An alternative to the UK Government's 'Net Zero' and 'Agenda 2030' programmes, whereby 'Net Zero' is dealt with in one fact based statement. The original 17 'Goals' are best looked at in parallel with the Government's documents (links provided). Certain 'Goals' are recommended for removal, and new 'Goals' are added. Feel free to participate in developing this further, and a presentation video will soon be available on the Sisyphus Complex Solution Rumble Channel (https://rumble.com/c/c-576327).

1. ALTERNATIVE
COMPETENCE
HUMAN FLOURISHING
UK CITIZENS

2. Obligation 19: National Sovereignty
Obligation 20: Actual Democracy
Obligation 21: Courage of Conviction
DOMESTIC
Obligation 18: Burden of Proof

3. ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES
A PREVIEW RESPONSE TO THE UK GOVERNMENT’s (UN’s)
PLANS FOR NET ZERO AND AGENDA 2030 PROGRAMMES
NET ZERO:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/up
loads/attachment_data/file/1033990/net-zero-strategy-beis.pdf
AGENDA 2030:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/up
loads/attachment_data/file/603500/Agenda-2030-Report4.pdf
AUTHORED BY: PAUL BUCKINGHAM, ICPR 1200 LIMITED
SEPTEMBER, 2022
director@icpr1200.com

4. PREFACE
The programme of ‘Net Zero’ can be looked upon as a stand alone proposition, but must be held in the wider context
of it’s inclusion to ‘Goal 13 – Climate Action’ within the UN ‘Sustainability Goals’. Additionally, it must further be
understood that this ‘agenda’ has at no point been subject to the democratic process of the citizenry of any of the 193
signatory nations. As a result, it means that by default, this agenda has been void of any competent rigour of
evaluation from the public it will effect, and perhaps more significantly, subject to wide scale ‘disinformation’ (i.e.
climate change is a ‘scientific fact’, yet the real fact is that there is zero scientific method evidence, nor precautionary
principle evidence to support these claims, and still, Governments and NGO’s use this disinformation to promote the
Malthusian idea of ‘sustainability’).
What can be established is the cause and effect of this agenda, since it’s original conception in 1992 under the term of
‘Agenda 21’, and in particular, the outcomes of ramping up the agenda since 2020 (under the newly termed ‘Agenda
2030’ from 2014), and in conjunction with the WEF ‘Great Reset’ (another form of the same agenda, and equally void
of scrutiny).
As this document serves to be a ‘preview’ for an alternative solution, there will be a need for incremental inclusions
and addendums to present more detailed data, especially in regard to the addition of the ‘Burden of Proof’ as per the
newly suggested ‘Obligation 18’, but for the time being, certain qualifications can be established.
The prime example will be ‘Goal 13 – Climate Action’, because this leads directly to ‘Goals’ 7 (Affordable and Clean
Energy), 8 (Decent Work & Economic Growth), 9 (Industry, Innovation & Infrastructure), and 11 (Sustainable Cities &
Communities), 12 (Responsible Consumption & Production), whereby the premise of ‘climate’ drives the suggested
policies of each of the subsequent ‘Goals’. To reiterate the important fact, there is ZERO scientific evidence to support
the claims of ‘Climate Action’ being required, and whilst the UK ‘Net Zero Strategy’ cites various links to IPCC reports,
not one of those reports provides any burden of proof as per the scientific method, nor do any of the models meet any
advanced mathematical competency tests, and hence there is a ‘Goal’ to solve an unproven problem.
When taken in full recognition of this disinformation, it then requires the abandonment of any policy based on this
premise, until such time as the claim moves from rhetoric and ideology and enters the realms of competence.
On this basis alone, a number of the ‘Goals’, as per the UN vision, must also be abandoned in their current form, and
hence all other ‘Goals’ must be considered based on reality, not hyperbole. This ‘Alternative’ seeks to begin this
process, with considerations toward signatory nations being able to make their own sovereign determinations, as
opposed to a ‘one size fits all’ approach.

