Have you ever taken a plunge into naturally hot seawater? Try south Florida’s waters in summer. Absolutely intolerable, but it wasn’t that way a few decades back. The general explanation of Florida’s hot seawater: global warming. Of course it is, but it’s only a small consequence of the unlimited environmental power that nations believe they have within their borders over the environment. That is the real culprit of Florida’s hot waters and many other environmental maladies. But there’s much more to that: global warming has now spilled and redefines the traditional definition of what countries’ sovereignty is, and how it intertwines and impacts very negatively the environment.
Let’s take the case of Brazil burning down the Amazon forest for cattle breeding and producing. According to Brazilian and International law, Brazil is not breaking any human law, but it is certainly breaking natures’ law. Brazil -and all countries- has, politically, the right (?) to ignore that the environment is a Shared World Resource that transcends national borders. We all can pull examples from all over the world. Very recently, just to mention two, out of thousands: the US approved massive lithium mining in Nevada, overriding protests. Environmentalists worry that the Rhyolite Ridge Lithium-Boron Project could drive a rare wildflower to extinction. Another one?: oil and gas leases in Artic National Wildlife Refuge, which only depends on the approval of one man or one woman, only one, regardless that tragic consequences could be everlasting to the world. Yes, again, just the stroke of a fountain pen of one man or one woman for the environment to go forever under.
These ‘approvals” rests in the current general basic belief of what is considered Sovereignty in our days, a definition centuries old: "Sovereignty is the supreme power or authority of each country within its official borders admitted by the rest of the countries of the world", inspired by the over three hundred years old Peace of Westphalia in 1645. Now, in the 20th and part of the 21st century, the statement "within their official borders" is reigning in all countries of the world and there you find the reason for the bulk of environmental degradation worldwide. It allows -and has and will allow- countries to do, environmentally speaking, whatever they desire and decree "within their official borders". That will continue unless we make NOW a 180° change.
It is an undeniable fact that the environment is a global resource shared by all countries of the world. Therefore, environment transcends the political borders of countries. Nature reminds us all the time. Can the most powerful country of the world with today’s technology stop the rain or a typhoon or hurricane brewing in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, aimed at central America and the Gulf of Mexico and heading directly into the USA and Canada? No, it can’t.
The solution I propose is a 180° turn. Is what I call ENVIRONMENTAL SOVEREIGNTY which is totally divorced from the reigning and cited notion of Sovereignty defined in the Peace of Westphalia. No, it will not stop immediately those typhoons and hurricanes but it will eventually, as sea temperatures drop to traditional level.
Again, countries take for granted that, within their borders, the environment is a legitimately attained or inherited sole property, and that, therefore, they have absolute freedom to do environmentally whatever they want within their borders (Brazil burning down the rain forest, for example, for cattle production one of the most contaminating factors of the environment). This is freely continued due to what countries call "SOVEREIGNTY", which is not. It’s BAD SOVEREIGNTY and that’s why we propose: ENVIRONMENTAL SOVEREIGNTY!
ENVIRONMENTAL SOVEREIGNTY MEANS THAT THE ENVIRONMENT
IS UNIVERSAL AND FREE, AND IS NOT DIVIDED POLITICALLY, PROPORTIONALLY OR NOT, AMONG COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD.
In short....
1) Countries’ borders cannot be the dominant factor that prevails over the environment. The Environment is beyond not only what countries currently call SOVEREIGNTY, but also above its three classic powers: the Judicial, Legislative and Administrative powers. It is a "Power above Powers", and it is not the Fourth Power, but the First Power. Without it, life would not exist on planet earth. It would be as barren as the moon.
2) Political authoritarianism and the inadequate application, or lack of enforcement, of laws that protect the environment as a global entity, is a detrimental factor that becomes a multiplying factor for environmental damage.
What do we propose?
Global environmental degradation will continue until the current concept of SOVEREIGNTY is reinvented and the world accepts that there are two types of sovereignty: GOOD SOVEREIGNTY, which respects the environment as a power above all powers and has only its natural limits, or BAD SOVEREIGNTY, which does not. With BAD SOVEREIGNTY, nations can do whatever they want environmentally within their borders. With GOOD SOVEREIGNTY, nations do not have that power. Until the first is removed from the face of the earth, damage to the environmental by the so- called ‘civilization’ will continue to spread as natural and inevitable. BAD SOVEREIGNTY must therefore be switched to GOOD SOVEREIGNTY, which prioritizes global environmental interest above all other interests. Constitutions must be amended accordingly. Countries cannot continue with a free hand over the environment within their legal political borders if we want to have a world to live in, a world for present and future generations.
Yes, there will be plenty of opposition from international economic interests, from autocratic governments, from political interests, from arrogance and ignorance, from fear and indifference, but facts are the facts: NATURE’S GENEROSITY OF IS NOT FOREVER.
This is my way of reaching out directly to the world. If you agree, please help me spread the word and share. Thank you
Rob, your articulate and heartfelt, accessible yet deep analysis captures this moment in a way that brings welcome tears of recognition. Ever so gratefully, Elizabeth for Jillian too who passed this along!
Rob, your writings on ecology, climate, water cycles etc are commendable. You articulate it all so well, in a balanced manner respecting all serious perspectives. However, the way you have weighed into broader political matters in opening this piece, is disappointing. Yes, ‘there is a lot wrong at the moment’, but plenty of wrongs are evident across a full spectrum of government, institutions and organisations – an unfortunate reality of human existence through the ages. The politically loaded shots you have taken in the first two paragraphs can be responded to with ‘both barrels’ – but hey, there’s a time and place…and it ain’t here.
Back on topic - the ecology and water cycle issues you convey need building into narratives at all levels to inspire meaningful solutions to ecological degradation at all scales. It offers something of substance that will be needed when the simplistic and tunnelled CO2 drive wears thin, becomes uneconomic to commercial interests, unpalatable to political interests, and proponents finally realise the ineffectiveness of so-called ‘renewable’ energy technologies to impact a changing climate.
Thanks for your comment Andrew, especially concerning my stray into politics. It's something I struggle with, and am moving in the direction of routing my political opinions to my Medium page, and keeping this purely about climate. It's complicated of course because I also think we have a problem of putting things in silos. I respond to land-ruin from the same place I respond to the treatment of Palestinians, or the horror committed by the Nazis against Jews. But as you mention, you're experience was of "opening shots" which could have a "two barrel" reply, and that's not the environment I'm trying to create here. So thanks for speaking up. Figuring this out as I go, as we all do.
“What is the antidote to a world going mad? It is the sanity of the land, and it’s time we turn toward it.” 🙏 thank you Rob, as always
Have you ever taken a plunge into naturally hot seawater? Try south Florida’s waters in summer. Absolutely intolerable, but it wasn’t that way a few decades back. The general explanation of Florida’s hot seawater: global warming. Of course it is, but it’s only a small consequence of the unlimited environmental power that nations believe they have within their borders over the environment. That is the real culprit of Florida’s hot waters and many other environmental maladies. But there’s much more to that: global warming has now spilled and redefines the traditional definition of what countries’ sovereignty is, and how it intertwines and impacts very negatively the environment.
Let’s take the case of Brazil burning down the Amazon forest for cattle breeding and producing. According to Brazilian and International law, Brazil is not breaking any human law, but it is certainly breaking natures’ law. Brazil -and all countries- has, politically, the right (?) to ignore that the environment is a Shared World Resource that transcends national borders. We all can pull examples from all over the world. Very recently, just to mention two, out of thousands: the US approved massive lithium mining in Nevada, overriding protests. Environmentalists worry that the Rhyolite Ridge Lithium-Boron Project could drive a rare wildflower to extinction. Another one?: oil and gas leases in Artic National Wildlife Refuge, which only depends on the approval of one man or one woman, only one, regardless that tragic consequences could be everlasting to the world. Yes, again, just the stroke of a fountain pen of one man or one woman for the environment to go forever under.
These ‘approvals” rests in the current general basic belief of what is considered Sovereignty in our days, a definition centuries old: "Sovereignty is the supreme power or authority of each country within its official borders admitted by the rest of the countries of the world", inspired by the over three hundred years old Peace of Westphalia in 1645. Now, in the 20th and part of the 21st century, the statement "within their official borders" is reigning in all countries of the world and there you find the reason for the bulk of environmental degradation worldwide. It allows -and has and will allow- countries to do, environmentally speaking, whatever they desire and decree "within their official borders". That will continue unless we make NOW a 180° change.
It is an undeniable fact that the environment is a global resource shared by all countries of the world. Therefore, environment transcends the political borders of countries. Nature reminds us all the time. Can the most powerful country of the world with today’s technology stop the rain or a typhoon or hurricane brewing in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, aimed at central America and the Gulf of Mexico and heading directly into the USA and Canada? No, it can’t.
The solution I propose is a 180° turn. Is what I call ENVIRONMENTAL SOVEREIGNTY which is totally divorced from the reigning and cited notion of Sovereignty defined in the Peace of Westphalia. No, it will not stop immediately those typhoons and hurricanes but it will eventually, as sea temperatures drop to traditional level.
Again, countries take for granted that, within their borders, the environment is a legitimately attained or inherited sole property, and that, therefore, they have absolute freedom to do environmentally whatever they want within their borders (Brazil burning down the rain forest, for example, for cattle production one of the most contaminating factors of the environment). This is freely continued due to what countries call "SOVEREIGNTY", which is not. It’s BAD SOVEREIGNTY and that’s why we propose: ENVIRONMENTAL SOVEREIGNTY!
ENVIRONMENTAL SOVEREIGNTY MEANS THAT THE ENVIRONMENT
IS UNIVERSAL AND FREE, AND IS NOT DIVIDED POLITICALLY, PROPORTIONALLY OR NOT, AMONG COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD.
In short....
1) Countries’ borders cannot be the dominant factor that prevails over the environment. The Environment is beyond not only what countries currently call SOVEREIGNTY, but also above its three classic powers: the Judicial, Legislative and Administrative powers. It is a "Power above Powers", and it is not the Fourth Power, but the First Power. Without it, life would not exist on planet earth. It would be as barren as the moon.
2) Political authoritarianism and the inadequate application, or lack of enforcement, of laws that protect the environment as a global entity, is a detrimental factor that becomes a multiplying factor for environmental damage.
What do we propose?
Global environmental degradation will continue until the current concept of SOVEREIGNTY is reinvented and the world accepts that there are two types of sovereignty: GOOD SOVEREIGNTY, which respects the environment as a power above all powers and has only its natural limits, or BAD SOVEREIGNTY, which does not. With BAD SOVEREIGNTY, nations can do whatever they want environmentally within their borders. With GOOD SOVEREIGNTY, nations do not have that power. Until the first is removed from the face of the earth, damage to the environmental by the so- called ‘civilization’ will continue to spread as natural and inevitable. BAD SOVEREIGNTY must therefore be switched to GOOD SOVEREIGNTY, which prioritizes global environmental interest above all other interests. Constitutions must be amended accordingly. Countries cannot continue with a free hand over the environment within their legal political borders if we want to have a world to live in, a world for present and future generations.
Yes, there will be plenty of opposition from international economic interests, from autocratic governments, from political interests, from arrogance and ignorance, from fear and indifference, but facts are the facts: NATURE’S GENEROSITY OF IS NOT FOREVER.
This is my way of reaching out directly to the world. If you agree, please help me spread the word and share. Thank you
Jorge Partida A
soberanía.ambiental.global@gmail.com
jorgepartidas@gmail.com
VENEZUELA
The laws of earth's natural living systems. Thanks for this.
So happy to read that Dave Upthegrove was elected. This is a sign that some of us humans are still sane. Thank you for being one of them!
Rob, your articulate and heartfelt, accessible yet deep analysis captures this moment in a way that brings welcome tears of recognition. Ever so gratefully, Elizabeth for Jillian too who passed this along!
I think we may find that small yet very important wins like these are what the future is built upon.
Well, your heart is in the right place.
Rob, your writings on ecology, climate, water cycles etc are commendable. You articulate it all so well, in a balanced manner respecting all serious perspectives. However, the way you have weighed into broader political matters in opening this piece, is disappointing. Yes, ‘there is a lot wrong at the moment’, but plenty of wrongs are evident across a full spectrum of government, institutions and organisations – an unfortunate reality of human existence through the ages. The politically loaded shots you have taken in the first two paragraphs can be responded to with ‘both barrels’ – but hey, there’s a time and place…and it ain’t here.
Back on topic - the ecology and water cycle issues you convey need building into narratives at all levels to inspire meaningful solutions to ecological degradation at all scales. It offers something of substance that will be needed when the simplistic and tunnelled CO2 drive wears thin, becomes uneconomic to commercial interests, unpalatable to political interests, and proponents finally realise the ineffectiveness of so-called ‘renewable’ energy technologies to impact a changing climate.
Keep up the great work!
Thanks for your comment Andrew, especially concerning my stray into politics. It's something I struggle with, and am moving in the direction of routing my political opinions to my Medium page, and keeping this purely about climate. It's complicated of course because I also think we have a problem of putting things in silos. I respond to land-ruin from the same place I respond to the treatment of Palestinians, or the horror committed by the Nazis against Jews. But as you mention, you're experience was of "opening shots" which could have a "two barrel" reply, and that's not the environment I'm trying to create here. So thanks for speaking up. Figuring this out as I go, as we all do.
All best! Rob
Fine writing and succinct articulation of the positions I stand in as well. And that ray of hope with the Washington forests.