• #Eni sapeva” degli impatti delle fonti fossili sul clima sin dagli anni 70

    Una documentata ricerca di Greenpeace e ReCommon svela pubblicazioni ufficiali in cui già cinquant’anni fa il colosso evidenziava i rischi dell’accumulo di carbonio in atmosfera e della connessa crisi climatica. Ma la multinazionale ha continuato (e continua) a investire sull’estrazione di idrocarburi. Il ruolo dell’organizzazione Ipieca

    “A causa dell’aumento dell’uso di oli minerali l’anidride carbonica in atmosfera, secondo quanto riportato in un recente documento del Segretario generale delle Nazioni Unite, è aumentata a livello globale di circa il 10% nell’ultimo secolo; attorno all’anno 2000 potrebbe raggiungere il 25% con ‘catastrofiche’ conseguenze per il clima”.

    Questa frase è contenuta in uno studio pubblicato nel 1970, quando iniziava a diffondersi anche nell’opinione pubblica una crescente attenzione per i problemi legati all’inquinamento. A mettere a fuoco quell’allarme, però, non furono ricercatori o scienziati, e nemmeno attivisti o associazioni ambientaliste, ma Eni.

    Nel 1969 la società -all’epoca controllata interamente dallo Stato- aveva affidato a un proprio centro studi (l’Istituto per gli studi sullo sviluppo economico e il progresso tecnico, Isvet) il compito di realizzare un’indagine tecnico-economica per valutare i danni causati dall’inquinamento e i costi economici collegati. Un’affermazione inequivocabile, contenuta in una pubblicazione ufficiale commissionata dalla società e realizzata da un centro studi dell’Eni stessa.

    A riportarla alla luce è stata la ricerca “Eni sapeva” condotta da Greenpeace e ReCommon realizzata grazie ad approfondimenti svolti nel corso di alcuni mesi nelle biblioteche e negli archivi della stessa società o di istituzioni scientifiche come il Consiglio nazionale delle ricerche (Cnr). Lo studio è basato su recenti analisi simili che hanno indagato gli archivi e le pubblicazioni di compagnie come la francese TotalEnergies. Comprende inoltre i contributi di storici della scienza come Ben Franta, ricercatore in climate litigation presso l’Oxford sustainable law programme, tra i maggiori esperti del tema a livello mondiale, e Christophe Bonneuil, direttore di ricerca presso il più grande ente pubblico di ricerca francese, il Centre national de la recherche scientifique (Cnrs).

    Il passaggio dello studio di Isvet del 1970 non è un caso isolato. “In diverse sue pubblicazioni risalenti agli anni Settanta e Ottanta, il colosso italiano metteva in guardia sui possibili impatti distruttivi sul clima del Pianeta derivanti dalla combustione delle fonti fossili –denunciano le due organizzazioni-. Eppure, nonostante questi ammonimenti, l’azienda ha proseguito e continua ancora oggi a investire principalmente sull’estrazione e lo sfruttamento di petrolio e gas”.

    I casi citati nel report di Greenpeace e ReCommon sono diversi, come due studi pubblicati dalla società Tecneco (sempre appartenente a Eni) rispettivamente nel 1973 e nel 1978. Nel secondo (intitolato “Ambiente e fonti di energia esauribili e rinnovabili”) gli autori si chiedevano quali fossero i limiti che l’ambiente poneva alla produzione e al consumo di energia in costante aumento: “È auspicabile, tecnicamente fattibile ed economicamente valido ridurre il tasso di crescita del consumo energetico, senza diminuire il prodotto nazionale lordo -si legge nel documento del 1978-. Sarebbe inoltre necessario implementare un programma intensivo di sviluppo energetico da fonti rinnovabili ed estensive come l’energia solare, geotermica ed eolica”.

    Lo studio condotto da Tecneco continuava poi concentrandosi sulle emissioni di CO2, evidenziando come queste avessero già raggiunto nel 1970 una concentrazione di 320 parti per milione (ppm) in crescita del 10% nel corso dei 110 anni precedenti: “Si presume che con l’aumento del consumo di combustibili fossili, iniziato con la rivoluzione industriale, la concentrazione di CO2 raggiungerà le 375-400 ppm. Ipotizzando che il 35-45% della CO2 emessa rimanga in atmosfera e che il resto venga rimosso dal ciclo bio-geochimico, questo aumento è considerato da alcuni scienziati un possibile problema a lungo termine, soprattutto perché potrebbe alterare il bilancio termico dell’atmosfera, portando a cambiamenti climatici con gravi conseguenze per la biosfera”.

    Inoltre, sin dalla prima metà degli anni Settanta Eni ha fatto parte dell’Ipieca (International petroleum industry environmental conservation association), un’organizzazione fondata nel 1974 da diverse compagnie petrolifere internazionali che, secondo recenti studi, a partire dagli anni Ottanta avrebbe consentito al gigante petrolifero statunitense Exxon di coordinare “una campagna internazionale per contestare la scienza del clima e indebolire le politiche internazionali sul clima”.

    “A partire dal 1974 questa associazione ha assunto il ruolo di una diplomazia petrolifera internazionale di fronte alle emergenti normative transnazionali, ad esempio sulle fuoriuscite di petrolio, sull’inquinamento atmosferico e, negli anni Ottanta, sul riscaldamento globale -ha spiegato lo storico dell’ambiente Christophe Bonneuil-. Sebbene non si sia mai definita un gruppo di pressione, dal 1988 al 1994 è diventata chiaramente un canale attraverso il quale le compagnie petrolifere hanno condiviso informazioni e strategie relative al lavoro delle Nazioni Unite sulla strada verso il Vertice della terra di Rio del 1992 e i dettagli dei negoziati sulla Convenzione sui cambiamenti climatici”.

    Ipieca ha iniziato a occuparsi di riscaldamento globale attorno al 1984 e nel 1988 ha dato vita al “Working group on global climate change” i cui compiti erano -tra gli altri- quelli di documentare lo stato della scienza dei cambiamenti climatici indotti dall’effetto serra ed elaborare strategie di risposta vantaggiose per l’industria. Sebbene non fosse presente all’interno di questo gruppo di lavoro, “nella sua rivista Ecos, Eni ha dichiarato di essere stata coinvolta nei primi anni Novanta nel sostegno agli studi e alle azioni sul cambiamento climatico condotte dall’Ipieca -si legge nel report di Greenpeace e ReCommon-. Attività che si rifanno a una delle strategie già descritte da Bonneuil in precedenza, ovvero mettere in evidenza le presunte incertezze della scienza climatica promuovendo ulteriori ricerche per ritardare l’azione necessaria per porre fine alla combustione dei combustibili fossili”.

    “La nostra indagine dimostra come Eni possa essere aggiunta al lungo elenco di compagnie fossili che, come è emerso da numerose inchieste internazionali condotte negli ultimi anni, erano consapevoli almeno dai primi anni Settanta dell’effetto destabilizzante che lo sfruttamento di carbone, gas e petrolio esercita sugli equilibri climatici globali, a causa delle emissioni di gas serra -conclude Felice Moramarco, che ha coordinato la ricerca per Greenpeace Italia e ReCommon-. Se ci troviamo oggi nel pieno di una crisi climatica che minaccia le vite di tutte e tutti noi, la responsabilità ricade principalmente su aziende come Eni, che hanno continuato per decenni a sfruttare le fonti fossili, ignorando gli allarmanti e crescenti avvertimenti provenienti dalla comunità scientifica globale”.

    Lo scorso 9 maggio, come abbiamo raccontato su Altreconomia, Greenpeace Italia, ReCommon e dodici cittadine e cittadini italiani hanno presentato una causa civile nei confronti della società amministrata da Claudio Descalzi per i danni subiti e futuri, di natura patrimoniale e non, derivanti dai cambiamenti climatici a cui la compagnia avrebbe significativamente contribuito con la sua condotta negli ultimi decenni, pur essendo consapevole degli impatti sul clima delle proprie attività. La “Giusta causa” punta a costringere Eni a rivedere la sua strategia industriale e a ridurre le sue emissioni del 45% entro il 2030 rispetto ai livelli del 2020, come raccomandato dalla comunità scientifica internazionale per rispettare gli obiettivi dell’Accordo di Parigi.

    https://altreconomia.it/eni-sapeva-degli-impatti-delle-fonti-fossili-sul-clima-sin-dagli-anni-7

    #industrie_pétrolière #changement_climatique #climat

    • #ENI_SAPEVA

      In diverse sue pubblicazioni risalenti agli anni Settanta e Ottanta, il colosso italiano ENI, all’epoca interamente controllato dallo Stato, metteva in guardia sui possibili impatti distruttivi sul clima del pianeta derivanti dalla combustione delle fonti fossili. Eppure, nonostante questi ammonimenti, l’azienda ha proseguito e continua ancora oggi a investire principalmente sull’estrazione e lo sfruttamento di petrolio e gas.

      Inoltre sin dalla prima metà degli anni Settanta il Cane a sei zampe ha fatto parte dell’IPIECA, un’organizzazione fondata da diverse compagnie petrolifere internazionali che, secondo recenti studi, a partire dagli anni Ottanta avrebbe consentito al gigante petrolifero statunitense Exxon di coordinare “una campagna internazionale per contestare la scienza del clima e indebolire le politiche internazionali sul clima”.

      È quanto denuncia «ENI sapeva», il rapporto diffuso oggi da Greenpeace Italia e ReCommon e realizzato grazie a ricerche effettuate negli scorsi mesi presso biblioteche e archivi della stessa ENI o di istituzioni scientifiche come il Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR).

      https://www.greenpeace.org/italy/rapporto/18843/eni-sapeva

      #rapport #responsabilité

  • Europe spent more on roads than rail in the last 25 years: These 10 countries bucked the trend

    A new report reveals how European countries are cutting railways and building roads.

    Europe’s rail network has dramatically declined over the past three decades, new research has warned, while investment in roads has soared.

    But with the funding gap between the two narrowing, could there be a light at the end of the (previously shuttered) tunnel?

    The length of motorways in Europe grew 60 per cent between 1995 and 2020, or 30,000km, according to research conducted by German thinktanks Wuppertal Institute and T3 Transportation and commissioned by Greenpeace.

    Meanwhile, railways shrank by 6.5 per cent, or 15,650km, and more than 2,500 railway stations were closed.

    The figures expose how governments prioritise cars over rail, warned Greenpeace EU senior climate campaigner Lorelei Limousin.

    “Millions of people outside cities have no option but to own a car to get to work, take kids to school or access basic services, living in areas with little or no public transport,” she said.

    “This is a direct result of governments dismantling local and regional rail networks while pouring money into roads.”

    However, there is a slight silver lining to the sobering research: the funding gap is narrowing.

    Between 1995 and 2018, European countries spent 66 per cent more on roads than railways. During the years 2018-2021, European countries spent 34 per cent more on extending roads than on extending railways.

    Nonetheless, the disparity is still jarring, Limousin commented.

    “Governments and the EU must hit the brakes on this dismantling of our train lines, reopen disused tracks and invest in rail – and stop the massive subsidies for roads that wreck the climate, pollute the air and make people’s lives miserable,” she said.
    Which European countries have invested in public transport?

    Trains are one of the most eco-friendly ways of getting around. Cars, vans and trucks are responsible for 72 per cent of Europe’s transport emissions, while rail accounts for only 0.4 per cent.

    But governments continue to pour money into polluting car infrastructure.

    EU-27 countries, Norway, Switzerland and the UK spent approximately €1.5 trillion on road infrastructure and only €930 billion on rail over this 1995-2020 period.

    Ten countries report a net increase of their railway networks’ lengths since 1995. These are Belgium, Croatia, Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain and Switzerland.

    The bulk of the railway closures took place in Germany (reduced by 6,706 km), Poland (by 4,660 km) and France (by 4,125 km). Despite this, these three countries still represent the longest total network lengths, followed by the UK and Spain.

    Between 2018 and 2021, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, Luxembourg and the UK invested more in rail than roads. The other countries spent more on roads than rail. In Romania, the funding gap was particularly stark, with the government spending 12 times as much on roads as it did on rail.

    Motorways grew most in Ireland, Romania and Poland, and least in Lithuania, Latvia and Belgium. In 15 out of the 30 countries analysed, the motorway length more than doubled, including Spain, Norway and Greece.
    What do researchers think should be done to improve the European rail network?

    Several European countries have launched cheap public transport fares in a bid to reduce emissions. More than three million people have purchased Germany’s Deutschlandticket, priced at €49 a month.

    But inexpensive fares are not enough. Greenpeace urged policymakers to pour money into railways, public transport, and cycle lanes, and divert it away from motorways and airports.

    The researchers believe that more than 13,500km of closed railway lines could be reopened “relatively easily.”

    “European nations have a commitment to reduce energy and transport poverty, and

    they are committed to the Paris Agreement,” the report authors urge.

    “Therefore, from a social and environmental perspective, the funding priorities for transport infrastructure need to shift accordingly.

    https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/09/19/europe-spent-more-on-roads-than-rail-in-the-last-25-years-these-10-countri

    #transports_publics #transports #rail #train #routes #automobile #investissements #transport_ferroviaire #Europe #transport_routier

    • Europe lost 15,000 km of rail, built 30,000 km of motorway since 1995

      Since 1995, European countries invested on average 66% more in expanding and refurbishing roads than in railways, new research has found. The new study (https://greenpeace.at/uploads/2023/09/analysis_development-of-transport-infrastructure-in-europe_2023.pdf) by the Wuppertal Institut and T3 Transportation Think Tank, commissioned by Greenpeace Central and Eastern Europe, looked at the investments in road and rail infrastructure by the 27 EU countries, as well as Norway, Switzerland and the UK.

      The study shows that European countries have spent approximately €1.5 trillion on road infrastructure and only €930 billion on rail in the last three decades, encouraging people to use cars instead of sustainable public transport.

      Click here (https://greenpeace.at/uploads/2023/09/factsheet_key-findings-and-country-data_transport-infrastructure-report_s) for a factsheet of the study’s main findings and country data.

      Lorelei Limousin, Greenpeace EU senior climate campaigner, said: “Millions of people outside cities have no option but to own a car to get to work, take kids to school or access basic services, living in areas with little or no public transport. This is a direct result of governments dismantling local and regional rail networks while pouring money into roads. Climate pollution from transport is through the roof, and we’ve seen people around Europe and across the world suffer the consequences. Governments and the EU must hit the brakes on this dismantling of our train lines, reopen disused tracks and invest in rail – and stop the massive subsidies for roads that wreck the climate, pollute the air and make people’s lives miserable.”

      This lopsided funding has come with a 60% increase in the length of Europe’s motorways since 1995 – more than 30,000 km – while European rail lines shrank by 6.5%, or 15,650 km. This contributed to a 29% increase in demand for motorised road transport between 1995 and 2019. Cars, vans and trucks are responsible for 72% of Europe’s transport emissions, while rail accounts for only 0.4%.

      About 13,700 km of mostly regional railway lines and more than 2,500 railway stations have been temporarily or permanently closed to passenger trains. This disproportionately affects rural communities, which suffer from reduced access to rail and other public transport. More than half of the kilometres of closed railway line could be reopened relatively easily, according to the study.

      The study looks at how the funding gap between road and rail in Europe has evolved over time, and finds that since 2018 the gap has begun to narrow, from 66% in favour of roads before 2018 to 34% since then. However, despite this, many European countries continued to close further railway lines and stations, and to plan and build new motorways and airport extensions.

      Transport remains the only sector in the EU that has consistently increased its domestic greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions from transport have actually increased by 15% in the period from 1995 to 2019. At the same time, an average train journey in Europe produces 77% less greenhouse gas emissions than a car trip per passenger kilometre. Data shows that a dense and well-developed rail network is key to making public transport accessible and attractive to people, which brings pollution down.

      As European governments prepare to set their budgets for next year, Greenpeace is calling on national and EU policymakers to finally shift funding priorities from road to rail, better maintaining rail infrastructure, and making public transport more affordable.

      https://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/issues/climate-energy/46794/europe-lost-15000-km-of-rail-built-30000-km-of-motorway-since-1995
      #comparaison #rapport #étude #autoroutes #statistiques

  • Greenpeace nous #alerte preuve à l’appui à propos de #Fukushima.
    Greenpeace #alerts us with supporting evidences about Fukushima.

    https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/11710/the-fukushima-nuclear-waste-crisis-is-a-human-rights-violation
    Publié le 15/12/2017
    Vu le 03/06/2018

    Cet article de Shaun Burnie, spécialiste #nucléaire senior avec #Greenpeace Allemagne, nous rappelle que la #catastrophe de Fukushima a toujours des effets aujourd’hui tels que les #déchets #nucléaires stockés et transportés à travers la préfecture ainsi que la #contamination du #territoire #japonais par la concentration des #particules #radioactives dans l’#atmosphère. De plus, il dénonce les procédures de l’État à la fois incomplète en matière de #décontamination de Fukushima dans les « Special Decontamination Areas » d’#Iitate et #Namie entre 2014 et 2016, doublées de l’#exploitation pour 70 dollars de l’heure, des #sans-abris qui doivent alors travailler dans un #environnement #toxique. Alors que le programme est déclaré comme terminé dans la « area 2 », on nous rappelle que les #forêts n’ont pas pu être décontaminées et qu’elles composent 70% de ces régions. L’État ferait même pression sur les anciens habitant pour qu’ils reviennent y vivre. On peut voir des camions de déchets nucléaires passer à travers la ville, transportés vers #Futaba et #Okuma.

