Tweeting, Blogging, Shouting, Learning

By Mariana Calderon

Recently, in an online conversation about expectations for Rio+20, and the point of it all, Nathan Thanki was informed that “nothing of any worth” would happen at the conference in June. Entirety of the conversation, arguments and responses aside, I was struck by a simple truth in Nathan’s reply: “We’re students, and so place value in learning.” We are students. Students, sometimes “youth,” in halls dominated by those who are older, sometimes wiser, and certainly more experienced. So what does it mean, to be a student at a UN conference?

Being a student means that these days, I am often putting aside my visions of historical change and progress, or catastrophic failure and apocalypse, for a simpler, more selfish, and more immediate turning point in my life: My impending degree in Human Ecology. One year remains to me – a year in which I must simultaneously complete my courses and requirements (would anyone like to offer me an internship?), craft and produce a final, culminating project, and decide what Human Ecology means (and then write about it). I might even squeeze in time to sample student-budget-friendly wines, read Game of Thrones, Issac Asimov, and Sherlock Holmes, and cultivate my Tumblr account.

So why do I, in addition to these simple aspirations, also aspire to spend time at as many international environmental meetings in the next year as possible? I’m not crazy. I don’t even own a time-turner. It’s simple: The time spent at these meetings is invaluable to me and my studies. I am cultivating the collection of stamps in my passport, my collection of “that time in Rio when we took the wrong bus” stories, and my knowledge and experience in international environmental politics and the UN circus. For someone who currently is more comfortable navigating negotiating texts than filing a tax return (is anyone comfortable with filing tax returns?), the prospect of finally earning the degree is almost as unnerving as the price of food within the conferences. Therefore, I am packing a lunch, and aiming to make it the most nutritious, well thought out and organically produced lunch as possible, with a cordon bleu-worthy presentation, and some guilty pleasure, hardly-real-food type dessert (I’m thinking a Twinkie type of comatose post-conference time on the beach with 50 Shades of Grey). With all that preparation in the morning, I’ll have a meal that has everything I need to continue in the afternoon (no, don’t ask about graduate school). In short, if I’m going to earn that degree, I’m going to make it one that will serve me well, and do so outside of school. And I won’t do it by extending terrible metaphors.

It’s official. According to the UN, my age defines me: 15-24. I am a “youth.” This means a number of things. It means that some in the crowd around me take a look and confide that they see themselves in me, 20 years ago (with the current state of the international environmental governance, this is sometimes infinitely encouraging, sometimes cringe-worthy). It means that some of those I strive to work with and learn from can be unwittingly condescending. I get virtual pats on the head. It does mean that I am often surrounded by an enormous amount of positive energy and collaboration. It also means leading a very hectic life: Normal coursework is time consuming. Staying informed about the latest international policy is time consuming. Being actively involved in youth efforts to make a difference is time consuming and devours email inboxes. Those who roam the UN halls alongside me know this – more official participants could likely teach me a lesson or two about time-consuming work.

But as students go, the writers of Earth in Brackets are lucky. We are lucky enough to pursuing degrees that are flexible, with coursework that actively grooms us, arms us, and then sends us to international negotiations to make what we will of them. Our work in the UN world is part of our work fulfilling degree requirements. Add the fact that our degrees are individually crafted, and four years of undergraduate work can become a sort of international environmental policy degree, if we so desire, complete with courses in economics, statistics, ecology, cultural anthropology, domestic law, and photography thrown in for good measure. With that sort of background, or even just the beginnings of it, for a first-year, we can take the long days, dragging negotiating sessions and miniscule amounts of sleep, and glean an incredible amount of learning from it all. We might even enjoy it.

I am often asked what it is that Earth in Brackets does. What do we do that we enjoy so much, enough to travel to exotic locales and spend the majority of the time in over-air-conditioned buildings? “We tweet, we blog, we shout.” The catchphrase has a lot of truth to it: We do tweet. We do blog. Sometimes, we shout. We also meet with other youth, and with representatives from other Major Groups, NGOs, countries, and coalitions. We sit in on negotiations, and chuckle at the co-chair’s dry jokes while taking notes on attempts to water down the Right to Water. We discuss the poorly-defined Green Economy, and the idea of a Sustainable Development Council. We plan actions (where we shout), and analyze newly-released text at 2 in the morning. At 5am, we tell the world on twitter and facebook that, once again, things didn’t go the way we so desperately hoped. And then we write here about why, and how, and how to turn what happened into something useful.

In between all of that, we learn. We can be optimistic, but we are not naive. We know that the chance of our work creating a perceptible difference is slim. But we try, and we learn, and we try again. We get pushy. Some of us may continue the work, and the years of experience between will pay off. Yes, we’re writing, analyzing, and networking, but most of all, we are learning, about the policy, the atmosphere, and the relationships. We learn when to be aggressive and when to be charming, and to give out our cards. We learn how to understand the language. We see the possibilities and impossibilities, and try to stop defining them as such.

In attending the international meetings I study, I can develop a more holistic perspective on the UN and international environmental governance. I can meet the people I know on paper as “Representative of the US,” or “Representative of the G77,” and try to understand them as human beings as well as negotiators. I can understand how the mood in a negotiating room can drastically change the pace and results of the negotiations – and why optimism, if not idealism, is so important. I think this all to be of great importance. It will be an integral part of the degree I craft and what I choose to do with it. I look around at other student-participants and feel that their being present is a step towards the Future I Want. Learning alongside other “youth” at the negotiations often gives me much more hope than watching negotiators does.

Some also ask, why waste time with the UN? After all, it is bureaucratic and slow, frustrating and, in the minds of many, useless. We’re raking up carbon emissions in order to “feel better about ourselves” and “failing to produce results.” I’ve been informed of this many times. It is a discussion that never ends, and one that I am still developing answers and opinions for. Nonetheless, in the end, I still feel justified, perhaps wrongly, perhaps self-centeredly, in participating – in flying across a continent to take part in what I see as a turning point. Because nothing beats experiential learning. And it is important to know your enemy. Or important to understand the world you work in. Or important to understand that which you seek to change. And important to bring that understanding back home.

Expectations, Expectations

Why global summits matter: Rio+20

by Ana Puhač

When last December TIME magazine featured the “the protester” as the person of the year, I thought how in the future, that publication could be seen as one of the most symbolic images that marked the start of a new global era. The world is in crisis? Isn’t that what every generation before us, facing a transition into a new global paradigm has said: “the world is in crisis”? Generations are born with crises like people are born with birthmarks – some have it, some don’t, some may symbolize something positive, some cause complications. But none have yet turned fatal, and completely eroded this civilization. We’ve learned from the past that there have been justifiable fears of global existential risks because of the warfare, the threat of nuclear mass destruction and epidemic diseases. But never before have we faced such global systematic disrepair because of the way we’ve decided to develop.

Evidently, the world is starting to crumble under the weight of growing social and economic inequality while polluting the environment and hitting the limit of natural resource depletion. The disrepair is irrefutable, but we persist in our failure to see the protests, collapses of economies, and ecocides that are surging up all over the world as part of one common problem.

The 1992 United Nations Human Development Report (HDR) called for “a world summit on human development that should be convened to enlist the support of the world’s political leaders for the objectives of the compact and their commitments to the resource requirements it will entail.” In response, the Earth Summit was created in Rio de Janeiro the same year. That summit has paved the way in forming a trajectory of global discussions on sustainable development.

Still, no such discussion has saved the world from the crisis. In the public eyes, global mega-conferences simply don’t deliver any success and suffer from exaggerated claims.

After so many disappointing conferences, the Rio+20 summit enjoys an excellent advantage over the other global conferences: incredibly low expectations. There is a little bit less than a month left, and the buzzing question in the media that is actually following the Rio process, is: What are the expectations?

What a trap. By asking the wrong questions, the media encourages standard and disappointing responses. This is how the world remains deemed a melting pot of malevolent disparity that yet again fails to attain utopia. The use of the word “expectation” in the question immediately assumes a direct and concrete “outcome” in response. No wonder that we read in the news how Rio+20 is framed as yet another impasse even before it has even happened. No wonder there are no expectations.

If global summits themselves don’t deliver real outcomes, why do they matter at all? They matter because they are the only acknowledgment that the world’s problems are interlinked and that only with collective commitment toward common goals are we all much better off.

The problem with expectations of global conferences such as Rio+20 is that they are not realistic. As Steven Hale writes in the Guardian: “We overestimate the importance of formal outcomes, and underestimate the importance of the progressive coalitions that summits can inspire.”

It is true: there will be no legally binding document coming out of Rio, there will be no serious political commitment, there hasn’t been improvement in the past twenty years, there is no organization around providing sufficient funding, a sinful carbon trade off will be made so that we can fly to the conference, only the privileged ones will be able to be there. What is maybe most striking is that, as I am writing, the majority in the world is barely surviving this day through hunger, war, injustice and disease, let alone expecting some outcome document they have probably never heard about to make everything better.

However, there are some key things we mustn’t forget. First and foremost, these conferences would not exist if there were no demands from civil society. Therefore, the civil society has as much of the responsibility for pushing the outcome as do the politicians and other power-holders have for making it possible. The responsibilities are different, but their magnitude is equal. Second, the engagement of civil society at the local and national level reflects in the discourse on the global level. Domestic politics decide whether and what outcomes from these negotiations will be implemented. Third, we must distribute our efforts wisely and understand that at this level of urgency, the world is more likely to be changed by deeds, and less by opinions or words.

Finally, the last Rio summit in 1992 has proved something to us. We haven’t seen the real change ever since, but it brought the notion of sustainable development into the mainstream. It’s sealed into politicians’ and public’s minds, and the lack of our common commitment just increasingly outlines its significance. The only sober expectation we have to have for the “outcome” of those couple of days is that there will be a strong prod to the world that we have entered a new era, marked by the global crisis that is curable only if we join our collective efforts. Therefore Rio+20 must, and will be, important.

What will happen after and between those big events is the real outcome. We must embrace the fact that those conferences hold high value of political symbolism more than they do immediate political intervention. Still, it is crucial to make that symbolism reflect the needs of people and the planet impeccably. This is why we need to unite, clearly state what we want and compel our political leaders to show genuine commitment.

Rio will be a moment in time. It won’t save the world, but even if we succumb to disaster or overcome the challenge, our descendants will know that we cared.

El Color de la Economía

Tendemos a adherir la palabra “Verde” al nombre de productos para caracterizarlos como(de) “Ecológicos” o más amigables con el medio ambiente, y promoverlos como tales. Esta verdad aplica también a la Economía Verde.

La idea de una “Economía Verde” fue creada como respuesta a la crisis ambiental que muchas personas e instituciones alrededor del mundo aún se reúsan reconocer. Corresponde a una “triple línea de fondo” que incluye aspectos sociales, económicos, y ambientales. Estos tres temas se consideran la base de cualquier esfuerzo que tiene la sostenibilidad como meta. Debido a que “Economía Verde” es un término muy vago (ambas palabras tienen significados múltiples dependiendo del contexto), deduje que debe estar relacionado con términos como Tecnología Verde. Por lo tanto ¿es la Economía Verde una economía más amigable con el medio ambiente?

La Comisión sobre el Desarrollo Sostenible (creada en 1992) tendrá en lugar de su vigésima reunión, una reunión intergubernamental llamada Río+20, donde la Economía Verde es uno de los dos temas principales a discutir. Cada país miembro de la Organización de Naciones Unidas (ONU) y cinco grupos políticos, entre otras entidades, presentaron sus declaraciones sobre su posición respecto a la Economía Verde.

¿Qué piensan los gobiernos de nuestros países sobre la Economía Verde? ¿Están de acuerdo entre si?

Hay muchas definiciones distintas sobre la Economía Verde, y no entendía realmente como se relacionaban conmigo, ni con el desarrollo sostenible, así que decidí comenzar con algo familiar. Entonces leí lo que el gobierno de Guatemala, mi gobierno, propone para la Conferencia Sobre el Desarrollo Sostenible (CDS), y me quedé satisfecho con su interpretación de la idea:

“Economía que busca generar procesos de producción y consumo sostenibles (transformación de métodos de producción y los patrones de consumo) mediante actividades que utilizan los recursos renovables a una tasa menor que su velocidad de regeneración, compensado la pérdida de recursos no renovables con sustitutos renovables, limitando la contaminación dentro de la resiliencia natural, donde hay compromisos eficientes por mantener la estabilidad y mejora de los sistemas ambientales (ecosistemas), favoreciendo la justicia social intra e intergeneracional.”

El gobierno chapín (o “Guatemalteco”, si no sos de Guate) también declara que existe una diferencia entre el ideal de una Economía Verde, y el proceso de “enverdecer” la economía – un punto que es importante resaltar porque clarifica el asunto, y distingue el proceso de los resultados.

Intentando recabar más información, fui a buscar la posición de un país que me acogió por algunos años, y compartió algunos de sus secretos conmigo: la India. Es uno de los países “en vías de desarrollo” del que considero entender algo más allá de las fotos del National Geographic. Pongo la frase “en vías de desarrollo” entre comillas, porque de veras no me gusta el estándar de vida que perpetuamos al utilizar los adjetivos “desarrollado” y “en vías de desarrollo” para caracterizar a distintos países: hacen que la idea del “desarrollo sostenible” sea un oxímoron. Quería ver cuáles son las perspectivas del gobierno Indio sobre la Economía Verde, y sentí que algo se dividía dentro de mi mente cuando leí su definición:

“La economía verde es un concepto dinámico que infunde cada acción tomada hacia erradicar la pobreza con sostenibilidad, enverdeciendo así la economía mientras nos desarrollamos económicamente, socialmente, y ambientalmente”

[El proceso de la Economía Verde] está relacionado directamente con las prioridades predominantes para los países en desarrollo como erradicación de pobreza, seguridad alimentaria, acceso universal a servicios energéticos modernos, salud pública, desarrollo de recursos humanos y generación de empleos. Como tal, la Economía Verde debería ser visto como uno de los medios para lograr estas prioridades predominantes y fundamentales, y no como un fin en sí mismo.

