Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
and Alice Bows published a paper for the Royal Society in the UK warning that
there was 'no chance' of keeping global warming below 2
°
C and in any case recent
studies relating to the impacts associated with such a rise have been revised upwards
from 'dangerous' to 'extremely dangerous'. Consequently, Anderson and Bows write:
'with tentative signs of global emissions returning to their earlier levels of growth,
[the year] 2010 represents a political tipping point' (2011: 41).
Ten years further on and despite the high expectations, there were many
disappointments with the Rio+20 conference too. Although progress since the first
Earth Summit in 1992 was carefully evaluated, commemorated and celebrated, there
were no new agreements or targets in 2012 but plenty of 'reaffirmations' and
'recognitions' in the final published document
The Future We Want
(United Nations,
2012: para 19 [p. 4]). Indeed, the clear admission expressed in the statement 'we
emphasize the need to make progress in implementing previous commitments' indicates
both why and how so many delegates felt so deflated with the conference outcomes.
Much of the debate was polarized around the meaning of the 'green economy', which
for many seemed to coalesce around the desire for green energy technologies rather
than defining the need for a new economic paradigm that favoured social equity
and quality of life above economic growth. UNEP, for example, clearly advocated
and advocates a series of policy prescriptions characterized by the key principles of
ecological modernization, the low carbon economy and eco-efficiency. At a moment
when the global economy was experiencing considerable stress as a result of the
serial failures of finance capitalism, the Rio+20 vision for the future was hesitant,
modest and accommodative:
In this regard, we consider green economy in the context of sustainable develop-
ment and poverty eradication as one of the important tools available for achieving
sustainable development and that it could provide options for policy making
but should not be a rigid set of rules. We emphasize that it should contribute
to eradicating poverty as well as sustained economic growth, enhancing social
inclusion, improving human welfare and creating opportunities for employment
and decent work for all, while maintaining the healthy functioning of the Earth's
ecosystems.
(United Nations, 2012: para. 56 [p. 9])
No wonder, then, that the defensive concept of 'resilience' seemed to hold centre
stage, being referred to on thirteen separate occasions in the summit's outcomes
document (Blewitt and Tilbury, 2013). Having said that, if progress was made at
Rio in 2012 it was in acting on the recognition that no single assessment matrix for
sustainable development had been previously devised and accepted. Thus it was
decided that an immediate task for the future was to fashion a set of sustainable
development goals (SDGs), which in effect would supersede the Millennium Develop-
ment Goals (MDGs) formulated at the turn of the century (see p. 31 for a discussion
on MDGs). These goals would be action orientated, concise, easy to communicate,
limited in number, aspirational, global in nature and universally applicable to all
countries. In January 2013 a thirty-member working group of the UN was tasked
to devise a proposal on the SDGs, which would then be integrated into the UN's
post-2015 development agenda. An IIED (International Institute for Environment
and Development Policy Paper published in March 2013 (Geoghegan, 2013) outlined
a number of possible principles and approaches to help the process move forward.
