definitely what happened with the case of power plant of Barrancones is historic in more ways than one. You can get many lessons from what happened. However I want to hold on the government's decision to create "a committee composed of National Property, Environment, Energy and Mining (...) to define a" macro-zoning "of the country and give the President" (Source ) .
is clear that this is the right way if we want to preserve places of high biodiversity value not only natural, but tourism value, and that if Chile wants to leap from the minor leagues to become a developed country should gradually leave to exploit their resources and learn to look at long-term damage. For this development should seek alternatives that are not only sustainable, but to give work to people. Today in the news some people in La Higuera, where it was to install the thermo GDF Suez group, they were angry because the company would invest resources from the project would give a "better quality of life." Sure, if you do not even have a decent way to access the village. Experts agree that poverty and lack of opportunity created a fertile soil on which foreign or domestic firms can carry out their projects sustainable bit, because people feel they have a chance to progress. They can not see a future because they are concerned now.
is noted that the decision is political, but that's just an edge, because what are the values \u200b\u200bbehind it is a way to see our development, a way of how we fit into the world and in nature. No one can say only that the institutions fail because, in spite of obeying the law, the company GDF Suez could not complete your project. The laws are to order our lives in society, to help us live, but if it is the law that prevails over the interests of the population then we have a sneaky form of dictatorship. We elect our leaders not only because they have good ideas or because we have the same values, but because we hope that our voice heard. Here the institutional failure is not about the company is about people, that only through a movement is able to reverse decisions against the interests of the majority.
is why institutionalism in Chile should be open to people and their interests, as for example the call for greater participation in the System of Environmental Impact Assessment (SEIA). The new law failed to incorporate this. You expect the government to make a society that is not heard. Shout louder or subject. It is clear that the way things are, the last thing that will happen is a surrender. Therefore, the decision to "direct" the territory should not only come from above and one must consult the community about the type of development they want. In addition, you should invest in such development appears, therefore Store is not the same as neglect, as happens today in Chile. Business opportunities exist in all fields, the issue is to have the sites identified, because if a community living from fishing and tourism and then install a thermoelectric plant or a dam, then we are faced with a conflict that has no solution except by way of sacrificing one of the two markets. Which should prevail? Why? These are some of the questions we must ask ourselves today.
may take time to scream and not always people will be heard. In this sense, the environmental movement and education are among the most relevant that Chile has had in its recent democratic history. This decade before the bicentennial of the nation shows that we are no longer the same company and I am proud.
The state is slow to adapt to a rapidly changing society, but must work, because the cost if it does it will be infinitely greater than it is paying now for a decision, although controversial, is what the Chilean society wanted. If we all throw in the same direction and pull through, leaving no one on the road. Image Source
People Image Source
Dolphins
0 comments:
Post a Comment