The German Green Party Wants To Ban ALL Industrial Farming

The European Green Party is growing alongside the populist movement, and is emerging as the dominant force in Germany. The insanity of banning all industrialized farming would cause massive starvation and even societal collapse. ⁃ TN Editor

The Green party in Germany has said it intends to ban industrial farming as part of a wide-ranging and costly package to combat climate change should they come to power.

Katrin Goering-Eckardt, the party’s leader in the Germany parliament, said her party would establish a fund worth at least €100 billion to finance climate projects including dam construction, reforestation and environmentally friendly transportation projects.

Ms Goering-Eckardt did not go into further details on a timeline for the prohibition of intensively reared meat.

But the proposal is likely to stoke up debate over whether the Greens are still Germany’s Verbotspartei (prohibition party), a nickname they gained in 2013 due to a misjudged plan to introduce a weekly “veggie day”.

Last week Christian Lindner, the leader of the pro-business Free Democrats, warned that the Greens “dream of a meat-less country.”

“Whoever wants to be vegan is free to do so, but the rest of us shouldn’t be banned from eating our schnitzel,” Mr Lindner said.

In a country where pork is still a central part of the diet, such fears have traditionally restricted support for the environmentalists to liberal urban districts.

But Ms Goering-Eckardt told the German tabloid Bild am Sonntag that public attitudes have transformed, with Germans realizing that drastic action on global warming is required.

“Many people have now understood that things are going to change fundamentally,” the 53-year-old said. “The question is whether we make the changes ourselves or allow ourselves to be swept over by the climate crisis.”

The Green party politician said they would publish detailed financing for the fund in the coming weeks. She said that no decision had been made on whether it would be financed through tax hikes or via an increase in public debt.

“What we face is a monumental task which even surpasses the reunification [of Germany] as it demands massive investment over a shorter timeframe,” she said.

Ms Goering-Eckardt also argued that it was a question of Germany doing it itself or facing fines of up to €60 billion (£53.4bn) from Brussels.

The Green party are currently riding a wave of popularity that makes it ever more probable that they will help form the next coalition government in Europe’s largest economy.

Read full story here…




Outback

How To Create A Country With No Heart

Take a lesson in the ultra-radical anti-human, green agenda: It is the identical story in every nation, as clearly seen in Australia. It is not Communism or Fascism, but rather Technocracy, the “science of social engineering.” ⁃ TN Editor
 

Anti-development policies, land-use sterilisation, climate alarmism and green law-fare are destroying the future for our kids and grandkids. Current policies will stack-and-pack the coasts and major cities leaving a depopulated outback to uncontrolled floods and droughts, lantana and woody-weeds, wild cats and dogs, wild fires, feral pigs and the occasional park ranger or tourist bus.

What has happened to Australia’s once-bipartisan policies favouring decentralisation? Why is every proposal to develop an outback mine, dam, irrigation scheme or a real power station now labelled “controversial” by the ABC and opposed by the ALP/Greens?

This coastal-city focus and the hostility to new outback industry (except for wind/solar toys) has surely reached its zenith with the recent state budget for Queensland.

The population of coastal and metropolitan Queensland is surging with baby-boom retirees, welfare recipients, grey nomads, tourists, overseas students, migrants and winter refugees. But the outback is dying with lagging industry and many aging farmers retiring to the coast. We are creating a country with no heart.

This growing urban and seaside population needs power, water and food.

However two critical power-water-food infrastructure projects that have been on the drawing boards for decades did not even rate a mention in the state budget – an expansion of coal-fired power at Kogan Creek and a water supply dam at Nathan Gorge.

The current policy of all major parties is cluttering the countryside with piddling subsidised intermittent power producers like solar panels and wind turbines plus their expensive network of roads and transmission lines. This is inflating electricity prices, and future generations will see this bi-partisan energy policy as a disastrous blunder. It is also a mistake to encourage or subsidise private electricity cartels and put politicians, not engineers, in charge of power generation.

The Kogan Creek power station with its adjacent coal mine was opened in 2007. It is connected to the National Grid and integrated with local gas-fired and solar supplies. It was always planned to add another generating unit at Kogan Creek, but twelve long years have passed with no action.

