Looking Through Palme’s Vision for the Global Environment

1 Introduction

Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme hosted the first UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm. As such he led from the front in articulating the prognosis on state of the global environment as well as remedial course of action. In his clarion call, Palme did underscore the significance of a concrete global response to halt and reverse the global environmental problematique. He emphatically observed:

“I am certain that solutions can be found. But it is absolutely necessary that concerted, international action is undertaken. It is indeed very, very urgent. At the same time, the feeling of urgency should not overshadow the fact that that solutions will require far-reaching changes in attitudes and social structures . . . The decisive question is in which direction we will develop, by what means we will grow, which qualities we want to achieve, and what values we wish to guide our future.” 1

Now, after a lapse of almost five decades, it is painfully clear that Palme’s call for urgent course reversal has not been heeded. Instead, a utilitarian and human-centred development model has become the global mantra. This, in turn, has been at the basis of misery and global environmental deterioration since 1972. How can the conclusions from the Stockholm conference and Olof Palme’s ideas and engagement guide us towards a better common greener future for all on the planet earth?

2 Olof Palme a Green Pioneer

That the temperature of the earth’s surface has varied greatly through the centuries has been known among natural scientists ever since modern natural science took shape in the late 19th century. But it was not until the 1980’s that the greenhouse effect became dynamite in international politics as more and more researchers saw an undisputable connection between anthropogenic (human) emissions and global temperature changes and demands for policy measures followed. 2

However, already in 1968 Sweden suggested the idea of having a UN conference to focus on human interactions with the environment to the United Nations Economic and Social Council. ECOSOC by passing resolution 1346 (XLV) of 30 July 1968 supported the idea and the UN General Assembly in 1969 by the adoption of resolution 2398, decided to convene a conference in 1972. 3 So at the time when Sweden took the initiative to convene the conference, environmental problems were not at the forefront of international policy discussions. What made Sweden an “early-bird” when it comes to environmental protection? The short answer is: Olof Palme.

From the mid-1960s, environmental issues played a growing role in Olof Palme’s political work. 4 It was guided by Olof Palme’s rare ability to read the present and interact with it. In fact, his sharp and visionary mind constantly combined present with future. As Olof Palme himself put it:

“If you walk with your nose to the ground, without historic perspective and without looking at a future that extends beyond the next quarter, you can never transform society, and then you are constantly just as unprepared for the problems that the future offers.” 5

In the 1960’s Olof Palme sensed and acted on the changing political climate. The environmental issue became an increasingly important part when the radicalism of the 1960s turned into the 1970s. The spirit of the time has come to be known as “the green wave”. A strong critique of the downsides of the growth society, the excessive consumption and concentration in large cities in parallel with the impoverishment of the countryside was combined with the dream of an alternative society made many young families in Sweden during move out from the big cities and into the countryside as part of a wave of ruralisation. The suburbs were also growing as people left the city centres. For the first time, the population of large cities decreased in Sweden and increased in rural areas. The trend was to live a simple life without modern conveniences and metropolitan stress, many people of this so-called green wave were also environmentally conscious. In Sweden, the popularity of the Centre Party –a centre right political party rooted in the peasant’s movement –grew stronger.

At the same time the critique was growing against what was perceived as old fashioned social democratic politics and not taking this green trend enough into consideration. Olof Palme made some effort to listen to and interact with the growing environmental grassroot movement, but his heart was pounding for growth and employment. The recession of the 1970’s did not make it any easier for Olof Palme and the Swedish government to put the environment at the centre of decision making. 6

Globally as well the environmental movement was on a rise. Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring 7 was published in 1962 and sent an outcry, first through the American society, but soon echoed over the whole world. Carson showed how the pesticide DDT had unintended side effects and that it affected not only nature but also humans. The atomic bomb threat was another imminent environmental threat. There was a widespread realisation that the test bombings could affect the entire earth. The fact that mankind could manipulate something as enormously complicated and difficult to understand as the climate no longer seemed inconceivable. In the 1970’s scientists started to warn about an accelerating greenhouse effect and media began to pay attention to the extensive research that had been conducted for a long time on the effects of carbon dioxide emissions. The public did not yet know much about the burning of fossil fuels, but generally believed that climate change was due to smog, atomic bombings, chemical toxins and other dramatic effects. 8

In an interview for the Swedish paper Svenska Dagbladet in November 1974 Olof Palme was asked what worries him the most for the future. “Climate change as a result of human activities”, he answered, “if we follow in the same footsteps as hitherto, the world’s oceans may eventually be destroyed, the Arctic sea ice melt and other climate disturbances occur that can drastically affect our living conditions.” 9

As part of the explanation to why the Swedish labour movement was a pioneer in the field of the environment the close link to the historical commitment to work environment issues should also be noted. This is something that Olof Palme also emphasized in his opening speech at the 1972 Stockholm Conference:

“At the workplaces, particularly in the factories, we can recognize many of the problems occurring in the general environment but in a concentrated or amplified form. It is important that we recognize the need for international action for a better working environment.” 10

In the early 1970s, Olof Palme had as one mayor focus area; the renewal and improvement of working life. The Social Democratic government enforced laws on employment protection, the working environment, substances that are hazardous to health and the environment, board representation, study leave and the position of shop stewards. 11 Olof Palme saw the holistic perspective of environment and emphasized the close link between the general demand for a good environment and working as well as housing conditions.

3 The Stockholm Conference

A historical engagement for worker’s rights and working environment, a societal “green-wave” and the potential of losing ground to the Centre Party where all parts of the reason why Olof Palme became a green pioneer of his time and invited the world to Stockholm through the first ever UN environmental conference. On 5–16 June 1972 representatives from 130 governments gathered in Stockholm under the slogan Only One Earth.

The Stockholm Conference, as it came to be called, was the first attempt at global level to take political action against an increasingly serious environmental crisis. The conference was undoubtedly one of Sweden’s largest diplomatic efforts during the post-war period. Even more important, though almost forgotten, is that the preparations for the Stockholm Conference “formed the origin of the idea of global “sustainable development”, one of the keywords of the last decade. The Stockholm Conference undeniably played a central role in linking the environment and development.” 12

For its time, it was a ground-breaking achievement and the first ever action-oriented environmental policy conference. Sweden considered that it was now time to raise the environmental issue on the political agenda seeking broad political recognition of the environment as a central intergovernmental issue that required the UN’s attention. Previous international natural resource conferences held since the 1940s had all been of a technical and scientific nature and resulted in lengthy professional reports. Rarely had any serious conflicts come to the surface, as all environmental policy implications had largely been avoided. 13

Several results of the Stockholm Conference should unquestionably be highlighted. The first is the Stockholm Declaration, signed on 16 June setting out 26 principles on the environment and development. In short, the 26 principles within the declaration broadly recognize human impact on the environment, signifying for the first time in history that environmental issues have been addressed publicly and on a global scale. 14

One of the most important parts of the declaration was the adoption of Principle 21, which recognizes the sovereign right of states to formulate their own environmental goals, but gives states a shared responsibility to ensure that national activities do not have negative effects on other states.

“States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.” 15

Principle 21 has thus come to function as an important legal principle for organizing international cooperation on cross-border air and water pollution.

“The immense destruction brought about by indiscriminate bombing, by large scale use of bulldozers and pesticides is an outrage sometimes described as ecocide, which requires urgent international attention. It is shocking that only preliminary discussions of this matter have been possible so far in the United Nations and at the conferences of the International Committee of the Red Cross, where it has been taken up by my country and others. We fear that the active use of these methods is coupled by a passive resistance to discuss them”. 16

Another significant result was an action plan for continued international environmental cooperation and a third result was the establishment of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) in Nairobi. The conference was indeed a catalyst for putting environmental issues on the international political agenda and Olof Palme himself called the conference “a breakthrough for a common vision and focus of future international environmental cooperation”. 17 However, it should also be recognized that the conference also had a great impact on the national level.

As part of the preparatory work, Sweden proposed that all countries should compile a national report that described their own environmental situation. This led to most participating countries conducting a major national environmental survey for the first time. In several countries, this became an incentive to establish environmental authorities and new legislation. 18

4 Bringing the Legacy to the Future

The Stockholm Conference was indeed an important first step. It has been followed by many more global environmental conferences 19 and multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) 20 . The establishment of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 by two UN agencies, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), aimed at providing the world with a clear scientific perspective on the current state of knowledge regarding climate change and its environmental and socio-economic impact. The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), also known as the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit in 1992 laying important foundation through to the three Rio Conventions: the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). Only to mention a few of the initiatives. Still leaving us without the necessary political will and action needed to tackle loss of biodiversity, stop us from polluting the air we breathe, the water the drink, the soil we feed from.

