Tom Turner is senior editor at Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental law firm based in Oakland, Calif. He edited daily newspapers at the WTO meeting in Seattle in 1999 and the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002. He is the author of many books and articles on environmental subjects, most recently Justice on Earth: Earthjustice and the People It Has Served.
Monday, 8 Sep 2003
CANCUN, Mexico
Will it be a replay of Seattle 1999? That’s a question on many minds as delegates, 4,000 observers, 1,500 journalists, and tens of thousands of critics arrive in this overbuilt resort town for the fifth ministerial meeting of the 146-member World Trade Organization.
Taking it to the streets of Seattle in 1999.
Beyond a handful of black-clad troublemakers who broke a few windows and generated hysterical press coverage, the real story behind the Seattle protests of 1999 was the 50,000 peaceful protesters who came to voice their displeasure with the way the WTO manages global trade and runs roughshod over domestic laws protecting public health, workers’ rights, environmental quality, and natural resources. The other story was resistance by poorer countries that objected to heavy-handed tactics by the U.S., the European Union, and other wealthy countries; it was this courageous resistance, in the end, that caused the Seattle ministerial to conclude in chaos and failure.
Early reports suggest that there may be plenty of tension in the air when the WTO meetings get underway here on Wednesday. Mexico is reported to be making it difficult for potential protesters to attend the meetings or associated teach-ins and rallies. Some groups report that their applications for visas or credentials have been mysteriously lost. Mexico is charging representatives of WTO-accredited nongovernmental organizations $99 for a visa-like document, a sum that will make it difficult for some organizations to be represented. A Mexican newspaper recently reported that the government has put together a list of 60 incomodos (undesirables) to be “monitored” this week in Cancun, including Ralph Nader, Noam Chomsky, Lori Wallach of Public Citizen, and many other prominent WTO critics. We’ll see.
Taking it to the beach in Cancun.
Photo: IndyMedia.org.
In the official proceedings, it looks as if agricultural subsidies and tariffs will again be a hot topic, and here the split between north and south is quite stark. The U.S. and the E.U., despite differences over hormone-fed beef and genetically modified foodstuffs, are at odds with other countries, led by China, India, and Brazil, over how to proceed with what they call the “liberalization” of trade in agricultural products. All countries want to gain access to foreign markets; they also want to protect their own farmers. (The U.S. is more interested in protecting its mega-agribusinesses than its family farms, but that’s another story we shall return to later.) It is a thorny problem that could, they say, derail this meeting altogether.
Meanwhile, the big kahunas of the WTO have dreams of launching formal negotiations on four new topics: investment, government procurement, competition, and facilitation. In general, these would mean easing rules that hinder transnational corporations from doing business as they see fit, anywhere and everywhere. What they hope for with respect to government procurement, for example, would be rules to make it illegal for city governments to require that a percentage of city contracts be awarded to companies within that city. It’s far more complicated, of course, but it’s easy to see why there’s determined resistance to the idea.
In addition to street demonstrations, there are scores of panels and workshops and lectures and other presentations, some critical of the WTO and some seeking alternatives to the way the WTO goes about its business. I’ll get to as many as I can. The official meetings begin Wednesday and are scheduled to run through Sunday. I’ll be reporting daily. If you have questions, please send them to emailE=(‘ecoeditor@’ + ‘yahoo.com’) document.write(‘‘ + emailE + ‘‘) .
Tuesday, 9 Sep 2003
CANCUN, Mexico
Cancun, in several ways, is the perfect place to have a WTO meeting. It is two cities that could hardly be more different. One, where we stay and the ministerial will be held starting tomorrow, is Vegas times ten without the casinos. Scores of huge, vulgar, garish hotels cheek by jowl for miles along the spectacular beach, teeming with tourists, mostly from the U.S., or so it seems. This part of town is all about luxury and money — kind of like the WTO.
Will the real Cancun please step forward?
Photo: Alyssa Johl, Earthjustice.
The other part of Cancun is more like the real world. While the hotel strip is brittle and sterile — infested with McDonald’s, Outback Steak House, and Jimmy Buffet’s Margaritaville — the town has outdoor restaurants, shops, street vendors, and street musicians. It is poor and not-so-poor and full of life. It is here where the contingent of demonstrators is slowly gathering.
And now, with the WTO in town and everybody nervous about the anniversary of Sept. 11 coming up Thursday, the two Cancuns are divided by a fence, which is guarded by police and military personnel, armed to the teeth. Kind of like Berlin in the bad old days. Offshore there are two Mexican navy ships, probably worried that the Rainbow Warrior will appear over the horizon with a cargo of frogpersons planning to storm the beaches. (This is not entirely idle blather: Greenpeace has pulled such stunts many times, including at Brighton on the English Channel, to protest at a meeting of the International Whaling Commission. All in good fun, but humor is in short supply around here just now.)
A game of battleship.
Photo: Alyssa Johl, Earthjustice.
We got some fresh numbers yesterday. There are 4,700 delegates signed up for credentials, along with 1,800 journalists and 1,500 representatives of nongovernmental organizations. The reporter who asked for the numbers asked also how many security personnel were here. The answer was, “enough.”
Today, the International Forum on Globalization holds its traditional day-long teach-in, with speakers from all over the world talking about what’s wrong with the WTO and its theory and practice, along with some alternate visions of what might be put in place instead. This is the intellectual underpinning of the WTO critics — those whom the Mexican establishment is calling globalofobes. Tomorrow, as the WTO meetings get rolling, there will be a major Fair Trade Fair sponsored by the admirable Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, about which more in a day or so.
Meanwhile, for people interested in what this is all about in practical terms, we suggest taking a look at a new book from Food First. It is called Shafted: Free Trade and America’s Working Poor, a skillfully edited transcript of a hearing held in Congress in June, with a long string of farmers, fishers, and others relating their experiences with trade as practiced under the WTO and NAFTA.
Wednesday, 10 Sep 2003
CANCUN, Mexico
Just about everyone seems to agree that agriculture could easily be the bone of contention here this week, and late yesterday afternoon a determined group of developing country agriculture ministers signaled — at an overflowing press conference — that they’re willing to stand up to the U.S. and Europe to insist that their views be reckoned with.
The WTO conference is all fenced off.
Photo: Alyssa Johl, Earthjustice.
Five ministers — from Brazil, India, China, South Africa, and Costa Rica — representing a new coalition of 21 nations, which in turn represent more than half of humanity and nearly two-thirds of the world’s farmers, said that they are dead serious about reforming trade in agricultural products — their way. They are resolved to do whatever it takes to have their views considered and acted upon, and they seem to relish a fight with the big guys.
This comes on the heels of a long and difficult negotiation between the U.S. and the European Union trying to resolve their own differences over agricultural policies. Both groups want to gain access to foreign markets and both want to protect their own farmers. In the end, the U.S. and Europe agreed to reduce the subsidies they give domestically and reduce tariffs, so long as the rest of the world agrees to throw open its doors to their agricultural products — a bit of blackmail.
But this time the rest of the world may not play along. The new Group of 21 has advanced its own draft document, and the draft that is accepted as a starting point for discussions makes all the difference. The draft from the new G-21 provides that developing countries be treated somewhat differently from the way the rich countries are treated in order to protect their “food security” (i.e., make sure everyone has enough to eat) and in order to avoid driving small farmers out of business. Maybe some sort of compromise can be struck, but this has the odor of something that could derail this meeting altogether.
Making trouble in paradise.
Photo: Alyssa Johl, Earthjustice.
Which would suit Lori Wallach just fine. Wallach, of Public Citizen, was one of a number of speakers who participated in the teach-in sponsored by the International Forum on Globalization yesterday. The teach-in speakers may not all want the WTO to bog down and go home, but they all agree that the trading system as now practiced is fatally flawed and has done vastly more harm than good — unless you’re already rich, in which case you’re probably a bit richer thanks to 10 years of the WTO. But the story of the day was censorship of the IFG and its long-planned event.
The teach-in was set to take place in the Teatro Cancun, which is about halfway between the Convention Center and the town. I attended a morning briefing in a hotel near the center, then hopped on a municipal bus for the ride to the theater. A mile or so from the theater, traffic came to a halt, and pretty soon we could see police cars blocking the road, lights flashing. We reached the blockade and I was allowed to get off and walk; the bus was turned around, as were many others. Turned out the federales had blocked traffic there and again where the road meets the town, which made it very difficult to get to the theater and held attendance to a minimum. (In Seattle in 1999, the IFG event sold out a large opera house. In Cancun — where admission was free — the place was almost empty.) In addition to the roadblocks, someone phoned the IFG’s Debi Barker to report having heard a radio announcement to the effect that the teach-in had been cancelled. The professed reason for the blockades was because there was a protest march in town. We may never know the whole story, but suggestions that the WTO was too nervous and unsure of itself to tolerate informed dissent sounded more than plausible.
