quinta-feira, 2 de maio de 2013

Cataclismo ecológico e verdadeiro genocidio na India provocado por sementes genéticamente modificadas, denunciado pelo Principe Carlos, já em 2008.

Distressed: Prince Charles has set up charity Bhumi Vardaan Foundation to address the plight of suicide farmers

The GM genocide: Thousands of Indian farmers are committing suicide after using genetically modified crops


By ANDREW MALONE
UPDATED: 00:48 GMT, 3 November 2008
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1082559/The-GM-genocide-Thousands-Indian-farmers-committing-suicide-using-genetically-modified-crops.html#ixzz2SAo5GlvL
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter
DailyMail on Facebook

Prince Charles does not like what Monsanto is doing or causing to the lives of  farmers in India. He has expressed his contempt for the “bio-tech leaders” and “politicians” who have caused suicides among Indian farmers. His charity organization promotes “long-term benefits of sustainable agriculture” that would provide “decent returns” to the farmers.


When Prince Charles claimed thousands of Indian farmers were killing themselves after using GM crops, he was branded a scaremonger. In fact, as this chilling dispatch reveals, it's even WORSE than he feared.

The children were inconsolable. Mute with shock and fighting back tears, they huddled beside their mother as friends and neighbours prepared their father's body for cremation on a blazing bonfire built on the cracked, barren fields near their home.

As flames consumed the corpse, Ganjanan, 12, and Kalpana, 14, faced a grim future. While Shankara Mandaukar had hoped his son and daughter would have a better life under India's economic boom, they now face working as slave labour for a few pence a day. Landless and homeless, they will be the lowest of the low.

Shankara, respected farmer, loving husband and father, had taken his own life. Less than 24 hours earlier, facing the loss of his land due to debt, he drank a cupful of chemical insecticide.

Unable to pay back the equivalent of two years' earnings, he was in despair. He could see no way out.

There were still marks in the dust where he had writhed in agony. Other villagers looked on - they knew from experience that any intervention was pointless - as he lay doubled up on the ground, crying out in pain and vomiting.

Moaning, he crawled on to a bench outside his simple home 100 miles from Nagpur in central India. An hour later, he stopped making any noise. Then he stopped breathing. At 5pm on Sunday, the life of Shankara Mandaukar came to an end.

As neighbours gathered to pray outside the family home, Nirmala Mandaukar, 50, told how she rushed back from the fields to find her husband dead. 'He was a loving and caring man,' she said, weeping quietly.

'But he couldn't take any more. The mental anguish was too much. We have lost everything.'

Shankara's crop had failed - twice. Of course, famine and pestilence are part of India's ancient story.

But the death of this respected farmer has been blamed on something far more modern and sinister: genetically modified crops.

Shankara, like millions of other Indian farmers, had been promised previously unheard of harvests and income if he switched from farming with traditional seeds to planting GM seeds instead.

Beguiled by the promise of future riches, he borrowed money in order to buy the GM seeds. But when the harvests failed, he was left with spiralling debts - and no income.

So Shankara became one of an estimated 125,000 farmers to take their own life as a result of the ruthless drive to use India as a testing ground for genetically modified crops.

The crisis, branded the 'GM Genocide' by campaigners, was highlighted recently when Prince Charles claimed that the issue of GM had become a 'global moral question' - and the time had come to end its unstoppable march.

Speaking by video link to a conference in the Indian capital, Delhi, he infuriated bio-tech leaders and some politicians by condemning 'the truly appalling and tragic rate of small farmer suicides in India, stemming... from the failure of many GM crop varieties'.

Ranged against the Prince are powerful GM lobbyists and prominent politicians, who claim that genetically modified crops have transformed Indian agriculture, providing greater yields than ever before.

The rest of the world, they insist, should embrace 'the future' and follow suit.

So who is telling the truth? To find out, I travelled to the 'suicide belt' in Maharashtra state.

What I found was deeply disturbing - and has profound implications for countries, including Britain, debating whether to allow the planting of seeds manipulated by scientists to circumvent the laws of nature.

For official figures from the Indian Ministry of Agriculture do indeed confirm that in a huge humanitarian crisis, more than 1,000 farmers kill themselves here each month.

Simple, rural people, they are dying slow, agonising deaths. Most swallow insecticide - a pricey substance they were promised they would not need when they were coerced into growing expensive GM crops.

It seems that many are massively in debt to local money-lenders, having over-borrowed to purchase GM seed.

