Global Pact for the Environment or Government of Earth?
November 18, 2024
by William P. Meyers

Site Search

Popular pages:

Good intent is not enough

The globe is clearly, objectively, in a slow-motion apocalypse, an environmental meltdown that has already killed millions of human beings, caused thousands of species to go extinct, and caused unprecedented heat waves, droughts, floods, and famines.

For decades a variety of human groups have fought to protect the environment from the consequences of human overpopulation and activity. One such attempt has been the attempt to create the Global Pact for the Environment.

I thinks even more drastic measures must be taken. The key is to establish a global Environmental Protection Agency (EPA of Earth) tasked with, and having the power to, greatly reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. In addition it would have the typical powers of national environmental agencies, like protecting natural areas and limiting human harm to agriculture, water systems, and the earth in general.

To be able to enforce the strict laws necessary, in every nation of the world, we would need a Government of Earth, with every nation delegating its powers to protect the environment to the EPA of Earth.

In establishing this EPA and government of earth we can learn lessons from the failure (so far) to make an effective Global Pact for the Environment. The most important fact is that the pact has not become law. It was first proposed in 2017. After a long process a policy declaration was made by the U.N. Environmental Assembly in 2022, but it has no legal force. At best nations can voluntarily comply. Most do not. While the intent of those who worked to make the Pact a reality was good, in effect it ended up becoming another example of greenwashing.

It is nice that the U.N. also adopted a "resolution recognizing the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment as a human right for all." That was in July 2022. But like resolutions in the U.S. Congress, it doesn't mean you can close down a drilling operation or make it illegal to buy gasoline powered cars.

Looking in detail at the Draft Global Pact for the Environment, most of it is nice green words. One sentence stands out: "The necessary measures shall be taken to prevent environmental harm." Taken by whom? Do I have power to turn off an oil pipeline, stop the gasoline vehicles on my local interstate, arrest the heads of corporations that contribute to global warming? I think we can guess that the U.S. government does not see it that way. Another nice thought: "Parties shall ensure that prevention, mitigation and remediation costs for pollution, and other environmental disruptions and degradation are, to the greatest possible extent, borne by their originator." Great! Which court do I sue the bastards in? Oh, right, just more wishful thinking greenwashing.

Looking in detail at the Pact's history in the U.N., it is notable who voted against the earlier resolution that allowed for negotiations to enact the Pact. 142 nations voted Yes. The Five nations that voted No were the United States, Russia, Syria, Turkey, and Philippines. Another 7 abstained: Saudi Arabia, Belarus, Iran, Malaysia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, and Tajikistan. The U.S, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Iran are all major fossil-fuel producing nations.

Now I doubt the many people who spent years of their lives getting bits of the Draft accepted by the U.N. wanted it to be a spineless piece of paper. I am sure they are still working on making these principles a reality. But how can they become a reality without a Government of Earth and a muscular, active, EPA of Earth, backed by, if necessary, economic sanctions and even military force?

I have already written about how the United Nations could be transformed into a Government of Earth. See Paths to a Provisional Government of Earth and Considering Antonio Guterres.

If environmentalists could seize (through elections or otherwise) power in the United States, this nation may be powerful enough to pressure any reluctant nation into joining a government of earth and allowing an EPA of Earth to enforce rigorous environmental laws. Other nations that might take the lead are the EU and India. But more than likely a set of nations less invested in fossil fuels would take the lead. They would work with groups in the more resistant nations to help those groups push their governments to join and accept the global EPA. It will be a hard road, but at least in the end we will have a real mechanism for global action. It is also possible that (using the U.S. for example) defeating the fossil fuel industry in a nation will effectively accomplish some of the goals of the international environmental movement.

In short, the international environmental movement must start thinking of itself, at the very least, as a party pursuing genuine political power. More than likely, in some nations, it should start thinking of itself as a provisional government, part of the Provisional Government of Earth. And, realistically, as much as environmentalists tend to abhor violence, it may be necessary to become an army, an Army of the Provisional Government of Earth. Or perhaps an unofficial EPA that enforces, as best it can, the anticipated laws that need to be established by the Government of Earth and its global EPA.

In other words, we may prefer to do this the easy way, but we may need to do it the hard way.