Arquivo da tag: Políticas públicas

Rio+20, somente semear para o futuro (IPS)

Envolverde Rio + 20
29/5/2012 – 09h52

por Stephen Leahy, da IPS

12 Rio+20, somente semear para o futuroUxbridge, Canadá, 29/5/2012 – A Conferência das Nações Unidas sobre Desenvolvimento Sustentável (Rio+20) servirá apenas de terreno onde se tentará cultivar as ideias e os valores que a humanidade necessita para o Século 21. Contudo, ninguém espera, ou mesmo deseja, um grande tratado internacional sobre desenvolvimento sustentável, lamentou Manish Bapna, presidente interino da organização ambientalista internacional World Resources Institute, com sede em Washington.

“O importante acontecerá de forma paralela às negociações formais”, disse Bapna à IPS. Porém, “pode haver alguns esperançosos compromissos específicos” dos países na Rio+20, acrescentou. Talvez, seu resultado mais importante seja acabar com o errôneo conceito de que proteger o meio ambiente vai contra o crescimento econômico, quando, na realidade, ocorre o contrário, destacou Bapna. Sem um meio ambiente saudável e funcionando a humanidade perde os benefícios de “produtos gratuitos”: ar, água, terras de cultivo e clima estável.

Para Bapna, “um dos principais obstáculos para o futuro é que funcionários de muitos países acreditam que avançar em um caminho mais sustentável implica um custo demasiadamente alto”. Ele espera que a Rio+20 gere um “novo discurso”, com maior compreensão de que uma economia baixa em carbono e eficiente em termos de recursos pode também aliviar a pobreza e gerar empregos.

Espera-se que ao menos 50 mil pessoas participem de centenas de atividades na Rio+20, entre elas mais de 130 líderes mundiais, incluindo o presidente da Rússia, Vladimir Putin, e os primeiros-ministros Manmohan Singh, da Índia, e Wen Jiaboa, da China. O presidente dos Estados Unidos, Barack Obama, não confirmou sua presença no encontro, que acontece 20 anos depois da Cúpula da Terra.

Aquela reunião, também no Rio de Janeiro, deu à luz três importantes tratados sobre meio ambiente, mudança climática, biodiversidade, degradação de terras e desertificação. Porém, em quase todas essas categorias a situação piorou desde 1992. Apenas poucos países, como a Alemanha, entendem a necessidade ambiental e econômica de optar por um caminho mais sustentável, afirmou Bapna. “Esse país realiza o esforço individual mais importante do mundo para combater a mudança climática e reduzir o carbono em sua economia”, ressaltou.

A Alemanha está comprometida em duplicar sua produtividade energética e de recursos até 2020, o que gerará novos empregos e fortalecerá sua competitividade em um mundo com cada vez menos e mais caros recursos. Aproximadamente 22% da energia da Alemanha procede de fontes renováveis, e sua meta é alcançar 35% até 2020, e 80% até 2050. Para isto, realiza grandes esforços na melhoria da eficiência energética

O consumo de água potável, petróleo e cobre caminha para ser triplicado até 2050, segundo informe da Organização das Nações Unidas (ONU) de 2001. O problema é que não restam recursos suficientes no planeta para sustentar este ritmo. A Rio+20 precisa atrair as pessoas com uma nova “história” sobre o imperativo de viver de forma sustentável, com exemplos de como podem ser criados novos mercados e empregos verdes, apontou Bapna.

Enquanto isso, as negociações oficiais da Rio+20 vão tão mal que foram acrescentadas mais sessões. As delegações negociam o chamado “rascunho zero”, onde se procura estabelecer um mapa do caminho para o crescimento sustentável e no qual esteja previsto o estabelecimento de uma série de metas. Porém, como todos os acordos da ONU, cada palavra necessita de uma aprovação unânime de todas as nações, o que é extremamente difícil.

“Reconhecemos que não podemos continuar queimando e consumindo nossa forma de prosperidade. Entretanto, não adotamos a solução óbvia. A única solução possível, hoje como há 20 anos, é o desenvolvimento sustentável”, disse em uma declaração o secretário-geral da ONU, Ban Ki-moon. Também admitiu que as negociações seguem “dolorosamente lentas”, e interveio pessoalmente para acrescentar outra semana de conversações, exortando os países a olharem além de seus interesses nacionais. Segundo Ban Ki-moon, o Rio de Janeiro “oferece uma oportunidade geracional para acionar o botão de reinício, para fixar um novo curso rumo ao futuro que equilibre as dimensões econômica, social e ambiental da prosperidade e do bem-estar humanos”.

Faltando menos de 30 dias para o encontro de alto nível, ainda não “há uma definição acordada do que é economia verde”, alertou Craig Hanson, diretor do Programa de População e Ecossistemas do Instituto de Recursos Mundiais. Há um crescente consenso sobre a necessidade de um crescimento e um desenvolvimento verdes, mas a população em geral não sabe exatamente o que isto significa.

A Alemanha oferece um exemplo com seus esforços de energia limpa, que criaram 370 mil empregos, indicou Hanson à IPS. Outro exemplo é o êxito de Níger em reverter a desertificação na zona do Sahel, acrescentou. As negociações sobre como obter economias mais verdes são uma batalha, pois muitos países colocam seus interesses nacionais acima dos interesses do planeta e das futuras gerações, observou.

Reduzir gradualmente os milhões de dólares que os governos investem em subsídios anuais para combustíveis fósseis seria um caminho ideal, mas não está claro se as nações estão dispostas a isso, opinou Bapna. “Repetirão suas antigas promessas ou assumirão firmes compromissos no Rio? Simplesmente não sabemos”, afirmou. O mundo mudou desde 1992. As coisas são muito menos previsíveis. Não há uma visão ecológica única para todos os países. “O que sabemos é que esta é uma década crítica. O mundo necessita de compromissos no curto prazo para atuar”, concluiu.

Envolverde/IPS

Rio+20 é a conferência de todos (IPS)

Envolverde Rio + 20
01/6/2012 – 10h00

por Sha Zukang*

Slide1 Rio+20 é a conferência de todosNações Unidas, 1/6/2012 – A Conferência das Nações Unidas sobre Desenvolvimento Sustentável (Rio+20), que acontecerá de 20 a 22 de junho no Rio de Janeiro, é uma oportunidade única em uma geração. Mais de 135 chefes de Estado e de governo, e mais de 50 mil participantes no total, incluindo executivos de empresas e representantes da sociedade civil, estarão presentes. O secretário-geral da Organização das Nações Unidas, Ban Ki-moon, definiu o encontro como “uma das mais importantes conferências da história” da ONU.

Não nos equivoquemos, o mundo está observando. Com a interdependência sem precedentes que vivemos hoje, o desenvolvimento sustentável é a única via para enfrentar os desafios econômicos, sociais e ambientais que afetam milhões de pessoas e ameaçam nosso planeta compartilhado.

Os progressos no desenvolvimento sustentável se traduzem em alimentos na mesa de milhões de pessoas que hoje sofrem fome, bem como em oportunidades de trabalho decente, em acesso a água potável e na capacidade de respirar ar puro e caminhar por uma mata cheia de vida. Além disso, o desenvolvimento sustentável assegura que cada mulher tenha iguais oportunidades e que cada menino e menina tenha a possibilidade de ir à escola, de ter acesso a saneamento básico, crescer em um ambiente socialmente inclusivo e aspirar um futuro promissor.

Talvez, muitos de nós sejamos suficientemente afortunados para darmos como assentadas estas bases do desenvolvimento sustentável. Contudo, devemos fazê-lo?

Nosso sobrecarregado planeta enfrenta um grande número de desafios: as repercussões da recessão econômica global, a insegurança energética, a escassez de água, os altos preços dos alimentos, as vulnerabilidades diante da mudança climática e a frequência e severidade dos desastres naturais, entre outros.

A natureza destes desafios nos recorda uma verdade importante: somos um, e estamos interligados de infinitas maneiras. Estes desafios não afetam apenas um país ou uma região. São de natureza global e têm impacto sobre todos. No mundo de hoje, o que acontece em uma parte do planeta pode facilmente repercutir em outra. Não podemos continuar com a mesma atitude, vivendo do tempo emprestado, e consumindo recursos como se existissem cinco planetas.

A Rio+20 não é “apenas outra conferência da ONU”. Por que o fórum mundial a está convocando? Não se trata de adotar normas e regulações à custa da qualidade de vida, mas de estimular e facilitar mais sábias opções para indivíduos, comunidades locais, negócios e governos.

Combinadas, nossas opções determinam a saúde de nossas economias, de nosso planeta e de nossa sociedade. O Rio de Janeiro é uma importante oportunidade para assegurar que os líderes globais respeitem seus compromissos para um mundo sustentável, tanto econômica quanto social e ambientalmente, e para que escolham políticas a favor do povo e do planeta.

Uma ideia que ganha cada vez mais apoio são as Metas de Desenvolvimento Sustentável (MDS), que complementariam os Objetivos de Desenvolvimento do Milênio. As MDS, aplicáveis e mensuráveis, dariam uma concreta expressão ao renovado compromisso político pelo desenvolvimento sustentável. No Rio de Janeiro espero ver ações para avançar em direção a uma economia verde no contexto do desenvolvimento sustentável e da erradicação da pobreza.

Na verdade, vários temas reclamam ação urgente: empregos decentes, especialmente para os quase 80 milhões de jovens que entram anualmente no mercado de trabalho; sistemas de proteção social; inclusão social; acesso a energia; eficiência e sustentabilidade. Além disso, segurança alimentar e agricultura sustentável, gestão racional da água, cidades sustentáveis, proteção e administração de oceanos e melhor resistência e preparação diante de desastres naturais.

Os governos também terão que decidir com qual marco institucional se pode avançar melhor na agenda do desenvolvimento sustentável e proporcionar um espaço para que a sociedade civil e o setor privado desempenhem seu papel. Na verdade, todos os setores da sociedade podem desenvolver tecnologias que ajudem a transformar o mundo para melhor, criar empregos verdes e influenciar positivamente a sociedade por meio da responsabilidade social das corporações.

A sociedade civil pode responsabilizar os governos e assegurar que as vozes dos mais vulneráveis estejam representadas. Os cientistas podem desenvolver soluções inovadoras para os desafios da sustentabilidade, e cada um de nós também tem uma parte nas decisões que tomamos a cada dia.

A Rio+20 é a conferência de todos, assim como o planeta também é de todos. Suas metas, suas aspirações e seu resultado pertencerão a todos. Por fim, não esqueçamos que a Rio+20 também é uma conferência para as futuras gerações. Um famoso provérbio indígena norte-americano diz: “Não herdamos a Terra de nossos ancestrais, mas a tomamos emprestada de nossos filhos”.

Juntos, participando de um pensamento criativo, de iniciativas para avançar e de compromisso voluntários, podemos conseguir consenso e procurar um mundo que faça nossos descendentes se orgulharem. Trabalharemos unidos para criar o futuro que queremos. Envolverde/IPS

* Sha Zukang é secretário-geral adjunto da ONU, diretor do Departamento de Assuntos Econômicos e Sociais e secretário-geral da Rio+20.

Rio+20 será um fracasso, avalia Eduardo Viola, especialista em clima e professor da UnB (Agência Câmara de Notícias)

01/06/2012

Eco Debate

A afirmação foi feita durante audiência pública realizada pela Comissão Mista sobre Mudanças Climáticas para debater a economia verde no contexto da erradicação da pobreza e o papel da governança para o desenvolvimento sustentável.

O professor avaliou que a Conferência das Nações Unidas sobre Desenvolvimento Sustentável (Rio+20) não terá grandes avanços porque as duas das maiores superpotências – Estados Unidos e China – não estão interessadas em negociações ambientais. “Neste momento, temos três superpotências no sistema internacional: Estados Unidos, União Europeia e China. Dessas três só a União Europeia, mesmo que limitadamente, se orienta para uma economia mais verde. Estados Unidos e China são conservadores e não querem ceder soberania nacional”, explicou.

Na opinião de Eduardo Viola, a Rio+20 vem em um “momento errado da História” e não deve passar de “acordos superdifusos que vão apenas repetir coisas já ditas em conferências anteriores”. Para ele, a Rio+20 só teria condições de sucesso se houvesse profundas mudanças políticas nas três superpotências.

Conselho de Desenvolvimento Sustentável
O professor citou outras transformações necessárias no caminho da sustentabilidade. Entre elas, a criação de uma organização poderosa do meio ambiente, com a introdução de limites planetários nas diversas atividades econômicas. Viola, entretanto, não acredita que essas mudanças acontecerão em um futuro próximo.

O diretor interino do Departamento de Meio Ambiente e Temas Especiais do Ministério das Relações Exteriores, Paulino Franco de Carvalho Neto, defendeu a criação de um Conselho de Desenvolvimento Sustentável, no âmbito da Organização das Nações Unidas (ONU). “O conselho teria mais poderes e um status mais elevado do que a atual Comissão de Desenvolvimento Sustentável, que tem um caráter mais de discussão, com pouco alcance de resultados concretos que interferem nas políticas públicas”, observou.

Carvalho Neto disse que o governo brasileiro defende o reforço do Programa das Nações Unidas para o Meio Ambiente (Pnuma), estabelecendo, por exemplo, que as contribuições dos países para o programa sejam obrigatórias e não voluntárias. O diretor ressaltou ainda que “as questões ambientais não devem ser vistas isoladamente, devem englobar também as questões sociais e econômicas”.

Aspecto social
Já o professor da USP Eliezer Martins Diniz disse que o conceito de economia verde não tem grandes diferenças em relação ao de desenvolvimento econômico sustentável.

O Pnuma, lembrou, define economia verde como “a que resulta em um maior bem-estar humano e igualdade social enquanto reduz significativamente o risco ambiental e a escassez ecológica”.

Diniz, que é economista e especialista em desenvolvimento sustentável, considera o conceito redundante. “A definição de desenvolvimento sustentável já trata desses temas”. Ele explicou que a única diferença em relação aos dois conceitos é que o de desenvolvimento sustentável dá mais ênfase ao aspecto econômico e ambiental enquanto o conceito de economia verde engloba também o aspecto social.

O economista alertou ainda para a grande ênfase ao aspecto social, na frente das prioridades ambientais. “Pode ser uma ‘armadilha perigosa’, pois países em desenvolvimento podem argumentar que não cumpriram metas ambientais estabelecidas porque priorizaram a erradicação da pobreza.”

Na opinião do professor, se os países em desenvolvimento simplesmente disserem que têm como prioridade a erradicação da pobreza e que, por isso, não cumpriram nenhuma meta, não poderão ser cobrados. “É preciso haver cobrança de resultados ambientais muito claros.”

Da Redação/ RCA
Com informações da Agência Senado

Matéria da Agência Câmara de Notícias, publicada pelo EcoDebate, 01/06/2012

‘O tempo está acabando’, diz Ban Ki-moon sobre negociações da Rio+20 (EcoAgência)

Envolverde Rio + 20
31/5/2012 – 10h07

por Redação UNIC Brazil

Capa11 ‘O tempo está acabando’, diz Ban Ki moon sobre negociações da Rio+20Rodada de negociações dá aos países uma oportunidade para avançar no diálogo e finalizar o documento final da Conferência, que ocorrerá de 20 a 22 de junho no Rio de Janeiro.

O secretário-geral da ONU, Ban Ki-moon, ressaltou hoje (29) a importância deste momento para o sucesso dos objetivos da Rio+20. Seu discurso foi feito durante o início da terceira e última rodada de negociações informais entre os representantes de governos e os ‘Major Groups’ para definir o documento final da Conferência das Nações Unidas sobre Desenvolvimento Sustentável. O encontro de líderes globais está ocorrendo em Nova York de terça-feira (29/5) a sábado (2/6). “O tempo está acabando”, disse Ban Ki-moon aos participantes da rodada informal. “Vocês ainda têm muito trabalho a fazer – talvez trabalho demais – mas vocês devem perseverar. Os riscos são muito, muito altos, para o povo e para o planeta, para a paz e a prosperidade.”

Esta rodada de negociações, que foi acrescentada no início do mês, dá aos países uma oportunidade para avançar no diálogo e finalizar o documento final da Conferência, que ocorrerá de 20 a 22 de junho no Rio de Janeiro. O evento reunirá mais de 130 Chefes de Estado e de Governo, juntamente com milhares de parlamentares, prefeitos, funcionários da ONU, diretores executivos e líderes da sociedade civil.
As negociações serão baseadas em um texto que foi encurtado e simplificado pelos copresidentes do processo de deliberação, o Embaixador John Ashe de Antígua e Barbuda e o Embaixador Kim Sook da República da Coreia.

“Quando nos encontrarmos no Rio, os Chefes de Estado e de Governo devem ter diante de si um documento final conciso que atenda às suas expectativas”, disse Ban. Ele encorajou os delegados a serem ousados e trabalharem de forma construtiva com o documento simplificado ao longo dos próximos dias.

A questão-chave nas negociações tem sido o desenvolvimento dos chamados Objetivos de Desenvolvimento Sustentável – um conjunto de parâmetros de referência que orientem os países na obtenção de resultados específicos dentro de um período de tempo específico, como no acesso universal a energia sustentável e água limpa para todos, tendo como base os já conhecidos Objetivos de Desenvolvimento do Milênio (ODM), após o prazo final de 2015.

“Um processo que defina os Objetivos de Desenvolvimento Sustentável pode ser um dos resultados mais importantes da Rio+20”, disse Ban. “Eles podem fornecer marcos concretos no caminho de realização da nossa visão, e podem ajudar a garantir a integração das três dimensões do desenvolvimento sustentável: social, econômica e ambiental.” Após a última rodada de negociações informais do documento final, as conversas serão retomadas durante a Terceira Reunião do Comitê Preparatório, que acontecerá no Rio de Janeiro, de 13 e 15 de junho.

Confira o discurso de Ban Ki-moon na íntegra: http://www.un.org/sg/statements/index.asp?nid=6087

Acesse o vídeo da participação do Secretário-Geral: http://bit.ly/MWAWVy

 * Publicado originalmente no site da EcoAgência.

Faculdade de Direito recomenda cotas na USP (OESP)

01 de junho de 2012 | 10h 00

AE – Agência Estado

A Faculdade de Direito do Largo São Francisco, a unidade mais tradicional da Universidade de São Paulo (USP), aprovou ontem, por “aclamação” (unanimidade), recomendação para que a USP adote cotas raciais. A declaração, que deve seguir para o Conselho Universitário, pode ser o primeiro passo para que a instituição comece a discutir esse tipo de ação afirmativa.

A recomendação foi votada na Congregação da faculdade, que reúne professores e alunos. A reunião teve a participação de representantes do movimento negro, que defenderam as cotas. “Esse é um passo muito importante porque reconhece que o debate sobre cotas está amadurecido e que os programas da USP não alteram a desigualdade entre brancos e negros”, afirma Clyton Borges, do movimento Uneafro Brasil. A Uneafro faz parte da Frente Pró-Cotas, que reúne 70 organizações do movimento negro e fomentou a discussão.

A USP não adota sistema de cotas ou mesmo bonificação para negros no vestibular. A universidade mantém apenas um programa de inclusão para estudantes da rede pública e o considera satisfatório. Mesmo após o Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) decidir pela legalidade das cotas, fortalecendo o debate do tema, a USP não cogitou discutir o tema.

Para o professor de Direito Marcus Orione, é simbólico que a primeira declaração oficial pelas cotas na USP tenha saído do Largo São Francisco. “A decisão nos faz resgatar a história da faculdade em defesa da democracia. Temos uma unidade onde não há negros.” As informações são do jornal O Estado de S.Paulo.

Latin America and the Caribbean: Inclusive Green Growth Can Help Sustain Recent Economic and Social Gains (World Bank)

 

Press Release No:2012/492/LAC
  • Ahead of Rio+20, World Bank report underlines region’s innovative successes and urges to transform them into widespread practices.
  • Latin America’s vast natural resources at risk if inclusive green growth policies are not sustained.
  • Challenges include: 80% of region’s population live in cities; LAC has fastest motorization rate.

WASHINGTON, May 31, 2012 – Latin America and the Caribbean’s natural resources, vastly credited with current growth, could be significantly depleted in less than a generation (15 to 20 years) if the region does not fully embrace inclusive green policies that can guarantee sustainable growth, says a new World Bank report released at the Woodrow Wilson Center today, ahead of the Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development.

In many respects, Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) could turn out to be a victim of its own economic success. The region’s bonanza of recent years (an average of 4 percent growth and more than 70 million people lifted from poverty) has led to explosive urbanization, which makes a green future more difficult. For instance, the region has the most people living in urban areas in the developing world–over 80 percent of its population–and holds the world’s fastest growing motorization rates at 4.5 percent per year, the study argues.

Examples of how LAC is embracing the inclusive green growth agenda

A Compact and Efficient Urban Footprint:  Densification subsidies to attract people to the city center and revitalize stagnant urban economies are now being utilized in many cities  such as Mexico City, Lima, and Rio de Janeiro.

Expansion of Basic Urban Services:  Between 2001 and 2008, an additional 63 million people in LAC were covered by solid waste services, increasing the coverage rate for collection from 81 to 93 percent.

Bus Rapid Transit Systems:  As the region undergoes rapid growth in automobile ownership it has also led the developing world in the implementation of alternative mass transit systems, in key cities such as  Bogota, Lima, and Mexico City.

Expansion of Low Carbon Electricity Generation:  Electricity generation more than doubled between 1990 and 2009, growing at over 4 percent per year.  The share of natural gas in the region increased from 10 percent in 1990 to 21 percent in 2009.  With oil and diesel declining in importance, power generation growth in LAC has thus had a lower carbon footprint than in other regions.

Extending successes with sustainable agriculture:  The most important pillar of a strategy to reduce the environmental footprint of the region’s agriculture has been the preservation of existing forest cover and the encouragement of reforestation with native species where feasible. Latin America has led the way in using direct payments for forest conservation, with national programs in place in several countries and Brazilian states.

 

But the region has also served as a global laboratory for some of the most innovative green practices, the report underlines.   It boasts, for example, the lowest carbon energy matrix of the developing world (6 percent of global GHG emissions in the power sector), and multiple cutting edge instruments such as the first catastrophic risk insurance facility to enhance resilience against natural disasters. It has also adopted payment schemes for preserving the environment, which have, for instance, helped turn Costa Rica into a global environmental icon and a paradise for eco-tourism, after being the worst deforester in the region back in the mid 1990s.

“LAC countries are confronted today with decisions that will define their future for years to come,” said Ede Ijjász-Vásquez, World Bank’s Sustainable Development Director for Latin America and the Caribbean“The region has the opportunity to choose a path that can lead to robust growth without locking it into unsustainable patterns that in the long run can prove to be more expensive, less efficient, and less resilient.”

Some of these choices will define the future of the region for decades to come in key areas such as infrastructure, energy and urban services, which are drivers of economic growth and define the quality of life for most of the people in the region who live in cities. For example, demand for electricity in LAC will almost double in the next two decades. While the region currently has the cleanest energy mix in the world, the electricity sector’s carbon intensity has been rising due to the increasing share of fossil fuels (including natural gas), a trend that is expected to continue. To address this, the region will have to rely more on other cleaner sources of energy—such as hydro and wind.

The sustainability of the region’s growth will also depend on its commitment to use    its unique natural assets in a sustainable way. The very advantages that the region’s natural endowment provides – rich water resources, fertile land, and unparalleled biodiversity—are under threat from the spread of inefficient land use and deforestation.  

The report also points out that the region has a real chance to become a leader in adopting a more efficient and climate-smart agricultural practices that do not come at a cost to the environment and are better prepared for new climate patterns. It will also mean moving towards more efficient and greener forms of transportation of goods, such as railways and waterways, which are currently greatly underused, as well as increasing the number of rural communities that are connected.

