GREEN GROWTH: FROM RELIGION TO REALITY - Sustainia

Chapter 8biodiesel in Brazil jumped from 69 million to 1.167 billionliters, placing Brazil fourth in world production, behindonly Germany (3.193 billion liters), the U.S. (2.644billion liters), and France (2.063 billion liters) (ibid., 27).Growth in biodiesel is good news for Brazil’s energyrelatedGHG emissions profile, but its effects on land useand its consequent potential to contribute to GHG emissionsfrom deforestation means that enthusiasm over biodiesel’soverall greenness must be tempered. Indeed, ifbiodiesel production grows considerably in the long run,the potential for an increase in deforestation in the Amazonis alarming. Area devoted to the planting of soybeansin Brazil has increased from 6.9 million hectares in 1976to an estimated 24.2 million hectares today, of which 6.4million hectares are in Mato Grosso state, one of the twoleading Amazon deforesters after Pará (to put this in perspective,in 1976 Mato Grosso had only 310,000 hectaresunder soybean cultivation) (CONAB 2011 data).As the world market for ethanol grows, and as newtechnologies to extract biodiesel from soybeans and bovinefat are developed and implemented, agroenergy islikely to contribute more directly to deforestation thanit currently does. This, in turn, will partially offset ethanolbiodiesel’s potential contribution to reducing Brazil’sGHG emissions.4.4 HydropowerFinally, hydropower presents another paradox in Brazil’squest for green growth: Hydropower has the third largestshare in Brazil’s domestic energy supply (Table 1 above),and is essential if domestic electricity generation is tomeet growing demand over the coming decades (OECD/IEA 2006, 9-10). However, large hydropower projects inthe water-rich Amazon require that massive tracts of landbe deforested – with the corresponding release of massiveamounts of GHGs – and dams may damage ecosystemsupstream and downstream by altering river flows.Brazil’s 852 hydroelectric plants produce 72.5%(79,182.3 MW) of Brazil’s domestic electricity supply,and 311 new plants are under construction (potentiallyadding another 15,336.7 MW) (IPEA 2010, 137). TheBi-National Itaipú Dam, whose management is sharedbetween Brazil and Paraguay, alone “accounts for 20 percentof the Brazilian energy supply, providing most of theenergy consumed in the country’s Southeastern region,”Brazil’s industrial hub (Sennes and Narciso 2009, 47-48).Hydropower is key to the Brazilian government’s renewableenergy strategy, but it is one that in some casesgenerates opposition from the domestic and internationalenvironmental movements. This is the case of a proposedmega-dam on the Xingú River in eastern Pará. Ifconstructed, the Belo Monte dam will be the world’s thirdlargest, and the Brazilian government estimates that itwill produce 11,200 MW of electricity (Inter-AmericanDialogue 2011). However, to build the dam will requirethe displacing of local indigenous communities, and thelogging and flooding of 400 km2 of currently standingforest – a process that is expected to generate “enormousquantities of methane” (Amazon Watch 2011). Finally,dam construction will attract an estimated 100,000 migrantsto the region, which will exacerbate deforestationproblems there, as dam construction is only expected tocreate 40,000 new jobs – the rest of the migrants will likelybecome loggers and cattle ranchers (Amazon Watch2011). Worse, critics argue that the Belo Monte dam willonly produce 10% of its expected annual mega-wattageduring the 3-5 month long dry season – or only 39%of its nominal annual capacity (Amazon Watch 2011).Thus, Belo Monte’s long-run clean energy generating potentialmay be canceled out by its up-front environmentalimpacts.It is still unclear if the dam will be built, but whatbecomes clear in the debate over Belo Monte is that thegreen benefits of hydropower are contingent on the ecologicalvulnerability of surrounding areas.5 ConclusionThis study has demonstrated that deforestation presentsa challenge to prospects for truly green growth in Brazil.Cattle ranching and soybean farming contributed to 25%of Brazil’s GDP in 2008, and must continue to grow ifBrazil overall is to grow economically (absent major restructuringof its economy). However, agribusiness producesapproximately 25% of Brazil’s annual GHG emissions,and the industry is a direct driver of deforestation,which produces another 55% of annual GHG emissions.Finally, as stated in the introduction, each option forrenewable energy in Brazil may directly or indirectlyworsen deforestation rates in the Amazon and Atlanticforests: Soy- and bovine fat-derived biofuels directly affectdeforestation rates in the Amazon by making cattleranching and soybean farming more lucrative; sugarcane-derived ethanol may directly contribute to deforestationin the Atlantic, and indirectly to deforestationin the Amazon by displacing other farming and ranchingactivities; and the construction of large dams to produceelectricity requires deforestation and the flooding offragile ecosystems. Thus, Brazil faces contradictory imperativeswith respect to green growth, and responsiblegovernance by federal and subnational states is necessaryto ensure that agro-industrial growth has a minimal impacton the environment.This study has demonstrated that deforestationpresents a challenge to prospects for truly green growthin Brazil.Brazil will continue to invest in renewable energy andagricultural exports, but to reduce its overall emissions, itmust do so in a way that minimizes GHG emissions fromdeforestation and forest degradation. More consistentenvironmental law enforcement on the Amazon frontierand other rural areas, and the effective application ofpunishments for transgressors are necessary to raise the94