Wednesday 13 February 2008

Climate change: Overheated planet, lukewarm reactions



















Evidences are irrefutable. Everybody accepts climate change is a real danger and the issue is influencing the agenda of summits and hitting headlines, but in fact business instinct is prevailing over conservation instinct.


Valencia, Bali, Davos and more recently New Delhi summits were examples. But this year will be over and the next and governments, countries and enterprises will not reach a consensus.

One just has to look at the blockages of negotiations within the WTO.
Trying to build consensus and not making it seems to be a successful worldwide way of losing time. It is almost a sport.

Commerce and conflicts of interests can wait for the probable end of slow and complicated negotiation rounds. The climate crisis cannot.


“We are running out time,” said UN General Secretary Ban Ki-Moon weeks ago at Davos summit.


“Climate change is a result of a world without a sustainable development. We need a worldwide policy,” said the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change chairman Rajendra Pachauri few days later, during the Sustainable Development Summit at New Delhi.


Time is running, we need worldwide regulations, sustainable economical practices and immediate actions. Those are key words.


But reality speaks a different language.


The compromised health of stock markets was the main issue at Davos summit. In the other hand, the European Union’s programme 20%-2020 has been widely criticized.


At international meetings, discussions revolve on the others’ responsibilities. For governments and enterprises, economical growth is first.


At this point, many countries are attracted by the elastic American view, which promotes an agreement with more flexible rules.


According to this view, each country should set its own goals, ways and mechanisms, which should not affect economical figures.


George Bush’s administration “takes seriously the issue of climate change,” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said. “Each nation must face the problem in the way it considers the best.”


The two major CO2 emissions producers, the United States and China, share this approach.


It raises the question that should lead the way to the consensus: Is it possible to keep the current economical growth rates and consumption and at the same time tackle the global warming?


Nature does not take a seat at summits, nor it specially takes care of humankind. It follows its own ways.


Nature’s language does not include such words as economical growth, investments, profits, negotiations, consensus or obligations.


Nature speaks and works in terms of causes and effects. It is a language based on interconnected forces that, in the case of global warming, are being unleashed by humankind.

Change against climate change

Last September, a survey commissioned by BBC World Service found that most of people are willing to change their habits and ways of life in sight of climate change.


The research, conducted by the polling firm Globescan and the Program on International Policy Attitudes (Pipa), surveyed more than 22.000 people in 21 countries, from Canada to Australia, including China, United States, the main European powers and Russia, Brazil and India.


-79% of respondents agreed that "human activity, including industry and transportation, is a significant cause of climate change"


-Nine out of 10 people said action was necessary, and 65% said that "it is necessary to take major steps starting very soon"


According to this results, the majority deem necessary a change in the current ways of life and they support drastic measures like rises in energy prices if they contribute to promote energy saving and CO2 emissions decreasing.


What are the views of enterprises and those who oppose binding international schemes, emissions taxes and any drastic measure aiming to slow the drastic acceleration of climate change?


-Initiatives like the European Union package (reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent and increase use of renewable energies by 20 percent, energy efficiency by 20 percent and use of biofuels in vehicles by 10 percent by 2020) have a devastating cost for economy, are anti-democratic and do not take into account the cost-benefit relation


-The cost of required technologies and investments is astronomical


-To face the measures, energy-intensive industries such the steel, metallurgy, chemical and cement sectors would have to raise the prices. In fact, several industries have already threatened to move production offshore


-Industries and countries adopting environmental adjustment measures will face loss of competivity


-Emissions trading system and emissions taxes have failed to improve the situation


-The solution is an approach on market basis, avoiding any binding or centralizing goal and focusing on technology


-Stands like the European programme tend to fail by setting goals beyond the possibilities of the available technology


As time goes by


The fact is that immediate and alternative solutions are urgently needed if taxes and the Emissions trading system have failed, or if the use of biofuels put up the price of transport and food and worsen the global warming by generating more pressures over agriculture.


