|
||||
|
National
Conference on Science, Policy and the Environment: A Huge Success The second National Conference on Science, Policy and the Environment, held in Washington, DC on December 7 and 8, 2001 was an enormous success. More than 600 scientists, engineers, federal, state, tribal, and local government officials, business people, environmentalists, and others participated in the interactive meeting organized by the National Council for Science and the Environment around a theme of Sustainable Communities: Science and Solutions. The conference developed a set of recommendations on how to advance and apply sustainability science in the context of the upcoming World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD). The recommendations spanned the fields from urban to rural development, architecture, business, children's health, culture and indigenous peoples' values, education, energy, forestry, government, sustainability indicators, libraries and information, pollution prevention and remote sensing. These diverse sessions developed a set of overarching themes, including:
The draft recommendations are available on the conference web site http://www.cnie.org/NCSEconference/2001conference/. NCSE is seeking comments about these draft recommendations over the next month. The conference featured a number of excellent speakers. The texts from many of these speakers are available on the conference web site. Keynote speaker, Donald Kennedy, Editor-in-Chief of Science magazine and former President of Stanford University challenged participants to "Think Locally, Act Globally." He emphasized the need "for a kind of science that can help with both tasks - that is, can inform and guide good work at the meters-to-kilometers scale, and at the same time can help nations develop and implement policies that ensure sustainability." Widener University Law School professor John Dernbach described the progress of the United States towards sustainability since the 1992 Earth Summit and in preparation for WSSD. The "good news" is the large number of state and local initiatives being undertaken to achieve sustainable communities. The "bad news" is the challenges still remaining on a national and global scale. Three plenary case studies showed how it is possible to think and act locally and globally simultaneously. Governor Jaime Lerner of the Brazilian state of Parana described his success as Mayor of Curitiba, one of the world's most sustainable cities. Under Lerner's charismatic leadership, using comprehensive planning, participatory democracy and innovation spurred by resource constraints, Curitiba has achieved an admirable record in education, health, well-being, safety, environmental protection and community spirit. Lerner's message of "E posible" (it is possible) inspired the conferees. A panel chaired by Thomas Lovejoy of the World Bank, including Deborah Bleviss of the InterAmerican Development Bank, Karen Peabody O'Brien of the W. Alton Jones Foundation and former Chattanooga, Tennessee council member David Crocket talked about how the example of Curitiba is being applied in other cities around the world. Dr. Brian Van Wilgen described the Working for Water Programme in the Republic of South Africa where, based on scientific understanding of the impacts of eucalyptus trees and other exotic vegetation on the water supply, the government has created a massive program to employ unskilled workers to remove exotic vegetation. He described how the project increases the skills of the workers, prevents wastage of water and restores an ecosystem with a large number of rare native species of plants. Van Wilgen's colleague Ahmed Khan joined Jamie Reaser of the National Invasive Species Council, Ann Bartuska of The Nature Conservancy, Peter McCornick of the United States Agency for International Development and Gunars Platais of the World Bank in a discussion chaired by Twig Johnson of the National Academy of Sciences that explored the lessons learned and applications of Working for Water. City of Portland Commissioner Dan Saltzman and Greg Wolf of the office of Oregon Governor Kitzhaber described efforts to implement sustainability in Portland and Oregon. These efforts range from the very local, such as supporting building of "green homes," to more comprehensive efforts on land use planning. Congressman Earl Blumenauer (OR) described the need for national initiatives to complement those in his home town and state. Panelists Bonnie Prochaska of Racine, Wisconsin, Shari Wilson from the state of Maryland and Dan Mazmanian from the University of Southern California described how their local efforts implemented many of the same approaches as are being applied in Portland and Oregon. A panel led by Sarah Moten of the U.S. Agency for International Development and including journalist Dianne Dumanoski along with Crockett and Mazmanian identified the common themes of the plenary sessions and debated the role of science in sustainability. Crockett called for the need for "lobal thinking" (as in frontal lobes). Noted Harvard biologist Edward O. Wilson presented the second John H. Chafee memorial lecture on Science and the Environment. Speaking under the title, "The Future of Life", the title of his next book, which will be released early in 2002, Wilson described the dangers facing humankind due to the loss of biological diversity. Wilson warned the audience that time was running short to prevent this catastrophe, which will greatly limit the options available to future generations. The National Council for Science and the Environment (NCSE) presented two awards to leaders in the area of science and sustainability. Representative Sherwood Boehlert (NY), Chair of the Science Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives received the NCSE Congressional Leadership Award for his role in advancing the use of science in environmental decisionmaking. In accepting the award, Boehlert remarked, "I am honored to receive this award. A key to a sound and forceful environmental policy is a strong scientific foundation. NCSE understands that. I look forward to continuing to work with groups like NCSE to ensure that science drives environmental policy - even when science points toward problems like climate change that are difficult to address." Maurice Strong, a senior advisor to the Secretary-General of the United Nations received the first special lifetime achievement award presented NCSE. Strong chaired the UN Conference on Environment and Development, also known as the Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janiero in 1992 and shepherded the adoption of Agenda 21, the ambitious plan for sustainable development adopted by the nations attending that unprecedented conference. In accepting his award, Strong called for a new paradigm of cooperative global governance. He made the case for all people and nations to give the same kind of priority to civilizational security and sustainability as we make to personal and national security. He called upon the United States to lead in this effort and for the scientific community to provide guidance and leadership. Strong participated in the closing panel along with former Congressmember John E. Porter (IL), Alan Hecht of the U.S. Council on Environmental Quality, Jonathan Margolis of the State Department, and Jacob Sher of the Natural Resources Defense Council, representing nongovernmental organizations working on the WSSD. The panel reviewed and praised the recommendations developed by the conference. They emphasized the importance of a strong partnership between science, government and private efforts towards sustainability. They invited and challenged the conference participants to remain engaged in the process leading up to WSSD and in science for sustainability efforts in general. The National Council for Science and the Environment will continue to catalyze the efforts of the scientific community to develop and apply sustainability science and engineering. Please check the conference web site periodically for updates leading to the WSSD in August 2002. |
||||
|
Opinion:
Ignore Kyoto and Hurt US Business? One relatively little appreciated aspect of the Bush Administration's decision not to participate in Kyoto is the possibility that it will lead to the imposition of trade sanctions applied to American businesses. While some businesses clearly understand the risk at hand, others (e.g., small businesses) may not entirely appreciate what might be in store in terms of future export business opportunities to countries that have ratified the protocol. I. Overview Despite the Bush Administration's unwillingness
to accept the theory of global warming and therefore the need for an
international response, there are fundamental commercial reasons why
the U.S. should become involved in the protocol. Unfortunately, these
reasons may not be fully appreciated by the general public or small
businesses that export goods and services. The Montreal Protocol, a
U.N. initiative which dealt with protecting the stratospheric ozone
layer, provides some context in which to consider what is going on with
Kyoto. Moreover, assessing the current European response to the American
intransigence on the issue is also useful in attempting to calculate
the risks American businesses may face if current the policy is continued. II. Montreal Protocol on the Protection of the Stratospheric Ozone Layer One of the major concerns of the U.S. (and other countries that supported the effort) during the negotiation of the various stages of the Montreal Protocol related to the need for a trade sanctions provision. Signatory nations, including the U.S., were concerned that commercial advantages would inure to the benefit of non-signatory nations and thus there needed to be a mechanism to "protect" the signatory countries. The thinking was that if a country did not sign the protocol, its commercial enterprises would be able to operate at a cost lower than similar enterprises in a signatory country because the latter enterprises would be forced to install new equipment or develop new processes to limit the production of ozone depleting substances. Consequently, the Montreal Protocol, with the U.S. playing a leading role, required "bans on trade between parties and non-parties to the treaty in ozone depleting substances [ODS], products containing ODS (e.g. refrigerators) and products made with but not containing ODS (e.g. electronic components)…These trade provisions had two aims. One was to maximize participation in the Protocol, by shutting off non-signatories from supplies of ODS (always limited to a few countries). The other goal, should participation not prove total, was to prevent industries from migrating to non-signatory countries to escape the phase-out schedules and then exporting back into signatory countries…In practice, the trade restrictions have not often been applied, largely because every major producer and consumer is now a party to the Protocol. Trade restrictions have been applied in a minor way in a number of cases of non-compliance, for example in Russia…"[1] III. Kyoto Protocol As it now stands, the Kyoto Protocol does not contain compliance (e.g., trade sanctions) mechanism although it is likely that such a mechanism will be developed once the protocol enters into force. In this regard, the protocol's "flexibility mechanisms" (e.g., emissions trading, joint implementation, and the clean development mechanism) "must necessarily be restricted to parties to the Protocol" if it is to operate effectively. Assuming these will be put into place, non-parties are likely to be subject to trade restrictions in the context of being barred access to markets (e.g., markets in emissions permits). Along the same lines, it is quite unlikely that non-complying parties will be permitted to undermine international emissions markets by trading permits that do not represent reductions in emissions. A leading Kyoto policy researcher at Oxford University, Benito Mueller, has suggested that there is a strong case to be made that companies located in countries that do not comply with Kyoto should be excluded from joint implementation and clean development mechanism projects. Otherwise, he suggests that these countries would be able to offer, for instance, power plants with components that are less costly to manufacture than those from countries where reductions in emissions were being made. In his mind, "It would be logical to certify reductions only if their technical means of production are manufactured in countries which have ratified the protocol."[2] According to one international expert on multilateral environmental agreements, "Given President Bush's declaration of US withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol in March 2001, the issue of how the climate regime deals with non-parties - and, furthermore, with one large and economically powerful non-party - has become a live one."[3] IV. European Stance The European Union has played a significant role in advocating ratification of the protocol. There are many reasons for this, but perhaps one of the most significant is that the E.U.'s "constitution" now calls for sustainable development to be one of the key objectives of the E.U. As such, many major players in the E.U. have offered critical comments about the unwillingness of the U.S. to participate in the Kyoto Protocol. For instance, in April Margot Wallstrom, the European Environment Commissioner, said, "Europe needs to keep up the pressure on the U.S. on climate change. We need to offer them a way up from the hole they are digging but, if necessary, to make it an unpleasant stay in that hole."[4] One of the ways to make the stay "unpleasant" she said was the implementation of trade sanctions. More recently, U.K. Environment Minister
Michael Meacher said, "U.S. multinationals will want to have a
place in emissions trading to which they will not have access unless
the U.S. is a member of the protocol."[5] There has also been a recent report of concern in Canada about the trade implications of imposing reductions on its companies who compete, in large measure, with U.S. companies. Currently, about 90% of Canadian exports are sent to the U.S. Consequently, it is entirely likely that the Canadians may join the Europeans in pushing for some sort of sanction mechanisms. V. Conclusion It is not entirely fair to suggest that the U.S. is doomed if it stays out of the protocol or that the trade sanctions mechanism will become a reality since it remains unclear what will happen on this score. However, what is clear is that the longer the U.S. remains outside the protocol, the less chance it will have of influencing policies within the protocol. And this, in and of itself, may prove in the long run extremely detrimental to American business interests. Obviously, today this issue is not on
the top of the policy-making agenda in the U.S., but the risks of inaction
on the part of the U.S. may ultimately operate as a significant drag
on the ability of American businesses to export as much as they have
in the past. [1] Duncan Brack, Environmental Treaties
and Trade: Multilateral Environment Agreements and the Multilateral
Trading System, April 2001. |
||||
|
Mercury Cafe Social/Information Series on Global Warming An new social/informational series on Climate Change begins on February 10th at the Mercury Café, with a showing of the film "Perspectives from Canada's High Arctic." Join us for food, drinks, and conversation. We will begin with introductions, followed by the film, food and conversation. The 42 minute video documents the impacts
of climate change in Canada's high Arctic from an Inuvialuit perspective,
following local people onto the land and sea as they perform traditional
activities. It also provides in-depth scientific observations of impacts
on wildlife, landscape, and the Inuvialuit way of life. Their voices
- and the beauty of a fragile and bountiful land - leave the viewer
with a clear understanding of what will be lost if climate change continues. This series is open to anyone who would like to learn more about climate change and meet interesting people over good food and drinks. Join our social/information series at the Mercury Café for fun and learning. Bring a friend who knows nothing about the issue, or just come by yourself to learn more. To view the Café's excellent menu: www.mercurycafe.com. Future dates and agendas for the series are given below. All events will take place at the Mercury Café, 2199 California St. Denver. 303-294-9281. (If you plan to order food and beverage, please note that the Café accepts cash and checks only).
For more information, contact Dr. Laurie Johnson at lauriejo@du.edu or 303-871-2146. This series is co-sponsored by I2E2. Please email lauriejo@du.edu if you are coming so the Café will know what to expect in numbers. |
||||
|
The
Race to Stop Global Warming April 14,
2002 Last year we had a small informal team from DU. Let us know if you plan to participate, and we will make arrangements for a DU gathering at the event |
||||
|
Conference: Rocky
Mountain Summit: Sustaining Ecosystems and Their People The Rocky Mountain Summit will convene
September 22-26, 2002 in Whitefish, Montana. The Summit will bring together
community leaders, resource managers, policy makers, scientists, educators
and the general public for the purpose of increasing awareness and understanding
of the social, cultural, economic and ecological significance of mountain
ecosystems. The summit will promote the well being of mountain peoples
and cultures and the ecological integrity of mountain ecosystems. Holding
the conference in 2002 is significant because the UN General Assembly
has declared 2002 the International Year of Mountains.
For complete information, click
here. Job Opening: Assistant Professor,
Regional Sustainability - University of Alaska Fairbanks Job Opening: Faculty, Environmental
Science and Policy - University of California, Berkeley Fellowship Opportunity: Gilbert F. White Postdoctoral Fellowship - Resources for the Future Resources for the Future (RFF) offers two resident fellowships for the 2002-2003 academic year in honor of Gilbert F. White, retired chairman of the RFF board of directors, distinguished geographer, and statesman of science. The fellowships are intended for researchers who have a doctorate degree and wish to devote a year to scholarly work in areas related to natural resources, energy, or the environment. Social scientists as well as natural scientists interested in policy-relevant interdisciplinary research are encouraged to apply. Go to the Career Page for complete information. Application deadline is 28 February 2002. Fellowship Opportunity:
Pre-doctoral and Post-doctoral fellowships, The Energy Technology Innovation
Project (ETIP) - Harvard University The Energy Technology Innovation Project
(ETIP) offers pre-doctoral and post-doctoral fellowships to undertake
research on energy policy and technological change. ETIP is a multi-year,
interdisciplinary effort to develop, propose, and promote policy and
institutional changes that support national and international efforts
to stimulate energy technology innovation. Go to the Career
Page for complete information. |
||||
International Institute for
Environment & Enterprise
University of Denver
2199 S. University Blvd.
Mary Reed Building, 3rd Floor
Denver, Colorado 80208-2360