#blairo maggi

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

In Brazil, Agribusiness Lobby and Far-Right Politicians Sow Climate Disinformation

Rural associations, media outlets, and digital channels provide a platform for scientists who espouse climate misinformation.

The year was 2016, then the hottest on record. Concerned by the impacts of global warming on soybean farming, Brazil’s then-agriculture minister, Blairo Maggi, invited the scientist Carlos Nobre to meet with the board of Amaggi, the minister’s family business and one of the country’s largest grain exporters. Nobre had been asked by Maggi to give a talk on how much scientists already knew about the potential impacts of climate change on agricultural production, with a particular focus on the Amazon region.

Nobre, one of Brazil’s most renowned climatologists and one of the foremost experts on the Amazon region, set about preparing for the job thoroughly. He talked to fellow researchers, poured over dozens of papers on the subject, and drew up the talk he would deliver to the board of soybean producers.

“I demonstrated that changes in climate could render the whole southern region of the Amazon and northern part of the Cerrado [where the company’s soybean plantations are located] practically impossible for the continuation of productive agriculture because of excess heat,” Nobre said.

The scientist explained how temperature highs above 40ºC (104ºF) could become commonplace in the region. “At these temperatures, the productivity of soybean crops is extremely low,” he said. He further warned those in attendance that climate change greatly speeds up the frequency of extreme weather events such as droughts, which were already being recorded in the region and were tending to become more serious with each passing event.

Upon wrapping up his talk and opening the floor to questions, Nobre was left surprised. “A number of people put their hands up and all spoke about how there were no such problems, that soybean crops’ productivity increases under higher temperatures—which is completely false—and that climate change is not taking place,” he told Agência Pública.

It was only some time after that the scientist came to understand the source of his audience’s disbelief. “All of those soybean producers had previously listened to the climate-denialists Luiz Carlos Molion and Ricardo Felício [who had also been invited to give a talk].”

Molion and Felício are two of Brazil’s foremost exponents of a small but vocal group with ties to the academic world who deny that the planet is heating up or that human activities are capable of causing such impacts. They also question the role of the Amazon rainforest in the distribution of rainfall in Brazil, the extent of the Amazonian forest fires, and even claim that deforestation has no impact on the climate.

For decades, figures long opposed to the scientific consensus such as Molion and Felício have had little prominence in public debate. This, however, has changed in recent years. On top of touring the country at the invitation of agribusiness associations to give talks and spread the myth that global warming does not exist, they have also been elevated to the status of experts by the Brazilian Congress’s influential bancada ruralista (rural lobby), whose members have even invited them to address the Senate’s foreign affairs and environment committees. They have also gained exposure on media platforms linked to agribusiness interests and far-right politicians.

Continue reading.

[ocombatenterondonia]

Em vigor desde dezembro, nova Lei dos Agrotóxicos continua gerando polêmica

Ainda pouco conhecida, mas em vigor desde dezembro de 2023, a Lei 14.785/2023, a Nova Lei dos Agrotóxicos, continua suscitando debates. Idealizada pelo então senador Blairo Maggi, em 1999 (Projeto de Lei 1.459), a nova lei demorou 25 anos até ser concluída e sancionada, revogou as leis anteriores e trouxe mudanças significativas em diversos aspectos, desde o registro de produtos até a aplicação…

[agroemdia]

Senado aprova projeto que facilita registro de defensivos agrícolas

O texto teve voto favorável do relator, senador Fabiano Contarato (PT-ES), com alterações, e agora vai à sanção do presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva

  O Senado aprovou nesta terça-feira (28), em votação simbólica, o projeto que flexibiliza regras de aprovação, registro e comercialização de agrotóxicos. O PL 1.459/2022 é o substitutivo da Câmara dos Deputados ao PLS 526/1999, apresentado pelo então senador Blairo Maggi, ex-ministro da Agricultura. O texto teve voto favorável do relator, senador Fabiano Contarato (PT-ES), com alterações, e…

[comexdobrasil]

Maggi comanda missão à Turquia, China e França acompanhado por empresários do agronegócio Brasília - O ministro Blairo Maggi (Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento – MAPA) inicia nesta sexta-feira (11) viagem internacional à Turquia, China e França, acompanhado de representantes de entidades empresariais do agronegócio.

[moldescostura]

Meca se prepara para Hajj com número limitado de peregrinos - [Blog da Solange Pereira]

Meca se prepara para Hajj com número limitado de peregrinos – [Blog da Solange Pereira]

Apenas 10 mil sauditas e outros residentes estrangeiros no reino wahhabi poderão realizar o hajj este ano, um dos cinco pilares do Islã. A seleção dos participantes recebeu críticas. (leia mais abaixo)

No ano passado, cerca de 2,5 milhões de muçulmanos completaram a grande peregrinação, muitos deles oriundos de outros países.

A imprensa estrangeira também não poderá cobrir esse evento, já…

[and-then-there-were-n0ne]

On 25 March 2014, the top executives of the Brazilian meat giant JBS were in New York for the company’s annual “JBS Day,” where they announced the year’s financial results. The world’s largest producer of meat had a triumphant message for Wall Street: global meat consumption is going up and JBS is going to profit immensely from this growth. The Brazil—based company told shareholders that a pillar of its strategy is a projected 30 percent increase in per capita global meat consumption to 48 kg by 2030, up from 37 kg per person in 1999.

JBS neglected to tell its investors about a critical problem with its growth strategy: climate change. If global meat production were to expand to 48 kg per capita, it would become impossible to keep global temperatures from rising to dangerous levels. To put the JBS numbers in perspective, a new Greenpeace report finds that average per capita meat consumption must fall to 22 kg by 2030, and then to 16 kg by 2050, to avoid dangerous climate change.

If we are to reach the 1.5 °C goal, total global emissions must rapidly decline from 51 gigatons to 13 gigatons8 by 2050. If energy, transport, and other sectors successfully cut emissions in line with the Paris objectives while meat and dairy companies continue to increase production, the livestock sector will account for a larger and larger portion of the world’s available GHG emissions budget of 13 gigatons. Under a business—as—usual scenario, the livestock sector could eat up over 80 percent of the budget, making it virtually impossible to keep temperatures from rising to dangerous levels past 1.5 °C.

In direct contradiction to JBS’s outlook for strong growth, the imperatives of climate change necessitate a significant scaling back of production from the world’s largest meat and dairy companies without delay. […]

Unlike their counterparts in the energy sector, the big meat and dairy companies have thus far escaped public scrutiny of their contribution to climate change. The lack of public information on the magnitude of their GHG footprints is one contributing factor. GRAIN and IATP have reviewed the efforts undertaken by the world’s 35 largest beef, pork, poultry, and dairy companies to quantify their GHG emissions. We found the publicly available data on their emissions to be incomplete, not comparable between companies or years and, in the majority of cases, simply absent (Figure 9). Only four companies—NH Foods (Japan), Nestlé (Switzerland), Friesland Campina (the Netherlands) and Danone (France)—provide complete, credible emissions estimates. However, under the current circumstances, even these four are not obligated to reduce these emissions. Most of the companies that do report emissions have seriously underreported them and have not included most of their supply chain emissions in their calculations.

These supply chain emissions, covering everything from the production of animal feed crops to the methane released by cattle, generally account for 80–90 percent of meat and dairy emissions. […]

In the absence of comprehensive, transparent data from the largest companies, GRAIN and IATP made approximate calculations of the emissions from the meat and dairy divisions of these companies. […] The numbers are shocking: the combined emissions of the top five companies are on par with those of ExxonMobil and significantly higher than those of Shell or BP (Figure 4). Taken together, the top 20 meat and dairy industry emitters produce more emissions than many OECD countries (Figure 5).

Any scenario that brings global meat and dairy production and emissions in line with a 1.5 °C pathway requires significant cuts in emissions by the surplus protein countries’ largest meat and dairy companies. Despite this imperative, there is no comprehensive reporting system across the sector, nor have many companies pledged to reduce net emissions.

Of the top 35 meat and dairy companies, 14 have announced some form of emission reduction targets. But of these 14, just six have comprehensive targets covering the full range of emissions associated with livestock production. The remaining eight companies specify reduction targets that appear to be limited to emissions produced only by their direct operations, such as offices, processing plants, company vehicles or other business activities, as opposed to animal and feed production. Excluding emissions from animal raising and feed production can underrepresent the overall emissions of meat and dairy processing companies by over 80 percent. […]

Not only are the three largest conglomerates in the industrial meat and dairy sector—JBS, Tyson and Cargill—the largest global emitters, but they also have the weakest targets, or no targets at all. JBS, the world’s largest livestock processor, has no publicly stated medium— or long—term company—wide emission reduction targets. Although JBS claims to report on Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions, its total reported emissions are approximately three percent of those calculated by GRAIN and IATP, which are based on the company’s annual production volumes (Figure 9B). Either the company has excluded most of its supply chain emissions from its calculations, or its publicly reported emissions data is inaccurate. U.S.—based Tyson announced in 2018 that it would reduce its GHG emissions by 30% between 2015 and 2030. Tyson does not report on its supply chain emissions, nor does its reduction target include them. Finally, Cargill, the largest private company in the U.S. and the second largest meat processor worldwide, appears to be following a model similar to Tyson’s: it too fails to report on supply chain emissions or include them in reduction targets. Cargill’s exclusion of these emissions from reduction targets is particularly noteworthy given the company’s own admission that they “account for roughly 90 percent of emissions across [its] value chain.”

The only common element in this jumble of corporate promises and inaction on climate change is a commitment to growth. Tyson expects annual growth of 3–4 percent from beef and poultry sales, while Marfrig targeted 7.5–9.5 percent annual growth for 2015–2018. This target was set prior to the company’s acquisition of U.S.—based National Beef, making it the second largest beef processor in the world.38 Danish dairy giant Arla plans to add 2 billion kg of milk to its European supply chain between 2015–2020—a 14 percent increase. As already mentioned, Fonterra projects a stunning 40 percent increase in its processed milk volume for 2015–2025. […]

Emissions intensity targets count emissions per kilogram of meat or milk, but they do nothing to curtail overall growth in company emissions, sales, processing volumes, revenues, or profits. While intensity may be kept in check or even reduced, total emissions will continue to rise in tandem with production. It is easy to see why corporations focus on reducing intensity rather than reducing total emissions. […]

Arguments for emissions intensity reduction in the absence of targets to reduce the livestock sector’s total emissions are dangerous, because reducing emissions per unit of food is simply inadequate. Over the past century, farmers and corporations have reduced the emissions intensity of livestock production and processing, but these gains have been overwhelmed by increases in absolute emissions as a result of the doubling, and then the quadrupling, of production and consumption. We are emitting less per kilogram, but overall, we are emitting more GHGs because we are producing and consuming many, many more total kilograms.

Consider the case of chicken. In 2010, the global average GHG emissions per kilogram of chicken were one—third to one—half what they were in 1961.65 But the total GHG emissions from chicken production in 2010 were nearly five times higher than in 1961.66 The reason? Overall chicken production was higher—nearly 11 times higher than in 1961, or five times higher on a per capita basis. As emissions intensity was falling, emissions were rising. Even taking population growth into account, the average person was simply eating much more meat than before.

It is hard to overstate the omnipresence of big meat and dairy executives in government policy circles and their corresponding influence on agriculture and climate change policy. In the U.S., both of the top officials nominated by President Trump to deal with climate change—Sonny Perdue, as the Secretary of Agriculture, and Scott Pruitt, as the former head of the Environmental Protection Agency—are climate sceptics with close ties to the agribusiness lobby. Meanwhile, as an example of the revolving door between government and agribusiness, the Secretary of Agriculture under President Obama, Tom Vilsack, is now the CEO of the U.S. dairy export lobby.

In Brazil, the Minister of Agriculture, Blairo Maggi, is one of the country’s largest producers of animal feed crops, with a personal business interest in expanding Brazil’s meat and dairy industry. Last year, he publicly warned the FAO not to recommend reductions in meat consumption because of climate change.

[phroyd]

TWO BRAZILIAN FIRMS owned by a top donor to President Donald Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell are significantly responsible for the ongoing destruction of the Amazon rainforest, carnage that has developed into raging fires that have captivated global attention.

The companies have wrested control of land, deforested it, and helped build a controversial highway to their new terminal in the one-time jungle, all to facilitate the cultivation and export of grain and soybeans. The shipping terminal at Miritituba, deep in the Amazon in the Brazilian state of Pará, allows growers to load soybeans on barges, which will then sail to a larger port before the cargo is shipped around the world.

The Amazon terminal is run by Hidrovias do Brasil, a company that is owned in large part by Blackstone, a major U.S. investment firm. Another Blackstone company, Pátria Investimentos, owns more than 50 percent of Hidrovias, while Blackstone itself directly owns an additional roughly 10 percent stake. Blackstone co-founder and CEO Stephen Schwarzman is a close ally of Trump and has donated millions of dollars to McConnell in recent years.

“Blackstone is committed to responsible environmental stewardship,” the company said in a statement. “This focus and dedication is embedded in every investment decision we make and guides how we conduct ourselves as operators. In this instance, while we do not have operating control, we know the company has made a significant reduction in overall carbon emissions through lower congestion and allowed the more efficient flow of agricultural goods by Brazilian farmers.”

The port and the highway have been deeply controversial in Brazil, and were subjects of a 2016 investigation by The Intercept Brasil. Hidrovias announced in early 2016 that it would soon begin exporting soybeans trucked from the state of Mato Grosso along the B.R.-163 highway. The road was largely unpaved at the time, but the company said it planned to continue improving and developing it. In the spring of 2019, the government of Jair Bolsonaro, elected in fall 2018, announced that Hidrovias would partner in the privatization and development of hundreds of miles of the B.R.-163. Developing the roadway itself causes deforestation, but, more importantly, it helps make possible the broader transformation of the Amazon from jungle to farmland.

The roadway, B.R. 163, has had a marked effect on deforestation. After the devastation that began under the military dictatorship and accelerated through the 1970s and ’80s, the rate of deforestation slowed, as a coalition of Indigenous communities and other advocates of sustaining the forest fought back against the encroachment. The progress began turning back in 2014, as political tides shifted right and global commodity prices climbed. Deforestation began to truly spike again after the soft coup that ousted President Dilma Rousseff of the Workers’ Party in 2016. The right-wing government that seized power named soy mogul Blairo Maggi, a former governor of Mato Grosso, as minister of agriculture.

Yet even as deforestation had been slowing prior to the coup, the area around the highway was being destroyed. “Every year between 2004 and 2013 — except 2005 — while deforestation in Amazonia as a whole fell, it increased in the region around the B.R.-163,” the Financial Times reported in September 2017. That sparked pushback from Indigenous defenders of the Amazon. In March, Hidrovias admitted that its business had been slowed by increasing blockades on B.R. 163, as people put their bodies in front of the destruction. Still, the company is pushing forward. Hidrovios recently said that, thanks to heavy investment, it planned to double its grain shipping capacity to 13 million tons.

The Amazon, where a record number of fires have been raging, is the world’s largest rainforest. It absorbs a significant amount of carbon dioxide, a major contributor to the climate crisis. The Amazon is so dense in vegetation that it produces something like a fifth of the world’s oxygen supply. The moisture that evaporates from the Amazon is important form farmlands not just in South America, but also in the U.S. Midwest, where it falls to the earth as rain. Protection of the Amazon, 60 percent of which is in Brazil, is crucial to the continued existence of civilization as we know it.

The effort to transform the Amazon from a rainforest into a source of agribusiness revenue is central to the conflict, and linked to the fires raging out of control today. The leading edge of the invasion of the jungle is being cut by grileiros, or “land-grabbers,” who operate outside the law with chainsaws. The grileiros then sell the newly cleared land to agribusiness concerns, whose harvest is driven on the highway to the terminal, before being exported. Bolsonaro has long called for the Amazon to be turned over to agribusiness, and has rapidly defanged agencies responsible for protecting it, and empowered agribusiness leaders intent on clearing the forest. The land-grabbers have become emboldened.

“With Bolsonaro, the invasions are worse and will continue to get worse,” Francisco Umanari, a 42-year-old Apurinã chief, told Alexander Zaitchik,for a recent story in The Intercept. “His project for the Amazon is agribusiness. Unless he is stopped, he’ll run over our rights and allow a giant invasion of the forest. The land grabs are not new, but it’s become a question of life and death.”

