How are the UN Sustainability Goals Going? Goal 7 of 17.
Tim O’Connor – Center for the Preservation of Humanity
4/12/2022
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 7th SDG:
Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all
Unless the person lives in a place without electricity or the person lives in the United States or Europe and everyone else too. Having access to something is great but it doesn’t mean the service will actually be provided. The United Nations, and it’s adherents in government at all levels, NGO’s who absolutely detest humanity, and multinational corporations tend to lean towards technocracy and energy is meant to be the new currency under this new world order with its one world government.
The UN’s targets to ensure energy for all are:
“7.1 By 2030, ensure universal access to affordable, reliable and modern energy services
“7.2 By 2030, increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix
“7.3 By 2030, double the global rate of improvement in energy efficiency
“7.a By 2030, enhance international cooperation to facilitate access to clean energy research and technology, including renewable energy, energy efficiency and advanced and cleaner fossil-fuel technology, and promote investment in energy infrastructure and clean energy technology
“7.b By 2030, expand infrastructure and upgrade technology for supplying modern and sustainable energy services for all in developing countries, in particular least developed countries, small island developing States, and land-locked developing countries, in accordance with their respective programmes of support”
If you have read any of my previous efforts at evaluating and critiquing SDG’s I don’t usually include the indicators; however, for this article I plan on including all of them.
“7.1 By 2030, ensure universal access to affordable, reliable and modern energy services[.]”
“Indicator 7.1.1 – Proportion of population with access to electricity[.]”
The World Bank indicates that in 2015, 86.579% of the world had access to electricity which grew to 90.097% in 2019. The International Energy Agency (IEA) puts the percentages at 84.5% in 2015 and 89.8% in 2019. The United Nations documents the years 2000 and 2017 to make the rise seem more impressive; 78% in 2000 to 89% in 2017.
The stragglers in the ability access to energy live mostly in sub-Saharan Africa. The World Bank has data reading that 46.75% of sub-Saharan dwellers had access to electricity in 2019. According to the International Energy Agency, 770 million people live without energy, most of whom live in Africa and Asia. IEA also postulates that due to the psychological COVID-19 mitigation experiments there are now more people in Africa with no access to electricity than prior to the ‘pandemic’. The UN page has a bar graph showing that in 2017 only 44% of those in sub-Saharan Africa had access to electricity.
The sub-Saharan Africa electricity problem includes several issues; nomadic lifestyles, poverty, war, inhospitable terrain, and the cost and magnitude of getting electrical power to people literally in the middle of nowhere who may or may not decide to vacate the area tomorrow.
Those without electrical services will rely on traditional sources of cooking fuels, which is a problem for the United Nations because cooking fuels can include anything from firewood, to charcoal, to dung. Those still using traditional cooking fuels (the UN calls it lacking clean cooking-fuel sources) have the highest rates in sub-Saharan Africa and several countries in southern Asia, including India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and a majority of Southeast Asian nations. The UN attributes 4 million premature deaths a year, and increased environmental degradation, health complications, and pollution due to traditional cooking methods due to lack of electricity. The rate of alleviation of the UN problem is 0.5% a year since 2010, which, in 2017, resulted in 61% of the world cooking with clean (UN-approved) fuels.
A 2021 article appearing on nature.com titled, Household cooking fuel estimates at global and country level for 1990 to 2030, considered electricity, gaseous fuels, kerosene, biomass, charcoal, and coal and their effects after being used as a cooking fuel. The article’s authors conclusion notes that by 2030, 31% of the world will still use ‘polluting’ fuels which includes kerosene, coal, charcoal, wood, crop waste, and dung. Dubbed ‘clean’ are electricity, LPG, natural gas, biogas, alcohol, and solar sooking sources. The authors’ research was funded by the British Economic and Social Research Council, the World Bank, the European Union, and the World Health Organization. All of these institutions and organizations are losers, down to each and every individual who works for any of these entities.
