Summary: Researchers describe a single function that accurately describes all existing available data on active COVID-19 cases and deaths — and predicts forthcoming peaks.
As of late May, COVID-19 has killed more than 325,000 people around the world. Even though the worst seems to be over for countries like China and South Korea, public health experts warn that cases and fatalities will continue to surge in many parts of the world. Understanding how the disease evolves can help these countries prepare for an expected uptick in cases.
This week in the journal Frontiers in Physics, researchers describe a single function that accurately describes all existing available data on active cases and deaths — and predicts forthcoming peaks. The tool uses q-statistics, a set of functions and probability distributions developed by Constantino Tsallis, a physicist and member of the Santa Fe Institute’s external faculty. Tsallis worked on the new model together with Ugur Tirnakli, a physicist at Ege University, in Turkey.
“The formula works in all the countries in which we have tested,” says Tsallis.
Neither physicist ever set out to model a global pandemic. But Tsallis says that when he saw the shape of published graphs representing China’s daily active cases, he recognized shapes he’d seen before — namely, in graphs he’d helped produce almost two decades ago to describe the behavior of the stock market.
“The shape was exactly the same,” he says. For the financial data, the function described probabilities of stock exchanges; for COVID-19, it described daily the number of active cases — and fatalities — as a function of time.
Modeling financial data and tracking a global pandemic may seem unrelated, but Tsallis says they have one important thing in common. “They’re both complex systems,” he says, “and in complex systems, this happens all the time.” Disparate systems from a variety of fields — biology, network theory, computer science, mathematics — often reveal patterns that follow the same basic shapes and evolution.
The financial graph appeared in a 2004 volume co-edited by Tsallis and the late Nobelist Murray Gell-Mann. Tsallis developed q-statitics, also known as “Tsallis statistics,” in the late 1980s as a generalization of Boltzmann-Gibbs statistics to complex systems.
In the new paper, Tsallis and Tirnakli used data from China, where the active case rate is thought to have peaked, to set the main parameters for the formula. Then, they applied it to other countries including France, Brazil, and the United Kingdom, and found that it matched the evolution of the active cases and fatality rates over time.
The model, says Tsallis, could be used to create useful tools like an app that updates in real-time with new available data, and can adjust its predictions accordingly. In addition, he thinks that it could be fine-tuned to fit future outbreaks as well.
“The functional form seems to be universal,” he says, “Not just for this virus, but for the next one that might appear as well.”
Editor’s note: Some of our covid-19 coverage is free for readers of The Economist Today, our daily newsletter. For more stories and our pandemic tracker, see our coronavirus hub
“THIS IS A, I would say, senseless dividing line,” said Doug Burgum, governor of North Dakota, his voice catching as he talked of the rows that have broken out in his state over the wearing of face-coverings. There are similar spats elsewhere in America, for masks have become the latest aspect of the culture war that has emerged there over how to deal with covid-19. Some shops refuse entry to maskwearers and Mike DeWine, the governor of Ohio, has rescinded an order requiring people to wear them, saying that he “went too far”.
Elsewhere in the world, by contrast, there is increasing acceptance that mask-wearing is a good thing. On May 5th, for example, the Royal Society, Britain’s top science academy, concluded that masks “could be an important tool for managing community transmission”. This is not so much because they protect the wearer—the normal reason people may put them on in times of pestilence—but rather because they stop the wearer infecting others.
In this context covid-19’s particular peculiarity—that people who test positive for it often do not have symptoms—is important. Research published last month in Nature Medicine, by Xi He of Guangzhou Medical University and Eric Lau of Hong Kong University, suggests that 44% of cases are caused by transmission from people without symptoms at the time of transmission.
Taking cover
Those who do have symptoms should not, of course, be out and about at all. In their case masks are irrelevant. But to break the chain, it behoves even the symptomless to assume that they might be infected. Covid-19 is transmitted, above all, by virus-laden droplets of spit. Experiments show that face-coverings as simple as tea-towels are effective. One study found that a tea-towel worn around the face captured 60% of droplets. At 75%, a surgical mask did better, but not overwhelmingly so.
Governments are beginning to take this on board. As part of the loosening their lockdown, the Dutch are required to wear face-coverings on public transport—but not ones of medical grade, which should be reserved for professionals. This encourages people to make their own.
Neither laboratory studies nor the data on asymptomatic transmission provide watertight evidence of the efficacy of masks. That would need randomised controlled trials, in which one group wore masks and the other did not. This would be ethically tricky, since it might condemn one of the groups to a higher death rate. Hamsters, which are susceptible to covid-19, are the next best thing to people. So researchers at Hong Kong University put cages of healthy hamsters next to cages of infected ones, with a fan in between drawing air from the infected to the healthy cage. They sometimes also placed a stretched-out face mask in the air stream. With no interposed mask, two-thirds of the healthy animals were infected within a week. With a mask interposed close to the healthy hamsters (the equivalent of a healthy person wearing a mask), one-third were. With the mask close to the infected hamsters, only a sixth were.
Although scientists cannot experiment on human beings deliberately, some wonder if the world is now carrying out a natural experiment that tests the value of mask-wearing. In many East Asian countries it was common practice to sport masks, even before covid-19, to protect against respiratory diseases and pollution. A lot of people in these places therefore took immediately to wearing masks when the epidemic started. Countries that adopted masks early on did not, by and large, shut their economies down. Yet they suppressed the disease more effectively than those that locked down but did not wear masks.
There is a correlation between mask-wearing and rapid suppression of covid-19. According to Patricia Greenhalgh, professor of primary health care sciences at Oxford University, “there is not a single country in which mask wearing was introduced early and with high compliance, where the disease wasn’t quickly brought under control.” Sceptics point out that this does not prove masks work, since countries in which they are widely worn also tend to be those which have been threatened by epidemics in the past, and therefore have well-established systems of testing and contact tracing.
In the West nobody normally wears a mask, though the practice is spreading. Universal masking started in the Czech Republic after Petr Ludwig, a Czech YouTube star, posted a video on March 14th recommending the practice, and it went viral. Other social-media influencers posted pictures of themselves wearing masks. “Mask trees”, where people would hang home-made masks for others to use, sprang up on street corners. By March 19th masks were mandatory in the country. Slovakia and Slovenia followed swiftly.
The World Health Organisation has not advocated widespread mask-wearing, and has received some criticism for this. Jeremy Howard, a research scientist at the University of San Francisco and co-founder of Masks4all, a charity, says “they did a good job of recommending handwashing and social distancing, but they have been slow on masks.”
In light of all this, regulations requiring people to wear masks have spread, as an increasing number of governments view the evidence as strong enough to warrant compulsion. India now requires them to be worn in crowded public spaces, as do France, Germany, Italy and Spain. In most of the world, people either wear them in such spaces without being told to, or are required to by their governments.
Among big countries, Britain and America are outliers. In Britain the government advises people to wear masks, but to little effect. On the London Underground around a third of travellers do so. On the Paris metro where people risk a €135 fine if they fail to cover their faces, everybody does. In America the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, which previously recommended mask-wearing only for health workers, changed its mind in early April. It now recommends that everybody should wear them in places where it is hard for people to stay far enough apart. Several states have passed regulations along those lines, as has New York City. But, as Governor Burgum noted, the rows go on.■
This article appeared in the Science & technology section of the print edition under the headline “We interrupt this transmission…”
Alunos do ensino médio voltam à sala de aula em Wuham, província de Hubei, na China, nesta quarta-feira (6). Fonte: AFP.
Após decretarem o afrouxamento do isolamento social para conter a transmissão do novo coronavírus, países que estão voltando às aulas adotam medidas de prevenção para evitar uma nova onda de contaminação.
O G1 analisou a experiência de países como China, Coreia do Sul, Dinamarca, Finlândia, França, Portugal e Israel para saber quais cuidados estão sendo tomados na volta às aulas. No Brasil, as aulas estão suspensas em todos os estados e as escolas seguem fechadas.
Entre as medidas, estão:
desinfecção de escolas
tendas de desinfecção dos alunos na entrada
controle de temperatura
uso de máscaras
lavagem de mãos e instalação de torneiras
grupos menores de alunos
distanciamento
horários diferentes de entrada e saída
arejar a sala
afastar professores do grupo de risco
A reabertura das escolas é um marco no fim do isolamento porque permite que os pais possam voltar ao mercado de trabalho. Apesar dos esforços, ao menos dois dos países analisados voltaram a registrar casos de transmissão de coronavírus: Coreia do Sul e França.
Na Coreia do Sul, mais de 200 escolas foram fechadas nesta sexta-feira (29) dias após reabrirem, devido ao surgimento de novos casos de contaminação. Com isso, Seul adotou novas medidas para evitar a transmissão de casos, como limitar o número de alunos por sala, enquanto os demais ficam em casa, aprendendo por atividades remotas.
As regras de confinamento impostas para conter o avanço da disseminação do novo coronavírus deixaram mais de 1,5 bilhão de crianças e adolescentes fora da escola em 188 países, segundo balanço da Unesco divulgado em abril.
Desinfecção de escolas
20 de maio – trabalhador desinfeta escola em Parque Ivory, na África do Sul. — Foto: Siphiwe Sibeko/Reuters
Medidas extras de limpeza são uma recomendação comum. Em diversas partes do mundo, a desinfecção das escolas ocorre antes dos alunos chegarem e durante a permanência deles.
Na França, as orientações do Ministério da Educação contêm inclusive quais produtos a serem utilizados para desinfecção das escolas e a frequência da higienização: o chão deve ser limpo uma vez por dia enquanto maçanetas, sanitários e interruptores devem ser higienizados várias vezes.
Tenda de desinfecção dos alunos
China tem volta às aulas do ensino médio com medidas de segurança e medo do coronavírus. — Foto: GREG BAKER / AFP
Na China, escolas instalaram tendas de desinfecção por onde os estudantes precisam passar antes de entrarem na escola.
Controle de temperatura
Termômetro usado para medir a temperatura das pessoas e fazer controle da Covid-19.. — Foto: Steve Parsons / Pool / AFP
O controle da temperatura para detectar se o aluno está com febre, um dos mais comuns sintomas da Covid-19, é uma preocupação em vários países.
Em Pequim,pulseiras inteligentes, que fazem essa medição em tempo real, estão sendo testadas. Os pais monitoram a situação por meio de um aplicativo. Caso a temperatura passe de 37ºC, um alerta é enviado para os professores, que são orientados a alertar a polícia.
Uso de máscara
China retoma aulas do ensino médio em Pequim e Xangai nesta segunda-feira (27). — Foto: GREG BAKER / AFP
O uso de máscaras em geral também é recomendado, mas os critérios variam de país para país.
Na China, as crianças utilizam máscaras o tempo todo, inclusive dentro da sala de aula.
Coronavírus na educação: na França, professora leciona com máscara nesta segunda-feira (18). — Foto: Sebastien Bozon/AFP
Em Israel, as crianças da 4ª série em diante tem que usar essa proteção. Na França, as crianças menores também estão dispensadas. No entanto, a escola deve ter máscaras à disposição dos alunos caso eles apresentem sintomas durante as aulas e estejam aguardando para serem retirados.
Uma exceção é a Dinamarca, país onde não existe a recomendação para utilização de máscaras em ambientes públicos.
Lavagem de mãos e instalação de torneiras
Crianças lavam as mãos na escola Gudenåskolen, na Dinamarca — Foto: Lone Mathiesen/ Divulgação/ Embaixada da Dinamarca no Brasil
O incentivo à higiene e lavagem de mãos está sendo constante nas escolas que voltam às aulas.
Na Dinamarca, as escolas chegaram a instalar torneiras fora dos edifícios para que as crianças lavem as mãos quando chegam à escola.
18 de maio de 2020 – Alunos usam máscara em sala de aula no colégio D. Pedro V, em Lisboa, no dia em que parte dos estudantes volta a ter aula em meio à pandemia do novo coronavírus (COVID-19) em Portugal — Foto: Rafael Marchante/Reuters
Alguns países adotaram a medida de dividir os estudantes em grupos menores para evitar contatos mais próximos entre eles, como na Finlândia.
Na Dinamarca, as turmas, que têm entre 20 e 28 alunos, foram divididas para que os alunos possam interagir apenas dentro desse espectro menor.
Em Seul, na Coreia do Sul, os jardins de infância e escolas do ensino básico, fundamental e médio poderão receber apenas um aluno a cada três e os demais terão que seguir com o ensino a distância.
Distanciamento
15 de maio – Estudantes conversam enquanto praticam o distanciamento social no pátio de uma escola secundária durante sua reabertura em Bruxelas, na Bélgica, durante o surto do coronavírus (COVID-19) — Foto: Yves Herman/Reuters
Em geral, as salas de aula foram reorganizadas de maneira que as mesas dos alunos fiquem a pelo menos um metro de distância entre elas. A recomendação é feita pelo governos da França, Dinamarca. Em Israel, essa distância é de dois metros.
Na Dinamarca, além da distância de um metro entre as mesas dos alunos, o professor deve ficar a dois metros do estudante que senta mais próximo dele.
Alguns países adotam inclusive paredes acrílicas para evitar que gotículas da fala sejam trocadas entre os estudantes e entre estudantes e professores, como é o caso da Coreia do Sul.
Alunos retomam aulas na Coreia do Sul; em algumas escolas, carteiras têm divisórias — Foto: Yonhap / AFP Photo
Para estudantes menores, mantê-los afastados é um desafio. Uma solução lúdica, feita com asas de papelão, foi adotada na província de Shanxi, na China, para lembrá-los a distância que precisam ficar uns dos outros.
Alunos do ensino fundamental usam asas para manter o distanciamento na sala de aula em Taiyuan, na província de Shanxi, no norte da China. Foto tirada em 20 de maio de 2020 — Foto: AFP
A mesma medida foi adotada pelos governo da Finlândia e Israel, que determinaram o estabelecimento de horários diferentes para intervalos, entrada e saída para evitar aglomeração.
Na Dinamarca, além dos horários variados, novos portões estão sendo utilizados para que a entrada e saída dos grupos não coincidam. Os pais também são orientados a se despedir dos filhos fora da escola e devem pedir permissão, caso necessitem entrar no estabelecimento.
Arejar a sala
Na França, as escolas são orientadas a manter as janelas abertas antes das aulas, durante o intervalo e depois da partida dos alunos.
Afastamento de professores do grupo de risco
27 de abril – Médicos de um hospital coletam amostras de professores do ensino médio para testes em uma escola após o surto da doença por coronavírus em Yichang, província de Hubei, na China — Foto: China Daily via Reuters
Em Israel, professoras com mais de 65 anos não retomaram as atividades. A medida é para evitar que eles fiquem expostos à uma possível nova onda de circulação do coronavírus.
Editor’s note: Some of our covid-19 coverage is free for readers of The Economist Today, our daily newsletter. For more stories and our pandemic tracker, see our coronavirus hub
AMERICA HAS passed a grim milestone: 100,000 deaths from a novel coronavirus that began to spread half a year and half a world away. Many Americans think their president has handled the epidemic disastrously, that their country has been hit uniquely hard and that there is a simple causal relationship between the two. The 100,000, which does not include excess deaths mistakenly attributed to other causes, is higher than any other country’s. It has routinely been compared with the 60,000 American casualties in the Vietnam war. A Trump Death Clock in Times Square purports to show how many lives the president’s ineptitude has cost: as we went to press it stood at 60,262. Yet this widespread conviction that America has failed because of Donald Trump is not supported by the numbers. Or, at least, not yet.
The official death rate in America is about the same as in the European Union—which also has excess deaths, but has less erratic leaders and universal health care. Overall, America has fared a bit worse than Switzerland and a bit better than the Netherlands, neither of which is a failed state. New York has been hit about as hard as Lombardy in northern Italy; California acted early and is currently similar to Germany; so far, rural states have, like central Europe, been spared the worst. This reflects two things, both of which will matter now that America is reopening before it has the virus fully under control.
The first is that covid-19, when it first hit, displayed an indifference to presidents and their plans. Around the world it has killed in large, dense and connected cities like New York, London and Paris, and where people are crammed together, including care homes, slaughterhouses and prisons. In some countries, including America, testing was snarled up in red tape.
Having seen what was happening in China, Mr Trump could have acted sooner—as Taiwan, Singapore and Vietnam did. He has failed to do things ordinarily expected of an American president in a crisis, such as giving clear government advice or co-ordinating a federal response. Instead, he has touted quack remedies and spent the days when America passed its sombre milestone spreading suspicion of the voting system and accusing a television host of committing a murder that never happened. All this is reprehensible and it may have been costly. Yet, tempting as it is to conclude that the president’s failures bear most of the blame for covid-19’s spread through America, the reality is more complicated (see Briefing).
That leads to the second feature of the country’s response to covid-19. The virus was always going to be hard on a population with high levels of poverty, obesity and diseases such as diabetes, especially among minorities (see Lexington). But, to a remarkable degree, other layers of government have adapted around the hole where the president should have been. The federal system has limited the damage, thanks to its decentralised decision-making. Lockdowns vary by state, city and county. California responded as soon as it saw cases. In the north-east governors largely ignored the White House and got on with coping with the disease, earning the Republican governors of Maryland and Massachusetts the president’s enmity, but high approval ratings. In Florida, though the governor was reluctant to impose a lockdown, county officials went ahead and did so anyway.
