|
CLIMATE CHANGE
A political issue or not?
WHILE there is avoidance of the word “failure,” no
other can be used to describe the meeting on the
Kyoto Protocol held in Nairobi. Kofi Annan, now
completing his mandate as UN secretary general, said
that a “terrifying lack of leadership” was evident
at the meeting in the Kenyan capital.
Two
weeks of dialogue among 190 nations took place
without difficulty, while more or less academic
details predominated regarding environmental risks
and damage, but failed when it came to coordinating
a greater contribution by rich nations to Africa for
helping that continent to combat the problem,
because while it is one of the region that pollutes
the least, it is one of those that is suffering the
most from the effects of climate change.
The
problem stems from the fact that without the will of
governments – above all in nations that pollute the
most – it is impossible to make progress on plans to
reduce emissions that harm the atmosphere, are
changing the global climate and, of course, are
making changes in the way human beings live.
The
meeting featured plenty of well-documented studies
that should have been able to mobilize even the most
remiss on this issue. One known under the name of
Stern, led by an advisor to the British government,
showed that the economic impact of global warming
will affect 20% of the entire global economy if
action is not taken.
As
an example, environmental agencies note that in the
very country hosting the conference, the
abovementioned changes have already caused the loss
of 10 million heads of cattle due to drought; at the
same time, thousands of Somalian refugees were
forced to cross the border due to flooding. These
contrasts are repeated in other parts of the world
with similar consequences that are tending to
increase, even though just 1% of the world’s GDP
could prevent them.
The
two great moments of the incipient struggle to avoid
reaching the point of no return were the Climate
Convention of 1992, followed by the subsequent
signing by a group of nations in 1997 of the Kyoto
Protocol, in effect since 2005, and which
establishes their commitment to reducing emissions
of six greenhouse-effect gases by 5% with respect to
1990 emission levels.
It
was expected that the recent event that ended
without much progress in Kenya would achieve
effective commitments and plans of action to develop
a stronger agreement for 2012, and with the spirit
of establishing in the collective consciousness
(above all in the that of politicians who could have
an influence on implementation) the idea that before
long, current energy-use patterns will no longer
make sense. That is, to explain in terms of
convenience – including financial – that it is
cheaper to face the issue than to suffer from its
consequences.
In
addition to a lack of receptive ears, there are also
large problems of clarification, such as the fact
that poor nations do not have much possibility of
carrying out the required technological changes, or
of establishing new systems for obtaining clean
energy, which are still quite expensive. They
pollute less, but they are being asked to apply
mechanisms that highly-polluting countries such as
the United States do not even consider establishing,
even though they are hurting everyone else.
It
is a matter then, of sums and balances. Of willpower
and possibilities that are sometimes out of general
reach. And that is serious, because there are food
sources that are showing symptoms of exhaustion.
Boris Worm, of Dalhousie University in Canada,
affirms that one-third of ocean species are already
exhausted due to their excessive exploitation, which
is preventing them from reproducing according to
their rhythms, and also due to the means of capture
employed.
According to the opinions of these and other
oceanology experts, if corrective measures are not
taken right away, in just 50 years, fish will
disappear, and there are already unequivocal
symptoms that that is what will happen. The study
that puts forward such sobering perspectives was
carried out by a large number of European and U.S.
scientists with the help of experienced groups that
made it possible to analyze every ocean area on the
planet.
“Politicians tend to follow the advice of
scientists, and to reinforce the bans; carefully
observe fishing limits and invest in maintaining
what we have left. (...) If something is not done
now, soon, only 30 more years of marine life will be
left, and fish are one of the healthiest foods in
the human diet and in that of many other animals...”
Environmentalists may seem to be exaggerating at
times, but they are right when they note the urgency
of attending to these problems which can give way to
disasters like excessively higher temperatures,
which in turn can lead to potentially irreversible
phenomena and even catastrophes (the fusion of
Greenland or the modification of the thermohaline
current), as they warn.
The insistence on acting in a coordinated way, but
also on the part of each country, is due to the fact
that such far-reaching matters cannot be left up to
individual will or the convenience of one or another
group. If the self-exclusion of important nations is
already causing tremendous damages and “authorizing”
others to ignore the agreements, if the current one
stagnates or retreats, it will imply considerable
and definitive risks. (Elsa Claro)
|
