BRAZIL | General Infrastructure Thread - Page 25 - SkyscraperCity
 

forums map | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > General Developments and Discussions

General Developments and Discussions » Bridges | Cycling | Maritime


Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old July 20th, 2019, 03:14 AM   #481
mopc
Registered User
 
mopc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Santos Sao Paulo
Posts: 18,791
Likes (Received): 17715

POLITICS - Excellent op-ed on Brazil's current politics and culture

Quote:
"Desenvolvimento não dá manchete
por Guilherme Fiuza[19/07/2019] [20:16]
0 COMENTÁRIOS
F
...
7




O ministro da Infraestrutura, Tarcísio Gomes de Freitas: choque de gestão| Foto: Wilson Dias/Agência Brasil
The DNIT scandal was one of the most intriguing corruption cases in Brazil's recent history. For two reasons: its gigantic dimension and the ease with which it was muffled. The cocktails are now the most intriguing ingredient of all: this old bandstand is being transformed into a management model - and this is not a headline in Brazil.

DNIT is the acronym for National Department of Transport Infrastructure and was one of the great foci of the robbery in the PT empire. The DNI's CPI was barred in Congress (2011) because at that time the population was still inebriated with the myth of Luiz Inácio da Silva, the saint of the poor. The mensalão had already been rubbed in the face of Brazil, but even so he elected Dilma Rousseff, anointed by Lula as the Mother of the PAC (Growth Acceleration Program). And the PAC queen was the construction company Delta, which was at the center of the DNIT scandal.

The big press was at a much healthier time than it was today - it had not yet fallen into the temptation of politically correct pamphlets to compete (stupidly) with social networks. The main vehicles took turns in forceful reporting on the mafia that had dominated the great road works under the protective mantle of Dilma, Lula and associated honest souls. The millionaire figures of the superfaturamentos were published daily - in the one that was the petroleum of the transports and had in the media his Lava Jet.

Where is the DNIT scandal in history? It's gone. The then Transport Minister was fired and Dilma ended the year 2011 with record popularity - she was the "manager" of the clean-up against corruption. Counting no one believes.

Some time later, the guy Carlinhos Cachoeira was arrested by the PF for his involvement in Delta talks - the champion of the PAC of Mama Dilma and queen of the DNIT. Cachoeira had already staged the pre-mensalão - first scandal of the Lula Era with the dispatcher Waldomiro Diniz, later replaced by the famous Marcos Valério. The crime factory under the facade of the popular government already had its great cast.

Only well afterwards, with the investigations into Cabral's scheme in Rio, the owner of Delta was caught by the police. And the honest souls of Lula and Dilma went through all the chapters of the DNIT scandal and its unfolding.

Now the Minister of Infrastructure, Tarcisio de Freitas - who is neither affiliated with nor linked to any party - is giving a management shock in the area of ​​transportation. It has barely opened up the equipment and opened up the sector for investments with dozens of auctions / concessions for road and port projects. It seems to be the beginning of a revolution in this area essential to the development of the country - and tragically accustomed to being in the focus of the banner.

Why is this subject not dominant in the news about politics and government in Brazil in 2019?

What is the importance of this subject - politics and government - for people who do not live on it? The talk that fermented polemics in social networks or the actions that will improve their lives?

The answer is obvious, and it is very easy to see that if issues like this and measures of Economic Freedom, containment of fraud in the INSS and containment of crime disappear in the midst of digital crises, common sense can not be very good. Cheers.

Putting it more directly: if Tarcísio de Freitas, Sergio Moro and Paulo Guedes emulating their positive agendas, Brazil will take off once and life will be difficult for the storytellers with sad (costumed democratic resistance). These are the ones who insist on not seeing anything of the above and do not take the "bolsonarism" of the mouth "
Leia mais em: https://www.gazetadopovo.com.br/voze...o-da-manchete/
Copyright © 2019, Gazeta do Povo. Todos os direitos reservados.
mopc no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old July 25th, 2019, 08:57 AM   #482
mopc
Registered User
 
mopc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Santos Sao Paulo
Posts: 18,791
Likes (Received): 17715

HIGHWAYS - Map of Brazil's highways by volume of traffic

__________________
THREAD TO ACCESS ALL MY THREADS
BRAZIL URBAN TRANSPORT COMPILATION - full updates of all projects on first page!
BRAZIL GENERAL INFRASTRUCTURE -
LINGUÍSTICA - CETICISMO

Felipe C. Silva, EceB liked this post
mopc no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 29th, 2019, 03:49 PM   #483
mopc
Registered User
 
mopc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Santos Sao Paulo
Posts: 18,791
Likes (Received): 17715

RAILROADS - picture of railroad bridge

__________________
THREAD TO ACCESS ALL MY THREADS
BRAZIL URBAN TRANSPORT COMPILATION - full updates of all projects on first page!
BRAZIL GENERAL INFRASTRUCTURE -
LINGUÍSTICA - CETICISMO

Formigueiro, raul lopes liked this post
mopc no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 2nd, 2019, 09:07 PM   #484
mopc
Registered User
 
mopc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Santos Sao Paulo
Posts: 18,791
Likes (Received): 17715

RAILROADS - Federal government to privatize use of North-South railroad section between Tocantins and Sao Paulo state.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edson Fukumoto View Post
Rumo assina contrato de concessão da Ferrovia Norte-Sul

1 de agosto de 2019 07:20
Renato Lobo

A Rumo Logística assinou o contrato de concessão dos trechos central e sul da Ferrovia Norte-Sul (FNS), na manhã desta quarta-feira, 31 de julho, após vencer um certame ao oferecer R$ 2,719 bilhões de outorga, um ágio de 100% sobre o valor mínimo de R$ 1,35 bilhão. São previstos investimentos estimados em R$ 2,72 bilhões







O trecho foi concedido pelo prazo de 30 anos, e tem extensão de 1.537 quilômetros. Trata-se da a espinha dorsal do sistema ferroviário brasileiro e deve proporcionar a conexão da região central do Brasil ao Porto de Santos (SP) e Porto de Itaqui (MA).

“Vocês confiarem em mim. Os empresários da Rumo confiaram na gente. Esta obra aqui não é para empreiteiros é para empreendedores”, disse o presidente Jair Bolsonaro. “Esta obra liga quatro regiões do país. Unem o Brasil e trazem o progresso. A obra vai baratear fretes, reduzir consumo de combustíveis. O modal ferroviário é muito bem-vindo”, afirmou.

“É uma entrega importante, que foi pensada no Império de Dom Pedro II e começou no governo de José Sarney, há 32 anos”, afirmou. “É o início de uma transformação. Vamos mudar a matriz de transporte brasileiro, dentro de uma estratégia ferroviária muito sólida. Vamos ver o trem passar com contêineres empilhados, em operação pioneira da Rumo. Carga de Manaus (AM) vai ser entregue em Porto Alegre (RS)”, disse o Ministro da Infraestrutura, Tarcísio Gomes de Freitas.




Imagem fonte



https://viatrolebus.com.br/2019/08/r...via-norte-sul/
__________________
THREAD TO ACCESS ALL MY THREADS
BRAZIL URBAN TRANSPORT COMPILATION - full updates of all projects on first page!
BRAZIL GENERAL INFRASTRUCTURE -
LINGUÍSTICA - CETICISMO

KesleyRoberto, EceB liked this post
mopc no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2019, 02:56 AM   #485
mopc
Registered User
 
mopc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Santos Sao Paulo
Posts: 18,791
Likes (Received): 17715

GENERAL -

Quote:
Who Will Save the Amazon (and How)?
It's only a matter of time until major powers try to stop climate change by any means necessary.
BY STEPHEN M. WALT | AUGUST 5, 2019, 5:31 PM
Aerial view of the Transamazonica Road (BR-230) near Medicilandia, Para State, Brazil on March 13, 2019.
Aerial view of the Transamazonica Road (BR-230) near Medicilandia, Para State, Brazil on March 13, 2019. MAURO PIMENTEL/AFP/GETTY IMAGES
Aug. 5, 2025: In a televised address to the nation, U.S. President Gavin Newsom announced that he had given Brazil a one-week ultimatum to cease destructive deforestation activities in the Amazon rainforest. If Brazil did not comply, the president warned, he would order a naval blockade of Brazilian ports and airstrikes against critical Brazilian infrastructure. The president’s decision came in the aftermath of a new United Nations report cataloging the catastrophic global effects of continued rainforest destruction, which warned of a critical “tipping point” that, if reached, would trigger a rapid acceleration of global warming. Although China has stated that it would veto any U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force against Brazil, the president said that a large “coalition of concerned states” was prepared to support U.S. action. At the same time, Newsom said the United States and other countries were willing to negotiate a compensation package to mitigate the costs to Brazil for protecting the rainforest, but only if it first ceased its current efforts to accelerate development.

The above scenario is obviously far-fetched—at least I think it is—but how far would you go to prevent irreversible environmental damage? In particular, do states have the right—or even the obligation—to intervene in a foreign country in order to prevent it from causing irreversible and possibly catastrophic harm to the environment?

Trending Articles

India’s Sudden Kashmir Move Could Backfire Badly
New Delhi’s crackdown could send the region spinning into instability.

Powered By
I raise this issue in light of the news that Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro is accelerating development of the Amazon rainforest (60 percent of which is in Brazilian hands), thereby imperiling a critical global resource. As those of you with more respect for science than Bolsonaro know, the rainforest is both an important carbon sink and a critical temperature regulator, as well as a key source of fresh water. Deforestation has already damaged its ability to perform these crucial roles, and scientists in Brazilian estimate that increasingly warm and dry conditions could convert much of the forest to dry savanna, with potentially catastrophic effects. Last week, the pro-business, free market-oriented Economist magazine’s cover story was “Deathwatch for the Amazon,” which frames the issue rather nicely. To restate my original question: What should (or must) the international community do to prevent a misguided Brazilian president (or political leaders in other countries) from taking actions that could harm all of us?

This is where it gets tricky. State sovereignty is a critical element of the current international system; with certain exceptions, national governments are free to do whatever they want inside their own borders. Even so, the hard shell of sovereignty has never been absolute, and various forces have been chipping away at it for a long time. States can be sanctioned for violating international law (e.g., by defying U.N. Security Council resolutions), and international law authorizes countries to go to war for self-defense or when the Security Council authorizes military action. It’s even legal to attack another country’s territory preemptively, provided there is a well-founded basis for believing it was about to attack you first.

More controversially, the “responsibility to protect” doctrine sought to legitimate humanitarian intervention in foreign powers when the local government was unable or unwilling to protect its own people. And as a practical matter, states routinely accept infringements on their own sovereignty in order to facilitate beneficial forms of international cooperation.

When push comes to shove, however, most states resent and resist external efforts to get them to change what they are doing inside their own borders. And even though destroying the Amazon rainforest presents a clear and obvious threat to many other countries, telling Brazil to stop and threatening to take action to deter, punish, or prevent it would be a whole new ballgame. And I don’t mean to single out Brazil: It would be an equally radical step to threaten the United States or China if they refused to stop emitting so many greenhouse gases.

It’s not as if world leaders haven’t recognized the seriousness of the problem. The U.N. long regarded environmental degradation as a “threat to international peace and security,” and the former European Union foreign-policy representative Javier Solana argued in 2008 that halting climate change “should be in the mainstream of EU foreign and security policies.” Scholars have already identified various ways the Security Council could act to prevent it. As the researchers Bruce Gilley and David Kinsella wrote a few years ago, “it is at least legally feasible that the Security Council could invoke its authority under Article 42, and use military force against states it deemed threats to international peace and security by virtue of their unwillingness or inability to curb destructive activities emanating from their territories.”

The question, therefore, is how far would the international community be willing to go in order to prevent, halt, or reverse actions that might cause immense and irreparable harm to the environment on which all humans depend? It might seem far-fetched to imagine states threatening military action to prevent this today, but it becomes more likely if worst-case estimates of our climate future turn out to be correct.

But here’s a cruel paradox: The countries that are most responsible for climate change are also the least susceptible to coercion, while most of the states that might conceivably be pressured into taking action aren’t significant sources of the underlying problem. The top five greenhouse gas emitters are China, the United States, India, Russia, and Japan—four of them are nuclear weapons states, and Japan is a formidable military power in its own right. Threatening any of them with sanctions isn’t likely to work, and threatening serious military action against them is completely unrealistic. Moreover, getting the Security Council to authorize the use of force against much weaker states is unlikely, because the permanent members wouldn’t want to establish this precedent and would almost certainly veto the proposal.

This is what makes the Brazilian case more interesting. Brazil happens to be in possession of a critical global resource—for purely historical reasons—and its destruction would harm many states if not the entire planet. Unlike Belize or Burundi, what Brazil does could have a big impact. But Brazil isn’t a true great power, and threatening it with either economic sanctions or even the use of force if it refused to protect the rainforest might be feasible. To be clear: I’m not recommending this course of action either now or in the future. I’m just pointing out that Brazil might be somewhat more vulnerable to pressure than some other states are.

READ MORE

A strong wind blows embers around a resident hosing his burning property during the Creek Fire in Sunland, California, on Dec. 5, 2017.
Trump’s Shadow War on Climate Science
The resignation of a State Department official is the latest instance of a systematic suppression of evidence, former officials and whistleblowers say.

REPORT | ROBBIE GRAMER
A cattle farmer and director of the local wind farm talks with a regional historian on Aug. 8, 2013, on Pellworm Island, northern Germany, where a shift toward a zero-carbon future has been driven by locals, not energy companies.
The Public Can Solve Climate Change if We Let It
The most efficient way of spreading renewable energy? Getting local communities involved.

ARGUMENT | PAUL HOCKENOS
A wind farm in Jacobsdorf, Germany, on Feb. 27. PATRICK PLEUL/AFP/Getty Images
Climate Change Requires Big Solutions. But Baby Steps Are the Only Way to Go.
Dramatic projects to mitigate global warming often don’t work. Slow, quiet, incremental policies are the planet’s best hope.

FEATURE | TED NORDHAUS
One can also imagine other remedies for this problem. States could certainly threaten or impose unilateral trade sanctions against environmentally irresponsible states, and private citizens could always try to organize voluntary boycotts for similar reasons. Some states have taken steps in this direction, and it is easy to imagine such measures becoming more widespread as environmental problems multiply. Alternatively, states that happen to govern environmentally sensitive territory could be paid to preserve it, in the interest of all mankind. In effect, the international community would be subsidizing environmental protection on the part of those who happen to possess the means of doing something about it.

This approach has the merit of not triggering the sort of nationalist backlash that a coercive campaign might provoke, but it might also give some countries an incentive to adopt environmentally irresponsible policies, in the hope of obtaining economic payoffs from a concerned international community.

This is all pretty speculative, and I’ve just begun thinking through some of the implications of these dilemmas. Here’s what I think I do know, however: In a world of sovereign states, each is going to do what it must to protect its interests. If the actions of some states are imperiling the future of all the rest, the possibility of serious confrontations and possibly serious conflict is going to increase. That doesn’t make the use of force inevitable, but more sustained, energetic, and imaginative efforts will be needed to prevent it.
mopc no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2019, 04:44 AM   #486
mopc
Registered User
 
mopc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Santos Sao Paulo
Posts: 18,791
Likes (Received): 17715

HIGHWAYS - Tamoios highway progress, Sao Paulo state


Quote:
Originally Posted by caco View Post

Algumas das fotos que ilustram a reportagem da Concessionária Tamoios:


