Todos os posts de renzotaddei

Sobre renzotaddei

Anthropologist, professor at the Federal University of São Paulo Ver todas as mensagens por renzotaddei →

Tratamento à base de tortura (Correio Braziliense)

29/11/2011UncategorizedDiscriminação, Drogas, Psicologia, Saúde, Saúde mental, Violênciarenzotaddei

JC e-mail 4394, de 29 de Novembro de 2011.

Durante vistorias em 68 comunidades terapêuticas espalhadas pelo país, psicólogos encontraram pacientes que são surrados com pedaço de madeira e vítimas de cárcere privado.

Cavar uma cova da dimensão do próprio corpo, escrever reiteradamente o Salmo 119 da Bíblia ou ser surrado com um pedaço de madeira em que está escrita a palavra gratidão são algumas das terapias oferecidas a usuários de drogas em tratamento no país. As violações estão documentadas no relatório da 4ª Inspeção Nacional de Direitos Humanos, uma pesquisa realizada periodicamente pelos conselhos regionais de psicologia sob a coordenação da entidade federal da categoria e com o apoio de parceiros, como o Ministério Público e a Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil. Em todos os 68 locais de internação para tratamento de dependentes químicos visitados, especialmente clínicas e comunidades terapêuticas, houve flagrantes de desrespeito. Entre os problemas mais frequentes estão isolamento, proibição de falar ao telefone com parentes, trabalho não remunerado e punições físicas e psicológicas para atos de desobediência.

As denúncias, que serão levadas à ministra dos Direitos Humanos, Maria do Rosário, surgem a uma semana do lançamento oficial de um plano de combate às drogas, quando a presidente Dilma Rousseff anunciará a inclusão das comunidades terapêuticas na rede de tratamento, com financiamento do Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS). “Não nos deram a oportunidade de participar do debate sobre esse plano, ao contrário de outros segmentos da sociedade. A simples possibilidade de financiar tais instituições já representa um retrocesso em tudo o que a reforma antimanicomial conquistou”, disse Clara Goldmann, vice-presidente do Conselho Federal de Psicologia. Ao destacar que encaminhará o documento à ministra, o ouvidor Nacional dos Direitos Humanos, Domingos Sávio Dresch da Silveira, destacou as medidas cabíveis. “Vou conhecer o relatório e, havendo indícios de violações, caberá um procedimento coletivo de apuração”, disse.

Casos de locais já investigados pelo Ministério Público, como a Casa de Recuperação Valentes de Gideão, em Simões Filhos, na Bahia, apresentaram problemas graves, como espaços inadequados e até exorcismo para tratar crises de abstinência. “É assustador que o clamor por tratamento silencie até mesmo a voz de autoridades que já foram notificadas, quatro anos atrás, sobre o tratamento desumano. Não estou dizendo que todas as comunidades terapêutica têm esse padrão, mas assusta ver a Valentes de Gideão aberta”, destaca Marcus Vinícius de Oliveira, integrante da Rede Nacional Internúcleos da Luta Antimanicomial.

Para o diretor da Federação Brasileira de Comunidades Terapêuticas (Febract), Maurício Landre, a amostra considerada pelo relatório é tendenciosa e não representa o universo das instituições. Ele também questiona a competência dos conselhos regionais de psicologia para fazerem inspeções. “É lamentável que uma classe tão conceituada, com profissionais que realizam trabalhos extraordinários dentro de comunidades terapêuticas, faça denúncias tão irresponsáveis”, afirma. “Existe comunidade terapêutica, clínica e até hospital que deve ser fechado? Existe. Mas não se trata de todos. Vamos ajudar na capacitação, vamos trabalhar em vez de ficar reclamando”, afirma. Segundo o dirigente, a real intenção com os ataques é financeira. “Tem a ideologia e também o capitalismo. Tratar em comunidade é mais barato do que ficar fazendo redução de dano, que eles defendem.”

Ligações monitoradas – O tema escolhido para a inspeção deste ano foi álcool e drogas. Só não foram feitas visitas em Amapá e Tocantins. No DF, a única instituição que participou foi a Fazendo do Senhor Jesus, em Brazlândia. O monitoramento de ligações dos familiares, bem como de visitas, é um ponto criticado no relatório. A violação das correspondências trocadas pelos pacientes também foi destacada no documento. Além disso, há relato de um homicídio e de uma denúncia por cárcere privado.

Senado deve voltar a debater acordo ortográfico (Agência Senado)

29/11/2011UncategorizedCultura, Linguística, Políticarenzotaddei

JC e-mail 4394, de 29 de Novembro de 2011.

Novo uso do hífen, resistência de alguns países e dificuldades dos professores em compreender e repassar as novas regras são alguns dos argumentos.

A senadora Ana Amélia (PP-RS) solicitará que a Comissão de Educação do Senado (CE) promova no início do ano que vem uma audiência pública sobre o novo acordo ortográfico. Enquanto o Brasil deve concluir a implementação do acordo em 2013, outros países de língua portuguesa enfrentam resistências – inclusive Portugal. Uma das providências que podem ser estudadas pelo Senado é a criação de um grupo de trabalho sobre o assunto.

Ana Amélia anunciou a audiência logo após se reunir, nesta segunda-feira (28), com o professor Ernani Pimentel. Autor de diversas críticas ao novo acordo ortográfico, o professor criou o Movimento Acordar Melhor para divulgar suas ideias.

Simplificação – Pimentel defende a simplificação das regras, porque, segundo ele, o novo acordo contém “incoerências, incongruências e muitas exceções”. Um dos vários exemplos que citou foi a dificuldade para se compreender quando se deve usar ou não usar o hífen.

– Por que ‘mandachuva’ se escreve sem hífen e ‘guarda-chuva’ se escreve com hífen? É ilógico. E há muitos outros exemplos – afirmou ele.

De acordo com Pimentel, “nenhum professor de português de nenhum país signatário é capaz de escrever totalmente de acordo com as novas regras e, como os professores não têm condições de compreender, os países não terão condições de implantá-las”.

Pimentel apoia a criação de um grupo de trabalho, no âmbito da Comissão de Educação do Senado (CE), para discutir o acordo. Ele também sugeriu que os países signatários criem uma espécie de órgão similar à Real Academia Espanhola, que seria responsável pela uniformização da ortografia nos países de língua portuguesa.

Mercado e soberania – Ao comentar as resistências externas ao acordo, ele lembrou que alguns países alegam – “com razão”, observou – que as novas regras foram pensadas somente a partir de Brasil e Portugal, ignorando especificidades culturais de outras nações de língua portuguesa. Ele também disse que há uma divisão em Portugal, entre os que defendem o acordo e os que preferem adiá-lo devido aos interesses do mercado editorial português (que, dessa forma, não enfrenta a concorrência de livros brasileiros em seu próprio país e também nos países africanos de língua portuguesa).

Sobre a atuação do Ministério das Relações Exteriores, Pimentel declarou que “o Itamaraty está correto ao querer a unificação, mas está errado ao permitir que o interesse político desconsidere as questões educacionais, pedagógicas e culturais”.

– Ao forçar o acordo, o Brasil está sendo visto como impositor. É importante que haja discussão entre os países – avaliou ele.

Ações judiciais – Segundo Pimentel, o acordo ortográfico que vem sendo implantado no Brasil contém alterações feitas posteriormente – e sem a aprovação do Congresso Nacional – pela Academia Brasileira de Letras. Ele afirma que isso é ilegal e, por isso, entrou com uma ação judicial para exigir que o Congresso ratifique (ou não) tais mudanças. Além disso, o professor solicitou na Justiça que o Brasil tenha mais tempo para discutir e implementar o acordo ortográfico.

Saber dos xamãs jaguares do Yuruparí é nomeado patrimônio imaterial (Folha de S.Paulo)

29/11/2011UncategorizedÍndios, Conhecimento tradicional, Cultura, Memória, Patrimôniorenzotaddei

27/11/2011 – 06h19

DA EFE

O saber tradicional dos xamãs jaguares do Yuruparí, na Amazônia colombiana, entrou neste domingo para a Lista Representativa do Patrimônio Cultural Imaterial da Humanidade da Unesco.

O comitê de analistas da Unesco aprovou sua inclusão durante reunião em Bali, na Indonésia, ao considerar que este modo de vida, herança milenar dos ancestrais, é um sistema integral de conhecimento com características físicas e espirituais.

“Esta notícia é um enorme esperança para a comunidade que tem plena certeza de que esta decisão é um instrumento de salvaguarda desta sabedoria”, disse o diretor de Patrimônio da Colômbia, Juan Luis Isaza, em seu discurso de agradecimento.

Os xamãs do Yuruparí transmitem “uma cosmovisão associada a um território sagrado para eles, um conhecimento graças ao qual acham que o mundo pode estar em equilíbrio”, explicou Isaza.

Os jaguares de Yuruparí, que habitam nas cercanias do rio Pirá Paraná, transmitem por via masculina e desde o nascimento o Hee Yaia Keti Oka, uma sabedoria que foi entregue a eles desde suas origens pelos Ayowa (criadores) para cuidar do território e da vida.

O diretor de Patrimônio da Colômbia detalhou que esta cultura está ameaçada pela perda de interesse dos mais jovens e a interação com a “arrasadora cultura ocidental”.

A designação também ajudará, segundo Isaza, a combater os perigos que espreitam este povo que viveu sempre isolado do “contato com colonos, madeireiros, mineiros e políticos que, segundo os xamãs, vulneram o território e o equilíbrio”.

“O reconhecimento da Unesco serve para proteger e resgatar não só seu pensamento, também seu território, porque estão profundamente relacionados”, assegurou Isaza.

Durban climate change conference: ‘Sideline the UN’ says leading academic (The Ecologist)

29/11/2011UncategorizedClima, Cultura, discurso ambiental, Economia, Enquadramento, Incerteza, Mídia, Meteorologia, Mudanças climáticas, Opinião pública, Política, Políticas públicas, Previsãorenzotaddei

Matilda Lee

7th November, 2011

Ahead of the latest UN climate conference, leading academic Anthony Giddens explains why it’s time to switch to smaller agreements between major world powers

Lord Anthony Giddens, a Labour peer and former director of the London School of Economics

Ecologist: In your book the Politics of Climate Change, you give credit to the green movement for challenging orthodox politics on climate change, yet you say that it’s flawed at source. Why?

Anthony Giddens: I call myself a non-green green because I support a lot of the objectives of some elements of the green movement – globally and locally – but I am not ideologically opposed to nuclear power like many greens, although I am reserved about it. I believe in the primacy of science in trying to resolve these issues, especially around climate change. Although I am interested in protecting the forests in terms of CO2 and so forth, I think what we are trying to save is really a decent future civilisation for us. There are aspects of the development of the green movement that I am not very comfortable with, including not all conservation measures, because while some are worthwhile, sometimes you have got to take risks in the interests of controlling greater risks. Climate change, to me, being one of the primary risks we face in this century.

As far as this country is concerned, I was pleased that the coalition sustained most of the framework that Labour had put into place and I think that is important because as you know, in the US the complete polarisation of climate change issues is really unfortunate for not just the US, but the rest of the world. Here, at the moment, we don’t have that. Of course you can carp about what the government is doing now, whether it’s going back on some of its initial presumptions, and to some degree this is true. Nevertheless, there is a pretty large cross-party consensus. Ideally, I’d like every country to have that. Climate change is not a left-right issue, it concerns everybody. You’ll need all sorts of coalitions to support climate change progressive policies. But there is this tendency to polarise around left or right, especially in the US.

You need long-term policies, you don’t want parties coming in that reverse the positions of the parties before them. My feeling about the UK is that we’ve got a reasonable framework but we don’t have results from that framework. The UK is still way down the league in terms of proportion of energy taken from renewables, if you exclude nuclear. It’s more the framework than a set of substantive achievements. You have to be a bit reserved about British position or other positions where it’s all ends and objectives rather than the substantive achievements, which are in short supply across the world.

Ecologist: You mention renewable energy. Do you think the government has shot itself in the foot with backtracking on the feed-in tariff?

AG: Yes, I do. Unfortunately this has happened in other countries too. Some of the most impressive achievements in introducing renewables happened in Portugal and Spain. They introduced feed-in tariffs and one or two other subsidies and they achieved results which no one could quite believe because they introduced a high proportion of renewables within five or six-year period. We used to think, like in the case of Denmark or Sweden, it took about 25 years to do this. Now with new technology, and if you organise things right, you can do it quickly. I read an account saying that there was one day last year when Portugal met 100 per cent of its energy needs from renewables.

Even though I’m worried about the experiments in Germany, I think it was also quite interesting, the commitment to phase out nuclear power and see if you could achieve 20 per cent of renewables by 2020. I think that could be a very useful experiment for the rest of the world because Germany does have a lot of technological know-how.

Ecologist: How much value do you put on reaching an international post-Kyoto agreement?

AG: I think the UN is an indispensable organisation in global terms, but I think we need to judge in terms of substance and achievement. So far, it’s been pretty limited. I don’t think one could say in spite of 20 years next June since Rio and 17-18 years since climate change negotiations started that those negotiations have had much impact really, in terms of reducing carbon emissions, which is the only feasible measure. I think we have to keep them going, but I think we have to recognise that you’ll need more substantial agreements alongside them that would be bilateral or regional.

I think we are already seeing a change in the pattern of leadership globally, in respect of climate change issues, as a result of what happened in Copenhagen and in Cancun in which some of the large developing countries assumed much more of a leadership position, even as compared to the industrial countries. I think Brazil, under Lula has made important developments. It’s a country which has very unusually energy patterns, since about 80 per cent of its energy comes from non-fossil fuel sources. Latin America is a region that could have a leadership position, hopefully China will. I think the Chinese over the last 6-7 years have really woken up to the dangers of the glaciers melting, the threat of climate change which to me is so real and frightening in its outer edges in terms of risks.

The main joker in terms of international arena is the United States. I was hoping that there’d be important bilateral agreements between China and the US, which would lead to substantial programmes of energy transformation. So far they’ve had talks but these haven’t led to much. Lack of American leadership I find deeply disappointing. When I wrote the first edition of the book, I had high hopes that President Obama would be an inspirational leader for climate change policy. Partly because I think they put the Health Care bill ahead of everything else, it served to polarise the country and now federal leadership is more or less stymied in the US.

Ecologist: Should policy makers be focusing more on adaptation?

AG: We have to focus on adaptation anyway, because it’s close to certain as one could be that fairly high levels of climate change is embedded in the system. I think a lot of lay people hearing that world temperatures increased by 1.4 degrees think that doesn’t sound like very much. But when you think that in the Arctic it has increased several degrees and the main consequence will be extreme weather of all kinds – a combination of droughts and flooding – then you see the thin envelope that we live within, certainly in the poorer countries, we should be spending a lot on what I call “pre-emptive adaption”. But we are not. All the promises of billions flowing from the developed to developing countries – where’s the money? It would surprise me a lot if it was forthcoming in Durban given the economic situation in Europe, which is supposedly one of the main sources of this money. Again you have this distance between ambition and reality.

Ecologist: To what extent do you think developed countries can dictate the terms of development to less industrialised countries?

AG: I don’t think they can dictate terms at all. Whether we like it or not we are in a more multi-polar international environment. Many people wanted that but it is proving to be very difficult to exert systematic governance when you’ve got a more multipolar system. No one is going to be able to tell China or India or Brazil what to do. We hope they will emerge as more important leaders than in the industrial countries, but industrial countries must reform because they’ve created most of the greenhouse gases historically anyway.

I think the main thing is to focus on substance everywhere. It seems to me very important that we concentrate attention on areas where you can really make substantial progress and don’t just talk in terms of endless frameworks and negotiation.

Ecologist: Which areas are you referring to?

AG: I don’t think we are anywhere near resolving the issues without a fairly heavy dose of innovation. Both globally and nationally we should be spending to try and produce such innovation and even though you can’t predict the future, you can certainly see some areas where it would be very valuable. For example, if we could find some way of storing electricity on the large scale, it would be very valuable in terms of promoting the spread of renewable energy. I think we have to start spending now on geo-engineering. At the moment we are just miles away from being able to control carbon emissions. The most effective form of geo-engineering, if someone could make a breakthrough would be finding some way of taking greenhouse gas emissions out of the atmosphere on a large scale. We don’t know whether it will ever be possible to do that but I think we have to invest and investigate to try and find some projects that wouldn’t be counter-productive. As you know, they could be very dangerous as people may interpret this to mean we don’t need to do anything because they’ll be some fix at the end, which is in no sense guaranteed.

I think we need to support hundreds of bottom-up innovations that are going on around the world – whether they are social, political or economic. My view is that we’ve also got to have what I call “utopian realism”. We are living through the end of industrial civilisation as it existed for the past 150 years driven by fossil fuels. This will involve changes in the way people live, which could in principle be very profound over a 20 or 30-year period. I think we’ve got to experiment on how we produce these changes and make them converge with desirable critical outcomes.

One concrete place I try to think about is transportation, which is still driven 95 per cent by oil. Look what the car has done to city centres. I’m sure we could construct more creative cities, more creative transport systems. I quote the MIT study on the future of automobiles – where they envisage a “mobility internet” and big differences from how we organise transport now – bringing down private and public distinctions, organising Smart Cars to enter in transit in different parts of transport systems. Having a fair proportion of driver-less cars on the roads, trying to reintegrate that with designing more effective communities within cities. All of us have got to explore different development models. If we have, after the recession, several years of 1 per cent growth, surely in the West there is a new invitation to discuss the nature of growth and its relationship to prosperity and wider political goals like Tim Jackson suggests in his book Prosperity without Growth.

Ecologist: Why do you suggest we need to do away with the term ‘sustainable development’?

AG: It became a popular term ever since the Bruntland report. Now there are similar terms like “green growth” and the “green economy”. To me, if you examine them they fall apart a bit. Let’s get something more substantial, something that’s not just an empty phrase. Let’s work out what it actually means on the ground and how you might achieve that. If you take the green economy, I’m in favour of it, I might prefer low-carbon economy but the point is we don’t know what a green economy is like. We haven’t done enough intellectual or practical work on it. It’s not going to be an economy where you simply have a few more renewables in it and everyone lives the same way.

Let’s say Denmark has successfully reduced its emissions to zero. It’s going to change lots of things all across the economy: job creation, job structures, transportation systems, lots of things about how people live. We need to work on this some more, and not just make empty claims. The same thing goes about green growth. We know you can create jobs through renewable technologies in some contexts, but they’ve got to be net new jobs and we’ve got to look at what happens when people lose their jobs in sectors that become less prominent.

I think we will get most growth through lifestyle change rather than the introduction of renewable technologies. When people invented the idea of the coffee shop 15 years ago, no one really thought we wanted better coffee because we lived, in the US and UK with bad coffee for hundreds of years. What people who set these things up did was to anticipate emerging trends – it wasn’t just having a dozen new kinds of coffee it was that it intersected with the information technology revolution, with people having more flexibility with where they work and therefore using computers in new places. If you generalise that, there will be many changes produced by a movement towards a more sustainable society.

The Politics of Climate Change, second edition by Anthony Giddens (Polity Press, Sept 2011, £14.24)

[Original article here]

Roteiro para acordo global sobre o clima (Correio Braziliense)

28/11/2011Uncategorizedciência, Clima, discurso ambiental, Economia, Enquadramento, Incerteza, Meteorologia, Mudanças climáticas, Opinião pública, Política, Previsãorenzotaddei

JC e-mail 4393, de 28 de Novembro de 2011.

Por Connie Hedegaard

Quando ministros e negociadores de todo o mundo se reunirem, a partir de hoje, em Durban (África do Sul) para a Conferência da ONU sobre o Clima, será um momento decisivo para avançarmos no combate internacional contra as alterações climáticas.

Alguns perguntarão: não poderíamos aguardar um pouco e tratar do problema do clima depois de termos resolvido a crise da dívida na Europa, quando houver uma nova retomada do crescimento? A resposta é não. As inundações na Tailândia e as secas no Texas e no Chifre da África são apenas alguns dos mais recentes alertas de que o problema do clima não perdeu o caráter de urgência, porque as alterações climáticas estão se agravando. O recente relatório World Energy Outlook, da Agência Internacional da Energia (AIE), foi mais um sinal de alarme: o tempo está se esgotando e a fatura vai multiplicar-se assustadoramente se não agirmos já.

Portanto, o que podemos conseguir em Durban? Os comentários da comunicação social nos deixam a impressão de que só há uma forma de aferir o êxito: levar os países desenvolvidos a subscreverem um segundo período de compromisso do Protocolo de Kyoto, após o termo do primeiro, em 2012.

Sejamos claros: a UE apoia o Protocolo de Kyoto. Baseamos a nossa legislação nos seus princípios; somos a região do mundo com o objetivo mais ambicioso no âmbito de Kyoto – e estamos a cumpri-lo. Na verdade, estamos a caminho de ultrapassar o nosso objetivo.

Mas o Protocolo de Kyoto baseia-se numa distinção nítida entre países desenvolvidos e países em desenvolvimento e exige medidas apenas aos primeiros. Não lhes parece que a evolução da economia mundial ao longo das últimas duas décadas tem atenuado cada vez mais essa distinção?

Consideremos Cingapura e Coreia do Sul. São fortes economias de exportação, com indústrias competitivas e classificações impressionantes no Índice de Desenvolvimento Humano publicado pelo Programa das Nações Unidas para o Desenvolvimento. Contudo, no Protocolo de Quioto, figuram como países em desenvolvimento. Ou consideremos uma economia emergente dinâmica como o Brasil. Tem indústrias florescentes, recursos naturais imensos e um rendimento per capita visivelmente superior aos da Bulgária ou da Romênia, por exemplo.

Os padrões de poluição estão igualmente colocando em causa a distinção entre países desenvolvidos e países em desenvolvimento. Segundo a AIE, o atual aumento da poluição pelo CO2 é causado principalmente por economias emergentes dependentes do carvão. E essa tendência só irá acentuar-se. Até 2035, 90% do aumento da procura de energia caberão a países não pertencentes à OCDE. No caso da China, por exemplo, as suas emissões relacionadas com a energia triplicaram desde 1990, o que a torna o maior emissor mundial. Em média, um cidadão chinês emite hoje mais do que, por exemplo, um português, um sueco ou um húngaro. Por conseguinte, o mundo simplesmente não pode combater com eficácia as alterações climáticas sem o envolvimento da China e de outras economias emergentes.

Outro problema é que os Estados Unidos não subscreveram Kyoto – nem jamais subscreverão -, além de que o Japão, a Rússia e o Canadá disseram claramente que não tencionam aderir a um segundo período de compromisso. Significa isso, em suma, que, se a União Europeia subscrevesse um segundo período relativo a Kyoto, juntamente com algumas outras economias desenvolvidas, poderia cobrir, no máximo, 16% das emissões mundiais, quando o primeiro período de Kyoto cobria cerca de um terço. Como se pode chamar a isso uma vitória para o clima? Por outras palavras, esse critério não tem hipótese de manter o aumento da temperatura abaixo de 2°C (3,6°F), que a comunidade internacional reconheceu dever ser o nosso objetivo comum.

Para termos hipótese de alcançar aquele objetivo, o que realmente necessitamos é de um quadro de ação mundial por parte de todas as grandes economias, tanto no mundo desenvolvido quanto no mundo em desenvolvimento. Um quadro de ação que verdadeiramente reflita o mundo do século 21, no qual todos os compromissos tenham o mesmo peso jurídico. A União Europeia está aberta a um segundo período de Kyoto, sob condição de que a integridade ambiental de Kyoto seja melhorada e Durban aprove um roteiro e um calendário claros para a conclusão desse quadro nos anos mais próximos e a sua aplicação, ao mais tardar, em 2020.

É minha esperança que todos os países demonstrem a vontade e a liderança política necessárias para se iniciar um tal processo em Durban. Em Copenhague, os dirigentes juraram manter-se abaixo dos 2°C. Soou a hora de provarem que não falavam em vão.

Connie Hedegaard é comissária europeia responsável pela Ação Climática.

Conferência sobre aquecimento começa sem clima na África do Sul (Folha de São Paulo)

28/11/2011Uncategorizedciência, Clima, discurso ambiental, Economia, Enquadramento, Incerteza, Meteorologia, Mudanças climáticas, Opinião pública, Política, Políticas públicas, Previsãorenzotaddei

C e-mail 4393, de 28 de Novembro de 2011.

COP-17, que reúne 190 países até o dia 10, não tem o objetivo de conseguir um novo acordo.

Já virou clichê dizer que as conferências do clima nunca alcançam o objetivo desejado. A COP-17 (17ª Conferência das Partes da Convenção do Clima das Nações Unidas), que começa hoje sob o signo da crise econômica, deve romper esse padrão: nela, o próprio objetivo foi diluído. Os diplomatas de 190 países que se reúnem de hoje ao próximo dia 10 em Durban, na África do Sul, não perseguem mais um acordo global contra emissões de gases-estufa. O que está em jogo é a continuidade ou não do acordo que existe hoje, o pífio Protocolo de Kyoto.

Para a diplomacia brasileira, a reunião terá sido um sucesso se as nações desenvolvidas concordarem em prolongar a vida do protocolo até 2020. E um fracasso em Durban traria um ônus extra para o Brasil, que sediará a próxima conferência ambiental da ONU, a Rio +20.

Kyoto, assinado em 1997, previa que os países industrializados cortassem suas emissões em 5,2% em relação a 1990 até 2012. Como se sabe, os EUA ficaram de fora, e o acordo teve impacto virtualmente nulo sobre a concentração global de gases-estufa na atmosfera, que cresceu 7% de 1997 a 2011.

Não há acordo sobre o tipo de regime que possa ampliar o combate às emissões de carbono depois que ele expirar. “Se deixarmos morrer Kyoto, o consenso é que não se vai mais conseguir um acordo desse tipo”, disse o embaixador André Corrêa do Lago, negociador-chefe do Brasil na área de clima.

Ainda mais inútil – O problema é que também há consenso de que um eventual segundo período de compromisso de Kyoto será ainda mais inútil do que o primeiro para o objetivo-mor da convenção: evitar que o planeta aqueça mais de 2°C. Os EUA, principal emissor histórico, não ratificarão Kyoto nunca. Os países emergentes, hoje os maiores emissores do planeta, não têm metas obrigatórias pelo acordo.

E outros países industrializados com obrigações no acordo, como Japão e Rússia, já anunciaram que não participarão de um segundo período: apenas dizem que vão implementar as metas voluntárias de corte de emissões com que se comprometeram na conferência de Copenhague, em 2009.

Corrêa do Lago admite que esse cenário deixa dentro de Kyoto apenas a União Europeia e outros países menores, que somam somente 15% das emissões mundiais. Sem Kyoto, porém, os países em desenvolvimento temem que se perca a diferenciação que obriga os países ricos (que poluíram mais no passado) a fazer mais.

Os países desenvolvidos, por sua vez, apelam para um acordo único. Na semana passada, o ministro do Ambiente britânico, Chris Huhne, defendeu que um tratado legalmente vinculante que envolvesse também os emergentes fosse fechado em 2015. O Brasil – que se obrigou, por lei, a cortar emissões até 2020 – não fecha a porta a um acordo desses. Mas antes os ricos terão de entregar Kyoto.

Outro impasse deve girar em torno do dinheiro que os países ricos prometeram desembolsar para o combate à mudança climática nos pobres: US$ 30 bilhões entre 2010 e 2012 e um Fundo Verde de US$ 100 bilhões por ano a partir de 2020. Com a crise da dívida dos EUA e o colapso financeiro da Europa, os principais doadores, falar em dinheiro para o clima é a proverbial corda em casa de enforcado.

A crise tem feito os países ricos levantarem dúvidas sobre que tipo de verba constitui o Fundo Verde. O discurso dos ricos agora, dizem diplomatas brasileiros, é que o dinheiro do fundo verde deve ser sobretudo privado. “Não foram setores privados que se comprometeram com o dinheiro, portanto eles não poderão ser cobrados”, afirmou o diplomata brasileiro André Odembreit.

É tarde para conter aquecimento, diz análise – Enquanto os diplomatas tentam tirar as negociações internacionais sobre o clima da irrelevância, cientistas alertam que é provavelmente tarde demais para evitar a mudança climática perigosa.

Um relatório divulgado na semana passada pelo Pnuma (Programa das Nações Unidas para o Meio Ambiente) sugere que o planeta terá em 2020, na melhor das hipóteses, 6 bilhões de toneladas de CO₂ “sobrando” no ar em relação ao que precisaria para cumprir a meta de evitar um aquecimento global maior do que 2°C neste século. Para ter mais de 66% de chance de cumprir a meta, seria preciso limitar as emissões de gases-estufa a 44 bilhões de toneladas de CO₂ em 2020.

Hoje elas são de 50 bilhões de toneladas, e permanecerão nessa faixa somente se todos os países cumprirem estritamente as metas mais ambiciosas com as quais disseram que poderiam se comprometer no Acordo de Copenhague, em 2009 -a UE, por exemplo, disse que cortaria 30% de suas emissões em vez dos 20% que prometeu, mas só se outros países aumentassem sua ambição.

Caso pouco seja feito – o que parece o cenário mais provável considerando o contexto político atual -, as emissões atingirão 55 bilhões de toneladas, e o “buraco” para cumprir a meta será de 9 bilhões em vez de 6 bilhões de toneladas de CO2 em 2020. Mesmo a trajetória mais benigna de emissões põe o planeta no rumo de esquentar de 2,5°C a 5°C até 2100.

O relatório do Pnuma, intitulado “Bridging the Gap” (algo como “Tapando o Buraco”), tenta passar uma mensagem positiva: ele afirma que é “tecnicamente possível e economicamente viável” fechar o buraco de 6 bilhões de toneladas até 2020 cortando emissões em vários setores.

A probabilidade de que isso aconteça, porém, é tão pequena que nem os cientistas que elaboraram o documento acreditam nela. “Até a véspera da divulgação do estudo, nós ainda estávamos divididos sobre se deveríamos passar uma mensagem esperançosa ou pessimista”, disse à Folha Suzana Kahn Ribeiro, professora da Coppe-UFRJ e uma das coordenadoras do trabalho.

Na divulgação, porém, prevaleceu a necessidade política do Pnuma de adotar a estratégia da esperança, para estimular os negociadores em Durban a tentar um resultado mais ambicioso.

Exterminate a species or two, save the planet (RT)

28/11/2011Uncategorizeddiscurso ambiental, Economia, Incerteza, Matemática, Mediação tecnológica, Previsão, Raça, Tecnologia, Violênciarenzotaddei

Published: 26 January, 2011, 14:43

Edited: 15 April, 2011, 05:18

Biologists have suggested a mathematical model, which will hopefully predict which species need to be eliminated from an unstable ecosystem, and in which order, to help it recover.

The counterintuitive idea to kill living things for the sake of biodiversity conservation comes from the complex connections presented in ecosystems. Eliminate a predator, and its prey thrives and shrinks the amount of whatever it has for its own food. Such “cascading” impacts along the “food webs” can be unpredictable and sometimes catastrophic.

Sagar Sahasrabudhe and Adilson Motter of Northwestern University in the US have shown that in some food web models, the timely removal or suppression of one or several species can do quite the opposite and mitigate the damage caused by local extinction. The paper is described in Nature magazine.

The trick is not an easy one, since the timing of removal is just as important as the targeted species. A live example Sahasrabudhe and Motter use is that of island foxes on the Channel Islands off the coast of California. When feral pigs were introduced in the ecosystem, they attracted golden eagles, which preyed on foxes as well. Simply reversing the situation by removing the pigs would make the birds switch solely to foxes, which would eventually make them extinct. Instead, conservation activists captured and relocated the eagles before eradicating the pigs, saving the fox population.

Of course conservation scientists are not going to start taking decisions based on the models straight away. Real ecosystems are not limited to predator and prey relationships, and things like parasitism, pollination and nutrient dynamics have to be taken into account as well. On the other hand, ecosystems were thought to be too complex to be modeled at all some eight years ago, Martinez says. Their work gives more confidence that it will have practical uses in nearest future.

Lo que dicen las fotos de Lula con cáncer (BBC Mundo)

28/11/2011UncategorizedEnquadramento, Lula, Marketing, Saúde, Semiótica, Sensacionalismo, Visualidaderenzotaddei

Gerardo Lissardy

BBC Mundo, Rio de Janeiro
Viernes, 25 de noviembre de 2011

Lula siendo afeitado por su esposa Leticia

Para ningún político debe ser fácil mostrar públicamente una lucha personal contra el cáncer, pero el modo en que lo ha hecho el ex presidente brasileño Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva tiene significados concretos, según sus allegados y expertos.

La noticia del cáncer de laringe que afecta a Lula fue conocida por los brasileños el 29 de octubre, apenas unas horas después que el propio ex presidente fuera diagnosticado con la enfermedad.

Desde entonces, el equipo de comunicación del instituto que encabeza Lula ha enviado regularmente a la prensa mensajes con información del tratamiento de quimioterapia que recibe y hasta de momentos íntimos que vive.

Por ejemplo, hubo fotos de Lula con médicos cuando inició el tratamiento en un hospital de Sao Paulo, fotos en una cama del nosocomio tomado de la mano de su sucesora, la presidenta Dilma Rousseff, y hasta fotos de su esposa Marisa Letícia cortándole a cero su cabello y su barba.

Todas estas imágenes han sido ofrecidas a los medios, libres de reproducción, por el Instituto Lula.

Algunas, en especial las del momento en que perdía su distintiva barba, recorrieron el mundo y se publicaron en las portadas de varios diarios locales y latinoamericanos.

Hay expertos que creen que todo esto responde a una estrategia definida, con valoraciones políticas.

José Chrispiniano, asesor de prensa del Instituto Lula, acepta que el modo de comunicar sobre la enfermedad del ex presidente tiene ciertos objetivos, pero descarta que se trate de vender algo en particular.

“No es de ninguna forma marketing”, dijo en diálogo con BBC Mundo.

“Cuestión muy simbólica”

La oficina del expresidente ha presentado decenas de fotos que documentan la enfermedad de Lula.

Chrispiniano explicó que fue el propio Lula quien tomó la decisión de informar abiertamente sobre su cáncer y tratamiento, desde el momento en que conoció el diagnóstico.

“Aunque no tenga ningún cargo público ahora, es una persona de interés público, entonces el objetivo es divulgar claramente: es una enfermedad tratable y un tratamiento con perspectivas bastante positivas de cura”, señaló.

Además, dijo, se ha buscado evitar una dramatización de la enfermedad (de hecho, en muchas de las fotos divulgadas Lula aparece sonriente) o evitar que parezca “que se están escondiendo cosas”.

La difusión de las fotos de Lula siendo afeitado y mostrando su nuevo aspecto con bigote también fue iniciativa del ex presidente, relató Chrispiniano.

“Era una cuestión muy simbólica de su imagen y quisimos mostrar que pasó ese momento tranquilo, porque (para) muchas personas que tienen esta enfermedad es un momento de mucho estigma”, dijo.

Dos días después del corte de pelo de Lula, su instituto divulgó el viernes 18 fotos del ex presidente recibiendo la visita del director técnico de la selección brasileña de fútbol, Mano Menezes.

“Fuerza, eterno ‘presidente Lula’. Contamos contigo para 2014”, escribió Menezes en la casaca número 10 del combinado nacional que le obsequió a Lula, y que también aparecía en las fotos.

Se trataba de una referencia al Mundial de fútbol que Brasil va a organizar ese año, precisó el comunicado.

“Una estrategia”

Lula con el equipo del hospital de Sao Paolo que lo atiende

Para muchos el padecimiento de Lula con el cáncer podría aumentar su ya alta popularidad.

Rousiley Maia, una investigadora de la Universidad Federal de Minas Gerais experta en comunicación y política, cree que la decisión de informar de esta forma sobre el cáncer de Lula “fue deliberadamente una estrategia”.

“En vez de poner sombras (o) tratar con medias palabras (la enfermedad), la estrategia es apelar por el lado humano, ordinario y mortal de la figura”, dijo Maia a BBC Mundo.

Sin embargo, sostuvo que esa decisión es coherente con la “construcción de imagen pública de Lula por varios años”, de un hombre de pueblo que se convirtió en un líder nacional reconocido mundialmente.

“Más allá de la empatía, es una forma de sustentar el carisma y respeto que construyó durante estos años”, opinó. “Este momento de enfermedad personal es una forma de volver a la escena pública de forma central”.

Renzo Taddei, un antropólogo profesor de comunicación, ciudadanía y política en la Universidad Federal de Río de Janeiro (UFRJ), dijo que el manejo público del cáncer de Lula muestra probables aspiraciones políticas a futuro.

“El cáncer es un tema ya clásico de superación y heroísmo en Brasil”, indicó a BBC Mundo.

“Era todo lo que faltaba a Lula: vencer el cáncer. Si lo hace, ya no hay nada más que no pueda hacer (aunque no haya hecho la reforma agraria que Brasil aguarda hace tanto ni las reformas fiscales y políticas)”, agregó.

Cáncer y elecciones

Presidenta Rousseff vista a Lula tras su operación

La presidenta Dilma Rousseff también es sobreviviente de un cáncer

Hasta que le fue diagnosticado el cáncer, muchos brasileños se preguntaban si Lula buscaría regresar a la presidencia en las elecciones de 2014, pero él decía que corresponde a Rousseff buscar la reelección.

Cuando Rousseff fue tratada con éxito de un cáncer linfático en 2009, algunos miembros del gobierno de Lula llegaron a especular con que podía salir fortalecida para buscar la presidencia al año siguiente.

Sin embargo, Lula descartó públicamente que ambas cosas pudieran vincularse.

“No puedo imaginar cómo es que alguien sale fortalecido porque tuvo un cáncer”, declaró entonces. “Sólo deseo la recuperación de Dilma”.

Rousseff se recuperó y fue electa presidenta al año siguiente, con el respaldo de Lula.

THE SECRET LIFE OF WORDS (MYOO)

25/11/2011UncategorizedCultura, Linguística, Oralidaderenzotaddei

CULTURE

What untranslatable words reveal about the Brazilian culture, from Brazilian author Roberto Taddei.

Illustration by Andrew Holder.

I. ONE LANGUAGE, MAS QUE NADA

You might not know it, but Portuguese is part of your daily spoken English. Many words made it into English by way of Asia and Africa—places where the Portuguese landed during the Age of Discoveries (also known as the Age of Exploration 15th-17th centuries). Albino, for instance, and Dodo from doido (crazy). Sometimes the English word retains it’s original meaning buried within, like “fetish,” which comes from feitiço (charm and sorcery).

Other words, like those for native-grown food from Brazil, came from Brazilian indigenous languages, like cayenne and cashew. Then there are culture-specific words that migrated into English as the phenomenon became popularized: samba,bossa nova, caipirinha, Ipanema (originally meaning fish-less river),“Mas que Nada,” and so on. But although these words come to represent Brazil abroad the country is much more than a bracing drink or a sexy girl.

The spirit of Brazil can be found in it’s language, but like the country, the language is remarkably diverse. As with American English, the Brazilian version of Portuguese is a mixture of languages. The Roman language brought by the Europeans in 1500 suffered a long process of accommodation along the centuries. It first encountered the Tupi language, then used all over the Brazilian coast. Later it mixed with two major African languages: Bantu and Yoruba. Two hundred years later, the entire country was speaking a new language, Nhengatu

Nhengatu is a combination of the nearly 200 native idioms of Brazil, remnants of Roman Portuguese, Bantu and Yoruba. This hybrid language was widely used, reaching nearly across the entire country. When Robinson Crusoe lived in Bahia before his shipwreck he would have spoken Nhengatu, not Portuguese.

By the end of the 18th century, Portugal decided to bring the country back to speaking Portuguese by force. But despite their efforts Brazilian Portuguese retained ethnic and cultural echoes of the country itself. One example is the use of the null subject in Brazilian Portuguese, which is very distinct from Portugal. In several cases, some particularities of Brazilian Portuguese were initially seen by Portugal as grammatical errors, such as the usage of distinct pronouns and verbal agreements. But throughout the years, these “errors” came to be reinforced by Brazilian poets and speakers as a sign of post-colonial national identity. As the modernist Brazilian writer Oswald de Andrade once noted: “Tupy or not Tupy, that’s the question.”

II. THE UNTRANSLATABLES

Despite a influx of Brazilian Portuguese words into English, one word in particular has resisted eager translators—be they Nobel laureates, poets, scholars or songwriters. The word is saudade. Maybe you’ve heard of it, since saudade is used in English without translation. Considered one of the top ten untranslatable words in the world, saudade is particularly difficult because it combines several emotions at once: fierceness, longing, yearning, pining, missing, homesickness, or all or none of the above. It is so complex that when I tried to explain it to a friend once she cut me short: “I’m sure I’ve never felt saudade.”

For this reason, of the most celebrated songs in Brazilian culture, “Chega de Saudades,” has never been translated into English. But the song lyrics, roughly translated, help explain saudade in part. The lyrics were written by Brazilian poetVinicius de Moraes. They describe feeling saudades as being deprived of peace and beauty, full of sadness and a melancholy that never goes away because the poet’s muse has abandon him.

Vinicius frequently collaborated with the songwriter and maestro Tom Jobim. Tom had a country house a couple of hills away from Elizabeth Bishop and almost two decades after she wrote her “Song for the Rainy Season” he also composed a song to the Brazilian rain. “Waters of March” was created both in Portuguese and in English and yet the versions are not identical. The Brazilian version sings about the end of the summer in Rio. The English version is about the beginning of Spring in the North. Since the beginning of Spring in America (around March, the rainy season) is also the end of the hot weather in Brazil (also March, when the rains come) the translation evokes the same season of mists.

Tom and Vinicius’ collaboration resulted in many hit songs that have since become Brazilian standards. Many of their songs have bilingual versions, which helped them become popular internationally. Except of course for the elusive “Chega de Saudades,” whose message remains locked in the meaning of one untranslatable word.

In 1968, Clarice Lispector (a Ukranian-born Brazilian author also translated by Elizabeth Bishop) tried her own definition of saudade: it “is a bit like hunger. Only disappears when one eats the presence. But sometimes the longing is so deep that the presence is not enough: one wants to absorb the whole other person. This will of one being the other in a complete unification is one of the most urgent feeling that we have in life.”

As poetic as this sounds, her definition raises another translation problem. The very notion of “presence” in Brazil is also untranslatable. Like all Roman languages, Portuguese has two verbs for the English “to be”. There is a distinction between being in a physical place and being as an emotional or ontological state.

It’s not only grammar, “being” itself is also seen differently in Brazilian culture. If the Portuguese carried to the New World the cartesian definition of presence, “I think, therefore I am,” once they got to Brazil they encountered cultures who thought about “being” very differently. Anthropologist Eduardo Viveiros de Castro made a lifetime study of amerindian perspectivism and discovered that some Brazilian native groups would have laughed at the idea of “I think, therefore I am,” suggesting as it does that the condition of thought predates existence. To them, the saying would likely go “the other exists, therefore she thinks.” This doesn’t mean that they were necessarily more generous than the Portuguese. It seems like a simple construction until you compare it with “I think, therefore I am” and see that to the Portuguese existence could be proven in a vacuum, while for native Brazilians existence depended on the existence of others. In this community-based definition of existence the other would be more important than the self since it is only through the other that I can recognize myself.

That’s why we so often use the word saudade in Lispector’s way, as an urge to “eat the other,” because the closer we get to understanding ourselves the closer we get to the other, and perhaps it is only by fully incorporating the other that we can escape the existential question of whether or not we actually exist. Comparing Elizabeth Bishop and Tom Jobim’s verses to the Brazilian rain you notice that the former is fundamentally about the poet, the latter sings about the outer world.

In an informal talk with Clarice Lispector in the 70s’, Tom Jobim explained that Brazil “is a country with an extremely free soul.” This freedom encourages creative expression, but, he says, Brazil is not “a country for amadores.” The Portuguese “amadores” means both amateurs and lovers, a linguistic challenge that could get in the way of aspiring lovers themselves.

Ultimately, necessity and usage determines which words are absorbed into the culture; which we translate or use as-is (like caipirinha) and which words remain culturally specific. In Brazil there are no translations for several English terms—like commodity, online, drag queen, shopping center—which seem to be more “authentic” in their original English format since what they refer to has an American or British origin. Brazilians seem to have never needed words like serendipity or patronize, just as English speakers perhaps never needed cafuné (caressing someone’s head with one’s fingers), or safadeza (a mixture of shamelessness, naughtiness, debauchery and mischief), both used on a daily basis below the Equator.

The more we know a language and its speakers, them more we understand their national culture. As Salman Rushdie writes in his novel Shame: “to unlock a society, look at its untranslatable words.”

– ROBERTO TADDEI is a writer and journalist who studied creative writing at Columbia. He lives in São Paulo and is adapting his first novel from English into Portuguese

http://myoo.com/stories/the-secret-life-of-words-2/#.Ts-jUhdGXrc.email

Ritual de tribo brasileira é indicado a patrimônio da Unesco (BBC)

24/11/2011UncategorizedAntropologia, Índios, Cultura, História, Memória, Patrimônio, Políticas públicasrenzotaddei

Atualizado em 22 de novembro, 2011 – 12:39 (Brasília) 14:39 GMT

Lista de indicados inclui cerimônia do povo enawenê-nawê (Foto: acervo Iphan)

Um ritual de um povo indígena brasileiro, voltado para “manter a ordem social e cósmica”, foi indicado para integrar uma lista de patrimônios culturais imateriais “em necessidade urgente de proteção” elaborada pela Unesco, a agência da ONU para a educação e a cultura.

O yaokwa é a principal cerimônia do calendário ritual dos enawenê-nawê, povo indígena cujo território tradicional fica no noroeste do Mato Grosso.

O Instituto do Patrimônio Histórico e Artístico Nacional (Iphan) registrou o ritual Yaokwa como bem cultural em 2010. Segundo dados da Fundação Nacional de Saúde (Funasa), o povo enawenê-nawê – que fala a língua aruak – é formado por cerca de 560 integrantes.O ritual, que marca o início do calendário enawenê, dura sete meses e é realizado com a saída dos homens para realizar uma pesca coletiva com o uso de uma barragem e de armadilhas construídas com cascas de árvore e cipós.

A partir desta quarta-feira, a comissão intergovernamental da Unesco pela salvaguarda do patrimônio cultural imaterial se reúne em Bali, na Indonésia, para avaliar os rituais e tradições indicados para ser protegidos. A reunião se encerra no próximo dia 29.

O Brasil país conta com 18 bens inscritos na lista do Patrimônio Mundial da Unesco.

Entre o patrimônio imaterial, dedicado a tradições orais, cultura e a arte populares, línguas indígenas e manifestações tradicionais, estão as Expressões Orais e Gráficas dos Wajãpis do Amapá e o Samba de Roda do Recôncavo Baiano.

Se entrar na lista, o ritual dos enawenê-nawê passará a contar com apoio da entidade na sua preservação.

Muitas atividades da Unesco estão prejudicadas desde que os Estados Unidos retiraram o seu financiamento da agência, depois que ela aceitou a Palestina como Estado-membro pleno.

Seres subterrâneos

Com o ritual Yaokwa, os enawenê-nawê acreditam entrar em contato com seres temidos que vivem no subterrâneo, os yakairiti, cuja fome deve ser saciada com sal vegetal, peixes e outros alimentos derivados do milho e da mandioca, a fim de manter a ordem social e cósmica.

Para a realização do ritual, os indígenas se dividem em dois grupos: um que fica na aldeia junto às mulheres, preparando o sal vegetal, acendendo o fogo e oferecendo alimentos, e outro que sai para a pesca, com o objetivo de retornar para a aldeia com grandes quantidades de peixe defumado, que é oferecido aos yakairiti.

Construção de barragem. Foto: acervo Iphan

Indígenas constroem barragem para pesca; alimentos servem de oferenda (Foto: acervo Iphan)

Os indígenas realizam a pesca em rios de médio porte da região. Com os peixes e os demais alimentos, os enawenê-nawê realizam banquetes festivos ao longo de meses, acompanhados de cantos com flautas e danças.

Encantamento de camelos

Além do yaokwa, outro ritual indicado para proteção urgente na América do Sul é o eshuva, composto pelas orações cantadas do povo huachipaire, do Peru.

A lista de proteção urgente também inclui como indicados a dança saman, da província indonésia de Aceh, as tradições de relatos de histórias no nordeste da China e o “encantamento de camelos” da Mongólia, no qual as pessoas cantam para as fêmeas, a fim de persuadi-las a aceitar os filhotes de camelo órfãos.

Já para a lista representativa de patrimônio cultural imaterial da humanidade (sem indicativo de necessidade urgente de proteção), são indicados, pela América do Sul, o conhecimento tradicional dos xamãs jaguares de Yurupari (Colômbia) e a peregrinação ao santuário do senhor de Qoyllurit’i (Peru).

Outras tradições indicadas pela Unesco são as marionetes de sombras chinesas, o kung-fu dos monges Shaolin (China), a porcelana de Limoges (França), a música dos mariachis mexicanos e o fado (música tradicional portuguesa).

Can Climate Science Predict Extreme Weather? (Scientific American)

24/11/2011Uncategorizedciência, Clima, comunicação científica, Incerteza, Meteorologia, Mudanças climáticas, Previsãorenzotaddei

This year’s rash of severe weather is changing climate science. As policymakers call for better information, scientists are scrambling to understand the link between increasing emissions and natural disaster

By Joshua Zaffos and The Daily Climate | November 2, 2011

Halloween Weekend Snow Paints a Ghostly Picture in the U.S. NortheastImage: NASA Goddard Photo and Video

DENVER, Colo. – 2011 may well be remembered as the year of extremeweather in the United States, with drought in Texas, floods along the Mississippi River, a freak October snowstorm on the East Coast. Tornadoes alone would make the year memorable, with some 1,270 twisters causing 544 deaths and $25 billion in damages.

The outbreak is reshaping climate science, as researchers hone their abilities to predict severe weather and link the record-shattering destruction to humanity’s increasing emissions.

The goal: To provide better information to policymakers and local officials who must plan for and adapt to changes. “It’s a rapidly developing field,” said Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring and attribution at the Met Office, Britain’s national weather service.

Stott led one of the first studies attributing a single extreme weather event to climate change: The 2003 European heat wave, which killed 40,000 and was the hottest summer on record since 1540. The study concluded that human influence more than doubled the event’s likelihood.

Last week, a study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences concluded there was an 80 percent chance that the killer Russian heat wave of 2010 would not have happened without the added push of global warming.

Now, Stott and other researchers are melding weather forecasting skills with pioneering computer models to attribute – or link – individual weather events to climate change. Understanding how climate change influences the weather is increasingly seen as key to predicting natural disasters, Stott said, and the new studies should help policymakers anticipate the conditions and trends associated with weather extremes. “There’s this very strong connection between attribution and prediction,” noted Stott, who spoke on these issues before colleagues last week at the World Climate Research Programme conference here in Denver.

The efforts are steering the next steps of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the international body of scientists that reviews and assesses the vast pool of climate research for policymakers worldwide. The next IPCC assessment is due in 2013 – the fifth from the panel since 1990. For the first time it will include “predictions” – near-term and long-term climate forecasts based on actual conditions – instead of “projections” that simulate hypothetical scenarios and carbon emission rates.

The distinction is an advance for climate science and the IPCC, said Kevin Trenberth, who runs the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.

Previous IPCC assessments have cited projections that are not grounded in current or historical conditions. Instead, policymakers are given “what-if” scenarios, such as how the future climate might react to different greenhouse-gas emissions over the coming decades. The results show changes between two assumed moments in time, Trenberth said, but they lack a starting point tied to observed data and, ultimately, are informed guesses of future carbon dioxide levels and their consequences.

Climate model predictions, on the other hand, are like weather forecasts. They start from a current or historical moment to analyze climate changes. By grabbing more measurements and using new techniques, advanced climate models reveal more clearly how the atmosphere responds to increased water moisture, warmer sea temperatures and melting sea ice, all impacts of increased carbon. Compared to projections, predictions allow scientists to offer near-term climate forecasts, which should help policymakers prepare for potential adaptations in the next few decades.

The change from projections to predictions is made possible in part by a new generation of more powerful computer models. The last IPCC assessment report, published in 2007, made minor mention of feedbacks – environmental processes and interactions that can intensify extreme climate events, said Sonia Seneviratne, a professor at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, who specializes on the topic. New data have since opened up scientists’ understanding of their importance.

Seneviratne is the lead author of an IPCC special report to be released later this month that focuses on climate change and extreme events. Research in this area has been “substantial and justifies a separate assessment,” she said, adding that it’s particularly a topic of interest for officials concerned with disaster preparedness and risk reduction.

The special report concludes that scientists are “virtually certain” the world will see more extremes in heat and that some places in the world will become “increasingly marginal as places to live,” according to the Associated Press, which obtained a draft. The draft also concludes there is at least a two-in-three chance that man-made global warming has already worsened weather extremes, according to the AP. The document is subject to change and needs approval from diplomats meeting in Uganda mid-month.

There are some caveats to these new climate predictions, however.

Writing in a scientific journal last year, Trenberth warned colleagues that the promise of more accurate representations of climate change will introduce new scientific uncertainties inherent to modeling more complex and realistic situations. Just as weather forecasting evokes its share of skepticism and doubt, climate predictions will likely represent a new communications challenge – and fodder for controversy and criticism – for climate scientists, said Trenberth.

“It’s about communication,” agreed Stott, who is the lead author of the 2013 IPCC report’s section on attribution and detection of climate change. “An understanding of where extreme weather fits into the longer-term picture of a changing climate helps people put this into context, and [whether] this is something that is going to become more common in the future and therefore we need to give more attention and be more prepared for these things.”

Stott and other scientists at a handful of modeling centers worldwide are focusing on the relation between climate change and extreme weather through a new initiative, Attribution of Climate-related Events. Stott says the project will move scientists further along toward forecasting extreme events and mapping the interactions with climate change.

“The goal is to be able to develop the tools and the skills, so we know when we can be confident and provide trustworthy assessments, and to do this in a timely fashion – in the immediate aftermath of a particular situation,” Stott said. “At the moment, we’re not really geared up for that. It’s very much research mode.> We’ve hardly scratched the surface.”

This article originally appeared at The Daily Climate, the climate change news source published by Environmental Health Sciences, a nonprofit media company.

Joshua Zaffos is an independent journalist based in Fort Collins, Colo., His work has also appeared in High Country, Miller-McCune, and Wired. DailyClimate.org is a foundation-funded news service that covers climate change.

The human cause of climate change: Where does the burden of proof lie? (Wiley)

24/11/2011Uncategorizedciência, Clima, comunicação científica, discurso ambiental, Economia, Enquadramento, Incerteza, Mídia, Meteorologia, Mudanças climáticas, Opinião pública, Política, Previsãorenzotaddei

Dr. Kevin Trenberth advocates reversing the ‘null hypothesis’

Public release date: 3-Nov-2011
Contact: Ben Norman
44-124-377-0375
Wiley-Blackwell

The debate may largely be drawn along political lines, but the human role in climate change remains one of the most controversial questions in 21st century science. Writing in WIREs Climate Change Dr Kevin Trenberth, from the National Center for Atmospheric Research, argues that the evidence for anthropogenic climate change is now so clear that the burden of proof should lie with research which seeks to disprove the human role.

In response to Trenberth’s argument a second review, by Dr Judith Curry, focuses on the concept of a ‘null hypothesis’ the default position which is taken when research is carried out. Currently the null hypothesis for climate change attribution research is that humans have no influence.

“Humans are changing our climate. There is no doubt whatsoever,” said Trenberth. “Questions remain as to the extent of our collective contribution, but it is clear that the effects are not small and have emerged from the noise of natural variability. So why does the science community continue to do attribution studies and assume that humans have no influence as a null hypothesis?”

To show precedent for his position Trenberth cites the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which states that global warming is “unequivocal”, and is “very likely” due to human activities.

Trenberth also focused on climate attribution studies which claim the lack of a human component, and suggested that the assumptions distort results in the direction of finding no human influence, resulting in misleading statements about the causes of climate change that can serve to grossly underestimate the role of humans in climate events.

“Scientists must challenge misconceptions in the difference between weather and climate while attribution studies must include a human component,” concluded Trenberth. “The question should no longer be is there a human component, but what is it?”

In a second paper Dr Judith Curry, from the Georgia Institute of Technology, questions this position, but argues that the discussion on the null hypothesis serves to highlight fuzziness surrounding the many hypotheses related to dangerous climate change.

“Regarding attribution studies, rather than trying to reject either hypothesis regardless of which is the null, there should be a debate over the significance of anthropogenic warming relative to forced and unforced natural climate variability,” said Curry.

Curry also suggested that the desire to reverse the null hypothesis may have the goal of seeking to marginalise the climate sceptic movement, a vocal group who have challenged the scientific orthodoxy on climate change.

“The proponents of reversing the null hypothesis should be careful of what they wish for,” concluded Curry. “One consequence may be that the scientific focus, and therefore funding, would also reverse to attempting to disprove dangerous anthropogenic climate change, which has been a position of many sceptics.”

“I doubt Trenberth’s suggestion will find much support in the scientific community,” said Professor Myles Allen from Oxford University, “but Curry’s counter proposal to abandon hypothesis tests is worse. We still have plenty of interesting hypotheses to test: did human influence on climate increase the risk of this event at all? Did it increase it by more than a factor of two?”

###

All three papers are free online:

Trenberth. K, “Attribution of climate variations and trends to human influences and natural variability”: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/wcc.142

Curry. J, “Nullifying the climate null hypothesis”: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/wcc.141

Allen. M, “In defense of the traditional null hypothesis: remarks on the Trenberth and Curry opinion articles”: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/wcc.145

Mixed messages on climate ‘vulnerability’ (BBC)

24/11/2011Uncategorizedciência, Clima, comunicação científica, Economia, Enquadramento, Incerteza, Mídia, Meteorologia, Mudanças climáticas, Opinião pública, Política, Previsão, Visualidaderenzotaddei

13 November 2011 Last updated at 14:45 GMT

By Richard Black

There are concerns that climate change may exacerbate flooding in cities such as Bangkok

One of the most striking new voices on climate change that’s emerged since the UN summit in Copenhagen two years ago is the Climate Vulnerable Forum.

The grouping includes small island states vulnerable to extreme weather events and sea level rise, those with immense spans of low-lying coastline such as Vietnam and Bangladesh, and dry nations of East Africa.

It’s currently holding a meeting in Bangladesh, with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon as the keynote speaker.

These countries feel vulnerable as a result of several types of projected climate impact.

In increasing order of suddenness, there are what you might call “steady-state” impacts such as rising sea levels; increased separation of weather into more concentrated wet periods and dry periods; and a greater occurrence of extreme weather events such as hurricanes, floods, heatwaves and droughts.

But what can science really tell us about these extremes?

While the vulnerable meet in Dhaka, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will be sitting down in Kampala to answer the question.

For almost a week, government delegates will pore over the summary of the IPCC’s latest report on extreme weather, with the lead scientific authors there as well. They’re scheduled to emerge on Friday with an agreed document.

The draft, which has found its way into my possession, contains a lot more unknowns than knowns.

On the one hand, it says it is “very likely” that the incidence of cold days and nights has gone down and the incidence of warm days and nights has risen globally.

And the human and financial toll of extreme weather events has risen.

Human hand fingered?

But when you get down to specifics, the academic consensus is far less certain.

Enhanced glacier melt could speed up sea level rise in the coming decades

There is “low confidence” that tropical cyclones have become more frequent, “limited-to-medium evidence available” to assess whether climatic factors have changed the frequency of floods, and “low confidence” on a global scale even on whether the frequency has risen or fallen.

In terms of attribution of trends to rising greenhouse gas concentrations, the uncertainties continue.

While it is “likely” that anthropogenic influences are behind the changes in cold days and warm days, there is only “medium confidence” that they are behind changes in extreme rainfall events, and “low confidence” in attributing any changes in tropical cyclone activity to greenhouse gas emissions or anything else humanity has done.

(These terms have specific meanings in IPCC-speak, with “very likely” meaning 90-100% and “likely” 66-100%, for example.)

And for the future, the draft gives even less succour to those seeking here a new mandate for urgent action on greenhouse gas emissions, declaring: “Uncertainty in the sign of projected changes in climate extremes over the coming two to three decades is relatively large because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability”.

It’s also explicit in laying out that the rise in impacts we’ve seen from extreme weather events cannot be laid at the door of greenhouse gas emissions: “Increasing exposure of people and economic assets is the major cause of the long-term changes in economic disaster losses (high confidence).

“Long-term trends in normalized economic disaster losses cannot be reliably attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change.”

The succour only lasts for so long, however.

If the century progresses without restraints on greenhouse gas emissions, their impacts will come to dominate, it forecasts:

“It is very likely that the length, frequency and/or intensity of warm spells, including heat waves, will continue to increase over most land areas…
“It is likely that the frequency of heavy precipitation or the proportion of total rainfall from heavy falls will increase in the 21st Century over many areas of the globe…
“Mean tropical cyclone maximum wind speed is likely to increase…
“There is medium confidence that droughts will intensify in the 21st Century in some seasons and areas…
“Low-probability high-impact changes associated with the crossing of poorly understood thresholds cannot be excluded, given the transient and complex nature of the climate system.”

The draft report makes clear that lack of evidence or lack of confidence on a particular impact doesn’t mean it won’t occur; just that it’s hard to tell.

Climate a distraction?

It’s impossible to read the draft without coming away with the impression that with or without anthropogenic climate change, extreme weather impacts are going to be felt more and more, simply because there are more and more people on planet Earth – particularly in the swelling “megacities” of the developing world that overwhelmingly lie on the coast or on big rivers close to the coast.

President Nasheed of the Maldives has warned that climate change may mean the end of his nation

The current Bangkok floods are a case in point.

As UK academic Mike Hulme and others have argued, such events will occur whether exacerbated by climate change or not; and vulnerable societies need protection irrespective of climate change.

He’s argued for a divorce, therefore, between the issues of adaptation, which he says could usefully be added into the overall process of overseas development assistance, and mitigation of emissions.

It’s not proved to be a popular notion with developing world governments, which remain determined to tie the two together in the UN climate process.

Governments of vulnerable countries argue that as developed nations caused the climate change problem, they must compensate those that suffer its impacts with money above and beyond aid.

Developing countries like the fact that under the UN climate process, the rich are committed to funding adaptation for the poor.

Yet as the brief prepared for the Dhaka meeting by the humanitarian charity Dara shows, it isn’t happening anywhere near as fast as it ought to be.

Only 8% of the “fast-start finance” pledged in Copenhagen, it says, has actually found its way to recipients.

It’s possible – no, it’s “very likely” – that the IPCC draft will be amended as the week progresses, and presumably the governments represented at the Climate Vulnerable Forum will be asking their delegates to inject a greater sense of urgency.

Although there are sobering messages, they’re not for everyone.

The warning that “some local areas will become increasingly marginal as places to live or in which to maintain livelihoods” under increased climate impacts, and that “for locations such as atolls, in some cases it is possible that many residents will have to relocate” are, in their understated way, quite chilling.

But very few of the world’s seven billion live on atolls; so will this be enough to provide a wake-up call to other countries?

It’s also possible to argue that extreme weather isn’t really the issue for the small island developing states, or for those with long flat coastlines.

The big issue (which the IPCC is much more confident about) is sea level rise – slow, progressive, predictable; capable of being dealt with in some cases (think the Netherlands) provided the will and money are there.

But capable of wiping a country off the map if those two factors are absent.

This is one of the reasons why the Climate Vulnerable Forum established itself.

They felt that although both developed and developing nations understood vulnerability in theory, they didn’t get the message viscerally.

Whether they will by the end of the week when the IPCC releases the final version, I’m not so sure.

Anthropologists Consider a New Code of Ethics (The Chronicle of Higher Education)

24/11/2011UncategorizedAntropologia, Ética, ciência, Economia, Enquadramentorenzotaddei

November 20, 2011

By Dan Berrett

Today’s anthropologists are apt to work far away from the unspoiled villages that brought fame to the discipline’s early practitioners.

Instead, they might be in a hospital room observing patients, at a construction site gauging its archaeological significance, or in a corporate office examining organizational behavior, among other scenarios.

Those diverse contexts may explain why it has proved to be no easy job for anthropologists to create a new set of ethical guidelines. After three years spent seeking opinion and working on new guidelines, the American Anthropological Association is moving toward changes that some in the discipline fear will water down anthropologists’ obligations to the people they study.

“Dealing with ethics codes is complicated,” said David H. Price, a member of the committee charged with revising the guidelines. The word was echoed last week by fellow committee members at a panel on ethics at the association’s annual meeting here. Basic ethical principles might seem clear at the outset, but then point to different courses of action depending on the context, said Mr. Price, a professor at Saint Martin’s University, in Washington. “You can start with something simple, like ‘Do no harm,'” he said, and then find yourself hamstrung if those guidelines are written too specifically — or lost at sea if they are too vague.

One of the most notable changes in the proposed new code was to remove what many anthropologists call the “prime directive.”

The previous code, which dates to 1998 (though incremental changes have been made since then), told anthropologists that they “have primary ethical obligations to the people, species, and materials they study and to the people with whom they work.”

By many accounts, that directive has meant that an anthropologist’s obligation to his or her research subject can eclipse the goal of acquiring new knowledge. In other words, if research goes against the interests of subjects, then that research ought to be stopped.

The newer version, which the association’s executive board accepted for review at this year’s meeting but did not formally adopt, is more nuanced. It explains that the primary ethical obligation is “to avoid doing harm to the lives, communities, or environments” that anthropologists study.

The shift struck some as important. At other sessions during the annual meeting, several speakers and audience members said they held themselves to a different standard. It was not enough to keep from hurting their subjects. They should advocate for them.

The new code may do little to change that sense of obligation. It persists, in part, because of the assumption that an anthropologist is still that lone researcher closely observing a vulnerable tribe in a remote area, some on the committee said.

“That pure anthropology maybe never existed,” said Dena K. Plemmons, chair of the committee and a research ethicist at the University of California at San Diego. “Our subjects are tremendously diverse and we have diverse responsibilities.”

For example, Simon J. Craddock Lee, an assistant professor of medical anthropology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, said his subjects are “well-paid cancer surgeons who give care to disenfranchised people.”

He has obligations to both groups, he said. “If my subjects are doctors, how do I balance my obligations to the people who are truly vulnerable?”

One audience member suggested that his chief loyalty should be to the person or group who is most at risk of harm among those being studied.

While that might seem straightforward, Mr. Lee replied, everyone—including the poor and vulnerable—has an agenda.

“We can’t assume there’s a David-and-Goliath relationship,” he said. “It’s not clean enough to say you can sort the good sheep from the goats.”

Ethics, or Politics?

The question of clandestine research offered another case in which a seemingly simple principle can become complicated when applied to field work. To some, discouraging clandestine research meant that an anthropologist should never deceive subjects and should always share his or her work publicly.

But Laura A. McNamara, an anthropologist who works for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Sandia National Laboratories, disagreed, saying that some anthropologists study classified information; they cannot make their findings public.

Even deceit can have its place, she added. Nancy Scheper-Hughes, a professor of medical anthropology at the University of California at Berkeley, for example, did research that exposed the organ-trafficking trade. Her work never would have been made public if she had believed that her primary obligation was to her subjects, who were, after all, organ traffickers.

The real problem, Ms. McNamara and her fellow committee members agreed, is not when research is clandestine, but when it is “compartmentalized,” which means a researcher may not know who is using or financing the research, or what the implications will be.

“There is no way you can communicate an informed perspective,” she said.

How anthropologists wield ethical guidelines also came up for scrutiny. Anthropologists push most fervently to revise their ethics when they disagree with the politics underlying controversial research, several speakers noted.

“We go to high Sturm und Drang” about ethics, Ms. McNamara said, when political objections arise about who is doing anthropological research for whom—especially when it’s for the government, corporations, or the rich and powerful. “Ethics becomes conflated with politics in ways that I find profoundly distressing,” she said.

Some anthropologists pushed to revise the ethics code in 2007, said Ms. Plemmons, when acontroversy erupted over the Human Terrain System, a program that embedded anthropologists with United States military units. The association’s executive board disapproved of anthropologists’ involvement in the act of making war, calling it “an unacceptable application of anthropological expertise” which should, instead, serve “the humane causes of global peace and social justice.”

Education and Punishment

Committee members said they also heard from anthropologists who wanted an ethics code that could be enforced. That way, anthropologists who act badly could be punished or cast out of the discipline.

The association once held the power to adjudicate claims of ethical breaches, Mr. Price said. But when he reviewed records of the association’s work from that period, he saw that most claims involved what he called “sleaziness,” or cases in which professors harassed students or took credit for their research. While unethical, those breaches were not specific to anthropology and needed no separate code beyond those that already exist, he said.

Assuming responsibility for adjudicating ethical disputes presented another set of problems, said several speakers. It would mean a new mission and structure for the association, which would have to hire investigators to police wrongdoing and claim the power to credential who gets to call him- or herself an anthropologist. Many times, such complaints can be handled through an institutional review board or a university.

The association has seen first-hand how difficult such investigations can be. In 2001 and 2002, it probed claims of wrongdoing and ethical malpractice against anthropologists and geneticists in the Amazon in the 1960s. The association later published a report finding fault with some of the scholars’ conduct in what became known as the Darkness in El Dorado controversy (after a journalist’s account by that name), only to rescind its own report in 2005.

Besides, the ethics committee surveyed members and learned that most anthropologists are not all that interested in using ethical guidelines as a means to punish each other. What most anthropologists wanted, they said, was some form of general guidance, an educational tool to train future anthropologists.

Are We Getting Nicer? (N.Y. Times)

24/11/2011UncategorizedAntropologia, Cultura, Discriminação, Memória, Opinião pública, Psicologia, Racismo, Violência, Visualidaderenzotaddei

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: November 23, 2011

It’s pretty easy to conclude that the world is spinning down the toilet.

So let me be contrary and offer a reason to be grateful this Thanksgiving. Despite the gloomy mood, the historical backdrop is stunning progress in human decency over recent centuries.

War is declining, and humanity is becoming less violent, less racist and less sexist — and this moral progress has accelerated in recent decades. To put it bluntly, we humans seem to be getting nicer.

That’s the central theme of an astonishingly good book just published by Steven Pinker, a psychology professor at Harvard. It’s called “The Better Angels of Our Nature,” and it’s my bet to win the next Pulitzer Prize for nonfiction.

“Today we may be living in the most peaceable era in our species’ existence,” Pinker writes, and he describes this decline in violence as possibly “the most important thing that has ever happened in human history.”

He acknowledges: “In a century that began with 9/11, Iraq, and Darfur, the claim that we are living in an unusually peaceful time may strike you as somewhere between hallucinatory and obscene.”

Still, even in a 20th century notorious for world war and genocide, only around 3 percent of humans died from such man-made catastrophes. In contrast, a study of Native-American skeletons from hunter-gather societies found that some 13 percent had died of trauma. And in the 17th century, the Thirty Years’ War reduced Germany’s population by as much as one-third.

Wars make headlines, but there are fewer conflicts today, and they typically don’t kill as many people. Many scholars have made that point, most notably Joshua S. Goldstein in his recent book “Winning the War on War: The Decline of Armed Conflict Worldwide.” Goldstein also argues that it’s a myth that civilians are more likely to die in modern wars.

Look also at homicide rates, which are now far lower than in previous centuries. The murder rate in Britain seems to have fallen by more than 90 percent since the 14th century.

Then there are the myriad forms of violence that were once the banal backdrop of daily life. One game in feudal Europe involved men competing to head-butt to death a cat that had been nailed alive to a post. One reason this was considered so entertaining: the possibility that it would claw out a competitor’s eye.

Think of fairy tales and nursery rhymes. One academic study found that modern children’s television programs have 4.8 violent scenes per hour, compared with nursery rhymes with 52.2.

The decline in brutality is true of other cultures as well. When I learned Chinese, I was startled to encounter ideographs like the one of a knife next to a nose: pronounced “yi,” it means “cutting off a nose as punishment.” That’s one Chinese character that students no longer study.

Pinker’s book rang true to me partly because I often report on genocide and human rights abuses. I was aghast that Darfur didn’t prompt more of an international response from Western governments, but I was awed by the way American university students protested on behalf of a people who lived half a world away.

That reflects a larger truth: There is global consensus today that slaughtering civilians is an outrage. Governments may still engage in mass atrocities, but now they hire lobbyists and public relations firms to sanitize the mess.

In contrast, until modern times, genocide was simply a way of waging war. The Bible repeatedly describes God as masterminding genocide (“thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth” — Deuteronomy 20:16), and European-Americans saw nothing offensive about exterminating Native Americans. One of my heroes, Theodore Roosevelt, later a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, was unapologetic: “I don’t go so far as to think that the only good Indians are the dead Indians, but I believe nine out of ten are, and I shouldn’t like to inquire too closely in the case of the tenth.”

The pace of moral progress has accelerated in the last few decades. Pinker notes that on issues such as civil rights, the role of women, equality for gays, beating of children and treatment of animals, “the attitudes of conservatives have followed the trajectory of liberals, with the result that today’s conservatives are more liberal than yesterday’s liberals.”

The reasons for these advances are complex but may have to do with the rise of education, the decline of chauvinism and a growing willingness to put ourselves in the shoes (increasingly, even hooves) of others.

Granted, the world still faces brutality and cruelty. That’s what I write about the rest of the year! But let’s pause for a moment to acknowledge remarkable progress and give thanks for the human capacity for compassion and moral growth.

Drillers using counterinsurgency experts (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)

24/11/2011Uncategorizedambientalismo, Cidadania, Enquadramento, Incerteza, Marketing, Mídia, Opinião pública, Política, Psicologia, Violência, Visualidaderenzotaddei

Marcellus industry taking a page from the military to deal with media, resident opposition

Sunday, November 13, 2011

By Don Hopey, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Marcellus Shale gas drilling spokesmen at an industry conference in Houston said their companies are employing former military counterinsurgency officers and recommended using military-style psychological operations strategies, or psyops, to deal with media inquiries and citizen opposition to drilling in Pennsylvania communities.

Matt Pitzarella, a Range Resources spokesman speaking to other oil and gas industry spokespeople at the conference last week, said the company hires former military psyops specialists who use those skills in Pennsylvania.

Mr. Pitzarella’s statements and related comments made by a spokesman for Anadarko Petroleum were recorded by a member of an environmental group who provided them to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

“We have several former psyops folks that work for us at Range because they’re very comfortable in dealing with localized issues and local governments,” Mr. Pitzarella said during the last half of a 23-minute presentation in a conference session. The session was titled “Designing a Media Relations Strategy to Overcome Concerns Surrounding Hydraulic Fracturing.”

“Really all they do is spend most of their time helping folks develop local ordinances and things like that,” he continued. “But very much having that understanding of psyops in the Army and the Middle East has applied very helpfully here for us in Pennsylvania.”

Matt Carmichael, manager of external affairs for Anadarko Petroleum, which has nearly 300,000 acres of Marcellus Shale gas holdings under lease in Central Pennsylvania, gave a speech urging industry media spokesmen to read a military counterinsurgency manual for tips in dealing with opponents to shale gas development.

“Download the U.S. Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Manual, because we are dealing with an insurgency,” Mr. Carmichael said in a session titled “Understanding How Unconventional Oil & Gas Operators are Developing a Comprehensive Media Relations Strategy to Engage Stakeholders and Educate the Public.”

“There’s a lot of good lessons in there,” he said, “and coming from a military background, I found the insight extremely remarkable.”

The remarks of both Mr. Pitzarella and Mr. Carmichael were recorded at the conference by Sharon Wilson, an activist and member of the Earthworks Oil and Gas Accountability Project, a national environmental nonprofit focused on the impacts of mineral and energy development.

She said the term “insurgent” shows what the industry thinks about the communities where it is drilling.

“What’s clear to me is that they are having to use some very extreme measures in our neighborhoods. And it seems like they view it as an occupation,” Ms. Wilson said.

Psychological operations is a term used in the military and intelligence agencies and involves use of selective communications and sometimes misinformation and deception to manipulate public perception. According to a U.S. Army careers website, psyops specialists “assess the information needs of a target population and develop and deliver the right message at the right time and place to create the intended result.”

Environmental groups and residents of communities where Marcellus drilling has been controversial and sometimes contentious were quick to seize on the comments. They said they reflected the industry’s battlefield mentality and disinformation strategy when dealing with communities and individuals.

“This is the level of disdain, deception and belligerence that we are dealing with,” said Arthur Clark, an Oil & Gas Committee co-chair and member of the executive committee of the Pennsylvania chapter of the Sierra Club.

“On tape and in print, for once, an industry literally at war with local residents, even labeling them ‘insurgents.’ I don’t recall seeing anyone toting an AK-47 at any of the public meetings or rallies regarding frack gas development.”

“It sounds like the gas companies are utilizing military ‘psyops’ in gas patch communities,” said Bill Walker, a spokesman for Earthworks.

Mr. Carmichael did not return calls requesting comment, but John Christiansen, director of external communications for Anadarko, issued a statement, addressing Mr. Carmichael’s use of the term insurgency.

“The reference was not reflective of our core values. Our community efforts are based upon open communication, active engagement and transparency, which are all essential in building fact-based knowledge and earning public trust.”

Mr. Pitzarella explained his remarks by saying the industry employs large numbers of veterans, including an attorney with a psyops background who “spent time in the Middle East,” with temperaments “well suited” to handling the sometimes “emotional situations” at community meetings the company holds to explain its well drilling and fracking operations.

“To suggest that the two comments made at unrelated [conference sessions] are a strategy is dishonest,” Mr. Pitzarella said. “[Range has] been transparent and accountable, and that’s not something we would do if we were trying to mislead people.”

But despite repeated questions, Mr. Pitzarella would not name the Range attorney with a psyops background. The company does employ James Cannon, whose LinkIn page lists him as a “public affairs specialist” for Range and a member of the U.S. Army’s “303 Psyop Co.,” a reserve unit in Pittsburgh.

Mr. Cannon could not be reached for comment.

Dencil Backus of Mount Pleasant, a California University of Pennsylvania communications professor who teaches public relations, once had Mr. Pitzarella in his class. Mr. Backus said it’s “obvious we have all been targeted” with a communications strategy that employs misinformation and intimidation, and includes homespun radio and television ads touting “My drilling company? Range Resources”; community “informational” meetings that emphasize the positive and ignore potential problems caused by drilling and fracking; and recent lawsuits, threats of lawsuits and commercial boycotts.

“There’s just been a number of ways in which they’ve sought to intimidate us,” said Mr. Backus, who has been a coordinator of a citizens committee that advised Mount Pleasant on a proposed Marcellus ordinance. “It’s one of the most unethical things I have ever seen.”

Don Hopey: dhopey@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1983

The filmmaker: A push to broaden the reach of ‘ski porn’ (The Daily Climate)

24/11/2011Uncategorizedambientalismo, Clima, Educação, Enquadramento, Marketing, Mídia, Mudanças climáticas, Opinião pública, Visualidaderenzotaddei

Nov. 7, 2011

David Mossop and Sherpas Cinemas are transforming ski flicks, turning the usual plot-less, context-less jumble of skiing images into a message about environmental destruction, mass consumption and climate change.

Interview conducted and condensed by Rae Tyson

The Daily Climate

A critically acclaimed film combining action, free-style skiing and a climate impact message debuted this fall. Representing the leading edge of a new wave of ski films, All.I.Can juxtaposes “ski-porn” – plot-less montages of expert skiers flying down and off impossibly steep mountainsides – against images of environmental destruction and mass consumption. Reviewers say the movie, available on DVD and to be released on iTunes on Nov. 14, could change the genre permanently.

With enough creativity, ski films have the capacity to address almost any topic. – David Mossop

British Columbia cinematographers Eric Crossland and Dave Mossop filmed the movie in Chile, Canada, Morocco, Greenland and Alaska. ESPN’s Jamey Voss calls it “the best movie in skiing.” Dave Mossop has been doing ski films and photography for years. This is his first attempt at a film with a strong social message.

Your film company, Sherpas Cinema, has said “the time has come for a ski film that stands for something.” Explain the inspiration for All.I.Can.

The classic ski-porn formula works brilliantly and will always have its place. But skiing is about so much more than just porn. The mountains bring us every emotion in the book. With enough creativity, ski films have the capacity to address almost any topic.

All.I.Can. Official Teaser from Sherpas Cinema on Vimeo.

Has this film altered your view about your ability to affect change?

This project has really opened my eyes to what is possible, and now it almost feels like our duty to see how far that envelope can be pushed.

What convinced you to focus on climate change?

The root of All.I.Can is the relationship between mountain people and nature. Skiers are more reliant on weather and climate than almost any other subculture. A well-crafted film has the potential to act as a trigger: If mountain culture doesn’t stand up, who will?

You traveled around the world to shoot this film. Did you see evidence of the impact of climate change in any of the locations you visited?

A big part of the climate problem is that it is too slow for us humans to perceive. But, at almost every location we went, we would hear stories from the elders indicating a warming trend.

Such as?

The Inuit of Greenland talked about the more challenging hunting conditions due to ice breakup. Bud Stoll and Mary Woodward, two of the older skiers in our film, reminisced about the deep winters the Kootenays when they were youngsters. The Chilean gauchos and Moroccan porters recalled stories of colder snowier winters.

Unchecked, do you believe that climate change might impact skiing – and other winter sports?

I know as little about climate change as everyone else. But it isn’t hard to sense that the human race is running an unsustainable program.

The reviews so far have been impressive. ESPN, for example, called All.I.Can “a wake-up call in many ways.”

We are totally overwhelmed by the response. The world was ready for this kind of cinematic discussion and the idea is striking a chord with skiers and non-skiers alike.

Some question the carbon neutrality of this project. You flew all over the globe and used fuel-guzzling helicopters. How would you respond to that?

We feel that the extra resources used in the film production are far overshadowed by the potential energy of All.I.Can. A truly beautiful film can inspire the whole world and influence countless human decisions in the future.

How did you offset the impact?

We worked with Native Energy to offset the project using carbon credits. They use the money to either counter our carbon emissions directly or invest in future innovations that build toward a sustainable future.

Any plans for future projects with an environmental theme?

I expect an environmental theme will become an undertone in all our future projects, but currently we have no locked plans.

Photos courtesy Sherpas Cinema.

Rae Tyson pioneered the environmental beat at USA Today in the 1980s and today restores and races vintage motorcycles in central Pennsylvania. Climate Query is a semi-weekly feature offered by DailyClimate.org, a nonprofit news service that covers climate change.

World headed for irreversible climate change in five years, IEA warns (The Guardian)

24/11/2011Uncategorizedciência, Clima, Incerteza, Meteorologia, Mudanças climáticas, Opinião pública, Política, Políticas públicas, Previsãorenzotaddei

If fossil fuel infrastructure is not rapidly changed, the world will ‘lose for ever’ the chance to avoid dangerous climate change

Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 9 November 2011 10.01 GMT

Pollution due to carbon emissions due to rise says IEA : Coal burning power plant, Kentucky, USA

Any fossil fuel infrastructure built in the next five years will cause irreversible climate change, according to the IEA. Photograph: Rex Features

The world is likely to build so many fossil-fuelled power stations, energy-guzzling factories and inefficient buildings in the next five years that it will become impossible to hold global warming to safe levels, and the last chance of combating dangerous climate change will be “lost for ever”, according to the most thorough analysis yet of world energy infrastructure.

Anything built from now on that produces carbon will do so for decades, and this “lock-in” effect will be the single factor most likely to produce irreversible climate change, the world’s foremost authority on energy economics has found. If this is not rapidly changed within the next five years, the results are likely to be disastrous.

“The door is closing,” Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency, said. “I am very worried – if we don’t change direction now on how we use energy, we will end up beyond what scientists tell us is the minimum [for safety]. The door will be closed forever.”

If the world is to stay below 2C of warming, which scientists regard as the limit of safety, then emissions must be held to no more than 450 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; the level is currently around 390ppm. But the world’s existing infrastructure is already producing 80% of that “carbon budget”, according to the IEA’s analysis, published on Wednesday. This gives an ever-narrowing gap in which to reform the global economy on to a low-carbon footing.

If current trends continue, and we go on building high-carbon energy generation, then by 2015 at least 90% of the available “carbon budget” will be swallowed up by our energy and industrial infrastructure. By 2017, there will be no room for manoeuvre at all – the whole of the carbon budget will be spoken for, according to the IEA’s calculations.

Birol’s warning comes at a crucial moment in international negotiations on climate change, as governments gear up for the next fortnight of talks in Durban, South Africa, from late November. “If we do not have an international agreement, whose effect is put in place by 2017, then the door to [holding temperatures to 2C of warming] will be closed forever,” said Birol.

But world governments are preparing to postpone a speedy conclusion to the negotiations again. Originally, the aim was to agree a successor to the 1997 Kyoto protocol, the only binding international agreement on emissions, after its current provisions expire in 2012. But after years of setbacks, an increasing number of countries – including the UK, Japan and Russia – now favour postponing the talks for several years.

Both Russia and Japan have spoken in recent weeks of aiming for an agreement in 2018 or 2020, and the UK has supported this move. Greg Barker, the UK’s climate change minister, told a meeting: “We need China, the US especially, the rest of the Basic countries [Brazil, South Africa, India and China] to agree. If we can get this by 2015 we could have an agreement ready to click in by 2020.” Birol said this would clearly be too late. “I think it’s very important to have a sense of urgency – our analysis shows [what happens] if you do not change investment patterns, which can only happen as a result of an international agreement.”

Nor is this a problem of the developing world, as some commentators have sought to frame it. In the UK, Europe and the US, there are multiple plans for new fossil-fuelled power stations that would contribute significantly to global emissions over the coming decades.

The Guardian revealed in May an IEA analysis that found emissions had risen by a record amount in 2010, despite the worst recession for 80 years. Last year, a record 30.6 gigatonnes (Gt) of carbon dioxide poured into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels, a rise of 1.6Gt on the previous year. At the time, Birol told the Guardian that constraining global warming to moderate levels would be “only a nice utopia” unless drastic action was taken.

The new research adds to that finding, by showing in detail how current choices on building new energy and industrial infrastructure are likely to commit the world to much higher emissions for the next few decades, blowing apart hopes of containing the problem to manageable levels. The IEA’s data is regarded as the gold standard in emissions and energy, and is widely regarded as one of the most conservative in outlook – making the warning all the more stark. The central problem is that most industrial infrastructure currently in existence – the fossil-fuelled power stations, the emissions-spewing factories, the inefficient transport and buildings – is already contributing to the high level of emissions, and will do so for decades. Carbon dioxide, once released,stays in the atmosphere and continues to have a warming effect for about a century, and industrial infrastructure is built to have a useful life of several decades.

Yet, despite intensifying warnings from scientists over the past two decades, the new infrastructure even now being built is constructed along the same lines as the old, which means that there is a “lock-in” effect – high-carbon infrastructure built today or in the next five years will contribute as much to the stock of emissions in the atmosphere as previous generations.

The “lock-in” effect is the single most important factor increasing the danger of runaway climate change, according to the IEA in its annual World Energy Outlook, published on Wednesday.

Climate scientists estimate that global warming of 2C above pre-industrial levels marks the limit of safety, beyond which climate change becomes catastrophic and irreversible. Though such estimates are necessarily imprecise, warming of as little as 1.5C could cause dangerous rises in sea levels and a higher risk of extreme weather – the limit of 2C is now inscribed in international accords, including the partial agreement signed at Copenhagen in 2009, by which the biggest developed and developing countries for the first time agreed to curb their greenhouse gas output.

Another factor likely to increase emissions is the decision by some governments to abandon nuclear energy, following the Fukushima disaster. “The shift away from nuclear worsens the situation,” said Birol. If countries turn away from nuclear energy, the result could be an increase in emissions equivalent to the current emissions of Germany and France combined. Much more investment in renewable energy will be required to make up the gap, but how that would come about is unclear at present.

Birol also warned that China – the world’s biggest emitter – would have to take on a much greater role in combating climate change. For years, Chinese officials have argued that the country’s emissions per capita were much lower than those of developed countries, it was not required to take such stringent action on emissions. But the IEA’s analysis found that within about four years, China’s per capita emissions were likely to exceed those of the EU.

In addition, by 2035 at the latest, China’s cumulative emissions since 1900 are likely to exceed those of the EU, which will further weaken Beijing’s argument that developed countries should take on more of the burden of emissions reduction as they carry more of the responsibility for past emissions.

In a recent interview with the Guardian recently, China’s top climate change official, Xie Zhenhua, called on developing countries to take a greater part in the talks, while insisting that developed countries must sign up to a continuation of the Kyoto protocol – something only the European Union is willing to do. His words were greeted cautiously by other participants in the talks.

Continuing its gloomy outlook, the IEA report said: “There are few signs that the urgently needed change in direction in global energy trends is under way. Although the recovery in the world economy since 2009 has been uneven, and future economic prospects remain uncertain, global primary energy demand rebounded by a remarkable 5% in 2010, pushing CO2 emissions to a new high. Subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption of fossil fuels jumped to over $400bn (£250.7bn).”

Meanwhile, an “unacceptably high” number of people – about 1.3bn – still lack access to electricity. If people are to be lifted out of poverty, this must be solved – but providing people with renewable forms of energy generation is still expensive.

Charlie Kronick of Greenpeace said: “The decisions being made by politicians today risk passing a monumental carbon debt to the next generation, one for which they will pay a very heavy price. What’s seriously lacking is a global plan and the political leverage to enact it. Governments have a chance to begin to turn this around when they meet in Durban later this month for the next round of global climate talks.”

One close observer of the climate talks said the $400bn subsidies devoted to fossil fuels, uncovered by the IEA, were “staggering”, and the way in which these subsidies distort the market presented a massive problem in encouraging the move to renewables. He added that Birol’s comments, though urgent and timely, were unlikely to galvanise China and the US – the world’s two biggest emittters – into action on the international stage.

“The US can’t move (owing to Republican opposition) and there’s no upside for China domestically in doing so. At least China is moving up the learning curve with its deployment of renewables, but it’s doing so in parallel to the hugely damaging coal-fired assets that it is unlikely to ever want (to turn off in order to) to meet climate targets in years to come.”

Energy demand

Energy demand Source: IEAChristiana Figueres, the UN climate chief, said the findings underlined the urgency of the climate problem, but stressed the progress made in recent years. “This is not the scenario we wanted,” she said. “But making an agreement is not easy. What we are looking at is not an international environment agreement — what we are looking at is nothing other than the biggest industrial and energy revolution that has ever been seen.”

Arjun Appadurai: A Nation of Business Junkies (Anthropology News)

24/11/2011UncategorizedAntropologia, Cidadania, Cultura, Economia, Enquadramento, jornalismo, Marketing, Mídia, Mediação tecnológica, Opinião pública, Política, Semiótica, sociedade civilrenzotaddei

Guest Columnist
Arjun Appadurai

By Anthropology News on November 3, 2011

I first came to this country in 1967. I have been either a crypto-anthropologist or professional anthropologist for most of that time. Still, because I came here with an interest in India and took the path of least resistance in choosing to maintain India as my principal ethnographic referent, I have always been reluctant to offer opinions about life in these United States. I have begun to do so recently, but mainly in occasional blogs, twitter posts and the like. Now seems to be a good time to ponder whether I have anything to offer to public debate about the media in this country. Since I have been teaching for a few years in a distinguished department of media studies, I feel emboldened to offer my thoughts in this new AN Forum.

My examination of changes in the media over the last few decades is not based on a scientific study. I read the New York Times every day, the Wall Street Journal occasionally, and I subscribe to The Atlantic, Harper’s, The New York Review of Books, the Economist, and a variety of academic journals in anthropology and area studies. I get a smattering of other useful media pieces from friends on Facebook and other social media sites. I also use the Internet to keep up with as much as I can from the press in and about India. At various times in the past, I have subscribed to The Nation, Money Magazine, Foreign Policy, the Times Literary supplement and a few other periodicals.

I have long been interested in how culture and economy interact. Today, I want to make an observation about the single biggest change I have seen over my four decades in the United States, which is a growing and now hegemonic domination of the news and of a great deal of opinion, both in print and on television, by business news. Business news was a specialized affair in the late 1960’s, confined to a few magazines such as Money and Fortune, and to newspapers and TV reporters (not channels). Now, it is hard to find anything but business as the topic of news in all media. Consider television: if you spend even three hours surfing between CNN and BBC on any given day ( surfing for news about Libya or about soccer, for example) you will find yourself regularly assaulted by business news, not just from London, New York and Washington, but from Singapore, Hong Kong, Mumbai and many other places. Look at the serious talk shows and chances are that you will find a talking CEO, describing what’s good about his company, what’s bad about the government and how to read his company’s stock prices. Channels like MSNBC are a form of endless, mind-numbing Jerry Lewis telethon about the economy, with more than a hint of the desperation of the Depression era movie “They Shoot Horses Don’t They?”, as they bid the viewer to make insane bets and to mourn the fallen heroes of failed companies and fired CEO’s.

Turn to the newspapers and things get worse. Any reader of the New York Times will find it hard to get away from the business machine. Start with the lead section, and stories about Obama’s economic plans, mad Republican proposals about taxes, the Euro-crisis and the latest bank scandal will assault you. Some relief is provided by more corporate news: the exit of Steve Jobs, the Op-Ed piece about the responsibilities of the super-rich by Warren Buffet, Donald Trump advertising his new line of housewares to go along with his ugly homes and buildings. Turn to the sports section: it is littered with talk of franchises, salaries, trades, owner antics, stadium projects and more. I need hardly say anything about the section on “Business” itself, which has now virtually become redundant. And if you are still thirsty for more business news, check out the “Home”, “Lifestyle” and Real Estate sections for news on houses you can’t afford and mortgage financing gimmicks you have never heard off. Some measure of relief is to be in the occasional “Science Times” and in the NYT Book Review, which do have some pieces which are not primarily about profit, corporate politics or the recession.

The New York Times is not to blame for this. They are the newspaper of “record’ and that means that they reflect broader trends and cannot be blamed for their compliance with bigger trends. Go through the magazines when you take a flight to Detroit or Mumbai and there is again a feast of news geared to the “business traveler”. This is when I catch up on how to negotiate the best deal, why this is the time to buy gold and what software and hardware to use when I make my next presentation to General Electric. These examples could be multiplied in any number of bookstores, newspaper kiosks, airport lounges, park benches and dentist’s offices.

What does all this reflect? Well, we were always told that the business of America is business. But now we are gradually moving into a society in which the business of American life is also business. Who are we now? We have become (in our fantasies) entrepreneurs, start-up heroes, small investors, consumers, home-owners, day-traders, and a gallery of supporting business types, and no longer fathers, mothers, friends or neighbors. Our very citizenship is now defined by business, whether we are winners or losers. Everyone is an expert on pensions, stocks, retirement packages, vacation deals, credit- card scams and more. Meanwhile, as Paul Krugman has argued in a brilliant recent speech to some of his fellow economists, this discipline, especially macro-economics, has lost all its capacities to analyze, define or repair the huge mess we are in.

The gradual transformation of the imagined reader or viewer into a business junkie is a relatively new disease of advanced capitalism in the United States. The avalanche of business knowledge and information dropping on the American middle-classes ought to have helped us predict – or avoid – the recent economic meltdown, based on crazy credit devices, vulgar scams and lousy regulation. Instead it has made us business junkies, ready to be led like sheep to our own slaughter by Wall Street, the big banks and corrupt politicians. The growing hegemony of business news and knowledge in the popular media over the last few decades has produced a collective silence of the lambs. It is time for a bleat or two.

Dr. Arjun Appadurai is a prominent contemporary social-cultural anthropologist, having formerly served as Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs at The New School in NYC. He has held various professorial chairs and visiting appointments at some of top institutions in the United States and Europe. In addition, he has served on several scholarly and advisory bodies in the United States, Latin America, Europe and India. Dr. Appadurai is a prolific writer having authored numerous books and scholarly articles. The nature and significance of his contributions throughout his academic career have earned him the reputation as a leading figure in his field. He is the author of The Future as a Cultural Fact: Essays on the Global Condition (Verso: forthcoming 2012).

Ken Routon is the contributing editor of Media Notes. He is a visiting professor of cultural anthropology at the University of New Orleans and the author of Hidden Powers of the State in the Cuban Imagination (University Press of Florida, 2010).

Where Did Global Warming Go? (N.Y. Times)

24/11/2011Uncategorizedciência, Clima, discurso ambiental, Economia, Enquadramento, Incerteza, jornalismo, Mídia, Meteorologia, Mudanças climáticas, Opinião pública, Política, Previsão, Visualidaderenzotaddei

By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL

Published: October 15, 2011

Mark Pernice and Scott Altmann

IN 2008, both the Democratic and Republican candidates for president, Barack Obama and John McCain, warned about man-made global warming and supported legislation to curb emissions. After he was elected, President Obama promised “a new chapter in America’s leadership on climate change,” and arrived cavalry-like at the 2009 United Nations Climate Conference in Copenhagen to broker a global pact.

But two years later, now that nearly every other nation accepts climate change as a pressing problem, America has turned agnostic on the issue.

In the crowded Republican presidential field, most seem to agree with Gov. Rick Perry of Texas that “the science is not settled” on man-made global warming, as he said in a debate last month. Alone among Republicans onstage that night, Jon M. Huntsman Jr. said that he trusted scientists’ view that the problem was real. At the moment, he has the backing of about 2 percent of likely Republican voters.

Though the evidence of climate change has, if anything, solidified, Mr. Obama now talks about “green jobs” mostly as a strategy for improving the economy, not the planet. He did not mention climate in his last State of the Union address. Meanwhile, the administration is fighting to exempt United States airlines from Europe’s new plan to charge them for CO2 emissions when they land on the continent. It also seems poised to approve a nearly 2,000-mile-long pipeline, from Canada down through the United States, that will carry a kind of oil. Extracting it will put relatively high levels of emissions into the atmosphere.

“In Washington, ‘climate change’ has become a lightning rod, it’s a four-letter word,” said Andrew J. Hoffman, director of the University of Michigan’s Erb Institute for Sustainable Development.

Across the nation, too, belief in man-made global warming, and passion about doing something to arrest climate change, is not what it was five years or so ago, when Al Gore’s movie had buzz and Elizabeth Kolbert’s book about climate change, “Field Notes From a Catastrophe,” was a best seller. The number of Americans who believe the earth is warming dropped to 59 percent last year from 79 percent in 2006, according to polling by the Pew Research Group. When the British polling firm Ipsos Mori asked Americans this past summer to list their three most pressing environmental worries, “global warming/climate change” garnered only 27 percent, behind even “overpopulation.”

This fading of global warming from the political agenda is a mostly American phenomenon. True, public enthusiasm for legislation to tackle climate change has flagged somewhat throughout the developed world since the recession of 2008. Nonetheless, in many other countries, legislation to control emissions has rolled out apace. Just last Wednesday, Australia’s House of Representatives passed a carbon tax, which is expected to easily clear the country’s Senate. Europe’s six-year-old carbon emissions trading system continues its yearly expansion. In 2010, India passed a carbon tax on coal. Even China’s newest five-year plan contains a limited pilot cap-and-trade system, under which polluters pay for excess pollution.

The United States is the “one significant outlier” on responding to climate change, according to a recent global research report produced by HSBC, the London-based bank. John Ashton, Britain’s special representative for climate change, said in an interview that “in the U.K., in Europe, in most places I travel to” — but not in the United States — “the starting point for conversation is that this is real, there are clear and present dangers, so let’s get a move on and respond.” After watching the Republican candidates express skepticism about global warming in early September, former President Bill Clinton put it more bluntly, “I mean, it makes us — we look like a joke, right?”

Americans — who produce twice the emissions per capita that Europeans do — are in many ways wired to be holdouts. We prefer bigger cars and bigger homes. We value personal freedom, are suspicious of scientists, and tend to distrust the kind of sweeping government intervention required to confront rising greenhouse gas emissions.

“Climate change presents numerous ideological challenges to our culture and our beliefs,” Professor Hoffman of the Erb Institute says. “People say, ‘Wait a second, this is really going to affect how we live!’ ”

There are, of course, other factors that hardened resistance: America’s powerful fossil-fuel industry, whose profits are bound to be affected by any greater control of carbon emissions; a cold American winter in 2010 that made global warming seem less imminent; and a deep recession that made taxes on energy harder to talk about, and job creation a more pressing issue than the environment — as can be seen in the debate over the pipeline from Canada.

But it is also true that Europe has endured a deep recession and has had mild winters. What’s more, some of the loudest climate deniers are English. Yet the European Union is largely on target to meet its goal of reducing emissions by at least 20 percent over 1990 levels by 2020.

Connie Hedegaard, the European Union’s commissioner on climate action, told me recently: “Look, it was not a piece of cake here either.”

In fact, many countries in Europe have come to see combating climate change and the move to a “greener” economy as about “opportunities rather than costs,” Mr. Ashton said. In Britain, the low-carbon manufacturing sector has been one of the few to grow through the economic slump.

“One thing I’ve been pleasantly surprised about in the E.U. is that despite the economic and financial crisis, the momentum on climate change has more or less continued,” Mr. Ashton said.

And Conservatives, rather than posing an obstacle, are directing aggressive climate policies in much of the world. Before becoming the European Union’s commissioner for climate action, Ms. Hedegaard was a well-known Conservative politician in her native Denmark. In Britain, where a 2008 law required deep cuts in emissions, a coalition Conservative government is now championing a Green Deal.

In the United States, the right wing of the Republican Party has managed to turn skepticism about man-made global warming into a requirement for electability, forming an unlikely triad with antiabortion and gun-rights beliefs. In findings from a Pew poll this spring, 75 percent of staunch conservatives, 63 percent of libertarians and 55 percent of Main Street Republicans said there was no solid evidence of global warming.

“This has become a partisan political issue here in a way it has not elsewhere,” said Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center. “We are seeing doubts in the U.S. largely because the issue has become a partisan one, with Democrats” — 75 percent of whom say they believe there is strong evidence of climate change — “seeing one thing and Republicans another.”

Europeans understand the challenges in the United States, though they sound increasingly impatient. “We are very much aware of the political situation in the United States and we don’t say ‘do this,’ when we know it can’t get through Congress,” said Ms. Hedegaard, when she was in New York for the United Nations General Assembly last month. But she added:

“O.K. if you can’t commit today, when can you? When are you willing to join in? Australia is making a cap-and-trade system. South Korea is introducing one. New Zealand and the E.U. have it already. So when is the time? That’s the question for the U.S.”

MEANWHILE, in the developing world, emerging economies like India and China are now pursuing aggressive climate policies. “Two years ago the assumption was that the developed world would have to lead, but now China, India and Brazil have jumped in with enthusiasm, and are moving ahead,” said Nick Robins of HSBC Global Research.

Buffeted by two years of treacherous weather that they are less able to handle than richer nations — from floods in India to water shortages in China — developing countries are feeling vulnerable. Scientists agree that extreme weather events will be more severe and frequent on a warming planet, and insurance companies have already documented an increase.

So perhaps it is no surprise that regard for climate change as “a very serious problem” has risen significantly in many developing nations over the past two years. A 2010 Pew survey showed that more than 70 percent of people in China, India and South Korea were willing to pay more for energy in order to address climate change. The number in the United States was 38 percent. China’s 12th five-year plan, for 2011-2015, directs intensive investment to low carbon industries. In contrast, in the United States, there is “no prospect of moving ahead” at a national legislative level, Mr. Robins said, although some state governments are addressing the issue.

In private, scientific advisers to Mr. Obama say he and his administration remain committed to confronting climate change and global warming. But Robert E. O’Connor, program director for decision, risk and management sciences at the National Science Foundation in Washington, said a bolder leader would emphasize real risks that, apparently, now feel distant to many Americans. “If it’s such an important issue, why isn’t he talking about it?”

Elisabeth Rosenthal is a reporter and blogger on environmental issues for The New York Times.

Why Culture Matters in the Climate Debate (The Yale Forum on Climate Change & The Media)

24/11/2011UncategorizedClima, comunicação científica, Cultura, Enquadramento, Incerteza, Mídia, Meteorologia, Mudanças climáticas, Opinião pública, Política, Políticas públicas, Previsão, Visualidaderenzotaddei

Keith Kloor, October 25, 2011

A new paper argues that climate educators and communicators are ignoring deeply held beliefs that influence climate skepticism.

It is the great riddle of the day in climate circles: Why is public concern about global warming so shallow, and why do widespread doubts about man-made climate change persist?

Everyone seems to have a pet theory. Al Gore blames the media and President Obama. Some green critics argue that Gore should look in the mirror. Let’s not ignore the recession, scholars remind us. Yes, but the lion’s share of blame must go to those “merchants of doubt”, particularly fossil fuel interests, and climate skeptics, plenty others assert. Err, actually, it’s our brain that’s the biggest problem, social scientists now say.

Commentary

Another reason, similar to that last one, is that cultural and religious beliefs predispose many to dismiss evidence that humans can greatly influence the climate. In fact, geographer Simon Donner in a paper published this week in Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, argues:

“Successful climate change education and outreach programs should be designed to help overcome perceived conflict between climate science and long-held cultural beliefs, drawing upon lessons from communication and education of other potentially divisive subjects like evolution.”

Donner is not the first to try to bridge the gap between science and religion. E.O. Wilson gamely attempted to do so several years ago, with his book, The Creation. In a 2006 interview with NPR, Wilson acknowledged that, “the usual approach of secular science is to marginalize religion” in debates on environmental issues. After the book’s publication, this writer facilitated a lengthy dialogue between Wilson, ecologist Stuart Pimm and leading evangelical Richard Cizik, on areas where science and religion could find common ground. Expanding on that public dialogue has proven difficult. If anything, the polarized political landscape and the continuing climate wars have narrowed the space for science and religion to be reconciled.

Still, those who want to overcome obstacles to climate action should be mindful of culture’s importance, Donner stresses in his paper. He writes that “lingering public uncertainty about anthropogenic climate change may be rooted in an important but largely unrecognized conflict between climate science and some long held beliefs. In many cultures, the weather and climate have historically been viewed as too vast and too grand to be directly influenced by people.”

Donner writes that scholars studying public attitudes on climate change should factor in such cultural worldviews when accounting for climate skepticism. He surmises: “Underlying doubts that human activity can influence the climate may explain some of the malleability of public opinion about the scientific evidence for climate change.”

Donner suggests that climate educators and communicators learn from approaches that have worked in the evolution debate. He informs us:

“Pedagogical research on evolution finds that providing the audience with opportunities to evaluate how their culture or beliefs affect their willingness to accept scientific evidence is more effective than attempting to separate scientific views from religious or cultural views.”

Moreover, Donner argues that “reforming public communication” on climate change “will require humility on the part of scientists and educators.” He concludes:

“Climate scientists, for whom any inherent doubts about the possible extent of human influence on the climate were overcome by years of training in physics and chemistry of the climate system, need to accept that there are rational cultural, religious and historical reasons that the public may fail to believe that anthropogenic climate change is real, let alone that it warrants a policy response. It is unreasonable to expect a lay audience, not armed with the same analytical tools as scientists, to develop lasting acceptance during a one-hour public seminar of a scientific conclusion that runs counters to thousands of years of human belief. Without addressing the common long-standing belief that human activity cannot directly influence the climate, public acceptance of climate change and public engagement on climate solutions will not persist through the next cold winter or the next economic meltdown.”

The intersection where science and religion meet is all too often home to an ugly collision. Donner advises that such crack-ups can and should be avoided in the climate debate.

Can it be done?

Keith Kloor is a New York City-based freelance journalist who writes often about the environment and climate change. (E-mail: keith@yaleclimatemediaforum.org)

Claude Lévi-Strauss: fundador do pós-estruturalismo – Eduardo Viveiros de Castro

24/11/2011UncategorizedAntropologia, Índios, Cultura, Levi-Strauss, Linguísticarenzotaddei

Palestra do antropólogo Eduardo Viveiros de Castro no IEB (USP) em 09/10/08, por ocasião de um evento consagrado ao 100o aniversário de Claude Lévi-Strauss.

Aumento da expectativa de vida faz surgir novos problemas nas pessoas com deficiência mental (FAPESP)

21/11/2011UncategorizedEnvelhecimento, Memória, Saúde, Saúde mentalrenzotaddei

Pesquisa FAPESP
Edição 189 – Novembro 2011

Ciência > Envelhecimento
O preço da longevidade

Carlos Fioravanti

As pessoas com deficiência intelectual, que há 40 anos morriam na adolescência, hoje podem viver mais de 60 anos. Como estão vivendo mais, outros problemas orgânicos estão surgindo. Reunidos durante dois dias em agosto na Associação de Paes e Amigos dos Excepcionais (Apae) de São Paulo, médicos e pesquisadores da Universidade Federal de São Paulo (Unifesp) e da Universidade de São Paulo (USP), psicólogos, terapeutas, advogados, assistentes sociais e outros profissionais da saúde reconheceram um dos graves problemas emergentes, a possibilidade de envelhecimento precoce.

Em um levantamento preliminar feito em 2009 em seis instituições da cidade de São Paulo, de um grupo de 373 pessoas com deficiência intelectual (ou DI; a expressão deficiência mental não é mais recomendada) e mais de 30 anos de idade, 192 apresentavam pelo menos três sinais de provável envelhecimento precoce, de acordo com um questionário que avaliava eventuais perdas de memória, de autonomia nas tarefas do dia a dia, de interesse por atividades ou de visão e audição. Para dimensionar esse problema, está sendo preparado um levantamento mais abrangente e detalhado, com cerca de 500 pessoas com DI e idade entre 30 e 59 anos da Grande São Paulo.

Os estudos em andamento são essenciais para “vermos o que pode ser feito, em termos de atendimento médico e de políticas públicas”, diz Regina Leondarides, coordenadora do grupo de estudo de envelhecimento precoce das pessoas com deficiência intelectual, que reúne 10 instituições de atendimento. “Temos muitas políticas de saúde voltadas para a criança, mas as políticas para o envelhecimento estão começando a ser construídas”, comenta Esper Cavalheiro, professor da Unifesp e presidente do conselho científico do Instituto Apae de São Paulo. “Estamos atrasados, em vista do envelhecimento acelerado da população brasileira.”

Um estudo da Espanha publicado em 2008 indicou que as pessoas com DI envelhecem prematuramente – as com síndrome de Down, de modo mais intenso. Para chegar a essas conclusões, os pesquisadores acompanharam a saúde de 238 pessoas com DI e mais de 40 anos de idade durante cinco anos. Não se trata, aparentemente, de um fenômeno inevitável. O envelhecimento precoce das pessoas com DI leve e moderada resulta da falta de programas de promoção de saúde e do acesso reduzido a serviços médicos e sociais. As pessoas com DI se mostraram com maior tendência à obesidade (apenas 25% tinham peso considerado normal), à hipertensão arterial (25% do total) e a distúrbios metabólicos, como diabetes e hipotireoidismo (10% do total).

“O envelhecimento precoce, se confirmado, pode ter causas genéticas ou ambientais, independentemente da deficiência intelectual”, comenta Dalci Santos, gerente do Instituto Apae de São Paulo. Matemática de formação, com doutorado em andamento na Unifesp, ela acrescenta: “Não conseguiremos avançar muito até esclarecermos melhor a origem das deficiências intelectuais”. As causas podem ser genéticas, como na síndrome de Down, ou ambientais (causas não genéticas), incluindo infecções, baixa oxigenação do cérebro do feto, alcoolismo, radiação, intoxicação por chumbo durante a gravidez ou prematuridade – muitas vezes, vários fatores em conjunto.

Causas ambientais ou genéticas
Em um artigo no primeiro número da Revista de Deficiência Intelectual DI, publicação do Instituto Apae lançada em outubro, João Monteiro de Pina-Neto, médico geneticista da Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto da USP, apresenta os resultados de um estudo sobre as causas da deficiência intelectual em 200 pessoas atendidas nas Apaes de Altinópolis e Serrana, dois municípios da região de Ribeirão Preto. Esse estudo faz parte de um levantamento maior, com cerca de mil pessoas com DI atendidas em quatro Apaes, que Pina-Neto e sua equipe pretendem concluir em meados de 2012. Os resultados obtidos até agora indicam o predomínio de causas ambientais (42,5% do total), seguidas pelas genéticas (29%) e indeterminadas (20%).

Um estudo similar feito com 10 mil pessoas na Carolina do Sul, Estados Unidos, apresentou o mesmo percentual de causas genéticas, mas apenas 18% de causas ambientais e 56% de causas desconhecidas. Alguns contrastes chamam a atenção. Enquanto a deficiência intelectual causada por falta de oxigenação cerebral responde por 5% do total das causas de DI nos Estados Unidos, em São Paulo é 16,5%; a prematuridade, de 5% nos Estados Unidos, foi de 14,5% no estudo paulista; o efeito das infecções, de 5%, é quase o dobro aqui, 9%.

A conclusão que emerge dessa comparação é que o número de nascimentos de bebês com DI poderia ser reduzido por meio de algumas medidas preventivas. “Melhorar o atendimento pré-natal e a qualidade do parto são uma prioridade”, ressalta Pina-Neto. “Ainda temos casos de deficiência causada por sífilis, rubéola ou toxoplasmose contraída durante a gestação e meningites pós-natais”, lamenta. Segundo ele, outro problema que pode ser controlado é o alcoolismo. “De 20% a 30% das mulheres da região de Ribeirão Preto consomem bebida alcoólica em excesso e, como resultado, de cada 100 gravidezes, nasce uma criança com DI causada por síndrome alcoólica fetal”, diz ele. “Não fazemos ainda a adequada prevenção das causas da deficiência intelectual.”

As causas genéticas podem ser controladas, já que o risco de uma criança nascer com síndrome de Down aumenta muito com a idade dos pais. “As mulheres estão tendo filhos após os 35 anos de idade, portanto mais propensas a terem filhos com Down, e os homens estão se casando várias vezes, tendo filhos em cada casamento”, diz Pina-Neto. Segundo ele, homens estéreis que procuram as clínicas de reprodução deveriam ser mais informados sobre a possibilidade de terem alterações genéticas que podem ser transmitidas aos filhos caso se tornem férteis.

As pessoas com DI apresentam capacidade de raciocínio bastante abaixo da média e limitações para aprender, se cuidar ou se comunicar com outras, mas atualmente são muito mais integradas socialmente, autônomas e produtivas, com mais oportunidades para expressar a criatividade do que há algumas décadas. Frequentam escolas regulares, com outras crianças e adultos, participam de competições esportivas e conquistam mais postos de mercado de trabalho. Crianças e adultos com DI não vão mais à Apae de São Paulo para aprender todo dia, mas aparecem algumas vezes por semana para atendimento educacional especializado ou para consultas médicas. O serviço de apoio ao envelhecimento atende 132 pessoas com idade entre 30 e 67 anos.

Ainda há muitas dúvidas sobre como lidar com os novos problemas. Crianças e adultos com deficiência precisam de hábitos e horários para se sentir calmos e confortáveis. Ao mesmo tempo, hábitos imutáveis podem favorecer o surgimento da doença de Alzheimer, doença neurológica que se agrava com o envelhecimento. Vem daí um impasse: manter a rotina inalterada poderia alimentar a propensão ao Alzheimer, mas quebrar a rotina pode ser perturbador.

Propensão ao alzheimer
O cérebro das pessoas com Down pode exibir um dos sinais típicos do Alzheimer: o acúmulo de placas amiloides, que dificultam o funcionamento adequado dos neurônios. Uma equipe da Universidade da Califórnia em Los Angeles, Estados Unidos, encontrou placas amiloides em quantidade mais elevada no cérebro de pessoas com Down do que em pessoas com Alzheimer já diagnosticado e em pessoas normais.

“Os sinais biológicos de Alzheimer podem surgir antes dos sinais clínicos”, observa Orestes Forlenza, professor da Faculdade de Medicina da USP. “Ter amiloide não significa ter demência futura. Qual a melhor intervenção futura? Não sabemos. Talvez via nutrição ou atividade física seja mais seguro do que por medicamentos.” Ira Lott e sua equipe da Universidade da Califórnia em Irvine fizeram um estudo duplo-cego durante dois anos com 53 pessoas com síndrome de Down para ver se a complementação da dieta com compostos antioxidantes poderia melhorar o funcionamento mental ou estabilizar a perda da capacidade cognitiva. Os resultados, publicados em agosto na American Journal of Medical Genetics, indicaram que não.

Esper Cavalheiro apresentou três perguntas ainda sem resposta. De que modo as alterações próprias do envelhecimento, como as doenças cardiovasculares, diabetes e câncer, se apresentam nas pessoas com DI? Como alterações frequentes nessas pessoas, a exemplo de demências e osteoporose, se comportam no envelhecimento? Os medicamentos usados para tratar hipertensão, diabetes e outras doenças típicas do envelhecimento funcionam nas pessoas com DI do mesmo modo que em outros indivíduos?

Outra dúvida: as estratégias de controle dos fatores de risco de doenças cardiovasculares recomendadas para pessoas normais, como o estímulo a atividades físicas, têm o mesmo impacto sobre a saúde das pessoas com e sem deficiência intelectual? “Supomos que sim, mas não sabemos ao certo”, diz Ricardo Nitrini, da USP.

Segundo Cavalheiro, as pessoas com DI com 65 anos ou mais correspondiam a 4% da população total no Censo de 2000; hoje respondem por 5,5% da população total. “Não podemos nos contentar apenas com estatísticas e diagnósticos”, alerta. “Temos de enfrentar esse problema com rapidez. Quanto mais gente dialogando e pensando nesses problemas, melhor.”

Castles in the Desert: Satellites Reveal Lost Cities of Libya (Science Daily)

11/11/2011UncategorizedAntropologia, Arqueologia, História, Mediação tecnológica, Visualidaderenzotaddei

ScienceDaily (Nov. 7, 2011) — Satellite imagery has uncovered new evidence of a lost civilisation of the Sahara in Libya’s south-western desert wastes that will help re-write the history of the country. The fall of Gaddafi has opened the way for archaeologists to explore the country’s pre-Islamic heritage, so long ignored under his regime.

Satellite image of area of desert with archaeological interpretation of features: fortifications are outlined in black, areas of dwellings are in red and oasis gardens are in green. (Credit: Copyright 2011 Google, image copyright 2011 DigitalGlobe)

Using satellites and air-photographs to identify the remains in one of the most inhospitable parts of the desert, a British team has discovered more than 100 fortified farms and villages with castle-like structures and several towns, most dating between AD 1-500.

These “lost cities” were built by a little-known ancient civilisation called the Garamantes, whose lifestyle and culture was far more advanced and historically significant than the ancient sources suggested.

The team from the University of Leicester has identified the mud brick remains of the castle-like complexes, with walls still standing up to four metres high, along with traces of dwellings, cairn cemeteries, associated field systems, wells and sophisticated irrigation systems. Follow-up ground survey earlier this year confirmed the pre-Islamic date and remarkable preservation.

“It is like someone coming to England and suddenly discovering all the medieval castles. These settlements had been unremarked and unrecorded under the Gaddafi regime,” says the project leader David Mattingly FBA, Professor of Roman Archaeology at the University of Leicester.

“Satellite imagery has given us the ability to cover a large region. The evidence suggests that the climate has not changed over the years and we can see that this inhospitable landscape with zero rainfall was once very densely built up and cultivated. These are quite exceptional ancient landscapes, both in terms of the range of features and the quality of preservation,” says Dr Martin Sterry, also of the University of Leicester, who has been responsible for much of the image analysis and site interpretation.

The findings challenge a view dating back to Roman accounts that the Garamantes consisted of barbaric nomads and troublemakers on the edge of the Roman Empire.

“In fact, they were highly civilised, living in large-scale fortified settlements, predominantly as oasis farmers. It was an organised state with towns and villages, a written language and state of the art technologies. The Garamantes were pioneers in establishing oases and opening up Trans-Saharan trade,” Professor Mattingly said.

The professor and his team were forced to evacuate Libya in February when the anti-Gaddafi revolt started, but hope to be able to return to the field as soon as security is fully restored. The Libyan antiquities department, badly under-resourced under Gaddafi, is closely involved in the project. Funding for the research has come from the European Research Council who awarded Professor Mattingly an ERC Advanced Grant of nearly 2.5m euros, the Leverhulme Trust, the Society for Libyan Studies and the GeoEye Foundation.

“It is a new start for Libya’s antiquities service and a chance for the Libyan people to engage with their own long-suppressed history,” says Professor Mattingly.

“These represent the first towns in Libya that weren’t the colonial imposition of Mediterranean people such as the Greeks and Romans. The Garamantes should be central to what Libyan school children learn about their history and heritage.”