UN Climate Talks in Bonn, June 6 to 17, 2011 Fr. Seán McDonagh, SSC

 

The UN sponsored climate change  talks began in Bonn, Germany on June 6^th 2011 and will run until June 17^th 2011.  These talks will attempt to revive negotiations on various aspect of climate change  so that a fair, ambitious and  legally binding treaty, a successor to the Kyoto Protocol,  can be signed at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change  (UNFCCC) in Durban, South Africa, later in the year.

While the UN negotiation process on climate change was revived and strengthened at the Climate Conference in Cancun, Mexico in December 2010, none of the hard decisions were taken, especially when it came to pledging serious cuts in CO₂ levels  from economically rich countries.  There was general agreement among the participants at Cancun that deep cuts in emissions “are required ….. so as to hold the increase in global average temperatures below two degrees  Celsius.”

In order to inject a sense of urgency into the Bonn  negotiations, Christiana Figueres, the executive secretary of the UNFCCC, reminded the participants on the first day of the Conference that greenhouse gas emissions had climbed dramatically in 2010. Unfortunately, the clock is ticking towards what are called “tipping points.”   An average rise in global temperature of four degrees Celsius would have a devastating impact on the life-systems of the planet and the knock-on effect on people would be devastating.

In a report  published in April 2012, entitled “Fate of Mountain Glaciers in the Anthropocene,”  a working group commissioned by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences state that “some of the current and anticipated impacts of climate change include losses of coral reefs, forests, wetlands, and other ecosystems; a rate of species extinction many times faster than the historic average; water and food shortages for many vulnerable people. Increasing sea level rise and stronger storm surges threaten vulnerable ecosystems and peoples, especially in low-lying islands and coastal nations.”

The task facing the negotiators during the next two weeks in Bonn and later in the year in Durban was not made any easier by the release of data on greenhouse gas emissions by the International Energy Agency ((IEA). In 2010,  a record 30.6 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide was released into the atmosphere. According to a spokesperson for IEA “it is becoming extremely challenging to remain below 2 degrees. The prospect is getting bleaker. That is what the numbers say.”[1]

The IEA’s figures are confirmed by preliminary data from the US government’s Earth Systems Research Laboratory at Mauna Moa in Hawaii  which show that carbon dioxide levels are at the highest levels on record with 394.7 parts per million (ppm): an increase of nearly 1.6ppm compared to last year.[2]

Lord Stern, author of the Stern Report on the economic implications of climate change was clearly taken aback by the data. According to him, “these figures indicate that (emissions) are now close to being back on a ‘business as usual’ path. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projections, such a path  .. would mean around a 50% chance of a rise in global average temperature of more than 4 degrees C by 2.100.” [3] He went on to point out that “such warming would disrupt the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people across the  planet, leading to widespread mass migration and conflict. That is a risk any sane person would seek to drastically reduce.” [4]  It is also important to remember that this dramatic increase in CO₂ emissions happened during the most serious economic recession since the 1930s. There was a small decline in emissions in 2009 due to the financial crisis.   Unless corrective action is taken soon emission will increase dramatically because almost every country in the world is seeking ways to boost their economic growth and, to date, no country  has yet has found a way to promote economic growth without increasing carbon emissions.

The European section of Climate Action Network (CAN), one of the largest non-government organizations which monitors the actions of governments on climate change, said that the weak response of Climate Commissioner Hedegaard to the IEA data in the run  up to the Bonn Conference was deplorable.

Fatih Biro, the chief economist at the IEA said that disaster could be averted if governments head the warming and are  willing to take bold, decisive and urgent action soon.   CAN-Europe asks EU policy makers to implement a −40% emissions reduction target by 2020.

---

[1]  Fiona Harvey, “Worst ever CO2 emissions leave Climate on the brink,” The Guardian,  May 30^th 2012, page 1 and 2

[2] John Vidal, “Carbon dioxide levels hit new peak despite recession and political will,” The Guardian,  June 1^st 2011,page 10.

[3] ibid

[4]  ibid

No Breakthrough at Bonn Climate Change Conference Fr. Seán McDonagh, SSC

 

At the end of the Climate Change Conference in Bonn (June 6^th to 17^th ), Christiana Figueres, the executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Conference on Climate Change (UNFCCC), said that the negotiations on climate change were “the most important negotiation the world has ever faced.” [1] Unfortunately, there was no dramatic break-through at the Bonn conference. Maybe it is too much to expect that the UNFCCC multi-track negotiation process can deliver a decisive outcomes.  Figueres appeared to acknowledge this herself when she said that  “governments, business organisations and civil society can’t solve the climate (problem) with a single treaty.”[2]

In reality unless the various parties to the negotiations are more flexible at the Conference of the Parties (COP 17) in  Durban in late November and early December 2011, then the goal of keeping the average increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius which was set at the Copenhagen meeting in 2009, will not be possible.   Agreement in Durban is essential, because the Kyoto Protocol (KP), which is the only current legally binding treaty on reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), expires in 2012.  A breakdown in negotiations in Durban could lead to a free-for-all which would see GHG emissions soar rather than fall, with horrendous consequences for everyone, especially the poor of the world.

The most important goal of any climate change agreement is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  In the language of the UNFCCC this is called mitigation.  During much of the past 10 years the European Union has given a lead in setting reasonable challenging mitigation targets for the member states.  This too is beginning to change. At the  conclusion of the Bonn talks the Jurgen Lefevere, the EU’s climate policy coordinator, said that it was not feasible to expect the 27  member states of the EU to sign up to a renewal of the K P  unless other countries take their responsibilities seriously.  He pointed out that the EU’s  GHG emission is only responsible for 11 per cent of global emissions. He stated that “we need a solution for the remaining 89 per cent as well.”  Other  major emitters such as the U.S. and China must come on board if a comprehensive solution is going to be found in Durban.[3]

The most disappointing development on this front is that countries, which were very much involved in creating and designing the K P have signalled that they plan to abandon the Kyoto Protocol when it expires next year.  These countries are Japan, were the Protocol was first negotiated, Russia which brought the treaty into forces when it signed the protocol, and Canada which launched the  negotiations for the second commitment period to K P  at the Montreal conference in 2005.

Equally unhelpful were the comments of the chief US negotiator Jonathan Pershing. He ruled out making any further commitments beyond the 17 per cent  cut in emissions by 2020. He gave the usual excuse that the U.S. is not “prepared to have a legal agreement that would apply to us and not to others.”[4]  This shows no awareness whatever of  the historic contribution which the U.S. and Europe have made for over a century and a half to increasing carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere which is responsible for triggering the warming of the atmosphere.  It also means that there is little possibility of closing, what is now being called the Gigatonne, Gap between what has been  pledged by many countries and the 2 degree target.  The position of the UNFCCC  has been that every country must act “in a  spirit of common but differentiated responsibility.”  This position was endorsed in a important paper entitled the “Fate of Mountain Glaciers in the Anthropocene,” from the Pontifical Academy of the Sciences.

 

While some progress on a Green Climate Fund was made at Bonn, there is little point in having a well structured and managed fund unless there is a substantial amount of money in the kitty.   Concrete decisions must be made in Durban to guarantee that the climate fund will reach $100 billion by 2020.  Here again the U.S. negotiators at Bonn were trying to block any progress on this front.  Tim Gore, Oxfam’s climate change policy advisor that the  U.S. had “done its best (in Bonn) to block any meaningful discussions  on the sources of climate finance from 2013 to 2020.”[5] Without such funds farmers and other sectors in poor countries will suffer greatly because they will not be in a position to adapt to the climate change which is already underway.

---

[1] Frank McDonald, “EU not prepared to go it alone on Kyoto nenewal,” The Irish Times, June 18^th 2011, page 11.

 

[2] Ibid.

[3]  ibid

[4] ibid

[5]  ibid

The Bonn Climate Change Conference Fr. Seán McDonagh, SSC

 

At the end of the first week of the Bonn Conference on Climate Change, the first thing which comes to mind is how little coverage this vitally important negotiation session is receiving the world media.  A favourable outcome from the Bonn Conference is essential if the UN Framework Conference on Climate Change (UNFCCC) which is to meet later in the year in Durban, South Africa, is to succeed.   As the Kyoto Protocol runs out in 2012, Durban must deliver a fair, ambitious and binding climate change treaty.   The top priority in that treaty must be the ambition to close the gigatonne gap which the United Nation Environment Programme (UNEP) estimates at between 5-9 gigatonnes.

1 gigatonne = 10⁹ tonnes, or 1,000,000,000  tonnes.  This is why the world needs ambitious cuts in greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs)  if we are going to keep average rise in temperature below 2 degrees Celsius.  Rich countries must move to the top end of the cuts in GHBs which they have promised.  The reduction target now must be a 40% cut in emissions by 2020.  They must also agree to close loopholes which have been used in the past to avoid taking painful decisions now.   Among these has been the dodgy accounting systems often used for LULUCF or Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry.

There is no doubt about it, that  this is going to be difficult to achieve, given the stance which various countries have taken in Bonn, during the first week of the Conference,  June 6 to 10, 2011. Japan is a good example of this tendency.  June 11^th marks the third month after the nuclear accident at Fukushima in the wake of the powerful earth quake and tsunami.  Since then the Japanese government has made a decision not to build any more nuclear power plants and pledged to investing heavily in renewable energy.  There is a danger that in  the transition period, Japan will  increase it dependence on energy from fossil fuel  and therefore find it hard to meet its commitment to reduce GHG emissions by 25% by 2020 and 80% by 2050.  The Japanese negotiators at Bonn have also repeated the position that they articulated at Cancun which is that they will not favour a second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol which runs out in 2012. Their reason, of course, is that other wealthy nations, especially  the United States, are not covered by the Kyoto Protocol.  Neither are the transition economies of China, India, South Africa  and Brazil, which are now major emitters of GHGs. There is also a fear that the climate bill which is about to be discussed in the Japanese Parliament, will lower  it commitments to reduce GHG emissions.

Several independent studies show that Japan can achieve its 25% target even as the nuclear component of the energy mix is being phased out.  Japan  needs to follow a twin tack approach which will combine massive energy saving measures with serious investment in various forms of renewable energy.  While Japan has not been a leader in this area, this might be about to change.  Softbank Corporation which is the third largest mobile phone company in the country has come out in favour of clean and safe energy.  It intends to invest hundreds of millions of dollars to build 12 large solar power plants across the country.

Back sliding on commitments is not  confined to Japan. Norway ,  traditionally a leader in remission reductions,  pledged to reduce GHGs emission 40%. Now it seems that there are powerful commercial and political forces in the country, which are suggesting that Norway abandons its commitment to achieve two-thirds of these cuts through domestic decisions. They are suggesting that Norway might use its investment in funding REDDs (Reducing Emission in Deforestation and Degradation)  to achieve its 40% cut in GHG by 2020. This would set a very dangerous precedent for other rich countries.  It certainly would derail the challenge from the Cancun Climate Change Conference (Mexico December 2010) to wealthy countries that they increase and not decrease their commitments to lower GHG emissions.

Among important issue for Durban is adequate finance.  Cancun took positive steps towards setting up an institutional structure for financing various aspects of climate change, especially money to help poor countries to adapt to climate change which is already happening. The Durban Conference must ensure that there is adequate money to address adaptation needs. The Fund must be  increased year-on-year so that the $100 billion promised by 2020 is realized.  Without adequate finance poor countries which are already feeling the impact of climate change will suffer further disastrous consequences.

 

Sustainable Development and The Limits to Growth Debate Fr. Seán McDonagh

 

In my article yesterday, I outlined some of the factors which led to the setting up of The United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro.

Even before that global event, a small group of thinkers were beginning to ask the question, whether there are upper limits to the Earth’s capacity to cope with human activity?  One of the first books to systematically address the issue was called Limits to Growth. It was published in 1972.[1]  The book’s various chapters addressed a variety of economic, social and ecological issues from the  perspective of sustainability, beginning with the notion of ‘overshoot.’ This term refers to whether human activity at this moment in time has overshot the capacity of the Earth and some vital ecosystems to renew.  Another chapter attempted to identify the main forces driving the dynamics of growth in a finite world. Other chapters looked at the impact of technology on sustainable development and considered how to move from the current unsustainable framework of development to a sustainable way of living on the planet.

Some commentators, particularly those from a neo-liberal economic background, challenged both the methodology used in the study and some of its predictions. When the price of oil fell back in the early 1980s, and the economic policies of both Margaret Thatcher in Britain and Ronald Regan in the U.S. seemed to produce both jobs and wealth, the limits to growth debate appeared to evaporate. For the next 15 years, especially after the demise of most centrally-planned Marxist economies in the late 1980s, the market was king! Nevertheless, the main significance of the  Limits to Growth was that it focused people’s attention on the fact that the earth is finite, and cannot sustain continuous depletion of resources and the irreversible destruction of ecosystems. It challenged one of the main assumptions of the economic-development model which had been in vogue almost since the beginning of the industrial revolution in the late 18^th century by asking a crucial question: How the 5.6 billion people living on the planet in 1970 and the 9 billion who will be living on the planet in 2050, will be able to aspire to the present standards of affluence enjoyed by the majority of people living in the Minority world and by the elite and middle class in the Majority world without destroying the earth? In reality some of the demands which humans are currently making on the planet have already breached important limits in the biosphere and done irreversible damage. The truth is that continuous spiralling demands are not possible in a finite world.

Thirty years later, the authors produced a book called Beyond the Limits which confirmed most of the predictions of the earlier book.[2]  It went on to warm that humanity had already overshot the limits of the Earth’s support capacity.  Other researchers such as Mathis Wackernagel have developed new measures which calculate the impact humans have on the planet. He called it the ‘human ecological foot print.’ This was define as the land area which would be required to produce the resources (grain, food, wood, fish and urban land) for 9 billion people and absorb the emissions from industry globally. According to this measure, global society had overshot our ecological foot print by 20 per cent by 1990 and humans have continued this upward curve ever since.

Unfortunately, few people in government, international agencies or in the economic disciplines have understood the real importance of these findings. In fact, governments have played their part in developing a consumerist culture by promoting economic growth above everything else. After the terrorist attacks on New York in September 2001, President George W Bush exhorted the American people to go out and shop to stimulate the economy.  In 2009, after the near collapse of the global financial system, governments around the world poured $2.8 trillion in stimulus packages to stimulate consumption.[3]

In fact, since the financial crisis of 2008, many commentators are hoping the world economy will move quickly out of recession into a prolonged period of economic growth through increased levels of production and consumption. Recently, I was listening to an economic commentator talking on radio about the global economy and the possibilities for recovery. According to him, even though there were some signs of recovery, the global economy was still rather unhealthy. It would need sustained growth in 2010 and 2011, to return to full health. The economist had no understanding of the fact that this growth-oriented economy is plundering the natural world in an extensive and, now often irreversible way. He wasn’t aware of the irony of using a health metaphor about an economic system which is impoverishing people and destroying the planet.   He also seems to be unaware of the fact that, although the government can bail out commercial banks which made extraordinarily irresponsible lending decisions, no one can bail out ecosystems which are irreversibly damaged.  For example, if commercial pressure and lack of regulation facilitates the overfishing of blue-fin tuna in the North Atlantic to the point of their extinction, no amount of money can resurrect this fish. Furthermore, those of us who have worked in economically poor countries know that economic growth is often at the expense of the poor who are paid a pittance for manufacturing the wide array of goods that we now use. Constant economic growth is also destroying the fruitfulness of the Earth.

 

---

[1] The Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind by D.H. Meadows, Donella H. Meadows and et al (Paperback - Jun 1979)

 

[2] Donella Meadows, Jorgen Randers, Dennis Meadows 2004, Limits to Growth The 30 Year Update, Chelsea Green Publishing Company, White River Junction, Vermont.

[3]   Ibid page 18.

The United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development Fr. Seán McDonagh

 

In my article yesterday, I outlined some of the  background which led to the setting up of The United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro.

The WorldWatch Institute in Washington D.C. is an interdisciplinary institute which assesses how the demands of humankind are effecting the well-being of the earth and future generations of humans. In its State of the World Report 2010, sixty renowned researchers and practitioners describe how we must harness the world’s leading institutions to reorient cultures towards sustainability. This would include education, the media, business, governments, traditions, and social movements to reorient cultures toward sustainability.   In the preface of the report, Christopher Flavin the President of WorldWatch Institute, wrote about “the Great Collision” between a finite planet and the seemingly infinite demands of human society. More than 6.8 billion human beings are now demanding ever greater quantities of material resources, decimating the world’s richest ecosystems, and dumping billion of tons of heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere each year.”

The really worrying statistic is that “despite a 30 percent increase in resource efficiency, global resource use has expanded 50 percent over the past three decades.”[1] The growth in consumption is staggering.  It includes a six-fold increase between 1960 and 2008, that is from $4.9 trillion to $30.5 trillion.  Even with the population growth, per capita consumption has tripled, helped by sophisticated advertising by transnational corporations. Increased consumption means consuming more of the earth’s resources. This means using more fossil fuel which involves opening coal mines and prospecting for more oil. Rapid increases in consumer spending involves opening more mines, building more factories roads, railways and shopping outlets. Increased consumption leads to more waste. It also means expanding agriculture often into crucial ecosystems such as the Amazon and the tropical forests South East Asia. The forests are burned to provide land for palm and soya plantations, thereby destroying valuable biodiversity.  Essential habitats are being systematically destroyed which is an immense impoverishment for the biosphere and yet, so few seem to notice because the culture of consumerism has trained them to keep their eyes fixated on growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP). According to Flavin, from a justice perspective the main responsibility for the current ecological devastation must be placed at the foot of rich nations.[2]

Since humankind appeared on the planet 2 million years ago, people have depended on other creatures for their food, clothing and shelter. As civilizations developed two thousand years ago, levels of consumption continued to increase. The exponential rate of consumption which emerged in the 20^th century, was driven by advertising, planned obsolescence, the search for economic growth and the enormous  dependence on non-renewable source of energy.

 

---

[1]  Christopher Flavin,  2010,  “Preface”, “2010 State of the World: Transforming Cultures from Consumerism to Sustainability,  page xv

[2] Ibid page 5.

Understanding the Workings of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) Fr. Seán McDonagh, SSC

 

The UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) claims that it offers the world one of the most open and participatory intergovernmental processes on sustainable issues.  It believes that the original mandate given at the ‘Earth Summit’ in Rio in the Agenda 21 text was re-affirmed at the UN Summit on Sustainability in Johannesburg in 2002. The Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (JPOI) and the Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development called for CSD to meet in seven two-year “implementation cycles.” The CSD began to focus on a cluster of themes directly associated with the issue of sustainability on a two year cycle.  The present cluster of issues involves, transport, chemicals, waste management, mining and a 10-Year Framework of Programmes on Sustainable Development and Consumption Patterns (10 YFP on SCP).

