Living in Peru : your everyday companion

For example, the consolidated Latin American strategy should focus more on mitigating impacts (preserving forests and CO2 capture) than on reducing impacts (emissions). During the meeting that will be held in Copenhagen at the end of this year, it would be illogical to apply highly aggressive quotas to Peru when our share of total emissions is very low. Evidence of this is the fact that Peru only generates 0.1% of androgenic greenhouse gases. It would be as absurd for Peru to stop exploiting its natural gas as it would be for Colombia to halt carbon deposit exploration.

The regulatory framework and efforts to design incentives for clean technologies may suit purposes in the Northern hemisphere but fail to take into account the geophysical particularities of other countries. As such, research is needed to structure a climate change strategy that is sensible and coherent for the region. Climate change is a global concern that requires a globally consentuated response. For example, a Chilean colleague remarked that processes to obtain carbon certificates for hydroelectric projects have caused a number of difficulties. In Europe, eolic and solar technologies are more common given that this continent lacks our hydroelectric potential. In light of this situation, the Ministry of the Environment, the Foreign Office and the business sector must coordinate with other countries in the region to design a common proposal for the meeting in Copenhagen. If this is not done, the geophysical and socio-economic particularities of Latin America will not be considered due to an absence of information and research as well as well as a lack of leadership from our politicians and business community.

This was the reason why the British Government took the initiative to call for and stimulate regional dialogue on this important issue. Great opportunities exist in countries that have low carbon emission levels. We are experiencing a transition that will take several decades but it is evident that economies must shift from fossil fuels to clean and renewable sources. This is an unstoppable trend. The effects of this shift will be as significant as those felt when economies of the past moved from animal energy to steam engine technology. In the future, today’s engines will be as anachronic as the wagon wheel was in the XXth century. Hybrid cars are a reality and eventually, finding cars that release CO2 will be as rare as seeing someone smoke a cigarette- it will not be socially acceptable. A megatrend is on the horizon. The time will come when society and cultures will live in harmony with the environment. My children made this evident to me when they reprimanded me for not using both sides of the paper to print this article.

Add to del.icio.us | |

Undoubtedly Latin American countries must by force examine their own geographical, social, and economic realities to formulate ad hoc visions and strategies for prosperous futures, in the context of a globalized world caught in a menacing global warming that promises to invalidate many of our 20th century core beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors, and applied technologies and policies. The need to deal with the problem of how to reduce carbon emissions is at or near the top of the list in these endeavors. But the use of Carbon Bonds appears to be a tricky solution to the disproportionate levels of emissions by the OECD countries -some 30 and all except Australia in the Northern Hemisphere- relative to those of countries in the Third and Fourth Worlds, with many in the Southern Hemisphere. Indeed, if Carbon Bonds should be issued in connection with projects that apply green technologies in the latter countries, but that happen to be advantageous economically, relative to other technologies, even before the funds thus raised are considered, such investments could not be legitimately considered to cause reductions of global carbon emissions, and the application of the carbon credits pertaining to those bonds, to existing or new projects that apply technologies that carry carbon emissions at or above the average in the former countries, for economic advantage, should not be allowed under any circumstance. This restriction would continue to appear reasonable whether or not these projects were profitable despite environmental damage-related penalties levied on them, but more so if profit were derived after such penalties. In addition, if the application of green technologies in Third and Fourth World countries were economically feasible only with the benefit of Carbon Bonds, it would seem reasonable to consider, in short order, not only the potential for global reduction of carbon emissions but of all emissions, effluents, and contaminants of the environment, in order to determine the applicability of credits intended to be applied in the context of programs aimed at improving the much deteriorated globe we live in.

As reported by the CNA two months ago, "the leaders of the bishops’ conferences of G8 countries have called on the world leaders gathering at the G8 Summit in Italy to take 'concerted action' to protect the poor and vulnerable of the world during the economic crisis"... But what should "concerted action mean"? Clearly, charity is not enough to release or even crucially stimulate the kind of sine qua non accelerated Development process that this protection so evidently begs. Neither would the UK's Vatican-supported multilateral tax-dependent International Financing Facility (IFF). The key would lie in the concept encouraged by them of "'deepening partnerships' with developing countries to achieve the Millennium Development Goals and to help people become “active agents” in their own development".

Indeed, after the G20 Summit in London in April this year, and with the G8 Summit in progress, it is fair to ask if sufficient attention was given by the leaders of the world's 20 richest countries to the economic and social conditions and prospects for development of the remaining 90%, which as should be noted, are almost all non-OECD members and, in contrast, located mostly in the Southern hemisphere. Why is it considered acceptable that the rich and powerful decide on the fate of the poor, without their consent? Poor does not mean stupid or morally inept. Rather, it means disenfranchised, still, and surely that deplorable atavistic state, in the new “New World Order” recently proclaimed by Gordon Brown, should be abolished forthwith. The grossly unacceptable welfare imbalance between countries in the Northern and Southern hemispheres also must be corrected forthwith. It is a reflection of the gross capitalization imbalances between them, and will cease in short order if G20-supported special action to promote North-South foreign direct investment is undertaken.

For such action to be successful, it must occur in the context of for-profit PRIVATE-PUBLIC Development Partnerships in each of the three main geo-economic North-South scenarios -The Americas, Europe-Africa, and Asia-Oceania. These Partnerships must be comprised of the fittest surviving financial companies in the leading OECD-member country in each scenario, and their counterparts in each non-OECD or developing country in that scenario. In addition, each Partnership must include appropriate multilateral institutions relevant to economic and social development and their counterpart local governmental entities, in a supporting role. Without question, these Partnerships must be for-profit, as stated, and must be led by key members in the PRIVATE sector.

In order to eradicate extreme poverty and globalize peace in this century, and set the world on a course to prosperity, it is not enough to reform the national and international financial systems, or necessarily convenient to abolish banking secrecy, super-inflate the IMF, or to enact a massive world-wide deficit-spending scheme. And it is not enough for the United Nations to set lofty Millennium Development Goals, or to support the creation of additional tax-dependent multilateral financial institutions for their achievement. In The Americas, the Partnership could be called, for instance, "A Partnership for Development with the United States of America" ("Sociedad para el Desarrollo con los Estados Unidos de América"). This idea was first proposed in 1992 to President Clinton, and in 2005 to Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown. Perhaps its time has finally come.