OPINION
I’ve been finding it difficult to get excited about Rio+20 given the dismal results from the last half dozen UN summits on climate change and other gazillion dollar, global hang-wringing cum self-congratulatory cathartic boondoggles.
There’s no question things are bad. But these summits just don’t deliver. All the energy and money spent putting these events together would probably just light the world for all of one nano-second.
Don’t take my word for it, the UN-Secretary General just said as much Wednesday after reviewing the draft of the document. “I hoped we would have had a more ambitious outcome document.” Those are strong words from a UNSG.
And he’s right, of course, because the reality is that we must fight harder to slow the pace of global environmental decline. My only beef is that, as much as I like (some aspects of) the UN, they’re just not very good at getting the results on these sweeping ambitions.
Nevertheless, I did come across this OpEd on Rio+20 in The National Review. It made a strong case from shifting the focus away from the green economy as a panacea for sustainable development. The essence of the piece is that if we’re going to get serious about the environment, we must focus on improving the livelihood of people first.
— Jean Kim Chaix, The Charcoal Project
In United Nations jargon, terms can sometimes be difficult to define, and often lose their meaning amidst endless negotiations. The term “sustainable development” isn’t much different. It is supposed to encompass the social, economic and environmental aspects of prosperity and human development. But in the run-up to the ongoing Rio+20, a United Nations conference on Sustainable Development, much hype has been on environmental issues of climate change and their “green economy” solutions. This focus leaves the other two, equally important, pillars of sustainable development out of discourse.
There is no question that humans must take care of the environment and use resources in a way that preserves them for future generations. However, this must not comprise the ways in which billions of people could and should lift themselves out of poverty. Tackling pressing environmental issues requires human solutions, and to achieve this end, people need to be healthy, well housed, and educated. Therefore, sustainable development cannot be achieved by merely focusing on the environment alone; it must place the person at the center. That way even “green economy” will have a sensible meaning, as it is meant to meet human needs.
And let’s face it, poverty pollutes too — it pollutes not only the environment but also health, education of the poor, and, consequently, development itself. The international energy agency estimates that around 1.3 billion people, almost 20 percent of world’s population, do not have access to electricity. Most of these people rely on kerosene at best, wood or charcoal at worst, for lighting. According to the World Health Organization, indoor air pollution caused by the above methods of lightning results in 2 millions deaths every year. Children from households without access to electricity won’t have access to quality education. Insufficient access to sources of lighting impairs reading and will, in return, hurt the future potential and productivity of these young minds. Shifting to efficient energy sources that are less harmful to human health is paramount to environment protection. It also means huge improvements in the social and economic well-being of the world’s poor. This should be central to the business of Rio+20. Saving the environment through the “green economy,” the new mantra for economic sustainability, requires highly developed economies to give it a try. The proposed “green solutions” of solar panels, biofuels, and wind turbines are simply out of reach for poor countries. Though they might be alternative sources of energy in the future, with increased technology, they remain unaffordably expensive for “the bottom billion.”
Germany, the world’s top producer of solar energy, is said to have spent 130 billion dollars, financed mainly through government subsidies, for energy worth 12 billion dollars. This was possible because Germans have, broadly speaking, met their basic needs. How many countries can afford such luxury?
Read the rest of the story online.
English 
French 