Questõessobre Inglês

   

 

   

 

   

 

   

 

   

 

   

 

   

 

     Critics haven’t been kind to Adam McKay’s eco-satire, but many climate experts are lauding it. Here four give their views

     Rarely has a film been as divisive as Adam McKay’s climate satire Don’t Look Up. Although it has been watched by millions, and is already Netflix’s third most watched film ever, the response from critics was largely negative. Many found its story of scientists who discover an asteroid heading for Earth a clumsy allegory for the climate crisis, while others just found it boring. But many in the climate movement have praised the film, and audience reviews have been generally positive.

     We asked four climate experts to give their views on the film. Warning: spoilers ahead.

      After 17 years of reporting on the climate crisis, I doubted at first that the film had much to tell me about the frustrations of communicating a hypothetical catastrophe. As the film’s scientists first struggled to clothe their data in sober, measured terms, then broke into swearing, armwaving shrieks about provable imminent apocalypse, I nodded along. Yes, that’s what it feels like, and no, no one listens, not until it is too late.

      Yet it was illuminating in unexpected ways – something I’ve always struggled with is how rational people can fail to grasp the scale of climate breakdown, how we could leave it so late. As the film shows, it’s partly because vested interests keep it that way, but it’s also just because we’re human. Believing in disaster before it strikes is fundamentally not how we work. 

     The role of the techno-loon, played by Mark Rylance, struck another chord. Cop26 was not a failure, though on the surface that was the obvious conclusion – it was more nuanced than that. Soon after the Cop26 circus left Glasgow, the danger of painting the outcome in such blackand-white terms became apparent, as wellmeaning experts concluded – in all seriousness – as talking didn’t work, our best hope would be for billionaires to bypass the UN and geoengineer the climate from space. Because obviously the answer to a vast uncontrolled experiment on the atmosphere is to conduct a vast uncontrolled experiment on the atmosphere.

    How Kate Dibiasky, the postgraduate student played by Jennifer Lawrence who discovered the comet, is portrayed as an unhinged hysterical woman, will resonate with many female climate scientists and activists whose crucial knowledge has been sidelined. The scene where her parents declare that they’re in favour of the jobs the comet will provide will resonate with millions of people, including me, trying to deal with relatives who have bought into political lies.

        […]

     Damian Carrington: ‘It highlights the absurdity of staring disaster in the face, then looking away’

      I loved Don’t Look Up, both as an entertainment and as a climate crisis parable. But the movie has been panned by many critics, with the main charge being that it is heavy-handed, blunt and too obvious. But that is exactly the point.

      Scientists have been issuing blunt warnings about obvious dangers of global heating for years and have been ignored – carbon emissions are still rising. The film perfectly skewers the key ways in which they have been ignored: for short-term political expediency and short-term corporate profit.

    In particular, the movie beautifully portrays the incredulity of scientists that their carefully constructed evidence can be dismissed with bluster such as “we’ll sit tight and assess” by leaders more concerned about today’s political weather and a media more interested in the minutiae of celebrities’ lives.

        […] 

The point of the film is savagely highlighting the absurdity of staring disaster in the face, then looking away rather than acting. In that respect, it is a triumph.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/jan/08/dont-look-upfour-climate-experts-on-the-polarising-disaster-film. Access: 08/01/2022.

     Critics haven’t been kind to Adam McKay’s eco-satire, but many climate experts are lauding it. Here four give their views

     Rarely has a film been as divisive as Adam McKay’s climate satire Don’t Look Up. Although it has been watched by millions, and is already Netflix’s third most watched film ever, the response from critics was largely negative. Many found its story of scientists who discover an asteroid heading for Earth a clumsy allegory for the climate crisis, while others just found it boring. But many in the climate movement have praised the film, and audience reviews have been generally positive.

     We asked four climate experts to give their views on the film. Warning: spoilers ahead.

      After 17 years of reporting on the climate crisis, I doubted at first that the film had much to tell me about the frustrations of communicating a hypothetical catastrophe. As the film’s scientists first struggled to clothe their data in sober, measured terms, then broke into swearing, armwaving shrieks about provable imminent apocalypse, I nodded along. Yes, that’s what it feels like, and no, no one listens, not until it is too late.

      Yet it was illuminating in unexpected ways – something I’ve always struggled with is how rational people can fail to grasp the scale of climate breakdown, how we could leave it so late. As the film shows, it’s partly because vested interests keep it that way, but it’s also just because we’re human. Believing in disaster before it strikes is fundamentally not how we work. 

     The role of the techno-loon, played by Mark Rylance, struck another chord. Cop26 was not a failure, though on the surface that was the obvious conclusion – it was more nuanced than that. Soon after the Cop26 circus left Glasgow, the danger of painting the outcome in such blackand-white terms became apparent, as wellmeaning experts concluded – in all seriousness – as talking didn’t work, our best hope would be for billionaires to bypass the UN and geoengineer the climate from space. Because obviously the answer to a vast uncontrolled experiment on the atmosphere is to conduct a vast uncontrolled experiment on the atmosphere.

    How Kate Dibiasky, the postgraduate student played by Jennifer Lawrence who discovered the comet, is portrayed as an unhinged hysterical woman, will resonate with many female climate scientists and activists whose crucial knowledge has been sidelined. The scene where her parents declare that they’re in favour of the jobs the comet will provide will resonate with millions of people, including me, trying to deal with relatives who have bought into political lies.

        […]

     Damian Carrington: ‘It highlights the absurdity of staring disaster in the face, then looking away’

      I loved Don’t Look Up, both as an entertainment and as a climate crisis parable. But the movie has been panned by many critics, with the main charge being that it is heavy-handed, blunt and too obvious. But that is exactly the point.

      Scientists have been issuing blunt warnings about obvious dangers of global heating for years and have been ignored – carbon emissions are still rising. The film perfectly skewers the key ways in which they have been ignored: for short-term political expediency and short-term corporate profit.

    In particular, the movie beautifully portrays the incredulity of scientists that their carefully constructed evidence can be dismissed with bluster such as “we’ll sit tight and assess” by leaders more concerned about today’s political weather and a media more interested in the minutiae of celebrities’ lives.

        […] 

The point of the film is savagely highlighting the absurdity of staring disaster in the face, then looking away rather than acting. In that respect, it is a triumph.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/jan/08/dont-look-upfour-climate-experts-on-the-polarising-disaster-film. Access: 08/01/2022.

  Freedom is a general term, like liberty, independence, autonomy, and equality. In reality, freedom cannot be absolute; no one can be completely free. Your talents, family situation, job, wealth, cultural norms, and laws against murder, for example, constrain and circumscribe your choices. And then there is the freedom of others, which necessarily limits yours.

  Broadly speaking, your rights, whatever they may be, define the limits to your freedom. In the Western tradition of freedom, these are your civil and political rights, including your freedom of speech, religion, and association. Some philosophers see these not only as morally justified rights in themselves, but also as the means for fulfilling other possible rights, like happiness.

  The international justification for your freedom is by reference to human rights, those due to you as a human being and object of international conventions. The most basic of all these rights are those defining what governments cannot do to you. In effect, these human rights define what many mean by democratic freedom. Your freedom of thought, expression, religion, association, is basic, as are the secret ballot, periodic elections, and the right to representation. In short, these rights say that you have a right to be free. This is universal: we all have internationally defined and protected human rights.

Rudolph Joseph Rummel. Why should you be

free?.Internet:<www.hawaii.edu> (adapted). 

  Freedom is a general term, like liberty, independence, autonomy, and equality. In reality, freedom cannot be absolute; no one can be completely free. Your talents, family situation, job, wealth, cultural norms, and laws against murder, for example, constrain and circumscribe your choices. And then there is the freedom of others, which necessarily limits yours.

  Broadly speaking, your rights, whatever they may be, define the limits to your freedom. In the Western tradition of freedom, these are your civil and political rights, including your freedom of speech, religion, and association. Some philosophers see these not only as morally justified rights in themselves, but also as the means for fulfilling other possible rights, like happiness.

  The international justification for your freedom is by reference to human rights, those due to you as a human being and object of international conventions. The most basic of all these rights are those defining what governments cannot do to you. In effect, these human rights define what many mean by democratic freedom. Your freedom of thought, expression, religion, association, is basic, as are the secret ballot, periodic elections, and the right to representation. In short, these rights say that you have a right to be free. This is universal: we all have internationally defined and protected human rights.

