Official UK government pesticide usage data reveals that the use of glyphosate in UK farming is increasing, despite a recent government promise to “reduce reliance on the use of conventional chemical pesticides.”
According to analysis by Pesticide Action Network UK (PAN UK) and the latest figures, the amount of glyphosate used in UK agriculture grew by more than 360 tonnes (16%) between 2016 and 2020, while the area of land sprayed with the pesticide increased by 9%, amounting to 230,000 hectares, three times the size of Greater Manchester.
Nick Mole, PAN UK’s policy officer, mentioned:
These latest figures, while shocking, are actually a huge underestimation of our exposure to glyphosate since they only relate to farming. Meanwhile, glyphosate is also sprayed liberally in most UK towns and cities.
The negative impacts of glyphosate on human health and the environment are well-documented. With cancer rates and biodiversity loss both rising, it’s crazy that we continue to endanger the health of rural residents, farmworkers and wildlife when there are plenty of safer and more sustainable alternatives available.
One of the primary concerns associated with glyphosate is its potential impact on human health. Several studies have suggested a possible link between glyphosate exposure and various health issues, such as an increased risk of cancer, particularly non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
Environmental concerns are another area of contention surrounding glyphosate use. The herbicide’s widespread application can lead to its presence in soil, water bodies, and food crops, potentially impacting ecosystems and non-target organisms.
Glyphosate has been linked to adverse effects on aquatic organisms, including fish and amphibians, and there are concerns about its potential impact on pollinators, such as bees, which are crucial for agricultural productivity and biodiversity.
Additionally, the long-term use of glyphosate can lead to the development of herbicide-resistant weeds, commonly known as “super-weeds.” Continuous exposure to glyphosate can exert selection pressure on weed populations, promoting the growth of resistant individuals that are no longer susceptible to the herbicide. This phenomenon necessitates the increased use of glyphosate or other herbicides, leading to potential environmental harm and higher costs for farmers.
PAN UK’s report also reveals that the use of a number of other highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs), a UN concept used to identify particularly harmful pesticides, is also on the rise, including:
2,4D, a herbicide highly toxic to bees and possible carcinogen and suspected endocrine disruptor, which can interfere with hormone systems;
Imazalil, a fungicide linked to cancer and classified as a ‘developmental or reproductive toxin’, which can negatively affect sexual function and fertility;
Cyantraniliprole and lambda-cyhalothrin, insecticides highly toxic to bees.
With the clock ticking on the biodiversity crisis, and the UK already one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world, we must move further and faster. Absolutely key is supporting farmers to transition away from chemical dependence and towards more nature-friendly methods of production, warned Mole.
Whilst conducting their analysis, PAN UK’s noted some major problems with the government’s pesticide usage figures, including numbers being changed retroactively and discrepancies between data sets that are supposed to be identical.
The organisation is calling on the UK government to urgently improve pesticide usage monitoring and data, increase support for farmers to reduce pesticide use and introduce non-chemical alternatives, establish reduction targets to drive a decrease in both use and toxicity, end use of pesticides that are harmful to bees and other pollinators, and finally publish the long-awaited National Action Plan on Sustainable Use of Pesticides that was promised for 2018.
The debate surrounding glyphosate and HHPs’ health risks, environmental impact, and the need for alternative weed control methods continues to evolve.
It is essential for the government, regulatory agencies, scientists, farmers, and the public to remain vigilant, informed, and engaged to ensure toxic chemicals are urgently replaced with non-chemical alternatives.
The election of Brazil’s president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, ‘Lula’, in October 2022, brought a sense of relief and hope to the Brazilian scientific community.
Just over three months into his administration, Lula’s challenging task to fulfill all the promises he made before he came into power became apparent. The populous of Brazil, along with the rest of the world, is watching what happens next.
In the past four years, the country has faced considerable challenges, including budget cuts in science and technology, the spread of misinformation leading to the denial of climate change, anti-vaccine movements, and the use of ineffective drugs against COVID-19, amongst many others.
“Brazil is once again reconciling economic growth with social inclusion. Rebuilding what was destroyed and moving forward. Brazil is once again a country without hunger. While preparing the ground for infrastructure work that was abandoned or ignored by the previous government, Brazil is again taking care of health, education, science and technology, culture, housing and public safety”, declared Lula during the meeting at Brasilia’s Planalto Palace in April.
