INSIGHTS
Is COP Kicking the can further down the road…again?
COP must evolve with the times, or go down the abyss of irrelevancy.
COP 30 lands in Belém, a vulnerable Amazon city, Nov 10–21, 2025. The host nation hopes to spotlight deforestation, Indigenous rights, and climate inequity. Brazil plans to launch the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF)—a proposed $125 billion blended‑finance fund to reward forest conservation.
What’s at risk
- Affordability crisis: Belém has ~18,000 hotel beds for ~45,000 expected attendees. Room rates surged to $700–$2,000/night. Developing nations may be shut out.) Brazil has deployed cruise ships and capped rates for poorer countries—but gaps remain.
- Credibility gap: A new highway cutting through protected rainforest (Avenida Liberdade) contradicts the summit’s conservation message—even though officials deny federal involvement.
- Fossil fuel influence: COP media deal awarded to PR firm Edelman, which also represents Shell—sparking conflict concerns.
Why it may just “kick the can”
- Progress stalled in Bonn: Critical texts—like the Just Transition Work Programme and the Gender Action Plan—are underpowered, with weakening language on Indigenous and gender justice. Negotiations postponed to Belém.
- Ambitious goals, low political will: The annual climate finance scale-up roadmap to $1.3 trillion by 2035 lacks binding commitments. Most countries’ updated NDCs remain underwhelming.
- Logistical chaos: Thousands of civil society, women groups, and youth may be excluded by cost and infrastructure constraints, undermining representation.
Why it still matters
- Location is symbolic: Holding COP in the Amazon aims to humanize climate action, not sanitize it in luxury venues.
- TFFF could deliver: If fully funded by COP or 2026, the forest conservation fund could redefine climate finance.
- Health in focus: A WHO-led Climate & Health conference in Brasília is shaping a Health Action Plan for COP, embedding public health in climate policy.
Bottom line
COP 30 has the potential for impact—but so far, optics risk overshadowing outcomes. High costs, diluted ambition, fossil-fuel influence, and delayed mechanisms could make Belém another kickoff, not a game changer. Unless financial pledges and rights-centered action materialize, COP 30 may merely defer real climate solutions to the next summit.
As people in America–and worldwide–are rethinking their residencies, Brazil offers a unique opportunity.
Why it matters
Brazil’s investor visa (VIPER), launched in 2018 and expanded in 2025, offers straight to permanent residency, family inclusion, and a path to citizenship in ~4 years. Designed to attract foreign capital, it’s one of Latin America’s most competitive options.
✅ Pros
- Low investment threshold: BRL 700K (~USD 140K) in the North/Northeast; BRL 1 M (~USD 200K) in other regions.
- Fast processing: Approval typically in 3–6 months.
- Minimal stay requirement: Spend just ~14 days every 2 years in Brazil to maintain residency.(
- Path to citizenship: Apply after 4 years of residency; dual nationality allowed.
- Family included: Spouse and dependents can join under the same investment.
- Access to MERCOSUR: Freedom to live/work across South America and access public services locally.
❌ Cons & caveats
- Capital-intensive: Though cheaper than many EU programs, still requires upfront investment.
- Low liquidity: Must hold qualifying property or business for residency status.
- Complex documentation: Must transfer funds through formal Brazilian banks; property deed must be fully registered.
- Tax implications: Residents become Brazilian tax-liable; must file global income.
- Risk & bureaucracy: Mistakes in property purchase or application can lead to denial.
⚙️ How it works
- Choose investment route:
- Real estate: BRL 1M (~USD 200K), or BRL 700K in North/Northeast.
- Business investment: As low as BRL 150K (~USD 30K) if it creates jobs or invests in tech.
- Acquire property or company with clean title in urban region.
- Transfer funds via central‑bank‑approved channels.
- Apply via MigrantWeb and attend a brief visit (~30 days in-country).
- Receive temp residency (2–4 years), then upgrade to permanent if holding the investment.
- Citizenship after residency plus Portuguese proficiency and clean record.
Real-world impact
- Stimulates foreign investment into Brazilian real estate and startups.
- Helps diversify global mobility: Dual citizens gain visa-free access to ~171 countries.
