It should be an instrument, not a goal

Is there a convergence of imperatives, from climate change and depleting fossil fuel resources to an increasingly unsustainable global financial system that can drive a new socio-economic global dispensation which can be described as a "green economy"? This last weekend’s G20 summit of the world’s largest and most influential developed and developing economies in Toronto, Canada was seen by some as an opportunity for a new spur in that direction, but in the end, it seems to have delivered more doubt than hope on that score.

In a comment on the eve of the Toronto summit, the executive director of the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) Achim Steiner, and the agency’s head of its Green Economy Initiative Pavan Sukhdev said that the “economy is not a luxury, but a 21st century imperative on a planet of six billion, rising to nine billion in just 40 years.”

In 2008 UNEP set its sights on a $750-billion international spend, from more than $3 trillion on a “Global Green New Deal”, to put the world onto a less polluting path. Only $500bn materialised, and chances for an increase soon look slim as another financial crisis, this time in Europe, triggered fears that the global economy could slip back into recession as developed countries became spooked by their budget deficits.

In an article for the website Polity.org.za, Saliem Fakir of the South African Civil Society Information Service also warned that “the idea that an economy will simply become ‘green’ as a result of a stringent investment criteria imposed in terms of fiscal stimulus measures is more of an ideal than immediate reality.

"Truly green economies will, of necessity, be characterised by a major shift in the economic paradigm itself. If a country is going to go green, this will not be achieved purely through short-term fiscal stimulus measures.”

The challenge of divides

Part of the fundamental challenge of moving the world toward consensus on a green economic dispensation is that in terms of reigning production processes in the world, there is often a divide between immediate (short-term) development and long-term sustainability. This divide mostly correlates with the divide between developed and developing countries, and the divide between rich and poor.

The correlation with the rich/poor divide does not only hold for the international context, but also often applies within national borders, particularly in developing countries such as South Africa.

Another problem is that the green movement has created an environment in which often public relations hype about green manufacturing processes and products often substitute substance. There is often so much emphasis placed on over-simplified sloganism – such as describing this or that summit as a watershed or defining moment – that a need for process and understanding of underlying structural challenges is neglected of even completely forgotten.

A typical example of this is a recent call in a UN-backed study for an overhaul of world farming and more vegetarianism to be top priorities to protect the environment. Without blinking a proverbial eye or any sense of the massive contradiction, the study adds that the world should focus on improving use of materials such plastics, iron, steel and aluminum – all being or depending on non-renewable resources.

It points out that animal products are important because more than half of the world’s crops are used to feed animals, not people. No mention is made of the fact that synthetic fibres, mostly produced as a byproduct of the petrochemical industry, have killed off natural sources materials for clothing from animals and plants.

Fundamental differences

The green economy battle cry has in the most recent years increasingly been positioned as an instrument to overcome problems such as unemployment, mostly without acknowledgement that in the process, there will also be displacements. It could further impact substantially on the economic competitiveness of a country such as South Africa which has abundant relatively cheap fossil fuel resources for electricity and other energy generation in the form of coal.

Possible punitive restrictions on energy-intensive products and carbon-intensive products could adversely impact the country’s international competiveness on export markets.

At a recent preparatory meeting of the UN Conference on Sustainable Development, there was lively debate between member states, UN agencies and so-called Major Groups on their understanding of what a green economy means. There were some fundamental differences, particularly between developed and developing countries, on how the green economy concept is understood in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication.

Particularly, there were differences on how it should be addressed at the international level to prevent green protectionism in trade and new conditionalities in the financing for developing countries.

Ambassador Pablo Solon of Bolivia said, “We must first ask ourselves why we are in this situation. We are in this time facing market rules that favour maximisation of profit above human welfare. So far, we have lived under a system that recognises nature as a commodity from which it takes resources. Now we must recognise that nature is not an object, but a system in which we all belong.”

It seems clear, considering the strains under which the present global socio-economic dispensation finds itself on many fronts, that some very fundamental adaptations will take place. What should, however, be equally clear is that while a green economy could be the instrument to meet the challenges, that is exactly what it is: merely an instrument and not a goal in itself.

The goal should always remain to improve the quality of existence of all who inhabit the planet. To achieve that, over-simplification will not do – the full complexity of overlapping issues should always be kept in mind.

Piet Coetzer