of time, which further sees ‘inadequate physical activity‘ finally thrown in as an afterthought.
Either way, this of course is an ‘ethical imperative’, which calls for global policy, participation in the ‘Codex Alimentarius’, and finally calls for ‘nutrition data and indicators’ which relate to systemic surveillance of alleged nutrition, leading to policy making on account thereof.
And the solution to all problems in UN capacity is always the same - collective action, and in given context this of course calls for a trisectoral approach -
‘collective action is instrumental to improve nutrition, requiring collaboration between governments, the private sector, civil society and communities;‘
And there’s really only one further quote which deserves a mention -
‘food systems need to contribute to preventing and addressing infectious diseases, including zoonotic diseases, and tackling antimicrobial resistance;‘
… the reason being that this was followed in 2015 by Obama calling for AMR surveillance, using a ‘One Health Approach’22. Incidentally, the ‘scandal free president’ in 2011 also called for the protection of ‘natural capital‘ and ‘ecosystem services’23, aligning with the SDGs in general but also the angle of monetisation, and thus further acting to clarify, should there be any doubt about quite how saintly he truly was.
And should there be two or three people out there still believing in his claims of allegedly standing for the common man, let me quote -
‘… the most effective means of conserving valuable natural assets is often to securitize them: to assign development rights to corporations or public-private sector partnerships in exchange for the conservation and management of threatened ecosystems.‘
… yes, this report outlines the strategy to monetise ‘ecosystem services’, which through a holding company will be floated on a stock exchange down the line, causing far higher prices in the supermarket.
This is followed by a discussion of the monetisation of nature, which primarily come down to a UNFCCC/CBD synthesis… where incidentally, both of those see the Global Environment Facility as an ancestor.
‘… valuation of non-market ecosystem services would be expected to improve environmental decision-making wherever there are tradeoffs to be made between non-marketed and marketed ecosystem services—as there are between the production of foods, fuels, and fibers, on one hand, and carbon sequestration, watershed protection, biodiversity conservation, and a range of regulating services on the other‘
Back to the SDG document and we’re then treated to a few items relating to Quality education, which relates to the very same UNESCO who at a 1948 conference titled ‘The United Nations and World Citizenship‘ stated that ‘One world or none is thus the choice given us by military reality‘24, and that the ‘development in pupils of an attitude of mind favourable to international understanding, which will make them to ready to accept the obligations which an interdependent world imposes‘, all appearing highly appropriate in contemporary context.
The concept of ‘lifelong learning’ was discussed at the 1968 UNESCO Biosphere Conference, but further an inclusion in the more public facing UNESCO Courier which in a special edition released in January, 1969 discussed a Blueprint for Planetary Management. And this special issue even included mention of the barely-defined Ecosystem Approach, which ultimately came to be best described as strategy to facilitate top-down integrated land management.
The ‘full realisation of rights and capabilities’ revolve a collectivist understanding of where you fit into society (per Marc Gafni; accepting being a cell in the human super-organism), Universal Health Coverage relate to a ‘decentralised’, top-down, stakeholder approach global governance structure relating to health, and the alleged ‘fighting of malaria, …’ is a convenient way to access taxpayer funds with complete impunity, and previously accessed to not only build global health surveillance capacity under the guise of PEPFAR, but also as a way for big pharma to repeatedly cash in on taxpayer funds with programs doing… at best little to nothing.
That part carries on through the mention of AMR… in the same year as Obama, per above, launched One Health surveillance allegedly for sakes of managing AMR, but which immediately broadened its scope to comprise all sorts of other data, per those files so foolishly released by AG Huff.
We’re then treated to family planning, which meshes with the Rockefeller Foundation’s25 multi-generational26 attempt to control global fertility rates27, even stretching all the way back to 192728, before briefly mentioning that ‘wealth is shared’ which could be taken to mean just about anything within… the spectre of interpretations of socialism, before the mention of ‘sustainble agriculture’ is added, which essentially means all but destroying Western farming.
The ‘positive contribution of migrants’ is mentioned, a topic on which both Jeffrey Sachs and the Fabian Society have spoken of, as both seek placing said migrants on the express way to citizenship… thus enabling the ‘great transition’ they seek29 - and never mind that you don’t agree, but just to make sure, they both seek to frame this transition in the most grossly dishonest way imagineable.
Finally, the role of the UNFCCC as primary instrument relating to alleged Climate Change is added.
But not content with the inclusion of merely half the controlling methanism -
‘We recognize that social and economic development depends on the sustainable management of our planet's natural resources. We are therefore determined to conserve and sustainably use oceans and seas, freshwater resources, as well as forests, mountains and drylands and to protect biodiversity, ecosystems and wildlife. We are also determined to promote sustainable tourism, to tackle water scarcity and water pollution, to strengthen cooperation on desertification, dust storms, land degradation and drought and to promote resilience and disaster risk reduction. In this regard, we look forward to the thirteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity to be held in Mexico.‘
… because the Convention on Biological Diversity is just as important in that regard.
