The summit of sound and fury

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Macbeth - William Shakespeare

William Shakespeare would have loved the World Summit on Sustainable Development, plenty of strutting and fretting, no shortage of sound and fury, and plenty of people prepared to say it signifies nothing.

The summit in Johannesburg stepped up a notch yesterday with the arrival of world leaders, following several days of preparatory work by their ministers and government officials.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair upped the ante by calling on the world to reduce greenhouse gases, urging the US to do more to control its pollution, and pledging £1bn a year to help the starving of Africa.

But already the summit has been marred by behind-the-scenes disputes and walkouts as the leaders of rich nations are accused of reluctance to help their poorer cousins.

And even as Tony Blair was talking about Africa's starving, he was being attacked by some African leaders over his stance on Zimbawbe's dispossessed white farmers.

And that's the problem for world leaders: the public needs to be convinced that they can really translate their words into action rather than be dragged into deep-seated political rivalries.

The summit follows a similar United Nations event in Rio de Janeiro ten years ago, itself held 20 years after the first global environment conference.

Rio did have its successes: a major theme was that people had to 'think globally, act locally', the principles underpinning the Agenda 21 programme, which has had an impact in Britain where more people than ever are doing something to improve their environment, whether it be recycling, cleaning up local becks or being less wasteful with food and water.

Talk to those people and their passion for the environment burns through: the problem is that, right or wrongly, many do not believe that world governments have the same commitment.

They remain suspicious that politicians are too hooked on affluence to really help the poor, too drunk on power to take the really tough decisions, too closely linked to big business to truly crackdown on its pollution; a criticism of the British government by its environmental advisor Jonathan Porritt just before the summit.

If Rio was a success in that it awakened public concerns, there has been less success for its agreement on 'common but differentiated responsibility', which put simply means them who made the mess should clean it up.

America, the world's greatest industrial nation, seems particularly reluctant to do so: the causes of climate change may be open to debate but pumping huge amounts of pollution into the atmosphere surely cannot help and America is the world's biggest polluter.

However, its President, the most powerful man on the planet, good ol' former oilman George W Bush, has not even bothered to go the summit, and his delegation has been portrayed in some quarters as more obsessed with self-interest than saving the world.

The suspicions were summed up by South African president Thabo Mbeki, who said: "A global human society based on poverty for many and prosperity for a few, characterised by islands of wealth surrounded by a sea of poverty is unsustainable. For the first time in human history, society possesses the capacity to eradicate poverty and under-development."

But the US is not alone: what about the huge poisoned pall of pollution hanging over China and its neighbouring countries, the millions of men, women and children waging a desperate battle for life in Africa because they do not have food or water (there are still more than a billion people without access to water clean enough to drink), or the billions who live in poverty? But, some might say, we're OK in Britain, surely? Well, the self-interest card does not quite work: for a start, if the world's pollution continues to punch a hole in the ozone layer, causing the icecaps to melt, and raise the sea level, it could be our lowland coastal areas which are flooded.

And what if the Asian pollution cloud spreads across the globe, blotting out the sun, causing rising levels of respiratory illness, killing our children? And if we keep letting people starve to death in Africa, what does that say about us as a member of the global family? And if the climate keeps changing this rapidly, causing summer droughts, might this not only cause worsening problems in Africa but might not our own crops fail and our own water run short one day? And if the South American governments keep permitting the felling of rain forests for grazing land and development, not only will precious wildlife and native tribes be lost but also plants which may hold cures for life-threatening illnesses. And if European industry, Britain included, keeps pumping out chemical waste into the sea, or we let overfishing continue, might we not one day lose our marine life, as warned recently by the Wildlife Trusts? Thinking globally, acting locally, is crucial but the really big changes must come from world governments, and there have, to be fair, been some breakthroughs at Johannesberg.

Agreement has been reached on a range of energy issues, including promoting energy-efficient technologies, the elimination of lead from gasoline, and the reduction of the practice of flaring and venting of gas during crude oil production. But there remain disputes over proposals for shifting subsidies for nuclear and fossil fuels towards renewable energies, such as solar and wind power.

The European Union has proposed that countries generate 15 per cent of energy from renewables but the United States maintains that, since renewable energy is still more expensive than conventional energy sources, that may not be appropriate. Also, many Third World Nations depend on fossil fuels to develop their economies. Trouble is, fossil fuels create greenhouse gases.

Agreement has also been reached to restore fisheries by 2015 - three-quarters of the world's fisheries are fished to their sustainable levels or beyond - and develop food strategies in Africa.

And America has agreed financially to support initiatives to increase the availability of fresh water around the world.

Prime Minister Tony Blair, who yesterday called on the US to sign the Kyoto Treaty, the global pollution agreement which it refused to support four years ago, added: "We know the problems. A child in Africa dies every three seconds from famine, disease or conflict. We know that if climate change is not stopped, all parts of the world will suffer, some will even be destroyed. And we know the solution - sustainable development - so the issue for this summit is the political will.

He repeated the Government's commitment to raise aid levels to £1bn a year, saying: ''Africa for me is a passion. Poverty and environmental degradation, if unchecked, spell catastrophe for our world."

The Prime Minister said the last Earth Summit in Rio "did not deliver everything, neither will Johannesburg, no summit can", but added: "This summit can and will make our world change for the better.'' As the Rio summit ended in 1992, Conference General Secretary Maurice Strong was expressing similar hopes, but added that it had been "weakened by compromise and negotiation". This summit, too, has been blighted by internal bickering, walkouts and compromises.

Before the final communique is released later this week, those signing up to it might do well to read some Shakespeare first.