In 2008 the New York Times published this report:
RIO de JANEIRO — Marina Silva, the environmental minister who resigned this week, blamed “stagnation” in the government for her decision at a news conference on Thursday and acknowledged that governors in frontline Amazon states were pressing the president to rescind measures intended to check deforestation.
“There were questions from some governors about those measures, and they couldn’t be relaxed,” Ms. Silva said.
“It is crucial that we preserve the advances we have made, it is crucial that we don’t take a step backwards,” she said.
Her resignation on Tuesday shocked the international environmental community, which saw Ms. Silva, a former rubber tapper, as a bulwark against deforestation of the Amazon.It also surprised the government of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who came into office in 2003 being hailed as his country’s first “green” president (HD: my emphasis).
'Green', eh? Well, judge for yourself. After various comings and goings, Lula is back in power, and hosting the 50,000 environmentally-aware people who will be attending COP30 in Belém later this year.
In preparation for this event he is at last building a four-lane highway, the Avenida Liberdade, which has been on various drawing boards since 2012. It took COP, "a COP in the Amazon, not a COP about the Amazon" to use Lula's expression, to get 'spades in the ground' as politicians tend to say; 'spades in the ground' sounds a lot better than 'chainsaws in the forest'.
But a few weeks ago the BBC reported on an atrocity done on the Amazon in the name of climate activism.
A new four-lane highway cutting through tens of thousands of acres of protected Amazon rainforest is being built for the COP30 climate summit in the Brazilian city of Belém.
It aims to ease traffic to the city, which will host more than 50,000 people - including world leaders - at the conference in November.
The state government touts the highway's "sustainable" credentials, but some locals and conservationists are outraged at the environmental impact.
The Amazon plays a vital role in absorbing carbon for the world and providing biodiversity, and many say this deforestation contradicts the very purpose of a climate summit.
Along the partially built road, lush rainforest towers on either side - a reminder of what was once there. Logs are piled high in the cleared land which stretches more than 13km (8 miles) through the rainforest into Belém.
Diggers and machines carve through the forest floor, paving over wetland to surface the road which will cut through a protected area.
Source
The article is long and well worth reading. It discusses the people and animals (and ecosystems) that will be affected, and the livelihoods that will be disrupted (or, perhaps, ended).
<autobiographical_note>
Two weeks ago I went with MrsK to a planning meeting about a development that has a kind of relevance (although of a rather bathetic kind) to this story. When I moved to this part of the world forty years ago it struck me that locals insisted, rather quaintly, it seemed to me, on referring to Spencers Wood as 'the Village'. 'Strip development' (along the roads, leaving the green bits relatively unencroached-on) had begun in the previous thirty-odd years, with 'infill' being done only between one house and another.
Recently, though, 'infill' has had a makeover. It is now a matter of filling in the space between one strip of houses along one road, and another strip of houses on an adjacent road. 'The Village' is becoming a suburb of Greater Reading.
<detail>
The meeting was to invite comments on an application for Outline Planning Permission for a development of a few hundred new houses (not tens of thousands, like last time). I did comment, for what it's worth. Here is my original comment, not the ill-formatted and incomplete version that the council's SQL server (don't ask – it's a computer thing). The Lord alone knows what's going to happen when Wokingham discovers AI.
I object to this application - both in detail and in principle. It proposes a development with no credible basis (but with lip-service paid to infrastructure of course) and it invites members of the public to waste their time deciphering and criticizing a plan that is obviously incomplete. All the comments show how useless this is as a plan: the comments from Thames Water are particularly apposite: they have tried and failed to get the developers to address the plan's many obvious flaws. It is not a 'plan' at all in any useful sense. The developer obviously sees Outline Planning Permission as an irritating hoop to be jumped through and has chosen to insult the intelligence of its readers by trying to pass off a half-baked and ill thought through fever dream (sic. ...
<sic_note>
I initially put 'pipe dream' but dismissed it as a cliché, only to replace it with another – more modern but less apposite. Sorry. I'll try harder next time. But the 'plan' didn't inspire greater attention to detail.
</sic_note>
...).
</detail>
</autobiographical_note>
Last Word
For a long time I've been wondering about the difference (if any....
<note degree_of_prescription= "0">
I'm really not saying 'there's no difference'. I'm just saying I can't discern one. My grandfather certainly thought crispy was an abomination, but if I were more of a foodie I might be able to discern a difference. If there is one, I'd like to find out about it.
</note>
...) between crisp and crispy.
For some reason I've taken 1951 as a baseline for this Ngram ...
<headslap>
(I've just thought – my date of birth may have something to do with it).
</headslap>
In 1951 crisp was more than 40 times as common as crispy; in 2022 crispy was 10 times more common than that – still less common, but only ¼ less common than its shorter relative.
It now seems to have plateaued.
Basta😉 (More than...)
b