Pro-GM experts claim that it is rural poverty, alcoholism, drought and 'agrarian distress' that is the real reason for the horrific toll.

But, as I discovered during a four-day journey through the epicentre of the disaster, that is not the full story.

In one small village I visited, 18 farmers had committed suicide after being sucked into GM debts. In some cases, women have taken over farms from their dead husbands - only to kill themselves as well.

Latta Ramesh, 38, drank insecticide after her crops failed - two years after her husband disappeared when the GM debts became too much.

She left her ten-year-old son, Rashan, in the care of relatives. 'He cries when he thinks of his mother,' said the dead woman's aunt, sitting listlessly in shade near the fields.

Village after village, families told how they had fallen into debt after being persuaded to buy GM seeds instead of traditional cotton seeds.

The price difference is staggering: £10 for 100 grams of GM seed, compared with less than £10 for 1,000 times more traditional seeds.

But GM salesmen and government officials had promised farmers that these were 'magic seeds' - with better crops that would be free from parasites and insects.

Indeed, in a bid to promote the uptake of GM seeds, traditional varieties were banned from many government seed banks.

The authorities had a vested interest in promoting this new biotechnology. Desperate to escape the grinding poverty of the post-independence years, the Indian government had agreed to allow new bio-tech giants, such as the U.S. market-leader Monsanto, to sell their new seed creations.

In return for allowing western companies access to the second most populated country in the world, with more than one billion people, India was granted International Monetary Fund loans in the Eighties and Nineties, helping to launch an economic revolution.

But while cities such as Mumbai and Delhi have boomed, the farmers' lives have slid back into the dark ages.

Though areas of India planted with GM seeds have doubled in two years - up to 17 million acres - many famers have found there is a terrible price to be paid.

Far from being 'magic seeds', GM pest-proof 'breeds' of cotton have been devastated by bollworms, a voracious parasite.

Nor were the farmers told that these seeds require double the amount of water. This has proved a matter of life and death.

With rains failing for the past two years, many GM crops have simply withered and died, leaving the farmers with crippling debts and no means of paying them off.

Having taken loans from traditional money lenders at extortionate rates, hundreds of thousands of small farmers have faced losing their land as the expensive seeds fail, while those who could struggle on faced a fresh crisis.

When crops failed in the past, farmers could still save seeds and replant them the following year.

But with GM seeds they cannot do this. That's because GM seeds contain so- called 'terminator technology', meaning that they have been genetically modified so that the resulting crops do not produce viable seeds of their own.

As a result, farmers have to buy new seeds each year at the same punitive prices. For some, that means the difference between life and death.

Take the case of Suresh Bhalasa, another farmer who was cremated this week, leaving a wife and two children.

As night fell after the ceremony, and neighbours squatted outside while sacred cows were brought in from the fields, his family had no doubt that their troubles stemmed from the moment they were encouraged to buy BT Cotton, a geneticallymodified plant created by Monsanto.

'We are ruined now,' said the dead man's 38-year-old wife. 'We bought 100 grams of BT Cotton. Our crop failed twice. My husband had become depressed. He went out to his field, lay down in the cotton and swallowed insecticide.'

Villagers bundled him into a rickshaw and headed to hospital along rutted farm roads. 'He cried out that he had taken the insecticide and he was sorry,' she said, as her family and neighbours crowded into her home to pay their respects. 'He was dead by the time they got to hospital.'

Asked if the dead man was a 'drunkard' or suffered from other 'social problems', as alleged by pro-GM officials, the quiet, dignified gathering erupted in anger. 'No! No!' one of the dead man's brothers exclaimed. 'Suresh was a good man. He sent his children to school and paid his taxes.

'He was strangled by these magic seeds. They sell us the seeds, saying they will not need expensive pesticides but they do. We have to buy the same seeds from the same company every year. It is killing us. Please tell the world what is happening here.'

Monsanto has admitted that soaring debt was a 'factor in this tragedy'. But pointing out that cotton production had doubled in the past seven years, a spokesman added that there are other reasons for the recent crisis, such as 'untimely rain' or drought, and pointed out that suicides have always been part of rural Indian life.

Officials also point to surveys saying the majority of Indian farmers want GM seeds - no doubt encouraged to do so by aggressive marketing tactics.

During the course of my inquiries in Maharastra, I encountered three 'independent' surveyors scouring villages for information about suicides. They insisted that GM seeds were only 50 per cent more expensive - and then later admitted the difference was 1,000 per cent.

