Writing in today's San Francisco Chronicle, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon puts out a call for an international "green New Deal" to tackle climate change, which he says poses an "existential threat to the planet."
Despite an epic economic downturn, Ban argues that no time should be lost:
Amid the pressures of the global financial crisis, some ask how we can afford to tackle climate change. The better question is: Can we afford not to?
More below.
In hard times like these, it may be difficult to convince people to take climate change seriously. (Though it wasn't so easy during 'good times' either, to my recollection). But Ban cleverly puts the old "environmentalism is a luxury we can't afford" argument to bed.
Put aside the familiar arguments - that the science is clear, that climate change represents an indisputable existential threat to the planet, and that every day we do not act the problem grows worse. Instead, let us make the case purely on bread-and-butter economics.
At a time when the global economy is sputtering, we need growth. At a time when unemployment in many nations is rising, we need new jobs. At a time when poverty threatens to overtake hundreds of millions of people, especially in the least developed world, we need the promise of prosperity. This possibility is at our fingertips.
He calls upon all nations, and specifically President-Elect Barack Obama, to support the U.N. Environmental Programme:
This new "Green Economy Initiative," backed by Germany, Norway and the European Commission, arises from the insight that the most pressing problems we face are interrelated. Rising energy and commodity prices helped create the global food crisis, which fed the financial crisis. This in turn reflects global economic and population growth, with resulting shortages of critical resources - fuel, food, clean air and water. The commingled problems of climate change, economic growth and the environment suggest their own solution. Only sustainable development - a global embrace of green growth - offers the world, rich nations as well as poor, an enduring prospect of long-term social well-being and prosperity.
Luckily for us this vision corresponds well to Obama's proposals so far. It may be a time of perfect synergy, when real technological, and perhaps more importantly, philosophical, change could occur. Ban's argument of economic self-interest as motivation for a green growth economy is probably a sensible pitch. It may seem a long way from Aldo Leopold's idea of a "land ethic," but it is definitely an important start. As Ban puts it,
Again, a solution to poverty is also a solution for climate change: green growth. For the world's poor, it is a key to sustainable development. For the wealthy, it is the way of the future.