Biocombustibles empeoran el cambio climático, concluye estudio científico

Sería uno de los mayores fraudes ambientales de la historia, advierten auditores

Por: Steve Connor (The Independent)

La expansión de cultivos para producir biocombustibles conduce al envío de enormes cantidades de dióxido de carbono a la atmósfera y en nada contribuye a detener el cambio climático o el calentamiento global, según la primera auditoría integral de un presupuesto para ese rubro.

Los científicos han producido evidencia condenatoria, la cual sugiere que los biocombustibles podrían ser uno de los mayores fraudes ambientales, porque en realidad empeoran el calentamiento global al contribuir a las emisiones de dióxido de carbono producido por humanos que supuestamente deben reducirse.

Dos estudios separados, publicados en la revista Science, muestran que los cultivos que hoy se desarrollan para producir alternativas “verdes” a los combustibles basados en el petróleo emiten mucho más dióxido de carbono a la atmósfera del que puede ser absorbido por las plantas.

Los científicos descubrieron que en el caso de algunos cultivos se requerirían varios siglos para pagar la “deuda de carbono” que se genera. Estos costos ambientales no toman en cuenta la destrucción adicional del medio ambiente, por ejemplo la pérdida de biodiversidad causada al desmontar áreas de selva.

“Todos los biocombustibles que usamos hoy destruyen los hábitat, ya sea en forma directa o indirecta. La agricultura global ya produce alimentos para 6 mil millones de personas; producir biocombustible basado en plantas también implicará convertir más tierra a uso agrícola”, advierte Joe Fargione, de la organización privada estadunidense The Nature Conservancy, quien encabezó uno de los estudios.

Los científicos llevaron a cabo un análisis que se había omitido ante la precipitación por cultivar biocombustibles, estimulada por las políticas de Estados Unidos y la Unión Europea, cuyos proponentes han estado ansiosos por exaltar las virtudes de los biocombustibles como alternativa verde a los combustibles fósiles para el transporte.

Ambos estudios observaron la cantidad de dióxido de carbono que se libera cuando una porción de tierra se convierte al cultivo de biocombustibles. Descubrieron que cuando las tierras de turba de Indonesia se convierten en plantaciones de palmera para producir aceite de coco, por ejemplo, se requieren 423 años para pagar la deuda de carbono.

Otro caso nocivo es cuando la selva amazónica se desmonta para convertirla en parcelas para soya. Los científicos descubrieron que se requerirían 319 años de producción de biodiesel a partir de la soya para pagar la deuda de carbono causada por el derribamiento de los árboles.

Tales conversiones de tierra para cultivar maíz y caña de azúcar para biodiesel, o aceite de coco y soya para bioetanol, emiten entre 17 y 420 veces más carbono que el que se ahorra al año por el remplazo de combustibles fósiles, calculan los científicos.

“La pregunta es: ¿vale la pena? El carbono que se pierde al convertir bosques, pastizales y turba, ¿supera al que se ‘ahorra’ al usar biocombustibles en vez de combustibles fósiles?”, expresa el doctor Fargione. “La respuesta es no. Estas áreas naturales almacenan gran cantidad de carbono, así que convertirlas en tierras de cultivo conduce a que se emitan toneladas de carbón a la atmósfera”.

“Al encontrar soluciones al cambio climático, debemos asegurarnos de que el remedio no resulte peor que la enfermedad”, señala Jimmie Powell, integrante del equipo científico de The Nature Conservancy. “No podemos darnos el lujo de desdeñar las consecuencias de convertir tierra para biocombustibles. Hacerlo significa que sin proponérnoslo podríamos promover alternativas peores que los combustibles fósiles. Los hallazgos de estos estudios deben incorporarse en las políticas de emisión de carbono de aquí en adelante”, consideró.

© The Independent

Traducción: Jorge Anaya

Flying clouds the real climate culprit / Volar nubla el verdadero culpable climático

VIEWPOINT
Martin Wright

The aviation industry has become public enemy number one for environmental groups, says Martin Wright. But, he argues in this week's Green Room, they should focus their efforts on "the real elephant in the room" - forest destruction.


Ask some vaguely green people what's the single biggest thing they can do to tackle climate change, and most will respond with a guilty smile: "yes, I know, I should stop flying."

A few brave, selfless souls do just that. But the rest of us are far too used to cheap, quick getaways to kick the habit completely.

There's nothing like a few months of unremitting English mizzle to soften the resolve of the most committed "no flyers".