(A Monsanto spokesman later insisted their seed is 'only double' the price of 'official' non-GM seed - but admitted that the difference can be vast if cheaper traditional seeds are sold by 'unscrupulous' merchants, who often also sell 'fake' GM seeds which are prone to disease.)

With rumours of imminent government compensation to stem the wave of deaths, many farmers said they were desperate for any form of assistance. 'We just want to escape from our problems,' one said. 'We just want help to stop any more of us dying.'

Prince Charles is so distressed by the plight of the suicide farmers that he is setting up a charity, the Bhumi Vardaan Foundation, to help those affected and promote organic Indian crops instead of GM.

India's farmers are also starting to fight back. As well as taking GM seed distributors hostage and staging mass protests, one state government is taking legal action against Monsanto for the exorbitant costs of GM seeds.

This came too late for Shankara Mandauker, who was 80,000 rupees (about £1,000) in debt when he took his own life. 'I told him that we can survive,' his widow said, her children still by her side as darkness fell. 'I told him we could find a way out. He just said it was better to die.'

But the debt does not die with her husband: unless she can find a way of paying it off, she will not be able to afford the children's schooling. They will lose their land, joining the hordes seen begging in their thousands by the roadside throughout this vast, chaotic country.

Cruelly, it's the young who are suffering most from the 'GM Genocide' - the very generation supposed to be lifted out of a life of hardship and misery by these 'magic seeds'.

Here in the suicide belt of India, the cost of the genetically modified future is murderously high.

Prince Charles warns GM crops risk causing the biggest-ever environmental disaster.

28 organizações entregam carta aberta ao Presidente da Comissão Europeia, dizendo NÃO à nova Lei das Sementes



Controversial: Critics fear genetically modified foods can cause environmental harm and damage human health.

28 organizações entregam carta aberta ao Presidente da Comissão Europeia, dizendo NÃO à nova Lei das Sementes



Lisboa, 2 de Maio de 2013 – Por toda a Europa a indignação com a proposta para uma nova Lei das Sementes, a ser votada no próximo dia 6 de Maio entre os Comissários europeus, sobe de tom. As associações, organizações, agricultores e agricultoras, horticultores e horticultoras e pequenos criadores que trabalham para preservar as sementes tradicionais, pedem uma revisão drástica à actual proposta, de forma a salvaguardar a agro-biodiversidade, os direitos dos agricultores e consumidores, a segurança alimentar local e a herança bio-cultural associada às sementes de propagação livre. Em Portugal, 28 organizações representantes da sociedade civil entregam hoje uma carta aberta ao Presidente da Comissão Europeia, José Manuel Durão Barroso.
O novo regulamento europeu vem agravar o clima restritivo e burocrático que rege a comercialização de sementes de cultivo. A obrigação de registar toda e qualquer variedade de semente que possa trocar de mãos, mesmo a título gratuito, trará custos e processos administrativos impeditivos para os agricultores que usam sementes próprias (a maioria), horticultores, associações de preservação de sementes tradicionais e pequenas empresas de produção de sementes.
As variedades tradicionais de plantas, inerentemente diversas e por isso dificilmente ajustáveis às exigências de homogeneidade e estabilidade aplicadas às sementes industriais, serão remetidas para um nicho de "variedades antigas", onde apenas as variedades que já se encontram no mercado quando a Lei entra em vigor, podem ser incluídas. Todas as variedades que não sejam registadas ou para as quais não se possa provar que circulavam no mercado, e todas as variedades que possam resultar de nova selecção e/ou adaptação, ficarão ilegalizadas.
Todas as sementes terão de obedecer aos mesmos critérios desenhados para as sementes industriais, com algumas derrogações que são de longe as suficientes para garantir a continuada oferta de sementes tradicionais e locais.
Segundo o parecer da Advogada-Geral Kokott, do Tribunal Europeu de Justiça, a legislação actual em vigor para a comercialização de sementes já viola os princípios da proporcionalidade, da liberdade de negócio, da livre movimentação de bens e o princípio do tratamento igual. A nova proposta de Lei dá no entanto mais um passo atrás, introduzindo novas limitações para as sementes de propagação livre e as sementes livres de direitos de propriedade intelectual.
A proposta de lei que vai estar na mesa dos Comissários no dia 6 de Maio constitui uma proibição "de facto" das sementes dos agricultores e das sementes da diversidade e deve ser considerado um ataque à segurança alimentar local, aos direitos dos agricultores e pequenos criadores e à nossa herança bio-cultural comum. A maioria das dezenas de milhares de variedades locais de plantas de cultivo, seleccionadas e adaptadas por agricultores e agricultoras durante milénios, será efectivamente banida.
As organizações portuguesas que entregam hoje uma carta aberta ao Presidente da Comissão Europeia, entre elas as ONG do ambiente como Campo Aberto, GAIA, GEOTA e Quercus, e a representante dos pequenos agricultores, a CNA, mostram-se extremamente preocupadas com o rumo da legislação europeia em matéria de sementes e exigem que as sementes de propagação livre e as sementes livres de direitos de propriedade intelectual sejam excluídas da nova Lei das Sementes.

