African heads of state recently gathered in Kenya to discuss the impact of global warming on the sensitive continent in Laos.
In the second week of October, representatives of countries and green organizations gathered in Nairobi (Kenya) to discuss the consequences and effects of global warming and a follow-up plan to the Kyoto Convention. On the margins of the convergence, of course, the severe impact that warming has on African countries emerges: floods, periods of drought, expansion of desert areas, a decrease in the flow of rivers and a drop in the level of lakes, all of which are attributed (in a significant part) to global warming, the immediate accompanying results are: a negative effect on relations between "neighbors ", violent frictions - in Sudan, Chad, Somalia, Uganda, Burundi and other countries. Countries where the level of greenhouse gas emissions is one of the lowest in the world, but the impact on their residents due to climate change is perhaps the most severe, a situation opposite to what logic should have dictated.
Some of the negative effects can be neutralized by various means: the development of agricultural crops adapted to the conditions, the development and implementation of processing methods, afforestation of areas where forests have been created, proper treatment of water and wastewater. All these cost a lot of money, a resource that is not found in Africa, so how do you stop the deterioration? Where do you get funding from?
We all hear about and are familiar with the systems of donations, help and food supply, by institutions and people, help to the needy in African countries, help that perpetuates the poor, as the saying is known: "To provide food, it is better to give a fishing rod and not to distribute fish", but "rods" also cost money , and thus again a dependency will be created...
There is a (at least partial) correct, logical and acceptable solution: the Kyoto Convention... according to the Convention there is trading in emissions, African countries being part of "developing countries" are not bound by the Convention and therefore cannot trade either.
The Western countries developed their economy while harming the global environment, the Kyoto treaty came to allow curbing the harm. The participation of African countries in emissions trading means that Western countries will be able to sell excess emissions to African countries, pay African countries for clean air, a payment that means that African countries will have an immediate financial interest in preserving forests and planting more forests, an interest in monitoring sustainable logging and open areas Reserved.
The payment will allow proper treatment of the garbage, and an inspector who will prevent the "import" of toxic garbage from a western country (see the case of the toxic waste in the Ivory Coast). The payment will enable the restoration of means of production (industrial, agricultural, etc.) and thus
Restore the economy of African countries.
It would be correct to establish a pan-African mechanism that would allow the continent to rehabilitate its inhabitants and its environment through an economic system - integrated into the economic system of the Kyoto Treaty, a system that would sell clean air to the (industrial) world.
Dr. Assaf Rosenthal
Tour guide/leader in Africa and South America
0505640309 / 077-6172298 for details Tel.
Email assaf@eilatcity.co.il
A compilation of Dr. Assaf Rosenthal's articles on the Hidan site (old version of the site)
One response
Hahaha.. And I thought only the Israelis knew how to do combos.
Which means that the western countries can continue to pollute the environment at an increasing rate
In the future it will be possible to define and classify the oceans and Antarctica as areas with low emissions
And in such a way it will be possible to continue to pollute the environment as if with approval.