1419) Climate Change: Freakanomics at rescue

Um importante artigo sobre mudança climática, que deve desarmar os mais afoitos defensores das atuais negociações em torno de um novo Kyoto...
-------------
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Freakonomics and Climate Change
The Independent, October 13, 2009

Dominic Lawson: Here's another phoney war: the one on climate change
There's no glory in spending $10m a year on giant nozzles that squirt sulphur dioxide

The phrase "publishing sensation" is standard hyperbole from marketing men anxious to push book sales. Sometimes, however, a book comes along which justifies the term. One such is Freakonomics, which since its publication in 2005 has sold well over 3 million copies. This would be a remarkable figure for a popular fiction writer; but the author of this non-fiction work was a university economist called Steven Levitt, aided and abetted by the New York Times journalist Stephen Dubner.

Essentially their book applied basic economic theories of utility-maximisation to social issues which hitherto had been discussed purely in political terms. The essay which caused the most sensation was Levitt's analysis linking falling crime figures to the federal legalisation of abortion via the Roe v Wade constitutional amendment. Levitt claimed that these apparently unconnected statistics in fact represented a significant correlation: unwanted children tended to be neglected and thus turn to crime, so the great increase in abortions from the early 1970s was the main, but unheralded, reason for the drop in US crime rates in the 1990s.

It's fair to say that Levitt's analysis, while rapidly attaining the status of conventional wisdom, remains highly controversial: a number of his fellow economists argue that his "abortion-cut-crime" theory doesn't come close to meeting the burden of proof. It was, however, marvellously mischievous, causing consternation and fury in equal measure among the American religious right, first in downplaying the role of tough penal policies and second in portraying abortion as a socially valuable law-enforcement tool.

Now Levitt and Dubner are launching the follow up to Freakonomics - but this time it is conventional left-liberal thought which will be outraged by their assertions. A clue is given in the work's full title, Superfreakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance. Yes, the authors have this time addressed their dispassionate intellectual blowtorch to the conventional wisdom about climate change, its causes and remedies.

In this investigation they have called upon a number of experts with relevant expertise, including Nathan Myhrvold, a former colleague of Professor Stephen Hawking at Cambridge, who went on to become Bill Gates' futurist-in-chief at Microsoft; and Ken Caldeira, an ecologist from Stanford University and contributor to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Caldeira points out that if our concern is for the planet, and if we choose to measure that concern by biodiversity, then increases in carbon dioxide can be a positive benefit. A rise in atmospheric CO2 means that plants need less by way of water for their growth; Caldera's study demonstrated that doubling the amount of carbon dioxide, while holding steady all other inputs, such as water and nutrients, yielded a 70 per cent increase in plant growth. This would not come remotely as a surprise to people of my generation, who were taught at school that carbon dioxide was the lifeblood of plants, but will perhaps be a shock to the present generation of schoolchildren who are being lectured that man-made CO2 is tantamount to poison.

Myhrvold goes on to tell the freakonomists that while the IPCC is fretting fearfully about the CO2 in the atmosphere increasing from about 280 parts per million to 380, our mammalian ancestors successfully evolved at a time when the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was over 1,000 parts per million. Myhrvold then commits true apostasy by pointing out that "nor does atmospheric carbon dioxide necessarily warm the earth: ice-cap evidence shows that over the past several hundred thousand years, carbon dioxide levels have risen after a rise in temperature, rather than before it."

This might help to explain why the recorded temperature of the planet has not increased at all over the past 11 years. As the BBC's climate correspondent, Paul Hudson, reported with thinly disguised amazement three days ago, "Our climate models did not forecast this." Hudson then spoke to Professor Don Easterbrook of Western Washington University, who explained that global temperatures were correlated much more with cyclical oceanic oscillations of warming and cooling than anything man does. Easterbrook argued that the global cooling from 1945 to 1977 was linked to one of these cold Pacific cycles, and that "the Pacific decadal oscillation cool mode has replaced the warm mode [of 1978 to 1998], virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling."

Hold the front page! Global warming postponed for 30 years! Or possibly much longer! Or, if you prefer to remain terrified by environmental prognostications: hold the front page! New Ice Age approaches! Countless millions set to freeze!

Let's suppose, however, that our political leaders are not mistaken in taking the view that the threat to mankind does come from the greenhouse effect and its consequences. Here is where Levitt's friend Nathan Myhrvold (described by Bill Gates as "the smartest person I know") comes up with a plan almost appalling in its simplicity.

Myrhvold begins with the uncontroversial observation that the biggest sudden natural cooling events are eruptions from "big ass" volcanoes, which shoot vast quantities of sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere, which in turn leads to a decrease in ozone and a diffusing of sunlight, followed by a sustained drop in global temperatures. Why not bring about the same effect through engineering, asks Myhrvold. Thus he has designed a system of pumps, attached to gigantic hoses, which would be taken up into the atmosphere in helium balloons; they would then spray colourless liquid sulphur dioxide which would wrap around the North and South poles in less than a fortnight. Myhrvold estimates that this "save the poles" programme would cost roughly $20m, with an annual operating cost of $10m. Job done.

Alternatively, there is the British Government's suggestion that we spend $1.2 trillion a year globally on a decarbonisation programme. The trouble with this is that even if the British are happy to pay massively more for their electricity by foregoing coal - the world's most plentiful and cheap form of stored energy - the vastly bigger and growing economies of China and India have no intention of denying their people the life-changing benefits of cheap electrification.

You would think that the sort of innovative plan outlined in Superfreakonomics would be welcomed by leaders across the globe, with Nobel prizes in the offing for Myhrvold and his colleagues. You would be wrong. For the modern generation of politicians like to talk grandiloquently about the "war" against climate change (just as they do about the "war against terror" and the "war against drugs"): but there's no glory to be had in spending $10m a year on giant nozzles squirting sulphur dioxide around the poles. For that you need very little by way of international summits, or press conferences to the world's media.

Worse still from their point of view, such a solution would mean that they would be doing absolutely nothing to change the way we lead our lives. We would carry on going about our lives just as we are; and if politicians are doing nothing to change our behaviour they will feel bereft, devoid of mission, even (perish the thought) redundant.

Their fury at such redundancy would be shared by the conventional environmental movement, which regards any solution involving geo-engineering as an "offence against nature" and therefore axiomatically wicked - as if "nature" had the capacity to give a damn one way or the other. The authors of Freakonomics had better put on their hard hats; the ideological ordnance will soon be heading their way.

d.lawson@independent.co.uk

1418) David Fleischer and current moves in Brazilian diplomacy

Brazil Foreign Minister Celso Amorim setting the tune for “Musical Chairs” at Itamaraty

This posting is a guest contribution by Dr. David Fleischer, Emeritus professor of Political Science at the University of Brasília, and editor of Brazil Focus – a weekly political risk newsletter

CIGI, Monday, October 12th, 2009

In early October 2009, Itamaraty (the Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Relations) is operating a round of “musical chairs” with a rotation of its top three posts – Secretary-General (number two), and the ambassadors to Argentina and the US.

This “rotation” was provoked by the retirement of Amb. Samuel Pinheiro Guimarães as Secretary-General in mid-October as he reaches the mandatory retirement age (70). Apparently, Amb. Guimarães will be appointed Minister of Strategic Affairs, replacing Prof. Roberto Mangabeira Unger who left this position in June 2009 to reassume his duties at the Harvard Law School after two years leave of absence.

Samuel Pinheiro Guimarães is considered the “principal ideologue” at Itamaraty and responsible for installing a rigorous Left ideological “line” since 2003 with stronger emphasis on South-South relations and with an ongoing dialogue with what Pres. Bush called the “axis of evil” – Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, etc. Thus, given his interest in the world of conceptual ideas, the Strategic Affairs position is thought to be appropriate.

Reportedly, Brazil’s current Ambassador in Washington Antônio Patriota would be transferred to Brasília to replace Amb. Guimarães as number two under Foreign Minister Celso Amorim. Amb. Patriota replaced veteran diplomat, Amb. Roberto Abdenur (then age 64) in November 2006. This appointment reflected the tone that has come to mark the Itamaraty during President Lula’s administration: Fairly inexperienced diplomats who have close links to the institution’s top echelon are named to the most important embassies while veteran ambassadors – who might voice disagreement with the ministry’s policies – suffer various degrees of ostracism. This was the case with Ambassador Abdenur. He was transferred back to Brasília on a 48-hour notice on justifications that his posture was incongruent with Brazil’s foreign policy “line”. He had “spoken out of turn” regarding Brazil’s enhanced trade relations with China, anticipating possible dumping of Chinese exports (that occurred in 2007-2008 and forced Brazil to impose “quotas” Chinese textile, clothing and shoe exports).

This was a case of “what goes around comes around.” Samuel Pinheiro Guimarães was himself ostracized during the second government of Fernando Henrique Cardoso. He was the Director of IPRI (International Relations Research Institute) and attacked the FTAA in successive public speeches. He was removed from the IPRI position and not assigned to another post.

Roberto Abdenur had served as Brazil’s ambassador in Berlin, Peking, Vienna and Quito, and was replaced by Antônio Patriota (then age 52), a career diplomat who had never before received an assignment as ambassador. A few months previous, another “junior diplomat” (with no previous experience as ambassador) – Mauro Vieira – was appointed Brazil’s ambassador in Buenos Aires. Amb. Patriota had previously worked under Amorim at the UN and in Geneva (WTO), and in 2006 was the under-secretary for political affairs at Itamaraty.

To complete this October 2009 “rotation”, reportedly Mauro Vieira is to be transferred from Buenos Aires to Washington, and Ruy Nogueira, the current under-secretary for Trade Promotion (also closely linked to Amorim) was to be Brazil’s new ambassador to Argentina. However, Ruy Nogueira declined Amorim’s invitation and instead Ênio Cordeiro, the current sub-Secretary-General (number two under Guimarães) was chosen.

In a missed opportunity, a fourth senior diplomat who was also under consideration in this “rotation” was passed over. Vera Machado the former Brazilian ambassador to India and the Vatican would have been the first woman to represent Brazil in Washington or Buenos Aires.

Finally, in late September, Foreign Minister Celso Amorim switched his party affiliation from the PMDB to the PT. This fanned speculations that he might run for office in the October 2010 elections. If so, he would have to “step down” [resign his post] in early April 2010, and President Lula would have to choose a new foreign minister. The second “locus” of Brazilian foreign policy is with the Foreign Affairs Advisor within the presidential office – Professor Marco Aurélio Garcia – who as long-time PT’s national coordinator for international relations has a close relationship with President Lula. Professor Garcia is expected to remain at Lula’s side until January 1, 2011 even if Celso Amorim “steps down” in April 2010. Marco Aurélio Garcia has been chosen to elaborate the campaign program of PT pre-candidate for president in 2010 – Dilma Rousseff.

Thus, there are no concrete indications that this “musical chairs” rotation will produce any major changes in Brazil’s foreign policy posture – bilateral relations with the US and Argentina, or in multi-lateral forums such as the UN, the OAS, the WTO, the G-20, or Global Climate Change.

1417) Governos privatizam, para fazer caixa; no Brasil o governo dá calote...

Tanto o governo socialista inglês, quanto o governo autoritário russo estão privatizando ativos, simplesmente para fazer caixa e enfrentar as dificuldades conjunturais. Ou seja, não há nada de muito ideológico nas opções de venda de ativos públicos, pura e simplesmente necessidade de dinheiro para enfrentar os problemas da crise. Os dois países, Grã-Bretanha e Rússia, são dos mais afetados pela crise internacional, com notáveis decréscimos dos PIBs respectivos, alto desemprego e enormes déficits públicos.

Enquanto isso, no Brasil, o governo além de ser um extrator compulsório, é um devedor caloteiro, pois acaba de anunciar que vai devolver o dinheiro dos contribuintes apenas no ano que vem.
Trata-se de um roubo, pura e simplesmente, pois os particulares e algumas empresas (menos as que optaram pela declaração no final do ano) já recolheram o imposto presumido ao governo (os assalariados, públicos ou privados, sem qualquer opção, pois o dinheiro é subtraído na folha de pagamentos) e teriam direito ao SEU dinheiro pago a mais.
O governo simplesmente se apropria do que não é dele, o que deveria merecer um processo por crime de responsabilidade (suponho que a lei do imposto de renda preveja a devolução logo após a declaração).
É uma situação claramente de arbítrio, pois o dinheiro foi antecipado ao governo a cada mês do ano passado. Uma vez feita a declaração (cinco meses depois do pagamento mais recente e mais de um ano depois do começo das contribuições compulsórias), o governo deveria devolver imediatamente os pagamentos em excesso.
Ele diz que ninguém vai perder pois o governo corrigirá pela taxa Selic.
Ora, isso é um duplo roubo e um escárnio: nenhum particular toma dinheiro à taxa Selic, e se o governo acha justo então faça empréstimo nessa taxa para devolver o que deve aos particulares.
O governo não está sem dinheiro por causa da crise, tanto porque reduziu impostos e estimulou a atividade que voltou a crescer. O governo está sem dinheiro porque gasta muito, contrata demais, cria muitos empregos públicos e torra o dinheiro do contribuinte de forma irresponsável.
Em lugar de privatizar, fica criando mais estatais.
Esse governo é uma piada de mau gosto.

Paulo Roberto de Almeida (12.10.2009)

1416) Os materiais sobre a derrubada do Muro de Berlim e o fim da Guerra Fria do National Security Archive

Ao escrever meu ensaio sobre a Alemanha e a derrubada do muro de Berlim, apoiei-me bastante nos materiais recém divulgados pelo National Security Archive da Universidade George Washington, relativos aos eventos de 1989.
Abaixo uma informação sobre o último livro eletrônico divulgado sobre o tema.

A Different October Revolution: Dismantling the Iron Curtain in Eastern Europe
National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 290
Edited by Svetlana Savranskaya and Thomas Blanton
Posted - October 9, 2009
Link: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB290/index.htm

Washington, D.C., October 9, 2009 - Twenty years ago today, crowds of East German demonstrators took to the streets in Leipzig starting their own October revolution that would bring down the Berlin Wall a month later. Ironically, these massive peaceful crowds of about 70,000 people gathered in the streets and squares of Leipzig just two days after the celebrations of the 40th anniversary of the German Democratic Republic and the visit by Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to Berlin. GDR leader Erich Honecker's security forces were faced with a choice—to apply the Chinese Tiananmen model or to go along with their Soviet patron's advice not to use force. They chose the latter, and several days later Honecker was sent to retirement and replaced with reform Communist Egon Krenz on October 17, 1989.

(ver a suite no link acima)

1415) O projeto sobre a Guerra Fria do Wilson Center

Acabo de escrever um ensaio sobre a Alemanha antes e depois da derrubada (que prefiro ao termo queda) do muro de Berlim. Apoiei-me bastante nos materiais do programa de pesquisa do Wilson Center sobre a Guerra Fria, assim como sobre os materiais disponíveis no National Security Archive, da George Washington University.
Abaixo a relação dos materiais disponíveis no projeto do Wilson Center:

Cold War International History Project
Virtual Archive 2.0
Link: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=1409&fuseaction=va2.browse&sort=Collection

