Latest Articles by Isabel Hilton

A filmmaker’s take on China’s environment (part one)

John Liu, Isabel Hilton — Tue, 08 Aug 2006 17:27:00 +0000

John D. Liu is a filmmaker whose current project is China’s Sorrow, Earth’s Hope, documenting the ecological rehabilitation of the Loess Plateau. In the first segment of a two-part interview with chinadialogue editor Isabel Hilton, Liu describes how the plateau became a model for the revival of damaged ecosystems.

Isabel Hilton: What attracted you to the Loess Plateau project?

John D. Liu: We started a decade ago [with the World Bank] to document it and gradually, by returning each year, we have seen such astonishing changes. Gradually it became clear that this was a representation of the fundamental information that determines whether ecosystems survive or collapse. Human civilisations develop, and in development they degrade their environments to the point that they can no longer compensate and they collapse. When the ecosystem collapses, it takes the civilisation with it. This is the perfect example.

This is the cradle of Chinese civilisation -- the largest ethnic group on the planet -- and it’s fundamentally ecologically destroyed. What is astonishing is that anybody bothered to try to rehabilitate it. It’s counterintuitive to stand on a mountain and not see any vegetation for 360 degrees around and imagine that there is anything you can do about it. Our normal preconceived idea is that it’s too bad, that civilisation destroyed itself. It’s over. There’s nothing we can do.

When we started to film this rehabilitation of the Loess Plateau, that was definitely how we felt. We thought it was definitely a bridge too far. Environmental understanding is all well and good, but this is so degraded. How can you do anything? There was a tremendous sense that this could not be done. Thankfully, the project organisers were not distracted by that. Now we have a functional model of how such ecosystems can be rehabilitated.

IH: What is the biggest obstacle ahead?

JL: We are facing climate change. Sir David King, Britain’s chief scientific advisor, said that this is the most difficult and challenging problem facing humanity, ever. We have to have some big ideas, some hope that we are just not going to watch as the world deteriorates and the ecosystems degrade and the disparity between those who live in wealth and those who live in poverty continues to grow.

Right now, if you take current trends and project them, it’s hard to imagine a happy ending to this. It looks like all over the world you have potentially billions of people living in abject poverty. They are, maybe, subsistence farmers. They are probably using unsustainable agriculture. They may be trying to migrate. And as those ecosystems further degrade, more of those people will try to do that, assuming there is nothing we can do.

The Loess Plateau is a functional model that shows that it is possible to rehabilitate damaged ecosystems and return to some extent ecological function – maybe not 100%. We might get a lot of function back if we really understand what’s going on. The thing that struck me was that when we look at the world now and we imagine that tens of millions of people are squatting by the side of a dirty road, what are they doing? They are not engaged in rehabilitation. If they are not waiting for the United Nations to bring them something to eat, they are probably cutting down trees or killing wild animals for food. And they are ravaging the environment.

IH: What lessons have emerged from the plateau project?

JL: Certain clear principles have come out in the Loess Plateau work: unsustainable agricultural practices must end. They don’t go anywhere; they don’t help anyone to escape from poverty. They just ravage ecosystems. Even tiny changes can have outsized impacts on an ecosystem. That’s why it’s interesting to see what happened on the Loess Plateau. The Chinese were thinking they were building the strongest civilisation, that they were the superpower – does that sound familiar? It’s happening now! If you understand this information, you can act. If you don’t, the outcome is predetermined – human activity without ecological understanding leads to ecosystem collapse.

IH: How can ecosystem collapse be avoided?

JL: There is an alternative – especially for the poor. This is an opportunity to look beyond nationalism and traditional divisions. There is only humanity on this planet if we are talking about the survival of the species. We are all in this together. It doesn’t matter if we are wealthy if these ecosystems degrade. A massive investment has to go into ecosystem rehabilitation and you need millions of labourers – and you find that it works. Large-scale ecosystems can be rehabilitated through the return of function and carbon sequestration which addresses our worst problem.

IH: Will the experience of the Loess Plateau’s rehabilitation be applied elsewhere?

JL: We are now going to Africa to speak in Rwanda, Tanzania and Ethiopia, to design programmes to transfer this information. We want to link the Chinese development people with Africans who need and want to do this, together with the global financial community and the global development community. At first I thought, I’m making a documentary film. Now I think it’s about a basic understanding of the issue that will help us survive. If we don’t understand it, the outcome is predetermined.

NEXT: John D. Liu speaks about his US background and how he became involved in development and environmental issues in China in part two.

The authors:

John D. Liu is a Chinese-American filmmaker whose current project is China’s Sorrow, Earth’s Hope, documenting the ecological rehabilitation of the devastated Loess Plateau.

Isabel Hilton is a London-based international journalist and broadcaster. She is also the editor of chinadialogue.

Still images are taken from John D. Liu's film China’s Sorrow, Earth’s Hope

A filmmaker’s take on China’s environment (part two)

John Liu, Isabel Hilton — Tue, 08 Aug 2006 14:05:00 +0000

John D. Liu is a filmmaker whose current project is China’s Sorrow, Earth’s Hope. In the second half of an interview with chinadialogue editor Isabel Hilton, Liu speaks about his background and interest in Chinese environmental issues.

Isabel Hilton: You’re now a filmmaker, you live in China -- tell me about your background.

John D. Liu: I went to China first in 1979. I was 27. I’m half Chinese and my father had been telling me since [then United States president Richard] Nixon’s visit in 1972 that I had to go to China to help China develop. I was born in Nashville, Tennessee, and was living in Bloomington, Indiana, in the US. I didn’t want to go to China. It was an interesting time: I was young and America was an interesting place.

I had been to Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, but China didn’t seem very interesting. It had a communist government and when I looked across the border from Hong Kong when I was 13, I saw a man pointing a machine gun at me. China to me at that time meant [the philosopher] Lao Tzu and Taoism and Tang literature. Contemporary China didn’t resonate. Then, in the late 1970s, my father said, “You must go because your grandmother is going to die.” What could I say?

So I went to China and I realised he was right: it was much more interesting for me to film in China than in the US. So I did a semester of language training and I went to work for [the American television network] CBS as a producer-cameraman. I worked for them for 10 years.

IH: How did you get from there to the environment?

JL: I was so exhausted after the collapse of the Soviet Union that journalism had lost its appeal and I wanted to make films instead news reports, so I went to work for Italian state TV, where I made one-hour documentaries, then for German TV for three years. By then it was the mid-1990s and the environment had been deteriorating. China was changing from a fearful place, just out of the Cultural Revolution, to a market economy. There was a flowering of creativity and greater social freedom. Although 1989 punctuated it somewhat, even that was book-ended by decades of peace and prosperity.

During this amazing period of reform, opening and economic progress, there was so much pollution. Finally it struck me: I live in Beijing, my children were born here, and we were all suffering. It was clear to me that I had both the right and the responsibility to do something.

Most of the Chinese seemed detached, as though it wasn’t their responsibility. I think they thought the government was responsible and they had been conditioned to believe that they didn’t have either the right or the responsibility [to act]. Some people thought, “I’m just one person; there’s nothing I can do.” Others thought, “It’s nothing to do with me; it’s [the role of] somebody else.”

And in a way, that was my attitude. I used to think somebody ought to do something about the environment but what I meant was, “Somebody else ought to do something about the environment.” I was too important and busy. But after a while I realised that this was the same attitude that was part of the problem. So we began the Environmental Education Media Project, to take existing films on the environment to China and to translate them into Chinese.

We started working with the Television Trust for the Environment, and we brought over [Britain’s] Channel 4 and BBC’s excellent documentaries, on pest management and water wars. Finally we took hundreds of films. Then we wanted to make films and needed research, but there was no research facility.

So we said to SEPA [China’s State Environmental Protection Administration] that we wanted to build a reference and research facility. They have a huge US $70 million building built by Japanese foreign assistance, called the Japan-China Friendship Environmental Protection Centre, on the Fourth Ring Road in Beijing. They opened up the cupboard where cleaning ladies were storing their mops. We said this wouldn’t do. Finally they took us up to the seventh floor and opened a door marked “Library” – it turned out to be a huge room, 750 square meters -- that had been empty for three years.

So we began to build a library. Now it’s the largest concentration of environmental information in China -- the China Environment and Sustainable Development Reference and Research Centre. It’s on the web. [American environmentalist] Amory Lovins has spoken there – so many people have been through there now.

Then we started making films, researching water, wetlands, grasslands, migration and so on. Then we found HIV was a huge problem in China and there wasn’t much information about it. So we helped the Chinese Centre for Disease Control to create the China HIV/Aids Information Network (CHAIN).

IH: What’s the level of environmental understanding and awareness in China now, compared to when you began?

JL: It’s certainly a lot higher. When we started, people said in a poll that it was not their business. It was a very low level of awareness and understanding, a lack of engagement. If you do that poll [now], they will tell you that a clean environment is the most important thing in their lives.

IH: Do they do anything about it?

JL: I wouldn’t say everyone acts. There has been a lot of focus on economic development – as an individual as well as a societal goal. They are coming off a long period of deprivation – this is the first flush of consumption.

IH: If they are just getting used to the pleasures of consumption, they must think that you are spoiling the party, talking about the environment.

JL: There is a movement of aware people. This is the nature of consciousness – you can’t determine when people will understand things. They will understand things when they have to and hopefully they won’t just ignore it. There is a growing concern by those who can see and extrapolate from what’s taking place. If you listen to the Chinese government, they have excellent environmental policy statements.

Of course, the reality is that China’s very polluted. There’s a gap between rhetoric and reality. It takes a long time to catch up. Awareness is the first step. Action and behavioural change is required. The west has had a lot of consumption for a long time. China’s consumption is still miniscule by those standards. Their aspirations of consumption came from the west and you can’t export this model of consumption then expect them not to consume.

We were not spoiling the party but adding a voice of reason to this, suggesting that maybe thought should be given to renewable energies, recycling, pollution. Even that the basis of Chinese philosophy is one of harmony and respect for nature. Maybe these things could be useful if they were thought about rather than relegated.

IH: You say the government has good policies but China is still very polluted. This is puzzling to people who look at China and see a one-party state and wonder why it can’t enact its own policies.

JL: There are 1.3 billion people in China and I suspect that means there are 1.3 billion opinions. This has been a period of reform and additional personal freedoms, and I think there is also a social evolution. Ordering people to do things is unlikely to have the right effect. They had periods like that – and they are remembered as tragedies where every family had someone who was persecuted. The trend is towards greater liberation and personal responsibility.

IH: And if the information isn’t there? Yes, the government knows, but what about the interface with the people?

JL: Personally, I also hate slogans. I think they are terrible. If you broadcast slogans, weak-minded people repeat them but they don’t bother to go past them to learn. It’s a problem. Some people think slogans are a great communications tool, but I think it’s a problem.

Acronyms and jargon also exclude people and young people might be afraid to ask, so they miss the whole point, which is: There’s a disconnect between what the government knows and what the people know. If they can’t transmit the information clearly – or they think it’s a matter of slogans – it won’t work. What you want to transmit is understanding, which is the nature of the Environmental Education Media Project.

We are all learning about the relationship of human beings to the earth – it’s a collaborative learning project. The goal is understanding for everyone, then to use the tools of communication to bring those to collective consciousness. The respect for air and water in China has been lost, partly through pressure of population, partly through urbanisation. So it’s about consciousness.

IH: On a scale of 10, where would you put China’s environmental problems?

JL: I would say that pollution is the pressure of human beings on the planet and there is nowhere else where the pressure is greater than in China because there are 1.3 billion people. China has taken this extremely seriously, and in terms of rhetoric it’s moving to a much better place. In terms of reality, we’ll have to see.

IH: How long does it take for reality to catch up with rhetoric?

JL: The Chinese are moving in a direction which is correct. They are theorising about eco-village urban areas and industrial parks, and they can actually experiment at that level. As a tiny environmental NGO [nongovernmental organisation], we were talking about these things and wanted a conference. But on of the planning commission people said, “Let’s build a few.” The scale of that thinking was staggering.

IH: Are you more optimistic or pessimistic than when you began?

JL: Gosh, I think you have to ask that question every day. There’s so much information and some of it is extremely sobering. There are physics models that suggest that climate change could make the surface of the earth uninhabitable. This is not a comforting thought. And knowing that this is from human impact doesn’t make me feel good. So if the measure of whether we are successful is how good the environment is, the hardest thing is that you must look without flinching at this information.

IH: Why are so many people diverting their attention from this?

JL: Because it’s not something that you really want to know. Knowledge is responsibility. If you are ignorant, you don’t do anything. Remaining ignorant is a kind of strategy -- not viable, because the species could end. But knowledge is a tough way to go, too, because then you really are responsible. If you know and you fail to act, then you are culpable. Choices made from knowledge are different from those made from ignorance. We are helping people gain knowledge. They may not thank us for it, but they may at some point realise that it was necessary.

The Authors:
John D. Liu is a Chinese-American filmmaker whose current project is China’s Sorrow, Earth’s Hope, documenting the ecological rehabilitation of the devastated Loess Plateau.
Isabel Hilton is a London-based international journalist and broadcaster. She is also the editor of chinadialogue.

Still images are taken from John D. Liu's film China’s Sorrow, Earth’s Hope

Part one: John D. Liu talks about the ecological rehabilitation of the Loess Plateau.

“A challenge to our moral imagination”

Isabel Hilton, Al Gore — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:40:00 +0000

Former US vice president Al Gore is still campaigning – for urgent action to reverse the effects of global warming. chinadialogue editor Isabel Hilton interviews the Nobel Peace Prize winner.

[This article was first published on September 29, 2006]

Isabel Hilton: In your film, you say that climate change is not a political but a moral issue. What do you mean?

Al Gore: It’s a moral issue because it affects the survival of human civilisation. It’s a challenge to our moral imagination to understand that we could actually be affecting the entire planet. The planet will survive, of course, but its habitability for us is what we are now putting into question, and since it is the present generation delivering consequences suffered by those generations yet to come, that raises a profoundly moral challenge: do we have the right? And, of course, we do not.

We’re capable of being sufficiently entranced by the present, and by a focus on short-term gratification, to ignore our responsibility to those who come after us. If there’s one reason why people are beginning to change, it may be because the consequences are now beginning to be felt in our lifetime.

IH: You have obviously held very powerful positions. You were vice president of the United States, a senator, and yet you say in your political career you were unable to get this message across. Why?

AG: Well, I’m sure some of it has to do with a lack of skill. I’ve gained more skills as I’ve gotten older. It has not been for lack of trying. A lot of it has to do with the unusual strength of the resistance to this message. CO² is the exhaling breath of industrial civilisation, interwoven with all aspects of our lives. Large and powerful polluters have been spending millions of dollars to confuse people intentionally and [to] try to interfere with the delivery of this message. Of course, in our modern lives there are all manner of distractions that fractionate our attention to everything else, and holding this crisis in mind for a long period of time is just inherently difficult, it’s complex.

But it is by far the most serious challenge we have ever faced. It is now beginning to capture the attention of people. I have an ally in this effort – reality. Mother Nature is delivering very powerful messages in heat waves and killer hurricanes and other consequences that have long been predicted. I think every day we get closer to a critical mass of public opinion that will require politicians in all parties to act.

IH: Part of the moral case around Kyoto is that those who have most benefited from emissions should pay the most towards the mitigation, or the addressing of the issue. Is that a case with which you agree, and does it extend to a kind of indemnity for those who are suffering now, and who will suffer immediately on the frontline of climate change?

AG: Well, every international agreement since the end of World War Two has had the same basic architecture. The wealthier industrial countries have taken upon themselves the first obligations because they can. They’re best positioned to lead and to begin making the changes. And then the poorer nations, with less wherewithal and less of an ability to make the changes, are obligated to join in after the wealthier nations have begun the task. That’s been true of trade; it’s been true of every agreement. The Kyoto agreement is no exception and, yes, I support that architecture. It’s a practical necessity.

