Religion and Sustainable Development 2 Fr. Seán McDonagh, SSC

Religion and Sustainable Development 2

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 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 often 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 the plundering of the planet. 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.

Today the ascetical dimension of the various religions must be based on our understanding of the finite nature of the earth and a clarity 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. Even forms of Christianity such as Celtic Christianity have much to teach us about the intrinsic value of all creation.

Religions could use their financial investment to promote sustainability. This is already happening to a certain extent with the International Interfaith Investment Group. Many religions and religious groups own land and farm animals. They ought to make sure that they are using sustainable methods to produce food and to care for animals.

In a world where, for a variety of reasons, hope is in short supply, religions must provide a space for discerning and celebrating hope. The new ecological cosmological awareness 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.

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.

Religion and Sustainability Fr. Seán McDonagh SSC

For the past few weeks I have been discussing the issue of sustainable development from a number of perspectives, to mark the 19^th Session of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD).  To be honest, there was very little talk about the role that religion might play in promoting sustainable development at the CSD. Other institutes and scholars are beginning to focus on who religion might promote a more sustainable way of living on the planet, while at the same time alleviating the poverty which is the lot of over one billion people today.

In a chapter in 2010 State of the World, on “Engaging Religions to Shape Worldviews,” Gary Gardner believes that even though, at present, there is only a small minority of environmental activists in most religions, religion “could become a major factor in forging new cultures of sustainability.”[1] In the Christian tradition, he pointed to the work of Patriarch Bartholomew, the Patriarch of Constantinople who set up the organization, Religion, Science and Environment (RSE) in 1996 to promote dialogue between science and religion around environmental problems associated with oceans, seas and rivers. Despite my criticisms of recent statements from the Holy See, at least the Vatican is now engaging more seriously with the ecological crisis.

The World Council of Churches (WCC) symposium outlined four ways in which the Churches or Religions could help make a global transition from a consumerist to a sustainable society.  The first role is prophetic as it sets out to challenge the   current status quo. Examples of this can be found in recent papal teaching. In, Peace with God the Creator, Peace with All Creation, (January 1^st 1990) the late Pope John Paul II wrote: “modern society will find no solution to the ecological problem unless it takes a serious look at its life style. In many parts of the world society is given to instant gratification and consumerism while remaining indifferent to the damage which these cause.  … Simplicity, moderation and discipline, as well as a spirit of sacrifice, must become a part of everyday life, lest all suffer the negative consequences of the careless habits of a few.”  Pope Benedict in If you want peace, protect creation,( World Day of Peace, January 1^st 2010) repeats the same message. In No 13 Pope Benedict XVI writes that “technologically advanced societies must be prepared to encourage more sober lifestyles.” Further on, in No. 11 he writes, “it is becoming more and more evident that the issue of environmental degradation challenges us to examine our life-styles and the prevailing models of consumption and production, which are often unsustainable from a social, environmental and even economic point of view. All religions should challenge the greatest modern heresy which is that more and more consumption is the pathway to happiness.

The second thing Churches could do is to accompany people both at the local, national and international levels in the painful process of change from a non-sustainable to a sustainable way of life. Churches are well positioned to do this since they are present at the local, national and the international level. To achieve this they must educate their followers about the environment. Each religious tradition has its own stories about the origins of the universe, the earth and humankind. There is normally a wealth of wisdom in these traditions on how to live in a sustainable way. However, in this generation we are privileged to have available to us, from scientific discoveries in the fields of physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology and genetics, an understanding about the emergence of the universe, our solar system, the formation of planet earth, the emergence and proliferation of life, culminating with the evolution of humankind in the past few million years. This story give us a new understanding of what it means to be human and intimately connected with the 13.7 billion years which went into shaping the universe in such a way that it could support conscious life.

It is now abundantly clear that humans are part of the biosphere and that we are challenged to live in a way that does not undermine the well-being of the planet. Particular religious traditions can enhance this understanding of our connectedness with all creation. In the Judeo-Christian tradition we believe that the creative principle behind the emergence of the universe and humankind is best addressed in personal terms as a caring, loving father. Religions ought also to highlight and emphasise those segments of their scriptures or holy books that enhance our appreciation of nature.

---

[1]  Gary Gardner, “Engaging Religions to Shape World View” 2010 State of the World, page 23.

Call for More Sustainable Consumption and Production Patterns in Today’s World Fr. Seán McDonagh, SSC

The World Summit one Sustainable Development (WSSD) which met in Johannesburg in 2002 called for A 10-Year Framework of Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and Production. The 19^th Session of the UN Commission on Sustainably Development in May 2011, is also addressing this issue.

