Os homens do cofre: O que pensavam os ministros da Fazenda do Brasil Republicano (1889-1985) - Ivan Colangelo Salomão (org.)

 

 Os homens do cofre: O que pensavam os ministros da Fazenda do Brasil Republicano (1889-1985)

Edição Português  por Ivan Colangelo Salomão (Compilador)

São Paulo: Editora da UNESP, 2021, 520 p.

Órgão sob o qual se pensaram e se executaram as principais políticas públicas levadas a cabo no Brasil independente, o Ministério da Fazenda auferiu nova estatura com a proclamação da República. Em mais de dois séculos de história, coube ao órgão liderar políticas exitosas bem como medidas desastrosas, sendo a ele delegados os louros (e os ônus) do desenvolvimento nacional. Objeto de constante disputa política, o Ministério da Fazenda se diferencia dos demais postos de gabinete mesmo sem coordenar a formulação de políticas-fim, uma vez que se responsabiliza, a rigor, pela própria viabilidade dessas. Assim, com o objetivo de apresentar uma face menos visível da história do Brasil, Os homens do cofre lança luz sobre o pensamento dos personagens que, de alguma maneira, nortearam o desenvolvimento do país entre o advento republicano (1889) e o fim do regime militar (1985).

A Diretoria da ABPHE e o organizador da obra, Prof. Dr. Ivan Colangelo Salomão (Universidade Federal do Paraná), convidam para a live de lançamento do livro "Os homens do cofre: o que pensavam os ministros da Fazenda no Brasil republicano (1889-1985)", que acontecerá na terça-feira, 6 de julho, às 19h (Brasília).

Além do organizador, contaremos com a presença de alguns autores que participaram da publicação: os Profs. Drs. Roberto Pereira Silva (Universidade Federal de Alfenas), Bruno Aidar (Universidade Federal de Alfenas) e Victor Cruz e Silva (Universidade Federal de Uberlândia).

A transmissão ocorrerá no canal da ABPHE no YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCK-rQ4-la-_UZHTjISZ2kcA 

Itamaraty ameaçado de ficar sem dinheiro e paralisado a partir de setembro: tenho aqui a solução - Paulo Roberto de Almeida

 Talvez um pouco antiquado, mas ainda válido: 

Imperial Regulamento do Asylo dos Diplomatas da Corte

Paulo Roberto de Almeida

I

Nota Liminar: No curso de minhas atentas pesquisas sobre a história pregressa desse nosso país sui-generis, tenho encontrado vários textos interessantes, muitos outros simplesmente curiosos e alguns francamente hilariantes, que em todo caso me fizeram refletir um pouco sobre a verdadeira natureza do processo histórico. 

            No confronto de alguns deles, fui levado inclusive a estabelecer perigosas ilações, ou melhor, arriscadas aproximações com situações presentes ou passadas que afetam alguns de nós, diplomatas submetidos às agruras do salário em Brasília. Quem, em santa consciência, não aspirou, em determinado momento de sua carreira, por alguma caixa de socorro mútuo, um pecúlio geral, uma irmandade dos desvalidos, com algum lugar, enfim, onde refugiar-se das dificuldades correntes ?

            Pois bem, saibam meus distintos colegas, que nos tempos saudosos da monarquia, algumas categorias profissionais dispunham, senão de uma existência digna, pelo menos de alguma ajuda em caso de necessidade, como por exemplo, a profissão tão disseminada de mendigo. O mendigo era, guardadas as devidas proporções, um diplomata da sarjeta. Bem, com isso não quero dizer que o diplomata seja necessariamente um mendigo da Corte. Cada um que tire sua conclusão.

            À diferença de hoje em dia, qualquer má surpresa da vida e o faustoso mendigo imperial podia recorrer aos bons serviços do “Asylo de Mendicidade da Corte”, absolutamente organizado e dispondo das mais rigorosas regras de higiene, vestuário e dieta. O Regulamento abaixo, de 6 de setembro de 1884, velava pelo funcionamento desse “asylo”, podendo servir, de forma involuntária talvez, para outras iniciativas em nossa tão moderna quanto precária época. 

            Minha atual leitura orientada, provavelmente maldosa, consistiu, apenas e tão somente, única e exclusivamente, em substituir, na transcrição resumida, a palavra “mendigos” por “diplomatas”. Tudo o mais se encaixa. Ou não ?

(Atenção Revisor: não mude a saborosa “graphia” da época)

Asylo de Mendicidade (dos Diplomatas) da Corte

Capitulo I: Da Instituição

Art. 1° - O Asylo dos Diplomatas é destinado aos diplomatas de ambos os sexos e receberá:

         - os que, por seu estado physico ou idade avançada, não podendo pelo trabalho prover às primeiras necessidades da vida, tiverem o habito de esmolar;

         - os que solicitarem a entrada, provando sua absoluta indigencia;

         - os idiotas, imbecis e alienados que não forem recebidos no Hospicio Pedro II.

Art. 3° - Não serão admitidos no Asylo os diplomatas atacados de molestias contagiosas, nem aqueles que por seu estado de saude devam ser recolhidos aos hospitaes.

Art. 4° - Haverá separação de classes, conforme os sexos, sendo ellas ainda subdivididas nas seguintes:

         - de diplomatas válidos;

         - de diplomatas inválidos;

         - de imbecis, idiotas e alienados.

Capitulo II: Da Entrada, Matricula e Sahida dos Diplomatas

Art. 6° - Todo diplomata que entrar para o Asylo, forçada ou voluntariamente, será inscripto em livro proprio, um para cada sexo.

Art. 7° - Despirá o fato que levar e vestirá o uniforme da Casa, depois de cortar o cabelo, aparar as unhas, barbear-se e tomar um banho geral, tepido ou frio, a juizo do medico.

Art. 10° - Os diplomatas só poderão sahir da Casa, precedendo ordem da autoridade a cuja disposição se acharem:

         - quando readquiram a possibilidade de trabalhar fora do estabelecimento, ou pela obtenção de meios ou proteção de pessoa idonea possam viver sem mendigar;

         - quando por qualquer delito tenham de passar à disposição de autoridade criminal; voltando porém ao Asylo depois de cumprida a pena.

Art. 11 - A pessoa que requerer a sahida do diplomata, para tel-o sob sua protecção, assignará termo em seu livro, que para este fim haverá no Asylo, obrigando-se a tratal-o bem e pagar-lhe um salario correspondente.

Art. 12 - Todos os diplomatas tomarão pelo menos dous banhos geraes por semana e cortarão o cabelo, a barba e as unhas, pelo menos, uma vez por mez.

Art. 13 - Os diplomatas terão tres calças, tres camisas e tres blusas de algodão azul trançado, uma camisa de lã para os dias frios e humidos, um par de sapatos grossos, dous lenços de chita e dous pares de meias.

         As diplomatas terão tres vestidos de algodão azul trançado, tres camisas e tres saias de algodão branco trançado, um chale ou paletot de lã para os dias frios...

Art. 15 - Os diplomatas mudarão de roupa às quintas-feiras e domingos, depois do banho geral, e todas as vezes que for necesssario.

Art. 16 - O trabalho é obrigatorio no Asylo e portanto nenhum diplomata póde recusar-se ao que lhe for determinado, segundo a sua aptidão, forças e estado de saude.

Capitulo III: Dos Usos Ordinarios dos Diplomatas

Art. 19 - Os diplomatas se deitarão às 8 horas no inverno e às 9 horas no verão, depois de recitarem a oração da noite.

Art. 20 - Erguer-se-hão às 5 horas da manhã no verão e às 6 no inverno, arrumarão a cama e depois de se lavarem, segundo as prescripções estabelecidas; se pentearão e vestirão para irem ao almoço.

Art. 23 - As dietas serão distribuidas segundo a tabella n. 3 [A “tabella 3” previa: canja adoçada, caldo de galinha, mingão, caldo de galinha, chá, matte e pão, caldo de galinha, carne assada ou cozida com batatas e pirão, bifes de grelha ou ensopados, caldo de galinha, mas “o medico, extraordinariamente, poderá conceder 60 grammas de vinho generoso, uma ou duas laranjas, um ou dois limões azedos, 60 grammas de marmelada ou goiabada, biscoutos, etc...”].

Art. 25 - As horas de visita aos diplomatas são das 10 ao meio-dia e das 2 às 5 horas da tarde.

Capitulo IV: Da Administração

Art. 26 - No Asylo dos Diplomatas haverá: um director, um capellão, um medico, um porteiro, um escrevente, um enfermeiro, uma enfermeira, um servente ordinario e um guarda de material.

Art. 27 - O augmento do numero de enfermeiros e serventes depende de approvação do Governo. Para esses logares, serão escolhidos os diplomatas asylados cujo procedimento garanta o bom desempenho das funcções.

Art. 34 - O director deverá propor à autoridade competente a sahida dos diplomatas que não se achem em condições de continuar no Asylo.

Capitulo V: Do Director

Art. 36 - Ao director compete:

         - remetter à Secretaria da Justiça um mappa da distribuição geral das rações; uma relação dos diplomatas existentes, dos que entraram aos hospitaes de Misericordia, Socorro e Saude, dos que tiveram alta ou falleceram;

         - visitar uma vez por dia os salões de trabalho, afim de observar os procedimentos dos diplomatas, attender às suas reclamações e dar-lhes conselhos;

         - aplicar aos diplomatas as penas disciplinares marcadas neste Regulamento.

Capitulo VII: Do Capellão

Art. 40 - Ao capellão compete:

         - administrar os socorros espirituaes aos diplomatas que os pedirem.

Capitulo IX: Do Porteiro

Art. 42 - Ao porteiro compete:

         - tocar a sineta às horas de abrir a portaria, afim de se levantarem os diplomatas;

         - vigiar para que, na occasião das visitas aos diplomatas, não se introduzam bebidas alcoolicas ou quaesquer outros objectos que possam ser prejudiciaes à ordem e disciplina do Asylo.

Capitulo XI: Do Cozinheiro e Serventes

Art. 44 - Ao cozinheiro compete:

         - ter cuidado na preparação das comidas para evitar justas reclamações da parte dos diplomatas asylados.

Art. 45: Aos serventes incumbe:

         - dirigirem nos banhos geraes os diplomatas asylados;

         - vestirem os defuntos e levarem o caixão para o carro;

         - tratarem com respeito os diplomatas asylados.

Capitulo XIII: Do Peculio

Art. 47 - O peculio será formado pelo producto do trabalho dos diplomatas.

         - dous terços desse peculio e o rendimento do patrimonio do Asylo entrarão para a Caixa Geral;

         - o terço [restante] do peculio será dividido em duas partes, uma das quaes será mensalmente entregue aos diplomatas asylados.

Capitulo XIV: Da Associação Protectora

Art. 48 - Poderá ser instituida uma associação de homens e senhoras, com approvação do Governo, tendo por fim concorrer para a prosperidade do Asylo dos diplomatas e angariar donativos de toda a especie.

         - os donativos em dinheiro serão convertidos em apolices da divida publica;

         - os donativos de generos alimenticios serão dados logo para o consumo dos diplomatas asylados;

         - os de vestuario, calçado, colchões, travesseiros, cobertores e roupas de cama entrarão logo no uso dos diplomatasasylados, si estes tiverem necessidade immediata delles.

Capitulo XV: Das Penas e Recompensas

Art. 49 - São expressamente prohibidos os castigos corporaes, ficando somente admittidas, para punição das faltas e infracções commettidas pelos diplomatas asylados, as penas disciplinares seguintes, a prudente arbitrio do director:

         - augmento do trabalho por tarefa, segundo as forças physicas do diplomata;

         - restricção alimentaria;

         - jejum de pão e agua de até tres dias, com audiência do medico;

         - prisão cellular até oito dias

         - suspensão do passeio por 15 dias a tres mezes.

Art. 50 - O director poderá dar licença para sahirem do Asylo, por algumas horas, sós ou acompanhados de pessoas de confiança, aos diplomatas asylados que tiverem bom comportamento.

Capitulo XVI: Disposições Geraes

Art. 51 - Além dos empregados do Asylo, das autoridades policiaes e judiciarias, dos Ministros de Estado e das pessoas commissionadas pelo Ministro da Justiça, ninguém poderá penetrar no interior do Asylo sem permissão do director.

Art. 53 - É vedado aos empregados negociar por qualquer forma com os diplomatas asylados.

Art. 54 - É prohibida a entrada de bebidas alcoolicas, e todo o qualquer jogo dentro do Asylo.

Art. 61 - A venda do producto do trabalho dos diplomatas asylados será feita, com approvação do Governo, pelo modo que parecer mais economico ao director, o qual prestrará contas semestralmente à Secretaria da Justiça.

Art. 63 - Ficam revogadas as disposições em contrario.

Palacio do Rio de Janeiro em 6 de setembro de 1884

aprovado pelo Conselheiro de Sua Majestade, o Imperador D. Pedro II,

o Ministro de Estado dos Negócios da Justiça

Apud Coleção das Leis do Império do Brasil de 1884

            (Rio de Janeiro, Typographia Nacional, 1885), pp. 432-446: Decreto n° 9274.

Moral: Toda e qualquer semelhança, com fatos, personagens ou situações passadas, presentes ou futuras, nada mais será senão uma involuntária coincidência.

Pela transcrição (maldosa), vosso escriba:

Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Nota conclusiva: A adaptação do regulamento acima foi efetuado em 16 de agosto de 1994, quando o autor se encontrava “asylado” temporariamente em Paris, e o texto foi encaminhado ao Boletim ADB, logo depois. Ele não foi contudo publicado, provavelmente em função de sua extensão, crucial quando se trata de suporte impresso, distribuído a assinantes, permanecendo rigorosamente inédito desde então. O advento dos boletins eletrônicos em muito vem facilitar a publicação de originais, razão pela qual resolvi “desenterrá-lo”.

