Actuação do BCE versus FED

Interessante e cruza com aspectos já referidos neste blogue (ver aqui, aqui e aqui):

• FT.com / Columnists / Wolfgang Munchau - Trichet justified in diverging from the Fed
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  We have been talking about decoupling for a long time. Now it is happening. No, I do not mean that the European or Asian economies are decoupling from the US. The world economy is too interlinked for real economic decoupling to take place. But there is a form of decoupling we are seeing now that we did not see before: monetary policy decoupling.

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  In the past, European central bankers tended to follow the US Federal Reserve, often with delay, never perfectly, but generally in the same direction. ... The policy response to our most recent financial crisis has been different. While the Fed cut by an accumulated 325 basis points, the Europeans first refused to follow, and they are now moving in the opposite direction. ... The reason is not a rise in oil or food prices, about which monetary policy can do nothing, but an increase in various measures of inflation expectations. ... By moving in the opposite direction from the Fed, the ECB is providing a much more appropriate domestic policy response than what would have been possible under a national currency regime. The ability to do this constitutes quite possibly one of the biggest economic benefits of the euro. It has not only domestic but global implications. In particular, it limits the Fed’s own room for manoeuvre, something that would have been unthinkable only a few years ago.

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  If the Europeans had followed the Americans again, the Fed would probably have been in a position to cut interest rates further. The dollar would not have fallen as much and Ben Bernanke, Fed chairman, would not have needed to revert to verbal intervention to prop up the dollar as he did last week. This suggests that in terms of global monetary policy, we are in the middle of a shift from a unipolar to a bipolar world.

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  In the past, the Fed’s policy alone used to determine the global monetary policy stance – via the dollar, the global anchor currency. Through long periods of loose monetary policies, including lengthy episodes of negative real interest rates, the Fed contributed directly to the rise in global inflation. I am not referring to the recent commodity price increases but to the trend rise in inflation we have been observing for some time.

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  European inflation has also risen as part of this global trend. If the ECB follows the course Mr Trichet appears to have set out, there is now a real possibility that the eurozone, and perhaps some other regions in the world as well, could decouple from this US-led trend. This is what I mean by policy decoupling.

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  In theory, an independent central bank, under a floating currency regime, can achieve whatever inflation target it wants, no matter what happens elsewhere. In practice, central banks, even tough-talking ones such as the ECB, make compromises. The ECB would not have raised interest rates if the euro’s exchange rate to the dollar had been at $1.70, or if the economy looked as though it were to fall into a black hole. ... On its own, it will not get eurozone inflation back towards target over the next couple of years. For my taste, the ECB has moved too hesitantly and a little late. But at least it has been moving in the right direction.

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  The policy goal of the Fed, meanwhile, appears to be avoidance of recession and minimising distress in the financial system. Price stability, which also ranks as one official goal in the Fed’s mandate, seems to be pursued by means of sanctimonious speeches, rather than policy action. As monetary policy of the world’s two largest economies moves in starkly opposite directions, interesting possibilities are opening up.

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  One is whether the dollar will decline prematurely as a global currency – an issue on which economists are divided. Differential inflation rates could plausibly trigger such a shift. As US inflation rises, more and more countries may unpeg from the dollar to avoid imported inflation. If this trend persisted, the US would risk losing its exorbitant privilege – the ability to live beyond its means thanks to a globally domineering currency. This is not a forecast. It is a scenario conditional on policy choices. The central bank of Turkey last week responded to the rise in inflation by raising the inflation target. That is one way of dealing with the problem but not a credible one. Alternatively, you can stick to your target under adverse circumstances. The ECB is trying to do the latter. I suspect it will subsequently be seen as the better response.

Referendo irlandês: o sim, sem convicção e sem política! (III)

(continuação)

Mais artigos sobre o referendo irlandês (ver aqui e aqui). A maioria são do Guardian (Comment is free). A ordem temporal da publicação dos artigos não foi respeitada, e a sua escolha não implica que esteja de acordo com tudo aquilo que dizem. Vou continuar a apresentar mais artigos sobre o mesmo:

• 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  AC Grayling: Fear trumps hope Comment is free guardian.co.uk
  
  
  
  
  

  A kind of inevitability attaches to the partially true things that have been and will be said about the meaning of the Irish rejection of the EU treaty.
  
  
  
  
  

  A summary of one of them might go like this: the Irish referendum is a sparkling example of democracy in action, say some. Say others: 1% of the EU population screwing things up for the other 99%? Sparkling indeed, especially given that Ireland (along with Portugal) has been the greatest beneficiary of EU membership, as anyone who remembers Ireland just a couple of decades ago will testify, with still-continuing astonishment at the transformation into today's brilliant country. ...as they have with the likelihood that the rest of the EU will find a way round the problem somehow, although probably not with recourse (as the Irish no voters perfectly well knew) of saying, OK then, leave.
  
  
  
  
  

  ...The real lesson of the referendum is that fear is always a more saleable political commodity than hope. ... . An Irish businessman called Ganley can orchestrate a campaign on fears of loss of sovereignty and the "remoteness" of Brussels etc in the staring face of the EU's benefits to Ireland, knowing that the number of people among the 53% no voters (about 30% of the electorate?) who had actually read the treaty is probably way less than 10. Good work, Ganley. And your business will continue to prosper – because you're in the EU! Fear has its limits.
  
  
  
  
  

  ... Of course these are different kinds of fears: but the appeal to them is an appeal to the natural self-protective and preserve-the-status-quo instincts we all have. The problem is that the messages are always painfully simplistic: safety, security, "sovereignty", "remoteness of Brussels" - and whereas they all have varying degrees of point, the question is not that degree itself but its relation to the benefits and costs of acting one or another way in response. Mature societies accept certain risks for their freedoms; countries in relation to others in the EU accept the costs as offset by the benefits - which for some, not least for Ireland, are sometimes vast. It is a matter of choice, but not the kind that can be made on the basis of slogans.
  
  
  
  
  

  ...Reality has its own way of dealing with hopes and rhetoricians. But if you were to put money on which message is likely to be the more potent, the odds would be short indeed.





• 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  Denis MacShane: The Irish vote has bust open some myths of Europe Comment is free guardian.co.uk
  
  
  
  

  Hooray for the Irish! The victory by Gerry Adams, the Irish Socialist Workers' party and their millionaire friends has forced the debate about Europe into the open. Britain's moneyed elites who pay for Open Europe along with the media elites of London and the Conservative party are now poised to begin the building down of Europe.
  
  
  
  

  Some myths need to be dispelled. ... President Sarkozy of France was handsomely elected on a platform of supporting the treaty and defying his opponents who made their call for a referendum a core part of the 2007 election campaign in France. ... Similarly, the new Polish government was elected on a strong pro-Lisbon platform in place of the Eurosceptic Kaczynski administration. ... . The Spanish have voted twice in favour of Europe – once in a 2005 referendum and again this March, when the pro-Treaty socialist government was re-elected.
  
  
  
  

  
  
  
  
  

  ... Another myth is that this vote is some kind of a surprise. Every opinion poll in Britain for the last 30 years has shown a majority against the EU. Yet in elections, voters do not elect anti-European parties, as Labour discovered to its cost when it espoused anti-European lines in the 1980s. A third myth is that the Irish voted specifically on the Lisbon treaty. Yet issues like abortion, Irish neutrality, taxation and other concerns that have nothing to do with the treaty were at the forefront of the campaign
  
  
  
  

  How then to reconcile these two competing visions of democracy? Which is more democratic – the Irish plebiscite in which almost all voters seen on television confessed they did not understand the treaty just as much of the legislation passed in the Commons is hard to fathom. A dreadful headache is guaranteed for anyone who tries to decipher the 500 pages of single-spaced typing in Britain's annual finance bill that translates the budget into law. If Britain had a referendum on the finance bill it would be child's play to get a no vote. Yet by any definition the 45% of national income taken from the people by the state is more important than the 1% of Europe's gross national income that flows to Brussels. So we elect parliaments to settle the finance bill and to agree the myriad of international treaties, under which Britain shares sovereignty with other countries.
  
  
  
  

  ... Finding a way forward will not be easy. Europe that cannot or does not want to defend and explain itself may soon start to move backwards, with the gradual loss of open frontiers, open trade and the only region in the world where social and environmental rights are advocated powerfully. ... .Is it what Britain needs? In that sense the Irish have done us a favour. If pro-Europeans roll over and Labour ministers fail to find any enthusiasm for Europe, then last Thursday's vote could be the first steps in the slow detachment of the British island nations from the EU.




• 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  Hugo Brady: The era of the grand treaty is over Comment is free guardian.co.uk
  
  
  

  Ireland has sent Europe into tumult by garrotting the Lisbon treaty at the ballot box. The possibility of resuscitating the treaty is slight. Given the large turnout, a second referendum on the text is likely to be ruled out by Irish politicians as unfeasible. Wholesale renegotiation is not on the agenda: the EU has had more than seven years of interminable talk about institutions and rules already.
  
  
  

  ... It is time for EU countries to think the unthinkable: integration by grand treaty is over. ... But the global issues that the Lisbon treaty was designed to help Europeans address will not go away. Immediate priorities like the global economic downturn, high unemployment, climate change, uncertainty over energy supplies, migration and cross-border crime need to be tackled collectively and soon.
  
  
  

  ... Institutions matter. Although they are not perfect, they are the way Europeans work together. From time to time they will always need tweaking. Hence for now governments will have to limit themselves to less ambitious ways of reforming the EU to make it work better.
  
  
  

  The first is to make the best use of the Nice treaty, the EU's current rulebook. Article 42 of the Nice treaty also allows for the EU as a whole to take a much greater, and more accountable, role in dealing with cross-border crime and migration issues, if every member-state agrees. The treaty also allows for groups of countries (a minimum of eight) to press ahead without others in almost any policy area, provided the single market is unaffected. In practice this happens already with the EU passport-free travel area, the euro and defence policy. Successful initiatives among smaller groups will draw others in. The EU has major foreign policy challenges: a resurgent Russia, a rising China and the priority to present a united front to a newly elected US president in 2009. The Lisbon treaty would have created a quasi-diplomatic corps for the EU by merging various bits of the Brussels bureaucracy to improve the design and delivery of EU foreign policy at home and abroad. Arguably, this innovation can also go ahead without treaty change. Looked at closely, it is uncontroversial.
  
  
  

  The second is to pursue future integration issue by issue, in terms people can better understand. National parliaments and the public are suspicious of grand treaties because they sniff a conspiracy to build a European super-state. But single-issue treaties – on democracy, energy, or climate change for example – would have clearer benefits. Such "salami-style" treaties would also improve the chances that national debates will stick to the text of the deal in question without introducing unrelated issues as a reason to say no.
  
  
  

  Lastly, the EU will have to undertake some reform of its institutions if Croatia is to join sometime around 2010. Governments have to agree an accession treaty with Croatia to adjust the size of the European institutions for its entry. In the treaty, they should also introduce a fairer EU voting system and a number of extra measures to boost accountability. These include allowing national parliaments to block intrusive EU laws, an initiative to allow citizens to directly petition legislation and an expansion of the powers of the European parliament to hold the governments and commission to account.
  
  
  

  As in Ireland's referendum, the people can give up on politicians. But politicans cannot give up serving the interests of the people. Europeans are a declining political and economic force in the world today. Across a range of global challenges, we simply do not have the luxury of going it alone. ...



• 
  
  
  
  
  

  Editorial: EU reform - unloved, thrice rejected Comment is free The Guardian
  
  

  ... It [o governo irlandês] let the referendum on the Lisbon treaty become the hostage of general public discontent. ... . It was an odd time to be asking Irish voters to trust their leaders. But yesterday's referendum was all about trust - and the Irish political elite, the French and the Dutch elites before them (and, one would suspect, the British) notably failed the test.
  
  

  It mattered not that the Lisbon treaty leaves the position on tax harmonisation, neutrality or abortion unchanged. All that mattered was those businessmen wary of losing their low corporation tax, or those worried that Ireland was sleepwalking into a superstate with its own army, had a platform wide enough to accommodate ultra-rightwing Catholics, neoliberals, pragmatic Eurosceptics, traditional nationalists, and Trotskyists. ...
  
  

  ... The Irish rejection was so emphatic yesterday, with 53.4% against 46.6% in favour, that Mr Cowen can hardly go back to the people and ask them to think again, as happened over the Nice treaty in 2002. Then the excuse for the wrong answer the first time round was low turnout. That trick will not work again. The alternative, as Mr Barroso suggested, is for the remaining states to forge ahead and leave Ireland to work out its own relationship with the Lisbon arrangements.
  
  

  This, too, is fraught with problems, as Ireland has already opted out of large chunks of the treaty, such as defence, justice and home affairs. It is not clear what more it could derogate from. ...
  
  

  In the longer term, however, the prospects of creating a Europe with a strong voice and distinct leadership are darker this morning than they were yesterday. .... If integration by grand constitution is dead, and integration by small treaty in a rut, business will be conducted by smaller groups of countries. This is not a union that will find it easy to accept Turkey as a member, defend its common interests against Russia, or speak with one voice about the Middle East, global warming or trade. But it is the union we have now got.

(continua)

Referendo irlandês: o sim, sem convicção e sem política! (II)

Abaixo, uma colectânea de artigos sobre o referendo irlandês (são principalmente do Coment is free do Guardian e do Financial Times) - a minha última nota sobre o assunto pode ser vista aqui e cruza com muito daquilo que é dito nestes artigos (embora, não concorde com tudo o que é dito e, no caso de alguns - poucos - artigos, a minha discordância é total: ficam todos para futura referência). Vou apresentar ainda, pelo menos, outra nota com artigos sobre o mesmo.

• 
  
  
  
  
  Shirley Williams: An Irish wake-up call Comment is free The Guardian.
  
  
  
  
  
  

  ...The Irish referendum result was not just about the treaty. It was an opportunity for voters to express their resentment about many things: .... But none of these are good reasons for dismissing the vote. It represents, from the country that has benefited most from the EU since it joined in 1973, the disturbing gap between public opinion and European leaders.
  
  
  
  
  
  

  ... By any standard, the EU has been a success. It has brought the free movement of goods, services and people to nearly 500 million citizens. It has brought democracy, an independent judiciary and the rule of law to former dictatorships - without war or loss of life. It is the world's largest source of development finance and foremost humanitarian aid donor. But it has failed to win the affection of many Europeans.
  
  
  
  
  
  

  So what is to be done? The European Council, meeting later this week, should launch two working groups with a remit to report back by the end of the year, one to see what elements of the Lisbon treaty that were needed to make the enlarged union function efficiently could be introduced by cooperation between governments.
  
  
  
  
  
  

  ... More effective scrutiny of EU legislation, to ensure the principle of subsidiarity is respected, could be achieved by closer cooperation between parliaments. .... The second working group would propose steps to reduce the volume of EU legislation, simplify contorted language and provide explanatory memoranda.
  
  
  
  
  
  

  At least as important, the council should invite each member to report on what steps it has taken to include education in citizenship, both national and European, in school curriculums.
  
  
  
  
  
  

  UK citizens know very little about how the union works or what it has done. The UK has long been a semi-detached EU member. The media rarely report anything from Brussels except scandal and scare stories. The government has never seriously tried to rebut these, nor to set out the vision of a free and prosperous Europe.
  
  
  
  
  
  

  In the Irish referendum, stories that the EU would impose permissive abortion laws on the republic, or jeopardise its neutrality swayed some votes. That is a reason to take seriously the EU's inability to get the facts across. And that is the lesson the European elites neglect at their peril.
  
  
  
  
  
  

  Paradoxically, the Lisbon treaty made moves towards greater accountability to both European and national parliaments. It was careful to recognise members' historic legacies, like Nato membership, and allowed the UK to exclude itself from whole sections of the treaty. In all these respects, it was a considerable improvement on Nice and Maastricht, neither of which were subject to a UK referendum. But all of us have to take the democratic deficit seriously if the EU is to realise its potential for good in our troubled world.






• 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  FT.com / Columnists / Gideon Rachman - Ireland’s bold blow for democracy





• 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  FT.com / Columnists / Wolfgang Munchau - Europe’s plan B for the Lisbon treaty
  
  
  
  

  ...I personally found last week’s Irish No vote shocking, not in terms of what it means for the EU, but what it says about Ireland. Ireland is one of the EU’s great success stories. Dublin has become one of the great European cities. Both Ireland and the EU should have celebrated their relationship.
  
  
  
  

  ... Why am I so confident that the Lisbon treaty is going to be implemented? Because, contrary to widespread protestations, Europe’s leaders actually have a plan B. ... suggested on Saturday that one way to implement the treaty was for Ireland to withdraw temporarily from the process of European integration.
  
  
  
  

  ...What then? Ireland could then hold a second referendum. One possibility would be to ask the same question again, but it is difficult to see what should produce a different result. Ireland has already opted out of everything it wanted to opt out of. It is difficult to formulate any specific concessions, since nobody knows what the Irish electorate wants. This suggests that the Irish problem may not be fixable through a simple declaration by the other member states. A renegotiation of the treaty is out of the question.
  
  
  
  

  ... So the treaty of Lisbon will be implemented one way or the other, but only if the other 26 countries continue to ratify. Otherwise, all bets are off. The biggest losers from this fiasco will be the Irish themselves. They brought the country to the brink in its relations with the EU at a time when the economy is facing the most severe crisis in living memory. I shudder to think how foreign investors are going to react, given how much Ireland relies on them for its prosperity. Faced with this situation, the strategy most likely to be successful from the perspective of the rest of the EU is to play hardball. This is plan B.




• 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  FT.com / Columnists / Philip Stephens - Stop talking about Lisbon and get to work
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

  ...Does anyone really care about how Europe organises itself? Do not misunderstand. The Lisbon treaty – and the constitutional treaty before it – is not the document of eurosceptic nightmare. The claim of British Conservatives – and of many on the No side in the Irish referendum campaign – that it represents a decisive assault on the sovereignty of nation states is a delusion born of another age.
  
  
  

  The essence of the European enterprise remains an understanding that the continent’s states can better advance their national interests through co-operation rather than competition. Nowhere is that more obvious than in places such as Beijing. Only when Europe speaks with something like one voice are others ready to pay attention.
  
  
  

  That said, the Union has moved beyond the federalist dreams of its founding fathers. The high point was the Maastricht treaty at the beginning of the 1990s. One of the things that has struck me about the debate ever since is how both the advocates and opponents of a European superstate make the same basic mistake. If ever there was a possibility that the EU would replace national identities with a European identity, it was lost with the fall of the Berlin Wall. A Union of 27 simply does not lend itself to uniformity.
  
  
  

  .... Institutions do matter in Europe, and the Lisbon treaty includes some useful changes. ... These gains, though, are wholly disproportionate to the political energy that has been invested in the constitutional project. The Union cannot continue squabbling about its institutional arrangements while the world moves on without it.
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

  We know that this new world will be multipolar. Europe’s prosperity and security depend on it also remaining open and multilateral. ... The bold promise of a strategic partnership with Russia has thus far been mirrored by divisions within the Union on the terms of the relationship with Moscow. Few things illustrate more clearly the need for Europe to act as one than the Kremlin’s divide-and-rule strategy on energy security. ... Fine words on climate change must not be lost to economic turbulence. ... Europe’s interest lies above all in persuading it to become a responsible stakeholder in the multilateral system. And if Brussels stops talking about Lisbon, they might actually pay attention in Beijing.



• 
  
  
  

  Europe : un non de trop Telos


• 
  
  
  

  Parag Khanna and Alpo Rusi: The EU's destiny is to lead the world on security, trade and climate change Comment is free The Guardian
  

  This past week saw not only the Irish rejection of the Lisbon treaty, forcing a crisis summit this week to chart an alternative path to EU continuity, but also the annual EU-American summit in Slovenia, aiming to forge a common transatlantic agenda on Middle East peace, climate change and trade. The Irish vote is likely to fuel rumours of the EU's demise, yet it is the latter summit that will prove more revealing about its future. While mending transatlantic divides is commendable, the summit presents an opportunity to rectify misperceptions about the US leading and Europe following on global issues. No matter who occupies the White House, the actual trend is the reverse. On May 23 in Brasilia, a treaty was signed to establish Unasur, the South American union of nations. It was the most recent example of the real geopolitical revolution that has been under way since the end of the second world war: the regionalisation of international relations on the precedent set by the six nations who established the Treaty of Rome, which became the European Economic Community in 1957.
  

  ...A world of regions still needs leadership, but not necessarily a single leader. While many have fretted that Europe follows the US without providing an alternative course, in fact the EU has been providing this model for decades, and it is bearing fruit around the developing world, despite the US's post-9/11 actions, which have served only to discredit the west. Today the EU provides more than itself as an institutional model. Its emissions trading system is the world's leading carbon market and a model progressive US voices yearn to replicate. It is the largest aid donor and market for goods from developing countries.
  

  ...Europe has become the gold standard for creating such institutions, and is far better poised than the US to be the arbiter of disputes among them. A future concert of powers among the US, China and EU - capable of setting basic global standards and leveraging the adherence of other major powers such as Russia and India - is a vision with which Americans should be familiar, for it resembles Roosevelt's "Four Policemen". ... But among these three, the EU has the most credibility today, and must ensure that the other two do not return the 21st century to the 19th.

  (Continua)
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

Portugal e as energias renováveis - uma perspectiva de fora

Interessante, mas um tanto ou quanto inesperado (amplitude e intensidade do que está a ser feito) - apesar da credibilidade que atribuo àquilo que Sócrates, até prova em contrário, reivindica nesta (como em outras) matérias. Tenham em atenção:

• 
  
  The world’s largest solar photovoltaic farm is strangely beautiful... By 2020, Portugal plans to generate over a third of its energy from renewables, with that percentage increasing every year. The farm, located high on the Alantejo Plain near the small town of Mouro, will be twice as large as any other project of its kind.
  

  
  The world's biggest wind farm also lies in Northern Portugal, with more than 130 turbines. Portugal’s plans for wave power are sparking interest around the globe, as well. Currently, the world's first commercial wave farm is being assembled near Porto. These "sea snakes", developed by the Edinburgh-based company Pelamis, will shortly be towed out to sea and will start pumping electricity into the grid later this year.
  

  
  Portugal has already made its mark as a world leader in switching to clean energy. Why? Partly because unlike other developed countries, Portugal doesn't have an economy dominated by coal, gas and uranium extraction industries.
  

  
  Portugal is leading the European clean-tech revolution, and economics minister Manuel Pinho hopes that this is just a start. He recently told UK’s Guardian that Portugal looks forward to a potentially giant global investment into clean energy tech.
  

  - ver em The Renewable Revolution: World's Biggest Solar Farm Is About to Open—Is the End of Oil Near?

Dúvidas...

- ver em Ha! (The Daily Galaxy)

Astronomy Picture of the Day - 17 de Junho: Eta Carinae

Eta Carinae and the Homunculus Nebula

Explanation: How did the star Eta Carinae create this unusual nebula? No one knows for sure. About 165 years ago, the southern star Eta Carinae mysteriously became the second brightest star in the night sky. In 20 years, after ejecting more mass than our Sun, Eta Car unexpected faded. This outburst appears to have created the Homunculus Nebula, pictured above in a composite image from the Hubble Space Telescope taken last decade. Visible in the above image center is purple-tinted light reflected from the violent star Eta Carinae itself. Surrounding this star are expanding lobes of gas laced with filaments of dark dust. Jets bisect the lobes emanating from the central star. Surrounding these lobes are red-tinted debris captured only by its glow in a narrow band of red light. This debris is expanding most quickly of all, and includes streaming whiskers and bow shocks caused by collisions with previously existing material. Eta Car still undergoes unexpected outbursts, and its high mass and volatility make it a candidate to explode in a spectacular supernova sometime in the next few million years.

- ver em Astronomy Picture of the Day, NASA (Arquivo, 17 de Junho de 2008)

Colbert discute o problema do elitismo nos EUA

- visto em Framing Science : Colbert on Obama's Elitism

Referendo irlandês: o sim, sem convicção e sem política!

Infelizmente sucedeu. Não que fosse uma surpresa: havia indícios fortes, e já há alguns meses, que tal pudesse suceder - ver aqui e aqui. Não sei como é que o problema irá ser resolvido - a União continua e o processo de enraizamento (sócio-económico) do projecto da construção europeia irá prosseguir e, eventualmente, a própria inércia (momento) do que foi posto em marcha ao longo destas últimas décadas será o suficiente para ultrapassar este mau bocado.

Mas, o certo é que a União Europeia necessita de uma estrutura institucional adequada que escore melhor, nomeadamente, a União Económica e Monetária (o euro); sem mais aprofundamento (deepening) institucional não será possível a continuação do alargamento (e.g., a entrada da Turquia). O Tratado de Lisboa não resolve de modo adequado todos os problemas, mas é o que é possível neste momento, e vai no bom sentido - a sua não aprovação introduz linhas de fragilidade adicionais no sistema europeu que podem ser significativas a médio prazo ou em presença de crises inesperadas.

Nós necessitamos mais do que nunca de uma União Europeia à altura dos desafios (medonhos) que se perfilam no curto e médio prazo - são desafios insusceptíveis de serem resolvidos de modo eficaz e eficiente pelos estados europeus, tomados isoladamente, nem mesmo por um qualquer sistema europeu de coordenação político-económico lasso e pouco estruturado. Esta explicação é (deveria ser), relativamente fácil de fazer. No entanto, as elites políticas europeias têm sido incapazes na tarefa.

A legitimação do processo de construção europeia (ver aqui) - educação, formação e informação políticas - não tem sido, pelo menos, tentada, de modo sistemático, convicto, político, com um sentido estratégico. Por isso, os políticos - os generais - quando necessitam dos cidadãos - os soldados - não os têm, ou se os têm, têm-nos despreparados. Logo, quando se chega ao momento de dar uma resposta, de actuar tácticamente, como sucedeu agora na Irlanda, é o completo desastre - face à demagogia e à mentira - e, segundo parece, à intervenção do inefável John Bolton -, não há resposta, há incapacidade de desmontar as atordoadas; perante um desafio político de primeira linha para o país e para um continente, o que se faz? Distribui-se prospectos e folhetos (ver abaixo um extracto de um artigo do FT). Os partidos políticos europeus não poderiam ter intervido?

A convicção e a militância políticas estão de um lado; do outro está o enfado burocrata (tecnocrata) de despachar um eleição com um mínimo de trabalho político ou, dito de outra forma, o trabalho político é reconduzido à passeata, ao sorriso, ao folheto. O problema é geral; atinge toda a actuação política, em todas as áreas; é mais visível, no entanto, na área da construção europeia - é um bom tema de reflexão: o saber a razão porque as fragilidades da actuação política nas democracias europeias têm um afloramento mais visível neste particular.

Aquilo que este excerto do FT relata é, a este respeito, exemplar. Vejam (note-se, contudo, que em outras situações, na Irlanda, se espera ser o trabalho político mais do que distribuir folhetos):

• 
  
  
  
  FT.com / Quentin Peel / Between The Lines - Complex treaty cools passions of faithful
  
  
  

  "But is it too late to save the treaty? The most formidable political machine in Ireland – Fianna Fáil, the party that has ruled for all but a handful of years since independence – has finally geared up in the past few days. The prospect of a humiliating defeat only weeks after electing Brian Cowen as their new leader and Taoiseach (prime minister) has got the faithful moving.
  
  
  

  Yet there is a curious lack of passion. One reason is that traditional party workers are uncomfortable with the sheer complexity of the Lisbon treaty. “Guys don’t want to go out canvassing in their own parish on a subject they don’t understand,” says Mark Hennessy, political correspondent of the Irish Times. “They are afraid they will look foolish in front of the neighbours. So they have been doing no more than handing out leaflets.” Fianna Fáil is a party built on local connections, not ideology. People are loyal because the party delivers, with jobs and contracts. None of that seems relevant to a technical EU treaty about institutional reform."

Regulação da produção alimentar (EUA)

Um comentário menos pensado, menos informado, menos inteligente, feito a propósito da intervenção da ASAE, por alguns intelectuais do primeiro plano do panorama português, foi o de não necessitarem de intervenções paternalistas por parte do Estado no domínio da alimentação - um comentário ao disparate fica para outra altura, mas este artigo de Krugman pode ficar já como referência para isso e serve para ilustrar, mais um vez, um aspecto pouco conhecido da imbecilidade ideológica da direita norte-americana e da Administração Bush. Um excerto (para induzir a leitura):

• Op-Ed Columnist - Paul Krugman - Bad Cow Disease - Op-Ed - NYTimes.com

  Lately, however, there always seems to be at least one food-safety crisis in the headlines — tainted spinach, poisonous peanut butter and, currently, the attack of the killer tomatoes. .... How did America find itself back in The Jungle?

  
  It started with ideology. Hard-core American conservatives have long idealized the Gilded Age, regarding everything that followed — not just the New Deal, but even the Progressive Era — as a great diversion from the true path of capitalism.

  
  Thus, when Grover Norquist, the anti-tax advocate, was asked about his ultimate goal, he replied that he wanted a restoration of the way America was “up until Teddy Roosevelt, when the socialists took over. The income tax, the death tax, regulation, all that.”

Diversos sobre ambiente, energia e aquecimento global

• 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Climate Progress » Blog Archive » The Global Freshwater Crisis refere que The American Prospect dedica o seu número de Junho aos problemas da água no mundo - podem aceder em special report on the water crisis a esse conjunto de artigos.

• I'm melting Gristmill: The environmental news blog Grist. As outras consequências do desaparecimento do gelo no Árctico:
  "In other words, if it continues, the recent trend in sea ice loss may triple Arctic warming, causing large emissions in carbon dioxide and methane from the tundra this century. What is especially worrisome is that 2007 provides strong evidence on behalf of this theory:
  NOAA reported that methane levels rose in 2007 for the first time since 1998 (see here).
  
  The tundra can emit vast amounts of methane when it defrosts (see Part 1).
  
  Scientific analysis suggests the rise in 2007 methane levels came from Arctic wetlands (see here).
  
  And 2007 saw record Arctic ice loss (see "Ice, ice, maybe (not)")."
  
  
  
  
  

• 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  Climate Progress » Blog Archive » Denier, denier, planet’s on fire! Como joga a filiação partidária com a percepção do aquecimento global (ver gráfico acima).

• 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  Climate Progress » Blog Archive » Global warming causes deluges and flooding, just like the Midwest is seeing (again) (ver gráfico acima).
  
  
  
  

  2007 saw the second most extreme precipitation over the United States in the historical record, according to NCDC’s Climate Extremes Index (CEI). Here is a plot of the percentage of this country (times two) with much greater than normal proportion of precipitation derived from extreme 1-day precipitation events (where extreme equals the highest tenth percentile of deluges): The U.S. Climate Extremes Index was explicitly created to take a complicated subject (”multivariate and multidimensional climate changes in the United States“) and make it more easily understood by American citizens and policy makers.
  
  
  
  

  As far back as 1995, analysis by the National Climatic Data Center showed that over the course of the 20th century, the United States had suffered a statistically significant increase in a variety of extreme weather events, the very ones you would expect from global warming, such as more — and more intense — precipitation. That analysis concluded the chances were only “5 to 10 percent” this increase was due to factors other than global warming, such as “natural climate variability.” And since 1995, the climate has gotten much more extreme.



• 
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  

  Climate Progress » Blog Archive » Must read IEA report, Part 1: Act now with clean energy or face 6°C warming. Cost is NOT high — media blows the story
  
  

  "When the normally conservative International Energy Agency (IEA) agrees with both the middle of the road IPCC and more … progressive voices like Climate Progress, it should be time for the world to get very serious, very fast on the clean energy transition. "
  
  

  "... the real news from the global energy agency is:
  
  

  Failing to act very quickly to transform the planet’s energy system puts us on a path to catastrophic outcomes. The investment required is “an average of some 1.1% of global GDP each year from now until 2050. This expenditure reflects a re-direction of economic activity and employment, and not necessarily a reduction of GDP.” In fact, this investment partly pays for itself in reduced energy costs alone (not even counting the pollution reduction benefits)!

• The world is on the brink of a renewables (and efficiency) revolution. [ver gráfico acima].

  Probably the biggest difference between the IEA and the U.S. Energy Information Administration is that the EIA lives in a fantasy world where oil production can continue growing forever and greenhouse gas emissions are not something an energy agency needs to factor into planning. The IEA, however, lives in the real world, as its new report makes painfully clear:

  Unsustainable pressure on natural resources and on the environment is inevitable if energy demand is not de-coupled from economic growth and fossil fuel demand reduced.

  The situation is getting worse…. Baseline scenario foreshadow a 70% increase in oil demand by 2050 and a 130% rise in CO2 emissions…. a rise in CO2 emissions of such magnitude could raise global average temperatures by 6°C (eventual stabilisation level), perhaps more. The consequences would be significant change in all aspects of life and irreversible change in the natural environment. In short, business as usual energy policy leads to atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 1000 parts per million or more, and that is the end of life as we know it on this planet (See “Is 450 ppm politically possible? Part 0: The alternative is humanity’s self-destruction“).





• Climate Progress » Blog Archive » What Mr. Crude Oil Sees Ahead: High prices until demand is destroyed, but no peak!:
  "Goldman Sachs analyst Arjun Murti predicted the recent spike in oil prices, so it’s worth looking at his recent interview in Barron’s"
  

Aquecimento global e as novas oportunidades

- visto em VJ Gristmill: The environmental news blog Grist.

Crescimento global no século XXI

Estaria de acordo com o modo como a questão é colocada no início desta coluna de Martin Wolf, no FT, se fosse qualificada com esta frase: "... no quadro das consequências e das respostas a essas consequências, determinadas pela intensificação do aquecimento global". A coluna, contudo, não esconde a questão do aquecimento global e equaciona-o no quadro da crítica do livro mais recente de Jeffrey Sachs, "Common Wealth: Economics for a Crowded Planet (Allen Lane, 2008)".

• FT.com / Columnists / Martin Wolf - Sustaining growth is the century’s big challenge

  Is it possible for the vast mass of humanity to enjoy the living standards of today’s high-income countries? This is, arguably, the biggest question confronting humanity in the 21st century. It is today’s version of the doubts expressed by Thomas Malthus, two centuries ago, about the possibility of enduring rises in living standards. On the answer depends the destiny of our progeny. It will determine whether this will be a world of hope rather than despair and of peace rather than conflict. This – not the effectiveness of its particular prescriptions – is the biggest question raised by the report of the growth commission discussed here last week.

  It is also the focus of a powerful new book by Jeffrey Sachs, director of Columbia University’s Earth Institute. The challenge is stark. World real incomes per head could rise 4.5 times by 2050 and world population by 40 per cent. This would mean a sixfold increase in global output, concentrated in the developing world (see charts). Is such an increase feasible? The answer he gives is: yes and no – yes, because changes in incentives, technology and social and political institutions would make a benign outcome feasible; and no, because the path we are now on is unsustainable.

  Professor Sachs is an optimistic prophet of doom. He falls in between those environmentalists who see no solution and those free-marketeers who see no problem. By inclination, I am far closer to the latter than the former. But it has become evident, at least to me, that the human impact on the planet on which we depend has risen to enormous proportions. We have treated the global commons as if they were free. Self-evidently, they are not.

  Prof Sachs emphasises three goals: first, “the end of extreme poverty by 2025 and improved economic security within the rich countries as well”; second, “stabilisation of the world’s population at 8bn or below by 2050 through a voluntary reduction of fertility rates”; and, third, “sustainable systems of energy, land and resources use that avert the most dangerous trends of climate change, species extinction, and destruction of ecosystems”. Finally, to achieve these ends, he recommends “a new approach to global problem-solving based on co-operation among nations and the dynamism and creativity of the non-governmental sector”.

  One might view the first of the above goals as that of prosperity for everybody. Population control is related to this end because the world’s poorest people are burdened by the costs of rearing its largest families. Finally, only by managing the global commons will it be possible to sustain rising living standards. The most illuminating concept in the book is that of the “anthropocene” – the era in which human activities dominate the world.

  Peter Vitousek of Stanford University has documented the ways in which humanity has appropriated the bounty of the earth for its own use: human beings now exploit 50 per cent of the terrestrial photosynthetic potential; they have put up a quarter of the carbon dioxide now in the atmosphere; they use 60 per cent of the accessible river run-off; they are responsible for 60 per cent of the earth’s nitrogen fixation; they are responsible for a fifth of all plant invasions; over the past two millennia they have made extinct a quarter of all bird species; and they have exploited or over-exploited more than half of the world’s fisheries. Like it or not, we humans are now in charge.

  So what should we do? In his response, Prof Sachs shares the optimism of most Americans: we must fix it, but, he insists, we can do so only together. In this great venture, he argues, the US must share the leadership, but it cannot dictate to the rest of humanity. In regard to the dynamics of catch-up growth in developing countries, Prof Sachs’ views are close to those of the growth commission. More distinctive is his recommendation of an aid-supported, big-push investment strategy, aimed at lifting the world’s poorest people, predominantly Africans, out of the poverty traps into which, in his judgment, they have fallen. Prof Sachs has made notable contributions to our understanding of the obstacles to development created by geography, the environment and devastating diseases such as malaria.

  In the current book, he emphasises how shortages of water are contributing to poverty and conflict across the planet. Yet I am more sceptical than Prof Sachs of the returns to the big-push strategy. In many cases, it will fail. But it has to be tried, because there is no morally tolerable or credible alternative. I agree, too, that huge efforts must be made to accelerate the fertility decline in the world’s poorest countries, albeit on a voluntary basis.

  Now suppose that economic growth then spreads across the planet, as we would wish. Can it be sustainable? Prof Sachs is notably optimistic on direct resource inputs into growth. His view is that fossil fuel resources, renewable energy and availability of fresh water should be sufficient to support continued growth over the next half century. But this would almost certainly require a transition from oil-based energy technologies to ones based on coal and renewables. Energy would, almost certainly, be much more expensive than in the 1985-2000 period, but not prohibitively so.

  The challenge, in Prof Sachs’ view, is rather to make growth compatible with sustaining the global commons: species survival and, above all, climate change. Yet what is perhaps most intriguing of all is the optimism he shows on the latter task. While he embraces the view that climate change is a huge threat, he also believes it can be dealt with at modest cost, provided suitable incentives are put in place: less than 1 per cent of global income. In all, in fact, Prof Sachs believes we can achieve all the goals he has set – elimination of mass poverty, population control and environmental sustainability – for less than 2 per cent of global incomes. This is about half a year’s global growth and, as such, surely cheap at the price. T

  his, then, is an analysis that manages to be both pessimistic and optimistic at the same time. One might not be quite as optimistic about the cost of the solutions. But one must recognise the salience of the challenges. If economic growth halted, conflict among the world’s people would risk becoming unmanageable. If the environmental consequences proved overwhelming, the costs of growth would become unbearable. We are the masters of our planet now. The great question for the 21st century is whether we can also become masters of ourselves.

As despesas da saúde

Como é sabido, de acordo com alguns políticos, não pode faltar recursos financeiros à saúde, venham eles donde vieram - haverá sempre alguém que pague. Pois bem, se nada for feito, o futuro será assim:

• Richard Smith: The healthcare trap Comment is free guardian.co.uk

  "As countries get richer they spend more and more on healthcare. A congressional report (pdf) recently showed that the US might be spending 50% of its gross domestic product on health by 2082."

"It's the conservative people, stupid" (III)

"To file under 'academic demonstration of what we already knew,' here's an abstract from a new paper in the journal Environmental Politics:

Environmental scepticism denies the seriousness of environmental problems, and self-professed 'sceptics' claim to be unbiased analysts combating 'junk science.' This study quantitatively analyses 141 English-language environmentally sceptical books published between 1972 and 2005. We find that over 92 per cent of these books, most published in the U.S. since 1992, are linked to conservative think tanks (CTTs). Further, we analyse CTTs involved with environmental issues and find that 90 per cent of them espouse environmental scepticism. We conclude that scepticism is a tactic of an elite-driven counter-movement designed to combat environmentalism, and that the successful use of this tactic has contributed to the weakening of U.S. commitment to environmental protection."

- ver em A new part of the No Duh curriculum Gristmill: The environmental news blog Grist.

Notícias do Árctico (III)

"Arctic sea ice has declined steadily since the 1970's. However, the 2007 summer saw a dramatic drop in sea ice extent, smashing the previous record minimum set in 2005 by 20%. This has been widely cited as proof of global warming. However, a popular mantra by climatologists is not to read too much into short term fluctuations - climate change is more concerned with long term trends. So how much of Arctic melt is due to natural variability and how much was a result of global warming?"

- ver em Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?

O sol e o aquecimento global

Será que teremos uma ajuda do Sol para resolver o problema do aquecimento global - dando-nos mais tempo para fazer as alterações necessárias? A energia solar e a sua importância na conformação do clima do planeta, ao longo das eras, são invocadas pelos denegacionistas da responsabilidade do homem no surto actual de aquecimento global - não têm razão porque aquela influência não tem sofrido alterações significativas nas últimas décadas (ver aqui). Mas se for ao contrário? Se o Sol entrar numa fase onde a sua influência diminua de intensidade provocando um arrefecimento global como já se terá verificado (é uma hipótese), há dois/três séculos atrás. Essa possibilidade adquire alguma verosimilhança especulativa à luz do comportamento das manchas solares. Vejam em The Sunspot Enigma: The Sun is “Dead”—What Does it Mean for Earth? Um excerto:

"Dark spots, some as large as 50,000 miles in diameter,
typically move across the surface of the sun, contracting and expanding as they
go. These strange and powerful phenomena are known as sunspots, but now they are
all gone. Not even solar physicists know why it’s happening and what this odd
solar silence might be indicating for our future."

EUA: eleições presidenciais

Diversos artigos e notas sobre as eleições norte-americanas:

• Até mais ver as coisas parecem compor-se para Obama - ver gráficos dos resultados das diferentes sondagens em Open Left:: Obama Widens Lead: Tracking Polls in Agreement - não os consigo reproduzir aqui. Os resultados mais recentes apontam Obama como tendo 6 a 7 pontos percentuais de diferença para McCain.

• É um artigo da Telos, Les trois défis de Barack Obama Telos, sobre as principais dificuldades a que Obama deve dar resposta para ser Presidente. Nada a qualificar. No entretanto, uma nota do do American Prospect: Did Hillary Crack the Working-Class Code? cruza com uma daquelas dificuldades - como fazer com que os votantes operários brancos votem em Obama. O artigo é interessante como análise sociológica das percepções sócio-políticas desse segmento da população americana. Aquilo que diz tem implicações mais gerais?
  
  
  

• Krugman discute o que mudou (e porquê) nos EUA sobre a questão racial e que permite Obama ser o candidato democrata - interessante a observação sobre a importância do "politicamente correcto" nessa evolução: a forma é, por vezes, tão importante quanto o conteúdo. Ver em Economist's View:It’s a Different Country.

Preços em Portugal e no resto do Mundo

Teodora Cardoso em Preços - DiarioEconomico.com fala da conjuntura dos preços e das lições que devem ser retiradas do que se passa - é do melhor do que tenho lido sobre o que se passa neste momento. O comportamento dos preços em Portugal é curioso. A transcrição do artigo:

• "Em Abril, Portugal detinha a mais baixa taxa de inflação da Zona do Euro a seguir à Holanda. Nos últimos doze meses os preços subiram 2,5% em Portugal. Na presente década, só em 2005 se registou uma inflação média inferior: 2,1%. Analisando a evolução por tipos de bens, verificamos que o preço dos produtos alimentares não transformados caiu 1% ao longo dos últimos 12 meses. Devido sobretudo à subida do custo da energia, o preço dos alimentos transformados cresceu 8,4%, levando a um acréscimo do preço da alimentação de 3,5%. Por seu lado, o preço dos produtos energéticos subiu 8,8% em Portugal, contra, por exemplo, 13,3% em Espanha. Quer em termos de comparações internacionais, quer por confronto com a história das subidas de preços – e das quedas de salários reais – em Portugal em tempo de crises anteriores à integração na moeda única, estes valores, embora preocupantes, estão longe de ser dramáticos.

  A subida dos preços internacionais nestas categorias de produtos é evidentemente uma questão muito séria, mas é sobretudo uma lição e uma oportunidade. A lição resulta da constatação de que, ao longo das últimas décadas, o mundo – e em especial os países desenvolvidos – ignoraram os problemas que se iam acumulando nesses dois sectores-chave. Por um lado, incentivou-se o desperdício, por outro abandonou-se o investimento.

  No contexto do sistema capitalista e da racionalidade que esperamos das decisões do mercado, é esta última omissão que é indesculpável. Não nos precipitemos, porém, a argumentar que a culpa foi principalmente do mercado. Na verdade, estamos, tanto no caso dos produtos agrícolas como do petróleo, perante mercados internacionais muito imperfeitos. As enormes flutuações de cotações, as intervenções destinadas a garantir preços baixos e “segurança da oferta” redundaram em prejuízo dos investimentos necessários. No sector da energia, estes exigiam enormes capitais, tecnologia, tempos de maturação e preços estáveis que os justificassem. Na agricultura supunham – por exemplo, na maior parte dos países africanos – contextos político-administrativos favoráveis à produção local, de preferência à importação proveniente dos países desenvolvidos, financiada por subsídios ou facilitada por taxas de câmbio sobreavaliadas. A inexistência destes pressupostos gerou uma situação em que a maior parte dos terrenos agrícolas africanos não são cultivados e em que o baixo custo do petróleo não permitiu, nem o desenvolvimento de energias alternativas, nem sequer o investimento necessário na própria exploração petrolífera, a ponto de esta se defrontar agora com a escassez de pessoal técnico – que não se formou ao longo dos últimos anos – e dos equipamentos complexos indispensáveis.

  Tudo isto em paralelo com o aumento da população mundial e com o crescimento das grandes economias asiáticas que iam inevitavelmente pressionando a procura desses produtos.

  Porém, a miopia instalada, tanto na política como nos mercados financeiros, fez com que o investimento se dirigisse para o consumo dos países ricos, financiado por dívida, em grande parte financiada pelos países emergentes, iludindo durante alguns anos os problemas ... até ao eclodir da crise.A saída inteligente para os erros cometidos consiste em compreendê-los e corrigi-los. Graças à crise, os mercados apontam as soluções: o investimento e os ganhos de eficiência na energia e na alimentação, a par com a correcção dos desperdícios e dos excessos de endividamento dos consumidores nos países desenvolvidos.

  A análise das políticas que estiveram na origem dos problemas mostra também o que não pode fazer-se. Conceder subsídios indiscriminados para abater os clamores, continuar a privilegiar o transporte individual relativamente ao colectivo e a abandonar as infraestruturas urbanas, ou intervir nos mercados agrícolas, partindo da ideia de que os consumidores dos países pobres são pouco mais que um escape (coberto pela boa consciência da “ajuda”) para os excessos de produção dos ricos, fazem parte dos principais erros a evitar.

  Estamos a viver uma conjuntura internacional em que finalmente começa a expandir-se uma classe média nos países emergentes. Esse é um benefício para todo o mundo, mas exige a reatribuição dos recursos do planeta e o desenvolvimento de tecnologias e de atitudes apropriadas. Não é, porém, compatível com a reivindicação de soluções de curto prazo que só agravariam os problemas. É a miopia anterior que estamos a pagar. Convém, por isso, ajustarmos as lentes com que olhamos para o mundo."

Não poderia estar mais de acordo!

Notícias do Árctico (II)

Uma das coisas que tenho vindo a acompanhar com mais atenção é a evolução do comportamento do gelo no árctico, particularmente, à luz da dimuinuição inopinada sucedida em 2007. Não é seguro que tal venha a suceder com a mesma intensidade este ano, embora seja segura a tendência de longo prazo de diminuição da extensão do gelo - há quem mesmo afirme que essa tendência de longo prazo possa ser contrariada (episodicamente) na próxima década. A razão para o meu interesse é óbvia: o Árctico poderá funcionar (sem grandes custos aparentes - salvaguardada a situação dos ursos polares) como um bom "canário da mina" em relação ao aquecimento global. A informação abaixo (texto, fotografias e gráficos) é deste mês e vem no Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis.

"Daily sea ice extent; the blue line indicates 2008; the black line indicates extent from 1979 to 2000; the dotted line shows extent for 2007"

"Although ice extent is slightly greater than this time last year, the average decline rate through the month of May was 8 thousand square kilometers per day (3 thousand square miles per day) faster than last May. Ice extent as the month closed approached last May’s value."

"This United States National Ice Center analysis shows the percentage of multi-year sea ice in yellow, green, and dark blue. Light blue with red outline indicates ice extent; land and ocean are white."

"The relative lack of thick, resilient multi-year ice in the Arctic discussed in earlier postings finds further support in the latest analysis from the United States National Ice Center (NIC). ... NIC scientist Todd Arbetter suggests that much of the first-year ice is likely to melt by the end of summer, saying that despite the total ice extent appearing normal, the relative amount of multi-year ice going into this summer is very low when compared to climatological averages. NIC has found that the relative fraction of multi-year ice in the central Arctic has plummeted since the mid-1990s, creating an Arctic prone to increased melt in summer. Arbetter said, “This may be a primary reason for record summertime minimums in recent years.”

However, the unusual location of some of this year's first-year ice may help more of it survive than otherwise might be expected. This year, much of the first-year ice is farther north than normal, and those northern areas receive weaker solar radiation. So, northern first-year ice may be less vulnerable to melt than first-year ice in typical locations."

"Open water is clearly seen near Alaska and Banks Island, and in the North Water polynya, in this visible-band satellite image mosaic on May 20, 2008."

"Thinner ice already showing weakness As mentioned, the thin ice that covers much of the Arctic Ocean is showing signs of early breakup, with large polynyas off the coast of Alaska, the Canadian Archipelago, and Baffin Bay.

Coastal polynyas are not unusual, at this time of year, but the polynyas we are currently seeing appear larger and more numerous than usual. This is partly because of the thinner, weaker ice cover.

Thorsten Markus at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center has noted the size of the North Water polynya at the northern end of Baffin Bay, which typically forms in May. The polynya is much larger than normal, possibly nearing its largest area on record. Inuit report that sea ice is starting to break up near Baffin Bay much earlier than normal this year. They have observed wide cracks in the ice already forming, according to NSIDC scientist Shari Gearheard, who lives and works in the Baffin Island hamlet of Clyde River.

Polynyas are a source of heat for the atmosphere in spring; in summer, however, they are large absorbers of solar energy. Resultant warm ocean surface waters then eat away at the ice edge, accelerating melt."

Susan Blackmore: "Memes" (video) - TED

About this talk:

Susan Blackmore studies memes: ideas that replicate themselves from brain to brain like a virus. She makes a bold new argument: Humanity has spawned a new kind of meme, the teme, which spreads itself via technology -- and invents ways to keep itself alive.

Why you should listen to her:

Susan Blackmore is dedicated to understanding the scientific nature of consciousness. Her latest work centers on the existence of memes -- little bits of knowledge, lore, habit that seem to spread themselves using human brains as mere carriers. She's exploring the existence of a new class of meme, spread by human technology. It's temporarily named the "teme."She has written about memes, consciousness, and near-death experiences; has appeared on the British Big Brother to discuss the psychology of the participants; and writes for the Guardian UK.

- ver em TED Talks Susan Blackmore: Memes and "temes" (video). A conferencista termina a dizer que ela própria ficou assustada - também, foi nestas "conversas TED" a primeira vez que os aplausos levaram um segundo de demora para eclodirem.