On the eve of the Rio+20 Summit, I look back on four decades of global environmental experience, starting in 1972, the year of the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment. That same year, I started researching my Masters thesis at the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada. My thesis topic was the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act in international law. I obtained my Masters degree from Carleton two years later, in 1974. Then, six years after that I was awarded a Ph. D. in International Relations from the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies at the University of Geneva, Switzerland. My Ph. D. thesis topic was the freedom of scientific research in international law: the oceans, the Antarctic and outer space.
The public's interest in environmental issues has ebbed and flowed over the years, roughly reflecting the state of the global economy. When times are good, people tend to be concerned about environmental issues. On the other hand, during economic downturns, attention focuses on jobs, security, etc. Right now, we are in a bit of a slump, which may explain why some of the world's political leaders have apparently decided not to attend the Rio+20 Summit.
This failure to show is disappointing, to say the least. Strong direction is needed to get not just the global economy back on track but also the global environmental agenda. Sadly, in spite of the existence of over 700 treaties on environmental and other important issues such as poverty and malnutrition, the latest Global Environmental Outlook report ( GEO-5 ) observed significant progress on only four out of 90 environmental goals over the years. The report also warned that if current trends continue, there will be “unprecedented levels of damage and degradation”. Within hours of the GEO-5 report’s release, an equally alarming scientific paper entitled “Approaching a state shift in Earth’s biosphere” was published in Nature. This particular study predicts massive, potentially irreversible changes for the biosphere if present trends continue in areas such as land use, resource extraction, population increase and food consumption, particularly meat. Clearly, drastic changes are needed if sustainable development is ever to be achieved.
It is easy to become discouraged in the face of all these challenges. Tackling climate change alone, when, for example, China is reliant on increasing amounts of fossil fuels as an energy source, will be a daunting task for governments, industry and private citizens alike. Where is one to start if one is to make a difference in the world? A big part of the solution could lie in getting people to think about the impact of decisions they make about consumption, and thereby to change their spending habits. We, as consumers, need to appreciate that the choices we make every day have an impact on the planet. So, the water we choose to drink, the products we refuse, reuse, etc. - everything has an impact. Individually, our decisions may not seem to matter; but, taken together they can lead to that ‘tipping point’- the point of no return, as it were. But that tipping point can also tip the other way.
Much as we might hope for it, there is unlikely to be a “Magic Bullet” that is going to solve all of the world’s ills- any more than there is ever a simple solution to all the personal challenges we each face in life. More likely than not, our ultimate fate will be determined by a series of small, incremental steps and measures. People tend to respond appropriately when they are ‘nudged’ in a certain direction. For example, studies show that when consumers of electricity are told that it will cost them X number of dollars if they DON’T install energy efficient light bulbs and appliances, then they are much more likely to take such economizing steps than if they are merely told that taking such steps would save them x number of dollars. Presumably, this same human tendency towards loss aversion applies on a planetary scale as well. If so, why not capitalize on this human trait when framing policy?
So, I like to think that it is going to be a series of billions of little baby steps like these, replicated around the world and adapted to various cultures, that are going to give us a fighting chance to survive and flourish as a species long into the future. Governments and international institutions cannot and will not solve all our problems, and nor can industry. We, as global citizens, therefore have to take matters into our own hands. To be sure, we must continue to pressure governments, international organizations and companies to do the right thing. But we must not wait around for them to do it. As the proverb goes: "Don't curse the darkness. Light a candle!"