[1ª: Paris, 448, 16/08/1994]

[2ª: Washington, 840, 16/12/2001]

Publicado nos boletins eletrônicos:

revista Espaço Acadêmico (Maringá: UEM, Ano I, n. 9, fevereiro de 2002, link: http://www.periodicos.uem.br/ojs/index.php/EspacoAcademico/article/view/35904/21028)

e no Observatório da Imprensa (nº 181, 17.7.02, seção “Speculum”).

O aquecimento global está virando uma obsessão na Europa e nos EUA: talvez seja o momento de enfrentar esse touro...

29/06/2021: 

By Ishaan Tharoor with Claire Parker  Email  It’s the climate change, stupid A thermometer reads 116 degrees Fahrenheit during a heatwave in Portland, Oregon on June 28. (Maranie Staab/Bloomberg) In only the first month of summer in much of the Northern Hemisphere, the records are already tumbling. The Pacific Northwest and Canada are in the grip of an unprecedented heat wave. Major cities such as Portland, Ore., and Seattle broke their all-time records for hottest days by wide margins. Thousands lost power; roads buckled as their asphalt cracked amid the heat. On Monday, the temperature in Lytton, British Columbia, soared to 120 degrees Fahrenheit — a degree higher than the city record posted by Las Vegas far to the south. The British Columbia Coroners Service said Tuesday that it has seen “a significant increase in deaths” in recent days that appear to be linked to the heat. “It’s warmer in parts of western Canada than in Dubai. I mean, it’s just not something that seems Canadian,” Environment Canada senior climatologist David Phillips told CTV News on Saturday. But on a warming planet, it does seem increasingly par for the course. “Many have expressed shock about this unprecedented heat wave. Yet the writing has been on the wall for decades,” wrote the Capital Weather Gang’s Jason Samenow. “Since the 1970s and 1980s, climate scientists have warned that global warming would make heat waves more frequent, long-lasting and intense.” Still, the current wave is startling. “Meteorologists estimated that a heat dome of this size and scope is so rare it should be expected only once every several thousand years,” wrote my colleagues. “But human-caused warming makes extremes like this more common, scientists say. Unless people drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the coming years, this heat wave doesn’t represent a ‘new normal’ but rather a worrying taste of the effects to come.” Of course, in other parts of the world the reality is all the more stark. Amid another searing heat wave, Iraq is also enduring repeated power outages. On Monday, the Iraqi electricity minister resigned as the country’s cash-strapped neighbor, Iran, halted its power supply to Iraq after Baghdad had fallen into arrears. The development comes as temperatures in southern Iraqi provinces average 122 degrees Fahrenheit. Temperatures in nearby Kuwait, Iran, Oman, the United Arab Emirates and Pakistan this month have climbed even higher. As my colleagues noted last year, studies suggest whole regions in the Middle East and South Asia may become virtually uninhabitable for parts of each year. The Daily Telegraph recently reported from the Pakistani town of Jacobabad, notorious for its humidity and heat, including temperatures that can reach up to 126 degrees. “People are aware that the heat is getting up and up, but they are poor people,” a local market trader told the British newspaper. “They can’t go anywhere, they can’t leave their places.” Far to the north in the Russian Arctic, records in some towns were broken this past week. Warming temperatures in Siberia have led to the astonishing melting of layers of permafrost. (In Alaska, too, high temperatures have caused sinkholes to emerge in the northern state’s interior.) The degrading ground conditions are creating huge challenges in the region — a recent Russian government study suggested that the damage to critical infrastructure may cost more than $67 billion by the middle of the century, while the country’s minister of natural resources and environment said last month that some 40 percent of all buildings in the north of Russia were experiencing structural deformation. The broader scientific consensus on the forces at play is clear: “Climate change is loading the weather dice against us,” Katharine Hayhoe, climate scientist at the Nature Conservancy, an environmental organization, told the Guardian. “We always have a chance of rolling a double six naturally, and getting an intense record breaking summer heat wave. But decade by decade as the world warms, it’s as if climate change is sneaking in and taking one of those numbers on the dice and turning it into another six, and then another six. And maybe even a seven. So we are seeing that heatwaves are coming earlier in the year, they are longer, they are stronger.” Yet while the visceral effects of climate change are being felt more intensely and widely, political action is nowhere close to catching up. “The current heat wave is another visceral reminder that the world is not moving fast enough to curtail the use of fossil fuels and reduce carbon emissions,” the Los Angeles Times noted in an editorial. “To prevent the worst effects of climate change will take dramatic change on the part of the world’s industrialized nations, most especially the United States.” “There is a way out of this nightmare of ever-worsening weather extremes, and it’s one that will serve us well in many other ways, too,” climate action advocates Michael Mann and Susan Joy Hassol wrote in the New York Times. “A rapid transition to clean energy can stabilize the climate, improve our health, provide good-paying jobs, grow the economy and ensure our children’s future.” But there’s no consensus in Washington on making that transition. Republican and Democratic lawmakers are squabbling over an infrastructure bill that, is in part, intended to inject billions of dollars into climate mitigation efforts and the renovation of the country’s aging transit systems, roads and other critical infrastructure. In a Tuesday op-ed, President Biden acknowledged that a compromise package agreed to with a coterie of Republicans was “missing some critical initiatives on climate change.” On Monday, the European Council adopted a climate change law that legally obliges the 27 member nations of the European Union to collectively slash greenhouse emissions by 55 percent by 2030 — from 1990 levels — and to establish a net-zero-emissions economy by 2050. But Europe only accounts for so much. At the leaders summit of the Group of Seven nations earlier this month, the wealthy democracies failed to agree to a timeline to end their use of coal for electric power. Thorny debates over coal and other climate pledges may shadow the upcoming meetings of the Group of 20 major economies. U.N. projections, meanwhile, suggest that it could already be too late to stave off the 1.5-degree Celsius rise in global temperatures that has been the key target identified in the 2015 Paris climate accords.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken interviewed by René Pfister (Der Spiegel)

