Read this article in:
4 December, 2000
A week ago in The Hague, Netherlands, people from all over the world, including many experts on the environment, showed how to destroy a constructive discussion through endless quarrels.
The outcome of these talks has been a failure for the entire world. It is pathetic to see some of the participating ministers trying, via the TV screen, to convince people that the conference on the reduction of air pollution was a success.
For many years, scientists have been warning about the so-called greenhouse effect of air pollution. The problem is acute and has to be dealt with now. Otherwise future generations will not have the opportunity to enjoy many of the natural resources which we take for granted. Natural catastrophes are increasing in number because of the change in the climate which is occurring on every continent on Earth.
The USA, which is the greatest source of pollution in the world, wants to rely on market solutions to environmental problems, rather than address the problems at their source. Just four per cent of the population in the world is responsible for 25 per cent of all pollution and still wants to continue doing it. In addition, the USA wants to "buy" pollution quotas from other countries which are not contributing to the pollution problem because they do not have any industry or production which pollutes as much as industrialised countries.
Sustainable growth and the environment can go along together. In its report "Our Common Future," the UN Commission, led by Mrs. Brundtland since 1986, showed clearly that it is not only possible but necessary to combine the two issues. Politicians, if they still serve the people, are supposed to find the solutions and the necessary compromise to implement the ideas of the UN's Brundtland Commission.
But why, despite the fact that everyone recognises the problems, is no agreement possible?
Short-sighted economic interests are, as usual, the main reason. No one is prepared to impose on the manufacturers and industry the need to produce goods which do not cause as much pollution as they do today.
Environmental requirements have always been regarded as a burden, instead of a benefit, for the company. This is wrong. When calculating the cost involved, we cannot only take production costs into consideration, as we have to also include the long-term cost that society as a whole must pay to repair and restore the environment, as well as the costs we or future generations will have to pay if we do nothing.
Prevention is the best way to protect the environment. Prevention means measures need to be taken at the source of the pollution. It is very often in the plants and at the workplace where many preventive measures can and should be taken. Many of the major environmental catastrophes which have occurred in the last decades started at the workplace: Seveso, Bhopal, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Basel -- these are the most infamous.
In The Hague, the point of discussion was the application of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. It is difficult for the man on the street to understand why governments could not agree to do something they have already agreed upon!
No wonder that politics are becoming more and more remote and politicians less and less in touch with reality, lending substance to the claim of a growing democratic deficit.
The outcome of these talks has been a failure for the entire world. It is pathetic to see some of the participating ministers trying, via the TV screen, to convince people that the conference on the reduction of air pollution was a success.
For many years, scientists have been warning about the so-called greenhouse effect of air pollution. The problem is acute and has to be dealt with now. Otherwise future generations will not have the opportunity to enjoy many of the natural resources which we take for granted. Natural catastrophes are increasing in number because of the change in the climate which is occurring on every continent on Earth.
The USA, which is the greatest source of pollution in the world, wants to rely on market solutions to environmental problems, rather than address the problems at their source. Just four per cent of the population in the world is responsible for 25 per cent of all pollution and still wants to continue doing it. In addition, the USA wants to "buy" pollution quotas from other countries which are not contributing to the pollution problem because they do not have any industry or production which pollutes as much as industrialised countries.
Sustainable growth and the environment can go along together. In its report "Our Common Future," the UN Commission, led by Mrs. Brundtland since 1986, showed clearly that it is not only possible but necessary to combine the two issues. Politicians, if they still serve the people, are supposed to find the solutions and the necessary compromise to implement the ideas of the UN's Brundtland Commission.
But why, despite the fact that everyone recognises the problems, is no agreement possible?
Short-sighted economic interests are, as usual, the main reason. No one is prepared to impose on the manufacturers and industry the need to produce goods which do not cause as much pollution as they do today.
Environmental requirements have always been regarded as a burden, instead of a benefit, for the company. This is wrong. When calculating the cost involved, we cannot only take production costs into consideration, as we have to also include the long-term cost that society as a whole must pay to repair and restore the environment, as well as the costs we or future generations will have to pay if we do nothing.
Prevention is the best way to protect the environment. Prevention means measures need to be taken at the source of the pollution. It is very often in the plants and at the workplace where many preventive measures can and should be taken. Many of the major environmental catastrophes which have occurred in the last decades started at the workplace: Seveso, Bhopal, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Basel -- these are the most infamous.
In The Hague, the point of discussion was the application of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. It is difficult for the man on the street to understand why governments could not agree to do something they have already agreed upon!
No wonder that politics are becoming more and more remote and politicians less and less in touch with reality, lending substance to the claim of a growing democratic deficit.