How does social change happen?

Blogpost by Rex Weyle

“We live mythically and integrally”— Marshall McLuhan

Changing the world remains a complex challenge, with no infallible formula for success. Nevertheless, we possess the record of those who have tried, from the 3000-year-old Taoist I Ching, to Karl Marx’s Das Kapital, Brigitte Berger’s 1971 Societies in Change, and recently, The 8 Laws of Change by Stephan Schwartz in the U.S. 

The I Ching describes Taoist principles of following nature’s patterns in one’s pursuit of social influence. The value of patience as well as perseverance, and the warning to “adapt to the times but remain firm in your direction,” provide timeless wisdom for citizens.

Some early Greenpeace activists were influenced by the I Ching, and more directly by the Quakers, Mahatma Gandhi, Chipko in India (the original tree-huggers), and American activist Saul Alinsky. The Quakers had confronted repression with pacifist moral dignity and sailed ships into nuclear test zones, inspiring the first iconic Greenpeace action. 

Gandhi borrowed Quaker tactics in his campaign to liberate India from British colonization. Gandhi’s march to the sea represents quintessential social activism: inspiring thousands to participate in a meaningful commitment, exposing an oppressors’ violence, winning the battle for moral authority, and — most importantly — reframing the status quo story, not with words, but with symbolic, non-violent action.

As a young antiwar activist in the 1960s, I met older radical Ira Sandperl at the Institute for the Study of Nonviolence, in California, which he had founded with pacifist folksinger Joan Baez. One evening, Sandperl asked me, “Do you want to know the secret to organizing?” 

“Yes,” I replied. 

“Be organized,” he said.

Sandperl talked about attention to details, articulating clear goals, and organizing the work that must be done to achieve those goals. Never turn down a volunteer, he would advise. The work to do is practically infinite, so if a movement does not have a job for someone who wants to contribute, the alleged leaders are not performing their job as organizers. 

The Quakers and Gandhi practiced a creative non-violence that included absolute respect for one’s adversary, to the point of not even insulting them. Saul Alinksy, whose Rules for Radicals influenced Greenpeace tactics, took a somewhat different view.  “Ridicule,” he believed is one of the activist’s “most potent weapons.” 

“Go after people and not institutions,” he advised. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Alinsky became a brilliant tactician, more aggressive than the Quakers or Gandhi, more willing to embarrass a perpetrator. In Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi has said that “The quintessential revolution is that of the spirit, born of an intellectual conviction of the need for change in … mental attitudes and values.

We do not have to assume that one style is correct and the other wrong. Tactics must reflect circumstances, and as ecologists, we might understand the value of diversity. In any case, the tactics of The Quakers, Gandhi, Chipko, Baez, Sandperl, Aung San Suu Kyi, and Alinksy reflect a common understanding that the agent of change  has to shift the culture’s prevailing moral story. 

Classical theories of Social Change

Philosophers have attempted to explain social change, driven by evolution, conflict, natural cycles, economy, technology, and so forth. They theories have generally failed to provide a recipe for change. 

Evolutionary social theory assumed that social change reflects biological evolution, an inevitable advance through predictable stages from simple to complex, from so called “primitive” to metaphysical, then scientific and industrial culture. 

Historians Oswald Spengler (Decline of the West, 1918) and Arnold Toynbee (A Study of History, 1956) assumed societies moved through a rise, decline and collapse cycle. Vilfredo Pareto observed that social change often occurs when one elite group grows decadent, and another elite simply replaces them. Conflict Theory suggests that powerful elites maintain the status quo until oppressed groups rise up in struggle. We know, however, that conflict itself does not guarantee change and can even obstruct change. 

Karl Marx and others believed that economic forces drove social change, and for Marx  specifically, class conflict over control of production infrastructure. Technological theories suggest that innovation creates new conditions to which societies adapt.

Each of these these ideas may identify a possible agent of change, but the theories over-generalize. Social change is not simply biological evolution, not linear, not purely cylcical, nor driven only by class conflict or innovation.  

Marx and Frederick Engels did accurately observe that neither individuals nor institutions come into being independently. Societies reflect nature in this regard: They are living systems, dynamic and complex, and no part of the system exists except in relationship with other forces. The relationship between nature and society was observed more accurately by Taoists and indigenous communities that honoured and learned from the dynamic patterns of nature.

Systems  

When Marshall McLuhan wrote in Understanding Media, “We live mythically and integrally,” he referred to society as a living system, evolving within a web of complexity, with no single change driver. Biological evolution itself is not linear, nor cyclical. Evolution often consists of chaos, bursts of growth, transformation, collapse, disruption, randomness, and novelty.   

Systems cannot be managed by any subsystem. Living systems change with vast, interacting inputs and feedbacks. When one disturbs a system in flux, inputs can have unintended consequences. We might observe, for example, that advanced technology provides benefits for some people, while contributing to ecological deterioration. Living systems don’t behave as we might wish. 

The 2007 book Getting to Maybe: How the World was Changed, by Frances Westley and others, discusses three classes of problems within systems. Some problems, such as riding a bicycle, appear relatively simple and easily replicable. Other challenges — building an energy infrastructure, are complicated, tricky, but a practitioner gets better with practice. However, some dilemmas — raising a child or changing a social policy — are complex. There exists no infallible recipe for shifting a complex system. Getting to Maybe, observes that when one sets out to change a complex system, expect:

1. you will be changed by the process

2. the goal may change along the way

3. relationships, not individuals, do the changing, and…

4. the system may not change in the way you intend. 

When working with complex social systems, change agents must influence the larger context — the cultural story — and then let that context find its new state of dynamic homeostasis, which is not a state that will be designed, engineered, or managed by anyone. 

Actions reverberate, theoretically forever, throughout the entire system. Every action represents participation in a dynamic network, and that action will influence the entire system in ways not predicted or intended by the actor, including feedback on the actor. In modern politics and media theory, we call this “blowback.” 

Successful social innovators will study patterns of behaviour systems. Social systems, like biological systems, remain in a dynamic, shifting balance, until homeostasis is so disrupted that the system passes through a “state shift.”

Change the Story

The 8 Laws of Change by Stephan Schwartz reflect these characteristics of dynamic living systems. Schwartz observes that (rule 1) successful change agents work in networks, sharing a “common intention,” and although they share goals, they (2) remain unattached to “cherished outcomes.”  

Schwartz reports that successful change agents (3) accept long-term, generational change, and (4) do not covet fame, credit, or power. They (5) respect all other contributors, even adversaries, and (6) practice absolute non-violence, equality, fairness, and leadership without arrogance or control. 

Finally, (rules 7 and 8), Schwartz describes how effective activists, make a personal, life-affirming choice to live with integrity, in both private and public action. They practice personal introspection and become a living model for the principles they espouse. They walk the walk. 

