How are the UN Sustainability Goals Going? Goal 12 of 17.
Tim O’Connor – Center for the Preservation of Humanity
5/7/2022
The seventeen United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are the goals of the Great Reset. The SDGs were adopted in 2015 by United Nations’ Department of Economic and Social Affairs. The cover for the SDGs were that they would provide relief for disabled peoples by 2030 according to Agenda 2030. To fully understand Agenda 2030, a review of Agenda 21 should be undertaken, which I will not do here. In this article I will focus on the 12th SDG:
Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns
In order to find out about how products are used, those products need to be able to be tracked. In order to track certain things, chips connected to the Internet of Things (IoT) will be used. The United Nations and their friends want to track everything and have had success with some of the tracking they desire. Clothes are chipped, water and power are metered by ‘smart’ meters, household appliances are ‘smart,’ and there is a lot of talk about putting nanotech trackers in food. The 11 targets for goal 12 are:
“12.1 Implement the 10-year framework of programmes on sustainable consumption and production, all countries taking action, with developed countries taking the lead, taking into account the development and capabilities of developing countries
“12.2 By 2030, achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources
“12.3 By 2030, halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels and reduce food losses along production and supply chains, including post-harvest losses
“12.4 By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle, in accordance with agreed international frameworks, and significantly reduce their release to air, water and soil in order to minimize their adverse impacts on human health and the environment
“12.5 By 2030, substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling and reuse
“12.6 Encourage companies, especially large and transnational companies, to adopt sustainable practices and to integrate sustainability information into their reporting cycle
“12.7 Promote public procurement practices that are sustainable, in accordance with national policies and priorities
“12.8 By 2030, ensure that people everywhere have the relevant information and awareness for sustainable development and lifestyles in harmony with nature
“12.a Support developing countries to strengthen their scientific and technological capacity to move towards more sustainable patterns of consumption and production
“12.b Develop and implement tools to monitor sustainable development impacts for sustainable tourism that creates jobs and promotes local culture and products
“12.c Rationalize inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption by removing market distortions, in accordance with national circumstances, including by restructuring taxation and phasing out those harmful subsidies, where they exist, to reflect their environmental impacts, taking fully into account the specific needs and conditions of developing countries and minimizing the possible adverse impacts on their development in a manner that protects the poor and the affected communities”
I’m going to cover these one by one.
“12.1 Implement the 10-year framework of programmes on sustainable consumption and production, all countries taking action, with developed countries taking the lead, taking into account the development and capabilities of developing countries[.]”
By 2021, 27 countries worldwide have implemented policies which are targeted towards implementing the United Nations vision of sustainable consumption and production. Notable nations which have done so include the United States, India, China, Germany, and the UK.
The 10-year Framework of Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and Production (10YPF) can be found here – go read it. This document was written based on Agenda 21. Within this 10 year plan is contained “developed countries taking the lead” (pony up the welfare payments) to accomplish abolishing whatever is deemed unsustainable. In order to achieve the goals of 10YPF, the globally common vision:
“(i) Supports sustainable, inclusive and equitable global growth, poverty eradication and shared prosperity; (ii) Addresses basic needs and brings a better quality of life; (iii) Enhances the ability to meet the needs of future generations and conserves, protects and restores the health and integrity of the Earth’s ecosystems; (iv) Promotes gender equality and the active participation of groups including, inter alia, women, children and youth, indigenous peoples and those living in the most vulnerable situations; (v) Reduces the use of hazardous materials and toxic chemicals and the generation of wastes, such as non-biodegradable materials and the emission of pollutants; (vi) Protects natural resources and promotes a more efficient use of natural resources, products and recovered materials; (vii) Promotes life cycle approaches, including resource efficiency and sustainable use of resources, as well as science-based and traditional knowledge-based approaches, cradle to cradle and the 3R concept (reduce, reuse and recycle) and other related methodologies, as appropriate; (viii) Promotes the creation of new economic opportunities for all countries, with particular attention to developing countries; (ix) Promotes a competitive, inclusive economy delivering full and productive employment and decent work for all and fostering efficient social protection systems; (x) Serves as a tool to support the implementation of global sustainable development commitments, the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals and the implementation of targets and goals agreed under relevant multilateral environmental agreements [emphasis mine].”
