UN’s “Post-2015 Development Agenda” Morphed from “Agenda 21” http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/55695
The hurried Chinese customer was angry and raising her voice. She was demanding in broken English why the girl behind the cosmetics counter could not understand her long shopping list written in Chinese. “You learn Chinese if you to survive,” she said. The girl’s eyes were brimming with tears at the abusive and rude treatment. I walked away, upset at the unnecessary verbal dress-down. Was the Chinese lady a tourist or an employee of the 247 plus Chinese free trade zones that have sprung up around the country? I am not sure which is going to be worse, being under the boot of communist China who is buying more and more of our debt, land, buildings, military equipment, food producers such as Smithfield Foods, GM (dubbed “General Tso’s Motors”), the ideology of Islam, or United Nation’s global governance? All spell potential trouble for what is left of our freedom. On May 30, 2013 a letter was sent to the Secretary-General of the United Nation, signed by the Presidents of Indonesia, Liberia, and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, David Cameron. This letter was informing Ban Ki-moon, the Secretary-General that the task he assigned to a panel of twenty-seven individuals has been completed, and the report published.
The distinguished panelists represented Indonesia, Liberia, UK, USA, Cuba, Benin, India, Sweden, Mexico, Colombia, Japan, Yemen, Republic of Korea, Germany, Mozambique, Kenya, Russian Federation, Nigeria, Latvia, Timor, Netherlands, Jordan, France, Brazil, Turkey, and China. Representing the United States was John Podesta, chair of the Center for American Progress and of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, advocates for progressive policy. The task was to decide United Nations’ Post-2015 Development Agenda. The 69-page report is entitled, “A New Global Partnership: Eradicate Poverty and Transform Economies through Sustainable Development.” The U.N. Agenda 21 marches on. Progressives do not give up in spite of the Rio +20’s failure.
The financial contributors were the governments of Colombia, Denmark, Germany, Indonesia, Japan, Liberia, Mexico, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, the Ford Foundation, Havas, and the Hewlett Foundation. The report was developed in consultation with the United Nations Development Group (UNDG), the UN Global Compact, Regional Commissions, scientists, the academic community through Sustainable Development Solutions Network, 5,000 civil society organizations, and 250 chief executive officers of major corporations. A complete list can be found at www.post2015hlp.org. The main goal of this new agenda is to end poverty through sustainable development in one generation, by 2030 to be exact. Sustainable development as the United Nations envisions it includes development ofgood governance as they see it, rule of law, free speech, open and accountable government. Sounds lofty, however, should governments be accountable to the United Nations?
The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) of 13 years ago did not include the economic, social, and environmental aspects of sustainable development—it did not promote sustainable patterns of consumption and production and left out guidelines for consumption and production. Most importantly, climate change was not addressed. Substituting global warming for climate change might pass the scrutiny. The UN report says on page 5, “Scientific evidence of the direct threat from climate change has mounted.” There is no such scientific evidence. On the contrary, U.N.‘s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the main purveyor of global warming/climate change said, “There is insufficient evidence to determine whether trends existed in small-scale phenomena such as tornadoes and hail.” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said,‚Ä¶a discernible trend was not present over the past 30 years, and that, unless new findings suggest otherwise,‚Ä¶ a claim to attribution (to human impacts) is thus problematic.”
” (Preliminary Assessment of Climate Factors Contributing to the Extreme 2011 Tornadoes, July 8, 2011) The Congressional Report Service released a 26-page report on May 22, 2013, “Severe Thunderstorms and Tornadoes in the United States.” Peter Folger, Specialist in Energy and Natural Resources Policy, said, “It is not clear whether changes to climate over the past half-century have increased the frequency or intensity of thunderstorms and tornadoes, or whether climate changes were responsible for the intense and destructive tornado activity in 2011, or for the extremely destructive EF-5 tornado that struck Moore, Oklahoma, on May 20, 2013.” Damages seem to be increasing, similar to trends for other natural disasters in part due to changing populations, demographics, weather-sensitive infrastructure, and better and faster reporting. The Weather Channel lists the top 10 deadliest tornadoes, some of which have occurred long before the industrial revolution. The UN’s “Post-2015 Development Agenda” report continues,
“The stresses of unsustainable production and consumption patterns have become clear, in areas likedeforestation, water scarcity, food waste, and high carbon emissions. Losses from natural disasters—including drought, floods, and storms—have increased at an alarming rate.” Because the UN bureaucrats know better, here is what they have proposed, following conferences in New York, London, Monrovia, and Bali. In New York, they have discussed social justice, better accountability, variables of poverty, and end to violence against women. The fact that women are treated like chattel and second class citizens in some cultures was not an issue. In Monrovia, they talked about economic transformation, social inclusion, and business for sustainable development.
