Sustainable

Treason 2030

Back in March 2030, I wrote about the NZ abortion amendment act, an extreme law that was rushed through parliament while we were all distracted by Covid-19. I wanted to know where the mandate came from.  Was it really about “personal choice?”  Shouldn’t the government have been concentrating on more important things, like the pandemic we were all facing? 

Along with those questions, I wondered, “Was the NZ abortion law changed to meet a UN sustainable goal?”

I’ve now found a report that clearly shows the mandate did come from the United Nations: The people’s report on the 2030 Agenda and Sustainable Development goals.

Go to the section headed “A more just and equal world,” (sustainable development goal 16.)  Look at recommendation 13 on page 14, and I quote: “abortion is treated as a health issue, removed from the Crimes Act 1961 and related legislation amended.” 

So it’s clear that New Zealand is being transformed by UN Agenda 2030.  Are you in favour of that?

What do you think of the fact that 90.6% of New Zealanders’ submissions were ignored because the government wanted to implement another UN sustainable development goal?

Have you heard about this in the media?

Do you think it’s treason?

treason

    • The betrayal of allegiance toward one’s own country, especially by committing hostile acts against it or aiding its enemies in committing such acts.
    • The betrayal of someone’s trust or confidence.
    •  A betraying; treachery; breach of faith.

Do you think this should be an important election issue?


Links

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern defends proposed abortion law.

Was the NZ abortion law changed to meet a UN sustainable goal?

The Green Tape – Goal 15 of UN Agenda 2030

As the Sunday afternoon sky in New Zealand went an unprecedented orange from Australia’s bush fires, eventually draining into an early sepia toned twilight, I was left dumbfounded. Australia has experienced bush fires before and should know how to deal with them.  Why on God’s green earth did the Australian state and federal governments close fire trails, remove dams and ignore calls to thin out trees and remove undergrowth?

There are news reports like this one from The Sydney Morning Herald, Green ideas must take blame for deaths :Fire trails have been blocked up to turn the land back to its natural state and volunteer firefighters prevented by National Parks and Wildlife Service employees from bulldozing control lines because of damage to vegetation.

“… Instances like that are just too numerous to mention. Governments … have been in too much of a rush to appease green idealism … This thing about locking up forests is just not working.”

“I believe there is an agenda..” an Australian wrote in the comments section of an article from the Volunteer Fire Fighters Association where a firefighter is shown wrapped in green tape.

Fireys-constrained-in-executing-their-duties-by-Greenies-and-green-policies-Terry-Pontikos-1024x576

Artwork on an article by the Volunteer Fire Fighters Association – done by Terry Pontikos.

UN SDG 15
UN Agenda 2030, goal 15

Yes there is an agenda – the green tape of the Sustainable Development Goals for Agenda 2030 – specifically SDG Goal #15.

In the name of this ideological goal, the UN has demanded that the undergrowth be left in the forests to “reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

What is this sustainable development goal that is causing such poor management of national parks and state forests?

The sustainable goals of Agenda 2030

In 2015, Agenda 21morphed into UN Agenda 2030 which the UN is now openly promoting.  It has 17 high-minded, altruistic and idealistic goals it’s happy to tell the world about, like “ending poverty.”

These goals come with 169 Sustainable Development Goals you are not being told about.  You won’t find them very easily, I had to do some digging, but here’s the link.

Click on goal 15.  One of the 169 goals is SDG 15.2.1, “Sustainable Forest Management” which involves “biomass.”

Generally speaking, biomass includes the stem, stump, branches, bark, seeds and foliage.  It’s more important to the UN Climate Change lobby to keep biomass (the undergrowth) in the name of “reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”  That’s why firefighters and local authorities have been prevented from managing their own forests.

The United Nations doesn’t care that the undergrowth is highly combustible leading to unstoppable fires.  According to them biomass is good as it absorbs carbon dioxide!

Note: carbon dioxide, or CO2 is a trace gas which makes up just 0.04% of the atmosphere.  Yet it is being portrayed by the UN as a harmful greenhouse gas.

This is how the world’s forests are being “conserved” in the name of sustainable development and climate change.

It’s not ‘climate change’ threatening Australia – it’s the belief in climate change.


Biomass and “sustainable” forest management

Here’s the link on the FAO Food and Agriculture page under ‘Key results’ of target 15.1. Quote: “Furthermore, stopping deforestation contributes to reducing of impacts of climate change as forests absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it as biomass.”  

And here’s Australia’s report card from the UN for SDG 15.2.1: “Sustainable Forest Management.”  It seems the Australian government is after a big UN tick for their biomass targets.  Read it and weep.

If you are wondering who the FAO are, the Food and Agriculture Organisation is headquartered in Rome.   It seems sovereign management of the nations’ land is being quietly transferred to the United Nations, under something called “FAO Custodianship.”  This link is for Latin America and the Caribbean.

Clearly the land confiscation and United Nations ideological approach to forest management is a disaster in the making, and not just one confined to Australia given the rise of uncontrollable fires.  This is criminal.

This is what top-down rule by bureaucrats from an UNelected and UNaccountable world government looks like.

I hope I’ve shown you enough to see where this unelected, rampaging, land grabbing, lying, murdering socialist beast is taking us.  Where’s it going?  How much suffering has it already caused?

My recommendation is to read up on the 169 UN Sustainable Development Goals and see which ones are being enacted in your country.


A farmer’s plea to the Australian government:

Craig Calvert“A dairy farmer who spent 13 hours defending his property from a fire that spat out 100m large fireballs has pleaded with the PM to not let any more people die.”

Source: The Daily Telegraph: NSW bushfires: Devil’s inferno, eerie photo of massive blaze

“Shaking and fighting back tears Mr Calvert said that government incompetence had led to the disaster fire season.

“People need help. Australia is scared. To Mr (Morrison), please throw your gloves on, come on down here and see me,” he said.

“Morris (Morrison) step up and get behind us, don’t let anymore people die in the future. You’re the man of the hour, everyone will fall behind you.”

“I’ve got an extensive network who can help with knowledge of the bush and how the environment actually runs. It doesn’t run on paperwork.”

Do you think he’ll be listened to?


The Excuses

And now, here come the “Climate Change” excuses – the fire season is longer, because of “global warming” – so they weren’t able to do backburns.

While many people use the terms interchangeably, hazard reduction is done ahead of bushfire season to reduce the intensity of fires if they do happen, while backburning is done as a last resort to stop a fire that’s already burning.

Mechanical clearing like slashing undergrowth, or even reducing the ground fuel by hand wasn’t done because the local fire authorities are having difficulties getting into national parks to do hazard reduction.

As for backburns, former leader Barnaby Joyce pointed out it’s not like there’s no period to get them done – they could do it in the middle of winter or periods after rain. When they do have occasions to do it, they are constrained by bureaucracy – green tape. Conservation decisions are made by bureaucrats who don’t live in the area.

Former CSIRO scientist David Packham said the same thing in an interview with Sky News Australia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6RrgBrb6R8

“The bushfires are now catastrophic.”  Les Crowe, National Chief Loss Adjuster to the Insurance Council of Australia wrote about a misconception propagated by the media : “This the first time such fires have been rated as catastrophic. True, but not because they were rated any worse than many previous fires. In 2009, following the bush-fire inquiry, the defined categories of fire were renamed. Catastrophic was introduced as the most severe warning. So this description was never intended to make people think they were the worst fires ever. I have heard many media reports entrench this mistake.”

You’ll find his remarks in the comments section of this link: ‘Climate change doesn’t cause fires’ : “You can’t blame climate change when you’ve restricted access to millions of hectares of densely thickened eucalypt forests and wonder why they go up in smoke.

You can’t blame climate change when you haven’t back burned this millennium.

You can’t blame climate change when there are no fire breaks or cool buffer zones installed around towns, houses and critical infrastructure.”


Finally, what’s this about the Rural Fire Brigades struggling for money?

That's full fucked

Links

Index by SDGs 169 targets – click on each goal to see the devil in the details.

FAO Sustainable Development Goals

United Nations Information Centre, Canberra: Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

UN Global Compact Network, Australia: Advancing the SDG’s.

The UN-sustainable Prince

charles-nz-1

The Prince of Wales addressed the issue of environment during his royal visit to NZ

Prince Charles has been out here in New Zealand again, I don’t know why.  He was only here three years ago.  Here he is in November 2019, lecturing on the effects of a ‘human spending spree’ of earth’s resources.  I wish a reporter would step up and ask ‘who’s doing the spending?’

Charles offered the usual pessimism, doom and gloom, “a tipping point,” wanting us to “take less, make less and dispose of less,” warning us we only have ten years to do it.  In 2011 we were warned it was six years.  It gets old after a while.

Prince Charles issues stark climate change warning

Is Charles going to do with less?  I don’t think he was talking about himself or his family.

