Magazine

Globalization of the Environment

• Print
• Email

Dr. Aly Abdel Razzak Hussain*

Globalization of the Environment


The effect of the New World Order, currently known as globalization, on the different aspects of human life and the future of earth has expanded. The environment of the planet has not been an exception: this vital determinant of the future of life on earth has become dependant, like all other aspects of life, on the will of the big powers, especially the advanced industrial ones that have been able to turn this issue from a scientific to a political one. The environmental future of earth seems to become in the interest of those countries, as an expression of their domination over the different aspects of life at the international level and forcing all other countries, small or big, to face this challenge related to the cleanliness of the earth's atmosphere and human health.

The United Nations, with its specialized agencies, has paid attention to this global challenge and has initiated the process of putting restraints in the field of environmental protection, as the Stockholm declaration specified in 1972, followed by the Earth Summit in Rio di Janeiro in 1992 and finally in Kyoto in 1997, which will be referred to later in this article.

The Conference on Climate was organized, in this context, by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Moscow in the last fall in five days. However, the results of this conference were disappointing to many representatives of the participant countries, as it was not able to come to a satisfactory conclusion from their point of view. These countries are part of the group of countries that already signed the Kyoto protocol in Japan in 1997. The results of the Moscow Conference seemed to have been the response to a political desire, rather than being a result of the real scientifically-proved environmental situation of earth.

The Kyoto protocol, signed by 84 countries, stipulates that the quantity of gaseous wastes in the air, especially Carbon Dioxide, should be reduced by the signatory countries, as these gaseous wastes affect the earth's atmosphere through keeping the heat of the sun between the earth's atmosphere and the surface of the earth, forming the so-called Greenhouse effect.

The Kyoto protocol obliges signatory advanced industrial countries to reduce their emitted gaseous wastes starting from 2008. the Kyoto protocol goes into effect once it has been ratified by 55 countries at least, if their contribution to air pollution through the Greenhouse effect exceeds 50% of the statistics of 1990.

According to the Kyoto provisions, the countries producing the Greenhouse effect, with a ratio that is less than theirs in 1990, can sell their extra credit to the countries that exceed the limits. Russia is one of the countries belonging to the first group, since, according to President Vladimir Putin's speech in the Opening Session of the Moscow Conference, the production of such gases has decreased with 32% since 1990.

Because of the United States refusal in the spring of 2001 to join the Kyoto protocol, even if it is one of the biggest countries in terms of contribution to world pollution, the attention has been drawn to Russia to have it accept the protocol to reach the required ratio of countries in terms of contribution to world pollution. However, Russia's reluctance to ratify the protocol, during the Moscow Conference, has put an end to the hopes of its supporters of the representatives of states party to the protocol hoping for its final ratification. Besides, the supporters of the protocol have not been able to prove that the global warming is directly due to the human contribution in increasing warm gases, since some opinions refer to the natural cycle of change in the earth's atmosphere. Thus, there is a real difficulty in reaching a good scientific basis for adopting the protocol.

This has been clear since the Academic Yuri Israel, Dean of the Global Climate and Environment Institute of the Russian Scientific Academy and president of the Moscow Conference, declared that "the Kyoto Protocol is not environmentally nor economically founded". Several western scientists have supported this opinion. It seems that Russia is not going to ratify the protocol it had already signed in Kyoto in 1997. However, Russia has not yet clearly demonstrated its position. The official Russian position affirms that "We, in Russia, are still thinking of the issue". President Vladimir Putin, moreover, promised in his speech that the issue will be "studied in depth and in details" and that the final decision will be made according to "Russia's national interest". However, on the same day, a group of representatives of the most influential forces in the Russian parliament (the Duma) proposed postponing the ratification of the protocol. Meanwhile, a clear criticism by influential officials of the protocol featured in the local media in Russia. The statement of the former Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov, in which he affirmed in 2002 that Russia will ratify the treaty as soon as possible, was not however refuted. Such a statement was considered mysterious by the specialists who affirmed that Russia could achieve a sudden economic gain, from the protocol, through selling its share to other countries. In general, in Russia, there's currently an opinion that affirms that the Kyoto protocol is not a means to protect he environment, but to achieve fierce competition in the age of globalization. The Russian change of position towards the Kyoto protocol is in accordance with its will and hope to become one of the biggest industrial countries. Its current position will possibly eliminate any constraints to achieve this.

Politically speaking, Russia's intention to abide by the Kyoto protocol was true and sincere, due to the new traditions that have marked the Russian foreign policy since the collapse of the Soviet Union, especially the attempt to join the largest number possible of international treaties. This was mainly due to Russia's will to prove its progress in abiding by the standards of democratic politics, reflected in many areas, and the formal signature of a large number of cooperation agreements with the European Union and other European organizations, especially the Russian signature of the European convention on limiting the noise resulting from jet engines. However, a negative confrontation has practically appeared between the European group and Russia in this field, after a whole decade, because of Russia's non-abidance by the treaty during the last period and its non-conformity with European standards. It seems that considering the consequences of joining treaties was not of ultimate importance to many Russian officials at that time. It has not been clear to them that these protocols, treaties and conventions are legally binding documents and not political declarations.

The Russian position was similar as regards the Kyoto protocol, since the officials probably considered it a temporary fashion, stemming from the belief that putting a limit to gaseous wastes emitted in the air is a good thing in itself.

From the scientific point of view, some analysts are inclined to believe that the global warming phenomenon is due to the concentration of Carbon Dioxide, emitted in the air as a result of the burning of most of the material used in industries, including the production of electricity using coal, oil or natural gas. Some specialized American organizations in the environmental field refer to the fact that carbon Dioxide is an air pollutant. This affirmation could be misleading however if we take into consideration the fact that Carbon Dioxide is not scientifically nor legally an air pollutant and that its existence in a small ratio in the earth's atmosphere is essential to the continuity of life on earth and represents a mean to control temperature on it. Besides, there are other Greenhouse gases that naturally exist in the earth's atmosphere. What is new, however, is the increase in the concentration of Carbon Dioxide in the earth's atmosphere with more than 50% of its level before the current industrial era. Therefore, the theory of human responsibility for the changes that have occurred in the earth's atmosphere remains vital, though not sufficiently proved. Thus, the theory of human responsibility for global warming is rather political than scientific.

Some political analysts believe that the change in the Russian position towards the Kyoto protocol is due to its perception of the recent changes in the international system which allows to Russia the possibility of becoming a big power in the field of energy. In the past, "the Russian challenge", based on its energy capabilities, was not conceivable. It was believed that Russia's development advanced technology will be able to bring it back to the circle of the big powers. Thus, some influential scientists and environmental specialists have developed theories according to which the arguments of Kyoto protocol are not sufficient to oblige countries to abide by it. Hence, there is currently a strong conviction that Russia's ratification of the treaty, and consequently the reduction of its share in carburetion, includes a risk. The Russian leadership is believed to not want to take this risk and abide by a protocol that could put a limit to its future horizons in the field of energy, besides the American negative positions that gives Russia one more reason to be reluctant on joining the protocol.

The UN specialized agencies stated in 2000 that the emission of Carbon dioxide from the first ten countries, from the United States to Poland, has noticeably changed since 1990, as is shown in the following table:

Table 1

* A fifagram equals 109

With the refusal of the United Sates and Australia to finally join the Kyoto protocol, the weight of the states party is only 43% of the world's air pollution. Accordingly, it is in the interest of these countries that Russia ratify the protocol, especially that Russia's share in the emission of warm gases exceeds 7% of the world total, which could satisfy the Kyoto requirements.

It is worth mentioning that the Kyoto protocol differs from the past UN documents. The First International Conference on the Environment, held in Stockholm in 1970, under the auspices of 24 Heads of State, resulted in the declaration of the UN Environmental Program. The Earth Summit held in Rio in 1992 considered the establishment of a special system for stopping the emission of gases responsible for global warming, but it was only able to reach a loose agreement on climate changes to which the United States did not agree. The Rio Summit was not able to issue any legally binding document. The Kyoto protocol, however, is considered the first international document to set quantitative limits to air pollutants as a direct result of human activity and it is, moreover, a legally binding document to all States party.

The UN specialized agencies in the environment have recently proposed a new plan that determines each country's share in the emission of Carbon Dioxide, in an attempt to find a way out of the deadlock reach by the international negotiations on the issue of global warming and to put forward new proposals related to the industrial countries' use of forests, asit considered a way of "absorbing" warm gases. Such a solution could limit the constraints put on the emission of warm gases specified by the Kyoto protocol in 1997. The following table refers to the suggested percentage of each industrial country in the emission of warm gases in comparison with the percentages put forward by the Kyoto protocol:

Table 2

It has become increasingly clear that the current world economic order is unable to solve the environmental problem that will inevitably affect human life. It is illogical to put limits to development in an attempt to protect the environment. According to statistics, less than 15% of the world population, that is the population of the advanced industrial countries, consume around 90% of the world energy sources and use around 25% of the agricultural land outside their own countries for obtaining agricultural products. It is possible to go on with this comparison in the different aspects of human life to indicate the real unjust distribution amongst the population of the planet.

Of the above, we can conclude that:

First: the environmental situation of the earth faces a real problem, directly due to human activity in the fields of industrial progress and others, which are considered the main sources of environmental pollution.

Second: faced by this emerging situation, it is essential to think of putting forward some constraints on all countries, in the aim of limiting environmental pollutants and preserving life.

Third: it is necessary to allow for a bigger role for different international and regional organizations to seriously contribute to setting standards in the field of limiting environmental pollution at the regional and international levels.

Fourth: the proposal according to which some countries can sell their shares in the emission of pollutant gases to other countries does not serve the problem, it rather adds more problems, since the industrialized countries are the only ones to gain from this process because of its huge financial resources and its capacity to dominate on others' shares. This will ultimately result in emitting pollutant gases worldwide.

References

1- "Profile" magazine in Russian, No. 37, 6 October 2003. An article by Nikolai Silayev: The Atmospheric Alert.
2- Ibid., an article by Andrei Riyabov: without signature.
3- The Moscow Times, 30 September 2003. An article by Nemwick Waltzer: President has not decided on Kyoto.
4- The Moscow Times, 2 October 2003, Dr Patterson's article: Questioning Kyoto Science.
5- The "Political Gazette" in Russian, No. 17, 24 May 2004. Article by Victor Gavrilov: On the Harms and Benefits of Greenhouse Gases.
6- The Wilson Quarterly, Spring 2003. An article by Jack M. Hollander: Global Warming.
7- Living in the Future: Edited by Asimov. New English Library, 1985.
8- The Galia Atlas of Future Worlds: Norman Myers Galia Books ltd, London 1990.