|
Power is one of the main environmental concerns of federal representative Fernando Gabeira. On one hand, we have fossil fuels responsible for the greenhouse effect and their reserves are almost exhausted. On the other hand, we have renewable solar sources, such as biomass, which are little or non-pollutant. In addition to this, oil, which is the most important fossil fuel, has created a class of powerful people, among which are the politicians that currently run the United States. The end of oil will include, among its consequences, a geopolitical change, as countries from the Middle East, for instance, will lose their significance. Strategic tensions will then be shifted to genetic resources and water, an increasingly valuable asset. Gabeira foresees great opportunities for Brazil (that already exports food products) as a supplier of biodiesel and other fuels obtained from vegetables. Gabeira, who’s also a writer and journalist, was a leftist militant and remained in exile from 1969 to 1979. He was a member of the Green Party (PV, Partido Verde), that he co-founded, through which he was elected as a federal representative in 1994. Before that, he ran for the governor of the state of Rio de Janeiro (1986) and for President of Brazil. He was once also a member of the Labor Party (PT, Partido dos Trabalhadores). Today he works as a federal representative, isn’t associated to a party, continues his work as an advocate of ecology and maintains the site www.gabeira.com.br.
Brazil Forever – Tell us a bit about your perspective regarding the way Brazil and the rest of the world handles the environmental issue? Is there a solution?
FERNANDO GABEIRA – First I’d like to talk about the problem that’s currently seen as the most important environmental issue, which is the decline of the oil-based economy and the beginning of a new era based on solar resources and renewable power alternatives. This is currently the world’s greatest problem for several reasons. First comes global warming, which is caused by fossil fuels. But the problem continues because these fuels are finite and oil exploitation is becoming increasingly expensive. The frequency with which difficult areas, where exploitation is expensive, need to be explored is growing each day, and ecologic sanctuaries, such as Alaska, are starting to be threatened. In addition, the price of oil in the international market shows that it’s a lasting crisis. Of course the price depends on several factors, but it’s unlikely to drop in the future. The price of oil requires new alternatives to be found. Some people – including me – believe that these alternatives are in solar resources. This includes the solar energy of photosynthesis. There’s biodiesel, for instance. And alcohol as well.
Brazil Forever – So the issue is a clean relationship with fuel. From then on, things should improve...
GABEIRA – The energy issue, as I said, affects the most serious problem that we have over the medium and long term, which is global warming. And also the limitation of oil resources. We have two problems – one ecological and one economic – that need to be resolved. And their solution involves the preparation of humankind. This subject was discussed in Johannesburg in 2002, at the Rio+10 event, and a meeting was held in June 2004 in Germany with the purpose of developing the notion of renewable power sources. In the world the oil issue isn’t merely environmental and ecological, it’s also political. The people who are currently running the United States come from the oil industry and develop a policy very much oriented to that industry. Today, competition between Europe and the United States is very focused on this area. The United States is still more oil-oriented, while Europe is already investing in alternative power sources. Based on this trend a new world setup of capitalism might appear. It’s not impossible that someone will suddenly find out that they have been outrivaled while someone else finds out that they have taken the lead. Of course it’s a slow process. The United States is testing hydrogen, and Europe is steady in this area. However, the situation in the United States is not definitive, for instance, because Bush beat Al Gore in the elections. And Gore was the man who led, on behalf of the United States, the negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol. Had Gore won the elections, the American situation would be similar to that of Europe. The United States would be seeking alternative power sources.
Brazil Forever – The government would be doing that, as some companies are...
GABEIRA – Yes, but the government has a position that is closer to the oil industry. Vice-president, Dick Cheney, was related to oil companies, as well as Bush and Condoleezza Rice... They have all worked for oil companies, they share the same culture. Sustainability is at stake here. For the two reasons I mentioned, resource scarcity and the fact that global warming, at its most, may threaten entire countries, such as Bangladesh, the Netherlands, some islands... And it could also represent, for Third World countries from Africa and Latin America, serious agricultural losses.
