Esa no es la gallina de huevos de oro.
El que la compañía minera Montana pague ahora el IUSI y el ISR no nos ayuda en nada (Montana Exploradora pagará IUSI e ISR. Otto Ángel. 19 de julio de 2006. Siglo XXI). ¿Acaso veremos el fruto de esos impuestos? Más aún, es una burla a los guatemaltecos el pensar que sólo porque aumentó el precio del oro ahora decidan pagar el impuesto sobre la renta.
Seguimos en el mismo camino. Aún nos seguimos encargando de desincentivar las inversiones en el país y nos hacen creer que el que paguen 32 millones de quetzales es algo que nos debe causar alegría.
¿Cuándo estará la Diócesis de San Marcos contenta? Porque ya quisiera verlos pensando que pagar 32 millones de impuestos es muy poco para sus arcas eclesiásticas. Para muchos nunca será rentable porque sus ideologías e intereses políticos no se los permiten. Pero, en realidad no será rentable si pensamos que pagar más impuestos inflará nuestra gallina de oro.
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
"Escuelas no cederán al acoso de mareros" por Irving Escobar Castillo
El problema no es el que unos cuantos frenen el proceso educativo (“Escuelas no cederán al acoso de mareros”. Irving Escobar. Prensa Libre. 19 de julio de 2006). El problema es que el proceso educativo ha fallado desde siempre y el pedir a los padres que lleven a sus hijos a la puerta de las escuelas no es la solución.
El sistema educativo guatemalteco ha sido siempre algo dejado en el baúl del olvido y apenas estamos tratando de salvar el primer año de primaria. Es obligación del gobierno proveer la seguridad de los ciudadanos y más aún la de niños con el afán de estudiar. Quizá esa no es la receta para salir de la pobreza, pero el que un niño que sepa leer y que tenga comida en su mesa todos los días es seguramente el primer paso para sacarlo de las maras y de los vicios que aquejan a nuestra sociedad.
El sistema educativo guatemalteco ha sido siempre algo dejado en el baúl del olvido y apenas estamos tratando de salvar el primer año de primaria. Es obligación del gobierno proveer la seguridad de los ciudadanos y más aún la de niños con el afán de estudiar. Quizá esa no es la receta para salir de la pobreza, pero el que un niño que sepa leer y que tenga comida en su mesa todos los días es seguramente el primer paso para sacarlo de las maras y de los vicios que aquejan a nuestra sociedad.
Sunday, July 16, 2006
El fantasma de la guerra - Américo Cifuentes Rivas
No hay ningún fantasma (“El fantasma de la guerra” Américo C. Rivas. El Periódico. 16 de julio de 2006), simplemente no hemos abierto los ojos. La guerra nunca ocurrió y fue un conflicto armado que se encargó por 36 años de infundir temor y ansias de venganza en nuestra población.
Yo soy un mestizo y soy en parte indio. Soy de clase media y por lo tanto nunca fui ni rico ni pobre. Soy de la Marroquín y apenas y puedo pagar mis cuotas. No tengo familia en el ejército y tampoco en la guerrilla.
El “fantasma” no es nada más que el constructo de miedo que hemos creído nos rodea. La guerra es algo que debemos borrar de nuestras mentes y el pensar que los Acuerdos de Paz son la solución es el primer paso que debemos cambiar. Esos acuerdos simplemente buscaban crear una disyuntiva aún mayor entre todos los guatemaltecos y dividirnos como “iguales ante la ley”.
No culpemos a nuestra herencia española por ser un país excluyente y pobre. Culpemos a nuestras instituciones y al pútrido sistema que nos hemos encargado de ensalzar. La solución no se encuentra en la “reconciliación social”, sino en exigir a nuestros que representantes respeten la Constitución y nuestros derechos como individuos.
¿Quién ha de reformar la Constitución? - Dr. Armando de la Torre
La Constitución es para muchos la expresión prima de las garantías individuales y el estado de derecho (¿Quién ha de reformar la Constitución? Dr. Armando de la Torre. Esquina Socrática. Siglo XXI. 16 de julio de 2006). La historia latinoamericana de su sistema de gobierno y las constituciones escritas para cada país lió desde sus inicios el poder criollo de los mercaderes en los centros de poder y la lucha de intereses por capturar los nacientes sistemas democráticos.
