Paradoxically, if we fail to act decisively to combat climate change, the reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions could occur through the collapse of the world economy, warns Maurice Strong in this column.

- Claudius/IPS

The UNCED of 1972, popularly named "Stockholm” after its host city, was the first-ever global conference on the environment, putting it permanently on the international agenda. Preparations for the conference were fraught with difficulties, particularly developing countries' concern that the environment was, for the rich, an issue that could divert attention and resources from their commitments to development and the elimination of poverty, the central concerns of the developing world.

Some even considered boycotting the conference and insisted that the developed world provide developing countries with new and additional financial resources and access to the best technologies if the latter were expected to participate in environmental cooperation.

Stockholm was also the first UN conference in which China participated after it took its rightful place in the United Nations. The Soviet Union and other communist countries boycotted it on the grounds that what was then East Germany was denied participation.

Climate change was one of the issues cited as requiring attention and later was given high priority by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), established in December 1972 and headquartered in Nairobi. The Statement of Principles and Action Plan approved at the conference exceeded expectations. UNCED also gave rise to the establishment of environmental ministries or directorates in most countries.

From its inception, many attempts were made to limit the impact of UNEP. The Brussels Group, which included Britain, the United States, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and France, was set up as "an unofficial policy-making body to concert the views of the principal governments concerned", according to the notes from the group's first meetings, written by a civil servant in the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

These countries overtly supported the creation of UNEP, but worked behind the scenes to ensure that it would not become a major organization, limiting its financial support so that the staff would remain small.

Despite this, UNEP was able to recruit exceptionally experienced and competent staff through an Environment Coordination Board that benefitted from the participation of the heads of UN agencies, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, which made it necessary for other agency heads to participate. This helped to make UNEP's coordinating role during that period quite effective.

Unfortunately, the board was later replaced by a lower-level committee. Rio+20 must support increasing the status of UNEP to that of a specialized agency. This could lead to the establishment of a World Environment Organization, as some have proposed.

I feel strongly that Rio+20 must endorse and be grounded by the Earth Charter. The change called for at the first Earth Summit in 1992 requires radical restructuring – indeed, a revolution – of our current economic system. This must be led by those countries, mostly Western, that dominated the world economy during the period in which the most damage to the Earth's life-support systems, its precious biological resources, and its climate occurred, while they monopolized the resulting economic benefits. Rio+20 must also reinforce the focus on biodiversity to which this Decade on Biodiversity is devoted and so spur the implementation of measures to protect the resources so essential to global sustainability.

Experience has demonstrated that the countries that have been most successful in improving their environment are those, like Japan, which have been most efficient in managing their economies and reducing the energy, resources and materials used to produce their GDP. Rio+20 must provide special measures to assist developing countries in bolstering the efficiency of their economies.

No issue is more important to the future of humanity than climate change, yet the political will to act cooperatively and decisively in this area has diminished dangerously. Rio+20 must reinforce international efforts to reach agreement and renewal of the Climate Change Convention and its implementation.

Paradoxically, if we fail to act, the reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions could occur through the collapse of the world economy – an option none of us would prefer. After all, the environmental and climate change crises share the same cause as the economic and financial crises: the inadequacy of our current economic system.

Only an enlightened view of their own self-interest in the security and sustainability of life is likely to induce the more developed countries to accept the principal responsibility they bear for the fundamental change of course that we must make. Developing countries must play their part, but their responsibilities are of a different order of magnitude.

The concept of shared but differentiated responsibilities must be strongly reinforced at Rio+20.

The growing inequities in the distribution of the benefits of economic growth continue to widen the rich-poor divide in virtually all countries, even in China, which has lifted more people out of poverty than any other nation. This undermines the prospect of enabling the poor and disadvantaged to share fully and equitably in the benefits of sustainable development, which would lead to social unrest, evidence of which is already emerging.

By Maurice Strong and - -
BEIJING, Nov 8 2011 (IPS)

The objective of the Rio+20 Conference (4-6 June 2012) is to secure renewed political commitment for sustainable development, assess the progress made to date and the gaps in the implementation of the outcomes of the major summits, and address new and emerging challenges.

