ForumGarden

I give up, says Brazilian minister who fought to save the rainforest



Brazil's Environment Minister Marina Silva.



By Daniel Howden

Thursday May 15 2008

Brazil has been accused of turning its back on its duty to protect the Amazon after the resignation of its award-winning Environment Minister fuelled fresh fears over the fate of the forest. The departure of Marina Silva, who admitted she was losing the battle to get green voices heard amidst the rush for economic development, has been greeted with dismay by conservationists. "She was the environment's guardian angel," said Frank Guggenheim, executive director for Greenpeace in Brazil. "Now Brazil's environment is orphaned."

In a letter to President Luis Inacio Lula da Silva, Ms Silva said that her efforts to protect the rainforest acknowledged as the "lungs of the planet" were being thwarted by powerful business lobbies. "Your Excellency was a witness to the growing resistance found by our team in important sectors of the government and society," she wrote.

The decision by Ms Silva to walk away five years on from her triumphant unveiling as a minister in President Lula's first term has underlined just how far the former trade union hero's administration has drifted from the promises made in its green heyday.

"Her resignation is a disaster for the Lula administration," said Jose Maria Cardoso da Silva, of Conservation International. "If the government had any global credibility in environmental issues, it was because of minister Marina."

The Latin American giant's supposed progress on environmental protection has unravelled in the past year as revelations of record levels of deforestation, violent land disputes and runaway forest fires have followed in quick succession. The worldwide boom in agricultural commodities has created an unparalleled thirst for land and energy in Brazil, and the result has been a potentially catastrophic land grab into the world's largest remaining rainforest. The Amazon basin is home to one in 10 of the world's mammals and 15 per cent of its land-based plant species. It holds more than half of the world's fresh water and its vast forests act as the largest carbon sink on the planet, providing a vital check on the greenhouse effect.

Since President Lula won a second term Ms Silva found herself a lone voice in a government acutely aware that its own political future depended on the vast agribusiness interests she was trying to rein in. The final breakdown in her relationship with the President came after he gave the green light to massive road and dam-building projects in the Amazon basin, and a plan she drafted for the sustainable management of the region was taken from her and handed to a business-friendly fellow minister.

Marcelo Furtado, the campaign director for Greenpeace Brazil, said the resignation was "disastrous" and blamed it on the government's Amazon policy and pressure to ease environmental regulations on factories.

"Although Lula has adopted the environmental talk, the practice is development at whatever cost," he said. Next week, the Amazonian city of Alta Mira will host the largest ever gathering of indigenous leaders in a bid to stop a massive hydroelectric dam being built on the Xingu river, a tributary of the Amazon. Although the government claims no decision has been made on the Bel Monte project it's believed to have already committed itself to the construction despite experts warning of potentially dire environmental consequences.

The resignation brings a sad close to Ms Silva's relationship with President Lula, whose personal story closely mirrors her own remarkable journey as the daughter of an impoverished rubber tapper who rose to be a government minister and internationally recognised environmental champion. Ms Silva spent her childhood drawing rubber sap from trees and hunting and fishing to help support her large family in the Amazonian state of Acre. It was only heavy metal poisoning from polluted water and the contraction of tropical diseases that brought her to the city as an illiterate 16-year-old. Working as a maid, she taught herself to read and put herself through university, emerging as a vocal figure in the rubber tappers' union and a close ally to Chico Mendes, the movement's inspirational leader whose brutal murder would cause an international outcry.

Together the pair led a campaign to halt the disastrous deforestation and rampant eviction of forest-dwelling communities to make way for the logging and ranching that still threaten the Amazon.

The tappers' idea of creating sustainable reserves where forest people can make a livelihood from extractive industries has become a global model for managing forests and Acre now has a two-million-hectare reserve.

Health problems Ms Silva inherited from her youth have led to long periods in hospital but in 1994 she became the first rubber tapper elected to Brazil's senate. The winner of inter-national awards, including the Goldman prize, she has also provided credibility on environmental issues for her former boss.

Roberto Smeraldi, head of Friends of the Earth Brazil, said her greatest legacy may be her decision to walk away. "The emperor is naked now: Lula no longer has a smokescreen to show a policy and implement the opposite of it. He will have a problem, since Marina was perfect for him: she accepted anything he imposed and at the same time acted as a green seal for the Brazilian government."

Andrew Mitchell, a leading forests expert and director of the Global Canopy Programme, said: "The Amazon provides the vital rainfall on which Brazil's crops and hydropower depend, as well as regulating the global climate for the rest of us; losing all that is too big a price to pay."

Enemies of the Amazon rainforest

Ranching

The explosion of cattle ranching exactly mirrors the dramatic increase in deforestation. The world's leading beef exporter has ignored the link and pumped more money into slaughter houses with the help of the World Bank.

Mining

The soaring price of gold and minerals has revived old mines and spurred the creation of hundreds of new ones. Major mining projects not only require large clearings in theforest, they also leave a toxic legacy of pollution.

Dams and roads

Every study shows that more roads bring more people and destroy more forest. But the cycle continues. There is noevidence that massivehydroelectric dams deliver benefits to communities or cheap electricity.

Soya

The worldwide boom in agricultural commodities has bitten enormous chunks out of the rainforest. Vast soy plantations supply the demand for livestock feed and bio-fuels, and make a fortune for agribusiness giants.

This is awful. Does the rainforest even stand a chance now?

The sheer stupidity of this is sadly, just normal. I read this sort of thing and realise that as a species we do not deserve to survive.

Those of you with or hoping for children should be very scared at the sort of world their children will live in and the sort of life they might well have to lead in it. :-1

But no, people will just say it's all a plot by the climate lobby to get money and power. Somehow the rape and murder of the rainforest is juuuust fine, because the scientists are stupid or liars and big business is well known for its caring attitude to the planet and its inhabitants.

Jester;867575 wrote: I am trying very hard to balance what I'm gonna say here, so please read it carefully before ya'll fire up the Tar and goose feathers.

I was reading the article with great synicism, I stopped and re-read it several times.

This is rife with political undertones, union trade issues, socialism and environmental alarmism and the typical 'global speak' of the greenies.



Who accused Brazil of turning its back on its duty to protect the amazon? Who says its thier duty to protect it in the ifrst place? The alleged 'conservationists' Just who exactly is this accusation coming from?





'Lungs of the planet'


Why do you always assume that environmentalism is some kind of great conspiracy?

It's quite clear who is making the accusation.

The departure of Marina Silva, who admitted she was losing the battle to get green voices heard amidst the rush for economic development, has been greeted with dismay by conservationists. "She was the environment's guardian angel," said Frank Guggenheim, executive director for Greenpeace in Brazil. "Now Brazil's environment is orphaned."

In a letter to President Luis Inacio Lula da Silva, Ms Silva said that her efforts to protect the rainforest acknowledged as the "lungs of the planet" were being thwarted by powerful business lobbies. "Your Excellency was a witness to the growing resistance found by our team in important sectors of the government and society," she wrote.




posted by jester

I'm sorry to rain on the parade but she's a pawn in the fight between the ultra green and a government thats trying to provide for its people with economic growth. Im not saying we should kill the forest of course, managment needs to happen, but it needs balance.




Since President Lula won a second term Ms Silva found herself a lone voice in a government acutely aware that its own political future depended on the vast agribusiness interests she was trying to rein in. The final breakdown in her relationship with the President came after he gave the green light to massive road and dam-building projects in the Amazon basin, and a plan she drafted for the sustainable management of the region was taken from her and handed to a business-friendly fellow minister.


Sounds like she did her best in difficult circumstances and resigned in protest at what was happening. Far from being a pawn she just demonstrated the guts to resign on principle. Something very few politicians are capable of understanding.

Health problems Ms Silva inherited from her youth have led to long periods in hospital but in 1994 she became the first rubber tapper elected to Brazil's senate. The winner of inter-national awards, including the Goldman prize, she has also provided credibility on environmental issues for her former boss.




Pawn for a while, idealists have been used by cynical politicians all over the world. Eventually most won't accept it any more.

Ms Silva spent her childhood drawing rubber sap from trees and hunting and fishing to help support her large family in the Amazonian state of Acre. It was only heavy metal poisoning from polluted water and the contraction of tropical diseases that brought her to the city as an illiterate 16-year-old. Working as a maid, she taught herself to read and put herself through university, emerging as a vocal figure in the rubber tappers' union and a close ally to Chico Mendes, the movement's inspirational leader whose brutal murder would cause an international outcry.

Together the pair led a campaign to halt the disastrous deforestation and rampant eviction of forest-dwelling communities to make way for the logging and ranching that still threaten the Amazon.


Well I guess that would radicalise most people.. What was she supposed top do just accept being poisoned as good for the economy and die?



Concern for your environment isn't some weird conspiracy it's common sense. Even animals don't **** in their own back yard. There are enough homegrown examples in the US where lack of concern for the environment has led to disaster and deaths.

Im not saying we should kill the forest of course, managment needs to happen, but it needs balance.


Quite right, but unfortunately that isn't happening it is actually being killed and those who point out that is a bad idea are pilloried as nutcases trying to ruin the economy. Wonder who would do that? Won't affect you of course but your grandchildren might be puzzled as to why you let it happen. It takes hundreds of years to grow a forest but only decades to destroy one.

True it's up to the Brazilians but hey could learn from others mistakes. What is happening there enriches a few but impoverishes many. Who decided companies should continue to own land that was taken by force in the first place? i don't think any of the forest natives asked to be re-located. I suppose what you can't hold you lose. Bit ike the north american indians too weak to resist progress.

maybe part of the problem is the US is so huge whereas here most of us can walk out our doors and see the effects of industrial pollution without going too far. I live in an area where there is a lot if parkland-the ground is so polluted with heavy metals and all the spill from the mines they can't farm and it's not safe to build so all they can do is plant trees to hide the mess.

[QUOTE=Jester;867724]

It's quite clear who is making the accusation.

Oh I see that now, but who says its thier duty to protect the rainforest? Its thiers, on thier sovorign land, its thier to do with as they wish, any of these outside conservation groups have no say in the matter.



The quote by the coservationisst admitted all she did was stamp her approval on projects, despite opposition ot them, she should never have agreed to them, that would have been doig her job.





I dont know what she should do honestly...



Yes concern is a good thing, protect it, cherish it, pass it on, But dont go overboard. Balance is the key in my opinon... find ways to do both. Not a compromise but acceptable balanced growth.





I think it a very complicated issue, way over my head... but somewhere between the ultra green, and the ultra greed is a way to fix it.


Jester, I understand what you are saying, but the contrary argument is that if we allow commerical interests to rip up the last remaining area of large scale rainforest on planet earth we are all going to suffer heavy consequences, and the Brazillians themselves most of all. Its complete madness.

Meanwhile the people that own the companies that will make massive private profits from destroying what is an irreplaceable national brazilian resource, and a world environmental resource. Of course they will be answerable to no one, and able to move onto the next bit of planet earth they can destroy in order to turn a few bucks over.

I am a capitalist sure, but when you see this type of utterly senseless, self-destructive type of "development" by a cartel of global companies (and supine democratic governments who have forgotten that their primary responsibility is to their citizens, not facilitating this slash and burn commercial madness).

These transnational companies that are engaged in this process who are answerable to no one, have no loyalty to anything, and are busy destroying the shared resource of the environment for their own gain and no one elses, and we are told that this is great for us, as somehow it empowers us to ditch public power for a privatized world in which the rich and large companies can act as mini states and do whatever the hell they like? I am not into that at all.

It brings it home to me, that we (in the west) are supposed to be citizens of free countries whose leaders are supposed to be accountable to us and facilitate the needs of the general population, we are told that this is our world and that our ancestors fought against tyranny to give us that privilidge.

My country is supposed to be a Republic based on the ideals of the French and American revolutions, as well as a national homeland for the Irish people, not just an economy designed to facilitate the business practices of large companies, unfortunately it seems that that in reality the world and its governments (including my own) belong to the Exxons, Microsofts, Timewarners, McDonalds, Siemens, Royal Dutch Shells, Nokias, and Toyotas of this world and now exist purely to facilitate their interests. Why are we allowing the short term profits of already hugely wealthy companies destroy the future of our species?

Decimimation of life on earth

Species are dying out at a rate not seen since the demise of the dinosaurs, according to a report published today - and human behaviour is to blame. Emily Dugan counts the cost

By Emily Dugan

Friday May 16 2008

The world's species are declining at a rate "unprecedented since the extinction of the dinosaurs", a census of the animal kingdom has revealed. The Living Planet Index out today shows the devastating impact of humanity as biodiversity has plummeted by almost a third in the 35 years to 2005.

The report, produced by WWF, the Zoological Society of London (ZSL) and the Global Footprint Network, says land species have declined by 25 per cent, marine life by 28 per cent, and freshwater species by 29 per cent.

Jonathan Loh, editor of the report, said that such a sharp fall was "completely unprecedented in terms of human history". "You'd have to go back to the extinction of the dinosaurs to see a decline as rapid as this," he added. "In terms of human lifespan we may be seeing things change relatively slowly, but in terms of the world's history this is very rapid."

And "rapid" is putting it mildly. Scientists say the current extinction rate is now up to 10,000 times faster than what has historically been recorded as normal.

As nations meet for the Convention on Biological Diversity in Bonn, these alarming figures will cast a shadow over government pledges to make a "significant" reduction in biodiversity loss by 2010. In fact, the report's authors say that global inaction has already made such a goal totally unattainable.

"It's very damning for the governments that are party to the convention that they are not able to meet the target they set for themselves," said Mr Loh. "The talk doesn't get translated into action. We are failing, and the consequences will be devastating."

Tracking nearly 4,000 species between 1970 and 2005, the team has not only revealed the destruction of the Earth's wildlife, but also pointed the finger at the perpetrators of this devastation.

Ben Collen, extinctions researcher at ZSL, said: "Between 1960 and 2000, the human population of the world has doubled. Yet during the same period, the animal populations have declined by 30 per cent. It's beyond doubt that this decline has been caused by humans."

The study picked out five reasons for species decline, all of which can be traced back to human behaviour: climate change, pollution, the destruction of animals' natural habitat, the spread of invasive species, and the overexploitation of species. At a time when America has finally added the polar bear to the endangered species list, it is emerging that the scale of species destruction reaches far beyond the headline animals. But as in the case of the polar bear, mankind's behaviour needs to be radically changed in order to stop this pillaging of the Earth's biodiversity.

The Yangtze river dolphin is a case in point. Scientists believe it is extinct, as successive searches for the freshwater mammal have proved fruitless. There are many reasons for its rapid path to extinction: collisions with boats, habitat loss and pollution. These factors all point back to one perpetrator: mankind.

Aside from tackling global emissions, the report recommended two ways that species decline could be combated - by avoiding the destruction of animals' natural habitat by overdevelopment or cultivation; and in avoiding the over-farming or fishing of individual species.

The implications of such drastic reductions in biodiversity are already having an impact on human life. "Reduced biodiversity means millions of people face a future where food supplies are more vulnerable to pests and disease and where water is in irregular or short supply," said James Leape, director general of WWF.

"No one can escape the impact of biodiversity loss because reduced global diversity translates quite clearly into fewer new medicines, greater vulnerability to natural disasters and greater effects from global warming. The industrialised world needs to be supporting the global effort to achieve these targets, not just in their own territories where a lot of biodiversity has already been lost, but also globally."

Jester;868267 wrote: [QUOTE=Galbally;867966]



Gal, we run into the same problem we run into with everything that involves other countries, soverignty.

In your reply you said the 'west' and narrowed it down to Ireland. Well the west is only on your side if you can get them to agree, and then only if you can get them to agree enough to go fight to liberate brazil from the evil capitalists.

Unfortunatly I dont know all the details here, at least enough to dispute either the hype on the green side or the real power of the companies, but it appears to me the government is doing thier job for its people in that the mega companies provide jobs. But then I too knw well companies are dern greedy, or at least the individuals who run then can be.

I see that this conflict between the two, hyped though it may be now, may eventually become a large enough issue to casue wars.

The question is, who here is willing to go fight the governments/mega companies in order to stop the deforestation. I mean if its true what your saying, then we are all gonna die in the next 30 years right?


Of course the Brazilians have the sovereign right to do as they wish within their own borders, as short sighted and self-defeating as it can be, but I understand the point about sovereignty, it is their country. My practical solution would be to use the WTO (forget the UN, its a talking shop) to enforce global standards of basic ethical behaviour in commerce, so that private and state-run companies that are parties to the WTO system (i.e. everyone significant) can face very harsh penalties if their practices are found to cause significant damage to the environment, or to the sustainability of important resources such as fresh water, land, energy supplies, important habitats, etc etc. That is eminently practical, they already have bilateral deals on things like competition, government subsidies, and tariffs, so its not a huge leap to bring some rules in to provide some form of protection from rapacious business practices, without necessarily destroying the global economy in the process.

The reason I narrowed my definitions down to Ireland is because that's the country I am best qualified to speak about as its my own. But when I say the West I am generally referring to the nations of North America, Europe, and Australasia (and I suppose Japan and South America are part of the Western world, while also being distinct in themselves).

I mean if its true what your saying, then we are all gonna die in the next 30 years right?


Very unlikely, as I understand it. It's your grandchildren you need to be worrying about.

In thirty years, depending on how the oceans' own cycles of warming and cooling go, will probably see the north Polar ice gone and the south Polar sea ice vanished. Various tropical regions will be having increasing difficulty growing crops and we'll see events like the Burma typhoon most years if not all.

The best place to be is probably New Zealand.

Jester;868627 wrote: [QUOTE=Galbally;868298]

I hear what you are saying, I agree, some sort of force is needed. But as a world traveled soldier, looking at how the classes live in other countries like brazil, thier immeidiate needs are not whether the forest stays clothed with trees, its about a job and the ability to live day to day.

The UN used to be the arm that took care of things like this, and they are as corrupt as the worst of the mega companies and have zero credibilty. I dont see any orginization other than a country local to or who has influnce over the day to day acitivities of the country you want to change without doing it by force.

In order to do the change you want and have it be lasting you must invade and take them over, other wise the common man will never see your point in the global world when he cannot live from day to day.

I get frustrated when folks start talking like we have a global community when we dont, we have many fractions of groups of people under governments some ligit and some not. There is no global community, nor global governments, there are a very limited number of governments that make and sustain thier agreements, and regardless of what folks claim about international law, there isnt any unless the country who makes the judgement enforces it as well.


I agree about the UN, there are some parts of the UN that work well, the world food program and Unesco are ones that come to mind, but in general its a santimonious (though sometimes well intentioned) talking shop at best, though its better to have some sort of forum where all the world's governments can blow hot air at each other than to have nothing at all. Maybe an online UN would be more useful, but then what about the expense accounts of the diplomats? :rolleyes:

Species are dying out at a rate not seen since the demise of the dinosaurs, according to a report published today - and human behaviour is to blame. Emily Dugan counts the cost



You should be happy species do become extinct. It's a natural occurance. Ya can't keep 'em all. If no species died off we'd be neck deep in critter poop.

hoppy;868815 wrote: Species are dying out at a rate not seen since the demise of the dinosaurs, according to a report published today - and human behaviour is to blame. Emily Dugan counts the cost



You should be happy species do become extinct. It's a natural occurance. Ya can't keep 'em all. If no species died off we'd be neck deep in critter poop.


Sure, it's just when you live at the apex of a biological pyramid, its probably unwise to remove all the blocks that keep your sorry arse at the top of the pile. Humanities' eventual extinction is also an entirely natural and unavoidable event, but perhaps we should not do so many things that help it along so quickly. Then again considering the collective stupidity of humanity as a species (individual humans are brilliant, but humanity is about as smart as your average colony of bacteria); perhaps its better that we do go extinct and enter into the fossil record (probably sometime around 2150 the way its going), as yet another interesting, but failed, biological variation in the symphony of life.

I think we should develope a new market for beaver skins, the introduce them to the Amazon river and it's feeders. The natives would have a cash crop in hides, meat to eat, and would stop cutting trees to clear fields for planting. Everybody wins. As usual, there is no charge for this brilliant idea.

hoppy;868815 wrote: Species are dying out at a rate not seen since the demise of the dinosaurs, according to a report published today - and human behaviour is to blame. Emily Dugan counts the cost



You should be happy species do become extinct. It's a natural occurance. Ya can't keep 'em all. If no species died off we'd be neck deep in critter poop.


Fine - if a species here or there dies out so what. If, however, we're losing species faster than at any time in the last sixty five million years (when a damn'd great meteor put the world into a decade long nuclear winter) then we'd better worry that the planet is sick to the point of dying.

The planet renews itself from time to time in different ways. We are at that time and there is little to nothing we can do about it. Like it or not, all things, us included, are on a schedule. That schedule WILL BE KEPT. Read history. It's all there.

hoppy;869291 wrote: The planet renews itself from time to time in different ways. We are at that time and there is little to nothing we can do about it. Like it or not, all things, us included, are on a schedule. That schedule WILL BE KEPT. Read history. It's all there.


The planet may or may not renew itself. This time WE are "renewing" it. That is the key point. Since we are doing the damage, and we're starting to have a fair idea of how we are doing that damage, we most certainly can and should try to do something about it.

I am certainly not prepared to go quietly towards our own extinction!

Clodhopper;869304 wrote: The planet may or may not renew itself. This time WE are "renewing" it. That is the key point. Since we are doing the damage, and we're starting to have a fair idea of how we are doing that damage, we most certainly can and should try to do something about it.

I am certainly not prepared to go quietly towards our own extinction!


You can try, just like you can raise the ocean's level by spitting in it. No matter what man does, or how many Al Gores preach "change", earth is only one huge volcanic eruption, or one good meteor hit, away from permanent change.

hoppy;869308 wrote: You can try, just like you can raise the ocean's level by spitting in it. No matter what man does, or how many Al Gores preach "change", earth is only one huge volcanic eruption, or one good meteor hit, away from permanent change.


Yes indeed!

But the current issue is neither meteor strikes nor volcanic eruptions - though I understand NASA are putting some thought into meteor strike prevention - neither of which are human driven. The current climate change IS human driven and we could co-operate globally to reduce its effects, but aren't really doing so at present and the results are likely to be horrible for almost everything on the planet.

Yours is an argument of despair, and I'm not yet really prepared to go along with it.

Actually, I believe in a timetable controlled by a higher power. Man is just one of many means, or options, to use to stay on schedule. Like shown by history.

hoppy;869330 wrote: Actually, I believe in a timetable controlled by a higher power. Man is just one of many means, or options, to use to stay on schedule. Like shown by history.


Are you really sayig that global warming is the Will of God and we therefore should not interfere with it?

I would have said that history shows us that God does not intevene to save us from our own stupidity or bad luck. He didn't stop the Germans electing Hitler to power or you lot from electing Bush, he didn't stop Stalin killing millions in his purges or the typhoon killing tens of thousands in Burma. From this I infer that he regards it as up to us to solve our own problems, and climate change is definitely our problem.

Everything that happens on earth is our problem but not all our cause. If you believe the bible, the great flood was a punishment. If you believe the bible, revelation and the end times will happen. God knows when. And, some of mankind will be saved.

I believe in a timetable as the bible indicates. Who but God could keep us on schedule?

hoppy;869396 wrote: Everything that happens on earth is our problem but not all our cause. If you believe the bible, the great flood was a punishment. If you believe the bible, revelation and the end times will happen. God knows when. And, some of mankind will be saved.

I believe in a timetable as the bible indicates. Who but God could keep us on schedule?


No doubt the End Time will come, but I would regard the presumption and arrogance of making it happen as a very great sin. Murder on a global scale. Good friend of mine believes that is exactly what the Iranian govt is trying to do with its nuclear program. Should we just sit back and let them get on with it?

Way back in feudal times over here a group of soldiers fleeing a battle took refuge in a nunnery. The Bishop pursuing them (Bishops could be quite militant in those days - wielded maces to get round the prohibition on shedding blood) ordered the nunnery burnt, and when some of his soldiers protested that this would kill all th nuns said, "Kill them all. God will know his own." I don't think you or he are/were right.

Clodhopper;869423 wrote: No doubt the End Time will come, but I would regard the presumption and arrogance of making it happen as a very great sin. Murder on a global scale. Good friend of mine believes that is exactly what the Iranian govt is trying to do with its nuclear program. Should we just sit back and let them get on with it?

Way back in feudal times over here a group of soldiers fleeing a battle took refuge in a nunnery. The Bishop pursuing them (Bishops could be quite militant in those days - wielded maces to get round the prohibition on shedding blood) ordered the nunnery burnt, and when some of his soldiers protested that this would kill all th nuns said, "Kill them all. God will know his own." I don't think you or he are/were right.


You don't think we should let Iran get on with their nuclear program? Yet, your last two sentences contradict that. Dead is dead, whether caused by Iran or let happen by polution.

Well, I'm not at all sure my friend is right about the Iranian govt but if she is then I don't think we should just let them initiate Armageddon. I think we should do our best to save this beautiful world and the creatures in it from nuclear holocaust or climatic catastrophe.

Whenever I hear the words "End Time" and "Nuclear Research Program" in the same sentence, I start to worry. This is why its important that we don't too much religion in government, as people do tend to get this quaint ideas about the fact that we are all sinners and our time has come, of course the problem nowadays is that its actually possible to make that happen, which is as good an argument as I can think of why the Atheists should be put in charge, as they ain't gonna blow this place up, its all they got. Know what I mean?

hoppy;869396 wrote: Everything that happens on earth is our problem but not all our cause. If you believe the bible, the great flood was a punishment. If you believe the bible, revelation and the end times will happen. God knows when. And, some of mankind will be saved.

I believe in a timetable as the bible indicates. Who but God could keep us on schedule?


Having kicked us out of paradise maybe god is watching to see if we have learned anything and can look after things, if we can't we don't get back in to paradise.

There is as Perverted fundamentalist view of the creation myth-god made all the things on the earth and mankind to rule over it all just as he rules over us so if we destroy everything it was our right to do so cos god told us it was.

Destroy the planet and god will sort it out because it's part of it's plan, repent and your sins will be forgiven yet god is an angry god, or is he a loving god or will it depend on what mood he is in at the time. I've shat on your creation oh lord where else was I supposed to go.

Good job he's male, imagine, if he was female, trying to get in to heaven at the wrong time of the month-or should that be cosmic cycle.

Galbally;869443 wrote: Whenever I hear the words "End Time" and "Nuclear Research Program" in the same sentence, I start to worry. This is why its important that we don't too much religion in government, as people do tend to get this quaint ideas about the fact that we are all sinners and our time has come, of course the problem nowadays is that its actually possible to make that happen, which is as good an argument as I can think of why the Atheists should be put in charge, as they ain't gonna blow this place up, its all they got. Know what I mean?


On the other hand, an atheist, not believing in a heaven or hell, might think "oh, why not" and hit the trigger after a bad day.

hoppy;869453 wrote: On the other hand, an atheist, not believing in a heaven or hell, might think "oh, why not" and hit the trigger after a bad day.


The atheists I know are moral people who claim they don't need the threat of hellfire to make them that way. I'd be much more scared of a religious nutter who might claim (and believe) that God told him to do it.

"Bad" is a word with many meanings. I think you are talking about different meanings:

1) Unpleasant or upsetting.

2) Evil.

It is possible to be (1) without being (2) as in it is possible to have a day when everything goes wrong without evil being involved at all...?

Clodhopper;869544 wrote: The atheists I know are moral people who claim they don't need the threat of hellfire to make them that way. I'd be much more scared of a religious nutter who might claim (and believe) that God told him to do it.


Yes, there's evil on both sides. At this point in my life I find myself questioning religion that, all my life, I was taught to believe in. Where oh where are answers?

The bottom line is that an atheist such as myself would make an outstanding leader of a country, especially America.


No you wouldn't! You've just claimed you would, which means you want power, which disqualifies you.:sneaky:

I don't want to be President, which means I'd be perfect. :-3

I want to be King of America:p

You'd make an excellent Archbishop of Canterbury (check out the robes. They're waaay cool!)

Jester is pencilled in as Minister for Social Insecurity.:-6

Any other suggestions? We still need a Lord High Executioner, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Sheriff of Nottingham...?

Eek. Off topic again.

Sorry Galbally. Will behave. Honest.

signed: Pinocchio.

Clodhopper;869711 wrote: No you wouldn't! You've just claimed you would, which means you want power, which disqualifies you.:sneaky:

I don't want to be President, which means I'd be perfect. :-3

I want to be King of America:p

You'd make an excellent Archbishop of Canterbury (check out the robes. They're waaay cool!)

Jester is pencilled in as Minister for Social Insecurity.:-6

Any other suggestions? We still need a Lord High Executioner, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Sheriff of Nottingham...?


Got to be Spot :wah:

rjwould;869665 wrote: I know, I as an atheist try hard to stay away form the language of good and bad because it is too ambiguous and infers feeling rather than thought, but thats just me.