Esta definición tiene un enfoque casi completo en la erradicación de la pobreza (un problema que afecta a una porción considerable de nuestra raza. Curiosamente, éste es un problema que afecta sólo a los humanos y no al resto de las formas de vida en el planeta). El gobierno Indio también expresa preocupación por otros problemas que son productos de desigualdades estructurales, y simplemente hacen una mención superficial sobre sostenibilidad. La posición de la India en relación a la Economía Verde está intentando responder a los problemas de desigualdad estructural en sistemas humanos, sin tener en cuenta sus consecuencias en el resto de la biósfera.

Después, para buscar una tercera perspectiva que sabía que diferiría más con estas dos de lo que India y Guatemala difieren entre sí, fui al país que después de algunas molestias me dio la bienvenida a su extenso territorio: los Estados Unidos.

Tristemente, los sucesores del Tío Abe decidieron no definir con claridad lo que ellos conciben com la Economía Verde. En su lugar, proceden a dar un bosquejo de los procesos que consideran demandan este enfoque, como la Urbanización.

Este es el primer párrafo del texto de posición que Estados Unidos presentó a la CDS en donde se menciona la Economía Verde:

La Administración Obama a colocado una base fuerte y una trayectoria para aumentar la sustentabilidad y para construir una economía verde en casa y en el extranjero. Nuestra Política de Desarrollo Global reconoce que el desarrollo sostenible ofrece una promesa de crecimiento a largo plazo, inclusivo y duradero que se construya sobre responsabilidad, efectividad, eficiencia, coordinación, e innovación. Río+20 debería buscar hacer que los gobiernos alrededor del mundo sean más transparentes y accesibles para interesar a los ciudadanos y ciudadanas, y construir nuevas redes a través de todos los sectores de nuestras sociedades. El rol de las mujeres y la juventud también es fundamental para asegurar un desarrollo sostenible.

Estados Unidos no necesita definir “la Economía Verde” en sí, porque puede valerse de la definición convencional e intuitiva de la que hablé al principio. Y, con esa definición en mente (una economía más amigable con el medio ambiente), todo lo que Estados Unidos describe en su texto, ¡tiene sentido! Desde mejorar el Medio Ambiente Natural, Institucional y Construido, las soluciones de Estados Unidos suenan geniales.

Sin embargo, lo que en realidad reventó la burbuja para mí, fue considerar las dos definiciones anteriores que había leído, y recordar de dónde vienen los enfoques de Guatemala y de India: una relación desigual de poder con los países como los Estados Unidos, un contexto de desigualdad estructural, y poder político considerablemente menor que el de los países “desarrollados”.

El sociólogo venezolano Edgardo Lander señala en su ensayo: La Economía Verde: el lobo se viste con piel de cordero.

“Correspondiendo a la lógica “light” que caracteriza a la mayor parte de los documentos de este tipo, en este informe se obvian por completo todos los asuntos más polémicos creando así una ficción de un mundo que no opera en base a intereses, sino sobre la posibilidad de construcción de consensos que beneficien a todos.”

Lander se refiere al documento Hacia una economía Verde, presentado por el Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente (PNUMA), pero su argumento puede extenderse a otros documentos de la ONU.

Todavía no tenemos soluciones para estas desigualdades tanto económicas como de poder. Sin embargo, intentar implementar una nueva economía de cualquier color (como la Economía Azul que propone Australia que toma más en cuenta los océanos) será difícil si estas economías intentan solucionar problemas que son producto de procesos que no han sido reconocidos y considerados. Éste será uno de nuestros mayores desafíos en Río+20.

Declaration of the Participants at the Alternative World Water Forum

by Robin Owings

The Alternative World Water Forum (FAME) has created and released a Declaration of The Participants at the Alternative World Water Forum. This document defines water to be a commons, not a commodity, and opposes the commodification of aspects of life through “green economy” solutions– which will further deplete and threaten global water resources. It calls upon governments, states, the UN General Assembly, public water utilities, local water authorities and citizens to act directly, whether through the creation of an international penal court for environmental crimes, through collaboration, or through reducing one’s daily water waste.  The document strongly supports the rights of workers/laborers, women, indigenous peoples, and small-scale agriculture, and validates the cultural, spiritual and symbolic aspects of water. FAME ultimately aims to bring the World Water Forum to an end, and supports equal rights among all stakeholders in international water politics. This document will be important to feed into the People’s Summit and the global day of action at Rio+20, as it states an alternative to the commodification and financialization of water which addresses the multiple social and ecological water crises of our time.

To read the document, follow this link:
To sign onto the document, follow this link: