Posted on

Just Fight

Trump Admin creative tactics to fight climate change, despite themselves.

See? It matters how news is contextualized.

Brazilian farmers were sure a Swedish-Finnish multinational was planting eucalyptus trees on public land. And they were right:

Surrounded by nearly 100,000 hectares (247,000 acres) of eucalyptus plantations, Baixa Verde is a rare example of a local victory over a multinational in Brazil. The rural settlement owes its existence to nearly two decades of legal battles over land rights – but the fight is not over yet.

After fighting to retain their land, the families now face an unprecedented security crisis marked by armed clashes, arson and death threats, part of a wave of violence driven by a land dispute that has escalated since 2024.

Conflicts over land rights have long been an issue in the region. Obtaining property titles is commonly deemed to legitimise land grabs from traditional communities, and local people had suspected that Veracel Celulose – a pulp-production company jointly owned by the Swedish-Finnish company Stora Enso and the giant Brazilian pulp manufacturer Suzano – was planting eucalyptus trees on public land.

In 2008, Ercilio Souza, one of the founders of the Baixa Verde settlement, and Juenildo Oliveira Farias visited government archives to review public documents. They found the page that proved the 1,300 hectares in dispute were owned by the government. “We always knew that it was public land,” says Souza.

With the document in hand, they assembled 91 local families and joined the Fight for Land Movement (MLT), a ​​political and social organisation fighting for agrarian reform. Its first action was to occupy an area of a eucalyptus plantation used by Veracel, accusing the company of using public land.

Stories like this one may quickly disappear but we should give them more credence, if not prominence (attaboy, Guardian). Rather than the binary – this is great/that is awful –take some time to unpack a story and understand its complexities as a throughway, as appropriate. Be critical. Withhold the benefit of the doubt until it is deserved.

Also, wtf, Swedish-Finnish conglomerate, get your act together.

Image: A eucalyptus plantation in Baixa Verde owned by Veracel Celulose.  Photograph: Sara Van Horn (Guardian)

Posted on

Cyber Blogging

Just go here. Lemieux points the way. Rees on Right-wronging the Iracle:

In that 2005 essay, you’ll recall, Ignatieff said the reason the American public wanted to invade Iraq was to spread “The Ultimate Task of Thomas Jefferson’s Dream.” (I am not making a joke. This is for real.) And, he implied, anyone who opposed the invasion of Iraq did so because they hated Thomas Jefferson– and they didn’t believe in the Ultimate Tasks of Dreams!

So far, so GREAT, right?

Ignatieff’s latest essay is what Latin people call a “mea culpa,” which is Greek for “Attention publishers: I am ready to write a book about the huge colossal mistake I made.” I imagine the book will be about a man struggling to do the right thing– a man who thinks with his heart and dares, with a dream in each fist, to reach for the stars. It’s about a journey: a journey from idealistic, starry-eyed academic to wizened, war-weary politician. (Ignatieff used to work at Harvard’s Kennedy School; now he’s Prime Chancellor of Canada’s Liberal Delegate or whatever kind of wack-ass, kumbaya government they’ve got up there.)

In a way, it’s a story much like Cormac McCarthy’s recent best-selling “The Road.” Both follow a hero’s long march through thankless environments– in Ignatieff’s case, from the theory-throttled, dusty tower of academia to the burned-out hell-hole of representative politics. Danger lurks. Grime abounds. The narrative tension is: Can the hero be wrong about everything, survive, and still convince people he’s smarter than everyone in Moveon.org?

I was excited when I first saw this new essay: At last, Ignatieff was going to come clean about his super-duper-double-dipper errors. I expected a no-holds barred, personal excoriation. In fact, I assumed the first, last, and only sentence of the essay would be: “Please, for the love of God, don’t ever listen to me again.”

HOWEVER. . .