    There is no logic to this, unless you are a trucking and incineration business and of course the Japanese government, desperate to create the myth of recovery after Fukushima. On this evidence there is no ‘after’, only ‘forever’.

  • Deep Green: The 1970 concert that launched Greenpeace | Greenpeace International
    http://www.greenpeace.org/archive-international/en/about/deep-green/deep-green-jan-2010
    http://www.greenpeace.org

    In 1969, a United States plan to conduct nuclear bomb tests on Amchitka Island in the Aleutian archipelago ignited the movement in Canada that would become Greenpeace.

    Irving and Dorothy Stowe were American Quakers, who left the US in protest of its military policies, and arrived in Canada, in 1966, with their children Robert and Barbara. The Stowe home became a nexus of action to protest the US nuclear tests. Their Quaker friends Marie and Jim Bohlen first proposed the idea to sail a boat into the test zone. Canadian journalists Bob Hunter and Ben and Dorothy Metcalfe lent media experience, and the small group swelled with volunteers.

    Hunter wrote a newspaper column about the danger of a tsunami from the bomb tests, which provided the group with its first name: The Don’t Make a Wave Committee. Twenty-two year-old Bill Darnell, who organised an ’Ecology Caravan’ in Canada, inspired the name that has endured for four decades. After a meeting, when Irving Stowe said “Peace,” Darnell responded with “Make it a green peace,” and the name stuck.

    The group raised money with tin cans in corner grocery stores, and 25 cent ’Greenpeace’ buttons, but had not raised nearly enough to charter a boat and sail 6,000 kilometres across the Gulf of Alaska. Irving Stowe, a lover of music, decided to stage a rock concert.

    He wrote to activist musicians Joan Baez, Phil Ochs, and others. Ochs and the popular Canadian band Chilliwack agreed to appear. Baez could not attend, but sent a $1000 check and connected Stowe with Joni Mitchell, who agreed to perform and brought her friend James Taylor. Stowe booked Vancouver’s Pacific Coliseum for the event on16 October, 1970. Sound engineer Dave Zeffertt, recorded the concert on quarter-inch tape, and gave a copy to Stowe for his personal use only: it is a testament to Irving Stowe’s integrity that this historic recording never leaked out as a bootleg.

    #écologie #politique #histoire #greenpeace

  • #OGM - Mensonges et vérités

    La #controverse entre pro-OGM (organismes génétiquement modifiés) et anti-OGM rend le débat passionnel et parfois incompréhensible. Ce tour d’horizon mondial démêle le vrai du faux, preuves scientifiques à l’appui.

    Depuis plus de vingt ans, les OGM (organismes génétiquement modifiés), en particulier les plantes, ne cessent de s’étendre sur la planète, dans le but d’améliorer les rendements de soja, maïs, coton, colza, riz, etc. Dix pays, sur les vingt-huit qui en cultivent, représentent, à eux seuls, 98 % de la superficie mondiale des cultures transgéniques – soit 11 % des terres cultivées –, essentiellement sur le continent américain, le sous-continent indien et en Chine. Aux États-Unis, où les premières plantations de soja transgénique ont été introduites en 1996, les OGM représentent environ 90 % des cultures de soja, de maïs et de coton. Selon leurs défenseurs, ils sont indispensables pour répondre aux besoins d’une population en forte croissance. C’est l’argument du géant du secteur, le semencier américain Monsanto, qui produit aussi le célèbre Roundup, un herbicide total dont la substance active, le glyphosate, épargne les plantes OGM.


    https://www.arte.tv/fr/videos/057483-000-A/ogm-mensonges-et-verites

    #film #documentaire #reportage #vidéo
    #BT #maïs_BT #rentabilité #TH #soja #Roundup #USA #Etats-Unis #monoculture #agriculture #élevage #Argentine #Monsanto #pommes_De_terre #risques #génie_génétique #toxine_BT #pesticides #industrie_agro-alimentaire #glyphosate #herbicide #super_mauvaises_herbes #darwinisme #soja_roundup_ready #atrazin #business #santé #cancer #Mexique #propriété_intellectuelle #brevets #Percy_Schmeiser #sécurité_alimentaire #Ghana #malformation_congénitale #justice #biodiversité

    #USAID (qui lie #aide_au_développement et utilisation de OGM dans le pays qui va recevoir l’aide)

    #Gates_Foundation (qui finance des tests de plantes OGM au Ghana)

    #biotechnologie_agricole #coton #Bukina_Faso #coton_BT #Sofitex #rendements #Geocoton #Roundup_Ready_Flex_Cotton #néo-colonialisme

    #MON810 #maïs_MON810 #riz_doré #riz #Philippines #golden_rice #Syngenta #technologie #dengue #oxitec #moustiques_transgéniques #AGM #animaux_génétiquement_modifiés

    • Une ONG présentée dans le film, au Ghana :
      #Food_sovereignty_ghana

      Food Sovereignty Ghana is a grass-roots movement of Ghanaians, home and abroad, dedicated to the promotion of food sovereignty in Ghana. Our group believes in the collective control over our collective resources, rather than the control of our resources by multinational corporations and other foreign entities. This movement is a product of Special Brainstorming Session meeting on the 21st of March, 2013, at the Accra Freedom Centre. The meeting was in response to several calls by individuals who have been discussing, writing, or tweeting, about the increasing phenomenon of land grabs, the right to water and sanitation as a fundamental human right, water privatization issues, deforestation, climate change, carbon trading and Africa’s atmospheric space, and in particular, the urgent issue of the introduction of GM food technology into our agriculture, particularly, its implications on food sovereignty, sustainable development, biodiversity, and the integrity of our food and water resources, human and animal health, and our very existence as a politically independent people. These calls insisted that these issues need to be comprehensively addressed in a systematic and an organized manner.

      Foremost in these calls was the need for a comprehensive agricultural policy that respects the multi-functional roles played by agriculture in our daily lives, and resists the avaricious calculations behind the proposition that food is just another commodity or component for international agribusiness. The trade in futures or speculation involving food have pushed food prices beyond the reach of almost a billion of people in the world who go to bed, each day, hungry. Even though we have have doubled the amount of food to feed everybody in the world today, people still don’t have access to food. The primary cause of this is the neo-liberal agenda of the imperialists, such as the SAP, EPA, AGOA, TRIPS, AoA, AFSNA, AGRA, which have the focus on marginalising the small family farm agriculture that continues to feed over 80% of Africa and replacing them with governance structures, agreements and practices that depend on and promote unsustainable and inequitable international trade and give power to remote and unaccountable corporations.

      We came together in order to help turn a new leaf. We see a concerted effort, over the years, to distort our agriculture to such an extent that today, our very survival as a free and independent people crucially depend on how fast we are able to apply the breaks, and to rather urgently promote policies that focus on food for people, and value our local food providers, the arduous role of the resilient small family farm for thousands of years. We need to resist imperialist policies such as the Structural Adjustment Programmes of the World Bank and the IMF which rolled away 30 years of gains towards food sovereignty in the 1970s and 80s. Those African countries that graduated from the SAP were subsequently slammed with HIPIC. In all these years, the imperialist countries fortified their agricultural production with heavy government subsidies, as Africa saw the imposition of stringent conditionality removing all government subsidies on our own agriculture. The effect has been a destruction of our local food production capacity and a dependence on corporations for our daily food needs. This has had a devastating effect on Africa’s agriculture, and our ability to feed ourselves.

      We believe that a proper analysis of the food crisis is a matter that cannot be left with trade negotiators, investment experts, or agricultural engineers. It is essentially a matter of political economy. As Jean Ziegler succinctly puts it, “Every child who dies of hunger in today’s world has been murdered.” Our Food Under Our Control! is determined to make sure that such a crime becomes impossible in Ghana. Our number one mission is to switch the language from food security to food sovereignty as the goal, to repeat the words food sovereignty at every opportunity and say we don’t want food security, that can still be dependence, we want food sovereignty, we need food sovereignty. This is not the same as “food security”. A country can have food security through food imports. Dependence on food imports is precarious and prone to multiple risks — from price risks, to supply risks, to conditionality risks (policy conditions that come with food imports). Food sovereignty, on the other hand, implies ensuring domestic production and supply of food. It means that the nationals of the country (or at the very least nationals within the region) must primarily be responsible for ensuring that the nation and the region are first and foremost dependent on their own efforts and resources to grow their basic foods.

      Aims and objectives:

      1. To help promote the people’s right to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and to generally ensure the priority of domestic food crops produced by small farms over export crops.

      2. To help create mass awareness about the political, economic, health and environmental impacts of genetically modified food technology and defend the right of the people to define their own food and agricultural systems.

      3. To help ensure small farms are sustained by state provision and facilitation of necessary infrastructure: Security of land tenure, Water, Financial credit, Energy, Fertilizers, Transport, Storage, Extension service, Marketing, Technology and Equipment for production, harvesting, storage and transport, and Insurance against crop failures due to climate changes, or other unforeseen circumstances.

      4. To help resist the theft, destruction, and loss of the Commons, our natural and indigenous resources, by means of laws, commercial contracts and intellectual property rights regimes, and to generally serve as the watch-dog over all aspects of agricultural sustainability in Ghana.

      5. To help protect and preserve public access to and ownership of the Commons: Water, Land, Air, Seeds, Energy, Plants, Animals, and work closely with like-minded local, national, and international organisations in the realization of the foregoing objectives.


      http://foodsovereigntyghana.org

    • Un chercheur, #Damián_Verzeñassi de l’#université_de_Rosario, mentionné il y a une année dans un article de Mediapart :

      Argentine : soja transgénique voisine avec maladies

      Avia Terai, ville de 10 000 habitants, est exposée aux pulvérisations incessantes sur ses champs de soja et de coton de glyphosate, le composant de base de l’herbicide de Monsanto. Un pesticide que l’Organisation mondiale pour la santé a étiqueté cancérogène en 2015. Ici, des enfants naissent avec des malformations, des troubles neurologiques sévères et le taux de cancer est trois fois plus élevé que la moyenne nationale, selon l’étude du docteur argentin Damián Verzeñassi de l’université de Rosario. De son côté, Monsanto nie catégoriquement l’authenticité de ces études et considère que la #toxicité de son produit phare Roundup n’a pas encore été prouvée.

      https://www.mediapart.fr/studio/portfolios/argentine-soja-transgenique-voisine-avec-maladies

      Le chercheur a fait une étude dans laquelle il montrait un lien entre le glyphosate et le développement de cancer :
      “Hay una incidencia del glifosato en los nuevos casos de cáncer”

      Desde 2010 se hicieron relevamientos en 32 localidades de la región pampeana y se relevaron más de 110 mil personas. Según Verzeñassi, si se encontró en estas localidades, donde se aplicó el modelo productivo con transgénicos a base de agrotóxicos, un pico muy importante de casos de cáncer, hipotiroidismo y abortos espontáneos.


      https://rosarionuestro.com/hemos-encontrado-un-incremento-en-la-incidencia-del-glifosato-en-los

    • #Red_de_Médicos_de_Pueblos_Fumigados (Argentine)

      La Red Universitaria de Ambiente y Salud (REDUAS) es una coordinación entre profesionales universitarios, académicos, científicos, miembros de equipos de salud humana en sus distintos niveles y demás estudiosos, preocupados por los efectos deletéreos de la salud humana que genera el ambiente degradado a consecuencias de la actividad productiva humana, especialmente cuando esta se da a gran escala y sustentada en una visión extractivista.

      La REDUAS surge como una de las decisiones tomadas en el 1º Encuentro de Médicos de Pueblos Fumigados, realizado en la Facultad de Ciencias Médicas de la Universidad Nacional de Córdoba y organizado por el Modulo de Determinantes Sociales de la Salud de la Cátedra de Pediatría y por la Cátedra de Medicina I de dicha Facultad; concretado el 26 y 27 de agosto de 2010

      La REDUAS se construye para unir, coordinar y potenciar el trabajo de investigación científica, asistencia sanitaria, análisis epidemiológico y divulgación ,difusión y defensa del derecho a la salud colectiva, que realizan equipos que desarrollan este tipo de actividades en 10 provincias distintas de la Republica Argentina y que se encuentran activados por el problema del daño a la salud que ocasiona la fumigación o aspersión, sistemática de más de 300 millones de litros de plaguicidas sobre casi 12 millones de personas que conviven con los sembradíos de cultivos agroindustriales.

      Para avanzar en ese sentido se propone aportar al debate público por la necesidad de construir prácticas productivas que permitan una supervivencia feliz de la especie humana en la superficie terrestre y de la responsabilidad publica, privada, colectiva e individual en el resguardo de esas condiciones ecológicas.

      Considerando al derecho a la salud, como uno de los valores sociales que debemos tratar de privilegiar en el análisis de las decisiones políticas y económicas que se toman en nuestra sociedad, creemos necesario ampliar la difusión del conocimiento de los datos científicos que se dispone, y que muchas veces se invisibilizan; aportar a la generación de nuevos datos e informaciones experimentales y observacionales – poblacionales; y potenciar la voz de los equipos de salud, investigadores y pobladores en general afectados en sus derechos por agresiones ambiéntales generadas por practicas productivas ecológicamente agresivas.


      http://reduas.com.ar
      #résistance

    • #Madres_de_Ituzaingo_Anexo-Cordoba
      http://madresdeituzaingoanexo.blogspot.fr

      Madres de #Ituzaingó: 15 años de pelea por el ambiente

      En marzo de 2002 salieron a la calle por primera vez para reclamar atención sanitaria ante la cantidad de enfermos en el barrio.Lograron mejorar la zona y alejar las fumigaciones, nuevas normas ambientales y un juicio inédito. Dicen que la lucha continúa. Un juicio histórico


      http://www.lavoz.com.ar/ciudadanos/madres-de-ituzaingo-15-anos-de-pelea-por-el-ambiente
      #Sofia_Gatica

    • Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in #Oaxaca, Mexico

      Concerns have been raised about the potential effects of transgenic introductions on the genetic diversity of crop landraces and wild relatives in areas of crop origin and diversification, as this diversity is considered essential for global food security. Direct effects on non-target species1,2, and the possibility of unintentionally transferring traits of ecological relevance onto landraces and wild relatives have also been sources of concern3,4. The degree of genetic connectivity between industrial crops and their progenitors in landraces and wild relatives is a principal determinant of the evolutionary history of crops and agroecosystems throughout the world5,6. Recent introductions of transgenic DNA constructs into agricultural fields provide unique markers to measure such connectivity. For these reasons, the detection of transgenic DNA in crop landraces is of critical importance. Here we report the presence of introgressed transgenic DNA constructs in native maize landraces grown in remote mountains in Oaxaca, Mexico, part of the Mesoamerican centre of origin and diversification of this crop7,8,9.

      https://www.nature.com/articles/35107068

    • #Gilles-Éric_Séralini

      Gilles-Éric Séralini, né le 23 août 1960 à Bône en Algérie1, est un biologiste français, professeur de biologie moléculaire à l’université de Caen2. Il est cofondateur, administrateur et membre du conseil scientifique du CRIIGEN3, parrain de l’association Générations Cobayes4 et lanceur d’alerte5. Il est aussi membre du conseil scientifique de The Organic Center6, une association dépendant de l’Organic Trade Association (en)7, « le principal porte-parole du business bio aux États-Unis »8, et parrain de la Fondation d’entreprise Ekibio9.

      Il s’est fait notamment connaître du grand public pour ses études sur les OGM et les pesticides, et en particulier en septembre 2012 pour une étude toxicologique portée par le CRIIGEN mettant en doute l’innocuité du maïs génétiquement modifié NK 603 et du Roundup sur la santé de rats10,11. Cette étude, ainsi que les méthodes utilisées pour la médiatiser, ont été l’objet d’importantes controverses, les auteurs étant accusés d’instrumentaliser de la science, ou même suspectés de fraude scientifique12,13. En réalité, les agences de santé européennes et américaines réagissent sur le tard, indiquant les lacunes et faiblesses méthodologiques rédhibitoires de la publication (notamment un groupe de contrôle comportant un nombre d’individus ridiculement bas). Certains dénoncent aussi un manque de déontologie pour s’assurer d’un « coup de communication ». La revue Food and Chemical Toxicology retire l’étude en novembre 2013.


      https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles-%C3%89ric_S%C3%A9ralini

      Dans le documentaire on parle notamment d’un article qu’il a publié dans la revue « Food and chemical toxicology », que j’ai cherché sur internet... et... suprise suprise... je l’ai trouvé, mais le site de Elsevier dit... « RETRACTED »
      Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize
      https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637

      Il est par contre dispo sur sci-hub !
      http://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2012.08.005

      voici la conclusion :

      In conclusion, it was previously known that glyphosate con- sumption in water above authorized limits may provoke hepatic and kidney failures ( EPA ). The results of the study presented here clearly demonstrate that lower levels of complete agricultural gly- phosate herbicide formulations, at concentrations well below offi- cially set safety limits, induce severe hormone-dependent mammary, hepatic and kidney disturbances. Similarly, disruption of biosynthetic pathways that may result from overexpression of the EPSPS transgene in the GM NK603 maize can give rise to com- parable pathologies that may be linked to abnormal or unbalanced phenolic acids metabolites, or related compounds. Other muta- genic and metabolic effects of the edible GMO cannot be excluded. This will be the subject of future studies, including transgene and glyphosate presence in rat tissues. Reproductive and multigenera- tional studies will also provide novel insights into these problems. This study represents the first detailed documentation of long- term deleterious effects arising from the consumption of a GM R- tolerant maize and of R, the most used herbicide worldwide. Altogether, the significant biochemical disturbances and physi- ological failures documented in this work confirm the pathological effects of these GMO and R treatments in both sexes, with different amplitudes. We propose that agricultural edible GMOs and formu- lated pesticides must be evaluated very carefully by long term studies to measure their potential toxic effects.

    • #RiskOGM

      RiskOGM constitue depuis 2010 l’action de recherche du ministère en charge de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l’Énergie pour soutenir la structuration d’une communauté scientifique et le développement de connaissances, de méthodes et de pratiques scientifiques utiles à la définition et à la mise en œuvre des politiques publiques sur les OGM.

      Le programme s’appuie sur un Conseil Scientifique et sur un Comité d’Orientation qui réunit des parties prenantes.

      Les axes de recherche prioritaires identifiés portent sur les plans de surveillance générale des OGM, la coexistence des cultures, la gouvernance, les aspects économiques, éthiques et sociaux ou encore la démarche globale d’analyse de la sécurité des aliments contenant des produits transgéniques,

      3 projets en cours ont été soutenus après un 1er appel à proposition fin 2010. Fin 2013, suite à un deuxième appel, le projet (#PGM / #GMO90plus) a été sélectionné et soutenu à hauteur de 2,5 M€. Il vise à une meilleure connaissance des effets potentiels sur la santé de la consommation sur une longue durée de produits issus des plantes génétiquement modifiées.

      http://recherche-riskogm.fr/fr
      #programme_de_recherche

      Un projet dont fait partie #Bernard_Salles, rattaché à l’INRA, interviewé dans le documentaire.
      Lui, semble clean, contrairement au personnage que je vais un peu après, Pablo Steinberg

    • Projet #G-Twyst :

      G-TwYST is the acronym for Genetically modified plants Two Year Safety Testing. The project duration is from 21 April 2014 – 20 April 2018.

      The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has developed guidance for the risk assessment of food and feed containing, consisting or produced from genetically modified (GM) plants as well as guidance on conducting repeated-dose 90-day oral toxicity study in rodents on whole food/feed. Nonetheless, the long-term safety assessment of genetically modified (GM) food/feed is a long-standing controversial topic in the European Union. At the present time there are no standardized protocols to study the potential short-, medium- and/or long-term toxicity of GM plants and derived products. Against this backdrop the main objective of the G-TwYST project is to provide guidance on long-term animal feeding studies for GMO risk assessment while at the same time responding to uncertainties raised through the outcomes and reports from recent (long-term) rodent feeding studies with whole GM food/feed.

      In order to achieve this, G-TwYST:

      Performs rat feeding studies for up to two years with GM maize NK603. This includes 90 day studies for subchronic toxicity, 1 year studies for chronic toxicity as well as 2 year studies for carcinogenicity. The studies will be based on OECD Test Guidelines and executed according to EFSA considerations
      Reviews recent and ongoing research relevant to the scope of G-TwYST
      Engages with related research projects such as GRACE and GMO90plus
      Develops criteria to evaluate the scientific quality of long-term feeding studies
      Develops recommendations on the added value of long-term feeding trials in the context of the GMO risk assessment process.
      As a complementary activity - investigates into the broader societal issues linked to the controversy on animal studies in GMO risk assessment.
      Allows for stakeholder engagement in all key steps of the project in an inclusive and responsive manner.
      Provides for utmost transparency of what is done and by whom it is done.

      G-TwYST is a Collaborative Project of the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities. The proposal for G-TwYST was established in reponse to a call for proposals on a two-year carcinogenicity rat feeding study with maize NK603 that was launched by he European Commission in June 2013 (KBBE.2013.3.5-03).

      https://www.g-twyst.eu

      Attention : ce projet semble être sous forte influence des lobbys de l’OGM...

      Fait partie de ce projet #Pablo_Steinberg, interviewé dans le documentaire.

      Pablo Steinberg est d’origine argentine, il est également le toxicologue du projet « #GRACE : GMO Risk Assessment and communication evidence », financé par l’UE :

      GRACE was a project funded under the EU Framework 7 programme and undertaken by a consortium of EU research institutes from June 2012 - November 2015. The project had two key objectives:

      I) To provide systematic reviews of the evidence on the health, environmental and socio-economic impacts of GM plants – considering both risks and possible benefits. The results are accessible to the public via an open access database and other channels.

      II) GRACE also reconsidered the design, execution and interpretation of results from various types of animal feeding trials and alternative in vitro methods for assessing the safety of GM food and feed.

      The Biosafety Group was involved in the construction of the central portal and database (CADIMA; Central Access Database for Impact Assessment of Crop Genetic Improvement Technologies) that managed the information gathered in the pursuit of the two objectives and in the dissemination of information.

      http://biosafety.icgeb.org/projects/grace

      La conférence finale de présentation du projet GRACE a été organisée à Potsdam... un 9 novembre... date-anniversaire de la chute du mur...
      Voici ce que #Joachim_Schiemann, coordinateur du projet, dit à cette occasion (je transcris les mots prononcés par Schiemann dans le reportage) :

      « Nous aussi, avec nos activités, nous essayons d’abattre certains murs et de faire bouger certaines positions qui sont bloquées. Je trouve que c’est très symbolique d’avoir organisé cette conférence à Potsdam, à proximité de Berlin et des vestiges du mur »

    • Prof. Potrykus on #Golden_Rice

      #Ingo_Potrykus, Professor emeritus at the Institute of Plant Sciences, ETH Zurich, is one of the world’s most renowned personalities in the fields of agricultural, environmental, and industrial biotechnology, and invented Golden Rice with Peter Beyer. In contrast to usual rice, this one has an increased nutritional value by providing provitamin A. According to WHO, 127 millions of pre-school children worldwide suffer from vitamine A deficiency, causing some 500,000 cases of irreversible blindness every year. This deficiency is responsible for 600,000 deaths among children under the age of 5.

      https://blog.psiram.com/2013/09/prof-potrykus-on-golden-rice
      Ce riz, enrichi de #bêtacarotène pour pallier aux carences de #provitamine_A, a valu, à Monsieur #Potrykus, la couverture du Time, une première pour un botaniste :

    • Golden Illusion. The broken promise of GE ’Golden’ rice

      GE ’Golden’ rice is a genetically engineered (GE, also called genetically modified, GM) rice variety developed by the biotech industry to produce pro-vitamin A (beta-carotene). Proponents portray GE ’Golden’ rice as a technical, quick-fix solution to Vitamin A deficiency (VAD), a health problem in many developing countries. However, not only is GE ’Golden’ rice an ineffective tool to combat VAD it is also environmentally irresponsible, poses risks to human health, and compromises food security.

      https://www.greenpeace.org/archive-international/en/publications/Campaign-reports/Genetic-engineering/Golden-Illusion
      #rapport

    • #MASIPAG (#Philippines)

      MASIPAG a constaté que les paysans qui pratiquent la production agricole biologique gagnent en moyenne environ 100 euros par an de plus que les autres paysans, parce qu’ils ne dépensent pas d’argent dans des fertilisants et pesticides chimiques. Dans le contexte local, cela représente une économie importante. En plus, l’agriculture biologique contribue à un milieu plus sain et à une réduction des émissions de gaz à effet de serre. Malgré cela, le gouvernement philippin poursuit une politique ambiguë. En 2010, il a adopté une loi sur la promotion de l’agriculture biologique, mais en même temps il continue à promouvoir les cultures génétiquement modifiées et hybrides nécessitant le recours aux intrants chimiques. La loi actuelle insiste également sur une certification couteuse des produits bio par les tiers, ce qui empêche les #petits_paysans de certifier leurs produits.

      http://astm.lu/projets-de-solidarite/asie/philipinnes/masipag
      #paysannerie #agriculture_biologique

    • #AquAdvantage

      Le saumon AquAdvantage (#AquAdvantage_salmon® pour les anglophones, parfois résumé en « #AA_Salmon » ou « #AAS ») est le nom commercial d’un saumon transgénique et triploïde1.

      Il s’agit d’un saumon atlantique modifié, créé par l’entreprise AquaBounty Technologies (en)2 qui est devenu en mai 2016 le premier poisson génétiquement modifié par transgenèse commercialisé pour des fins alimentaires. Il a obtenu à cette date une autorisation de commercialisation (après son évaluation3) au Canada. En juillet 2017, l’entreprise a annoncé avoir vendu 4,5 tonnes de saumon AquAdvantage à des clients Canadiens qui ont à ce jour gardés leur anonymat4. L’entreprise prévoit de demander des autorisations pour des truites5, des tilapias 5 et de l’omble arctique génétiquement modifiés6.

      Selon les dossiers produits par AquaBounty à la FDA, deux gènes de saumons Chinook et deux séquences provenant d’une autre espèce (loquette d’Amérique) ont été introduits7, (information reprise par un article du New-York Times8 et un article scientifique évoquent aussi un gène provenant d’un autre poisson (loquette d’Amérique9). En 2010, AquaBounty, produirait déjà au Canada sur l’Île-du-Prince-Édouard les œufs de poissons destinés à des élevages en bassins enclavés à terre au Panama10 pour des poissons à exporter (alors que l’étiquetage n’est toujours pas obligatoire aux États-Unis)10.

      Ce poisson est controversé. Des préoccupations scientifiques et environnementalistes portent sur les risques d’impacts environnementaux à moyen et long terme, plus que sur le risque alimentaire. La FDA a considéré que la modification était équivalente à l’utilisation d’un médicament vétérinaire (hormone de croissance et modification transgénique)11 et a donc utilisé son processus (dit « NADA12 ») d’évaluation vétérinaire. Dans ce cadre, la FDA a conclu que ce poisson ne présentait a priori pas de risques pour la santé, et pouvait être cultivé de manière sûre. Mais en 2013, l’opportunité d’élever un tel poisson reste très contestée13 notamment depuis au moins 1986 concernant les risques qu’il pourrait poser à l’égard de l’environnement14, l’autorisation de mise sur le marché pourrait être à nouveau repoussée15.


      https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/AquAdvantage
      #saumon #saumon_transgénique #AquaBounty_Technologies

      Aussi appelé...
      #FrankenFish

  • Défendonslaforêt - Greenpeace est poursuivi par Produits Forestiers Résolu pour 7 millions $
    http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/fr/campagnes/Forets/foret-boreale/a-vous-dagir/defendonslaforet/?fbqcjan30

    Raffa

    Défendonslaforêt - Greenpeace est poursuivi par Produits Forestiers Résolu pour 7 millions $ - http://www.greenpeace.org...

    10 minutes ago

    from Bookmarklet

    Comment

    Like

    "Avec un chiffre d’affaires de 4,5 milliards de dollars (2012), Résolu est la plus grande compagnie forestière au Canada. S’approvisionnant dans la forêt boréale canadienne, Résolu exerce ses activités dans trois des cinq « forêts menacées » recensées par Greenpeace. La compagnie produit du papier journal, du bois d’œuvre, de la pâte et des papiers commerciaux. Avec ses pratiques forestières destructrices, Résolu met la forêt boréale en péril. Elle détruit des habitats essentiels au caribou forestier et bafoue les droits des Premières Nations en exerçant ses activités sur certaines de leurs terres sans avoir obtenu leur consentement (...)