As we have seen in Part One and Part Two about the United Nations 2030 Agenda, billions of dollars and untold hours have been (and continue to be) spent to develop and promote the “SDGs,” the UN’s “Sustainable Development Goals.” In one sense, the SDGs are like any standard, corporate strategic plan: to work efficiently, you have to know what you are working toward.
Looked at more closely, however, . . well, the UN’s red undies are showing. Maybe this is inevitable since the UN’s entire existence is premised on collective action. The questions become: What does the UN mean by “Sustainable”? And, how does the 2030 Agenda affect what’s happening in real life, where you live? The answers might be somewhat surprising (or, on second thought, maybe not).
The Brundtland Report
The UN has been talking about “sustainability” for decades. In 1987, the World Commission on Environment and Development, an independent UN body, issued the report, “Our Common Future” (known as the “Brundtland Report” after the chairperson of the Commission). The Brundtland Report sought to meld concern for the environment with the need for world-wide economic development, with particular attention given to developing nations (from the” Chairman’s Foreword”):
Many critical survival issues are related to uneven development, poverty, and population growth. They all place unprecedented pressures on the planet’s lands, waters, forests, and other natural resources, not least in the developing countries. The downward spiral of poverty and environmental degradation is a waste of opportunities and of resources. In particular, it is a waste of human resources. These links between poverty, inequality, and environmental degradation formed a major theme in our analysis and recommendations. What is needed now is a new era of economic growth – growth that is forceful and at the same time socially and environmentally sustainable.
Thus, the Foreword sets the crisis tone (“unprecedented pressures”, “downward spiral”) and offers the way out of the crisis (“a new era of economic growth [that is] sustainable.”) Here is part of the report’s treatment of “sustainability” (Ch. 2, I, 1):
Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It contains within it two key concepts:
the concept of ‘needs’, in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and
the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment’s ability to meet present and future needs.
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf
Where it discusses “equity,” the report focuses on “inter-generational” equity (i.e., leaving adequate resources for future generations (Annexe I, 1)) and present-day equity (working to ensure the wealthy don’t hoard resources at the expense of the poor (Overview I, 3, ¶28)).
Though this 1987 report is not devoid of such favorite collectivist themes as wealth redistribution and population control, its primary focus is ecological. Now, however, the UN and its cheerleaders apply a more aggressive “social justice” gloss to the term “equity.”
All Aboard the (New) “Equity” Train
The western world, and especially the United States, recently has seen an overtly leftist “equity” agenda assert itself in the workplace; in education; in entertainment; in government − in short, in every sector of society. The groups advancing the SDGs are no exception.
(For the uninitiated, “equity” does not mean “equality,” i.e., treating people equally; rather, it seeks to ensure equal outcomes in whatever realm it is applied. For a “translation [of ‘equity’] from the wokish,” go here: https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-equity/)
“Equity” proponents build off the neo-Marxist framework that sorts people into oppressors and oppressed, based on identity categories, with non-whites generally falling into the category of “oppressed” (with the notable exception of high-achieving Asians — which speaks volumes.) And while politically satisfying for its adherents, there is scant evidence that anti-poverty actions based on “an equity lens” actually improve life for the intended beneficiaries: the poor and the marginalized. https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/report/critical-race-theory-would-not-solve-racial-inequality-it-would-deepen-it
Which brings us to “sustainable/sustainability” in the SDGs. According to the Brookings Institution,
Today’s crises have laid bare deeply entrenched inequalities and systemic racism. The SDGs encourage policies to reach the most vulnerable first, to benefit those who have been left behind by the global economy. . . . “Sustainability” is now understood to extend beyond the environment to incorporate equity, justice, and opportunity, to ensure the long-term viability of communities.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/11/12/american-leadership-in-advancing-the-sdgs-to-achieve-equity-and-sustainability/ (Showing how thinking has changed over the years, in the Brundtland Report, the word “systemic” appears only twice, and the word “racism” not at all. The “race” the report concerns itself with most is the “arms race.”)
Part Two of our look at the 2030 Agenda touched on the Charles Stuart Mott Foundation, one of the “partners” of the SDG-force-multiplier Brookings Institution. According to the Mott Foundation’s president, “[the SDG framework] gives us a great way to look at big issues like racial injustice, poverty, education and health through a common lens, and it offers a common language to share what works.” Mott even commissioned a study “to take a fresh look at the SDGs through an equity lens [and the report] highlights how matters of racial equity are implicit throughout the SDG framework.” https://www.mott.org/news/articles/global-goals-local-solutions/ The resulting study accepts the premise that “systemic racism” lies at the core of disparate poverty rates among blacks, whites, and Hispanics in the United States, and it advocates for “racial equity-related grantmaking”. https://www.mott.org/news/publications/how-the-sustainable-development-goals-can-help-community-foundations-respond-to-covid-19-and-advance-racial-equity/
So, what are the effects of Mott’s “SDGs through an equity lens” approach on the recipients of the Foundation’s largesse? A UN Foundation/Brookings Institution report on US progress implementing the SDGs (“The State of the Sustainable Development Goals in the United States”) shines the spotlight on two grantees.
Equity in Orlando: One Mott-funded, SDG-aligned project is “Thrive Central Florida.” https://www.mott.org/grants/central-florida-foundation-thrive-central-florida-2020-06357/ Thrive administers five separate funds to address different needs within the Central Florida community. https://cffound.org/thrive/ At least indirectly, according to the UN Foundation/Brookings document, the Thrive coalition “helped push the City [of Orlando] to create a position of Chief Equity Officer.” This is evidence, per the report, of “a sense of shared momentum to advance the SDGs through a variety of different mechanisms.” https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-state-of-the-sustainable-development-goals-in-the-united-states/ (downloadable pdf available at link). Time will tell whether the addition of a “Chief Equity Officer” to the Orlando payroll pays dividends for the poor and marginalized of that city, in keeping with the SDGs.
Bringing the SDGs and Woke-Speak to the Heartland: In mid-July 2020, Mott gave a $50,000 grant to a group of five community foundations serving rural Kansas, the “Kansas Association of Community Foundations.” In exchange for the money, the association was to “prominently include content on the Sustainable Development Goals and their adoption by community foundations at its annual national Growing Community Foundations Conference.” https://www.mott.org/grants/kansas-association-of-community-foundations-raising-awareness-and-educating-u-s-community-foundations-on-the-sdgs-2019-05739/ The grant was made pursuant to Mott’s “Civic Society − Enhancing Community Philanthropy” interest area. Domestic grants under this branch of the program require recipients to tailor their efforts to the SDG framework. https://www.mott.org/work/civil-society/enhancing-community-philanthropy/
Then, in 2021, Mott gave the Kansas association a $300,000 grant to get down to work. https://www.mott.org/grants/?query=Kansas
A UN Foundation report on the Kansas effort reveals community leaders straining to “connect their local action to global ambitions” and to use the “common lens” and “common language” to describe their efforts (“I had never heard of the SDGs before. But essentially, you think of everything that’s a really big, hairy problem − that’s what the SDGs are all about.” “The SDGs played a big part helping us with our approach to making sure everyone can afford homes. We want to make sure that we’re making housing here [in Bird City, KS] sustainable.”) Other Kansans seemed more comfortable with woke-speak, the precise meaning of which is, unfortunately, unclear (“Let’s build up to that systemic change.” “We’re actors and agents of change now whereas, before this project, we weren’t.”). Some praised the data-collection aspect of SDG compliance (“There has to be a data component to all this because how else are you going to measure success?”).
The report offers few details on how improvements in these rural Kansas communities are newly “sustainable.” https://unfoundation.org/blog/post/how-5-community-foundations-in-kansas-are-bringing-the-sdgs-home/
• • •
One sector where there appears to be very little resistance to the SDGs − on the contrary, there is tremendous enthusiasm − is education. We will turn there next.