Yclimateaction: Agreement?

I am still very much jetlagged from our trip to Rio. Mainly, this is because I have stayed up late at night and slept until lunchtime. Nyway, here comes some analysis of the summit. Reading other people’s opinions about the Rio + 20 conference, one messages is clear: we have lost the sense of urgency displayed at the last Earth Summit in 1992. ”Two decades on, the planet's ecosystems are still degrading fast. Any green gains have been wiped out by soaring consumption. Humanity's annual requirement for natural resources is about double what it was then. The rate of species extinctions is undiminished. Carbon dioxide emissions are up 40 per cent, and the concentration of the heat-trapping gas this year for the first time hit 400 parts per million (ppm) in the Arctic air — up about 40 ppm from 1992.”[1] I feel a sense of urgency – and I know you do!

Neither Obama nor Cameroon nor Merkel came to Rio. Clinton only stayed for a few hours. With the outcome document published on June 19th, there were few new to report during the last day of the conference. The text is, in the opinion of Fred Pearce ”lame even by the standards of international diplomacy”. Why are we disappointed by the text? Because it omits, leaves out, a few key areas where agreement is needed. It does not condemn fossil fuel subsidies. Governments can thus continue to encourage oil and coal exploitation as previously without thinking twice. The text also leaves out the high seas. Oceans, seas, and waters outside of national jurisdiction are also referred to as the high seas or, in Latin, mare liberum (meaning free seas).[2]Europeans hoped to formulate a convention that would protect the high seas. These waters are neither covered by national, nor international law right now. A coalition of the U.S., Venezuela, Canada, Japan and Russia vetoed this plan.

Another area left out from the document: mandatory environmental and sustainability reporting by large corporations. Today, progressive companies can go ahead and develop their own reporting in this area, but without an international agreement, it is unlikely that most companies will do so. Companies that undertake the reporting today are not rewarded for their work, they do not have as great an advantage over companies that do not undertake such reporting as they would have with an agreement. They expend the resources and time while other companies do not need to do the same. When governments cannot agree on mandatory environmental reporting, companies undertaking it may stop their reporting. The SDGs I have written about previously were agreed upon, but also not agreed upon. Governments have decided to initiate a process to formulate the SDGs but have not yet agreed upon which topics they will cover.

See below a video of Marcus Gustafsson speaking and moderating at YMCA side-event at RioCentro. We are all very proud over Marcus and his work, inviting ministers from several countries and leading a great panel debate. It is not always easy to reach the ministers of our countries, but this time, they even came to us. Our Annika Hagberg also sang for the ministers - showing them that we have courage and are willing to work for a sustainable development together.