March / April 1997
Table of Contents
About this edition...
This issue illustrates precisely how global governance is rising all around us. The UN climate change negotiations in Bonn, Germany are moving forward on the basis of a consensus that does not exist to implement international law that is not needed. Neither scientific fact, nor vocal dissent are appreciated.
Public policy decisions are being wrested from elected officials and are being made by the policy advocates. Professional consensus facilitators are leading workshops, seminars, visioning and stakeholder councils across America, helping communities reach the policy outcomes designed in Rio de Janeiro.
An enlightening interview on page 17 reveals the extent the international community has invaded American cities and local government. The speech by Gustave Speth on page 21 will remove any doubt that may remain about the reality of global governance and the UNs determination to expand its power and influence.
Finally, despite the defeat of the last two Biosphere Reserves in the U.S., the Sonoran Biosphere Reserve is consolidating 3.8 million acres on the Mexican border.
There is reason for encouragement. In recent months, there has been a marked increase in the number of people who are becoming aware. There is a thirst for information and an increasing demand for conferences and materials.
This issue underscores the pace at which the global agenda is being implemented. That means
that every organization and every individual is asked to do more, be more active, be more vocal.
Should global governance become the reality that some now imagine, it will take generations of
suffering before the human spirit will again arise to where America now is. We cannot rest until
liberty is secure again.
Commentary
By Henry Lamb
NATO was created to defend western Europe from the threat of invasion from communist Russia and the Warsaw Pact nations. That threat no longer exists. NATO could be dissolved, or at the very least, severely downsized, without exposing western Europe to any military threat. Is NATO being downsized? No, it is being expanded. Why?
The worlds largest reservoir of low-sulfur coal under the Escalate Canyon has been closed from any possibility of future development. World demand now must be satisfied by the Lippo-controlled reservoir in Indonesia. Why?
American demand for coal and petroleum will be reduced by as much as one-half if the Clinton-supported climate change protocol is adopted. Chinese demand for coal and petroleum will double or triple, since China and 130 other nations are not restricted by the climate change protocol. Why?
China enjoys a $40 billion trade surplus with the U.S. while forcing abortions and extinguishing dissent. Rather than forcing a trade balance and insisting upon human rights improvements. America has awarded to China the Long Beach Naval facility for use by the state-owned, 600-ship commercial fleet. Why?
Mexico is importing American jobs and exporting illegal drugs. Rather than tightening the border, America has entered into an international "Border Project 21" which effectively eliminates the border and creates a 60-mile strip on both sides of the border as an "international zone" to be governed "collaboratively" by civil society. Why?
Former Clinton transition team member, Gustave Speth, told a World Conference in Rio de Janeiro in March, that the rich countries have "failed utterly" to keep their end of the bargain for assisting developing nations -- while America pays nearly 30% of the overall UN expenses. Why?
Speth also told the conference that Global governance is here, here to stay, and driven by economic and environmental globalization, global governance will inevitably expand. Why?
Because the White House -- beginning with the President and Vice President -- and reaching throughout the policy-making positions in all major departments, is filled with people who are committed to global governance.
When Sarah McClenden asked the President if he could use his influence to quiet the rising tide of concern about UN intrusion, he chose not to do so. Instead, he pointed to the hard decisions that lie ahead as national sovereignty collides with global governance ambition.
Those decisions are now upon America. National Sovereignty is colliding with global governance every day. While claiming that global governance is not global government, policies to regulate and control human activity are promulgated at the IAN and administered by the White House, without public debate. Congressional oversight, and sadly, often without Congressional awareness. During the Committee hearings on Don Youngs (R-AK) American Land Sovereignty Protection Act, many committee members had no idea what a Biosphere Reserve was or that 47 Biosphere Reserves already existed in America. The bill simply required the administration to get Congressional approval before future designations were made: the President vowed to veto the bill if it were enacted. Why? Because the White House is committed to global governance.
It was the U.S. negotiators to the Montreal Protocol, Eileen Claussen in particular, who are most responsible for the elimination of freon in America. It is the U.S. negotiators to the climate change protocol who will determine whether or not legally binding reductions in energy use by Americans will be required. Our Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs, Timothy Wirth, has already declared Americas support for the protocol.
Our Constitution does not anticipate a government that conspires with foreign agents to diminish
individual freedom and trample on private property rights. It has no provision for transferring
final authority of trade policies to the World Trade Organization. It has no language that
authorizes an "international zone" instead of an international border, or a global governance
instead of the government created by it -- a government and Constitution our President has sworn
to defend.
Bonn report on climate change negotiations
The 6th session of the AGBM (Ad Hoc Group on the Berlin Mandate) finished its work on March 7, in Bonn, Germany. When the final gavel fell, the world was much closer to the "wrenching transformation" Al Gore called for in his 1992 book, Earth in the Balance. His recommendation that the internal combustion engine be eliminated by the year 2017 is one step closer to reality. The protocol being negotiated by the AGBM will begin a phase-out of fossil fuel energy in developed countries. Developing nations are not bound by the protocol.
Nations such as Mexico, Brazil, China, North Korea, Asian countries, and all the small developing countries will remain free to welcome industries from the north where they can continue to emit all the greenhouse gases they want. Despite cries of protest from American labor unions, trade associations, and industry groups, the Clinton-appointed negotiators -- namely, Timothy Wirth and Eileen Claussen -- have already agreed to accept the legally binding protocol.
Whatever the final target and timetable established in the protocol, which is to undergo two more negotiating sessions before adoption in Kyoto, Japan next December, it will require America to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by about half -- by either 2005 or 2010. To reach such an ambitious target, draconian restrictions must begin almost immediately. Carbon taxes, such as those proposed by the EPAs National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), will be the primary method used to reduce fossil fuel use. Gasoline is expected to increase between .50 and .75 per gallon almost immediately, with annual increases required until fossil fuel is no longer an option. Coal, which produces about 85% of all electricity in America, will experience the same kind of taxation.
Carbon taxes are just the beginning. Policies and Measures (PAMs in UN-speak), are being devised which will reach into every corner of what once might have been thought of as private decisions. Which car will you buy? It wont matter, all cars will be required to achieve 100k/per 5 liter (about 62 mpg.). It will look like a toy, drive like an egg-beater, and be guaranteed to put a crick in the joints of the most nimble drivers and passengers.
Want to build a new home? It will have to meet standards set in Kyoto which stipulate where it may be built, what materials it may contain, what R-value the insulation must have, and, if Greenpeace has its way, what plants may be used for landscaping. China and the G-77 countries, as does Greenpeace, want the protocol linked to the Conventions on Biological Diversity and Desertification, both of which ignore private property rights in their requirements to protect biodiversity.
The importance of this protocol cannot be overstated. If it is ratified by the U.S. Senate, it will become the law of the world, with the UN in command of its implementation and enforcement. If it is not ratified by the U.S. Senate, it will likely come unraveled
Al Gore and the Clinton Administration arc pushing the protocol forward. A meeting was held at the White House earlier this spring to map the strategy for promoting the protocol before the Kyoto meeting. All relevant departments have been instructed to begin a propaganda campaign. Seven "Town Meetings" are planned, where Timothy Wirth will take his dog-and-pony show to different cities and drum up support for the protocol. The road show will culminate in a special White House Conference on Climate Change in Washington in November to provide a media platform to launch Al Gores trip to Kyoto where he will pledge the support of America and urge the delegates to adopt the protocol.
There will be incredible political pressure from the environmental organizations leveled at the Senate. Skeptics will be demeaned. Opponents will be labeled "anti-earth" and worse. International pressure will come from the European Community and other countries. This battle is one the proponents cannot lose. But it is one they must lose if America is to retain its sovereignty.
What can we do?
When the Senate ratified the Montreal Protocol, which banned freon, few Americans had ever heard of the Vienna Convention on Ozone Depleting substances, and even fewer knew that the Montreal Protocol was the legal instrument prepared by the UN to ban the widely-used refrigerant. There was almost no dissent when then-Senator Al Gore asked his colleagues to ratify the protocol to save the world from another imagined calamity.
Americans knew nothing of the Montreal Protocol until freon was no longer available. Not so with the Kyoto Protocol. We are watching it being negotiated. We arc proclaiming its dangers to all who will listen. We are urging the delegates to the negotiating sessions to slow down, back up, and take another look. But we must do more.
Previous issues of eco-logic contain many factual articles on the global warming issue. More
information will be published as the year progresses. To help get prepared, we are reprinting the
two news bulletins published by Sovereignty International, Inc., for the delegates who attended
the Bonn negotiating sessions. This information should be helpful. The accuracy of the
information cannot be denied; it can, however, be ignored. Our small voice is overwhelmed by
swarms of environmental organizations and car-loads of propaganda. A legally binding protocol
will emerge from Kyoto next December. Al Gore and Bill Clinton -- and all the environmental
organizations -- will urge the Senate to ratify. The only chance to retain some semblance of
private property rights, free markets, and national sovereignty, rests with the people who will get
involved and make sure that their Senator opposes the protocol.
Bonn
Volume 1, No. 1 Dr. Robert Balling, Director of the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University, and a
participant in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, reports that the recent monthly
satellite-based global temperature measurement is one of the most interesting in the 19-year
history of the record. Despite the buildup of greenhouse gases of the past few decades, January,
1997 was the coldest January ever measured by the satellite system. The cold global temperature
is even more amazing given the lack of any recent volcanic eruptions or appearance of cold sea-surface conditions associated with La Nina. "There are no simple excuses for the cool global
temperatures," he said.
"We must ask ourselves several questions. As climatologists, we must wonder why has the planet
cooled while the greenhouse gases have increased exponentially in recent Nears we are working
on that one. As observers of the global warming debate, we must wonder why the press has not
covered this remarkable measurement. Be assured that if January, 1997 had been the warmest on
record, the story would have received front page coverage round the world."
These scientific observations are demonstrated on the ground. Dr. Sam Holland, state
veterinarian and executive secretary of the South Dakota Animal Industries Board told the
Associated Press. "I think we'll lose more cattle this year than we have since the 1880's when
hundreds of thousands of cattle died in South Dakota during blizzards in 1886 and 1888." The
blizzards of the 1880's could not have been caused by anthropogenic climate change nor could
the coldest January on the satellite record be caused by anthropogenic global warming.
