There are three ways to name COP 30, in . We can call it the COP of contradictions, the COP of implementation responsibilities and the COP of innovation opportunities. These are not exclusive images.
At the COP of contradictions, everyone has greater or lesser climate accounts to pay. Transitioning to a green economy goes against the interests of the carbon economy. Many countries and sectors that thrive on environmental devastation and the externalization of harm do not genuinely engage in change.
Brazil owes explanations for its feet of clay, glass roofs, skeletons in the closet. Not only the federal government which, despite its success in reducing deforestation, flirts with oil exploration at the mouth of the Amazon; construction of Ferrogrão and infrastructure that perpetuates its status as a commodity exporter; inability to neutralize the Amazon crime chain and protect other biomes.
The contradictions are those of the Brazilian State in general. Congress hesitated, but approved the Escazu Agreement, an international pact for environmental transparency. But it continues with its aggressive anti-environmental program, whose biggest symbol is in the Devastação PL. Not to mention the resistance to improving land legislation that emphasizes the maxim “The owner is the one who deforests”, technology of expropriation and exploitation of public land.
The STF, despite modest but positive decisions in the field of climate litigation, was unable to definitively eradicate the perverse idea of the time frame for recognizing indigenous territorial rights. On the contrary, it offered fundamental indigenous rights to a negotiating table without indigenous representation.
And the contradiction is not just in the State. In the private sector, there are those who strive to offer bold ways to finance the transition. And there are those who fight with heavy weapons the “soy moratorium”, a bold agreement signed by companies that encourage deforestation-free market chains. Agro considers this a violation of the constitutional value of “free competition”. They see a “cartel” where there is an effort to protect nature.
The COP’s emphasis on contradictions highlights goal frustrations and demoralizes efforts. Sink in the confirmation bias of failure. Not very constructive and pragmatic, it prioritizes self-immolation and shame (“naming and shaming”).
There are less defeatist, more constructive views.
In the COP of implementation responsibilities, there is a search for more effective mechanisms to discipline and monitor compliance with the Paris Agreement and the goals assumed by each country. And Brazil places, in an original way, the issue of environmental crime on the climate action agenda. Recent reports from the Igarapé Institute, for example, show that “there is no zero deforestation without fighting crime” and the “insecurity of the territory increases the risk”, as Melina Risso said.
Without combating the “illegality kit”, without the rule of law, without the authority of the Constitution, without a security policy that understands organized crime and not just killing poor people on the hills, Brazil will not meet climate goals.
At the COP of innovation opportunities, Brazil can lead without being omitted and respond without being shy. It can innovate with democratic imagination, not only technocratic, with a sovereign stance, but also cosmopolitan. We’ll talk about that next week.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