In Bali, they agreed on a “global partnership for a people-centered and planet-sensitive agenda, based on the principle of common humanity” by regulating global financial andcommodity markets and by managing the world’s consumption and production patterns in more sustainable and equitable ways.” I translate this as re-distribution of wealth in the name of saving mother Earth, from “evil” capitalists to third world nations by telling us what to consume, what to produce, what to sell, how much, and where. Capitalism is “evil” and global communism must reign supreme with the United Nations at the helm because unelected foreign bureaucrats know better.The entire 69-page document can be found in English at the following linkOne World, One Sustainable Development Agenda, Building Consensus, and Our Vision are touted in the paper. I have no idea who empowered the UN to fundamentally transform our sovereign way of life. Take for example the background research paper, “Sustainable Development and Planetary Boundaries” submitted to Ban Ki-moon in support of the Post-2015 Agenda report.
The authors have determined that planetary boundaries for economic growth involve the rich countries “substantially reduce their standard of living, and developing countries can grow until they converge at the lower income of high-income countries. At that point economic growth would need to stop‚Ä¶. The rich world is lucky to have a reached a high level of income first.” I personally do not call it luck; I call it hard work and entrepreneurship in a free society. Another recommendation was to switch the entire global economy to low-carbon economy, citing the scaremongering and unproven 2012 World Bank data that “the world will likely experience a likely 3-5 degree C increase in temperatures by the end of this century that would expose all countries to catastrophic climate change, including sea level rise, ocean acidification, extreme storms, droughts, floods, crops failures, and the collapse of whole ecosystems.”
Five primary goals are listed in the Executive Summary of the Post-2015 Agenda. “We outline five transformational shifts, applicable to both developed and developing countries alike, including a new Global Partnership as the basis for a single, universal post-2015 agenda that will deliver this vision for the sake of humanity.” This universal agenda (their emphasis) must be driven by:
Leave no one behind United Nations wants to ensure that “everyone must accept their proper share of responsibility” for the ending of poverty. To reach this goal, UN wants to “track progress at all levels of income.” Nobody can be denied “universal human rights and basic economic opportunities, regardless of ethnicity, gender, geography, disability, race, or other status.” Uncle UN is going to make sure that our wealth is evenly distributed across the planet in its global communism vision. 2. Put sustainable development at the core. Developed countries have to adopt “social inclusion” and must reduce “unsustainable consumption” by switching to a green economy and by eradicating poverty for eight billion people by 2030 if the planet is to survive the alarming pace of climate change. Climate has been changing for eons but our brainwashed youth have developed now into the low information adult voters who believe the scaremongering tactics of gloom and doom. 3. Transform economies for jobs and inclusive growth. The developed world must reduce their consumption and must build “diversified economies, with equal opportunities for all.”
” In this utopian view, it is our responsibility that “everyone has what they need to grow and prosper, including access to quality education and skills, healthcare, clean water, electricity, telecommunications, and transport.” We must rapidly urbanize because “cities are the world’s engines for business and innovation.” I wonder how the UN plans to feed 8 billion people living in high density urban areas. Who is going to grow food? 4. Build peace and effective, open and accountable institutions for all. Peace and good governance is a fundamental human right provided through a “transparency revolution.” Where is this governance coming from? Who decides what a transparency revolution is? Who decided that peace and good governance are human rights? 5. Forge a new global partnership. Giving North to South aid is no longer enough—everyone must be fully accountable to Uncle UN for “corruption, illicit financial flows, money laundering, tax evasion, and hidden ownership of assets.” I guess there will be no more off-shore or Swiss Bank accounts for well-off “citizens of the world.” Trade must be fair, technology must be “transferred and diffused,” and financial stability must reign supreme. Who will police compliance and how will non-compliance be punished? Would technology development occur if it must be “shared” for free?
Multinational corporations must pay taxes fairly to the countries in which they operate. The financial system must be heavily regulated. This Post-2015 Agenda is counting on the world’s savings of $18 trillion. “Finance will come not just from aid but private capital, major pension funds, mutual funds, sovereign wealth funds, private corporations, development banks, and other investors.” (p. 12) The five goals will be considered achieved for “all relevant income and social groups” after a “rigorous monitoring system.” Who is going to be in charge of this monitoring system and who will conduct it? This entire UN report, “The Post-2015 Development Agenda” is still UN Agenda 21’s Sustainable Development morphed from old into new, revamped talking points of arresting economic growth, re-distribution of wealth, and de-developing the United States, the one stumbling block in the path of UN’s global communist governance. The tiresome talking points are still based on debunked man-made global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions. If EU flatulence tax did not work, perhaps Mark Steyn’s suggestion would work that scientists should genetically engineer non-flatulent cows. The methane gas problem would be solved and ergo, the planet would survive. I don’t want to burst anybody’s transformational bubble, however, having lived under both socialist and capitalist economies, and under freedom of speech vs. communist tyranny, I would choose capitalism (not the crony variety) any day.