The practical thing to do would be to encourage efficient ventilation or outdoor cooking in these areas with an emphasis on staying out of the smoke produced by burning ‘polluting’ cooking fuels. If that were the objective of this goal, that would be fine, but it’s not the objective of this goal, its about banning fuel sources like the criminals in California did when they banned wood-stoves and passed legislation to ban all combustion engines. If you are reading this in Canada or the US, think about how much better that beef frank or chicken breast tastes when it’s grilled over charcoal or wood chunks instead of nuked in the microwaved, baked in the oven, or boiled on the stove. The UN idea, and their acolytes, is to prevent ANYONE from being able to cook that way whether by choice or by necessity.
“Indicator 7.1.2 – Proportion of population with primary reliance on clean fuels and technology[.]”
It’s not good enough for the UN to get people electrical power, they seek to make sure that the methods of electrical production are ‘sustainable’ on top of it. That means hydropower, inefficient wind turbines (modern windmills), inefficient solar panels, and ‘other’ renewable energy sources like biofuels. All of this rests on the idea that petroleum is non-renewable; however, it is well known that petroleum is abiotic – making it independent of its non-fossil fuel classification. These people have a problem with CO2, which is an SDG in and of itself, and which the combustion of oil and it’s products create. It’s why I call these people members of a death cult – they want no carbon released by any man or woman (humans exhale it), and seek to eradicate all plant life through their efforts. The earth is carbon starved, not over-saturated, and the demonic entities seeking to create carbon-neutral solutions are really only saying one thing, ‘humanity, starve to death’.
“7.2 By 2030, increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix[.]”
“Indicator 7.2.1 – Renewable energy share in the total final energy consumption[.]”
In 2022, Germany gets 41.1% of their electricity, 16.5% of their heating gas, and 6.8% of their transportation needs met using renewable energy. Uganda, a country which had 43% of their population able to access energy in 2018, got 92% of that energy from renewables, 98% of which was from biofuels. According to China’s National Energy Administration, in 2021, China produced 1.06 billion killowatts of power from renewable sources (44.8% of their total) in 2021. The United States started shuttering coal mines in 2008 with the inauguration of the Obamination in the United States so that by 2020, renewables could take the second place spot in energy production at 21% of total production behind natural gas which has seen a phenomenal rise to 40% of energy production in the US. The chart I am looking at seems to have a pretty direct correlation between the increases in natural gas and the decreases in coal usage.
Renewable energy sources are becoming more integrated into the energy production mix of a lot of countries in various regions around the world. To produce 1 MW of power from wind, it takes “103 tonnes of stainless steel, 402 tonnes of concrete, 6.8 tonnes of fiberglass, 3 tonnes of copper, and 20 tonnes of of cast iron.” Mining requires diesel fuel. Then the raw ore has to be transported by land or sea which requires more diesel fuel. To get cast iron, a lot of heat needs to be created and the fuels used for this process is either coal or natural gas. Carbon monoxide is required to produce cast iron as well. Fiberglass is composed of petroleum products. Creating cement is taking calcium carbonate and chemically converting it into calcium oxide a process which looks like this: CaCO3 → CaO + CO2. CO2, of course is considered a greenhouse gas, but cement cannot be produced without producing a lot of CO2 – to the tune of 5% of the global total. Cast iron represents 7% of the global total of CO2 production.
Solar panel research has yielded that it is possible to achieve a 40% efficiency rating for photovoltaic cells. The best that current installations can do is 22.8% efficiency. The US Energy Information Agency produced a chart, Average Operating Heat Rate for Selected Energy Sources, in 2021 which shows that coal had an efficiency of 32%, petroleum achieved an average of 30%, natural gas led the way with 44% efficiency, and nuclear power came in at 33% (I did the calculating myself as described here). Coal is not all the same, and higher quality coal will yield a cleaner more efficient burn due to the variations in carbon content. Likewise with petroleum products. But all forms of so-called fossil-fuels are still more efficient than current solar panels which also require the mining, transportation, processing, production, and assembly of copper, silica, phosphorous, boron, titanium, and a variety of chemicals, including from petroleum derivatives.
The reliance on ‘renewable fuels’ constitutes about 7,500 terrawatts of power per year. Statista.com graphs a trend of energy usage, less electricity, which in 2019 measured 23,845 terrawatt hours. That is up over 2,500 terrawatt hours since 2015. In total, including electricity production, the worldwide consumption of energy was over 173,340 terrawatts in 2019. ‘Renewables’ constituted less than 4.3% of total energy consumption in 2019. Energy production produces various amounts of CO2 depending upon the source of the production, thus the UN’s and their friends problem with it. Energy production is reported to have fallen by 4% in 2020 due to the evil-doers who enacted and enforced the COVID-19 mitigation efforts which are still ongoing. Despite this, oil and coal sources of energy combined to contribute 27,049 terrawatt hours more energy than energy sources produced from gas, hydropower, nuclear, wind, solar, biomass, and other sources combined in 2020.
Reliance on accepted renewable energy sources which are profitable for power producers will not power the population of the earth, especially with the introduction and mandates of electric transportation systems for public and individual use. Free energy could be done; however, the designs are of Nicola Tesla, and not that monster Thomas Edison who prioritized electrification for profit, which has crippled the entire world for over 100 years now. Tesla’s ideas of creating electricity will continue to be criminalized because it cannot be tracked, which is the main thing these freaks desire. Widespread use of Tesla’s technologies for electrical production would immediately end any of the technocrats’ ambitions to instill a global carbon credit scheme over all of humanity.
“7.3 By 2030, double the global rate of improvement in energy efficiency[.]”
“Indicator 7.3.1 – Energy intensity measured in terms of primary energy and GDP[.]”
The IEA defines energy intensity as “the percentage decrease in the ratio of global total energy supply per unit of gross domestic product (GDP).” The IEA continues:
“The original target was an annual reduction of 2.6% until 2030 although the world has fallen short of this goal, especially in the most recent years. While early estimates for 2020 point to a substantial decrease in intensity improvement as a result of the Covid-19 crisis, the outlook for 2021 suggests a return to the average rate of improvement during the previous decade. However, this would be well below the 3.2% pace required this decade to achieve SDG targets and the more than 4% pace needed to be on track to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.
“Mandatory policies, such as codes and standards, including minimum energy performance standards, fuel-economy standards, building energy codes and industry targets, continue to form the basis of energy efficiency policy. However, these measures are being complemented by fiscal and financial incentives, such as tax relief on building renovations and electric vehicle purchases, public financing and the use of market-based instruments. Technological change and advances in energy management in the industrial and buildings sectors are also delivering efficiency improvements.”
To unpack that, the goal is not going to be reached and was way off track to be reached before the global medical tyranny of COVID-19 mitigation efforts began in early 2020 and, in many locations, are still in effect. The IEA then tells us their solutions are more mandates in codes and standards which are set by faceless bureaucrats in unmarked offices at state, county, and local municipality levels. The revisions which will be made to reach this insane goal will actually make people physically less safe, especially in areas regarding fuel-economy (lighter vehicles make them less durable, and more injurious to the occupants, if an accident occurs) and building codes (some of which have had catastrophic consequences in emergency events like fires). The IEA caps off their idiotic approval of idiotic ideas to reach this idiotic goal by giving tax breaks (making my taxes higher), subsidies to useless electric car purchases (if you own one, I helped buy that stupid waste of space that may or may not explode on you and came straight out of a strip mine, likely using 8-year-old laborers, and you also helped everyone pay more for electrical generation), and my tax dollars going to back loans to virtue-signaling morons who can’t think for themselves because they have given the little bit of intellectual ability they have to the United Nations. And of course, to put icing this crap-cake, the IEA aims to increase the costs of electrical costs and rents for industrial plants and businesses, which will be passed on to the consumer.
In 2015, when these SDGs were foisted upon the world, the world stood at 5 mega joules (1.39 kWh) per one US dollar in purchase power parity. In 2019 that same metric was 4.7 and the projection for 2030 is estimated to be 3.7. 3.7 is a very far cry from the 2.5 needed to accomplish the goal presented here. Eurasia (including all of Asia and Europe [the highest at 7.8 MJ per USD PPP at 2017 USD values in 2019), the Middle-East, sub-Saharan Africa, and Asia Pacific nations (some of which may be doubled as some of the nations seem to fall within the same areas) are all over the average. North America, North Africa, Central and South America, and Europe (the lowest at 3.0 MJ per USD PPP at 2017 USD values in 2019) all pull this metric down. There are multiple variables here, the most influential being the value of the US dollar which is in grave jeopardy at the present moment. Also, the metric here doesn’t actually track the cost of national energy in relation to the GDP of any nation directly in part because the metric is not taking into consideration any changes in national GDP’s and in part because the USD value is pegged at it’s worth in 2017.
To the best of my ability, what these metrics do show is that unless the dollar gets super weak or energy sources in developing nations get super abundant (either of which will make them less expensive) by 2030, the goal will not be met. The weakening of the USD is a project which is under way. Abundant energy is about to be up for grabs to lower income nations because of the war being waged against Russia by the Western nations of the world, which is a suicide mission for both parties. It’s morbidly interesting to watch the causes of WW I replay in an effort to cause WW III.
“7.a By 2030, enhance international cooperation to facilitate access to clean energy research and technology, including renewable energy, energy efficiency and advanced and cleaner fossil-fuel technology, and promote investment in energy infrastructure and clean energy technology[.]”
“Indicator 7.a.1 – International financial flows to developing countries in support of clean energy research and development and renewable energy production, including in hybrid systems[.]”
It’s always welfare payments from the wealthy countries to the ‘developing’ countries with the United Nations. According to this article from Market Watch, 450 investors demanded the nations in the G-7 take action on climate change, or else, in 2021. The ultimatum this conspiratorial consortium laid down of these nations was follow along with their virtue signal regarding welfare to developing nations for ‘clean’ energy or get worse loan rates. That is how the entire United Nations operates right there, actually, do what we say or we will screw you over in resolutions and our financial supporters will stop supporting you. The G-7 is comprised of the US, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and Canada. During the 2021 meeting of this group, Canada vowed to double their monetary support to developing nations to fight climate change over 5 years and Germany vowed to triple their contributions from 2 billion euros to 6 billion euros by 2025. This G-7 round promised to cut CO2 emissions dramatically by 2030 (almost 50%), phase out gas and diesel automobiles, give at least 100 billion to developing nations for renewable energy projects, and end foreign funding of coal-based power generation.
IRENA, the International Renewable Energy Agency, is on record saying that $131 trillion is needed to get the world to carbon neutrality by 2050. To IRENA, there is no difference between developing and developed nations, there is only the amount that those nation’s CO2 emissions need to be reduced. IRENA seems to have no concept of reality being as though global GDP was slightly less than $85 trillion in 2020. The amount IRENA is calling for, $131 trillion, is about every cent the entire globe’s economy earns over the course of 18 months and several weeks. Over 27 years, the IRENA proposal would cost a still astronomical $3.7 trillion a year. This is part of the reason that President Trump discarded the notion that the United States pay $1 trillion a year for 10 years – the US taxpayer should not be on the hook for 27% of the bill.
The developing nations will not be expected to pay any of this, only wealthy nations will. That’s why the Paris Climate Accord was nixed by President Trump and, for the same reason, picked back up by the illegitimate Biden administration – it will obviously destroy the financial stability of the United States for a cause which does not actually exist. I’ve written it over and over again throughout these SDG articles, the UN is deeply rooted in Marxism and this is a prime example of their leanings displaying themselves.
From 2000 – 2009 developing countries received between $1 billion to $4 billion a year for renewable energy projects, mostly for building dams. In 2010, $9.9 billion, and in 2016, 18.6 billion went for green energy, mostly towards solar energy but also for geothermal and wind power installations. Hydroelectricity's share of electrical production actually fell by 20% between 2009 and 2016. The costs of these boondoggles nearly doubled between 2009 and 2016, indicating that the green technologies being installed are not so cost effective, and that there are a lot of them. UN-favored fiberglass manufacturers are making a mint while the people in the countries which are installing these energy production systems are getting an unreliable and potentially dangerous form of electricity.
“7.b By 2030, expand infrastructure and upgrade technology for supplying modern and sustainable energy services for all in developing countries, in particular least developed countries, small island developing States, and land-locked developing countries, in accordance with their respective programmes of support[.]”
“Indicator 7.b.1 – Installed renewable energy-generating capacity in developing countries (in watts per capita)[.]”
