Over the last six months I have been away from home a lot watching our governments editing a powerpoint in windowless rooms. Sounds sad, I know, but the document is entitled "The Future We Want" and is not just any powerpoint. It´s supposed to be a future worth choosing that the world commits to at the Rio+20 Earth Summit to be held from June 20th to 22nd. Next week, governments will be meeting for the fifth time this year already to try and agree this vision for the next 20 years.
UNEP is running a series of articles with Perspectives on Rio+20. Below is mine (which you can find on the UNEP site here).
Almost twenty years after the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro we know solutions are available and affordable, that investments in clean technologies are rising, that deforestation can be stopped, and food provided for all if governments have the will. We also know development in both North and South remains deeply unsustainable.
Today, a fair Green Economy is achievable, if governments and businesses act urgently – and if we change the way we govern resources globally. Promoting sustainable practices is essential. But, above all, governments must put a decisive end to unsustainable practises. An economy based on nuclear energy, oil and coal, genetic engineering, toxic chemicals or the overexploitation of our forests and seas will never be green.
A fair green economy worth fighting for provides sustainable livelihoods for all while fully respecting ecological limits – our planetary boundaries. In such a truly Green Economy, the economy will be a mechanism to deliver societal goals, and economic growth as an end goal in and of itself will be abandoned.
The transformation we need is taking place too slowly, but the good news is, it is already proven. Brazil, for example, has shown that it is possible to cut deforestation rates through effective governance and good business practices: Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon has declined year on year; 2011 it was at its lowest ever level. But unless President Dilma vetoes it, Brazil will soon adopt changes to its Forest Code, the main law in Brazil that protects forests, that would allow an amnesty for past forest crimes and lead to an increase in deforestation. This is unacceptable. To be a credible Rio Earth Summit host this year, President Dilma must veto the forest code changes. Brazil must decide whether it wants to be a leader on the path to sustainable prosperity by choosing zero deforestation, or wants to be known as a nation that showed that deforestation could be halted, but failed to do so purely to serve short term private interests.
The energy future we need is efficient and renewable. In Germany, 81% of all installed power capacity in the last decade was renewable! The Energy Revolution scenario Greenpeace has developed together with business partners shows that globally we can deliver energy to more people, especially the poor in developing countries, cut emissions by more than 80% by 2050 – and create more jobs doing so, by investing in energy efficiency and renewable energy instead of fossil fuels and nuclear power. By implementing the Energy Revolution, governments can help businesses create 3.2 million more jobs by 2030 in the global power supply sector alone. In South Africa 149,000 direct jobs could be created by 2030, 38,000 more than the current government's plan. That's the kind of decisive action, leading to wins for planet and the poor alike that Rio should deliver.
The future we need must put an end to overfishing and ensure that 40% of the world's oceans have been turned into marine reserves. At Rio, governments have the chance to finally get serious about protecting the High Seas, which are currently being plundered in Wild West style. They must launch immediate negotiations for a High Seas Biodiversity agreement (also known as an implementing agreement under UNCLOS).
Deforestation in Brazil or the over-exploitation of the High Seas are strong reminders that what we urgently need is better governance of the environment, globally. Governments must put the regulations in place that are needed for the public good and give the institutions tasked to implement these regulations the tools to do so. It's simple, but it does mean changing some fundamentals in the way we govern our planet.
As an urgent first step we need to upgrade the UN Environment Programme to specialized agency status. Sustainable development governance needs a global authority on the environment, which should have much enhanced implementation, compliance and enforcement mechanisms. To complement this, we need global rules on corporate accountability and liability. At the Johannesburg Earth Summit in 2002, governments acknowledged the need for global rules for global corporations. At Rio 2012, they must agree the development of a global instrument that ensures full liability for any social or environmental damage global corporations cause. Corporations themselves must take full responsibility for their supply chains. Now is also the time to create strong controls of financial markets and agree on new fiscal instruments, such as a Financial Transaction Tax, that can slow harmful speculation and deliver much needed finance for development and environmental protection. Much needed money can also be found by agreeing on a phase-out of environmentally and socially harmful subsidies within this decade, including subsidies to fossil fuels, forest destruction, nuclear power, agrochemicals or overfishing.
Tinkering at the edges is not good enough, as the Global Sustainability Panel has stated. We need transformational change. Will Rio deliver?
Today, the UN Global Sustainability Panel launched it´s report "Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A Future Worth Choosing". You can read it here and a reaction by Oxfam here. My quote was as follows: Daniel Mittler, Political Director of Greenpeace International said: “It´s time to end the perversity of taxpayers paying for fossil fuels which destroy our future and to admit that 'tinkering at the edges will not do the job' of achieving a sustainable future for all (1). Greenpeace welcomes that the Global Sustainability Panel recognizes this truth. But tinkering is exactly what is being recommended for the oceans, as the Panel has failed to address the fact that there are simply too many big boats chasing too few fish, and that without a new UN agreement to conserve and manage biodiversity in the high seas it will be impossible to implement the necessary reforms to ensure a sustainable marine future. Governments must listen and deliver real transformation at the Rio Earth Summit this June: An energy revolution, zero deforestation and healthy oceans – that´s a future worth choosing. We welcome that the Panel recognizes the need to measure real well-being, not just Gross Domestic Product. In a truly Green Economy, the economy will be a mechanism to deliver societal goals, and economic growth as an end goal in and of itself will be abandoned. Greenpeace supports Sustainable Development goals to achieve food security and oceans protection, but we need these now, not for 2030 – a date way past the sell-by-date of today´s corporate leaders and politicians."
(1) The report states in paragraph 139: “To achieve sustainability, a transformation of the global economy is required. Tinkering at the edges will not do the job.”
I have been up at night a lot over the last ten days thinking about the future. You do not have to feel bad for me as the reason was a joyful one: I was carrying around my new born daughter. As I stared at her fresh face and hints of smiles, I could not but think about the future she will face or want to shape for herself. I therefore took an instant liking to the title of the draft outcome of the next Rio Earth Summit, which will take place this June. "The Future We Want" the UN has called the document, which was first leaked and then published this week. It´s the outcome of a lengthy preparatory process, which saw governments, businesses and civil society, including Greenpeace, set out their vision for Rio in over 6000 pages of submissions. (You can find a fully linked version of this blog over at www.greenpeace.org)
When I started reading, though, my joy disappeared quickly. I can handle dry, bureaucratic language. But what enrages me is when people talk about the crises we face - the billions without clean water or electricity, the billion suffering from hunger, the pillage of our oceans and forests - without any sense of urgency. And lack of urgency is, above all, what this document exudes (though there is some good news especially for our oceans, so please keep reading ...).
The Future envisioned here is one in which we have plenty of time to fix our problems - be they unemployment or climate change. There is a lot of talk of "acknowledging", "resolving", "recognizing" and "noting" in this text - all UN code words for not doing much. Sometimes the lack of urgency is even spelled out. Noting the outrage that billions each year are spent on destroying our planet through, for example, subsidizing fossil fuels, they suggest that governments at Rio commit to "gradually eliminate subsidies that have considerable negative effects on the environment". Yes, gradually. You know, when you get around to it, dear governments. We know you are busy saving banks and bonuses. It reminds me of the old joke about British public servants shouting "What do we want? Gradual change. When do we want it? In due course". It would actually be funny, if only the future that awaits my daughter unless we act urgently wasn´t one of runaway climate change or destroyed forests.
Another problem is a lack of spine in a lot of the proposals. It´s a great idea, for example, to make all big businesses repsponsible for and report on their social and environmental impacts. Indeed, 10 years ago, at the last Earth Summit in Johannesburg, governments committed to create global rules for businesses. But when the document calls for "a global policy framework requiring all listed and large private companies to consider sustainability issues", it simply does not go far enough. We don´t need consideration, we need clear rules that can be enforced and allow those who suffer the social and environmental impacts of irresponsible businesses to get redress and justice.
Greenpeace is also strongly in favour of Sustainable Development Goals, that, for example, could set out the right to sustainable energy for all by 2020. However, if this document is not improved, all we are going to get will be a process that may result in Sustainable Development Goals "by 2015". The goals themselves are then to the be achieved by 2030. This is inviting three years of torturous negotiations followed by more foot dragging as 2030 is way past the sell by date of most current politicians (even those in power in 2015). This is not setting out a future we want at Rio.
