We are very easily deceived. It is stated, for example, that in exchange for the suspension of ITT production, “green bonds will be obtained to compensate for the loss”.

The first thing to say about this statement is that bonds are stocks, while ITT output is a flow. In other words, bonuses are a certain amount of resources only once; the production of ITT is a daily, continuous process, and it has been going on for several years.

The value of those bonds will never make up for the flow. Those who support the discourse have to prove it with numbers, they have to show that what can be achieved in the bonds will be about $15 or $20 billion, so then yes, those bonds offset the present value of the revenue stream that ITT means to the country.

For the Galapagos, which has a much greater value to humanity than the ITT, a $656 million loan was obtained, replacing the foreign debt with a nominal value of $1,630 million. In other words, no “cash” was included in the budget. In addition, what the government saves will be for the preservation of the island, not for medicine, health or education.

Then let’s make a comparison and assume that they give us double for ITT, so 1,300 million. Well, that’s a little more than what is exported in one year, and only three years as the general state budget receives from ITT.

And that’s without counting the cost of dismantling 84 kilometers of 24-inch pipeline worth about two hundred million dollars, which is worth the installation and other costs, the processing plant that cost 350 million dollars, and 12 platforms that cost 30 million dollars. dollars each. Also forget about the 57 million 20 years ago (more than 100 today) it cost to explore and certify reserves. Surely a large part of the bonus will go to the dismantling of everything invested, and the difference, if it remains, will have to be invested in the preservation of the national park. And that will not be enough for the fair demands that will be made by the companies that have invested there. Who will pay the costs of those lawsuits that they will surely win? The green bond fee is a myth.

Have you heard any specific approach to famous green bonds? Have you heard any numbers on how much you can get? Have any of the bond proponents received a letter of intent or at least a statement from potential bond issuers stating the approximate amount donors would be willing to provide? When I hear that there is “any amount of money in the world for conservation issues,” I always think of the first chapter of economics: the science of understanding how to allocate limited resources against unlimited needs. There are never unlimited resources. The Galapagos have been negotiated for years, don’t come to us with the story that the money for ITT will be obtained quickly.

It is not fast, nor is it much. Paralysis is not conservation: it is poverty, it is delay, it is more of an economic and social crisis. (OR)