"Poverty, environmental degradation and despair are destroyers of people, of societies, of nations.
Funny how Colon-boy doesn't mention spreading democratic ideals.
Posted on 08/07/2002 9:27:49 AM PDT by cogitator
Sustainable Development Called Security Imperative
WASHINGTON, DC, August 6, 2002 (ENS) - Sustainable development is a security imperative, writes Secretary of State Colin Powell in a special publication of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
UNEP will publish a special edition of its magazine, "Our Planet," to coincide with the upcoming World Summit for Sustainable Development, containing articles on environmental issues by a variety of international leaders, including Powell.
In his article, Powell describes sustainable development as a "compelling moral and humanitarian issue" and says that delivering environmentally friendly development is vital for delivering a more stable world.
"Poverty, environmental degradation and despair are destroyers of people, of societies, of nations. This unholy trinity can destabilize countries, even entire regions," Powell writes.
"Despite the stories and images of trouble we read in our newspapers and view on our television screens, this is a time of great opportunities to expand peace, prosperity and freedom," he continues. "The spread of democracy and market economies, combined with breakthroughs in technology, permits us to dream of a day when, for the first time in history, most of humanity will be free of the ravages of tyranny and poverty."
In another article, UNEP executive director Klaus Toepfer argues that failure at the Summit cannot be contemplated, as the risks are too great.
"Unless a new course is chartered for planet Earth we risk a new 'Iron Curtain,' dividing not East and West, but the haves and the have nots - with all the ramifications of increased tensions, jealousies and hatreds between and within countries," Toepfer writes.
Other authors of articles for the magazine include Thabo Mbeki, President of South Africa, which is hosting the Summit from August 26 through September 4 in Johannesburg. Mbeki writes of the need to address the world's existing patterns of production and consumption.
"If the Chinese citizen is to consume the same quantity of crude oil as his or her United States counterpart, China would need over 80 million barrels of oil a day-slightly more than the 74 million barrels a day the world now produces," writes Mbeki.
Fernando Henrique Cardoso, the President of Brazil, writes that hosting the Earth Summit of 1992 has helped his country towards the path of sustainable development. He is convinced that such development is key to a healthy and wealthy society.
"It was gratifying to see the Kyoto Protocol recently receiving the approval of our National Congress in response to strong public demand," Cardoso notes.
Margaret Beckett, the United Kingdom's Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, writes that a global response is needed to fight a variety of ills, including climate change. And Goran Persson, Prime Minister of Sweden, argues that governments need the support of all sectors of society, including the private sector and civil society, to cope with environmental problems.
The special issue of "Our Planet" is expected to be published on August 12.
Stated more clearly, prosperity requires that individuals have liberty to act in their own interest, and honest courts to protect them as they do so.
It is not an accident that poor countries almost without exception have state controlled economies, normally run by an elite for the benefit of that elite.
You are exactly correct IMHO. These points are being glossed over by the very socalist governments (and their liberal media supporters) that do hold their own people down while attacking our free-market system as "not sustainable."
Poverty would disappear rapidly if socialist and/or repressive governments would get out of the way of their own people.
"Poverty, environmental degradation and despair are destroyers of people, of societies, of nations.
Funny how Colon-boy doesn't mention spreading democratic ideals.
You may have a poor opinion of Powell as evidence by the picture, but he did say this, in the next paragraph (I even Bolded the text of the statement).
I did read your bold. I should have bolded "spreading" to make my point. That's the solution as opposed to trying to solve the worlds environmental and economic problems.
What I was trying to say is that by having democratic ideals these problems tend to take care of themselves, as opposed to the world trying to solve the "problems" that come with a free-society as put forth in the China/Oil example.
I realize I don't make myself clear sometimes. Nevermind.
It is what enables the individual to do right in the face of complacency and cowardice. It is what enables the soldier to die alone, the political prisoner to resist, the singer to sing her song, hardly appreciated, on a side street. It is God's valuation and resplendent touch, His gift of strength to those who need it most, when they need it most.
I ask you to defend and protect what is great and good, to choose your battles, but to stand your ground. For little things cascade into big things, and even should the larger battle not go well, hold your position. Even if, in the end, you do not prevail -- though you must -- you will have done right, and the ghosts of those who came before you over many thousands of years, of those who fell unknown and unremembered while doing right, of those who upheld against all pressures and in the face of wounding opposition, will be justly honored, as you will be justly honored, by those who come after you.
Congratulations, and God bless.
Consumerism is definately a problem. I doubt seriously that any government will solve the problems listed in this article.
When individuals are given rights in air, land, and water, tort liability protects and balances those rights. When air, land, and water are considered "public" resources (i.e., owned by noone and everyone), waste and spoilage is the inevitable result.In a society which honors and protects rights in property, mutually antagonistic and/or cooperative exercise of those rights strikes a balance of (guess what?) "sustainable development."
Doubtless, people occupy space, consume resources, and generate pollution. Thus, one threat to "sustainable development" in the United States is the government's importation of large numbers of people (literally millions) and its coercion of non-discrimination and association towards immigrants by native property owners.
Do you think that slash-and-burn agricultural practices in rain forests constitute taking care of property the "correct" way?
Here's an example of what such practices look like near Rio Branco, Brazil, which is near the border with northeastern Bolivia.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.