{"id":84,"date":"2009-11-21T19:48:53","date_gmt":"2009-11-21T19:48:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/imediata.org\/?p=84"},"modified":"2009-11-21T19:55:45","modified_gmt":"2009-11-21T19:55:45","slug":"a-injustica-dos-creditos-de-carbono-compensatorios-por-vandana-shiva","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/imediata.org\/?p=84","title":{"rendered":">>A injusti\u00e7a dos cr\u00e9ditos de carbono compensat\u00f3rios, por Vandana Shiva"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"null\"
\nOs esquemas dos cr\u00e9ditos de carbono compensat\u00f3rios oneram duplamente os pa\u00edses pobres
\nFonte: The New Statesman de 18 de Setembro de 2009<\/p>\n

Tradu\u00e7\u00e3o: Ag\u00eancia Imediata <\/strong><\/p>\n

Agora, a ci\u00eancia da mudan\u00e7a clim\u00e1tica \u00e9 bem clara, embora a pol\u00edtica continue muito turva. Historicamente, os maiores poluidores tem sido os pa\u00edses ricos, industrializados, de modo que fazia sentido que eles pagassem o pre\u00e7o mais alto. O Protocolo de Kyoto, adotado em dezembro de 1997, estabeleceu limites obrigat\u00f3rios para que aqueles pa\u00edses reduzissem at\u00e9 2012 suas emiss\u00f5es de gases de efeito estufa em 5%, em m\u00e9dia, em confronto com os n\u00edveis de 1990. Mas em 2007, os n\u00edveis de emiss\u00e3o dos EUA foram 16 por cento mais altos que os n\u00edveis de 1990. O American Clean Energy and Security Act, aprovado em junho, obriga os EUA a reduzirem suas emiss\u00f5es at\u00e9 2020 em 17 por cento abaixo dos n\u00edveis de 2005, mas isso representa apenas 4 por cento abaixo dos n\u00edveis de 1990. <\/p>\n

O Protocolo de Kyoto permite que as na\u00e7\u00f5es industrializadas negociem suas respectivas aloca\u00e7\u00f5es de emiss\u00f5es de carbono e invistam em projetos de mitiga\u00e7\u00e3o dos efeitos de carbono em pa\u00edses em desenvolvimento, em troca das chamadas Certified Emission Reduction Units (Unidades Certificadas de Redu\u00e7\u00e3o de Emiss\u00e3o), que eles podem utilizar para cumprir seus alvos de redu\u00e7\u00e3o. Mas a negocia\u00e7\u00e3o dessas emiss\u00f5es ou \u201coffsetting\u201d, em outras palavras, a compra de cr\u00e9ditos de carbono compensat\u00f3rios, na realidade n\u00e3o \u00e9 um mecanismo para reduzir as emiss\u00f5es. Como demostrou o Breakthrough Institute, um think tank sobre o meio-ambiente, o offset de emiss\u00f5es conforme a nova lei dos EUA permite que o crescimento das emiss\u00f5es nos EUA continue como de costume at\u00e9 2030, \u201clevando-nos a quest\u00e3o: qual \u00e9 o \u201climite\u201d neste processo de \u201climite e negocia\u00e7\u00e3o\u201d? <\/p>\n

Esses esquemas t\u00eam mais a ver com a privatiza\u00e7\u00e3o da atmosfera que com a preven\u00e7\u00e3o da mudan\u00e7a clim\u00e1tica; os direitos de emiss\u00e3o estabelecidos pelo Protocolo de Kyoto s\u00e3o v\u00e1rias vezes superiores aos n\u00edveis necess\u00e1rios para prevenir um aumento de 2\u00baC nas temperatures globais. As aloca\u00e7\u00f5es para o Reino Unido, por exemplo, totalizaram 736 milh\u00f5es de toneladas de di\u00f3xido de carbono em um per\u00edodo de tr\u00eas anos, o que significa a aus\u00eancia de qualquer cumprimento do empenho estipulado. E os direitos de emiss\u00e3o geram lucros extraordin\u00e1rios aos poluidores. <\/p>\n

O Emissions Trading Scheme (Esquema de Negocia\u00e7\u00e3o das Emiss\u00f5es) concedeu provis\u00f5es 10 por cento superiores aos n\u00edveis de emiss\u00e3o de 2005. Isso se traduziu em 150 milh\u00f5es de toneladas de super\u00e1vits de cr\u00e9ditos de carbono, o que, aos pre\u00e7os de 2005, corresponde a lucros de mais de 1 bilh\u00e3o de d\u00f3lares. <\/p>\n

A negocia\u00e7\u00e3o de cr\u00e9ditos de carbono utiliza os recursos das pessoas mais pobres e das regi\u00f5es mais pobres como \u201coffsets\u201d ou \u201ccompensa\u00e7\u00f5es\u201d para os pa\u00edses mais ricos: \u00e9 de 50 a 200 vezes mais econ\u00f4mico plantar \u00e1rvores em pa\u00edses pobres, para absor\u00e7\u00e3o de CO2 do que \u00e9 reduzir as emiss\u00f5es na fonte. Em outras palavras, o \u00f4nus da \u201climpeza atmosf\u00e9rica\u201d recai sobre os mais pobres. De uma perspectiva de mercado, isso poderia parecer eficiente, mas em termos de justi\u00e7a energ\u00e9tica, \u00e9 perverso sobrecarregar os pobres duas vezes \u2013 primeiro, com o impacto da polui\u00e7\u00e3o de CO2 na forma de desastres clim\u00e1ticos e depois, com a \u201ccompensa\u00e7\u00e3o\u201d da polui\u00e7\u00e3o causada pelos ricos. <\/p>\n

Em uma economia globalizada, tratar a polui\u00e7\u00e3o atrav\u00e9s do estabelecimento de n\u00edveis de emiss\u00f5es espec\u00edficas para cada pa\u00eds \u00e9 inapropriado por duas raz\u00f5es. Em primeiro lugar, nem todos os cidad\u00e3os de um pa\u00eds contribuem igualmente para a polui\u00e7\u00e3o. Como resultado da China se ter tornado a f\u00e1brica do mundo, suas emiss\u00f5es de CO2 superam \u00e0s dos EUA, colocando-a em primeiro lugar na lista dos poluidores. Em 2006, a China produziu 6,1 bilh\u00f5es de toneladas CO2; os EUA produziram 5,75 bilh\u00f5es de toneladas. Mas nos EUA, as emiss\u00f5es per capita foram de 19 toneladas, comparadas a 4,6 toneladas na China. E boa parte do CO2 da China deveriam ser contabilizadas como emiss\u00f5es dos EUA, pois a China produz bens para empresas dos EUA que os EUA v\u00e3o consumir. A Wal-Mart, por exemplo, importa da China a maior parte dos bens que vende. <\/p>\n

De maneira similar, enquanto somente 2,13 por cento das emiss\u00f5es globais emanam da economia dom\u00e9stica do Reino Unido, h\u00e1 CO2 gerado em nome do Reino Unido na China, na \u00cdndia, na \u00c1frica e em outros lugares. A \u201cquota\u201d global de carbono causada pelas empresas do Reino Unido \u00e9 desconhecida, mas as estimativas sugerem que as emiss\u00f5es associadas com o consumo mundial dos 100 produtos principais do Reino Unido correspondem a 12-15 por cento do total mundial. <\/p>\n

Gra\u00e7as \u00e0 industrializa\u00e7\u00e3o, as popula\u00e7\u00f5es mais pobres nas \u00e1reas rurais da China e da \u00cdndia est\u00e3o perdendo terra e meio de sustento. Qualific\u00e1-los de poluidores \u00e9 duplamene criminoso. Quando as empresas de todo o mundo terceirizam para a China ou a \u00cdndia, elas precisam ser responsabilizadas pela polui\u00e7\u00e3o que exportam ao exterior. <\/p>\n

A regula\u00e7\u00e3o atrav\u00e9s da negocia\u00e7\u00e3o dos cr\u00e9ditos de carbono \u00e9 como tocar lira enquanto Roma arde. Os governos e a ONU deveriam impor uma taxa de carbono para as corpora\u00e7\u00f5es, tanto pela produ\u00e7\u00e3o \u2013 onde quer que as ind\u00fastrias estejam localizadas \u2013 quanto pelo transporte, que o Protocolo de Kyoto n\u00e3o contabiliza diretamente. Incentivos para a energia renov\u00e1vel tamb\u00e9m s\u00e3o essenciais. Deparamo-nos com uma dura escolha: podemos destruir as condi\u00e7\u00f5es para a vida humana no planeta apoiando-nos no fundamentalismo do \u201clivre mercado\u201d, ou podemos assegurar nosso futuro trazendo o com\u00e9rcio para dentro do contexto das leis da sustentabilidade ecol\u00f3gica e da justi\u00e7a social.
\n\u00a9 2009 The New Statesman<\/p>\n

Vandana Shiva \u00e9 uma feminista indiana e ativista em prol do meio-ambiente. Ela \u00e9 a fundadora e diretora do Navdanya Research Foundation for Science, Technology, and Ecology.<\/em>
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

Offset Schemes Require the Poorest to be Twice Burdened
\nby Vandana Shiva
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

Published on Friday, September 18, 2009 by The New Statesman
\nThe Injustice of Carbon Offsets<\/p>\n