According to Dr. Sallie Baliunas, Senior Scientist at George C. Marshall Institute, computer
simulations of climate have revised downward (three times since 1990) the projected global
warming anticipated in the 21st century. Even the revised models overstate the temperature over
the last 100 years by a factor of three, or more. When the revised models are corrected for known
overstatement, emission reduction measures could be delayed as much as 25 years, with no more
risk than a temperature rise during the 21st century of only 0.2C.
Private citizens who do not attend these negotiating sessions know, or will soon discover, these
scientific realities. They are sure to question the wisdom of rushing into economically
devastating international law, when clearly, both the need for, and the benefit of, such action is
lacking.
At COPII in July, many delegates assumed that the AOSIS proposal, (a reduction of emissions
20% below 1990 levels by 2005 by OECD countries), or something similar; would be adopted by
COPIII in Kyoto. At the December meetings in Geneva, a deluge of new proposals swamped the
AOSIS proposal and troubled the waters with a turbulence that may not be quieted before the
Kyoto deadline.
Many delegates are convinced that only strict reductions in the near term can delay the effects of
global warming. Canada, Japan, Australia, and the U.S., however, believe the year 2005 is
unrealistic, but that targets in 2010 -2015 would be more achievable. Some delegates believe that
the underlying science does not justify any legally binding restrictions at this time
Although the question (if science -- for some was settled officially at COPII I with the release of
the SAR (Second Assessment Report), dissenting voices within the scientific community were
not stilled. The actual temperature change for the entire century is well within the range many
scientists accept as "normal variability." Consequently, the urgent need for legally binding
restrictions on emissions is being called into question more frequently.
Moreover, none of the proposals to date have adequately addressed the potential problem of
"carbon leakage." Carbon-producing industries in Annex I countries can simply move to
countries not bound by the restrictions and continue to produce emissions. Such a scenario could
have negative environmental impacts in countries that have less-stringent environmental
regulations than Annex I countries. The economic impact on Annex I countries, in such a
scenario, could be devastating to the global economy.
Whatever protocol is finally adopted will be costly. A primary cause of the flood of new
proposals last December can be attributed to a more serious analysis of the economic impact of
emissions reductions. Several of the proposals attempted to equalize the cost burden among the
nations by offering various formulas for measuring progress toward goals.
The compilation of all the proposals by the Secretariat only sharpens the differences among the
parties. France, Norway, and other states want a variety of taxes placed on fossil fuels, while Iran
and other petroleum-producing states want no tax at all on fossil fuels. France wants "common
and/or coordinated" measures mandatory for all Annex I states, while others want a list, or
"menu" of measures from which states may choose.
AOSIS remains firm in its target while Austria thinks a 10% reduction by 2005 is sufficient. The
Netherlands wants 1-2% per year while France wants a formula based on carbon output. The
difference between 5%, 10%, or 20% reduction translates into billions of dollars in costs to the
individuals who must bear the burden. Whatever decisions are taken this week, must be sold to
an increasingly skeptical world.
With less than a subtle Jab at "profit-making," China urged that industrialized nations implement
policies to "ensure" the transfer of technologies. It has been suggested that the profit-making
private sector cannot be relied upon to invest in climate protection technologies and therefore,
must be forced to do so.
Ironically, it is the profit-making private sector that has produced the technology that so many
want transferred. It is the profit made in the private sector that enables industry to continually
improve technology -- in the pursuit of more profit. Should the evolving protocol require states
to "ensure the transfer of technology, the process of development would be slowed as the
potential for profits diminish."
Japans suggestion that "All parties...should share a common recognition with regard to the C02
concentration level thought to pose dangerous anthropogenic interference to the climate system."
calls attention to the absence of an understanding or agreement on the point at which carbon
dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere become "dangerous."
Since neither the danger point, nor the actual danger, if any, is yet known, further study is
obviously needed. France suggests that 550 ppmv should guide the limitation. Why? The danger
point, if there is one, could be 400 or 450 or 750 or 1000. It is simply not known. Nevertheless,
some delegates are willing to increase the cost of automobiles by nearly doubling the fuel
efficiency standards. Add the cost of a variety of carbon taxes recommended by other delegates
and the cost of an ever-expanding budget for the delegates who imposed the costs. These costs
may be impossible to sell to citizens who know the temperature is trending downward.
The move from Geneva to Bonn must have been horrendous. To do so in the face of scheduled
meetings and a rush of eager delegates is more than should be required of anyone. Somehow, the
Secretariat staff has been able to manage it, and stay sane, civil, and efficient. For all the effort
and extra work, we extend a hearty "thank you." It has to be a logistical nightmare to provide all
the documents and meeting space needed in facilities that are something less than the Palais des
Nations. Nevertheless, it has been done with courtesy and a smile. Thank you.
And thank you for bringing the meetings to Bonn. The sights, scenery and history are exceeded
only by the friendliness, graciousness, and warmth of the people.
Statements issued in January by the Redefining Progress organization iii California, said leading
economists agreed that carbon taxes and market-based regulations to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions are justified, and could produce longer-term benefits. These conclusions, reached by
fewer than 10% of the nations economists, stand in stark contrast to more than 20 detailed
economic analysis conducted in 1996, most of which forecast severe economic impacts on the
global economy while delivering at best, uncertain environmental benefits. The International
Impact Assessment Model, developed by Paul M. Bernstein and W. David Montgomery, of
Charles River Associates, demonstrates significant to severe impacts on both Annex I nations as
well as nations excluded from the protocol's requirements. Moreover, the economic burden falls
unevenly on nations because the economic situation of each nation is different. For example, the
cost to South Africa, according to the Charles River study, would be less than one percent of
GDP, while emitting 86MT of carbon per year. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, emits only
60MT of carbon per year, but would be forced to bear a 3.1% decline in GDP.
The statement issued by Redefining Progress offers no evidence to support the conclusions, and
appears to be designed to apply political heat rather than to enlighten and inform the debate.
GDP in 1992 US Dollars (Billions)
Source: Charles River Associates, Inc., Washington, D.C.
Delegates to the negotiating sessions of the subsidiary bodies of the Conference of the Parties to
the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) have never assembled without the
influence of "civil society." In a recent article published in Foreign Affairs, Jessica Mathews
credits civil society with developing the FCCC in 16 months -- "the blink of a diplomats eye."
In recent years, civil society has played an ever-increasing role in the development of policy at
both the international and national levels. Delegates need the benefit of opinions, perspective,
and information provided by civil society -- all of civil society.
Until recently, civil society was considered to be environmental organizations or industry NGOs.
Civil society is much, much more than this. During the last decade, thousands of new
organizations have formed, all wishing to express an opinion about the policies that affect them.
All of those opinions are important and should be taken into account by the policy makers. Not
all of those are heard, opinions however, especially at the international level. The expense of
participation in international meetings is a chilling deterrent for those organizations not
subsidized by government.. Nevertheless, the members of these organizations are directly
affected by the policies decided at these meetings, and their opinions should be heard.
Sovereignty International, Inc., is a new NGO at the international table. It is neither an
"environmental" NGO, nor an "industry" NGO, as each is usually defined. Sovereignty
International promotes first and foremost, national sovereignty as the highest expression of
political authority. Solutions to problems that cross national boundaries can be solved only
through mutually beneficial cooperation among the parties, not through coercion by a
supranational authority. Imposed solutions breed resentment and conflict -- and worse.
Sovereignty International also promotes individual freedom, private property rights, free trade,
and governance limited by the people governed. International agreements that tend to respect,
protect, promote and expand these principles should be encouraged. Those which tend otherwise
need further negotiation.
There are, of course, delegates and other NOGS who do not share these values. We wish to
understand their views, and we wish to be understood. We may disagree. But only by presenting
conflicting arguments and airing all points of view can the policy makers arrive at the best
possible decisions.
Sovereignty International represents the values, hopes, and aspirations of individuals who are
working to care for their families and to pay the taxes that make these negotiations possible.
They are concerned about the environment. They are alarmed by reports that human activity may
have an impact on global climate. They, like all responsible people, want the best possible future
for their children. Thats why they want to be absolutely sure that expensive policies are
necessary before they are adopted. And they are not at all sure that global warming is a real
threat. They want their children to experience more freedom, not less. And they are concerned
about unnecessarily expanding restrictive supranational regulations. They want their children to
enjoy more prosperity, not less. And they are concerned about the exorbitant costs of
implementing any of the climate change proposals now on the table.
Our constituency is precisely the same people who are represented by the official delegates to
these negotiating sessions. We, as a part of civil society, can only carry their message to the
delegates. It is the delegates who must account for their decisions to the people they represent.
Executive Director Editor Volume 1, No. 2 Much of the disagreement among the delegates this week centers on the issues of equity and
common or differentiated QELROs. Each delegate has the responsibility to balance the interests
and needs of the citizens he or she represents, with the need to act responsibly as a member of the
global community. To make these critical decisions, delegates must have the best information
available. Sadly, some of the information provided to the delegates is now seriously challenged.
Since the presentation of the Second Assessment Report (SAR) by the IPCC, global warming
activity has heated up despite the fact that the climate has actually been cooling for the past 19
years. The reports much heralded claim, that "the balance of evidence suggests that there is a
discernible human influence on global climate," is only a suggestion, and a very weak one at
that. Moreover, the "evidence" may well not be balanced. Since the report was issued, more and
more scientists are saying that the IPCC should take another look at the data.
Dr. Tim Barnett, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, and a lead author of Chapter 8 of
the IPCC Working Group I Report, wrote in the journal Holocene, that two of the climate models
cannot account for up to 60% of the actual natural variability. Compared to the best evidence
from the real world, proxy data -- tree ring analysis, corals, sediment cores, and ice cores -- the
models simply miss the mark. Barnett says that the models, which miss so much natural climate
variability, "might lead us to believe that an anthropogenic signal had been found, when, in fact,
that may not be the case."
In order to "balance" the evidence used by the SAR to "suggest" a discernible human influence,
several key scientific observations were omitted from Chapter 8 of the Working Group I Report.
For example, consider the weight of only a few of the statements which were approved by the
scientific body and appeared in the report before it was edited (emphasis added):
The "suggestion" of a discernable human influence is heavily conditioned by uncertainty, and
calls for caution before jumping to conclusions (or policy) on the basis of such inconclusive
evidence. Barnett said "We wrote a long list of caveats in that chapter," adding that they resisted
pressure from within the IPCC to dilute the list.
Dr. Ben Santer, convening lead author of the Chapter 8 Report, describes as "really important
work," the studies by Dr. James Hurrell, of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Those
studies point out that natural agents of climate change, such as decades-long oscillations in
circulation, may be masquerading as a strengthening greenhouse. If this is so, says Dr. Hurrell,
the IPCCs conclusion about human activities "may have been premature."
Special interest groups, such as Greenpeace, the World Wide Fund for Nature, and the Climate
Action Network, urge delegates to restrict human activity which the IPCC cannot identify as the
cause of any climate change -- neither the warming that is projected, nor the cooling that is
occurring. The severely qualified "suggestion" in the SAR, coupled with the recent observations
of the authors of Chapter 8 of the IPCC Report, should compel the delegates to take another look
at the justification for the stringent proposals now on the AGBM table.
If the objective of the delegates assembled in Bonn this week is to stabilize "greenhouse gas
concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the climate system..." as the Convention stipulates, then the course of action
called for requires substantial information that is not yet available. If, on the other hand, the
objective is to curtail the use of fossil fuel by Annex I states, the course of action called for is to
attach the most stringent reduction requirements possible to the Berlin Mandate - and then join
the environmental NGOs victory party.
There is a genuine desire by most delegates to meet the time requirements imposed by the Berlin
Mandate. But since it is not known at what point greenhouse concentrations become
"dangerous," or whether or not those concentrations are caused by human activity, hard targets
and strict timetables are neither necessary nor prudent. Delegates can demonstrate their
commitment to the Convention, and comply with the Berlin Mandate by adopting UKs concept
of "hard commitments to achieve soft targets."
To those whose objective is to curtail the use of fossil fuel, the danger point of greenhouse gas
concentrations is irrelevant. The economic costs are irrelevant. The job loss and personal
sacrifice of the individuals who must bear the cost burden - are irrelevant. They have decided
what the IPCC scientists have been unable to decide: that the danger point has already been
reached.
Fortunately, delegates are not responsible to the environmental NOGS that "demand" action and
offer to do the work of the assembly. Delegates are responsible to their fellow citizens.
Consequently, the current array of proposals correctly reflects the concerns delegates have about
the welfare of their own state. It is both reasonable and responsible to consider those concerns as
the debate moves forward.
Australia has advanced a potential framework for taking those concerns into account. Fairness
would dictate that equity be as important in the distribution of costs as it is in the distribution of
benefits. Yet the AOSIS proposal, or any other one-size-fits-all solution imposes wildly disparate
costs, which seems perfectly acceptable to the same forces that demand equity in the distribution
of benefits.
Solutions to complex differences, negotiated directly by the affected parties, will have a much
better chance of succeeding than solutions imposed in a last-minute stampede to meet an
arbitrary deadline. It would undoubtedly be better to do nothing at all than to be pressured into
hasty agreements which set unachievable targets in an impossible time-frame. Such actions
would waste valuable resources that should more appropriately be used to discover the essential
knowledge necessary to meet the objectives of the Convention.
G-77 and China have suggested "protecting and enhancing sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse
gases," as a way to strengthen commitments. Greenpeace calls for "Separate, verifiable
obligations to protect sinks and enhance reservoirs of carbon, taking into account concurrent
obligations in the conventions on biological diversity and on desertification." In consideration of
these recommendations, care should be given to a possible unintended consequence that could
wreck the entire protocol process.
Much of the land area recognized as sinks and reservoirs is privately owned. Decisions taken in
Bonn, or in Kyoto, must not threaten or infringe the private property rights of individual land
owners. The Convention on Biological Diversity and the Convention on Desertification both fail
to exempt privately owned property from their requirements. Failure to recognize the rights, and
determination, of private property owners is a primary reason the Convention on Biological
Diversity was not ratified in America. The Convention on Desertification suffers the same
inadequacy. If the Kyoto protocol fails to recognize and protect private property rights, it could
easily fall victim to the same unintended consequence that doomed the Convention on Biological
Diversity.
In a rare moment of agreement, we join ECO in urging the chairman to reconsider his decision to
exclude NOGS from participation in the negotiating sessions. While it may be desirable to
protect delegates from the continual onslaught of NGO representatives, ways must be found
which enhance, rather than erode, the credibility of the UN in general, and of he Climate Change
negotiating process in particular. Transparency is more than a word; if the decision-making
process cannot bear the scrutiny of public view, it should be changed. The people who must
abide by the decisions taken here have the inalienable right to know that the decisions were
arrived at fairly, openly, and after due consideration of all available advice.
We regret any confusion or embarrassment that may have occurred as the result of two
organizations, on different sides of the ocean, having chosen the same name. One of our
founding organizations, the Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO), has used the name
and the logo for its bimonthly publication since 1992. We liked the name, asked for and received
permission to use it. The organization in Berlin, founded in 1995, also liked the name and chose
to use it in a different logo. We have no objection. The difference in our views is likely to be as
different as our logo's.
Even though anthropogenic global warming may never occur, policy proposals now under
consideration are sure to begin melt-down of national sovereignty. Legally binding measures to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions must be enforced to be meaningful. The enforcement must
come from outside the borders of sovereign nations. International enforcement, whether by the
World Trade Organization, or by a fully-armed military, tramples the concept of national
sovereignty. Aside from the inevitable economic costs that must be borne by every nation, the
diminution of national sovereignty is a price every nation should question before adopting any
legally binding protocol to solve a suspected problem that may not exist.
Delegates to the negotiating session bear a heavy responsibility to make decisions that best serve
the citizens of their respective nations. Few ordinary citizens have the information necessary to
make informed decisions about an issue as complex as global warming. They are forced to rely
on those individuals who represent them at these negotiating sessions. However, it is the ordinary
citizens of every nation, who must ultimately bear the costs and pay the price of the decisions
that are made by the delegates.
Policy proposals now under consideration will surely require governments to explain why
gasoline and electricity are too expensive to use, or why they are simply not available. Few
farmers or industrial workers will be satisfied with an explanation that points to a distant and
uncertain possibility that winter may be more comfortable in the year 2100. Few citizens will be
able to understand how an international body can deprive them of the opportunity to use
inexpensive, efficient energy to improve their lives. National governments will be hard-pressed
to produce satisfactory answers for the suffering and sacrifice that will be required, when the best
data available is showing global cooling -- not global warming.
Dr. W. David Montgomery, a principal lead author of the SAR, cites compelling evidence that,
"it is possible to meet any of the frequently discussed climate goals, even if emissions are
allowed to rise for the next several decades or more. For most concentration goals, it is not
necessary to depart very far from baseline emissions until after 2020, so the dramatic near-term
emissions reductions envisioned in the Berlin Mandate are not warranted."
Civil society - ordinary citizens - operate on common sense. It is not logical to impose legally
binding, draconian restrictions on energy use to avoid a potential problem which may never
materialize. As long as there is a potential problem, or even the possibility of a problem of global
warming beyond normal variability as the result of anthropogenic activity, the world community
should continue its studies. There is much to learn about the climate, and many benefits will
result from continued research. Policy proposals now tinder consideration promise to impose far
greater costs than can be justified by any identified benefits.
Rather than presume to tell the delegates how to construct the protocol now in the final stages of
negotiation, it may be more helpful to share with the delegates the concerns of our constituents.
Delegates should know that our constituents are average people laborers, doctors, ranchers,
farmers, entrepreneurs, teachers, homemakers average people. Most are Americans who have a
keen interest and active participation in domestic affairs. A rapidly growing number of
individuals and organizations from other countries are emerging to join our efforts. England,
Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, and the Netherlands, are represented among our
constituents. We share the following concerns:
If these concerns are adequately addressed in the protocol which is finally adopted, the millions
of individual members of the more than 700 organizations affiliated with Sovereignty
International are likely to be supportive. If they are ignored, as they appear to be in many of the
proposals now on the table, our constituency is likely to call for further negotiations.
Our constituency is vitally concerned about the environment. Most of our organizations are
directly tied to the environment in one way or another. Most are actively involved in projects and
programs to enhance and protect the environment, but which also protect and advance the
fundamental principles set forth above, principles that should underpin international programs
and agreements as well.
We offer to the delegates, not instructions, but our knowledge of the concerns that motivate our
constituency. We hope their concerns will be taken into account as the difficult negotiations
continue.
Executive Director Editor The Presidents Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) says in its "We Believe
Statement," "We need a new collaborative decision process that leads to better decisions; more
rapid change; and more sensible use of human, natural, and financial resources in achieving our
goals." The title of the PCSD report is: Sustainable America: A New Consensus. The "new
collaborative decision process" used by the UN, by the PCSD, and increasingly around the
country in local visioning councils and stakeholder councils is called "Consensus Building."
The process is described in a 54-page booklet, written and published by Richard H. Graff, which
relies heavily upon a paper by Alan Kay and Hazel Henderson, entitled Introducing Competition
to the Global Currency Markets, published in Futures, May, 1996. Graffs booklet is distributed
widely among consensus builders as a tutorial for consensus building. Graff says: "It is
revolutionary in that it abandons the traditional model of persuasion... while at the same time
adroitly discouraging the usual stream of petty objections."
Consensus is not agreement. Graffs booklet makes it very clear that consensus building is a
process that avoids and disposes of conflicting views and is, in fact, the achievement of a state
where objection is quieted rather than where agreement is reached. He says:
"The idea of consensus is not new. Most people have a vague idea of what it is, but very few,
when asked to define it, can give a precise meaning and clearly distinguish it from agreement.
Lets begin with agreement. Normally when you want to persuade others of the validity of
something, you attempt to convince them to agree with you. You present your case with as much
supporting argument as you can muster, and when you are finished you ask (explicitly or
implicitly) whether everyone agrees. Consensus, in contrast, does not involve convincing others
to adopt your view, and it most certainly does not require anyone to change his or her mind."
Consensus is an extension of the "Negative Poll," it involves asking questions rather than making
statements.
Consensus building always begins with a predetermined position which may or may not be made
known to the group. The purpose of asking questions is to identify those who may wish to speak.
The desired response is silence. Questions are framed to force individuals who might be opposed
to identify themselves and give a reason for their opposition. According to Graff, "A well -
crafted question provokes thought and elicits no response." Those who might disagree are
confronted with the decision of whether they disagree strongly enough to speak up and defend
their position, or whether or not they "can live with it."
