BioTerra

John Cale - Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night

bioterra44@yahoo.com (João Soares) — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 00:08:00 +0000

Poema de Dylan Thomas, musicado por John Cale
(com tradução para os meus amigos Holandeses)

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Dylan Thomas

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Um jovem do Malawi, os moínhos de vento e o papel das redes sociais

bioterra44@yahoo.com (João Soares) — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 22:46:00 +0000

William Kamkwamba

Agora também é a vez do BioTerra de contar a história de William Kamkwamba

William Kamkwamba, do Malawi, é um inventor nato. Com 14 anos, construiu um moinho de vento a partir de sucata, com base em esquemas rudimentares que descobriu num livro da biblioteca local intitulado Using Energy, alterando-os para que satisfizessem os objectivos a que se propunha. A sua máquina ainda hoje alimenta quarto lâmpadas e dois rádios, na casa dos pais.

Após ler sobre William no blogue Hactivate (que, por sua vez, tinha tomado conhecimento da história através de um jornal local do Malawi), o director de conferências da TEDGlobal, Emeka Okafor, passou várias semanas a tentar contactar o inventor, e convidou-o para as conferências TED Talks (na íntegra, aqui). William partilhou o seu sonho de construir um moinho de vento ainda maior, que pudesse providenciar água a toda a aldeia, e manifestou o desejo de regressar à escola.

Após a sua intervenção, uma enorme onda de solidariedade foi gerada, em seu torno e do seu trabalho. Membros da comunidade TED uniram-se para o ajudar a melhorar o sistema de abastecimento eléctrico (incorporando energia solar), e promoveram o seu regresso à escola, com o apoio de tutores. Subsequentemente, outros projectos foram desenvolvidos na aldeia: abastecimento de água potável através de energia solar, prevenção da malária, fornecimento de energia eléctrica para mais seis casas e um sistema de irrigação gota-a-gota. William voltou à escola e frequenta, actualmente, a African Leadership Academy, na África do Sul.

A sua história foi publicada em livro (The Boy Who Harnessed the Wind: Creating Currents of Electricity and Hope) e um pequeno documentário, intitulado Moving Windmills, venceu vários galardões, no ano passado. Mais detalhes podem ser encontrados em MovingWindmills.org.”

Espera-se a tradução do título. Ansiosamente.

Tradução de TED: Ideas Worth Spreading (aqui)

Foto aqui

Postagem retirada do blogue adrian&pandora (merece um marcador!)

0 emissões,1 ano, 2 amigos, 3 continentes,4 rodas

bioterra44@yahoo.com (João Soares) — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:08:00 +0000

Dois amigos (Alexandre Páris e Tiago Santos) juntam-se numa aventura de quatro rodas em duas bicicletas, com o objectivo de provar que é possível atravessar três continentes com zero emissões(CO2). Nesta viagem pretende-se atravessar alguns países da Europa, Norte de África e Ásia sem recurso a carros de apoio. Deste modo divulgando e sensibilizando para o uso de um transporte acessível a qualquer pessoa e não poluente. Todas as fotos em: zero emissões
Partiram dia 20 de Setembro 2009 pelas 8h30 no Marquês de Pombal.

O seu diário pode ser lido no respectivo blogue

Climategate? agora na voz de Judith Curry

bioterra44@yahoo.com (João Soares) — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 21:49:00 +0000

Curriculum Vitae

Having been riveted for the last few days by posts in the blogosphere on the HADCRU hack and the increasing attention being given to this by the mainstream media, I would like to provide an external but insider assessment and perspective. My perspective is as a climate researcher that is not involved directly in any of the controversies and issues in the purloined HADCRU emails, but as one that is familiar with this research, the surrounding controversies, and many of the individuals who sent these emails. While the blogosphere has identified many emails that allegedly indicate malfeasance, clarifications especially from Gavin Schmidt have been very helpful in providing explanations and the appropriate context for these emails. However, even if the hacked emails from HADCRU end up to be much ado about nothing in the context of any actual misfeasance that impacts the climate data records, the damage to the public credibility of climate research is likely to be significant. In my opinion, there are two broader issues raised by these emails that are impeding the public credibility of climate research: lack of transparency in climate data, and “tribalism” in some segments of the climate research community that is impeding peer review and the assessment process.

1. Transparency. Climate data needs to be publicly available and well documented. This includes metadata that explains how the data were treated and manipulated, what assumptions were made in assembling the data sets, and what data was omitted and why. This would seem to be an obvious and simple requirement, but the need for such transparency has only been voiced recently as the policy relevance of climate data has increased. The HADCRU surface climate dataset and the paleoclimate dataset that has gone into the various hockeystick analyses stand out as lacking such transparency. Much of the paleoclimate data and metadata has become available only because of continued public pressure from Steve McIntyre. Datasets that were processed and developed decades ago and that are now regarded as essential elements of the climate data record often contain elements whose raw data or metadata were not preserved (this appears to be the case with HADCRUT). The HADCRU surface climate dataset needs public documentation that details the time period and location of individual station measurements used in the data set, statistical adjustments to the data, how the data were analyzed to produce the climatology, and what measurements were omitted and why. If these data and metadata are unavailable, I would argue that the data set needs to be reprocessed (presumably the original raw data is available from the original sources). Climate data sets should be regularly reprocessed as new data becomes available and analysis methods improve. There are a number of aspects of the surface climate record that need to be understood better. For example, the surface temperature bump ca. 1940 needs to be sorted out, and I am personally lacking confidence in how this period is being treated in the HADCRUT analysis. In summary, given the growing policy relevance of climate data, increasingly higher standards must be applied to the transparency and availability of climate data and metadata. These standards should be clarified, applied and enforced by the relevant national funding agencies and professional societies that publish scientific journals.

