At the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development 178 countries voted to adopt Agenda 21. Agenda 21 is non-binding action plan that sets climate sustainability and poverty. guidelines for national, state and local governments. Proponents argue that the agenda’s guidelines will encourage federal and local governments to protect the environment and combat poverty. Opponents argue that global organizations should not make rules for local governments and these rules are unnecessary because they are impossible to enforce.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Discussions from these authors are shown:
Province/Territory:
@B3N238X1mo1MO
yes, exceed the guidelines, however sanctions should be increased on global pollution contributors such as China
@B2TS86R2mos2MO
yes and no overall they should take into consideration what the un said but locally there are different issues for each state or nation so they should make there own solutions but take account what the un said
@B2RKXN3 2mos2MO
The UN is made up of member states, and countries with the most power, such as the U.S. or China, often have conflicting interests when it comes to addressing environmental destruction or unsustainable development. Countries heavily invested in many exploitative industries, especially in sectors like mining, oil, fashion, and agriculture, continue to have severe impacts on the environment and people, particularly in Global South nations have economic interests in maintaining the status quo, making it difficult for the UN to take aggressive action. These industries often exploit cheap labor and extract resources without regard for long-term environmental health, while the Global North benefits from these practices.
@B2FYZ3C3mos3MO
For Canada’s country size where the least computed country in the world, we shouldn’t have to be the same as what they’re trying to get considering we produce barely anything
@9PSLGWZIndependent10mos10MO
Yes, but the UN is not an organization worth treating as a benchmark for ethical or righteous standards.
@9ZZFG544mos4MO
TO a point, we shoudl follow UN guidelines, but we must also consider the financial impact on citizens, so we need to follow our own timeline. The transition to 'clean' likely cannot be reached by any set date without serious damage to our society and country.
@8ZBWP9W3yrs3Y
We should work towards following the environmental guidelines set by the United Nations, but we need to focus on what respective communities need so we don't damage the stability of said communities. We should also increase sanction on countries that are top contributors of global pollution.
@8VRD2784yrs4Y
Depends - we can pick and choose which works best based on locality and provincial needs.
@8VH22SV4yrs4Y
Canada should not support the u.n.
@8V5QT494yrs4Y
It only works if it's actually a binding agreement - it's completely toothless and therefore worthless in its current form
@ECrierie4yrs4Y
No, the UN can get bent.
@8PZND2G4yrs4Y
yes and increased sanctions on countries that are the top contributors of global pollution
@8P784MT4yrs4Y
No, it depends on the elected mayor and there stances on the local environment problem.
@8P4QCTG4yrs4Y
Yes, but we must be able to set our own legislation that reflects the UN's policies.
@8DMCFB85yrs5Y
No, because it would be really tricky in a country the size of Canada.
@8DFVTYV5yrs5Y
Adhere to a percentage as a target.
@9C656B32yrs2Y
No. I do not trust the UN. They have done more harm than good.
@98BDSQL2yrs2Y
Canada should use guidelines from the United Nations, but draft our own policy.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
