There is a lot of talk about the American Clean Energy Security act of 2009 (ACES); I think it’s imperative to take the time to understand what is in the bill and what it promotes to do. I encourage you to do your own research on it, and compare alternates to the cap and trade model the bill highlights (more on this later) but to briefly summarize what I have read and talked to people about this bill suggests there have been mixed reactions to it. One thing people agree on is that the bill needs to be strengthened going forward. Now the concern surrounding this line of reasoning implicates delusional thinking. How can we strengthen a bill that has been repeatedly marked down to advance the interests of corporations and King Coal? For some groups the problems they see with the bill have led to their public withdrawal of support. These groups include Greenpeace USA, Public Citizen and Friends of the Earth. Members of SustainUS, and other committed youth need to decide if we can allow ourselves to support the bill in its current form.
Youth from around the world made a significant impact during CSD-17. We wrote and advocated for policy measures that would ensure safe and sustainable development in areas of drought and desertification, rural development, agricultural development and water management. As part of the Youth working group caucus we had a number of direct interactions with delegates. SustainUS members met members of the U.S. delegation a number of times. There was a full day Stakeholder Dialogue meeting and more than seventy side events took place during the conference! For more background on the topics discussed, check out this amazing resource. Outreach issues is the daily newsletter reporting at CSD 17.
On a personal note, it was great to meet all the youth from around the world and SustainUS members. It is refreshing to see the enthusiasm and dedication to live in a more just, equitable, and sustainable society for everyone. Unfortunately, finding that common ground -- recognizing that our fates are tied up, as Dr. King said, in a 'single garment of destiny' -- is not easy. And part of the problem, of course, lies in the imperfections of man -- our selfishness, our pride, our stubbornness, our acquisitiveness, our insecurities, our egos (see previous blog post on U.S. government stance on GMO's); all the cruelties large and small that those of us in the Christian tradition understand to be rooted in original sin. We too often seek advantage over others. We cling to outworn prejudice and fear those who are unfamiliar. Too many of us view life only through the lens of immediate self-interest and crass materialism; in which the world is necessarily a zero-sum game. The strong too often dominate the weak, and too many of those with wealth and with power find all manner of justification for their own privilege in the face of poverty and injustice. And so, for all our technology and scientific advances, we see here in this country and around the globe violence and want and strife that would seem sadly familiar to those in ancient times.
But now we have an incredible opportunity to make a lasting and transformative difference, and youth will lead the way. If you’re interested to get involved with SustainUS, check out the application to become part of the steering committee here.
I saw it on the back of an old mercury sedan about a year ago. The bumper sticker read, "At least the war on the environment is going well." Being a bit sarcastic myself, this seemed to sum up my sentiments exactly, well, at least in some dementedly amusing way. But what I learned last Tuesday made me question if this bumper sticker actually had more truth to it than I thought and was perhaps not so sarcastic afterall.
During a US Listening Session with Dr. John Matusak of the US State Dept. Office of Environmental Policy, we were told that Genetic Modification was an important "tool in the United States arsenal for promoting agriculture toward sustainable development." John's diction was quite revealing I thought. An arsenal? Do our sustainable development solutions have to derive from war mentality? Or better yet, do any solutions derive from war mentality? Why wouldn't "collection" have served the purpose?
It all started like this - throughout the plenary sessions the US has adamantly requested that all references of "sustainable agriculture" in the Negotiating Text be replaced with "agriculture for sustainable development." Believe it or not, these are the small grammatical differences that can have mammoth ramifications. When we asked Dr. Matusak to explain the reasoning behind this lingual position, his response was exactly as we expected. "Sustainable agriculture" limits the methods of agriculture that may not uphold to the principles of sustainability, a conditionality the US is not willing to accept because, quote, they "are not willing to give up any tools that can be used to address agricultural challenges." This position begs the question, "Do the means justify the ends?" Better yet, "Do the means undermine the ends?" In the case of GMOs, I would have to lean toward the latter.
Remember, this was Tuesday. Thank God, a woman showed up on Wednesday to take over the US State Department seat here at CSD. And not just any woman - Kathleen Merrigan, USDA Deputy Secretary. Merrigan is most widely known for her role in drafting the 1990 legislation that recognized organic farming while she was a staffer for Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt). She also served as Director of the Agriculture, Food and Environment Program at Tufts University.
Needless to say, on Wednesday Merrigan made a comment on the plenary floor that was a big sigh of relief for the thousands of organic advocates. The comment was simple - We are calling for a "revolution for organic agriculture." Wow, a "revolution"! Despite the once again militaristic connotation, this was a clear demand for the wide and far-reaching change that is necessary to replace such an entrenched biotech-monoculture-agri-biz system. She went further to explain that organic does not just mean the absence of chemicals, but rather includes a whole spectrum of research and low-impact practices. This was a huge a tremendous step forward, I thought.
Then there was seemingly sly step backward. I have to believe that Merrigan was under tremendous pressure to add this caveat, but she followed her comments by elaborating that the organic revolution could not necessarily be "without commercial inputs from the market." This was a little unsettling. Does that mean that if GMOs, backed a multi-billion dollar transnational corporations like Monsanto, can prove more "profitable" than organics in a global marketplace measured strictly by monetary gains, than they will prevail and be considered instrumental in "agriculture for sustainable development", or oven worse "sustainable agriculture."