My association with environmentalism goes back as far as the Stockholm Conference in 1972. The progress made since then in our understanding of environmental issues and our capacity to address them effectively is impressive. Unfortunately, the lack of sufficient progress in the implementation of the commitments made by governments at the 1992 Earth Summit have left us on a course that is unsustainable and indeed threatens the future of humankind. Yet current economic and political difficulties now pre-empt the attention of governments and the public, undermining the prospects of effective action at Rio+20 to establish the green economy that is the key to sustainability.

The “green economy” is not just a slogan: Rio+20 must produce powerful new momentum towards its realisation at the national, local, and global level.

The key to this goal is an immense increase in economic efficiency in the production of goods and services, in the use of energy, in development, and in the use and re-use of resources. The experience of a number of nations, notably Germany and certain other European countries, and Japan, has demonstrated that this is feasible.

The more developed countries which have contributed most to global environmental problems are responsible for and have an interest in fulfilling the commitments they have made to provide developing countries with access to the finances and technologies they need to green their economies.

Rio+20 must go beyond the re-statement of unfulfilled past commitments and the generation of new commitments without any means of enforcing accountability. It must, I contend, present governments with some radical and innovative challenges, for example:

1) At the UN High-level Symposium on Sustainable Development in Beijing (September 8-9, 2011), there was broad support for the initiative to have civil society organisations in each country assess the degree of implementation of the commitments they have made and what they should be expected to agree to at Rio+20. I propose the establishment of a mechanism for continuing and objective evaluation of the performance of countries in implementing of their commitments.

2) The need for the new and additional financial resources has continued to be a primary requirement for less developed countries to make the transition to the Green Economy. However, under current conditions the prospects of obtaining substantial new financial commitments from governments are limited. We should now tap private sources giving them opportunities to invest in the green economy. This was introduced at the Beijing Symposium.

3) Another way countries can make significant progress is to make much greater use of the legal system. This is not a new idea but one which deserves much more attention and more universal application. Principle 21 agreed at the Stockholm Conference provides that “States have … the sovereign right to exploit their own resources … and 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 the limits of national jurisdiction.” Principle 22 holds that a “State shall cooperate to develop further the international law regarding liability and compensation for the victims of the pollution and other environmental damage caused by activities within the jurisdiction or control of such States to areas beyond their jurisdiction.”

This principle has been invoked in a number of instances dating back to the famous Trail Smelter case in which pollution from a major project in Canada was causing damage in the United States. Granting victims of environmental damage in one country access to the courts of the country in which such damage originated to obtain compensation for it would give practical effect to the Stockholm Principles. Special measures will be required to ensure that the poor who are often the main victims of such damage have full access to this recourse.

There is therefore already a substantial body of experience and knowledge to call upon in extending this concept internationally. Rio+20 could make a unique and important contribution to realisation of the green economy and ensuring that its benefits are fully and fairly shared by the poor and disadvantaged by giving new impetus to this process.

Cities are the centres of our civilisation -the principal sources of environmental deterioration but also the principal sources of solutions. The greening of our cities must be at the centre of our efforts. Many countries have realised that environmental measures must be systemically integrated into the greening of our cities and their impact on the hinterlands with which they are so interdependent. Many countries are already responding to this challenge.

It is important that Rio+20 give a strong impetus to the key role of cities as the centrepiece of the new economy. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Maurice Strong is Senior Adviser to the Secretary-General of Rio+20, the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. He was the Secretary-General of the 1992 Earth Summit and the first Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (www.mauricestrong.net).

Excerpt:

By Maurice Strong and - -
BEIJING, Nov 29 2010 (IPS)

As the Arctic has only recently moved toward centre stage, there is still much we must do to understand the true nature of the changes that are occurring there.

While I cannot claim any special expertise in the Arctic, I have had a long and deep interest in it dating from my time working for the Hudsons Bay Company, from 1945 to 49, at its Chesterfield Inlet trading post, located just south of the Arctic Circle in Northern Canada.

My close association with the Inuit people during those early days and what I learned from them provided the foundations for my interest in the environment. I could not help but marvel at the realization that these resilient and resourceful people, their culture and way of life, were able not only to survive but to thrive over millennia in one of the worlds harshest climates. I was also saddened to see their vulnerability to the processes of modernization, which even then, were undermining their traditional ways of life with their small numbers scattered over a vast territory. When Canada emerged as a nation, the Inuit became part of it. They lived at the margins of Canadian society with little influence on the larger body politic of the country, on which they became increasingly dependent.

We must now see the Inuit and other peoples of the north as being on the front lines of the changes that are radically re-shaping conditions there and our perceptions of its value to Canada, and indeed the world.

I am pleased to note that the recent statement on Canadas Arctic Foreign Policy acknowledged that our claim to Arctic sovereignty owes much to the presence there of Inuit and other indigenous people since time immemorial.

The statement acknowledges the impacts of climate change and the need to protect the Arctic environment and prepare for its adaptation to changes in climate already irreversible. This is a welcome change from the position our government has taken on these issues in other fora. Certainly, better late than never but, of course, the proof in the pudding is in the eating.

The biological resources of the Arctic, both terrestrial and marine, are especially vulnerable. Mining, oil, and pipeline development have environmental impacts that can be evaluated and regulated. But the impacts of climate change have their sources outside of the Arctic and beyond the control of Canada and other nations, and requiring an unprecedented degree of international cooperation.

Scientific evidence now makes it clear that the Arctic is particularly susceptible to these impacts and can become a source of them. Thawing of the permafrost could release vast amounts of methane that would contribute to global warming. Even small changes in temperature can give rise to migrations of both terrestrial and marine species with potential impacts on other species. There has been much attention to the plight of polar bears resulting from the reduction of the ice packs which provide their normal habitat.

A recent article in the Journal of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences cautions that the magnitude of impending climate change worsens the prospects for species extinction placing at risk many more species than are protected. Current conservation policy based on the assumption that nature can be protected in sanctuaries walled off from human effects may now become inhospitable to the resources they are intended to protect. Estimates of climate driven extinction are now estimated to be as high as one third of all species including plants, vertebrates, fungi and microbes, all of which are compounded in the Arctic. While we can take satisfaction in the number of new national parks and protected areas, we are now cautioned to look beyond this to a much more comprehensive and radical approach to the conservation of Arctic species. It is clear that climate change forces us to make difficult trade-offs as between costs and benefits of maintaining biological resources in relation to the development of resources.

Canadas Arctic foreign policy statement also commendably makes clear the need for strengthening of existing mechanisms for the governance of the Arctic, particularly the Arctic Council. Although it affirms the increased potential for disagreement and conflict in respect of Arctic issues and particularly challenges to Canadas claims of sovereignty, it suggests that these can be managed peacefully with existing mechanisms.

My own belief is that we must prepare for an increased number and intensity of conflicts as the potential value of Arctic resources becomes subject to greater competition and other nations assert their right of passage through Arctic waters. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Maurice Strong was the Secretary General of the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, first Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme, and Secretary General of the 1992 UN Conference on the Human Environment ( http://www.mauricestrong.net).

Excerpt:

By Maurice Strong and - -
BEIJING, Feb 10 2010 (IPS)

The good news about the Copenhagen Summit on Climate Change (December 7-18) is that it produced universal agreement on the importance of early action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to manageable levels. It also made progress on some of the key elements to be included in such an agreement and on continuing the ongoing process of negotiation. The bad news is that it revealed deep and unresolved differences between the positions of the main parties, notably between the more developed and the less developed countries.

Particularly important is the position of China, now the biggest source of emissions. While a latecomer to its position as the world’s most rapidly developing economy, it has contributed much less to the accumulation of greenhouse gases that has brought us to the threshold of the risks we now face and on a per capita basis still contributes much less than the United States and others.

We must treat the current erosion of support for action on climate change as an opportunity to resolve the issues which continue to divide the positions of governments and respond to the urgent warnings of scientists which have been undermined by recent differences among some of them.

One of the most important results of Copenhagen is that the more developed countries have, however reluctantly, had to yield to China and other newly developed countries the political role which accords with their growing economic powers. It thus confirmed that the world’s geopolitical centre has shifted to Asia.

China is strongly committed to major initiatives that will make it a leader in a transition to a low-carbon economy. Overall, these are likely to go beyond what it would be expected to accept as mandatory under an international agreement. However, China has joined with other leading, newly-developing countries -India, Brazil and South Africa- in insisting that the actions of all developing countries on climate change be voluntary while the commitment of the more developed countries be mandatory. The chances of agreement on this have deteriorated since Copenhagen.

With unusually severe winter weather in North America, Europe, and China, the recession which has exacted such heavy costs on our economies and preoccupation with related issues have taken a toll on support for early action. This is particularly true in the US, where health care and other controversial issues have reduced the ability of President Obama to mobilise the support required to take the lead in addressing climate change that is so indispensable to the success of these negotiations.

At the core of the issues that remain to be resolved is the need to make available to developing countries the funding and access to technology which they require to reduce their emissions while enabling them to continue to develop their economies and to participate fully and equitably in the further development of the global economy. For both climate change and economic crisis are rooted in the inadequacies of the existing economic system that has now so dramatically revealed the ominous consequences of the growing gap between rich and poor. Assistance to developing countries must go well beyond foreign aid, which has never reached the level at which it was promised. Emissions of greenhouse gases have the same effect on global climate whatever their source.

The finances required for this will be on the order of one trillion dollars over the first 10 years, and much more beyond. This is beyond anything the more developed countries are now willing to do, in light of the economic problems which we are facing. Yet if the figure of one trillion dollars seems unrealistic, it is much less than what is now being spent on military conflicts, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are far less threatening to the human future.

It will take a fundamental change in attitudes and mind-set to rise to this challenge. Nations have always been able to give highest priority to threats to their own security. The risk to the security and sustainability of all nations with which climate change confronts the entire community constitutes the greatest security threat ever. We all face it together and can only resolve it by working together.

This is why it is so essential that new impetus be generated to negotiate a mandated and enforceable agreement to extend or replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. This will be feasible only with an unprecedented degree of international cooperation. It is a daunting challenge that will require all countries to accept that the interests of their own people can be ensured only in cooperation with others and by transcending narrower national interests. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Maurice Strong was the Secretary General of the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, first Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme, and Secretary General of the 1992 UN Conference on the Human Environment http://www.mauricestrong.net

Excerpt:

By Maurice Strong and - -
BEIJING, Nov 11 2009 (IPS)

The current economic and climate change crises are both rooted in the unsustainable nature of the existing economic system. The rapid and unexpected economic meltdown, which began in the United States and quickly spread throughout the world demonstrated dramatically that the phenomenon of globalization and interdependence has a dramatic downside of shared risks and vulnerability.

This dictates that we must manage these crises cooperatively on a systemic, integrated basis ­rather than as separate and often competing issues.

Some, however, still contend that we can only deal with the risks of climate change and repair the damage from environmental degradation after we fix the global economy. This is the height of folly. Waiting while merely patching up the current economic model would only exacerbate the imminent threats to our civilization.

ChinaÂ’s role in the negotiations now underway in preparation for DecemberÂ’s Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Climate Change Convention in Copenhagen will be decisive. It must produce binding and enforceable commitments with penalties for noncompliance. So we must learn from the many agreements and conventions that governments have committed to in the past but seldom complied with. If they had done so we would not be in the current state of crisis.

China and India are now the main source of increases in global emissions and will be under heavy pressure to accept specific targets. China, India, and other newly developing nations will rightly insist on greater reductions by the main industrialized countries, which are primarily responsible for the accumulated emissions that have brought the worldÂ’s climate to todayÂ’s dangerous threshold. This must be accompanied by commitments to provide massive support to developing nations to enable them to reduce their emissions without impairing their continuing economic growth.

