Social, climate and political challenges require new governance – 04/19/2023 – Jorge Abrahão

The combination of reality and science leaves no doubt as to the impact generated by the current development model, with unsustainable production and consumption patterns: global warming, pandemic, social inequality, poverty, hunger and risks to democracy are more than evident signs the challenges of the current model.

The window of time for us to move forward with changes is getting shorter and shorter, and the first half of the UN’s 2030 Agenda is over, over. Even so, it is still possible to move towards a sustainable development model, but a courageous inflection will be needed in the script adopted so far, which is clearly insufficient: from now on, it cannot be more of the same.

We are aware of what needs to be done in order not to warm the planet by 2 degrees Celsius by the end of the century, eradicate poverty and hunger by 2030 and reduce inequalities between countries and within them. There are resources and technology available for the necessary advances. The most important transformation at this moment, therefore, concerns values: more assertive and incisive, less conciliatory actions are needed, assuming that the common good and the collective interest are above the individual and the private.

There is no more time for reconciliations with sectorial and unilateral interests. There are no territories, streets, neighborhoods, cities, states, countries, regions that are more important than the whole, the planet. There are no economic sectors —agro, energy, construction, mining— that are more important than the collective. There are no specific political interests that supplant the common. There must not be! And, therefore, there are no more excuses for not fulfilling the commitments assumed in the Paris Agreement and in the 2030 Agenda.

Recognizing that the pandemic and the war hindered the evolution of the 2030 Agenda, we cannot use them as an alibi to justify our inability to advance at speed and scale in issues that structure society, because even before them, performance did not meet the established goals. In the period from 2015 to 2022, emissions increased, poverty and inequalities grew, and democracy was constantly at risk.

We know how to reduce emissions, inequalities and poverty, but the actions go against the interests of economically and politically powerful sectors.

We are creative, it is undeniable. The private sector is innovative. But the animal instinct that many claim to be the engine of private initiative is the same one that is capable of destroying us. It therefore lacks limits. The lack of military limits puts us at risk and leads to wars. The lack of limits to the financial system leads us to crises that drain public money and collectively impoverish us. The lack of limits on greenhouse gas emissions puts us at risk as a species. The lack of technological limits makes social networks and now artificial intelligence put democracy and jobs at risk. The lack of collective solidarity places us at a level of inequality that generates violence and exclusion.

It is necessary to think of a new pattern of political organization. In the transition from the feudal regime, we created the states, which advanced towards a collective vision. When states were created, a few centuries ago, they responded to the need to defend collective interests, limited to their borders. Today the problems are different and the states are no longer able to cope with the global challenges, concerned that they are in solving internal problems, restricted to their territorial limits. The time has come for global governance to gain strength. It is no longer possible for individuals, groups or countries to impose their views on collective interests.

The commitments assumed by the countries in the global agreements must be binding, because the assumed intentions alone are not enough to face the challenges we have. It is necessary to create a new pact that is more assertive and binding. Voluntary national reports, in addition to a common standard, must be audited by an independent body. Countries must, obligatorily, fulfill their commitments.

The democratization of the UN Security Council is another key issue. The veto system used by the five permanent members —USA, China, France, United Kingdom and Russia— is hindering important global actions due to the individual interest of one of them. The mechanism urgently needs to be revised. A larger number of members is needed, without the veto mechanism, in a model that is designed to defend the collective global interests, and not to perpetuate the power of only five countries.

In addition, a change of funding pattern is required. Resources earmarked for funds that finance the transition must be compulsory. If we were able to mobilize them quickly in the recent financial crisis, why aren’t we for climate, hunger or poverty? We know where and with whom the resources are, it is a matter of political courage to mobilize them.

With regard to private initiative, global governance cannot allow powerful economic sectors, via lobbies, to infringe what was defined in global agreements. The necessary energy transition is above the interests of fossil energy companies and those that depend on it, such as automobile companies. More monitoring and accountability for damage to the commons is needed.

The necessary change is cultural, ethical and focused. We have to recognize our inability to solve the problems in the current format. We are at risk and a change in approach is needed. Political courage is key in this moment of evaluating the path we have taken in the last seven years, the first half of the 2030 agenda. And without changes now, it will be difficult for us to achieve what could be our salvation.

PRESENT LINK: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release five free hits of any link per day. Just click the blue F below.