"Everyone also realizes that before answering they had better think about it a moment make sure
they understand it -- so that if they do open their mouth something intelligent and pertinent will
come out. There is silence. Everyone is thinking about the same question and no one disagrees.
No one can speak without thinking, and the silence implies consensus."
Questions are constructed so that a response will force the person to disagree with something that
is universally seen to be good, or to support something that is generally seen to be bad.
"This is the key feature of the negative poll: you dont ask if everyone agrees (which encourages
everyone to start talking), you ask if theres anyone who does not agree (which encourages
everyone to keep still). Its a poll for negativity. Thus we have the crucial distinction between
agreement and consensus."
Here's an example of how the consensus building process works by asking well-constructed
questions:
"When you ask a question such as, "Does anyone think we should not be concerned about the
future well-being of our species?" Everyone who hears, understands and thinks about the
question remains silent. You have an immediate implied consensus. The point is that no one
disagrees that we should be concerned, no one speaks up, no one says we should not be
concerned."
When a consensus is declared, as the result of a series of well-crafted questions, it is a strong
claim that doesn't need proving. The burden of proof is shifted to opponents who must prove that
a consensus does not exist.
Proving that a consensus does not exist is nearly impossible. The Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) declared that a consensus by 2,000 of the worlds scientists had
determined that global warming was caused by human activity. That consensus stands in the
public perception, despite the vocal disagreement of more than a hundred climatologists who
signed the Vienna Declaration, and the thousands of scientists who signed the Heidleburg
Appeal. When asked why the so-called consensus of the IPCC had not been measured by even a
straw vote. Michael Cutajar, Executive Secretary of the Conference of the Parties to the
Framework Convention on Climate Change, said:
"Consensus is not unanimity; it is very much up to the president." In other words, whenever the
president, the chairperson, or the meeting facilitator, decides a consensus has been reached; a
consensus has been reached.
The consensus process is especially attractive as a decision-making process because there is
virtually no chance of failure. The traditional decision-making process ultimately ends with a
vote. If the proposal fails to garner a majority of the votes, the proposal fails. In the consensus
process, no vote is ever taken. The proposal remains "under development" until a consensus is
reached. If the facilitator is unable to quiet objections by recrafting questions, then the process
can be delayed, or postponed until the trouble maker is replaced by a more cooperative
individual. Or the facilitator can simply announce that more work has to be done on the current
subject, and then move on to another aspect of the predetermined proposal.
Another strategy used by the consensus builders is the use of notable personalities to support a
particular position. Graff teaches his students to not claim that any particular personality agrees
with a position unless you are certain that your statement is true. On the other hand, however, he
says: "you can quite properly name anybody you like as not disagreeing. No one can disagree
without saying so explicitly, so you can name any well-known or highly respected person you like
as not disagreeing, and no one can dispute you."
The consensus process contains the ingredients of disaster if led by an incompetent facilitator. A
single person who raises objections can delay, or perhaps scuttle, the process. Therefore, it is
extremely important that the individuals chosen to participate in the consensus process be
selected very carefully. Even so, Graff cautions that the facilitator must be prepared to deal with
objections. One way is to recraft the question, making objections more difficult. The process is
designed to isolate the objector and make him look foolish by continuing the objection. If the
objection persists, the individual can be ignored, or excluded from future meetings of the group.
Consensus decisions are accountable to no one. Since no votes are taken, no individual is
required to publicly state a position. Every participant in a consensus process can deny that they
supported the consensus reached. Nevertheless, public policies across the country are being
determined by consensus, more often than not, by "stakeholders" in meetings facilitated by
trained professionals - rather than by elected officials.
The consensus process is rapidly gaining recognition as the most civil, participatory, and
democratic process for making policy decisions. It avoids the head-to-head debate which often
becomes uncivil - as evidenced daily in Congress. Increasingly, disagreement and debate are
characterized as "gridlock," and "childish." Throughout the federal government, policy decisions
are being made using the consensus process, rather than the traditional debate-and-vote process.
The first objective of the process for making policy decisions should be to produce policy that
serves the interest of the most people within the context of the principles of our Constitutional
Republic. Order, efficiency, and speed are all secondary considerations. Outcome and
accountability to the people affected by the policies are of ultimate importance in our society.
The consensus process predetermines the outcome and removes accountability to the people who
are affected by the policies.
The best policies result from the collision of ideas, freely debated by all parties, and decided,
finally, by a recorded vote of elected representatives of the people.
Throughout the nation, a massive, coordinated effort is underway to transform Americas cities
and towns into "sustainable communities," designed to be "islands of human habitat" surrounded
by government-managed buffer zones which surround huge areas of wilderness, off limits to
humans. If the ideal plan is realized, as much as half the land area in North America will be
restored to "pre-Columbian" wilderness and protected forever from human activity. Most of the
remaining land must be "managed" for conservation objectives with only islands of human
habitat, says the plans primary author, Dr. Reed F. Noss.
When the plan first appeared in a 1992 special edition of Wild Earth, almost no one took the
bizarre scheme seriously. Of course, only the insiders knew that the United Nations Environment
Program was developing an 1140-page document which embraces the scheme and says that it is
necessary to protect biodiversity for future generations. Only the insiders knew that Agenda 21,
developed for Earth Summit II at Rio de Janeiro already contained the master plan to implement
the scheme. Only the insiders knew that the UN Commission on Sustainable Development had
already been planned, with provisions for implementing Agenda 21 in every nation. Only the
insiders knew that the UN Conference on Human Settlements would present a Plan of Action
that would detail the structure of "sustainable communities" at Habitat II in Istanbul. The insiders
knew. And they knew full well that Americans would never accept such a bizarre plan if it were
presented in all its glory.
Thats why the full-blown plan has never been presented. Thats why the Convention on
Biological Diversity calls for "a system of protected areas" rather than for the Wildlands Project
called for in the Global Biodiversity Assessment. Thats why the UN Commission on
Sustainable Development was created as the mechanism through which the plan could be
implemented incrementally, rather than to face an up-or-down decision by the U.S. Senate or the
American people. Thats why, in almost every community in America, the plan is being
presented as sugar and spice and everything nice, rather than as the wrenching transformation of
society that it really is.
As prescribed by Agenda 21, the Presidents Council on Sustainable Development has
recommended financial incentives to communities that engage in the sustainable communities
process. It also recommends financial disincentives for those communities that do not participate.
Consequently, the following notice appeared in the Federal Register, July 1, 1996:
"EPA and its state and local partners are reinventing the way environmental protection is
accomplished in the United States. The Agency recognizes that environmental progress will not
be achieved solely by regulation, but also requires individual, institutional and corporate
responsibility, commitment and stewardship. The Sustainable Development Challenge Grant
program is consistent with other community-based efforts EPA has introduced, such as
Brownfields, Project XL, and the Community-Based Environmental Protection Approach, which
stimulate broad community participation. The Sustainable Development Challenge Grant
program is also a step in implementing Agenda 21, the Global Plan of Action on Sustainable
Development, agreed to by the United States at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992."
The federal government offers grants to communities to begin what is called the "visioning
process." The grants may go to a unit of government or to an NGO (non-government
organization). Typically, a local NGO will initiate the activity by contacting selected local
government officials, a few business leaders, and other NOGS and develop an agreement to
begin the process. The group will then create a "stakeholder council" consisting of carefully
selected individuals from across the community, or frequently, across communities. The next
step is to identify the coordinating NGO. It may be the initiating organization, or a new
organization may be formed. But the coordinating NGO becomes the grant recipient and oversees
the development of the communitys visioning process.
In cities such as Chicago, San Francisco, Chattanooga, Racine, and many others, the process is
well underway. In more remote locations, such as Dover-Foxcroft, Maine, for example, the
process is also at work. The Maine Sierra Club provided the funding for Michael Kinsley of the
Rocky Mountain Institute in Colorado, to come to Maine to explain why the Chamber of
Commerces Economic Development Plan needed to be improved. In what was called an
"Economic Renewal" seminar. Kinsley laid out an eight-step process to make the community
"sustainable."
The Piscataquis County newspaper reported that "The process is carried out by a small team of
residents with the help of a larger group of volunteers, and sometimes with a professional
facilitator." According to the newspaper report, Kinsley said "The first ER step is to mobilize a
community by actively recruiting participants for the process, people who represent a wide range
of interests. After that, participants are asked to envision the communitys preferred future..."
The process utilizes the "consensus-building" method.
Across the country in Washington state, the Discovery Institute is continuing its efforts to
develop "sustainable communities" within Cascadia, a rapidly developing Bioregion stretching
from Oregon to the Yukon. The Institute sponsored a Conference in January in which Bill
Ruckelshaus stressed sustainable development and stricter environmental regulations. He was
chosen to chair a special committee of more than 100 influential people to build a consensus and
make recommendations for change. RUCKELSHAUS is the former EPA Administrator who
banned DDT, despite recommendations to the contrary from his own 300-member scientific
advisory commission. He is a member of the Presidents Council on Sustainable Development
(PCSD), and is also the Chair of The Enterprise for the Environment, a new group created by the
Center for Strategic and International Studies. The groups work is coordinated by an assortment
of think-tanks including the Aspen Institute; Resources for the Future; and the Keystone Center.
The Keystone Center conducted the dialogue sessions which resulted in the current "consensus"
understanding on both ecosystem management and biodiversity. Keystone also provided
facilitators for the PCSD as well as for the "visioning council" of Racine, Wisconsin. Keystones
work is funded, in part, by the U.S. Department of Interior.
In central Florida, the Center for Construction and Environment at the University of Florida
recently concluded its 2nd Annual Sustainable Development Seminar entitled "Sustainable
Community." A promotional brochure sent to selected community leaders says: "How can the
Alachua/Marion County region, inclusive of the City of Gainesville, insure a sustainable future?
To find out what other areas and communities throughout the U.S. have accomplished...speakers
will present case studies and practices of sustainable community development. The talks will
help our community synthesize its own understanding of the realistic principles and methods of
sustainable community practice...and will "kick-start" the formal beginning of Sustainable
Alachua Countys focus team deliberations in April." Sustainable Alachua County is the
sponsoring NGO and is supported by the League of Women Voters and the United Nations
Association.
Similar activities are taking place all across the country. Most local residents are totally unaware
of the activity until a news report appears about a past event. News reports inevitably present the
events as another economic renewal, or community improvement effort. Rarely, if ever, is the
activity associated with Agenda 21, or with the UN. Even the participants are rarely told that the
seminars or visioning sessions are, in fact, apart of the implementation of the UNs global
agenda.
Neither the process nor the technique is accidental. Both are well-designed to mesh with the on-going restructuring (masquerading as reforms) of the United Nations. The UN system is seeking
to by-pass national governments and become the provider of "security for the people." Our
Global Neighborhood, the report of the UN-funded Commission on Global Governance,
discusses in detail how this major conceptual shift is to be brought about (See: eco-logic,
January/February, 1996). One important mechanism is the creation of the International Council
for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). Another is the elevation of state and local
government officials as "civil society" participants in UN negotiations. Rule 61, adopted by the
UN General Assembly accomplished this elevation and was implemented at Habitat II in Istanbul
last year. The last two steps have not yet been realized: (1) the creation of the Petitions Council
and (2) the creation of the Peoples Assembly. The Petitions Council will receive petitions. from
local NGOs for screening and routing to the appropriate UN agency for disposition. Local
NOGS, such as visioning and stakeholder councils, along with established, accredited NOGS. are
to be the watchdogs, or stated in UN language, the monitoring service for measuring the
effectiveness of implementation of the UN agenda. The Peoples Assembly is recommended by
the Commission on Global Governance to be an assembly of 300 to 600 representatives of "civil
society" which will meet annually immediately prior to the UN General Assembly to provide
recommendations for consideration by the assembly.
On a broader scale, the wrenching transformation of society is being implemented across national
borders and in other nations. A little - known provision of the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA), included what is called the "La Paz Agreement." It surfaced in January,
1997 and calls for a 60-mile strip north and south of the U.S.-Mexican border from the Pacific to
the Gulf of Mexico which is to be called "Border Region 21." The project creates a new NGO
called the Border Environment Cooperation Project (BECP) and is funded by the North
American Development Bank. Information about the project is scarce. Arizona news reporter,
Mike Allen. and California investigative reporter, Karen Bixman. have reported that the
agreement gives the coordinating NGO extraordinary authority over education, land use, and
resource management throughout the area, in order to achieve sustainable development.
In India, where the sustainable development agenda is more deeply entrenched, a petition filed by
M. H. Mehta, advocate for the Taj-Trapezium Zone, an area which encompasses four World
Heritage Sites, the Supreme court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The courts ruling begins with:
"There is no longer any contradiction between development and ecology and that the principle of
sustainable development is accepted the world over." The decision required 292 industries in the
area to stop using coal within 120 days. Industries had to switch to natural gas, move out of the
area, or shut down. Industries that switched to gas were ordered to pay workers full salary during
the transition, even if the industries had to stop operations. Industries that chose to move were
ordered to pay workers full salary plus one years wages as a "shifting bonus." Industries that
chose to shut down were ordered to pay a full years salary plus six years salary as additional
compensation. The suit alleged that emissions from coal-burning industries were degrading the
World Heritage Sites.
The World Heritage Treaty requires member nations to "protect" the sites. There are 20 World
Heritage Sites in the U.S.
- eco-logic staff
Maurice Strong created the Earth Council immediately after the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de
Janeiro expressly for the purpose of coordinating the implementation of Agenda 21. Earth
Council sponsored a world conference in Rio, March 13-19, 1997, called Rio + 5, to measure
progress toward implementation of the Agenda. The following interview was conducted by Joan
Veon during the conference. The interview is with Jeb Brughmann, who is the Secretary-General
of the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI).
JV: ICLEI was started in 1990, two years before UNCED. What prompted the creation of
ICLEI?
It is a very interesting story. It is an American story. Throughout the 1980s, local government
officials, about 600 of them, organized in a network called "Local Elected Officials for Social
Responsibility" and their concern at that time was primarily addressing the local impacts and the
international development impacts of American foreign policy. You may remember cities
declaring themselves as sanctuaries for refugees from El Salvador and Guatemala, divesting from
South Africa, establishing sister-city relations with the Soviet Union and this movement built and
demonstrated the capacity of local governments to have an impact in international affairs so
when the Cold War came to an end, we, in the movement. decided that we had to identify the
next phase of activities for local government involvement and it was clear at that time that we
should focus on the global environment. In 1989, a group of 30 American cities gathered at the
American Academy of Sciences and Engineering with Sherwood Rolands, who is a chemist who
received the Nobel Prize for discovering the depletion in the ozone layer, and we held a meeting
to determine how cities in the United States could implement the Montreal Protocol to phase out
CFCs at a time when the Bush administration was unwilling to include language in the Clean Air
Act to actually put the Montreal Protocol into effect. These 35 cities passed local ordinances to
phase out CFCs in a very rapid time schedule. That hit the media. It was a front page story and
the top evening news story in the national media one weekend. It happened to be the weekend
that George Bush was making his announcement about the Clean Air Act and a kind of David-Goliath dynamic got set up where the local governments were saying, "Were willing to lead, if
youre not, Washington." It had a real impact on the final outcomes in Washington. But that
alerted the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) to the Potential of local governments
and we got a call the next day by the head of UNEP in New York, inviting us to come to the UN
to have a global meeting of local governments to determine how we could play a similar role in
other global environmental accords, and that is the background story.
JV: Jeb, how did you get involved? You obviously have been there from the beginning. What was
your role and were you surprised to get a call from the UN?
We were surprised, because we were aware that we were having an impact but we never thought
of a direct relationship between local government and the UN which is an organization of
countries. I got involved with local government in the early 1980s as part of this broader peace
and human rights movement. I was actually the Director of the City of Cambridge, Massachusetts
Peace Commission, a very unusual city agency. It was through that Commission that we were
able to build this international network. But now the ICLEI is a worldwide organization. We
have 250 city members from about 60 countries. They represent about 150 million people. What
we have discovered is that through the concrete practical actions of the cities at the local level,
we can have a real measurable impact on global environmental trends.
JV: You talked earlier about the cities doing a number of things - sanctuaries, sister-cities in the
USSR, taking separate action when they did not agree with the political trends -- what kind of
role did that play in the evolution of your organization?
That was the pilot test experience to determine if people acting locally could actually influence
international policy of governments and could have an impact internationally. We found that we
were having impacts. Cities divested 10's, if not hundreds of millions of dollars from businesses
involved in South Africa. That had an impact. That brought it to the state level. From the state
level, as they divested, it brought it to the Congress and eventually, Congress changed its policy.
These sanctuary city policies, which in fact, in some cities still are in effect today, raised the
profile of that issue and one and a half years later, the Supreme Court ruled that the Immigration
Service of the United States was in violation of U.S. law in sending these refugees back. So in
case after case, in concerted, local action, that we could have an impact on things that are
supposed to be outside the domain of local concerns - foreign policy issues.
That was one thing to do in a period of great international tensions, but we were always hoping to
have a positive impact in terms of being able to create something. What we have found since
Rio, the Earth Summit, is that so many of the agenda items in Agenda 21 actually cannot ever be
implemented without local governments and communities taking action. So that is what we are
about today making sure this agreement among nations actually will get implemented after all the
rhetoric is spent.
JV: It is really powerful as you speak. In 1990 you said you were approached by the UN; was it a
surprise to understand the power you had?
Well, I am obviously a great advocate of local government. I believe that that is the level of
government which will survive and has historically survived the crises, the revolutions in the
world. The government in the Soviet Union in Russia has changed many times, but the Cities of
Moscow and St. Petersburg have always been there. When we look at the environmental
movement, people have always seen local governments as a part of the problem, but if we take a
bigger perspective, it was in New York City, it was the municipality, in the 19th century, that was
the first government in the United States to invest in making a major environmental
infrastructure investment. That was to build a sewage and drainage system in New York City.
Local governments over time, have in some way, been at the forefront of investing for
environmental protection. Right now as we approach the end of the century, local governments in
the United States account for 65% of the total public expenditures on the environment. So what
we have realized is that there is a tremendous amount of resources and capacity to take action
and not just to talk about policy.
JV: You have grown substantially. Let's talk about the United States and then internationally.
You started, if you will, as a grassroots group a number of years ago. Now that you have been
tapped by the UN, how has that influenced what you are doing; what do you see now as your
mandate?
Now we are able to plan ahead a bit more rather than react to an international policy in figuring
out what we can do with it. We get engaged in the design of that policy. As the United Nations is
right now negotiating an international treaty of dealing with the climate change problem, the
cities are at the table. In the U.S., 45 cities have joined an international "Cities for Climate
Protection Campaign." Their commitment as participants in that campaign is to develop a local
action plan to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. EPA is giving full support to this
activity financially. In fact, the cities are reporting to the EPA on their emissions reduction so the
U.S. government can go to the international arena and claim that the U.S. is complying with its
treaty commitments. So we are now at the starting point of engaging in a process with the United
Nations and governments in actually designing the policies that we can implement locally in
order to achieve global environmental accords. We will be doing the same with climate, Agenda
21, and we haxe endorsed a major international campaign called "Local Agenda 21" whereby
now more than 2000 cities in more than 60 countries around the world are developing Agenda
21s for their cities with concrete targets, with concrete budgets on how they are going to
implement these things and this is a movement that is now beginning in the U.S. Out of the 4000
or so cities and towns in the United States, there are now only 19 formally in this Local Agenda
21 activities.
JV: Can you give us the names of some of those cities?
Seattle, Santa Monica, San Francisco, Chattanooga, are some of the names you have heard
before. I believe even Tacoma Park, Maryland is involved.
JV: As you expand in the United States, what other activities are you involved with? For
example, you may not know that in Maryland, we have "Smart Growth" and the "Rural
Legacy." Is that all part of this?
Actually, we end up having an urban bias in the way we are approaching problems for two
reasons. First people dont realize that cities are an environmental opportunity. People
traditionally in the environmental movement have seen cities as a problem. Environmentalists
have always thought that saving the planet is about creating new parks, protecting wilderness
areas, things that are outside the lives of the average people in the United States. Most people
dont get to go to these parks. The city, because of its concentration, allows us to economically
invest in the infrastructure we need in order to protect the environment as well as social services.
