How are the UN Sustainability Goals Going? Goal 14 of 17.
Tim O’Connor – Center for the Preservation of Humanity
5/12/2022
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 14th SDG:
Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development
The Sustainable Development Goals set targets not just for human beings, as we have already seen. They set targets for waste, water, air, and every organism on earth including human beings. The 14th goal sets its sights upon controlling the oceans, lakes, ponds, streams, rivers, and all of the resources and life within them. The 10 targets for goal 14 are:
“14.1 By 2025, prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, in particular from land-based activities, including marine debris and nutrient pollution
“14.2 By 2020, sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts, including by strengthening their resilience, and take action for their restoration in order to achieve healthy and productive oceans
“14.3 Minimize and address the impacts of ocean acidification, including through enhanced scientific cooperation at all levels
“14.4 By 2020, effectively regulate harvesting and end overfishing, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and destructive fishing practices and implement science-based management plans, in order to restore fish stocks in the shortest time feasible, at least to levels that can produce maximum sustainable yield as determined by their biological characteristics
“14.5 By 2020, conserve at least 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, consistent with national and international law and based on the best available scientific information
“14.6 By 2020, prohibit certain forms of fisheries subsidies which contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, eliminate subsidies that contribute to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and refrain from introducing new such subsidies, recognizing that appropriate and effective special and differential treatment for developing and least developed countries should be an integral part of the World Trade Organization fisheries subsidies negotiation
“14.7 By 2030, increase the economic benefits to Small Island developing States and least developed countries from the sustainable use of marine resources, including through sustainable management of fisheries, aquaculture and tourism
“14.a Increase scientific knowledge, develop research capacity and transfer marine technology, taking into account the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission Criteria and Guidelines on the Transfer of Marine Technology, in order to improve ocean health and to enhance the contribution of marine biodiversity to the development of developing countries, in particular small island developing States and least developed countries
“14.b Provide access for small-scale artisanal fishers to marine resources and markets
“14.c Enhance the conservation and sustainable use of oceans and their resources by implementing international law as reflected in UNCLOS, which provides the legal framework for the conservation and sustainable use of oceans and their resources, as recalled in paragraph 158 of The Future We Want”
I’m going to cover these one by one.
“14.1 By 2025, prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, in particular from land-based activities, including marine debris and nutrient pollution[.]”
When I start reading about cleaning up the oceans and preventing them from getting dirty again I always start thinking about Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant which had some issues in March 11, 2011. Because of the earthquake and resultant tsunami, the backup generators failed when the power went out and the plant could not properly shut down. The result, over the next several days were multiple explosions caused by extremely hot materials at the reaction site which caused nuclear material to breach it’s containment. Radiation, at times excessively high, was released into the atmosphere as well as into the Pacific Ocean. This radiation has been found in California starting several week after the accident and has had rather profoundly negative effects on the sea life there.
Part of the issue involved the way the Japanese went about preventing a total meltdown at Fukushima. They put massive amounts of water and boric acid to stop the reaction and to cool the reactor cores. Ultimately they did prevent a total meltdown; however, the water and boric acid used to control the situation is highly radioactive and must itself be contained until it can be treated to remove the radioactive particles from it. According to Britannica the original partial meltdown, multiple explosions, and radioactive particle release into the environment was graded 5-7 by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which is the worst type of nuclear power event. In 2013 about 330 tons of water used for cooling the reactors (there were 4 of them involved) was accidentally released near the Fukushima plant which the IAEA graded a level 3 incident.
In February 2022, the IAEA released a 67 page report titled IAEA Review of Safety Related Aspects of Handling ALPS-Treated Water at TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station. Japan’s idea to rectify the situation is to treat the irradiated water and release it back into the ocean. The IAEA report addresses safety concerns regarding the Japanese plan, which is set to begin in 2023, and continuously release batches of treated water for 30 years. So far the IAEA is pleased with the progression the Japanese have made in their endeavors towards this goal. The plan is to treat the water and test a single sample for any of 64 different radioactive particles. If those particles are not found in concentrations above guidelines, the water will be returned to the sea.
