Close to home - WWF-UK

Following the disappointing results of Rio+20, national changes must be made to slow the consequences of human actions, argues WWF-UK Chief Executive Officer David Nussbaum…

Back in 1961, to mark the foundation of WWF, a Daily Mirror front page featured a rhinoceros and her calf, with the dramatic headline 'Doomed…due to man's folly, greed and neglect'. Right from the start, WWF recognised the links between saving wild species and places and human behaviour. 51 years on, this is still a core focus. What people consume and how they live and behave need to be tackled if we are to protect our special places and save our precious species.

In the past half century, humanity's ecological footprint has vastly overshot the level at which the Earth can sustain human consumption of natural resources and absorb the pollution created. Alongside this, WWF has measured the populations of many species to provide an indicator of the health of the natural world, and many of these show sharp declines.

In being the first country in the world to adopt a Climate Change Act, the UK has a framework to guide the transition to a low-carbon economy.

Earlier this year, the most recent the Living Planet Reports, a biennial survey of the state of the planet, was published. The report shows a clear picture of a marked decline in the biodiversity that underpins humans flourishing on the one hand, and of increasing consumption on the other, demonstrating that high-income regions use five times the amount of natural resources than the lowest income countries. As well as living beyond our means, we are also distributing the proceeds of our unsustainable practices inequitably: the poorest countries and communities bear a disproportionate share of the negative effects of over-consumption through environmental degradation, pollution and the impacts of a changing climate.

In June this year, as CEO of WWF-UK, I was invited by Nick Clegg to attend the Rio+20 UN Conference on Sustainable Development with the UK delegation. Although the difficult international political context, exacerbated by the global economic and financial crises, meant that we were unlikely to see the high-ambition outcome from the original 'Earth Summit' in 1992, I saw Rio+20 as an opportunity.

The conference provided a chance to reflect on the commitments made 20 years ago and the challenge that the countries of the world had set themselves – to deliver on a global vision for sustainable development, which considers equally the three pillars of environmental, social and economic development.

However, as well as a chance for a political stocktake, Rio+20 was an opportunity for leaders to confirm their commitment to the vision of building a green economy at a time of much scrutiny of how the prevailing economic model has failed to deliver sustainability on any of the three pillars. If realised, such a vision has the potential for delivering the goal of a world with a future where both humans and nature can thrive. Although expectations of new commitments were modest, it was hoped that Rio+20 would add fresh political impetus and momentum towards building green, equitable economies.

Sadly, the outcome document fell short of even these low expectations. It lacked the sense of urgency and determination needed to step up to the challenges of building a sustainable future. The document may have been what was politically possible, but it manifestly failed to measure up to what is scientifically necessary.

However, the inability of Rio+20 to deliver what is needed does not mean attempts to achieve truly sustainable development can be dismissed as good intentions for realising an unattainable goal. Indeed, it was striking how, in the margins of the Rio conference, businesses and local (and indeed some national) governments were not only articulating how they intend to contribute to the green economy, but also making commitments to action to deliver it. The focus subsequently has to turn to national and regional governments, businesses, communities and individuals to build the future we want.

The government in the UK has some good ideas. In being the first country in the world to adopt a Climate Change Act, the UK has a framework to guide the transition to a low-carbon economy. The Green Investment Bank, meanwhile, could have the potential to create the conditions for nurturing more badly needed investment in green technologies. For householders, the Green Deal could deliver on the triple win of reducing carbon emissions, delivering new green jobs and reducing consumer bills. The establishment of the Natural Capital Committee – reporting to the Chancellor – also gives an impression of a country looking to value more than an over-simplified bottom line, while the Energy Market Reform has the laudable aim of promoting investment in renewable energy sources.

However, recalling the experience of Rio+20, I can only see what seems to be a catastrophic lack of nerve. This is not a normal international negotiation, where people ask for the moon and may only end up getting a small, man-made satellite, and in the end nobody minds very much. Unfortunately, the language of compromise simply does not wash here. The science tells us that we are running headlong over a cliff – routine negotiation simply won't cut it.

If we look at the scale of the challenge we face, I believe we should be doing more.

The draft Energy Bill is currently contorted by attempts to provide increasingly expensive nuclear power with huge taxpayer subsidies by another name, while also permitting a worrying amount of gas in the energy mix. Furthermore, the Green Deal is in danger of underperforming and the Green Investment Bank is in limbo – and is in effect a fund rather than a bank – until it can begin borrowing in 2015. It is also deeply concerning that some politicians seem to deliberately chip away at the foundation upon which the UK green economy will be built – the Climate Change Act. Sustainable development is about more than climate change and reducing carbon emissions, and the Climate Change Act will not, in itself, achieve any reductions in emissions. However, the jobs and prosperity than can come with the green economy will only be realised through steadfast political support to create the enabling conditions for businesses, investors and industry to transform our economy.

Just in case any in Westminster and Whitehall doubt that there is growth to be had in a shift to the green economy, recent research commissioned by Green Alliance on behalf of WWF, Christian Aid, Greenpeace and the RSPB suggests that is where the smart money is going – £14.5bn in private finance for low-carbon projects, compared to £1.2bn for high carbon projects.¹ Moreover, aside from the current troubles of the City of London, one-third of all global asset finance investment in new energy deals between 2007 and 2012 received financial advice from UK companies.²

So, if we need to build the scientifically necessary on the foundations of what was routine negotiation in Rio, we need to begin at home. This entails a commitment to the vision of delivering on the green economy, shared by a number of departments across Whitehall, and championed at the highest levels. I urge this government to meet the challenge.


¹ HM Treasury, 2011, Infrastructure Investment Pipeline Data
² Data from Bloomberg New Energy Finance, 2012


This article originally appeared on Publicservice.co.uk: Close to home