19 years ago more heads
of states than ever came together in Rio
de Janeiro for what was termed the Earth
Summit. They agreed
on a few sensible things, such as that "the
right to development must be fulfilled so
as to equitably meet developmental and environmental
needs of present and future generations"
or that "states shall enact effective
environmental legislation" (see here).
The language is typical of bureaucrats.
But the message is pretty good.
Exactly one year from
today, governments will meet in Rio again
to mark the 20th anniversary of the Earth
Summit. Few heads of states that were present
in 1992 will attend when governments meet
from June 4th to 6th 2012 for Rio+20. And
many will be happy not to be there. That
way, they can avoid admitting that they
utterly failed to deliver what they promised.
In 1992, for example, governments agreed
the UN Climate Convention, which states
that the: "ultimate objective of the
Convention ... is to achieve ... stabilization
of greenhouse gas concentrations in the
atmosphere at a level that would prevent
dangerous anthropogenic interference with
the climate system". If they had meant
it, of course, we would have stopped the
relentless rise in climate damaging emissions
long ago. Instead, as you probably read,
2010 was the worst year ever in terms of
humanity´s impact on the fragile climate
we depend on.
There was plenty wrong
with what governments agreed in detail in
1992. They endorsed nuclear power, for example.
Still, 1992, for those of us old enough
to remember it, often seems like the proverbial
good old days. At least then, unlike in
Copenhagen in 2009, governments could agree.
At least then, we could be hopeful that
the Earth Summit would be truly a turn around
moment. Shortly after the end of the Cold
War, many believed that governments would
finally be ready to move the billions that
they spent on arms during the Cold War on
solving the real problems of the world:
poverty, disease, environmental destruction.
That did not happen. Today, we still spend
around 1600 billions on arms every year.
So will "Rio+20" be worth anything?
Will it deliver for people and the planet?
So far, the official
preparations do not give much ground for
hope. Governments are arguing over terms
like the "green economy" rather
than getting on with what is needed, such
as delivering an energy revolution or ending
deforstation. In Brazil, the host nation,
deforestation is rising and forest protections
are under threat rather than being extended.
President Dilma Roussef needs to act to
protect the integrity of Brazil´s
forst code (as my colleague Paulo Adario
explains eloquently here). Otherwise, with
brutal irony, the current increase in deforestation
will continue, just as the world descends
on Rio for another Earth Summit.
No question, there is
plenty the Earth Summit 2012 could - and
should - achieve. We have our demands ready
(see here for a short summary and here for
a longer statement). Politics being politics,
though, June 2012 is, realitically, not
a great moment for major advances to be
made. While one significant change since
1992 is that powers such as China, Brazil,
India or South Africa - to name just a few
- are much more powerful, it´s still
difficult to make global progress on fundamental
matters such as a fair and green economy
without the United States. In June 2012,
however, the United States will be busy
with the looming presidential election.
Obama - who has failed to lead on climate
change so far at the global level - will
be loath to agree to anything that his Republican
opponents may criticize in the election,
let alone something progressive. That´s
sad, wrong and should be different. But
it´s likely how things will be.
But likely does not
mean certain, of course. Who would have
thought one year ago, that we would see
a conservative government in Germany abandon
nuclear power, for example? If we can learn
anything from the Fukushima tragedy, it
is that politics is never linear, and never
entirely predictable. There are moments
when real change is possible.
And there are some concrete
steps that could be agreed upon at Rio.
The vast high seas, for example, could finally
get the legal protection they deserve (a
small step in that direction was taken in
New York this week). Governments could create
a true global institution that can protect
the environment and enforce environmental
rules. Governments could commit to zero
deforstation by 2020 - with the host Brazil
reversing the current trends and leading
the way.
May be in June 2012
the global winds of change will be such,
that global steps forward for the environment
and people will be possible. It´s
not exactly likely. But it´s worth
fighting for. We at Greenpeace will be ready
to hold governments accountable for their
failures, to propose sensible ways forward
and to push for the best deal possible for
people and the planet. As Bob Hunter, one
of Greenpeace´s founders, was fond
of saying: "Big change looks impossible
when you start, and inevitable when you
finish." Such may it soon be with the
energy revolution, zero deforestation and
protected high seas.
