No abstract

The rate of CO2 emissions concentration in the atmosphere increasesthe likelihood of significant impacts on humankind and ecosystems. Theassumption that permissible levels of greenhouse gas emissions cannot exceed the global average temperature increase of 2 ºC in relation to pre-industrial levels remains uncertain. Despite this uncertainty, the direct implication is that enormous quantities of fossil fuels have, thus far, wrongly been counted as assets by hydrocarbon firms as they cannotbe exploited if we want to keep climate under certain control. These are the socalled “toxic assets”. Due to the relationship among CO2 emissions, GDP, energy consumption, and energy efficiency, the concept of toxic assets can be transferred to toxic income, which is the income level that would generate levels of CO2 emissions incompatible with keeping climate change under control. This research, using a simulation model based on country-based econometric models, estimated a threshold for income per capita above which the temperature limit of 2 ºC would be surpassed. Under the business as usual scenario, average per capita income would be $14,208 (in constant 2010 USD) in 2033; and underthe intervention scenario, which reflects the commitments of the COP21 meeting held in Paris in December 2015, the toxic revenue would be $13,433 (in constant 2010 USD) in 2036.

The rate of CO2 emissions concentration in the atmosphere increases the likelihood of significant impacts on humankind and ecosystems. The assumption that permissible levels of greenhouse gas emissions cannot exceed the global average temperature increase of 2 °C in relation to pre-industrial levels remains uncertain. Despite this uncertainty, the direct implication is that enormous quantities of fossil fuels have, thus far, wrongly been counted as assets by hydrocarbon firms as they cannot be exploited if we want to keep climate under certain control. These are the so-called “toxic assets”. Due to the relationship among CO2 emissions, GDP, energy consumption, and energy efficiency, the concept of toxic assets can be transferred to toxic income, which is the income level that would generate levels of CO2 emissions incompatible with keeping climate change under control. This research, using a simulation model based on country-based econometric models, estimated a threshold for income per capita above which the temperature limit of 2 °C would be surpassed. Under the business as usual scenario, average per capita income would be $14,208 (in constant 2010 USD) in 2033; and under the intervention scenario, which reflects the commitments of the COP21 meeting held in Paris in December 2015, the toxic revenue would be $13,433 (in constant 2010 USD) in 2036.

Este artículo analiza el impacto del cambio climático en el modo de producción agroecológico, orgánico y convencional en los cantones Cayambe y Pedro Moncayo debido a los retos que enfrenta Ecuador en el sector agropecuario, ante el deterioro ambiental. Se aplica la metodología del análisis multicriterio para determinar la alternativa de producción agrícola que mejor se ajusta a la zona, a partir de su comportamiento en los siguientes indicadores: económico, social, ambiental, institucional y productivo. En la investigación participaron productores agroecológicos, orgánicos y convencionales. La información se recopiló mediante encuestas y análisis de documentos oficiales de los cantones. El cumplimiento de cada uno de los pasos del análisis multicriterio permitió conocer que el mejor sistema productivo es la agroecología. Le sigue la producción orgánica y el menos adecuado es el sistema de producción convencional. Estos sistemas son afectados de manera distinta por el cambio climático, y su contribución al deterioro ambiental también es diferenciada. La huella hídrica y de carbono para el sistema orgánico es de 39.9 m3/Ton y 1.07 TonCO2/Kg de producto, respectivamente; mientras que para el sistema agroecológico es de 77.3 m3/Ton y 0.10 TonCO2/Kg de producto. El sistema convencional es el peor puntuado, con un impacto ambiental más fuerte (huella hídrica = 300.3m3/Ton y huella de carbono = 1.87TonCO2/Kg de producto). El estudio muestra que el sistema mejor preparado ante estos eventos es el agroecológico. Ello significa que es menos vulnerable y más resiliente, en términos generales.