Kogan Creek is crucial to maintaining a stable power supply to eastern Australia. This was demonstrated recently when a fault temporarily shut down Kogan Creek. The National Grid was barely maintained for about 30 minutes by the battery in SA until other base load generators could be started. With the likely 7 month closure of one damaged generating unit at Loy Yang power station, East Australian electricity supplies are now even more precarious.

Moreover, with the complete failure of the $105M Kogan solar booster and delays to other solar plants in this area which were to be connected to the grid, the duplication of Kogan Creek is urgently needed. (Here is a revealing quote from one of the backers of the failed Kogan solar project: “Solar works extremely well when the sun’s out.”)

Coal produces reliable low-cost electricity from a concentrated area with less real environmental damage than gas, wind or solar. These low density energy sources need much more land to collect equivalent continuous energy from a wide area of bores, pipelines, turbines and solar collectors plus their backup generators, connecting roads and transmission lines. Most CSG wells also need to pump salt water from each bore before the gas will flow. Even if costly processes are used to extract fresh water from this salt water, brines are left behind and must be stored safely. This evil-genie of salt should be left in its underground lair and disturbed as little as possible.

It is becoming clear that that CO2 does NOT drive global warming. Even if it did, when careful life-of-project studies are done for all of Qld energy sources, coal and hydro look likely to have the lowest carbon footprint with the least environmental harm (and they do not slice, dice or fry birds and bats).

The surface disruption from an open cut coal mine is 100% and it shocks the senses. However, it recovers 100% of concentrated hydro-carbon energy from a small area of land – far less than is permanently sterilised by public roads and schools (there is no intention of restoring them). Even if the open cut was abandoned at the end of coal mining, slow but relentless natural healing would immediately start. However, instead of treating the final void as an expensive liability to be refilled with overburden, it should be seen as an asset to be landscaped as a pleasant lake or used for burial of the growing mountains of urban waste.

The need for reliable economical electricity is urgent. However, if Kogan Coal Power is too-close-for-comfort for Jacki Trad, her Environment Minister and the greens of South Brisbane, the next real power station option is Collinsville.

The need to conserve more water is also urgent. Nathan Gorge has been known as an ideal dam site for 50 years, but still nothing is done. The site and catchment make it likely to be a high-yielding, cost-efficient dam. It is vital to the continuing development of the Surat and southern Bowen Basins and its water could be used for irrigation, power generation or fed into the Condamine/Darling River in droughts.

Kogan and Nathan are decentralising projects that could provide community insurance for blackouts, floods and droughts.

It is the outback that produces most of Australia’s food, minerals, energy, water, exports and jobs. And it produces serious income for state governments addicted to ever-rising taxes and royalties.

Anti-development policies, land-use sterilisation, climate alarmism and green law-fare are destroying the future for our kids and grandkids. Current policies will stack-and-pack the coasts and major cities leaving a depopulated outback to uncontrolled floods and droughts, lantana and woody-weeds, wild cats and dogs, wild fires, feral pigs and the occasional park ranger or tourist bus.

Read full story here…




Rockefeller foundation

Rockefeller Foundation: The Rise, Fall And Rebirth Of 100 Resilient Cities

The UN’s term “Resilient” means anything you want: “improving mobility”, “breaking down structural racism”, “any social and infrastructural fault line”, “predictive analysis” and even weather forecasting. Thus, it is a catchall term for implementing the New Urban Agenda and the 2030 Agenda, aka Technocracy. ⁃ TN Editor

In late April, at a town-hall meeting in New York City, Raj Shah, the president of the Rockefeller Foundation, addressed the staff of 100 Resilient Cities. The nonprofit, launched by the philanthropy in 2013, has helped cities around the world plan for natural disasters and social shocks, especially the ravages of climate change.

Earlier that month, the foundation had abruptly announced plans to shutter the program. Now Shah was explaining why.

“This is not about whether 100 Resilient Cities works,” Shah said. “It’s a shift in the foundation’s focus to delivering measurable results for vulnerable people … with a budget framework that works.”

