The Neglect of Conventions— The Neglect of Tomorrow?
The convention; a formal agreement between two or more nations or peoples, between parties and authorities. A formal agreement to hold individuals accountable and collectives responsible; a formal agreement to bind together dissenting denominations. Alliances, agreements, accords — from the dawn of civilization these have been drafted in the hope of uniting divided fronts.
Why, then, have so many treaties in the climate sector been apathetically disregarded, tossed into the ever-rotting wind like so many other shreds of refuse?
It is only by rendering individuals and societies beholden to the fight against climate change that we, the people, can triumph.
The Assemblage of Conventions
Regarding the climate crisis, there have been numerous agreements of the nature indicated above — to hold individuals accountable, and collectives responsible. These have been upheld by various parties, in particular the World Commission on Environment and Development, founded in 1983, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, founded in 1988. Various conferences have also been held to discuss these agreements: the first Conference on Environment and Development in 1992, in Rio de Janeiro, and the Conference of the Parties, held annually in various countries around the world, since 1995.
Which agreements, exactly, are these? And why did and do governments not act according to them?
Certainly, the first “Conference on Environment and Development” (WCED) was, and still is, a landmark in political history regarding the climate crisis. In 1992, Rio de Janeiro, it was of a completely new diplomatic dimension. Never before had politicians from all the member nations of the UN come together, to discuss climate change. This very first WCED therefore presented enormous challenges: first of all, each attending party had to be at the same level of scientific breakthrough. The particular responsibility of industry nations was not, as it is today, common sense. And, most importantly, stopping the climate crisis was not yet seen as a necessity. Nowadays, were one to ask do we actually want to avoid the collapse of ecosystems and the extinction of humanity?, one would be ridiculed. In 1992, there was no such consensus.
Taking into consideration these setbacks, the achievements of the very first WCED are remarkable. Although there remains a significant lack of actualization by both politicians and civilians in accordance to the agreements set down in Rio, the mere existence of them can be seen as a success — considering the many setbacks that hindered the initial conventions.
There were three conventions, approved by all 178 nations attending:
First was Agenda 21. It became mandatory that every nation taking part in the Conference of the Parties in Rio would be obliged to develop a national sustainability strategy, including — but not limited to — the problems spawned from the climate crisis. It also included issues of pressing importance — greater rights for women and children, poverty, public health. Local Agenda 21 campaigns, too, were established.
The Convention on Biological Diversity. All parties involved aimed to protect the biological diversity of our planet. In accordance with its relevant provisions, the Convention’s objective was the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components, and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources — including appropriate access to genetic resources, and appropriate transfer of relevant technologies. These were intended to take into account all rights over those resources, and to technologies, with relevant funding. Again, it is crucial to point out that the protection of our environment is a necessary duty of paramount importance. With the Convention on Biological Diversity, the world’s dire situation was laid out in black and white for all to see: the maintenance of biological diversity, as of 2015, is now part of the political agenda of the UN.
The third achievement of the WCED in Rio was the formation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Its official aim is to “prevent a dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”. Through acknowledging the necessity of preventing the climate crisis, the UN could give the world a green light for concrete governmental actions and measures — this, however, did not happen to a substantial degree.
Between these conventions, several conferences on biodiversity took place. A conference in Nagoya, Japan, in 2010, resulted in the development of aims that the world would have to follow to set the planet’s biodiversity back on track. These were the Aichi Targets. Regretfully, by our current progress and the way this progress is likely to continue, the Aichi Targets will not be reached.
The Kyoto Protocol — Semblance of Tangibility
Nonetheless, if there was a lack of specific steps to be taken, that changed in 1997 with the third COP, taking place in Kyoto. The result of this historical COP was the so-called Kyoto Protocol. For the first time there was not only a consensus on the urgency of the climate crisis, but also fixed goals. Reading the Kyoto Protocol gives you a warm — almost optimistic! — feeling. Points such as “the protection, and enhancement, of sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases”, the “progressive reduction, or phasing out, of market imperfections, fiscal incentives, tax and duty exemptions and subsidies in all greenhouse gas emitting sectors” and “encouragement of appropriate reforms in relevant sectors” sound too good to be true.
And that is exactly where the problem lies. Even though all representative attendees agreed on the Protocol, they needed the ratification of their governments. Only when 55% of all governments would have agreed, the realization of these goals could begin. 55%, the narrow majority, does not appear unachievable. But it was. The process of governmental approval of the Kyoto Protocol took until 2004, allowing lobbyists, deniers, and various political circumstances to emerge and slow down the progress. Originally, the aims of the Kyoto Protocol should have been achieved in 2012. 38 governments, however, requested the deadline be extended to 2020, and other countries like Russia, the US, and Japan dropped out altogether.
When protesters demand climate justice, not only do they demand efficient, effective climate policies, they also demand the thorough consideration of social consequences derived from the climate crisis. A problem this serious cannot be seen as a separate issue from humanitarian conflicts and needs.
This is why the Millennium Development Goals (MDG), adopted in the year 2000, New York, also includes the promotion of environmental sustainability as well as the elimination of extreme poverty, hunger and various other humanitarian issues. Consisting of eight prominent goals, many governments soon realized that they would only reach a minuscule percentage of these eight. In 2015, the MDG transformed into the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). 17 goals, which cover the three dimensions of sustainability (social aspects, environment, economy), were concluded in the Agenda 2030.
Some people may have heard of these agreements, certainly, but to date the most famous is the Paris Agreement. Presenting an utterly novel range of restrictions, measurements, duties, and goals, the Paris Agreement may be seen as the most important convention regarding the climate crisis. 195 nations promised to do everything in their power to keep the increase of the global temperature below 1.5°C until 2050 — and thus ensure the ongoing existence of humanity.
The Dearth of Action; the Door of Progress
Reading all these conventions and agreements may provide hope; it may provide comfort, it may provide a sense of security. But when we open our eyes to see which of these goals have actually been reached, we must confront ourselves with a bitter truth: governments are failing.
Time and time again, it appears that all unsuccessful conventions have several things in common. Among them are a lack of explicit tasks, a focusing on theoretical goals, and far too many loopholes for all parties involved. In addition, there are always a plethora of communication issues to be overcome — disconnection in media of connected concerns, apathy over social issues, unawareness of social issues, ignorance and overly passionate fervor over the wrong things; manipulated communication, or even the lack of communication. Additionally, in business, profits are frequently valued over lives so that owners may maximize monetary gain. When businesses collude with governments, governments produce propaganda to deliberately misinform their people, so that businesses may continue to make profit and governments may continue to suppress.
Is there, then, any actual meaning to agreements when nobody keeps their promises?
Can there truly be action, then, when there are no clear responsibilities and it is unclear who is to be held accountable?
One has to know one’s intentions, before they may act accordingly, just as one must learn how to open doors, before they may step through it. But whether they will actually open the door — well, that is a different matter.
Written by Hay Wong and Merle Bruske
Edited by Aurora Yuan
