Summit of rank hypocrisy
The World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg was convened to review "progress" in meeting the commitments made by governments resulting from the Rio summit in 1992.
The Rio summit met amid a flurry of diplomatic activity following the 1990 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a gathering of scientists who model world climate change resulting from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Growing concern over global warming led to heightened ecological awareness.
The 1987 report "Our Common Future" by Labour ex-Prime Minister of Norway Gro Harlem Brundtland was also influential. This report first gave common currency to the term ‘sustainable development’, and tried to analyse the role of poverty and inequality in environmental destruction, in contrast to earlier environmental studies, which were basically completely reactionary in their approach.
This growing environmental awareness was expressed in the UK in the Green Party obtaining an incredible 15% of the national vote in the 1989 European elections.
Rio may have played a role in defusing the pressure for action as a result of these events, but the WSSD finally exposes the limitations of the "expert reports and international diplomacy" approach to dealing with the ecological crisis.
Any review of Rio cannot escape from the complete failure of international capital to meet its commitments in the four areas where there was meant to be some action:
Stabilising CO2 emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000 (for industrialised countries). This was later amended at Kyoto to overall targeted reductions of 5.2% on 1990 levels by 2010, which in turn is nowhere near the third IPCC report’s recommendation that worldwide emissions be reduced by 60%.
Implementing "national sustainable development strategies" (Agenda 21).
Increasing overseas aid from the OECD countries to 0.7% of GNP.
Adopting and implementing a convention to protect biodiversity.
The draft political declaration (http://www.johannesburgsummit.org/html/documents/summit_docs.html) makes some vague generalisations about the last three of these but does not mention Kyoto explicitly, presumably as a result of US pressure. The declaration then offers some pious hopes about how trade liberalisation and globalisation should be used to promote sustainable development and not inequality.
As we reported in the last Socialist Outlook, the US is pushing for a commitment to supporting GM technology. This is touted in many quarters as a "cure" for the agricultural problems that could be caused by climate change (increase in crop pests and changes in water supply and temperature).
This may cause some friction at the conference, but the issue is largely symbolic, as the multinationals and their client governments are going to carry on with business as usual, irrespective of the pious declarations coming out of the WSSD.
The Johannesburg summit is likely to mark the beginning of the end for the strategy of lobbying for more radical international agreements, adopted by many environmental and development campaigners and NGOs.
This is likely to impact on the anti-globalisation movement, which has been an uneasy coalition of reformist "lobbyists" and anti-capitalists.
Already, a debate on the issues of development, globalisation, trade and the environment has arisen as a result of Oxfam launching an international campaign for the South to have more access to the North’s markets. Oxfam argues "international markets, like national markets, can be made to work for the poor by challenging power relationships".
In a complex debate, the Philippine activist Walden Bello chides Oxfam for playing into the WTO’s hands by providing an excuse for the latter to exchange some access to the North’s markets for increased liberalisation in agriculture and services.
Bello argues that the mass movement in the North and South must be mobilised to prevent this. Green socialist Colin Hines adds, "instead of drawing the conclusion that more control over the domestic economy is the best way to ensure poverty reduction, [Oxfam] calls for countries to increase dependence on exports".
This debate has a direct bearing on several environmental issues. Hines points out the transport (and therefore carbon dioxide emissions) implications of increased focus on South-North trade.
To this can be added degradation of land, which is generally more fragile in the South, and increased deforestation. George Monbiot has drawn attention to the obscenity of white landowners in Zimbabwe growing tobacco for export during a famine. Finally, increased emphasis on exports will be accompanied by increased power of the large landowners in the South.
These debates about the environment and neo-liberal globalisation pose a number of questions for revolutionary Marxists. We have to be able to provide a series of concrete political demands that address the central contradiction of sustainable development that capitalism is incapable of overcoming: how to ensure a rising quality of life for the masses of the world, while at the same time protecting the environment.
The demands must not conflict with the immediate interests of the working class and their allies, who are the only forces that can challenge capitalist power. We therefore oppose measures, such as fuel tax increases, or congestion charging, which discriminate against poorer people. Instead, we propose collective solutions, such as free public transport.
Our cities must be restructured to reduce the need to travel long distances. Housing must be socialised and flexible so that people can move easily. More collective forms of living, that promote sharing of consumer goods and reduced energy use through efficient use of space, must be developed.
Laws that defend the bourgeois nuclear family must therefore be repealed in favour of ones that promote collective living. Any reduction in production (especially in the car industry and all its supporting industries) must be met with a reduced working week, with no loss of pay.
A radical land reform should be implemented that promotes collective agriculture and the repopulation of the countryside. This land reform is essential if agriculture is to be flexible and food production is to be protected from the ravages of climate change. Such demands are relevant both North and South.