{"id":61716,"date":"2020-10-07T07:55:55","date_gmt":"2020-10-07T06:55:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/eco123.info\/en\/?p=61716"},"modified":"2020-10-07T21:59:49","modified_gmt":"2020-10-07T20:59:49","slug":"what-are-politicians-thinking-about-when-they-try-not-to-think-about-global-warming","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/eco123.info\/en\/ecology\/what-are-politicians-thinking-about-when-they-try-not-to-think-about-global-warming\/","title":{"rendered":"\u201cWhat are politicians thinking about when they try not to think about global warming?\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"

There is nothing that reduces credibility in government policies more than a lack of trust in its climate measures. When someone travels from one climate conference to another by plane, despite being responsible for implementing measures that mitigate the greenhouse effect, this demonstrates a contradiction in their way of thinking, a contradiction between the statements that they make and their attitude. It has been proven that the burning of oil, gas and coal causes the overheating of our planet\u2019s atmosphere and poses a threat to all of humanity. So why is it that European governments do not set a limit on the use of fossil fuels, establishing a date for the abolition of the burning of coal, oil and gas, thus ending these emissions and replacing such fuels with renewable energy obtained from the sun, the water and the wind?<\/p>\n

There is nothing that affects our confidence in politicians more than their failure to introduce climate protection policies while, simultaneously, pouring billions of euros in subsidies into protecting the tourism, automobile and air transport industries. These three industries are jointly responsible for a large proportion of the world\u2019s CO2<\/sub> emissions and are the driving force behind climate change. In other words, our message to politicians is that their lack of integrity increases distrust, as there is a contradiction between their political discourse and their complete inaction. Time is pressing. One of the solutions could be to present a plan committing the government to a specific agenda, setting a date for ending the burning of oil in Portugal and Europe.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
\u00a9 Dpa<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

I confess that I am confronted with an unpleasant feeling, which, in Psychology, has been given the name of cognitive dissonance<\/em>. Everyone knows that flying by plane destroys the atmosphere, but they still travel by plane: either for leisure or for work, while products still continue to be transported by plane from one corner of the globe to another. Why do Ant\u00f3nio Costa and his ministers not invest in the local economy, in the thousands of small companies that operate within their local area in a sustainable way?<\/p>\n

Many people, from the most varied origins, are beginning to have an increasingly unpleasant feeling when flying by plane, a feeling that gets worse from year to year. So why is the State still obliged to invest money in this area, in the destruction of our atmosphere? It\u2019s only possible to overcome or reduce a politician\u2019s cognitive dissonance if there is a change in their behaviour or opinion. But many politicians, businessmen and tourists are not willing to give up flying and to start, for example, using and investing in the train, which is more environmentally friendly. There is a need for a lot of investment in the railways to make them more competitive. If Ant\u00f3nio Costa really wanted to reduce the CO2<\/sub> emissions caused by air traffic, he would have to reduce the number of flights and tax this form of travel in the same way as other means of transport. Some steps in the right direction would involve the introduction of a tax on petroleum products and the levying of VAT on air transport and aeroplanes, covering the costs of the collateral damage to the environment caused by aviation.<\/p>\n

But, before that, the State should sell its stake in TAP so as not to arouse suspicions of corruption and not to remain trapped in this disastrous conflict of interests. How can State participation in an airline be allowed? And how can the State support the construction of a new airport in a nature reserve, essential for birdlife, in order to serve its own and other airlines? So many contradictions. The time has come to bring them to an end.<\/p>\n