To give an example of one of the irradiated particles Japan needs to get out of the water, we will explore Iodine-129 briefly. According to the IAEA, I-129 has an alpha-particle half life of 15,700,000 years. It will need to be completely scoured out of the water set to be released. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, “[m]ost I-129 in the environment came from nuclear weapons testing. Atmospheric testing in the 1950s and 60s released radioactive iodine to the atmosphere. Iodine-129 has dispersed around the world, and is now found at very low levels in the environment.” Humanity doesn’t need more radioactive iodine in the environment, so the Japanese had better completely eliminate all of these particles.
I share the concerns found in a 2017 article written by Dr. Sircus. I especially share his concerns about the whole incident being covered up. For instance, the World Nuclear Association updated an article in 2018 containing the following quote:
“In 2018 UNSCEAR decided to update the 2013 report to reflect the latest findings. In March 2021, UNSCEAR published its 2020 Report [this link is broken, try this one], which broadly confirms the major findings and conclusions of the 2013 report. The 2020 Report states: ‘No adverse health effects among Fukushima residents have been documented that are directly attributable to radiation exposure from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant accident. The Committee’s revised estimates of dose are such that future radiation-associated health effects are unlikely to be discernible.’”
The UN is telling everyone that there is nothing to see in Fukushima and that there are no long term consequences which result from the partial meld down in Fukushima. I call bullcrap on the UN.
I wrote a lot of words about Fukushima because cleaning nuclear radiation which was absolutely put there by mankind is not an issue in the halls of the UN. Their focus is upon litter at beaches and chlorophyll within the 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone of each counties. Landlocked countries shouldn’t have a real big problem with litter on their beaches because they don’t have beaches. From 2015 to 2020 the UN measured the number of pieces of litter per kilometer of beach and the numbers are much improved, 19,618 to 1,248 pieces. There is still a long way to go to get people to throw their garbage into a waste basket. Especially in places like Ghana, Cuba, and Mexico as well as many others.
Worldwide chlorophyll in the oceans contained within the 200 mile EEZ for countries with borders on seas went from 2.75% to 2.91%, respectively between 2000 and 2019. Increased chlorophyll levels can indicate several things such as changes in water temperatures and changes in cloud cover according to globalchange.gov. The concentrations of chlorophyll in the oceans are the result on microscopic organisms called phytoplankton being present which is the backbone of marine life. These tiny creatures serve as meals for a wide variety of sea life which is then eaten by other sea life and the food chain continues on and on. Phytoplankton are able to convert solar energy into organic matter, which truly is amazing, blessed be God for creating this amazing earth and everything on it.
If phytoplankton levels rise, as was mentioned above, there can be several causes, including nothing eating them, which was not mentioned. Why would they not be eaten? One explanation could be that the sea-life dependent upon phytoplankton (the nutrients of the sea mentioned in this target) aren’t able to survive alpha particle radiation from nuclear explosions. Perhaps phytoplankton are able to survive the radiation assault. This scenario would result in a rise in phytoplankton. Depending upon why there was a phytoplankton population boom over this time period needs to be understood, yet it also represents a potential for increased fish populations, bigger fish within those populations, and a wider variety of sea life which thrives in the oceans of the world.
We are right back at the cover-up by asking a few simple questions which every human on earth should be asking. The big question is what did the radiation do to the sea life in the Pacific Ocean? Another question, which I can, have, and will continue to answer is why would the UN track nutrient pollution by correlating that pollution with phytoplankton populations. Oh, because they want you dead. You knew I was going to write that though….
“14.2 By 2020, sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts, including by strengthening their resilience, and take action for their restoration in order to achieve healthy and productive oceans[.]”
In 2016, Belize was the only nation on earth using ecosystem-based approaches to manage marine areas, which is the way the UN tracks progress towards this target. In 2021 there were 18 nations doing this.
According to Science Direct, ecosystem-based approaches of management includes 15 principles and is summed up as nations which have incorporated into that endeavor efforts to:
“Consider Ecosystem Connections, Appropriate Spatial & Temporal Scales, Adaptive Management, Use of Scientific Knowledge, Integrated Management, Stakeholder Involvement, Account for Dynamic Nature of Ecosystems, Ecological Integrity & Biodiversity, Sustainability, Recognise Coupled Social-Ecological Systems, Decisions reflect Societal Choice, Distinct Boundaries, Interdisciplinarity, Appropriate Monitoring, and Acknowledge Uncertainty.”
If I wrote about each of these, this article would run over 30,00 words. Suffice it to say, the writers of the paper go on to declare a comprehensive definition of how they think the definition of an ecosystem-based management program should read:
“Ecosystem-based management is an interdisciplinary approach that balances ecological, social and governance principles at appropriate temporal and spatial scales in a distinct geographical area to achieve sustainable resource use. Scientific knowledge and effective monitoring are used to acknowledge the connections, integrity and biodiversity within an ecosystem along with its dynamic nature and associated uncertainties. EBM recognizes coupled social-ecological systems with stakeholders involved in an integrated and adaptive management process where decisions reflect societal choice.”
Ecosystem-based management is not well defined and is expandable. It quickly develops from a system to manage an ecosystem into societal controls dictated by regulatory boards which are unaccountable to the governments they serve. The United Nations loves this approach to governance because legislators can pass the laws and the regulatory bodies created by those laws to monitor, ‘ameliorate’, and enforce not the law, are quickly expanded through regulations to encompass areas in which the law was never intended to include.
There is a reason that most of the places which have adopted this approach are located in eastern Asia and several draconian nations in Oceania – they have no respect for people, individual freedom, nor do any of these nations have qualms with destroying people’s lives. Singapore and China, in particular, are completely totalitarian, the former enforcing totalitarianism through technocracy, and the latter through Communistic technocracy.
Wake up, or that will be all of our futures, even in the United States and Russia, which have, historically, refused and resisted global measures which accomplish such goals. The goal I’m referring to is not the 14th UN goal, its the UN’s goal of enslaving and murdering the vast majority of the people in every nation as well as destroying the national sovereignty of every nation it is able to, the US and Russia included. Why do you think there is talk of a general nuclear war between these two nations and their proxy nations supporting them? There are too many people in the US and Russia which recognize these threats and will respond to it appropriately. This UN target is but one of the minor threats in the grand scheme of things, but a threat nonetheless.
“14.3 Minimize and address the impacts of ocean acidification, including through enhanced scientific cooperation at all levels[.]”
There is a climate station on Aloha, Hawaii (a volcanic region) which monitors, among other things, the pH of the ocean near it. Acids are anything rated 7 and below and bases are anything greater than 7. Seawater has a pH of 8 normally. January 20, 1994 saw the acidity of seawater at a pH of 8.15. On 11/5/2019 it was at 8.03 pH. This value fluctuates quite a bit with the seasons as is seen through the chart.
Being as though the hemispheric waters and air do not really integrate with one another, why are these measurements not also taken in someplace like Madagascar, or Cape Horn to determine legitimacy? I digress from this line of questioning and will instead defer to the idiocy of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) who have declared pH levels which are logarithmic meaning the 0.1% decrease in pH levels represents a 30% decrease. I’m fine with that. What I am not fine with is their demands to curtail CO2 emissions because of carbonates in the oceans.
According to the documents already mentioned, sea water was well above a logarithmic pH of 8. It has since fallen to a lower pH level, still over 8, indicating an acidification process occurring in the oceans for which the causes are not actually known. Atmospheric CO2 is not the only cause of ocean pH changing. Natural process affect this as well; however, since natural processes are not well understood, mankind’s activities as a whole is the one academics, politicians, and environmental whack-jobs blame and all ocean acidification of the oceans is blamed on humanity. I call bs on this claim as well.
The point is that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere, human kind has contributed almost nothing to the total CO2 emitted into the atmosphere, the oceans are absorbing this additional CO2, and the oceans are becoming more acidic at the surface of Aloha, Hawaii as a result. The island nation of Hawaii sits upon the largest mountain on the earth. Mauna Loa, where the monitoring for worldwide pH levels as well as CO2 levels is gathered is a gigantic volcano system which releases all kinds of things from it including CO2 as well as hydrogen which causes ocean acidification. Do you leave near a beach? Please, start taking pH readings from your beach, it cannot be less accurate than the readings taken from Hawaii.
