From the Earth System Science Partnership
International scientific community issues first “State of the Planet Declaration”
Scientists issued the first “State of the Planet” declaration at a major gathering of experts on global environmental and social issues in advance of the major UN Summit Rio+20 in June.
The declaration opens: “Research now demonstrates that the continued functioning of the Earth system as it has supported the well-being of human civilization in recent centuries is at risk.” It states that consensus is growing that we have driven the planet into a new epoch, the Anthropocene, where many planetary-scale processes are dominated by human activities. It concludes society must not delay taking urgent and large-scale action.
“This is a declaration to our globally interconnected society,” said Dr Lidia Brito, director of science policy, natural sciences, UNESCO, and conference co-chair.
“Time is the natural resource in shortest supply. We need to change course in some fundamental way this decade,” she added.
Over 3,000 experts in climate change, environmental geo-engineering, international governance, the future of the oceans and biodiversity, global trade, development, poverty alleviation, food security and more discussed the intricate connections between all the different systems and cycles governing our ocean, air, land and the human and animal life dependent on those environments.
Dr Mark Stafford Smith, Planet Under Pressure conference co-chair, said, “In the last decade we have become a highly interconnected society. We are beginning to realise this new state of humanity can be harnessed for rapid innovation.”
“But we need to provide more open access to knowledge, we need to move away from GDP as the only measure of progress, and we need a new way of working internationally that is fit for the 21st century,” he added. “This conference has provided new ideas and practical solutions for the way forward.”
The declaration concludes that, “a highly interconnected global society has the potential to innovate rapidly. The Planet Under Pressure conference has taken advantage of this potential to explore new pathways.”
But, say Brito and Stafford Smith, effective planetary stewardship also requires: “More ways of participation at all levels, stronger leadership in all sectors of society; greater connectivity between those generating new knowledge and the rest of society; and rethinking the roles of science, policy, industry and civil society.”
The conference presented new initiatives as recommendations for the Rio+20 Summit:
- Going beyond GDP by taking into account the value of natural capital when measuring progress.
- A new framework for developing a set of goals for global sustainability for all nations.
- Creating a UN Sustainable Development Council to integrate social, economic and environmental policy at the global level.
- Launching a new international research programme, Future Earth, that will focus on solutions.
- Initiating regular global sustainability analyses.
The conference also previewed the first Inclusive Wealth Report, developed by UN University’s International Human Dimensions Programme (UNU-IHDP) and the UN Environment Programme.
Based on a new economic indicator that measures natural, human and produced capital, the tool goes beyond GDP and can provide guidance for economic development towards sustainability.
Says Professor Anantha Duraiappah, Executive Director of UNU-IHDP: “Until the yardsticks which society uses to evaluate progress are changed to capture elements of long-term sustainability, the planet and its people will continue to suffer under the weight of short-term growth policies.”
The report, scheduled to be published at Rio+20, will describe the capital base of 20 nations: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Ecuador, France, Germany, India, Japan, Kenya, Nigeria, Norway, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, USA, United Kingdom and Venezuela.
Off the back of the declaration and recognizing the interconnectedness of the current challenges, the four major international research programmes under ICSU that direct global environmental change science (the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme; DIVERSITAS; the International Human Dimensions Programme; and the World Climate Research Programme) aim to rapidly reorganize to focus on global sustainability solutions.
Additionally, the programmes are proposing to develop platforms that facilitate cooperation with all sectors of society to develop a new strategy for creating and rapidly translating knowledge into action. “Such interactions should be designed to bring societal relevance and trust to science-policy interfaces, and more effectively inform decision-making to keep pace with rapid global change,” reads the declaration. This strategy will form part of “a new contract between science and society” and includes the launch of a new international research programme, Future Earth.
The Planet Under Pressure conference marked the beginning of this new shift in direction, according to the conference co-chairs.
Delegates in London were joined by almost 8,000 people online worldwide and reached more than a million people through social media in the first three conference days.
Dr Brito said, “We have a positive message: strong leadership from all sectors and harnessing the increased connectivity offers some hope that the risk of long-term environmental crises can be minimized.”
“This new connectivity is the beginning of how the scientific community needs to operate. We need a powerful network of innovation, North and South. This approach needs to be part of our DNA from now on,” she added.
In recorded remarks, UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon said today that “climate change, the financial crisis and food, water and energy insecurity threaten human wellbeing and civilization as we know it.”
“My High-level Panel on Global Sustainability has just recommended that I consider naming a chief scientific advisor or establishing a scientific board to advise me and other organs of the United Nations.
“I also intend to engage the scientific community on other projects, such as the Global Sustainable Development Outlook report,” he added, “I am also ready to work with the scientific community on the launch of a large-scale scientific initiative.”
UN Rio+20 Executive coordinator, Elizabeth Thompson, said, “politician or public servant, scientist or citizen, community or company, we are the shareholders of Earth Incorporated and have a joint responsibility to protect our common patrimony.”
“The scientific community can help us make sense of these complex and interconnected challenges.”
Conference delegates also heard how research advances in the previous decade have shown humanity’s impact on Earth’s life support system has become comparable to planetary scale geological processes such as ice ages. “Consensus is growing we have driven the planet into a new epoch, the Anthropocene, in which many Earth system processes are now dominated by human activities,” the declaration states.
This new force risks pushing parts of the Earth system – the sum of our planet’s interacting physical, chemical, and biological processes including life and society – past so-called tipping points.
Tipping points include the disappearance of summer sea ice in the Arctic, permafrost in Arctic regions releasing large quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and the drying out of the Amazon rainforest. If these tipping points are crossed they can increase the likelihood of going beyond other thresholds generating unacceptable and often irreversible environmental change on global and regional scales with serious consequences for human and all forms of life on the planet.
The declaration stated that existing international arrangements are failing to deal with long-term development challenges such as climate change and biodiversity loss in an interconnected way indicating that it would be a mistake to rely on single international agreements. Research indicated that comprehensive sustainability policies at local, sub-national, national, and regional levels should be encouraged to provide “essential safety nets should singular global policies fail.”
* The State of the Planet Declaration is by the Co-Chairs of the Planet Under Pressure conference, Dr Lidia Brito and Dr Mark Stafford Smith, supported by the conference Scientific Organizing Committee.
The statement in full is available online athttp://www.planetunderpressure2012.net/
The research discussed in the press releases, the conclusions drawn and the opinions offered are those of individual speakers or research teams at the Planet Under Pressure conference.
More information about Planet under Pressure Conference
The international science conference will be the biggest gathering of global environmental change specialists in advance of the United Nations Rio+20 Summit: 3,000 scientists, policymakers, industry and media representatives will meet to hear the latest research findings on the state of the planet and discuss concepts for planetary stewardship and societal and economic transformation towards global sustainability.
More information on the web: www.planetunderpressure2012.net/
This strategy will form part of “a new contract between science and society” and includes the launch of a new international research programme, Future Earth.
I’m a fan of the old contract between science and society. Scientists endeavour to discover the truth, and society pays them a living wage but otherwise leaves them alone, while benefiting from their discoveries.
I reserve my most scornful insult for people like this.
“Well-intentioned, but misguided.”
(Or, if you prefer, “Stark Staring Bonkers.”)
International governance? Getting past GDP? Lots of science there. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the communists haven’t had much to do. This is clearly a good outlet for all their pent up energy.
@Izen: I’m not buying what your trying to sell. I’ve been researching climate science for more than 2 years now, morning, noon and night and have extensive knowledge of the science as well as the underlying politics of today’s state of the climate science.
The real reason of what we are seeing coming out of this conference is revealed in the conclusion from William Briggs in this article here:
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=5440
I don’t want to give away his conclusion here. Go read it and discover it for yourself. It most likely describes your predicament 😉
Another bunch of unelected control freaks who think that they can tell the rest of us what to do because somehow they are better than us poor deluded fools.
Sorry not buying the spin, the lies, the panic or the guilt anymore….
Reads like the globalists are weighing their powder and counting their shot. The first battle for the scientific high ground nears. There will be joyous crowds recent of their simple lives and simple educations, joining, flags and pennants waving, cheering on their boys as the marching columns of reformers, lettered and degreed, march to the battle ground fresh from Cancun, Lisbon, Kyoto, Copenhagen, Durban. Sydney. There, energized with the power and might of the IPCC’s regressive agenda and deep pockets, among the daisies and snapdragons, the gutters that ring the killing fields will run green by their terrible smite.
Tomorrow there will be scaring the proles.
izen said, “Warning of the dangers worked quite well – eventually – for tobbacco, lead, asbestos acid rain, DDT, CFC’s, mercury…”
What’s really funny is that tobacco, mercury, and acid rain are the only scientifically supported scares here. Although it makes total sense not to spew lead into the environment from cars, the science of the problem turns out to be questionable, Mercury and acid rain were easily fixed and are fine now, despite the EPA;s new strangling regulations; the ocean remains the dominant, overbearing mercury source. Ozone and CFCs, junk science supported by patent incentives. DDT, no science, but a political agenda. AND of course, CO2 is plant food and has no down side.
Although it appears perfectly reasonable to conserve for future generations, it is also a complete unknown what the future generations will need. Thus, the evil Precautionary Principle says that we should minimize the use of everything forever to create “sustainability” which does not exist, ever. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and this is one very wide road being paved.
I think Anthony should send a donation commesurate with our confidence in their conclusions and objectives. $3.00 should do it.
* Launching a new international research programme, Future Earth, that will focus on solutions.
So the previous ones didn’t?
Izen and Fred, the sock-puppetry handbook suggests you not both use the word sneer.
Don’t you just love that natural capital stuff. Personally, when I am sitting in the cold and the dark I like to contemplate natural capital, thinking about the fish swimming unmolested in the sea, trees growing happily in the forest, and because it is cold and dark I don’t need to worry about the Cuisinart in the sky shredding brother and sister bird because the wind must not be blowing.
I also like to contemplate human natural capital, Children of the UN and the NGO, jetting around the world and doing their light worker best for all of us sitting back at home in the cold and dark.
No, Izenfred, it would be a mistake to sneer at you. If you sneer at someone it is easy to not take them seriously.
Tell them it’s a hedge bet. While we are 99.999999% sure they are full of B/S. It’s the 0.0000001% we are worried about!!!
izen says:
April 2, 2012 at 5:04 am
“ . . . , the fact remains that there ARE environmental problems that require policy responses. ”
True, but none of them require a one-world government or any organization with power over the world’s countries. We should and do help countries with their issues, but it is the thriving and development of each country’s economy that creates the wealth and resources to handle their environmental issues—the worst issues are all in undeveloped countries.
Radically reorganizing the world and pretending to redistribute wealth and resources to achieve these goals simply kills development. Countries on welfare will never have the will to fix their own problems as, if they do, they lose the welfare.
“It states that consensus is growing”. Gosh. It sounds like its now even more unanimous than it was before.
Okay, guys, let’s brainstorm here. We need some neutral way to measure worth, some virtual marker that takes into account the extraction and processing costs of the natural resources. But it also has to have a built-in method of compensating for things like the distance the stuff needs to be shipped and there might even need to be some way of accounting for political instability disrupting the supplies. Oh, and we can’t leave out the cost of labour: some areas simply have socio-economic conditions that require that workers be paid more for their labour, because of various factors like housing costs, food costs, transportation to & fro, & of course the UN’s local child hospitality worker fees (*wink wink*).
I propose that these virtual markers be required by law to be allowed for exchange for any good or service, & that we set up a secure service to store and transmit large quantities of these markers (for a nominal fee) for those workers who wish to move larger quantities of markers over longer periods for the exchange of larger or more valuable goods. We could even offer a system by which a worker who is reliable can temporarily hold or exchange more markers than he has stored (again, for a nominal fee), so that he could buy a shovel to help himself dig, or a stove to cook his food on.
Once we’ve developed a system for moving these markers, we can begin tracking them: since they’re exchangeable for all good & services in a given area, they’ll be a decent method of measuring the relative value of the goods & services that exist, & when new natural resources are discovered in an area, the movement of workers and goods to make use of those resources will suffice to bring everything into some form of crude balance.
I’m pretty sure when you consider the issues of fairness and economic justice, you’ll see that this virtual marker system far surpasses the ugly and racist system we now use.
Just another pointless meeting of bureaucrats, ‘climate scientists’ and superfluous hangers on, saying “We need more of us and we need more money”.
Reminds me of an old British sitcom in a clothing factory, symbolised by the comment: “Never mind the quality, feel the width.”
I tried telling everybody they are using the global warming threat as a pretext for global government but they all laughed at me saying I was a tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist.
…Elizabeth Thompson, said, “politician or public servant, scientist or citizen, community or company, we are the shareholders of Earth Incorporated and have a joint responsibility to protect our common patrimony.”
Is there something you can do about this erosion thingy that is reducing the mountains we love to look at and hike in. It also clogs up many of the rivers and lakes if left to itself and again we like to swim in the rivers and lakes. That erosion stuff also takes land from one place and puts in another via wind so could you stop that so we don’t lose or gain anything unfairly.
Thanks concerned shareholder,
The International ‘community’ couldn’t agree anything in 2009 in Copenhagen when public opinion was on their side and there was only “50 days left to save the world” (at least according to Gordon Brown). I doubt very much that such nebulous aspirations as “We need to change course in some fundamental way this decade” are going to cut it much now.
Andi, it’s just another North-South transfer mechanism. Nothing has changed.
For the announcement itself, all those words, and the sentences, every one, are pure drivel.
“Perhaps you have an alternative method for persuading people, and specifically political power, to respond to anthropogenic environmental danger.”
Izen, I have no interest whatever in persuading people about globo-maniacal delusions.
Ultimately, I would probably agree that we are going to end up with a layer of international “government”, ideally purely for sorting out differences of opinion between different countries peacefully. On the other hand, one thing made perfectly clear by the slime oozing from the UN in recent years is that under no circumstances must any of the New World Order crazies at the UN and elsewhere be allowed anywhere near any position of power or influence.
I declare unequivocally that the requirements of democracy and nationhood absolutely trump every “globalist” pronouncement these people make. The more of us declare that, the more obvious we can make it to these power-crazed subnormals that they will not be permitted to prevail. As a “baby boomer” I accept that I have had an uncharacteristically quiet life by historical standards; but there are things for which I will gladly risk what remains of that life however necessary. Stamping out, once and for all, the fascism my parents’ generation proved unable to crush is the most important of those things. These lunatics cannot be allowed to prevail, period.
Taking “natural capital” into account, and why stop there eh? Why not just make up figures as they go along like a river is worth 100 trillion and a forest 1000 trillion. In fact it is simply a scheme to creating a false and make believe world to justify their Luddite insanity. There is no price on anything unless someone wishes to buy it for whatever use, land is bought and sold and even the best uses changes that land in some way. The very worst and most dangerous fanatics are those that would pervert a fabricated cover of science to hide their real intentions.
In fact these people are nothing more than cultist fanatics, believers in the new Eden, a place where planetary stasis rules supreme where the natural forces of the real world do not intrude on their made up childish fantasy land, a pre industrial Luddite fantasy where people live in harmony with nature like chimps in the forest. Whack jobs like these have been a feature of the modern world for generations but now they have power and influence at the highest levels and lots of money. And they are no better than a cult like the moonies or the heavens gate cult or the scientologists, there is no doubt these people are off the charts mental.
I wonder how much of the “Final Statement” wasn’t already on disk ready for release before the “conference” opened. I’m betting <5%. Maybe <1%.
You tell ’em Lidia. We nee to be building coal, gas and nuclear now in the UK before the lights go out…
What was that?
What do you mean, “That wasn’t what she meant”?
DaveE.
Steve C said:
“Stamping out, once and for all, the fascism my parents’ generation proved unable to crush is the most important of those things. These lunatics cannot be allowed to prevail, period.”
I said on BH last week that when we finally win this thing, this period in history will be looked back on as as important as the rout of fascism or the breakdown of communism.
Ordinary non-interested people do think you’re a tin-foil hat wearing lunatic when you mention a power-grab by the left powered by a a shifty pseudoscientific pretext, but then most power-grabs pass the ordinary punter by until it’s too late. Did ordinary Germans in the 30s scoff at those warning what the Nazis were like? AH was a nice man. He liked painting.
It’s difficult NOT to lapse into Godwin’s Law when talking about this power-grab, because it’s almost identical.