Ijjász-Vásquez also pointed out that green growth is not inherently inclusive. “For green policies and investments to endure over time, it will be essential that they benefit all of the region’s people, with a focus on the poor,” he added.

There is no single blue print for inclusive green growth in LAC.  However, many of the answers to the challenge of how to grow in sustainable and inclusive ways lie within the region’s own experiences.  Policies and targeted investments can boost economic growth as well as help realize the aspirations of the growing middle class for a better quality of life, create opportunities for the poorest and most vulnerable segments of society, and protect LAC’s environmental assets.

This Forest Is Our Forest (N.Y.Times)

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

By LUIS UBIÑAS – Published: May 31, 2012

Twenty years ago, the world came together in Rio de Janeiro for a historic summit meeting to tackle the environmental issues that threaten the very sustainability and preservation of our planet. Now, as world leaders and thousands of other participants prepare for the Rio+20 Conference, we are facing an even more urgent set of environmental challenges.

Samrang Pring/Reuters. Koh Kong province, in southwestern Cambodia.

The pace of global climate change has worsened, representing a fundamental threat to the planet’s health and environmental well-being. And there is little indication the world’s leaders are ready to meet the challenges of building an environmentally sustainable future.

But there is some good news to report — and it’s coming from the world’s forests, a critical front line in the effort to slow climate change and conserve biodiversity. In a largely unreported global movement, some 30 of the world’s most forested countries have adopted an innovative idea for protecting forests: granting ownership rights to communities that reside in them.

Almost 90 percent of the laws granting such rights have been passed since the first Earth Summit in 1992, demonstrating that a global consensus can produce real change. A new report from the Rights and Resources Initiative — a global coalition of organizations working for forest-use reforms — presents a growing body of evidence that in places where local communities have taken ownership of forests, the results have been overwhelmingly positive. Protected areas, owned by indigenous communities in Asia and Latin America, have lower rates of deforestation, forest fires and, above all, carbon emissions.

Since forests also provide for the livelihoods of tens, even hundreds, of millions of people, clarifying and recognizing ownership rights is helping to spur economic growth and raise living standards.

In Brazil, which is hosting the Rio+20 summit — formally the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development — deforestation rates have significantly declined, even as incomes in indigenous forest communities have increased. Brazil has moved toward this goal by giving communities the legal protections to keep out ranchers, loggers and others seeking to destroy their forests.

Yet the progress we’ve seen across the globe has been uneven, and the potential to build on it stands at risk. As chronicled in the R.R.I. report, most of the new laws that recognize customary rights circumscribe those rights and are applied at limited scale.

In Africa, nearly eight out of 10 laws that recognize the rights of indigenous peoples and communities do not allow them to exclude outsiders — a critical element of land ownership. Even where legal rights exist, complicated bureaucratic procedures often make it difficult to realize them. In Mozambique, for example, to qualify for “community concessions” local communities must provide six copies of a topographical map identifying all the detailed geographical features of the land. Not surprisingly, in 2009 — a decade after the act was passed — no concessions had been granted.

Worse still, some of the countries with rights on the books now find themselves at the center of a growing and troubling land grab by commercial investors focused on clearing forests for agriculture, with little concern for the local communities that call them home.

Recent efforts by wealthy ranchers to weaken land rights in Brazil illustrate this growing threat. In the face of rising food, mineral and energy prices, this fierce competition for land will only increase, making the need for strongly established community rights more important than ever before.

For all of these reasons, Rio+20 must build on the success of its predecessor and serve as a new impetus to expand and strengthen community rights to the world’s forests.

This means ensuring that billions of hectares of forest are turned over to local communities; it means engaging with the private sector to help clarify groups’ rights to land and forest; and it means creating new public/private partnerships, such as those that have been used to combat other global issues like H.I.V.-AIDS and malaria, to build public support for ownership rights. Above all, it means ensuring that the rights already recognized by governments are fully realized in local communities.

Taking action on these fronts will set us on a powerful course for a more sustainable and equitable future — just as it did 20 years ago. Actions that simultaneously strengthen human rights and achieve sustainable development are an unusual win-win. The fact that they also help stop deforestation and climate change makes them an even more attractive and urgent option.

At a time when the struggle against global warming seems more daunting than ever, our two decade-long experience with community forestry shows that we have within our means the ability to turn the tide.

Luis Ubiñas is president of the Ford Foundation.

Resultado mais forte da Rio+20 virá da sociedade civil, dizem cientistas (OESP)

Especialistas estimam que principal mensagem do evento será passado pela Cúpula dos Povos

21 de maio de 2012 | 3h 05
Giovana Girardi – O Estado de S.Paulo

A exatamente um mês da Rio+20, membros da sociedade civil reunidos ontem em São Paulo em debate sobre a conferência para o desenvolvimento sustentável manifestaram que, nessa altura dos acontecimentos, o melhor que se pode esperar do evento é que ele sirva para fortalecer a mobilização da sociedade.

Arquiteto Nabil Bonduki diz que cúpula vai apontar que outro mundo podemos ter - Divulgação
Divulgação
Arquiteto Nabil Bonduki diz que cúpula vai apontar que outro mundo podemos ter

“Os temas que estão colocados na Rio+20 – economia verde, governança e erradicação da pobreza – são como recomeçar o mundo. Sem dúvida são coisas que dependem de acordos entre governos, mas temos a sensação de que esses acordos vão demorar cada vez mais. Então é fundamental a sociedade se mobilizar por esses temas, pressionar”, afirmou o pesquisador da USP Pedro Roberto Jacobi, do Programa de Pós Graduação em Ciência Ambiental. Ele falou durante debate no evento Viva a Mata, que celebra o Dia Nacional da Mata Atlântica, no domingo.

Jacobi resumiu um sentimento que prevalece na academia, entre organizações não governamentais e até entre os negociadores de alto nível de certo pessimismo que a conferência não resulte em compromissos mais concretos para que o mundo se encaminhe para o tão falado desenvolvimento sustentável.

A comparação inevitável é com a Rio-92, vista como um momento que representou uma mudança de paradigma.

“A Rio+20 significa um nada, um vazio. De 92 para cá o que aconteceu foi a não implementação de tudo o que foi acordado. Só que passados 20 anos, temos hoje muito mais dados e certezas de que caminhamos para um desastre ambiental e o que acontece? Nada”, disse João Paulo Capobianco, do Instituto Democracia e Sustentabilidade.

“É uma reunião sem entendimento mínimo sobre o que se espera dela, marcada pela falta de líderes, e que não vai enfrentar nosso pior problema, que é a falta de governança, a incapacidade de implementar acordos que nós mesmos fizemos”,

Para o economista Ricardo Abramovay, também da USP, só uma forte pressão social poderia levar a conferência a alcançar pelo menos uma nova forma de medir e avaliar o crescimento econômico que seja alternativa ao Produto Interno Bruto (PIB). “Precisamos entrar no mérito do que o sistema econômico de fato está oferecendo para a sociedade para podermos julgar se essa oferta aumenta o bem-estar das pessoas ou não e se está comprometendo os serviços ofertados pela natureza ou não.”

Heart Rules the Head When We Make Financial Decisions (Science Daily)

ScienceDaily (May 21, 2012) — Our ‘gut feelings’ influence our decisions, overriding ‘rational’ thought, when we are faced with financial offers that we deem to be unfair, according to a new study. Even when we are set to benefit, our physical response can make us more likely to reject a financial proposition we consider to be unjust.

Conducted by a team from the University of Exeter, Medical Research Council Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit and University of Cambridge, the research is published in the journal Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioural Neuroscience.

The research adds to growing evidence that our bodies can sometimes govern how we think and feel, rather than the other way round. It also reveals that those people who are more in tune with their bodies are more likely to be led by their ‘gut feelings’.

The study was based on a well-known psychological test, the Ultimatum Game. 51 participants were presented with a series of financial offers, based on different ways of dividing £10. Players frequently reject unfair offers in this game even though it leads to personal financial loss — an ‘irrational’ decision from an economic perspective.

The researchers measured participants’ physical responses to each offer by recording how much they sweated through the fingertips and how much their heart rate changed. How accurately participants could ‘listen’ to their bodies was measured on a different task by asking them to count their heartbeats and comparing their accuracy to their actual heart rate recording. Those people who showed a bigger physical response to unfair offers were more likely to reject them, but this was only the case if individuals were also able to accurately ‘listen’ to what their bodies were telling them.

The findings show that individuals who have a strong ‘gut-reaction’ and are in tune with their own physical responses are more likely to reject unfair financial offers, even if this decision results in personal losses.

Lead researcher Dr Barney Dunn of Psychology at the University of Exeter said: “This research supports the idea that what happens in our bodies can sometimes shape how we think and feel in our minds. Everyday phrases like ‘following your heart’ and ‘trusting your gut’ can often, it seems, be accurate.”

“Humans are highly attuned to unfairness and we are sometimes required to weigh up the demands of maintaining justice with preserving our own economic self-interest. At a time when ideas of fairness in the financial sector — from bankers’ bonuses to changes to pension schemes — are being widely debated, it is important to recognise why some individuals rebel against perceived unfairness, whereas other people are prepared to accept the status quo.”

Educational Games to Train Middle Schoolers’ Attention, Empathy (Science Daily)

ScienceDaily (May 21, 2012) — Two years ago, at a meeting on science and education, Richard Davidson challenged video game manufacturers to develop games that emphasize kindness and compassion instead of violence and aggression.

With a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the University of Wisconsin-Madison professor is now answering his own call. With Kurt Squire, an associate professor in the School of Education and director of the Games Learning Society Initiative, Davidson received a $1.39 million grant this spring to design and rigorously test two educational games to help eighth graders develop beneficial social and emotional skills — empathy, cooperation, mental focus, and self-regulation.

“By the time they reach the eighth grade, virtually every middle-class child in the Western world is playing smartphone apps, video games, computer games,” says Davidson, the William James and Vilas Research Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at UW-Madison. “Our hope is that we can use some of that time for constructive purposes and take advantage of the natural inclination of children of that age to want to spend time with this kind of technology.”

The project grew from the intersection of Davidson’s research on the brain bases of emotion, Squire’s expertise in educational game design, and the Gates Foundation’s interest in preparing U.S. students for college readiness-possessing the skills and knowledge to go on to post-secondary education without the need for remediation.

“Skills of mindfulness and kindness are very important for college readiness,” Davidson explains. “Mindfulness, because it cultivates the capacity to regulate attention, which is the building block for all kinds of learning; and kindness, because the ability to cooperate is important for everything that has to do with success in life, team-building, leadership, and so forth.”

He adds that social, emotional, and interpersonal factors influence how students use and apply their cognitive abilities.

Building on research from the Center for Investigating Healthy Minds at UW-Madison’s Waisman Center, the initial stage of the project will focus on designing prototypes of two games. The first game will focus on improving attention and mental focus, likely through breath awareness.

“Breathing has two important characteristics. One is that it’s very boring, so if you’re able to attend to that, you can attend to most other things,” Davidson says. “The second is that we’re always breathing as long as we’re alive, and so it’s an internal cue that we can learn to come back to. This is something a child can carry with him or her all the time.”

The second game will focus on social behaviors such as kindness, compassion, and altruism. One approach may be to help students detect and interpret emotions in others by reading non-verbal cues such as facial expressions, tone of voice, and body posture.

“We’ll use insights gleaned from our neuroscience research to design the games and will look at changes in the brain during the performance of these games to see how the brain is actually affected by them,” says Davidson. “Direct feedback from monitoring the brain while students are playing the games will help us iteratively adjust the game design as this work goes forward.”

Their analyses will include neural imaging and behavioral testing before, during, and after students play the games, as well as looking at general academic performance.

The results will help the researchers determine how the games impact students and whether educational games are a useful medium for teaching these behaviors and skills, as well as evaluate whether certain groups of kids benefit more than others.

“Our hope is that we can begin to address these questions with the use of digital games in a way that can be very easily scaled and, if we are successful, to potentially reach an extraordinarily large number of youth,” says Davidson.

