Now in June, new negotiations are taking place in London in order to achieve a renewed agreement on climate change in the world. This month, technical groups from the seven most industrialized economies, along with Russia, would be expected to draft a compromise document ready. However, consensus is becoming elusive.
A recently released draft text demonstrates the obstacles to overcome.
The document appears with many paragraphs in brackets, which shows substantive discrepancies.
For example, there is no agreement on the statement that “our planet is warming”, nor on the statement that “the academies of science stated in June 2005 that there is strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring”, and that “This warming has already caused changes in the Earth's climate; knowing that this increase is due in part to human activity ”.
In other words, from the outset, according to international media, they do not want to recognize the seriousness of the problem, nor the evidence that human activity promotes this damage.
This is something that involves great risks for the entire ecosystem of the planet and endangers the productivity and living standards of all societies.
Until now, and increasingly, most scientists agree that the current cycle of temperature rise on Earth is caused by gases that cause the "greenhouse effect".
These gases are the product of combustion, especially fossil materials such as oil and gas.
One of the key problems is the cost for the most industrialized nations of reducing the emission of these gases, as Catherine Pearse, of the Friends of the Earth Organization, recently pointed out to the IPS agency.
If something is globalized, since before telecommunications and the fastest transportation possibilities emerged, it is the world's atmospheric and marine ecosystems. Neither the air nor the sea recognize nationalities
. After the emergence of contamination in any part of the planet, the negative effects, even differently, will be felt throughout the world, given the spread of pollutants.
This theme shows how much of the future of humanity and the possibility of survival, even with the existing demographic pressure, resides in the political will of the more developed nations.
It is the nations with the greatest power and wealth in the world who own 13% of the planet's population, and emit 45% of polluting gases. Without them, it is not possible to advance in the effort to stop the contamination at all.
One of the most intransigent positions comes from the United States. President W. Bush withdrew the signature of the Kyoto Protocol, the pledge of which had already been signed by President Clinton.
Without the United States, the largest emitter of polluting gases, there cannot be an agreement that achieves minimum levels of operation.
The American power with 5% of the world's population produces almost 32% of the planet's garbage and 26% of polluting gases.
Only in Texas is the pollution produced greater than that originating in France.
We know that stress, HIV infections and global warming are problems derived from the contemporary stage of our development. We also know that while markets promote competitiveness and better resource allocation, they are also responsible for global pollution.
It is necessary to put the minimum brake on this situation, something that tries to rescue from the Kyoto Protocol, this agreement that is being discussed, known as the "Gleneagles Action Plan".
Those most opposed to any measure, point out that the evidence has not been "fully" demonstrated. They are double standards. The unspeakable thing is that you do not want to make any investment in this regard. As always, the urgent does not give time to the important in our lives. Leaving global warming adrift is leading to irreversible damage. There is the behavior of cyclones, ozone damage, and the disappearance of glaciers in Antarctica.
Damaging our natural systems, which ultimately provide the foundation for our lives, is to kill ourselves on a pause. On breaks, but suicide at the end. It's not about being neo-apocalyptic.
But we are risking our chance of survival by trying to do "something" to preserve this planet. A planet that as things are going no longer tolerates so much development.