Brazil Forever – But European countries are also at risk. Furthermore, the consequences of global warming are not linear...
GABEIRA – Yes, there are risks for the Europeans as well. In France, today there’s a concern about preventing deaths caused by heat. Last summer was disastrous.
Brazil Forever – What scenario do you foresee?
GABEIRA – I see a process of emissions reduction in an attempt to prevent warming from continuing to happen the way it is. And we have to continuously search for renewable power sources. This is a process that will change the foundations of the economy, leaving behind an oil-based model for a model based on another type of power... Other types of power... Most of which are considered solar resources: wind, biodiesel, and others.
Brazil Forever – I have two questions. This is the first one: the use of fuels obtained from vegetables will require large portions of land. Don’t we run the risk of reducing soy production for making fuel oil? In this case, wouldn’t transgenics be a solution, in order to increase productivity? The second question is: what will the world’s geopolitical scenario look like when the Middle East loses significance as a result of a decline in oil?
GABEIRA – Let’s start with the second question. This process of losing political significance doesn’t take place overnight. Our projections show that, in fact, these strategic tensions, in a different context, will shift from oil resources to genetic resources, especially water. There will be another kind of tension. There’s a possibility, already defined by the UN, which is really something expected, that there will be a scarcity of water for about two-thirds of humankind over the next fifty years. This will create a huge tension around this resource. It’s an old resource that, because of its future scarcity, will become very important. Today the possibility of exporting water from Canada to the United States is being studied. Canadians are already discussing this issue, looking for the best means... In Brazil, we have a serious problem, which is the semi-arid region. How do we resolve this? It’s a question the government has been trying to answer with the transposition of the waters from the São Francisco River. But this is a complex issue that can’t be solved easily. We could, for instance, inject in the São Francisco the Sono River, an affluent from the Tocantins. These are problems we will have to face and that can already be identified. Another current strategic issue involves the fact that Brazil is a country oriented to the production of protein for humans and animals. Brazil is also one of the world’s main soy producers. It also produces meat and exports bovine, poultry and hog meat... So Brazil’s already a major supplier of protein for feeding people and animals. In the near future, it will be a major exporter of fuel for machines. In fact, Brazil’s role tends to become more and more important. Our country has the potential for feeding a good portion of humankind, as well as some of the machines with biodiesel, alcohol...
Brazil Forever – Basically, we’re talking about the change in the world’s economic paradigm. How are the different blocks preparing for change – Europe, Latin America, Asia, for instance. How about us?
GABEIRA – I think we have several factors at hand. First we have biodiversity, which brings possibilities other than fuel, such as resources for producing food, medications... This is a factor we need to be ready to take advantage of. First we need to protect our biodiversity, then move on and get to know it. From what I saw at the conference held in Germany, which I mentioned earlier, Europe is more aware of the situation and is already preparing for the change in paradigm. Europe is under a lot of pressure because its power production is very oil-dependent. So Europeans need to work faster with regard to preparing for the change. Brazil’s situation is very special. Over a few years, it was considered an ecological villain... After 1992, our situation started to change and we have become a country that has a say all over the planet, ecologically speaking, and with extraordinary resources... Brazil took some important steps at the Johannesburg meeting, having presented a proposal for humankind, which involves the use, by 2010, of ten per cent of power from renewable alternative sources... And we could be getting ready in the economic area as well. In this sense, Germany is well ahead of us. An agreement for the production, in Brazil, of 100,000 alcohol-fueled cars was prepared, and Volkswagen will be manufacturing them. Furthermore, there’s the excellent possibility of supplying alcohol to mix with gasoline in Japan, Europe and the United States.
Brazil Forever – This mixture of alcohol with fuel has already been regulated by the European Union...
