All posts tagged Green Economy

Posted:
May 6, 2012
Author:
Nathan Thanki

A Date With History (script) English and Spanish version

This script was writen by a group of us for a video context in preparation to the Rio+20 conference.

by Anjali Appadurai, Nimisha Bastedo, Anyuri Betegon, Graham Reeder, Nathan Thanki, Julian Velez, and Trudi Zundel.

The video can be seen here.

We are Earth in Brackets and the future we want requires radical change.

Radical: Favoring drastic political, economic, and social reforms. Radical: Challenging accepted traditional norms.

Some may write off radical thought and action as unrealistic and unattainable. As dangerous.  But the word “radical,” has its origin in botany: a “radical” is the first root to begin growing from a seed. Radical is tackling the world’s social, economic and environmental problems at their roots, instead of pruning their branches with the same old tools.

Tools like assigning monetary value to nature to create new markets. Greenwashing our old inequitable, unsustainable consumption and production methods. Negotiating for twenty years without making solid commitments.

To us, that’s dangerous.

Since the first Rio conference, our problems have gotten worse. Why? Because our mainstream ideology is dominated by neoliberalism, with its rampant consumerism and boundless exploitation of people and nature.

In the future we want, empathy, respect, and integrity form the basis for global decision-making. Sustainable development becomes the priority in national policies. In this future, small-scale farmers can reclaim food sovereignty from big agribusiness. The best education and health care are given to those who need it most.

Biodiversity is protected, not privatized. All humans, not just the rich, have a right to water, to economic stability, to a clean and safe environment. All humans have a right to be heard. The list could go on all day, but it comes to this: basic rights of people and the Earth are no longer negotiable. They are not just needs, they are inherent rights that cannot be bought or sold.

Countries must fulfill their commitments to capacity building, technology transfer and finance. But that’s not enough. We also need radical changes in the way we choose to live together on this planet.

In the future we want, equity prevails: power is justly transferred from institutions to citizens, corporations to people, developed to developing countries. A shift from a human-centered worldview to one that respects all life: this is the radical change we need.

2011 was the year the bottom shook the top, the year when the radical started to become a reality. Let’s make 2012 the year the top wakes up and finally puts the integrity of humans and the planet before profits.

We are calling for ambition. Not just from governments, but from everyone who wants this future too. The future we want, the one we need, is something we’re going to keep building–and we want you to join us.

Este discurso fue escrito por un grupo de nosotros en preparación para la Conferencia Rio+20 en Brasil.

Escrito por Anjali Appadurai, Nimisha Bastedo, Anyuri Betegon, Graham Reeder, Nathan Thanki, Julian Velez, and Trudi Zundel.

Traducido por Anyuri Betegon

Mi nombre es Nimisha y el futuro que queremos requiere un cambio radical.

Radical: Favorecer drásticas reformas políticas, económicas y sociales. Radical: Desafiar las normas tradicionales aceptadas.

Algunos suelen anotar el pensamiento y la acción radical como irreal e inalcanzable. Como peligrosa. Pero la palabra radical tiene su origen en botánica: radical es la primera raíz que crece en una semilla. Radical es la lucha contra los problemas ambientales, sociales y económicos del mundo en sus raíces, en vez de podar sus ramas con las mismas herramientas desfasadas.

Herramientas como el asignamiento de un valor monetario a la naturaleza para crear nuevos mercados. Greenwashing nuestra vieja insostenible e injusta manera de consumir y producir.

Desde la primera conferencia en Río, nuestros problemas siguen empeorando ¿Por qué?  Porque nuestra ideología principal está dominada por neoliberalismo, con su consumismo desenfrenado y la explotación ilimitada de la gente y la naturaleza.

En el futuro que queremos empatía, respeto e integridad forman las bases para las tomas de decisión global. El desarrollo sustentable es prioridad en las políticas nacionales.

