The Johannesburg conundrum: do we save the world, or save the world's poor?

The weekend spat between the Environment Minister, Michael Meacher, and the Overseas Development secretary, Clare Short, neatly encapsulates the forthcoming difficulties that will confront the 65,000 participants who, like Mr Meacher and Ms Short, will shortly be descending on Johannesburg for the Earth Summit.

The weekend spat between the Environment Minister, Michael Meacher, and the Overseas Development secretary, Clare Short, neatly encapsulates the forthcoming difficulties that will confront the 65,000 participants who, like Mr Meacher and Ms Short, will shortly be descending on Johannesburg for the Earth Summit.

Mr Meacher clearly believes that the main objective should be to "save the world" from environmental catastrophe. Ms Short will be more concerned to ensure the best uses of resources for the benefit of sustainable development in order to benefit poor countries. In other words, her objective is the equally valid – but potentially contradictory – "save the poor". In theory it should be possible to address both the environment and poverty at the same conference. But in practice, there are bound to be conflicts and tensions.

That Downing Street has been more concerned to head off cheap tabloid headlines concerning excessive ministerial junketing shows the nervousness of a government that has still failed to get environment and Third-World issues to the top of the political agenda. Ironically, the original decision by Alistair Campbell to rescind Mr Meacher's air ticket has created hero status for the Environment Minister and ensured that what he has to say will now be listened to with greater attention than would have otherwise been the case. Emboldened by this new public perception of his saintliness, Mr Meacher has taken the opportunity to raise the profile of environmental issues and implied that, for too long, they have not received sufficient attention from the rest of the Government.

Mr Meacher is an odd hero in the New Labour firmament: a seasoned politician whose trademark reasonableness, old-fashioned courtesy and respect for Parliament mark him out from the rest of the tribe. An MP for over 30 years with once impeccable Bennite connections (he served as a junior industry minister under Tony Benn in 1975) he succeeded in getting elected to the Shadow Cabinet every year from 1983 until 1997. He was not made a cabinet minister, however, when Labour gained power, and many thought he would be quietly dropped at the first opportunity. But his speciality, at all times, has been to work as a solid ministerial master of his brief, and he genuinely knows his subject better than anyone else in government. As the Liberal Democrat spokesman, Malcolm Bruce, said yesterday, Mr Meacher has become "unsackable".

But Mr Meacher must have felt the implied criticism from Ms Short – an equally saintly figure – when she said that Johannesburg is about more than the state of British transport and environment policies, namely giving the world's poor a better share of the planet's resources in ways that "don't cause terrible problems in the future". She sounded a little miffed that Mr Meacher had stolen her thunder when he focused attention on green issues rather than poverty issues.

The truth is that both are right and both are wrong. Bringing an end to Third World poverty requires basic infrastructure projects such as Ms Short's proposals for clean drinking water to 1.2 billion Africans. It also means providing power – electricity – to whole swathes of the world, which implies adding to the greenhouse gases we are all pledged to reduce. Ms Short wishes to play a leading role in increasing economic growth in poor nations.

First, can this be done? Second, can it be done in such a way that does not undermine the environmentalists' claim that such expansion should be undertaken only if it is "sustainable"? Already there are criticisms of Rio Tinto Zinc, which has done more than any other multinational to harm the environment of several African countries. Mr Blair, who will be at the conference for barely a day, cannot be surprised at the raised eyebrows at his willingness that Rio Tinto, along with Thames Water (seeking business opportunities for new privatised undertakings in Third World countries) should be in attendance. Can he not do anything without the representatives of big business whispering in his ear?

Johannesburg is faced with two perfectly acceptable objectives that have the potential for arriving at completely contradictory solutions. But who should win? The poor or the environmentalists? Is it just a battle between the poor and the environment? To some extent I fear it may be. In which case, the apparent tension between Mr Meacher and Ms Short, representing the different interests of their departments, is understandable. The way round this conundrum is for the richer countries to face up to an alternative: that they reduce their energy needs in order that scarce resources are transferred to the Third World. In other words, nothing will give until there is a direct transfer of resources from rich to poor. We are back to where political life started. Are the well off prepared to give to the less well off?

We know how controversial such a debate is within a nation. How do we move this argument on, to tell rich nations that they must face the possibility of reducing their standard of living in order to benefit poorer countries? Direct payments in the form of aid and debt relief financed by taxation has been the conventional method, but this amounts to a drop in the ocean. Ultimately, it comes down to persuading rich countries to reduce their standard of living – less air transport, processed food, air conditioning and fewer cars. But what western government – especially that of the USA – is prepared to put such proposals to their voters? Mr Meacher hinted at the weekend that we should start facing up to such issues, but conceded that his was a lone voice in government.

The amazing availability of out-of season-groceries and fruit in supermarkets illustrates the conundrum perfectly. Twice this year I have grabbed, enthusiastically, the freshly wrapped packets of green beans from the shelves marked "produce of Zimbabwe". In February it was strawberries: "produce of Kenya". At first there is the feelgood factor of helping a Third-World country by buying its imports. But just what are we doing spewing out CO₂ emissions to ferry out-of-season produce halfway across the world while the populations of east and southern Africa are suffering drought and political mayhem and unable to feed themselves?

Free trade, which I have always supported, simply does not seem to work with agricultural products. Heaven knows what scarce resources have been misdirected in wasteful irrigation to feed the Western palate.

Mr Meacher's most dramatic prediction was the use within 15 years of hydrogen powered cars. Perhaps it really is the case that oil and water do not mix. Maybe it is only when the world's oil runs dry that water will flow again in the dried-up African river beds. But if that revives the Third World, where will this leave the developed world? Johannesburg will not resolve this conundrum.

mrbrown@pimlico.freeserve.co.uk