Item 34 adds -
‘We will work with local authorities and communities to renew and plan our cities and human settlements so as to foster community cohesion and personal security and to stimulate innovation and employment. We will reduce the negative impacts of urban activities and of chemicals which are hazardous…‘
… a direct call for planning, first seen in the 1982 World Charter for Nature.
And the role of ‘Good Governance’, which include effective, transparent, and accountable institutions is added in item 35 -
‘Sustainable development cannot be realized without peace and security; and… effective rule of law and good governance at all levels and on transparent, effective and accountable institutions….‘
… before item 36 includes a personal favourite - Ethics - where said of course will translate into a Planetary Ethic and thus responsible planetary stewardship.
‘We pledge to foster intercultural understanding, tolerance, mutual respect and an ethic of global citizenship and shared responsibility.‘
Next comes ‘Means of Implementation’, which immediately goes to state -
‘It will facilitate an intensive global engagement in support of implementation of all the Goals and targets, bringing together Governments, the private sector, civil society, the United Nations system and other actors and mobilizing all available resources.‘
The Trisectoral Governance model (public-private-CSO) was first outlined in Agenda 21, and it’s a mechanism to transfers power to CSOs, ie typically large General Consultative Status NGOs registered with ECOSOC. Your vote will not matter in the slightest on anything of importance, should they have their way.
Item 41 calls for more tech transfer… which tend to make middle-men wealthy… before further adding -
‘Public finance, both domestic and international, will play a vital role in providing essential services and public goods and in catalysing other sources of finance. We acknowledge the role of the diverse private sector, ranging from micro-enterprises to cooperatives to multinationals, and that of civil society organizations and philanthropic organizations in the implementation of the new Agenda.‘
It’s yet another call for trisectoral networks, but it further outlines that the public should finance… well, blended finance deals, which transfer all risk to the public, while transfering the collateral to, likely, the UNESCO Biosphere Reserves, should those Debt-for-Nature Swaps (and others) collapse. And that has very much been the plan, ever since Sweatman, Rockefeller and Rothschild proposed the ‘World Conservation Bank’, back at the 4th World Wilderness Congress in 1987.
But let’s briefly return to item 40, which states -
‘The Agenda, including the Sustainable Development Goals, can be met within the framework of a revitalized Global Partnership for Sustainable Development, supported by the concrete policies and actions as outlined in the outcome document of the third International Conference on Financing for Development, held in Addis Ababa from 13 to 16 July 2015.‘
And let’s take a quick peek, because it’s an important document30. Item 10 -
‘Multi-stakeholder partnerships and the resources, knowledge and ingenuity of the private sector, civil society, the scientific community, academia, philanthropy and foundations, parliaments, local authorities, volunteers and other stakeholders…‘
… makes sure you’re aware that this is about the stakeholders and certainly not you, while item 48 -
‘We recognize that both public and private investment have key roles to play in infrastructure financing, including through development banks, development finance institutions and tools and mechanisms such as public-private partnerships, blended finance, which combines concessional public finance with non-concessional private finance and expertise from the public and private sector, special-purpose vehicles, non-recourse project financing, risk mitigation instruments and pooled funding structures‘
… states that the private sector are to receive a very, very good deal.
Of contextual relevance, item 43 from the SDG document adds -
‘An important use of international public finance, including official development assistance (ODA), is to catalyse additional resource mobilization from other sources, public and private.‘
Next comes the ‘Follow-up and review’, which in item 48 -
‘Indicators are being developed to assist this work. Quality, accessible, timely and reliable disaggregated data will be needed to help with the measurement of progress and to ensure that no one is left behind. Such data is key to decision-making. Data and information from existing reporting mechanisms should be used where possible.‘
… drums up the call for global surveillance, which will be addressed later.
Boilerplate additions follow about allegedly saving the planet, with this considering future generations - in short a call for intergenerational equity, justice, ethic and responsibility. Targets will be measured, but as there can be a wide discrepancy in global surveillance coverage, item 57 pledges to ‘addressing this gap in data collection‘, before item 59 includes -
‘… we reaffirm that planet Earth and its ecosystems are our common home and that "Mother Earth" is a common expression in a number of countries and regions.‘
This, I bet, was inserted for a reason31 which will become clear down the road - probably related to ‘Gaia Theory’, thus driving a spiritual revival. In fact, through Laudato Si we’ve already seen the beginning of this. Finally a very quick introduction to the SDGs which are up next.
Goal 1 - End Poverty in all its forms everywhere
This goal includes a specific dollar amount, which to me could be suggestive of Jeff Sachs’ focus on not only absolute but also relative poverty, which can then be used to… not only impoverish the West, but also ensure migrants will never leave.
