|
|
As the summit draws closer, the good news stories are hard to find. In particular the Bush government's intransigence on almost all issues that are crucial to sustainable development is particular cause for gloom. In the first instance, Bush is unlikely to attend the Earth Summit. Considering that the US consumes over twenty five percent of the world's resources and is indubitably the largest polluter in the world, his administration's representation is imperative to the success of the summit.
This is truly reprehensible, since the Bush administration had a bet of sorts with the young people of America.In April, SustainUS, the US youth organising committee for WSSD teamed up with the Green Ribbon Pledge to bet the US govvernment that U.S. youth (ages 26 and under) could save 20,000 tons of carbon dioxide through energy use reduction. In return they asked that young people have five places on the US delegation to the summit, and that President Bush attend. As of July 30, a day before the deadline, U.S. youth had pledged to save over 21,800 tons! And they succeeded! The other side of course has not kept its part of the bargain. Read more on (http://www.hogspace.org/rio/bet.php3)
What is more disturbing, however, is that some Conservative activists are praising President Bush's apparent decision not to attendthe once-a-decade summit himself as his father did in 1992. "We applaud your decision not to attend the summit in person," said an Aug. 2 letter to Bush from Fred L. Smith Jr., president of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and 30 other conservative activists who support Bush.
The letter cautions of the likelihood of anti-U.S. sentiment among the participants at the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Other signers include Paul M. Weyrich of Coalitions for America, Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform and David A. Keene of the American Conservative Union. "Your presence would only help to publicise and make more credible their various anti-freedom, anti-people, anti-globalisation and anti-Western agendas," they write. "We also strongly support your opposition to signing new international environmental treaties or creating new international environmental organisations at the Johannesburg summit."
Summit leaders such as John Chrétien, Tony Blair and Jaccques Chirac say they will try to solidify commitments made over the past year to open markets to developing countries and increase financing to them. They also refer to challenges such as 2 billion people living on $2 or less a day, more burning of fossil fuels blamed for climate change and damage to a quarter of the world's coral reefs, as being particularly pressing. The EU is expected to play a dominant role in the movement towards sustainable development, even if it means going against the US. Gone are the days of appeasement, and thank god for that!
Other environmental leaders view this year's summit as a last, best chance to convert high hopes into deeds. "There is a real sense of urgency," U.N. Undersecretary-General Nitin Desai, who will chair the summit, told reporters this week. "In many cases we are talking about slipping back." In the weeks leading up to the summit, Desai has campaigned to sow seeds of hope while also warning that disappointment will only confirm widespread pessimism about the world's ability to deal with what he says is a growing crisis.
The uncertainty about U.S. participation reflects deeper questions in the environmental community about Bush's approach to global challenges in the wake of his rejection last year of the Kyoto climate treaty. "People around the world are seriously concerned that the Bush administration is undermining the World Summit instead of working with other countries to benefit everyone," Sierra Club director Michael Dorsey said.
|
1
Tags
You must be logged in to add tags.
|
Writer Profile
edgar
This user has not written anything in his panorama profile yet.
|
Comments
Bush-fires dharisha | Aug 27th, 2002
I have to admit that I agree with most of what the article has to say. In fact President Bush's apathetic attitude and often blatant rejection of most global concerns, reflects terribly on both his governance and his country.
How long will this "world leader" continue to deal out the rest of the globe a slap in the face each time they try to bring about a change for the better? Is it too much to expect the leader of the world's largest polluting nation, to grant a couple of concessions which will ensure the earth's survival in the years to come?
Hats off to the young people who challenged President Bush to the BET, but if I were you I'd be pretty ashamed of the leader I had picked to rule my nation.
Joel Solow | Aug 27th, 2002
Don't worry, a good deal of us are quite ashamed of who we picked (or in the case of some southern, peninsular states, we aren't entirely sure who we picked.) Bush is perhaps only passionate about keeping America out of major relevant international issues and homeland security. Never mind that we already spend more on "defense" (though some would say neo-colonialism and the establishment of client states) than most of the world combined.
Ironically, Bush is supposed to meet at the UN in about a month trying to rally international support for a war on Iraq. Convenient that his two big issues should clash so violently...
You must be a TakingITGlobal member to post a comment. Sign up for free or login.
|
|
