Categoria: Idiomas

The Conceptual Deficiencies of Rio+20

Leonardo BoffDeixe um comentário

To say that Rio+20 was a success is a fantasy, because not a single binding measure was reached, and neither funds to eradicate poverty, nor mechanisms to control global warming was created. No decisions were taken regarding the purpose of the Conference, which was to create conditions for the «future we want». The logic of the governments is not to admit failures, but failures still exist. Given the general degradation of all the eco-systemic services, failing to make progress is to regress.

Deep down Rio+20 affirmed that if the crisis lies in growth, then the solution is still more growth. This necessarily means greater use of nature’s goods and services, which accelerates their exhaustion, and puts more pressure on the ecosystems, which have already reached their limit. Data by the very UN organs show that since Rio 92 there has been a 12% loss of biodiversity, 3 million square meters of forests and jungles were destroyed, 40% more green house gasses were released, and about half of the world reserves of fish have been depleted.

What is surprising is that neither the final document nor its draft reveal any self criticism. They neither question how we have come to the present situation, nor clearly recognize the systemic character of the crisis. This is the theoretical weakness and conceptual deficiency of this, and in general, other official UN documents. Let’s enumerate some critical points.

Those who continue within the old cultural and social structure that places the human being in an Adam-like position, above nature, as her dominator and exploiter, are the fundamental cause of the present ecological crisis. They fail to understand humans as being part of nature, and responsible for the common destiny. They have not incorporated the vision of the new cosmology that sees the Earth as alive, and the human being as the conscious and intelligent portion of the Earth itself, with the mission of caring for her and guaranteeing sustainability. The Earth is seen only as a warehouse of resources, with neither intelligence nor purpose.

They adopted the «great transformation» (Polanyi), when they annulled ethics, set aside politics, and made the economy the sole axis for structuring all of society. From a market economy we have transitioned to a market society, separating the real economy from the financial speculative economy, with the latter directing the former.

They confuse development with growth, whereas development is the collection of values and conditions that foster the realization of human existence, and growth is the mere production of goods to be commercialized and consumed. They understand sustainability as the means of guaranteeing the continuity and the reproduction of the same, of the institutions, the enterprises and other organizations, without changing their internal logic or questioning their impact on the eco-systemic services. They are hostage to an anthropocentric point of view, according to which all other beings have meaning only to the extent they are ordained for human use, thus ignoring the community of life, also generated, as are we ourselves, by Mother Earth. They have a utilitarian relationship with all beings, denying their intrinsic value, because of which they are due respect, and have rights, especially planet Earth.

Viewing everything through the economic vision of competition rather than cooperation, they abolished the ethical and spiritual dimension from the reflections on lifestyles, and the means by which societies produce and consume. Without ethics or spirituality we turn ourselves into barbarians, insensitive to the suffering of millions and millions of starving and miserable human beings. Therefore, a radical individualism reigns, with each country seeking its own particular good above the global common good, thus precluding consensus and the convergence of the diversities in UN Conferences. And so, content and alienated, we head towards an encounter with the abyss created by our lack of sensible reason, wisdom, and a transcendent sense of existence.

With these conceptual deficiencies, we will never emerge from the crises that destroy us. This was the cry of the Leadership of the Peoples that offered alternatives of hope. In the worst case scenario, the Earth will continue, but without us. May the Divine not let that happen, because God is «the sovereign lover of life», as the Judeo-Christian Scriptures affirm.

See L.Boff & M.Hathaway,The Tao of Liberation– Exploring the Ecology of Transformation, Orbis Books, N.Y. 2010.

The terms of the present ecological debate

Leonardo BoffDeixe um comentário

Rio+20 has provoked a wide debate about ecological issues. Since not everyone understands the technical terms of the debate, we are publishing an article by the best known ecologist of the State of Rio, Arthur Soffiati, of Campos de Goytacazes, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, founder of the Centro Norte Fluminense for the Conservation of Nature, published on May 14, 2012 in Rio de Janeiro’s La Folha da Manhã. These are the principal terms: sustainable eco-development, green economy, ecological footprint, and anthropocenic.

Some 11,000 years ago, the temperature of the Earth began to increase naturally, causing the progressive thawing of the last glaciation. Most of this water, as it passed from solid to liquid, raised the sea levels, separating the continental masses, forming islands, fostering the formation of forest and jungles and other ecosystems. Scientists named this new phase “Holocene.”

In the last 11,000 years, of the Hominids, there remained only Homo sapiens, who turned himself into the sovereign of the whole planet. With a well developed brain, which was challenged by the new climatic conditions, he domesticated plants and animals, invented farming, created technologies to polish the rock, invented the wheel, the loom and metallurgy. Then he built cities, empires, dams, and drainage and irrigation systems. Several civilizations exceeded the limitations of the ecosystems where they were built, causing environmental crises that contributed to their demise.

Enter, then, the concept of ecological footprint. It refers to the degree of ecological impact produced by an individual, an activity, an economy, a society. The ecological footprint of the civilizations before Western civilization always had a regional character, which was sometimes reversible and sometimes not. Western civilization wore the heaviest boots to date. This pressure began with capitalism, that transformed the world.

Starting in the XV century, Western (read European) civilization left a profound mark, through maritime expansion. It imposed its culture on other sectors of the planet. The world became Westernized, and began trampling the environment as well.

Another great transformation followed the industrial revolution, which originated in XVIII century England, and was expanded throughout the world, which it divided into industrialized countries and those that exported raw materials. From there, another planetary reality began to be develop, with the gaseous emissions that drive global warming, devastating jungles and impoverishing Earth’s biodiversity, with the unwise use of the soil, widespread urbanization, profound alterations in the cycles of nitrogen and phosphorous, contamination of drinking water, weakening of the ozone layer, excessive extraction of non-renewable natural resources, and simultaneously, production of unprecedented quantities of garbage.

Scientists are showing that within the Holocene (holos = whole + koinos = new), collective human action through capitalism and socialism have provoked an environmental crisis that is unprecedented in the history of the Earth, because it has been created by a single species. They have denominated the phase of the post industrial revolution of the XVIII century, Anthropocene, or, a geologic period caused by the collective action of the human being (antropos = man + koinos = new).

Given this great crisis and this new epoch, the United Nations is promoting huge international conferences, such as the Conferences of Stockholm (1972), Rio-92 and now Rio+20. The objective is to solve the Anthropocene problems, be it by harmonizing economic development and environmental protection, or by seeking other forms of development. Rio-92 adopted the formula of sustainable development, which has acquired different meanings, some of which even contradict the original.

The Rio+20 Conference hopes to establish the equality of the environmental, social and economic dimensions. The magic phrase now is green economy, the meaning of which is unclear. It is supposed that, as a minimum, it means the progressive substitution of renewable sources of energy for carbon-intensive ones, and renewable resources for non-renewable ones.

Río+20 showed that the industrialized countries do not want to abdicate their position; the emerging countries want to catch up with the industrialized ones, and the poor countries want to emerge. As long as there is no appreciation of the limits of the planet, it is useless to think of social justice and economic development. Thus the environment is more important than social aspects or the economy, because without the environment it is not possible to find solutions for the other two. Rather, the concept of eco-development seems to be more correct as a tactic and as a strategy.

How Much Sustainability Will the Green Economy Tolerate?

Leonardo BoffDeixe um comentário

Three are the main actors in Rio+20: the official State and government representatives, the business community, and The Peoples’ Leadership. Each group brings a proposal and a vision for the future.

The Official Representatives, considering the First Draft and the Definitv Text once again propose the empty sustainable development, now colored green. They forgot to acknowledge, however, that sustainable development has failed miserably. Mikhail Gorbachov says: “the present model of economic growth is unsustainable; it engenders crises, social injustice and the danger of an environmental catastrophe” (O Globo 8/6/2012). The Systemic Evaluation of the Ecosystems of the Millennium revealed in 2005 that the principal elements that sustain life are being degraded. That was reiterated in the recent PNUMA Report. The First Draft of Rio+20 recognizes that «sustainable development continues to be a distant goal» (n.13). But with their dogmatic faith in sustainable development that, in fact, is material growth, they continue to propose more of the same.

Gorbachov emphatically states: «twenty years after Rio-92 we are surrounded by cynicism and, for many, desperation». Have the agents of the present world system suffered some kind of lobotomy? They do not feel the urgency of the environmental threat. They prefer to save the financial system and the banks than to guarantee life and protect the Earth. The red light and special check warning are already on.

The Businessmen, important actors, are becoming aware of the limits of the Earth, and of population growth and global warming. They are not waiting for a virtually impossible consensus from the UN and government gatherings. More than a hundred business leaders gathered in Rio before the formal event. They purported to create a G-0, in opposition to the G-2, G-7 or G-20. They confidently declare: «we need to take charge». The agreed collective agenda is in line with green economy, not as a new model, but by lowering the production of carbon and preserving nature as much as possible. However, they comprise only 1% of enterprises with assets of more than a billion dollars, as the Financial Times recently noted. They understand that the problem cannot be solved within the current model: by reconciling sustainability and profit. Those in charge do not want to renounce profit in the name of sustainability. Sustainability ends up being so fragile that it almost vanishes. These businessmen at least have grasped the problem: either they change, or they will go down with everyone else.

The third actor is the Peoples’ Leadership. Thousands have come from all over the world, the altermundisters (those who seek a different world), those who want to show what they are doing with solidarian economy and fair trade, with the preservation of semillas criollas (native seeds), with the struggle against transgenics, with organic family farms, with the ecoaldeas (eco-villages) and alternative energies. Here one sees a different form of production and consumption, more in consonance with the rhythms of nature, the result of a new way of looking at the Earth, as possessing dignity and rights.

To summarize, I would say that in the first group, resignation reigns, in the second, agitation, and in the third, hope.

This is the following outcome of Rio+20: the formal gathering of the UN aproved green economy, with the same basic capitalistic mode of production. This will allow business to trade in the goods and services of nature. A World Organization of the Environment was not created, along the lines of the World Organization of Commerce.

The business community will pressure the governments not to interfere with the business of the green economy. They want a free hand, because it is all about a low carbon economy and therefore it is eco-friendly, even though it retains the current model.

The Peoples’ Leadership  launched  an alternative to Green Economy: the Solidarian Economy. They will create global movements against the marketing of goods and services, such as water, soil, seeds, jungles, oceans and others, which are understood as goods that are common to all humanity.

For now, there will be no steps towards a new paradigm of world society, but it will be a must in the face of the environmental crises that are approaching. Collective suffering will provide bitter lessons. We will learn, from those agonies, a love and caring for life, for humanity and for Mother Earth, all of which are pre-conditions to the future we want.

Green Economy versus Solidarian Economy

Leonardo Boff2 Comentários

The UN’s main document for Rio +20 is still held hostage to the old paradigm of dominating nature in order to extract from her the greatest possible benefits for business and the markets. By and through it, the human being seeks the means of life and subsistence. The green economy radicalizes this tendency, because, as Bolivian diplomat and ecologist Pablo Solon wrote, «the green economy seeks to market not only the timber of the jungle, but also its capacity for absorbing carbon dioxide». All this can be transformed into negotiable bonds by the markets and banks. In this way the document definitively reveals itself as anthropocentric, as if everything were destined to the exclusive use of humans, and the Earth had created them exclusively for human use, and not for other living beings that also demand ecological sustainability in order to survive on this planet.

Summarizing: \”the future we want\”, the central motto of the UN document, is nothing more than the continuation of the present. It seems threatening, and negates a hopeful future. In such a context, not moving forward is to go backwards, and to close the door to the new.

Worse yet: the entire text revolves around the economy. Whether we paint it green or brown, it maintains its internal logic, expressed by the question: how much can I make in the shortest time, with the least possible investment, and maintaining strong competitiveness? Let’s not be ingenuous: the business of today’s economy is business. It does not offer a new relationship with nature, or a sense of being part of nature and responsible for her vitality and integrity. To the contrary, it makes open war on nature, as explained by the philosopher of ecology Michel Serres. In this war there is no possibility of success. It ignores our efforts, and continues its course even without our presence. The task of the intelligentsia is to decipher what nature is trying to tell us (through extreme events, the tsunamis, etc.), to defend ourselves against their damaging effects and to put their energies to work for us. Nature offers us information but does not tell us how to behave. We ourselves must determine that. Our behavior will be good and sound only if it conforms to nature’s rhythms and cycles.

As an alternative to this economy of devastation, if we want to have a future, we need to oppose this with a different paradigm: one of economy of preservation, conservation and sustainability for all life. We need to produce, yes, but starting from the goods and services that nature offers us for free, respecting the reach and limits of each bio-region, distributing equitably the fruits obtained, considering the rights of future generations and of the other beings within the community of life. Nature now takes form through a bio-centered economy, solidarian, agro-ecologic, familiar and organic. Each community seeks to guarantee food sovereignty: produce what is consumed, relating producers and consumers in a true food democracy.

Rio 92 consecrated the anthropocentric and reductionist concept of sustainable development, elaborated by the 1987 Brundland UN report. It was transformed into a dogma professed by official documents, by states and enterprises, without ever being subjected to serious criticism. It coopted sustainability for its field only, thus distorting the relationships with nature. The disasters that were caused were seen as externalities, not worthy of note. But it so happens that these turned dark, capable of destroying the physical-chemical basis that sustains human life and a great part of the bio-sphere. They have not been overcome by the green economy. It has become a trap by the rich countries, especially of the Organization for Econmic Cooperation and development, (OCDE, from the Spanish, Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económico), that produced the theoretical text of PNUMA, Initiative of the Green Economy. Through this they cleverly avoided a discussion of sustainability, social and psychological justice, global warming, the failed economic model and the changed point of view, a different view of the planet that may project a real future for humanity and for the Earth.

Along with Rio +20, it would be very useful to rescue Stockholm +40. In that first UN world conference on the Human Environment, from July 5 to 15, 1972, in Stockholm, Sweden, the focus was not development, but caring and collective responsibility for all that surrounds us and that is in an accelerated process of degradation, affecting all, especially the poor countries. It was a humanistic and generous perspective that got lost in the closed briefcase of sustainable development, and, now, of the green economy.