The scale of the crisis in this area was highlighted by a Report from the WorldWatch Institute called, The State of the World Report 2010. The Report was collaborative effort by sixty renowned researchers and many people working at grass-roots level. The run-away nature of global consumption is mind-boggling. The researchers found that there has been 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.

Advertising

Aggressive advertising is probably the most important factor in spreading the culture of consumerism. In 2008, global advertising reached $643 billion. The media in its various forms promotes consumerism. The author Duane Elgin was correct when he wrote that “to control a society you don’t need to control its  courts, you don’t need to control its armies, all you need to do is control its stories. And it is television and Madison Avenue that is telling us most of the stories most of the time to most of the people.”[1]  The link between Madison Avenue and advertising began in the early 1920s when many advertising companies were situated on that street. In 1957, Vance Packard’s book, Hidden Persuaders explored how advertising agencies use the insights of psychological research and depth psychology to manipulate the expectations of the public in an effort to get them to buy more products [2] He accused the industry of using subliminal messages in order to induce the consumer to buy more goods. Even though the book sold over one million copies, the power of advertising corporations grew and grew in the U.S and later in Europe and right across the world.

In the U.S., an individual hears hundreds of advertisements every day and of course, they have been hearing these since the day they were born.  Consumerism and consequent unsustainable lifestyles were confined to Europe, the US and Australia until a few decades ago. Today, consumerism has taken a hold right around the world, and is practiced by millions of people in Brazil, India, China and other emerging industrial economies. In the past decade advertising has grown by 20% per annum in emerging economies such as China and India.[3] Many see consumerism like a tsunami which has engulfed human cultures and is degrading the Earth’s ecosystems. Left unaddressed, we risk global disaster.

Planned obsolescence

Another factor which drives consumerism is known as planned obsolescence or built in obsolescence. It means manufacturing things that will be functional only for a limited period of time. In a presentation to an advertising conference in 1954  Brooks Stevens, a designer of appliances, automobiles, motorcycles and furnished used the phrase as a title for a talk.[4]  He suggested that new and improved products are in constant demand by consumers and that corporations can best respond to this demand by manufacturing items that do not last very long.  Many people even here in the United States may not have heard of Brooks Stevens, but in 1991 on the occasions of his 80^th birthday the Chicago Tribune newspaper wrote that while many of its current readers would not have heard of Stevens in the 1950s he was a household name in the U.S.[5]On the occasion of his eightieth birthday in 1991, a Chicago Tribune retrospective began with the words “Brooks Stevens is hardly a household name.”4 But that was not the case in the 1950s, when he was recognized as America’s controversial “crown prince of obsolescence.”5 Stevens claimed—publicly and often—that it was he who actually invented the phrase “planned obsolescence,” and he was certainly the term’s most vocal champion. Due to his efforts at self- promotion, many …  A few examples of planned obsolescence will suffice. In 1921, General Motors’ executive committee began to articulate a principle which would be known as Sloanism after the longtime president of GM, Alfred P Sloan. This meant that planned obsolescence and product differentiation, highlighting different aspects of motoring such as speed, power, style and elegance became central to GM’s way of building cars.[6]  A favourite slogan was “a car for every purse and purpose.” A recent example of planned obsolescence is Apple’s launch of iPad 2 in March 2011. This device is 33 per cent thinner and up to 15 percent lighter than the original iPad. It has other features such as cameras etc. The underlying message is that one needs to get rid of the iPad which was bought less than 12 months ago and buy this new device.  We expect that another similar device will appear in 2012 making iPad2 redundant.

There has not been much mention of the role either of advertising and planned obsolescence in creating a very unsustainable world.  One can only wonder why?  Could it be that the corporations, which make all these consumer goods with such short life spans, are so powerful that they can stifles this kind of analysis even here at the UN Commission on Sustainable Development?

---

[1]  Ibid page 13.

[2]  Vance Packard, 1957, The Hidden Persuaders, Longmans.

[3]  Ibid page 11.

[4] From ~| The Modern Hygiene Vacuum Cleaner |~ – Related web pages

http://www.137.com/modern/

[5]  From made to break and related webpages. www.books.google.com/books?id=YMoxdac6J-cC&pg

[6] From the Secret History of Lead, The Nation and related webpages.  www.thenation.com/article/secret-history-lead …

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.

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 Nineteenth Session of the Commission on Sustainable Development May 2 – 13 2011

The 19^th session of the UN Commission on Sustainably Development opened on May 2, 2011 and will continue until May 13^th 2011. The word “sustainability” became part of the vocabulary of many missionaries and development workers in the wake of the publication of deliberations of the UN Commission on Environment and Development in a book called “Our Common Future.”  The book is often called the Brundtland Report after the name of the Chair of the Committee, Gro Harlem Brundtland who was Prime Minister of 1990 to 1996. In a nutshell, Sustainable Development means meeting the needs of this generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

The Commission on Sustainable Development emerged from Agenda 21, the programme for action for sustainable development adopted in June 1992 by the United Nations Conference in June 1992 by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) also known as the “Rio Earth Summit.” Agenda 21 called for the creation of the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD),  to ensure on the effective follow-up of the UNCED. The CSD has 53 member states.

The CSD held its first substantive session in June 1993 and has convened every year since then at the UN Headquarters in New York.  In the five years after 1993, the CSD systematically reviewed the implementation of all chapters of the Agenda 21.

One of the most significant meetings of the CSD took place in Johannesburg, South Africa in September 2002.

The 19^th session of the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD-19) was opened by H.E. Mr. Laszlo Borbely, Minister of Environment and Forest of Romania. He reminded the participants that CSD-19 is a policy session.  Therefore, it needs to make policy decisions and to indentify concrete measures to advance, in an integrated manner the implementation of the agenda on a number of thematic issues. These include, transport, chemicals, waste management, mining and the ten-year framework on sustainable consumption and production patterns.

He pointed out that the growing transport challenges, especially for those living in economically poor countries, is urgent.

The management of chemicals has important implications for achieving the Millennium Development Goals. He stated that the chemical industry contributes to job creation, improving living standards, eradication of poverty, improved health of humans, agricultural productivity and energy efficiency. While he cautioned that sound management of chemicals is needed to prevent adverse consequences for the environment and human health, he failed to mention that many chemical companies are economically more powerful than the majority of nation states.  Chemical company use this power to ensure that the vast majority of chemicals are not tested for their carcinogenic, endocrine blocking or immune compromising  characteristics.

His comments on mining were equally bland and uncritical. The goal of mining, according to him was to “ maximize the positive economical impact of mining while minimizing its negative environmental and social impacts, and reinforcing the capacity of producing countries to  benefit from their natural resources in the long term.” He called for “a holistic approach with mining integrated in the sustainable development paradigm.”

I was one of the speakers of a side-event entitled, “Human Rights, The Environment and Mining: Perspectives from Peru,” organised by the Maryknoll Missionary Sisters. Among the speakers was Trinidad Carlos Serna, a  Human Rights Lawyer from Peru. She told a very different story about the abuses of human and environmental rights which was facilitated by the Peruvian Government.

I shared my own research of pollution at La Oroya, a mining and smelting city in the Peruvian Andes, which  is one of the 10 most polluted cities in the world. ((Cf. www.blacksmithinstitute.org/wwpp2007/finalReport2007.pdf  The full report can be found at www.worstpolluted.com ).

Independent researchers found that Lead levels in children 6 months to 6 yrs: 3x above the concentration set by WHO; for three in every ten children in the old city of La Oroya, the concentration was often six and seven times above the WHO limits.

Cadmium: Nearly all the participants from La Oroya, had three times more cadmium in their blood than the average US citizen. Cadmium is a toxic element which can cause kidney problems, loss of bone density, lung cancer and prostate cancer in men.

Arsenic concentration in La Oroya, exceeded the amount found in an average U.S. sample.

Mercury levels in the blood in La Oroya were found to be three times the level of the average US sample.

Caesium in both places was four times the average US amount

Antimony: La Oroya had more than 30 times the amount in comparison with the average US citizen.

Mr. Laszlo Borbely seemed to be unaware or unwilling to address any of these issues about international mining corporations which are replicated in many countries in Asia, Central and Latin America and Africa.   Not once in his talk or the subsequent presentations by  Dr. Istvan Teplan, Senor Advisor of the Hungarian Secretary of State for the Environment, speaking on behalf of the European Union and its Members States, was there any serious statement about the power that mining corporations wield over both national governments or even groups such as the European Union.

As I said at the side-event on “Human Rights, the Environment and Mining: Perspectives from Peru,” it seemed at every speaker on the first day of the 19^th Session of the Commission on Sustainable Development had taken an oath not to mention the role that the military and corporations play in the pollution and impoverishment of our world today. Such institutional amnesia does not augur well that the 19^th Session of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development will deal effectively with the current ecological crisis.