5. GOAL 1. NO POVERTY
On a nation by nation basis, the variables to this proposition are too wide for any ‘golden
bullet’ solution, but one thing is clear, external interference to domestic matters causes far
more problems than it solves. The core case in point is the demands placed on developing
nations to avoid affordable energy resources, which are fundamental to their growth, and
which they indeed own and should be making their own determinations. The only result of
this interference is to keep the poorest poor, as well as killing 1.6 million people annually.
In this regard, ‘Global’ solutions would do well to mind their own business.
In terms of the UK, the claimed proposition is based on welfare reforms, including supporting people to find jobs,
reducing the disability employment gap, and providing security in retirement. This is clearly a false ‘Goal’, because all
Government policies are having the polar opposite effect, and if continued, will see the nation fall back so far, it will be
hard to differentiate from a medieval feudal system. Some may think this a good idea, but delusional romanticism is not
a worthy aim.
This leads once again to the false premise of ‘Goal 13 – Climate Action’, because this ideology is directly responsible for
the creation of an artificial energy economy, leading into a command economy, which is both illiterate and deliberately
blinded to the devastation such ideology inevitably results. We are now seeing this in the form of energy poverty, and
have been witness to this over a number of years, e.g. deaths per year as of 2017 equated to nearly 32,000. Heading
into 2023, it is likely this number will be dwarfed. To blame Putin for everything is to deliberately avoid the issues prior to
his escapades, and that of Zelensky and the unaccounted for $billions, and it is to display cognitive dissonance in
recognising that the promise of ‘renewables’ have clearly failed in this very obvious test, i.e. you can’t claim ‘cheaper’
and ‘abundant’ if it is destroying industries and individuals lives, and hence making everyone poorer.
It is also the case that constant borrowing from future generations of taxpayer is also nonsensical, a key factor to
inflation, and once again, driving increased rates of poverty, so Government rhetoric on this matter is pure fantasy, and
the reality is, their ‘agenda’ is already a massive failure.
If a true solution were to be sought, it would require less Government intervention, and less reliance on whether they
determine of you have any money or not. As for the ‘identity politics’ side of things, this is pure theatre. A real solution
would be to organise a citizen owned (not Government, not institutions, not corporate) asset management firm.

6. GOAL 2. ZERO HUNGER
The existing plans being implemented around the world seem to be based on reverting
farms into ‘wildlife’, enabling monopoly ownership of farmland and intervening into the
food supply chain to such a degree that food shortages are the result. If the aim of ‘Zero
Hunger’ is to actually be ‘Mass Starvation’ (as seems to be the case), then the current
plans are going gangbusters, with farmer demonstrations across the western world, and
literal famines most everywhere else, so in terms of the literal term of ‘Zero Hunger’, I
would suggest the UN plan is yet another dismal failure needing immediate redirection.
A contributing factor to the misuse of land is the increasing space taken by ‘renewables’, which of themselves have failed
completely to present any logical form of proof of business case. More will be presented in a later ‘Goal’, but suffice to
say within this ‘Goal’, taking up vast swathes of land space and reducing the food supply to make room for this delusion
is about as good for reducing hunger as Mao’s ‘Great Leap Forward’ that starved as many as 55 million.
The case of ‘Zero Poverty’ and ‘Zero Hunger’ are by definition going to see one aim solve the other, and hence this will be
highly dependent on nation by nation capabilities and intentions, but what can be established is a ‘courage of conviction’
policy, whereby the advocates of Agenda 2030 and the ‘Great Reset’ can have a formal arrangement for their personal
finances (including trusts etc.) to be levied with an agreed ‘poverty tax’ of perhaps 10%, and for those funds to be
allocated to resolving these problems, but with strict instructions for the prevention of any ‘conditions’ or additional
interference. If said persons were genuine in their concerns, then they would surely demonstrate this courage of
conviction and seek nothing in return.
A majority share of these funds can be utilised to solve any domestic poverty / hunger, with 5% allocated to international
efforts. If the ‘philanthropists’ wished to assist internationally on an additional basis, a separate fund can be created for
donations above the 10% benchmark.
This direct intervention aside, competent economic developments, external to the failed command economy being
pursued by the UN proposals, will generate the balance of opportunity required to enable a proportionate workforce.

7. GOAL 3. GOOD HEALTH
As the Covid fiasco revealed, the centralised ‘one size fits all’ policies for all nations,
demonstrated levels of unparalleled incompetence, to which those wedded to the agenda
are still in a total state of denial. The fact that the agenda seems to think formalising this
farce further by handing over all policy decisions to the WHO, is prime example of how
this denial remains steadfast, with every member nation doing their utmost to avoid
anything resembling a process of accountability.
Uppermost in the minds of all nations should be to seek this accountability, no matter where it leads, and with direct
personal consequences, rather then the rewards that being handed out to criminals. This would first come on the form
of accountability due to the violations of the Nuremberg Code, and then all the way down the line to those who
conveniently ignored their Hippocratic Oath.
Whilst each nation should determine their own solutions for healthcare, the long known incompetence of the UK’s
National Health Service became stark as they turned into a mix of the National NO Service, under the lunatic banner of
‘Save the NHS’ in true backwards fashion, and then in regard to the treatment of the elderly, they literally became the
National Death Service, with a policy of they can come in, but they’ll leave in a bag. For this to go unnoticed would
require staggering levels of cognitive dissonance.
What is very clear is that neither Government nor the Corporate sector can be trusted with the health of the citizens,
whether that be from the perspective of the front line delivery, right through to the medications via pharma, who have
also shown themselves to be no better than pond life.
A thorough and complete plan is required to solve this increasingly reversed scenario of killing for the good of your
health, whereby more complex details will be provided within a wider presentation, but suffice to say that one again, a
citizen owned operation funded through insurance contributions (not via any third party), which in turn will reduce tax
burdens, seems like a natural option after private and public variations have not held up to muster.
In combination with such a proposition, the citizenry would by default need to step up the responsibility to reduce the
vast waste and corruption that permeates through this field.

8. GOAL 4. QUALITY EDUCATION
If this part of the existing agenda were not so depraved, I might consider it a joke in it’s
failure, but the simple fact is, the agenda based ‘education’ is pure indoctrination into the
worst forms of idiocy, combined with the depravity of sexualising children, best evidenced
through the UNESCO SERAT 3.0 Programme, which is the formative prospectus from
which each nations most perverse creatures will redefine this basis into whatever levels of
sickness they can get away with, most notably the versions of how children are supposed
to accept being raped (yes, this is true).
Irrespective of the nation, the first part of this revised ‘agenda’ would be to remove any and all association with the
organisations pushing this filth, and I do include the delusions around telling children they can be a difference sex /
gender, as well as all of the race baiting divisionary tactics.
Additionally, there would need to be a root and branch investigation to all centres for education to remove the cultists
that push this sick ideology, and never let them near children again, with further actions taken against those who had
performed any indecent actions with children.
Once the perverts and ideologues are driven out of education, then it is incumbent on schools to remember what they
are their for, which is to teach the fundamentals of knowledge according to level, and within the boundaries of
epistemology. A core basic within such structure is to teach how to ascertain the confounders to a problem, of any
description, whereby the focus is then based on how to think, not what to think, and certainly never conditioned to be a
slave to a state nor an agenda.
In this form of ‘agenda’, there will be room for question, discussion and improvement as a ‘living document’, so it will be
imperative for the next generations to be able to comprehend lessons learned from the past, as well as benchmarks and
burdens of proof, in order that they may be creative within the boundaries of reality.
A sign of a good education will be well rounded young adults, not green haired screaming loonies that find ‘offence’ at
having their bad opinions challenged.

