By JEAN MARC VON DER WEID*

We are faced with what appears to be the ultimate argument of denialism, the last line of defense for the use of fossil energy: using oil to end the use of oil.

1.

The conflict is getting more and more intense. On one side are President Lula, the most influential figures in the PT and the ministry, the deputies and senators from Amapá, including the powerful Davi Alcolumbre, the vice-king of the Centrão, much of the media and, of course, Petrobras, all defending oil exploration in the Foz do Amazonas Basin, which they prefer to call the Equatorial Margin. On the other side are Minister Marina Silva, of the Environment and Climate Emergency, IBAMA and a broad front of scientists and environmental organizations from civil society, pointing out the environmental risks of inevitable oil spills that could destroy fragile and unique marine ecosystems.

This debate revolves around environmental risk assessment, which is the exclusive responsibility of IBAMA, according to the Brazilian Constitution. Critics of Petrobras' proposal have not said a word about the impact of increased use of fossil fuels on the already catastrophic process of global warming. Marina seems to have forgotten the new name of the ministry she leads, to which the issue of Climate Emergency has been added. At the beginning of his government, Lula wanted to separate the Environment into two bodies, a ministry to be given to Marina Silva, and Climate Emergency, a special secretariat linked to the presidency, to be given to Isabela Teixeira.

Marina Silva fought to keep all these issues under her control and, in theory, she was right and ended up winning. It would be difficult for these two state entities not to butt heads and step on each other's toes, since the issues are highly intertwined. But, in the case of Petrobras' proposal, Marina Silva preferred to forget about the impact on the climate emergency, whose policies are under her responsibility, and to hide behind the president and the technical team of IBAMA, indicating that the decision is scientific and not political and that she will not intervene in the decision.

Advocates for the exploration of yet another front for the expansion of fossil fuel use have been using as an argument the need to use this resource that Providence has graced us with in order to finance the energy transition to the use of renewable energy. Minister Marina Silva or whoever else is on the ministry's staff did not respond to this argument, allowing the president to state that "Marina is an intelligent person, she is not against oil exploration in the Equatorial Margin."

The ones who have moved to respond to the president are environmental organizations from civil society, including a good number of renowned scientists. The manifesto, released a few days ago, points out the more than obvious fallacy of President Lula's argument. Despite having defended the idea of ​​an energy transition to be implemented in Brazil during his government, so far all that has been seen is that subsidies for the consumption of fossil fuels and for the means of transport that use them have grown twice as much as the meager subsidies for the use of “green” energy.

We are faced with what appears to be the ultimate argument of denialism, the last line of defense for the use of fossil energy: using oil to end the use of oil.

2.

Unfortunately, we must acknowledge that we are far from achieving the necessary mobilization of all powers to confront the calamity that is already befalling humanity and the planet as a whole. We are even taking steps backwards in the perception of the risks and the urgency of confronting the climate emergency now and radically. Donald Trump's victory in the United States was particularly pernicious because it represents the most basic level of denialism, which says that "all of this is an invention of America's enemies." In other places, such as in Bolsonaro's Brazil, it is said that this is a communist plot.

It is interesting to note that since 2008, major oil companies have been adopting a more cautious stance, both in their public positions and in their investment decisions. Some of them acknowledge the need for an energy transition and the replacement of fossil fuels with green energy, such as wind or solar energy. And they have been investing in this direction while at the same time practically paralyzing investments in the search for new oil wells.

The reason for this new stance may have nothing to do with an understanding of the harm caused by greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions caused by the use of fossil fuels. More likely, these companies are calculating the duration of current reserves and the increasing cost of investing in research and exploration of new wells. British Petroleum, Shell, Total and other private companies are in the market to buy wells or smaller companies to take over their reserves. This bloc also wants to exploit the deposits in its possession to the last drop or, better yet, to the last dollar, but it is preparing for the inevitable transition to alternative energy sources, not because these emit less greenhouse gases, but because they are becoming more profitable.

On the other hand, the OPEC bloc of countries continues intrepid in its battle against any restriction on the use of fossil fuels and affirms blind denialism, including financing pro-oil marketing. In this field, the argument is simply to ignore the tsunami of scientific information and to claim that global warming is natural and unrelated to fossil fuel emissions.

Part of the national denialism (Bolsonarism) is composed of this extreme that affirms the “naturalness” of global warming or even the non-existence of such warming. There are those who claim that we are entering a new ice age and not a warming age and that the increasing heat is merely circumstantial and even a positive aspect to mitigate a supposed “natural tendency” for temperatures to fall. The defenders of this denial menu are found in various sectors of society, with a strong presence in agribusiness. But the religious fatalist variant is even more widespread: there are those who say that “all of this” is “communist stuff” and that global warming does not exist, and there are those who say that global warming exists, but that it is “God’s will to punish the sins of men.”

3.

Another type of denialism is political in nature and seeks to occupy the left side of this debate. Activists from various left-wing parties firmly believe that the issue of global warming is nothing more than a “narrative” produced by the capitalist countries of the North to prevent the development of the emerging economies of the Global South (ours in particular). The difficult part is reconciling this anti-imperialist discourse and closing ranks with the big oil companies and oil-producing countries as if they were defending the right of peoples to development.

In the case of President Lula and the majority of his government and party, the narrative has been refined and currently has the following content:

– Global warming is happening and the cause is greenhouse gas emissions, especially fossil fuels and deforestation. The culprits are capitalism and rich, developed countries.

– It is necessary to start a transition to replace fossil fuels with “green” energy (wind, solar, hydraulic, nuclear, nitrogen, biological, others).

– Resources are needed to finance this energy transition and these resources will be obtained through the exploration of pre-salt on the equatorial margin.

This position has a lot of ambiguities and imprecisions and its application is highly contradictory. Let's see:

The first point above is a consensus, although the government and the president do not indicate who is responsible for these greenhouse gas emissions here in Brazil. The government is silent, in particular, about the role of agribusiness in Brazil's contribution to global warming, both in terms of deforestation and fires, as well as in the direct emissions of methane and nitrous oxide from agriculture and livestock. The government's position also lacks a sense of urgency regarding the environmental crisis that is already ravaging us, which is only reflected in the new name of the Ministry of the Environment, which also incorporated the Climate Emergency.

On the second point, we do not find concrete data on how this transition should be carried out, nor on the pace at which this process should be applied. All that is known is from the practice of public policies.

The government subsidizes the replacement of gasoline with alcohol and diesel with biodiesel, without discussing the pros and cons of these fuels. For those who find this restriction on “green” energy strange, I would like to remind you that not everything that is green is sustainable and not everything that is natural is healthy. The production of ethanol and biodiesel has significant environmental impacts here and elsewhere.

In Indonesia, the German government is encouraging the production of palm biodiesel to keep greenhouse gas emissions low in Europe, but the resulting deforestation in Asia is more than unbalancing the equation. Here in Brazil, ethanol production has taken over the western quadrangle of São Paulo, eastern Mato Grosso, southern Minas Gerais and northern Paraná, displacing crops and livestock, especially soybeans and cattle, to the Cerrado and the Amazon. These latter ventures cause deforestation that also offsets any potential reductions in greenhouse gases from gasoline and diesel being replaced by plant-based products.

The government is also subsidizing the production and use of solar panels, despite constant sabotage in Congress. The same can be said of wind energy. In both cases, there is no development plan; market forces are simply allowed to operate. The result is the installation of wind and solar “farms,” with a large concentration of energy supply and the displacement of small rural producers, especially in the Northeast. This alternative goes against one of the main advantages of these technologies, the possibility of a decentralized supply of energy on a small scale with positive ecological, economic and social impacts.

4.

The third point is the most controversial. Even assuming that the environmental risks detected by IBAMA are overcome, the main question remains. Does it make sense to explore for oil to replace petroleum?

To begin with, the investment required to research the supposed oil basin of the equatorial margin is very high. Secondly, the maturity time of this investment is 8 to 12 years, until the first barrels of oil reach the refineries in commercial volume. What will the planet be like in 2033/2037?

If we do not eliminate greenhouse gas emissions, make the energy transition away from fossil fuels by 2035, and stop deforestation and burning (among other measures with less impact), we will be on track to see the average temperature of the planet rise by 3°C! The implications of this statement are enormous, and I will begin by showing that this number did not come from a catastrophic futuristic film.

Let us remember that the Earth's average temperature rose by one degree Celsius between 1850/1900 and 2015 and by a further 0,6°C between 2015 and 2024. The acceleration was gigantic and indicates that all the timeframes indicated by scientific studies to date are unrealistic. First of all, the last 4 months have seen the temperature rise reach 1,75°C. This could be a temporary spike, the result of an exceptionally weak La Niña. But the causes could be more structural and deeper.

