UN Sheep At Work

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

The United Nations, progenitor of a thousand agencies, has released a report called “MOVING TOWARDS A CLIMATE NEUTRAL UN” regarding its success in reducing its own “carbon footprint” (full version , summary). The Head Prophet of the UN, Ban Ki-moon, has revealed the mysteries to us unwashed masses as follows:

We are making steady progress. In March, the main UN website launched a new section offering a wide range of information on the Organization’s sustainability performance. In April, I opened the new UN building in Nairobi – a beacon of sustainable construction. In May, a new position – UN Senior Advisor on Sustainability – was created to coordinate the Secretariat’s work on climate neutrality. In August, I presented the UN21 Award to the UN Environment Programme and the Department of Field Support for their efforts to green the UN. And in September, senior officials of the inter-agency Environment Management Group approved a Strategic Plan for Sustainability Management in the UN system.

The United Nations system is strongly committed to leading by example and ensuring that our operations are continuously monitored and improved – not just in terms of what we deliver, but also how we deliver.

Figure 1. A sheep contemplates the UN report whilst providing natural fertilizer for the flowers.

That all sounds wonderful … now, let’s parse his claims.

Here are the successes that he highlights:

1. The UN website launched a new section of its website, called “Greening the Blue“. It seems to be dedicated to the proposition that if you can’t do it yourself, you should tell others to do it.

2. A new UN building in Nairobi, Kenya, has 6,000 square feet of solar panels on the roof, and is rated (not measured but rated) at 515 kilowatts of power. No word on the cost, but it looks like a bureaucrat’s palace …

3. They have created a new bureaucratic position, “UN Senior Advisor on Sustainability”, at the usual high rate of pay and perks. This is in addition to their existing positions, such as the “Senior Advisor on Sustainable Development”, and the “Technical Advisor,Population & Sustainable Development”, and the “Advisor on Sustainable Water Development and Management”, and the “Second Committee Advisor on Sustainable Development”, and the “Consultant, Gender, Climate Change and Sustainable Development”, and …

The Senior Advisor post has been filled by a woman named Julie MacKenzie. Prior to this position, she had been an Environmental Management Coordinator and Climate Neutrality Advisor” for the FAO and an “Adviser” of an unspecified flavor for the UNEP. I cannot find a biography … classic faceless bureaucrat.

4. Mr. Ki-moon handed out a prize to one of the UN programmes for being really really good guys.

5. They put together a “Strategic Plan”, which is no doubt very strategic, and probably chock-full of brilliant plans.

6. He said that the UN is committed to leading by example … do you feel better now?

You may notice that in all of that, Mr. Ki-moon neglected to point out how much the UN has reduced their CO2 emissions …

… and there is a very good reason for him saying nothing about that:

UN CO2 emissions in 2009: 1.7 million tonnes.

UN CO2 emissions in 2010: 1.8 million tonnes

So if they didn’t reduce their emissions in the slightest, what did they do?

Well, they held a photo competition looking for “images reflecting the theme ‘Visions of a sustainable UN’ “. Here’s the winner:

That works, shut the lid and be done with the UN, sounds eminently sustainable to me …


PS—There was one other achievement noted in their report, viz:

Once again, the UN office at Geneva invited hundreds of sheep to graze the grasslands surrounding the Palais des Nations. The sheep cut the grass in an ecologically sustainable manner whilst providing natural fertilizer for the grass and flowers to grow in spring.

“Whilst”? Who says “whilst” these days? In any case, trust the UN to boast about inventing animal husbandry …


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Oh, if only the garbage truck had turned up at just that moment…

Peter Pond

Hi Willis
Probably “Mr Ban”, rather that “Mr Ki-Moon”.
Next will be a position for “Senior Advisor on UN Sustainability Positions”, and then, “Coordinator of UN Senior Sustainability Advisors”, and then …


Maybe global warming is cause by these insufferable UN a***holes boiling taxpayer’s piss with their profligate nonsense?

Luther Wu

A great big “Oh, how very impressive” goes out to the folks at the UN for this very impressive effort.
I mean it.
You believe me, don’t you?

Philip Bradley

The UN are behind the game. Australia has just launched an 8 year program to make sheep farming ‘sustainable’.
They need to appoint a UN Senior Advisor on Sheep Grazing Sustainability.

Dr. John M. Ware

If it were not for US (and other) sovereignty issues, one could simply let the UN bloviate about this until the cows come home. However, those issues exist, so we must pay attention and resist where necessary. Thank you, Willis, for keeping up with the nonsense.

If ‘Whilst’ is good enough for the Shepherds watching their flocks at night its good enough for me, whilst bringing in another sheep reference. Can the day get much better?

By the way, the gent in the beard helping to stuff the UN flag into the bin looks uncommonly like Dr Mann as drawn by Josh

Uhhhhh — maybe I stayed up too late last night, but is that James Hansen at second from left?


How ironic, that their vision of a sustainable UN sees four out of five people consigned to the trashcan!!!
Meanwhile they are happy to promote this kind of ‘sustainability’ on an annual basis –
Utter hypocrites!

Lars P.

Thanks Willis for this nice example of the way how bureaucracies work: design a committee to address the “problem” talk about it, add more resources to it, develop new more complex rules, add new hierarchy. Each senior advisor evolves and needs direct reports, his staff to produce reports to discuss and analyse and in the meanwhile nothing happens but increase costs except some window-advertising activities.
I only ask myself how did they brought those sheep to those grasslands, not sure how the location is… and then if many people used those pastures for a picknick after…


Actually, in Sydney CBD the Banksters say “Whilst” quite often.
“Whilst Gillard’s Carbon Tax will result in her party’s ruination in the next election, we can make tons of money off the scam until then.”
Just a quote heard near St Martins Place.


The UN is a big government. Like all governments, it does nothing for any reason other than to obtain and maintain power and control over resources and people and its ranks are populated by the worse amongst humanity.


I keep wondering who gives the order to set up such positions, panels, conferences etc.
Or do they just get carte blanche to do as they please?
These people have to be stopped, but how?
And, in relation to their wish for leading by example, why the need to get immunity prior to any action? Is that a good example? To run away from responsibilty and accountability?
It’s such a big joke, but I can’t laugh.

Can we compare the CO2 released by transporting a load of sheep from a farm to a city centre then home again, and that released by having a guy on hand with a lawnmower?

Paul Nottingham

I say “whilst” these days.

P. Solar

Mr Ban indeed.
Mr Ban the light bulb , Mr Ban the coal , Mr Ban my car , Mr Ban the ban, bee-bop-a-loola , the Kim Ban moon.


Many folks who support the UN do so on the basis of its making a real and positive difference to the world. They should be the ones most concerned by this. Why?
It does not matter what the policy might be. If there is no focus on getting the best results for the least input, then you are not only failing in the objective, but also potentially blocking others who could do a better job. This is particularly the case when the focus and effort can shift from actually doing something positive, to persuading others that you are doing something positive, or even to appearing to be supporting the message. So those who truly believe in the peace-making central mission of the UN, can join with the true believers in CAGW and the majority who are sceptical of the hype in saying token gestures, expensively made, should be stopped.

Roger Carr

Willis asks: ““Whilst”? Who says “whilst” these days?”
I answer: Me… certainly whilst (oops!) writing. Do a quick search through the 78 thousand (I think I remember you reporting that number) words in you autobiography-in-progress (which I am looking forward to immensely); and let us know if it appears?

P. Solar

The photo competition is a wheeze. If that one won ….
Here we have green bins for recyclables, that blue one must a UN special livery for recycling worn out bureaucrats.
Apparently their idea of sustainable means being able to sustain their jamboree parties long after the supposed threat of thermagedon has be proved to be a total fallacy.
Setting up a 100bn slush fund with no legal accountability or oversight must take a lot of sustaining.

dave ward

“I presented the UN21 Award to the UN Environment Programme and the Department of Field Support for their efforts to green the UN”
I presume he is referring to “Agenda 21” ? – If so, I assume their “efforts” involve planning mass de-population???

Louis Hooffsteter

What exactly does the U.N. do?
In April 1993, the United Nations declared the besieged enclave of Srebrenica in the Drina Valley of north-eastern Bosnia a “safe area” under UN protection. On July 11 — some 1700 men, disproportionately the elderly and infirm, were separated from women and children. The peacekeepers “stood inches away from the Serb soldiers who were separating the Muslim men, one by one, from their families” (Sudetic, Blood and Vengeance, p. 306). At Serb command, the Dutch drew up a registry of 242 Bosnian men remaining in the camp, again mostly elderly and infirm. Then they handed the men over to the Serbs. Not one of the 242 men is known to have survived. The Red Cross lists 7,079 dead and missing at Srebrenica. Other estimates range as high as 8,000 or 10,000.
The United Nations itself has recently released reports documenting two of its worst stumbles. According to these confessions, U.N. peacekeepers in Rwanda stood by as Hutu slaughtered some 800,000 Tutsi. The United Nations has accepted the findings of a damning report which accuses it of failing to prevent the genocide in Rwanda more than five years ago. The UN failed the people of Rwanda during the genocide in 1994. An independent inquiry team – headed by former Swedish Prime Minister Ingvar Carlsson – said the UN had ignored evidence that genocide was planned and had refused to act once it had started. The inquiry concluded that the UN should apologise to the Rwandan people. In response, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan expressed bitter regret and promised action to prevent another such disaster. A Rwandan presidential spokesman said Mr Annan should come to Kigali in person to apologise.
United Nations Operation in Somalia II (UNOSOM II) was the second phase of the United Nations intervention in Somalia, from March 1993 until March 1995. UNOSOM II carried on from the United States-controlled (but UN-sanctioned) Unified Task Force (UNITAF), which had in turn taken over from the ineffectual United Nations Operation in Somalia I (UNOSOM I) mission. All three of these interventions were aimed at creating a secure enough environment for humanitarian operations to be carried out in the increasingly lawless and famine-stricken country.UNOSOM II had a strength of 28,000 personnel, including 22,000 troops and 8,000 logistic and civilian staff[5] from Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Botswana, Canada, Egypt, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Kuwait, Jordan, Malaysia, Morocco, Nepal, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Spain, South Korea, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Tunisia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, the USA and Zimbabwe. On July 12, a house where clan leaders were meeting was attacked by US AH-1 Cobra helicopters. Several buildings were destroyed and many Somalians died. When four western journalists went to investigate the scene, they were beaten to death by a Somalian mob. The journalists were Hansi Krauss of Associated Press and Dan Eldon, Hos Maina and Anthony Macharia, all of Reuters.[11]. Somalis that had been disappointed by the failure of the UN to disarm the warlords in Mogadishu actually began to support those same warlords in an “us versus them” mentality. On October 7 in a nationwide television address, President Clinton “effectively ended the US proactive policy in Somalia” and “called for the withdrawal of all US forces no later than March 31, 1994.” Resolution 954, passed on November 4, extended the UNOSOM mandate for a final period until March 31, 1995. American soldiers completely withdrew on March 3, 1994, 28 days earlier than expected.[14] Other nations, such as Belgium, France and Sweden, also decided to withdraw at this time. On November 4, 1994, after “peacemaking” efforts by the 1,900 UNOSOM II troops failed, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) voted unanimously to withdraw all forces in Resolution 954. On November 16 the UNSC authorized Resolution 897, placing new emphasis on peacemaking and reconstruction and returning to a less reactive role. UNOSOM II’s mandate ended in March 1995 when US ships off the coast of Somalia assisted in the safe departure of the remaining UNOSOM troops. In early 1994 the Security Council set a deadline for the mission of March 1995.[14] The withdrawal of UN troops from Somalia was completed on March 28, 1995.

John West

If a boat is hole in the water into which you throw money, what’s the UN?
A hole into which your “elected representatives” (and their appointees) throw your money.

George Tetley

Definition of a “Ban”
an answering machine in sleep mode !

Stephanie Clague

“Sounds wonderful” And right there is the problem isnt it? They live in a bubble of their own self importance and bloated self opinion unable to comprehend how normal people see them. What goes through their minds when they come out with such vacuous smug trash? Of all the problems the planet faces this ridiculous PR self promotion by a handful of highly paid holier than thou hypocrites should come bottom of the list by a country mile. These many and various non jobs filled by like minded parasites intent on justifying their positions are rapidly multiplying like weeds in a field, the more of these corporate lickspittles there are the more they try and justify their own existence on the backs of others.
“Senior Advisor on Sustainable Development”, and the “Technical Advisor,Population & Sustainable Development”, and the “Advisor on Sustainable Water Development and Management”, and the “Second Committee Advisor on Sustainable Development”, and the
“Consultant, Gender, Climate Change and Sustainable Development”, and …
Does the UN really need these jobs and will the planet be worse off without these jobs? What do they do that is important to ordinary people? There are thousands of highly paid non job gravy train riding parasites infesting the UK regime, they have no discernible function other than to channel funds to clients of the regime who can be relied upon. Value for money has been ditched as an ethos in the rush to squander as much money as possible on as many useless jobsworths and paperclip shufflers, it reminds me of my trip to the old USSR. At a time when women are being murdered and abused and mutilated around the world we see money used for the gravy train.

Wouldn’t the UN cease to function and therefor exist if they were carbon neutral?
It’s an interesting concept “carbon neutrality” to a more intelligent person it means death.


1 What is the carbon footprint of thousands of computers surfing the internet to find “Greening the Blue” and then spamming all your friends and encouraging them to do the same?
2 What is the carbon footprint the construction a new building compared with refurbishing an existing building? A 2 bed cottage is 80 tonnes according to the guardian, so multiply by 1689.000495, carry the 3, square the hypotenuse, add date of birth – 67,4746 Gt of CO2 for a new building (approx – maths isn’t my subject)
baa baa


Willis, you missed the biggest saving:

More efficient travel … flying in economy class instead of business class.

Everyone knows that economy class passengers use less fuel than 1st class, don’t they?

Adam Gallon

So good to see our money being so well spent.

I missed something. What the heck is climate neutrality? The only thing that seems sustainable is limitless supply of BS from the UN and the growth of bureaucrats in new and wonderful positions.
Of course I sort of lost interest when these wise people started telling me that they could control the climate.

When they come for the MONEY…we’ll all be fleeced.
Sorry, baaaaaaaad joke. (OK, OK, let’s get serious – don’t let them pull the wool over your eyes!
But remember, with a UN “Peace Keeper” force, “Sheep may (NOT) safely graze…”
Max 🙂

Neil Jones

They should have used Geese, you get a more even sward and better “fertilizer” – it waters straight in. Sheep Poo on the other had is mostly undigested fibre which takes for ever to degrade. That is why they can build businesses like this (http://www.creativepaperwales.co.uk/) out of it.

Andy W

There’s that weasel word again:
We need to genuinely be aware. The warmists are shifting the goalposts (yet again).
Because the globe is resolutely refusing to warm at an astronomical rate (maybe even cooling), the hotspot can’t be found, and all the ‘missing’ heat has gone to hide in the oceans, the watermelons have just re-named their cause so that they can continue their efforts to crush capitalism and hoard all the money for ‘true socialists’ such as themselves.


The UN have been employing sheep for years, but most of them sit in offices.
They churn out plenty of fertiliser, though.
Many of them even perform miracles in that some sheep provide bovine fertiliser.

There’s still space for the Sustainable Advisor on Sustainability.


Ah yes,
The United Nations system is strongly committed to leading by example and ensuring that our operations are continuously monitored
bringing Big Brother to you, one bureaucrat at a time…

Tom in Florida

“If one sheep leaps into a ditch, all the rest will follow.”, an old Klingon proverb. How appropriate.

Baa Humbug

Does the report say anything about the farting and belching of the sheep?


I use “whilst” from time to time.

William Bartram

Did they count the grazing sheep’s emissions in determining that this was reducing their carbon footprint?


How many legs did each sheep have?

Chris Edwards

I think they are on the right track here, it is of paramount importance they reduce the UN carbon footprint, as luck would have it, unlike most of what the UN emit this is do able. All we need to do is to stop feeding it any money at all and very soon the footprint will be zero and all our countries deficits will be reduced. A win win situation with no downside I can see!


Willis wrote:
2. A new UN building in Nairobi, Kenya, has 6,000 square feet of solar panels on the roof, and is rated (not measured but rated) at 515 kilowatts of power. No word on the cost, but it looks like a bureaucrat’s palace …
Looks like?????? Bawhahahaha!

Richard Lyman

Willis: Okay, I’ll bite: Were the “invitations” to the hundreds of sheep engraved? More importantly, did a UN Task Force conclude that sheep emitted methane ( a dangerous GHG) was less harmful than allowing the grass to achieve its natural height? Was an assessment performed to determine the threat to the underlying aquifer from fecal coliform? Was there a study performed on the harmful effects of noise pollution caused by all the constant bleating? It seems to me that this program was ripe for a full Environmental Impact Statement before it was implemented, and I have barely scratched the surface. Shouldn’t a protest be lodged with the State Department? NASA? NOAA? Somebody?

Chuck Nolan

I have ceased using the word “whilst” and I shan’t use it in the future. Based on my experience I must eschew its use.


“The term climate neutrality is used in this book to mean living in a way which produces no net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This should be achieved by reducing your own GHG emissions as much as possible, and using carbon offsets to neutralize the remaining emissions.”
So, this is just more of the same old BS. I so wish the US would cut its contribution to the UN by 90%. Why are we ‘sustaining’ these idiots?


Ban: family name, meaning (roughly) “a clan”.
Ki-Moon: given name; Ki means “the basis”, and Moon “literature” or “a sentence”.

The sheep are there to provide a sustainable supply of ‘sheep disguises’ for the pending increase of UN wolves.
[H/T….Edwin R Murrow…”A nation of sheep begats a government of wolves”]

Well worth whilst reading. Thank you Willis. Is the sheep illustration your creation? It’s great.
From earlier this week:


steveta_uk says:
April 28, 2012 at 4:45 am

Willis, you missed the biggest saving:

More efficient travel … flying in economy class instead of business class.

Everyone knows that economy class passengers use less fuel than 1st class, don’t they?

I’d say that a business class seat weighs at least a person’s weight more than an economy class seat. That makes their argument valid in this case. It is a foolish thing, as all we really want is enough room to be comfortable, not an extra 100 kilos of mechanics. My armchair at home is a lot less heavy.
I’ll travel first class* in that case, as the difference in weight between business and first is not that great. Logic fail, but I’m just following UN protocol….
(*not ‘first class’ as you get in US domestic flights – that is ‘economy plus’ for the rest of the world)