The US has been branded “the dirty boy” of the summit. How does it respond? Drew Forrest spoke to Jim Connaughton, director of the committee on environmental quality in the White House and a member of the US summit delegation
Are you worried by the United States isolation at the World Summit and criticism of its stance, even by its allies?
It doesn’t worry me. The actress Katherine Hepburn said she only worried about criticism if it was true. We actively engaged South Africa and the United Nations in setting a positive and forward-looking agenda of action. We worked effectively, not just with our traditional partners — Japan, Australia, the United Kingdom — but had considerable consensus and cooperative work with members of the G77 and Europe. The focus has been on a handful of areas of difficulty, while the enormous amount of consensus has been overlooked.
Why was the US so resistant to social and environmental targets?
We strongly support targets and timetables — if they are associated with concrete action plans backed by the resources to deliver. We want to advance this approach internationally, so that we do not raise false hopes.
You have balked at Jacques Chirac’s proposal of a World Environment Organisation. Why?
The consensus at the Monterrey conference was that we need shared action between developed and developing countries, so that the latter can define their own paths to sustainable development. A new international bureaucracy will take so much time to set up and manage, while the world waits for real action.
The lack of a clear programme on renewable energy is seen as the summit’s key failure. Your comment?
It’s a real mistake to describe the consensus we reached as a failure — for the first time, the developing world’s energy needs were recognised. The problem is that alternative technology is very expensive for the developing world. We’ve committed $7-billion to a research programme.
Some countries are telling others what their energy mix should be. Africa — where some states have renewable sources and others don’t — is a classic case for the need to look at local circumstances.
China and Russia plan to endorse the Kyoto Protocol, leaving the US further out on a limb…
Kyoto would cost the US up to five million jobs without real benefits in terms of climate change. Many other countries without targets are not involved. We are engaged in an extensive multilateral effort to improve our understanding of climate change and develop new technologies, and bilaterally to reduce emissions through technology transfer and technical assistance.
Hasn’t your real goal at the summit been to shield US business?
Our fundamental interest is to protect the hard-working people of America, and to ensure a growing economy that can afford actions on, for example, climate change.
Why have you resisted demands on corporate environmental responsibility?
We strongly support corporate stewardship. The past 10 years have seen a sea change in corporate attitudes — environmental aspects are now incorporated into day-to-day business planning and decision-making. We need to do more.
But we respect national and local circumstances. The “one-size-fits-all” approach does not reflect this, and there are limited areas where uniform international standards are needed.
It has been said that most of the US aid announced at the summit was money already pledged…
We came to the conference to explain planning that had already started, as well as to introduce new ideas and partnerships.
Can you clarify your stand on farm subsidies, seen as a key trade barrier by the Third World?
We have proposed a discussion in the World Trade Organisation this summer to reduce subsidies. We think that is the right forum. Also, we are taking significant action to make farmers and ranchers in the developing world more internationally competitive, including implementing our Africa growth and opportunity law, which removes tariffs on African imports to the US.
Do you agree that the trade and finance agenda swamped the environmental agenda at the summit?
A hallmark of the summit was the integration of environmental, economic and social considerations. That was the aspiration at Rio 10 years ago — these three pillars as the foundation of sustainable development. This conference fulfilled that vision.