GABEIRA – It certainly has. But Brazil, from where I stand, seems to have slowed down its pace. The country was participating in debates, was inserted in the process, and now, with the new administration, has backed out a little. There was no significant progress. In fact, the theme was sort of lost, it was being handled by the Ministry of Environment and had a connection with the Ministry of Industry and Trade. And now the Ministry of Agriculture has an interest in this subject... The subject of climate change is being handled by the Ministry of Science and Technology. Now that the Ministry of Agriculture has taken interest, I believe more progress could be made. A specific Brazil-Germany chamber could be created for analyzing the agreements... Brazil also has potential for Clean Development Mechanisms (CDMs). It’s a Brazilian idea that was added as an instrument in the Kyoto Protocol, allowing First World companies to save their emissions in the Third World, which can be discounted from their reduction shares. Actually, there’s a price for the reduction of a ton of carbon. Let’s say, for example, that the cost of reduction of one ton of carbon in Europe is US$ 50. If the reduction takes place in Brazil, the expense could be much lower. Therefore it’s interesting for wealthy countries to reduce their shares in the Third World. And it’s interesting for less wealthy countries to use this money for sustainable development projects as well. So this mechanism, created by Brazil, needs internal preparation for making operations legitimate. They have to be made official. In the First World, the interest in these operations is huge. They’re already being negotiated in the Chicago Stock Exchange. The Netherlands is financing a waste plant construction project in the state of Rio de Janeiro, in Nova Iguaçu. Brazil needs to create internal rules, foster projects, and start receiving investments, which means sustainable development here and a reduction of the emissions quota for wealthy countries.
Brazil Forever – We seem to have a timing problem... Historically speaking, aren’t we being left behind?
GABEIRA – If we consider the progress made by the former Ministry of Science and Technology and the progress made afterwards, yes, we are being left behind... Brazil came up with the CDM idea, took the lead, had a great participation at the Morocco meeting, for instance, and it was assumed that Brazil would be the first country to prepare the domestic infrastructure for receiving investments. Actually, who moved forward in South America was Chile that created internal CDM rules before Brazil.
Brazil Forever – India is way ahead... It has 320 projects.
GABEIRA – It’s a shame that Brazil didn’t take the initiative, but there were some political and ideological problems. The first minister of Science and Technology of the current administration thought that the Kyoto Protocol was an issue of interest for developed countries. He thought the Third World didn’t need to worry about the protocol. He completely missed the point. Since developed countries pollute more, they should be more concerned with the reduction of emissions than Third World countries, which cause less emissions. However, the opportunity for economic growth resulting from these mechanisms is greater for Third World countries. And the minister didn’t understand that. So he dismissed the group in charge of this issue in the ministry – and it was an excellent group. Only one person was left, and we have been doing our best to support that person. But now it seems that the ministry is beginning to analyze some projects and take some steps. However, if we also analyze the intervention of the minister of Mines and Energy, Dilma Roussef, in Germany, we’ll see that her recent speech was somewhat disappointing. We were all expecting her to talk about alternative power sources, about Brazil’s potential, and we thought she would make a connection between the need for renewable resources and the availability of such resources in Brazil. We hoped she’d say: “Do you want to reduce emissions? We can give you that. We have several projects considering this possibility in Brazil and we could sell fuels that produce less emissions.” But she didn’t say that. She defended the Brazilian hydroelectric model, which is important, but she also defended the large plants, that are being greatly criticized all over the world. The audience was a bit disappointed, because she emphasized the existing model and large dams, today condemned by the UN and most experts.
Brazil Forever – The loss of a leading role in the climatic change issue will bring us problems in the future, won’t it? In Marrakech it was agreed that the deadline for reducing emissions is 2008-2012. Now people are discussing what to do in 2012. Could the loss of a leading role put us in a very delicate situation?
GABEIRA – No doubt. The loss of a leading role could, at this very moment, lead us to lose financial opportunities. Leadership only exists when the government also has political awareness – which doesn’t exist here. It seems to me that we will continue to lose, because people think that this leading role was an action of the former administration. That’s silly, because the program for fighting Aids was also created by the former administration, and we need to keep on fighting against the disease. I think the loss of a leading role could mean, for us...
