Facing Down Armageddon: Our Environment at a

Crossroads
World Policy Journal, Summer, 2009 by Maurice Strong

BEIJING -- The modern era has seen the creation of enormous wealth and the broad
advance of human development. Put simply, the majority of the world's people are now
enjoying unprecedented levels of prosperity and opportunity. But the unexpected speed and
severity of the global financial crisis and collapse of some of the most powerful financial
institutions have also precipitated a steep decline of the world economy-making this one of
the worst of times. It has shaken the foundations of our civilization, the wealthiest ever, and
given the lie to its promise of even greater wealth ahead.

Still, the accelerating damage to the Earth's natural capital will have even more devastating
consequences for the human future than the current financial and economic crises. The
economic and human costs of climate change to the global economy already amount to an
estimated $125 billion per year and the loss of 300,000 lives, according to a recent study by
the Global Humanitarian Forum headed by former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. And,
as noted in a recent report by the World Resources Institute, we face the increased
extinction of species, the waning of fish stocks, the ominous decline in the quality and
availability of water for human consumption, the continued degradation of forests and
biological resources, the loss of productive soil, worsening air pollution, and a severely
contaminated food chain--all threatening the very nature and sustainability of life on Earth.
Together, they represent the single greatest threat to human security. Some, however, still
contend we can only deal with the risks of climate change and repair damage from
environmental degradation after we fix the global economy. This is the height of folly.
Waiting would only intensify the imminent threats to our civilization.

Climate change is rooted in the same basic condition that has produced the global financial
and economic crises--the unsustainable nature of our existing economic system. The rapid
and unexpected meltdown across the planet demonstrates dramatically the vulnerability of a
system that cannot continue on the pathway that led to its collapse. This dictates that we
must manage these crises of multiple origins on a systemic, integrated basis, rather than as
separate and often competing issues. Only thus can we transform crisis into opportunity,
and rebuild our civilization in a manner that will ensure the survival and sustainability of life
on our planet. The United Nations has played a leading role in the development of
awareness of environmental degradation and the international response to it. The principles
agreed to at the Stockholm Conference in 1972, and at the Earth Summit in 1992, have
produced international agreements the United Nations has negotiated and serviced, which
have laid the foundations of today's global environmental initiatives.

The Global Effort

When the Stockholm Conference cited the risks of climate change, they were seen only as
distant problems. But as environmental research began better to understand and quantify
the accelerating risks of global warming, the continuing efforts of the United Nations played
a significant role in bringing climate change to the top of the global agenda. The Convention
on Climate Change that emerged from the Earth Summit in 1992 was followed by the 1997
Kyoto Protocol, which set targets for more developed countries to reduce their emissions.
Leading scientists, operating through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) established by the United Nations and under the leadership of the eminent Dr. R. K.
Pachauri, as well as the persuasive influence of former U.S. Vice President Al Gore,
supported this work. All these efforts have built a foundation for much more concerted
action on the part Of governments and much greater public awareness and support.
Thankfully, the United States under the Obama administration is now coming into line with
the global consensus, after the Bush administration repudiated Kyoto and refused to accept
targets for reduction of its emissions.

Despite these measures, however, greenhouse gas emissions have continued to increase,
and the scientific evidence of the consequences of accelerating risks are now beyond doubt.
This underscores the immense importance of the negotiations now underway in preparation
for December's UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, which is designed to extend
and amend the Kyoto Protocol beyond its expiration in 2012. It is imperative that
Copenhagen produce a new and far more rigorous agreement--a commitment by all
countries to ensure reduction of global emissions to levels which can promise climate
security.

This is one of the most important and difficult international agreements ever attempted.
Initial negotiations demonstrate the deep differences which divide the signatories,
particularly over emissions reduction targets that the more industrialized countries had
accepted under the Kyoto Protocol. (Developing countries, though parties to the Protocol,
were not required to accept targets).

Since Kyoto, the situation has changed more rapidly than expected, driven by the high
levels of economic growth in leading developing countries, notably China and India. These
countries are now the main source of increases in global emissions and will be under heavy
pressure to accept specific targets. Yet they are unlikely to accept commitments requiring
disproportionate reductions in their emissions (which would hobble their economies),
without corresponding actions by more developed countries.

China, India, and other emerging nations will insist on greater reductions by the West,
which has been primarily responsible for the accumulated emissions that have brought the
world's climate to today's dangerous threshold. This, they contend, must be accompanied
by commitments to provide financing and make available necessary technologies and
expertise that would enable developing nations to reduce their emissions without impairing
their continuing economic growth.

Developing countries could possibly agree to major changes which include commitments to
limiting the rate of growth of emissions provided more developed countries pledge major
reductions on their part. The actual extent of these commitments and the time period over
which reductions will be required can be expected to give rise to intense and divisive
negotiations which may not be completed in Copenhagen.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Of fundamental importance is agreement on the level at which greenhouse gas

concentration in the atmosphere must be capped. The positions of the main parties still
differ a great deal. They range from a planet-wide level of 450 parts per million (PPM) to
well below 350 PPM. The IPCC reports that the global atmospheric concentration of carbon
dioxide has reached 379 PPM in 2005, exceeding by far the natural range of the last 650
years (180-300 PPM). The IPCC states that the warming trend over the last 50 years is
nearly twice that of the previous century. Thus we are already at or near the threshold
levels of risk. This means that the more developed countries must collectively reduce their
emissions by more than 85 percent from 1990 levels by 2050, clearly a daunting challenge.
The path to achieve the long-term goal of global emissions reductions would require that
emissions peak by 2020, at the latest, and decrease thereafter. More developed countries,
as a group, would need to reduce their emissions by at least 45 percent from 1990 levels
and up to 95 percent by 2050.

The optimistic scenario would include an agreement on a climate security program, or, at
least the main elements thereof, combined with establishment of a "climate security fund"
to finance implementation of the program. More developed countries would commit
resources to this fund on a formula proportional to their emissions and their gross domestic
product (GDP). The scale of such a fund--initially on the order of at least $1 trillion--is far
beyond anything that more developed countries are contemplating and will likely be viewed
as unrealistic, particularly in light of the global financial and economic crisis. Still, this price
tag is less than the cost to the United States of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Such a level of funding, particularly under current circumstances, will require new and
innovative means. These could include fees for the use of the global commons (the oceans,
the atmosphere, and outer space that are not under national jurisdiction), taxes on fossil
fuels and other sources of emissions, and penalties for those who fall behind in meeting
targets. After all, most countries have long accepted high taxes on substances and practices
they consider harmful such as alcohol and smoking.

Any climate security program, however, will require that governments transform their
approach to financing their response to climate change--according it the overriding priority
they have given to other and, in the long run, lesser threats to their security. Simply, it is
time for national considerations to be put aside. The catastrophic impact of growing carbon
emissions will affect the entire globe, no matter where the emissions originate. As such,
large-scale assistance to developing countries (which can reduce emissions at a lower cost
than more developed countries) offers the most cost-effective investment in climate
security. Their participation in such a global program is essential to its success.

The investments we make to achieve climate security will generate new opportunities both
for businesses and individuals that will make major contributions to the establishment of the
new economy. Thus, both in their origins and solutions, the environmental and economic
crises are inextricably linked.

China and the United States combined produce some 40 percent of global greenhouse gas
emissions. While all countries must cooperate in meeting the climate change challenge, the
United States and China will be particularly important, indeed decisive. Fortunately, the
Copenhagen meeting comes at a time when a new administration in Washington appears
committed to high-priority action on climate change. With the current state of the economy,
however, it may be difficult to obtain congressional approval for all the measures the
Obama administration favors. Yet there is no other option--the United States must take the
lead in dealing with this issue.

Whither China?
Most fundamentally, the West must recognize that China is not just another developing
country (although it often modestly refers to itself as one). It might more accurately be
called a "re-developing" country, as it was once the world's leading economy--before
internal conflicts, traumatic turbulence, and external intrusions such as the Japanese
invasion and occupation, destroyed its unity and devastated its economy in the last century.
Mao Zedong, however controversial his legacy, restored the unity and dignity of China,
making possible the dramatic progress of its economy initiated by Deng Xiaoping.

China is now the world's fastest growing economy. While still smaller than the United States
in GDP terms, it is having a great and growing impact on the world's economic and financial
activities. Already, China has become the largest investor in Africa, South America, and a
number of other regions, including the United States--as the world's largest holder of U.S.
treasury securities.

China has also surpassed the United States as the main source of carbon emissions; but it is
still well behind in per capita terms. The average Chinese produces only one-fifth as much in
carbon emissions as the average American. Indeed, since the dawn of the industrial
revolution, the United States has generated more than 1.1 trillion tons of carbon emissions
from fossil fuels compared to China's 300 billion tons. The negative Dress that descended
like the smog over Beijing in the run-up to the 2008 Olympics led to attempts by some to
shift exaggerated and undeserved responsibility for climate change onto China. But the
government in Beijing has taken strong action at home and has a constructive attitude
toward participation in the global response to the risks of climate change, from which China
would be a major victim. Domestically, China has undertaken greater measures than the
United States to reduce its emissions, particularly from automobiles. China is also making
strong efforts to increase energy efficiency, develop renewable sources of energy, and
improve the overall efficiency of its economy. In Beijing, the car that takes me to work each
morning is banned, as are all others, for one day each week.

China is not the only nation to suffer from climate change, nor is it the first to take a
leadership role in solving the issue. Japan and some European countries, including
Germany, France, the United Kingdom and the Scandinavian nations, have made industries
more efficient and reduced carbon emissions. Still, in many respects, China is seizing a
leadership role in domestic initiatives. In Hunan province, some 200 polluting pulp and
paper plants are being shuttered, replaced with new plants that use the latest green
technologies. Premier Wen Jiabao also halted work on an already well-advanced dam
project in Hunan, another important example with even broader implications. Although
some of these initiatives exceed international requirements, China will not accept wider
international commitments without corresponding promises by more developed countries.

There are immense opportunities for China and the United States to reduce their carbon
emissions through increased energy efficiency. This is a win-win opportunity as more
efficient use of energy reduces costs as well as carbon emissions. China has committed
itself to improving its energy efficiency by 20 percent by 2010--a daunting goal, but one it
is pursuing vigorously. Indeed, China uses more energy to produce each unit of GDP than
do other leading industrialized countries. So Beijing has a strong incentive to make its
energy economy more efficient. China's Energy and Research Institute has suggested that,
by 2020, the country could cut its current emissions growth rate by half, and could reduce
absolute emissions by one-third by 2050. This will not be easy to achieve, but like many
other difficult goals China has set for itself throughout its history, we should not
underestimate the power of the Chinese people, or their resolve.
Despite the differences in the positions of Washington and Beijing, experts believe both
countries are capable of achieving major reductions in current emission levels. This will
mean an increased reliance on nuclear energy and renewable resources, reduced use of
coal, and employment of technologies which limit carbon dioxide emissions. The transition
away from the dominant role of fossil fuels in the global energy economy is inevitable, but
will not be easy. Meanwhile, the greatest focus must be on reducing emissions of coal and
oil, and increasing the use of climate-friendly fuels. But in the near term, lower oil prices
produced by the global economic meltdown have reduced the incentive to make the
transition to alternative sources.

In a market economy, however, governments can control and manage the system of
regulation, incentives, and penalties to motivate development and produce outcomes that
are sustainable in the long-term, if unsavory in the short-term. Governments can and
should shift subsidies from products and practices which are environmentally and socially
harmful to those which are most beneficial, while taxing the most harmful. A true economic
measure of the natural world is vital to set the prices on items and practices that are
destructive.

But no nation can do this alone without placing its own economy at a disadvantage. It must
be done in concert, and through international agreement. There is much room for
individuality in how these changes are administered nationally, but it can only be effectively
done within an internationally agreed-upon framework.

Still, fundamental change is possible--especially in an increasingly globalized world where

shared resources require a system of governance based on collaborative management and
control over issues which are essential to survival and sustainability. Those of us who live in
the developed world must get used to the fact that we are now a minority--a privileged and
still-powerful minority, to be sure--with diminishing power to exercise domination of the
world to which we have become accustomed.

Sustaining Development

Above all, in these economically perilous times, we must find a means of preserving the
ecology of our planet alongside the ability of all its citizens to sustain a decent way of life.
The World Commission on the Environment and Development, convened by the United
Nations and led by Norway's former Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland, made the case
for a pace of sustainable development which meets the needs of the present--without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. "The concept of
sustainable development does not imply limits--absolute limits--but limitations imposed by
the state of technology, social organization and environmental resources and by the ability
of various eco-systems to absorb the effects of human activities," the commission reported.
Environmental and socially responsible sustainable development would enable the basic
needs of all to be met and ensure that they have equitable opportunities to fulfill their
aspirations for a better life, while preserving the future viability of our planet.

It is a sad commentary on the morality of our civilization that we devote more of our
resources to development and deployment of sophisticated weaponry and killing power than
on meeting the humanitarian and social needs of people and protecting the environmental
viability of our planet.
Ultimately, the needs of people, particularly those most vulnerable, and our planet must be
at the center of change. The Earth Charter, a citizen-based initiative which sets out
principles to guide the conduct of nations and people towards the Earth and each other, has
been embraced by a growing number of people and organizations throughout the world,
including some governments. The Global Compact initiated in July 2000 by UN Secretary-
General Kofi Annan now includes several thousand corporations which have committed
themselves to high standards of social and environmental responsibility. This is all
encouraging evidence that people are becoming aware of, and concerned by, the threats to
our common future and are beginning to take the kind of actions that will drive and support
their governments in leading the processes of change.

The systemic nature of the events that are threatening the foundations of our globalized
system require a cooperative response, led by the major countries. At the same time,
developing countries, particularly the poorest, must be accorded full participation and
engagement. It would indeed be compounding an already tragic and dangerous situation if
the current crises lead to deepening rather than bridging the rich-poor divide. Recent
increases in weather turbulence and changes in rainfall pattern demonstrate dramatically
the economic and human costs of the destructive impact of such changes, mainly on the
poor.

