Introduction
Nowadays, more and more people grow to realize that the issue of protecting the environment can no longer be thought of as such stands second or third in importance, when compared to other socio-political issues of global concern. The validity of this idea became painfully clear ever since the time when the phenomenon of Global Warming has been recognized by UN as being the by-product of humanity’s industrial and economic activity.
However, the realization of this fact, on the part of many world’s politicians, did not result in countries’ policies, regarding the protection of environment, to become adjusted to the realities of 21st century living, due to the fact that today’s international organizations, such as UN, simply lack the insight on what accounts for environmental pollution and also the executive powers to enforce environment-protection policies on the level of national governments.
In this paper, we will aim at exploring this thesis even further, while exposing the conceptual inconsistency of the idea that global environment can only be effectively protected by the mean of UN embracing the functions of “world government”, as this organization’s officials would like us to believe. Also, we will show that one of the main reasons why most of environment-protection legislations passed by UN, are associated with their sheer ineffectiveness, is because of a lack of scientific understanding as to the technical aspects of how civilizational progress affects the environment, in the first place.
UN Environmental Initiatives – Historical and Analytical Retrospectives
The initial attempt, on the part of international community, to legitimize UN’s competence in the field of protecting global environment dates back to 1949, when the first international conference on Conservation and Utilization of Resources had taken place. However, it was not up until 1972 that, for the first time in history, UN was able to attain support from its countries-members, within a context of outlining the guiding principles for international cooperation in the field of protecting the environment.
In their book “The Global Environment”, Norman Vig and Regina Axelrod refer to United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), adopted in 1972, as such that created objective preconditions for countries’ environmental cooperation to strengthen, as time would go by: “The 1972 conference, convened by the General Assdembly, adopted three nonbinding instruments: a resolution on institutional and financial arrangements; the Declaration of Twenty-six Guiding Principles; and an Action Plan setting forth 109 recommendations for more specific international action” (Vig & Axelrod, 1999, p.125).
However, as it usually happens with just about all UN initiatives, UNEP had failed to reach even a half of its objectives, not the least because of this organization functionaries’ inability to understand a fact that, without being provided with enforcement mechanisms, declarative legislations are doomed to fiasco.
In her article “Assessing the United Nations Environment Programme”, Maria Ivanova says: “UNEP, despite a clear mandate to serve as the anchor institution for the global environment, has had only partial success… it has fallen short in managing coherent and coordinated policy processes. It has failed to establish itself as the institutional home for the many international environmental conventions.
Without a centre of gravity, international environmental governance has grown more complex and fragmented” (Ivanova, 2006, p. 117). Despite the fact that UN officials explain the ineffectiveness of UNEP by countries-participants’ unwillingness to stick to its obligations, within legislation’s framework, the real reason why this UN initiative has failed to benefit world’s natural environment in any concrete manner, is because of its legally contradictory essence.
In the book from which we have already quoted, Norman Vig and Regina Axelrod state: “The rules of international environmental law have developed in pursuit of two principles that pull in opposite directions: that states have sovereign rights over their natural resources and that states must not cause damage to the environment” (Vig & Axelrod, 1999, p.125). Even though that countries’ exploitation of natural resources take place well within the boundaries of these countries governments’ legal authority, the effects of such practice affect environment on a global scale, and for as long as sovereign nations are not being deprived of their existential sovereignty, this situation can hardly be addressed.
The validity of this thesis is being illustrated by UN most recent environmental initiative, meant to combat Global Warming – the ratification of Kyoto Protocol, during the Third Conference of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, on December 11, 1997. The ultimate goal of Kyoto Protocol is to reduce CO2 emissions worldwide by 10%-15%, before the year of 2012. Countries that have signed the Protocol agree to be subjected to UN monitoring, which is meant to insure that every particular participant stays committed to its obligation, within a context of Protocol.
These obligations vary greatly, in accordance to geopolitical status of every country. For example, 137 developing countries that have signed Protocol, including Brazil, China and India, have no responsibilities under the agreement, beyond monitoring and reporting emissions, despite the fact that their share in global CO2 emissions is substantial. However, the operational inefficiency of Kyoto Protocol does not solely correspond to its utter complexity alone – apparently, there is simply no conclusive evidence as to the fact that it is namely humanity’s industrial activity alone, which accounts for Global Warming.
The article “There is No Global Warming”, which can be found on the site of American Policy Center, states: “Scientific research through U.S. Government satellite and balloon measurements shows that the temperature is actually cooling – very slightly -.037 degrees Celsius. In 1936, the Midwest of the United States experienced 49 consecutive days of temperatures over 90 degrees. There were another 49 consecutive days in 1955.
But in 1992 there was only one day over 90 degrees and in 1997 only 5 days” (APC, 2006). In other words, the premise for ratification of Kyoto Protocol is largely based on pseudo-scientific assumptions, not the hard facts. Therefore, it was not a surprise that United States, Australia and Japan were utterly reluctant to ratify this protocol, because there is simply too much uncertainty about it.
It cannot escape our attention that the dangers of Global warming are being popularized by the same people, who in eighties were trying to link the thinning of ozone layer over Antarctica to the industrial progress, associated with 20th century. In his article “A Necessary Apocalypse”, John Dunn says: “Ozone depletion did serve a useful Green purpose in drawing public attention to the atmosphere, and confusing people as to exactly what the problem was all about” (Dunn, 2007).
However, a few years after the beginning of this environmental craze, it was being proven that the usage of aerosol sprays cannot be related to the widening of “ozone holes” over Antarctica. As for today, there are no more talks about the dangers of aerosol sprays and about the wickedness of human race, which destroys its own environment. We cannot be absolutely sure that the same thing will not happen to Global Warming controversy.
Numerous signs point out to the fact that the effects of Global Warming are being artificially exaggerated:
- It became a gesture of good taste, among politically correct politicians, to express concern about Global Warming
- Scientists do not agree on Warming’s exact causes
- The immediate effects of Global Warming are going to remain negligible for at least another hundred years, even if this Warming proves to be the part of today’s objective reality.
The Cases of Australia and Japan
As we have shown in the earlier part of this paper, the way today’s international organizations, such as UN, handle the issue of protection of environment can hardly be referred to as very effective. And another ultimate reason for this to be the case, apart from the ones we have mentioned earlier, appears to be quite simple – the very premise that all representatives of humanity are being equality concerned about protection of environment is conceptually fallacious.
For example, despite being a heavily industrialized nation, today’s Japan is considered to be one of the most environmentally friendly countries in the whole world; whereas, such country as Haiti is nothing short of being hell on Earth, in environmental sense of this word, despite the fact that most of this country’s citizens practice an utterly primitive way of living, which in its turn, implies that they should have been “closer to nature”, as opposed to Japanese. Yet, the objective reality points out to something diametrically different.
In his article “Haiti on the Brink of Ecocide”, Dwight Worker provides us with the insight on the sheer scale of environmental disaster in the country that prides itself on being the first fully independent Black nation: “If you want an “ecotour” to see an environmental disaster, you need not go to Africa or India. Save your money and look in our back yard at Haiti. It is our local “worst-possible-case” of eco-catastrophy” (Worker, 1994).
In Haiti, people literally live in their own filth, with the thought that there is something wrong about it never even occurring to them. As the result, Haiti is now being considered as one the most polluted places on Earth, even though that heavy industry in this country simply does not exist. As in her article “What is Environmental Ethics?”, Manali Oak had put it: “Most of the human activities lead to environmental pollution.
The overly increasing human population is increasing the human demand for resources like food and shelter. As the population is exceeding the carrying capacity of our planet, natural environments are being used for human inhabitation” (Oak, 2008). And what does the UN to try preventing the remains of natural environment in Haiti from being thoroughly destroyed? It continues to pump this country with “humanitarian aid”, which only adds to the problem of Haiti suffering from overpopulation.
At the same time, UN bureaucrats periodically threaten Japan with imposing sanctions, simply because they think that this country emits more CO2 into the air then they believe it should, while preferring to remain ignorant as to the fact that the majority of Japan’s citizens are simply incapable of polluting natural environment, as their most natural preoccupation, due to the very essence of Japanese culture being utterly pro-environmental.
In his book “Zen Buddhism and Environmental Ethics”, Simon P. James makes a perfectly good point, while relating the development of environmental ethics, as we know them, to religious and cultural particularities of Japanese mentality: “Zen has proven an important source for inspiration for environmental thinkers, particularly for those towards the dark green pole of the environmental spectrum” (James, 2004, p. 69). However, given the fact that UN officials are known for their tendency to strive to adjust an objective reality to the obscure set of their irrational beliefs, and not the vice versa, it comes as no surprise that considerations of reason rarely motivate the process of UN’s decision making, especially when Japan’s stance on environmental issues is concerned.
The same can be said about UN’s attitude towards Australia – UN officials simply cannot stand the fact that this country has proven itself as being absolutely capable of protecting its natural environment, without utilizing UN bureaucracy’s “valuable” advices on how Australians should run their country.
Moreover, it is exactly the fact that most Australians do not want to see their country to be reduced down to another Third World nation, where people dump garbage onto the street in front of their houses and where rivers are being used as sewers, by resisting the policy of “multiculturalism” being forcibly imposed upon them, which causes UN “experts on tolerance” to suggest that there is a link between what they perceive as this country’s lack of “environmental” and “racial” tolerance.
In his article “Geneva versus Canberra”, David Marr provides us with the insight onto the fact that Australia is being strongly disfavored by self-appointed “world’s managers”, simply because John Howard had suggested that newly arrived immigrants would be much better off “celebrating diversity” where they came from, instead of doing it on Australian soil: “Australia was rebuked (by UN Committee on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination) for its treatment of migrants, Muslims, asylum seekers, refugees and Aborigines. In the eyes of the Geneva committee, the list of this country’s failures on the human rights front has only grown longer since the Howard Government came to office” (Marr, 2005).
It is namely Australia’s apparent unwillingness to “embrace diversity”, which directly corresponds to the fact the majority of this country’s citizens continue to remain environmentally aware – in its turn, this causes Australia to be considered as one of Western cleanest countries. Ironically enough, this is also the reason why UN criticizes Australia. Therefore, only very naïve people can truly believe that UN’s environmental initiatives may actually benefit the well-being of world’s natural environment.
This brings us to conclusion that a radical new ethic to underpin efforts to save the environment needs to be adopted; however, this effort has nothing to do with UN bureaucrats discussing the issue, during the course of participating in countless conferences, while being served champagne that cost $2.500 a bottle (“elimination of world’s thirst”), and while being served lobster dinners that cost $1000 a plate (“elimination of world’s hunger”). In the final part of this paper, we will outline what should account for people making a real difference, within a context of trying to protect natural environment.
Conclusion
Even though “world’s managers” have succeeded in convincing many people to believe that the protection of environment represents a “global” issue, there is nothing truly global about it – just about anyone can apply a personal effort to keep streets, forests, rivers and lakes free of pollution. The following is the list of basic measures private individuals and national governments should undertake, in order to make this world a better place to live, in social and environmental sense of this word:
- By the time children begin attending elementary schools; their parents must have them instilled with the idea that loitering represents a punishable offence. In Western countries and in Japan, the garbage is being disposed of in orderly manner and if some people criticize such practice as “euro-centric”, while insisting on their right to dump garbage in front of their houses, as the ultimate mean of exploring their “ethnic uniqueness”, then they should be encouraged to immigrate to Haiti, because there they will be able to fit right in.
- The commercial and industrial activities of transnational corporations, which account for the bulk of environmental pollution that occurs as we speak, must not be exempted from national laws and regulations, as promoters of Globalization insist.
- Since, after having been liberated of “white oppression”, the so-called “developing countries” have ceased developing and began to rapidly descend into primeval savagery, thus greatly contributing to the rates of planet’s environmental pollution, they should be deprived of their illusionary “independence”, with Western countries and Japan being put in position of designing birth-control policies in the Third World.
Bibliography
Dunn, J. (2007). A Necessary Apocalypse. American Thinker. Web.
Fortune, M. (2007). Global Warming: Myth of Reality?. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 88, no.1, pp. 84-89.
Ivanova, M. (2006). Assessing the United Nations Environment Programme. International Task Force on Global Public Goods. Web.
James, S. (2004). Zen Buddhism and Environmental Ethics. Hampshire: Ashgate.
Marr, D. (2005). Geneva versus Canberra. The Sydney Morning Herald. Web.
Oak, M. (2008). What is Environmental Ethics? Buzzle. Web.
Singer, F. (2004). The Kyoto Protocol: A Post-Mortem. The New Atlantis. Web.
There is No Global Warming. 2006. American Policy Center. Web.
Vig, N. & and Axelrod, R. (1999). The Global Environment. London: Earthscan Publications.
Worker, D. (1994). Haiti on the Brink of Ecocide. Bnet. Web.