El siguiente artículo fue publicado en el sitio web del "Comittee for a democratic UN", en el marco de la Campaña por una Asamblea Parlamentaria de las Naciones Unidas (UNPA). Pueden ver la versión original aqui.
Global Climate Policy and World Democracy
by Fernando Iglesias, August 2009
by Fernando Iglesias, August 2009
The effects on the planetary climate and geography - such as the increase of medium temperatures, melting of the polar caps, desertification, increase in the number and intensity of hurricanes and other devastating climatic phenomena - have carried the issue of global warming to the top of the global agenda. It is possible to observe a strengthening of the scientific consensus on the causal importance of the present civilisatory model and the existent energetic matrix in the phenomenon. The planetary awareness of the gravity of the threat increases. The granting of the Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore and to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has shown the growing importance of the issue on the world stage.
Although the 2007 UN Conference on Climate Change in Bali, Indonesia, (take notice of the name: it doesn’t even mention the global warming issue) has closed with an agreement to negotiate a future agreement - it was actually another failure dressed up as a success. A roadmap whose objectives are either abstract or consigned to footnotes, a budget of 307 million euros to assist the technological change of the underdeveloped world which actually would need billions, and the paradoxical promise of a “Kyoto II” are a poor result in the face of the huge menace climate change poses to humanity. While debates on the climate causes of global warming increase, the failure of the inter-governmental agencies unveils a deeper political root.
Let’s look at the situation: a global public good that belongs to the whole of humanity (the ecosystem) is in deep danger due to irresponsible energy policies carried out - with a different degree of irresponsibility - by most of the nation-states of the world. The reason is obvious: the emission of gases that cause the greenhouse effect is an excellent deal for companies and corporations since negative effects of oil, coal and gas consumption are divided among all human beings while the benefits are entirely taken over by them. Moreover, if we move from the economic to the political actors, the result does not differ: it is convenient for each nation, separately, to maintain a permissive environmental legislation within its frontiers because the emission costs are paid by all countries while the benefits are exclusively taken over by the companies of the pollutant country. (...)
Although the 2007 UN Conference on Climate Change in Bali, Indonesia, (take notice of the name: it doesn’t even mention the global warming issue) has closed with an agreement to negotiate a future agreement - it was actually another failure dressed up as a success. A roadmap whose objectives are either abstract or consigned to footnotes, a budget of 307 million euros to assist the technological change of the underdeveloped world which actually would need billions, and the paradoxical promise of a “Kyoto II” are a poor result in the face of the huge menace climate change poses to humanity. While debates on the climate causes of global warming increase, the failure of the inter-governmental agencies unveils a deeper political root.
Let’s look at the situation: a global public good that belongs to the whole of humanity (the ecosystem) is in deep danger due to irresponsible energy policies carried out - with a different degree of irresponsibility - by most of the nation-states of the world. The reason is obvious: the emission of gases that cause the greenhouse effect is an excellent deal for companies and corporations since negative effects of oil, coal and gas consumption are divided among all human beings while the benefits are entirely taken over by them. Moreover, if we move from the economic to the political actors, the result does not differ: it is convenient for each nation, separately, to maintain a permissive environmental legislation within its frontiers because the emission costs are paid by all countries while the benefits are exclusively taken over by the companies of the pollutant country. (...)
Continúa.
Para ver la versión completa hacer click aquí.
Entradas
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario