MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, June 1st 2023 - 18:46 UTC



Bolsonaro advances on the Amazon: head of environmental protection agency resigns

Tuesday, January 8th 2019 - 06:54 UTC
Full article 12 comments

The head of Brazil's environmental protection agency has resigned following criticism from the country's newly inaugurated far-right President Jair Bolsonaro. Read full article


Disclaimer & comment rules
  • Chicureo

    Brazil needs to use aggressive methods to counter the uncontrolled high level of violent crime.

    Jan 09th, 2019 - 01:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    Rental fees of US$ 7,73 million / month for 393 pickups.....boils down to US$ 655,00 /day / vehicle - kind of expensive, considering that daily hire of a Nissan Frontier pick-up is US$ 50.00/day (393 would cost far less), one full tank of fuel /day costs less than US$ 100,00, with very little, if any, maintenance for 'new' vehicles - so, how does one explain the extra cost of US$ 505,00/day/vehicle ?
    Of course, the left insists that Suely de Araujo's replacement was politically motivated...that there were NO irregularities in the contract, or in IBAMA's budget, and that this only happened because Bolsonaro wants to turn the Amazon into the Sahara desert.

    Just an update of the damage, up to this morning : now, over 200 attacks in 40 towns in Ceará : damage to 2 bridges, 1 overpass ; 1 prison attacked; 1 gas station torched, blown up ; 1 dealership and many cars destroyed; power transmission tower destroyed ; several public buildings torched, including a Court House; buses and vehicles burned ; destruction of bank buildings; attempt to destroy trains/ tracks.....because organized crime is against the toughening up of the laws. Hope the death penalty is implemented to deal with these SOBs....both the actual perpetrators as well as those who are giving the orders from inside the prisons.
    While a few politicians who support Bolsonaro were against sending federal help to Ceará (which was recommended by Moro), the governor (a petista) is very glad of the help, despite the fact that some radical petistas wanted more - such as federal intervention in the State as occurred in Rio last year...IF this happened, the federal government would be unable to pass the essential reforms, which require Constitutional amendments approved by Congress - which would not happen if federal intervention were usual, the PT working behind the scenes to sabotage the new government, at the expense of Ceará 'n its people....despite most of them being petistas.

    Jan 14th, 2019 - 03:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    How do you mean “at the expense of Ceará 'n its people”? I can see the PT might have an ulterior motive for proposing federal intervention, if that prevents Congress changing the constitution. But how is it bad for Ceará if that happens? Seems like federal intervention ought to help, if anything.

    PS. Last week one of my colleagues was saying she hoped they'd send her to Brazil on a business trip, so I linked her to an article about the trouble in Fortaleza. Turns out our main guy in Brazil (who she works with a lot) just moved up there! I hope he'll be okay.

    Jan 15th, 2019 - 10:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    Funny - you thought the federal intervention in Rio was a mistake (which some, on here, interpreted as a military takeover of Brazil - remember ?), now you think it might be good for Ceará ? (just fyi, stats on the intervention in Rio, show that most types of crimes dropped significantly, despite highly-negative coverage by the press).

    I am not suggesting federal intervention in Ceará is not recommended 'just' because it prevents Congress from working, or even that it IS recommended, or even that it might be 'good' or 'bad' for “Ceará” simply pointing out that organized crime has declared war against Bolsonaro - and very likely instigated by the PT - yes, the PT, which in the past has been known to have had close connections with some criminal groups (including Colombia's FARC) - and in which case, are being 'used' by the PT, in the attempt to screw Bolsonaro (as well as Ceará's PT Governor, not a radical, and who has been distancing himself from PT leadership)...their “ulterior motive” - getting “even” with them, despite being “at the expense of Ceará and its people”. This is how the PT works - get someone else, in this case criminal groups, to do their dirty work for them.

    I know this may sound like some wild conspiracy theory to you, and they are nearly always impossible to prove, but when you listen to dozens of reports a day, some raising unanswered questions about to past events, connections, motives, party interests, it becomes quite believable. I am not saying the PT IS behind the attacks, as some journalists have alluded to the possibility of, but neither can the theories be dismissed as impossible.

    I still doubt it, but perhaps now, slighty more informed with respect to the extemes our organized crime and politicians are willing to go, you are becoming less disposed to dismiss such treacherous motives as impossible.
    No doubt your guy in Fortaleza is fully aware he needs to take certain precautions.

    Jan 15th, 2019 - 04:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    “you thought the federal intervention in Rio was a mistake”

    I was skeptical, but if the evidence shows that it helped, I'm prepared to believe it. But you did believe it would be helpful, which is why your comment didn't make sense.

