h3.Wrestling With the Polycrisis

h3.In early September Project Save the World hosted a chat with Alyn Ware, a New Zealander who has been working for about a decade in Europe as one of the world’s busiest activists. Here’s the transcript, lightly edited for length.

Metta Spencer: Sometimes I need to get an overall view about what’s going on in the peace and climate change movements globally, especially in Europe. The person I turn to is Alyn Ware. So, hi, Alyn. How’s everything?

Alyn Ware: Hello, Metta. Well, we have tough times in the world, but we always have some very positive things happening, so we try and elevate the positive.

Spencer: Maybe the place to start is for you to describe your affiliations right now and the various organizations that you work for or lead.

Ware: My main organizations are Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament (I’m the Global Coordinator); The World Future Council (which is highlighting best policies to protect the future. I’m the peace and disarmament program coordinator for that); the World Federalist Movement Institute for Global Policy (I’m the program director for that); and the Basel Peace Office (which is based in Switzerland, and I’m the director for that). Most of it is pro bono work, and most of it is building joint programs, because in order to succeed, we need to build cooperation.My main issues are on peace. That’s war prevention, international conflict resolution. International law is key in the work for nuclear disarmament and climate protection. And in those areas, a lot of developments are happening – some negative, some very positive. I’ll highlight some of the positive ones, because people can get depressed when they just read bad news.

So, on the positive side of climate change, for example, we had a phenomenal decision from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on July 23 this year, where it was looking at the obligations of states with respect to climate change on two counts.

One count: What are the obligations of states to protect the climate and cut greenhouse gas emissions? And second: What are their obligations to address the impact of climate change on the most impacted communities, and how to support the developing world’s ability to make the green transition? The developed world has the capacity to do it but hasn’t yet done so.

On the climate issue side, we have too much power and too much influence by those with a vested interest in the fossil fuel economy – the oil companies, the countries that are making a lot of money out of oil, the automobile industry, the shipping companies, the airlines, which still are making money from what people thought was a magical product.

Oil has been the fuel of the economy, but we can’t keep it as such. We have to transition to green economies, but that takes commitment and resources that haven’t been happening.

The governments refuse to take the steps needed. If one particular government does so, they put themselves at a competitive disadvantage to other governments that continue a fossil fuel based economy.That’s much cheaper to run on the short term, but more expensive in the damage it does. We have to work globally. The COP process and the Paris framework agreement aren’t sufficient, because that’s only what countries have agreed to do.“We can still have a really good economy, but it’s got different criteria: the well-being of people”.

The court’s decision was so important for laying down the legal obligations of everyone, particularly the states, which have the primary responsibility for adopting and enforcing legislation within their jurisdiction.

But the court was also addressing other actors, other stakeholders, including the corporate world and their responsibilities. This is a fantastic decision. So now we’re looking at following up its decision.

The initiative came from youth, starting with the Pacific Island students. Climate change was already destroying their livelihood and washing over their islands at high tide. There are already climate refugees in the Pacific. Youth said: “We don’t have a future if our islands are going to be washed over. Where do we go? What can we do?” Politically, they were not very powerful, but they were an inspiration, and they moved a whole world youth for climate justice that then moved the governments, starting with the Pacific Island governments, the Caribbean ones, then African ones, and then finally Western ones.

Reluctantly they realized, “Oh, we have to join this to get this decision into the court.” And so now we have a really good coalition of like-minded governments, youth academics, lawyers, civil society organizations working on follow-up to this decision. I think this is going to make a difference at the next COP – the Framework Convention on Climate Change.

The COPs have not really done much but the one coming up in Brazil this year will be a whole different story because of the decision from the ICJ. Next year it’ll go to Australia, and that’ll also be in effect. Though we’ve got powerful countries resisting, we’re going to have huge momentum over the next two years to shift in our economies and protect the climate.

There are economies that do that – what are called ‘well-being economies’ – where the measure of the economy is the well-being of the people, not GDP, not growth. We can’t continue growth on a finite planet. That’s the problem – the economic model that you can just keep taking resources out of the ground to make money. We can’t do that anymore.

This is where the well-being economies comes in. We can still have a really good economy, but it’s got different criteria: the wellbeing of people, not the amount of consumption or production.

Spencer: Bhutan has led the way in using a new metric. What other countries have followed suit, if any?

Ware: Scotland, Ireland, Finland, New Zealand (although the New Zealand government has changed and is not now a good government) and Wales. Wales has actually adopted a legislation called the ‘Well-being of Future Generations Act’. It’s now ten years old and has been really effective in planning for the country of Wales.

It has actually changed a lot of decisions. For example, Wales will not build any new roads. They’ll restore the current ones, but they won’t build any new ones, because of their impact on the climate and future generations. There are other elements as well. Another is having institutional representatives for future generations at the city level,the national level, the regional level, and we’ve got a proposal for one at the international level.

Spencer: You are overwhelming me with wonderful news. I did know that the ICJ had made this big decision. Can you say more about the terms of their ruling? What they are requiring countries to do?“The court gives the upper hand to those who are working for better standards within their countries.”

Ware: This decision from the court is called an ‘advisory opinion’ of the International Court of Justice, which means it’s responding to a question on the status of law itself; it’s not dealing with a specific country’s behavior. That’s a different type of case – called a ‘contentious case’.

The UN General Assembly requested the opinion. They asked: What are the obligations of states regarding climate change, including protecting the climate and addressing the impact of climate change? The court came down saying that the science indicates that we have to keep the average temperature increase to under 1.5 degrees. We are already hovering at 1.5 degrees and devastation on the climate is already happening. We should go below that. And we have to keep the science in mind when setting policy

Then they said that the countries that have had the most impact on greenhouse gasses now have the most responsibility to cut them. They have to start addressing their ‘national emission plans,’ which have just been on a voluntary basis. There’s a stronger emphasis now on countries to cut their combined greenhouse gas emissions a lot to keep below 1.5 degrees.

Spencer: How would anyone create a specific quota for countries that do not want to comply? And organizationally, how do you go about implementing this if you see that the COP process is not working? Because it certainly hasn’t worked. In fact, greenhouse gas emissions are continuing to increase rather than decrease, although at a declining rate of increase, thank goodness.

Ware: This strengthens several different levels. One is from within countries. Within countries there are competing influences. The fossil fuel industry has had the upper hand. The court gives the upper hand to those who are working for better standards within their countries. Parliamentarians and civil society organizations can go to their governments and say, “You have to cut your emissions.”

And if the government says, like it used to, “We can’t because our neighbors aren’t doing it,” now, we say, “Well actually the neighbors have to do it too, because the court has said everybody has to do it. So that’s no excuse.” And if the government doesn’t do it, there’s a lot more weight behind follow-up domestic court actions.

If a government does not comply, you could take a case to court within that country. Not all countries have good legal systems now, but in those that do, we’re going to have much better outcomes.

Until now, there have been a number of cases in the courts, and they’ve gone both ways. Sometimes they’ve favored the environment, other times they’ve let them do whatever they wanted with the economy. For those countries that don’t have good legal systems, we’ll probably have follow-up action in the ICJ. We could also go to other tribunals, like the international tribunal for the Law of the Sea, or the Permanent Court of Arbitration, but the best one is the International Court of Justice.

Then we’ll have some contentious cases. Suppose five or six powerful countries are doing a lot of emissions. A group of other countries could now launch a contentious case against them in the ICJ. It will then look at their specific emissions and say, “This is what you have to do. You’re not doing it.” That will have more legal and political weight as well.

Some governments will still do their own thing, even when there are strong legal political cases against them. But it makes that much harder for them, since it gives the positive forces within a country the upper hand to help make good governmental decisions.

It’s not a magic wand, but as we move into green well-being economies, we may even eventually be able to get back by one degree.

Spencer: I’m affiliated with groups that are talking about not just stopping the increase in global warming, but actually restoring the pre-industrial climate. That’s not unrealistic, but it requires measures that are not now on the table. Do you know of any global effort for climate restoration and to organize economic resistance to the US policies?

Ware: Maybe, but I don’t think that’s going to have much impact, because the US is such a powerful economy and there is not enough momentum. What I think is more possible is working at the subfederal level in the United States – with states and cities. Numerous governors and city mayors have said, “We are staying with the Paris agreement and working on its obligations. We will implement those within our jurisdiction,” even after Trump withdrew the federal government from the Paris Agreement.

With the Obama and the Biden administrations, there was investment in a green renewable energy. This helped those industries become effective economically.”..the power of those with vested interests trying to prop things up with subsidies and with political power …That’s starting to crack.”

And many in the business sector are starting to move away from the fossil fuels anyway. The renewables are more cost effective, so you can make money on them. And with fossil fuels, there are going to be liabilities. Court cases will impose liability on those who’ve been producing the global the greenhouse gasses. They will have a responsibility for the damage that it’s causing.

Also, as the world’s moving away from fossil fuels, there’s going to be stranded assets. An investment in fossil fuel is an investment in what’s still underground. Some investors realize, “Oh, we could lose so much money if we don’t start moving away from that now!”

So economic incentives are starting to come into play, even though Trump is trying to stop those and is giving subsidies for fossil fuels. We’ve got a game at the moment with the power of those with vested interests trying to prop things up with subsidies and with political power. That’s starting to crack. There’s going to be a lot more movement. Many CEOs of corporations are moving to green economies. At the World Economic Forum, a group of corporate leaders are saying these sorts of things.

Spencer: One thing I admire is that you are combining work on two global threats: nuclear weapons and climate. I deal with both of those issues and I like to reach out to NGOs that are working on those and combine them whenever possible. But it’s not easy to combine the two concerns, except to say, “The money that you are spending on weapons could better be spent on climate mitigation issues.”

Yes, there is a harmony of the two movements with respect to funding. But beyond that, I have not found arguments that will unite climate change activists with anti-nuclear weapons activists. How do you convince people who are working on each of these issues that they need to partner with the people working on the other?

Ware: I focus primarily on nuclear weapons and climate change, but we also talk about war. It’s similar in that militarism, war and nuclear weapons are all designed to protect national interests. There’s the idea that to protect our nation against someone over there, we have nuclear weapons to deter them. It’s us versus them.

With the climate, it’s similar. Economies that are focusing on the fossil fuels are also designed to support the national interest and the interests of certain corporate entities within those nations. This is similar to the nuclear weapons and arms industry that certain people benefit from. They have allies with the governments, so it’s national and corporate interests.

Common security is different. It is looking not just my country’s benefit or my corporation’s benefit at the expense of others. It’s says we all need security. The common security framework is what the UN Sustainable Development Goals are about – ensuring that everyone has food, education, health, basic welfare – well-being. That transcends borders and requires cooperation. This differs from national security.

‘America First’ is a national security framework: Who cares about the rest of the world? But with common security, if we help the rest of the world, it helps us. If the world is destroyed, it’s going to impact on us. If there’s a war or climate change over there, we get refugees. So common security is required for both to address the climate and to address the nuclear threat and war.

Spencer: That is exactly right. And I’m also focusing on the AI issue now. There again, you see the same reasoning. The competition is between AI in the U.S. and AI in China. It’s now a campaign between two states. All of Trump’s reasoning is in favor of nationalism and zerosum competition. To combat the AI issue will also involve the wellbeing of the entire planet, and the public opinion in the whole world, not just the governments of China and the United States. So, I like that argument.

Ware: There’s now an international movement called ‘AI for Good.’ The United Nations International Telecommunications Union is the key agent in helping bring it forward, and it’s bringing together people like you and me, and others who want to ensure that AI is used for positive, not nefarious, purposes – not just for national and corporate benefit, but for the benefit of the world.

My organization is looking at the better governance that’s required to ensure that AI is used for good purposes and not bad purposes.We’re establishing a Global AI Governance Alliance – ‘Geiger.’ We just did the pre-launch of it in Basel a couple of weeks ago at a forum, which we called the ‘Good Future Forum.’ The full launch will be in a couple of months.

In cooperation with ‘AI for Good,’ we’re building the governance mechanisms to do that. There’s already a start. There is a ‘European Convention on Artificial Intelligence,’ which is pretty good. It was done in Europe because European countries are homogeneous in applying international law and ensuring that the corporate sector upholds human rights as part of the Global Compact.