Fires in the Amazon have been producing devastation described as unprecedented, many of them lit by farmers and others looking to clear land for cultivation or grazing. Bolsonaro initially dismissed the fires as unworthy of serious attention. Several weeks ago, Bolsonaro fired a chief government scientist for a report on the rapid escalation of deforestation under Bolsonaro’s administration, claiming that the numbers were fabricated.

Beginning with the military dictatorship in Brazil, when agribusiness was fully empowered, roughly a fifth of the jungle was destroyed by the mid-2000s. If the Amazon loses another fifth of its mass, it is at risk of a phenomenon known as dieback, where the forest becomes so dry that a vicious, cascading cycle takes over, and it becomes, as Zaitchik writes, “beyond the reach of any subsequent human intervention or regret.”

SCHWARZMAN, A FOUNDER of Blackstone, owns roughly a fifth of the company, making him one of the world’s richest men. In 2018, he was paid at least $568 million, which was, in fact, a drop from the $786 million he made the year before. He has been generous toward McConnell and Trump with that wealth. In 2016, he gave $2.5 million to the Senate Leadership Fund, McConnell’s Super PAC and put Jim Breyer, McConnell’s billionaire brother-in-law, on the board of Blackstone. Two years later, Schwarzman kicked in $8 million to McConnell’s Super PAC.

Blackstone employees have given well over $10 million to McConnell and his Super PAC over the years, making them the biggest source of direct financing over McConnell’s career. McConnell’s Senate campaign declined to comment.

Schwarzman is a close friend and adviser to Trump, and served as the chair of his Strategic and Policy Forum until it fell apart in the wake of the Charlottesville neo-Nazi rally, in which Trump famously praised “very fine people, on both sides.” In December 2017, as the final details of the GOP tax cut were being ironed out, Schwarzman hosted a $100,000-a-plate fundraiser for Trump. Some of the president’s dinner companions complained about the tax bill, and days later, Trump slashed the top percentage rate in the final package from 39.6 to 37.

In recent months, the Sackler family, whose members founded and own the pharmaceutical company Purdue Pharma, have become pariahs for their role in facilitating the opioid crisis and the deaths of tens of thousands of people. Schwarzman’s contributions to the destruction of the Amazon, which stands between humanity and an uninhabitable planet, may ultimately render him as socially untouchable as the Sacklers, given the scale of the fallout from the destruction of the rainforest.

IN DEFENSE OF the project, a Blackstone spokesperson noted that it had been approved by the International Finance Corporation, an affiliate of the World Bank, and that the IFC had determined that the project would, in fact, reduce carbon emissions. Blackstone also forwarded a statement that it credited to Hidrovias, which also emphasized the support of the IFC:

Hidrovias has always worked within the highest Environmental, Social and Governance (“ESG”)  standards, constantly evaluated by audits from international multilateral agencies, such as the World Bank – IFC (International Finance Corporation). In addition, Hidrovias maintains all the environmental  licenses required by the competent authorities.

The IFC has financed some of the world’s most environmentally destructive projects, so its endorsement in itself is not particularly persuasive. But even on its own terms, the IFC’s study of the Blackstone project calls the project’s sustainability into question. Transporting soy or grain by waterway is indeed a less carbon-intensive method of transport, the IFC correctly noted in its report. But, it went on, that assessment doesn’t take into account the reality that “the construction of the Miritituba port, close to still-intact areas of the Amazon forest, is likely to lower transport costs for farmers and thereby accelerate conversion of natural habitats into agricultural areas, particularly for soy production.”

The project is OK, the bank argued, because Hidrovias and its clients can be trusted to be responsible, and that “the Miritituba port is being purpose-built to handle soy traded only by responsible traders who are sensitive to the preservation of natural habitats.” The bank assured that “100% of the company’s transport capacity in the North System is contracted to large trading companies, which observe high levels of governance and abide by the Amazon Soy Moratorium. The Moratorium, which prohibits purchasing soy produced on illegally deforested lands, was originally negotiated in 2006 between the big traders, Greenpeace, and Brazilian authorities. It has been renewed on a yearly basis since then.”

The moratorium, however, is only as strong as the government’s ability to monitor it. Proving that soy was grown on illegally deforested lands is highly difficult, as land-grabbers move quickly to clear forest and sell the newly cleared land to ranchers or agribusiness operators who quickly put it into cultivation and later claim that they had no way of knowing it was illegally deforested. The scheme also presumes that the government is interested in regulating agribusiness; the Bolsonaro administration has been quite explicit that it is not interested in doing so, putting top agribusiness officials in key posts, while defunding regulatory agencies.

And even if it were somehow true that all of the soy shipped from the Hidrovias port met all the requirements of the moratorium, commodity markets are fluid. A new port for the big traders eases congestion and lowers transportation costs elsewhere for smaller traders, thereby encouraging more development and more cultivation. (The IFC noted that Hidrovias promised to watch its soy clients closely: “HDB will establish and maintain internal procedures to review clients’ compliance with all provisions of Amazon Soy Moratorium or any other relevant legal requirements aimed at preventing trade in soy produced in illegally deforested areas. If the purpose of the port or the mix of HDB’s clients changes, the company will advise IFC of such changes and may be required to undertake further due diligence to ensure that these do not lead to undesirable indirect impacts.”)

The final justification the IFC made for the project comes down to incrementalism. Other development is also happening, the bank noted, so this single port can only cause so much harm. It concluded that “the port’s incremental contribution to the overall reduction of transport costs is judged to be marginal, given the myriad other factors (paving of B.R.-163, installation of other ports in Miritituba district, etc.) that are contributing to development in the region.” Bolsonaro has plans to pave significantly more roads in the Amazon that have otherwise been impassable much of the year, a project made feasible by international financing.

Of course, Hidrovias is also involved in paving B.R.-163 and other development projects in the region. Those projects, such as the paving of the highway, have additional indirect — though entirely predictable — consequences, as they spur side roads that make previously difficult-to-reach areas of the Amazon accessible for mining, logging, or further deforestation.

A Blackstone spokesperson noted that the fund only owns 9.3 percent of Hidrovias. But that ignores the 55.8 percent of Hidrovias that is owned by Pátria Investimentos. On Hidrovias’s website, Pátria is described as a company “in partnership with Blackstone,” and it is known in the financial industry to be a Blackstone company. A November 2018 article in Private Equity News about Bolsonaro’s election was headlined: “Blackstone’s Pátria: Brazilian Democracy is Not in Danger.”

It quoted the company’s chief economist assuring the public that “descent into authoritarianism is exceedingly unlikely.” That prediction has not borne out terribly well, but Blackstone appears to remain a strong supporter of Bolsonaro. The Brazilian president traveled to New York in May to be honored at a gala, which was sponsored by Refinitiv — a company majority-owned by Blackstone.

Ryan Grim is the author of “We’ve Got People: From Jesse Jackson to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the End of Big Money and the Rise of a Movement.”

Phroyd

[saibatudomt]

Mato Grosso: Juiz mantém bloqueio de R$ 4 milhões de Maggi, Silval, Riva e mais 7

Juiz Luís Aparecido Bortolussi Júnior, da Vara Especializada em Ação Civil Pública e Popular de Cuiabá, negou reconsiderar o bloqueio em até R$ 4 milhões do ex-conselheiro Alencar Soares e seu filho, Leandro Valoes Soares, por suposta compra e venda vaga no Tribunal de Contas do Estado (TCE) de Mato Grosso para favorecer o conselheiro afastado Sérgio Ricardo.

O bloqueio foi proferido em janeiro…

[avozdepetropolis]

Secretário diz que município “deve pouco” à Santa Casa

Secretário diz que município “deve pouco” à Santa Casa

[ad_1]

Foto: Thiago Bergamasc

Também presente hoje (7) na Tribuna Livre do Parlamento cuiabano, o secretário municipal de Saúde, médico Huark Douglas Corrêa, discordou das alegações apresentadas pelo presidente da Santa Casa de Misericórdia, Antônio Preza, no tocante a dívidas que a Prefeitura teria em aberto com a instituição. A pendência totaliza R$ 291 mil reais, já com previsão de…

[anoticiaeosfatos-blog]

PGR DENUNCIA BLAIRO MAGGI POR CORRUPÇÃO

[delgadomkt]

Sauditas querem importar mais e investir no país

Sauditas querem importar mais e investir no país

Revelação foi feita pelo ministro Abdulrahman a Blairo Maggi, em reunião no sábado

Os sauditas têm interesse em aumentar as importações do Brasil, além de carne de aves e de bovinos e grãos, também de ingredientes para alimentação de animais já que não produzem ração no país. A notícia foi dada ao ministro Blairo Maggi (Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento) pelo ministro da Agricultura da…

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

Meet Brazil's former 'King of Soy', now hailed by some conservationists

Blairo Maggi, the leader of Brazil's 'ruralist bench' in Congress, says it is possible to grow agribusiness in a sustainable way.

A few years ago, when I heard that Brazil's most influential soy producer would be named minister of agriculture by then-President Michel Temer, I commented to a colleague that this was like appointing the fox to watch over the chicken pen. Once nicknamed the "King of Soy", 63-year old billionaire Blairo Maggi presides over the Amaggi Group, a family company that has been instrumental in the growth of Brazil's agribusiness sector.

Maggi had already been a senator and two-time governor of Matto Grosso, the Amazonian state where his soy empire is based and which at the time was Brazil's leader in deforestation.

In 2005, Greenpeace gave him the Golden Chainsaw award, for his "unparalleled contribution to Amazonian deforestation". Maggi remains a leader of the "ruralist bench", the agribusiness lobby that dominates Congress and that has supported President Jair Bolsonaro's promise to expand Brazil's agricultural frontier.

But Maggi himself is not easy typecast. He has grown critical of the Bolsonaro's aggressive anti-conservation stance. And the enigmatic businessman has gone from being vilified to winning praise from some conservationists for dramatically reversing deforestation in Matto Grosso while he was governor.

Sporting jeans and a simple shirt, the former agriculture minister welcomed us to his headquarters in Cuiaba earlier this year to discuss his apparent change of heart.

Continue reading.

[valeriadelcueto]

Análise de conteúdo

Análise de conteúdo Texto e foto de Valéria del Cueto Demorou. Após a abertura dos (longos) trabalhos, travar, pausar, voltar, enjoar, precisar de ar, mais ar e… começar de novo. Parecia que nunca ia terminar. Definitivamente, para quem encarou, se não uma tarefa agradável, muito esclarecedora. Foi nessa levada inconstante e cheia de mal-estar a leitura – obrigatória – dos documentos liberados…

[comexdobrasil]

Blairo Maggi participa de feira em Abu Dhabi em busca de investimentos para projetos no Brasil São Paulo – O ministro da Agricultura, Blairo Maggi, vai liderar uma delegação brasileira na Agriscape – 

[moldescostura]

Minerva Foods promove cursos de qualificação ao microempreendedor em Paranatinga - [Blog da Solange Pereira]

Minerva Foods promove cursos de qualificação ao microempreendedor em Paranatinga – [Blog da Solange Pereira]

Divulgação

Paranatinga, julho de 2020 – A Minerva Foods, líder em exportação de carne bovina na América do Sul e uma das maiores empresas na produção e comercialização de carne in natura e seus derivados no Brasil, lançou o “Mãos que Criam”, um programa de apoio e incentivo ao Microempreendedor Individual (MEI), com o apoio da Prefeitura Municipal de Paranatinga/MT.

A iniciativa…

[grupogazeta-blog]

Emanuel Pinheiro foi filmado por Silval recebendo dinheiro

Emanuel Pinheiro foi filmado por Silval recebendo dinheiro

  O prefeito de Cuiabá, Emanuel Pinheiro (PMDB), aparece em um vídeo recebendo dinheiro vivo na época em que foi deputado estadual no Mato Grosso. Ele exerceu o cargo de 2010 a 2014.

Além da gravação de Pinheiro, o peemedebista entregou pelo menos mais nove vídeos de deputados e ex-deputados estaduais recebendo propina.

O material integra a delação premiada do ex-governador do Estado Silval…