The Greenpeace documentary, How to Change the World, articulates five “rules” for change. Writer, directory Jerry Rothwell explains: “This isn’t intended to be a definitive proscription, but these were the themes that I noticed among the original Greenpeace activists.”  

“The revolution will not be organized,” recalls the nature of complex systems. Goals, yes. Cherished outcomes? You’re dreaming. 

“Let the Power Go” suggests that modesty, in the face of complexity remains appropriate. “Put your body where your mouth is,” and “Fear Success” are other ways of saying “integrity” and “modesty.” Greenpeace co-founder, and and 1940s pacifist Ben Metcalfe used to warn the younger activists: “Fear success.” Why? Success brings notoriety, money, and power, that can corrupt the best intentions. Fear success, because with success, your own weaknesses will be exposed. The convincing agent of change must overcome his or her own attractions to the spoils of victory.

Finally, if all else is in order, “Plant a Mind Bomb.” In the early television era, Greenpeace cofounder Bob Hunter used this term, mind bomb, to describe what today we might call a “meme” or “going viral.” All the great social transformers — Gandhi, the Suffragists, Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks, Aung San Suu Kyi, Chipko, Greenpeace — understood, often intuitively, that their actions had to disrupt the cultural myths that protected the status quo. 

The new story is not necessarily written in words. It is written by actions. Placards and banners prove far less effective than visible personal sacrifice at the precise point of the injustice, as witnessed in Gandhi’s well-trained volunteers accepting brutal beatings on their march to the sea. In one afternoon, the Indian people captured the moral high ground, and the British exit became inevitable. 

This is the power to unsettle the taboos and deceits that keep the power structure justified in the public mind, whether in 1916 or 2016. Effective social change tactics require extraordinary creativity and social awareness, but once the cultural spell is broken, the system has already begun its transformation. 

=============   

Links and resources: 

Change in complex systems:

Thinking in Systems, Donella Meadows, 2008.

“Seven lessons for leaders in systems change,” Center for Ecoliteracy.

The Systems Bible, John Gall, 2003

Understanding Media, Marshall McLuhan, MIT Press, 1964

Mind and Nature, Gregory Bateson, E.P. Dutton, New York,1979;

“How do systems get unstuck?” Deep Green, April 2015

Coming Back to Life, Joanna Macy, 1998 

Some useful books on social change: 

Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinsky, 1969 

Societies in Change:  Brigitte Berger, 1971

Development as Freedom, Amartya Sen, 1999

The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell, 2000 

Getting to Maybe: How the World Is Changed, Frances R. Westley, 2006

The Revolution Will Not Be Funded, Women of Color Against Violence, 2007

The 8 Laws of Change by Stephan Schwartz, 2015

Influential novels about social change

Animal Farm, George Orwell 

The Color Purple, Alice Walker

The Melancholy of Resistance, Lazlo Kraznahorkai

To Kill a Mockingbird, Harper Lee 

The Poisonwood Bible, Barbara Kingsolver 

Slaughterhouse Five, Kurt Vonnegut

=======   

Blog post by: Rex Weyler

Rex Weyler was a director of the original Greenpeace Foundation, the editor of the organisation's first newsletter, and a co-founder of Greenpeace International in 1979.
Deep Green is Rex's column, reflecting on the roots of activism, environmentalism, and Greenpeace's past, present, and future. The opinions here are his own.

All blogposts by Rex Weyler
Tweet rex_weyler

Thousands call for #safepassage in Europe

Blogpost by Aaron Gray-Block

As thousands of people gathered across Europe on Saturday to call for refugee rights, a human chain of hands was formed on a stony Lesbos beach next to a banner demanding ‘No more deaths’.

Lesbos is on the frontline of Europe’s worst refugee crisis since World War II and it’s where Greenpeace is working with Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors without Borders (MSF) to rescue refugees in distress at sea.

Half a million people fleeing war and horror made the dangerous sea crossing to Lesbos last year and that flow of human hope and suffering has continued unabated in 2016. Already this year more than 300 people have died trying to cross the Aegean Sea.

“Europe needs to embrace this crisis and not have the borders closed ... We don’t want to see any more bodies washing ashore,” Lesbos resident Dina Adam said, her voice choking up and tears in her eyes. “This has affected us all, the whole community. Let’s hope Europe starts to respect people.”

Dina was one of several hundred people who gathered on a Molyvos village beach on the north of Lesbos as part of a citizens’ initiative #safepassage protest coordinated by the Sea Scouts of Molyvos.

The Molyvos activity was one of many across Europe and North America on the weekend calling for refugee rights and safe passage. According to the Facebook site promoting the event, rallies were planned in at least 115 cities across 28 countries.

The MSF-Greenpeace crews on Lesbos echoed their show of solidarity, producing a powerful video message using an abandoned refugee dinghy.

In Brussels, the heart of the European Union, estimates of participants marching through city streets ranged from about 2,000 to 3,000. Staff and volunteers from Greenpeace Belgium were among them.

More than 200 people took part in the march in Palma on the Spanish island of Majorca, while across the Atlantic in Canada, a choir sung hymns of peace as a dinghy arrived at a Vancouver beach with a dozen people in life jackets as part of activities there.

“Safe passage means for us we want no more deaths,” said Eleonora Pouwels, a Sea Scout leader addressing protestors at the Molyvos march.

It can’t be any simpler or more urgent than that. 

Blog post by: Aaron Gray-Block

Aaron Gray-Block is a crisis response campaigner with Greenpeace International

All blogposts by Aaron Gray-Block
Tweet @AaronGrayBlock

Love the Oscars? You’ll love these environmental films too

Blogpost by Shuk-Wah Chung


Rising seas, severe droughts, catastrophic storms, people foraging for food. Sounds like a backdrop for a post-apocalyptic film but this is climate change, and it’s the real-life blockbuster happening right now.

Whether it’s Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, or Greenpeace’s How to Change the World, films have the ability to highlight environmental issues and empower a movement to create change. But it’s not just documentary - climate fiction, or cli-fi is the literary genre that has risen out of our recognition of climate change and the need to do something about it.
Afterall, as first-time Oscar winner and climate activist Leonardo Dicaprio said:
“Climate change is real. It is happening right now. It is the most urgent threat facing our entire species. And we need to work collectively together to stop procrastinating.”

So without further ado, here’s a few enviro-flicks you can binge watch.

A Plastic Ocean (2016)

When surfer, journalist and filmmaker Craig Leeson heard about the amount of plastic in our oceans he was “shocked and horrified”.

“I’d like to think I am environmentally aware and I love the ocean, and here I was using this stuff without a care in the world. I’d been brainwashed into believing that plastic was disposable, as everyone has,” he told the South China Morning Post.

The result is a personal journey of why and how so much trash ends up in our ocean. After all if we don’t clean up our act we could end up having more plastic than fish by 2050.

