Saltar para: Posts [1], Pesquisa e Arquivos [2]



lopo.jpg

LOPO DE CARVALHO Público 10/05/2016

Parece-me claro que tudo pode fazer mal, dependendo da dose em que se consome.

É com gosto que sigo de perto o trabalho desenvolvido no Parlamento Europeu pelo advogado e eurodeputado Português José Inácio Faria. Felizmente para Portugal, encontramos no Dr. Faria uma pessoa moderada, também pelo grupo parlamentar em que se insere, e que toma habitualmente posições políticas baseadas em pareceres científicos e pouco em crenças ou opiniões provenientes do lóbi de diferentes ONG.

Presentemente, a Comissão Europeia, em conjunto com os 28 Estados-membros, discute a renovação da autorização de comercialização do glifosato. Esta instituição europeia deixou já claro que o poder de decisão neste assunto incide sobre os Estados-membros e não sobre a Comissão ou sobre o Parlamento Europeu. Felizmente que assim é, pois que a discussão parlamentar ocorreu e ocorre, a cada dia, de forma extremada, muito de acordo com critérios políticos e pouco ou nada sob escrutínio técnico.

Em matéria científica, o estudo da questão é sempre desenvolvido por um Estado-membro. Neste caso concreto, foi a Alemanha que tomou as rédeas. Posteriormente, num processo longo e complexo, mas muito transparente, a Autoridade Europeia para a Segurança dos Alimentos (EFSA) deve pronunciar-se. Felizmente para os agricultores, esta entidade europeia não encontrou no glifosato problemas de maior.

Convém recordar que toda esta polémica surge após os estudos realizados pela Agência Internacional de Pesquisa em Cancro (IARC). Resumidamente, tais estudos concluíram que o glifosato era de molde a alarmar as populações. Devemos naturalmente ser prudentes, nomeadamente no que à saúde da população diz respeito. Mas vejamos: os estudos feitos em ratos consistiram em alimentar os animais com glifosato até estes desenvolverem cancro.

Este artigo poderia terminar por aqui. O glifosato não é, naturalmente, para beber, e julgo que ninguém questiona este facto. Contudo, esta agência, que não representa toda a Organização Mundial da Saúde, tem emitido igualmente estudos alarmando as populações para os riscos relacionados com a ingestão de bebidas alcoólicas ou mesmo de carnes vermelhas.

Na União Europeia, a agência responsável pela avaliação dos riscos na nossa alimentação é, até ao momento presente, a EFSA e não a IARC. Em tema algum essa avaliação foi até hoje requisitada à IARC, por que motivo o seria agora? Atualmente, temos na Europa a melhor segurança alimentar à escala global, a qual, juntamente com as restantes instituições europeias, protege eficazmente os nossos consumidores, pelo que não faz sentido esta polémica que agora surge.

Em todos os seus estudos, a EFSA considerou sempre a opinião proferida pela IARC. Já o inverso não aconteceu: esta agência tomou uma decisão política e pouco ou nada transparente e técnica, jamais tendo atendido à opinião da EFSA a este respeito. A confusão instalou-se graças aos lóbis ambientalistas e ao seu trabalho contra um efectivo esclarecimento científico. Isto não obstante a indústria produtora de glifosato, representada por mais de 40 empresas europeias criadoras de inúmeros postos de trabalho, ter-se demonstrado já disponível para publicar os seus estudos.

Após a recente reportagem da RTP e demais meios de comunicação social a este propósito, ficamos com a ideia de que esta substância química é utilizada maioritariamente em jardins, pequenas hortas e outros motivos recreativos. Naturalmente que, estando esta reportagem assente num estudo apresentado por uma ONG anti-organismos com genética alterada, rapidamente se descobre o rabo-de-palha. Na verdade, a utilização do glifosato é, na sua esmagadora maioria, realizada por agricultores altamente profissionais que, ao utilizarem esta substância, evitam danificar o ambiente com substâncias piores, ou mesmo com práticas agrícolas que em muito iriam contribuir para uma grave erosão dos solos, perda de água e perda de nutrientes em grandes quantidades.

A agricultura de conservação, na qual o glifosato é peça essencial, evita a mobilização do solo por alfaias pesadas, permite uma enorme poupança nos gastos de combustível, promove um significativo aumento da biodiversidade dos solos e, claro, contribui para o aumento da matéria orgânica destes. Este tipo de práticas não só é subsidiada pelos cidadãos europeus através da Política Agrícola Europeia como é reconhecida pela comunidade científica como ambientalmente sustentável.

Com o aumento da população mundial, os agricultores devem almejar ser mais competitivos económica e ambientalmente. A exploração sustentável dos recursos, o rendimento dos agricultores – cada vez mais baixo – e os preços dos alimentos devem ser uma preocupação de todos nós. A segurança alimentar só ficará assegurada por práticas agrícolas económica e ambientalmente sustentáveis.

Em conclusão, parece-me claro que tudo pode fazer mal, dependendo da dose em que se consome. Hoje, quando beber um copo de vinho, lembre-se que este contém 1ppm de uma substância potencialmente cancerígena chamada glifosato. O mesmo copo de vinho contém 130 mil ppm de outra substância comprovadamente cancerígena: o etanol. Mas com esta já ninguém se rala.

Não beba glifosato, olhe que não é água!

Lobyista em Bruxelas para indústrias produtoras de glifosato e representante da Associação Nacional da Indústria para a Protecção das Plantas

Autoria e outros dados (tags, etc)

The Poverty of Renewables

por papinto, em 17.03.14

Bjorn Lomborg, Project Syndicate, 17 March, 2014

 

MIAMI – According to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, “Climate change harms the poor first and worst.” This is true, because the poor are the most vulnerable and have the least resources with which to adapt. But we often forget that current policies to address global warming make energy much more costly, and that this harms the world’s poor much more.

Solar and wind power was subsidized by $60 billion in 2012. This means that the world spent $60 billion more on energy than was needed. And, because the total climate benefit was a paltry $1.4 billion, the subsidies essentially wasted $58.6 billion. Biofuels were subsidized by another $19 billion, with essentially no climate benefit. All of that money could have been used to improve health care, hire more teachers, build better roads, or lower taxes.

Forcing everyone to buy more expensive, less reliable energy pushes up costs throughout the economy, leaving less for other public goods. The average of macroeconomic models indicates that the total cost of the EU’s climate policy will be €209 billion ($280 billion) per year from 2020 until the end of the century.

The burden of these policies falls overwhelmingly on the world’s poor, because the rich can easily pay more for their energy. I am often taken aback by well-meaning and economically comfortable environmentalists who cavalierly suggest that gasoline prices should be doubled or electricity exclusively sourced from high-cost green sources. That may go over well in affluent Hunterdon County, New Jersey, where residents reportedly spend just 2% of their income on gasoline. But the poorest 30% of the US population spend almost 17% of their after-tax income on gasoline.

Similarly, environmentalists boast that households in the United Kingdom have reduced their electricity consumption by almost 10% since 2005. But they neglect to mention that this reflects a 50% increase in electricity prices, mostly to pay for an increase in the share of renewables from 1.8% to 4.6%.

The poor, no surprise, have reduced their consumption by much more than 10%, whereas the rich have not reduced theirs at all. Over the past five years, heating a UK home has become 63% more expensive, while real wages have declined. Some 17% of households are now energy poor – that is, they have to spend more than 10% of their income on energy; and, because elderly people are typically poorer, about a quarter of their households are energy poor. Deprived pensioners burn old books to keep warm, because they are cheaper than coal, they ride on heated buses all day, and a third leave part of their homes cold.

In Germany, where green subsidies will cost €23.6 billion this year, household electricity prices have increased by 80% since 2000, causing 6.9 million households to live in energy poverty. Wealthy homeowners in Bavaria can feel good about their inefficient solar panels, receiving lavish subsidies essentially paid by poor tenants in the Ruhr, who cannot afford their own solar panels but still have to pay higher electricity costs.

The list goes on. In Greece, where tax hikes on oil have driven up heating costs by 48%, more and more Athenians are cutting down park trees, causing air pollution from wood burning to triple.

But climate policies carry an even larger cost in the developing world, where three billion people lack access to cheap and plentiful energy, perpetuating their poverty. They cook and keep warm by burning twigs and dung, producing indoor air pollution that causes 3.5 million deaths per year – by far the world’s biggest environmental problem.

Access to electricity could solve that problem, while allowing families to read at night, own a refrigerator to keep food from spoiling, or use a computer to connect with the world. It would also allow businesses to produce more competitively, creating jobs and economic growth.

Consider Pakistan and South Africa, where a dearth of generating capacity means recurrent blackouts that wreak havoc on businesses and cost jobs. Yet the funding of new coal-fired power plants in both countries has been widely opposed by well-meaning Westerners and governments. Instead, they suggest renewables as the solution.

But this is hypocritical. The rich world gets just 1.2% of its energy from hugely expensive solar and wind technologies, and we would never accept having power only when the wind was blowing. Over the next two years, Germany will build ten new coal-fired power plants to keep the lights on.

In 1971, 40% of China’s energy came from renewables. Since then, it has powered its explosive economic growth almost exclusively with highly polluting coal, lifting 680 million people out of poverty. Today, China gets a trifling 0.23% of its energy from wind and solar. By contrast, Africa gets 50% of its energy today from renewables – and remains poor.

new analysis from the Center for Global Development quantifies our disregard of the world’s poor. Investing in renewables, we can pull one person out of poverty for about $500. But, using gas electrification, we could pull more than four people out of poverty for the same amount. By focusing on our climate concerns, we deliberately choose to leave more than three out of four people in darkness and poverty.

Addressing global warming effectively requires long-term innovation that makes green energy affordable to all. Until then, wasting enormous sums of money at the expense of the world’s poor is no solution at all.


Read more at http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/bj-rn-lomborg-says-that-the-prevailing-solution-to-global-warming-is-hurting-the-poor-more-than-the-problem-is#OrU0qszeVvv2Jsb4.99

Autoria e outros dados (tags, etc)

Autoria e outros dados (tags, etc)

New UN science body to monitor biosphere

por papinto, em 13.06.10

'IPCC for biodiversity' approved after long negotiation

Representatives from close to 90 countries gathering in Busan, Korea, this week, have approved the formation of a new organization to monitor the ecological state of the planet and its natural resources. Dubbed the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), the new entity will likely meet for the first time in 2011 and operate much like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

In essence, that means the IPBES will specialize in "peer review of peer review", says Nick Nuttall, a spokesman for the United Nations Environment Programme, which has so far hosted the IPBES birth process. Its organizers hope that its reports and statements will be accepted as authoritative and unbiased summaries of the state of the science. Like the IPCC, it will not recommend particular courses of action. "We will not and must not be policy prescriptive", emphasized Robert Watson, chief scientific advisor to the UK's Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and a vice-chair of the Busan meeting. "That is critical, or it will kill the process."

According to the document approved June 11, IPBES will conduct periodic assessments of the diversity of life on earth and its 'ecosystem services'—those outputs of ecosystems, such as clean fresh water, fish, game, timber and a stable climate, that benefit humankind. These assessments will answer questions about how much biodiversity is declining and what the implications of extinctions and ecosystem change are for humanity. Assessments will take place on global, regional and sub-regional scales.

“There was concern... that this not become a huge bureaucracy.”

Nick Nuttall
United Nations Environment Programme

IPBES will also take a hand in training environmental scientists in the developing world, both with a to-be-determined budget of its own and by alerting funders about gaps in global expertise. The organization will also identify research that needs to be done and useful tools—such as models—for policymakers looking to apply a scientific approach to such decisions as land management.

In Busan, negotiations stretched late into the night as delegates debated the scope of the proposed IPBES, including the specifics of how it will be funded. "There was concern among the developed countries that this not become a huge bureaucracy," says Nuttall. "Governments wanted to be reassured that it would be lean and mean and streamlined."

Another bone of contention was to what extent IPBES would tackle emerging issues or areas of contested science. In the end, it was agreed that the body will draw attention to "new topics" in biodiversity and ecosystem science. "If there had been something like this before, then new results on issues such as ocean acidification, dead zones in the ocean and the biodiversity impacts of biofuels would have been rushed to the inboxes of policymakers, instead of coming to their attention by osmosis," says Nuttall.

Among the governments who assented to the IPBES's creation were the European Union, the United States, and Brazil. The plan will come before the general assembly of the United Nations, slated to meet in September, for official approval. Those involved with the process say that that the UN creation of the new body is a virtual certainty.

Autoria e outros dados (tags, etc)

 

ScienceDaily (June 9, 2010) — Earth is expected to be home to roughly 9 billion people by 2050 -- and everyone needs to eat. But a new report from the United Nations Environment Programme observes that growing and producing food make agriculture and food consumption among the most important drivers of environmental pressures, including climate change and habitat loss.

The report's lead author is Edgar Hertwich, a Professor of Energy and Process Engineering at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology.

The report, called "Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Consumption and Production: Priority Products and Materials" is the first-ever global-level assessment of the causes of different environmental pressures that result from economic activities. Professor Hertwich, who is director of NTNU's Industrial Ecology Programme, worked with colleagues for two years to develop detailed answers to three interrelated questions:

  • What are the most important industries that cause climate change?
  • How much energy do different consumption activities require when the production of the products is taken into account?
  • What are the materials that contribute most to environmental problems?

Agriculture causes major environmental impacts

Professor Hertwich said he was surprised to find that the environmental impacts of agriculture were greater than the production of materials such as cement and other manufactured goods. While the report does not make specific recommendations for change -- it is instead a detailed description of the problem -- Hertwich says, "it is clear that we can't all have a European average diet -- we just don't have the land and resources for that."

The report itself observes that "impacts from agriculture are expected to increase substantially due to population growth, increasing consumption of animal products. Unlike fossil fuels, it is difficult to look for alternatives: people have to eat. A substantial reduction of impacts would only be possible with a substantial worldwide diet change, away from animal products."

More income, more meat in our diets

Another surprise was the effect of increasing economic affluence on different environmental impacts. The report authors found that environmental impacts increase approximately 80 per cent with the doubling of an individual's income. This increase results in part from a shift to a more meat-intensive diet.

Another related problem -- and another surprise to Hertwich -- was the amount of food waste in both rich and poor countries. "Between 30 and 50 per cent of all food produced is spoiled or wasted," Hertwich said. "It's really quite surprising how much food waste there is." In poor countries, food is spoiled on the way to the market, while in rich countries, it spoils in people's refrigerators, he said.

Hope for the future?

Both Hertwich and international environmental officials say that people and policymakers must face the substantial environmental challenges facing all of humankind. In a press release from the UNEP, Ashok Khosla, co-chair of the Panel and President of the World Conservation Union (IUCN), is quoted as saying: "Incremental efficiency gains in, for example, motor cars or home heating systems have provided some improvements but, faced with the scale of the challenge, far more transformational measures need to be taken-- currently we are fiddling--or fiddling around the edges--while Rome burns."

Hertwich agreed with Khosla's assessment. "There are fundamental challenges out there that I don't think that we as a society have woken up to yet," he said. "Somewhere in our rear-view mirror there is a big monster, and we are pretending it is not there. But I think if we really decide to tackle these challenges we will be able to do so."

Hertwich has also developed a website that enables individuals to look at the Carbon Footprint of Nations (http://carbonfootprintofnations.com/). The report was released to coincide with the UN's Environment Day on June 5.

The report is available at: http://www.unep.org/resourcepanel/documents/pdf/PriorityProductsAndMaterials_Report_Full.pdf

Email or share this story:

Story Source:

The above story is reprinted (with editorial adaptations by ScienceDaily staff) from materials provided by The Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU).

Autoria e outros dados (tags, etc)

de http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/06/may-2010-uah-global-temperature-update/

June 4th, 2010 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.


YR MON GLOBE NH SH TROPICS
2009 1 0.251 0.472 0.030 -0.068
2009 2 0.247 0.564 -0.071 -0.045
2009 3 0.191 0.324 0.058 -0.159
2009 4 0.162 0.316 0.008 0.012
2009 5 0.140 0.161 0.119 -0.059
2009 6 0.043 -0.017 0.103 0.110
2009 7 0.429 0.189 0.668 0.506
2009 8 0.242 0.235 0.248 0.406
2009 9 0.505 0.597 0.413 0.594
2009 10 0.362 0.332 0.393 0.383
2009 11 0.498 0.453 0.543 0.479
2009 12 0.284 0.358 0.211 0.506
2010 1 0.648 0.860 0.436 0.681
2010 2 0.603 0.720 0.486 0.791
2010 3 0.653 0.850 0.455 0.726
2010 4 0.501 0.799 0.203 0.633
2010 5 0.534 0.775 0.293 0.710

UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_10

The global-average lower tropospheric temperature remains warm: +0.53 deg. C for May, 2010. The linear trend since 1979 is now +0.14 deg. C per decade.Tropics picked up a bit, but SSTs indicate El Nino has ended and we may be headed to La Nina. NOAA issued a La Nina Watch yesterday.

In the race for the hottest calendar year, 1998 still leads with the daily average for 1 Jan to 31 May being +0.65 C in 1998 compared with +0.59 C for 2010. (Note that these are not considered significantly different.) As of 31 May 2010, there have been 151 days in the year. From our calibrated daily data, we find that 1998 was warmer than 2010 on 96 of them.

As a reminder, three months ago we changed to Version 5.3 of our dataset, which accounts for the mismatch between the average seasonal cycle produced by the older MSU and the newer AMSU instruments. This affects the value of the individual monthly departures, but does not affect the year to year variations, and thus the overall trend remains the same as in Version 5.2. ALSO…we have added the NOAA-18 AMSU to the data processing in v5.3, which provides data since June of 2005. The local observation time of NOAA-18 (now close to 2 p.m., ascending node) is similar to that of NASA’s Aqua satellite (about 1:30 p.m.). The temperature anomalies listed above have changed somewhat as a result of adding NOAA-18.

[NOTE: These satellite measurements are not calibrated to surface thermometer data in any way, but instead use on-board redundant precision platinum resistance thermometers (PRTs) carried on the satellite radiometers. The PRT's are individually calibrated in a laboratory before being installed in the instruments.]

Autoria e outros dados (tags, etc)

03.06.2010
Reuters, PÚBLICO

Este ano está a caminho de ser o mais quente desde que há registos – é, pelo menos, o que indicam os dados publicados pela agência do clima americana, que mostram um recorde de temperaturas altas nos primeiros quatro meses de 2010.

“A temperature média combinada dos oceanos e dos continentes foi a mais quente já registada – 14,5 graus celsius –, ou seja, 0,76 graus acima da média do século XX”, observou aquela agência, num relatório.

O recorde anterior tinha sido estabelecido em 1998.

A agência notou que a temperatura das superfícies terrestres foi em Abril a terceira mais alta desde que tem registos, que começaram a ser feitos em 1880.

Foram verificadas temperaturas acima do normal no Canadá, Alaska, leste dos EUA, Austrália, sul da Ásia, norte de África e da Rússia.

Porém, a Mongólia, o extremo oriente russo e as regiões americanas que lhe são próximas, a Argentina e a maior parte da China tiveram temperaturas abaico do normal.

A existência de neve em todo o mundo foi a quarta mais baixa de sempre.

Por outro lado, cientistas do Centro de Dados da Neve e do Gelo, também nos EUA, alertaram ontem que o gelo no mar do Ártico está no nível mais baixo alguma vez registado para esta altura do ano, o que indica que poderá vir a bater o recorde estabelecido em 2007.

Vários outros estudos climáticos recentes têm apontado para um aquecimento em 2010 face aos anos anteriores

Autoria e outros dados (tags, etc)

ScienceDaily (May 6, 2010) — Climate and agricultural researchers, policy makers, donors, and development agencies, both governmental and non-governmental, from all over the world have just met in Nairobi for a one-day conference, 'Building Food Security in the Face of Climate Change'. The conference was an important part of a big international Mega Programme on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). The programme's secretariat is based at LIFE- Faculty of Life Sciences at University of Copenhagen.

Climate change represents an immediate and unprecedented threat to the food security of hundreds of millions of people who depend on small-scale agriculture and natural resource management for their livelihoods. At the same time, agriculture and forestry also contributes to climate change, by intensifying greenhouse gas emissions and altering the land surface.

To facilitate new research on the interactions between climate change, agriculture, natural resource management and food security, the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and the Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP) have initiated a Mega Programme on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). CCAFS will create unique possibilities in the search for solutions to climate change and food security problems.

"Many farmers in developing countries live in areas that are particularly affected by climate change. In order to secure better living conditions for the farmers, we need to find the right solutions to creating a stable food production that also takes into account the environment. The conference is an important part of that work," says Deputy Director for administration and communication in CCAFS, Torben Timmermann, who helped organise the conference in World Agroforestry Centre in Nairobi.

New ten-year research initiative

Climate Change Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) is a large-scale ten-year research initiative which, from its start in 2010, will seek solutions to how to adapt the world's agricultural areas to a different climate with new conditions for production and agriculture and help reduce agriculture's emission of greenhouse gases. The Secretariat for CCAFS is placed at LIFE -- Faculty of Life Sciences at University of Copenhagen. CCAFS will primarily focus on three regions: South Asia, West Africa and East Africa.

Professor at LIFE and member of UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), John R. Porter is pleased with the new research initiative and points out:

" In the months and years to come, together with leading experts from the whole world, we will focus on developing tools to understand climate change with a view to making the world community ready to tackle the challenges we are facing. At the same time, Danish agricultural research will help contribute to solving the most important challenges in the future, climate change and food security," continues John Porter.


University of Copenhagen (2010, May 6). Climate experts aim to build food security in the face of climate change. ScienceDaily. Retrieved May 6, 2010, from http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2010/05/100506102907.htm

Autoria e outros dados (tags, etc)

Público, 2010.04.28  Maria da Graça Carvalho

É um contributo inestimável para a causa ambiental a elevação da salvaguarda do ambiente a imperativo moral


Hoje, tendo-se tornado uma preocupação central, tanto de cientistas como de teólogos, as questões ambientais parecem estar a gerar uma nova plataforma de entendimento entre indivíduos que, sendo oriundos dos mais diversos universos ideológicos, partilham a mesma visão sobre a relação do homem com a natureza.

Dado o conjunto de valores e causas que defendo no Parlamento Europeu, entre as quais relevam as questões ambientais e da produção eficiente e limpa de energia, às quais sou sensível em boa parte devido à minha formação científica, devo dizer que as posições que a Igreja tem vindo a manifestar a este respeito são para mim uma verdadeira fonte de inspiração. Na sua última carta encíclica, Caritas in veritate, Bento XVI reconhece que "é lícito ao homem exercer um governo responsável sobre a natureza para a guardar, fazer frutificar e cultivar...", mas, ressalva o Sumo Pontífice, o homem não pode deixar de "sentir como gravíssimo o dever de entregar a terra às novas gerações num estado tal que também elas possam dignamente habitá-la e continuar a cultivá-la" (Cap. IV, 50). Parece-me ser um contributo inestimável para a causa ambiental esta elevação da salvaguarda do ambiente ao estatuto de um imperativo moral. O Papa Bento XVI coloca a questão no patamar de um dever que uma geração deve observar para com as próximas gerações. E ao condenar o comportamento do poluidor como um pecado, que exige arrependimento, como o fez no ano passado, acrescenta a esse dever todo o peso da visão religiosa do mundo.

No que respeita à produção de energia, o Papa Bento XVI denuncia a ligação desta questão à pobreza, aos conflitos armados e, em geral, à situação desolada dos países menos desenvolvidos: "O açambarcamento dos recursos energéticos não renováveis... constitui um grave impedimento para o desenvolvimento dos países pobres. A monopolização de recursos naturais... gera exploração e frequentes conflitos entre as nações e dentro das mesmas." Daí o apelo papal à comunidade internacional para "encontrar as vias institucionais para regular a exploração dos recursos não renováveis, com a participação também dos países pobres, de modo a planificar em conjunto o futuro" (Cap. IV, 49).

Recentemente (11 de Janeiro), durante a recepção aos diplomatas das 170 nações representadas no Vaticano, o único Estado do mundo que pode reivindicar ser carbono-neutro, o Papa Bento XVI sublinhou a sua preocupação com o falhanço dos líderes mundiais em alcançarem um acordo global sobre as alterações climáticas, na conferência de Copenhaga, e lançou um apelo, que todos partilhamos, a que se envidem todos os esforços para que seja alcançado um acordo global antes do final do ano (em Cancun).

O testemunho e as mensagens do Sumo Pontífice dão-nos força e ânimo para continuarmos, no nosso dia-a-dia de deputados europeus, com humildade e determinação, a combater por formas novas, menos destrutivas e menos ameaçadoras das gerações vindouras, de nos relacionarmos com a natureza. Deputada do PSD ao Parlamento Europeu

Autoria e outros dados (tags, etc)

Alterações climáticas e Agricultura

por papinto, em 15.04.10

Autoria e outros dados (tags, etc)