The Evolution of Environment Policy

impacts, depletion or maintenance of resources, impacts on downstream rural communities as a result of water pollution)” (Koppenjan and Ensernik 2009).

Geczi (2007) asserts that the terms “sustainability” and “sustainable development” have a broad range of meanings, and that anyone conducting research in this area needs to specify their definition of the term. Based on Sachs’ definition, Geczi (2007) emphasizes that the issue of development is the prime cause of the problem of sustainability, because it causes disempowerment in the global South and increased alienation in the North. The present global order threats the very existence of the indigenous and rural population since “water sources dry up, fields are lost, animals vanish, forests dwindle, and harvests decrease, the very basis of rural people’s livelihood is undermined, pushing them onto the market, for which they have no sufficient purchasing power” (Sachs 1997, p. 79).

Environmental sustainability is a multidimensional construct, which has been conceptualized in several different ways (Gladwin et al. 1995). The World Economic Forum (Global Leaders 2001) has emphasized the quality of the environmental systems, the threat to the human population resulting from the degradation of the environment, and the social and political capacity to deal with the problems and global leadership (Global leaders 2001). Nelson (2016) emphasized the necessity of the ongoing rediscovery and perpetuation of public service, the public trust, and environmental and community stewardship in a democracy to serve as community.

the evolutIon of envIronment PolIcy The Earth Summit in 1992 at Rio de Janeiro endorsed sustainability as being the primary concern for development. It emphasized the necessity of equitable development and environmental needs of the present and future generations (Catron 1996). It requires the states to reduce and eliminate unsustainable patterns of production and promote appropriate demographic patterns (Grubb et al. 1993, pp. 87–89). In Rio de Janeiro, the Earth Summit agreed on a Framework for Climate Change.

In 1997, at Kyoto, the participating countries agreed on a protocol that would establish targets and a timetable for reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. However, this protocol did emphasize both cost-effectiveness and the importance of trade. In the Kyoto Protocol, the world’s richest countries agreed on legally binding targets to reduce the level of

greenhouse gas emissions. It did not, however, make any requirement for the developing countries, especially China and India, who are the world’s largest polluters. It faced fierce opposition in the US Senate, with the result that President Clinton did not send it to the Senate for ratification.

The 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), held in Johannesburg, called for the establishment of targets to tackle the loss of biodiversity. This confirmed the fact that sustainability decisions would have to be made in the context of the free market (Geczi 2007). This emphasis on trade issues caused no effective decisions on sustainability. In 2009, world leaders produced another pact to replace the Kyoto Protocol. This would have required India and China to commit to reductions in their emissions but they failed to receive unanimous consent. There was no agreement on enforcement, and it relied on voluntary enforcement. President Obama pledged to cut emissions by 28 percent from their 2005 levels. Similarly, Chinese President Xi Jinping announced that he would place limits on industrial emissions by requiring companies to pay for government-issued permits to pollute. He also promised to drop emissions by no later than 2030.

The agreement passed in Paris on December 12, 2015 by more than 190 nations to keep the increase in the average global temperatures below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue the limit on temperature increase to 1.5 degree Celsius above pre-industrial levels. The agreement is based on the scientific conclusions that the increase of temperature of more than 2 degrees Celsius would have devastating effects, causing floods and droughts, along with storms and food shortages. The countries need to cut greenhouse gas emissions soon, to achieve the goal. This agreement calls for recognizing the damage caused by the climate change, especially in poor and small island countries, although it does not call for any compensation. The agreement requires all countries to submit reports about the status on carbon emissions by 2020 and thereafter every five years. The agreement requires countries to monitor, verify, and report their greenhouse gas emissions. The Paris Summit also called for a “Capacity-Building Initiative for Transparency” to help the developing countries provide the sources of emissions and steps taken to meet the national goals. It calls for the allocation of $100 billion a year in climaterelated financing. The agreement calls for developed countries to cut make drastic cuts in emissions. It also calls on developing countries to enhance mitigation efforts. However, it did not set a numeric target recognizing the different responsibilities and capabilities of nations. Finally, the accord

calls for the absolute reductions in emissions by rich countries and the developing countries to improve on reducing the environmental problems. “The 2015 Paris Climate Agreement specifies climate change action expected from all countries, yet solid metrics to evaluate performance remain elusive” (EPI 2016, p. 17).

However, following the election of President Trump, the Paris Agreement currently faces serious obstacles. During the election campaign, Trump had described climate change as a “hoax” and also promised to withdraw from the agreement signed by President Obama. On March 28, 2017, President Trump signed an executive order to undo many of the policies adopted by Obama. In the G-7 Summit in May, 2017, both Germany and France expressed disappointment at President Trump’s refusal to endorse the Paris Climate Accord. The announcement on June 1, 2017 by President Trump of his intention to withdraw from the Paris Accord on the pretext of harming the US economy was a major setback for environmental sustainability. Immediately after the announcement of the withdrawal of the United States, the leaders of France, Germany, and Italy issued a joint statement that the Paris climate agreement is irreversible and could not be renegotiated. Some of the state governments within the United States have expressed dismay at Trump’s withdrawal and have promised to abide by the Paris Agreement. There may be a coalition of supporters in the world as well as in the United States against Trump’s policy of resisting the reduction of carbon emissions. On July 8, 2017 at a meeting of the G-20, all the countries with the exception of the United States declared that the Paris Accord is irreversible and decided to comply with the agreement. The countries adopted the G-20 Climate and Energy Action Plan for Growth rebuking the Trump Administration’s policy.

There is one positive development with regard to China, which was been criticized for so long for polluting the environment. Recently, China has promised to abide by the decisions taken at the Paris Summit. This is a positive development for environmental sustainability because China is the largest producer of greenhouse gases, which have been identified as one of the major causes of climate change. Despite the improvement in environment quality, “air and water pollution still pose a serious threat to the health of the people. The number of global deaths from air pollution has risen from 2.2 million in 2000 to 2.9 million in 2013. Indoor and outdoor air pollution killed at least 5.5 million people in 2013, while another 141.5 million individuals lost a portion of healthy years from their lives. In China, air pollution is now responsible for one out of every five