It has been over six months since RIO + 20 and not much has changed. Actually it will not be an exageration to call the whole effort a drastic failure. But the UN is still pushing its effort to educate the world that sustainability is a must and that economic growth is not. The new mantra should become sustainable development. Please note that we do not speak of sustainable growth since nothing can ever grow indefinitely. Sustainable growth is an oximoron and as such the phrase must never be used.
Combine your assigned readings with the following article that speaks to this topic.
*******************************************************************************
It's time for sustainable development
Activists,
NGOs and academics want Rio+20 to put sustainable development and
poverty reduction at the heart of global politics. If it doesn't
deliver, they should forge ahead by another route
The statue of Christ looms over Rio de Janeiro. Photograph: Felipe Dana/AP
Bill Clinton was set to enter the White House, the European Union was born and China had its first taste of a double cheeseburger with fries when McDonalds opened its doors in Beijing. That was 1992. A lot can happen in 20 years.
In June 2012, two decades after the groundbreaking Earth summit, which put climate change and biological diversity on the global political agenda, attention will turn once again to Rio de Janeiro for the UN conference on sustainable development, or Rio+20.
But the biggest environmental summit in 20 years is already proving controversial. The conference is a vital chance to renew political commitment for sustainable development at a time when urgent action must be taken to divert humanity from disaster. However, some commentators already believe it will be just another conference – all talk and no binding action.
The event's focus on the "green economy" is deeply dividing opinion. Some see the label as an opportunity to hitch global financial systems firmly to sustainable development goals. Others see it as an open invitation for the proliferation of "greenwash" initiatives, which continue to put profit before people and planet.
Meanwhile, there are calls for Rio's seven-strong shopping list of "critical issues" to be replaced by focus on one sector. UN executive Brice Lalonde, for example, has pushed for agriculture to be at the centre of negotiations, arguing that from agriculture other development goals – gender, biodiversity, land use, water, energy – flow.
Despite the summit slogan of "a future we want", how close the conference will get to a shared consensus on what that future is and how it will be secured, is unclear. As recently witnessed in Durban and Busan, the many and competing interests at play constantly threaten progress.
What can't be ignored is the UN's faltering progress on achieving the millennium development goals by 2015. The potential failure of the MDGs makes whatever happens at Rio+20 even more critical as the world struggles to set a post-MDG agenda.
However, after the second Rio+20 intersessional meeting held in New York in mid-December, word has it that a consensus is building among a core group of countries to use Rio+20 to shift the post-MDG agenda from poverty to sustainable development, ie from problems affecting the poor in developing nations to those affecting us all, everywhere.
Sustainable development is far from a new notion, of course, but putting developed and developing world issues in the same arena could transform future action. And Rio is where the nitty-gritty of this new agenda – the goals, targets and indicators – may be decided. Whether setting new goals to replace the existing targets is a good idea will be a controversial debate. As, no doubt, will the idea of lumping developed and developing country needs together under a sustainable development banner.
Despite widespread cynicism about Rio's ability to deliver anything of substance, there is an energetic groundswell of activity among activists, practitioners, NGOs and academics who want Rio+20 to deliver a workable agreement that puts sustainable development and poverty reduction at the heart of global politics.
A new type of politics fit for these turbulent times, when catastrophe threatens with increasingly alarming regularity, should have science, technology and innovation at its core.
Science and technology can work more directly for social justice, poverty alleviation and the environment, helping to build a just and equitable green economy at a global level. But different forms of innovation that address sustainable development challenges at local, national and global levels need to be encouraged.
Not just the type of science and innovation that happens within governments, big business and scientific institutions, but within civil society – both in the form of organised public-interest groups and, more important, spontaneous citizen-led movements. This is where real change often happens.
Consensus at Rio on a global framework supporting innovation for sustainable development would be a major breakthrough.
But what if Rio+20 doesn't deliver? Some summits don't – remember COP15? Well, the sky won't fall in, not yet, anyway. But the question will be whether those with a stake in "the future we want" have the energy to forge ahead in addressing poverty reduction, social justice and environmental sustainability outside of the "system"? Let's hope they do.