9. GOAL 5. GENDER EQUALITY
I would love to see all of the ‘gender crowd’ take their false victimhood out to places like
Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.
The rest of this is a constant stream of delusions, in terms of ‘173 genders’, or whatever it
is this week, plus the ‘pay gap’, which has been proven vastly incorrect more times than I
care to mention, and then of course the ‘equality’ side of things, which refers to law, and
never comes with any explanation as to exactly what ‘law’ is not equal.
Suffice to say that when a ‘Goal’ serves no purpose, or is based on a false premise, then it should be removed, and so it
is with this one. Waste of everyone’s time.

10. GOAL 6. CLEAN WATER & SANITATION
As with many things in reality, some perspectives hold nuance that may not make much
sense to many, but in terms of some nations cultures, this type of development will not be
a ‘one size fits all’ again. The prime example has been certain locations in Africa where
water pipelines had been installed, and the assumption had been that terrorism was at
play when the installations were damaged beyond repair.
It was only later they found at that the local women had destroyed the pipeline, because it
meant they could not gather for their daily chat with each other as they strode off to do
their chores at the water source.
It doesn’t matter if this makes sense to us or not, it merely demonstrates the culture of each nation and how it would
be an error to work to international diktat.
For those of us that could not conceive of having to fetch our water, and with specific reference to the UK, it would be
a good start if the water systems did not lose so much of the water due to leaks, and if they would stop closing every
public toilet.
There are systems of technology that could help with identifying leak locations, but it is also the case that historically
laid systems were never made to last forever.
A key factor in this is how certain utilities companies in particular have forgotten the business term, ‘retained earnings’,
which is intended to be used toward maintenance and development of the systems they are supposed to look after. All
too often it becomes a case of the taxpayer needing to fit the bill, and this kind of backward thinking might please the
few who benefit from abandoning their responsibilities, but any rational ‘agenda’ of responsibility would place the
obligation firmly in the lap of those who own the business.
There will likely then be claims of raising the price of delivery, but a programme of cost transparency will likely ward
this away.

11. GOAL 7. AFFORDABLE & CLEAN ENERGY
Here we get to the rub of the most obvious problem, and the actual intentions. Energy
control is a key component in further controlling a modern day populous, as so much of
society and the economy is dependent on this resource.
Dealing with the ‘clean’ part first; this narrative is completely dependent on ‘Goal 13 –
Climate Action’, which has zero credibility whatsoever, and this is due to zero actual
burden of proof for all of the fanciful claims, and constant failed predictions. Similarly, the
claim of ‘affordable’ is demonstrably false, and the creation of a command economy based
on artificial prices influences has seen the worst crisis of unaffordable and dwindling
supplies that anyone with a tiny modicum of brain function could predict.
The simple fact is, wind and solar has never presented anything remotely resembling a proof of business case, and it
never will.
Certain fundamentals need to be re-asserted to those who have been feeble minded enough to blindly follow
unsubstantiated narratives from such highly regarded sources as children that have yet to finish basic school, and
indeed ‘academics’ and the ‘peer review’ system needs to be held fully accountable, but above all, total withdrawal
from the source of so much garbage is critical, and hence no membership to the IPCC (nor to the UN as a whole for
that matter). This entire programme originates from these unelected technocrats, with zero liability and therefore no
consequences for the mounting levels of false narratives and abuses they are directly responsible for.
When claims of ‘affordable’ have been made for alternative sources of energy, the first and only task is to set the price
benchmark that is being claimed. Any failure to meet that target must then be deemed a failure, and thus prevent the
actions being consistently abused to create an artificial economy to skew prices.
The most fundamental actions must be a complete and thorough comprehension of the energy market, paying
especial notice to the increasing burden of cost via multiple taxes and levies, and removing the subsidies that also go
toward the artificial economies.
In addition, a full comprehensive investigation into domestic resources should be undertaken, in order to establish
energy independence.

