Rio in 100 days: A consuming challenge

Pilot hydrogen power plant Rio may result in a commitment to shift away from fossil fuels towards new energy technologies

For anyone still persuaded that the phrase "sustainable development" is deployed as a treehugger plot to prevent any development at all, the words of the UN's top climate official on Friday should act as something of a corrective.

Three billion people living on less than $2.50 a day. One billion with insufficient access to clean water; about 2.4 billion people without a decent energy source; 1.2 billion suffering from chronic hunger - all this, said UN climate convention (UNFCCC) chief Christiana Figueres at the Barbara Ward Lecture in London, is "morally unacceptable".

Despite the spectacular successes of nations such as China, Thailand, Malaysia and Brazil in raising living standards, and despite advances secured by the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), there are many who would agree with Ms Figueres' summation.

And the reason why a climate change official would be discussing such matters?

Because climate change is one of the issues that threatens to exacerbate the situation - raising sea levels, increasing drought in drought-prone areas, reducing crop yields, and so on - a familiar list by now, I'd think, to anyone who follows these issues.

And the corollary: that however people are brought out of their various types of poverty, it mustn't be done in a way that worsens climate change or pushes any of the other planetary boundaries beyond stretching point, because that would in time cancel out the gains.

In short, it must be sustainable.

Christiana Figueres and Ban Ki-moon Christiana Figueres' criticisms of "business as usual" are shared by UN chief Ban Ki-moon

That's why Ms Figueres, self-described "daughter of a revolutionary", looked forward to this June's Rio+20 summit in Brazil as much as she looked back to last December's UNFCCC conference in South Africa.

It's now 100 days until the curtain lifts on the Rio+20 summit, so it's a good opportunity to take stock of preparations.

A few weeks back I went through the main points in the "zero draft" agreement penned for the summit; but bits of flesh have subsequently been put on the bones of that draft.

In particular, we're beginning to see an outline of what the proposed sustainable development goals (SDGs) might cover.

In a sense, these are the real meat of the summit, outlining in which ways governments hope global society will progress and develop without putting prospects for nature, and future generations of humans, at risk.

One of the discussion documents issued by the Rio+20 secretariat suggests seven areas on which its goals might focus:

  • green jobs, youth employment and social inclusion
  • energy access, efficiency and sustainability
  • food security and sustainable agriculture
  • water
  • sustainable cities
  • management of oceans, including fisheries
  • improved resilience and disaster preparedness

These are pretty sweeping, and capable of being interpreted in varying ways. Does the last-named include financial disasters, for example, bearing in mind that resilience of the global financial system is part of the summit's mandate?

Meanwhile, Colombia and Guatemala - undoubtedly with the backing of other governments - have put forward their own proposal which outlines eight key areas, such as combating poverty, changing consumption patterns, and enhancing energy security.

Whale shark Campaigners hope for better ocean regulation after the Rio summit

To a large extent, this is a different way of cutting the same cake; the underlying issues are not going to change because you look at them through a different lens, to mix metaphors.

The goals themselves are very unlikely to be finalised at Rio. Instead, the idea is to look for agreement in principle on themes and agree a mandate to negotiate the goals over the following three years, neatly ending in 2015, the target year for most of the existing MDGs.

There are some common misconceptions about what setting goals like these is supposed to achieve.

Firstly, they're not mandatory targets such as those that emerged, for example, from the Montreal Protocol on phasing out CFCs.

It's not even certain that every government signing up will strive to meet them; there's no sanction if they choose not to.

What the targets do is allow governments and other players - businesses, civil society, academics, journalists - to monitor progress governments are making, and chivvy them to hurry up when necessary.

Just establishing ways to measure progress can be enough to facilitate it, by raising information and skill levels.

Also, comparing the rates of progress made in different countries allows people to analyse and detect factors that determine success or failure.

Of all the ideas for SDGs, a couple stick out as likely to prove particularly contentious.

One is regulation of the oceans. Even since the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, the reach of fishing fleets has extended further and deeper across the globe. Their activity on the high seas is pretty much unregulated.

A number of powerful fishing nations want to keep it this way. Others will want to block moves to restrict minerals exploitation.

Women coal mining in India Moving away from fossil fuels could have health and development benefits

The second is sustainable consumption. To some noses, the notion of changing patterns of consumption from above carries a distinct whiff of Big Brother, and is to be resisted on principle.

In London last week, Christiana Figueres was adamant that "business as usual" had to change if the poor were to eat and drink to a decent standard.

She quoted from Barbara Ward, founder of the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), whose work combined advocating environmental protection and campaigning for overseas development aid, and in whose honour the annual lecture is named:

"This visionary woman once said: 'We live in an epoch in which the solid ground of our preconceived ideas shakes daily under our certain feet'. Already in the 1970s, Barbara knew that 'business-as-usual' no longer represented 'solid ground'."

However, the politics of going beyond "business as usual" are still formidable.

Even as Ms Figueres was speaking in London, EU ministers were wrangling over the bloc's goals on climate change and renewable energy in Brussels - a meeting that ended without agreement on strengthening carbon-cutting ambition, essentially because just one of the 27 nations there, Poland, did not want to.

When international political systems are based on consensus, those who hold a position against the prevailing tide are given power out of all proportion to the constituencies they represent - and that's even more true in the UN than in the EU.

And from the corporate sector, seven companies involved in aviation have written to European governments complaining about the recent inclusion of plane emissions in the EU Emission Trading Scheme (ETS).

They include British Airways, whose website carries the claim: "As part of our commitment to being environmental responsible [sic] we have been a long-standing supporter of emissions trading.

"This sits at the heart of our climate change policy as the most environmentally effective and economically efficient mechanism for addressing aviation's CO2 emissions."

All for carbon cutting in principle, then - but not if it might affect business as usual.

That, in a nutshell, is the challenge Ms Figueres has highlighted - and the challenge that will face those world leaders who have decided to go to Rio de Janeiro in 100 days' time.

Richard Black Article written by Richard Black Richard Black Former environment correspondent

Farewell and thanks for reading

This is my last entry for this page - I'm leaving the BBC to work, initially, on ocean conservation issues.

Read full article


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 138.

    @124 Like I say you have not the faintest idea how many scientists this 97% is supposed to represent. In the real world ( as opposed to the cherry picking la-la land of AGW ) for every 10 scientists I speak to, about half have serious doubts about the core assumptions that underpin the church of AGW.

  • rate this

    Comment number 137.

    The Rio bandwagon IS business as usual. It's a top-down, Stalinist bandwagon of misuse of taxpayer funds.

    Will the politicians and bureaucrats have the courage to tell the truth - that we should get off the Rio bandwagon of apocalyptic doom, in favour of promoting free markets and genuine prosperity?

  • rate this

    Comment number 136.

    By the way WendyRainbow (131), very astute observation in your link

    "To put it crudely, there's no black Mozart, there's no black Dickens."

    So I think we can safely assume where Smiffie's shameful agenda lies.

  • rate this

    Comment number 135.


    Noble though it is, freeing humanity from hunger & poverty will only increase the population resulting in greater biodiversity loss & faster climate change."

    The opposite is the case. Uncontrolled population growth is usually associated with lack of security, health, wealth and education. Once countries are stable and hunger is not a fear population growth slows down.

  • rate this

    Comment number 134.

    Can someone please share me with where the figure for our long term population stability is 2 billion, or for that matter 5 billion?

    Sustainable population can be much higher if we harnessed natural resources properly. Excess sustainable energy could easily be used to desalinate water. There are solutions if investment is properly allocated.

    And we stop letting banks allocate resources.

  • rate this

    Comment number 133.