And all this before the meetings have even started. Today is the opening ceremony, and your correspondent has it on good authority that there may be a disruption of some sort. We’ll be there. Stay tuned.
Thursday, 11 Sep 2003
CANCUN, Mexico
The conference has begun. We heard the big wheels — the director general of the WTO, the foreign minister of Mexico, the chairman of the WTO, and Mexican President Vicente Fox — all welcome the delegates and solemnly insist that this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to seize the moment and grab the nettle and move the world forward toward a tariff-free trading regime that will lift all boats and eradicate poverty and, probably, make everybody comfortable, if not quite as rich as Bill Gates.
Facing off.
Photo: Alyssa Johl, Earthjustice.
OK, we exaggerate. But not too much.
The predictions were rosy, as such predictions always are. The nascent revolution mentioned yesterday — much of the world challenging Europe and the U.S. on reforming trade in agriculture — was the subtext to most everything else today, and the buzz seems to indicate that this meeting could produce more rebellion than progress, depending on how one defines progress.
When asked if the agriculture proposal put forward by the new developing-country coalition would be considered on an equal footing with the proposal put forward by the U.S. and the European Union (and more or less adopted by WTO General Council chairperson Carlos Perez del Castillo), the secretary general retreated into abstractions: We should concentrate on substance rather than procedure, he said, which sounded like “yes,” with wiggle room. We shall see.
Rushing the fence.
Photo: Alyssa Johl, Earthjustice.
Today’s papers carry reports of the suicide of Kyung Hae Lee, a Korean farmer and magazine editor, who stabbed himself to death yesterday at the fence that divides the rest of the world from the WTO. He was carrying a sign reading “WTO Kills Farmers” just before plunging a knife into his chest. A friend of the farmer told reporters it was “an act of sacrifice.” The tragedy came at the end of a mostly peaceful demonstration attended by somewhere between 3,000 and 15,000 people (these numbers are always slippery), some of whom pushed the fence down at one point and threw hunks of concrete at the police, who, by and large, showed admirable restraint.
Yesterday we hinted that there might be an “action” during the opening ceremony. We were not in the auditorium as promised (not enough spaces), but we watched on a TV monitor and heard chanting during the first two or three speeches. Then, just as President Fox began his remarks, a group of speakers from Tuesday’s teach-in, whose event had been damaged by overzealous security, boiled up in the press working area holding signs reading “WTO IS UNDEMOCRATIC,” “WTO IS OBSOLETE,” “WTO IS ANTI-DEVELOPMENT” and offering their comments on the whole affair. It is a given at this kind of event that there will be journalists looking for stories, and the antis were instantly mobbed by reporters and cameras and finally given a sound-bite-length opportunity to speak to the world. About time.
Friday, 12 Sep 2003
CANCUN, Mexico
Agriculture remains the big story here, though there are scores of sidebars.
The new coalition of 21 developing countries (recently swollen to 26, according to reports late yesterday afternoon) continues to be the center of attention. It has attracted much attention, as well as support from many nongovernmental organizations from the U.S. and elsewhere, with its challenge to the formula proposed by the U.S. and the European Union for reducing tariffs and subsidies.
At a briefing yesterday morning, the deputy U.S. trade representative, Peter Allgeier, was asked what he thought about the new coalition and whether the U.S. would bring pressure to “fracture” (a Wall Street Journal reporter’s word) it. A follow-up questioner asked whether the U.S. might threaten to withdraw or reduce foreign aid to persuade certain countries to leave the coalition.
Allgeier began by saying that the U.S. is perplexed about the coalition since it is quite diverse and includes countries whose traditional positions on various agricultural trade issues are anything but compatible. He said they can’t figure out what the theme is that unifies the coalition. (Hint: Try near universal disgust with U.S. unilateralism over Iraq, Kyoto, and a dozen other matters.) He said they’d continue to try to find common ground, but didn’t say that back-door pressure wouldn’t be tried. (At a late afternoon forum, Eileen Kwa of Forum on the Global South reported that President Bush himself had telephoned the leaders of South Africa, Thailand, and India to pressure those countries to abandon the coalition.) On foreign aid, all Allgeier would say was that the trade representative’s office doesn’t disburse foreign aid. Ministers are reportedly meeting ’round the clock to try to sort it all out.
One school of thought has it that if the attempt to agree on a “framework” for further agriculture negotiations fails, the U.S. might put its weight behind pushing the four new so-called “Singapore issues,” which entail a dramatic new set of agreements to further remake the world in the WTO’s image and grease the skids for transnational corporations. But at another briefing yesterday afternoon, a group of developing-country spokespeople vowed that the Singapore issues will go nowhere at this meeting, so we may well wind up with a total stalemate.
WT-woe.
Photo: Alyssa Johl, Earthjustice.
There were more demonstrations inside the convention center yesterday, a raucous one that disrupted a briefing by Allgeier and another quite moving and dignified memorial for the Korean farmer who took his life Wednesday. For that ceremony, as many as 50 people wearing the green scarves of Mexican campesinos, black and white arm bands, and carrying white flowers filed into the big press briefing room and made quiet statements in tribute to the man who had suffered so much.
We spent much of yesterday at the Hotel Sierra, where observer groups — most of them highly critical of the WTO and the U.S. role in these proceedings — hold seminars, panel talks, and strategy sessions all day long. The amount of information offered is staggering and its quality is astonishing. There are scores of people there who have studied these issues for years, whose command of hard facts and political nuances is extraordinary. In aggregate, their critique of the WTO is compelling and devastating. We’ll try to get into some of the finer points in the days ahead, but lest anyone think that the protesters here are simply a bunch of malcontents and troublemakers, be assured that this is a brilliant and serious-minded group of people who have only good intentions. In a fair and open debate between pro- and anti-WTO forces, the antis would win hands down.
Saturday, 13 Sep 2003
CANCUN, Mexico
Agriculture still dominates the news here. The WTO spokesperson promised that there would be a new draft proposal, which would be the basis for further negotiations, given to the conference chair last evening. What’s in it will tell the tale. The U.S., the E.U., the Group of 21 (now rumored to be 28 or 29), and many others have been meeting, but there’s no outward sign of movement in their positions.
The U.S. mantra is, first, that the G21 doesn’t represent the views of the developing countries accurately, and, second, that while the U.S. has shown willingness to compromise, the G21 has only repeated demands and that’s not an acceptable position to take this late in these proceedings.
This elicited a stern statement from the Brazilian delegate, who is the principal spokesperson for the 21, rebuking the U.S. — not by name, but the target was obvious. “It is … important at this stage that we concentrate our efforts in trying to negotiate and not direct our energies at attacking countries or groups of countries.” In a separate statement, the Brazilian minister asked for statements from NGOs around the world supporting G21 unity. A press conference on that subject is scheduled for this morning. Should be interesting. Unless U.S. arm twisting succeeds in fracturing the G21, the only concrete achievement of the week may turn out to have been Cambodia and Nepal joining the WTO. Many here — delegates and observers alike — would like such an outcome just fine, thank you.
You may recall that just before these meetings began, the WTO announced proudly that the organization had reached an agreement that will allow poor countries being ravaged by AIDS and other diseases to import cheap generic drugs from other developing countries, evading patents held by the Pfizers of the world. There has been much self-congratulation here on this topic from the director general of the WTO on down, and the way the negotiations are going, this may be the only good news (along with Cambodia and Nepal).
But how good is the news? Several knowledgeable sources, including the formidable Martin Khor of the Third World Network and Sharonann Lynch of Health Global Access Project, argue that there’s no there there, that there are so many conditions attached to the deal that few if any generic drug makers in the Third World will be willing or able to invest the funds necessary to undertake manufacture of the medicines. The deal, they say, is in fact a cleverly disguised continuation of the status quo — giant drug company monopolies and people all over the world needlessly suffering and dying.
There are, of course, some pro-WTO organizations here. Many are businesses here to promote their interests. Others are frankly entertaining in their flakiness. Our favorite so far is called Tech Central Station, “Where Free Markets Meet Technology.” It’s gung ho for unfettered free trade, claiming that the trading system is an unqualified success. It also reports that it is Europe that is drawing the ire of the rest of the world as the U.S. enjoys praise for a change. (This is not the same conference we’re attending.) Europe is certainly coming in for its share of criticism, but the U.S. is the main recipient by far. A charge leveled at the E.U. by Tech Central is that it has recently enacted some 40 trade barriers that masquerade as environmental protections. Would that everyone would follow suit.
Sunday, 14 Sep 2003
CANCUN, Mexico
If the definition of compromise is something that makes everyone unhappy, then the draft ministerial declaration that finally emerged yesterday shortly after noon was a howling success. Nearly everyone had something bad to say about it.
The NGOs were the most cutting and passionate in their denunciation of the draft, which, in the most contentious areas — agriculture and whether or not to launch negotiations on the four new so-called Singapore issues — mainly reflects the wishes of the U.S. and E.U. on agriculture and the E.U. on Singapore. You may notice that we did not list areas where the draft tilts toward the developing countries; that’s because there aren’t any, or hardly any.
“It completely ignores the concerns of the developing world,” according to Ronnie Hall of Friends of the Earth International. “It is horrifying, scandalous, and outrageous to say the least,” said Meena Ramen of Friends of the Earth Malaysia. She reported that developing-country delegates, after being given copies of the document, streamed out of the hall shaking their heads and looking dazed, not understanding how they could have been so utterly ignored.
The agriculture section of the draft is hardly changed from the earlier draft, which itself was very similar to a proposal put forward by the U.S. and the E.U. in August. It calls for developing countries to open their markets to agricultural products from Europe and the U.S. in return for vague assurances of lowered export tariffs and reduced domestic price supports. Often documents like this will include references to competing proposals such as the one put forward by the new Group of 21. This one does not; it’s as if that proposal did not exist.
In addition, more surprising yet perhaps, the new draft includes the four new so-called Singapore issues. This is surprising because just two days ago 70 countries declared bluntly that they would not tolerate the inclusion of any of the Singapore issues in the declaration. Somebody’s playing chicken here and it’s hard to see how anything of substance can now be agreed to.
The U.S., in fact, refrained from commenting save for a two-paragraph statement from U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick in which he called the draft “constructive.”
The E.U., whose spokespeople here, Pascal Lamy and Franz Fischler, are tough, charming, personable, and occasionally funny, held the only formal press briefing immediately following the release of the draft. Lamy said he had big problems, medium problems, and small problems but would only mention the big ones: agriculture, cotton, the Singapore issues, industrial tariffs, and the environment. Fischler said, “It is a basis we are ready to work with, even though it adds serious headache to the stomachache we already have.”
The National Association of Manufacturers, a large U.S. trade association, distributed a statement saying it wants “the total elimination of trade barriers on industrial products,” and thinks the draft gives “too much of a free pass to the more advanced developing countries.” Scandal.
A coalition of farmers from 45 countries blasted the draft and called the meeting a failure, demanding “a new model of fair agricultural trade based on food sovereignty.”
One thing that has lots of people nervous is a phenomenon that has happened before at these meetings and could well be happening again. To wit, a final declaration isn’t produced until a few hours before the meetings are scheduled to end. This does not allow time for a careful review of the document, especially by poor countries, which don’t have flotillas of lawyers waiting with their engines running. At Doha two years ago this happened, and when the text finally appeared, the WTO, the U.S., and the E.U. put enormous pressure on other countries to approve it. It worked, and a document that contained items many countries would later object to was accepted. Remember, there are no votes in the WTO. Everything is done by consensus and off the record. This seems less likely to happen this year with the G21 and other developing country blocs seemingly ready to stand firm, but time will tell.
Monday, 15 Sep 2003
CANCUN, Mexico
Things looked rocky even before the WTO meetings began last Wednesday, and the whole thing came crashing down Sunday afternoon at 3:00, when conference chair Ernesto Derbez, the Mexican foreign minister, abruptly pulled the plug. It had become apparent — to him at least — that further pursuit of consensus would be futile. This time, the rich countries and the WTO itself were not to have their way.
WTO Conference Chair Ernesto Derbez.
Photo: Tom Turner.
To review briefly: The key issue to be considered here was agriculture and the tariffs and price supports that have led to the flooding of some markets with cheap surplus crops, driving local farmers in Mexico and elsewhere out of business. In exchange for reducing subsidies, the U.S. and the European Union would demand that developing nations open their markets to foreign imports.
A second big problem was the four new “Singapore issues” the U.S. and, more insistently, the E.U. wanted to launch formal negotiations on. These included agreements on investment, government procurement, and two other matters.
Just before the meetings began, the U.S. and the E.U., which have long had difficulties with each other’s agriculture policies, got together and cooked up a joint proposal for this meeting. In response, a new coalition of Third World countries — including China, India, Brazil, and 18 others that comprise more than half the population of the world — wrote their own proposal.
So, we had two ag proposals and the Singapore issues (there were many others, but these were the most important).
After three days of debate, Derbez submitted a new draft text covering those and many other issues. This was midday Saturday. The draft was criticized by country after country at a session that lasted until 1:00 a.m. Sunday morning. Most of the criticism was directed toward the Singapore issues, which a large number of developing countries had already said they wanted to nothing to do with, at least for now. Sunday morning debate resumed. Derbez suggested a compromise whereby two of the four Singapore issues would be shelved and two put forward for formal negotiations. A number of delegates said they’d have to think it over and consult with their allies and governments back home. A recess was taken. When they returned, many delegates — representing as many as 90 countries, according to one African delegate — said there was no way they would agree to any of the Singapore issues (they’d been saying this most of the week, but evidently some powerful people didn’t believe them). At this point, Derbez realized that consensus was impossible and declared the meeting adjourned.
Delegates from developing countries immediately descended to the pressroom one floor below, and spontaneous press conferences and interviews congealed in all corners of the room. The delegates I happened to hear — from Uganda, Malaysia, Indonesia, Guinea — were happy, explaining that they had been ignored for far too long and that maybe now the rich countries would take them seriously.
NGOs critical of the WTO, including many environmental organizations, were likewise celebrating the slowing, if not stopping, of a juggernaut that threatens to steamroll environmental protections the world over.
Then a string of press briefings began. First came the new Group of 21-plus. Ministers from Brazil, South Africa, Argentina, Ecuador, and Egypt took turns explaining that they had put together a well-considered and progressive agricultural alternative and had been ignored, so they had no choice but to scuttle the meetings. They were followed by the trade representative for the U.S., Robert Zoellick, who regretted what had happened but said that the U.S. would simply press forward with bilateral trade deals (14 are under negotiation, not to mention the Free Trade Area of the Americas, which would include every country in the Western Hemisphere except Cuba). Zoellick repeated the charge that while some countries came to deal (his), others came to pontificate (nearly everyone else).
WTO Secretary General Supachai Panitchpakdi.
Photo: Tom Turner.
Next came WTO Secretary General Supachai Panitchpakdi and conference chair Derbez. The secretary regretted the failure of the meeting, as did the chair; both pledged to press on in Geneva, the WTO’s headquarters. Reporters’ questions suggested that not a small number of European delegates thought that Derbez had given up too soon. Others wondered why he had chosen to have Singapore debated before agriculture. He explained that Singapore was clearly the most contentious issue and he needed to see if there was room for compromise.
Next came the E.U. and the formidable Pascal Lamy. He blamed the mess on the WTO itself: “I called it a medieval institution in Seattle and got a lot of flack then. I say the same thing now.” In fact, it was Lamy and the E.U. that insisted on including the Singapore issues in the draft, which in the end doomed the meeting.
E.U. Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy.
Photo: Tom Turner.
So what to make of all this? Most of the speakers in a long night of press conferences acknowledged that this is a serious setback but not a fatal one, and asserted that the WTO will regroup in Geneva and soldier on. Others think the outcome may signal something far more profound, that the balance of geopolitical power may be beginning to change, that the rest of the world is coming together to challenge the power and arrogance of the United States and the European Union.
Marcello Furtado of Greenpeace spoke for many when he said that either the WTO must change fundamentally or make way for a new and more fair and democratic organization to govern international trade.
Time will tell whether this was just a speed bump on the fast train to the money-is-everything global village or whether it was the beginning of a move toward a more sustainable system that will serve both the Earth and its inhabitants far better. Many people and organizations, inspired by what happened yesterday, will be working hard to ensure that it’s the second possibility that comes true.