The bottom line is that an atheist such as myself would make an outstanding leader of a country, especially America.:-6


But if you pass the intelligence test wouldn't that mean you are disqualified from standing-or is that just the republicans that do that:-3

See, Galbally, it's them, it's them (Clodhopper points accusingly at Bryn, RJ, Jester and gmc)

Clodhopper;869846 wrote: See, Galbally, it's them, it's them (Clodhopper points accusingly at Bryn, RJ, Jester and gmc)


Have you never talked to an irishman? The blarney stone was being carried through ireland to somewhere else but the carriers stopped to have a chat with the locals and got so distracted by the conversation they forgot what they were supposed to be doing. The other version is that being englishmen the carriers were too polite to interrupt and the tone remains there to this day. .

More than half of the world's ocean-going sharks are at risk of extinction, a new analysis concludes.

Specialists with IUCN (formerly the World Conservation Union) found that 11 species are on the high-risk list, with five more showing signs of decline.

Sharks are particularly affected by over-fishing as they reproduce slowly.

The scientists are calling for global catch limits, an end to the practice of removing fins, and measures to minimise incidental catches (bycatch).

With sufficient public support and resulting political will, we can turn the tide

Nicholas Dulvy, SSG

"There's this idea that because these are widely ranging species, they're more resilient to fishing pressure," said Sonja Fordham, deputy chair of the IUCN Shark Specialist Group (SSG) and policy director for the Shark Alliance conservation group.

"In fact they're becoming species of serious concern because there are no international catch limits for sharks. There are intense fisheries on the oceans, and they remain pretty much unprotected."

New threats

The SSG assessed data on the 21 species of sharks and their close cousins, the rays, that swim in upper portions of the open ocean where they are exposed to fishing fleets.

Of the 21, one - the giant devilray - is assessed as Endangered, and 10 are Vulnerable.

A further five are listed as Near Threatened, which means the signs of decline are not serious enough yet to merit a full listing.

The classifications are based on a range of criteria that look at past or forecast declines in population size. For example, a population shrinking by 50% in 10 years would usually qualify as Endangered.

Some of these species have been assessed before; but for others, including the three species of thresher sharks with their spectacularly long tails, the dangerlisting is new.

Fin cuts

The main threat to sharks is fishing, both accidental and targeted.



The three thresher species are newly judged as Vulnerable to extinction

"They used to be taken as bycatch by boats targeting tuna and swordfish," said Ms Fordham. "But now as those species are declining we're seeing more fishermen targeting sharks.

"Porbeagle and shortfin mako are targeted for fins and meat; species like blue shark are likely to be finned, but particularly in Europe we're seeing more blue shark being landed."

Several of the bodies that regulate fisheries in international waters - the Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) - have set up measures to curb shark finning, but there are different standards in place, a situation that enables fishermen to work around the regulations.

As East Asian economies boom, conservation groups say the market for fins is increasing.

"Fishery managers and regional, national and international officials have a real obligation to improve this situation," commented Nicholas Dulvy from Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, the report's lead author.

"But it doesn't have to be like this. With sufficient public support and resulting political will, we can turn the tide."

The report was released at the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) meeting in Bonn, and will be published in the journal Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems.

The new risk assessments will be included in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species when it is published later this year.

Richard.Black-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk

Southern Europe faces water crisis unprecedented in modern history



Independent.co.uk

Barcelona is a dry city. It is dry in a way that two days of showers can do nothing to alleviate. The Catalan capital's weather can change from one day to the next, but its climate, like that of the whole Mediterranean region, is inexorably warming up and drying out. And in the process this most modern of cities is living through a crisis that offers a disturbing glimpse of metropolitan futures everywhere.

Its fountains and beach showers are dry, its ornamental lakes and private swimming pools drained and hosepipes banned. Children are now being taught how to save water as part of their school day. This iconic, avant-garde city is in the grip of the worst drought since records began and is bringing the climate crisis that has blighted cities in Australia and throughout the Third World to Europe. A resource that most Europeans have grown up taking for granted now dominates conversation. Nearly half of Catalans say water is the region's main problem, more worrying than terrorism, economic slowdown or even the populists' favourite – immigration.

The political battles now breaking out here could be a foretaste of the water wars that scientists and policymakers have warned us will be commonplace in the coming decades. The emergency water-saving measures Barcelona adopted after winter rains failed for a second year running have not been enough. The city has had to set up a "water bridge" and is shipping in water for the first time in the history of this great maritime city.