Nuestras constituciones surgieron bajo la autoría de una oligarquía criolla que simplemente trasladó el poder que antaño poseía la corona española al poder de los grandes oligarcas mercaderes de principios del siglo XIX. Para sugerir una reforma constitucional antes deberá reconocerse que el poder de estas oligarquías de antaño han desaparecido y que el poder está en el pueblo soberano con ansías de vivir en un estado de derecho.
Una Constitución con leyes teleológicamente abstractas y generales será nada más que el empuje necesario para acabar con el estado de legalidad y el poder que durante casi doscientos años se ha perpetuado en grupos de poder que han paralizado el progreso en la región.
Monday, April 03, 2006
El consenso y la conciliación en las democracias - caso Ley de Planificación Familiar
“¡Ley pervertida! ¡Ley – y con ella, todas las fuerzas colectivas de la Nación – desviada de su objetivo legítimo y dirigida a un objetivo totalmente contrario! ¡Ley convertida en instrumento de todas las codicias, en lugar de frenar las codicias! ¡Ley hacedora de iniquidad, cuando su misión era castigar la iniquidad! Ciertamente se trata de una situación grave y de su existencia se me debe permitir alertar a mis conciudadanos.”
Frédéric Bastiat
Al vivir en una democracia pareciera que se ha alcanzado un nivel de consenso en el cual la paz y la prosperidad serán tan sólo agregados del logro al que ha llegado la sociedad y la humanidad misma.
Al vivir en democracia se piensa comúnmente que se ha alcanzado un estadio evolutivo de nuestras instituciones que nos permite convivir en hermandad y fraternidad alejándonos del hambre, la opresión, la envidia y las sangrientas luchas de poder.
Todo esto, es la democracia que las personas suelen pensar como un fin último. Esta es el arma utilizada por aquellos “progresistas” que claman por el respeto de las mayorías desde grupos de presión que no hacen más que buscar la consolidación de intereses particulares y muchas tantas otras veces de intereses egoístas y avaros.
Pero esto no es la democracia.
La democracia no es el culmen institucional del consenso y del respeto de los designios y deseos del antes oprimido y embaucado.
La democracia no es más que la consecución de acciones, como un medio para alcanzar el progreso y libertad individuales, en la que se reducen al máximo las pérdidas que cualquier decisión tengan para los integrantes de una nación, estado o utopía.
Una de tantas candentes discusiones en nuestras jóvenes democracias es la afamada y contendida Ley de Planificación Familiar. En este ensayo la tomaremos como un leve ejemplo (que podríamos igualmente aplicar para la discusión sobre asuntos tales como la pornografía, venta de drogas, prostitución, seguridad social y educación) de cómo en una democracia naciente distintos grupos de interés buscan proteger y defender los intereses del desvalido y del pobre.
Cuando los grupos “progresistas” escriben en nuestros diarios o conferencian en nuestras radios locales a favor de una ley que aparentemente vendrá a solucionar, de manera dionisiaca, la cruel y vil situación social y económica de nuestra población pobre y sin educación, surgen grupos fuertes de personas que en su afán de ayudar al desvalido amenazan el futuro de los que vienen creciendo y que con tan sólo unos cuantos años de vida ven amenazados su futuro y el de sus hermanos.
Porque el pensar que una ley que vendrá a educar al ignorante, a proveerle de un arma que desde las escuelas servirá como un “control natal institucionalizado” es un arma muy peligrosa. Tan peligrosa que bajo la sombra de la benevolencia afectará la creación de riqueza y prosperidad de nuestra nación.
¿Acaso el hombre primitivo hubiese sido más rico al tener menos hijos? ¿Acaso la riqueza de nuestras primeras grandes civilizaciones tuvo lugar cuando se educó a las mujeres y hombres que el tener menos hijos era la clave para su progreso? ¿Cuándo vimos en nuestra historia que la reproducción era una forma de empobrecernos?
Más aún, ¿desde cuando empezamos a ver los nacimientos como externalidades negativas de la sociedad?
El problema que nos atañe ahora no es parte de la historia de las tribus nómadas, ni de los grandes imperios que existieron. El problema que nos atañe el día de hoy podrá recibir tantos nombres como puedan pensar y yo en esta ocasión utilizaré el nombre de “ley de planificación familiar”.
Vivimos en los albores de un nuevo milenio, en Guatemala vivimos en los albores de una democracia en sus primeros pasos que ha enfrentado muchas dudas sobre su efectividad y eficienticidad.
¿Por qué? Porque aún nos preguntamos si es posible llegar a consensos y conciliación para la solución de los conflictos y diferencias. ¿Desde cuándo empezamos a creer que la democracia era el medio par realizar conciliaciones y consensos?
Desafortunadamente, la democracia no es sinónimo de consensos ni conciliaciones. La democracia no es más que un medio eficiente por el cual se reducen los costos de transacción para la consecución de políticas públicas eficientes que permitirán ser los medios para alcanzar la riqueza, la paz y la libertad[1].
El pensar que nuestras democracias deben ser el fruto de la conciliación de todas y cada una de las divergencias cósmicas de visión de cada uno de sus miembros es un arma demasiado peligrosa. Tan peligrosa que en nuestro afán por convenir puntos de vista antagónicos ha dado lugar a la consecución de sistemas totalitarios, populistas y altamente corruptos.
Como Charles Murray explica acertadamente en el libro “What it Means to be a Libertarian”[2], el simple hecho de entregar a nuestros gobiernos la capacidad de alterar e ingresar en nuestras vidas y comunidades ha permitido el surgimiento de burocracias que se suponía hubieron de defender nuestros intereses, cuando en realidad eran ellos, los burócratas, las personas menos indicadas y capacitadas para ingresar en los asuntos privados de las personas que les entregaron a manos abiertas el poder de modificar sus vidas.
Simplemente dejamos en sus manos, las de los burócratas, las responsabilidades que como individuos nos correspondían, sin darnos cuenta que la entregábamos a los más irresponsables y a pesar de que una vez se abre esa puerta el cerrarla es muy difícil o quizá imposible o utópico[3]. Es aún posible evitar que sigan injiriendo en nuestros asuntos y cerrarles las puertas al poder de seguir tomando decisiones que a los individuos y sus familias atañen.
Porque es muy fácil y humanitario pensar que “la mayor prioridad de una sociedad civilizada es reducir la pobreza” como Murray explica, pues al igual que él considero que la prioridad de una sociedad civilizada es en realidad proteger la libertad humana.
Pues es a causa de la libertad individual que nuestras sociedades evolucionan y sus instituciones se adaptan a la normativa que con el paso del tiempo ha demostrado ser tan o lo suficientemente óptima para proteger la creación de riqueza y bienestar de las sociedades.
Dejemos a un lado al estado bienestar que norma nuestra vida y políticas públicas y concedamos este poder a los ciudadanos libres y responsables que se encargarán de velar porque el nivel óptimo para ellos y sus familias sea el que proteja su estado de bienestar y armonía con los integrantes de sus comunidades y conciudadanos. Porque el sufrimiento siempre existirá y no importa cual sistema económico-social se cree o se consensúe: la pobreza, el hambre y el sufrimiento se mantendrán.
Lo que atañe a nuestros representantes es tan sólo la toma de las decisiones menos costosas y con menores externalidades negativas sobre los ciudadanos que representan.
La democracia no se trata de llegar a consensos ni mucho menos de conciliar posiciones.
Es nuestro deber como ciudadanos educar a aquellos que aún piensan que necesitamos a un gobierno que provea medios anticonceptivos y antifecundativos a las masas. Demos esta labor, que pertenece intrínsecamente, a las corporaciones privadas y luego seamos nosotros quienes creemos los medios de producción y los empleos necesarios para que aquellos que tengan bajo su protección a sus hijos y esposas puedan ser los artífices de su riqueza y bienestar individual.
[1] “Freedom is the raw material for the choices that make up a life –the myriad choices that go into assembling your little platoons, exercising your realized capacities, and demarcating a place for yourself and your loved ones. Responsibility, freedom’s obverse, is the indispensable quality that allows us to carry through on our choices and take satisfaction from our accomplishments…” “What it Means to be a Libertarian”. Murray, Charles. Broadway Books. Nueva York. 1997. p. 35
[2] “What it Means to be a Libertarian”. Murray, Charles. Broadway Books. Nueva York. 1997
[3] “Government intervention did not occur everywhere all at once. It proceeded in bits and pieces, directed at specific goals.” “What it Means to be a Libertarian”. Murray, Charles. Broadway Books. Nueva York. 1997. p. 47
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
The Twenty First Century Armed Conflict in Guatemala
“You never had to go through that”. That was a phrase that got straight into my mind and made me thing what was it that I never had to live.
They were referring about the armed conflict that for 36 years affected the countryside and even the capital city of Guatemala. I could hear them refer about how was it that they had to go straight to their homes before 8 pm because of the “toque de queda” that the government implemented to avoid having “communist” meetings in the dark nights.
Also, they told me how was it that, many times, they heard the parlor stop the projection of the film and asked them to evacuate ASAP because there was a menace of a bomb in the theater.
I am sure I had never lived a status quo were I had to be afraid of guerrilla’s activity, or even from the activity of the armed forces of the government. But is it all true?
It is certainly not. Since December 29, 1996 Guatemala signed a “Peace Accord Agreement” with the belligerent forces of the guerrilla and the government in turn. It was a peace accord of holding down arms that was up to end with an “enduring peace” that was supposed to last for ever, and in the near future forgotten by the next generations that never had to live it.
Has it all finished? It does certainly not.
Guatemala has lived the beginning of a twenty first century type of war. It is called the war against the “maras”, gangs that have taken control of entire zones of the capital city, and entire zones of the inland towns; making security, under government’s obligation been totally disappear and a new force appear in our society. What a teacher once called a “parallel power” had appeared in the “never spoken about” society we, Guatemalans, live in.
What is the reason for all this chaos? The reasons are many, but the solutions are less obvious and less easy of implementing.
Guatemala decided that the armed conflict was up to an ending and the former President in government, Álvaro Arzú Irigoyen, decided that it was time for him to receive the “Príncipe de Asturias prize” for ending the so called war. Once the peace was signed, the conflict was up to end in a few months and demobilization of the belligerent forces was supposed to turn on their arms and return to their civilian life and work the land they possessed, or were going to receive.[1]
Once the peace was signed a backyard problem appeared in the landscape. It was the “armed gangs” in Guatemala that started to spread as a parallel power all over the capital, towns and little villages.
Supported by the drug dealers, that since the last decades had an almost divine immortality and lived as the “untouchables” of our society; these gangs reinforced their strategic “occupied areas” and started recruiting new forces to their regiments.
Where was the government in this moment? Why did not they act?
The reason and maybe a huge part of the guilt of the chaos that is soon to begin in Guatemala, I may even dare to predict a new and distinct “twenty first century way” of civil war, was that the weak government that by not reason appeared in Guatemala since the ending of the armed government in 1986.
But the reason is even deeper and obscure, it involved the incentives Guatemalans had to avoid to return to a strong type of government that was certainly never to be in the short time occupied by an army men. As well, it meant that people were tired of having a police government that would have told were to meet, eat and sleep, and at what time to do so.
And there is one more huge incentive. It included the Scandinavian countries and the rest of the European Community that had made an incredible pressure in our political image in front of the international community, which meant that, if we did not turn into a more “democratic” government the influx of cash was soon to stop and our morally depraved economy and society, was soon to be in a deficit that only was saved because of the aid we had received for decades from the international community.
The effect of this externalities turn the country into a very “calm society”, actually meaning an afraid of danger society, were a parallel force started to grow; without a strong government that would have procrastinated it to ever occur and without a government force strong enough to secure the citizens and protect them of danger.
Guatemala had just turn into a government were all the power rests in a weak President that has not the enough power to reinstate order, or at least to secure and protect the capital city nor the towns. Guatemala has gotten for itself a weak government that because of the lack of leaders, because of the massive killing of leaders since the 1960’s, which right now had made a whole in our society where no important example of leadership can be found.
Guatemala has been just turn with open arms into the wrath of this new parallel power that would institute a status quo of lack of a strong government directed by civilians that by the use of arms and power would exploit, abuse, rape and panic my fellow Guatemalans.
We have just begin a third millennium were we would have to fight against a weak government and a strong civilian-gang power that has been spreading like a plague around the community.
Shall we see a strong leader come in our help? Or shall we suffer a new century of fearful, unjust, corrupt, and wicked Guatemala?
[1] It also meant integrating the indigenous peoples that are part of our society, and these people were supposed to be “recognized” as an integrant and important sector of our society, as recognition of their suffering since the colony (something I have lot to say against, but that is not of an issue in this essay).
They were referring about the armed conflict that for 36 years affected the countryside and even the capital city of Guatemala. I could hear them refer about how was it that they had to go straight to their homes before 8 pm because of the “toque de queda” that the government implemented to avoid having “communist” meetings in the dark nights.
Also, they told me how was it that, many times, they heard the parlor stop the projection of the film and asked them to evacuate ASAP because there was a menace of a bomb in the theater.
I am sure I had never lived a status quo were I had to be afraid of guerrilla’s activity, or even from the activity of the armed forces of the government. But is it all true?
It is certainly not. Since December 29, 1996 Guatemala signed a “Peace Accord Agreement” with the belligerent forces of the guerrilla and the government in turn. It was a peace accord of holding down arms that was up to end with an “enduring peace” that was supposed to last for ever, and in the near future forgotten by the next generations that never had to live it.
Has it all finished? It does certainly not.
Guatemala has lived the beginning of a twenty first century type of war. It is called the war against the “maras”, gangs that have taken control of entire zones of the capital city, and entire zones of the inland towns; making security, under government’s obligation been totally disappear and a new force appear in our society. What a teacher once called a “parallel power” had appeared in the “never spoken about” society we, Guatemalans, live in.
What is the reason for all this chaos? The reasons are many, but the solutions are less obvious and less easy of implementing.
Guatemala decided that the armed conflict was up to an ending and the former President in government, Álvaro Arzú Irigoyen, decided that it was time for him to receive the “Príncipe de Asturias prize” for ending the so called war. Once the peace was signed, the conflict was up to end in a few months and demobilization of the belligerent forces was supposed to turn on their arms and return to their civilian life and work the land they possessed, or were going to receive.[1]
Once the peace was signed a backyard problem appeared in the landscape. It was the “armed gangs” in Guatemala that started to spread as a parallel power all over the capital, towns and little villages.
Supported by the drug dealers, that since the last decades had an almost divine immortality and lived as the “untouchables” of our society; these gangs reinforced their strategic “occupied areas” and started recruiting new forces to their regiments.
Where was the government in this moment? Why did not they act?
The reason and maybe a huge part of the guilt of the chaos that is soon to begin in Guatemala, I may even dare to predict a new and distinct “twenty first century way” of civil war, was that the weak government that by not reason appeared in Guatemala since the ending of the armed government in 1986.
But the reason is even deeper and obscure, it involved the incentives Guatemalans had to avoid to return to a strong type of government that was certainly never to be in the short time occupied by an army men. As well, it meant that people were tired of having a police government that would have told were to meet, eat and sleep, and at what time to do so.
And there is one more huge incentive. It included the Scandinavian countries and the rest of the European Community that had made an incredible pressure in our political image in front of the international community, which meant that, if we did not turn into a more “democratic” government the influx of cash was soon to stop and our morally depraved economy and society, was soon to be in a deficit that only was saved because of the aid we had received for decades from the international community.
The effect of this externalities turn the country into a very “calm society”, actually meaning an afraid of danger society, were a parallel force started to grow; without a strong government that would have procrastinated it to ever occur and without a government force strong enough to secure the citizens and protect them of danger.
Guatemala had just turn into a government were all the power rests in a weak President that has not the enough power to reinstate order, or at least to secure and protect the capital city nor the towns. Guatemala has gotten for itself a weak government that because of the lack of leaders, because of the massive killing of leaders since the 1960’s, which right now had made a whole in our society where no important example of leadership can be found.
Guatemala has been just turn with open arms into the wrath of this new parallel power that would institute a status quo of lack of a strong government directed by civilians that by the use of arms and power would exploit, abuse, rape and panic my fellow Guatemalans.
We have just begin a third millennium were we would have to fight against a weak government and a strong civilian-gang power that has been spreading like a plague around the community.
Shall we see a strong leader come in our help? Or shall we suffer a new century of fearful, unjust, corrupt, and wicked Guatemala?
[1] It also meant integrating the indigenous peoples that are part of our society, and these people were supposed to be “recognized” as an integrant and important sector of our society, as recognition of their suffering since the colony (something I have lot to say against, but that is not of an issue in this essay).
Sunday, January 22, 2006
The Greenhouse Effect, the CO2 and the IPCC - A Bermuda Triangule
“Will The European Union of the next century be more
clean, healthy, beautiful and prosperous?
Or would we continue to suffer the crescendo of
air, water and ground pollution?
Would we continue suffering
the loss of rainforests and plains?
Would we continue suffering the increasing
number of sicknesses that may
derive from our actual living styles that are
more urbanized and industrialized?”[1]
Does this last paragraph hit directly into your heart and sentiments? Of course it does.
The last phrase has no intention but to get into the collective unconscious that is actually claiming for help into the constant fear of having its houses disappear from the landscape because of a tropical storm or maybe even the most destructive hurricane of history.
Why, then, we associate, since a few decades ago, destruction and the wrath of nature with the “wrath” of that heinous capitalists that seeks for nothing else but to satisfy their hunger of power and money without taking care of the thousands and thousands of poor people that live in constant fear of nature.
Through this essay you will be able to observe, read, refute, judge, or maybe support the information that, followed by a brief research, has proved me that the causes of that constant alarm and attack to the “heinous” capitalists is nothing but a political game used with the masses and against the masses to inform them with groundless fears and data for hidden political agendas of logrolling and turbid interests.
Planet Earth has suffered, all through its geological history, a cycle of constant climatic changes which are known for not having a steady temperature. These climatic changes have distinguished themselves by fluctuations in the “thermostats” that for thousands of years have demonstrated to be relevant and significantly just an approximation.
Even those changes of significant importance have been capable of turning into strong ice rocks, icebergs, and glaciers all of the Northern Hemisphere and have caused that the level of seas fluctuate in different periods of history, raising and diminishing in a voluble and lent way. Never prematurely nor torrential, and never affected notably by the human action, nor less caused by those rational mammals that live in the planet of which they are masters and lords.
According to the data accepted by the worldwide science society, the Planet Earth is around five thousand million years old. And, during this impossible to measure period of time, have occurred Glacial Periods that have corresponded to only a 1% of the Earth’s geological history.
In Contemporary geological and climatic history groups of scientists asseverate that the planet is actually in between of two glacial periods; and in a world that lives between two glacial periods, it’s certain that climatic changes will fluctuate violently (let’s keep in mind that Earth’s history is measured in thousands of years and in the same way this climatic changes won’t be perceptible in it’s totality to humans, but eventually with the passing of time).[2]
Then, is in any way human activity in the planet able to have and important effect, with only a few thousand years of existence, in the climate and geology of the planet? Is it then possible that only because of the Industrial Revolution the man has been “guilty party” of the “destruction” of the planet and we are just in the way of causing an ecological cataclysm?
My answer is NO. Nature is wise and old, and it is a Capital Temptation to even try to give to the human ego that, maybe even divine, power of destroying what took millions and millions of years of evolution, and for man to destroy it in only a few decades or centuries.
Recently world organizations have initiated claims all over our countries speaking in behalf of nature and in behalf of the planet a fight of life or death between those who believe having for themselves the power of saving the world from contamination, greenhouse effect, droughts, floods, extreme cold and hot and even global warming itself.
Of course we must protect the planet, and of course there is no other possibility but to respect what to nature itself has taken millions of years to produce. But, it is impossible for us has humans to believe that we are capable of transforming or modifying nature into a desert because of mass production, capitalism, industrialization, productivity, market efficiency and creation of richness.
These ideas of panic began more than a century ago when one of the first scientists that studied the world climate tried to establish a theory about the issue. His name was Svante Arrhenius and he was a Swedish professor that published the first scientifically “verified” investigation that mentioned that the rise of the quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was a cause of the changes in temperature of the planet.
His ideas continued to evolve by different scholars and a series of studies and researches, by the hand of the first methods of climatic analysis, confirmed his investigations and even amplified its impact.
By the passing of time all of those statistics started to spread all over the world and people started to concern about the supposed dangers and threats that human beings were causing to the world in a macro level.
One of the most important organizations in the advance of this issue is the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) that was created by the WMO and UNEP to analyze all the scientific information that is of importance to the understanding of climate change. This panel actually attempted to state that “the balance of evidence suggests that there is a significant human influence in global climate”. How significant and of what type they believed that human activity would make an impact in global climate is one of the central points of this essay.
Next to statements as the one mentioned, political activists have declared that “torrential rains have risen in agricultural regions” or “that glaciers are melting”, both statements of the former Vice-President Al Gore. Also, statements such as “we hare not sure that global warming of Earth is responsible of what we consider a substantial rise in drastic climatic changes, but I think it does” of ex President Bill Clinton have made an impact on those rationally ignorant people that have been alarmed and cried to a turning back of economic growth in name of the wishes of the goddess Gaia.
Evidence shows that the actual paradigm pretends to say that it is dangerous for the survival of human beings that the climatic and temperature changes occur and they have maintained this postulate on the data provided by three different climatic scenarios of temperature change for the year 2100. These scenarios of changes in globally averaged surface temperature evolve from a rising low scenario of 1.92ºF/decade to 9.6ºF/decade until a 25.6ºF/decade.[3]
Actually, six thousand years ago the Earth had a temperature of 4ºF above this century’s temperature and even do human beings lived in a Sahara Desert full of plants, trees and animals; dense rainforests that covered Europe from the Alps until the Scandinavian Peninsula; and Canada had a warmer and rainier climate.[4] Carbon Dioxide concentrations also, were 16 times higher sixty million years ago without the existence of a greenhouse effect and other periods of the Earth’s history experienced three or four times more CO2 with a warmer climate.[5]
By the passing of time the Earth started to become warmer and by the end of the glacial period the levels of sea rise, agriculture developed, technological advanced developed in an accelerated manner and there was a “climatic optimum” in which temperature was significantly warmer than twenty century’s temperature by 4-5ºF.[6]
It is in that way that the mixture of three indispensable factors were needed to domestication of plants and animals, and then of cultural advances, and then of mayor technological breakthroughs as the professors Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza asserted in 1984: a global warming, an increase in rain and a rise in carbon dioxide levels; all of them needed for development and invention.
Maybe then, the most important thing to do is not combating climate change, because I assert that it is an adulation to our human ego to believe that we are even capable of predicting the exact moment were they will occur and what would be their destructive effects. We must then, adapt and fortify our ports and costal cities turning them in strong installations capable of handling the hitting of this destructive rains and hurricanes by pumping as much money as possible to save in health the people that may get hurt by them if not secured. And certainly not by stagnating the world economy and taking it back to 1990’s levels of industrialization and commerce, hurting the economy of the wealthy and even more of the Third World economies such as my country.
I hope there shall be still rational people that would seek for the last never to happen. What would you decide?
[1] La Unión Europea y el medio ambiente. Comunidades Europeas. 1998. pp.5
[2] Michaels, Patrick; Balling, Robert. The Satanic Gases. Cato Institute. Washington, D.C. 2000. pp.75
[3] For further information on the graphic view: “The State of the Environment”. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. 1991. pp.26
[4] Gale Moore, Thomas. Climate of Fear. Cato Institute. Washington, DC. 1998. pp.23
[5] Idem. pp.28
[6] Idem. pp.30-31
clean, healthy, beautiful and prosperous?
Or would we continue to suffer the crescendo of
air, water and ground pollution?
Would we continue suffering
the loss of rainforests and plains?
Would we continue suffering the increasing
number of sicknesses that may
derive from our actual living styles that are
more urbanized and industrialized?”[1]
Does this last paragraph hit directly into your heart and sentiments? Of course it does.
The last phrase has no intention but to get into the collective unconscious that is actually claiming for help into the constant fear of having its houses disappear from the landscape because of a tropical storm or maybe even the most destructive hurricane of history.
Why, then, we associate, since a few decades ago, destruction and the wrath of nature with the “wrath” of that heinous capitalists that seeks for nothing else but to satisfy their hunger of power and money without taking care of the thousands and thousands of poor people that live in constant fear of nature.
Through this essay you will be able to observe, read, refute, judge, or maybe support the information that, followed by a brief research, has proved me that the causes of that constant alarm and attack to the “heinous” capitalists is nothing but a political game used with the masses and against the masses to inform them with groundless fears and data for hidden political agendas of logrolling and turbid interests.
Planet Earth has suffered, all through its geological history, a cycle of constant climatic changes which are known for not having a steady temperature. These climatic changes have distinguished themselves by fluctuations in the “thermostats” that for thousands of years have demonstrated to be relevant and significantly just an approximation.
Even those changes of significant importance have been capable of turning into strong ice rocks, icebergs, and glaciers all of the Northern Hemisphere and have caused that the level of seas fluctuate in different periods of history, raising and diminishing in a voluble and lent way. Never prematurely nor torrential, and never affected notably by the human action, nor less caused by those rational mammals that live in the planet of which they are masters and lords.
According to the data accepted by the worldwide science society, the Planet Earth is around five thousand million years old. And, during this impossible to measure period of time, have occurred Glacial Periods that have corresponded to only a 1% of the Earth’s geological history.
In Contemporary geological and climatic history groups of scientists asseverate that the planet is actually in between of two glacial periods; and in a world that lives between two glacial periods, it’s certain that climatic changes will fluctuate violently (let’s keep in mind that Earth’s history is measured in thousands of years and in the same way this climatic changes won’t be perceptible in it’s totality to humans, but eventually with the passing of time).[2]
Then, is in any way human activity in the planet able to have and important effect, with only a few thousand years of existence, in the climate and geology of the planet? Is it then possible that only because of the Industrial Revolution the man has been “guilty party” of the “destruction” of the planet and we are just in the way of causing an ecological cataclysm?
My answer is NO. Nature is wise and old, and it is a Capital Temptation to even try to give to the human ego that, maybe even divine, power of destroying what took millions and millions of years of evolution, and for man to destroy it in only a few decades or centuries.
Recently world organizations have initiated claims all over our countries speaking in behalf of nature and in behalf of the planet a fight of life or death between those who believe having for themselves the power of saving the world from contamination, greenhouse effect, droughts, floods, extreme cold and hot and even global warming itself.
Of course we must protect the planet, and of course there is no other possibility but to respect what to nature itself has taken millions of years to produce. But, it is impossible for us has humans to believe that we are capable of transforming or modifying nature into a desert because of mass production, capitalism, industrialization, productivity, market efficiency and creation of richness.
These ideas of panic began more than a century ago when one of the first scientists that studied the world climate tried to establish a theory about the issue. His name was Svante Arrhenius and he was a Swedish professor that published the first scientifically “verified” investigation that mentioned that the rise of the quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was a cause of the changes in temperature of the planet.
His ideas continued to evolve by different scholars and a series of studies and researches, by the hand of the first methods of climatic analysis, confirmed his investigations and even amplified its impact.
By the passing of time all of those statistics started to spread all over the world and people started to concern about the supposed dangers and threats that human beings were causing to the world in a macro level.
One of the most important organizations in the advance of this issue is the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) that was created by the WMO and UNEP to analyze all the scientific information that is of importance to the understanding of climate change. This panel actually attempted to state that “the balance of evidence suggests that there is a significant human influence in global climate”. How significant and of what type they believed that human activity would make an impact in global climate is one of the central points of this essay.
Next to statements as the one mentioned, political activists have declared that “torrential rains have risen in agricultural regions” or “that glaciers are melting”, both statements of the former Vice-President Al Gore. Also, statements such as “we hare not sure that global warming of Earth is responsible of what we consider a substantial rise in drastic climatic changes, but I think it does” of ex President Bill Clinton have made an impact on those rationally ignorant people that have been alarmed and cried to a turning back of economic growth in name of the wishes of the goddess Gaia.
Evidence shows that the actual paradigm pretends to say that it is dangerous for the survival of human beings that the climatic and temperature changes occur and they have maintained this postulate on the data provided by three different climatic scenarios of temperature change for the year 2100. These scenarios of changes in globally averaged surface temperature evolve from a rising low scenario of 1.92ºF/decade to 9.6ºF/decade until a 25.6ºF/decade.[3]
Actually, six thousand years ago the Earth had a temperature of 4ºF above this century’s temperature and even do human beings lived in a Sahara Desert full of plants, trees and animals; dense rainforests that covered Europe from the Alps until the Scandinavian Peninsula; and Canada had a warmer and rainier climate.[4] Carbon Dioxide concentrations also, were 16 times higher sixty million years ago without the existence of a greenhouse effect and other periods of the Earth’s history experienced three or four times more CO2 with a warmer climate.[5]
By the passing of time the Earth started to become warmer and by the end of the glacial period the levels of sea rise, agriculture developed, technological advanced developed in an accelerated manner and there was a “climatic optimum” in which temperature was significantly warmer than twenty century’s temperature by 4-5ºF.[6]
It is in that way that the mixture of three indispensable factors were needed to domestication of plants and animals, and then of cultural advances, and then of mayor technological breakthroughs as the professors Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza asserted in 1984: a global warming, an increase in rain and a rise in carbon dioxide levels; all of them needed for development and invention.
Maybe then, the most important thing to do is not combating climate change, because I assert that it is an adulation to our human ego to believe that we are even capable of predicting the exact moment were they will occur and what would be their destructive effects. We must then, adapt and fortify our ports and costal cities turning them in strong installations capable of handling the hitting of this destructive rains and hurricanes by pumping as much money as possible to save in health the people that may get hurt by them if not secured. And certainly not by stagnating the world economy and taking it back to 1990’s levels of industrialization and commerce, hurting the economy of the wealthy and even more of the Third World economies such as my country.
I hope there shall be still rational people that would seek for the last never to happen. What would you decide?
[1] La Unión Europea y el medio ambiente. Comunidades Europeas. 1998. pp.5
[2] Michaels, Patrick; Balling, Robert. The Satanic Gases. Cato Institute. Washington, D.C. 2000. pp.75
[3] For further information on the graphic view: “The State of the Environment”. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. 1991. pp.26
[4] Gale Moore, Thomas. Climate of Fear. Cato Institute. Washington, DC. 1998. pp.23
[5] Idem. pp.28
[6] Idem. pp.30-31
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)