A coalition of some rich nations and the world’s most vulnerable have vowed to protect climate science in UN negotiations
Countries give a press briefing to underline the importance of science in the UN climate process at the mid-year talks in Bonn on June 17, 2026. (Photo: Marie Jacquemine/Greenpeace)
Dozens of countries have called out growing “coordinated attacks” by fossil fuel interests aimed at undermining the role of climate science in the UN negotiations at the mid-year talks in Bonn.
Under the banner of ‘Friends of Science’, in an overflowing press conference room lined with negotiators and civil society supporters, diplomats from Fiji, Nepal, the European Union, Switzerland, Sierra Leone and Panama vowed to ensure that decision-making in the UN climate process remains based on the “best available science”. That includes reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN’s climate science body, they said.
While steering clear of singling out any specific country, they said efforts to cast doubt on established scientific concepts, such as the 1.5 global warming limit, are led by “the usual suspects” and those who think “science threatens their economic prospects”.
Saudi Arabia and India have opposed calls in draft texts to encourage scientific work on scenarios that would minimise the magnitude and duration of any overshoot of 1.5C, according to one negotiator in the room and summaries of closed-door discussions published by a reporting service.
UN chief António Guterres conceded last year that a temporary breach of the key warming limit is inevitable, while urging countries to redouble efforts to bring temperatures back down.
‘Polluted narrative’
Scientists have long established that burning fossil fuels is the primary cause of man-made climate change and a rapid shift away from oil, coal and gas is essential to curb global warming.
Saudi Arabia is dependent on oil and gas exports, while India largely relies on coal to power its economic development.
One negotiator said that research on how climate action can be equitable for developing countries, produced by Indian universities, had been published too late to be incorporated into the last IPCC assessment report in 2023. This incident led the Indian government to try and discredit the IPCC, they said. Some Indian scientists have argued that the IPCC’s scenarios are unfair on developing countries.
Saudi Arabia and India have played down the importance of making sure that the latest IPCC assessments – regarded as the gold standard of climate science – are available for the next global stocktake, the UN scorecard of climate action around the world.
“Anyone that is blocking references to science – they are not our friends,” Sivendra Michael, lead negotiator for Fiji, told a press conference, highlighting the rise of a “polluted narrative” both inside and outside the negotiating rooms.
1.5C is a ‘hard limit’
Speaking for the AILAC coalition of Latin American countries, Panama’s Ana Aguilar said they went to Bonn to negotiate positions, not to negotiate the facts laid out by science.
“We see coordinated efforts to cast doubt on the best available science driven by a narrow set of interests, not by the needs of our people,” she added. “We have seen this playbook before… manufacture doubt, delay the response and let the vulnerable people pay this bill.”
Negotiators, researchers and civil society activists attend a press conference on defending science in the UN climate process in Bonn, Germany on June 17, 2026. (Photo: Teo Ormond-Skeaping)
The ‘Friends of Science’ coalition stressed that the 1.5C goal of the Paris Agreement cannot be negotiated, as the survival of the most climate vulnerable communities is at stake if it is permanently breached.
“Science tells us that 1.5C is a hard limit for many countries, including the small island developing states and least developed countries,” said Manjeet Dhakal, a negotiator for Nepal. “We still have a chance to keep 1.5 degrees in reach and minimise the overshoot if we act fast and drastically.”
Long-running IPCC standoff
While diplomats claimed attacks on science are broadening, one long-standing issue of contention is whether the latest assessment reports of the IPCC will be ready in time for the next UN global stocktake due to start this November and end in 2028.
This matters because, as some experts have pointed out, previous IPCC findings played a key role in the first such exercise, which culminated at COP28 in Dubai in the landmark agreement on transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems.
The IPCC, which works with academics worldwide, publishes its comprehensive scientific assessment reports every five to seven years. The process for the last one, AR6, lasted around seven and a half years. The seventh assessment cycle, AR7, began in July 2023, but a political battle over the timing has dragged on for over two years at successive IPCC meetings, with governments repeatedly failing to find a solution.
A large majority of nations have been pushing for an accelerated timeline that would ensure the AR7 reports can be fed into the UN’s global stocktake. But a group of countries, including Saudi Arabia, India, China, Russia and Kenya, have said at previous IPCC meetings they want a longer process, arguing a fast-tracked assessment would put a burden on developing countries with limited resources.
Science and the stocktake
That fight has now bled into the Bonn talks where governments began discussing the arrangements for the next stocktake. At a session earlier this week, most developed countries, Latin American and small island states, and the world’s poorest nations emphasised the assessment of collective climate action must be guided by the “best available science” – code for the findings of the IPCC reports.
The Maldives, speaking for small island states, said IPCC science remains “essential to the integrity, credibility and usefulness” of the stocktake. AILAC said that starting the process “on the right footing” requires a political decision on the timeline to deliver the AR7 reports in time. Switzerland said IPCC reports “ask more than is politically comfortable, but that is precisely why they must guide every decision we make”.
Saudi Arabia, however, said no particular scientific input – and in particular what comes out of the IPCC – should be prioritised. Similarly, India warned against creating “some kind of preferred hierarchy” in the role that any specific source of information should play in the process.
Ghana’s Antwi-Boasiako Amoah, who chairs the African Group, told a press conference on Tuesday that some countries think rushing to get IPCC inputs into the global stocktake could “undermine or compromise the IPCC process”. “Africa is for science,” he said, without saying where the continent stands on the IPCC timeline.
Crunch talks in October
At the “Friends of Science” press conference, Dhakal pushed back on the idea that science would have to be rushed to be incorporated. He said the IPCC leadership has “perfectly made it clear” that they can deliver the report before the global stocktake. “It is the scientists who are saying they can deliver it on time,” he said.
The “Friends of Science” press conference at UN climate talks in Bonn on June 17, 2026. Photo: Marie Jacquemine/Greenpeace)
The discussion will be picked up again at the next IPCC session in October, where its boss Jim Skea is hoping to reach an agreement. “As a scientist myself, I cannot overstate the importance of this decision,” he told governments in Bonn last week.
Andreas Sieber, head of political strategy at campaigning group 350.org, told Climate Home News that the debate may sound procedural, “but it is anything but”. “Science is the backbone of the Paris Agreement ambition cycle, and the evidence assessed through AR7 will help determine not only the emissions pathways countries pursue, but also how the world responds to mounting climate losses and who receives support,” he said in Bonn.
This story was updated after publication to add information on the IPCC assessment cycles and timing of its reports.
Segundo informações obtidas pela Folha, o tema foi debatido em uma reunião da sala de situação contra incêndios (que reúne diversos ministérios) na segunda quinzena de maio, e voltará à pauta no próximo encontro do grupo, previsto para junho.
Brigadistas do Prevfogo combatem o incêndio em uma fazenda na região de Miranda, Mato Grosso do Sul, durante crise de queimadas no pantanal em 2024 – Lalo de Almeida – 4.ago.24/Folhapress
O ano eleitoral de 2026 preocupa. Foi elaborado um mapa identificando regiões onde há maior risco de que um clima político inflamado motive queimadas intencionais para alimentar ataques de opositores ao governo Lula.
Em geral, o plano prevê a participação das forças de segurança para apoio em operações de fiscalização e investigação, da Defesa na logística e dos Transportes no controle de rodovias, dentro outras atribuições.
O Ibama (Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente) e ICMBio (Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade) devem precisar de cerca de R$ 200 milhões em crédito extraordinário, parte para recompor perdas orçamentárias.
A AGU (Advocacia-Geral da União) prepara uma resposta formal a questionamento feito pelo ministro Flávio Dino, do Supremo Tribunal Federal, sobre as ações que o Executivo realiza para conter os efeitos do El Niño.
Durante a reunião ministerial desta quarta-feira (3), a ministra da Casa Civil, Miriam Belchior, ressaltou que o governo entregou R$ 150 milhões do Fundo Amazônia em equipamentos de combate a incêndios para seis estados do pantanal e do cerrado.
“Muito importante, a gente sabe que o El Niño está chegando ameaçadoramente, mas nós estamos nos preparando para enfrentar da melhor maneira os seus efeitos”, afirmou.
As mudanças climáticas agravaram as secas, os incêndios e as tempestades nos últimos anos em todo o planeta.
O mesmo acontece com o El Niño, fenômeno meteorológico que se configura quando as águas superficiais do oceano Pacífico aquecem acima de forma atípica e que se tornou mais constante e intenso nos últimos anos.
Sobre o Brasil, ele traz uma onda de calor que favorece incêndios florestais e causa secas no Norte e no Nordeste, enquanto traz chuvas torrenciais para o Sul —como as registradas na região de Porto Alegre (RS), em 2024.
O cenário impacta diretamente as plantações do agronegócio e impulsiona o desmatamento. O El Niño é um dos motivos pelos quais o país viveu grandes crises de queimadas em 2020 e em 2024.
O Ministério do Meio Ambiente conduz reuniões periódicas com meteorologistas de diversos órgãos —como Agência Nacional de Águas, Cemaden, UFRJ, Ibama, dentre outros— para monitorar a situação.
O panorama até aqui é descrito como um sinal amarelo: a chance de acontecer um El Niño forte ou pior é de cerca de 70%, mas as previsões atuais apresentam uma taxa de incerteza de 50% e um cenário mais preciso só será previsível em julho, quando o sinal vermelho pode ser ligado definitivamente.
Por enquanto, o governo federal adota ações preventivas, como queimas prescritas, um fogo controlado para eliminar matéria orgânica que poderia virar combustível para um incêndio maior.
Esse tipo de estratégia começou a ser aplicada em 2025 e, conforme o Ministério do Meio Ambiente, resultou em uma “queda de 39% na área queimada no território nacional” naquele ano “na comparação à média dos oito anos anteriores”.
Parte importante da estratégia é a integração com estados —os bombeiros são os responsáveis pela resposta ao fogo em propriedades privadas, que é onde começam a maioria dos incêndios. Desde 2024, o governo federal cria acordos de cooperação com entes federativos, e um plano conjunto para pantanal, cerrado e amazônia é esperado ainda para este ano.
O Executivo também elabora uma nova parceria com as Polícias Militares ambientais, contingente de cerca de 8.000 agentes para atuar com policiamento ostensivo em áreas de maior risco de incêndio —o que não aconteceu em anos anteriores.
Neste ano Ibama já aplicou 574 notificações prévias. Esse instrumento permite que, caso a propriedade registre um incêndio no futuro, o seu dono seja responsabilizado, caso não tenha adotado as medidas preventivas, como formação de brigadas de incêndio.
Na última reunião da sala de situação, em maio, foram apresentadas as ações que o governo federal precisa adotar caso as previsões mais pessimistas acerca do El Niño se confirmem, e agora cada pasta irá avaliar o que já é capaz de concretizar e o que demandará novos esforços —e recursos.
A disputa eleitoral é um fator de atenção. Dentre as regiões de mais risco de incêndios por motivação política, o Pará é o principal.
Em agosto 2019, por exemplo, fazendeiros do estado realizaram o que ficou conhecido como o “dia do fogo”, ação coordenada de queimadas com intuito de demonstrar apoio às políticas antiambientais do então governo de Jair Bolsonaro (PL).
Pelo mapeamento do governo, o Pará registra os três municípios avaliados como de maior risco para este ano: Altamira, Novo Progresso e São Félix do Xingu, cidades com forte incidência de desmatamento ilegal associado a grilagem e à criação de gado, e também com tendência bolsonarista.
Outras 18 cidades foram avaliadas como um risco intermediário: quatro no Pará, seis no Amazonas, cinco no Mato Grosso e três no Tocantins. Mais cerca de cem municípios pelo país são preocupantes em um menor nível, o que inclui regiões no Norte, Nordeste, Centro-Oeste e Sudeste.
O objetivo do governo federal é que a Polícia Federal atue com foco nestes locais, registre flagrantes, investigue e responsabilize possíveis culpados.
Até aqui, o governo já mobilizou 4.410 brigadistas no país, divididos em mais de 200 equipes do Ibama e do ICMBio, um recorde.
Pelo plano, a Força Nacional precisará destacar mais de 200 agentes para compor brigadas e atuar na segurança em operações de fiscalização, junto com outros órgãos.
O governo avalia disponibilizar aeronaves do Ministério da Defesa para auxiliar nas ações, o que deve demandar contratação de horas-voo extras, e uma cooperação com a Bolívia para ações na fronteira, por meio da pasta de Relações Exteriores.
O Executivo também planeja campanhas de conscientização de produtores rurais e da população, de preparação de brigadistas e limpeza de estradas.
As São Paulo faces a climate-induced water crisis, campaigners are fighting to reverse the impact of pollution and illegal deforestation on its largest reservoir
By Sam Cowie and Avener Prado in São Paulo
Thu 4 Jun 2026 14.15 BSTShare
In a small motorboat laden with water-monitoring equipment, biologist Marta Marcondes and community activist Wesley Silvestre Rosa cross Billings reservoir on the far southern edge of São Paulo. Bright white herons glide over the water, which is flanked by thick dark green clusters of Brazil’s Atlantic forest, as the boat heads towards one of the more polluted parts of the reservoir.
“We see where sewage is entering, we see what has been deforested and how that has affected the water quality of the reservoir,” Marcondes says.
Marcondes and Rosa are dedicated to the upkeep of Billings, which at 127 sq km (49 sq miles) is Brazil’s largest urban reservoir by surface area and volume and a vital water source for the almost 22 million people who live in São Paulo’s metropolitan area. It also generates energy via a hydroelectric dam and plays a crucial role in flood control and irrigation; it provides a cooling effect during periods of extreme heat and people use its cleaner parts for recreation and fishing.
Biologist Marta Marcondes collects water samples from the reservoir to monitor contamination levels. Photograph: Avener Prado/The Guardian
Despite its importance, large areas of Billings are polluted: contaminated with household and industrial waste, pharmaceutical residues, microplastics and fecal matter. Urban planners blame neglect by local authorities, flawed water management policies and uncontrolled urban expansion.
This problem has been dragging on for decades. If we don’t do something now, we risk having a collapsed system
Marta Marcondes
As the boat reaches a heavily polluted part of Billings called Grota Funda, Marcondes observes bubbles rising from the water, which she identifies as fermenting bacteria. Donning rubber gloves, she lowers a metallic collection device into the water, empties its dark contents into a bucket before taking a sample in a plastic tube.
“Good lord, what a smell,” she says. “You could die if you drank this.”
Marcondes, who analyses water samples at the lab she runs at the nearby Municipal University of São Caetano do Sul, is also the project coordinator for the local NGO Water Pollutant Index. She notes that water quality and the reservoir’s storage capacity have deteriorated over the past 10 years.
A green algal bloom – typically associated with excess nutrients from sewage and urban runoff – spreads across the surface of the reservoir. Photograph: Avener Prado/The Guardian
“This problem has been dragging on for decades, and if we don’t do something about it now, we risk having a collapsed system,” she says.
In January, residents blamed São Paulo’s water utility, Sabesp, for dumping waste into the reservoir and the company was later fined by environmental authorities. Sabesp says: “The recorded incident was caused by the irregular entry of rainwater into the sewage network and the carrying of garbage, a situation intensified by the rains, which caused a hydraulic overload of the system.”
As the boat heads toward the Pedreira pumping station, which connects Billings to the Pinheiros River, the water thickens and turns green. Billings, which marked its 100th anniversary last year, was built to power the growing industrial base of São Paulo, South America’s richest city, via the Henry Borden hydroelectric plant that captures energy from water cascading over the Serra do Mar mountain range. Nabil Bonduki,a city council member with the Workers’ party and veteran urban planner, says the redirection of polluted water from the Pinheiros and Tietê rivers to supply the plant has turned Billings into an environmental sacrifice zone.
Environmental activist Wesley Silvestre Rosa documents construction debris left inside Parque dos Búfalos, near the Billings reservoir. Photograph: Avener Prado/The Guardian
Roughly 1.5 million people live around Billings, many in favelas or other irregular housing, up from 110,000 in 1970, after which rural migrants increasingly flocked to Brazil’s capitals in search of industrial jobs. But the pollution contributes to health problems.
“According to the São Paulo city climate plan, our region is one of the most susceptible places to climate change in the city,” says Rosa, who lives in Jardim Apurá, a densely populated, lower-income neighbourhood on the edge of the reservoir.
In 2018, authorities completed construction of Residencial Espanha, a development of nearly 4,000 public housing units for lower-income families in Jardim Apurá, but access to housing remains a critical issue in the region.
Wanderley da Silva, 46, lives in the Favela da Fumaça on the edge of Billings. His makeshift wooden home, which has a corrugated plastic roof, floods up to his knees during heavy rains. “All of a sudden it’s really hot, and then it pours down,” he says. “Everyone knows why, after humankind destroys nature, then comes the payback.”
Wanderley da Silva with his son in their home in Favela da Fumaça. During heavy rains the house on the edge of the Billings reservoir floods. Photograph: Avener Prado/The Guardian
Bonduki says Billings serves as a stark warning of what São Paulo’s other reservoirs could become, especially Guarapiranga, in the southern zone.
“Billings is deeply compromised, but it is not a lost battle,” he says.
Bonduki blames insufficient inspections from local authorities for the reservoir’s continued degradation. “It’s a political issue. It’s about having a public authority that wants to do something. These days, we have satellites that can detect deforestation in real time.”
Illegal deforestation along the reservoir’s banks, mostly to clear land for clandestine construction, increases sediment levels in the reservoir and reduces its water storage and flood-control capacity, Marcondes says.
Livestock farming persists in parts of the environmentally protected watershed, raising concerns about erosion, runoff and water contamination. Photograph: Avener Prado/The Guardian
Almost all of Billings’ 700km (435 miles) of shoreline is technically protected under local environmental laws. Yet with a booming demand for real estate in São Paulo, powerful local actors seek to circumvent these rules for profit. Advertisements offering plots of land and properties for sale proliferate in the region and across online social media groups.
In a statement, São Paulo’s public prosecutor’s office for housing and urban planning blamed “the emergence and growth of illegal land subdivisions in the water catchment area of the southern region of the municipality of São Paulo”, and mentioned a civil inquiry “aimed at investigating the structure, planning, and possible deficiencies of state and municipal bodies”.
A stream runs through Favela da Fumaça before flowing into the Billings reservoir. The community lies within the protected watershed area. Photograph: Avener Prado/The Guardian
State legislation specifically prohibits heavy construction and dense urbanisation around the Billings reservoir. Yet using a drone from one of its polluted shorelines, it is possible to observe pockets of construction in cleared patches of Atlantic forest.
The structures are solid and professionally built, unlike the precarious dwellings of the Favela da Fumaça. Bonduki refers to them as “clandestine allotments”, speculative constructions often illegally built for future profits.
The Guardian spoke to sources, who asked not to be named, who cited collusion between local land barons, dominant political networks in the region and organised crime groups, enabled by corrupt lawyers and inspectors.
An abandoned car near Favela da Fumaça. The neighbourhood experiences flooding and has limited access to infrastructure. Photograph: Avener Prado/The Guardian
In a statement, São Paulo city hall acknowledged environmental crimes had happened around the reservoir, such as “deforestation of native vegetation”, “the disposal of solid waste, mainly construction waste and human waste” and “the clandestine sale of land plots, non-compliance with embargos and the illegal subdivision of land”.
It says that “in partnership with the state government, [it] operates an integrated water defence operation (OIDA) focused on protecting water sources such as Billings and Guarapiranga”. These operations “focus on inspection, fines, and seizures of materials and machinery, as well as the dismantling of unfinished or uninhabited constructions, based on court orders”. In 2026, the note concludes, about 20 operations have already been carried out.
A sign advertises land for sale on Estrada do Alvarenga, Pedreira, near Billings reservoir. Photograph: Avener Prado/The Guardian
The challenges facing Billings reservoir are becoming more urgent as São Paulo experiences mounting water shortages due to the climate crisis. In 2015, the Billings reservoir became part of São Paulo’s drought response, as authorities used it to help supply the city during the worst water crisis in its history. As a new crisis approaches, with climate-induced drought already depleting the city’s reservoirs ahead of the dry season, the NGO Institute of Water and Sanitation has warned that without planning, resilience is impossible.
Now, Billings is set to play a larger role during times of scarcity, with a new infrastructure project by Sabesp. In periods of crisis, clean water will be drawn from it to help supply the city.
To protect remaining green space around the reservoir, local people campaigned to create Buffalo Park, a home to 101 species of wildlife where local people can plant seeds. Matthew Richmond, a lecturer in political geographyat Newcastle University and Alameda Institute affiliate says: “Environmental activists on São Paulo’s peripheries are fighting to salvage the green spaces that survived, in the face of continued state neglect and unmet housing demand, which drives new land occupations.”
Rosa says local people have been blamed unfairly. “We suffer from environmental racism,” he says. “They blame us for the pollution, but we, the poor, black and peripheral people, keep our green spaces clean and alive.”
People walk through Parque dos Búfalos in Jardim Apurá, which lies within a protected watershed zone of the reservoir. Photograph: Avener Prado/The Guardian
The U.S. was among eight countries that voted against endorsing the nonbinding ruling that said all nations must take steps to limit temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
Vanuatu’s Climate Change Minister Ralph Regenvanu attends an International Court of Justice session on July 23, 2025, in The Hague, Netherlands. Credit: John Thys/AFP via Getty Images
The United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday voted overwhelmingly in favor of a climate justice resolution championed by the small Pacific Island nation of Vanuatu. The resolution welcomes the historic advisory opinion on climate change issued by the International Court of Justice in July 2025 and calls upon U.N. member states to act upon the court’s unanimous guidance, which clarified that addressing the climate crisis is not optional but rather is a legal duty under multiple sources of international law.
“Last year, the International Court of Justice ruled that countries have a legal duty to protect the climate, and today the world has not only reaffirmed that ruling, but committed to making it a reality. This must be a turning point in accountability for damaging the climate,” Vishal Prasad, director of Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change—the group that initiated the campaign to request a climate change advisory opinion from the ICJ—said in a statement.
While nonbinding, the court’s opinion is widely viewed as an authoritative interpretation of existing law. Legal experts say it could be used as persuasive authority in domestic climate litigation and in diplomatic arenas like the annual U.N. climate summits.
In its opinion, the ICJ—the principal judicial body of the United Nations—affirmed that limiting long-term global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius remains the primary goal for global climate action. It clarified that customary legal obligations apply to all countries regardless of whether they are parties to the U.N. climate treaties, and that protection of the environment is a precondition for the enjoyment of human rights.
The court also said the countries have a duty to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, including by regulating private actors, and it suggested that continued boosting of fossil fuels could be considered an internationally wrongful act.
The resolution adopted by the General Assembly on Wednesday seeks to operationalize the court’s opinion. It calls upon countries to comply with their international obligations as clarified by the court. It also urges countries to implement measures to achieve the 1.5-degree objective, including by transitioning away from fossil fuels. And it requests that the U.N. Secretary-General issue a report exploring ways to advance compliance.