Not only is this calling for the adoption of other goals as one of this document’s goals to make them mutually reinforcing, but, the bold parts show exactly how little the stakeholders of the UN and the UN itself thinks about normal, everyday, people. The first bold passage is the UN stating their desire to enforce Gaia theory.
The second is showing the UN’s proclivity to use gender as whatever social construct (not a biological reality) they deem most fit to meet their needs.
The third bold passage is referring to the UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child and the destruction of parental rights it entails.
The fourth passage in bold text refers back to the idea that all things consumed; stereos, cellphones, sheets, food, water, electricity, income, and everything else be tracked, monitored, and directed to the appropriate usage for sustainability purposes.
The fifth, and last, passage I highlighted is something that would make Karl Marx blush due to the passage’s intent and the clarity with which it states it – everyone works; everyone’s outcomes will be the same whether they are a specialist in medicine, a telephone representative, a dishwasher, a ‘news’ host at CNN, or a cart corraller at Walmart; and work supports all other work to equalize the outcome of compensation. Guess who gets ahead. The body which collects the ‘taxes’ (confiscation of ‘excess’ income) of the workers in order to equalize the outcomes between them.
The 10YPF plan goes on to repeatedly call on the Marrakech Process (another UN document, which the UN has apparently deleted) to achieve the objectives of this target.
Another, even more demonic plan, will need to be implemented to replace 10YPF in the near future. It was implemented in June, 2012, so the ten years of this garbage will be done in June, 2022. I will look for it, will you help me?
“12.2 By 2030, achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources[.]”
Once more, in order to achieve this a massive surveillance apparatus must be constructed. It is one thing to understand how much aluminum is used to make all the cans needed for a beverage manufacturer over the course of the year. The manufacturer has to buy those cans and any itemized accounting or receipts payable office should immediately be able to gather that data. It is something else entirely to see if the product is used efficiently once that can of beverage is purchased from the store. Some people may recycle it. The consumer could accidentally drop it and watch it roll into the sewer, unopened. The consumer could drink the beverage and the use the can for target practice. Or it could end up in a landfill. This is what the UN wants to get at. In order to get at it; however, the can will need to be tracked somehow and the magic trick the UN really wants to pull off is being able to track that can to the individual consumer to facilitate a technocracy which relies upon the social-credit score.
Worldwide, the number of tonnes of biomass, ‘fossil’ fuels, metal ores, and non-metal ores used per person known as the footprint) in 2000 was 9.3. In 2015 and 2019 it was 12.44 tonnes per person. When the global footprint is compared to GDP, in 2015 it was 1.26 kg/2015 USD and in 2019 it was 1.14kg/2015 USD. The GDP measurement seems to have gone down; however, this is attributed to increases in global GDP – not a smaller footprint, which is what the UN is after here. I am 100% certain, with absolutely no data to back up my claim that in 2020 the retards that monitor this goal at the UN and various other agencies were patting themselves on the back for the great job they did when the footprint actually shrunk in 2020. The only thing is it cost about 20 million additional people starving to death.
When it comes to per capita material usage by country, Africa is the place where the least use occurred in 2019. Also in 2019, Canada topped the list of highest per capita materials usage at 57.05 tonnes per person, followed by Chile, Norway, Surinam, and Mongolia. The United States was at 23.75 tonnes, India at 5.47 tonnes, and China came in at 22.93 tonnes per person in 2019. The entire continent of Africa came in at 5.36 tonnes per person which is really kind of odd, being as though Africa, as a continent, is rich in literally everything – everything except political and social capital, economic success, and peaceful relations between factions within nations. This allows those African nations suffering from those maladies to have their resources raped by foreign interests – regardless of whether or not those interests are based in London, New York, DC, Moscow, Beijing, Shanghai, Tokyo, Copenhagen, Tel Aviv, Riyadh, Dubai, Berlin, Paris, etc….
When material usage is measured against GDP, a different story emerges. Somalia had the highest usage of materials by this metric in 2019 – 33.21 kg/2015 USD. Somalia used 265% more materials by kg per one 2015 USD than second place Chad, 300% more than Mongolia which found itself in third place, 333% more than fourth place Guinea, and 363% more than fifth place Central African Republic in 2019. None of these places seem to produce a whole lot and their GDP’s are tiny. For example, in my experience, the most notable thing that Somalia produces is pirates and refugees who refuse to assimilate and still wipe their behinds with their right hands (I’m not kidding – do not shake a Somalian’s hand – but they will wash their genitals in a sink after using a restroom). Just to be fair, the World Atlas states that Somalia’s agriculture is its biggest industry, followed by livestock keeping, fishing, mining, telecommunications, and travel.
Personally, I have yet to see a single good thing come out of Somalia – I’ve seen tens of thousands of refugees fleeing violence which the United States will apparently never send back home (the war is over), Ilhan Omar is a completely useless pile of crap who derived from a slave trading empire which persisted even AFTER all western buyers stopped showing up, I’ve seen multiple videos of Somalia ‘fishermen’ attempting to board cargo vessels where it went very poorly for them, and I’ve seen the event in Mogadishu where marines were drug around behind a car, attached to a rope. I’ve yet to see an agricultural product from Somalia in any store I have shopped at, a Somalian meat product, or a Somalian fish – but if I ever did, I would skip it because halal is absolute torture – and Somalia, being over 99% Sunni Islam produces all of their food in Mohammad’s debauched version of food production. Maybe, just maybe, Somalia should allow for anything other than Shariah Law – Iran isn’t doing so hot either.
To prove my original point before I went off on why I completely disfavor Somalia, the UN states:
“Each year, an estimated one third of all food produced – equivalent to 1.3 billion tonnes worth around $1 trillion – ends up rotting in the bins of consumers and retailers, or spoiling due to poor transportation and harvesting practices.
“If people worldwide switched to energy efficient light bulbs the world would save US$120 billion annually.
“Should the global population reach 9.6 billion by 2050, the equivalent of almost three planets could be required to provide the natural resources needed to sustain current lifestyles.”
In the first paragraph, the UN is telling you, and me, and everyone else that the only way to be sustainable is to use food produced within a certain distance – say 1,000 miles. The closest pineapple grown to Sioux Falls outside of a greenhouse is in the tropics and there are only two tropical states in the US, Hawaii and Florida, about 3,650 miles and 1,500 miles, respectively. So no more pineapples in South Dakota and anywhere up north. Actually, and citrus fruit would be severely restricted.
To really drive this point home, ask yourself, where is coffee grown at? On the sides of mountains in tropical zones. No coffee will be had in the northern latitudes should the UN get their way.
‘Energy efficient’ light bulbs blink at you. If this blinking is tuned down to the levels your brain frequencies occur at, you may hear sounds and see images. Likewise, ‘energy efficient’ light bulbs are able to cause seizure activity at certain frequencies.
The third paragraph here deals with population growth and an attempt by the demonic United Nations to scare all of us into thinking that population growth must be avoided at all costs. This dude named Malthus proposed that increased populations would result in massive deaths due to starvation back in the late 1700’s. It never happened, but this other guy, Paul H Ehrlich, wrote a book called The Population Bomb which predicted massive numbers of humans dying of starvation back in the 1970’s and that never happened either. Malthus, Ehrlich, and other have continuously predicted this mass starvation event based on food production during normal years not being adequate to feed humans. The UN, not a finite human being with an expiration, has picked up this line of thinking (titled Malthusian) and written the third paragraph I have quoted.
In the third paragraph here, the UN is promising that everyone is going to die unless they dictate, and unless governments follow those dictates, that no one can have anything, the UN and their friends control all consumption, and everything that is available to be used is public and rented. Everything the UN wants to do by this paragraph means that we are all landless, automobile-less, and possession-less (including, technically, homeless) – but we can rent those things. The UN isn’t telling you that their UBI payments will not pay for any of that, they seek to monitor every usage or any resource in live time by individual, and your participation in this lifestyle will be contingent upon your social-credit score which will determine whether you can live in one of their coffin apartments or in the woods. The only use fear – too many people living at too affluent a lifestyle will end in the death of everyone. This wasn’t the case in Malthus’ time, nor Ehrlich’s, but it is now, somehow.
Not only that, but you won’t even be able to drink coffee. (I love coffee, just so you know).
“12.3 By 2030, halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels and reduce food losses along production and supply chains, including post-harvest losses[.]”
The United Nations seeks to reduce food waste from any cause – whether it be from bugs living in corn kernels or because people don’t eat it fast enough. I’m all for using what you have. But the important part is being able to replace what you have used. Being able to replace what we have used is not something that is currently amenable to human life – food is up a huge amount and gas is up even more. So it’s even more important that food is used for consumption – it costs too much to replace it.
The UN has a chart which tells us that in 2019 in Nigeria, 511.4 pounds of food was wasted per person. This is equal to 51.4 million tons of wasted food. Per capita, Bahrain wasted 374.8 pounds of food in 2019. 264.6 pounds were wasted per person on earth in 2019 according to the UN. This equates to 1.89 trillion pounds of food – 947 million tons. To put this in a little bit of perspective, in 2020 China, alone, produced 64.865 million metric tons of tomatoes in 2020 – 71.5 million tons.
Should we, the world, do a better job with this – yes. Should the world do it because of the because the UN tells us to – absolutely not. It makes me want to purposefully waste food just to spite the UN’s decrees. But I won’t do that – food is too expensive. Should the people of the world start eating closer to 100% of the food they have available to eat – the world would be able to support a much greater population.
In order to ensure accurate results (I am highly suspicious of the UN numbers) the UN will need to start chipping food. By chipping I mean putting nanotechnology inside of the food to see what happens to it. Does it get eaten, does it rot, or does it get thrown away, is sought after information by the technocrats at the UN, as well as the answers to who eats the food – a child, the buyer, a spouse, a friend, a neighbor, an animal? The UN wants to know. And to know this information, the UN thinks putting tracking chips into food is just fine.
The UN will start really pushing to implement nanotech enabled food as soon as it possibly can to determine rations for each of us. In the meantime, the UN will continue pointing at food waste as the driver of food shortages and unsustainable food usage.
“12.4 By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle, in accordance with agreed international frameworks, and significantly reduce their release to air, water and soil in order to minimize their adverse impacts on human health and the environment[.]”
To track this one the UN cites four UN documents and the number of countries which have adopted them; the Montreal Protocol (99.8%), the Rotterdam Convention (75.17%), the Basel Convention (60.65%), and the Stockholm Convention (50.27%).
Because of an ominous hole of unknown causes in the ozone layer over Antarctica in the mid-1980’s, the Montreal Protocol was adopted. It was decided that certain refrigerants were the cause and they were banned (chlorofluorocarbons – CFC’s) and halons. In 2016 an amendment was adopted which included CFC replacements like hydrochlorofluorocarbons.
The Rotterdam Convention is one of the monsters which came out of Agenda 21 and deals with chemicals in international trade. 84 chemicals are currently (2019) subjected to this legally binding international agreement. The United States has signed the document; however, the Senate has not ratified it. Regardless of the ratification of it, the President will usually write Executive Orders and issue policy directives to demand compliance anyway.
The Basel Convention allows nations to prohibit other nations from moving hazardous and non-hazardous wastes across their borders. There are provisions which allow the parties to the treaty to decide whether or not environmentally sound waste management policies are in place in the waste destination and to quash the importing nation’s ability to import it. The Convention also makes certain imports and exports of wastes criminal actions. Any nation which is not party to the Convention is forbidden from importing or exporting hazardous wastes (or any other wastes the parties agree should be controlled). The United States signed this one as well and has not ratified it. The US offered some reservations about the treaty in 1996 should the United States ever ratify it.