Prince Charles to visit New Zealand: Here’s his remarkable travel demands revealed

Prince Charles – Hypocrite

How often do you hear about “climate change” or “global warming” on the news?  Can you remember when you first started hearing about it?

Fifty years ago it wasn’t a thing. In the 1970’s we were being warned about “an ice age,” we were told to only have two children and it was predicted we’d run out of food. So I’ve heard it all before.  It’s a political agenda designed to scare the public into a new world order.

Of course we’ve got to look after the environment.  But this isn’t about the environment.

Joan Veon, a committed Christian, international journalist, and businesswoman attended more than 100 United Nations and UN-related meetings all over the world and reported on the links between the Technocrats and the UN.

Joan Veon tells how she received her “wake up call” when she learned that the super-rich elite of the world have been feverishly working to establish a “One World Government” through a multitude of “international” institutions.

How often do you hear the term “sustainable development?”  When the term was formulated in 1990 Prince Charles commended those who came up with it for getting the term into everyone’s vocabulary.

Joan Veon wrote an article called ‘Sustainable development, Agenda 21 and Prince Charles’, showing how Prince Charles kicked the ball off.

She also wrote a book about his activities.

In April 1991, fourteen months before Agenda 21 was initiated at Rio, Prince Charles held a private two-day conference aboard the royal yacht Britannia, moored off the coast of Brazil. His goal was to bring together key international figures in an attempt to unite them at the Rio Earth Summit.

On board his yacht were senior officials from the World Bank, chief executives from the big oil companies such as Shell and British Petroleum, key NGOs and other officials. Some of them were energy traders. Al Gore was also present.

They invented the term ‘global warming’ in 1992 and the term was used at the initiation of Agenda 21 in Rio.

“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban hosuing are not sustainable.” – Maurice Strong, Earth Summit director at the inititation of Agenda 21 in Rio, 1992.


Energy Trading

Do you know what ‘Emissions Trading’ or cap-and-trade is?  It’s Energy trading – an exchange where polluters can buy permits for their pollution.  Polluters must hold permits in an amount equal to their emissions.  Those who want to increase their emissions must buy permits from others willing to sell them.

Then the merchants graduated to making money out of the air by labelling C02 a pollutant, even though it’s a harmless gas that makes up just 0.058% of the atmosphere.

So it’s money for nothing – like the Pope selling indulgences as licenses to sin.  Before graduating to C02 the traders started by buying pollution permits for coal-fired power stations.  With this kind of thing, there’s enormous potential for moral risk from greed.   Do you know about the scandal of an energy trading company called Enron?

enron4

Palace defends prince’s Enron link

“The close links between Charles and Enron came amid dramatic new evidence of the way the company bought its way into the highest echelons of the British Establishment.”  Prince Charles took £1m off Enron


Sustainability?

In 2007 Prince Charles set up The Prince’s Rainforests Project (PRP) in the UK.  The project is working with governments, businesses and non-profit organisations around the world to quickly find solutions to deforestation, with the ambition of “making the trees worth more alive than dead.”

That’s good.  Actually, it’s great. 

Britain Rainforest Prince

So why on God’s green earth did the Duchy of Cornwall, the Prince’s private estate, invest $113,500 in Sustainable Forestry Management Ltd, a “carbon credits” company based in Bermuda?  Sustainable Forestry wanted to trade in carbon credits from rainforests.  That means paying money to harvest rainforest trees. 

They weren’t allowed to, so they started to lobby politicians.  Prince Charles also made speeches criticising existing regulations and calling for a change in the rules to allow trading in rainforest carbon credits.  Why would he set himself up to be the conservator of rainforests and then try to have that protection removed?  What does that tell us?

Paradise Papers: Prince Charles’s offshore investments revealed – BBC News

Prince Charles ‘lobbied for climate policy change without disclosing offshore financial interest’


Links

Minutes, Sustainable Forestry 2005,  with mention of the ‘Green Planet Tax shelter.’

More about his lifestyle, and his opinions:

What Prince Charles Doesn’t Want You to Know about His Lavish Lifestyle

“Charles has an overweening sense of privilege and entitlement, born of many years of being pampered with a level of personal service and comfort that have securely insulated him from the realities of normal life. He also has annoying habit, as The Economist recently noted, of “sounding off about a wide range of subjects about which he has more opinions than knowledge.”

… And his hypocrisy

Prince Charles flew 125miles in a helicopter to give speech on aircraft emissions