Rudolph Joseph Rummel. Why should you be

free?.Internet:<www.hawaii.edu> (adapted). 

  Freedom is a general term, like liberty, independence, autonomy, and equality. In reality, freedom cannot be absolute; no one can be completely free. Your talents, family situation, job, wealth, cultural norms, and laws against murder, for example, constrain and circumscribe your choices. And then there is the freedom of others, which necessarily limits yours.

  Broadly speaking, your rights, whatever they may be, define the limits to your freedom. In the Western tradition of freedom, these are your civil and political rights, including your freedom of speech, religion, and association. Some philosophers see these not only as morally justified rights in themselves, but also as the means for fulfilling other possible rights, like happiness.

  The international justification for your freedom is by reference to human rights, those due to you as a human being and object of international conventions. The most basic of all these rights are those defining what governments cannot do to you. In effect, these human rights define what many mean by democratic freedom. Your freedom of thought, expression, religion, association, is basic, as are the secret ballot, periodic elections, and the right to representation. In short, these rights say that you have a right to be free. This is universal: we all have internationally defined and protected human rights.

Rudolph Joseph Rummel. Why should you be

free?.Internet:<www.hawaii.edu> (adapted). 

  Freedom is a general term, like liberty, independence, autonomy, and equality. In reality, freedom cannot be absolute; no one can be completely free. Your talents, family situation, job, wealth, cultural norms, and laws against murder, for example, constrain and circumscribe your choices. And then there is the freedom of others, which necessarily limits yours.

  Broadly speaking, your rights, whatever they may be, define the limits to your freedom. In the Western tradition of freedom, these are your civil and political rights, including your freedom of speech, religion, and association. Some philosophers see these not only as morally justified rights in themselves, but also as the means for fulfilling other possible rights, like happiness.

  The international justification for your freedom is by reference to human rights, those due to you as a human being and object of international conventions. The most basic of all these rights are those defining what governments cannot do to you. In effect, these human rights define what many mean by democratic freedom. Your freedom of thought, expression, religion, association, is basic, as are the secret ballot, periodic elections, and the right to representation. In short, these rights say that you have a right to be free. This is universal: we all have internationally defined and protected human rights.

Rudolph Joseph Rummel. Why should you be

free?.Internet:<www.hawaii.edu> (adapted). 

  On May 13th, 1822, a group of 186 women sent Maria Leopoldina the Letter from the Bahian Women to Her Royal Highness Dona Leopoldina, congratulating her on her role in the patriotic rulings of her husband, Prince Regent Dom Pedro. The document acknowledged the contribution made by the then princess and empress-to-be to ensuring her husband’s permanence in Brazil, which they believed was a key factor in gaining independence from Portugal. “Far more than just a letter, it is a political manifesto,” notes historian Maria de Lourdes Viana Lyra. “At that time, in Brazil, women were given a subordinate role restricted to private household and family affairs. Outside the domestic sphere, women were made invisible, but that did not stop them from mobilizing politically to fight for independence in a variety of ways,” she states.

  In addition to isolated actions led by famous figures, there were other many significant actions that are still largely unknown to the general public, more specifically, those related to instances of collective mobilization of women active in the public arena during the fight for Brazilian independence. Historian Andréa Slemian expands on the matter. “Throughout this process, many women expressed themselves through letters, manifestos, and other texts. Thus, the nascent press in Brazil played an important role, not only by publishing these women’s ideas regarding independence on editorial pages, for example, but also by serving as a mouthpiece for views supporting women’s rights,” notes Slemian.

Ana Paula Orlandi. Unafraid to fight.

Internet: :<www.revistapesquisa.fapesp.br> (adapted).

  On May 13th, 1822, a group of 186 women sent Maria Leopoldina the Letter from the Bahian Women to Her Royal Highness Dona Leopoldina, congratulating her on her role in the patriotic rulings of her husband, Prince Regent Dom Pedro. The document acknowledged the contribution made by the then princess and empress-to-be to ensuring her husband’s permanence in Brazil, which they believed was a key factor in gaining independence from Portugal. “Far more than just a letter, it is a political manifesto,” notes historian Maria de Lourdes Viana Lyra. “At that time, in Brazil, women were given a subordinate role restricted to private household and family affairs. Outside the domestic sphere, women were made invisible, but that did not stop them from mobilizing politically to fight for independence in a variety of ways,” she states.

  In addition to isolated actions led by famous figures, there were other many significant actions that are still largely unknown to the general public, more specifically, those related to instances of collective mobilization of women active in the public arena during the fight for Brazilian independence. Historian Andréa Slemian expands on the matter. “Throughout this process, many women expressed themselves through letters, manifestos, and other texts. Thus, the nascent press in Brazil played an important role, not only by publishing these women’s ideas regarding independence on editorial pages, for example, but also by serving as a mouthpiece for views supporting women’s rights,” notes Slemian.

Ana Paula Orlandi. Unafraid to fight.

Internet: :<www.revistapesquisa.fapesp.br> (adapted).

Americans May Add Five Times More Plastic to the Oceans Than Thought

The United States is using more

plastic than ever, and waste exported for

recycling is often mishandled, according

to a new study.

The United States contribution

to coastal plastic pollution worldwide is

significantly larger than previously

thought, possibly by as much as five

times, according to a study published

Friday. The research, published in Science

Advances, is the sequel to a 2015 paper

by the same authors. Two factors

contributed to the sharp increase:

Americans are using more plastic than

ever and the current study included

pollution generated by United States

exports of plastic waste, while the earlier

one did not.

The United States, which does

not have sufficient infrastructure to

handle its recycling demands at home,

exports about half of its recyclable waste.

Of the total exported, about 88 percent

ends up in countries considered to have

inadequate waste management.

“When you consider how much

of our plastic waste isn’t actually

recyclable because it is low-value,

contaminated or difficult to process, it’s

not surprising that a lot of it ends up

polluting the environment,” said the

study’s lead author, Kara Lavender Law,

research professor of oceanography at

Sea Education Association, in a

statement.

The study estimates that in

2016, the United States contributed

between 1.1 and 2.2 million metric tons of

plastic waste to the oceans through a

combination of littering, dumping and 

Americans May Add Five Times More Plastic to the Oceans Than Thought

The United States is using more

plastic than ever, and waste exported for

recycling is often mishandled, according

to a new study.

The United States contribution

to coastal plastic pollution worldwide is

significantly larger than previously

thought, possibly by as much as five

times, according to a study published

Friday. The research, published in Science

Advances, is the sequel to a 2015 paper

by the same authors. Two factors

contributed to the sharp increase:

Americans are using more plastic than

ever and the current study included

pollution generated by United States

exports of plastic waste, while the earlier

one did not.

The United States, which does

not have sufficient infrastructure to

handle its recycling demands at home,

exports about half of its recyclable waste.

Of the total exported, about 88 percent

ends up in countries considered to have

inadequate waste management.

“When you consider how much

of our plastic waste isn’t actually

recyclable because it is low-value,

contaminated or difficult to process, it’s

not surprising that a lot of it ends up

polluting the environment,” said the

study’s lead author, Kara Lavender Law,

research professor of oceanography at

Sea Education Association, in a

statement.

The study estimates that in

2016, the United States contributed

between 1.1 and 2.2 million metric tons of

plastic waste to the oceans through a

combination of littering, dumping and 

Americans May Add Five Times More Plastic to the Oceans Than Thought

The United States is using more

plastic than ever, and waste exported for

recycling is often mishandled, according

to a new study.

The United States contribution

to coastal plastic pollution worldwide is

significantly larger than previously

thought, possibly by as much as five

times, according to a study published

Friday. The research, published in Science

Advances, is the sequel to a 2015 paper

by the same authors. Two factors

contributed to the sharp increase:

Americans are using more plastic than

ever and the current study included

pollution generated by United States

exports of plastic waste, while the earlier

one did not.

The United States, which does

not have sufficient infrastructure to

handle its recycling demands at home,

exports about half of its recyclable waste.

Of the total exported, about 88 percent

ends up in countries considered to have

inadequate waste management.

“When you consider how much

of our plastic waste isn’t actually

recyclable because it is low-value,

contaminated or difficult to process, it’s

not surprising that a lot of it ends up

polluting the environment,” said the

study’s lead author, Kara Lavender Law,

research professor of oceanography at

Sea Education Association, in a

statement.

The study estimates that in

2016, the United States contributed

between 1.1 and 2.2 million metric tons of

plastic waste to the oceans through a

combination of littering, dumping and