1. Emboque Norte do Túnel 5 (já totalmente escavado)
Com mais de 3.600 metros de extensão, este túnel é mais longo que qualquer um da Imigrantes e até a conclusão do Túnel 3/4 será o mais extenso do país (rodoviário)


2. O mesmo trecho da foto acima


3. Emboque Sul do Túnel 3/4 (que será o mais longo túnel rodoviário do Brasil, com 5.555 metros)


4. A grande cortina atirantada (localizada entre os túneis 2 e 3/4


5. Logo à frente da foto anterior os teleféricos que são utilizados para acessar o Emboque Norte do Túnel 3/4


6. Cortina atirantada


7. Primeiro viaduto da subida, na Fazenda Serramar, em Caraguatatuba



http://www.concessionariatamoios.com...co#prettyPhoto

Cable crane transporting truck


Quote:
Originally Posted by KILLME56k View Post
Cable Crane levando caminhão.

mopc no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2019, 04:48 AM   #487
mopc
Registered User
 
mopc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Santos Sao Paulo
Posts: 18,791
Likes (Received): 17715

SPACE PROGRAM - Video about Brazil's space program, 2019


mopc no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 12th, 2019, 08:52 PM   #488
mopc
Registered User
 
mopc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Santos Sao Paulo
Posts: 18,791
Likes (Received): 17715

ENVIRONMENT - Amazon Deforestation data for the last few decades

mopc no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 17th, 2019, 07:19 AM   #489
mopc
Registered User
 
mopc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Santos Sao Paulo
Posts: 18,791
Likes (Received): 17715

GENERAL - Kim Kataguiri explains new simplied environmental licensing procedures

mopc no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 18th, 2019, 08:36 AM   #490
mopc
Registered User
 
mopc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Santos Sao Paulo
Posts: 18,791
Likes (Received): 17715

DEFORESTATION - Some perspective

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno BHZ View Post
Essa questão da Amazônia já entrou para a guerra política, falta muita objetividade e honestidade no debate.

É possível reconhecer ao mesmo tempo que:

- Em algumas medições, o desmatamento aumentou recentemente

- Entretanto, é um crescimento a partir de um patamar muito baixo. Os níveis de desmatamento em 2019 ainda são abaixo das décadas de 1990 e 2000, ao contrários de alguns "influencers" que juram estarmos em um recorde histórico.

- Medições mensais não são boa referência, e estão pincelando dados para superestimar o estrago. Hoje divulgaram uma pesquisa de uma instituição independente. https://g1.globo.com/natureza/notici...nstituto.ghtml

Essa pesquisa mostra:
- Aumento de 66% do desmatamento em julho/19 (manchete do UOL)
- Aumento de 15% do desmatamento em 12 meses (manchete da Globo)
- Queda de 0,41% do desmatamento entre janeiro e julho/19 comparado aos mesmos meses do ano passado (manchete de ninguém)

Nessa pesquisa, Bolsonaro mesmo poderia ser responsabilizado só pelo período de QUEDA!!!

Eu entendo a manchete do Globo porque considero acumulados em 12 meses mais consistentes e mais reveladoras sobre a situação do lugar (não focada em duração do governo), mas a do UOL é canalhice pura.

Pelo gráfico da matéria, o UOL deveria ter manchetado em junho que houve queda de 32% do desmatamento. Alguém imagina isso??? É óbvio que esse tipo de inconsistencia e variação mensal logo logo gerará mais algum dado de queda forte na comparação mensal. O UOL continuará a divulgar essa pesquisa?

Mais do que isso, esse valor é oposto aos 88% de aumento do INPE em junho, que gerou todo um alvoroço. Eu achei uma escrotice a verborragia do Bolsonaro e suas acusações levianas, mas há um ponto que muita gente se recusa a debater: a metodologia, quão realista é. A medida do INPE pode ser usada para medir variação mensal?? Até o diretor demitido concorda que não! Mas virou verdade absoluta e intocável.

mopc no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 11:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us