En este futuro, campesinos pueden reclamar su soberanía alimentaria de las grandes empresas de agricultura. La mejor educación y servicio de salud es dada a aquellos que más la necesitan. La biodiversidad es protegida no privatizada. Todos los seres humanos, no sólo los ricos, tienen derecho al agua, a una estabilidad económica, a un ambiente limpio y seguro. Todos los seres humanos tienen el derecho a ser escuchados.

Esta lista podría continuar, pero se trata de lo siguiente: los derechos básicos de las personas y de la tierra no son negociables. Ellos no son sólo necesidades, son derechos inherentes que no pueden ser comprados o vendidos.

Los países deben cumplir sus compromisos de transferir nuevas tecnologías, de promover la capacidad de construcción y proveer financiamiento. Pero esto no es suficiente. Nosotros también necesitamos hacer cambios radicales en la forma en la que decidamos vivir juntos en este planeta.

En el futuro que queremos equidad prevalece: el poder es justamente transferido de instituciones a ciudadanos, de las corporaciones a las personas, de países desarrollados a países en vías de desarrollo. Un paso de un mundo centrado en lo humano a uno que respeta toda la vida: este es el cambio radical que queremos.

El 2011 fue el año en que las bases sacudieron la cúspide. El año en que lo radical empezó a ser realidad. Hagamos del 2012 el año en el que la cúspide se levanta y por fin pone la integridad de la gente y del planeta antes de las ganancias.

Estamos haciendo un llamado de ambición. No sólo por parte de los gobiernos, pero también de todos aquellos que también desean este futuro. El futuro que queremos, el que necesitamos, es algo que vamos a seguir construyendo y queremos que te nos unas.

 

Posted:
May 3, 2012
Author:
COA Students

Green economy: the square ball that negotiators struggle to roll

by Adrian Fernandez Jauregui

There is frustration and irritation revisiting, once more, the hallways and negotiating rooms of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD). Despite the commonly used rhetoric about “moving forward” and “streamlining the text”, progress is slow and the outcome is uncertain.

In Working Group I negotiations (section three and five of the zero draft), the discussion on the Green economy is where disagreements between delegations are most fierce. In this section, crucial points for most countries are being negotiated and every one pulls in their own direction while trying to aim some low blows at anyone who opposes. What is more interesting is that there doesn’t seem to be a clear alliance. At least for now, we aren’t seeing the usual North vs South dichotomy. Some of the most contentious issues are the Green Economy roadmap; also related with commitments, deadlines, targets and goals; and technology transfer, information sharing, and economic assistance.

When the EU pushes for a road-map (the number one point for the EU), the G77 is not hesitant to bracket and delete any mention of the so called road-map. The EU idea of a green economy road-map is a set of commonly accepted guidelines that would be used to achieve commonly agreed goals. In theory this road-map should direct national and international policies, and create regulations that work for a green economy. Ironically enough, the green economy is not clearly defined but some important elements of it would be the phasing out of subsidies, especially those that are harmful to the environment (e.g. tuna fisheries and gasoline), the use of financial mechanisms to leverage natural services, and the main-streaming of green technology (energy and resource efficient, and not carbon intensive). The G77 is not a fan of this road-map for a number of reasons.

One of the most fundamental reasons is that the idea of commonly agreed targets and goals with the combination of specific commitments resembles too closely the infamous structural reforms that took place (and to a certain extent still do) in the vast majority of developing countries, imposed as a condition of foreign aid. The sovereign right of states to decide how they carry on their sustainable development programs is paramount to the G77. For them there is no one roadmap, but as Rene Orellana, head of the delegation of Bolivia, said “if necessary, there must be as many roadmaps as there are countries”

Another issue is that, in the eyes of the G77, the Earth Summit is not about transitioning to a Green Economy, it’s about Sustainable Development. Although those two might overlap, if there is a conversation about road-map it shouldn’t be towards the green economy, but towards sustainable development!

While the US, Canada, the Republic of Korea and New Zealand seem to share a common position with the G77 about committing to specific actions, deadlines, targets and goals, their reasons are diametrically opposed. From the perspective of those developed countries, anyone who rejects the idea of committing to the European road-map represents more expenses in the form of Official Development Assistance (ODA). These developed countries plus Norway, Japan and Australia among others see the green economy as an opportunity to guarantee access to new markets (green markets) for technology and information that enhance resource and energy efficiency. It is their priority to make sure that the document highlights the importance of intellectual property rights regulations and that transferring such property is determined in a bilateral basis (sold at the highest price that the market permits).

Many European countries are keen on the idea having the private sector play a greater role and share more responsibilities (whenever it is profitable) with the public sector. They are also major champions of protecting the markets of green technology and information. For the EU delegation, the way to achieve sustainability is to make it profitable. Once green technology (solar and wind energy, and more efficient and low carbon intensive ways of production) becomes more profitable than the alternative (carbon intensive sources of energy, and industries that use them) …. Thus, when the discussion is about markets and the role of the private sector they all join forces against the G77, criticizing their “unwillingness to achieve an agreement” and their insistence on “blocking the process”.

The perception of the G77 is slightly different. They wonder: now that we have more dynamic economies using technology that the industrialized world has used for decades you want to regulate and ban these technologies, so that you can sell us your new technology? There are a number of reasons to doubt of the intentions of those who preach the need to shift to more sustainable ways of production, but refuse to talk about more sustainable ways of consumption; the underlying problem.

After two weeks of negotiation the hyper inflated text has barely been reduced to nearly one hundred pages (of the no more than 20 pages they initially hoped to materialize). There is only two days left and the final outcome is not in sight. The question for us following the negotiations is: how are they going to reconcile their opposing positions?

Posted:
March 22, 2012
Author:
COA Students

The Green Economy Will Inspire All Nations with Positive Light?

By Julian Velez

The EU again steps forward to propose the idea of a roadmap for the Green Economy. They are testing the waters, looking at the reactions of the different groups in order to come up with a proposal of how that roadmap should look like. Their position on how to implement this roadmap is quite visible. Their roadmap plan demonstrates their lack of inclusion of the developing world, especially vulnerable countries: The Least Developed Countries, Small Island Developing States and the African countries have been explicitly suggested for deletion throughout the text. In the EU’s vision there is no space for mention of specific country blocks because they want a general document that doesn’t go into any specificities. They want a green economy that is vague and generic, that doesn’t reflect any of the critical points for the developing world.

They called for the deletion of the right to development under the green economy, which is a key principle for G77 (representing 132 developing countries). The right to development is a concept stemming from the view that the poorest countries of the world don’t have the means to attain sustainable development by themselves, and therefore should be provided with support and means to fulfill sustainable development. The EU called for the deletion of this because in their perspective it doesn’t relate to the green economy and because it shines a negative light on the concept of green economy… maybe they just want to avoid providing any national funding. Furthermore, they suggested the deletion of the recognition of the Rio principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities for sustainable consumption and production patterns. As far as I know Haitian and Ethiopian people have a very different lifestyle and levels of consumption than people in France or Germany. Not to mention  levels and differences in production.The EU says that they want a green economy roadmap with deadlines, specific goals, objectives and concrete actions at the international level in a specific number of cross-cutting thematic areas. They are pushing for a focused political document that will inspire nation states to renew their political commitments. It looks as though they are trying to avoid any language that reflects specifics for actual implementation.

But they do want an explicit mention of the green economy in their terms through the involvement of the private investment, domestic resources, International Financial Institutions and South-South cooperation. The EU has no intention of stepping forward for the creation of an that furthers the principle of equity. There is a call for creating a text with positive lighting that would inspire and bring about political will from the Heads of State, but this positive light mentioned by the EU doesn’t seem to inspire and shine upon the developing nations. All nations should take ambitious steps to achieve sustainable development both at the national and the international level, but this doesn’t mean that the developed world is exempt from their responsibility to support with means of implementation. Without commitments from the developed world the roadmap towards a green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication seems quite bleak for the developing world, and  the principle of equity would not be properly addressed in the future of our economy.Do we want a text that inspires ambitious action form all nations? Or do we want an outcome that inspires another 20 years of inaction?

Newer Entries →