Interview Transcript

Transcribed by Otter AI

Kimberly White

Hello and welcome back to Common Home Conversations for part II of our discussion with María Espinosa, President of the 73rd Session of the United Nations General Assembly and former Ecuadorian Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Izabella Teixeira, Co-Chair of the United Nations Environment Programme's International Resource Panel and former Minister for the Environment of Brazil. Thank you both so much for joining us again today!

Now, we were talking about intergenerational equity and climate justice. One other thing I'd like to go into just a little bit further, and you both touched on this a little bit, is you're both from countries that house the Amazon rainforest. What could this declaration mean for Indigenous communities?

María Espinosa

Yet again, Kimberly and Izabella, we both come from Amazonian countries, as you said. In the early stages of my career, I devoted so many years to working and living in the Amazon and working with Indigenous peoples myself. And what I can tell you is that they have incredibly sophisticated knowledge about how to manage tropical ecosystems that are so sensitive, so vulnerable. You see a lot of green and a powerful primary tropical rainforest, but you know, any minor disruption can really alter the very sophisticated life cycle of a tropical rainforest. Indigenous peoples have lived there for thousands of years, and they know how to take care of the Amazon. And I don't want to be an essentialist, but basically, I think that there is a lot to learn. The Amazon is at a crossroads right now if you look at the deforestation patterns, at the land use, dramatic changes in the Amazon, but also the living conditions of Indigenous peoples. It's extremely worrisome in terms of the rights in terms of access to basic services. 

Unfortunately, the Amazon, in our respective countries, continues to be our internal colonies. Look at Ecuador, but there are more cases like Ecuador. Ecuador's income mainly comes from oil exports. I would say practically every barrel of oil that Ecuador exports come from the Amazon. And that brings, depending on the oil prices, but let's say 50 to 60 percent of our revenue. And if you look at the living conditions of Indigenous peoples, and not only in Ecuador but in the Amazon, they are the poorest of the poor. This has been so evident, so obvious with the COVID-19 pandemic, in terms of access to health care, in terms of water and sanitation, in terms of food security. And I would say thank God that Indigenous peoples have their own organization mechanisms, their own solidarity networks, their own intellectual capacity to gather data to do their own assessments. There is a platform that was organized by COICA, which is the Confederation of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon, you know, really being self-sufficient because of the lack of concern, commitment, and responsibility from their respective governments. 

And with that said, I think that, of course, Indigenous peoples are key players in finding a new way to manage the Amazon. They are key players; their presence is a transboundary presence. They have families across borders. They understand the ecological dynamics of tropical rainforests. And they also have to be at the decision-making table. They have the voice, they have the knowledge, they have the experience, but they are also subjects of a tremendous profound rights deficit. You name it; I mentioned that in terms of food security, in terms of access to health, in terms of quality education. So there is a lot that our societies need to do. 

There is, very soon hopefully, a significant report produced by the Science Panel for the Amazon, which is hundreds of scientists, mostly from Amazonian countries, that have come together to produce this state of the art situation of the Amazon. I have the privilege to serve on their Advisory Committee. I share that also, Izabella, with Sebastião Salgado. We are both part of the Strategic Committee of the Science Panel for the Amazon. And we are working closely, very much looking forward to their report, and it is going to be, in my opinion, a game-changer. But I say that these are strong words, but we need to decolonize the Amazon, and the way to decolonize is to work closely with Indigenous peoples but also with Amazonian citizens in general. The situation of Amazonian urban settings and cities, for example, is one of the most challenging situations. 

Well, I can speak about the Amazon for hours and hours. It's obviously one of my passions, but your question about Indigenous peoples, their roles, and Indigenous peoples from the Amazon, they need to have, they are entitled to have a seat at the decision-making table. But beyond that, Indigenous peoples have made a tremendous contribution to the Paris Agreement in crafting climate-related agreements. They have a strong voice when dealing with agriculture and multilateral decisions etc. Well, to make it short, they are strong, articulate, intelligent, and much-needed voices in the global governance arrangements and in the decision-making processes not only at national but also at international levels.