The lack of spine is clearest in the last paragraph which calls for voluntary commitments announced at Rio to be stapled together in a "registry/compendium that will serve as an accountability framework." In other words, there will be no enforcement or control. Your word will be taken at face value and the "accountability framework" will be the act of stapling all voluntary commitments together in one document. An invitation to greenwash, if there ever was one.
If you thought it couldn´t get worse, it does. In some areas the document simply sells the problem as the future we (allegedly) want. For example, while the current global trade regime is part of the reason we are faced with unsustainable agriculture or empty oceans, the document calls for more of the same to solve the food security crisis and endorses the - pretty dead - unsustainable Doha trade talks.
But here is the good news! If agreed by world leaders, the document would finally end our obsession with GDP growth as it "recognize(s) the limitations of GDP as a measure of well-being" and agrees to "develop and strengthen indicators complementing GDP that integrate economic, social and environmental dimensions in a balanced manner." This could be progress.
The document also at least opens the door to the environment finally getting a stronger voice at the global level. One option it sets out is to establish a UN Environment Agency. If (and only if) this option is agreed, this will be the first time the environment got better institutions globally for 40 years. We would be ready to celebrate that.
Finally, on oceans governance, the document says exactly what it should. You can tell by the language. It´s clear and does not put off action. It says: "We agree to, as soon as possible", to negotiate an agreement to protect the high seas, which are currently being plundered in wild west style. That´s the kind of action we would want to see more of in Rio. That´s the kind of language that we would want to see throughout any document claiming to chart the course to a future we want.
The future I want for my daughter is not the one set out in this document. But as I carry her around once more tonight, I am more determined than ever to make sure our governments and businesses are held to account and forced to act. Join us now!
My favourite article on our recent 40th anniversary was about the serious, important but often invisible political work we do.
So while Brian has already told you that our new flagship Rainbow Warrior III will be heading to Rio de Janeiro “Earth Summit” in 2012 – and I really hope I will be on board then! - I wanted to tell you about how we are working to influence that anniversary of the historical Earth Summit in 1992.
Today is a good day to do so, as today is the deadline to send comments to the United Nations headquarters on what governments should do and agree when they meet in Rio from June 4th- June 6th 2012.
You can read our call for governments to deliver a green and fair economy here – and all submissions made by many different countries, NGOs and also businesses here. Until next June, there will be many weeks of UN meetings to prepare the 3 day event in Rio. (Article with all links is here at www.greenpeace.org)
In March, I personally was present as the world community met in New York and governments outlined their first ideas for Rio 2012. Since then, a lot of regional meetings have been and are taking place to set out what governments will do on the “green economy” and on improving the “governance for sustainable development” - the two major themes of the “summit”. Colleagues from Chile, China and the Middle East, for example, have recently made your voice heard at meetings in Santiago, Cairo and Seoul.
Sadly, these meetings have not given us hope, that governments are ready to jumpstart and speed up the solutions our planet so urgently needs. At Cairo, Saudi Arabia and other countries insisted that sustainable development was all fine and well, as long as it did not do anything about our global addiction to oil. At Seoul, many Pacific nations called for effective protection of our global oceans by calling for the green economy to be a “blue economy”, with ocean conservation as key. This call was ignored by the Chairs of the conference and the official outcome was disappointing.
It fits this disappointing tale that the Rio meeting has recently made headlines not because of an exciting Earth rescue plan to be launched there, but because of a clash with the Queen´s birthday. UK Prime Minister David Cameron has announced that the Queen´s hubilee will be more important to him than the Rio meeting. Just another nail in the coffin of his claim to lead the “greenest government ever”, though his cuts to support for solar or support for deep sea drilling are more severe and disturbing abdications of that worthy goal.
That´s why I still use quotation marks around “Earth Summit”. Because at this point, it is by no means clear that the meeting will be a Summit – defined as an event attended by your heads of states and governments. To be fair, to Greenpeace it matters less who attends the Rio event than what governments and businesses do there. What we expect is that governments need to be honest about not having delivered on the green and just development that they promised twenty years ago. We even call on them to do what you would not ask your child to do on a playground: To shift the blame. They should point to those businesses that have been holding us back and been lobbying against the laws people and planet need (and should be ashamed of putting these corporations ahead of their own people). Companies such as APP have stopped better forest protection in Indonesia; Volkswagen has stood in the way of the climate laws our planet needs in the US and the EU.