Many scientists are assessing that the feedback mechanisms of global warming, predicted to occur after 2030 and 2050 (depending on the type of phenomenon) and with temperatures rising above 2°C, have come into operation much earlier than expected. The result of this unexpected acceleration is that we will reach an additional 2°C in the planet's temperature by the end of this decade.

It is important to remember that these figures conceal an even more sinister reality. All IPCC scientists are aware (and are fighting to make politicians and the public aware of this) that we are already doomed to a 2°C increase in the planet's average temperature. This is because there is a time delay between the moment GHGs reach the atmosphere and their effect on the temperature of the seas and continents.

With the amount of greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere, an additional 2°C is guaranteed. It was thought that this so-called limit point temperature would be reached around 2040, and 1,5°C around 2030. The urgency of controlling greenhouse gas emissions as quickly as possible is to prevent us from exceeding 2°C. And, as previously stated, we are already on track to reach this limit in the coming years, even before 2030. If we do not stop the generation of greenhouse gases, we will enter the next decade with temperatures rising towards 3°C.

It is the failure to understand the gravity and urgency of the threat of global warming that characterizes the denialism of the Lula government, the PT and the Brazilian left. All decisions ignore the acceleration of global warming and ignore its already visible and sensitive impacts. The government acts as if current conditions will remain more or less the same and refuses to think about longer time frames than the next elections, two years away.

Since the global warming scenario is complex and confronting it has low political support as an electoral issue, Lula prefers to give in to denialism (or he himself thinks that “everything will remain as before in the Abrantes barracks”). It makes no difference whether Lula gives in to the interests of Alcolumbre, the automobile industry, agribusiness or whether he himself believes in the narrative of the need to explore oil in order to stop using oil: the result will be catastrophic for Brazil and for the world.

5.

In this context, what is the point of exploring oil on the equatorial margin? In fact, what is the point of exploring fossil fuels anywhere?

If we commit the insanity of insisting on this endeavor, we will reach the point of extracting oil on the coast of Amapá with a world in chaos or with the world no longer using oil. In either case, it will be a lost investment.

Many of my friends argue that “others” continue to explore oil and even coal, and this would justify us doing the same. It is as if the passengers of the Titanic decided in unison to increase the speed of the ship towards the iceberg that sank it. Metaphors aside, there are differences in this denialist stance, as I have pointed out previously. There is little investment in research into new deposits due to the immense costs and meager results. What the owners of the deposits that are already being explored want is to exploit the reserves they have to the maximum limit. But this is not the case with Petrobras, in this proposal to explore a new deposit on the Equatorial Margin.

Instead of using huge resources from Petrobras (3 to 5 billion dollars) and BNDES for this dive into the past of the illusory times of “black gold”, we have to invest in the energy transition.

To begin with, the government would need to abandon its policy of subsidizing the automobile industry. This is a broader discussion that is not appropriate here, but it is not enough to simply replace diesel or gasoline cars with electric cars. This is only part of the change. It is necessary, but not the main one. The most important thing is to replace the individual transportation mode of automobiles in urban areas with a collective transportation mode of buses, subways and trains. Individual transportation will only be for bicycles or those with special needs. In cargo transportation, another radical change in mode will be necessary, from trucks to trains, waterways and coastal shipping. And air transportation will need to be greatly reduced.

What is happening in Lula III's Brazil is the opposite and the consequence is an increase in greenhouse gas emissions.

And to speed up the abandonment of fossil fuels, the first step is to remove all subsidies that make them artificially cheaper. The government doesn't even want to hear about this and is constantly pressuring Petrobras to keep prices down. Global warming will thank you.

It will be necessary to set dates for the different measures, remembering that the zero emissions target will have to be brought forward to 2030. Increasing the use of solar panels and windmills for local generation is an important step to be taken. Solar panels on the roofs of buildings may not be elegant, but they are less expensive and complicated than creating huge wind and solar farms, although these options should not be ruled out, depending on the situation. On the other hand, the plan should include the deactivation of thermal power plants for generating electricity, primarily coal-fired ones.

But if Brazil's biggest contribution to global warming is deforestation and burning (70% of our greenhouse gas emissions), our biggest effort should be directed towards controlling these crimes.