Behemoth (2015)

Zhao Liang has made some courageous documentaries, like people living with HIV and petitioners in Beijing, but for a long time has wanted to tackle an environmental subject. The result is Behemoth, a haunting 90-minute film with beautiful gothic-like images, backed by a Mongolian soundtrack, and with no dialogue.

Based in Inner Mongolia, the film exposes the environmental and health costs of coal mining – workers suffering from “black lung disease”, rocky coalmines contrasted by rich grasslands, and rapidly urbanised towns that lay empty.

Whilst China might be fast-tracking its way to a renewable energy future and making steps to shut down coal mines, the reality is that many parts of the country and major cities are suffering from the coal industry’s side effects – air pollution, health risks, worker’s rights and compensation - and will continue to do so for many years to come.

Surviving El Nino (2016)

"We should be planting now but there is no water... no rain means no income."

Severe droughts in the Philippines brought on by El Niño have destroyed many Filipino farmers’ crops. The frequency and intensity of these events are predicted to increase with climate change, resulting in droughts and stronger typhoons.

This short film documents how organic farming can increase farmers' resilience in dealing with a changing and less predictable climate, as more and more Filipino farmers are finding that adopting ecological farming practices enables them to adapt to the new climate reality.

Tomorrowland (2015)

George Clooney and Britt Robertson star in this American “cli-fi” mystery adventure film about a disillusioned and disgruntled inventor, Frank Walker (Cloney) and a science prodigy, Casey Newton (Robertson). When Casey stumbles across a magical pin, it instantly shows her a world filled with climate doom. She enlists in Frank who also knows of the powers of the pin. Can they save the world from its predicted climate-change future?

Mermaid (2016)

Hong Kong filmmaker is known for making non-sensical comedy-action type films like Shaolin Soccer and Kung Fu Hustle. His latest The Mermaid, is no different but one key point stands out – amongst all the action and over-the-top CGI effects, deep down it’s a film about how humans are destroying the environment…and mermaids, of course.

Since its release, it’s literally made a huge splash, having become China’s highest grossing film. Using real footage of water pollution and dying sea creatures, it leaves the viewer pondering one question.

“Hypothetically, if the world doesn’t have a single drop of clean water or single breath of clean oxygen left, what do you want the most?”

 

Under the Dome (2015)

Over a year, investigative journalist Chai Jing visited factories, interviewed government officials, spoke to environmental experts and business owners, all while investing her own money and finding out that her as yet unborn daughter had developed a tumour in the womb.

The result? One of the China’s most influential films, viewed over 150 million times!

What is it about? Air pollution.

Shuk-Wah Chung is Content Editor at Greenpeace East Asia. Follow her on Twitter.

Want to see more? Check out some Greenpeace films and videos here. 

Interview with a polar bear (expert)

Blogpost by Larissa Beumer

This year, celebrate International Polar Bear Day by learning more about this amazing species from a scientist who has studied them for decades.
 

Thor S. Larsen is a pioneer in polar bear research. He began his academic career in 1965 at the Norwegian Polar Institute. From there, he became a member of the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) Polar Bear Specialist Group from 1968 to 1985. Working with other scientists in the Specialist Group, he helped initiate the international Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears, signed in 1973.
After visiting the Arctic for over 50 years, he still describes his feelings for the region as a “never-ending love story.”
Larissa Beumer, a Greenpeace Germany Arctic campaigner, spoke with him about his work:

---

What was it like to study polar bears in 1965?

At that time, we didn’t know anything about polar bears! We didn’t know if all polar bears in the Arctic belonged to the same population or if there were distinct subpopulations, how many there were, or anything about their migration patterns or their population biology – for example, their reproduction or mortality rates.
At the first scientific meeting in Fairbanks, concerns were expressed that polar bears were over-hunted in many areas. But no country was able to provide any reliable data on numbers of polar bears anywhere in the Arctic. The estimates of world population numbers ranged somewhere between 5,000 and 19,000 polar bears, even numbers as high as 25,000 were mentioned. But in reality, all these numbers were just “guestimates” rather than estimates based upon sound scientific data.
So back in 1967, we started the systematic polar bear research in Svalbard: we captured them, marked them with ear tags, took various samples and undertook several surveys trying to count them from ships and airplanes. We also talked to trappers to gather information from them.
The fieldwork back then was very different from today. For 15 years, we only went to Kong Karls Land on skis, without any motorized vehicles. Once, I stayed on Edgeoya for 16 months doing fieldwork only using dog sledges. In 1973 we travelled with the Sirius patrol in Greenland along the East coast to study polar bears there. On all those field trips, we would always stay in very small cabins, only about four to five square meters, and went skiing every day. You were completely by yourself, surrounded by pure wilderness.
Image courtesy of Thor S. Larsen

Why did you want to study polar bears?

We knew nothing about them, so it was a real scientific challenge. And I was very fascinated by the Arctic. I had been there to do scientific work on birds. You fall in love when you work with one of the most beautiful and exciting animals on Earth. I was extremely fortunate to be able to do this.
Image courtesy of Thor S. Larsen

How many polar bears have you seen in your life?

I have seen more than 2,000 bears. Then I stopped counting. But when I see one today, it is as beautiful as it was the very first time.

What was your most memorable encounter with a polar bear?

Oh, I couldn’t tell… But maybe it was the times when we did maternity den surveys on skis. You observe the female with her small cubs leaving the den for the first time after having spent several months without eating, only giving birth and nurturing the newborn cubs. The cubs would start playing and discovering this new world – she looks at you, you look at them… Those moments were magical.
You get very humble when you work in the Arctic for so many years, and you really respect nature.
Image courtesy of Thor S. Larsen

How did the 1973 IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) agreement work to protect polar bears?

The IUCN created a Polar Bear Specialist Group in 1965. They sent personal invitations to polar bear experts in the Soviet Union, the USA, Canada, Denmark and Norway. I was lucky to be one of them.
The group was small, with only two representatives from each of the five Arctic states and a small secretariat. We decided to have closed sessions - only a Russian-English translator from IUCN’s staff remained in the room. The presentations and discussions were frank and open after the doors had been closed. We challenged each other about research findings and management advice.
The first meeting of the Specialist Group was held in 1968. After that meeting it was clear that there was a need for an international convention or agreement for polar bear conservation, and we pursued this further in the next meetings in 1970 and 1972.
As an international NGO(non-governmental organization), IUCN was not authorized to implement an international agreement. But with the help of our research we could prepare the draft agreement between the five Arctic states.
Five Arctic countries signed the  "Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears" in 1973, and in 1976 it entered into force. The agreement banned the killing of polar bears in general, irrespective of national and international laws. But there were exceptions. One was traditional hunting by indigenous communities that were dependent on it for their livelihood.
To date, it is referred to as a prime example of international cooperation. I am glad that I could contribute to that process and that it came into force before it was too late – before polar populations were at critically low levels because of over-harvest.