Secondly, we call on governments and businesses to not just use fine words like “green economy” while continuing business-as-usual. They need to commit to real action, especially ending deforestation, delivering sustainable energy for all by 2020 and ending the free for all exploitation of the global high seas. They should not be afraid of doing so, as unlike 20 years ago, we have prove that solutions exist. The “summit´s host, Brazil, for example, has shown that it is possible to cut deforestation rates through effective governance and good business practices: Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon has declined year on year and in 2011 it was at its lowest ever level.
But this year, the Brazilian government's monitoring system picked up a 37% increase in deforestation compared to 2010 in Mato Grosso state as a result of a move to change the Forest Code, the main law in Brazil that protects the forests. The changes would allow an amnesty for past forest crimes, creating an incentive for illegal activity now and leading to an increase in deforestation before the law has even been changed. Brazil and President Dilma must decide whether it wants to be known as the nation leading the path to sustainable prosperity and zero deforestation, or as a nation that showed that deforestation could be halted, but failed to do so to cater to short term special interests.
The energy sector is also already changing. In Germany, for example, of all installed power capacity in the last decade, 81% was renewable. The Energy Revolution scenario Greenpeace has developed together with business partners shows that globally we can deliver energy to more people, especially the poor in developing countries, cut emissions by more than 80% by 2050 – and create more jobs doing so. Governments therefore face a choice at Rio. They can choose greenwash or they can truly go for a just and fair Green Economy.
Given my job, I do not have a choice, though. I will have to attend many more UN meetings to make that choice clear. And I will report back to all of you regularly how governments – and businesses - are doing.
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. (You can find this post will all links on the greenpeace.org website)
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.
This post is from May 18th 2011 and you can find it with all links here.
I am locked in by my own colleagues. And I like it. There were three bangs - and since then, there has been silence at the big Business Europe conference: Europe in the World: Leading or Lagging. No one is getting in. Unless they are a leader. Those of us inside have nothing to worry about. There is plenty of food - even a bar. But the question we are posing is serious: Are businesses in Europe ready to support innovation and green jobs - or will they continue to stand in the way of a green Europe?
The test is simple: Leaders support the EU cutting emissions by 30% domestically by 2020. Laggards don´t. Many laggards, worse, let business associations such as Business Europe actively stand in the way of progress. These associations claim to speak for all of business when they tell politicians, that climate action will deindustrialize Europe and destroy jobs. In truth, climate action can drive innovation and create jobs. A recent study on behalf of the German government found that committing to a 30% cut by 2020 could generate 6 million additional jobs.
Business is split on the future of Europe. Big companies such as IKEA, Unilever or Deutsche Telekom are supporting cutting emissions by 30%. But many other companies you know, don´t. Microsoft, BP, Lafarge, or Volkswagen, for example. Currently, the EU is committed to cutting it´s emissions by 20%. Sounds like a start. But a study by the European Commission itself has shown that this is worse than business as usual. Even if governments just do what they have committed to already, they will exceed this goal. In order to drive innovation, therefore, 30% domestic cuts are a minimum and a necessity. Nothing more or less.
UPDATE: By now, people are trickling in to the conference centre again. And I have just spoken at the official press conference of the organizers to explain why we are here. The message we are sending has been heard. Most reactions are positive. Some people admit that they wish their companies would be willing to speak out more openly and firmly for climate action. Many business representatives also admit to being surprised to see us also on the inside of this conference. "Really, you are with Greenpeace?" is a common response I get from people. They are surprised, I think, to find me wearing a dry suit rather than a wet suit and to hand them a business card rather than chaining myself to them. That´s my job. To make our voice heard with decision makers. To argue calmly but firmly for climate action - and jobs!
The businesses at this meeting, like all over Europe, have a choice. They can either join the leaders or continue to hold Europe back. I will be monitoring what businesses say here for the next two days. And when the bar here at the Tour and Taxis conference centre is closed again, Greenpeace will continue to chart who is a leader in coming months. Check out the current list and help us up the pressure here.