The government tries to separate deforestation and arson from agribusiness activities, but the truth is that the two movements are intrinsically intertwined. Beef agribusiness companies buy cattle raised in deforested areas, after spending a final season fattening up on farms where deforestation occurred earlier. Soybean plantations are also grown in deforested areas in the Amazon and Cerrado. Monitoring cattle, defining where they were born, raised and fattened when slaughtered, is something that is now commonplace: all you have to do is put an electronic device in the animal's ear at birth and its entire history and movements are recorded. There have been bills in Congress for over 15 years, making cattle tracking mandatory, but the ruralist caucus is not letting them move forward.

This tracking was required in the European Union for all products originating from areas deforested after 2020, and this law has already been voted on in all EU member states and is expected to come into force next year. The deadline was January of this year, but the Lula government managed to postpone the application of the requirement while it negotiates with the bureaucracy in Brussels. Supporting the agribusiness blockade of the Mercosur/EU agreement and not pressuring Congress to avoid having to face resistance from the ruralist caucus is to give up control over land grabbing, deforestation and fires.

The government trumpeted the reduction of deforestation in the Amazon in 2023, forgetting two things: the increase in other biomes, particularly in the Cerrado (and even more so in MATOPIBA) and the incredible increase in fires everywhere, but especially in the Amazon.

The government already knows that land grabbing in the Amazon has changed tactics and is burning the standing forest. This has occurred due to the increased control capacity of INPE to identify in real time who is deforesting and where. On the other hand, while IBAMA can find out from INPE who the deforesters are, the lack of personnel and equipment for rapid movement prevents them from being caught red-handed and makes prosecutions more difficult. But land grabbers now prefer to burn the standing forest, which is much more difficult to monitor. Burning a humid tropical forest has become possible given the increasing dryness and rising temperatures. The truth is that without tracking, it will be difficult to control deforestation and burning and, therefore, the bulk of our GHG contributions to global warming.

6.

Finally, although I think the biggest problem is the oil exploration itself and less the location where it is intended to take place, it still seems outrageous to me that the president is accusing IBAMA of nonsense and embarrassing Minister Marina Silva by pushing for the release of the area. During the election campaign, Lula attacked Jair Bolsonaro for doing exactly the same thing with exactly the same objective.

Marina Silva must have known that the arguments Lula used to attract her to the campaign and to the government were just for show. She had already had several bitter experiences in Lula's first government, where she entered as a heroine and left as an outcast. Just like 20 years ago, Marina Silva entered the Ministry of the Environment proposing a "cross-cutting" ministry, influencing all public policies to ensure a sustainable focus on development.

Back then, as now, it was too good to be true and Marina Silva was deflated from day one until she became a hindrance to the (not at all sustainable) development plans of the president and the PT. She swallowed a lot of cururu toads and even watched the government propose a biosafety law that removed from IBAMA and ANVISA the constitutional responsibility to approve the introduction of exotic organisms into Brazilian ecosystems. Lula and the PT did what FHC did not dare to do: they opened the doors to the introduction of transgenic plants in Brazil, all to please agribusiness.

Now Lula is once again confronting IBAMA and embarrassing Marina Silva, all to ensure oil exploration in sensitive ecosystems and against the need to stop the use of fossil fuels. Furthermore, the president led Brazil to join OPEC+, the stronghold of the most staunch deniers, forgetting his intention of international leadership for the “green economy” to be consecrated at COP30 next November.

Faced with the urgency of the environmental crisis and the acceleration of global warming, the president is ignoring much more than the predictions of the IPCC reports. Catastrophes are already looming over the entire world and Brazil: increasingly intense and prolonged heat waves, droughts and floods that are breaking records every year, the multiplication of pests in agriculture and viruses in human health, and increasingly widespread and devastating forest fires.

All this is being reported every day, month and year, without respite. The environmental apocalypse has already arrived, we are only at the beginning of the curve. What remains to be done is to take measures to reduce future damage and preserve a habitable part of the planet for our children and grandchildren.

In this context, it is ridiculous and tragic to continue to explore oil under the pretext of “benefiting the people”, ignoring the sinister threats to these same people and their immediate descendants, arising from the use of this so-called “saving wealth”.

*Jean Marc von der Weid is a former president of the UNE (1969-71). Founder of the non-governmental organization Family Agriculture and Agroecology (ASTA).

the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE