Skip to footer

Rio+20: 5 key takeaways

Here are some of the promising developments and bigger disappointments of the Rio+20 global sustainability conference, which ends today.

A stepping stone, not a failure

The Guardian has been running a live blog on the Rio+20, and one of its posts offers a “positive” view of what has been accomplished, perhaps the best summary of why the world should feel hopeful after the conference wraps up today.

Oliver Greenfield, of the Green Economy Coalition, says the conference has not been a turning point, but a stepping stone, and definitely not a complete failure. "Rio+20 is it a failure or a success? One thousand NGOs, institutions, and individuals have signed a petition calling it "The Future We Don't Want" – citing failures on removing fossil fuel subsidies, failure to protect oceans, failures to address women's reproduction health. Against this groundswell it is difficult for any civil society to say anything different,” he writes.

But, he adds,"We have a mandate, albeit weak, for many of the things we wanted. We have commitment to the sustainable development goals, to strengthening UNEP [The United Nations Environmental Program], to encourage corporate sustainability reporting, develop beyond GDP, adopt the 10 year program on sustainable consumption and production, some signals on energy, and the bolstering of science in policy making. At first reading this is probably graded a C-, but it is definitely not a F.”

3 of 5
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.