Still the country of the future – 10/14/2023 – Candido Bracher

Stefan Zweig is one of my favorite writers. As I am not a literature critic, I cannot say that this preference is justified by an in-depth analysis of the literary quality of his books; it’s not that.

As with almost everything we “prefer”, the reason is affective. It may be because when I was very young I heard my father say that he had learned from the author that the Marseillaise —the French national anthem— was composed in a single night, not in Marseille, but in Strasbourg; or because I am fascinated by his biographies —especially that of Ferdinand Magellan— and his engaging autobiography “The World I Saw”; or, mainly, out of a mixed feeling of admiration and compassion for the brilliant man, whose fragile personality could not resist the setbacks that life imposed on him.

Before committing suicide in Brazil in 1942, Zweig wrote “Brazil, country of the future”, a book much more remembered for its title than its content. If for several decades the title was understood as a prediction about to be fulfilled, the economic stagnation that has lasted since the 1980s has reinforced the belief in the blague “Brazil is the country of the future… and always will be”.

The specter of frustrated expectations comes back to haunt us when so many voices refer to the enormous opportunity presented to the country in the context of facing the global warming crisis. Will Roberto Campos’ statement be confirmed once again? “Unfortunately, Brazil never misses the opportunity to miss an opportunity.”

There is no doubt that Brazil can stand out in a scenario that requires the world to bring its carbon emissions to zero by the year 2050. There are studies that indicate that we could be the first nation in the G20 to reach the goal.

Our energy matrix is ​​among the “cleanest” on the planet, the privileged conditions of territory and sunshine and years of technological development that give us exceptional competitive conditions in the production of green hydrogen and the entire biofuel chain count in our favor.

The fact that almost half of our emissions come from deforestation —which can be avoided— and the enormous potential for absorbing and retaining carbon from our forests and using degraded areas also contributes.

It would, however, be a serious mistake to believe that the country can realize its full potential and achieve the growth resulting from the low-carbon economic cycle in an isolated and autonomous way. To this end, it will be necessary to integrate into a global chain that regulates exchanges between countries, certifies carbon credits and debts based on scientifically proven metrics, establishes charges and bonuses according to compliance with emissions reduction commitments, makes producers and users compatible new technologies in order to establish international standards; and so on.

The rules and parameters of this global chain are being negotiated every day between large countries in formal forums, in parallel agreements, in games of force and pressure characteristic of international diplomacy.

The previous government’s denialism excluded Brazil from this game; The new government’s environmentally responsible discourse allows us to aim for a place of strength and prestige at the negotiating table.

To this end, it will be necessary to accompany the speech with concrete measures aligned with it. The main one, without a doubt, is the containment of deforestation in the Amazon. On this front, the first news is positive, but there is still a lot to be done so that forest preservation is sustainable; so that the concept —obvious to the world— that “a standing forest is worth more than a felled one” is also valid for Amazonians.

It will also be essential to give environmental protection in Brazil the status of a “state issue”, not being subject to radical changes of direction with each new election.

Just as the country did with the inflation problem, governance must be created that includes the setting of goals aligned with our commitments and assigns responsibility for their execution and monitoring to independent bodies.

Once the influence that Brazil can exert in negotiations has recovered, there is much to claim; from structural issues such as the accountability of emitting countries and the establishment of a global price for carbon, to fundamental technical aspects for the country to realize its potential.

Among these, I highlight the adoption of metrics that recognize the large difference between the carbon capture capacity of tropical agriculture in relation to that of temperate zones; the equation between emissions reduction and carbon capture (there is a tendency to value the former more); recognition of natural solutions (NBS) for capturing and valuing biodiversity.

In the game of great global interests, we have to negotiate. It will be important to recognize the line of action that best suits us: the European one, with its rigid systems that burden emissions and reward carbon capture and its effort to encourage the global adoption of similar rules through the imposition of taxes that externally reproduce these conditions. ; the American one, with its vast subsidies for the development of green technologies and no sanctions on emitters, delegating the task of bringing emissions to zero to the “market”; or the relative alienation of countries like India, Russia and, especially, China.

I am inclined to believe that the European stance is the most convenient for a country with the comparative advantages of Brazil, but whatever line of alliances we choose, our strength will depend on the coherence of our policy. In this sense, the diplomatic cost of ignoring Ibama’s veto and exploring oil on the equatorial margin would far exceed the very dubious benefits of the measure.

The world is at an inflection point in oil demand. Is it really smart to invest to serve a declining market, harming our potential in the low-carbon economic cycle? Especially taking into account that we will have to compete in this dwindling market with countries like Saudi Arabia which, without having economic alternatives, have much larger reserves and extraction costs much lower than ours?

The shortsightedness of the fossil fuel option would help to keep us in the position of an eternal “country of the future”. Maybe one day, not even that.

The column above was already written when more serious facts made me think about replacing it with this note (“Indignation, period”). Thanks to Sheet for allowing the publication of both texts.

LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access five free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.