“Welcome to 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy and life has never been better.” Ida Auken, Dutch Member of Parliament, Dec. 12, 2016.
Have you been shocked by recent changes in our schools that promote a sexualized curriculum for very young children? Have you been dismayed by the rush to end the use of fossil fuels that has caused power shortages, blackouts, and a rise in gas prices? Did you know that these events were planned and not caused by mere incompetence on the part of the federal government?
Each of these events was planned and documented by the United Nations (UN) in their initiative Agenda 2030 back in 2015. We are now seeing the implementation of Agenda 2030 in our country, in the form of laws and executive orders that at first glance don’t appear to make sense, until one reads this document.
Details of Agenda 2030 can be found in the document, “Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” (Download HERE.) All quotes of the Agenda itself within this article are from this report.
Agenda 2030 has been adopted by all 193 UN member nations, and many of these nations, including Germany, the UK, France, Canada, and the United States, have been working hard to implement it. In addition to controlling what our children are taught and the types of energy we can use, this agenda outlines a plan to reduce the sovereignty of nations (called “States” in the report), and to convince them to give this sovereignty to the UN in order to “save the planet” from destruction by global warming.
Why should they do this? Because according to Agenda 2030, along with poverty, global warming is defined as the greatest threat facing the world today. If you thought the war between Ukraine and Russia with disconcerting media reports, destructive drones, and the potential use of nuclear arms, or the alarming encroachment on human rights by China, or a decline in national morals were the biggest issues we face today, this document disagrees.
Agenda 2030 also has a lofty-sounding goal: to end all poverty worldwide, by creating “equity” between wealthy nations and less developed nations. This is a document that calls for what amounts to basically a form of global socialism.
But historically the division of resources between the “wealthy” and those with less wealth historically has failed time and again. One needs only to look at the former communist block nations (such as the former East Germany and Poland), Russia, and more recently, Venezuela, to see the results of “equitable wealth distribution” on a nation’s economy: to date, this has resulted in an increase in poverty instead of its reduction throughout the populations that embrace it (willingly, or unwillingly).
This article is the first in a four-part series.
Article 1 will address the history of Agenda 2030, and then look at its preamble, where it states its main goals, and then Goal 1, to end extreme poverty. In part 2, I look at Goal 2 to end hunger and malnutrition. Part 3 will cover proving provide universal health coverage. In part four, I will spend time specifically on Goals 4 and 5 which cover child education, and gender equality. Finally, in part five, I will be addressing Goals 6, 7 and 8, which cover water sanitation, energy, and promoting sustained economic growth.
A Brief History
To understand Agenda 2030, it helps to look at its precursor: Agenda 21.
UN Agenda 21 was adopted at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro. During this conference, 178 world leaders signed their agreement to this plan, whose goal was to reduce the consumption of oil, gas, and coal, and to promote what was called “sustainable development”. Sustainable development was defined as development done in a way to ensure that resources will be available for future generations. As the dangers of global warming continued to come to the forefront in the media, in 1997 the Paris Accord asked leaders around the world to sign and agree to limit the increase in global warming to below 2 degrees C, by reducing greenhouse gas emissions (particularly CO2 and methane)1.
This is still a stated goal of Agenda 2030.
What was the problem with this goal then and now?
Well, first of all, the United Nations instructed member States to reduce emissions and even provided community-level training to implement emission-reduction programs, but in the stark absence of a workable, well-thought-out transition plan that would integrate adequate sustainable fuel sources into the infrastructure. Naturally, this leads to energy crises especially in times of war or natural disaster (as is occurring in Europe right now with the Russian-Ukraine war, causing citizens in Germany to begin cutting down trees to prevent freezing this winter), destruction of a nation’s economy, and forcing a nation to choose between “going green” and “going broke”.
“Save the Earth” or “Control the Earth”?
There is also the problem of buy-in to climate change – the premise for the extreme urgency to go along with the Agenda since according to the Agenda our planet will not survive otherwise. But many scientists and legislators consider climate change as the media portrays it to be questionable.
How questionable? Well, there are plenty of scientists in the fields of climate, geophysics, astronomy and biogeography, among others, who feel that the “impending doom” of planet earth due to climate change touted in the media is simply not true. They feel that this is an attempt to take what is an extremely complex system with numerous factors, and reduce it to only one simplistic, and quite inaccurate one: carbon dioxide levels.
In fact, just a few decades ago, scientists became aware when looking at tree rings, ice core samples, and historical records that what we have experienced in recent years is not “global warming” or even unusual climate change, but natural variations in the climate. “Climactic variation has occurred over the millennia, with climate researchers in various scientific disciplines reporting what has been named the Medieval Warm Period (roughly between 1100 AD and 1375 AD), with temperature highs that were well above what we experience now, and a Little Ice Age (ranging from approximately 1450 AD to 1850). (Angier, Natalie. “In unexpected places, clues to ancient and future climate: Warming? Tree rings say not yet.” New York Times, 12/1/1992).
And having a carbon footprint is not creating a modern “climate hell” of unbridled wildfires, hurricanes, and other disasters, as the media would have us believe. Climatologist Roy Spencer has said, “Global warming and climate change, even if it is 100% caused by humans, is so slow that it cannot be observed by anyone in their lifetime. Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts and other natural disasters have yet to show any obvious long-term change. This means that in order for politicians to advance policy goals (such as forcing expensive solar energy on the masses or creating a carbon tax) they have to turn normal weather disasters into ‘evidence’ of climate change.” (Spencer, R. “Hillary Clinton boards the climate crisis train to nowhere.” Forbes, 10/25/2016).
Since not all legislators believe in climate change, or that the earth will be destroyed within the next 10, 20, or 30 years, as has been predicted regularly since the 1980s( I remember hearing this on television several times over the decades when I was younger!), some member nations have been slower to adopt the goals of Agenda 2030 than others, since doing so would basically impoverish their populations. They have resisted what in essence amounts to the destruction of their national economy, which implementing all of this agenda would cause.
The less than positive effect of adopting climate change goals on national economies has been acknowledged by Klaus Schwab, head of the World Economic Forum, who presumably understands well what “going green” would do to economies: “Transitioning to clean energy initially equates to what economists call a ‘negative supply shock’ that will trigger energy price inflation (as already made evident in the fall of 2021). Moving forward, the absolute necessity to put a global price on carbon emissions will contribute further to energy inflation” (Schwab, Klaus; Dr. Ing.; Thierry Malleret, 2022. The Great Narrative: The Great Reset Book 2). So yes, according to these financial experts, the inflation we are currently experiencing is not enough. They feel that we need to punitively tax nations that produce too much carbon, regardless of the negative economic impact.
Because the UN’s goal in proposals such as Agenda 2030 is to protect the planet and its fragile ecosystems and provide a livable planet for future generations, it has proposed carbon emission standards be held so that the increase in global average temperature is held to “below 2+ degrees Celsius”. But some who agree with this proposal believe that this can only be achieved by a complete shutdown, as seen during the pandemic. In March 2022, Forbes published a stunning report by Carlie Porter that shows the priorities of those who want to achieve the Agenda 2030 goals: “World Needs Equivalent of Pandemic Lockdown Every Two Years to Meet Paris Carbon Emission Goals,” Forbes, 3/3/2022.
But if a nation’s economy is destroyed, and it can no longer afford the quite pricey green technologies required to implement this agenda, what positive effect could this have on the planet in the long run?
The two main stated goals of Agenda 2030 are in direct contradiction with each other: end world poverty and hunger, and stop the use of fuels that create a carbon footprint (currently, in the absence of affordable alternative fuels that are equally energy efficient). Because draconian measures to reduce carbon emissions will shut down the supply chain and create poverty and hunger, not to mention those on limited incomes being unable to heat or air-condition their living space due to exponential rises in energy prices, as we have seen in recent months around the world.
Main Points of the Preamble and First Three Goals
So what does Agenda 2030 actually say?