Persistent Organic Pollutants is covered by the Stockholm Convention. This Convention is another of the monsters which stem from the Hydra known as Agenda 21. Within the Stockholm Convention certain substances are banned from production and their import and export is banned unless the shipment is due to facilitating UN-approved storage procedures. The US signed but has not ratified this treaty either.
As far as the production of these wastes, per capita Kazakhstan produced 9,730.07 kg of hazardous waste in 2019, followed by Kyrgyzstan with 2,043.43 kg, South Africa with 913.47 kg, Russia with 689.64 kg, and Belarus with 218.5 kg. China produced 56.67 kg per person and India 6.32 kg per person in 2019. The United States has no data. The United Nations did this the per capita way to make it seem like Russia and China can take poops that do not stink. In 2019, Russia produced 100.721 billion kilograms of hazardous waste, followed by China with 81.253 billion kg, Kazakhstan (65.5 billion kg), South Africa (53.5 billion kg), Kyrgyzstan (13.7 billion kg), India (8.6 billion kg), and Belarus with 2.1 billion kilograms out of the top five with China and India included.
Wastes which ended up being recycled, included in other waste management, incinerated, or ended up in a landfill in 2020 was reported by some nations. As mentioned, Russia produced over 100 billion kilograms of hazardous waste in 2019. Russia recycled 84,530,000 kg of waste, and had 15,600,000 kg end up in landfills – leaving well over 90% of their waste unaccounted for. China did not report, or I would see how well they did according to the United Nations.
Although the reporting is sparse, the UN also tracks waste sources including agriculture, forestry, and fishing; households; construction; manufacturing; electricity, gas, steam, and air conditioning supply; mining and quarrying, and other. In 2019 Russia was found to have produced 47.66 million metric tonnes of waste from agriculture, forestry, and fishing; 42 million metric tonnes from construction; 296.44 million metric tonnes from manufacturing; 20.18 million metric tonnes from electricity, gas, steam, and air conditioning supply; 7.26 billion metric tonnes from mining and quarrying; and 86.56 million metric tonnes from other sources. This adds up to 7,752.84 million metric tonnes or 7.8 trillion kilograms.
What I am showing you, reader, is that tracking of everything is necessary in order for the UN to get its desires fulfilled. They seek a world in which there is no waste, hazardous or otherwise. To accomplish this, the UN has decided to mark chemicals for non-production because of their toxicity while ignoring other chemicals which are also highly toxic. The UN should not have this ability at all – sovereign states should have the sole discretionary power to determine this. Eventually the UN bodies which hold these Conventions and this Protocol will find its way into food products and run into the World Trade Organization’s Codex Alimentarius which regulates trade in food and food products.
The UN’s goals regarding chemicals and waste are really not going along their lines of meeting their goals and, as such, the UN will seek ways to double down on their objectives, expand their list of banned chemicals, and demand more money to implement their vision.
“12.5 By 2030, substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling and reuse[.]”
The UN is tracking, through reporting by nations and Our World in Data, municipal recycling rates and electronic recycling rates, respectively. Of nations which reported their recycled municipal waste, Thailand came in number one in 2019 at 8.71 million tonnes followed by Singapore, Malaysia, and Hong Kong (2015). Worldwide 17.5% of electronic waste was recycled in 2019 with 31.81% of electronics being recycled in Europe and Northern Americas.
The idea of tracking waste is to use the data to assume consumption in a nation or region or in the world. It’s not recycling the UN is really so concerned about – it is the amount of waste that is coming out of certain places. Of course they want to limit the waste – the UN doesn’t want anyone to have the resources in the first place. No waste of any type represents no things used in the first place. That is what the UN wants – no things in the first place – people can’t ‘waste’ ‘the UN’s’ resources if they never have them in the first place. These resources include the square footage of retail and residential units, air conditioning, automobiles, electronic devices which do not serve a surveillance purpose, food, water, economic opportunities, and – at the end – the ability to live. Yup, the UN wants you dead – they see you and me as useless eaters, useless consumers, and not worthy of their time.
“12.6 Encourage companies, especially large and transnational companies, to adopt sustainable practices and to integrate sustainability information into their reporting cycle[.]”
This target is how the UN plans to hedge their bets. They encourage and bully companies, especially multinational companies, to partner with UN designs and implement the UN’s new social and environmental accounting measures and other sustainability programmes in order to stay in business at all. Other, non multi-national companies follow suit in a combination of adhering to national policies and as a form of corporate virtue signaling. In my opinion, any business which caves to anything the UN says is unneeded and to be avoided. We need to set up our own business which reject ANYTHING the UN suggests.
One way the UN tracks corporate compliance towards UN demands is to track companies which produce sustainability reports. In 2020 the leading countries with businesses creating these stupid sustainability reports were the US (475), Peru (279), UK (212), South Africa (165), and Germany (155). Those 5 nation’s companies represent 38% of the world total.
Another way the UN tracks this is to monitor how many of these companies produce sustainability reports with stakeholder engagement segments, impact assessments the company is not responsible for, supplier and consumer engagement regarding sustainability, where these companies get their resources from and whether or not those source companies are UN-compliant, and measuring and monitoring environmental-intensive metrics like profit per ton of CO2 produced. There were 1,593 of these garbage companies in 2020. The US had 231 of them and Germany had 112 of them in 2020. These companies grew during 2020 and after, while millions of other businesses were deemed non-essential and went out of business.
This target was designed to demand obedience from the top down. If your biggest purchaser is Apple, Microsoft, and Nokia – guess what – their corporate policies will become that businesses corporate policies! I worked at several such businesses the first of which was Certainteed in Shakopee, MN which is owned by Saint Gobain (France, they got their start creating mirrors with the permission of King Louis XIV in 1665), the largest building supplies manufacturer in the world (I made shingles in Shakopee). The other was Henkel which proved to be completely unable to manufacture its products without it’s corporate customers, including Apple and Audi, from demanding Henkel reflect their corporate policies (Henkel produces several different divisions of product lines and the factory in which I worked produced thermal glues which allow for heat dispersion in electronic components – they also produce laundry and soap products like Purex and Dial; they also produced Henkel aircraft and various chemicals for Nazi Germany during WWII).
“12.7 Promote public procurement practices that are sustainable, in accordance with national policies and priorities[.]”
This target is measured by a criteria of six categories:
“Existence of a SPP [Sustainable Public Procurement] policy or action plan; whether the Public procurement legal framework is conducive to SPP implementation; what are the means undertaken to support public procurement practitioners’ practice of SPP; whether specific criteria have been developed to support SPP; whether SPP is monitored; and whether data on SPP implementation is collected.”
Additionally, there are four levels of classification as to how closely different countries implement these policies.
According to the SDG tracker for this target, there are no level four (advanced implementation) nations. There are several level three countries (medium-high implementation), most notably the USA, as well as Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, and Portugal. Level two countries (medium-low implementation) include China, Columbia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Germany, Japan, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Slovenia, South Korea, and Sweden. Those at level one (low-level implementation) were Canada, Cote d’Ivorie, Cyprus, Czechia, Finland, Ireland, New Zealand, Panama, Paraguay, and Uruguay.
Going from one to four – it is likely that with each increasing tier, the costs get higher for furnishing and maintaining any national government’s office equipment, supplies, and consumables, military hardware, governmental software development, and everything else. The whole supply chain will, under the fourth category (should a nation achieve advanced implementation status from the UNEP) need to be designated sustainable. And businesses are working towards that goal:
“Sustainable procurement is not only practiced by public authorities. Many different organizations in the private and non-profit sectors are also leveraging procurement processes to focus on sustainability issues. In so doing, they are seeking to reduce their organizations risks, to encourage sustainability in their value chain as part of their social responsibility and citizenship efforts, and, in some cases, to reduce costs.”