In a video recording later viewed by CityLab, a few people who dialed in from satellite offices were broadcasted at the bottom of the screen, their expressions grim. By August 1, the organization’s 86 employees would be out of a job. In city halls around the globe, officials who’d come to rely on their support wondered how they’d keep climate-prep initiatives afloat, including the hiring of hundreds of “resilience officers.”

But now plans are being hatched to advance some of 100RC’s work beyond its expiration date. Last week, the nonprofit’s president, Michael Berkowitz, told staff that he and a group of soon-to-be-former 100RC officers were preparing to start a new nonprofit with the mission of helping cities implement resilience projects.

What’s more, the Rockefeller Foundation has confirmed that it may keep some elements of the 100 Resilient Cities program alive.

These are significant turns of events from just a few weeks ago, when the future of 100RC looked bleak, despite its well-regarded status in climate-planning circles. For local governments, the whiplash may be a reminder of the risks of relying of private dollars to create public policies.

Established in 2013 by the Rockefeller Foundation in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and Superstorm Sandy, 100 Resilient Cities was born out of the idea that local governments needed help planning for disasters and combating persistent social maladies. Across a network of more than 100 global member cities—from New York to New Orleans, Rome to Ramallah, Montevideo to Montréal—the group underwrote salaries for chief resilience officers, shepherded resilience plans, and supplied local leaders with ideas, financing, and technical assistance.

While the nonprofit was best known for climate adaptation plans, its work encompassed much more. For example, in Boston, leaders defined resilience as breaking down structural racism. In Panama City, it was about improving mobility. A city became “resilient” by identifying virtually any social and infrastructural fault line that a shock might expose. Change was measured on a long-term basis. In contrast to other nonprofits that give grants for specific projects, the 100RC model was unusually flexible.

Read full story here…




Green Tech Expert: ‘Car Ownership Is Nonsense’

The UN’s Agenda 21 and 2030 Agenda are personified by this propaganda: “walking comes first, bicycles and scooters second and public transport third. Cars should only come in fourth place.” That’s right, you can walk wherever you need to go. ⁃ TN Editor

The sharing economy can kill two birds with one stone by lowering the cost of green technologies and reducing polluting emissions, cleantech expert Radoslav Mizera told EURACTIV Slovakia.

Radoslav Mizera is vice-president and Chief Innovation Officer at Solved, a cleantech advisory service connecting green firms and smart city experts with governments and companies.

Last year, EU institutions agreed on new CO2 emission standards for cars and vans, and discussions are ongoing about limits for heavy-duty vehicles. The EU’s Energy Union Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič says the new rules will force the car industry to modernise and become more competitive on the world market. But others doubt the ability of carmakers to adapt. What do you think?

I agree with Mr Šefčovič. It can be done. The Croatian company Rimac Automobili founded by Mate Rimac is a good example. He is extremely innovative. He is considered a technological leader in his field. He focuses exclusively on sports cars, but his technologies can impact other industries as well. And they are spreading thanks to cooperation with other carmakers.

This example shows us, that even countries like Croatia can make the difference on a global level. It is very important to have leaders like this in Slovakia as well.

Will strict emission limits help the car industry’s competitiveness?

Yes, because they can pave the way for alternative producers that are coming to the market with innovations.

During the past ten years, China strongly supported “new energy vehicles”. Now, China is on the verge of becoming the global leader in this field. That is the so-called global competition that is threating our own industries.

If we do not realise this, Chinese carmakers will outcompete ours. In the next ten years, we will see massive development of e-mobility.

If we do not adapt, will we end up buying Chinese e-vehicles in Europe?

It’s possible, yes. One reason for modernising car manufacturing is boosting local production. Another is global competitiveness. The third and possibly most important reason is the ongoing shift in business models. It is not about cars as such anymore. It is about the charging infrastructure having an important position in the energy sector, because it is part of smart grids.

More importantly, we will see a transition to the shared economy. In the future, we will not own cars. Judged by efficiency, it is nonsense. Up to ten people can share one vehicle. The car industry argues that car making is expensive and difficult, that they don’t have enough production inputs for such a high number of cars. But why would they need to produce so many of them?

Are consumers ready to accept that car ownership doesn’t make sense?

Maybe they will naturally come to that conclusion on their own. They will find out that not owning an automobile is more comfortable and cheaper. It will be a rational consumer decision. It just doesn’t make sense to pay ten times more for transport just because I want to own a car.

In the future, car ownership could end up being only reserved for super-luxury vehicles and super-rich people. But considering efficiency, it is definitely not the way to go. Transport networks will be optimised, emissions will be cut down. Sharing will allow cheaper and less time-consuming transport. Shared costs will make the way for new technologies.

Yet cities should allow mobility solutions, in which walking comes first, bicycles and scooters second and public transport third. Cars should only come in fourth place.

Read full story here…




How UN Scientists Are Preparing For The End Of Capitalism

I have warned for years that the UN intends to deep-six Capitalism in favor of Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy. Now, the UN is coming out in the open as the global economy turns downward. Cries that “Capitalism is dead” will soon be heard while Technocracy will be offered as the only possible solution to save the world. ⁃ TN Editor

Capitalism as we know it is over. So suggests a new report commissioned by a group of scientists appointed by the UN secretary general. The main reason? We’re transitioning rapidly to a radically different global economy, due to our increasingly unsustainable exploitation of the planet’s environmental resources and the shift to less efficient energy sources.

Climate change and species extinctions are accelerating even as societies are experiencing rising inequality, unemployment, slow economic growth, rising debt levels, and impotent governments. Contrary to the way policymakers usually think about these problems these are not really separate crises at all.

These crises are part of the same fundamental transition. The new era is characterised by inefficient fossil fuel production and escalating costs of climate change. Conventional capitalist economic thinking can no longer explain, predict or solve the workings of the global economy in this new age.

Energy shift

Those are the implications of a new background paper prepared by a team of Finnish biophysicists who were asked to provide research that would feed into the drafting of the UN Global Sustainable Development Report (GSDR), which will be released in 2019.

For the “first time in human history”, the paper says, capitalist economies are “shifting to energy sources that are less energy efficient.” Producing usable energy (“exergy”) to keep powering “both basic and non-basic human activities” in industrial civilisation “will require more, not less, effort”.

At the same time, our hunger for energy is driving what the paper refers to as “sink costs.” The greater our energy and material use, the more waste we generate, and so the greater the environmental costs. Though they can be ignored for a while, eventually those environmental costs translate directly into economic costs as it becomes more and more difficult to ignore their impacts on our societies.

And the biggest “sink cost”, of course, is climate change: “Sink costs are also rising; economies have used up the capacity of planetary ecosystems to handle the waste generated by energy and material use. Climate change is the most pronounced sink cost.”

Overall, the amount of energy we can extract, compared to the energy we are using to extract it, is decreasing “across the spectrum – unconventional oils, nuclear and renewables return less energy in generation than conventional oils, whose production has peaked – and societies need to abandon fossil fuels because of their impact on the climate.”

The UN

A copy of the paper, available on the website of the BIOS Research Unit in Finland, was sent to me by lead author Dr Paavo Järvensivu, a ‘biophysical economist’ – a rare, but emerging breed of economist exploring the role of energy and materials in fuelling economic activity.

I met Dr Järvensivu last year when I spoke at the BIOS Research Unit about the findings of my own book, Failing States, Collapsing Systems: BioPhysical Triggers of Political Violence.

The UN’s GSDR is being drafted by an independent group of scientists (IGS) appointed by the UN Secretary general. The IGS is supported by a range of UN agencies including the UN Secretariat, the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the UN Environment Programme, the UN Development Programme, the UN Conference on Trade and Development and the World Bank

The paper, co-authored by Dr Järvensivu with the rest of the BIOS team, was commissioned by the UN’s IGS specifically to feed into the chapter on ‘Transformation: the Economy’. Invited background documents are used as the basis of the GSDR, but what ends up in the final report will not be known until it is released next year.

The BIOS paper suggests that much of the political and economic volatility we have seen in recent years has a root cause in this creeping ecological crisis. As the ecological and economic costs of industrial overconsumption continue to rise, the constant economic growth we have become accustomed to is now in jeopardy. That, in turn, has exerted massive strain on our politics.

But the underlying issues are still unacknowledged and unrecognised by policymakers.

More in, less out

“We live in an era of turmoil and profound change in the energetic and material underpinnings of economies. The era of cheap energy is coming to an end,” says the paper.

Conventional economic models, the Finnish scientists note, “almost completely disregard the energetic and material dimensions of the economy.”

The scientists refer to the pioneering work of systems ecologist Professor Charles Hall of the State University of New York with economist Professor Kent Klitgaard from Wells College. This year, Hall and Klitgaard released an updated edition of their seminal book, Energy and the Wealth of Nations: An Introduction to BioPhysical Economics.

Hall and Klitgaard are highly critical of mainstream capitalist economic theory, which they say has become divorced from some of the most fundamental principles of science. They refer to the concept of “energy return on investment” (EROI) as a key indicator of the shift into a new age of difficult energy. EROI is a simple ratio that measures how much energy we use to extract more energy.

Read full story here…




The UN Wants To Be Our World Government By 2030

The U.N. is the solo driver for planetary Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy. As a totally managed economic system run by science and engineering, it will be a Scientific Dictatorship and that will be the governance. Government as we know it will not be necessary. ⁃ TN Editor

In the 1960s, an informed but naïve undergraduate, I was walking across the campus of the University of Pennsylvania with the Chairman of the Chemistry Department, Prof. Charles C. Price. He told me that he was president of the United World Federalists, and asked if I knew what that organization was. When I said that I did not, he replied that they believed in a one-world government that would grow out of the United Nations. I was nonplussed as I had never heard anyone suggest that idea before. To me, the United Nations was a benevolent organization dedicated to pressuring the world community in the direction of peace, and to operating charitable programs to help the struggling, impoverished peoples of the world. I imagined the UN as a kind of United Way on a worldwide scale.

How would Prof. Price’s vision of a new world government emerge? Although there was a socialistic thread in its founding document, the United Nations was formed based on a vision of human rights presented in the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (UDHR) which placed the concept of rights at the forefront for the progress of the world body. And rights are the mainstay for uplifting human freedom and the dignity of the individual. The UDHR document followed many amazing documents that presented rights as the central concept of the post-feudal world: the English Declaration (or Bill) of Rights of 1689, the U.S. Declaration of Independence with its important and forceful assertion of inalienable natural rights, the powerful U.S. Bill of Rights enacted in 1791, and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789).

The word “rights” appears in almost every sentence of the 1869-word UN document. The document is literally obsessed with rights, and one must assume they are likewise obsessed with the rights successes as manifested in the United Kingdom, the U.S., and France. However, there are some deviations from the rights usage we are all familiar with. In Article 3, Instead of the inalienable rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” found in our Declaration of Independence, the UN declares everyone’s right to “life, liberty and security of person.” Are they implying that security will bring happiness? Or are they implying that happiness is too ephemeral a value, and too Western? Perhaps more mundane survival goals are needed by most of the world.

We see a reprise of items from our Bill of Rights such as condemnation of cruel and unusual punishment (Article 5), due process (Articles 6,7,8,9, 10, 11, 14, 17), illegal search and seizure (Article 12), and freedom of speech and assembly (Articles 19,20). But there are new rights introduced which, as early as 1945, were pointing the way towards intervention by the UN in the daily lives of people throughout the world. Throughout the document, they assert the right to food, clothing, medical care, social services, unemployment and disability benefits, child care, and free education, plus the right to “full development of the personality,” (imagine, the UN says I have the right to be me) and the “right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community… and to enjoy the arts” (we each have the right to enjoy a painting or a movie). However, they do not state the right to appear on the “Tonight Show” or “Saturday Night Live”, so there were limits to their largesse.

In 2015, seventy years after their original rights-based document, the UN took a giant step towards the global government that was only hinted at in their first organizing document. They issued a document entitled “Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” This document has 91 numbered sections of the UN’s program for world government. The UDHR is only referenced once in the entire document in Article 19. Unlike the original “mother document” that was under 1900 words, this document is 14,883 words. The 91 items are addressing issues under the five headings of People, Planet, Prosperity, Peace, and Partnership. Additionally, the document provides 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to improve life on the planet.

What is meant by the term “sustainable?” The most often quoted definition comes from the UN World Commission on Environment and Development: “sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” The earlier ideas and ideals of rights, freedom, equality, and justice are subsumed under meeting of needs and an explicit environmentalism which emphasizes preventing the depletion of scarce planetary resources. Of course, the takeoff is the Marxist axiom that society should be organized around the idea of “from each according to his ability to each according to his needs.” Thus, Marxism is implicit in sustainability, but is nuanced by its alliance with seemingly scientific adjustments and goals related to environmentalism. A technical jargon is welded to Marxist intentionality to produce a sense of fittingness and modern progress.

The entire “Transforming Our World” document is cast in a stream of consciousness of pious platitudes for a utopian future. It is an outsize utopian dream. Five of the 17 items pertain to the environment. There are goals for the cities, for women, for the poor, and even for life under the water. Absolutely no sphere of human activity is exempt from control by the UN. The key word of course is no longer “rights” except the oblique reference in Article 19. In fact, this writer did not see the word rights even once in this document even though that word appeared in practically every sentence of the original UN document.

Read full story here…




Emergency Room Visits From E-Scooter Accidents Soar 160 Percent

Electric bicycle and scooter rentals are the latest craze to give urban dwellers ‘alternative transportation’  to eliminate carbon. Scooters in particular have caused a pandemic of injured riders. Residents in San Francisco detest these sidewalk intruders, and are moving to have them banned. ⁃ TN Editor

As injured electric scooter riders pour into emergency departments around the country, doctors have scrambled to document a trend that many view as a growing public safety crisis.

A detailed statistical portrait of that crisis won’t be available for another year, emergency physicians say, but some early samples are beginning to emerge.

In Salt Lake City — where dockless e-scooters have been on city streets since June — one hospital says it has seen a 161 percent increase in the number of visits involving scooters after comparing its latest statistics with the same three-month period a year earlier.

Between June and September 2017, physicians at University of Utah Health’s emergency room treated eight patients injured by scooters, though each of those were likely people’s personal devices and not the electric fleet vehicles owned by companies like Bird, Lime and Skip.

During the same period this year, that number had climbed to 21, according to Dr. Troy Madsen, who practices at the University of Utah Health’s Emergency Department.

“Most of the patients with these injuries specifically reported that they were riding an e-scooter or a rental scooter,” Madsen said, noting that they ranged in age from 20 to 50 years old and were often injured attempting to catch themselves in a fall. “Interestingly, more than 80 percent of the injuries this year happened between Aug. 15 and Sept. 15, which would correspond with the increasing popularity and availability of the e-scooters.”

“It’s worth noting that these were only emergency department visits,” he added. “Patients with more minor injuries may have gone to an urgent care, and the patients we saw were likely those with more significant injuries who required a higher level of care in an emergency department.”

Already a failed experiment?

The hospital reported that nearly half of this year’s injuries were fractures and dislocations of ankles, wrists, elbows and shoulders, as well as several cases of sprains and lacerations. Emergency physicians also treated several head injuries, and multiple patients told doctors they were intoxicated when they were injured and not wearing a helmet.

Emergency physicians noted that their statistics may represent a fraction of Salt Lake City’s e-scooter injuries. University of Utah Health’s Utah emergency department is “fairly close to the downtown area,” where most rentable scooters are located, but there are other emergency departments even closer, Madsen said.

Emergency physicians in a dozen cities around the country have told The Post that they are seeing a spike in scooter accidents. In seven cities, those physicians are regularly seeing “severe” injuries – including head traumas – that were sustained from scooters malfunctioning or flipping over on uneven surfaces as well as riders being hit by cars or colliding with pedestrians.

Some safety experts have raised questions about the gig economy workforce companies like Bird rely on to maintain their growing fleets. The company has posted ads on Craigslist seeking mechanics that say experience is not necessary in addition to providing training for new hires via YouTube videos. Videos posted online show Bird scooters with accelerators stuck in place and with wobbly handlebars and loose brakes.

“I just signed up to be a Bird mechanic,” one mechanic says on camera. “I realized there are a very large amount of scooters with problems.”

Last week, The Dallas County Medical Examiner’s Office revealed that a 24-year-old man who fell of a Lime scooter on his way home for work this month was killed by blunt force injuries to the head.

Read full story here…




UN Secretary General Praises Xi Jinping’s Commitment To The 2030 Agenda

This is one of the shortest press releases ever seen from the UN, but Secretary-General Guterres has nothing but praise for Xi Jinping for his part in pushing Sustainable Development and the 2030 Agenda. This is not surprising in that both of them are Technocrats and China is the leading example of Technocracy in the world. ⁃ TN Editor

During an official visit, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres on Sunday met in Beijing with Xi Jinping, President of China, where he congratulated the President on his recent re-election.

Mr. Guterres expressed his appreciation for President Xi’s support to the UN’s work and told him that the UN continues to count on China’s leadership and commitment to the implementation of the  2030 Agenda, including through international cooperation under the Belt and Road Initiative.

The Secretary-General also commended China’s consistent and constructive advocacy for a diplomatic solution to the situation on the Korean Peninsula.

Moreover, he underlined the UN’s commitment to assist in supporting a process of sincere dialogue, leading to sustainable peace and denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula.

Read full story here…




United Nations: Global Partnerships Pledge Improved Coordination for Water Security

The five ‘multi-stakeholder’ water partnerships include a rich assortment of public-private partnerships that will give global corporations direct access to this precious resource of life. The UN predicts a 40% shortfall of water availability by 2030, even though the same amount of water has existed sine the creation of the earth. In order to insure Technocracy, shortages must be created to drive the investment. ⁃ TN Editor

Five global, multi-stakeholder water partnerships – the World Bank Water Global Practice, the 2030 Water Resources Group, the Global Water Partnership, the World Water Council, and the UN Global Compact’s CEO Water Mandate – announced plans to cooperate on water security. Their commitment follows the High-Level Panel on Water (HLPW) forecast of a potential 40% shortfall in water availability by 2030. The five partnerships, which represent business, governments, intergovernmental organizations, academia, and civil society organizations, plan to convene a series of discussions between their leaders, with a view to accelerating progress on the international water agenda. They will organize their discussions starting August 2018.

The groups announced their commitment following their endorsement of the HLPW report titled, ‘Making Every Drop Count – An Agenda for Water Action.’ The UN Secretary-General and the World Bank President convened the HLPW in 2016 to champion better management of water resources worldwide. The HLPW report, released on 15 March 2018, calls for doubling water infrastructure investment over the next five years.

The five groups also recognized the value of SDG 17 on partnerships as an important means of implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The collaboration will also progress achievement of SDGs and targets under: SDG 2 on zero hunger; SDG 3 on good health and well-being; SDG 6 on clean water and sanitation; SDG 7 on sustainable energy; SDG 9 on industry, innovation and infrastructure; SDG 11 on sustainable cities and communities; and on water-related and land-based ecosystems under SDG 14 (life below water) and SDG 15 (life on land).

They announced their partnership on World Water Day on 22 March, as the Eighth World Water Forum (WWF8) drew to a close.

Press release:

Stark Global Water Report Triggers New Collaboration Among Global Partnerships

In the face of profound global water challenges, on World Water Day 2018 five global multi-stakeholder partnerships representing business, governments, intergovernmental organizations, academia, and civil society organizations announced a new collaboration effort designed to accelerate progress toward ensuring the availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation around the world. (Full statement at right.)
The partnership was catalyzed by the discussions at the 8th World Water Forum in Brasilia, including the Citizens Forum and Sustainability Focus Group, and the High-Level Panel on Water report, “Making Every Drop Count”. The report says if the world continues on its current path, it may face a 40 percent shortfall in water availability by 2030. Health, food security, energy sustainability, jobs, cities, and ecosystems are increasingly at risk due to exacerbating natural variability of the water cycle and growing water stress.The World Bank Water Global Practice, 2030 Water Resources Group, Global Water Partnership, World Water Council, and UN Global Compact’s CEO Water Mandate announced their commitment to coordinate a set of actions toward increased water security. Water security underpins economic growth, social development and environmental sustainability.

