Chairman Earth Council
Foundation
at hearing of the United States Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works and the Committee on Foreign Relations
on July 24, 2002
"Distinguished
Chairman, Honorable Senators, ladies and gentlemen. First let me say what a privilege it is for me to have the
opportunity of testifying before these two important committees of the United
States Senate as you consider issues which are at the center of my own life
interests and concerns....Thanks largely to the
leadership of the United States the world community has made impressive
progress in its understanding of environment issues and their inextricable
relationship with the economic development processes to which they give since
the first global conference on the human environment convened by the United
Nations in Stockholm in 1972 put the environmental issue on the international
agenda....
By the
mid-1980’s some of the momentum generated by Stockholm had subsided. Progress
towards achieving the environmental objectives set there was lagging. In
response the United Nations General Assembly decided to establish a World Commission
on Environment and Development headed by Norway’s former Prime Minister Gro
Harlem Brundtland. The Commission’s report in 1987, Our Common Future, made a
compelling case for sustainable development as “the only secure and viable
pathway to the future of the human community”. With the political impetus
generated by the Brundtland Commission, the UN General Assembly decided to
convene on the 20th anniversary of the Stockholm Conference in 1992
a Conference on Environment and Development and accepted the invitation of
Brazil to host it.
Now known as the
“Earth Summit” the Conference held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 brought together
more heads of government that had ever before assembled as well as an
unprecedented number and range of civil society actors and media
representatives. The Earth Summit
agreed on a Declaration of Principles building on the Stockholm Declaration, a
comprehensive program of action - “Agenda 21” - to give effect to these
principles and Conventions on Climate Change and Biodiversity which provided
the framework for continuing negotiations following Rio. It also mandated a negotiating process that
led to the completion since then of the Convention to Combat Desertification.
As you know the
United States has ratified the Climate Change Convention and the
Desertification Convention and in spite its withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol
it is still bound by its adherence to the Climate Change Convention to reduce
its green house gas emissions. Although
it has now opted to do this outside of the Kyoto Protocol the world community
continues to look to the United States for the kind of parallel actions that
will correspond to and hopefully exceed, the targets and timetables provided
for by Kyoto....
Agenda
21 provides a comprehensive road-map for the transition to a sustainable
development pathway. Although it does not carry the force of law the fact that
it was agreed by all the governments of the United Nations, most of them at the
level of their heads of State or Government, gives it a high degree of
political authority. While its
implementation has thus far been and on the whole disappointing, it has
nevertheless served as a basis for the adoption of their national Agenda 21 by
a number of governments of which China was one of the first. It has also
inspired the establishment of local Agendas 21 by more than 3000 cities and
towns throughout the world and such important industries as the tourism and
travel and the road transport industries.
It is particularly important that at Johannesburg governments re-affirm
their commitment to Agenda 21 and to strengthening and building on it in those areas
in which it is still inadequate or incomplete.
The risks
to the future of the earth’s environment and life-support systems identified in
Stockholm and elaborated in Rio de Janeiro remain, while the forces driving
them persist – increased population concentrated in those countries least able
to support it, and even greater increases in the scale and intensity of the
economic activities which impact on the environment. These have reached a point
in which we are literally the agents of our own future; what we do or fail to
do, will in the first decades of this new millennium in all probability,
determine the future course of human life on earth. It is an awesome
responsibility the implications of which we have not yet recognized. Certainly
they have not yet been reflected in our policies and priorities....
The transition
to a sustainable development pathway is, I submit, as essential to the future
of the human community today as it was before the tragic terrorist attacks of
September 11th, 2001, on New York and Washington. The preoccupation
with the ominous consequences of these horrendous acts is understandable and,
indeed, necessary. But we must not allow this to sidetrack or undermine our
efforts to achieve economic, environmental and social sustainability and
security.