Campanha pelas Sementes Livres

semear o futuro, colher a diversidade

Campo Aberto
GAIA
MPI
Plataforma Transgénicos Fora
Quercus

O ruído autárquico e o Cais do Sodré.



O ruído autárquico e o Cais do Sodré

Por Luís Neto Galvão, Ana Andrade e Isabel Sá da Bandeira
02/05/2013 in Público

O período pré-eleitoral iniciou-se em Lisboa, por impossibilidade de comparência do adversário, com o passeio triunfal de António Costa rumo à vitória. Lamentavelmente para os lisboetas, o debate público que se impunha neste momento sobre os problemas de Lisboa, nomeadamente o seu enorme endividamento e o modelo de desenvolvimento sustentável que o mesmo permite, encontra-se comprometido por uma inacreditável estratégia autárquica da coligação PSD/CDS-PP.
Lisboa vive problemas dramáticos, sujeita que está à condicionante terrível do seu gigantesco passivo e a severos limites ao endividamento. Neste quadro, afastada a realização de grandes obras, o grande desafio para Lisboa nos próximos anos consiste no repovoamento do seu centro histórico, sujeito a décadas de abandono, aliado à dinamização do comércio e do turismo de qualidade e à promoção da reabilitação urbana, actividades com assinalável potencial de criação de emprego.
Para o efeito, será importante contar com um executivo responsável e actuante. Inacreditavelmente, porém, o actual executivo, apesar da intervenção na área da Almirante Reis, que é de saudar, levou a cabo uma política hostil ao repovoamento sustentável do centro histórico, que definha entre a incúria e o abandono.
A este título, é paradigmática a actuação autárquica na zona do Cais do Sodré, a qual teve efeitos nefastos numa ampla área entre o Chiado e o Mercado da Ribeira, abrangendo as zonas do Corpo Santo, Arsenal e Rua Bernardino Costa e alastrando até Santos. Isto - sublinhe-se - após ter permitido por décadas a propagação do ruído nocturno por todo o Bairro Alto.
No Cais do Sodré, a gestão do espaço público, delegada por António Costa em José Sá Fernandes, foi tratada com total desprezo pelos direitos dos residentes. Com efeito, em pouco mais de um ano, a dupla A. Costa e Sá Fernandes conseguiu o feito único de transformar o Cais do Sodré, zona onde a actividade nocturna se circunscrevia a alguns estabelecimentos da Rua Nova do Carvalho/Rua de São Paulo, num foco de ruído, delinquência e insalubridade e num exemplo paradigmático de retrocesso civilizacional.
Em Setembro de 2011, na sequência de um abaixo-assinado de comerciantes da diversão nocturna da Rua Nova do Carvalho, e sem qualquer audição dos moradores, Sá Fernandes encerrou esta rua ao trânsito automóvel, tendo a mesma sido pintada de cor-de-rosa. Tal medida surgiu de "um acordo" entre aquele vereador e os comerciantes da zona, "para transformar esta rua num novo espaço pedonal que terá esplanadas" (PÚBLICO Online, 15/09/2011).
A esta medida seguiu-se um conjunto de festas nocturnas organizadas em plena rua cor-de-rosa e apoiadas pela CML, com uma alegada dimensão cultural, mas caracterizadas pelo ruído intenso e pelo patrocínio de marcas de álcool. Os residentes, esses passaram a ter, de quinta à noite até à manhã de domingo, um megaconcerto entrando-lhes pelas paredes e janelas.
O encerramento da rua cor-de-rosa deu ainda um sinal claro aos empresários da diversão nocturna (e também aos frequentadores da mesma) de que esta actividade era fomentada e promovida pela CML na zona do Cais do Sodré, na qual de imediato surgiram novos espaços como bares, restaurantes/cafés com música e lojas de conveniência, todos em horário alargado.
Estes estabelecimentos têm como factor comum a concentração ruidosa de frequentadores fora de portas, a venda de álcool para a rua e a emissão de música em volume elevado para o exterior. Outros operadores como as smart shops juntaram-se a esta realidade, transformando radicalmente a paisagem comercial daquela zona, antes constituída por pequeno comércio diurno.
