Will Big Brother Restrict Travel To "Save the Planet?"

http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/11/big_brother_in_your_gas_tank_r.php



By David Vance, 25 November 2007



[photo]

Not so fast...have you exceeded your "personal carbon allowance?"



As Americans take to the roads and the airports returning home from

their holiday, over in Great Britain, a new proposal on global warming

could limit that freedom. Will the British become "the experimental rats

in the carbon-mania laboratory?" asks David Vance. And if the experiment

succeeds in the UK, could the US be next?



Global warming provides a perfect alibi for those who seek to curtail

our essential liberties.



Restricting the ability of citizens to travel is clearly an unpopular

strategy for any politician to advance but if if comes from the left and

done in the name of "Saving the Planet" then it is likely to win

sympathetic media treatment and so become a real political possibility.



It is against this background that the British Government is introducing

a "Climate Change Bill" which would make the United Kingdom the only

country in the world with legally binding targets for reducing

greenhouse gas emissions.



The implications are that the five-yearly goals outlined in the Bill

would cost the UK up to $24 billion a year for the next 42 years and

ensure that future governments are held legally responsible for what the

current administration has embarked upon.



The Bill does not say how carbon dioxide emissions will be cut but

simply commits the Government to a 60 per cent reduction by 2050.



This colossal economic cost of trying to hit this target is glibly

dismissed by the likes of UK Environment Secretary Hilary (a male

Hilary, not female) Benn as an absolute necessity if Britain is to show

the sort of "environmental leadership."



In fact he celebrates this prospect as it sets Britain "firmly on the

path to the low-carbon economy". He believes that



"We need to provide the framework that will give a clear idea of how we're going to tackle climate change. We also need to show that we're taking decisive action

within our borders and not asking other countries, in particular poorer

countries, to do what we're not willing to do ourselves."



In other words, the British government is quite prepared to wreck its

own economy in the quest to appear environmentally progressive, even

though economists warn that a sustained switch to a low-carbon economy

may well trigger an economic crisis and substantial job losses.



This means nothing to those wrapped in the garment of the green gospel.

When dealing with environmental fundamentalists, fiscal reason has

little relevance.



The UK Government is not just interested in using global warming to

raise new green taxes and to further hike fuel costs, but it is also

contemplating allocating "personal carbon allowances." The way these

work is that you will be granted a fixed amount of carbon to use each

year. Each time you travel in a plane, buy petrol, go shopping or eat

out would be recorded on a plastic card. The more frugal could sell

spare carbon allowances to those who want to "indulge" themselves. But

if you were to run out of your carbon allowance, you could be barred

from flying or driving.



The government will thus be able to prevent its citizens from traveling

both inside and outside the United Kingdom under the guise of managing

carbon allowances.



For the first time in history we face the real prospect of having the

fundamental right to travel prohibited by government. It is also said

that reports are being currently prepared for the British government as

to how and when carbon rationing might be implemented.



In this way the pursuance of the global warming agenda by scheming

politicians can actually represent the greatest imaginable threat to the

liberty of the people of the United Kingdom.



Overseeing all of this is Gordon Brown, the man who has succeeded Tony

Blair as UK Prime Minister without the awkwardness of an election.



To get a sense of where Brown's loyalties lie, a few months ago when in

the US visiting President Bush at Camp David, he made it a priority to

see Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid on Capitol before directly going to the

United Nations and inviting Bill Clinton to drop by. Brown is clearly

hoping for a Clinton to be returned to the White House.



This begs the question as to what a future President Clinton might think

about the fascinating experiment being conducted on the people of the

United Kingdom by her good friend Gordon Brown.



We British are the experimental rats in the carbon-mania laboratory. If

Prime Minister Brown can get away with stopping us traveling by car and

plane - and doing it in the name of cutting carbon emissions - isn't it

possible that the people if the US might also face the future prospect

of also being issued with "personal" carbon allowances by a munificent

President Clinton? Is it imaginable that someday US citizens could be

prohibited from traveling how and when they choose - and all in the name

of saving the Earth?

ANNOUNCEMENT!!!

THE ITSSD JOURNAL IS PROUD TO ANNOUNCE THE CREATION OF A NEW BLOG, DEDICATED TO THE INCREASE OF SUSTAINABILITY THROUGH THE GREATER PROTECTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.
http://itssdinternationaliprights.blogspot.com/

The Petition Project – More Than 19,000 Sign Petition Urging U.S. Administration Not to Ratify Kyoto Protocol

Global Warming Petition

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

This petition has been signed by over 19,000 American scientists.

A listing of all signers by state is accessible at: http://www.sitewave.net/pproject/listbystate.htm

Information:

... Qualification to be a signatory requires that the individual have a university degree in physical science, either BS, MS, or PhD. Those with MS or PhD degrees are so designated. Those with BS degrees are undesignated or sometimes designated as MD if appropriate.

The costs of this petition project have been paid entirely by private donations. No industrial funding or money from sources within the coal, oil, natural gas or related industries has been utilized. The petition's organizers, who include some faculty members and staff of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, do not otherwise receive funds from such sources. The Institute itself has no such funding. Also, no funds of tax-exempt organizations have been used for this project.

The signatures and the text of the petition stand alone and speak for themselves. These scientists have signed this specific document. They are not associated with any particular organization. Their signatures represent a strong statement about this important issue by many of the best scientific minds in the United States.

This project is titled "Petition Project" and uses a mailing address of its own because the organizers desired an independent, individual opinion from each scientist based on the scientific issues involved - without any implied endorsements of individuals, groups, or institutions.

In a listing of this size, some apparently duplicate names and some names identical to real or fictional people who are not scientists or signatories occur by chance. This listing has been very carefully verified. It contains one and only one entry for each scientist and contains no entries for individuals who are not trained in science or who did not sign the petition.

Our e-mail address, for the purposes of this project, is: artr@oism.org

[A copy of the petition is accessible here: http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWPetition.pdf ...]

Letter from Frederick Seitz:

Research Review of Global Warming Evidence

Enclosed is a twelve-page review of information on the subject of "global warming," a petition in the form of a reply card, and a return envelope. Please consider these materials carefully.

The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.

This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge.

Note: The Petition Project has no funding from energy industries or other parties with special financial interests in the "global warming" debate. Funding for the project comes entirely from private non-tax deductible donations by interested individuals.

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

By: Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. Noah E. Robinson, Ph.D. and Willie Soon, Ph.D.



Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 12 Number 3 Fall 2007



http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/robinson.pdf



http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM600.pdf

The ‘Crisis’ Mentality Giving Rise to Malthusian Negative Sustainable Development