The organizations agreed to:

  • Take into account the outcomes of the 8th World Water Forum, proposed by the various political, thematic, regional, citizen, and sustainability processes
  • Endorse the recommendations of the High-Level Panel on Water (HLPW) “Making Every Drop Count”
  • Recognize the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG 17) that promotes partnerships as a key means of implementation of the 2030 development agenda – in particular for the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals calling for a Water Secure World (SDG6)
  • Commit to convene a series of discussions between the leaders of the organizations, starting in August 2018
  • Explore and agree on pathways towards improving global coordination and collaboration among these and other organizations, in view of accelerating progress towards a water-secure world

 Oyun Sanjaasuren, the Chair of Global Water Partnership, said, “The Global Water Partnership is prepared to offer its on-the-ground multi-stakeholder networks to advance better water governance.” Echoing GWP’s “Act on SDG 6” campaign, launched during the 8th World Water Forum, Sanjaasuren added, “It is time for policy makers to make SDG6 implementation a top priority.”

Read full story here…




UN’s World Water Forum Closes With Calls To Action On Justice, Human Rights and Youth

Imagine an International Court of Justice for Water, where ‘water justice’ rulings are made to control and allocate water to sustain life. The United Nations has fully set its sights on controlling all the water of the world. Further, it has tightly integrated water policy into the Sustainable Development Goals. ⁃ TN Editor

The Eighth World Water Forum (WWF8) in Brasilia, Brazil has concluded. The conference, on the theme of ‘Sharing Water,’ comprised several parallel processes that affirmed the respective roles of judges, local and regional authorities, parliamentarians and young people in the governance of water resources. The Forum’s Political Process included a ministerial programme, a local and regional authorities programme, a mock “water court” involving judges and prosecutors, and a parliamentarians’ process. Water and sanitation ministers issued a Ministerial Declaration, which urges better coordination of UN activities in support of water-related goals, and encourages governments to strengthen their own national integrated water resources management (IWRM) policies and plans.

The 5th Conference of Local and Regional Authorities convened from 20-21 March as part of the WWF8 Political Process. In a call for action issued at the close of their meeting, authorities made five recommendations, to: promote sensitive integrated water practices, taking into account human rights and gender concerns; bring forward legislation for fair, efficient and sustainable use of water resources; strengthen and increase decentralized funding for water and sanitation projects; promote urban water resilience; and strengthen the capacity of local governments and citizens in water-sensitive governance. Their call to action commits to contributing to the fulfillment of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the New Urban Agenda.

The Political Process also included mock court proceedings, referred to as the International Court of Justice for Water, and a meeting of parliamentarians. Judges and prosecutors issued the ‘Brasilia Declaration of Judges on Water Justice,’ which puts forward 10 principles for water justice, and affirms various policy frameworks, including the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and SDG 6 on clean water and sanitation. The Declaration calls for strengthening the capacity of judges and lawyers to apply water law and the environmental rule of law. The meeting of parliamentarians debated ‘The Role of Parliaments and the Right to Water,’ focusing on the themes of climate change and water security, universal access to drinking water and basic sanitation, and legislative innovation and best practices for water management. Speakers welcomed the presence of 134 parliamentarians from 20 countries at the conference.

Other processes that took place alongside the Political Process were a Thematic Process that hosted 96 separate sessions, a Regional Process that involved almost 7,000 people from 101 countries, a Citizen Process, a Sustainability Focus Group, and a Business Day.

On Thursday 22 March, participants from water and sanitation services in Brazil reported on the outcomes of Business Day, which was organized by the Brazilian Business Council for Sustainable Development and the Brazilian National Confederation of Industry. Business Day resulted in Brazilian companies making six commitments for water security: engaging supply chains; contributing technologies, knowledge and human resources; encouraging shared projects; measuring and communicating companies’ own water management practices; recognizing the importance of water in their business strategies; and mitigating water risks.

Read full story here…