In spite of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, which was supposed to save Earth from further destruction, the planet seems to be in worse shape than ever.
Within weeks of the summit ending on September 4 with some fine-sounding political rhetoric, IUCN-The World Conservation Union released a report showing that at least 11 167 species of plants and animals face a high risk of extinction soon.
In early October, hi-tech geographic data used to map the ”human footprint” on Earth indicated that people are already using 83% of the land’s surface. The world’s food-growing capacity is close to its ceiling — 98% of the areas where it’s possible to grow rice, wheat or maize are already being used.
”Unprecedented escalations in both human population and consumption during the 20th century are resulting in entirely new environmental crises in the history of humankind and the world,” says the Wildlife Conservation Society, which compiled the ”human footprint”.
According to American naturalist EO Wilson, it would take four Earths to meet the consumption demands of the current human population, if all humans consumed at the rate of the average North American.
At the other end of the scale, the World Food Programme reported in late November that 38-million people in Africa are threatened with starvation in the next six months. Causes range from drought to political intransigence.
As the summit was ending, the United States — which had infuriated other delegates by obstructing many initiatives at the summit — announced its intention to go to war with Iraq. Not surprisingly, the final summit declarations made no reference to demilitarisation or transfer of resources from military to social budgets.
While the sabre-rattling has continued in the months since, worries about the direct destructiveness of a US-Iraq war have been compounded by concern about the destructive potential of war in a world where nearly 30 nations are believed to possess nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.
”Oil interests are playing a role in motivating US government calls for war and regime change in Iraq as this industry stands to reap huge profits if allowed access to Iraqi oil fields,” says Greenpeace’s Brian Fitzgerald.
”We are at a juncture in history. The US government can either choose to be the agent of big oil companies and the promoter of a wasteful, fossil fuel-dependent lifestyle. Or the US government could take global warming seriously, lessen the dependence on oil and build a safer future on clean energy.”
As if to drive the point home, the rickety oil tanker Prestige broke in two off the Spanish coast in November, spilling millions of gallons of crude oil into the Atlantic Ocean in the worst oil disaster in history.
Warnings about the relationship between fossil fuels and global warming were underscored in November when research in the United Kingdom showed this year will be the second hottest ever recorded. It is only marginally cooler than 1998, the year of the fiercest El Niño of the 20th century.
In the past century, the planet has warmed by 0,6 degrees C — most of that in the past decade. Temperatures will go on rising — by up to 4,5 degrees C, according to recent calculations — as the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continue to increase.
So what did the World Summit in Johannesburg achieve, if it has been followed by so much gloom and doom?
The summit set some important targets, to increase access to basic sanitation and safe water, to reduce chemical pollution, restore fish stocks and reduce the rate of loss of Earth’s biological diversity.
Perhaps more importantly, it increased general awareness of the battles people face to save the planet. As United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan said after the summit: ”We invited the leaders of the world to commit themselves to sustainable development, to protecting our planet, to maintaining the essential balance and to go back home and take action.
”The Johannesburg summit is a beginning. I am not saying Johannesburg is the end of it. It is a beginning.”