12. GOAL 8. DECENT WORK & ECONOMIC GROWTH
Much of the rhetoric behind this version of the ‘Goal’, is just that, rhetoric. Any truthful
economist though would look at the ‘economic approach’ and ‘support’, and know full well
this is called a ‘Command Economy’ operating in conjunction with an ‘Artificial Economy’
and does not work.
The term ‘decent work’ is an entirely arbitrary and subjective proposition that effectively
means nothing, and more importantly, if anyone believed for one moment that any
Government were to care less about whether an individual considered their role ‘decent’ or
not, must be suffering from severe delusions. An example of this has been most prevalent
during lockdowns, whereby ‘political figures’ could work and play without any fake ‘safety’ restrictions, whilst the plebs
serving them were forced to wear masks, lest the ‘disease of inferiority’ be spread. This assuming you were chosen to
be one of the few allowed to work at all, by measure of whether the company you worked for was part of the ‘in-
crowd’, or more commonly known as the ‘minimum wage’ jobs for ‘big corp’, and hence just 0.1% of all registered
companies in the UK. In short, if you want a strategy that is centred toward the workplace proposition, Government is
not your friend, so best stick to working things out with your employer.
A much bigger problem is the notion that Government is ‘supporting business’, because it literally is doing the
opposite. Let’s begin with ‘fostering research and innovation’. This is the ‘Command Economy’ problem, because it
means Government is assuming it has the ability to pick the winners and losers, and additionally is pushing the
‘winners’ into sectors that are based on false premises, e.g. renewable’s. This is well understood to produce the polar
opposite effect, and in fact reduces innovation, but then adds inefficiency into the mix as well. The EU’s Horizon 20/20
‘innovation support programme’ is notorious for demonstrating this problem, and hence why even academic
participants call it the ‘valley of death’, because the ‘ideas’ are rubbish, and nobody can agree on anything. For any
Government to be promoting this as a prime policy, means they have zero education, and are in fact promoting
Communism.
The ‘Artificial Economy’ part of this, has a number of factors, most notably the Governments fiat currency delusion, but
it goes further with the promotion of yet more borrowing, at the same time as presenting multiple forms of taxation as
being somehow beneficial. Presumably Government hopes we are as uneducated as they clearly are.
Economic propositions require the competence to understand first principles.

13. GOAL 9. INDUSTRY, INNOVATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Here we can witness a ‘strategy’ that assumes a lack of intellect on the part of the reader,
where emphasis is based on putting three words together that start with ‘i’, as though that
makes it more credible. Problem being of course that Goal 8 alludes to ‘innovation’, and
the content of their ‘strategy’ has little to nothing to do with ‘industry’.
Basically then we can call this ‘Goal’ ‘Infrastructure’. The UK side stipulates this to mean
‘Rail’, ‘Road’ and ‘Digital’, and with no surprise at all suggests ‘investing’.
On the Rail side, competence is required to make sense of the 43 different entities all
listed under ownership of Network Rail, and the incomprehensible method of franchising to
claim ‘private ownership’, which is resulting in the worlds most expensive form of transport.
‘Road’ ‘investment’ raises query, simply due to the fact that road tax equates to around £6.5 billion per annum, which
exceeds total spending on national roads, and then local taxes will determine the spending on local roads, where the
common factor is spending less than they receive and contracting repairs that a 5 year old could improve upon, under
the basic knowledge of what a road roller is.
We then shift into ‘Digital’, which begs the question, who is getting taxpayer funded internet? This is a function of the
private sector, and without getting into the weeds of the 5G problems, I fail to see what this has to do with any
Government, let alone being some sort of ‘Goal’. Development on this basis would be further evidence of a Command
Economy, and a path to evidenced failure.
There is repetition in regard to innovation, but this has already been dealt with.
Essentially, this ‘Goal’ should be more focused on how bad Government performs using taxpayer money.

14. GOAL 10. REDUCED INEQUALITIES
Here we enter the realms of the non-existent bogeyman.
When absolutely no specific legislation can be stated that proves the so-called
‘discrimination’ and the very institution that holds legislative power can give no such
example, I would posit that we are dealing with ideological garbage that is unworthy of
discussion.