The question remains, why are the oceans acidifying? What are the effects of radiation on pH levels in the ocean. What besides CO2 contributes to acidification and what are the sources of that effect? CO2 is not the only factor and mankind is not the only source of CO2 so why should it be up to man to destroy the way they live? Because the UN wants all of us dead – that’s why. It’s why the ‘science is settled’ even when the science, clearly, is NOT settled. No one is allowed to debate the UN’s ‘scientific’ conclusion (which isn’t science, it’s propaganda) and the narrative that results is mankind is bad and must be mitigated in some way shape or form. Under this scenario, murdering 90% of humanity is as justified as enslaving 100% of humanity – the only difference is the willing acceptance of the outcome by the masses. People are not aware of the level of their subservience, let alone what they are subservient to, but they sure know they don’t want to die despite the plans to destroy us mentally to convince us to do just that by our own hands.
“14.4 By 2020, effectively regulate harvesting and end overfishing, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and destructive fishing practices and implement science-based management plans, in order to restore fish stocks in the shortest time feasible, at least to levels that can produce maximum sustainable yield as determined by their biological characteristics[.]”
The United Nations displays a graph to track this target which shows that in 2017, 34.15% of the worlds fish stocks are over-exploited. In 2015 it was 33.33%.
Greenpeace maintains a ‘red list’ of fish to avoid at the store. Albacore tuna, Atlantic cod or scrod, Atlantic halibut, Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sea-scallop, bigeye tuna, bluefin tuna, Chilean sea bass, Greenland halibut, grouper, ocean quahog, orange roughy (my favorite fish ever), pollock, redfish, red snappeer, sharks, skates and rays, swordfish, tropical shrimp, and yellowfin tuna are all on their list. I think that covers about every fish worth eating too, save for flounder and tilapia. Hopefully the populations of these fish can recover and we can go back to eating them again, but it is more than likely the UN and Greenpeace will just expand these types of lists until there is no longer a fish in the sea they will approve of to be eaten. They will tell us – you can eat our 3-D printed impersonation of what these fish are supposed to taste like with no nutritional content and for three-times the price.
The International Union’s Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) Red List of endangered species lists 1,616 according to howstuffworks in 2021. I did my own search selecting anything with marine life and wetlands and pulled 1,387 results. If I select all of the categories under marine regions I get 14,542 results. I won’t list them all here. It goes to show that until there is no food left which is approved for human consumption, more and more species will be added to gigantic lists like these. We will be told food suppression of this type is to support wild populations of species being able to thrive once more.
This is the same type of logic that resulted in the US Army Corps of Engineers, wishing to reinforce Lake Pontchartrain in New Orleans, to throw their hands up in defeat because there was going to be no pleasing the environmental freaks regarding endangered species in the lake. Katrina came along and ‘broke’ Lake Pontchartrain. Environmentalism did all of that damage to humans in New Orleans.
I will note that in the first search I did, some of the species listed on the IUCN list such as the adder, ranging from Far East Asia to Western Europe, can kill people and pets. Here is how one of these nut job groups describes them; “People’s fear of this secretive and beautiful animal contributes to its vulnerability in the UK, yet with an understanding of the facts, people and adders can co-exist happily.” Great White Sharks are on that list too.
If I were to attempt to fish for my favorite fish (I’d have to travel like 8,000 miles to get there), I’m sure it would constitute a criminal act on my part even for trying to catch an orange roughy, let alone, actually catching one, and taking it home to fry it up. There must be some globalized police force which enforces such nonsense; however, in today’s day and age I’m sure I would be met proptly by the thugs calling themselves Australian authorities demanding I take a COVID-19 test, show proof of vaccination, and mask up (even if I am alone with a fishing pole on a boat at sea) and they will be the ones who criminalize my intentions at the UN’s behest.
The last portion of this target mandates that all fishing be tracked. If you wanted to control the dietary intake of everyone on earth, first you would need to know what resources were on hand. In order to do that, you would need to create a regulatory scheme for all of the oceans in their entirety and calculate the total pounds of each type of catch. That would include the guy who goes fishing to feed himself for the day as well as the fishing vessel going out to haul in specific fish measured by the ton. The UN is demanding in this target that all nations concoct a way to surveil this data, and report it to a central data point. The UN will then determine who gets what, how much, and how often. Anything outside of that will be, of course, criminal.