1http://wwwitssd.org/Issues/empoweringUN-negative.pdf


Empowering the UN to Achieve
The ‘Negative’ Paradigm of Sustainable Development
The following excerpts are from an article prepared by one advocate of the ‘negative’
paradigm of sustainable development, the recommended panacea for all of the global ills
that have allegedly been triggered by free markets, private intellectual property rights, new
technologies and current WTO principles. Since this article appears on the website of the
United Nations University (UNU), it may fairly be concluded that the ideas expressed
within it have been embraced by UN officials.
http://www.unu.edu/interlink/papers/WG1/Khor.doc
GLOBALISATION AND THE CRISIS OF
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Martin Khor
Director, Third World Network
A. THE CRISIS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
It has been almost a decade since the Rio Summit of 1992. At the time it was hailed
as an achievement for placing the environment crisis at the top of the international
agenda, and for linking environment with development in a new paradigm of
sustainable development. There was a hope that the “Spirit of Rio”
would carry the paradigm forward into practical programmes
and policies that would deal with both the environment and
development crises in a new North South partnership.
Today it must be admitted that the process after Rio has
largely failed to fulfill the promise and hopes of Rio. The Rio
Plus Five Summit (UN General Assembly Special Session to review UNCED)
concluded in June 1997 without a political statement because the divide between
North and South countries was too wide to bridge. The world’s environment had
continued to deteriorate. For example, forests continue to disappear or be degraded at
a rate of 14 million hectares a year; Greenhouse Gases are still increasingly pumped
in the atmosphere, but the US has pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol and the present
targets for emission reductions are clearly inadequate; and there is a looming crisis of
water shortages around the world.
2
The reason is not to be found in the paradigm. Rather, the paradigm
was not given the chance of being tested in implementation. Instead,
the sustainable development paradigm came under competition
from a rival, the paradigm of globalisation. This rival had indeed already
been gathering strength even before the UNCED process. But UNCED for a time
gave globalisation good competition, and UNCED was even given support by the
Copenhagen Social Development Summit of 1995.
However, the globalisation paradigm was given a great boost by the
Marakkesh Agreement of 1994 that established the World Trade
Organisation. Globalisation found a new institutional house with its
many rooms in the WTO’s several agreements. Moreover the
WTO’s dispute settlement system based on retaliation and sanctions
gave it a strong enforcement capability. The WTO agreements
rivalled the chapters of Agenda 21 and the Rio Declaration. The
UNCED did not have a compliance system or a strong agency for
following up its agreements. As the 1990s drew on, and the WTO agreements
became more and more operational, the globalisation paradigm far outstripped the
sustainable development paradigm. Marakkesh 1994 overrode and undermined Rio
1992.
Moreover, globalisation was fostered by more than the WTO.
Financial liberalisation contributed to the series of new financial crises that
began with Mexico, going on to East Asia, Russia and Brazil and now enveloping
Turkey and Argentina. This was in addition to the old financial crisis of debt in Africa
and other regions that has refused to go away. Globalisation also took the
form of the spread of new technologies, including genetic
engineering that has the potential of impacting significantly on the
environment.
The competition between the two paradigms, with
globalisation without doubt running away as the winner, and
moreover a winner whose speed, direction and effects seem to
be uncontrollable, has resulted in a crisis of sustainable
development -- or rather a number of crises:
• The environment crisis has not been checked. It is getting worse including in
the area of biodiversity loss, water depletion and scarcity, climate change,
deforestation. The effects are going to be devastating.
• The crisis of development has worsened. The plight of LDCs continues, whilst
many of the more successful emerging economies also fell into crisis, and
several development options have been diminishing in scope or possibility.
3
• The conceptual, policy and political link between environment and
development which had apparently been made inextricable by the UNCED
process seems to have broken all too easily, and “development” as a principle
or right seems to be disappearing in the Northern establishment.
• Even on the more narrow arena of environment, there is a backlash from
commerce- backed forces, which has resulted recently in weakening of
multilateral partnership (as witness a small group of countries almost
succeeding in scuttling the Biosafety Protocol, and the US rejecting the Kyoto
Protocol).
In short, in the years after the Rio Summit, the environment has dropped many
notches down the global and national agendas, whilst "development" is also fast
vanishing as a principle and an agenda item, in the countries of the North and thus in
the international agenda.
The process of globalisation has gained so much force that it has
undermined and is undermining the sustainable development
agenda. Commerce and the perceived need to remain competitive in
a globalising market, and to cater to the demands of companies and
the rich, have become the top priority of governments in the North
and some in the South. Correspondingly, partnership for
environment and development concerns has been downgraded.
The most glaring weakness at Rio was the failure to include
the regulation of business, financial institutions and TNCs in
Agenda 21 and the other decisions. These institutions are responsible for
generating much of the pollution and resource extraction in the world, as well as
greatly contributing to the generation of unsustainable consumption patterns and a
consumer culture. UNCED and the Commission on Sustainable
Development, the UN system as a whole and governments
have collectively failed to create international mechanisms to
monitor and regulate these companies. Instead their power and
outreach have spread much more, and this has been facilitated by the implementation
of the WTO’s rules.
However whilst sustainable development is at a low ebb, there are
also signs of its revival as a paradigm. The limitations and failures of
globalisation have caused a major public backlash which may
eventually result in some policy changes. Pro-sustainability forces
within governments in developing countries are becoming more
aware of their right or responsibility to try to rectify the present
problems, including changing some of the rules in WTO. The World
4
Summit on Sustainable Development provides a good opportunity to refocus
attention of the establishment and the public, not only on the problems, but on the
need to shift paradigms.
This paper re-states the UNCED principles, reviews UNCED’s weaknesses and the
problems of non-implementation of the Rio agreements, gives examples of how
globalisation has undermined sustainable development goals, and outlines proposals
for dealing with some of the problems in the interface between globalisation and
sustainable development.
… F. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS,
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AND SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT
1. Technology transfer in the UNCED process
One of the major developments in the field of globalisation after the Rio Summit has
been the establishement of global minimum standards for IPRs, under the WTO. This
has had a major negative effect on access to technology by developing countries.
UNCED recognised that technology transfer was essential for developing countries’
transition to sustainable development. Indeed, technology transfer was one of the two
critical cross-cutting issues in the North-South compact, the other being financial
resources. In the UNCED process, the key issue in technology transfer was
intellectual property rights. The South argued that IPRs had to be relaxed in the case
of environmentally-sound technology (EST), for otherwise IPRs would hinder the
South’s access to such technology.
The Northern delegations were very sensitive on this point and refused to concede.
Whilst agreeing that concessional terms should be encouraged for the transfer of
ESTs, the Northern governments insisted that IPRs (such as patents) be applied and
that an exception should not be made in IPR regimes on such technologies.
Finally, the Agenda 21 chapter on technology called for action to
promote and finance the access to and transfer of environmentallysound
technologies to developing countries on favourable (including
concessional and preferential) terms. But it also says these terms
must be "mutually agreed" upon and also take into account the need
to protect intellectual property rights.
The full application of such rights would of course be a major barrier to technology
transfer, and deprive the commitment to transfer technology of much of its content.
There is thus a fundamental tension within the agreement on technology, and room
5
for more discussion on how to operationalise the Agenda 21 proposals on technology
cooperation, transfer and capacity building. The Southern countries consider this to
be an area where assistance from the North is critically needed.
2. IPRs as obstacle to technology transfer
Since Rio, there has also been little or no progress on facilitating the transfer of
environmentally sound technology to the South. Instead, the international IPR regime
has become much stricter, especially through the TRIPS Agreement in the WTO,
which will have to be translated to policies and laws at national level. Evidence is
also emerging that the IPR regime can prevent developing countries
from having effective access to environmentally-sound technologies
(ESTs).
Holders of the patents to these technologies, which are usually
Northern-centred transnational companies, can charge high fees or
royalties for the right to use them, or impose conditions that are
onerous. Companies in the South may not afford to pay at such prices, and if they
do their competitiveness could be affected. As a result, developing countries may find
difficulties in meeting their commitments to phase out the use of polluting substances
under international environment agreements.
For example, Third World firms find it difficult to have access to
substitutes for chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), chemicals used in
industrial processes as a coolant, that damage the atmosphere’s
ozone layer. This hinders the South’s ability to meet commitments under the
Montreal Protocol, an international agreement aimed at tackling ozone layer loss by
phasing out the use of CFCs and other ozone-damaging substances by certain target
dates.
Under the Protocol, developed countries originally agreed to eliminate production and
use of CFCs by the year 2000, whilst developing countries are given a ten-year grace
period to do the same. A fund was set up to help developing countries meet the costs
of implementing their phase-out, and the protocol includes articles on technology
transfer to the South on fair and favourable terms.
Indian firms that manufacture products (such as refrigerators) with CFCs found it
very difficult to phase out the use of these substances because of the lack of access to
environmentally acceptable substitutes controlled by Northern multinationals. There
are five Indian companies that are major manufacturers of products that depend on
the use of CFCs. They face closure if they are unable to meet the dateline of
eliminating CFCs use by the year 2010. However, the pledged technology transfer on
fair and most favourable terms has not materialised. Three of the Indian companies
6
formed a consortium to commission a local institute of technology to produce a
substitute for CFCs, i.e. HFC 134A. However, the patent rights to the substitute are
held by a few multinational companies. Some of the Indian companies are willing to
pay the market price or even higher for the technology. But a multinational holding
the patent has refused to license it unless it can take a majority stake in the companies’
equity. This example shows how much the developing countries have been put on the
spot.
On one hand they are persuaded or pressurised to join international environmental
agreements and commit themselves to take painful steps to change their economic
policies or production methods. Financial aid and technology transfer on fair and
most favourable terms are promised during the hard negotiations, to persuade the
South countries to sign on. Then, when the agreements come into force, the funds are
far from the promised level, and technology transfer fails to materialise.
Meanwhile in another forum like the WTO, other treaties such as TRIPS are
negotiated which produce an opposite effect, and that is to block the
South’s access to environmental technology. Yet, when the time comes, the
developing countries may not be able to meet their full obligations, such as phasing
out the use of CFCs (in the Montreal Protocol). There is thus an unfair imbalance.
The North does not follow its obligation to help the South, but the South has to meet
its commitments, which because of the lack of aid and technology, will cause
economic dislocation.
One remedy being proposed by some public interest groups
and developing countries is to change the international laws
on patents so that the full weight of IPRs is not applied to
environmentally-sound technology. For example, the Indian
government has made out a strong case for amending the
TRIPS accord in the WTO in order to recognise developing
countries’ need for transfer of ESTs on "preferential and
non-commercial terms." It tabled a paper on the issue of TRIPS and the
transfer of ESTs at the WTO in 1996 (see section below).
3. TRIPS and Environment at the WTO
In the WTO’s Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE), the "TRIPS and
environment" is being discussed, under two issues: (a) the relationship of TRIPS
agreement to access to and transfer of technology and the development of
environmentally-sound technology; and (b) the relationship between the TRIPS
agreement and MEAs which contain IPR-related obligations.
7
A key issue, as defined by NGOs and some Southern governments, is
an important clause in the TRIPS agreement relating to
patentability and non-patentability of biological materials, i.e. the
issue of "patenting of life forms."
An interesting set of proposals on TRIPS and technology transfer has been presented
by India to the CTE. The Indian paper (March 1996) states that the five types of
intellectual protection (IP) covered in TRIPS are relevant in this context: patents,
plant variety protection, layout designs of integrated circuits and undisclosed
information. Two types of technologies incorporating IP are distinguished: those that
harm and that benefit the environment. The use of the first should be discouraged, the
second encouraged, by the international community.
On patents, for technologies harmful to the environment, measures
needed to discourage their global use may include exclusion from
patentability (so that incentives are not given to generate such
technologies) and ban of their use or commercial exploitation.
The TRIPS agreement recognises this reasoning in Article 27.2
which allows exclusion from patentability "inventions, the
prevention within their territory of the commercial exploitation of
which is necessary to protect ordre public or morality, including to
protect human, animal or plant life or health or to avoid prejudice to
the environment, provided that such exclusion is not made merely
because the exploitation is prohibited by their law."
For environmentally-beneficial technologies, to encourage their global use, and in
cases where other measures for technology transfer are not possible, India proposes
three points: (a) Members may have to exclude from patentability, to allow free
production and use, such technologies as are essential to safeguard or improve the
environment. Such an exclusion is not incompatible with TRIPS and may have to be
incorporated through a suitable amendment; (b) For currently patented technologies,
Members may revoke patents already granted, if this is done in consonance with the
Paris Convention and must be subject to judicial review; (c) To encourage the use of
environmentally-beneficial technology, Members should be allowed to reduce the
term of patent protection from the present minimum of 20 years to say 10 years, "so
as to allow free access to environmentally-beneficial technologies within a shorter
period."
Another key aspect of technology transfer and IPRs is the TRIPs
provision in relation to biological materials (Article 27.3b). It requires
governments to allow patent protection for microorganisms and microbiological
processes for producing plants and animals. It also requires that intellectual rights on
plant varieties be protected either through patenting or an "effective sui generis
8
system of protection." This raises concerns: firstly, that TRIPS makes it mandatory
for countries to patent some life forms; and secondly, that the knowledge of Third
World farmers and indigenous communities that has mainly contributed to the
development of crops and the use of plants will not be legally recognised, whilst the
corporations which genetically engineer biological resources will be unfairly
rewarded. Countries of the South would then have to purchase biotechnology
products at high prices (which are facilitated by the patent protection) even though
they are the origin of the biological resources (and of the knowledge on their
utilisation) used in biotechnology. This is likely to lead to higher cost of seeds and
food products in developing countries.
In the TRIPS Council, many developing countries (most notably the
Africa Group of countries and India) have raised the above concerns
and asked for revisions to TRIPS or clarifications, to the effect that
living organisms and processes cannot be patented, and that
Members can introduce a sui generis protection system that protects
the traditional knowledge of farmers and indigenous communities.
However, there has been generally a negative response from
developed countries which prefer the status quo to remain, or which
want even tighter IPR disciplines in this area.
There are many other issues in TRIPS that are relevant to a discussion on sustainable
development, such as the effects of IPRs on affordable medicines, other consumer
items, and on technology transfer generally.
G. "TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT" AND ENVIRONMENTAL
STANDARDS
"Trade and environment" was established as an issue in WTO due to a Ministerial
decision at Marrakesh in 1994. It is discussed at the WTO’s Committee on Trade
and Environment.
That there are links between trade and environment cannot and should not be
denied. Trade can contribute to environmentally harmful activities. Ecological
damage, by making production unsustainable, can also have negative effects on
long-term production and trade prospects. In some circumstances, trade (for
example, trade in environmentally-sound technology products) can assist in
improving the environment.
What has been most controversial in looking at "linkages" is the
advocacy of the use of trade measures and sanctions on
environmental grounds. Some environment groups and animal
9
rights groups believe that national governments should be given
the right to unilaterally impose import bans or restrictions on
products on the grounds that the process of production is
destructive to animal life, and that WTO rules should be amended
to enable these unilateral actions.
Some groups, and some developed country Members of WTO, go further and have
advocated the adoption of a set of concepts linking trade measures in the WTO to
the environment. These concepts are processes and production methods (PPMs),
internalisation of environmental costs, and eco-dumping. The three concepts are
inter-related. When discussed in the WTO context, the implication is that if a
country has lower environmental standards in an industry or sector, the cost of that
country’s product is not internalised and the prices are thus too low (being unfairly
subsidised by the low standard) and thus that country is practising "eco-dumping."
As a result, an importing country would have the right to impose trade penalties,
such as levying countervailing duties, on the goods.
This set of ideas poses complex questions relating to concepts, estimations and
practical application, particularly as they relate to the international setting and to
the WTO. Developing countries are likely to find themselves at a great
disadvantage within the negotiating context of the WTO should the subject (which
has already been discussed in the Committee on Trade and Environment) come up
for negotiations.
One of the main issues is whether all countries should be expected to adhere to the
same standard, or whether standards should be allowed to correspond to the
different levels of development. The application of a single standard would be
inequitable as poorer countries that can ill-afford high standards would have their
products made uncompetitive. The global burden of adjustment to a more
ecological world would be skewed inequitably towards the developing countries.
This is counter to the UNCED principle of "common but differentiated
responsibility" in which it was agreed that the developed countries, which take the
greater share of blame for the ecological crisis and have more means to counter it,
should correspondingly bear the greater responsibility for the global costs of
adjustment.
Given the unequal bargaining strengths of North and South in the WTO, the
complex issues relating to PPMs, cost internalisation, trade-related environment
measures etc. should not be negotiated within the WTO but if at all discussed, the
venue should be the United Nations (for example in the framework of the
Commission on Sustainable Development) in which the broader perspective of
environment and development and of the UNCED can be brought to bear.
Unilateral trade measures taken by an importing country against a product on
grounds of its production method or process are also fraught with dangers of
10
protectionism and the penalising of developing countries. However tempting the
route of unilateral import bans may be for the environmental cause, it is an
inappropriate route as it will lead to many consequences and could eventually even
be counter-productive.
Policies and measures to resolve environmental problems (and there are many
genuine such problems that have reached the crisis stage) should be negotiated in
international environmental fora and agreements. These measures can include (and
have included) trade measures.
The relationship between the WTO and its rules and the
multilateral environment agreements (MEAs) is also a
controversial subject of debate in the WTO. On one hand there is the
fear (of developing countries) that a system of blanket and automatic approval by
the WTO of trade measures adopted by a "MEA" (for example by an amendment
to Article XX to enable ex-ante approval of MEA measures) could lead to abuse
and protectionism. A sticking point here is what constitutes a "multilateral
environment agreement" as it may include not only truly international agreements
convened by the UN and open to all members and enjoying near-universal
consensus, but also agreements drafted by a few countries which then invite others
to join (and would then also enjoy exemption under the proposed amended WTO
rules).
The fear of protectionist abuse explains the reluctance of
developing countries to amend Article XX, which in their opinion
is already flexible enough to enable exceptions to accommodate
environmental objectives.
On the other hand there is the genuine fear of environmental groups (and also
developing country and some developed country Members of WTO) that
negotiations in new MEAs can be (and are being) undermined by the proposition
of some countries that WTO rules prohibit trade measures for environmental
purposes, or that WTO "free-trade principles" must take precedence over
environmental objectives. Such arguments were for example used by a few
countries in the negotiations for an International Biosafety Protocol. Such
arguments are false, as the WTO allows for trade measures agreed to in MEAs
through the present Article XX (although not in the ex-ante manner proposed by
some countries).
The use of the WTO name by a few countries to turn away the proposals by the
overwhelming majority of delegations to establish checks on the trade in
genetically modified organisms and products (through a prior informed consent
procedure) gave the impression that commercial interests were placed before
global ecological and safety concerns and understandably generated outrage among
most delegations as well as environmental and social organisations. Negative
11
actions like this, that blatantly use the slogan of "free trade" to undermine vital
health and environmental concerns, are part of the reasons for the erosion of public
confidence in "free trade" and the WTO system. Thus governments should not
wrongly make use of "free trade" or "WTO rules" to counter international
agreements that deal with genuine environmental problems, otherwise the
credibility of the trading system itself will be eroded even further.
For many NGOs (especially of the South) as well as developing
country WTO members, an important "trade and environment"
issue is the effect of the TRIPS Agreement in hindering access to
environmentally sound technologies and products. (This issue is
dealt with in Section F). Another issue is the conflict between
objectives and provisions of TRIPS and the CBD and how to
resolve them. So far there has not been a solution.
H. SOME OTHER ASPECTS OF GLOBALISATION AND THE
ENVIRONMENT
1. Globalisation and ecological deterioration
The post-UNCED record on the environment component of sustainable development
has been just as or even more disappointing than the record on economic and social
components. A major factor for this is that the powerful commercial and financial
interests succeeded in pushing economic liberalisation and the "free market" approach
to be the over-riding priority for most governments. Environmental concerns fell
several notches. Liberalisation, commercialisation and
globalisation together with the logic of the race to retain or
gain "competitiveness" have undermined sustainable
development as both a principle and a programme. Since
the liberalisation/globalisation process is the main source of
the increased ecological problems, the key to prevent a
further worsening of environmental crises is to create
conditions for public intervention in free-market forces. The
present reluctance of political leaders (or worse, their belief in the impossibility) to
institute policies that alter or temper the present pro-free market approach and to
make businesses more publicly accountable and responsible is at the root of the
current environmental impasse.
Liberalisation and globalisation are related to the worsening of the global
environment in various ways:
12
* The failure to internationally monitor and regulate transnational corporations,
and instead the moves to widen their rights and access, have led to a spectacular rise
in their power and authority. TNCs have generally and rapidly expanded the outreach
and volume of their activities. This has correspondingly increased the damage caused
to the environment in terms of volume and geographical spread.
* Liberalisation policies and global market integration have facilitated the
institutions and activities that have led to greater exploitation and depletion of
biological diversity and resources such as forests and fishery resources, and have
promoted and expanded environmentally-harmful land-based activities (agriculture
and aquaculture), that lead to continued reduction in the status of biodiversity.
* Other resources continue to be depleted beyond sustainable rates, such as water,
soil and minerals. Liberalisation has opened up more mining concessions and a new
wave of environmentally damaging mining activities.
* The lack of financial flows to and resources in most developing countries
(accompanied by continuing debt and commodity price problems), and the
persistence of structural adjustment restrictions and policies have meant a great lack
of resources or "economic space" in many of these countries to implement or change
towards environmentally-sound production.
* There is little improvement in technology. There is no real will to change
harmful production methods. The promised technology transfer to the South has not
taken place; instead new obstacles have emerged, such as enhanced IPR protection.
Harmful technologies continue to be exported to the South and new technologies are
being spread before adequate assessment and regulation.
* There is slow progress in reducing the trade in toxic and hazardous substances
and products, and the export of these to the South has continued and even increased.
* The emphasis on the need to be competitive has meant slow progress (and in
some countries an actual rolling back) in control of pollution and energy use. Big
infrastructure projects that are ecologically harmful are proliferating. The race to earn
foreign exchange has led to increased tourism promotion and activities, with their
side effects.
* With the accelerated spread of information and communications products, the
consumer culture has been more widely spread. In the North and among Southern
elite, there is little progress in curbing wasteful lifestyles. On the whole, there is an
increase in unsustainable consumption patterns.
Some details of these interactions between globalisation and the environment are
given below.
13
2. The rise of TNC power and the environmental implications
On the eve of the Earth Summit in 1992, the Third World Network made the
assessment that the "biggest gap in the UNCED documents being
signed in Rio is the absence of proposals for the international
regulation or control of big businesses and transnational corporations
to ensure that they reduce or stop activities that are harmful to the
environment, health and development." (TWN 1992). This was because
the TNCs account for the largest part of global economic activity and are the main
entities responsible for the global environment crisis. TWN expressed concern
that the UNCED secretariat had downgraded the need to strengthen
regulation of TNCs (for example, by shelving the UN Centre on
TNC’s recommendations, requested for by the ECOSOC) and
instead promoted self-regulation through a Business Council for
Sustainable Development. "A voluntary set of principles cannot
be an adequate replacement for multilaterally agreed codes
and regulations which states oblige industry and TNCs to
follow," the TWN concluded.
Following the Rio Summit, the trend of deregulation of TNCs and of granting to them
more rights and freedoms, without corresponding accountability, has greatly
accelerated, particularly with the conclusion of the Uruguay Round agreements. This
trend is likely to spurt ahead further if the proposals before the WTO on investment,
competition and government procurement succeed.
That TNCs are the most important players and factors involved in environmentally
damaging activities can be gauged from the following:
* TNC activities generate more than half of the Greenhouse Gases emitted by
industrial sectors with the greatest impact on global warming.
* TNCs have virtually exclusive control of the production and use of ozonedestroying
CFCs and related compounds.
* In mining, TNCs still dominate key industries and are intensifying their activities.
In aluminium, for example, six companies control 63% of the mine capacity.
* In agriculture, TNCs control 80% of land worldwide cultivated for export crops;
and 20 firms account for 90% of pesticide sales.
* TNCs manufacture most of thw world’s chlorine, the basis for some of the most
toxic chemicals including PCBs, DDT and dioxins.
14
* TNCs are the main transmitters of environmentally unsound production systems,
hazardous materials and products to the Third World. For example, 25% of pesticide
exports from the US in the late 1980s were chemicals banned or withdrawn in the US
itself.
* TNCs dominate the trade (and in many cases the extraction or exploitation) of
natural resources and commodities, that contribute to depletion or degradation of
forests, water and marine resources and, toxic wastes and unsafe products.
* Through advertising and product promotion, they also promote a culture of
unsustainable consumption.
Case studies of the recent performance of twenty TNCs by Greer and Bruno
(1996) show that despite the improved public relations exercise claiming greater
environmental responsibility and despite more and more voluntary codes of
conduct by industry, there has been little change and much "business as usual",
with the corporations continuing with activities that are environmentallyharmful.
With the growth in production volume and geographical scope of big companies,
based largely on the continuing use of unsustainable production systems (and
promotion of wasteful lifestyles), and in many cases displacing more sustainable
systems or lifestyles, more environmental degradation worldwide must be expected.
Because of their far greater technological capacity, the use of production techniques
or substances that are often more ecologically damaging, and the larger volume of
production that they characterise, TNCs usually have a negative effect on the
environment when they newly produce in or export to (or increase their activities in)
an area. With the increasing spread and market penetration and share of TNCs and
big business concerns, the damaging environmental effect has increased. This effect
is not confined to Northern-based companies. In recent years there has been a
significant increase in overseas investment and activity of companies based in
developing countries, especially in East and Southeast Asia. For example, these
companies are accounting for a large part of new and increased forest logging and
deforestation in Indochina, the Pacific and South America.
3. Liberalisation policies and their environmental implications
Within countries, the processes of liberalisation, commercialisation and
deregulation have generally had adverse implications for the environment. This
is true in the North as well as the South. In developing countries, whilst much of the
research on structural adjustment programmes (SAPs) has focused on the
development aspects of sustainability, there is a growing body of evidence that it has
also contributed to the process of environmental deterioration.
15
In the designing of SAPs, environmental concerns have not been explicitly taken into
account. The deregulation, privatisation and liberalisation measures that lie at the
heart of SAP have accelerated the development of environmentally harmful patterns
of production and consumption, whilst the reduction of government budgets has
affected the state’s capacity to deal with environmental problems.
By promoting external liberalisation, SAP has encouraged an increase in the
extraction and export of raw materials in many countries, thus contributing to
resource depletion and degradation. The growth of poverty and inequities resulting
from debt and SAP has also pushed poor farmers and communities to open up forests
to eke a living from the land.
According to Walden Bello (1994), most of the top 15 Third World debtors have
tripled the rate of exploitation of their forests since the late 1970s. This is related to
the survival imperative of poor, landless people and the pressing need of nations to
gain foreign exchange for debt servicing. Bello has also summarised detailed case
studies of four countries that underwent SAP (Chile, Costa Rica, Ghana and the
Philippines), demonstrating the dynamics and interrelations between structural
adjustment, poverty, market liberalisation and environmental degradation. In these
countries, the overriding need to service debts led to an emphasis on expanding
exports of natural resources and commodities (such as timber, fish, bananas, cocoa
and minerals). Moreover, SAP-induced increased poverty resulted in a situation
where landless farmers had to exploit forest, land and fishery resources. The result
was rapid depletion and degradation of the fragile natural resource base in these
countries.
The environment and health condition in many Third World
countries has also been adversely affected by import liberalisation
promoted through SAP as well as through trade measures of the
U.S. administration (through its Super and Section 301 laws) and
GATT. For instance, there has been a significant increase in the incidence of
smoking in several Asian countries that were compelled to facilitate the increased
importation of cigarettes. Import liberalisation has also resulted in the proliferation of
modern consumer products (aimed initially at the higher-income groups that have
benefited from SAP) and which promotes environmentally unsustainable
consumption patterns. There is a danger these imported and well-advertised products
may replace and displace more socially appropriate and environmentally-friendly
local products, including those now used by ordinary people.
According to UNRISD (1995), the effectiveness of policy responses to environmental
degradation is often curtailed by adjustment: "In general terms, there are three main
variants of environmental policy approaches; conservationism, primary
environmental care and environmental economics. The potential of all of these to
alleviate environmental problems has been limited by the economic and social
changes that have accompanied economic restructuring." For example, SAPs-induced
agricultural export growth often has negative environmental effects, especially where
16
ecological conditions are such that export crop cultivation is less sustainable than that
of traditional food crops. Conservation programmes and environmental protection
agencies are also most vulnerable to government spending cuts. Also, SAPs
undermines the potential for community-based action and weaken the capacity of
communities to adapt to changing ecological conditions, thus reducing the possibility
of implementing the community-based "primary environmental care" approach.
The environmental effects of trade and trade liberalisation in the transfer of
inappropriate technologies, production methods and consumption patterns have been
examined in Khor (1996). The view that "free trade" is the best route to
environmental protection (because it generates wealth to pay for protection measures)
ignores the role that trade liberalisation plays in facilitating resource depletion and
unsustainable production and consumption patterns. The present pattern of trade has
in fact helped accelerate environmental degradation worldwide.
Investment liberalisation, without corresponding tightening of
regulation but instead accompanied by further deregulation, can be
predicted to accelerate the process further. The higher flows of FDI in
recent years to developing countries are increasing the tempo of
ecologically damaging activities. The proposed multilateral agreement on
investment (developed in the OECD, but negotiations there have stalled indefinitely)
and similar moves in the WTO to liberalise investment rules will have very wide
environmental implications, and have raised serious concerns with many
environmental groups.
4. Regulating New Technologies: The case of genetic engineering and biosafety
Globalisation is also facilitating the spread of new technologies. A major weakness of
UNCED is the absence of a systematic approach to risk assessment and regulation of
the introduction and spread of new technologies that may be harmful to the
environment or human health. There is no systematic mechanism or agency that
examines and regulates new technologies for their environmental and social impacts.
An example is the rapid development of the new biotechologies, especially genetic
engineering and their application in agriculture and medicine. These rapid
developments have generated increasing public concerns about the potential
environmental and safety effects of the use of genetically modified organisms
(GMOs) and about safety aspects of genetically-engineered foods.
The development of biosafety disciplines was not due to any systematic arrangement,
but to: (a) the initiatives of some countries in placing the biosafety issue in the CBD
and then pushing for a protocol, whilst facing tremendous opposition from a few
countries; (b) the determination of NGOs and independent scientists that campaigned
for a protocol and national regulation, and they also faced tremendous opposition
from the industry and some governments.
17
In the biosafety protocol negotiations, a few countries attempted to use “scare tactics”
by putting out the argument that some aspects being proposed would violate WTO
rules. Presently the US is also putting pressure on some developing countries (and
also the EU) not to place restrictions on imports containing GMOs. The misuse of the
“free trade” principle by a major country can have a “chilling effect” on other
countries, i.e. making them fearful of taking legitimate environmental or safety
measures as they could face bilateral or multilateral pressures or sanctions.
5. Lack of progress on sustainable agriculture
In the past decades, the globalisation process has spread environmentally unfriendly
agriculture technology to many parts of the South. In recent years, the harmful
effects of this model have been recognised. UNCED has agreed that in its place,
"sustainable agriculture" should be promoted. Unfortunately, little has been done at
the international level to implement sustainable agriculture. This lack of commitment
is probably related to the fact that the current dominant models of chemical-based
agriculture are relied upon by commercial agribusiness corporations for generating
their revenues, whereas ecological and organic forms of agriculture rely on low inputs
and are thus not in the interests of commerce.
In the past, most agricultural aid has been for promoting the Green Revolution model,
which uses seeds with a high response to big doses of inorganic fertiliser and
chemical pesticides. These few seed varieties have displaced a wide range of
traditional seeds, thus eroding crop biodiversity. There is also mounting evidence of
other ecological problems, such as increasing soil infertility, chemical pollution of
land and water resources, pesticide poisoning, and pest infestation due to growing
pest immunity to pesticides. These are symptoms of a technological system in decline
and the system’s main claimed benefit, high productivity, is itself now in question.
With disillusionment setting in on the Green Revolution, commercial resources are
now turning to the new biotechnologies. There is need for great caution in this regard,
for the claimed benefits of genetic engineering are far from being proven, whilst there
is increasing evidence of real and potential risks.
Given the concerns about biosafety, aid resources should not be channeled to
developing the new biotechnologies as a new technological panacea. Instead, priority
should be given to support research and projects on ecological and community-based
farming practices and systems. So far, relatively little resources have been made
available for this. There is a premise that whilst "sustainable agriculture" may be
ecologically good, it is inferior and inadequate in terms of productivity. This premise
could actually be a prejudice, for there is evidence that ecological farming can be high
yielding as well, higher yielding in fact that the Green Revolution method.
Since UNCED in 1992, there has been little coordinated official action at global level
to phase out chemical-based agriculture nor to promote sustainable agriculture despite
18
a tremendous increase in public demand for organic foods. As a result of lack of
support, sustainable agriculture today remains at the level of anecdotes and case
studies and the biases against it are deep-seated.
A positive recent development is the shift in policy in some European countries
(especially Germany) towards promoting organic farming. This is the result of the
series of problems linked to conventional farming, biotech farming and livestock
rearing, including BSE, foot and mouth disease and the public unpopularity of
biotech agriculture. However much more needs to be done at the scientific, field and
training levels to promote sustainable agriculture.
6. Mining activities
Mining is closely linked to globalisation as much of the products are internationally
traded. The extraction of minerals, including fossil fuels, was conspicuously absent
from the UNCED negotiations, and thus from Agenda 21. It is a serious anomaly and
deficiency in Agenda 21, which should be rectified. Perhaps it was an admission that
mining cannot be sustainable: the destabilisation of local environments caused by
mining is undeniable, with forests stripped bare, soils degraded and water channels
polluted. Besides suffering the ecological effects, millions of people also find their
land rights and livelihoods are threatened by mining activities.
In recent years there has been an escalation of mining projects. Massive projects are
underway or proposed in every continent, accompanied by violent protests in a
number of cases. As technology advances, and the more accessible deposits are
exploited, mining companies are penetrating more remote areas. These are usually
remaining forests, watersheds and mountainous regions. To mine these areas would
be to cause more devastating environmental damage. Most of these areas are also
indigenous peoples’ lands, recognised or claimed.
At the same time, many developing countries have been attracting foreign
investments in mining, and introduced or amended mining laws that have enabled
more generous concessions and licenses to foreign firms. Investment liberalisation in
mining is likely to damage the environment and result in widespread dislocation of
communities.
In a study of recent trends in the global mining industry, Corpuz (1997) concluded:
"In the mid-l990s technological advances coupled with the fast globalization and
liberalization of the mining industry, which is called the "the mining sustainability
framework", allowed the transnational mining corporations to temporarily ease
themselves out of a crisis (that they faced in the 1980s due to low prices). The higher
profits by the mining TNCs, however, meant higher sacrifices on the part of the
majority who are marginalized and greater devastation for the global environment.
Among those who have suffered the most from the liberalization of mining are
19
indigenous peoples, the women, and even the workers, despite the promise that this
will increase employment."
I. SOME PROPOSALS
1. INTRODUCTION
Given the unequal economic effects of the present process of globalisation, and its
adverse social and environmental costs, there is a need for fundamental reforms of
policy and practice, at both the international and national levels. The following are
suggestions for changes to enable conditions for sustainable development.
2. NEED FOR APPROPRIATE AND DEMOCRATIC GLOBAL
GOVERNANCE
In order to have a favourable international environment for sustainable development,
it is vital for the democratisation of international relations and institutions, so that the
South can have an active role in decision-making whilst civil society can also have its
concerns taken into account. The role of the United Nations should be strengthened
whilst the IMF, World Bank and WTO should be made more accountable to the
public and to the poor. Democratisation in global governance structures is a prerequisite
to reforms in content of policies, which can then result in more equitable
sharing of benefits and costs.
The major global economic actors are the transnational corporations, the international
banks, the World Bank, IMF and the WTO. The operations of the corporations and
financial institutions should be made much more accountable to the public, and
indeed to the governments. The decision-making processes in the Bretton Woods
institutions and the WTO are mainly controlled by the industrialised countries. The
procedural and legal aspects of decision-making should be democratised so that
developing countries can have their proper share of participation. These institutions
must also be more open to public participation and scrutiny.
3. REBUILDING THE ROLE OF THE UN
As it is the most universal and democratic international forum, the United Nations
and its agencies should be given the opportunity and resources to maintain their
identity, have their approach and development focus, reaffirm and strengthen their
programmes and activities. The recent trend of removing the resources
and authority of the UN in global economic and social issues, in
favour of the Bretton Woods institutions and the WTO, should be
reversed.
20
In particular, those Northern countries that have downgraded their commitment to the
UN should reverse this attitude and instead affirm its indispensable and valuable role
in advocating the social, equity, developmental and environmental dimensions in the
process of rapid global change. The UN could at least be a counterweight to
the similar laissez-faire approach of the IMF, World Bank and WTO.
Strengthening the UN will allow it to play its compensatory role more significantly
and effectively. But of course a complementary "safety net" function is the minimum
that should be set for the UN. The UN must be able to make the leap: from merely
offsetting the social fallout of unequal structures and liberalisation, to fighting against
the basic causes of poverty, inequities, social tensions and unsustainable
development. The more this is done, the more options and chances are there for
developing countries and for sustainable development.
There is a danger that some UN agencies (and the Secretariat itself)
may be influenced by conservative political forces to join in the
laissez-faire approach or merely be content to play a second-fiddle
role of taking care of the adverse social effects of laissez-faire policies
promoted by other agencies. The UN should therefore keep true to its mission
of promoting sustainable development and justice for the world’s people, and to
always advocate for policies and programmes that promote this mission, otherwise it
would lose its credibility and its reason for existence.
4. REFORMING GLOBAL ECONOMIC SYSTEM TO
BENEFIT THE SOUTH
Reforming the inequitable global economic system is needed as part
of the battle for sustainable development. The substance of the
demands for a new international economic order should be
seriously addressed instead of being ignored or treated as extremist. Due to the
imbalances, the outflow of real and financial resources from South to North far
exceeds the flow of aid from North to South. The transfer of resources from the South
makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for Third World countries to
adequately implement sustainable development policies, even if they wanted to. Thus,
of major importance is the reversal of these South-to-North flows of resources.
A major area of reform is in the terms of trade between Northern
and Southern exported products. The poor and deteriorating terms of trade
for Third World commodity exports vis-a-vis Northern manufactured exports has
been a major source of the lack of foreign exchange and income in the South. The
low prices of raw materials have also contributed to the high volume of extraction and
21
production (to maintain export earnings); and thus become a big factor in natural
resource depletion. To rectify the unfair economic trade terms as well as
reduce resource depletion, the prices of raw materials could be
significantly raised to reflect their real and ecological costs. This may
require a new round of commodity agreements or other mechanisms.
An enlarged role should be given to a revitalised UNCTAD and other UN agencies to
assist developing countries in areas such as improving commodity prices, building
supply capacity, and formulating trade, production and development policies.
Another area for reform is the resolution of the external debt burden of poor and
middle-income developing countries. Debts of LDCs and other poor countries should
be written off so that they can make a fresh start. The recent financial crisis involving
high external debts in East Asian countries again highlights the need for countries of
the South to guard against falling into a debt trap. A fair resolution to the existing
debt problem, that would not continue to squeeze Third World economies, is
important to widening the options of developing countries for the future.
In the area of investment and technology, the South and the UN had in
earlier decades tried to establish codes of conduct for TNCs and for the
transfer of technology, but eventually these efforts were abandoned in
the early 1990s. Instead the Northern countries are attempting to establish a
multilateral agreement on investment rules, under the WTO (since their efforts to
create one under the OECD failed). The investment policy rules sought by the North
would largely prevent the developing countries from having meaningful options for
policy-making over strategic investment and development issues. Developing
countries should therefore exercise their membership rights and not
allow the WTO to negotiate investment rules. Instead, the right of
Third World countries to determine their own economic policies, and
to have control over their natural resources, should be recognised in practice as well
as in principle. This would include the right to determine the terms under
which foreign companies can invest in a country.
New efforts should be made for codes or arrangements to regulate TNCs, to regulate
restrictive business practices and to foster technology transfer to developing
countries.
5. REVIEWING THE BRETTON WOODS
INSTITUTIONS AND THEIR POLICIES
The "globalisation" of a particular set of macroeconomic policies was achieved
through the structural adjustment programmes (SAPs) which the World Bank and
IMF designed and exported to more than 80 developing countries. The SAPs led to
22
widespread public discontent, including street riots and demonstrations, in many
countries undergoing adjustment, and opposition by several people’s organisations
and NGOs in both the South and the North. The most important issues voiced by
developing country governments and especially by a wide range of Southern and
Northern NGOs were the negative economic and social effect of structural adjustment
policies, the non-accountability of the Bretton Woods institutions and the need to
resolve the South’s debt crisis. They have argued that debt and structural adjustment
were the most important impediments to social and sustainable development in
developing countries.
These are indeed the key issues in the required reform of the Bretton Woods
institutions and their policies. The external debt overhang of highly indebted
developing countries should be resolved as soon as possible (as earlier mentioned).
And in light of the new round of debt and structural adjustment problems arising from
the Asian crisis, it is urgent that a process of reform or revamp be initiated on the IMF
and World Bank, including on their processes of decision-making and on their
inappropriate economic policies. Unless this is done, many developing countries that
are still under structural adjustment programmes would find it very difficult (and
more difficult as well) to maintain the right to make policy choices.
A serious search for the elements of an appropriate approach to macroeconomic
policies and development strategies, including the proper balance of roles between the
state, the public sector and the private sector, is essential.
6. REFORMING THE WTO
The WTO should be made more transparent and accountable to the larger
international framework of cooperation and sustainable development. This is critical
because the rapid developments in the WTO have such major ramifications for
sustainable development and yet there is a lack of information and participation from
the public, from many sections of national governments and Parliaments, and from
other international institutions. There should also be greater internal transparency
within the WTO and developing country Members must have full participation rights
in discussions and decision-making.
There is a need to assess the implications of existing WTO
agreements and to address the imbalances and deficiencies that lead
to unequal outcomes at the expense of developing countries. The WTO
agreements have on the whole benefited the stronger trading countries much more,
and many weaker countries are likely to suffer net losses in many areas. The
inequities should be redressed during the review of the agreements
that is mandated to take place in the WTO in the next few years.
23
In particular, the WTO agriculture agreement has not taken into account the needs
and interests of small farmers, especially the non-commercialised farmers in
developing countries that form a large section of the population. The Agriculture
Agreement should thus be reviewed and reformed to take into account its impact on
small farmers and in the context of food security and sustainable agriculture.
A review and reform of TRIPS is urgently needed (see Sub-Section 8
below).
The problems of implementation facing developing countries should be dealt with as
a matter of top priority, and a strengthened special mechanism should be set up to
satisfactorily resolve the problems (including through amendments of agreements) as
soon as possible.
The special and differential rights of developing countries should be strengthened and
operationalised. In this context, the main operational principle of the
WTO, which is liberalisation and "national treatment" for foreign
products, should be reviewed in the light of the experiences of many
developing countries, which have suffered adverse effects from liberalising their
imports too rapidly, whilst not being able to increase their export capability, access
and earnings. Developing countries that encounter problems arising from
liberalisation should be able, in practice, to make use of their right to special and
differential treatment, so that they can have the option of having the right balance
between opening to the world market and promoting the interests of local firms and
farms. The main goal of WTO is sustainable development,
whilst liberalisation is only a means (and should be done
appropriately) and this central theme should be
operationalised in the workings of the WTO.
Finally, the WTO should not take up issues that are not trade-related. The attempts
by some countries to introduce such new issues as investment rules, competition
policy, government procurement and labour standards should not be accepted, as
developing countries will be disadvantaged by the way the WTO is likely to treat
such issues, and moreover the WTO would be seriously overloaded with such an
expanded portfolio when most developing countries are already unable to cope with
the current set of agreements and with the present volume of negotiations.
7. TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT
Discussions within the WTO entailing the environmental effects of WTO rules can
be beneficial, provided the environment is viewed within the context of sustainable
development and the critical component of development is given adequate
weightage. The principle of “common but differentiated responsibility” derived
24
from UNCED should guide discussions on trade and environment in the WTO and
elsewhere.
The Committee on Trade and Environment should orientate its work to the more
complex but appropriate concept and principles of sustainable development. But
there should not be any move to initiate an "environment agreement" in the WTO
that involves concepts such as PPMs and eco-dumping. Thus, there should
not be the linking of environmental standards (and the
related issues of PPMs and eco-dumping) to trade
measures.
8. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
There should be an urgent review of the current international IPR regimes,
particularly the TRIPS Agreement, to assess the impact on sustainable development.
The mandated reviews of Article 27.3b and of the overall TRIPS agreement are
occasions to undertake such an assessment and based on the assessment appropriate
changes should be made.
In the review of TRIPS, serious consideration should be given to the following:
• In Article 27.3b, changes should be made to enable Members
to exclude all living organisms and biological materials
as well as living processes from patentability; and it should be
clarified that Members can have the option of a sui generis system for plant
varieties that protects traditional knowledge, farmers’ rights and local
community rights.
• It should be clarified that nothing in TRIPS prevents Members
from taking measures needed to protect and promote
public health; moreover, Members should be enabled to
exclude from patentability medicines needed to treat lifethreatening
diseases and diseases related to poverty.
• Measures should be allowed for the effective transfer of
environmentally sound technology, including exclusion
from patentability.
25
• Measures for technology transfer to developing
countries should be made operational and binding.
9. REFORMING THE GLOBAL FINANCE SYSTEM
Reforms are needed in the global finance system. There should be regulation of
capital flows to prevent the disruptive effects and avoid financial crises. Countries
that face debt default should be able to have access to debt standstill and debt workout
under an international debt arbitration institution. A more democratic system of
governance and decision-making on international financial matters is also needed.
10. TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT AND
PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
UNCED did not deal with the theme of assessment and regulation of environmentally
unsound technology in a systemic manner. What is required is a
competent international centre or agency, under the UN, that
carries out sustainable development assessments of
technologies, especially new and emerging technologies. The
centre should establish systems for governing and regulating
technologies. The precautionary principle should be applied
in technology policy.
11. INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENT GOVERNANCE
There are many gaps in the current system of international environmental governance
(IEG). The World Conference on Sustainable Development should reach some
conclusions about the future evolution of IEG. There should be better coordination
and rationalisation among the various multilateral environment agreements, and
between these and UNEP as well as CSD. Future initiatives on environment
regulation, and on IEG, must place the environmental issues within the context of
sustainable development, so that the development dimension is streamed into
environmental policy.
12. THE SEARCH FOR ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES
As the UNCED process realised, a reconceptualisation of development strategies is
required. For example, the recent Asian financial crisis makes it crucial to reflect on
the dangers to a country of excessive openness to foreign funds and investors.
26
An important issue is whether developing countries will be allowed to learn lessons
from and adopt key aspects of these alternative approaches. For this to happen, the
policy conditions imposed through structural adjustment have to be loosened, and
some of the multilateral disciplines on developing countries through the WTO
Agreements have to be reexamined.
In the search for alternative options for developing countries, approaches based on the
principles of sustainable development should be given high priority. The integration
of environment with economics, and in a socially equitable manner, is perhaps the
most important challenge for developing countries and for the world as a whole in the
next few decades. So far there has been a recognition that something should be done
but the real work has only now to begin.
It is crucial that the research in this area is increased. It would be very useful if
economic arguments could be put forward to show policy makers that it makes better
economic and financial sense to take care of the environment now, even as the
country progresses, rather than later. More work needs to be done, including at
regional and national levels in developing countries, to produce evidence and to make
both the public and policy makers aware that environmental damage is economically
harmful, and that environmental protection and eco-friendly technology and practices
are themselves economically efficient ways of conducting development. It would also
be very useful to highlight examples of components of successful implementation of
sustainable and human development policies and approaches and to draw lessons
from these. The emerging "sustainable and human development" paradigm could then
contribute to the debate on appropriate macroeconomic policies; the appropriate
relations between state, markets and people; and appropriate development styles and
models.
In the ecological sphere, the series of negotiations initiated by UNCED is an
opportunity for all countries to cooperate by creating a global framework conducive
to the reduction of environment problems and the promotion of sustainable economic
models. However, international discussions on the environment can only reach a
satisfactory conclusion if they are conducted within an agreed equitable framework.
The North, with its indisputable power, should not make the environmental issue a
new instrument of domination over the South. It should be accepted by all that the
North should carry the bulk of the burden and responsibility for adjustment towards
more ecological forms of production. This is because most of the present global
environmental problems are due mainly to the North, which also possesses the
financial resources and the economic capacity to reduce their output and consumption
levels.
There should be much more focus on changing economic policies and behaviour in
order that the patterns of consumption and production can be changed to become
environmentally sound. What needs to be discussed is not only the development
27
model of the South but even much more the economic model of the North, and of
course the international economic order. Key issues to resolve include:
! How to structurally change the Northern model of production, and
consumption or lifestyles;
! How to promote ecologically-sound and socially-just development models in
the South;
! How to structurally adjust the world economic institutions so as to promote
fairer terms of trade and reverse the South-North flow of financial resources;
! How to come towards a fair distribution of the sharing of the burden of
adjustment necessitated by ecological imperatives, as between countries and
as within countries.
Whilst the international elements of a fair and sustainable global
order are obviously crucial, there must also be substantial changes
to the national order as a complement. In both North and South, the wide
disparities in wealth and income within countries have to be narrowed. In a situation
of improved equity, it would be more possible to plan and implement strategies of
economic adjustment to ecological and social goals.
In the South, the policy option can be taken to adopt more equitable and ecological
models of development. With more equitable distribution of resources such
as land, and greater access to utilities and housing, the highest
priorities of the economy should be shifted to the production of basic
goods and services to meet the needs of the people. Investments (including
government projects) should be channeled towards basic infrastructure and
production, in contrast to the current bias for luxury projects and status symbols of
progress. Social investment in primary health care, education, housing for people,
public transport and popular cultural activities should also be emphasised, rather than
the high-level luxury services that now absorb a large portion of national expenditure.
In this social context, changes also have to be made to make the economy follow the
principles of ecology. There should generally be a reduction in the extraction and
production of primary commodities: this would reduce the problem of depletion of
natural resources such as forests, energy and minerals.
The decline in output and export volume could be offset if commodity prices were to
rise, thereby providing a fair value of export earnings. In agriculture, the ecological
methods of soil conservation, seed and crop diversity, water harnessing and pest
control, should replace the modern unecological methods. With a reduction in
production of agricultural raw materials, more land can also be allocated for food
crops. There should be as much conservation of primary forests as possible; and the
destructive methods of trawler fishing should be rapidly phased out whilst fishery
28
resources are rehabilitated and the environmentally-sound fishing methods of small
fisherfolk are promoted. In industry and construction,
ecologically-appropriate forms of production should be given
priority. There should be strict limits on the use of toxic substances
or hazardous technologies, a ban on toxic products and the
minimisation of the volume of toxic waste and of pollution. Of course,
to make this move towards a better global order possible, there must be people’s
participation, because the radical changes being called for can be realised only when
there is popular will. It is crucial that information be provided to the people through
the media and popular education methods, and that the people be given the freedom
to make their views known to the policy makers and to others.
It should be stressed that the elements proposed here for a fair and
sustainable global order have to be taken together, as a package. Social
justice, equity, ecological sustainability and people’s participation are
all necessary conditions for this order, and the change must apply at
both national and international level. Policies that promote equity alone
would not necessarily result in a more environmentally-sound world. On the other
hand, measures to solve the ecological crisis without being accompanied by a more
equitable distribution of resources could lead to even greater inequity and injustice.
(NOTE: This paper draws heavily on some other papers written by the author,
especially "Globalisation and its Effects on Sustainable Development" (Khor 1996);
and "Responding to the Challenges of Globalisation." (Khor 2000).)

