Most environmentalists abuse rhetoric and lack pragmatism; But their passionate and even delirious postures do not offend, on the contrary, they arouse pleasant sympathy. Unfortunately, his lyrical and empirical preachings serve little or nothing to prevent, reduce and mitigate the damage to the Environment as a whole, and within it, to Living Species, Natural Resources and the Climate.
To the emotional but empty environmentalist preaching, demagogues and regressive populists such as Gustavo Petro have opportunistically joined in, who has specialized in propagating obtuse occurrences and crazy suddenness regarding environmental sustainability and energy transition, in order to try to give it progressivism. to their anachronistic economic conceptions, and seek to mimic their limited knowledge of sustainability, progress and development.
But the conservation of the planet requires, more than fervent environmentalists, passionate activists and populist demagogues, scientists, researchers and academics who propose useful, practical and effective solutions in favor and defense of environmental balance, in order to preserve biodiversity, as well as to rectify the development process, so that progress is rational and sustainable.
Follow the WhatsApp channel
Opinion
In legal matters, there are many Constitutions that have been promulgated with a clear environmentalist vocation, such as that of Colombia, and, in its development, there are several sentences, and hundreds of decrees, resolutions, regulations, circulars and directives that have been have been enacted to preserve the environment, so its degradation is not due to a lack of regulations in favor of its protection, but because the majority of them are not observed or complied with, and the authorities do little or nothing to ensure that they are fulfilled.
Added to the acute environmental problems that we suffer is an element that environmentalists generally avoid, such as illicit crops, which are increasing exponentially and causing the deforestation of hundreds of thousands of hectares in jungles, forests, natural reserves and even in national parks, as well as the use of precursors and chemical waste that poison the waters, annihilate living species and seriously affect the health of the people who then use them.
The same thing happens with illegal mining, which has exceeded the State’s capacity to repress it, alters and destroys the geography, and causes irreparable damage to the hydrographic basins and their river banks.
The above makes it mandatory to include these two factors in any serious study or diagnosis that is intended to be made regarding the objective causes that give rise to the gradual environmental deterioration that we suffer.
Faced with this increasing tragedy, it is not understood how the use of glyphosate, which is the most used and effective herbicide in the civilized world to eradicate weeds and illicit crops, is restricted by an absurd ruling by the Constitutional Court, especially if More than a hundred approved herbicides containing glyphosate are offered in the Colombian market.
It is also not understandable that glyphosate is applied to sugarcane and rice crops by aerial spraying, and mechanically or manually and focused on crops of banana, coffee, cocoa, flowers, fruit trees and vegetables, among others, but that it is prohibited. its use through aerial spraying in illicit crops. In short, in Colombia the use of glyphosate is allowed to protect licit crops, but not to destroy illicit crops. What perverse nonsense!
There is no doubt that the biggest predators in Colombia are illicit crops, those that have the favor of the State since the disastrous Juan Manuel Santos government, and those that now and during the remainder of the Petro misrule, will surely increase given their dislocation. announcement to buy coca crops.
The environmental damage caused by illicit crops is difficult to reverse, and, coupled with them, the chain of narcotics factories, violence and crime, and the loss of governability of the State over vast areas of the national geography increases.
Fortunately, progress in the energy transition and the maintenance of environmental sustainability does not depend on chatterboxes or demagogues like Gustavo Petro, it only depends on scientists, researchers, academics and, mainly, statesmen.
Proof of the above is the issuance and circulation of Carbon Bonds or CER (Reduced Emissions Certificates) and Green Bonds; securities that vivify the proposals of the Stockholm Conference, the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, among other environmental summits, and materialize the old global aspiration to create practical mechanisms to combat pollution, reduce harmful emissions and stop warming global.
The creation of CERs and Green Bonds is based on the legal notion that establishes that the emission of carbon dioxide generates an adverse value to the environment that is measurable and negotiable at market prices. Consequently, whoever pollutes must pay for it and whoever does not or stops doing so can obtain an income. In essence, the underlying asset that supports the issuance of CERs and Green Bonds is savings in terms of pollution.
To regulate the issuance of Carbon Credits, the reduction in pollution is measured in tons of carbon dioxide and converted to CER at the rate of one CER for each Ton of CO2 that is no longer emitted.
CERs are issued in proportion to the reduction in pollution and are purchased by companies that insist on increasing it. They are a source of new income for companies that opt for so-called clean production processes and increased costs for polluting companies. From a tax perspective, CERs are income for some and a non-deductible cost for others.
In turn, Green Bonds are intended for the financing or refinancing of green projects, such as investment in sustainable and socially responsible assets in various areas such as conservation of wastelands, maintenance of forest reserves, generation of renewable energy, clean transportation or responsible waste management.
It is comforting that, during the Government of President Iván Duque, the nation has begun its energy transition and diversification, and defined its environmental sustainability policy, to the point that, for the first time in its history, Colombia was ranked among the top five (5) nations on the global scale that measures Energy Transition Conditions (Climatescope), prepared by Bloomberg NEF, managing to advance nine positions during the Duque Government.
This notable achievement was obtained in part by the establishment and implementation of a clean energy auction system, which tracks the trends of the transition to a low-carbon economy. Not in vain, some call former president Iván Duque, Pioneer of the Energy Transition and Environmental Sustainability.
As I warned more than 10 years ago in my Semana magazine column, the productive sector will be increasingly taxed with new taxes, which will be weighted between the capacity to pollute or the environmental responsibility to avoid it.
Hopefully, during COP16, rather than listening to predictable rhetoric and old, fatalistic diagnoses, real solutions and effective alternatives will be proposed to avert the environmental tragedy we are experiencing, such as, among many:
- Compliance with environmental rulings issued by the High Courts.
- Increase in resources to finance Carbon Bonds and Green Bonds.
- Awarding preferential rates on credits intended for the execution of infrastructure works that reduce CO2 emissions.
- Temporary deduction of income from income, in a value equivalent to the investments made in the construction of oxidation lagoons, wastewater treatment plants and in the replacement of inputs or raw materials of plant species condemned to disappear.
- Mandatory incorporation of the subject “Biodiversity and Environmental Sustainability” in primary basic education programs.
- Increase in resources and actions to eradicate illegal mining.
- Eradication of illicit crops through controlled aerial spraying and their replacement through temporary government aid.
© 2024. Todos los Derechos Reservados. *Rafael Rodríguez-Jaraba. Abogado Esp. Mag. Consultor Jurídico. Asesor Corporativo. Litigante. Conjuez. Árbitro Nacional e Internacional en Derecho. Miembro de la Academia Colombiana de Jurisprudencia. Catedrático Universitario.
Here more Opinion Columns
The opinions published here are the responsibility of their author.
2024-10-27 06:37:00
#COP16 #Lyrical #Environmentalism #Sustainable #Pragmatism
Interview with Dr. Laura Martínez, Environmental Policy Expert
Interviewer: Thank you for joining us today, Dr. Martínez. Based on recent observations regarding environmental rhetoric, it seems there’s a growing concern that passionate pleas from environmentalists may be overshadowing pragmatic solutions. What are your thoughts on this?
Dr. Martínez: Thank you for having me. I believe that the emotional appeal of environmentalists is essential for raising awareness, but it cannot replace the need for practical, science-driven solutions. While their passion can galvanize support, it often leads to sensationalism rather than actionable strategies.
Interviewer: You mentioned the role of demagogues in this debate, specifically referencing leaders like Gustavo Petro. How do you see their impact on environmental policy?
Dr. Martínez: Leaders like Petro can certainly amplify certain environmental issues, but when their understanding and policies lack scientific backing, they risk doing more harm than good. The intersection of populism and environmentalism can produce knee-jerk reactions that prioritize ideology over effectiveness, ultimately undermining progress.
Interviewer: In your view, what should be prioritized to effectively tackle environmental issues?
Dr. Martínez: We need to prioritize evidence-based solutions proposed by scientists and researchers. The focus has to shift from rhetoric to practical measures that can be implemented and monitored. This includes effective regulations and compliance mechanisms. Moreover, we must tackle underlying issues such as illicit crops and illegal mining, which are significant contributors to environmental degradation.
Interviewer: You’ve raised a good point about the legal frameworks in various countries that aim to protect the environment. Why do you think these regulations often fail in practice?
Dr. Martínez: The existence of regulations is not enough; enforcement is critical. In Colombia, for example, numerous eco-centric laws have been enacted, but lack of compliance and monitoring renders them ineffective. We need more accountability from authorities tasked with enforcement to ensure that these laws are properly implemented.
Interviewer: Let’s talk about potential solutions like carbon trading and Green Bonds you mentioned. How effective are these mechanisms in fighting climate change?
Dr. Martínez: Carbon trading and Green Bonds are promising tools that can incentivize reduced emissions and fund sustainable projects, respectively. They represent a shift towards a market-based approach to environmentalism, which could drive innovation and investment in cleaner technologies. However, their success hinges on robust regulatory frameworks and transparency to prevent exploitation.
Interviewer: as we approach future COP meetings, what should be the focus moving forward in terms of environmental policy?
Dr. Martínez: Moving forward, we should prioritize collaboration between scientists, policymakers, and the private sector to create a unified approach to sustainability. Policymakers, especially in developing countries, need to leverage both domestic resources and international partnerships to fund and implement green initiatives. Ultimately, our strategies must be rooted in comprehensive research and practical, enforceable regulations.
Interviewer: Thank you, Dr. Martínez. Your insights are invaluable as we navigate these complex environmental challenges.
Dr. Martínez: Thank you for having me. The conversation around environmentalism needs to evolve, and I hope my thoughts contribute to that progress.
Ostering sustainability?
Dr. Martínez: Carbon trading and Green Bonds can be highly effective if implemented correctly. They create financial incentives for companies to reduce emissions and invest in sustainable practices. By putting a price on carbon, it encourages a shift towards cleaner technologies. However, these mechanisms need transparent regulations and active participation from all sectors to truly make an impact. They should not be viewed as standalone solutions but rather as part of a broader, integrated approach to environmental policy.
Interviewer: What role do you believe education plays in fostering a culture of sustainability?
Dr. Martínez: Education is vital; it builds a foundational understanding of environmental issues. By incorporating “Biodiversity and Environmental Sustainability” into primary education, we can nurture environmentally responsible citizens from a young age. Knowledge empowers communities to advocate for sustainable practices and hold their leaders accountable.
Interviewer: Lastly, as we look forward to ongoing negotiations at COP16, what is your hope for the outcomes?
Dr. Martínez: My hope is that rather than relying on familiar rhetoric, we see commitments to actionable, measurable solutions. We need to focus on collaboration between scientists, policymakers, and communities to effectively address the dire environmental challenges we face. True progress will come from pragmatic approaches built on scientific research and effective governance.
Interviewer: Thank you, Dr. Martínez, for your insights on these critical issues. Your perspective underscores the importance of merging passion with pragmatism in environmental action.
Dr. Martínez: Thank you for having me. It’s imperative that we stay focused on real solutions to protect our planet for future generations.
