{"id":807,"date":"2019-03-06T16:04:19","date_gmt":"2019-03-06T16:04:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wsm.prolerat.org\/?page_id=807"},"modified":"2019-10-20T13:21:58","modified_gmt":"2019-10-20T12:21:58","slug":"stockholm-rio-and-beyond","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/stockholm-rio-and-beyond\/","title":{"rendered":"Stockholm, Rio and Beyond"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Conflict of Interests?\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 1992, 1600 scientists warned that humanity is on course for a \ncollision with nature. They predicted an environmental crisis by the \nyear 2020 unless humankind can achieve a change in the nature of its \n‘stewardship’ of the environment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While there is much uncertainty about the extent to which humans are ‘irretrievably mutilating’ the earth, as these scientists claimed, it is clear that radical change is needed. At present, ‘stewardship’ over the earth is in the hands of a small minority of the world population (Who Owns The World?)<\/a>. Their interests often prove to be irreconcilable with the need to protect the environment from pollution and degradation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Awareness of the damage being done has increased markedly over the \nlast two decades. A growth of pressure groups, non-governmental \norganisations and international conferences, reports and legislation \nhave at least provided us with ever more information, if little else. \nIndeed, ever since the first international conference on the environment\n in Stockholm 1971, there has been no shortage of well-intentioned \nstatements of principle from governments. For example, the Stockholm \ndeclaration stated that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

man has the fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate \nconditions of life, in an environment of a quality that permits a life \nof dignity and well-being.(1)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 1987 the Brundtland report, Our Common Future<\/em>, called for\n the development of our productive activities to become ‘sustainable’, ”\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n

meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It goes without saying that most of us would favour these goals of \nprotecting the earth’s resources for future generations and preserving \nthe quality of our environment. The question is whether they have any \nchance of being achieved by a social system where profits come first.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Documents such as the 1987 Brundtland Report<\/em> and 1992 Agenda 21<\/em>\n which followed the highly publicised ‘Earth Summit’ at Rio de Janeiro \ndo not acknowledge that there is any necessary conflict between making \nprofit and protecting the environment. The goal of ‘sustainable \ndevelopment’ is seen as achievable within the market system. For example\n P.H.Sand, an expert in international environmental law, argues that Agenda 21<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

affirms that the promotion of economic growth in developing countries\n is essential to address the problems of environmental degradation.” (1)\n Similarly, the Maastricht treaty, expresses as a goal: ” harmonious and\n balanced development of economic activities (and) sustainable and \nnon-inflationary growth respecting the environment.(2)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Again, there is no acknowledgment of any conflict between these two supposedly complementary goals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The United Nations Food & Agricultural Organisation have stated that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The objective is to create an economic environment in which it is more profitable to conserve resources than destroy them.(3)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Again, conservation and profitability are seen to be compatible. Yet,\n as is shown by our coverage of environmental issues, these two goals \nhave proved to be incompatible. Only by replacing the profit system with\n truly democratic organisation can we give the environment the priority \nit deserves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n