Green: Idea for future?

Slamming Rio+20 for being low on ambition and weak in specifics is going to gather momentum in the coming days. This should not surprise anyone, given the loose and non-committal language in the final document that came out of the meet, formally called United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development.

But if there is one thing it has definitively done, it is to give new shine to the phrase “sustainable development”. In 2010, Advertising Age, the international magazine on marketing and media, sniffly termed sustainability one of the “jargoniest jargon” words of the year.
Today, the word is unmistakably “sexy”, as Canadian environmentalist and politician Scott McKay puts it, as we sat chatting in the food court of Riocentro. “Earlier, only the young, only people called ‘tree huggers’ talked about it. Now, sustainability seems to be everyone’s business,” said Mr McKay, one-time leader of Quebec’s Green Party. All around us were tell tale reminders that big business had stopped sneering at “sustainable”. Coca-Cola Brasil had installed “sustainability coolers” which advertised themselves as hydrofluorocarbon-free — a move designed to reduce pollution. German automobile giant BMW had the Sustainability Lounge and a pavilion where it showcased its electric cars.
Does “Green Capitalism” have a glowing future? At Rio and elsewhere, the answers you get in response to such questions will be as varied as there are shades of green. It all depends on who you ask.
During the conference, thousands of women activists marched in protest against the idea of “green economy” as a mechanism for sustainable development in the streets of this beautiful Brazilian coastal city, which hosted the landmark first Earth Summit 20 years ago even as many companies solemnly declared that sustainability was now an integral part of their corporate strategy.
The 49-page document coming out of the conference, entitled “The Future We Want” and signed by over 100 heads of state and government speaks of “Green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication” — shorthand for the “inclusive green economy”. The Group of 77 plus China, which represents developing countries, say that it is not enough to be “green” but while going green, developing world has to make sure that the millions who live in abject poverty without access to basic amenities — food, water, healthcare and so on — are lifted out of their misery in the process.
How is that going to be done? There is still no consensus among the rich and the poor of this world; there may never be.
When everyone is saying “colour me green”, how green is green? Many people I met at Rio argued that developed countries and their corporations were trying to foist their idea of a green economy on developing countries. It was all about selling expensive green technologies and products to the poor of the world while remaining mum on how the latter would find the money to pay for going green. That is one view. The other view is that there is nothing wrong in private-sector participation in the green agenda and companies, whether indigenous or foreign, are entitled to tap the business of being green. Both sides have been equally vocal. At the end of the day, what really matters is a green society as much as green technology. Needed are strong public policies and a stringent regulatory framework to ensure that the green economy is truly green. This means certification by independent bodies for green products and technologies that would help separate the real green from the fakes. This has already started happening.
Conferences do not change the world. But they do seed and boost ideas. And ideas spark change. The different views and reservations about the green economy as well as sustainable development are getting a massive airing in the wake of Rio+20. The heightened awareness about the issues at stake will hopefully trigger action — from the bottom, as much as the top.
There is a lot that Rio+20 did not do. Most notably, the final outcome document from the conference glossed over developing country concerns about means of implementation of the sustainable development vision. Sections on finance was also watered down because governments of rich countries did not want to fork out cash. As Quamrul Chowdhury, lead negotiator for Group of 77+China, puts it, “Everything has been pushed towards the future. There is nothing for today…”
India and other developing countries say they have scored a victory. Rio reaffirmed their cherished principle of “common but differentiated responsibility” (CBDR) that holds that while countries share a common responsibility to protect the planet, developed countries — which contribute more to environmental degradation due to their higher industrialisation levels — need to bear the greater burden.
The future we want may be far removed from the future we get. Yet, blueprints do shape and transform national agendas over a period of time.
On the positive side, some other things are worth flagging. The Rio+20 outcome document recognises the link between health and sustainable development and the importance of universal health coverage to social cohesion and sustainable human as well as economic development. These notions are important as contesting ideas of India jostle with each other.
What we become in the coming years depend on the ideas we accept or reject today. One big blot in the document which has enraged many who gathered at Rio was the watering down of a section on “reproductive rights”. Now there are loose references to reproductive health.
Though Brazil, China and India are different in many ways, in their plenary speeches at Rio+20, their leaders made pretty much the same points. “Many countries could do more if additional finance and technology were available. Unfortunately, there is little evidence of support from the industrialised countries in these areas. The ongoing economic crisis has made matters worse…” said Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Dr Singh also pointed out that India was implementing an ambitious National Solar Mission as a critical option for its energy security.
It is worth learning from Brazil’s successes and failures. Brazil is a rising economic power which has grown while narrowing inequalities — 70 per cent of the country is still covered with original vegetation; 90 per cent of Brazil’s electricity generation and 45 per cent of the total energy demand are met by renewable energy; 95 per cent of its new cars sold in Brazil use flex-fuel (petrol and ethanol).
In many ways, the hope, excitement and future were often found in the many side events hosted by enthusiastic civil society activists at Rio+20 or among the many young people who are deeply concerned about the legacy of older generations. Rio+20 will make a difference if there is a follow-up to all the grand pronouncements. That can happen if there is also a bottom-up governance and the civil society keeps up the pressure on all the issues that figured at the conference.