2. Climate tribalism. Tribalism is defined here as a strong identity that separates one’s group from members of another group, characterized by strong in-group loyalty and regarding other groups differing from the tribe’s defining characteristics as inferior. In the context of scientific research, tribes differ from groups of colleagues that collaborate and otherwise associate with each other professionally. As a result of the politicization of climate science, climate tribes (consisting of a small number of climate researchers) were established in response to the politically motivated climate disinformation machine that was associated with e.g. ExxonMobil, CEI, Inhofe/Morano etc. The reaction of the climate tribes to the political assault has been to circle the wagons and point the guns outward in an attempt to discredit misinformation from politicized advocacy groups. The motivation of scientists in the pro AGW tribes appears to be less about politics and more about professional ego and scientific integrity as their research was under assault for nonscientific reasons (I’m sure there are individual exceptions, but this is my overall perception). I became adopted into a tribe during Autumn 2005 after publication of the Webster et al. hurricane and global warming paper. I and my colleagues were totally bewildered and overwhelmed by the assault we found ourselves under, and associating with a tribe where others were more experienced and savvy about how to deal with this was a relief and very helpful at the time.

After becoming more knowledgeable about the politics of climate change (both the external politics and the internal politics within the climate field), I became concerned about some of the tribes pointing their guns inward at other climate researchers who question their research or don’t pass various loyalty tests. I even started spending time at climateaudit, and my public congratulations to Steve McIntyre when Climate Audit won the Best Science Blog Award was greeted with a rather unpleasant email from one of the tribal members. While the hurricane wars fizzled out in less than a year as the scientists recovered from the external assault and got back to business as usual in terms of arguing science with their colleagues, the hockey wars have continued apparently unabated. With the publication of the IPCC 4th Assessment report, the Nobel Peace Prize, and energy legislation near the top of the national legislative agenda, the denialists were becoming increasingly irrelevant (the Heartland Conference and NIPCC are not exactly household words). Hence it is difficult to understand the continued circling of the wagons by some climate researchers with guns pointed at skeptical researchers by apparently trying to withhold data and other information of relevance to published research, thwart the peer review process, and keep papers out of assessment reports. Scientists are of course human, and short-term emotional responses to attacks and adversity are to be expected, but I am particularly concerned by this apparent systematic and continuing behavior from scientists that hold editorial positions, serve on important boards and committees and participate in the major assessment reports. It is these issues revealed in the HADCRU emails that concern me the most, and it seems difficult to spin many of the emails related to FOIA, peer review, and the assessment process. I sincerely hope that these emails do not in actuality reflect what they appear to, and I encourage Gavin Schmidt et al. to continue explaining the individual emails and the broader issues of concern.

In summary, the problem seems to be that the circling of the wagons strategy developed by small groups of climate researchers in response to the politically motivated attacks against climate science are now being used against other climate researchers and the more technical blogs (e.g. Climateaudit, Lucia, etc). Particularly on a topic of such great public relevance, scientists need to consider carefully skeptical arguments and either rebut them or learn from them. Trying to suppress them or discredit the skeptical researcher or blogger is not an ethical strategy and one that will backfire in the long run. I have some sympathy for Phil Jones’ concern of not wanting to lose control of his personal research agenda by having to take the time to respond to all the queries and requests regarding his dataset, but the receipt of large amounts of public funding pretty much obligates CRU to respond to these requests. The number of such requests would be drastically diminished if all relevant and available data and metadata were made publicly accessible, and if requests from Steve McIntyre were honored (I assume that many spurious requests have been made to support Steve McIntyre’s request, and these would all disappear).

The HADCRU hack has substantially increased the relevance of Climateaudit, WUWT, etc. The quickest way for HADCRU et al. to put Climateaudit and the rest of this tribe out of business is make all climate data and metadata public and make every effort to improve the datasets based on all feedback that you receive. Do this and they will quickly run out of steam and become irrelevant ☺. Gavin Schmidt’s current efforts at Realclimate are a good step in the right direction of increasing transparency.

But the broader issue is the need to increase the public credibility of climate science. This requires publicly available data and metadata, a rigorous peer review process, and responding to arguments raised by skeptics. The integrity of individual scientists that are in positions of responsibility (e.g. administrators at major research institutions, editorial boards, major committees, and assessments) is particularly important for the public credibility of climate science. The need for public credibility and transparency has dramatically increased in recent years as the policy relevance of climate research has increased. The climate research enterprise has not yet adapted to this need, and our institutions need to strategize to respond to this need.

FAO Paper and Policy Brief on Food Security and Agricultural Mitigation in Developing Countries

bioterra44@yahoo.com (João Soares) — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 19:20:00 +0000

FAO has prepared a paper which underlines the need for more interrelated solutions to the interrelated challenges of food security and climate change. The paper addresses possibilities for maximizing synergies (mitigation and co-benefits) and minimizing trade-offs, as well as relevant financing options and their MRV requirements. Finally, it suggests possible steps at the international and national levels to enable country-led implementation processes. The paper should be seen as the beginning of a process of exploring issues related to the development of synergistic nationally appropriate mitigation action in the agriculture sectors of developing countries. For further information see: FAO Climate Change
the link to the document is:PDF

Based on this paper FAO also prepared a policy brief Harvesting agriculture's multiple benefits: Mitigation, Adapatation, Development and Food Security
for the Copenhagen summit, which says that farming practices that capture carbon and store it in agricultural soils offer some of the most promising options for early and cost-effective action on climate change in developing countries, while contributing to food security.

Climate scientist James Hansen talks about global warming, Copenhagen, and his new book.

bioterra44@yahoo.com (João Soares) — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 00:29:00 +0000

Dada a duplamente relevante perito e uma excelente entrevista, passo-a na íntegra. Para ser (re)lida!!

By Sharon Begley | Newsweek Web Exclusive

Nov 24, 2009

James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, is one of the world's most famous climatologists. He testified at a 1988 U.S. Senate hearing that the emission of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels was already producing a greenhouse effect, and during the administration of George W. Bush, political appointees tried to keep him from speaking out about global warming. Hansen, 68, has become increasingly convinced that a climate crisis is upon us, warning this summer that the climate system is racing toward "tipping points" which, if passed, would lead to irreversible and catastrophic effects. On the eve of the publication of his first book, Storms of My Grandchildren, which he finished while recovering from treatment for prostate cancer and which will be published in December, he spoke to me by phone. Later in the week, I followed up to discuss the news of leaked e-mails from researchers who allegedly ignored evidence unfavorable to climate change. Excerpts:

Last week, someone leaked e-mails obtained by hacking into the server at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Activists who have long denied the reality of climate change climatedepot.com say they show that climatologists have engaged in a grand conspiracy to manufacture a case that global warming is occurring due to human activities. Do the hacked e-mails undermine the case for anthropogenic climate change?
No, they have no effect on the science. The evidence for human-made climate change is overwhelming.

Do the e-mails indicate any unethical efforts to hide data that do not support the idea of anthropogenic global warming or to keep contrary ideas out of the scientific literature and IPCC reports?
They indicate poor judgment in specific cases. First, the data behind any analysis should be made publicly available. Second, rather than trying so hard to prohibit publication of shoddy science, which is impossible, it is better that reviews, such as by IPCC and the National Academy of Sciences, summarize the full range of opinions and explain clearly the basis of the scientific assessment. The "contrarians" or "deniers" do not have a scientific leg to stand on. Their aim is to win a public relations battle, or at least get a draw, which may be enough to stymie the actions that are needed to stabilize climate.

How serious a setback would it be if no agreement on a climate treaty is reached in Copenhagen, where 192 countries are meeting starting Dec. 7?
It's not a setback at all if it allows a careful reassessment of what is needed. The cap-and-trade scheme [that the Copenhagen negotiations were working toward] is just not going to be effective at controlling greenhouse emissions. Political leaders have to realize that the fundamental problem is that fossil fuels are the cheapest form of energy, so they will continue to be burned unless we put a gradually increasing price on carbon emissions [through a carbon tax]. That's a much better approach than national goals for emissions reductions, which will probably not be met.

Policymakers who deny the threat of climate change cite the research of Richard Lindzen of MIT and other scientists, who question the link between carbon dioxide and global warming—as the last head of NASA, Michael Griffin, also did. As long as there remains this scientific dispute, why should policy makers act?
These contrarians are not having much effect. None of the major countries are denying the problem anymore, though in the U.S. these contrarians are still widely heard, and when it comes to passing a bill in Congress they may still be an obstacle.

In the 1980s scientists worried about a doubling of pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide, to 550 parts per million. Then 450 started to look like a problem. Now you and others say that 350 is dangerous, and we’re already at 387. What did climatologists learn that caused them to lower the estimate of dangerous CO₂ levels?
The new information came from observations of how the system is responding to 387ppm and to more detailed information on how earth responded in the past to different atmospheric compositions. For instance, we see that the ice sheets are not stable at 387ppm; the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are losing mass even with current warming. The Greenland ice sheet had been losing between 150 and 200 cubic kilometers a year in 2002, and now is losing almost 300 cubic kilometers a year. Antarctica had been losing less than 100 cubic kilometers a year, and is now losing more than 150, so it seems like we're heading into a period of much more rapid ice sheet loss. Also, in the arctic we've lost 40 percent of the sea ice in the warm season, and that will soon be 100 percent. Mountain glaciers are retreating rapidly and could be gone in 50 years. These are not model results but observations: 387ppm is already too high, and 450ppm will be far worse.

In Storms of My Grandchildren , you describe climate tipping points. What are some and why are they so dangerous?
Things like methane hydrates on the continental shelf and the tundra: as they warm up they release their methane [which is a greenhouse gas], which we're already seeing in the tundra and elsewhere. Tipping points are so dangerous because if you pass them, the climate is out of humanity's control: if an ice sheet disintegrates and starts to slide into the ocean there's nothing we can do about that.

What caused you to move beyond research and become an outspoken advocate for addressing climate change?
The realization that there was a gap between what had become clear scientifically and what policymakers knew. Then, when I wrote papers and gave talks on climate change, it became clear that the political system just didn't want to react to this. Scientists have to help politicians connect the dots.

George F. Will has argued that reducing U.S. carbon emissions 80 percent by 2050 would leave us with per capita emissions we last had in the 1800s, implying we'd be back to a horse-and-buggy, pre-electricity era. Is he right?
Not at all. We don't have to decrease our energy use, we just have to decrease our carbon emissions. That's why you want to increase the price of carbon, so let other technologies take over, like energy efficiency and renewables. We'll be moving into a better world, not a worse one, not to a horse-and-buggy world but to one with cleaner air and water once we stop burning coal.

You are critical of the Kyoto climate treaty. Why?
Because it allows carbon offsets and uses cap-and-trade. Emissions from oil, gas, and coal have actually increased under Kyoto. If we just set goals for emissions reductions and allow people to miss them and to use offsets, we're not going to stabilize and reduce greenhouse emissions at the rate needed.

Do we still have time to avert climate calamity, and if so what would it take?
We do, but just barely. If we phase out coal linearly by 2030, CO₂ concentrations in the atmosphere will peak at 400 to 425 ppm, which is low enough that it allows you to get back to 350, especially if there is extensive reforestation of degraded areas. So a fundamental requirement is to phase out the use of coal in 20 years, which means you have to start now and not build any more coal-burning power plants: these have a lifetime of decades, and once they're built utilities don't want to retire them before their lifetime is up.

You write that energy efficiency and renewables won't be enough to meet the energy needs of China and India in the next few decades. So what do we do?
They will require nuclear power for electricity. They are both moving in that direction, and we really should help them. They have such polluted air and water that they'd love to get off dirty fuels like coal. Of course, you also want to do energy efficiency and renewables, but I think India and China will turn more toward nuclear. I think the prospects for that are quite good, but we have to get going now.

What do you think of the climate bills now before Congress?
They're disasters. We can't allow the polluters to write the bill, but that's what happened. What's needed is putting a price on carbon, not cap-and-trade.

What do you think of Obama's performance on this issue so far?
A lot of individual things have been good, like using EPA to apply pressure for improved vehicle mileage, but I'm disappointed that he hasn't taken a leadership role. He's let the politicians in Washington come up with these bills rather than offering them some guidance. Climate change is analogous to Lincoln and slavery or Churchill and Nazism: it's not the kind of thing where you can compromise. He needs to have some understanding of this [climate] problem himself, and not just listen to his advisers.

Are policies like Cash for Clunkers, or "cash for caulkers" [home weatherizing], or green jobs initiatives useful or just more greenwashing?
They're useful but costly. What you want to do is address [climate change] in the most cost-effective way possible, which is to put a price on carbon. For example, there's a program to let people fold the cost of improving the energy of their home or of adding clean energy [by installing solar panels or other forms of renewable energy] into their monthly mortgage payment. You decrease your monthly energy costs by more than the amount that gets added to your mortgage, since you're averaging the cost over several years. This works best if you have a rising price on carbon.

You write about the need to take to the streets and engage in civil resistance. Such as? Anything that draws attention to the fundamental problem. We just had this example of the student in Utah who upset the Bureau of Land Management by bidding on oil and gas leases, without even intending to pay for them, in order to stop energy companies from acquiring them and drilling on public lands.

You make it sound like now that you've written the book, you're going to go hole up in your lab. Really?
I wish I could. But when I started to speak out about climate change in 2004, after 15 years of avoiding it, I saw that the problem is not going to be solved easily. I'm afraid this is going to continue.

Condoms for Climate Change?

bioterra44@yahoo.com (João Soares) — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 20:48:00 +0000

posted by: Beth B. 22 November 2009

71 comments

If left unchecked, global climate change has the potential to drastically affect our access to fresh water, adequate food, and ample landspace for housing and agriculture.

Many experts point to the rapid growth of the world's population in the last hundreds years as one of the factors that have intensified the effects of climate change that we are already beginning to see.

In a report released earlier this week, the U.N. Population Fund stated that the battle against global warming could be helped if the world slowed population growth by making free condoms and family planning advice more widely available.

Although the mere mention of limiting family size as a way to reduce global warming is likely to raise the hackles of both environmentalists and climate change skeptics alike, the fact remains that slowing or halting the current rate of population growth could be effective in reducing the level of harmful carbon emissions that human activities send up in the atmosphere.

"As the growth of population, economies and consumption outpaces the Earth's capacity to adjust, climate change could become much more extreme and conceivably catastrophic," the report said.

Rather than suggest that people should be limited in the number of children that they are allowed to have, the report instead offered that "women with access to reproductive health services ... have lower fertility rates that contribute to slower growth in greenhouse gas emissions."

The world's population will likely rise from the current 6.7 billion to 9.2 billion in 2050, with most of the growth in less developed regions, according to a 2006 report by the United Nations (AP).

The agency did acknowledge the fact that there is currently a lack of evidence for a direct, causal link between population growth and climate change. However, slowing the rate at which humans are born is one of the only ways that all countries would be able to participate in an emissions reduction plan that without being denied access to energy resources needed to continue development.

Although some have referred to the U.N. Population Fund's statements as "alarmist" and "unhelpful," it is worth pointing out that advocating increased access to various methods of birth control and reproductive education isn't a radical new concept. Many nonprofit organizations, both in the United States and abroad, are designed specifically to make condoms and sex education available to areas of the world that are suffering from widespread sexually transmitted disease and extreme poverty.

Of course, it is ludicrous to suggest that by handing out more free condoms, we can effectively mitigate the consequences of centuries of industrial development. In fact the production and distribution of that many condoms would be quite harmful itself. But would it be such a bad thing if one of the side effects of more well planned families was a reduction in greenhouse gases and the effects of climate change?

Although there is no easy answer to the best way to reduce human effects on the health of the planet, we might be running out of time to enjoy the debate. In three weeks, leaders of the world will meet in Copenhagen in hopes of reaching a deal to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which required 37 industrial countries to cut heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions.

Depoimentos no projecto 6 Mil Milhões como Tu - Alterações Climáticas

bioterra44@yahoo.com (João Soares) — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 00:09:00 +0000

Mais informações sobre mais este Projecto, noutras postagens do Bioterra.

O alegado Climategate- defesa dos cientistas visados

bioterra44@yahoo.com (João Soares) — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:37:00 +0000

Quando ouvi falar do Climategate, escândalo estourado mais ou menos em 22 de Novembro, sobre a pretensa manipulação de dados quanto à origem antropogénica das alterações climáticas e às portas da Cimeira de Copenhaga, li alguns dos emails expostos nos mass media (pareceram-me meras trocas de impressões, alguns são dúvidas que normalmente ocorrem ainda no decurso de alguma investigação, etc) e aguardei por vozes sensatas. Encontrei-a no Miguel Araújo. E agora que já são conhecidas as respostas dos cientistas visados, considero o Climategate um fait-divers e uma campanha perigosa contra as melhores perspectivas (se ainda houver) em Copenhaga.

Por Miguel Araújo

Dado a campanha de desinformação na internet sobre o alegado climategate considero ser oportuno, na sequência de outros textos divulgados no blogue ambio, veicular informação proveniente dos autores criticados. Se forem ao blogue encontrarão informação fresca sobre o assunto e uma série de links que guiarão o leitor para fontes primárias de informação. Poderão também escrever directamente aos autores no blogue realclimate onde, ao contrário de alguns blogues dos chamados cépticos, aceita-se contraditório.

Climategate?

Nos últimos dias recebi vários mensagens de colegas perguntando-me a opinião sobre o caso do roubo da correspondência dos servidores da University of East Anglia (UEA), em particular das mensagens envolvendo Phil Jones, Director do Climate Research Unit. A estas pessoas respondi que isto não passava de mais um fait divers. A resposta surpreendeu alguns que rapidamente responderam que não e que mais explicações seriam necessárias. Não tenho dúvidas que mais explicações serão necessárias e que uma investigação independente seria desejável para esclarecer o verdadeiro significado das mensagens vindas a lume. É possível que sendo as mensagens escritas em registo privado tenham sido meros desabafos sem qualquer consequência (quantos de nós dizem e escrevem coisas num registo privado que seriam certamente mal interpretadas se ditas num registo público?). Também é possível que, representando as mensagens uma amostra pequena, colocada fora do contexto, de um universo de milhares de outras mensagens, o seu verdadeiro significado não seja inteligível. Sobre isto o principal visado diz: My colleagues and I accept that some of the published emails do not read well. I regret any upset or confusion caused as a result. Some were clearly written in the heat of the moment, others use colloquialisms frequently used between close colleagues. E conclui We are, and have always been, scrupulous in ensuring that our science publications are robust and honest. Obviamente, não é impossível que as mensagens divulgadas indiciem procedimentos cuja honestidade possa ser questionada e/ou condutas que estão longe de ser irrepreensíveis do ponto de vista da deontologia profissional. Todavia, na fase actual, recuso-me julgar Phil Jones e os restantes colegas pois 1) não tenho informação suficiente para fazer um julgamento sobre a conduta destas pessoas (a informação disponível na internet é obviamente parcial e como tal de valor limitado); e 2) acredito veementemente que o local próprio para julgar o comportamento das pessoas são os tribunais (ou comissões específicas, criadas para o efeito e que possibilitem o exercício, básico em qualquer sistema de justiça, do direito de defesa própria). Se se provar que as interpretações feitas nalguns blogues, com base em informação parcial, forem correctas é óbvio que estas pessoas terão de responder pelos seus actos. Mas também é possível que estes investigadores estejam a ser alvo de uma conspiração sem precedentes na história da internet (a data da divulgação das mensagens levanta a suspeição de que o objectivo seja minar a cimeira de Copenhaga), pelo que prudência é atitude que me parece mais acertada no momento. Mas suponhamos, por um momento, que na sequência de um inquérito independente se demonstre que as suspeitas de fraude científica se justificam. Provar-se-à com isto que a informação sobre aquecimento global é o resultado de uma conspiração dos cientistas para fazer vingar uma agenda verde, de fama, poder, ou dinheiro? Provam estas mensagens que a evidência científica, acumulada durante décadas, por vários grupos de investigação, usando indicadores e fontes de informação diferentes, sujeitas ao escrutínio de investigadores independentes, são o resultado de uma grande cabala orquestrada por um número elevado de pessoas desonestas ao serviço de uma alegada agenda que teria tomado conta do establishment científico? Não, obviamente que não. Provar-se-ia que o último relatório do IPCC foi editado ao mais alto nível de forma a melhor fazer passar uma mensagem política veemente (o que aliás não seria novidade como tive ocasião de escrever aqui e aqui) mas não se provaria que as inúmeras fontes de informação, directa e indirecta, sobre o aquecimento actual foram inventadas ou truncadas. Um caso paradigmático de evidência indirecta, raramente referida pelos cépticos (e completamente independente da rede do Phil Jones) , é o degelo do permafrost (i.e., solo permanentemente gelado que se encontra em zonas de latitude e altitude elevada). Há uma camada do permafrost que é instável, ou seja, que degela em estações/anos quentes e volta a congelar em estações/anos frios mas há sequências do permafrost que têm estado em estado sólido há dezenas, nalguns casos centenas, de milhar de anos. Áreas importantes deste permafrost pré-histórico encontram-se actualmente em declínio trazendo à superfície, pela primeira vez, material genético de inúmeras espécies de animais e plantas (hoje extintas) que foram congeladas e soterradas neste solo. Se o aquecimento actual não se distinguisse do ciclo natural de aquecimento e arrefecimento, como sugerem os cépticos, era de esperar que este material genérico se tivesse degradado há muito tempo. Em suma, a revelação destas mensagens roubadas do servidor do UEA venderá notícias, incendiará debates, causará danos na vida pessoal de algumas pessoas e, no melhor dos casos, abrirá discussões úteis sobre o acesso a dados públicos de clima (é inexplicável que alguns institutos de meteorologia, como é o caso de Portugal, continuem a restringir o acesso aos dados nacionais de meteorologia) e sobre a necessidade de disponibilização dos dados usados nos artigos científicos para melhor garantir a sua replicação em caso de dúvida (nem todas as pessoas o fazem, umas vezes com razões de peso, que importa discutir, outras nem tanto). Sobre isto a própria UEA divulgou comunicados de imprensa (com data de 28 de Novembro) que deixam antever alguns progressos.

Climate activists fast to push leaders to sign strong deal at Copenhagen

bioterra44@yahoo.com (João Soares) — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 00:08:00 +0000

John Vidal

guardian.co.uk, Friday 6 November 2009

The promo video for the Climate Justice Fast

Scores of environmental activists from five continents have begun a fast to put pressure on countries to agree a strong deal at climate negotiations in Copenhagen next month.

Two of the activists, Anna Keenan 24, an Australian, and Sara Svensson 22, a Swede, launched their water-only Climate Justice Fast today at climate talks in Barcelona, and expect to go without food for more than a month until environment officialsmeet in Copenhagen.

They called their action "a moral response to an immoral situation" and expect to be joined by hundreds of other young people in Australia, Europe and the US who will fast for shorter periods.

"The whole world needs to wake up to the tragedy of climate change. Politics as usual is a massive injustice to the poorest people, the planet and to future generations," said Anna Keenan, an Australian who has degrees in physics, maths and environmental studies and has worked as a government adviser.

Svensson admitted to being inspired by Gandhi: "Fasting is the one weapon that God has given us in times of utter helplessness. This is such a time. I do not intend to go into this as a kamikaze suicide mission," she said. "I do this out of love of life. I hope it will inspire others. Your goal in life cannot be to just be comfortable and ignore the consequences. This is a positive act."

The two women, who have long histories of campaigning, said that other forms of activism have not worked. They will now travel by boat to Copenhagen next week, and will be under medical supervision throughout.

"We are not asking people to join us. But a large number of people have said they want to join in. At least 150 people are fasting today and others will join us on a rotational basis," said Keenan.

They were backed in Barcelona by Agnes Kushanl, a Kenyan aid agency worker with Cafod: "I applaud them. Many people in my country are dying from hunger because of the failed rains. We need more such courage. The people who have contributed least to climate change are suffering the most. It is really, really bad back home."

O BioTerra apoia a Plataforma Anti-Guerra, Anti-Nato

bioterra44@yahoo.com (João Soares) — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:37:00 +0000

http://antinatoportugal.wordpress.com/

Afinal quem é favorável à guerra? Ninguém é a favor da guerra!

A PAGAN – Plataforma Anti-Guerra, Anti-NATO convida os autores de blogues a visitar o nosso blogue, a fim de conhecerem os objectivos anti-militaristas que movem esta plataforma e a tomarem parte activa nesta campanha, integrando e participando nas acções desenvolvidas.

