The one that contaminates payment” has promoted it like Universal Principle, understanding that if there is to pay, we will stop contaminating, reducing to the environmental problem to monetary transactions and economic incentives.
Today they can comprarse/vender in “sacred” the market the right to contaminate, but the emissions continue growing…
Those that wish to maintain benefits/untenable styles of life
The states that want to continue selling the illusion of a “well-being” incapable to become general.
They must understand that:
“If we did not take care of of the Earth, she will take care of of itself causing that no longer we are welcomes”. J. Lovelock
Validated the Intuition and the Common Sense
In all these years it has been blamed “the ecological” movement of being alarmist, to describe the possible environmental changes that they would take place of continuarse/generalizar the production forms/consumption of the industrial society.
The industrialization process wrapped to almost all the spheres of the life, agriculture was not the exception: Today one calculates that it contributes with the 30,9% of the emissions of the gases that bring about the global heating [1].
In its industrial version, agriculture contributes 25% of the main gas that produces the greenhouse effect, the resulting carbon dioxide of the deforestation and the burning fire of biomass. Ruminant the domestic ones, the wild fires, the culture of rice in moist soils and the products of remainder (tiraderos garbage dumps/) most of produce the methane that there is in the atmosphere, at the same time as the conventional farming and the fertilizer use generate 70% of nitrous oxides.
At present there are doubts of the no changes that cause these gases, the initial intuition and the common sense that it fed which first indicated the possibilities of negative changes; it had to hope to legitimize itself, the verdict of “science” [1], the official endorsement of the “experts” who, in their fourth report (2007) [2] would present/display evidences of the changes:
- Increase of the temperature of the air and the Ocean.
- Generalized ice Defrosting/snows.
- Increase Average of the level of the sea.
Rate Made-In-a
The official version of the climatic change, moves through winding, expensive/a bureaucratic mechanism.
The protocol of Kioto I take eight years from its approval, to entering use (1997-2005), not being assumed by the most polluting countries. Without taking into account the recommendations from its 2 experts [] who proposed the necessity to reduce the CO2 emissions between 50-85% for half-full of century, the Protocol decided as it puts to reduce a 5% of the emissions of 36 developed countries, having as references base the produced emissions on 1990.
As it shows of his inoperancia, from the 2000 to the 2005, the global gas emissions increased a 15%, according to the EDGAR report. [3]
The one that contaminates payment
“The one that contaminates payment.” It has been wanted to strain like a species of universal principle. He is in fact one of the so many instruments used by the industrial society, with the aim of harmonizing his activities with the atmosphere.
They have been adapted and uniformizado the National Environmental Laws, to reconsider like services the diverse functions given by the natural systems.
In societies where the services, the market and the money predominate, everything tends to express itself monetarily… In the form of economic incentives, some understand that, only thus the lost citizen responsibility could be recovered; with the aid of the money reclaimed by the produced environmental damages.
With economic incentives, measures try to replace of type regulatory, that establishes norms/levels critics of emissions and controls that would have to be fulfilled, to avoid possible penalty.
The first works that suggest the concept of environmental tax, go back to 1920, when the British economist Arthur Cecil Pigou published The Economics of Welfare (the economy of the well-being), where she deals with the “external effect” an act of production or consumption. [3]
To rewrite the Economy
Calls today by many, “externalities”, are the recognition of which the productive processes are interrelated with multiple factors: Biological, social, ecological… Factors that with different mechanisms, the economists try to internalizar like correcting the lack committed when separating artificially factors that comprise of a unique and inseparable process.
I understand, how E. Goldsmith [4], that, “when what it is to internalizar it is the own Earth capacity to maintain the life, becomes necessary to reconstruct the basic concepts, of way like can include what previously he was external”, proposing the necessity to rewrite the economy in the light of a unified theory of the Eco-sphere.
Its own medicine
The climatic change is a global phenomenon, that as always, already affects most vulnerable, the Caribbean as Insular territory is in that globe.
Other countries do not feel the same pressure in spite of being most polluting. The criteria elaborated by them are not applied (“the one whom payment contaminates”) always trying to make traps –“relaxation mechanisms”, commercializing with the right to contaminate or financing 3 carbon drains [].
We are part of the movement that, has assumed of spontaneous way, a style of simple life; with forms of clean production/consumption. With that attitude it is tried to revert the caused damages, without certainty some we assumed since it like a moral and ethical commitment.
In eve of 15Va. Conference of the parts, in Copenhagen, the panorama is had complicated, some “emergent” countries have chosen to do more of the same; increasing its emissions. One does not glimpse that the measures of commercialization of emissions are extended and binding commitments remember legally, that they take definitive step necessary to the structural reforms.