The wise norms of the CNE suggest not speaking on domestic politics on the eve of elections. We will comment on another issue no less political, but global: the climate. To promote tourism, instead of promoting bingo halls, gambling dens and casinos in the hands of unspeakable gamblers and thieves, it would be enough for the Government to publish graphs of our splendid landscapes with an average temperature of 25 ° Celsius, and wait for the avalanche of visitors. of a Europe whose summer temperatures exceeded the infernal 48 ° and 50 ° degrees. The climate has been a decisive factor in the migrations of humanity; it could also be so in its extinction.
There are two schools of climate change: one attributes it to natural causes, as happened with the ice ages of prehistory, the other refers to human actions, mainly greenhouse gas emissions, such as CO2, methane and carbon compounds. chlorine, which allow short-wave solar radiation to pass through but retain its long-wave heat reflection. Because of them, an increase in the average global temperature of 2 ° C is expected by 2050, and of 4 ° by 2100. Apart from its serious effects on humans, crops and fauna and flora, such an increase would accelerate the melting of glaciers and polar caps, flooding vast coastal areas.
I quote data painstakingly compiled by Julio César Centeno on the hit parade of greenhouse emissions from 1900 to 2020. Europe (excluding Germany): 27%. Germany: 5,7%. USA; 25%. Asia (excluding China): 13,7%. China: 13,7%. Russia: 3,2%. India: 3,2%. Africa: 2,4%. South America: 2,4%. The results are clear: since 1900, developed countries, whose population does not exceed 17% of the world, have been massive emitters of 70% of greenhouse gases, with their polluting factories, their tropes of individual cars, their perennial waste incinerations, their looting of natural resources from the rest of the planet.
Nothing more catastrophic than leaving the solution of a problem to those who created it. In 1988, Prime Ministers Bryan Mulroney of Canada and Margaret Tatcher of the United Kingdom committed the United States, Germany, France, and Italy to fund an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, actually a state-owned, unscientific device by the Tatcher to destroy the British unions in the coal mines and replace this with North Sea oil. The United States, the world's biggest polluter, has systematically shirked its responsibilities in this area: Bush did not sign the Kyoto Protocol in 2001, nor did Trump sign the Paris Agreement in 2017. Now, under the weight of Joe Biden's pacts with the G7 and G 20, meets in Glasgow between October 31 and November 14, with the attendance of 197 UN countries, the United Nations Conference on Climate Change. It committed the participants to limit warming to 1,5 ° by 2030, and to zero carbon emissions by 2050. To this end, it approved a spending of 50 billion dollars until 2030, (for Anglo-Saxons, one trillion is one billion ) and about 150 billion until 2050, of which 0,1 billion would benefit developing countries. In such a way, it would Solomon touch those guilty of the emission of 70% of greenhouse gases (only 17% of the world population) 99,9% of the resources destined to correct it, and its victims, 83% of humans, 0,1%.
To move from a developed economy of systematic burning of hydrocarbons to one based on alternative energies would require an almost impossible social, economic, political and cultural change within the capitalist system. Alfredo Alvarado points out that alternative energies add up to only 12,85% of the total energy produced in 1971, and 13,97% for the year 2014 (Alternative energies today: an approximation to the social impact of the new energy model. I + D, vol. 2, no. 2, 2017. Central University of Venezuela). Where would 86% of the remaining energy that developed countries require to maintain their hegemony come from? This would imply huge investments in architectures with passive systems for adaptation to the climate, solar, wind, geothermal, tidal energy, with titanic works that in turn would require expensive energy expenditure. But also radical changes in the culture of massive deforestation, consumerism, waste, individual accumulation, conspicuous consumption, planned obsolescence, the economic dividend as the supreme goal, all the assumptions of the developed world. Stopping the emission of greenhouse gases would require the revolution that capitalism has tried at all costs to annihilate.
International analysts such as Thierry Meyssan point out that behind the sudden US interest in global warming may be the need to reactivate the capitalist economy. As predicted by Marx, it is again in the midst of a crisis due to the stagnation of relative demand, that is, of those who need goods and can afford them. Until now, the United States had kept its industry running with military spending for 2020 of 778.000 million dollars, 39% of the world's arms expenditure. But military Keynesianism has limits. Defeats like Afghanistan's challenge the military-industrial complex. And Meyssan denounces: “Today the solution would be the 'energy transition'. In other words, instead of trying to sell another car to someone who already owns one, you will have to sell them an electric vehicle to replace their gasoline-powered car. Of course, electricity is generated using oil and requires the use of batteries that are currently not recyclable. In short, with the 'energy transition' the planet will be more polluted than before but… now we don't have to think about that! " Meyssan concludes that "with COP26, bankers will be able to lend money to 'save the planet' and become owners of the countries whose leaders have trusted them."
Climate change cannot be stopped without social change.