Questões de Concursos UEG

Leia o texto a seguir para responder à questão.

Forest fires: the good and the bad

Every year it seems like there’s another disastrous wildfire in the American West. In 2018, nearly 9 million acres were burned in the US alone. Uncontrolled fires often started accidentally by people, rampage and decimate forests. F

or most people, a forest fire is synonymous with disaster. But there are some kinds of forest fires that actually benefit the environment.

A controlled burn is a wildfire that people set intentionally for a specific purpose. Well-thought-out and wellmanaged controlled burns can be incredibly beneficial for forest management—in part because they can help stop an out-of-control wildfire. The technique is called backburning, and it involves setting a controlled fire in the path of the approaching wildfire. All the flammable material is burnt up and extinguished. When the wildfire approaches, there’s no more fuel left for it to keep going, and it dies out.

Controlled burns are also used to prevent forest fires. Even before human involvement, natural, low-intensity wildfires occurred every few years to burn up fuel, plant debris, and dead trees, making way for young, healthy trees and vegetation to thrive. That new growth in turn supports forest wildlife. Forest managers are now replicating this natural strategy when appropriate, starting manageable, slow-burning fires to make room for new life that will help keep the forest healthy in the long term.

The same method is one of WWF’s strategies for maintaining grassland habitats in the Northern Great Plains. Working with partners such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, WWF has intentionally burned hundreds of acres of prairie land to revitalize these key habitats. The fire burns off tall, aggressive vegetation that isn’t as hospitable to wildlife, and makes room for new growth that attracts bison, birds, and prairie dogs.

This doesn’t mean all intentional wildfires are good – far from it. Many of the fires intentionally set for agriculture and land clearing are at best ill-advised, and at worst devastating. Slash and burn fires are set every day to destroy large sections of forests. Of course, these forests don’t just remove trees; they kill and displace wildlife, alter water cycles and soil fertility, and endanger the lives and livelihoods of local communities. They also can rage out of control. In 1997, fires set intentionally to clear forests in Indonesia escalated into one of the largest wildfires in recorded history. Hundreds of people died; millions of acres burned; already at-risk species like orangutans perished by the hundreds; and a smoke and ash haze hung over southeast Asia for months, reducing visibility and causing acute health conditions.

That’s exactly why WWF helps governments around the world crack down on slash and burn deforestation. WWF also works with farmers and companies to stop unnecessary agricultural burns. And when our scientists think fire could be the best solution for revitalizing wild areas, we bring the right experts to the table to study the situation and come up with a plan.

All fire is risky. To minimize that risk as much as possible, controlled burns must be well-considered, wellplanned, and ignited and maintained by trained professionals. The bottom line? Fire can be a tool for conservation, but only when used the right way.

Disponível em: https://www.worldwildlife.org/stories/forest-fires-the-good-and-the-bad. Acesso em: 08 out. 2019

Leia o soneto a seguir para responder à questão

ANJOS, Augusto dos. Budismo moderno. In: Eu e outros poemas. 30. ed. Rio de janeiro: Livraria São José, 1965. p. 84.

Thematic Discussion on Nuclear Weapons

The United States remains committed to the goal of nuclear disarmament, and to seeking to create conditions toward that end. And history makes clear that important progress can be made when security conditions allow. The easing of Cold War rivalries allowed the United States and Russia to make significant steps toward the shared dream of eventual nuclear disarmament after decades in which such movement was impossible. Disarmament success is predicated on patience, attention to detail, effective verification, and patient attention to the challenges of effecting the changes in the security environment that are necessary for progress. This last element is critical, considering the crucial role that nuclear deterrence plays in preserving and protecting international peace and security, and the potentially catastrophic consequences were deterrence’s restraining effect to be removed while it still remains necessary.

The “Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons” violates all these tenets. Its obligations are longstanding worded, imprecise, vaguely worded and sometimes internally contradictory, while offering only an empty shell for verification. Worse, it is fundamentally at odds with today’s security challenges. It is not simply an unproductive instrument; it is likely to be a counterproductive one, with the potential to cause lasting harm to the nonproliferation regime and to the cause of disarmament alike.

The ban treaty is based on the premise that addressing crucial international security issues is not necessary for disarmament. Ban treaty proponents would have us believe that we can do away with nuclear deterrence despite - to cite just one example - the danger posed by North Korea’s relentless pursuit of nuclear weapons and associated delivery systems, which stand in flagrant violation of international law.

