The energy-security–climate-change nexus in Brazil

Abstract

How do competing claims about energy-security and climate-change policies play out in the Brazilian domestic system? Has the Brazilian government’s recent attempt to unite climate and energy-security narratives around the notion of ‘sustainability’ had a substantive impact on Brazil’s energy and environmental policies? Domestic and international environmental actors have played increasingly important roles while lobbying the government to include an environmental/climate-change dimension to its energy-security approaches. However, climate-change concerns, as conventionally articulated by environmental actors, are not at the core of the government’s energy policy agenda. Environmental results, which emerged in Brazil as fringe benefits of past energy-security policies, have been skilfully captured by the political leadership as a way to promote Brazil’s climate-change credentials. To inform analysis of the alleged environmental sustainability of hydroelectricity and home-grown biofuels as a showpiece of Brazil’s contribution to tackling climate change, the varied interpretations of energy security and their implications for climate-change interventions are explored. Empirical examination of the interaction between energy and climate policies in Brazil is followed by analysis of the Brazilian negotiating position in multilateral climate meetings.

Keywords:

• energy security
• climate change
• policymaking
• international negotiations

Notes

1. ‘Energy Security More Important than Climate Change’, The Guardian, 17 September 2008. Our emphasis.

2. There is a third element, not explored here, which relates to the government’s growing awareness of the impact of climate patterns’ alterations – as a result of global warming – on the production of renewable energy in Brazil. Global warming can significantly alter rainfall in areas where sugarcane crops for ethanol are grown. Similarly, changes in weather systems can pose a real energy security threat as a result of Brazil’s high dependency on hydropower for electricity generation. For a detailed study of the potential negative impact of climate change on Brazil’s production of biofuels and hydropower, see Schaeffer et al. (2008).

3. The Energy Research Company responsible for the project’s planning stated that the government incurred significant increased costs to contend with environmental mitigation measures and that, given environmental and social sensitivities, it will only explore a fraction of the river’s total hydroelectric potential (Ministério de Minas e Energia, 2007).

4. Brazilian ethanol has been the object of much international condemnation directed at biofuels in general, whose worldwide production has increased rapidly in response to rising oil prices in the last decade. The main point of contention is the alleged use of deforested land for growing sugar cane. This has been contested by the Brazilian government, pointing to the fact that two-thirds of new sugar-cane crops are planted on uncultivated land that used to be pasture left behind by cattle ranchers (Nelson 2009, p. 2).