5 helpful vegetarian diet tips for meat-free newbies

Blogpost by Rashini Suriyaarachchi 

Cutting back on red meat and dairy can be one of the biggest steps to reduce your carbon footprint. While Greenpeace campaign for renewable energy and a transition from fossil fuels, we're also looking at other ways we can protect ourselves and the environment.
Ecological produce at Raspail Market in central Paris.
Just like a fossil fuel transport system, the meat industry has an impact on the environment. When we eat red meat every day, it has an effect on our water use and carbon footprints.
According to the US Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee's scientific report:

"Consistent evidence indicates that, in general, a dietary pattern that is higher in plant-based foods, such as vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds, and lower in animal-based foods is more health promoting and is associated with lesser environmental impact (GHG emissions and energy, land, and water use) than is the current average US diet."

So why start a low-carbon diet, and where do you begin making changes? Check out these great tips on how to cut back on meat.
Food illustration of a farm created by Instagram food artist and enthusiast Ida Skivenes.

1. Your diet, your rules

Your diet is a very personal part of your life. That means you don't need to follow the rules and trends of other herbivores – just the advice of your doctor (and maybe your mother). Some vegetarians choose to eat sustainably caught seafood, and some vegans eat eggs from their own chickens. Others – called 'freegans' – eat meat and dairy that would otherwise be thrown out to avoid food waste. As long as you're safe, healthy, and making the decisions you want for yourself and the world, you're all good.
Farm workers pack organic produce with their child at Shared Harvest Farm in Tongzhou, China.

2. It's okay to start slow

If dropping meat from your diet right now sounds daunting, you can try phasing it out over time. Initiatives like Meatless Mondays, where people stop eating meat one day of the week, are a great place to start (not to mention you'll be alongside people like Sir Paul McCartney and Chris Martin). You could also make an effort to choose the vegetarian option when eating out, or start by cutting the most resource-intensive meats like beef from your diet.
Francesca Kitheka from Kenya holds pigeon peas. In Kenya, farmers are effectively applying ecological farming practices that are increasing their ability to build resilience to and cope with climate change.

3. Talk to friends and loved ones

Sometimes our diets affect the people we live with or see a lot. If you're sharing food preparation duties with someone, make sure you talk to them about your decision and make an effort to work out a plan. Maybe some nights you'll cook separately, or you'll make dishes with the meat on the side – or they might even make a change with you!
If you're visiting friends or family for a meal, let them know about your new diet. You might want to bring a vegetarian dish or two to share, or offer to come early to help cook and prepare. Your diet doesn't have to stop you from enjoying your life.
Farmer's markets like this one in Slovakia, sell produce made with love for the nature and environment, without using chemicals.

4. The internet is your best friend

From nutritional information, to vegetarian recipes, to helping you find the perfect ingredient substitutes – the internet has everything a vegetarian needs.
If you're a novice in the kitchen try Vegetarian Cooking Hacks Every Herbivore Should Know.
If you have a sweet tooth you'll probably salivate over these Veganuary dessert recipes.
And if you're not quite sure where to source that 'egg' that's called for in an egg-free chocolate cake, try 17 Cooking Hacks Every Vegan Should Know.
You can have your (vegan) cake and eat it too!

5. What if I can't cut back on meat right now?

If you can't stop eating meat, but still want to bite away at your food footprint, there's still lots you can do. You might choose to buy local or organic produce, stop eating processed or packaged foods, or grow your own fruit and vegetables at home. There are even ways to make changes to how you consume meat and dairy to reduce your carbon food footprint, like choosing from more ecological farming methods such as buying grass-fed rather than grain-fed beef.
A farmer uses cattle to plow his field in Kammavaripalli Village, Bagepalli, India.
Making the decision to commit to a new diet is difficult – but once you start it's easy! But if you slip up or forget, be kind to yourself and keep at it.
Rashini Suriyaarachchi is the Digital Communications Officer at Greenpeace Australia Pacific. This article originally appeared on the Greenpeace Australia Pacific's website here.
Ready to change your diet and impact on the Earth? Take one of the I Know Who Grew It pledges today.

Farmers of the future need healthy land

Blogpost by Brecht Goussey 

Brecht Goussey is an organic farmer and runs a community-supported agriculture (CSA) farm in the area of Leuven, Belgium. What he struggles with most is access to healthy soil and affordable land to grow food for his local community. Together with thousands of people, Greenpeace Belgium is crowdfunding a direct support network for farmers just like Brecht.

Doing what I love most: farming

I'd been working as a social worker for years but, ever since I was a boy, I dreamed of becoming a farmer. Two years ago, I made up my mind. It was time to start doing what I loved the most: cultivating land!
Today, I grow vegetables for approximately 320 people on a 1.5 hectare plot. Those people harvest the vegetables themselves. But I have bigger plans: three colleagues and I aim to cultivate an integrated farm with vegetables, fruits, cereals, potatoes and flowers, as well as cows, sheep and other animals. The manure of the cattle is used to fertilise the soil and we close the cycle on our company, which results in more biodiversity, flowers, wild plants and bees.

Land is more expensive than what can be produced on it in one farmer's career

But we're not quite there yet. It's uncertain for how long and under what conditions I can keep using my current plot. In a situation like this, it's pointless to invest in permanent crops like rhubarb and fruits or in landscape measures like hedges. How will I ever be able to turn this into a real sustainable farm?
I would like to buy the land myself but, just like many young would-be organic farmers, I don't have enough money to buy agricultural land in Belgium. Speculation, shortage and scaling-up have dramatically increased prices. Oddly enough, land is becoming more expensive than what you can produce on it in an entire career.
Luckily, I'm not alone. I'm being supported by 'De Landgenoten' ('The Countrymen'), a cooperative that buys farmland and rents it to organic farmers. Together, we're looking for people, organisations and companies who would like to invest in this programme. If we collect enough money to buy 'my' plot of land, I will be able to cultivate it for the rest of my life. Thereafter, 'De Landgenoten' make the land available for other farmers.
This method suits my philosophy perfectly. Agricultural land must not stay in the hands of only a few big companies or rich individuals. We have to return our land to our local communities. Furthermore, we need more organic farmers who, instead of impoverishing the soil, embrace it and protect it for generations to come. And not with artificial manure, which only improves the fertility for the short term, but with crop rotation, compost and diversity. We need farmers who improve the ecosystem and stimulate an increase of biodiversity.
Together with Greenpeace Belgium, you can directly support the work of 'De Landgenoten' in Flanders, and 'Terre-en-vue' in Wallonia, and the dozens of ecological farmers they provide with affordable land. For me, these first square metres mean one I am step closer to renting my 1.5 hectare plot. This cooperative understood that we – all together – need to improve access to ecological farmland and healthy soil. This will be key to determine the future of farming across Belgium – and further afield.
Discover more on the project page of the crowdfunding (in Dutch and French)
Brecht Goussey is an organic farmer in Leuven, Belgium.

Confirmada Mobilização Nacional Indígena em Brasília

Divulgada convocatória para Acampamento Terra Livre, que vai reforçar reivindicações por demarcações e alertar sobre possíveis novos retrocessos em nova conjuntura política 

 

zoom

A Articulação dos Povos Indígenas do Brasil (Apib) divulgou, nesta semana, o texto da convocatória para o Acampamento Terra Livre (ATL), que vai acontecer em Brasília, entre 10 e 13 de maio. O acampamento, que acontece há 12 anos, faz parte da Mobilização Nacional Indígena e vai reforçar as reivindicações dos povos indígenas em defesa de seus direitos, em especial pelo destravamento das demarcações das Terras Indígenas.
"A aprovação do prosseguimento do impeachment da Presidenta da República (...) confirmou taxativamente um cenário totalmente desfavorável à garantia dos direitos sociais conquistados na Constituição Federal de 88, principalmente os direitos fundamentais dos nossos povos e comunidades", afirma a convocatória.
Leia o texto completo da convocatória.

Farmers of the future need healthy land

Blogpost by Brecht Goussey 

Brecht Goussey is an organic farmer and runs a community-supported agriculture (CSA) farm in the area of Leuven, Belgium. What he struggles with most is access to healthy soil and affordable land to grow food for his local community. Together with thousands of people, Greenpeace Belgium is crowdfunding a direct support network for farmers just like Brecht.
Doing what I love most: farming
I'd been working as a social worker for years but, ever since I was a boy, I dreamed of becoming a farmer. Two years ago, I made up my mind. It was time to start doing what I loved the most: cultivating land!
Today, I grow vegetables for approximately 320 people on a 1.5 hectare plot. Those people harvest the vegetables themselves. But I have bigger plans: three colleagues and I aim to cultivate an integrated farm with vegetables, fruits, cereals, potatoes and flowers, as well as cows, sheep and other animals. The manure of the cattle is used to fertilise the soil and we close the cycle on our company, which results in more biodiversity, flowers, wild plants and bees.
Land is more expensive than what can be produced on it in one farmer's career
But we're not quite there yet. It's uncertain for how long and under what conditions I can keep using my current plot. In a situation like this, it's pointless to invest in permanent crops like rhubarb and fruits or in landscape measures like hedges. How will I ever be able to turn this into a real sustainable farm?
I would like to buy the land myself but, just like many young would-be organic farmers, I don't have enough money to buy agricultural land in Belgium. Speculation, shortage and scaling-up have dramatically increased prices. Oddly enough, land is becoming more expensive than what you can produce on it in an entire career.
Luckily, I'm not alone. I'm being supported by 'De Landgenoten' ('The Countrymen'), a cooperative that buys farmland and rents it to organic farmers. Together, we're looking for people, organisations and companies who would like to invest in this programme. If we collect enough money to buy 'my' plot of land, I will be able to cultivate it for the rest of my life. Thereafter, 'De Landgenoten' make the land available for other farmers.
This method suits my philosophy perfectly. Agricultural land must not stay in the hands of only a few big companies or rich individuals. We have to return our land to our local communities. Furthermore, we need more organic farmers who, instead of impoverishing the soil, embrace it and protect it for generations to come. And not with artificial manure, which only improves the fertility for the short term, but with crop rotation, compost and diversity. We need farmers who improve the ecosystem and stimulate an increase of biodiversity.
Together with Greenpeace Belgium, you can directly support the work of 'De Landgenoten' in Flanders, and 'Terre-en-vue' in Wallonia, and the dozens of ecological farmers they provide with affordable land. For me, these first square metres mean one I am step closer to renting my 1.5 hectare plot. This cooperative understood that we – all together – need to improve access to ecological farmland and healthy soil. This will be key to determine the future of farming across Belgium – and further afield.
Discover more on the project page of the crowdfunding (in Dutch and French)
Brecht Goussey is an organic farmer in Leuven, Belgium.

Fábrica de Marianas

Comissão de Constituição e Justiça do Senado (CCJ) aprova emenda à constituição que extingue o licenciamento ambiental 

 

zoom

Lama liberada após rompimento da barragem de Samarco destruiu tudo pelo caminho e encobriu a vila de Paracatu de Baixo (MG)

