Sustainable Developed World?

by Laércio Bruno Filho

The leadership of rich developed countries, does not want to set effective targets to reduce the greenhouse gases. Countries like Japan and Norway are taking isolated alone risk positions in the annex 1 group. Despite the scientists high-alert arguing that a catastrophic scenario will happen with the additional 2 degrees centigrade.

Effective Goals
Scientists say and insist that the reduction should be up to 40% reduction in GHG emissions standards in 1990 year-base during periods from 2012 until the year 2020. This means that during this period the whole world, especially developed countries should reduce its emissions by 40%, taking as basis the emissions measured in the year 1990.Finnally after much discussion, there is an initial concordance, not yet formalized around the establishment of 23% reduction on the GHG.

This means a considerable reduction, but still far from the required 40%. To reducing emissions, could means lower production, consumption, different "way of life" patterns and that developed countries do not want and argues that this assumption could also generate unemployment, recession and risks to their economy.

Reducing slightly their emissions.
USA, for example, despite all the uproar caused by Obama's plan presents a simplistic reduction of only 4% compared to 1990, which must still go through internal approval of U.S. Congress, while the Kyoto treaty proposes 5.2%. The U.S. did not sign; they will not and do not want its continuity.

Important to always remember that GHG emissions and its consequence global warming are the result of the industrial revolution originated in the northern hemisphere in the second half of the 19th century. It was from this event that some nations had started and consolidated their development process and the world is set geopolitically.

The position of the emerging countries
On the other hand, emerging countries like Brazil, China and India, are being strongly pressured by the same community, designed to assume significant reduction targets of GHG emissions. They are directly charged that to leverage their growth and become developed countries, further pollute the world.
The message is clear.

Brazil, China and India do not agree to take on reduction targets, as this would mean sacrificing further development and growth, stagnating their economy and keeping them in eternal dependence of the developed world.


This is the big deadlock for years ago, only now, with the entire world's attention focused on this meeting in Copenhagen; it comes out and gets its due proportion. What is really serious.

This scenario shows how sustainable is the developed world!

There is already a current of opinion forming in the direction that this will be a meeting between the parties where the willing of the developed world will prevail over the others.

And the world will end without a political set between the nations to appease the global warming and its consequences that will harm undoubtedly the poorest countries.

We can not agree with this! The meeting in Copenhagen has to produce a balanced and positive postulate for the planet.