Healthy Marriage Interventions: A Boom or a Bust? (Science Daily)

ScienceDaily (May 22, 2012) — Conventional wisdom, backed by years of research, suggests that healthy marriages equals a healthy society. And politicians and government officials have taken note, investing hundreds of millions of dollars each year in education programs designed to promote healthy marriages, focusing specifically on poor couples and couples of color. Is it working? No, says a Binghamton University researcher in a new study published in the current issue ofAmerican Psychologist, the flagship journal of the American Psychological Association. And it’s because many of these programs were based on research data gathered from White and middle-class marriages, and when applied to poor couples or couples of color, just don’t work.

“Initially, the rationale for these programs came from policy makers and scholars, who honed in on the association between unmarried parents and poverty that is plainly obvious in the data,” said Matthew D. Johnson, associate professor of psychology at Binghamton University. “This association led George W. Bush to make the promotion of healthy marriages a central plank of his domestic policy agenda, resulting in the implementation of the Healthy Marriage Initiatives. Barack Obama endorsed these initiatives, both as presidential candidate and as president. Now that the data on the success of these programs has started to roll in, the results have been very disappointing.”

According to Johnson, the problem lies in the fact that many of these programs lack grounding in solid science and are allowed to run unchecked. He cites research from two recent multisite studies as evidence that many of the federal programs that promote healthy marriage need to be suspended — or at the very least, overhauled. One of these studies, which was focused on over 5,000 couples in eight cities, examined the benefits of interventions designed to improve the relationships of low-income, unmarried couples who were either pregnant or recently had their first child.

The results indicated that the interventions had no effect in six of the cities, small beneficial effects in one city, and small detrimental effects in another city. The results of the other outcome study focused on 5,395 low-income married couples and found that those who received the intervention experienced very small improvements in relationship satisfaction, communication, and psychological health but no significant changes in relationship dissolution or cooperative parenting. And to add to it, the interventions didn’t come cheap, costing on average around $9,100 per couple.

So why the disconnect between a seemingly good idea and disappointing program outcomes? Johnson says there are several possible explanations. The best of these programs — the ones based on scientific findings — were initially studied with middle-class couples while the federal initiatives target poor couples. And even if the research that formed the basis of these interventions does apply, relationship improvement just doesn’t seem to be a priority for poor couples.

“There is evidence that suggests poor women want to be married and understand the benefits of healthy marriages,” said Johnson. “But earning enough for basic household expenses, keeping their children safe and working with their children’s overburdened schools are much more urgent concerns, making the idea of focusing on marriage seem self-indulgent if not irrelevant to many poor parents. When faced with a myriad of social issues, building intimate relationships is just not high on their priority lists.”

Johnson explains that this doesn’t mean the federal government shouldn’t be funding intimate relationship research. Instead, the government needs to adopt a more multifaceted approach: focus on programs that will ease the stress of poor families and at the same time, fund more rigorous basic research.

“We just don’t have solid predictors for relationship satisfaction for poor couple and couple of color, let alone whether the current marriage models apply,” said Johnson. He points to the National Institutes of Health as being the perfect place to coordinate and sponsor the research, noting “It has a long history of using scientific rigor in decision-making and it would certainly help in achieving the type of results that we’re looking for from these initiatives.”

Johnson also suggests that every community-based program funded by the Health Marriage Initiative should be required to gather standardized quantitative data in order to clearly demonstrate outcomes. And if the data shows programs aren’t working, Johnson recommends that the federal government get tough and either defund or filter out those that do not demonstrate effectiveness.

“If we are going to continue these initiatives, let’s at least make certain that we are assessing the effectiveness of the programs and learning from our mistakes,” said Johnson. “Improving marriages is a worthy goal and one shared by Democrat and Republican administrations alike. The key now is to get that same bipartisan support for improving the research and programs that target poor couples. With the renewed focus on the federal budget, the timing is just right.”

Inpe e Rede Clima lançam cartilha educativa para a RIO+20 (Fapesp)

Publicação apresenta os temas que serão discutidos durante a Conferência das Nações Unidas sobre Desenvolvimento Sustentável e os cenários de mudanças climáticas projetados para o Brasil (reprodução)

23/05/2012

Agência FAPESP – O Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (Inpe) e a Rede Brasileira de Pesquisa sobre Mudanças Climáticas Globais (Rede Clima) produziram uma cartilha educativa, intitulada O futuro que queremos – economia verde, desenvolvimento sustentável e erradicação da pobreza.

Voltada ao público em geral, a publicação apresenta os conceitos de economia verde e sustentabilidade e a importância da erradicação da pobreza, que são temas que serão discutidos durante a Conferência das Nações Unidas sobre Desenvolvimento Sustentável (RIO+20), que será realizada de 13 a 22 de junho no Rio de Janeiro.

A cartilha também traz um histórico das conferências anteriores relacionadas ao meio ambiente e o conceito de “pegada ecológica” (metodologia usada para medir os rastros deixados pelos humanos no planeta a partir de seus hábitos).

A publicação apresenta ao leitor os cenários de mudanças climáticas projetadas para o Brasil para o século 21, as atividades do Centro Nacional de Monitoramento e Alertas de Desastres Naturais (Cemaden) e outros projetos e programas nessas áreas, apoiados pelo Inpe.

A cartilha está disponível para download em versão para internet em www.inpe.br/noticias/arquivos/pdf/RIO+20-web.pdf.

O arquivo digital com resolução para impressão pode ser solicitado pelo e-mail maira.morais@inpe.br.

CLIMATE CHANGE: Understanding Rio+20 (Integrated Regional Information Networks)

Photo: Jason Gutierrez/IRIN. We have to take action now to sustain life in the coming years

JOHANNESBURG, 3 April 2012 (IRIN) – A Nobel laureate, a Swedish environmentalist’s idea, the “doughnut” concept, Scandinavia’s sense of social capital, measuring the quality of life, and valuing the oceans are just some of the things trending in the run-up to the Rio+20 UN Conference on Sustainable Development due to be held on 20-22 June 2012.

Rio+20 will look at how economies have grown at the expense of natural resources and human capital since the last Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, when the concept of “sustainable development” gained currency.

The idea of growth meeting “the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” has not gained much traction since the 1992 conference – largely because countries continued to equate development with economic growth, and sustainable development languished as a fringe environmental concern, says a UN-commissioned study.

Twenty years later, “sustainable development remains a generally agreed concept, rather than a day-to-day, on-the-ground, practical reality,” says a report by the UN High-level Panel on Global Sustainability.

Since 1992, alarm bells on several interconnected factors with a far-reaching impact on growth, resources and the quality of life – accelerated man-made climate change, population growth, increasing numbers of hungry people, rapidly depleting and more expensive fossil fuels, and a decline in food production – have been ringing louder.

“Achieving sustainability requires us to transform the global economy. Tinkering on the margins will not do the job,” said the UN Panel’s report.

Optimists in the scientific and aid community hope Rio+20 will develop from an opportunity to reflect into a collective effort to plot the world’s future growth path.

IRIN aims to make the conference more relevant and accessible by examining some of the ideas circulating ahead of it.

1. Elinor Ostrom: Fast emerging as the moral and academic compass of the conference, Ostrom’s work, which won her the Nobel Prize for Economics in 2009, shows that growth combined with the sustainable use of natural resources is achievable. Ostrom looked at certain rural communities in Asia, Africa and Europe which have for centuries successfully managed in a sustainable way their common resources – grazing land, water and forests.

“When the Scandinavian countries had to set targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, they did not consider the markets… but went ahead because they value the well-being of humans and environment…”

2. Planetary Boundaries and Future Earth: The concept of Planetary Boundariesproposed in 2009 by Johan Rockstrom of the Stockholm Resilience Centre and 28 scientists, posits that there are nine critical Earth-system processes and associated thresholds that we need to respect and keep within, in order to protect against the risk of irreversible or even catastrophic environmental change on a continental or global scale.The communities developed while preventing problems such as overgrazing, misuse of forests or over-consumption of water. The fact that Ostrom took a multidisciplinary approach (rooted in economics, environment and social capital, successfully combining the three pillars of sustainable development), makes her the expert everyone wants to hear from. She was the chief scientific adviser to the recent Planet Under Pressure conference – an attempt by the scientific community to set the agenda for Rio+20.

Doing so would create a safe operating space for humanity. According to the concept’s authors, three of the nine suggested thresholds have already been crossed (climate change, biodiversity and the nitrogen cycle). The threshold for the phosphorus cycle (linked, within the concept, to the nitrogen cycle) has also been crossed, according to a scientific paper in 2011.

The status of the concept grew after being mentioned in the UN Panel report. The Boundaries concept has inspired the “nexus approach” between food, water and energy, which was also noted by the UN panel. “All three [food, water and energy] need to be fully integrated, not treated separately if we are to deal with the global food security crisis,” said the report.

Rockstrom, last week announced the launch in Rio of Future Earth, a 10-year collaborative initiative which will provide the knowledge to help societies meet their sustainable development goals. The International Council for Science, the Belmont Forum (a high-level group of donors who fund climate research), the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), the UN University, and the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) are all part of the initiative.

Tom Mitchell, head of climate change at the UK’s Overseas Development Institute (ODI), was a bit skeptical about how “10 years of science inquiry” would help. He said countries needed solutions now – embedded in governments and designed to cater for national requirements.

3. The doughnut: In February 2012, Kate Raworth, a senior researcher with Oxfam, pointed out that human growth was glaringly absent from Rockstrom’s concept. She combined social boundaries (such as access to water, health services, food, jobs, energy and education for all) within the planetary boundaries – highlighting the need for an environmentally safe space which needed to be compatible with poverty eradication and rights for all. Between the planetary ceiling and the social foundation lay an area – shaped like a doughnut – which is a “safe and just space for humanity to thrive in”, her paper said.

Raworth said well-designed policies can promote both poverty eradication and environmental sustainability. She told IRIN the objective was to be able to take care of everyone’s minimum needs, while re-defining the meaning of prosperity, which is equated with material wealth and associated with over-consumption (e.g. food, vehicles). “Governments need to look beyond taking care of people’s material needs and focus on quality of life, qualities of social relationships.”

Multilateral processes to make life on earth sustainable such as the UN talks on climate change have been moving at a snail’s pace.

The concept has picked up a lot of momentum.

“The concept of Planetary Boundaries is almost pure science,” noted Andrew Scott, researcher with ODI, while the “doughnut” concept was grounded in human reality and the need to agree on a minimum standard of living, whilst guarding against over-consumption. This calls for the need to review UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which were not very ambitious to begin with, he said. “Instead of calling for the eradication of poverty it [the MDGs] settled for the halving of poverty by 2015.”

Felix Dodds, eminent author and head of the Stakeholder Forum for a Sustainable Future, also enthused about the “doughnut proposal” in the Planet Under Pressure conference, and suggested the world should strive to turn everyone into a member of the middle-class.

4. Sustainable agriculture: After years of lobbying for an agriculture system which would respect the biosystem and at the same time increase the production of quality food to keep the numbers of malnourished down, scientists feel they are making headway. The proposed draft outcome document of the Rio+20 conference makes note of their concerns. But is that good enough – will that force a change and make sustainable agriculture a part of mainstream policy in countries?

Kenyan scientist Judi Wakhungu, a member of the Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change, says attitudes are changing on the ground: Sustainable agriculture is now being taught in universities in developing countries; donors particularly in Scandinavian countries are more willing to fund such initiatives tailored by developing country governments; and at government levels, sectors such as water, energy and agriculture have begun to talk to each other.

Christopher Barrett, who teaches economics and agriculture at Cornell University in the USA, said: “The central issue is high-level political commitment to enacting the necessary policies.” He said the “lofty rhetoric” of the L’Aquila G-8 summit, or earlier summits such as Gleneagles, have “not been matched by significant new investments or policy innovations by the world’s major economies”. Progress towards sustainable agriculture was “incremental and dwarfed by the fiscal and employment challenges faced by the OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] countries,” he added, and we should “not hold our breath for any great breakthrough” at Rio+20.

5. Social capital versus market-based approaches: Academically, social capital is a concept which places value on social relations and the role of cooperation to get collective results. The concept is making waves among development experts and the scientific community in the Rio+20 context, particularly as it forces societies to reflect on their value systems.

“It [social capital] is too technical a word,” says Oxfam’s Raworth, but essentially the concept is about valuing quality of life and interpersonal relations more than material wealth. Brazilian scientist Carlos Nobre, a member of the Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change, explained: “It is a concept followed by Scandinavian countries – where human well-being is more important than the market value of a particular resource.

“For instance when the Scandinavian countries had to set targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, they did not consider the markets and industries but went ahead because they value the well-being of humans and environment more than anything else.”

But the reality is that most countries value markets more than human and environmental well-being, say experts, so a value has to be attributed to a natural resources to make people take care of it. As UNEP head Achim Steiner says, “we have to place ecology in economics.”

“We need to create markets around natural resources such as provision of environmental services,” said ODI’s Mitchell. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change did that with trees and carbon, but the process has not got very far.

Both Raworth and Nobre said that to achieve real change, attitudes to wealth needed to be changed, but this could only happen from the bottom up. “Market-based mechanisms to control and exploit the use of our natural resources should be seen as a means to get to a state of well-being and not as the goal,” said Nobre.

Richard Norgaard, one of the founders of ecological economics, said at the Planet Under Pressure conference that instead of markets dictating and shaping our economies, “we need to ask what kind of economy we want to live in and then design incentives for the markets.”

6. Measuring wellness: Putting a value on the quantity of natural resources that had to be exploited to achieve certain outcomes could help in terms of sustainability, argued Pablo Muñoz, an economist working on the Inclusive Wealth Report (IWR) project, a joint initiative of UN Univeristy-International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Climate Change (IHDP) and UNEP, aiming to measure, among other forms of wealth, the Natural Capital of countries. The report will be released at Rio+20.

“A country can exhaust all its natural resources while posting positive GDP [Gross Domestic Product] growth,” said Muñoz. The world needs “an indicator that estimates the wealth of nations – natural, human and manufactured and ideally even the social and ecological constituents of human well-being,” he added.

Some findings of the reports were released at the Planet Under Pressure conference.

Between 1990 and 2008, the wealth of Brazil and India in terms of per capita GDP rose 34 percent and 120 percent respectively. Natural capital, the sum of a country’s assets, from forests to fossil fuels and minerals, declined by 46 percent in Brazil and 31percent in India, according the new indicator. Brazil’s “Inclusive Wealth” rose by 3 percent and India’s rose by 9 percent over that time. But do not expect countries to start using the new indicator any time soon. “It took years for countries to come round to using GDP – so it will be a few years yet,” said Muñoz.

7.Valuing the oceans: Attempts to put a value on the exploitation of natural resources are ongoing globally. A new book by the Stockholm Environment Institute calculates the impact of climate change on the economic value of the oceans. It says climate change (in the last 200 years the oceans have absorbed 25-30 percent of the global accumulated emissions of carbon dioxide) alone could reduce the economic value of the oceans by up to US$2 trillion a year by 2100.

Interview with Nobel prize winner Elinor Ostrom on climate change (Integrated Regional Information Networks)

Photo: Indiana University. Elinor Ostrom: A champion of people power

JOHANNESBURG, 25 April 2012 (IRIN) – The governance of natural resources like land, the oceans, rivers and the atmosphere, can affect the impact of some of the world’s biggest crises caused by natural events like droughts and floods. How best to manage those resources has been at the heart of the work by Nobel Prize winner (economics) Elinor Ostrom.

She has been looking at how communities across the world, from developing and rural economies like Nepal and Kenya to developed ones like the USA and Switzerland, manage their commonly shared resources such as fisheries, pasture land and water sustainably.

Ostrom’s faith in the ability of the individual and community to be able to trust each other, take the right course of action and not wait for governments to make the first move is pivotal to her thinking.

Ostrom works with the concept of “polycentrism”, which she developed with her husband Vincent Otsrom. She advocates vesting authority in individuals, communities, local governments, and local NGOs as opposed to concentrating power at global or national levels.

Ostrom recently suggested using this “polycentric approach” to address man-made climate change. She talked to IRIN by email about “polycentrism”, Rio+20, climate change, trust and the power of local action.

QYou have suggested a polycentric approach as opposed to single policies at a global level to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Could you explain how that would work? Do you think a similar approach would work to get all countries and their people to believe in, and adopt, sustainable development?

A: We have modelled the impact of individual actions on climate change incorrectly and need to change the way we think about this problem. When individuals walk a distance rather than driving it, they produce better health for themselves. At the same time that they reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that they are generating. There are benefits for the individual and small benefits for the globe. When a building owner re-does the way the building is insulated and the heating system, these actions can dramatically change the amount of greenhouse gas emissions made. This has an immediate impact on the neighbourhood of the building as well as on the globe.

When cities and counties decide to rehabilitate their energy systems so as to produce less greenhouse gas emissions, they are reducing the amount of pollution in the local region as well as greenhouse gas emissions on the globe. In other words, the key point is that there are multiple externalities involved for many actions related to greenhouse gas emissions. While in the past the literature has underplayed the importance of local effects, we need to recognize – as more and more individuals, families, communities, and states are seeing – that they will gain a benefit, as well as the globe, and that cumulatively a difference can be made at the global level if a number of small units start taking action. We have a much greater possibility of impacting global change problems if we start locally.

“the solutions that are evolved by local people have a chance of being more imaginative and better ways of solving these problems…”

Q: The earth is our common resource system – yet many countries including China and India feel they also have a right to grow, burn coal to get to where the developed world is – how do you get them out of that frame of mind without compromising the question of equity?

A: We may not be able to convince India and China of all of this. Part of my discouragement with the international negotiations is that we have gotten riveted into battles at the very big level over who caused global change in the first place and who is responsible for correcting [it]. It will take a long time to resolve some of these conflicts. Meanwhile, if we do not take action, the increase to greenhouse gas collection at a global level gets larger and larger. While we cannot solve all aspects of this problem by cumulatively taking action at local levels, we can make a difference, and we should.

Q: Do you think sustainable development did not gain much currency as it was directed at governments and a top-down approach? You think the world is about to repeat that mistake (if you would call it that?) at Rio+20? What would you do – would you ever call such a gathering of governments?

A: Yes, I do think that directing the question of climate change primarily at governments misses the point that actions that reduce greenhouse gas emissions must be taken by individuals, communities, cities, states, residents of entire nations, and the world. Yet, it is important that public officials recognize that there is a role for an international agreement and that they should be working very hard on getting an agreement that establishes international regimes that has a chance to reduce emissions across countries.

Q: You are a great believer in ordinary people’s ability to organize and use their commonly shared resources wisely, but I take it that does not work all the time? But ultimately collective action at the grassroots can force change at the top?

A: I am a believer of the capabilities of people to organize at a local level. That does not mean that they always do. There are a wide variety of collective action problems that exist at a small scale. The important thing is that people at a small scale, who know what the details of the problems are, organize, rather than calling on officials at a much larger scale.

Officials at a larger scale may have many collective-action problems of their own that they need to address. They do not have the detailed information about problems at a small scale that people who are confronting those every day do have. Thus, the solutions that are evolved by local people have a chance of being more imaginative and better ways of solving these problems than allowing them to go unsolved and eventually asking a much larger scale unit to solve it for them.

Q: This approach probably works better in a rural setting where there is a sense of community and of a shared responsibility to take care of their common resources. But how do you get that sense of ownership of the planet in an urban setting?

A: To solve these delicate problems at any scale requires individuals to trust that others are also going to contribute to their solution. Building trust is not something that can be done overnight. Thus, the crucial thing is that successful efforts at a local scale be advertised and well known throughout a developing country.

Developing associations of local communities, where very serious discussions can be held of the problems they are facing and creative ways that some communities, who have faced these problems, have adopted solutions that work. That does not mean that the solutions that work in one environment in a particular country will work in all others, but posing it as a solution that fits a local environment and that the challenge that everyone faces is to know enough about the social-ecological features of the problems they are facing that they can come up with good solutions that fit that local social-ecological system.

Q: I have been covering the recent drought in Niger – I came across people who were going to pack up and leave their village for good… Would that motivate people, countries, governments to take action to reduce emissions? But how do you make people in Europe, the US or Asia think about the people in Niger as their own?

A: There is no simple answer to this question. It is here that churches and NGOs can play a particular role in knowing about the problems being faced by villagers in Niger and other developing countries and trying to help. They can then also write stories about these problems in a way that people in Britain, Europe, and the US may understand better. It is a problem in some cases that officials in developing countries are corrupt, and direct aid to the country may only go into private bank accounts. We have to rethink how we organize governance at multiple scales so as to reduce the likelihood of some individuals having very strong powers and capability of using their public office primarily for private gain.

Q: Do you see the world moving in unison towards sustainability in the next five years? Do you think the world is prepared to take on this question and specially now when we are in a recession?

A: No, I do not see the world moving in unison. I do see some movements around the world that are very encouraging, but they are nowhere the same everywhere. We need to get out of thinking that we have to be moving the same everywhere. We need to be recognizing the complexity of the different problems being faced in a wide diversity of regions of the world. Thus, really great solutions that work in one environment do not work in others. We need to understand why, and figure out ways of helping to learn from good examples as well as bad examples of how to move ahead.

New Classroom Science Standards Up for Review (Dot Earth, N.Y.Times)

May 18, 2012, 11:46 AM

By ANDREW C. REVKIN

The first substantial update to national science teaching standards in roughly 15 years — and the first including the science of human-driven climate change — is open for public comment through this month. Here’s a short video description:

The effort has been directed by Achieve, an organization created by states and corporate backers eager to boost student performance and prospects as science and technology increasingly drive economies. The final (optional) standards will help guide states in shaping science curricula and requirements.

The foundation for the standards was laid in a National Academy of Sciences report. Other groups involved in the effort are the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Science Teachers Association and theCarnegie Corporation of New York, which has provided much of the money.

The standards were drafted by a team of 41 writers from 26 states, range from Bob Friend, a Boeing aerospace engineer, to Ramon Lopez, a physics professor at the University of Texas at Arlington to Rita Januszyk, an elementary school teacher from Willowbrook, Ill.

Click here for middle school standards on weather and climate and here for a section for high schools on managing human environmental impacts, including greenhouse-gas emissions. I like the way each such section links directly to the relevant section of the underlying National Academy of Sciences report — “A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas.”

The National Science Teachers Association has posted heaps of valuable background and context.

Juanita Constible, a wildlife ecologist who’s spent time in Antarctica, has a piece summarizing the climate context at the Web site of the Climate Reality Project. Here’s an excerpt from Constible’s post:

The Next Generation Science Standards lay out core ideas K-12 students should understand about the basics of science – from biology, to physics and chemistry, to earth science. The last national standards were released back in 1996, and manmade climate change wasn’t mentioned. However, the new standards recognize that students need to know human activities are changing our climate. They also recognize that schools are training the next generation of engineers and scientists who can help solve the problem.

In the standards for middle school, for example, one of the core ideas is that “human activities, such as the release of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels, are major factors in the current rise in Earth’s mean surface temperature (‘global warming’).” The standards for high school note that “changes in the atmosphere due to human activity have increased carbon dioxide concentrations and thus affect climate.” [Read the rest.]

Explore the standards and weigh in with your reaction, both on the Nextgenscience.org site and here.

Conflict abounds in climate education (The Daily Climate)

Teachers are loath to teach climate science because it exposes them to charges of politicizing the classroom. They have reason to be cautious.

By Lisa Palmer
For the Daily Climate

The battles over teaching climate change science in schools are diverse, myriad and, like teaching evolution, being fought mostly district by district, classroom by classroom.

No-150Unlike evolution, climate change doesn’t have a U.S. Supreme Court ruling requiring that teaching efforts be accurate.