15. GOAL 11. SUSTAINABLE CITIES AND COMMUNITIES
Seriously, read their ‘Goal’ and tell me they are not spewing verbal diarrhoea.
For clarity once again, ‘Sustainability’ is a Malthusian concept that means they want many
people dead, not to beat about the bush.
We’ve already dealt with their incompetence around rail, it is a fact that state intervention
to housing creates an artificial economy that raises prices (and stock market crashes), and
we also know that air quality is based on rules for thee, so no, zero interest in their
intention to create further failure based on a murderous ideology.

16. GOAL 12. RESPONSIBLE CONSUMPTION AND PRODUCTION
The mere title alone should set off goose bumps to any normal thinking person, on
account of the inclusion of ‘Production’. This equates to Government control of production,
which literally is the definition of communism.
It’s no wonder then that they try to distract from this blatant ideology by concentrating only
on recycling and fish stocks, which is taking matters to the outer edge of the peripheral to
the actual intent.
Once again, these are areas that the public must guard against, and reject based on
lessons learned from history of an ideology that has mass murder as it’s key component.

17. GOAL 13. CLIMATE ACTION
All Government departments and external influences, such as the IPCC have been
presented with opportunity to provide the scientific method evidence or evidence that
qualifies the precautionary principle, and all have failed.
That combined with a 60 year history of being nothing better than a lunatic with a
sandwich board claiming ‘The End Is Nigh’, means that this can be rejected outright.

18. GOAL 14. LIFE BELOW WATER
Life above a mountain. Makes about as much sense as three quarters of this ‘Goal’.
One aspect I will pick up on is the ‘water contamination’, where it can be agreed that this
is a problem that needs to be solved, including the Government demanding the addition of
contaminates, which would require a full history criminal investigation.
Additionally, the pollutants to the water system are dominated by entities such as those
who are members of WEF, so widening such an investigation would be wise. All such
matters present undertaking that Government should already have been doing, but clearly
haven’t, due to their own participation.

19. GOAL 15. LIFE ON LAND
Life on earth under Government control is basically what this amounts to.
Dealing with the single issue they distract us with in relation to ‘nature’, the UK’s Natural
Parks equate to 9.7% of the entire land mass of the country, so exactly how much they
want to pretend is needed to qualify as ‘nature’ is a question that will provoke hypocrisy
considering the statements around housing from the rejected ‘Goal’ of ‘Sustainable Cities
and Communities’.
Due to the failure to pin point anything else, and the fact that built environment only
equates to around 3%, this needs to be also rejected.

20. GOAL 16. PEACE AND JUSTICE
Once again we have Government complaining about problems that they are solely
responsible for.
Dealing in reverse order of the stipulated ‘problems’ expressed for the UK, we first see
their aim to be accountable and transparent, whilst they simultaneously avoid any
measure of accountability, and obfuscate to ludicrous levels to avoid transparency, where
the prime example would be the actual intentions of this entire agenda.
Then we come to ‘access to the justice system’ at the same time as they have removed legal aid for everyone except
for illegal economic migrants and criminals that have found favour with leech ideological lawyers, whose entire aim is
to represent the worst of humanity (minus their fellow ideologues). This is an in-built function of their agenda, whereby
they perform the precise opposite to what the rhetoric suggests.
In terms of violence to women and children; I’m not aware of any law that makes this legal, so then the problem
becomes the policing and legal system that will do nothing about it. Prime example being the 10’s of thousands of
young girls raped up and down the country, but vilified by the system at the expense of an ideology that states anyone
not white can do no wrong. This is demonstration of what levels of filth this agenda will stoop to.
Add to this the complete lack of any action against high level child abusers and human traffickers, where the fact
remains that the UN is the world’s biggest trafficking criminal, due to the Global Compact on Migration, where they are
complicit in assisting and encouraging trafficking. By default, the UK Government is doing the same, and this is best
witnessed through the total inaction toward criminals entering the country by rubber dinghy, where they are then
treated to fully costed living.
This agenda has zero intentions toward actual justice, and in terms of peace, you only have to look toward the
Ukraine.
What this ‘Goal’ should do is create a nation by nation investigation into the wider corruption we all know takes place
at the highest levels, and demonstrate actual accountability.

21. GOAL 17. PARTNERSHIPS FOR THE GOALS
Let’s be clear, the ‘Partnership’ they actually mean here is the World Economic Forum.
Partnerships, collaboration and agreements are indeed important, but not when it is based
on them owning everything and expecting you to be happy about it.
In terms of the content of this ‘Goal’ are
concerned, this intention should be
removed.

22. GOAL 18. BURDEN OF PROOF
Here is the first of the additions to counter act the UN ‘Goals’, where they are
conveniently left out by the UN and the UK Government.
The ‘Burden of Proof’ originates from a legal concept and process, whereby
there must be the certainty in order to enforce a conviction, but this concept is
not unique to the legal system.
In terms of the legal system itself, this process has been eroded through ideological premises and needs to be
reverted back to it’s first principles, whereby a start point would be in the formation of legislation itself.
As part of the stated process of creating new laws, a form of burden of proof is required in the method of a cost/benefit
analysis, however, a simple review of such analysis can demonstrate a failure to comprehend this basic requirement.
At the present the process is based on a variety of voices that are already in agreement with the proposed legislation,
and in no way present their opinions in a manner that constitutes a reasoned analysis. Prime example of this can be
found in the ‘Climate Change Act 2008’, which itself presents a further ‘Burden of Proof’ example, because as
previously stated, no scientific method nor precautionary principles have been met, hence this legislation fails by the
standards it is supposed to adhere.
Additional ‘Burden of Proof’ qualifications can be levied across a range of areas, where a common standard can be
ascertained via ‘Benchmarks’. An example of this would be any claims of ‘cheap energy’ claims, that demonstrate the
exact opposite in practice (and are always known in advance), so a benchmark period of pricing can be enshrined,
with no subsidy or assistance to present an artificial price, whereby any failure to meet this benchmark would mean
rejection.
Further to this, there are business and investment centric ‘Burden of Proof’ methods, such as ‘Proof of Concept’ and
‘Proof of Business’, that should be applied to all relevant applications, laws or policies, in order that a standard may be
achieved.
In this respect, a full listing of ‘Burden of Proof’ should be created.

23. GOAL 18. NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY
This single respect of an individual nation is sufficient to tear a gaping hole in the
actual intentions of the agenda the UN and its acolytes envision.
Whilst deluded elitists believe they alone hold the intellect to demand how
everyone lives their lives, and power mad political useful idiots pander to these
delusions for their own selfish purposes, there should be a constant reminder to
any budding tinpot dictator (that are not plainly already in such a position, e.g.
Kim Jong-un, North Korea) that the citizenry holds the power, and not them.
By similar principle, it is not the place of the people of one nation to impose their
wishes upon another sovereign state.
There can indeed be a benefit to the prospect of a ‘diverse population’, but that ‘diversity’ is by default based on the
cultures of those sovereign states from which those cultures are derived, as opposed to the agenda aim of turning the
world into a melting of bastardised cultures.
It may very well be the case that one nation disagrees with the principles in which another state operates, but it
therefore stands that the other nation will not agree with an accusing nation, and as long as neither impedes on the
other, then it is entirely up to the discretion of any state to determine how they operate, and to do so without
interference from others.
What the world most definitely does not need is a supranational organisation of self imbued importance, run by
persons of highly questionable morals (i.e. Gutteres – named suspect in the Casa Pia paedophile scandal in
Portugal), pretending to hold some high authority and knowledge, when they consistently demonstrate the lowest of
morals and the highest tendency toward criminal behaviour.
Nations can cooperate, or not, based on their people’s best determination.
Furthermore, national sovereignty includes borders, and hence the ‘Global Compact on Migration’ would be abolished.