Foi aprovada ontem (27) a Proposta de Emenda Constitucional (PEC) 65/2012. Segundo o texto, de autoria do senador Acir Gurgacz (PDT/RO), nenhuma obra poderá mais ser suspensa ou cancelada a partir da mera apresentação do Estudo de Impacto Ambiental (EIA), documento este que é feito pelo próprio interessado pelo empreendimento.
“A proposta não é apenas inconstitucional. Ela é imoral e insana. Libera a execução de obras sem medir seus impactos”, defende Marcio Astrini, de Políticas Públicas do Greenpeace. "Se entrar em vigor, funcionará como uma fábrica de tragédias, a exemplo do que ocorreu em Mariana, Minas Gerais".
Para o senador Blairo Maggi (PR/MT), relator da proposta, a PEC “visa garantir segurança jurídica à execução das obras públicas”, quando sujeitas ao licenciamento ambiental.
Porém, ao contrário do que afirma o Senador, os ritos de licenciamento não existem para barrar projetos, mas sim para que se respeite o bem comum, para restringir excessos e promover o equilíbrio de direitos, fazendo com que o interesse coletivo prevaleça sobre os desejos individuais – o que já não ocorre corretamente, como é o caso de Belo Monte.
Se o processo atual já apresenta falhas, com a aprovação da PEC 65 as etapas necessárias para se conseguir a licença ambiental seriam extinguidas.
“O projeto não muda, mas sim elimina a legislação que trata de licenciamento ambiental e institui uma espécie de "vale-tudo" principalmente para grandes obras". A aprovação ocorre ainda apenas seis meses após a tragédia de Mariana. "Votam o texto enquanto ainda temos vítimas desaparecidas e pessoas desalojadas pelo rompimento da barragem da Samarco. É um tapa na cara do país", aponta Astrini.
A iniciativa aprovada na comissão do Senado infelizmente não é a única em curso. O licenciamento ambiental no Brasil vem sofrendo constantes ataques de todos os lados: da Câmara dos Deputados (PL 3729/2004), do Senado Federal (PLS 654/2015) e também do próprio Ministério do Meio Ambiente, que quer alterar resoluções do Conselho Nacional de Meio Ambiente (Conama) sobre licenciamento.
Agora a PEC 65 segue para o plenário do Senado e, se aprovada, irá para análise na Câmara dos Deputados.
Dê sua opinião
O portal e-Cidadania do Senado está realizando uma consulta pública online sobre a PEC 65/2012, e você pode dar a sua opinião. Acesse e mostre sua indignação com essa proposta!

From the heart of the Amazon to the heart of corporate power: how Indigenous activists are fighting a mega dam

Blogpost by Daniel Brindis

Today, Munduruku Indigenous representatives and activists traveled thousands of kilometres from the heart of the Brazilian Amazon to the annual shareholder’s meeting of General Electric (GE) in the United States. Their goal: to confront the company on its involvement in destructive hydroelectric mega dams in the Amazon.

The Munduruku are fighting a massive hydroelectric project – the São Luiz do Tapajós mega dam – along the Tapajós River in the Amazon Rainforest that would displace entire villages and destroy livelihoods. As Munduruku leader Adalto Jair Munduruku explains, “We journeyed here to speak to the leadership of GE and meet those that would consider profiting off the displacement of thousands of people from our traditional lands against our will, destroying our natural environment. The traditional population uses very well this territory. When we are forced out of our land, we lose our traditional livelihoods.”

Why GE?

Munduruku leaders, together with their allies, are showing up to speak directly to corporate decision makers around the world – from Austrian engineering company Andritz, to Siemens in Germany, to GE today – because these corporations make massive hydropower projects possible. Some have even been involved in devastating mega dam projects before.

GE recently acquired the hydropower business of the French company Alstom who supplied equipment to the another massive Amazon dam project – called Belo Monte. Alstom, prior to being merged with GE, had reportedly been in discussions to supply the São Luiz do Tapajós dam.

Austrian company Andritz was also involved in the construction of the Belo Monte dam, as well as another massive dam called Ilisu in Turkey. Both projects destroyed biodiversity and the homes of thousands of people.

Siemens, too, has a history of involvement in such projects. The company also provided turbines and generators for the Belo Monte dam.

At GE’s meeting today, Antonia Melo – the leader of Xingu Vivo, a Brazilian organisation resisting Belo Monte – joined the Munduruku. Antonia has been displaced by Belo Monte, watched her river get destroyed and witnessed the environmental consequences of the project firsthand. As detailed in a recent Greenpeace Brazil report, the infamous Belo Monte dam displaced thousands like Antonia, and is even embroiled in a corruption scandal.

We must make sure none of these companies choose to be involved in the São Luiz do Tapajós dam.

Standing up against the São Luiz do Tapajós project

The Munduruku have been adamantly fighting against damming the Tapajós River for over a decade. They have called on Siemens not to destroy their home. They have stood in front of Andritz’s front door and demanded the company keep its hands off the Amazon.

Now they are here at GE’s annual meeting, and GE is at crossroads. The company needs to listen to the Munduruku leaders. GE is already the largest supplier of wind power in Brazil. It can stop contributing to destructive, wasteful mega dam projects and instead contribute to the growth of Brazil’s clean energy solutions.

This past week the São Luiz do Tapajós project was stalled when its environmental licensing process was suspended – but not definitively cancelled. Now is the right moment for GE and all corporations considering involvement to publicly declare that they will have no part in São Luiz do Tapajós.

Stand with the Munduruku and help keep the Tapajós alive.

Daniel Brindis is a senior forest campaigner at Greenpeace USA.

Seis projetos de pesquisa independente no Rio Doce são selecionados

Somando quase R$360 mil em recursos de doação, estudos variam desde fauna e flora até os direitos das populações atingidas; selecionados terão seis meses para pesquisar 

 

zoom

 

Após avaliar mais de cinquenta projetos de pesquisa inscritos no edital público aberto pelo projeto Rio de Gente em parceria com o Greenpeace, foram selecionadas seis propostas que receberão, cada uma, entre R$40 e R$70 mil. No total são R$359.770,10 em recursos de doação destinados a pesquisas independentes nas áreas afetadas pelo rompimento da barragem da Samarco ao longo do Rio Doce.

Os projetos selecionados desenvolverão estudos em cinco diferentes áreas: fauna, flora, água, impactos sociais e direitos humanos. Ou seja, os resultados irão variar desde estudos com girinos como indicadores da qualidade da água, presença de metais pesados na água utilizada na produção de agricultores familiares até os direitos da população indígena Krenak – fortemente atingida com a perda do rio, fonte de seu sustento.

Os coordenadores serão contactados ainda essa semana por email para dar prosseguimento ao processo. Os projetos, então, terão seis meses para desenvolver seus estudos e apresentar os dados recolhidos à uma comissão examinadora.

Incentivar a pesquisa na região atingida pela tragédia é um importante passo para dimensionar os efeitos da devastação causada pela lama em uma das maiores e mais importantes bacias hidrográficas do país: a do Rio Doce. Com conhecimento, estudos e pesquisa será possível, posteriormente, trabalhar pela recuperação dessa região que se estende por mais de 600 km do interior do continente ao oceano Atlântico.

Os projetos selecionados, separados por tema, foram:

1. Fauna - Girinos como bioindicadores da qualidade da água do Rio Doce – Proponente: equipe coordenada por Flora Acuña Juncá, doutora em Ciências Biológicas (Zoologia) pela USP. Atualmente é professora da UFBA e da UEFS (Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana).
2. Flora - Comparação de metodologias de restauração ecológica da vegetação nativa na mitigação dos impactos do despejo de rejeitos de mineração na região de Mariana – Proponente: equipe coordenada pelo pesquisador Ricardo Ribeiro Rodrigues, doutor em Biologia Vegetal pela UNICAMP. É professor titular do Departamento de Ciências Biológicas da ESALQ/USP.
3. Água - Contaminação por metais pesados na água utilizada por agricultores familiares na Região do Rio Doce – Proponente: equipe coordenada por João Paulo Machado Torres, doutor em Ciências Biológicas (Biofísica) pela UFRJ e professor adjunto do Laboratório de Radioisótopos Eduardo Penna Franca do Instituto de Biofísica Carlos Chagas Filho (IBCCF) da UFRJ.
4. Impactos Sociais - Avaliação dos riscos em saúde da população afetada pelo desastre de Mariana – Proponente: equipe de pesquisa coordenada por Evangelina Vormittag, médica patologista clínica e microbiologista com Doutorado em Patologia, ambos pela Faculdade de Medicina da USP.
5. Impactos Sociais - Depois da lama: os atingidos e os impactos na foz do rio Doce – Proponente: equipe coordenada por Flávia Amboss Merçon Leonardo, mestre em Ciências Sociais pelo programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciências Sociais da UFES e pesquisadora colaboradora do Grupo de Estudos e Pesquisas em Populações Pesqueiras e Desenvolvimento no Espírito Santo (GEPPEDES/UFES).
6. Direitos Humanos - Direito das populações afetadas pelo rompimento da barragem de Fundão: Povo Krenak – Proponente: equipe de pesquisa coordenada pela Dra. Camila Silva Nicácio, professora adjunta do Departamento do Direito do Trabalho da Faculdade de Direito da UFMG.

Show de arrecadação
As chamadas públicas de pesquisas independentes só foram possíveis graças a decisão do coletivo #SouMinasGerais de promover shows beneficentes em Belo Horizonte e São Paulo. O objetivo era reverter toda a renda para ajudar os atingidos da tragédia, e assim foi feito: um edital público foi aberto para apoiar projetos de pesquisa que ajudem a avaliar e a dimensionar os impactos causados pelo rompimento da barragem da Samarco.
Com um público total estimado em mais de 13 mil pessoas e uma arrecadação de R$ 450 mil, os dois shows juntos contaram com a participação de diversos artistas como Criolo, Caetano Veloso, Milton Nascimento, Jota Quest, Emicida, Tulipa Ruiz, Ney Matogrosso, Fafá de Belém, Maria Gadú, Mariana Aydar, Nando Reis, entre outros. Todos participaram voluntariamente dos shows. Saiba mais: clique aqui.

Lideranças Munduruku protestam nos EUA contra hidrelétricas no Tapajós

Munduruku pedem que General Electric não participe da construção de hidrelétrica no rio Tapajós, em atividade realizada durante reunião anual da empresa. A obra terá impactos socioambientais irreversíveis na região 

 

zoom

Jairo Saw Munduruku e Adalto Akay Munduruku protestaram diante da sede da General Eletric, na Flórida (USA) (© Fran Ruchalski/Greenpeace)