In the preamble, the primary goal of Agenda 2030 is stated clearly: “to eradicate poverty in all its forms” which the agenda calls “the greatest global challenge.” The preamble contains a call “to end hunger everywhere, to combat inequalities within and among countries; to build peaceful, just and inclusive societies, to protect human rights and promote gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls, and to ensure the lasting protection of the planet and its natural resources.”
Each of the above goals is noteworthy, but questions immediately come to mind such as:
· At what price will these goals be implemented? Because these goals will cost money, and who will pay for them?
· How exactly will these goals be achieved?
· What will be the impact on society as they are implemented?
· What kind of mechanism would be required to get “all nations” to agree to implement them at more than simply a nod of assent?
Agenda 2030 also resolves to “create conditions for sustainable, inclusive and sustained economic growth, shared prosperity and decent work for all” with “no one left behind.” (Remember Biden using that phrase? It comes straight from this Agenda).
Now add to the mix “universal peace in larger freedom” and you have a huge challenge to implement this agenda. But the UN has great faith in its member nations to do the right thing, as the Agenda calls for “all countries and all stakeholders, acting in collaborative partnership” to implement the plan within this agenda (in essence, this would require them to form a global cooperative framework to implement it).
At this point, it is clear that Agenda 2030 is either incredibly idealistic or terribly, intentionally corrupt (you choose which option you believe describes the unelected politicians who wrote it), since there is no reference to the checks and balances needed to prevent bribery, corruption, and squandering of funds and technologies if they are “donated” by wealthier nations as the Agenda proposes.
The Agenda then describes 17 “Sustainable Development Goals” (SDGs) with 169 associated targets to be achieved by 2030.
Goal 1
· Goal 1 is to end extreme poverty “for all people everywhere” ( with poverty defined as living on less than $1.25 US a day) by implementing:
o social protection systems and measures for all,
o ensuring equal rights to economic resources,
o access to basic services, land ownership, new technology, financial services (including microfinance), and
o supporting investment in less developed areas.
I have a degree in social work (MSW) and I totally support social protection and social justice for all, and access to basic services. But the problem with this goal is that it does not define how this is to be done.
Instead, later in the document, it indicates that wealthier nations should be willing to share a percentage of their GDP with less developed nations (I will discuss this in more detail in part four).
Without a clearly defined methodology and no checks or oversight for this goal, it leaves it wide open to interpretation as to how this is to be accomplished. How are the poor around the world going to receive access to basic services? How is equal rights to economic resources to be accomplished (other than by worldwide socialism, which while not stated openly, appears to underlie the ideology in this Agenda)? Who will provide oversight to prevent the corruption and bribery that in the past have been rampant when funds are sent to less developed countries?
(Think “Oil for Food” and other previous UN programs when the temptation to take funds in a self-serving manner was irresistible, as described by M. Pierce in his book documenting UN administrative corruption, At the Core and Robert Adolph, a former UN Security Advisor, in his autobiographical book, Surviving the United Nations, 2109, New Academia Publishing).
The issue with Goal 1, and the other goals, is that many of the citizens in the nations that have adopted Agenda 2030 are completely unaware of what it says, or the potential impact on social and economic infrastructure that it could cause. This agenda has been adopted by representatives at the UN without discussion or an opportunity to vote on it by those most impacted by it: the citizens of the member nations.
Individuals we have never voted for have adopted this agenda that many of us have never heard of (unless we regularly read Foreign Affairs or UN reports). Is this what we want? And what can we do to have our thoughts on this Agenda heard?
It is important to become aware of this and other agendas that are being implemented without discussion outside of the halls of the UN, agendas that drive certain political platforms both nationally and internationally. Only then can we bring our concerns to our elected representatives. My goal is to help inform you, the reader, on this one, with the hope that this will create discussion and a desire to ask for greater accountability from those representing our nation in the halls of the United Nations.
This is part 1 of a four-part series. In Part 2, I will discuss Goal 2 of Agenda 2030: ending hunger and malnutrition.
