German parliamentarian talks to Bulletin Editor Pavel Antonov about reducing stress on European nature by a factor of four Dr. Ernst Ulrich von Weizsacker is a member of the German Parliament and chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on Enquiry, "Globalisation of the Economy: Challenges and Responses." He has also been president of the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy (1991-2000), director of the Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEUP) in Bonn, London and Paris (1984-1991) and director of the United Nations Centre for Science and Technology for Development (1981-1984). Weizsacker has written extensively about the environment, and is well known for his concept of "factor four," a theory that basically suggests the developed world could reduce its impact on the environment and natural resources by four times the current rate - without reducing its overall welfare. The countries of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) see an urgent need for economic growth and expansion. How can they simultaneously achieve a "factor four" reduction in their environmental impact? What can the reduction factor be under these circumstances? Just theoretically, according to Joseph Schumpeter, destruction can be creative. Applied to CEE, this could mean to replace the old and collapsed industrial structures with new and efficient ones. So much for theory. In practice, it may be difficult to persuade investors to go for the option of resource efficiency if the alternative is quick results with old-fashioned (but familiar) structures.  Traditionally, CEE follows the West in planning development, especially in the context of EU accession. How good is the Western model when it comes to achieving sustainable development? My primary addressee of "Factor Four" has been the West, i.e. Western Europe, USA, Japan. The U.S. model is the worst by far as regards sustainability. The U.S. behaves a bit like Leninist Russia: They keep their energy prices at extremely low levels so that everybody can waste energy without being punished. Western Europe is much better. Energy prices are moderate, efficiency is rising, renewable sources of energy enjoy public support. Japan is even better. Since the oil crisis of 1973, Japan maintained very high energy prices and fared extremely well with it. (The current "crisis" in Japan has nothing to do with energy prices but with massive signs of saturation.) CEE could theoretically by-pass some of the obvious mal-developments of the U.S. High energy prices are recommendable for avoiding the wasteful use of this scarce resource. Environmentalists and anti-globalists are often depicted as enemies of progress and economic welfare. What should civil organisations do to keep their voice heard in CEE? Civil society groups should emphasise that they work for progress and greater welfare. They should not fight globalisation per se, but should constructively work on rules for global players. These rules should include respect for human rights, workers' rights, environmental protection and fair play with public authorities (no corruption, no tax erosion). I am sure the public in CEE will agree with such objectives. Given the decision by the United States to reject the Kyoto protocol, do you think sustainable development is an endangered concept? President Bush caused an earthquake with his naive and selfish attitude on Kyoto. Many Americans became furious, whereas, before Bush's move, they were mostly dormant or inactive. In other countries, the Kyoto Protocol received increasing support after Bush's departure. The Bonn Conference in July 2001 showed the U.S. perfectly isolated and frustrated over the near-unanimous determination to go ahead with climate protection.

Ernst Ulrich von Weizsacker: CEE can by-pass ... maldevelopments of the US.'