After reading the assigned readings as well as numerous blog posts by Professor Ghassan, I have recently been giving a lot of though to this whole issue outstanding on greening the economy, reducing poverty and addressing environmental sustainability. Taking a realistic point of view on this situation, I personally feel it would take a lot of work and commitment not only by the Rio +20 and UN members who set goals and rules but also by the people around the world. We have 7 billion people occupying this planet, it is almost impossible to try and reach the goals set without getting everyone involved. I mean we have come a long way, just realizing that the planet needs to be sustained and its resources used cautiously, but to meet these goals within a 15, 20 year time frame, a lot more people need to be getting involved in this whole green movement. I mean, think about it. Do you recycle? Do you try and eliminate using your car to a miminum? Are you restricting yourself form buying non organic products or products that demand the use of a lot of energy? I bet 75 % of the college students do not really do that or even have an idea about the goals set by Rio +20 and the UN. In order for this to be successful this must be talked about, not only by the government and amongst politicians but amongst the youngest generations. The youngest generation is our future, we are the future. So in order for us to move forward and try and green this planet we must talk about it loud and clear, everyday, do things that impact the green movement in a positive way. Start recycling, think about weather you really must use your car as often as you do, must you really own products that use a lot of non renewable energy to produce? Remember if you demand for products, the market is willing to supply them.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I believe that developed countries should try and help eliminate poverty in developing countries. Investments in infrastructure, invest in power plants that are based off of renewable resource and etc. If developed countries invest in developing countries there can still be a process of economic growth. We have so many business men, entrepreneurs, lawyers and politicians gaining status that are all young, we must be sure to educate them in the right direction, the green economy direction, if we want to achieve our goals in the future.
Also one more comment, many people do a lot of talking, planning and policy changing when they don't seem to work. But are they actually fully committed to putting those policies and plans into action?
It's curious you say that we need all 7 billion involved if we want to save the planet. Surely we must get as many people as possible involved in the movement and it is certainly ideal to have all 7 billion consciously working for this cause. But this isn't exactly feasible.
DeleteWhile I do agree with your ideas, I think there is a better option; revolutionizing companies or top management. It goes without saying that, when you work, you do as the boss says and you're aiming to please the boss. If the boss is adamant about recycling, and goes through the effort of educating and revolutionizing the company, the employees will follow sometimes unconsciously. I don't know how many
times I've picked up paper and unconsciously thought about looking for the recycling bin because it's been drilled into me, almost like a brainwashing.
I agree with the point your addressing here. Its very similar to what many companies are trying to advertise to the public today " We are Green". We must make recycling and other green practices a habit, something done "unconsciously" as you touched on. This can only be done though if we raise awareness. Make it popular, talk about it one twitter, Facebook, all social media platforms. Even try to market the practice as being "cool" and "trendy", because at the end of the day this is what is going to make people recycle and think about a healthier planet.
DeleteI am a marketing major so i can relate this to selling a product. In order to get consumers to buy your product, you must inform them that is available first! this is raising awareness, informing people of the current issue at hand, the first step. Second step, is teaching them about the product or what it has to offer to them. This is educating people about recycling and how the earth cannot live to much longer with the way we are treating it. And the last step, the purchase! Show them other people are doing it, its a "trend", a "necessity", and it must be done. Eventually just like products people will buy into it. How many us really need the newest smart phone? The company's make it seem like we do, and they do a very good job! Well, we must do the same for sustainable development!
I like that you mentioned the UN members along with the people around the world need to help. I think that is important that people need to step in also. One thing I am not sure about how we would accomplish is reducing poverty. I feel like this is such a hard task. In some of these countries how do we put people to work? What type of work would they do? I know some of these countries have have great natural resources that are exported but its not easy work or they may pay so little because there is not much to be made.
DeleteThe issues I am seeing with the movement towards a Green Economy is that, there is a lot of talk but no action. Even though we say we want to move towards sustainable development, its a change that we cannot see occurring at the speed we want to see it. Change can take decades to occur or sometimes right away. There is a lot of push back towards this movement because I think essentially people are scared of changing and stepping away from the economic structures that they have always known. There is a lot of politics and business hierarchy that influences if Rio+20 can deliver this time around. Sustainable development is not like capitalism where we can let "markets" decide, rather we actually have to work hard and strive to achieve sustainable development. Which is why sometimes its easier to just talk about it but not do anything about it.
ReplyDeleteThere has to be social change for us to realize and make the effort to obtain sustainability. The change has to start at a national level before we can think about the world. As soon as we have an example that people can use to show how sustainability can be achieved then we can expect everyone to get on the same page. People need to see tangible proof of a working Green Economy in real life practice before anyone will actually make the change. So it really should be practiced/tested on a smaller scale before it can be preached to people who do not want to stop chasing capitalism and economic growth at all cost.
