Interesting item here - a handful of people over riding our constitution but avoids actual mention of the weather "control" aka "modification" program..think you will find people at Battelle (one was in cahoots with Admiral Crowe and his drug machine - both worked together)....but you will find that in America dare not mention this program but UN has resolution whereby pore third world countries will not have to pay for our destruction - and here is more of this global warming crap when you have all this stuff underground at both polar caps inclluding nuclear energy plants, etc...... So note here in this item and if you do not wish to pull up and read all - use "find" button and go to "gasoline" where they want HUGE gasoline taxes to fund their projects.... Who the hell do these people think they are? Sadaam Hussein said we could have cheap oil and this is why he is number one target - for these war criminals who use weather as a weapon do not want cheap oil..... Wonder who really runs the Rockefeller Foundation now.......hope we get into solar energy and let those bastards all drink that oil who would steal if from the Arabs. Saba How much does gasoline cost now and how much kickback went to Clinton and his henchmen....... [Preface] [Report] [Participants] Preserving the Global Environment The Challenge of Shared Leadership PREFACE On April 19, 1990, seventy-six men and women from eighteen countries, representing a spectrum of government, business, labor, academia, the media, and the professions, gathered at Arden House, Harriman, New York, for the Seventy-seventh American Assembly entitled Preserving the Global Environment: The Challenge of Shared Leadership. For three days the participants discussed how the United States should reorient its policies and relations toward other countries and international institutions to preserve our global environment. This was the third in a series of American Assembly programs exploring the changing global role of the United States in the 1990s. This program was jointly sponsored by the World Resources Institute (WRI), and The American Assembly. Dr. Jessica Tuchman Mathews, vice president of WRI, served as director and edited the background papers prepared for the participants. Authors and titles of these papers, which will be compiled and published as a W.W. Norton book, are: Daniel A. Sharp James Gustave SpethPrefaceJessica Tuchman MathewsIntroduction and OverviewNathan KeyfitzPopulation Growth Can Prevent the Development That Would Slow Population GrowthKenton Miller Walter V. ReidDeforestation and Species LossRichard Elliot BenedickProtecting the Ozone Layer: New Directions in DiplomacyGeorge W. RathjensEnergy and Climate ChangeTom H. TietenbergManaging the Transition: The Potential Role for Economic PoliciesRichard N. CooperThe World Economic ClimatePeter H. SandInternational Cooperation: The Environmental ExperienceAbram Chayes Antonia H. ChayesAdjustment and Compliance: Processes in International Regulatory RegimesJessica Tuchman MathewsThe Implications for U.S. Policy Evening programs during this Assembly included an address by Maurice F. Strong, Secretary General, 1992 U.N. Conference on Environment and Development; and panels on "Arms, Conflict, and the Environment," (Lincoln P. Bloomfield, professor of political science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Moderator; Nicole Ball, director of analysis, The National Security Archive; Michael Klare, director, Five College Program in Peace and World Security Studies; Kosta Tsipis, director, Program in Science and Technology for International Security, MIT); and a panel on "The Common Environment of Eastern Europe" (Robert H. Pry, director, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, Moderator; Tamas Fleischer, senior research fellow, Research Institute for World Economy of the Hungarian Academy of Science, Budapest; Andrzej Kassenberg, Institute of Geography and Spatial Economy, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw; Jaromir Sedlak, Krupp Senior Associate, Institute for East-West Security Studies, New York). Following their discussion, the participants issued this report on April 22, 1990; it contains both their findings and recommendations. We gratefully acknowledge the support of the following organizations which helped to fund this undertaking: Principal FunderRockefeller Brothers FundMajor FundersJohn D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation The Pew Charitable Trusts The Tinker Foundation, Inc. The George Gund FoundationFundersThe Ford Foundation CITIBANK/Citicorp The Overbrook Foundation Volvo North America Rockefeller Family Fund, Inc. Texaco, Inc. Xerox Foundation These organizations, as well as the World Resources Institute and The American Assembly, take no position on subjects presented here for public discussion. In addition, it should be noted that the participants took part in this meeting as private individuals and spoke for themselves rather than for the institutions with which they are affiliated. This report was printed and distributed through generous grants from CITIBANK and from The Pew Charitable Trusts. We are grateful for their support. We would like to express special appreciation in preparing for the fine work of the drafting committee of this report: Ian Burton, Harlan Cleveland, Charles Ebinger, T.N. Khoshoo, Carlisle F. Runge, Alexander Shakow, Bruce Smart, James Gustave Speth, and Jennifer Seymour Whitaker. James Gustave Speth President World Resources InstituteDaniel A. Sharp President The American Assembly The printing and distribution of this report has been funded by a special grant from CITIBANK and from The Pew Charitable Trusts. [Preface] [Report] [Participants] FINAL REPORT of the SEVENTY-SEVENTH AMERICAN ASSEMBLY At the close of their discussions, the participants in the Seventy-seventh American Assembly, on Preserving the Global Environment: The Challenge of Shared Leadership, at Arden House, Harriman, New York, April 19-22, 1990, reviewed as a group the following statement. This statement represents general agreement; however, no one was asked to sign it. Furthermore, it should be understood that not everyone agreed with all of it. Three indivisibly linked global environmental trends together constitute an increasingly grave challenge to the habitability of the Earth: they are human population growth; tropical deforestation and the rapid loss of biological diversity; and global atmospheric change, including stratospheric ozone loss and greenhouse warming. These trends threaten nations' economic potential, therefore their internal political security, their citizens' health (because of increased ultraviolet radiation), and, in the case of global warming, possibly their very existence. No more basic threat to national security exists. Thus, together with economic interdependence, global environmental threats are shifting traditional national security concerns to a focus on collective global security. The 1990s offer an historic opportunity for action that must not be allowed to slip. Not only do the global environmental trends pose an urgent threat to the planet's long term future, but the waning of the Cold War also lifts a heavy psychological and economic burden from both governments and individuals, freeing human, physical, and financial resources to meet the new challenge. There is evidence that developing countries are ready to become partners in this global endeavor. However, their willingness to act will depend on help from the industrialized countries to alleviate the poverty which is a major aggravating cause of population growth and environmental degradation. It will also depend on the industrialized countries' demonstrated commitment to reduce their heavy per capita consumption of natural resources and ecological services. The industrialized countries, in short, must prove through concrete action that they take enviromental issues seriously. The other side of the equation that determines environmental stress, which must be addressed, is population growth: ninety-five percent of which will otherwise occur in the developing countries. The global response must therefore be launched as a mutual commitment by all countries. The certainty that all nations will share a common destiny demands that they work together as partners. The global environmental challenge is fundamentally different from previous international concerns. Unlike the effort to avoid nuclear war that dominated international relations for the past forty-five years, success or failure will not hinge on the actions of governments alone. It will rest equally on the beliefs and actions of billions of individuals, and on the roles played by national and multinational business. The importance of individual behavioral change and the major new roles to be played by these non-governmental actors demand profound change in the institutions and mechanisms of international cooperation. POPULATION GROWTH The degradation of the global environment is integrally linked to human population growth. More than ninety million people are added each year--more than ever before. On its present trajectory, the world's population could nearly triple its current size, reaching fourteen billion before stabilizing. With an heroic effort, it could level off at around nine billion. However, today's unmet need for family planning is huge: only thirty percent of reproductive age people in the developing world outside of China currently have access to contraception. Women's full and equal participation in society at all levels must be rapidly addressed. Policy makers must recognize that actions taken during the critical decade of the 1990s will largely determine whether human population will double or triple before stabilizing. Nigeria, for example, could grow from about thirty million in 1950 to around 300 million in 2020--a tenfold increase in one lifespan. In the absence of rapid progress in family planning, future governments may be tempted to restrict human freedom in order to deal with unmanageable population increases. The pressure of population on the environment is bound up with poverty: in the Sahel as well as other areas threatened by famine and environmental deterioration, poor people have no other option but to consume all available local resources. Sustaining the environment thus requires a balance between wise environmental management, active efforts to slow population growth, and equitable economic development. In many developing countries, population pressures on the land threaten national security as people migrate in search of sustenance, aggravating territorial disputes and often creating violent conflict. While population pressures affect the planet as a whole, they must be individually addressed by each nation and its citizens. Countries must make their own assessments about population levels and growth, ordering their development priorities and incentives accordingly. Industrialized nations can offer much needed technical support and experience in family planning to help developing nations and individual couples achieve their goals. Despite its complexities, the problem clearly calls for several policy initiatives aimed at: Universal access to family planning by the end of the decade--this will require a global expenditure rising to reach $10 billion a year by the year 2000. Giving priority to investment in education for women and in bringing women into full economic and political participation. Greatly increased research to provide a wide array of safer, cheaper and easier birth control technologies. Stepped up mass communication aimed at increasing support for family planning. Since 1981, the United States has retreated from the strong leadership role on world population it exercised in the two previous decades. The ideological debate has destroyed a bipartisan consensus that laid the groundwork for crucial international cooperation. Money for research has fallen sharply, and the global family planning effort has been gravely weakened. Positive U.S. leadership needs to be reestablished, through the restoration of U.S. support for the major international population and family planning organizations and annual population assistance budgets more commensurate with global requirements. Ultimately, no administration can be regarded as serious about the environment unless it is serious about global population growth. TROPICAL DEFORESTATION AND LOSS OF BIODIVERSITY Tropical deforestation and the loss of a diverse set of species rob the Earth of its biological richness, which undermines long-range ecological security and global economic potential. Nearly twenty million hectares of tropical forests are lost every year. Conservative estimates put the extinction rate at one hundred species per day: a rate unmatched since the disappearance of the dinosaurs. Escalating human populations, deforestation, disruptions of watersheds, soil loss, and land degradation are all linked in a vicious cycle that perpetuates and deepens poverty, and often creates ecological refugees. Because deforestation and the loss of biodiversity result first from mismanagement at the local level, effective interventions must also occur at this level, building upon local norms, traditions, and cultures that will promote sustainable management. Recent efforts to restore common property management by indigenous peoples in the Amazon basin of Colombia and Ecuador are notable initiatives. This approach respects the rights of indigenous populations and the wisdom of their institutions, and is likely to be low in cost. At the national level, effective management will require a commitment to conservation, land use planning, secure property rights, and sustainable agroforestry, so that forests provide a continued flow of goods and services with minimal ecological disruption. Timber harvesting must reflect long-term scarcity values, consistent with full environmental and social cost accounting. Tropical forests are often sacrificed for a fraction of their real value by nations in search of quick sources of foreign exchange. While "debt-for-nature" swaps by the private sector are helpful and should be expanded, they are unlikely to be sufficient either to save forest ecosystems or to relieve debt loads. However, the opportunity exists to include government debt in this process and to complement the international debt strategy by linking reduction in public sector debt to policy reforms with environmental benefits. What policy goals and means are appropriate locally, nationally, and internationally? While respecting local and community property rights which promote ecologically sound management, national governments can help most by eliminating distorted economic incentives that encourage mismanagement, such as the granting of property titles in return for forest clearing, and below-cost timber sales. International institutions should encourage such reforms which, at the same time, relieve the pressure on remaining tropical forests and help bring about their sustainable exploitation. Forest conservation is not enough; it must be accompanied by aggressive, ecologically sensitive reforestation and land rehabilitation, especially on arid lands and where fuelwood demands are high. These measures will be costly. Current international funding levels (such as called for in the Tropical Forest Action Plan), should be increased tenfold from about $1 billion to $10 billion. The additional funds will only achieve their goals if accompanied by increased training and broad non-governmental participation in the planning process. A international Strategy and Convention on Biodiversity would provide a means to actively engage many institutions, and to formulate a global action plan for identifying and funding critical needs in ecological "hot spots." The Strategy and Convention should be readied for the 1992 Conference on Environment and Development. The World Bank in its lending policies should be sensitive to encouraging land use and forest practices that are consistent with environmental sustainability. ATMOSPHERE AND ENERGY Human activities are substantially changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere in a way that threatens the health, security, and survival of people and other species, and increases the likelihood of international tensions. Depletion of the ozone layer and global warming are two salient examples, but other unforeseen effects cannot be ruled out. Ozone The depletion of the ozone layer by chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), allows increased ultraviolet B radiation from the sun to enter the Earth's atmosphere, threatening human health and the productivity of the biosphere. The 1987 international agreement to limit production and use of CFCs in the Montreal Protocol to the Vienna Convention was a landmark achievement and a promising precendent for international agreements on other global environmental issues. However, the Protocol itself is an unfinished story. Full participation by the less developed countries has not yet been achieved, issues of acceptable alternatives and technology transfer remain unresolved, and the treaty itself must be revised to require complete elimination of CFC production and use by industrialized countries no later than 2000. How these issues are resolved will have important implications for addressing climate change and other global ecological problems. The Greenhouse Effect There is a scientific consensus that rising concentrations of greenhouse gases will cause global climatic change. Atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have increased twenty-five percent since the beginning of the industrial era. Most of the CO2 emissions derive from energy use. About ninety percent of the world's current energy use is met by the burning of carbon-based fuels. Tropical deforestation is also a major source of carbon dioxide. Other greenhouse gases, methane, nitrous oxides, and CFCs, are collectively as important as carbon dioxide in their greenhouse effect and are increasing more rapidly. Therefore, the Earth is set to experience substantial climate change of unknown scale and rapidity. The consequences are likely to include sea level rise, greater frequency of extreme weather events, disruption of ecosystems, and potentially vast impacts on the global economy. The processes of climate change are irreversible and major additional releases could be triggered from the biosphere by global warming in an uncontrollable self-reinforcing process (e.g. methane release from unfrozen Arctic tundra). "Insurance" actions to reduce CO2 emissions and those of other greenhouse gases are therefore needed, starting now. The associated risks are much less than those of not acting and in some cases require no net increase in cost. Past and present contributions to greenhouse gases come largely from the industrialized countries. However, the less developed countries already contribute significantly through deforestation, and their share will increase sharply with development and expansion of fossil fuel use, especially coal. The international community should work quickly toward a multilateral framework ultimately involving national targets for reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and the other greenhouse gases. There is no need for the industrialized countries to await universal agreements. They should act now: individually and/or in concert. Indeed, some in Western Europe have already begun. Initial steps involve the deployment of a range of policy instruments to achieve energy conservation and efficiency, demand-side management, and changes in the fuel mix. A considerable expansion of support for research and development into alternative energy sources is urgently required. There may be a future for nuclear energy if credible assurance can be provided with respect to safety, waste disposal, nuclear proliferation, and comparative costs. This American Assembly strongly endorses the global target now under study by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of a twenty percent reduction in CO2 emissions by 2005 as a minimum goal. GOALS AND MEANS OF INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION Global environmental damage threatens the physical as well as economic security of individuals and nations without exception, giving new reality to traditional concepts of collective security. Environmental threats are also likely to create new sources of conflict. The risks of collective insecurity call for an unprecedented strategy of international cooperation. The health of the global environment is the product of behavior by billions of individuals. National governments must increasingly take into account the views of their citizens as they design policies to confront environmental concerns, and can increasingly rely on the influence and impact of changes in individual behavior. Coalitions of non-governmental actors can be a powerful force in hammering out bargains, hardening scientific consensus, and developing legal concepts and new institutional frameworks. Governments and international institutions can then set widely applicable norms and standards. In this new international context, institutions and mechanisms are becoming more fluid: the complex and swiftly evolving environmental