“14.5 By 2020, conserve at least 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, consistent with national and international law and based on the best available scientific information[.]”
11.84% of the world’s marine and coastal areas were considered protected by law in 2018. Somehow, Slovenia managed to claim, and the UN bought this claim, that they had protected 213% of their waters under this target. Monaco, New Caledonia, St. Martin (French Part), and Palau ranged from 82.99% to 99.83%. Germany, France, the United States of America, and Australia all had percentages between 40 and 46.
While searching for some of the laws regarding this I bumped into a site which includes curricula for children in 3rd, 4th, and 5th grades. The site is payed for by tax money as it is ran by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Laws in the United States which control human activity on the waters of the US include the 1976 Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). The law established a 200 mile zone in which foreign fishing was prohibited or severely curtailed. MSA also established 8 regional fishery management councils which focus on sustainability. Sounds like a really good way to get fishermen out of their boats and to subvert the Constitution of the United States of America.
Another important law sited by these freaks is racist. Titled The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, (MMPA) the bill made it illegal to “harass, hunt, capture, or kill” protected marine mammals. It’s illegal to kill an attacking polar bear because I am white; however, native Alaskans can do whatever they want to these animals.
The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA) involves the federal government giving money to state governments to preserve and restore their coastlines. Having received the money, it allows the states to tell the federal government to butt out if the federal government’s involvements go against the state’s plan. I’m sure that if a state were halfway through their implementation of an expensive project or a project so useless the federal government refuses to fund it, the state would be open to ‘alternative funding sources, including taxing their own citizens as well as taking donations from NGO’s and international organizations. That represents a Constitutional work-around.
The Clean Water Act of 1972 (CWA) is another one of these nefarious laws. The EPA routinely demonizes people with ponds on, or creeks running through, their property. The government can issue fines if water is contaminated by a company (or individual). The Deepwater Horizon oil spill represents the largest fine ever issued – British Petroleum was charged $5.5 billion.
Another law on the books was passed in 1969 and titled the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Any government agency or contractor of the US government is to conduct an environmental impact statement and release it for public comment. People at Sierra Club and Greenpeace love this idea because all the NGO’s can get together on a topic and demand that the project get shut down. If that doesn’t work, they will organize Communistic marches and protests to demand the projects be shut down, like they did during the construction of the Keystone Pipeline. These are the same types of people which have literally committed murder by killing loggers who attempted to cut trees down which had metal spikes inserted into it (the spike rips the blade of a chainsaw apart which seriously maims, dismembers, or kills the user or a person nearby).
“14.6 By 2020, prohibit certain forms of fisheries subsidies which contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, eliminate subsidies that contribute to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and refrain from introducing new such subsidies, recognizing that appropriate and effective special and differential treatment for developing and least developed countries should be an integral part of the World Trade Organization fisheries subsidies negotiation[.]”
This target is not going to track any national legislation – only international instruments – which seek to criminalize fishing. The reporting world (about half of countries) stood at a 4 out of 5 in terms of implementing certain international instruments.
Those instruments include The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), The Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (UN Fish Stocks Agreement), The International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (IPOA-IUU), The 2009 FAO Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (PSMA), The FAO Voluntary Guidelines for Flag State Performance (VG-FSP), and The FAO Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas (Compliance Agreement).
Understand, most of the time I am learning while I write these. One treaty which piqued my interest in particular is the IPOA-IUU. According to unstats;
“The objective of the IPOA is to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing by providing all States with comprehensive, effective and transparent measures by which to act, including through appropriate regional fisheries management organizations established in accordance with international law. This instrument covers all the aspects of a State’s responsibilities including, flag State responsibilities, coastal State measures, port State measures, internationally agreed market-related measures, research and regional fisheries management organizations.”
The United Nations has decided to take on setting the policies on policing the seas. Basically, the treaty serves as a really lengthy demand to use flags on the sea and to have fishing licenses for each vessel. That would include me, apparently, when I save a billion dollars to go fish for a tasty orange roughy. In order to get away with my plan to eat this delicious fish, I would have to eat it while still at sea because this treaty also demands that ports measure each vessel given permission to fish to see what their haul was.
