Based on the text below, answer the question.

Slash and burn Brazil's rainforest is going up in smoke. Again. 

As Brazil'S skyscrapers and silos rose, it seemed the most impressive quality of this 21st-century Latin American powerhouse was its ability to grow without trashing the environment. Just last year, Brasilia was boasting about a steep decline in deforestation in the Amazon rainforest, a feat that President Dilma Rousseff trumpeted as "impressive, the fruit of social change." What would she say now? 

After nearly a decade of steady decline, forest cutting has spiked again in the world's largest rainforest. The nonprofit Amazon watchdog organization, Imazon, released a study reporting that deforestation at the hands of farmers and ranchers jumped 90 percent in the 12 months since April of last year. And since burning always follows felling, another 88 million tons of carbon dioxide and other gases hit the atmosphere—a 62 percent increase on the year. 

For decades, Brazilians were told that ruin in the Amazon was the price of development. But recent research has imploded that assumption. A paper published by the National Academy of Sciences shows that continued deforestation threatens not just the trees but the progress and riches their removal were thought to guarantee. The paper bolsters an old theory by Brazilian climate scientist Eneas Salati, who argued that the Amazon actually produces half its own rainfall. The takeaway: remove too much of the forests and the Amazon could dry out. And more than the jungle is at stake. Reduced rainfall from forest cutting could dry up the water that powers hydroelectric dams, thus slashing Brazilian power-generating capacity by 40 percent by midcentury. It could also rob the food larder, cutting soybean productivity by 28 percent and beef production by 34 percent. 

Brasilia quickly countered the environmental skeptics by saying that these are unofficial figures, noting that the National Space Institute is still crunching the satellite data. The government is still basking in last year's numbers: only 4,600 square kilometers of forests felled, a fraction of the 27,700 square kilometers lost in 2004. But the Rousseff administration would do well to heed the smoke signals. Even Brasilia admits that Brazil's continued rise to glory turns on the country's ability to stay green.

(Adapted from http://thedailybeast.com/newswek/2013/06/05)

EXTRACT 1

Japan’s shipyards remain intact after quake

Japan’s major shipyards escaped the full impact of the March 11 earthquake and tsunami that struck the northeastern coast of the country with full force. An official at the Japan Ship Exporters’ Association said the devastating natural disaster “will have no impact on future export ship orders at all”. Although several small shipyards in the quake-hit areas were affected, major Japanese shipyards that build large vessels for exports are concentrated in western Japan and remain intact, the official said. Mitsui Engineering & Shipbuilding sustained “slight material damages” in the company’s Kasai Center and Chiba Works but did not consider such slight damages would cause serious impact on operations. “The rotational schedule of interruption of power supply due to the earthquake may affect our operation at our works and subsidiaries. However, the degree of the impact is not known now,” the company said in a statement. Japanese export ship orders rose for the 15th consecutive month in February o a year-on-year basis. Japanese shipbuilders received orders for 277 export vessels – 259 bulk carriers, 10 oil tankers and eight general cargo vessels – in the April-February period.

                        (Adapted from: www.australianmerchantnavy.com, March 2011)

EXTRACT 2

Tsnunami Debris Expected on U.S. Shores in 3 Years

The powerful tsunami triggered by the 9.0 Japanese earthquake destroyed coastal towns near Sendai, washing such things as houses and cars into the ocean. Projections of where this debris might head have been made at the international Pacific Research Center, university of Hawaii at Manoa. What their model predicts about the tsunami debris is that they first spread out eastward from the Japan Coast in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre. In a year, the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument will see pieces washing up on its shores; in two years, the remaining Hawaiian islands will see some effects; in three years, the plume will reach the US West Coast, dumping debris on Californian beaches and the beaches of British Columbia, Alaska, and Baja California. The debris will then drift into the famous floating junk yard, the North Pacific Garbage Patch, where it will wander around and break into smaller and smaller pieces. In five years, Hawaii shores can expect to see another barrage of debris that is stronger and longer-lasting than the first one. Much of the debris leaving the North Pacific Garbage Patch ends up on Hawaii’s reefs and beaches. These model projections will help to guide clean-up and tracking operations.

                                                 (Adapted from: www.geog.ucsb.edu, April 2011)

Instrução: Leia o texto para responder a questão.

The Big Destructiveness Of The Tiny Bribe

Alexandra Wrage 03.01.2010

    The smallest bribes can be the most vexing. Not suitcases full of money and transfers to offshore accounts, but the thousands of everyday payments people make to Indian building inspectors, Chinese customs officials and Nigerian airport functionaries, just to get things done. They’re payments for routine government services that a government official is legally obliged to perform but for which he’s hoping to skim off a little extra.

    Unlike more serious bribes, these very modest payouts, formally known as “facilitating payments”, are not against the laws of the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand or South Korea, when made abroad. They’re illegal for Great Britain, but the Serious Fraud Office there has taken the extraordinary public position that they’re unlikely to give rise to a prosecution.

    Why don’t governments that lead the fight against large-scale bribery fall in line with what is already the practice of many major companies? They don’t want to outlaw such small-scale graft in foreign places, they say, because they don’t have the manpower to prosecute violators. By that logic, communities with just enough resources to handle murder and armed robbery would give a green light to shoplifting. You’d think a government could at least go after a few high-profile cases to set an example and a precedent. Permitting these smaller payments has to impede the effort to crack down on the larger ones. Companies know this.

    “Facilitating” bribes are not tips. Tipping is voluntary, and you decide to do it after a service has been rendered. You don’t pay it at the outset to induce the waiter to bring the food, and you can always go somewhere else to eat next time should the service be bad.

    Nor are they welfare for underpaid civil servants. If government workers are underpaid, we should compensate them for the cost of customs inspections or airport security by aboveboard means, through taxation and so forth. Payment to individuals not only slows service but also encourages entrepreneurial civil servants to increase their income by creating more and greater obstacles.

    Nor are they a mere distraction from the fight against bigger bribes. Rather, they fuel the problem. Junior officials who look for small bribes rise to higher positions by paying off those above them. Corruption creates pyramids of illegal payments flowing upward. Legalizing the base of the pyramid gives it a strong and lasting foundation.

    Nor are these payments legal where they’re made. They may not be banned by the wealthy countries mentioned above, but they are outlawed in the countries where they’re actually a problem. Do developed countries want to say they wouldn’t tolerate such payments at home but don’t care if they’re made abroad? And since they’re illegal in the countries where they’re paid, companies can’t put them on their books. The classic cover for a bribe is to call it a “consulting fee”, but that is a books and records violation that is illegal in any country.

(www.forbes.com. Adaptado.)