Finalmente, a CML seleccionou um projecto de requalificação do histórico Mercado da Ribeira, da autoria da revista Time Out, assente, entre outros espaços, num "bar/discoteca", de modo a que "este equipamento seja visto pelos lisboetas como um sítio que tem quase sempre as portas abertas, dia e noite".
Apesar dos consideráveis recursos públicos que a CML veio entretanto a mobilizar para contrariar esta realidade, depois de inúmeras queixas de moradores, o essencial mantém-se (ruído e insalubridade), e a rua cor-de-rosa permanece encerrada a automóveis e ao serviço do divertimento nocturno.
Este é, reconheça-se, um fenómeno que ocorre noutros pontos de Lisboa e nos centros históricos de outras cidades portuguesas, pelo que assume uma dimensão nacional. Porém, nunca como no Cais do Sodré um executivo autárquico assumiu tão diligentemente os interesses do divertimento nocturno e atentou com tanta intensidade contra aqueles que deveria proteger. Note-se que à CML compete exclusivamente a defesa do interesse público, que neste caso se confunde com o direito dos moradores ao repouso e a um ambiente sem ruído nocivo.
No seu artigo 66.º, a Constituição da República Portuguesa (CRP) garante o "direito a um ambiente de vida humano, sadio e ecologicamente equilibrado e o dever de o defender" (n.º 1), fazendo recair sobre o Estado o dever de "prevenir e controlar a poluição e os seus efeitos" (n.º 2, alínea a)).
Conforme jurisprudência uniforme do Supremo Tribunal de Justiça, o direito ao repouso integra-se no direito à integridade física e a um ambiente de vida humana, sadio e ecologicamente equilibrado, e, através destes, no direito à saúde e à qualidade de vida. Em caso de colisão, o direito ao repouso é "superior ao direito de propriedade e ao direito ao exercício duma actividade comercial" (STA, Ac. de 96/01/09, Proc. n.º 87941). Acresce que a "ilicitude de um comportamento ruidoso, que prejudique o repouso, a tranquilidade e o sono de terceiros está no facto de, injustificadamente e para além dos limites do sociavelmente tolerável, lesar tais baluartes de dignidade pessoal" (STA, Ac. de 02/01/17, Proc. n.º 01B4140).
Fica assim bem claro que, em caso de conflito entre o exercício da actividade de diversão nocturna (ou de qualquer actividade comercial) e o direito ao descanso dos moradores a um meio ambiente saudável, este último prevalece em qualquer circunstância!
É a partir desta premissa que deve partir o debate sobre a requalificação e repovoamento do centro histórico e a promoção da actividade económica e do emprego nas cidades, questões absolutamente centrais na próxima campanha autárquica e que são transversais a todo o país.

Movimento Nós Lisboetas www.facebook.com/AquiMoraGente



quarta-feira, 1 de maio de 2013

‘The Future: Six Drivers of Global Change,’ by Al Gore.



While mapping the future is a risky undertaking, perhaps the only thing riskier is doing nothing.


 The Future by Al Gore – review


Al Gore's alarming new guide to what needs to change in world politics is essential reading
John Gray
The Guardian, Thursday 31 January 2013 / http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jan/31/the-future-al-gore-review

According to reliable reports, the new leadership in Beijing has been reading Alexis de Tocqueville. It's not hard to see why China's elite might look for guidance to the aristocratic French thinker. In his classic text The Ancien Regime and the Revolution (1856), de Tocqueville wrote that the danger of revolution is not greatest in the depths of poverty and despair but when conditions have been improving – especially if some are benefiting far more than others. The relevance of this for China is obvious. The implications for policy are rather less so, since de Tocqueville also warned that for a bad government, the moment of greatest danger comes when it starts to reform. In such circumstances, repression might be a more prudent course of action. This troubling ambiguity could explain why Chinese readers, struggling to decipher the intentions of their rulers, made de Tocqueville's book a national bestseller.