It is by creating high density that we can finance public transportation systems, recycling
systems, all of these things so we want to reap the opportunity of the city to protect the
environment. On the other hand, because so many resources are consumed in cites, it is at this
level that we can have an impact. So we are looking at water management, solid waste
management, air pollution issues in the context of the planet - the whole gamut of environmental
issues.
JV: With regard to biospheres, that is a key part of Agenda 21; is that also a key part of what
you are doing on the local level with The Nature Conservancy and other groups and
organizations?
Some of the cities we work with, not so much in the U.S. Durban, South Africa is a city in a
tropical area with great biodiversity. During the apartheid era, it was able to maintain a variety of
parks, but as democracy has been established in South Africa, people who once were forced to
live in townships have come to live in the city. They have established squatter settlements in
many parks so there is tension between social justice and economic development in protecting
natural areas. What they have done is engaged the squatter communities in actually being the
people who are employed to maintain the parks and they have created a whole linking system to
make sure that all of the different species who live within Durban are able to migrate and have a
large enough territory in order to reproduce themselves. Cities, even where there is not a lot of
natural area, are taking a great interest in the biodiversity issue. Coastal management, as you
know from the East coast, is an area where municipalities have played a major role.
JV: At what point did you get involved with Agenda 21, and how do you see your role in its
implementation?
We got involved during the process of the negotiation of Agenda 21s sustainable development
action plan. Our job since the Summit has been to make sure that local dovernment is aware of
its responsibilities in implementing that plan and that it has the resources and the support to do it.
What does it mean? Local governments need to create a mechanism in which they work with the
business community, the non-profit organizations, the civic sector to develop strategies to
implement the different chapters of Agenda 21 -- dealing with issues like protection of the
atmosphere, water resources, biological diversity, changing consumption patterns, sustainable
agriculture all of these areas mentioned in Agenda 21. So what do we have to work with at the
local level? First we have local law and regulation. Municipalities manage the infrastructure or
invest in the infrastructure which is needed to deal with pollution control. Municipalities often
times have a great influence over the public educational system amid spend a lot of money. The
way they spend money in the markets can have dramatic impact on the kinds of products and
services available to consumers. For example, local governments in the southwestern states
organized together because they could not afford to buy recycled paper. So they aggregated their
demand and jointly purchased large bulks of this paper to bring the price down. Now we at our
local xerox centers can get recycled paper made available to us. So the purchasing power of the
local government is very influential as well.
As the international community identifies global environmental problems scientifically, develops
policies, nations sign internatiomial agreements, and then they go back and pass national laws.
All of these things eventually trickle down to us at the local level in our cities and in our
households. And so, what ICLEI does, is looks ahead and tries to identify what are the new issues
going to be on the agenda. And how can we build a capacity locally to be able to implement
those things by the time they come around to us locally.
JV: With regard to the local level, the big buzz-word is "Public-Private partnerships." What
is it and how does it affect the implementation of Agenda 21?
Well, as most people know in their cities, if there isn't a good relationship between the residents
of the town or the businesses of the town and the local government, not much gets done. Theres
just a lot of rhetoric amid controversy. But things don't move forward. And, we in the local
government community, have also realized that we have limited resources. The federal
governnient and state governments have been downloading responsibilities to us now for many
years without providing the money to implement those things. So, things are tight in our local
budgets. Were trying to overcome this by taking a partnership strategy to implementatiomi in
many cities, particularly those that are doing this local Agenda 21 process in the U.S. What they
do is create multi sectoral councils, or organizations, where local government representatives,
business, the church community, the union community, the non-profit community meet together,
flesh out a common strategy in areas where they can agree with one another, and make joint
agreements to implement that strategy. What does that mean? The local government agrees that
first, it will get its own house in order. It will, if the strategy is in the area of energy, it will
retrofit its buildings. It will promote energy efficiency in its operations. At the household level,
households get involved by retrofitting their own homes and putting in energy-saving light bulbs
and things like that. And its through these community-wide campaigns that we really see the
results. If its just one sector of government or industry working alone, we see sort of individual
cases of good practice, but it doesnt add up to a change in the global trends. We like to say in
ICLEI, when we ask ourselves if were being effective, has the earth noticed yet? Does the planet
notice what were doing. And so, ultimately its through every sector being involved that we...
JV: And how will it answer that, Jeb?
We are now going from stage one, which is mobilization and getting yourself organized to stage
two which is actually monitoring whether were having an impact. And, this year were
launching a new program. Its called Cities 21. We will be inviting our members from around the
world to measure the change in their performance in key areas: energy, waste management, water
resources management, from 1990 to 2000. In the year 2000, as the world looks at a scary new
century, and asks itself, are we any closer to sustainability than we were in 1992, we will actually
have aggregated the results of these cities to see whether were having a positive impact or a
negative impact. My guess is well see that in the 1990s we got ourselves organized, but we
continued to have a detrimental impact when we add it all up. But that will allow us to figure out
what are the new measures that we need to put in place in order to be successful in the next
century.
JV: How did the earth come this far without the measures that have been instituted since 1972 --
without self destructing?
The world, our planet, is extremely resilient, and our economies in the 1800's and even in the
early 20th century were still small enough that we werent having a dramatic impact on the
biosphere of the planet. But economic growth is accelerating tremendously. Since 1992, 450
million new people have been born on this planet. So, as we speak, 10,000 new people will come
into this planet. Population growth, economic growth are accelerating to the point where the
earth is noticing and were stressing the limits of the balance in our eco-system.
Why we havent done something sooner is an interesting question. I like to say, in a historical
context that we spent most of the 20th century arguing over two doctrines of development. There
is the socialist doctrine of development and the capitalist doctrine of development as we spent all
our resources battling between these two doctrines. We had the Cold War, and we had real wars.
I mean hundreds of billions of dollars. It wasnt until the Cold War came to an end, that the 1987
World Commission on Environment and Development put forward a third doctrine called
Sustainable Development which is about balancing social equity, the long-time socialist concern;
economic vitality, the capitalist concern; amid the new concern that neither paid any attention to -
environmental sustainability. We have a new concept for how to develop; now were just
beginning to learn how to put it into practice.
JV: Can you elaborate on those three for a moment?
Its clear that we all obviously want a vital economy. We were talking earlier about why the
American public isnt more involved in the environment and how people are just stressed out -
both parents working, people just trying to keep ahead and maintain their lifestyle. So. we all
want that, but the reality is that in our societies, and we see it in our inner cities in the United
States, people have no reason to buy into what youd call the social contract, to be part of the
system. And that is the case in much of the United States. Its also true that if we use up all our
resources and create polluted environments that there wont be an economy either. So we need at
the local level to bring the interest groups for these three tracks of development, social well-being, economic vitality and the environment together with one another to negotiate out how to
best advance all of those agendas. In the past, weve seen constant conflict between business
interests and the environmental community or even the unions have often times come out against
environmentalism. What were realizing now is that sustainable development is an agenda in all
of our interests.
JV: In Russia, they have been aware of sustainable development, perhaps not in those phrases,
but of the environment, for much longer than we have. Are we just catching up to the rest of the
world?
I think the United States, to be fair, has been a global leader on the environment. We have been a
country that has led in major environmental legislation that other countries around the world
have followed. I worked, as you know, through our sister city relationships in the Soviet Union
during the communist regime. They had strong environmental laws, but because there is no
distinction between business and government, those laws were never implemented. So, I dont
think we can be that critical of ourselves. The world still has a lot to learn from the U.S.A.
JV: Where do you see Agenda 21, the Rio Summit, going? What is the next step?
Its got to be implementation, implementation, implementation. National governments have
backed off from the agenda since 1992. We need more support from National governments.
Theres a lot of deregulation going on, not maintaining environmental laws, disinvestment from
sustainable development. We need to reinforce the partnership between different levels of
government. We cant all do it at the local level. ICLF I has two roles: to develop and maintain
public - private partnerships, and to continue to put pressure on state and national governments to
be there as a partner as well. Not just to say, well, thats a local problem, well delegate it to the
municipalities and well go concern ourselves with free trade, deficit reduction and other agenda
items.
In 1982, James Gustave Speth was chosen to head the new World Resources Institute, created by
Russell Train, then-President of World Wildlife Fund-USA (WWF), which was created by the
International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Since 1975, the IUCN and the WWF
have operated the World Conservation Monitoring Center at Cambridge, UK, as a joint project
with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). In 1980, the IUCN, WWF. and
UNEP jointly published the World Conservation Strategy. A year later, the IUCN first proposed
the Convention oil Biological Diversity. In 1991, the IUCN, WWF, and UNEP jointly published
Caring for the Earth. In 1992, the IUCN, WRI. and UNEP jointly published Global Biodiversity
Strategy. These three documents form the foundation for Agenda 21, the Convention on
Biological Diversity, the Framework Convention on Climate Change, and virtually all the
documents that flowed from the Rio Earth Summit in 1992.
Speth left WRI to join Bill Clinton's transition team after the 1992 election. Shortly thereafter, he
was chosen to be the Executive Director of the United Nations Development Program, a massive
agency that spends billions of dollars annually. Speths policy analyst at the WRI, Rafe
Pomerance, is now Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Environment, Health and Natural
Resources.
At the Earth Councils recent World Conference on Rio +5, Gustave Speth delivered the
following speech:
By James Gustave Speth
I am delighted, and honoured, to be among you today. My thanks go to the Government of
Brazil, and to President Fernando Henrique Cardoso, to the Host Committee, to the Earth
Council and others whose hospitality, hard work and good phaniling Ilave brought us together to
reflect on the distance traveled since the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development held in this beautiful city of Rio de Janeiro five years ago.
My reflections on this mornings subject, global governance, will be organized in two parts. First,
I shall discuss the emerging system of global governance. Then, I shall discuss how this
understanding informs the vision of the future role of the international development agencies.
The emerging system of global governance
Let me emphatically state that global governance is not global government but a set of interacting
guidance and control mechanisms that include both state and non-state actors, actors both public
and private, both national and multilateral. As such, global governance is a powerful and growing
reality. Global governance is here, here to stay, and, driven by economic and environmental
globalization, global governance will inevitably expand. Global challenges and global needs --
whether economic, environmental or otherwise require global solutions and global action.
Economic and environmental integration lead to political integration. That is global governance.
Three points should be stressed. First, global governance has been expanding for at least a
century, and has coexisted with strong states. A strong, confident system of nation states is
probably a precondition for strong, confident global governance.