Now, on the question of indemnity, I think that’s more than the political traffic will bear. And the industrial countries. There are moral questions raised concerning our responsibility for what we do, now that we are on notice and have constructive knowledge of what the consequences are. But those are questions we can’t afford to entertain. We need to focus on putting together a practical solution.

IH: There are people, of course, who say, “What’s the point of acting, as long as China and India are not constrained to act?”

AG: Well, the truth is that China and India will have to be a part of the solution. But the way to get them to join in solving the crisis is for us to go first and to take the actions that the UK is beginning to take and that I hope the United States will begin to take. Secondly, China and India are sometimes stereotyped unfairly. The truth is they know, or many of their leaders and scientists know full well, how much they have to lose if this climate crisis is not checked.

Twenty million people around Beijing would have to relocate, 40 million people around Shanghai, 60 million people around Calcutta, millions more in other coastal cities. The Yellow River is now sometimes without water, partly because the source of the Yellow -- and the Yangtze and the other great rivers of Asia -- is in the ice fields of the Tibetan plateau. And they’re melting, more rapidly than the rest of the glaciers. These and other consequences have caught their attention. They have their own equities involved here. So I don’t think it’s right to just assume that they’re not going to care about solving this crisis.

IH: If it is a moral question, and as president of the United States you would be in a better position than any man on the planet to address it, is it not a moral obligation to run again next time?

AG: Well, I appreciate the question. I don’t think I have to apologise for devoting my time to trying to rally a response worldwide to this crisis. I am under no illusion that there is any position with as much influence as that of president of the United States. I ran for president twice. I did not get the office. I haven’t ruled out possibly getting into politics again at some point. But frankly I don’t expect to, and I have no intention of doing it, because I find the whole process rather toxic.

I also found during my years as vice president how important it is to have enough receptivity in the Congress and among the people to the bold changes that are necessary. Boldness and vision from leaders is one thing, but the body politic has to be prepared to change and to act. It may be that the highest and best use of whatever talents and experiences I’ve had along the way is used in trying to change the minds of the people in the United States and elsewhere. I’m certainly trying to.

Isabel Hilton is the editor of chinadialogue.

Al Gore served as the 45th vice president of the United States in the Clinton administration from 1993 to 2001.

Homepage photo by Steve Jurvetson

"We can achieve green growth"

Ian Pearson, Isabel Hilton — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 16:22:00 +0000

Ian Pearson is minister of state for climate change and the environment in the British government. On the eve of his first ministerial visit to China under the UK-China Sustainable Development Dialogue, he spoke to chinadialogue’s editor Isabel Hilton.

Isabel Hilton: This is the first ministerial meeting in the UK China Sustainable Development Dialogue. What do you hope to get out of it?

Ian Pearson: We hope to get an agreement on the strategy for the UK-China Sustainable Development Dialogue for the next couple of years. This will include joint work in sustainable consumption and production. When you look at the embedded carbon in the products that we buy and the fact that China manufactures most of them these days, it’s clear that we have a common agenda here. It will also include, amongst other areas, natural resource management. Under this theme, some work has also been done on forestry policy and we hope to take that forward as well – global deforestation is a huge issue that we need to tackle. The Chinese have been particularly keen to talk about urban development and of course the biggest issue today is climate change – the science and some of the daily reports we are now seeing are very worrying.

IH: Your department has given some support to www.chinadialogue.net. Is the UK China Sustainable Development Dialogue between governments and experts or do you envisage a wider dialogue?

IP: I would like it to be all of those. I think government to government dialogue is important but there is another element to the Dialogue – it includes the engagement of a range of stakeholders – we’ve been pleased how much of the latter we’ve seen so far under the dialogue. China’s 11^th Five Year Plan has sustainability written into it and I think it’s a remarkably impressive document.

IH: Although China’s last Five Year Plan missed several of its environmental targets. Is it your impression that the 11^th Plan will hit them?

IP: I get the sense that they are taking it more seriously this time. There’s nothing like talking to people to really get an assessment of how important it is to them. I know the priority has been growth – and trying to ensure balanced growth, but sustainability has risen up the agenda in China.

IH: After twenty years of growth in China, there has certainly been a change of tone and a shift in official statements from the top. How much of a priority is it now for China to balance the economy and the environment?

IP: I think the environment is being given a higher priority under the 11^th Five Year Plan and in the way that it will be implemented. I don’t think there’s any doubting that. The Chinese government has recognised the severe pollution problems that have been created as a result of its rapid industrial development and is taking practical measures to deal with that.

IH: How far do you think it goes?

IP: China is such vast country this can’t just be driven from the centre. It requires people in towns and cities to develop policies and to work on environmental issues. In such a vast country, performance is bound to be patchy. But I think a lot has happened in Shanghai. Shanghai wants to set higher standards environmentally and in terms of its economy and skills base. And if you talk to the mayors of Shenzhen or Guangzhou, they want to do something about it too. They still want to grow, but they are committed to doing something about the environment as well.

IH: What do you think Britain can learn from China in this process?

IP: I’d be interested to hear more about the green GDP report that China has produced. I also think we can learn from the Chinese commitment to building the world’s first carbon neutral city in Dongtan. I’m pleased that ARUP, a British-based international company, have provided a lot of expertise in this. In terms of the scale of their ambition to tackle the environment in creating a city like that, there’s something we can learn. We need to be looking at our proposals for developing new homes in the Thames Gateway with the same degree of ambition that the Chinese are adopting in Dongtan.

IH: You are minister for climate change and this dialogue is about sustainable development – can you explain the connection between climate change and sustainable development?

IP: Sustainable development, as I see it, is about one planet living. If everybody consumed resources at the same level as the UK, we would need three planets to live on – and we’ve only got one. It’s about living within our environmental means as well as our economic means. In the past we’ve just put the word “sustainable” in front of everything and devalued what sustainable development means. But one planet living can give us all a moral purpose.

IH: But this is not something the UK has achieved, so why should China listen to the UK on this question?

IP: We certainly haven’t achieved one planet living, but we believe that’s the direction we need to go in – and go in quickly. Our economy has grown by over 40% since 1990. At the same time, greenhouse gas emissions went down by 15%; it’s estimated that if we hadn’t taken action our greenhouse gas emissions would actually be 15% higher today, rather than 15% lower. We have put in place a range of different policy initiatives – we were the first country in the world to introduce a climate change levy and the first country to introduce an emissions trading scheme. We were the architects of the European Trading Scheme. We were the first country in the world to introduce an energy efficiency commitment on energy supplies, which has already produced around £3 billion of benefits in terms of energy efficiency measures, whether it be loft insulation or energy-efficient light bulbs in people’s houses.

The UK needs to do more, both domestically and internationally, but I don’t think people should forget some of the things we actually have done – and in a fairly painless way. I don’t think that our economy has suffered. So my message is that we can achieve green growth – and China can as well. It’s going to be vitally important that China does exactly that, because in the next 10 or 15 years it is set to be the world’s biggest economy. And the US has got to do it as well.

IH: At the launch of chinadialogue about ten days ago, a Chinese journalist came up to me and said: “What China needs is money and technology, not dialogue.” As you embark on this dialogue, what do you feel about that?

IP: I don’t think China needs money, but I do think it needs technology. I think we have a historical responsibility as a result of our past CO2 emissions. The message should be: the UK has discovered that there are better ways of industrialising, we think it’s worth your looking at them. There are opportunities for growth in ways that we weren’t aware of when we were growing strongly back in the 19^th century.

IH: But the British government comes under a lot of criticism at home for the rather stately pace of all this. Missing your own emissions targets for a government which is quite keen on targets is rather embarrassing, isn’t it? You could have been more vigorous more early, surely?

IP: I do agree we should do more. We must do more, though I certainly wouldn’t use the phrase “stately pace”. We certainly haven’t given up hope of achieving a 20% reduction in CO2 by 2010. Measures in the energy white paper next year will also help set us on the path to a 60% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050. We will continue to look at what more we can do as a government. It’s an increasingly urgent task, and although we’re only 2% of the world’s problem, I believe we have a moral responsibility because we were the first nation to industrialise. You can only credibly give international leadership if you’ve got credible domestic policies. You’ve got to walk the walk.

