What does safety mean to you?

by Jen Maman  

The past several months had me reflect on what safety means to me. In February, my office closed down due to coronavirus. My daughter’s school closed down. We retreated to our home – a grateful privilege that my family and I have. And I felt safe staying at home with my daughter.  Through Zoom, my colleagues from different parts of the world and I shared our first-hand experiences of the pandemic. And despite the variations in conditions, we had shared worries – Will the health systems where we live hold? How do we keep ourselves and our families safe?

The dictionary defines the word safety as ‘being free from harm or risk’. For me, when I think about being safe from risk or harm, I usually think of the police, or the military. But now, from the worldwide pandemic and the global Black Lives Matter movement, to the suppression of human rights in many countries and the ongoing environmental crisis – devastating floods in Asia and Africa, raging fires in the Amazon, 2020 on track to be the hottest year on record

, and the Mauritius oil spill

to name a few – do we still believe that we can stay safe in the traditional sense?

Since 24 June, 2020, South Korea’s longest monsoon in seven years has been causing serious damage from heavy rains.

What makes you feel safe?

The current issues unfolding all around the globe – COVID19, police violence, and extreme weather events – all threaten public safety right at home, and are not susceptible to military solutions. And as such, they have also created an opportunity to start conversations on what it really means to be safe for different people living under different circumstances in different parts of the world. 

As my work for Greenpeace centres on peace and security, questions on the topic of safety are something I keep reflecting on. A few years ago Greenpeace India supported a project in Dharnai, India to provide solar-powered street lamps in a small village that was not connected to the power grid. The street lights transformed lives in the village. A young woman from the village said: “I can now go out of my house after dark. I feel safe.” Her answer stayed with me. 

The meaning of safety

I realised safety may mean different things to different people. To better understand how the idea of safety changes depending on where someone lives, I asked my Greenpeace colleagues from around the world in a small survey, What does safety mean to you?. These were a few of the responses:

“With all this doom and gloom, having enough savings to tide me and my family through” was a sentiment from the Philippines office.

“Having a roof over my head and being able to sustain my daughter, until she is able to sustain and protect herself” was an answer from a colleague I could strongly relate to. 

“Not being afraid of a mass shooting when I go to a festival or any events with a mass gathering” wrote a colleague from the US office. 

“To be able to express my opinion without being worried or even afraid of the consequences” 

“Access to clean water, air and healthy food is ensured and protected”

“Safety also means trusting that the government is serving the people and that I have access to fair legal processes and healthcare”

“Living in a city whose elected officials are actually addressing inequalities, having a government actually doing something about the climate crisis”

Refugee kids play with water after Greenpeace Indonesia volunteers installed solar panels to use for electricity and water pump at the refugees camp in Lero village, Donggala, Central Sulawesi.

The answers were all different but came together to represent the vision of living in a healthy, just society and the desire to have our basic needs met. And I believe that the vision shared by my colleagues is one shared by many around the globe. 

It’s important to reflect on these answers as they define what measures we should take to guarantee our safety, and what we ask our leaders to prioritise when they’re allocating public funds.

We must challenge and change our traditional idea of safety

Considering everything that is happening in our world at the moment, do you feel safe knowing that there is a top-notch hospital in the proximity of your home? Or does a top-notch submarine docked in the nearest naval military base make you feel safer? And here’s a fun fact: The cost of one Virginia Class nuclear powered submarine boat – which costs USD$3.4 billion, could pay for the construction of more than 30 average-sized hospitals

in the US. That is one submarine or 30 hospitals. 

In many countries around the world, military spending tops most other types of government spending. For example, according to the 5% Campaign, on average,  industriali

s ed countries spend 3 times more on defence than on education.

Taking it one step further, according to this data,  the US spends 6 times more on defence than on education.  

And yet, there is usually very little public debate on government military spending, and these massive expenses remain largely unchallenged. But discussions are slowly happening. In July, a historic motion was brought before Congress in the US,

to reduce the 2021 Pentagon budget by 10% and redirect that USD$74 billion to support communities impacted by Covid-19. While the motion was not approved by a majority, nevertheless it was an unprecedented challenge to the idea that military spending could continue to grow uninterrupted, when so many communities are struggling with lack of basic services. 

Greenpeace activists protest at the air base Buechel in Rhineland-Palatinate for the withdrawal of all US American nuclear weapons from Germany. © Bernd Lauter / Greenpeace

The truth is, the world’s current social, economic, political, and environmental issues cannot be solved by pouring more taxpayer money into the military and the absurdly expensive weapons of war.  Paying more on weapons does not guarantee peace and safety – it’s quite the contrary! According to the Global Peace Index

, levels of peace around the world have been falling since 2008. This is despite an increase in global military spending that reached a record of US$1.9 Trillion last year. Weapons do not fix the root causes of instability

but rather perpetuates instability and violence.

Instead, more military budgets should be allocated to support impacted communities and national programs such as green recovery that provide tangible benefits for people and the planet. For one, investing in a universal healthcare system, clean energy transition, and better job security would do much more. It will also make sense economically and will cost far less than perpetuating injustice and violence

. 

We must resist and challenge this outdated idea that more tanks, fighter jets or bombs will make us safe. Because they will not. 

“When do you feel safe?” I asked my 6 years old daughter. “When you hug me,” she replied. 

Jen Maman is Senior Peace Advisor at Greenpeace International.

Waste not, want not: Addressing food waste for a just and ecological food system

by Éric Darier & Monique Mikhai

 Today is the International Day of Awareness of Food Loss and Waste . Many of us instinctively feel guilty about throwing out food, especially when “690 million people in the world went hungry in 2019 – up by 10 million from 2018, an increase by nearly 60 million in five years,” according to the World Health Organisation (WHO ). And, COVID-19 will likely make the situation worse, according to the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations (FAO

). 

And, it is some of the same systemic problems behind hunger that lead to food waste and its impact on the environment. The FAO

estimates that if food waste were a country, it would be the 3rd largest greenhouse gas emitter in the world. There is much that we as individuals can do to tackle food waste at home, and each action matters. But the systemic problems behind the large volumes of food waste also need rectifying. To fix these problems we need to act together. 

1. What is ‘food waste’? 

Generally speaking, food waste describes food we throw away at home, as well as food lost at various points along the food chain, including on farms, in manufacturing, during transport, in storage and at retail centres. Experts who look at the overall issue from the field to our plates use the term ‘food loss and waste’ (FLW for short). While exact data about food loss and waste is hard to obtain, an increasing number of  studies are shedding light on the problem.  

With the population of nearly 10 million, Bangalore produces between 3,000 tonnes to 5,000 tonnes of garbage every day of which around 60 percent is organic waste.

2. Each year, how much food is wasted in the world?

The FAO

has estimated that at least 30% of the food produced globally – worth around $940 billion USD – is wasted annually. The situation is worse in wealthier countries like in North America where food waste has been calculated to cost $278 billion USD each year and could feed 260 million people

! 

3. Who is responsible for food waste?

Large agribusiness and food and beverage (F&B) companies who control and shape the industrial food system play a major role in the scale of food loss and waste. Both global retailers and agribusiness conglomerates exercise enormous influence over the supply chain, forcing farmers – many in low-income nations – to shoulder the global burden of food loss and waste in international supply chains. In high-income nations, large companies using the industrial farming model disproportionately benefit from public financial support and tax breaks

.

Big agribusiness and F&B companies further contribute to systemic food losses at the farm level because food commodity prices are kept too low. Their drive to lower the cost of raw commodities has the perverse effect of making food loss and waste a common side effect of our broken industrial food system. Sometimes, entire fields of crops go to waste if they are not cost-effective to harvest

and transport. Growers also sometimes plant more crops than market demand to hedge against weather and pests, further lowering prices in bumper crop years and increasing waste in-field because it’s not lucrative to harvest. 

Despite lacking detailed data, most studies acknowledge that food loss and waste tends to take place more at the consumer level in richer countries and more up-stream at the production level in poorer countries. For example, lack of adequate farm storage for harvested products in poorer countries is one of the causes of food loss. 

For wealthier countries, marketing by big food companies encourages consumers to over-purchase bulk food items, which then tend to generate food waste at home. Such phenomenon is the result of how food is marketed and sold by retailers. Let’s remember that food loss and waste is one of the symptoms of a sick food system

, not the root problem.

Wealthier countries see more food loss among consumers. Graph from WasteDive

.

4. How has COVID-19 impacted food waste?

The Covid-19 pandemic has compounded some of the previously existing systemic fragility, inequalities and failures of the industrial food system. Overall, food waste and loss most likely has increased

during COVID-19. 

Some farmers and farm workers simply had restricted access to farm fields due to various lockdown measures. Some have faced harsh working conditions that were inadequate to prevent COVID-19 transmission in food manufacturing plants

. 

Labour shortages have meant that there may not be enough farm workers at harvest time. For example,  farmers in Canada reportedly had difficulties recruiting farm workers to harvest their products

on time, unfortunately leaving crops rotting in the fields and generating food losses.

The economic impacts of the COVID-19 have also reportedly left many people and communities in a fragile state with increased poverty, reduced income, and, in some cases, more food insecurity than before

. In these difficult moments, food waste and losses generated by the industrial food system are even more egregious and unacceptable.

5. Why should food waste matter to us and the environment?

The wasting of over 30% of the food produced globally each year shows that there is enough food in the world to feed everyone, but it does not always get to those who need it. Instead, it is wasted. Such waste translates into more deforestation, more irrigation and therefore greater use of water, more pressure on soil, more air pollution from fertilizers and pesticides, and higher greenhouse gas emissions. 

Food loss and waste accounts for roughly 8% of global emissions

, which is comparable to global emissions from road transport, and 4 times global emissions from aviation. Also, the industrial and global food system has lengthened the supply chain, resulting in more potential environmental damages due to waste and losses.

Food waste and loss  is part of an industrialised food system model that continues to justify increased production to ‘feed people’ while dumping a third of the food in the trash. Food insecurity is in fact due to inequality, not lack of production. Therefore, the true solution is to change the food system model, which will minimise food loss and waste. Instead of an industrialised commodity trade model, we must start to relocalise production and consumption of ecologically produced food.