When the vote finally came, following some procedural wrangling over proposed amendments, it passed by a resounding majority with 141 member states voting in support, and 28 abstaining.
Only eight countries, Belarus, Iran, Israel, Liberia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, the United States and Yemen, voted against the resolution.
Prior to the vote, the U.S. delivered an oral statement strongly opposing the proposal and urging all countries to vote against it. “The United States continues to have serious legal and policy concerns about this resolution,” Tammy Bruce, deputy representative of the United States to the United Nations, said on the assembly floor. She called it “highly problematic” in directing states to comply with “so-called obligations,” including the duty to prevent transboundary harm to the global climate, which she said was “legally wrong.”
“The resolution includes inappropriate political demands relating to fossil fuels and on other climate topics,” Bruce added. She further argued that it makes “alarmist political statements such as the idea that climate change is an unprecedented challenge of civilizational proportions.”
In a speech before the General Assembly in September 2025, President Donald Trump called climate change the “greatest con job” in history and described renewable energy and other measures to reduce carbon emissions as a “green scam,” urging member nations to reject climate measures and consume American oil and gas.
The court itself stated in its opinion, aligning with warnings from top climate and Earth system scientists, that climate change is an “existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet.”
In the months leading up to the vote on the resolution, the U.S. had reportedly tried pressuring other countries to oppose it and demand that Vanuatu withdraw it altogether. Vanuatu did not drop the resolution, but it did make some compromises on the text, such as eliminating a call to establish a global registry to track climate-related loss and damage.
In the end, though, the resolution endorsing the court’s opinion passed by a considerable margin, without any last-minute amendments that climate justice advocates say would have weakened the text even further. Advocates celebrated the milestone.
“Today’s vote marks an important step in advancing climate justice,” said Camile Cortez, senior campaigner on climate justice at Amnesty International. “This resolution brings renewed momentum towards ensuring accountability for climate-driven human rights harms and protecting present and future generations.”
Joie Chowdhury, senior attorney and climate justice and accountability manager at the Center for International Environmental Law, said the resolution’s power comes from the “strong majority” of countries voting yes. “It sends a clear signal in very troubled times that governments remain committed to the rule of law, and to collective action to protect the climate,” Chowdhury told Inside Climate News. “And it’s a victory for constructive multilateralism and cooperation.”
“It demonstrates the collective refusal by the global majority to let a handful of holdouts block the path to climate justice,” Chowdhury added. “And crucially, it helps ensure that the ICJ’s advisory opinion is not a one-off breakthrough, but is a lasting compass for advancing ambition and equity.”
Among a flurry of posts on social media last weekend, US president Donald Trump declared “good riddance” to a specific emissions scenario used in global climate projections.
The “RCP8.5” scenario, which envisages a future of very high carbon emissions, was “wrong, wrong, wrong”, the president wrote in block capitals.
The post was quickly picked up by right-leaning media, amplifying Trump’s misrepresentation of emissions scenarios and the role of the IPCC.
His claim follows the publication of a new set of emissions scenarios that will feed into the next IPCC reports.
While the new scenarios no longer include such high emissions as in RCP8.5, they also show it is “not possible” to limit global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels without significant “overshoot”, one of the authors tells Carbon Brief.
Moreover, projections suggest that the world is still on course for between 2.5C and 3C of warming, another author says.
This level of warming was previously described as “catastrophic” by the UN.
In this factcheck, Carbon Brief looks at Trump’s comments, the debate around RCP8.5 and the “good” and “bad” news within the latest scenarios.
In the late evening of Saturday 16 May, Trump posted the following message on his Truth Social social-media platform:
“Dumocrats” is a derogatory nickname for Democrat politicians, debuted by the president in a televised Fox News interview on Thursday 14 May, according to the Independent.
By “top climate committee”, the president was presumably referring to the IPCC, the UN body responsible for assessing science about human-caused climate change.
However, the IPCC does not develop, control or own climate scenarios. Moreover, it has not published anything stating that any climate scenario is “wrong”. (For more, see: How is the IPCC involved?)
Nevertheless, right-leaning media outlets have reported on Trump’s comments, in many instances repeating his false assertion that the RCP8.5 climate scenario had been developed by the IPCC.
The New York Post misleadingly claimed that the IPCC “had quietly adjusted” its framework of emission scenarios. The Daily Caller, a pro-Trump conspiratorial US outlet, adds its own falsehoods stating that “IPCC researchers revised their modelling approach last month, swapping the extreme pathway for seven alternative scenarios”. The climate-sceptic Australian claimed that scientists had “quietly scrapped the apocalyptic forecasts that have terrified policymakers and the public”.
With Fox News also covering Trump’s comments, along with an earlier article by the Times, much of the reporting around RCP8.5 in recent days has been driven by media controlled by the climate-sceptic mogul Rupert Murdoch.
It is not the first time the Trump administration has attacked RCP8.5. In an executive order issued in May 2025 – entitled, “Restoring gold-standard science” – the White House included the climate scenario in a list of examples of how the previous government had “used or promoted scientific information in a highly misleading manner”.
Excerpt from White House executive order, issued in May 2025.
Federal agencies, it claimed, had been using RCP8.5 to “assess the potential effects of climate change in a higher warming scenario”, despite scientists warning that “presenting RCP8.5 as a likely outcome is misleading”.
The executive order came after Project 2025 – a policy wishlist for Trump’s second term published in 2023 by the Heritage Foundation, an influential rightwing, climate-sceptic thinktank in the US – criticised the climate scenario.
The manifesto said a “day-one” priority for the new government should be to “eliminate” the US Environmental Protection Agency’s “use of unauthorised regulatory inputs”, such as “unrealistic climate scenarios, including those based on RCP8.5”.
What is RCP8.5?
Scientists use emissions scenarios to explore potential future climates, based on how global energy and land use could change in the decades to come.
These scenarios are not predictions or forecasts of what will happen in the future. Therefore, Trump’s declaration that projections under RCP8.5 were “wrong, wrong, wrong” misrepresents the purpose of emissions scenarios.
Different modelling groups have produced thousands of different scenarios over the years. RCP8.5 was developed by scientists back in the early 2010s as one of a set of four consistent “representative concentration pathways”, or RCPs, for climate modellers to use.
As their name suggests, the RCPs were representative of the vast array of scenarios in the scientific literature.
Their corresponding numbers – 2.6, 4.5, 6.0 and 8.5 – do not describe temperature rise (as some mistakenly assume), but the level of “radiative forcing” that each pathway reaches by 2100. This forcing level is a measure of the change in the Earth’s “energy balance” (in watts per square metre) caused by human-caused greenhouse gas emissions.
As the highest forcing of the set, RCP8.5 was a scenario of very high emissions and extensive global warming.
When it was originally published in 2011, RCP8.5 was intended to reflect the high end – roughly the 90th percentile – of the baseline scenarios available in the scientific literature at the time.
“RCP8.5 was developed as a no-climate-policy scenario, often called ‘reference’ or ‘baseline’ scenarios. These are used to benchmark the actions of climate policy.”
Under RCP8.5, the IPCC’s fifth assessment report (AR5) in 2013 projected a best estimate of 4.3C of temperature rise by 2081-2100, compared to the pre-industrial period, with a “likely” range of 3.2C to 5.4C.
The RCPs were succeeded in 2017 by the “shared socioeconomic pathways”, or SSPs. The SSPs included a set of five socioeconomic “narratives”, which described factors such as population change, economic growth and the rate of technological development.
The SSPs were then used in the IPCC’s sixth assessment (AR6) cycle, which ran over 2015-23. The upper end of the AR6 temperature projections was provided by the successor to RCP8.5, known as SSP5-8.5, which indicated warming of 4.4C by 2081-2100, with a “very likely” range of 3.3C to 5.7C.
Why is RCP8.5 so hotly debated?
Prof Detlef van Vuuren from Utrecht University, a leading figure in the development of emissions scenarios for many years, tells Carbon Brief that RCP8.5 is a “low-probability, high-risk scenario and it was always meant like that”.
The scenario assumed a world without climate policy and was designed to explore the consequences of high levels of greenhouse gases and global warming. It was not, van Vueren says, a “best-guess scenario” of what the future held in store.
However, in some research papers, RCP8.5 was characterised as “business as usual”, suggesting that it was the likely outcome if society did not pursue climate action.
This was “incorrect”, says van Vuuren, noting that RCP8.5 “is not a likely outcome”. He adds: “It’s never been a likely outcome.”
Over time, RCP8.5 became hotly debated in academic circles, with some scientists arguing that such high emissions were becoming increasingly unlikely and others claiming that RCP8.5 was still consistent with historical cumulative carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.
Carbon Brief unpacked the arguments in this debate in a detailed explainer in 2019.
The charts below, originally included in a 2012 Nature commentary and then updated each year by the authors, shows how projected CO2 emissions under RCP8.5 (red line) compares with the other RCPs (bold coloured lines) and observations (black line).
The left-hand chart shows total CO2 emissions, including land-use change, while the right-hand chart shows CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels and producing cement – the dominant drivers of 21st century emissions.
Global total CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and land use (left) and global fossil CO2 emissions (left) for historical observations (black lines) and the four RCP (coloured bold lines) for 1980-2050. Originally produced as part of Peters et al. (2012) and since updated by Glen Peters and Robbie Andrew.
While emission trends up to the early 2010s approximately tracked RCP8.5, a flattening of emissions growth in the years since has meant they have not kept pace with the sustained rises that were assumed in the scenario.
Over the past decade, global emissions have more closely tracked RCP4.5, one of the two “medium stabilisation scenarios” of the original four RCPs.
The debate around RCP8.5 has not just focused on current emissions, but also on the scenario’s underlying assumptions for the future.
When it was published in 2011, the world had just seen unprecedented growth in global CO2 emissions, which had increased by 30% over the previous decade. Global coal use had increased by nearly 50% over the same period. Cleaner alternatives remained expensive in most countries and the idea of continued rapid growth in coal use seemed realistic.
Critics of RCP8.5 point to its assumptions for a dramatic expansion of coal use in the future, as well as high growth in global population.
For example, in a 2017 paper, two scientists argued that the “return to coal” envisaged in RCP8.5 would require an unprecedented five-fold increase in global coal use by the end of the century. Such an outcome was “exceptionally unlikely”, the authors wrote.
However, others have argued that while high-emissions scenarios are becoming increasingly unlikely, they still have an important role to play. For example, they highlight risks that only emerge under higher levels of warming.
In addition, research has shown that feedbacks in the climate system – where warming triggers the release of more CO2 and methane, which warms the planet further – could mean that human-caused emissions lead to a higher radiative forcing and have a greater climate impact than initially assumed.
How has RCP8.5 been replaced?
As the IPCC heads into its seventh assessment cycle (AR7), scientists have been developing the emissions scenarios and climate model projections that will – eventually – feed into its reports.
For the emissions scenarios, that process – known as ScenarioMIP – started back in 2023 at a meeting in Reading, UK. This involved scientists representing “different climate research communities”, explains van Vuuren.
This “brainstorming” session devised the outlines for the new scenarios, he says. After more meetings, these were subsequently developed into a proposal that was – after review – translated into a journal paper. After review from scientists and the public, the final paper was published in April.
The paper sets out seven all-new emissions scenarios, replacing the SSPs (and its predecessors, the RCPs). For simplicity, the new scenarios are named according to their levels of greenhouse gas emissions.
The figures below show the emissions (left) and the estimated global temperature changes (right) under the proposed scenarios, from the “low-to-negative” emissions scenario (turquoise) up to a “high-emissions” scenario (brown).
The greenhouse gas emissions for each of the CMIP7 climate scenarios (left) and the associated estimated average temperature change over 2000-2150 from a 1850-1900 baseline (right) using the FaIR emulator. Source: Adapted from Van Vuuren et al. (2026)
(It should be noted that, while the ScenarioMIP paper has been published, there remains an embargo on using the scenario data produced by integrated assessment models – often referred to as IAMs – to publish academic papers, analysis or even social media posts until 1 September this year. Carbon Brief will publish a detailed explainer on the new scenarios once the embargo lifts.)
When compared to the SSPs that came before, the range in future emissions in the new scenarios “will be smaller”, the authors say in the paper:
“On the high-end of the range, the…high emission levels (quantified by SSP5-8.5) have become implausible, based on trends in the costs of renewables, the emergence of climate policy and recent emission trends…At the low end, many…emission trajectories have become inconsistent with observed trends during the 2020-30 period.”
In other words, the combination of technological progress and action on climate change that, to date, remains insufficient, means that scenarios of very high or very low emissions are now not considered plausible.
Another way of looking at it is that the “range of potential futures has narrowed”, explains Smith, one of the authors on the paper.
If you “draw a fan or plume of potential future emissions that start in 2025”, it lies entirely within the spread of scenarios from a decade ago, he says:
“So you’ve ruled out futures at the high end. You’ve also ruled out futures at the low end – so it’s now not possible to limit warming to 1.5C, at least in the short term or the medium term.”
This is a mix of “good” and “bad” news, Smith adds.
“In the latest set of scenarios, the lowest [scenario sees] peaking at about 1.7C, so we’ve also lost that low end, but the good news is we’ve lost the high end…Back in 2010, RCP8.5 wasn’t an implausible future, we’ve now made it an implausible future, because we’ve actually bent the curve [on emissions] enough to eliminate that possibility.”
The new “high” scenario projects warming in 2100 of closer to 3.2C (with a range of 2.5C to 4.3C).
To be clear, this “high” scenario would still come with catastrophic climate impacts, even if the level of warming would remain slightly below what was set out in RCP8.5.
Van Vuuren adds that the world is “now on a trajectory to 2.5-3C of warming”. As a result, “we don’t have any scenario anymore that can reach 1.5C with limited overshoot – we will have a significant overshoot”.
How is the IPCC involved?
Contrary to Trump’s claims, the common set of future emissions scenarios used by climate scientists are not developed by the IPCC, the UN climate-science body that produces landmark reports about climate change.
Instead, the development process described above is driven by a group of Earth system modelling experts convened by the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP).
CMIP – an initiative of another UN body, the World Climate Research Programme – coordinates the work of dozens of climate modelling centres around the world.
Working in six-to-eight year cycles, CMIP asks modelling centres around the world to run a common set of climate-model experiments – simulations that use the same inputs and conditions – that allows for results to be collected together and more easily compared.
For experiments that explore how the climate might change in the future, modelling centres are instructed to run simulations against a fixed set of future climate scenarios, each with different levels of concentrations of greenhouse gases, aerosols and other drivers of climate change.
These future emissions scenarios are revisited each time CMIP embarks on a new “phase” of climate-modelling coordination, to reflect advances in scientific understanding and the pace of real-world climate action.
The group tasked with producing the design of future scenarios, as well as the “input files” for climate models, is the “scenario model intercomparison project”, or ScenarioMIP.
CMIP aligns its work with the schedule of the IPCC, coordinating a new set of model runs for each IPCC assessment cycle.
For example, the IPCC’s AR5 in 2013 featured climate models from the fifth phase of CMIP (CMIP5), whereas AR6 in 2021 used climate models from CMIP’s sixth phase (CMIP6).
AR7 will feature models from CMIP’s ongoing seventh phase (CMIP7). The first results from CMIP7 model runs are expected later this year.
The IPCC is consulted during the CMIP process, van Vuuren tells Carbon Brief, but its input is “no different from any other review comment” that the ScenarioMIP team received.
Thus, while the IPCC relies on model runs coordinated by CMIP in its landmark reports, it does not play a role in designing future emissions scenarios, nor in deciding when they should be retired.
Dr Robert Vautard, co-chair of IPCC AR7 Working Group I, tells Carbon Brief that the IPCC does not “do or coordinate research”. Its role, he says, is to “synthesise existing knowledge” and produce “regular” reviews of climate-science literature.
He adds that ScenarioMIP is just one set of scenarios the climate-science body assesses in its reports:
“IPCC assesses all scenarios, or sets of scenarios, that the scientific community produces. IPCC does not produce scenarios. CMIP7 will be [one] set of scenarios assessed by IPCC [for AR7] – but there will be many others.”
O cientista sueco Johan Rockström, diretor do Instituto Potsdam para Pesquisa de Impacto Climático (PIK), é reconhecido mundialmente por ter desenvolvido a estrutura dos limites planetários
Por Naiara Bertão
Um Só Planeta — São Paulo
28/08/2025
cientista sueco Johan Rockström, diretor do Instituto Potsdam para Pesquisa de Impacto Climático (PIK), — Foto: Naiara Bertão / Um Só Planeta
O cientista sueco Johan Rockström, diretor do Instituto Potsdam para Pesquisa de Impacto Climático (PIK), voltou a chamar atenção para os riscos que a humanidade corre ao avançar sobre os limites ambientais que garantem a estabilidade da Terra. Reconhecido mundialmente por ter desenvolvido a estrutura dos limites planetários em 2009, Rockström afirmou que já estamos numa situação perigosa, em que a própria sobrevivência de sociedades humanas complexas está em jogo.
O cientista participou nesta terça-feira (26) do encontro Futuro Vivo, evento organizado pela empresa de telecomunicações Vivo com o objetivo de ser um espaço de debate sobre os limites da tecnologia e de como desenvolver soluções sustentáveis para o meio ambiente.
Os limites planetários mostram exatamente os espaços seguros para um planeta estável — Foto: Divulgação/Netflix
Na palestra, ele retomou o conceito dos nove limites planetários que regulam o funcionamento da Terra para alertar a todos sobre os riscos que a humanidade corre ao ultrapassar os limites ambientais que garantem a estabilidade do planeta.
“Estamos começando a atingir o teto dos processos biofísicos que regulam a resiliência, a estabilidade e a habitabilidade da Terra”, disse em sua palestra.
“Seja em São Paulo, em Estocolmo ou em Pequim, o que acontece em diferentes partes do planeta interage e influencia a estabilidade de todo o sistema climático, da hidrologia e do suporte à vida na Terra. É por isso que precisamos definir um espaço operacional seguro para o desenvolvimento humano no planeta.”
A teoria dos limites planetários definiu estes princípios: clima, biodiversidade, uso da terra, ciclos de nitrogênio e fósforo, recursos hídricos, oceanos, poluição do ar, camada de ozônio e poluentes químicos. “O grande avanço científico não foi apenas identificá-los, mas quantificá-los”, explicou.
Segundo o cientista, a noção de que era possível explorar recursos sem limites ficou no passado. “Há 50 anos, não precisávamos disso. Hoje, ocupamos o planeta inteiro e não há mais espaço para sermos insustentáveis.”
Logo no início de sua palestra, Rockström lembrou que o planeta atravessou, nos últimos 10 mil anos, o período mais estável de sua história recente: o Holoceno. Foi nessa era que surgiram a agricultura e as civilizações humanas, sustentadas por condições climáticas e ecológicas favoráveis. “O Holoceno é o único estado do planeta que sabemos com certeza ser capaz de sustentar nossa vida. É o que eu chamo de Jardim do Éden”, afirmou.
Seca histórica ameaça valiosas colheitas na Califórnia, maior produtora de amêndoas no mundo — Foto: Justin Sullivan / Getty Images
Contudo, essa estabilidade está sendo rompida com a ascensão do Antropoceno, a era em que o ser humano é a principal força de mudança no planeta. “O sistema econômico global está no banco do motorista, superando os impactos de erupções vulcânicas, variações solares e terremotos. Essas forças naturais ainda existem, mas nós as dominamos e até as sobrepujamos.”
Para Rockström, a pressão sobre os sistemas naturais pode levar a mudanças abruptas e irreversíveis.
“O planeta é um sistema complexo e auto-adaptativo, que tem pontos de inflexão. Se empurrarmos demais, a Amazônia, a Groenlândia ou os recifes de coral podem colapsar e passar para estados que deixarão de nos sustentar. Esses pontos de virada não apenas reduzem a resiliência dos ecossistemas, mas também ameaçam diretamente economias e sociedades.”
Para o cientista, os dados não deixam dúvidas. “Estamos em uma situação perigosa. Estamos ameaçando a saúde de todo o planeta.” Ele explica que foram definidas zonas seguras, zonas de incerteza e zonas de alto risco na metodologia dos limites planetários.
“O problema é que, em 2023, já mostramos que seis desses nove limites estão sendo ultrapassados — clima, biodiversidade, mudanças no uso da terra, consumo de água doce, excesso de nitrogênio e fósforo, e a enorme carga de substâncias químicas no sistema terrestre.”
Sobrevoo do Greenpeace mostra a expansão do garimpo na terra Yanomami em 2021 — Foto: Christian Braga/Greenpeace
Essa constatação tem relação direta com o debate sobre políticas públicas no Brasil e no mundo. A Amazônia, por exemplo, é um dos sistemas mais próximos de um ponto de inflexão — quando mudanças irreversíveis podem ser desencadeadas. “O planeta é um sistema complexo e auto-adaptativo, que tem pontos de inflexão. Se empurrarmos demais, a Amazônia, a Groenlândia ou os recifes de coral podem colapsar e passar para estados que deixarão de nos sustentar”, alertou.
Apesar do alerta, o cientista vê na pesquisa uma ferramenta de esperança. Desde 2009, a metodologia dos limites planetários foi refinada e hoje já permite oferecer parâmetros para políticas públicas e decisões empresariais. “Hoje conseguimos oferecer à humanidade um mapa de navegação do Antropoceno. Definimos as fronteiras seguras para o futuro da vida na Terra. Isso nos dá a possibilidade de sermos responsáveis em escala planetária”, disse.
Para Rockström, reconhecer esses limites não é apenas uma questão científica, mas de sobrevivência. “Estamos ameaçando a saúde de todo o planeta. Esse é o diagnóstico da ciência, e ele deve servir como base para qualquer estratégia de desenvolvimento daqui para frente.”
A boa notícia, diz, é que já temos as soluções e já sabemos o que deve ser feito. Seguir o Acordo de Paris e buscar frear o aquecimento do planeta em 1,5ºC é primordial e, segundo ele, é possível. Mas o ritmo de mudanças precisa acelerar urgentemente.
Papel da política internacional e da COP30
A fala de Rockström chega em um momento estratégico: o Brasil se prepara para sediar a COP30, em Belém (PA) em novembro. A conferência deve ser marcada pelo foco em florestas tropicais e na transição justa para países em desenvolvimento. O conceito dos limites planetários, cada vez mais adotado por governos e empresas, oferece um “mapa de navegação” para esse processo.
“Hoje conseguimos oferecer à humanidade um mapa de navegação do Antropoceno. Definimos as fronteiras seguras para o futuro da vida na Terra. Isso nos dá a possibilidade de sermos responsáveis em escala planetária”, disse.
Para especialistas, integrar esse tipo de ciência ao processo político será crucial para que a COP30 avance em compromissos concretos — especialmente em temas como desmatamento zero, proteção da biodiversidade e financiamento climático.
“Estamos ameaçando a saúde de todo o planeta. Esse é o diagnóstico da ciência, e ele deve servir como base para qualquer estratégia de desenvolvimento daqui para frente”, concluiu Rockström.
Dados dos Centros de Controle e Prevenção de Doenças mostram que o calor extremo é o fenômeno climático mais mortal dos EUA. — Foto: NASA
No dia 28 de junho de 2021, a americana Julie Leon, de 65 anos, foi encontrada inconsciente em seu carro, no caminho para casa. Paramédicos tentaram reanimá-la, mas sem sucesso. Mais tarde, o legista determinou que a causa da morte foi hipertermia, condição na qual a temperatura corporal aumenta de forma excessiva e perigosa, geralmente acima de 40°C.
Agora, passados quase quatro anos, a filha da vítima, Misti, entrou com um processo inédito em Washington contra ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, Shell, ConocoPhillips e Phillips 66.
A ação por homicídio culposo é a primeira movida em nome de uma vítima individual das mudanças climáticas nos Estados Unidos, e busca responsabilizar essas empresas pelo papel que desempenharam na causa da morte.
Na época em que Leon faleceu, áreas do noroeste do Pacífico dos Estados Unidos e Canadá experimentaram temperaturas nunca antes observadas, com recordes quebrados em muitos lugares em vários graus Celsius. Em Seatle, onde ela vivia, no dia da sua morte, a temperatura subiu acima de 38°C pelo terceiro dia consecutivo.
Cientistas da World Weather Attribution (WWA) avaliaram, com base em observações e modelagem, que a onda de calor do Pacífico Noroeste de 2021, como foi chamado o fenômeno, seria virtualmente impossível sem as mudanças climáticas causadas pelo homem.
A WWA é uma iniciativa científica internacional que busca avaliar a influência das mudanças climáticas, causadas por atividades humanas, principalmente queima de combustíveis fósseis, em eventos extremos de clima, como ondas de calor, secas, inundações e tempestades.
“As grandes petrolíferas sabem há décadas que seus produtos causariam desastres climáticos catastróficos que se tornariam mais mortais e destrutivos se não mudassem seu modelo de negócios. Mas, em vez de alertar o público e tomar medidas para salvar vidas, mentiram e deliberadamente aceleraram o problema. Agora, pessoas estão morrendo, e esses arquitetos da negação e da mentira climática terão que responder por sua conduta em um tribunal”, disse Richard Wiles, presidente do grupo de defesa Centro para Integridade Climática (CCI), em comunicado.
Ele acrescentou que as vítimas das grandes petrolíferas merecem responsabilização: “Esta é uma indústria que está causando e acelerando condições climáticas que matam pessoas. Elas sabem disso há 50 anos e, em algum momento, precisarão ser responsabilizadas”
Misti quer que as empresas de petróleo, gás e carvão paguem indenizações em valores que serão determinados em julgamento, e, também, está tentando forçar essas companhias a realizar uma campanha de educação pública para corrigir “décadas de desinformação”.
Theodore Boutrous, advogado da Chevron, criticou a ação. “Explorar uma tragédia pessoal para promover litígios políticos sobre danos climáticos é contrário à lei, à ciência e ao bom senso”, afirmou à NPR. “O tribunal deveria adicionar essa alegação absurda à crescente lista de processos climáticos sem mérito que tribunais estaduais e federais já rejeitaram.”
Representantes da Shell, ConocoPhillips, BP e Phillips 66 não quiseram comentar. E um porta-voz da ExxonMobil disse que um comentário da empresa não estava disponível no momento.
Processos por todo os EUA
Petrolíferas enfrentam vários outros processos climáticos movidos por estados e municípios americanos por supostamente enganarem o público durante décadas sobre os perigos da queima de petróleo, gás e carvão, a principal causa das mudanças climáticas.
Segundo o CCI, 10 estados (Califórnia, Connecticut, Delaware, Havaí, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nova Jersey, Rhode Island e Vermont), o Distrito de Columbia e dezenas de governos municipais, distritais e tribais de Califórnia, Colorado, Havaí, Illinois, Maryland, Nova Jersey, Nova York, Oregon, Pensilvânia, Carolina do Sul, Washington e Porto Rico, entraram com ações judiciais contra elas.
Esses casos, em conjunto, representam mais de 1 em cada 4 pessoas que vivem nos Estados Unidos. E, conforme destaca o NPR, buscam recursos para ajudar comunidades a lidar com os riscos e danos do aquecimento global, incluindo tempestades, inundações e ondas de calor mais extremas.
Até agora, os resultados foram mistos. Por exemplo, na Pensilvânia, um juiz rejeitou recentemente uma ação climática movida pelo Condado de Bucks contra diversas petrolíferas. Segundo ele, como se tratava principalmente de emissões de gases de efeito estufa, essa era uma questão que caberia ao governo federal, de acordo com a Lei do Ar Limpo.
Por outro lado, em janeiro, a Suprema Corte rejeitou uma tentativa de empresas de petróleo e gás de bloquear uma ação climática movida por Honolulu, e em março os juízes rejeitaram um pedido de procuradores-gerais republicanos para tentar impedir ações climáticas movidas por estados como Califórnia, Connecticut, Minnesota e Rhode Island.
Em declaração enviada à agência NPR na época, o Instituto Americano de Petróleo (ANP) disse que estava decepcionado com as decisões da Suprema Corte, pois as ações são uma “distração” e um “desperdício de recursos do contribuinte”.
In Brazil, the summer rainy season stretches from December into March. Daniel Ramalho/Getty Images
Rainstorms are a frequent occurrence in Rio de Janeiro’s tropical climate. Yet year after year, the Marvelous City defies meteorological forecasts and is blessed with dry weather and clear skies when it needs it the most, such as during its famed Carnival celebrations.
This, locals will tell you, is not the result of good luck, but the work of a weather-controlling spirit called Cacique Cobra Coral.
In Brazil, the spirit is widely credited with guaranteeing a clement climate during major events, including music festivals and presidential inaugurations. It is particularly well-known in Rio, where the mayor is said to have a long-running agreement with the Cacique Cobra Coral Foundation, an organization that claims to communicate with the spirit through a medium. Every year, as Carnival approaches, Cacique Cobra Coral pops up in conversations and on social media, as revelers hope the festivities will be spared the summer downpours.
The belief that a religious or spiritual entity has the power to control the weather is widespread in Brazil, where there is “a ritualized understanding of nature,” says Renzo Taddei, an associate professor of anthropology at the Federal University of São Paulo who has studied the Foundation. In the Afro-Brazilian religion Umbanda, which blends Indigenous beliefs with African traditions, caboclos are the spirits of Indigenous elders who return through a medium to provide help or guidance to supplicants. The Cacique Cobra Coral—whose title cacique means “Indigenous chief” in Portuguese—belongs to this spiritual tradition, says Taddei.
Umbanda is a syncretic religion that combines African and Indigenous beliefs. Pulsar Imagens/Alamy
What sets the Cacique Cobra Coral apart—and contributes to its fame—is the exposure that its meteorological feats have gained in the press. Then there’s the fact that both public bodies and private companies sign contracts with the mysterious Cacique Cobra Coral Foundation to ensure good weather.
“Cacique Cobra Coral arrives in Rio for the G20 ‘to avert embarrassment,’” read one recent headline in a Brazilian newspaper. “Medium from the Cacique Cobra Coral Foundation has agreement with [São Paulo] city hall,” reads another, from 2009, describing how the rain stopped for a papal visit. The spirit even works internationally: it was reportedly hired by an unnamed billionaire to clear the skies for Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s wedding in 2018 and for the 2012 London Olympics. In 1987, the Cacique Cobra Coral Foundation told British newspaper The Guardian that it had offered its services to Margaret Thatcher to end a cold spell. The then-prime minister never replied, but the Foundation still claimed credit for a rise in temperatures.
Cesar Maia, the former mayor of Rio who started the city’s now-legendary relationship with the Foundation, publicly credited the organization for sparing Rio from floods during his two terms in office between 2001 and 2008. The Foundation was also hired to ensure clear skies for the Rock in Rio music festival, according to businessman and festival founder Roberto Medina’s 2006 biography.
Rio local Bruno Simas admits he is not familiar with the specifics of the spirit’s workings, but has faith in its ability to alter the weather. “People say, let’s ask for Cacique Cobra Coral’s help so that it doesn’t rain during Carnival. I like to believe in this, to direct my energy towards this,” he says.
Rio de Janeiro’s relationship with Cacique Cobra Coral began during the tenure of former mayor Cesar Maia (second from left). Imago/Alamy
For the initiated, the Cacique has a rich history. Originally, they believe, the Cacique was an Indigenous North American. “In the spiritualist line of thought, people say that the Cacique Cobra Coral is an incarnation who went through various stages throughout civilization. Some say he was Galileo Galilei, that he then incarnated as Abraham Lincoln,” says Luiz Antonio Simas (no relation), a historian and prolific author who writes about Brazilian beliefs and popular culture. “That’s the belief, that he is a spirit who has already been present in countless manifestations and that today advises a medium.”
Said medium is Adelaide Scritori, president of the Cacique Cobra Coral Foundation. According to Osmar Santos, Scritori’s husband and the Foundation spokesperson, Scritori channels the spirit’s powers to make atmospheric changes over small areas, such as diverting a cold front to cause or prevent rain. Santos also says that Scritori consults meteorologists on what exactly needs to occur. “We call this a climate operation,” he says “Each one is carried out with advice from a scientist, who follows the operation from start to finish.”
Although the Cacique is best known for guaranteeing sunny skies for entertainment, Santos says the spirit only interferes for the greater good. He also claims that the organization is contacted more and more these days, due to the extreme effects of climate change.
The organization is described as “peculiar” by those who have studied it, but few dismiss it entirely. In his 2017 book Meteorologists and Rain Prophets, Taddei recounted a conversation with a respected meteorologist about his first contact with Santos, in the 1980s. “One day, someone called him and asked him what would need to be done to stop a cold front coming from Argentina and prevent it from entering Rio Grande do Sul. At first, he didn’t take it seriously,” Taddei wrote. The caller was Santos. “The meteorologist made some calculations and argued that, if the atmospheric pressure above the state was to rise, the cold front would probably lose its force. The next day, the atmospheric pressure rose, and the cold front dissipated.” The meteorologist went on to work for the Foundation.
This marriage of the scientific and the supernatural might seem mystifying from a Western perspective, but this is perfectly acceptable in Brazil where there isn’t such an entrenched distinction between the two, Taddei argues. “The hostile opposition between religion and science is a part of colonialism,” he says. “It makes no sense in Brazil.” This reasoning is part of why Cacique Cobra Coral is generally accepted. When questioned in a 2013 documentary if it was contradictory to be a Catholic and believe in a spirit’s meteorological powers, Cesar Maia, the former mayor, simply replied, “I am Brazilian.”
The Foundation’s relationship with public bodies inevitably raises both eyebrows and questions about the improper use of taxpayers’ money. (Santos assures me that state bodies do not pay money for the Cacique’s work, but in exchange must keep the Foundation informed about environmental works carried out to prevent or mitigate climate catastrophes.) But this is not the only example of Brazilian authorities turning to the supernatural for help.
In 1998, officials from the government’s Indigenous agency flew two Kayapó shamans to perform a ritual in the Amazon state of Roraima, where uncontrollable fires had been raging for over 60 days. It finally rained the day after, and the downpour put out most of the fires. In a subsequent inquiry, the Brazilian Senate did not rule out the possibility that the shamanic ritual had caused the rains. More recently, as torrential rain fell on the Catholic World Youth Day gathering in 2013, Rio City Hall gifted a basket of eggs to the nuns of Saint Clare, a gesture that can clear rains according to Portuguese Catholic traditions. Coincidentally, the stormy weather eased off.
For many people, these tales inhabit a murky area between myth and reality. Ultimately, the belief that the Cacique Cobra Coral can chase away the rains is a part of what the historian Simas calls brasilidades, or ‘brazilianisms.’ These, he says, are “a broad, symbolic grouping of elements from Brazil’s [different] cultures, which involve beliefs, spirituality [and] a relation with the mysterious.” Many Brazilians, from Carnival-goers to elected political leaders, prefer not to question them too deeply.
“I think anything is possible,” says Rio resident Julianna Paes on the sidelines of a sunny Carnival rehearsal. “I don’t pray to [Cacique Cobra Coral]. But if the mayor has an agreement with it, then great, because it looks like it’s working.”
Alianças familiares, vingança de sangue e política eleitoral no sertão nordestino
24 de setembro de 2024
Antonio Silvino e seu bando. Ele é o segundo a esquerda, em pé. Silvino, cujo nome verdadeiro era Manoel Baptista de Moraes (1872-1944), foi, muito antes de Lampião, o mais famoso chefe do cangaço (foto: Wikimedia Commons)
José Tadeu Arantes | Agência FAPESP – As ideias de “coronelismo”, de “mando exclusivista”, de “curral eleitoral”, de “voto de cabresto” tornaram-se quase um lugar-comum na literatura sociológica e moldaram a visão dominante sobre o sertão nordestino – da Primeira República aos tempos atuais. Essas ideias receberam uma refutação consistente por parte do antropólogo Jorge Mattar Villela, professor titular da Universidade Federal de São Carlos (UFSCar).
Fruto de duas décadas de pesquisa nas regiões do Pajeú e do Navio, no sertão de Pernambuco, o material acumulado por Villela resultou em três livros e vários artigos sobre política eleitoral, administração pública da violência e culto dos mortos, em um intervalo cronológico de 120 anos. Tudo isso foi, de certo modo, condensado no artigo A Antropologia do Sertão de Pernambuco. Pajeú e Navio, publicado recentemente na Revista de Antropologia da UFSCar.
Villela contesta a noção de “coronelismo”, que considera uma explicação simplista do poder local durante a Primeira República. E apresenta um panorama muito mais complexo, com um sistema de poder descentralizado e baseado em alianças familiares e vinganças de sangue. Essas vinganças teriam criado um ambiente em que os conflitos eram gestados e geridos de um modo capaz de formar e desfazer laços familiares em simultâneo à atualização de laços políticos. Em vez de um controle centralizado por coronéis, havia uma rede de alianças que moldavam o comportamento político e social.
Nessa região, onde nasceu Virgulino Ferreira, o Lampião, o pesquisador identificou um ambiente em que o porte e o uso das armas não eram inusitados, em que vivia um “povo em armas” (conceito criado para refutar o da figura do coronel), em que as vinganças de sangue abundavam. “Dispondo de altos níveis de autonomia nos conflitos, como se poderia viver sob esse regime de submissão sem que houvesse uma circunstância de revolta?”, questiona.
Com base na vasta documentação estudada, Villela informa que, nas grandes brigas de famílias, havia gente capaz de arregimentar, ou atrair, vários microgrupos de base familiar formando bandos instáveis de mais de cem homens armados, voltados para o ataque a um inimigo. “Homens de fama eram capazes de fazer aderir às questões de sua família outros microgrupos arregimentados por outros homens de fama”, escreve.
O pesquisador ressalva que o mando exclusivista já havia sido objeto de uma crítica feita por intelectuais importantes, como Maria Isaura Pereira de Queiroz e Moacir Palmeira, mas afirma que essa crítica não chegou ao fundo da questão, porque se manteve presa ao viés de pensar a política a partir do Estado. O Estado funcionaria como um farol ofuscante, que impediria o estudioso de perceber tramas mais sutis.
Outra ideia recorrente que sua pesquisa contesta é a do cangaço como reação da população mais pobre contra o mandonismo dos ricos ou do poder estatal. “Todos os grandes capitães de cangaço, salvo Virgulino Ferreira, o Lampião, eram de grandes e antigas famílias do sertão de Pernambuco, do Ceará e da Paraíba. Famílias prestigiadas, de poder, altas patentes na Guarda Nacional e honrarias desde o período monárquico”, diz Vilella.
Essa intrincada teia de relações familiares, que estruturou o cangaço, teria se perpetuado na vida social e na política eleitoral, sendo ela, e não o Estado, o elemento definidor. Mas Vilella ressalva que a política é tão constituída pelos laços de sangue quanto os laços de sangue são constituídos pela política. Ainda que não sejam parentes biológicos, os apoiadores políticos fiéis costumavam ser incorporados à família estendida. E a feitura do parentesco se dá em aliança com a política de um jeito tão segmentar quanto o das vinganças, porque há também nas eleições microgrupos de base familiar capazes de arregimentar votos, num crescente semelhante ao que redundava nos grandes bandos de cangaço.
A “casa” está no cerne da noção de microgrupos de base familiar. “As ‘casas’ no sertão se ligam entre elas e constituem formações mais amplas, atadas por um personagem ancestral chamado ‘tronco’ e cuja localização nas genealogias é determinável (mas não necessariamente determinada) por meio da sua biografia”, conta o pesquisador.
Nesse contexto, o culto aos mortos, com seus retratos pendurados nas paredes das casas, tornou-se um ingrediente fundamental da política partidária e eleitoral. A memória dos ancestrais foi mantida viva por meio de rituais e celebrações, que serviram para reforçar a coesão familiar e comunitária. A celebração de missas em sua homenagem e a publicação de genealogias ilustram como os mortos são mobilizados para legitimar as posições sociais e políticas das famílias. “Nos túmulos dos cemitérios, os mortos fazem política ao fazerem genealogia”, afirma Vilella.
Na análise da democracia atual, o pesquisador observa que a política eleitoral do sertão de Pernambuco, e de todo o sertão nordestino por extensão, se mantém no contexto contemporâneo. “O que eu quero dizer é que, de uma certa forma, essas coisas acontecem em qualquer lugar. Podem acontecer, por exemplo, na avenida Faria Lima, em São Paulo. Um escritório lobista da Faria Lima também é power-user da democracia e da economia. Não é uma coisa de gente pobre periférica, é de gente que está colada à obtenção de recursos gerados no Estado nacional. A segmentaridade do voto, as complexas negociações intergrupais, as alianças familiares e locais continuam presentes, e dão o tom ao processo”, enfatiza Vilella.
No sertão nordestino, as visitas eleitorais, nas quais os candidatos visitam pessoalmente os eleitores em suas residências, reforçam a importância das relações interpessoais na política. Como relata o pesquisador, essas visitas sempre se fazem em grupo, e o tamanho do grupo depende do prestígio do candidato ou candidata e do cargo que se pretende alcançar. As visitas não são realizadas da porta para fora. O grupo entra, senta-se, come, bebe, conversa, ouve e fala. As negociações propriamente políticas são feitas em particular, fora das casas quando elas não têm um cômodo apropriado. Todo mundo sabe do que se trata, mas a etiqueta impede que a “política” macule a recepção.
O estudo de Villela oferece uma visão rica e detalhada das dinâmicas sociais e políticas no sertão nordestino, desafiando interpretações simplistas e iluminando a complexidade das relações de poder e memória na região. Recebeu apoio da FAPESP por meio do Projeto Temático “Artes e semânticas da criação e da memória”.
Só a ciência, sem a política, não vai conseguir produzir as soluções que o mundo precisa para combater a crise climática.
Quem diz é Michael Sandel, professor de filosofia política da Universidade Harvard e autor de diversos livros —o último publicado no Brasil é “O Descontentamento da Democracia” (ed. Civilização Brasileira).
A frase pode até parecer um truísmo, mas resume o cerne das críticas de Sandel às democracias contemporâneas: quando a política é dominada pelo discurso tecnocrático, os cidadãos acabam sem voz e sem meios de participar das decisões que afetam suas vidas.
Em “O Descontentamento da Democracia”, ele diz que a culpa da ascensão do autoritarismo pelo mundo é do chamado neoliberalismo, que promoveu o fortalecimento do setor financeiro e a desregulação dos mercados.
Para Sandel, essas políticas foram levadas adiante por tecnocratas de direita e esquerda que alienaram cidadãos das decisões econômicas, amparados por um discurso de meritocracia, gerando uma reação de ressentimento contra as elites e ceticismo quanto à democracia.
Por isso, diz, é importante não repetir o mesmo erro com a política climática. A ciência é, sim, crucial para embasar as decisões, mas é preciso participação democrática —e as lideranças não podem usar o discurso científico como forma de escapar de suas responsabilidades.
Sandel participou recentemente do ciclo de palestras online Clima e Sociedade, promovido pela UFSM (Universidade Federal de Santa Maria), em que conversou com lideranças comunitárias que estão no front de combate aos efeitos das enchentes que atingiram o Rio Grande do Sul.
Em entrevista à Folha, ele explica como os pontos levantados em seu livro se aplicam ao debate climático, avalia a atuação de instituições multilaterais nesse campo e defende que se evite o discurso apocalíptico.
Em vez de reforçar um sentimento de solidariedade, crises como a pandemia parecem ter explicitado divisões —e democracias como os Estados Unidos continuam tão polarizadas quanto antes. O mundo superestima a capacidade dessas crises de gerar solidariedade mútua?
A pandemia foi um ótimo teste. No começo da crise de saúde, com frequência ouvíamos que essa emergência iria nos unir, mostrando que somos igualmente vulneráveis, apesar das desigualdades econômicas. Quem podia trabalhar de casa logo percebeu o quanto dependemos do trabalho de pessoas que são ignoradas.
Poderia ter sido a hora para debater melhores salários e reconhecimento para os trabalhadores essenciais. Mas isso não ocorreu. A pandemia retrocedeu e a gratidão a eles também. Foi uma oportunidade perdida, a pandemia não nos levou a uma transformação social ou espiritual.
Para manter o senso de comunidade que crises como as enchentes no Sul despertam, é necessário criar instituições e espaços públicos sólidos, além formas de organização. Pressionar os governos por recursos é importante, mas é preciso construir instituições na sociedade civil, estabelecer um diálogo contínuo para que todos entendam que dividimos uma vida comum.
Você coloca a economia no centro da sua análise da crise das democracias liberais, em detrimento de uma análise mais cultural, que hoje parece mais popular no debate público. Por que essa abordagem econômica é mais adequada?
Em “O Descontentamento da Democracia”, escrevo sobre o que chamo de economia política da cidadania. Nas últimas décadas, erramos ao pressupor que o único propósito da economia é promover o consumo. E que, portanto, nosso foco principal deveria ser o crescimento do PIB e a distribuição da riqueza.
Tudo isso importa, é claro, mas não são as únicas questões que devemos levar em conta. É preciso se perguntar quais arranjos econômicos são favoráveis à participação democrática.
Democracia não é só ir votar. Democracia é criar condições econômicas e sociais que possibilitem às pessoas deliberar como iguais [sobre seu destino], moldando as forças que as governam.