The tragic events of September 11th
dramatically brought home to us that the phenomena we now refer to as
globalization, which has opened up so many new and exciting opportunities, has
also united us in facing a new generation of risks, imbalances and
vulnerabilities. Risks to our personal security, the security of our homes,
offices and communities and, more fundamentally, risks to the earth’s’
life-support systems on which the survival and well being of the entire human
family depends. These risks and
vulnerabilities are inextricably linked through the complex, systemic processes
of globalization by which human activities are shaping our common future. They
cannot be understood or dealt with in isolation. Nor can they be managed alone
by any nation, however powerful. Indeed, they require a degree of cooperation
beyond anything we seem yet prepared to accept.
Stockholm, in its historic
Declaration stated that “to defend and improve the human environment for
present and future generations has become an imperative goal for mankind – a
goal to be pursued together with, and in harmony with, the established and
fundamental goals of peace and of world-wide economic and social development”.
It thus pointed up the systemic linkages between the environment and the issues
of peace and security, economic and social development through which human
activities are shaping our common future.
In a 1973 Foreign Affairs article I
stressed that the principal insight arising from the Stockholm Conference was
the need for a ecological, systemic approach to the management of the issues
through which we are impacting on our own future. This is essential to our
understanding and management of the broader complex of issues and processes that
we now generally refer to as globalization.
The September 11th, 2001
tragedy demonstrated dramatically the vulnerabilities of even the most advanced
and powerful of societies to destructive attacks, however misguided, by
relatively small groups of alienated people.
This underscores the need for international cooperation, not only to
conduct the war against terrorism, but also to deal with the whole complex of
issues integral to the globalization process. These include eradication of
poverty, environmental protection, notably the risk of climate change, meeting
the development and security needs of developing countries, and redressing the
gross and growing imbalances that divide rich and poor and nourish the enmities
and frustrations that are the seedbeds of conflict.
Peace
and security are an indispensable pre condition to sustainability and
overcoming poverty. War and violent
conflict produce devastating damage to the environment. And the human costs of such wars and
conflicts go far beyond the immediate deaths and suffering that result from
them in destroying and undermining the resources on which even larger numbers
of people depend for their livelihoods.
This essential link between peace and sustainable development is the
reason that United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan undertook to revitalize
the University for Peace headquartered in San José, Costa Rica, and that it has
established a strategic partnership with the Earth Council to re-enforce its
capacities in the field of environmental security.
International cooperation is as
indispensable to the effective management of the other elements of the
globalization process as it is to the prevention of terrorism. But cooperation
based on coercion will not long be effective. Sustainable cooperation requires
a true sharing in the decision-making and in responsibilities on the part of
the majority of nations which can only be achieved if the major nations of the
world take the lead. We regret the
retreat from multi-lateral cooperation on these issues on the part of the
United States which has performed such immensely valuable service to the world
community in leading it so effectively through most of the period since World
War II. No individual nation in the
position to replace the United States in this role and while we continue to
hope for and expect the return to leadership on the part of the United States,
we cannot afford at this critical time to allow a leadership vacuum to prevail
which would put at risk the very future of life on earth as we know it. There are some encouraging first signs of
the emergence of a new configuration of leadership in the ratification by the
European Union, and Japan of the Kyoto Protocol to the Climate Change
Convention despite its repudiation by the United States. I look to my own country, Canada, to do so
too....
It is important to be reminded that Principle 21 of the Stockholm
Declaration in affirming the right of states to develop their own resources in
accordance with their own environmental policies,
have the “responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or
control do not cause damage to the environment of other states or of areas
beyond their limits of national jurisdiction”.
Implementation of this principle would in itself require those states
which are contributing disproportionately to the deterioration of the global environment, as for example in continuing to produce more
than their share of green house gas emissions, to take the measures required to
reduce their impacts. This
responsibility is at the very heart of the challenge to the new generation of
leadership which must be faced at Johannesburg.
The
power and the influence of the United States in today’s world is unrivaled and
indeed without precedent in history.
This gives the United States a freedom of action not enjoyed by other
nations. Other nations are not in a
position to hold the US accountable for the performance of its obligations
under international law. Nevertheless
when it does act unilaterally it inevitably pays a cost in terms of the
resentment and reluctance of others to cooperate on other issues of importance
to the United States. It is important
to note that already there is clear evidence that even traditional friends of
the United States have not followed it in opting out such important
international agreements as the Kyoto Protocol, the Land Mines Convention and
the International Criminal Court. This
is a departure from their long standing practice of following the US lead even
in instances where they are not entirely comfortable with it.
The
unprecedented power of the United States carries with it unprecedented
responsibility, particularly at a time when the human future depends on the
actions we take or fail to take in this generation. When the United States acts selectively to carry out its
international obligations or to force other nations to carry out theirs it
serves to undermine the credibility and effectiveness of international law
which is the indispensable foundation for world peace, security and order. As the principal architect of the system of
international treaties, conventions and agreements which constitute the current
imperfect but indispensable international legal regime and the only nation
capable of insisting on enforcement, what the United States does or fails to do
is an immense and often decisive influence on the behavior of other
nations. The world community must be
grateful to the United States for having for most part exercised its
responsibility admirably. But in those
instances in which it has not done so or has insisted only selectively on
enforcement by others of their international obligations, this is an
understandable cause of concern, even dismay, on the part of other nations for
its weakening effect on the entire process of international law and prospects
of its equitable enforcement.
In drawing the lessons of our
experience in the last 30 years, it is clear that we have made a great deal of
progress, notably in improving but by no means resolving, the more immediate
and visible environmental conditions in the more industrialized countries.
Impressive improvements have been effected in the environmental performance of
industry and in development of technologies which promise solutions to most
problems as, for example, the prospect of emission-free motor vehicles and the
transition to a hydrogen-based energy economy.
At the same time, developing countries have become more aware of and
concerned with the environmental problems which inhibit their own
development. These problems exact immense
human and economic costs, produce deteriorating conditions in their cities, and
destructive exploitation of the natural resources on which future development
depends....Yet
developing countries which are custodians of most of the world’s precious biodiversity
resources are expected to care for them with only sporadic and limited support
from industrialized countries. As their
economies grow they will contribute increasingly to the more remote and less
visible global problems for which the industrialized countries are largely
responsible, notably the risk of climate change which affects the interests and
the future of all nations....
As
their economies grow, developing countries are finding that the environmental
impacts of their development are undermining the purposes of development and
exacting a heavy cost in terms of impacts on their natural resources, human
health and productivity. At the
Stockholm Conference developing countries made clear their willingness to
participate in international environmental cooperation insisted that they
required “new and additional resources” to enable them to do so. This has been a constant refrain in all
international fora in which these issues are discussed and negotiated since
then.
One of
the most disappointing trends since the Earth Summit in 1992 has been the lack
of response by OECD countries to the needs of developing countries for the
additional financial resources which all governments at Rio agreed were
required to enable them to make their transition to a sustainable development
pathway and to implement international agreements. What has been particularly discouraging is that progress towards
meeting with these needs has been further set back since Rio as a number of
donors have reduced their Official Development Assistance. Thus the commitment
by the United States and others at a recent United Nations Conference in
Monterrey to increase their assistance is a welcome signal. This should not be seen as charity but as a
necessary investment in our own environmental security. An especially urgent priority is to complete
agreement on replenishment of the Global Environment Facility, the only new
source of funding the environmental needs of developing countries to result
from the Earth Summit....
We have for the first time in
history the capacity to meet these monumental challenges. Indeed, on a global basis we are the
wealthiest civilization ever and have the capacity to produce wealth at an
unprecedented rate. It is clearly a
question of how we set our priorities for the use of our wealth. Business leaders at Rio made the point that
our current approach to setting those priorities is not sustainable- that we
must “change course”. And I am convinced that if we do not make this change of
course in the first years of this new millennium the prospects for the world’s
future will be ominous indeed.
Much of what we must do to meet
these formidable challenges has already been articulated and agreed at
Stockholm, Rio and various other international for a and affirmed in a variety
of international agreements. But
implementation depends on motivation and this is at the heart of our current
dilemma. Most of the changes we must
make are in our economic life. The
system of taxes, subsidies, regulations and policies through which governments
motivate the behavior of individuals and corporations continues to incent
unsustainable behavior.
At the deepest level, all people
and societies are motivated by their moral, ethical and spiritual values. To build on these a set of basic moral and
ethical principles which are broadly acceptable is certainly not easy. But a process that has taken several years
and involved millions of people around the world has succeeded in producing a
“peoples” Earth Charter as a major contribution to establishing the moral and
ethical foundations for sustainable development.
I am pleased to say the United
States has been deeply involved in the Earth Charter movement. The distinguished, American Professor Steven
Rockefeller, chaired the committee which drafted the Charter in cooperation
with people of different faiths and beliefs throughout the world. Some 500 organizations in the United States
have joined with thousands around the world which have contributed to and/or
endorsed the Earth Charter. These
include
the Humane Society of the United States,
the National Audubon
Society,
the National Wildlife Federation,
the Orion Society,
the Sierra Club,
the World Resource Institute,
the Yale University School of Forestry and
Environmental Studies and
the United States Conference of Mayors as well as
dozens of individual cities and towns.
The environmental movement has
its roots in the concerns and initiatives of people well before it moved on to
the agendas of governments. Today the
primary impetus to environmental action and responsibility comes from civil
society, with the support of scientists and the increasingly constructive
engagement of industry. The alarm bells
being sounded by some sectors of industry as to the high costs to economy of environmental
measures, notably the reductions in greenhouse gas emission called for under
the Kyoto Protocol, are countered by the increasing in evidence that such
measures open up more new opportunities for industry than they negate.
Surely we must accept that the
benefits of environmental security and sustainability are well worth and indeed
less expensive that the ultimate costs of inaction. The United States has long accepted the high costs of maintaining
its military strength and indeed this has produced an important economic
spin-offs as for example in driving
United States leadership in development and application of new
technologies. I am convinced that in
applying the same approach, the costs of environmental security would produce
even more opportunities and benefits to the economy.
What,
then, can be expected from the Johannesburg Summit? First and foremost there
must be no retreat from the agreements reached at Stockholm, Rio de Janeiro and
other international fora and the many legal instruments to which they gave
rise. Indeed it is important that there
be a strong re-affirmation by governments in Johannesburg of their commitments
to these past agreements and to implementing and building on them in the
post-Johannesburg period. In this respect,
the position of the United States will be pivotal.
An a
priori requirement for this is the successful completion of agreements on the
issues that were left on resolved in the final preparatory meeting in Bali,
Indonesia. It is now too late in the
process to seek consensus on new initiatives but not too late to place new
initiatives on the table in Johannesburg.
These could include:
-
A commitment to strong support for United Nations Secretary
General Kofi Annan in strengthening the capacities and coordination of the
organizations, programs and agencies of the United Nations which deal with the
environment, poverty alleviation, and sustainable development.
-
A call for the establishment of a Consultative Group on Clean
Energy (CGCE), or similar entity, drawing on the successful experience of the
Consultative Group on International Agriculture Research (CGIAR). Its purpose would be to provide an
international consultative mechanism, not a new organization, to facilitate
private- partnerships in identifying
priorities for research and development of sustainable energy technologies,
particularly those most relevant to the needs and interests of developing
countries. It would also help mobilize
and deploy the financial and technological assistance required to ensure their
availability to developing countries under conditions conducive to their
adoption and use.
-
A call for governments
to undertake a review of the system of fiscal, tax and other incentives,
regulations and policies through which they motivate the behavior of
individuals and corporations to provide positive incentives for environmentally
and socially sound and sustainable development.
-
Recognition of the Earth Charter as an important expression of
the commitment by civil society of the world and ethical basis for sustainable
development.
The convening of this hearing by
your two extremely important and influential committees demonstrates your deep
sense of the interest in and responsibility of the United States for its
position on these issues. Recognizing
that their fundamental nature does not lend itself to quick or easy solutions,
there are none-the-less some very practical measures which you could undertake
to make an important contribution to resolving them. You are, I understand, about to receive a report by the General
Accounting Office of the current status of existing international agreements
and their implementation. These could
provide the basis for mandating a continuing process of monitoring, adherence
to and performance under such agreements by the United States and others. The results could be incorporated in
periodic reports very much like the reports that the State Department issues in
respect of human rights. Such a
monitoring and reporting system would provide an important stimulus to
implementation of both the letter and the spirit of these agreements.
Developing countries face very
special constraints both in negotiating and implementing international
agreements because of their lack of sufficient financial resources to support
the professional and technical expertise that this requires. Yet their active participation in and
adherence to these agreements is essential to their effectiveness. A very modest investment by the United
States in supporting the strengthening by developing countries of their own
capacities to negotiate and service, these agreements would represent an
important contribution to alleviating one of the main obstacles to negotiating
and implementing them effectively. It
would also require only a very modest investment to increase support for the
international secretariats which are responsible for the servicing of such
agreements. Of course, others would
follow the US lead if it were to take such initiatives. This could be a small but important step
towards the revitalization of US leadership.
If the United States were to take
a lead in presenting or supporting such initiatives it would have an immense
impact on prospects for success at Johannesburg....
All people and nations have in
the past been willing to accord high priority to the measures required for
their own security. We must give the
same kind of priority to civilizational security and sustainability. This will take a major shift in the current
political mind-set. If this seems unrealistic in today’s political context we
should recall that history demonstrates that what seems unrealistic today
becomes inevitable tomorrow. Necessity
will compel this shift eventually, the question is can we really afford the costs and the risks of waiting. Most of
all we need the renewed leadership of this great nation. I commend you for this encouraging
manifestation that this renewal is well under way."
http://www.epw.senate.gov/107th/Strong_072402.htm
=========================
==========================
Maurice Strong was Sec. Gen. of 1992 Rio Climate Summit:
In 1992 Pres. George HW Bush flew to Rio with his EPA chief, William Reilly, whom he hand picked (end of pg.) from his post as WWF president. Maurice Strong was also a WWF member:
"Maurice Strong has played a unique and critical role is globalizing the environmental movement. Secretary General of both the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, which launched the world environment movement, and the 1992 Rio Environmental Summit, he was the first Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)."...
"Maurice Strong with US Secretary of State (under George H.W. Bush) Condoleezza Rice," mauricestrong.net
==========================
In 1992 Pres. George HW Bush flew to Rio with his EPA chief, William Reilly, whom he hand picked (end of pg.) from his post as WWF president. Maurice Strong was also a WWF member:
"Maurice Strong has played a unique and critical role is globalizing the environmental movement. Secretary General of both the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, which launched the world environment movement, and the 1992 Rio Environmental Summit, he was the first Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)."...
"Maurice Strong with US Secretary of State (under George H.W. Bush) Condoleezza Rice," mauricestrong.net
==========================
On June 12, 1992 the George
H.W. Bush administration signed the UNFCCC in Rio. The
U.S. Senate ratified it unanimously shortly thereafter, on October 15, 1992. [10]....
....................
....................
p. 1: "October 7, 1992, US Senate unanimously approved the UNFCCC." usclimatenetwork.org, "18 years and counting"
"102nd Congress (1991-1993)
Majority Party: Democrat (56 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (44 seats)"
"Parties to the Convention agreed to consider climate change in such matters as agriculture, industry, energy, natural resources, and activities involving sea coasts, and thus to attempt to slow the process of global warming.
The Conference of the
Parties (hereafter “COP”), which is the supreme decision-making body of the UNFCCC,
meets annually to review progress on the Convention.[12]"
Majority Party: Democrat (56 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (44 seats)"
"Parties to the Convention agreed to consider climate change in such matters as agriculture, industry, energy, natural resources, and activities involving sea coasts, and thus to attempt to slow the process of global warming.
...................................
No comments:
Post a Comment