It is a top-down approach to forcing all entities to follow this plan. If you are the CEO of a manufacturer, software developer, or service provider (food, catering, event coordinator, etc…) and you want a government contract; you’d better follow these sustainability guidelines and the deeper it goes, the better. If the company a government does business with is not sustainable, then it is not procuring sustainable products. Under this ruse, the company which a government does business with needs to be sustainable and all the businesses it does business with needs to be sustainable – and continue that chain until you get to raw material extraction…. Everyone else is excluded from participating in governmental affairs. And while there are still many businesses which do not seek to be a part of that government combine – the UN wishes to eliminate those businesses which are non-compliant with their decrees.
“12.8 By 2030, ensure that people everywhere have the relevant information and awareness for sustainable development and lifestyles in harmony with nature[.]”
The UN seems to have been doing double duty on this target by making sure that everyone on earth has been indoctrinated by their lies. Teachers, curricula, student assessments, and national educational policies are the indicators for this target, in order for the UN to see how well sustainability and global citizenship is taught to children and those responsible for instructing children. This is called brainwashing. I personally call this child abuse.
Teacher programs include mainstreamed sustainability and global citizenship topics in many nations to different extents. Those with perfect scores (1.00) are South Korea, Myanmar, France, Bahrain, Brazil, and Romania. Embedding sustainability and global citizenship in curricula only has one nation with a perfect score – Cuba – but France is right behind them with a 0.99. There are 26 perfect-score nations which assess their student’s levels of saturation with this brainwashing agenda. There are 27 perfect-score nations with regards to setting sustainability and global citizenship agendas into education at the national level.
Several of these nations, such as Brazil and Ukraine, have all of their scores over 0.90 meaning they are absolutely destroying their nation’s youth. These nations are demanding a religious belief in Gaia at the behest of the United Nations. The 17 sustainability goals combine to do one thing – destroy individual lives in the name of preserving the earth (this is the same as Gaia). Firmly rooted global citizenship beliefs will result in the annihilation of sovereign borders. The UN wants to be the only game in town and they are targeting children around the world to accomplish their aims. This is a massive child abuse scheme.
“12.a Support developing countries to strengthen their scientific and technological capacity to move towards more sustainable patterns of consumption and production[.]”
In 2019 Bahrain, Paraguay, Uruguay, Georgia, and Laos produced over 7,100 Watts of electricity per capita from renewable resources. How they came about this technology is that it was pretty much demanded to be given to those who don’t have it by the developed world which spent (wasted) a lot of time, money, and resources to create them. Why China thinks it needs to receive handouts from anyone is beyond me. Also, being as though China, and other nations like Iran and North Korea, hate every other nation on earth and, in some instances have vowed to destroy other nations upon the earth, specifically Israel and the United States, it is appalling that Israel or the United States would give them anything.
“12.b Develop and implement tools to monitor sustainable development impacts for sustainable tourism that creates jobs and promotes local culture and products[.]”
The scores the UN gives to nations in regards to sustainable tourism is derived from 11 different tables and the highest scores were given to Australia and Mexico (10/11). The UN uses statistics on inbound tourism expenditures, domestic tourism expenditures, outbound tourism expenditures, internal tourism expenditures, production accounts of tourism industries, domestic supply and internal tourism consumption, employment in tourism industries, water flows, energy flows, greenhouse gas emissions, and solid waste. The first 7 of these metrics are from the Tourism Satellite Account, and the final 4 are from an organization called the System or Environmental and Economic Accounts.
Those last four really don’t measure anything related to tourism itself. But, in nations in which tourism is a big part of their economy, not meeting those last four requirements will result in poorer recommendations as a tourist destination. The United Nations is adept at forcing nations into compliance through hidden metrics, and this is a prime example.
“12.c Rationalize inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption by removing market distortions, in accordance with national circumstances, including by restructuring taxation and phasing out those harmful subsidies, where they exist, to reflect their environmental impacts, taking fully into account the specific needs and conditions of developing countries and minimizing the possible adverse impacts on their development in a manner that protects the poor and the affected communities[.]”
