El artículo se titula Hold your breath: the economic impact of human respiration, y lo firma Douglas S. Mackie, del departamento de química de la universidad de Otago (Nueva Zelanda). El artículo dice así:
The definition of anthropogenic emissions in the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change contains a loophole that could be exploited to destabilize the ratification process. I point out this loophole here so that others may use it to prevent effective implementation of the Protocol, alongside arguments of equal scientific weight ans credibility currently used by the administrations of some western nations against the Protocol, in particular, and the need to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, in general.
Under the Protocol, the emissions permited (Cp) by a country is defined in terms of a fraction of CO2 emissions for a given baseline year (CB); Cp = CB x q, where q is an agreed factor that varies from country to country and is set out in the Annex B of the Kyoto Protocol. CB is unique to each country and represents the emissions of a countryin the baseline year, usually 1990. If actual emissions fall below Cp, then the difference may be traded, and recent sales have been at about €5.50 (US$7.05) per ton of CO2. The intent of the Kyoto Protocolis to constrian gases released through sourceactivities, that, in general, burn fossil fuels. However, enteric fermentation (ruminant digestive fermentation producing methane)is specifically included as a source activity in Aneex A of the Protocol. The definition of emissions used in the Protocol thus may be interpreted to include other non-fossil fuel, natural methabolism sources of carbon, such as the products of human respiration.
I have used U.S. Department of Energy estimates for population, fossil CO2 emissions, and gross domestic product (GDP) (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/iea/), and an approximate value for human methabolsim (500 kilograms of CO2 per person per year) to calculate the emission of CO2 due to human respiration (CH). Actual and permitted emissions heve been recalculated using CH. Thus:
C'P(2002) = (CB x q) + (CH(1990) x n')
Unless stated otherwise in the Protocol, q = 1.2 in recognition of the political realities involved in encouraging nations to ratify it, while 1990 CH values are multiplied by n' = 1.2 in all cases to reflect the approximate 20% increase in world population between 1990 and 2002. The economic cost of required carbon credits (or benefit of surplus credits) has been calculated as a percent of 2002 GDP for Cp and C'p, that is, without and with the inclusion of human respiration, CH. For some countries, more CO2 is released through human respiration than through burning of fossil fuels.For 2002, CH was about 15% of the CO2 released by the burning of fossil fuels. If CH is included in calculations, there are 21 nations - representing 4.62% of 2002 world population, 0.13% of 2002 world fossil fuel CO2 emissions and 0.19% of 2002 world GDP - that would be worse off (by having to purchase more credits) by an average of 0.2 +/- 0.1% of their 2002 GDP.
For example, the extra cost to Ethiopia (2002 population, 68 million) would be 0.5% of 2002 GDP, and Mozambique (population 19 million) would pay an additional 0.1% of 2002 GDP. In comparison, the extra economic cost to the United States (with 4.62%of world population, 23.5% of world fossil CO2 emissions, and 26.2% world GDP) would be 0.0004% GDP (US$40 million) while Australia would pay 0.0007% GDP (US$3 million). Since the extra economic cost to the United States and Australia would be so small, I urge these nations to push for the inclusion of CH in calculations as a way to dissuade poorer nations from becoming party to the Protocol.
There are many objections that can and should be raised tothe assumptions made here, including whether emissions form Iraq and Afghanistan should instrad be counted together with those of the United States, not to mention the potential significance of legume consumption.
Discussion also ignores the fact that even with q = 1.2, the basic cost of meeting the Kyoto Protocol for some nations - regardless of CH - would be several percent of GDP. How can the Protocol, or similar measures, be made attractive to such nations? It cannot be denied that the industrialized nations have benefited hugely from their emissions. Aside from bearing the burden of controlling their own emissions, these countries must assist other nations to develop without increasing emissions. Unfortunately, though very few have reaped the benefits from CO2 emissions, everyone will pay the price.
Lo que faltaba: ¡ahora los países pobres ya no pueden ni respirar! Sólo faltará que se enteren los políticos de los países ricos ...
Aunque no todos se lo acaban de creer esto del Calentamiento Global y del Cambio Climático. Bogusia me pasó este enlace. Es un grupo de presión canadiente que tiene como objetivo principal "To encourage and assist the Canadian Federal Government to re-evaluate the Kyoto Protocol by engaging in a national public debate on the scientific merit of Kyoto and the Global Warming issue, and to educate the public through dissemination of relevant, balanced and objective technical information on this subject". Casi nada ... Según ellos, el actual calentamiento y el aumento de CO2 está principalmente relacionado con el aumento de la actividad solar. En su página web tienen 5 vídeos donde pretenden desmontar tanto la reconstrucción de la evolución de la temperatura de los últimos 1000 años realizada por Michael E. Mann (aquí un enlace de la reconstrucción), la llamada Hockey Stick Graph, como la relación entre el aumento del CO2 y el incremento de la actividad humana en forma de un aumento de la combustión de energías fósiles. De hecho, promulgan que los informes emitidos por el IPCC no son más que un sistema político para controlar el desarrollo de los países pobres ...
Como veis, en cuestiones del Cambio Climático y del Calentamiento Global hay opiniones para todos los gustos ...
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario