A bill essentially abolishing Brazil’s environmental licensing system is just days away from likely passage by the country’s National Congress. Despite the environmental discourse of President Luiz Inácio “Lula” da Silva, what is known as the “bill of devastation” (PL 2159/2021) apparently has his tacit approval. Even if Lula vetoes the bill, anti-environmental voting blocks in the National Congress have more than the 60% in each house needed to override a veto.
The “bill of devastation” has been promoted as relieving “low impact” projects of unnecessary bureaucracy, but it is very much more than this. First, it is for both “low” and “medium” impact projects, two categories that are vaguely defined, allowing projects with major impacts to be benefitted. The bill applies to licensing at both the state and federal levels, and at the state level there is expected to be a “race to the bottom” as states compete to attract investments by loosening environmental restrictions.
The “medium impact” category is a misnomer, as it includes most mining projects such as the mine tailings dams that broke in 2015 at Mariana and in 2019 at Brumadinho to create two of Brazil’s worst environmental disasters.
Under the bill, these “low” and “medium” impact projects would be licensed by what is known as “self-licensing,”. This eliminates the need for an environmental impact assessment, public hearings and specification of compensatory measures in the event of accidents or other impacts. Basically, this self-declared statement consists of checking a series of boxes on an online form.
Bypassing any public or committee debate, at the last minute before the Senate’s plenary vote the bill was modified with an amendment that increased its environmental impact even more. The amendment created a “Special Environmental License” that would allow any project considered to be “strategic” to have an accelerated approval process, regardless of the magnitude of its impacts.
The amendment is believed to be specifically intended to facilitate the controversial mouth-of-the-Amazon oil project, which has major potential impacts both from potentially uncontrollable oil spills and from its impact on climate change.
Brazil’s imminent climate disaster
Global climate and the Amazon forest are both approaching tipping points where the process of collapse escapes from human control. These imminent disasters are intertwined: if the Amazon forest were to collapse it would release more than enough greenhouse gases to push global temperatures beyond the point where human society loses the option to contain climate change by cutting emissions to zero, and if global temperatures rise uncontrollably, it would soon push the Amazon forest to collapse.
The Amazon forest is on the verge of tipping points in terms of temperature, the ongoing increase in dry season length, the percentage of forest cleared and a combination of various climatic and direct anthropogenic impacts.
The loss of the Amazon forest that would result from crossing any of these tipping points would, among other impacts, sacrifice the forest’s vital role in recycling water.
A volume of water greater than the Amazon River’s total flow is released as water vapor by the leaves of the trees, providing rainfall that not only maintains Amazon forest but also maintains agriculture and city water supplies in other parts of Brazil and in neighboring countries. The water vapor is transported by winds known as “flying rivers” to São Paulo, the World’s fourth largest city, which depends on this water supply.
Amazon destruction
Given these catastrophic prospects, Brazil’s government should be acting decisively to halt the country’s greenhouse gas emissions and to lead the World in combatting climate change. These necessities are interrelated, as effective leadership is done through example and Brazil cannot continue to merely exhort other countries to reduce their emissions when its domestic decisions are acting to increase global warming. This includes the “bill of devastation”.
Rapidly phasing out fossil fuel use is fundamental to containing global warming. The amount by which human society must reduce its emissions and the trajectory in time that this reduction must follow are determined by analysis of the best available data and climate models.
The “Global Stocktake” by the Climate Convention, released at COP-28 in 2023, showed that anthropogenic emissions must decline by 43% by 2030 compared to 2023, and by 84% by 2050 to stay within the limit currently agreed under the Paris Agreement of 1.5 ºC above the pre-industrial average global temperature.
This limit represents a tipping point both for the global climate system and for the Amazon forest. Above this point there is a sharp increase in the annual probability of uncontrollable feedbacks driving the system to a catastrophic shift or collapse.
The mouth-of-the-Amazon project is critical. A massive auction of drilling rights, both onshore and offshore, is scheduled for 17 June, including 47 blocks in the mouth of the Amazon River.
Environmental approval of the first “experimental” well (FZA-M-59) is viewed as the key to international oil companies being willing to bid on these blocks. The head of the Brazilian licensing agency (IBAMA) has been under intense pressure to approve the project.
Oil project
Within the licensing debate, the focus is almost entirely on whether Petrobras has the infrastructure and personnel to mount a rescue operation for marine wildlife in the event of an oil spill, rather than the more basic question of whether a leak could be plugged if it should occur.
Unfortunately, there are strong indications that a leak could not be plugged for months or years, as the site has double the 1.5-km water depth at the Deepwater Horizon well in the Gulf of Mexico that spilled uncontrollably for five months in 2010, and the ocean currents are much stronger and more complex in the mouth of the Amazon.
Petrobras constantly brags about its long experience with offshore oil extraction, but neither Petrobras nor any other company has plugged a leak at a location with the depth and complexity of the mouth-of-the-Amazon site.
Containing global warming is inconsistent with opening new oil fields due to the economic logic of these projects, which is different from the economics of continued extraction of existing oilfields. This is what led the International Energy Agency (IEA) to recommend that no new oil or gas fields be opened anywhere in the World.
In the case of the mouth of the Amazon project, the expectation is that it would take five years to begin commercial production and another five years to pay for the investment; since no one will want to stop with zero profit, the project implies extracting petroleum for many years after that – far beyond the time when the World must stop using oil as fuel.
Petrobras claims that the mouth-of-the-Amazon project and other planned new oilfields are needed for Brazil’s “energy security” to guarantee that Brazilians will not lack fuel for their vehicles.
The falsity of this argument is obvious from the fact that Brazil currently exports over half of the oil it extracts, and this percentage is expected to rise with the planned expansion. The reserves in Brazil’s existing oilfields are far greater than what the country can consume before fossil-fuel use must cease. In other words, the expansion of oil extraction is purely a matter of money.
Another argument promoted by Petrobras and by President Lula is that the oil revenue is needed to pay for Brazil’s energy transition. While the energy transition must indeed be paid for, it should have a guaranteed place in Brazil annual budget, like health and education, and not be treated as something optional that depends on windfall financial gains.
President Lula’s sleepwalk
President Lula apparently lacks understanding of Brazil’s suicidal course towards a climate catastrophe. He has surrounded himself with proponents of projects with enormous climatic consequences, such as his minister of transportation who presses for Highway BR-319 and his minister of mines and energy and the president of Petrobras who push for the mouth-of-the-Amazon and other new oil and gas projects.
Clearly, Lula does not listen to his minister of environment and climate change on these issues. He lives in a “disinformation space,” to use the term coined by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinski to describe Donald Trump. The question of whether President Lula will awake from his sleepwalk before COP-30 in November is critical, as this is his opportunity to assume global leadership on climate change. Although there is no indication that this is likely, efforts to penetrate his disinformation space must continue.
English (US) ·