When the world's leaders met at the Millennium Summit four years ago, they agreed on a set of goals aimed at cutting global poverty in half by 2015. They also set targets for the environment, because they understood its centrality to long-term economic growth, human development and the stability of the planet. The problem is that today, 10 years shy of when the 2015 goals are to be met, progress on the environment is alarmingly slow. So much more is possible.
The phase-out of ozone-depleting substances through the Montreal Protocol, for instance, shows what can be done when the international community works together. Thanks to the protocol, it is estimated that up to 20 million cases of skin cancer and 130 million eye cataracts will be avoided.
This kind of success should encourage us. But now we need to match our action with the scale of the challenge. Our world is not only unbalanced, but endangered. Deforestation is increasing, with almost 100 million hectares lost in the last decade alone -- much of it due to millions of poor farmers in Africa and Latin America being forced to cut down trees because they have no other access to land or energy sources.
At the same time, carbon dioxide emissions are rising: The EU's target is to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 8 percent by 2010; but with current policies, only 0.5 percent will be achieved. Of the world's species, 12 percent of birds, 24 percent of mammals and 30 percent of fish are either vulnerable or in immediate danger of extinction.
The environmental challenge is even more stark in developing countries, where 5 billion of the earth's 6 billion people live. In these nations, the environment is linked directly to human development -- and to poverty. More than 1 billion people in developing countries lack access to clean water; more than 2 billion have no access to basic sanitation. Five to 6 million people, mostly children, die every year due to waterborne diseases, such as diarrhea, and air pollution.
On current trends, the millennium targets for the environment will not be met. What needs to be done? As a starting point, we must recognize the fundamental imbalance in the global environmental equation. Richer countries do much of the environmental damage. Accounting for only 15 percent of the world's population, they cause 50 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions -- with all their implications for climate change. But the poorer countries pay much of the "costs" -- losing up to 8 percent of their GDP per year due to environmental degradation, as well as suffering devastating effects on health and human welfare.
Rich countries' larger contribution to environmental damage means that they must shoulder greater responsibility for fixing the problem. That means changing the way they produce and consume energy -- reducing subsidies, ensuring appropriate pricing and adequately taxing environmentally damaging products.
It also means providing more resources to developing countries for environmental conservation. Between 1990 and 2000, financing for environmental concerns followed roughly the same path as overall development assistance flows: It stagnated. Aid for the environment averaged about US$2 billion per year -- far short of what the international community, first at the Rio Summit in 1992 and then at the Johannesburg Summit 10 years later, said was needed. In terms of global priorities, this figure compares with the US$900 billion that the world currently commits to military expenditures each year.
If the war on environmental degradation is to be won, we need a major turnaround. Three areas can help speed progress:
First, developed countries must set the example by moving toward environmentally friendly production and consumption patterns, including more control of greenhouse gas emissions and use of innovative mechanisms such as Carbon Funds to buy offsets (reductions in greenhouse gases) from developing countries. Richer countries must also increase bilateral and multilateral aid commitments. Reversing the declining trend in contributions to the Global Environment Facility (GEF) would be a good start. Since its inception in 1991, GEF funding has declined by almost 10 percent as a share of the combined GDP of the 38 contributing nations;
Second, developing countries must improve their policies governing the critical sectors of water, energy, transport and trade, including pricing policies. This would help reduce consumption of scarce natural resources. Beyond this, environmental concerns must be integrated more fully into development policymaking.
Third, the international community must make a much more serious commitment to renewable energy, energy efficiency and other environmentally-friendly energy sources. A business-as-usual approach would mean that by 2030 carbon dioxide emissions would be 70 percent higher than today, and renewable energy would account for a mere 4 percent of total energy usage, up from 2 percent now. We need the kind of common effort launched a generation ago in agriculture that led to the Green Revolution.
Another 2 billion people will be added to global population over the next 25 years -- the vast majority in poorer nations -- with huge demands for energy and economic growth. If that growth is not achieved in an environmentally sustainable way, its effects on poverty and human well-being will be disastrous. It will be too late 25 years from now to make the right choices. For the sake of our children and our children's children, we must act now.
James Wolfensohn is president of the World Bank.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
As India’s six-week-long general election grinds past the halfway mark, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s messaging has shifted from confident to shrill. After the first couple of phases of polling showed a 3 percentage point drop in turnout, Modi and his party leaders have largely stopped promoting their accomplishments of the past 10 years — or, for that matter, the “Modi guarantees” offered in the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) manifesto for the next five. Instead, making the majority Hindu population fear and loathe Muslims seems to be the BJP’s preferred talking point. Modi went on the offensive in an April 21
As Ukraine leads the global fight for democracy, Taiwan, facing a potential war with China, should draw lessons from Ukraine’s cyberwarfare success. Taiwan has been enhancing its arsenal with advanced weapons from the West in anticipation of a possible full-scale invasion. However, Taipei should also consider Ukraine’s effective digital warfare, notably the “IT [information technology] Army,” a decentralized force instrumental in Kyiv’s cybercampaigns. In February 2022, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine marked the onset of a significant cyberwar, where fears of a “digital Pearl Harbor” in Ukraine were unmet, thanks to robust cyberdefenses backed by Western public and private support. This led
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is attempting to create an alternative international world order to the US-dominated model. China has benefited hugely from the current order since former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) opened up its economy five decades ago. Countries can be categorized as continental or maritime, and to a great degree this determines their optimum foreign policy. China is continental, as is Russia. The US initially followed a continental foreign policy, before it settled on a maritime model. The British empire was so successful because a tiny island kingdom built a formidable naval presence. The US-dominated world order, stabilized by
With the addition this year of Sweden and last year Finland to NATO, the Baltic Sea has been dubbed a “NATO lake” by some analysts. A glance at a map shows that is largely (but not completely) true — the coastline has a couple of slivers of Russian territory. The rest of the coastal littoral is in NATO hands: Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Germany and Denmark. Russia controls a bit of coast between Lithuania and Poland because of its strange enclave of Kaliningrad. Russian President Vladimir Putin remains in control of the far eastern corner of the Baltic Sea