Environmentalists will always struggle to persuade people to eschew pleasure in favour of the planet. After all, no-one likes being told off for having a good time. Any argument that says, in effect: "save the planet - stay at home in the wet" is hardly going to win hearts and minds.

Sure, there's always the slow train to Provence. But like so much of the Slow Movement (food; travel; life, even), it still reeks of privilege. It's more expensive, it takes (and lasts) longer.

There could be all kinds of ways - from subsidies to sabbaticals - of making it more accessible for those whose only hope of a great escape is an Easyjet south. But for the moment, life in the slow lane is still a velvety green luxury for the favoured few.

So until such time as fuel prices go through the roof, or draconian caps on carbon stifle the market, air travel will remain a seductive option for all but the deepest of greens.

Real carbon culprit

But while we're agonising over our aircraft addiction, we're missing the real "elephant in the living room" of climate change: forest destruction.

It is already the largest single source of carbon emissions after energy, contributing up to 10 times as much as aviation.

The Stern Report, no less, warned that rainforest destruction alone would, in the next four years, release more carbon into the atmosphere than every flight from the dawn of aviation until 2025.

Burning forests produces a particularly nasty double whammy of warming. As they burn, they send vast swathes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. And once they're gone, they can't soak up the carbon from industry, cars and power plants.

But despite all this, people get far more exercised over the evils of aviation than they ever do over forest loss.

This is partly because aviation looms large on those instant "carbon calculators", designed to give a rough-and-ready guide to an individual's impact.

Deforestation, for the most part, doesn't, as it's virtually impossible to quantify individual responsibility for forest loss - unless you happen to be a timber trader or a palm oil planter.

But it's also because the forests are disappearing in "faraway countries": the chainsaws and fires aren't exactly on our doorstep, so it's easy to believe it's nothing to do with us - and there's nothing we can do about it, either.

This is bitterly ironic, because politically and economically it would be much easier to make massive reductions in deforestation than to achieve similar cuts in air travel. And in terms of curbing climate change, that would be massively more effective, too.

Tree hugging

So if we could just persuade people to be as excited about saving forests as they feel guilty about flying, then maybe we'd achieve something.

That means making forest conservation everyone's business - literally. And one of the best ways of doing so is to make the future of forests worth investing in - not just for the planet, but for your own pocket, too.

After all, you don't need complex technical fixes to stop forest destruction. You just have to make trees worth more standing than felled. And with the fate of civilisation cradled in their canopy, they should carry quite a price tag.

On paper, it's a no brainer. By any rational calculation, forests can yield better returns when kept intact than when cleared.

Take their role in protecting watersheds, for example, or their value as a source of fruit, nuts, shade-grown coffee, game and medicinal herbs - even, in some cases, a genuinely sustainable source of high-quality timber.

That's been the basis for a range of initiatives known as "payments for ecological services".

In essence, these are deals between forest communities and "buyers", who benefit from the forest remaining in place - such as towns and cities downstream, or the owners of mines or hydro plants, all of whom depend on the water supply that the forest ensures.

Cool Earth, a charity set up by businessman Johan Eliasch, allows individuals to buy parcels of rainforest - not for their own profit, but to hold them in trust on behalf of local communities, so taking them out of the clutches of the loggers.

It's an intriguing scheme, but it's still driven by charity, not business.

Sound investment

But once you introduce forests' ability to store carbon into the equation, then the balance sheet really starts to shift in their favour.

According to one recent study, most ventures which drive forest destruction - whether logging or for agriculture - generate around $5 (£2.50) for every tonne of carbon released as a result of the forest loss.

Europeans are typically paying up to seven times that amount to offset the same amount of carbon.

And as emissions trading takes off, so the carbon price will rise. One estimate puts the value of greenhouse gas storage in some forests at a healthy $2,200 (£1,100) per hectare.

And it's that which is pricking the interest of the financial markets. Invest in a forest now, and you can expect its value to appreciate substantially over the years - especially since, after the recent UN climate conference in Bali, forest owners can expect to "sell" their benefits on the emerging global carbon markets.

All of a sudden, it opens up the prospect of massive investments from pension funds, drawn to the long-term security which standing forests can provide.

Halving forest destruction by 2030, says the Stern Report, would cost around £10-£15 billion a year - that's roughly the same as we spend on alcohol in Britain alone. It is, in other words, a sum which should be readily available - as long as there's the prospect of a decent return.

The Global Canopy Programme - an alliance of forest scientists - is urging the adoption of a global market in forest carbon credits to help unleash a tide of investment.

Forum for the Future and others are working on schemes for forest-backed bonds; some are predicting the launch of Forest PEPs. Such is the potential value in keeping forests intact that even those masters of the dark arts of finance, the hedge funds, are starting to sniff around.

There are all manner of pitfalls, of course. For some, it smacks of "carbon colonialism".

Others warn that such schemes will inevitably favour wealthy landowners, who can cope with all the complex legal processes involved, rather than forest peoples themselves.

Then there's the question of proving that a particular stretch of forest, which may lie in a remote, hard-to-monitor area, really has survived intact.

But these are not insuperable obstacles. Investors don't have to buy up forests to make a return on them; they merely have to ensure they share in the proceeds of their conservation over times.

So they can for example rent, or lease, an interest in the forests from local communities, who are in any case best placed to safeguard the assets - and so can reasonably expect to share in the profits, too.

On the monitoring side, satellite mapping is now sophisticated enough to zero in to the scale of individual trees, providing pinpoint, 24-hour surveillance. Microchips inserted in selected trunks can report instantly if they're felled - and then track the timber, electronically fingering everyone involved.

So in a few years' time, you could sit at home on the sofa, and, via your laptop, check up on the health of "your" patch of forest, in real time.

Result? The world will have a million or more eagle-eyed forest monitors, casting a protective eye over the green canopy of their investments. (And only occasionally, you'd hope, needing to utter the anguished cry: "Oi! That's my pension plan going up in smoke!")

The logic is simple; the implementation will be anything but. But if we wait till we've a perfect system, we'll be wasting precious time; time in which thousands of square miles of forest will be irrevocably lost.

Martin Wright is editor (at large) of Green Futures Magazine

The Green Room is a series of opinion articles on environmental topics running weekly on the BBC News website

Society depends on more for less / La sociedad depende del más por menos

VIEWPOINT
Sir Mark Moody-Stuart

If the world is to end the threat from climate change, we need to produce more with less energy, says Mark Moody Stuart. In this week's Green Room, he outlines his vision that will help society fulfil this goal.


To address the climate challenge we need to reduce the carbon content of our energy by at least half.

But at the same time we must learn to generate a unit of GDP for about half the energy which we use at present.

Energy efficiency and carbon content of energy are equally important, but they require different approaches to achieve them.

I am a great believer in both the power of consumer choice and the market. As we come to understand the consequences, we do tend to make greener choices.

But most of us will only make those choices if they deliver the convenience and utility to which we are used or aspire; and if they do not cost more (or we can afford the luxury of choice).

Consumer opinion and choice is important, but it will not do the trick on its own. Its importance is in encouraging companies to supply the market in more climate friendly ways, and most importantly in encouraging governments (for whom consumers vote) to take the steps needed.

'Bitter experience'

So what of the market? It is an unsurpassed mechanism for allocating resources to deliver better things. Through competition, technologies are optimised or discarded, opening the field for creativity and choice. I believe in the power and value of markets.

But like most things, they have a failing. Without regulation to channel their power, markets will not deliver things which are of no immediate benefit to the individual making his or her choice, even though they may be beneficial to society.

Without regulation, markets would not have delivered unleaded gasoline, catalytic converters on the exhausts of cars or seatbelts and airbags, nor clean air to London after the killer smogs of the 1950s.

In New Delhi, regulation forced three-wheeled vehicles, taxis and buses to switch to clean gas fuel. The initial complaints were great, but everyone, including the taxi drivers, blessed the result.

These regulations were not cost free, but everyone benefited. Regulation was needed to channel the power of the market, but regulatory frameworks have to be simple and practical.

The gut opposition of business people to regulation comes from bitter experience of regulations which don't just frame the market but bind it hand and foot and tell us how things must be done.

This kills markets and takes the fun and variety out of life.

Carbon price

So what are the frameworks we need?

For carbon content, we need a mechanism which forces energy supplies in the right direction. This means putting a price on carbon for major producers (and large-scale users) of energy through a carbon cap and trade system, such as we already have in Europe.

Unfortunately, this system has been initially subject to government and business special pleading and gaming. Or it means a carbon tax.

Both are complex and should only be applied to major producers or users. Trading encourages carbon-avoiding investment where it has the most impact. It also allows the transfer, through market mechanisms, of financial resources to China and India.

I do not think we will get a more global agreement without such transfer. Taxation has the great merit that it provides a clear floor price of carbon.