What are the biggest threats to polar bears today?

When the agreement was signed in 1973, we thought that polar bears were now protected forever. But today they are facing completely different challenges than hunting.
The sea ice is retreating and thinning, making it increasingly difficult for polar bears to hunt seals. This affects their body conditions. When bears get stranded on land in summer when the sea ice retreats northwards, they can survive without any food for about 6 months, but then their condition is not the best and they have to use their fat reserves. Some of these bears are pregnant females. When the cubs are born around New Year they usually only weigh 500g. When they leave the maternity den in spring, they weigh about 10kg. The females have to raise them to this weight from their own body weight. If they don’t get enough food during the summer months to accumulate sufficient fat to be able to feed their cubs after birth, they might abort or reabsorb the fetus and will thus not produce any offspring in such years. In that way, the retreating ice also affects their reproduction.
The loss of sea ice also has an impact on the maternity denning areas. Popular denning areas for polar bear females are islands such as Wrangel Island in Russia or Hopen and Kong Karls Land in Svalbard. However, if the sea ice extent does not reach to these islands in autumn, the females don’t go there for denning.
When I did research on Kong Karls Land between 1972 and 1985, there were usually about 40-50 maternity dens each spring and the number of dens increased each year. That was a result of the total protection of polar bears in Svalbard. In spring 2009, after a winter with rather normal ice conditions, my colleagues found 25 dens. In autumn 2010, the waters around Kong Karls Land were ice-free. In the following spring, they found only 13 dens. The following autumn, the waters were again ice-free, and only five dens were found in spring 2012. We’re observing the same picture in other areas as well. A friend of mine who works on Wrangel Island told me that in the 1970s, there were usually 300-400 dens each year. In the recent years, they had only about 30-40 dens. If this should become a regular pattern, it means that there is very low recruitment in the populations. And that is a very bad sign.
Another big problem is the heavy trans-boundary pollution with toxic contaminants such as persistent organic pollutants and heavy metals. They accumulate in the food chain, so polar bears are especially vulnerable because they are on top of the food chain. Scientists suspect that this also affects their reproduction, but we don’t have any proof yet. But we know that for example the pollution in Svalbard’s polar bears is very high.
Image courtesy of Thor S. Larsen

What is the status of polar bear populations today?

According to information that the Specialist Group published in 2012, many polar bear sub-populations are declining. A few are stable, but for half of the Arctic data are deficient. Only one population is said to be increasing, but the data is from 2000. In general, we need better data to make reliable estimates.

Do you think polar bears will be able to adapt to climate change?

I don’t know. There is lots of debate about how old polar bears are as a species. At the moment, we think they are about 600,000 years old. There were lots of variations in climate in those 600,000 years, including periods where the ice had retreated considerably. So maybe they will be able to adopt their life style, but we can only guess here. It also depends on the speed of changes. And on other negative impacts such as pollution, that stress the populations in addition to climate change.
Pollution and climate change are overarching international problems that we can only solve on the international level. We need to make sure to tackle these problems, but also to keep all other additional negative impacts such as illegal hunting as low as possible. Polar bear cubs and yearlings are particularly sensitive to environmental changes. Therefore, infrastructure developments and transport activities should be prohibited in and around denning areas and there should be regular seasonal den surveys and monitoring of reproduction in the populations.
Image courtesy of Thor S. Larsen
Inspired to act for polar bears? Join the fight to save the Arctic today!
Larissa Beumer is an Arctic campaigner with Greenpeace Germany. She interviewed Thor S. Larsen in 2015.
A version of this interview was originally published by Greenpeace Germany.

Adorable Japanese couple devastated by Fukushima turn lives around with solar

Blogpost by Ai Kashiwagi

Mr and Mrs Okawara hold up a banner for “Solarise Fukushima”.

For the past 30 years, Shin and Tatsuko Okawara spent their lives working as organic farmers. With their own organic farm, rural work was in their blood - tilling, planting and harvesting crops from the same soil their family worked on for six generations. They sold organic vegetables direct to customers and their service was cherished by the community.

Mr and Mrs Okawara pour so much love into their products that they stick caricatures of themselves on their labels!

Mr and Mrs Okawara lived about 45km west of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, and loved their place but at the same time were also cautious. They had a radiation detector alarm that they bought after feeling worried by the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. Then on 15 March 2011, four days after the earthquake and tsunami that caused the tragic Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, their detector alarm went off and radiation levels rose. They had no choice but to leave.
The adorable couple in their organic shop in Miharu town.

Eventually though, they decided to return.

"We have cattle and chickens and we had to come back to feed them. We couldn't leave them and go elsewhere," they told us in 2012.

But apart from dealing with the aftermath of such a tragic accident they also had to deal with the future of their farming business  - their customer base fell due to fears of contaminated produce, and they even thought about giving up on farming.

Tatsuko Okawara gets emotional during a speech that she gave in her shop in 2014, as she talks about her experience as a victim of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster.

But instead of letting the nuclear accident shape them, they knew they had to move forward – for themselves, for their community and for their children’s future.

In 2013 they opened up an organic shop, “Esperi” in the agricultural town of Miharu, Fukushima Prefecture. Their intention was to help revitalise the area and create a community space where people could gather and help each other in 2013. After all, the name “Esperi” means “hope” in Esperanto.

But this wasn’t enough. So in October 2015, the couple launched the Solarise Fukushima crowdfunding project to install solar panels on the rooftop of their shop. Their aim? “Hope to spread life with solar energy from Miharu town, Fukushima”.

Before they knew it people around Japan and the rest of the world began contributing to their crowd funding project, and about a month later they achieved their target of around 1.5 mil JPY (about 13,500 US). Messages from crowd funding supporters gave them the encouragement they needed, especially as they felt “forgotten”.

Mr and Mrs Okawara are also enthusiastic performers. Shin plays the guitar and sings…

…whilst Tatsuko is a talented puppeteer. She’s performing "Taro and Hanako", a real-life story based on a couple affected by the Fukushima nuclear disaster.

Greenpeace Japan helped launch the project, and in January 2016 solar panels were installed on the Esperi rooftop.

Mr and Mrs Okagawa and myself help install the first photovoltaic panels…

... as workers install the rest.

Meanwhile, kids in the community learn about solar energy.

And when it’s finished we’re all happy.

Yep, we’re all happy.

Especially these two.

Esperi now has a 10kW solar system and will generate 10MWh electricity annually.

When the Greenpeace International radiation investigation team first met the couple in April 2011, Mrs Okawara said:

"Fukushima people are a bit naive. For a long time, we did not have money, and just accepted the plan of nuclear power plants. But for the future of our children it would be a shame if we didn’t continue organic farming and take drastic action.”

