Earth Summit 2002 - Greenpeace

Who is to blame?
The role of the US, Australia and Canada in undermining the Rio agreements.

With preparation for the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) underway, the question of who to blame for the lack of implementation of the Rio agreements will increasingly be raised.

There is no doubt that that an unfortunate dynamic, led by the US, Canada and Australia, during the course of environmental negotiations before and since Rio has been a major contributor to the past decade of environmental failures. Not only have these three nations undermined the Kyoto Protocol on climate, but methodically undermined most other international environmental conventions, including the Basel Ban on exporting toxic waste to developing countries and the Biosafety Protocol on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in food and agriculture.

Yet, it is obvious that these three countries, individually and collectively, would have tremendous potential to take a leading role in solving global environmental problems. With their great capacity, resources and international position they could do much to help move the world along a path to truly sustainable development.

The US, Canada and Australia behave as if they live on a different planet, as if they can abandon the ship; an irresponsible stance, given that they too will eventually sink with the planetary ship if nothing is done to counteract current trends. It is wrong of the US, Canada and Australia, to believe that with their wealth, they will not be hit by the environmental crisis. With their resources, they can afford to monitor impending dangers and take more remedial measures than most other countries. But even they must realise that you can stick only a limited number of patches onto the hull of a sinking ship.

In the case of the US it appears that this country will not accept measures in environmental treaty negotiations which go beyond their own existing domestic legislation. In other words, the US will agree to environmental legislation only as long as it does not require changing existing legislation, policy or practice back home. This US position is particularly defeating, given that the unsustainable consumption patterns that dominate the US economy are at the heart of the global environmental crisis.