Two years ago, Agenda 2030 was called a conspiracy by many, and even used to shame some citizens running for local government who indicated that local policy was driven by the United Nations Sustainability Goals and Agenda 2030 (previously known as Agenda 21).
Now we see towns like Duncan placing it right into their current OCP, and other local governments using all the wording and projected outcomes we see in these global goals.
After taking North Cowichan’s Climate Action Plan and putting it into AI to read and summarize, this was the results: “The CAEP Update is a comprehensive strategy that aims to foster sustainable growth while addressing climate change, aligning well with the broader objectives of both Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030.”
As the world approaches 2030, a thorough examination of the United Nations’ Agenda 21 reveals its ambitious and far-reaching goals. Unveiled at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, this comprehensive plan outlines a strategy for global sustainable development with profound implications for land use, resource management, and societal structures. Originally titled Agenda for the 21st Century, they felt it was not moving fast enough, so set the goals to be met by 2030, hence the name change to Agenda 2030.
The concept of “sustainable development” was introduced by Maurice Strong, former Director of the United Nations Environment Programme and Chairman of the World Wildlife Fund. In his 1987 book, Our Common Future, Strong articulated the idea of meeting present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet theirs. While the term initially appeared benign, promising responsible stewardship of resources, the underlying proposals in Strong’s work sparked considerable debate.
Agenda 21 (2030), the action plan derived from these ideas, seeks to fundamentally alter land use policies worldwide. It proposes extensive control over natural resources—including land, water, and minerals—and aims to implement changes across every city, province, and town. This vision includes a significant commitment from countries, including Canada, which, along with 187 other nations, pledged to adhere to these goals.
One of the key provisions of Agenda 21 is the rethinking of land use. It suggests that private land ownership is unsustainable and advocates for greater public control over land resources. This vision includes restricting human access to large areas of land, designating them as off-limits or buffer zones. The current government’s 30×30 plan, aiming for 30% of Canadian lands to be government/public-privately managed by 2030, aligns with this aspect of Agenda 21, and can be heard mentioned by Mayor Douglas multiple times in recent meetings.
Resource management under Agenda 21 emphasizes the role of public-private partnerships. During the COVID-19 pandemic, collaborations between tech companies and government agencies exemplified this approach. These partnerships are part of a broader strategy to regulate and monitor energy and water usage through technologies like smart meters, ensuring tracking and management of all resources. The land management will also use these public-private partnerships such as those already in place as “stalwarts” such as groups like Nature Trust, and other ‘Trusts” and “Conservancy” associations.
Population control is another significant element of Agenda 21. The plan proposes a reduction in the global population to align with environmental goals, suggesting that an agricultural society (referred to by them as a peasant society) could support 5-7 billion people, while to live as we do in an industrialized (“Western Society”), that would only be sustainable for 1 billion people. This controversial aspect has raised concerns about feasibility and ethics.
Economic and social policies within Agenda 21 include the implementation of a carbon tax on businesses, which we see has a disproportionately impact on small enterprises and the middle class. Additionally, the agenda emphasizes social equity, aiming to address disparities in wealth and resources, meaning that your home ownership, or land ownership, is not fair to those that don’t own a home or land. We should all be “equitable” living in the same apartments, and eating the same food.
The vision for urbanization under Agenda 21 involves developing dense, controlled urban centers and green city projects. This shift would reduce private homes and promote high-density living areas, altering traditional patterns of urban and suburban life.(See Provincial bills 44-47)
Agenda 21 has faced substantial criticism. Critics argue that its policies could lead to increased government control over personal property and daily life undermining individual freedoms. Concerns also arise about the practicality and fairness of its proposals, particularly in relation to population control and resource management.
The plan’s origins, development, and key components—such as private land ownership, public-private partnerships, and population control—illustrate its ambitiously scary scope. While its intentions to promote sustainability are clear, the implications for personal freedoms and property rights have sparked significant debate. As the world moves forward, it is crucial to critically assess policies that may impact individual rights and democratic principles, especially as you see policies such as these passed by all local governments.
Local governments are generally well-meaning but often unprepared and lacking the background knowledge to understand that bylaws and policies brought to them by staff are incrementally advancing certain agendas. The World Economic Forum, often seen as a propaganda arm of the U.N., has been associated with the phrase, “You will own nothing and be happy.” It is crucial to scrutinize all policies and deduce how they might contribute to these broader goals. Every policy linked to climate goals must be critically examined to determine if it aligns with Agenda 2030 objectives. For example, there are plans for forced retrofitting of old homes, consider whether this is genuinely intended to help residents save on increasing costs, such as those from BC Hydro, or if it is a method to remove people from their homes. Similarly, consider whether rising property taxes are genuinely for benevolent purposes or if they are a way to displace homeowners, particularly retirees who defer taxes. Always evaluate policies with a critical eye to uncover the true outcomes being presented under the guise of “sustainability.”
Sources to read more: “Behind The Green Mask” – only available digitally from Amazon Project2020vision.com you can download Agenda 2030 booklet for $10