Contrary to demands for nationwide rules, this is a strength not a weakness, and will become more so as the pandemic runs its course. In the best-organised states, which have built up testing capacity, it helps ensure that flare-ups can be spotted quickly and rules adjusted accordingly. Because each region is different, that is more efficient than a nationwide approach.
One way democracies can deal with the virus is to draw on reserves of trust. People must behave in ways that protect fellow citizens whom they have never met, even if they themselves are feeling fine. Americans trust their local officials far more than the president or the federal government. And when it comes to public health those local officials have real power. Without this balancing feature, America might today look like Brazil, where a president with a similar love of hydroxychloroquine and distaste for face masks is wreaking havoc (see article).
If the public-health response in the United States so far matches Europe’s, its economic response to the virus may turn out better. True, the unemployment rate in America is 15%, double that in the EU. Yet in Europe most governments are protecting jobs that may no longer exist once lockdowns end rather than focusing help on the unemployed as America’s has. The EU is probably delaying a painful adjustment. Congress, not known for passing consequential legislation with big bipartisan majorities, agreed on a vastly bigger fiscal stimulus than in the financial crisis a decade ago. With a Democrat in the White House and a Republican-controlled Senate, America might not have mustered a response that was either so rapid or so large.
America still has a hard road ahead. Were daily fatalities to remain at today’s level, which is being celebrated as a sign that the pandemic is waning, another 100,000 people would die by the end of the year. To prevent that, America needs to work with the system it has, trusting local politicians to balance the risks of reopening against the cost of lockdowns.
In the next months the infrastructure built during the lockdown must prove itself. Because the virus has yet to decline in some states, it may flare up in new places, which will then need targeted lockdowns. The capacity to test, vital to spotting clusters of infection, has increased, but is still lacking in some places. Almost all the states lack the contact tracers needed to work out who needs testing and quarantining. When it considers how to withdraw fiscal support, Congress should remember this.
That America and Europe have fared similarly in the pandemic does not absolve Mr Trump. This is the first international crisis since 1945 in which America has not only spurned global leadership but, by cutting funds to the World Health Organisation, actively undermined a co-ordinated international response. That matters, as does Mr Trump’s inability to cleave to a consistent message or to speak to the country in words that do not enrage half of the population. Yet four years after Mr Trump was elected, the time to be surprised by his behaviour has long gone. Luckily, he has mattered less than most Americans think.■
This article appeared in the Leaders section of the print edition under the headline “The American way”
A study published in Nature Climate Change recently found that, in early April, daily global carbon dioxide emissions decreased by 17 percent compared to the 2019 mean levels. Because of shelter-in-place rules and businesses being closed, people have been driving and flying less, leading to lower emissions.
Shortly after emissions started dropping in March, the climate community was careful to apply nuance to the emissions reduction discussion: Less carbon dioxide emissions, while good, should not be celebrated when caused by a global pandemic. In other words, while this time may show us the extent that people can come together in action, the ends don’t justify the means — the means here being a global financial crisis and hundreds of thousands of people dead. As climate scientist Carl-Friedrich Schleussner said in Carbon Brief, “The narrative that the economic catastrophe caused by the coronavirus is ‘good’ for the climate is dangerously misleading and could undermine support for climate action.”
Though the climate community quickly dismissed this narrative, the right wing latched onto the idea that progressives were celebrating COVID-19 for its environmental benefits. Quickly, commentators on the right asserted that the world as it is under the pandemic is the world that climate advocates want under policies like the Green New Deal. The British libertarian web magazine Spiked wrote that “Covid-19 is a frightening dress rehearsal of the climate agenda.” Spiked is, incidentally, funded by the Koch foundation. Meanwhile, figures like Alex Epstein, who wrote a book entitled The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels and whose organization Center for Industrial Progress has ties to the coal industry, have said that the recession caused by the pandemic is a preview of the Green New Deal.
This argument is incorrect in many ways, the least of which being that the temporary emissions reduction isn’t nearly enough: The UN has said that emissions need to drop by 7.5 percent each year. That drop needs to be permanent.
“[Right-wingers] are grasping at straws. And they’re actually trying to spin a couple pieces of straw into silk,” says Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. “I don’t see anybody in the climate community actually making that argument” that coronavirus is a good thing.
Yet for climate deniers and delayers, a straw man argument is often enough. “It’s totally in character with the entire [denier] community to make shit up and try to pin it on their opponents,” says Leiserowitz. They just need to sow enough confusion that their benefactors — usually the fossil fuel industry — can thrive under deregulation and the status quo.
Commentators on the right asserted that the world as it is under the pandemic is the world that climate advocates want under policies like the Green New Deal.
So, while these are unprecedented times, this line of attack on the climate community already has a long history. Linking the global pandemic with an imaginary environmental agenda is just part of a quiet but consistent decades-long strategy to attack climate policy. This particular argument strives to equate any climate action with suffering — or, as the reactionary right might put it, a loss of “freedom” or “liberty.”
This narrative has taken many forms over the years; the idea that climate regulation kills jobs was a prominent one for several decades. Now, as the progressive left and climate action have gained ideological ground, the right has had to adapt and warp its arguments accordingly. The new argument, it seems, is that climate regulation kills not just jobs but the entire economy, as conservative pundits and politicians argued in early 2019 when the Green New Deal became popularized.
The irony is that many climate policies are built to be as non-disruptive as possible. “The kinds of changes that we’re going to make in our lives — some of them, we’re not even going to notice,” says Leiserowitz. Light switches will still work, people will still be free to roam outside, meat will still be available to eat; in many ways, without the most oppressive effects of climate change, life will be better.
But deniers take advantage of the fact that climate communicators haven’t quite articulated the vast amounts of life-improving changes that climate action will bring and fill in the gaps with conspiratorial scare tactics.
“The thing that intrigued us [at DeSmogBlog] about the overlap between COVID misinformation and climate denial is that we couldn’t have one without the other,” says Brendan DeMelle, executive director of DeSmogBlog. DeSmogBlog has been documenting the overlap between those who deny or downplay the effects the coronavirus and known climate deniers. The overlap is vast, with climate denialist figures such as Alex Jones and Charlie Kirk and organizations such as the Heartland Institute, The Daily Caller, The Federalist and PragerU participating in various COVID-19 denial tactics.
“This echo chamber [on the right] is rapidly spreading misinformation through The Daily Caller and through all kinds of outlets that wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for this strategy of undermining public trust in science and government leadership,” says DeMelle. Part of the efficacy of the radical right’s propaganda is that it politicizes and smears institutional authorities like scientists and journalists in order to push its counterfactual agenda.
One effective way to combat the narrative that environmentalists want to destroy freedom and liberty is “to paint the positive and inspiring picture of transitioning from polluting energy sources to clean energy,” says John Cook, a climate and cognitive science researcher at George Mason University, over email to Truthout.
After all, mitigating the climate crisis, living free of harmful air that chokes out entire communities, leaving behind the fear that rising sea levels will displace entire countries and casting off our dread of what an entirely new category of hurricane will bring — that would be true freedom.
Ali Mokdad dirige parte das projeções feitas pelo IHME, instituto de métrica da Universidade de Washington utilizado pela Casa Branca como um dos principais modelos para monitorar Covid-19.
Desde o meio de maio, Mokdad e sua equipe acompanham o avanço da pandemia no Brasil e suas conclusões são bastantes sombrias. Na segunda-feira (25), o instituto atualizou para cima a expectativa de mortes pela doença no país: de 88 mil para mais de 125 mil óbitos previstos até agosto.
Em entrevista à Folha, Mokdad diz que a tendência de casos e mortes no país é de alta e que a situação pode ser ainda pior se governo e população não levarem a crise a sério e adotarem “lockdown” por duas semanas.
“As infeções e mortes vão crescer e, o mais assustador, haverá a sobrecarga total do sistema de saúde.” Caso cumpra o confinamento total por 14 dias, explica Mokdad, o Brasil conseguirá controlar a propagação do vírus e poderá fazer a reabertura das atividades econômicas de maneira estratégica –e até mais rapidamente.
Especialista em saúde pública, diz sofrer críticas por ter um modelo que varia bastante, mas, no caso da pandemia, prefere que suas projeções se ajustem com o tempo. “Se os brasileiros ficarem em casa por duas semanas, meus números vão baixar. E não porque fiz algo errado, mas porque os brasileiros fizeram algo certo.”
Qual a situação da pandemia no Brasil? Infelizmente o que vemos no Brasil é uma tendência de aumento de casos, que vai resultar no crescimento das mortes no país. Isso se dá por várias razões. Primeiro porque o país não entrou em “lockdown” cedo para impedir a propagação do vírus. O governo e a população brasileira não levaram isso a sério e não fizeram logo as coisas certas para impedir a transmissão do vírus.
Segundo, há muita disparidade no Brasil e a Covid-19 aumenta isso. Nesse caso, é preciso proteger não só os trabalhadores de saúde mas os trabalhadores de serviços essenciais, pessoas pobres que trabalham em funções que as obrigam a sair de casa. Elas não estão protegidas e estão morrendo. A terceira e mais importante preocupação é a sobrecarga do sistema de saúde. Se o país não agir, vai haver mais casos no inverno e não haverá tempo para se preparar. É perigoso e arriscado. Se você colocar tudo isso junto, o Brasil ainda vai enfrentar sérias dificuldades diante da Covid-19.
Em duas semanas, o IHME aumentou as projeções de morte no Brasil de 88 mil para mais de 125 mil até agosto. O que aconteceu? Adicionamos mais estados [de 11 para 19] na nossa projeção, isso é uma coisa. Mas estamos vendo no Brasil mais surtos e casos do que esperávamos. O país está testando mais e encontrando mais casos, mas, mesmo quando ajustamos para os testes, há uma tendência de alta.
No Brasil há também um erro de suposição quando falamos de circulação. Os dados [de mobilidade da população] são baseados no Facebook e no Google, ou seja, em smartphones, ou seja, em pessoas mais ricas. Percebemos que a circulação não parou nas favelas, por exemplo, em lugares onde pessoas mais pobres precisam sair para trabalhar. Se as pessoas se recusarem a levar isso a sério, infelizmente vamos ver mais casos e mortes.
Quais medidas precisam ser tomadas? Fechar escolas e universidades, impedir grandes aglomerações e encontros de pessoas, fechar os estabelecimentos não essenciais, igrejas, templos e locais religiosos. Nos locais essenciais, como mercados e farmácias, é preciso estabelecer regras, limitando o número de pessoas dentro, garantindo que elas se mantenham distantes umas das outras.
A última e mais importante coisa é pedir para quem precisa sair de casa—e sabemos que há quem precise— usar máscara e manter distância de 2 metros de outras pessoas. Para o sistema de saúde, é aumentar a capacidade de tratamento, de detectar cedo a chegada de um surto, fazendo rastreamento e o isolamento de casos, o que é um desafio para o Brasil, onde muitas vezes dez pessoas vivem em uma mesma casa.
Se o Brasil não cumprir essas medidas, qual é o pior cenário para o país? As infeções e mortes vão crescer e, a parte mais assustadora, haverá a sobrecarga total do sistema de saúde. Isso vai causar mais prejuízo à economia do que se fizer o isolamento por duas semanas. Se a população ficar em casa e levar isso a sério por duas semanas, registraremos diminuição da propagação do vírus e poderemos reabrir em fases. É preciso garantir que a retomada econômica seja feita de maneira estratégica, por setores.
É possível evitar o pico de 1.500 mortes diárias em julho e as 125 mil mortes até agosto se o país parar agora? Sim. O Brasil está em uma situação muito difícil e pode ser assim por muito tempo, mas ainda há esperança. Se o governo e a população pararem por duas semanas, podemos parar a circulação do vírus e reabrir o comércio. Se você olhar para estados americanos, como Nova York, depois que há o “lockdown”, as mortes e os casos diminuem. O “lockdown” salvou muitas vidas nos EUA. Fizemos as projeções para o Brasil de 125 mil mortes até 4 de agosto, mas não significa que vai acontecer, podemos parar isso. É preciso que cada brasileiro faça sua parte.
O presidente Jair Bolsonaro é contra medidas de distanciamento social, compara a Covid-19 com uma gripezinha e defende um medicamento com eficácia não comprovada contra a doença. Como essa postura pode impactar a situação do Brasil? Aqui nos EUA temos também uma situação política nesse sentido, infelizmente. Não sou político, vejo os números e dou conselhos a partir do que concluo deles. Pelos dados, o Brasil precisa de uma ação coordenada, caso contrário, vamos ter muitas perdas.
Mas precisamos ter uma coisa clara: Covid-19 não é uma gripe, causa mais mortalidade que gripe, a gripe não causa AVC e nem ataca os pulmões da maneira que a Covid-19 ataca. Contra Covid-19 não há medicamento e ponto final. Não tem vacina. Não é possível comparar Covid-19 e gripe. Fazer isso é passar mensagem errada. Dizer para a população que é possível sair e ver quem pega a doença é inaceitável, é falha de liderança.
Como ganhar a confiança dos governos e da população com projeções que variam tanto e com tanta gente trabalhando com dados sobre o tema? Há muita gente fazendo projeção mas, pela primeira vez na história da ciência, todos concordamos. Os números podem ser diferentes, mas a mensagem mais importante é a mesma: isso é um vírus letal e temos que levá-lo a sério. Meus números mudam porque as pessoas mudam. Se os brasileiros ficarem em casa por duas semanas, meus números vão baixar. E não porque fiz algo errado, mas porque os brasileiros fizeram algo certo. Aprendemos que o modelo muda se novos dados aparecem.
O sr. já foi acusado de ser alarmista ou de produzir notícias falsas quando seus números mudam? Acusado é demais, mas tem gente que fala que meus números são mais altos ou mais baixos do que deveriam ser, e isso eu nem resposto, porque não é um debate científico, é um debate político. No debate científico está todo mundo a bordo com a mesma mensagem.
Como é trabalhar tendo isso em vista, com números tão sensíveis e poderosos? A gente não dorme muito por esses dias, é muito trabalho. É muito difícil dizer que 125 mil pessoas vão morrer no Brasil até agosto. Isso não é um número, são famílias, amigos, é muito duro.
Vou contar uma história longa. Calma, leiam até o fim. Confiem em mim. Era uma vez uma doença. Ela surgiu em um país muito, muito distante. De repente, começou a se alastrar como faísca sobre pólvora. Pessoas começaram a morrer, em números enormes, aos montes. Os jornais começaram a noticiar sobre a doença antes que ela chegasse ao nosso país. Informavam a população, mas as pessoas não acreditavam. Diziam que era algo distante, que era apenas uma gripe comum, que era tudo um grande exagero.
Algumas pessoas que chegavam de viagem da Europa caiam doentes. Algumas morreram. Mas eram velhas. Tinham doenças. Não havia motivo para pânico.
As pessoas liam os jornais e ficavam indignadas com o exagero da imprensa. Diziam que era uma jogada politica para derrubar o governo, para espalhar o comunismo pelo mundo.
Na tentativa de conter a doença, que a essa altura já se alastrara por várias nações, países começaram a indicar o uso de máscaras, recomendaram que as pessoas ficassem afastadas, em quarentena, em cidades do mundo todo.
– Quarentena? Como assim? O que será da nossa economia?? – gritavam pessoas indignadas.
Faziam piquetes, manifestações, carregavam cartazes dizendo que se recusavam a usar máscara. E, quando eram obrigadas, usavam placas informando que não concordavam com o uso dela.
Escolas foram fechadas, portas de negócios foram baixadas. Apenas farmácias e mercados poderiam permanecer abertos para abastecer a população.
Teatros e cinemas foram lacrados. Todos os campeonatos de futebol e outros esportes foram cancelados.
O Rio de Janeiro tornou-se um cenário de tragédia. Hospitais lotados, sem vias de saída, pessoas morrendo em casa. Por toda parte, a falta de caixões e pessoas precisando ser enterradas em valas comuns. Em um único dia, chegam a ser registradas mais de 1.000 mortes.
No Congresso, propôs-se que a formatura dos estudantes fosse antecipada, para que fossem logo para o mercado de trabalho.
Cientistas procuravam loucamente a cura ou o tratamento para aquela doença, até que algum jornal anunciou que um medicamento incrível, até então usado para a malária, parecia ser eficiente.
As pessoas ficaram em polvorosa. Todos queriam o medicamento. Alguns médicos passaram a anunciar o milagre dessa substância em veículos de comunicação, as pessoas se acumulavam na porta das farmácias e consultórios para recebê-la.
Não havia recomendação científica para o tal remédio, mas as pessoas não se importavam. Estavam desesperadas, qualquer coisa serviria.
Milhares de doentes foram medicados, mas a doença não parecia melhorar com o remédio.
Os veículos de comunicação então chegaram a uma conclusão que parecia óbvia: o remédio não funcionava porque estava sendo administrado tarde demais.
O ideal seria prescrevê-lo o quanto antes, até mesmo preventivamente, como garantia, para evitar a contaminação antes que ela acontecesse.
Alguns outros médicos tentaram alertar a população quanto ao risco do medicamento, mas foi em vão.
Estes médicos foram taxados de conspiracionistas, agredidos, xingados, tomados por comunistas, acusados de estarem contra o interesse da população.
As pessoas passaram a se auto administrar o medicamento para malária, como iriam esperar de braços cruzados?
Foi aí que a historia se complicou. Havia pessoas que não podiam tomar o tal remédio, pois eram portadoras de condições clinicas adversas que eram contra indicação ao uso dele. Algumas desmaiavam na rua. Correram lendas urbanas de pessoas que chegaram a ser tomadas por mortas e enterradas vivas, em decorrência de paradas cardíacas e arritmias causadas pelo remédio, cuja dose era propagada sem qualquer critério pela própria imprensa.
As pessoas, ao longo do tempo, ao verem que o medicamento não surtia o efeito prometido, passaram a recorrer a soluções populares e caseiras cujos boatos se disseminaram.
Aguardente, associada a limão e mel, seria um tratamento possível. Bares chegaram a ter filas de pessoas em busca de uma dose. O alcoolismo disparou. O preço da fruta atingiu valores jamais vistos e sumiu das prateleiras.
Correu o boato de que hospitais estavam administrando chás envenenados à meia noite, para pacientes terminais, para liberar leitos.
Por quase dois anos, o governo falhou em conseguir implementar um Ministério da Saúde eficiente. As opiniões se dividiam, discutiam o impacto do isolamento sobre o comércio
Da mesma forma que um famoso escritor chegou a descrever: “Cada médico tinha uma tentativa de explicação diferente; nós não sabíamos no quê e em quem acreditar. Esperávamos por uma explicação que ninguém tinha para dar, como até hoje esperamos para saber o que foi aquela sassânida infernal.”
Enquanto isso, a doença avançava. Em meio a promessas vãs, avançou e avançou. A única coisa que se provou eficaz para contê-la foram as regiões com alta adesão ao isolamento social e ao uso de máscaras.
Não, não se trata do coronavirus nem da cloroquina.
Trata-se da gripe espanhola e do sal de quinino, medicamento que na época era usado para malária.
O uso indiscriminado do sal de quinino foi promovido pela imprensa na época, a partir de 1918, e levou também inúmeras pessoas à morte. A imprensa em massa passou a prescrever os sais de quinino inicialmente como tratamento, e posteriormente como prevenção à gripe espanhola.
Nunca surtiu efeito.
A gripe espanhola terminou por matar 30 milhões de pessoas, sem que até hoje, 102 anos depois, tenha sido encontrada a cura.
Na época, muitas pessoas acreditavam que ela era uma mentira, um exagero e uma conspiração para alastrar a revolução comunista de 1917 pelo mundo.
A única medida que, retrospectivamente, conteve razoavelmente a doença em algumas regiões, foi o isolamento social.
A economia sobreviveu.
Quem não recorre aos livros de história para lê-la está fadado a repeti-la.
Notas: 1. A gripe espanhola matou o presidente da República brasileiro, recém reeleito, o Conselheiro Rodrigues Alves, em 1918, logo antes de sua posse.
2. O “medicamento caseiro” inventado para o tratamento da gripe espanhola, à base de aguardente, mel e limão, entrou para a cultura brasileira e hoje atende pelo nome de “caipirinha”.
3. O “chá da meia noite” foi um boato que difamou a Santa Casa do Rio de Janeiro em 1918. Foi apelidada na época de “Casa do Diabo”. Após o final da epidemia, o Chá da Meia Noite foi tema do primeiro bloco de carnaval do Rio, em 1919.
Two women hold anti-vaccination signs during a protest against Governor Jay Inslee’s stay-at-home order outside the State Capitol in Olympia, Washington on May 9, 2020. JASON REDMOND/AFP/Getty Images
Misinformation is taking a dangerous hold on Fox News viewers. According to a new poll, half of all Americans who name Fox News as their primary news source believe the debunked conspiracy theory claiming Bill Gates is looking to use a coronavirus vaccine to inject a microchip into people and track the world’s population.
The Yahoo News/YouGov poll, released on Friday, found that 44 percent of Republicans also buy into the unfounded claim, while just 19 percent of Democrats believe the lie about the Microsoft co-founder and philanthropist.
According to Yahoo’s report on the poll, neither Fox News nor President Trump has promoted the false Gates conspiracy. But sowing seeds of distrust of mainstream media and the spread of misinformation is a hallmark of the network and the current president. Last month, Fox primetime host Laura Ingraham shared a tweet where she expressed agreement with a user who wrote about the debunked conspiracy theory.
“Digitally tracking Americans’ every move has been a dream of the globalists for years. This health crisis is the perfect vehicle for them to push this,” Ingraham wrote.
The poll also found that just 15 percent of MSNBC viewers believe the untrue conspiracy theory which, according to the fact-checking publication Snopes, began with the anti-vaccine movement. They chose to target Gates specifically because of his decade-long advocacy for vaccines.
According to an April report in the New York Times that looked into the right-wing targeting of Gates, media analysis company Zignal Labs found that “misinformation about Gates is now the most widespread of all coronavirus falsehoods” that the company has tracked.
This debunked conspiracy theory could be especially menacing if it deters any portion of the population from getting vaccinated, if and when one becomes available, which would then make it much tougher to rid the world of the virus.
In another poll released on Friday by Reuters/Ipsos showed increasing mistrust in the president due to his consistent habit of sharing misinformation. Thirty-six percent of those surveyed said they would be less willing to take a vaccine if it were endorsed by the president.
The picture these polls paint is both sad and obviously dangerous for all of us, especially with the current pandemic. Unfortunately, our country’s lack of trustworthy leadership means that more and more people are susceptible to bad and untrue advice that is rampant on random Reddit forums, Facebook posts and, yes, even TikTok — where conspiracy theories are paired with viral dances.
Um vírus fez um bocado de gente começar a tratar fungos como animais de estimação. Refiro-me às pessoas que, receosas dos riscos do consumo de comidas preparadas artesanalmente, começaram a fazer pão em casa; e especificamente quem decidiu usar fermentação natural. Manter o fermento vivo demanda mais trabalho do um cuidar de um gato; nos vídeos de internet, as pessoas falam em situações em que o fermento está “alegre” (quando está crescendo e borbulhando) e quando está “triste” (quando, por falta de alimentação, está estagnado e começa a formar álcool na sua superfície).
De fato, o fermento está mais pra gato que pra cachorro. Um dos desafios no aprender a fazer pão com fermentação natural é que ele não se adapta ao seu ritmo, e nem negocia prazos. Conseguir adaptar o próprio ritmo ao do pão – onde há atividade lenta e constante, e qualquer interferência estraga o resultado final e obriga a pessoa a voltar ao início – é um tremendo exercício de compreensão de que, para que sejamos capazes de experimentar algumas das melhores coisas da vida, é preciso aceitar o ritmo que tais coisas impõe.
Gravediggers work during a mass burial of people who passed away due to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), at the Parque Taruma cemetery in Manaus, Brazil, May 26, 2020. Picture taken with a drone. REUTERS/Bruno Kelly
BRASILIA (Reuters) – As Brazil’s daily COVID-19 death rate climbs to the highest in the world, a University of Washington study is warning its total death toll could climb five-fold to 125,000 by early August, adding to fears it has become a new hot spot in the pandemic.
The forecast from the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), released as Brazil’s daily death toll climbed past that of the United States on Monday, came with a call for lockdowns that Brazil’s president has resisted.
“Brazil must follow the lead of Wuhan, China, as well as Italy, Spain, and New York by enforcing mandates and measures to gain control of a fast-moving epidemic and reduce transmission of the coronavirus,” wrote IHME Director Dr. Christopher Murray.
Without such measures, the institute’s model shows Brazil’s daily death toll could keep climbing to until mid-July, driving shortages of critical hospital resources in Brazil, he said in a statement accompanying the findings.
On Monday, Brazil’s coronavirus deaths reported in the last 24 hours were higher than fatalities in the United States for the first time, according to the health ministry. Brazil registered 807 deaths and 620 died in the United States.
The U.S. government on Monday brought forward to Tuesday midnight enforcement of restrictions on travel to the United States from Brazil as the South American country reported the highest death toll in the world for that day.
Washington’s ban applies to foreigners traveling to the United States if they had been in Brazil in the last two weeks. Two days earlier, Brazil overtook Russia as the world’s No. 2 coronavirus hot spot in number of confirmed cases, after the United States.
Murray said the IHME forecast captures the effects of social distancing mandates, mobility trends and testing capacity, so projections could shift along with policy changes.
The model will be updated regularly as new data is released on cases, hospitalizations, deaths, testing and mobility.
Reporting by Anthony Boadle; Editing by Brad Haynes and Steve Orlofsky
Campanhas pelo país impulsionam o exercício de empatia e desprendimento
Uma das características singulares que emerge em tempos de crise é a humanização, que vem carregada daquela palavra ‘aconchegante’ chamada empatia. Problemas da sociedade moderna já existentes se multiplicaram exponencialmente, em tempos de quarentena devido à pandemia da Covid-19, e potencializam hoje o que cada cidadão-solo ou em esforços coletivos pode contribuir aos mais vulneráveis. Assim, as campanhas se ampliam em diferentes regiões do Brasil, com doações de tempo em trabalho, de alimentos, produtos de limpeza, medicamentos para famílias e comunidades mais necessitadas. Como também, doações em itens ou dinheiro para asilos, hospitais públicos e instituições de pesquisa e a causas de PET abandonados.
Este é o mosaico formado por uma rede-cidadã que se forja dia a dia na resiliência às adversidades aqui e em outros lugares no mundo. Caso você se sinta sensibilizado por iniciativas realizadas por organizações idôneas, não se acanhe, parta para as ações dentro de suas possibilidades! É a filosofia do ganha-ganha!
Caso não tenha ideia do ponto de partida, faça um levantamento de entidades em seu bairro ou município, que mantêm trabalhos permanentes assistenciais credenciados ou sobre causas que tenha mais afinidade em suas congregações religiosas ou não. Verifique suas necessidades. Ou quem sabe, se bem mais perto de você, o seu próprio vizinho não está precisando de ajuda? Uma palavra amiga, uma divisão de mantimento, que não faz falta em sua casa, ou se oferecer a fazer uma compra de alimentos, fazem parte deste exercício.
Aqui, em São Caetano do Sul, SP, pesquisei algumas campanhas locais e doei pequenas quantias ao Abrigo Irmã Tereza e ao Lar Bom Repouso. Também a catadores de materiais recicláveis de São Paulo, a indígenas de São Paulo (pelo Instituto Akhanda) e à Campanha Existe Amor, de Milton Nascimento e Criolo e aos franciscanos. E continuo, neste propósito, também no papel de comunicadora. Cada um vai encontrar ferramentas próprias que dão sentido nesta engrenagem.
É preciso sempre estar atento quanto à transparência das informações sobre as quantias e destinações desses recursos. A Associação Brasileira de Captadores de Recursos (ABCR) criou a página https://www.monitordasdoacoes.org.br/, que tem apurado o levantamento de doações à causa da Covid-19, com dados de doadores como também de mais de 350 campanhas em andamento no país. Nos informes, há dados de quanto estão recebendo (com no mínimo R$ 10 mil angariados à causa). É mais uma maneira interessante de possibilitar uma certa transparência deste universo, que tem de existir de forma autônoma nos canais de comunicação das instituições envolvidas.
O que importa, no final das contas, é encontrar nestes pequenos gestos, o sentido de pertencimento, pelo qual conseguimos dividir e compartilhar, se possível, de palavras a elementos de necessidade básica. E ter a percepção de que todos estamos juntos em um mesmo barco, mas alguns precisam de mais apoio do que outros, em momentos de crise.
*Sucena Shkrada Resk – jornalista, formada há 28 anos, pela PUC-SP, com especializações lato sensu em Meio Ambiente e Sociedade e em Política Internacional, pela FESPSP, e autora do Blog Cidadãos do Mundo – jornalista Sucena Shkrada Resk (https://www.cidadaosdomundo.webnode.com), desde 2007, voltado às áreas de cidadania, socioambientalismo e sustentabilidade.
Summary: At the beginning of a new wave of an epidemic, extreme care should be used when extrapolating data to determine whether lockdowns are necessary, experts say.
As the infectious virus causing the COVID-19 disease began its devastating spread around the globe, an international team of scientists was alarmed by the lack of uniform approaches by various countries’ epidemiologists to respond to it.
Germany, for example, didn’t institute a full lockdown, unlike France and the U.K., and the decision in the U.S. by New York to go into a lockdown came only after the pandemic had reached an advanced stage. Data modeling to predict the numbers of likely infections varied widely by region, from very large to very small numbers, and revealed a high degree of uncertainty.
Davide Faranda, a scientist at the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS), and colleagues in the U.K., Mexico, Denmark, and Japan decided to explore the origins of these uncertainties. This work is deeply personal to Faranda, whose grandfather died of COVID-19; Faranda has dedicated the work to him.
In the journal Chaos, from AIP Publishing, the group describes why modeling and extrapolating the evolution of COVID-19 outbreaks in near real time is an enormous scientific challenge that requires a deep understanding of the nonlinearities underlying the dynamics of epidemics.
Forecasting the behavior of a complex system, such as the evolution of epidemics, requires both a physical model for its evolution and a dataset of infections to initialize the model. To create a model, the team used data provided by Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Systems Science and Engineering, which is available online at https://systems.jhu.edu/research/public-health/ncov/ or https://github.com/CSSEGISandData/COVID-19.
“Our physical model is based on assuming that the total population can be divided into four groups: those who are susceptible to catching the virus, those who have contracted the virus but don’t show any symptoms, those who are infected and, finally, those who recovered or died from the virus,” Faranda said.
To determine how people move from one group to another, it’s necessary to know the infection rate, incubation time and recovery time. Actual infection data can be used to extrapolate the behavior of the epidemic with statistical models.
“Because of the uncertainties in both the parameters involved in the models — infection rate, incubation period and recovery time — and the incompleteness of infections data within different countries, extrapolations could lead to an incredibly large range of uncertain results,” Faranda said. “For example, just assuming an underestimation of the last data in the infection counts of 20% can lead to a change in total infections estimations from few thousands to few millions of individuals.”
The group has also shown that this uncertainty is due to a lack of data quality and also to the intrinsic nature of the dynamics, because it is ultrasensitive to the parameters — especially during the initial growing phase. This means that everyone should be very careful extrapolating key quantities to decide whether to implement lockdown measures when a new wave of the virus begins.
“The total final infection counts as well as the duration of the epidemic are sensitive to the data you put in,” he said.
The team’s model handles uncertainty in a natural way, so they plan to show how modeling of the post-confinement phase can be sensitive to the measures taken.
“Preliminary results show that implementing lockdown measures when infections are in a full exponential growth phase poses serious limitations for their success,” said Faranda.
Davide Faranda, Isaac Pérez Castillo, Oliver Hulme, Aglaé Jezequel, Jeroen S. W. Lamb, Yuzuru Sato, Erica L. Thompson. Asymptotic estimates of SARS-CoV-2 infection counts and their sensitivity to stochastic perturbation. Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, 2020; 30 (5): 051107 DOI: 10.1063/5.0008834
The COVID-19 global lockdown has had an “extreme” effect on daily carbon emissions, but it is unlikely to last — according to a new analysis by an international team of scientists.
The study published in the journal Nature Climate Change shows that daily emissions decreased by 17% — or 17 million tonnes of carbon dioxide — globally during the peak of the confinement measures in early April compared to mean daily levels in 2019, dropping to levels last observed in 2006.
Emissions from surface transport, such as car journeys, account for almost half (43%) of the decrease in global emissions during peak confinement on April 7. Emissions from industry and from power together account for a further 43% of the decrease in daily global emissions.
Aviation is the economic sector most impacted by the lockdown, but it only accounts for 3% of global emissions, or 10% of the decrease in emissions during the pandemic.
The increase in the use of residential buildings from people working at home only marginally offset the drop in emissions from other sectors.
In individual countries, emissions decreased by 26% on average at the peak of their confinement.
The analysis also shows that social responses alone, without increases in wellbeing and/or supporting infrastructure, will not drive the deep and sustained reductions needed to reach net zero emissions.
Prof Corinne Le Quéré of the University of East Anglia, in the UK, led the analysis. She said: “Population confinement has led to drastic changes in energy use and CO2 emissions. These extreme decreases are likely to be temporary though, as they do not reflect structural changes in the economic, transport, or energy systems.
“The extent to which world leaders consider climate change when planning their economic responses post COVID-19 will influence the global CO2 emissions paths for decades to come.
“Opportunities exist to make real, durable, changes and be more resilient to future crises, by implementing economic stimulus packages that also help meet climate targets, especially for mobility, which accounts for half the decrease in emissions during confinement.
“For example in cities and suburbs, supporting walking and cycling, and the uptake of electric bikes, is far cheaper and better for wellbeing and air quality than building roads, and it preserves social distancing.”
The team analysed government policies on confinement for 69 countries responsible for 97% of global CO2 emissions. At the peak of the confinement, regions responsible for 89% of global CO2 emissions were under some level of restriction. Data on activities indicative of how much each economic sector was affected by the pandemic was then used to estimate the change in fossil CO2 emissions for each day and country from January to April 2020.
The estimated total change in emissions from the pandemic amounts to 1048 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (MtCO2) until the end of April. Of this, the changes are largest in China where the confinement started, with a decrease of 242 MtCO2, then in the US (207 MtCO2), Europe (123 MtCO2), and India (98 MtCO2). The total change in the UK for January-April 2020 is an estimated 18 MtCO2.
The impact of confinement on 2020 annual emissions is projected to be around 4% to 7% compared to 2019, depending on the duration of the lockdown and the extent of the recovery. If pre-pandemic conditions of mobility and economic activity return by mid-June, the decline would be around 4%. If some restrictions remain worldwide until the end of the year, it would be around 7%.
This annual drop is comparable to the amount of annual emission reductions needed year-on-year across decades to achieve the climate objectives of UN Paris Agreement.
Prof Rob Jackson of Stanford University and Chair of the Global Carbon Project who co-authored the analysis, added: “The drop in emissions is substantial but illustrates the challenge of reaching our Paris climate commitments. We need systemic change through green energy and electric cars, not temporary reductions from enforced behavior.”
The authors warn that the rush for economic stimulus packages must not make future emissions higher by delaying New Green Deals or weakening emissions standards.
‘Temporary reduction in daily global CO2 emissions during the COVID-19 forced confinement’, Corinne Le Quéré, Robert B. Jackson, Matthew W. Jones, Adam J. P. Smith, Sam Abernethy, Robbie M. Andrew, Anthony J. De-Gol, David R. Willis, Yuli Shan, Josep G. Canadell, Pierre Friedlingstein, Felix Creutzig, Glen P. Peters, is published in Nature Climate Change on May 19.
The research received support from the Royal Society, the European Commission projects 4C, VERIFY and CHE, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, and the Australian National Environmental Science Program.
Corinne Le Quéré, Robert B. Jackson, Matthew W. Jones, Adam J. P. Smith, Sam Abernethy, Robbie M. Andrew, Anthony J. De-Gol, David R. Willis, Yuli Shan, Josep G. Canadell, Pierre Friedlingstein, Felix Creutzig, Glen P. Peters. Temporary reduction in daily global CO2 emissions during the COVID-19 forced confinement. Nature Climate Change, 2020; DOI: 10.1038/s41558-020-0797-x
Summary: A new study finds that China’s countrywide ban on traffic mobility from February 10 to March 14, 2020 greatly limited automobile emissions and sharply reduced the country’s often severe air pollution. The improved air quality, in turn, prevented thousands of pollution-related deaths.
Soon after coronavirus appeared, an all-encompassing quarantine put into effect by the Chinese government slowed the spread of the disease and saved lives, but the quarantine also produced another unanticipated health benefit.
A new study led by researchers at the Yale School of Public Health and published in the journal Lancet Planetary Health, finds that China’s countrywide ban on traffic mobility from February 10 to March 14 greatly limited automobile emissions and sharply reduced the country’s often severe air pollution.
The improved air quality, in turn, prevented thousands of pollution-related deaths. More premature deaths were avoided by cleaner air — an estimated 12,125 — than lives lost from the pandemic — 4,633 as of May 4, the study finds.
“This is a very surprising result. The pandemic continues to be a terrible thing for China and the rest of the world, but the decrease in emissions that accompanied it has actually conferred some positive health results,” said Kai Chen, assistant professor at the Yale School of Public Health and the study’s first author. “The question is, how can we have one without the other?”
Although the findings cannot be directly applied to other countries due to different severity of and responses to COVID-19, as well as differing air pollution levels and population characteristics, reduced air pollution levels have been detected in other Asian and European countries and the U.S. after their own lockdowns, Chen said. He notes that this reduction in pollution has likely conferred similar health benefits.
The study found that ground-level air pollution levels dropped remarkably throughout China, with nitrogen dioxide (NO2) dropping by 12.9 ?g/m3 (or 37% compared with before the quarantine period) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) dropping by 18.9 ?g/m3 (30%) across 367 Chinese cities. The decline in NO2 across China during the quarantine period was so dramatic that it was detected by satellite measurements.
NO2 is a gaseous air pollutant, which is mainly produced from fuel burning in vehicles and power plants. NO2 level before the quarantine (January 5 to 20) was as high as 40.5 ?g/m3 in Wuhan, where the outbreak began in China. During the quarantine (February 10 to March 14), those levels had fallen to 18.8 ?g/m3 (micrograms per cubic meter).
Particulate matter includes all solid and liquid particles suspended in air, many of which are hazardous when inhaled. This mixture includes both organic and inorganic particles, such as dust, pollen, soot, smoke, and liquid droplets. Before the quarantine, PM 2.5 (fine inhalable particles with diameters of 2.5 micrometers or smaller) levels were measured at 62.5 ?g/m3 in many Chinese cities. During the quarantine, the fine particulate matter reading has been 36.5 ?g/m3 in those same locations.
The authors then calculated the number of avoided deaths attributable to these decreases in NO2 and PM2.5 across China based on the short-term association between these pollutants and daily mortality using data from a previous epidemiological study of 272 Chinese cities, and mortality data from the China Health and Family Planning Statistical Yearbook 2018. The authors found that among the more than 12,000 avoided deaths, about two-thirds were from avoided cardiovascular diseases (hypertensive disease, coronary heart disease and stroke) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
The findings illustrate the substantial human health benefits related to cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality that can be achieved when aggressive air pollution control measures are put in place to reduce emissions from vehicles, such as through climate mitigation-related traffic restrictions or efforts to accelerate the transition to electric vehicles, the authors said.
“This unexpected health benefit suggests that if we were to address the climate crisis as aggressively as we are combating the COVID-19 pandemic with strong political will and urgent action, we could prevent the enormous health burdens associated with climate change,” said co-author Paul T. Anastas, professor at the Yale School of Public Health and the Teresa and H. John Heinz III Chair of Chemistry for the Environment.
The authors said that they want to further identify whether climate or weather-related factors and air pollution could influence population susceptibility to COVID-19.
The paper was written with researchers from the University at Buffalo School of Public Health and Health Professions and Boston University School of Public Health.
Kai Chen, Meng Wang, Conghong Huang, Patrick L Kinney, Paul T Anastas. Air pollution reduction and mortality benefit during the COVID-19 outbreak in China. The Lancet Planetary Health, 2020; DOI: 10.1016/S2542-5196(20)30107-8
O Ministério Público de São Paulo emitiu recomendação ao prefeito da capital, Bruno Covas (PSDB), pela criação de 8 mil vagas para acolhimento de pessoas em situação de rua durante a pandemia do novo coronavírus. A proposta inclui o uso da rede hoteleira da cidade e dos prédios públicos municipais ociosos.
Edital da Prefeitura Municipal previa a disponibilização de 500 vagas em hotéis para idosos em situação de rua que estejam acolhidos nos serviços da rede assistencial do município. De acordo com o MP, a oferta é ‘tímida e claramente insuficiente’, visto que haveria cerca de 25 mil pessoas em situação de rua em toda a capital, segundo censo realizado em 2019.
“Destas, estão acolhidas aproximadamente 17.000, que são as vagas disponíveis de acordo com o mesmo censo” afirmou a Promotoria. “Tendo em conta o avanço do vírus e o alto risco de contágio entre a população em situação de rua, é preciso que a Prefeitura Municipal adote providências emergenciais, ainda que provisórias, destinadas à oferta de vagas a todas as pessoas em situação de rua. É preciso, pois, providenciar com urgência a criação de no mínimo 8 mil vagas”.
A recomendação foi determinada após representação do ex-presidenciável Guilherme Boulos, da deputada federal Luiza Erundina (PSOL-SP) e do Padre Júlio Lancellotti.
A Promotoria pede a utilização de mais vagas na rede hoteleira, que se encontra ociosa devido à retratação econômica, ‘inclusive como garantia de manutenção dos estabelecimentos comerciais e de emprego aos trabalhadores’.
Moradores em situação de rua na região da Avenida Paulista, em São Paulo (SP). Foto: Felipe Rau/Estadão
Outra opção é o uso de prédios públicos municipais ociosos, como escolas e centros esportivos.
“É preciso lembrar que a hipótese de confinamento compulsório (dito lockdown), que vem sendo cogitado pelo Governo Estadual e pelo Governo Municipal, tornará a providência aqui discutida indiscutivelmente necessária”, apontou o Ministério Público.
COM A PALAVRA, A PREFEITURA DE SÃO PAULO
A Prefeitura de São Paulo vem promovendo diversas ações de combate ao Coronavírus voltadas para a população em situação de vulnerabilidade, sempre seguindo as orientações da Organização Mundial da Saúde (OMS), Ministério da Saúde (MS) e das secretarias Estadual e Municipal da Saúde. O foco do Município é ampliar a rede de apoio para que todas as comunidades sejam atendidas. Com esse objetivo, a Administração já distribuiu cerca de 170 mil refeições à população em situação de rua, e mais de 280 mil cestas básicas foram entregues a famílias em extrema situa de vulnerabilidade. Na região central, diversas famílias recebem mantimentos, como itens de alimentação, limpeza e higiene. Em toda cidade, foram distribuídos, apenas no último mês, mais de 50 mil kits de higiene e alimentação. Outra ação em andamento é o cartão alimentação, já entregue a mais 350 mil crianças matriculadas na rede municipal.
ACOLHIMENTOS
A Prefeitura de São Paulo, por meio da Secretaria Municipal de Assistência e Desenvolvimento Social (SMADS), informa que criou oito novos equipamentos emergenciais, com funcionamento 24h, para acolhimento de pessoas em situação de rua, totalizando 680 novas vagas. Outras 400 vagas serão criadas nos Centros de Educação Unificado (CEUs).
Os Centros de Acolhida têm suas estruturas higienizadas constantemente e são mantidos com as janelas abertas. Nos quartos as camas foram colocadas em distância segura. Todos os eventos agendados nos serviços foram cancelados e as visitas suspensas. Todas essas medidas contribuem para diminuir o risco de contágio.
Neste período de pandemia, a SMADS ampliou a oferta de serviços nos quais as pessoas em situação de rua têm acesso a refeições, banheiros, kits de higiene e orientações. Na região da Luz, por exemplo, desde 26/03 foi instalado um Núcleo de Convivência de caráter emergencial, para servir 200 refeições à população local (almoço e café da tarde). No dia 03/04, outro núcleo começou a funcionar, na região do Cambuci, com capacidade de oferecer café da manhã, almoço e café da tarde para 200 pessoas. A rede municipal conta com 10 Núcleos de Convivência, com 3.172 vagas. Para os Núcleos de Convivência da Sé, Prates, Porto Seguro, Complexo Boracea, Helvetia foram aditados em caráter emergencial mais 1.260 vagas.
A Secretaria informa também que já planeja a utilização de hotéis para abrigar pessoas em situação de rua. Tanto que foi publicada hoje (20) a prorrogação do Edital de Credenciamento nº 002/2020/SMADS, para 500 vagas, até o dia 29/5 para convocar os estabelecimentos hoteleiros, localizados no município, para prestarem serviços de hospedagem às pessoas em situação de rua. A data da sessão pública também foi alterada para o dia 01/06. O objetivo é disponibilizar vagas para idosos que estão nos Centros de Acolhida para Adultos e promover o distanciamento social e aumentar os espaços nos centros de acolhidas para pessoas mais vulneráveis.
Somadas as mais de 1.500 vagas de centros emergenciais e do edital de credenciamento de hotéis às 17,2 mil vagas regulares de acolhimento à população em situação de rua dos 89 serviços de SMADS, a cidade chega próximo das 20 mil vagas de para atendimento a esse público.
O edital e o comunicado estão disponíveis no link abaixo:
Grave consequência da pandemia do novo coronavírus sobre o setor energético tem preocupado o Governo Federal: a queda do consumo de energia elétrica, que atinge diretamente as empresas distribuidoras, cujo caixa entrou no vermelho. Segundo o Operador Nacional do Sistema Elétrico (ONS), sobra energia, e a redução do consumo, que já chegou aos 18%, poderá ser ampliada caso se alonguem ainda mais as interdições ao funcionamento de empresas de todos os tipos. Os prejuízos das companhias distribuidoras são tão elevados, que o Ministério de Minas e Energia e a Agência Nacional de Energia Elétrica (Aneel) calculam em R$ 17 bilhões o tamanho do pacote de socorro que lhes será concedido.
Quando eclodiu a pandemia, a Aneel adotou – por instrução do Ministério da Economia – uma providência emergencial e razoável: proibiu por 90 dias o corte de energia das residências para evitar uma consequência social ainda maior para as famílias já mantidas em isolamento. Mas notou-se um efeito colateral: a inadimplência aumentou – e esta já estava pelo recente acréscimo de dificuldades financeiras da população.
A reabertura da atividade da indústria, do comércio e do serviço será gradual – os economistas preveem que isso se dará em até dois anos, não menos. Cerca de 60% da energia gerada no Brasil são de fonte hidráulica. Neste momento, para sorte do setor, as barragens que movimentam as usinas hidrelétricas estão cheias, o que descarta a possibilidade de um aumento das tarifas de energia. Mas isto não afasta a certeza de que a injeção de R$ 17 bilhões – que sairão do Tesouro Nacional – no caixa das distribuidoras será cobrada, a partir ainda deste ano, dos consumidores pessoas físicas e jurídicas. A conta de luz ficará mais cara por conta da pandemia.
Teme-se que, diante das dificuldades acima relatadas, sejam reduzidos os investimentos que se fazem hoje na geração de energia de fontes renováveis – como a solar e a eólica, concentrada nos estados da região Nordeste, onde são robustos e estáveis os bancos de vento e a insolação. Como demorará a retomada da economia, o consumo de energia também levará pelo menos um ano – nos cálculos dos consultores – para alcançar os níveis do fim de 2019. Desenha-se agora um cenário complicado para todo o setor elétrico nacional. O governo imagina que, passada esta crise, por volta do terceiro trimestre deste ano, poderá atrair o interesse dos investidores para o projeto de privatização da Eletrobras e de algumas de suas empresas, como a Chesf. Mas isto também parece difícil, diante dos desencontros políticos do Governo e com o Congresso Nacional, onde as ideias privatistas enfrentam forte resistência.
Neste instante, além das crises sanitária, econômica, financeira e política, o Brasil convive com mais uma – a do excesso de oferta de energia elétrica. Isto gera um déficit que cresce como bola de neve e que, mais cedo ou mais tarde, cairá em forma de cobrança no colo de cada um dos brasileiros. Em 2001, por causa diferente – a falta de energia – conta semelhante foi cobrada do Governo e de cada cidadão.
Se você se preocupa com os trabalhadores pobres, com a justiça racial e com as mudanças climáticas, precisa parar de comer animais.
Por Jonathan Safran Foer – 21 de maio de 2020
Algum pânico é mais primitivo do que aquele causado pela ideia de prateleiras vazias nos supermercados? Algum alívio é mais primitivo do que o reconforto fornecido pelas comidas com que temos relação afetiva?
Neste período de pandemia, quase todo mundo está cozinhando mais, postando fotos e vídeos de culinária e pensando em comida em geral. A combinação de escassez de carne e a decisão do presidente Trump de abrir abatedouros, apesar dos protestos de trabalhadores ameaçados, inspirou muitos americanos a considerar o quão essencial é a carne.
É mais essencial que a vida dos trabalhadores pobres que trabalham para produzi-lo? Assim parece. Um número surpreendente de seis em cada 10 municípios que a própria Casa Branca identificou como hot spots do coronavírus abriga os mesmos matadouros que o presidente ordenou a abertura.
Em Sioux Falls, S.D., a fábrica de suínos Smithfield, que produz cerca de 5% da carne suína do país, é um dos maiores centros de contaminação de coronavírus do país. Uma fábrica da Tyson em Perry, Iowa, tinha 730 casos de coronavírus – quase 60% de seus funcionários. Em outra fábrica da Tyson, em Waterloo, Iowa, foram registrados 1.031 casos entre cerca de 2.800 trabalhadores.
Trabalhadores doentes significam o fechamento de fábricas, o que levou ao acúmulo de animais. Alguns criadores estão induzindo abortos em porcas grávidas. Outros são forçados a sacrificar seus animais, muitas vezes com gás ou atirando neles. A situação ficou tão ruim a ponto do senador Chuck Grassley, um republicano de Iowa, pedir ao governo Trump que forneça recursos de saúde mental para os produtores de suínos.
Apesar dessa terrível realidade – e dos efeitos amplamente divulgados das fazendas industriais nas terras, comunidades, animais e saúde humana dos Estados Unidos muito antes dessa pandemia – apenas cerca de metade dos americanos diz que está tentando reduzir o consumo de carne. A carne está incorporada em nossa cultura e histórias pessoais de maneiras muito importantes, desde o peru do Dia de Ação de Graças até o cachorro-quente. A carne vem com cheiros e gostos tão maravilhosos que a satisfação sentida quase se mistura com a sensação do próprio lar. E o que mais é essencial, se não o sentimento provocado pelo lar?
