Your Voice at the UN -- May 7, 2007

Many of you know that MBD is transforming its office building on 700 Kalamath street to a zero-waste building (we understand it’s the first office building in Denver to do so!) by purchasing sustainable and renewable products, composting, and recycling our waste. Although I am extremely proud of us for making this commitment and allocating the resources necessary to make it happen, it has at times felt like a very small thing.

However, today, I had an experience that made me realize that this seemingly small act is really what change is all about. Right outside the General Assembly doors, there is a smoky little café where all of the “real” negotiations between government delegates happen, called the Vienna Cafe. When I first arrived, it did strike me as ironic that we walked out of the session on air pollution right into its hazy cloud, but today it struck me after negotiations on climate change and industrial development that not even five feet from the conversation between all united nations in the world, food was being served in disposable, largely styrofoam containers. Wow, just think! Such a simple switch, soon to be a money saving switch as the market grows, and yet some barrier delays the switch even for an organization that meets about it!

Today’s Definition is:

Renewable (as distinct from sustainable): capable of being replaced by natural ecological cycles or sound management practices.

Note: this is often distinct from sustainable. Being renewable make a material or practice sustainable. For example, biofuels are made from agriculture and organic materials and are therefore a renewable source of energy, but they are not always sustainable because they can compete for resources needed for food and also product harmful greenhouse gas pollutants. For more information on biofuels specifically, visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuels.

Sustainability Stat of the Day: One of the recommendations proposed at this conference is the creation of a Sustainability Index that would bring the Gross National Product (GNP) up to speed with modern realities as the global measurement of progress. Such a sustainability index would account for social and environmental progress as well as economic progress. Though not exactly what’s being proposed, the country of Bhutan is the first to implement an alternative index--- called the Gross National Happiness Index. Read more about this fascinating index that accounts for environmentalism, cultural preservation, equitable distribution of wealth and responsive governance at http://www.sustainabilityincubator.com/newsletter.asp?action=retrievearticle&ssui=5.

As for an update on the conference proceedings... We have been waiting around, a lot, for countries to gather consensus amongst their coalitions and agree to all of their suggested changes to the text of the policy document.

The amazing thing about these negotiations, watching them from the sidelines as I do not represent a government, is that ultimately it is individual people – real people with personality quirks, human relationships, strengths and insecurities-- who decide that some meaning they fought for in the document can be conceded, or that they will stick to their proverbial guns and not let go. Government delegates do all of this in the moment, while bantering with one another, in real time. They don’t consult with their governments, or call the office back home, or verify that the point they are conceding can be given in the spirit of international collaboration. Policy is created and finalized, at the end, by individuals and human interaction in a very real sense…. I knew this, but still somehow it is not what I expected...

By this point, countries have suggested many different changes to the language in the document. All these suggested changes are projected onto the wall of the meeting room as negotiations proceed, and many are in conflict with one another.

How are new meanings added, deleted, and how are different country’s conflicting desires resolved? In very quiet voices, and with suggestions to change benign things such as the format, mixed in with drastic changes to the content. Although the process appears quite civil, it’s a very quiet game of diplomatic murder and resuscitation of the ideas and the document.

We shall see whose game is won by the end of the week. Will it be the small island nation, Tuvalu, whose delegate has so much as pleaded for countries to take this seriously because his island is disappearing beneath rising waters and his government is preparing to resettle their citizens? Read more about this at http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/rough/2005/12/tuvalu_that_sin_1.html. Or is it the OPEC nations who are forecasting dependence on fossil fuels for the foreseeable future (or at least until oil runs out)? My bias must be apparent, but the truth is that most players, and certainly all players with a vote, represent a “special” interest!