IH: People are now thinking beyond 2012 to the regime that will follow Kyoto. What would you like to see China do for that regime?

IP: Firstly I’d like to see China fully participate in the debate. It’s good that China has been involved in the Gleaneagles dialogue process, which provides a unique space in which we can collectively discuss what needs to be done, rather than getting into negotiating mode where lines are drawn between different parties. China has got some of the best scientists, the most thorough analyses to be found anywhere in the world. China knows that as it grows it’s going to be a world-leading force. It knows that climate change and climate security is going to be an issue for China. I’m very optimistic that China will come to the conclusion it’s in their own interest to do something about tackling their CO2 emissions.

If you look at the figures for world population growth, we will grow to 9 billion by 2015. If you look at the carbon costs of feeding 9 billion people – you can’t avoid carbon when you’re producing food -- that amount of carbon equates to the amount you can safely emit into the atmosphere if you’re going to avoid dangerous climate change.

In other words, everything that’s non-food related will have to be zero carbon: we will need zero-carbon power generation and zero carbon transport by 2015.

It shows the scale of the challenge. Zero-carbon power generation is possible. I’m keen that in the UK and Europe we lead the way. We need to say that all power generation in Europe will be zero carbon by 2020.

(During his visit to China, Ian Pearson will be meeting Du Ying, his counterpart at the National Development and Reform Commission. He will also be taking part in a roundtable event on Sustainable Development Governance and will attend the Asia Carbon Expo.)

Ian Pearson is the minister of state for climate change and the environment in the British government.

Isabel Hilton is the editor of chinadialogue

Homepage photo by Lance Webel

"Almost every war" is over natural resources

Wangari Maathai, Isabel Hilton — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:03:00 +0000

Wangari Maathai is the first African woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize. Her work has spanned science, ecology and politics in her own country, Kenya, and now she's taking her message to the world. Interview by Isabel Hilton.

Isabel Hilton: Professor Maathai, your story all began with one fig tree, a fig tree that you knew when you were a child. Could you tell me about that fig tree and what its significance was?

Wangari Maathai: When I was growing up in the highlands of Kenya, there were many fig trees, which were normally very huge, mysterious trees. They were nearly always green and had a huge canopy. But there was one particular tree that was very close to our household, and I must have collected some of the twigs that had fallen from this fig tree as I was collecting firewood for my mother, because I remember my mother telling me not to collect twigs from the fig tree. When I asked her why I should not, she advised that this was a tree of God. This tree is never cut; it is never burnt; it is never used for anything. Later on, I understood that when our people would offer burnt offerings they would do so at a fig tree. Fig trees were for all practical purposes a sacred tree, a revered tree. Not a God, but a tree that reminded my people of the mystery and the power, the greatness of the creator who was responsible for them and all the living things around them.

IH: But despite this, the fig tree that you knew, that straddled a stream that you played in, was cut down. What happened when the fig tree was cut down?

WM: This fig tree was cut down some 20 years later, when we introduced cash crops: tea, in this particular area. And because this fig tree was a huge tree, it was perceived to occupy a lot of land, and waste a lot of land where we could plant tea bushes to make money. So the farmer cut the tree and planted tea bushes.

When I visited the tree and found that it had been cut and saw where the [tea] bushes were, I was sad but also happy. Sad that the tree had been cut, but happy that nothing was growing where the fig tree used to stand. It was as if the ground refused to support anything else now that the fig tree was gone.

IH: What had happened to the stream?

WM: I came to understand much later that in fact these fig trees are very important in the ecosystem. They were part and parcel of a system that held the soil together, that prevented soil erosion and prevented landslides. And as I understood much later, the roots of this tree went deep into the belly of the earth, and reached the underground water reservoirs, which allowed the water to come up around these roots and to break where the land was weak. The land was weak right next to our house, where our stream broke. This was the stream that our house used, I used to go to this stream and fetch water for my mother. So when the tree was cut – amazingly – the stream disappeared. And this for me was the mystery that made the tree become significant to me. Especially later on when I understood the environment and understood how everything in the ecosystem is playing a role.

We may not understand it, but everything is playing a role. This fig tree was not only a habitat for birds and for animals. It was not only a beautiful tree providing shade, but it was also playing a role in the water system. And it was the reason this little stream was flowing, and my family could have clean drinking water.

IH: Looking back – what is the effect of your work on Kenya? Do you think that you have reversed this terrible environmental damage? You’ve certainly planted a lot of trees, but has this been enough?

WM: In areas where people have responded positively, especially among farming communities, the transformation of the landscape and the transformation of the people themselves has been revolutionary. To see ordinary people in charge of their environment; ordinary people concerned about their environment; ordinary people putting pressure on the government to protect, for example, forests. Forests are very important in our agricultural practices; we need rain, we need water, we need soil – and these are nourished by the rains that come from the forests. So it has been a wonderful experience to see these achievements.

Perhaps the next most important, besides the planting of the trees, has been the raising of awareness among ordinary people: the peasant farmers, the government officials, the policy-makers, not only in my country but within Africa – and now worldwide, to help in the collective raising of awareness. There are very many of us environmentalists, people working for human rights, people working for women’s rights and people working for environmental rights. And we have raised awareness to the point that the world is becoming more and more aware that the environment is very, very important. I think that maybe the culmination of this awareness was the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to the environment. To have linked the sustainable management of the environment with good governance, respect for human rights, respect for the rule of law and peace.

IH: What exactly is that connection, though? I think many people who think of the environment think of it as either a scientific matter or a matter of culture. But they don’t make a connection between the environment and politics or the environment and peace, what exactly is that connection?

WM: Many of us are educated – or persuaded – to think in boxes. So we think separately about peace, and we think we can work for peace. So we think separately about human rights, and we think we can work for human rights – or environmental rights.

But what the Norwegian Nobel committee was challenging us to do was to rethink this paradigm. To rethink this mental attitude we have about separating things, and think holistically. Think of many conflicts – conflicts within your area, far away from your area and far away from your country – and ask yourself: why are those people fighting? Almost every war is over access and control of resources. What the Norwegian Nobel committee was saying is that we cannot enjoy peace on this planet if we do not learn to manage our limited resources responsibly and accountably; and if we do not learn to share these resources more equitably. Quite often we think that those who have the power, those who have the guns and those who have the technology can access any resource at the expense of anybody. But sooner or later those who are marginalised and denied access to those resources will somehow seek justice – economic justice and social justice – and that’s how the conflict ensues.

That is the linkage we need to understand. And that’s the linkage we often don’t make, partly because when we go to school that’s not what we are taught. We need to rethink peace and security, we need to expand the definition to include sustainable management of our resources and their equitable distribution, and that will only happen if we govern ourselves in a way that we respect human rights, we respect the rule of law and we respect the diversity of our human species. Because we are very diverse, but wherever we are, whoever we are, whether we are many or few, whether we are dominant or subdued, we need to feel that we matter, that we are important in the society where we belong.

IH: Western environmentalists are often criticised in the developing world, on the grounds that the west and its model of development carried an environmental cost, but on the whole people became much more prosperous. And now large developing countries such as India and China are following the same path. So when western environmentalists complain about the environmental costs of that development, people in India and China say: but you did it, why shouldn’t we? What would you say to those criticisms? Are you one of those environmentalists who are trying to hold back the development of poor countries?

WM: Obviously it is a very difficult question. It’s very easy to say that the west pursued a very destructive development process at a time when many of the resources in the world were at their disposal, partly because they had the political power – many were colonial powers – and they also had made great advances in science and technology. They also were able to accumulate a lot of wealth both within and outside their countries.

But I want to go back to that challenge that the Norwegian Nobel Committee was giving to the world in the year 2004, which emphasised that we have limited resources. Because we have limited resources, and we have a planet that has limited capacity, are we going to literally hang ourselves to death? Are we going to destroy ourselves? Are we going to compete with each other to see who will kill this planet faster? I think that would not be very wise.

I know it is very difficult to tell upcoming economies: “don’t do it.” But what we are saying is: let us look at alternative paths to development. [Let’s not] prevent achieving a high quality of life, but there is a difference between high quality of life, and high consumption patterns. The pattern that the west has developed is an extremely wasteful, consumptive lifestyle that clearly needs to be changed. They have to accept the resources are limited. If they are going to over-consume, they are actually over-consuming at the expense of other people. So, it is not just China or India or other upcoming economies that need to rethink – it is everybody. And it is especially those who have already made much progress and those who have adopted a very consumptive pattern.

From another perspective, right now, we are looking at the reports that have just come from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They are saying that for the first time they are 90% certain that human activities are responsible for the warming up of the planet. These human activities include the burning of fossil fuels, the fossil fuels that are being engaged in the upcoming economies. If we are indeed at a point where our planet is threatened, do the Indians and the Chinese and other upcoming economies want to say: “let us sink together”? Are we going to follow the mistakes that were made by the western world? Or are we going to put pressure on the western world to cut down drastically on their emissions and to change their lifestyles, so that they can save themselves?

Africa is one of the areas that is going to be very adversely hit by climate change, yet Africa has contributed very little towards the problem. Are we saying Africa doesn’t matter? Are we saying other countries that haven’t reached that level of development don’t matter? I think that India, China, the US, Europe and all these highly-developed countries need to assume a moral responsibility towards the protection of the earth and life as we know it.

In 1977, Wangari Maathai founded the Green Belt movement, which has inspired many, often poor women in Africa to plant more than 30 million trees. In 2004 Professor Maathai became the first African woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize.

Isabel Hilton is the editor of chinadialogue.net.

Homepage photo by Martin Rowe

Sustainable development’s “taboo territory”

Isabel Hilton, Jonathon Porritt — Wed, 30 May 2007 18:02:00 +0000

Faced with a warming climate, should rich countries consume differently – or buy less? And can poor nations be expected to do the same? Isabel Hilton interviews Jonathon Porritt.

Isabel Hilton: If you want to live sustainably and ethically, what do you do?

Jonathon Porritt: There’s a large question about that in the UK, let alone in China. The truth is that the vast majority of the two to three million Chinese who are now moving into purchasing parity with the middle classes in the west have absolutely no interest in consuming more sustainably. Things that are happening on sustainable development in China are largely driven by central government – unfortunately not in the regions or the provinces, which makes it very difficult. Trying to stimulate a lot of civic enthusiasm around sustainable consumption is very hard work. It’s still an upward curve of increased materialism, which is what they feel progress is all about. They think that they are just getting on this ladder and now someone’s going to tell them to climb it more slowly, differently, with fewer benefits than we had – that’s a very difficult sell.

IH: But is that the message of sustainable consumption? That people in developing countries must climb the ladder more slowly?

JP: There’s a very lively debate about that, of course. The sustainable consumption debate ranges from those who argue that all we have to do is consume more responsibly, ethically, sustainably, sensitively – and in a way that need not put any question mark over the method or the quantum of consumption at all. They argue that we just need to consume differently, not to change the volume.

At the other end of the scale, are those who say that’s complete nonsense: when you talk about the nine billion people who will live on Earth by the end of this century, consuming the way that we consume in the west – however ethically, environmentally or sensitively it may be, it will still blow the system. They want the concept of consuming less to be part of the political debate, but no mainstream political party anywhere in the world wants the word “less” to be used at any point in the political discourse – it’s just taboo territory. So what you get is a conversation about the manner – not about changing the core of the system.

For any Chinese politician, too, the dreaded word “less” is unthinkable. You have to have a bit of sympathy: it’s an extremely difficult thing for people who are just coming into consuming to be told that it’s all too late, that they can’t have any more. So unfortunately, the realpolitik of the situation is that we are not going to be able to argue for less consumption in India or China – or anywhere else in the poor world – until the rich world has already demonstrated a very serious intent to contract their economies. In the first instance, this means contracting the carbon intensity of their economies, which is a proxy for contracting the economy as a whole, and to reduce dramatically the social and environmental externalities of the economy. When we’ve demonstrated that we are serious about it, then it would be possible to open up a dialogue with China and India about consuming less in those countries.

Right now, the only thing you can say is: “consume much more intelligently,” because this is an appeal to the idea that China ought to be able to build a new paradigm of consumption, which doesn’t go through the massively wasteful, destructive and inefficient processes that we have been through in all western economies. We have come to the conclusion that this is all pretty stupid, and we have to become much more efficient in the use of our energy and resources. It isn’t necessary for the Chinese to go all the way through that wasteful and destructive curve. It would be possible for people in China to aim for the end goal, which is to improve people’s well being but with far lower energy consumption.

For example, at the moment most politicians in China seem hell-bent on creating car-based infrastructure in their cities, particularly in Beijing. An good approach to this would be to say that we can see that that’s going nowhere – the intelligent thing to do is to build an advanced transport infrastructure that is not based on individual car ownership. But right now in Beijing, if you don’t have a car, you haven’t made it.

IH: If you can’t make the argument in China, are you doing any better in Britain?

JP: Well, at least we’ve got a discussion going in Britain. Politicians are very nervous about anything that seems to imply that the conventional growth paradigm is in jeopardy. That remains very, very difficult. If you imply that we will not be able to rely on 2 to 3% economic growth forever, then politicians just do not want to talk to you. When we are doing our economic advisory work with the government, and trying to apply different measures to make the economy more supportive of sustainable outcomes, you can push hard on macro elements – like fiscal reform, or the way government uses different regulatory interventions and market signals. But should you trespass into rethinking the economic growth paradigm, they don’t want to listen. The consumption discourse has to be all about providing people with a higher quality of life, but with a massive reduction in resource and energy intensity. Within that paradigm, politicians in the UK are getting more serious, but it is still a painful process.

IH: That doesn’t leave much for the individual to do, if the individual is concerned.

JP: Because the government moves so slowly, it leaves a huge amount for the individual – and for business – to do. Suddenly all our big retailers, for instance, have gone very green on the issue of climate change, and they’ve left government miles behind. Industry has taken the lead and the government is half-relieved and half-anxious about it, because suddenly they aren’t sure if they are setting the pace of change. With business in the lead, the individual consumer can play a very big role. Besides, I don’t believe anyone is naïve enough to think that this is going to be sorted out by governments on their own. Government action without citizen buy-in is not going to work. Our government right now is thinking about communication and information campaigns, about how you work with NGOs, professional bodies and business to get the messages out more effectively. They are rolling out a new campaign called “Act on CO2”, which tries to persuade individuals to reduce their own carbon footprint.

IH: But government is lagging behind the people on this.

JP: It certainly is. The Sustainable Development Commission recently published our annual review on sustainable development in government, which is a report on the 11 key targets they have to improve their own performance – and the results are shocking. Five departments have gone backwards, not forwards. And despite all the attention on climate change, the majority of departments have missed their CO2 reduction targets. If this was a private sector report, people would be sacked. In my opinion, it’s truly shameful. You have a government that creates a great head of steam about climate change, with a high level of rhetoric about how important it is to do something about it, and it is not even delivering the basics in its own backyard.

IH: So you have published the list of shame.

JP: We have, but in a gentle way, as you can imagine.

Jonathon Porritt is founder director of Forum for the Future and chair of the UK Sustainable Development Commission, an independent watchdog to advise how environmentally friendly development should be put at the heart of government policy.

Isabel Hilton is editor of chinadialogue

Homepage photo by Mironabside

Visit the Cooler Living forum!

"We have to go first"

Isabel Hilton, Volker Hauff — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:41:00 +0000

Twenty years ago, Volker Hauff was a member of the Brundtland Commission, which first popularised sustainable development. Now, he tells Isabel Hilton, it is time for rich countries to show leadership on the environment.

Isabel Hilton (IH): How important is sustainable development in German economic policy?

Volker Hauff (VH): It has been an issue of increasing importance in Germany, and in all industrialised countries since the Brundtland report, which was published 20 years ago in London, and said that sustainable development should be our idea of growth - and of the future. The Rio summit on environment and development followed in 1992, in a period of optimism following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Everyone was talking about peace dividends, and we looked forward to a peaceful and healthy world.

In Rio, it was decided that we should meet again in 10 years’ time and everyone was to prepare a national sustainability strategy. For the Johannesburg summit in 2002, Germany had prepared a strategy and decided on an organisational framework to implement it, with a “green cabinet” under the head of Chancery and the Commission for Sustainable Development. Now we have growing public awareness and increasing interest in all political parties, departments and government institutions. The really important thing is the intensification of the public debate. It’s important because you won’t get a good result if you rely only on the political decision makers.

IH: Why is that?

VH: Because it is the consumers who make decisions on what kind of food, which school, what kind of car; they have the power to influence the producers. Without business and civil society, it will be impossible to create sustainable development. There are 12 sustainable development commissions in the European Union, all of them supported by government, but independent of government. They act as a bridge to civil society and to the business and scientific communities, and that is what we really need.

IH: But that raises the question of how much power the sustainable development commissions have against powerful ministries, like Economy, Finance or Industry. Don’t sustainability issues always lose out?

VH: I’m not so sure, because they have growing public support – and that is our strength. Our commission has no direct power, but we are a pressure group for good arguments, well presented. That’s our power – and it’s growing.

IH: What do you expect the public to do with the arguments, apart from their own decisions about consumption? Are they to make demands on the politicians?

VH: I think both are very important. They will make their personal decisions: their way of life, their consumption, their lifestyle, how as they lead their companies in business, how they choose which company to work for and what they expect. Businessmen tell us that the best young people say that companies must do more than just pay lip service to corporate social responsibility.

IH: What would you say were the differences between sustainability issues in advanced countries, like Germany, and countries in the global south?

VH: The answer is very simple. If you look at the problem from a global perspective, it’s very clear that if the industrialised countries are not successful in showing that we can have prosperity and peace with lower consumption of energy and natural resources, a better, safer environment and social justice, sustainable development will not be attractive to developing countries. We have to go first, and show that we can do it with our technology and science, with our wealth and resources. Globally, advanced countries have to demonstrate that this is a good basis for the future – or we won’t be able to convince developing countries.

However, we also have to differentiate between developing countries. Some are very poor and need our aid and development assistance. But I would say that countries like China, which is not only able, but is also actually building atomic weapons – we can’t say that they are too poor for sustainable development.

IH: So you wouldn’t say that a large transfer of resources or technology ought to be a condition of sustainable development in such countries?

VH: It is a prerequisite, but not on the basis of just delivering the technology for nothing – there has to be a fair transaction in technology transfer. Industrialised countries have to be fair, but receiving countries also should pay fairly for what they are getting.

IH: In Europe and Germany, what are the main obstacles to this kind of transaction, which other countries might want to emulate?

VH: You need to understand the whole process – and we are at the very beginning. I expect this will be the issue in international relations and development for the rest of our century. We must understand that we need many more steps to achieve sustainable development. We need better public understanding, clear communication and understanding in political institutions that this mission requires modern management tools. It requires political, business, civil society and scientific decisions; it is really a public/private partnership.

Take energy policy, for example – the really outstanding issue in sustainable development. We need a better understanding of where we can rely on market forces, what regulatory changes we need and where taxation can be used as the instrument; we need to understand where voluntary agreements with industry will work and where it makes sense to let competition set the benchmarks and define best practice.

It’s fine to say that we will increase energy efficiency and productivity by 3% a year, but how do you reach it? What is the role of industry and other elements – the power producers, those who make domestic appliances and industrial machines? If you want to be sure of a 3% increase, you have to define everybody’s contribution – and monitor and control it. You have to define the date, who is collecting the data and what are the milestones. You can’t just say, “We will increase efficiency by 20% by 2020.” That doesn’t make sense – I don’t believe in such figures. The real challenge to our political institutions is to create adequate, modern management tools for this kind of public/private partnership.

IH: But industry argues that this kind of thing puts them at a competitive disadvantage.

VH: One hears it from time to time, but you also hear about well-functioning, profitable companies – in the energy sector, in recycling, in wind power and so on. I find it very interesting that in the United States, the CEOs of the biggest companies called on the government to be more active and clear about carbon emissions – the picture is a little more colourful than you say. There is the old-fashioned way – the way the Bush administration is handling the issue – doing nothing and telling industry not to bother. But business leaders also see that energy efficiency is not a luxury, it is a pure necessity – for the insurance companies, for instance, who are having to pay out more because of natural disasters caused by climate change.

Ten or 20 years ago, you had the NGOs and idealists telling industry that they weren’t doing enough and industry ignoring them. Today, you have a much better understanding in the NGOs about how to compromise and have an effect, and much more willingness in industry. Take the case of Lufthansa, for example: for more than 10 years, they refused to act on carbon emissions, now they are offering a ticket that allows you to finance the carbon dioxide equivalent of your flight.

IH: But offsetting, of course, is a controversial area.

VH: Yes, but the question is not whether it’s the best solution. It’s about people thinking about what they can do – thinking that they have to do something. Ten or 20 years ago, industry just said, “No, it’s too expensive, it doesn’t make sense.” Today, the debate is much more open.

IH: A great deal of the world’s manufacturing is now in India and China. How do we apply best practice to those manufacturing industries there, whose products we use?

VH: The message has already reached the Chinese government: they published a report saying their annual GDP is reduced 3% a year through environmental damage – obviously, they know the arguments. China has very serious problems in its cities. It’s creating immense health problems and they are now starting to change. They are in the position we were 15 years ago, taking steps to control sulphur emissions. Now we are starting to control CO2 and China will soon realise it is in their own interest to take much more action. We should be open to how to help them.

Volker Hauff is chairman of the German Commission on Sustainable Development, and was a member of the 1987 Brundtland Commission.

Isabel Hilton is the editor of chinadialogue.

Homepage photo by Claudecf

Turning awareness into action

Isabel Hilton — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:50:00 +0000

Global financial leaders will gather in October to discuss how to balance the environment with the bottom line. Paul Clements-Hunt, head of the UNEP Finance Initiative, tells Isabel Hilton how investors are beginning to wake up to the issues that matter.

Paul Clements-Hunt seems accustomed to the challenge of changing the image of big investors in the minds of a sceptical public, though sometimes he interrupts himself to apologise. "I am beginning to sound like a public relations man for the finance sector," he laughs. Since November 2000, he has been head of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Finance Initiative (FI), based in Geneva, Switzerland, with the job of persuading the world's biggest investors to take a responsible attitude to the environment – and, seven years on, to persuade the world's publics that it's working.

UNEP FI is a UN body with a relatively low public profile, but it is the UN's largest partnership with the financial services sector, and it counts more than 170 banks, insurers and asset managers as members. Before he joined UNEP FI, Clements-Hunt has worked for the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris, and run an environmental strategy consultancy in Bangkok, so he is familiar both with the challenge of achieving sustainable development in Asia, and with the priorities of the financial sector and big investors.

On the face of it, as someone who is concerned both with the environment and with high finance, Clements-Hunt has a lot to worry about: the image of high finance in the public mind is hardly green. But, he insists, things are changing.

The old attitudes among the people who manage the world's biggest investment funds – that it is their job to deliver maximum returns as fast as possible – is, he says, beginning to change as fund managers increasingly recognise chasing maximum short-term returns may not earn the biggest profits in the long term.

Clements-Hunt and his team work to persuade investors fund managers that they must factor in three issues when they make investment decisions: the environment, social issues and governance. These are central risk factors for any investor to consider, he says, and they ignore them at their peril.

"The key to it with financial institutions" he explains, "is that if they actually consider the full range of risks and opportunities associated with environmental and social issues, they put themselves in a better position to do better business. Whatever type of financial institution you are, it gives you a both a bigger radar screen and new market opportunities"

Clements-Hunt and his colleagues in UNEP FI were instrumental in the 2006 launch of the UN Principles for Responsible Investment (UNPRI), principles that are now backed by $10,000 billion of institutional assets.

"There's a range of principles that have grown up over the last ten years in the financial sector," he says, "that deal with environment and community issues, and we are now seeing the development of a rules-based set of guidelines that allow institutions to understand what is best practice, what is best policy and how you build this into what you are doing on a daily basis."

Big investors are not famous for their altruism but, says Clements-Hunt, they do not have to be persuaded that the environmental, social and governance issues matter.

"Over the past two to three years," he says, "some of the world's biggest investors – pension funds, foundations, government reserve funds – have really woken up to the issue of responsible investment. It's partly because of climate change, but also because, if you go back to the dot-com bust and the corporate scandals of the beginning of this century, something like 7 trillion dollars were lost." It's a sum big enough to persuade any fund manager that good governance is a bottom line issue.

Even an optimist like Clements-Hunt admits that present day market capitalism is not green yet: at present, he estimates, only 2% to 4% of global funds are sustainably invested. To him, though, that signals the huge potential of a change that he is convinced is already underway.

"Markets move every second, and tens of trillions of dollars are traded every day. The trader on the desk," he admits, “is certainly not going to be thinking about sustainable development issues. But there is now an effort to ensure that the issues are incorporated into the market systemically, so that they become part of institutional investment policy. There's a new understanding among very big investors about responsible investment, and that sends a signal to the broader market. It's a systemic change that, hopefully, in 10 or 20 years will change the way money is invested. It is about changing the DNA of capitalism to appreciate that the issues of sustainable development are both risks and opportunities."

"Markets need to react quickly - to be dynamic. That's the nature of capitalism. But if institutions and investors want to protect capital in the long term, sustainability has to be part of the short-term thinking."

"Today, the global capital market is worth 50 trillion dollars. Pensions funds, and institutions like them, hold about 25% of the market – about 12.5 trillion dollars. At the moment there are about 10 trillion dollars of institutional investors, including some of the world’s largest pension funds, which are committed to investing their entire portfolio in all asset classes on a responsible basis as a result of their support for the PRI. That doesn't mean they are doing it yet," he adds, "but they recognise that it's in their interest to take environmental and social factors on board, because environmental concerns have the long term potential to undermine whole sections of the global economy. Responsible investment is just good business and we have seen an upsurge of commitment from these institutions to responsible investment. The biggest concentration of wealth in the world, for instance, is held on in the pension funds of teachers and nurses. The trustees of those funds are beginning to see that issues like water and climate change will impact on companies and economies, and that they have to be much more responsible in how they place their investments, because pension funds have to pay out 25 or 30 years down the track."

Paul Clements Hunt sees important changes in thinking in all the key financial sectors. In the insurance industry, for instance, where, by 2040, annual losses from climate change are predicted to reach 1 trillion dollars in a given year, he sees the industry bringing out products designed to support sustainability.

"There are new insurance products that support green and renewable energy," he says, "such as discounted insurance products for energy efficiency. In banking there is interest in using capital markets to bring additional liquidity into microfinance. In the project finance side, more than 40 of the biggest banks that control 85% of the global market have signed up to the Equator Principles. They do it to protect their reputations and to balance project risks more effectively. It is also good business.

"Last year, for the first time, more than half the world's population lived in cities. Many of the mega cities are basically unliveable because of pollution and lack of clean water. For the banks there is a tremendous opportunity in investing in water supply, urban air quality and sanitation projects. They are looking for that business and for financial models that will allow them to take advantage of it. The big banks are all looking for senior staff who understands these issues."

It adds up, he says, to a fundamental shift in values.

"It's clear that the brightest and best people want to work in value-based institutions, that offer products and services that meet a real need."

He even sees potential for responsible investment among the new global elite - the super rich, who have made vast fortunes out of globalisation while the majority remains poor.

"If you go back to 2002, the rich and super rich had assets of 23 trillion dollars. By 2020, it's predicted to be 43 trillion dollars," he says. "That's raw red globalisation: a few people making an awful lot of money. When these people are surveyed, 30% of high net-worth individuals express an interest in responsible investment in environment and social issues. At the moment a minimal percentage of their assets are invested on that basis, but there is an upsurge in demand for responsible products."

And the next generation of super-rich, he believes, will bring another change in attitude.

"The next 15 years will bring the biggest transfer of private wealth ever seen, when the baby-boomers transfer wealth to the next generation. They, in turn, have grown up more sensitised to environmental and social issues. So you have three factors coming together: an explosion of wealth, a transfer of wealth and a willingness to invest responsibly."

It all adds up, he believes, to a growing interest amongst the smartest investors in favour of responsible investment.

"You have to put the picture together like that," he explains. "It's about momentum. There's a real spike in interest, and even when that spike has peaked, the plateau will be at a higher level."

"The question we ask is," he says, "is whether this activity is making a difference yet in the market place. The honest answer is yes, but it's only beginning. There's a lot of hype and lot of spin, but things are just beginning to change in the way money is invested and allocated. There is a lag factor."

There is a lag factor, too, he admits, in awareness of these issues in Asia, but he sees signs that the region wants to catch up.

"The traditional OECD markets and institutions have been at this for a while," he says. "But UNEP FI's fastest growth is in Asia in numbers of institutions signing up and looking to learn what they need to know about climate change and other issues.

In India, Indonesia, southeast Asia and China we are seeing a spike in what we consider step one - understanding the issues. They want to understand the business case for financial institutions to think about environment. Sometimes, in dynamic economies, it's difficult to sell it on the risk side. It's easier to sell the idea of the commercial opportunities offered by environmental utilities, emission control and things like that."

This new understanding in Asia, he says, also includes China.

"It's massively relevant to China," he insists. "And the policy community in China has a clear understanding of the absolute need for good environmental management and the harmony that sustainable development brings. We can see all the right signals. With such phenomenal industrial growth the challenges are very direct and very clear."

That, says Clements-Hunt, is why the UNEP-FI is inviting the Chinese financial services sector to join them in Melbourne, Australia, on October 24-25, 2007, to explore how leaders in the global financial services sector can move from awareness to action in terms of sustainability.

Paul Clements-Hunt is head of Secretariat at the UNEP Finance Initiative

Isabel Hilton is editor of chinadialogue

Homepage photo by Paul Wicks via Flickr

From Bali to Copenhagen, a rocky road

Isabel Hilton — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 12:57:00 +0000

Next year a meeting of urgent global significance will determine the replacement to the Kyoto treaty. Looking toward Copenhagen 2009, Isabel Hilton introduces a new project that tracks the path to a new agreement on reducing climate change.

On December 1, 2009, delegates will gather in Copenhagen, Denmark, for the 15^th Conference of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol. It will be a meeting of extraordinary importance for the future of every person on the planet – and of millions yet unborn. At stake is whether an agreement can be reached that will effectively reduce emissions of greenhouse gases enough to keep the world’s climate change within tolerable limits.

The science is clear. Now it is time for the politics, and for an unprecedented effort to secure the cooperation of all nations – rich and poor, developing and developed – in a just and effective deal. The road to Copenhagen was laid out last year in the “Bali road map”, and the effort is well underway. (In June more than 2,000 delegates met in Bonn, Germany, in one of a series of preparatory meetings, working on the future agenda and identifying the key issues.) But the timetable is tight – and the outcome is uncertain. chinadialogue will be following the process closely, explaining issues, introducing the players, tracking the process and exploring the alternatives on the road to Copenhagen.

The central challenge is to formulate a new agreement to take over from the Kyoto treaty when it expires in 2012. Under that treaty, developed countries set targets for emissions reductions and mechanisms to help them get there. The question for the next treaty is what role the rapidly developing countries – in particular, China, India, Brazil and Russia – will play in the efforts to limit and eventually to reduce emissions.

Under Kyoto, the burden of emissions reductions fell on developed countries in recognition of their historic responsibility for current levels of greenhouse gases, their greater resources and the needs of developing countries to grow. Now, however, it is clear that even with extraordinary efforts on the part of developed countries, it will not be possible to reach a safe level of emissions if developing countries do not also take action.

What action should and can they take? What mechanisms can be found to allow developing countries to grow without future climate change destroying their future, along with that of developed countries? How can these challenges be met in a fair and equitable way? How can those affected by the climate change that is already underway be helped to adapt to our changing world?

Fundamental to these discussions is the question, as yet not agreed, of what is a “safe” level of concentration of greenhouse gases – the stabilisation target against which all efforts to reduce emissions must be measured. How accurately can we link the concentration levels with scientific predictions of future temperature rise? And how can we allow for the unknown impacts of feedback loops that might be triggered by a changing climate? Can public support be secured for the changes we are all going to have to make for the sake of our – and our children’s future? What can we, as individuals, do?

To reach an effective agreement in Copenhagen will demand an unprecedented effort – and many fear that the chances of success are not high. There are reasons for pessimism: the negotiations are taking place against a background of global economic uncertainty and steep rises in energy and food prices that have sparked protest around the world. The United States, by far the largest per capita emitter of greenhouse gases, is in the middle of a presidential election, the outcome of which will determine how and to what degree it participates in the global effort. The attitude of the US will, in turn, influence that of China, India and other developing nations.

If the process fails in Copenhagen, it will affect everybody’s future. But even if it succeeds, it may not be enough. What mechanisms exist and what other efforts can be made, outside the diplomatic process, to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions? There are other players, not directly represented in the talks, whose behaviour will have an important impact. Business and industry are among the biggest sectors that can take action: some global corporations have carbon footprints as large as several countries and they will be judged by how they take on that responsibility, what action they take and what action they generate in their supply chains.

Last month, for the second year running, it was reported that China led the world in emissions of greenhouse gases by volume. Along with the US, China holds the key to the success of humanity’s efforts to prevent catastrophic climate change. It is a heavy responsibility and the stakes could not be higher. The consequences of failure will affect everybody. Conversely, the prize for success could be a secure prosperity, a sustainable model of development and cleaner, safer future for all. Over the next 17 months, chinadialogue will be travelling the road from Bali to Copenhagen. We invite you to join us on the journey, to explore the issues and to meet the players who will determine the outcome.

Isabel Hilton is editor of chinadialogue

No more time for sound bites

Isabel Hilton — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:32:00 +0000

Emerging economies were disappointed by the lack of progress on climate change at the G8 summit, says South Africa’s environment minister. Marthinus van Schalkwyk speaks frankly to Isabel Hilton.

With just 15 months to go until crucial UN-led climate-change talks in Copenhagen, Denmark, developed countries must recognise new political realities. They cannot continue to set the agenda unilaterally, according to South Africa’s environment minister, Marthinus van Schalkwyk. Speaking in London earlier this month – following the Group of Eight summit in Hokkaido, northern Japan – van Schalkwyk said he was still hopeful of an agreement in Copenhagen in December 2009, but that developing countries would insist on defending their national interests.

“You will not see developed countries issuing a statement, as they did at the G8 meeting in Heiligendamm last year, and assuming that that is what the world will do. Developing countries, more and more, will decide for themselves what their national interest is, and will reserve the right to express it,” said the minister.

“The issue is simple,” he continued. “The carbon space is finite and 70% of it has been used up, mainly by the developed world. Our message is that for that remaining 30% we need to find a balance between the development space and the ecological space. We demand our fair share of that remaining 30% and we demand that it be properly managed.”

Developing countries are not insisting that developed countries take the entire burden of mitigation. “We are offering a substantial, verifiable deviation from business-as-usual,” van Schalkwyk explained. “But we want 90% cuts from the developed nations by 2050, with a verifiable mid-term target.”

Van Schalkwyk dismissed the proposals put forward by the G8 leaders in Hokkaido, for 50% reductions in emissions by 2050, as a “slogan” that represented the view of the lowest common denominator in the G8 – that of the United States, a view with which many G8 partners, he said, were known to disagree.

The G8 offer, he said, was too vague. “They couldn’t even tell us what it meant. We asked them and they couldn’t give us an answer. We regard it as no more than a sound bite, because they are not willing to commit themselves to any base year, and – to put it in simple language – you must have a base year before you can calculate anything,” he said.

It was clear, according to the minister, that the G8’s lack of commitment to a year from which to calculate the 50% reduction was due to the resistance of the US to using 1990 as a base year. “If we look at 1990 until now, US emissions have risen 27%,” he said. “If we are talking about 2020, we are looking at a 60% growth in emissions by the US. It’s massive. And they obviously want an agreement in which they want to do less later, not only in comparison with us – the developing countries – but also in comparison to other developed countries. We definitely think it’s unfair, and it ought to be viewed as unfair by other developed countries.

“It’s non-negotiable from our side, as we said in Bali [at UN-led climate-talks in December 2007], that there must be comparability of effort between all developed countries. That is where we believe pressure must be put on the US not to have an escape clause or a special dispensation. It must be comparable to other developed countries.”

In contrast, the Hokkaido proposal from the G5 – the five leading emerging economies: India, China, Mexico, Brazil and South Africa – represented a united view that offered long-term commitments with verifiable targets on a base year of 1990. Developing countries, he said, were working on their own climate plans: the minister was due to present South Africa’s long-term scenario and planning to cabinet, with a view to a regulatory, fiscal and legislative package that would be clear in its obligations.

In South Africa, where 92% of energy generation is currently from coal, the government is willing to push nuclear power up to 27% of the mix. China has published its climate-change plan, with an impressive commitment to 20% of the energy mix in renewables, excluding nuclear, by 2020. Brazil has tabled a climate-change bill, the first such legislation in any developing country and India also recently published a national plan. “All of us,” the minister stressed, “are doing work in this regard and, even if binding targets are not required from us, we know that we must do more – and we are willing to do more.”

The position of the US, however, and the effect of the country’s resistance on other developed countries, remained a major obstacle to progress. “I think the actions of this presidency on climate change will go down as a historic failure of leadership,” he said. Acknowledging that participation in the Major Economies Meetings – the Bush administration’s initiative to discuss a new climate framework – has been “useful”, the minister nevertheless expressed disappointment with the US failure of leadership and stressed that he no longer had any hopes of progress under George W Bush. “It’s very disappointing that after the US promised to take leadership a year ago, it just didn’t happen,” van Schalkwyk said. Other countries were not prepared to participate in a process in which they were not full partners and the US had failed to bring its particular expertise – in new technologies and the finance of new technologies – to the table.

The ambiguous position of the US is negatively affecting the preparations for the Copenhagen meeting, with a lame-duck presidency unwilling to participate constructively in the fast moving international preparatory effort. There is unlikely to be a new mandate on climate change from the next US president until March 2009, only nine months before the negotiations begin; but with the clock ticking, the rest of the world cannot wait. Van Schalkwyk said other leadership was needed.

“Last year,” he said, “the European Union made a very important unilateral commitment to mandatory 20% reductions in emissions by 2020, and 30% reductions if other nations made the same commitment. That’s important progress in our view, if developed countries begin to take that kind of stance. We have long argued that the EU has underestimated its ability to move this process forward, and we hope that the European Union will take more leadership.”

He was, still hopeful of an agreement in Copenhagen, he said, though he acknowledged that major problems remained: the financing of mitigation and adaptation remained confused and uncertain, with too many competing initiatives, each with separate bureaucracies and insufficient funds pledged. It was, he said, a core issue.

“In South Africa,” he explained, “generating one kilowatt-hour of electricity costs 13 cents (US$0.02). Solar power costs 46 cents per kilowatt-hour, and wind 57 cents. Funding that gap is the challenge.”

On the other hand, persuading taxpayers in developed countries to sanction large financial transfers to developing countries could be difficult, he acknowledged, and would require rigorous international verification to ensure that the money was well spent and achieving the promised results. Many observers believe that the question of how much verification countries such as China will accept might prove to be a sticking point in the later stages of negotiation.

Van Schalkwyk remained hopeful that a deal could be struck in Copenhagen. “World opinion is very strong,” he said. “Everyone needs two years to ratify any agreement and we need to have something in place when Kyoto expires in 2012.” December 2009, he said, might be a very long month.

Isabel Hilton is editor of chinadialogue