    Christiana Figueres' speech defined unacceptable living conditions for more than 2billion people. Perhaps we are working backwards. Why not define a minimum living standard and estimate how many people, living thus, the world can sustainably support.

    How we reach that endpoint can then be examined.

  • rate this

    Comment number 132.

    Population control isn't just difficult morally, doing it wrongly could trigger a population crash - dangerous, unpredictable, possibly biased, and potentially irreversible. For this reason population control is better done by controlling the death rate rather than the birth rate. -

    The only real choice is between how and who- my own fear is that it will be done on basis of something like wealth.

  • rate this

    Comment number 131.

    Smiffie @#129

    Mozart & Dickens, where have I heard that before?

  • rate this

    Comment number 130.

    #36, #116, #129 "these questions are almost impossible to answer morally,"

    Active population control is always likely to be morally difficult.

    I am not convinced Mango Chutney's implied choice of doing nothing is any better.

    Histiorically this has left the solution to the Four Horsemen

  • rate this

    Comment number 129.


    The suggestion of deciding who should have children by some sort of random selection is a very bad idea, think how many future Mozarts or Dickens’s we would lose. No we should seek to eliminate stupidity from humanities collective gene pool by active selection.

  • rate this

    Comment number 128.

    Noble though it is, freeing humanity from hunger & poverty will only increase the population resulting in greater biodiversity loss & faster climate change.

  • rate this

    Comment number 127.

    #116, #36 MangoChutney

    To me these questions are almost impossible to answer morally, and the only solution is some kind of random selection.
    Even leaving it to nature is pretty bad because 90 - 98% of the people most likely to die are black or brown. (in equatorial-tropical region)

    In reality most actions would have to be handled in local.
    - Another question which is worst or best methods?

  • rate this

    Comment number 126.

    Fertilizer, GM crops and water treatment technology is all we need to focus on if we are actually worried about food and water supply.

    Funny how these industries have historically been targeted by the same green movement that is screaming out for forced population control.

    For all you doom and gloomers
    As certainly as a man predicts ill, he becomes inclined to wish it.

  • rate this

    Comment number 125.

    Sustainability, development that does not detract from future generations ability to develop, is unattainable. The world population is a result of and is sustained by the fossil fuel energy boom. How are we going to grow, harvest and transport enough food when the oil runs out? I believe that during this century the food issue will overtake climate as the major concern.

  • rate this

    Comment number 124.

    @122. The numbers you want are in here...

    Do you have any actual data the contradicts this?

  • rate this

    Comment number 123.

    There appear to be a lot of overpopulation deniers on this blog lately.

  • rate this

    Comment number 122.

    @sapient Ah you are so gullible. 97% eh !? well tell me how many scientists this 97% represents then in actual numbers so I can then work out the 3% .. whats that !? Oh you can't !? why is that !? BECAUSE THE 97% IS A MADE UP NUMBER NO ONE CAN SUBSTANTIATE... Even many die hard gravy trainers don't use that myth any more !

  • rate this

    Comment number 121.

    The best definition of sustainable development I saw came during the early days of the 'Local Agenda 21' movement. Whilst many groups grappled with Gro Harlem Brundstadts wordy definition of 'sustainable development', an LA21 group in Ireland succinctly precised it as 'Don't eat tomorrows potatoes'.

    Which nails the issue. It's all about not eating into environmental capital for me.

  • rate this

    Comment number 120.

    It is no good responsible communities choosing to have less children, as in the case the Italians, if they do not also close their borders, otherwise they will simply be overwhelmed by others.

  • rate this

    Comment number 119.


    Ignoring weather, some plants (C3 cycle e.g wheat) do better with higher CO2 levels but others (C4 cycle e.g maize) do worse.

    Alas environmental problems caused by higher temperatures vastly outweighs any benefits e.g. changed weather patterns, heat stress etc.

    Water is also needed by plants, does that mean flooding is good for them?


Page 1 of 7



Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.