The recognition that the process of global warming can cause very serious damage to production systems, infrastructure and lifestyle of people and countries, has attracted the attention of politicians to measures can be taken to stop this process or at least mitigate it.
This was especially clear from the October 30, 2006, which released a study commissioned by the UK government to a team led by Nicholas Stern. The Stern Report called on the economics of climate change ( Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change ) estimates that halting the process of global warming, the need to invest the equivalent of 1% of world GDP , which seems to be a very large amount. Failure to do this investment, the risk is that the effects of climate change on agriculture, the increase in hurricane damage and other meteors, floods and landslides, causing a huge downturn, which may back up to 20% in production value.
In 2008, the Faculty of Economics, UNAM, made a similar exercise, coordinated by Luis Miguel Galindo, called Report Galindo "The Economics of Climate Change in Mexico," noting that the economic costs of climate impacts by 2100 are at least three times higher than the mitigation costs of 50% of our emissions. These costs can reach 6.22% of current GDP, while Mitges emissions would cost between 0.70% and 2.21% of GDP. This figure agrees with estimates of the Stern report, they must invest about 1% of GDP to stop global warming. According to the International Monetary Fund, Mexico's GDP is about 1.5 trillion U.S. dollars annually. 15mil then Mexico should invest millions of dollars annually, ie about 195.000 million pesos a year to prevent global warming, of which about 19.000 million annually would go to actions to prevent deforestation and degradation of forests and jungles.
Although they appear large amounts of money, the Stern report and the report Galindo, agree that it is cheap, because the process of climate change can have serious economic and human well-being seriously, and is much less expensive to invest whatever is necessary to stop this process to bear the consequences of leaving it running.
For those who doubted whether or not someone will come to collect the bill to let the process run unbridled global warming, flooding by the overflow of the Missouri River in June 2008, depejaron those doubts. Environmental debts are paid and charged in a brutal manner.
is undeniable that we must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions into the atmosphere. But this means you have to move factories and transportation means less oil consumption. Perhaps means that we must reduce the physical volume of production, reducing waste and desprdicios and reduce transportation distances of people, food and raw materials, producing more locally. To achieve this, it means changing many production processes, large factories closed and open small factories. Production should be reduced in the major agricultural centers worldwide and to promote agricultural areas near cities become more productive, to supply the local population. It would also place the population avoiding large gatherings, like the City of Mexico to avoid des-economies implies that concentration. In short, there is a need to substantially change the way we live, produce and generate waste.
The United Nations Convention on Climate Change since 1992 has been addressing this problem, which has been made and 15 Assembly of the signatory countries (known conventions of the parties or COPs). In all these meetings there has been no conclusive or binding decisions for the country and while the process of global warming is progressing. Much of the difficulty of reaching agreement binding on all, is the reluctance to change the way we live and do business, which many find convenient and comfortable, even jeopardize the future viability production systems and the generation of human welfare.
In 2005, within the 11th Assembly or COP in Montreal, raised the issue that, in addition to transforming the productive systems and the generation of well-could reduce GHG emissions if they stop deforestation in tropical countries . It is estimated that globally between 12 and 17% of GHG emissions from the destruction and skimming of forests and rainforests, and that if these phenomena were eliminated, would reduce the problem of climate change and win time to carry out the restructuring of production systems and welfare.
This idea was welcomed by many, it represents the possibility to channel resources and actions to stop deforestation in the tropics and down a significant portion of emissions. If, according to the Stern report is considered necessary to channel the 1% of global GDP to combat climate change, and we consider that the International Monetary Fund estimates that world GDP of 69.9 trillion international dollars, would speaking of the need to invest U.S. $ 690mil million annually in the fight against climate change and whether the destruction and skimming of forests and rainforests means between 1 / 10 and 1 / 8 of global GHG emissions would be logical to consider that should invest 69mil and 86mil million dollars annually to prevent the removal or skimming of forests and rainforests.
The proposal is attractive, so in 2007 during the 13th Assembly or COP in Bali, adopted the concept of "Reducing Emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions by reducing deforestation and forest degradation" or REDD, as a promising measure to address the global warming process. Did not take any action binding agreement on this issue, but invited the countries to further strengthen and support current efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation on a voluntary basis, and learn how address this issue. Incorporated the policy approaches and positive incentives to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries within the Action Plan process that resulted from the Assembly of Bali.
However, some environmental groups like Greenpeace and others say that it is willing to abuse the concept of REDD and some people claim that actions to reduce deforestation and forest degradation, can be "instead of" and no "plus" actions urging industrial restructuring and urban. This would distract the public opinion and political underlying theme, which is the industrial and urban restructuring, implementing REDD programs in poor countries. If this happens, they cease to channel resources needed to actually reduce the greenhouse effect and global warming (69mil billion annually, according to the Stern report) and lose precious time entertaining the audience with actions in the Amazon , Africa and Southeast Asia, which have a more publicity than real, if not accompanied by substantial changes in production structures and human settlements worldwide.
Moreover, the "Assembly of Heads for forests and climate change" in Accra (Accra Caucus on Forests and Climate Change), a coalition of some 100 organizations from 38 countries released a study that emphasized that REDD programs could jeopardize the rights of indigenous peoples and communities in an effort to protect forests you can come over polluting industry interests, to avoid making the technological changes that urgent and less of their own communities and indigenous peoples.
The report said that to avoid imposing their REDD programs to communities negative conditions must be met at least three conditions, which are internationally recognized:
- That there is a wide and effective participation local people;
- States should recognize indigenous land rights and use-based forest management systems in communities that allow sustainable use of forests by local communities, and
- should not make any REDD treatment without the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous groups, as emphasized the United Nations.
The Assembly of Heads concluded by noting that REDD programs are a "double-edged sword ', which if used the wrong way could" have negative environmental and social consequences of serious and would not serve much in terms of reducing carbon emissions " .
References:
- Press release on the report Stern on the economics of climate change Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change
- Report Galindo: "The Economics Climate Change in Mexico "
- New Greenpeace report: Trading in forest Would carbon Carbon Markets crash
- Press release on the "Assembly of Heads for forests and climate change"
