Subscribe
The so-called 2030 Agenda was approved by the United Nations on 25 September 2015 and it includes five sections, of which the third is undoubtedly the most famous: Sustainable Development Goals and targets (paragraphs 54 to 59). As most General Assembly resolutions, it has no binding effect.
Sustainable Development Goal number 13 recommends to take urgent action to combat “climate change” and its impacts. McKinsey has calculated that decarbonizing our economy by 2050 will cost us 275 billion dollars, around 9% of the current gross world product; it will also destroy 185 million jobs. The European Union Social Climate Fund spends 11 billion euros of tax payers’ money in order to help families and enterprises recover from the climate EU strategy deriving from the 2030 Agenda.
All such costs contradict Sustainable Development Goal number 1, which is to end poverty in all its forms everywhere, and Goal 2, to end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and to promote sustainable agriculture.
On the other hand, Sustainable Development Goal number 1 reads as a Socialist policy text, when it proclaims that, by 2030, all men and women must have “equal rights to economic resources”. An equal right to economic resources has only existed under Communist rule (if we exception the Communist elite, who had access to higher economic resources than the rest.
Similarly, Sustainable Development Goal number 2 promotes “equal access to productive resources and inputs, knowledge, financial services, markets and opportunities for value addition”. Such equal access, once more, is only possible under radical left wing political systems.
Communist systems, in order to divide resources so that their citizens have a minimum access to them, typically foster a mandatory demographic policy. The historic example of China comes to mind. On a similar line, Goal number 5 requests nations to ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights (voluntary abortion).
On the contrary, demographic goals, at least in most European nations, should incentivise birth rate, as many countries currently suffer a societal situation well below the reposition ratio of 2.1 children per family. Conservative governments, including those of Italy, Hungary and Poland up to 2024, put in place programmes to help young couples bringing children to life and educating them.
The supposed solution to the demographic suicide comes under Goal 10: To facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through the implementation of planned and well-managed migration policies. Instead of children, migrants; but this is a way to dilute the cultural identity of nations, atomizing people around the globe. Furthermore, the top down planning of movements of people amounts to social engineering, with the ethical issues that such implicit deportation implies.
In the G7 meeting held in Rome in June of this year, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni managed to keep the Agenda 2030 abortion policy out of the minutes, as opposed to what liberal President Macron of France strongly defended.
Similarly, the Italian politician had signed a proposal for a law prohibiting the sale, production and development of meat obtained through laboratory cell culture, in order to safeguard the country’s agrifood heritage and culture.
This decision goes against Agenda 2030’s Sustainable Development Goal number 2, which euphemistically defends artificial food if read behind the lines: The United Nations text proclaims that the world should “ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices that increase productivity and production, that help maintain ecosystems, that strengthen capacity for adaptation to climate change, extreme weather, drought, flooding and other disasters and that progressively improve land and soil quality”.
What are sustainable food production systems or resilient agricultural practices that increase productivity and production, and maintain ecosystems, when at the same time our farmers are being told that raising cattle increases global warming? Promoting explicitly that we eat insects instead of meet is still a taboo, but best practices are laws like Meloni’s, rather than the ambiguous wording of the global elite.
Source of image: Everand