There’s further calls to ‘Ensure significant mobilization of resources from a variety of sources‘, which include blended finance, MDB finance, and generally the availability of Western taxpayer cash to be spent on Third World projects, promptly monetised through blended finance deals for carbon emission credits.
Finally, the inclusion of ‘Create sound policy frameworks at the national, regional and international levels‘ again confirms the top-down structure of it all, as frameworks (and capacity) work in the context of ‘decentralisation to the lowest appropriate extent’.
Goal 2 - End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture
Beyond what was previously discussed, the call for ‘sustainable agricultural practices’ is repeated, along with ‘secure access to land’ which neglects to mention that ownership is… not for you. You will truly own nothing and be happy… in their neo-feudalistic wet dream of tomorrow. Item 2b further drives a call to -
‘… correct and prevent trade restrictions and distortions in world agricultural markets, Including through the parallel elimination of all forms or agricultural export subsidies and all export measures with equivalent effect, in accordance with the mandate of the Doha Development…‘
Subsidies, in this regard, do not tend to be what you think of as subsidies. Instead, they calculate seriously flawed estimates… as to how much of a competitive advantage you have, and then impose duties to this extent. And these same guesstimates could also hypothetically apply to those farmers who use, say, synthetic fertiliser.
And this isn’t just some random claim made. Henry Paulson’s 2021 report could not possibly be more clear in that regard. Those farmers who use fossil fuels - which means every single one in the West - will see ‘environmental damage’ costs added, never mind these being entirely impossible to calculate.
Goal 3 - Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages
This is a topic discussed a fair bit on this substack, though not as of late. Instead of repeating this discussion, also considered by many other substack’ers, let me instead draw attention to how incredibly corrupt this industry truly is. First, we have the ESWI who not only launched the drive for pandemic planning in Europe in 1993, but further wrote the 1999 WHO Pandemic Influenza Plan, and contributed to more related issues than you can imagine. Oh, and did I mention they are primarily funded by their big pharmaceutical partners?
Not to be outdone, Health planning in the US took off in the late 60’s, culminating with 1974 legislation under allegedly ‘conservative’ Nixon, before the obviously sketchy 1976 Fort Dix episode took place at the express same time as a big pharma event in Rougemont, Switzerland, at which they planned a pandemic response plan - with CDC number two delivering opening and closing remarks. And William Foege - who in 2004 introduced ‘One Health’ at the Rockefeller Centre through the 12 Manhattan Principles - signed the resulting 1978 Pandemic Plan, the first of its type, globally.
And the Manhattan Principles were iterated in 2019; the 12 principles became the 10 Berlin Principles, and in a key paper released in 2020 courtesy of the ‘Science of the Total Environment’, co-authored by William Karesh of EcoHealth Alliance32 (and the Council on Foreign Relations) states in section 5 on ‘Ethical foundations’ (and I swear that this is not a joke) -
‘The current entwined emergencies of public health, biodiversity loss and climate change clearly illustrate the impossibility of protecting human health in isolation from the health of other animals and the environment.‘
… that us mere humans are now considered in not simply equal light to those ‘other animals’, but in fact part of said. And that, allegedly, is an ‘ethical’ perspective, by which standard I assume it acceptable for me to compare William B Karesh to a single member of a cockroach infestation.
And one of the items I struggled to place was the issue of ‘non-communicable disease’. But should you jump on a motorway leading to the centre of London you’ll commonly find speed limits being lowered on account of ‘air pollution’. The focus on NCDs is a health perspective on ‘Climate Change’, and will be used to impose increasingly outrageous legislation relating to alleged pollution, for alleged sakes of ‘protecting you’, and this message is further repeated in 3.9 through -
‘By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination‘
Item 3.a calls for the WHO to be granted at least some level of global control over tobacco, item 3.b calls for public subsidy of big pharma, item 3.c relates to the One Health Workforce (set to make Vanessa Kerry wealthy), and item 3.d calling for ‘early warning, risk reduction and management of national and global health risks‘, seeking to centralise not only global health surveillance, but also the top-down management of all health issues… ultimately, planned to culminate with Holistic Global Health Security, no doubt, with which Marco Rubio and Chuck Grassley agree33.
Goal 4 - Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all
Previously covered, but let’s not forget to include item 4.7, especially considering you commonly hear - per Bret ‘Game B’ Weinstein - ‘totally converted’ Jeffrey D Sachs wax lyrically about this item exactly.
‘By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable litestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture's contribution to sustainable development‘
Global Citizenship, amplified through continuous lifelong learning incidentally an initiative first spoken of by Jacques Delors of the Collegium International, and which further is included through discussion of ‘Our Cultural Diversity’.