In 2012 Fukushima Prefecture pledged to switch to 100% renewable energy by 2040. But the policies that the Japanese government are currently promoting is heading in the opposite direction.

In order to achieve a sustainable, reliable and affordable electricity system, the Japanese government urgently needs to change course and streamline its actions. It needs to put the interests of people before those of the utilities and stop wasting efforts on restarting nuclear plants, stop investments in coal power plants that lock in climate destruction, and an set ambitious renewable energy target.

For many people in Fukushima, their biggest wish is for a life without nuclear energy and a future powered by clean, safe renewable energy. Esperi is a tangible testament to the community’s future - it’s our hope.

Ai Kashiwagi is an energy campaigner at Greenpeace Japan.

We climbed the "Oriental Alps" and did it in PFC-free gear

Blogpost by Icey Tsui, A.M. and Deng Lin

The majestic Four Sisters Mountains, in Sichuan Province, Mainland China.

On January 19, a rare meteorological event allowed a record cold current from the Arctic to slide south into Mainland China. As the frigid polar air kept many residents indoors, a trio of seasoned mountaineers assembled at a guesthouse in Changping Valley, part of the Four Sisters Mountain scenic area, about 3800 meters above sea level.
We were Icey Tsui from Taiwan, A.M. from Hong Kong, and Deng Lin from Mainland China; and together we were embarking on an adventure to climb the Four Sisters Mountain, reputed as the “Oriental Alps” in Sichuan Province.
(From L-R) Icey Tsui, A.M. and Deng Lin who tackled the summit of Da Feng peak of the Four Sister Mountains (5025m) in Sichuan Province, Mainland China.

The next day after a full night’s sleep, we left the comfort of our guesthouse to take on the 5025-meter Da Feng peak of Four Sisters Mountain.

We paused briefly when the mountain came into view; the clear skies and morning light provided a golden radiance. As we trekked across the plain, the horizon widened, and we approached the outskirts of a Tibetan region within Sichuan. Yaks and horses occasionally strolled across our path as they traversed the plateau.

Nothing hinted at the challenges that lay ahead.

Hiking to the summit of Da Feng peak

 On January 21, we set off at 3a.m. Our lights blazed a trail across the snowy landscape. We climbed non-stop against an unrelenting icy snowstorm that pounded against our progress. Each step soon became weaker than the last from the constant gusts of wind, as soreness and fatigue set in to our muscles and joints.

When we finally reached the snow-covered platform beneath the summit, the sun had only just begun to break. The darkness was limiting our sight; the heavy snowfall obscured the beauty of Yaomei Feng, the highest peak of the Four Sisters, and hid the clear view of the surrounding mountain tops we had enjoyed the day before.

The summit of Da Feng peak

We managed to make the summit in less than four hours, which we considered fast under such adverse conditions. Then we began the long trek back to our camp.

The climbers spent 4 days on the mountain and reached the summit of Da Feng peak, under -20 degree celsius conditions and in PFC free clothes.

We soon found the return trip would be more time-consuming than we had anticipated. The snow got heavier and quickly piled up, covering the whole mountain and slowing our descent to a crawl.

As we continued, the Arctic Oscillation brought mounds of snowfall to the lowlands around the Dujiangyan irrigation system, a UNESCO site based at the junction between the Sichuan basin and the Qinghai-Tibet plateau. According to local news, the mountains surrounding Taipei also received snow, and sporadic sleet was recorded across the lowlands.

Despite the strong cold current that had dropped to -20 °C during our climb, we successfully accomplished our mission in clothes which were free from hazardous PFC (per- and poly-fluorinated chemicals), proving that PFC-free clothes can withstand the challenges of extreme cold weather at 5000 meters.

PFC-free and going strong at -20°C 

 There are many explanations for the extreme weather patterns we experienced. Outdoor lovers are still in search for a way to co-exist with the nature while attempting to limit the harm our activities bring to the environment. For our expedition to Da Feng peak, appreciating the beauty of nature in an eco-friendly way was the least we could do.

It is a never-changing trend to eliminate hazardous PFCs from our outdoor gear. Now that PFCs have been discovered to be harmful to the environment and human health, outdoor brands should take the responsibility of putting a stop to their use and helping to restore nature to its clean state.

We have been encouraged by other outdoor lovers who are taking strong actions to demonstrate that clothing free of PFCs, can meet the demands of world-class high mountains. Members of our community want to prove to outdoor brands that they are determined to Detox and won’t accept anything less from them.

Now that PFCs have been discovered to be harmful to the environment and human health, outdoor brands should take the responsibility of putting a stop to their use and helping to restore nature to its clean state.

With this expedition, we wanted to send a message from Four Sisters Mountain to all the corners of the world asking, “What is your dream?” For us, it is to be PFC-free! That’s a dream shared by Greenpeace and the wider community of outdoor lovers.

The expedition team

Icey Tsui is a well-known mountaineer from Taiwan, with over 18 years of mountain-climbing experience and a specialization in mid-level mountain exploration (1500-3000 meters) and high mountain climbing (3000 meters and above).

A.M. from Hong Kong, is a rising star in the world of mountain climbing and the creator of the Facebook page--Yamanaka Yuko--which promotes nature, photography, design and art.
 
Deng Lin (AKA Zidiyiyang), from Mainland China, has a specialization in ice climbing and ski mountaineering.

Iceland's fin whale hunt cancelled for 2016

Blogpost by Willie Mackenzie

No endangered fin whales will be hunted in Iceland this year.

This is great news. Word today from colleagues in Iceland, and now reports in both Icelandic and English-language media confirm that the planned hunt for fin whales will not happen this summer. The man behind that whaling is claiming that he’s stopping because of ‘hindrances’ in exporting the meat. That’s great news for whales, and everyone who has been opposing this needless, senseless hunt.
Fin whales are amazing. The second largest animal on our planet growing up to 27 metres in length (that’s about two and a half double-decker buses) and are found all over the globe. They’re nicknamed the ‘greyhounds of the sea’, because they are sleek, streamlined swimming machines. They are listed as internationally endangered, largely because these massive whales were some of the first targets of the harpoons of factory whaling in the 20th century, and their populations were virtually wiped out in many areas.

Over the past few years Iceland has defied international opinion and public outcry and allowed one man, Kristian Loftsson, to restart a fin whale hunt. This hunt of an internationally endangered species is quite impossible to defend. It makes no environmental, economic, or social sense to Iceland. There is no market for the meat in Iceland, the blubber (and often more) is discarded as being ‘unfit for human consumption’, and the tentative trade to Japan makes no sense – not least since they too have stockpiles of unwanted whale meat, and are concerned about toxic pollution.
Greenpeace activists in Europe have played a crucial role in highlighting and blockading some of these illicit shipments, blocking ports in the Netherlands and Germany, and challenging shipments through Canada, exposing desperate shipment through the Arctic, and mobilising massive public support to block whale meat trade via South Africa. And let’s not forget there is no economic rationale for these hunts and this trade, and fin whales are supposed to be protected species internationally. As well as that, whales and other marine life in the North Atlantic have been shown to suffer particularly badly from toxins. That’s why people are advised to avoid eating whale blubber, or too many portions of fatty fish, and recent studies suggest some populations of whales in the North Atlantic might ultimately go extinct as a result of pollution alone.
Over recent decades tourism has become a much more significant economic activity in Iceland than whaling could ever be, and the growth of whale-watching has been one of the greatest success stories of all. Iceland is now a destination synonymous with scenery and wildlife, which has increasingly brought the tourist industry into conflict with Loftsson’s ego-driven hunt.
There’s simply no place today for commercial whaling, and the world’s remaining whales, dolphins and porpoises face a whole host of threats from us humans that we collectively aren’t tackling – from climate change, to pollution and industrial fishing. Stopping the senseless charade of commercial whaling for good needs to happen so we can get on with the other stuff.
So when Loftsson says he is stopping because of ‘hindrances’, it sounds like a very diplomatic version of the truth to save face. But let’s hope that the cancelling of this year’s hunt is the end of this indefensible outrage for good.
That would be even better news for the whales, for Iceland and for the oceans.
Willie Mackenzie is a part of Greenpeace UK’s biodiversity team. 
This blog was originally posted by Greenpeace UK.

Projeto de Lei visa liberar FGTS para gerarmos nossa própria eletricidade

Postado por icrepald

zoom

quinta-feira, 25 de fevereiro de 2016 (Foto: Nathalie Bertrams/Greenpeace)

 A Comissão de Infraestrutura do Senado aprovou nesta quarta-feira (24/02) Projeto de Lei do Senado 371/2015, que visa liberar o saque do Fundo de Garantia por Tempo de Serviço (FGTS) pelo trabalhador que deseja utilizar as fontes hidráulica, solar, eólica ou biomassa para gerar sua própria eletricidade

De acordo com o Senador Ciro Nogueira (PP-PI), autor da iniciativa, “um projeto desses visa a gerar energia de forma mais limpa possível, a melhorar a renda dos trabalhadores brasileiros e, principalmente, a fazer jus a um dinheiro que é dele, do trabalhador”.

O PLS foi relatado pelo Senador Wilder Morais (PP-GO), que deu parecer favorável. Agora, seguirá para votação na Comissão de Assuntos Sociais. Depois disso, será enviado para a Câmara dos Deputados, onde também precisa ser aprovado.

O brasileiro pode gerar sua própria energia e receber descontos em sua conta de luz desde 2012. Mas ainda tem como entrave a falta de linhas de crédito acessíveis (juros baixos e prazo de pagamento não inferior a 5 anos). O uso do FGTS, portanto, pode ser uma forma de democratizar o acesso à sistema de energia solar.

“Em um momento de crise e no qual a conta de energia do brasileiro subiu mais de 50% no último ano, propostas como essa, que se revertem em benefícios concretos para o cidadão, devem ser abraçadas e apoiadas pelo poder público”, disse Barbara Rubim, da Campanha de Clima e Energia do Greenpeace Brasil. Isso porque, os sistemas fotovoltaicos permitem uma economia relevante na conta de luz.

Para pressionar o Governo Federal a liberar o FGTS para a compra de painéis fotovoltaicos, o Greenpeace Brasil criou, no ano passado, uma petição online. Assine aqui.

#souterrorista

O Greenpeace e organizações parceiras divulgam nota endereçada à Presidente Dilma exigindo o veto ao projeto de lei 2016/15, conhecido como Lei Antiterrorismo, aprovado nesta quarta-feira 24/2 na Câmara Federal, em Brasília

A mobilização começou nas redes sociais ontem à tarde, durante a votação do projeto pelos deputados, com um tuitaço que fez a hashtag #eunaosouterrotista chegar aos trending topics do Twitter Brasil, com mais de 16 mil tuítes. Diversas organizações se somaram à mobilização, como Anistia Internacional, Artigo 19, Conectas Direitos Humanos, Justiça Global e Engajamundo.

"No projeto, o conceito de terrorismo é descrito de forma tão aberta e indefinida que nele tudo cabe, podendo criminalizar manifestações ao gosto da autoridade de plantão. Este não pode ser o legado do governo de quem foi torturada e acusada de terrorista na ditadura. Não esperamos da presidente menos do que o veto", diz Marcio Astrini, coordenador do Greenpeace Brasil.

Agora, vamos espalhar a mensagem #souterrorista em protesto à lei que representa um atentado inaceitável e desnecessário à democracia no Brasil. Participe você também e assine a petição: souterrorista.org.br

Leia aqui a nota:

Exma. Sra. Presidenta Dilma Rousseff,
C/C: gabinete@planalto.gov.br; secom.gabinete@presidencia.gov.br; jorge.lopes@mj.gov.br

Nós, cidadãos brasileiros conscientes do nosso direito de lutar por um Brasil melhor, exigimos que V. Excia vete o projeto de lei 2016/15, também conhecida como Lei Antiterrorismo, que representa um atentado inaceitável e desnecessário à democracia no Brasil.

Este projeto de lei cria um novo tipo de "crime", o de terrorismo, que não se justifica no contexto brasileiro. Uma variedade enorme de condutas criminosas já previstas em lei pode passar ao mesmo tempo a ser enquadrada como terrorismo, ao sabor da interpretação dos agentes de poder. Por mais que o governo tente negar, na prática a lei significa que qualquer pessoa lutando publicamente por seus direitos pode vir a ser enquadrado como terrorista.

V.Ex.ª já sentiu na pele o que significa estar nas mãos de agentes do poder sob acusação de terrorismo. É incompreensível que venha a manchar este aspecto da sua biografia assinando esta lei desnecessária e antidemocrática.

Senhora Presidenta: em nome da democracia em nosso país, vete o projeto de lei 2016/15.
Em outubro do ano passado, mais de 90 organizações, incluindo o Greenpeace, já se colocaram contra a aprovação dessa lei, argumentando que ela coloca em risco a sua liberdade de manifestação. Confira aqui o Manifesto de Repúdio a Tipificação do Terrorismo.

Five years on and the Fukushima crisis is far from over

Blogpost by Shaun Burnie

Five years ago the Rainbow Warrior sailed along the Fukushima coast conducting radiation sampling. Now it's back, and has Japan's ex-Prime Minister on board.

Greenpeace Ship Rainbow Warrior Sailing past the destroyed Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.

Scotland is over 9,000 km from Japan, but there’s something the two countries have in common. Along the Scottish coastline, buried in riverbeds, and mixed into the Irish Sea, you can find significant radioactive contamination coming from the other side of the world. Yes, radioactive contamination. All the way from Japan.