The optimistic scenario for Copenhagen would include agreement on a Climate Security Program, or, at least the main elements thereof, combined with establishment of a “Climate Security Fund” to finance implementation of the program. More developed countries would commit resources to this fund on a formula proportional to their emissions and their gross domestic product. The scale of such a fund ­initially on the order of at least $1 trillion­ is far beyond anything that more developed countries are contemplating. It will likely be viewed as unrealistic, particularly in light of the global financial and economic crisis. Still, this price tag is less than the cost to the US alone of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Such a level of funding, particularly under current circumstances, will require new and innovative means. These could include fees for the use of the global commons, for example, the oceans, the atmosphere, and outer space that are not under national jurisdiction, taxes on fossil fuels and other sources of emissions, and penalties for those who fall behind in meeting targets.

This need not come primarily from new money that rather from massive reallocation of existing funds so at the additional taxes and fees are all set by corresponding reductions in existing tax and subsidies.

The catastrophic impacts of growing carbon emissions will affect the entire globe, no matter where the emissions originate. As such, large-scale assistance to developing countries accompanied by much expanded programs which enable them to earn credits from their capacity to reduce emissions at a lower cost than more developed countries offers cost-effective investments in climate security.

The investments we make to achieve climate security will generate new opportunities both for businesses and individuals that will make major contributions to the establishment of the new economy. Thus, both in their origins and solutions, the environmental and economic crises are inextricably linked.

The capitalism which has produced the current crises concentrates its benefits in a small minority of the population while widening the gap between them and the majority, particularly the poor. This is clearly inequitable and as we have learned from the current crises it is not sustainable.

It is a sad commentary on the morality of our civilization that we devote more of our resources to development and deployment of sophisticated weaponry and killing power than on meeting the humanitarian and social needs of people and protecting the environmental viability of our planet.

China and the US combined produce some 40 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. While all countries must cooperate in meeting the climate change challenge, the cooperation of the US and China will be essential.

China has now surpassed the US as the main source of carbon emissions; but it is still well behind in per capita terms. The average Chinese produces only one-fifth as much in carbon emissions as the average American. Indeed, since the dawn of the industrial revolution, the US has generated more than 1.1 trillion tons of carbon emissions from fossil fuels compared to ChinaÂ’s 300 billion tons.

There are immense opportunities for China and the US to reduce their carbon emissions through increased energy efficiency.

We are the first generation in history to have the ability and responsibility to determine the future of life on Earth. We cannot afford to be complacent in the belief that whatever we do, life will go on. We must realize that the conditions which make life possible as we know it have only existed for a very brief period of our planetÂ’s long history and within very narrow limits. It is clear that humans are now impinging on these limits at a speed and on a scale beyond our ability to adjust or adapt. Human existence is at real and imminent risk. But the prospect of success, however challenging, is also very real. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Maurice Strong was the Secretary General of the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, first Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and Secretary General of the 1992 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment ( http://www.mauricestrong.net).

Excerpt:

By Maurice Strong and - -
BEIJING, Jul 6 2009 (IPS)

A recent study by the Global Humanitarian Forum, headed by former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, postulates that the economic and human costs of climate change could now amount to some 125 billion dollars per year and the loss of 300,000 lives. Many more are being increasingly affected, mainly the poor.

The financial measures that must be devoted to the successful achievement of climate security go beyond anything yet being seriously considered by the main more developed governments and demanded by China and developing countries. This will not simply be one lump sum, but a package of firm commitments over time initially adding up to an order of magnitude of at least US 1 trillion dollars.

Redeployment of the massive resources, financial and human now devoted to the military could itself meet most of the need ­in effect giving priority to improving living power rather than killing power. If the figure of trillion dollars and beyond seems unrealistically under today’s conditions, we must be reminded that it is only a portion of what the United States alone has spent in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and in current attempts to bailout its major financial institutions and revive its flagging economy. The climate change crisis is in even greater need of a bailout than the economic and financial crisis, though both are inextricably related.

