Arquivo da tag: Política

World Bank’s Jim Yong Kim: ‘I want to eradicate poverty’ (The Guardian)

World Bank president says he will bring sense of urgency to efforts to end global poverty in exclusive Guardian interview

Sarah Boseley, health editor, in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 25 July 2012 13.48 BST

Jim Yong KimJim Yong Kim, president of the World Bank, speaks at the opening session of the International Aids Conference in Washington on 22 July. Photograph: Jacquelyn Martin/AP

The new president of the World Bank is determined to eradicate globalpoverty through goals, targets and measuring success in the same way that he masterminded an Aids drugs campaign for poor people nearly a decade ago.

Jim Yong Kim, in an exclusive interview with the Guardian, said he was passionately committed to ending absolute poverty, which threatens survival and makes progress impossible for the 1.3 billion people living on less than $1.25 a day.

“I want to eradicate poverty,” he said. “I think that there’s a tremendous passion for that inside the World Bank.”

Kim, who took over at the World Bank three weeks ago and is not only the first doctor and scientist (he is also an anthropologist) to be president but the first with development experience, will set “a clear, simple goal” in the eradication of absolute poverty. Getting there, however, needs progress on multiple, but integrated, fronts.

“The evidence suggests that you’ve got to do a lot of good, good things in unison, to be able to make that happen,” said Kim. “The private sectorhas to grow, you have to have social protection mechanisms, you have to have a functioning health and education system. The scientific evidence strongly suggests that it has to be green – you have to do it in a way that is sustainable both for the environment and financially. All the great themes that we’ve been dealing with here have to come together to eradicate poverty from the face of the Earth.”

Kim, who was previously head of the Ivy League Dartmouth College, is probably best known for his stint at the World Health Organisation (WHO), where he challenged the system to move faster in making Aids drugs available to people with HIV in the developing world who were dying in large numbers. In 2003, he set a target of 3 million people being on treatment by 2005 – thereafter known as “3 by 5”. The target was not met on time, but it did focus minds and rapidly speed up the pace of the rollout, which included setting up clinics and training healthcare staff.

Now, he says, he thinks he can do the same for poverty. “What 3 by 5 did that we just didn’t expect was to set a tempo to the response; it created a sense of urgency. There was pace and rhythm in the way we did things. We think we can do something similar for poverty,” he said.

Asked if he would set a date this time, he said he was sorely tempted, but would not yet. “We don’t know what they will be yet, but [there will be] goals, and counting. We need to keep up and say where we are making successes and why, and when are we going to be held to account next for the level of poverty. If we can build that kind of pace and rhythm into the movement, we think we can make a lot more progress,” he said in his office at the Bank in Washington.

Kim was seen by many as a surprise choice for president. During the election, critics argued there should be an economist at the helm. Some said that, as a doctor, he would focus too much on health.

But Kim, who co-founded Partners In Health, which pioneered sustainable, high-quality healthcare for poor people, first in Haiti and later in Africa, said his three years at the WHO have been the only ones of his career that were solely devoted to health.

“It’s always been about poverty, so for me, making the switch to being here at the Bank is really not that much of a stretch. I’ve been doing this all my life and we’re in a bit of the spotlight because of the stuff we did in healthcare but it was really always about poverty,” he said.

Partners in Health offered HIV and tuberculosis treatment to poor people in Haiti for the first time. “We were trying to make a point. And the point we were trying to make was that just because people are poor shouldn’t mean that they shouldn’t have access to high quality healthcare. It was always based in social justice, it was always based in the notion that people had a right to live a dignified life. The good news is that this place – the Bank – is just full of people like that.”

Kim, who has spent his first weeks talking to Bank staff with expertise in a huge range of areas, strongly believes in the integration of all aspects of development, and says the staff do too. He cites a new hospital Partners built in Rwanda, which led to the building of a road to get there and then the expansion of mobile phone networks in the area. “In a very real sense, we’ve always believed that investing in health means investing in the wellbeing and development of that entire community,” he said.

Speaking to the International Aids Conference in Washington this week – the first World Bank president to do so – Kim told activists and scientists that the end of Aids no longer looked as far-fetched as the 3 by 5 plan had appeared in 2003. Science has delivered tools, such as drugs that not only treat but prevent infection.

But the cost of drugs for life for 15 million or more people is not sustainable, he says. Donors are unlikely to foot the bill. Hard-hit developing countries have to be helped to grow so they can pay for the drugs and healthcare systems they need.

Kim would like the highly active HIV community to broaden its focus. “We’ve had Aids exceptionalism for a long time and Aids exceptionalism has been incredibly important. It has been so productive for all of us,” he said. “But I think that as we go beyond the emergency response and think about the long-term sustainable response, conversations such as how do we spur growth in the private sector have to be part of the discussion.”

Every country wants economic growth, he says, and people want jobs. “If I care about poverty, I have to care a lot about investments in the private sector. The private sector creates the vast majority of jobs in the world and social protection only goes so far,” he said.

Nevertheless, he is a big proponent of social protection policies. “I’ve always been engaged in social protection programmes. But now it is really a signature of the World Bank. We’re very good at helping people look at their public expenditures and we say to them things like, fuel subsidies really aren’t very helpful to the poor – what you really need is to remove fuel subsidies and focus on things like conditional cash transfer plans. The Bank is great at that.”

New to him are climate change and sustainability, he says. “We are watching things happen with one degree changes in ocean temperature that we thought wouldn’t happen until there were two or three degree changes in ocean temperature. These are facts. These are things that have actually happened … I think we now have plenty of evidence that should push us into thinking that this is disturbing data and should spur us to think ever more seriously about clean energy and how can we move our focus more towards clean energy.”

But poor countries are saying they need more energy and we must respect that, he says. “It’s hard to say to them we still do it but you can’t … I think our role is to say the science suggests strongly to us that we should help you looking for clean energy solutions.”

Gustavo Grabia, repórter do Olé, sobre violência de torcidas: “futebol argentino virou um enorme funeral” (Trivela)

17 de Julho de 2012 às 03:13, por Ubiratan Leal

Onipotentes. As barras bravas argentinas já deixaram de ser apenas torcedores que se organizaram para torcer por seu clube. E fora muito além do que se conhece no Brasil, com brigas entre simpatizantes de equipes rivais. Lá, esses grupos ganharam ramificação criminal, usando a projeção que as arquibancadas de futebol lhes dão para criar toda uma estrutura de delitos que vão do tráfico de drogas ao combate de manifestações políticas contra o partido que os contratar como mercenários.

Quem conta essa história é Gustavo Grabia, repórter do Olé, maior jornal esportivo da Argentina, e autor do livro La Doce (lançado no Brasil pela Panda Books), que revela as atividades da barra brava do Boca Juniors. Segundo ele próprio, o poder dos torcedores se tornou tão grande que parece impossível mudar o cenário.

Na Argentina, as brigas de torcedores rivais diminuíram muito. Qual é a nova cara da violência de torcidas?
Não acontece, mesmo com times do mesmo bairro, como Racing e Independiente. O maior medo do torcedor organizado é perder seu negócio. E como ele perde o negócio? Se briga e morre alguém. Porque, se morre alguém, os políticos determinam que alguém tem de cair no comando da torcida. Tudo bem que colocam outro no lugar, mas alguém acaba caindo. Par manter o negócio, não se pode brigar com outro clube. Quando acontece algo como na morte mais recente, em uma briga dentro da torcida do River, as pessoas pensam “se mataram entre eles, que se matem todos”. Vêem como um problema interno da máfia, a pressão por atitudes oficiais é bem menor.

Até porque mexeria com o orgulho do torcedor cujo barra brava foi morto, mesmo que ele não seja um barra brava, e cobraria mais por atitudes.
Certamente, e é por essas coisas que não acontece mais. Os chefes de torcida se conhecem, fazem negócios juntos. Durante a semana estão juntos em uma ONG de torcedores criada e financiadas pelo governo para agir em favor dele. Os torcedores de Racing e Independiente supostamente se odeiam, mas trabalham juntos para o mesmo político. Como vão brigar no domingo se durante a semana estão juntos nos mesmos delitos? Em Rosário, os líderes das torcidas de Newell’s e Rosario Central são sócios no tráfico de drogas, dominam regiões da cidade. Depois, cada um vai ao estádio fazer seu próprio negócio. Então, eles não brigam para não prejudicar todo o negócio.

O que essa ONG de torcedores financiada pelo governo faz?
Recebe dinheiro para trabalhar pelo partido do governo reprimindo opositores, marchas sindicais. Usaram os torcedores organizados para terceirizar a violência. Por exemplo, na Copa de 2010, o governo recrutou as torcidas organizadas para trabalharem pelo partido dele nas ruas, fazendo atos políticos. Uma situação muito louca. Em troca disso, pagou 232 passagens e hospedagens à África do Sul. Isso foi um escândalo internacional. A polícia sul-africana deportou quase 30 integrantes desse grupo.

Então a chance de as autoridades fazerem algo contra os torcedores é pequena.
Para ter uma ideia, o advogado do chefe da torcida do Boca era o advogado do chefe da polícia. E essa pessoa, depois, foi indicada como chefe de segurança do Congresso. O advogado do chefe da torcida tem como cliente a polícia e os partidos políticos! Como as autoridades vão perseguir alguém se compartilham advogados? Essas relações de poder na Argentina nunca vi em lugar algum do mundo. O chefe de segurança da Eurocopa esteve na Argentina ano passado e, quando eu explicava, ele não acreditava. Foi aos estádios para comprovar, e ficou horrorizado. Acha que não dá para consertar. Afinal, se o torcedor organizado tira uma foto com a presidente Cristina Kirchner, por que não teria impunidade?

Foto com a presidente?
Em setembro do ano passado, o San Lorenzo estava lutando para não ser rebaixado. A barra brava foi cobrar os jogadores e o chefe dela agrediu o capitão do time. Não aconteceu nada. Fui investigar e achei fotos dele em um ato político abraçado com a Cristina Kirschner! Com a presidente da República! Então, esse sujeito tem acesso à presidente. Eu sou um jornalista reconhecido e não tenho acesso a ela. Um monte de gente importante e conhecida não tem acesso a ela. Mas esse delinquente tem e tira uma foto ao lado dela. Não significa que ele seja amigo dela, mas, no mínimo, conhece pessoas influentes que conseguem colocá-lo ao lado dela em um ato político. Se esse apoio político não acaba, não há como combater o problema.

Em que nível está esse problema hoje?
Em relação a mortes, foram dez vítimas até agora em 2012. Mas isso são apenas os registros ligados ao futebol. Não estão computados os crimes cometidos por eles em questões políticas ou sindicais. Todos os últimos crimes de violência política ou sindical na Argentina têm barras bravas como responsáveis. São contratados pelos políticos para fazer o trabalho sujo. Também fazem delinquência comum, como narcotráfico. São uma máfia mesmo, com interesses em seus negócios e não mais nos clubes para os quais supostamente torcem. Um dos líderes de La Doce, a torcida do Boca, é torcedor do River Plate. Por quê? Porque essa pessoa viu que na torcida do Boca gira mais dinheiro.

E a torcida do Boca o aceita por quê?
Ele é um delinquente muito perigoso. Esteve em prisões de segurança máxima. Mas tem contatos com o mundo criminal e com políticos. É conveniente para os negócios ter um homem como ele na organização.

As leis argentinas são frouxas nessa questão ou dariam suporte a quem quisesse combater as barras bravas?
Existem as leis, o problema é que não se aplicam a quem precisa. Se você vai a um estádio, tem cinco minutos de loucura e atira algo no árbitro, será levado a uma delegacia. Provavelmente você não será preso, mas deve receber uma pena de ficar longe de estádios por um longo período. Se você fosse de uma torcida organizada, poderia fazer o que quisesse que nunca iriam até você. Antes de vir ao Brasil, o último morto do futebol argentino foi há três semanas, em um jogo do River contra o Boca Unidos, o penúltimo antes da promoção. Assassinaram uma pessoa nas arquibancadas em uma briga nos Borrachos del Tablón [barra brava do River Plate]. Quando a Justiça foi buscar as gravações das câmeras de segurança para identificar os responsáveis, as imagens da briga em si tinham sido apagadas. O médico que fazia o atendimento naquele jogo contou que os líderes da torcida levaram o corpo do rapaz dizendo “olha, aqui tem um que parece que está morrendo” e foram embora. Tudo dentro da torcida do River.

Como uma briga de máfia, em que um irmão manda matar o outro para ser herdeiro nos negócios do pai.
Isso. Os últimos dez mortos no futebol argentino foram em disputas dentro das torcidas.

Que se pode fazer para que as leis sejam aplicadas se eles têm tanto poder com as autoridades?
Não se pode fazer nada se os políticos mais importantes os utilizam. A barra brava do Boca é a maior e mais violenta do país e o governo já a utilizou para a campanha eleitoral de outubro do ano passado. Pagava para que levassem bandeirões com mensagens políticas. Francisco de Narváez, candidato mais importante à província de Buenos Aires, paga a La Doce para exibir um bandeirão escrito “Narváez governador”. Depois disso, eles podem fazer o que quiserem.

Quando fazem isso, vendem espaço publicitário. Um espaço publicitário que seria indiretamente do clube. Ainda que o clube não possa vender publicidade exibida pelos torcedores, o evento é dele e as pessoas veem o jogo pela TV por causa do clube. Eles não têm interesse em eles usarem seu poder de mídia para eles ganharem esse dinheiro, e não a torcida?
Em princípio, os clubes são sócios das torcidas, que também trabalham para os interesses dos dirigentes.

Como o Mauricio Macri [prefeito de Buenos Aires, ex-presidente do Boca]?
O crescimento da barra brava do Boca foi tremendo quando Mauricio Macri estava na presidência. Ele emprestava o estádio para os barras bravas jogarem bola! Mas não foi só ele. É que o Macri é o personagem mais conhecido que saiu do esporte e ingressou na política.

Se os barras bravas vivem desses negócios extracampo, por que ainda precisam do futebol?
Porque o futebol dá cartaz a eles. Na Argentina, os torcedores organizados são muito populares, têm tratamento de estrelas. O chefe da torcida do Boca e dá tantos autógrafos quanto Riquelme ou Palermo. O futebol retroalimenta a relação deles com os políticos. Porque, se põem uma bandeirão no jogo do Boca, têm enorme visibilidade. Um jogo do Boca tem 30% de audiência, 9 milhões de pessoas. Então a eles é conveniente falar com o chefe da torcida.

Então o futebol ainda representa uma ao parte da receita desse negócio, mesmo com as atividades extracampo?
Representa muito. Sem o futebol, todos os outros negócios ilegais não existiriam. Eles conseguem todos os outros negócios por serem os chefes de torcidas. Eles vendem ingressos, até 5 mil em uma partida. Se um ingresso médio está US$ 12, são US$ 60 mil em um jogo. Eles controlam o trabalho de guardador de carro, de flanelinha. Não sei como é aqui.

Aqui são “profissionais autônomos”.
Então, lá são controlados pelos barras bravas. Em março, houve um tiroteio muito grande por causa disso. Uma parte da torcida queria essa fatia do negócio e outra parte não queria abrir mão. Trocaram tiros, a poucas quadras de La Bombonera. Isso dá muito dinheiro. Há também as festas com os jogadores. Ao contrário do que ocorre no Brasil, onde as equipes de fora de Rio e São Paulo têm muita força, as equipes provinciais não são tão fortes na Argentina. Mesmo em Rosário, é provável que o Boca tenha mais torcida que o Central ou o Newell’s. Aí, a barra brava leva jogadores do time a filiais no interior. Digamos, levam Riquelme a Luján, a 200 km de Buenos Aires. Montam um evento para mil pessoas, cobrando ingresso para quem quiser ver, tirar foto e pegar o autógrafo com o ídolo.

Era algo que o clube poderia explorar.
Sim, mas deixa para os barras bravas fazerem. É uma coisa muito grande. Para cada evento desses, faturam US$ 20 mil.

E quanto se pode ganhar com isso?
Mauro Martín, presidente de La Doce, não tem trabalho reconhecido. Já vi suas declarações de imposto de renda e ele alega que é instrutor de boxe em um clube. Ele nunca vai lá. E basta ver o nível de vida que ele tem para perceber que tem algo errado. Ele possui uma picape Honda nova, que custa uns US$ 150 mil na Argentina, um Mini Cooper e uma casa de dois andares, com campo oficial de futebol. Imagina o tamanho do terreno. E diz que é instrutor de boxe ou que trabalha no escritório de seu advogado, que é um dos mais famosos da Argentina.

Ele teria de ser instrutor de boxe de Manny Pacquiao.
Pois é. E ele faz tudo isso e não é pego. Por quê? Bem, ele é casado com a secretária particular do governador de Buenos Aires. O chefe da barra brava do Boca Juniors é casado com a secretária da segunda pessoa mais importante da Argentina. Então, ele pode fazer qualquer coisa que ninguém vai incomodar.

Nas equipes provinciais, acontece a mesma coisa?
Tudo o/ que eu conto com La Doce ocorre igual em todas as equipes da Argentina. Pelo menos, coisas da mesma natureza. A única diferença é o peso de cada torcida pelo volume que mexe de acordo com o tamanho do clube. Eu sou torcedor do Ferro Carril, um time pequeno que está na segunda divisão. Lá acontece a mesma coisa, mas em menor quantidade porque é uma equipe pequena. O chefe da torcida do Ferro também não tem trabalho, mas, ao invés de uma picape Honda e um Mini Cooper, tem um carro normal. Ao invés de uma casa com dois andares, tem um apartamento de 150 m². Mas a forma de organização é a mesma nos clubes.

Economicamente, a diferença entre o futebol brasileiro e o argentino está aumentando. Quanto o futebol argentino perde por não explorar tudo o que pode por repartir com as barras bravas?
É muito dinheiro que perdem. Mas os dirigentes não têm interesse em mudar. Os clubes são associações civis sem fins lucrativos. Se o clube abre falência, o dirigente vai embora e não é responsabilizado. Fora que eles também ganham uma parcela. É algo conjunto.

Como assim?
Um bom exemplo foi a venda do Higuaín ao Real Madrid. Foi uma operação fraudulenta. O que apareceu no balanço do River Plate foi muito menor do que o pago pelo Real. O Real disse que pagou € 14 milhões, mas o River registrou a entrada de € 9 milhões. O balanço só foi aprovado porque os dirigentes de oposição foram ameaçados de morte pela barra brava. Eles entraram no recinto onde era a votação e ameaçaram de morte se não votassem a favor. Era algo contra o caixa do clube. Os € 5 milhões de diferença entre os valores foram repartidos entre todos, com 10% para os Borrachos del Tablón.

Há barras bravas menores nos clubes, que brigam por “mercado” com as maiores?
Não. Não há concorrência de barras de um mesmo clube. Não é que existe La Doce e “La Fiel de Boca” brigando por espaço como barras bravas do Boca. Há uma só por clube, e os confrontos são por poder e negócios dentro de cada uma.

A polícia também tem participação no esquema das organizadas?
De várias formas. Na temporada passada, naquele jogo em que o River caiu contra o Belgrano, o placar estava empatado. Se terminasse assim, o River caía. No intervalo, os dirigentes e os policiais liberaram o acesso para 12 torcedores conhecidos da organizada do River descessem das arquibancadas, andassem internamente pelos corredores do Monumental de Núñez e chegassem aos vestiários do árbitro, onde o ameaçaram de morte. Se ele não marcasse um pênalti, seria morto. Bem, o pênalti foi marcado, mas o River o desperdiçou e acabou caindo mesmo. Insólito! O incrível é que esses torcedores tiveram apoio dos dirigentes e da chefia da polícia. Tive acesso ao vídeo e se vê claramente como os policiais orientam os torcedores por onde ir para chegar aos vestiários. E não acontece nada quando isso chega à Justiça. Isso aconteceu há um ano e ainda estão discutindo se o tal vídeo é uma prova válida ou não para o caso. E, claro, nada aconteceu com os responsáveis até agora. É conveniente para a polícia que a violência siga.

Conveniente como?
Ela tira vantagem da violência. Há dois anos, houve uma investigação grande que envolveu até a cúpula da divisão de esportes da polícia. Consegui provas de como eles combinavam com os torcedores para criar violência. Porque, se há violência, eles têm argumentos para pedir mais efetivo para a segurança nas partidas, um serviço cobrado dos clubes e da AFA. Cada policial recebe US$ 40 por partida trabalhada. Então, no jogo que teria 300 agentes eles pedem mil, alegando que a partida anterior teve diversos problemas. Mas ficou comprovado que não levam mil policiais. Levam 500 e embolsam o resto. O Congresso tomou a denúncia e demitiu diretores a polícia.

Há grupos políticos ou algum setor da sociedade que se coloquem contra os barras bravas?
Há uma ONG, que se chama “Salvemos al Fútbol”, que trabalha contra a violência no futebol. Mas não tem muito poder. Até organizam mobilizações, mas não são muito populares. Eles levam à Justiça as questões que eu apresento no jornal, mas é um grupo pequeno. Eu já falei que o único jeito de mudar o cenário atual é uma greve de torcedores, ninguém mais ir ao estádio. Se a TV mostrar um Boca x River com estádio vazio, só com mil torcedores organizados de cada lado, os políticos perceberão que está acontecendo algo muito grave. Mas os torcedores dizem que se pode fazer tudo, menos deixar de ir ao estádio. Na Argentina há movimentos de indignação quando morre alguém, mas depois passa.

O presidente do Independiente entrou em conflito com a barra brava do clube. Foi o único dirigente a tentar fazer isso?
Foi. O Independiente era completamente dominado pela barra brava. Ela tinha o passe dos jogadores, o campo de treino. O chefe da torcida era o diretor da ONG de torcedores que o governo armou. Então, começaram a ganhar muito dinheiro e muito poder. E o Independiente era um desastre sob o controle da organizada. Ninguém queria ir mais lá, era muita violência. Então, o Javier Cantero fez uma campanha dizendo que tiraria a barra se votassem nele e ganhou.

Ele está tendo sucesso?
Mais ou menos. Ele assumiu em dezembro de 2011 e tentou acertar as coisas com a torcida. Em março eu descobri que ele ainda dava alguns benefícios. Até entendo que não dá para cortar tudo pela raiz, mas aí tem de explicar isso a todos. Ele dava muito menos que antes, mas ainda dava algo para mantê-los tranquilos. Quando publiquei a reportagem, ele admitiu publicamente seu erro, disse que acreditava que era uma forma de manter a barra brava controlada e que passaria a combater seriamente a partir dali. E, quando começou a fazer isso, as coisas ficaram piores.

De que forma?
São suspeitas, porque os jogadores negam. Mas, desde que o Cantero cortou todos os benefícios dos barras bravas, a equipe estranhamente começou a perder uma partida atrás da outra. Perguntam aos jogadores se estão sendo ameaçados pela torcida, exigindo que entreguem o jogo para derrubar o presidente. Eles dizem que não, mas não dá para saber se é verdade. Hoje, o time está brigando para não cair. Quando começar a próxima temporada, o Independiente estará em posição de rebaixamento direto pela média de pontos das últimas temporadas. E é o único clube, ao lado do Boca, que nunca caiu para a segunda divisão.

Se os torcedores do Ferro concordassem em fazer uma greve contra a barra brava do clube, você participaria?
Claro! Porque é o que tem de ser feito para que isso fique explicitado. Quando eu escrevi umas matérias sobre a torcida do Ferro, o líder da torcida me perguntou porque eu o atacava: “Eu faço com que não roubem dentro do nosso bairro. Mandamos roubar fora”. Bem, não tem de roubar em lugar nenhum! São padrinhos da máfia, cada um em seu setor. É uma situação cada vez pior, porque a política, ao invés de combatê-los, os incluiu. A pessoa que gerencia o futebol do Ferro é uma figura muito importante do Partido Justicialista [peronista, partido do governo].

Como foi fazer a investigação de tudo isso, para ter acesso?
Tenho uma vantagem, que é trabalhar há 16 anos com esse tema. Conheço todas as partes envolvidas. Eu colaboro muito com a Justiça ou os advogados que trabalham nesse meio. No caso dos barras bravas que invadiram o vestiário do árbitro no River x Belgrano, a polícia só conhecia dois dos 12. Me chamaram para ver as imagens e identificar os demais. Com isso, acabei tendo acesso ao vídeo e tendo os nomes dos envolvidos. Muitas vezes, acabo tendo mais informações das leis supostamente violadas em um processo que os próprios advogados dos torcedores. Quando precisam de uma informação sobre o que está acontecendo, acabam me passando muita coisa também.

Como as pessoas viram seu livro?
Há três públicos diferentes. Um público é o torcedor normal que admira a barra brava. Na Argentina, um dos problemas é que o torcedor que vai ao estádio admira a torcida organizada e só repudia quando há violência forte. Aí, diz “não, não quero mais”. Depois, passa um tempo, eles voltam a dizer que a torcida é necessária, porque organizam a festa, as bandeiras. Esse público é muito importante e há muitos boquenses que dizem que “hoje, somos os únicos com um livro sobre sua torcida organizada”.

Viram seu livro como prova da grandeza do Boca?
Isso. Cada vez que o Boca é campeão, sai uma revista. E, agora, sai um livro sobre a torcida. Eles encaram La Doce como um livro sobre a história deles próprios, e não é. É sobre o grupo mafioso.

E quais os outros dois públicos do livro?
Outro tipo é o torcedor comum que repudia a torcida organizada. E dizem que o livro comprova o que eles sempre disseram: são máfias e é preciso eliminá-las. Até porque, as relações das torcidas organizadas mostram como são as relações corruptas na Argentina como um todo. E há o grupo de barras bravas. No início, foi um pouco complicada a relação. Quando saiu o livro, reclamaram que me haviam me dito coisas, contado os crimes que cometem, sem saber que sairia um livro sobre isso. Mas, depois, ficam orgulhosos porque saíram um livro sobre eles, com fotos deles. Então, sentem como reconhecimento.

Os barras bravas chegaram a ameaçá-lo?
Sim, mas eu trabalho no Grupo Clarín, o maior da Argentina. Ele tem muito poder. Quando há um problema sério, isso ajuda. E nunca tive um problema grave com os barras bravas. Se eles reclamam, eu digo que vou processá-los pelas ameaças e passa. O problema é quando houve investigações que esbarraram na polícia, no caso da fraude nos efetivos utilizados para fazer segurança nas partidas. E eu tenho mais medo da polícia do que dos barras bravas. Aí tive ameaças sérias.

O que fizeram?
Invadiram minha conta de e-mail, me telefonaram dizendo que horas eu deixava meus filhos na escola. No segundo dia em que isso aconteceu, fui falar com o presidente do Clarín. Ele ligou para o diretor geral da polícia e contou o que acontecia comigo. Disse que, se acontecesse algo comigo no dia seguinte, essa história seria a capa do jornal, com ataques diretos à cúpula da polícia. Não aconteceu mais nada. Mas isso só aconteceu porque trabalho no Clarín. Se trabalhasse em um veículo menor, não teria esse suporte.

Os barras bravas o conhecem. Por que contam os crimes que cometem?
Porque gostam de aparecer no jornal. Gostam de se mostrar. Outro dia, houve um julgamento contra várias figuras importantes de La Doce. Quando terminou o julgamento, 500 barras bravas fecharam a rua, no centro de Buenos Aires, para comemorar. Rafael Di Zeo, chefe de La Doxe e barra brava mais popular da Argentina, se mostrava para fotos. Depois, me deu uma entrevista exclusiva porque eu cubro esse assunto sempre. Ele ainda ficou me perguntando se ia aparecer na capa do jornal! Não queria página interna.

Aqui no Brasil, muita gente acredita que a festa na arquibancada faz o torcedor comum ter alguma simpatia pelas organizadas, mas a violência é importante para atrair novos membros, sobretudo os mais jovens que querem alguma adrenalina e poder. Na Argentina, ser reconhecido como um criminoso que está acima do bem e do mal ajuda também a ter seguidores?
Sim, claro. Há muita gente que vêem nesses barras bravas exemplos de pessoas que começaram de baixo e estão ali no topo. Aí, imaginam que podem conseguir o mesmo. De qualquer modo, a festa no estádio também é importante porque transforma a questão da torcida em “folclore do futebol”, como se diz lá na Argentina. Mas eu acho que nenhum folclore pode ser admitido se uma pessoa morre por violência. E já foram 268 mortos. Não é festa nenhuma, é um funeral enorme.

Chris Hedges | Totalitarian Systems Always Begin by Rewriting the Law (Truth Out)

Monday, 26 March 2012 09:06By Chris Hedges, Truthdig | Op-Ed

Chris Hedges speaks at Occupy DC, January 9, 2012.

Chris Hedges speaks at Occupy DC, January 9, 2012. (Photo: Shrieking Tree)

I spent four hours in a third-floor conference room at 86 Chambers St. in Manhattan on Friday as I underwent a government deposition. Benjamin H. Torrance, an assistant U.S. attorney, carried out the questioning as part of the government’s effort to decide whether it will challenge my standing as a plaintiff in the lawsuit I have brought with others against President Barack Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta over the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), also known as the Homeland Battlefield Bill.

The NDAA implodes our most cherished constitutional protections. It permits the military to function on U.S. soil as a civilian law enforcement agency. It authorizes the executive branch to order the military to selectively suspend due process and habeas corpus for citizens. The law can be used to detain people deemed threats to national security, including dissidents whose rights were once protected under the First Amendment, and hold them until what is termed “the end of the hostilities.” Even the name itself—the Homeland Battlefield Bill—suggests the totalitarian concept that endless war has to be waged within “the homeland” against internal enemies as well as foreign enemies.