UNCLOS and the Exaggerated Climate Crisis

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/un-panel-offers-dire-warming-forecast/20071117124909990001

UN Panel Offers Dire Warming Forecast

By ARTHUR MAX,

Posted: 2007-11-17 13:18:10

Filed Under: Science News, World News

VALENCIA, Spain (Nov. 17) - The Earth is hurtling toward a warmer climate at a quickening pace, a Nobel-winning U.N. scientific panel said in a landmark report released Saturday, warning of inevitable human suffering and the threat of extinction for some species.

Photo Gallery: Effects of Global Warming


Crisis
Diana Haecker, AP

Beach erosion claims an Alaskan house. A climate change report from earlier in 2007 predicts that sea levels will increase seven to 23 inches by 2100, speeding erosion and threatening coastal land.

1 of 17

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon said climate change imperils "the most precious treasures of our planet" and called on the United States and China - the world's two biggest polluters - to do more to fight it.

As early as 2020, 75 million to 250 million people in Africa will suffer water shortages, residents of Asia's megacities will be at great risk of river and coastal flooding, Europeans can expect extensive species loss, and North Americans will experience longer and hotter heat waves and greater competition for water, the report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says.

The potential impact of global warming is "so severe and so sweeping that only urgent, global action will do," Ban told the IPCC after it issued its fourth and final report this year.

The IPCC adopted the report, along with a summary, after five days of sometimes tense negotiations. It lays out blueprints for avoiding the worst catastrophes - and various possible outcomes, depending on how quickly and decisively action is taken.

The document says recent research has heightened concern that the poor and the elderly will suffer most from climate change; that hunger and disease will be more common; that droughts, floods and heat waves will afflict the world's poorest regions; and that more animal and plant species will vanish.

The Summary for Policymakers, and the longer version, called the synthesis report, distill thousands of pages of data and computer models from six years of research compiled by the IPCC.

The information is expected to guide policy makers meeting in Bali, Indonesia, next month to discuss an agreement to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.

The panel was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize this year along with former Vice President Al Gore for their efforts to raise awareness about the effects of climate change.

The report is important because it is adopted by consensus, meaning countries accept the underlying science and cannot disavow its conclusions. While it does not commit governments to a specific course of action, it provides a common scientific baseline for the political talks.

The U.N. says a new global plan must be in place by 2009 to ensure a smooth transition after the expiration of the Kyoto terms, which require 36 industrial countries to radically reduce their carbon emissions by 2012.

"There are real and affordable ways to deal with climate change," Ban said. He said a new agreement should provide funding to help poor countries adopt clean energy and to adapt to changing climates.

Ban encouraged the United States and China, which have stood apart from the Kyoto accord, to join in the next phase of cooperative efforts against climate change.

"I look forward to seeing the U.S. and China playing a more constructive role starting from the Bali conference," Ban told reporters. "Both countries can lead in their own way."

The report says emissions of carbon, which comes primarily from fossil fuels, must stabilize by 2015 and go down after that. Otherwise the consequences could be "disastrous," said IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri.

In the best-case scenario, temperatures will continue to rise from carbon already in the atmosphere, the report said. Even if factories were shut down today and cars taken off the roads, the average sea level will reach as high as 4 1/2 feet higher than the preindustrial period, or about 1850.

"We have already committed the world to sea level rise," said Pachauri. If the Greenland ice sheet melts, the scientists couldn't even predict by how many meters the seas will rise, drowning coastal cities.

