miércoles, noviembre 28, 2007

Emisiones de CO2=corrupción+mafia

Por Luis I. Gómez

Ésta y no otra es la ecuación que se esconde tras el histerismo climático al que tan ardientemente se ha apuntado la clase política hispana. Los del PP dicen que es un problema importante, Zapatero no duda en consagrarlo como “la más importante amenaza para la vida sobre el planeta”, o algo así. Señores, olvídense de las discusiones científicas sobre tablas, gráficas, temperaturas, concentraciones… de lo que se trata aquí es de lo de siempre: PASTA, DINERO, PODER. Y no es que yo tenga nada nada en contra de la pasta, o del poder. Pero hay medios lícitos para conseguir dinero y rasgos de la personalidad que pueden facilitar el acceso al poder. Está claro que a nuestros políticos lo lícito les trae al pairo y de lo segundo apenas mendigando consiguen algo.

Corrupción (fuente):

The EU’s emissions trading scheme (ETS) has been accused of systematic double counting of carbon allowances by a new report released last week. The study from green business think-tank E3 International claimed that around 18m allowances had been double counted, making it impossible for independent observers to verify the environmental benefits of the scheme.

Andy Kerr, director of E3, said that the practice of double counting was permitted under the regulations governing the ETS, which allows national registries to reissue the allowances submitted to it back into the market. But he warned that this approach made it impossible for any group other than the administrators running the ETS to assess its environmental integrity and its effectiveness at reducing emissions.

Mafia (fuente):

“I first heard about carbon trading at a conference more than 10 years ago. I got up and said ‘If I was the financial adviser to the Mafia, I would advise them to get into carbon trading.’ Nothing that has happened since then changes my opinion - rather the reverse,” said Mr Leyland.

If you are purchasing carbon credits from, for instance, a forest, the accuracy of measurement is probably something between +/-100%. If it is a tropical forest, it could be minus 150% because there is reasonable evidence that some tropical forests are net emitters of greenhouse gases,” Mr Leyland continued.

“But it gets worse. In between the buyer and seller is an ‘auditor’ who, in theory, can make an accurate judgement as to the quantity of greenhouse gases being traded. He is the direct equivalent of the old inspector of weights and measures or electricity meter reader. If the reading of an electricity meter is fiddled, one party wins and the other party loses. But if an auditor fraudulently states that a forest is absorbing say, 200 tons of carbon dioxide per annum when a more realistic figure might be 100 tons, both parties win. The forest owner wins because he sells more credits. The purchaser of the credits wins because he is out to buy a piece of paper certifying that he purchased carbon credits. If the volume is fiddled upwards, the chances are that the price per tonne will be reduced and, anyway, he probably needs to buy more credits than are available.

Algún allegado al PSOE y al PP que se lo traduzca a los señores Zapatero y Rajoy? Yo, ante el inmenso desprecio con que nos engaña el primero y la irresponsable mediocridad con que se deja engañar el segundo, les he retirado la palabra.

Desde el exilio