Izabella Teixeira

Yes, I fully agree with you. I would like to add two or three comments because my first perspective is something that you mentioned as a critical issue. We need to decolonize Amazonia. And for this, it's not only the national interest with national perspectives; we need to know Amazonia or the Amazon region. My feeling is that the world also does not know or has different ways to approach Amazonia without necessarily understanding all the dimensions of the Amazon's regions. Indigenous people connect almost all of the dimensions of the Amazon region. This is something very important to pay attention to because, politically, I used to say that Amazon puts Brazil in the world, and today Amazon keeps Brazil out of the world. Because we need to have a common understanding not all about the importance to protect for climate security, for example- climate stability of Amazon protection- but we need to understand much better what the Amazon means. And you go into the international community, and you know this better than I, that when you go into our countries that are part of Amazon regions, we are seen as middle-income countries. But when you go into the Amazon region, you have low-income countries. This is a huge mistake for the international community when you go to address funds, for example. International funds- "No, I cannot support you because you are from Peru, from Brazil, middle-income countries, etc." It's not true. 

We need a new lens to approach Amazon regions, and in my perspective, I believe that you need to specialize in Amazon diplomacy to understand how to address common goods. This is very important to pay attention to politically and geopolitically because everyone's allowed to discuss Amazonia- even Brazilians- without necessarily knowing a lot about Amazonia. I'd like to mark this because you have your passion for Amazonia as I have my own. And but we cannot forget that in Brazil, 80 percent of people that live in Amazonia live in cities. I'm talking about 27 million people that live in the Brazilian Amazon. It's not one million people; it's 27 million people. So it's absolutely important to understand that that's why I mentioned so much about local needs. And Indigenous people are part of this because we also have a diversity that is so rich. The diversity of Indigenous people that you have in the Amazon region- you need to understand how to add...

Transcript:

Izabella Teixeira

We need to promote inclusive development but with nature. Homosapiens are part of nature, we cannot forget it. 

Maria Espinosa

To manage, wisely and responsibly, ecosystems and the earth system, we need to rethink sovereignty.

Izabella Teixeira 

There is no future for humankind if you're not able to address social inequality.

Maria Espinosa

the voices of civil society, of academia, of science, of young people, of Indigenous peoples, are more needed than ever. 

Izabella Teixeira

The challenge is not based on small-scale projects. The challenge that we’re facing now, the solution that we need requires a really ambitious project.

Maria Espinosa

Stockholm+49 and the Stockholm+50 is going to be an opportunity to rediscuss, to recommit, to rethink, because of the profound changes that our world has experienced in the last 50 years.

Transcript:
Our planet faces a myriad of catastrophic environmental challenges- climate change, widespread biodiversity loss, overexploitation of resources, air pollution, sea-level rise, extreme weather, desertification. The science is clear- the state of our global environment is deteriorating at an unprecedented rate. In one of the few times in history, the prospects of future generations are far worse than they were for previous ones. Young people are in the streets and in courts to protest the stealing of their hopes, dreams, and futures. Now more than ever, we need fundamental transformative changes across our legal, economic, social, political, and technological spheres. Rising to the challenges facing our global community can only happen by reaching an ambitious international agreement that recognizes the most vital common denominator – the system that supports life on Earth, of which we are all a part, that connects us all, and upon which we all depend. It has been nearly 50 years since the historic 1972 Stockholm Conference- Now, a global coalition is calling upon UNEP and all Member States to drive a paradigm shift that recognizes the common ground upon which we can build a safe and sustainable future for human civilization. The Civil Society 2022 Declaration could be the needed starting point for that paradigm shift. In Common Home Conversations Pathway to 2022, you will hear high-level political and public figures, academics, and influential activists discuss what should be the content of this crucial declaration. Common Home Conversations is the place to discuss the challenges posed by climate change and possible solutions and ensure that the Civil Society 2022 Declaration can be a true gamechanger to help create a stabilized Earth. Join us to be part of this important global conversation.

