Behind all the talks about a combination of ecology and politics there are always the interests of certain oligarchic groups.
The concept of sustainable development has been advertised on international platforms for many years, primarily in the United Nations.. At the Summit of this Organization in 2015, 193 countries signed 17 Sustainable Development Goals, where, in general, everyone agreed that the world needs a certain model that takes into account both political and economic, as well as social and environmental, aspects.
Even earlier, at the 1992 ‘Earth Summit’ in Rio de Janeiro, the concept of sustainability was adopted as the blueprint for economic and environmental programs under the auspices of the same UN. The UN Millennium Development Goals were also directly related to this theory.
Although no one denies the need for careful management of natural resources and for the environmental protection, it is alarming that issues of sustainable development are actively promoted by typically globalist projects such as the Davos Forum, founded by Klaus Schwab. Similarly, George Soros and Bill Gates, with their projects also related to the UN through WHO and other initiatives, regularly advocate for sustainable development. Therefore, it is necessary to consider in more detail what kind of theory and methodology it is. And also who is, in particular, promoting it and why.
And if we delve deeper into history, we will find that this concept is directly related to the mondialist organization “Club of Rome” and the theory of Malthusianism about the need to limit the world’s population. In 1972, the “Club of Rome” published its first report, “The Limits to Growth,” which utilized mathematical modeling to explore various future scenarios for humanity.
It is indicative and, apparently, not accidental that in the same very year the United Nations Environment Program was created, which laid the foundations for discussing and solving environmental problems at the global level. The theory of global warming, the problems of the Earth’s ozone layer, and other similar doctrines, including pseudoscientific constructions designed for gullible people, also came out of it.
By the way, the latest achievements within the sustainable development program are the agreements reached at the Paris Climate Summit on limiting CO2 emissions and the continuation of the implementation of this program, which many countries have signed up to.
Although the authors of the sustainable development concept declare their lofty goals along with a pragmatic approach – the rational use of resources for prosperity; a high standard of living and a fair distribution of benefits; along with the preservation of the environment and natural resources – this represents three pillars of economics, social sphere and ecology, nevertheless the term itself is rather amorphous and vague. Everyone can put something of their own into it. Therefore, a conflict of interests is inevitable, not only between economics and politics, but also between political actors, as evidenced by the refusal of a number of countries to join the Paris Agreement.
Moreover, even before this, at the Group of 77 summit, which was held in Bolivia in 2014, the final declaration highlighted disagreement with the policy of forcing by Western countries to certain environmental standards.
It was reasonably stated that under the guise of concern for the environment and the need to impose special taxes on CO2 emissions, an attempt is being made to stop the development of other states. While industrialized countries themselves have already gone through a period of industrial growth and are moving to a new type of economy, they are trying to impose their model on other states, regardless of what real damage the rejection of industrialization may bring to their economies.
Indeed, the West promised to help with the launching of new technologies. But, apparently, it required paying for this with resources and political sovereignty.
It should be noted that the Group of 77, despite its name, includes more than 130 countries, meaning it is the largest international organization in the world after the United Nations. Then why were all the strange “environmental” decisions on sustainable development supported and most often adopted by the UN? This dichotomy is strange, to say the least, but the answer may be a corruption strategy traditionally practiced by the G7 countries, buying votes from developing countries at the UN in exchange for economic assistance from the IMF and the World Bank.
Another example of how globalists promote their interests under the guise of sustainable development is the agro-industrial monopolies associated with genetically modified organisms (GMOs). This is presented as promising agricultural biotechnologies that are capable of achieving sustainable development goals (primarily in the food production sector). But at the same time, it is silent about the price at which this should be done. And this is not only the destruction of endemic crops in different parts of the world, directly related to authentic agriculture and the traditional way of life of many peoples, but also the outright imposition of a monopoly on the purchase of GMO seeds from their producers, the vast majority of which are located in the United States. However, in the USA, in fact, half of the farmland is already under the control of GMO giants, which is confirmed by statistics.
And this experiment on American farmers can be preceptive for other countries.
Proponents of the use of GMOs also point out that organic agriculture requires more land and it also leads to higher carbon dioxide emissions due to the use of organic fertilizers obtained from animals.
Here we see an obvious combination of the narratives that globalists are trying to promote under the guise of environmental knowledge and a green agenda.
However, experts noted that the use of modern biotechnologies such as GMOs is directly related to other transitional technologies, but no detailed assessment on this issue has been developed.
Despite this, attempts by multinational corporations such as Monsanto (which was acquired by Bayern in 2016) to control agricultural markets continue.
Pharmaceutical companies in the West, the so-called Big Pharma, are making similar efforts. However, the coronavirus epidemic has shown the unpleasant side of the interaction of Western political elites with pharmaceutical giants, primarily the scandal within the EU about the purchase of vaccines from a company approved by Ursula von der Leyen without proper procedures and the required transparency and accountability. But this has not weakened the efforts of the Western pharmaceutical oligarchy to seize the global market for its substandard products, but rather the opposite.
And the height of the cynicism of globalists is the cases in The Brazilian Amazon, which can be put into separate cases. There, after forest fires, certain biotech companies appear that offer their services to “normalize” the soil in the burned-out area. Local public figures directly link these fires, which have recently appeared more frequently and on a large scale, with the interests of these companies.
All this allows us to conclude that the concept of “sustainable development“ was originally a political project of the globalist oligarchs. But with the current fragmentation and deadlock of globalization, they are trying to present this as an alternative scenario for the universal future. That is, part of their famous “rules–based order.“ So that their operation and control can continue under a plausible pretext.
Comments