Caso estejam de acordo com esta causa anti-militarista, podem enviar o vosso contacto e o vosso acordo para o nosso mail

antinatoportugal@gmail.com

ou deixando um comentário neste post com o link do blogue apoiante.

O blogue ANTI-GUERRA, ANTI-NATO passa então a integrar um link para o vosso blogue e este poderá exibir o logo da PAGAN e o nosso link no banner.

Os objectivos programáticos e plano de actividades — serão discutidos na nossa próxima Assembleia, na qual vos convidamos desde já a participar (por favor deixem um comentário caso tenham interesse em estar presentes):

Assembleia PAGAN
1º de Dezembro 2009, com início às 15 h. no Ateneu Libertário de Lisboa,
R. do Salitre, 139 1º Lisboa

Metro: Rato ou Avenida

Uso de telemóveis, linhas de muito alta tensão e as antenas, o cancro e outros efeitos- o relatório Bioiniciative de 2007

bioterra44@yahoo.com (João Soares) — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 00:05:00 +0000

O relatório do Bioinitiative Working Group (consultar o pdf), um grupo internacional que reúne cientistas, investigadores e profissionais de saúde pública, datado de finais de Agosto e 2007 manifesta sérias preocupações científicas sobre os limites que actualmente regulam os campos electromagnéticos admissíveis de linhas eléctricas, telemóveis e muitas outras fontes de radiação presentes na vida quotidiana, que considera inadequados para proteger a saúde humana.

Os investigadores apresentam informação detalhada sobre os efeitos nefastos na saúde quando as pessoas estão expostas a radiação electromagnética centenas ou mesmo milhares de vezes abaixo dos limites actualmente estabelecidos pela Comissão de Comunicações Federal (norte-americana) e pelo Comité Internacional europeu para a Protecção de Radiações Não-Ionizantes (ICNIRP, na sigla inglesa).

Os autores analisaram mais 2.000 estudos científicos e concluíram que os limites de segurança existentes são desadequados.

O relatório documenta preocupações crescentes relacionadas com a leucemia em crianças (devido a linhas eléctricas), tumores cerebrais e neuromas acústicos (tumores do nervo auditivo), relacionados com telemóveis e telefones sem fios, e doença de Alzheimer.

Existem evidências de que os campos electromagnéticos (CEM) são um factor de risco para o desenvolvimento de cancro em crianças e adultos, salienta o documento.

O especialista em saúde pública e co-autor do relatório David Carpenter, director do Instituto de Saúde e Ambiente da Universidade de Albany, afirmou que o estudo é um alerta para os efeitos da exposição a longo prazo aos campos electromagnéticos. É necessário um bom plano de saúde pública para prevenir o cancro e as doenças neurológicas ligadas à exposição a linhas eléctricas e outras fontes de CEM.

As questões relacionadas com CEM e linhas eléctricas surgiram pela primeira vez em 1979, quando quando uma especialista em saúde pública e um engenheiro eléctrico constataram que as crianças que viviam em áreas próximas de linhas eléctricas e postos de transformação tinham duas a três vezes mais probabilidade de desenvolver leucemia .

Lennart Hardell, professor do hospital universitário de Orebro (Suécia) e especialista em tumores cerebrais afirmou que a evidência de riscos associadas ao uso prolongado de telemóveis ou telefones sem fios já é muito forte, quando se analisam as pessoas que usam estes aparelhos há dez ou mais anos e quando são usados, sobretudo, num só lado da cabeça.

Um resumo dos vários estudos sobre tumores cerebrais mostra um aumento de 20 por cento dos riscos relacionado com dez anos de utilização. Mas o risco aumenta para 200 por cento quando os aparelhos são essencialmente usados num só lado da cabeça

Outro alerta vai para as tecnologias sem fios que usam radiofrequência para enviar e-mails e comunicações de voz e que são milhares de vezes mais fortes do que os níveis identificados estando associados a sintomas físicos, incluindo dores de cabeça, fadiga, sonolência, tonturas, alterações da actividade cerebral e falta de memória e concentração.

Os cientistas revelam que estes efeitos podem ocorrer mesmo com pequenos níveis de exposição, se acontecer numa base diária, sendo as crianças mais vulneráveis.

O relatório conclui que os dados actuais, embora limitados, são suficientemente preocupantes para questionar a fundamentação científica dos limites de segurança em vigor.

A Agência Europeia do Ambiente (AEA), que foi parceira neste estudo, recomenda igualmente a adopção do princípio de precaução.

Existem muitos exemplos em que o princípio de precaução não foi assumido no passado e que resultaram em danos sérios e, muitas vezes, irreversíveis para a saúde e o ambiente, declarou Jacqueline McGalde, directora executiva da AEA, recomendando a adopção de acções para evitar ameaças sérias, potenciais e plausíveis, para a saúde devido a presença de campos electromagnéticos.
[Lusa, 4 de Outubro de 2007; notícia incluída num artigo da revista Corpo e Mente]

Resume in English by Devra L. Davis, PhD MPH

The Biointiative Report came out in 2007 and sent shock waves through parts of the research community. The product of Cindy Sage, an experienced environmental consultant, and David Carpenter, a distinguished researcher and former dean of public health at State University of New York, this report by more than two dozen expert scientists provided a concise overview of studies ranging from experimental work in cell cultures and animals to the evolving and contradictory efforts of epidemiologists. The sheer volume of evidence was daunting. Their work reviewed more than a thousand studies, many of which showed that radiofrequency exposures just like those released by phones could damage cells, impede neurotransmitters, cause leakage into the brain, and even worsen performance, insomnia, and memory loss. However, there was no denying that most published studies of RF found no effect at all. Henry Lai of the University of Washington—a pioneer in the field—identified a peculiar sort of publication bias at work. When he produced break-through studies in 1994 showing that RF could damage the DNA of rat brain cells, industry tried to get him fired and block publication of his research. They also funded what is now termed advocacy research: giving money to scientists with the explicit intent of undermining suspicions that had been raised about the safety of RF. As funding for his own work on RF dried up, Lai left the field for a while. Sensing that what had happened to him was no accident, Lai turned his own scientific microscope on the funding for RF research over all and produced a simple finding—in looking at all the studies conducted on RF, he determined that the chances that any study would find that cell phones were harmful depended on who had paid for the work. If a study was funded by industry (as most were) the chances they would find any risk was about .2. But if studies were independently funded (and a few were)the chance that results would be positive was .8. Still, the majority of scientists, including Nobel Laureate Robert Weinberg, who, like other scientific luminaries with no training in RF science, has been a consultant to the cell phone industry, hold to the dogma that without warming nothing can happen biologically. This view has been carefully nurtured. Public relations firms have ensured that Lai’s work was deliberately targeted and war-gamed, employing others to launch critical attacks on findings that RF could be harmful. Science became simply a tool in the public relations strategy. The notion that without generating a change in temperature there could be no biologic effect became widely bandied about as scientifically implausible, a violation of the basic laws of physics.

Johan & Djuret - Kom & Köp

bioterra44@yahoo.com (João Soares) — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:09:00 +0000

Dogma cut, pirate-arty, anti-commercialism music video with the swedish hiphop and reggae band Johan&Djuret. Some people where possibly hurt doing the recording while others got a bit of stamina exercise. Dont try this at home!

Denez Prigent and Lisa Gerrard - An Hini A Garan

bioterra44@yahoo.com (João Soares) — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 00:05:00 +0000

An hini a garan (The One I love)

An hini a garan, gwechall bihan er gêr
Pa oamp tostig an eil, an eil ouzh egile
Va c'halon ne gare, gare nemet unan
Pa oan bihan er gêr an hini a garan

An hini a garan, 'm eus kollet da viken
'Mañ degouezhet pell ha ne zistroio ken
Ha setu ma kanan, kanan keti ketañ
Ha setu ma kanan d'an hini a garan

An hini a garan, un deiz 'n eus va losket
Aet eo d'ar broioù pell, d'ur vro n'an'vezan ket
Aet eo d'ar broioù pell da c'hounit e vara
Kollet, kollet un deiz, an hini a garan

In English:

The one I love, before, when we were little at home
when we were so near to each other
My heart was loving ony one
When I was little at home, the one I love

The one I love, I lost forever
Gone far away and will never come back
And this is what I sing for the one I love

The one I love one day left me
For a far away land
A land that I don't know
Lost, lost one day, the one love

Os templos do consumo

bioterra44@yahoo.com (João Soares) — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:03:00 +0000

Sessão de Cinema Bioterra: Naqoyqatsi (filme completo!)

bioterra44@yahoo.com (João Soares) — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:09:00 +0000

Anti-consumo: salta da gaiola trabalho-consumo ::: anti-consumption: work less, consume less

bioterra44@yahoo.com (João Soares) — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 20:56:00 +0000

Dia Sem Compras: amanhã, Sábado 28 Nov - Lista de Acções

bioterra44@yahoo.com (João Soares) — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:10:00 +0000

No próximo sábado, 28 de Novembro, é celebrado o Dia Sem Compras. Durante este dia celebrado todos os anos a nível mundial, como um manifesto contra o consumismo desmedido e insustentável tão presente na maioria das sociedades, pessoas de todo o Mundo decidem *não comprar nada!*

É incentivada a reflexão sobre o modo de consumo na actuais sociedades capitalistas. Promove-se uma postura de *consumo responsável*, alertando-se a sociedade para a escassez dos recursos naturais e para a necessidade de todos nós, enquanto consumidores, termos consciência da pegada ecológica originada pela produção e transporte dos produtos que temos à nossa disposição nas superfícies comerciais. Defende-se a *sustentabilidade do planeta*, promovendo o consumo consciente e local, o comércio justo e a reutilização e troca de bens.

O caso do nosso país é ainda mais agudo, pois *em Portugal consumimos 3 vezes mais do que o adequado para ter um planeta sustentável*, disse-o publicamente o Presidente da Oikos (www.oikos.pt) em 2007. Pensemos, por exemplo, nos pratos abastados das ementas portuguesas, na comida que se costuma deixar no prato no fim da refeição ou nas acelerações desnecessárias dos carros, que consomem combustível a mais.

Em vários pontos o GAIA promove *Acções para o Dia Sem Compras*:

No *Centro de Convergência do GAIA no Alentejo*, nada melhor para assinalar o Dia Sem Compras que uma *Feira de Trocas*! No próximo Sábado acontecerá uma no Centro Social da Aldeia das Amoreiras, por isso já sabes, se não tiveres o que fazer com um montão de coisas que se estão a amontoar lá em casa, trá-las e pode ser que regresses com um montão de coisas novas! Dia 28 às 15h, na aldeia das Amoreiras. Mais informação em http://gaia.org.pt/node/15182

Em *Lisboa* o Dia Sem Compras é celebrado com uma *Marcha* a sair da Praça da Figueira às 14h até ao Largo Camões. Vamos passar pela Rua Augusta onde vai ser montado um* Teatro de Rua*, pela Rua do Carmo e Rua Almeida Garret até ao Largo do Camões onde representaremos de novo uma peça de Teatro do Oprimido. Na marcha praticipam também dois grupos de percussão: os Ritmos de Resistência (percussão samba) e a Nação do Bairro (percussão maracatú).
*Concentração / Início da Marcha* Praça da Figueira (Baixa) , às 14h
*Teatro de Rua* Rua Augusta (cruzamento com Rua da Vitória), entre as 15h30 até às
16h
*Final da Marcha e Teatro de Rua* Largo do Camões (Chiado), das 16h30 até ao
pôr-do-sol
Mais informação em http://gaia.org.pt/node/15181

No *Porto* está a ser realizado um *ciclo de debates e cinema* sobre consumismo e alternativas no espaço *Casa da Horta*. No dia sem compras um grupo de activistas estão a organizar algumas acções de sensibilização que se irão manter em segredo até o dia da acção.
Para mais informação sobre o ciclo sobre consumismo e alternativas ver em: http://gaia.org.pt/node/15170

*Divulga* aos teus contactos!
*Contamos contigo!*

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
GAIA - Grupo de Acção e Intervenção Ambiental
http://gaia.org.pt

Travessa da Nazaré, 21, 2º
Lisboa, 15 1000-234
Portugal

Ligações de interesse sobre o Buy Nothing Day:

Adbusters
Ecologistas en Accion
Buy Nothing Day (UK)
Buy Nothing Day (Dk)
Alaosta (Fi)
Buy Nothing Day (D)
Koopniets (Nl)
Adbusters (N)
Buy Nothing Day (Se)

Cartaz do Dia- A evolução da comunicação

bioterra44@yahoo.com (João Soares) — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 00:04:00 +0000

Selos- uma forma de homenagem e amizade e de reconhecimento entre blogueiros

bioterra44@yahoo.com (João Soares) — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 22:34:00 +0000

FJ Santos
Letrinhas do Gil (As)
Ondas

Ecosofia

Todos estes selos são também maneiras incentivar e manter unidos parceiros de luta. Assim, comunico que fui agraciado pela Liete Alves com mais um selo Ajude-me a viver, que agradeço a generosa escolha do meu blogue BioTerra!

Assim cabe-me cumprir a indicação dos seguinte blogues para os selos Dardos, Lemniscata, Blog Solidário, Thinking Blogger e Ajude-me a viver

Pimenta Negra

Ambio

Estrago da Nação

Ondas3

E esse tal Meio Ambiente?

Minha Casa Meu Mundo

Sustentabilidade É Acção

Eco Reporter Eco

Polegar Verde

Hortelã Verde

Os Ambientalistas

Quinta do Sagarçal

Discutindo Ecologia

Bill Russell e os 3R para a redução de testes em animais

bioterra44@yahoo.com (João Soares) — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:02:00 +0000

Já são muitos os cientistas que são totalmente a favor da não exploração de nenhum ser senciente, e entre eles destaca-se Michael Festing, que cerca de 1995 para cá tem feito um trabalho digno de nota sobre esta matéria. Aliás já existe também os 3R para melhorar a eficiência de desenhos experimentais, tendo em vista a redução do uso de animais, baptizados por William Moy Statten Russell (Bill Russell): Replacement (Substituição), Reduction (Redução) e Refinement (Eficiência). Bill Russell inclusive cantava ele várias vezes a sua canção em várias palestras (ver vídeo)!
Ver a seguinte listagem de artigos científicos que confirmam a regra dos 3R
Eis 2 pdf de Michael Festing comprovando que é possível fazer estudos toxicológicos, farmacêuticos recorrendo a estatísticas e a uma maior eficácia factorial nos desenho experimentais, limitando o uso de animais.
Reducing the use of laboratory animals in biomedical research
Using of factorial designs to optimize animal experiments

Assinaturas da RAN- barreira psicológica das 4.000 assinaturas ULTRAPASSADA hoje mesmo

bioterra44@yahoo.com (João Soares) — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 20:10:00 +0000

Estamos de parabéns! ;))))))

Agora só falta conferir as assinaturas. Para já temos 4.023. Mais algumas
seria importante para eliminar alguma margem de erro.
Continuemos, pois!!
Portanto continuem a passar entre vossos amigos (com texto mais apelativo, ex: Assina esta petição, Pela Reserva Nacional Agrícola, URGENTE)

http://www.peticao.com.pt/reserva-agricola-nacional

e/ou coloquem a ligação como assinatura nos vossos ecorreios (emails)

P.S. Não sei se sabem mas a petição também se encontra disponível na Wikipedia

Nesta Semana Europeia da Prevenção da Produção de Resíduos: Capannori, pioneira no “lixo zero”

bioterra44@yahoo.com (João Soares) — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:58:00 +0000

Ver Vídeo Capannori, pioneira no “lixo zero”

Capannori, na Toscânia, em Itália, é um lugar onde o lixo é um verdadeiro activo. Isto porque a vila adoptou a política lixo zero: graças à recolha a domicílio e às políticas de redução dos detritos, conseguiu-se chegar à impressionante taxa de reciclagem de 82%. O objectivo é chegar aos 100% em 2020. Neste esforço, participam quase todos os 46.000 habitantes da vila.

Todos os dias, 40 veículos a gás e electricidade percorrem os vários bairros da vila para recolher o lixo. Esta actividade emprega 40 pessoas. Os habitantes foram formados para utilizar as políticas do lixo zero e têm uma redução de 20%no imposto sobre os detritos. Todos os dias, recolhem um tipo de lixo diferente.

Graças à triagem, foram poupadas 100.000 árvores e a emissão de mais de 9000 toneladas de CO2, no ano passado. Capannori recebeu 340.000 euros da reciclagem de papel. A reciclagem de outros materiais é feita a custo zero e a de materiais orgânicos faz-se a 80 euros por tonelada.

De 2004 a 2007 foram recicladas 56.000 toneladas de lixo e, só em 2007, o número atingiu as 16.000 toneladas. Esta política é eficaz, em termos de custos, como explica um vereador de Capannori. O gasto com a incineração teria sido muito maior.

Com a redução do lixo foram criados, por exemplo, equipamentos que permitem às pessoas encher garrafas com detergente nas próprias lojas. O mesmo acontece com o leite. Um produtor local criou um ponto de distribuição, em que o leite se vende a um euro por litro. É mais barato para os consumidores, ajuda a economia local e reduz o número de garrafas.

A cadeia de reciclagem fica completa com uma rede de centros, onde as pessoas podem levar os objectos mais pesados ou volumosos e em troca recebem um cheque, cujo montante depende da quantidade de lixo que reciclam ao longo do ano. Aqui, cada um tem o seu papel.

O que é a Semana Europeia da Prevenção dos Resíduos (EWWR)?

A nível nacional a Semana Europeia da Prevenção da Produção de Resíduos EWWR é promovida pela Agência Portuguesa do Ambiente (APA) e pelo Serviço Intermunicipalizado de Gestão de Resíduos do Grande Porto (LIPOR).

Mapa europeu da exposição ao ruído

bioterra44@yahoo.com (João Soares) — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:04:00 +0000

A Agência Europeia do Ambiente (EEA), com o suporte do ETC LUSI , lançou um mapa europeu da exposição ao ruído.
A iniciativa está disponível em linha e tem o objectivo de revelar até que ponto os cidadãos europeus estão expostos ao excesso de poluição sonora.

Cartoon do Dia: a Educação explicada....

bioterra44@yahoo.com (João Soares) — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:07:00 +0000