Greenpeace Brazil’s initiative with Favela Orgânica distributes 2,400 packed lunches in the communities of Complexo do Caju and Rio das Pedras, in Rio de Janeiro. © Carlos Oliveira / Greenpeace

6.  What can we do individually and collectively to reduce food loss and waste? 

Individually, we can do our part to reduce food loss and waste by paying more attention to how we treat the food we eat. Some actions we can take are planning our meals before grocery shopping, buying no more than what we need, and being creative with our food leftovers. We need to avoid being seduced by bulk offers which might end up as waste. Another tip is to buy fresh seasonal produce directly from local farmers such as at farmer’s markets or Community Supported Agriculture and avoid extraneous steps along the supply chain where food can be wasted.

The business model drive to continually produce ‘cheaper’ food has established a dangerous mindset that our food isn’t really valuable, so it is unsurprising that food loss and waste is a central byproduct of their business model. Instead, we need to appreciate our food, the natural environment in which it grows, and all of the work that goes into growing and preparing it. Instead of a ‘cheap food’ business plan we need to convince our governments to adopt a fair price food system for farmers and farm workers while respecting our planet to continue to produce healthy and nutritious food. 

7.  How can a just and green recovery reduce food waste?

A just and green recovery can help to reduce food loss and waste through policy adoption and community investments. For example: 

• Shorten supply chains to relocalise food systems by encouraging and expanding direct-to-consumer systems like farmers markets.
• Support cities and municipalities to enable residents to reconnect with food through community projects such as allotment gardens, garden rooftops, collective community kitchens, and zero food waste programs. 
• Provide better harvesting and storage facilities at farm and rural level to minimise food losses. 
• Support the adoption of ecological farming practices that protect crops without harming the environment and the health of farmers and farm workers.
• Ensure a fair pricing system for farmers.

Beijing Farmers Market is the new popular organic market in Beijing, China. © Greenpeace

Let’s not waste our opportunity!

In 2021, the United Nations will organise a Food System Summit

. It could be an opportunity at global,  national, and local levels to put the issue of food loss and waste on the public agenda. We can change our current failing food system into a green and just one that is not only more respectful of ecological boundaries, but also ensure food justice for all. The corporate business as usual approach must be exposed, challenged, and replaced with food sovereignty to ensure the needs of producers, consumers, and nature are at the heart of our food system. Let’s not waste such an opportunity! 

Tell us what you are doing to reduce food waste in your daily lives. What are some local groups and organisations doing to create a better and just food system? Share your good news to inspire us all.  

Éric Darier & Monique Mikhail are Senior Strategists at Greenpeace International based in Montreal and San Francisco respectively.

Wake Up Call

by Tom Allen 

 On 30 September, leaders and senior politicians from all over the world will meet virtually to discuss the nature and climate emergencies at the United Nations Summit on Biodiversity.

Young climate and nature activists will be giving world leaders a livestreamed Wake Up Call to remind them that words aren’t enough. The demand for real action to protect people and planet will begin at 9am New York (Eastern Time) before the start of the summit. You can watch live here and see what they have to say:

See here for how governments can take strong ambitious action to Protect Our Oceans.

If you are a political minister for the environment, or a member of a country delegation to the UN, and are interested in joining our Wake Up Call discussion of the emergencies we face, please email veronica.frank [at] greenpeace.org.

18-year-old environmental activist and campaigner Mya-Rose Craig poses on an ice floe in the Arctic as part of the most northerly climate strike at 82.2° North. A Greenpeace team is in the Arctic to document the impact of the climate crisis and investigate marine life in the region. © Daniella Zalcman / Greenpeace

about the author

Tom Allen

Tom Allen works on oceans, particularly whales, sanctuaries and the poles for Greenpeace International

Empresa francesa Total desiste de explorar petróleo na bacia da Foz do Amazonas

por Greenpeace Brasil 

 Há anos ameaçada pela indústria petroleira, a região conhecida como Corais da Amazônia ganha um tempo a mais de vida para a grande diversidade de espécies existentes ali 

Em 2018, o navio Esperanza estava em expedição científica pelos Corais da Amazônia. © Marizilda Cruppe / Greenpeace

A Total acaba de anunciar sua saída do projeto de exploração de petróleo na região do Grande Sistema Recifal do Amazonas, conhecida popularmente como Corais da Amazônia. 

Nas profundezas da região onde o rio encontra com o mar, mais exatamente na bacia da Foz do Amazonas, esse ecossistema guarda um tesouro natural: um sistema recifal de esponjas, rodolitos e corais. 

Em 2017, com o objetivo de defender a diversidade de vida recém descoberta e ameaçada pela exploração de petróleo, o Greenpeace lançou a campanha “Defenda os Corais da Amazônia”.  No ano seguinte, no final de  2018, o Ibama negou a licença ambiental à Total para perfuração. Mesmo assim, a empresa insistia em seus planos. Só que agora ela transferiu sua participação à Petrobrás, ficou fora dessa disputa e essa se tornou uma vitória definitiva sobre a empresa francesa.

“A saída da Total da bacia da Foz do Amazonas é uma boa notícia. Comunidades locais, pesquisadores e mais de dois milhões de pessoas em todo o mundo que assinaram uma petição online pediram à petroleira francesa e à britânica BP que abandonassem esse projeto. Além disso, essa também é uma vitória no combate às mudanças climáticas”, comenta Thiago Almeida, porta-voz do Greenpeace Brasil. “Mas ainda há ameaças e esse sistema recifal só estará seguro quando a BP e a Petrobras abandonarem definitivamente seus projetos e o governo desistir de oferecer novos blocos de petróleo na região”. 

Essa é uma notícia a ser celebrada! Mas continuaremos de olho e em defesa dos Corais da Amazônia. 

Antes que se vá, pedimos o seu apoio. Neste momento de quarentena, mantemos nossos escritórios fechados, mas nossa equipe segue de casa trabalhando em nossas campanhas, pesquisas e no monitoramento dos crimes ambientais. Sua doação é muito importante para que esse trabalho continue sendo feito com independência e qualidade, pois não recebemos recursos de governos e empresas. Clique e se torne um doador

.

Em nova “boiada”, Salles enfraquece normas ambientais

 Após fragilizar Conselho Nacional de Meio Ambiente (Conama), Salles avança com a desregulamentação da proteção ambiental para atender interesses privados

Mangue no rio Massangana, em Cabo de Santo Agostinho (PE), que foi afetado pelas manchas de óleo. © Mariana Oliveira / Greenpeace

No momento em que a sociedade brasileira está horrorizada com as queimadas que devastam nossa vegetação natural e prejudicam a saúde e o sustento da população, o ministro do Meio Ambiente, Ricardo Salles, vê a oportunidade de avançar com a desregulamentação da proteção ambiental e com sua estratégia de “passar a boiada”, que ficou evidente a partir da divulgação de reunião ministerial

realizada em abril.

Desta vez, a “boiada” é ampla e prevê, em uma tacada só, a revogação de resoluções do Conama que dispõem sobre áreas de preservação permanente, licenciamento ambiental para a irrigação e nova resolução que abre brecha para permitir a queima de resíduos de agrotóxicos em fornos de cimento. Tudo isso foi aprovado na manhã de hoje (28) a toque de caixa e sem debate público. 

Desde que está no cargo, Salles procura alterar as regras de proteção ambiental e beneficiar aqueles para os quais verdadeiramente governa – os setores do agronegócio, imobiliário, turismo e indústria. Ele sabia que, para aprovar regulações contrárias ao interesse público e prejudiciais ao meio ambiente um passo importante e fundamental seria excluir a sociedade civil e a ciência do debate.

Foi assim que, em maio de 2019, Salles descaracterizou e esvaziou o Conselho Nacional do Meio Ambiente, o Conama

, um órgão consultivo e deliberativo que tem um papel extremamente importante na construção de políticas públicas e na regulamentação das leis ambientais do país, desde 1981. Por meio do Decreto 9.806/19

, Salles restringiu a participação de segmentos importantes da sociedade civil e concentrou grande poder no governo federal. 

O conselho foi reduzido de aproximadamente 100 membros para apenas 23, sendo 41% destes do governo federal. As entidades ambientalistas passaram a ter apenas quatro assentos e passaram a ser selecionadas por sorteio. Com a reestruturação, perderam assentos representações indígenas (Conselho de Articulação dos Povos e Organizações Indígenas do Brasil), a ciência (Sociedade Brasileira para o Progresso da Ciência – SBPC) e a Associação Nacional de Municípios e Meio Ambiente (Anama), entre tantos outros.

“O esvaziamento do órgão representa o enfraquecimento da tomada de decisão de forma plural e participativa, e foi isso que vimos hoje, em uma grande encenação para enfraquecer a proteção do meio ambiente”, diz Luiza Lima, assessora de Políticas Públicas do Greenpeace Brasil. “O Ministro Ricardo Salles, mais uma vez, mostra que, ao ser inimigo da participação social, o governo é inimigo da coletividade e governa para os setores que mais se beneficiam em curto prazo da desregulamentação da proteção ambiental, como o agronegócio, o setor imobiliário e o setor industrial”, completa Luiza.

Entenda as mudanças aprovadas hoje no “revogaço” realizado por Salles e o que elas significam: 

• Resolução nº 284/2001: com a revogação da resolução, ficam extintos critérios federais para licenciamento ambiental de empreendimentos de irrigação, com o intuito de agilizar o processo de licenciamento, a pedido de parte do agronegócio. O licenciamento da irrigação é importante, pois a agricultura demanda um uso bem elevado de água, levando inclusive a conflitos por água em algumas regiões do país, e também possui risco de contaminação por agrotóxicos.
• Resolução nº 302/2002: A resolução determinava que reservatórios artificiais mantivessem uma faixa mínima de 30 metros ao seu redor como Área de Preservação Permanente (APP). A revogação libera essas áreas para habitação e usos econômicos, o que pode colocar em risco a segurança das áreas e também a qualidade das águas. Quem mora em São Paulo lembra da importância dos reservatórios de água para abastecimento de água de qualidade para a população.
• Resolução nº 303/2002: A resolução garantia uma proteção especial aos ecossistemas de restinga e mangue no litoral brasileiro. Sua revogação beneficia o setor imobiliário nas faixas de vegetação nas praias e os fazendeiros que cultivam camarão nos mangues.
• Criação de nova Resolução, e revogação da Resolução nº 264/1999: a resolução que estava em vigor vedava expressamente a queima de resíduos de agrotóxicos, organoclorados e resíduos de serviços de saúde. Até hoje, esse material passava por um processo detalhado de tratamento e destinação. Com a sua revogação e a aprovação de uma nova resolução para disciplinar o licenciamento de fornos para queima de resíduos, tais proibições deixam de valer, e tudo poderá ser incinerado, permitindo a liberação para a atmosfera de substâncias tóxicas e prejudiciais à saúde.
  

Conheça os ativistas que estampam esta Greve Pelo Clima

por Luana Leal  

Hoje é dia de Greve pelo Clima e jovens do mundo todo estão juntos chamando atenção para a crise climática. Aqui no Greenpeace, as ilustrações para celebrar a data foram feitas por nossos voluntários.

Cartaz de Tali Medeiros, ganhadora da categoria Clima.

A pandemia da Covid-19 virou o mundo de cabeça para baixo. Reformulou tudo o que estávamos habituados a fazer. Agora, aulas chegam até os alunos pelo computador, plateias presenciam shows pela televisão e psicólogos aconselham através de uma ligação. Com o voluntariado não foi diferente. Para as centenas de espíritos engajados pelo Brasil, a mobilização pelo clima não tem fronteiras. Por isso, os voluntários e voluntárias encontraram, no universo virtual, uma nova possibilidade de se reinventar e criar um estilo inédito de ativismo ambiental. 

Dentre as tantas mobilizações realizadas durante os meses de confinamento, o Desafio de pôsteres da Greve pelo Clima se destacou. Lançado em julho para todos os voluntários e voluntárias inscritos no Conexão Verde

, o concurso propôs a elaboração de dois produtos artísticos, com as temáticas “Movimento pelo Clima” e “Greenpeace: Ativismo que inspira”. Mais do que eleger os melhores, o espírito do Desafio era unir duas paixões dos participantes: a arte e o meio ambiente. Após o prazo de elaboração dos pôsteres, foi realizada uma seleção interna na Organização para decidir quais obras seriam as finalistas. Representando as mais diversas regiões do Brasil, as categorias do desafio contemplaram, na final, 4 desenhos cada. 

Depois de muita ansiedade entre os participantes e uma votação aberta acirrada na plataforma, a maioria dos 135 voluntários e voluntárias que expuseram sua opinião nos comentários escolheu as artes que estampariam mais uma Greve pelo Clima

que acontece neste 25 de setembro.  

Hoje jovens do mundo todo estão unidos virtualmente e fisicamente (onde é possível) para chamar atenção da crise climática, que já está impactando a vida de todos nós. 

Enquanto o mundo discute medidas efetivas de contenção das mudanças climáticas e enquanto pais e mães se preocupam com qual futuro irão deixar à suas filhas e filhos, o Brasil assiste incrédulo à queima de seus biomas. Essa tragédia somada ao desmonte do atual governo representam uma ameaça ao futuro que hoje queremos destacar e pedir. Estamos ao lado desses jovens que defendem o nosso futuro e um modelo econômico que respeita o meio ambiente e ao mesmo tempo que traz justiça e equidade social. 

Então, hoje é um dia especial para que os desenhos dos nossos voluntários ganhem vida e endereço, e agora chegou a hora de conhecer as histórias por trás dos vencedores. 

A força feminina a frente na causa ambiental

Tali Medeiros é voluntária de São Paulo , sentiu que a mobilização era uma porta para grandes mudanças. Foto: Arquivo Pessoal

Talita Medeiros, designer gráfica de 27 anos, foi a vencedora da categoria clima. “Fiquei muito feliz com o resultado! Vi outras artes muito bonitas também, e fico feliz que além de mim, outras pessoas utilizam da arte ou o seu dom para transmitir a nossa mensagem”. Para Talita, pensarmos em uma mobilização potente é fundamental para alcançarmos o maior objetivo e este ano promete plantar sementes engajadas para o futuro: “O legado da Greve Global pelo Clima é justamente unir forças e dar voz a juventude para alertar o máximo de pessoas e lideranças possíveis a fazer algo, para combater o impacto que hoje tornam vítimas milhares de seres”.

A trajetória que abraça arte e ativismo e levou a jovem voluntária ao pódio de pôster preferido é longa. Desde pequena, Talita sempre gostou de mexer em programas de edição. Com o passar dos anos, apaixonou-se pela arte, e hoje envolve-se com ela e com a comunicação profissionalmente. A ativista conta que o que a deixou mais feliz, principalmente nesse desafio pelo clima, foi passar a mensagem das causas que ela acredita em forma de arte. 

Representante do grupo de voluntários de São Paulo, Talita sempre sentiu que a mobilização era uma porta para grandes mudanças. Além do Greenpeace, a vencedora do concurso também atua em organizações como Engajamundo, que pauta a liderança jovem e na ONU, em discussões relacionadas a Gênero e Objetivo de Desenvolvimento Sustentável.

Tali, como é conhecida pelos companheiros e companheiras de voluntariado, entrou para o Greenpeace a convite de um amigo próximo, e segundo ela, a autonomia atribuída aos voluntários e voluntárias para se organizarem e criarem suas próprias mobilizações e projetos foi o que mais a encantou “Achei tudo isso muito enriquecedor, e aprendi bastante com as pessoas que conheci dentro da organização”, conta a volunta. 

Para ela, doar o seu tempo e disposição na esperança de um futuro verde é o que dá sentido à jornada dentro do Greenpeace. “Fazer parte do voluntariado mudou minha vida, hoje não consigo me imaginar sem fazer algo que acredito. O que me deixa mais feliz é saber que não estou sozinha, e que existe muita gente fazendo parte desse movimento lindo, em prol de causas tão importantes para um mundo mais justo e sustentável.”

A união faz a força!

Fábio Dantas de Melo, voluntário do Greenpeace, adora fazer caminhadas e trilhas ao ar livre. Foto: Arquivo Pessoal

Dividindo holofotes com a Talita, o vencedor da categoria “Greenpeace: ativismo que inspira”, é, na verdade, uma dupla de amigos. Fábio e Rober, ambos residentes de Brasília, se conhecem há um ano, mas logo criaram um laço de amizade verdadeiro, resultando na cocriação do desenho preferido da categoria. 

Fábio Dantas de Melo, educador de 44 anos, adora fazer caminhadas e trilhas ao ar livre, e conta que já está até levando seu filho para o mesmo caminho. “Tenho uma propensão natural a me envolver com atividades outdoor [ao ar livre], curto essa coisa de estar em grupo e na natureza”. Para ele, o meio ambiente e a luta por sua defesa trazem uma sensação de completude e pertencimento ao universo. E assim como a Talita, sua relação com a arte se deu há muitos anos atrás, quando ainda frequentava o ensino fundamental. Na escola em que estudava, Fábio estava sempre em contato com o meio artístico, seja através da música, cerâmica, sucata, linguagem corporal, etc. 

Desde pequeno, gostava de desenhar figuras que via na televisão e caricaturas das pessoas de sua família. No ensino médio venceu o concurso do grêmio estudantil, que propunha a elaboração artística de uma logomarca para a escola. Sempre em contato com esse dom, o ativista viu, no desafio da greve, uma oportunidade perfeita para inserir seu espírito artístico dentro de uma causa tão importante em sua vida. 

“Quando eu me dispus a criar, eu estava imbuído dessa motivação de buscar algo que representasse a história do Greenpeace”, conta. Após descobrir sobre o desafio e ler o regulamento, Fábio relata que decidiu ir dormir, e pensar em ideias para o desenho somente no dia seguinte. Mas logo ao se deitar, a imagem pronta do pôster veio à sua mente, e o instinto artístico do voluntário acendeu uma chama que o fez levantar e passar a madrugada toda colorindo cada detalhe do desenho.

Cartaz de Rober e Fábio, vencedor da categoria “Greenpeace: ativismo que inspira”.

 “O legal de uma obra de arte é ela despertar muitos sentidos e levar à reflexão, para que seja, para sempre, uma obra viva e instigadora”. Ou seja, estampando a Greve pelo Clima, ele será capaz de mobilizar pessoas de todo mundo, de realidades completamente distintas, que serão impactadas pela situação ambiental na qual estamos todes inseridos. 

Assim como a arte, o ativismo relacionado ao meio ambiente é antigo na vida do professor. Na década de 1980, já participava do movimento escoteiro, onde desenvolveu profunda relação de respeito e afeto com os animais e plantas. Tempos depois, entrou para um grupo de defesa ambiental, idealizado por seu primo, no qual participava de diversas mobilizações e ações de limpeza, sempre tentando engajar pessoas pela causa ambiental 

No Greenpeace, sua relação estabeleceu-se, em um primeiro momento, a partir de uma enorme simpatia com os projetos da Organização. “O Greenpeace é um movimento que encanta, pela história, como tudo começou, por essa maneira desafiadora de fazer ativismo – que é ser firme, forte, mas não fere”, comenta. Através dessa admiração, o ativista virou doador e, com o passar do tempo, sentiu uma necessidade de ir além: “lá no fundo o que eu queria era por a mão na massa”. E foi isso que ele fez e faz até hoje. Seja em lives, mobilizações na rua ou concursos artísticos, o voluntário está sempre disposto a somar. 

Para além da vitória, o processo em si do desafio de pôsteres foi muito especial. “O legado que a Greve pelo Clima está construindo é tirar um pouco as pessoas do transe, dessa hipnose de não enxergar para além dos fatos mais visíveis, ou seja, o histórico que tem promovido esse tipo de estados de destruição nos ciclos naturais. Temos que mostrar para as pessoas que o fator humano é muito forte; portanto, é necessário uma reformulação nesse modo inconsequente como interferimos na natureza”.

Rober Teixeira é amigo de Fábio e é admirador e defensor fiel de tudo o que a natureza abraça. Foto: Arquivo pessoal

E ao lado de todo esse belo processo de criação estava Rober Teixeira, produtor de vídeo autônomo de 47 anos, amigo de Fábio. Apesar de não ser voluntário do Greenpeace, Rober é admirador e defensor fiel de tudo o que a natureza abraça. Ter um olhar atento aos detalhes e estar sempre em contato com o meio ambiente, seja através de caminhadas ou até mesmo projetos profissionais, foi um dos fatores que influenciaram positivamente nas ideias de Rober no desenho elaborado em conjunto com Fábio. Quando descobriu que havia sido escolhido, sentiu-se honrado: “Foi muito emocionante, pois tinham várias peças bonitas e a votação estava muito apertada. É maravilhoso quando reconhecem algo que fazemos de bom”, contou. 

Independente das diferentes histórias costuradas por trás dos pôsteres, todos os voluntários e voluntárias que se propuseram a participar do desafio tinham um único objetivo: mobilizar, em nível global, toda e cada pessoa que esbarrasse os olhos nos projetos artísticos. Que, para além da beleza e cuidado estampados em cada desenho, as imagens chamassem a atenção da população para o que ela realmente representa: a crise climática. Sabemos que, para um futuro melhor e mais verde, precisamos mudar o hoje. 

Que a dedicação de cada integrante do nosso grupo de voluntariado sirva de esperança e acenda uma chama em cada indivíduo do mundo. De um em um, formamos um grupo imenso, forte e engajado.

What you need to know about Taiwan’s coral bleaching

by Lena Chang

 Taiwan is home to a diversified coral ecology that is rarely seen in other subtropical areas around the world. However, as the climate is getting hotter and breaking historical records, Taiwan is seeing widespread coral bleaching in its oceans. The Coral Reef Observation System of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has lately raised the coral bleaching alert

in the waters of southern Taiwan to Alert Level 2, which means a large scale of coral mortality is underway that affects the precious marine ecology. 

What are the causes of coral bleaching in Taiwan? What are the impacts? And how can we prevent coral bleaching? 

The temperature of sea waters has continued to rise since May in southern Taiwan. It was reported that corals in some areas had bleached. © Yves Chiu / Greenpeace

What is a coral?

A lot of people may have the wrong impression that a coral is a kind of “plant” growing in the sea. In fact, corals are actually animals with colonies of many identical individual polyps, which are tiny, soft-bodied organisms. Most of them are transparent. The riot of colours that we see come from the algae called zooxanthellae that provide photosynthetic nutrients and form close biological interaction called symbiosis with the corals.

Taiwan used to be known as the coral kingdom. The coral reef communities are widespread in Kenting, Green Island, and Orchid Island. These communities make up less than one-thousandth of the world’s coral reefs in terms of scale, but in terms of the variety of species,  they make up one-third of the world’s total. Of the 700 species of stony corals on the planet, 250 species can be found along the coast of Taiwan! 

Why are corals so important?

Coral reef is an indispensable part of the entire marine ecosystem. Coral reefs harbour many marine creatures. All manners of creatures inhabit, breed, feed, and avoid enemies in coral reefs, which naturally forms a rich ecosystem. There can be as many as 1,500 types of fish within coral reefs. That’s why it is dubbed the “tropical rainforest in the sea”.

What is coral bleaching?

Corals are the longest-living animals. s long as the environmental conditions are good enough, they can grow for hundreds of years. Therefore, the death of coral colonies is usually due to the depressing living environment or the destruction of other creatures. 

Corals are extremely sensitive to their surroundings. Changes in environmental conditions, such as water temperatures, pH values, and turbidity will directly affect the symbiotic relationship between corals and zooxanthellae. When the living environment is not optimal, the symbiotic zooxanthellae will gradually leave the corals or will be expelled by the corals, leading to the corals losing their colour sources and gradual bleaching.

This is a documentation that records coral bleaching at three diving sites in Kenting in southern Taiwan in August this year, including 5, 10 and 18 meters of depth.

After the symbiotic algae leaves, the corals will not die immediately. If the environment becomes better, the bleached corals can regain the zooxanthellae and slowly recover for survival.   However, if they bleach for a long time, the corals will gradually weaken and die. Therefore, coral bleaching is the last distress signal for corals.

Global warming is bad for coral reef growth

With the drastic changes of climate in recent years, global warming has caused seawater temperatures to rise. The greenhouse effect has also caused ocean acidification that weakened coral’s absorption of calcium carbonate, which is made of coral’s skeleton. When coral reefs are not strong enough to resist natural erosion it will take longer for them to recover from bleaching. 

NOAA’s coral reef observing system uses satellites to monitor the sea surface temperature and marks areas with high water temperatures to alert the risk of coral bleaching. Due to the Pacific high this year

, Taiwan has encountered fewer typhoons that lead to higher temperatures of the land and sea. The waters around Taiwan, including Pratas Islands and Taiping Island, have recorded sea temperatures of 30°C.

The optimal water temperature range for coral growth is 20-28°C. If the water temperature is lower than 18°C or higher than 30°C, most corals will expel the symbiotic algae in their body, causing bleaching or even death. If the number of typhoons in Taiwan this year stays low, the fate of corals appears pessimistic as the sea temperature remains high. It is worth noting that short-term changes in sea temperature will not cause bleaching. The main cause of large-scale coral bleaching is often the continuous abnormal warming of the seawater.

The temperature of sea waters has continued to rise since May in southern Taiwan. It was reported that corals in some areas had bleached. © Yves Chiu / Greenpeace

 Human activities are a culprit 

In addition, terrestrial and marine pollutants to human activities can easily cause harmful impacts on coral reefs. Agricultural pesticides flowing into rivers, industrial and household wastewater discharged into the sea, and even sun protection products that contain harmful chemicals like benzophenone and octyl methoxycinnamate leaking into the ocean may disrupt coral reefs’ reproduction and growth cycles. 

 Marine ecosystems are hit hard

The destruction and death of coral reefs have dealt a major blow to the marine ecosystem. The growth rate of corals is very slow; even under normal conditions, they only grow about one centimetre a year. Therefore, the coral reefs we see in the sea are often the results of decades or even centuries.  Once they’re damaged, they’ll need the same amount of time to resume their original size.

In addition to conserving diverse marine life, a healthy coral reef ecosystem also supports various human needs. It not only protects the adjacent coastline from ocean erosion but also has high economic values. It can generate billions of dollars in tourism revenue. Therefore, the decline of the ecosystem caused by coral bleaching will inevitably affect the livelihoods of industries that depend on coral reefs, such as tourism and fishery.

How to solve the problem of coral bleaching?

 In the face of the unusual increase in seawater temperature caused by climate change, more ambitious carbon reduction targets should be set by the Taiwanese government to replace fossil fuels with sustainable energy and slow down global warming.   

The ocean temperature is higher than 28 degrees, reaching a maximum of 31 degrees. Due to climate change and global warming, Taiwan’s corals have become the first victims. © Yves Chiu / Greenpeace

Beautiful corals provide habitat for diversified marine creatures. However, various human activities, excessive coastal development, and the unusual increase of seawater temperatures due to climate change have put great pressure on the corals. As we continue to better understand the importance of coral reefs, we must also avidly continue our preservation work hand-in-hand.

Lena Chang is a Climate and Energy Campaigner at Greenpeace East Asia.

The world failed on all of its biodiversity targets. What happens next?

by Louisa Casson

 Remember that feeling at school of waiting to get your exam results? The nervous knot in your stomach, the sweaty palms… 

Last week, all governments found out how they scored against the targets they set themselves a decade ago to protect nature. 

It was pretty bad. 

Governments didn’t reach any of the targets in full to slow biodiversity loss, and as a result nature is at breaking point. It’s the kind of news you’d dread going home to tell your parents about – let alone having the global media report on your failure. 

Fog on primary forest near the river Digul in southern Papua. © Ulet Ifansasti / Greenpeace

So what happens next? 

Politicians might be tempted to sulk (like some of us may have done at school), blaming the test for being too hard or muttering that we shouldn’t aim so high, that we should lower our expectations for what’s achievable. 

But just because something is hard, it doesn’t mean it’s impossible. As the schoolkids who are mobilising to fight for their future right now know, we can’t let governments give up on tackling the ecological crisis. 

This is our planet’s life support system we’re talking about: healthy forests and oceans help us to fight against climate breakdown, provide us with clean air to breathe, and can act as a shield against new diseases causing more pandemics. When we protect nature, we protect ourselves. 

Instead of losing hope, we need to understand why governments failed – and organise to do things differently, fast. 

Iceberg in Rypefjord off of Scoresby Sound on the east coast of Greenland. © Daniel Beltrá / Greenpeace

What went wrong?

One of the problems is clear. Destructive industries are piling more pressures on our planet’s life support system than at any point in human history. Not only have mega corporations based their business model on burning planet-wrecking fossil fuels, setting forests on fire to clear land to grow commodities, and plundering ever deeper and more remote reaches of the oceans, they’re also polluting our politics

to weaken environmental protection. As a result, just 15% of the world’s forests remain intact , and only 3% of the world’s oceans are free from human pressures

. 

Continuing to waste money on industries that aren’t good for us – like industrial agriculture or the fossil fuel industry – is also making the situation worse. Bailing out pesticide giants

with public money and the richest countries pumping billions into dirty energy

this year are just the tip of the iceberg. 

But also, global progress doesn’t happen by magic – it’s the result of hard work at home. Just like spending no time studying but hoping by some miracle that you’d ace the test, after agreeing these global goals back in 2010 barely any governments translated these global targets into national laws and policies. This meant that individual governments didn’t own their responsibility to act in order to make progress collectively.   

A shrimp inside a sponge in the Sargasso Sea. © Shane Gross / Greenpeace

Knowing this, what lessons can we learn to do things differently?

To make up for lost time, we must rapidly shift away from business-as-usual. Past failures don’t mean things can’t ever get better – but they do mean we must act more urgently and boldly to create a different future. 

To end nature destruction, governments must stop putting corporate profits over the well-being of people. Radically transforming the way we produce and consume food and other goods will ease pressure on nature. Creating vast ocean sanctuaries and rights-based protections on land can help tackle climate breakdown, species loss, food security and the risk of future pandemics. 

As governments prepare to pump billions into recovery packages, this is the time to fight for a green and just recovery. Putting the health of people and nature at the heart of spending and policy decisions will mean we build back better and can stand stronger against the multiple crises that are making injustices and inequalities worse. 

A member of Huni Kuin tribe inspects the destruction of forests neighbouring their home in the state of Acre, Brazil. © David Tesinsky / Greenpeace

Next year, governments will be collectively agreeing next steps for global nature protection. Repeating the same mistakes won’t help us win – but that doesn’t mean giving up. We know the next ten years are crucial for climate action. So that means: governments need a smarter plan. 

Buoyed by the surging public support for climate action and nature protection, governments need to agree not just the vision of what they’re aiming for, but how they’re going to do it. Governments need to bring new targets home with the funding needed to make them happen, putting in place clear plans that can be held accountable by the millions of people rising up to demand action to protect our environment and our future. 

Last week’s report on the state of nature was more of a report card on the state of politics to protect the environment. Let’s cut out the bad influence of polluting industries. Let’s stop governments getting away with leaving global progress to chance. As governments gear up to reboot the global economy, we can reset our relationship with nature – and ensure that every decision, from our local community up to the global stage, builds a green and just recovery.  

about the author

Louisa Casson

Louisa Casson is a senior political strategist at Greenpeace International.