By Alejandro Angulo
Part II
In this second part, I will begin by quoting the statement by Rodolfo Lacy (Mexican), Director of Climate Action and Environment for Latin America, of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and Special Envoy on Climate Affairs to the UN, who noted that state and local governments can play a bigger role in climate action. He also warned that evidence indicates that the goals of mitigation and adaptation to climate change are not being achieved, «and we have to radically change things, and that is what is politically more difficult to achieve.»
The obligatory question is why are we not on the right path? Why don’t we have regulatory frameworks? Do we need more investment? Is the population not aware of the problem? Is there no access to environmental justice? Are many studies and investigations missing? Are there no appropriate government programs? Do companies not care about the environment? Is the market more important than the environment? Does crime cause more environmental damage? Are there no environmental sanctions and penalties? Are there few institutional capacities to deal with the problem? Or are we simply already resigned to the collapse?
It could be that all these reasons are right and that, despite the fact that we have already crossed the tipping line in some central issues, the collapse has not yet occurred, meaning we could still have some time. Hence, time is very surely the most important variable, since we may have everything necessary to reverse the collapse. From this it can be inferred that what must be demanded is that the actions and goals be fulfilled or carried out by a certain time, since it will soon be too late to talk about what is being planned. Thus, the few or many actions, costly or not, must be carried out in a certain period of time. The time is now to measure the efficiency and variables to evaluate people, companies, governments, or international agencies. There will be no justification because time, which does not stop, will run out.
Based on Einstein’s theory of relativity, it is suggested that time is relative, indicating that it may be subject to changes caused by certain phenomena. For science, time is a continuum, that is, a physical entity that occurs as an uninterrupted medium. This means that, by its very nature, time cannot be thought of as an interrupted and unconnected line. A time limit or deadline is a limited period of time, or a particular point in time, during which an objective or task must be accomplished. The time parameter is not new, and it began to be used successfully in the 1980s and was part of the so-called scientific management, which was used to adequately and accurately establish the time that a process lasts.
For this reason, the study of time is an activity that implies the technique of establishing a standard of time allowed to carry out a certain task, based on the measurement of the content of an action, project or program.
The principle of Takt Time (in German means rhythm or compass) is applicable to adapt the rhythm of the actions to the cadence of the environmental demand. Thus, to calculate the takt time of environmental actions, the net time spent during the execution period must be divided by the number of goals or results required to mitigate, adapt, restore, conserve, or preserve the planet per year (country, region, state, municipality, or locality). The objective from this measurement is to establish a rhythm of stable actions and in sync with the need, objective, and/or goal set.
Therefore, the takt time is not a value defined by the citizen, the company, or the government, but rather the demand of the planet.
There are already dates, for example, for 2027 to reduce emissions so as not to exceed 1.5C°, 2030 to protect 30% of biodiversity, by 2040 to control and reduce microplastic pollution, and by 2050 to mitigate CO2 emissions. And although it varies from country to country, since in some the emergency will occur before those dates, in global terms the maximum time we have is already defined.
We know for sure that the global environmental crisis is multi-causal. However, all the causes that produce it have the same origin: human activity. Although it is true that talking about it implies an extreme generalization, it is necessary to start from this base, since it leaves beyond any doubt that the global environmental crisis is the result of an environmental problem of natural or purely climatic origin.
There are various consequences of this global environmental crisis, which can be divided into three large groups:
Ecological consequences:
In this section we could include all those that have a direct effect on ecosystems and forms of life. To mention a few examples: the extinction of both flora and fauna species, the degradation of the biodiversity of ecosystems, the proliferation of invasive species, and the alterations of the natural biological cycles.
Social consequences:
This section includes all those that, directly or indirectly, would affect human activity itself and human societies. In this sense, some examples would be crop losses or soil degradation, the inability to find enough fresh water to meet human demand, the migration of population groups in search of geographical areas with greater resources, the proliferation of diseases linked to pollution, and the proliferation of diseases linked to the geographical displacement of the infectious diseases themselves as a consequence of an increase in global temperature.
Climatic consequences:
This type of consequences would be largely the cause of some of the ecological and social consequences. However, due to its own character, it is worth evaluating them in themselves since they imply the modification of the climate as it had been developed up to now. Some examples are desertification, deforestation, acidification of the sea, and the increase in the number of phenomena such as hurricanes or cyclones, as well as their proliferation in geographical areas that are not traditionally associated with these phenomena.
And when it comes to talking about solutions to the global environmental crisis, these can be divided into two large groups:
Preventive solutions, which are those focused on stopping or avoiding the increase in the consequences of said crisis.
Restorative solutions, which are solutions aimed at recovering or restoring the damaged environment. Some examples of this type of solution include reforesting deforested areas, cleaning the seas, restoring ecosystems through plans to protect native flora and fauna, and improving the management of hydrographic resources, among many others.