Goal 5 - Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls
This relates to… driving a keel between men and women, yet another fabricated ‘oppressor-oppressed’ dynamic inserted for eventual exploitation. This one, however, is particularly egregious, as it further serves to lower fertility rates with women now in jobs rather than staying at home. Item 5.4 is somewhat problematic, ‘Recognize and value unpaid care and domestic work‘, as it obviously fails to answer how this will be paid for. And this, of course, will lead to a substantial increase in taxation, thus further working to discourage work altogether in out future, planned socialist utopia of tomorrow.
Goal 6 - Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all
Goal 6 relates to the ‘management of water‘, where given promise of ‘affordable drinking water‘ leads back to ‘ecosystem water services’, the monetisation of nature… and thus, ‘Combating Global Warming’ from 1992/94, which explicitly mentioned water.
And the further calls for the reduction of pollution also lead to indirect calls for ‘sustainable agriculture’…
And language, leading to thoughts centred around ‘ecosystem water services’ continue through items 6.5 and 6.6 -
‘By 2030, implement integrated water resources management at all levels, including through transpounaary cooperation as appropriate… protect and restore water-related ecosystems, including mountains, forests, wetlands, rivers, aquifers and lakes‘
Goal 7 - Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all
The provision of energy, which should be ‘affordable, reliable, and modern energy for all’. A complete impossibility to deliver, of course, unless you go on large-scale nuclear construction… which is not taking place anywhere in the West.
And, sure, I understand that Danish windmills supplied 106% of Denmark’s electricity… on a single day… while not factoring in any kind of input costs, nor even considering the other 364 days of the year. The reality is that renewable is inherently unreliable. And as for ‘energy efficiency’, and all the investments channeled into ‘clean energy research’ - do be aware that a lot of money has already been channeled into similar34 endeavours35, with results typically ranging from terrible to catastrophic. There’s a reason why nature decided to store energy as oil, after all.
Goal 8 - Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all
‘Inclusive economic growth’ is the sort of empty promises you always hear out of authoritarian regimes - never to succeed. And empty rhetoric is plentiful here, one example being ‘Achieve higher levels of economic productivity through diversification’, they key question here of course being - how, which needless to say goes begging a reply. Goal 8.3 is somewhat darker, however -
‘… encourage the formalization and growth of micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises, including through access to financial services‘
The idea here being that credit forwarded to those without a track record of fiscal prudence will suddenly lead to vast growth.. which is all utterly incomprehensible. But then, that’s not truly where they’re heading with this. No, they seek for 3rd world farmers to pledge their only thing of value - the deeds to their lands - as collateral, ultimately leading to the transfer of the deeds when they fail to repay down the line.
Goal 8.4 carries on in much the same rhetorical vein -
‘Improve progressively, through 2030, global resource efficiency in consumption and production and endeavour to decouple economic growth from environmental degradation, in accordance with the 10-Year Framework of Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and Production, with developed countries taking the lead…‘
Potentially done through the setting of ever-higher standards, with enforcement thereof. This would drive the demand for tech, which may or may not work to the extent advertised, and paid for by developed nations. The 10YFP is somewhat coy on detail in this regard36 however, so impossible to say for sure.
‘By 2030, devise and implement policies to promote sustainable tourism that creates jobs and promotes local culture and products…‘
Sustainable tourism was one of the primary ideas relating to Iwokrama. Needless to say, that project has since inception been a colossal failure, and should have been shut down in 2004, at a time where said ‘sustainable tourism’ barely led to 2 visitors per day.
And item 8.10 returns to the vulture-ish aspects -
‘Strengthen the capacity of domestic financial institutions to encourage and expand access to banking, insurance and financial services for all‘
It would be fantastic if only it was that simple. But do you really expect indigenous peoples (who they claim to care so much about), having never truly had access to money, and not grasping the full implications of compound inflation to suddenly become masters at investment banking through the granting of access to loans? Get real. What will happen is that the sharks will immediately start circling, and everything those people have of value will be taken almost immediately.
Sure, provide those people with the education required, but even then experience will be severely lacking. And as for those claiming that ‘I am being racist’ here, please explain what took place in 2008 given those investment banks who absolutely ripped off pension funds and thus those grannies, who us ‘covid deniers’ allegedly ‘wanted to murder‘. Do you really believe for a split second this will see a different outcome; that Wall St somehow has grown a conscience in the meantime?
Goal 9 - Build resilient infrastructue, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation
‘Resilient infrastructure’ is just like regular infrastructure, but fits better within their framework of adaptive management -
‘Develop quality, reliable, sustainable and resilient infrastructure, including regional and transborder infrastructure, …‘
… but across borders, leading to the gradual end of sovereignty, in other words.
‘Promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and, by 2030, significantly raise industry's share of employment and gross domestic product, …‘
Again - how? Oh wait, there’s no explanation (will be addressed in a minute), because this is merely setting the stage for -
‘Increase the access of small-scale industrial and other enterprises. in particular in developing countries to financial services including affordable credit…‘
… a return to the banging of the drum of exploitative, vulture capitalists, offering loans in return for collateral - ie, the lands of those indigenous peoples.
‘By 2030, upgrade infrastructure and retrofit industries to make them sustainable, …‘
… leading to a number of recently launched start-ups with impecctable connections and billionaire backers, capitalising on said need… which didn’t exist until recently, and only came into being because of this document.
‘Enhance scientific research, … and public and private research and development‘
The way this trick works is that the public finance will pay for the running of the operation, while the private will then give grants to specific research carries out, serving the common agenda. That saddles the taxpayer with the downside, while the private in effect cashes in on yet another indirect public subsidy. It’s absolutely not right that the private can capitalise on taxpayers in this way. This is the express way the World Health Organisation operates.
‘‘Support domestic technology development, research and innovation in developing countries, including by ensuring a conducive policy environment’
… typically through tax breaks, incentives, grants, …
‘… significantly increase access to information and communications technology and strive to provide universal and affordable access to the internet…‘
But a promise of ‘access to information’ does not imply that, say, UNESCO consider all information ‘relevant to you’, nor that ‘exemptions’ do not apply. And as for the latter, high-resolution global surveillance requires high-speed internet access - which will implicitly be facilitated through this initiative.
Goal 10 - Reduce inequality within and among countries
The reduction of inequality beyond seemingly empty rhetoric and half-told stories allow for an enormeous flexibility in framework outputs. Because as an example -
‘… empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, …‘
… how should that be carried out in practise? By hiring exclusively on basis of race, gender, or sexuality? And -
‘Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome‘
… though most will agree with equal opportunity, the latter again suggest a substantial room for manipulation. For instance - though somewhat facetiously - I see very few black transexual senior civil servants in the Northern hemisphere. How should that be corrected for? The reality is that jobs should be granted on basis of merit, and if there’s an issue in that regard, then you step back and try to address what led this outcome - or even establish if it’s a legit issue in the first place, and not just a cultural outcome. Because perhaps, just perhaps there might be reasons why women by far outnumber men in institutions of childcare - outside of alleged ‘sexisim’.
And the meaningless - but exploitable - rhetoric scales to a global scale -
‘Improve the regulation and monitoring of global financial markets and institutions and strengthen the implementation of such regulations‘
They seek to scale this concept to a global level, yet refuse to provide a detailed explanation of how this would ever work… or even if it could! This obviously is not about the given objective - this is about the insertion of massive flexibilities in the system, to be weaponised down the road.
‘Ensure enhanced representation and voice for developing countries in decision-making in global international economic and financial institutions in order to deliver more effective, credible, accountable and legitimate institutions‘
Those… are not necessarily even related. I understand why 3rd worls nations would like their voice heard - but exactly who selects which voices should be heard, and what if those voices strategically align with a narrative of which you’re not aware. And what does ‘enhanced’ in this regard mean, anyway - that Western nations, whose public taxes are being used to finance… will have less of a voice?
‘Facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration‘
Like the IOM facilitating endless migration into the United States and Europe, perchance? And this is then followed by mention of ‘special and differential treatment’, completely incompatible with principles of equality, with increased levels of development assistance which for sure will see funds clipped along the way.
Goal 11 - Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable
Even more half truths, quickly insisting -
‘provide access to safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems for all, improving road satety, notably by expanding public transport,‘
… that you likely will no longer be allowed to drive a car, and -
‘… participatory integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries‘
… a call for all ‘human settlements’ to be planned, much in line with repeated calls of the past. Of course, if you’re a farmer who owns a field next to a ‘planned city’, then what? Oh wait, then you’ll be considered a ‘stakeholder’, and the ‘collective’ will dictate what should happen to your land. No, that is not a joke.
Item 11.4’s call to ‘Strengthen efforts to protect and sateguard the world's cultural and natural heritage‘ relate to UNESCO Heritage Sites, and essentially places lands in reserves; much like its bigger brother - the UNESCO Biosphere Reserves. Item 11.5 calls for a reduction in ‘economic losses’ in case of disasters, which could then be facilitated through forceful displacement of people under claims of alleged climate change apocalypse. Item 11.6 calls for further surveillance of air quality (and other) levels of citites, before a call is made to ‘implementing integrated policies and plans towards inclusion‘ which naturally begs the question - inclusion of whom, and who get to decide? The answer here of course lies in the top-down structure, facilitating the management of all lands on earth - the Ecosystem Approach, incidentally also dragged in by the President’s Council, just above.
Goal 12 - Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns
‘By 2030, achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources‘ necessitates top-down control, yet again, because how else will it be managed?
SDG 12.3 continues -
‘By 2030, halve per capita global food waste at the retall and consumer levels and reduce food losses along production and supply chains, including post-harvest losses‘
Sure, people could perhaps reduce food waste, but farmers don’t intentionally set about to lose… money, as is somewhat hinted at through the latter inclusion. But the key part is actually the mention of the supply chain, which is to be strictly monitored through and through - and this in every regard. And this… global surveillance will then further facilitate item 12.4 -
‘By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes… significantly reduce their release to air, water, and soil‘
An ongoing initiative, which actually is somewhat the issue. See, fertiliser and pesticide both qualify here, and should you eliminate these then crop yields drop substantially. Ironically, an example from contemporary popular culture would be season 3 of Clarkson’s Farm, in which he experimented with vastly lower fertiliser use on a field, only for the pityful result to be made clear for all to see by the end of the season, as the harvest came in far, far beyond expectation. Sure, they’ll provide all sorts of excuses I’m sure, but there’s a reason why the ‘Green Revolution’ followed the rollout of these products. And as the farmers happen to pay for these, it stands to reason that perhaps, just perhaps they would be in a better position to decide the optimal amount to apply - and not a range of academics who have never stepped foot on a farm (as is the case with a related initiative in Denmark).
Item 12.5 - ‘By 2030, substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling and reuse‘ relates in part to the Circular Economy, but also phrasing in the 1982 World Charter for Nature, seeking to cut down on use of… well, everything, unless you have the ability to predict the future, and thus being able to tell what the net result of all your actions under all conditions happen to be.
SDG 12.6 emphasises the role of business, the drive for sustainable practices and the provision thereof is re-emphasised through 12.7-12.a, 12.b calls for surveillance of ‘sustainable tourism’ (see Iwokrama above), before we close goal 12 on a call to eliminate subsidies… which are forward predictions of hypothetical damage, ie impossible to calculate.
Goal 13 - Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts
SDG 13 is the UNFCCC inclusion, calling for an increase in ‘adaptive capacity’, the integration of related measures, and an improvement in education and awareness-raising, before SDG 13.a issues the call for $100bn/yr for the Green Climate Fund, launched at COP1537, to be financed via… almost exclusively Western taxpayers, to pay for all those ‘restored’ forests and mangrove projects, which through the GEF will be promptly monetised for ‘ecosystem services’ relating to carbon emission permits. And this naturally demands ‘climate change-related planning and management’, which will be directed through enormeously poor and biased ‘science’.
Incidentally, this entire field is chock full of outright fraud and systemic, institutionalised corruption.
Goal 14 - Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development
SDG 14 is the continuation in this vein, as this relates to the Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), calling for a reduction in marine pollution, managed marine and coastal ecosystems, the reduction of ocean acidification, and the regulation of harvesting leading to an alleged restoration of fish stocks, the prohibition of certain types of fishing, and yet another call for the elimination of those impossible-to-quantify forward predictive subsidies. In other words, this goal has the overriding objective of ensuring the top-down management of the global oceans… by whom? Oh, the same stakeholders, using an Ecosystem Approach as we in…
Goal 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
And here’s the call for the Convention on Biological Diversity, through profitable ‘biodiversity restoration projects’ which lead to ‘ecosystem service’ leases through blended finance deals arranged through the GEF. The further inclusion of ‘Promote fair and equitable sharing of the benefits‘ seen through 15.6 relates to the Nagoya Protocol38, which also is the framework of use through the currently negotiated WHO Pandemic Agreement, before 15.9 interates the call for -
‘By 2020, integrate ecosystem and biodiversity values into national and local planning development processes,‘
And these relate to the ‘Biodiversity Net Gain’ counts, which only recently came into law in the UK, in short calling for the planting of an equal quantity of ‘biodiversity’ as was destroyed when construction new homes. These will eventually through ‘indicators’ lead to a situation, where the few can put an increased amount of demands on those who seek to build their own home.
SDG 15.a is yet another call for billions of taxpayer money for their ‘private partners’ to capitalise on, before 15.b adds a specific call for forest management which will enable more ‘carbon emission credits’ through the planting of trees… and thus translating into yet more GEF blended finance deals, and more NACs floated on the stock exchanges, eventually.
Goal 16 - Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels
SDG 16 deals with the reduction or outright elimination of ‘violence’, which through the common, yet ultimately preposterous phrase ‘words are violence’ can easily be weaponised, and the end to abuse, exploitation and trafficking; convenient inclusions, as these can lead to carefully drafted legislation, set to target… just about anyone. It’s just a matter of definition. The inclusion of ‘organised crime’ again comes down to definition, along with thresholds deciding when to roll out state enforcement, thus leading to two tier policing and enforcement. And the call to ‘reduce corruption’… well, to the best of my knowledge, Ursula vd Leyen still has not been punished with decades in prison for rampant corruption39, relating to the willful, active destruction of evidence40 relating to the EU deal with Pfizer41.
SDG 16.9 then relates to Digital ID; yet another topic which in contemporary terms can be traced back to Tony Blair - and Clare Sullivan.
SDG 16.10 is a call for ‘access to information’… which will be released, provided that it passes the many, many exemptions set out by UNESCO42.
