|
|
 EDITORIAL: SUSTAINABLE
JARGON
"Noun: jargon. 1. A characteristic language of a particular
group (as among thieves)".
In Muscat,
Oman for the Conference on Built Environments for Sustainable
Tourism,
the Secretary General of the World Tourism Organisation Francesco
Frangialli said in his
opening statement that: "If governments abdicate their
responsibility for sustainable tourism development - destinations
will be nibbled away by special interests". Amazing. How
clear - whether one agrees or not - how refreshing and how different from the jargon
one tends to hear from other corners, about stakeholders, triple bottom lines,
corporate social responsibility, carbon emission schemes (and soon
scams) and other Kafkaesque/Orwellian inventions.
Jargon
unfortunately permeates every decision-making process in public and
private bureaucracy,
so as to keep outsiders, well, outside. Surnames, acronyms, names of cities, or
villages are added to reports, decisions and commissions, that suddenly
acquire a mystic status. The mantra-like repetition of jargon
sanctifies treaties, justifies decisions and processes and
excommunicates dissent.
Corporate social responsibility
for one, is all the rage these days but is
it more than a glorified version of "public relations"? Is
there really a shareholder (rhymes with stakeholder) who will put up
with losses just because a company is making efforts to beautify its
social image, and avoid paying taxes by seeking tax-deductible
opportunities and pseudo-philanthropy? Corporations can meet one basic
responsibility to society by employing people and capital efficiently,
legally and humanely, and turn a profit, that then can be taxed, and
redistributed by an accountable government to the weakest and underprivileged.
Consider venerated Sustainability: Everyone
refers to the "Brundtland Commission Report,
1987" as if it is the ten commandments. The Commission, selected
(not elected) by the UN back in 1983, and chaired by a northerner,
(Norway's first woman prime minister) Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland,
deliberated, as if it was talking about another planet dwelt by happy,
peaceful and equal creatures, that Sustainability is "meeting the
needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs". Aaaah, marvelous. Now is this more or
less cynical than Nietzsche's "what does not kill you makes you
stronger"? Where "you" is the poor South. Even worse,
Sustainability's definition is tautological = future generations will
be undermined, if we undermine them. It ignores regional and social
inequality, and technological progress. The Brundtland Commission's other
notable contribution, was its recommendation for the convening of an
international conference, which was indeed held in Rio, in 1992,
followed by the one in Johannesburg, both with magnificent results and
practical decisions that have really saved the planet and made all
people richer and happier...? Not really. The only outcome so far is the
toothless Kyoto Agreement, with the missing front teeth being the worlds
two largest polluters. While signatories can now pollute as much as
they like provided corporations can pay the extravagant sum of 7 Euros per ton of CO2.
While the financial sector can have a field day trading the otherwise
'unwanted' emissions. And corrupt officials can supplement their meager
salary by monitoring not always so passionately them emissions.
In this
current mess of a 21st century, isn't the real challenge how to
peacefully and rapidly improve the
livelihoods of the world's poor before they explode (see Bolivia), fed up with
polite societys discussions on how to sustain their misery and
quaintness, or how to sustainably
convene conferences and photo opportunities every 10 years, in the same "exotic"
places where thousands are dying of underdevelopment, AIDS and War? And isn't
Sustainability a surreal / Monty-Python approach in terms of solving
increasing environmental and social problems? And isn't jargon
and jargon-friendly arrangements like Kyoto a sustainable excuse for
inaction?
So I
propose the following revision to the Brundtland Report:
Sustainability
is meeting the needs of the current generation
so that there can be a future generation.
Antonis
B. Petropoulos
ECOCLUB Editor
|
ISSUE
HIGHLIGHTS