There were very good points made by Sehrish and Magdalena on how far we came in greening the different sectors of the economy from awareness campaigns to the Millenium Development Goals. In the past 20 years a lot has changed for the better. The only thing I take issue with is the time it takes to coordinate different groups in order to put a plan in action. Despite all the change that have been made in the past, our inability to act swiftly will ultimately be our downfall.
ReplyDeleteLooking at the population, which is stands currently near 7 billion, it raises the question of feasibility in achieving the goals set out by the UN and other organizations in the next Rio+20 conference. These people speak of equality and sustainability as if it is something that can be obtained by every single person on the globe. Realistically this cannot happen. It feels good to say it and campaign about it, but in actuality it cannot be achieved. Economically it cannot be achieved. In all scenarios of greening our industries there will always be people who get the short end of the stick, whether it be from direct competition or other adverse events. A prime example is in the production of solar panels. There is no argument that solar panels are green technologies that enable us to generate energy from an abundant source, the Sun. However, what goes into the creation of these solar panels. Workers who make solar panels are regularly exposed to fine particular matter, mostly silicon which is known to cause respiratory ailments. Now I say this not to discourage the use of solar panels. I say this to make those aware that "greening" is not what the hype makes it seem. Yes, it is good and poses to help billions of people, but lets not forget simple economic principles that there must be a winner and loser (to some degree) in all economic transactions. A green economy is no different.
After reading this article and knowing the outcome of Rio +20, you cannot help but feel discouraged. I do not think the world will move toward a green economy unless the economic gains are higher than the economic gains of a non-green economy. I wish this was not true, but the more I read, the more I believe this is what is holding us back. We know the risks and we know what the future holds, yet the powerful people who hold the ability to make real substantial changes will not because it will negatively alter their lives in the present. Though moving towards a green economy offers economic growth in many sectors such as building, water management, energy, etc., the investment necessary to move to greening these sectors are too high in such a hostile economic environment. We must find a way to balance the costs of advancement for people to be motivated to actually make changes. We can talk about the risks and how to take steps to become green and how we can implement these steps, but if we never actually put them into effect, what is the point of even talking about them?
ReplyDeleteThe small improvements in many sectors should not be overlooked though. It is an improvement towards where we want to be in the future. Though something is better than nothing, we are far from where we want/need to be to have a stable and sustainable future.
I believe there are several reasons for the inaction regarding sustainable development. First of all, the UN has unfortunately lost some credit over the past few decades. Many view the UN as idealists who talk about change but don’t really put anything into action (as we’ve seen over the past few months). Additionally, while it is great that we are at least talking about how we can work toward a green economy, there is no consensus. It seems that officials are waiting for the perfect across-the-board plan and it just doesn’t exist. As mentioned in the reading, there is a huge difference between the needs of developed countries and the needs of developing countries. Every situation must be analyzed and addressed differently in order to be successful. Another problem I see here is that the UN is getting together to talk about what they already know and are already willing to work toward. But where are the policy makers? Where are the corporate leaders who really need to be informed and part of this process? No one in the UN needs to be persuaded, they know what we are up against. There needs to be a huge lobbying campaign or something similar put into place or we really are not going to get anywhere.
ReplyDeleteThe hardest part about transitioning to a green economy is the initial investment. It is going to take a lot of money to make this transition and fortunately most of it will return even 10 fold. However, the return may take 10-20 years to see. It is difficult for business owners, public officials, and even individuals to look that far ahead and be comfortable and confident in the idea that their investment will be worth it. Especially because the transitions that a few other countries have begun to make are recent and we are still awaiting long-term results as to the effects the changes will have on their economy.
I agree with this article: "Not just the type of science and innovation that happens within governments, big business and scientific institutions, but within civil society – both in the form of organised public-interest groups and, more important, spontaneous citizen-led movements. This is where real change often happens."
ReplyDeleteYes, yes, YES. Some people overlook this and mistakenly believe that their individual voice might not make a difference. They want to make a difference but they don't know how. This is how the program DOT began; do one thing to help the environment. It might feel small and insignificant when one person rides their bike or using a lunchbox instead of a paperbag but the collective effort of every single person in this initiative can result in substantial gains for the environment.
http://www.acespace.org/dot
The people in this article and in reality are waiting for a quick-fix, one-hit solution that isn't going to happen. We can't expect to solve global warming and suddenly jump into sustainable development. If we want companies to be sustainable, we need to make an effort to make ourselves sustainable. We need to demonstrate with our own selves that we want sustainability, that we will go out of our way to achieve it. After all, businesses live to serve the customer; we just need to show businesses we want a more sustainable life.