Quando as pessoas não têm voz, elas se sentem excluídas, raivosas, ressentidas —e vão se conectar a políticos demagogos que canalizam essa alienação. Isso é o que começa a explicar o que está havendo, nos últimos anos, tanto nos EUA quanto no Brasil.
Sou contra uma separação tão dura entre uma análise econômica e outra cultural sobre por que cidadãos têm apoiado líderes autoritários pelo mundo.
Nos últimos anos, a divisão entre vencedores e derrotados se aprofundou, envenenando a política. Isso tem em partes a ver com a desigualdade, mas há também uma mudança de atitude em relação ao sucesso individual.
Quem está no topo acha que os lucros que recebeu do mercado são a medida de seus méritos —e que quem ficou para trás, por consequência, também mereceria o próprio destino.
Isso ajuda a explicar a política da raiva e do ressentimento. E também o crescimento do populismo autoritário de direita. Muitos da classe trabalhadora acham que as elites os olham de cima para baixo, com especial desprezo contra aqueles que não receberam educação universitária.
Agora, quanto dessa análise é econômica e quanto é cultural? São ambos os casos. É econômica porque mostra como a economia pode deteriorar a democracia participativa. E porque foca no papel do crescimento da desigualdade. Mas também é cultural, porque identifico esses elementos de ressentimento.
É preciso atar as duas pontas, resolver as desigualdades e lidar com a sensação de não ter voz, a raiva de tantos da classe trabalhadora.
Sua análise está centrada na globalização e nas chamadas políticas neoliberais. Qual o impacto disso no debate político sobre a mudança climática?
A política da mudança climática é um exemplo de como algo focado nas elites rapidamente vira um discurso tecnocrático quanto ao meio ambiente, que pode reforçar a polarização.
Há um jeito de organizar a economia e conduzir as políticas públicas que leva os cidadãos a se sentir sem voz. É uma política que trata as questões econômicas e ambientais como algo técnico, que só diz respeito aos especialistas.
Vimos esse discurso tecnocrático durante a pandemia, quando representantes das elites diziam que só estavam “seguindo a ciência”, o que é um jeito de escapar das responsabilidades.
Claro que é importante seguir a ciência no meio de uma pandemia ou da mudança climática —mas é um erro pressupor que a ciência sozinha pode realizar as avaliações políticas necessárias.
Por exemplo, durante a pandemia, a ciência não podia resolver se deveríamos fechar as escolas e por quanto tempo. Esse era um julgamento político, que teve que ser debatido pelos cidadãos dentro do processo democrático —e quem tomou as decisões teria que assumir responsabilidade por elas.
Não adianta só dizer que se está seguindo a ciência. No caso da política climática, a ciência precisa informar as decisões que vamos tomar, mas essas medidas precisam ser debatidas entre as pessoas implicadas nelas. Pois isso envolve negociações, questões distributivas, um debate sobre quem vai pagar o preço da transição para a economia verde… E por aí vai.
O que nos trouxe a esse momento tão polarizado é a insistência das elites políticas de que são especialistas ou que estão amparadas por especialistas. Com isso, fica implícito que quem discorda ou está mal informado ou é ignorante. E que, portanto, essas pessoas não estariam qualificadas a ter voz.
É o mesmo que ocorreu com a dignidade da classe trabalhadora, deteriorada pela financeirização da economia, a terceirização do trabalho, tudo em nome dos especialistas que diziam que isso seria bom para todos.
Se repetimos essa postura tecnocrática no combate à mudança climática, teremos outra vez as elites olhando os cidadãos de cima, dizendo que estão só seguindo a ciência.
A mudança climática é uma crise que requer ação global. Mas, no seu livro, você mostra ceticismo quanto às organizações multilaterais. Como elas deveriam funcionar?
A mudança climática requer cooperação global, sem dúvidas. E isso significa que precisamos de instituições multilaterais para conceber e implementar políticas, a fim de proteger o planeta e promover a transição para a economia verde.
As instituições globais hoje operam como instituições tecnocráticas, sem legitimidade ou participação democrática. E esse é um problema com o qual teremos que lidar.
A Europa já estava lidando com isso antes de a crise climática se tornar algo tão central. Mesmo esse bloco, onde a maioria dos países têm tradição democrática, tem sido associado aos burocratas de Bruxelas. Cidadãos nacionais se ressentem de determinações vindas desses burocratas e acham que não têm voz.
O mesmo vale para as instituições que serão necessárias para lidarmos com a crise climática. Precisamos de plataformas para um discurso público global, que possa envolver os cidadãos comuns na formulação de políticas que nos levarão a uma economia verde.
Se for algo puramente tecnocrático, mesmo o grupo de especialistas melhor administrado não vai ser capaz de conquistar legitimidade democrática e implementar qualquer política. Em resumo, não sou cético quanto às instituições multilaterais, apenas quero enfatizar a necessidade de participação democrática.
Seu principal ponto é que as políticas neoliberais teriam levado eleitores para a extrema direita. Você aponta que o presidente Joe Biden foi o primeiro a romper com essas diretrizes econômicas. No entanto, Donald Trump tem grandes chances de ser eleito. O que houve?
Um novo mandato de Trump aumentaria os riscos que a democracia americana enfrenta. Sim, Joe Biden rompeu com o mercado neoliberal que produziu a polarização política.
Ele falou sobre tentar restaurar a dignidade do trabalho, inclusive para quem não tem formação universitária.
Biden revitalizou as políticas antitruste, não só com objetivo de diminuir preços ao consumidor, mas também de responsabilizar o poder econômico, especialmente no caso das “big techs”. Também levou o Congresso a implementar investimentos públicos em infraestrutura que não eram vistos há décadas.
Por que ele não está colhendo dividendos políticos disso? Ele não foi capaz de articular essas medidas em uma nova visão de governo, não conseguiu explicar como todas essas políticas, se vistas em conjunto, podem renovar a cidadania democrática. E que, ao restaurar a dignidade do trabalho, as pessoas podem ter voz na política.
Uma liderança não depende só de implementar boas políticas, mas de oferecer uma visão que seja ao mesmo tempo econômica, política e moral.
RAIO-X
Michael J. Sandel, 71
É professor de filosofia política na Universidade Harvard, nos EUA, com obras que já foram traduzidas para mais de 30 línguas. Em livros como “O Descontentamento da Democracia” e “A Tirania do Mérito”, escreve sobre ética, economia e democracia, entre outros temas. Seu curso intitulado Justiça foi o primeiro de Harvard a ser disponibilizado gratuitamente online —e já foi visto por dezenas de milhões de pessoas.
With the World Stumbling Past 1.5 Degrees of Warming, Scientists Warn Climate Shocks Could Trigger Unrest and Authoritarian Backlash
Most of the public seems unaware that global temperatures will soon push past the target to which the U.N. hoped to limit warming, but researchers see social and psychological crises brewing.
Activists march in protest on day nine of the COP28 Climate Conference on Dec. 9, 2023 in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Credit: Sean Gallup/Getty Images
As Earth’s annual average temperature pushes against the 1.5 degree Celsius limit beyond which climatologists expect the impacts of global warming to intensify, social scientists warn that humanity may be about to sleepwalk into a dangerous new era in human history. Research shows the increasing climate shocks could trigger more social unrest and authoritarian, nationalist backlashes.
Established by the 2015 Paris Agreement and affirmed by a 2018 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the 1.5 degree mark has been a cliff edge that climate action has endeavored to avoid, but the latest analyses of global temperature data showed 2023 teetering on that red line.
Paris negotiators were intentionally vague about the endeavor to limit warming to 1.5 degrees, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change put the goal in the context of 30-year global averages. Earlier this month, the Berkeley Earth annual climate report showed Earth’s average temperature in 2023 at 1.54 degrees Celsius above the 1850-1900 pre-industrial average, marking the first step past the target.
“The real danger is that there are so many other crises around us that there is no effort left for the climate crisis,” he said. “We will find all kinds of reasons not to put more effort into climate protection, because we are overburdened with other things like inflation and wars all around us.”
Steurer said he doesn’t expect any official announcement from major climate institutions until long after the 1.5 degree threshold is actually crossed, when some years will probably already be edging toward 2 degrees Celsius. “I think most scientists recognize that 1.5 is gone,” he said.
“We’ll be doing this for a very long time,” he added, “not accepting facts, pretending that we are doing a good job, pretending that it’s not going to be that bad.”
In retrospect, using the 1.5 degree temperature rise as the key metric of whether climate action was working may have been a bad idea, he said.
“It’s language nobody really understands, unfortunately, outside of science,” he said. ”You always have to explain that 1.5 means a climate we can adapt to and manage the consequences, 2 degrees of heating is really dangerous, and 3 means collapse of civilization.”
Absent any formal notification of breaching the 1.5 goal, he hopes more scientists talk publicly about worst-case outcomes.
“It would really make a difference if scientists talked more about societal collapse and how to prepare for that because it would signal, now it’s getting real,” he said. “It’s much more tangible than 1.5 degrees.”
Instead, recent public climate discourse was dominated by feel-good announcements about how COP28 kept the 1.5 goal alive, he added.
“This is classic performative politics,” he said. “If the fossil fuel industry can celebrate the outcome of the COP, that’s not a good sign.”
Like many social scientists, Steurer is worried that the increasingly severe climate shocks that warming greater than 1.5 degrees brings will reverberate politically as people reach for easy answers.
“That is usually denial, in particular when it comes to right-wing parties,” he said. “That’s the easiest answer you can find.”
“Global warming will be catastrophic sooner or later, but for now, denial works,” he said. “And that’s all that matters for the next election.”
‘Fear, Terror and Anxiety’
Social policy researcher Paul Hoggett, professor emeritus at the University of the West of England in Bristol, said the scientific roots of 1.5-degree target date back to research in the early 2000s that culminated in a University of Exeter climate conference at which scientists first spelled out the risks of triggering irreversible climate tipping points above that level of warming.
“I think it’s still seen very much as that key marker of where we move from something which is incremental, perhaps to something which ceases to be incremental,” he said. “But there’s a second reality, which is the reality of politics and policymaking.”
The first reality is “profoundly disturbing,” but in the political world, 1.5 is a symbolic maker, he said.
“It’s more rhetorical; it’s a narrative of 1.5,” he said, noting the disconnect of science and policy. “You almost just shrug your shoulders. As the first reality worsens, the political and cultural response becomes more perverse.”
A major announcement about breaching the 1.5 mark in today’s political and social climate could be met with extreme denial in a political climate marked by “a remorseless rise of authoritarian forms of nationalism,” he said. “Even an announcement from the Pope himself would be taken as just another sign of a global elite trying to pull the wool over our eyes.”
An increasing number of right-wing narratives simply see this as a set of lies, he added.
“I think this is a huge issue that is going to become more and more important in the coming years,” he said. “We’re going backwards to where we were 20 years ago, when there was a real attempt to portray climate science as misinformation,” he said. “More and more right wing commentators will portray what comes out of the IPCC, for example, as just a pack of lies.”
The IPCC’s reports represent a basic tenet of modernity—the idea that there is no problem for which a solution cannot be found, he said.
“Even an announcement from the Pope himself would be taken as just another sign of a global elite trying to pull the wool over our eyes.”
“However, over the last 100 years, this assumption has periodically been put to the test and has been found wanting,” Hoggett wrote in a 2023 paper. The climate crisis is one of those situations with no obvious solution, he wrote.
“Those are crucial political and individual emotions,” he said. “And it’s those things that drive this non-rational refusal to see what’s in front of your eyes.”
“At times of such huge uncertainty, a veritable plague of toxic public feelings can be unleashed, which provide the effective underpinning for political movements such as populism, authoritarianism, and totalitarianism,” he said.
“When climate reality starts to get tough, you secure your borders, you secure your own sources of food and energy, and you keep out the rest of them. That’s the politics of the armed lifeboat.”
The Emotional Climate
“I don’t think people like facing things they can’t affect,” said psychotherapist Rebecca Weston, co-president of the Climate Psychology Alliance of North America. “And in trauma, people do everything that they possibly can to stop feeling what is unbearable to feel.”
That may be one reason why the imminent breaching of the 1.5 degree limit may not stir the public, she said.
“We protect ourselves from fear, we protect ourselves from deep grief on behalf of future generations and we protect ourselves from guilt and shame. And I think that the fossil fuel industry knows that,” she said. “We can be told something over and over and over again, but if we have an identity and a sense of ourselves tied up in something else, we will almost always refer to that, even if it’s at the cost of pretending that something that is true is not true.”
Such deep disavowal is part of an elaborate psychological system for coping with the unbearable. “It’s not something we can just snap our fingers and get ourselves out of,” she said.
People who point out the importance of the 1.5-degree warming limit are resented because they are intruding on peoples’ psychological safety, she said, and they become pariahs. “The way societies enforce this emotionally is really very striking,” she added.
But how people will react to passing the 1.5 target is hard to predict, Weston said.
“I do think it revolves around the question of agency and the question of meaning in one’s life,” she said. “And I think that’s competing with so many other things that are going on in the world at the same time, not coincidentally, like the political crises that are happening globally, the shift to the far right in Europe, the shift to the far right in the U.S. and the shift in Argentina.”
Those are not unrelated, she said, because a lack of agency produces a yearning for false, exclusionary solutions and authoritarianism.
“If there’s going to be something that keeps me up at night, it’s not the 1.5. It’s the political implications of that feeling of helplessness,” she said. “People will do an awful lot to avoid feeling helpless. That can mean they deny the problem in the first place. Or it could mean that they blame people who are easier targets, and there is plenty of that to witness happening in the world. Or it can be utter and total despair, and a turning inward and into a defeatist place.”
She said reaching the 1.5 limit will sharpen questions about addressing the problem politically and socially.
“I don’t think most people who are really tracking climate change believe it’s a question of technology or science,” she said. “The people who are in the know, know deeply that these are political and social and emotional questions. And my sense is that it will deepen a sense of cynicism and rage, and intensify the polarization.”
Unimpressed by Science
Watching the global temperature surging past the 1.5 degree mark without much reaction from the public reinforces the idea that the focus on the physical science of climate change in recent decades came at the expense of studying how people and communities will be affected and react to global warming, said sociologist and author Dana Fisher, a professor in the School of International Service at American University and director of its Center for Environment, Community, and Equity.
“It’s a fool’s errand to continue down that road right now,” she said. “It’s been an abysmal ratio of funds that are going to understand the social conflict that’s going to come from climate shocks, the climate migration and the ways that social processes will have to shift. None of that has been done.”
Passing the 1.5 degree threshold will “add fuel to the fire of the vanguard of the climate movement,” she said. “Groups that are calling for systemic change, that are railing against incremental policy making and against business as usual are going to be empowered by this information, and we’re going to see those people get more involved and be more confrontational.”
“When you see a big cycle of activism growing, you get a rise in counter-movements, particularly as activism becomes more confrontational, even if it’s nonviolent, like we saw during the Civil Rights period,” she said. “And it will lead to clashes.”
Looking at the historic record, she said, shows that repressive crackdowns on civil disobedience is often where the violence starts. There are signs that pattern will repeat, with police raids and even pre-emptive arrests of climate activists in Germany, and similar repressive measures in the United Kingdom and other countries.
“I think that’s an important story to talk about, that people are going to push back against climate action just as much as they’re going to push for it,” she said. “There are those that are going to feel like they’re losing privileged access to resources and funding and subsidies.”
“When you see a big cycle of activism growing, you get a rise in counter-movements, particularly as activism becomes more confrontational, even if it’s nonviolent, like we saw during the Civil Rights period.”
A government dealing effectively with climate change would try to deal with that by making sure there were no clear winners and losers, she said, but the climate shocks that come with passing the 1.5 degree mark will worsen and intensify social tensions.
“There will be more places where you can’t go outside during certain times of the year because of either smoke from fires, or extreme heat, or flooding, or all the other things that we know are coming,” she said. “That’s just going to empower more people to get off their couches and become activists.”
‘A Life or Death Task For Humanity’
Public ignorance of the planet’s passing the 1.5 degree mark depends on “how long the powers-that-be can get away with throwing up smokescreens and pretending that they are doing something significant,” said famed climate researcher James Hansen, who recently co-authored a paper showing that warming is accelerating at a pace that will result in 2 degrees of warming within a couple of decades.
“As long as they can maintain the 1.5C fiction, they can claim that they are doing their job,” he said. “They will keep faking it as long as the scientific community lets them get away with it.”
But even once the realization of passing 1.5 is widespread, it might not change the social and political responses much, said Peter Kalmus, a climate scientist and activist in California.
“Not enough people care,” he said. “I’ve been a climate activist since 2006. I’ve tried so many things, I’ve had so many conversations, and I still don’t know what it will take for people to care. Maybe they never will.”
Hovering on the brink of this important climate threshold has left Kalmus feeling “deep frustration, sadness, helplessness, and anger,” he said. “I’ve been feeling that for a long time. Now, though, things feel even more surreal, as we go even deeper into this irreversible place, seeming not to care.”
“No one really knows for sure, but it may still be just physically possible for Earth to stay under 1.5C,” he said, “if humanity magically stopped burning fossil fuels today. But we can’t stop fossil fuels that fast even if everyone wanted to. People would die. The transition takes preparation.”
And there are a lot of people who just don’t want to make that transition, he said.
“We have a few people with inordinate power who actively want to continue expanding fossil fuels,” he said. “They are the main beneficiaries of extractive capitalism; billionaires, politicians, CEOs, lobbyists and bankers. And the few people who want to stop those powerful people haven’t figured out how to get enough power to do so.”
Kalmus said he was not a big fan of setting a global temperature threshold to begin with.
“For me it’s excruciatingly clear that every molecule of fossil fuel CO2 or methane humanity adds to the atmosphere makes irreversible global heating that much worse, like a planet-sized ratchet turning molecule by molecule,” he said. “I think the target framing lends itself to a cycle of procrastination and failure and target moving.”
Meanwhile, climate impacts will continue to worsen into the future, he said.
“There is no upper bound, until either we choose to end fossil fuels or until we simply aren’t organized enough anymore as a civilization to burn much fossil fuel,” he said. “I think it’s time for the movement to get even more radical. Stopping fossil-fueled global heating is a life-or-death task for humanity and the planet, just most people haven’t realized it yet.”
Bob Berwyn an Austria-based reporter who has covered climate science and international climate policy for more than a decade. Previously, he reported on the environment, endangered species and public lands for several Colorado newspapers, and also worked as editor and assistant editor at community newspapers in the Colorado Rockies.
António Guterres told world leaders gathered in New York that their efforts to address the climate crisis had come up “abysmally short.”
António Guterres in India this month. “History is coming for the planet-wreckers,” he has said. Credit: Arun Sankar/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
The world’s top diplomat, António Guterres, the United Nations secretary general, on Tuesday told world leaders their efforts to address the climate crisis had come up “abysmally short” and called on them to do what even climate-ambitious countries have been reluctant to do: stop expanding coal, oil and gas production.
“Every continent, every region and every country is feeling the heat, but I’m not sure all leaders are feeling that heat,” he said in his opening remarks to presidents and prime ministers assembled for their annual gathering in the General Assembly. “The fossil fuel age has failed.”
Mr. Guterres, now in his second and last term, has made climate action his centerpiece issue and has become unusually blunt in his language about the need to rein in the production of fossil fuels and not just focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions from their use.
As always, he pointed to the world’s 20 largest economies for not moving fast enough. As always, he stopped short of calling on specific countries.
Not China, the world’s coal behemoth. Not Britain or the United States, who both have ambitious climate laws but continue to issue new oil and gas permits. Not the United Arab Emirates, a petrostate where a state-owned oil company executive is hosting the upcoming United Nations climate negotiations — a move that activists have decried as undermining the very legitimacy of the talks.
The contradictions show not only the constraints on Mr. Guterres, a 74-year-old politician from Portugal, but also the shortcomings of the diplomatic playbook on a problem as urgent as global warming.
“The rules of multilateral diplomacy and multilateral summitry are not fit for the speedy and effective response that we need,” said Richard Gowan, who decodes the rituals of the United Nations for the International Crisis Group.
The 2015 Paris climate accord asks only that countries set voluntary targets to address climate pollution. The agreements that come out of annual climate negotiations routinely get watered down, because every country, including champions of coal, oil and gas, must agree on every word and comma.
The secretary general can cajole but not command, urge but not enforce. He doesn’t name specific countries, though nothing in the United Nations Charter prevents him from doing so.
Despite his exhortations, governments have only increased their fossil fuel subsidies, to a record $7 trillion in 2022. Few nations have concrete plans to move their economies away from fossil fuels, and many depend directly or indirectly on revenues from coal, oil and gas. The human toll of climate change continues to mount.
“He has interpreted his role as a sort of truth teller,” said Rachel Kyte, a former United Nations climate diplomat and a professor at the Fletcher School at Tufts University. “The powers available to him as secretary general are awesome but limited.”
On Wednesday, he is deploying a bit of a diplomatic wink-nod. At a Climate Ambition Summit he is hosting , he is giving the mic only to those countries that have done as he has urged, and only if they send a high-level leader, to show that they take the summit seriously. “A naming and shaming device that doesn’t actually require naming and shaming anyone,” Mr. Gowan said.
Diplomatic jockeying around who will get on the list has been intense. More than 100 countries sent in requests to speak, and Mr. Guterres’s aides have in turn requested more information to prove they deserve to be on the list. What have you done on coal phaseout, some have been asked. How much climate funding have you offered? Are you still issuing new oil and gas permits? And so on.
“It’s good to see Guterres trying to hold their feet to the fire,” said Mohamed Adow, a Kenyan activist.
Mr. Guterres has waited until the last possible minute to make public the list of speakers.
The Secretary General has invited neither the United States nor China, the worlds biggest climate polluters, to speak at the summit on Wednesday. Nor has India secured a speaking invitation. Brazil, South Africa and the European Union have.
Expect the awkward.
John Kerry, the United States climate envoy, is expected to attend but not speak. (Mr. Guterres is giving the mic only to high-level national leaders.) It’s unclear whether the head of the Chinese delegation this year, Vice President Han Zheng, will have a speaking role. The European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, has secured the mic. Britain’s prime minister, Rishi Sunak, isn’t coming to the General Assembly conclave at all. Sultan al-Jaber, the head of the Emirati oil company, and host of the next climate talks, is scheduled to speak.
Mr. Guterres will also invite companies with what he calls “credible” targets to reduce their climate emissions to participate. Expect to count them with the fingers of one hand.
“If fossil fuel companies want to be part of the solution, they must lead the transition to renewable energy,” he said Tuesday.
Mr. Guterres, who had led the United Nations refugee agency for 10 years before being selected for the top job, didn’t always make climate change his centerpiece issue.
In fact, he didn’t talk about it when he was chosen to head the United Nations in 2016. Climate was seen as the signature issue of his predecessor, Ban Ki-moon, who shepherded through the Paris Agreement in 2015. Mr. Guterres spoke instead about the war in Syria, terrorism, and gender parity in the United Nations. (His choice disappointed those who had pressed for a woman to lead the world body for the first time in its 70-year history.)