We are the wealthiest civilization ever. Can we really accept we can not afford to save ourselves and future generations?

There is good news in the promising and positive dimensions of the technological progress that our knowledge society has produced. Increasingly sophisticated information technology provides tools which enable us to understand and manage the complex systems which determine the functioning of our civilization.

The most economically successful countries of Asia, notably Japan and the Republic of Korea, neither of them well-endowed with natural resources, have built their success on the development of advanced technologies and high rates of investment in educational and research capacities. China is now making impressive progress in becoming a knowledge and technology based economy as are other countries of this region in varying degrees.

What will we have to do? First of all we need a new economic paradigm which integrates the disciplines of traditional economics with the new insights of ecological economics. This “new economics” must provide the theoretical underpinnings for a system that incorporates into economic pricing and national accounts the real values of the environment and services which nature provides. It must include fiscal and regulatory regimes with positive incentives for the achievement of economic, social and environmental sustainability.

People’s actions and their priorities depend on their motivation. While we are all motivated by self-interest, at the deepest level, ethics, morality, and spiritual values provide the underlying basis of our motivation. Much of the today’s conflict, violence and “terrorism” arises not from economic motivation but from extreme ideologies and deep-seated prejudices.

In a market economy which drives the processes of globalization, the market provides the signals that motivate sustainable development. This means shifting taxes to products and practices which are environmentally and socially harmful from those which are least harmful. In effect, getting the prices right. No nation can do this alone without disadvantaging its own economy; it can only be effectively done within an internationally agreed framework.

The forthcoming meeting of the parties to the Climate Change Convention in Copenhagen (December 7-18) will be one of the most important and one of the most difficult international agreements ever attempted. Most challenging will be the need to bridge the deep differences and divergent positions of the main parties. It is an ominous paradox that as our future depends on unprecedented levels of cooperation we are experiencing growing competition and division.

Copenhagen will be a milestone on the road to the fundamental changes we must make to ensure the climate security that is essential to our survival as well as the sustainability and progress to which we aspire. Time is clearly running out and we cannot afford to miss this opportunity.

At the same time we must realize that there is still all too little evidence that governments are prepared to undertake the kind of commitments that will lead us to this new era. The countries, the organizations and the people participating in this dialogue will clearly have a critically important, indeed I would say decisive, role to play in Copenhagen. Let us all give this the highest priority in our own lives that we expect from governments. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Maurice Strong was the Secretary General of the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, first Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and Secretary General of the 1992 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment ( http://www.mauricestrong.net).

Excerpt:

By Maurice Strong and - -
BEJING, Sep 22 2008 (IPS)

China has been making progress in building a vibrant, modern society, but inevitably it still has to cope with massive problems left by its turbulent past. Still, that progress is clearly remarkable by any standard. China has raised more people out of poverty than any nation has ever done, writes Maurice Strong, former Secretary General of the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment and the first Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) The constraints that the Chinese and foreigners living here continue to experience are minimal and for the most part understandable, given that no nation has suffered from societal breakdown, internal conflict and foreign intervention more than China has in the past century. It is a small wonder that the Chinese place such emphasis on the need for internal stability and security. Indeed, we must realize that even in our own societies the standards we exhort China to adopt are those we have only recently, and not yet fully, lived up to ourselves. The Chinese will be much more influenced by our example than by the uninformed and hypocritical content of so much of our criticism. Similarly, the attempt to shift the onus for increases in food, oil and commodity prices to China, as well as India and others now competing for these imports, will be counterproductive. The needs of the poor and the newly developing countries cannot be subordinated to the wasteful and indulgent appetites of the rich and their pre-emption of a disproportion of the world\’s resources.

China has been making progress in building a vibrant, modern society, but inevitably it still has to cope with massive problems left by its turbulent past. Still, that progress is clearly remarkable by any standard. China has raised more people out of poverty than any nation has ever done.

The constraints that the Chinese and foreigners living here continue to experience are minimal and for the most part understandable, given that no nation has suffered from societal breakdown, internal conflict and foreign intervention more than China has in the past century. It is a small wonder that the Chinese place such emphasis on the need for internal stability and security. Indeed, we must realize that even in our own societies the standards we exhort China to adopt are those we have only recently, and not yet fully, lived up to ourselves. The Chinese will be much more influenced by our example than by the uninformed and hypocritical content of so much of our criticism.

Hostile attitudes and policies aimed at undermining China’s progress and discrediting its policies and intentions can only be counterproductive, and contrary to our own interests. For there is not a single major world issue that can be resolved without China’s co-operation. It is not that we should forgo legitimate and constructive criticisms and differences, but that these be resolved by engagement with China as a full partner, rather than by the kind of entrenched hostility and bias we so often display.

Climate change is an issue that is especially relevant. China realizes that it will be one of the most vulnerable victims of climate change and is already taking serious measures domestically to avert these risks. But it cannot be expected to transform these into binding commitments that are not matched by firm and enforceable commitments by the countries, notably the United States, whose accumulated emissions of greenhouse gases have caused the irreversible damage already inflicted on the world. The attempt to shift the onus for climate change to China, India and other rapidly industrializing developing countries is neither fair nor workable.

Similarly, the attempt to shift the onus for increases in food, oil and commodity prices to China, as well as India and others now competing for these imports, will be counterproductive. The needs of the poor and the newly developing countries cannot be subordinated to the wasteful and indulgent appetites of the rich and their pre-emption of a disproportion of the world’s resources.

Co-operation and co-operative engagement, on a scale that is without precedent, are the only ways of resolving these matters, rather than allowing them to escalate into a new generation of conflict ­ a very real possibility. China’s role will be indispensable. It will be a willing and constructive participant in this process, but not a subservient one.

China’s commitment to internal security and stability and to regional and world peace must also be taken seriously. Unlike Japan, which has invaded and sought to dominate each of its neighbours, ceasing only when it was defeated in the Second World War, China’s territorial disputes with its neighbours have been confined to differences over their boundaries rather than attempts to occupy or annex them. It gives its own minorities a high degree of autonomy, including special rights such as exemption from the one-child policy, while rigorously resisting separatist tendencies, as most countries do.

Disturbances in Tibet were led by monks whose traditional privileges and control over the majority of the population has been severely curtailed, while the majority who live in poverty and serfdom are experiencing new opportunities as a result of the modernization of the Tibetan economy. To be sure, this process has been a difficult and even painful one for many, but both Chinese and Tibetans continue to learn and to accommodate the changes that will enable Tibet to retain its distinctive cultural and religious heritage while according its people new and growing opportunities for a better life. Even the Dalai Lama does not advocate or expect the independence of Tibet from China, and his differences are related to the degree and nature of the autonomy Tibet could be given within China.

The alternative, in all these issues and others, is an ominous and growing potential for conflict, at a time when what the world needs is a new and immensely increased degree of co-operation. This must be focused principally on those issues that affect the very survival of humankind, and must transcend the narrower and self-serving interests of individual nations.

Uninformed and ideologically biased critics of China should ask themselves why it is that the majority of Chinese today are better off and better satisfied than ever, why more overseas Chinese are returning to China, and why more foreigners are enjoying conditions of life here that make them want to stay, even if it involves changing their employment to do so. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Maurice Strong and - -
BEIJING, Dec 17 2007 (IPS)

The United Nations Conference on Climate Change was only a necessary first step along what will be a rough road to agreement on the cooperative measures required to bring the risks of climate change under control. The last minute compromise to establish a continuing negotiating process was only reached on a weakened and watered-down basis, writes Maurice Strong, Secretary-General, 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment and the first Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). In this analysis, Strong writes that we must treat the dangers of climate change as a security issue, the most important threat to global security we will ever face. The author calls for establishment of a Climate Security Fund of USD 1 trillion to be financed by those countries that have contributed most to cumulative emissions. The Fund would be utilised to assist developing countries to reduce the growth of their emissions and adapt to adverse conditions resulting from already irreversible changes. The kind of climate security regime that would result from these and other indispensable measures goes well beyond Bali and what is considered realistic by most under today\’s conditions, but are imperative if we are to secure the conditions that support life as we know it.

The newly industrializing countries, notably China and India, which are now major contributors to the growth of greenhouse gas emissions signaled their willingness to cooperate in a new agreement which preserves the key principles of the Kyoto Protocol. At the same time, they firmly and understandably reject accepting commitments disproportionate to those of the countries primarily responsible for the accumulated emissions which have produced the crisis. The continued refusal of the United States, Japan and Canada, to agree to mandatory targets and commitments to finance and technology transfer remains a major block to a new agreement.

Unfortunately, there is still little sign of the fundamental changes that this will require. Our main hopes must continue to reside in the prospect that the greater awareness and concerns of people everywhere will drive their governments to transcend their differences and join by 2012 a process in which all will participate on a fair and equitable basis. The results of Bali´s Conference have made clear that this will indeed be a rough road but it is the road we must take to ensure the security of life on Earth.

When the climate change was cited as an emerging issue at the first global environmental Conference in Stockholm in 1972, the world was not listening. At the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the heads of more than 172 governments approved the Climate Change Convention and agreed to cooperate in bringing the climate change risks under control. Approval of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 was a major step forward. This was followed by disappointment at its rejection by the United States as the principal source of accumulated greenhouse gas emissions.

Today, there is encouragement in the degree to which the growing scientific evidence and climatic turbulence have engaged the attention and concern of people and governments everywhere. This has been accompanied by a counter movement designed to discredit the science and exaggerate the costs and consequences of preventative action.

We need a radical shift in the mind-set which dictates our priorities. We must treat the dangers of climate change as a security issue, the most important threat to global security we will ever face. Nations have always done what they had to do when confronted with threats to their security. The costs required to ensure climate security will be more in the nature of an investment than an expense. Most will occur at the front end of the process of transition to a sustainable development pathway in which a more efficient economy will produce more opportunities and benefits than the current wasteful model.

Energy is at the heart of this transition. Climate security and energy security are two sides of the same coin. Our profligate use of energy must be brought under control; the transition from the fossil fuels era must be accelerated and their emissions of greenhouse gases substantially reduced in the meantime. This is feasible, but, of course, it will not be easy.

Permissible increases in emissions should be derived from a ”global cap” based on the evaluation of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the overall limit of the amount of greenhouse gases that can be allowed to build up in the atmosphere to avoid unacceptable risk to the Earth’s climate. Necessary increases within this ”global cap” should be allocated to developing countries which would be required to set reductions in the growth of their emissions at levels ratcheted to the performance of more developed countries in reducing theirs. Latest scientific analysis indicates that today’s level of 450 parts per million (p.p.m) of accumulated greenhouse gases is already too high and must be reduced to its pre-industrial level of 280 p.p.m. All emissions would have to be reduced to zero and maintained at that level —- radically beyond anything now contemplated.

A Climate Security Fund must be established for which an initial target of USD 1 trillion would be feasible, to be financed by those countries that have contributed most to cumulative emissions. The Fund would be utilised to assist developing countries to reduce the growth of their emissions and adapt to adverse conditions resulting from already irreversible changes. One of the main uses of this Fund would be to develop new and improved technologies and make them universally available.

The kind of climate security regime that would result from these measures goes well beyond Bali and what is considered realistic by most under today’s conditions, but are imperative if we are to secure the conditions that support life as we know it.

Our best hope is the exercise of the power of people to compel their governments to act as is now occurring in the United States and elsewhere. Civil society with its vast networks of organisations and citizen groups has become increasingly sophisticated and professional to mobilise people power on particular issues on a massive scale. Of course, civil society and non-governmental organisations cannot replace governments. But with concerted action they have the power to drive governments to take action. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt: