Supporters of the United Nations and Progressive goal were thrilled when the UN released their Sustainable Development Goals, which are kind of about everything
READ NOW: The Archbishop of Canterbury welcomes UN #GlobalGoals for sustainable development. http://t.co/dPDczLrGy7 pic.twitter.com/OCz8K10ZvS
— The Global Goals (@TheGlobalGoals) September 26, 2015
These replace the Millennium Development Goals, which, unsurprisingly, failed, and were more of a monetary boondoggle with little direction. How about the SDGs?
(Fox News) When the United Nations approved a massive agenda of sustainable development goals last week, it over-rode pointed warnings by two international science councils that the program is in many ways uncoordinated, unmeasurable and unrealistically ambitious.
Managers of the vast exercise in setting the global, progressive agenda for the next 15 years known as the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) decided it would be “too dangerous†to reopen the sprawling package to improve it, according to Anne-Sophie Stevance, lead coordinator of the critical analysis and a science officer with the International Council for Science (ICSU), the most prominent voice of the international scientific community. (snip)
“Many sets of goals and targets do not provide any pathways to how to achieve them,†Stevance declared. “Nor do we know if we will achieve global prosperity if we do meet them.â€
Oops?
The virtually unaltered SDGs were hailed by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon as “a defining moment in human history†as he opened the summit meeting on Sept. 25 that introduced the goals, as well as a “universal, integrated and transformative vision for a better world.†Two days later President Barack Obama pledged U.S. support for the effort “whatever it takes.â€
“Whatever it takes†is likely to be very big challenge. A better description of the SDGs than a “transformative vision†might be a sprawling and shapeless bid to establish a truly global socialist and progressive agenda, not to mention a blank check required for trillions of dollars annually in development spending to achieve—if even achievable.
Article writer George Russell editorializes a bit more than should be acceptable for a straight news story, but, he hits the nail on the head. If your goal is to lose weight and get in shape, how are you going to do that? Having goals is laudable. Not having a plan to achieve them, and having no idea if you will achieve them if you put your plan in place is not. Spending trillions of Other People’s money is, likewise, not.
There are 17 goals and 169 targets (which all seem to demand that More Government is the answer). What do they look like?
Among the 169 targets, for example, the report’s authors—40 of them, from 21 countries—declared that only 49, or 29 per cent, could be “considered well developed (i.e. thought out), 91, or 54 per cent, required more specificity, and 29, or 17 per cent, required “significant work†to be useful.
In other words, well over two-thirds of the targets that are supposed to reorganize much of the world’s sweeping self-improvement over the next 15 years are not deemed particularly useful or specific as currently laid out and approved.
And, as noted in the article, many contradict each other. And, again, follow the MDGs, which, according to Elham Seyedsayamdost, “the data indicates that the MDGs did not necessarily translate into real changes.†How much did the MDGs cost? $61bn? $152bn? Or was it “the only correct answer to questions about the cost of the MDGs is “more””? What do we think will happen with the SDGs?
Crossed at Right Wing News.