Much too little has been done up to now to accommodate and prepare for the impact of
changes that have already occurred and are not reversible. Especially vulnerable are low-
lying islands, like the Maldives, and coastal areas in Bangladesh where so much of the
world's population is concentrated. The polar regions, the Arctic and Antarctic, are
particularly sensitive, and are already experiencing the early effects of change.

Global Improvements

Unparalleled advances in science and technology have vastly improved conditions of life for
the majority of the world's people and have provided more developed nations with the
means, if not the will, to lift those who have thus far been left behind. But this has also
created a series of imbalances and inequities, which threaten the very viability of our
civilization. Extremes of poverty and wealth divide the beneficiaries from the victims of
globalization and environmental degradation. Over the past few decades, the income gap
between the richest fifth of the world's population and its poorest fifth has more than
doubled to some 74 to 1.

But the phenomenal increase in our capacity to manage the transition to a sustain able
future has not been matched by an increase in our will to do so. While technologies ranging
from carbon capture to alternative energy sources, even the approach of electric cars, have
enabled much of the planet to envision a greener future, these and many other advances
have been outstripped by our deflection to other global priorities, particularly in the
wealthier nations. The desire for change which propelled Barack Obama into the American
presidency is, of course, a universal phenomenon.

Successful management of today's traumatic processes of change will not be easy to

achieve. Our concepts of ballot-box democracy may need to be modified to produce strong
governments capable of making difficult decisions, particularly in terms of safeguarding the
global environment that this transition will require and whose results are often not
immediately apparent.
At the same time, intense rivalries are building over access to scarce resources and
competing claims for areas with the potential for resource development. Competition for
water resources, for instance, is contributing to tensions and rivalry in the Middle East and
elsewhere. Demographics will also have profound effects on the global future. Although the
rate of population growth has declined, the total global population is likely to reach some 8
billion people, most of it concentrated in developing countries. The more mature
industrialized countries, however, face the prospect of aging and declining populations.
These pressures will produce increasing competition for land and resources. The global
commons (the oceans, the atmosphere, and outer space) is particularly prone to the
potential for conflicts. As the United States and others seek primacy in management and
control of such regions, competing interests are bound to be divisive. Security of food
supplies will be affected by climate change and the changing pattern of rainfall it produces,
by loss of biodiversity and the spread of deserts and arid lands. Again, it is the poor who will
suffer most.

Managing Forces

I've watched personally the impact of climate change in many areas where I've traveled,
lived, and worked. On the busy streets of a booming Beijing, forlorn families from arid areas
just north of the city, which can no longer support them, look lost but hopeful in their
search for a new life. Half a world away, Inuit people of the Canadian Arctic, with whom I
lived in my youth, are suffering today the demise of their traditional lifestyles as their world
warms and the animals they once hunted die off or migrate. Indeed, these people, the most
vulnerable, will be some of the first victims of climate change.

I am convinced that governance--the ability to manage the complex of forces shaping our
future--is at the center of the challenges we face. Not all issues need to be dealt with at the
global level. In many cases, the principal global role is to provide the framework, context,
and international agreements required to facilitate and support actions that can best be
taken at the local, national, and regional levels. But I am a great believer in the principle
that all issues should be dealt with at the level closest to the people concerned. In simple
terms, we must learn to manage our impact on the environment much as we manage our
businesses--with amortization, maintenance, and depreciation accounts--to ensure
continued sustainability.

We are the first generation in history to have such extreme control over the shape of the
planet our children will inhabit. What we do, or fail to do, today will determine their future.
This does not mandate homogeneity in our lifestyles or aspirations, or asceticism writ large.
It is instructive to remind ourselves that the most healthy and sustainable natural ecological
systems are those which maintain the highest degree of diversity and variety. It does,
however, require that at the global level we agree on those measures essential to avoid the
major risks to survival and well-being of the human community--while ensuring the
broadest range of opportunities for individual self-expression and fulfillment.

We cannot afford to be complacent in the belief that whatever we do, life will go on. We
must realize that the conditions which make life possible as we know it have only existed for
a very brief period of our planet's long history. It is clear that humans are now impinging on
this hospitality at a speed beyond our ability to adjust or adapt. Human existence is at risk.
We face an Armageddon that is both real and imminent. But the prospect of success,
however challenging, is also very real.
Maurice Strong served as secretary-general of the 1972 United Nations Conference on the
Human Environment, which launched the world environmental movement, and the 1992
Earth Summit. He was the first executive director of the United Nations Environment
Program (UNEP). He currently spends much time in Beijing where he is actively involved in
environmental and related issues, notably climate change.

COPYRIGHT 2009 World Policy Institute

COPYRIGHT 2009 Gale, Cengage Learning