Global Energy Governance: Interest conflicts and mistake learning – Daniela Benitez, Laura Hernandez & Natalia Moran

The world is currently on an unsustainable way to conflict  caused by unstable and unreliable supply of energy fuels, vulnerable infrastructure, massive environmental degradation, and lack of providing energy services to a huge proportion of the world population. Put into operation a system of energy requires the development of various areas such as economy, politics and technology to help overcome these deficiencies and allow creating a more regulated energy governance minimizing the dangers of nuclear and politicians struggles, caused by competition for resources and interests.

Is here where states are in a constant game between national interests and the care of an environment which is injured everyday caused by actual energy ways such as gas and oil. Since the 1970’s, after petroleum crisis and the learn about that  energy governance cannot be in the hands of an unrepresentative part of the countries, States began to think about new ways of produce alternative energy. There was developed the idea of manage nuclear energy, solar energy, hydroelectric energy and other sustainable ways that less the dependence of oil mainly.

Even a cursory assessment makes clear that contemporary global energy governance arrangements are far from meeting urgent needs to promote market efficiency compared to externalities (especially, but not only, climate change), expand access to energy services to the billions of people, not enough infrastructure to supply energy to all, and less to meet the demand in the market.

With the auge of the Cold War, nuclear energy took force because was first an idea to produce more dangerous weapons that increase the powerful image of the biggest powers in this age: the United States and the URSS. Nuclear resources became in major dissuasor elements  to protect each power blck of an attack from the other one. A lot of nuclear programs were developed in the seeking of win more alliances with developing states and the change of a bipolar system into a unipolar system with not only a super government in the head of the International System, it traduces the win of some political and economical ideas, it was capitalism vs. communism, liberalism vs. protectionism.

With Misil Crisis in Cuba in 1969, the world learned that we cannot go until the last consequences just for some national interests, the system must to change into a cooperation mechanisms, they would have to recover the ideas that died before Second World War, the League of Nations, it was imperative to reinforce the UN mechanisms, and go in the road of a peaceful world.

This crisis was the reason why since 1968, and until 1970 states were working in a treaty that regulates until now the management of the nuclear weapons, in 1959, the International Agency of Atomic Energy was born (IAEA), because they must control the production of nuclear energy, not only for prevent a future nuclear war, also serve to: “The IAEA was created in 1957 in response to the deep fears and expectations resulting from the discovery of nuclear energy. Its fortunes are uniquely geared to this controversial technology that can be used either as a weapon or as a practical and useful tool.” (IAEA, 1959). To prevent catastrophes such chernobyl, one of the worst consequences of bad management of nuclear material.

Chernobyl is the worst nuclear accident in the history, showing how the nuclear energy can by dead full if this one is not treated carefully. The Chernobyl nuclear plant was the biggest and the most powerful in the works with four reactors and three more in construction for the moment of the accident, sometimes is easy to find that the plant actually has other incident, but it was just a little fire.

In the night of 26 April 1986 a security test was programmed, the test try to se how long the reactor can work after being turn off, for this the workers first has to remove the cooling system provocative in this way a up in the temperature the reactor, the second step was supposed to turn on again just to make the fusion stable, but this point will never happened. They try to put on the cooling system to late and the rooftop of the reactor number four exploit, liberating to the atmosphere toxic elements as the strontium and plutonium, the statistics say that the nuclear cloud give almost three  rounds to the earth.

For this moment the radiation levels in the neighbour city of Pripyat was more than 25.000 roentgens per second, when a human body only can take less than 100 per hour, this was a death sentence to almost 50.000 persons. The URSS denied that something happen in the reactor and start four days later to evacuate the city and a big part of the plant, this will mark the beginning of something that they called the liquidators. These mens has to stay two minutes I the top of the reactor, cleaning all the zone, because the robots that they try to use first went crazy and suicidate their self for the radiation.

The USSR has to admired that something happen in the central because in Sweden a worker from a nuclear plant detect high radiation level, so they think that maybe the UK has suffered a nuclear attack, and when they asked about Chernobyl in the beginning the kremlin denied, but four days later Gorbachev give a public declaration that the had a little problem in the Chernobyl plant.

The reactor today has a sarcophagus in concrete to stop the radiation going in to the atmosphere, the reactor was building by the liquidators, but today is falling down in a lot of parts. France is now building a new sarcophagus, in a special material where they expected to buried the reactor for at least one century. Also today the zone is a excluded zone, even when the plant still working until 2002.

This serves to show why it is important that countries should control the care that must be taken when handling nuclear resources not to be spectators of another disaster like this. Often the interests of states is not a excuse to ignore the duties we have as an international community as to protect both the environment and the no-action alternative forms of energy harmful to the environment, all in order to ensure good future for generations to come.

Resources:

• https://www.iaea.org/about/history
• Florini, A & Sovacool, BK, “Bridging the Gaps in Global Energy Governance”, Global Governance, Vol. 17 (1), 2011
• Video – Unreported World: India’s Electric Dreams, Channel 4, UK, October 2014
• Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), 1970, Avaiable Online: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/documents/infcircs/1970/infcirc140.pdf

Ecuador’s Decision in Amazon’s Yasuni National Park – Martín Daniel Lozano Báez

The Amazon rainforest is a moist broadleaf forest that covers most of the Amazon Basin of South America. This basin encompasses 7,000,000 square kilometres, of which 5,500,000 square kilometres  are covered by the rainforest. This region includes territory belonging to nine nations. The majority of the forest is contained within Brazil, with 60% of the rainforest, followed by Peru with 13%, Colombia with 10%, and with minor amounts in Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Guyana, Suriname and French Guiana. States or departments in four nations contain “Amazonas” in their names. The Amazon represents over half of the planet’s remaining rainforests, and comprises the largest and most biodiverse tract of tropical rainforest in the world, with an estimated 390 billion individual trees divided into 16,000 species. For all these reasons, the amazon is used to be called the lungs of the planet, the trees are our greatest source of oxygen. Using the energy from the sun, water and minerals, they convert CO2 into oxygen (O2) in a process called photosynthesis. But unfortunately some people are not conscious of it and everyday destroy the amazon in a race for the search of profits.

For example in 2014 Ecuador signs permits for oil drilling in Amazon’s Yasuni national park in the amazon. But why it was signed? Yasuni-ITT initiatives, named for the park’s Ishpingo, Tambococha and Tiputini oil fields, which together contain some 846 million barrels of heavy crude, sought to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, prevent deforestation and protect one of the world’s most biodiverse areas. To offset the renounced revenue, then estimated at over $7 billion, Ecuador requested $3.6 billion to be paid over a period of 13 years by some of the world’s richest nations. It was the first time a country had proposed keeping such a large reserve permanently in the ground. But the world failed and the donations were not the expected because only $13m (£8m) of the $3.6bn goal was given, giving the green light to drilling. The permits allow Petroamazonas, a subsidary of the state oil company, to begin construction of access roads and camps to prepare for drilling. These permits for drilling had been signed for the 6,500-square-mile reserve, known as block 43, and oil production might begin as soon as 2016.

There is no doubt that the impact of Ecuador´s action is going to harm big part of the amazon and, in the same way, the world. Yasuni was designated as a world biosphere reserve by Unesco in 1989. Scientists in 2010 counted 2,700 plant species, and more tree species than are native to all of North America. Yasuni has a record 271 amphibian and reptile species, a projected 100,000 insect species, and one of the world’s largest concentrations of jaguars. As we can see the green light to drill in one of the world’s most biologically significant areas will come at an incalculable cost to Yasuni’s biodiversity and harm the indigenous groups that live in the park.

Now let’s turn to economics. Does it worth all that harm to the environment, just for money? If we see the evidence in the world of the commodity producers, specially the oil producers, it is clear that a primary commodity structure brings a lot of challenges that in the end make worse the economy situation. First, oil reserves are not infinite, so Ecuador should not concentrate all the efforst in the oil production because it can experienced Dutch Disease that is to have an export and production structure dominated by a resource in boom (in this case the oil) causing in that way an appreciation of the real exchange rate that of course is going to undermine the competitiveness of other sectors of the economy; Second,  oil extractive activities are capital intensive that do not create many jobs, and generate large rents, which may harm income distribution of the country.

So, it is clear that Ecuador take a biased decision that maybe is going to have big profits in the short term, but in the long term not only the environment and the population will be affected , but also the economy.

Bibliography

KEVIN M. KOENIG . (2014). Ecuador Breaks Its Amazon Deal. 15/05/2015, de New York Times Sitio web:http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/12/opinion/ecuador-breaks-its-amazon-deal.html?_r=0

Adam Vaughan. (2014). Ecuador signs permits for oil drilling in Amazon’s Yasuni national park. 21/05/2015, de The Guardian Sitio web: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/23/ecuador-amazon-yasuni-national-park-oil-drill

LINDASTCYR . (2011). Ecuador Yasuni Rainforest Under Threat From Oil Below. 15/05/2015, de Ecorazzi Sitio web: http://www.ecorazzi.com/2011/09/03/ecuador-yasuni-rainforest-under-threat-from-oil-below/

An Environmental Organization – Maria Camila Ayala, Melissa Pinilla & Manuela Pineda

In this brief introduction, the most important fact in the lecture is that it is necessary to create an environmental organization. The arguments they based their thesis were that the there are new actors in the international system that evolve global issues like the global warming and there has to be an strengthen in the global governance to fight with this global issues that no country by itself can deal with. The lecture also showed weaknesses in creating an environmental organization. Some of the weaknesses were to coordinate policies with the countries, every country has its own interests and with the organization there is a need to coordinate the policies so it can exist an international cooperation to fight the global issues. Also there is Process of capacity building in developing countries that needadditional responsibilities from developed countries improving financial en technology transfers. Most develop countries have the best technology to help the ecosystem but not the developing countries. The most develop countries need to help developing countries in this sphere so it will be easy to fight global warming. Finally, the last weakness is the Implementation and further development that needs the creation of an international environmental law. There are a lot of complications with and international environmental law because the interest of the actor in the international system can crash and counter with the international environmental law and that will create conflict interests in the international system.

Now to think in an environmental organization it is necessary to think in a model that can work for the international system. There are 3 basic models: the cooperation model that has a decentralized system and it is a cooperating not coordinating unit based on an constitutive instrument, with a Budget based on the state members contributions. The centralization model followed by the WTO model that has a centralized system, a stronger integration with a common framework. The hierarchization model followed by the security council model with punitive enforcement and sanctions. The best model that suits the international environmental organization is the cooperation model, because the international system has already international laws and agreements that could collide with the organization and the best way to make work the environmental organization is with the cooperation model that could help to fight the global issues relating the ecosystem with the cooperation of the actors in the international system.

With all the previous information it is important to mention the European contribution to the global environmental governance. In 1990 with the US rejection of the Kyoto protocol, the Union had the great opportunity to be a world leader in terms of environmental issues. Even though the European union has a really ambiguous status as an actor, the union is a really good network of international environmental institutions because they share the ambiguity of their creation. The union, with their power, can represent in a really good way this type of organizations, but in order to succeed the EU needs to go beyond a formal participation, and be capable to represent and gain power for this kind of institutions. On one side the union needs to change the way the international system perceive an actor, that’s why the union fights for the incorporation of outsiders that could be involved in the range of policy areas and the implementation of this kind of policies. On the other side, the EU needs to improve the region-to-region cooperation in order to make an important impact with the different environmental policies the union is willing to make.

It is clear that the European union is an actor of its own right, but in order to get the recognition of outsiders, the EU needs to prove that they are a solid group with its own perspectives and interest, and not what many outsiders think, that the union is the mix of the interest of 25 different states.

It is clear that policy integration and awareness of development issues are supremely important, and both are challenges that the U.E has to face, the faster the better. The UE has embraced sustainable development, which has been shown through actions such as the implementation of the Cardiff Process, The Review of the Sustainable Development Strategy or the attempt at economic renewal in the Lisbon Strategy, attempts to engage with the “Rio Process” or the 1992 UNCED Agenda (Earth Summit). As the actor it is, the UE could make major contributions to this issue (sustainable development and its implementation) due to its role in single markets, the volume of its trade and the competence it represents in the Caommon Commercial, and Agricultural and Fisheries policies. Yet there are some challenges it encounters; credibility, which rests on its capacity to implement its commitments, and directly linked to it, the implementation –as it has to deal with 24 member state bureaucracies, regulatory styles, experiences and levels of development. It is crucial that the UE takes action to get through this “obstacles”, as the world needs it to. The UE needs much greater coherence among trade, agriculture, development and environmental policy. It needs to integrate the environment into its foreign policy and establish a coherent mobilization of its diplomatic and other capabilities, but it needs to do it soon, as for now all this challenges are manageable and it still has the chance to position itself as the actor it could be.

The Amazon – Catalina Medina, Ana María Piraquive y Catalina Quimbaya

It is the largest rainforest in the world. It is considered that its extension is 6,000,000 square kilometers the amazon is distributed in nine South American countries, they are:  Brazil ( that have more than 50% of the amazon ), Peru (more than 13%), Bolivia, Colombia (7%) and the other 30 % is divide in  Ecuador, Guyana, Suriname, Venezuela and French Guiana. The Amazon rainforest is developed around the Amazon River and its watershed, and one characteristic of the amazon is it high temperatures, that cause a green vegetation.

It contains all the fauna and flora of South America, from small insects to big mammals(contless, and unclassified species) some mammals that the amazon contein are: jaguars, pumas, tapirs and deer, it have turtles, alligartors, caimans and the famous snake: the anaconda, also the most popular fish wich is the pink dolphin, including more fish species, and big and particular plants that grow up a meter in diameter.

Currently the Amazon is facing a lot of enviromental problems, as the lack of goverments resources that protect the amazon through the creation of different laws for the rainforest, the lotters who are responsible for the defosteration, that cause wáter and environmental pollution, and fires, the multionationals exploring the territory and extracting mineral resorces( oil, metals, mineral, natural gas) cause an unbalance in the ecosistem, the final problema is the increasing in agricultural and livestock activities in some states of Brasil that are bigger exports of beef and soybens, and it contribute to the gradual deforestation of the Amazon.

One of this cases was the Chevron’s intervetion in the zone of Amazon in Ecuador, on the year of 1964 this company arrived to Ecuador for exploit the oil and gas of the soil, then during more of 30  years this company extract the reources in the wrongs ways which not only destroy the envioroment and the habit for miles of animals and plantas but also Chevron move to indegenous poblations for can do produce. Some data shows thta Chevron 15,834  galons of oil were spilled between rivers  and vegetation and then the pollution arrived to the air and the temperatura incremated and new  corrosive smells emerged and afected the poblation. For this reason the afectted pepple began a juridical process for demand Chevron.

Several efforts have been by the international community and one of the most important has been the creation of the Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization based on promoting the preservation of the natural heritage of the Amazon by principles of sustainable development that will be reflected in a series of regional policies, sadly this organization was not strong enough and the countries that belong to this (Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Peru, Surinam and Venezuela) have not been encouraged enough to ignore the objectives of the organization and often prefer to ignore.

Civil society for its part has seen neither the efforts of the State or from this organization have paid off, then last year on 21 May, bound specifically after the case explained in Ecuador and called it the “AntiChevron Day” where citizens 16 countries throughout the world mobilized in search of the liberation of territories as the Amazon of the hands of companies with little environmental awareness who believe that only compensation to the inhabitants can repair all the damage caused by the destruction of ancestral lands, natural heritage, the destruction of the “lung of the world”.

And that is why efforts like those that will generate a collective consciousness that will improve the lives of the many communities that have been affected by the entry of ambitious companies in their territories, in the end not only affects them as natural heritage that allows us all to see the world the way we see it today.

We concluded that the international community and as well the rest of the world need to think about what kind of amazon they want : an amazon or amazoff?, the countries that share this largest rainforest must to be compromise about the supervivency of it including all kind of life that live inside: plants, animals, indígenas communities, etc, because the amazon have and particular feature is the lung of the world and accordingly a world heritage that have to be protected.

This is a example that is necesary the colaboration between diferent actors for promote the protection of the envioroment, the company has been ordered to pay more than 18,000 million dollars in the judicial system chosen by the same company. Currently, thye do everything possible to avoid paying the fine; which it is very difficult for Chevron as it is extremely vulnerable in different parts of the world; which it has considerable assets and there are judges who will apply the law accordingly.

References

• La mano sucia de chevron Empresa Petrolera CHEVRON TEXACO y su contaminación en la Amazonía ecuatoriana Nunca take of http://lamanosucia.com/
• El telegrafo OTCA respalda a Ecuador en el caso Chevron en el Telegrafo take of http://www.telegrafo.com.ec/noticias/informacion-general/item/otca-respalda-a-ecuador-en-el-caso-chevron.html
• Paul Paz y Miño Global Action May 21: International Anti-Chevron Day, Pachamama allience take of http://www.pachamama.org/news/global-action-may-21-international-anti-chevron-day
• Fauna natura LA selva amazonica y sus problema take of http://www.faunatura.com/la-selva-amazonica-y-sus-problemas.html

A world treasure in danger – Sara Cuervo Guerrero

The Amazon is an enormous and complex region that has a great variety of flora, fauna and ecosystems. The Amazon is a vast region that lies in the center of South America and its area almost reaches 7.000.000 km². This region encompass the largest rainforest in the world which extends in 5.500.000 km² and is distributed between nine countries, Brazil that has the 60% of the forest and the rest 40% spreads through Peru, Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Guiana, Suriname and French Guiana. Additionally, it houses approximately 10% of the word´s biodiversity and 16% of the world´s rivers that discharge in oceans. As a result of biodiversity we can say that dynamics in this area are really complicated but at the same time extremely important for the region and for the people around the world. In this post I will focus on the importance of the Amazon for climate regulation and how for the past years its integrity has been jeopardize.

I am going to talk first about the key role the Amazon has regarding climate. Plants and especially trees, in this case the Amazon rainforest develop an important job for nature. It filters and reprocesses Carbon Dioxide (CO₂), which we know is a harmful component to earth and a driver of global warming. For the past decades humans have been discarding massive amounts of CO₂ to the atmosphere due to the exploitation of natural resources such as fossil fuels, coal, oil, and natural gas. What the rainforest do is remove these excessive amounts of CO₂ by absorbing them to use it during photosynthesis and other processes that finally will put oxygen into the air or Carbon which will help the plant growing course. To sum up, Amazon rainforest helps containing climate change.

There are some other ways in which the Amazon rainforest has an imperative position towards climate change. As mentioned earlier there is an important water structure developed in the area. A natural process called evapotranspiration refers to evaporation and plant transpiration; during this process plants released water into the atmosphere and to oceans through rivers, this is another way in which the Amazon helps determining the circulation of ocean currents and climate change.

Taking into account the information presented above, it is possible to affirm that without the Amazon rainforest the climate change phenomenon will be accelerated because there would not be any type of shield that helps protecting the atmosphere from colossal amounts of CO_2, which are already tremendously elevated. Some of the most immediate consequences are the rise of temperature and decrease of rainfall, which could lead to serious draughts.

Even though there is a lot of research and scientific data that supports the importance of the Amazon rainforest currently the situation is not promising at all. The world demand for energy resources has lead to the overexploitation of natural resources, which usually lay on third world countries. These countries do not care much about the environment, as they should because they prefer to attract foreign investment that will give them little revenue. Consequently the nature is in big danger, for the past decades the Amazon has lost at least 17% of its territory leaving a great number of species without its natural habit.[1]

Droughts and lost of natural habits are not the only harmful consequences the Amazon rainforest is facing. As it is mentioned in the article “El Amazonas reduce a la mitad su capacidad para absorver dioxido de carbono” published in El Espectador according to a study made by scientists from Leeds University in England, the trees death rate in the area has been increasing for the past decades. Even though the trees were absorbing huge amounts of CO₂, which helped to regulate climate change, it seems that extra amounts of CO₂ are causing their death now; of course there are some other factors that contributes to this phenomenon such as droughts and high temperature. As a result acceleration in climate change in inevitable.

To conclude, it is possible to say that the role of the Amazon rainforest is extremely important to the world because besides having a great variety of fauna y flora it helps containing climate change by storing important amounts of CO₂, additionally its complex dynamics are key to the hydric system to the world. Therefore it is important to preserve this area for as long as human kind exists but countries around the world are not very interested in doing it so. Third world countries give more importance to development than to nature; as a result deforestation and overexploitation are common practices that harm the Amazon and give way to infrastructure that do not take into account the dynamics within the environment and people living in it. This terrible scenario that third world countries create is done to fulfill globalized countries demands on energy resources. In order to save the Amazon I believe it is important to foster cooperation between countries that contain the Amazon and create legal mechanisms that protect the area.

Bibliography

• http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/amazon/about_the_amazon/
• http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/amazon/about_the_amazon/why_amazon_important/
• http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/amazon/problems/
• http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/amazon/problems/climate_change_amazon/
• http://www.elespectador.com/noticias/medio-ambiente/el-amazonas-reduce-mitad-su-capacidad-absorber-dioxido-articulo-550159
• http://www.fao.org/docrep/u0700s/u0700s06.htm
• http://www.sgi.org/es/sobre-la-sgi/actividades/latinoamerica/cepeam.html
• http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2014/12/04/actualidad/1417654351_309031.html
• http://www.greenpeace.org/espana/es/news/2010/November/el-cambio-climatico-y-la-defor/
• http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/amazon/about_the_amazon/

The Amazon and the case of Chevron in Ecuador – Daniela García Dussán, Grecia Lopez & Sara Obando

The contamination of The Amazon is not a new thing or a surprising fact, we the humans are the ones who should been taking care of it, we are the ones contaminating and doing damage.

Reports supplied by the Terra-i satellite let us know the grade of loss of vegetation coverage in some countries of South America ( Bolivia, Ecuador, Perú, Colombia, Venezuela, Guyana, Suriname and French Guyana). Deforestation is one of the current problems that should  be avoid because the forests and species are being damaged by human activities. The causes of deforestation are several, the most important and the ones that have more relevance are: the illegal logging, mining, illicit crops seed, and  the expansion of the agricultural boundaries causing the grazing area and selective logging. As a result of these issues, the governments have to implement programs to conserve the environment and to prevent more  possible negative effects.

In this year 2015, our country Colombia started a big project called “ forest conservation and sustainability at the heart of the amazon” (GEF: Global Environmental Facility) integrated by 5 Entities (MADS, PNN, IDEAM, SINCHI and FPN)  to be developed during the next five years in two Colombian Departments: Caquetá and Guaviare. The main objective is to improve the governance and promote the sustainable management of nature landscapes to reduce the deforestation and to conserve the biodiversity in the forest at the Colombian Amazon.

There are four points or components that make a complete project as follows: protected areas, management and monitoring of forests, sectoral programs for sustainable landscape management and coordination, monitoring and evaluation. Those components include the responsibilities of each of the Entities and the towns including the indigenous population in order to create the best practices, uses and management of the earth and other natural resources to be carried out by the entities in terms of national, regional and local levels.

A big and interesting issue was the Chevron/Texaco Case, this begin in 1964 when the Texaco company found an oil reserve in the northern of Ecuador, while drilling for oil in Ecuador’s Amazon rainforest the company deliberately dumped billions of gallons of toxic wastewater into rivers and streams, spilled millions of gallons of crude oil, and abandoned hazardous waste in hundreds of unlined open-air pits littered throughout the region, affecting the health of the people due to the use of cheap technology and obsolete during the oil exploitation (Amazon Watch, s.f.).

The result is widespread devastation of the rainforest ecosystem and local indigenous communities, and one of the worst environmental disasters in history. The indigenous people and the communities nearby were angry; the company was operating without the concern of them and its activities affected them, among other reasons because the water is not good for the human health, the forest was destroyed and the biodiversity was eliminated. The indigenous presented to the United States government a complaint against the Texaco Petroleum Company for environment pollution and health attack of the people (Galerna Estudio, s.f.).

The Ecuador government incurred in two mistakes with the Texaco Petroleum Company because first they accepted they had received from that company a clean area where they worked the petroleum exploitation. These issue was called “End Act” so, Ecuador accepted that the Texas Petroleum Company left a clean field without responsibilities of any consequences of environmental destruction. The second mistake occurred when the Chevron Company addressed to Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague and

Ecuador accepted the assignment of one of its judges and the correct way was to reject that court. The Ecuador government is looking for the rights of the indigenous population affected by the pollution generated by that petroleum company (Galerna Estudio, s.f.).

In 1993 five communities of indigenous people including the Cofán, Siona, Secoya, Kichwa and Huaorani got together and decide to demand Texaco, complaints alleged that between 1964 and 1992 Texaco’s oil operations polluted the rainforests and rivers in Ecuador, resulting in environmental damage and damage to the health of those who live in the region (Bussiness & Human Rights Resource Center, 2014).

The case last for over 20 years in court, and finally on 14 February 2011, the President of the Provincial Court of Sucumbíos, issued the first judgment against Chevron Texaco. The final verdict was sentenced to the oil company to the payment of 9.5 million dollars to be used in the repair of environmental damage, which includes cleaning the floors, installing water systems and implementation of health systems in the area (Bussiness & Human Rights Resource Center, 2014).

The Texaco company did many atrocities, most of them environmental and health related, the construction of more than 900 open-air, unlined toxic waste pits that leach toxins into soil and groundwater and the release of contaminants through spills, spreading oil on roads and burning of crude, 18 billion gallons of wastewater called “produced water,” dumped into rivers and streams water that they used for drinking, cooking, bathing and fishing and it provokes that those who bathe in contaminated rivers report skin rashes and who drink the water report diarrhea (Amazon Watch, s.f.).

Bibliography

Galerna Estudio. (s.f.). Texaco Toxico.org. Recuperado el 27 de Abril de 2015, de Contaminacióm por petroleo en Amazonía Ecuador: texacotoxico.org

Bussiness & Human Rights Resource Center. (octubre de 2014). Business & Human Rights Resource Center. Recuperado el 14 de Abril de 2015, de Texaco/ Chevron lawsuits (re Ecuador) : business-humanrights.org/en/texacochevron-lawsuits-re-ecuador

Amazon Watch. (s.f.). Amazon Watch. Recuperado el 30 de Abril de 2015, de Chevron´s Chernobyl in the Amazon: amazonwatch.org/work/chevron

GMOs – Laura Hernández

The Genetically Modified Organism/food are organism that has been manipulated to make the seed more perfect, this normally is do it in laboratories changing thigns in the genetics of the plants, this will make the plant more beautiful, bigger and sometimes will grow up faster. In a lot of cases the people said that GMO’s are bad, and in other cases said that are good, is my intention to show the different position, and in the final express my own position.

Monsanto as the biggest company in the GMO world shows the benefit in agriculture, so that is what I would explain in this part. The first benefit is that the seed had a better resistance to stress, making the plant strongest in front of plagues and weather, this is probably the principal argument for the rest of the benefits, because this will support the fact that the seed will allow a faster production, in less land and will be more nutritive, because that one of the “miracles” of the Gmos, that permit to make the genetics more good for the human consume.Other argument of the benefits for human is the possibility to control the alergics reaction in the people. They also said this will rehab the infertile land, because the seeds can have something added to make the floor fertile again, also their try to do this with the vaccine and medicines, arguing that the growing population in the world need more a more food, and plant to make medicine.

In the other hand we have the negative part of the GMO’s, that are relative close to the food, and the impact on the health of the people, the first one is the unknown consequences in the human body, because some doctors said that we don’t know exactly how the modify organism will work inside our body, this may case horrible thing as cancer, or allergy’s. The second critic is normally the foods thas has been produced with this seed are not labeled, so we normally not know if what we are eating is organic or not, this also go through one of the strongest risk, and this is that you will never know if something will not have processed seed, this is caused by the bees, because they will fly between crops and crops, and his the natural way to do things, we can have any control about it.

As far I know that this is just an approximation, I think we should create our own opinion about by searching, and reading, so in this way mi personal opinion is just we should stop creating food, and medicine in this way, I found since my own cosmology is antinatural, and we don’t know what are going to be the consequences of this things. Also we have to consider that if we stop to put all kind of chemicals in the floor maybe this will start to produce all in a normal way, stopping in this what all the natural catastrophes.

Bibliography:

Food and agriculture organization of the united nations. Weighing the GMO arguments. http://www.fao.org/english/newsroom/focus/2003/gmo7.htm

Genetic Science learning center. Genetically Modified Foods: http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/science/gmfoods/

Monsanto page. http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/biotech-safety-gmo-advantages.aspx

Organic Authority: http://www.organicauthority.com/foodie-buzz/eight-reasons-gmos-are-bad-for-you.html

Climate change, human or natural problematic? – Martin Lozano Báez & Edwin Moreno Carreño

Multiple aspects, are those that have been discussed about the situation in a much-discussed topic, yet controversial, such as climate change. However, for this time the meaning of the concept itself will be treated; different causes whether natural or anthropogenic, through the diversity of approaches that have emerged from the question now What most influences factor in climate change, natural or human ?. It will also be evident as whether appearance is the cause of the greatest influence, there is a large number of consequences of this phenomenon acrecenta affecting every aspect or area of ​​that social network called, society. After that we will seek to enunciate as eventhough there an imaginary distance and ignorance of the subject, the human being is also capable of exerting a positive influence on their peers, based on a consumption aware and care elements such as light or water, which naturally along with other components that regulate balance should be present throughout the globe.

So according to this, it is pertinent to capture the very meaning of this problem which is also seen as a natural process. Climate change as scientific historian Naomi Oreskes is “the modification or alteration of the climate, which in turn has a history according to levels, both regional and global” (Oreskes, 2004). This also occurs on multiple meteorological parameters such as temperature, atmosphere, pressure, precipitation, cloud cover, among others that are influenced by the phenomenon that is constantly growing. Moreover, there has been an element of ongoing discussion, question the fact or factor that aspect has the greatest impact on climate change. According to Professor of the University of North Texas Gerald “This process occurs due to causes, both natural and anthropogenic, natural refer to the latitude, altitude, distance from the sea, ocean currents, among others. And anthropogenic refer to human action and its impact within the climate “(North, 1988). It should be noted that despite the diversity of discussions, in search of the determinant of climate change, is the human being who in contemporary times, it has also greater responsibility and greater power of transformation within a process that accelerated some enunciate as something purely natural.

However as a reader, you may be questioned about the reason why it has been said that climate change is due to natural factors. For this, the teacher and scientist John Houghton outlined some of the relevant factors, within this climate change, which went instead classified as external and internal influences, with the first three, external, to continue later with the inmates. Among these “solar variability, and its cycles of radiation, energy providers to the atmosphere. Were Orbital variation and its periodic oscillations; and the impact of external agents such as meteorites “(Houghton, 2001). Similarly it enunciated to internal, as a result of the foregoing acting with a chaotic character and therefore not systematic. These include the geographical position, which responds to the climatic conditions of a specific area are; the balance of the components present in the atmosphere and ocean currents and their role in regulating temperature. In addition to those anthropogenic factor, it is part of these internal influences that began with techniques deforestation forest to be converted into territories of culture, as well as excessive emissions of CO2 and methane, after the popularization of ranching; which would respond to the contemporary dynamics of a giddy consumerism that seeks to generate multiple false needs that are ultimately unnecessary.

Even when there is a 97% of consensus between the scientists thinking that humans cause climate change, there is a counterpart who thinks that this climate change is just caused by natural reasons. They are called denialists. How to object an ugly, clear and obvious truth? People with this ideology used to be financed by several big firms that have profits damaging the environment, for that reason is pretty common to see debates or interviews in mass Medias as Fox News, NBC or CNN. Their arguments are really shameful and they always try to convince by giving narrative examples. One of them is that it is just a natural cycle, but if we take a look to the scientific evidence we will see that natural cycles associated with climate change in the past were most by cold temperature. This makes manmade climate change much worse than naturally occurring climate change; another denialist argument is that global warming has more to do with the sun than the earth. Here we can say that even if the sun have a role, it is not likely that our own activities are helping the situation. Anthropogenic activity combined with solar activity would generate even higher rates of warming.

Caused by humans or by natural reasons, consequences of climate change every day are much more evident. Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters in the last century; global temperature have risen since 1880; the oceans have absorbed much of the increase in heat with the top 700 meters of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969; The green land and artic ice sheets have decreased in mass; there has been glacial retreats; the carbon dioxide content of earth oceans has been increasing since 1750, provoking this acidification of the oceans. All this consequences have been affecting human beings and every living being, particularly via extreme events. Nowadays there are more events caused by high temperature levels and fewer events caused by low temperature levels.

According to the above and taking into account the different consequences caused by both natural and human reasons, and despite going against negative forecasts, in which the progressive degeneration climate is evident; There is the possibility of building an alteration or change that has a positive connotation, within this environmental problem. And it is the role of the human being and his meddling within it, which transformed again favorably the processes related to climate and its variations. This because within the same daily has generated negative influence towards the globe and will be in it an awakening of consciousness, a natural consciousness that will change that issue and taking into account the power exercised by each share will be achieved she executed individually or collectively.

Bibliography:

Oreskes, Naomi (2004), Beyond the ivory tower, The scientific consensus on climate change.

Crowley, Thomas J; North Gerald R. (1988), Abrupt climate change and extinction events in earth history

IPCC (2001), J. T. Houghton, Climate change 2001: the scientific basis

The Impact of Climate Change in Latin America – Michelle Silva

Climate change in developing countries is a development issue. There is a tendency to think that the fight against climate change is a thing of the richest and most polluting countries, but choosing the model on which a nation progresses is key

-Claudio Alatorre[1]

According to Erick Fernandes, World Bank Adviser for Climate Change and Natural Resource Management, the global climate is changing, so the regions must adapt in order to extend their flexibility to the changes. Fernandes explains that, “preparing for the disasters of today is the first step in adapting to the disasters of tomorrow”.

Climate change is a clear threat for Latin America, the region doesn’t have much to do with the formation of this issue, but it’s an important part of the solution. The challenges posed by climate change are significant for the development. The political, economic and social costs of climate change make this one of the most important areas for the decision makers. The projections for the region under a scenario of four degrees are catastrophic, for example, it is expected that the Amazon basin will experience extreme drought, the Andean glaciers will be gone by the end of this century, the glacial melt will increase flood risk and then will end up in a drought that affect communities that depend on it, among others. Also, the hurricanes could become more frequent and more powerful and the level of the sea could rise one meter, causing devastating effects, especially in the Caribbean.

Given the above, a four degree world would mean that Rio de Janeiro and Barranquilla would have to deal with a massive increase of 1.4 meters in the sea level. Therefore, it is important to face up the effects of a four degree world. The region has to prevent deforestation, work to reduce air pollution in cities, and emphasize the climate-friendly solutions. The largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the world must show decisive leadership when it comes to solving the climate change crisis. However, Latin America should not wait to see what other countries are doing and act on it’s own.

The region is doing a lot to face climate change. Chile for example, issued an non-conventional renewable energy that aims to produce 20 percent of the country’s electricity from renewable sources by 2015. Mexico, set itself the goal to reach 35 percent renewable energy by 2024, Costa Rica decided to launch the first World Bank CO², an entity that does not trade with money but with titles of carbon dioxide. A project  in its efforts to become carbon neutral in 2021 and Brazil demonstrated leadership by reducing rates of deforestation in the amazon by 77% since 2004.

In this sense, we can see that many countries in the region have demonstrated their willingness to act and implement climate change solutions that are used worldwide. Similarly, Latin America became a benchmark for innovation, focusing on investment in clean energy and conservation programs in forest combining advanced technology with the knowledge of experts.It should be noted, that Latin America is not alone in promoting these programs, there are cooperation structures able to support action programs in different countries. Considering the cases discussed above, you can see that it is possible to improve the success and ensure a region able to minimize risk and maximize future adaptation to climate change.

Latin America has retained more forests than any other region, which is the most biodiverse region in the world and also has the largest reserves of fresh water. However, the graph we can see the potential impacts of climate change in 2050, which may affect biodivesity, there could be a risk of desertification, negative effects on fishing and agriculture, changes in ecosystems, among others. Therefore it is important to act now. Latin American leaders are developing initiatives to mitigate or adapt to the effects of climate change. And so, even in times of global uncertainty, it is evident that the region contributes to become an important part of the solution to a global threat. They are also aware of this reality and are not waiting for others to take the first step to change something.

Finally, the countries of the region have played a very active role in international negotiations related to this issue. At the same time, some policies of the countries of the region are interesting initiatives in renewable energy and energy efficiency and economic instruments for reducing carbon emissions or for the protection and sustainable use of biodiversity and renewable natural resources. It is clear that Latin America will not stay with arms crossed, although global agreements are still inefficient, the region wants to have a more balanced and sustainable future and achieve positive changes in the environment for future generations.

[1] Climate change specialist at the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB)

Bibliography:

García, Cristina (2014). América Latina analiza cómo abordar cambio climático y desarrollo. Retrieved from: http://www.eltiempo.com/estilo-de-vida/ciencia/america-latina-analiza-como-abordar-cambio-climatico-y-desarrollo-/14169736

Falkner, R, et al, “International Climate Policy after Copenhagen: Towards a ‘Building Blocks’ Approach”, Global Policy, Vol. 1 Issue 3, October 2010

Familiar, Jorge (2014). “Impacto del Cambio Climático en América Latina y el Caribe: cómo hacer frente a la nueva realidad climática”. Retrieved from: http://www.bancomundial.org/es/news/speech/2014/12/02/climate-change-impacts-in-latin-america-and-the-caribbean-confronting-the-new-climate-normal

Familiar, Jorge (2014). Cambio climático: A. Latina no se queda de brazos cruzados. Retrieved from: http://www.portafolio.co/opinion/analisis-cambio-climatico-america-latina

Climate Change: Is Latin America prepared for temperatures to rise 4 degrees?, The World Bank (2012). Retrieved from: http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2012/11/19/climate-change-4-degrees-latin-america-preparation

Monsanto: why is it a successful company of GMOs? – Natalia Arboleda & Daniela Garnica

Genetically modified organisms have become an important subject due to the controversial debate of his use. A group of citizens believe is appropriate to accept GMOs since they present a better product. In the other hand, others argue the biotechnology industry design products only for its own profit. In the central dispute is an American famous company called Monsanto that has grown tremendously in the biotechnology field earning millions of dollars. However, Monsanto has been criticized for damaging the environment and presenting products that have had negative consequences in living beings. Despite this, the company continues working with GMOs in different parts of the world. There are two important reasons why Monsanto is a successful company.

Firstly, Monsanto is an American company. This is crucial taking into account the general acceptance of GMOs in the United States. For instance, in Europe the society has a different perspective. In 2010 the majority of GM crops were planted in United States that evidence the huge market of genetically modified organisms. This reflects the majority of Americans do not put much attention if a product has been genetically modified. In fact, “In the United States genetically engineered crops have been sold since 1994 and in 2004 were already planted on 47.6 million hectares (soybean, maize, cotton and canola), confirming United States’ role as the world leader in agro-biotechnology” (Nations, 2005) In Europe GM crops holds only 0,119 percent of the agricultural land. Europeans recognize the major consequences of the GM products adopting for natural products.

Additionally, in the US the authorizations of biotech products are easy to have and a long processes is not necessary. US know the GMOs is a million dollar business so, they have to promote it as much as they can. Indeed, “…U.S farmers grow huge quantities of bulk commercial crops, and U.S farming is large scale, capital intensive, and highly competitive, so huge profits could be made quickly with approved GMOs” (Harthorn & Oaks, 2003) In contrast, Europeans have established a lot of regulations since 2000s. One example of this is the European Food Safety Authority that was created to provide scientific advice regarding food.

Also, we can see the difference between US and Europe respecting the general opinion of the society. Only 1% of the Americans were concerned with the issue of unlabeled GM products. This is not a subject with significance, which reflects it is highly probable they do not choose a product if it has been genetically modified or not. On the other hand, the majority of Europeans considered GM products as harmful. As Jeremy Rifkin stated: “ The European public worries about the potential unforeseen environmental impacts of introducing large volumes of genetically modified organisms into the biosphere. They also worry about the possible consequences to human health that might result” (Rifkin, 2004)

It is clear Europe is more skeptical regarding GM products. In this area exist strong cultural traditions that are formed with natural products. Europeans consider genetic modification will spread a movement of fast food that means, low quality food. Generally, GM foods are seen as an industrial production, which causes that Europeans take the path of natural.

Additionally, there is a solid relationship between food and culture. In Italy, food is part of the national identity so; they cannot take GM products as part of their national identity. Thus, a “slow food” movement has started to promote real cooking. Consequently, we can identify Europeans have a more critical perspective on GMOs; they are more concerned about cultural values whereas US, seems to be focus in the profit. Monsanto has been benefited from the great reception of GMOs in the United States, which would be different in Europe where Monsanto would have many barriers that would impede their development.

Secondly, Monsanto has built a strong role in the biotechnology field that enables the company to be a pioneer.

Monsanto takes more than a century on the market giving reputation as a most avowed multinational companies.

Monsanto won the 2013 World Food Prize Laureates, which recognized their individual breakthrough achievements to found, develop and apply modern agricultural biotechnology.

These studies and their research helped farmers to get better and improve their crops with enhanced yields; this consist in resistance to insects, the objective of investigation it´s create the ability to tolerate changes in the weather and in the climate.

The World Food Price avouch the contributions their work has made in advancing agriculture, in biotechnology and food production.

Monsanto previous award positioned as the leading and most experienced company in the field of biotechnology. It´s the most important enterprise in this topics, practically Monsanto represent the 90% of genetically engineered crop manufactures; has the corporate monopoly, the other 10 % have it the other companies like Bayer, Syngenta and Dupont.

As we said in the initial part, Monsanto is an american company. We can see in the practic, when “more than 90 percent of the soybeans grown in the United States contains Monsanto’s Roundup Ready gene, which makes the crop resistant to the herbicide Roundup or generic versions known as glyphosate. That allows farmers to spray their fields with the herbicide, killing weeds while leaving the soybeans intact.” (New York Times, 2012)

Monsanto wants with biotechnology provide a balanced meal accesible for everyone, and do it in a sustainable way. Monsanto thinks with biotechnology it´s easier to develop creative solutions to make most effective the cultives, crops and get better the precision agriculture.

Monsanto is aware of over population, it wants to ensure enough food for the future in a sustainable way and overcoming the challenges.

Monsanto Works in biotechnology with farmers, consumers, universities, government agencies and nonprofit organizations around the world, developing differents perspectives focusing in global challenges for make an accesible plate for people.

In order to this, Monsanto is characterized for be a pioneer in a biotechnology.

“We are focused empowering farmers to produce more from their land while conserving more of natural resources such as water and energy. They do with leading seed brands in crops like corn, cotton, oilseeds, fruits and vegetables” (Monsanto, website)

Bibliography

Pollack, A (2012) Monsanto Wins Big Award in a Biotech Patent Case. In New York Times

Stephan, H. Revisiting the transatlantic divergence over GMOs Toward a cultural-political analysis.

Harthorn, B., & Oaks, L. (2003). Risk, Culture, and Health Inequality. United States: Greenwood.

Monsanto. Discover more of us. Website

Nations, U. (2005). International Trade in GMOs and GM Products. Geneva.

Rifkin, J. (2004). The European Dream. Great Britain : Polity Press .