Judge Katherine B. Forrest, in a session starting at 9 a.m. Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, will determine if I have standing and if the case can go forward. The attorneys handling my case, Bruce Afran and Carl Mayer, will ask, if I am granted standing, for a temporary injunction against the Homeland Battlefield Bill. An injunction would, in effect, nullify the law and set into motion a fierce duel between two very unequal adversaries—on the one hand, the U.S. government and, on the other, myself, Noam Chomsky, Daniel Ellsberg, the Icelandic parliamentarian Birgitta Jónsdóttir and three other activists and journalists. All have joined me as plaintiffs and begun to mobilize resistance to the law through groups such as Stop NDAA.

The deposition was, as these things go, conducted civilly. Afran and Mayer, the attorneys bringing the suit on my behalf, were present. I was asked detailed questions by Torrance about my interpretation of Section 1021 and Section 1022 of the NDAA. I was asked about my relationships and contacts with groups on the U.S. State Department terrorism list. I was asked about my specific conflicts with the U.S. government when I was a foreign correspondent, a period in which I reported from El Salvador, Nicaragua, the Middle East, the Balkans and other places. And I was asked how the NDAA law had impeded my work.

It is in conference rooms like this one, where attorneys speak in the arcane and formal language of legal statutes, that we lose or save our civil liberties. The 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force Act, the employment of the Espionage Act by the Obama White House against six suspected whistle-blowers and leakers, and the Homeland Battlefield Bill have crippled the work of investigative reporters in every major newsroom in the country. Government sources that once provided information to counter official narratives and lies have largely severed contact with the press. They are acutely aware that there is no longer any legal protection for those who dissent or who expose the crimes of state. The NDAA threw in a new and dangerous component that permits the government not only to silence journalists but imprison them and deny them due process because they “substantially supported” terrorist groups or “associated forces.”

Those of us who reach out to groups opposed to the U.S. in order to explain them to the American public will not be differentiated from terrorists under this law. I know how vicious the government can be when it feels challenged by the press. I covered the wars in El Salvador and Nicaragua from 1983 to 1988. Press members who reported on the massacres and atrocities committed by the Salvadoran military, as well as atrocities committed by the U.S.-backed Contra forces in Nicaragua, were repeatedly denounced by senior officials in the Reagan administration as fellow travelers and supporters of El Salvador’s Farabundo Marti National Liberation (FMLN) rebels or the leftist Sandinista government in Managua, Nicaragua.

The Reagan White House, in one example, set up an internal program to distort information and intimidate and attack those of us in the region who wrote articles that countered the official narrative. The program was called “public diplomacy.”Walter Raymond Jr., a veteran CIA propagandist, ran it. The goal of the program was to manage “perceptions” about the wars in Central America among the public. That management included aggressive efforts to destroy the careers of reporters who were not compliant by branding them as communists or communist sympathizers. If the power to lock us up indefinitely without legal representation had been in the hands of Elliott Abrams or Oliver North or Raymond, he surely would have used it.

Little has changed. On returning not long after 9/11 from a speaking engagement in Italy I was refused entry into the United States by customs officials at the Newark, N.J., airport. I was escorted to a room filled with foreign nationals. I was told to wait. A supervisor came into the room an hour later. He leaned over the shoulder of the official seated at a computer in front of me. He said to this official: “He is on a watch. Tell him he can go.” When I asked for further information I was told no one was authorized to speak to me. I was handed my passport and told to leave the airport.

Glenn Greenwald, the columnist and constitutional lawyer, has done the most detailed analysis of the NDAA bill. He has pointed out that the crucial phrases are “substantially supported” and “associated forces.” These two phrases, he writes, allow the government to expand the definition of terrorism to include groups that were not involved in the 9/11 attacks and may not have existed when those attacks took place.

It is worth reading Sections 1021 and 1022 of the bill. Section 1021 of the NDAA “includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.” Subsection B defines covered persons like this: “(b) Covered Persons—A covered person under this section is any person as follows: (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks. (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or its coalition partners.” Section 1022, Subsection C, goes on to declare that covered persons are subject to: “(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” And Section 1022, Subsection A, Item 4, allows the president to waive the requirement of legal evidence in order to condemn a person as an enemy of the state if that is believed to be in the “national security interests of the United States.”

The law can be used to detain individuals who are not members of terrorist organizations but have provided, in the words of the bill, substantial support even to “associated forces.” But what constitutes substantial? What constitutes support? What are these “associated forces”? What is defined under this law as an act of terror? What are the specific activities of those purportedly “engaged in hostilities against the United States”? None of this is answered. And this is why, especially as acts of civil disobedience proliferate, the NDAA law is so terrifying. It can be used by the military to seize and detain citizens and deny legal recourse to anyone who defies the corporate state.

Torrance’s questions to me about incidents that occurred during my reporting were typified by this back and forth, which I recorded:

Torrance: In paragraph eight of your declaration you refer to the type of journalism we have just been discussing, which conveyed opinions, programs and ideas as being brought within the scope of Section 1021’s provision defining a covered people as one who has substantially supported or directly supported the acts and activities of such individuals or organizations and allies of associated forces. Why do you believe journalistic activity could be brought within that statute?

Hedges: Because anytime a journalist writes and reports in a way that challenges the official government narrative they come under fierce attack.

Torrance: What kind of attack do they come under?

Hedges: It is a range. First of all, the propaganda attempts to discredit the reporting. It would be an attempt to discredit the individual reporter. It would be a refusal to intercede when allied governments physically detain and expel the reporter because of reporting that both that allied government and the United States did not want. And any foreign correspondent that is any good through their whole career has endured all of this.

Torrance: Remind me, the phrase you used that you believed would trigger that was “coverage disfavorable to the United States”?

Hedges: I didn’t say that.

Torrance: Remind me of the phrase.

Hedges: I said it was coverage that challenged the official narrative.

Torrance: Have you ever been detained by the United States government?

Hedges: Yes.

Torrance: When and where?

Hedges: The First Gulf War.

Torrance: What were the circumstances of that?

Hedges: I was reporting outside of the pool system.

Torrance: How did that come about that you were detained?

Hedges: I was discovered by military police without an escort.

Torrance: And they took you into custody?

Hedges: Yes.

Torrance: For how long?

Hedges: Not a long time. They seized my press credentials and they called Dhahran, which is where the sort of central operations were, and I was told that within a specified time—and I don’t remember what that time was—I had to report to the authorities in Dhahran.

Torrance: Where is Dhahran?

Hedges: Saudi Arabia.

Torrance: And that was a U.S. military headquarters of some sort?

Hedges: Well, it was the press operations run by the U.S. Army.

Torrance: And what was the asserted basis for detaining you?

Hedges: That I had been reporting without an escort.

Torrance: And was that a violation of some law or regulation that you know of?

Afran: Note, object to form. Laws and regulations are two different things.

Hedges: Not in my view. …

Torrance: Did the people who detained you specify any law or regulation that in their view you violated?

Hedges: Let me preface that by saying that as a foreign correspondent with a valid journalistic visa, which I had, in a country like Saudi Arabia, the United States does not have the authority to detain me or tell me what I can report on. They attempted to do that, but neither I [nor] The New York Times [my employer at the time] recognized their authority.

Torrance: When you obtained that journalistic visa did you agree to any conditions on what you would do or where you would be permitted to go?

Hedges: From the Saudis?

Torrance: The visa was issued by the Saudi government?

Hedges: Of course, I need a visa from the Saudi government to get into Saudi.

Torrance: Did you agree to any such conditions?

Hedges: No. Not with the Saudis.

Torrance: Were there any other journalists of which you were aware who [were] reporting outside of the pool system?

Hedges: Yes.

Torrance: Were they also detained, to your knowledge?

Hedges: Yes.

The politeness of the exchanges, the small courtesies extended when we needed a break, the idle asides that took place during the brief recesses, masked the deadly seriousness of the proceeding. If there is no rolling back of the NDAA law we cease to be a constitutional democracy.

Totalitarian systems always begin by rewriting the law. They make legal what was once illegal. Crimes become patriotic acts. The defense of freedom and truth becomes a crime. Foreign and domestic subjugation merges into the same brutal mechanism. Citizens are colonized. And it is always done in the name of national security. We obey the new laws as we obeyed the old laws, as if there was no difference. And we spend our energy and our lives appealing to a dead system.

Franz Kafka understood the totalitarian misuse of law, the ability by the state to make law serve injustice and yet be held up as the impartial arbiter of good and evil. In his stories “The Trial” and “The Castle” Kafka presents pathetic supplicants before the law who are passed from one doorkeeper, administrator or clerk to the next in an endless and futile quest for justice. In the parable “Before the Law” the supplicant dies before even being permitted to enter the halls of justice. In Kafka’s dystopian vision, the law is the mechanism by which injustice and tyranny are perpetuated. A bureaucratic legal system uses the language of justice to defend injustice. The cowed populations in tyrannies become for Kafka so broken, desperate and passive that they are finally complicit in their own enslavement. The central character in “The Trial,” known as Josef K, offers little resistance at the end of the story when two men arrive to oversee his execution. Josef K. leads them to a quarry where he is expected to kill himself. He cannot. The men do it for him. His last words are: “Like a dog!”

Journalist Chris Hedges on Capitalism’s “Sacrifice Zones”: Communities Destroyed for Profit (Truth Out)

Tuesday, 24 July 2012 09:18

By Bill MoyersMoyers & Company | Interview

 

Camden, New Jersey is one of the poorest cities in the United States. Camden suffers from unemployment, urban decay, poverty, and many other social issues. Much of the city of Camden, New Jersey suffers from urban decay.Camden, New Jersey is one of the poorest cities in the United States. Camden suffers from unemployment, urban decay, poverty, and many other social issues. Much of the city of Camden, New Jersey suffers from urban decay. (Photo: Phillies1fan777)

There are forgotten corners of this country where Americans are trapped in endless cycles of poverty, powerlessness, and despair as a direct result of capitalistic greed. Journalist Chris Hedges calls these places “sacrifice zones,” and joins Bill this week on Moyers & Company to explore how areas like Camden, New Jersey; Immokalee, Florida; and parts of West Virginia suffer while the corporations that plundered them thrive.

These are areas that have been destroyed for quarterly profit. We’re talking about environmentally destroyed, communities destroyed, human beings destroyed, families destroyed,” Hedges tells Bill.

“It’s the willingness on the part of people who seek personal enrichment to destroy other human beings… And because the mechanisms of governance can no longer control them, there is nothing now within the formal mechanisms of power to stop them from creating essentially a corporate oligarchic state.”

The broadcast includes a visit with comics artist and journalist Joe Sacco, who collaborated with Hedges on Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt, an illustrated account of their travels through America’s sacrifice zones. Kirkus Reviews calls it an “unabashedly polemic, angry manifesto that is certain to open eyes, intensify outrage and incite argument about corporate greed.”

A columnist for Truthdig, Hedges also describes the difference between truth and news. “The really great reporters — and I’ve seen them in all sorts of news organizations — are management headaches because they care about truth at the expense of their own career,” Hedges says.

TRANSCRIPT

Exploring parts of America “that have been destroyed for quarterly profit.”

Bill Moyers: Welcome. Here we are, barely halfway through the summer, and Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have stepped up their cage match, each attacking the other, throwing insults and accusations back and forth like folding chairs hurled across the wrestling ring.

Governor Romney pummels away at the economy; President Obama pummels away at Mr. Romney—when he was or wasn’t at his company Bain Capital, his tax returns and his offshore accounts. All the while, as they bob and weave their way through this quadrennial competition, punching wildly, the real story of what’s happening to ordinary people as capitalism runs amok is largely ignored by each of them. But not in this book “Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt”—an unusual account of poverty and desolation across contemporary America. It’s a collaboration between graphic artist and journalist Joe Sacco, about whom more later, and my guest on this week’s broadcast, Chris Hedges.

Chris Hedges: All of the true correctives to American democracy came through movements that never achieved formal political power.

Bill Moyers: This is just the latest battle cry from Hedges, who, angry at what he sees in the world, expresses his outrage in thoughtful prose that never fails to inform and provoke. As a correspondent and bureau chief for “The New York Times,” he covered wars in North Africa, the Balkans and the Middle East—leaving the paper after a reprimand for publicly denouncing the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

In such books as “War Is a Force that Gives Us Meaning,” his weekly column for the website “Truthdig” and freelance articles for a variety of other publications, Chris Hedges has taken his life’s experience covering the brutality of combat and shaped a worldview in which morality and faith, and the importance of truth-telling, dissent and social activism take precedence, even if it means going to jail.

Welcome, Chris Hedges.

Chris Hedges: Thank you.

Bill Moyers: Tell me about Joe Sacco. He was your companion on this trip. And he was your, in effect, coauthor. Although he was sketching instead of writing.

Chris Hedges: I’ve known Joe since the war in Bosnia. We met when he was working on his book, “Gorazde.” And I was not a reader of graphic novels. But I watched him work. And I certainly know a brilliant journalist when I see one. And he is one of the most brilliant journalists I’ve ever met.

He reports it out with such depth and integrity and power, and then he draws it out. And I realized that an extremely important component of this book was making visible these invisible communities, because we don’t see them. They’re shut out. They’re frightening, they’re depressing. And they’re virtually off the radar screen in terms of the commercial media.

Bill Moyers: This is a tough book. It’s not dispatches from Disneyworld. It paints a very stark portrait of poverty, despair, destructive behavior. What makes you think people want to read that sort of thing these days?

Chris Hedges: That wasn’t a question that Joe Sacco and I ever asked. It’s absolutely imperative that we begin to understand what unfettered, unregulated capitalism does, the violence of that system, which is portrayed in all of the places that we visited.

These are sacrifice zones, areas that have been destroyed for quarterly profit. And we’re talking about environmentally destroyed, communities destroyed, human beings destroyed, families destroyed. And because there are no impediments left, these sacrifice zones are just going to spread outward.

Bill Moyers: What do you mean, there are no impediments left?

Chris Hedges: There’s no way to control corporate power. The system has broken down, whether it’s Democrat or Republican. And because of that, we’ve all become commodities. Just as the natural world has become a commodity that is being exploited until it is exhausted, or it collapses.

Bill Moyers: You call them sacrifice zones.

Chris Hedges: Right.

Bill Moyers: Explain what you mean by that.

Chris Hedges: Well, they have the individuals who live within those areas have no power. The political system is bought off, the judicial system is bought off, the law enforcement system services the interests of power, they have been rendered powerless. You see that in the coal fields of Southern West Virginia.

Now here, in terms of national resources is one of the richest areas of the United States. And yet these harbor the poorest pockets of community, the poorest communities in the United States. Because those resources are extracted. And that money is not funneled back into the communities that are sitting on top of, or next to those resources.

Not only that, but they’re extracted in such a way that the communities themselves are destroyed quite literally because you have not only terrible problems with erosion, as they cause when they do the mountaintop removal, they’ll use these gigantic bulldozers to push off all the trees and then burn them.

And when we flew over the Appalachians, and it’s a terrifying experience, because you realize only then do you realize how vast the devastation is. Just as when we were both in the war in Bosnia, you couldn’t grasp the destruction of ethnic cleansing until you actually flew over Bosnia, and village after village after village had been razed and destroyed.

And the same was true in the Appalachian Mountains. And these people are poisoned. The water is poisoned, it smells, the soil is poisoned. And the people who are making tremendous profits from this don’t even live in West Virginia–

Bill Moyers: You said something like, “While the laws are West Virginia are written by the coal companies, 95 percent of those coal companies–”

Chris Hedges: Right.

Bill Moyers: “–are not in West Virginia.”

Chris Hedges: That’s right. They no longer want to dig down for the coal, and so they’re blowing the top 400 feet off of mountains poisoning the air, poisoning the soil, poisoning the water.

They use some of the largest machines on earth. These draglines, 25-stories tall that are very efficient in terms of ripping out coal seams. But by the time they left, there’s just a wasteland. Nothing grows. Some of the richest soil, some of the purest water, and these are the headwaters for much of the East Coast, You are rendering the area moonscape. It becomes inhabitable. And you’re destroying you know, these are the lungs of the Eastern seaboard. It’s all destroyed and it’s not coming back.

And that violence is visited on these communities. And you see it played out. I mean, Camden, New Jersey, which is the poorest city per capita in the United States and always, the one or two in terms of the most dangerous, it’s a dead city. There’s nothing left. There is no employment. Whole blocks are abandoned. The only thing functioning are open-air drug markets, of which there are about a hundred.

And you’re talking third or fourth generation of people trapped in these internal colonies. They can’t get out, they can’t get credit. And what that does to your dignity, your self-esteem, your sense of self-worth.

BILL MOYERS I was struck by your saying Camden is “beset with the corruption and brutal police repression reminiscent of the despotic regimes that you covered as a correspondent for the New York Times in Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America.” You describe a city where the per capital income is $ll,967. Large swaths of the city, as Joe Sacco Shows us, are abandoned, windowless brick factories, forlorn warehouses.

Chris Hedges: At one point in the 50s, it was a huge shipyard that employed 36,000 people. Campbell’s Soup was made there, RCA used to be there. But there were a variety of businesses it attracted in that great migration a lot of unskilled labor from the South, as well as immigrants from New York

Because without an education, it was a place that you could find a job. It was unionized, of course, so people had adequate wages and some protection. And then it just– everything went down. With the flight of manufacturing overseas.

It’s all gone. Nothing remains. And that’s why it’s such a stark example of what we’ve done to ourselves, without realizing that the manufacturing base of any country is absolutely vital to its health. Not only in terms of its economic, but in terms of its, you know, the cohesion of a society because it gives employment.

Bill Moyers: But give me a thumbnail sketch of Pine Ridge, South Dakota, the Pine Ridge Reservation.

Chris Hedges: Well, Pine Ridge is where it began, Western exploitation. And it was the railroad companies that did it. They wanted the land, they took the land, the government gave them the land. It either gave it to them or sold it to them very cheaply. They slaughtered the buffalo herds, they broke these people. Forcing a people that had not been part of a wage economy to become part of a wage economy, upending the traditional values.

And it really is about the maximization of profit, it really is about the commodification of everything, including human beings. And this was certainly true in the western wars.

And it’s appalling. You know, the average life expectancy for a male in Pine Ridge is 48. That is the lowest in the Western Hemisphere outside of Haiti. At any one time, 60 percent of the dwellings do not have electricity or water.

Bill Moyers: You write of one tiny village, tiny village, with four liquor stores. And that dispense the equivalent of 13,500–

Chris Hedges: Right.

Bill Moyers: –cans of beer a day. And with devastating results.

Chris Hedges: Yes. And they start young and some estimates run that, you know, alcoholism is as high as 80 percent. This contributes, of course, to early death. That’s in Whiteclay, Nebraska. There is no liquor that is legally sold on the reservation, itself. But Whiteclay is about two miles from Pine Ridge. And that’s where people go. They call it “going south.” And that’s all they do, is sell liquor.

That’s true everywhere. You build a kind of dependency which destroys self-efficiency. I mean, that’s what the old Indian agencies were set up to do. You take away the livelihood, you take away the buffalo herds, you make it impossible to sustain yourself, and then you have lines of people waiting for lard, flour, and you know, whisky.

And that has been true in West Virginia. That’s certainly true in Camden. And it is a form of disempowerment. It is a form of keeping people essentially, at a subsistence level, and yet dependent on the very structures of power that are destroying them.

Bill Moyers: One of the most forlorn portraits is in your description of Immokalee, Florida. You describe Immokalee as a town filled with desperately poor single men.

Chris Hedges: Most of them have come across the border illegally. Come up from Central America and Mexico, especially after the passage of NAFTA. Because this destroyed subsistence farms in Mexico, the big agro businesses were able to flood the Mexican market with cheap corn. Estimates run as high as three million farmers were bankrupt, and where did they go? They crossed the border into the United States and in desperate search for work. They were lured into the produce fields. And they send what money they can, usually about $100 a month home to support their wives and children.

Bill Moyers: And they make $11,000, $12,000–

Chris Hedges: At best.

Chris Hedges: It’s brutal work, physically.

Bill Moyers: Yeah.

Chris Hedges: But they’re also exposed to all sorts of chemicals and pesticides. And it’s very hard to show the effects because as these workers age, you know, they’re bent over eight, ten hours a day. So they have tremendous back problems. And by the time they’re in their thirties, the crew leaders, they’ll actually line up in these big parking lots at about 4:00 in the morning, the busses will come.

They just won’t pick the older men. And so they become destitute. And they go back home physically broken. And it’s hard to tell, you know, how poisoned they’ve become, because they’re hard to trace. But clearly that is a big issue. They talk about rashes, respiratory, you know, not being able to breathe, coughing, it’s really, you know, a frightening window into the primacy of profit over human dignity and human life.

Bill Moyers: Fit this all together for me. What does the suffering of the Native American on the Pine Ridge Reservation have to do with the unemployed coal miner in West Virginia have to do with the inner-city African American in Camden have to do with the single man working for minimum wage or less in Immokalee, Florida? What ties that all together?

Chris Hedges: Greed. It’s greed over human life. And it’s the willingness on the part of people who seek personal enrichment to destroy other human beings. That’s a common thread. We, in that biblical term, we forgot our neighbor. And because we forgot our neighbor in Pine Ridge, because we forgot our neighbor in Camden, in Southern West Virginia, in the produce fields, these forces have now turned on us. They went first, and we’re next. And that’s–

Bill Moyers: What do you mean we’re next?

Chris Hedges: Well, the–

Bill Moyers: We being—

Chris Hedges: Two-thirds of this country. We are rapidly replicating that totalitarian vision of George Orwell in “1984.” We have an inner sanctum, inner party of 2 percent or 3 percent, an outer party of corporate managers, of 12 percent, and the rest of us are proles. I mean–

Bill Moyers: Proles being?

Chris Hedges: Being an underclass that is hanging on by their fingertips. And this is already very far advanced. I mean, numbers, I mean, 47 million Americans depending on food stamps, six million exclusively on food stamps, one million people a year going filing for personal bankruptcy because they can’t pay their medical bills, six million people pushed out of their houses.

Long-term unemployment or underemployment– you know, probably being 17 to 20 percent. This is an estimate by “The L.A. Times” rather than the official nine percent. I mean, the average worker at Wal-Mart works 28 hours a week, but their wages put them below the poverty line. Which is why when you work at Wal-Mart, they’ll give you applications for food stamps, so we can help as a government subsidize the family fortune of the Walton family.

It’s, you know these corporations know only one word, and that’s more. And because the mechanisms of governance can no longer control them, there is nothing now within the formal mechanisms of power to stop them from the creating, essentially, a corporate oligarchic state

Bill Moyers: And you say, though, we are accomplices in our own demise. Explain that paradox. That corporations are causing this, but we are cooperating with them.

Chris Hedges: This sort of notion that the corporate value of greed is good. I mean, these deformed values have sort of seeped down within the society at large. And they’re corporate values, they’re not American values.

I mean, American values were effectively destroyed by Madison Avenue when, after world war one, it began to instill consumption as a kind of inner compulsion. But old values of thrift, of self-effacement, or hard work were replaced with this cult of the “self”, this hedonism.

And in that sense, you know, we have become complicit, because we’ve accepted this as a kind of natural law. And the acceptance of this kind of behavior, and even the celebration of it is going to ultimately trigger our demise. Not only as a culture, not only as a country, but finally as a species that exists, you know, on planet Earth.

Bill Moyers: As we came here, I pulled an article published in “Nature” magazine by a group of rather accomplished and credible scientists who have done all the technical studies they need to do, who come to the conclusion that our planet’s ecosystems are careening towards an imminent, irreversible collapse. Once these things happen, planet’s ecosystems as we know them, could irreversibly collapse in the proverbial blink of an eye. Connect that to what you’ve been reporting.

Chris Hedges: Well, because the exploitation of human beings is always accompanied by the exploitation of natural resources, without any thought given to sustainability. I mean, the amount of chemicals and pesticides that are used on the produce in Florida is just terrifying.

And that, you know, migrates from those fields directly to the shelves of our supermarkets and we’re consuming it. And corporations have the kind of political clout that they can prevent any kind of investigation or control or regulation of this. And it’s, again, it’s all for short-term profit at long-term expense.

So the, you know, the very forces that we document in this book are the same forces that are responsible for destroying the ecosystem itself. We are watching these corporate forces, which are supranational. They have no loyalty to the nation state at all, reconfigure the global economy into a form of neo-feudalism. We are rapidly becoming an oligarchic state with an incredibly wealthy class of overlords.

Sheldon Wolin writes about this in “Democracy Incorporated” into what I would call, what he calls inverted totalitarianism, whereby it’s not classical totalitarianism, it doesn’t find its expression through a demagogue or a charismatic leader, but through the anonymity of the corporate state that purports to pay fealty to electoral politics, the Constitution, the iconography and language of American patriotism, and yet internally have seized all of the levers of power. This is what it means when lobbyists write all of our legislation, or when they stack the Supreme Court with people who serve the interests of corporations. And it’s to render the citizen impotent.

Bill Moyers: And what is it, you think, led us to this point of this mind-boggling inequality, mind-boggling consumption, which obviously many of us like, or we wouldn’t be participating? And the grip that money has on politics? What are the forces that got us to this?

Chris Hedges: I think it began after World War I. You know, Dwight McDonald writes about how after World War I, American society became enveloped in what he called the psychosis of permanent war, where in the name of anti-Communism, we could effectively banish anyone within the society who questioned power in a serious kind of way.

And of course, we destroyed populist and radical movements, which have always broadened democracy within American society, it’s something Howard Zinn wrote quite powerfully about in “A People’s History of the United States.” It has been a long struggle, whether it’s the abolitionist movement that fought slavery, whether it’s the suffragists for women’s rights, the labor movement, or the civil rights movement. And these forces have the ability to essentially destroy those movements, including labor unions, which made the middle class possible in this country. And have rendered us powerless. And–

Bill Moyers: Except for the power of the pen. You keep writing, you keep speaking, you keep agitating.

Chris Hedges: I do, but, you know, things aren’t getting better. And I think, you know, like you, I come out of the seminary, and I look less on my ability to effect change and understand it more as a kind of moral responsibility to resist these forces. Which I think in theological terms are forces of death. And to fight to protect, preserve, and nurture life.

But you know, as my friend, Father Daniel Berrigan says, you know, “We’re called to do the good, or at least the good insofar as we can determine it. And then we have to let it go.” Faith is the belief that it goes somewhere.

Bill Moyers: So let’s talk about you. You’ve been showing up in the news as well as well as just reporting the news, you took part in that mock trial down at Goldman Sachs.

Chris Hedges: Goldman Sachs is an institution that worships death, the forces of Thanatos, of greed, of exploitation, of destruction.

Bill Moyers: And I still remember the picture of you and the others sitting down, locking arms, and blocking the interests of the company. What was that about?

Chris Hedges: That was personal for me. Goldman Sachs runs one of the largest commodities index in the world. And I’ve spent 20 years in places like Africa, and I know what happens when wheat prices increase by 100 percent. Children starve. And I knew I was going to get arrested because, you know, I was, I covered the famine in Sudan and was in these huge U.N. tents and feeding stations trying to save.

And you know, the people who die in famines were usually elderly and children. The place was, I mean, everyone had tuberculosis. I have scars in my lungs from tuberculosis, which I successfully fought off. And those are sort of the whispers of the dead. All those children and others who couldn’t didn’t have the ability to go in front of a place like Goldman Sachs and condemn them.

Bill Moyers: But surely those people, as you were arrested, there were people working for Goldman Sachs looking down from the windows–

Chris Hedges: They were taking pictures–

Bill Moyers: Taking pictures, laughing. Surely you don’t think they would wish that outcome in Africa or anywhere else, right?

Chris Hedges: Well, it’s moral fragmentation. I mean, they blind themselves to what they do all day long, and they define themselves as good human beings by other criteria, because they’re a good father or a good husband or because they go to church. But it is that human trait to engage in what I would have to describe as a system of evil. And yet, look at it as just a job.

Bill Moyers: But are we all then therefore, and I come back to this, aren’t we all part of this system that in some way produces Pine Ridge, Immokalee, the coal fields, the inner-cities, and the starving children in Africa? Aren’t we all who have jobs and participate in the culture and are in the economic game, aren’t we all, in a way, as complicit as those people looking down on you from those windows at Goldman Sachs?

Chris Hedges: No. Because you know, the people who actually run the commodities index are very tiny, elite, and extremely wealthy group. And they’re highly compensated. These people make hundreds of thousands, often millions of dollars a year. And most of us don’t make that. And that personal enrichment, I think, is a powerful inducement to ignore their complicity in what is clearly a crime against other human beings.

Bill Moyers: But do you think what you did made any difference? Goldman Sachs hasn’t changed.

Chris Hedges: Well, that doesn’t matter. I did what I had to do. I did what I believed I should’ve done. And faith is a belief that it does make a difference, even if all of the empirical signs around you point otherwise. I think that fundamentally is what faith is about. And I’m not a very good Christian anymore. But I retain enough of my Christian heritage and my seminary training to still believe that.

Bill Moyers: What are you?

Chris Hedges: A, you know, a sinner.

Bill Moyers: Welcome to the clan.

Chris Hedges: You know, a doubter.

Bill Moyers: But you’re driven by something. I mean, I talked to you when you wrote your first and remarkable book “War is the Force that Gives Us Meaning.” I haven’t seen anyone as affected in their life after their experience as a journalist as you had been. I mean, there have been others, I just don’t know them. But somehow what you’re doing today goes back to what you saw and did and felt and experienced in all those years you were overseas and on the frontiers of trouble.

Chris Hedges: Well, because when you spend that long on the outer reaches of empire, you understand the cruelty of empire, what Conrad calls, “The horror, the horror.” And the lies that we tell ourselves about what is done in our name. Whether that’s in Gaza, whether that’s in Iraq, whether that’s in Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, El Salvador, I mean, there’s a long list.

And when you come back from the outer reaches of empire, you are, and I think, you know, many combat veterans feel this who come back, you’re forever alienated. And you to speak a very unpleasant truth about who we are, a truth that most people don’t want to hear. And yet I think to hold that truth in and to remain silent and not to speak that truth destroys you.

That it’s better to get up and speak it even as you correctly point out, you know that Goldman Sachs, you know, everyone at Goldman Sachs gets up the next morning and does it. I mean, this was also true as a war correspondent. I mean, the Serbs would kill.

They’d block all the roads into the village, we’d walk in with our satellite phones, we’d file it, we never believe they weren’t going to do it again the next day. But somehow not to chronicle it, not to take the risks to report it, was to be complicit in that killing. And I think that same kind of thought goes into what’s happening here.

Bill Moyers: But do you think taking sides marginalizes your journalism? I mean, when you were being arrested, and some businessman was quoted in the paper passing by and looking at those of you being carried away and said, “Bunch of idiots.” He needs to hear what you, read what you say. Do you think he will once he knows you’ve taken sides?

Chris Hedges: Well, I think that in life we always have to take sides.

Bill Moyers: Do journalists always have to take sides?

Chris Hedges: Yes. Journalists always do take sides. You know, you’ve been a journalist a long time. The idea that there’s something objective and impartial is just a lie. We sell it. But I can take the same set of facts– I was a newspaper reporter for a long time, and I can spin that story one way or another. We manipulate facts. That’s what we do. And I think that the really great journalists–

Bill Moyers: Not necessarily to deceive though. Some do, I know, but–

Chris Hedges: Right, but we do.

Bill Moyers: We choose the facts we want to organize–

Chris Hedges: Of course, it’s selective. And it’s what facts we choose, how we place, where we put the quotes. And I think the really great journalists, like the great preachers, care fundamentally about truth. And truth and news are not the same thing.

And the really great reporters, and I’ve seen them, you know, in all sorts of news organizations, are management headaches because they care about truth at the expense of their own career.

Bill Moyers: What do you mean truth as opposed to news?

Chris Hedges: Well, let’s take the Israel occupation of Gaza. You know, if I had a dinner with any Middle East correspondent who covered Gaza, none of us would have any disagreements about the Israeli behavior in Gaza, which is a collective war crime. And yet to get up and write it and say it within American society is not a career enhancer.

Because there’s a powerful Israeli lobby, and it’s a lobby that I don’t think represents Israel, it represents the right wing of Israel. And you know it. But, the great reporters don’t care. And they’re there.

But you know, large institutions like “The New York Times” attract huge numbers of careerists like any other large institutions, the Church of course, being no exception. And those are the people who are willing to take moral shortcuts to promote themselves within that institution.

And when somebody becomes a headache, even if they may agree with them, even if they may know that they are speaking a truth, and it puts their career in jeopardy– they will push them out or silence them.

So I think that one can take sides, and Orwell becomes the kind of model for this. But one can never not tell the truth. And I’ve often written stories that are not particularly flattering. And there’s much in this book about people in Pine Ridge or Camden, you know, that is not flattering. I mean, we’re interviewing people that are drug addicts and this kind of stuff. And–

Bill Moyers: Drug dealers–

Chris Hedges: –prostitutes and–

Bill Moyers: Yeah, drug dealers–

Chris Hedges: Yeah.

Bill Moyers: –prostitutes.

Chris Hedges: So we’re not, you know, the lie of omission is still a lie. But I don’t think any foreign correspondent who covers war, whether it was in Bosnia or whether it was in Sarajevo can be indifferent to the tremendous human suffering before them and not want that human suffering to stop.

Bill Moyers: But there is a price, as you have said, to be paid for stepping outside of the system that enabled your name and reputation and becoming a critic of that system. I mean, what price do you think you’ve paid?

Chris Hedges: I don’t think I paid a price, I think I would’ve paid a price for staying in. I wouldn’t have been able to live with myself. You know, I was pushed out of “The New York Times” because I was publicly denouncing the invasion of Iraq. And again, it comes down to that necessity to speak a truth, or at least the truth as far as you can discern it.

I’ve spent months of my life in Iraq. I knew the instrument of war. I understood in all the ways that this was going be a disaster– including upsetting the power balance in the Middle East. It’s one of the great strategic blunders of the United States, it’s empowered Iran. And to remain silent would’ve been the price. Was it good for my career? Well, of course not.

But my career was never the point. I didn’t drive down Mount Igman into Sarajevo when it was being hit with 2,000 shells a day because it was good for my career. I went there because what was happening was a crime against humanity. And as a reporter, I wanted to be there to chronicle it.

Bill Moyers: Well, you should. But, so you don’t think journalism is futile?

Chris Hedges: I think journalism is essential. I think it’s essential. And we’re watching its destruction. You know, journalism, the power of journalism is that it is rooted in verifiable fact. You go out as a reporter, you seek to find out what is factually correct. You crosscheck it with other sources. It’s sent to an editor. It’s fact-checked, you put it out. That’s all vanishing.

That’s what we’re really losing with journalism. Yes, you know, commercial journalism, there were things they wouldn’t write about. You know, as Schanberg says, “The power of great newspapers like “The Times” is that at least it’s stopped things from getting worse.” I think that’s right.

Bill Moyers: But can it make things better? I mean, do you think you can accomplish more as a dissenter, and I look up on you now, when I ask you what’s your faith, I think your faith is in dissent, if I may say so. It’s in “This far and no further.” But do you think you can accomplish as much as a dissenter than as a journalist?

Chris Hedges: Yeah, it’s not a question that I’ve asked. Because the question is, “What do you have to do?” I certainly knew after 15 years at “The New York Times” that running around on national television shows denouncing the war in Iraq was, as a news reporter, tantamount to career suicide. I mean, I was aware of that.

And yet, you know, as Paul Tillich writes about, you know, “Institutions are always inherently demonic, including the Church.” And you cannot finally serve the interests of those institutions. That for those who seek the moral life, there will always come a time in which they have to defy even institutions they care about if they are able to retain that moral core. And in essence, what, you know, “The New York Times,” or other institutions were asking is that I muzzle myself.

Bill Moyers: But all institutions do that, don’t they?

Chris Hedges: All institutions do.

Bill Moyers: Intuitively or explicitly.

Chris Hedges: That’s right. And I think for those of us who care about speaking, you know, the truth, you know, or if you want to call it dissent, we are going to have to accept that at one day, there’s going probably mean a clash with the very institutions that have nurtured and supported us. And I have been nurtured and supported by these institutions.

Bill Moyers: But your columns, your essays, your recent book, this book, contained repeated calls for uprisings, for civil disobedience. You even say in here, quote, “Revolt is all we have. It is our only hope. It is our only hope.” Unpack that from our viewers who are sitting there thinking, “What is he asking me to do? What does he mean by revolt? What’s he talking about?”

Chris Hedges: Nonviolence civil disobedience. And accepting the fact that engaging in that process will mean arrest. I’ve lived in societies that are rent and torn by violence, and I don’t want us to go there. And I think that we don’t have a lot of time left. And that for those of us who care about veering off into another course, a course that’s rational and sane and makes possible the perpetuation of not only the human species but the planet itself, we have to take this kind of radical action. And if we don’t, then as things disintegrate and as the paralysis within the centers of power become more and more apparent, then we will fuel very frightening extremes.

You know, again, which I saw in places like Central America or Bosnia. And I look at this as many ways, a kind of, a preventive action. A way to respond peacefully. A way to respond, in a Democratic fashion, to the problems in front of us before it’s too late.

Bill Moyers: Bear with me as I explore this, ‘cause there’s a paradox at two levels. One at a conceptual level, and the other at a practical level. You write in here, “Either you join the revolt or you stand on the wrong side of history. You either obstruct through civil disobedience, or become the passive enabler of a monstrous evil.” But in an early book, “Death of the Liberal Class,” which I think is one of your best, you wrote that, “The fantasy of widespread popular revolts and mass movements breaking the hegemony of the corporate state is just that, a fantasy.”

Chris Hedges: I wrote that before Occupy. And I was writing out of a kind of belief that this was what was absolutely necessary and yet I saw no signs within the wider society that was happening. And then suddenly, on September 17th, Zuccotti Park appears. And mostly fueled by the young. And I was writing out of a present reality. And I didn’t see Zuccotti coming. I was writing out of a kind of despair, for all of the reasons that I said.

Bill Moyers: Why did you take hope from that? Because after you’d been down there? You subsequently write that “By the end, even the most dedicated of the Occupiers in Zuccotti Park burned out.”

Chris Hedges: Yeah.

Bill Moyers: “They lost control of the park. The arrival in cold weather of individual tents, along with the numerous street people with mental impairment and addictions,” that you’re nothing if not honest in what you write, even about those people you support, “tore apart the community. Drug use as well as assaults and altercations became common.” So how is that square with what you said earlier that the Occupy Movement gave us a blueprint for how to fight back?

Chris Hedges: Because this is the trajectory of all movements. You know, it’s not a linear progression upwards. And the civil rights movement is a perfect example of that. All sorts of failures, whether it’s in Albany, Mississippi or anywhere else. You know, there were all sorts of moments within the civil rights movement where King wasn’t even sure he was going to be able to hold it together. And what happened in Zuccotti is like what happened in 1765 when they rose up against the Stamp Act.

That became the kind of dress rehearsal for the rebellion of 1775, 1776, 1905. The uprising in Russia became again the kind of dress rehearsal. These movements, this process, it takes a very long time. I think the Occupy was movement and I was there.

I mean, I certainly understand why it imploded and its many faults and how at that size, consensus doesn’t work, everything else. And yet it triggered something. It triggered a kind of understanding of systems of power. It, I think, gave people a sense of their own personal power. Once we step out into a group and articulate these injustices and these grievances to a wider public, and of course they resonated with a mainstream. I don’t think it’s over. I don’t know how it’s going to mutate and change, one never knows. But, I think that it’s imperative that we keep that narrative alive by being out there because things are not getting better.

The state is not responding in a rational way to what’s happening. If they really wanted to break the back of the opposition movement, rather than sort of eradicating the 18 encampments, they would’ve gone back and looked at Roosevelt. There would’ve been forgiveness of all student debt, $1 trillion, there would’ve been a massive jobs program targeted at those under the age of 25, and there would’ve been a moratorium on more closures and bank repossessions of homes.

That would’ve been a rational response. Instead, the state has decided to speak exclusively in the language of force and violence to try and crush this movement while people continue this dissent.

Bill Moyers: In one of your earlier books, you wrote that, quote, “We stand on the verge of one of the bleakest periods in human history, when the bright lights of civilization blink out, and we will descend for decades, if not centuries, into barbarity.” Do you really think that’s ahead?

Chris Hedges: If there’s not a radical change in the way we relate to the ecosystem that sustains life, yes. And I see, if you ask me to put my money down, I see nothing that indicates that we’re preparing to make that change.

Bill Moyers: But here’s another paradox then, you present us with a lot of paradoxes. You just– you and your wife a year and a half ago had your fourth child. How can you introduce another life into so forlorn a future?

Chris Hedges: That’s not an easy question to answer. I look at my youngest son, and his favorite book is “Out of the Blue,” which are pictures of narwhales and porpoises and dolphins. And I think, “It is most probable that within your lifetime, every single one of those sea creatures will be dead.” And in so many ways, I feel that I have to fight for them.

That even if I fail, they’ll say, “You know, at least my dad tried.” We’ve deeply betrayed this next generation on so many levels. And I can’t argue finally, you know, given the empirical facts in front of us that hope is rational. And I retreat, like so many people in my book, into faith. And a belief that resistance and fighting for life is meaningful even if all of the outward signs around us deny that possibility.

Bill Moyers: That faith in human beings?

Chris Hedges: Faith in that fighting for the sanctity of life is always worth it. Because you know, if we don’t fight, then we are finished. Then we signed our own death sentence. And Camus writes about this in “The Rebel,” that I think resistance becomes a kind of way of protecting our own worth as an individual, our own dignity, our own self-respect. And I think resistance does always leave open the possibility of change. And if we don’t resist, then we’ve essentially extinguished that hope.

Bill Moyers: H. L. Mencken, the celebrated iconoclast of the early part of the last century once wrote, “The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naïve and usually idiotic. He is more likely one who likes his country more than the rest of us and is those more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debouched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime, he is a good citizen, driven to despair.” Is that you?

Chris Hedges: Yeah–

Bill Moyers: A good citizen driven to despair?

Chris Hedges: Yes. And a good citizen driven to despair who will not remain apathetic and passive. And, you know, in every single place that we went to, Camden, West Virginia, Pine Ridge, we found these utterly magnificent human beings. I mean, this woman Lolly in Camden, African American woman, who you know, raised her own children. And I think by the time she was done, 19 others.

Her fiancé was shot and killed, one of her little seven-year-old daughters died of an asthma attack because they didn’t have the right medicine. And I said, “Lolly, how do you do it?” And she said, “I never ask why.” And when you spend time in the presence of people like that, and they were everywhere you know, they understood what they were up against.

It is deeply empowering. Because not to resist, not to fight back is on a very personal level to betray these people. And when you build relationships, as over the two years Joe and I did, with figures like that, it really, you know, almost comes down to something that simplistic. You can’t betray Lolly. You can’t betray any of these great figures who’ve stood up. Because their fight is our fight. And oftentimes they’ve endured far, far more– well, they have endured far, far more than I have endured or ever will endure.

Bill Moyers: The Book is, “Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt.” Chris Hedges and Joe Sacco. Thank you very much Chris for being with me.

Chris Hedges: Thanks Bill.

Bill Moyers: For all his power of expression, sometimes words fail even Chris Hedges, and a picture can say more in a single frame, well-drawn, than paragraphs of explanation. That’s what makes his partnership with graphic artist Joe Sacco on their book, “Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt,” so potent and so effective. Joe Sacco has traveled all over the world, using the techniques of the comic book illustrator as a tool of journalism, telling stories with insight and humanity.

Joe Sacco: My name’s Joe Sacco and I’m a comics journalist. Drawing really often provides mood and atmosphere, and writing is that sort of precision. The facts. And you can put those two things together with comics, which I think is what makes the medium very powerful.

When I’m in the field, I meet people who are really in hard situations. I’m not interested in tears. I’m not even interested in sentimentality. But I am interested in telling people’s stories as well as possible who are oppressed or are poor.

Chris and I had already worked on a magazine piece about Camden and we decided we would expand that. You can read about poverty. You can read about despair. Or you can read about resignation. But to see it is really, it’s eye-opening.

I didn’t do that many stories in the book, maybe five or six. They all moved me quite a bit. I think the one that was sort of hit me in this way, because it was so unfamiliar to me was the woman who came out from Guatemala, the one that we call Anna in the story.

Her waiting by the phone after her husband had made the long, arduous trip so the United States. Waiting eight days, knowing he had to cross a desert where many people die. And that sort of story really touched me. Because when we think of migrant workers, we can be so dismissive of them. They’re just working in a fields. Oh, you see them bent over and they’re just doing their job, and you know they’re getting minimum wage. And you sort of feel sorry for them in a sense.

But to get a sense of, and to actually hear an individual story like that, for some reason that just really got to me when I was drawing it.

When I was about seven years old. I started drawing stories. Because I liked forms of self-expression and that was just one I never let go of. I never really drew just for the sake of drawing. There always had to be a story to go with it.

A story can be more true if you just let it be told. It’s very important for me, with my work, not to create these angelic people. You want to show people as nuts and bolts. Those are the people who seem real. With the Michael Red Cloud’s story, a story about his drug dealing days, making big money, partying, having women with him at all times. Now, he wasn’t necessarily pleased with how he’d lived his past life, he wasn’t. But to me, the idea is just to present the complete human being. You know, he’s a real person. I was moved by his story, or I saw the changes that he made through his story. And then you see the hard things in the context of his upbringing, in the context of what was around him, in the context of what he learned from people around him.

You see the commonalities between people who have nothing around them but despair. They are born into a context which simply doesn’t provide them opportunities or even the thought of opportunities. To me, it’s incumbent upon the journalist to go and see for himself or herself what’s actually going on. Journalism to me isn’t like a tennis match, where you’re just watching the ball, and each side is hitting it, hitting it back and forth to each other.

At some point, you have to arrest where the ball is, and that’s where truth is, you know? And like I say, truth doesn’t necessarily reside in the middle. And I’ve always had a problem with journalists who say things like, “Well, I pissed off both sides. I must be doing something right.” That is the laziest sort of phrase I’ve ever heard.

You know, hundreds of stories that still need to be told. I’m interested in sort of answering questions that journalism doesn’t really put its finger on.

To me, it’s very important to remind ourselves of the costs of what is going on in this world. The human costs.

I feel like I wouldn’t be where I need to be for myself if I didn’t look to those things, and I didn’t face them squarely. I just feel that’s who I am, and what I have to do.

DIG DEEPER

This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license.

Sobre as bombas fabricadas no Brasil, e as tentativas de regulação do comércio mundial de armas (FSP)

Folha de S.Paulo – 25/07/2012 – 03h00

Matias Spektor

Armas do Brasil

Negocia-se esta semana na ONU um Tratado de Comércio de Armas. É a primeira tentativa de regulação do lucrativo mercado global de armamentos.

O texto ora negociado afeta em cheio os interesses do Brasil emergente. Trata-se de uma área em que campeões da indústria estão em franca via de internacionalização. Além das gigantescas Embraer e Odebrecht, existe a Taurus, maior fabricante mundial de armas curtas. Exporta para 44 países, detém 20% do mercado de pistolas nos Estados Unidos e espera um lucro bruto para este ano de R$150 milhões de reais. Ainda entram na lista Avibrás (veículos não-tripulados e foguetes), Mectron (mísseis), Helibrás (helicópteros) e Companhia Brasileira de Cartuchos (munições). A Condor vende 100 produtos de “tecnologias não-letais”.

Essas empresas preferem um tratado minimalista. Não querem explicar publicamente suas vendas nem revelar a lista de clientes. Tampouco enfrentar questionamentos caso suas armas sejam utilizadas para desestabilizar uma região, violar direitos humanos, fomentar o crime transnacional e o terrorismo, ou atrapalhar o combate à pobreza. Isso é compreensível – elas querem fazer negócio.

Assim, o governo brasileiro trabalha para deixar o tratado livre de mecanismos intrusivos. Nem precisa fazer força para isso – há muitos países dispostos a fazê-lo em seu lugar. Irã, Síria, Cuba, Venezuela e Paquistão têm a dianteira. A Índia joga no mesmo time; muitas vezes, os Estados Unidos também. Na sexta-feira, estará provavelmente garantido o triunfo total da posição brasileira.

Em Brasília fomenta-se o êxito dessas indústrias, que geram divisas e empregam milhares de pessoas em áreas de alta tecnologia. Daí a lei de março passado, que outorga crédito fácil e isenção de PIS/Pasep, Cofins e IPI.

Ninguém no governo questionou a Avibrás por vender 18 sistemas de “bombas cluster” para a Malásia, a Mectron por seus 100 mísseis anti-radar para o Paquistão ou a Condor por sua exportação de gás lacrimogêneo para a Síria de Bashar al-Assad. O tema simplesmente não está na agenda, e todos os incentivos de hoje apontam para mais do mesmo.

Entretanto, há uma pequena ameaça no horizonte. Grandes indústrias de armamento europeias e americanas começaram a ajustar sua posição. Como elas enfrentam controles cada vez mais estreitos para suas exportações, buscam meios de moldar o novo ambiente regulatório em benefício próprio.

Segundo elas, um tratado internacional decente seria bom para quem quer ganhar dinheiro. Criaria um controle de qualidade parecido à ISO, padronização de produtos comandada pelo setor privado que facilita a abertura de mercados.

Também estabeleceria códigos de conduta comuns, algo valioso em mercados cheios de clientes de caráter duvidoso, onde uma venda inapropriada pode ferir o interesse de acionistas e macular a reputação das empresas e de países.

Se essas regras pegarem e nossa indústria continuar apostando contra a transparência, todos perdem. Sobretudo o cidadão brasileiro, que é obrigado a custear um negócio sobre o qual ninguém o consultou.

 

Elio Gaspari

De SaddamHussein@org para Dilma@gov

Estimada presidente Dilma Rousseff,

Outro dia jantei com o Che Guevara e o Laurent Kabila, aquele presidente do Congo que foi assassinado em 2001. A senhora deve se recordar que o Che andou pela África e deu-se mal.

No meio da conversa Che perguntou-lhe se era verdade que em 2001 o Robert Mugabe, o soba do Zimbábue, tinha ajudado sua facção na guerra civil congolesa repassando-lhe bombas incendiárias e de fragmentação fabricadas no Brasil. Ele desconversou. O Che ficou perplexo, imaginou Lula vendendo esse tipo de armas para africanos. São bombas que incendiam a mata ou, ao explodir, soltam dezenas de milhares de esferas de aço. Destinam-se a matar indiscriminadamente combatentes e civis. Como um jornalista chamado Rubens Valente achou um pedaço dessa história, resolvi escrever-lhe, pois não quebrarei o sigilo do que se aprende por aqui. Ele contou que o Brasil vendeu 726 bombas ao Mugabe. Faturou US$ 5,8 milhões para matar africanos miseráveis. Eles morreriam nas rebeliões congolesas ou no próprio Zimbábue. Dias depois o Che me procurou, explicando que o negócio não foi feito pelo Lula, mas por Fernando Henrique Cardoso. Estava de alma leve, mas esse Guevara é um sonhador. Ele não sabe das coisas do mundo.

Eu sei, presidente Dilma, e sei que a senhora está abrindo o cofre do BNDES para o que acha que será o reerguimento da indústria bélica brasileira. Sete grandes empreiteiras já se habilitaram num programa de incentivos e, novamente, a Federação das Indústrias de São Paulo alavanca o projeto. No varejo, já se acharam bombas de gás lacrimogênio brasileiras no Bahrein e na Turquia (jogadas contra refugiados sírios).

Isso vai acabar mal. Eu vi como acabou a última iniciativa do gênero, ocorrida entre os anos 70 e 80. Os brasileiros viraram piada. Nós trocaríamos petróleo por armas e compramos blindados leves e algumas baterias de foguetes. A senhora acredita que em 1979 um industrial paulista foi a Bagdá e ofereceu tecnologia nuclear para a minha bomba atômica? Eu disse a um embaixador brasileiro que o moço não devia vender o que não tinha. Quase dois anos depois vocês voltaram a mesma história, mais um míssil capaz de transportar a bomba. Deu em nada, até porque os sionistas bombardearam meu reator e deram um tranco num poderoso general brasileiro. O Muammar Gaddafi me contou que o mesmo paulista vendia-lhe blindados e queria fabricar um tanque, acho que se chamava Osório, financiado pelos sauditas. O “reis dos reis” sabia que, se a casa de Saud financiasse uma arma, seria para matá-lo. Procure saber quanto essa operação custou. Durante minha guerra com o Irã vocês me ofereciam blindados e queriam vender metralhadores para o aiatolá. Pode? A única vítima dessas aventuras foi um jornalista brasileiro. Ele se chamava Alexandre von Baumgarten. Falou demais a respeito de uma pasta de urânio que nós compramos em 1981. No ano seguinte foi passear de barco, encontrou uma lancha com amigos, convidou-os para um copo e foram metralhados. Ele, a mulher e o barqueiro.

O homem da bomba faliu, e vocês tomaram um calote de US$ 200 milhões.

Respeitosamente,

Saddam Hussein.

 

24/07/2012 – 03h00
Janio de Freitas

A transparência opaca

A presidente Dilma Rousseff está sob o risco iminente de perder o direito moral de cobrar transparência, como princípio e exigência do seu governo, a quem quer que seja. O Brasil faz uso, neste momento, de uma falácia primária para opor-se, em reunião da ONU, a um acordo que estabeleça transparência nas exportações de armas.

A política externa proclamada pelo governo, e fiel ao que se entende como índole brasileira, é contrária a confrontos armados entre nações ou como solução de dissensões internas. Logo, não pode favorecer a realidade de que a busca dos altos lucros da exportação sigilosa de armas, além de ser o sustentáculo de ditaduras sanguinárias, está na raiz das matanças de populações civis, condenadas pelo Brasil –na europeia Bósnia, no Oriente Médio, nas infindáveis guerras da África, na Ásia, agora mesmo na Síria.

O argumento do governo brasileiro na reunião da ONU, destinada a tentar um Tratado sobre Comércio de Armas, foi transcrito, no essencial, pelo repórter Rubens Valente (Folha de domingo): a transparência das exportações de armas “poderia expor os recursos e a capacidade dos países […] de sustentar um conflito prolongado”.

Mas a capacidade bélica de um país depende do seu arsenal e da relação entre qualidade e quantidade de suas tropas. Um grande exportador pode ter arsenal insignificante, dando prioridade aos lucros do comércio legal ou não, e descuidar daquela relação.

Da mesma maneira, baixa ou nenhuma exportação não significa que um país não produza armas e não tenha Forças Armadas bem equipadas e preparadas. E ainda há os que têm “capacidade de sustentar um conflito prolongado” com armamento importado às claras, o que parece ser o caso, na América do Sul, da Venezuela, por exemplo.

O argumento brasileiro é falso. Porque infundado e porque adotado para esconder o fato de que o Brasil exportador de armas está envolvido em monstruosidades que finge condenar. O trabalho excelente de Rubens Valente revela que o governo de Fernando Henrique Cardoso autorizou a produção e venda de bombas de fragmentação ao Zimbábue do ditador Robert Mugabe.

Ou seja, a uma ditadura sanguinária, conduzida por ideias psicopáticas como a da necessidade de exterminar os brancos, remanescentes da antiga Rodésia. E ainda algumas das tribos locais.

As bombas de fragmentação são proibidas por acordo internacional: não têm alvo preciso, desabrocham no ar em milhares de bolas de aço que atingem a população civil em áreas imensas. Israel foi acusado de lançar tais bombas sobre a população palestina de Gaza, e, se o fez, o acusado de produzir e exportar as bombas foi o Brasil. Cujo governo posou de contrário aos ataques à população palestina.

Os mutilados por pisar inadvertidamente em mina camuflada, resto de algum conflito estúpido, compõem uma tragédia africana que tem comovido o mundo. Crianças, em geral, esses mutilados são os que escapam da mortandade feita pelas minas deixadas no chão de vários países. Em grande parte das minas recuperadas, graças sobretudo a entidades de benemerência europeias, está preservada a inscrição: “Made in Brazil”.

Podemos ostentar um orgulho internacional: nós também temos nossos criminosos de guerra. Gente que não escaparia no Tribunal Penal Internacional de Haia, por fomentar a morte de populações civis inocentes, e com isso lucrar fortunas.

É a esse Brasil opaco que a falta de transparência dá proteção. Como sua continuidade permitirá que a Rússia arme Bashar al Assad, e os Estados Unidos, a Inglaterra, a França, e o Brasil também, façam o mesmo pelo mundo todo.

22/07/2012 – 05h15

Brasil se opõe a “transparência total” em debate de armas na ONU

RUBENS VALENTE

DE BRASÍLIA

Em declaração escrita apresentada à ONU, o Brasil atacou “a transparência absoluta” no tema da exportação de armas. Representantes de 193 países participam de uma negociação na sede da ONU, em Nova York, até o próximo dia 27, para tentar estabelecer um inédito Tratado de Comércio de Armas.

Segundo a declaração brasileira, de 2 de julho e apresentada no encontro pelo representante nas negociações, embaixador Antonio Guerreiro, o acesso livre “poderia expor os recursos e as capacidades dos países […] de sustentar um conflito prolongado”.

“Obrigações relativas a relatórios e transparência deverão ser tratadas com os necessários bom senso e precaução”, diz o texto.

Daniel Mack, coordenador de Políticas de Controle de Armas do Instituto Sou da Paz, de São Paulo, que acompanha as negociações sobre o tratado, classificou a preocupação como “anacrônica”.

“Transparência é o ‘calcanhar de Aquiles’ da posição brasileira, o que não deixa de ser altamente irônico e contraditório, considerando a nova Lei de Acesso à Informação. […] Dos maiores exportadores, o Brasil tem a pior transparência, não só em relação aos países europeus e aos EUA, mas também em comparação com a África do Sul e a Sérvia”, disse Mack.

RASTREABILIDADE

Embora avesso à transparência nas exportações, o Brasil quer dar o exemplo no tema da rastreabilidade das munições e armas, aspecto elogiado por Mack.

O país afirma que a indústria nacional já consegue fazer marcações a laser de armas e munições, à prova de raspagem, de forma a possibilitar a imediata identificação do fabricante e do destinatário final do produto.

A medida poderia coibir desvios de armamentos e ajudar a apurar crimes contra direitos humanos.

Na declaração, o Brasil diz ser preciso um esforço internacional conjunto para prevenir, combater e erradicar o contrabando de armas.

 

Brasil vendeu bombas condenadas a ditador do Zimbábue

RUBENS VALENTE
DE BRASÍLIA

Documentos inéditos sobre a exportação de material bélico brasileiro, um dos segredos militares mais bem guardados pelo país, revelam que o Brasil vendeu ao ditador Robert Mugabe, do Zimbábue, um tipo de bomba condenada pela comunidade internacional.

Após negar duas vezes um pedido da Folha com base na Lei de Acesso à Informação, o Ministério da Defesa voltou atrás e liberou 1.572 páginas de documentos secretos.

São registros de 204 operações de exportação de armas e munição, no total de US$ 315 milhões, de janeiro de 2001 a maio de 2002, os mais recentes disponibilizados. Os papéis, diz a pasta, manterão sigilo de no mínimo dez anos.

É a primeira vez que o órgão libera o acesso a documentos do gênero.

Entre os registros está a revelação de que o Brasil vendeu ao Zimbábue, em agosto de 2001, US$ 5,8 milhões em bombas de fragmentação e incendiárias.

Foram vendidas 340 bombas completas, além de componentes para a montagem de outras 426 bombas de fragmentação e 605 incendiárias.

Na época da aquisição, Mugabe, no poder desde 1980, era acusado de ajudar uma guerra no vizinho Congo e enfrentava distúrbios na zona rural do país, com a morte de fazendeiros brancos.

A venda pelo Brasil das bombas de fragmentação era uma antiga suspeita de ONGs que monitoram o uso dessas munições, conhecidas como “de dispersão”.

A bomba é assim chamada porque, ao ser detonada, espalha de 14 mil a 120 mil esferas de aço, a depender do modelo, que podem atingir indistintamente combatentes e população civil.

As esferas de bombas maiores podem se espalhar por área equivalente a sete campos de futebol.

Em 2008, mais de cem países assinaram convenção que veta a fabricação e venda do tipo de bomba. Brasil, EUA e Rússia, dentre outros, recusaram-se. “A transparência do Brasil na matéria é historicamente muito ruim”, diz Cristian Wittmann, de uma coalizão de ONGs contra esse tipo de munição.

O diretor de Produtos de Defesa do Ministério da Defesa, o general de brigada Aderico Mattioli, disse que muitas vendas “chamam a atenção” por indicarem munição pesada, mas podem estar relacionadas a treinamento de militares. “É uma munição, diga-se de passagem, de um material antigo”, disse.

RANKING

Os dados obtidos pela Folha eram desconhecidos por ONGs que estudam o comércio de armas. No ranking do Sipri (Instituto Internacional de Estocolmo para Pesquisa sobre a Paz), uma referência no tema, o Brasil aparece em 2001 no 46º lugar, o último, ao lado de países que não venderam material bélico.

Eles revelam a venda total de US$ 287,4 milhões em 2001, o que projetaria o Brasil para a décima posição no ranking liderado pelos EUA, que venderam US$ 6 bilhões.

A Sipri cita que o Brasil vendeu US$ 26 milhões em 2002, menos que as vendas de apenas quatro meses daquele ano: US$ 27,6 milhões.

European Commission backs calls for open access to scientific research (The Guardian)

Move follows announcement by UK government that it wants all taxpayer-funded research to be free to view by 2014

Reuters/guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 17 July 2012 14.41 BST
Neelie Kroes

Neelie Kroes, European Commission vice-president for digital agenda, said: ‘Taxpayers should not have to pay twice for scientific research.’ Photograph: Georges Gobet/AFP/Getty Images

The European Commission, which controls one of the world’s largest science budgets, has backed calls for free access to publicly fundedresearch in a move that could force a major change in the business model for publishers such as Reed Elsevier.

“Taxpayers should not have to pay twice for scientific research and they need seamless access to raw data,” said Neelie Kroes, European Commission vice-president for digital agenda.

The EC saidon Tuesday that open access will be a “general principle” applied to grants awarded through the €80bn Horizon 2020 programme for research and innovation.

From 2014 all articles produced with funding from Horizon 2020 will have to be accessible and the goal is for 60% of European publicly funded research to be available by 2016.

The news follows the announcement by the British government that it wants all taxpayer-funded research to be free to view by 2014. David Willets, the universities and science minister told the Gaurdian: “If the taxpayer has paid for this research to happen, that work shouldn’t be put behind a paywall before a British citizen can read it.”

The most prestigious academic journals, such as Nature, Science and Cell, earn the bulk of their revenues through subscriptions from readers.

They have lucrative deals with university libraries, worth about £150m to £200m a year in the UK, to give access to the same scientists who produce and review, usually without payment, the research they publish.

Open-access journals, such as the Public Library of Science, are ofteninternet-based and charge researchers a fee for publication, allowing free access for anyone after publication.

The open-access market has been growing rapidly over the past decade but still only accounts for about 3% of the £5.1bn global market for scholarly journals.

The subscription model has come under attack from some scientists, who argue that publishing companies are making fat profits on the back of taxpayer-funded research.

Elsevier publishes more than 2,000 journals with a staff of about 7,000. It made a profit last year of £768m on revenues of £2.1bn, giving a margin of about 37%.

Publishers argue that quality does not come cheap and their subscription charges reflect the need to maintain large editorial departments and databases of published research.

Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, European commissioner for research, innovation and science, swept this argument aside. “We must give taxpayers more bang for their buck,” she said in a statement. “Open access to scientific papers and data is an important means of achieving this.”

The commission’s move follows recent news that the European medicines regulator will open its data vaults to allow independent researchers to scrutinise results from drug companies’ trials.

“The EU’s decision to adopt a similar policy to that of the UK will mean that the transition time from subscription-based to open-access publishing will be substantially reduced,” Professor Adam Tickell, who was involved in a recent UK government-commissioned report on the issue, told Reuters.

Tickell, of the University of Birmingham, predicted a rapid and substantial reduction in the cost of subscriptions, adding: “With the support of the EU, UK government and major charities, such as the Wellcome Trust, open access to research findings will soon be a reality.”

Brasil contrata Exército dos EUA para planejar hidrovia no São Francisco (G1)

23 / 07 / 2012

A Companhia de Desenvolvimento dos Vales do São Francisco e do Parnaíba (Codevasf), órgão do governo federal subordinado ao Ministério da Integração, contratou o Corpo de Engenharia do Exército dos Estados Unidos (Usace) para estudar alternativas que tornem navegável o Rio São Francisco, um dos mais importantes cursos d´água do país e da América Latina.

O contrato, de R$ 7,8 milhões (US$ 3,84 milhões), foi assinado em dezembro do ano passado e, em março deste ano, os primeiros engenheiros do Exército norte-americano chegaram ao Brasil com a missão de desenvolver projetos que contenham a erosão nas margens e facilitem a construção de uma hidrovia no São Francisco.

Na semana passada, o comandante do Comando Sul das Forças Armadas dos EUA, brigadeiro Douglas Fraser (que responde diretamente ao secretário de Defesa e ao presidente Barack Obama), esteve em Brasília para saber como anda o trabalho.

“O contrato tem o prazo de três anos, em que os engenheiros do Usace devem nos apresentar 12 projetos de assessoria técnica para a navegação do rio. São estudos sobre dragagem, controle de erosão e estabilização das margens, geotecnia, dentre outros”, disse ao G1 o gerente de concessões e projetos especiais da Codevasf, Roberto Strazer.

Segundo ele, a parceria teve início após troca de e-mails entre funcionários da Codevasf e o Usace para aproveitar o conhecimento da engenharia militar dos EUA no Rio São Francisco.

“Eles possuem em um conhecimento incrível em navegação que queríamos usar. São técnicos e temos muito a ganhar com a parceria. A navegação do São Francisco é extremamente precária e subutilizada, principalmente na época de estiagem”, acrescentou Strazer.

O corpo de engenheiros militar dos EUA foi criado em 1882 para atuação em desastres, como enchentes, terremotos e furacões, e reconstrução, apoiando as ações militares no Iraque e Afeganistão. O Usace é responsável pela navegação dos rios Mississipi e Ohio e também por parte do controle do transporte marítimo interno nos EUA. Todos os chefes do órgão são militares, com a patente de general, do Exército americano.

“É preciso que se explore mais a navegação do São Francisco. Além de ter o menor custo por tonelada, o transporte através dos rios tem menor impacto no meio ambiente”, afirmou Strazer.

A Codevasf aponta que há grande potencial de navegabilidade em uma faixa de de 1.371 km, entre Pirapora (MG) até Juazeiro (BA)/Petrolina (PE), que é ainda inexplorado.

Estabilização de margens – Dois engenheiros civis do Usace ficam permanentemente no Brasil fazendo os estudos e avaliações nas margens dos rios e trabalhando, de forma coordenada, com um grupo de militares e civis do Exército norte-americano em Washington.

“Um dos projetos que eles desenvolvem é validar conhecimentos de navegação e estabilização de margens em um campo de provas que temos em Barras, na Bahia”, disse Strazer. A ideia é tornar todo o rio navegável a partir de pequenos trechos ao longo do seu curso.

Em Brasília, no último dia 10, o presidente da Codevasf, Elmo Vaz, apresentou ao comandante do Comando Sul das Forças Armadas dos EUA – responsável por todas as ações militares norte-americanas na América Latina – o andamento dos trabalhos. Só para cumprir a meta de tornar os primeiros 657 km do Velho Chico navegáveis, servindo de via de escoamento da produção, serão investidos até o final de 2012 mais de R$ 73 milhões.

O Rio São Francisco atravessa os estados de Minas Gerais, Bahia, Pernambuco e serve de divisa natural entre Sergipe e Alagoas até desaguar no Oceano Atlântico.

Um projeto do Ministério da Integração busca transpor parte das águas do rio para aproveitá-lo também para irrigação no Ceará e Rio Grande do Norte, servindo de eixo de ligação do Sudeste e do Centro-Oeste com o Nordeste do país.

Segurança nacional – O gerente de projetos da Codevasf disse não ver riscos à segurança nacional em trabalhar com o Exército norte-americano. “Essa preocupação foi levantada na fase inicial do contrato. Eu já o recebi fechado, no início deste ano. Não vejo riscos, pois as informações que eles estão tendo acesso no local não são nada que se possa ocultar por imagens de satélite”, afirmou Roberto Strazer.

Ele acrescentou ainda que o Exército brasileiro também está trabalhando no rio com projetos de navegabilidade e está em contato com os miltiares americanos. “Há engenheiros do Exército brasileiro em um projeto de estabilização das margens de Ilha da Tapera, na Bahia, que estão em contato com os americanos também. Há interesses nacionais envolvidos, mas buscamos intercâmbio técnico.”

O Exército informou, por meio da assessoria de imprensa, que visitou a sede do Usace, nos EUA, e que engenheiros militares brasileiros estão próximos à área onde os americanos estão trabalhando no São Francisco. O Exército também disse que não vê riscos na parceria em relação ao vazamento de dados relativos à segurança nacional.

O chefe da missão do Usace no Brasil, Calvin Creech, confirmou que atualmente trabalham no país dois engenheiros civis do órgão, especializados em hidráulica e geotecnologia. “O Usace está apoiando a Codevasf. Esse trabalho é importante para os Estados Unidos porque melhorar a navegação do Rio São Francisco trará benefícios sociais para a região, reduzindo os custos associados com o transporte de produtos agrícolas”, disse Creech ao G1. (Fonte: Tahiane Stochero/ G1)

Anarchists attack science (Nature)

Armed extremists are targeting nuclear and nanotechnology workers.

Leigh Phillips
28 May 2012

Investigations of the shooting of nuclear-engineering head Roberto Adinolfi have confirmed the involvement of an eco-anarchist group. P. RATTINI/AFP/GETTY

A loose coalition of eco-anarchist groups is increasingly launching violent attacks on scientists.

A group calling itself the Olga Cell of the Informal Anarchist Federation International Revolutionary Front has claimed responsibility for the non-fatal shooting of a nuclear-engineering executive on 7 May in Genoa, Italy. The same group sent a letter bomb to a Swiss pro-nuclear lobby group in 2011; attempted to bomb IBM’s nanotechnology laboratory in Switzerland in 2010; and has ties with a group responsible for at least four bomb attacks on nanotechnology facilities in Mexico. Security authorities say that such eco-anarchist groups are forging stronger links.

On 11 May, the cell sent a four-page letter to the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera claiming responsibility for the shooting of Roberto Adinolfi, the chief executive of Ansaldo Nucleare, the nuclear-engineering subsidiary of aerospace and defence giant Finmeccanica. Believed by authorities to be genuine, the letter is riddled with anti-science rhetoric. The group targeted Adinolfi because he is a “sorcerer of the atom”, it wrote. “Adinolfi knows well that it is only a matter of time before a European Fukushima kills on our continent.”

“Science in centuries past promised us a golden age, but it is pushing us towards self-destruction and total slavery,” the letter continues. “With this action of ours, we return to you a tiny part of the suffering that you, man of science, are pouring into this world.” The group also threatened to carry out further attacks.

The Italian Ministry of the Interior has subsequently beefed up security at thousands of potential political, industrial and scientific targets. The measures include assigning bodyguards to 550 individuals.

The Olga Cell, named after an imprisoned Greek anarchist, is part of the Informal Anarchist Federation, which, in April 2011, claimed responsibility for sending a parcel bomb that exploded at the offices of the Swiss nuclear lobby group, Swissnuclear, in Olten. A letter found in the remains of the bomb demanded the release of three individuals who had been detained for plotting an attack on IBM’s flagship nanotechnology facility in Zurich earlier that year. In a situation report published this month, the Swiss Federal Intelligence Service explicitly linked the federation to the IBM attack.

The Informal Anarchist Federation argues that technology, and indeed civilization, is responsible for the world’s ills, and that scientists are the handmaidens of capitalism. “Finmeccanica means bio- and nanotechnology. Finmeccanica means death and suffering, new frontiers of Italian capitalism,” the letter reads.

Gathering momentum
The cell says that it is uniting with eco-anarchist groups in other countries, including Mexico, Chile, Greece and the United Kingdom. Mexico has already seen similar attacks: in August 2011, a group called Individuals Tending Towards Savagery sent a parcel bomb that wounded two nanotechnology researchers at the Monterrey Institute of Technology. One received burns to his legs and a perforated eardrum and the other had his lung pierced by shrapnel (G. Herrera Corral Nature 476,373; 2011). The package contained enough explosive to collapse part of the building, according to police, but failed to detonate properly.

Earlier that year, the same group sent two bombs to the nanotechnology facility at the Polytechnic University of the Valley of Mexico. One was intercepted before anyone could be harmed, but the second detonated, injuring a security guard. It is not clear how closely the group is tied to the Informal Anarchist Federation, but in online forums the two bodies offer “direct support” for each other’s activities and talk of a “blossoming” of a more organized eco-anarchist movement.

In the wake of the Mexican bombings, the Monterrey Institute installed metal detectors, began to use police sniffer dogs and started random inspections of vehicles and packages. After a letter bomb addressed to a nanotechnology researcher at the Polytechnic University of Pachuca in Hidalgo exploded in December last year, the institute installed a perimeter fence and scanners, and campuses across the state heightened security measures.

Italian police investigating the shooting say that they are concerned about the rise in violent action by anarchist groups amid Europe’s economic crisis. On 23 May, for example, members of the Informal Anarchist Federation attacked railway signals in Bristol, UK, causing severe transport delays. An online message from the group said that the targets had been chosen to disrupt employees of the Ministry of Defence and defence-technology businesses in the area, including Raytheon and QinetiQ.

The Swiss report also noted signs of “an increasing degree of international networking between perpetrators”. The level of risk to scientists depends on their field of work, says Simon Johner, a spokesman for the Swiss Federal Intelligence Service. “We are not able to tell them what to do. We can only make them aware of the dangers. It’s up to institutions to take preventative actions.” The agency is working with police forces, businesses and research communities to assess and tackle the threat.

“These people do not represent mainstream opinion. But I am still pretty frightened by this violence,” says Michael Hagmann, a biochemist and head of corporate communications for the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology near Zurich, a public-sector partner of the IBM facility that also does nanotechnology research.

“Just a few weeks after the attempted bombing, we were due to have a large conference on nanotechnology and we were really quite nervous” about going ahead with it, Hagmann says. “But we concluded that the public discussion was more important and didn’t want to scare people by having 20 police guarding us. It would have sent the wrong message.”

Nature 485, 561 (31 May 2012) doi:10.1038/485561a

*   *   *

Published online 22 August 2011 | Nature 476, 373 (2011) | doi:10.1038/476373a

Column: World View

Stand up against the anti-technology terrorists

Home-made bombs are being sent to physicists in Mexico. Colleagues around the world should ensure their own security, urges Gerardo Herrera Corral.

Gerardo Herrera Corral

My elder brother, Armando Herrera Corral, was this month sent a tube of dynamite by terrorists who oppose his scientific research. The home-made bomb, which was in a shoe-box-sized package labelled as an award for his personal attention, exploded when he pulled at the adhesive tape wrapped around it. My brother, director of the technology park at the Monterrey Institute of Technology in Mexico, was standing at the time, and suffered burns to his legs and a perforated eardrum. More severely injured by the blast was his friend and colleague Alejandro Aceves López, whom my brother had gone to see in his office to share a cup of coffee and open the award. Aceves López was sitting down when my brother opened the package; he took the brunt of the explosion in his chest, and shrapnel pierced one of his lungs.

Both scientists are now recovering from their injuries, but they were extremely fortunate to survive. The bomb failed to go off properly, and only a fraction of the 20-centimetre-long cylinder of dynamite ignited. The police estimate that the package contained enough explosive to take down part of the building, had it worked as intended.

The next day, I, too, was sent a suspicious package. I have been advised by the police not to offer details of why the package was judged of concern, but it arrived by an unusual procedure, and on a Sunday. It tested positive for explosives, and was taken away by the bomb squad, which declared a false alarm after finding that the parcel contained only books. My first reaction was to leave the country. Now, I am confused as to how I should respond.

As an academic scientist, why was my brother singled out in this way? He does not work in a field that is usually considered high-risk for terrorist activity, such as medical research on animals. He works on computer science, and Aceves López is an expert in robotics. I am a high-energy physicist and coordinate the Mexican contribution to research using the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, Europe’s particle-physics laboratory; I have worked in the field for 15 years.

An extremist anarchist group known as Individuals Tending to Savagery (ITS) has claimed responsibility for the attack on my brother. This is confirmed by a partially burned note found by the authorities at the bomb site, signed by the ITS and with a message along the lines of: “If this does not get to the newspapers we will produce more explosions. Wounding or killing teachers and students does not matter to us.”

In statements posted on the Internet, the ITS expresses particular hostility towards nano­technology and computer scientists. It claims that nanotechnology will lead to the downfall of mankind, and predicts that the world will become dominated by self-aware artificial-intelligence technology. Scientists who work to advance such technology, it says, are seeking to advance control over people by ‘the system’. The group praises Theodore Kaczynski, the Unabomber, whose anti-technology crusade in the United States in 1978–95 killed three people and injured many others.

The group’s rhetoric is absurd, but I urge colleagues around the world to take the threat that it poses to researchers seriously. Information gathered by Mexican federal authorities and Interpol link it to actions in countries including Spain, France and Chile. In April this year, the ITS sent a bomb — similar to the one posted to my brother — to the head of the Nanotechnology Engineering Division at the Polytechnic University of Mexico Valley in Tultitlan, although that device did not explode. In May, the university received a second parcel bomb, with a message reading: “This is not a joke: last month we targeted Oscar Camacho, today the institution, tomorrow who knows? Open fire on nanotechnology and those who support it!”

“I believe that terror should not succeed in establishing fear and imposing conduct.”

The scientific community must be made aware of such organizations, and of their capacity for destruction. Nanotechnology-research institutes and departments, companies and professional associations must beef up their security procedures, particularly on how they receive and accept parcels and letters.

I would like to stand up and speak in this way because I believe that terror should not succeed in establishing fear and imposing conduct that takes us far from the freedom we enjoy. I would like the police to take these events seriously; they are becoming a real threat to society. I would also like to express my solidarity with the Monterrey Institute of Technology — the institution that gave me both financial support to pursue my undergraduate studies and high-level academic training.

To oppose technology is not an unacceptable way to think. We may well debate the desirability of further technical development in our society. Yet radical groups such as the ITS overlook a crucial detail: it is not technology that is the problem, but how we use it. After Alfred Nobel invented dynamite he became a rich man, because it found use in mining, quarrying, construction and demolition. But people can also decide to put dynamite into a parcel and address it to somebody with the intention of killing them.

Gerardo Herrera Corral is a physicist at the Research and Advanced Studies Centre of the National Polytechnic Institute of Mexico in Mexico City.

IMF’s Peter Doyle scorns its ‘tainted’ leadership (BBC)

20 July 2012 Last updated at 11:50 GMT

Christine LagardePeter Doyle claims there was a “fundamental illegitimacy” in Christine Lagarde’s appointment

A top economist at the International Monetary Fund has poured scorn on its “tainted” leadership and said he is “ashamed” to have worked there.

Peter Doyle said in a letter to the IMF executive board that he wanted to explain his resignation after 20 years.

He writes of “incompetence”, “failings” and “disastrous” appointments for the IMF’s managing director, stretching back 10 years.

No one from the Washington-based IMF was immediately available for comment.

Mr Doyle, former adviser to the IMF’s European Department, which is running the bailout programs for Greece, Portugal and Ireland, said the Fund’s delay in warning about the urgency of the global financial crisis was a failure of the “first order”.

In the letter, dated 18 June and obtained by the US broadcaster CNN, Mr Doyle said the failings of IMF surveillance of the financial crisis “are, if anything, becoming more deeply entrenched”.

He writes: “This fact is most clear in regard to appointments for managing director which, over the past decade, have all-too-evidently been disastrous.

“Even the current incumbent [Christine Lagarde] is tainted, as neither her gender, integrity, or elan can make up for the fundamental illegitimacy of the selection process.”

Mr Doyle is thought to be echoing here widespread criticism that the head of the IMF is always a European, while the World Bank chief is always a US appointee.

Mr Doyle concludes his letter: “There are good salty people here. But this one is moving on. You might want to take care not to lose the others.”

The IMF could not be reached immediately by the BBC. However, CNN reported that a Fund spokesman told it that there was nothing to substantiate Mr Doyle’s claims and that the IMF had held its own investigations into surveillance of the financial crisis.

Analysis

image of Andrew WalkerAndrew WalkerBBC World Service Economics correspondent

Peter Doyle’s letter is short but the criticism excoriating. Perhaps the bigger of the two main charges is that the IMF failed to warn enough about the problems that led to the global financial crises.

The IMF has had investigations which have, up to a point, made similar criticisms, but not in such inflammatory terms. The IMF did issue some warnings, but the allegation that they were not sustained or timely enough and were actively suppressed raises some very big questions about the IMF’s role.

Then there is the description of the managing director as tainted. It’s not personal. It’s a familiar attack on a process which always selects a European. It’s still striking, though, to hear it from someone so recently on the inside.

 

Society’s Response to Climate Change Is Critical (Science Daily)

ScienceDaily (July 18, 2012) — Lancaster University (UK) scientists have proposed a new way of considering society’s reactions to global warming by linking societal actions to temperature change.

Using this framework to analyse climate change policies aimed at avoiding dangerous climate change, they suggest that society will have to become fifty times more responsive to global temperature change than it has been since 1990.

The researchers, Dr Andy Jarvis, Dr David Leedal and Professor Nick Hewitt from the Lancaster Environment Centre, also show that if global energy use continues to grow as it has done historically, society would have to up its decarbonization efforts from its historic (160 year) value of 0.6% per year to 13% per year.

Dr Andy Jarvis said: “In order to avoid dangerous climate change, society will have to become much more responsive to the risks and damages that growth in global greenhouse gas emissions impose.”

The research, published in Nature Climate Change on 15 July has found that the global growth of new renewable sources of energy since 1990 constitutes a climate-society feedback of a quarter percent per year in the growth rate of CO2 emissions per degree temperature rise.

Professor Nick Hewitt said “If left unmanaged, the climate damages that we experience will motivate society to act to a greater or lesser degree. This could either amplify the growth in greenhouse gas emissions as we repair these damages or dampen them through loss of economic performance. Both are unpredictable and potentially dangerous.”

In Rousseau’s footsteps: David Graeber and the anthropology of unequal society (The Memory Bank)

http://thememorybank.co.uk

By Keith Hart

July 4, 2012, 11:14 pm

A review of David Graeber Debt: The first 5,000 years (Melville House, New York, 2011, 534 pages)

Debt is everywhere today. What is “sovereign debt” and why must Greece pay up, but not the United States? Who decides that the national debt will be repaid through austerity programmes rather than job-creation schemes? Why do the banks get bailed out, while students and home-owners are forced to repay loans? The very word debt speaks of unequal power; and the world economic crisis since 2008 has exposed this inequality more than any other since the 1930s. David Graeber has written a searching book that aims to place our current concerns within the widest possible framework of anthropology and world history. He starts from a question: why do we feel that we must repay our debts? This is a moral issue, not an economic one. In market logic, the cost of bad loans should be met by creditors as a discipline on their lending practices. But paying back debts is good for the powerful few, whereas the mass of debtors have at times sought and won relief from them.

What is debt? According to Graeber, it is an obligation with a figure attached and hence debt is inseparable from money. This book devotes a lot of attention to where money comes from and what it does. States and markets each play a role in its creation, but money’s form has fluctuated historically between virtual credit and metal currency. Above all Graeber’s enquiry is framed by our unequal world as a whole. He resists the temptation to offer quick remedies for collective suffering, since this would be inconsistent with the timescale of his argument. Nevertheless, readers are offered a worldview that clearly takes the institutional pillars of our societies to be rotten and deserving of replacement. It is a timely and popular view. Debt: The first 5,000 years is an international best-seller. The German translation recently sold 30,000 copies in the first two weeks.

I place the book here in a classical tradition that I call “the anthropology of unequal society” (Hart 2006), before considering what makes David Graeber a unique figure in contemporary intellectual politics. A summary of the book’s main arguments is followed by a critical assessment, focusing on the notion of a “human economy”.

The anthropology of unequal society

Modern anthropology was born to serve the coming democratic revolution against the Old Regime. A government by the people for the people should be based on what they have in common, their “human nature” or “natural rights”. Writers from John Locke (1690) to Karl Marx (1867) identified the contemporary roots of inequality with money’s social dominance, a feature that we now routinely call “capitalism”. For Locke money was a store of wealth that allowed some individuals to accumulate property far beyond their own immediate needs. For Marx “capital” had become the driving force subordinating the work of the many to machines controlled by a few. In both cases, accumulation dissolved the old forms of society, but it also generated the conditions for its own replacement by a more just society, a “commonwealth” or “communism”. It was, however, the philosophers of the eighteenth-century liberal enlightenment who developed a systematic approach to anthropology as an intellectual source for remaking the modern world.

Following Locke’s example, they wanted to found democratic societies in place of the class system typical of agrarian civilizations. How could arbitrary social inequality be abolished and a more equal society founded on their common human nature? Anthropology was the means of answering that question. The great Victorian synthesizers, such as Morgan, Tylor and Frazer, stood on the shoulders of predecessors motivated by an urgent desire to make world society less unequal. Kant’s Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View, a best-seller when published in 1798, was the culmination of that Enlightenment project; but it played almost no part in the subsequent history of the discipline. The main source for nineteenth-century anthropology was rather Jean-Jacques Rousseau.  He revolutionized our understanding of politics, education, sexuality and the self in four books published in the 1760s: The Social ContractEmileJulie and The Confessions. He was forced to flee for his life from hit squads encouraged by the church. But he made his reputation earlier through two discourses of which the second, Discourse on the Origins and Foundations of Inequality among Men (1754), deserves to be seen as the source for an anthropology that combines the critique of unequal society with a revolutionary politics of democratic emancipation.

Rousseau was concerned here not with individual variations in natural endowments which we can do little about, but with the conventional inequalities of wealth, honour and the capacity to command obedience which can be changed. In order to construct a model of human equality, he imagined a pre-social state of nature, a sort of hominid phase of human evolution in which men were solitary, but healthy, happy and above all free. This freedom was metaphysical, anarchic and personal: original human beings had free will, they were not subject to rules of any kind and they had no superiors. At some point humanity made the transition to what Rousseau calls “nascent society”, a prolonged period whose economic base can best be summarized as hunter-gathering with huts. This second phase represents his ideal of life in society close to nature.

The rot set in with the invention of agriculture or, as Rousseau puts it, wheat and iron. Here he contradicted both Hobbes and Locke. The formation of a civil order (the state) was preceded by a war of all against all marked by the absence of law, which Rousseau insisted was the result of social development, not an original state of nature. Cultivation of the land led to incipient property institutions which, far from being natural, contained the seeds of entrenched inequality. Their culmination awaited the development of political society. He believed that this new social contract was probably arrived at by consensus, but it was a fraudulent one in that the rich thereby gained legal sanction for transmitting unequal property rights in perpetuity. From this inauspicious beginning, political society then usually moved, via a series of revolutions, through three stages:

The establishment of law and the right of property was the first stage, the institution of magistrates the second and the transformation of legitimate into arbitrary power the third and last stage. Thus the status of rich and poor was authorized by the first epoch, that of strong and weak by the second and by the third that of master and slave, which is the last degree of inequality and the stage to which all the others finally lead, until new revolutions dissolve the government altogether and bring it back to legitimacy (Rousseau 1984:131).

One-man-rule closes the circle. “It is here that all individuals become equal again because they are nothing, here where subjects have no longer any law but the will of the master”(Ibid: 134). For Rousseau, the growth of inequality was just one aspect of human alienation in civil society. We need to return from division of labour and dependence on the opinion of others to subjective self-sufficiency. His subversive parable ends with a ringing indictment of economic inequality which could well serve as a warning to our world. “It is manifestly contrary to the law of nature, however defined… that a handful of people should gorge themselves with superfluities while the hungry multitude goes in want of necessities” (Ibid: 137).

Lewis H. Morgan (1877) drew on Rousseau’s model for his own fiercely democratic synthesis of human history, Ancient Society, which likewise used an evolutionary classification that we now call bands, tribes and states, each stage more unequal than the one before.  Morgan’s work is normally seen as the launch of modern anthropology proper because of his ability to enrol contemporary ethnographic observations of the Iroquois in an analysis of the historical structures underlying western civilization’s origins in Greece and Rome. Marx and Engels enthusiastically took up Morgan’s work as confirmation of their own critique of the state and capitalism; and the latter, drawing on Marx’s extensive annotations ofAncient Society, made the argument more accessible as The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State (1884). Engels’s greater emphasis on gender inequality made this a fertile source for the feminist movement in the 1960s and after.

The traditional home of inequality is supposed to be India and Andre Beteille, in Inequality among Men (1977) and other books, has made the subject his special domain, merging social anthropology with comparative sociology. In the United States, Leslie White at Michigan and Julian Steward at Columbia led teams, including Wolf, Sahlins, Service, Harris and Mintz, who took the evolution of the state and class society as their chief focus. Probably the single most impressive work coming out of this American school was Eric Wolf’s Europe and the People without History (1982). But one man tried to redo Morgan in a single book and that was Claude Lévi-Strauss in The Elementary Structures of Kinship (1949). In Tristes Tropiques (1955), Lévi-Strauss acknowledged Rousseau as his master. The aim of Elementary Structures was to revisit Morgan’s three-stage theory of social evolution, drawing on a new and impressive canvas, “the Siberia-Assam axis” and all points southeast as far as the Australian desert. Lévi-Strauss took as his motor of development the forms of marriage exchange and the logic of exogamy. The “restricted reciprocity” of egalitarian bands gave way to the unstable hierarchies of “generalized reciprocity” typical of the Highland Burma tribes. The stratified states of the region turned inwards to endogamy, to the reproduction of class differences and the negation of social reciprocity.

Jack Goody has tried to lift our profession out of a myopic ethnography into an engagement with world history that went out of fashion with the passing of the Victorian founders. Starting with Production and Reproduction (1976), he has produced a score of books over the last three decades investigating why Sub-Saharan Africa differs so strikingly from the pre-industrial societies of Europe and Asia, with a later focus on refuting the West’s claim to being exceptional, especially when compared with Asia (Hart 2006, 2011).  The common thread of Goody’s compendious work links him through the Marxist pre-historian Gordon Childe (1954) to Morgan-Engels and ultimately Rousseau. The key to understanding social forms lies in production, which for us means machine production. Civilization or human culture is largely shaped by the means of communication — once writing, now an array of mechanized forms. The site of social struggles is property, now principally conflicts over intellectual property. And his central issue of reproduction has never been more salient than at a time when the aging citizens of rich countries depend on the proliferating mass of young people out there. Kinship needs to be reinvented too.

David Graeber: the first 50 years

Graeber brings his own unique combination of interests and engagements to renewing this “anthropology of unequal society”. Who is he? He spent the 1960s as the child of working-class intellectuals and activists in New York and was a teenager in the 1970s, which turned out to be the hinge decade of our times, leading to a “neoliberal” counter-revolution against post-war social democracy. This decade was framed at one end by the US dollar being taken off the gold standard in 1971 and at the other by a massive interest rate increase in 1979 induced by a second oil price hike. The world economy has been depressed ever since, especially at its western core. Graeber says that he embraced anarchism at sixteen.

The debt crisis of the 1980s was triggered by irresponsible lending of the oil surplus by western banks to Third World kleptocrats (Hart 2000: 142-143) and by the new international regime of high interest rates. In market theory, bad loans are supposed to discipline lenders, but the IMF and World Bank insisted on every penny of added interest being repaid by the governments of poor countries. This was also the time when structural adjustment policies forced those governments to open up their national economies to the free flow of money and commodities, with terrible consequences for public welfare programmes and jobs. If the anti-colonial revolution inspired my generation in the 1960s, Graeber’s internationalism was shaped by this wholesale looting of the successor states. He took an active part in demonstrations against this new phase of “financial globalization”, a phenomenon now often referred to as the “alter-globalization movement” (Pleyers 2010), but he and his fellow activists call it the “global justice movement”. Its public impact peaked in the years following the financial crisis of 1997-98 (involving Southeast Asia, Russia, Brazil and the failure of a US hedge fund, Long-Term Capital Management), notably through mass mobilizations in Seattle, Genoa and elsewhere. In the Debt book, Graeber claims that they took on the IMF and won.

David Graeber received a doctorate in anthropology from the University of Chicago based on ethnographic and historical research on a former slave village in Madagascar. This was eventually published as a long and exemplary monograph, Lost People: Magic and the legacy of slavery in Madagascar (Graeber 2007a). The history of the slave trade, colonialism and the post-colony figure prominently in how he illustrates global inequality through a focus on debt. Before that, he published a strong collection of essays on value, Toward an Anthropological Theory of Value: The false coin of our own dreams (Graeber 2001), in which he sought to relate economic value (especially value as measured impersonally by money) and the values that shape our subjectivity in society. This hinged on revisiting both Karl Marx and Marcel Mauss, providing the main account in English of how the latter’s cooperative socialism shaped his famous work on the gift (Mauss 1925). A theme of both books is the role of magic and money fetishism in sustaining unequal society.

Politics forms a central strand of Graeber’s work, with four books published so far and more in the works: Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology (2004), Possibilities: Essays on hierarchy, rebellion, and desire (2007b), Direct Action: An ethnography (2009a) and Revolutions in Reverse: Essays on politics, violence, art, and imagination (2011c). These titles reveal a range of political interests that take in violence, aesthetics and libido. He insists on the “elective affinity” between anthropological theory and method and an anarchist programme of resistance, rebellion and revolution; and this emphasis on “society against the state” makes him a worthy successor to Pierre Clastres (1974). Graeber’s academic career has been fitful, most notoriously when he was “let go” by Yale despite his obvious talent and productivity. This fed rumours about the academic consequences of his political activities. These have led to numerous brushes with the police, but so far not to prolonged incarceration, although his inability to find a job in American universities could be seen as a form of exile.

Debt: The first 5,000 years was published in summer 2011 and Graeber began a year’s sabbatical leave from his teaching job in London by moving to New York, where he became an ubiquitous presence in the print media, television and blogs. In August-September he helped form the first New York City General Assembly which spawned the Occupy Wall Street movement. He has been credited with being the author of that movement’s slogan, “We are the 99%”, and helped to give it an anarchist political style. OWS generated a wave of imitations in the United States and around the world, known collectively as “the Occupy movement”, inviting comparison with the “Arab Spring” and Madrid’s Los Indignados in what seemed then to be a global uprising. Some shared features of this series of political events, such as an emphasis on non-violence, consensual decision-making and the avoidance of sectarian division, evoke Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s idea of the “general will”; and it is not wholly fanciful to compare David Graeber’s career so far with his great predecessor’s.

Graeber and Rousseau both detested the mainstream institutions of the world they live in and devoted their intellectual efforts to building revolutionary alternatives. This means not being satisfied with reporting how the world is, but rather exploring the dialectic linking the actual to the possible. This in turn implies being willing to mix established genres of research and writing and to develop new ones. Both are prolific writers with an accessible prose style aimed at reaching a mass audience. Both achieved unusual fame for an intellectual and their political practice got them into trouble. Both suffered intimidation, neglect and exile for their beliefs. Both attract admiration and loathing in equal measure. Their originality is incontestable, yet each can at times be silly. There is no point in considering their relative significance. The personal parallels that I point to here reinforce my claim that Graeber’s Debt book should be seen as a specific continuation of that “anthropology of unequal society” begun by Rousseau two and a half centuries ago.

Debt: the argument

Much of the contemporary world revolves round the claims we make on each other and on things: ownership, obligations, contracts and payment of taxes, wages, rents, fees etc. David Graeber’s book, Debt: The first 5,000 years, aims to illuminate these questions through a focus on debt seen in very wide historical perspective. It is of course a central issue in global politics today, at every level of society. Every day sees another example of a class struggle between debtors and creditors to shape the distribution of costs after a long credit boom went dramatically bust.

We might be indebted to God, the sovereign or our parents for the gift of life, but Graeber rightly insists that the social logic of debt is revealed most clearly when money is involved. He cites approvingly an early twentieth-century writer who insisted that “money is debt”. This book of over 500 pages is rich in argument and knowledge. The notes and references are compendious, ranging over five millennia of the main Eurasian civilizations (ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt and the Mediterranean, medieval Europe, China, India and Islam) and the ethnography of stateless societies in Africa, the Americas and the Pacific. Its twelve chapters are framed by an introduction to our moral confusion concerning debt and a concluding sketch of the present rupture in world history that began in the early 1970s. Graeber’s case is founded on anthropological and historical comparison more than his grasp of contemporary political economy, although he has plenty to say in passing about that. There is also a current of populist culture running through the book and this is reinforced by a prose style aimed at closing the gap between author and reader that his formidable scholarship might otherwise open up.

Perhaps this aspect of the book may be illustrated by introducing a recent short film. Paul Grignon’s Money as Debt (2006, 47 minutes) — an underground hit in activist circles — seeks to explain where money comes from. Most of the money in circulation is issued by banks whenever they make a loan. The real basis of money, the film claims, is thus our signature whenever we promise to repay a debt. The banks create that money by a stroke of the pen and the promise is then bought and sold in increasingly complex ways. The total debt incurred by government, corporations, small businesses and consumers spirals continuously upwards since interest must be paid on it all. Although the general idea is an old one, it has taken on added salience at a time when the supply of money, which could once plausibly be represented as public currency in circulation, has been overtaken by the creation of private debt.

The film’s attempt to demystify money is admirable, but its message is misleading.  Debt and credit are two sides of the same coin, the one evoking passivity in the face of power, the other individual empowerment. The origin of money in France and Germany is considered to be debt, whereas in the United States and Britain it is traditionally conceived of as credit. Either term alone is loaded, missing the dialectical character of the relations involved. Money as Debt demonizes the banks and interest in particular, letting the audience off the hook by not showing the active role most of us play in sustaining the system. Money today is issued by a dispersed global network of economic institutions of many kinds; and the norm of economic growth is fed by a widespread desire for self-improvement, not just by bank interest.

David Graeber offers a lot more than this, of course; but his book also feeds off popular currents too, which is not surprising given how much time he spends outside the classroom and his study. His analytical framework is spelled out in great detail over six chapters. The first two tackle the origins of money in barter and “primordial debt” respectively. He shows, forcefully and elegantly, how implausible the standard liberal origin myth of money as a medium of exchange is; but he also rejects as a nationalist myth the main opposing theory that traces money’s origins as a means of payment and unit of account to state power. In the first case he follows Polanyi (1944), but by distancing himself from the second, he highlights the interdependence of states and markets in money’s origins.  A short chapter shows that money was always both a commodity and a debt-token (“the two sides of the coin”, Hart 1986), giving rise to a lot of political and moral contestation, especially in the ancient world. Following Nietzsche, Graeber argues that money introduced for the first time a measure of the unequal relations between buyer and seller, creditor and debtor. Whereas Rousseau traced inequality to the invention of property, he locates the roots of human bondage, slavery, tribute and organized violence in debt relations. The contradictions of indebtedness, fed by money and markets, led the first world religions to articulate notions of freedom and redemption in response to escalating class conflict between creditors and debtors, often involving calls for debt cancellation.

The author now lays out his positive story to counter the one advanced by mainstream liberal economics. “A brief treatise on the moral grounds of economic relations” makes explicit his critique of the attempt to construct “the economy” as a sphere separate from society in general. This owes something to Polanyi’s (1957) universal triad of distributive mechanisms – reciprocity, redistribution and market – here identified as “everyday communism”, hierarchy and reciprocity. By the first Graeber means a human capacity for sharing or “baseline sociality”; the second is sometimes confused with the third, since unequal relations are often represented as an exchange – you give me your crops in return for not being beaten up. The difference between hierarchy and reciprocity is that debt is permanent in the first case, but temporary in the second. The western middle classes train their children to say please and thank you as a way of limiting the debt incurred by being given something. All three principles are present everywhere, but their relative emphasis is coloured by dominant economic forms. Thus “communism” is indispensable to modern work practices, but capitalism is a lousy way of harnessing our human capacity for cooperation.

The next two chapters introduce what is for me the main idea of the book, the contrast between “human economies” and those dominated by money and markets (Graeber prefers to call them “commercial economies” and sometimes “capitalism”). First he identifies the independent characteristics of human economies and then shows what happens when they are forcefully incorporated into the economic orbit of larger “civilisations”, including our own. This is to some extent a great divide theory of history, although, as Mauss would insist, elements of human economy persist in capitalist societies. There is a sense in which “human economies” are a world we have lost, but might recover after the revolution. Graeber is at pains to point out that these societies are not necessarily more humane, just that “they are economic systems primarily concerned not with the accumulation of wealth, but with the creation, destruction, and rearranging of human beings” (2011a: 130). They use money, but mainly as “social currencies” whose aim is to maintain relations between people rather than to purchase things.

“In a human economy, each person is unique and of incomparable value, because each is a unique nexus of relations with others” (Ibid: 158). Yet their money forms make it possible to treat people as quantitatively identical in exchange and that requires a measure of violence. Brutality — not just conceptual, but physical too — is omnipresent, more in some cases than others. Violence is inseparable from money and debt, even in the most “human” of economies, where ripping people out of their familiar context is commonplace. This, however, gets taken to another level when they are drawn into systems like the Atlantic slave trade or the western colonial empires of yesteryear. The following extended reflection on slavery and freedom — a pair that Graeber sees as being driven by a culture of honour and indebtedness — culminates in the ultimate contradiction underpinning modern liberal economics, a worldview that conceives of individuals as being socially isolated in a way that could only be prepared for by a long history of enslaving conquered peoples. Since we cannot easily embrace this account of our own history, it is not surprising that we confuse morality and power when thinking about debt.

So far, Graeber has relied heavily on anthropological material, especially from African societies, to illustrate the world that the West transformed, although his account of money’s origins draws quite heavily on the example of ancient Mesopotamia. Now he formalizes his theory of money to organize a compendious review of world history in four stages. These are: the era from c.3000 BC that saw the first urban civilizations; the “Axial Age” which he, rather unusually, dates from 800BC to 600AD; the Middle Ages (600-1450AD); and the age of “the great capitalist empires”, from 1450AD to the US dollar’s symbolic rupture with the gold standard in 1971. As this last date suggests, the periodization relies heavily on historical oscillations between broad types of money. Graeber calls these “credit” and “bullion”, that is, money as a virtual measure of personal relations, like IOUs, and as currency or impersonal things made from precious metals for circulation.

Money started out as a unit of account, administered by institutions such as temples and banks, as well as states, largely as a way of measuring debt relations between people. Coinage was introduced in the first millennium as part of a complex linking warfare, mercenary soldiers, slavery, looting, mines, trade and the provisioning of armies on the move. Graeber calls this “the military-coinage-slavery complex” of which Alexander the Great, for example, was a master. Hence our word, “soldier”, refers to his pay. The so-called “dark ages” offered some relief from this regime and for most of the medieval period, metal currencies were in very short supply and money once again took the dominant form of virtual credit. India, China and the Islamic world are enlisted here to supplement what we know of Europe. But then the discovery of the new world opened up the phase we are familiar with from the last half-millennium, when western imperialism revived the earlier tradition of warfare and slavery lubricated by bullion.

The last four decades are obviously transitional, but the recent rise of virtual credit money suggests the possibility of another long swing of history away from the principles that underpinned the world the West made. It could be a multi-polar world, more like the middle ages than the last two centuries. It could offer more scope for “human economies” or at least “social currencies”. The debt crisis might provoke revolutions and then, who knows, debt cancellation along the lines of the ancient jubilee. Perhaps the whole institutional complex based on states, money and markets or capitalism will be replaced by forms of society more directly responsive to ordinary people and their capacity for “everyday communism”.

All of this is touched on in the final chapter. But Graeber leaves these “policy conclusions” deliberately vague. His aim in this book has been to draw his readers into a vision of human history that runs counter to what makes their social predicament supposedly inevitable. It is a vision inspired in part by his profession as an anthropologist, in part by his political engagement as an activist. Both commitments eschew drawing up programmes for others to follow. Occupy Wall Street has been criticized for its failure to enumerate a list of “demands”. No doubt much the same could be said of this book; but then readers, including this reviewer, will be inspired by it in concrete ways to imagine possibilities that its author could not have envisaged.

Towards a human economy

David Graeber and I came up with the term “human economy” independently during the last decade (Graeber 2009b, 2011a; Hart 2008, Hart, Laville and Cattani 2010). The editors of The Human Economy: A citizen’s guide distanced ourselves, in the introduction and our editorial approach, from any “revolutionary” eschatology that suggested society had reached the end of something and would soon be launched on a quite new trajectory. The idea of a “human economy” drew attention to the fact that people do a lot more for themselves than an exclusive focus on the dominant economic institutions would suggest. Against a singular notion of the economy as “capitalism”, we argued that all societies combine a plurality of economic forms and several of these are distributed across history, even if their combination is strongly coloured by the dominant economic form in particular times and places.

For example, in his famous essay on The Gift (1925), Marcel Mauss showed that other economic principles were present in capitalist societies and that understanding this would provide a sounder basis for building non-capitalist alternatives than the Bolshevik revolution’s attempt to break with markets and money entirely. Karl Polanyi too, in his various writings, insisted that the human economy throughout history combined a number of mechanisms of which the market was only one. We argued therefore that the idea of radical transformation of an economy conceived of monolithically as capitalism into its opposite was an inappropriate way to approach economic change. We should rather pay attention to the full range of what people are doing already and build economic initiatives around giving these a new direction and emphasis, instead of supposing that economic change has to be reinvented from scratch. Although this looks like a gradualist approach to economic improvement, its widespread adoption would have revolutionary consequences.

David Graeber’a anarchist politics inform his economic analysis; and he has always taken an anti-statist and anti-capitalist position, with markets and money usually being subsumed under the concept of capitalism. That is, he sees the future as being based on the opposite of our capitalist states. The core of his politics is “direct action” which he has practised and written about as an ethnographer (Graeber 2009a). In The Human Economy, we argued that people everywhere rely on a wide range of organizations in their economic lives: markets, nation-states, corporations, cities, voluntary associations, families, virtual networks, informal economies, crime. We should be looking for a more progressive mix of these things. We can’t afford to turn our backs on institutions that have helped humanity make the transition to modern world society. Large-scale bureaucracies co-exist with varieties of popular self-organization and we have to make them work together rather than at cross-purposes, as they often do now.

Graeber also believes, as we have seen, that economic life everywhere is based on a plural combination of moral principles which take on a different complexion when organized by dominant forms. Thus, helping each other as equals is essential to capitalist societies, but capitalism distorts and marginalizes this human propensity. Yet he appears to expect a radical rupture with capitalist states fairly soon and this is reflected in a stages theory of history, with categories to match. At first sight, these positions (let’s call them “reform” and “revolution”) are incompatible, but recent political developments (the “Arab Spring” and Occupy movements of 2011, however indeterminate their immediate outcomes) point to the need to transcend such an opposition.

The gap between our approaches to making the economy human is therefore narrowing. Even so, there are differences of theory and method that point to some residual reservations I have about the Debt book. The first of these concerns Graeber’s preference for lumping together states, money, markets, debt and capitalism, along with violence, war and slavery as their habitual bedfellows. Money and markets have redemptive qualities that in my view (Hart 2000) could be put to progressive economic ends in non-capitalist forms; nor do I imagine that modern institutions such as states, corporations and bureaucracy will soon die away. Anti-capitalism as a revolutionary strategy begs the question of the plurality of modern economic institutions. As Mauss showed (Hart 2007), human economies exist in the cracks of capitalist societies. David Graeber seems to agree, at least when it comes to finding “everyday communism” there and, by refusing to sanitize “human economies” in their pristine form, he modifies the categorical and historical division separating them and commercial economies. Revolutionary binaries seem to surface at various points in his book, but an underlying tendency to discern continuity in human economic practices is just as much a feature of David Graeber’s anthropological vision.

An argument of Debt’s scope hasn’t been made by a professional anthropologist for the best part of a century, certainly not one with as much contemporary relevance. The discipline largely abandoned “conjectural history” in the twentieth century in order to embrace the narrower local perspectives afforded by ethnographic fieldwork. Works of broad comparison such as Wolf’s and Goody’s were the exception to this trend. Inevitably Graeber’s methods will come under scrutiny, not just from fellow professionals, but from the general public too. (He tells me that academics don’t read footnotes any more, but laymen do). To this reader, the first half of the book – which relies heavily on ethnographic sources to spell out the argument — is more systematic, in terms of both analytical coherence and documentation, than the second, concerned as it is with fleshing out his cycles of history. In either case, little attempt is made to analyse contemporary political economy, although Graeber makes more explicit reference to this than, for example does Mauss in The Gift, where readers’ understanding of capitalist markets is taken for granted. Nowhere in the book is any reference made to the digital revolution in communications of our times and its scope to transform economies, whether human or commercial (Hart 2000, 2005).

Well, that is not quite true, for the author does occasionally introduce anecdotes based on common or his personal knowledge. The problem is that many readers who take on trust what he has to say about ancient Mesopotamia or the Tiv, may find these stories contradicted by their own knowledge. It is something akin to “Time magazine syndrome”: we accept what Time has to say about the world in general until it impinges on what we know ourselves and then its credibility dissolves. Thus:

Apple Computers is a famous example: it was founded by (mostly Republican) computer engineers who broke from IBM in Silicon Valley in the 1980s, forming little democratic circles of twenty to forty people with their laptops in each other’s garages (Graeber 2011a: 96).

The veracity of this anecdote has been challenged by numerous Californian bloggers and the author’s scholarship with it. Graeber is aware of the pitfalls of making contemporary allusions. In the final chapter (Ibid: 362-3), he cleverly introduces an urban myth he often heard about the gold stored under the World Trade Centre and then (almost) rehabilitates that myth using documented sources. Fortunately, David Graeber has not been deterred by the pedants from crossing the line between academic and general knowledge in this book and his readers benefit immensely as a result. I contributed to the publisher’s blurb for this book and said that he is “the finest anthropological scholar I know”. I stand by that. The very long essay he recently published on the divine kingship of the Shilluk (Graeber 2011c) covers the same ground as a number of famous anthropologists from Frazer onwards, but with an unsurpassed range of scholarship, as well as a democratic political perspective. Inevitably in a book like this one, the fact police will catch him out sometimes. But it is a work of immense erudition and deserves to be celebrated as such.

Our world is still massively unequal and we may be entering a period of war and revolution comparable to the “Second Thirty Years War” of 1914-1945 which came after the last time that several decades of financial imperialism went bust. Capitalism itself sometimes seems today to have reverted to a norm of rent-seeking that resembles the arbitrary inequality of the Old Regime more than Victorian industry. The pursuit of economic democracy is more elusive than ever; yet humanity has also devised universal means of communication at last adequate to the expression of universal ideas. Jean-Jacques Rousseau would have leapt at the chance to make use of this opportunity and several illustrious successors did so in their own way during the last two centuries. We need an anthropology that rises to the challenge posed by our common human predicament today. No-one has done more to meet that challenge than David Graeber, in his work as a whole, but especially in this book.

References

Beteille, Andre   1977   Inequality among Men. Blackwell: Oxford.

Childe, V. Gordon   1954   What Happened in History. Penguin: Harmondsworth.

Clastres, Pierre    1989 (1974)    Society against the state: Essays in political anthropology. Zone Books: New York.

Engels, Friedrich   1972 (1884)   The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State. Pathfinder: New York.

Goody, Jack   1976   Production and Reproduction: A Comparative Study of the Domestic Domain. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Graeber, David   2001   Toward an Anthropological Theory of Value: The false coin of our own dreams. Palgrave: New York.

——    2004    Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology. Prickly Paradigm: Chicago.

——    2007a   Lost People: Magic and the legacy of slavery in Madagascar. Indiana University Press: Bloomington IN.

——   2007b   Possibilities: Essays on hierarchy, rebellion, and desire . AK Press: Oakland CA.

——    2009a   Direct Action: An ethnography. AK Press: Baltimore MD.

——    2009b   Debt, Violence, and Impersonal Markets: Polanyian Meditations. In Chris Hann and K. Hart editors Market and Society: The Great Transformation today. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 106-132.

——   2011a    Debt: The first 5,000 years. Melville House: New York.

——   2011b   The divine kingship of the Shilluk: On violence, utopia, and the human condition or elements for an archaeology of sovereignty, Hau: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 1.1: 1-62.

——   2011c   Revolutions in Reverse: Essays on politics, violence, art, and imagination. Autonomedia: New York.

Hann, Chris and K. Hart   2011   Economic Anthropology: History, ethnography, critique. Polity: Cambridge.

Hart, Keith   1986   Heads or tails? Two sides of the coin. Man 21 (3): 637–56.

——   2000   The Memory Bank: Money in an unequal world. Profile: London; republished in 2001 as Money in an Unequal World. Texere: New York.

—— 2005 The Hit Man’s Dilemma: Or business personal and impersonal. Prickly Paradigm: Chicago.

——   2006   Agrarian civilization and world society. In D. Olson and M. Cole (eds.), Technology, Literacy and the Evolution of Society: Implications of the work of Jack Goody. Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, 29–48.

——   2007   Marcel Mauss: in pursuit of the whole – a review essay. Comparative Studies in Society and History 49 (2): 473–85.

——   2008   The human economy. ASAonline 1. http://www.theasa.org/publications/asaonline/articles/asaonline_0101.htm

——   2011   Jack Goody’s vision of world history and African development today (Jack Goody Lecture 2011). Halle/Saale: Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology, Department II.

Hart, Keith, J-L. Laville and A. Cattani editors   2010   The Human Economy: A citizen’s guide. Polity: Cambridge.

Kant, Immanuel   2006   Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Lévi-Strauss, Claude   1969 (1949)   The Elementary Structures of Kinship. Beacon: Boston.

——    1973 (1955) Tristes Tropiques. Cape: London.

Locke, John   1960 (1690)   Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Marx, Karl   1970 (1867)   Capital Volume 1. Lawrence and Wishart: London.

Mauss, Marcel   1990 (1925)  The Gift: The form and reason for exchange in archaic societies. Routledge: London.

Morgan, Lewis H. 1964 (1877) Ancient Society. Bellknapp: Cambridge MA.

Pleyers, Geoffrey   2010   Alter-globalization: Becoming actors in a global age. Polity: Cambridge.

Polanyi, Karl   2001 (1944)   The Great Transformation: The political and economic origins of our times. Beacon: Boston.

——   1957   The economy as instituted process. In K. Polanyi, C. Arensberg and H. Pearson editors Trade and Market in the early Empires. Free Press: Glencoe IL, 243-269.

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques   1984 (1754)   Discourse on Inequality. Penguin: Harmondsworth.

Dummies guide to the latest “Hockey Stick” controversy (Real Climate)

http://www.realclimate.org

 — gavin @ 18 February 2005

by Gavin Schmidt and Caspar Amman

Due to popular demand, we have put together a ‘dummies guide’ which tries to describe what the actual issues are in the latest controversy, in language even our parents might understand. A pdf version is also available. More technical descriptions of the issues can be seen here and here.

This guide is in two parts, the first deals with the background to the technical issues raised byMcIntyre and McKitrick (2005) (MM05), while the second part discusses the application of this to the original Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) (MBH98) reconstruction. The wider climate science context is discussed here, and the relationship to other recent reconstructions (the ‘Hockey Team’) can be seen here.

NB. All the data that were used in MBH98 are freely available for download atftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/sdr/temp/nature/MANNETAL98/ (and also as supplementary data at Nature) along with a thorough description of the algorithm.
Part I: Technical issues:

1) What is principal component analysis (PCA)?

This is a mathematical technique that is used (among other things) to summarize the data found in a large number of noisy records so that the essential aspects can more easily seen. The most common patterns in the data are captured in a number of ‘principal components’ which describe some percentage of the variation in the original records. Usually only a limited number of components (‘PC’s) have any statistical significance, and these can be used instead of the larger data set to give basically the same description.

2) What do these individual components represent?

Often the first few components represent something recognisable and physical meaningful (at least in climate data applications). If a large part of the data set has a trend, than the mean trend may show up as one of the most important PCs. Similarly, if there is a seasonal cycle in the data, that will generally be represented by a PC. However, remember that PCs are just mathematical constructs. By themselves they say nothing about the physics of the situation. Thus, in many circumstances, physically meaningful timeseries are ‘distributed’ over a number of PCs, each of which individually does not appear to mean much. Different methodologies or conventions can make a big difference in which pattern comes up tops. If the aim of the PCA analysis is to determine the most important pattern, then it is important to know how robust that pattern is to the methodology. However, if the idea is to more simply summarize the larger data set, the individual ordering of the PCs is less important, and it is more crucial to make sure that as many significant PCs are included as possible.

3) How do you know whether a PC has significant information?

PC significanceThis determination is usually based on a ‘Monte Carlo’ simulation (so-called because of the random nature of the calculations). For instance, if you take 1000 sets of random data (that have the same statistical properties as the data set in question), and you perform the PCA analysis 1000 times, there will be 1000 examples of the first PC. Each of these will explain a different amount of the variation (or variance) in the original data. When ranked in order of explained variance, the tenth one down then defines the 99% confidence level: i.e. if your real PC explains more of the variance than 99% of the random PCs, then you can say that this is significant at the 99% level. This can be done for each PC in turn. (This technique was introduced by Preisendorfer et al. (1981), and is called the Preisendorfer N-rule).

The figure to the right gives two examples of this. Here each PC is plotted against the amount of fractional variance it explains. The blue line is the result from the random data, while the blue dots are the PC results for the real data. It is clear that at least the first two are significantly separated from the random noise line. In the other case, there are 5 (maybe 6) red crosses that appear to be distinguishable from the red line random noise. Note also that the first (‘most important’) PC does not always explain the same amount of the original data.

4) What do different conventions for PC analysis represent?

Some different conventions exist regarding how the original data should be normalized. For instance, the data can be normalized to have an average of zero over the whole record, or over a selected sub-interval. The variance of the data is associated with departures from the whatever mean was selected. So the pattern of data that shows the biggest departure from the mean will dominate the calculated PCs. If there is an a priori reason to be interested in departures from a particular mean, then this is a way to make sure that those patterns move up in the PC ordering. Changing conventions means that the explained variance of each PC can be different, the ordering can be different, and the number of significant PCs can be different.

5) How can you tell whether you have included enough PCs?

This is rather easy to tell. If your answer depends on the number of PCs included, then you haven’t included enough. Put another way, if the answer you get is the same as if you had used all the data without doing any PC analysis at all, then you are probably ok. However, the reason why the PC summaries are used in the first place in paleo-reconstructions is that using the full proxy set often runs into the danger of ‘overfitting’ during the calibration period (the time period when the proxy data are trained to match the instrumental record). This can lead to a decrease in predictive skill outside of that window, which is the actual target of the reconstruction. So in summary, PC selection is a trade off: on one hand, the goal is to capture as much variability of the data as represented by the different PCs as possible (particularly if the explained variance is small), while on the other hand, you don’t want to include PCs that are not really contributing any more significant information.

Part II: Application to the MBH98 ‘Hockey Stick’

1) Where is PCA used in the MBH methodology?

When incorporating many tree ring networks into the multi-proxy framework, it is easier to use a few leading PCs rather than 70 or so individual tree ring chronologies from a particular region. The trees are often very closely located and so it makes sense to summarize the general information they all contain in relation to the large-scale patterns of variability. The relevant signal for the climate reconstruction is the signal that the trees have in common, not each individual series. In MBH98, the North American tree ring series were treated like this. There are a number of other places in the overall methodology where some form of PCA was used, but they are not relevant to this particular controversy.

2) What is the point of contention in MM05?

MM05 contend that the particular PC convention used in MBH98 in dealing with the N. American tree rings selects for the ‘hockey stick’ shape and that the final reconstruction result is simply an artifact of this convention.

3) What convention was used in MBH98?

MBH98 were particularly interested in whether the tree ring data showed significant differences from the 20th century calibration period, and therefore normalized the data so that the mean over this period was zero. As discussed above, this will emphasize records that have the biggest differences from that period (either positive of negative). Since the underlying data have a ‘hockey stick’-like shape, it is therefore not surprising that the most important PC found using this convention resembles the ‘hockey stick’. There are actual two significant PCs found using this convention, and both were incorporated into the full reconstruction.

PC1 vs PC44) Does using a different convention change the answer?

As discussed above, a different convention (MM05 suggest one that has zero mean over the whole record) will change the ordering, significance and number of important PCs. In this case, the number of significant PCs increases to 5 (maybe 6) from 2 originally. This is the difference between the blue points (MBH98 convention) and the red crosses (MM05 convention) in the first figure. Also PC1 in the MBH98 convention moves down to PC4 in the MM05 convention. This is illustrated in the figure on the right, the red curve is the original PC1 and the blue curve is MM05 PC4 (adjusted to have same variance and mean). But as we stated above, the underlying data has a hockey stick structure, and so in either case the ‘hockey stick’-like PC explains a significant part of the variance. Therefore, using the MM05 convention, more PCs need to be included to capture the significant information contained in the tree ring network.

This figure shows the difference in the final result whether you use the original convention and 2 PCs (blue) and the MM05 convention with 5 PCs (red). The MM05-based reconstruction is slightly less skillful when judged over the 19th century validation period but is otherwise very similar. In fact any calibration convention will lead to approximately the same answer as long as the PC decomposition is done properly and one determines how many PCs are needed to retain the primary information in the original data.

different conventions
5) What happens if you just use all the data and skip the whole PCA step?

This is a key point. If the PCs being used were inadequate in characterizing the underlying data, then the answer you get using all of the data will be significantly different. If, on the other hand, enough PCs were used, the answer should be essentially unchanged. This is shown in the figure below. The reconstruction using all the data is in yellow (the green line is the same thing but with the ‘St-Anne River’ tree ring chronology taken out). The blue line is the original reconstruction, and as you can see the correspondence between them is high. The validation is slightly worse, illustrating the trade-off mentioned above i.e. when using all of the data, over-fitting during the calibration period (due to the increase number of degrees of freedom) leads to a slight loss of predictability in the validation step.

No PCA comparison

6) So how do MM05 conclude that this small detail changes the answer?

MM05 claim that the reconstruction using only the first 2 PCs with their convention is significantly different to MBH98. Since PC 3,4 and 5 (at least) are also significant they are leaving out good data. It is mathematically wrong to retain the same number of PCs if the convention of standardization is changed. In this case, it causes a loss of information that is very easily demonstrated. Firstly, by showing that any such results do not resemble the results from using all data, and by checking the validation of the reconstruction for the 19th century. The MM version of the reconstruction can be matched by simply removing the N. American tree ring data along with the ‘St Anne River’ Northern treeline series from the reconstruction (shown in yellow below). Compare this curve with the ones shown above.

No N. American tree rings

As you might expect, throwing out data also worsens the validation statistics, as can be seen by eye when comparing the reconstructions over the 19th century validation interval. Compare the green line in the figure below to the instrumental data in red. To their credit, MM05 acknowledge that their alternate 15th century reconstruction has no skill.

validation period

7) Basically then the MM05 criticism is simply about whether selected N. American tree rings should have been included, not that there was a mathematical flaw?

Yes. Their argument since the beginning has essentially not been about methodological issues at all, but about ‘source data’ issues. Particular concerns with the “bristlecone pine” data were addressed in the followup paper MBH99 but the fact remains that including these data improves the statistical validation over the 19th Century period and they therefore should be included.

Hockey Team *used under GFDL license8) So does this all matter?

No. If you use the MM05 convention and include all the significant PCs, you get the same answer. If you don’t use any PCA at all, you get the same answer. If you use a completely different methodology (i.e. Rutherford et al, 2005), you get basically the same answer. Only if you remove significant portions of the data do you get a different (and worse) answer.

9) Was MBH98 the final word on the climate of last millennium?

Not at all. There has been significant progress on many aspects of climate reconstructions since MBH98. Firstly, there are more and better quality proxy data available. There are new methodologies such as described in Rutherford et al (2005) or Moberg et al (2005) that address recognised problems with incomplete data series and the challenge of incorporating lower resolution data into the mix. Progress is likely to continue on all these fronts. As of now, all of the ‘Hockey Team’ reconstructions (shown left) agree that the late 20th century is anomalous in the context of last millennium, and possibly the last two millennia.

The climate of the climate change debate is changing (The Guardian)

Quantifying how greenhouse gases contribute to extreme weather is a crucial step in calculating the cost of human influence

Myles Allen

guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 11 July 2012 12.08 BST

Climate change could trap hundreds of millions in disaster areas, report claims

This week, climate change researchers were able to attribute recent examples of extreme weather to the effects of human activity on the planet’s climate systems for the first time. Photograph: Rizwan Tabassum/AFP/Getty Images

The climate may have changed this week. Not the physical climate, but the climate of the climate change debate. Tuesday marked thepublication of a series of papers examining the factors behind extreme weather events in 2011. Nothing remarkable about that, you might think, except, if all goes well, this will be the first of a regular, annual assessment quantifying how external drivers of climate contribute to damaging weather.

Some of these drivers, like volcanoes, are things we can do nothing about. But others, like rising levels of greenhouse gases, we can. And quantifying how greenhouse gases contribute to extreme weather is a crucial step in pinning down the real cost of human influence on climate. While most people think of climate change in terms of shrinking ice-sheets and slowly rising sea levels, it is weather events that actually do harm.

This week also saw a workshop in Oxford for climate change negotiators from developing countries. Again, nothing remarkable about that except, for the first time, the issue of “loss and damage” was top of the agenda. For years negotiations have been over emission reductions and sharing the costs of adaptation. Now the debate is turning to: who is going to pay for damage done?

It is a good time to ask, since the costs that can unambiguously be attributed to human-induced climate change are still relatively small. Although Munich Re estimates that weather events in 2011 cost more than $100bn and claimed many thousands of lives, only a few of these events were clearly made more likely by human influence. Others may have been made less likely, but occurred anyway – chance remains the single dominant factor in when and where a weather event occurs. For the vast majority of events, we simply don’t yet know either way.

Connecting climate change and specific weather events is only one link in the causal chain between greenhouse gas emissions and actual harm. But it is a crucial link. If, as planned, the assessment of 2011 becomes routine, we should be able to compare actual weather-related damage, in both good years and bad, with the damage that might have been in a world without human influence on climate. This puts us well on our way to a global inventory of climate change impacts. And as soon as that is available, the question of compensation will not be far behind.

The presumption in climate change negotiations is that “countries with historically high emissions” would be first in line to foot the bill for loss and damage. There may be some logic to this, but if you are an African (or Texan) farmer hit by greenhouse-exacerbated drought, is the European or American taxpayer necessarily the right place to look for compensation? As any good lawyer knows, there is no point in suing a man with empty pockets.

The only institution in the world that could deal with the cost of climate change without missing a beat is the fossil fuel industry: BP took a $30bn charge for Deepwater Horizon, very possibly more than the total cost of climate change damages last year, and was back in profit within months. Of the $5 trillion per year we currently spend on fossil energy, a small fraction would take care of all the loss and damage attributable to climate change for the foreseeable future several times over.

Such a pay-as-you-go liability regime would not address the impacts of today’s emissions on the 22nd century. Governments cannot wash their hands of this issue entirely. But we have been so preoccupied with the climate of the 22nd century that we have curiously neglected to look after the interests of those being affected by climate change today.

So rather than haggling over emission caps and carbon taxes, why not start with a simple statement of principle: standard product liability applies to anyone who sells or uses fossil fuels, including liability for any third-party side-effects. There is no need at present to say what these side-effects might be – indeed, the scientific community does not yet know. But we are getting there.

Texas judge rules atmosphere, air to be protected like water, may aid climate change lawsuits (Washington Post)

By Associated Press, Published: July 11

HOUSTON — A Texas judge has ruled that the atmosphere and air must be protected for public use, just like water, which could help attorneys tasked with arguing climate change lawsuits designed to force states to cut emissions.

The written ruling, issued in a letter Monday by Texas District Court Judge Gisela Triana, shot down arguments by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality that only water is a “public trust,” a doctrine that dates to the Roman Empire stating a government must protect certain resources — usually water, sometimes wildlife — for the common good.

Adam Abrams, one of the attorneys arguing the case against TCEQ, said Triana’s ruling could be used as a persuasive argument in lawsuits pending in 11 other states.

In Texas, though, a ruling to protect air and the atmosphere has added significance. Republican Gov. Rick Perry is one of the most vocal opponents against widely accepted scientific research that fossil fuel emissions are causing global warming. And the state has refused to regulate greenhouse gases, forcing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to work directly with industries to ensure they comply with federal law.

“The commission’s conclusion that the public trust doctrine is exclusively limited to the conservation of water is legally invalid,” Triana wrote.

She also wants the case brought to a standstill, saying that so long as Texas has open-ended litigation on similar issues on the federal level, she cannot compel the TCEQ to write rules to protect the atmosphere and the air.

The TCEQ said in an emailed comment that it was reviewing the judge’s letter and is awaiting her final order, but it appears Triana will support the agency’s move to deny the request for new rules.

The lawsuit was brought by the Texas Environmental Law Center, and is part of a court campaign in a dozen states by an Oregon-based nonprofit, Our Children’s Trust. The group is using children and young adults as plaintiffs in the lawsuits — some state and some federal — filed in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas and Washington.

By relying on “common law” theories, the group hopes to have the atmosphere declared a public trust for the first time, granting it special protection. The doctrine has been used to clean up rivers and coastlines, but many legal experts have been unsure if it could be used successfully to combat climate change.

Still, Abrams, who has handled the Texas case on behalf of the Texas Environmental Law Center, believes Triana’s ruling can be used to argue the cases in other states. So far, he said, this is the first judge to back the group, though a New Mexico court recently allowed the case to go forward.

“I think it’s huge that we got a judge to acknowledge that the atmosphere is a public trust asset and the air is a public trust asset,” Abrams said. “It’s the first time we’ve had verbage like this come out of one of these cases.”

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

This summer is ‘what global warming looks like’ (AP) + related & reactions

Jul 3, 1:10 PM EDT

By SETH BORENSTEIN
AP Science Writer

AP PhotoAP Photo/Matthew Barakat

WASHINGTON (AP) — Is it just freakish weather or something more? Climate scientists suggest that if you want a glimpse of some of the worst of global warming, take a look at U.S. weather in recent weeks.

Horrendous wildfires. Oppressive heat waves. Devastating droughts. Flooding from giant deluges. And a powerful freak wind storm called a derecho.

These are the kinds of extremes experts have predicted will come with climate change, although it’s far too early to say that is the cause. Nor will they say global warming is the reason 3,215 daily high temperature records were set in the month of June.

Scientifically linking individual weather events to climate change takes intensive study, complicated mathematics, computer models and lots of time. Sometimes it isn’t caused by global warming. Weather is always variable; freak things happen.

And this weather has been local. Europe, Asia and Africa aren’t having similar disasters now, although they’ve had their own extreme events in recent years.

But since at least 1988, climate scientists have warned that climate change would bring, in general, increased heat waves, more droughts, more sudden downpours, more widespread wildfires and worsening storms. In the United States, those extremes are happening here and now.

So far this year, more than 2.1 million acres have burned in wildfires, more than 113 million people in the U.S. were in areas under extreme heat advisories last Friday, two-thirds of the country is experiencing drought, and earlier in June, deluges flooded Minnesota and Florida.

“This is what global warming looks like at the regional or personal level,” said Jonathan Overpeck, professor of geosciences and atmospheric sciences at the University of Arizona. “The extra heat increases the odds of worse heat waves, droughts, storms and wildfire. This is certainly what I and many other climate scientists have been warning about.”

Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in fire-charred Colorado, said these are the very record-breaking conditions he has said would happen, but many people wouldn’t listen. So it’s I told-you-so time, he said.

As recently as March, a special report an extreme events and disasters by the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned of “unprecedented extreme weather and climate events.” Its lead author, Chris Field of the Carnegie Institution and Stanford University, said Monday, “It’s really dramatic how many of the patterns that we’ve talked about as the expression of the extremes are hitting the U.S. right now.”

“What we’re seeing really is a window into what global warming really looks like,” said Princeton University geosciences and international affairs professor Michael Oppenheimer. “It looks like heat. It looks like fires. It looks like this kind of environmental disasters.”

Oppenheimer said that on Thursday. That was before the East Coast was hit with triple-digit temperatures and before a derecho – a large, powerful and long-lasting straight-line wind storm – blew from Chicago to Washington. The storm and its aftermath killed more than 20 people and left millions without electricity. Experts say it had energy readings five times that of normal thunderstorms.

Fueled by the record high heat, this was among the strongest of this type of storm in the region in recent history, said research meteorologist Harold Brooks of the National Severe Storm Laboratory in Norman, Okla. Scientists expect “non-tornadic wind events” like this one and other thunderstorms to increase with climate change because of the heat and instability, he said.

Such patterns haven’t happened only in the past week or two. The spring and winter in the U.S. were the warmest on record and among the least snowy, setting the stage for the weather extremes to come, scientists say.

Since Jan. 1, the United States has set more than 40,000 hot temperature records, but fewer than 6,000 cold temperature records, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Through most of last century, the U.S. used to set cold and hot records evenly, but in the first decade of this century America set two hot records for every cold one, said Jerry Meehl, a climate extreme expert at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. This year the ratio is about 7 hot to 1 cold. Some computer models say that ratio will hit 20-to-1 by midcentury, Meehl said.

“In the future you would expect larger, longer more intense heat waves and we’ve seen that in the last few summers,” NOAA Climate Monitoring chief Derek Arndt said.

The 100-degree heat, drought, early snowpack melt and beetles waking from hibernation early to strip trees all combined to set the stage for the current unusual spread of wildfires in the West, said University of Montana ecosystems professor Steven Running, an expert on wildfires.

While at least 15 climate scientists told The Associated Press that this long hot U.S. summer is consistent with what is to be expected in global warming, history is full of such extremes, said John Christy at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He’s a global warming skeptic who says, “The guilty party in my view is Mother Nature.”

But the vast majority of mainstream climate scientists, such as Meehl, disagree: “This is what global warming is like, and we’ll see more of this as we go into the future.”

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on extreme weather: http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/

U.S. weather records:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/records/

Seth Borenstein can be followed at http://twitter.com/borenbears

© 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

*   *   *

July 3, 2012

To Predict Environmental Doom, Ignore the Past

http://www.realclearscience.com

By Todd Myers

The information presented here cannot be used directly to calculate Earth’s long-term carrying capacity for human beings because, among other things, carrying capacity depends on both the affluence of the population being supported and the technologies supporting it. – Paul Ehrlich, 1986

One would expect scientists to pause when they realize their argument about resource collapse makes the king of environmental catastrophe, Paul Ehrlich, look moderate by comparison. Ehrlich is best known for a 40-year series of wildly inaccurate predictions of looming environmental disaster. Yet he looks positively reasonable compared to a paper recently published in the scientific journal Nature titled “Approaching a state shift in Earth’s biosphere.”

The paper predicts we are rapidly approaching a moment of “planetary-scale critical transition,” due to overuse of resources, climate change and other human-caused environmental damage. As a result, the authors conclude, this will “require reducing world population growth and per-capita resource use; rapidly increasing the proportion of the world’s energy budget that is supplied by sources other than fossil fuels,” and a range of other drastic policies. If these sound much like the ideas proposed in the 1970s by Ehrlich and others, like The Club of Rome, it is not a coincidence. TheNature paper is built on Ehrlich’s assumptions and cites his work more than once.

The Nature article, however, suffers from numerous simple statistical errors and assumptions rather than evidence. Its authors do nothing to deal with the fundamental mistakes that led Ehrlich and others like him down the wrong path so many times. Instead, the paper simply argues that with improved data, this time their predictions of doom are correct.

Ultimately, the piece is a good example of the great philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn’s hypothesis, written 50 years ago, that scientists often attempt to fit the data to conform to their particular scientific paradigm, even when that paradigm is obviously flawed. When confronted with failure to explain real-world phenomena, the authors of the Nature piece have, as Kuhn described in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, devised “numerous articulations and ad hoc modifications of their theory in order to eliminate any apparent conflict.” Like scientists blindly devoted to a failed paradigm, the Nature piece simply tries to force new data to fit a flawed concept.

“Assuming this does not change”

During the last half-century, the world has witnessed a dramatic increase in food production. According to the U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization, yields per acre of rice have more than doubled, corn yields are more than one-and-a-half times larger than 50 years ago, and wheat yields have almost tripled. As a result, even as human population has increased, worldwide hunger has declined.

Despite these well-known statistics, the authors of the Nature study assume not only no future technological improvements, but that none have occurred over the last 200 years. The authors simply choose one data point and then project it both into the past and into the future. The authors explain the assumption that underlies their thesis in the caption to a graphic showing the Earth approaching environmental saturation. They write:

“The percentages of such transformed lands… when divided by 7,000,000,000 (the present global human population) yield a value of approximately 2.27 acres (0.92 ha) of transformed land for each person. That value was used to estimate the amount of transformed land that probably existed in the years 1800, 1900 and 1950, and which would exist in 2025 and 2045 assuming conservative population growth and that resource use does not become any more efficient.” (emphasis added)

In other words, the basis for their argument ignores the easily accessible data from the last half century. They take a snapshot in time and mistake it for a historical trend. In contrast to their claim of no change in the efficient use of resources, it would be difficult to find a time period in the last millennium when resource use did not become more efficient.

Ironically, this is the very error Ehrlich warns against in his 1986 paper – a paper the authors themselves cite several times. Despite Ehrlich’s admonition that projections of future carrying capacity are dependent upon technological change, the authors of the Nature article ignore history to come to their desired conclusion.

A Paradigm of Catastrophe

What would lead scientists to make such simplistic assumptions and flat-line projections? Indeed, what would lead Nature editors to print an article whose statistical underpinnings are so flawed? The simple belief in the paradigm of inevitable environmental catastrophe: humans are doing irreparable damage to the Earth and every bit of resource use moves us closer to that catastrophe. The catastrophe paradigm argues a simple model that eventually we will run out of space and resources, and determining the date of ultimate doom is a simple matter of doing the math.

Believing in this paradigm also justifies exaggeration in order to stave off the serious consequences of collapse. Thus, they describe the United Nations’ likely population estimate for 2050 as “the most conservative,” without explaining why. They claim “rapid climate change shows no signs of slowing” without providing a source citation for the claim, and despite an actual slowing of climate change over the last decade.

The need to avoid perceived global catastrophe also encourages the authors to blow past warning signs that their analysis is not built on solid foundations – as if the poor history of such projections were not already warning enough. Even as they admit the interactions “between overlapping complex systems, however, are providing difficult to characterize mathematically,” they base their conclusions on the simplest linear mathematical estimate that assumes nothing will change except population over the next 40 years. They then draw a straight line, literally, from today to the environmental tipping point.

Why is such an unscientific approach allowed to pass for science in a respected international journal? Because whatever the argument does not supply, the paradigm conveniently fills in. Even if the math isn’t reliable and there are obvious counterarguments, “everyone” understands and believes in the underlying truth – we are nearing the limits of the planet’s ability to support life. In this way the conclusion is not proven but assumed, making the supporting argument an impenetrable tautology.

Such a circumstance creates the conditions of scientific revolutions, where the old paradigm fails to explain real-world phenomena and is replaced by an alternative. Given the record of failure of the paradigm of resource catastrophe, dating back to the 1970s, one would hope we are moving toward such a change. Unfortunately, Nature and the authors of the piece are clinging to the old resource-depletion model, simply trying to re-work the numbers.

Let us hope policymakers recognize the failure of that paradigm before they make costly and dangerous policy mistakes that impoverish billions in the name of false scientific assumptions.

Todd Myers is the Environmental Director of the Washington Policy Center and author of the book Eco-Fads.

*   *   *

Washington Policy Center exposed: Todd Myers

The Washington Policy Center labels itself as a non-partisan think tank. It’s a mischaractization to say the least but that is their bread and butter. Based in Seattle, with a director in Spokane, the WPC’s mission is to “promote free-market solutions through research and education.” It makes sense they have an environmental director in the form of Todd Myers who has a new book called“Eco-Fads: How The Rise Of Trendy Environmentalism Is Harming The Environment.” You know, since polar bears love to swim.


From the WPC’s newsletter:

Wherever we turn, politicians, businesses and activists are promoting the latest fashionable “green” policy or product. Green buildings, biofuels, electric cars, compact fluorescent lightbulbs and a variety of other technologies are touted as the next key step in protecting the environment and promoting a sustainable future. Increasingly, however, scientific and economic information regarding environmental problems takes a back seat to the social and personal value of being seen and perceived as “green.”

As environmental consciousness has become socially popular, eco-fads supplant objective data. Politicians pick the latest environmental agenda in the same way we choose the fall fashions – looking for what will yield the largest benefit with our public and social circles.

Eco-Fads exposes the pressures that cause politicians, businesses, the media and even scientists to fall for trendy environmental fads. It examines why we fall for such fads, even when we should know better. The desire to “be green” can cloud our judgment, causing us to place things that make us appear green ahead of actions that may be socially invisible yet environmentally responsible.

By recognizing the range of forces that have taken us in the wrong direction, Eco-Fads shows how we can begin to get back on track, creating a prosperous and sustainable legacy for our planet’s future. Order Eco-Fads today for $26.95 (tax and shipping included).

This is what the newsletter doesn’t tell you about Todd Myers.

Myers has spoken at the Heartland Institute’s International Conference on Climate Change. In case you didn’t know, the Heartland Institute has received significant funding from ExxonMobil, Phillip Morris and numerous other corporations and conservative foundations with vested interest in the so-called debate around climate change. That conference was co-sponsored by numerous prominent climate change denier groups, think tanks and lobby groups, almost all of which have received money from the oil industry.

Why not just call it the Washington Fallacy Center? For a litte more background, including ties back to the Koch Brothers, go HERE. In fact, Jack Kemp calls it “The Heritage Foundation of the Northwest.”

*   *   *

 

Did climate change ’cause’ the Colorado wildfires?

By David Roberts

29 Jun 2012 1:50 PM

http://grist.org

Photo by USAF.

The wildfires raging through Colorado and the West are unbelievable. As of yesterday there were 242 fires burning, according to the National Interagency Fire Center. Almost 350 homes have been destroyed in Colorado Springs, where 36,000 people have been evacuated from their homes. President Obama is visiting today to assess the devastation for himself.

Obviously the priority is containing the fires and protecting people. But inevitably the question is going to come up: Did climate change “cause” the fires? Regular readers know that this question drives me a little nuts. Pardon the long post, but I want to try to tackle this causation question once and for all.

What caused the Colorado Springs fire? Well, it was probably a careless toss of a cigarette butt, or someone burning leaves in their backyard, or a campfire that wasn’t properly doused. [UPDATE:Turns out it was lightning.] That spark, wherever it came from, is what triggered the cascading series of events we call “a fire.” It was what philosophers call the proximate cause, the most immediate, the closest.

All the other factors being discussed — the intense drought covering the state, the dead trees left behind by bark beetles, the high winds — are distal causes. Distal causes are less tightly connected to their effects. The dead trees didn’t make any particular fire inevitable; there can be no fire without a spark. What they did is make it more likelythat a fire would occur. Distal causes are like that: probabilistic. Nonetheless, our intuitions tell us that distal causes are in many ways more satisfactory explanations. They tell us something about themeaning of events, not just the mechanisms, which is why they’re also called “ultimate” causes. It’s meaning we usually want.

When we say, “the fires in Colorado were caused by unusually dry conditions, high winds, and diseased trees,” no one accuses us of error or imprecision because it was “really” the matches or campfires that caused them. We are not expected to say, “no individual fire can be definitively attributed to hot, windy conditions, but these are the kinds of fires we would expect to see in those conditions.” Why waste the words? We are understood to be talking about distal causes.

When we talk about, not fires themselves, but the economic and socialimpacts of fires, the range of distal causes grows even broader. For a given level of damages, it’s not enough to have dry conditions and dead trees, not even enough to have fire — you also have to take into account the density of development, the responsiveness of emergency services, and the preparedness of communities for prevention or evacuation.

So if we say, “the limited human toll of the Colorado fires is the result of the bravery and skill of Western firefighters,” no one accuses us of error or imprecision because good firefighting was only one of many contributors to the final level of damages. Everything from evacuation plans to the quality of the roads to the vagaries of the weather contributed in some way to that state of affairs. But we are understood to be identifying a distal cause, not giving a comprehensive account of causation.

What I’m trying to say is, we are perfectly comfortable discussing distal causes in ordinary language. We don’t require scientistic literalism in our everyday talk.

The reason I’m going through all this, you won’t be surprised, is to tie it back to climate change. We know, of course, that climate change was not the proximate cause of the fires. It was a distal cause; it made the fires more likely. That much we know with a high degree of confidence, as this excellent review of the latest science by Climate Communication makes clear.

One can distinguish between distal causes by their proximity to effects. Say the drought made the fires 50 percent more likely than average June conditions in Colorado. (I’m just pulling these numbers out of my ass to illustrate a point.) Climate change maybe only made the fires 1 percent more likely. As a cause, it is more distal than the drought. And there are probably causes even more distal than climate change. Maybe the exact tilt of the earth’s axis this June made the fires 0.0001 percent more likely. Maybe the location of a particular proton during the Big Bang made them 0.000000000000000001 percent more likely. You get the point.

With this in mind, it’s clear that the question as it’s frequently asked — “did climate change cause the fires?” — is not going to get us the answer we want. If it’s yes or no, the answer is “yes.” But that doesn’t tell us much. What people really want to know when they ask that question is, “how proximate a cause is climate change?”

When we ask the question like that, we start to see why climate is such a wicked problem. Human beings, by virtue of their evolution, physiology, and socialization, are designed to heed causes within a particular range between proximate and distal. If I find my kid next to an overturned glass and a puddle of milk and ask him why the milk is spilled, I don’t care about the neurons firing and the muscles contracting. That’s too proximate. I don’t care about humans evolving with poor peripheral vision. That’s too distal. I care about my kid reaching for it and knocking it over. That’s not the only level of causal explanation that is correct, but it’s the level of causal explanation that is most meaningful to me.

For a given effect — a fire, a flood, a dead forest — climate change is almost always too distal a cause to make a visceral impression on us. We’re just not built to pay heed to those 1 percent margins. It’s too abstract. The problem is, wildfires being 1 percent more likely averaged over the whole globe actually means a lot more fires, a lot more damage, loss, and human suffering. Part of managing the Anthropocene is finding ways of making distal causes visceral, giving them a bigger role in our thinking and institutions.

That’s what the “did climate change cause XYZ?” questions are always really about: how proximate a cause climate change is, how immediate its effects are in our lives, how close it is.

There is, of course, a constant temptation among climate hawks to exaggerate how proximate it is, since, all things being equal, proximity = salience. But I don’t think that simply saying “climate change caused the fires” is necessarily false or exaggerated, any more than saying “drought caused the fires” is. The fact that the former strikes many people as suspect while the latter is immediately understood mostly just means that we’re not used to thinking of climate change as a distal cause among others.

That’s why we reach for awkward language like, “fires like this are consonant with what we would expect from climate change.” Not because that’s the way we discuss all distal causes — it’s clearly not — but simply because we’re unaccustomed to counting climate change among those causes. It’s an unfamiliar habit. As it grows more familiar, I suspect we’ll quit having so many of these tedious semantic disputes.

And I’m afraid that, in coming years, it will become all-too familiar.

*   *   *

 

Perspective On The Hot and Dry Continental USA For 2012 Based On The Research Of Judy Curry and Of McCabe Et Al 2004

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com

Photo is from June 26 2012 showing start of the June 26 Flagstaff firenear Boulder Colorado

I was alerted to an excellent presentation by Judy Curry [h/t to Don Bishop] which provides an informative explanation of the current hot and dry weather in the USA. The presentation is titled

Climate Dimensions of the Water Cycle by Judy Curry

First, there is an insightful statement by Judy where she writes in slide 5

CMIP century scale simulations are designed for assessing sensitivity to greenhouse gases using emissions scenarios They are not fit for the purpose of inferring decadal scale or regional climate variability, or assessing variations associated with natural forcing and internal variability. Downscaling does not help.

We need a much broader range of scenarios for regions (historical data, simple models, statistical models, paleoclimate analyses, etc). Permit creatively constructed scenarios as long as they can’t be falsified as incompatible with background knowledge.

With respect to the current hot and dry weather, the paper referenced by Judy in her Powerpoint talk

Gregory J. McCabe, Michael A. Palecki, and Julio L. Betancourt, 2004: Pacific and Atlantic Ocean influences on multidecadal drought frequency in the United States. PNAS 2004 101 (12) 4136-4141; published ahead of print March 11, 2004, doi:10.1073/pnas.0306738101

has the abstract [highlight added]

More than half (52%) of the spatial and temporal variance in multidecadal drought frequency over the conterminous United States is attributable to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). An additional 22% of the variance in drought frequency is related to a complex spatial pattern of positive and negative trends in drought occurrence possibly related to increasing Northern Hemisphere temperatures or some other unidirectional climate trend. Recent droughts with broad impacts over the conterminous U.S. (1996, 1999–2002) were associated with North Atlantic warming (positive AMO) and northeastern and tropical Pacific cooling (negative PDO). Much of the long-term predictability of drought frequency may reside in the multidecadal behavior of the North Atlantic Ocean. Should the current positive AMO (warm North Atlantic) conditions persist into the upcoming decade, we suggest two possible drought scenarios that resemble the continental-scale patterns of the 1930s (positive PDO) and 1950s (negative PDO) drought.

They also present the figure below with the title “Impact of AMO, PDO on 20-yr drought frequency (1900-1999)”.   The figures correspond to A: Warm PDO, cool AMO; B: Cool PDO, cool AMO; C: Warm PDO, warm AMO and D:  Cool PDO, warm AMO

The current Drought Monitor analysis shows a remarkable agreement with D, as shown below

As Judy shows in her talk (slide 8) since 1995 we have been in a warm phase of the AMO and have entered a cool phase of the PDO. This corresponds to D in the above figure.  Thus the current drought and heat is not an unprecedented event but part of the variations in atmospheric-ocean circulation features that we have seen in the past.  This reinforces what Judy wrote that

[w]e need a much broader range of scenarios for regions (historical data, simple models, statistical models, paleoclimate analyses

in our assessment of risks to key resources due to climate. Insightful discussions of the importance of these circulation features are also presented, as just a few excellent examples, by Joe Daleo  and Joe Bistardi on ICECAP, by Bob Tisdale at Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations, and in posts on Anthony Watts’s weblog Watts Up With That.

 

*   *   *

Hotter summers could be a part of Washington’s future

http://www.washingtonpost.com

By  and , Published: July 5

As relentless heat continues to pulverize Washington, the conversation has evolved from when will it end to what if it never does?

Are unbroken weeks of sweltering weather becoming the norm rather than the exception?

The answer to the first question is simple: Yes, it will end. Probably by Monday.

The answer to the second, however, is a little more complicated.

Call it a qualified yes.

“Trying to wrap an analysis around it in real time is like trying to diagnose a car wreck as the cars are still spinning,” said Deke Arndt, chief of climate monitoring at the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. “But we had record heat for the summer season on the Eastern Seaboard in 2010. We had not just record heat, but all-time record heat, in the summer season in 2011. And then you throw that on top of this [mild] winter and spring and the year to date so far, it’s very consistent with what we’d expect in a warming world.”

Nothing dreadfully dramatic is taking place — the seasons are not about to give way to an endless summer.

Heat-trapping greenhouse gases pumped into the atmosphere may be contributing to unusually hot and long heat waves — the kind of events climate scientists have long warned will become more common. Many anticipate a steady trend of ever-hotter average temperatures as human activity generates more and more carbon pollution.

To some, the numbers recorded this month and in recent years fit together to suggest a balmy future.

“We had a warm winter, a cold spring and now a real hot summer,” said Jessica Miller, 21, a visitor from Ohio, as she sat on a bench beneath the trees in Lafayette Square. “I think the overall weather patterns are changing.”

Another visitor, who sat nearby just across from the White House, shared a similar view.

“I think it’s a natural changing of the Earth’s average temperatures,” said Joe Kaufman, a Pennsylvanian who had just walked over from Georgetown.

Arndt said he expects data for the first half of this year will show that it was the warmest six months on record. Experts predict that average temperatures will rise by 3 to 5 degrees by mid-century and by 6 to 10 degrees by the end of the century.

If that worst prediction comes true, 98 degrees will become the new normal at this time of year in Washington 88 years from now.

Will every passing year till then break records?

“Not so much record-breaking every year,” Arndt said. “But we’ll break records on the warm end more often than on the cold end, that’s for sure. As we continue to warm, we will be flirting with warm records much more than with cold records, and that’s what’s played out over much of the last few years.”

If the present is our future, it may be sizzling. The current heat wave has had eight consecutive days of 95-degree weather. The temperature may reach 106 on Saturday, and the first break will come Monday, when a few days of more seasonable highs in the upper 80s are expected.

The hot streak began June 28 and peaked the next day with a 104-degree record-breaker, the hottest temperature ever recorded here in June. That broke a record of 102 set in 1874 and matched in June 2011.

 

 

Political Scientists Are Lousy Forecasters (N.Y.Times)

OPINION

Katia Fouquet

By JACQUELINE STEVENS
Published: June 23, 2012

DESPERATE “Action Alerts” land in my in-box. They’re from the American Political Science Association and colleagues, many of whom fear grave “threats” to our discipline. As a defense, they’ve supplied “talking points” we can use to tell Congressional representatives that political science is a “critical part of our national science agenda.”

Political scientists are defensive these days because in May the House passed an amendment to a bill eliminating National Science Foundation grants for political scientists. Soon the Senate may vote on similar legislation. Colleagues, especially those who have received N.S.F. grants, will loathe me for saying this, but just this once I’m sympathetic with the anti-intellectual Republicans behind this amendment. Why? The bill incited a national conversation about a subject that has troubled me for decades: the government — disproportionately — supports research that is amenable to statistical analyses and models even though everyone knows the clean equations mask messy realities that contrived data sets and assumptions don’t, and can’t, capture.

It’s an open secret in my discipline: in terms of accurate political predictions (the field’s benchmark for what counts as science), my colleagues have failed spectacularly and wasted colossal amounts of time and money. The most obvious example may be political scientists’ insistence, during the cold war, that the Soviet Union would persist as a nuclear threat to the United States. In 1993, in the journal International Security, for example, the cold war historian John Lewis Gaddis wrote that the demise of the Soviet Union was “of such importance that no approach to the study of international relations claiming both foresight and competence should have failed to see it coming.” And yet, he noted, “None actually did so.” Careers were made, prizes awarded and millions of research dollars distributed to international relations experts, even though Nancy Reagan’s astrologer may have had superior forecasting skills.

Political prognosticators fare just as poorly on domestic politics. In a peer-reviewed journal, the political scientist Morris P. Fiorina wrote that “we seem to have settled into a persistent pattern of divided government” — of Republican presidents and Democratic Congresses. Professor Fiorina’s ideas, which synced nicely with the conventional wisdom at the time, appeared in an article in 1992 — just before the Democrat Bill Clinton’s presidential victory and the Republican 1994 takeover of the House.

Alas, little has changed. Did any prominent N.S.F.-financed researchers predict that an organization like Al Qaeda would change global and domestic politics for at least a generation? Nope. Or that the Arab Spring would overthrow leaders in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia? No, again. What about proposals for research into questions that might favor Democratic politics and that political scientists seeking N.S.F. financing do not ask — perhaps, one colleague suggests, because N.S.F. program officers discourage them? Why are my colleagues kowtowing to Congress for research money that comes with ideological strings attached?

The political scientist Ted Hopf wrote in a 1993 article that experts failed to anticipate the Soviet Union’s collapse largely because the military establishment played such a big role in setting the government’s financing priorities. “Directed by this logic of the cold war, research dollars flowed from private foundations, government agencies and military individual bureaucracies.” Now, nearly 20 years later, the A.P.S.A. Web site trumpets my colleagues’ collaboration with the government, “most notably in the area of defense,” as a reason to retain political science N.S.F. financing.

Many of today’s peer-reviewed studies offer trivial confirmations of the obvious and policy documents filled with egregious, dangerous errors. My colleagues now point to research by the political scientists and N.S.F. grant recipients James D. Fearon and David D. Laitin that claims that civil wars result from weak states, and are not caused by ethnic grievances. Numerous scholars have, however, convincingly criticized Professors Fearon and Laitin’s work. In 2011 Lars-Erik Cederman, Nils B. Weidmann and Kristian Skrede Gleditsch wrote in the American Political Science Review that “rejecting ‘messy’ factors, like grievances and inequalities,” which are hard to quantify, “may lead to more elegant models that can be more easily tested, but the fact remains that some of the most intractable and damaging conflict processes in the contemporary world, including Sudan and the former Yugoslavia, are largely about political and economic injustice,” an observation that policy makers could glean from a subscription to this newspaper and that nonetheless is more astute than the insights offered by Professors Fearon and Laitin.

How do we know that these examples aren’t atypical cherries picked by a political theorist munching sour grapes? Because in the 1980s, the political psychologist Philip E. Tetlock began systematically quizzing 284 political experts — most of whom were political science Ph.D.’s — on dozens of basic questions, like whether a country would go to war, leave NATO or change its boundaries or a political leader would remain in office. His book “Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know?” won the A.P.S.A.’s prize for the best book published on government, politics or international affairs.

Professor Tetlock’s main finding? Chimps randomly throwing darts at the possible outcomes would have done almost as well as the experts.

These results wouldn’t surprise the guru of the scientific method, Karl Popper, whose 1934 book “The Logic of Scientific Discovery” remains the cornerstone of the scientific method. Yet Mr. Popper himself scoffed at the pretensions of the social sciences: “Long-term prophecies can be derived from scientific conditional predictions only if they apply to systems which can be described as well-isolated, stationary, and recurrent. These systems are very rare in nature; and modern society is not one of them.”

Government can — and should — assist political scientists, especially those who use history and theory to explain shifting political contexts, challenge our intuitions and help us see beyond daily newspaper headlines. Research aimed at political prediction is doomed to fail. At least if the idea is to predict more accurately than a dart-throwing chimp.

To shield research from disciplinary biases of the moment, the government should finance scholars through a lottery: anyone with a political science Ph.D. and a defensible budget could apply for grants at different financing levels. And of course government needs to finance graduate student studies and thorough demographic, political and economic data collection. I look forward to seeing what happens to my discipline and politics more generally once we stop mistaking probability studies and statistical significance for knowledge.

Jacqueline Stevens is a professor of political science at Northwestern University and the author, most recently, of “States Without Nations: Citizenship for Mortals.”

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on June 24, 2012, on page SR6 of the New York edition with the headline: Political Scientists Are Lousy Forecasters.

Life After Rio: A commentary by Mark Halle, IISD

June 2012

June 23 and the planet continues its slow decline, uninterrupted by the sustainable development summit that has just finished in Rio. Yet another UN mega-conference ends in disappointment, the low expectations fully justified. Once again, our governments have failed to demonstrate leadership, have lacked courage to make the compromises necessary to ensure a fairer, more
stable world. Once again they have kept their eyes riveted on short-term electoral deadlines and sold out future generations. We have come to a sorry pass.

When, two years ago, the UN decided to hold this conference, there was no particular reason for it except that the twentieth anniversary of the original Earth Summit was looming. There were plenty of general reasons, including the fact that most of the decisions taken in 1992 have been ignored, most of the agreed actions never taken, and the planet has continued to decline.

But nothing suggested that the necessary political will could be mustered to take transformative steps, to agree game-changing resolutions, or even to stimulate implementation of the myriad decisions, resolutions and undertakings that were made in Rio in 1992 or in the two decades since. (…)

Read the whole text here.

How “sustainability” became “sustained growth” (The Guardian)

The Rio Declaration rips up the basic principles of environmental action.

BY GLOBAL JUSTICE ECOLOGY PROJECT | JUNE 23, 2012 · 9:25 AM

By George Monbiot, published on the Guardian’s website

June 22, 2012. In 1992 world leaders signed up to something called “sustainability”. Few of them were clear about what it meant; I suspect that many of them had no idea. Perhaps as a result, it did not take long for this concept to mutate into something subtly different: “sustainable development”. Then it made a short jump to another term: “sustainable growth”. And now, in the 2012 Earth Summit text that world leaders are about to adopt, it has subtly mutated once more: into “sustained growth”.

This term crops up 16 times in the document, where it is used interchangeably with sustainability and sustainable development. But if sustainability means anything, it is surely the opposite of sustained growth. Sustained growth on a finite planet is the essence of unsustainability.

As Robert Skidelsky, who comes at this issue from a different angle, observes in the Guardian today:

“Aristotle knew of insatiability only as a personal vice; he had no inkling of the collective, politically orchestrated insatiability that we call economic growth. The civilization of “always more” would have struck him as moral and political madness. And, beyond a certain point, it is also economic madness. This is not just or mainly because we will soon enough run up against the natural limits to growth. It is because we cannot go on for much longer economising on labour faster than we can find new uses for it.”

Several of the more outrageous deletions proposed by the United States – such as any mention of rights or equity or of common but differentiated responsibilities – have been rebuffed. In other respects the Obama government’s purge has succeeded, striking out such concepts as “unsustainable consumption and production patterns” and the proposed decoupling of economic growth from the use of natural resources.

At least the states due to sign this document haven’t ripped up the declarations from the last Earth Summit, 20 years ago. But in terms of progress since then, that’s as far as it goes. Reaffirming the Rio 1992 commitments is perhaps the most radical principle in the entire declaration.

As a result, the draft document, which seems set to become the final document, takes us precisely nowhere. 190 governments have spent 20 years bracing themselves to “acknowledge”, “recognise” and express “deep concern” about the world’s environmental crises, but not to do anything about them.

This paragraph from the declaration sums up the problem for me:

“We recognize that the planet Earth and its ecosystems are our home and that Mother Earth is a common expression in a number of countries and regions and we note that some countries recognize the rights of nature in the context of the promotion of sustainable development. We are convinced that in order to achieve a just balance among the economic, social and environment needs of present and future generations, it is necessary to promote harmony with nature.”

It sounds lovely, doesn’t it? It could be illustrated with rainbows and psychedelic unicorns and stuck on the door of your toilet. But without any proposed means of implementation, it might just as well be deployed for a different function in the same room.

The declaration is remarkable for its absence of figures, dates and targets. It is as stuffed with meaningless platitudes as an advertisement for payday loans, but without the necessary menace. There is nothing to work with here, no programme, no sense of urgency or call for concrete action beyond the inadequate measures already agreed in previous flaccid declarations. Its tone and contents would be better suited to a retirement homily than a response to a complex of escalating global crises.

The draft and probably final declaration is 283 paragraphs of fluff. It suggests that the 190 governments due to approve it have, in effect, given up on multilateralism, given up on the world and given up on us. So what do we do now? That is the topic I intend to address in my column next week.

Declaração final da Cúpula dos Povos na Rio+20

Sexta-feira, 22 junho, 2012

Home 1

O documento final da Cúpula dos povos sintetiza os principais eixos discutidos durante as plenárias e assembléias, assim como expressam as intensas mobilizações ocorridas durante esse período – de 15 a 22 de junho – que apontam as convergências em torno das causas estruturais e das falsas soluções, das soluções dos povos frente às crises, assim como os principais eixos de luta para o próximo período.

As sínteses aprovadas nas plenárias integram e complementam este documento político para que os povos, movimentos e organizações possam continuar a convergir e aprofundar suas lutas e construção de alternativas em seus territórios, regiões e países em todos os cantos do mundo.
Você também pode ler a carta aqui (em pdf).

Declaração final
Cúpula dos Povos na Rio+20 por Justiça Social e Ambiental
Em defesa dos bens comuns, contra a mercantilização da vida

Movimentos sociais e populares, sindicatos, povos, organizações da sociedade civil e ambientalistas de todo o mundo presentes na Cúpula dos Povos na Rio+20 por Justiça Social e Ambiental, vivenciaram nos acampamentos, nas mobilizações massivas, nos debates, a construção das convergências e alternativas, conscientes de que somos sujeitos de uma outra relação entre humanos e humanas e entre a humanidade e a natureza, assumindo o desafio urgente de frear a nova fase de recomposição do capitalismo e de construir, através de nossas lutas, novos paradigmas de sociedade.

A Cúpula dos Povos é o momento simbólico de um novo ciclo na trajetória de lutas globais que produz novas convergências entre movimentos de mulheres, indígenas, negros, juventudes, agricultores/as familiares e camponeses, trabalhadore/as, povos e comunidades tradicionais, quilombolas, lutadores pelo direito a cidade, e religiões de todo o mundo. As assembléias, mobilizações e a grande Marcha dos Povos foram os momentos de expressão máxima destas convergências.

As instituições financeiras multilaterais, as coalizações a serviço do sistema financeiro, como o G8/G20, a captura corporativa da ONU e a maioria dos governos demonstraram irresponsabilidade com o futuro da humanidade e do planeta e promoveram os interesses das corporações na conferencia oficial. Em constraste a isso, a vitalidade e a força das mobilizações e dos debates na Cúpula dos Povos fortaleceram a nossa convicção de que só o povo organizado e mobilizado pode libertar o mundo do controle das corporações e do capital financeiro.

Há vinte anos o Fórum Global, também realizado no Aterro do Flamengo, denunciou os riscos que a humanidade e a natureza corriam com a privatização e o neoliberalismo. Hoje afirmamos que, além de confirmar nossa análise, ocorreram retrocessos significativos em relação aos direitos humanos já reconhecidos. A Rio+20 repete o falido roteiro de falsas soluções defendidas pelos mesmos atores que provocaram a crise global. À medida que essa crise se aprofunda, mais as corporações avançam contra os direitos dos povos, a democracia e a natureza, sequestrando os bens comuns da humanidade para salvar o sistema economico-financeiro.

As múltiplas vozes e forças que convergem em torno da Cúpula dos Povos denunciam a verdadeira causa estrutural da crise global: o sistema capitalista patriarcal, racista e homofobico.

As corporações transnacionais continuam cometendo seus crimes com a sistematica violação dos direitos dos povos e da natureza com total impunidade. Da mesma forma, avançam seus interesses através da militarização, da criminalização dos modos de vida dos povos e dos movimentos sociais promovendo a desterritorialização no campo e na cidade.
Da mesma forma denunciamos a divida ambiental histórica que afeta majoritariamente os povos oprimidos do mundo, e que deve ser assumida pelos países altamente industrializados, que ao fim e ao cabo, foram os que provocaram as múltiplas crises que vivemos hoje.

O capitalismo também leva à perda do controle social, democrático e comunitario sobre los recursos naturais e serviços estratégicos, que continuam sendo privatizados, convertendo direitos em mercadorias e limitando o acesso dos povos aos bens e serviços necessarios à sobrevivencia.
A dita “economia verde” é uma das expressões da atual fase financeira do capitalismo que também se utiliza de velhos e novos mecanismos, tais como o aprofundamento do endividamento publico-privado, o super-estímulo ao consumo, a apropriação e concentração das novas tecnologias, os mercados de carbono e biodiversidade, a grilagem e estrangeirização de terras e as parcerias público-privadas, entre outros.

As alternativas estão em nossos povos, nossa historia, nossos costumes, conhecimentos, práticas e sistemas produtivos, que devemos manter, revalorizar e ganhar escala como projeto contra-hegemonico e transformador.
A defesa dos espaços públicos nas cidades, com gestão democrática e participação popular, a economia cooperativa e solidaria, a soberania alimentar, um novo paradigma de produção, distribuição e consumo, a mudança da matriz energética, são exemplos de alternativas reais frente ao atual sistema agro-urbano-industrial.

A defesa dos bens comuns passa pela garantia de uma série de direitos humanos e da natureza, pela solidariedade e respeito às cosmovisões e crenças dos diferentes povos, como, por exemplo, a defesa do “Bem Viver” como forma de existir em harmonia com a natureza, o que pressupõe uma transição justa a ser construída com os trabalhadores/as e povos.

Exigimos uma transição justa que supõe a ampliação do conceito de trabalho, o reconhecimento do trabalho das mulheres e um equilíbrio entre a produção e reprodução, para que esta não seja uma atribuição exclusiva das mulheres. Passa ainda pela liberdade de organização e o direito a contratação coletiva, assim como pelo estabelecimento de uma ampla rede de seguridade e proteção social, entendida como um direito humano, bem como de políticas públicas que garantam formas de trabalho decentes.

Afirmamos o feminismo como instrumento da construção da igualdade, a autonomia das mulheres sobre seus corpos e sexualidade e o direito a uma vida livre de violência. Da mesma forma reafirmamos a urgência da distribuição de riqueza e da renda, do combate ao racismo e ao etnocídio, da garantia do direito a terra e território, do direito à cidade, ao meio ambiente e à água, à educação, a cultura, a liberdade de expressão e democratização dos meios de comunicação.

O fortalecimento de diversas economias locais e dos direitos territoriais garantem a construção comunitária de economias mais vibrantes. Estas economias locais proporcionam meios de vida sustentáveis locais, a solidariedade comunitária, componentes vitais da resiliência dos ecossistemas. A diversidade da natureza e sua diversidade cultural associada é fundamento para um novo paradigma de sociedade.

Os povos querem determinar para que e para quem se destinam os bens comuns e energéticos, além de assumir o controle popular e democrático de sua produção. Um novo modelo enérgico está baseado em energias renováveis descentralizadas e que garanta energia para a população e não para as corporações.

A transformação social exige convergências de ações, articulações e agendas a partir das resistências e alternativas contra hegemônicas ao sistema capitalista que estão em curso em todos os cantos do planeta. Os processos sociais acumulados pelas organizações e movimentos sociais que convergiram na Cúpula dos Povos apontaram para os seguintes eixos de luta:

  • Contra a militarização dos Estados e territórios;
  • Contra a criminalização das organizações e movimentos sociais;
  • Contra a violência contra as mulheres;
  • Contra a violência as lesbicas, gays, bissexuais, transexuais e transgeneros;
  • Contra as grandes corporações;
  • Contra a imposição do pagamento de dívidas econômicas injustas e por auditorias populares das mesmas;
  • Pela garantia do direito dos povos à terra e território urbano e rural;
  • Pela consulta e consentimento livre, prévio e informado, baseado nos princípios da boa fé e do efeito vinculante, conforme a Convenção 169 da OIT;
  • Pela soberania alimentar e alimentos sadios, contra agrotóxicos e transgênicos;
  • Pela garantia e conquista de direitos;
  • Pela solidariedade aos povos e países, principalmente os ameaçados por golpes militares ou institucionais, como está ocorrendo agora no Paraguai;
  • Pela soberania dos povos no controle dos bens comuns, contra as tentativas de mercantilização;
  • Pela mudança da matriz e modelo energético vigente;
  • Pela democratização dos meios de comunicação;
  • Pelo reconhecimento da dívida histórica social e ecológica;
  • Pela construção do DIA MUNDIAL DE GREVE GERAL.

Voltemos aos nossos territórios, regiões e países animados para construirmos as convergências necessárias para seguirmos em luta, resistindo e avançando contra os sistema capitalista e suas velhas e renovadas formas de reprodução.

Em pé continuamos em luta!

Rio de Janeiro, 15 a 22 de junho de 2012.
Cúpula dos Povos por Justiça Social e ambiental em defesa dos bens comuns, contra a mercantilização da vida.

DECLARACION DE KARI-OCA 2012

DECLARACION DE KARI-OCA 2012

“CONFERENCIA MUNDIAL DE LOS PUEBLOS INDIGENAS

SOBRE RIO+20 Y LA MADRE TIERRA” 13 -22 Junio 2012

Nosotros, los Pueblos Indígenas de la Madre Tierra reunidos en la sede de Kari-Oca I Sacred Kari-Oka Púku en Rio de Janeiro para participar en la Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas sobre Desarrollo Sostenible Rio+20, agradecemos a los Pueblos Indígenas de Brasil por darnos la bienvenida a sus territorios. Reafirmamos nuestra responsabilidad para hablar para la protección y del bienestar de la Madre Tierra, la naturaleza y las futuras generaciones de nuestros Pueblos Indígenas y toda la humanidad y la vida. Reconocemos el significado de esta segunda convocatoria de los Pueblos Indígenas del mundo y reafirmamos la reunión histórica de 1992 de Kari-Oca I, donde los Pueblos Indígenas emitieron la Declaración de Kari-Oca y la Carta de la Tierra de los Pueblos Indígenas. La conferencia de Kari-Oca y la movilización de los Pueblos Indígenas durante la Cumbre de la Tierra, marcó un gran avance del movimiento internacional para los derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas y el papel importante que desempeñamos en la conservación y el desarrollo sostenible. Reafirmamos también la Declaración de Manaos sobre la convocatoria de Kari-Oca 2 como el encuentro internacional de los Pueblos Indígenas en Río+20.

La institucionalización del colonialismo

Consideramos que los objetivos de la Cumbre de las Naciones Unidas sobre Desarrollo Sostenible (UNCSD) Río+20, la “Economía Verde” y su premisa de que el mundo sólo puede “salvar” a la naturaleza por mercantilizar sus capacidades de dar vida y sostener la vida como una continuación del colonialismo que los Pueblos Indígenas y nuestra Madre Tierra han resistido durante 520 años. La “Economía Verde” se promete erradicar la pobreza, pero en realidad sólo va a favorecer y responder a las empresas multinacionales y el capitalismo. Se trata de una continuación de una economía global basada en los combustibles fósiles, la destrucción del medio ambiente mediante la explotación de la naturaleza a través de las industrias extractivas, tales como la minería, la explotación y producción petrolera, la agricultura intensiva de mono-cultivos y otras inversiones capitalistas. Todos estos esfuerzos están dirigidos hacia las ganancias y la acumulación de capital por unos pocos.

Desde Rio 1992, nosotros como Pueblos Indígenas vemos que el colonialismo se ha convertido en la base de la globalización del comercio y la hegemónica economía capitalista mundial. Se han intensificado la explotación y el saqueo de los ecosistemas y biodiversidad del mundo, así como la violación los derechos inherentes de los pueblos indígenas. Nuestro derecho a la libre determinación, a nuestra propia gobernanza y a nuestro desarrollo libremente determinado, nuestros derechos inherentes a nuestras tierras, territorios y recursos están cada vez más atacados por una colaboración de gobiernos y empresas transnacionales. Activistas y líderes indígenas que defienden sus territorios siguen sufriendo represión, militarización, incluyendo asesinatos, encarcelamientos, hostigamiento y calificación como “terroristas”. La violación de nuestros derechos colectivos enfrenta la misma impunidad. La reubicación forzosa o asimilación amenaza nuestras futuras generaciones, culturas, idiomas, espiritualidad y relación con la Madre Tierra, económica y políticamente.

Nosotros, pueblos indígenas de todas las regiones del mundo, hemos defendido a Nuestra Madre Tierra de las agresiones del desarrollo no sustentable y la sobreexplotación de nuestros recursos por minería, maderería, megarepresas hidroeléctricas, exploración y extracción petrolera. Nuestros bosques sufren por la producción de agrocombustibles, biomasa, plantaciones y otras imposiciones como las falsas soluciones al cambio climático y el desarrollo no sustentable y dañino.

