ON THE ROAD TO RIO A N D TO SUSTAINABILITY
he United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio d e Janeiro this June marks the 20th a n n i r e r s a r y of t h e UN’s Stockholm Conh n c e on the Human Environment. In 1972, Sweden’s Olof Palme and India’s Indira Gandhi were the only heads of state present as 113 nations grappled with “local” problems like air and water pollution. This time, some 130 heads of state and delegates from more than 160 nations will address a greatly expanded agenda that includes a new generation of such global-scale threats as climate change and biodiversity loss, as well as a long list of economic topics such as international cooperation in technology development and diffusion. It is easy to miss the importance of this event. The term “conference” is a misnomer: UNCED is in fact a major international negotiating process. Since 1990,UNCED negotiators have been wrestling with how to meet two of the world‘s most urgent n e e d e t o protect the environment and to spur economic development in developing countries. Views are insightful commentaries on timely envirunmental topics, represent an author‘s opinion, and do not necessarilyrepresent aposition ofthesocieiy or editors. Contmsting views are invited.
-I The UNCED concept is on target, because environmental depadation and underdevelopment are so intertwined and mutually reinforcing that they can only be solved together. And they cannot be solved at all without unprecedented. sustained international cooperation. UNCED is a oncain-a-generation opportunity, so the United States cannot afford to waste it. Twenty years ago, staunch US. leadership
D013-936)(192/0926-1075503.00/00 1992 American Chemical Society
played a crucial role in the successful outcome of the Stockholm conference. At this writing, the lack of US. leadership is diminishing the prospects for success at Rio. As I bavel around and talk to people about UNCEJJ, I hear repeatedly that if the conference fails, most of the blame should be laid at the feet of the U.S. government because US. policy is widely perceived as the main obstacle to North-South agwment.
Environ. Sci. Technoi., Voi. 26, No. 6, 1992 1075
Climate change and international financing are the two areas in which U.S. policy is particularly misguided. Alone among our European allies and Japan, the United States has refused to commit to specific targets and timetables for reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Nor have we agreed to specific new financial assistance for developing countries, even though it is unreasonable to expect countries that are in dire financial straits to undertake new obligations without new development assistance. Similarly, we cannot expect developing countries to take the need for a global climate accord seriously unless we’re willing to curtail our own wasteful use of fossil fuels and cut our own carbon dioxide emissions. What should the U.S. government be seeking at Rio? I would put these four goals at the top of the list: international agreement on protecting global climate and controlling cross-boundary pollution, initiatives to protect forests and biodiversity, agreement on the goal of population stabilization and the means to achieve it, and effective international programs to address the problems of underdevelopment, poverty, and hunger. critics will demur, believing that environment a n d development goals are “soft” objectives that don’t advance America’s economic or political interests in the world. They could hardly be more mistaken. Developing countries account for 34% of U.S. export markets (1). If these countries do well, so will our exports-and our work force. The failure of the heavily indebted developing countries to grow during the 1980s cost an estimated 1.8 million American workers their jobs (2).On a related issue, if the United States gets in on the ground floor in helping these countries develop-by building production capacity and sharing technology-the foundation for expanded U.S. investments and trade will be laid. The international trade liberalization the United States is pursuing through several channels will ultimately fail to deliver on its promise of enduring economic progress if it merely accelerates today’s environmentally unsustainable and socially imbalanced growth patterns. UNCED agreements can help provide a larger framework in which international trade can prosper.
UNCED also provides an opportunity for the United States to raise the economic and environmental c o s t s of a g r i c u l t u r a l s u b s i d y programs around the world. Environmental protection requires eliminating subsidies that are encouraging misuse and overuse of natural resources. Prominent among these are the agricultural subsidies that we seek to eliminate in ongoing, but threatened, General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) negotiations. U.S. competitiveness can also be advanced through UNCED. The United States uses energy very inefficiently. Our capital equipment and consumer durables may make sense in our domestic economy where cheap energy is the current rule, but they don’t work in countries that put a premium on energy efficiency. Energy-inefficient designs make American exports less desirable in European, Japanese, and other markets where energy prices are high. A climate agreement would require the United States to get serious about energy efficiency and would thus improve our competitiveness in international markets while reducing our dependence o n imported fuels. Moreover, in many cases U.S. environmental requirements are among the toughest i n the world, a n d UNCED provides an opportunity to promote international movement toward U.S. standards. Environmental considerations will increasingly determine product and process acceptability and drive the next generation of economic opportunity. Some countries, including Japan, are actively promoting the “green” technological innovations that will be in demand worldwide. The U.S. government is doing American industry a disservice by failing to be among the leaders in recognizing these new realities. On the political side, the United States has overarching political interests that depend on the friendship, self-confidence, and stability of nations in Latin America, Asia, and Africa. Yet our relationship with the developing world is threatened today by the large and growing North-South gap in incomes and other tensions between the haves and the have-nots. Per capita GNP in the developing world is only 6% of that in the industrial countries. This disparity, widespread hunger and poverty, the international debt crisis, and other issues of international equity can undermine our
1076 Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 26, No. 6 , 1992
long-term political interests in the world. UNCED provides the United States an outstanding opportunity to promote sustainable progress in developing countrie s-pr ogress that opens the door to friendship and cooperation on many issues. The world is changing and American leadership is not keeping up. New values, new sources of international strength, and new areas for world leadership are coming to the fore. Environmental security and international equity are prominent among them. Europe and Japan seem more farsighted than we are in recognizing the significance of these changes. As a result of UNCED, positive things are occurring. Many of the right issues are being raised, the UNCED Secretariat is framing numerous proposals for addressing these issues, and a new generation of government officials is having to grapple with them. The biggest problem remains U.S. government policy, but there’s still time for a new U.S. attitude, one more like what the United States brought to Stockholm in 1972. The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse in our lifetime have been the nuclear arsenals spawned by the Cold War, widespread suppression of human rights, global poverty and hunger, and unrelenting assault on the environment. Today, the first two Horsemen seem to be in retreat, but the last two loom larger than ever. A5 East-West tension winds d o w n a n d democracy s p r e a d s , America needs a new mission internationally, and that mission should be to lead in meeting the challenges of the environment and underdevelopment. There’s no better place than Rio to begin. References (1) 2987
International Trade Statistics
Yearbook;United Nations: New York, 1989: Vol. 1, p. 994. (2) Partnership Sustainable Develop-
ment: A New U.S. Agenda forlnternational Development and Environmental Security; E n v i r o n m e n t a l a n d Energy Study Institute: Washington, DC, 1991; p. 3.
J a m e s G. S p e t h i s p r e s i d e n t of t h e World Resources Institute (Washingt o n , DC), u center for policy research o n global resource and environmental issues.
