Talk
to
us

The
Science of
Climate
Change

The
United Nations
Framework
Convention

Brazil
and the
Convention

National

Communication

Negotiations

The
Kyoto
Protocol

Clean
Development
Mechanism

Program:

Climate
Change
Program

Interministerial

Commission

on
Global
Climate
Change

Brazilian
Climate
Change
Forum

News
Board
Climate: where uncertainty lays

Discussions on climate change —
and who may be contributing to it — are certainly going to intensify
throughout this week and part of the next one, not only within the scope
of the Brazil Agenda XXI forum, which the Ministry of Environment
initiated yesterday at the BNDES (Brazilian Foundation for Sustainable
Development), but also at the Rio+5 meetings, starting on Thursday under
the coordination of the Earth’s Council (both meetings taking place in
Rio de Janeiro). And it will not be by chance, neither there will be
insufficient reasons for weeping and gnashing of teeth.

To begin with, it’s worth
recalling words by scientist Philip Fearnside, from the Amazonia
Research Institute, when he participated last January of an opportune
balance of the last five years of environmental plan, promoted by the
Brazilian Academy of Sciences, the Advanced Studies Institute of the
University of São Paulo and the Brazilian Foundation for Sustainable
Development. Fearnside criticized the position of those, inside and
outside Brazil, who suggest an attitude of precaution in face of this
matter, using the argument that there would be still too much
uncertainty as to the possibility of climate changes happen due to human
actions. Fearnside pointed out that if there is uncertainty, it is more
likely to be in its maximum degree for changes to happen and less in its
minimum degree (it’s practically certain that they will take place at
some extent, say the scientists, if we do not revert the current
scenario of emissions; therefore, even the United States have accepted
the imposition of mandatory emission limits). Besides, precaution should
guide our conduct so that we are prudent and moderate, and not be used
as an excuse for us to keep increasing atmospheric pollution.

This starting point
established, it is painful to come to the conclusion that we are not
among the prudent ones. Far from that. Although technically protected by
diplomatic subtleties, we are behind with the inventory of our
pollutants emissions, and the most favorable hypothesis is that we
finish it in the middle of the next year — in spite of around six
hundred people from more than fifty institutions be working on it, under
the coordination of the Ministry of Science and Technology. We sure have
problems with capacity building of scientists for this task, as it is
also true that from the R$ 7 million promised for that, only R$ 1.5
million was provided, since the granting countries have not fulfilled
the obligations accepted at the respective convention. But, as recalled
Prof. Fernando Rei, from USP and UNICAMP and executive secretary to the
State Climate Change Program (SP) at the said balance, "we cannot say
that there is already an effective work for implementation of the
Convention in Brazil". An opinion shared by the coordinator of this area
at the Ministry of Science and Technology, José Domingos Gonzalez
Miguez, who believes that "in Brazil, climate change is not a priority"
— we lack reliable information from various sectors, as well as
methodologies, resources and the actual administrative reform of the
federal government raises difficulties for forming a technical team
"putting the success of the project at risk".

It is a matter of concern
because all the scientists agree that Brazilian pollutants emissions
(estimated today to be around 2% of total emissions) should grow, even
though they know that 95% of our energy generation comes from
hydroelectric plants, that we have a generation program from renewable
biomass, the (orphan and semi-abandoned) Pro-alcohol, as well as an
energy conservation program, which continues to be little encouraged
(Eletrobrás admits that our electricity waste is still 15.5% of the
total production and that it only intends to reduce it by 5% over twenty
years).

Anyway, developing countries
have already attempted to move Brazil — along with China and India —
from their position under the convention on climate change in a group
with differentiated and smaller responsibilities, for the group of
nations that answer for 65% of emissions and hold much greater
responsibilities. Meanwhile, these countries that are the greatest
polluters delay the fulfillment of their own obligations, claiming
either that technological changes may come upon with more efficient
results, or that cheaper methods for reducing emissions may be
discovered.

But an internal controversy,
inside and outside Brazil, arises in relation to this particular matter,
as the convention enables the "joint implementation" of projects for the
reduction of pollutants emissions. Many developed countries interpreted
this permission as the possibility of financing projects for the
reduction of pollutants emissions in developing countries, but abating
this reduction from the emissions balance of the countries that financed
this credit. It is a very controversial view. A good example — mentioned
by Prof. José Domingos Gonzalez Miguez — happened in Sweden, which
financed a program for substituting coal as energy source in the Baltic
countries in order to reduce emissions. It sold technology,
consultancies, provided financing at market interest rates, managed to
reduce the acid rain produced in those countries and that fell on
Swedish forests — and still claimed the right to abate from their
pollutants emissions the reduction obtained in the Baltic States.

In Brazil, there is no
unanimity in this issue. Philip Fearnside himself believes that we
should accept this kind of projects to implant, for instance,
reforestation programs in degraded areas, like the Floram Program (which
could be accounted as "carbon sinks"). He also thinks that we should
claim the consideration of the benefits generated for the planet with
the preservation of the Amazonian forest — not for us to acquire the
right to emit more pollutants, but to obtain resources that would enable
us to take further preservation steps.

Although Prof. Fernando Rei
does not consider advantageous Brazil’s "promotion" to the group of the
greatest polluters, via joint implementation, he has no doubts that we
can continue a process of economic growth — but with decreasing
pollution. Undoubtedly, however, "current energy policies tend to
stimulate economic competitiveness in detriment of the strategic
character of the efforts to establish a sustainable society". He
believes there is not enough incentive for energy renewable sources and
conservation. Traditional economic instruments in decision making ignore
social and environmental costs. They end up generating distortions in
favor of energy options that have a prejudicial influence in the
environmental ground.

There is no other way but
agreeing. Neither it is of any use whistling in the dark to chase away
ghosts. According to the World Resources Institute, one of the sponsors
of the Rio+5, since 1950, per capita emissions of carbon dioxide in the
planet have grown from 2.38 to 4.21 metric tons a year. In the United
States, the figure is 19.53 tons per person, in India, 0.81 ton.
Altogether, the industrial society has already increased the level of
carbon concentration in the atmosphere by 30%.

The fact that the United States
accepted to discuss, at the conference to be held in Kyoto, next
December, the imposition of mandatory emissions limit is not an evidence
of their good intentions. Neither will it be easy to reach an agreement.
The establishment of new patterns may have deep consequences in the
economy of each country — changes in energy matrixes, investments
redistribution, jobs relocation, substitution of materials, markets
consumption displacement and so on.

In Brazil, a radical behavior
change would be essential, starting with the governments: admitting that
in the next decades — slowly or by leaps and bounds — the environmental
issues will consist of the foundation upon which all the policies will
have to be laid. And whichever does not, will not survive, no matter
what or from what sector they are. It will not be possible to conceive,
for example, an energy policy (with its extensions in privatizations) as
the current one, with sovereign contempt for the environmental matters.
Neither a foreign trade policy dangerously based on the intensive and
reckless use of natural resources (since they are sectors that do not
interest developed countries, there are no longer political and social
conditions to overburden them).

In other words, the environment
is strategic in life and politics. We have to accept this fact and take
the necessary steps.