In 2018 came a shift. At that year’s General Assembly, he called climate change “the defining issue of our time.” In 2019, he invited the climate activist Greta Thunberg to the General Assembly, whose raw anger at world leaders (“How dare you?” she railed at world leaders) spurred a social media clash with President Donald J. Trump, who was pulling the United States out of the Paris Accord.
Mr. Guterres, for his part, studiously avoided criticism of the United States by name.
By 2022, as oil companies were raking in record profits in the aftermath of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, he amped up his language. “We need to hold fossil fuel companies and their enablers to account,” he told world leaders at the General Assembly. He called for a windfall-profit tax, urged countries to suspend subsidies for fossil fuels and appointed a committee to issue guidelines for private companies on what counts as “greenwashing.”
This year, he stepped into the contentious debate between those who want greenhouse gas emissions from oil and gas projects captured and stored away, or “abated,” and those who want to keep oil and gas tucked in the ground altogether. “The problem is not simply fossil fuel emissions. It’s fossil fuels, period,” Mr. Guterres said in June.
The reactions from the private sector are mixed, said Paul Simpson, a founder and former head of CDP, a nongovernmental group that works with companies to address their climate pollution. Some executives privately say Mr. Guterres is right to call for a swift phaseout of fossil fuels, while others note that most national governments still lack concrete energy transition plans, no matter what he says.
“The question really is, how effective is the United Nations?” Mr. Simpson said. “It has the ability to get governments to focus and plan. But the U.N. itself doesn’t have any teeth, so national governments and companies must act.”
Somini Sengupta is The Times’s international climate correspondent. She has also covered the Middle East, West Africa and South Asia and is the author of the book, “The End of Karma: Hope and Fury Among India’s Young.”
A version of this article appears in print on , Section A, Page 11 of the New York edition with the headline: U.N. Chief Implores Leaders to Improve on Climate.
MIDLAND, TEXAS – A petroleum pipeline running along the ground in the Permian Basin oil field on March 13, 2022 in Midland, Texas. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
Does slow climate progress justify violence against fossil fuel infrastructure? This subject was thrust into the limelight by a recent movie, How to Blow Up a Pipeline, which is based on the book by Andreas Malm. In the film, eight activists seek to blow up a fossil fuel pipeline in Texas’ Permian Basin. Their argument is that given the severity of the climate crisis and the role of fossil fuel companies in enabling it, they have the moral authority to damage fossil fuel infrastructure.
In recent years, some climate groups have resorted to disruptive action to focus public attention on climate policy lethargy. Activists have thrown tomato soups on paintings in prominent museums, blocked trains and major highways, picketed oil terminals, and glued themselves to the floor of BMW showrooms. So, why not escalate disruption by attacking fossil fuel infrastructure?
Yet, when it comes to the climate question, some surveys suggest that the public does not support disruptive action. Indeed, Extinction Rebellion (XR), a prominent UK-based climate group, recently announced that that it will temporarily suspend mass disruptive action. This motivated a group of scholars to write an open letter in support of nonviolent direct action. They underlined the idea that radical action does not equal violence.
Why is violence problematic? Apart from the moral and legal issues, violent activism undermines the climate cause and diminishes positive sentiments about climate advocacy in policy conversations. Moreover, the theory of change motivating violent action is weak. Most in the world recognize the climate challenge. Climate inaction does not reflect media neglecting climate change which can be corrected by newsworthy action. It reveals deeper distributional conflicts rooted in pushback from the fossil fuel industry and unions, fossil-fuel-dependent communities, rural residents opposing renewable energy projects, and the working class opposing higher energy prices. Thus, slow climate progress is not a simple story of the ruling capitalist class impeding policy change over the objections of the majority.
This means that the movement should resolve these complex issues through political mechanisms. Moreover, violence-based activism allows climate opponents to brand climate movement as eco-terrorism. At least 17 U.S. states have enacted “critical infrastructure” laws criminalizing protests against fossil fuel pipelines. Violent actions to damage fossil fuel infrastructure will justify their actions and even motivate a wider crackdown.
Moral and Legal Implications of Property Violence
In How to Blow Up a Pipeline, eight activists view property violence as an advocacy tactic because they feel this is the only way forward and their lived experiences have convinced them about the moral justification for their actions. The problem with this position is that individuals prioritize different issues. Many also feel disenfranchised. Should these aggrieved individuals resort to violence? Who decides which issues are worthy of violent advocacy and which are not?
Democracies have a process for policy change. Sometimes, the policy we favor gets enacted, and sometimes it does not. If we feel that policy inaction causes an existential crisis, we are frustrated. But we can voice our frustration in elections, in the media, and through non-violent advocacy. This is how citizens negotiate their differences. A commitment to ballots not bullets is crucial because both liberals and conservatives have grievances. We must ensure that grievances do not spin out of control into violence—especially important in this era of sharp polarization and angry rhetoric.
Some might argue that violence against property is different from violence against people, and property violence against corporations is different from say burning down the home of an individual. We disagree. The modern corporation’s functional logic is to pool resources from shareholders (both individuals and institutional investors such as pension funds) and use them to run a business. Eventually, violence against corporations is an attack on the livelihood and financial security of people whose assets the corporation manages.
This does not mean that activists should avoid subjecting corporations to economic pressure; they should do so through legal means. Shareholders can assess how their wealth might suffer because the firm faces problems on regulatory issues or social legitimacy grounds. The risk-return trade-off is a part of the bargain shareholders strike with corporations. And if shareholders consider corporate actions or inaction to be harmful, they can use economic and legal mechanisms such as shareholders’ vote or even divest.
What if property violence against corporations hurts the livelihood of impoverished communities? There is widespread poverty in many fossil fuel communities. They often view climate change as an elite issue favored by a predominantly urban climate movement. Might these communities view violence against fossil fuel infrastructure as an attack on their livelihood—on their very existence?
Even lesser actions such as transportation disruption can invite a backlash from affected parties. Consider the incident in London in 2019: “as XR began a second two-week mass mobilization in London, one local branch staged an action in Canning Town, a predominantly Black and Asian working-class neighborhood, in which several XR members clambered onto a subway car, preventing the train from leaving. Commuters dragged the protesters down onto the platform and beat them.”
About 24% of U.S. counties have enacted local ordinances to restrict solar and wind facilities. They view such facilities as spoiling rural landscapes. In some cases, environmental groups and native nations have joined protests against new renewable energy sites. There is also a backlash against new mining projects that will provide critical minerals for energy transition. The lesson is that some actors and communities oppose climate policies, not because they question climate science, but because they view climate action as imposing unfair burdens on them. To mitigate the opposition, underlying climate justice issues need to be addressed and violence is clearly the wrong way to accomplish this task.
What is the Way Forward?
Climate efforts are impeded by, among other things, rising energy prices. As the Ukraine crisis has reminded us, energy politics has economic and national security dimensions. Energy inflation provokes domestic backlash. This is why the Biden administration, which has shown a remarkable commitment to climate issues, sold oil from Strategic Petroleum Reserve and allowed the Willow project. Instead of dismantling pipelines, it is permitting new LNG infrastructure for exporting natural gas to Europe. The lesson is that supply disruptions by destroying fossil fuel pipelines will not serve the climate cause. They will probably do the opposite—by raising energy prices, they could motivate new drilling and investments in fossil fuel infrastructure.
Biden has enacted at least two major laws to fund climate transition, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal and the Inflation Reduction Act. It is undertaking administrative actions as well, as in vehicular tailpipe emissions. The reality is that in most countries, the climate movement is supported by the political establishment. Moreover, in the U.S., the movement now has the opportunity to take on the fossil fuel industry in the legal arena. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed local governments to sue the fossil fuel industry in state courts as opposed to federal courts which the industry wanted. It is possible that the industry might seek a settlement instead of risking jury trials, as happened with the tobacco industry, the opioid industry, and more recently Fox News. Thus, the movement should exploit these new legal opportunities to push the fossil fuel industry to take aggressive pro-climate actions.
Nives Dolsak is Stan and Alta Barer Professor in Sustainability Science and Director of the School of Marine & Environmental Affairs. Aseem Prakash is the Walker Family Professor and the Director of the Center for Environmental Politics. Both are at the University of Washington, Seattle.
Some things can’t be said easily in polite company. They cause offence or stir up intense anxiety. Where one might expect a conversation, what actually occurs is what the sociologist Eviator Zerubavel calls a ‘socially constructed silence.’
In his book Don’t Even Think About It,George Marshall argues that after the fiasco of COP 15 at Copenhagen and ‘Climategate’—when certain sections of the press claimed (wrongly as it turned out) that leaked emails of researchers at the University of East Anglia showed that data had been manipulated—climate change became a taboo subject among most politicians, another socially constructed silence with disastrous implications for the future of climate action.
In 2013-14 we carried out interviews with leading UK climate scientists and communicators to explore how they managed the ethical and emotional challenges of their work. While the shadow of Climategate still hung over the scientific community, our analysis drew us to the conclusion that the silence Marshall spoke about went deeper than a reaction to these specific events.
Instead, a picture emerged of a community which still identified strongly with an idealised picture of scientific rationality, in which the job of scientists is to get on with their research quietly and dispassionately. As a consequence, this community is profoundly uncomfortable with the storm of political controversy that climate research is now attracting.
The scientists we spoke to were among a minority who had become engaged with policy makers, the media and the general public about their work. A number of them described how other colleagues would bury themselves in the excitement and rewards of research, denying that they had any responsibility beyond developing models or crunching the numbers. As one researcher put it, “so many scientists just want to do their research and as soon as it has some relevance, or policy implications, or a journalist is interested in their research, they are uncomfortable.”
We began to see how for many researchers, this idealised picture of scientific practice might also offer protection at an unconscious level from the emotional turbulence aroused by the politicisation of climate change.
In her classic study of the ‘stiff upper lip’ culture of nursing in the UK in the 1950s, the psychoanalyst and social researcher Isobel Menzies Lyth developed the idea of ‘social defences against anxiety,’ and it seems very relevant here. A social defence is an organised but unconscious way of managing the anxieties that are inherent in certain occupational roles. For example, the practice of what was then called the ‘task list’ system fragmented nursing into a number of routines, each one executed by a different person—hence the ‘bed pan nurse’, the ‘catheter nurse’ and so on.
Ostensibly, this was done to generate maximum efficiency, but it also protected nurses from the emotions that were aroused by any real human involvement with patients, including anxiety, something that was deemed unprofessional by the nursing culture of the time. Like climate scientists, nurses were meant to be objective and dispassionate. But this idealised notion of the professional nurse led to the impoverishment of patient care, and meant that the most emotionally mature nurses were the least likely to complete their training.
While it’s clear that social defences such as hyper-rationality and specialisation enable climate scientists to get on with their work relatively undisturbed by public anxieties, this approach also generates important problems. There’s a danger that these defences eventually break down and anxiety re-emerges, leaving individuals not only defenceless but with the additional burden of shame and personal inadequacy for not maintaining that stiff upper lip. Stress and burnout may then follow.
Although no systematic research has been undertaken in this area, there is anecdotal evidence of such burnout in a number of magazine articles like those by Madeleine Thomas and Faith Kearns, in which climate scientists speak out about the distress that they or others have experienced, their depression at their findings, and their dismay at the lack of public and policy response.
Even if social defences are successful and anxiety is mitigated, this very success can have unintended consequences. By treating scientific findings as abstracted knowledge without any personal meaning, climate researchers have been slow to take responsibility for their own carbon footprints, thus running the risk of being exposed for hypocrisy by the denialist lobby. One research leader candidly reflected on this failure: “Oh yeah and the other thing [that’s] very, very important I think is that we ought to change the way we do research so we’re sustainable in the research environment, which we’re not now because we fly everywhere for conferences and things.”
The same defences also contribute to the resistance of most climate scientists to participation in public engagement or intervention in the policy arena, leaving these tasks to a minority who are attacked by the media and even by their own colleagues. One of our interviewees who has played a major role in such engagement recalled being criticised by colleagues for “prostituting science” by exaggerating results in order to make them “look sexy.”“You know we’re all on the same side,” she continued, “why are we shooting arrows at each other, it is ridiculous.”
The social defences of logic, reason and careful debate were of little use to the scientific community in these cases, and their failure probably contributed to internal conflicts and disagreements when anxiety could no longer be contained—so they found expression in bitter arguments instead. This in turn makes those that do engage with the public sphere excessively cautious, which encourages collusion with policy makers who are reluctant to embrace the radical changes that are needed.
As one scientist put it when discussing the goal agreed at the Paris climate conference of limiting global warming to no more than 2°C: “There is a mentality in [the] group that speaks to policy makers that there are some taboo topics that you cannot talk about. For instance the two degree target on climate change…Well the emissions are going up like this (the scientist points upwards at a 45 degree angle), so two degrees at the moment seems completely unrealistic. But you’re not allowed to say this.”
Worse still, the minority of scientists who are tempted to break the silence on climate change run the risk of being seen as whistleblowers by their colleagues. Another research leader suggested that—in private—some of the most senior figures in the field believe that the world is heading for a rise in temperature closer to six degrees than two.
“So repeatedly I’ve heard from researchers, academics, senior policy makers, government chief scientists, [that] they can’t say these things publicly,” he told us, “I’m sort of deafened, deafened by the silence of most people who work in the area that we work in, in that they will not criticise when there are often evidently very political assumptions that underpin some of the analysis that comes out.”
It seems that the idea of a ‘socially constructed silence’ may well apply to crucial aspects of the interface between climate scientists and policy makers. If this is the case then the implications are very serious. Despite the hope that COP 21 has generated, many people are still sceptical about whether the rhetoric of Paris will be translated into effective action.
If climate change work is stuck at the level of ‘symbolic policy making’—a set of practices designed to make it look as though political elites are doing something while actually doing nothing—then it becomes all the more important for the scientific community to find ways of abandoning the social defences we’ve described and speak out as a whole, rather than leaving the task to a beleaguered and much-criticised minority.
Em entrevista exclusiva a SUMAÚMA, o líder político Davi Kopenawa conta de sua esperança de que Lula tenha se tornado mais sábio para ser capaz de proteger a Amazônia: “Antes, ele errou. Não quero que nos engane novamente”
O nome de Davi Kopenawa foi anunciado para compor a equipe de transição que discutirá a criação do Ministério dos Povos Originários, promessa de campanha do presidente eleito Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Grande liderança política dos Yanomami, que ocupam há milênios a floresta amazônica entre o Brasil e a Venezuela, Davi é uma referências dos povos originários no planeta. Em sua trajetória de enfrentamento dos invasores de suas terras, não há notícia de que tenha jamais se corrompido. Nem por riqueza material nem por vaidade, mal que acomete alguns líderes ao penetrar no insidioso mundo dos brancos – ou napëpë, na língua Yanomam, palavra traduzida também como “inimigo”. Davi se manteve fiel a sua ancestralidade, aos seus mais velhos, à cosmopolítica xamânica, o que faz dele uma árvore muito sólida no complexo mundo que une numa palavra impingida pelos colonizadores – “indígenas” – mais de 300 povos no Brasil com culturas muito diversas. O xamã chega à equipe de transição com esperanças, mas também com memória: “Antes, Lula errou. Ele está mais velho, talvez tenha ficado mais sábio. Talvez Lula tenha aberto o seu pensamento, mas ninguém sabe o que ele esconde em seu coração. Não quero que nos engane novamente”.
Radical no seu compromisso com a palavra, que na política que aprendeu não pode ser sacrificada em nome de interesses, a verdade para Davi Kopenawa é inegociável. Dessa retidão que não admite uma “boca que fala mentiras” vêm as respostas do intelectual da Amazônia nesta entrevista feita na língua Yanomam pela indigenista e antropóloga Ana Maria Machado (e traduzida por ela) a pedido de SUMAÚMA. Autor, com o antropólogo francês Bruce Albert, de A queda do céu (Companhia das Letras, 2015), livro que representa uma inflexão na antropologia, Davi sabe que fala para aqueles que chama de “povo da mercadoria”. Observador atento dos debates climáticos que frequenta pelos palcos do mundo, ele acredita que Lula só irá se mover se houver forte pressão e financiamento da proteção da Amazônia pelos países monetariamente mais ricos, em especial os europeus.
Davi Kopenawa é também um competente tradutor de mundos. Consegue traduzir o universo dos brancos para os Yanomami e também traz até nós, nesta entrevista, recados que lhes são passados pelos xapiripë [espíritos auxiliares dos xamãs]. Traduz ainda o pedido de socorro de uma velha liderança, que não conhece o mundo dos brancos para além do horror da destruição do garimpo que devora toda vida em sua aldeia. Com o território invadido por milhares de garimpeiros, hoje o contexto é pior do que qualquer outro na trajetória de brutalidades vivida pelos Yanomami desde o primeiro contato com os brancos, na primeira metade do século 20: há envolvimento do crime organizado, com armas pesadas, e aliciamento dos indígenas mais jovens.
O líder Yanomami espera que a expulsão dos invasores do território de seu povo seja o primeiro ato do presidente após a posse, em 1º de janeiro. Para que a vitória de Lula se tornasse possível em uma disputa tão apertada com o extremista de direita Jair Bolsonaro, ele conta ter sido necessário um esforço conjunto dos xamãs em 30 de outubro, data do segundo turno da eleição. Faz ainda um apelo aos leitores, para que deixem de comprar ouro, esse ouro com sangue Yanomami e também de outros povos originários, esse ouro que destrói a verdadeira riqueza, a floresta, para colocar valor no metal convertido em mercadoria ordinária.
A seguir, a palavra de Davi Kopenawa.
ANA MARIA MACHADO: Agora que Lula venceu a eleição, o que você espera do novo presidente?
DAVI KOPENAWA: Eu vou explicar para os napëpë [napë = branco, inimigo, estrangeiro + pë = plural] o que nós, da comunidade do Watorikɨ, estamos pensando. Nós ficamos sabendo que aquele que já foi presidente voltará ao poder, então dissemos assim: “Dessa vez, ele talvez tenha se tornado mais sábio. Antes, ele errou, mas agora talvez esteja pensando corretamente, e por isso quero que ele se torne um presidente de verdade. Não quero que nos engane novamente. Ele vai voltar a ser o presidente e ficará de fato atento às nossas terras. Ele irá olhar para nós e pensar sobre nós. Se ele nos defender, ficaremos contentes com ele”.
O que está acontecendo hoje na Terra Indígena Yanomami que Lula precisa resolver com mais urgência?
Hoje, a fala dos velhos, dos líderes Yanomami, é cheia de sofrimento. Apenas eu frequento a cidade, e por isso consigo espalhar essas palavras. Tudo está muito ruim em nossas terras, os garimpeiros levam o horror. Agora que Lula virou presidente, em primeiro lugar precisa expulsá-los, retirá-los de verdade. Eu não estou dizendo isso sem razão, mas sim porque estamos vivendo o caos. E por quê? Porque eles assorearam os rios, porque poluem as águas e porque as águas se tornaram muito turvas nos lugares onde só tem um rio correndo. Eles estragaram as cabeceiras dos rios que nascem em nossas serras. Aqueles de nós que vivem perto do garimpo estão sofrendo, passando fome. Os garimpeiros não param de chegar. Nós [Yanomami] conversamos entre os diferentes lugares da nossa terra, temos a radiofonia para nos comunicar. Um parente mais velho da região do Xitei, que me trata como filho, disse que a situação ali está calamitosa. Ele disse que as pessoas mais velhas como ele estão cansadas de ver os garimpeiros sempre chegando, sempre trabalhando nas águas, sempre sujando as águas. E não é só isso: estão muito bravos por causa das armas. Aqueles Yanomami mais ignorantes disseram que os garimpeiros poderiam chegar lá levando armas. Porém, aquelas pessoas que destroem a floresta têm armas pesadas. Essas armas não são como as flechas, os garimpeiros distribuem revólveres. Eles tratam os mais novos como se fossem lideranças, iludem os Yanomami mais jovens dizendo: “Pegue uma arma! Se você tiver uma arma, será nosso amigo. Se você ficar contra nós, não irá receber uma arma”. Ao falarem assim com os jovens, aumentaram a quantidade de armas entre os Yanomami, e os garimpeiros fazem que nos matemos entre nós. Esse meu pai lá do Xitei explicou: “Se não estivéssemos nos matando entre nós, eu não precisaria estar aqui explicando. Meu filho, vá e diga isso para aquele que se tornou o líder [presidente]. Que afaste os garimpeiros que trabalham em nossa terra. Diga isso a ele. Você conhece os líderes dos napëpë, cobre que façam isso, que acabem com essas pessoas que estão em nossas terras, que as levem para longe”. Foi isso que meu pai me disse, e estou passando para a frente. É por tudo isso que eu estou reivindicando: Lula, não comece trabalhando nas terras dos brancos primeiro. Antes, retire os garimpeiros da nossa terra. Agora, Lula, você se tornou o presidente e, no mês de janeiro, vai se sentar no Palácio do Planalto. Nesse dia, comece a mandar os garimpeiros embora.
Era isso que eu queria dizer para vocês, brancos. E não estou dizendo isso à toa. Não quero ficar aqui sofrendo enquanto tiram minha imagem [filmam], o que estou reivindicando é verdadeiro, a terra adoecida está se espalhando por todos os cantos. É porque tem malária demais e porque o descontrole da malária chegou com o garimpo, é porque as nossas mulheres estão sofrendo demais, é porque nos lugares das terras altas onde não tem mais caça o espírito da fome, Ohinari, se aproximou. Já que eu conheço o novo presidente, vou cobrar, dizendo: “Quando você discursou, eu o escutei. Todos nós guardamos suas palavras em nossos ouvidos. Nós indígenas e também os napëpë, todos ouvimos suas palavras pelo celular. Não queremos ficar com nosso pensamento em sofrimento caso você esteja mentindo. Que seja verdade o que você disse em reunião, que caso se tornasse presidente novamente iria proteger os povos indígenas, que estão sofrendo no Brasil. Eu não quero que continuem destruindo a floresta que vocês brancos chamam de Amazônia. Portanto, Lula, é isso que estou te cobrando, que você faça isso primeiro”.
É verdade. Lula disse que não irá aceitar garimpo em terra indígena. Mas, nos anos 1990, quando seus parentes mais velhos morreram na primeira invasão garimpeira [1986-1993], quando aconteceu a operação Selva Livre, que tirou 40 mil garimpeiros, naquele tempo não havia crime organizado e milícias envolvidos nem os jovens Yanomami eram aliciados como agora. Hoje em dia o tráfico de drogas está misturado ali, assim como pessoas que fugiram da prisão. Eles têm armas pesadas e bombas. Será que não vai ser mais difícil tirar os garimpeiros hoje? Será que os jovens Yanomami que estão envolvidos vão opor alguma resistência? Apesar de termos Lula agora no governo, será possível acabar com o garimpo?
É verdade que hoje em dia a situação está muito ruim, tem muitas coisas misturadas. Os napëpë têm trazido drogas, cachaça e até cocaína. Com tudo isso misturado, os garimpeiros ficam alterados. Eles trabalham drogados. Os homens cheiram cocaína e ficam sentindo tesão pelas nossas mulheres. Como eles não vêm acompanhados de suas mulheres, eles cheiram cocaína e o pensamento deles fica alterado, eles ficam destemidos e pensam assim: “Já que eu estou drogado, estou sem medo. Já que estou sem medo, eu chamo as mulheres Yanomami, como suas vaginas e faço filhos nelas”. Hoje em dia essas pessoas também têm metralhadoras, bombas, e os garimpeiros dizem: “Se quiserem nos expulsar, mesmo sendo a Polícia Federal, nós vamos matá-los”. Além disso, tem também o mercúrio usado para separar o ouro, que está no meio de tudo. Tudo isso é terrível. O presidente Lula vai mandá-los sair, mas talvez não o escutem. Eu também fico pensando sobre isso. Se o escutarem, todas as pessoas do Brasil e da Europa, aqueles outros que querem que ele mantenha a floresta amazônica em pé e saudável, para mim está certo se eles o mandarem cuidar da floresta e lhe derem dinheiro para que retire os garimpeiros. Se for criada uma frente mundial em que todos nós conversemos juntos, unindo as autoridades dos napëpë e nós, indígenas, então conseguiremos nos defender, pois nós, indígenas, já sabemos lutar. Essa não é a terra dos garimpeiros, e já que eles têm causado o horror em nossas terras, levando muita desgraça misturada, já que eles têm feito as crianças sofrerem, magras e desnutridas, já que o garimpo mata os Yanomami pelo mal das epidemias, pelo mal da fome nos rios Uraricoera, Mucajaí, nas cabeceiras do rio Catrimani, e também em Homoxi, Xitei, Parafuri e Parima, nós temos que lutar.
Mas, para curar a Terra-floresta, vocês precisam também baixar o preço do ouro, precisam cortar isso. Vocês, napëpë, que pedem ouro, que compram ouro, precisam parar. Vocês das lojas de ouro, precisam baixar o preço. Como o ouro é muito caro, os garimpeiros estão sempre invadindo minha terra. Você, mulher que entende nossa língua Yanomam, vai escrever e traduzir, e para aqueles que captam minha imagem, quando eu aparecer, quando vocês ouvirem minhas palavras, me levem a sério, concordem comigo, e digam: “Sim, é verdade! Nós erramos. Nós não sabemos respeitar. Até falamos em respeito, mas estamos enganando, nossas bocas não dizem a verdade”. Era isso que eu queria dizer a vocês.
Quando Lula se tornou presidente pela primeira vez, em 2003, ele mudou a regulação das ONGs, o que levou ao fim da Urihi-Saúde Yanomami. A Urihi fez um excelente trabalho de atendimento de saúde para os Yanomami [entre 1999 e 2004] e conseguiu erradicar a malária em sua terra. Hoje, estamos vendo a malária fora de controle. O que o governo deve fazer com relação à saúde indígena?
Foi o seguinte: no início, Lula errou. Ele não sabia pensar direito. E, por ter errado no início, aconteceu isso. Ele também fez [a Usina Hidrelétrica de] Belo Monte, e esse foi um grande erro. Estragou um grande rio sem razão. Também errou com a saúde indígena. Lula errou na saúde, no assunto de viver bem e saudável, e tudo enfraqueceu. Os remédios pararam de chegar, os funcionários napëpë que trabalham em nossas terras, como técnico de enfermagem, médico e dentista, passaram a trabalhar de forma precária, já que não enviavam material. Então eu sei um pouco sobre isso, mas escondo essas palavras. Quando Lula se tornar mesmo o presidente, eu quero falar de perto com ele. “Lula, você me conhece, você precisa melhorar a saúde indígena. Precisa limpar novamente a saúde indígena, fazer os técnicos e profissionais de saúde trabalharem de verdade”. No governo de Bolsonaro, são os políticos que escolhem os coordenadores de saúde; [com Lula] eu e os conselheiros locais [representantes de toda a Terra Indígena Yanomami] vamos sentar para indicar alguém que a gente conheça, que seja nosso amigo e que trabalhe bem com a gente, só assim a saúde vai melhorar. É isso que quero dizer a Lula. Já que a saúde é prioridade para podermos viver bem, para nossos filhos crescerem bem, e considerando que estamos em uma situação lastimável, vou reivindicar isso. O presidente Jair Bolsonaro acabou com a nossa saúde. Ele nos matou como se fôssemos peixes.
Lula disse que vai criar o Ministério dos Povos Originários. O que você pensa disso?
É verdade. Ele disse que faria isso caso se tornasse presidente. E, já que ele disse, agora temos mulheres indígenas jovens que possuem o conhecimento dos napëpë, sabem agir como napëpë. Existem também jovens que sabem agir como os napëpë, sabem usar as máquinas, os celulares. E, já que temos essas pessoas que sabem trabalhar assim, eu penso o seguinte: “Awei, presidente Lula, já que você disse com clareza, eu deixei isso fixado no meu pensamento”. Acho que a dra. Joenia [Wapichana] já tem experiência, pois ela trabalhou como deputada federal por 4 anos, ela já sabe lutar. Como ela é advogada, já sabe escutar os políticos, e por isso eu gostaria que Lula a indicasse para ministra. Se Joenia disser que deseja se tornar ministra dos Povos Originários, nós vamos apoiá-la, faremos ela assentar naquela cadeira. Ter uma mulher indígena assentada ali nos trará mais sabedoria. Temos outras, como Sônia Guajajara e Célia Xakriabá, que acabaram de se eleger deputadas. A dra. Joenia não foi eleita, por isso estou pensando nela, que é muito inteligente e já sabe lutar. Então, foi isso que os meus sonhos disseram, e por isso fiz aparecer essa ideia.
Nós, napëpë, somos o povo da mercadoria e estamos acabando com as florestas e com o planeta. Por isso o mundo está preocupado com a crise climática, e para contê-la é preciso conservar as florestas. Sabemos que vocês têm sabedoria para isso. Que recado você teria a dar sobre esse assunto?
Todos os napëpë ficam falando de proteger as florestas. Falam de mudanças climáticas, desmatamento, poluição dos rios, mercúrio, doenças, mineração. Assim, Lula atentou para essas questões. Outras pessoas, os europeus, falam sobre as mudanças climáticas, fazem reuniões. Mas as pessoas não resolvem isso, não resolveram nada. Esse termo, “mudanças climáticas”, para mim é outra coisa. Eu chamo mesmo de “vingança da Terra”, de “vingança do mundo”, é assim que eu digo. Os napëpë chamam de “mudanças climáticas”, mas nós, Yanomami, quando fazemos xamanismo, chamamos de “transformação do mundo, tornar o mundo ruim já que os napëpë causam a revolta da Terra”. Os napëpë incendeiam as árvores; a Terra-floresta está com raiva, está se vingando, está fazendo chover muito, ter grandes ondas de calor, em alguns lugares está faltando água e em outros está chovendo demais, e outros ainda estão frios. Foi pelo fato de as pessoas dizerem isso, por termos ficado falando sobre isso, que Lula abriu seu pensamento. Ou melhor: talvez tenha aberto seu pensamento. Nós não sabemos o que ele esconde em seu coração. O que eu escondo em meu coração e em meu pensamento, o que nós escondemos das pessoas, é um segredo. Por isso talvez Lula esteja ainda nos enganando. Se o pensamento dele estiver nos enganando, ele vai resolver os pequenos problemas, mas não os grandes. Mas se outros napëpë, aqueles que vivem na outra margem do oceano [Europa], se eles forem ajudar e oferecerem um grande financiamento, talvez o pensamento de Lula mude. É assim que eu penso. Lula não cresceu sozinho. O povo levantou as palavras de Lula, vocês fizeram ele assentar naquela cadeira [da presidência]. Hoje em dia ele está mais velho, talvez tenha se tornado mais sábio.
Davi, você me disse que vocês, xamãs, ajudaram Lula a se eleger. Conte como foi isso, por favor.
Nós, xamãs que vivemos no Watorikɨ e também os outros xamãs de outras casas, como o Maxokapi, eu os mandei fazer isso [xamanismo para apoiar Lula]. Nós ajudamos Lula, nós o levantamos: eu, Carlos, os xamãs mais jovens, Tenose, Valmir, Dinarte, Geremias, Pernaldo, Manoel. Lula ficou apoiado na hutukara [céu]. Então os xamãs pediram para eu dizer a Lula: “Awei! Você quase perdeu. Se os espíritos xapiripë [xapiri = espírito auxiliar dos xamãs + pë = plural] não tivessem chegado ali, você não teria se tornado presidente outra vez. Você não os viu, eles estavam no Watorikɨ, e no dia 30 chegaram [até você]. Já que eles conhecem Brasília, já que Davi conhece aquela terra, nós, xapiripë, também conhecemos, nós olhamos no mapa e, pelo fato de termos chegado lá, nós tivemos vitória”.
Nós, xamãs de duas comunidades, trabalhamos por isso. Nós inalamos yakoana [pó da árvore virola sp, usado pelos xamãs para ver os xapiripë]. Chegamos até o grande xapiri, Omama, e dissemos a ele: “Awei! Você que é grande xapiri, que conhece o mundo inteiro, conhece todas as terras, já que seus olhos enxergam essas coisas por dentro e também pela superfície, já que seus olhos estão atentos a tudo o que ocorre no mundo, nós queremos elevar Lula para que ele se torne presidente outra vez, nós iremos apoiar o pensamento dele. Vamos manter nosso pensamento primeiro no céu, na hutukara, e assim ele vai se levantar [ter chances de ganhar a eleição]. O outro, Bolsonaro, aquele que tem a boca cheia de ignorância, se o povo dele o apoiar e o levantar, iremos sofrer muito. O presidente Jair Bolsonaro é terrível, e, se ele ganhar as eleições, aí sim ficaremos sofrendo. Ele é um apoiador da ditadura militar, portanto não faz amizade com a floresta. Não cuida dos rios e não sente tristeza por nós, povos da floresta”. Então, como Omama fez a nossa terra nos primeiros tempos, ele escreveu em um papel a expressão “defensor da floresta”, e foi isso que nós, xamãs, decidimos e dissemos: “Vamos escolher aquele que quer nos manter vivendo com saúde, vamos negar o papel onde está escrito o nome daquele que não quer o nosso bem-viver”.
Por causa disso, nós, do Watorikɨ, chegamos até Lula, chegamos a Brasília. Ao chegarmos lá, os napëpë não nos viram, pois chegamos bem suavemente. Com calma e devagar, chegamos até o pensamento dele. “Awei! Você, Lula, já que quer se tornar presidente outra vez, se apoie aqui onde Omama apoiou o nosso pensamento. Se você se apoiar aqui, vai se tornar o presidente. E, caso você se torne o presidente, queremos que você pense em nós em primeiro lugar. Diminua aqueles que estão sempre fazendo coisas ruins, torne-os pequenos. Feche esse buraco da maldade.”
Brad Plumer, Max Bearak, Lisa Friedman, Jenny Gross
Nov. 20, 2022
Nations reached a landmark deal to compensate developing nations for climate harm. But some leaders said the summit didn’t go far enough in addressing the root causes of global warming.
Sameh Shoukry, the Egyptian foreign minister, seated, reading a statement at the closing session of climate talks in Sharm el Sheikh. Credit: Mohamed Abd El Ghany/Reuters
Nov. 20, 2022, 3:33 a.m. ET
SHARM EL SHEIKH, Egypt — Diplomats from nearly 200 countries concluded two weeks of climate talks on Sunday by agreeing to establish a fund that would help poor, vulnerable countries cope with climate disasters made worse by the greenhouse gases from wealthy nations.
The decision on payments for loss and damage caused by global warming represented a breakthrough on one of the most contentious issues at United Nations climate negotiations. For more than three decades, developing nations have pressed rich, industrialized countries to provide compensation for the costs of destructive storms, heat waves and droughts linked to rising temperatures.
But the United States and other wealthy countries had long blocked the idea, for fear that they could face unlimited liability for the greenhouse gas emissions that are driving climate change.
The loss and damage agreement hammered out in this Red Sea resort town makes clear that payments are not to be seen as an admission of liability. The deal calls for a committee with representatives from 24 countries to work over the next year to figure out exactly what form the fund should take, which countries and financial institutions should contribute, and where the money should go. Many of the other details are still to be determined.
Developing countries hailed the deal as a landmark victory.
“The announcement offers hope to vulnerable communities all over the world who are fighting for their survival from climate stress,” said Sherry Rehman, the climate minister of Pakistan, which suffered catastrophic flooding this summer that left one-third of the country underwater and caused $30 billion in damages. Scientists later found that global warming had worsened the deluges.
While the new climate agreement dealt with the damages from global warming, it did far less to address the greenhouse gas emissions that are the root cause of the crisis. Experts say it is crucial for all nations to slash their emissions much more rapidly in order to keep warming at relatively safe levels. But the deal did not go much beyond what countries agreed to last year at U.N. climate talks in Glasgow.
“The loss and damage deal agreed is a positive step, but it risks becoming a ‘fund for the end of the world’ if countries don’t move faster to slash emissions,” said Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, who presided over the United Nations summit in 2014 and is now the climate lead for the World Wide Fund for Nature. “We cannot afford to have another climate summit like this one.”
The new agreement emphasizes that countries should strive to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, above preindustrial levels. Beyond that threshold, scientists say, the risk of climate catastrophes increases significantly. Early in the summit, some negotiators feared that the talks would abandon a focus on that target, which many vulnerable nations, such as low-lying islands in the Pacific, see as essential to their survival.
Current policies by national governments would put the world on track for a much hotter 2.1 to 2.9 degrees Celsius of warming this century, compared with preindustrial levels. Staying at 1.5 degrees would require countries to slash their fossil-fuel emissions roughly in half this decade, a daunting task.
India and more than 80 other countries wanted language that would have called for a “phase-down” of all fossil fuels, not just coal, but also oil and gas. That would have gone beyond the deal at Glasgow, which called for a “phase-down” of coal only. But that effort was blocked by major oil producers like Canada and Saudi Arabia, as well as by China, according to people close to the negotiations.
“It is more than frustrating to see overdue steps on mitigation and the phaseout of fossil energies being stonewalled by a number of large emitters and oil producers,” said Annalena Baerbock, the German foreign minister, in a statement.
Xie Zhenhua, China’s special envoy for climate, and Sherry Rehman, Pakistan’s climate minister, at the COP27 closing session on Sunday. Credit: Peter Dejong/Associated Press
Frans Timmermans, the European Union’s top climate official, said the deal fell far short of what was needed and was a sign of the growing gap between climate science and national climate policies. Too many countries blocked measures needed to address global warming, he said.
“Friends are only friends if they also tell you things you might not want to hear,” Mr. Timmermans said. “This is the make-or-break decade, but what we have in front of us is not enough of a step forward for people and planet.”
The two-week summit, which had been scheduled to end on Friday, stretched until dawn on Sunday as exhausted negotiators from nearly 200 nations clashed over fine print. The talks came at a time of multiple crises. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has roiled global food supply and energy markets, stoked inflation and spurred some countries to burn more coal and other alternatives to Russian gas, threatening to undermine climate goals.
At the same time, rising global temperatures have intensified deadly floods in places like Pakistan and Nigeria, as well as fueled record heat across Europe and Asia. In the Horn of Africa, a third year of severe drought has brought millions to the brink of famine.
Much of the focus over the past two weeks was on loss and damage.
Developing nations — largely from Asia, Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean and South Pacific — fought first to place the debate over a loss and damage fund on the formal agenda of the two-week summit. And then they were relentless in their pressure campaign, arguing that it was a matter of justice, noting they did little to contribute to a crisis that threatens their existence. They made it clear that a summit held on the African continent that ended without addressing loss and damage would be seen as a moral failure.
As the summit neared its end, the European Union consented to the idea of a loss and damage fund, though it insisted that any aid should be primarily focused on the most vulnerable nations, and that aid might include a wide variety of options such as new insurance programs in addition to direct payments.
That left the United States, which has pumped more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than any nation in history, as the last big holdout. By Saturday, as talks stretched into overtime, American officials said that they would accept a loss and damage fund, breaking the logjam.
Still, major hurdles remain.
There is no guarantee that wealthy countries will deposit money into the fund. A decade ago, the United States, the European Union and other wealthy emitters pledged to mobilize $100 billion per year in climate finance by 2020 to help poorer countries shift to clean energy and adapt to future climate risks through measures like building sea walls. They are still falling short by tens of billions of dollars annually.
And while American diplomats agreed to a fund, money must be appropriated by Congress. Last year, the Biden administration sought $2.5 billion in climate finance but secured just $1 billion, and that was when Democrats controlled both chambers. With Republicans set to take over the House in January, the prospects of Congress approving an entirely new pot of money for loss and damage appear dim.
“Sending U.S. taxpayer dollars to a U.N. sponsored green slush fund is completely misguided,” said Senator John Barrasso, Republican of Wyoming. “The Biden administration should focus on lowering spending at home, not shipping money to the U.N. for new climate deals. Innovation, not reparations, is key to fighting climate change.”
The United States and the European Union secured language in the deal that could expand the donor base to include major emerging economies like China and Saudi Arabia. The United Nations currently classifies China as a developing country, which has traditionally exempted it from obligations to provide climate aid, even though it is now the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases as well as the second-largest economy. The new changes are likely to spark fights in the future, since China has fiercely resisted being treated as a developed nation in global climate talks.
For their part, a variety of European nations have voluntarily pledged more than $300 million to address loss and damage so far, with most of that money going toward a new insurance program to help countries recover from disasters like flooding. Poorer countries have praised those early efforts while noting that they may ultimately face hundreds of billions of dollars per year in unavoidable, irreversible climate damages.
“We have the fund, but we need money to make it worthwhile,” said Mohamed Adow, executive director of Power Shift Africa, a group that aims to mobilize climate action across the continent. “What we have is an empty bucket. Now we need to fill it so that support can flow to the most impacted people who are suffering right now at the hands of the climate crisis.”
Greenhouse gases are among the chief causes of global warming and climate change. Getty Images
An international team led by Oregon State University researchers says in a report published today that the Earth’s vital signs have reached “code red” and that “humanity is unequivocally facing a climate emergency.”
In the special report, “World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency 2022,” the authors note that 16 of 35 planetary vital signs they use to track climate change are at record extremes. The report’s authors share new data illustrating the increasing frequency of extreme heat events and heat-related deaths, rising global tree cover loss because of fires, and a greater prevalence of insects and diseases thriving in the warming climate. Food insecurity and malnutrition caused by droughts and other climate-related extreme events in developing countries are increasing the number of climate refugees.
William Ripple, a distinguished professor in the OSU College of Forestry, and postdoctoral researcher Christopher Wolf are the lead authors of the report, and 10 other U.S. and global scientists are co-authors.
“Look at all of these heat waves, fires, floods and massive storms,” Ripple said. “The specter of climate change is at the door and pounding hard.”
“As we can see by the annual surges in climate disasters, we are now in the midst of a major climate crisis, with far worse to come if we keep doing things the way we’ve been doing them,” Wolf said.
“As Earth’s temperatures are creeping up, the frequency or magnitude of some types of climate disasters may actually be leaping up,” said the University of Sydney’s Thomas Newsome, a co-author of the report. “We urge our fellow scientists around the world to speak out on climate change.”
“The Scientist’s Warning” is a documentary by the research team summarizing the report’s results and can be watched online:
Gillian Caldwell, responsável pela nova estratégia da Agência dos EUA para o Desenvolvimento Internacional, diz que plano prioriza apoio a indígenas e mulheres
Cristiane Fontes
5 de outubro de 2022
“Esse dinheiro não apenas tornará nosso planeta mais limpo, mais verde e mais seguro, mas também nos poupará dinheiro a longo prazo, tanto por meio dos empregos verdes quanto do que não precisaremos gastar em respostas humanitárias no futuro”, afirmou Samantha Power, chefe da Usaid (Agência dos Estados Unidos para o Desenvolvimento Internacional), no lançamento da nova estratégia climática do órgão.
“Sabemos que cada dólar investido em adaptação às mudanças climáticas pode render de US$ 2 a US$ 10 em benefícios. Portanto, implementar essa estratégia não é apenas a coisa necessária a fazer, é também a decisão mais econômica e inteligente a ser feita”, completou ela, que foi embaixadora dos EUA na ONU de 2013 a 2017, no governo de Barack Obama.
O plano, anunciado em abril, conta com um orçamento de US$ 600 milhões e inaugura a intenção de transformar a Usaid em uma agência climática. À frente desse projeto está Gillian Caldwell, diretora de assuntos climáticos.
A estratégia estabelece metas ambiciosas, como alcançar até 2030 a redução das emissões de carbono em 6 bilhões de toneladas. “Isso equivale a quase todas as emissões dos EUA num ano inteiro”, diz à Folha Caldwell, que já foi CEO da ONG Global Witness e liderou a campanha 1Sky, responsável pela mobilização de mais de 600 entidades para aprovar leis sobre clima nos EUA.
Para isso, além da gestão de projetos em diversos países e da mobilização de múltiplos setores do governo americano, faz parte da estratégia dar assistência técnica também ao setor privado. A ideia é que investidores tenham acesso a projetos confiáveis relacionados às mudanças climáticas. Assim, como um todo, a meta é mobilizar US$ 150 bilhões para financiamento climático até 2030, incluindo aportes públicos e privados.
Apesar da cifra elevada, Caldwell pondera que são necessários “de US$ 3 trilhões a US$ 5 trilhões por ano até 2030 para atender às necessidades globais de mitigação e adaptação”. “Precisamos acelerar substancialmente os investimentos”, alerta.
Outros objetivos são aumentar a resiliência e a capacidade adaptativa de 500 milhões de pessoas no planeta, especialmente de povos indígenas, mulheres e jovens, e promover a conservação, o uso sustentável e a restauração de 100 milhões de hectares de locais que são grandes estoques de carbono, como é o caso da Amazônia.
No Brasil, a Usaid mantém projetos em parceria com o governo federal e gestões estaduais. “No ano passado, nossas ações na área de biodiversidade no Brasil protegeram habitats de espécies ameaçadas de extinção e geraram impactos positivos em 45 milhões de hectares de terras em todo o país. Para fins de comparação, é uma área maior que a Califórnia”, conta Caldwell.
Na entrevista, a gestora também comenta, entre outros pontos, a Lei de Redução da Inflação, pacote ambiental recém-lançado pelo governo Biden.
Quais são os principais objetivos da nova estratégia climática da Usaid? Ela foi lançada nos EUA no Dia da Terra, 22 de abril, e permanecerá em vigor até 2030. Trata-se da estratégia mais ambiciosa que a Usaid já lançou para tentar enfrentar a crise climática. De fato, todos os órgãos do governo Biden estão sendo encorajados a adotar uma postura mais ambiciosa em relação à mitigação e adaptação climáticas.
Portanto, a estratégia estabelece uma série de metas muito ambiciosas e de alto nível a serem alcançadas até 2030, como, a redução das emissões de carbono em 6 bilhões de toneladas. Isso equivale a quase todas as emissões dos EUA num ano inteiro. Além disso, muito será realizado por meio de soluções baseadas na natureza. Queremos proteger e preservar 100 milhões de hectares de paisagens com grande estoque de carbono.
Ademais, por meio da iniciativa Prepare de adaptação e resiliência, promovida pelo presidente [Biden], da qual a Usaid é a implementadora líder, queremos aumentar a resiliência e a capacidade adaptativa de meio bilhão de pessoas em todo o mundo.
Por fim, queremos garantir intervenções capazes de mudar os sistemas em pelo menos 40 países ao redor do mundo, para aumentar a participação de comunidades marginalizadas, tais como povos indígenas e comunidades locais, mulheres e jovens.
Qual é o orçamento que vocês têm para implementar a estratégia? O orçamento total da Usaid é de cerca de US$ 25 bilhões para o exercício financeiro atual. [Samantha] Power, nossa administradora, repetidamente se refere à Usaid como uma agência climática, então, em certo nível, estamos pensando no que podemos fazer com esses US$ 25 bilhões. O orçamento especificamente destinado a questões climáticas está na casa de US$ 600 milhões.
Como a senhora pretende trabalhar com países como o Brasil para a conservação dos 100 milhões de hectares? Já somos muito ativos no Brasil. No ano passado, nossas ações na área de biodiversidade no Brasil protegeram habitats de espécies ameaçadas de extinção e geraram impactos positivos em 45 milhões de hectares de terras em todo o país. Para fins de comparação, é uma área maior que a Califórnia.
Também estamos contribuindo para evitar mais de 300 milhões de toneladas métricas de emissões de gases de efeito estufa. Além disso, fortalecemos a gestão de 189 áreas protegidas no Brasil, 83% das quais são territórios indígenas e quilombolas.
Em termos gerais, conforme já mencionei, a estratégia climática enfatiza o envolvimento de povos indígenas e comunidades locais em todo o nosso trabalho de formulação [de políticas e programas]. Isso se deve ao fato de as comunidades indígenas cuidarem das paisagens mais importantes do mundo em termos de estoque de carbono.
O atual desmantelamento das políticas ambientais brasileiras afeta o que a Usaid vem tentando fazer no país? Bem, nós temos uma cooperação com o governo brasileiro para proteger a biodiversidade. Nosso foco é colaborar não apenas com o governo federal, mas também com os governos subnacionais e regionais no Brasil, que é onde temos uma colaboração mais próxima.
Na sua opinião, como a agenda de adaptação e resiliência deve ser modificada ou atualizada, considerando os últimos eventos climáticos extremos observados no mundo todo? Os impactos da crise climática estão sendo sentidos de forma muito intensa em todo o mundo, ainda mais do que haviam previsto os cientistas. Sabemos que as consequências serão desastrosas. Basta ver o que está acontecendo no Paquistão, onde níveis recorde de monções deixaram mais de um terço do país debaixo d’água.
Portanto, a necessidade é urgente, tanto de reduzir as emissões e evitar as piores consequências da crise climática quanto de ajudar as comunidades a aumentar sua resiliência e capacidade de adaptação. É por isso que a Usaid trabalha em ambas as frentes: mitigação e adaptação.
Na iniciativa Prepare, que é nosso plano emergencial de adaptação e resiliência, temos três focos. O primeiro é apoiar o trabalho de cientistas e meteorologistas, tomadores de decisão e comunidades para fortalecer os sistemas de alerta precoce e outros serviços de informação climática. Isso está de acordo com o apelo do secretário-geral da ONU [o português António Guterres] por alerta antecipado para todos.
Muitas comunidades não são alertadas sobre eventos climáticos e meteorológicos extremos que podem ameaçar suas vidas e meios de subsistência. Mesmo 24 horas de antecedência são capazes de reduzir substancialmente os riscos e as perdas de vidas e meios de subsistência.
Em segundo lugar, estamos apoiando iniciativas locais para integrar boas práticas de adaptação climática às políticas de planejamento e aos orçamentos nacionais e locais. Quando examinamos as políticas de planejamento e os orçamentos de infraestrutura, saúde, segurança hídrica e alimentar, deslocamentos e migração, percebemos que os riscos climáticos nem sempre são abordados de forma sistemática. Por isso, estamos fornecendo conhecimentos técnicos para garantir que as análises climáticas sejam incorporadas ao modelo de todos esses programas.
Em terceiro lugar, queremos realmente tentar eliminar o déficit em investimentos financeiros e adaptação climática. Nossa meta é catalisar US$ 150 bilhões em financiamento público e privado, e uma grande ênfase deve ser dada à adaptação. O setor privado está começando a investir em respostas climáticas, especialmente na mitigação. Contudo, apenas 3% dos recursos privados são destinados a ações de adaptação.
Sabemos que precisamos de US$ 3 trilhões a US$ 5 trilhões por ano até 2030 para atender às necessidades globais de mitigação e adaptação. Precisamos acelerar substancialmente os investimentos.
Como está, até o momento, a implementação do plano internacional de financiamento climático? Estamos nos concentrando em quatro áreas principais. A primeira é fornecer assistência técnica e desenvolvimento de “pipelines”para garantir que o setor privado tenha acesso a projetos confiáveis e capazes de receber investimentos em mitigação e adaptação.
Se observarmos a proliferação global de compromissos relativos a zerar as emissões líquidas —em Glasgow [na Escócia, onde foi realizada a última conferência do clima da ONU, a COP26, em 2021] e além—, veremos que há bilhões de dólares em recursos do setor privado disponíveis, apenas aguardando a oportunidade certa para que sejam investidos em projetos climáticos positivos. Muitos investidores do setor privado dirão que simplesmente não há projetos suficientes com a credibilidade ou a integridade que eles buscam.
A segunda área tem a ver com o que chamamos de ambiente propício. Em outras palavras, ajudar os governos a aumentar o investimento, garantindo que haja políticas e incentivos fiscais adequados em vigor. É pouco provável que alguém consiga estimular investimentos em economias de energias renováveis sem fornecer créditos fiscais, como os que a Lei de Redução da Inflação nos EUA acaba de oferecer.
Os US$ 369 bilhões que a Lei de Redução da Inflação de 2022 direcionou para a transição das energias renováveis já deram resultados. Estamos vendo bilhões de dólares em novos compromissos.
A terceira é usar nosso poder de mobilização para reunir uma diversidade de partes interessadas —governos, investidores do setor privado ou instituições multilaterais como o Banco Mundial— para realmente garantir que estejamos unindo forças para maximizar nosso potencial de investimento.
Por fim, estamos ampliando o uso de ferramentas financeiras inovadoras. Como um órgão público de desenvolvimento internacional, obviamente temos condições de fornecer subsídios capazes de reduzir os riscos de investimentos do setor privado. O que queremos fazer é fornecer capital concessional que reduza a percepção de riscos e aumente o retorno potencial dos investimentos do setor privado.
O presidente Biden estava disposto a mobilizar mais de US$ 11 bilhões em financiamento climático para países em desenvolvimento, o que não foi possível, como sabemos. Na sua opinião, como mobilizar fundos para a crise climática neste momento tão crucial e tão desafiador? O presidente Biden se comprometeu a quadruplicar o financiamento climático dos EUA e chegar a US$ 11,4 bilhões até 2024, e esse compromisso permanece firme. Obviamente, precisamos do apoio do Congresso para conseguirmos fazer isso.
Se houver dotação orçamentária, o que também depende do Congresso, o orçamento da Presidência para o exercício financeiro de 2023 —um ano antes da meta prometida de 2024— seria capaz de cumprir a promessa por meio de uma combinação de financiamento direto e indireto.
Além disso, precisamos trabalhar em conjunto com nossos aliados para cumprir a promessa feita no Acordo de Paris, de US$ 100 bilhões anuais para mitigação e adaptação climáticas em países em desenvolvimento. Isso ainda não é, nem de longe, o suficiente, mas ainda temos que atingir essa meta, que é muito importante.
Qual a sua opinião sobre o mercado voluntário de carbono? Ele é considerado por certas pessoas uma fonte de financiamento importante, enquanto, para outras, é prejudicial para as comunidades locais e ineficaz para a redução de emissões? Bem, creio que os mercados de carbono constituem uma das muitas ferramentas para catalisar todas as mudanças necessárias. É inegável que, em certas situações, os mercados de carbono se mostraram ineficazes na mobilização de financiamento para as comunidades locais ou na geração de benefícios reais de conservação.
Ao mesmo tempo, o mercado voluntário de carbono está crescendo exponencialmente. Em 2021, já era avaliado em US$ 2 bilhões. Então precisamos achar a solução certa: isso já está acontecendo, quer você queira, quer não.
Meu foco é garantir que ele seja o mais íntegro e equitativo possível. Precisamos de dados e monitoramento transparentes para garantir que as reduções de emissões sejam reais e que os fundos gerados por meio das reduções de emissões realmente beneficiem as comunidades locais.
Raio-X
Gillian Caldwell, 56
Com formação nas universidades Harvard e Georgetown, é advogada, ativista e cineasta. Atualmente é diretora para assuntos climáticos da Usaid (Agência dos Estados Unidos para o Desenvolvimento Internacional), além de administradora-adjunta do órgão. Antes, foi CEO da ONG Global Witness. De 2007 a 2010, foi diretora da campanha 1SKy, iniciativa de mais de 600 organizações para aprovar a legislação climática nos EUA. Caldwell já recebeu diversos reconhecimentos no setor de empreendedorismo social, incluindo o Prêmio Skoll.
O mundo vive um inferno astral de ameaças de curto e longo prazo. Em brilhante palestra recente, Tharman Shanmugaratnam, ministro sênior de Singapura, listou cinco riscos que, para ele, configuram uma “longa tempestade perfeita” para o planeta. Neste artigo, discutirei as implicações desse quadro para o Brasil, procurando também identificar as oportunidades disponíveis.
O pano de fundo é conhecido. Ao acordar do sonho do mundo pacífico e integrado do fim da história de Fukuyama, nos deparamos com crescentes tensões, que se manifestam em múltiplas esferas. A mais chocante de todas e primeiro tema da lista de Tharman é a tragédia ucraniana, que configura o rompimento de uma governança global que garantia a soberania e a integridade territorial de todas as nações.
A esse retorno da Guerra Fria original, de natureza ideológica (modificada) e militar, se soma a Guerra Fria.2 entre os Estados Unidos e a China, também ideológica, mas muito mais complexa em suas frentes de disputa.
O embate entre os dois gigantes caracteriza um período de ausência de uma liderança global hegemônica que, como bem diagnosticou Charles P. Kindleberger, tende a ser muito instável. Do ponto de vista econômico, as duas guerras frias forçosamente demandam um importante repensar de alianças e relações de produção e comércio globais.
Para o Brasil, será necessário retornar à política externa tradicional do Itamaraty, voltada para a busca do interesse nacional através de boas relações viabilizadas pelo nosso histórico apego a princípios universais e pela nossa natural vocação multilateral. Nos cabe primeiramente e o quanto antes uma defesa inequívoca da integridade de todas as nações. Temos também que zelar pela manutenção de relações mutuamente benéficas com a maior parte dos países.
Em seu segundo grande tema, o autor discute o perigo de uma prolongada estagflação. O epicentro do problema encontra-se nos Estados Unidos, onde uma economia superaquecida por políticas expansionistas vem sendo atingida pelos choques de oferta da pandemia e das guerras frias. Para o Brasil, o risco maior advém da real possibilidade de o banco central americano ter de elevar os juros bem além do que os mercados já antecipam. Nos faria lembrar da frase “quando o Norte espirra, o Sul pega pneumonia”.
Um cenário alternativo, também nada reconfortante, seria uma queda ainda maior das Bolsas, acompanhada de um novo colapso nos preços dos imóveis, hoje acima em termos reais dos níveis da bolha que estourou em 2008.
Do lado de cá, o quadro é ainda mais complicado do que nos Estados Unidos, pois mesmo em recessão a inflação atingiu dois dígitos. Não é difícil imaginar uma tempestade perfeita para o Brasil, onde desafios externos e internos se reforçam. O próximo presidente terá que conduzir a política econômica com coragem e competência, de preferência com o apoio qualitativo das respostas aos demais desafios, que discuto a seguir.
A ameaça existencial da mudança climática é o terceiro tema do discurso. Aqui o Brasil terá a oportunidade de promover uma guinada verdadeiramente alquímica: trocar uma posição de pária ambiental, decorrente de posturas que aumentaram o desmatamento e o crime organizado, por uma guinada que nos poria em uma posição de liderança global no tema, com consequências extremamente positivas fora e dentro do país.
A criação de um mercado de carbono, como vem sendo discutido no Congresso e prometido pelo Executivo, seria um passo essencial nessa direção. É fundamental que o mercado seja desenhado de forma a permitir a plena inserção do país no mercado global de carbono, alternativa não disponível no momento. Vejo amplo potencial para investimentos no setor, em ambiente de concorrência e plenamente alinhados com o interesse público (estou investindo nessa área).
O elevado risco de novas pandemias vem a seguir. A ciência recomenda todo cuidado com o tema. Aqui também vejo amplo espaço para um cavalo de pau. Será necessário reforçar sob todos os ângulos o SUS, que, com seus 4% do PIB de recursos, precisa urgentemente subir na escala de prioridades dos orçamentos de todas as esferas de governo.
Cabe também incluir nas prioridades da nação mais apoio à pesquisa. Fontes de recursos para tais esforços não faltam, como tenho argumentado aqui. Falta sim transparência orçamentária e vontade política.
Em último lugar na lista, mas não menos importante, são as desigualdades de crescimento e bem-estar dentro dos países e entre eles, os mais ricos em vantagem em ambos os casos. Essa situação vem se agravando com as “tempestades perfeitas” e representa um terreno fértil para populismos e autoritarismos. O Brasil tem muito a fazer nessa área.
Com sucesso nessas frentes, o Brasil se qualificaria para ser relevante na reconstrução de uma governança global ora em frangalhos. As vantagens seriam imensas, pois ajudaria a si próprio em tudo mais. No entanto, sem sucesso, os prejuízos para a população seriam enormes. Um futuro melhor só virá se e quando a nossa democracia não mais estiver ameaçada e um tanto disfuncional.
A landmark U.N. climate report on the escalating effects of global warming broke new ground by finally highlighting the role of misinformation in obstructing climate action. It was the first time one of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s exhaustive assessments has called out the ways in which fossil fuel companies, climate deniers and conspiracy theorists have sown doubt and confusion about climate change and made it harder for policymakers to act.
The expert panel’s report released last week mostly focused on the increasing risk of catastrophe to nature and humanity from climate change. But it also laid out clear evidence of how misinformation about climate change and the “deliberate undermining of science” financed and organized by “vested economic and political interests,” along with deep partisanship and polarization, are delaying action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to their impacts.
The assessment describes an atmosphere in which public perception about climate change is continually undermined by fossil fuel interests’ peddling of false, misleading and contrarian information and its circulation through social media echo chambers; where there’s an entrenched partisan divide on climate science and solutions; and people reject factual information if it conflicts with their political ideology.
Sound familiar? It should, because the climate misinformation landscape is worse in the United States than practically any other country.
While the section on misinformation covers only a few of the more than 3,600 pages in the report approved by 195 countries, it’s notable that it’s in a chapter about North America and calls out the U.S. as a hotbed for conspiracy theories, partisanship and polarization. A 2018 study of 25 countries that was cited in the IPCC report found that the U.S. had a stronger link between climate skepticism and conspiratorial and conservative ideology than in any other nation tested. These forces aren’t just a threat to democracy, they are major roadblocks to climate action and seem to have sharpened with the Trump presidency and the COVID-19 pandemic.
Misinformation was included in the North America chapter for the first time this year “because there has been a lot of research conducted on the topic since the last major IPCC report was published in 2014,” said Sherilee Harper, one of the lead authors and an associate professor at the University of Alberta in Canada. “Evidence assessed in the report shows how strong party affiliation and partisan opinion polarization can contribute to delayed climate action, most notably in the U.S.A., but also in Canada.”
The IPCC’s language is measured but leaves no doubt that the fossil fuel industry and politicians who advance its agenda are responsible. It is shameful that fossil fuel interests have been so successful in misleading Americans about the greatest threat to our existence. The industry has engaged in a decades-long campaign to question climate science and delay action, enlisting conservative think tanks and public relations firms to help sow doubt about global warming and the actions needed to fight it.
These dynamics help explain why U.S. politicians have failed time after time to enact significant federal climate legislation, including President Biden’s stalled but desperately needed “Build Back Better” bill that includes $555 billion to spur growth in renewable energy and clean transportation. And they show that combating disinformation is a necessity if we are to break through lawmakers’ refusal to act, which is increasingly out of step with Americans’ surging levels of alarm and concern about the overheating of the planet.
“We’ve seen misinformation poisoning the information landscape for over three decades, and over that time the public has been getting more and more polarized,” said John Cook, a postdoctoral research fellow at the Climate Change Communication Research Hub at Monash University in Australia. “The U.S. is the strongest source of misinformation and recipient of misinformation. It’s also the most polarized on climate.”
Cook and his colleagues studied misinformation on conservative think-tank websites and contrarian blogs over the last 20 years and charted the evolution of the climate opposition from outright denial of the reality of human-caused climate change and toward attacking solutions such as renewable energy or seeking to discredit scientists.
Cook said his research has found the most effective way to counter climate obstruction misinformation is to educate people about how to identify and understand different tactics, such as the use of fake experts, cherry-picked facts, logical fallacies and conspiracy theories. For example, seeing words such as “natural” or “renewable” in fossil fuel advertising raises red flags that you’re being misled through greenwashing.
“It’s like teaching people the magician’s sleight-of-hand trick,” Cook said.
There have been important efforts recently to hold the fossil fuel industry accountable for disinformation. In a hearing that was modeled on tobacco industry testimony from a generation ago, House Democrats hauled in oil executives last fall to answer to allegations that their companies have concealed their knowledge of the risks of global warming to obstruct climate action (they, unsurprisingly, denied them).
Perhaps we are getting closer to a turning point, where public realization that we’ve been misinformed by polluting industries begins to overcome decades of planet-endangering deceit and delay. Having the world’s scientists finally begin to call out the problem certainly can’t hurt.
Nives Dolsak and Aseem Prakash – Aug 14, 2021,08:29pm EDT
The recent IPCC report is a grim reminder of the seriousness of the climate crisis. The wildfires in the Western United States and Canada, the zombie fires in Siberia, heatwaves in Southern Europe and the Pacific Northwest, and floods in Germany and China should motivate aggressive climate action.
Disasters are supposed to focus policy attention, which political scientist John Kingdon described as opening the “policy window.” As “focusing events,” drastic weather episodes could create opportunities to enact new climate policies. But, of course, a lot depends on the skill of policy entrepreneurs. As Rahm Immanuel had famously noted, politicians should not allow a serious crisis to go to waste.
And yet, climate policy seems to be losing steam. The U.S. Senate has substantially slashed Biden’s proposal for new climate spending. China continues to build coal-fired electricity plants. Brazil has announced a plan to support its coal industry.
And to top it all, Jake Sullivan, U.S. National Security Advisor, is imploring OPEC countries to pump more oil! The White House press release notes: “President Biden has made clear that he wants Americans to have access to affordable and reliable energy, including at the pump.” Yes, one can smell 2022 mid-term elections because Democrats do not want to be held responsible for high gas prices, a highly emotive pocketbook issue. However, these statements cause enormous policy confusion about Biden’s commitment to making tough choices on climate issues. If zero emissions are to be achieved by 2050, the White House should allow the prices to rise. Moreover, if Biden supports increasing oil supply abroad, why is he opposing it in the U.S., as Texas Governor Greg Abbott noted?
Models of Policy Change
There are different pathways to policy change. The “information deficit” model suggests that policy change is hampered when policy elites do not have sufficient information. Once these elites are “educated” and there is an “epistemic consensus,” policy change takes place. With easy accessibility to well-written and carefully crafted IPCC reports, it is difficult to accept that policy elites lack information about climate change. Perhaps, what is taking place is “motivated reasoning”: individuals seek information that coheres with their prior beliefs and leads them to their desired conclusions. This means that policy elites are not empty vessels waiting to be nourished by the nectar of new knowledge. Instead, they seek information that they want to hear. Information deficit explanations do not work well in highly polarized political contexts.
Political explanations begin with the premise that most policy institutions favor the status quo. This is partly due to the institutional design (such as the Senate Filibuster) that many democracies deliberately adopt to prevent concentration of power. But sometimes, dramatic events can shatter the status quo, as elites begin to rethink their priorities. If political entrepreneurs can stitch together a coalition, policy change can happen. And sometimes, even without policy windows opening up, these entrepreneurs can create policies that can appeal to multiple constituencies. After all, Baptists and Bootleggers came together to push for prohibition. Politics, rather than the lack of scientific information, is probably leading to policy sluggishness.
Why is Climate Policy Stalling?
Additional issues are also contributing to climate policy lethargy. Humans have a limited attention span. Climate issues are getting neglected because the policy space is getting crowded by new and sensational non-climate issues. Taliban’s rapid advance in Afghanistan is stunning, and its aftermath is most disturbing. Western countries are in a panic mode to evacuate embassies with “Saigon type” exit from Kabul. The Afghanistan crisis is creating a new wave of refugees seeking safety in Europe, abetting a nationalist backlash. The debate on “who lost Afghanistan” will probably dominate the U.S. policy discourse with the usual blame game.
Closer to home, the resurgence of COVID and the debate about masks and vaccines are igniting political passions. School and college reopening controversy will probably take a chunk of policy space and attention span.
Other dramatic issues will make demands on the attention span as well: crime waves in many cities (the top issue in the New York Mayoral race), the Cuomo scandal, and Newsom’s recall.
Is there Hope on the Climate Front?
The good news is that the renewable energy industry is growing despite COVID-induced recession. A key reason is that the prices of both solar and wind are now competitive with coal. This means that electric utilities will deploy their political muscle to get favorable renewable policies at the state level. For example, the legislature in a Red state such as Indiana has prohibited county governments from using zoning ordinances against renewable energy.
The automobile industry seems to be pushing EVs as well. Although the Senate’s $1.2 trillion infrastructure plan has provided only $7.5 billion for E.V. charging stations (as opposed to $15 billion Biden had asked for), the automobile industry and electric utilities (with their massive new investments in renewables) are now getting locked into a new technological trajectory . This means that they have strong incentives to create a national charging station network.
Although the federal government may be underperforming on climate issues, the private sector has embraced them. Wall Street also seems to be keeping pace with Main Street and the Silicon Valley. Of course, one might view industry’s newfound love for Environmental-Social-Governance (ESG) issues as hype, simply replacing Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). It remains to be seen if climate leaders such as BlackRock can bring about measurable change in corporate policies on climate issues.
In sum, the climate policy optimism of the first 100 days of the Biden administration seems to be wearing off. This is disturbing because Republicans are expected to retake the House (and possibly the Senate as well) in the 2022 midterm elections. Thus, the window of opportunity to enact aggressive federal climate policy is slowly closing. Climate policy requires vigorous political entrepreneurship to bring about policy change in the next 12 months.
Um parlamento indígena aberto, para dar voz e visibilidade política aos 305 povos originários do país, é o objectivo do Parlaíndio, fundado este mês no Brasil, anunciado nesta quarta-feira, 26 de Maio, e que terá assembleias mensais.
O Parlaíndio integra as lideranças indígenas brasileiras e tem já um portal com fotos dos seus líderes e notícias de assembleias ou de acontecimentos directa ou indirectamente relacionados com os povos indígenas.
O cacique Raoni Metuktire, um importante líder indígena brasileiro, conhecido em todo o mundo pela sua luta pela preservação da Amazónia e dos povos nativos, é o seu presidente de honra, enquanto a coordenação executiva é da responsabilidade do cacique Almir Narayamoga Suruí, principal liderança do povo Paiter Suruí, da Rondónia, reconhecido internacionalmente pelos seus projectos de sustentabilidade em terras indígenas.
A primeira assembleia do Parlaíndio Brasil, noticia a Lusa citada pela TSF, decorreu virtualmente na última quinta-feira, 20 de Maio. Nessa altura, as lideranças indígenas discutiram os objectivos do movimento, bem como a sua estruturação e o modo como decorrerão as assembleias mensais.
Entre as principais questões que o movimento abordará, ainda de acordo com a Lusa, estão a desflorestação e invasões das terras indígenas, projectos de mineração e hidroeléctricas em terras dos povos nativos, garimpo ilegal, poluição dos rios por mercúrio e contaminação das populações originárias e ribeirinhas.
O Parlaíndio tomou já uma primeira decisão política: a entrada com uma acção na justiça pedindo a exoneração do presidente da Funai (Fundação Nacional do Índio), órgão tutelado pelo Governo brasileiro, cuja missão deveria ser coordenar e pôr em prática políticas de protecção dos povos nativos.
“Foi aprovado, por unanimidade, o Parlaíndio Brasil entrar com uma acção na justiça pedindo a exoneração do presidente da Funai, delegado Marcelo Xavier, que à frente do órgão não tem cumprido a missão institucional de proteger e promover os direitos dos povos indígenas do país”, indicou o movimentou o em comunicado.
Em causa, refere a mesma fonte, está um pedido feito recentemente pelo presidente da Funai à Polícia Federal (PF), para a abertura de um inquérito contra lideranças indígenas, sob o pretexto de difamação do Governo de Jair Bolsonaro.
“A Funai é um órgão que deveria promover assistência, protecção e garantias dos direitos dos povos indígenas brasileiros e, actualmente, faz o inverso. O inquérito teve carácter de intimidação e criminalização a partir de uma determinação do presidente da Funai”, explicou Almir Suruí, coordenador executivo do Parlaíndio Brasil.
Assembleia de indígenas. Foto da página do Parlaíndio.
O mesmo responsável considera que esta estrutura será importante para construir uma política de defesa dos povos indígenas, depois de a Constituição de 1988 ter consagrado um conjunto de políticas públicas e direitos para os indígenas brasileiros. “Um dos nossos objectivos é debater a construção do presente e do futuro a partir de uma cuidadosa avaliação do passado. Vamos discutir também as políticas públicas e fornecer subsídios para as organizações que integram o movimento indígena”, acrescentou o responsável na sessão de lançamento do movimento.
A ideia de criar o Parlamento Indígena do Brasil, como se pode ler no portal do Parlaíndio, surgiu numa reunião de lideranças indígenas realizada em Outubro de 2017, no Conselho Indigenista Missionário, uma organização da Igreja Católica de apoio aos povos indígenas.
De acordo com a mesma informação, há actualmente no Brasil mais de 900 mil indígenas no Brasil, membros de 305 povos distintos, que falam mais de 180 línguas, segundo dados do Parlaíndio (a propósito do qual se pode ouvir aqui a crónica Outros Sinais, de Fernando Alves, na TSF, nesta quinta, 27).
Esta notícia surge em simultâneo com a denúncia de um frade católico franciscano, segundo o qual muitos indígenas e outras pessoas do interior do Amazonas estão a chegar a Manaus, a capital do Estado, sem nada para viver.
“Temos famílias nos subúrbios que não têm nada para viver. Muitos vieram do interior do país e chegaram aqui na esperança de encontrar comida na cidade. Mas aqui só encontram fome e desemprego. Para cúmulo, agora nem sequer têm uma horta para cultivar ou o rio para pescar”, diz o padre Paolo Maria Braghini, franciscano capuchinho italiano, citado pela Ajuda à Igreja que Sofre.
“No meio de tanta pobreza, escolhemos certas localidades na periferia e, com a ajuda de líderes comunitários locais, identificámos as famílias mais carenciadas”, explica frei Paolo, sobre o modo como a comunidade de franciscanos está a procurar minorar a situação.
Manaus, um dos principais centros financeiros, industriais e económicos de toda a região norte, tem mais de dois milhões de habitantes e continua a atrair as populações da região. A cidade, que já tinha muitas bolsas de pobreza, viu a situação agravar-se com a pandemia do novo coronavírus e o colapso dos serviços de saúde.
As populações pobres e indígenas do Amazonas foram alguns dos sectores mais atingidos pela falta de estruturas. Em Janeiro, num dos picos da crise, o bispo de Manaus chegou mesmo a pedir ajuda para que fosse enviado oxigénio para os hospitais.
Google, Nespresso, Amazon e Magalu. Na chamada economia da atenção, a concorrência hoje é, cada vez mais, entre ecossistemas, geralmente capitaneados por uma grande empresa e que abrigam várias organizações em uma rede de dependência e complementaridade.
Ganha quem conseguir satisfazer mais necessidades dos consumidores dentro do mesmo sistema. Para usar o jargão, quem consegue oferecer uma proposição de valor superior.
A ideia em si não é tão nova assim. O impulso veio com a economia digital, mas é possível identificar ecossistemas nos mais diversos contextos, do mundo do futebol e do crime aos sistemas sociais de educação e saúde. Inclusive no conglomerado de organizações que tem se dedicado ao combate à pandemia, que inclui atores do setor privado (como no caso da recente compra do kit intubação) e que deveria ter sido adequadamente capitaneado pelo governo federal.
Mas cá estamos, rumo a meio milhão de mortos. Bolsonaro poderia ter saído como herói da coisa toda, como Bibi em Israel, mas, vivendo da lógica de bunker, preferiu jogar areia nessas engrenagens desde o início, enquanto o Brasil regride institucionalmente a olhos vistos.
Curiosamente, isso não tem sido suficiente para corroer o lastro que o presidente mantém no pedaço conservador de Brasil, que tem racionalizado sem grandes dificuldades o mar de chorume produzido pela covid.
Encarar o bolsonarismo como ecossistema –mais do que um movimento social apoiado por um exército digital– ajuda a entender o fenômeno. Primeiro porque, como sabemos, a atenção das pessoas se tornou superfragmentada e o mundo não anda fácil de ser entendido.
Ecossistemas político-sociais levam vantagem quando conseguem satisfazer uma necessidade humana básica, o conforto das grandes certezas. Uma boa e sólida certeza vale como um barbitúrico irresistível, dizia Nelson Rodrigues. Em um país com nível educacional baixo, essas certezas podem se dar ao luxo de sapatear na cara da realidade.
O bolsonarismo também dá de bandeja aos seguidores uma identidade carregada de tintas morais e, novamente, não há nada de novo aqui –basta lembrar de exemplos próximos, como o chavismo e o lulopetismo. Em outras palavras, o sujeito se sente superior e ganha uma tribo para chamar de sua.
É essa a atual proposição de valor do ecossistema criado em torno do presidente. Não é pouco, ainda que o conjunto já tenha tido mais força quando esgrimia o discurso contra a corrupção e a lábia liberal.
Em torno desse valor, diversos segmentos se agrupam. Tem aquilo que reportagem no El País chamou de QAnon tupiniquim, gente produzindo fake news e usando robôs para influenciar o discurso nas redes sociais.
Tem aquele segmento empresarial “raiz”, madeireiros na Amazônia, por exemplo, fora aquelas grandes empresas que, assim como o Centrão, estão quase sempre à disposição para uma ovacionada, no matter what.
Tem os políticos, os apoiadores de nicho (como os atiradores), os produtores de conteúdo lacrador, os canais de comunicação e parte (presumo) dos militares e policiais. E se a mexerica toda perdeu os lavajatistas, ganhou de presente um gomo suculento que tem sido crucial para sua resiliência, o dos médicos e influenciadores cloroquiners.
Cada segmento desses têm recursos e competências que usa em prol da causa. Por exemplo, a audiência cativa de uma rádio ou a credibilidade extraterrestre que os brasileiros atribuem aos médicos, mesmo que sejam leigos em medicina baseada em evidências.
Cada um deles desempenha atividades diversas mas complementares, reforçando a proposição de valor (lembremos: grandes certezas e identidade moral superior). A lista é longa e inclui organização de protestos, veiculação de programas de opinião em rádio e os encontros empresariais que lustram a legitimidade do governo com o gel do capitalismo de compadrio.
No que é crítico, cada segmento se apropria de uma parte do valor gerado pelo conjunto. Políticos se apropriam de capital eleitoral. Emissoras, de exclusivas com o presidente e audiência. Médicos cloroquiners ganham chuvas de pacientes. Influenciadores e manipuladores de conteúdo ganham seguidores ou, como suspeita a CPMI das fake news, empregos em gabinetes. Entidades empresariais mantem abertos os canais com Brasília. Os mortos são só um detalhe incômodo na paisagem.
Minha percepção é que a disputa de 2022 deve ocorrer mais nesse nível amplificado. Concorrentes precisam começar a colocar de pé seus ecossistemas desde já, de preferência em torno de valores mais racionais e menos divisivos. Não vai ser fácil.
Science is all about asking questions, but when scientific debates become polarized it can be difficult for average citizens to interpret the merits of various arguments.
One South Korean contact-tracing study suggests that is a bad idea. In analyzing 5,706 COVID-19 patients and their 59,073 contacts, it concluded – albeit with a significant caveat – that 10- to 19-year-olds were the most contagious age group within their household.
A study out of Iceland, meanwhile, found that children under 10 are less likely to get infected and less likely than adults to become ill if they are infected. Coauthor Kári Stefánsson, who is CEO of a genetics company tracking the disease’s spread, said the study didn’t find a single instance of a child infecting a parent.
So when leaders explain their decision on whether to send kids back to school by saying they’re “following the science,” citizens could be forgiven for asking what science they’re referring to exactly – and how sure they are that it’s right.
But it’s become difficult to ask such questions amid the highly polarized debate around pandemic policies. While areas of consensus have emerged since the pandemic first hit the United States in March, significant gaps remain. Those uncertainties have opened the door for contrarians to gain traction in popular thought.
Some Americans see them as playing a crucial role, challenging a fear-driven groupthink that is inhibiting scientific inquiry, driving unconstitutional restrictions on individual freedom and enterprise, and failing to grapple with the full societal cost of shutting down businesses, churches, and schools. Public health experts who see shutdowns as crucial to saving lives are critical of such actors, due in part to fears that they are abetting right-wing resistance to government restrictions. They have also voiced criticism that some contrarians appear driven by profit or political motives more than genuine concern about public health.
The deluge of studies and competing interpretations have left citizens in a tough spot, especially when data or conclusions are shared on Twitter or TV without full context – like a handful of puzzle pieces thrown in your face, absent any box top picture to help you fit them together.
“You can’t expect the public to go through all the science, so you rely on people of authority, someone whom you trust, to parse that for you,” says Aleszu Bajak, a science and data journalist who teaches at Northeastern University in Boston. “But now you have more than just the scientists in their ivory tower throwing out all of this information. You have competing pundits, with different incentives, drawing on different science of varying quality.”
The uncertainties have also posed a challenge for policymakers, who haven’t had the luxury of waiting for the full arc of scientific inquiry to be completed.
“The fact is, science, like everything else, is uncertain – particularly when it comes to predictions,” says John Holdren, who served as director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy for the duration of President Barack Obama’s eight-year tenure. “I think seasoned, experienced decision-makers understand that. They understand that there will be uncertainties, even in the scientific inputs to their decision-making process, and they have to take those into account and they have to seek approaches that are resilient to uncertain outcomes.”
Some say that in an effort to reassure citizens that shutdowns were implemented based on scientific input, policymakers weren’t transparent enough about the underlying uncertainties.
“We’ve heard constantly that politicians are following the science. That’s good, of course, but … especially at the beginning, science is tentative, it changes, it’s evolving fast, it’s uncertain,” Prof. Sir Paul Nurse, director of the Francis Crick Institute in London, recently told a British Parliament committee. One of the founding partners of his independent institute is Imperial College, whose researchers’ conclusions were a leading driver of U.S. and British government shutdowns.
“You can’t just have a single top line saying we’re following science,” he adds. “It has to be more dealing with what we know about the science and what we don’t.”
Rick Bowmer/AP Granite School District teachers join others gathered at the Granite School District Office on Aug. 4, 2020, in Salt Lake City, to protest the district’s plans for reopening. Teachers showed up in numbers to make sure the district’s school board knew their concerns.
A focus on uncertainty
One scientist who talks a lot about unknowns is John Ioannidis, a highly cited professor of medicine, epidemiology, and population health at Stanford University in California.
Dr. Ioannidis, who has made a career out of poking holes in his colleagues’ research, agrees that masks and social distancing are effective but says there are open questions about how best to implement them. He has also persistently questioned just how deadly COVID-19 is and to what extent shutdowns are affecting mental health, household transmission to older family members, and the well-being of those with non-COVID-19-relatedconditions.
It’s very difficult, he says, to do randomized trials for things like how to reopen, and different countries and U.S. states have done things in different ways.
“For each one of these decisions, action plans – people said we’re using the best science,” he says. “But how can it be that they’re all using the best science when they’re so different?”
Many scientists say they and their colleagues have been open about the uncertainties,despite a highly polarized debate around the pandemic and the 2020 election season ramping up.
“One of the remarkable things about this pandemic is the extent to which many people in the scientific community are explicit about what’s uncertain,” says Marc Lipsitch, a professor of epidemiology and director of the Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health who is working on a study about how biases can affect COVID-19 research. “There has been a sort of hard core of scientists, even with different policy predispositions, who have been insistent on that.”
“In some ways the politicized nature has made people more aware of the uncertainties,” adds Professor Lipsitch, who says Twitter skeptics push him and his colleagues to strengthen their arguments. “That’s a good voice to have in the back of your head.”
For the Harvard doctor, Alex Berenson is not that voice. But a growing number of frustrated Americans have gravitated toward the former New York Times reporter’s brash, unapologetic challenging of prevailing narratives. His following on Twitter has grown from around 10,000 to more than 182,000 and counting.
Mr. Berenson, who investigated big business before leaving The New York Times in 2010 to write spy novels, dives into government data, quotes from scientific studies, and takes to Twitter daily to rail against what he sees as a dangerous overreaction driven by irrational fear and abetted by a liberal media agenda and corporate interests – particularly tech companies, whose earnings have soared during the shutdowns. He refers satirically to those advocating government restrictions as “Team Apocalypse.”
Dr. Lipsitch says that while public health experts pushing for lockdown like himself could be considered hawks while contrarians like Mr. Berenson could be considered doves, his “name-calling” doesn’t take into account the fact that most scientists have at least a degree of nuance. “It’s really sort of unsophisticated to say there are two camps, but it serves some people’s interest to demonize the other side,” he says.
Mr. Berenson, the author of a controversial 2019 book arguing that marijuana increases the risk of mental illness and violence, has been accused of cherry-picking data and conflating correlation and causation. Amazon initially blocked publication of his booklet “Unreported Truths about COVID-19 and Lockdowns: Part 1” until Elon Musk got wind of it and called out the tech giant on Twitter. Mr. Berenson prevailed and recently released Part 2 on the platform, which has already become Amazon’s No. 1 best-seller among history of science and medicine e-books.
He strives to broaden the public’s contextual understanding of fatality rates, emphasizing that the vast majority of deaths occur among the elderly; in Italy, for instance, the median age of people who died is 81. He calls into question the reliability of COVID-19 death tolls, which according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention can be categorized as such even without a positive test if the disease is assumed to have caused or even contributed to a death.
Earlier this spring, when a prominent model was forecasting overwhelmed hospitals in New York, he pointed out that their projection was quadruple that of the actual need.
“Nobody had the guts or brains to ask – why is your model off by a factor of four today, and you made it last week?” says Mr. Berenson, referring to the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation projection in early April and expressing disappointment that his former colleagues in the media are not taking a harder look at such questions. “I think unfortunately people have been blinded by ideology.”
Politicization of science
Amid a sense of urgency, fear, and frustration with Americans who refuse to fall in line with government restrictions as readily as their European or especially Asian counterparts, Mr. Berenson and Dr. Ioannidis have faced blowback for airing questions about those restrictions and the science behind them.
Mr. Berenson’s book installments have prompted criticism that he’s looking for profits at the expense of public health, which he has denied. Dr. Ioannidis’ involvement in an April antibodies study in Santa Clara, California, which purported to show that COVID-19 is much less deadly than was widely believed was discredited by other scientists due to questions about the accuracy of the test used and a BuzzFeed report that it was partially funded by JetBlue Airways’ cofounder. Dr. Ioannidis says those questions were fully addressed within two weeks in a revised version that showed with far more extensive data that the test was accurate, and adds he had been unaware of the $5,000 donation, which came through the Stanford development office and was anonymized.
The dismay grew when BuzzFeed News reported in July that a month before the Santa Clara study, he had offered to convene a small group of world-renowned scientists to meet with President Donald Trump and help him solve the pandemic “by intensifying efforts to understand the denominator of infected people (much larger than what is documented to-date)” and developing a more targeted, data-driven approach than long-term shutdowns, which he said would “jeopardiz[e] so many lives,” according to emails obtained by BuzzFeed.
While the right has seized on Dr. Ioannidis’ views and some scientists say it’s hard not to conclude that his work is driven by a political agenda, the Greek doctor maintains that partisanship is antithetical to the scientific method, which requires healthy skepticism, among other things.
“Even the word ‘science’ has been politicized. It’s very sad,” he says, observing that in the current environment, scientific conclusions are used to shame, smear, and “cancel” the opposite view. “I think it’s very unfortunate to use science as a silencer of dissent.”
The average citizen, he adds, is filtering COVID-19 debates through their belief systems, media sources, and political ideology, which can leave science at a disadvantage in the public square. “Science hasn’t been trained to deal with these kinds of powerful companions that are far more vocal and better armed to penetrate into social discourse,” says Dr. Ioannidis.
The polarization has been fueled in part by absolutist pundits. In a recent week, “The Rachel Maddow Show” on MSNBC daily hammered home the rising rate in cases, trumpeted the daily death toll, and quoted Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984, while “The Tucker Carlson Show” on Fox News did not once mention government data, featuring instead anecdotes from business owners who have been affected by the shutdowns and calling into question the authority of unelected figures such as Dr. Fauci.
Fed on different media diets, it’s not surprising that partisan views on the severity of the pandemic have diverged further in recent months, with 85% of Democrats seeing it as a major threat – nearly double the percent of Republicans, according to a Pew Research poll from mid-July. And in a related division that predates the pandemic, another Pew poll from February showed that Republicans are less likely to support scientists taking an active role in social policy matters – just 43% compared with 73% for Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents.
“If you have more of a populist type of worldview, where you are concerned that elites and scientists and officials act in their own interests first, it becomes very easy to make assumptions that they are doing something to control the population,” says Prof. Asheley Landrum, a psychologist at Texas Tech University who specializes in science communication.
Beyond following the science
Determining what exactly “the science” says is only one part of the equation; figuring out precisely how to “follow” it poses another set of challenges for policymakers on questions like whether to send students back to school.
“Even if you had all the science pinned down, there are still some tough value judgments about the dangers of multiplying the pandemic or the dangers of keeping kids at home,” says Dr. Holdren, President Obama’s science adviser, an engineer and physicist who now co-directs the science, technology, and public policy program at Harvard Kennedy School.
Dr. Lipsitch echoes that point and offers an example of two schools that both have a 10% risk of an outbreak. In one, where there are older students from high-income families who are more capable of learning remotely, leaders may decide that the 10% risk isn’t worth reopening. But in another school with the same assessed risk, where the students are younger and many depend on free and reduced lunch, a district may decide the risk is a trade-off they’re willing to make in support of the students’ education and well-being.
“Following the science just isn’t enough,” says Dr. Lipsitch. “It’s incumbent on responsible leaders to use science to do the reasoning about how to do the best thing given your values, but it’s not an answer.”
/i.s3.glbimg.com/v1/AUTH_7d5b9b5029304d27b7ef8a7f28b4d70f/internal_photos/bs/2025/Z/R/jHGOaLRVmfBqpELroDXw/whatsapp-image-2025-08-26-at-22.10.40.jpeg)
/i.s3.glbimg.com/v1/AUTH_7d5b9b5029304d27b7ef8a7f28b4d70f/internal_photos/bs/2021/Y/d/BzqpiBStKFueHe2zQUHA/whatsapp-image-2021-07-06-at-19.51.23.jpeg)
/i.s3.glbimg.com/v1/AUTH_7d5b9b5029304d27b7ef8a7f28b4d70f/internal_photos/bs/2021/U/4/INBnzSReApcHqyezKRsg/gettyimages-1320365720.jpg)
/i.s3.glbimg.com/v1/AUTH_7d5b9b5029304d27b7ef8a7f28b4d70f/internal_photos/bs/2022/D/g/SkafXvSy2VuhehPbXZbQ/garimpo-ilegal-na-terra-indigena-yanomami-christian-braga-greenpeace.jpg)
/i.s3.glbimg.com/v1/AUTH_7d5b9b5029304d27b7ef8a7f28b4d70f/internal_photos/bs/2022/C/W/QOgvFpTbSSHqXK52GZAg/asad.jpg)
Uma (in)certa antropologia 
Você precisa fazer login para comentar.