In 2010, the total mega Watt capacity on earth was 1,226,853, in 2015, 1,846,060, and in 2019, 2,536,853. That is a 207% increase over nine years. In developing countries where there are millions of people who don’t have electricity now, the technologies can be introduced to produce it without a system that needs to be dismantled before hand.
There are 192 countries in the world. Developing countries, according to World Data, include 152 countries with about 75% of the total population of the earth, excluding all of western Europe, the US, Canada, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, French Polynesia, UAE, and Japan. 47 countries are designated fourth-world nations, which are euphemised as Least Developed Countries (LDCs). Haiti is the only nation in the Americas qualifying as an LDC, with most of sub-Saharan Africa, and several nations in Oceania and southeast Asia also qualifying in which over 1 billion people reside.
In 2019, Haiti was generating 7.15 watts per capita of renewable energy. India was at 93.85, China at 529.11, Brazil at 672.51, and Paraguay came in with a whopping 1,253.75 watts per capita generated from renewable energy. Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Mali, India, Sudan, Mexico, and Madagascar were generating 31.93, 39.7, 19.07, 93.85, 50.12, 201.04, and 7.31 watts per capita, respectively, in 2019. All of those figures are higher over time.
Summary
I find it all well and good that these green energies are providing electricity to more people in more remote locations even though they are inefficient, expensive, and have shorter lifespans compared to the so-called ‘fossil fuel’ methods of energy production. I find the way that the United Nations is going about this – the picking of winners and losers, the demands that 40 countries in the world foot the bill for the other 152, and literal blackmail being employed against anyone who disagrees – utterly disgusting.
I also find that the United Nations has not really thought this through very well. Solar panels last between 25-30 years (decreasing their efficiency each year), the batteries solar panels charge last 5-15 years (a similar lifespan in automobile technology), wind turbines last 20-25 years, and off-grid products typically have a lifespan of 1-3 years. What happens to all that crap after its useful life is over?
The problems will be never ending with green energies and each time a ‘fix’ to that problem is offered, two new ones will arise. Eventually the problem becomes intractable either due to technological shortcomings, the laws of physics and chemistry, or because of political and activist desires for more power in the case of political bodies and the spreading of misery for the ‘do-gooder’ activists. And this is no different. Solar panels can be recycled and used to manufacture other products; however, it is expensive, has the potential to release toxins into humans and the environment, and is inefficient. Fiberglass is costly to recycle and demand is low, even though it is something that is being done, due to the fact that there are thousands of tons of fiberglass with nowhere else to go. The strip-mined batteries in electric vehicles can have some of their parts recycled, but not all and, being as though the techniques are band new, the efficiency and costs of the recycling process and the addition of new inputs to recreate these batteries is not yet well documented.
People are calling for new frameworks for collaboration between nations to address these issues. Specifically addressing developing nations, RTI International, an ‘independent’ research institute, suggests developing e-waste guidance, make more fascist ties through public-private partnerships, address neighboring nations to assist and for assistance with defining classes of waste, create fees for end-of-life management practices (which will make the stupid things cost even more), and inform (brainwash) the public into order for them to comply. I really have a difficult time believing that there was any real independence in this RTI International article as every suggestion is, itself, a UN indicator of progress towards the overall SDGs.
Didn’t anyone ever sit back and think, no we don’t need to do any of this? Did anyone think ‘none of this is worth it and the man-made climate change theories are easily proven wrong because the models used are not comprehensive and the science which has allowed these frauds to continue their ploy to eradicate humanity is not accurate?’
Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see cold fusion automobiles. I’d love to see Tesla coils. But those are free, and the UN wouldn’t be able to attempt to pull off it’s global Cloward and Piven scheme. If the UN were serious about this goal they would immediately halt all of their support for battery production, giant windmills, and solar cells and pour the billions of dollars they steer into creating free power sources. Being as though Tesla designed systems which literally suck free electrons out of the atmosphere, the technology would work for as long as the sun continues to spew radiation at the earth, everywhere on earth, and it would be completely independent of banks, power companies, and political figures. But the UN is not serious about ensuring access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all, they are serious about destroying economically successful nations and ruining lives.
Open a Bible and read it. May God Bless You.
All quotes were found on 3/22/2022 at https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal6 unless otherwise documented.