Since the 1970s, Sellafield, a nuclear-reprocessing plant in northwest England has been contracted to process high level nuclear waste spent fuel from Japanese reactors. More than 4000 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel was shipped from Japan to Sellafield, including waste from Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), the owner of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. As result of reprocessing at Sellafield, more than 8 million litres of low level nuclear waste is discharged into the ocean every day. It’s been labelled the “most hazardous place in Europe” - with levels of contamination in the fields, soils and estuaries at a level that can only be described as a nuclear disaster zone. In fact, the Irish Sea is arguably the most radioactively contaminated sea in the world

The Sellafield Nuclear Power Station (2002).

We’re about to approach the five-year anniversary of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, and this is a stark reminder that no matter where you are or how far away, nuclear power has a local and global impact.

I remember waking up to the news on March 11, 2011. Though I was at home in Scotland, I’ve never felt so connected to the people of Japan. Having spent decades with Greenpeace actively campaigning against nuclear power in Japan, I knew deep down that a catastrophic accident was only a matter of time. With media requests coming in thick and fast, I recall appearing on BBC World News live. In mid-interview, as I was talking about the specific threat at Fukushima, I was interrupted as the news crossed to Japan where Reactor 3 exploded.

A satellite image shows damage at Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant that was caused by the offshore earthquake on 11 March 2011.

Greenpeace Japan sent a team to the Fukushima evacuation zone to conduct independent radiation testing; and researchers on the Rainbow Warrior, kitted up in full body chemical suits, pulled floating seaweed from the surrounding area to use as samples. Our results were unfortunately as you would expect – high levels of contamination.  Subsequently, we’ve also found radiation is still so widespread that it’s unsafe for people to return across large parts of Fukushima.
Greenpeace radiation monitoring team conduct seaweed testing along the Fukushima coastline.

Nearly five years later and I’m in Japan on-board the Rainbow Warrior - this time with the famously anti-nuclear former Prime Minister of Japan, Mr. Naoto Kan. It’s truly an honour and privilege to hear him describe the first hours and days of the accident in March 2011,  as well as show him the research that we are carrying out. As we sailed within 2km of the nuclear plant the feelings are both profound and surreal. From the deck we’ve seen steel tanks holding hundreds of thousands of tons of contaminated water; the four reactors now shielded behind temporary structures in an effort to contain some of the radioactive material from being released into the atmosphere; and inside the reactors themselves lie hundreds of tons of molten reactor fuel for which there are no credible plans to deal with.

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant as seen from Greenpeace ship, Rainbow Warrior.

But there’s another reason the Rainbow Warrior is here. A Greenpeace Japan research vessel is conducting underwater marine radiation surveys within a 20km radius of the Fukushima Daiichi plant, with the Rainbow Warrior acting as campaign ship. As with the radioactive contamination near my home in Scotland, Greenpeace is aiming to further the understanding of the impacts and future threats from nuclear power and in particular the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident.

For Mr Naoto Kan, who was Japan's leader when the disaster hit, this voyage is as much personal as it is political. In the years since 2011  he has spoken out publicly against the nuclear industry, standing alongside millions of Japanese people opposed to nuclear power – a far cry from the current “tone-deaf” Abe administration, which is desperately trying to save a nuclear industry in crisis. Opposed by the majority of citizens, and beset by enormous technical, financial and legal obstacles, it's an effort that I believe is doomed to failure.
Naoto Kan, former Prime Minister of Japan on board Rainbow Warrior.
But there’s hope.
Like the many communities across the country that are switching to innovative renewable power projects, Mr Kan knows that nuclear should be buried in the past. Renewables in Japan are rising. In the 2015 fiscal year, solar power capable of generating an estimated 13 TWh was newly installed - more than the two Sendai reactors in southern Japan that were restarted that year can produce.

For Japan to go 100% renewable it must urgently formulate more ambitious targets; stop all planned investments in new coal power plants and finally abandon plans to restart its ageing reactors and remove the institutional and financial obstacles to renewable energy growth.

A nuclear free future is not only possible it is essential. Renewable energy is the only safe and secure energy for the people of Japan and the world. .

Shaun Burnie is a senior nuclear specialist with Greenpeace Germany.

Multiplicar a energia solar e aprender com o próximo

Postado por therrero

Como parte do Solariza, o Greenpeace doou um sistema de energia fotovoltaica e levou os Multiplicadores Solares para a Amarati, entidade beneficente que atende pessoas com lesões neurológicas.

zoom

Multiplicadores Solares fazem jogo da memória e explicam sobre a energia solar para assistidos da Amarati. ©Greenpeace/Otávio Almeida

– O que é isso no desenho? – perguntou a  Multiplicadora Solar Eliana Gonçalves a um dos assistidos da Associação Amarati. – Um vitrô! – respondeu prontamente Denis Quenupe, um deles.
– Parece, né? Mas é uma placa de energia solar.
– Ué, nunca ouvi falar de energia solar, não.
– E se bater sol nessa placa o que acontece?
– Deve esquentar muito!
Com esse diálogo começou a atividade dos Multiplicadores Solares que, junto ao Greenpeace, estiveram na Associação de Educação Terapêutica Amarati, em Jundiaí (SP), para levar o conhecimento sobre a energia solar fotovoltaica aos funcionários e às pessoas atendidas ali. A visita aconteceu na segunda-feira (22 de fevereiro), afinal, em breve, a entidade estará usando o sol para gerar parte da eletricidade que consome. E todos ali, saberão o quão bom isso é para eles e para o meio ambiente.
A Amarati foi a vencedora de um concurso que fizemos dentro do jogo Solariza e ganhou do Greenpeace a instalação de um sistema de energia solar fotovoltaica. Com os painéis, a entidade irá diminuir em até 10% do valor de sua conta de luz. Hoje, há meses em que ela passa de R$ 3 mil. O alto custo se dá principalmente por conta da piscina aquecida, usada nas aulas de hidroterapia, que são cruciais para o tratamento e desenvolvimento dos assistidos com dificuldades motoras.
“A gente sabia que existia energia solar, mas nunca pudemos imaginar que teríamos aqui”, diz Maria Denise Bonassi, assistente social da Amarati. “Com o valor que economizaremos na conta de luz, vamos poder comprar novos materiais de trabalho, telas, tintas e pincéis para as aulas de artes e até cadeiras de rodas novas. Ela conta que, além de oferecer tratamento gratuito, a associação doa cadeiras de rodas para as famílias que não têm condições financeiras de compra-las. Por isso, cada centavo economizado é importante por ali. E agora, eles terão muitos reais para gastar com esses preciosos bens.
Para ensinar sobre energia fotovoltaica a esse público tão especial, os Multiplicadores Solares desenvolveram atividades lúdicas e educativas. Houve jogo da memória, apresentação de brinquedos que se movem com a luz do sol e pintura. Foi nessas oficinas que Denis aprendeu que o sol poderia gerar eletricidade para ligar a televisão ou o rádio, e as lâmpadas das salas da Amarati.
“Mais do que dar um sistema de energia solar, o que o Greenpeace quis fazer pela Amarati foi compartilhar o conhecimento sobre essa fonte”, diz Bárbara Rubim, da Campanha de Clima e Energia do Greenpeace. “Em um momento em que as contas de luz não param de subir, gerar energia de forma barata e bem em cima do seu telhado é uma ótima forma de democratizar o acesso a eletricidade”, completa.
A equipe do Greenpeace levou conhecimento e placas solares para a Amarati, mas saiu de lá também com muito aprendizado e a certeza de que a multiplicação da energia solar transforma mesmo vidas.