E, no entanto, um número crescente de pessoas sente a inevitabilidade de mudanças iminentes.
A agricultura animal agora é reconhecida como uma das principais causas do aquecimento global. De acordo com a revista The Economist, um quarto dos americanos entre 25 e 34 anos diz ser vegetariano ou vegano, o que talvez seja uma das razões pelas quais as vendas de “carnes” à base de plantas dispararam, com Impossible e Beyond Burgers disponíveis em todos os lugares, da Whole Foods a White Castle.
Nossa mão está se esticando em direção à maçaneta da porta das mudanças nos últimos anos. O Covid-19 acabou por arrombá-la.
No mínimo, nos forçou a encarar o problema. Quando se trata de um assunto tão inconveniente quanto a carne, é tentador fingir que ciência inequívoca é ativismo, encontrar consolo em exceções que não representam o panorama da indústria e falar sobre nosso mundo como se fosse teórico.
Algumas das pessoas mais conscientes que conheço encontram maneiras de não pensar nos problemas da pecuária, da mesma forma como eu encontro maneiras de evitar pensar em mudanças climáticas e desigualdade de renda, ou nos paradoxos dos meus próprios hábitos alimentares. Um dos efeitos colaterais inesperados desses meses de isolamento é que é difícil não pensar nas coisas que são essenciais para quem somos.
Não podemos proteger nosso meio ambiente enquanto continuamos a comer carne regularmente. Esta não é uma perspectiva refutável, mas um fato incontestável. Quer se tornem Whoppers ou bifes alimentados com capim, as vacas produzem uma quantidade enorme de gases de efeito estufa. Se as vacas fossem um país, elas seriam o terceiro maior emissor de gases de efeito estufa do mundo.
De acordo com o diretor de pesquisa do Projeto Drawdown – uma organização sem fins lucrativos dedicada a criar soluções para lidar com as mudanças climáticas – comer uma dieta baseada em vegetais é “a contribuição mais importante que todo indivíduo pode dar para reverter o aquecimento global”.
Os americanos de maneira geral aceitam a ciência das mudanças climáticas. A maioria dos republicanos e democratas diz que os Estados Unidos deveriam ter permanecido no acordo climático de Paris. Não precisamos de novas informações e não precisamos de novos valores. Nós só precisamos atravessar a porta das mudanças, que está aberta.
Não podemos afirmar que nos preocupamos com o tratamento dado aos animais enquanto continuamos a comer carne regularmente. O sistema agrícola em que confiamos é tecido com miséria. As galinhas modernas foram tão geneticamente modificadas que seus próprios corpos se tornaram prisões de dor, mesmo que as libertássemos de suas gaiolas. Os perus são criados para serem tão obesos que são incapazes de se reproduzir sem inseminação artificial. As vacas mães têm seus bezerros arrancados antes do desmame, resultando em sofrimento agudo que podemos ouvir em seus gemidos e medir empiricamente através do cortisol em seus corpos.
Nenhuma etiqueta ou certificação pode evitar esse tipo de crueldade. Não precisamos de nenhum ativista dos direitos dos animais apontando um dedo para nós. Não precisamos nos convencer de nada que já não saibamos. Precisamos ouvir a nós mesmos.
Não podemos proteger-nos contra pandemias enquanto continuamos a comer carne regularmente. Muita atenção foi dada aos mercados de animais silvestres, mas as fazendas industriais, especificamente as de aves, são um campo de geração de pandemias ainda mais importante. Além disso, o C.D.C. relata que três em cada quatro doenças infecciosas novas ou emergentes são zoonóticas – o resultado de nosso relacionamento ruim com animais.
É óbvio que queremos estar seguros. Nós sabemos como nos tornar mais seguros. Mas querer e conhecer não são suficientes.
Essas não são opiniões minhas ou de quem quer que seja, apesar da tendência de publicar essas informações nas seções de opinião. E as respostas para as questões mais comuns levantadas por qualquer questionamento sério da agricultura animal não são opiniões.
Não é fato que precisamos de proteína animal? Não.
Podemos viver uma vida mais longa e saudável sem ela. A maioria dos adultos americanos come aproximadamente o dobro da ingestão recomendada de proteínas – incluindo vegetarianos, que consomem 70% a mais do que precisam. Pessoas que comem dietas ricas em proteínas animais têm maior probabilidade de morrer de doenças cardíacas, diabetes e insuficiência renal. Obviamente, carne, como bolo, pode fazer parte de uma dieta saudável. Mas nenhum nutricionista recomendaria comer bolo com muita frequência.
Se deixarmos o sistema de fazendas industriais entrar em colapso, os agricultores não sofrerão? Não.
As empresas que falam em nome dos agricultores na verdade os exploram. Hoje há menos agricultores americanos do que durante a Guerra Civil, apesar da população americana ser quase 11 vezes maior. Isso não é um acidente, mas um modelo de negócios. O sonho final do complexo industrial de agricultura animal é que as “fazendas” sejam totalmente automatizadas. A transição para alimentos à base de plantas e práticas agrícolas sustentáveis criaria muito mais empregos do que extinguiria.
Não aceite minha palavra. Pergunte a um agricultor se ele ou ela ficaria feliz em ver o fim da agricultura industrial.
O movimento vegetariano não é elitista? Não.
Um estudo de 2015 descobriu que uma dieta vegetariana é US $ 750 por ano mais barata que uma dieta à base de carne. Minorias raciais são desproporcionalmente vegetarianas, e são desproporcionalmente vítimas da brutalidade da agricultura industrial. Os funcionários do matadouro atualmente colocados em situação de risco devido à pandemia, para satisfazer nosso gosto por carne, são predominantemente negros. Sugerir que um modo de agricultura mais barato, mais saudável e menos explorador seja elitista é de fato uma propaganda da indústria.
Não podemos trabalhar com empresas agrícolas para melhorar o sistema alimentar? Não.
A menos que você acredite que aqueles que se tornaram poderosos através da exploração destruirão voluntariamente os veículos que lhes deram uma riqueza espetacular. A agricultura industrial é para a agricultura real o que são os monopólios criminais para o empreendedorismo. Se por um único ano o governo removesse seus US$ 38 bilhões em subsídios e auxílios e exigisse que as empresas de carne e laticínios seguissem as regras capitalistas normais, isso as destruiria para sempre. A indústria não poderia sobreviver no mercado livre.
Talvez mais do que qualquer outro alimento, a carne inspire conforto e desconforto. Isso pode dificultar a ação sobre o que sabemos e queremos. Podemos realmente deslocar a carne do centro de nossos pratos? Essa é a questão que nos leva ao limiar do impossível. Por outro lado, é inevitável.
Com o horror da pandemia nos pressionando, e o questionamento do que é, de fato, essencial, agora podemos ver a porta que sempre esteve lá. Como em um sonho em que nossas casas têm quartos desconhecidos para nós mesmos, podemos sentir que há uma maneira melhor de comer, uma vida mais próxima de nossos valores. Por outro lado, não há algo novo, mas algo que nos chama do próprio passado – um mundo em que os agricultores não eram mitos, corpos torturados não eram comida e o planeta não era a conta no final da refeição.
Uma refeição depois da outra, é hora de cruzar o limiar. Do outro lado estaremos, efetivamente, no nosso lar.
Jonathan Safran Foer é o autor de “Eating Animals” e “We Are the Weather”.
If you care about the working poor, about racial justice, and about climate change, you have to stop eating animals.
By Jonathan Safran Foer – May 21, 2020
Credit: Jun Cen
Is any panic more primitive than the one prompted by the thought of empty grocery store shelves? Is any relief more primitive than the one provided by comfort food?
Most everyone has been doing more cooking these days, more documenting of the cooking, and more thinking about food in general. The combination of meat shortages and President Trump’s decision to order slaughterhouses open despite the protestations of endangered workers has inspired many Americans to consider just how essential meat is.
Is it more essential than the lives of the working poor who labor to produce it? It seems so. An astonishing six out of 10 counties that the White House itself identified as coronavirus hot spots are home to the very slaughterhouses the president ordered open.
In Sioux Falls, S.D., the Smithfield pork plant, which produces some 5 percent of the country’s pork, is one of the largest hot spots in the nation. A Tyson plant in Perry, Iowa, had 730 cases of the coronavirus — nearly 60 percent of its employees. At another Tyson plant, in Waterloo, Iowa, there were 1,031 reported cases among about 2,800 workers.
Sick workers mean plant shutdowns, which has led to a backlog of animals. Some farmers are injecting pregnant sows to cause abortions. Others are forced to euthanize their animals, often by gassing or shooting them. It’s gotten bad enough that Senator Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican, has asked the Trump administration to provide mental health resources to hog farmers.
Despite this grisly reality — and the widely reported effects of the factory-farm industry on America’s lands, communities, animals and human health long before this pandemic hit — only around half of Americans say they are trying to reduce their meat consumption. Meat is embedded in our culture and personal histories in ways that matter too much, from the Thanksgiving turkey to the ballpark hot dog. Meat comes with uniquely wonderful smells and tastes, with satisfactions that can almost feel like home itself. And what, if not the feeling of home, is essential?
And yet, an increasing number of people sense the inevitability of impending change.
Animal agriculture is now recognized as a leading cause of global warming. According to The Economist, a quarter of Americans between the ages of 25 and 34 say they are vegetarians or vegans, which is perhaps one reason sales of plant-based “meats” have skyrocketed, with Impossible and Beyond Burgers available everywhere from Whole Foods to White Castle.
Our hand has been reaching for the doorknob for the last few years. Covid-19 has kicked open the door.
At the very least it has forced us to look. When it comes to a subject as inconvenient as meat, it is tempting to pretend unambiguous science is advocacy, to find solace in exceptions that could never be scaled and to speak about our world as if it were theoretical.
Some of the most thoughtful people I know find ways not to give the problems of animal agriculture any thought, just as I find ways to avoid thinking about climate change and income inequality, not to mention the paradoxes in my own eating life. One of the unexpected side effects of these months of sheltering in place is that it’s hard not to think about the things that are essential to who we are.
Credit: Jun Cen
We cannot protect our environment while continuing to eat meat regularly. This is not a refutable perspective, but a banal truism. Whether they become Whoppers or boutique grass-fed steaks, cows produce an enormous amount of greenhouse gas. If cows were a country, they would be the third-largest greenhouse gas emitter in the world.
According to the research director of Project Drawdown — a nonprofit organization dedicated to modeling solutions to address climate change — eating a plant-based diet is “the most important contribution every individual can make to reversing global warming.”
Americans overwhelmingly accept the science of climate change. A majority of both Republicans and Democrats say that the United States should have remained in the Paris climate accord. We don’t need new information, and we don’t need new values. We only need to walk through the open door.
We cannot claim to care about the humane treatment of animals while continuing to eat meat regularly. The farming system we rely on is woven through with misery. Modern chickens have been so genetically modified that their very bodies have become prisons of pain even if we open their cages. Turkeys are bred to be so obese that they are incapable of reproducing without artificial insemination. Mother cows have their calves ripped from them before weaning, resulting in acute distress we can hear in their wails and empirically measure through the cortisol in their bodies.
No label or certification can avoid these kinds of cruelty. We don’t need any animal rights activist waving a finger at us. We don’t need to be convinced of anything we don’t already know. We need to listen to ourselves.
We cannot protect against pandemics while continuing to eat meat regularly. Much attention has been paid to wet markets, but factory farms, specifically poultry farms, are a more important breeding ground for pandemics. Further, the C.D.C. reports that three out of four new or emerging infectious diseases are zoonotic — the result of our broken relationship with animals.
It goes without saying that we want to be safe. We know how to make ourselves safer. But wanting and knowing are not enough.
These are not my or anyone’s opinions, despite a tendency to publish this information in opinion sections. And the answers to the most common responses raised by any serious questioning of animal agriculture aren’t opinions.
We can live longer, healthier lives without it. Most American adults eat roughly twice the recommended intake of protein — including vegetarians, who consume 70 percent more than they need. People who eat diets high in animal protein are more likely to die of heart disease, diabetes and kidney failure. Of course, meat, like cake, can be part of a healthy diet. But no sound nutritionist would recommend eating cake too often.
If we let the factory-farm system collapse, won’t farmers suffer? No.
The corporations that speak in their name while exploiting them will. There are fewer American farmers today than there were during the Civil War, despite America’s population being nearly 11 times greater. This is not an accident, but a business model. The ultimate dream of the animal-agriculture industrial complex is for “farms” to be fully automated. Transitioning toward plant-based foods and sustainable farming practices would create many more jobs than it would end.
Don’t take my word for it. Ask a farmer if he or she would be happy to see the end of factory farming.
Isn’t a movement away from meat elitist? No.
A 2015 study found that a vegetarian diet is $750 a year cheaper than a meat-based diet. People of color disproportionately self-identify as vegetarian and disproportionately are victims of factory farming’s brutality. The slaughterhouse employees currently being put at risk to satisfy our taste for meat are overwhelmingly brown and black. Suggesting that a cheaper, healthier, less exploitative way of farming is elitist is in fact a piece of industry propaganda.
Can’t we work with factory-farming corporations to improve the food system? No.
Well, unless you believe that those made powerful through exploitation will voluntarily destroy the vehicles that have granted them spectacular wealth. Factory farming is to actual farming what criminal monopolies are to entrepreneurship. If for a single year the government removed its $38-billion-plus in props and bailouts, and required meat and dairy corporations to play by normal capitalist rules, it would destroy them forever. The industry could not survive in the free market.
Perhaps more than any other food, meat inspires both comfort and discomfort. That can make it difficult to act on what we know and want. Can we really displace meat from the center of our plates? This is the question that brings us to the threshold of the impossible. On the other side is the inevitable.
With the horror of pandemic pressing from behind, and the new questioning of what is essential, we can now see the door that was always there. As in a dream where our homes have rooms unknown to our waking selves, we can sense there is a better way of eating, a life closer to our values. On the other side is not something new, but something that calls from the past — a world in which farmers were not myths, tortured bodies were not food and the planet was not the bill at the end of the meal.
One meal in front of the other, it’s time to cross the threshold. On the other side is home.
Jonathan Safran Foer is the author of “Eating Animals” and “We Are the Weather.”
“Coordenei uma equipe de trolls formada por 10 pessoas. Mas há equipes maiores no setor”, diz um community manager que durante boa parte da última década atuou em uma agência internacional que vendia serviços de amplificação artificial de mensagens no Twitter. “Trabalhei em projetos em cinco países, entre eles a Espanha. Existe uma demanda para contratos desse tipo que não é anunciada nas Páginas Amarelas”, diz.
Com esta experiência, ele agora quer revelar como funciona esse negócio obscuro capaz de influenciar a opinião pública. Há algumas semanas, começou a contar detalhes em uma conta do Twitter chamada ironicamente @thebotruso (“o robô russo”). O EL PAÍS, que comprovou seu papel na agência em questão, trocou dúzias de mensagens com @thebotruso sobre como são preparadas a executadas atualmente as célebres campanhas de bots e trolls a serviço de empresas, partidos políticos ou clubes esportivos. O ex-funcionário mantém o anonimato porque um contrato de confidencialidade o impede de revelar o conteúdo específico e os clientes de seu antigo trabalho.
O Twitter não é uma réplica da vida real. Mas os debates ou opiniões que dominam a rede frequentemente vão parar na mídia. Ou mesmo na tribuna dos Parlamentos. “As ruas estão ficando cheias de bots”, disse com ironia Santiago Abascal, líder do partido Vox, ao primeiro-ministro espanhol, o socialista Pedro Sánchez, durante um debate nesta segunda-feira, referindo-se a recentes manifestações da direita no país. Uma parte das contas que discutem no Twitter é falsa. O problema é saber quantas ou, mais difícil, quais são, e que influência exercem. “Eu gostava de chamar a atenção de jornalistas afins. Aumenta muito nosso ego que um jornalista pegue os conteúdos de sua conta troll como fonte dos seus artigos, além de ajudar a ganhar visibilidade”, conta @thebotruso.
1. Nem todos são ‘bots’
Por definição se usa bot como sinônimo de conta falsa no Twitter. Mas um bot é uma conta automatizada, não necessariamente falsa. Anos atrás, eles eram os principais encarregados de amplificar mensagens: faziam milhares de retuítes ou likes, ou serviam para engrossar contas de seguidores. Continuam tendo essa finalidade, mas, graças a ações do Twitter e à maior sofisticação dos usuários atuais, ficou mais fácil descobri-los e eliminá-los.
A agência onde @thebotruso trabalhava tem um software para programar bots. Ele dá ordens para fazer tantos retuítes de tais contas ou disparar tuítes previamente redigidos em horários determinados. É barato, mas pouco refinado. “Continua-se trabalhando para amplificar o conteúdo, mas é preciso ser cuidadoso, porque pode acarretar um problema de reputação ao cliente”, diz.
Para evitá-lo, há vários recursos que permitem humanizar ou desvincular esses bots de uma campanha: “Os bots não irão retuitar qualquer coisa que se mexa. Se forem feitas ações com um troll específico, por exemplo, isso gera um padrão, com o que um analista de dados da concorrência seria capaz de levantar a lebre”, diz.
Os bots tampouco seguirão a conta do cliente que os paga, como precaução para uma eventual descoberta. “Se pegarmos como exemplo a causa independentista [da Catalunha], os bots seguirão diferentes partidos, políticos e associações, mas não o cliente final”, explica. Também se observa se há usuários reais interagindo com algum bot. Nesse caso, um funcionário entrará no circuito para responder.
2. A chave são dois tipos de trolls
A definição habitual de troll está associada a um usuário vândalo ou impertinente. Na agência, essas eram suas contas-estrelas. Cada empregado podia administrar 30 delas, cada uma com seu comportamento humano. Os trolls se dividiam em alfa e beta.
As contas alfa difundem a mensagem. Começavam com uma estratégia de “me siga e eu te sigo”, para ganhar peso. Seus tuítes iniciais eram inflados pelos bots e depois interagiam com contas importantes para chamar a atenção. Na Espanha, ficou famosa a conta de Miguel Lacambra, que conseguiu 20.000 seguidores em poucas semanas com uma estratégia similar.
Os trolls beta são os guerrilheiros. Dedicam-se a amansar a crítica. São contas que respondem a tuítes de famosos com insultos ou ameaças. “Os afetados pelos ataques dos beta veem as respostas a seus tuítes e muitas vezes se contêm um pouco na hora de tuitar, dependendo do tema. Sentem-se incômodos e passam a querer ter um perfil mais discreto. O sistema é eficaz. Por isso, continuam sendo contratados e aperfeiçoados. E nós, usuários, continuamos caindo”, diz.
3. O objetivo: enganar o Twitter
Uma parte dos esforços é dedicada a evitar a detecção das armadilhas e aumentar a probabilidade de sucesso: “Os trolls não se seguirão entre si e se limitará a interação entre eles para que liderem vários grupos de diálogo e porque uma relação habitual entre dois ou mais trolls poria a operação em risco”, diz @thebotruso. As contas são mapeadas com uma ferramenta habitual entre pesquisadores, chamada Gephi, para ver se a relação entre eles é destacável: “Esses gephis seriam capazes de revelar a relação entre nossas contas (trolls e bots), por isso todo cuidado é pouco”, diz.
Há, além disso, um objetivo permanente em todas essas operações: evitar padrões. “Cada conta que um troll dirige deve escrever diferente: as pessoas têm tendência a utilizar certas expressões e deixar padrões de escrita, como pôr dois pontos de exclamação ou terminar todas as frases com reticências”, conta.
Os ardis para enganar o Twitter são ainda mais destacáveis com os bots automatizados: “O software comanda todos os bots, que se dividem em grupos. Cada grupo utiliza uma API [ferramenta para usar automaticamente o Twitter]. E o endereço IP é variado de forma aleatória. Chegamos a ter 3.000 ou 4.000 contas em uma mesma API, e me consta que poderiam ser usadas até mais. O problema é que, se você tiver muitas contas tuitando direto sob uma mesma API, pode levar o Twitter a bloqueá-la”, explica. Embora essas ferramentas permitam administrar milhares de contas, é preciso personalizar cada uma delas com foto, nome e biografia. É um trabalho longo demais para que o Twitter derrube 2.000 perfis de uma vez.
4. Toda campanha tem um plano
Cada campanha é preparada com análise de dados e objetivos diários. Os bots e trolls não surgem do nada. Antes de uma campanha, cientistas de dados analisam a conversação pública sobre o tema que interessa ao cliente: um partido que deseja ampliar sua bancada, uma empresa que espera bater um concorrente, ou um time de futebol com problemas de credibilidade.
“Eles veem quantas contas estão participando de um tema e se estabelece quantas seriam necessárias para ter influência”, diz. Também é analisado o sentimento e os influencers desses assuntos: “São feitas listas de contas favoráveis e contrárias, e se analisa o peso que elas têm”, diz. Essa informação é chave para o funcionamento da campanha: “Serve para que o troll saiba com que usuários interagir, para gerar um núcleo com eles, a quais responder e perseguir com os beta, e com que usuários nem sequer vale a pena perder tempo. Não é a mesma coisa iniciar uma conta do tranco ou com uma quantidade imensa de informação. O troll alfa sabe a quem se dirigir, com que tom, e o que comunicar”.
Uma campanha pode chegar a custar um milhão de euros (6,2 milhões de reais). O cliente espera resultados concretos e demonstráveis. Uma campanha média pode exigir entre 1.500 e 2.000 bots e trolls.
Enquanto os usuários normais do Twitter entram na rede para ver o que acontece, estas operações envolvendo centenas de contas falsas têm um plano diário. É como se a cada jornada um chefe mafioso enviasse um grupo de asseclas a uma cidade com um plano delicadamente concebido para que executem uma série de missões concretas e semeiem o pânico sem serem detectados. O objetivo é fazer os cidadãos acreditarem em coisas que não são verdade: não só com notícias falsas, mas também com ações que sugiram que mais gente acredita em determinada coisa do que realmente ocorre. Seria como inflar uma pesquisa de opinião. Claro que frequentemente se enfrentam equipes que buscam justamente o contrário.
Isto não fica só na teoria. Seus efeitos têm consequências no mundo real. “As pessoas tendem a compartilhar sua opinião quando se sentem protegidas pela comunidade”, diz esse agente. “Houve um tempo em que muitos catalães não independentistas não publicavam suas ideias nas redes porque entravam no Twitter e tinham a sensação que meio mundo era independentista.”
Estas ações em redes permitem abrir o caminho para opiniões radicais. De repente, alguém vê que a crítica aberta a imigrantes ou mulheres está permitida. Talvez não seja feita com crueldade ostensiva, e sim com memes ou palavras em código, mas está lá. Não se sabe se essas contas são controladas por uma dúzia de empregados em um escritório.
5. Como enganar um jornalista
Frequentemente, os jornalistas não têm consciência de como é fácil lhes passar mercadoria falsa. Um dos motivos que levou @thebotruso a criar essa conta e querer contar sua experiência foi para tentar advertir dos perigos: “Quem trabalha na mídia nem sempre conhece esse ecossistema. De certo modo, é fácil enganar um jornalista. Eles estão sempre procurando informações e, hoje em dia, a Internet é uma fonte muito grande. Se um jornalista topar com seu conteúdo, vir que tem apoio e que se encaixa no que ele quer (ou precisa) comunicar, talvez pegue. As estratégias para cada caso são diferentes. Por exemplo: para uma empresa acusada de corrupção, criamos um ecossistema que defendia os postos de trabalho (trabalhadores preocupados com as medidas exigidas contra a empresa)”, explica.
6. Como manipular uma pesquisa no Twitter
Os bots são úteis para ganhar uma pesquisa na rede. Estes são os passos que esta agência seguia: “Detecta-se a pesquisa e se faz uma captura de tela. É feito um cálculo para saber quantos votos são necessários para virar os resultados, e o valor de cada ponto percentual. Tem início a operação para que a opção desejada vença. Monitora-se para ver que tudo funciona corretamente”.
7. A criação de um ‘trending topic’
As opções para conseguir um trending topic eram mais reduzidas, mas a estratégia era clara. A agência trabalhava durante dias para atingir seu objetivo. “A primeira coisa é escolher um dia e uma hora. Procura-se não coincidir com eventos como um jogo de futebol ou o Big Brother”, explica @thebotruso. “Escolhe-se uma hashtag, é importante que não tenha sido utilizada antes, porque são mais difíceis de posicionar. Aciona-se a equipe de redatores que escrevem milhares de tuítes durante vários dias para que sejam publicados pela rede de bots”, acrescenta.
Usuários reais também são avisados, para caso tenham interesse. “São enviadas comunicações a pessoas afins para avisar da ação: tal dia, a tal hora, sairemos com tal hashtag para nos queixar, convidamos você à ação para ver se conseguimos ser tendência e fazer que nos ouçam”.
Chega o grande dia: “Os analistas olham quantos tuítes são necessários para entrar nas tendências. Os tuítes são inseridos na plataforma de bots. O cliente dispara o primeiro tuíte. Rapidamente a rede de bots é acionada. É crucial que haja muitos tuítes em um espaço curto de tempo. Os trolls alfa saem com tuítes de impacto. Os analistas de dados monitoram para saber se é preciso disparar mais tuítes, ou se é o caso de frear a rede de bots. Os trolls beta apoiam a ação, respondem aos críticos, estimulam outros usuários com a mesma ideologia”.
Passada a missão, com sucesso ou não, é hora de dissimular as provas: “A ação dos bots é detida e limpa: as contas bot fazem tuítes e retuítes de outros temas para que, se alguém aparecer para ver essas contas, não veja que só entraram para fazer tuítes sobre o trending e foram dormir. Os trolls podem continuar tuitando por algum tempo, e depois farão uma limpa, como os bots”, acrescenta. “Finalmente, prepara-se um relatório para o cliente”.
E como tudo isso afeta quem o faz? “Todos estávamos conscientes do que estávamos pondo em jogo. E eu gosto dessa palavra: jogo. Sempre recomendei a todo mundo que encarasse como jogar War, porque é fácil encarar os projetos como algo pessoal, e às vezes é difícil administrar a diferença entre a sua conta troll e você. Por sorte, nunca tive ninguém de licença por depressão, ansiedade ou nada parecido”.
FOR MORE than 100,000 years humans derived all their energy from what they hunted, gathered and grazed on or grew for themselves. Their own energy for moving things came from what they ate. Energy for light and heat came from burning the rest. In recent millennia they added energy from the flow of water and, later, air to the repertoire. But, important as water- and windmills were, they did little to change the overall energy picture. Global energy use broadly tracked the size of a population fed by farms and warmed by wood.
The combination of fossil fuels and machinery changed everything. According to calculations by Vaclav Smil, a scholar of energy systems at the University of Manitoba, between 1850 and 2000 the human world’s energy use increased by a factor of 15 or so.
The expansion was not homogeneous; over its course the mixture of fossil fuels used changed quite dramatically. These are the monumental shifts historians call “energy transitions”. They require huge amounts of infrastructure; they change the way the economy works; and they take place quite slowly.
James Watt patented his steam engine in 1769; coal did not exceed the share of total energy provided by “traditional biomass”—wood, peat, dung and the like—until the 1900s (see chart overleaf). It was not until the 1950s, a century after the first commercial oil well was drilled in Titusville, Pennsylvania, that crude oil came to represent 25% of humankind’s total primary energy. Energy transitions were slow largely because the growth in total energy use was fast. In the century it took oil to capture a quarter of the total, that total increased. They are also always incomplete. New fuels may reduce the share of the pie that old fuels control, but they rarely reduce the total energy those fuels supply. Much more “traditional biomass” is burned by the world’s poor today than was burned by the whole world in 1900.
To give the world a good chance of keeping global warming, measured against the temperature pre-coal, well below 2°C (3.6°F) will require an energy transition far larger and quicker than any before it. In the next 30-50 years 90% or more of the share of the world’s energy now being produced from fossil fuels will need to be provided by renewable-energy sources, nuclear power or fossil-fuel plants that bury their waste rather than exhaling it.
During this time, the pie will keep growing—but not necessarily as fast as it used to. The direct relationship between GDP and energy use, which held tight until the 1970s, has weakened over the past half century. It is possible for growth per person to continue without energy use per person increasing. Though the population is no longer growing as fast as it did at the 20th-century peak of its increase, it will still be the best part of 2bn higher by mid-century. And all those people should be able to aspire to modern energy services. Today more than 800m people still lack electricity—hence all that burning of traditional biomass.
The good news, however, is that governments say they are willing to push through the change. Previous transitions, though shaped by government policy at national levels, were mostly caused by the demand for new services that only a specific fuel could provide, such as petrol for engines.
The growth in renewable-generation capacity is the exception. It has not been driven by the fact that renewable electrons allow you to do things of which those from coal are not capable. It has largely been driven by government policy. This has not always had the near-term effects for which such policy should aim. Germany’s roll-out of renewables has been offset by its retreat from nuclear, and its emissions have risen. But subsidies there and elsewhere have boosted supply chains and lowered the cost of renewable technologies.
During the 2010s the levelised cost (that is the average lifetime cost of equipment, per megawatt hour of electricity generated) of solar, offshore wind and onshore wind fell by 87%, 62% and 56%, respectively, according to BloombergNEF, an energy-data outfit (see chart overleaf). This has allowed deployments that were unthinkable in the 2000s. Britain now has more than 2,000 offshore wind turbines. They are built by developers chosen based on how low a price they are willing to take for their electricity (the government pledges to make the cost up if the market price falls below it).
In 2015 winning bids were well over £100 ($123) per MWh, far higher than the cost of fossil-fuel electricity. Thanks to predictable policy, fierce competition and technical progress, a recent auction brought a bid as low as £39.65 per MWh, roughly the level of average wholesale power prices. Solar and onshore wind are even less expensive. About two-thirds of the world’s population live in countries where renewables represent the cheapest source of new power generation, says BloombergNEF.
Solar power is the really spectacular achiever, outstripping the expectations of its most fervent boosters. Ramez Naam, a bullish solar investor, recently recalibrated his expectations to foresee a future of “insanely cheap” solar power. By 2030, he reckons, in sunny parts of the world, building large new solar installations from scratch will be a cheaper way of getting electricity than operating fully depreciated fossil-fuel plants, let alone building new ones. Michael Liebreich, a consultant on renewable energies, speculates about a “renewable singularity” in which cheap renewable electricity opens up new markets that demand new capacity which makes electricity cheaper still.
Even without such speculative wonders, the effect of renewables is appreciable. Together with natural gas, which America’s fracking revolution has made cheaper, solar and wind are already squeezing coal, the energy sector’s biggest emitter (a megawatt of coal produces a stream of emissions twice the size of that given off by a megawatt of gas). In 2018 coal’s share of global energy supply fell to 27%, the lowest in 15 years. The pressure that they can apply to oil is not yet as great, because oil mostly drives cars, and electric cars are still rare. But as that changes, renewables will come for oil, as they are already coming for gas.
There are stumbling blocks. Neither the sun nor the wind produces energy consistently. Germany’s solar-power installations produce five times more electricity in the summer than they do in the winter, when demand for electricity is at its peak. Wind strengths vary not just from day to day but from season to season and, to some extent, year to year. This amounts to a speed bump for renewables, not a blockade. Long transmission lines that keep losses low by working at very high voltages can move electricity from oversupplied areas to those where demand is surging. Lithium-ion batteries can store extra energy and release it as needed. The economic stimulus China announced in March includes both ultra-high-voltage grids and electric-vehicle-charging infrastructure.
Thou orb aloft, somewhat dazzling
As the sun and wind account for a larger share of power, renewables might store power by splitting water to create hydrogen to be burned later. More ambitiously, if technologies for pulling carbon dioxide back out of the air improve, such hydrogen could be combined with that scavenged carbon to make fossil-free fuels.
In doing so, they might help remedy the other problem with renewables. There are some emissions which even very cheap electricity cannot replace. Lithium-ion batteries are too bulky to power big planes on long flights, which is where artificial fuels might come in. Some industrial processes, such as cement-making, give out carbon dioxide by their very nature. They may require technology that intercepts the carbon dioxide before it gets into the atmosphere and squirrels it away underground. When emissions cannot be avoided—as may be the case with some of those from farmland—they will need to be offset by removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere either with trees or technology.
None of this happens, though, without investment. The International Renewable Energy Agency, an advisory group, estimates that $800bn of investment in renewables is needed each year until 2050 for the world to be on course for less than 2°C of warming, with more than twice that needed for electric infrastructure and efficiency. In 2019 investment in renewables was $250bn. The big oil and gas firms invested twice as much in fossil-fuel extraction.
If governments want to limit climate change, therefore, they must do more. They do not have to do everything. If policy choices show that the road away from fossil fuels is right, private capital will follow. Investors are already wary of fossil-fuel companies, eyeing meagre returns and the possibility that action on climate change will leave firms with depreciating assets.
But governments need to make the signals clear. Around the world, they currently provide more than $400bn a year in direct support for fossil-fuel consumption, more than twice what they spend subsidising renewable production. A price on carbon, which hastens the day when new renewables are cheaper than old fossil-fuel plants, is another crucial step. So is research spending aimed at those emissions which are hard to electrify away. Governments have played a large role in the development of solar panels, wind turbines and fracking. There is a lot more to do.
However much they do, though, and however well they do it, they will not stop the climate change at today’s temperature of 1°C above the pre-industrial. Indeed, they will need to expand their efforts greatly to meet the 2°C target; on today’s policies, the rise by the end of the century looks closer to 3°C. This means that as well as trying to limit climate change, the world also needs to learn how to adapt to it. ■
Correction (May 22nd 2020): This article previously stated that Britain had 10,000 offshore wind turbines. In fact that is the total number of turbines; only 2,016 are offshore. We’re sorry for the error.
This article appeared in the Schools brief section of the print edition under the headline “Not-so-slow burn”
To hear some experts tell it, science denial is mostly a contemporary phenomenon, with climate change deniers and vaccine skeptics at the vanguard. Yet the story of Galileo Galilei reveals just how far back denial’s lineage stretches.
BOOK REVIEW — “Galileo and the Science Deniers,” by Mario Livio (Simon & Schuster, 304 pages).
Years of astronomical sightings and calculations had convinced Galileo that the Earth, rather than sitting at the center of things, revolved around a larger body, the sun. But when he laid out his findings in widely shared texts, as astrophysicist Mario Livio writes in “Galileo and the Science Deniers,” the ossified Catholic Church leadership — heavily invested in older Earth-centric theories — aimed its ire in his direction.
Rather than revise their own maps of reality to include his discoveries, clerics labeled him a heretic and banned his writings. He spent the last years of his life under house arrest, hemmed in by his own insistence on the expansiveness of the cosmos.
Nearly 400 years later, the legacy of denial remains intact in some respects. Scientists who publish research about climate change or the safety of genetically modified crops still encounter the same kind of pushback from deniers that Galileo did. Yet denialism has also sprouted some distinctly modern features: As Alan Levinovitz points out in “Natural: How Faith in Nature’s Goodness Leads to Harmful Fads, Unjust Laws, and Flawed Science,” sometimes we ourselves can become unwitting purveyors of denial, falling prey to flawed or false beliefs we may not realize we’re holding.
Levinovitz passionately protests the common assumption that natural things are inherently better than unnatural ones. Not only do people automatically tend to conclude organic foods are healthier, many choose “natural” or “alternative” methods of cancer treatment over proven chemotherapy regimens. Medication-free childbirth, meanwhile, is now considered the gold standard in many societies, despite mixed evidence of its health benefits for mothers and babies.
BOOK REVIEW — “Natural: How Faith in Nature’s Goodness Leads to Harmful Fads, Unjust Laws, and Flawed Science,” by Alan Levinovitz (Beacon Press, 264 pages).
“What someone calls ‘natural’ may be good,” writes Levinovitz, a religion professor at James Madison University, “but the association is by no means necessary, or even likely.” Weaving real-life examples with vivid retellings of ancient myths about nature’s power, he demonstrates that our pro-natural bias is so pervasive that we often lose the ability to see it — or to admit the legitimacy of science that contradicts it.
From this perspective, science denial starts to look like a stunted outgrowth of what we typically consider common sense. In Galileo’s time, people thought it perfectly sensible that the planet they inhabited was at the center of everything. Today, it might seem equally sensible that it’s always better to choose natural products over artificial ones, or that a plant burger ingredient called “soy leghemoglobin” is suspect because it’s genetically engineered and can’t be sourced in the wild. Yet in these cases, what we think of as common sense turns out to be humbug.
In exploring the past and present of anti-science bias, Livio and Levinovitz show how deniers’ basic toolbox has not changed much through the centuries. Practitioners marshal arguments that appeal to our tendency to think in dichotomies: wrong or right, saved or damned, pure or tainted. Food is either nourishing manna from the earth or processed, artificial junk. The Catholic Church touted its own supreme authority while casting Galileo as an unregenerate apostate.
In the realm of denialism, Levinovitz writes, “simplicity and homogeneity take precedence over diversity, complexity, and change. Righteous laws and rituals are universal. Disobedience is sacrilege.”
The very language of pro-nature, anti-science arguments, Levinovitz argues, is structured to play up this us-versus-them credo. Monikers like Frankenfood — often used to describe genetically-modified (GM) crops — frame the entire GM food industry as monstrous, a deviation from the supposed order of things. And in some circles, he writes, the word “unnatural” has come to be almost a synonym for “moral deficiency.” Not only is such black-and-white rhetoric seductive, it can give deniers the heady sense that they occupy the moral high ground.
Both pro-natural bias and the Church’s crusade against Galileo reflect the human penchant to fit new information into an existing framework. Rather than scrapping or changing that framework, we try to jerry-rig it to make it function. Some of the jerry-rigging examples the authors describe are more toxic than others: Opting for so-called natural foods despite dubious science on their benefits, for instance, is less harmful than denying evidence of a human-caused climate crisis.
What’s more, many people actually tend to cling harder to their beliefs in the face of contradictory evidence. Studies confirm that facts and reality aren’t likely to sway most people’s pre-existing views. This is as true now as it was at the close of the Renaissance, as shown by some extremists’ stubborn denial that the Covid-19 virus is dangerous.
In the realm of denialism, “simplicity and homogeneity take precedence over diversity, complexity, and change.”
In one of his book’s most compelling chapters, Livio takes us inside a panel of theologians that convened in 1616 to rule on whether the sun was at the center of things. None of Galileo’s incisive arguments swayed their thinking one iota. “This proposition is foolish and absurd in philosophy,” the theologians wrote, “and formally heretical, since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture.” Cardinal Bellarmino warned Galileo that if he did not renounce his heliocentric views, he could be thrown into prison.
Galileo’s discoveries threatened to topple a superstructure that the Church had spent hundreds of years buttressing. In making their case against him, his critics liked to cite a passage from Psalm 93: “The world also is established that it cannot be moved.”
Galileo refused to cave. In his 1632 book, “Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems,” he did give the views of Pope Urban VIII an airing: He repeated Urban’s statement that no human could ever hope to decode the workings of the universe. But Livio slyly points out that Galileo put these words in the mouth of a ridiculous character named Simplicio. It was a slight Urban would not forgive. “May God forgive Signor Galilei,” he intoned, “for having meddled with these subjects.”
At the close of his 1633 Inquisition trial, Galileo was forced to declare that he abandoned any belief that the Earth revolved around the sun. “I abjure, curse, and detest the above-mentioned errors and heresies.” He swore that he would never again say “anything which might cause a similar suspicion about me.” Yet as he left the courtroom, legend goes, he muttered to himself “E pur si muove” (And yet it moves).
In the face of science denial, Livio observes, people have taken up “And yet it moves” as a rallying cry: a reminder that no matter how strong our prejudices or presuppositions, the facts always remain the same. But in today’s “post-truth era,” as political theorist John Keane calls it, with little agreement on what defines a reliable source, even the idea of an inescapable what is seems to have receded from view.
Levinovitz’s own evolution in writing “Natural” reveals how hard it can be to elevate facts above all, even for avowed anti-deniers. When he began his research, he picked off instances of pro-natural bias as if they were clay pigeons, confident in the rigor of his approach. “Confronted with a false faith, I had resolved that it was wholly evil,” he reflects.
Yet he later concedes that a favoritism toward nature is logical in domains like sports, which celebrate the potential of the human body in its unaltered form. He also accepts one expert’s point that it makes sense to buy organic if the pesticides used are less dangerous to farm workers than conventional ones. By the end of the book, he finds himself in a more nuanced place: “The art of celebrating humanity and nature,” he concludes, depends on “having the courage to embrace paradox.” His quest to puncture the myth of the natural turns out to have been dogmatic in its own way.
In acknowledging this, Levinovitz hits on something important. When deniers take up arms, it’s tempting to follow their lead: to use science to build an open-and-shut case that strikes with the finality of a courtroom witness pointing out a killer.
But as Galileo knew — and as Levinovitz ultimately concedes — science, in its endlessly unspooling grandeur, tends to resist any conclusion that smacks of the absolute. “What only science can promise,” Livio writes, “is a continuous, midcourse self-correction, as additional experimental and observational evidence accumulates, and new theoretical ideas emerge.”
In their skepticism of pat answers, these books bolster the case that science’s strength is in its flexibility — its willingness to leave room for iteration, for correction, for innovation. Science is an imperfect vehicle, as any truth-seeking discipline must be. And yet, as Galileo would have noted, it moves.
Elizabeth Svoboda is a science writer based in San Jose, California. Her most recent book for children is “The Life Heroic.”
Em Nova York, constrói-se, agora, uma distopia: não haverá contato social; as maiorias sobreviverão de trabalhos braçais e subalternos; corporações e Estado controlarão os inseridos. Alternativa: incorporar as novas tecnologias ao Comum
Por Slavoj Žižek – publicado 21/05/2020 às 21:49 – Atualizado 21/05/2020 às 22:06
Por Slavoj Zizek | Tradução de Simone Paz
As funções básicas do Estado de Nova York, muito em breve, poderão ser “reimaginadas” graças à aliança do governador Andrew Cuomo com a Big Tech personificada. Seria este o campo de testes para um futuro distópico sem contato físico?
Parece que a escolha básica que nos resta para lidar com a pandemia se reduz a duas opções: uma é ao estilo de Trump (com uma volta à atividade econômica sob as condições de liberdade de mercado e lucratividade, mesmo que isso traga milhares de mortes a mais); a outra é a que nossa mídia chama de o “jeitinho chinês” (um controle estatal, total e digitalizado, dos indivíduos).
Entretanto, nos EUA, ainda existe uma terceira opção, que vem sendo divulgada pelo governador de Nova York, Andrew Cuomo, e pelo ex-CEO do Google, Eric Schmidt — em conjunto com Michael Bloomberg e Bill Gates e sua esposa Melinda, nos bastidores. Naomi Klein e o The Interceptchamam essa alternativa de Screen New Deal [alusão jocosa ao Green New Deal, que pressupõe uma Virada Sócioambiental. Screen New Deal seria algo como Virada para dentro das Telas] Ele vem com a promessa de manter o indivíduo a salvo das infecções, mantendo todas as liberdades pessoais que interessam aos liberais — mas será que tem chances de funcionar?
Em uma de suas reflexões sobre a morte, o comediante de stand-up Anthony Jeselnik fala sobre sua avó: “Nós achávamos que ela tinha morrido feliz, enquanto dormia. Mas a autópsia revelou uma verdade horrível: ela morreu durante a autópsia”. Esse é o problema da autópsia de Eric Schmidt sobre nossa situação: a autópsia e suas implicações tornam nossa situação muito mais catastrófica do que é para ser.
Cuomo e Schmidt anunciaram um projeto para “reimaginar a realidade pós-Covid do estado de Nova York, com ênfase na integração permanente da tecnologia em todos os aspectos da vida cívica”. Na visão de Klein, isso levará a um “futuro-sem-contato permanente, altamente lucrativo”, no qual não existirá o dinheiro vivo, nem a necessidade de sair de casa para gastá-lo. Todos os serviços e mercadorias possíveis poderão ser encomendados pela internet, entregues por drone, e “compartilhados numa tela, por meio de uma plataforma”. E, para fazer esse futuro funcionar, seria necessário explorar massivamente “trabalhadores anônimos aglomerados em armazéns, data centers, fábricas de moderação de conteúdo, galpões de manufatura de eletrônicos, minas de lítio, fazendas industriais, plantas de processamento de carne, e prisões”. Existem dois aspectos cruciais que chamam a atenção nesta descrição logo de cara.
O primeiro é o paradoxo de que os privilegiados que poderão usufruir de uma vida nos ambientes sem contato serão, também, os mais controlados: toda a vida deles estará nua à verdadeira sede do poder, à combinação do governo com a Big Tech. Está certo que as redes que são a alma de nossa existência estejam nas mãos de empresas privadas como Google, Amazon e Apple? Empresas que, fundidas com agências de segurança estatais, terão a capacidade de censurar e manipular os dados disponíveis para nós ou mesmo nos desconectar do espaço público? Lembre-se de que Schmidt e Cuomo recebem imensos investimentos públicos nessas empresas — então, não deveria o público ter também acesso a elas e poder controlá-las? Em resumo, como propõe Klein, eles não deveriam ser transformados em serviços públicos sem fins lucrativos? Sem um movimento semelhante, a democracia, em qualquer sentido significativo, será de fato abolida, já que o componente básico de nossos bens comuns — o espaço compartilhado de nossa comunicação e interação — estará sob controle privado
O segundo aspecto é que o Screen New Deal intervém na luta de classes num ponto bem específico e preciso. A crise do vírus nos conscientizou completamente do papel crucial daqueles que David Harvey chamou de “nova classe trabalhadora”: cuidadores de todos os tipos, desde enfermeiros até aqueles que entregam comida e outros pacotes, ou os que esvaziam nossas lixeiras, etc. Para nós, que conseguimos nos auto-isolar, esses trabalhadores se tornaram nosso principal contato com outro, em sua forma corpórea, uma fonte de ajuda, mas também de possível contágio. O Screen New Deal não passa de um plano para minimizar o papel visível dessa classe de cuidadores, que deve permanecer não-isolada, praticamente desprotegida, expondo-se ao perigo viral, para que nós, os privilegiados, possamos sobreviver em segurança — alguns até sonham com a possibilidade de que robôs passem a tomar conta dos idosos e lhes façam companhia… Mas esses cuidadores invisíveis podem se rebelar, exigindo maior proteção: na indústria de frigoríficos nos EUA, milhares de trabalhadores tiveram a covid, e dezenas morreram; e coisas semelhantes estão acontecendo na Alemanha. Agora, novas formas de luta de classes vão surgir
Se levarmos esse projeto à sua conclusão hiperbólica, ao final do Screen New Deal existe a ideia de um cérebro conectado, de nossos cérebros compartilhando diretamente experiências em uma Singularidade, uma espécie de autoconsciência coletiva divina. Elon Musk, outro gênio da tecnologia de nossos tempos, recentemente declarou que ele acredita que em questão de 10 anos a linguagem humana estará obsoleta e que, se alguém ainda a utilizar, será “por motivos sentimentais”. Como diretor da Neuralink, ele diz que planeja conectar um dispositivo ao cérebro humano dentro de 12 meses
Esse cenário, quando combinado com a extrapolação do futuro em casa de Naomi Klein, a partir das ambições dos simbiontes de Big Tech de Cuomo, não lembra a situação dos humanos no filme Matrix? Protegidos, fisicamente isolados e sem palavras em nossas bolhas de isolamento, estaremos mais unidos do que nunca, espiritualmente, enquanto os senhores da alta tecnologia lucram e uma multidão de milhões de humanos invisíveis faz o trabalho pesado — uma visão de pesadelo, se é que alguma vez existiu alguma
No Chile, durante os protestos que eclodiram em outubro de 2019, uma pichação num muro dizia: “Outro fim de mundo é possível”. Essa deveria ser nossa resposta para o Screen New Deal: sim, nosso mundo chegou ao fim, mas um futuro-sem-contato não é a única alternativa, outro fim de mundo é possível.
The pandemic shows how hard it will be to decarbonise—and creates an opportunity
Editor’s note: Some of our covid-19 coverage is free for readers of The Economist Today, our daily newsletter. For more stories and our pandemic tracker, see our hub
FOLLOWING THE pandemic is like watching the climate crisis with your finger jammed on the fast-forward button. Neither the virus nor greenhouse gases care much for borders, making both scourges global. Both put the poor and vulnerable at greater risk than wealthy elites and demand government action on a scale hardly ever seen in peacetime. And with China’s leadership focused only on its own advantage and America’s as scornful of the World Health Organisation as it is of the Paris climate agreement, neither calamity is getting the co-ordinated international response it deserves.
The two crises do not just resemble each other. They interact. Shutting down swathes of the economy has led to huge cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions. In the first week of April, daily emissions worldwide were 17% below what they were last year. The International Energy Agency expects global industrial greenhouse-gas emissions to be about 8% lower in 2020 than they were in 2019, the largest annual drop since the second world war.
That drop reveals a crucial truth about the climate crisis. It is much too large to be solved by the abandonment of planes, trains and automobiles. Even if people endure huge changes in how they lead their lives, this sad experiment has shown, the world would still have more than 90% of the necessary decarbonisation left to do to get on track for the Paris agreement’s most ambitious goal, of a climate only 1.5°C warmer than it was before the Industrial Revolution.
But as we explain this week (see article) the pandemic both reveals the size of the challenge ahead and also creates a unique chance to enact government policies that steer the economy away from carbon at a lower financial, social and political cost than might otherwise have been the case. Rock-bottom energy prices make it easier to cut subsidies for fossil fuels and to introduce a tax on carbon. The revenues from that tax over the next decade can help repair battered government finances. The businesses at the heart of the fossil-fuel economy—oil and gas firms, steel producers, carmakers—are already going through the agony of shrinking their long-term capacity and employment. Getting economies in medically induced comas back on their feet is a circumstance tailor-made for investment in climate-friendly infrastructure that boosts growth and creates new jobs. Low interest rates make the bill smaller than ever.
Take carbon-pricing first. Long cherished by economists (and The Economist), such schemes use the power of the market to incentivise consumers and firms to cut their emissions, thus ensuring that the shift from carbon happens in the most efficient way possible. The timing is particularly propitious because such prices have the most immediate effects when they tip the balance between two already available technologies. In the past it was possible to argue that, although prices might entrench an advantage for cleaner gas over dirtier coal, renewable technologies were too immature to benefit. But over the past decade the costs of wind and solar power have tumbled. A relatively small push from a carbon price could give renewables a decisive advantage—one which would become permanent as wider deployment made them cheaper still. There may never have been a time when carbon prices could achieve so much so quickly.
Carbon prices are not as popular with politicians as they are with economists, which is why too few of them exist. But even before covid-19 there were hints their time was coming. Europe is planning an expansion of its carbon-pricing scheme, the largest in the world; China is instituting a brand new one. Joe Biden, who backed carbon prices when he was vice-president, will do so again in the coming election campaign—and at least some on the right will agree with that. The proceeds from a carbon tax could raise over 1% of GDP early on and would then taper away over several decades. This money could either be paid as a dividend to the public or, as is more likely now, help lower government debts, which are already forecast to reach an average of 122% of GDP in the rich world this year, and will rise further if green investments are debt-financed.
Carbon pricing is only part of the big-bang response now possible. By itself, it is unlikely to create a network of electric-vehicle charging-points, more nuclear power plants to underpin the cheap but intermittent electricity supplied by renewables, programmes to retrofit inefficient buildings and to develop technologies aimed at reducing emissions that cannot simply be electrified away, such as those from large aircraft and some farms. In these areas subsidies and direct government investment are needed to ensure that tomorrow’s consumers and firms have the technologies which carbon prices will encourage.
Some governments have put their efforts into greening their covid-19 bail-outs. Air France has been told either to scrap domestic routes that compete with high-speed trains, powered by nuclear electricity, or to forfeit taxpayer assistance. But dirigisme disguised as a helping hand could have dangerous consequences: better to focus on insisting that governments must not skew their bail-outs towards fossil fuels. In other countries the risk is of climate-damaging policies. America has been relaxing its environmental rules further during the pandemic. China—whose stimulus for heavy industry sent global emissions soaring after the global financial crisis—continues to build new coal plants (see article).
Carpe covid
The covid-19 pause is not inherently climate-friendly. Countries must make it so. Their aim should be to show by 2021, when they gather to take stock of progress made since the Paris agreement and commit themselves to raising their game, that the pandemic has been a catalyst for a breakthrough on the environment.
Covid-19 has demonstrated that the foundations of prosperity are precarious. Disasters long talked about, and long ignored, can come upon you with no warning, turning life inside out and shaking all that seemed stable. The harm from climate change will be slower than the pandemic but more massive and longer-lasting. If there is a moment for leaders to show bravery in heading off that disaster, this is it. They will never have a more attentive audience. ■
This article appeared in the Leaders section of the print edition under the headline “Seize the moment”
Editor’s note: Some of our covid-19 coverage is free for readers of The Economist Today, our daily newsletter. For more stories and our pandemic tracker, see our hub
AMID COVID-19’s sweeping devastation, its effect on greenhouse gases has emerged as something of a bright spot. Between January and March demand for coal dropped by 8% and oil by 5%, compared with the same period in 2019. By the end of the year energy demand may be 6% down overall, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), an intergovernmental forecaster, amounting to the largest drop it has ever seen.
Because less energy use means less burning of fossil fuels, greenhouse-gas emissions are tumbling, too. According to an analysis by the Global Carbon Project, a consortium of scientists, 2020’s emissions will be 2-7% lower than 2019’s if the world gets back to prepandemic conditions by mid-June; if restrictions stay in place all year, the estimated drop is 3-13% depending on how strict they are. The IEA’s best guess for the drop is 8%.
That is not enough to make any difference to the total warming the world can expect. Warming depends on the cumulative emissions to date; a fraction of one year’s toll makes no appreciable difference. But returning the world to the emission levels of 2010—for a 7% drop—raises the tantalising prospect of crossing a psychologically significant boundary. The peak in carbon-dioxide emissions from fossil fuels may be a lot closer than many assume. It might, just possibly, turn out to lie in the past.
That emissions from fossil fuels have to peak, and soon, is a central tenet of climate policy. Precisely when they might do so, though, is so policy-dependent that many forecasters decline to give a straight answer. The IEA makes a range of projections depending on whether governments keep on with today’s policies or enact new ones. In the scenario which assumes that current policies stay in place, fossil-fuel demand rises by nearly 30% from 2018 to 2040, with no peak in sight.
The IEA, though, has persistently underestimated the renewable-energy sector. Others are more bullish. Carbon Tracker, a financial think-tank, predicted in 2018 that with impressive but plausible growth in renewable deployment and relatively slow growth in overall demand, even under current policy fossil-fuel emissions should peak in the 2020s—perhaps as early as 2023. Michael Liebreich, who founded BloombergNEF, an energy-data outfit, has also written about a possible peak in the mid 2020s. Depending on how the pandemic pans out he now thinks that it may be in 2023—or may have been in 2019.
Previously, drops in emissions caused by economic downturns have proved only temporary setbacks to the ongoing rise in fossil-fuel use. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Asian financial crash in 1997 and the financial crisis of 2007-09 all saw emissions stumble briefly before beginning to rise again (see chart). But if a peak really was a near-term prospect before the pandemic, almost a decade’s worth of setback could mean that, though emissions will rise over the next few years, they never again reach the level they stood at last year.
The alternative, more orthodox pre-covid view was that the peak was both further off and destined to be higher. On this view, emissions will regain their pre-pandemic level within a few years and will climb right on past it. Covid’s damage to the economy probably means that the peak, when it arrives, will be lower than it might have been, says Roman Kramarchuk of S&P Global Platts Analytics, a data and research firm. But an economic dip is unlikely to bring it on sooner.
What, though, if covid does not merely knock demand back, but reshapes it? This shock, unlike prior ones, comes upon an energy sector already in the throes of change. The cost of renewables is dipping below that of new fossil-fuel plants in much of the world. After years of development, electric vehicles are at last poised for the mass market. In such circumstances covid-19 may spur decisions—by individuals, firms, investors and governments—that hasten fossil fuels’ decline.
So far, renewables have had a pretty good pandemic, despite some disruptions to supply chains. With no fuel costs and the preferential access to electricity grids granted by some governments, renewables demand jumped 1.5% in the first quarter, even as demand for all other forms of energy sank. America’s Energy Information Administration expects renewables to surpass coal’s share of power generation in America for the first time this year.
Coal prices have fallen, given the low demand, which may position it well post-pandemic in some places. Even before covid, China was building new coal-fired plants (see article). But the cost of borrowing is also low, and likely to stay that way, which means installing renewables should stay cheap for longer. Renewable developers such as Iberdrola and Orsted, both of which have weathered covid-19 rather well so far, are keen to replace coal on an ever larger scale.
Those who see demand for fossil fuels continuing to climb as populations and economies grow have assumed demand for oil will be much more persistent than that for coal. Coal is almost entirely a source of electricity, which makes it ripe for replacement by renewables. Oil is harder to shift. Electric vehicles are sure to eat into some of its demand; but a rising appetite for petrochemicals and jet fuel, to which lithium-ion batteries offer no competition, was thought likely to offset the loss.
Breaking bounds
Now oil’s future looks much more murky, depending as it does on a gallimaufry of newly questionable assumptions about commuting, airline routes, government intervention, capital spending and price recovery. In the future more people may work from home, and commuting accounts for about 8% of oil demand. But those who do commute may prefer to do so alone in their cars, offsetting some of those gains. Chinese demand for oil has picked up again quickly in part because of reticence about buses and trains.
As to planes, Jeff Currie of Goldman Sachs estimates that demand for oil will recover to pre-crisis levels by the middle of 2022, but that demand for jet fuel may well stay 1.7m barrels a day below what it was as business travel declines. That is equivalent to nearly 2% of oil demand.
Such uncertainty means more trouble for the oil sector, whose poor returns and climate risks have been repelling investors for a while. Companies are slashing spending on new projects. By the mid-2020s today’s underinvestment in oil may boost crude prices—making demand for electric vehicles grow all the faster.
Natural gas, the fossil fuel for which analysts have long predicted continued growth, has weathered the pandemic better than its two older siblings. But it, too, faces accelerating competition. One of gas’s niches is powering the “peaker” plants which provide quick influxes of energy when demand outstrips a grid’s supply. It looks increasingly possible for batteries to take a good chunk of that business.
Those hoping for fossil fuels’ imminent demise should not be overconfident. As lockdowns around the world end, use of dirty fuels will tick back up, as they have in China. Energy emissions no longer rise in lockstep with economic growth, but demand for fossil fuels remains tied to it. Mr Currie of Goldman Sachs, for one, is wary of declaring a permanent decoupling: “I’m not willing to say there is a structural shift in oil demand to GDP.” Even so, a peak of fossil fuels in the 2020s looks less and less farfetched—depending on what governments do next in their struggle with the pandemic. Of all the uncertainties in energy markets, none currently looms larger than that. ■
(CNN) As the novel coronavirus has spread across the globe, President Trump has repeated one phrase like a mantra: It will go away.
Since February Trump has said the virus will “go away” at least 15 times, most recently on May 15.
“It’s going to disappear one day,” he said on February 27. “It’s like a miracle.”
Invoking a miracle is an understandable response during a pandemic, but to some, the President’s insistence that the coronavirus will simply vanish sounds dangerously like magical thinking — the popular but baffling idea that we can mold the world to our liking, reality be damned.
The coronavirus, despite Trump’s predictions, has not disappeared. It has spread rapidly, killing more than 90,000 Americans.
In that light, Trump’s response to the pandemic, his fulsome self-praise and downplaying of mass death seems contrary to reality. But long ago, his biographers say, Trump learned how to craft his own version of reality, a lesson he learned in an unlikely place: a church.
It’s called the “power of positive thinking,” and Trump heard it from the master himself: the Rev. Norman Vincent Peale, a Manhattan pastor who became a self-help juggernaut, the Joel Osteen of the 1950s.
“He thought I was his greatest student of all time,” Trump has said.
Undoubtedly, the power of positive thinking has taken Trump a long way — through multiple business failures to the most powerful office in the world.
Trump has repeatedly credited Peale — who died in 1993 — and positive thinking with helping him through rough patches.
Norman Vincent Peale wrote the bestselling 1952 self-help book, “The Power of Positive Thinking.” It sold millions of copies.
“I refused to be sucked into negative thinking on any level, even when the indications weren’t great,” Trump said of the early 1990s, when his casinos were tanking and he owed creditors billions of dollars.
But during a global public health crisis there can be a negative side to positive thinking.
“Trump pretending that this pandemic will just go away is not just an unacceptable fantasy,” said Christopher Lane, author of “Surge of Piety: Norman Vincent Peale and the Remaking of American Religious Life.”
“It is in the realm of dangerous delusion.”
Trump says Peale has made him feel better about himself
Though they were professed Presbyterians, it’s more accurate to call Trump’s family Peale-ites.
On Sundays, Trump’s businessman father drove the family from Queens to Peale’s pulpit at Marble Collegiate Church in Manhattan.
The centuries-old edifice was, and remains, the closest thing Trump has to a family church. Funerals for both of his parents were held there, and Peale presided over Trump’s marriage to Ivana at Marble Collegiate in 1977. Two of his siblings were also married in the sanctuary.
The draw, Trump’s biographers say, was Peale, who elevated businessmen like the Trumps to saint-like status as crusaders of American capitalism.
Known as “God’s Salesman,” Peale wrote many self-help books, including “The Power of Positive Thinking,” that sold millions of copies.
From left to right, Donald Trump, Ivana Trump, Ruth Peale and Dr. Norman V. Peale at Peale’s 90th birthday party in 1988.
Peale drew throngs of followers, but also sharp criticism from Christians who accused him of cherry-picking Bible verses and peddling simplistic solutions.
But the young Donald Trump was hooked.
“He would instill a very positive feeling about God that also made me feel positive about myself,” Trump writes in “Great Again,” one of his books. “I would literally leave that church feeling like I could listen to another three sermons.”
Peale peppered his sermons with pop psychology. Sin and guilt were jettisoned in favor of “spirit-lifters,” “energy-producing thoughts” and “7 simple steps” to happy living.
“Attitudes are more important than facts,” Peale preached, a virtual prophecy of our post-truth age.”Formulate and stamp indelibly on your mind a mental picture of yourself as succeeding,” Peale writes in “The Power of Positive Thinking.”
“Hold this picture tenaciously. Never permit it to fade.”
Peale has also influenced Trump’s spiritual advisers
To this day, Trump surrounds himself with Peale-like figures, particularly prosperity gospel preachers.
One of his closest spiritual confidantes, Florida pastor Paula White, leads the White House’s faith-based office and is a spiritual descendent of Peale’s positive thinking — with a Pentecostal twist.
White, a televangelist, belongs to the Word of Faith movement, which teaches that God bestows health and wealth on true believers.
In a Rose Garden ceremony for the National Day of Prayer earlier this month, White quoted from the Bible’s Book of Job: “If you decree and declare a thing, it will be established.”
“I declare no more delays to the deliverance of Covid-19,” White continued. “No more delays to healing and a vaccination.”
Paula White, a televangelist and religious adviser to President Trump.
The Book of Job, a parable of human suffering and powerlessness, may be a strange book for a preacher to cite while “declaring” an end to the pandemic. If it were so easy, Job’s story would involve fewer boils and tortures.
But in a way, White perfectly captures the problem with positive thinking: It tries to twist every situation into a “victory,” even when reality demonstrates otherwise.
“Positive thinking can help people focus on goals and affirm one’s merits,” said Lane, author of the book on Peale. “But it does need a reality check, and to be based in fact.
“Sometimes, the reality is that you’ve failed and need to change course. But to Peale, that wasn’t an option. Even self-doubt was a sin, he taught, an affront to God.
“He had a huge problem with failure,” Lane said. “He would berate people for even talking about it.”
Peale’s teachings can explain why Trump won’t accept criticism
You can hear echoes of Peale’s no-fail philosophy in Trump’s angry response to reporters’ questions about his handling of the coronavirus pandemic, said Trump biographer Michael D’Antonio.
“Nothing is an exchange of ideas or discussion of facts,” D’Antonio said. “Everything is a life or death struggle for the definition of reality. For him, being wrong feels like being obliterated.”
President Donald Trump answers questions with members of the White House Coronavirus Task Force on April 3, 2020 in Washington.
And that’s one reason why the President refuses to accept any criticism or admit to any failure. To do so would puncture his bubble of positivity, not to mention his self-image.
Instead, he has misled the public, claiming in February that the situation was “under control” when it was not; promising a vaccine is coming “very soon,” which it is not; and falsely insisting that “anyone can get tested,” when they could not and many still cannot.
/i.s3.glbimg.com/v1/AUTH_59edd422c0c84a879bd37670ae4f538a/internal_photos/bs/2020/s/c/wUxBKDTaiIlLNK9x29fQ/wuhanaulas.jpg)
/i.s3.glbimg.com/v1/AUTH_59edd422c0c84a879bd37670ae4f538a/internal_photos/bs/2020/7/H/UeNmVASiin7zVCWpdAJw/2020-05-28t144506z-361001322-rc2qxg9fincr-rtrmadp-3-health-coronavirus-safrica.jpg)
/i.s3.glbimg.com/v1/AUTH_59edd422c0c84a879bd37670ae4f538a/internal_photos/bs/2020/y/7/qoIKPsT7GCtryEJUyYxg/000-1qu224.jpg)
/i.s3.glbimg.com/v1/AUTH_59edd422c0c84a879bd37670ae4f538a/internal_photos/bs/2020/4/6/6A8Zs5T9qBiAlwXu01IA/000-1sd0zw.jpg)
/i.s3.glbimg.com/v1/AUTH_59edd422c0c84a879bd37670ae4f538a/internal_photos/bs/2020/t/A/bUAgUGQwuPe3a7eZcCwQ/000-1qu2c5.jpg)
/i.s3.glbimg.com/v1/AUTH_59edd422c0c84a879bd37670ae4f538a/internal_photos/bs/2020/H/I/BFlIj7RBOdJcZ2nWNL3A/000-1ru1vc.jpg)
/i.s3.glbimg.com/v1/AUTH_59edd422c0c84a879bd37670ae4f538a/internal_photos/bs/2020/q/B/ZFi1jcT0CWfFx0lDSzYg/lavar-maos.jpg)
/i.s3.glbimg.com/v1/AUTH_59edd422c0c84a879bd37670ae4f538a/internal_photos/bs/2020/X/8/QE9FrdR7KeT10ah80f0w/2020-05-18t101008z-295272890-rc2yqg957d8k-rtrmadp-3-health-coronavirus-portugal.jpg)
/i.s3.glbimg.com/v1/AUTH_59edd422c0c84a879bd37670ae4f538a/internal_photos/bs/2020/6/4/gtmem5TQeubrA0gMqhog/2020-05-15t115216z-1634726545-rc2xog95qjse-rtrmadp-3-health-coronavirus-belgium-schools.jpg)
/i.s3.glbimg.com/v1/AUTH_59edd422c0c84a879bd37670ae4f538a/internal_photos/bs/2020/x/C/ScTmbFTTKQLsYi1IriSw/aula.jpg)
/i.s3.glbimg.com/v1/AUTH_59edd422c0c84a879bd37670ae4f538a/internal_photos/bs/2020/O/g/oryj7lQFGbHBJbJ9jD9Q/asas.jpg)
/i.s3.glbimg.com/v1/AUTH_59edd422c0c84a879bd37670ae4f538a/internal_photos/bs/2020/I/i/NcbMEoSRqxfjw2NA37fQ/coronavirus-27-04-2020-2020-04-27t115918z-411447450-rc2xcg9crq3w-rtrmadp-3-health-coronavirus-china-china-daily-reuters.jpg)
Uma (in)certa antropologia 
Você precisa fazer login para comentar.