The principle that the polluter pays is admirable, but it seems to be impossible to implement at the level of the world environment. This must be the pessimistic conclusion drawn from the review conference in New York this week examining the Rio conference of five years ago. It was presented with stark warnings about deteriorating conditions. But it has produced no political declaration, only a limp summary of progress made in the interim period and has failed to agree on key policies about relations between the richest and most polluting part of the world and the poorer parts where the worst physical damage is being inflicted.
The week was marked by significant disagreements within the richer bloc of states about how fast carbon dioxide levels should be reduced and where the burden for this should fall. Leading European states, including the Germans and the British, believe they have a particular responsibility to give leadership on this question. But they failed to carry the United States with them, either at the Denver Summit of the Eight or during this week in New York.
President Clinton was unwilling to make the necessary commitments on reducing the gas responsible for global warming and climate change and has clearly been under sustained and powerful pressure from industrial and vested interests. Despite announcements this week on solar panels, soot pollution and measures to preserve the ozone layer, Mr Clinton and his Vice President, Mr Al Gore, cut sorry figures at this international forum after having made so much of the need to take determined action on the environment. This is a failure of leadership at a time when they had a good opportunity to take more daring initiatives.
Whatever way it is looked at, the richer parts of the world are responsible for most of its pollution. According to one calculation 20 per cent of the population causes 80 per cent of the damage to the environment. The issue must be tackled within the richer part of the world, either at domestic or regional levels, as well as at the worldwide level which was the focus of this review conference. It has to be said that pathetically little has been done in any of these spheres over the last five years. Whenever realistic measures such as carbon or other energy taxes are proposed, lobby and interest groups seem able to pre vent progress, or the usual weasel tactics emerge to argue that action cannot be taken at national level until it is matched by regional or worldwide authorities.
It would however, be a mistake to draw fatalistic conclusions from this pessimistic analysis. Consciousness of the need to take more radical action on the environment has been growing steadily, even dramatically, in line with deteriorating environmental conditions, especially among younger generations. The issue is seen more and more to require political attention at local, national, regional and international levels. Forthcoming conferences, notably the legally binding one in Kyoto next December on climate change, will concentrate political minds to a much greater extent. And the arguments about technology transfer and Third World aid that blocked agreement in New York will intensify. This week should not be seen in isolation from those continuing debates.