Addressing the Failures of Rio

-
17 year old New Zealander Brittany Trilford speaking to the conference on behalf of her generation.

Kennedy Graham has published a series of posts on Frog Blog where he has described his experiences of Rio's 3rd Earth Summit, expressed frustration at the lack of determination and resolve from the attending states (our own government sent a junior Minister) and offered his own solution to addressing climate change.

 I have huge respect for Kennedy, he is very experienced at operating in international and diplomatic forums and is very knowledgeable about international law and process. He suggests an organising framework that will enable a closer working relationship between the scientific community and the United Nations and greater powers and commitment to address the anthropogenic causes of climate change: 
  • UN Security Council attention to all components of the Ecological Crisis as a threat to international peace and security;
  • an empowered Secretary-General, taking more personal initiative as sanctioned under the Charter; and
  • a high-level panel, acting on behalf of the Secretary-General, operating as intermediary between the scientific community and the policy-making community with regard to the nine planetary boundaries (or any revised version of this as recommended by the scientific community).

Kennedy explains how binding protocols have been successful for managing ozone depletion and they that would be effective in dealing with climate change if there was a real commitment to do so. 
While I fully support the organising framework Kennedy proposes, I have real doubts about how effective the framework would be, even if it was supported the majority of UN member states. Given the battle it took to recognize anthropogenic ozone depletion and the fact that the world's economy is so heavily reliant on fossil fuel, this is a hugely problematic issue. 

 The world’s largest powers have a history of ignoring the UN if directives would have a negative impact on their economies and national interests. The US is currently refusing to give up control of the internet to the UN mainly because of the impact it will have on US businesses.

 We also have the issue of how we manage the dominant multinational corporates and the world’s largest banks (Exxon Mobil is the most profitable company with JP Morgan Chase a close second). Oil and gas, mineral mining and banks continue to dominate our richest companies and because they also operate as multinationals they are effectively beyond the influence of individual governments or the UN. With Government debt soaring, individual companies’ wealth and assets now exceed the countries where they operate and that wealth buys huge political influence.
New Zealand is held to be the least corrupt country in the world and yet we still see attempts to legislate responsibly for our national good being successfully stymied by wealthy companies and industries that will potentially suffer economically. Despite the collapse of financial institutions due to poor regulatory controls (causing substantial suffering to ordinary New Zealanders who lost their life savings) the industry has successfully lobbied to have much needed regulations watered down. The alcohol industry has clearly managed to water down the Law Commission's recommendations in legislation designed to address our huge issues around alcohol consumption. This is despite the fact that there are massive health and legal costs that the government has to cover due to misuse of alcohol.
Yes, the international community of states may indeed reach a consensus around the actions necessary to save our planet but how do you propose they can convince Exxon Mobil and JP Morgan Chase that business as usual is no longer an option?

Comments

Stanley Road said…
The most encouraging thing about the UN is their ability to turn all they touch into mush.
August 13, 2012 at 3:14 PM
Dave Kennedy said…
I wonder if it is the fault of the UN, Stanley, or the lack of resolve from dominant member states to fully support the UN concept of international governance?
August 14, 2012 at 1:47 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The US is actually unique for not valuing life!

-
Image
"...that’s what sets America apart from every other country; we value life. That is what makes us unique.” - Sarah Sanders There is a high level of delusion operating in the White House. The stream of mistruths that come out of President Trump and Sarah Sanders' mouths are clearly blatant lies but millions of US citizens believe them. With daily diets of Fox News and living in a very insular culture , there is little that challenges these false perceptions of US "greatness".  When comparing the United States of America with most other developed nations it becomes clear that it probably places less value on life than most and doesn't compare well with many developing countries too: If the US really valued life then it would abolish the death penalty, it is the only Western Country that executes people under law ( 23 people were executed in 2018 ).  If the US really valued life then it would have an equitable and universal health care system. The cur
Read more

The Destruction of New Zealand's Public Education System

-
Image
In 2008 New Zealand was internationally ranked in the top seven for educational achievement, and when you compared us with other countries that were also culturally diverse and experiencing growing inequality, we were extremely successful. At that time our Early Childhood sector had received a much overdue boost in funding from the Labour Government after being underfunded (as a % of GDP) compared to other OECD nations for years. The sector was working towards a target of having 100% qualified teachers in all centres. We were also in the process of implementing a new National Curriculum and a complementary curriculum for Maori ( Te Marautanga o Aotearoa ). Teachers were excited about putting all their energies into the new ideas and approaches that were espoused in these co-constructed documents that had taken around seven years to review and write. Evidence, research and practitioner input had created something that would allow us to prepare New Zealand children to become
Read more

ANZAC DAY REFLECTIONS

-
Image
I find ANZAC Day creates a dilemma for me, consequently I rarely attend dawn parades. I fully support people recognising the human cost of wars and remembering family members who lost their lives on battlefields. A grandfather of mine fought in WW1 and was gassed in the French trenches, which compromised his health for the rest of his life. His wife (my grandmother) lost her young brother in WW2. The sacrifices and human costs of war should never be minimalised. However, while speeches at ANZAC parades are full of statements promoting peace and the futility of war, those who campaign hardest for peace, promote nonviolence and call for weapons reductions are often treated like criminals. Anyone who dares to mention our own war crimes or that of our allies are generally shut down or demonised. It has become a sort of cultural heresy to question the reputation and glorification of the ANZACs.  I would love to see greater balance in how we talk about war and properly recognise those who ha
Read more