Second, for all their venerable antecedents, global governance mechanisms have witnessed major
evolution in recent years. They have become stronger and have proliferated to encompass a
variety of new issues, and they have become open to the growing influence on non-State actors in
formulating, implementing and monitoring policies.
Third, this sea change in the nature of global governance requires a shift from a nineteenth
century perspective to a vision for the twenty-first century.
The concept of global governance is not new
Global governance has co-existed for many years with strong, sovereign states. International
arrangements, such as the Rhine and Danube Commissions existed since the early years of the
nineteenth century to oversee transport on major rivers.
They were joined in the second part of the nineteenth century by such agencies as the
International Telecommunications Union (1865). the World Meteorological Organization (1873),
the Universal Postal Union (1875) -- a precursor to the International Organization for
Standardization the World Intellectual Property Organization (1883), the International Rail
Transport Organization in 1880.
In the early years of the twentieth century, the World Health Organization (1907), the
International Air Commission (1919) -- precursor of the International Civil Aviation
Organization - and the International Labour Organization (1919) were created. Each of these
institutional innovations and the resulting international regulation reflect the reality that
economic and other needs spur global governance.
In the wake of the Second World War, new institutions such as the Bretton Woods Institutions
and the United Nations came into existence to allow States to manage an increasingly complex
world system, where the costs of instability had been dramatically demonstrated.
During the years of the Cold War, when United Nations action was often blocked by Security
Council vetoes, the United Nations flourished in another area: a UN heavily engaged in
operational activities with refugees, with the poor and hungry, with child survival, with
population and environmental initiatives, and with programmes to promote human rights came
into prominence.
Development and humanitarian assistance, UN and otherwise, should be seen as aspects of global
governance, just as assistance to communities and to the needy at home are seen as aspects of
national governance. With development assistance, the international community is recognizing
that none of the great goals it has pursued not peace; not an end to hunger and poverty; not the
stabilization of population or the protection of the environment not democratization and human
rights; not the control of disease, illegal migration, drugs or terrorism -- none of these is
possible, none is secure, except in the context of successful development -- sustainable, people-centered development and that type of development has no real chance in much of todays world
without extensive development assistance.
The evolution of the system of global governance
Today, the system of global governance is undergoing a profound transformation. In many ways,
a critical event in this transformation was the Earth Summit of 1992. This transformation is both
quantitative, in the number of mechanisms of governance that have emerged, actually threatening
the manageability of the system, and qualitative, in the broadening of participation in these
mechanisms to non-State actors.
At the quantitative level, many of the issues raised in Agenda 21 have since been discussed more
fully at United Nations conferences on population, social development, women, habitat and the
sustainable development of small island states. Programs of action and reporting and monitoring
arrangements have been agreed. Meanwhile, more formal conventions and agreements on the
environment, such as climate change, biodiversity, desertification and toxic chemicals have their
own institutional arrangements. Like economic integration, environmental trends have and will
inevitably be powerful factors spurring global governance.
Perhaps the most far-reaching, powerful development in the area of global governance is the
emergemice of the World Trade Organization (WTO), though it may be that, over time, the
global climate convention will actually become even more influential.
At the qualitative level, non-State actors, mainly NOGS and businesses, have seen their infitience
increase in global governance. It was here, at the Rio Conference, the NOGS were first truly
recognized as important partners of global governance. NGOs had long been present at
international conferences, indeed, NGOs were active at San Francisco in 1945, during the
Conference leading to the creation of the United Nations. But, since Rio, as Jessica Mathews
states in a recent issue of Foreign Affairs, NOGS moved "out of the hallway, around the table."
Nor are NGOs the only non-State actors to participate in the evoltition of global governance
mechanisms. The phenomenal growth of multinational enterprise is a potent force in global
governance. The presence here of Klaus Schwab (of the World Economic Forum) and Stephan
Schmidheiny and his colleagues with the World Business Council for Sustainable Development
is ample evidence of this.
International development agencies and global governance
These far-reaching developments in global governance are among the strongest reasons for
change in agencies, not the familiar bureaucracy. International development agencies can
certainly improve their efficiency, but, more importantly, they must change to adapt to a
changing world.
So what are the roles of institutions like the United Nations Development Programme in this
evolving global governance contest? I would like to describe four such roles:
First, we can provide assistance to developing countries that enables them to participate more
effectively in the many decision-making processes of global governance that affect them. Often
this will be access to information or international expertise, but most important is capacity
building in government and in civil society organizations. Sometimes governance capacity
building is as simple as providing plane tickets to small NGOs to attend the Microcredit Summit.
Second. we can provide assistance that helps developing countries fulfill their end of global
bargains or compacts that figtmre prominently in global governance. Global agreements and
conventions are compacts among very unequal partners, and some will need help to fulfill their
agreed responsibilities. So, as at Rio, development assistance is often at the heart of the compact.
And what has happened since Rio in this regard?
UNDP has dramatically increased its spending on Rio objectives. It is now at least a fourth of our
programme, with important initiatives like Capacity 21 underway. But another major thing that
has happened is that the rice countries have failed utterly to keep their end of the bargain. They
have not increased their development assistance spending; they have decreased it. And they have
not set a good example in their own policies and actions regarding sustainable development. The
failure to adjust energy and other policies to protect global climate is a good example of this
failure. How can it be expected that the weak uphold their end of the bargain when the powerful
do not uphold their end? I mentioned earlier the centrality of development to the achievement of
global goals. But development requires assistance, and assistance requires money. Assistance
resources should be increasing, not declining.
Third, the United Nations development programs are in a good position to act as convenors,
mediators, and brokers of global governance because of our neutrality and our standing, as we
do, between the donors and recipients of assistance. To the degree that global governance
requires North-South agreement, as it often does, agencies like UNDP are in a good position to
contribute through analysis, advocacy, convening the parties, and mediation. We believe, for
example, that we have played a very useful role in the context of recent UN Conferences. Just as
important, we look forward to a growing role in supporting the involvement and participation of
NGOs and civil society organizations, including private business, in forging partnerships of many
types partnerships that are an integral part of the web of global govemance and the glue that
holds our troubled world together.
Finally, we can participate directly in the management of global governance regimes, as we do
with the GEF, and in the harmonization of regimes, institutions and policies which interact, or
should interact. It is precisely because we need greater harmonization of environmental global
governance mechanisms that I personally support the creation of a World Environmental
Organization.
The continuing deterioration of the environment and the expanding need to address
environmental issues on an international basis, underscore the need for an international entity
capable of developing and monitoring international environmental agreements and promoting
international environmental protection and cooperation.
The proliferation of obligations, programs and monitoring requirements resulting from the
growing number of international agreements and conventions on the environment and resource
management, and the need for an effective partner at the international level to work with the
World Trade Organization and other new entities, suggest the need for a strong world
environmental agency.
The United Nations is the logical location for such an institution and it could be built from an
entirely rebuilt, expanded, and renamed United Nations Environment Programme.
It is time that we had a new international body that would facilitate the work of the worlds
environment ministers at regional and global levels. The focus of such an organization should be
on information and statistics, global environmental monitoring, forecasting and early warning,
normative and policy leadership, assisting in forging regional and global agreements and
conventions, and secretariat services for environmental agreements and meetings.
Conclusion
UNDP firmly believes that building capacity for good governance at the national level, and
facilitating global governance internationally are central to our sustainable development mission.
We have an important role to play in legitimizing this new, expanded definition of governance to
our traditional government partners, and in bringing civil society organizations, NGOs and
business, fully into the development process. We are pleased with the rapid growth of the UNDP
program to support Agenda 21, both through our regular program and through special initiatives
such as Capacity 21, the GEE, the Sustainable Development Networking Program, the Global
Water partnership, our new Sustainable Energy Initiative, and our work on forests partnerships
and desertification control.
International development agencies are playing a vital role in an increasingly globalizing world.
But our potential is greater than our achievements. We must strengthen our presence, and we
must continually demonstrate our relevance and enhance the services we provide. For it is only
through international development cooperation that globalization will lead to a more humane, a
more prosperous and a more just world.
By Fred C. Gielow, Jr.
(Editors note: We have never published fiction in eco-logic. This piece, however, appeared in our
mailbox just as the Gustave Speth speech was being digested. Fred's story may seem far-fetched
to some and the time line may seem too ambitious. But it captures the comprehensive nature of
the global agenda, the insidious methodology of it's implementation, and the dilemma of those
caught in its grasp.)
Dear Diary: Todays my birthday! Im no longer a teenager! And what an exciting time in the
history of the world to be alive! In just six weeks well celebrate our tenth year in the new
century. In just two weeks we'll observe Thanksgivingearth Day, and at the end of December, my
favorite season of the year, highlighted on the 25th with the joyous celebration of Holy Gaia Day!
The changes Ive witnessed growing up have been absolutely mind boggling. Whod have
thought wed so quickly ratify the Global Village Declaration and that all members of the United
Nations would unanimously join the Federation for a United World? Lots of my friends were
against the transition from our old, outdated Constitution to the Earth-World Charter, but we
could never have created the World Police Force, the Earth-World Judiciary, the New-World
Money System, and the One-World Religion without first dumping that dinosaur of a document,
that obsolete and antiquated old Constitution. Praise Gaia!
Its so exciting to be a "Citizen of the World." Everyone knows his or her place. Everyone is
assigned a job. Nobody has any special privileges, except of course the World Ruling class.
Everyones rights and freedoms are clearly delineated in the Earth-World Charter.
And Im so thankful that as a world of concerned citizens weve moved so quickly to protect our
fragile environment. The Biodiversity Treaty adopted by the UN in the I 990s, when I was just a
kid, was a good start, but fortunately, weve been able to implement far more stringent controls
recently. Sure, the idea of United Nations Biospheres and the buffer zones around the biospheres
were critical, but now that fifty-nine percent of the land is off limits to humankind, the earth at
last has a chance to survive.
My parents were never able to accept the changes and advances. They demanded their wasteful
air conditioning units, their big environment-unfriendly automobiles, their big refrigerators and
TVs. They were never able to accept progress. If they weren't so darn stubborn, they wouldn't
have been seized by the Green Police. I miss them, I guess. After all, they were my mother and
mother. But the world has to set priorities. If my parents and countless thousands of others
couldn't adapt to the needs of the earth, they just had to pay the price. I mean whats more
important, somebodys selfish wants, or the Worldsphere?