I agree with you the people in this article are waiting for a quick-fix and a one hit solution. However there is no one hit solution or quick-fix. For explain there are many types of alternative power but not one fits all. Wind power and solar power needs a lot of land, which for Manahan would not be possible. Hence why wind power and solar power wouldn’t be the best alternative power for Manahan. Nuclear energy might be something that will fill the gap to conventional energy and alternative energy. However many people including me are uncomfortable with the idea of nuclear energy. As you can see there is no one solution or quick-fix to our problems.
DeleteGreat points in your blog. There is not going to be an easy fix as a lot of people expect. I think in the near future we will see some great technology that will help out the environment a little at a time. The DOT program you mentioned is a great idea, I recently just bought a lunch box because I noticed the amount of plastic bags were being wasted. I also started to use the "going green" type grocery bags that can be reused. I also started to use a water filter system instead of wasting water bottles. I do think I make a difference and I also encourage friends and family to follow my lead, and they do.
DeleteI agree with many of discussions posted this week. Talking about “green economy”, after this week readings, it looks like a concept, more like definition without practical appearance. It is comes with human nature. We tend to talk about things, especially the ones that occur in the neighbor house. As Dasgupta defines the “green economy”, it is both, a conceptual construction and a menu of policy options”. In the big picture: all players should work hard , but rules are not the same as the Policy recommendations shows inequality when it comes to developed and developing countries. “A major recommendation is that developing countries should prioritize investment in agricultural productivity measures, freshwater management and sanitation, as these have demonstrable and social returns” and this is a very selective list, Dasgupta highlights. He also points that the proposed convergence of technology standards between developed and developing countries is inconsistent.
ReplyDeleteAmericans are faced with many challenges, from unemployment and the economy, to infrastructure investment, to clean and affordable sources of electricity.Patric Moore says nuclear energy – is a solution that addresses multiple concerns at once. It provides long-term, high-paying careers, creates economic windfall in the surrounding communities, all while providing affordable and reliable clean air electricity to consumers.
Despite many technical studies which asserted that the probability of a severe nuclear accident was low, numerous surveys showed that the public remained very deeply distrustful and uneasy about nuclear power. [One] reason why nuclear power is seen differently to other technologies lies in its parentage and birth. Nuclear energy was conceived in secrecy, born of war, and first revealed to the world in horror. No matter how much proponents try to separate the peaceful atom from the weapons atom, the connection is firmly embedded in the mind of the public. (Hoffman (1996). Governing the Atom: The Politics of Risk, Transaction Publishers, p. 157).] According to a 2012 Pew Research Center poll, 44 percent of Americans favor and 49 percent oppose the promotion of increased use of nuclear power. The United States will need to increase the use of nuclear energy to achieve a sustainable energy future. (Meanwhile, while some European governments such as Germany are stuck adding fossil fuels and paying costly subsidies for renewable energy as a result of a move away from carbon-free nuclear).
In the other hand, government-subsidized wind power may help accomplish a goal some environmentalists have sought for decades: kill off U.S. nuclear power plants while reducing reliance on electricity from burning coal (Johnson, Julie.) That’s the assessment of executives and utility experts after the U.S. wind-energy industry went on a $25 billion growth binge in 2012, racing to qualify for a federal tax credit that was set to expire at year’s end. Wind-generated electricity supplied about 3.4 percent of U.S. demand in 2012 and the share is projected to jump to 4.2 percent in 2014, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
I believe Rio+20 will only make 1% change and not all 7 billion people will be involved in the change. I don’t think having a meeting every 20 years makes sense. The topics in Rio+20 are too important to wait 20 years to talk about again. We should be having these meetings often. Topics like poverty and sustainable development should be talked about often in order to see changes. If it is out of site it is out of mind. The more people talking about the problems and wanting solutions can start changes. By only having a conference once every 20 years will not do the job.
ReplyDeleteThe 1% change I have seen because of Rio+20 is many companies are trying to be eco friendly in order to have a better brand image. H&M has started their go green program called H&M Conscious. H&M Conscious is H&M’s global initiative to recycle used clothing. H&M also has been a clothes for their Conscious – sustainable style line. These clothes are made out of recycled polyester, organic cotton, or TENCEL lyocell. I know this isn’t feeding the poor. However this is one way a company can start their journey on being eco friendly and even being more sustainable with their developments. If H&M is successful then make fashion companies will follow.