Preparatory process

The first year of the current cycle was 2010. It was devoted to developing the Secretary General’s report through structured contact with governments and civil society.  It produced an 8,000 word review document which has been translated into all the UN official languages. The nine Major Groups represented at the CSD come from a broad spectrum of non-government organisations and other entities from Civil Society. These include women, youth, trade unions, farmers, Indigenous Peoples, NGOs, local authorities, science and technology, business and industry. Some of the  organisations involved in choosing representatives include, the ITUC (the International Trade Union Confederation), WEDO, Women in Development, WBCSD, (The World Business for Sustainable Development) and SIND, the  organising partner for NGOs, (The Sustainable Development Issues Network). Non-government organisations have actively lobbied their governments to support enhanced participation of civil society in the CSD process.

Whereas most delegations have welcomed the presence of civil society, a number of countries, particularly from the G-77, would prefer a stricter regime of participation for non-government groups. As often happens in such cases, a certain amount of horse-trading takes place.  In the working group, the EU, US and others countries expressed a preference for a text that allowed for the engagement of a broader input into the CSD process. Following a lengthy discussion on March 3^rd 2011, a subparagraph was approved supporting the involvement of civil society and others in implementing the decisions which are taken.  As part of the trade-off, the EU, US and Australia agreed to a request by the G-77/China to delete a paragraph listing various constituencies/stakeholders, such as disabled persons, consumer groups, educators, parliamentarians, media and the elderly.

This struggle for an effective place in the negotiations for the civil society is an on-going battle.  At a meeting of representatives of the Major Groups on May 3^rd 2011, some voice their concerns that civil society groups were being squeezed out of the negotiation process.  Some of those who spoke encouraged civil society groups to lobby their respective governments and the chair of each topic groups to ensure that the space which civil society has won is not whittled away.

 

 

 

Implementation cycles

To return to the “implementation cycles”, towards the end of the first part of the two-year CSD cycle, governments, NGOs and Civil Society take part in a two-week long review session held at the UN headquarters in New York.

In the second year policy documents are developed by various elements on the UN system based on the Review Session. This becomes the basis for negotiation and is called the “Secretary General’s” document. Each of the 9 Major Groups also prepare policy documents. These documents must not exceed 1,000 words.  The CSD deals with policy outcomes at two meetings. This is the Intergovernmental Preparatory Meeting which took place here in New York from the 28^th to the 4^th of March this year. The current meeting of the UN CSD from May 2^nd to 13^th 2011 is tasked with hammering out policy directives.  This often means a line-by-line negotiation which can seems tedious, slow and often boring.

The procedure is as follows. One of the members asks for a change in the Secretary General’s in the text.  He/she reads out it the change it would like to see in the text and sometimes, but not always, give a reason for the desired change.  This phrase, sentence or paragraph is inserted in the text surrounded by  brackets. The initials of the country that suggested the change is included. On the positive side, the process is inclusive and gives a voice to countries that are seldom given any prominence in world affairs.

The following snippets on some of the themes which being negotiated gives a feel for what is at stake in the present negotiations.

On transport: “There is, therefore, a need for urgent action, ranging, inter alia, from the promotion of integrated transport policies and plans, the accelerated phase-out of leaded gasoline, the promotion of voluntary guidelines and the development of partnerships at the national level for strengthening transport infrastructure, promoting and supporting the use of non-motorised transport and developing innovative mass transit schemes.”

The Text on Transport had the above additions by 8pm on May 3^rd 2011

 

[Transportation is a central component of sustainable development and economic growth.-G77] Addressing the growing transport challenges is increasingly urgent. [Access to mobility is essential to achieve the MDGs.  But growing motorized transport can have negative impacts on environment and human health.-EU]

On mining: “Minerals are essential for modern living, and mining is still the primary method of their extraction. To date, it appears that the main constraints to sustainability in the mining sector derive from the ever-increasing demand for mined resources, the consumption of resources (mostly energy and water) needed to extract and process metals, and the increasing pollution generated by the extraction process. This holds true for both large-scale, often multinational corporate, operations as well as for small-scale or artisanal ventures…….In the 20th century, the extraction of construction minerals grew by a factor of 34, while that of ores and industrial minerals by a factor of 27. This growth significantly outpaced a quadrupling of world population and a 24-fold increase in GDP.”

At a briefing on May 4^th 2011, the contact person from the Group of Nine,  reported that the US, Australia and Canada, wanted  to delete from the text all the references to the environmental aspect of uranium mining. Another destructive call from the U.S, Canada and Australia was the demand that  the phrase, “free prior consent” be removed from the text.  According to this interpretation, in a consultative process with groups who might be affected by mining, consultation does not involve the right to say no to an individual mining project.  The G-77 and China did not have all their proposals to hand, but reserved the right to insert them at the second reading of the text.

There were a few positive changes. Switzerland wanted a phrase included in the text which would make it mandatory that the payment for a mining license which governments receive from a mining corporation would automatically be made public. The G-77 and the EU argued that there should be some formula in the text to stop transfer pricing by transnational corporation.

On hazardous waste: “Effective control of the generation, storage, treatment, recycling and reuse, transport, recovery and disposal of hazardous wastes is, according to Agenda 21, “of paramount importance for proper health, environmental protection and natural resource management, and sustainable development.”

No one person can follow all the intricacies of each negotiation, so each morning at 8.30 am the Group of Nine meet and people who have been at different negotiations share their perception of what has been happening.  They judge whether the changes to the texts are designed to improve the outcome for the sustainable living, or are they really concessions to the powerful vested interests of powerful transnational corporation who are intimately involved in mining, chemical, waste management and transport.

When it comes to “walking the walk” as well as “talking the talk,” many activities at the UN show that sustainability is not high on the priority list of those who administer the building. I noticed that all food and beverages are served in paper cups, paper plates and plastic cutlery.  It was raining heavily on the morning of May 4^th 2011. When I arrived at the building I was presented with a plastic bag and invited to put my wet umbrella into the bag. Once again, the bag was for a one-off use. As I walk each morning from 39^th Street E. to the UN Building, I see scores of black bags full of rubbish outside almost every building, especially commercial one. There appears to be very little segregation of waste which would facilitate recycling. It would appear that a culture of recycling and sustainability has not yet taken deep roots here right at the heart of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development. The one major change which I see here in New York since I was a student in Washington in the early 1970s, is that the size of the average car is much smaller than it was in then.

Tuesday May 10th at the UN Commission on Sustainable Development Fr. Seán McDonagh, SSC

 

The discussion on mining continued on Tuesday May 10^th 2011, under the leadership of Yvette Banzon Abalos.  She challenged the various delegates to be more focused on the Chair’s text, rather than introducing their own new amendments. There was a long discussion on what is called small scale or artisanal mining (ASM). An agreement was reached that this should “be in accordance with national legislation,” and “subject to national priorities.”  As someone who has had first hand experience of so-called small scale mining in both the Philippines and Peru, I know that in some places it involves one or two small tunnels, where as in Huepethue in the Amazonian region of Peru I saw  huge trucks and earth movers involved in gold mining during my visit in 2009.

Naturally, this led to a prolonged discussion on the use of mercury in the mining operation.  No agreement was reached on the text. The G77/China objected to singling out mercury pollution in mining for gold when other, equally toxic chemical were not named. The EU, US Australia and the Russian Federation insisted that the reference to mercury be retained. During my time in Mindanao, I spent many hours trying to convince small scale miners about toxic nature of mercury and its various compounds.  A high dose of mercury can be fatal. Even relatively small doses can affect the nervous system.  Mercury poisoning is also linked to cardiovascular problems and disease of the immune and endocrine systems. Mercury accumulates in the body, as we learned in the Minamat disaster in Japan in the 1960s.

A lot of discussion took place around the working conditions  for miners.  Some negotiators wanted language in the text calling for improved living and working conditions. There was also condemnation of the fact that children often work in mines. Negotiators agreed that steps must be taken to ban all forms of forced and exploitative labour, especially child labour. Reference was made to the International Labour Organisation’s Convention (ILO) 176, but many groups from the civil society sector are concerned that some of the negotiators, especially those from the G-77/China, are attempting to delete all reference to particular ILO Conventions which protect workers’ rights on a number of different fronts.

Later on in the morning, paragraphs calling for the provision of education, training health services and social protection in mining communities, especially for women and children were discussed. However, the phrases, Free, Prior and Informed Consent for indigenous people was deleted from the text. The text that was accepted called on everyone to respect the land rights of local and indigenous communities in accordance with national laws and procedures at all levels on government.  The phrase that this will “include (the drawing up of) a comprehensive land use plan.”  It was also agreed that, in granting a licence to mine, indigenous people be given full and effective participation (in the decision) in accordance with nation lands and procedures (G 77). New Zealand went on to add the rider that there should be “an enforcement of environmental regulations and environmental safeguards.” The G-77/China indicated that they would have to discuss this with different member countries of their delegation before agreeing to it.

The above gives some feel for the dynamics of the debate on this crucial issue. I have already written how non-government organisations and indigenous groups see this as rowing back on previous international commitments, including the recently signed Convention on Biodiversity in Nagoya in October 2010. At a lunch-time meeting with the EU negotiators, Geoff Nettelton of Indigenous Peoples Links, challenged the EU to reintroduce this phrase into the final text. He pointed out that it was an integral part of how the EU itself views indigenous people and relates to them in its own documents. We were assured that the EU would continue to lobby for the inclusion of this phrase and that it would appear prominently in the text the EU representative would present at the High Level meeting on Wednesday.  Unfortunately, It did not appear in the Statement on behalf of the European Union and its Member States which was delivered by Sandor Fazekas, Minister of Rural Development of the Republic of Hungry on May 11, 2011.

Any discussion of mining at a global level always brings up the question of redress and compensation for those communities which have suffered from mining activities.  This is considered to be a thorny issue for both the US and the G-77/China and South Africa, because it opens up possibilities for people to sue mining companies for negligence. The US requested that the words “where appropriate” be included, where as China, which has a questionable safety record in relation to coal mining, wanted the paragraph scrapped. Likewise, the G-77/China was opposed to adding the paragraph focused on strengthening, legal, regulatory and institutional frameworks in relation to all mining. The EU and Canada called for separate paragraphs devoted to the environmental, social and economic impact of mining.  The G-77/China was opposed to expanding comments on the environmental, social and economic impact of mining beyond a single paragraph.

At the mid-day meeting with the EU negotiators, representatives from the seven Major Groups shared some of their concerns with the negotiators.  One recurring theme was the complaint that the space which is available to non-government groups in the aftermath of the Rio Conference have been whittled away. Some recalled the importance which Agenda 21 gave to groups from civil society.  A number of people, with expertise in particular areas, pointed out that some claims in the Chairman’s text and some of the additions which the negotiators were suggesting were factually incorrect. Yet, there was no space for representatives from the Major Groups or other organisations from civil society, to intervene and clarify things. This is a major waste of what should be very valuable resource.

Another organisational matter was also discussed. If, for example a secretariat is set up to manage some of the concrete programme and initiatives which might emerge from the 19^th Session  of the Commission for Sustainability, what role will civil society play? How would the Major Groups be involved in implementing programmes, or would it all be left to UN organisation such as United Nation Environment Programme (UNE9)? Any talk of a new agency or secretariat brings up the hoary old chestnut of governance. On the one side there is the complaint that UN text, singles out the record of multinational corporations when it speaks of social and environmental responsibility. On the other hand, ‘developing’ countries feel that when ‘developed’ countries, especially the US, bring up governance issues it is normally perceived as a critical comment, unless, of course, the country involved is seen to have  strategic importance for the US. Many people would recall the US’s minimal criticism of the 30 years reign of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and, in the past, US support for the corrupt Marcos regime in the Philippines.

Other issues to surface at the meeting include:

1. The right to know issues around the labelling of food and medicine.
2.   Policies on bio-fuel and food security.
3. When discussing technology, it is important to move beyond talking about transferring technology and to include also programmes which will foster technological innovations.

Working Group 2 resumed its discussion of Waste Management.  The negotiators discussed proposals from the EU to reduce the movement of hazardous waste across country boundaries. This text called for specific managing strategies for e-waste, industrial waste and radioactive wastes. It also recognised how mismanaging waste is related to poverty and other social issues. Since my own focus has been on the mining negotiations, I am dependent on NGO member who are tracking other negotiations to get a sense of what is happening.  I have had access to the changes texts but the changes are coming so quickly that one is loath to quote a text because it might be changed by the time you  read this report.  With the arrival of government ministers the pace of negotiations will increase. It will need to if a deal is to be sealed by Friday May 13^th 2011.

Religion and Sustainable Development Fr. Seán McDonagh, SSC

 

 

In the past, the ascetic tradition of various religions sometimes seemed to be motivated by a denial of the value of the world.  Often salvation was presented as removing humans from the natural world, as if somehow matter itself was tainted, and could not in any way be associated with the world of the spirit. Manichaeism depicted the world as radically deficient and that even the human body is somehow evil.  While many of the Fathers of the Church, including St. Augustine opposed Manichaeism, they were not always enthusiastic about the natural world or even the human body.

Some of the dominant strains for medieval Catholicism saw monasticism as a flight from the world (fuga mundi). In some places this spirituality descended into contempt for the world (contemptus mundi). This negative attitude towards the world received a new lease of life in the Catholic Church with the rise of Jansenism in the 17^th century. Bishop Jansen (1585- 1638), was Dutch Catholic theologian and a professor of theology at Louvain.  In his posthumously published book, Augustine, he amplified Augustine’s negative attitude towards the world.  Jansenism coloured and soured Catholic attitudes toward the world for 200 years.  Such negativity was not confined to Catholicism. Despite his own deep appreciation of nature, the split between the realm of the ‘spiritual’ and the ‘material’ world was also found in many forms of Protestantism.

 

Very often in the past religions, particularly Christianity, were seen to be  indifferent to the deteriorating plight of local ecosystems or the biosphere as a whole.  Religions and Churches upheld human rights and promoted social justice, often at great cost to individuals and  Churches, but their voice was seldom heard when it came to challenging the plundering of planet earth. Anthropocentric ethics promotes consumerism because it sees the rest of creation, not as closely linked to humanity, but as a resource which can be exploited for the benefit of humans.

The new ecological cosmological awareness which I wrote about yesterday must be brought into our liturgies and worship in order to integrate our work for justice and sustainability with our Christian faith. The sacraments offer an extraordinary opportunity to link respect for water, food, light and healing with the depths of the Christian tradition. Many religious prayer traditions have an ecological and cosmic dimension which can help the individual and community, move away from an almost narcissistic obsession with the human to become more aware of the deep bonding which is at the heart of all creation. In this way spirituality, rather than creating and confirming dualisms, can be an integrating force bringing together all aspects of our existence.

Today, the ascetical dimension of the various religions must be based on our understanding of the finite nature of the earth. It is also clear that the present consumerist way of living cannot be sustained and is only made possible by massive injustice towards the poor of the world and by robbing future generations of their fair share of the resources of the planet. This is an area where religions must begin to highlight the moral dimension of how we relate to and treat the natural world.  The Churches have much to learn from traditional cultures, and religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism. Even forms of Christianity such as Celtic Christianity have much to teach us about the intrinsic value of all creation.

The Christian Churches have much to offer also. A spirit of sacrifice and concern for others is at the heart of the Christian faith. Christians believe that, in his life, death and resurrection, Jesus gave himself, freely and unreservedly to others.  Christians are encouraged to follow this pathway of self-less love in their response to people who are living at the margins of human society through poverty, disease or conflict. That love and service today must go beyond the human and embrace the suffering planet as well. In many ways this is a new call to show generosity for others, especially species facing extinction or habitats which have been ravaged.

Religions can also offer a space for discerning and celebrating hope, even when the situation seems bleak. One of the most effective ways for the Catholic Church to give leadership in the area of protecting the planet would be for Pope Benedict XVI to call a Synod for Creation.  Each local Church could begin to reflect on creation in its own area and see how Christians could give leadership in moving towards a more sane and sustainable world.  In preparing for such a Synod, everyone in the Church, young, old, farmers, industrial workers, bankers, scientists, fishermen, theologians, contemplatives, religious, teachers, doctors, liturgists, artists, poets and writers would be able to share their insights and wisdom.  This would give a great impetus to the tasks of caring for the earth that cares for every creature. I believe it would also give new life and focus to the Catholic faith in our contemporary society.

 

CSD-19-The High Level Segment Rev. Seán McDonagh, SSC

 

The high-level Segment of the 19^th Session of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) began on May 11, 2011, at the General Assembly Hall of the United Nations.  The chairperson Mr. László Borbély, the Minister of Environment and Forests of Romania, opened the meeting by welcoming the ministers from the various countries who have come to conclude negotiations on the themes of the conference. These include transport, chemical, waste management, mining and the ten-year framework of programmes on sustainable consumption and production patterns.

Reflecting on the past 10 days he said that, while the negotiations have been intense, they have been marked by a high degree of understanding and co-operation. Still he noted that there was a lot of work to be done on the Ten-Year Framework on Sustainable and Production Patterns, as well as on Linkages, Crosscutting Issues and Means of Implementation. When history looks back at CSD 19, he believed that everyone involved would wish that it would be remembered as “a forward-looking and action-oriented session.” In his opinion these negotiations have the potential to “reinvigorate international cooperation and be remembered by its productive and candid discussions leading to an agreement on concrete deliverables.”

The next speaker was the economist Jeffrey D. Sachs. He is the Director of The Earth Institute, Quetelet Professor of Sustainable Development, and Professor of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University. He is also Special Advisor to United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. From 2002 to 2006, he was Special Advisor to United Nations Secretary-Genera Kofi Annan on the Millennium Development Goals, (the internationally agreed  goals to reduce extreme poverty, disease, and hunger by the year 2015).

He is widely considered to be one of the leading thinkers on the three pillars of sustainable development – ecological constraints, social equity and an economy which does not damage the natural world. For more than 20 years Professor Sachs has been in the forefront of the challenges of economic development, poverty alleviation, and environmental sustainability. His lecture on Wednesday morning was timely, powerful and frightening. For him there are no more if’s and buts about whether human beings are living within the biological limits of the planet. He said bluntly that we have already gone beyond the ‘tipping point’ in our ‘uses’ of global resources. We now need one-and- a-half planets to meet our growing needs and cope with human generated pollution. He listed some of the natural disasters of the past 12 months, the devastating floods in Pakistan and Queensland, and droughts in China and elsewhere. Capping all of these is the challenge of dealing with climate change and the increasing acidification of the oceans. The cost of food across the world is high. In many places it is simply prohibitive for poor people who lack land on which to grow food, or a decent job to provide them with the income to buy food.

He warned that, unless we effectively tackle the juggernaut which is already almost upon us, everyone will ultimately be affected. Naturally, the poor and the middle class will be the first to bear the brunt of what is coming. He said that the rich may think that they can buy their way out of the worst impacts of the disaster. He believes they are mistaken. As the powerful of the world scrambles for resources, the tensions and possible wars that this may give rise to will affect everyone, sooner rather than later.

He bemoaned the fact that the only political entity on the planet that seemed in any way to be taking this crisis seriously is the European Union. And Europe is still a relatively small player on the global economic and ecological stage. He was particularly scathing about the lack of leadership from the US, especially the Congress.  He blamed the oil lobby for this lack of engagement with the current ecological and social realities among US Congressmen, Congresswomen and Senators. Corporate lobbyists have massive political power and dictate much of what goes on in Washington. As one would expect from an economist, he called for massive investment in technology, especially research and development in the area of energy and food. He felt that regional centre, where new ways of addressing the three pillars of sustainable development – economic, social and ecological, would be nurtured – were very important.

One of the only ways to circumvent the power of corporate lobbyists was to set up a new global knowledge network. But, unlike many economists, at least three times in his presentation, he called for a new global ethic.  The tragedy is that many of institutions which promote the moral life, such as religions, are not hearing this message. They are still obsessed with issues that have little to do with the central issues of our times.

At about 12 pm, Mr. Phil Hogan, T.D., the Irish Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government addressed the Assembly. “I recognize my responsibility to contribute to the themes of this Commission on Sustainable Development in an integrated way, and to chart a new path towards a more sustainable lifestyle. This is critical if we are to protect our planet for future generations.” He stated that, “the focus on the 10 Year Framework of Programmes on Sustainable Production and Consumption offers the opportunity to create a common vision and an action-based approach on the sustainable use of natural resources.”

He called attention to the “Resource-efficient Europe” flagship under the EU 2020 Strategy. These include:

• Decoupling economic growth from the use of resources,
• Support the shift towards a low carbon economy,
• Increase the use of renewable energy sources,
• Modernize our transport sector, and
• Promote energy efficiency.

He told the assembly that, in Ireland we are active on all of these agendas. For example, “we are working towards a significant increase in renewable energy and the achievement of 20 percent energy efficiency savings by 2020.” On waste management he said that, “a more progressive approach sees waste as a resource with economic value (which) can create jobs, drive innovation and reduce pollution.”

He argued that, “the global economic crises (has provided) us with a stark wake-up call. A call that emphasizes how the old ‘business-as-usual” approaches that created the crisis simply will not do, if we want to achieve sustainable growth while protecting the environment. We simply cannot remain on our present unsustainable path.”

He reiterated that Ireland “is strongly committed to meeting the UN target of spending 0.7 percent of GNP on Oversee Development Aid (ODA) by 2015. Ireland is also working closely with other donor countries and ‘developing’ country partners to reach the MDGs agreed (goals) by the international community at the United Nations in 2000.”

The Second Last Day: Is Agreement Possible? Fr. Seán McDonagh, SSC (May 11, 2011)

 

Yesterday I gave an account of the intervention at the High Level Segment of the Irish Minister for the Environment Local Government and Community. Other interventions were also important. The Argentine minister spoke for the G-77/China. She stressed the importance of improving transport, especially in rural areas. She also called for the poverty eradication. She challenged transnational corporations (TNCs) to apply the same environmental and health standards which they use in ‘developed’ countries to their mines and businesses in ‘developing’ countries as well. She repeated a common call for an inventory of hazardous waste and the development of bioremediations technologies.  She called on ‘developed’ countries to give leadership in the implementation of the 10 Year Framework of Programmes (10YFP).

Work on the Preamble also continued on Wednesday. The delegates agreed to include paragraphs on implementing the measures and actions which are recommended at CSD 19.  The text called on the delegates to ensure that these recommendations must be consistent with other international obligations, especially, the rules of the World Trade Organisation. They reaffirmed the call for a successful completion of the Doha Round of the WTO. I have heard that mantra so often in the past decade, and yet we are nowhere nearer completion of the Doha Round of the WTO.

The Production, Use and Final Destination of Chemicals in our Modern World

During the lunch break I attended a side-event called Body Burden where a number of people, including a woman golfer from Sweden were tested by experts from the World Health Organisation (WHO) for persistent and hazardous chemicals that are in their system. It appears the chemicals which are used in the kitchen, the garden or on golf courses can have detrimental effect on human and environmental health. In the pamphlet, World Ecology Report: Critical Issues in Health and Environment, the Director of Research at the Parkinson’s Disease Society (PDS), reported that there was “growing evidence” linking pesticides with Parkinson’s. A study in 2009 found that people who have Parkinson’s disease have higher levels of Lindane in their system than others. Lindane is a common ingredient in many pesticides The Lindane researchers said that the chemical could act as a “trigger” with people who are already prone to developing the disease.  This is why in 2009, Lindane was added to the list of persistent chemicals which are banned under the Stockholm Convention.

Waste Management and Chemicals

A Ministerial Roundtable on Waste and the Management of Chemicals began at 3pm. Before the ministers made gave their submissions, a number of experts in the field, spoke.  The first was Jim Willis who is currently, the Director of US EPA’s Chemical Control Division in the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Mr. Willis has been with the Agency for more than 20 years in various senior management positions. He also worked with the United Nations for a number of years. He said that his office reviews 1,500 new chemicals each year.

He began by saying that chemicals are a part of modern living, they contribute to human well-being and create jobs and economic growth. He claimed that most chemical appear to be benign, but there is a small number of chemicals which have caused health problems for humans and the environment.  Persistent bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) chemicals represent a group of substances that are not easily degraded, accumulate in organisms, and exhibit an acute or chronic toxicity. The effects of PBTs range from cancer, endocrine disruption, reproductive dysfunction, behavioral abnormalities, birth defects, disturbance of the immune system, damage to the liver and nervous system.  Among these dangerous chemical are organochlorine such as DDT, which was the first that was used on a large scale in the US and Europe. In Ireland in the 1950s, it was common to spread it on bed sheets in order to kill bedbugs. It is extremely persistent in the environment and in people’s bodies. Although DDT is no longer used in most ‘developed’ countries, it is still used to kill malaria-carrying mosquitoes.  He also mentioned polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) which were widely used in transformers and other electrical appliances. Due to it toxicity and persistence, PCBs were banned in the US in 1979 and by the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants in 2001.

Willis spoke about the importance of Agenda 21, especially chapter 19 because it gave the green light for the establishment of important conventions which have dealt with chemicals. The Basel Convention, is an international treaty which is aimed at stopping the movement of hazardous waste across nation boundaries. It is specifically geared to prevent the transfer of waste from ‘developed’ to ‘developing’ countries.  This convention predates the Rio Earth Summit. It was opened for signatures in March 1989 and came into force in May 1992.

