Time - Man of the Year/Time_Man_of_the_Year_Compact_Publishing_3YX-Disc-1_Compact_Publishing_1993.iso/moy/060892/0608640.000

Text File | 1992-09-22 | 6KB | 120 lines

                                                                                ESSAY, Page 98

Making Things Happen in Rio


Thomas E. Lovejoy

    [Thomas E. Lovejoy is assistant secretary for external
affairs at the Smithsonian Institution.]


    This planet -- once described by Lewis Thomas as "hanging
there in space and obviously alive" -- is showing disturbing
vital signs. The symptoms include accelerating deforestation and
loss of species, and growing atmospheric pollution by
greenhouse gases and the ozone-eating chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCS). The full list is familiar. The causes are rooted in our
growing numbers and the complexities of society's interaction
with the natural world upon which we depend.

    This week the largest international meeting in history,
let alone just on the subject of the environment, will convene
in Rio de Janeiro, replete with 100 heads of state and a cast
of tens of thousands. Some would assert that just having the
meeting represents progress, but there is every reason to wish
for and expect more. Fortunately, it is no longer possible that
it will be naught but an environmental Woodstock or an enormous
black hole for diplomatic talent and energy. With a last-minute
flurry of negotiation possible, it is as yet unclear how much
progress will be made with earth's daunting problems.

    The difficulty with the issues is not only their scale and
urgency but also the way in which all that is wrong or perceived
wrong with the world can in some way be linked with environment.
It is not surprising to see old issues such as North-South
inequities arise in new guises. Now the debates are about who
is responsible, who pays and how much, as well as access to
resources whether natural or intellectual. There is an urgent
need to move beyond finger pointing. The truth is that almost
no nation is environmentally innocent, and all countries --
whatever the extent of their responsibility -- have a vested
interest in solving the problems.

    No organism can exist without affecting its environment.
Lions dine on gazelles. A growing tree will shade out sun-loving
herbaceous plants. All organisms excrete wastes. So the question
facing the Earth Summit and humanity in general is not whether
to affect the environment or not, but in what ways.

    The need is not just for restraint but also for
creativity. There are opportunities for economic growth that
bear the environment in mind. There is money to be made in
efficient use of resources and in new technologies that make it
possible. This intriguing and encouraging message -- that
environmental sensitivity is an essential element of
competitiveness -- comes from the Business Council for
Sustainable Development, which includes CEOS of many prominent
corporations.

    An interesting piece of sustainable development is already
emerging unheralded from the intersection of biotechnology and
biological diversity. Pharmaceutical companies already reap huge
sales from this or that wild and wonderful molecule discovered
in the natural variety of plant and animal life. Natural or
genetically enhanced organisms aid with environmental cleanup.
A CFC-eating bacterium was recently found in sediments of the
Potomac River. A basic laboratory for biotechnology and
diagnostic medicine uses a heat-resistant enzyme derived from
a bacterium native to Yellowstone hot springs. Upward of nearly
$100 billion of annual economic activity is generated at this
intersection of biotechnology and biological diversity. The
potential is staggering, and it is easily sustainable because
it is usually not necessary to destroy the biological resource
to benefit from the particular desired molecule.

    Ironically, at the very moment that biotechnology is
opening the door on an era during which humanity can benefit
from biological diversity as never before, and when that
potential is an important segment of the sustainable development
that the world requires, various activities, particularly
habitat destruction, are elevating species extinctions to
something like 1,000 times the normal rate. The choice is
therefore not between economic activity and environmental
luxury, as some have viewed biological conservation, but rather
between maximum and diminished potential for economic return.
Joint ventures in tropical nations to which they bring their
genetic capital, and companies in industrialized nations bring
technological capital, would provide serious incentives to
protect biological diversity.

    The Earth Summit has been billed as the environmental
crossroads for humanity. Indeed, many are concerned that
environmental problems are so large that they soon may pass a
point where anything significant can be done. Of all problems
none is more irreversible than the extinction problem; every
time a species is lost unnecessarily, a 3.5 billion-year lineage
comes to a halt.

    It is hard to assess how much can actually be achieved at
Rio. But it is clear that there will be plenty to do afterward,
and it is not too soon to think about how new strategies might
be most effectively pursued. Certainly we cannot depend on
periodic mechanisms like the Earth Summit, which manage to be
both ponderous and convulsive at the same time. There is a need
for an interim continuing structure like the Security Council
within the United Nations. An alternative might be a voluntary
mechanism like the Group of Seven meetings, but one that
includes some of the major developing nations and would
therefore be more likely to produce recommendations acceptable
to the broader sweep of countries. Looking beyond Rio should not
get in the way of achieving as much as possible at the Earth
Summit, but a focus on the future is a critical piece of the
agenda.