Coal association changes name; NGOs see greenwashing – 03/18/2024 – Environment

The Brazilian Mineral Coal Association changed its name this month to the Brazilian Sustainable Carbon Association, with the acronym ABCS, which refers to an identity more concerned with the impacts that the fossil fuel industry causes to the planet.

Environmental NGOs, in turn, question the measure. In the view of organizations heard by the Sheet, the coal lobby tries, with the change, to embed a green label in its activities without having achieved effective results, which they say amounts to “greenwashing”. The expression in English is used to point out false sustainable marketing strategies.

The presidency of ABCS, formerly known as ABCM, refutes the criticism and argues that the change reflects its new strategic planning, aimed at containing greenhouse gases.

Fernando Luiz Zancan, president of the association, states that the repositioning began in 2023, in line with movements in the international coal sector.

“We are going to China in June to see the desulphurization plant [processo para remover enxofre das emissões de gases de combustão de usinas térmicas]. The production of fertilizers, from coal ash, is one of the lines to use CO_two and decarbonize plants. The other line is the traditional one, capturing CO_two and reinject underwater, something that Petrobras does”, he lists.

A representative of the Chinese company JET JNG US confirmed to Sheet which negotiates partnerships with Brazil’s coal sector and stated that it has already presented technology that applies ammonia to clean heavy metals and gases emitted by thermoelectric plants. However, there are still no results in Brazil, as the measures are in the study phase.

According to Zancan, the association’s pilot projects aim for net zero carbon emissions with actions that are financially viable. The idea, he says, is to keep the coal industry active in Brazil, without having to put an end to it.

The use of coal was one of the targets of the text approved at COP28, the last UN climate conference, in which countries agreed to transition away from fossil fuels. The final document of the Dubai summit defines that nations must “reduce unmitigated coal production”, that is, whose emissions have not been offset.

“The industry generates 21 thousand jobs, both direct and indirect, and R$5 billion per year. If it closes, jobs and economic movement will end. We look at a fair transition, focused on people. We are not just working with coal , but also with the feasibility of creating more business models, new economic activities for the Minas Gerais regions”, says Zancan.

The entity’s president also argues that fossil fuel is necessary for Brazil’s energy security.

From an environmental perspective, the scenario is different. For Juliano Araújo, executive director of the Arayara Institute, an NGO focused on the issue of fossil fuels, “‘greenwashing’ is not enough to define the new positioning” of coal in Brazil.

Araújo, who is also a representative of the Mineral Coal and Oil and Gas observatories, states that the mineral coal entity in Brazil changed its identity as a survival strategy, in an attempt to bring industry activities closer to environmental and social issues.

In his view, there is no “green, or sustainable, mineral coal, or anything of that nature” or commercial project that makes coal a source of clean energy, which has already been tested in other regions of the world without success or economic viability.

“The coal industry has become accustomed to receiving economic subsidies from the government, which are paid by the consumer. The sector also does not give due environmental treatment to waste and toxic pollutants from its activities. More than a thousand coal mines are abandoned and contaminate the environment environment every day, generating water and atmospheric surface liabilities”, he says.

Still according to Araújo, energy from coal is more expensive, maintained by subsidies such as the CDE (Energy Development Account). More than R$40 billion will be allocated to finance the use of this energy source in the coming decades, he highlights.

“Mineral coal in Brazil represents, in the generation of electricity, around 1% to 1.5% of the country’s entire energy source, therefore it is not decisive for our energy security, under any circumstances.”

Another concern on the part of environmental entities is the political bias, guaranteeing the activity of the coal industry through laws that benefit the sector. These measures delay Brazil in the green transition, says Iema (Institute of Energy and Environment), which is part of the Climate Observatory, a network of more than one hundred non-governmental entities.

Ricardo Baitelo, project manager at Iema, cites the amendments in PL (bill) 11.247/18, on offshore wind energy. The way it was approved in the Chamber, it distorts the original proposal with the so-called “tortoises”. Baitelo highlights the inclusion of the mandatory contracting of coal thermoelectric plants at a high price, with a direct economic impact on the consumer.

“In January 2022, a law was approved to extend subsidies for coal until 2040. Now, in the discussion of offshore wind farms, the same thing is being sought, with a longer term [agora 2050] and more incentives for coal”, he says.

Baitelo sees cultural resistance to the energy transition, since solar, wind and biomass energy generation can employ even more than the coal sector in Brazil.

“I see the motivations of, now, ABCS as a big problem. If we really want sustainability, we would only go for renewable sources, with clean energy generation, energy efficiency and decentralized, and not extend the useful life of thermal plants to coal”, he assesses.