So for me the preferred option is a combination - a tax, but with the ability to reduce it through trading, getting the best combination of a floor price and efficiency of investment.

Most people think that a price of something around 40 dollars a tonne of carbon dioxide (CO2) to producers would do the trick.

Market decides

Before you panic about the cost to you and industrial transport, that is only about 5p a litre on fuel - within the noise of oil price variations.

On the other hand, for efficiency we need regulatory frameworks - very tough efficiency standards on buildings, on lighting and on personal transport.

That means banning the manufacture or import of old fashioned light bulbs.

Technically, this actually just means putting a standard on the efficiency of lights so that markets decide whether the best answer is compact fluorescent lights or the newer LEDs - old incandescents would never meet such a hurdle.

It means very tough standards on buildings. This is already having an effect in London where to achieve highly valuable planning permission, developments are already achieving energy efficiency which we thought we would not achieve for a decade or more.

And for personal transportation? That means banning "gas guzzlers" and steadily increasing the total efficiency of any vehicle sold.

You can buy the roomiest, vroomiest car, as long as it meets the efficiency standard.

My wife and I have driven a hybrid since 2001 and it is a beautiful and comfortable piece of engineering, silent and will do 100mph (we tried it, but not in England!).

That may not be the best technology - the market will find out. But we must constrain the market in an efficiency framework.

To achieve the same through taxation would mean fuel taxes at levels which would play havoc with industry, countryside dwellers and the poor who need transport.

Sir Mark Moody-Stuart is non-executive chairman of Anglo American, and is a member of the UN Global Compact and chairman of the Global Compact Foundation

The Green Room is a series of opinion articles on environmental topics running weekly on the BBC News website

Corn's key role as food and fuel / El papel central del maíz como alimento y combustible

By Adam Brookes BBC News, Iowa

The price of food is on the rise. On the Chicago markets, the price of a bushel of wheat has gone over $10 for the first time. Soybeans are at a 34-year high. And corn is hitting new highs as well.

The International Monetary Fund says that over the past 12 months, "the world has experienced a substantial inflationary shock in the form of higher food prices".

Simon Johnson, chief economist at the IMF, points to three factors as responsible for the spike in prices.

First, increased demand from emerging economies like India and China, where consumers are demanding more calories in their diet.

Second, weather. Droughts have had an impact in some parts of the world.

But third is the contentious relationship between food and fuel. And to understand this relationship, it pays to look at corn.

Corn prices, according to the IMF, have doubled over the past two years. And in significant part, that is due to demand for the biofuel, ethanol, and the way in which ethanol policy is made in the United States.

"Corn has become all things to all people," says Simon Johnson. "It used to be fuel for people. Now it's fuel for cars."

Unintended consequences

Making biofuels for our cars from corn is now big business.

The International Monetary Fund says that over the past 12 months, "the world has experienced a substantial inflationary shock in the form of higher food prices".

Simon Johnson, chief economist at the IMF, points to three factors as responsible for the spike in prices.

First, increased demand from emerging economies like India and China, where consumers are demanding more calories in their diet.

Second, weather. Droughts have had an impact in some parts of the world.

But third is the contentious relationship between food and fuel. And to understand this relationship, it pays to look at corn.

Corn prices, according to the IMF, have doubled over the past two years. And in significant part, that is due to demand for the biofuel, ethanol, and the way in which ethanol policy is made in the United States.

"Corn has become all things to all people," says Simon Johnson. "It used to be fuel for people. Now it's fuel for cars."

Unintended consequences

Making biofuels for our cars from corn is now big business.

"It's causing the price of corn to go up and that affects both corn prices and other food prices in the United States. But affecting them in the United States is the same thing as affecting them globally."

Larsson Dunn, a former chemistry professor who runs the Lincolnway ethanol plant, argues that Iowa, and US agriculture, are fertile and technologically advanced enough to meet demand for food and fuel.

"We have the most efficient farmers and some of the best farmland in the world in the Midwest. So we're able to efficiently produce enough grain for food and produce surpluses for fuels."

Alternative uses

Because corn is such an important ingredient in our food supply, higher corn prices mean higher prices for all sorts of things you might not expect.

We stopped for breakfast at The Cafe in Ames, Iowa, where they cook a wonderful plate of steak and eggs.

On the plate you see how important corn is to our diet. Corn pancakes; steak from cattle fed on tons of corn; tomato ketchup flavoured with corn syrup; and an egg - whose yolk is turned a rich yellow by feeding the chicken corn products.

And the alternative uses of corn go way beyond biofuels.

At Iowa State University, scientists are pulling this grain apart and finding that its chemical constituents can make all sorts of things.

Larry Johnson, director of the Center for Crops Utilisation Research at Iowa State, showed us paper finished with corn-derived chemicals, charcoal briquettes bound with corn products, even a shirt woven from a corn-based fibre.

And he, too, believes there is no tension between food and fuel.

"We believe we can have both food and fuel," he says. "These things are totally compatible with each other, and we are going to devise new cropping systems that are going to allow us to do that as well."

US subsidies

In the coming years, say the experts, other crops - sugar cane, switchgrass, jatropha trees - may well grow into potent sources of renewable fuels.

But, says the IMF, those crops - many of which are grown in developing countries - will make slow headway as a source of renewable fuels while ethanol policy in the United States remains the way it is.

The US government offers generous financial subsidies to companies that blend ethanol and petrol, and has placed obstacles in the way of cheaper ethanol imports.

"Industrial countries," writes Simon Johnson, "need to seize this moment and eliminate subsidies."

Allowing freer trade in biofuels should, he says, help agricultural sectors everywhere.

But more people in more countries are now seeking more and better food. And if we want biofuels too, we may have to expect higher food prices.

Key climate summit opens in Bali

Governments at a key UN climate summit will discuss how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions after the current Kyoto Protocol targets expire in 2012.

Talks will centre on whether a further set of binding targets is needed.

It is the first such meeting since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned that evidence for global warming was "unequivocal".

The two-week gathering in Bali, Indonesia, will also debate how to help poor nations cope in a warming world.

The annual high-level meeting, organised by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), is under pressure to deliver a new global agreement on how to cut rising greenhouse gas emissions.

Rachmat Witoelar, the Indonesian environment minister who was named president of the conference, pledged to do his best to deliver a deal.

"Climate protection must form an integral part of sustainable economic development, and it is critical that we act and we act now," he said.

UNFCCC Executive Director Yvo de Boer urged the international community to use the summit to take "concrete steps" towards curbing climate change.

"We urgently need to take increased action, given climate change predictions and the corresponding global adaptation needs," he said in his welcome message to delegates.

"In the context of climate change, projections of economic growth and increases in energy demand over the next 20 years, especially in developing countries, point to the urgent need to green these trends."

Earlier this year, the IPCC published its Fourth Assessment Report (A4R), in which it projected that the world would warm by 1.8-4.0C (3.2-7.2F) over the next century.

Mr de Boer added that the IPCC's conclusion that climate change was "very likely" the result of human activity ended any doubt over the need to act.

Climate for consensus?

At the top of the conference's agenda is the need to reach a consensus on how to curb emissions beyond 2012.

This marks the end of the current phase of the Kyoto Protocol, which commits industrialised nations to cutting greenhouse gas emissions by an average of about 5% from 1990 levels.

Critics of the existing framework say binding targets do not work, and favour technological advances instead.

Recent studies show that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are rising faster than they were a decade ago.

Meanwhile, US President George Bush - who favours voluntary rather than mandatory targets - issued a statement saying that the nation's emissions had fallen by 1.5% in 2006 from levels in 2005.

Mr Bush used the reduction as an endorsement of his climate policy, saying: "Our guiding principle is clear: we must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions.

"We must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people."

However, the European Union backs the use of binding targets. The 27-nation bloc has already committed itself to cut emissions by 20% by 2020.

A number of observers believe the difference between the two economic powerhouses will result in the Bali conference failing to deliver a policy roadmap for "Kyoto II".

Softening the blow

The conference is also scheduled to consider how to fund projects that will help developing nations deal with the impact of climate change.

Ahead of the climate conference, another UN agency published a report criticising global efforts to date.

The UN Development Programme's annual Human Development Report said funding currently amounted to $26m (£13m), roughly the same amount as the UK spent on its flood defences in a week.

"Nobody wants to understate the very real long-term ecological challenges that climate change will bring to rich countries," said lead author Kevin Watkins.

"But the near-term vulnerabilities are not concentrated in lower Manhattan and London, but in flood-prone areas of Bangladesh and drought-prone parts of sub-Saharan Africa.

"Allowing the window of opportunity to close would represent a moral and political failure without precedent in human history."

Entregan Premio al Periodismo Ambiental a Octavio Klimek Alcaraz

En la ceremonia de premiación el periodista Agustín del Castillo, del periódico Público-Milenio, recibió mención honorífica.

Guadalajara.- El reportero del periódico El Sur, de Acapulco, Guerrero, Octavio Klimek Alcaraz, recibió hoy el Premio al Periodismo Ambiental 2007, por la publicación de cuatro artículos, uno de ellos enfocado a los manglares.

Durante el V Foro Cultura y Naturaleza, que se desarrolla como parte de la Feria Internacional del Libro (FIL) de Guadalajara, Klimek Alcaraz recibió una escultura y un premio de 50 mil pesos. En el acto, además se otorgaron diversas menciones honoríficas.

Estas fueron para los trabajos de Agustín Bernardo del Castillo Sandoval, del Periódico Público-Milenio; Rodolfo Chávez Calderón, del Programa “Más que noticias”, de la Dirección General de Medios de la Universidad de Guadalajara (UdeG); y Priscila Hernández Flores, reportera de la radio de la misma casa de estudios.

Así como a la Dirección de Noticias de Canal 22; a Maurizio Guerrero, de la Revista Poder y Negocios; Mónica Pérez Taylor, del periódico Mural; Yadira Elizabeth Flores Rodríguez, Revista Día Siete y periódico El Centro, y Juan José Morales Barbosa, del periódico Por Esto!, de Quintana Roo, y revista Contenido.

Además, a los estudiantes del Centro de Estudios y Producción Audiovisual de la Universidad Autónoma de Baja California: Rosa Herlinda Beltrán Pedrín, Cristina Conde Félix y Salvador León Guridi

Este reconocimiento se otorga por tercer año consecutivo para los trabajos de prensa, radio y televisión en las categorías de reportaje, artículo de fondo, crónica, noticia, entrevista y caricatura, y se tomó en cuenta la publicación o presentación del material de octubre de 2006 al mismo mes de 2007.

En la ceremonia de premiación, el rector de la UdeG, Carlos Briseño Torres, resaltó que el periodismo juega un papel estratégico, comprometido con el cuidado del medio ambiente.

“La difusión de la riqueza de la diversidad y el análisis de su importancia, así como los peligros que se enfrentan son muy importantes para despertar el interés de los ciudadanos y ser más responsables”, concluyó.

Notimex

Expertos mundiales logran avances en monitoreo de cambio climático

El Grupo de Observaciones de la Tierra busca conectar una serie de satélites, estaciones terrestres, sistemas de radares y monitores oceánicos.

CIUDAD DEL CABO.– Expertos gubernamentales y científicos de unos 100 países están logrando progresos para la elaboración de un sistema coordinado con el fin de monitorear los cambios climáticos y limitar su impacto en lo posible.

El Grupo de Observaciones de la Tierra busca conectar una serie de satélites, estaciones terrestres, sistemas de radares y monitores oceánicos que a menudo operan aisladamente.

Trabajando en conjunto, los sistemas podrían aumentar la capacidad de predecir y proteger contra sequías, inundaciones, huracanes y enfermedades.

“El objetivo es proveer la información adecuada en el formato adecuado a las personas adecuadas y en el momento adecuado, para que la gente pueda tomar decisiones'’, dijo el viernes el secretario del Interior de Estados Unidos, Dirk Kempthorne, durante el congreso anual del grupo.

En la reunión, China y Brasil prometieron transmitir gratis a Africa los datos de sus observaciones de satélite.

La Unión Europea lanzó también un proyecto para ayudar al continente africano a reducir sus problemas en el monitoreo.

En los últimos años se han alcanzado enormes avances en el intercambio de ideas y la tecnología compartida.

Existe un sistema de alerta de tsunamis para evitar una repetición de catástrofes como la que en el 2004 mató a 230.000 personas en el sudeste asiático.

Pero los retos asociados con el calentamiento global, la sobrepoblación, deforestación y desertificación están creciendo.

Existen brechas grandes en países pobres y densamente poblados, y muy poca coordinación en general.

Las advertencias sobre un reciente ciclón en Bangladesh provinieron de un experto bengalí radicado en Estados Unidos que tomó la iniciativa de hacer sus propios cálculos sobre el impacto de la tormenta y envió los resultados a su país.

Los 3.500 muertos fueron apenas una fracción del saldo usual en años anteriores.

En el 2005 fue concebido un Sistema de Sistemas Globales de Observación de la Tierra para ser completado en el 2015, con el objetivo de permitir el acceso a una vasta información sobre los cambios en océanos y las masas de tierra en el planeta en un solo sitio en la internet.

AP