From a reader:
1, Dispose of Teach for America and alternative certification (except for vocational courses) or revise it completely as follows. Hire TFAs as paraprofessionals to work under experienced teachers for their first year.
2. Require a commitment of 5 years, not 2, so the schools get full benefit from them
3. Do not place them in schools with high percentages of disadvantaged and disabled students. Instead, put them in middle class schools and create incentives for the best teachers to go to the disadvantaged schools instead.
4. Expect that by the end of their second year they are taking education courses online or in person to earn certification if they intend to stay another year.
5. Charter schools: Hold them to the same standards as public schools and require them to hire ONLY certified teachers and to pay them at state rates and use approved curricula. Require them to provide full special education services including moderate and severe/profound/
6. Require that all principals be teachers with at least 5 years in the classroom, a Masters or higher in Education and special ed. experience
7. Require that all superintendents have at least 10 years of classroom experience and special educaton certification, (original or add-on) and a Masters or higher. This includes and especially includes the state superintendent.
8. No taxpayer money for parochial or private schools. None for charters that do not meet standards.
9. Schools with high percentages of disadvantaged, disabled, ELL, or 504 students get 10% in extra funding beyond what other schools in the district receive.
10. School Board will consist of parents, grandparents or siblings of students in public schools in the district and teachers or retired teachers only.
11. State governing board consists of 1/2 parents, grandparents, siblings or students in the public schools and 1/2 teachers or administrators from the public schools who have been or are certified teachers.
12. The Mayor, Governor or other public official has no role in choosing the State Superintendent or other leader over the schools. The leader is picked by the school boards. The exception is when the Mayor or Governor IS a teacher (such as Zell Miller was in Georgia.)
13. Eliminate most standardized testing. Any standardized testing is normed on students of the area where the students who are tested live. Questions include equal numbers that are regionally based. In other words, don't ask Louisiana children about mountains unless there are also questions about bayous. Include regional vocabulary among correct answers, i.e. "pocketbook" as well as "purse" and "soda" or "coke" as well as "pop" for a cold drink.
14. Include the teachers' unions in policy development and require local and state boards to show evidence of their inclusion.
15. Universally available pre-k held in the public schools and taught by certified early childhood teachers.
16. Deemphasis on "on time" graduation. Emphasis on graduating whether the student is 16 and took some courses on-line or 22.
17. Special education diplomas, state diplomas, for all students with IEPS even if they cannot pass standard courses as long as they complete the work required by their IEPS. NO Certificates of Achievement for students who have been in school all their lives---Real Special Education Diplomas and a Vocational Seal on those diplomas if they completed a vocational program, even with accommodations----as long as they know the material.
18. Require EVERY administrator and policy maker who is or was a certified teacher above the level of principal to go back to the classroom for 1 year out of every 7 and to spend one week of each school year as a substitute teacher. Require every principal to spend 10 days per school year as a substitute in their own or a nearby school.
Well, that is more than a few. If the schools do not comply the risk losing federal funding or being taken over by a compliant school.
|
1 de fevereiro de 2013
If I Were Secretary of Education…(2) by dianeravitch
Myths About Gun Regulation
EDITORIAL,The New York Times
Published: January 31, 2013
As busy as the gun lobby is in promoting macho myths about self-defense — stand your ground and outshoot the bad guys — it is no less dedicated to spinning myths for lawmakers to use as excuses to avoid enacting laws to deal with the shooting sprees that regularly afflict the nation. This was clear at the opening Senate hearing on gun controls this week, where Judiciary Committee members seemed to have largely swallowed gun lobby propaganda that the evidence shows the original 10-year ban on assault weapons was ineffective.
Left unsaid was the fact that one of the loopholes that enabled passage of the original ban limited research on the law’s effectiveness to the first year’s data rather than allow more conclusive long-term studies. A long–range, independent study issued as Congress allowed the ban to expire in 2004 found criminal use of assault weapons had fallen by one-third or more as a share of gun crimes in major jurisdictions.
The information is there if Congress is interested. After the ban expired, 37 percent of police departments reported noticeable increases in criminals’ use of assault weapons, according to a 2010 report by the Police Executive Research Forum.
In Virginia, the number of guns with high-capacity magazines seized by police dropped after they were included in the 1994 weapons ban, but then rebounded sharply after the ban expired, according to a 2011 study by The Washington Post. Maryland enacted its own more stringent ban on assault weapons in 1994, and a 55 percent drop in assault pistols from crime scenes was reported by the Baltimore police.
The false statistics comfort members of Congress who fear the gun lobby or their more conservative constituents, or both, and are blocking a new and stronger ban on assault weapons proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein. The need for that ban and its outlawing of magazines of more than 10 bullets goes to the heart of the tragedy in Newtown, Conn., where a shooter took only a few minutes to trigger a rapid firing assault weapon and slay 20 schoolchildren and six educators last December.
“Too many children are dying,” former Representative Gabrielle Giffords declared at the Senate hearing, her speech made halting by the head wounds she suffered in a 2011 gun assault. “You must act. Be bold,” she pleaded with the lawmakers.
Since the hearing run by Senator Patrick Leahy seemed stacked with opponents of a new ban, Senator Feinstein is scheduling her own hearing with a fairer slate of witnesses reflecting the public’s concern about the carnage from assault weapons. The judiciary hearing should be a call to President Obama to fight hard for maximum public involvement if an assault weapons ban is ever to have a chance in congress. “Be courageous,” Ms. Giffords advised the lawmakers. “Americans are counting on you.
”
”
Las cifras de la educación en España
| ||||||
Race to Top Progress Report: Georgia, D.C., Maryland Flounder
de
At the midway point of the federal Race to the Top program, the list of accomplishments for the 11 winning states and the District of Columbia is getting longer, but the challenges are getting more formidable as the time frame gets shorter, according to a progress report issued by the U.S. Department of Education today.
The second annual progress report on the $4 billion Race to the Top program reveals that the majority of winners are struggling in two areas: implementing teacher- and principal-evaluation systems, and building and upgrading sophisticated data systems that will do everything from inform classroom lessons to identify students at risk of academic failure.
And department officials say they are most worried about three states whose second-year performance took a nose dive: Georgia, the District of Columbia, and Maryland.
Georgia and Maryland have both struggled with implementing their teacher-evaluation systems, while D.C.'s sluggish pace on school turnarounds means it has only worked with one persistently low-achieving school with its grant funds so far.
"This is really hard work and there will always be bumps in the road," said Education Secretary Arne Duncan in a call with reporters.
Interestingly, Hawaii is no longer on the department's naughty list, although it retains its "high-risk status" for its entire $75 million grant. Department officials said the state has made tremendous progress in the last year, even without an approved teachers' contract that is holding up the full implementation of its new teacher-evaluations system.
"Hawaii, which clearly had a rough start, is now making real progress," Duncan said.
These reports, which span fall 2011 to fall 2012, are significant because the federal department controls the grant purse strings and they reveal the department's perspective on how things are going with the Obama administration's signature education-redesign initiative. In 2010, after a furious competition among states, the department selected 12 winners who shared a $4 billion jackpot funded by the 2009 economic-stimulus package.
Last year, the Education Department called out Hawaii, New York, and Florida for their lack of progress during the grant kickoff year. Those states now seem to be in the middle of the pack for performance against their grant promises. And to show how quickly things can change, Maryland was lauded last year for progress, and criticized this year for lack of the same.
For this second year, states that made the department's honor roll list are Tennessee, North Carolina, and Rhode Island, which Duncan said have "overcome considerable challenges and stayed right on track." Rhode Island has made progress in its turnaround work, North Carolina in fully implementing its teacher-evaluation system, and Tennessee has an enviable network of STEM programs, department officials said.
Georgia and D.C. are perhaps in the biggest trouble right now, as department officials say they are encouraged with the new state leadership in Maryland, which won $250 million. (New state chief Lillian Lowery fully acknowledged the problems in an interview last month and said she has kicked her state's Race to the Top implementation into high gear.)
Part of Georgia's $400 million Race to the Top grant is on "high-risk status"—an official designation that can lead to losing grant funding—for weaknesses in implementing its teacher-evaluation system. Their second year performance, in particular, concerned the department.
For their part, Georgia officials said they're working to straighten things out with federal officials.
So far, said state education department spokesman Jon Rogers, the state has made "quality progress" in four of the five conditions federal officials placed on their grant —which included things like improving the overall management of the teacher-evaluation system. The final condition, which is using feedback and data to improve Georgia's educator evaluation systems, will come after teacher and leader evaluations are done this school year, Rogers said.
Duncan also singled out D.C. for its sluggish pace, especially in the area of school turnarounds, in which only one of 13 schools designated for support through Race to the Top is getting it.
D.C. officials said they have made progress in speeding up their turnaround efforts, including directing more resources to the effort and retooling it.
"While the District has made meaningful progress in the second year of Race to the Top and addressed the major challenges listed in the report, we must continue our efforts to improve our state's education system," said State Superintendent Hosanna Mahaley Jones in a statement. The District won a $75 million grant.
Duncan also acknowledged that New York is having problems with teacher contracts in New York City, which has Race to the Top implications. He said he hopes that "resolves soon."
While teacher-evaluation problems plagued nine of the winning states in the second year, six states grappled with challenges involving technology upgrades.
Ohio and Maryland, for example, struggled with rolling out new instructional improvement systems, while Tennessee struggled with a new "Early Warning Data System" that will analyze student achievement data and flag problem spots for educators.
The second annual progress report on the $4 billion Race to the Top program reveals that the majority of winners are struggling in two areas: implementing teacher- and principal-evaluation systems, and building and upgrading sophisticated data systems that will do everything from inform classroom lessons to identify students at risk of academic failure.
And department officials say they are most worried about three states whose second-year performance took a nose dive: Georgia, the District of Columbia, and Maryland.
Georgia and Maryland have both struggled with implementing their teacher-evaluation systems, while D.C.'s sluggish pace on school turnarounds means it has only worked with one persistently low-achieving school with its grant funds so far.
"This is really hard work and there will always be bumps in the road," said Education Secretary Arne Duncan in a call with reporters.
Interestingly, Hawaii is no longer on the department's naughty list, although it retains its "high-risk status" for its entire $75 million grant. Department officials said the state has made tremendous progress in the last year, even without an approved teachers' contract that is holding up the full implementation of its new teacher-evaluations system.
"Hawaii, which clearly had a rough start, is now making real progress," Duncan said.
These reports, which span fall 2011 to fall 2012, are significant because the federal department controls the grant purse strings and they reveal the department's perspective on how things are going with the Obama administration's signature education-redesign initiative. In 2010, after a furious competition among states, the department selected 12 winners who shared a $4 billion jackpot funded by the 2009 economic-stimulus package.
Last year, the Education Department called out Hawaii, New York, and Florida for their lack of progress during the grant kickoff year. Those states now seem to be in the middle of the pack for performance against their grant promises. And to show how quickly things can change, Maryland was lauded last year for progress, and criticized this year for lack of the same.
For this second year, states that made the department's honor roll list are Tennessee, North Carolina, and Rhode Island, which Duncan said have "overcome considerable challenges and stayed right on track." Rhode Island has made progress in its turnaround work, North Carolina in fully implementing its teacher-evaluation system, and Tennessee has an enviable network of STEM programs, department officials said.
Georgia and D.C. are perhaps in the biggest trouble right now, as department officials say they are encouraged with the new state leadership in Maryland, which won $250 million. (New state chief Lillian Lowery fully acknowledged the problems in an interview last month and said she has kicked her state's Race to the Top implementation into high gear.)
Part of Georgia's $400 million Race to the Top grant is on "high-risk status"—an official designation that can lead to losing grant funding—for weaknesses in implementing its teacher-evaluation system. Their second year performance, in particular, concerned the department.
For their part, Georgia officials said they're working to straighten things out with federal officials.
So far, said state education department spokesman Jon Rogers, the state has made "quality progress" in four of the five conditions federal officials placed on their grant —which included things like improving the overall management of the teacher-evaluation system. The final condition, which is using feedback and data to improve Georgia's educator evaluation systems, will come after teacher and leader evaluations are done this school year, Rogers said.
Duncan also singled out D.C. for its sluggish pace, especially in the area of school turnarounds, in which only one of 13 schools designated for support through Race to the Top is getting it.
D.C. officials said they have made progress in speeding up their turnaround efforts, including directing more resources to the effort and retooling it.
"While the District has made meaningful progress in the second year of Race to the Top and addressed the major challenges listed in the report, we must continue our efforts to improve our state's education system," said State Superintendent Hosanna Mahaley Jones in a statement. The District won a $75 million grant.
Duncan also acknowledged that New York is having problems with teacher contracts in New York City, which has Race to the Top implications. He said he hopes that "resolves soon."
While teacher-evaluation problems plagued nine of the winning states in the second year, six states grappled with challenges involving technology upgrades.
Ohio and Maryland, for example, struggled with rolling out new instructional improvement systems, while Tennessee struggled with a new "Early Warning Data System" that will analyze student achievement data and flag problem spots for educators.
Desigualdade cai, mas ainda continua elevada
- Negros ainda ganham somente 53,1% do salário dos brancos, em média
- Em 2012, salário feminino representou 72,7% do masculino
HENRIQUE GOMES BATISTA
RIO – A histórica desigualdade brasileira caiu pouco em uma década. O levantamento do IBGE dos últimos dez anos do mercado de trabalho mostrou que desigualdade de renda entre negros e brancos ficou menor, mas os negros ainda ganham somente 53,1% do salário dos brancos. Há dez anos, o salário correspondia a 48,4%.
Entre as mulheres, o avanço a passos lentos se repete, mas numa situação melhor. Em 2012, o salário feminino representava 72,7% do rendimento masculino. Em 2003, essa relação era de 70,8%. A taxa de desocupação das mulheres (6,8%) também era superior à taxa de desemprego dos homens (4,4%) no fim do ano passado.
O desemprego é ainda pior para mulheres negras ou pardas, ficando em 8,1% em 2012. Essa situação com a mulher avançando no mercado de trabalho. O nível de ocupação feminina (parcela de ocupadas em relação à população em idade ativa) passou de 45,3% em 2011 para 46% em 2012, enquanto para os homens esse indicador ficou praticamente inalterado: de 63,4% para 63,7%.
A desigualdade também aparece entre as regiões metropolitanas. Em São Paulo, por exemplo, 53,1% dos trabalhadores têm carteira de trabalho assinada, percentual que é de 50,5% em Porto Alegre, mas de apenas 44,4% em Recife e de 44,1% no Rio.
Para Cimar Azeredo, do IBGE, as desigualdades continuam altas pois são causadas por questões culturais e sociais, não apenas econômicas.
— Apesar de mais estudo que os homens, na média, a taxa de desemprego da mulher é superior.
Estado de S.Paulo, 1/2/2013
Todo el poder para la ciencia
No es razonable que en un país que debería salir de la crisis con un modelo económico y social distinto se marginen aquellas actividades, como las científicas, que están en la base de nuestras opciones de futuro
EVA VÁZQUEZ
En el barómetro de Demoscopia sobre confianza institucional publicado recientemente aparece una vez más que los colectivos que merecen más confianza a los ciudadanos españoles son los científicos, esta vez seguidos de los médicos. En cambio, las profesiones que menos confianza producen son bancos, partidos políticos y los políticos. Parece un mundo al revés. En una sociedad democrática los ciudadanos otorgan a un colectivo la confianza para que gobierne, pero finalmente resulta ser este en el que menos confían. En cambio, en estos momentos aquellos en quien más confían tienen problemas para llevar a cabo su trabajo e incluso para sobrevivir. ¿Deberíamos dar la vuelta al sistema y proponer que sean aquellos en quienes más confían los ciudadanos, científicos y médicos, los que gobiernen?
Algo así proponía Platón en su diálogoLa República. En esta obra célebre proponía que una aristocracia del saber fuera la que tomara las riendas del Gobierno. Este concepto ha ido rondando por las ideas políticas durante siglos y ha servido principalmente para justificar Gobiernos totalitarios. La historia nos enseña que no hay alternativa sensata a los sistemas democráticos aunque parecería apropiado hacer reformas para que la confianza del ciudadano en el sistema político se recupere. Es cierto que la presencia de científicos o médicos en los Gobiernos no es frecuente, pero tampoco extraña. Por ejemplo, el primer Gobierno socialista en 1982 tuvo una buena representación de miembros conformación científica y no deja de ser uno de los mejor recordados de los últimos años. El actual Gobierno solo tiene un miembro con formación médica y justamente en una función no relacionada con ello.
La relación entre ciencia y Gobierno se da en las dos direcciones posibles. Por una parte los Gobiernos se enfrentan cada vez más a cuestiones en las que deberían tener en cuenta los datos que proporciona la ciencia. Cuando hablamos de energía, de salud, de medio ambiente o de agricultura, por poner unos ejemplos, los Gobiernos necesitarían disponer de los mejores datos posibles sobre estas cuestiones, elaborados de forma transparente e independiente y para ello deberían contar con el consejo de los científicos. Es posible que sea este punto uno de los aspectos que los ciudadanos valoran de científicos y médicos. Si estos hacen bien su trabajo, los resultados deberían estar producidos con objetividad y estar dirigidos a ayudar a que la sociedad tome sus decisiones de la mejor manera posible. Distinguir entre quienes asesoran y quienes deciden es esencial en una sociedad democrática, pero que de forma transparente las decisiones se tomen tras valorar los mejores datos científicos disponibles parece imprescindible. Los Gobiernos de los países más avanzados suelen tener instancias para consultar a la hora de tomar decisiones, algo prácticamente desconocido en España.
Por otra parte la ciencia (como la sanidad o la educación) necesita del Gobierno. Es absolutamente ilusorio pensar que la iniciativa privada va a financiar la investigación científica en su totalidad. En parte pueden hacerlo fundaciones privadas, y en este sentido el mecenazgo es importante. Pero en todos los países avanzados está claro que hay una división del trabajo entre la financiación de la investigación de iniciativa autónoma de la que salen las ideas nuevas, y la financiación de la investigación dirigida a resolver cuestiones concretas de interés para la sociedad y la industria que tiene que estar basada en la financiación privada. La investigación creativa, en todos los países del mundo, es una competencia del Estado que tiene que velar, desde luego, para que sea de la mejor calidad posible. Y es en este punto en el que la realidad actual muestra su aspecto más descorazonador.
Curiosamente, entre las profesiones más afectadas por la crisis están aquellas en las que más confían los ciudadanos, que son científicos y médicos, a las que se añaden las pequeñas y medianas empresas, profesores de la enseñanza pública y las ONG. El año 2012 se termina con el anuncio de que la convocatoria para proyectos de investigación del Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad se retrasa unos meses. Y 2013 comienza con que uno de los fondos financiadores de proyectos, los de investigación agrícola, que ya estaban aprobados no se van a financiar. Esto se añade a recortes en sueldos, en contratos temporales y en plazas de investigador y profesor, en un entorno en el que el sistema no se reforma para hacerlo más eficiente. La situación presente va a ser demostrativa de las contradicciones en las que nos encontramos. Va a haber millares de funcionarios a los que ni se les permite competir para conseguir medios para llevar a cabo su trabajo. Y como efecto colateral de consecuencias letales para el futuro, muchos investigadores jóvenes que dependen de contratos financiados por proyectos se van a ver incapacitados para continuar su trabajo.
Profesiones como las de científico o médico o profesor de la enseñanza pública no tienen sentido sin profesionales motivados por su trabajo y entregados a él. Las pequeñas y medianas empresas necesitan de emprendedores con ilusión. Y esta se puede estar perdiendo entre recortes y privatizaciones. Nadie duda de que haya que hacer todo lo posible para gestionar eficientemente los recursos públicos. Sin embargo, en este momento se mantienen los aspectos más burocráticos de la Administración mientras que se privatiza la gestión como por ejemplo en los hospitales. Si se elimina el espacio de creatividad y respeto a la vocación de estos profesionales va a haber efectos negativos que pronto se van a notar en cuestiones esenciales como la sanidad, la educación y desde luego en la ciencia. Y la credibilidad internacional de nuestro país, por muchos esfuerzos demarketing que se hagan, se va a encontrar por los suelos.
En el actual debate sobre quienes asumen el papel de gobernantes parecería que los que controlan actualmente la política española tienen aversión a lo científico y lo académico. En la situación de excepcionalidad que se está viviendo proliferan los análisis más o menos profundos o demagógicos sobre quien controla las decisiones políticas de los países. De algunos de estos análisis se podría sacar la conclusión de que los actuales gobernantes priman los aspectos corporativos de la burocracia sobre los aspectos creativos que representan la ciencia y la educación. O también que se aprovecha para sacar partido económico de actividades como la sanidad frente a las necesidades sociales o para promocionar algunas ideologías concretas en la educación. Seguramente son todas estas visiones excesivamente simplistas. En cualquier caso parece obvio que investigación, educación y cultura no son prioridades de los actuales gobernantes españoles. Y sería interesante conocer si hay alternativas concretas en alguna fuerza de la oposición.
Quizá podríamos proponer un partido de científicos para tratar de ganar el poder, aunque es previsible que no superar en votos al Partido Pirata. Ni los científicos harían campañas electorales eficaces ni tampoco hay ninguna evidencia de que los científicos fueran buenos gobernantes. Pero no parece razonable en un país que debería salir de la crisis con un modelo económico y social distinto, que se marginen o se arruinen aquellas actividades que están en la base de nuestras opciones de futuro. Sobre todo cuando son aquellas actividades que los ciudadanos más respetan. Quizá deberíamos encontrar vías para transmitir de forma clara a los ciudadanos cuáles son aquellas opciones políticas que respetan a aquellos colectivos que los ciudadanos respetan y cuáles las están hundiendo para que estos tomen sus decisiones con pleno conocimiento de causa. Y si la ciencia no acaba controlando el poder podría exigirse que al menos este muestre algún nivel de respeto hacia ella.
Pere Puigdomènech es profesor de Investigación del CSIC.
Washington Novaes, Quando entenderemos que o tempo escasseia?
01 de fevereiro de 2013 | 2h 07
Estado de S.Paulo
O professor Ignacy Sachs é mestre em várias áreas do conhecimento. Nascido na Polônia, emigrado para a França, professor da École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales em Paris, consultor da ONU e de várias outras instituições, viveu mais de uma década no Brasil, conhece nossos problemas. Quando o autor destas linhas começou a escrever neste espaço, no final de 1997, lembrou que o professor Sachs, numa conferência no Itamaraty, em 1993, já advertira (Estado, 28/11/97): o mundo industrializado não teria como resolver os graves problemas que já o assolavam naquela época - desemprego, agravado pela automação, porque seria necessário investir US$ 1,4 milhão para gerar um posto de trabalho, ao todo, US$ 7 trilhões, mais que o PIB norte-americano da época; nos países "em desenvolvimento" o custo por emprego seria o dobro; também a especulação financeira, que já tinha um giro diário de US$ 1 trilhão (valor anual 50 vezes maior que todo o comércio mundial), parecia insolúvel - e exigia a criação de uma taxa de 1% sobre seu valor, como propunha James Tobin, para alimentar um fundo que financiasse ações para enfrentar a pobreza no mundo. Para finalizar, o professor Sachs lembrava que o Brasil tinha condições privilegiadas no mundo - território, recursos hídricos, biodiversidade, possibilidade de matriz energética "limpa" e renovável; faltava-lhe uma estratégia adequada. Passados 20 anos, o professor Sachs deve lembrar-se de seu falecido mestre, o economista polonês Michal Kalecki, precursor de teses também defendidas por Keynes. Segundo Kalecki, uma ideia precisa do tempo de uma nova geração (duas décadas) para se afirmar, ser aceita. E só nestes últimos anos se reconheceu que a crise internacional ainda levará muito tempo para ser afastada (há economistas que falam em até um século). Que a especulação financeira agravada dificulta qualquer solução. E que o Brasil continua sem estratégia para suas condições privilegiadas. Um mês depois do artigo em que se citava o pensamento do professor Sachs, outro texto do autor destas linhas (Estado, 19/12/97) relatava os resultados da reunião em que se aprovou o Protocolo de Kyoto, para enfrentar as mudanças do clima, com os países industrializados obrigando-se a reduzir suas emissões de poluentes da atmosfera em 5,2% (calculadas sobre os níveis de 1990) - no momento em que os Estados Unidos já as haviam aumentado em 14%. Os Estados Unidos nunca homologaram o protocolo, que levou anos para ter o número mínimo de adesões que o pusesse em vigor: emitem 5,36 bilhões de toneladas anuais de dióxido de carbono, abaixo só da China (7,26 bilhões de toneladas). O mais curioso é que também se aprovou em Kyoto proposta brasileira de definir a responsabilidade de cada país na área do clima calculando em quanto suas emissões contribuíram e contribuem para o aumento da temperatura terrestre - e isso superaria a discussão sobre se a responsabilidade maior deveria ser dos países industrializados (que emitem desde o início da Revolução Industrial) ou dos países "em desenvolvimento", que hoje emitem mais que os industrializados -, gerando um impasse nas discussões da Convenção do Clima. A tese brasileira foi aprovada em Kyoto - e esquecida até hoje. E por aí vamos, sem nenhum acordo na convenção, que apenas acena para 2015 com um compromisso obrigatório para todos os países de reduzirem suas emissões, e ainda assim para vigorar somente em 2020. Enquanto isso, até o presidente Barack Obama reconhece as ameaças - mas com os Estados Unidos respondendo por vários dos 14 maiores projetos de aumento do uso de petróleo e gás, que podem fazer crescer as emissões mundiais em 20% até 2020 (Business Green, 23/1), quando é preciso baixá-las em 5% ao ano para evitar aumento da temperatura terrestre (que poderá chegar a 4 graus Celsius, segundo o Pnuma). E quando até o Fórum Econômico de Davos, que reúne os maiores empresários do mundo, inclui o clima entre os maiores problemas, ao lado do declínio econômico e da "severa disparidade na renda mundial" (Estado, 17/1). O presidente francês, François Hollande, acha até que "o mundo caminhará para uma catástrofe ambiental, sem práticas saudáveis e energias renováveis" (Yahoo, 15/1). E o chefe da representação norte-americana nas negociações sobre o clima, Todd Stern, pensa que 2015 será a última chance de um acordo na área - mas insiste em que a responsabilidade maior será dos países "em desenvolvimento", que respondem por 55% das emissões atuais. E aí se renova o conflito que tem paralisado as negociações. A década de 90 - tema do início deste artigo - marcava também o agravamento das preocupações quanto à questão da água. Mas elas só se acentuaram nos 20 anos seguintes. Agora, a ONU, ao lançar o Ano Internacional da Cooperação pela Água, diz (O Globo, 22/1) que, se nada for feito para disciplinar o consumo, até 2025 dois terços da população mundial sofrerão com a escassez. Por aqui, enfatiza a Agência Nacional de Águas que 16 dos 29 dos maiores aglomerados urbanos do País precisam, até 2015, buscar novos mananciais para garantirem o abastecimento. Entre eles estão as cidades de São Paulo e de Campinas e a Baixada Santista. Onde buscar esses novos recursos? A que distância? A que custo? Enquanto isso, não se resolvem os problemas já apontados em 1997 - desperdício nas redes de distribuição (média de 45%), "projetos de transposição", represamento inadequado (no mundo já eram 38 mil barragens com mais de 15 metros de altura), desmatamento, redução do fluxo dos rios, conflitos entre usuários, não pagamento pelo uso da água. "Água será o centro das maior crise do século 21", escreveu-se neste espaço em 5/12/97. Pelo andar da carruagem, Kalecki ainda era otimista. Duas décadas não bastam, se nem a iminência de catástrofes nos move. Inclusive no Brasil, já que estamos em sexto lugar entre os países com mais desastres climáticos. * Washington Novaes é jornalista. E-mail: wlrnovaes@uol.c
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)