In Search of Noah's Ark The memorandum on the production of ethanol and biocombustibles from the March Bush-Lula encounter is causing concern in the camp of the ecologically minded. The Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes, (IPCC ), clearly stated that the Earth is rushing towards a new equilibrium with the rising temperatures, which would provoke worldwide weather disturbances, devastation of biodiversity, and the risk of extermination of thousands on thousands of human beings. This alarming situation creates new responsibilities for the governments of the world, to seek strategies and adaptations to mitigate its negative effects. Everywhere voices are heard that speak of the urgency of creating a world power center to collectively face world problems, and also of the necessity of a true revolution in the ways of production and consumption. Otherwise, in this very century we could experience the same destiny as did the dinosaurs. After being the sole sovereigns for 133 million years on the planet, they disappeared 65 million years ago, incapable of adapting to the new state of the Earth provoked by the impact of a huge meteor, probably in what is now the Caribbean. The Bush-Lula memorandum seeks an alternative to the dominant energy model, but not an alternative to social structure, one which is less voracious of energy, and more respectful of the Earth. What Bush and Lula are seeking is a Noah's ark that can save the prevailing system. Now is a good time to ask: can this system be saved, and does it deserve to be saved; is it worth it? Does not this system, with its voracious exploitation, without restraint, of all the resources of nature, bear primary responsibility for global warming? The IPCC does not mention this. Meticulous projections reveal that the dominant worldwide system, moved by oil and with an economy based on competition, rather than cooperation, only functions satisfactorily for a mere 1,600 million persons. And we are already some 6,500 million. What will happen to the rest? In The Future of Life, Edward Wilson, the great specialist in biodiversity , clearly stated that if we want to make universal the well being that prevails in the industrialized countries, we would need three more planets equal to this Earth. Our way of living is simply not sustainable. With climate change, it has reached its end, in both meanings of "end." It has realized its potential, (end as an accomplished objective), and is also reaching its end (end as in death): condemned to disappear. Therefore, what is at stake is not an alternative to the energy model, but an alternative to the model of production and consumption, in a word, a civilizing alternative. What use it is to redesign the Brazilian map of production so as to maintain the old system, if it is already in its last days? The Bush-Lula memorandum makes not a single mention of this point. Those who are called upon to formulate alternatives to the system are not so much the experts and the economists, as the thinkers from the life and Earth sciences; bearers of a new dream capable of building a Noah's ark that really includes all and not just a few. Time is against us. It would be desirable for the Lula government to have, as exists in other countries, a center for studying this systemic crisis and its possible solutions. Together with many lovers of the Earth, we make this challenge here. Free translation from the Spanish sent by
|