The nub of today’s argument at the UNs agenda 21 meeting, encapsulated in —
“Countries fail to agree on draft text for sustainable development goals and definition of key objectives including green economy”
Right now the UN has a meet up going on. It’s called Rio+20 Earth Summit. Basically it’s the UN trying to control growth, basically stomp down the developed world economies, into a “sustainable development” world economy, top down managed of course, run by UN bureaucrats … But destroying the world’s economies in the bargain. Basically the UN is trying to replace the lies of global warming(the carbon hoax) with the lies of sustainable development.Which is just a hoax.
The earth doesn’t care, don’t you get that? Gaia is imaginary. But, it’s too big to care about the smallness of man controlling man machinations, Marxism and socialism but it doesn’t care. And if you think not, maybe the earth will have an earthquake or tsunami. By no means is man perfect nor can he be, as the reactor damage in Japan has recently proved.
The natural state of man is tyranny, where some man tells other men what to do, else they will kill you. Look it up, the history of man has been very dismal indeed. Self governing countries, run on the policies of men and the rule of law are an exception not the norm throughout history.
The USA stands alone as the exception, can man govern himself??? That today is still an unanswered question. And given Obama, remains unanswered.
At the heart, this has an environmental wacko core … and that is the problem. Using this excuse the UN wants their cut of the world’s economy, based on limited natural resources.
The UN is trying to step in while it has the time under Obama, to try and fill that role. And this is the latest UN thing to try and do just that.
Maybe man was never made to be a slave to other men, no matter how smart they profess to be.
With that in mind, here is what AGENDA 21 is all about:
The Rio+ 20 Earth summit could collapse after countries failed to agree on acceptable language just two weeks before 120 world leaders arrive at the biggest UN summit ever organised, WWF warned on Wednesday.
An extra week given over to the UN’s preparatory negotiations in New York fell into disarray over the weekend as talks aimed to bring countries together to set a new path for sustainable development splintered into 19 separate dialogues with major internal disagreements on the processes to be followed.
See how this is shaping up already? Define “sustainable”
“We are facing two likely scenarios – an agreement so weak it is meaningless, or complete collapse. Neither of these options would give the world what it needs. Country positions are still too entrenched and too far apart to provide a meaningful draft agreement for approval by an expected 120 heads of state”, said WWF director general Jim Leape.
Countries are not being asked by the UN to legally commit themselves to anything, but only to sign up to an aspirational “roadmap” contained in a document called “the future we want” and to a commitment to the so-called ‘green economy’ of jobs generated from industries such as renewable energy and energy efficiency. It is hoped that they will also agree to introduce by 2015 a set of sustainable development goals (SDGs) similar in ambition to the millennium development goals which covered areas like HIV reduction and clean water provision. The SDGs could cover areas such as energy, water and food.
The opening for the UN’s new law of the sea shows up in the middle.
However, in a repeat of battles played out in global climate and trade talks, they have fought bitterly over every comma and phrase in the prepartory meetings and in particular are still deeply divided over the definition and scope of the phrase “green economy”. They are now expected to take several years to identify, formulate and agree on the goals.
According to both WWF and Malaysia-based NGO Third World Network, the most recent draft text put forward in New York was a “significant weakening” of previous drafts, particularly in the areas of valuing natural wealth and ocean protection.
The WWF, World Wildlife Foundation, remember these loons from the global warming hoax? Animals are people too?
The best that is now likely to come from Rio is a process aimed to achieve agreement over many years, and a series of eye-catching initiatives proposed by individual countries, UN bodies and large businesses often working together. These include actions to make transport more sustainable, reduce hunger, improve the health of oceans, and to provide electricity for everyone in the world.
Definition of the concept and principles guiding the “green economy” have proved the hardest to reach because what is decided at Rio could favour or limit the development of some countries. The EU and other rich countries want all countries to agree to remodel their economies to manage resources more efficiently, develop renewable and low carbon energy, and reduce pollution.
Yep sure has, there is no such thing as a green economy. Nor is their any such thing as green energy. Doesn’t anybody remember their physics anymore?
Now we move onto G77 countries. Do you even understand the jargon? How can you expect to salute their flag then.
But G77 countries have argued that while the goal is acceptable, they risk being at a competitive disadvantage in the race for future global markets and are suspicious that the green economy is a pretense for rich countries to erect “green” trade barriers on developing country exports.
They further argue that if they are to sign up to the “green economy”, there should be commitments by rich countries to new finance and technology transfer agreements – something so far unacceptable to the US and EU.
Many environment and development NGOs are also fearful of the green economy proposals, which they believe will encourage countries to put monetary value on all nature, reducing forest and ocean protection to markets and profits and undermining principles of ecological justice and collective well being.
Back to the collective. You know what that means? COMMUNISM. And how well has that worked out on the planet? How many 100s of millions of people have died in the pursuit of utopia — When the limits of nudge, shove, became just shoot them all.
“Instead of putting a price on nature we must recognize that Nature is not a thing or mere supplier of resources. What we need is to forge a new system of development based on the principles of collective wellbeing, social and environmental justice and the satisfaction of the basic necessities of all”, said Pablo Solon, former Bolivian ambassador to the UN and now director of Bangkok-based NGO Focus on the Global South .
“We cannot keep promoting such destructive model of development that does not acknowledge the planetary limits of economic growth”, he said.
Hmm the options are not too human friendly are they?
Divisions between the countries are now thought to be as deep as any seen in the long-running and separate climate negotiations. Many developing countries are said to be distraught that the US is consistently trying to bury the principles guiding sustainable development agreed after fierce struggles at the Rio earth summit in 1992 and its follow-up meeting in Johannesburg in 2002.
“We are in real danger of going backwards. [The US] wants to reject principles including national sovereignty, the right to development, common but differentiated responsibilities and the obligation not to cause environmental harm”, said one observer.
Hey a quick question? How is that EU thingy working out for you? And who swears allegiance to the EU flag, or supports the EURO currency. Socialism does not work, when you run out of other people’s money the truth comes home to visit.
Despite the differences, UN leaders remained upbeat. “I sense a real dialogue – a real willingness to find common ground,” said Rio+20 Secretary-General Sha Zukang. “This spirit is encouraging, and we must carry it to Rio.”
Kim Sook, ambassador of the Republic of Korea and co-chair of the preparatory committee said that before the negotiations, only 6% of the text had been agreed upon. Now, that number has jumped to more than 20%, with many additional paragraphs “close to agreement”.
Failure is the best option. MAybe the UN would like to find another country to inhabit. Say North Korea?