"Words Failed Us" read the Greenpeace banner on Nelson's Column at the close of the Rio Earth Summit. No, not the one that just ended, but the one 20 years ago, which by comparison seems like the golden age of multilateralism in action.
Let's face it. The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio +20) was a flop -- at least the part that involved negotiations amongst governments. What happened in the margins was much more interesting, and virtually every post-Rio commentator has suggested in one way or another that "it's all up to us now."
But what does that actually mean?
For some, it means voluntary commitments. The Rio +20 Secretariat announced that more than 700 voluntary commitments were registered, amounting to more than $500 billion in tangible commitments toward sustainable development.
For others, it means increased activism. The International Trade Union Confederation vowed to "activate [their] 175 million members and their families and build the social power that will make the alternative model we are proposing the best possible solution." CARE International called for catalyzing action at the community level. Greenpeace announced the launch of a campaign to save the Arctic. And 350.org suggested it was time to start breaking the rules.
No question that these are all good things. But are they enough? Would it be churlish of me to point out that the $500 billion in voluntary commitments is significantly less than what we spend each year shooting ourselves in the foot in the form of fossil fuel subsidies?
In one of the more poignant analyses of Rio's results, George Monbiot makes a point that has been troubling me for a long time:
The governments which allowed the Earth Summit and all such meetings to fail evince no sense of responsibility for this outcome, and appear untroubled by the thought that if a system hasn't worked for 20 years there's something wrong with the system. They walk away, aware that there are no political penalties.
No political penalties indeed.
Climate change is a perfect example. Few politicians have been penalized for failing to take the necessary action to dramatically curb CO2 emissions; more often than not it's the reverse.
Strong, internationally coordinated action will only be achieved when negotiators get the necessary mandate from their political masters -- when word comes from on high that climate change is a greater threat to national interests than any "redline" issue they're fighting over. When they get a mandate, in fact, to act in accordance with the seriousness of the threat. And this mandate will only be given if politicians are held to account by an electorate which feels so strongly about the need for solutions that it outweighs the vested interests and corporate lobbying geared towards maintaining the status quo.
Ensuring that global CO2 emissions peak in the next few years and begin their dramatic decline, as both the science and economics of climate change demand, requires nothing short of a seismic shift in politics at the national level.
In developed countries, public opinion polls generally show that a majority of people favor action on climate change. A recent study of European attitudes, for example, concluded that more than half of the respondents (51 percent) considered climate change to be one of the world's most serious problems, with 20 percent rating it as the most serious issue of all. A large majority of Americans (65 percent) understand that climate change is affecting U.S. weather, and 66 percent believe the U.S. should sign an international treaty requiring emissions cuts of 90 percent by 2050.
But belief in the existential threat posed by climate change has not yet fully translated into action. Voters -- in larger numbers -- must begin to signal that a politician's stance on climate will be a factor in how they vote.
So the next time you take action to protect our climate -- whether it's on coal, tar sands, fracking or the Arctic; whether it's by signing a petition, holding up a banner, or getting arrested -- let your elected officials know you've done it. And that come election time, you'll be voting for your children's future.
Follow Kelly Rigg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kellyrigg
Long ago, I decided that I would personally do what I could do to live a sustainable lifestyle by choice. I still enjoy some creature comforts such as heat and AC, cold food and drink in a refrigerator, and the occasional ride in a car or truck to travel for social reasons.
But I know that my example is considered to be eccentric in nature. Some people attribute my choices to poverty or laziness, but that is OK; because I can live with myself and my choices with a clear conscience as to my personal choices in regards to limiting my use of natural resources.
I walk to work regardless of the weather. I allow my lawn to revert to its natural state of a meadow so that it does not require nearly so much maintenance ie; water or mowing.
Without personal conviction that sustainable choices are appropriate, people will not change their behavior. They will deride and avoid "crazy" people like me who care about such things and do something personally about it.
I make no pretense as to knowing how to deal with this problem other then make responsible personal and corporate choices whenever possible. And encourage others to do the same.
I'm getting on in years, and as you do you gain experience. More than that, your perspective changes.
I think more and more that societies either grow or they die. I've lived in Europe, and much of Europe seems to be dying. It's not producing bab ies at anywhere near maintenance level - let alone growing. It's involuting - losing it's culture, it's population, most everything that made it Europe.