Interview Transcript

Transcribed by Otter AI

Kimberly White

Hello and welcome to Common Home Conversations. Today we're joined by María Espinosa, President of the 73rd Session of the United Nations General Assembly and former Ecuadorian Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Izabella Teixeira, Co-Chair of the United Nations Environment Programme's International Resource Panel and former Minister for the Environment of Brazil. Thank you both so much for joining us today!

Izabella Teixeira

Thank you for inviting us. 

María Espinosa

Thank you, Kimberly. We're delighted to be with you once again, and it's a privilege to be here in this conversation with Izabella Teixeira.

Kimberly White

Alright, leading up to Stockholm+50, civil society is organizing Stockholm+49, a global event focusing on building common ground and creating a common short declaration to spark a much-needed paradigm shift. In your opinion, what issues should be at the center of a meaningful declaration? Maria, let's start with you.

María Espinosa

Well, I think that it is extremely timely to come up with a renewed commitment to having a planet that sustains life and human societies after the landmark declaration at the Stockholm Conference 49 years ago. I think it is time for a recommitment, not only from governments but from society as a whole, to make sure that we respect nature, its life cycles, its very existence. On the other hand, I think that we need to think in the 21st century what it means 50 years ago, practically. The right to a healthy environment and to live in a healthy environment. The idea of the earth system being a common heritage and a global public good or a common good. And to also see what is the relationship between politics, nature, and the economy. I think that there is a need for a new commitment and a new pact between society and nature. So I think that this declaration cannot be more timely.

Kimberly White

Absolutely. Thank you, Maria. Now, Izabella, I'd like to pose the same question to you: What issues should be at the center of this meaningful declaration?

Izabella Teixeira

Oh, thank you very much, Kimberly. I think that Maria brings some critical issues, but I would like to add two or three things. We need to understand the right and the moral obligation to a healthy environment and what it means. Because we are coming into these new challenges, but unfortunately, not with the same conditions of development around the world. You have inequalities, not only the social ones- you also have environmental inequalities. We are looking forward to addressing the future with new footprints, but more than this. We're looking forward to understanding better how we go into the future to tell new stories based on the future, not based on the past. My feeling is that we need to understand what a healthy environment means for us, for humankind, considering the next years and what the challenges are that we need to tackle better. 

We need a new expression of humanism around the world and what shared responsibility means, not only rights but also obligations. That's why I think when Maria mentioned that not only the government should lead the commitment- they need the commitment, a new behavior, a new understanding, considering from the societies. When you discuss societies, not only the global society- we need to understand local needs. We need to better understand how you can manage local needs with global carbon, how you can address local needs to achieve global carbon benefits. We need to understand that the global impacts should not be seen as transboundary impacts. It is something really important. It's science. It's a good player to come together with us because transboundary impacts it's an understanding that you had in the last century, and it is very important to be addressed, but global impacts move beyond transboundary impacts. This means that we as a global society, with societies interconnected at the global level, we have a new responsibility, we need to understand what it means, we need to understand how our gaps of development should be solved, considering the future that we were looking for, to design or redesign, but we need to understand the right to choose. This is something very important because we need a choice. This is the power that individually and collectively, as a society, to have. 

We need to look for new alternatives for economic growth, not necessarily without limits. This is something very important to observe. You need to decouple the environmental impacts from economic growth. It's important. We need to better manage natural resources, and it's absolutely important. But we need to understand the limits of growth and economic growth and consider the challenge that the planet has opened today- like a Pandora box- say "Look, I cannot manage ten billion people on the planet without managing new conditions, a new way to approach economic growth and social development." So inequality is a critical issue.

In my perspective, I think that the declaration- not only the declaration but the process, the movement that global society is doing now- we need to look for a new enlightenment, we need to make sure that we can have a democracy and have a new relationship between humankind and nature. We need to move forward to understand that this is a big challenge for humankind, but also, if you want to change, we have the power to change, we as individuals and as a society. We need to put pressure not only on the states, but we need to put pressure on ourselves because we need to understand how we need to demand change. This is my perspective, considering the new declaration and the process that you put into practice now.

Kimberly White

This leads to my next question. International environmental law seems unable to bring about social-ecological change at the level and speed necessary to address the converging crises that we face. It has remained state-centered, beholding only to the state for the central source of its legitimacy and authority. Non-state stakeholders, NGOs, and civil society movements do not play any meaningful role in the negotiation, enforcement, or revision of multilateral environmental agreements, which still seem to be the mainstay of international environmental law. Maria, what should be the role of civil society in the design of this declaration?

María Espinosa

Well, I think that we hear time and again that we need a rejuvenated multilateral system, that we need a new architecture in global governance in what we created 76 years ago when the UN was established. The social fabric, the geopolitics have changed so much. The voice of civil society is very important, not only because they should have a say in global affairs but also because we are experiencing a crisis of trust and legitimacy in institutions. And in my opinion, the only way to counter this deficit trust is to make sure that all the voices are heard and that we really advocate for what the UN Secretary-General has stated so many times, an inclusive and networked multilateralism. What that means is that when you are to take a decision about the future of humanity because a declaration, a renewed declaration after 50 years of Stockholm, really needs the voice of academia, of younger generations, youth leaders and changemakers, women, Indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities, the pr...

Transcript:

Izabella Teixeira

We need to understand what a healthy environment means for us, for humankind, considering the next years and what the challenges are that we need to tackle better. 

Maria Espinosa

We need to reinterpret sovereignty in the context of our common heritage and common good.

Izabella Teixeira

We need a new expression of humanism around the world and what shared responsibility means, not only rights but also obligations.

Maria Espinosa

Let's be clear- it is not only about the environment. It is about our development models, about our value systems. It is about the way we think about the future. It is about our collective security and our human security. It is about living in harmony, in a way. 

Izabella Teixeira

we need to have actions today in the present. If not, we cannot understand what the future means.

Maria Espinosa

We need to make sure that we can have a democracy and have a new relationship between humankind and nature.

Interview Transcript

Transcribed by Otter AI

Kimberly White

Hello and welcome to Common Home Conversations. Today we're joined by Thomas Boudreau, Professor of Conflict Analysis and Dispute Resolution at Salisbury University. Thank you so much for joining us today!

Thomas Boudreau

My pleasure. Thank you for inviting me. 

Kimberly White

So, you're a Professor of Conflict Analysis and Dispute Resolution at Salisbury University. Can you tell us more about this and the focus of your current research?

Thomas Boudreau

Yes, we're a relatively new department. We grew out of one course taught by a charismatic professor, Phil Bosserman, and now we're an undergraduate program and a graduate program. In 2018, we were recognized as the second-best program in conflict analysis in the United States. So in a very short time, we've made a mark both in our undergraduate teaching and our graduate program.

Kimberly White

That's fantastic- congratulations! So earlier this year, renowned naturalist David Attenborough told the UN Security Council that climate change is the "biggest threat to security that modern humans have ever faced." Similar sentiments have been expressed by leading climate and environmental scientists. Now, you have proposed an Earth Armistice to address this existential threat. Could you please tell us more about this and the benefits such a resolution could have for our global community?

