Rio summit: a dream of seven minutes
Months before the Assembly began to negotiate politicians and institutions throughout the Earth. Therefore, by the time the Rio meetings were held almost everything was decided.
The most fair thing is to review the situation of the main issues instead of collecting all the talk in these negotiations.
North-South relationship. In the north, 18% of the terrestrial population lives, but this amount consumes 80% of the energy produced in the world, 79% of steel, 85% of paper and 86% of non-ferrous metals. The effects of this consumption occur at different levels. On the one hand, the exploitation of raw materials in third world countries, and on the other hand, dirt and environmental pollution are the most obvious problems.
Climate change. Industrialized countries have a direct responsibility for the greenhouse effect. If the current level of gas emission is maintained, it is predicted that temperature may increase over the next century.
Ozone hole. The presence of CFC substances with such a different use has been decreasing in recent years. Although so far the ozone hole has been geographically in the southern hemisphere, in recent years the first signs of vulnerability of the ozone layer of the northern hemisphere have been presented.
Biological diversity. Because of the need for raw materials and the exploitation of natural resources, thousands of species are about to disappear. In general, the greatest diversity of species occurs in third world countries. These municipalities have an obligation to exploit their natural resources for their development. On the other hand, more and more trials are being carried out in the field of genetic manipulation. These tests are performed secretly and also manipulate human genes.
Disarmament and demilitarization. After the Cold War, this decade can be a good time to reduce military spending. This savings can be enough to solve poverty problems. According to data, almost 800 million people live on Earth who are totally poor.
Waste and toxic products. One of the most serious problems of industrialized societies is the elimination of waste produced. In addition, some chemical and nuclear waste cannot be eliminated and must be accumulated; toxic products warehouses are increasingly in the Third World.
Multinationals. Multinationals are to some extent responsible for the changes that are taking place in the terrestrial environment, since there is no international standard that controls their activity.
Forests. The forests between the tropics are the lungs of the Earth, but development makes every year more forests come out. In rich countries, however, many forests are sick from acid rain.
Transport. Road or air transport involves the consumption of large amounts of energy, so they are a factor to consider in environmental pollution. Instead of improving the quality of life, it can be said that at least it is partly aggravated. Examples of this are deaths or injuries by accident and noise problems.
Human residences. In developing countries, above all, people leave the land to move to cities. But the most appropriate thing is the misery of defining the situation of many of those who have come to the cities, for which neighborhoods are built without infrastructure or services.
Agriculture and food. The use of fertilizers and pesticides in agriculture is increasing. They pass into the human body by consuming agricultural products.
Desertification. Deforestation, grazing and some agricultural activities are responsible for desertification.
Seas and waters. The discharges to the seas are unlimited and continuous, being radioactive waste among them, especially those that present a greater risk. On the other hand, in the southern hemisphere there are more than 2 billion people without drinking water.
These issues underlie the development race and the difference between poor and rich states. In the rich countries of the northern hemisphere production has no limits, so air pollution and waste are unknown. At the same time, consumerism has meant a massive exploitation of raw materials, with which the resources of the Third World have been greatly shaken.
The objective of the Rio summit was not to solve all these problems, but much more humble, “to raise awareness among the different sectors of society about the problems”. There was therefore no spectacular agreement. And so it has happened. Let us see, then, how the most important issues remained after the Rio summit.
Biodiversity. While 150 Member States favor taking the necessary measures to protect biodiversity under the signed agreement, the US did not want to sign the agreement. Given the weight of the US, it can be said that the agreement has become pathetic.
Climate change. It was intended that the CO 2 issue was the same as that of 1990 in 2000, but here it has also had to take into account the opinion of the US and the limit of the year 2000 has elongated “sine die”.
Agenda 21. This agenda is an agenda full of good intentions. It will develop over the next century and amounts will be allocated. If rich states currently spend 0.35% of Gross Domestic Product for environmental protection, they have made the decision to double this amount in the next century.
Forests. The rights of states that traditionally had timber trade have been advanced and regulated.
As you can see, more than agreements have been statements with good intention.
Each of the world commissioners had seven minutes to speak to other delegations. For seven minutes they dreamed. The passage from dream to reality we do not know if it will be possible, but we will continue to dream.
BIODIVERSITY
Biodiversity is a term used until recently by specialists. Recently, on the contrary, on the occasion of the Rio summit, the “Agreement on Biodiversity”, repeated by the media, has made it known to all. Yes, but without knowing what the concept means in depth. We are not squeezed by that, because we are not the only ones who are surrounded by concepts that do not dominate well. At the Rio summit 152 world leaders have established their signature under a theme that has no absolutely limited or strict definitions.
Experts, in addition to defining biodiversity, have focused their efforts on how it can be measured and therefore what should be done to “conserve” it, since measuring biodiversity is more than preparing lists of species. While species are inscribed and formal lists are drawn up, many species are disappearing, so these formal lists offer conservationist limited support. What it requires, although it is a not very formalized list, in addition to taxonomic information, is a list with data on habitats, distribution areas, conservation status and phylogenetic relationships.
Biodiversity is therefore epiphenomene, that is, the expression of the interaction of different biotic and abiotic factors. Therefore, biodiversity goes beyond taxonomy, although biological collections and taxonomy experts remain the main pillar. This diversity of factors is reflected in the different approaches currently used to measure biodiversity, such as the network of phylogenetic relationships, the extension of habitats and biogeographic distributions, the abundance of indicator species, the identification of certain ecological interactions or the combinations of these approaches. The treatment of the aforementioned indicators involves the use of complex mathematical models.
The meaning of biodiversity will be accompanied by cultural references; it is evident that they will only succeed if conservation policies, due to their solid scientific basis, are “understandable” in the different cultural contexts that they must fulfill and promote.
Despite all this, we now have to try to answer the question that is the center. And why conserve biodiversity? It is difficult to find arguments in favor of conservation, understanding biodiversity as a mere list of species. Of course, moral or aesthetic arguments can always be found for the conservation of certain species, but they can change from culture to culture. As for whaling, they witness the annual clashes between the peoples they are and not fishermen. Likewise, the convulsion generated by the inhabitants of the developed peoples by the deterioration of certain habitats is a banal argument for those who have short-term economic life under their exploitation.
The disappearance of the African elephant and the blue whale can cause sadness, but it is not easy to find other reasons to save them if there are only two species per million. On the other hand, arguing the need to conserve all those millions of species in a potential future, which may be useful in agriculture or medicine, does not seem very reasonable. These are just some aspects of the entire image and do not have enough weight to conserve biodiversity in general.
To find arguments of greater weight, more than a list of species, we must understand biodiversity as a sum of interactions between species. Biodiversity therefore refers to the system and not the components, although the duration and flexibility of the system can only ensure the protection and conservation of the components. Thus, future research and economic exploitation are ensured and included.
Taking the last step, we will relate biodiversity to social welfare. And how is it possible? In fact, few would have in their lives the courage to determine and, much less, quantify the damage that the disappearance of these or these species can entail. However, the physical conditions that allow us to live and breathe on Earth are a direct consequence of this biodiversity. Breathing atmosphere, fertile soils and drinking water are the result of millions of years of interaction
Experts travel these paths to discover what biodiversity is and how it affects its conservation. What do the signatories mean!
Zu idazle
Zientzia aldizkaria
