Political and environmental uncertainties

The world is as it is because of certainties
From the song "Frontier" by Jorge Drexler

Danilo Anton
It is worth remembering that all policies have environmental consequences agricultural policy (promoting a certain type of crop or deactivating), forest policies (planting trees or cutting them), mining policies (allowing extraction of minerals or banning them), strategies land use and urban planning, including trade and social policies, all have some kind of impact on the environment.
In other words, we can say that from an environmental point of view there are NO completely innocuous policies. However, it is not easy to determine which are or will be the environmental impact of political strategies. At the time of evaluating multiple factors come into play, difficult to see, especially, varied interests that do not allow examine "objectively" topics.

When policies are defined there are people who, for opinions, beliefs or personal interests, is against, others for similar reasons are in favor. There are some environmental issues due to various, technical, economic, social, cultural, political and even philosophical reasons, are particularly contentious. We have some clear examples in Uruguay. For example, the issue of forestry and pulp mills, has become a hub of particularly tense discussion.
Opponents of forestry and related industries, use a long list of arguments against what they call "forestry model", with little, partial or no validation on the facts. Although there are some data suggesting adverse effects of certain strategies of forest plantations, accurate information is absent. The statements become categorical and indisputable, the discussion becomes Manichaean and dogmatic, there is no room for rational viewpoints, let alone acknowledge uncertainty.
Another important environmental issue is the misuse of agrochemicals and transgenic varieties in agriculture. Despite the existence of evidence that would show negative environmental impacts on water, soil, air, biota and health, is not so heated discussion. In fact the existing information on the subject is insufficient, making it difficult to define policies or take decisions to address a problem whose scope is not sufficiently known.
Internationally it has spread and imposed the theme of "global warming" and its intended result "rising sea levels."
It has become so much propaganda on the subject that is very difficult to discuss the claims of the "political and scientific elite" that drives these catastrophic visions of the future. The pressure groups economic, political and intellectual power are clearly allied with this approach prevented from expressing different views. There is a subtle censorship of those data or opinions that dare discuss the findings of the institutions and international organizations.
The course fighting global warming is an excellent business. Billions of dollars are spent on carbon, certain crops are promoted to generate "renewable" fuels and thousands of different projects are funded to help combat this hypothetical and harmful climate change. Also in this issue is no room for uncertainty. Or the official theory dramatically expressed by Al Gore, accepted internationally and recently in Kyoto Agreement outcast, or deny it, at the risk of being excommunicated is accepted. Even here there is room for uncertainty.
On environmental issues we must not be naive. The various positions expressed varied interests and pursuits of the limelight. Scientific rigor is in the background. We know that in science there are no absolute truths. Many trenchant and dogmatic beliefs that historically expressed in the name of science were denied by the stubborn facts of reality leading to new interpretations. Uncertainty is an essential part of the evolution of human knowledge.
To address the dynamics of knowledge must leave room for doubt. Of course we must affirm in fact, develop our views and act accordingly, but always considering the option to change course if necessary.

To be appropriate and sustainable, environmental policies should be developed by the authorities in a framework of scientific rigor, undogmatic, independent of corporate interests at all times accept the possibility of error that could lead to a change in strategy. Similarly, environmental organizations and groups active civil society, must take their own responsibility in the management of information and truth, ignoring the irresponsible use of uncertain data, dogmatism and personal interests or protagónicos to influence policies and honestly governmental, economic and social decisions.
Environmental discussions, which are political discussions must take place in a context of rigor, honesty and tolerance.
It is the best, perhaps the only way to defend the environment and the organisms that inhabit it.
Danilo Anton, December 2015
Blog in Spanish: daniloanton.blogspot.com