The science of climate change is now clear, but the politics is very muddy. Historically, the major polluters were the rich, industrialised countries, so it made sense that they should pay the highest price. The Kyoto Protocol, adopted in December 1997, set binding targets for these countries to reduce their greenhouse-gas emissions by 5 per cent on average against 1990 levels by 2012. But by 2007, America’s greenhouse-gas levels were 16 per cent higher than 1990 levels. The American Clean Energy and Security Act, which was passed in June, commits the US to reduce emissions to 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020, yet this is just 4 per cent below 1990 levels.<\/p>\n

The Kyoto Protocol also allows industrialised countries to trade their allocation of carbon emissions, and to invest in carbon mitigation projects
\nin developing countries in exchange for Certified Emission Reduction Units, which they can use to meet reduction targets. But emissions trading, or offsetting, is not in fact a mechanism to reduce emissions. As the Breakthrough Institute, an environmental think tank, has pointed out, the emissions offset in the American act would allow “business as usual” growth in US emissions until 2030, “leading one to wonder: where’s the ‘cap’ in ‘cap and trade’?”.<\/p>\n

Such schemes are more about privatising the atmosphere than about preventing climate change; the emissions rights established by the Kyoto Protocol are several times higher than the levels needed to prevent a 2\u00b0C rise in global temperatures. Allocations for the UK, for example, added up to 736 million tonnes of carbon dioxide over three years, meaning no reduction commitments. And emissions rights generate super profits for polluters.<\/p>\n

The Emissions Trading Scheme granted allowances of 10 per cent more than 2005 emission levels. This translated to 150 million tonnes of surplus carbon credits, which at 2005 prices translates into profits of more than $1bn.<\/p>\n

Carbon trading uses the resources of poorer people and poorer regions as “offsets” for richer countries: it is between 50 and 200 times cheaper to plant trees in poor countries to absorb CO2 than it is to reduce emissions at source. In other words, the burden of “clean-up” falls on the poor. From a market perspective, this might appear efficient, but in terms of energy justice, it is perverse to burden the poor twice – first with the impact of CO2 pollution in the form of climate disasters and then with offsetting the pollution of the rich.<\/p>\n

In a globalised economy, addressing pollution by setting emissions levels for each country is inappropriate for two reasons. First, not all the citizens of a country contribute to pollution. As a result of China becoming the world’s factory, its CO2 emissions outstrip those of the US, putting it in first place worldwide. In 2006, China produced 6.1 billion tonnes of CO2; the US produced 5.75 billion tonnes. But in the US, emissions were 19 tonnes of CO2 per capita, compared with 4.6 tonnes in China. And much of China’s CO2 could be counted as US emissions, because China is producing goods for US companies that America will consume. Wal-Mart, for example, procures most of what it sells from China.<\/p>\n

Similarly, while only 2.13 per cent of the world’s emissions emanate from the UK’s domestic economy, CO2 is created on the UK’s behalf in China, India, Africa and elsewhere. The global carbon footprint of UK companies is not known, but estimates suggest that emissions associated with worldwide consumption of the top 100 UK products accounts for between 12 and 15 per cent of the world total.<\/p>\n

Thanks to industrialisation, the rural poor in China and India are losing out on their land and livelihood. To count them as polluters is doubly criminal. When global firms outsource to China or India, they need to be responsible for the pollution they carry overseas.<\/p>\n

Regulating by carbon trading is like fiddling as Rome burns. Governments and the UN should impose a carbon tax on corporations, both for production – wherever their facilities are located – and for transport, which the Kyoto Protocol does not account for directly. Incentives for renewable energy are also essential. We face a stark choice: we can destroy the conditions for human life on the planet by clinging to “free-market” fundamentalism, or we can secure our future by bringing commerce within the laws of ecological sustainability and social justice.
\n\u00a9 2009 The New Statesman<\/p>\n

Vandana Shiva is an Indian feminist and environmental activist. She is the founder\/director of Navdanya Research Foundation for Science, Technology, and Ecology.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Os esquemas dos cr\u00e9ditos de carbono compensat\u00f3rios oneram duplamente os pa\u00edses pobres Fonte: The New Statesman de 18 de Setembro de 2009 Tradu\u00e7\u00e3o: Ag\u00eancia Imediata Agora, a ci\u00eancia da mudan\u00e7a clim\u00e1tica \u00e9 bem clara, embora a pol\u00edtica continue muito turva. Historicamente, os maiores poluidores tem sido os pa\u00edses ricos, industrializados, de modo que fazia sentido […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":33,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-84","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-biodiversidade-imediata"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/imediata.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/84","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/imediata.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/imediata.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/imediata.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/33"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/imediata.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=84"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/imediata.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/84\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/imediata.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=84"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/imediata.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=84"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/imediata.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=84"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}