During the earlier side event, one of the speakers claimed that a significant proportion of the 5 billion tonnes of e-waste which is generated each year is illegally dumped in ‘developing’ countries.

He also mentioned the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants which was designed to eliminate or restrict the production and use of persistent organic pollutants (POPs). It was signed in 2001, and came into effect in May 2004. He touched on the Rotterdam Convention on Prior Consent Procedures for Certain Hazardous Chemicals. It sets out to promote shared responsibility between those who manufacture chemicals and those who use them.  It calls on exporters to put proper labels on hazardous chemicals and to give adequate directions on how they might be used safely. This Convention was completed in May 2001 and came into force in May 2004.

Another very important international initiative in the sound management of chemicals is the Inter-Organisation Programme for Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC). It was established in 1995 to strengthen cooperation and increase coordination in the area of the safe use of chemicals. It is now attempting to increase awareness about the potential benefits and hazards of  nano technologies.  The goal of all these treaties, conventions and cooperative initiatives is to minimize and eliminate the negative consequences of chemicals while benefitting from their use.

The second speaker Prasad Modak, Executive President Environmental Management Centre, Mumbai Area, India, insisted that the sound management of chemicals and waste must address the complete life cycle of the material.  This must include the negative impact of the manufacturing process,  potential problems which might emerge during its use by the consumer and what happens when product is finally discarded.

It is all very well to have conventions in place, and even to have the obligations recognised in national legislation, but unless there an increase in the capacity of ‘developing’ countries to enforce the laws, little will happen on the ground and the poor, especially poor farmers and their families will suffer. The need for financial support to develop this capacity was central to the statement by Denis Kellman, the Minister of the Environment, Water Resources Management and Drainage of the Government of Barbados. He was speaking on behalf of the Member States of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). He drew attention to the difficulty ‘developing’ countries have in meeting the obligations of these conventions. “In this regard, we request that a comprehensive global financing strategy for chemicals be developed as a matter of priority to support implementation of these Chemicals Related Multilateral Environment Agreements (MEAs). The Private sector should be included in the architecture of such strategy.” This calls for more holistic waste policies, a clear regulatory framework and a commitment to transparency.

Is Zero Waste possible or is it Just a Slogan?

The concept of zero waste figured in some of the statements from the ministers, including Minister Phil Hogan. Zero waste must become the basic paradigm for the future at the local, national and international level. The paradigm shift means that levels of human well-being must now be achieved within the resource constraints of nature and its ability to absorb human-created waste. It means viewing waste primarily as a resource. It calls for the development of policies which promote waste prevention and, if that is not always possible, waste minimization. As I walk to the UN Building each morning, I see mounds of waste in black bags piled up on the foot paths waiting to be collected and either placed in landfill or incinerated. What zero waste strategies are being designed to deal with this waste of resources?   Here at the restaurants in the UN building, all the cutlery, plates, bottles, paper cups and plates are thrown into a bin after a single use.  When and how is this going to change? Without concrete action on the ground, aspirational texts will lead to cynicism.

Mr. Illes, State Secretary for the Environment of the Republic of Hungary spoke on behalf of the EU. According to him more has to be done to increase resource efficiency and reduce waste, notably by increasing recycling/reuse and improving the design of the products. He also focused on sustainable water management, aimed to protect surface and ground water from contamination and minimize the energy used to produce the raw material. A good example of minimizing waste was the introduction of a plastic bag legacy in Ireland over a decade ago.  According to Minister Hogan, this has led to a fall of nearly 95 percent on plastic litter.  I remember the controversy from the NGO side of the argument, as I was Chair of Greenpeace Ireland at the time. We were repeatedly told by the then Minister for the Environment that it couldn’t be done, because the Irish consumer liked to have plastic bags for each item, and the retailers saw the plastic bag as a way of cutting down on pilfering.

He also brought up the topic of mine closure.  In the view of the EU, governments must provide the legal and regulatory framework for mine closures, and most of all, have the institutional capacity to monitor and enforce their provisions. He also spoke of abandoned or ‘orphaned’ sites which often pose a huge danger to people, especially young people. In my years in the Philippines, I often saw children playing on or close to tailings. Mr. Illis said that these need to be addressed through a “broad sustainable framework to be developed and applied worldwide to the remediation of orphan and abandoned mine sites, in such a way that these sites do not affect public health, safety and the environment, and correct, as far as possible, social impacts.”

Decoupling: natural resource use and environmental impacts from economic growth

There was also a lot of talk about decoupling natural resource use and environmental impacts from economic growth. The figures are frightening. By 2050, humanity could devour an estimated 140 billion tons of minerals, ores, fossil fuels and biomass per year. This three times the current rate.

People in ‘developed’ countries consume an average of 16 tons of those four key resources per capita (ranging up to 40 or more tons per person in some ‘developed countries’). By comparison, the average person in India today consumes four tons per year.

With the growth of both population and prosperity, especially in developing countries, the prospect of much higher resource consumption levels is “far beyond what is likely sustainable” if realized at all given finite world resources, warns this report by UNEP’s International Resource Panel.[1]

Already the world is running out of cheap and high quality sources of some essential materials such as oil, copper and gold, the supplies of which, in turn, require ever-rising volumes of fossil fuels and freshwater to produce. Improving the rate of resource productivity (“doing more with less”) faster than the economic growth rate is the notion behind “decoupling,” the panel says. Others claim that it will need to be teased out more thoroughly, with time lines factored in, because, at the moment, it sounds like alchemy.

That goal demands an urgent rethink of the links between resource use and economic prosperity, buttressed by a massive investment in technological, financial and social innovation to, at least freeze the per capita consumption in wealthy countries and help ‘developing’ nations follow a more sustainable path.

In his statement Mr. Phil Hogan, Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government stated, “that Ireland had a well established National Waste Prevention Programme. …. In developing our new waste policy I will be working with all key stakeholders to examine the role of existing and new producer responsibility schemes to drive waste reduction. I believe that significant opportunities, both environmental and economic can flow from better design and the substitution of less hazardous materials in the production of industrial and consumer goods.”

 

 

 

---

[1] http://www.unep.org/resourcepanel/Publications/Decoupling/tabid/56048/Default.aspx downloaded on May 13, 2010.