The United Nations is suggesting two things here – raise the costs of fuel sources the UN disfavors and institute a carbon tax or carbon credit scheme. The SDG tracker for this target presents three maps – all having to do with ‘fossil-fuel’ subsidies in both production and consumption. The first map shows the viewer the 2020 subsidies compared to GDP. China came in at 0.19% and the US came in at 0.05%. Libya had the highest rate of subsidies compared to GDP – 16.65%.
The second map shows subsidies per capita in 2020. China payed $19.50 in subsidies for each person , the US payed $26.99, and the highest subsidies per capita were payed in Singapore with $1,434.91. This equates to $28 billion, $8.9 billion, and $8.4 billion, respectively.
The final map displays pre-tax subsidies by nation. China is reported to have spent $28.07 billion, the US, 8.93 billion, and Iran edged out China for the highest amount of pre-tax subsidized ‘fossil fuels’ with $29.64 billion. Worldwide, the UN states $375.10 billion was spent on pre-tax ‘fossil fuel’ subsidies which was a 31% reduction from 2015.
On June 8, 2015, gas reached it’s highest point in the United States at $2.1211 per gallon. A gallon of gas in the United States cost $3.8151 a gallon on May 8, 2022. For this tremendous feat I would like to thank the United Nations and the governments of the world which have decided to go along with their plan to destroy the common individual. A 180% increase in fuel prices is not helping anyone, anywhere – but it is forcing austerity measures inside of households across the world (the United States is not isolated in facing historically high fuel prices). These fuel prices actually affect everything else as well and food prices are soaring, transportation costs are soaring, heating prices are super high, and so is just about everything else. Without fuel, the world stops and, being as though humanity has become accustomed to living the way we do, and billions of us are now disconnected from the land, there really is no going back without billions of people dying in the process.
Apparently the UN is indicating their willingness to watch billions of us die.
If the United States dropped all of their subsidies for ‘fossil fuels’ tomorrow, the price of gas would immediately go up $26.99 dollars per person. If Singapore decided to do the same and their gas prices were suddenly over $1,400 a gallon, I believe there would be some trouble keeping the people pacified. That is what the UN wants apparently – massive unrest and the shutting down of the global economy. In order to build back better everything needs to be destroyed first, and this is a surefire way to destroy it overnight.
The way I see the UN building back better would be to subsidize alternative fuel sources even more heavily than they already are. On top of that debacle, global carbon credits will be issued and used as currency. The UN will give carbon allowances to every human on earth as well as every business and industry and once those allotments are exceeded, fines, imprisonment, and asset forfeiture will be the consequences.
Summary
Ensuring sustainable production and consumption patterns entails the UN setting up a worldwide prison system. The confirmation of my hypothesis is vividly clear with an analysis of the targets and indicators here. The UN could have just said to the world – we hate each and every one of you and are going to destroy your way of life and if you don’t like that, we will imprison and/or murder you. The entire idea behind this goal represents the utter contempt the UN holds towards humanity and their desire rule us.
The most important thing that humanity can do to fight back is to not let these demonic scumbags get hold of our children’s minds in the first place. Should the educational components of this goal ever reach more than 50% of those 25 and under embracing the UN religion of sustainability and global citizenship, then the world will truly be lost to any type of free speech, self-defense, the Westphalian world with its borders and sovereignty, due process, and republican forms of government. Under this type of system, those resisting the will of this half of humanity will be readily murdered because that is what Marxists do, they murder their opponents. We, as humanity, cannot allow these scumbags and their Gaia-driven religions into our schools in the first place and, should those ideas end up in curriculum being taught to our children, those children need to immediately be removed from that dangerous environment. These people are evil.
The UN is also doing it’s level best to destroy any concept of a supernatural God. They are doing this by their replacement theology – the UN sustainability goals. If you feel up to it, go try to talk to any of these lost people about the God of the Bible and the Gaia of the UN and see how the conversation goes – it won’t take long for most of these people to show their butts. The potential of being assaulted is high as well, so be careful if you choose to do this; however, I do think that these conversations need to be had.
Open a Bible and read it. May God Bless You.
All quotes were found at https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal12 unless otherwise documented.