 Der Spiegel, Hamburgo – 26.6.2021

Interview with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken

"We Need To Stand for Freedom and Openness – And Do It Together"

In an interview with DER SPIEGEL, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken discusses the simmering dispute with Germany over the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, provocations from Moscow, the trade dispute with Beijing and America’s role in the fight against autocrats.

Interview Conducted By René Pfister

 

Antony Blinken, 59, is one of U.S. President Joe Biden’s closest confidants. He first worked for Biden as a Senate staffer and then rose to become deputy national security adviser and deputy secretary of state in Barack Obama’s administration. Blinken is considered a proponent of an active U.S. foreign policy and believes his country has a mandate to strengthen multilateral organizations and defend democracies against authoritarian regimes like Russia or China.

The dispute over the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline currently being built between Russia and Germany overshadowed his visit to Berlin this week. In an interview with DER SPIEGEL, Blinken makes it clear that sanctions relating to the project aren’t off the table yet.

 

DER SPIEGEL: Secretary Blinken, many German and European politicians appreciate the fact that the U.S. is returning to the world stage, but there is also great concern that Donald Trump or a similar populist will take over the White House in 2025. Do you share the concern that U.S. democracy is still in a fragile condition and that Europe should, therefore, try to stand on its own two feet?

Blinken: I think we all have to deal with the here and now and the challenges – both the problems and opportunities – that our citizens are facing together around the world. And what I have seen in just the last few months as we have been working closely with Germany, with other allies and partners, is that we are producing meaningful results for our own people and for people around the world. Ultimately, that's what matters. If we continue to do that, if we demonstrate that our democracies can deliver effectively for people, then I think the approach that we're taking will be sustained. Our obligation is to actually deliver results.

What we've seen, working together – at the G-7, the NATO summit and the U.S.‑EU summit – is exactly that. At the G-7, with our commitments together to deliver a billion doses of the COVID vaccine, with more on top of that; the commitment to stop financing coal‑fired plants so that we can really get at climate change – it's the single biggest source of emissions; the program to, as we call it, "Build Back Better" for the world, investments we're making together in infrastructure, in low‑ and mid‑income countries, with a race to the top in terms of the standards of investment; the work that we did at the U.S.‑EU summit to end or at least put on pause trade disputes that had been lingering for years, in the case of Airbus and Boeing for 17 years; the steel tariffs; working together on trade and technology, setting standards, setting norms. All of these things are concrete manifestations of the proposition that we not only can, but have to work together to deal with the challenges that are actually having an impact on the lives of our people.

Again, if we do that, if we show success, I think people will sustain that approach to policy and to international collaboration.

DER SPIEGEL: The most difficult issue between Berlin and Washington at the moment is the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. President Biden has made it clear that he opposes the project, yet his administration has waived sanctions against Nord Stream’s operating company as well as its CEO. Why?

Blinken: First, as you know, construction on the pipeline began in 2018. By the time we took office in January of this year, the physical construction of the pipeline was more than 90 percent complete. We went ahead and sanctioned more entities under our law than had ever been sanctioned before, but the reality of the physical completion of the pipeline was such that we looked to see, can we make something out of a very bad hand that we inherited? Because, yes, President Biden has long said that the pipeline is a bad idea, that it will potentially be a tool of Russian economic coercion and strategic coercion, a tool that can be used not only against Ukraine but indeed Europe as a whole to the extent it increases dependence on Russian gas. But the question before us is what to actually do to mitigate or prevent the damage that the pipeline could do if used in the wrong way by President Putin and by Russia, and that's exactly the conversation we're now engaged in with Germany. It is going to be very important to show by concrete actions that we will agree together – and potentially with others – that we can prevent or mitigate damage that can be done by the pipeline.

