Emerging Countries

Thinking Out of the Box Emerging Countries

Change is No Trickle-Down Effect

You can focus on the climate and Kyoto, but here’s the problem: What about Stockholm? Next year is the 40th anniversary of Stockholm, which was before Kyoto and before Rio. 2012 is Rio plus 20, and it’s Kyoto plus 15... but it’s actually Stockholm plus 40. What’s my point? There has always been this hope that you would have a big meeting in Stockholm, Kyoto, Rio, and Montreal, and that you would change something, but that’s not how change happens. Change doesn’t happen by having a big meeting. It is Stockholm plus 40, and what has happened? The answer is almost nothing. It is because of the “Let’s meet at the top level” attitude—all of the world will watch key decision makers in countries who will decide everything and then the outcome will trickle down. Yet that’s not how change happens, change happens from the bottom or from the middle, maybe a little bit of top down, a little bit of sideways and a little bit of bottom up together, but the problem with the whole climate debate has been top down, and that’s a big mistake. The second concrete point is that you don’t have a global perception of the climate. You don’t have one perception of climate change, so how can you have one policy for it? Right now we are at the stage where companies are urged to "do no harm," that is, not to pollute the local environment when they are involved in the extraction of oil and gas or other minerals. This is proceeding through public pressure and protest, stronger national regulations, and international lawsuits.

Parag Khanna

Parag Khanna is a leading geo-strategist, world traveler, and author. He is a Senior Research Fellow at the New America Foundation, Senior Fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, and Director of the Hybrid Reality Institute. He is author of the international bestseller The Second World: Empires and Influence in the New Global Order and How to Run the World: Charting a Course to the Next Renaissance. At the same time, some companies in the Amazon rainforest are actually investing in schemes to replant trees, create eco-tourism parks, and other progressive steps. The key issue is that companies are being watched more and more so that they do not just publish "green" reports but actually do the best they can within their supply chains to improve their standards. In the coming years we need to see not only big, public, multinational companies adhering to environmental standards, but, much more, the spotlight on the state-owned enterprises from China, Malaysia and other countries. We must remember that Asia has become the primary consumer of global commodities, and rules there, are very different, and many companies are protected from international scrutiny by their governments. I don't think we will create the system first and then reduce harm. We will reduce harm in many ways and that will give rise to the new system. This means that companies will behave more sustainably, governments will act longer-term and regulate better, citizens will be wiser consumers, and the public will have more education and consciousness about the climate and environment. All of this happens in many ways, first and foremost at a national and local level, and only slowly at an international level. The "polluter pays" principle is nice in theory, but very difficult given the simple example of China. China has become a major emitter of greenhouse gasses, but much of its industry is owned by or serves multinational companies, so who should pay: the Chinese government or the American and European manufacturing companies operating there? Or should they share the costs? Or should the raw materials they use be taxed more? All of these are viable options.•