Lideranças do povo Munduruku participaram hoje da reunião anual de acionistas da General Electric, nos Estados Unidos, para pedir que a empresa não participe da construção da hidrelétrica de São Luiz do Tapajós, no Pará.
Prevista para ser instalada no coração da Amazônia, a barragem no rio Tapajós poderá, caso viabilizada, inundar parte importante da Terra Indígena Sawré Muybu, dos Munduruku, e forçar a remoção de pelo menos três aldeias, além de milhares de ribeirinhos. Também causará impactos negativos à rica biodiversidade da região, considerada por especialistas como excepcional até para padrões amazônicos.
“Saímos de nossa casa para vir até os Estados Unidos para falar com as empresas que participam da construção de hidrelétricas, fornecendo turbinas para gerar energia no Brasil. A construção de barragens causa grandes impactos e as empresas, mesmo sabendo disso, escolhem participar da destruição do meio ambiente e da vida das pessoas", disse Jairo Saw Munduruku, liderança do povo. "Eu vim dizer para a General Electric que, se eles participarem da construção de São Luiz do Tapajós, serão responsáveis pela destruição desse enorme patrimônio que é a Amazônia. O pedido do povo Munduruku é para que a empresa não participe de projetos que impactem povos indígenas e ribeirinhos"
A multinacional americana General Electric adquiriu, em 2015, parte da empresa francesa Alstom, que forneceu turbinas hidrelétricas e outros equipamentos para a Usina Hidrelétrica de Belo Monte, no rio Xingu, e é uma das empresas com potencial de se envolver na construção de hidrelétricas no rio Tapajós.
“São Luiz do Tapajós é mais um projeto polêmico, com benefícios econômicos duvidosos e que, se concretizado, trará impactos inaceitáveis para o rio, a floresta e seus povos. Considerando os custos socioambientais da obra, participar desse empreendimento representa um grande risco aos compromissos de sustentabilidade e direitos humanos que a General Electric diz respeitar”, afirma Tica Minami, coordenadora da Campanha da Amazônia do Greenpeace Brasil. “Em vez de participar de um projeto que pode destruir a vida de milhares de pessoas e a biodiversidade amazônica, a General Electric deveria direcionar seus esforços para a produção de energia verdadeiramente limpa, como a eólica e a solar”, conclui.
Antonia Melo, liderança do movimento Xingu Vivo Para Sempre, também esteve presente no evento e compartilhou os impactos trazidos pela construção de Belo Monte. "Os proponentes de Belo Monte quebraram todas as promessas feitas repetidamente às comunidades locais. O projeto seguiu em frente graças à corrupção instalada no governo e à ganância por lucro das empresas, curvando as leis aos seus próprios interesses. O desastre de Belo Monte poderia ser evitado – e é por isso que o projeto de São Luiz do Tapajós deve ser cancelado imediatamente", afirmou Antonia.
"As hidrelétricas na Amazônia só são possíveis graças ao apoio técnico de empresas internacionais fornecedoras de turbinas e outros equipamentos – como é o caso da empresa francesa Alstom, adquirida pela General Electric no ano passado", disse Christian Poirier, diretor de Programas da Amazon Watch. "Com a aquisição, a General Electric agora é responsável diretamente pelos impactos irreversíveis de Belo Monte. Se a empresa quiser evitar se envolver em futuros desastres causados pelas hidrelétricas na Amazônia, ela deve se distanciar do rio Tapajós".
Esse foi o terceiro protesto realizado pelos Munduruku no exterior em parceria com o Greenpeace. Em março, representantes do povo indígena e ativistas estiveram na Áustria em um protesto na frente da Andritz e, em abril, ativistas do Greenpeace protestaram na Alemanha, na sede da Siemens.
Outro caminho é possível - No início de abril, o Greenpeace lançou o relatório “Hidrelétricas na Amazônia: um mau negócio para o Brasil e para o mundo”, que apresenta cenários de geração de eletricidade utilizando fontes renováveis mais limpas e menos prejudiciais, como a combinação de eólica, solar e biomassa. Esses cenários mostram que, aliando investimento nessas fontes e medidas de eficiência energética, é possível garantir a energia que o país precisa sem destruir a Amazônia. Confira aqui.
Suspensão do licenciamento - O povo Munduruku vem lutando há décadas para manter o Tapajós livre de barragens. Na última semana, a Funai publicou o relatório que reconhece a ocupação tradicional dos Munduruku na Terra Indígena Sawre Muybu, onde a barragem está prevista para ser construída. Em seguida, o Ibama suspendeu o licenciamento de São Luiz do Tapajós ao reconhecer os impactos irreversíveis que a obra causaria ao povo Munduruku. Apesar dessa grande conquista, ainda é preciso obter o cancelamento definitivo do projeto por parte do governo e a demarcação da Terra Indígena Sawré Muybu.

Chernobyl's children of hope

Blogpost by Andrey Allakhverdov

The word nadeshda means hope in Russian. The Nadesha rehabilitation centre was founded to give hope to children living in towns and villages contaminated by the Chernobyl disaster.

Thousands of children across Belarus have been robbed of a healthy childhood. Their food and playgrounds are contaminated. Their health weakened by radiation.

At Nadeshda I meet Elena Solovyeva, a teacher from the heavily contaminated Mogilev region, who has brought her class to the centre. She tells me that around 40% of her students have health problems: asthma, diabetes and cancer or weak immune, respiratory and digestive systems.

"We explain to the kids where their problems come from. They get it. We breathe contaminated air, we eat contaminated food… You never get used to it, but it is almost impossible to get away from," she says.
Nadeshda was founded not only to help care for the health of the children, and now grandchildren, of Chernobyl, but also to teach them how to live in a contaminated environment.

Olga Sokolova, a doctor at Nadeshda, tells me: "We explain to them what they should do and what they shouldn't. What to eat and what not to eat, where to go and where not to go, how to take care of themselves."
I'm saddened talking to Olga. A great injustice has been done to the children who come here. Before they were even born, Chernobyl stole their ability to grow and to play without inhibition. It is now left to the children to protect themselves from radiation.

"Our aim is to help children to understand their responsibility for their own health," Nadeshda's director Vyacheslav Makushinsky tells me.
It's unfair, but it's the reality for millions of Chernobyl survivors. Teaching responsibility and living by example - those are the basic principles of Nadeshda. While governments and the nuclear industry walk away from their responsibilities, survivors come together at places like Nadeshda.

What's beautiful about the centre is that people are not only coming together to support each other, they've also taken it on themselves to show the world that there is no need for nuclear power.
As the Belarus government builds a new nuclear reactor just 80 kilometers away from here, Nadeshda is retrofitting its buildings so that it can be powered by 100% renewable energy.

Nadeshda has the most powerful solar heating system in Belarus, and all its buildings and electrical devices are energy efficient.

The centre is now installing new solar photovoltaic systems on a nearby field to cover all their energy needs.
"We're showing how even a big institution like ours can operate without harming nature," Makushinsky says.

The director is enthusiastic: it will be the first project in Belarus of such a scale financed solely from donations. I'm proud that a Greenpeace-run foundation is part of it by donating 15,000 euros to help make it happen.
Makushinsky tells me why it's so important for the centre to go renewable: "The kids must learn to live in such a way that they preserve their health and make sure that a catastrophe like Chernobyl doesn't happen again."

Speaking to Makushinsky I realise how hope inspires action. The suffering caused by Chernobyl shows why we need to get rid of nuclear power for good. The persistence of Makushinsky and others at the Nadeshda centre shows that another way is possible, if we only try.

Nearby, a group of children are drawing pictures of the Chernobyl disaster and their dreams of non-nuclear future. Above them hangs a banner saying "We are the earth's hope." Indeed they are. And they should inspire all of us to support them and to speak up for a renewable future where disasters like Chernobyl or Fukushima would be a long forgotten nightmare.

 Andrey Allakhverdov is a communications officer with Greenpeace Central and Eastern Europe.

When palm oil companies get banned, are they willing to change?

Blogpost by Kiki Taufik

As Indonesia's president announces a temporary ban on palm oil development, one of the world's biggest palm oil traders faces a customer revolt over its deforestation in Borneo… and it could lead to some big wins for forest protection.
Remnant forest beside artificial drainage and recent plantation development in IOI's PT Bumi Sawit Sejahtera oil palm concession.
Earlier this month [PDF], the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) finally took action on palm oil company IOI, suspending its certification because it was destroying rainforests in Borneo. Now the destructive company can no longer claim its palm oil is "sustainable".
IOI is huge: it supplies palm oil to over 300 companies, including the household brands whose products line our supermarket shelves. It's also hugely destructive. Greenpeace International first documented IOI's destruction of orangutan habitat in the 2008 report Burning up Borneo.
Since then, IOI has carried on destroying forests and draining peatlands – and carried on getting caught. Last November, when fires were blazing across Indonesia, our team exposed massive fires in and around its concessions in Borneo.
IOI has also been accused of serious social and labour issues including conflicts with local communities and exploitation of workers on its Malaysian plantations.
But finally IOI is in the firing line – and its customers are leaving in droves. At least thirteen international brands including Unilever, Kellogg and Mars have agreed to stop buying palm oil from the toxic company.
Interestingly, both Colgate and Johnson & Johnson – two of the worst performing companies in our palm oil scorecard that rated 14 global consumer goods companies - were amongst those breaking ties with the palm oil giant. (PepsiCo, which also failed in our survey, doesn't buy from IOI.) It's a great example of how pressure from hundreds of thousands of us gets results!
Greenpeace activists protest in front of Johnson & Johnson headquarters in Prague, Czech Republic, with nearly half a million signatures asking the company to buy only responsible palm oil.
With IOI's customers in revolt, the company will be putting enormous pressure on the RSPO to resolve this quickly so it can continue with business as usual. But we can't let it get away with a half-hearted apology – we need to push for real protection for Indonesia's forests!
Last year, devastating forest fires blazed across Indonesia affecting wildlife, peatlands and spawning a toxic haze that affected millions of people across the region. Indonesia's president responded by ordering peatlands to be protected and recently promised a moratorium on palm oil expansion. But there is little sign that the industry is listening.
Without radical change from companies like IOI, the deadly fires will return in just a few months.
Forest clearance in an IOI palm oil concession, PT Bumi Sawit Sejahtera (PT BSS) in West Kalimantan (2014)
IOI should listen to President Jokowi. As one of the world's biggest palm oil traders, IOI could set an example for other palm oil companies by protecting and restoring the forests and peatlands it has damaged – starting with its concessions in Ketapang, Borneo.
That would be a major breakthrough for Indonesia's rainforests, and help protect Indonesian citizens from devastating forest fires and haze. But is IOI ready to make a difference?
Kiki Taufik is the Global Head of Indonesia's Forest Campaign at Greenpeace Indonesia.
Want to protect Indonesia's forests and make sure companies like IOI stop destroying forests and peatlands for palm oil? Take action here.

Água não é mercadoria, é um bem comum

Postado por joliveir

Organizações da sociedade civil pedem mudanças em contratos da Sabesp para priorizar o abastecimento da população e a cobrança justa, em vez do consumo de grandes empresas

zoom

Desde março de 2015, o Greenpeace tem pedido pelo fim dos contratos de demanda firme que geram descontos para grandes consumidores de água. Esses acordos, entre Sabesp e grandes empresas, permitem que esses clientes  tenham tarifas cada vez mais baixas conforme utilizam  mais água.

Nossa denúncia aos contratos de demanda firme significa um alerta para o uso da água como mercadoria por companhias como a Sabesp, controlada pelo governo do estado de São Paulo, que deveria priorizar a água como direito de todos. A continuação desses contratos, mesmo após a pressão dos cidadãos, que enviaram 27.592 cartas ao governo do estado e à Sabesp para que acabassem com os contratos, significa a continuidade de uma forma de gestão que pouco valoriza o direito das pessoas e pouco se preocupa em dar valor a um recurso escasso como a água.

Recentemente, a Sabesp anunciou que revisará toda a estrutura tarifária de seus serviços. Tendo em vista a negativa reiterada da empresa em acabar com os contratos de demanda firme para a distribuição de água, o Greenpeace, junto a outras 23 organizações e movimentos, pede por mudanças nos contratos para que esse mecanismo não reflita em estímulo ao maior consumo de água por grandes empresas e tampouco ofereça níveis de desconto abusivos e injustos a seus beneficiários.

Enviadas por carta, ao presidente da Sabesp, Jerson Kelman, com cópia para o diretor da Arsesp José Bonifácio de Souza Amaral Filho, nossas demandas detalhadas de mudanças nos contratos de demanda firme são:

1 – Criação de mecanismo permanente para inibir o desperdício de água. Elevação de tarifa ou multa para clientes que consumam água em volumes significativamente superiores (> 5%) ao mínimo previsto em seus contratos. A atual crise hídrica mostra a importância de medidas de estímulo ao uso planejado, consciente e eficiente da água, que são especialmente relevantes quando se trata de grandes consumidores. 2 – Nenhum cliente com contrato de demanda firme deve pagar menos por água e esgoto do que o mínimo tabelado para clientes comerciais convencionais. Atualmente, de acordo com tabela publicada pela Agência Pública, 169 dos 537 clientes com contratos de demanda firme pagam menos que R$ 8,07 por metro cúbico de água e de esgoto, que é o valor mínimo pago por clientes comerciais comuns na cidade de São Paulo e diversos outros municípios do estado. Há clientes, como a Viscofan, que chegam a pagar menos que a tarifa residencial comum. Tal nível de desconto é abusivo e injusto. O fato de a maioria dos clientes com contratos de demanda firme não chegarem a preços tão baixos indica que é viável acabar com esses casos extremos.
3 – Reformulação para que cobrança de água seja separada da cobrança de esgoto. Um modelo de cobrança que separe integralmente o consumo de água do uso de serviços de esgoto acabará com o estímulo que grandes consumidores têm para deixar de consumir água da Sabesp, mas continuar utilizando a rede de esgoto sem pagar adequadamente por isso. Esta medida é igualmente importante para que não haja cobranças indevidas na tarifa de esgoto para residências que não contam com esse serviço.

Aguardamos uma resposta da Sabesp, já que nossa voz não é única e vem acompanhada da sociedade civil  e de diversos movimentos e organizações.

Leia carta na íntegra aqui.

15 fatos que você não sabia sobre o desastre de Chernobyl

Postado por therrero

Na manhã de 26 de abril de 1986, um dos reatores da central nuclear de Chernobyl explodiu. E causou a maior catástrofe ambiental da História. Foi o acidente que a indústria nuclear dizia que nunca aconteceria.
Vinte e cinco anos depois, o acidente nuclear de Fukushima no Japão nos lembrou que o risco de outra Chernobyl permanecerá sempre presente enquanto tivermos usinas nucleares ativas. Aqui estão 15 fatos que nem todo mundo conhece sobre Chernobyl.
1. Mais de 5 milhões de pessoas ainda vivem em áreas contaminadas pela radiação, mesmo 30 anos depois do acidente.

zoom

Família com uma carroça de batatas na Ucrânia. (©Denis Sinyakov/Greenpeace)

2. A radiação liberada foi 200 vezes maior do que a soma das bombas atômicas lançadas sobre Hiroshima e Nagasaki, no Japão.

zoom

Sala de uma escola de jardim de infância abandonado, em Pryat. (©Steve Morgan/Greenpeace)

  3. A cidade mais próxima, Pripyat, foi evacuada apenas dois dias depois do desastre. Nesse tempo, as pessoas que viviam ali ficaram expostas a altos níveis de radiação.

zoom

Moradora da área de exclusão, onde tudo está contaminado por radiação (©Jan Grarup/ Noor/ Greenpeace)

  4. Ucrânia, Bielorrússia e Rússia foram os países mais afetados, recebendo 63% da contaminação. Mas até locais distantes, como a Irlanda, sofreram efeitos de uma chuva radioativa.

zoom

Máquina para medir níveis de contaminação, em Pripyat (©Clive Shirley/ Signum/ Greenpeace)

  5. Abandonada pelas pessoas, a cidade de Pripyat passou a ser povoada por animais como lobos, cavalos selvagens, castores e javalis.

zoom

Cavalos selvagens (©Vaclav Vasku/Greenpeace)

  6. Os animais que vivem na zona evacuada têm taxas de mortalidade mais elevadas, mais mutações genéticas e menor taxa de natalidade. 

zoom

Cachorro que vive em Pripyat (©Vaclav Vasku/Greenpeace)

  7. Próximo ao local do desastre está a chamada “floresta vermelha”. Os altos níveis de radiação mataram as árvores e deixaram a vegetação com um tom avermelhado.

zoom

Medição de radioatividade na Floresta Vermelha (©Vaclav Vasku/Greenpeace)

8. Mesmo depois do desastre, os outros três reatores de Chernobyl operaram por mais de 13 anos.

zoom

Reator 1 e 2 da usina nuclear de Chernobyl (©Stefan Füglister/ Greenpeace)

  9. Um sarcófago de cimento foi construído sobre o reator que explodiu para guardar material radioativo. Como já está em ruínas, uma nova cobertura maciça está sendo construída. Mas ela vai durar no máximo 100 anos.

zoom

Sarcófago que impede dispersão de mais radioatividade (©Denis Sinyakov/Greenpeace)

  10. A indústria nuclear e os governos da Ucrânia, Rússia e Bielorússia têm planos para gastar mais milhões em outros projetos nucleares, ignorando sua responsabilidade em apoiar os sobreviventes de Chernobyl. Eles minimizam os impactos do desastre e ocultam a realidade do dia a dia de quem vive ali.

zoom

Mãe e filho, na vila de Drosdyn, perto de Chernobyl (©Jan Grarup/ Noor/ Greenpeace)

  11. É possível, até mesmo reservar uma viagem para a zona de exclusão de Chernobyl! As agências de turismo organizam passeios de um dia em Pripyat.

zoom

Visita do Greenpeace ao reator 4 (©Denis Sinyakov/Greenpeace)

  12. O futuro da cidade é permanecer abandonada e altamente contaminada. O plutônio precisa de 24 mil anos para reduzir pela metade seu nível de radioatividade.

zoom

Cidade de Pripyat, abandonada. (©Denis Sinyakov/Greenpeace)

  13. A radiação liberada ali foi tão forte que mudou de castanho para azul a cor dos olhos do bombeiro Vladimir Pravik. Ele trabalhou para conter o fogo da explosão.

zoom

Hospital abandonado, em Pripyat. (©Denis Sinyakov/Greenpeace)

  14. A Suécia foi o primeiro país a informar o mundo sobre o desastre de Chernobyl. A primeira decisão do governo soviético foi mantê-la em segredo.

zoom

Cidade de Pripyat, deserta. (©Clive Shirley/ Signum/ Greenpeace)

  15. Até hoje, a radiação está em todos os cantos nas cidades contaminadas: nos alimentos, no leite e na água, no solo das escolas e parques que as crianças frequentam e na madeira que as famílias queimam para se manter aquecidos no inverno.

zoom

Feira de alimentos locais, na Rússia (©Denis Sinyakov/Greenpeace)

Leia mais: Veja no mapa a extensão da destruição de Chernobyl. E como ela afetaria outras partes do mundo.