Brazil Forever – Even the restriction of emissions...
GABEIRA – Exactly. Regarding the restriction of emissions, developed countries are increasingly inclined to require Brazil, China and India to act on reducing emissions. By means of a very interesting political maneuver, we have managed to show that the greatest responsibility is on the shoulders of developed countries. So the countries that have to reduce emissions are Annex 1 countries. But this doesn’t mean that, starting in 2012, the situation won’t change, especially considering that emissions in China, India and Brazil will have reached a high level. China’s economy is based on coal. From a future perspective, it’s an illusion to think that the climate change issue is a problem of developed countries and that the only way for us is to help them reduce emissions. We also have to think about sustainable mechanisms.
Brazil Forever – Has this awareness been built in Brazil?
GABEIRA – No. We used to have a great production of alcohol-fueled cars that, for some reason, started being reduced and was never recovered. Alcohol is being mixed with gasoline, which is a step forward. But we need to go further than that.
Brazil Forever – We have bi-fuel engines...
GABEIRA – Everyone does. Japan has them, so does the United States... We have other options: electric cars, solar cars... Right now, the Brazilian automotive industry is growing as if the future were a static picture. There’s talk about breaking production records. But there are several sustainability issues involved. One of them is the fuel issue. These cars are manufactured for consuming gasoline. Another problem is the urban structure of Brazilian cities. It’s not possible to drive fast in São Paulo or Rio de Janeiro... I’d say that, in the energy area, the most important issue is being overlooked. But there are other significant issues. Let’s consider the main themes discussed in 1992. Tropical forests were one of them. It’s an unsolved problem. Brazil has extremely important biological resources, but it didn’t manage to reduce the devastation of the Amazon forest yet. Actually, it’s quite the opposite. What we have been witnessing is that the destruction of the Amazon forest doesn’t depend as much on the government. It depends on the economic scenario. During times of growth, destruction is intensified. During times of stagnation or decline, destruction also drops. It’s a sign that we’re not being able to adequately protect this wealth.
Brazil Forever – What’s the possibility of using land that has already been altered in the Amazon, which is currently not being used?
GABEIRA – We need to attract soy producers to these lands. The territory with land that has already been altered and is not being used is the size of the state of Santa Catarina (95 thousand square kilometers). This would be an excellent area for plantations. But soy producers tend to devastate the virgin woods and Indian reserves. Two important assets are affected here: the biological and the cultural wealth. It doesn’t make sense to start producing soy and extinguish the biological and cultural potentials. Next thing we know, we’ll be in the middle of a desert. What if soy becomes outdated in the future? Biotechnology might indicate new productivity trends that would make extensive soy plantations outdated. I’ve recently watched an interview, on TV, with a fruit buyer. He pays three times as much for fruit as the price of soy. He uses fruit to produce ice cream and said that soy wasn’t a good option, as one can make much more money on fruit.
Brazil Forever – Let’s talk about biodiversity and transgenic products.
GABEIRA – About transgenics, I always considered my position on this to be reasonable. I believe Brazil has enough space for the production of regular, organic plants, for which demand is growing in the world...
Brazil Forever – Organic products cost four times as much as regular products...
GABEIRA – Yes, and demand continues to grow. But, as I was saying, we also have space for transgenics. The problem with genetically modified organisms is that, since they aren’t identical to conventional or organic organisms, they require special care. First, in order to approve a transgenic plantation, research needs to be performed. All countries do that. My debate with the Lula administration goes around the fact that it didn’t follow the lead of countries that allow transgenic soy, such as Canada. There, Monsanto provided authorities with two canola alternatives. One of them was approved, and the other one is being analyzed. When authorities discovered that the variety that was still being analyzed was being planted, they had it all withdrawn. This doesn’t mean that transgenics are forbidden in Canada. They aren’t allowed only in situations where a license hasn’t been granted. When it comes to transgenic soy, I don’t see great dangers, because of closed pollination. But I’ve always said that Brazil, in order to plant transgenics, needs more than laws – it also needs an adequate biosafety system. Six years ago, I had a labeling project for genetically modified organisms. It was accepted both by the former and current administrations, but when transgenic soy was allowed it wasn’t labeled, despite the fact that they said they would label it. The government was unable to implement the labeling project because it didn’t have the resources to visit the companies in Rio Grande do Sul and do the job. The other problem is protecting non-transgenic products. Other plantations are contaminated. Without a protection system, the other one ends up playing the role of a passive smoker, receiving modified genes in the regular plantation. These are the main issues. I believe the debate on allowing or not the plantation of transgenics is secondary. The essential issue – and this is what I’ve been trying to warn people about, together with the minister of Agriculture, Roberto Rodrigues, who’s my partner in this sense – is implementing a biosafety system in Brazil. All of a sudden, an aphtous fever surge breaks out somewhere... It costs R$ 0.30 per head to beat the disease! We’ve had problems with contaminated soy exported to China. Some argued that the Chinese only wanted to get a lower price, but if we don’t allow space for complaints, nothing happens. Because of aphtous fever, Russia suspended Brazilian meat imports. If the country doesn’t implement a biosafety system for entering the global market and occupying a prominent position, which Brazil is currently doing, our country will be very vulnerable. Foreign consumers aren’t the only ones who are very demanding. Competitors will take care of pointing out our weaknesses. We saw this for the first time when Canada announced that there was mad cow disease in Brazil. And the biggest Canadian expert on the subject – that was a scientist – said that it wasn’t so, that the authorities were wrong, and ended up being fired. Why did they lie? There was hostility because of the fight between Bombardier and Embraer, and they chose to attack our meat because they knew how much harm that could do. And sanitary control mechanisms in Brazil – both state and federal – are outdated. There are two thousand inspectors for the entire country. This was the reason for the disagreement between minister Roberto Rodrigues and the minister of Planning, Guido Mantega. Roberto Rodrigues desperately wanted to hire inspectors, and Mantega wouldn’t give him the money. We have to find a solution for the issue of deficient inspection. Organization is mandatory. Before releasing transgenics, England performed the necessary research. We also have a problem in the electric power area, for environmental control mechanisms are very slow. In Brazil, there are 24 hydroelectric plants that are not being built because the environmental licensing mechanism is slow. What should we do? Reduce the requirements of control systems or equip them? Because of that, R$ 27 billion is not being invested. If you have R$ 27 billion waiting to be spent, would it be so bad to spend one or two million to modernize such an important industry? Brazilian society has made great progress in terms of environmental awareness and legislation. In order to respect environmental awareness and legislation, the government needs to change. Or change the legislation and we go back to how it was before. Once we reach a certain degree of sophistication in terms of legislation and awareness, a concrete mechanism for action is required.
Brazil Forever – Is the Brazilian power structure prepared to provide sustainability for a happier society?
GABEIRA – Especially after 1992, Brazilian society has made great progress in terms of environmental awareness. People demand environment-related measures. However, the Brazilian election process has been developing in an extremely perverse manner, because this process is becoming increasingly dependent on great resources for electing a candidate. How much of this process depends more on the way things are presented than on the actual content? Marketing has become the most important element, even more important than the political agenda itself. This is what causes the Brazilian voting process to drift a bit. It doesn’t mean that progress won’t be made. But if you look closely, you’ll see that representatives with a defined opinion are losing ground. There are too many people fighting for votes in small areas. On the other hand, religious influence is growing. Today, the number of evangelic representatives exceeds the number of members of many parties. Some candidates spend a lot of money; they have a lot of money to spend... All of this makes representation something inaccurate. Maybe it’s time to review the political process, election campaigns, parties, the type of intervention on TV, the form of representation. We’ll see that one of the problems is violence. There are very few reasonable suggestions for fighting violence. If we simply rely on the voting process, we’ll have a progressive process of people who support the death penalty, for instance. This is the first vision that comes to mind: with more repression, violence is reduced. In Rio de Janeiro we’ve had a candidate, Denise Frossard, who had 370,000 votes because she had a strong position against violence. She’s a wonderful person, but she doesn’t actually have a project for fighting violence. She has an attitude. Her TV ad showed a judge’s hammer hitting the table and a voice-over saying: “Let justice be done.” It’s very hard to go back to a classic political process in which ideas stand out. We’ve followed the American path, in which TV has an important role. Today, most voters decide based on what they see on TV. The voting process is very much based on advertising. Another serious problem that prevents us from having a healthy voting process is corruption. In politics, it has always existed and will always be there, but because it creates a strong stigma and is very aggressive, many people who could have a political role refuse to get involved. They don’t want to have a negative public image. Society is basically left to choose from a range of professional politicians. Lately, I’ve been feeling that voters are not as close to us anymore. And the only reason why we can’t adequately measure the reaction of people is because, in Brazil, voting is mandatory. However, once the mandatory aspect of voting is eliminated, we’ll see that many Brazilians would tend to give up the political process as a solution for their problems. This is a universal phenomenon. It can be clearly seen in the United States, in Europe... People no longer understand what role politics plays. Especially because they see that politics is very much determined by the market and that politicians have, in a certain way, become market employees... In the House of Representatives debates are often interrupted on the allegation that the subject will alarm the market. In the 20th century, politicians had a certain autonomy. The market is important, but there are issues it won’t solve. This is our responsibility as politicians. This autonomy is disappearing.
Brazil Forever – The market should be regulated by politics, not the other way round...
GABEIRA – This is how it should be, but what we have been seeing and feeling more often is that the market is trying to determine political trends, and that politics bases its actions on the market.
Brazil Forever – You seem to be a little disappointed with politics. But society has been trying to join forces – through the Internet, for instance.
GABEIRA – That’s interesting. The fact that the classic political process isn’t as strong as before doesn’t mean that the problems have been solved, nor that expectations have been fulfilled. Therefore, over the past few years, we have witnessed an increase in the number of non-governmental organizations, or NGOs. This is a very important piece of information. And this increase characterizes a huge democratic progress. When there’s noise in political representation, NGOs contribute greatly with the advance of democracy. This is a new, fundamental piece of information: the government is no longer the only player representing Brazil abroad. NGOs are also there, meaning that Brazil isn’t only the government anymore, but also organized society. In the past, diplomacy was developed secretly, and today NGOs participate in the process. Similarly, there are problem-solving initiatives in which the government doesn’t participate. Society gets together to solve its own problems. That’s what the Internet is for. It’s a revitalization process. Likewise, the fact that TV has a decisive role on elections is temporary, because public TV stations, capable of having this influence, are starting to disappear. And anyone will be able to have his or her own TV station through the Internet. In addition, we see that any opposition to globalization was done by NGOs, with the help of the Internet. Not only has opposition become global, but the tool used to obtain it also became global. When a serious environmental problem caused by a multinational company is identified in Brazil, we denounce a complaint with the country of origin through the Internet. The company starts being questioned at its headquarters. Today, there’s this permanent exchange. I once hosted a group of people from France because a French company was polluting Santo Amaro, in the state of Bahia, with tons of lead... I brought in a French militant who was fighting the company at the source. We intend to fight for a joint solution by the French Justice. The problem is that the NGOs can only go so far, and the Internet will also only go so far, so we still need government action. It has a role, or what’s left of it... This needs to be debated. I think governments should have flexibility similar to that of NGOs, but they operate under great bureaucratic burden. Some things don’t correspond to reality any more, such as a representative spending so much money on wages, office facilities, bills, structure... We have a TV station for the House of Representatives and one for the Senate... Two structures have been set up. Equipment was purchased, staffs are kept... For what? •
 |
 |
|