Furthermore, the Treaty does not contain a credible verification mechanism, demurring on the issue almost entirely. It does run counter to decades of progress in nonproliferation verification by endorsing the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement as its standard for safeguarding nuclear material.

Finally, the ban treaty has the potential to do real damage to the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in other ways. It exacerbates political tensions on disarmament, dividing states into overly-simplified camps of “nuclear weapons supporters” and “nuclear weapons banners,” rather than recognizing shared interests – especially on the challenges involved in creating the conditions that would make possible further disarmament progress. Reinforcing this false dichotomy and worsening the world’s polarization on disarmament will make further progress within the institutions that have been vehicles for success, such as the NPT review process, significantly more difficult.

Inspired by the NPT Preamble’s acknowledgement of the need to ease international tension and strengthen trust between States in order to facilitate disarmament, the United States stands ready to work with others on effective measures to create improved conditions for nuclear disarmament. This work is focused on overcoming technical challenges to make substantive progress when the security conditions improve. We also continue our longstanding work to support and strengthen the global nonproliferation regime against the many challenges it faces today, for who could deny that there can be no way to envision today’s nuclear weapons possessors ever putting down such tools without rock-solid assurances that no one else will take them up?

There are no shortcuts to nuclear disarmament. Unrealistic attempts to skip to the finish line have the potential to undermine the institutions and standards we have worked so hard to build. Our collective experience demonstrates that inclusiveness and the search for consensus can lead to progress, while polarization is a recipe for failure. We urge all states to work with us in searching for common solutions to collective problems, pursuing a more secure world.

Thematic Discussion on Nuclear Weapons

The United States remains committed to the goal of nuclear disarmament, and to seeking to create conditions toward that end. And history makes clear that important progress can be made when security conditions allow. The easing of Cold War rivalries allowed the United States and Russia to make significant steps toward the shared dream of eventual nuclear disarmament after decades in which such movement was impossible. Disarmament success is predicated on patience, attention to detail, effective verification, and patient attention to the challenges of effecting the changes in the security environment that are necessary for progress. This last element is critical, considering the crucial role that nuclear deterrence plays in preserving and protecting international peace and security, and the potentially catastrophic consequences were deterrence’s restraining effect to be removed while it still remains necessary.

The “Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons” violates all these tenets. Its obligations are longstanding worded, imprecise, vaguely worded and sometimes internally contradictory, while offering only an empty shell for verification. Worse, it is fundamentally at odds with today’s security challenges. It is not simply an unproductive instrument; it is likely to be a counterproductive one, with the potential to cause lasting harm to the nonproliferation regime and to the cause of disarmament alike.

The ban treaty is based on the premise that addressing crucial international security issues is not necessary for disarmament. Ban treaty proponents would have us believe that we can do away with nuclear deterrence despite - to cite just one example - the danger posed by North Korea’s relentless pursuit of nuclear weapons and associated delivery systems, which stand in flagrant violation of international law.

Furthermore, the Treaty does not contain a credible verification mechanism, demurring on the issue almost entirely. It does run counter to decades of progress in nonproliferation verification by endorsing the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement as its standard for safeguarding nuclear material.

Finally, the ban treaty has the potential to do real damage to the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in other ways. It exacerbates political tensions on disarmament, dividing states into overly-simplified camps of “nuclear weapons supporters” and “nuclear weapons banners,” rather than recognizing shared interests – especially on the challenges involved in creating the conditions that would make possible further disarmament progress. Reinforcing this false dichotomy and worsening the world’s polarization on disarmament will make further progress within the institutions that have been vehicles for success, such as the NPT review process, significantly more difficult.

Inspired by the NPT Preamble’s acknowledgement of the need to ease international tension and strengthen trust between States in order to facilitate disarmament, the United States stands ready to work with others on effective measures to create improved conditions for nuclear disarmament. This work is focused on overcoming technical challenges to make substantive progress when the security conditions improve. We also continue our longstanding work to support and strengthen the global nonproliferation regime against the many challenges it faces today, for who could deny that there can be no way to envision today’s nuclear weapons possessors ever putting down such tools without rock-solid assurances that no one else will take them up?

There are no shortcuts to nuclear disarmament. Unrealistic attempts to skip to the finish line have the potential to undermine the institutions and standards we have worked so hard to build. Our collective experience demonstrates that inclusiveness and the search for consensus can lead to progress, while polarization is a recipe for failure. We urge all states to work with us in searching for common solutions to collective problems, pursuing a more secure world.