Cambio Climático: ¿Una Guerra Ecológica o Económica?

trump-y-el-cambio-climatico 

Yo nunca he dudado de que se el ser humano se encuentra modificando el clima. Ahora bien, existen muchos motivos para cuestionar las predicciones de los modelos de cambio climático, como hemos reiterado en diversas ocasiones. Redacto este post el día después de que ese personaje llamado Donald Trump ha escandalizado al mundo por su negativa a firmar los acuerdos de cambio climático a los que se adhería la administración Obama.  Y así hoy podéis leer, en todos los idiomas, noticias como estas:

Trump retira a EE UU del Acuerdo de París contra el cambio climático

Donald Trump da la espalda al cambio climático y el Acuerdo de París

8 frases de Donald Trump sobre el cambio climático y el Acuerdo de …

Donald Trump anuncia que Estados Unidos abandonará el Acuerdo …

Y en este sentido puede entenderse lo bien que se llevan los dirigentes de USA y Rusia, que disponen de ingentes reservas de combustibles fósiles.  Y aparte de vender armas, ¿no hablaría también el dirigente norteamericano de este tema con su homónimo de Arabia Saudí?,  país que como sabéis todos no atesora recursos energéticos fósiles ¿?. ¿Debemos alarmarnos? Francamente yo no. Me explico, personalmente estoy preocupado desde hace mucho tiempo, empero los acuerdos de esta naturaleza (léase cambio climático) se firman para no cumplirse. ¿Acaso los países de la ONU siguen a rajatabla “La declaración Universal de derechos Humanos?.  

No se engañen, la gobernanza mundial no se encuentra preocupada ni por el bienestar de los ciudadanos ni por cuestiones medioambientales. Y como “no hay más ciego que el que no quiere ver”, solo piensan en los negocios y finanzas (la dictadura financiara que sufrimos), para beneficio de unos pocos y el martirio de los demás.  Y aquí surge la contienda. Unos países disponen de grandes reservas de combustibles fósiles y otros no, como es son los casos de la Unión Europea, o Japón, y el menos comentado de la India, y China, es decir los emergentes dragones asiáticos que amenazan el tradicional “imperio” occidental. En consecuencia, aquí nos encontramos con el meollo de la cuestión: cuestión de energía y poder, que no de cambio climático. Y Donald, que ya sabemos cómo piensa ¿?, razonará así: “si se aumenta la temperatura enciendan ustedes los aparatos de aire acondicionado, “made in USA”. Es decir la pasta ante todo, por lo que él ve una oportunidad derestablecer el orden mundial que le interesa”.  Obviamente Rusia le respaldará a ciegas y más aun cuando sus frías tundras y taigas, pudieran convertirse en los futuros graneros mundiales, si el clima se calienta como predicen los modelos, aunque, ya sabéis mi opinión.

Sobre el cambio climático se ha ido edificando en las dos últimas décadas una parte muy importante de la economía y desarrollo tecnológico, al menos en muchos países, especialmente los dependientes de la importación de los combustibles fósiles. ¡Que se fastidien! espetarán al unísono Trump y Putin. Recordemos por ejemplo, y solo es uno entre ellos, la ingente cantidad de billones de euros o dólares que basculan entorno a las denominadas energías renovables.

Como anécdota os comentaré que UBER es una multinacional que pretende destruir el tradicional modelo del transporte de viajeros por taxi, del cual dependen tan solo en España miles de familias. Los profesionales de este y otros países, varios de ellos latinoamericanos, se encuentran ya soliviantados, habiendo comenzado movilizaciones y huelgas contra este nuevo modelo de negocio (conflicto entre Uber y los taxistas). Ante tal panorama, visioné el otro día en TVE. Pues bien, en su defensa, los sicarios de UBER en España argumentaron  apostar por los coches eléctricos, y que así paliarían el cambio climático. Y luego apostillaban, tan solo el 20% del dinero generado va fuera de España. ¿Y porque se tiene que perder pasta en negocios como este?. Pero es aquí en donde los cálculos pueden fallarle a Trump. Uber es una multinacional estadounidense.

La economía USA perdería pingues beneficios y puestos de trabajos si deja de deambular por el mundo de las energías alternativas y el gran negocio del cambio climático. USA perdería ingentes ganancias si se mantiene al margen de diversos tipos de producciones industriales en la que actualmente anda tan implicada, como muchos Estados. Pero ni las petroleras ven claro el movimiento ajedrecista de Trump. Aún no sabemos si tiene algún sentido estratégico o simplemente es otra “ocurrencia” de …..

Dicen que la “política hace extraños compañeros de cama”. Hubiera sido difícil imaginar (y aun me cuesta) que en el futuro Europa se conchabara con China y Rusia con El Tio Sam. ¡Vivir para ver!. Personalmente trabajar como un chino no es el porvenir que deseo para nadie.

El “tiempo dictara” sentencia, que no el clima

Os dejo con la patética noticia que nos deja el Noticiero de la USDA “pos Obama” y otra que da cuenta de la mentada resistencia de otros países, como la UE y China, a seguir el sendero por el que nos invita a transitar cua, cua, cua. ¡Jesús iba todo mal y aterrizó Donald como un gran meteorito!. Leer por favor la nota de prensa que ha dejado la administración Trump en la USDA y veréis…….

Juan José Ibáñez

Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page; You are subscribed to USDA Office of Communications. Release No. 0049.17; Contact: USDA Press; Phone: (202) 720-4623; Email:press@oc.usda.gov

Statement of Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue on President Trump’s Paris Accord Announcement

“President Trump promised that he would put America first and he has rightly determined that the Paris accord was not in the best interests of the United States.  In addition to costing our economy trillions of dollars and millions of jobs, the accord also represented a willful and voluntary ceding of our national sovereignty.  The agreement would have had negligible impact on world temperatures, especially since other countries and major world economies were not being held to the same stringent standards as the United States.

“The Earth’s climate has been changing since the planet was formed – on this there is no disagreement.  At USDA, we rely on sound science and we remain firmly committed to digging ever deeper into research to develop better methods of agricultural production in that changing climate.  Floods, droughts, and natural disasters are a fact of life for farmers, ranchers, and foresters.  They have persevered in the past, and they will adapt in the future – with the assistance of the scientists and experts at USDA.  To be effective, our research and programs need to be focused on finding solutions and providing state-of-the-art technologies to improve management decisions on farm and on forest lands.”

El presidente Trump prometió que pondría a Estados Unidos primero y él ha determinado con razón que el acuerdo de París no era en los mejores intereses de los Estados Unidos. Además de costar a nuestra economía billones de dólares y millones de empleos, el acuerdo también representó una cesión voluntaria y voluntaria de nuestra soberanía nacional. El acuerdo habría tenido un impacto insignificante en las temperaturas mundiales, especialmente dado que otros países y las principales economías mundiales no están sujetas a las mismas normas estrictas que los Estados Unidos.

El clima de la Tierra ha estado cambiando desde que el planeta se formó – en esto no hay desacuerdo. En USDA, confiamos en ciencia sólida y seguimos firmemente comprometidos a profundizar cada vez más en la investigación para desarrollar mejores métodos de producción agrícola en ese clima cambiante. Las inundaciones, las sequías y los desastres naturales son un hecho de la vida de los agricultores, ganaderos y silvicultores. Han perseverado en el pasado, y se adaptarán en el futuro – con la ayuda de los científicos y expertos en USDA. Para ser eficaces, nuestras investigaciones y programas deben centrarse en encontrar soluciones y proporcionar tecnologías de vanguardia para mejorar las decisiones de manejo en las fincas y en las tierras forestales “.

With or without Trump, US businesses moving on climate
By Jeremy TORDJMAN;
Washington (AFP) May 31, 2017

 UBER

With or without Trump, US businesses moving on climate (By Jeremy TORDJMAN) Washington (AFP) May;  31, 2017.

President Donald Trump may be dragging out his decision on whether to ditch the Paris climate agreement, but major American corporations have not waited for a government signal to start cutting their carbon emissions.

Before Trump had even raised the possibility of scrapping US involvement in the landmark 2015 treaty, Coca-Cola and the engineering giant General Electric already had pledged to reduce their carbon footprints by 25 percent and 20 percent, respectively, by 2020.

Apple meanwhile boasts of running its US operations on 100 percent renewable energy.

“We believe climate change is real and the science is well accepted,” GE’s CEO Jeff Immelt said last month, offering a stark contrast to an administration that features prominent climate change deniers.

Agribusiness giant Monsanto told AFP it was “committed” to helping “farmers adapt to and mitigate climate change.”

Even energy-sector heavyweights — those who seemingly have the most to lose from tougher environmental rules — are joining the trend started by the Paris Agreement, which aims to keep global warming “well below” two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels.

Oil giant Chevron “supports continuing with the Paris Agreement as it offers a first step towards a global framework,” spokeswoman Melissa Ritchie said.

Rival ExxonMobil recently implored the White House not to exit the climate treaty in order to respond effectively to climate “risks.”

- Shifting attitudes -

Just a few years ago, the US business world was using all its weight to impede climate talks, notably leading to the collapse of a 2009 summit in Copenhagen.

But many companies now find their image at stake in the United States, where opinion polls indicate the public are concerned by global warming and want to remain in the Paris agreement.

While growing environmental awareness has played a role, corporate America’s conversion is not solely the result of do-gooder impulses.

“The companies are increasing their commitments in the climate area irrespective of (Trump’s) decision, because it saves them money, it reduces their risks and most importantly, it’s a massive market opportunity,” said Kevin Moss of the World Resources Institute.

The bottom line has indeed shifted for businesses. Major investors are exiting fossil fuels and companies are facing increasing pressure to adapt their growth models to a world without carbon.

“Our customers, partners and countries are demanding technology that generates power while reducing emissions, improving energy efficiency and reducing cost,” said GE’s Immelt.

Oil prices have fallen through the floor in recent years, with a barrel of benchmark crude hovering around $50, down from more than $80 a decade ago. As a result, investing in the sector is much less profitable.

As a sign of the times, Exxon shareholders on Wednesday voted to force the company to factor in tougher climate policies on emissions and disclose how they may affect company revenues.

- Structural changes -

Trump also has pledged to revive the coal industry but given the boom in natural gas, which produces 50 percent less carbon dioxide and is far cheaper than coal, most experts say that will be difficult to accomplish on a large scale.

Still, fracking, or hydraulic fracturing — a principal means of natural gas extraction — also faces stiff criticism for its environmental impacts.

The costs of renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power, also have come down sharply, thanks in part to investment and public subsidies that have made the sector more attractive.

Melissa McHenry, a spokeswoman for the major US generator American Electric Power, said her company had diversified into renewables and was investing “in renewable generation and other innovations that increase efficiency and reduce emissions.”

Lynn Good, head of Duke Energy, told The Wall Street Journal that “because of the competitive price of natural gas and the declining price of renewables, continuing to drive carbon out makes sense for us.”

There is still skepticism in certain quarters, particularly on the costs of climate policies.

The American Petroleum Institute, an industry body representing 625 businesses, is wary of “government mandates that could increase energy costs,” according to spokesman Eric Wohlschlegel.

But Moss of the World Resources Institute said withdrawal from the Paris accord will not stop the momentum, and companies will continue down their current path “even without it, because everybody else is doing it.”

“The only countries we’ll be in the company of if we pull out are Syria and Nicaragua,” he said.

Climate: What is the Paris Agreement?
Paris (AFP) May 31, 2017 – On December 12, 2015, 195 countries gathered in the French capital to conclude the first truly universal climate treaty, the Paris Agreement, aimed at preventing the worst-case scenarios of global warming.

On Wednesday, US media reported that President Donald Trump was poised to announce the United States’ withdrawal from the pact, which took nearly two decades of often-acrimonious bartering and much give-and-take to conclude.

The Palestinian authorities have since also signed the agreement, which has now been officially ratified by 147 parties and entered into force in record time on November 4, 2016, when it crossed the threshold of 55 ratifying parties representing 55 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Even without the US, which ratified the pact under Barack Obama in September 2016, the 55/55 threshold is met.

- The goal -

Nations agreed to hold global warming to “well below” two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) over pre-Industrial Revolution levels, and to strive for a limit of 1.5 degrees Celsius.

The lower goal was a demand of poor countries and island states at high risk of climate change effects such as rising sea levels.

But experts say even the two-degree ceiling is a tall order, requiring an immediate and deep reduction in planet-warming emissions from burning fossil fuels — an industry with major influence in Washington.

Based on voluntary emissions-cutting pledged by countries so far, the planet is on track for warming of about three degrees, many scientists say — a recipe for possibly catastrophic floods, storms, drought and ocean-level increases.

Without the US administration on board, the goal may move even further out of reach.

- Getting there -

The signatories will aim for emissions to peak “as soon as possible”, with “rapid reductions” thereafter.

By the second half of this century, according to the pact, there must be a balance between emissions from human activities such as energy production and farming, and the amount that can be absorbed by carbon-absorbing “sinks” such as forests or storage technology.

- Burden-sharing -

Developed countries, which have polluted for longer, must take the lead with absolute emissions cuts.

Developing nations, which still burn coal and oil to power growing populations and economies, are encouraged to “continue enhancing” their efforts and “move over time” towards absolute cuts.

- Tracking progress -

In 2018, and every five years thereafter, countries will take stock of the overall impact of their efforts to rein in global warming, according to the text.

It “urges” and “requests” countries to update their pledges by 2020.

Some nations, including the United States, set emissions-curbing targets for 2025, others for 2030. Both categories are meant to be updated every five years.

- Financing -

Rich countries are expected to provide funding to help developing countries make the costly shift to cleaner energy sources and to shore up defences against the impacts of climate change.

Donor nations must report every two years on their financing levels — current and intended.

In a nonbinding “decision” that accompanies the agreement but is not included in it, the $100 billion (89 billion euros) per year that rich countries have pledged to muster by 2020 is referred to as a “floor” — meaning it can only go up.

The amount must be updated by 2025.

According to an OECD report, pledges made in 2015 alone would boost public climate financing (excluding private money) to $67 billion in 2020.

But Trump has hinted that the United States, which had pledged $3 billion towards the Green Climate Fund, of which it delivered $1 billion under Barack Obama, will not honour its financing commitments.

- Bindingness -

The agreement makes provision for parties to withdraw, but notice can be given only three years after its entry into force in 2016. The actual withdrawal would take effect a year later — meaning 2020 if the Trump administration uses this option.

A country can also withdraw from the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, under whose auspices the deal was negotiated. Withdrawal would take effect a year after notification.

Etiquetas: , , , , ,

Si te gustó esta entrada anímate a escribir un comentario o suscribirte al feed y obtener los artículos futuros en tu lector de feeds.

Comentarios

Saludos Juanjo:

Es curioso que la decision de Trump pueda acabar teniendo el efecto contrario.
“Cheeto Mussolini” es ahora mismo el personaje mas odiado y despreciado en todo el planeta: la comunidad internacional, las grandes corporaciones y gobiernos locales redoblaran sus esfuerzos para controlar emisiones, ya que nadie quiere ser visto alineándose con este mequetrefe.
No olvidemos que los estados como California no tienen por que seguir el ejemplo del gobierno federal.

Por ultimo, es muy probable que Trump no este en la casa blanca de aquí a 12 meses: congresistas USA están ya iniciando papeleos para “impeachment”.

Muchas gracias Kiko por tu interesante comentario, especialmente en lo referido a impeachment” (no tenía noticia). Ojalá sea cierto y nos quitemos a este individuo de encima.
Un abrazo
Juanjo

[...] nos encontramos bajo el sometimiento de la dictadura financiera y sus grandes mentiras. La derechización y a menudo la xenofobia de los ciudadanos europeos es [...]

(requerido)

(requerido)


*