You know its a funny thing. They were in one of the protected classes, too. I thought their class
rights as "Preferred - Gender Partners" would override an environmental violation, even one as
outrageous as breaking an Eco Rule. Come to think of it, they were also caught with a revolver
they had buried in their back yard. And that was a year and a half after Protect-the-World Gun
confiscation Day was declared. I guess they were just old fashioned, stuck in the Twentieth
Century antiquity of property rights, national boundaries, free choice. and limited government. It
sure is a good thing I wasn't home schooled! I might have been brainwashed with all their silly,
impractical ideas. Praise Gaia!
The new system of education makes so much sense now with just the changes of the last six or
seven years. World custody of kids from the age of two years means that the correct thinking can
be much more readily instilled by WSS, the World School System, by starting at the age when
kids are more impressionable. Proper World Values, the required assigned language, and strict
World Discipline can all be more easily taught, too.
And not only that, when WSS takes the child at age two, the "Incubative Entity" (we used to call
that "the mother"), can immediately return full time to the work force. Every body benefits! And
think how much easier it is for WSS to make skill assignments so each child receives proper
training for his or her prescribed Life Duty.
When I was small I never was much of a religious person. My parents weren't, so I wasn't. I
thought the Earth-World Religion would be too strict or too confining for me to handle. Was I
ever wrong. Worshiping Nature - the earth, the plants, the animals - is as natural as breathing in
and out. It makes so much sense. If the world and its living creatures aren't paramount, therell
be no place for humans to live. Of course the air, the water, the insects, the birds, the fish, all
Gaias creation - are far more important than man. What could be more obvious than that? Praise
Gaia!
I suppose all those crazy religions that people clung to so strongly ten or fifteen years ago might
have made sense when there were inexperienced mothers and fathers raising children. Heck, that
was even before Offspring Permits were required. I guess all those religions were necessary to
provide some higher authority in what they used to call "family life." But now the Earth-World
Government provides that authority. More importantly, it provides consistent authority all around
the globe. No more bickering between religious sects, no more disputes between religious
groups, no more religious wars. I cant understand why a common, unifying religion wasnt
decreed decades ago!
Of course the media - newspapers, magazines, television - they were really leading the way all
along. They understood how shallow those old-time religions were. They set the stage for all this
progress weve achieved. They supported group rights, internationalized health care, world
government and control. They got the people to believe the patriots were evil, those who
disagreed with government were traitors. and anyone belonging to a militia group was dangerous
and had to be imprisoned. Gosh, thanks to the media, the people's collective minds were properly
conditioned so the transition to our new Earth-World Government was quick, thorough, and
bloodless. When the history books of the future are written, the media will get most of the credit
for this great, great revolution.
Im so proud to be a World Citizen. My parents were just U.S. citizens. I think as Americans in
the last century they felt superior to other peoples of the world. How arrogant! How short
sighted! How unworldly! As a World Citizen Im an equal to everybody else on the planet: those
who used to be called Europeans, Australians, South Americans, Africans, everybody! Except of
course the "Destined," those few selected for the World Ruling Class.
I sure am glad Im not one of them! They have such demanding world roles to play. So much
pressure, such momentous decisions to make. All of our lives depend on their wisdom and
judgements. Our happiness, heck our life and death, depend on them. Of course their intellectual
rating, that all-important IR, towers above the rest of us. Can you imagine the stress? I sure am
glad my IR is well below the "Chosen" level. Give me my simple ten-hour-a-day job, this
comfortable dormitory, and some healthy, sustainable food, and I'm content. Praise Gaia!
But why do I feel so wonderful today, on this my twentieth birthday? I'll tell you why. It was just
posted on the World Notices Board that Ive been designated an "Earth Friend." Im so excited I
could pop! Only five percent of the people are so designated each year. So just think: Ive
achieved what 95% of the worlds population hasnt achieved. Im an "Earth Friend!" This is an
incredible honor.
On the upcoming Thanksgivingearth Day, there will be a formal ceremony. All the designated
"Earth Friends" will gather in services around the world. Well be issued special uniforms. Well
be recognized and praised. Therell be a long procession with special hymns and chants written
and performed just for us. All "Earth Friends" will be addressed on the WorldCom Control Link
with a speech by the global village summa-Magnate, our names will be engraved on local
plaques for display in the dormitories, and then we'll each receive a special citation of merit
before were sacrificed. Praise Gaia!
The governors of Arizona and Sonora endorsed a binational network of Sonoran Desert
biosphere reserves at the 1996 Arizona-Mexico Commission Plenary Session November 16,
1996. The honorable Fife Symington, Governor of the state of Arizona, and the Honorable
Manlio Fabio Beltrones, Governor of the state of Sonora, signed a decree of support for the
Sonoran Desert Biosphere Reserve Network.,
The Network promotes an integrated program which protects cultural values, promotes
sustainable community and economic development in the region, and promotes cooperation
between the contiguous protected areas on both sides of the border so as to motivate
collaborative resource management of the regions shared resources.
The International Sonoran Desert Alliance (ISDA) is a non-profit, non-governmental,
community-based organization whose board of directors represents both Mexico and the United
States and members of the Tohono O'Odham and Cupupai/Cocopah peoples. The coalition of
ISDA and representatives from the private and public sector have held three international
conferences to discuss the mutual dependence of Arizona and Sonora for environmental quality,
natural resource management, community and economic development and tourism.
The Network created by the coalition and endorsed by the governors links El Pinacate y el Gran
Desierto de Altar Biosphere Reserve (1,800,000 acres), Alto Golfo de California y Delta del Rio
Colorado Biosphere Reserve (700,000 acres), Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge (856,000
acres), Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument Biosphere Reserve (330,000 acres), Tinajas Altas
(BLM 53,000 acres), Gran Desierto Dunes (BEM 25,500 acres), and Mohawk Mountains and
Dunes (BLM 113,000 acres). A total of 3.8+ million acres for this network of binational reserves.
The Network would not impose any new land management mandates or development restrictions
on public or private lands. The Network will be part of the legacy of friendship and cooperation
among the people of the Sonoran Desert.
(Reprinted without permission from the U.S. MAR Bulletin, March, 1997, Volume 21, Number 1.)
IPCC scientist says January '97 coldest on record
Ernest Kung, Chairman of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at the University of Missouri,
predicts a little ice age. Kung says temperature is cyclical: "North America can expect a natural
cold period for the next 20 or so years." Kung attributes the cycles to ocean surface temperatures,
which, he says, "play a crucial role in the worlds weather patterns."
Deluge of proposals could trouble Kyoto waters
Profit produced the technology targeted for transfer
Important target not yet identified
Secretariat staff targeted for "thank you"
Economists disagree on impact of protocol
Comparison of economic impact on selected countries
S1 $Cost = Scenario 1: (1990 emissions level hy 2010)
S2 $Cost = Scenario 2: (10% below 1990 level hy 2010)
S1 and S2 Cost in 1992 US Dollars (Millions)
Country
GDP
S1 $Cost
% GDP Loss
S2 $Cost
% GDP Loss
Argentina
228.78
45.7
.20
52.6
.23
Australia
296.59
563.5
1.9
711.8
2.4
Belgium
220.90
596.4
2.7
861.5
3.9
Canada
563.69
1803.8
3.2
231 1.1
4.1
Denmark
141.03
310.2
2.2
408.9
2.9
France
1322.09
2644,2
2.0
4098.2
3.1
Germany
1969.45
3938.9
2.0
6302.2
3.2
Greece
77.81
311.24
4.0
459.1
5.9
Indonesia
128.02
84.5
.66
108.8
.85
Iran
110.70
199.3
1.8
243.5
2.2
Israel
69.76
21.6
.31
26.5
.38
Italy
1220.64
2929.5
2.4
3906.1
3.2
Japan
3656.86
8045.1
2.2
11336.3
3.1
Kuwait
19.86
43.7
2.2
53.6
2.7
Netherlands
320.21
1024.6
3.2
1408.9
4.4
New Zealand
40.88
208.5
5.1
290.2
7.1
Peru
30.19
15.1
.50
18.4
.61
Russia
377.36
230.2
.61
279.2
.74
Saudi Arabia
124.53
286.4
2.3
386.0
3.1
South Africa
119.25
21.5
.18
25.2
.22
Spain
576.31
1440.8
2.5
2074.7
3.6
Switzerland
240.90
650.4
2.7
746.8
3.1
Turkey
159.10
620.49
3.9
827.3
5.2
United Kingdom
1044.66
3029.5
2.9
4387.6
4.2
United States
5937.30
15437.0
2.6
20186.8
3.4
Commentary:
Without "Civil Society" it couldn't be done
"Delegates need the benefit of
opinions,
perspective, and
information provided by civil society
- all of
civil society."
Bonn
is published by
Sovereignty International, Incorporated, 1229 Broadway #313,
Bangor, ME 04401, USA,
for the dedgates in attendance at the Sixth
session of the AGBM meeting in Bonn, Germany, March 3-7, 1997.
Michael S. Coffman,
Ph.D
Henry Lamb
Bonn
Delegates: take another look!
Haste makes painful waste
...then join the NGO's
victory party.
Unintended consequences
Access denied
Ecologic or eco-logic
Global Warming may cause Sovereignty melt-down
Commentary:
From the rest of civil society
Bonn
is published by
Sovereignty International, Incorporated, 1229 Broadway #313,
Bangor, ME 04401, USA,
for the dedgates in attendance at the Sixth
session of the AGBM meeting in Bonn, Germany, March 3-7, 1997.
Michael S. Coffman,
Ph.D
Henry Lamb
Building consensus: the new decision-making process
Sustainable Communities
Earth Council: Rio + 5
"...a third doctrine
called
Sustainable Development
which is about balancing social
equity,
the long-time socialist concern;
economic vitality, the
capitalist concern;
and the new concern...
environmental sustainability."
Global Governance for Sustainable Development
Global Governance for Sustainable Development:
The role of international development agencies"Perhaps the most
far-reaching,
powerful developmeent in the area of
global
governance is the emergance of the
World Trade
Organization....
Over time,
the global climate
convention
will actually become more influential."
Dear Diary
A story that dares to ask the question:
What might we find on the other side of the Bridge to the
21st Century?
Arizona Governor endorses Sonoran Desert Biosphere