I thought this article was interesting and would like to comment more about how the world should manage sustainability efforts at a local, national, and global level. It is important to understand that we must all come together and work as one to accomplish sustainability. And, theyre is no way that a effective method can be operated from a national or global standpoint. The main reason is that there are to many people who cannot be monitored closely to make sure everyone is doing there own part. That it why in order to meet sustainablitlty goals at a global level, we must implement them at a local level first!
ReplyDeleteIT would be easy to conclude that the Rio+20 Earth Summit was a failure. That would be wrong. Our planet is getting hotter and more crowded with every passing day. Addressing its most serious problems is more urgent than ever. So what did government negotiators do at the meeting in Brazil, they spent months negotiating a document that ended up being just that a document because of their lack of vision and their governments’ lack of leadership. Certainly, the document produced by negotiators was not even close to what it should be.
ReplyDeleteIt did not deliver the commitments we need to reduce carbon pollution and increase clean energy development. It did not do enough to address shortages of food and water and other threats to a sustainable future resulting from population growth, our governments’ failure to collectively address climate change and the abuse of our natural resources.
However, it did offer some bright spots such as progress on protecting the high seas from pollution, overfishing and acidification although it left other threats unaddressed. Chief among these was failing to negotiate a treaty to protect ocean biodiversity. But what we must remember is this: Rio+20 is not just about a document. Rio+20 is the starting point for change, not the finish line. It is a call to action for all of us who now realize that we can’t just rely on government negotiators or documents to save our planet. We must do it ourselves. We can do this ourselves.
For instance, Developing countries agreed to phase out incandescent light bulbs. Australia, Mexico and other coastal countries committed to protecting their irreplaceable seas. It’s time for us to take action. Individually, we must be efficient with the energy and the natural resources we consume and be aware that the decisions we make today will impact the future of our children tomorrow.
Collectively, we must force our government leaders and our corporations to do what is right for our planet and its resources. We must press them to implement the commitments they made at Rio+20, and the commitments they made in other international agreements as well. And we must hold them accountable when they don’t. As we learned at Rio+20, government negotiators and thick documents can’t save the planet. But as we also learned, we can, and we must do it now.
In my opinion, I think shifting the focus of Rio+20 to sustainable development across all areas is a mistake. Divesting the focus of the initiative away from poverty eradication would dampen the improvements/accomplishments made over the past 20 years because resources that could have been used to continue to reach the conference's goals, will now be spread across many areas. Climate change is without a doubt the most important issue facing society and the planet currently, however, the developed world is more equipped to handle its repercussions more than the portion of the world's population that is impoverished. In fact, many of the affluent behavior that is displayed by the developed world causes a negative ripple effect through the developed world, just look at the example of the quinoa prices rising that we began the course with. Before we figure out how to implement sustainable developments in the developed world, we must first solve the issue of poverty because our behavior is what partially caused it/contributing to its cycle. A counter to this argument could be made by pointing out that some of the unsustainable behavior we in the developed world have been displaying is what is also contributing to poverty.
ReplyDeleteJust like the Millennium Development Goals, very little action is being accomplished on the sustainable development front. It is a bunch of talk and no action. The first Rio Conference in 1992 was the first of its kind and succeeded in raising public awareness of the need to integrate the environment and development. 20 years later, the Rio Conference in 2012 was not deemed a failure, but far from a success. Greening the economy is still a far away from happening. Many of the problems still exist, trying to get everyone on board with sustainable development. Greening the economies in developing countries is very much possible as infrastructure is just being built and has the ability to invest in green building. This process can alleviate poverty in these countries by creating jobs and providing basic needs for families. But the developed world still has a way to go.
ReplyDeleteThe U.S, which uses 20% of the worlds energy and vast amounts of available oil is a long way off from using renewable energies. The Obama Administration did not offer any solutions at the conference on how to lower their consumption of oil or any alternatives. The innovation and technologies are present, but in our nature, humans are afraid of change. Changing from sources we are so accustomed to and switching to technologies that are expensive and very little known about them, why would developed countries switch? With nine billion people soon invading our planet, we better come up with reasonable alternatives soon. The U.S must follow European standards and invest in more renewable technologies and find ways to conserve oil consumption while becoming energy dependent at the same time. This all sounds complicated but it must be done to ensure our future. New goals must be set and countries must abide to these deadlines. Countries are not even on track to meet MDG goals. If countries are not working hard enough to meet these goals, why would they take sustainable development even more seriously?
I would only consider an increase in nuclear energy if proper waste management practices are available. The problem with nuclear energy is that the radioactive waste stays active for long periods of time and is deadly to living organisms. It is a scary thought of a waste plant malfunction or malfunction of any sort with a nuclear power plant. More studies and safer measures have to be established before we can consider increased scale of nuclear power.
Just like many of my classmates have said, the Rio+20 Earth Summit was more so a failure than success and that many of the issues surrounding it and the general idea of a Green Economy is just talk and no action, I believe that there is the potential for change but the proper moves aren't being made and the initiative aren't being taken. Like it was said previously, there are about 7 billion of us roaming the earth and we all have our separate impacts, which we need to be responsible for. Greening the economy is not just about teaching our kids and others about pollution, using less, or shutting the lights of before they leave; it is a total change of consciousness and a social change that needs to happen. It’s about changing the way we think every single day and the way we see our economy and ourselves as consumers. As human beings, we’ve all adapted to a ‘quick-fix’ mode of thinking. That whatever is fastest and easiest is probably best, and that’s a huge part of the problem. Also, as a classmate said, there is no consensus. Policy makers and corporate leaders need to be just as on board as the everyday working man or farmer. If we can get it together at the top, between the leaders and policy makers, then we can hope to work the change through everyone else.
ReplyDelete- Virginia MacDougall
I think more needs to be done to help solve some of the problems that are discussed in the Earth Summit. It seems like countries listen to what is said and they go home and don't take it too serious. I do believe what we are most concerned about is obviously global warming. I do think countries and manufactures have taken strides towards helping cut the amount of pollution. I do not recall what country in the past few months had a large problem with smog in their country but that is an issue that would have been something that should be addressed and countries should give input about how the reduce emissions in areas with a large population. I say this often but we need to start with ourselves, we then need to educate other people of the good and bad.
ReplyDeleteEven though little has changed in the past six months since the last Rio conference, environmentalists should try to be optimistic. The existence of conferences themselves are showing that people are taking an interest in sustainable development. If there is an interest among leaders, then there can be hope.
ReplyDeleteThe success of "the future we want" depends on the prevalence of turning to empirical evidence with changes of the Earth in relation to our actions. If everyone continues to desire a lifestyle of affluence, it will undoubtedly damage the Earth. It seems that ideologically, people want to leave the Earth as a livable space for future generations; however, when people are given the opportunity to live in a situation with greater affluence, they usually choose to. This is the mannerism of those living in a capitalist society. Maybe the change that we need is inciting anger or injustice in people. Oftentimes, the question of blame in terms of environmental degradation is the consumer or the producer. Surely, the consumer chooses a willful ignorance, and the producer accommodates to the demand of the market due to ignorance. If people demanded more instead of being complacent, then there would be more change.
This is Fariha Wasti from ECO: Road to Rio
ReplyDeleteThe motto for the Rio+20 summit, "the future we want", is very dependant on the ones who make the decision, and unfortunately not so much those whose lives are affeced. The biggest problem with environmental policies is that thye are not often recognized by society as an important issue, so they are not brought forth in legis;atre. It is a great thing that summits like Rio+22 and the Millenium Developmental Goals exist, but it is putting a time stamp on issues that won't be fixed just by giving a warning of a time litit, these are issues that need to be developed from the core of our societies. I believe that science and technology are definitely the main ways we will be able to reach everyone, and agree on different ways to solve the environmental issue. It is important to keep environmental sustainability's importance increasing in the public, and political sphere. In America, we do not look at it as an important issue, so much that we do not have strong policies towards keeping a greener society. In the streets of Manhattan, I have noticed small solar composting stations, but I am not even sure what exactly goes in them. I think New York City promotes sustainability, but at the same time, we have so much pollution. This issue will also be solved by understanding that not all people will be able to adapt to a completely new lifestyle. Sustainability has to develop from the cultures that can develop their own ways of making their steps a little more green.
- Fariha Wasti
The concept of green economy seems to raise more discussions than anything. Yet, time is running out and the depth of discussion around the Rio+20 agenda appears to vary enormously in different parts of the world. At the same time there is often a gap between policy solutions based on stability and certainty and the dynamism of the real world. We certainly need to avoid decisions that impact negatively on poor communities.We need political debate about which pathways to pursue that is democratic in the broadest sense, and inclusive - especially of the views and values of people who are poor and marginalised. Citizens have vital roles to play both in building those pathways, innovating in technologies, applications and social arrangements, and in the political processes that might make them real.
ReplyDelete