Europe is pretty good on that. That process would be much more difficult globally, because so many players want to use it for nefarious purposes. But hopefully the EU model can help build an international convention on AI, which is one of the things we’re promoting. I want to set up conversations about the relationship between the development of AI agents and the use of demand.

Spencer: You’re saying that your organization, the parliamentarians, is taking a stand on that. Please explain more about the parliamentarian movement, PNND.

Ware: It’s really important to work with legislators in order to develop, implement, and oversee policy. Some people are cynical about parliamentarians, thinking, “Oh, they get into parliament in order to feather their own nest and support vested interests.”

And it’s true that some parliamentarians are like that, but many parliamentarians want to make a difference for the good of society and are really committed and work hard. They contact us and say, “How can we help? What can we do?” Also, mayors and state legislators, as well as international lawmakers.

We engage with some more official ones, like the Inter -Parliamentary Union (IPU), where the parliaments themselves are the members, not the parliamentarians. That’s been around for 137 years, and 180 parliaments are members. They bring parliamentarians together to look at whole range of issues.

And we approach the Inter Parliamentary Union, with their assembly of 600 parliamentarians, and we say, “Hey, we can do a workshop on nuclear disarmament, or a workshop on the ICJ and how that works, or a workshop on artificial intelligence, or workshop on landmines or cluster munitions.”

We’ve got a willing audience of parliamentarians. We’ve developed a handbook with the IPU on Disarmament for Security and Sustainable Development. Both aspects are important. That handbook has lots of examples of what parliamentarians are doing.

We, PNND, have engaged a lot of parliamentarians through our partnership with the IPU. We also have a partnership with the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly – the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. They focus on common security, on conflict resolution between countries and the role that parliamentarians can play.

It doesn’t always work. I’ve been at some OSCE Parliamentary Assembly meetings where the Russian parliamentarians get up and shout how right they are, and how the Ukrainians are all wrong. Then the Ukrainians get up and start doing the same thing.

But some very good things have been happening there, out of the limelight. Parliamentarians from these countries meet over coffee and talk about some possibilities that they could do to help resolve a conflict. If we didn’t have those inter-parliamentary organizations, the IPU or the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, there wouldn’t be that informal dialog between parliamentarians.

One parliamentarian from Canada is playing a key role in the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. That’s Dr Hedy Fry from Vancouver, the longest-standing member of the Canadian House of Commons. She’s our PNND council member, the chair of the PNND Canada section, but she’s also the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly’s Special Representative on gender issues. She is looking at conflicts. What are the roles of women that could help resolve some of the conflicts between countries?

The OSCE also includes Russia and all the former Soviet countries, plus Canada and the United States. These people couldn’t have such meetings if the spotlight were on them. They require confidential possibilities.

But let’s swing back to the United Nations, which also provides a possibility for parliamentary engagement. They have a special annual session where key issues are discussed.

Parliamentarians from all around the world come.

They have a special relationship with the IPU. When the UN is leading key events, the inter parliamentary union will have a special working group or resolution or process on that.

For example, with the Summit of the Future, there is an important connection between what the United Nations is doing and what parliamentarians around the world can do. The UN gets some bad publicity because one of its bodies, the Security Council, is dominated by five countries, but there are many other bodies of the United Nations that are doing much practical work on human rights, sustainable development, democracy,disarmament.

Coming up is September 26, the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons. We’ve just launched a platform – nuclearabolitionday.org – in consultation with the United Nations. There’ll be a UN high level meeting with the governments, and civil society action as well.

Spencer: When 180 countries belong to a particular organization, it will include a lot of countries that are ‘back sliders’ from democracy. Democracy is on the skids nowadays. Globally, more countries are becoming autocratic than are becoming democratic. A lot of countries that claim they’re democratic are what we may charitably call ‘illiberal democracies’ or autocratic states.You work with organizations whose delegates are not of the same mentality as yourself, especially with respect to this question of nationalism versus international, humanity-oriented identity.

Ware: That’s true. You’ll see it when you’re at an Inter Parliamentary Union assembly. They’ve got 180 member parliaments. Normally not every parliament is represented at each assembly, but they normally have about 130 to 140 parliaments represented there. Each parliament has a delegation of maybe three to six people. IPU rules stipulate that if they don’t have both women and men on the delegation, they don’t get as much voting power for the resolutions. That has really helped make sure that the delegations have both genders on them.That’s one point. The other point, though, is that many of these delegations (not a majority, but a reasonable number) are from autocratic countries where their foreign ministry tells them what to say in public.So, in all of the formal sessions the IPU, you’ll conclude, “Oh, that speech is very similar to what their government says over at the UN.”But that doesn’t mean that there’s no value in it. For example, the North Korean delegation is like that. Their speeches always echo exactly what the North Korean government says. But we’ve had meetings with the North Korean delegation on the side, and we’ll talk with them about things like the idea of a Northeast Asian Nuclear Weapon Free Zone.And we’ve had also meetings with South Korean parliamentarians. At the IPU event they can meet each other. South Koreans can’t go to North Korea. North Koreans can’t go to South Korea. But at the IPU, they can meet each other. In a formal setting, they won’t talk with each other because their countries don’t recognize each other. But behind the scenes, at a reception, they can chat or go have a coffee or something. It gets ideas going.The first year we did this, the North Korean parliamentarians wouldn’t say anything. But the second or third years, they asked questions and entered into dialog, and we realized that they were actually feeding back our ideas to the government and then checking with it. “What do you think about this?” “Okay, find out a little bit more.”So, they’re playing an intermediary role, though they’re from an autocratic government. So, there are ways to interact with the parliamentarians that impacts back on the governments through these interparliamentary bodies. We started getting progress on this idea Northeast Asia Nuclear Weapon Free Zone through having discussions at the IPU assemblies.

Spencer: You’re bringing parliamentarians into contact with each other, which has to be beneficial, but you haven’t indicated that there’s much interaction between civil society and these parliamentary organizations. Are things going on that I’m not aware of?

Ware: PNND doesn’t have funding so we don’t have capacity in Canada, but when we did have capacity, we would hold meetings in Ottawa, where we would have civil society reps coming and meeting with our PNND members and having good conversations, thanks to Douglas Roche, who helped facilitate those. Douglas Roche was formerly a disarmament ambassador, so he has worked in the government, and he was also a senator for some time.

Spencer: He still writes and does wonderful work. He never stops working.

Ware: We managed these meetings so that they were respectful, polite. They weren’t like protests, so we had good conversations. The parliamentarians have responsibilities to their party, to the constituents. Now they often have positions on committees, so they have limited time for engagement, which they use constructively. Protest is not the best way of doing that. A protest is good to get attention, but if you want traction with the parliamentarians, dialog is better.

Spencer: You mentioned the upcoming COP meeting, which is going to be in Brazil. I have a hunch that that the government of Brazil has become more receptive to concerns about fossil fuel emissions. I’m promoting citizens’ assemblies and I called a guy, asking him to participate in a forum, He declined because he’s too busy organizing a citizens’ assembly that will take place in connection with the COP meeting in Brazil.Is there any connection between the parliamentarian organizations that you’ve mentioned and groups that are independently setting up citizens’ assemblies? That would give us input, not just from civil society organizations, but from the whole of humanity globally.

Ware: Citizens’ assemblies are good for bringing civil society together and elevating collective voices. The problem though, that we have a lack of good governance on environmental issues. A citizens’ assembly might come up with some really good proposals and a lot of support, but the governments don’t have to go along with it. It’s not a decision that’s binding on them. We just don’t have enough good governance.The COP meetings are where the governments go along with it. What are more binding, of course, are international treaties, the UN Environment. We need binding treaties, and a stronger role of law. The decision by the ICJ on climate change is a step in the right direction. We should be moving more also to contentious cases against the biggest emitters and using the court to do that because that brings in binding obligations that you don’t get in COp. Citizens’ assemblies can only go so far. It would be better to have more citizen engagement directly in decision making processes. Brazil has proposed something called a ‘Climate Council,’ which would exist at city and regional levels. The Climate Council would have a little more authority than just the citizens’ assembly. So that’s a really interesting initiative, the Climate Council initiative. We also need to strengthen the UN Environment Program. Maybe we also need to have an international environment court. My country, New Zealand, has them. They can help resolve environmental disputes and ensure that environmental law is upheld.The International Court of Justice has done a good job on climate change, but they’re not experts in climate or science. It’ll be good to have a court with a bit more expertise in that. So that’s another proposal that has been put forward by a coalition that we’re part of, mobilizing an Earth Governance Alliance. It’s a brilliant idea.

Spencer: Okay, what would be the next step? Do you have a game plan for how to move the whole global debate forward another notch or two in the next year or so?

Ware: The International Court of Justice has helped uphold the rights of small versus more powerful countries, but only 74 countries at the moment accept its compulsory jurisdiction. So, one campaign we have is to encourage more countries to accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ. That project is called ‘law not war’ – legal alternatives to war. So that’s one. Another one is establishing institutional representatives for future generations. Wales has got a ‘Wales Commissioner for Future Generations.’ And there’s a few others. There’s now a ‘European Rep on Intergenerational Equity,’ which has a similar role, but it’s not nearly as strong yet as the Wales one. The Wales ‘Well-being of Future Generations Act’ establishing a commissioner for future generations was one of the winners of the 2024 World Future Council policy awards on peace and future generations. There is momentum for the establishment of a ‘UN Envoy for Future Generations’ to ensure that planning is spread across the UN system. The Secretary General wants it, but it’s getting kickback from some of the powerful member states. We need to give another little push for that. It was mentioned in the Summit of the Future.And that Summit of the Future adopted a Pact for the Future, a declaration of future generations, and a Digital Compact. It was phenomenal that the Summit of the Future was able to get governments to agree on those. So, despite all the conflicts in the world, there was general agreement from the governments at the Summit of the Future. We need to strengthen the legal processes, conflict resolution processes, and the global digital environment, which includes artificial intelligence. And tie it closely with the Sustainable Development Goals.

Spencer: Oh, wonderful. You know a lot of young people and I don’t have any of those contacts. Tell me: How do they come together? Are these organized by existing international outfits such as PNND, or any of the other groups that you work with? Or are they things that young people themselves form independently?“There is momentum for the establishment of a ‘UN Envoy for Future Generations”.

Ware: There’s a whole mix, not just one. If you look at climate change, for example, you have, Fridays for the Future. You know, Greta Thunberg just started doing protests on Fridays, and that grassroots mobilizing became huge – very organic, very grassroots. Something organized from the UN is the Youth Network to address the Framework Convention on Climate Change. All those young people have to go through the government process, which is more formal. So those are two different types of youth organizations. But in both there are wonderful youth, and often they’ll interact, go from one to the other. Greta Thunberg spoke in front of the UN, for example.World Youth for Climate Justice was established to take the issue of climate change to the International Court of Justice, to help the Pacific Island students fighting climate change. Now they are the ones working on implementation of the International Court of Justice. They ran the campaign to get the United Nations General Assembly to agree to take the question and then worked with their governments to ensure that there were good submissions to the court. And then when it came to the oral hearings, many of the governments from the developing countries (Pacific islands, Caribbean, Africa) had youth speaking in front of the court as part of their delegation.And the Peace And Climate Engagement Youth (“PACEY”) combines nuclear abolition and climate peace. There’s an annual award, three prizes of 5000 euro each for youth projects on the climate, on nuclear disarmament and peace. So that’s engaging a lot of youth networks. We had 125 youth projects nominated for the Pacey award last year. We’re just touching the tip of the good iceberg of all the youth activity on these issues. I just organized an event in Basel called the ‘Good Future Forum.’ Virtually every speaker was from a youth organization. We had two from more elderly ones, but for a day and a half there were inspiring speakers from youth organizations.

Spencer: Wonderful. Almost everything you’ve said is unfamiliar to me. Bless you for your work. You are continuing to deserve that wonderful award you got some time ago, the Right Livelihood Award for being a saintly peacemaker.

Ware: Thank you, Metta. Lovely pleasure to engage with you and congratulations for all the people that you’re bringing together with inspiring stories and for keeping going at your young age of 94.

Spencer: These are some of the best years of my life. Thanks so much. Alyn. Carry on! Bye.