Yet differences remain stark on how to control carbon emissions.

While the European Union has taken the lead in enforcing the carbon emission targets outlined in Kyoto, the United States opted out of the 1997 accord.

President Bush described it as flawed because major developing countries such as India and China, which are large carbon emitters, were excluded from any obligations. He also favors a voluntary agreement.

Sharon Hays, a White House science official and head of the U.S. delegation, said the certainty of climate change was clearer now than when Bush rejected Kyoto.

"What's changed since 2001 is the scientific certainty that this is happening," she said in a conference call to reporters late Friday. "Back in 2001 the IPCC report said it is likely that humans were having an impact on the climate," but confidence in human responsibility had increased since then.

"What's new is the clarity of the signal, how clear the scientific message is," said Yvo de Boer, the U.N.'s top climate change official. "The politicians have no excuse not to act."

Opening with a sweeping statement directed at climate change skeptics, the summary declares that climate systems have already begun to change.

Unless action is taken, human activity could lead to "abrupt and irreversible changes" that would make the planet unrecognizable.

Advocacy groups hailed the report as indispensable for the 10,000 delegates expected at Bali.

"We expect to see their personal copies of the Synthesis Report return from Bali, battered and worn from frequent use, with paragraphs underlined and notes in the margin," said Stephanie Tunmore of Greenpeace.

Bush support for sea treaty affirmed 'I understand there are concerns. We believe those have been addressed'

Posted: November 16, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com



http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58721


The president continues to support the pending Law of the Sea Treaty, but a spokeswoman isn't going to speculate on how it would have affected critical U.S. operations on the sea had it been adopted earlier.

The issue was resurrected recently in the U.S. Senate at President Bush's urging even though critics making up a wide-ranging chorus have concluded it would grant the United Nations control of 70 percent of the planet under its oceans, and undermine U.S. sovereignty.

The plan recently was approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on a 17-4 vote, and now must go before the full Senate.

Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., has called it, "U.N. on steroids," and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has concluded it is "the dumbest thing we've ever done. It's like taking our sovereignty and handing it over to some international tribunal. What's wrong with us?"

The affirmation of Bush's position came from White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, who responded to a question from Les Kinsolving, WND's White House correspondent. He asked. "How does the president react to the fact that while he supports the Law of the Sea Treaty, all the leading Republican candidates for president now have announced they oppose it?"

"The president's position is very clear. The Defense Department and the State Department have been to Capitol Hill to help explain why this Law of the Sea Treaty makes sense. The president's position on the Law of the Sea is clear. And presidential candidates are going to make their own decisions," she said.

"Does the president believe that had we been subject to the Law of the Sea Treaty, that President Kennedy could have quarantined Cuba with the U.S. Navy, that President Ford could have used the Navy to rescue the Mayaguez, and President Reagan could have sent a Navy carrier force to defy Qaddafi of Libya in the Gulf..?" Kinsolving asked.

"I always avoid hypotheticals for the future; I'm going to avoid them for past scenarios as well," she said.

One day earlier, she had responded similarly.

"The president is supportive of the treaty, and so is our military and our State Department. And we have testified on Capitol Hill multiple times about it," she said. "I understand that there are concerns, but we believe that those have been addressed."

This is not the first time LOST has come up. International negotiators drafted it in 1982 in an attempt to establish a comprehensive legal regime for international management of the seas and their resources. President Ronald Reagan, however, refused to sign LOST because he concluded the treaty doesn't serve U.S. interests.

Sen. John McCain, R-Az., also has opposed the idea. "I do worry a lot about American sovereignty aspects of it," he said. "I would probably vote against it in its present form."

Former Sen. Fred Thompson added his concerns over the treaty's threat to the U.S. He said it "gives a U.N.-affiliated organization far too much authority over U.S. interests in international waters."

U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., said it is imperative that the U.S. "not surrender decision making power for military navigation or resource extraction, especially in this age of terrorism with technology and weapons proliferation. And adding a new set of U.N. bureaucrats with license to tax and adjudicate disputes is the last thing this country needs."

Huckabee was a little more pointed. "The Law of the Sea Treaty essentially would say that the United States would give up certain controls of its territorial waters, it would give up its sovereign understanding of what it can do within its own seas both at the surface and within the depths, and that we would virtually hand ourselves over to an international body of justice."

U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., has taken a similar position.

In 1994, President Clinton signed a revised version of the treaty and forwarded it to the Senate. The record shows the Senate was not convinced the 1994 changes corrected the problems, and it has deferred action on the treaty ever since.

The Heritage Foundation warns the treaty would have unintended consequences for U.S. interests – including a threat to sovereignty.

The conservative think tank says "bureaucracies established by multilateral treaties often lack the transparency and accountability necessary to ensure that they are untainted by corruption, mismanagement or inappropriate claims of authority. The LOST bureaucracy is called the International Seabed Authority Secretariat, which has a strong incentive to enhance its own authority at the expense of state sovereignty."

"For example, this treaty would impose taxes on U.S. companies engaged in extracting resources from the ocean floor," wrote Heritage fellows Baker Spring and Brett D. Schaefer. "This would give the treaty's secretariat an independent revenue stream that would remove a key check on its authority. After all, once a bureaucracy has its own source of funding, it needs answer only to itself."

"The United States should be wary of joining sweeping multilateral treaties negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations," say Spring and Schaefer of Heritage. "Specifically, the benefit to U.S. national interests should be indisputable and clearly outweigh the predictable negative consequences of ratification."

In the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing recently, Bush administration officials were repeatedly embarrassed by tough questioning from Sen. David Vitter, R-La., who also has led opposition to ratification.

For instance, Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte testified the U.N. body established by the treaty has "no jurisdiction over marine pollution disputes involving land-based sources."

"Why is there a section entitled pollution from land-based sources?" questioned Vitter.

Vitter also questioned who decides what is considered military activity under the treaty.

"We will decide that. We consider that within our sovereign prerogative," said Negroponte.

"Where does the treaty say that we decide that and an arbitral body does not decide that?" questioned Vitter.

Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England answered: "My understanding – and I'll ask my lawyer behind me – that that's in the treaty that we make that determination and that's not subject to review by anyone else."

"It's not in the treaty because I point to Article 298 1b where it simply says disputes concerning military activities are not subject to dispute resolution," explained Vitter. "But it doesn't say who decides what is and what is not a military activity."

England conceded the point.

The proposal would establish rules governing the uses of the of the world's oceans – treating waters more than 200 nautical miles off coasts as the purview of a new international U.N. bureaucracy, the International Seabed Authority

The ISA would have the authority to set production controls for ocean mining, drilling and fishing, regulate ocean exploration, issue permits and settle disputes in its own new "court."

Companies seeking to mine or fish would be required to apply for a permit, paying a royalty fee.

Vitter Calls for Full Examination of Law of the Sea Treaty

Senator Vitter Delivers Speech on Law of the Sea Treaty



November 13, 2007 -

(Washington, D.C.) – U.S. Sen. David Vitter again today voiced his concerns with the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, speaking out against key provisions on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Vitter has repeatedly called for a further and more thorough review of LOST before it is voted on by the U.S. Senate, and despite its recent approval by the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs he has remained an outspoken critic of the treaty’s potential impact on the United States.

“The impact of this treaty on American sovereignty and security cannot be understated. Ratifying LOST would signal our intent to hand a portion of our national security matters over to the United Nations and similar international bodies – which are not accountable to any higher authority and often hold less than friendly views of the United States,” said Vitter.

LOST carves the sea into zones and, in certain cases, dictates what actions sovereign states may be permitted to engage in under its terms, including those relating to national security, science, trade and the environment. These restrictive activities, and the strengthening of powers granted to the United Nations by the treaty, are among some of Sen. Vitter’s principal concerns.

“LOST attempts to govern the use of the seabed, the airspace above it and the topsoil below it – infringing on the ability of sovereign nations to explore the oceans, conduct scientific research or collect military intelligence vital to national defense. It also allows international courts and tribunals to define what constitutes U.S. ‘military’ or ‘intelligence-gathering activities,’ a subjective power that could routinely lead America into disputes with other nations,” Vitter added.

“This “lawfare” holds grave repercussions for our rights as a country and provides the U.N. with simply too much authority over American interests and concerns,” Vitter said.

Vitter has repeatedly called for further debate on this issue and recently sent letters to the U.S. Senate Committees on Environment and Public Works and Foreign Relations requesting that a panel of experts from present and past administrations be allowed to appear before the committees to answer detailed questions from the members. Vitter also noted that previous questions raised by senators have not yet been adequately addressed.

International treaties must be ratified by the U.S. Senate and LOST must receive full Senate floor consideration before being formalized. It was approved by the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs last month by a vote of 17-4, with Vitter being only one of four who voted in opposition to the treaty.

“LOST holds significant, unseen consequences for the United States and could affect our sovereignty and environmental and commercial policies. This treaty needs to be reviewed carefully, and we need a full and open debate on its merits and flaws before moving forward,” said Vitter.