La Economía Verde es nada menos que capitalismo de la naturaleza; un esfuerzo perverso de las grandes empresas, las industrias extractivas y los gobiernos para convertir en dinero toda la Creación mediante la privatización, mercantilización y venta de lo Sagrado y todas las formas de vida, así como el cielo, incluyendo el aire que respiramos, el agua que bebemos y todos los genes, plantas, semillas criollas, árboles, animales, peces, diversidad biológica y cultural, ecosistemas y conocimientos tradicionales que hacen posible y disfrutable la vida sobre la tierra.

Violaciónes graves de los derechos de los pueblos indígenas a la soberanía alimentaria continúan sin cesar lo que da lugar a la “inseguridad” alimentaria. Nuestra propia producción de alimentos, las plantas que nos reunimos, los animales que cazamos, nuestros campos y las cosechas, el agua que bebemos y el agua a nuestros campos, los peces que pescamos de nuestros ríos y arroyos, está disminuyendo a un ritmo alarmante. Proyectos de desarrollo no sostenibles, tales como mono-culturales plantaciones de soja químicamente intensiva, las industrias extractivas como la minería y otros proyectos destructivos del medioambiente y las inversiones con fines de lucro están destruyendo nuestra biodiversidad, envenenando nuestra agua, nuestros ríos, arroyos, y la tierra y su capacidad para mantener la vida. Esto se agrava aún más por el cambio climático y las represas hidroeléctricas y otras formas de producción de energía que afectan a todo el ecosistema y su capacidad para proveer la vida. La soberanía alimentaria es una expresión fundamental de nuestro derecho colectivo a la libre determinación y desarrollo sustentable. La soberanía alimentaria y el derecho a la alimentación deben ser reconocido y respetados: alimentación no debe ser mercancía que se utiliza, comercializada o especula con fines de lucro. Nutre nuestras identidades, nuestras culturas e idiomas, y nuestra capacidad para sobrevivir como pueblos indígenas.

La Madre Tierra es la fuente de la vida que se requiere proteger, no como un recurso para ser explotado y mercantilizado como “capital natural”. Tenemos nuestro lugar y nuestras responsabilidades dentro del orden sagrado de la Creación. Sentimos la alegría sustentadora cuando las cosas ocurren en armonía con la Tierra y con toda la vida que crea y sostiene. Sentimos el dolor de la falta de armonía cuando somos testigos de la deshonra del orden natural de la Creación y la colonización económica y continua y la degradación de la Madre Tierra y toda la vida en ella. Hasta que los derechos de los pueblos indígenas sean observados, velados y respetados, el desarrollo sustentable y la erradicación de la pobreza no se lograrán.

La Solución

La relación inseparable entre los seres humanos y la Tierra, inherente para los pueblos indígenas debe ser respetada por el bien de las generaciones futuras y toda la humanidad. Instamos a toda la humanidad a unirse con nosotros para transformar las estructuras sociales, las instituciones y relaciones de poder que son la base de nuestra pobreza, opresión y explotación. La globalización imperialista explota todo lo que sostiene la vida y daña la tierra. Necesitamos reorientar totalmente la producción y el consumo en base de las necesidades humanas en lugar de la acumulación desenfrenada de ganancia de para unos pocos. La sociedad debe tomar control colectivo de los recursos productivos para satisfacer las necesidades de desarrollo social sostenible y evitar la sobreproducción, el sobreconsumo y la sobreexplotación de las personas y la naturaleza que son inevitables bajo prevaleciente sistema capitalista monopólico. Debemos enfocar sobre comunidades sostenibles con base en conocimientos indígena sy no desarrollo capitalista.

Exigimos que las Naciones Unidas, los gobiernos y las empresas abandonen las falsas soluciones al cambio climático, tales como las grandes represas hidroeléctricas, los organismos genéticamente modificados, incluyendo los árboles transgénicos, las plantaciones, los agrocombustibles, el “carbón limpio”, la energía nuclear, el gas natural, el fracturamiento hidráulico, la nanotecnología, la biología sintética, la bioenergía, la biomasa, el biochar, la geo-ingeniería, los mercados de carbono, el Mecanismo de Desarrollo Limpio y REDD+ que ponen en peligro el futuro y la vida tal como la conocemos. En lugar de ayudar a reducir el calentamiento global, ellos envenenan y destruyen el medio ambiente y dejan que la crisis climática aumente exponencialmente, lo que puede dejar el planeta prácticamente inhabitable. No podemos permitir que las falsas soluciones destruyan el equilibrio de la Tierra, asesinen a las estaciones, desencadenen el caos del mal tiempo, privaticen la vida y amenacen la supervivencia de la humanidad. La Economía Verde es un crimen de lesa humanidad y contra la Tierra.

Para lograr el desarrollo sostenible los Estados deben reconocer los sistemas tradicionales de manejo de recursos de los pueblos indígenas que han existido por milenios, sosteniéndonos aún durante el colonialismo. Es fundamental asegurar la participación activa de los pueblos indígenas en los procesos de toma de decisiones que les afectan y su derecho al consentimiento libre, previo e informado. Los Estados también deben proporcionar apoyo a los pueblos indígenas que sea apropiada a su sustentabilidad y prioridades libremente determinadas, sin restricciones y directrices limitantes.

Seguiremos luchando contra la construcción de represas hidroeléctricas y todas las formas de producción de energía que afectan a nuestras aguas, nuestros peces, nuestra biodiversidad y los ecosistemas que contribuyen a nuestra soberanía alimentaria. Trabajaremos para preservar nuestros territorios contra el veneno de las plantaciones de monocultivos, de las industrias extractivas y otros proyectos destructivos del medioambiente, y continuar nuestras formas de vida, preservando nuestras culturas e identidades. Trabajaremos para preservar nuestras plantas y las semillas tradicionales, y mantener el equilibrio entre nuestras necesidades y las necesidades de nuestra Madre Tierra y su capacidad de sostener la vida. Demostraremos al mundo que se puede y se debe hacer. En todos estos asuntos recopilaremos y organizaremos la solidaridad de todos los pueblos indígenas de todas partes del mundo, y todas las demás fuentes de solidaridad con los no indígenas de buena voluntad a unirse a nuestra lucha por la soberanía alimentaria y la seguridad alimentaria. Rechazamos la privatización y el control corporativo de los recursos, tales como nuestras semillas tradicionales y de los alimentos. Por último, exigimos a los estados a defender nuestros derechos al control de nuestros sistemas de gestión tradicionales y ofreciendo un apoyo concreto, tales como las tecnologías apropiadas para que podamos desarrollar nuestra soberanía alimentaria.

Rechazamos las promesas falsas del desarrollo sostenible y soluciones al cambio climático que solamente sirven al orden económico dominante. Rechazamos REDD, REDD+ y otras soluciones basadas en el mercado que tienen como enfoque nuestros bosques, para seguir violando nuestros derechos inherentes a la libre determinación y el derecho a nuestras tierras, territorios, aguas y recursos, y el derecho de la Tierra a crear y sostener la vida. No existe tal cosa como “minería sostenible”. No hay tal cosa como “petróleo ético”.

Rechazamos la aplicación de derechos de propiedad intelectual sobre los recursos genéticos y el conocimiento tradicional de los pueblos indígenas que resulta en la enajenación y mercantilización de lo Sagrado esencial para nuestras vidas y culturas. Rechazamos las formas industriales de la producción alimentaria que promueve el uso de agrotóxicos, semillas y organismos transgénicos. Por lo tanto, afirmamos nuestro derecho a poseer, controlar, proteger y heredar las semillas criollas, plantas medicinales y los conocimientos tradicionales provenientes de nuestras tierras y territorios para el beneficio de nuestras futuras generaciones.

Nuestro Compromiso con el Futuro que Queremos

Debido a la falta de implementación verdadera del desarrollo sostenible el mundo está en múltiples crisis ecológicas, económicas y climáticas; incluyendo la pérdida de biodiversidad, desertificación, el derretimiento de los glaciares, escases de alimentos, agua y energía, una recesión económica mundial que se agudiza, la inestabilidad social y la crisis de valores. En ese sentido, reconocemos que queda mucho que hacer para que los acuerdos internacionales respondan adecuadamente a los derechos y necesidades de los pueblos indígenas. Las contribuciones actuales y potenciales de nuestros pueblos deben ser reconocidas como un desarrollo sostenible y verdadero para nuestras comunidades que permita que cada uno de nosotros alcancemos el Buen Vivir.

Como pueblos, reafirmamos nuestro derecho a la libre determinación y a poseer, controlar y manejar nuestras tierras y territorios tradicionales, aguas y otros recursos. Nuestras tierras y territorios son la parte medular de nuestra existencia -somos la Tierra y la Tierra es nosotros-; tenemos una relación espiritual y material con nuestras tierras y territorios y están intrínsecamente ligados a nuestra supervivencia y a la preservación y desarrollo de nuestros sistemas de conocimientos y culturas, la conservación y uso sostenible de la biodiversidad y el manejo de ecosistemas.

Ejerceremos el derecho a determinar y establecer nuestras prioridades y estrategias de autodesarrollo y para el uso de nuestras tierras, territorios y otros recursos. Exigimos que el consentimiento libre, previo e informado sea el principio de aprobación o rechazo de cualquier plan, proyecto o actividad que afecte nuestras tierras, territorios y otros recursos. Sin el derecho al consentimiento libre, previo e informado el modelo colonialista del dominio de la Tierra y sus recursos seguirá con la misma impunidad.

Seguiremos uniéndonos como pueblos indígenas y construyendo una solidaridad y alianza fuertes entre nosotros mismos, comunidades locales y verdaderos promotores no-indígenas de nuestros temas. Esta solidaridad avanzará la campaña mundial para los derechos de los pueblos indígenas a su tierra, vida y recursos y el logro de nuestra libre determinación y liberación.

Seguiremos retando y resistiendo los modelos colonialistas y capitalistas que promueven la dominación de la naturaleza, el crecimiento económico desenfrenado, la extracción de recursos sin límite para ganancias, el consumo y la producción insostenibles y las mercancías no reglamentadas y los mercados financieros. Los seres humanos son una parte integral del mundo natural y todos los derechos humanos, incluyendo los derechos de los pueblos indígenas que deben ser respetados y velados por el desarrollo.

Invitamos a toda la sociedad civil a proteger y promover nuestros derechos y cosmovisiones y respetar la ley de la naturaleza, nuestras espiritualidades y culturas y nuestros valores de reciprocidad, armonía con la naturaleza, la solidaridad y la colectividad. El cuidar y el compartir, entre otros valores, son cruciales para crear un mundo más justo, equitativo y sostenible. En este contexto, hacemos un llamado por la inclusión de la cultura como el cuarto pilar del desarrollo sostenible.

El reconocimiento jurídico y la protección de los derechos de los pueblos indígenas a la tierra, territorios, recursos y los conocimientos tradicionales deberían ser un requisito para el desarrollo y planificación de todos y cada uno de los tipos de adaptación y mitigación del cambio climático, conservación ambiental (incluyendo la creación de “áreas protegidas”), el uso sostenible de la biodiversidad y medidas a combatir desertificación. En todos los casos, tienen que haber consentimiento libre, previo e informado.

Continuamos dando seguimiento a los compromisos asumidos en la Cumbre de la Tierra tal como se refleja en esta declaración política. Hacemos un llamado a la ONU a comenzar su implementación, y asegurar la participación plena, formal y efectiva de los pueblos indígenas en todos los procesos y actividades de la Conferencia de Rio+20 y más allá, de acuerdo con la DNUDPI y el principio del consentimiento libre, previo e informado (CLPI). Seguimos habitando y manteniendo los últimos ecosistemas sostenibles y las más altas concentraciones de biodiversidad en el mundo. Podemos contribuir de una manera significativa al desarrollo sostenible pero creemos que el marco holístico de ecosistemas para el desarrollo se debe promover. Eso incluye la integración del enfoque de derechos humanos, el enfoque de ecosistemas y enfoques culturalmente sensibles y basados en conocimientos.

Caminamos al futuro en las huelles de nuestros antepasados.

Aprobado por aclamación, Aldea de Kari-Oca, en el sagrado Kari-Oca Púku.

Rio de Janeiro, Brasil, 18 de junio de 2012

Rio+20 chega ao fim com resultado tímido e promessas adiadas (BBC)

Atualizado em  22 de junho, 2012 – 16:20 (Brasília) 19:20 GMT

Índio | Foto: Agência BrasilDuas décadas após a Eco-92, Rio+20 não produziu respostas às principais questões modernas.

No último dia da Rio+20, a Conferência das Nações Unidas sobre Desenvolvimento Sustentável, o secretário-geral da ONU, Ban Ki-moon, pediu a todos os governos que eliminem a fome do mundo. Ele disse que, em um mundo populoso, ninguém deveria passar fome.

A fase final da conferência também registrou promessas de diferentes países e empresas em temas como energias limpas.

Mesmo assim, um grupo de políticos veteranos se juntaram a organizações ambientalistas em sua avaliação de que a declaração final do encontro foi o resultado de um “fracasso de liderança”.

Na visão do vice-primeiro-ministro da Grã-Bretanha, Nick Clegg, o resultado das discussões pode ser classificado como “insípido”.

O encontro, que marcou os 20 anos após a emblemática Cúpula da Terra também realizada no Rio de Janeiro, em 1992, e 40 anos depois da primeira reunião mundial sobre o tema, em Estocolmo, tinha como objetivo estimular novas medidas rumo a uma “economia verde”.

Mas a declaração que foi concluída por negociadores de diferentes governos na terça-feira, e que ministros e chefes de Estado e governo não quiseram rediscutir, coloca a economia verde apenas como um de muitos caminhos rumo a um desenvolvimento sustentável.

Mary Robinson, ex-presidente irlandesa que também já ocupou o posto de Alta Comissária da ONU para os Direitos Humanos, disse que os termos do documento não são suficientes.

“Este é um daqueles momentos únicos em uma geração, quando o mundo precisa de visão, compromisso e, acima de tudo, liderança”, disse. “Tristemente, o documento atual é um fracasso de liderança”, afirmou, ecoando as declarações do vice-premiê britânico.

O ex-presidente Fernando Henrique Cardoso disse que a declaração não produz benefícios para a proteção ambiental nem para o desenvolvimento humano.

“Esta divisão antiga entre o meio ambiente e o desenvolvimento não é o caminho para resolver os problemas que estamos criando para nossos netos e bisnetos”, disse. “Temos que aceitar que as soluções para a pobreza e a desigualdade se encontram no desenvolvimento sustentável, e não no crescimento a qualquer custo.”

O secretário-geral da ONU esperava que o encontro adotasse medidas mais firmes para garantir que os mais pobres tivessem acesso a água, energia e alimentos. No entanto, sua emblemática iniciativa Energia Sustentável para Todos foi apenas citada no texto, ao invés de receber apoio enfático dos líderes.

Esperança

Na fase final do encontro, Ban Ki-moon desafiou os governos mundiais a fazerem mais.

“Em um mundo de muitos, ninguém, nem mesmo uma única pessoa, deveria passar fome”, disse. “Convido todos vocês a se juntarem a mim para trabalhar em um futuro sem fome”, acrecentou a uma plateia estimada em 130 chefes de Estado e governo.

“Embora o mundo produza comida suficiente para alimentar todos os habitantes do planeta, há mais pessoas passando fome hoje do que no último encontro organizado no Rio em 1992. “

Barbara Stocking, diretora-executiva da Oxfam Internacional

Atualmente acredita-se que quase 1 bilhão de pessoas – um sétimo da população mundial – vivem em fome crônica, enquanto outro bilhão não recebe nutrição adequada.

As medidas que poderiam ajudar a eliminar essa situação incluem a redução do desperdício de alimentos – quase um terço de todos os alimentos produzidos são jogados no lixo nos países ricos, e uma proporção ainda maior nos países mais pobres, por razões diferentes – além de dobrar a produtividade de pequenas propriedades.

O desafio é parcialmente baseado no programa Fome Zero, criado no Brasil pelo ex-presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.

“O anúncio de Ban Ki-moon é um raio de esperança bem-vindo em uma conferência que foi vergonhosamente marcada pela ausência de progresso”, disse Barbara Stockling, chefe da ONG internacional Oxfam.

“Apesar do fato de que o mundo produz alimentos suficientes para todos, há mais pessoas com fome hoje do que em 1992, quando o mundo se reuniu pela última vez no Rio”, acrecentou.

No entanto, até o momento, tudo o que há de concreto é um desafio. Não há dinheiro nem mudanças na maneira como a própria ONU se posiciona sobre o assunto da fome.

Em paralelo às principais negociações no Rio, empresas e governos firmaram mais de 200 compromissos de ações voluntárias em diferentes áreas.

Energia, água e alimentos estão neste pacote, embora a maioria das promessas sejam de inclusão do tema desenvolvimento sustentável em programas educacionais.

The Secret Lives of Dangerous Hackers (N.Y.Times)

‘We Are Anonymous’ by Parmy Olson

By , Published: May 31, 2012

In December 2010 the heat-seeking Internet pranksters known as Anonymous attacked PayPal, the online bill-paying business. PayPal had been a conduit for donations to WikiLeaks, the rogue whistle-blower site, until WikiLeaks released a huge cache of State Department internal messages. PayPal cut off donations to the WikiLeaks Web site. Then PayPal’s own site was shut down, as Anonymous did what it did best: exaggerate the weight of its own influence.

WE ARE ANONYMOUS – Inside the Hacker World of LulzSec, Anonymous, and the Global Cyber Insurgency, By Parmy Olson. 498 pages. Little, Brown & Company. $26.99.

But, according to “We Are Anonymous,” by Parmy Olson, the London bureau chief for Forbes magazine, it had taken a single hacker and his botnet to close PayPal. “He then signed off and went to have his breakfast,” she writes.

(The accuracy of this account is in dispute. PayPal says that its site was never fully down. But as Ms. Olson says, in “a note about lying to the press,” this is how she weighed information as a reporter: “Did supporters of Anonymous lie to me in some interviews?  Yes, though admittedly not always to start with. Over time, if I was not sure about a key point, I would seek to corroborate it with others.  Such is the case with statements presented as fact in this book.  My approach to Anons who were lying to me was simply to go along with their stories, acting as if I were impressed with what they were saying in the hope of teasing out more information that I could later confirm.  I have signposted certain anecdotes with the word “claimed” — e.g., a person “claimed” that story is true.  Not everyone in Anonymous and LulzSec lied all the time, however, and there were certain key sources who were most trustworthy than others and whose testimony I tended to more closely, chief among them being Jake Davis.”  Mr. Davis, known as Topiary, appears to be a principal source in describing how the PayPal attack unfolded.)

Valgas Moore. Parmy Olson

Even so, Anonymous made it seem like the work of its shadowy horde. “We lied a bit to the press to give it that sense of abundance,” says the figure named Topiary, one of the best sources in “We Are Anonymous,” a lively, startling book by Ms. Olson that reads as “The Social Network” for group hackers.

As in that Facebook film the technological innovations created by a few people snowball wildly beyond expectation, until they have mass effect. But the human element — the mix of glee, malevolence, randomness, megalomania and just plain mischief that helped spawn these changes — is what Ms. Olson explores best.

“Here was a network of people borne out of a culture of messing with others,” she writes, “a paranoid world whose inhabitants never asked each other personal questions and habitually lied about their real lives to protect themselves.”

The story of Anonymous and its offshoots is worth telling because of the fast and unpredictable ways they have grown. Anonymous began attracting attention after it attacked the Church of Scientology in 2008; subsequent targets have included Sony’s PlayStation network, Fox television and ultimately the C.I.A.  The Homeland Security Department expressed its own worries last year.

Ms. Olson provides a clear timeline through Anonymous’s complicated, winding history. She concentrates particularly on how it spun off the smaller, jokier group LulzSec. “If Anonymous had been the 6 o’clock news, LulzSec was ‘The Daily Show,’ ” she writes.

The breeding ground for much of this was 4chan, the “Deep Web” destination “still mostly unknown to the mainstream but beloved by millions of regular users.” The realm of 4chan called /b/ is where some of this book’s most destructive characters spent their early Internet years, soaking up so much pornography, violence and in-joke humor that they became bored enough to move on. Ms. Olson, whose evenhanded appraisals steer far clear of sensationalism, describes 4chan as “a teeming pit of depraved images and nasty jokes, yet at the same time a source of extraordinary, unhindered creativity.” It thrived on sex and gore. But it popularized the idea of matching funny captions with cute cat photos too.

“We Are Anonymous” also captures the broad spectrum of reasons that Anonymous and LulzSec attracted followers. Some, like Topiary — who turned out to be Jake Davis, an outwardly polite 19-year-old from a sheep-farming community on the remote Shetland Island called Yell, who was arrested in 2011 — were in it for random pranks and taunting laughs. This book does not shy away from the raw language its principals used, as when Topiary told one victim: “Die in a fire. You’re done.” Other participants had political motivations. The New Yorker calling himself Sabu began as a self-styled revolutionary and was instrumental in getting Anonymous to invade the Web sites of top government officials in Tunisia.

A pivotal part of this book concerns the arrest of Sabu, the unveiling of his real identity as Hector Monsegur, and the F.B.I.’s subsequent use of him as an informant. Sabu’s dealings with Julian Assange of WikiLeaks are also described. Ms. Olson notes how Sabu “suddenly seemed very keen to talk to the WikiLeaks founder once his F.B.I. handlers were watching.”

Ms. Olson regards it as inevitable that neither Anonymous nor LulzSec could reconcile the divergent goals of its participants. Bullying jokesters and politically oriented hacktivists may share sophisticated knowledge of how to manipulate the Web and social media, but each faction became an embarrassment to the other. Topiary told Ms. Olson about his own long-distance contact with Mr. Assange, whom he describes as both intrigued by the saboteurs’ potential and critical of their silly side. (After sifting through 75,000 e-mails from a digital security firm, Topiary bashfully admits, one of the things that most interested him was an e-mail from the chief executive’s wife saying, “I love when you wear your fuzzy socks with your jammies.” )

The most startling conversation in “We Are Anonymous” was arranged by the author: an in-the-flesh meeting between Topiary and a person she calls William, since he remains unidentified.

William personifies the dehumanizing effects of cybercrime, and he knows it. One of his specialties is extorting pornographic pictures and then putting them to damaging use. “We split up several boyfriends and girlfriends and appalled many people’s mothers,” he recalls, about the Facebook tricks the book describes in detail. “I’d be lying if I said there was any great reason,” he adds. “I don’t feel guilty, it makes me laugh, and it wastes a night.”

Together they confirm the worst suspicions about the power of sophisticated but untethered Internet manipulation. “You could inspire some 15-year-old, or someone with a 15-year-old’s mind-set, to hate whoever you want them to hate,” William says.

Postscript: May 31, 2012

After this article was published, PayPal contacted The Times to take issue with the statements in the book that say the hackers shut down its Web site. Jennifer Hakes, a senior manager in corporate communications, said that as a result of the attacks in December 2010, “PayPal was never down.”

RIO+20: THE FUTURE WE WANT IS CORRUPTION-FREE (transparency.org)

Posted 11 June 2012

lead image

If you had a say in the world your grandchildren grew up in, what would it be like?

Negotiators at the Rio+20 summit from 20-22 June are deliberating just that. ‘The Future We Want’ are a soon-to-be set of global resolutions, aimed at shaping a world without poverty, where we can all live, eat and work without harming our planet.

But one vital consideration is still missing from the document: corruption.

Be it through embezzlement, bribery, fraud or vested interests, corruption could derail sustainable development – the goal of Rio+20.

Climate finance – one of the biggest envelopes for sustainable development investment – is set to total US $100 billion in public money per year by 2020. Many say this is already insufficient to halt global warming and adapt to its effects. If these funds are lost to corruption we also lose our last line of defence against the extreme floods, droughts and storms that climate change brings.

So why is corruption absent from the Rio+20 debate? Ignoring it will not make it go away. Transparency International will be at the summit in Rio de Janeiro next week to try to persuade delegates to tackle corruption as part of the solution to climate change, and to help work towards a future that’s sustainable and corruption-free.

Climate finance isn’t just about the climate. It could be your grandchild’s ticket out of poverty, and food and energy insecurity – if measures are put in place now to ensure that it’s spent right.

WATCH OUR VIDEO

What does Transparency International want from Rio+20? Watch these short statements from leaders of several of our chapters involved in our Climate Governance Integrity Programme.

Case study

Khadija Begum lost her home in cyclone Aila, which barrelled through southern Bangladesh in 2009. Two years later she was selected for one of 2000 new houses, paid for by the national climate fund at a cost of US $1400 each. The result: a floor, four pillars and a roof. Khadija’s ‘home’ has no walls, no running water and no toilet.

Khadija told Transparency International Bangladesh how the builders sold some of the iron and cement they were given. They weren’t officially accountable to anyone, so their work went unmonitored. And the money they were entrusted with slipped off the radar.

WHAT ABOUT SOLUTIONS?

Limited access to information means that tracking climate finance can be difficult, if not impossible. This means that money might end up in personal bank accounts rather than where it’s really needed. We want financial flows, budgets and transactions to be made visible and easy to understand.

Accountability also poses a big problem. It is often unclear who is responsible for choosing how and where climate money is spent. Protected by anonymity, people are less likely to act responsibly. We need to know who makes decisions and why, and people should be held to account when those decisions are the wrong ones.

A frequent lack of oversight means that abuses such as bribery, market manipulation or land grabbing may pass unnoticed. Independent bodies need to be watching over climate projects to double-check that they’re in everyone’s best interests, and not just the interests of a select few.

RESOURCES

A diretriz do Rio é decepcionante, dizem grupos da sociedade civil (IPS)

Envolverde Rio + 20
21/6/2012 – 10h48

por Stephen Leahy, da IPS

Rio Civil Society final1 A diretriz do Rio é decepcionante, dizem grupos da sociedade civil

Um cartaz em uma parede no Riocentro. Grupos da sociedade civil dizem que estão “muito decepcionados” com as negociações formais na Conferência das Nações Unidas sobre Desenvolvimento Sustentável, a Rio+20. Foto: Stephen Leahy/IPS

Rio de Janeiro, Brasil (TerraViva) “Muito decepcionante” é a forma como empresas e organizações não governamentais descreveram, hoje, as negociações intergovernamentais formais na Conferência das Nações Unidas sobre Desenvolvimento Sustentável, a Rio+20.

Depois de dois anos, negociadores de mais de 190 nações concordaram com um documento de 49 páginas destinado a ser o roteiro para essa transformação. Ele será apresentado aos chefes de Estado no Rio de Janeiro, na abertura da reunião de alto nível da cúpula, no dia 20. Funcionários da ONU disseram que era altamente improvável que qualquer mudança seja feita. O documento deixa de fora o fundo de US$ 30 bilhões para financiar a transição para uma economia verde proposto pelo Grupo dos 77 (G-77), bloco de nações em desenvolvimento mais a China, e não define Objetivos de Desenvolvimento Sustentável (SDGs) tangíveis para substituir as Metas do Milênio, que expiram em 2015.

“Isso é extremamente decepcionante…. Não há visão, não há dinheiro e realmente não há compromissos aqui”, disse Lasse Gustavsson, chefe internacional da delegação para a Rio+20 do World Wildlife Fund (WWF). “A Rio +20 deveria ter sido sobre a vida, sobre o futuro dos nossos filhos, dos nossos netos. Deveria ter sido sobre florestas, rios, lagos, oceanos dos quais todos nós estamos dependendo para a nossa segurança de alimentos, água e energia”, declarou ao TerraViva.

A conferência foi um contraste gritante com a emocionante atmosfera de “vamos mudar o mundo” da primeira Cúpula da Terra em 1992, disse Robert Engleman do Worldwatch Institute, um “think tank” ambiental internacional. Enquanto o documento de forma geral re-confirma compromissos passados de uma forma muito passiva, há uma nova confirmação a respeito da importância da preservação de sementes tradicionais, e a consideração sobre fortalecer o Programa das Nações Unidas para o Meio Ambiente (Pnuma), afirmou ao TerraViva.

“Este documento é uma grande decepção, não há ambição e pouca referência aos desafios planetários que enfrentamos”, disse Kiara Worth, representando o grupo Crianças e Jovens na Rio +20. “As vozes da sociedade civil e as futuras gerações não serão ouvidas. Devemos chamar este evento de ‘Rio menos 20′ porque estamos indo para trás”, declarou ao TerraViva.

Steven Wilson do International Council for Science, uma organização não governamental que representa organismos científicos nacionais e uniões científicas internacionais, observou que “a evidência científica é clara. Nós vamos precisar de um esforço global em ciência e tecnologia para atender o maior desafio que a humanidade já enfrentou, e eu não entendo porque não há uma seção no documento sobre a ciência. Isto passa uma mensagem muito infeliz”.

Jeffery Huffines da Civicus World Alliance for Citizen Participation, organização com sede em Joahnnesburgo, na África do Sul, opinou que “nós temos um sistema econômico fundamentalmente falho e nós da sociedade civil esperávamos que os governos do mundo reconhecessem essa realidade, mas eles não fizeram isso.” Em vez disso, há 49 páginas de conceitos, sem quaisquer compromissos ou meios para avançar com estes conceitos. O papel da participação da sociedade civil tem sido limitado. “Precisamos de uma tomada de decisões mais democrática, e não menos”, enfatizou. Envolverde/IPS

* Publicado originalmente no site TerraViva.