24. GOAL 19. ACTUAL DEMOCRACY
The precise nature and format that democracy would take in any nation state is
indeed based upon the sovereignty of that nation, and hence determined by the
people of that nation.
For example, the US is a ‘Representative Democracy’ (despite any claims to the
opposite), which differs from the UK, which is a ‘Parliamentary Democracy, but
then there are methods such as ‘first past the post’ and ‘proportional
representation that determines who those representatives will be.
There are arguments as to how this should be conducted within the UK, as the current system is designed to favour
the ‘Uniparty’, to the detriment of the nation, and so once again, it must be a decision of the people to examine
carefully the options available to them in order to create a process that gives voice to the people.
How other nations do things is a matter for them.
The principles of examination must also adhere to the ‘Burden of Proof’, rather than the propaganda machine that
turned on during the ‘Alternative Vote’ referendum of 2011.
Additionally, there should be considerations toward the barriers to entry for new parties and independent candidates,
whether this be cost basis, regulation or indeed promoting their ideas.
For clarity, ‘ideas’ would also come with a lessons learned analysis as part of ‘Burden of Proof’, so suffice to say any
socialist, communist and Malthusian would automatically come with a warning label of ‘results in mass death’. ‘Green’
candidates would come with a warning of ‘relies on lies’.

25. GOAL 20. COURAGE OF CONVICTION
There would be no principle in developing these alternative, and vastly superior,
‘Goals’ if we did not leave room for people to hold stupid opinions.
In order to accommodate this inevitability, we can ensure a route for such
individuals to learn for themselves precisely why their ideologies are indeed
dumb, by first attempting to enlighten them via the relevant ‘Burden of Proof’, but
then enabling them to demonstrate their courage of conviction.
A few simple examples can be provided specific to those who authored, or have
been gullible enough to be taken in by Agenda 2030 or Net Zero.
In the first instance of those with a belief in Malthusianism, they can be provided with opportunity to hold the courage
of their conviction and be the solution to the problem they believe exists, and euthanasia packages can be offered to
them.
For those who believe the world is going to end unless we give total control and all our money to Government officials,
who can then fly around on private jets and feast on the meat of methane producing livestock, we can deliver their
courage of conviction by refusing them any energy that comes from any source other than wind or solar, which will be
simultaneously banned as a part of the main supply (i.e. they can have some panels on their roof, with the caveat that
any production not include any of the myriad of claimed causation components). They can also be denied any produce
that includes any derivative from oil and gas, including any use of such in any production process, as well of course
restricting their diet to bugs, unless they are vegans, in which case they can forage. As this is the life they believe we
should all live, then they will be happy to take the lead and demonstrate how ‘clean’ they are.
For ideologues such as Socialists or Communists, they can report their income and we will take it away from them,
leaving the bare minimum for sustenance, and distribute the main of anything they own to low income persons with at
least enough intelligence to not be that stupid.
Anyone blaming ‘the Jews’ for their own inadequacies, can have all ‘Jewish’ related ideas and innovations removed
from their life, such as the intention to return to the Gold Standard plus commodities, as this was the idea of a Jew.

26. GOALS REVISED
GOAL 1.REDUCED POVERTY
GOAL 2.NEGATING HUNGER
GOAL 3.GOOD HEALTH
GOAL 4.QUALITY EDUCATION
GOAL 5.CLEAN WATER & SANITATION
GOAL 6.AFFORDABLE ENERGY
GOAL 7.ECONOMIC COMPETENCE
GOAL 8.DECENT INFRASTRUCTURE
GOAL 9.REDUCED WATER CONTAMINATION
GOAL 10. PEACE AND JUSTICE (ACCOUNTABILITY)
GOAL 11. BURDEN OF PROOF
GOAL 12. NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY
GOAL 13. ACTUAL DEMOCRACY
GOAL 14. COURAGE OF CONVICTION
UNDERLYING PRINCIPLE
PERSONAL
RESPONSIBILITY

27. https://issuu.com/icpr1200/docs/alternative_net_zero_plan