EU bows to US pressure to open door to new GMOs

Blogpost by Franziska Achterberg

People in Europe have massively rejected GMOs, and our governments have started to ban their cultivation, but agro­chemical companies have cooked up a new way to get GMOs onto the European market. They are claiming that GMOs which are produced through a range of new techniques ­aren’t in fact GMOs.

Don't let unlabelled or untested GMOs in through the back door.
If the companies get their way, GM plants and animals could soon end up on our fields and on our dinner table without any safety testing or labelling - and without any way to ban them. And we wouldn’t even know! European law requires that GMOs undergo a detailed assessment of health and environmental risks, as well as labelling, to allow consumer choice.
The European Commission said that it would publish a legal opinion to tell national governments what’s in and what’s out of EU GMO law. Internal documents obtained under freedom of information rules reveal that the Commission was set to confirm that the genetically modified organisms (GMOs) produced through new techniques referred to as gene-editing are covered by the law. This means that they would need to undergo safety testing and labelling before being placed on the market.
Why then didn’t the European Commission publish the opinion as planned? Well, it seems that not only the GMO companies, but also the US government, lobbied heavily so that the Commission wouldn’t classify gene-edited plants and animals as GMOs. These new GMOs are largely unregulated in the US, which is why a letter from the US warned of “potentially significant trade disruptions” from the application of EU GMO law. It suggests that the EU should ignore its health and environmental safeguards to pave the way for a new transatlantic trade agreement (TTIP).
The next round of TTIP negotiations starts on 25 April 2016 in New York.
EU GMO laws are designed to protect our health and environment. They shouldn't be sidelined for the sake of TTIP and industry profits. Tell European leaders to act now - sign the petition.
Franziska Achterberg is the food policy director for Greenpeace EU.

We will defeat climate change - through cooperation

Blogpost by Jennifer Morgan and Bunny McDiarmid 

Today, on Earth Day, more than 165 countries sign a global agreement to protect our environment - the Paris Climate Agreement - at the first opportunity, a record turnout for an international agreement. This is an encouraging sign. After many years of foot dragging, the world is finally coming together to confront climate change, the most urgent issue of our time.

We are seeing agreement to take action to prevent a climate catastrophe only after many years of hard work. Above all, it is thanks to people all over the world standing up for action. Before the Paris climate summit an estimated 800,000 people marched for a safer climate. The countries most vulnerable to climate change stood together and demanded warming be limited to 1.5 degrees C compared to pre-industrial times - the threshold we must not exceed if many countries in the Pacific and other poorer developing countries are to survive. Progressive businesses, meanwhile, showed that a 100% renewable future is possible, by committing to go 100% renewable themselves.

This combined pressure resulted in an agreement that is a clear signal that the age of fossil fuels is ending. An agreement that makes staying within 1.5 degrees C warming the benchmark against which all decisions by governments and corporations must be based from now on.

We believe that it is cooperation and solidarity above all that we now need to deliver on the promise of Paris: a safer world, where people share resources rather than fight over them. Paris needs to be the beginning of a fair transition to a world powered by 100% renewable energy. The ground has been laid for real action. Renewable energy, for example, accounted for around 90% of new electricity generation in 2015. But we still have a long way to go.  

As the new Executive Directors of Greenpeace International, we want to drive a revolution in how humanity interacts with nature. And we believe we need a revolution not just in technology but in attitudes and lifestyles.

We know that we, collectively, have all the tools, the ability and the knowledge we need to build a sustainable world. We know, because our people all over the world are campaigning to make a just economy respecting the reality of environmental limits. We are working hard to further reduce coal consumption in China, we are fighting to save the Amazon rainforest for its peoples and to protect the Arctic, our vital global refrigerator. We know that in a warming world, we need an urgent shift to ecological agriculture and Ocean Sanctuaries so that life in our oceans can recover from the stresses of higher temperatures, overfishing and pollution.

The reason solutions are not adopted fast enough is because of those few who benefit from the destructive status quo. There are still too many powerful people and corporations who benefit from the despoilation of our global commons. It is time to end this destruction for private gain, fromfishing fleets exploiting the vanishing Arctic ice to European companies supporting the destruction of the Amazon.  And increasingly people are no longer satisfied with governments simply saying they will do something about a problem, they are standing up in growing numbers to make sure governments deliver on their word.

Now is the time to show that we can share the world more equitably, and deliver a decent life for all. It is time for the vision of humanity being part of nature - of cooperating to save the beauty of the planet we depend on is - that we get out of bed for every morning to lead Greenpeace.

It's also why we feel it's important that we at Greenpeace - who vigorously hold polluters to account - show that a more cooperative approach works. We are the first Executive Directors of Greenpeace Internationl to share this post. We do so not just because it is nice to divide the work load and learn from each other, but because we want to show that cooperation brings real benefits. If we - the two of us -  bring out the best in each other, we get a better organisation. If we - all of us - can bring out the best in humanity, we get a better world.

So we welcome that this week the world is coming together, to say: “we will fix the climate emergency.” We are truly encouraged by this, for once, global response to a global problem.

And, together with all of you, we look forward to ensuring that this is indeed a beginning of something new. The beginning of a renewable era, built on trust and cooperation.

Together, we can ensure that the businesses and investors who continue to put greed before the interests of people and our planet find themselves on the wrong side of history. Together, we can show a better way, with less selfishness and more community

We hope you will join us on this journey - and that we may meet as we go on it together over the coming years.

Jennifer Morgan and Bunny McDiarmid are the Executive Directors of Greenpeace International.