Faced with the tragedy imposed on the people of Rio Grande do Sul – the southernmost Brazilian state – after the heavy rains in early May, environmental organizations in the country have been making an effort to recount the history of the attack on Brazil’s environmental legislation. It was particularly intense during the government of former President Jair Bolsonaro (Liberal Party), between 2019 and 2022, with a series of decisions that made it easier the occurrence of floods, which submerged entire cities, killed 169 people and left thousands homeless and displaced.
One of them is the Climate Observatory, which has listed 25 bills and three amendments to the Constitution that threaten the environment somehow. Márcio Astrini, the organization's executive secretary, doesn't think it's an exaggeration to associate Brazil's setbacks regarding the climate agenda with the right and far right in the country.
“The right and the far right see the environment as an enemy, and this has been clearly revealed in the Bolsonaro government. Almost all [climate] deniers who hold elective office in Brazil are in a right-wing party. This is not a rule in the world. In several European countries, there is a mix with right-wing politicians – except far-right politicians – who are somehow concerned about environmental issues. Bolsonaro ran a government that elected some unpopular agendas with the conservative spectrum, including the environment.”
“What they [parliamentarians] want is anything goes for the environment: ‘I'll build wherever I want’, ‘I'll deforest wherever I want’, ‘I'll use whatever pesticides I want.’ In short, they'll do whatever they want. Historically, environmental legislation has been dismantled, and this happens all the time,” explains Astrini.
Read below the full interview:
Brasil de Fato: The Climate Observatory released a document warning Brazil about a set of bills that threaten environmental legislation. Can you talk a bit about it?
Márcio Astrini: It is a “destruction package”, a set of environmental deregulation measures. The environment needs rules that say what you can and can't do. What they [parliamentarians] want is anything goes for the environment: 'I'll build wherever I want', 'I'll deforest wherever I want', 'I'll use whatever pesticides I want'. In short, they'll do whatever they want.
Historically, environmental legislation has been dismantled, and this happens all the time. There are bills that propose to reduce the protection of the Pantanal biome, the Pampas biome, and the Cerrado biome, give amnesty to land grabbers, increase the use of pesticides, and remove stages of approval analysis. That's what they've been doing for a long time.
With the current names in the Congress, what we see is an unprecedented number [of proposed measures] and speed. The cattle that were in the Bolsonaro government have crossed the street, and now they are in Congress [a reference to the statement by former Bolsonaro’s Environment Minister Ricardo Salles to ‘let the cattle through’, meaning to use the pandemic as a smoke screen to approve as many environmental deregulations as possible]. Back in the Executive, they dismantled the environment by sabotaging Ibama [Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources] and ICMBio [Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation], through decrees, and so on.
We've seen a rush of parliamentarians to social media following the floods in Rio Grande do Sul. However, the majority of parliamentarians from Rio Grande do Sul voted in favor of environmental deregulation. What do you think of this dubious behavior?
They wake up and go to sleep with the denialism spirit very much embedded in them. They deny everything and anything, including their own responsibility in this kind of situation. It's certainly not a decree that will make it rain more or less, but the laws they approved make cities less resilient to facing extreme weather situations.
For instance, when they try to authorize various agricultural uses, irrigation etc. in Permanent Preservation Areas [APPs, in Portuguese], which are areas adjacent to rivers. When the river fills up, the areas next to them are the first to be affected. If you put people to live there, those houses will be the first to be flooded. You're putting people to live in risky areas. Anyone who presents a bill like this bears full responsibility for a tragedy. Anyone who amnesties environmental crimes or defends the use of pesticides bears full responsibility for tragedies.
They [parliamentarians] didn't receive a prize, that is, they weren't elected as a prize, but to be responsible for what they do. However, they don't want to bear responsibility. These people need to take responsibility. They will be remembered for their actions. Politicians who voted to improve environmental preservation, such as Erika Hilton, Ivan Valente, Nilton Tatto or Sâmia Bomfim, have no shame in coming out publicly and saying what they voted for.
Now, I want to see if Alceu Moreira can say that what he voted for is good for the environment or if Luiz Carlos Heinze can say that. I want to see these people go into the middle of the flood, now, into a gymnasium sheltering homeless people, and say that they [parliamentarians] have a bill that will leave 32% of the Pampa unprotected. They won't do that. From now on, the population will have to make choices: protect the environment or stick with these politicians. You can't have both at the same time.
Has defense of the environment become a left-wing banner in Brazil?
Today it has. It's a banner much closer to the left-wing sectors, but it's not unanimous. Not everyone on the left supports it, but there is always some level of concern about the environment. The right and the far right see the environment as an enemy, and this has been clearly revealed in the Bolsonaro government. Almost all the deniers who hold any elective office in Brazil are in some right-wing party. This is not a rule in the world. In several European countries, there is a mix with right-wing politicians – except far-right politicians – with some concern for environmental issues. Bolsonaro ran a government that elected some unpopular agendas with the conservative spectrum, including the environment.
Eduardo Leite [governor of Rio Grande do Sul] said that environmental concerns should exist, but in parallel with the “economic development of the state”. How did the Climate Observatory take this statement?
I would ask him if what is happening there is the development that has arrived. What development are you going to build? Who told the governor that the environment wanted to stop the development of anything? The environment only says that if you build in certain regions, you'll kill everyone. Rules must be established.
There's an example I like to mention, which is about a hypothetical apartment – which is yours and you say it's your apartment – and you want to explore the limits of that property. So, you decide to set up a bar in your parking space. You can't. There are rules for collective coexistence. The same applies to the environment. When some people break the rules, the costs of it come to everyone.
Now, when you say you won't follow the rules, there's no point in going on TV and pretending to be surprised [with the situation in Rio Grande do Sul]. The governor said the dismantling of the environmental code in Rio Grande do Sul in 2019 would have had no impact. I don't know if Rio Grande do Sul's code has 8 million rules so that 400 articles don't make a difference. Unfortunately, it's no exception. In all Brazilian states there is no preparation, no evacuation plan, no contingency plan, nothing. It would be decent for Leite to say that he will, now, study so that this doesn't happen again.
It's an election year and the environment is likely to be on the agenda. Are you optimistic about the weight that environmental issues will have in this year’s election? Do you believe that voters will punish politicians who have decided to ignore nature's warnings and who have worked against the climate agenda?
I think that people who have lived through and experienced these tragedies will be much more sensitive in the coming election. Unfortunately, we have other social issues of the population's survival that rank among the concerns of Brazilians. People don't have jobs, education, security or food. These items remain at the top of their agenda and they guide the voter's choices. On the other hand, the climate issue is becoming increasingly important. I think that in areas where there has been a disaster, climate issues will have more importance. These tragedies impact the general voter, but when they wake up the next day there's no water or mud in their house.