    And it does sound like a wild conspiracy theory to me. If the PT were going to cause trouble in some state, wouldn't they pick one controlled by the opposition, and without too many of their own supporters? Ceará is not an obvious choice. Also, aren't the gangs responding to B's announcement of a clampdown in the prisons? They think they're so powerful they can challenge the government, and the worst part is that they may be right. I was rather expecting violence to rise after B declared war on the gangs, as happened in Mexico, but not this soon or dramatically. Seems like it might be a miscalculation on the part of the gangs; as long as the violence is limited to one area, the government can keep pouring in resources until they deal with it, thus giving them an early win.

    As for your journalists, they seem pretty anti-PT, so I wouldn't put any trust in their speculation (as opposed to facts).

    We haven't heard from our guy in Brazil much recently, but one of his team members just left, so he's been doing her job as well as his own. Even our company's Brazilian employees keep quitting. :(

    Jan 15th, 2019 - 05:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    Well, I hope that you have now understood my comments. If you knew the PT, and what drives them, as well as I do, you wouldn't think it's so wild...but even some journalists (left-leaning) suggested as much (on TV).

    The newly re-elected PT governor of Ceará, as I pointed out, is not as loyal as the PT would like, besides, why lose a chance to stir up even MORE trouble (for B), which was already festering under the surface (even b4 B took over). Ceará WAS an obvious choice. Most States, especially those in the S, SE, and Centre West 'n excluding most NE states (where Haddad won), have a far better grip on their prison systems, and terrorist attacks - as in Ceará - would not be as successful.

    The gangs know damned well that Bolsonaro is not going to ease up, and that, without a doubt is the main is also notorious that the prison system - Federal, and State (which partially depends on federal contributions) - during the last decade was left to the dogs. Lula promises of abt 20 federal penitenciaries never materialized - think 2 or 3 were actually built. Justice, in general, in view of human rights movements, became lenient, and did litle to assure the safety of honest citizens.

    Going back to Mexico, although am not familiar with measures taken there, but what do you suggest ? let the gangs/cartels go about their business, believeing the problem will solve itself, or clamp down on them ? and don't forget, organized crime in Brazil got out of hand and reached it's height, under whom ? the PT.

    Some of our main journalists, if no longer 'openly' pro-PT, are definitely still pro-left....and I doubt they'd be speculating with the intent to 'hurt' the left...but believe what you want.

    This is one of the things I've mentioned before - you are not in a position to see any of the subtle events or hear all the small-talk that goes on everyday and which few people pay attention to....far less UK doesn't make the headlines.

    Jan 15th, 2019 - 06:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    Yeah, I understand what you meant now. But I don't think being surrounded by small talk is always helpful to an impartial view. People spread what is most dramatic and salacious, and truth gets short shrift.

    As for the media, most is owned by the rich, aka businessmen, and they tend to be biased in their own favour. Journalists may be left-wing (probably less so in Brazil), but the owners do push a certain view and aren't going to support anything that might reduce their own advantages.

    Re Mexico, I'm afraid I don't have an answer. The obvious thing to do is legalise drugs and tax them so the money is going to the government instead of cartels, but you're not free to do that thanks to your powerful neighbour up north. B is never going to cross the US, it's the left who are the nationalists in Latin America.

    Otherwise, probably best to proceed cautiously, and look at regions in Brazil and other countries to see what worked and what made things worse. Some cities have managed to reduce crime, so what changed there? Also you can't focus just on enforcement but making sure young people have opportunities other than crime. However, that's not an easy problem either. Also, it would be interesting to know whether the cartels mostly kill each other and the police should focus on the disorganised crime to have the most impact on law-abiding citizens.

    Jan 15th, 2019 - 10:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • :o))

    Can't the entire indigenous population be integrated with the rest of the population and resettled into civilization?

    Jan 16th, 2019 - 07:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    @ :o))
    Brazil cannot provide sufficient jobs, education, medical care and in some cases even food for their existing 'civilised' population. How much do you think they can do for the Indians? What do they have to offer them except joining the poverty-stricken masses? Plus the Indians are particularly susceptible to disease, so the government won't be integrating the *entire* population, only the survivors.

    Jan 16th, 2019 - 10:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • :o))


    Quite true!

    That's why I was told that the BIGGEST problem of Brazil, is overpopulation! Brazil can only afford to pay an Average Miserable Income of about US$ 3-400/Month to the population of over 200M. So by reducing the population maybe to less than 100M, the average income can [theoretically at least] be DOUBLED, practically to eliminate poverty!

    Luckily, the New Govt is taking the right [& drastic] steps to reach this target by promoting the sales of arms, sales of poisonous insecticides, etc, cutting down the social health etc. supports, eliminating the red-tape for chopping off the trees, supporting mining, etc, etc, etc - you name it!

    Afterall, The Guy was involved in politics for nearly 30 years and did absolutely nothing worthwhile for the population.

    To add salt to the injury, The Military Regime lasted more than 20 years and the population became poorer. [Forget about the torture, etc - after all, the masses are trained to accept/enjoy it - CALMLY]

    And still, not so surprisingly, those who actually went through the hardships during the regime, also voted for The Guy!

    Is there more ignorance than that?

    [NOTE: I'm NOT a Lulla-Promoter]

    Realistically speaking, the greater is the number of the ignorants, the better for the politicians! A clear example of: “The people have the governments they deserve”

    # 1: The ignorant, illiterate and still malleable people are a blessing from The God to politicians.

    # 2: So why shouldn't they - irrespective to a politician or a political party - profit form such a great opportunity?

    Jan 16th, 2019 - 11:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    By ‘small talk’ I mean different opinions/sides to the same problem, which u listen to on TV interviews, ‘n while I don’t see how they can be “helpful to an ‘impartial’ view”, what IS an ‘impartial’ view ? is it ‘impartial’ when I agree with you and ‘partial’ when I don’t ? What I’m saying is the different opinions serve to open your eyes to possibilities that don’t make the news…which may/ may not contribute to reinforcing, or changing, yr ‘views’, or yr opinion.

    I consider myself open enough to rational, logical argument, backed by facts when ncry, which can, ‘n have, in the past, modified some of my opinions. Not all that comes frm the left has to be unreasonable, nor from the right, provided the motives behind it are not purely ideological, or are intended to mislead the public. Those who “spread what is most dramatic ‘n salacious”, because it sounds good, or serves their narrative, w/o any foundation, have no commitment with the truth.

    “As for the media, most is owned by the rich, aka businessmen, and they tend to be biased in their own favour”…of course. Most are…and “in their own favor” usually implies playing the govt’s game…few are openly against govt, ‘n the network heads do enforce what favors them.
    Even b4 the PT took over in 2003, one could see a move to the left, ‘n if their jobs depended on it, easy to unstand why many, ‘n more ‘n more, journalists would embrace left-wing ideas (besides journalism school being full of lefties).

    Re Mexico ok, u don’t have an answer, but then I have to ask YOU : has the UK adopted yr suggestion, legalized ALL drugs, and tax them ? While I can see that logic behind light drugs (‘weed’), is that what you advocate, or would it be for ALL, even crack, cocaine etc? the question remains, would, or how would legalizing ALL drugs benefit society, or stop trafficking ? it’s a multi-billion biz, ‘n organized crime isn’t about to allow govt to take over.
    I'd let the drug gangs kill each other / focus on street crime.

    Jan 17th, 2019 - 06:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    “is it ‘impartial’ when I agree with you and ‘partial’ when I don’t ?”

    No, of course not. Besides, you never agree with me. ;) When you said small talk, I was thinking of Brexit and the sort of misinformation I heard (and hear) people confidently spouting in pubs. Not to mention the deceptive promises the official campaigns made, and even put on the side of buses. Then there were the misleading tabloid headlines... The problem is that if you hear something repeated enough times, you start to think there's something in it. Even more so if people you respect believe it (because they didn't check either).

    To get an impartial view you'd have to study the issue yourself, from all sides, and dismiss any ideas that turned out to be false. But life is too short to apply this to everything. That's one reason it's useful to talk to someone with opposing views; you realise what you have been taking for granted and can go and educate yourself better. Sometimes that leads to changing your mind, more often just to a better understanding of a complex issue and how other people can think differently

    “Even b4 the PT took over in 2003, one could see a move to the left”

    Makes sense, but they were openly against Dilma's government in spite of that, and Congress probably wouldn't have dared impeach her otherwise. Maybe she should have turned her life into a sitcom on twitter? - like they are claiming Bolso did, but that doesn't seem her style. Anyway, I guess you are now seeing a shift to the right, as B has openly told them their jobs depend on it.

    “has the UK adopted yr suggestion, legalized ALL drugs, and tax them ?”

    No, but I don't rule the country. :) And I would legalise all drugs, but only the soft ones would be available to buy. For hard drugs, probably the government would supply them to addicts under certain conditions, to prevent them turning to crime and stop them funding the dealers. Hopefully at least some addicts would be treatable, but the aim is to minimise harm.

    Jan 17th, 2019 - 10:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!