Collection :
1945-46 Iranian Crisis
1954 Geneva Conference on Indochina
1956 Hungarian Revolution
1956 Polish Crisis
1980-81 Polish Crisis
Albania and the Indochina War
Albania and the Non-Aligned Movement
Algeria in the Cold War
Anti-Colonialism in the Cold War
Bandung Conference
Bulgaria in the Cold War
China in the Cold War
Chinese Foreign Policy in the Third World
Cold War Origins
Communist Activity in Latin America
CSCE Negotiation Process
Cuba in the Cold War
Cuban Missile Crisis
Czechoslovakia in the Cold War
East German Uprising
Economic Cold War
End of the Cold War
France in the Cold War
Germany in the Cold War
Hungary in the Cold War
Intelligence Operations in the Cold War
Mongolia in the Cold War
North Korea in the Cold War
Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Poland in the Cold War
Post Stalin succession struggle
Romania in the Cold War
Sino-Soviet Relations
Sino-Soviet Split
Sino-US Ambassadorial Talks
Soviet Foreign Policy
Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan
Soviet Invasion of Czechoslovakia
Soviet Nuclear Development
Stalin and the Cold War
The Cold War in Africa
The Cold War in Asia
The Cold War in Latin America
The Cold War in the Middle East
The Horn of Africa Crisis
The Korean War
The Mitrokhin Archive
The Nikita Khrushchev Papers
The Non-Aligned Movement
The Vietnam (Indochina) War(s)
The Warsaw Pact
Todor Zhivkov Papers
US-Cuban Relations
US-Soviet Relations
USS Pueblo Crisis
Warsaw Pact Military Planning
Western Media
Yugoslavia in the Cold War

1414) Teoria da Mais-Valia: a verdadeira paternidade

Para quem acha que Marx foi o genial inventor da teoria da mais-valia, valeria a pena ler os trabalhos do economista britanico Thomas Hodgskin (falecido em 1869), e que desde 1825 argumentava que o capital extraia valor dos trabalhadores, confiscando o excendente produzido pelos trabalhadores.
Como se vê, Marx foi um excelente adepto da teoria do "rouba mas faz (intelectual)"...

E para quem acha que Marx foi o autor de outra frase famosa: "de cada um segundo suas capacidades,a cada um segundo suas necessidades":

Sem pretender voltar a uma (aparentemente) inutil discussao sobre essa frase "marxista", e sem pretender desiludir aqueles que continuam acreditando que essa frase é puramente, unicamente de extração marxiana, gostaria de chamar a atencao para o fato de que Marx, um leitor compulsivo de livros de economistas contemporaneos e predecessores, nas suas longas jornadas na British Library, na verdade copiou essa frase do pensador britanico William Goodwin (que morreu em 1836).
De tendencia idealista anarquista, Goodwin já proclamava, desde o final do seculo XVIII, que todo governo era um mal, e que a distribuicao dos bens produzidos deveria ser feita de acordo com as necessidades de cada um.
Como se vê, Marx tambem aderia ao famoso "cut and paste" dos nossos tempos, emprestando ideias de outros filósofos sociais, sem necessariamente pagar direitos autorais por isso, ou sequer "moral rights"...
Sorry, marxianos...

1413) Enquete habitacional: qual a melhor designacao para esta habitacao?

Não, não se trata do programa governamental "Minha Casa, Minha Vida", que já tem nome e marca registrada, ainda que não avance muito com toda a publicidade governamental em cima dele.
Se trata, simplesmente de como designar os locais que já foram uma embaixada do Brasil, em Tegucigalpa.

O jornalista Augusto Nunes, que mantêm um Blog no site da Veja, lançou a seguuinte enquete, que reproduzo, com os respectivos scores de respostas, da revista desta semana (edição 2.134, ano 42, n. 41, 14 de outubro de 2009):

Enquete
Qual destes quatro nomes deve batizar o prédio onde funcionou a embaixada brasileira em Honduras?

Pensão do Lula: 35%
Cortiço do Chávez: 33%
Zona do Zelaya: 21%
Casa de Tolerância Xiomara: 11%

Pois bem, permito-me acrescentar novas sugestões, como abaixo, e comprometo-me a acolher e incorporar novas ideias e recomendações de leitores, desde que não ofensivas às tradições austeras da utilização original:

Embaixada da Mãe Joana
Albergue da Senectude
Pensão Asilo Al revés
Hotel de Trânsito Diplomático
Tegucigalpa Inn (and no out)
Centro Bolivariano de Agitação Política


Adições, complementos e correções sempre bem-vindos, desde que respeitados os critérios dos bons serviços de hotelaria...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida (12.10.2009)