It is curious to see how the Climate Summit, the long-awaited “friendly world meeting” and especially the most important for the preservation and conservation of the planet and the life that it houses, has become a great theatrical stage where each country tries to dodge projectiles in the most “matrix” style.
The worst part is that now we realize that it has always been that way. Large pollutant generating companies and their complicit governments have done nothing but hide and divert their eyes to another adversary.
It is normal, that as citizens we feel disappointed not only by our own governments but also by the mockery of a seemingly serious and responsible world summit, but which at the end of the day is only the same pantomime staged.
Of course, the obvious and tangible lack of will of world governments and companies in wanting to put on the table an effective and real solution cannot be denied.
Most of the environmental commitments adopted by the singular governments are focused on social awareness campaigns.
Measures of little decisive and effective impact, which in fact have proved ineffective as well as insufficient to curb the irreversible climate change that attends to us.
Use public transport instead of the private car, reduce the use of plastic, etc. These are good ideas, but the facts show us that the poor reception of these campaigns is not producing an effective decrease in CO2 in the atmosphere.
Moreover, on the other hand the excessive production and consumption of energy and industry continues to increase at an absurd pace, and consequently also the pollution that these sectors cause.
According to statistics, approximately 13% of total emissions are caused by the use of private cars. Although it is an impressive and equally unacceptable figure, it does not reach the scandalous 71% of global emissions produced by a hundred companies identified by the report The Carbon Majors Database, published by CDP (Carbon Disclosure Project).
Even in the hypothetical situation in which private car emissions were eliminated, this decrease would be insufficient to curb the change that is irreversibly feared at the end of the point of no return, estimated in one year. Since, remember, it would be only 13% of total emissions. The worst part is that this is not feasible.
It cannot be denied that private car emissions are very far from 71% of emissions caused by these already 100 famous companies, nor can it be denied that radically eliminating 71% of global emissions would curb climate change and the world would have another chance. There I leave you with the reflection.
The surprising thing is that governments insist with these campaigns as if citizens were the cause and at the same time the solution of the problem. They indicate us as irresponsible and inconsiderate with the environment. They exceed with campaigns for the differentiated garbage collection, when the waste disposal sector accounts for approximately 4% of total emissions, for example. Although 4% provides considerable pollution, it always stays far from 71% of emissions caused by the already famous 100 most polluting companies.
Not to mention that the recycling of renewable waste is not free of polluting emissions, since it is the process of transformation of these materials until their new use that causes the highest percentage of pollution.
Remember that once the garbage is collected, it is divided for disposal (4% emissions) or for its transformation into new objects.
But that is precisely in the latter process of transformation in which the greatest CO2 emission occurs . The treatment given to these renewable materials produces equally polluting emissions to the atmosphere. For example, in the treatment of the “renewable” plastic once separated, grinded and washed, we proceed to smelt and later transform it into malleable, an industrial contaminant process that will forge new objects.
So the admirable gesture of separating and selecting the garbage that we citizens do every day, does not help itself to the elimination of pollutants, rather it helps the company to save economically in the process of separation of materials.
That is, the problem is not the waste, but the quantity of them. Too many objects are produced, too many things are manufactured, and it is precisely in that manufacturing process that the greatest pollutants are produced, which as we know are energy and industrial.
What is the point of not using straws, if on the other hand we continue to buy millions of mobile phones, whose disproportionate, unnecessary and superfluous production is causing irreversible damage to the planet? However, every year we want the new fashion model, more “technological” and more expensive, by the way.
On the other hand, companies “collaborate” purposely manufacturing smartphones with a short duration planned to cause greater consumption. If they did stuff to last longer, we would not need to buy so much, and consequently we would avoid generating the pollutants caused by the production of new objects, ( remember that even if they are renewable, their transformation to a new object produces pollutant emissions ). Now mobile phones, for example, begin to fail after two years or less. Why? And this happens with all products, appliances, etc. Is there not the technology to make them last longer?
Even with this, it seems that citizens are the cause, as well as the solution. According to them, just by adopting these consumer advice, the problem would disappear. It seems easy, we could even try, and in fact we are doing it. Too bad that this social commitment does not end up becoming real, global, or less effective. Isn’t it another way to divert the shot from the one who really has the power to change this situation? It remedies the one who can do it, the one who has the instruments and the power to decide, and it has been widely demonstrated that citizens have never had it, even if they have good will.
We would have to remind our governments that we, the people who occupy this world today, were born in a society already channeled into a development model, which other generations have decided, by the way. Generations that have obviously made mistakes and very serious ones and that together with ours will lead future generations to pay the consequences.
The fact is that we are in a society in which we have been imposed on the acquisition and use of cars, polluting fuel, plastic and technology. And the truth is that without these, we can no longer imagine life. At least, not in a society as complex and dynamic as the one we have developed so far.
How could we correspond to the personal and social demands acquired without the car, plastic and new technologies? I do not think it is necessary to justify the use of car, plastic or mobile phone in today’s life. All of them are essential to work and live in this society, and without a doubt, even if we remove bags, straws and mono-use plastic cups, we will continue to be equally surrounded by plastic and polluting materials.
To eliminate the plastic in our daily life would be something unthinkable. It would be an economic and social setback so great that no government is willing to assume. And we, citizens, are we willing to dispense with the progress made by plastic and technologies? The absurd truth with which we find ourselves ahead is that we as humanity do not want to stop the economic and social process, much less reverse.
The terrible thing is that because of this obsessed desire to have more money and power, humanity advances without a precise direction, without a clear horizon and without valid or safe reasons to consolidate its frantic commitment. From time to time we stop at a summit like September 2019, to look at the disaster we are creating around us, but it does not seem to matter much to us, because just finished it is not concluded in anything effective or decisive.
Remember that plastic is a polymer derived from petroleum. A fossil fuel material whose combustion generates CO2, and for what has been proven to be the main cause of the destruction of ecosystems and climate change, and therefore the reason why our planet and our very existence is seriously threatened.
What is not explained is that, knowing this already in time and having other alternative resources more respectful with the environment, such as, for example, plant-based polymers with similar mechanical properties to the petroleum-derived polymer, how does it continue the lucrative exploitation of oil still today and under the complicit look of world powers?
Some might say that synthetic polymers from petroleum are more resistant, light and durable, but above all they are economical, let’s not forget this detail, because this is undoubtedly the prevailing aspect.
Today it is impossible to live without plastic, but not only because of its proven usefulness, but because of its unquestionable economic importance. Consumption and consequently the plastics industry has been the fastest growing industry in the last century, therefore also the biggest responsible along with the energy sector, GHG emissions.
On the other hand there have always been alternative resources, both in polymers and fuels and in renewable and environmentally friendly energies, the fact is that they have not had a welcome and support from governments and companies.
Shortly, they have not been given the opportunity to develop or integrate into the economy or society in an effective and progressive manner.
They have never had a chance and have even been actively contrasted and marginalized. Without going any further the case of long-lasting IWOP bulbs, an extraordinary Spanish invention. They can last decades, guaranteed 80 years it is presumed to exceed 100 years, they exist since 2014, its cost is just over 30 euros, in addition that its energy consumption is much lower than normal, only 3.5 W. And as we can see they are not sold in any usual business, because it is not lucrative for traders, only the producer sells it directly.
And what about the electric cars that are from the distant 1880s. In fact they were very popular, but the subsequent mass production of cheaper gasoline cars and with a fuel although pollutant, more lucrative, left the electrical cars aside and I could give more examples.
By the way, I cannot continue without making a subsection regarding current electric cars; The recharging of its batteries is carried out with electrical energy produced through polluting materials and sources such as coal, methane, natural gas, nuclear or oil.
Now, if the intent to switch to electric cars was to reduce emissions of pollutants into the atmosphere that produce the usual fuels for cars, how is it that on the other hand we use equally polluting energy for recharging, production and maintenance?
Let one thing clear, even if the electric car does not emit pollutants directly into the atmosphere during activity, the production of electrical energy required for its operation emit them and a lot. Let’s not forget that the power generation sector is the one that pollutes the most.
Due to the logic of the facts, if we use a means of transport that needs electrical energy generated through polluting processes (we must produce it), and this entails equally polluting CO2 emissions if not more. In Spain, for example, the electricity used for electric car batteries means CO2 emissions of 0.276 kg per kWh generated. It is excessive .
Not to mention that the industrial production of the car itself is already a contamination by the use of plastics derived from petroleum and the energy needed for its manufacture.
In addition to the lack of logistics and the slowness in providing refueling supply points, it is still impossible to dispense with the combustion car.
What causes double useless and unnecessary consumption, but which in fact is very lucrative at the economic level. Not to mention that the cost of an electric car can be up to 3 times more combustion of equal performance. Besides that also the discounts on the part of the government for the acquisition of less polluting vehicles are frankly ridiculous if we compare them with their price .
Thus, of course, both the electric vehicle producing industries and governments do not help citizens to switch to less polluting transport. Doesn’t it look like another consumer strategy? A novelty that is sold as a solution, but which is nevertheless the same old story as always.
Have you noticed the manipulation of advertising for this purpose? Shortly before the summit some energy producing companies announced encouraging news for the planet with the purpose of diverting the blame and responsibilities towards another contender. Measures that are carefully examined are nothing more than an image wash and not an effective solution.
The funny thing is that this “image laundering strategy”, ( on the other hand, well known and used in politics and marketing), has been adopted lately by many companies at the advertising level. From sectors such as automotive or food-related.
Advertising campaigns are called with the green sticker , advertisements promising an environmental commitment by the company , but they are really just the umpteenth consumption and marketing strategy. Just by putting a green sticker to your ad, (even literally a green container or design), it seems that they adhere “to the global commitment” to protect the planet.
When in fact the company has no effective logistics to reduce their environmental impact or is so scarce and ineffective that its proposal is ridiculous and a joke. Only use the boom that is raising social awareness about this argument, to increase its popularity and commercial reception.
In other words, use this crisis for their profit and income. The most surprising and absurd thing is that these advertisements are obtaining the acceptance and applause of consumers, who, blinded by their good will, see this gesture (that is, the green sticker, etc. ), As a fact that demonstrates their effective contribution to the cause, whether by the company, than by the consumers who naively buy it . How easily people are manipulated!
If we want to protect our planet so much, why have renewable sources of energy not been developed and integrated, such as solar, wind, hydraulic, geothermal, tidal, the so-called blue energy and environmentally friendly fuels? They exist for a long time, there are no excuses.
The motivation is clear and evident, electric cars with renewable energy, for example solar, self-sufficient houses, more resistant products, high durability, etc. they would offer greater independence and self-sufficiency to the population, which would mean less consumption of energy and industrial products.
This fact would cause a huge decrease in the lucrative benefits that, however, today obtain the industries that generate energy and commercial products. That is, the economy would not provide so much money and power to those privileged people who now have it, people representing states and companies.
Obviously these more environmentally friendly alternatives are more expensive in the short term for companies, they need research, development and integration. An investment of money and time that governments and companies have not wanted to face, since the desire for quick profit has always prevailed.
At this point, let’s say a fact that is manifest: companies and governments are made up of people, and as such they are mainly driven by their personal interests and ambitions. Today they do a job, tomorrow it may be another, so they see that professional moment in their life as another opportunity for personal gain.
Let’s be at least honest and not hypocritical. They do not carry out this work for the common good or for the others, the truth is that the consequences of their decisions are not morally questioned, because if it were the opposite the world would work differently and there would be no such obvious injustices and inconsistencies with which we have to live together. The harsh and brutal reality is that they are not interested in thinking about the future of the next generations, because if that were the case, the world would not be on the edge of the cliff as it is now.
This imposition of putting immediate gain as the main and priority objective is the reason why we are in today’s situation, the inability of a world community to face an irreversible climate change that will determine and compromise the future of human existence and of the entire planet.
Now, let’s stop for a moment to reason; seen the consequences so serious and definitive that this situation represents, (do not underestimate that it is a real threat to all types of life even for ours as a species and the entire planet), the most obvious solution that comes to mind to every reasonable person is to stop this situation immediately, with all kinds of instruments and resources as soon as possible, even if it involves a setback in global industrial and energy activities. It is not worth it the effort? Well, apparently, not enough.
Let us recognize one thing, we are a species that has demonstrated such a claim that it has been able to put its purely personal and material interests before life itself, including human. It is not necessary to remember how violence has been used as an instrument of power, control and gain against the ecosystems of the planet, animal life and also human. Devastated forests, extinct animals, wars, death and misery.
Even now, at the gates of 2020 we have to be aware of the cost of our development: according to WHO / UNICEF in its 2017 report, lack of water causes the death of more than 1.5 million children, of which 340,000 children under 5 years of age die each year from diarrheal diseases associated with lack and contamination of water.
So I ask a question that I am sure many of you are also asking yourself. How is it possible that in 2020 people still die due to lack of water? It is certainly not because of the lack of technology, (because there have been machines that produce drinking water even in the desert for a long time) and money, because that abounds in the world and much.
For example, do you remember the fire of Notre Dame? That same night Macron announced a campaign to raise funds for its reconstruction. The next morning and therefore in less than 24 hours more than 800 million euros were raised.
Another example, as is already known, only the wealth that the Vatican has in gold, “not counting” the precious stones, the patrimonial, artistic, deviated in heritage and private accounts, declared and undeclared, could take away the famine in the world by at least twice if not more.
The Vatican’s gold treasure is considered the second largest in the world behind the US. In view of this news, a question arises spontaneously in the minds of all of us, would anyone consider the Church too poor if it tries to subsist on half of its current heritage? The answer is very obvious and very embarrassing.
To consider that the strong economic momentum of these states, the richest, as are the US, China, Japan, the Vatican, Germany, etc. It has been driven by its acquired wealth as we know with entirely deplorable and questionable methods. Must we recall the abuse that have led to the slavery and war, where the US have benefit from? Of abuse and looting that the Church did after the conquest of America and the crusades, with the excuse of religion? Germany has had its greatest economic momentum after the SGM, being the main heir along with Poland of wealth in gold, etc. sacked the Jews. By the way , they are also the states that pollute the most.
Obviously the situation in which we find ourselves is a consequence of the decisions that have been taken for generations, the worst thing is that it does not seem to have the will to change despite the catastrophic consequences announced by the experts, which makes us all accomplices of this mess.
It is clear that in the society we have developed and in which we live, other values prevail than those of the preservation of animal species, the natural ecosystems of the planet and our very existence.
Because dialogue and reason are the best way to achieve change , logic has never changed a social system. History unfortunately teaches us that only with violence and imposition has it been possible to change the rhythm of a society, and as we can also see today, not always for the better.
The values of today’s society are based on money and power. Propaganda and inconsiderate profit have always been the easiest means to obtain them.
Recall that the sectors that have generated and are generating the most pollution have been and are those of energy and industry, sectors, however, that have undoubtedly boosted the economic and social development of all countries in the world.
How can we be able to avoid the inevitable if we are not willing to dispense with the progress of energy and technology consumption?
No country is willing to go back no less than six months, because it is aware of the delay it would entail with the rest of the world.
But let’s be sensible; We are in a critical situation, if that depends on our survival as a species and the life of the entire planet, it would not be sensible, logical and responsible to stop our progress towards destruction, even if it involves a setback of even one hundred years. Isn’t the planet and the life that lives in it worth it?
SOS EARTH SOS EARTH SOS EARTH SOS EARTH SOS EARTH SOS EARTH SOS EARTH SOS EARTH SOS EARTH SOS EARTH SOS EARTH SOS EARTH SOS EARTH SOS EARTH