Some recent conflicts around the nation:

  • This spring the Tennessee Legislature passed a bill, with broad, bi-partisan support, to protect teachers who do not agree with accepted climate science and want to teach alternative explanations. Gov. Bill Haslam, acknowledging the veto-proof majority in a press release, allowed the bill to become law without his signature but noted that the measure won’t change state education standards.
  • Last year the southern California town of Los Alamitos, the school board passed but then rescinded a policy identifying climate science as a controversial topic requiring special instructional oversight.
  • Earlier this year an Oklahoma House committee approved a bill permitting teachers to review “scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories” such as evolution, the origins of life, global warming and human cloning. It remains stuck in the Senate, with the Legislature adjourning this week.
  • A 2007 study found that 20 percent of Colorado’s earth science teachers disagreed that “recent global warming is caused mostly by things people do,” while nearly half agreed that “there is substantial disagreement among scientists about the cause of recent global warming.” Meanwhile in Mesa County, in western Colorado, tea party activists tried to prohibit the teaching of manmade climate change.
  • An earth science teacher in Clifton Park, N.Y., taught a global warming unit but inserted his own view that climate change is not caused by humans. A parent complained, pointing to the New York State Regents science standards, considered among the best in the nation. The teacher relented after the school’s science administrator clarified what was expected according to the standards.

Earlier this year the National Center for Science Education stepped into the climate arena, announcing it would apply techniques it honed in the evolution wars to defend and promote climate science education.

McCaffrey-150“It’s one thing to have climate in the standards and assessments, and another thing altogether to make sure the teachers are well prepared, are not teaching the debate, if they teach about climate change at all, and are using effective practices,” said Mark McCaffrey, the center’s program director. 

The Oakland-based nonprofit’s effort hit a snag in February after Peter Gleick, a prominent scientist recruited to help advise the organization’s climate education effort, disclosed that he had improperly obtained internal strategy documents from the Heartland Institute, a libertarian think tank. Gleick withdrew his nomination to the NCSE’s board a few days before his term was scheduled to begin.

But the Heartland memos show that the institute, known for undermining climate science in political and scientific arenas, is working to influence climate education in schools, too. The budget memos Gleick obtained indicated the group had raised an initial $100,000 for a “global warming curriculum” designed by a part-time consultant at the Department of Energy.

The curriculum, designed for grades 10 through 12, according to the Heartland memos, would emphasize that climate change is a “major scientific controversy” and that models underlying the science are questionable.

Lisa Palmer is a freelance reporter in Maryland. Her work has appeared in Scientific American, Nature Climate Change, Fortune, and The Yale Forum, among other outlets. DailyClimate.org is a foundation-funded news service that covers climate change.

Photos: “No” icon created by Paula Spence for the National Center for Science Education. Photo of Mark McCaffrey courtesy NCSE.

Bom da Rio+20 é a sociedade, dizem especialistas (O Estado de São Paulo)

JC e-mail 4501, de 21 de Maio de 2012.

A um mês da Rio+20, membros da sociedade civil reunidos em debate ontem (20) em São Paulo disseram que o melhor que se pode esperar da conferência para o desenvolvimento sustentável é que ela sirva para fortalecer a mobilização da sociedade.

“Os temas que estão colocados na Rio+20 – economia verde, governança e erradicação da pobreza – são como recomeçar o mundo. Sem dúvida são coisas que dependem de acordos entre governos, mas temos a sensação de que esses acordos vão demorar cada vez mais. Então é fundamental a sociedade se mobilizar por esses temas, pressionar”, afirmou o pesquisador da USP Pedro Roberto Jacobi, do Programa de Pós Graduação em Ciência Ambiental. Ele falou durante debate no evento Viva a Mata, que celebra o Dia Nacional da Mata Atlântica, no domingo (20).

Jacobi resumiu um sentimento que prevalece na academia, entre organizações não governamentais e até entre os negociadores de alto nível de certo pessimismo que a conferência não resulte em compromissos mais concretos para que o mundo se encaminhe para o tão falado desenvolvimento sustentável.

A comparação inevitável é com a Rio-92, vista como um momento que representou uma mudança de paradigma. “A Rio+20 significa um nada, um vazio. De 92 para cá o que aconteceu foi a não implementação de tudo o que foi acordado. Só que passados 20 anos, temos hoje muito mais dados e certezas de que caminhamos para um desastre ambiental e o que acontece? Nada”, disse João Paulo Capobianco, do Instituto Democracia e Sustentabilidade.

“É uma reunião sem entendimento mínimo sobre o que se espera dela, marcada pela falta de líderes, e que não vai enfrentar nosso pior problema, que é a falta de governança, a incapacidade de implementar acordos que nós mesmos fizemos”,

Para o economista Ricardo Abramovay, também da USP, só uma forte pressão social poderia levar a conferência a alcançar pelo menos uma nova forma de medir e avaliar o crescimento econômico que seja alternativa ao Produto Interno Bruto (PIB). “Precisamos entrar no mérito do que o sistema econômico de fato está oferecendo para a sociedade para podermos julgar se essa oferta aumenta o bem-estar das pessoas ou não e se está comprometendo os serviços ofertados pela natureza ou não.”

Rio+20: ONU lista 56 recomendações para um mundo sustentável (Folha de São Paulo)

JC e-mail 4501, de 21 de Maio de 2012/Folha de São Paulo – 19/5

Documento apresentado no Rio foi preparado por 22 especialistas convocados pelas Nações Unidas.

A ONU lançou, na última sexta-feira (18), no Rio, a versão em português de um relatório com 56 recomendações para que o mundo avance em direção ao desenvolvimento sustentável. O documento, elaborado por 22 especialistas ao longo de um ano e meio, traz sugestões mais ousadas do que aquelas que devem ser acordadas na Rio+20, a conferência da ONU sobre o tema que ocorre em junho na cidade.

Entre as propostas estão o fim dos subsídios aos combustíveis fósseis e a precificação do carbono, com a cobrança, por exemplo, de impostos sobre as emissões de gases do efeito estufa. Espera-se assim estimular a disseminação de tecnologias verdes. “É um relatório com frases e recomendações muito diretas”, diz o embaixador André Corrêa do Lago, negociador-chefe do Brasil para a Rio+20.

Para ele, o documento final do encontro de cúpula da ONU deverá trazer formulações “mais sóbrias”.

Outras medidas sugeridas são a criação de um fundo apoiado por governos, ONGs e empresas para garantir acesso universal à educação primária até 2015 e a inclusão dos temas consumo e desenvolvimento sustentáveis nos currículos escolares.

As recomendações são divididas em três grupos, de acordo com seus objetivos principais. O primeiro visa a capacitar as pessoas a fazerem escolhas sustentáveis; o segundo, a tornar a economia sustentável; e o terceiro, a fortalecer a governança institucional para o desenvolvimento sustentável.

“As pessoas participaram desse painel a título pessoal, ou seja, elas não estavam representando governos. Isso dá mais força [ao documento], porque o painel pode dizer certas coisas que não são consenso [entre os mais de 190 países da ONU]”, diz Corrêa do Lago.

O coordenador do relatório, porém, disse esperar que as recomendações sejam levadas em consideração pelos negociadores da Rio+20. Janos Pasztor citou o estabelecimento de metas numéricas para o desenvolvimento sustentável como uma sugestão que pode ser adotada no curto prazo. O tema está em discussão na Rio+20.

A ex-primeira-ministra da Noruega Gro Brundtland, considerada “mãe” do conceito de desenvolvimento sustentável, participou da elaboração do relatório.

O documento completo pode ser acessado pelo link http://www.onu.org.br/docs/gsp-integra.pdf.

José Goldemberg: Cotas raciais – quem ganha, quem perde? (OESP)

JC e-mail 4501, de 21 de Maio de 2012.

José Goldemberg é professor emérito da Universidade de São Paulo. Artigo publicado no jornal O Estado de São Paulo de hoje (21).

O Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) decidiu recentemente, por unanimidade, que a introdução de cotas raciais no acesso às universidades públicas federais não viola a Constituição da República, seguindo a linha adotada nos Estados Unidos há algumas décadas de introduzir “ações afirmativas” para corrigir injustiças feitas no passado. A decisão flexibiliza a ideia básica de que todos são iguais perante a lei, um dos grandes objetivos da Revolução Francesa.

Ela se origina na visão de que é preciso aceitar a “responsabilidade histórica” dos malefícios causados pela escravidão e compensar, em parte, as vítimas e seus descendentes. A mesma ideia permeia negociações entre países, entre ex-colônias e as nações industrializadas, na área comercial e até nas negociações sobre o clima.

Sucede que, de modo geral, “compensar” povos ou grupos sociais por violências, discriminações e até crimes cometidos no passado raramente ocorreu ao longo da História. Um bom exemplo é o verdadeiro “holocausto” resultante da destruição dos Impérios Inca e Asteca, na América Latina, ou até da destruição de Cartago pelos romanos, que nunca foram objeto de compensações. Se o fossem, a Espanha deveria estar compensando até hoje o que Hernán Cortez fez ao conquistar o México e destruir o Império Asteca.

É perfeitamente aceitável e desejável que grupos discriminados, excluídos ou perseguidos devam ser objeto de tratamento especial pelos setores mais privilegiados da sociedade e do próprio Estado, por meio de assistência social, educação, saúde e criação de oportunidades. Contudo, simplificar a gravidade dos problemas econômicos e sociais que afligem parte da população brasileira, sobretudo os descendentes de escravos, estabelecendo cotas raciais para acesso às universidades públicas do País, parece-nos injustificado e contraprodutivo, porque revela uma falta de compreensão completa do papel que essas instituições de ensino representam.

Universidades públicas e gratuitas atendem apenas a um terço dos estudantes que fazem curso superior no Brasil, que é uma rota importantíssima para a progressão social e o sucesso profissional. As demais universidades são pagas, o que prejudica a parte mais pobre da população estudantil. Essa é uma distorção evidente do sistema universitário do País. Mas o custo do ensino superior é tão elevado que apenas países ricos como a França, a Suécia ou a Alemanha podem oferecer ensino superior gratuito para todos. Não é o nosso caso. Essa é a razão por que existem vestibulares nas universidades públicas, onde a seleção era feita exclusivamente pelo mérito até recentemente.

A decisão recente do Supremo Tribunal Federal deixa de reconhecer o mérito como único critério para admissão em universidades públicas. E abre caminho para a adoção de outras cotas, além das raciais, talvez, no futuro.

Acontece que o sistema universitário tem sérios problemas de qualidade e desempenho, como bem o demonstra o resultado dos exames da Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil (OAB) – garantia da qualidade dos profissionais dessa área -, que reprova sistematicamente a maioria dos que se submetem a ele, o mesmo ocorrendo com os exames na área médica.

Órgãos do governo como a Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (Capes), do Ministério da Educação, ou o Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), do Ministério de Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação, têm feito esforços para melhorar o desempenho das universidades brasileiras por meio de complexos processos de avaliação, que têm ajudado, mas não se mostraram suficientes.

Esses são mecanismos externos às universidades. Na grande maioria delas, os esforços internos são precários em razão da falta de critérios e de empenho do Ministério da Educação, que escolhe os reitores, alguns dos quais, como os da Universidade de Brasília, iniciaram o processo de criação de cotas raciais como se esse fosse o principal problema das universidades e do ensino superior no Brasil.

O populismo que domina muitas dessas universidades, há décadas, é a principal razão do baixo desempenho das universidades brasileiras na classificação mundial. Somente a Universidade de São Paulo (USP) conseguiu colocar-se entre as melhores 50 nesse ranking.

O problema urgente das universidades brasileiras é, portanto, melhorar de nível, e não resolver problemas de discriminação racial ou corrigir “responsabilidades históricas”, que só poderão ser solucionadas por meio do progresso econômico e educacional básico.

O governo federal parece ter tomado consciência desse problema ao lançar o programa Ciência sem Fronteiras, que se propõe a enviar ao exterior, anualmente, milhares de estudantes universitários, imitando o que o Japão fez no século 19 ou a China no século 20 e foi a base da modernização e do rápido progresso desses países.

Daí o desapontamento com a decisão da Suprema Corte não só por ter sido unânime, mas também por não ter sido objeto de uma tomada de posição de muitos intelectuais formadores de opinião, exceto notáveis exceções, como Eunice R. Durham, Simon Schwartzman, Demétrio Magnoli e poucos outros que se manifestaram sobre a inconveniência da decisão.

O único aspecto positivo na decisão do Supremo Tribunal Federal foi o de que simplesmente aceitou a constitucionalidade das cotas raciais, cabendo aos reitores, em cada universidade, adotá-las e implementá-las.

Há aqui uma oportunidade para que os professores mais esclarecidos assumam a liderança e se esforcem para manter elevado o nível de suas universidades sem descuidar de tornar o acesso pelo mérito mais democrático, e sem a adoção de cotas raciais, como algumas universidades estaduais de São Paulo estão fazendo.

* A equipe do Jornal da Ciência esclarece que o conteúdo e opiniões expressas nos artigos assinados são de responsabilidade do autor e não refletem necessariamente a opinião do jornal.

The Beginning of the End of the Census? (N.Y.Times)

By 

Published: May 19, 2012

THE American Community Survey may be the most important government function you’ve never heard of, and it’s in trouble.

This survey of American households has been around in some form since 1850, either as a longer version of or a richer supplement to the basic decennial census. It tells Americans how poor we are, how rich we are, who is suffering, who is thriving, where people work, what kind of training people need to get jobs, what languages people speak, who uses food stamps, who has access to health care, and so on.

It is, more or less, the country’s primary check for determining how well the government is doing — and in fact what the government will be doing. The survey’s findings help determine how over $400 billion in government funds is distributed each year.

But last week, the Republican-led House voted to eliminate the survey altogether, on the grounds that the government should not be butting its nose into Americans’ homes.

“This is a program that intrudes on people’s lives, just like the Environmental Protection Agency or the bank regulators,” said Daniel Webster, a first-term Republican congressman from Florida who sponsored the relevant legislation.

“We’re spending $70 per person to fill this out. That’s just not cost effective,” he continued, “especially since in the end this is not a scientific survey. It’s a random survey.”

In fact, the randomness of the survey is precisely what makes the survey scientific, statistical experts say.

Each year the Census Bureau polls a representative, randomized sample of about three million American households about demographics, habits, languages spoken, occupation, housing and various other categories. The resulting numbers are released without identifying individuals, and offer current demographic portraits of even the country’s tiniest communities.

It is the largest (and only) data set of its kind and is used across the federal government in formulas that determine how much funding states and communities get for things like education and public health.

For example, a question on flush toilets — one that some politicians like to cite as being especially invasive — is used to help assess groundwater contamination for rural parts of the country that do not have modern waste disposal systems, according to the Census Bureau.

Law enforcement agencies have likewise used the data to predict criminal activities like methamphetamine production.

Their recent vote aside, members of Congress do seem to realize how useful these numbers are. After all, they use the data themselves.

A number of questions on the survey have been added because Congress specifically demanded their inclusion. In 2008, for example, Congress passed a lawrequiring the American Community Survey to add questions about computer and Internet use. Additionally, recent survey data are featured on the Web sites of many representatives who voted to kill the program — including Mr. Webster’s own home page.

The legislation is expected to go to the Senate this week, and all sorts of stakeholders are coming out of the woodwork.

“Knowing what’s happening in our economy is so desperately important to keeping our economy functioning smoothly,” said Maurine Haver, the chief executive and founder of Haver Analytics, a data analysis company. “The reason the Great Recession did not become another Great Depression is because of the more current economic data we have today that we didn’t have in the 1930s.”

She added that having good data about the state of the economy was one of America’s primary competitive advantages. “The Chinese are probably watching all this with glee,” she said, noting that the Chinese government has also opted not to publish economic data on occasion, generally when the news wasn’t good.

Other private companies and industry groups — including the United States Chamber of Commerce, the National Retail Federation and the National Association of Home Builders — are up in arms.

Target recently released a video explaining how it used these census data to determine where to locate new stores. Economic development organizations and otherbusiness groups say they use the numbers to figure out where potential workers are.

Mr. Webster says that businesses should instead be thanking House Republicans for reducing the government’s reach.

“What really promotes business in this country is liberty,” he said, “not demand for information.”

Mr. Webster and other critics have gone so far as to say the American Community Survey is unconstitutional. Of course, the basic decennial census is specifically enumerated in the United States Constitution, and courts have ruled that this longer form of the census survey is constitutional as well.

Some census watchers — like Andrew Reamer, a research professor at the George Washington University Institute of Public Policy — say they do not expect the Senate to agree on fully eliminating the American Community Survey (as well as the Economic Census, which would also be effectively destroyed by the House bill).

Rather, Mr. Reamer suspects, Republicans may hope that when the Senate and House bills go to a conference committee, a final compromise will keep the survey, but make participation in it voluntary. Under current law, participation is mandatory.

If the American Community Survey were made voluntary, experts say, the census would have to spend significantly more money on follow-up phone calls and in-person visits to get enough households to answer.

But Congress also plans to cut the census budget, making such follow-ups prohibitively expensive.

“If it’s voluntary, then we’ll just get bad data,” saidKenneth Prewitt, a former director of the census who is now at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs. “That means businesses will make bad decisions, and government will make bad decisions, which means we won’t even know where we actually are wasting our tax dollars.”

Catherine Rampell is an economics reporter for The New York Times.

Ellen Cantarow: “… bizarre weather that seemed to be sending a meteorological message” (Tom Dispatch)

Tomgram: Ellen Cantarow, The New Eco-Devastation in Rural America

Posted by Ellen Cantarow at 5:25pm, May 20, 2012.

When workers drilling tunnels at Gauley Bridge, West Virginia, began to die, Union Carbide had an answer.  It hadn’t been taking adequate precautions against the inhalation of silica dust, a known danger to workers since the days of ancient Greece.  Instead, in many cases, a company doctor would simply tell the families of the workers that they had died of “tunnelitis,” and a local undertaker would be paid $50 to dispose of each corpse.  A few years later, in 1935, a congressional subcommittee discovered that approximately 700 workers had perished while drilling through Hawk’s Nest Mountain, many of them buried in unmarked graves at the side of the road just outside the tunnel.  The subcommittee concluded that Union Carbide’s project had been accomplished through a “grave and inhuman disregard of all considerations for the health, lives and future of the employees.”

Despite the “Hawk’s Nest Incident” and thousands of Depression-era lawsuits against foundries, mines, and construction companies, silicosis never disappeared.  In the decades since, asTomDispatch authors David Rosner and Jerry Markowitz have repeatedly demonstrated, industry worked tirelessly to label silicosis a “disease of the past,” even while ensuring that it would continue to be a disease of the present.  By the late 1990s, the Columbia University researchers found that from New York to California, from Texas all the way back to West Virginia, millions of workers in foundries, shipyards, mines, and oil refineries, among other industries, were endangered by silica dust.

Today, there’s a new silicosis scare on the horizon and a new eco-nightmare brewing in the far corners of rural America.  Like the Hawk’s Nest disaster it has flown under the radar — until now.

Once upon a time, mining companies tore open hills or bored through or chopped off mountain tops to get at vital resources inside.  They were intent on creating quicker paths through nature’sobstacles, or (as at Gauley Bridge) diverting the flow of mighty rivers. Today, they’re doing it merely to find the raw materials — so-called frac sand — to use in an assault on land several states away.  Multinational corporations are razing ancient hills of sandstone in the Midwest and shipping that silica off to other pastoral settings around the United States.  There, America’s prehistoric patrimony is being used to devastating effect to fracture shale deposits deep within the earth — they call it “hydraulic fracturing” — and causing all manner of environmental havoc.  Not everyone, however, is keen on this “sand rush” and coalitions of small-town farmers, environmentalists, and public health advocates are now beginning to stand firm against the big energy corporations running sand-mining operations in their communities.

Ground zero in this frac-fight is the rural Wisconsin towns to which TomDispatch’s rovingenvironmental reporter Ellen Cantarow traveled this spring to get the biggest domestic environmental story that nobody knows about.  Walking the fields of family farms under siege and talking to the men and women resisting the corporations, Cantarow offers up a shocking report of vital interest.  There’s a battle raging for America’s geological past and ecological future — our fresh food and clean water supplies may hinge on who wins it. Nick Turse

How Rural America Got Fracked

The Environmental Nightmare You Know Nothing About

By Ellen Cantarow

If the world can be seen in a grain of sand, watch out.  As Wisconsinites are learning, there’s money (and misery) in sand — and if you’ve got the right kind, an oil company may soon be at your doorstep.

March in Wisconsin used to mean snow on the ground, temperatures so cold that farmers worried about their cows freezing to death. But as I traveled around rural townships and villages in early March to interview people about frac-sand mining, a little-known cousin of hydraulic fracturing or “fracking,” daytime temperatures soared to nearly 80 degrees — bizarre weather that seemed to be sending a meteorological message.

In this troubling spring, Wisconsin’s prairies and farmland fanned out to undulating hills that cradled the land and its people. Within their embrace, the rackety calls of geese echoed from ice-free ponds, bald eagles wheeled in the sky, and deer leaped in the brush. And for the first time in my life, I heard the thrilling warble of sandhill cranes.

Yet this peaceful rural landscape is swiftly becoming part of a vast assembly line in the corporate race for the last fossil fuels on the planet. The target: the sand in the land of the cranes.

Five hundred million years ago, an ocean surged here, shaping a unique wealth of hills and bluffs that, under mantles of greenery and trees, are sandstone. That sandstone contains a particularly pure form of crystalline silica.  Its grains, perfectly rounded, are strong enough to resist the extreme pressures of the technology called hydraulic fracturing, which pumps vast quantities of that sand, as well as water and chemicals, into ancient shale formations to force out methane and other forms of “natural gas.”

That sand, which props open fractures in the shale, has to come from somewhere.  Without it, the fracking industry would grind to a halt. So big multinational corporations are descending on this bucolic region to cart off its prehistoric sand, which will later be forcefully injected into the earth elsewhere across the country to produce more natural gas.  Geology that has taken millions of years to form is now being transformed into part of a system, a machine, helping to drive global climate change.

“The valleys will be filled… the mountains and hills made level”

Boom times for hydraulic fracturing began in 2008 when new horizontal-drilling methods transformed an industry formerly dependent on strictly vertical boring. Frac-sand mining took off in tandem with this development.

“It’s huge,” said a U.S. Geological Survey mineral commodity specialist in 2009. “I’ve never seen anything like it, the growth. It makes my head spin.” That year, from all U.S. sources, frac-sand producers used or sold over 6.5 million metric tons of sand — about what the Great Pyramid of Giza weighs.  Last month, Wisconsin’s Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Senior Manager and Special Projects Coordinator Tom Woletz said corporations were hauling at least 15 million metric tons a year from the state’s hills.

By July 2011, between 22 and 36 frac-sand facilities in Wisconsin were either operating or approved. Seven months later, said Woletz, there were over 60 mines and 45 processing (refinement) plants in operation. “By the time your article appears, these figures will be obsolete,” claims Pat Popple, who in 2008 founded the first group to oppose frac-sand mining, Concerned Chippewa Citizens (now part of The Save the Hills Alliance).

Jerry Lausted, a retired teacher and also a farmer, showed me the tawny ridges of sand that delineated a strip mine near the town of Menomonie where he lives. “If we were looking from the air,” he added, “you’d see ponds in the bottom of the mine where they dump the industrial waste water. If you scan to the left, you’ll see the hills that are going to disappear.”

Those hills are gigantic sponges, absorbing water, filtering it, and providing the region’s aquifer with the purest water imaginable. According to Lausted, sand mining takes its toll on “air quality, water quality and quantity. Recreational aspects of the community are damaged. Property values [are lowered.] But the big thing is, you’re removing the hills that you can’t replace.  They’re a huge water manufacturing factory that Mother Nature gave us, and they’re gone.”

It’s impossible to grasp the scope of the devastation from the road, but aerialvideos and photographs reveal vast, bleak sandy wastelands punctuated with waste ponds and industrial installations where Wisconsin hills once stood.

When corporations apply to counties for mining permits, they must file “reclamation” plans. But Larry Schneider, a retired metallurgist and industrial consultant with a specialized knowledge of mining, calls the reclamation process “an absolute farce.”

Reclamation projects by mining corporations since the 1970s may have made mined areas “look a little less than an absolute wasteland,” he observes. “But did they reintroduce the biodiversity? Did they reintroduce the beauty and the ecology? No.”

Studies bear out his verdict. “Every year,” wrote Mrinal Ghose in the Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research, “large areas are continually becoming unfertile in spite of efforts to grow vegetation on the degraded mined land.”

Awash in promises of corporate jobs and easy money, those who lease and sell their land just shrug. “The landscape is gonna change when it’s all said and done,” says dairy farmer Bobby Schindler, who in 2008 leased his land in Chippewa County to a frac-sand company called Canadian Sand and Proppant. (EOG, the former Enron, has since taken over the lease.) “Instead of being a hill it’s gonna be a valley, but all seeded down, and you’d never know there’s a mine there unless you were familiar with the area.”

Of the mining he adds, “It’s really put a boost to the area. It’s impressive the amount of money that’s exchanging hands.” Eighty-four-year-old Letha Webster, who sold her land 100 miles south of Schindler’s to another mining corporation, Unimin, says that leaving her home of 56 years is “just the price of progress.”

Jamie and Kevin Gregar — both 30-something native Wisconsinites and military veterans — lived in a trailer and saved their money so that they could settle down in a pastoral paradise once Kevin returned from Iraq. In January 2011, they found a dream home near tiny Tunnel City. (The village takes its name from a nearby rail tunnel). “It’s just gorgeous — the hills, the trees, the woodland, the animals,” says Jamie. “It’s perfect.”

Five months after they moved in, she learned that neighbors had leased their land to “a sand mine” company. “What’s a sand mine?” she asked.

Less than a year later, they know all too well.  The Gregars’ land is now surrounded on three sides by an unsightly panorama of mining preparations. Unimin is uprooting trees, gouging out topsoil, and tearing down the nearby hills. “It looks like a disaster zone, like a bomb went off,” Jamie tells me.

When I mention her service to her country, her voice breaks. “I am devastated. We’ve done everything right. We’ve done everything we were supposed to. We just wanted to raise our family in a good location and have good neighbors and to have it taken away from us for something we don’t support…” Her voice trails off in tears.

For Unimin, the village of Tunnel City in Greenfield township was a perfect target. Not only did the land contain the coveted crystalline silica; it was close to a rail spur. No need for the hundreds of diesel trucks that other corporations use to haul sand from mine sites to processing plants. No need, either, for transport from processing plants to rail junctions where hundreds of trains haul frac-sand by the millions of tons each year to fracture other once-rural landscapes. Here, instead, the entire assembly line operates in one industrial zone.

There was also no need for jumping the hurdles zoning laws sometimes erect. Like many Wisconsin towns where a culture of diehard individualism sees zoning as an assault on personal freedom, Greenfield and all its municipalities, including Tunnel City, are unzoned. This allowed the corporation to make deals with individual landowners. For the 8.5 acres where Letha Webster and her husband Gene lived for 56 years, assessed in 2010 at $147,500, Unimin paid $330,000. Overall, between late May and July 2011, it paid $5.3 million for 436 acres with a market value of about $1.1 million.

There was no time for public education about the potential negative possibilities of frac-sand mining: the destruction of the hills, the decline in property values, the danger of silicosis (once considered a strictly occupational lung disease) from blowing silica dust, contamination of ground water from the chemicals used in the processing plants, the blaze of lights all night long, noise from hundreds of train cars, houses shaken by blasting. Ron Koshoshek, a leading environmentalist who works with Wisconsin’s powerful Towns Association to educate townships about the industry, says that “frac-sand mining will virtually end all residential development in rural townships.” The result will be “a large-scale net loss of tax dollars to towns, increasing taxes for those who remain.”

Town-Busting Tactics

Frac-sand corporations count on a combination of naïveté, trust, and incomprehension in rural hamlets that previously dealt with companies no larger than Wisconsin’s local sand and gravel industries. Before 2008, town boards had never handled anything beyond road maintenance and other basic municipal issues.  Today, multinational corporations use their considerable resources to steamroll local councils and win sweetheart deals.  That’s how the residents of Tunnel City got taken to the cleaners.

On July 6, 2011, a Unimin representative ran the first public forum about frac-sand mining in the village.  Other heavily attended and often heated community meetings followed, but given the cascades of cash, the town board chairman’s failure to take a stand against the mining corporation, and Unimin’s aggressiveness, tiny Tunnel City was a David without a slingshot.

Local citizens did manage to get the corporation to agree to give the town $250,000 for the first two million tons mined annually, $50,000 more than its original offer. In exchange, the township agreed that any ordinance it might pass in the future to restrict mining wouldn’t apply to Unimin. Multiply the two million tons of frac-sand tonnage Unimin expects to mine annually starting in 2013 by the $300 a ton the industry makes and you’ll find that the township only gets .0004% of what the company will gross.

For the Gregars, it’s been a nightmare.  Unimin has refused five times to buy their land and no one else wants to live near a sand mine. What weighs most heavily on the couple is the possibility that their children will get silicosis from long-term exposure to dust from the mine sites. “We don’t want our kids to be lab rats for frac-sand mining companies,” says Jamie.

Drew Bradley, Unimin’s senior vice president of operations, waves such fears aside. “I think [citizens] are blowing it out of proportion,” he told a local publication. “There are plenty of silica mines sited close to communities. There have been no concerns exposed there.”

That’s cold comfort to the Gregars. Crystalline silica is a known carcinogen and the cause of silicosis, an irreversible, incurable disease. None of the very few rules applied to sand mining by the state’s Department of Natural Resources (DNR) limit how much silica gets into the air outside of mines. That’s the main concern of those living near the facilities.

So in November 2011, Jamie Gregar and ten other citizens sent a 35-page petitionto the DNR. The petitioners asked the agency to declare respirable crystalline silica a hazardous substance and to monitor it, using a public health protection level set by California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. The petition relies on studies, including one by the DNR itself, which acknowledge the risk of airborne silica from frac-sand mines for those who live nearby.

The DNR denied the petition, claiming among other things that — contrary to its own study’s findings — current standards are adequate. One of the petition’s signatories, Ron Koshoshek, wasn’t surprised. For 16 years he was a member of, and for nine years chaired, Wisconsin’s Public Intervenor Citizens Advisory Committee.  Created in 1967, its role was to intercede on behalf of the environment, should tensions grow between the DNR’s two roles: environmental protector and corporate licensor. “The DNR,” he says, “is now a permitting agency for development and exploitation of resources.”

In 2010, Cathy Stepp, a confirmed anti-environmentalist who had previously railedagainst the DNR, belittling it as “anti-development, anti-transportation, and pro-garter snakes,” was appointed to head the agency by now-embattled Governor Scott Walker who explained: “I wanted someone with a chamber-of-commerce mentality.”

As for Jamie Gregar, her dreams have been dashed and she’s determined to leave her home. “At this point,” she says, “I don’t think there’s a price we wouldn’t accept.”

Frac-Sand vs. Food

Brian Norberg and his family in Prairie Farm, 137 miles northwest of Tunnel City, paid the ultimate price: he died while trying to mobilize the community against Procore, a subsidiary of the multinational oil and gas corporation Sanjel. The American flag that flies in front of the Norbergs’ house flanks a placard with a large, golden NORBERG, over which pheasants fly against a blue sky.  It’s meant to represent the 1,500 acres the family has farmed for a century.

“When you start talking about industrial mining, to us, you’re violating the land,” Brian’s widow, Lisa, told me one March afternoon over lunch.  She and other members of the family, as well as a friend, had gathered to describe Prairie Farm’s battle with the frac-sanders. “The family has had a really hard time accepting the fact that what we consider a beautiful way to live could be destroyed by big industry.”

Their fight against Procore started in April 2011: Sandy, a lifelong friend and neighbor, arrived with sand samples drillers had excavated from her land, and began enthusiastically describing the benefits of frac-sand mining. “Brian listened for a few minutes,” Lisa recalls. “Then he told her [that]… she and her sand vials could get the heck — that’s a much nicer word than what he used  — off the farm.  Sandy was hoping we would also be excited about jumping on the bandwagon. Brian informed her that our land would be used for the purpose God intended, farming.”

Brian quickly enlisted family and neighbors in an organizing effort against the company. In June 2011, Procore filed a reclamation plan — the first step in the permitting process — with the county’s land and water conservation department. Brian rushed to the county office to request a public hearing, but returned dejected and depressed. “He felt completely defeated that he could not protect the community from them moving in and destroying our lives,” recalls Lisa.

He died of a heart attack less than a day later at the age of 52. The family is convinced his death was a result of the stress caused by the conflict. That stress is certainly all too real.  The frac-sand companies, says family friend Donna Goodlaxson, echoing many others I interviewed for this story, “go from community to community. And one of the things they try to do is pit people in the community against each other.”

Instead of backing off, the Norbergs and other Prairie Farm residents continued Brian’s efforts. At an August 2011 public hearing, the town’s residents directly addressed Procore’s representatives. “What people had to say there was so powerful,” Goodlaxson remembers. “Those guys were blown out of their chairs. They weren’t prepared for us.”

“I think people insinuate that we’re little farmers in a little community and everyone’s an ignorant buffoon,” added Sue Glaser, domestic partner of Brian’s brother Wayne. “They found out in a real short time there was a lot of education behind this.”

“About 80% of the neighborhood was not happy about the potential change to our area,” Lisa adds. “But very few of us knew anything about this industry at [that] time.” To that end, Wisconsin’s Farmers’ Union and its Towns Association organized a day-long conference in December 2011 to help people “deal with this new industry.”

Meanwhile, other towns, alarmed by the explosion of frac-sand mining, were beginning to pass licensing ordinances to regulate the industry. In Wisconsin, counties can challenge zoning but not licensing ordinances, which fall under town police powers.  These, according to Wisconsin law, cannot be overruled by counties or the state. Becky Glass, a Prairie Farm resident and an organizer with Labor Network for Sustainability, calls Wisconsin’s town police powers “the strongest tools towns have to fight or regulate frac-sand mining.” Consider them so many slingshots employed against the corporate Goliaths.

In April 2012, Prairie Farm’s three-man board voted 2 to 1 to pass such an ordinance to regulate any future mining effort in the town. No, such moves won’t stop frac-sand mining in Wisconsin, but they may at least mitigate its harm. Procore finally pulled out because of the resistance, says Glass, adding that the company has since returned with different personnel to try opening a mine near where she lives.

“It takes 1.2 acres per person per year to feed every person in this country,” says Lisa Norberg. “And the little township that I live in, we have 9,000 acres that are for farm use. So if we just close our eyes and bend over and let the mining companies come in, we’ll have thousands of people we can’t feed.”

Food or frac-sand: it’s a decision of vital importance across the country, but one most Americans don’t even realize is being made — largely by multinational corporations and dwindling numbers of yeoman farmers in what some in this country would call “the real America.”  Most of us know nothing about these choices, but if the mining corporations have their way, we will soon enough — when we check out prices at the supermarket or grocery store. We’ll know it too, as global climate change continues to turn Wisconsin winters balmy and supercharge wild weather across the country.

While bucolic landscapes disappear, aquifers are fouled, and countless farms across rural Wisconsin morph into industrial wastelands, Lisa’s sons continue to work the Norberg’s land, just as their father once did. So does Brian’s nephew, 32-year-old Matthew, who took me on a jolting ride across his fields. The next time I’m in town, he assured me, we’ll visit places in the hills where water feeds into springs. Yes, you can drink the water there. It’s still the purest imaginable. Under the circumstances, though, no one knows for how long.

Ellen Cantarow’s work on Israel/Palestine has been widely published for over 30 years. Her long-time concern with climate change has led her to investigate the global depredations of oil and gas corporations atTomDispatch. Many thanks to Wisconsin filmmaker Jim Tittle, whosedocumentary, “The Price of Sand,” will appear in August 2012, and who shared both his interviewees and his time for this article.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter @TomDispatch and join us on Facebook. 

Copyright 2012 Ellen Cantarow