Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Russia’

I am not a product of my circumstances. I am a product of my decisions. –Stephen Covey

______________________________________

Sustainability is often described as a three legged stool: Economic, Environmental and Social. So, if Russia is reacquiring territories that were in the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, how does that affect Sustainability that is based on Economic, Environmental and Social considerations? How will impact those agreement where Russia and US have collaborated for decades?

Russian incursion into the Ukraine is creating uncertainty and stress upon international relations that may very well last for decades. Geo-political rhetoric from EU, US and former Eastern Bloc countries are falling on deaf ears in Russia. Crimea is the treasure for the invasion and side liners are accusing Putin of antiquated Cold War tactics demonstrated  by incursions into Hungary and then Czechoslovakia.

Let’s move to the 21st century. Look how we have agreements that leverage the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service1:

•    In 1972, the United States and the Soviet Union signed an Agreement on Cooperation in the Field of Environmental Protection
•    In 1994, the Agreement was renegotiated to replace the USSR with the Russian Federation as signatory.
•    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service coordinates implementation of nature conservation efforts under the Agreement in partnership with federal, state, local, non-governmental, Native and other partners.

From an environmental perspective, other agreements that utilize EPA’s main expertise with US-Russia include2:

•    Bilateral Presidential Commission Environment Working Group (EWG)
•    Bilateral Cooperation on Management of Legacy Waste
•    Bilateral Cooperation on Black Carbon Emissions in the Russian Arctic
•    Russian Arctic Research and Science
•    Global Methane Initiative

One issue, energy, is being raised by Sen. Lisa Murkowski to use oil and gas as a behavior changer for Putin. But, the consequences could be far reaching. If he is intransigent, as he has been in the past, EU and former Eastern Bloc countries could see near term energy shortages – during their winter months. Delivery time from US well heads to those countries are not established and replacement will delay much needed energy for heat and cooking usage.  As Sen. Murkowski insists; “We need to give them reason to move, and we also need to make sure the broader public comes along as well,” she said. “We need to recalibrate the thinking that America’s energy resources are a scarcity to where they are right now—an abundance.”3

Escalation of barriers and resurrecting old concerns and uncertainty may unravel countless agreements that were signed as common interests. The real uncertainty is how far will the West tolerate Russian aggression that includes violating international laws? Will Sustainability agreements be “deactivated” that impact economic, environmental and social bridges on both sides? From a EU and US perspective, it looks like a win-win end-game that mitigates Russia’s risk. From a former Eastern Block country and US perspective, it also looks like another win-win end-game that mitigates Russia’s risk and moves Western capitalism and Sustainability closer to the Russian border.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101462017

But with the “no agreement” meeting today, at what costs will both sides willing to go? US and EU allies may talk about banking and IMF constraints and there are talks about removing Russia from the G8 and G20.  There are also talks about restraining oligarchs from using there yachts in western ports and restrict travel by air.

So, when Stephen Covey said;  “I am not a product of my circumstances. I am a product of my decisions.” Perhaps he would give the same advice to those diplomats who yield to brinkmanship, rather than working on real international relations.

______________________
1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for International Affairs web site
2 EPA web site
3 It’s time to export ‘abundance’ of US oil: Senator; CNBC, Published: Monday, 3 Mar 2014

________________________________

The 21st century will be Renaissance of Sustainability, it will be the convergence of science, engineering, art and understanding of nature.

______________________________________

Building a bridge to benefits thumbnail

Owners, Executive and other Leaders are investigating a global world concerned about Sustainability, that type of understanding can be difficult to obtain. In early December 2013, I published my second book entitled “Building a Bridge to Benefits”. If you are interested in reading about the book or want to purchase copies today, here is the link to CreateSpace, an Amazon company, go to: https://www.createspace.com/4532590
______________________________________

Contact information and Services
A Certified Sustainability and Quality consultancy
•    Sustainability and Quality Consulting
•    Sustainability and Quality Workshops
•    Sustainability and Quality Speaking Engagements

Jarvis Business Solutions, LLC

Toll Free: (888) 743-3128
Email: Ralph.Jarvis@JarvisBusinessSolutions.com
Web site: http://www.JarvisBusinessSolutions.com

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

English:

English: (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“The sky is falling, the sky is falling!”. True Sustainability does not rely on “the sky is falling”, rather it is based on information and data to give the existentialists a choice.  What does that mean? Each person, as a free and responsible agent, determines their own development through choices and decisions. What are we talking about? Understanding every decision we make can and often does impact our future.  Isolated choices for our needs often are not the best choices if we don’t consider its impact our planetary resources.

Mankind has avoided extinction, created by natural disasters, for over 2 million years. His fragile existence was almost eliminated during the last ice age, 50,000 years ago. However, more recently, the 20th century almost created an extinction scenario that would have permanently changed the complexion of our planet and perhaps ended mankind.

The 21st century will reveal whether our wisdom, understanding and leadership will preserve the existence of all life forms on this planet. Now, we are a population of 7 billion people. Demands for that population will continue to strain air, food, water and other resources in our lives.  We are living on a planet that has almost reached full capacity. By 2050, our planet will have a population of about10 billion people. Without recognizing planetary constraints, we may witness tragic declines or possible extinction of mankind within the next 100 years. The “tipping point” is indeed grave and it facing us today. What will our choices be?

20th Century Tragedy Avoided
In the 20th century we experienced three major events that were considered global in nature and involve the majority of the countries on this planet.  The first two events were called “world wars” and for logical reasons. These were global conflicts, pitting powerful alliances against each other. Both of these conflicts were significant and costly in terms of economic, environmental, and social aspects.

After the end of  World War II, the world was divided between Russia (and its “allies”) and the rest of the World. This third event, known as the Cold War, segmented along ideological lines and would exist for almost a half century. It was the confrontation of capitalism versus communism, West versus East, United States versus the Soviet Union (and Red China), and tested the mettle of diplomacy, military power, global intelligence, geopolitics, technology and the “wisdom” to know the difference.

The world almost ended with the Cuban Missile Crisis. Not since the Cold War, has humanity been faced with the possibility of human extinction. In the 1960s, aggressive Soviet diplomacy with the United States created an environment suitable for military conflict.  That event almost created a global catastrophe, a threshold for nuclear disaster, that would have completely changed the world as we know it today.

This was a circumstance of competition for domination (totalitarianism versus democracy), players were clearly defined, consequences to actions were also understood, and leadership of the two major countries dominated the governance of any geopolitical conflict. In the worst-case scenario, hundreds of millions of people would die in the first missile volley; air, food and water would be contaminated for most of the survivors; much of existing civil infrastructures would be destroyed, martial law would probably be implemented in all countries to corral civil panic, and surviving governments and businesses would face a bleak future.
But why did they need to act then?

Frankly, survivability of such a radical exchange of weapons was truly unknown although atomic bomb testing provided data to make “best guess estimates” and create military scenarios. MAD strategies were just that: “mutually assured destruction”. In that type of war, there are no winners, but measured degrees which side was damaged less. Decades later, both sides admitted that a nuclear exchange was almost inevitable as a conclusion to the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Political leadership from both camps recognized the fragility and sensitivity that could be created from a global conflict.  Major players clearly understood the consequences of their actions, possible scenarios, and the need to manage potential threats or conflicts.

Modern societies exist today because of prudent decisions fifty years ago.  Leadership acted effectively to preserve our planet.  Missiles were moved, forces were de-escalated, diplomatic understandings were made and actions were made to ensure better communication between capitals. To summarize, this man-made situation was based on many key variables:

  1. Scope: total Global impact (threat to entire biosphere)
  2. Business: Involvement was limited or nonexistent
  3. Government: Driven primarily by Soviet and American policies
  4. Stakeholders: Consensus and allegiance solidified the Soviet and American camps
  5. Mitigation: Diplomacy, treaties, government trade and economic policies
  6. Result: Cooler heads prevailed and avoided a military conflict. Processes were adopted, understandings created, and similar events were mitigated or avoided in direct talks.

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: