Preview and Discuss State of the World 2009

Bruno Henríquez.

Bruno Henríquez. Cuba Dear Robert Engelman I read and received your publications during many years, I follow also yours personal works, and we meet once in one of my travels to participate in some congress in USA. But for the conditions of internet access in Cuba and the possibility to have time to answer fast enough I had never participated in former discussions, but this one brings more time to me. At first was very difficult to read the document, cannot download ad have not enough time connected to read it complete. I copied it screen by screen and mounted it in a powerpoint presentation, in order to read at home. Blockade (not embargo) exists and I suffer it. There are my comments of a first part of the chapter, I consider your effort is a very good thing, excuse me if sometimes from my point of view I can sound rude, but I agree with you we need a mutual understanding. When I read the chapter draft, I remember many of the lectures I read in different places talking about the same problem and I wonder how different the scope from a first World country it can be. You wrote: This chapter’s objective will be to underline the major aspects of the existing agreements and ongoing negotiations and to suggest elements that could lead to a global pact that will be enduring and fair to all parties —and that by being so just might save the global climate. In principle we may agree but the goal is not to save the climate but the human beings, and to do that climate is only a part on the game. In the chapter our third world countries are referred as developing countries, and we all know it is euphemistic fallacies, our countries are underdeveloped countries and we want to be developing ones. The war is not a solution that ends in peace; we have many examples as Iraq and Afganistan, a long war and a very far peace. Military and war solution are not solutions. From the point of view of rich countries an army bombing is the way to peace, a people defending themselves are terrorist, only if you have an army with the same dimension you can be considered a decent nation. This is a complex problem and there are many points of view. First: the definition of the problem as global warming has been reduced to the green houses gases (GHG) problem. The green house effect is composed by heat and the heat trap, not only the heat trap i.e. GHG. When we talk only about to reduce the GHG, we forget the heat emitted by the society in different activities, and are produced “solutions” like promote nuclear energy because it does not emit GHG, but my dear friend Nuclear power plants waste as average 73% of the energy produced in heat form that is emitted to natural water (rivers and sea), to the atmosphere and with the water vapor that is also an GHG, but few people remember it. Nuclear plants also elevates the temperature of the earth atmosphere and oceans. We must stop both heat and GHG emissions. In some of my visits to USA I saw that in the public opinion the hope exist, that all the problems we have, can be solved through the market pressure over the industries, trough the prices; to change the carbon based energy production to a renewable one. Even the conception of renewable energy can be a bad solution if you applied it as a centralized model, or use not the natural resources or waste in order to generate energy. The most dramatically strong example is the biofuel solution to the peak oil situation. Biofuel are renewable, and can be obtained from many sources friendly with nature and society, but if you skip one step, the human feed use and take the grains to feed cars, it is not an human solution but a market one. Decisions about the world energy are taken in first world offices, but sources are in our third world countries. In the beginning of the chapter is mentioned that money is moving from developed countries to the third world, and forget all the history of exploitation, the external debt, and the market conditions against our economies. Richest countries are such because they made us poorest during the whole history of mankind specially during last two centuries. There are proposed the so called Clean Development Mechanisms and Carbon Credits which allows some countries to sale their rights to pollute, and to introduce new clean technologies in their way to development (as other people understand their development). My question is who has the right to pollute or not, why follow a modek to development which had demonstrated that only drive us to the catastrophe. How can be a first world or rich country certified to advise how to save the planet if their history talk to us only in exploitation, unfair commerce, and war when we want to have our own opinion? Experiences show that a big amount of the CDM serves to promote and buy the technology of certain countries or transnational, a lot of these projects are not continued and the solutions are lost. CDM must be more participative, included in other long term projects and be checked and controlled by adequate institutions, accordingly with the national development programs. Also we may propose Cold and Clean Development Mechanism if we take in account the heat as a major pollution problem. Some aspects of global warming are local ones, as heat island effect in urban and constructed areas, as villages, roads, and factories. There is a lack of shadow in the cities, the world is warming we must protect us against the coming and in someplace already arrived high temperatures and solar radiation. There are a big concern about ozone layer hole, but the real problem in dense population latitudes is the thickening of the ozone layer and the increasing UV components in solar spectra arriving to sea level. Some people are talking about sacrifices, I prefer talk about solidarity, sacrifice if I know and I am conscious that it produces the result I expect is a good reason, but solidarity implies to know how the other people lives, what are their necessities and aspirations, different of mine and how we together can find a mutually appropriate solution. I think tis is the only way we can drive consciously the global climate, we have demonstrate we can change it unconsciously we must demonstrate we are “homo sapiens sapiens” The chapter proposes eleven challenges, I have some comments: The equity imperative: First at all is to eliminate exploitation, it is not a natural condition. Second eliminate the point of view from top, Rich and poorest countries, we must talk at the same level are both in the earth surface. Responsibility must go trough solidarity not to authority or charity. The model Winner-looser must be avoided and eliminated. Supposed winners had destroyed the environment and have no solution in the actual situation. The development criteria must be rethinked, today the meaning of developed is “those who had drive the world to the actual crisis” Minimizing costs. Does not matter how big is the cost, we are talking about surviving. We cannot consider that everything is a business. The economy of Nature allows everybody to live, works with recycling and with the ecological exchange, not with and constant increasing of earning. The generation of inequalities, exploitation, debts and usurer credits are also part of the problem. Earth as a system is a finite one market economy can not increase indefinitely; it also generates heat and warms the world. New Technologies: Renewable energy sources and technologies must be used also considering a new way to exploit it, avoid the waste and use only what we need. Is important to consider the development of cool technologies, avoid the heat emission, heated surfaces, to use the energy in a more efficient way incorporating cogeneration and other uses of the heat involved to avoid the use of other sources of energy. For example incorporate new more efficient lights. Promote devices without batteries but with solar panels, moving parts that generate energy with movement in use, exercises machines with generators and batteries to accumulate electricity. Most of the new inventions and technologies can be used in particular places, use electricity efficiently or not use electricity at all and serve to employ other types of energy. For example devices for natural ventilation or daylighting. Energy efficiency: It must be in our consumption habits, not only in the generation of energy modes. To reduce the waste and garbage production, slow down the entropy increasing. Earth is a system, in practical order, structurally closed but energy open because has always the solar energy flow, with an amount of energy a lot of orders bigger than the society necessities. The inadequate use of renewable energies must be avoided, it can develop the crisis escalade, as happened when the oil crisis change to the food crisis in using grains to produce biofuel instead of food for people. Healing land: Is a good thing to recover degraded lands and forest, but remember forest do not exist to clean our errors. The clean mechanism of forest exist before we were here, we must create new clean and cool mechanisms or systems and produce less destruction. We must also change our conception about earth, land an territory, we belongs to the world as it is and it is our home and ship. Population: The dialogue about human population must cross by solidarity. The problem with population is not only the quantity but quality of life, goals to live, mutual respect, education and solidarity. When a country is more developed its population decreased and its members grows older with a highest quality of life. Poorest people, with lesser education had a lot of children with a lower quality of life. The control of population grow rates decreases with more education, elimination of misery, and nature awareness. The problems centered in women are responsibility of men and the whole society. Changing lifestyles: To change lifestyle is considered a sacrifice because are proposed from mistaken ethics and social criteria, from the point of view of consumerism and superficial wealthy. Comfort, easy travels, and quality of life don’t must be eliminated, only must change some references imposed by fashion, market and earnings and must be included other references related to culture identity and self realization. The call to a sacrifice is demagogical history shows it has been made by those who never sacrifice anything to impose it to the poorest. Good data: I propose to include heat emission sources, not only GHG ones. A good picture must be a whole earth heat emission, like the popular one earth at night that show how we waste energy emitting it to the universe. To have good data people must have education, and the educational and academic structure in each country must exist, not only a group of foreign people applying a survey. Strong Institutions: It is very interesting; the strong institutions must be in each country and international ones and to have an UN control independent of politics. For example institutions as International Monetary Fund are political and economy weapons to pressure over the actions of countries that have created their own national institutions with plans for their own development. We have a lot of such experiences. Peace: Peace and war are two faces of the relationships in the world. When the oil crisis increases, the richest make a war against the others that have the resources. Our poorest countries have no weapon industries, neither big army, or sophisticated technology, but we are accused to be a menace the peace. War is the language of the first world, the latest big wars has been made against the opinion of United Nations, even based on lies. At this point we must claim if all the countries are equally considered from the point of view of serious agreements about peace. Economic flexibility: To made the change of technology to renewable, we need a serious and solidarious economic relationships, avoid the abusive credits interest that produced the external debt , so many times payed by the poorest countries. To have the possibility and access a new technology with soft credits, training courses for technicians included, and avoid the limitations of market imposed to underdeveloped countries. I add: Mutual Understanding: to survive. Guarantee Social and political diversity. Allows the complexity of a society and its relationships and energy generation ways as a condition to stabilize the whole system. Here I finish my first part commentaries, but I don’t know If I will have the possibility to send the second within the dead line. To me has been a great honor to have the possibility to send my opinion. The best to you and your family Sincerely Bruno Henríquez