A group of five renowned scientists share their views and expectations about scientific policies in Brazil, published at Nature Human Behaviour this month.
Mercedes Maria da Cunha Bustamante, biologist, Pedro Gabriel Godinho Delgado, doctor and psychiatrist, Lucas Ferrante, ecologist and researcher, Juliana Hipólito, biologist, and Mariana M. Vale, ecologist, highlight key areas of concern to be addressed by the current government.
According to Lucas Ferrante, the past government was notable for the prominent role of scientific denialism. Ministers were chosen for their ideology, rather than their technical ability, and scientific advice was simply ignored.
The second catastrophic COVID-19 wave in the Amazon, making Brazil one of the global epicentres for the disease, could have been prevented if the past government had listened to scientific advice.
The absence of a technically oriented government under Jair Bolsonaro’s administration also increased deforestation in the Amazon rainforest at an alarming rate, threatening the environment, traditional and indigenous communities, as well as climate change goals, wrote Ferrante.
He also mentioned that despite the change in government, there’s the need to remember past events.
During Lula’s two previous terms as president (2003-2010), he showed worrying denialistic tendencies, ignoring scientific reports and scientists’ advice. An example of this was the Belo Monte hydroelectric dam disaster, which affected the Xingu River and traditional communities, causing a catastrophic socio environmental impact.
Essential plans should include blocking major infrastructure projects in the Amazon rainforest, such as the reconstruction of BR-319 highway linking Manaus to Porto Velho, which will affect traditional and indigenous communities, biodiversity and increase deforestation in the region, as well as agriculture production chains that could give rise to a new pandemic.
Brazil’s biodiversity is extremely rich, but lacks surveys of viruses circulating in its fauna, therefore a well established surveillance programme is required in order to reduce the risk of new pandemics emerging through viral spillover, declared Mariana M. Vale.
Nísia Trindade, Brazil’s health minister, mentioned during a lower house hearing last month that the country should be gearing up for future pandemics by investing in science, technology and Brazil’s national healthcare system, SUS (Sistema Único de Saúde).
Juliana Hipólito highlighted another significant issue of concern, society’s lost value and interest of science in their daily lives. As a consequence, this lead to an increase in deforestation rates, climate change denialism, anti-vaccine movements and the use of ineffective unproven drugs against COVID-19.
The past government’s dismantling of environmental policies increasing deforestation and the approval of a large number of toxic pesticides is also something the science community expects to be reversed, she added.
According to experts, Brazil’s use of pesticides increased exponentially in the last few years, growing 300,000 tonnes since 2010. Approximately 80% of the pesticides authorised for commercialization in Brazil are prohibited in at least three countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) of the European community.
In the field of mental health, Pedro Gabriel Godinho Delgado expects to see development of long-term projects to better understand the interfaces between mental health suffering and the profound social inequality and precariousness of life in Brazil.
According to him, urban violence, racism, stigma, gender prejudice, loss of childhood and adolescence and their relationship with human suffering, should no longer be marginal and must be included amongst the priorities of research. The long-term consequences of COVID-19 on mental and physical health also deserve special attention from researchers.
Divestment is an issue of concern, as Brazil’s previous government cut considerably investment in scientific and educational organisations. There was a huge drop in investments in INPE (National Institute for Space Research), INPA (National Institute of Amazonian Research), CNPq (National Council for Scientific and Technological Development), and federal universities.
According to Hipólito, budget cuts skyrocket during the past government. Research funding and the budget of leading science and technology funding agencies were reduced by 60% from 2014 to 2022.
Socio-economic conditions have been sacrificed as a result of the cuts, therefore affecting the country’s capacity for the innovation and economic diversification.
Mercedes Maria da Cunha Bustamante mentioned the urgent need to support vulnerable groups (women, the youth and the poorest – most of them people of colour) in Brazil with the demand for public policies that would put the country back on track towards social justice and equity.
Reducing poverty, combating climate change and biodiversity decline are intrinsically connected.
The current administration also needs to focus on improving education from elementary level, adds Bustamante. A similar scenario is seen at public universities, which were affected by budget reductions under the last government. Brazilian public universities account for most of the national scientific production and are major drivers of social inclusion.
It’s essential to increase diversity, she added, as it’s vital for addressing societal demands through the generation of new knowledge, making Brazil attractive again for young scientists and allowing science to have a more prominent role in policy making.
Vale pointed out that white male individuals still dominate Brazilian academia and highlighted the need to strengthen and improve existing policies on diversity, equity and inclusion in science, especially regarding black and indigenous people.
Brazil has seen a massive exodus of scientists, leaving their jobs to work abroad, where their skills are most valued. The current government should set up a development and retention plan, encouraging and supporting scientists across the country.
Although the scientific community remains confident and positive, it’s crucial that they continue to defend science, and that the general population are not deceived into thinking that a change in governance alone is sufficient to bring about the needed improvements in public health and the environment, mentioned Ferrante.
The voice of scientists who dedicate their entire lives to protecting and bettering our daily lives couldn’t be louder and should be heard. Perhaps it’s time for Brazilian society, politicians, institutions and corporations to fully support this community that has been undervalued for so long.
Similar to our current political & economic systems, the food system is no longer serving us; mainly driven by power, profit and greed, resulting in global food insecurity and impacting directly on our health and the environment.
We’ve seen a sharp increase in food insecurity worldwide, driven not only by climate change and multiple conflicts, but also by an unbalanced food system fuelled by corporate power.
As the world population is projected to reach 9.8 billion in the next 27 years, there’s an urgent need to address issues related to our food system, or we may be facing a worldwide famine sooner than expected. We’ve already seen signs of this in many parts of the world.
“The right to food is the right to have regular, permanent and unrestricted access—either directly or by means of financial purchases— to quantitatively and qualitatively adequate and sufficient food corresponding to the cultural traditions of the people to which the consumer belongs, and which ensure a physical and mental, individual and collective, fulfilling and dignified life free of fear”, according to the United Nations.
Giant agribusiness corporations hold the power and control over our food systems, with the ability to influence governments and decision-makers, through lobbying, with the direct intention of shaping policies in many ways.
Their objectives and tactics are questionable, with the tendency to favour their own interests, focusing on profits and maximising shareholder value, rather than addressing hunger and malnutrition.
According to ‘Who’s Tipping the Scales’, a report published by IPES Food, the international panel of experts on sustainable food systems:
“A bold, structural vision to counter the corporate takeover of food-related global governance – one that support central roles for people, governments, and democratic, public-interest-based decision-making, is urgently needed.”
It’s clear that the voices of the most vulnerable communities across the world, and mostly affected by hunger and environmental impact caused by this industry, must be heard.
These giant and dominant agribusiness corporations influence the global organisations we most trust, which should be there to defend our interests. To the surprise of many, agribusiness associations were sitting directly at the UN governance table at the 2021 UNFSS, UN Food Systems Summit.
One must also question the kind of relationship between the private sector and international governance bodies and institutions about potential conflicts of interest.
According to the IPES Food report, in 2020, a private philanthropic foundation, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, was the second largest donor to the CGIAR, the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research.
Another partnership that raises some eyebrows is the FAO’s, the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, partnership with CropLife International, CLI, an agrochemical lobby organisation, whose members include Syngenta, BASF, FMC and Bayer (acquired Monsanto in 2018).
PAN North America, Pesticide Action Network, mentioned that instead of putting the profit of CropLife International members before farmers and consumers worldwide, the FAO must invest in solutions, including agroecology and take stronger action on ending the usage of highly hazardous pesticides, HHPs.
We’ve also seen increase in consolidation, a large number of mergers and acquisitions, allowing these corporations to dominate the agribusiness sector. This allows these giants to have a profound influence on governance and the structure of our food system, resulting in anti-competitive market practices.
These corporations have significant funding at their disposal to influence policies and regulations, such as pesticides, biosafety, patents, intellectual property, as well as trade and investment agreements.
Bayer AG spent over USD 9 million lobbying the US government in 2019, after it acquired Monsanto. At the time, they were reviewing the re-registration of one of the company’s main products, glyphosate (Roundup), which is considered a toxic herbicide. In the US, Bayer has been contesting billion of dollars in settlement claims to end lawsuits over accusations that glyphosate causes cancer.
They are also responsible for shaping science by sponsoring academic research favouring their corporate interests, influencing governance and policies. This was seen in the agrochemical and processed food sectors.
As proof of this, below is an internal email between Monsanto executives obtained by lawyers representing plaintiffs in the Roundup® litigation, where they suggest ‘beating the s**t out of’ a mother’s group expressing concern over the effects of GMOs and Roundup® on their children.
Photograph: Main Street Law Firm PLLC
Monsanto also tried to influence science by sponsoring various ghostwriting academic articles questioning scientific studies that raised concern over its product’s safety, glyphosate.
Another very concerning issue related to the health of our children is the fact that this industry continuously lobbies against mandatory public health measures, including taxes on ultra-processed foods, UPF, sugary drinks and front of package labeling, as well as restrictions on marketing of unhealthy foods to our children. This has a gigantic impact on their health and also creates pressure on our health systems.
A reported example of this was when a children’s cereal manufacturer attempted to sue Mexico after the country tried to amend a food packaging regulation called NOM-5, in order to protect their children from the marketing of unhealthy foods. The regulation established that certain unhealthy products would be prohibited from putting children’s animations and characters on their packages.
The invention of novel foods also raises some red flags. On March, The Defender, a publication defending children’s health, published a piece on Bill Gates’ latest invention, an edible food coating called Apeel, which is an odourless, colourless and tasteless coating for vegetables and fruit, which potentially extends the life span of these products, keeping it fresher for up to two times longer.
Apeel has already received the green light from US regulators, but some questions still remain unanswered surrounding the safety of the product, as the company is relying mainly on existing scientific studies, as no new science has been required to evaluate and test the product.
We seem to be completely exposed and reliant on these corporations to carry out their own safety studies, without the scrutiny of independent regulators and scientific studies.
According to the 2011 UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, companies are expected to develop their own internal procedures to identify, prevent, mitigate, and account for how they address their impacts on human and environmental rights in global supply chains.
It’s clear that the way we grow our food has a massive impact not only on our physical and mental health, but also on our environment, affecting fauna and flora, the health of our soil, water and air.
Recently, we have seen a sharp increase of fungal disease in crops, affecting 168 crops listed as important in human nutrition, according to FAO of the United Nations. Despite spraying fungicides, farmers are losing between 10-23% of their crops to fungal disease every year, including rice, corn, soybeans and potatoes.
According to a study published at Nature journal, this issue is mainly because of the adaptability of fungi to meet modern agricultural practices. Monocultures entail vast areas of genetically uniform crops, an ideal ground for fast-evolving organisms, such as fungi. Another problem is the increasingly widespread use of antifungal treatments, leading to fungicide resistance.
The use of pesticides and toxic chemicals are increasing exponentially across the world, causing havoc to our health, the soil, polluting water sources, the air, animals and plants.
Industrial agriculture, including cattle farming, soybean, palm oil, sugar cane, corn, wheat, GMOs, monoculture production, is responsible for the deforestation of rainforests, the Cerrado, and many other parts of the world, causing destruction and degradation.
In Brazil, 2.8% of landowners own over 56% of all arable land, and 50% of smallholder farms have access to only 2.5% of the land. Overall, the land is in the hands of a small number of industrial farms.
We must rethink the way we grow our food and we all have the right to access nutritious and healthy food and decide what we eat.
The agribusiness sector spends vast amounts on research and development, making it extremely hard for smaller companies to compete with them, capitalising on patent protection and intellectual property rights.
Why? Because they can!
Patent protection and intellectual property is another issue that should be catching everyone’s attention.
Giant tech companies, such as Amazon and Microsoft, among others, entered the food sector focusing on power, control and profit. Small farmers and local food systems are struggling, as they can’t afford to use this high tech data gathering technology. They are also located in remote areas where these types of services can’t reach.
We can see an increasing movement of powerful integration and control between the companies that are supplying products to farmers, such as tractors, drones, pesticides, etc., and the tech giants. They feed and control farmers with information, and at the same time have direct access to consumers.
The aim is to integrate millions of farmers into a wide centrally controlled network by encouraging and forcing them to buy their products. This digital infrastructure is run by platforms developed by tech companies that run cloud services.
Fujitsu farm workers, located just outside Hanoi, carry smartphones supplied by the company, which monitors their every single movements, productivity, the amount of hours they work, etc., all stored on the company’s cloud. This is extremely worrying, as this practice could easily lead to labour exploitation.
Similar to Fujitsu, other companies investing heavily on this type of digital farming platforms include Microsoft’s Azure FarmBeats, Bayer’s Fieldview, BASF’s Xarvio, Syngenta’s CropWise, Yara’s Yaralrix and Olam’s OFIS, Olam Farmer Information System.
It’s essential to point out the extent of data gathering these platforms are capable of, including real time data and analysis on the farmers soil condition and water, crops growth, pests and diseases monitoring, weather, humidity, climate change, tractor monitoring, etc.
Some of these corporations are also trying to eliminate the “middlemen” by selling directly to consumers, which may be attractive proposition to many, if the idea is mainly to help farmers and small vendors directly, but somehow they may use digital platforms to increase their pricing power over farmers.
An important question we must ask these companies, regulators and our governments: who controls all this data, what do they do with it and who gives the advice?
The influence a few powerful corporations have in food governance must be scrutinised. Governments should be leading in the field of food security and not leaving it in the hands of those that put profit over longevity of life. It may seem a drastic change to the world as we know it, but it may be the only way to bring back a balance in the global food system and secure our quality of life and ultimately our survival.
According to two prominent scientists, Lucas Ferrante and Philip Fearnside, and the result of their studies, the ambitious reconstruction of the BR-319 highway, linking the capital Manaus in central Amazonia to the southern edge of the forest, Porto Velho, might be a catalyst to rampant deforestation with irreversible and catastrophic consequences to the rainforest.
BR-319, a stretch of 830 km, connecting the ‘arc of deforestation’, was inaugurated in March 1976, during the military dictatorship, under the government of General Ernesto Geisel, and abandoned in 1988. In 2015, Dilma Roussef’s government proposed reopening BR-319.
“The BR-319 highway cuts through one of the most preserved blocks of the forest, where it contains an enormous stock of carbon. This project is a threat to 63 indigenous lands and 18,000 indigenous people, not to mention the environment and biodiversity”, mentioned Lucas Ferrante, environmental scientist.
Brazilian Amazonia and Highway BR-319 (Manaus-Porto Velho). Source: map produced by scientist Lucas Ferrante in the ArcGIS software, deforestation data from INPE 2021.
Despite the warnings from scientists about the negative consequences this project may bring to the region, it’s considered a priority for Brazil’s new president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. During an interview with a radio station in Manaus last September, he mentioned:
“We do not want to transform the state of Amazonas into a sanctuary for humanity. Millions of people live in the state of Amazonas. We have to give these people the right to civility, the right to live well, the right to come and go. It is entirely possible for you to work the climate issue correctly, work the environmental issue correctly and provide the necessary security so that you can build good roads that can connect the state of Amazonas with the rest of the country.”
However, according to Lucas Ferrante, the newly elected president of Brazil, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, only replicates a political boast that it is possible to establish territorial governance.
“We need to make some things clear, this is just political rhetoric, a bravado that does not consolidate. According to a study we published at Land Use Policy, the BR-319 highway area had a deforestation rate of up to 2.6 times higher than the deforestation rates observed in other parts of the Amazon, i.e., the state of Amazonas is no longer a isolated sanctuary, yet another area increasingly occupied by criminal organisations that encourage land grabbing and deforestation”, argues Ferrante.
“In addition, people have always had the right to come and go by other modes of transport, but they do not have the right to collapse one of the most biodiverse blocks of the rainforest, which is home to a wide variety of native peoples and which consequently, if deforested, could collapse the global climate,” added Ferrante.
Scientific Studies Raising Red Flags
Lucas Ferrante, environmental scientist, and Philip Fearnside, a biologist at Brazil’s National Institute of Amazonian Research (INPA) and Nobel Peace Prize winner for climate research (2007), both published various scientific studies highlighting the negative effects of this project on the Amazon rainforest.
The highway is a free path to illegal side roads in areas of large concentration of indigenous land, legal reserves and conservation units, giving illegal miners, loggers, squatters and land grabbers access to untouched forest and public lands.
Illegal timber seized by IBAMA agents along the BR-319 highway. Photo by scientist Lucas Ferrante.
As a consequence, these invaders are bringing a wave of destruction, instability, pollution, violence, disease, decay and death to the traditional communities, indigenous people and the environment around them.
In October 2021, a Washington Post journalist, Terrence McCoy and scientist Lucas Ferrante, set themselves on a journey across the length of BR-319 highway, showing the path of destruction and devastation caused by illegal deforestation, land grabbing, mining, fires, violence and even killings. The burnt body of a dead man was found along the way after he had reported land-grabbing activities in the area to the federal police.
Photo of a burnt dead body around BR-319. Photo by scientist Lucas Ferrante.
In 2017, buildings belonging to IBAMA (Institute for the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources) and the Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (ICMBio) in Humaitá were set on fire by miners and remain inoperative.
It is estimated that BR-319 and planned side roads will generate an increase of the deforested area by more than 1,200% between the highway and Brazil’s border with Peru. This projection relates to central Amazon alone, if extended to Peru, the numbers would increase significantly.
According to a scientific article published in the journal Land Use Policy by both Ferrante and Fearnside, despite environmental legislation requiring an environmental impact assessment (EIA) for one of the stretches of the highway, the project was given the green light from a judge, who authorised it without an EIA.
Additionally, the reconstruction of the highway lacks an economic viability study, EVTEA, required by law 5917/1973, as well as consultation with indigenous people required by International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention 169 and by Brazilian law 10,088/2019.
The main transport route used in the region has always been via the Madeira River, making it a cheaper, cleaner and safer way to transport goods.
Fernanda Meirelles, executive secretary of the BR-319 Observatory, commented during our interview earlier this month:
“The LP, Preliminary License, was issued without consultations with the indigenous people and traditional communities, an important stage of the process that was not respected. We do not know whether consultations will be carried out in this current government or whether an intervention by the MPF (Federal Public Ministry) will be necessary to fullfil the obligation of consultation”,
“Public hearings were held during the pandemic, but in an inadequate way. There was no logistical support to guarantee the presence of traditional communities and indigenous people, in additional to having been held at a very inhospitable moment for any time of contrary opinion or manifestation. We even witnessed attacks suffered by researcher and scientist, Phillip Fearnside, during these public hearings”, added Meirelles.
According to data released by SEEG, the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimation System, between 2018 and 2019, the municipalities surrounding BR-319 highway had a staggering 16% increase in greenhouse gas emissions from land use and agriculture.
The reopening of this highway would also give agribusiness access to more land for expansion, including cattle farming, soy and palm oil plantations, monoculture expansion for large-scale biofuel production, as well as fossil fuel companies, hydroelectric dams, mining, etc.
As various studies indicate, including the ones published at Land Use Policy, and Environmental Conservation, these practices are already happening with the maintenance works of the road and would increase exponentially with the reconstruction of the BR-319 highway.
Deforested and burned area along the middle stretch of BR-319 highway. Photo by scientist Lucas Ferrante.
There’s still no information about the costs and sources of funds for this gigantic project. The same applies to a very essential monitoring system project, which was never presented.
Profiteers – All Eyes Focused on the Amazon
There are countless politicians, corporations, governmental agencies and organisations with either a hidden or visible interest in the reconstruction of BR-319 and hoping it succeeds. This project is a gateway to a heaven of natural resources waiting to be exploited and the highway will make their journey a much smoother process.
According to Fearnside, Rosneft, a giant Russian oil and gas company, with drilling rights to 16 extraction blocks located west of BR-319, approximately 35 km from the Purus River, by the SolimõesBasin, would be one of the beneficiaries of the project.
Another very concerning sector is biofuel production in the Amazon. Biofuels are produced based on agricultural products, including sugar cane, corn, castor bean, palm oil and raw materials of animal origin.
According to a Global Witness report, BBF Group (Brasil Biofuels) and Agrapalma, two Brazilian palm oil (azeite de dendê) giants, are accused of various violations in the Amazon, including conflict with local communities, violent campaigns to silence indigenous communities and fraudulent land grabs.
BBF is the largest producer of palm oil in Latin America, also active in thermoelectric generation and biodiesel in the Amazon region (Acre, Amazonas, Rondônia, Roraima and Pará). The company announced that it‘s going to invest R$5 billion over the next three years in the production of biofuels, including corn ethanol. The BR-319 project would certainly facilitate their business developments in the region.
Studies coordinated by Ferrante point out that the expansion of plantations for the production of biofuels in the Amazon tends to encourage deforestation and collapse the forest, in addition to providing zoonotic jumps of viruses stored in the forest, generating a new global pandemic.
Based on scientific research, Ferrante managed to overthrow a presidential decree that released sugarcane to the Amazon, but according to him, corn and palm oil are still crops that have an enormous potential for environmental damage and to generate deforestation, demanding economic ecological zoning mainly for the BR-319 highway area.
Politicians, infrastructure companies, national and international corporations, all show great interest in this ambitious project, as the highway would be key to their business expansion.
The voice of a public figure and politician, the governor of Amazonas, Wilson Lima, would have been a great opportunity for us to understand more about this challenging project. Unfortunately, Lima did not respond to a request for an interview.
The only NGO in the region that agreed to be interviewed about the BR-319 project was IDESAM/BR-319 Observatory.
Fundo JBS pela Amazônia mentioned that they we were unable to contribute to this matter, because the reconstruction of BR-319 had nothing to do with the fund and that this is not something that directly impacts their projects.
WWF Brasil did not have a spokesperson available to answer questions related to the project and asked that any questions be directed toBR-319 Observatory.
National and international media, politicians, corporations, governmental agencies, as well as some NGOs, seem to be reluctant to talk about the reconstruction of the BR-319 highway.
All studies so far show that this project lacks environmental governance and would be detrimental to the local communities as well as the rainforest. It also lacks an economic viability study, a monitoring system plan and consultation with the traditional and indigenous communities.
This appears to be a politically motivated plan with every president elected repeatedly making the same promise, selling the idea that the reconstruction of BR-319 highway would bring prosperity to the region, without considering that it may also bring pollution, illegal activities, violence, diseases, rampant and irreversible deforestation and destruction to the rainforest with catastrophic consequences to Brazil and the rest of the world.
If completed, this project may put in jeopardy the future and survival of the Amazon rainforest, all in the name of what they call “progress”!
Solar geoengineering, SG, is the latest billionaires’ techno-utopian dream to reverse the impact of climate change.
As we have shown little progress in coming to an agreement to use conventional and sensible measures of climate change mitigation and adaptation, a ‘privileged club’ appears to be pursuing a worrying and ambitious plan to change our global weather.
Politicians and fossil fuel giants may also use SG as a way to buy time and as an excuse to delay the switch to a neutral carbon economy.
What’s Geoengineering?
Goengineering is a set of technologies used with the purpose to manipulate the weather and the environment to counterbalance the impacts of climate change.
This technology is divided in two categories. The first one is carbon geoengineering or carbon dioxide removal (CDR), which seeks to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
The second and most important one is solar geoengineering, solar radiation management (SRM), stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) or stratospheric albedo hacking (SAH), which seeks to reflect fraction of sunlight back into space to cool the planet.
This technology mimics a volcano eruption, where sulfate aerosol (or calcium carbonate, aluminum or diamond dust) is released into the atmosphere creating particles reflecting sunlight back into space, therefore cooling the earth. One of the ideas is to send high-flying aircrafts to inject sulfate dioxide particles into the atmosphere.
There are a considerate growing number of parties interested and invested in deploying this technology for a variety of reasons.
Billionaires, financial and technology institutions within Silicon Valley and Wall Street are funding and supporting the research and governance of geoengineering technology. They consist of a group of individuals and organisations with strong ties to corporate power.
FICER is Bill Gates’ fund for geoengineering research, managed by Harvard Solar Geoengineering researchers David Keith and Ken Caldeira. Silver Lining is another firm funded by LowerCarbon Capital and First Round Capital with Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan executives on the board.
Billionaire and co-founder of Facebook, Dustin Moskovitz, and partners Cari Tuna and Holden Karnofsky, formerly Bridgewater Associates, also fund a geoengineering project by Open Philanthropy Project.
Additional players funding such projects include EDF, Environmental Defense Fund, which have partnerships with Citigroup, GE, McDonald’s Shell, Tyson and Walmart. Others include Alfred P. Sloan Foundation of General Motors, Pritzker Innovation Fund, founders of the Hyatt Hotels, and VK Rasmussen Foundation, founded by the Swedish inventor and businessman Villum Kann Rasmussen.
As the fossil fuel industry refuse to commit and scale down production worldwide and transition to renewables, denying and ignoring the negative impact they are causing to climate change and continue to do business as usual, governments, investors and researchers see an extraordinary opportunity to push for geoengineering technology to be deployed sooner rather than later.
According to a few scientific studies, this technology would result in an immediate cooling effect worldwide, with a possibility of reducing the rise of sea level, extreme weather and heat waves.
Additionally, other studies also suggest that SG would be a financially attractive solution to climate change. Obviously, cost efficiency is extremely appealing to governments and corporations.
The Aspen Institute Climate Policy Enters Four Dimensions paper by David Keith and John Deutch, suggests that the direct costs of implementing SG appear to be “quite small, with the global annualised costs perhaps under $20 billion per year well into the latter half of the century. By comparison, the damage-reduction benefits could be 100 times this amount”. SG is a fairly inexpensive technology and politically practical.
“Solar geoengineering is not necessary. Neither is it desirable, ethical, or politically governable. The normalisation of solar geoengineering as a research topic and as a speculative policy option must be stopped”, said Frank Biermann, professor of global sustainability governance, Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University.
In January, a coalition of over 370 academics, 30 organisations in 54 countries, signed a letter in calling for an international non-use agreement on SG. They argue that this technology poses an unacceptable risk if deployed as a future climate policy option. Signatories include professor Frank Biemann, Utrecht University, professor Melissa Leach, CBE, FBA, Institute of Development Studies, amongst many others.
To some, the proposal of spraying the stratosphere with aerosols to block incoming sunlight in order to cool the planet is allegedly a frightening and dangerous idea. Besides, this technology, which has not yet proven to be successful, could discourage the urgent need to reduce green house gas emissions and put a pause to climate action.
Various concerning negative impacts from SG have been discussed within the scientific community, including the disruption of the climate system, affecting rain fall patterns and increasing droughts. Agriculture would be hit hard and the world would experience extreme famine.
Sulfates injected into the atmosphere eventually come down as acid rain, which affects soil, water reservoirs, and local ecosystems. The spraying of this chemical into the atmosphere forms very fine particles that can cause respiratory illness.
This technology is not entirely understood and not proven to be successful, as research is entirely based on modeling and not on external experiments.
Once SG is deployed, we may be locked into it forever, without a reverse gear. It’s called “termination shock”. Furthermore, once SG is stopped, the natural cycle will take over once again and we will see a rapid rise in temperatures, therefore we would see a disruption of every major system on earth, without time for adaptation and resulting in the destruction of ecosystems.
Who gets to decide on the climate?
Perhaps another frightening aspect of SG relates to geopolitical risks and issues around governance. A single or combination of powerful nations may “lead the pack” and decide to deploy this technology, which will impact and cause immediate and direct harm to other regions.
This technology may be used as a war tool and a form of weaponisation, causing inequality, ramping up disputes and conflicts across the globe. We already live in a political system that has no ability to make collective, serious and fair agreements.
The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy announced that they are coordinating a five-year research plan to SG technology. Their focus is to develop a cross-agency group to coordinate research on such climate interventions, in partnership with NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the Department of Energy.
“ You cannot judge what the country does on solar-radiation modification without looking at what it is doing in emission reductions, because the priority is emission reductions”, mentioned Janos Pasztor, executive director of the Carnegie Climate Governance Initiative.
“Solar-radiation modification will never be a solution to the climate crisis”, Pasztor added.
Political control over SG would affect and impact the poorest and most vulnerable countries. The poorer nations are extremely vulnerable to any changes in their environment and would be threatened the most by side effects that might result from the deployment of SG at a global scale.
We are working against the clock and can’t afford to make even bigger mistakes than we already have. We know what to do about climate change, and yet, the biggest polluters and fossil fuel giants refuse to accept the blame and make the necessary changes in order to reverse the effects of climate change.
For every crisis the world faces, window of opportunities unlock for the ones who have their eyes focused on power, control and profit. The hungry “visionaries”, a group comprising of politicians, capitalists, corporate power, billionaires and scientists, are trying to push for the deployment of an untested technology that my drive us into a steep dive towards a catastrophic and irreversible chaos.
Monica Piccinini 