(Hint: They are Not Beholden to Governments for Their Success)
I read the Times today (oh boy), the status quo's army had (just) won the war over the dreamers and visionaries of the 20th Century environmental movement. The statements of defeat by Greenpeace (who called the conference "a failure of epic proportions") or CARE (who called the conference "nothing more than a political charade") were straight-forward. The statements of outrage from other global players were equally shrill and severe.
And all this hand-wringing and finger-pointing would have been overwhelmingly disheartening had it not been so predictable. In many respects, the 283-paragraph "text" coming out of the Rio+20 Conference was a mission statement, not a negotiated treaty. If the expectation for Rio+20 was to produce a command and control path forward for saving the environment, it was doomed before it was even negotiated.
Trying to solve the world's most pressing and ubiquitous environmental problems by convening the very governments stuck in gridlock the last 20 years was never going to be a silver-bullet solution. An old-school UN conference with representatives of 193 countries negotiating a "consensus" agreement is no longer the ideal medium for change. In some respects, the medium was the message.
The preeminent challenge faced by those attending the Rio conference -- how to maintain economic growth and at the same time protect the environment -- was arguably too important to leave to politicians. Indeed, in Rio (or in the United States for that matter) most of them are not yet convinced (or perhaps convincing) that that goal is remotely realistic.
And yet, if you read more closely in both the Times coverage and that of other mainstream media, the larger story is much more significant and encouraging. It turns out there are individuals and organizations (including corporations) that do believe they can make a measurable difference just when the world is most in need of positive action and commitment. Coupled with appropriately robust monitoring and verification, some examples of highly encouraging commitments made at the conference include:
Buried further in the Times coverage is the absolutely accurate conclusion that the conference demonstrated "the growing capacity of grass-roots organizations and corporations to mold effective environmental action without the blessing of governments." The Earth Summit of 1992 delivered to the world something invaluable: a rallying cry for all of us to act. So many of us on the ground are doing that and we came together again at Rio+20 to renew our resolve -- with or without global government commitments.
Greenpeace executive director Kumi Naidoo reviewed with disgust the final text from the conference, a text that had been gutted of any strong language of action or accountability. "What is left" Naidoo concluded, "is the clear sense that the future we want is not one our leaders can actually deliver." Of course, he is quite right but maybe it is time to look for some different leaders on these issues. I firmly believe a new generation of pragmatic and committed leaders was hard at work at the conference in Rio. Our job now is to identify who these leaders are and how to work with them to ensure they succeed. Incidentally, during Rio+20, my organization, the U.S. Green Building Council, was hard at work doing what we always do, certifying green buildings. Over the course of my five days in Rio, we certified 1.6 million square feet per day around the world -- the equivalent of five Empire State Buildings.
Follow Roger Platt on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rogerplattusgbc
Microsoft may figure as the 51'th largest GDP, but their carbon footprint is nothing like a country that figures on 51'th place (Ukraine according to the world bank), so the significance of their effort is misleading by that measurement.
Reality is that individual efforts as well as some efforts by private companies have been around before this summit as well, and it did not help. Mr. Platt correctly points out that getting unanimous consensus on a binding commitment that works will never be achieved. But only because this is all that the current environmentalist movement can come up with, does not mean that is is the only way forward, in terms of trying to implement a global mechanism to encourage sustainability. There are other, less idealistic, more pragmatic methods of getting it done, which does not require everyone to sign on innitially, but it will involve them anyway, whether they like it or not.
http://zoltansustainableecon.blogspot.com/2012/07/rio-20-part-6-final-one-most-important.html
The most dangerous issue facing mankind is, he is building, bulldozing, entombing and chain sawing not only his only natural resources produced by the Earth's wild and natural surface or ecosystems, he is also killing all his lifelines to existence also given free gratis by ecosystems and their plant and animal biodiversity. We have already destroyed 43 to 50 percent of the life giving, real, physical body of the Earth for buildings, shopping malls, corn fields and parking lots.
This should be at the top of every list, right along with Zero Population Growth, because we are literally devouring the real, natural and wild Earth that seeded all life and maintains it right today. And, "climate regulation and moderation" are also listed as a natural, life-supporting service, provided by ecosystems.
An ecosystem is only as life giving and sustaining as the richness of its plant and animal biodiversity, and we are living in an era of an extinction rate, 1,000 times higher than normal, all caused by buildings, green or naught, agriculture, cities, shopping malls and freeways. None of man's deadly changes to the natural planet are life giving and supporting and cannot release oxygen, take care of the atmosphere, regulate the climate naturally or create the life zone of Earth, her biosphere or ecosphere.
Global Warming 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.