Thomas Boudreau

Yes, well, first, I'd like to recognize the extraordinary work and achievement of Sir David Attenborough. He's just a world treasure, and we should all thank the United Kingdom for sharing him with the rest of us. Extraordinary individual. Sir David is absolutely correct in characterizing climate change as the greatest threat that humanity has ever faced and certainly faces today. And we have to address this in the next 5 or 10 years, or it will become a runaway freight train. And I think if we wait too long, it'll be too late. So I asked myself, "what organization can make a global law with one vote in one day in one place?" And that's obviously the UN Security Council. And the UN Security Council is charged with the maintenance of international peace and security. And there is no question that climate change is increasingly threatening the maintenance of international peace and security and will continue to do so in major ways in the coming years. So, the UN Security Council is a natural place to address this. It also, by the UN Charter, is responsible for the regulation of armaments. And so the Earth Armistice idea is, namely, for the UN Security Council to vote. As I say, and they could do this in one vote, it's not simply a resolution. They have the power, the legal authority under the charter, to make binding decisions on all the member states. That's why the great powers watch the council like a hawk. But they could vote an Earth Armistice; they could approve it, which would require every state to cut from 10 to 20 percent of its current defense budgets and devote it exclusively to addressing climate change. And to do so, nation states have to do the obvious- namely, redefine and expand their understanding of national security to include the threats that climate change presents to us today and will increasingly present to us in the future. I don't think the Earth Armistice will be adopted today or tomorrow. I think it will be adopted at some point. My fear is that it will simply be too late to address the coming storms that are now inevitable.

Kimberly White

Now, you said that the Earth Armistice would be essential to ensure sustainable development as well as achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Could you please elaborate on that?

Thomas Boudreau

There will be no sustainable development unless we develop a sustainable climate. But to do so will involve enormous costs as well as opportunities. The transition from a carbon-based global economy to a green-based global economy will involve tremendous opportunities and new jobs in a variety of sectors. And what's needed is the funding, and the global militaries now spend almost $2 trillion a year on national defense defined in terms of defending the nation state against other nations. What they need to do- and this you see this thinking already among the military, unfortunately, don't see it as much with the politicians- but what you need to do is redefine your national security in terms of sustainable development. To do that, you need to invest in green economies. There's tremendous work to be done in the conversion of current carbon-based energy sources to green sources, such as solar and wind, and making them resilient and ensuring that they can sustain the coming winds and weather that could do a lot of damage to existing infrastructure. At the same time, you want the green economies to develop the necessary negative emission technologies, or carbon sequestration, to start pulling carbon out of the atmosphere. And we've made very little or no progress in this area whatsoever, and that's, again, a reason for the Earth Armistice. Creating negative emission technologies can create hundreds of thousands of jobs, especially in the developing world, and thus encourage sustainable development and the very rapid emergence of green economies throughout the globe.

Kimberly White

I'm glad you brought up carbon sequestration- I think that's such an important part of tackling climate change. People don't realize how important natural solutions- such as soil- are to our environment and to the health of our planet. 

Thomas Boudreau

Well, I think we're gonna have to go beyond soil sequestration or carbon farming, although that can play a critical role. I think we need to try a whole variety of approaches to carbon sequestration using the land and the oceans. And I'd like to make a distinction between carbon sequestration, which is land or ocean-based, and geoengineering, which is the spraying of aerosols in the atmosphere, which I am very skeptical of. Because we had an experience in the States with sulfuric acid killing the lakes, acid rain, and I think the current plans for the use of aerosols in the atmosphere, solar geoengineering, could be a repeat of that acid rain experience, if not worse.

Kimberly White

Absolutely, the risks associated with solar geoengineering are far too great. I believe that restoration efforts are essential moving forward. For instance, with the peatlands. Peatlands cover just three percent of our land globally, yet they are a carbon sequestration powerhouse. They store over 550 gigatons of carbon. And recent studies have shown that restoring some of these habitats could prevent the release of as much as 394 million tons of CO2.

Thomas Boudreau

There have to be massive restoration efforts of reforestation, aforestation, which means planting forests in areas where they don't exist. There's going to be the increasing problem of droughts and massive wildfires. The forests have to be planted or reforested in areas that aren't going to burn down anytime soon. Personally, I find the phenomenon of green lawns in front of homes to be hopelessly obsolete; I think people should get tax breaks for planting trees on 50 percent or more of their lawns. There are areas in Montgomery County, north of DC, that have one home ...