Interesting, to say the least. It is Friday, the last day of negotiations. We are still far, far from agreeing on a text that includes time-bound priorities and action plans necessary to make this conference worth while. Let's hope and work for the best. More to come . . .
Lisa Curtis & that guy who lives in a van down by the river
/
Tuesday, 12 May 2009
We just finished meeting with the head of the CSD-17 StateDepartment Delegation John Matuszak as part of the U.S. Government ListeningSession. One of the questions we asked him pertained to the role of U.S. youthin the State Department Delegation. We know that there had previously been ayouth on the delegation but due to controversy that position had beeneliminated. John told us they would “review that recommendation.”
While the response was slightly disappointing, it provoked asense of reflection on what we feelour role to be. We’ve been thinking about the difference between a participantand an observer during these negotiations. To some extent we are participants;as one of the major groups and part of the Youth Caucus, we’ve been workingwith youth around the world to draft our principles and suggestions to thenegotiating text. And yet, sometimes it seems as though we are participating ina process that is not directly translatable to the issues that we care about.
Sit in the room of one of the major group sessions andyou’ll understand what we mean. The time and labor that goes into such nuancesas the difference between “recognizing that this calls for” and “calling for”seem to have little to do with the roughly 2 billion people that still live onless than a dollar a day. Can thewell fed members of the Roundtable on the Food Crisis truly comprehend the massstarvation occurring as they sit in the nicely sunlight UN café?
Diplomats are limited by the interests of their countries andtheir own bureaucratese. Youth are limited by our understanding of the processand ability to influence it. Many of the youth in CSD-17 are action-orientedbut we are not policy wonks. These factors create a myopic vision that fails tosee the interconnectedness of issues.
What happens inthe world affects all of us on many different levels. Perhaps when we combinethese different perspectives of bureaucratic expertise and passion for actionwe are able to get things done. In our meeting with the Chair of CSD-17, shetold us to never underestimate our collective youth power.
Diplomats, civil society and lobbying groups (such as youth)spend so much time engaging in a process that does little to address the needsand concerns of those who are most vulnerable in our society. CSD-17 produceswhat is referred to as “soft law” meaning that governments don’t have toimplement any of the things they write unless people like us hold themaccountable for it. Let’s make sure this process is not in vain.
These policies aren’t useful unless we find a way toimplement them. Read the text of CSD-17. If there is something you care about,write a letter. Remind your representatives what they agreed to do.
Or should I say underwear and being-square? Utterly confused? Let me recap.
Four years ago I had the tremendous privilege to serve as a SustainUS Agent of Change at the 13th session of the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD-13). This was a Policy year addressing issues of human settlements, sanitation, and water. Fresh out of college with a degree in "Global Sustainability," I obviously knew everything there was to know about sustainable development and these thematic issues - an attitude that lasted almost as long as my first plenary session. My first CSD was sobering to say the least.
What was intoxicating, however, was the deep inspiration and sense of community that came from meeting so many youth from around the world who shared many of my personal passions surrounding sustainability. My small group of SustainUS Change Agents and Delegation Leaders became so tight, that by the end of the conference we were all given matching boxers with a "SustainUS" logo on the butt. Admittedly, I thought it was a strange farewell gesture, a bit more intimate than exchanging business cards let's say, but the fact that I wear them now while typing this blog from CSD-17, is a testament to our groups prolonged solidarity. Or maybe it's just revealing my superstitious side. Or maybe it's TMI? Whatever it is, I raise a fist of love to that original SustainUS delegation at CSD-13, for being so supportive during my initiation to the UN process, and gifting my most resilient pair of boxers.
So now that the underwear thing is cleared up, what is this about being-sqaure? It has to do with a disappointment that we are still thinking in boxes, or that's what it seems like on the plenary floor anyway. Did you hear about the new alphabet acronym added to the soup that already has too many competing flavors? "DBASCSD" (Don't Be A Square CSD).
Clearly I'm not the only one frustrated with the lack of frank conversation and creativity within the walls of the UN. I would never dream of making such an audacious assumption. I would even admit to the inevitability of compromise, on issues I wouldn't intuitively compromise on, that comes from a process that aims to be so inclusive and democratic. There are a lot of stakeholders, with a lot of different issues, with a lot of different information, with a lot of different interest. What we don't have a lot of, I'm afraid to say, is time - something we don't have the luxury to compromise even if we tried.
So that's where I'm at here on my first day at CSD-17 - hugely excited to meet yet another inspirational group of youth, but quickly remembering how convoluted by sentiments are as far as knowing if this is the best way to make a difference. What is it exactly, that drives me to leave behind my local initiatives, even for only a couple of weeks, where I make concrete change day in and day out toward building a network of sustainable communities through farmers' markets, community gardens, educational workshops and film screenings, etc. etc? What is it that makes me put down the shovel, do a quick costume change, and hop on the bus to belabor language in a word document titled "Negotiating Text?"
Well, whatever it is, its strong, and I hope to articulate it by the end of the week. By then my underwear, I mean understanding, of the impetus to come back to CSD, in addition to connecting with incredible peers, should be clearer, I hope. Stay tuned.
Blog 