O preço do petróleo e o futuro da energia

A volatilidade do valor do barril não altera uma certeza: as energias renováveis seguirão em alta. E o Brasil não pode mais perder tempo

zoom

Parque Eólico de Aracati, no Ceará. ©Greenpeace/Otávio Almeida

A forte queda do preço do petróleo em mercados internacionais, observada no último ano e meio, tem trazido dúvidas sobre o futuro das energias renováveis. Desde meados de 2014, o valor do barril de petróleo caiu de US$ 100 para US$ 30. E pode cair mais. Nesse cenário, muitos se perguntam se fontes como a solar e a eólica manterão sua competitividade e o impressionante ritmo de expansão observado em anos recentes.
Juntas, as fontes solar e eólica viram sua capacidade instalada crescer cerca 1.000% no mundo ao longo da última década. Felizmente, há plenas condições para esse ciclo virtuoso continuar, e diversas razões para isso podem ser destacadas.
Na maioria dos países, as novas energias renováveis ainda crescem sem competir tão diretamente com o petróleo. Enquanto mais de metade do petróleo produzido no mundo é consumido como combustível para os transportes e outra grande fatia vai para atividades industriais, as novas renováveis ganham espaço com mais força na geração de eletricidade –na qual a competição central é com carvão, gás natural e energia nuclear. O preço de petróleo pode até exercer alguma influência, mas não é determinante.
Com o avanço das tecnologias, é esperado que as novas renováveis passem a competir mais diretamente com o petróleo. Os veículos elétricos, que ainda não ganharam grande escala mas devem fazê-lo em alguns anos, são um exemplo. Contudo, a redução de preços das fontes mais modernas de energia também tem sido notável: desde a década de 1980, o custo de painéis solares vem caindo cerca de 10% ao ano. E deve seguir nessa tendência, segundo estudo de pesquisadores da Universidade de Oxford publicado neste ano.
É importante ressaltar que, enquanto os preços das renováveis só tendem a cair, a história nos mostra que o preço do petróleo é oscilante, sendo muito difícil dizer em qual patamar estará daqui a poucos anos ou até mesmo meses. Investir em petróleo, portanto, é um negócio arriscado. Mas apostar nas novas renováveis é uma estratégia cada vez mais segura, especialmente no longo prazo, que é para onde governos e empresas do setor geralmente olham.
Outra razão para manter o otimismo com relação às novas renováveis é a consolidação do setor. Seu crescimento na última década superou as expectativas mais otimistas. Uma das principais barreiras à popularização das energias solar e eólica, o armazenamento de energia em baterias compactas para momentos em que o sol não brilha ou o vento não sopra, já está sendo superada por produtos lançados recentemente.
Além disso, a previsibilidade dessas fontes de energia vem sendo estudada e equacionada há muito tempo, e é uma área de conhecimento avançada. Para citar um exemplo, em 2014, temia-se o risco de um eclipse desestabilizar a rede elétrica da Alemanha, que conta com participação significativa de energia solar. O impacto, no entanto, foi mínimo e pontual, reforçando a confiança na matriz.
Fim da era do petróleo
Para além de aspectos econômicos e técnicos, as esferas política e socioambiental da discussão também apontam cada vez mais na direção de energias como a solar e a eólica. A nível global, as renováveis são a principal saída para o desafio das mudanças climáticas, causadas principalmente pela queima de combustíveis fósseis como o petróleo.
No final do ano passado, governos de 195 países assinaram o importante Acordo de Paris, assumindo os compromissos de evitar um aquecimento global superior a 1,5°C e, na segunda metade do século, neutralizar emissões de gases de efeito estufa. Em termos práticos, a única forma realista de atingir esses objetivos é zerando o consumo de combustíveis fósseis até 2050. Ou seja, o mundo já assinou o fim da era do petróleo.
Existe ainda espaço para governos aproveitarem os baixos preços do petróleo e removerem subsídios ao seu consumo. Com a drástica queda dos preços, esses subsídios simplesmente perdem sentido. Diversos países como Índia, Indonésia e Malásia já fizeram isso, e muitos outros podem seguir o exemplo.
Os recursos que iriam para as grandes empresas petrolíferas podem, então, ser direcionados justamente para as novas renováveis, acelerando a transição para uma matriz energética mais moderna e limpa. E se os preços do petróleo voltarem a subir, o mercado já estará operando sob novas condições. E se reequilibrará, sem contar com um apoio que custa caro à sociedade e perpetua o grave problema das mudanças climáticas.

Em resumo, o cenário continua notavelmente favorável às renováveis, e cada vez mais desfavorável para o petróleo. Não à toa o investimento em renováveis quebrou um novo recorde em 2015, chegando a US$ 329 bilhões, com China e Estados Unidos na liderança. Enquanto isso, cresce exponencialmente um movimento internacional de retirada de investimentos em petróleo, que já conta com o apoio de organizações como o Rockefeller Brothers Fund, a Universidade de Glasgow e o Conselho Mundial de Igrejas.
O Brasil tem tudo para se tornar um dos protagonistas dessa revolução energética. Poucos países contam com condições tão favoráveis às energias solar e eólica. Alguns de nossos governantes já começam a perceber isso. Um deles é José Fortunati, prefeito de Porto Alegre, que há menos de um mês assumiu o compromisso de ter 100% dos prédios municipais gerando ou consumindo energias limpas e renováveis até 2050.
Ainda assim o governo federal continua olhando para o passado. E destinará aos combustíveis fósseis cerca de 70% dos investimentos públicos em energia previstos para a próxima década. Outro exemplo dos equívocos cometidos é o fato da presidente Dilma ter vetado uma séria de medidas favoráveis às energias renováveis no Plano Plurianual para 2016-2019, sancionado há poucas semanas.
Está totalmente ao alcance de Dilma e sua equipe mudar de postura e investir de fato no futuro. Basta abrir os olhos para os enormes benefícios econômicos, sociais e ambientais oferecidos pelas renováveis.

(Pedro Telles é coordenador de Clima e Energia do Greenpeace. Esse artigo foi originalmente publicado no site UOL Notícias.)