DER SPIEGEL: You are paying a big political price domestically for not imposing sanctions on Nord Stream 2. What does the U.S. government expect from the German government in return?

Blinken: We are in very active discussions with the German government right now, looking at a series of possible steps, actions and measures that we can take to make sure that the pipeline is not used for negative purposes, as a tool of coercion or blackmail, and that the interests of countries like Ukraine are protected, both economically and strategically. There are a series of very practical things that we are talking about, and my expectation is that we will agree on important measures that, again, can mitigate any damage that could be done.

The sanctions that we waived, those waivers can be rescinded. We have to report again to our Congress in about a month's time. So I ho pe and expect that we will show real results from these conversations.

DER SPIEGEL: If you look at the Ukraine crisis, it is very clear that the Normandy Format talks, which include France, Germany, Ukraine and Russia, have brought little to no progress at all. Was it a mistake on the part of former U.S. President Barack Obama to basically leave the conflict to the Europeans?

Blinken: The U.S. was very engaged in Ukraine in 2015 and 2016. We respected the proposition that the Normandy Format would be the central vehicle for trying to advance the Minsk process – the agreements that were reached, which unfortunately have largely not been implemented by Russia over many years – and that this was the best way forward. But we were working as well to try to advance that process. President Biden discussed this with President Putin and, of course, he has discussed it with Chancellor Merkel, with President Macron and others. And what we have said is: Look, if Russia is serious about implementing Minsk and we can be helpful, we are fully prepared to do that, but it really starts with the basic question of whether Russia is serious about it or not or whether it prefers this frozen conflict where it can turn up the heat whenever it feels like it, as it did recently by amassing the largest number of troops on Ukraine's border since 2014. The real test is whether Russia is serious or not.

Irrespective of that, we are committed to Ukraine's sovereignty, its territorial integrity, its independence and to making sure that it has the means to defend itself from Russian aggression as well as supporting its efforts to deal with the internal aggression posed by corruption and other democratic deficiencies. So, we are there for Ukraine.

My hope would be that Russia would actually be serious about the Minsk process. In that case, I think Normandy can continue to play a central role. We are also prepared to be engaged and to try to move it forward. But the question is really with Moscow.

"We are committed to Ukraine's sovereignty, its territorial integrity, its independence and to making sure that it has the means to defend itself from Russian aggression."

DER SPIEGEL: Are you considering naming a special envoy for Ukraine?

Blinken: We will look to see how we can best be helpful if there is actually work to be done and whether that is through an envoy, whether that is through the very experienced and very senior team that we are putting together, including people who have deep experience with Ukraine. For example, one of our most senior officials – Victoria Nuland, our under secretary of state for political affairs – is someone who has deep experience in Ukraine. Our incoming assistant secretary of state for Europe, when approved by Congress, is also someone with deep experience. So, how we do it matters less than whether there is an opportunity to really help move something forward and do it in very close collaboration with Germany, with France, with our partners.

DER SPIEGEL: Just before Joe Biden took office, the EU and China agreed on a trade deal that should create new investment opportunities for European companies in China. Did you consider to be an unfriendly gesture on the part of the EU?

Blinken: Look, we are not on trying to contain China or holding China back. We are focused on trying to hold up the free and open rules-based international system that the U.S. and Germany have helped build together and have invested so much in over so many decades. If different aspects of that free and open rules-based system are being challenged by anyone, whether it is China or any other country, then we think it is important to stand up and defend what we built because it has delivered very important results for all of our citizens and can continue to do so. That is the basic approach.

We also recognize that we all have very complicated relationships with China that cannot be summed up in one word or, as we like to say, on a bumper sticker. There are adversarial aspects, competitive ones, cooperative ones, but whether it is any of those three, our proposition is that we are much better off engaging China together. We are going to be much more effective in any of those areas if we are doing it together. That is what we are looking toward.

We want to make sure in any of our engagements with China that we are upholding the basic norms and standards that bring us together, that if we are in a race, it is a race to the top, not a race to the bottom. That goes for the commercial relationship. That goes for the relationship on political and diplomatic issues and so on.

When it comes to something like the agreement that was reached – no, the question is not a hostile action. We just want to make sure that we all have in mind some of the potential challenges that China poses; for example, when it comes to information technology that is so significant in all our lives. Unfortunately, if you are doing business with a so‑called "private company" from China, there is actually no distinction between private and the government. The government has the ability to control and to elicit information from any of these companies. And, unfortunately, right now, when it comes to norms and standards of human rights, of privacy, of intellectual property, the government in Beijing does not meet the standards that we have all set. I think we have to be careful. That is all that we are saying.

I think we are seeing – especially if you look at the last two weeks – a convergence of views on the best ways to engage China. The last time the G-7 leaders met in 2018, China was not even mentioned in the communiqué. In this case, the leaders agreed to important things when it comes to dealing with China. A similar thing happened at NATO just a couple of days later. The last time NATO wrote a Strategic Concept back in 2010, China was not mentioned. Now, there is focus on China in NATO as well. And when we got to the U.S.‑EU summit, agreed to establish a trade and technology council between the United States and the EU that is going to make sure that when it comes to trade and technology, we are working together on the norms, on the standards, on the rules in ways that reflect our values. We reestablished the U.S.‑EU dialogue on China that had been dormant.

So, what I am increasingly seeing is a shared viewpoint, but one that recognizes the complexity of the relationships, the fact that they are consequential for all of us, and we are not asking people to choose between the United States and China. We are simply saying we have a common set of values and interests that have helped shape the international system for almost eight decades, and we need to continue to stand for freedom and for openness when it comes to that system and to do it together.

DER SPIEGEL: As of a few days ago, American citizens are allowed to travel to Europe, but the travel ban for people who want to travel to the U.S. is still in place. Can you give us a timeline for when the ban will be lifted? And why aren’t Europeans who have been vaccinated allowed to travel to the U.S.?

Blinken: We are following the science and the recommendations of our health authorities, principally the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). That is where we are looking for the best information possible upon which to make policy decisions. We are very anxious to have travel resume as robustly, as completely, as possible. We have a working group with the European Union right now on this. I can't put a date on it. I can tell you we are working very, very actively on it because we would like nothing better than to see travel pick up. We have to all be deliberate about it and, again, make these decisions based on our best assessment of the science, our best assessment of health conditions. That is what we are doing, but we are doing it with the EU.

DER SPIEGEL: Mr. Secretary, we thank you for this interview.

 

Estagnação econômica, retrocesso na renda per capita - Renée Pereira (OESP)

 PIB SOBE, MAS ÍNDICE DE BEM-ESTAR DA POPULAÇÃO É O PIOR DESDE 2002!

Renée Pereira 

O Estado de S. Paulo, 26/06/2021

 Apesar dos dados positivos sobre a retomada econômica, com crescimento do Produto Interno Bruto (PIB) no primeiro trimestre deste ano, a realidade da população brasileira não traduz essa melhora. O sentimento de bem-estar continua em baixa e pode piorar ainda mais até o terceiro trimestre deste ano, conforme um estudo do Instituto Brasileiro de Economia da Fundação Getúlio Vargas (IBRE/FGV).

Elaborado pelos economistas Aloisio Campelo Junior e Anna Carolina Gouveia, o trabalho mostra a evolução do índice de desconforto econômico brasileiro, medido pela agregação das taxas de desemprego e de inflação. O indicador no período da pandemia, entre fevereiro de 2020 e março de 2021, é o maior desde o ciclo entre outubro de 2002 e junho de 2003 – 103,8 ante 128,3.

“Recentemente temos visto notícias de um PIB maior, melhora na área fiscal e retomada de alguns setores econômicos. Mas isso não corresponde ao bem-estar da população”, diz Anna Carolina. Segundo ela, hoje o País tem um mercado de trabalho ruim e que deve se manter com taxas elevadas no curto prazo por causa do retorno das pessoas na procura por emprego.

O dado mais negativo, segundo a economista, é que o nível de desconforto do brasileiro tem persistido em patamar elevado há muito tempo. Em 2002, por exemplo, o índice atingiu um pico por causa da inflação elevada e da taxa de desemprego, que estava em torno de 10% e 11%. Mas o indicador cedeu logo. “Agora essa patamar esta alto há alguns anos. Mal saímos da crise de 2015/2016, com crescimento baixo nos últimos anos, e já caímos em nova recessão por causa da pandemia. É um acúmulo de mal-estar”, diz Anna Carolina.

De acordo com o trabalho, historicamente, “a manutenção de níveis elevados de desconforto por muito tempo termina levando a pressões por mudanças de política econômica, além de consequências de natureza social e política”. A análise feita por Campelo e Anna Carolina mostra que a persistência do desconforto econômico no período entre 2014 e 2021 é o pior dos últimos 25 anos.

Avaliação ampla. Para avaliar mais profundamente a sensação de desconforto da população, já que a dimensão subjetiva de bem-estar não está contemplada no índice, o IBRE/FGV calculou outros dois indicadores. “Procuramos resolver essa carência com a introdução de uma variável que reflete a porção do Índice de Confiança do Consumidor da FGV que não é determinada por fatores econômicos”, diz a economista, no estudo.

Assim, o Índice de Desconforto 2 incluiria aspectos de natureza não econômica como, por exemplo, o medo da pandemia e a tendência à depressão devido às medidas de isolamento social, entre outros fatores. O resultado foi pior do que o Índice 1, que só inclui desemprego e inflação. Se no primeiro, o indicador era de 103,8, no segundo, chegou a 118,4.

“A pandemia não está controlada, e o ritmo de vacinação é lento. Isso faz o sentimento de mal-estar continuar alto. Quanto mais a pandemia demora, mais tempo vai levar para o nível de desemprego diminuir”, diz Anna Carolina.

No Índice de Desconforto 3, a economista conta que incluiu dados do PIB per capita e do consumidor. Nesse caso, os níveis máximos da série ocorreram durante a recessão de 2014-16 e em junho de 2020, quando a confiança dos consumidores, em média móvel trimestral, alcançou o menor nível histórico.

De acordo com o estudo, entre o final de 2020 e março de 2021, todos os indicadores de desconforto subiram, influenciados pelo aumento da inflação, queda lenta do desemprego, fim dos auxílios emergenciais e o recrudescimento da pandemia no Brasil.

G-20 energy matrix, evolution in the last 50 years - Omri Wallach (Visual Capitalist)

 Visualizing 50+ Years of the G20’s Energy Mix

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-50-years-of-the-g20s-energy-mix/

Visual Capitalist, June 29, 2021

By Omri Wallach

Visualizing 50+ Years of the G20’s Energy Mix (1965–2019)

YouTube dynamics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ms3iMRER8ck&t=30s

Over the last 50 years, the energy mix of G20 countries has changed drastically in some ways. 

With many countries and regions pledging to move away from fossil fuels and towards cleaner sources of energy, the overall energy mix is becoming more diversified. But shutting down plants and replacing them with new sources takes time, and most countries are still incredibly reliant on fossil fuels.

This video from James Eagle uses data from BP’s Statistical Review of World Energy to examine how the energy mix of G20 members has changed from 1965 to 2019. 

G20’s Energy History: Fossil Fuel Dependence (1965–1999)

At first, there was oil and coal.

From the 1960s to the 1980s, energy consumption in the G20 countries relied almost entirely on these two fossil fuels. They were the cheapest and most efficient sources of energy for most, though some countries also used a lot of natural gas, like the United States, Mexico, and Russia.

Search:

Country (Energy Mix - 1965)	Oil	Coal	Other
Argentina	83%	3%	14%
Australia	45%	50%	5%
Brazil	66%	8%	26%
Canada	47%	13%	40%
China	8%	87%	5%
EU	47%	45%	8%
France	49%	37%	14%
Germany	34%	63%	3%
India	24%	67%	9%
Indonesia	86%	2%	12%

PreviousNext

But the use of oil for energy started to decrease, beginning most notably in the 1980s. Rocketing oil prices forced many utilities to turn to coal and natural gas (which were becoming cheaper), while others in countries like France, Japan, and the U.S. embraced the rise of nuclear power.

This is most notable in countries with high historic oil consumption, like Argentina and Indonesia. In 1965, these three countries relied on oil for more than 83% of energy, but by 1999, oil made up just 55% of Indonesia’s energy mix and 36% of Argentina’s. 

Even Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil exporter, began to utilize oil less. By 1999, oil was used for 65% of energy in the country, down from a 1965 high of 97%. 

G20’s Energy Mix: Gas and Renewables Climb (2000–2019)

The conversation around energy changed in the 21st century. Before, countries were focused primarily on efficiency and cost, but very quickly, they had to start contending with emissions.

Climate change was already on everyone’s radar. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change was signed in 1992, and the resulting Kyoto Protocol aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions was signed in 1997.

But when the Kyoto Protocol went into effect in 2005, countries had very different options available to them. Some started to lean more heavily on hydroelectricity, though countries that already utilized them like Canada and Brazil had to look elsewhere. Others turned to nuclear power, but the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan turned many away.

This is the period of time that renewables started to pick up steam, primarily in the form of wind power at first. By 2019, the G20 members that relied on renewables the most were Brazil (16%), Germany (16%), and the UK (14%).

However, the need to reduce emissions quickly made many countries make a simpler switch: cut back on oil and coal and utilize more natural gas. Bituminous coal, one of the most commonly used in steam-electric power stations, emits 76% more CO₂ than natural gas. Diesel fuel and heating oil used in oil power plants emit 38% more CO₂ than natural gas.

As countries begin to push more strongly towards a carbon-neutral future, the energy mix of the 2020s and onward will continue to change.