You either grow or die. Texas is growing. California is dying.
And as far as "producing babies", we have 7 billion people on this planet and counting. That way of thinking has gotten us to this level, and we are going to have Peak Oil, water wars, and scarcity with many other resources in coming decades.
We have "developed" [or killed] 43 to 50 percent of the Earth's natural surface or ecosystems, the eco-nomy of life itself and man's sources for the natural resources that fuel the financial economy.
Man is not an island apart; he is as interconnected to the whole of Earth as is the Earth to the sun. Man's "developed" earth is as life giving and supporting as the dust on Mars.
Which socialist governments???
Socialist governments like the one that just lost power in Spain led the way in "sustainable energy" and instead ended up unable to afford spiking energy costs. Spain is now too broke to continue the government subsidies such energy requires.
For our part, the United States is swimming in oil and gas if only the government got the hell out of he way. The new fracking technology would probably work in the EU as well.
It's incredibly frustrating see all these different writers and pundits say the same thing for three to five years. I swear they just copy and paste their articles every few months and just swap out the old info for the new stuff.
Like I said, I have no idea what the solution is and I'm beginning to think that there might not be one. I'm jealous of the people that can keep thinking that we just need to try harder and maybe it'll pay off. Sadly, though, all I see in the States is decreasing public support and understanding and a government that's been brought to its knees by nut cases. It seems that half of our population is two steps from either being completely crazy or entirely stupid and we think that mobilization will help when the monied interests control the media, the government and the hearts and minds of so many? Sorry, but I'm becoming increasingly skeptical.
All people of good will are opposed to putting industrial poisons in our water and soil and air. However, all people of basic intelligence and common sense see the UN sustainable growth agenda for what it is. A power and money grab by unelected elites that will advance themselves at the expense of working people through out the world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vbx_gFT0v7k
Mayors in cities seem to have a better capacity than nations themselves to create strong networks that support sustainable development and foster the growing of low carbon economy.
Will Jan Eliasson, Sweden’s former Minister of Foreign Affairs and the incoming UN Deputy Secretary General as of July 1st, 2012 bring a new spirit to the UN? View his message at the Hard Rain Exhibition in Lund in May 2012 – See the interview above at http://www.kajembren.com
Folllow and participate in the LinkedIn Rio+ group at LinkedIn
That includes the global economy, but more important, world population.
World population growth is unsustainable, no matter what we do. If we each use half the resources, the population will just double. The world cannot support its current population size, if everyone lived like we do in the US.
The developed world's per-capita carbon emissions may drop, but the rest of the world wants to live like us. As is their right, which is why nations like Brazil reject any agreement that perpetuates the developed world's standard of living, while limiting theirs.
This is one of three Ticking Time Bombs. See www.aesopinstitute.org
The first Time Bomb is a potential nuclear nightmare from an all too possible solar storm within the next three years.
A solar storm can collapse power grids worldwide for months. Nuclear plants worldwide can become meltdown candidates.
Technology is going into production that can prevent grid failure. A massive program to put it in place on an emergency basis can help reboot the economy and generate jobs.
Decentralizing energy is also urgent. Solar roofs are a good beginning. Accelerating the replacement of fossil fuels with cost-competitive renewable energy is now on the horizon.
Human survival on the planet is at stake. Saving millions of lives, including your own, is a very different political problem that can break the existing deadlock.
As a result, a wise initiative could result in superseding fossil fuels far faster than might be imagined.
Time for a new approach. One that has the potential to change the energy, economic and political landscape in time to make a real difference.
However, those concerned with the environment need to take another look solar energy. It is not the solution we fantasize. The industrial poisons created by making solar panels are second only to nuclear waste, and in some instances worse, with the poisons having potential half lives of 500,000 years. I hope and pray for some new break through in the solar area, but as we speak it would be more poisonously polluting than big oil.
Then there is wind power. Even with the massive subsidies wind power comes in 32 times more expensive than the most costly carbon energy. Just take your electric and water bills and multiply by 32. Then there is the fact that the maintenance of wind turbines is through the roof, and the half life of the turbine plants is about 1/1000th that of a traditional power plant. Mankind abandoned wind power five hundred years ago for a reason. It doesn't work.
In my humble opinion natural gas is the only way to go.
A few will be in production in the near future and will change the energy, economic and possibly the political landscape.