Perhaps the international community will start effectively facing the climate change once the governments and enterprises’ boards accept that economical cost is unavoidable, as well as changes in the ways of life and in the ways of measuring cost-benefit relation are essential.


Because nature will not wait nor will give us an undetermined grace period until we solve differences and develop cleaner and more efficient technologies “without affecting the economical growth rates”.

Thursday 7 February 2008

Cambio climático: Planeta sobrecalentado, tibias reacciones













Las señales son irrefutables, todos lo aceptan y el tema ocupa las cumbres y los titulares de prensa, pero el instinto de negocios opaca al instinto de conservación.

Valencia, Bali, Davos, ahora Nueva Delhi. Y llegará el año próximo, sin que nos pongamos de acuerdo. Sólo basta mirar los embotellamientos en la OMC.

Pero al menos el comercio, los conflictos de intereses, pueden esperar por lentos y enrevesados procesos de negociación.

“Se nos acaba el tiempo” dijo en Davos el secretario general de la ONU, Ban Ki-Moon.

Ahora, en la Cumbre sobre Desarrollo Sostenible de Nueva Delhi, el presidente del Panel Intergubernamental para el Cambio Climático (IPCC), Rajendra Pachauri, advirtió: "El cambio climático ocurre porque el mundo no sigue un desarrollo sostenible. Necesitamos una política mundial".

Poco tiempo, necesidad de una política mundial, desarrollo sostenible, acciones inmediatas… Esas son las palabras clave.

Pero la realidad habla un idioma diferente.

En Davos, la inestabilidad bursátil fue el tema concreto. El programa 20%-2020 de la Unión Europa ha sido criticado desde todas direcciones. En las cumbres, las discusiones se centran más en las responsabilidades de los otros. Para los gobiernos y empresas, la economía y el crecimiento van primero.

Y muchos se sienten tentados por la elástica visión estadounidense: un acuerdo con metas más flexibles, en el que cada nación establezca sus propias metas, modos y mecanismos sin que se resienta su desarrollo económico.

La Administración Bush “se toma muy seriamente la cuestión del cambio climático”, ha dicho la secretaria de Estado, Condoleezza Rice.

En opinión de la Casa Blanca, cada país debe reducir las emisiones, pero sin llegar al extremo de dañar la economía. “Todas las naciones deben abordar el problema del cambio climático en la forma en que cada una considere mejor”.

En tal visión están de acuerdo, entre otros, los dos principales emisores de CO2 del mundo: Estados Unidos y China.

Y aparece la pregunta que quizá debería guiar el camino del consenso: ¿Es realmente posible mantener los actuales ritmos de crecimiento y a la vez detener o aliviar el calentamiento global?

Hay una certeza: la naturaleza no se sienta en las cumbres, ni cuida especialmente del género humano. Sigue sus propios cauces.

El idioma de la naturaleza no incluye palabras como crecimiento económico, inversión, ganancias, plazos, negociaciones, consensos u obligaciones.

El idioma de la naturaleza es de causas y efectos, de fuerzas interconectadas que, en el caso del calentamiento global, el género humano está desatando.

Cambio vs cambio climático

En septiembre pasado, una encuesta comisionada por el BBC World Service reveló que la mayoría de los ciudadanos están dispuestos a cambiar hábitos y estilos de vida ante la crisis climática.

El estudio, realizado por el Programa sobre Actitudes de Política Internacional y GlobeScan, incluyó 22.000 entrevistados en 21 países, desde Canadá hasta Australia. El 83% de los participantes estimó necesario un cambio de hábitos y estilos.

En 14 de los 21 países, el 61% apoyó aumentar el precio de la energía para fomentar el ahorro y reducir las emisiones de CO2.

Sobre la disposición a pagar impuestos, la mayoría cree positivo gravar una tasa sobre el clima si las recaudaciones sirven para aumentar la eficiencia energética o desarrollar fuentes de energía limpia, como las energías renovables.

¿Cuál es la visión de grandes empresas y de aquellos que se oponen a iniciativas internacionales vinculantes, impuestos sobre emisiones y cualquier medida drástica ante la drástica aceleración del cambio climático?

-Iniciativas como la de la UE (reducción de emisiones en 20%, aumento de 20% en la eficiencia energética y en el uso de energías renovables y aumento de 10% en el uso de biocombustible para el 2020) tienen un costo devastador para las economías, son antidemocráticas y no toman en cuenta la relación costo-beneficio

-El costo de las nuevas tecnologías necesarias es astronómico

-Industrias altamente consumidoras como las de acero, aluminio, químicos y cementos, deberán aumentar sustancialmente sus precios. De hecho, muchas industrias han amenazado con mudar sus plantas

-Las industrias y empresas de los países que adopten medidas de ajuste perderán competitividad frente a las de otros países

-El sistema de comercio de permisos de emisión ha fracasado en disminuir las emisiones

-La solución es un acercamiento desde la concepción del mercado, que evite cualquier objetivo vinculante o centralizador y se oriente al desarrollo tecnológico

-Posiciones como la europea tienden al fracaso al trazar límites e impuestos sobre emisiones cuando las tecnologías existentes no son suficientes para cumplir tales parámetros

Lo cierto es que urge hallar soluciones rápidas si los impuestos y esquemas de comercio de permisos de emisión no han funcionado, y si la opción de los biocombustibles encarece el transporte y los alimentos y de hecho estimula el efecto invernadero al generar nuevas presiones sobre la agricultura.

Quizá la comunidad internacional comience a avanzar realmente en el enfrentamiento al cambio climático cuando se acepte que el costo económico es inevitable, y que urgen cambios de modo de vida y de parámetros económicos y de ganancias.

Porque la naturaleza tampoco esperará o nos dará un plazo de gracia hasta tanto encontremos y desarrollemos energías más eficientes y limpias, “sin que se afecte el ritmo económico”.

Saturday 2 February 2008

Drugs: the dilemma of legalisation


Dennis Hooper’s face in Blue Velvet is scary, with bloodshot eyes and an unpredictable anger destroying everything in its way, like a derailed train.

Pictures like this jump out from many people’s minds when they hear about the legalisation of illegal substances.

However, views are changing in the United Kingdom and other countries as the debate revolves around the persistence of consumption in spite of prohibition and considerations on how drugs affect health and reason.

Heating the debate

Last October, Chief Constable of North Wales Richard Brunstrom stood for legalising all drugs and making heroin available on the National Health System (NHS).

Mr Brunstrom’s report, supported by members of the North Wales Police Authority, called for a review of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 towards a Misuse of Substances Act to regulate all drugs, including nicotine and alcohol, according a scientifically based hierarchy of harm.

The current classification “is indefensible, both legally and ethically. It is arbitrary and subject to politically-motivated manipulation,” he said.

He also suggested an affiliation with Transform Drug Policy Foundation, committed to change the legal approach to this issue, since prohibition has not been able to “stop a successful criminal market or reduce drug harm to an insignificant level.”

The government and the Association of Chief Police Officers received the report with criticism.

Home Office minister Vernon Coaker stated that UK needs strict enforcement of drug laws, and ACPO labelled Brunstrom’s suggestion as a “counsel of despair.”

“Total legalization would greatly exacerbate the harm to people. It does not make sense to legitimize dangerous narcotic substances which would then have the potential to ruin even more lives and our neighbourhoods”, said ACPO.

The Chief Constable of North Wales answered back highlighting the evidence.

Three million people are on illegal drugs; 2.5 million are alcoholics and 9.5 million addicted to nicotine in the UK, where seizures of drugs account only for less than 1%. In 2003, Britain stopped only 10% of heroin import and 15% of cocaine.

“Cocaine addicts committed 56% of crime, while offences related to alcohol consumption cost £12 billion annually,” said Mr Brunstrom and added that criminals should be treated as victims and patients in order not just to punish them but to change their behaviour.

Brunstrom’s paper took information from the Number 10 Strategy Unit Drugs Project, commissioned by Tony Blair in 2003.

Despite recognizing that supply side interventions and seizures have not reduced availability or drug harms, the group recommended to continue these actions and pointed at criminal networks as the main target.

Among all its findings, one is decisive for pro-legalisation lobbies. There is no causal relationship between availability and incidence; there is no evidence that there would be a surge in HHCUs causing an increase in overall harm.”

Tolerance vs. traffic

According UN, 200 hundred millions people took drugs in the world in 2005, feeding a business of 321 billions US dollars.

Apart from funding criminal networks, those profits finance terrorism and wars in Latin America, Africa and Asia. In Afghanistan, last year the trade rose four billions US dollars, 53% of GDP.

The European Observatory of Drugs and Toxicomany pointed out the rise of negative trends in 2007, when 23 millions Europeans took cannabis and 4.5 millions consumed cocaine, while more than 7000 drug-related deaths occurred.

About 200 thousands consumers of injectable drugs in the EU are Aids carriers, and more than a million carry Hepatitis C.

The Guardian columnist Nick Davies holds that “all of the side effects which are associated with heroin - disease and death and misery and depravity - are the effects not of the drug itself but of the black market.”

“So, we have dirty heroin polluted with all kinds of dangerous crap; dirty needles which spread hepatitis and HIV; desperate users who can't afford to eat or look after themselves; and a never-ending tidal wave of property crime and prostitution.”

Davies reminds the counterproductive results of prohibitions like Dry Law in US.

“Pure heroin properly used is a benign drug. Its worst physical side effect is constipation. Cannabis and cocaine have some bad side-effects, but no drug becomes safer when its production and distribution are handed over to criminals”, he holds.

In 2007, the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce Commission stated: “If drugs cannot be eradicated, then the principal object of public policy should be to reduce the great harms that they may cause.”

UN conventions on drugs, law enforcement, crop dusting and inter-police cooperation have tried to tackle illegal trafficking since the 60s, but new synthetic drugs appeared and consumption grows in Europe.

MP Paul Flyn holds that prohibition multiplies drugs, crime and death. “In Moscow there is a vast hospital filled with children born with Aids, most children of drug addicts. They are the victims of prohibition.”

Many experts praise Holland experience, which allows the sale and consumption of cannabis - marijuana and hashish - in special cafes, while ban other drugs like cocaine and Ecstasy.

“By supplying their most prolific addicts with clean heroin, Holland and Switzerland have proved the virtues of legalisation”, says Nick Davies.

“The average age of addicts in Holland has been rising for years, because they have taken away the black-market.”

“The Swiss have had improvements in health, employment, family relations, housing, crime and abstention,” he adds.

The facts

Results of national consultation on drugs are expected after analysis by the Parliament, but Gordon Brown has stated his intention to strengthen the control over cannabis, which was categorized as drug type C in 2002.

The facts are that in Scotland 15 000 alcohol and tobacco-related deaths were reported in 2004, compared to 356 caused by illegal drugs.

Drug-motivated crime rose over the last 7 years, the supply increased in spite of the prohibition and drugs’ prices are not as high as to deter consumption but not as low as to deter heavy users from committing offences to get money they need for their addiction.


THE SCIENTIFIC RANKING OF DRUGS (THE LANCET -MARCH 2007) FROM THE MOST TO THE LEAST DANGEROUS:

1. Heroin
2. Cocaine
3. Barbiturates
4. Street Methadone
5. Alcohol
6. Ketamine
7. Benzodiazepines
8. Amphetamines
9. Tobacco
10. Buprenorphine.
11. Cannabis -
12. Solvents
13. 4-MTA
14. LSD
15. Methylphenidate Ritalin.
16. Anabolic steroids
17. GHB - short for Gamma hydroxybutyrate,
18. Ecstasy
19. Alkyl nitrates
20. Khat