The climate was once better

By Carlos Magno
Social mobilization coordinator at Centro Sabiá and Fulbright alumni at Cornell University. With a Master’s degree in Agroecology, he works in the semi-arid region with a focus on climate, sustainable rural development and agroecology.

It’s not news to anyone that the climate has changed a lot. It’s important to stress that weather is not the same as time or temperature – the kind we see every night on the news. In recent years, the person responsible for this part of the program has even been given the codename “weather”, as in “weather guy”. Well, that’s just information from that very moment about the weather conditions in the atmosphere. It’s like a snapshot of that day – and the days to come – with which we plan to go to the beach or farmers think about how the crops will be planted in the coming weeks.

Climate, on the other hand, is more like a historical series of temperatures, rainfall and other aspects. It impacts society as a whole, changes the way we deal with the environment around us, alters the way food is produced and interferes with the migratory flow of all living beings – especially those who “have a highly developed telencephalon and an opposable thumb”. Those born between the 70s and 80s will understand.

Climate change is natural. So much so that we studied the geological eras and saw that the planet changes over millions of years. The most serious fact is that it is changing very quickly – and just in time for us. When I say “fast”, I’m referring to a planet that’s more than 4.5 billion years old, and that we’ve only really started to worry about in the last 70 years. Well, the deniers on duty may say that this change is absolutely natural, but they forget that there was no oil exploration before 1859, when the first well was discovered in the United States.

Over this period, the relationship between this exploitation and the acceleration of these changes has become clear. The emission of carbon dioxide and its concentration in the atmosphere means that the sun’s energy is not dissipated, gradually increasing the planet’s temperature – like in a greenhouse, where the light enters and heats up. No wonder these gases are technically called greenhouse gases.

According to a report by the Climate ObservatoryBrazil is the sixth largest emitter of CO₂ in the world, behind major powers such as China, the United States and Russia. The big difference is that these countries emit CO₂ to generate energy – literally, they are burning oil to generate electricity. Our emissions, on the other hand, are concentrated in agriculture, which s for 75% of the total. It is agribusiness that has deforested and expanded Brazil’s agricultural frontier, increased violence in the countryside and soil contamination with pesticides, in the quest to break export records year after year – and, of course, record profits for agribusinessmen and their entire supply chain, which includes dozens of multinationals and, unfortunately, public banks.

The situation became even more dramatic when, in January of this year, the newly-elected president of the United States, Donald Trump, took office and demolished any possibility of his country doing anything about this “climate race”. He was elected with an embarrassing slogan, to say the least: “Drill, baby, drill”, which literally means “drill, baby, drill”, referring to the drilling of new oil and gas wells in the USA. Immediately after taking office, the president withdrew the country from the Paris Agreement (of the Conference of the Parties on Climate) and began banning American scientists from research in this area, cutting resources and putting pressure on institutions. The United States has a direct influence on many countries around the world – including Brazil.

At a closer look, Recife – one of the Brazilian capitals most vulnerable to the impacts of the climate crisis – is on the brink of a silent emergency: rising sea levels threaten to turn entire neighborhoods into uninhabitable zones by the end of the century. According to a recent study by UFPE, up to 28 neighborhoods in the city could suffer frequent flooding on sunny days, caused by the tide returning through the urban drainage network – a phenomenon known as “sunny day flooding”. Areas such as Boa Viagem, Afogados, Imbiribeira and the Ilha do Leite medical center are among the most vulnerable, with virtually all their streets expected to be flooded.

In a scenario of a 70 cm rise in sea level, as predicted by the IPCC , tourist districts such as Recife Antigo, as well as densely populated residential areas, will have a significant part of their urban fabric submerged. These impacts not only put the safety and mobility of the population at risk, but could also cause irreversible economic damage and compromise the functioning of essential city services. But understand: I’m talking about sunny days. Combine that with torrential rain, and we may no longer have the city we know.

On top of all this – and as if that wasn’t enough – the Federal Senate has ed the “mother of all bills”: the bill that will make environmental licensing more flexible. In practice, it goes something like this: “the fox issues a certificate saying that the chickens will be safe in her company, and there’s nothing to worry about. As a result, the owner of the farm won’t have to worry about bureaucracy or protecting the chickens.” Everything is under control!

This, my first column, could well have been about São João – this somewhat pagan festival, full of the mysticism of the summer solstice mixed with Christian traditions, with corn food, harvests, bonfires and our sertanejo goodwill. I owe you this one, but at least you’ll be able to think that this São João that we love so much is also under threat. And if that doesn’t make us fight, we may have already turned to ash before the bonfire is lit.