It's a completely unsurprising document that one would expect to come out of the UN. I don't see anything ominous in it. It certainly isn't changing my opinions about HGW. Not only does it not address the science, it has policy directives that apply to a broad definition of sustainability (biodiversity, resource management, etc...) and economic development. If one was to remove the concept of HGW completely from Agenda 21, many of the same goals would still be present. So why do you focus on HGW as if it is some kind of linchpin?
Maybe you would like to stop making accusations of ignorance and, you know, discuss anything that you're specifically worried about in Agenda 21? You seem much more interested in assuming people don't care, than in discussing the issues at hand.
By all means, if you have a solution that doesn't require international cooperation, let us know. And furthermore, even if I denied HGW, I would still care about global poverty, sustainability, biodiversity and resource management.
So when you read about food aid and financing (loans) you read that as wealth transfer? OK. This is a non-binding UN Document. It's up to individual countries to participate voluntarily. The precise amount of international aid is not spelled out in Agenda 21 (it specifically treats any figures as order of magnitude estimates that do not reflect actual costs, since actual cost would be up to the countries in question), where are you getting your figures from?