dilemmas demand it. Thus, we need to seek global consensus in the United Nations as work proceeds in many other arenas to reach more limited agreements. These include unilateral action by individual governments, small groups of nations bargaining on discrete issues, an active role by companies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), regional arrangements, and hybrid public-private partnerships (such as the collaboration between pharmaceutical companies and the World Health Organization on new birth control measures--a pattern that should be copied for ecological restoration). Actions and decisions should always be taken at a level as close as possible to the people affected by them. Within the U.N. system, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), has demonstrated its capacity to serve as innovator, monitor, and catalyst--notably in the Mediterranean cleanup and the 1987 ozone treaty. UNEP should be strengthened and much more dependably funded to continue this important role. Among key priorities for international action are the following: Establishing Norms and Setting Goals The first task of the international community as a whole is to develop a broad consensus on norms of global survival, and to establish specific environmental goals--for example, boundary conditions on pollution of the atmospheric commons, targets for the protection of biodiversity, and population policy goals--toward which public and private efforts should be directed. Meeting the Costs Industrial countries must make major investments to improve their own performance. Developing countries must, in their own interest, increasingly incorporate sound environmental practices as part of their own development programs. Resolving the debt overhang is crucial. But industrial countries will also need to make a special effort to expand flows to developing countries if needed investments in global environmental priorities--slowing population growth, protecting the ozone layer, limiting greenhouse gas emissions, preserving biodiversity, and many other non-global environmental needs--are to occur. Because of resource scarcities, developing countries are otherwise unlikely to act. The UNEP, United Nations Development Program (UNDP), and the World Bank have proposed a $1 billion, three-year pilot facility for this purpose; it deserves strong support. Much larger resource flows will be needed in the future. As a source of such funds, serious consideration should be given to establishing an international fee (for example, on carbon use), because conventional sources of finance are simply not adequate to, or appropriate for, the task of reducing global environmental risks. Policy Reforms While additional financing is required, many other measures can make a major impact. International agreement is needed to introduce into national accounting methods the full costs incurred in depletion of natural resources and use of the global commons; this could serve as a valuable guide to all nations' decision makers to use scarce resources well. International trade is a major source of revenues for development; the current Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs & Trade (GATT) negotiations should be used to strengthen environmental considerations in trade policy. All international financial and planning institutions should take account of how policy recommendations affect environmental policy. Technical Assistance and Research All countries need additional environmental expertise and research. An International Global Environmental Service Corps should be established to provide technical help and build local environmental capacity Expanding the Role of the Private Sector Government and international organizations have special responsibilities, but the private sector may have the most impact. Where central planners and government bureaucracies have tried to replace free markets, neither economic development nor environmental protection has been well served. The private sector should be spurred to anticipate--and benefit from--the changing structure of regulation and market demand by developing environmentally superior technologies. Governments need to encourage such environmental entrepreneurship through the use of taxes, subsidies, and other signals, including codes of conduct. An international structure of targets and standards is needed to support this approach. Within in private sector, an enormous number of citizen organizations now play an important part in establishing priorities. In all the actions we propose, active and early participation by representative groups at the local, national, and international level should be encouraged. The 1992 U.N. Conference on Environment and Development None of these environmental challenges can be met without a new era of heightened cooperation between the industrial and developing countries. This will come in many shapes and forms, using ad hoc coalitions of governments, active participation of NGOs and the private sector, and other new arrangements designed to meet varying needs. The 1992 conference provides a unique opportunity to build on these initiatives to advance international action on the points noted here--in short, to achieve a global compact for environmental protection and economic progress. The conference should affirm that slowing population growth is an integral part of meeting the environment and development challenge. It should agree on how the additional resource needs of the decade should be met. It should establish a new official methodology for calculating national income accounts. And it should complete legal agreements on conventions already under negotiation--for protection of the atmosphere, and biological diversity. A CHALLENGE TO THE UNITED STATES As the world's largest economic power and consumer of environmental resources, the United States must play a key leadership role both by example and through international participation. This calls for strong action at every level from private households to the White House. Change is difficult and not cost free. It will take commitment and courage. But the long term benefits will be worth every penny. Essential to this drive is the development of a national environmental strategy, through the joint efforts of government, private industry, NGOs, and individual leaders. It should be aimed at global goals that include: A halt to the buildup of greenhouse gases; A lower per capita environmental cost of industrial and agricultural practices and consumption patterns, particularly in the United States and other wealthy nations; Slowing and then reversing deforestation; A drastic reduction in the rate of human-caused species extinction; and, Stabilization of world population before it doubles again. To develop and carry out such a strategy will require integration of policies and more effective coordination of agencies within the U.S. government, and a major review should be launched to determine the needed changes. Equally important, the strategy can benefit from close cooperation between private industry and environmental experts to identify, develop, and adopt environmentally superior technologies. With its preeminent scientific research capacity, the United States is in a position materially to aid development, improve the enviroment, and increase the planet's carrying capacity. Government research and development funding should be shifted from a preoccupation with defense to greater concern for the environment, to increase knowledge of natural phenomena and trends, to expand our understanding of the human dimensions of global change, and to develop more benign technologies, particularly in energy manufacturing, and agriculture. Incentives for private environmentally-related research and development should also be considered. In addition to lending strong support to the multilateral initiatives identified above, U.S. action is needed in the following areas: Adopt New Policies on Global Warming and Energy Despite considerable uncertainties, enough is known about the risks of global warming and climate change to justify an immediate U.S. policy response. Without waiting for international consensus or treaties, the United States should take actions to reduce substantially its emissions of carbon dioxide, CFCs, and other greenhouse gases. The United States should promote a global phase-out of CFC production by 2000. U.S. energy strategy should emphasize reducing fossil fuel use through aggressive energy efficiency improvements, especially in transportation and in the production and use of electricity, backed by greater efforts to introduce renewable energy sources. Research on nuclear energy should be pursued to determine whether designs can be developed that might resolve safety and proliferation concerns and restore public and investor confindence. In addition to performance standards and other regulatory approaches, economic incentives are essential to achieving energy efficiency. Most important is a large, phased-in increase in the federal tax on gasoline and the adoption of a carbon dioxide emissions fee applicable to users of fossil fuels. To avoid competitive imbalances, other industrial nations should be urged to adopt similar policies. Strengthen Cooperation with the Developing Countries and Eastern Europe Recognizing that meeting many of today's environmental challenges will require major actions by the developing countries, the United States should launch new programs and strengthen existing ones that can encourage and support these undertakings. Operating in concert with international partners whenever appropriate, these programs should: 1) provide strong financial and other support for universal access to family planning and contraceptive services, accompanied by efforts to improve the status of women and their employment opportunities; 2) launch major new financing initiatives aimed at facilitating developing country participation in international negotiations, and at meeting the large need for investments in sustainable forest management, biodiversity protection, watershed rehabilitation, fuelwood production, and techniques adapted to the needs of small-scale farmers; 3) facilitate the transfer of needed technology, expertise, and information in energy, environment, and population; 4) assist the developing countries with training and capacity building both in government and in NGOs; and 5) redeploy a substantial fraction of military and security-related assistance to help developing and East European countries to alleviate their environmental problems. Two important objectives of these efforts should be to make improved technologies available to developing countries at affordable costs, and relatedly, to assist in finding environmentally acceptable ways of meeting their energy needs. Recent political changes in Eastern Europe afford an immediate opportunity to reduce environmental stress of local and global importance. Resolving the region's severe environmental problems requires collaboration and assistance from the United States, including the private sector. Such collaboration is a commercial opportunity, and should be one of the more economically efficient ways of reducing environmental degradation. It is vital, however, that the needed transfer of technology and funds from the West should not be made at the expense of resource flows to the developing countries. Revise Agricultural and Forestry Policies The United States, through negotiations abroad as well as unilateral actions at home, should phase out agricultural subsidies that encourage overproduction, excessive use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and mismanagement of water resources. Eliminating overproduction and adopting full cost pricing will open U.S. and other markets to developing country producers who enjoy a natural comparative advantage, thus aiding their economic development and intervening in the poverty-population-environment degradation cycle. Similarly, U.S. national forestry policies should be amended to eliminate the federal subsidization of timber sales at below market prices, and jointly with Canada, to conserve the last remnants of old growth temperate rainforests. A FINAL WORD On this Earth Day 1990, we call attention to the need for immediate international action to reverse trends that threaten the integrity of the global environment. These trends endanger all nations and require collective action and cooperation among all nations in the common interest. Our message is one of urgency. Accountable and courageous leadership in all sectors will be needed to mobilize the necessary effort. If the world community fails to act forcefully in the current decade, the Earth's ability to sustain life is at risk. [Preface] [Report] [Participants] PARTICIPANTS THE SEVENTY-SEVENTH AMERICAN ASSEMBLY TIMOTHY ATKESON Assistant Administrator Office of International Activities United States Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC JAMES D. ATWATER Professor Editorial Department School of Journalism University of Missouri- Columbia Columbia, Missouri NICOLE BALL++ Director of Analysis The National Security Archive Washington, DC ANTHONY C. BEILENSON Congressman from California U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC RICHARD E. BENEDICK Senior Fellow The Conservation Foundation/ World Wildlife Fund Washington, DC LINCOLN P. BLOOMFIELD Department of Political Science Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts ZBIGNIEW BOCHNIARZ Senior Fellow Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs University of Minnesota Minneapolis, Minnesota SEYOM BROWN Chair & Professor of Politics Department of Politics Brandeis University Waltham, Massachusetts GERARDO BUDOWSKI Director of Natural Resources University for Peace San Jose, COSTA RICA IAN BURTON* Director The International Foundation of Institutes for Advanced Study (IFIAS) Toronto, Ontario, CANADA SHARON L. CAMP Vice President Population Crisis Committee Washington, DC ABRAM CHAYES Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law Harvard Law School Cambridge, Massachusetts NAZLI CHOUCRI Professor of Political Science Department of Political Science Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts HARLAN CLEVELAND* Professor Emeritus Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs University of Minnesota Minneapolis, Minnesota Brigadier General W.R. DOBSON Director General Forces Development National Defense Headquarters Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA CHARLES K. EBINGER** Center for Strategic and International Studies Vice President International Resources Group Washington, DC ANTHONY FAIRCLOUGH Special Advisor & Former Deputy Director General for Development Commission of the European Communities Richmond, Surrey, U.K. TAMAS FLEISCHER++ Senior Research Fellow Research Institute for World Economy of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences Vice President, ISTER (East European Environmental Research) Budapest, HUNGARY ALTON FRYE Vice President & Washington Director Council on Foreign Relations Washington, DC SHINJI FUKUKAWA Advisor Global Industrial & Social Progress Research Institute (GISPRI) Former Vice-Minister of MITI Tokyo, JAPAN RICHARD N. GARDNER Henry L. Moses Professor of Law & International Organization School of Law Columbia University New York, New York DAVID GERGEN Editor-at-Large U.S. News & World Report Washington, DC ROBERT G. GILPIN, JR. Eisenhower Professor of International Affairs Woodrow Wilson School of Public & International Affairs and Department of Politics Princeton University Princeton, New Jersey PETER H. GLEICK Director Global Environment Program Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, & Security Berkeley, California U.V. HENDERSON, JR. General Manager Environment & Product Safety Department Texaco, Inc. Beacon, New York PERDITA HUSTON Senior Advisor to International Planned Parenthood Federation Regent's College London, U.K. PAUL IBEKA Development Economist Anambra-IMO River Basin Development Authority Owerri, NIGERIA ANDRZEJ KASSENBERG++ Institute of Geography & Spatial Economy Polish Academy of Sciences Warsaw, POLAND HISAKAZU KATO Director Office of Policy Planning & Research Environment Agency Government of Japan Tokyo, JAPAN NATHAN KEYFITZ Leader Population Program International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) Laxenburg, AUSTRIA T.N. KHOSHOO* Distinguished Scientist (CSIR) Tata Energy Research Institute New Delhi, INDIA JANUSZ KINDLER Professor Institute of Environmental Engineering Warsaw University of Technology Warsaw, POLAND MICHAEL KLARE++ Director & Associate Professor Five College Program in Peace & World Security Studies Hampshire College Amherst, Massachusetts SEEISO D. LIPHUKO Deputy Permanent Secretary Ministry of Local Government & Lands Gaborone, BOTSWANA ABRAHAM F. LOWENTHAL Professor of International Relations University of Southern California Los Angeles, California C. PAYNE LUCAS Executive Director Africare Washington, DC THOMAS F. MALONE Scholar in Residence St. Joseph College West Hartford, Connecticut JOAN MARTIN-BROWN Special Advisor to the Executive Director & Chief Washington Office United Nations Environment Programme Washington, DC JESSICA TUCHMAN MATHEWS Vice President World Resources Institute Washington, DC DONALD F. MCHENRY Georgetown University Washington, DC BERNARD MCKINNON CAP Director United Auto Workers Farmington, Connecticut ROBERT MCNAMARA Former President of The World Bank Washington, DC DANA MEAD Executive Vice President International Paper Company Purchase, New York JAMES W. MORLEY Professor of Government East Asian Institute Columbia University New York, New York MARTHA T. MUSE Chair & President The Tinker Foundation, Inc. New York, New York YVETTE M. NEWBOLD Company Secretary Hanson PLC London, U.K. MATTHEW NIMTEZ Partner Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison New York, New York ROBERT PAARLBERG Associate Professor Wellesley College Wellesley, Massachusetts ROBERT H. PRY++ Director International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) Laxenburg, AUSTRIA KEVIN F.F. QUIGLEY Program Director for Public Policy The Pew Charitable Trusts Philadelphia, Pennsylvania KILAPARTI RAMAKRISHNA Senior Associate International Environmental Law The Woods Hole Research Center Woods Hole, Massachusetts GEORGE W. RATHJENS Center for International Studies Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts WALTER V. REID Associate Program in Forests & Biodiversity World Resources Institute Washington, DC ALDEMARO ROMERO Executive Director BIOMA Caracs, VENEZUELA ANNIE BONNIN RONCEREL Coordinator Climate Network-Europe Louvain-La-Neuve, BELGIUM CARLISLE FORD RUNGE** Associate Professor & Director Center for International Food & Agricultural Policy University of Minnesota St. Paul, Minnesota JOSE SARUKHAN Rector Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (UNAM) Mexico City, MEXICO JOHN C. SAWHILL President & CEO The Nature Conservancy Washington, DC YURI N. SAYAMOV First Deputy Chair Committee of Soviet Scientists for Global Security Moscow, USSR JAROMIR SEDLAK++ Krupp Senior Associate Institute for East-West Security Studies New York, New York ALEXANDER SHAKOW Director Strategic Planning & Review Department The World Bank Washington, DC LEONARD SILK Economics Columnist The New York Times New York, New York BRUCE SMART Former Chair & CEO of Continental Group Former Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade Upperville, Virginia JAMES GUSTAVE SPETH President World Resource Institute Washington, DC MAURICE F. STRONG+ Secretary General 1992 U.N. Conference on Environment & Development Geneva, SWITZERLAND KOSTA TSIPIS++ Director Program in Science & Technology for International Security Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts MARTIN VON HILDEBRAND Head of Indigenous Affairs Office of the President Bogota, COLOMBIA EDITH BROWN WEISS Professor of Law Georgetown University School of Law Washington, DC CASEY E. WESTELL, JR. Consultant (Formerly Director, Industrial Ecology) Tenneco, Inc. Houston, Texas JENNIFER SEYMOUR WHITAKER** Director Committees on Foreign Relations Council on Foreign Relations New York, New York JOHN WILLIAMSON Senior Fellow Institute for International Economics Washington, DC GEORGE M. WOODWELL Director The Woods Hole Research Center Woods Hole, Massachusetts TAIZO YAKUSHIJI Professor of Political Science Saitama University Urawa City, Saitama, JAPAN ORAN R. YOUNG Director The Institute of Arctic Studies Dartmouth College Hanover, New Hampshire CHARLES ZIEGLER Senior Vice President External Affairs Ciba-Geigy Ardsley, New York KARL ZIEGLER Financial Consultant to the World Wide Fund for Nature and Friends of the Earth Former Executive Director of Bankers Trust International London, U.K. * Discussion Leader ** Rapporteur + Delivered Formal Address ++ Panelist The American Assembly / Suite 456 / 475 Riverside Drive / New York NY 10115 / telephone: 212 870 3500 / fax: 212 870 3555 e-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Version 2.0 | Created on: Tues Aug 12 10:17:34 EST 1997 | Last Modified: Wed Aug 13 10:17:34 EST 1997 | Copyright & Copy: 1990 by The American Assembly
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/amassembly/programs/past/global.html
