Major events often draw attention due to the volume of emissions they generate. However, when viewed in a global context, these emissions represent only a small fraction of the total released by the countries that contribute most to the climate crisis.
In light of international efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it is essential to discuss where these emissions come from, how different energy mixes influence this process, and how international pressure is distributed between rich and developing countries. It is also necessary to reflect on the different possible paths to address the climate crisis.
In this edition, Um Grau e Meio interviews Bárbara Zimbres, a researcher at IPAM and a member of the Land Use Change study team at SEEG (Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Removals Estimation System), regarding the scale and emission profiles of the countries involved in the World Cup.
Sign up to receive the IPAM newsletter for free in your email.
A study by the University of Lausanne projects that the World Cup could emit between 5 and 9 million tons of CO₂. Compared to Brazilian emissions, what does this volume equate to?
This estimate corresponds to a few weeks’ worth of Brazil’s total emissions, which exceed billions of tons annually. Thus, although it is a significant volume in absolute terms, it becomes relatively small when compared to national or global emissions.
The U.S., Canada, and Mexico currently rank 2nd, 11th, and 12th, respectively, in global CO₂ emissions. What are the main sources of these emissions in each of these countries, and how do they differ from Brazilian emissions?
The United States, Canada, and Mexico rank among the world’s largest emitters primarily due to their energy mixes, which have historically relied on fossil fuels. In these countries, sectors such as power generation, transportation, and industry account for a large portion of emissions. In Brazil, although energy and transportation also contribute significantly, the main historical source of emissions is deforestation and land-use change.
Does this make reducing Brazilian emissions simpler or more complex?
This characteristic of Brazil’s emissions profile may seem, at first glance, comparatively easier to address, but it remains a complex challenge. On the one hand, coordinated enforcement actions and political will can produce rapid and significant reductions in deforestation rates. On the other hand, a lasting solution to the problem involves structural issues within Brazilian society, such as economic pressure on the forest, the expansion of the agricultural frontier, and land conflicts—factors that cannot be resolved solely through technology or command-and-control measures.
In the case of Brazil, what measures would be most effective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions?
In the Brazilian context, the most effective and sustainable measures include rigorously combating illegal deforestation, forest restoration, incentivizing low-carbon agriculture, and expanding the share of renewable energy in the energy mix.
Is there an international trend of placing greater pressure on tropical countries regarding deforestation, while industrialized countries face less pressure regarding fossil fuels? How does this affect the climate debate?
There is, in fact, a trend of placing greater blame on tropical countries regarding deforestation, while industrialized countries often face more diffuse pressures regarding the use of fossil fuels. This can distort the climate debate because, although developing countries bear significant responsibility for current practices of predatory land use, the climate crisis is deeply linked to the history of industrialization and the accumulated emissions of wealthy countries over the past two centuries.