From a parochial British perspective, what might be most significant is the fact that China's rulers are reading de Tocqueville at all. It is difficult to imagine David Cameron devoting any time to a 19th-century thinker. Along with much of the political class, the prime minister seems resistant to the notion that history has anything to teach, and looks for guidance to writers who extol the wisdom of crowds, explain the momentous importance of tipping points or pass on the revelation that humans are social animals – the fleeting nostrums of the airport bookstore. But if our rulers will not read the classics then they must read Al Gore, who, after eight years of reading and thinking, has produced a guide for the politically perplexed that will surely endure.
Gore starts with six drivers of change, which together make the world fundamentally different from the way it was even a few decades ago: a more globalised economy, planet-wide electronic communications and developments in robotics, a new political economy in which influence and initiative is shifting from west to east, unsustainable population growth and resource depletion, advances in biological, biochemical and materials science that enable human beings to reshape the fabric of life as never before, and a radically unstable relationship between human civilisation and the earth's ecological systems, particularly its atmosphere and climate. The question is whether our thinking can keep up with the pace of these closely interconnected and mutually reinforcing changes.
Gore tells us that the astrologers of ancient Babylon used a double clock – one for measuring the timescale of human affairs and another for tracking the celestial movements they believed shaped earthly events. Today the timescales of planetary change and human events are coming together, he believes, and unless we change our intellectual habits the outcome will be disastrous. Interestingly and plausibly, one of the obstacles to new thinking he singles out is a mechanistic understanding of science. Warning against "prideful overconfidence in the completeness of one's own understanding", he writes: "Nor is the posture of fundamentalism unique to the religious. Reductionism – the belief that scientific understanding is usually best pursued by breaking down phenomena into their component parts and subparts – has sometimes led to a form of selective attention that can cause the observer to overlook emerging phenomena that arise in complex systems, and in their interaction with other complex systems." These are wise words. Among many examples that could be cited, the attempt of economists to emulate a simplified version of natural science led not only to a failure to predict the financial crisis but also an inability to recognise that such a crisis was a realistic possibility.
Applying a formidable mix of history, science and common experience, Gore has produced a luminously intelligent analysis that is packed with arresting ideas and facts. The peaking of global conventional oil production that occurred some 30 or more years ago, the risks to fresh water supplies posed by fracking, the rapid ongoing evolution of cyber-warfare, the dangers and potential benefits of biotechnology and the possibility of genetic engineering of human brains are only a few of the facts, likely developments and possibilities that the former American vice-president explores. Summarising this rich and ambitious book in any detail is impossible. You simply have no alternative to reading it.
Some themes stand out as being especially salient. Unlike those – pious bien-pensants as much as religious bigots – who fume and splutter whenever the subject of population is mentioned, Gore recognises the increase of human numbers as one of the world's largest challenges. "During the last century alone, we quadrupled the human population. By way of perspective, it took 200,000 years for our species to reach the one billion mark, yet we have added that many people in just the first thirteen years of this century." With unchecked population growth and worldwide industrialisation, humankind has embarked on "an unplanned experiment with the planet".
Despite the incessant machinations of climate deniers, there is no scientific basis for doubt as to the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Some who accept the evidence suggest that rather than attempting to halt the activities that result in global warming we should adapt to the process as it goes along; but in Gore's view, muddling through is not an option. "Our world is at stake. Not the planet itself; it would survive quite nicely without human civilisation, albeit in an altered state."
Gore believes this nemesis can be avoided as long as America can find the inner resources to renew its standing in the world. "The best chance for success in shaping a positive future and avoiding catastrophe," he writes, "is the re-establishment of a transcendent capacity for global leadership by the United States." He seems confident that the paralysing divisions of recent years can be overcome, and events do seem to be moving in that direction. Having faced down the right and avoided the fiscal cliff, Obama might prevail again over the raising of the debt ceiling. In that case, American government will be reinvigorated, although politics would still be more deeply polarised than in any other major state. But there is a larger difficulty in America's reclaiming its former pre-eminence. American decline is not a self-induced process that can be reversed by an act of national will. What has altered America's position irrevocably is globalisation – the emergence of China, India and other countries on to the world stage.
This isn't just a question of economics. Gore believes a planetary civilisation is emerging, but the idea that the spread of global markets and worldwide communications works to dissolve cultural barriers is merely an ideological assumption. One of the more striking developments of the past years has been the re-assertion by Chinese and Russian leaders of the distinct separateness of their cultures. Of course this is partly an attempt to salvage the authoritarian systems over which these leaders currently preside. But the re-assertion of differences is more than a dubious political stratagem. In Europe, toxic forms of nationalism are re-emerging alongside the push to greater integration. Far from economic liberalisation promoting universalism, the result may be a revival of old divisions.
Despite all that he writes of the forces that are altering the world, Gore seems to believe that history will continue on much the same trajectory that it has followed since the storming of the Bastille and the American founding. Here the contrast with China's leaders is striking. For them, the French revolution appears to have importance chiefly as a warning – hence their interest in the writings of de Tocqueville. Seeing history in terms of dynasties and epochs, China's rulers attach no special significance to the revolutions of the past few centuries. It is an attitude that time may well vindicate. But even these devotees of the long view will have much to learn from Gore's book, a tour de force that no government can afford to ignore.

• John Gray's The Silence of Animals is published by Penguin later this month.

Democracy, Hacked


‘The Future: Six Drivers of Global Change,’ by Al Gore



By MICHAEL LIND

Published: February 8, 2013 in The New York Times / http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/books/review/the-future-six-drivers-of-global-change-by-al-gore.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

In a little more than a decade, since he won the popular vote but lost the presidential election to George W. Bush in 2000, the former vice president and Tennessee senator Al Gore has been a best-selling author; starred in an Oscar-winning documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth” (2006); won the Nobel Peace Prize, in 2007, for his environmental activism; and made a fortune some have estimated to be bigger than Mitt Romney’s, thanks in part to the recent sale of his stake in the Current TV network to Al Jazeera. In “The Future: Six Drivers of Global Change,” Gore takes on a subject whose scale matches that of his achievements and ambition.

Gore’s “six drivers of global change” are divided among corresponding chapters primarily related to technology and the material world — “Outgrowth,” “The Reinvention of Life and Death” and “The Edge” — and those involving the transformation of politics and society by technology — “Earth Inc.,” “The Global Mind” and “Power in the Balance.” In the discussion of his first three topics, Gore presents a mostly grim picture of environmental degradation as a result of human population growth and rising consumption. So he tells us not only about global warming caused by fossil fuels, but also about topsoil depletion, fishery depletion and the depletion of critical minerals. Gore’s warnings about global warming have made him controversial in some circles, but he pre-empts accusations of overstatement by writing: “In the parable of the boy who cried wolf, warnings of danger that turned out to be false bred complacency to the point where a subsequent warning of a danger that was all too real was ignored.”
Still, the faults of “The Future” have less to do with Gore’s particular approach to his material than with the shortcomings of the genre itself; futurist polemics tend to alternate between exposition and exhortation. When the alternation is too rapid, we get passages like the following. “There are already several reckless practices that should be immediately stopped: the sale of deadly weapons to groups throughout the world; the use of antibiotics as a livestock growth stimulant; drilling for oil in the vulnerable Arctic Ocean; the dominance of stock market trading by supercomputers with algorithms optimized for high-speed, high-frequency trades that create volatility and risk of market disruptions; and utterly insane proposals for blocking sunlight from reaching the Earth as a strategy to offset the trappings of heat by ever-mounting levels of global warming pollution.”
At his best, Gore is an articulate, engaging and imaginative polymath, capable of discussing both contemporary globalization and flows of trade a millennium ago or pointing to the use of invisible ink in the Middle Ages as a precursor to modern cryptography. He shows a willingness to rethink positions and admit errors that is as rare among prophets and pundits as among politicians. In speaking, for example, about the possibility of adapting to global warming even while trying to minimize it, he writes: “For my own part, I used to argue many years ago that resources and effort put into adaptation would divert attention from the all-out push that is necessary to mitigate global warming and quickly build the political will to sharply reduce emissions of global warming pollution. I was wrong — not wrong that deniers would propose adaptation as an alternative to mitigation, but wrong in not immediately grasping the moral imperative of pursuing both policies simultaneously, in spite of the difficulty that poses.”
Of greater interest to many readers than the largely technical debates over species diversity and the side effects of fracking will be Gore’s view of the influence of technological innovation on politics. Drawing on H. G. Wells’s notion of a “world brain,” Gore proposes that a virtual “Global Mind” is being created by the Internet and other technologies, even as transnational corporations and supply chains are creating a globalized Earth Inc. While Gore’s language is often fresh and arresting — “Democracy and capitalism have both been hacked” — his treatment of globalization as an almost irresistible force, for good or evil, has been the conventional wisdom at Davos, Aspen and other gatherings of the policy-making jet set since the 1990s.
In the chapter entitled “Power in the Balance,” Gore defends the thesis that the nation-state, while still the dominant form of political organization, is losing authority and power to “multinational corporations, networked entrepreneurs and billions of individuals in the global middle class.” He acknowledges the role of what he calls “state-guided capitalism” in the economic rise of China and other East Asian countries, but maintains without much argument that “the emergence of Earth Inc. is more responsible for this phenomenon.”
While his discussion of state capitalism is perfunctory, his discussion of political nationalism, like many such arguments, is bedeviled by terminology. He writes: “From Kurdistan to Catalonia to Scotland, from Syria to Chechnya to South Sudan, from indigenous communities in the Andean nations to tribal communities in sub-Saharan Africa, many people are shifting their primary political identities away from the nation-states in which they lived for many generations.” But it’s important to distinguish between multinational states like the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia or Sudan and nation-states with clear ethnic majorities: the major geopolitical trend of our time has surely been the peaceful or violent replacement of multinational states by smaller, more homogeneous nation-states like Kazakhstan, Slovenia and South Sudan, a trend that represents a renaissance, not a withering away, of nationalism.
Gore insists that “because nation-states retain the exclusive power to negotiate policies and implement them globally, the only practical way to reclaim control of our destiny is to seek a global consensus within the community of nations to secure the implementation of policies that protect human values.” His somewhat Malthusian anxiety about the sustainability of human population and economic growth is matched by an optimism about the power of global public opinion reminiscent of Woodrow Wilson and other progressives from a century ago.
Nonetheless, even the most skeptical realist must concede Gore’s point that there have been “many examples” of an international consensus advancing human rights long before the arrival of the Internet. “The abolition movement, the anti-apartheid movement, the promotion of women’s rights, restrictions on child labor, the anti-whaling movement, the Geneva Conventions against torture, the rapid spread of anticolonialism in the 1960s, the ban on atmospheric nuclear testing and successive waves of the democracy movement — all gained momentum from the sharing of ideas and ideals among groups of committed individuals in multiple countries who pressured their governments to cooperate in the design of laws and treaties that led to broad-based change in much of the world.”
Gore concludes: “The outcome of the struggle to shape humanity’s future that is now beginning will be determined by a contest between the Global Mind and Earth Inc. In a million theaters of battle, the reform of rules and incentives in markets, political systems, institutions and societies will succeed or fail depending upon how quickly individuals and groups committed to a sustainable future gain sufficient strength, skill and resolve by connecting with one another to express and achieve their hopes and dreams for a better world.” Whether the forces of enlightened public opinion will prevail over clashing values and conflicting interests remains to be seen.

Michael Lind is a co-founder of the New America Foundation and the author of “Land of Promise: An Economic History of the United States.


The Future by Al Gore - former Vice President and winner of the Nobel Prize


The Future


By Al Gore

Almost a decade ago, someone asked me a question, "What are the drivers of global change?" I've spent a lot of time over the last eight years thinking about it, and have dedicated much of the last two years to researching, writing and refining my conclusions. The result is my new book, The Future: Six Drivers of Global Change. The book will be released on January 29th.
Over the next few weeks, I'll be introducing some of the ideas from my book on my Twitter feed. I hope you find them as interesting and informative as I do. These tweets will serve as a primer for some of the major concepts presented in the book. If you're interested in learning more, you can find details on this webpage: http://bit.ly/XFlG04
We find ourselves in a period of rapid, simultaneous and exponential change, unlike anything the world has ever seen before. Trying to make sense of our new reality is a daunting challenge. The future holds both great opportunities to be taken advantage of and profound challenges to address. More so than ever before, humanity needs to unite around the principles of sustainability and democracy. We all have an important role to play in reclaiming control of our destiny.
While mapping the future is a risky undertaking, perhaps the only thing riskier is doing nothing.

O mapa mais preocupante da Europa: o desemprego.

Zona Euro. 19 milhões de pessoas sem trabalho

O mapa mais preocupante da Europa: o desemprego.

Por Luísa Sousa / Dinheiro Vivo

O Eurostat divulgou os dados do referentes a março. Portugal é o terceiro país com mais desemprego. A Áustria tem a taxa mais baixa com 4,7%