Una Epistemología del Sur

Here the complet book:

http://books.google.es/books?id=NUkI0AId42sC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Una+Epistemolog%C3%ADa+del+Sur&hl=es&sa=X&ei=YTVSU_r3K-uA7QawjIHADg&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Una%20Epistemolog%C3%ADa%20del%20Sur&f=false

Here a recension:

http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=74721474017


"To travel means learning-and-apply".

Maybe the best (and minimum) tribute to their southern Masters,
from the part of northern Anthropologists,
would be equal to =

Apply "Una Epistemología del Sur",

Within the Habitat and Community,

Where the Anthropologist lives,


Guerra a las fronteras,

Today disciplinary borders among academic disciplines,

Makes more Damn,

Than all (actual) wars together,


Wars are too,

To risk our lives,

Just one step from our doors,

("la guerra callada del tráfico", Doctoral Thesis of Public Health,
Universidad de Valencia. Academic Title: Epidemiología de los Accidentes
de Tráfico en España from 1920 to 1975"


La costra de Wilhem Reich,

Made Chatarra por tonnes,

Durmiendo plácidamente,

En la resaca de Viernes Santo,



Podríamos distinguir tres tipos de costra urbana,

Hormigón, Asfalto y Chatarra aparcada.



Cada una de estas superficies urbanas,

Esconde grandes tesoros debajo,

O encima,



Tejados y terrazas son en potencia,

Junto con los muros verticales,

Huertos comestibles,


Que además refrescan y se comen,

Los asfixiantes gases de los coches,

etc...



Agustin Antunez Corrales

Universidad de Málaga








> Reading this text, the main problem seems to be:
>
>
>  - "There are no alternatives capable of supplanting oil as the main
> global transportation fuel in the foreseeable future." -
>
>
> But here I found another cognitive dissonance. Because we hide/ignore
> another ways to find a solution.
>
> In stead of to try supplanting oil, we may direct our attention towards
> the very low eficiency of those transportation systems based on private
> cars. To increase the eficiency of our transportation systems, we could
> see how many cities and regions have solved this "big" problem.
>
> Sometimes ago, the chief of International Monetary Fund, in relation with
> the problems of oil markets and economy, said that "we could solve the
> problem impulsing decidedly at a global level the use of bikes by
> citizens".
>
> In fact, in east Europe the impulse for biking among urban aged people has
> taken multiple advantages, among them, more health for users, and more
> habitable cities.
>
> Of course you or me alone cannot change transportation systems from today
> to tomorrow. But if society and governments are now more aware of climate
> change, maybe the easy solution comes from urban and regional planning,
> incorporating the long experiences that Do exist already in our connected
> world,in cities and regions where people have enough alternatives to use
> their private car.
>
> If maybe 80% of oil is actualy lost because of our so low eficiency
> transportation systems, based in infraused private cars, to look for
> alternative fuel seems out of sense. We need to focus in this
> overcomsuption of fuel. Maybe no other industry allows to function with
> this so low eficiency, as our private car -based systems of
> transportation.
>
> Reducing a high percentage of private cars from our cities would have a
> high number of advantages (not related to climatic change) that help to
> impulse the need and opportunity of this endeavour.
>
> Maybe you never ask:
>
> Why there are citizens comdemned to suffer each day of their lives a
> public space collapsed by privates cars reducing so much their quality of
> living?
>
> In the meanwhile there are other citizens enjoing cities made for
> citizens, and not for cars.
>
> Why this injustice?
>
> Moscow, 1989. State collapsed, and Bus systems too. And people wanted to
> travel to their destiny. And no bus functioned. People owners of vans put
> their vehicles for public use, as a emergency solution. An intermediate
> public transportation system were borning in Russia: The collective taxis.
>
> In many southern countries there are diferent intermediate transportation
> systems, as Vans, Collective taxis and Minibus (Dolmus in Istambul).
>
> The question is: Why these intermediate public transportation systems seem
> to have disappeared in the Northen countries?
>
> Is it possible to reincorporate them today?
>
> I think yes!
>
> We could thus speak of virtual oil?
>
> ((Pardon, I am not english fluent))
>
>
> Agustín Antúnez Corrales
>
> University of Málaga
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Robert
>> Rapier<http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/2014/04/15/how-do-you-justify-consuming-exxonmobils-oil/#more-16458>,
>> one of my go-to writers on energy matters (esp oil), offers some
>> interesting comments on the Exxon's evaluation of the likelihood of
>> stranded assets.
>>
>> Introduction
>>
>> Sometimes the written word is easy to misinterpret. More than once I
>> have
>> written an article to find that some minor point I made became the
>> focus,
>> or that the point I was making was just lost. Most of the time that’s my
>> fault, but sometimes it’s because an editor wanted to spice up the title
>> and make it a bit more controversial. In that case, that can inflame the
>> reader before they even begin to read, and they either make comments
>> based
>> on a misleading title, or they read the article with significant bias.
>>
>> I think there is a risk of misinterpretation with today’s article, so I
>> want to spell out my intent up front. This should not be read as a
>> defense
>> of ExxonMobil or their business practices, because that’s not what it
>> is.
>> It’s an attempt to get the reader to understand how they think, and why
>> they do some of the things they do. Importantly, you may not be able to
>> understand their actions given your view of the world. It’s not because
>> they are simply denying reality so they can keep making money, they just
>> don’t see the same things you see. Here is my attempt to explain that.
>>
>> A Carbon Asset Bubble?
>>
>> The 2009 Copenhagen
>> Accord<https://unfccc.int/meetings/copenhagen_dec_2009/items/5262.php>
>> on
>> climate change stipulated that if the worst impacts of climate change
>> are
>> to be avoided, we have to stop taking fossil fuels from the ground and
>> burning them. Doing so has been increasing the carbon dioxide in the
>> atmosphere for the past two centuries. Former Vice President Al Gore has
>> been but one high profile voice advocating for leaving those fossil
>> fuels
>> in the ground, which would create a big problem for fossil fuel
>> companies
>> whose value is based on their fossil fuel reserves. Gore outlined his
>> position last year in a Wall Street Journal editorial The Coming Carbon
>> Asset
>> Bubble<http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304655104579163663464339836?mod=djemEditorialPage_h>.
>>
>> This is obviously an item of significant interest for fossil fuel
>> companies and their shareholders. In fact, in February several investor
>> groups filed shareholder
>> resolutions<http://www.ceres.org/press/press-releases/shareholders-file-resolutions-to-press-fossil-fuel-companies-on-low-carbon-strategies-carbon-asset-risk>
>> with 10 fossil fuel companies, including ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM), Chevron
>> (NYSE: CVX), Devon Energy (NYSE: DVN), Kinder Morgan (NYSE: KMI) and
>> Peabody Energy (NYSE: BTU), seeking an assessment of how they are
>> preparing for the possibility that some of their fossil fuel reserves
>> may
>> become stranded under a low-carbon scenario.
>>
>> ExxonMobil Responds
>>
>> ExxonMobil responded to these resolutions with a 30-page
>> report<http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/Files/Other/2014/Report%20-%20Energy%20and%20Carbon%20-%20Managing%20the%20Risks.pdf>.
>> The company indicated that its investment decisions are based on a
>> comprehensive annual analysis of the global outlook for energy that is
>> consistent with the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) World Energy
>> Outlook and the US Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) Annual
>> Energy
>> Outlook. In other words, investment decisions are not simply based on
>> the
>> world according to ExxonMobil, but also on the world energy outlook from
>> the US government and the IEA, which represents 28 member countries
>> (including the US).
>>
>> The report states that ExxonMobil takes the threat of climate change
>> seriously, a point reiterated by ExxonMobil government affairs chief Ken
>> Cohen in an Associated Press
>> interview<http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2023271795_apxexxonclimatechange.html>
>> following the paper’s release. “We know enough based on the research and
>> science that the risk (of climate change) is real and appropriate steps
>> should be taken to address that risk,” Cohen said.
>>
>> I am not going to get into the gist of the report here, except to
>> summarize ExxonMobil’s position, which is: “World demand for oil will
>> continue to be very strong, and our oil reserves will not be stranded.”
>> If
>> you want to know the basis for their argument, it’s laid out in the
>> report.
>>
>> ExxonMobil Answers the Wrong Question
>>
>> Those pushing for the resolution didn’t like that answer. While
>> acknowledging that responding was a step in the right direction, Natasha
>> Lamb, director of equity research at Arjuna Capital, stated: “The
>> question
>> is not whether or not we’ll face the low carbon standard, but whether
>> they
>> are prepared to address it. We need to know what’s at stake. But at
>> least
>> now investors know that Exxon is not addressing the low carbon scenario
>> and placing investor capital at risk.”
>>
>> With all due respect, that might not have been the question you asked,
>> but
>> if ExxonMobil doesn’t believe it’s a credible scenario, then they aren’t
>> going to spend a lot of time and money addressing it. As an example, how
>> much time do you spend each day planning how you will spend your lottery
>> winnings? If you aren’t spending any time, you will be totally
>> unprepared
>> for winning the lottery. Oh, you don’t spend that much time on it
>> because
>> you don’t believe the outcome is likely? You may fantasize about what
>> you
>> would do if you won the lottery, but you don’t spend a lot of time each
>> day making financial plans based on that outcome.
>>
>> Likewise, I can assure you with 100 percent certainty that ExxonMobil is
>> spending some efforts on alternatives to oil. It’s not a lot relative to
>> their overall business, but it’s relative to how likely they think
>> demand
>> is shifting away from oil. And if demand starts to shift, they will
>> shift
>> their spending to try to capture where the markets are headed.
>>
>> That’s how oil companies operate in the real world, and not in the
>> cartoon
>> world many people think they inhabit. People view them through different
>> lenses and see their own projections, but the reality is that ExxonMobil
>> has seen a future in which oil continues to be the basis for
>> transportation (as does the EIA and IEA), and they have been correct in
>> that view since they have been in existence.
>>
>> But that doesn’t mean they can’t change. It just means that the catalyst
>> for change isn’t necessarily YOUR view that their oil reserves will be
>> stranded. Which brings me to my final point, which is reflected in the
>> title of this essay.
>>
>> Cognitive Dissonance
>>
>> With some extremely rare exceptions, the people who brought those
>> resolutions forward that demanded to know how ExxonMobil would cope with
>> leaving their oil reserves in the ground – all of them use oil. My point
>> is not to argue hypocrisy, but rather the cognitive dissonance at play.
>>
>> Those of us who are concerned about climate change – and I include
>> myself
>> in that group – all justify our consumption of oil in different ways. We
>> either reason that our individual contribution won’t make that much
>> difference, and what we would have to sacrifice to live without oil
>> isn’t
>> proportional to the miniscule impact on the environment from our single
>> contribution. Or, we reason that we do what we can to minimize our
>> personal consumption, but by using oil to travel around to urge others
>> to
>> limit consumption (the Al Gore/Bill McKibben sort of justification), our
>> net impact will be lower oil consumption.
>>
>> The thing is, ExxonMobil can argue exactly the same points. First of
>> all,
>> oil is a very small contributor relative to coal (and coal consumption
>> is
>> for me a very different argument), and ExxonMobil is a small percentage
>> of
>> global oil production. So ExxonMobil can make the argument “our impact
>> just isn’t that great”, just as individuals do.
>>
>> But oil also has few viable substitutes relative to coal. So ExxonMobil
>> can reason that their relative contribution to climate change is very
>> low,
>> while the impact of affordable transportation for people is great. They
>> can further argue (and did in the response to the shareholder
>> resolution)
>> that they are doing what they can to lower their environmental impact.
>>
>> So just keep in mind that if you want to press ExxonMobil to leave their
>> oil in the ground, you are on thin ice when it comes to arguing why it’s
>> then OK for you to use the oil they produce. If you use oil, you are
>> part
>> of the reason ExxonMobil continues to profit from producing the oil. If
>> you really want them to leave their oil in the ground, convince everyone
>> to stop using it, and do so yourself. Then the asset will be stranded.
>> But
>> you aren’t going to have much luck stranding the asset when demand
>> continues to grow. Every time you justify your oil consumption,
>> ExxonMobil
>> justifies producing more oil.
>>
>> But as my friend Geoffrey Styles points out in his take on the
>> issue<http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/2014/04/02/exxonmobil-confronts-the-carbon-bubble/>,
>> ExxonMobil does model “its projects and acquisitions at proxy costs of
>> up
>> to $80/ton of CO2, compared to current levels of $8-10/ton in the EU’s
>> Emission Trading System.” And even though they believe governments are
>> unlikely to adopt such high carbon prices, even 10 times the current
>> value
>> of carbon dioxide emissions in the EU is unlikely to strand Exxon’s
>> petroleum assets because there just isn’t a good substitute.
>>
>> Conclusions
>>
>> In my view, the relative benefit of future oil consumption is far
>> greater
>> than the relative benefit of future coal consumption, because oil has
>> fewer potential substitutes. There are many different ways of producing
>> electricity at a price that is competitive with coal, but with lower
>> emission of carbon dioxide. In a low carbon emission scenario, the
>> lion’s
>> share of the reduction effort should be directed at coal. Coal is a much
>> larger relative contributor, and there are potential replacements.
>>
>> Thus, I think ExxonMobil gave a reasonable answer in saying that it has
>> looked at the risks, and doesn’t believe any of its reserves are likely
>> to
>> be stranded. There are no alternatives capable of supplanting oil as the
>> main global transportation fuel in the foreseeable future. There will
>> continue to be contributions from biofuels, and electric transportation
>> will continue to make inroads, but crude will continue to do the heavy
>> lifting.
>>
>> Link to Original Article: How Do You Justify Consuming ExxonMobil’s
>> Oil?<http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/2014/04/15/how-do-you-justify-consuming-exxonmobils-oil/>
>>
>> You can find Robert
>> Rapier<http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/2006/01/12/about-me/> on
>> Twitter<https://twitter.com/RRapier>,
>> LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/pub/robert-rapier/5/7ab/10a>, or
>> Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/robert.rapier.1>.
>>
>
>