In writing an effective website posting, it is sometimes important to find a nugget of information that can simply drive home a point for a broader theme. In reviewing a 150 page United Nations document published this past February 2013, I think I may have found just such an informational nugget. The title of the Document is, “Sustainable Development Scenarios for Rio+20.”
In promoting Agenda 21 and Sustainability, advocates and planners will typically discuss how economic, environmental, and social goals must be optimized. Yet, these goals do not necessarily have equal weighting in the minds of people involved with sustainable development planning. Review the table below that contains information extracted from the recently published United Nations report mentioned above.
Look at how ten (10) leading experts answered questions related to Sustainability issues. Climate change was near the bottom of the list. Redistributing wealth was near the top in terms of support.
What does that say about the real “agenda” behind Sustainable Development? Don’t get me wrong. Conceptually, there is nothing wrong with a “decent minimum income for everyone.” But do you see the irony? By a 7 to 3 margin, experts support a decent income in a fair society; but by the same 7 to 3 margin, green technologies are not going to produce the jobs to support those incomes!
And how does the 9 to 1 vote against climate change being the world’s most pressing issue compare with how Sustainability might be portrayed in the mainstream media or elsewhere?
So just be aware that if you support Sustainable Development, you are not likely supporting environmental issues to any great degree. It is most likely you are supporting political agendas that involve resolving alleged grievances between rich and poor countries and other similar issues. What is frustrating is that many citizens give their tacit approval to Sustainability under the guise that it is primarily involved with ecological protection consistent with the implied message of “green planet” bumper stickers. It is actually more about “green money” transfer from the United States and a few other developed countries to the rest of the world. If this money is in fact transferred, how well (or prudently) do you expect it would actually be spent, and for the purposes intended?
To partially respond to one of this blog posting’s comments, I am adding a short audio clip from one of the representatives at a UN meeting who basically stated that welfare programs implemented to fight poverty are not very effective due to corruption and “politics.” So yes, there is probably bribery and whatever else accompanies corruption. Some of the developing countries may not have stable governments, certainly not democracies as we know them. My concern is that most of the money is used to prop up corrupt governments and bureaucracies, but I have no documentation available at this time to quantity the actual dollars wasted versus how much is used to support worthwhile programs.
If the primary issues facing the world are eradication of poverty and hunger, then probably the first action that should be considered by the United Nations is elimination of corruption within the individual governments. This corruption prevents efficient use of resources to help the lives of those most in need. Of course, in reality, with the UN you essentially have a situation of where the foxes are guarding the henhouse. By that I mean that UN representatives tend to defend each others governments’ practices in the name of “national sovereignty.”
From a personal point of view, in order to help people directly in need, I prefer to donate money to non-profit organizations such as Action Against Hunger, Globus Relief, Doctors without Borders, and Direct Relief. These organizations and others can be researched on websites such as Charity Navigator at http://www.charitynavigator.org/ to find the organizations that are very efficient in the allocation of donations to program expenses and which are financially transparent.