It looks like the United States skipped most of the treaties to pass national laws to effect the same level of compliance. At least, most of the time anyway, in regards to this target and its associated treaties, the United States can maintain its sovereignty at least.
“14.7 By 2030, increase the economic benefits to Small Island developing States and least developed countries from the sustainable use of marine resources, including through sustainable management of fisheries, aquaculture and tourism[.]”
In 2019, there were 3 island developing nations which were able to generate over 10% of their GDP from sustainable fisheries – Faroe Islands, Greenland, and Marshall Island (reported last in 2017). Micronesia was almost there in 2017 with 9.36%. The graph includes all nations which reported, thus the worldwide rate stood at 0.01%. The small island developing nations in particular had a 0.46% rate in 2019 which represents a 0.03 percentage point (6%) decrease from 2011.
I’m slow clapping the United Nations for their stellar performance in achieving this target. And I am also concerned that the UN is involved in fishing at all – because, as I’ve stated over and over, they want us dead because we ‘useless eaters’ are interfering with their Gaia.
“14.a Increase scientific knowledge, develop research capacity and transfer marine technology, taking into account the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission Criteria and Guidelines on the Transfer of Marine Technology, in order to improve ocean health and to enhance the contribution of marine biodiversity to the development of developing countries, in particular small island developing States and least developed countries[.]”
Global welfare is pretty mush a given with anything the UN does. As far as increasing the scientific knowledge in marine technology, that is not going well at all for the UN. The nation which devoted highest percentage of marine research compared to total research in 2017 was Norway – 5.35%. Globally, in 2013 the rate of contribution was 1.6% and in 2017 it was at 0.95%. Russia was the biggest gainer between these time periods with 4%, bringing them to 0.14% of their total research compared to the amount they spent of that total on marine research.
With the promise of technological transfers needing to be given to others, what impetus is there to spend massive amounts of money on research the funders will not benefit from? There aren’t any. That the United Nations fails to recognize that very simple fact of human nature is indicative of their inability to grasp basic human psychology. It also represents the stupidity of Communism, a murderous idea the UN embraces, which in effect stops all technological development not directed by the State’s dictator.
“14.b Provide access for small-scale artisanal fishers to marine resources and markets[.]”
Small scale, traditional, fishermen were able to practice their trade fully by law, regulation, or policy in 2022 around the world fully, at least among countries which were included in the statistics. 78 Nations had these protections in place, fully protecting artisianal fishermen as of 2022. Why would these traditional fishermen need those protections?
In part these protections are needed because of the UN treaties which have already been put in place. The other reason is more sinister on the part of the UN. This would include the licensing fees and/or other operational costs to operate in compliance with UN treaties and national laws. Another sinister aspect would be that. At some point in time, these artisians will be ordered to stay home, if they haven’t already been due to a variety of causes – pandemics, sustainablility issues, regulation non-compliance, etc…. The outcome will be to end the artisian operation because economies of scales are easier to regulate, easier to surveil, and result in more food per energy unit (carbon emitted). Or, it could be the opposite, the big fisheries on their industrial-sized boats could be shut down despite their yield per carbon unit emitted, due to ‘over-fishing’ suspicions. Either scenario causes a man-made constraint placed upon the availability of food. Either way, massive amounts of people starve. Any size of food production is under attack by the UN, thus, it is likely that they, and their friends, will curtail all fishing operations through means already established. They have no need for humans; however, the fish in the sea are completely necessary to them – it shows the primacy of their god Gaia.
“14.c Enhance the conservation and sustainable use of oceans and their resources by implementing international law as reflected in UNCLOS, which provides the legal framework for the conservation and sustainable use of oceans and their resources, as recalled in paragraph 158 of The Future We Want[.]”
The United Nations is siting something they shouldn’t want exposed. Paragraph 158 of The Future We Want reads:
“158. We recognize that oceans, seas and coastal areas form an integrated and essential component of the Earth's ecosystem and are critical to sustaining it, and that international law, as reflected in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, provides the legal framework for the conservation and sustainable use of the oceans and their resources. We stress the importance of the conservation and sustainable use of the oceans and seas and of their resources for sustainable development, including through their contributions to poverty eradication, sustained economic growth, food security and creation of sustainable livelihoods and decent work, while at the same time protecting biodiversity and the marine environment and addressing the impacts of climate change. We therefore commit to protect, and restore, the health, productivity and resilience of oceans and marine ecosystems, and to maintain their biodiversity, enabling their conservation and sustainable use for present and future generations, and to effectively apply an ecosystem approach and the precautionary approach in the management, in accordance with international law, of activities having an impact on the marine environment, to deliver on all three dimensions of sustainable development.”
This passage is stating that the main thrust of this entire target is not about people being able to fish the seas, but to return the seas to nature. The only thing the UN says they will do in The Future We Want is to protect sea life from humans, conserve those resources, and to use an ecosystem approach towards their efforts. The UN plans on using science, the bought-and-paid for type with already predetermined conclusions while marginalizing and silencing all dissent, to accomplish this. At the same time the UN will be using their own legal documents to justify their position in courts around the world and internationally. Humanity is the entity being left out of the United Nations intentions.
The three dimensions referred to are the economic (100% human), social (100% human), and environmental (at most 4% human), is what is referred to in this tract. I encourage everyone to go read The Future We Want, because it is likely that the writer’s future does not include you, and you are not a part of the ‘WE’ the UN is addressing. If you are not part of the ‘WE’ you are tier one (maybe two) for extinction by these meglomaniacal humanists pushing Gaia theory down all of our throats.
To track this target, the UN has chosen the progress towards ratifying, and another regarding the implementation, of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
There are 27 nations which have ratified not only the UN Convention of the Sea but all subsequent agreements to it. Another 11 have ratified the treaty and at least one argeement. These agreements and the treaty itself destroys those nation’s sovereignty upon the sea.
There are 10 nations which have implemented 100% of the UN Law of the Sea and amendments (agreements). Another 10 have implemented at least 90% of this treaty and its agreements.
Unless this trend is halted, the seas of the world will be controlled by unelected totalitarians who have a humanist/transhumanist view of humanity and a view of the earth as penultimate, spiritual, and very heavy in Gaia religiosity.
Summary
The goal of conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development demands that humans die to facilitate the oceans, seas, and maritime resources. Any mention of the word ‘sustainable’ equates to human death to promote the theories of Gaia.
As a side note, I mentioned humanism several times. Humanism rejects any supernatural power in that it literally states that each human ascribing to it is a god. This relates to Gaia theory because humans cannot entirely eliminate all supernatural power – not even atheists. Those that are working towards Gaia theory being realized (no human population) think that they as humanists, who are gods in their own right, should be able to live symbiotically upon Gaia, their earth unafflicted by human activity – if only they could get rid of almost everyone else. This is where many of the ‘leaders’ at the UN are coming from. Make no mistake, they will find any pretext to murder you and about 90% of humanity along with you.
The seas have been wrested from the nations of the world. They have also died because of, not CO2 from an SUV or a power plant, but because of nuclear radiation and disasters like Valdez and Deepwater Horizon.
The UN will do everything within their power, in coordination with the heads of governments around the world, and the NGO which spout the same nonsense, to blame YOU and ME, and everyone we know for every calamity they can find. Their humanistic/Gaia ideals allow them to unconsciously murder as many humans as they think they need to in order to deliver their neo-pristine earth back to themselves. In this goal, the purpose is to curtail the catching and eating of sea-life while these bastards refuse to acknowledge the real killers of sea-life. Man-made and massive releases of radiation into the atmosphere, water, and soils which run off into the oceans. Some pesticides are likely to blame for this as well. I never had a chance to comment on that because it was never particularly addressed by this United Nations SDG.
Who made the seas? God, our Creator. Who measured them? God, the Creator. Who made the life in them? God, the Creator. If God chooses to decimate the life in the oceans, He will – and humanity as a whole will have no say in that. Should humanity protect the environment and the animal life dependent upon it? Absolutely, but according to BIBLICAL standards, something the United Nations absolutely despises. God promises free-will. The UN promises slavery to them and their friends through technocracy and dictatorial decrees.
Open a Bible and read it. May God Bless You.
All quotes were found at https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal14 unless otherwise documented.