16.a then requests capacity to be built at all levels, conforming with the reorganisation of society prescribed through alleged ‘decentralisation’ or ‘subsidiarity’, and 16.b issues yet another call for legislation relating to alleged discrimination, which can be weaponised through fabricated claims of ‘discrimination’.
Goal 17 - Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development
The hugely beneficial ‘partnerships’… from the perspective of participating, private organisations… calls for yet further Western subsidy, and mobilisation of ‘additional financial resources for developing countries from multiple sources’, suggests more blended finance structures, benefiting virtually entirely the private side of affairs.
But not content with merely wrestling control over lands from small-scale indigenous peoples, the objective here is ‘Debt-for-Nature Swaps’, which down the line will collapse.
‘Assist developing countries in attaining long-term debt sustainability through coordinated policies aimed at fostering debt financing, debt relief and debt restructuring, as appropriate.‘
We’re then treated to another call for tech transfers, before 17.10 adds -
‘Promote a universal, rules-based, open, non-discriminatory and equitable multilateral trading svstem under the World Trade Organization.‘
In goals 9-11, they repeatedly called for systematic discrimination, favouring 3rd world nations, women, indigenous peoples, and absolutely anything and everything under the sun, but now claim a ‘non-discriminatory’ system should be setup by the WTO… which should further be ‘equitable’? Something tells me that their definitions here are… somewhat malleable just as well. And 17.11 includes ‘Significantly increase the exports of developing countries‘, once again leaving out the crucial question - how? This can be done through the arbitrary imposition of tariffs, targeting generally the competitive or even Western nations, but 17.12 ‘Realize timely implementation of duty-free and quota-free market access on a lasting basis for all least developed countries‘ then leads back to the opening of markets… as directed by whom, and for which reason? These are more vectors of control. And in 17.13 under ‘systemic issues’ we see -
‘Enhance global macroeconomic stability. including through policy coordination and policy coherence‘
… another call for centralised control, this time relating to policy. Global Governance, in other words. The section on ‘multi-stakeholder partnerships’ then issue (yet another) call for CSOs, along with more ‘indicators’ (global surveillance) used for alleged sakes of ‘measuring progress’. The CSOs are again called for in item 60, before 61 calls for ‘implementation targets’ which should be reached through the implementation of the ‘global indicator framework for monitoring our progress’.
Item 62 reiterates Addis Abeba, where blended finance was finalised, but with further comment on debt and debt sustainability, item 63 suggests financial integration, first through national frameworks, then an ‘enabling international economic environment’, and finally a full call for ‘enhanced global economic governance’. Item 64 adds the various agreed upon strategies and programme initiatives, before item 65 adds the need for middle-income conutries to step up their game, item 66 adds a call for all nations to… engage in lucrative public-private-partnerships (for business, that is), only to wax lyrical about the business sector in item 67 before item 68 calls for ‘meaningful trade liberalisation’, set to benefit connected insiders - it always does And item 69 reemphasises the need to assist developing countries .through debt relief and restructuring (ultimatly facilitating collateral transfer), before item 70 finally calls for a ‘Technology Facilitation Mechanism’, where yet more civil society organisations will influence the spending of public taxpayer money, ensuring these find their way into private pockets.
And item 70 carries on through -
‘The United Nations inter-agency task team on science, technology and innovation for the Sustainable Development Goals will promote coordination, coherence and cooperation within the United Nations system on science, technology and innovation-related matters, enhancing synergy and efficiency, in particular to enhance capacity-building initiatives. The task team will draw on existing resources and will work with 10 representatives from civil society, the private sector and the scientific community‘
Those CSOs truly are never far away.
‘The online platform will be used to establish a comprehensive mapping of, and serve as a gateway for, information on existing science, technology and innovation initiatives, mechanisms and programmes, within and beyond the United Nations. The online platform will facilitate access to information, knowledge and experience, as well as best practices and lessons learned, on science, technology and innovation facilitation initiatives and policies. The online platform will also facilitate the dissemination of relevant open access scientific publications generated worldwide.‘
The name for a such is an ‘Information Clearinghouse’, and this is a great way to, in effect, censor information.
The next section relates to ‘Follow-up and review‘, and it’s one of the places where the quiet things are said out loud. First off, the objective is to set a target, and then monitor the… general lack of achievement of said. And this is a part of ‘Adaptive Management’ practices, where objectives are updated to reflect what didn’t quite turn out as expected. And all of this will -
‘Operating at the national, regional and global levels, …‘
… apply top-down, in a manner much like that outlined by the Ecosystem Approach.
‘As national ownership is key to achieving sustainable development, the outcome from national-level processes will be the foundation for reviews at the regional and global levels, given that the global review will be primarily based on national official data sources.‘
… with key word being ‘primary’.
‘They will maintain a longer-term orientation, identify achievements, challenges, gaps and critical success factors and support countries in making informed policy choices.‘
Policy decision, driven by a global review, directed through ‘longer-term orientation’. Of course, the entire objective here is sustainable development, consequently the purpose here relate to these SDGs, and the ‘orientation’ relates to the difference in outcome to that expected, especially considering -
‘They will build on existing platforms and processes, where these exist, avoid duplication and respond to national circumstances, capacities, needs and priorities. They will evolve over time, taking into account emerging issues…‘
When something turns out not according to plan, they will rectify through codes, standards, ethics and legislation, and then again monitor outcomes. This is adaptive management, that’s what it is. As for the inclusion of ‘avoid duplication’, do realise this also eliminates any effective oversight, leaving those connected insiders in a prime position to commit grand scale larceny on a global scale. Up next is item 74.g -
‘They will be rigorous and based on evidence, informed by country-led evaluations and data which is high-quality, accessible, timely, reliable and disaggregated…‘
… highly likely relating to the Determinants of Health and equivalents.
Item 74.h adds -
‘They will require enhanced capacity-building support for developing countries, including the strengthening of national data systems and evaluation programmes,‘
… that more capacity is required, utilising (item 75)…
‘The Goals and targets will be followed up and reviewed using a set of global indicators. These will be complemented by indicators at the regional and national levels‘
… ‘indicators’. And what is an ‘indicator’ you might inquire, well, it’s very simple. It’s surveillance data. Biodiversity, for instance, set off with the ‘Aichi Targets’ of which a key component is a set of ‘indicators’, which all relate to global surveillance.
‘The global indicator framework, to be developed by the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goal Indicators, …‘
… continues along this line, before item 76 conclusively drives this home -
‘We will support developing countries, particularly African countries, least developed countries, small island developing States and landlocked developing countries, in strengthening the capacity of national statistical offices and data systems to ensure access to high-quality, timely, reliable and disaggregated data. We will promote transparent and accountable scaling-up of appropriate public-private cooperation to exploit the contribution to be made by a wide range of data, including earth observation and geospatial information, while ensuring national ownership in supporting and tracking progress.‘
Look, they speak of global surveillance. ‘Earth Observation’ relate to GEOSS, of which GeoHealth43 is a public health surveillance component (EO4HEALTH44 is another example), and GEO BON45 and GBIOS46 are examples of biodiversity surveillance - on a global scale. And all of this will be used as input data for Digital Twins, which is evolved General Systems Theory for sakes of forward prediction.
The ‘National level’ clarifies… well, much the same, really. Stakeholder participation inclusive of CSOs, and at the ‘Regional level’, sovereign nations are encouraged to share experiences, before the ‘Global level’ emphasises a high-level forum for the promotion of ‘system-wide coherence and coordination’, which will relate to the ‘assessment of progress, achievements and challenges’, not forgetting the ‘global indicator framework’ (global surveillance), which should be used to ‘strengthen the science-policy interface’ (fuse the best available scientific consensus straight into policy), before once again hammering home that stakeholders should always be inclusive of those CSOs, and that the forum should ‘mobilise further actions to accelerate implementations’.
Item 88 adds -
‘We also stress the importance of system-wide strategic planning, implementation and reporting in order to ensure coherent and integrated support to the implementation of the new Agenda by the United Nations development system.‘
… that this initiative ultimately is global, policy coherent, and requires top-down strategic planning though it frames this through the term ‘systems-wide’… which, considered as part of a section on the ‘Global level’ cannot really be misinterpreted.
… and that’s it! 41 pages of Aesopian language deciphered! And while that might be somewhat the investment of time to read, imagine the quantity of time invested in wrapping your head around this monumentally, intentionally deceitful garbage in the first place. I was desperate to write this, starting already around January of this year, but every attempt I made only made clear what an absolute mountain of material there still was to cover. Thankfully, one of the final, major posts is now complete, and my to-do now only lists 4 major ‘must-write’ posts before we can start moving in the direction of who-dunnit - and how.
And though the SDGs do deserve a summary… that will have to wait for a rainy day. It’s been really rather a lot of material to go through in one sitting, and… er… not only does my brain quite simply reject the thought of adding more at this stage, but a separate post would make sense, as there’s more to the story. Because while the adaptive management approach seeks to continuously hone in on the targets stipulated by the 17 SDGs, those goals themselves are not meant to remain static. The SDGs, in short, build on earlier MDGs, probably best thought of as SDG 0.5.
There will be a version 2.0 of the SDGs down the road. In fact, there’s already chatter about SDG 18 relating to ‘Planetary Health’47. Because the primary effort didn’t go into the creation of these goals, no, the primary effort went into etablishing the mechanism, which enabled the SDGs to become reality.
But that, as said, will follow on another day.
All openly discussed in the ''mother of all parliaments.''
https://biologyphenom.substack.com/p/newhouse-of-lordsun-sustainable-development