If you look at the two international and domestic timelines, it is clear
that the Swedish UN mission first raised the issue of the conference
BEFORE acid rain took off as a national Swedish issue. Not by much (less
than a year), but getting acid rain on the international agenda was NOT
the main reason for proposing the UN conference (or even a reason at
all). This has also been confirmed by personal interviews with the
people who were at the Swedish UN mission at the time (Sverker Åström
and Lars-Göran Engfeldt). They came up with the conference idea more or
less on their own and then sold the idea to the Swedish government/PM
without being concerned by acid rain. As diplomats from a "neutral"
country, they were much more interested in bridging Cold War political
gaps within the UN and start dealing with the environment broadly as a
means to do that, than tackle acid rain specifically. Of course, once
the conference came around, Sweden happily used it to talk about acid
rain...
Henrik
On 2/13/2013 9:46 AM, Radoslav Dimitrov wrote:
I read somewhere that Sweden had an ulterior motive to organize the
conference. After the conference began, they put the acid rain issue
on the table. The issue had not been on the official agenda, and
delegates from other countries (UK, for instance) felt somewhat
ambushed into pre-negotiations. Would be interested to hear
confirmations or refutation - anyone?
Radoslav S. Dimitrov, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Political Science
University of Western Ontario
Social Science Centre
London, Ontario
Canada N6A 5C2
Tel. +1(519) 661-2111 ext. 85023
Fax +1(519) 661-3904
Email: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
On 2013-02-13, at 6:53 AM, Kirsten Worm wrote:
Dear gep-eds,
This year I am once more teaching global environmental politics at
the University of Copenhagen, Department of Political Science.
Inspite of reading several textbook on the Stockholm-Rio process
including the excellent 5th edition of Chasek, Downie and Brown:
Global Environmental Politics, one question remains:
Who were the lead countries behind the Stockholm conference in 1972.
Chasek et al. mentions that the conference was supported by the US,
but was the US lead state? I wonder about that.
Does anyone have an answer?
Maybe someone out there with even more grey hair than mine even
attended the conference?
Thank you in advance.
Kirsten Worm, M.A.; Ph.D
University of Copenhagen
Department of Political Science
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "gep-ed" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "gep-ed" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"gep-ed" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