The humankind is currently facing its greatest crisis ever. The ongoing environmental and climate change threatens our existence. We talk about the necessary adjustment but have a hard time imagining it, feeling doubt if it is even possible. A sustainable world is not a utopia but requires innovation, political will, and courage. The UN Climate Panel states that we need “rapid, far-reaching and incomparable changes in all aspects of society” to stop global warming. The wordings echo Olof Palme’s message in 1972. So far, politics has neither delivered sufficiently visionary societal solutions, nor the courage to implement them. In 2015 a very important step was taken through the adoption of Agenda 2030 21 and the Paris Agreement 22 . But once again, we stand at risk of not keeping the promises made, once again we risk not being courageous enough in adopting the needed solutions that require far-reaching changes in attitudes and social structures.

No one can turn a blind eye to the climate issue anymore. Already today the effects of climate change are visible with dire consequences for millions of people across the globe losing their homes in fires, floods and droughts in a vicious spiral that reinforces inequality and deepens poverty and injustice. Workers, farmers and poor are the worst affected by climate change today and has very limited options to deal with the effects. Countries in the developed world such as Sweden, are not just the main cause to the current situation, we owe much of our ongoing and excessive contribution to climate change to imports from countries where people and popular organisations are weak and poorly organised and environmental legislation is limited or non-existent. Bringing the legacy of Olof Palme to build a greener future there are two concepts that could serve as points of departure.

5 Just Transition Through Social Dialogue

Internationally, Olof Palme is mostly known for his sharp criticism of the US war in Vietnam and of the fascist regimes in Latin America as well as for his support to liberation movements across the globe and for his engagement in bringing down the apartheid system in South Africa. But for the domestic politics, Olof Palme was instrumental for the advancement of the Swedish welfare state. Grounded in social democratic values and beliefs in equality and that basic security makes people trust the future and more willing to embrace development and necessary change.

To gain acceptance for the necessary transition to fossil-free energy and a more sustainable world we are dependent upon an integrated approach where we develop responses that address inequality at the same time as climate change. If we are unable to do this, transforming our societies in the necessary way will prove impossible. This is core in the international trade union movement’s call for a ‘Just Transition’ towards a fossil free, socially, economically, and environmentally sustainable world. The agenda encompasses a range of social interventions needed to secure workers’ jobs and livelihoods when economies are shifting to sustainable production. ‘Just Transition’ will not happen by itself. It requires plans and policies. Workers and communities dependent on fossil fuels will not find an alternative source of income and revenue overnight. Therefore, transformation is not only about phasing out polluting sectors, but also about new jobs, new industries, new skills, new investment, social security and the opportunity to create a more equal and resilient economy.

For this to happen social dialogue is the key. With social dialogue, government, business, trade unions and civil society groups can collaborate in the national, industry and community planning and agree on policies that are necessary for a just transition to zero emissions. Social dialogue will bring the policy coherence we need to ensure that climate action also means job creation and community renewal. It allows us to bring together industrial strategy, innovation, deployment of clean technologies and investment in green infrastructure, along with the measures we need to smooth out the transition: Social protection, skills training, redeployment, labour market policies and community development and renewal. At its heart just transition requires us to leave no one behind.

Through aligning with and supporting the concept of a ‘Just Transition’ that places increased equality at the centre of the necessary reform projects the required transition can also help tackle the problems our societies face due to increased inequality. Equality ensures sustainable change and more equal societies are better equipped to tackle the radical shift and structural changes needed in our societies, economies, and production to address the climate threat.

6 Common Security: A Blueprint for Survival

More and more countries are ruled by authoritarian, undemocratic and intolerant leaders. All the different indices used to measure the democratic development in the world show that democracy has been in decline for more than a decade. More people today live-in countries with authoritarian tendencies than in countries that are developing in a democratic direction.

These authoritarian, often right-wing nationalist leaders, advocate withdrawing from international cooperation, closing borders and putting the interests of their own nation first. Short-term solutions such as trade tariffs, reduced aid and new walls against the outside world become ways to show political action. They seek division, put groups of people against each other and as consequence polarization increases. In the long run, it risks leading to more war and conflict.

Conflict and social tension grow as the predicted impacts of climate change are becoming increasingly visible. Environment and climate-related risks, including extreme weather events, water scarcity and the failure to adapt and mitigate climate change, are among the top risks the world faces. In 30 years, the UN estimates the number of climate refugees have reached at 250 million.

Because of increased uncertainty, the total defence spending is rising, nuclear arsenals are being modernized and disarmaments is under threat. In 2019, we have seen the largest increase in world military spending since World War II. Nuclear weapons pose a gigantic threat to all of humanity. Together with climate change, they are usually called the twin threat. A changing climate threatens the survival of mankind and nuclear weapons can wipe out all life in an instant.

“The arms race is accelerating. The development of new nuclear weapons seems to suggest that the nuclear powers may actually consider fighting a nuclear war. The threat of war seems closer than for many years . . . the process of negotiating arms limitation was moribund.”

At a time when the world is engaged in a new arms race, spending almost two trillion dollars on its military including 73 billion dollars by the nuclear powers on the estimated 14,000 nuclear weapons in the world, coupled with the abandonment and neglect of arms control treaties you would be forgiven for thinking that the quote was a description of where our world stands today.

The above quote is almost forty years old. They are the words written by Olof Palme, as the Chair, to introduce the report of the Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security Issues (1980–1982). In 1982, it delivered the report entitled: Common Security: A programme for Disarmament 23 . The Commission had its deliberations at the height of cold war tensions and the frightening prospect of nuclear war in Europe.

The Palme Commission through ‘Common Security’ introduced a new term into the international debate on security. The basic idea of common security is not complex. It is that no country can obtain security, in the long run, simply by taking unilateral decisions about its own military deployment. Security depends also on the actions and reactions of potential adversaries. Hence, security must be found in common with those adversaries. The belief that your country’s security can be secured through–be it military power, nuclear weapons, or any other deterrence–the feeling of insecurity of the other is a delusion.

7 Road Ahead

The concept of ‘Common Security’ was presented as a way of moving beyond a world dominated by the arms race and towards an alternative world which would be marked by states, and peoples, recognising their common interests in survival and peaceful development. The Palme Commission did underscored that “States can no longer seek security at each other’s expense; it can be obtained only through cooperative undertakings”.

The year 2020 became the starting point for the United Nations system to discuss the reform of the multilateral system, built 75 years ago in a very different context. The escalating global health, climate and economic crises have led to a further deterioration of the world order as we knew it. Recovery requires urgent and reinforced cooperation at the international level. Our shared problems demand new shared solutions and to do so we need a new, fair, and inclusive multilateralism able to cope with new shared challenges. Migration, climate change, pandemics cannot be met with bullets. It requires completely different initiatives, investments in peace and poverty reduction. In green technology and social security. And not least more global cooperation.

There are enough parallels with the disjointed world of today to once again ask ourselves where our global blueprint for survival is. And if not ‘common security’ might hold that key. In these troubling times the observation by the Palme Commission that “We face common dangers and thus must also promote our security in common” is a solid foundation to build common global solutions.

8 Conclusion

Coming back to the words of Olof Palme: “Our future is common”. 24 It requires concrete international actions and solutions having far-reaching changes in attitudes and social structures, the need to take holistic approach to sustainable development seriously becomes obvious.

To achieve the change in attitudes we need the support from people. Infused with hope for the future, not with fear of losing your job to a fossil-free economy. To achieve the change in social structure we need to make sure the transition is not only green but also fair.

We need also to realize that solidarity is self-interest in an interconnected world, to borrow the words of UN Secretary General António Guterres. If we do not understand this simple fact, everyone will lose.

Together, we face humanity’s greatest challenge. Together we must solve it. The need for international action remains even more acute. Multilateral cooperation holds the key, not putting your own country first and turning away from international cooperation. The worldwide mobilization required to reduce global warming becomes impossible when UN cooperation is undermined, when international laws and regulations are questioned, and agreements are terminated. The rise of authoritarianism and nationalism is not only a democratic problem, but it also threatens our ability to respond to climate change and thereby the future of our planet.

As social tension grows and the risk of conflicts increases, we need not arms race and traditional military defence but a new paradigm for security –common security –a more solid foundation to build common global solutions. With a clear vision of inclusive and sustainable societies will we be able to meet the challenges we face. We can do it –if there is political will and courageous political leaders are willing to put our common future first.

Almost forty years after Olof Palme hosted the world’s first international environmental conference his words remain truer than ever; “in relation to the human habitat, there is no individual future, neither for people nor for nations. Our future is common. We must share it together. We should shape it together.” 25 These prophetic words remain as relevant - as they were in 1972 –on our way to the Stockholm+50 event slated for 2022.