General Discussion

xchrom

(108,903 posts) Wed Apr 18, 2012, 08:35 AM Apr 2012

Governments must stop short-term outlook, warns UN development head

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/apr/18/governments-short-term-development-head

Helen Clark warned that governments will be forced to act sustainably soon, whether they want to or not. Photograph: Reuters

A lack of political will has meant the sustainable development ambitions of the Rio Earth summit two decades ago have not made enough progress, the head of the UN's development programme has warned.

Speaking two months before Rio+20, the former New Zealand prime minister Helen Clark said sustainable development had not been made mainstream in policy because governments considered the short-term outcomes too politically risky.

But the urgency of the problem means people will have to act soon, she told an audience at a lecture at Cambridge university: "There is broad agreement that, without urgent action, the world will move beyond what scientists have termed its 'planetary boundaries'.

"Beyond that point, there is risk of irreversible and abrupt environmental change – to climate, biodiversity, the supply of freshwater, and more. Governments will be forced to act."

1 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Governments must stop short-term outlook, warns UN development head (Original Post) xchrom Apr 2012 OP

We really can't have everything on this planet The2ndWheel Apr 2012 #1

The2ndWheel

(7,947 posts)

1. We really can't have everything on this planet

Reply to xchrom (Original post)

Wed Apr 18, 2012, 09:20 AM

Apr 2012

To get, you have to give. The trick there is that what you want to get, and what you're willing to give up to get it, is different for different people.

""There is broad agreement that, without urgent action, the world will move beyond what scientists have termed its 'planetary boundaries'."

I always find that funny. The use of the word world in this context. World isn't the accurate word. Human activity would be a more accurate substitute.

"The future must be based on equity and justice, with people at its centre"

And this, I think, is why the word world is consistently used in that context. The world does not revolve around people. As long as we think that it does, and base our policies around that thought, then we'll keep getting the same results.

Reply to this discussion