AFP UK

Damaged Amazon rainforest teetering on the brink

Something is wrong.

Holed up in her lab, Brazilian atmospheric chemist Luciana Gatti crunches her numbers again and again, thinking there is a mistake.

But the same bleak conclusion keeps popping up on her screen: the Amazon, the world’s biggest rainforest — the “lungs of the Earth,” the “green ocean,” the thing humanity is counting on to inhale our pollution and save us from the mess we’ve made of the planet — is now emitting more carbon than it absorbs.

Splashed across South America in an exuberant blob of deep green, the Amazon basin is one of the world’s great wildernesses, a place where life teems in the heat of the tropics, fed by the myriad rivers criss-crossing the jungle like blue blood vessels.

Home to more than three million species, the rainforest bursts with lush vegetation, which absorbs huge amounts of carbon through photosynthesis — a key fact as humankind struggles to stop heating the planet with greenhouse gases.

As carbon dioxide emissions have surged by 50 percent in 60 years, to nearly 40 billion tonnes worldwide, the Amazon has absorbed a large amount of that pollution — nearly two billion tonnes a year, until recently.

But humans have also spent the past half-century tearing down and burning whole swathes of the Amazon to make way for cattle ranches and farmland.

Gatti, who works at Brazil’s national space agency, has been tracking how much carbon the region emits and absorbs, watching for signs of a looming nightmare: that the destruction could push the Amazon to a “tipping point” where much of the rainforest dries up and turns to savannah.

Climate scientists say passing that point would be catastrophic: instead of helping curb climate change, the Amazon would suddenly accelerate it. Plummeting rainfall would cause its trees to die off en masse, releasing up to a decade’s worth of worldwide carbon emissions back into the atmosphere — and dooming our efforts to hold global warming somewhere near a livable limit.

When not in her lab outside Sao Paulo, Gatti can be found training bush pilots to collect her samples, by diving in a downward spiral from 14,500 feet, sucking up little flasks of air.

The bespectacled 61-year-old, who needs motion-sickness pills before each flight, has watched those flasks tell a steadily worsening story over the past decade.

In July, she and her team published their grimmest findings yet, in the journal Nature.

First: the Amazon is now a net carbon source, mainly because of humans setting it on fire. Second: even subtracting emissions caused by fires, the southeastern Amazon is now a net carbon emitter.

That part of the Amazon — the heart of cattle country in Brazil, the world’s biggest producer and exporter of beef and soy — no longer needs our help to spew carbon into the air. It has started doing so all by itself.

“We’re killing the Amazon. And that’s not something our climate models have taken into account. As bad as the predictions are, they’re actually optimistic,” says Gatti.

“The Amazon has become a carbon source way sooner than anyone thought. That means we’re going to reach the horror-show scenario way sooner, too.”

Gatti’s is one of several recent studies to sound a blaring alarm on the Amazon.

It is based on data from 2010 to 2018.

Since then, the destruction has accelerated — especially in Brazil, home to 60 percent of the Amazon, where far-right President Jair Bolsonaro took office in 2019 with strong backing from the farm lobby, pushing to open protected lands and indigenous reservations to agribusiness and mining.

Under Bolsonaro, deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon has surged from an average of 6,500 square kilometers (2,500 square miles) per year during the previous decade to around 10,000 — an area nearly the size of Lebanon.

Scientists say it is impossible to be sure just how close the rainforest now is to the tipping point. But Gatti’s findings suggest we are teetering on the brink — if not tumbling over it already, at least in part of the Amazon.

How have we come this close to killing one of Earth’s most vital resources — one our own survival may depend on?

It is, in some ways, a story of evil: of bad guys exploiting a lawless frontier, festering corruption and their fellow human beings to rip riches from the land.

But it is also the story of all humanity: our troubled relationship with nature, our endless appetites, our seeming inability to stop.

This is a series of snapshots of how we got here, and where we go next.

– Welcome to the jungle –

Today, driving through the southeastern Amazon, there is little sign left of the rainforest.

It is a land of cowboy hats, boots with spurs and outsize belt buckles, of dusty towns packed with agricultural supply shops and Evangelical churches, of billboards advertising cattle auctions and rodeos, or welcoming visitors with the declaration: “Our town backs Bolsonaro.”

Vast plains of pasture and soybeans stretch to the horizon, dotted by grazing cattle and the occasional patch of forest or solitary tree.

It is almost hard to imagine it was once covered in jungle. But when Jordan Timo Carvalho moved here, in 1994, clearing the rainforest was still a massive, dirty job for would-be ranchers.

Timo, who grew up in Minas Gerais, in southeastern Brazil, had just graduated with a degree in agricultural engineering when his father bought some land for him to ranch from a World War II veteran-turned-Amazonian pioneer in Sao Felix do Xingu county, in the state of Para.

Then 24, Timo instantly took to the Wild West spirit in this frontier outpost of fortune-seekers, riffraffs and poor migrants looking to turn around their luck.

Brazil’s military dictatorship (1964-1985) had launched the large-scale “colonization” of the Amazon in 1970.

In a country then modernizing so fast its economic growth was dubbed the “Brazilian Miracle,” the regime saw the Amazon as backwards, and created a “National Integration Plan” to build roads across the rainforest.

It mounted a publicity campaign to attract pioneers, promising “Land without men for men without land” — never mind the indigenous peoples who had lived in the Amazon for millennia.

But the state had little presence on the ground, leading to a chaotic free-for-all that still reigned by the time Timo arrived — and lingers to this day.

Timo, a charismatic swashbuckler with a brown hat that looks part cowboy, part fedora, remembers slaughtering cows to trade them for gold with hungry wildcat miners, stashing the proceeds in a film canister in his shirt pocket and sleeping with his rifle in his hands, a pistol tucked into his waistband.

He cleared the 3,000 hectares (7,500 acres) for his father’s ranch using the same method everyone in the region did, he says: slashing and burning the rainforest, often with forced labor.

“It was all done with what they now call ‘modern slavery.’ That was the only way to do it back then,” he says.

The 51-year-old tells of a time he and his neighbor decided they needed 200 workers to clear new land. So they did the rounds of the local brothels, picking up down-and-out drunks and paying their tabs.

They locked them in a shed with a supply of food and alcohol, posting four gunmen outside.

When they had enough men, they loaded them on a ferry — with help from the police — and shipped them six hours down the Xingu River, a tributary of the Amazon, to the place they were deforesting.

“Those were crazy times,” Timo says.

He is unabashed telling these stories, which he paints as the reckless adventures of youth — his and the region’s. But he has had a change of heart about the destructive, violent process of turning the rainforest to pastureland.

Now a proud dad of one, he founded a consulting firm in 2009 to help slaughterhouses ensure they source cattle from ranches that do not deforest.

These days, he fights the environmental destruction he once took part in.

“The Amazon’s big issue is lawlessness,” he says.

“When you can’t apply the law, the bad guys win.”

It remains a pressing problem.

– Cattle capital –

According to one widely cited study, the Amazon will reach the tipping point when 20 to 25 percent of it is deforested.

We are currently at 15 percent — up from six percent in 1985.

Most of that destroyed rainforest — an estimated 80 to 90 percent — is now pasture for cattle.

Sao Felix has led the way. The sprawling county, which had 200,000 cows in 1994, has become Brazil’s beef capital, with over two million head of cattle — more than 15 for every inhabitant.

It also leads Brazil in emissions, releasing the equivalent of nearly 30 million tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2018, more than Sao Paulo.

In fact, seven of the 10 counties with the highest emissions in Brazil are in the Amazon, the result of burning down the rainforest and replacing it with methane-emitting cattle.

The destruction isn’t as senseless as it might seem: many ranchers say raising cattle in the Amazon is one of the easiest ways to make money there is.

The process is simple. First, cut the old-growth trees from a plot of land and sell them for timber. Then, burn what’s left.

Next, plant grass, put up fencing, bring in some cattle and let them graze. A truckload of fattened bulls brings in around 110,000 reais ($20,000).

The soil wears out quickly with this method. But it is easy enough to clear new pasture every few years, especially for those who have no qualms about occupying public land.

Environmentalists say the destruction has grown more brazen under Bolsonaro, a 66-year-old former army officer who jokingly calls himself “Captain Chainsaw.”

A surge in fires in the Amazon in 2019, his first year in office, caused a global outcry and drew backlash from investors.

Under pressure, Bolsonaro, who comes up for reelection next year, has since banned fires during the dry season and deployed the army to the Amazon.

But there has been no drop in deforestation.

Enforcing environmental regulations on the ground is notoriously difficult in Brazil.

In Sao Felix, that thankless job falls to the county’s environment secretary, Sergio Benedetti, who has a team of 11 field officers to police an area more than twice the size of Switzerland.

Benedetti, 50, originally hails from Sao Paulo. An affable corporate type, he moved here a decade ago to work for Brazilian mining giant Vale, running environmental protection programs.

He remembers his surprise on arriving in the Amazon region, which he thought of as the jungle.

“It was just pasture, pasture, cows, pasture. I thought, ‘Where’s the forest?'” he says with a laugh.

Benedetti made the jump to government work in January, and is still brimming with the energy of a newcomer.

But he is aware of the daunting task he faces.

“Deforestation, fires, illegal mines — it’s part of the culture here. A big part of my job is changing that,” says the tall, clean-cut father of three.

He points to a group of motorcyclists riding through downtown Sao Felix without helmets.

“This is a lawless land,” he says.

A day later, Benedetti is sitting in the back of a 4×4 truck, crossing the Xingu River by ferry — there is no bridge here — then bouncing down a rutted dirt road.

He and his officers are trying to serve a summons on a landowner accused of illegal deforestation. But there is no sign of the man. The neighbors say they’ve never heard of him.

It is a common situation in Brazil. The Rural Environmental Registry, an online database launched in 2012 in an effort to hold landowners accountable for environmental crimes, is full of overlapping property claims, fake owners, fraudulent titles and attempts to seize public land.

Days later, Benedetti is in the car, leaving a voice message with an update on the case.

It turns out the landowner does exist — but claims he sold the land.

Benedetti’s office informed the man he would still face a fine of about $45,000. He will probably appeal, Benedetti says. It is a process that can drag on indefinitely. Studies report only around five percent of environmental fines get paid in Brazil.

Suddenly, Benedetti’s message cuts off.

“Sorry, I had a car coming at me here, driving up the wrong side of the road,” he resumes with a laugh.

“Good old Sao Felix do Xingu!”

– The cricket trick –

Razing the Amazon is a booming business for land-grabbers, who have perfected a hustle known as “grilagem” — loosely translated, “the cricket trick.”

“When someone has a fake document for a piece of land, he puts it in a drawer with some crickets,” or “grilos” in Portuguese, explains federal prosecutor Daniel Azeredo, one of the most prominent investigators fighting illegal deforestation in Brazil.

The crickets nibble at it, poop on it, “and after a while it starts to look old — like a real land title. That’s exactly what happens in the Amazon when people take public land.”

Environmentalists say the current industrial-scale destruction of virgin rainforest is driven by well-financed land-grabbers seeking massive profits.

The region is so vast and hard to police they often get away with it. The government has muddied things by repeatedly granting amnesties for illegal land claims — which Bolsonaro now wants to expand.

Sitting on the little veranda of his pale blue farmhouse, a wood-slat building with dirt floors, Jose Juliao do Nascimento tells the story of his fight to save his ranch from alleged land-grabbers.

Nascimento, who grew up in deep poverty, the oldest of 11 children, arrived in the Amazon from the central state of Goias, chasing the dream of a green El Dorado with abundant land.

He and his wife, Dilva, bought their 290 hectares for $10,000 in 2002, joining a group of 200 families who founded a little village in rural Sao Felix called Vila Novo Horizonte.

Although Nascimento had a notarized deed of sale, when he and his neighbors tried to register their land in the Rural Environmental Registry in 2012, they found the property was already registered to a company called AgroSB, he says.

AgroSB belongs to a group founded by powerful banker Daniel Dantas, nicknamed the “bad boy of Brazilian finance” for a history of corruption scandals and jail time.

Today, it operates a 145,000-hectare ranch in Sao Felix, part of which sits smack on the site of Vila Novo Horizonte.

Though Nascimento and his neighbors openly admit to deforesting to clear their farmland — a habit they are trying to break — they say their sins against the environment are nothing compared to the large-scale devastation wrought by AgroSB.

Residents accuse the firm of using heavy machinery around the clock to clear land on a massive scale. Federal prosecutors are currently pursuing 26 environmental cases against the company.

Nascimento says as AgroSB sought to assert its claim to their land, a group of shady characters started pressuring locals to leave.

“They had documents supposedly proving the land belonged to AgroSB. They offered to pay people a paltry sum to move out,” says Nascimento, 60, a father of five with an easy smile that belies his fighting spirit.

Local farmers say those overtures were often followed by a threat: “Either sell us the land, or we’ll buy it from your widow.”

They point a finger at two intermediaries identified by federal prosecutors in a 2003 report as “the organized crime bosses of Sao Felix do Xingu,” according to newspaper Folha de Sao Paulo: Joao Cleber de Sousa Torres and his brother Francisco.

The accusations in the report — including that the brothers orchestrated massive land-grabs in the area — did not dent the Torres’ clout.

Today, Joao Cleber is mayor of Sao Felix. Francisco, widely known as “Torrinho,” is president of the county’s powerful farmers’ federation.

The mayor did not agree to speak with AFP for this story.

Francisco de Sousa Torres denied involvement in organized crime. He told AFP he facilitated negotiations for properties that eventually became AgroSB’s ranch, but that “there was no pressure on anyone.”

AgroSB told AFP the allegations against it are “baseless” and that it practices sustainable farming and ranching.

Undaunted by facing one of the most powerful firms in Brazilian agribusiness, Nascimento and his neighbors have pooled their meager savings, hired two lawyers and taken AgroSB to court.

– Holding onto hope –

Of course blame for the Amazon’s degraded state goes beyond Bolsonaro, and Brazil.

Gatti, the atmospheric chemist, argues the whole world bears responsibility.

Illegal Amazon timber is exported to the United States and Europe. Massive quantities of beef produced on razed rainforest are shipped around the world. Soy grown in the Amazon helps feed cows, chickens and pigs across the globe.

Governments should ban those imports, Gatti says.

“If you want to protect the Amazon, stop consuming the products that fuel its destruction.”

So how much time do we have left to save the Amazon — if any?

Experts fear a vicious cycle of deforestation, fires and climate change will only accelerate its decline.

The effects are already being felt across Brazil.

Amazon deforestation is having an impact on rainfall across a huge swathe of South America by shrinking the forest’s “flying rivers,” the vast amounts of precipitation generated by its 390 billion trees.

That contributed to the worst drought in nearly a century this year in Brazil’s southeast and central-west, wreaking havoc on crops and the hydroelectric dams the country depends on for two-thirds of its electricity.

The fallout already looks like the dystopian future climate scientists have warned of: Brazil has been hit recently by deadly sandstorms, devastating wildfires, soaring food prices and an electricity crisis.

Still, many experts say they are hopeful. There is no shortage of solutions — but we need to dive headfirst into all of them, they say.

A non-exhaustive list: achieve zero illegal deforestation; enforce current environmental regulations, then expand them; plant trees in deforested areas; increase the productivity of existing farms; prioritize forest-friendly agriculture, including crops such as cacao, acai berries and Brazil nuts.

Several recent studies have found one of the best solutions is expanding reservations for indigenous peoples, whose traditional cultures are often rooted in close communion with the natural world and deep respect for the environment.

Brazil has some 700 indigenous reservations — protected, semi-autonomous lands for native peoples. They cover around 13 percent of the country, including nearly a quarter of the Brazilian Amazon.

Many of Brazil’s 900,000 indigenous people are still fighting to reclaim the land they were forced from when settlers flooded the Amazon, a process that decimated native communities through a combination of genocide, torture, enslavement and disease.

Alessandra Munduruku is one of thousands of indigenous protesters who descended on Brasilia in August to fight a push by the Bolsonaro administration and its allies to block new indigenous reservations in cases where the native inhabitants were not present on the land in 1988 — including those who were displaced by force.

The protesters set up a sprawling camp near the seat of government, their traditional feather headdresses and bright costumes contrasting with the sleek white lines of Brazil’s ultra-modernist capital.

Munduruku, 37, a slight but fiery leader of the Munduruku people in Para, was decked out in a grass skirt and intricate black face paint, attacking Bolsonaro’s vision of the Amazon.

“Bolsonaro says we need development, not indigenous land. Tell me something: what development? Development that poisons our rivers and kills our forests? That leaves our people poor and hungry?” she says.

But she says she, too, is holding onto hope.

“There’s still a lot of forest left. There’s still time.”

The Amazon: a paradise lost?

Seen from the sky, the Amazon is an endless expanse of deep green, a place where life explodes from every surface, broken only by the blue rivers snaking across it.

Endless, that is, until it isn’t.

Fly toward the edges of the world’s biggest rainforest, and you will come to the vast brown scar tissue, the places where the jungle is being razed and burned to make way for roads, gold mines, crops and especially cattle ranches.

This is the fast-advancing “arc of deforestation” that cuts across South America, and it is a cataclysm in the making for our planet.

Thanks to its lush vegetation and the miracle of photosynthesis, the Amazon basin has, until recently, absorbed large amounts of humankind’s ballooning carbon emissions, helping stave off the nightmare of rampant climate change.

But studies indicate the rainforest is near a “tipping point,” at which it will dry up and turn to savannah, its 390 billion trees dying off en masse.

Already, the destruction is quickening, especially since far-right President Jair Bolsonaro took office in 2019 in Brazil — home to 60 percent of the Amazon — with a push to open protected lands to agribusiness and mining.

The devastation is growing for the Amazon’s exquisitely intricate web of interdependent species — more than three million of them — including iconic wildlife such as the powerful harpy eagle and sleek, majestic jaguar.

Violent incursions by illegal gold miners into indigenous lands have also taken a terrible toll on native peoples, the best guardians of the forest because of their traditions of deep respect for nature.

“The sun is hotter, the rivers are drying up, the animals are disappearing. Things are falling apart,” says Eldo Shanenawa, a leader of the Shanenawa people in northwestern Brazil, who at 42 years old says he has seen the Amazon change before his eyes.

Scientists say if the Amazon reaches the tipping point, instead of helping curb climate change, it will suddenly accelerate it, spewing up to a decade’s worth of carbon emissions back into the atmosphere.

“As bad as the predictions are (on climate change), they’re actually optimistic…. We’re going to reach the horror-show scenario way sooner,” says Brazilian atmospheric chemist Luciana Gatti.

“We’re killing the Amazon.”

This is, in some ways, a story of evil: of violent bad guys in black hats exploiting a lawless frontier, political corruption and massive inequality to increase their wealth on riches ripped from the land.

But it is also the story of all humanity: our relationship with nature, our endless appetites, our seeming inability to stop.

After all, the gold, timber, soy and beef destroying the rainforest are a question of global supply and demand.

The products killing the Amazon can be found in homes around the world.

HPV vaccines 'substantially' reduce cervical cancer risk: study

Cervical cancer cases plummeted among British women who received a vaccination against the human papillomavirus, according to a study published Thursday.

In comparing cervical cancer and precancer rates before and after an HPV immunisation programme was introduced in England in 2008, the researchers found a “substantial reduction”, especially among the youngest women to have received the jab, according to results published in The Lancet medical journal. 

“Our study provides the first direct evidence of the effect of HPV vaccination using the bivalent Cervarix vaccine on cervical cancer incidence,” the authors wrote.

The estimated risk reduction was most notable among those who had been vaccinated at the earliest possible ages of 12-13 years old, with an 87 percent drop. Those immunised between ages 16-18 saw a 34 percent dip, the study found.

Cervical cancer, which is caused by HPV — a common sexually transmitted infection — is preventable with reliable and safe vaccines, and also curable if caught early and treated.

Last year, the World Health Organization launched a global strategy to eliminate the disease, which is one of the most common female cancers and kills hundreds of thousands annually. 

While the latest study appears to support the broad use of HPV vaccines, uptake and availability of the shots pose an issue, according to a commentary accompanying the results.

“Even in a wealthy country, such as England with free access to HPV immunisation, uptake has not reached the 90% vaccination target of girls aged 15 years set by WHO,” wrote gynaecologists Maggie Cruickshank and Mihaela Grigore.

“Covid-19 is an additional challenge to delivering HPV vaccination but only adds to a long list, including access to affordable vaccines, infrastructure for low temperature-controlled supply chains, delivery, and waste disposal.”

The authors of the study also noted several limitations, including that cervical cancer rarely appears in the age group they surveyed — individuals who today are no older than 25 — even in the absence of vaccines.

HPV vaccines 'substantially' reduce cervical cancer risk: study

Cervical cancer cases plummeted among British women who received a vaccination against the human papillomavirus, according to a study published Thursday.

In comparing cervical cancer and precancer rates before and after an HPV immunisation programme was introduced in England in 2008, the researchers found a “substantial reduction”, especially among the youngest women to have received the jab, according to results published in The Lancet medical journal. 

“Our study provides the first direct evidence of the effect of HPV vaccination using the bivalent Cervarix vaccine on cervical cancer incidence,” the authors wrote.

The estimated risk reduction was most notable among those who had been vaccinated at the earliest possible ages of 12-13 years old, with an 87 percent drop. Those immunised between ages 16-18 saw a 34 percent dip, the study found.

Cervical cancer, which is caused by HPV — a common sexually transmitted infection — is preventable with reliable and safe vaccines, and also curable if caught early and treated.

Last year, the World Health Organization launched a global strategy to eliminate the disease, which is one of the most common female cancers and kills hundreds of thousands annually. 

While the latest study appears to support the broad use of HPV vaccines, uptake and availability of the shots pose an issue, according to a commentary accompanying the results.

“Even in a wealthy country, such as England with free access to HPV immunisation, uptake has not reached the 90% vaccination target of girls aged 15 years set by WHO,” wrote gynaecologists Maggie Cruickshank and Mihaela Grigore.

“Covid-19 is an additional challenge to delivering HPV vaccination but only adds to a long list, including access to affordable vaccines, infrastructure for low temperature-controlled supply chains, delivery, and waste disposal.”

The authors of the study also noted several limitations, including that cervical cancer rarely appears in the age group they surveyed — individuals who today are no older than 25 — even in the absence of vaccines.

US pay-to-view autopsy organizer defends $500 event

The organizer of a pay-to-view autopsy in the United States defended the event Wednesday, after an outcry by the family of the dead man who did not know he would be dissected in front of a live audience.

Around 70 people forked over up to $500 each to watch in person an anatomist cut up the body of 98-year-old David Saunders in a hotel ballroom in Oregon last month.

Over the course of several hours, Saunders’ organs — including his brain — were removed by Dr. Colin Henderson, a retired professor of anatomy, in a procedure he said he had performed frequently during his teaching career, local broadcaster King 5 reported.

Video filmed by the channel shows audience members donning surgical gloves and appearing to touch the body.

“It was very educational,” the outlet quoted an attendee named Monica as saying. “It was very respectful to the person that donated their body.”

The event was organized by Death Science, which calls itself “an independent education platform that works with educators to teach beyond the classroom.”

Tickets for the double-header event said the morning would be “a forensic autopsy on a full human cadaver.”

That would be followed in the afternoon by “a formal anatomical dissection (which) will offer us a unique look at what is under our skin, through our bodies and how it all works together.”

“There will be several opportunities for attendees to get an up-close-and-personal look at the cadaver,” the ticketing page said. “Cadaver access before, after and during breaks.”

In a statement to AFP, Death Science founder Jeremy Ciliberto said the aim of the event “was to create an educational experience for individuals who have an interest in learning more about human anatomy.”

– No laws broken –

King 5 reported that family of the dead man had no idea his body would be cut up in front of a paying audience.

The news outlet cited the Louisiana funeral director who handled the corpse as saying the family thought it would be used for medical research when it was passed on to Med Ed Labs, a company that solicits corpse donation for “the advancement of medicine and science,” according to its website.

Bodies donated for medical science, typically to universities that train medical professionals, are cremated after use and the ashes are returned to next-of-kin. The process removes burial and other costs typically incurred with a funeral.

Ciliberto said his company was not privy to any agreement between the dead man’s family and Med Ed Labs, but that the company had confirmed to him “that the provided cadaver was donated for research, medical and educational purposes.”

Obteen Nassiri of Med Ed Labs told AFP his company had been unaware of the commercial audience for the autopsy-dissection, and would not have provided the cadaver if they had known.

“We were under the impression this donor would be used to train students interested in science, paramedics, medical examiners, coroners offices in anatomical dissections and the study of the human body,” he said.

Nassiri said he had spoken with the family. “We’re taking full responsibility and assuming full costs for the return of the body to the family for cremation.”

Ciliberto said while he had no further pay-per-view autopsies scheduled at this time, he would take “additional steps” in future collaborations.

“We understand that this event has caused undue stress for the family and we apologize for that,” he said.

A spokesman for police in Portland, where the event took place, said detectives had consulted with prosecutors and determined no laws had been broken.

US pay-to-view autopsy organizer defends $500 event

The organizer of a pay-to-view autopsy in the United States defended the event Wednesday, after an outcry by the family of the dead man who did not know he would be dissected in front of a live audience.

Around 70 people forked over up to $500 each to watch in person an anatomist cut up the body of 98-year-old David Saunders in a hotel ballroom in Oregon last month.

Over the course of several hours, Saunders’ organs — including his brain — were removed by Dr. Colin Henderson, a retired professor of anatomy, in a procedure he said he had performed frequently during his teaching career, local broadcaster King 5 reported.

Video filmed by the channel shows audience members donning surgical gloves and appearing to touch the body.

“It was very educational,” the outlet quoted an attendee named Monica as saying. “It was very respectful to the person that donated their body.”

The event was organized by Death Science, which calls itself “an independent education platform that works with educators to teach beyond the classroom.”

Tickets for the double-header event said the morning would be “a forensic autopsy on a full human cadaver.”

That would be followed in the afternoon by “a formal anatomical dissection (which) will offer us a unique look at what is under our skin, through our bodies and how it all works together.”

“There will be several opportunities for attendees to get an up-close-and-personal look at the cadaver,” the ticketing page said. “Cadaver access before, after and during breaks.”

In a statement to AFP, Death Science founder Jeremy Ciliberto said the aim of the event “was to create an educational experience for individuals who have an interest in learning more about human anatomy.”

– No laws broken –

King 5 reported that family of the dead man had no idea his body would be cut up in front of a paying audience.

The news outlet cited the Louisiana funeral director who handled the corpse as saying the family thought it would be used for medical research when it was passed on to Med Ed Labs, a company that solicits corpse donation for “the advancement of medicine and science,” according to its website.

Bodies donated for medical science, typically to universities that train medical professionals, are cremated after use and the ashes are returned to next-of-kin. The process removes burial and other costs typically incurred with a funeral.

Ciliberto said his company was not privy to any agreement between the dead man’s family and Med Ed Labs, but that the company had confirmed to him “that the provided cadaver was donated for research, medical and educational purposes.”

Obteen Nassiri of Med Ed Labs told AFP his company had been unaware of the commercial audience for the autopsy-dissection, and would not have provided the cadaver if they had known.

“We were under the impression this donor would be used to train students interested in science, paramedics, medical examiners, coroners offices in anatomical dissections and the study of the human body,” he said.

Nassiri said he had spoken with the family. “We’re taking full responsibility and assuming full costs for the return of the body to the family for cremation.”

Ciliberto said while he had no further pay-per-view autopsies scheduled at this time, he would take “additional steps” in future collaborations.

“We understand that this event has caused undue stress for the family and we apologize for that,” he said.

A spokesman for police in Portland, where the event took place, said detectives had consulted with prosecutors and determined no laws had been broken.

Planet vs people as Panama's mangroves are turned into coal

Elieser Rodriguez emerges blackened from the thick smoke of burning pyres slowly transforming the limbs of mangroves into charcoal — a livelihood much maligned by environmental and climate campaigners in Panama. 

He says he has no other choice for a living. 

“This is the daily survival of my family, of my children, of my wife,” Rodriguez told AFP in El Espave, a town about 80 kilometers (50 miles) southwest of Panama City with a mangrove forest as its backyard.

“I am 30 years old and have been working at this from 16, 15. It does not bring me wealth… this is a means of survival.”

About 200 families in El Espave, on the banks of the Bahia de Chame, a large bay, work in the production of mangrove charcoal, which they sell to pizzerias and restaurants.

Panama, according to its environment ministry, boasts more than 437,000 acres (177,000 hectares) of mangrove, of which 35 percent, including around Chame bay, is protected.

Harvesting the mangroves is prohibited, but for the residents of El Espave, making coal from the tree is an ancient tradition, a way of life, and their only source of income.

Rodriguez’s grandfather and great-grandfather did the same work in the days before the electric saws and boat engines used today.

“If they close this place, what are we going to do? How are we going to live? How are we going to eat?” asked Dario Hidalgo, 42, whose job is to build the coal-making “ovens.”

“And the children who are growing up, what will become of them? What will they do? I think that if there is nothing they will turn to crime, to easy money,” he told AFP.

– Carbon sinks –

The community and the government are keen to find a solution to this age-old conflict between conservation and survival.

According to the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), mangroves protect coastlines from erosion and extreme weather events, improve water quality by filtering, and serve as nurseries for many marine creatures.

They also help fight climate change — sequestering as much as 22.8 million tons of carbon each year in their leaves, trunks, roots and the soil.

They can contain more carbon per square meter than tropical rainforests, according to UNEP. 

Panama’s mangroves, according to the environment ministry, hold some 52 million tons.

But if degraded or lost, mangroves become sources of carbon dioxide and contribute to global warming — which threatens their survival in turn, particularly through sea level rise.

At El Espave, the sea enters the bay gently, forming narrow passageways to the coast. 

Via these water routes, Rodriguez and his colleagues go out by boat every morning, travelling some 15 minutes to areas where the mangrove trunks grow thick. They fell them with machetes and electric saws.

One of the men, Israel Gonzalez, 46, says the thinner plants are not touched, to preserve the ecosystem.

“When we cut here, we always leave two, three or four trees for the seed to fall and continue to reproduce,” he explained.

The community was also working on building a mangrove nursery, he said, to plant new seedlings and expand the forest they depend on so much. 

According to UNEP, over a quarter of the world’s original mangrove cover has already disappeared.

Environment ministry official Jose Julio Casas said authorities were examining ways to work with the community “so that they can use the resource in a responsible way.”

– Coal or jobs –

Currently engaged in an activity that is technically illegal, they “have to comply with a series of requirements because if they are going to use it, they themselves must help in the process of protecting and conserving the ecosystem,” Casas told AFP.

At El Espave, charcoal production happens near the port, in an area dotted with pyramid-shaped pyres smoldering like small volcanos.

“First you make the oven, then you stack the (mangrove) wood, then grass (to cover the wood), and then you put the sand” on top, Lesbia Batista 48, explained.

Each “oven” smolders for about four days before being doused with water. Once cooled down, the soil is removed to reveal the coal underneath.

Each pyre yields about 120 bags of coal that can collectively be sold for about $500 — an estimated $150 profit per “oven.”

Besides its contribution to health-threatening air-pollution, coal burning is also one of the major sources of planet-warming greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere.

“We are waiting for them (the government) to tell us how we can continue to produce charcoal, or that they bring us job proposals,” Batista.

“We do not want to stop working, nor that they take this away from us.”

NY state approves constitutional right to clean environment

The New York state constitution will be amended to say people have the right to clean air and water and a healthy environment, after voters said yes to the measure in a referendum that was part of local elections on Tuesday.

A total of 60.8 percent of voters approved the referendum question, compared to 27 percent against and 11.7 casting blank ballots, with 99 percent of state districts reporting. Supporters of the “yes” option are claiming victory.

Even though turnout was low — 3.1 million people voted out of 12.3 million who were registered — environmental activists said the constitutional amendment is an important step. It came as the COP26 climate summit was underway in Glasgow, Scotland. 

“We cannot take clean water and air for granted. For too long, our most vulnerable communities have been harmed by high levels of air pollution and water contamination,” said Julie Tighe, president of the New York League of Conservation Voters.

Questions remain on whether this environmental right will be truly binding and opponents are already warning that it would create a legal quagmire that could slow down economic development.

“The courts are going to have a big job ahead of them to sort out what exactly this means,” said Peter Bauer, the director of environmental advocacy group Protect the Adirondacks, whose name refers to a vast mountain and lake area in upstate New York, although he did say the vote is a success for people who care about the environment. 

Including rights linked to the environment in the constitution has become an issue in many countries.

In France, for instance, the government abandoned in July a bill that sought to guarantee protection of the environment and biodiversity and to fight climate change in a clause in the constitution, after it failed to win support in parliament.

The website Ballotpedia lists Pennsylvania as the first US state to include the environment in its constitution, in 1971. Five others followed — Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Montana and Rhode Island.

Climate 'reality check': 2021 global CO2 emissions near record levels

Global CO2 emissions caused mainly by burning fossil fuels are set to rebound in 2021 to pre-Covid levels, with China’s share increasing to nearly a third of the total, according to an assessment published Thursday.

Overall, CO2 pollution this year will be just shy of the record set in 2019, according to the annual report from the Global Carbon Project consortium, released as nearly 200 nations at the COP26 climate summit confront the threat of catastrophic warming.

Emissions from gas and highly polluting coal will rise this year by more than they dropped in 2020 due to the pandemic-driven economic slowdown. 

Capping the rise in global temperature to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels — as per the Paris Agreement — would limit mortality and damage, but requires slashing carbon emissions nearly in half by 2030 and to net zero by 2050, the UN’s climate science authority has warned. 

“This report is a reality check,” co-author Corrine Le Querre, a professor of climate change science at Britain’s University of East Anglia, told AFP. 

“It shows what’s happening in the real world while we are here in Glasgow talking about tackling climate change.”

– Waiting for the peak –

The new report will come as bad news at the 13-day COP26 meeting, where a diplomatic spat saw the United States accuse China and Russia of failing to step up their climate action ambitions.

China on its own will account for 31 percent of global emissions this year after its economy accelerated out of the economic lull ahead of others.

Carbon pollution from oil remains well below 2019 levels, but could surge as the transport and aviation sectors recover from pandemic disruption, said the study in the journal Earth System Science Data.

Taken together, the findings mean that future C02 emissions could eclipse the 40-billion tonne record set in 2019, which some have predicted — and many hoped — would be a peak.

“We cannot rule out more overall growth of emissions in 2022 as the transport sector continues to recover,” Le Quere said. “We are bound to have ups and downs over the next few years.”

The latest figures are in line with a recent International Energy Agency (IEA) forecast that emissions from energy would hit an all-time high in 2023, “with no clear peak in sight”.

“Perhaps we will start talking about peak emissions in 2023 or 2024?”, said Glen Peters, research director at the Centre for International Climate Research in Oslo and a co-author of the report.

– China surge –

Looking at the national level, the report found a return to pre-Covid patterns among the world top four carbon polluters, which account for 60 percent of global CO2 emissions.

In China — which has pledged to peak its emissions by 2030, and reach net-zero by 2060 — economic growth spurred by government incentives will see emissions grow 5.5 percent this year compared to 2019, the last year not affected by Covid.  

“The rebound in China was robust,” said Peters. “It looks like China is in a phase of strong growth again.”

India, the world’s other emerging giant, is on track for a similar percentage increase in carbon pollution, and will account for seven percent of the total this year.

2021 emissions in the US and EU will drop 3.7 and 4.2 percent, respectively, and their share of global emissions will stand at 14 and 7 percent.

The wild card that could determine how quickly the world can finally bend the emissions downward is coal, the report made clear.

“Mostly it’s about coal now,” said Le Quere. “This is where the big uncertainties are.”

Very little of the trillions of dollars chanelled to post-pandemic recovery was earmarked for green development, a trend that is continuing, she said.

– ‘It is possible’ –

“Economic incentives now are about driving consumption, and this is really pushing industry, production and coal.”   

Worldwide, decarbonisation — mainly switching from fossil fuels to renewable — continues to be outpaced by the demand for energy, adding to emissions.

But the report was not bereft of positive signals. 

Twenty-three countries accounting for a quarter of global emissions over the last decade — including the US, Japan, Germany, France and Britain — simultaneously saw strong growth and a significant decline in emissions, showing that the two can be decoupled. 

For 15 of these nations, this held true even when the carbon emissions from the production of imported goods was included.   

“This shows that these countries know how to do it, they demonstrate it’s possible.”

But the finding makes clear how daunting the Paris Agreement goals are, she added.

“If you want to reach net zero by 2050, you need to decrease emissions, on average, by 1.4 billion tonnes per year,” she said. 

“In 2020, during the pandemic, we had a drop of 1.6 billion tonnes — this shows you the scale of the action required.”

For Stella McCartney, fashion must ditch leather or die trying

The fashion industry must prepare to eliminate waste and take radical stances such as ditching animal leather altogether, said British designer Stella McCartney. 

In an interview with AFP on the sidelines of the UN climate summit in Glasgow Wednesday, McCartney said that fashion houses must “swap out bad business with good business” for the sake of the planet.

“Sadly we are one of the most harmful industries to the environment,” she said. 

“And I’m here to really kind of showcase the future of fashion and show everyone that basically there is another way and we have some solutions.”

As the vegetarian daughter of Paul and Linda McCartney, she got a green head start in life, transferring her eco-friendly upbringing to fashion. 

Despite initial scepticism from peers, McCartney has never used leather products since entering the industry three decades ago.  

The Kelvingrove Museum and Art Gallery in Glasgow is holding an installation during COP26 showcasing the innovative, low-carbon materials used by McCartney over the years.

Celebrity visitors to the installation included Prince Charles and actor Leonardo DiCaprio, both of whom are outspoken on environmental issues.

They include mycelium, which can be extracted directly from fungus and used as an animal skin substitute for making bags and shoes.

Also on display is NuCycl, a technology its makers say is capable of making natural and synthetic textiles infinitely recyclable. 

“We’re hoping, definitely, that these are viable solutions and we just need to bring them to the world’s attention,” said McCartney.

– ‘Viable solutions’ –

Fashion is the second largest manufacturing sector on Earth, responsible for up to 8 percent of all carbon emissions, according to research by the World Resources Institute.

The main challenge is getting more sustainable materials into clothes that will be worn by billions of people across the world.

“I mean, that’s the intention,” said McCartney. 

“We’re hoping, definitely that these are viable solutions and we just need to bring them to the world’s attention.”

McCartney once caused a stir with a video she released denouncing the mistreatment of animals within the industry, and extracts of that video were being shown at the exhibit.

“We need to let people know that, you know, hundreds of millions of animals are being killed every single year for fashion, for leather, for skins and animal glues,” said McCartney.

Just as fashion tastes change over time, so are younger generations less willing to wear animal products, she said.

“I think we’re in a moment though, where… we are becoming irrelevant very quickly and … generation X, Y, and Z will not buy into bad fashion, evil fashion, dirty fashion.”

– ‘$500 bn of waste’ –

After three decades in the industry, McCartney spoke of the lessons she had learned about the waste created by designers’ endless drive for innovation.

“People wear fast fashion maximum up to three times before they throw it away. And that’s creating over $500 billion worth of waste,” she said. 

“That, for me, is a business opportunity. So I’m trying to flip everything around. Something like, ‘Hey, you know what? You can take that waste. And I’ll show you a hoodie that I can make completely out of waste.'”

As well as being more ethical and better for the planet, McCartney believes that animal substitutes have a much stronger selling point. 

“We’re replacing it with a better product. It’s nicer for them to work with it,” she said. 

“Who wants to work in an abattoir?”

Close Bitnami banner
Bitnami