De Pablo, un algorista de la primera hora. Resulta que el consenso científico sobre el “calentamiento global” no había sido tan consenso ni tan científico.
Resulta que ahora nos enteramos que el “protocolo de Kyoto” no logra controlar las emisiones de CO2, Qué grande:
Un reciente estudio, elaborado por un grupo australiano de investigadores liderados por Joseph G. Canadell, que muestra que, a pesar de Kioto, el ritmo de aumento de las emisiones de CO2 puede haber sido mayor de lo que se creía. No obstante este crecimiento de las emisiones es desigual. Según se ha corroborado recientemente, Estados Unidos, que sigue una estrategia distinta a Kioto, ha aumentado sus emisiones mucho más lentamente que Europa, a pesar de haber crecido más rápido. Un reciente artículo de la revista Nature dice que "Es hora de deshacerse de Kioto", ya que el protocolo "siempre fue un instrumento inadecuado para la naturaleza del problema".
De un post de junio de este año:
ReplyDeleteUnder the vaunted Kyoto, from 2000 to 2004, Europe managed to increase its emissions by 2.3 percentage points over 1995 to 2000. Only two countries are on track to meet targets. There's rampant cheating, and endless stories of how select players are self-enriching off the government "market" in C02 credits. Meanwhile, in the U.S., under the president's oh-so-unserious plan, U.S. emissions from 2000 to 2004 were eight percentage points lower than in the prior period.
Yo opino que la Corte Suprema debe decidir quién es el gran ambientalista del siglo XXI, Al Gore o George W. Green:
Just call him George W. Bush, star international diplomat. Don't snicker, don't spit out your coffee. Instead, read over the final document on climate change released yesterday by the Group of Eight.
Europeans may be slow, but they aren't silly, and they've quietly come around to some of Mr. Bush's views. Tony Blair has been a leader here, and give him credit for caring enough about his signature issue to evolve. He began picking up Mr. Bush's pro-tech themes years ago, as it became clear just how much damage a Kyoto would do to his country's competitiveness. By the end of 2005, he admitted at a conference in New York that Kyoto was a problem. "I would say probably I'm changing my thinking about this in the past two or three years," he said. "The truth is, no country is going to cut its growth or consumption substantially in the light of a long-term environmental problem." He doubted there would be successor to Kyoto, which expires in 2012, and said an alternative might be "incentives" for businesses. Mr. Bush couldn't have said it better.
Yesterday's declaration, far from mandatory targets, instead sets a "global goal" of halving emissions by 2050. It invites the "major emerging economies" to join in this endeavor. It acknowledges that different approaches across the world can "coordinate rather than compete." It reports that "technology is a key to mastering climate change" and lauds government "incentives." It admits that "over the next 25 years, fossil fuels will remain the world's dominant source of energy," and talks up the "peaceful use of nuclear energy." It even explains that any program "must be undertaken in a way that supports growth in developing, emerging and industrialized economies." Close your eyes, and you might think this was President Bush in the Rose Garden.
Will congressional Democrats prove as pragmatic? Even as Europeans have wised up, the left has been pushing for a Kyoto here. Should Democrats start to stumble on the difficulties, they could always ask Mr. Bush -- that new international climate ambassador -- for some advice.