- Competitive edge: Lower thresholds than Spain, Portugal, and others, with faster timelines and better climate
Who should consider it
- Remote workers or retirees seeking affordable residency in Latin America
- Investors looking for second passports or access to Mercosur markets
- Entrepreneurs or families seeking global mobility and alternate residency options
Bottom line
Brazil’s Golden Visa isn’t just another residency-by-investment program—it’s a strategic gateway to permanent residency, citizenship, and regional access, at competitive cost and with minimal residency obligations.
Whether you’re buying property in Recife or launching a startup in São Paulo, Brazil offers a forward-facing bridge for global citizens—without the EU price tag.
America’s public media system is stuck in a time warp — built for a world that no longer exists.
Back then…
When the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) was founded in 1967, there was:
- ❌ No internet
- ❌ No YouTube
- ❌ No MP3s or MP4s
- ❌ No smartphones
- ❌ No TikTok, file sharing, livestreams, or global DIY distribution
NPR, PBS, and local community stations were born in the age of vinyl and rabbit ears — and many still operate like it’s 1975.
The old model
- Broadcast licenses → transmit radio/TV signals
- Federal subsidies + pledge drives → fund operations
- Audience = passive receivers
All built for one-to-many media when the internet has made everyone a node.
The new reality
Welcome to media in motion:
- Creators self-distribute across platforms
- Real-time news spreads peer-to-peer
- Audiences expect participation, not programming
- Livestreams, podcasts, and video-on-demand rule attention
It’s horse and buggy vs the electric car, and too much of public media is still shoveling hay.
Why it matters
| Then | Now |
|---|---|
| Top-down | Peer-to-peer |
| Static schedules | On-demand, everywhere |
| Centralized stations | Decentralized communities |
| Annual pledge drives | Micro-giving, crowdfunding, subscriptions |
We can’t build the future with our minds in the past. Yet too much of public media clings to legacy systems, dated org charts, and siloed content.
What’s being lost
- Entire generations under 40 have no relationship with public radio or TV
- Community voices, diverse stories, and local impact are drowned out by outdated delivery
- Opportunity for global collaboration, multilingual content, and co-creation is missed
Public media could be a participatory ecosystem — but instead, it’s often a museum exhibit of what media used to be.
What’s next
✅ Shift from broadcast to networked ecosystems
✅ Enable community-owned media nodes
✅ Train creators in digital-first storytelling
✅ Embrace open-source, global collaboration
✅ Reimagine the CPB as a commons infrastructure, not a broadcast subsidy
Bottom line
We don’t do that anymore.
Public media must evolve—or become irrelevant. This is not business as usual. It’s time to flip the script—before the last station fades to static.
United Artists was born from frustration and vision. Four of Hollywood’s biggest names flipped the script on studio power — creating a model where artists controlled the means of production and distribution. Seeking inspiration from their vision enables us to reimagine—-everything.
United Artists: A studio born in rebellion
In 1919, four Hollywood legends did what no one expected: they took power from the studios and launched United Artists (UA) — a company by artists, for artists.
Why it happened
At the time, actors and directors had no creative control. The big studios (Paramount, MGM, Universal) owned everything — from talent to theaters.
The problem: Artists were treated like employees, with no say over their work, no ownership of their films, and strict contracts that limited freedom.
Who led the charge
| Founder | Role |
|---|---|
| Charlie Chaplin | Actor-director-genius of silent comedy |
| Mary Pickford | “America’s Sweetheart” and box office queen |
| Douglas Fairbanks | Action hero of the silent screen |
| D.W. Griffith | Director and film innovator (controversial figure) |
Together, they created United Artists Corporation — a distribution company that allowed artists to produce and own their own films.
How it worked
UA wasn’t a studio with backlots and crews. Instead, it distributed films made independently by its members and partners.
Artists brought their projects. UA helped with financing, promotion, and getting the films into theaters — but not dictating the creative process.
Why it mattered
| Innovation | Impact |
|---|---|
| Artist-owned distribution | Gave creators control of content & profits |
| Studio alternative | Proved creators didn’t need traditional studio deals |
| Model for future rebels | Inspired generations — from indie filmmakers to creators in music, podcasting, and digital media today |
UA became the first major challenge to Hollywood’s power structure — the original media coop long before YouTube, Patreon, or NFTs.
Lasting legacy
- UA helped launch hits like The Gold Rush, The Thief of Bagdad, and My Fair Lady
- It inspired future movements like indie film in the ’90s and creator economies today
- Its founding remains a blueprint for media freedom and creator-first platforms
