He turned data into a shield for the forest. Today, his satellite monitoring tools are a nightmare for those who deforest illegally. Let's talk to forest engineer and MAPBiomas coordinator, Tasso Azevedo.
Tasso, thank you very much for being here. Today, environmental challenges are also challenges for health, transport, development, and agriculture. They are challenges for the economy as a whole, right?
What are considered the biggest environmental challenges for Brazil today? I think they will surely be on the climate agenda in general, because Brazil is a country that is very vulnerable to climate change, both from a health perspective and from an economic and conservation standpoint, but this has to do with the water regime, right? So, we are very susceptible to impacts when you have too much rain and, obviously, when you have drought, right?
And we've seen this over the last few years, right? Like the floods in southern Brazil, in Rio Grande do Sul, the landslides we just had in Minas Gerais, the ones in Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, and Recife, right? And the droughts, right?
Deepened in the Pantanal. Right? The Pantanal lost 60%of its water, right?
The Amazon, right? The drought in the Amazon. And when there is a severe drought, there are consequences, for example, for energy generation.
Rio Grande do Sul suffers from both extremes, right? It suffers as much from drought as it does from flooding. But the trend with climate change, in the case of Rio Grande do Sul, is that it is the only region in Brazil where rainfall actually increases, right?
In the rest of Brazil, the trend is for it to get drier, right? So, this is, let's say, our macro or biggest challenge, this climate issue. From there, a series of day-to-day issues arise that become greater or lesser challenges depending on the decisions we make in the country every day.
So, for example, deforestation, especially in the Amazon and the Cerrado, has a very significant impact on the climate, whether because it increases greenhouse gas emissions; it is our main source of greenhouse gas emissions. Brazil is the fifth-largest emitter in the world. And these emissions, along with the emissions from burning fossil fuels that we generally have, they contribute to amplifying the climate effect, the climate changes that directly impact us .
But it's more than that, because deforestation also causes a local effect, right? The reduction of forests reduces the capacity to, let's say, generate rain, which is the evapotranspiration that happens with forests and which are the main sources of moisture we have in Brazil, right? Up to 30%of the rain in Brazil depends on the Amazon and this interface between the Amazon and the Cerrado.
So, when I destroy, when I reduce the area of forests through deforestation, I am reducing the ability to generate rain, and that is what is causing the country to become increasingly dry and have more problems with droughts and such. So why do I put this as, I mean, it depends on our decisions, because the decision to alter the climate is something we can't really change, except by controlling emissions, right? Greenhouse gas emissions.
What we can do is reduce the impact we might have with these climate changes, or reduce the forces that lead to climate change. In our case, it's deforestation, it's the main one, but deforestation also causes these local effects. So, our decisions on how we are going to control, if we are going to control, etc.
Deforestation, for example, has a direct impact on our environment and our quality of life, right? So, this applies to other things as well. So, for example, having accidents or environmental disasters caused by human works, as is the case, for example, with a dam that collapses or a.
. . anyway , contamination with some chemical product or oil or gas, etc.
, here, in some accident, these are things that result from our activities. So, everything we can do to avoid causing this type of situation is important. So , for example, a fundamental instrument is licensing.
So, because environmental licensing was not created to control or penalize a company; it was created to protect society. So you, the society that doesn't want accidents and problems, it says: "Look, the government goes there and creates a process to ensure that anyone doing construction is respecting environmental rules and minimizing any type of risk of impact on society as a whole. " So, when we decide, for example , to weaken legislation on the topic of licensing, we are weakening our ability to deal with this problem, which is increasingly growing right next door.
So, I would say that today in Brazil our issues are linked to our decisions about land use, because it is our main source of emissions, but also our main factor in ensuring whether or not we are well-prepared to face these climate changes and conditions. And on the other hand, all this legal framework that was built over the last 30 years and that has been, I would say since 2012, I think the milestone, the Forest Code is a landmark for this, because it was the first time that legislation, an environmental legislation, retrogressed in relation to the previous status. From then on, we have a process in which we have somehow threatened those gains we had in the past.
So, I would say that these are the great challenges for Brazil today. Regarding environmental licensing, the National Congress is eventually more or less permeable to the perception that human actions will impact the climate. It is totally permeable to the perception that it is necessary to mitigate the consequences, but the perception that human actions cause climate changes, not always.
What are the data today that prove that forest preservation has an impact on climate change? I would say the following, I don't think there is, even in Brazil in general, and the polls show this, perhaps, I even think in Congress, I think there are few who are skeptical regarding climate change itself, right? What I think is highly modulated is what each specific sector contributes to this climate change.
And that is the moment when you have a very large flexibilization. This flexibilization is driven by self-interest and this is a very important issue, right? So you sign what makes changes to environmental legislation viable, right?
It's if I work or if I am part of the group that, anyway, it's all about the caucus, right? The caucus of, I don't know, of coal, right? Because I am interested in the economic issue of coal.
Uh, yes, mainly in the southern region of Brazil. Then, uh, I look at the problem and say: "No, the contribution this sector can make is this, and it is very important for energy security. ""Then you kind of, uh, relativize, right, the contribution of that sector to a larger problem for the city as a whole.
" So, that is the tension we, that we live in. But, what is irrefutable today, right, is that greenhouse gas emissions caused by humans are definitely the, uh, the central cause of climate change, of the planet's warming. And this planet warming generates climate change.
There is no doubt about that. And these greenhouse gases basically have two sources. One, 3/4 of the world's greenhouse gas emissions come from the burning of fossil fuels.
So it's gasoline, it's diesel, it's gas, right, which are used for transport, used for thermoelectric plants, to generate electricity, to power industries, right ? All the petrochemistry used for the production of materials, right, plastics, etc. , are very important.
All of this, let's say, this set accounts for three-quarters of emissions. And another part, 25%, comes from the way we use the land. So it comes from deforestation.
So when you clear-cut, burn, that also turns into gas that goes up into the atmosphere. Animals, right? Livestock farming, which emits methane, which is a very, uh, strong gas for the climate issue, much stronger than carbon.
The application of nitrogen, right, which is a fertilizer, also generates another gas, right, which is nitrous oxide, which is also very important for climate change. And this is what causes it. So, why is it that when you conserve forests, it has a very important impact on the climate?
Because it acts on three, on three things. The first is that if you conserve the forest, you stop emitting greenhouse gas. And more than that, these forests capture carbon.
When it grows, right, it does photosynthesis, it captures carbon, which is everything , right, everything we live by, eat, and such, comes from this photosynthesis process, right? So it captures carbon. So when you maintain the forest, you reduce emissions.
So you reduce what is causing the impact, and you even create the opposite effect , where the forest captures carbon and stores it down here, sequestering more carbon. So the more we can maintain, grow, and regenerate forests, the better it is for this balance. But it’s more than that.
Today, we can demonstrate, for example, how much the forests in the Amazon contribute to hydroelectric power generation in regions like the South and Southeast. We can even reach a point—we’re actually designing a model to do this —where you can take any hydroelectric plant and be able to say what percentage of the rainfall came from the Amazon, and from which part of the Amazon. So it’s possible to say: "The Xingu Indigenous Park there between Mato Grosso and Pará, which is a massive block of forest, contributes 10 to 20%of the water that feeds a power plant, for example, in Santa Catarina.
" And these links are very strong, so it’s quite direct; because that forest exists, the water exists, and because the water exists, the electricity we consume exists. Will it also be possible to do this regarding agriculture? Yes, there are some interesting things for agriculture.
For example, if you take the Cerrado region, there is a lot of irrigated agriculture today, right? So you have those irrigation pivots, which are machines that create those round irrigated areas we see. Back in the 90s and early 2000s, an irrigation well there was 30 to 40 meters deep.
Meaning you dug 30, 40 meters, and water would come out, right? The wells being drilled today are 300 meters deep . What is happening?
The amount of available water is decreasing. This has a direct relationship with the amount of natural area remaining in the Cerrado and the Amazon, because this is data that really resonates with the National Congress. It is, but, what is the issue?
This is interesting. If you look, for example, at combating deforestation, which is always an issue, right? No, because there is, because you penalize, because now, for example, they want to end remote embargoes, which is a tool where , if you deforested illegally, the area is embargoed so you cannot use it.
And it is done on a large scale using remote sensing and satellites. And now forget about preventing remote embargos , for example. What is that?
You might say, "Oh, so this affects the majority of producers, so we need to put an end to it? " No, if you look at the last 5 years, we compile this report on deforestation in the Mar Piombas region , looking at all 5 years, okay? Uh, less than 3%of properties in Brazil have had deforestation.
And if you take any single year, it’s less than 1%. Meaning that 99%is not deforesting. They are all there doing their production, etc.
So, when you look at something and say, "Oh, I need to resolve this issue here because it's affecting producers," deep down, you're defending the interests of a very small group, and the rest remain indifferent because they say the following: "Look, if you change this legislation, well, I follow the law, right? " If I follow the law, etc. , uh, whether you change the rule or not, it won't make a difference to me.
So I stay quiet, ah, let them defend whatever they want, I'll just stick to my own business. But the impact on all of us is very large. So I will give a practical example that is more interesting, simpler to understand or to capture the general impact.
Take the border between the Cerrado and the Amazon. At the border of the Cerrado and Amazon, as deforestation increased, it dried out. So, there are places on the edge there in Mato Grosso, between Mato Grosso and Amazonas, for example, where the average temperature has risen by 7 degrees.
7 degrees. We don't want the planet's temperature to rise by 1. 5 , yet it has risen by 7 degrees.
So, what happens when it gets too hot? Because you removed the forest, it gets very hot, it gets dry. When it gets dry , what do you do?
On a rural property, to have water for the animals, right, or to have water for agriculture. You build a dam. So, everyone starts building a dam on their property.
When you build a dam, you store the water that stops flowing in the natural course. This water that goes in the natural course reaches where the trees are, right? Which is the river flowing down towards the Amazon.
And there are the trees that will pump the water, that will generate the rain. Right? Which makes the cycle break and function.
When you reserve water, each person reserves water on their property , less water goes to the areas, and you decrease the amount of rainfall. So, every time you build a reservoir, instead of solving the problem, you are adding to it. Therefore, the intuitive solution ends up being harmful to society as a whole.
It’s a solution that only looks at your own individual situation. I, I don’t blame them. The farmer is there saying: "Look, I need water, I’m going to build a pond here.
" When you add them all up, we have more than 100,000 water reservoirs built on rural properties in this region since 2000. And what we are doing is drying things out more and more. So, what is the solution to an issue like this?
The solution to an issue like this is for farmers to coordinate the restoration of permanent preservation areas, the areas around rivers, maintaining a minimum of native vegetation, because that ensures better natural water retention. Water follows its natural cycle and you start the feedback loop again. That is the discussion that we have to have, or rather, the one we are currently having.
It’s about thinking that for the society as a whole, for us collectively, the most important thing is ensuring these natural resources are secured for everyone, preserved for all of us. Including for the very same farmer who is there. But at first glance, it seems that regulating this feels like a penalty.
So, the current prevailing idea is how to reduce restrictions on property use as much as possible. So, "let's relax the rules on permanent preservation areas, let's relax the legal reserve rules," etc. , as if that solved the problem for a specific producer, but collectively, it doesn't.
And I think that is a question of maturity that we need to have, that collective rules exist, the rules we set exist to protect society as a whole , the collective as a whole. In the same way that you have to have a sidewalk, right? You own a property, and you have to set aside space for a sidewalk.
Why? Because the space for the sidewalk is public space where people walk, but the sidewalk is on your property. São Paulo, for example, has several cities that have this, right?
In São Paulo, any new construction must have 20%of its area as permeable area, right? You cannot build on 20%of the land to ensure there is permeable area, why? Because if everyone builds over everything, the city becomes impermeable and floods will be much worse, you understand?
So, you create rules that restrict what is apparently a restriction on individual rights, right? You do what you want, but you create them with the idea that the sum of what everyone is doing is better for the collective. The world today is experiencing a war with an impact on the supply of oil produced in the Middle East.
Does this impact the debate on the expansion of renewable energy in any way? Yes, directly, right? I think that, differently, or not differently, but in a process that is much more accelerated than what happened in the 70s, when the first oil crisis occurred, the first oil crisis led to ethanol, for example.
We have ethanol in Brazil today largely because of that crisis in the 70s. Eh, this is a process happening today as well, of acceleration, it's just clearer from an energy standpoint. So we can see that quite well in the energy sector.
Eh, just look at something interesting, right? With the current oil crisis, the value of shares for oil companies increased, eh, those that can operate, right? Eh, but if you look at the other side, the value of shares for companies producing batteries, solar panels, and the like increased much more, because demand for that sector will increase greatly.
So, I think this will be an important push. But today the bottleneck we have is related to, let's say, to the non-energy products of oil, right? So today we are, global agriculture is totally dependent on the production of ammonia, as nitrogen fertilization is basically done today with ammonia that comes from the oil industry.
So, today, this bottleneck. . .
You have ammonia, you have, eh, various products that are used for solvents, for paints, for, eh, polymers of all, of all kinds that we have and, eh, which I think will be an important bottleneck, but, eh, regarding the energy transition aspect, it is an opportunity. Now there is also another side, right? Some people look at it differently, right?
So, if you look at those planning at Petrobras, for example, in the Amazon basin, they say: "No, let's accelerate because look , oil prices will rise, so let's speed up investments to produce more oil. " So , there is a bit of this dichotomy, right, where if you increase the price of oil, you make renewable energy more viable, but you also give new momentum to investments in the oil industry. And the other issue is that there's a contradiction: the oil crisis is not good for anyone for another, simpler reason, which is, essentially, to make the energy transition, you must have massive investment in renewable energy and you have to drastically reduce the subsidies used for the oil industry.
Basically, you have to make this equation work. Ideally, you would remove the subsidy and take the money you were using for it to invest in renewable energy. That is the big key to making the transformation happen, aside from, obviously, the cost issue and so on.
So, in times of crisis like the one we are living through now, it's the opposite: subsidies increase a lot on that side, because we are so dependent on fossil fuels that what happens is: if the price goes up a lot, for whatever reason, you have to increase the amount of subsidies. Counterintuitive, but that's how it happens. So, we will certainly see a record year for subsidies this year.
Well, just look at Brazil. We need to subsidize diesel, we need to subsidize gas, because we don't have it. And people might ask: "But hey, isn't there biodiesel, couldn't we replace everything with biodiesel?
" Technically , you can. You could take 100%today, right? Take a diesel vehicle and you could replace 100%with biodiesel.
Technically, that is possible today. But we still don't have the scale of biodiesel production to meet demand. Volume.
We don't have the volume we would need, right? So, it is a decision to be made, because the production of biodiesel and ethanol, etc. , requires territory, land area for you to plant, right?
And so it is a decision to be made whether this is the solution we are going to have. And if it is a commodity that can provide a return from an economic standpoint, right? You can, uh, certainly export diesel and such, but I think what’s going to happen with the automotive industry in general is that it tends to be all electrified, right?
Because there are several reasons for you to electrify, right? Beyond the issue of emissions and such, even if you are powering the electricity with thermal plants, for example, an electric vehicle is much more efficient —much more efficient, because the motor is highly efficient—but there’s the whole matter of the logistics of production and distribution, right? Imagine 50 years from now, 30 years, you don't even need that much, 30 years, right?
Us explaining, right? to a child how it was that we made cars run. We would go out into the ocean, 3,000 meters deep, drill a hole, pull a black liquid from down there, put it on a giant ship, right?
Then take it to the coast. Then there were these factories that were the largest factories in existence, called refineries. Then you’d dump that black liquid in, and a yellow liquid would come out the other side.
Then you’d put this yellow liquid in a truck. That truck would go to the cities, distributing it to several little shops you had over time in places where you kept that liquid. Then you’d take your car there and put this liquid inside the tank.
And that’s how you’d get around. Every time that liquid ran out, you’d run back there to put more of that liquid in. That’s how it worked, kid.
But but grandma didn't have a wall outlet, right? Because basically you plug the thing in, it’s not—you can't even fathom it, right? It’s the same as saying, imagine that, I don't know, in the 19th century you had to have horse manure, isn't that right?
You had to have people to clean the streets, all that mess, right, of manure on the street and so on. So I I have no doubt that the future will be like that. It’s just that the transition to this future requires that in several sectors , especially heavy transport and such, you still have combustion engines and you will have to have a transition fuel .
And Brazil is an incredible place, right? Because the only place in the world where biofuel is used extensively , right, is Brazil. Brazil isn't the biggest consumer of biofuels; that’s the United States.
But but Brazil is the place where it became part of daily life the most, right? I mean, passenger cars in Brazil, most of the fleet today is flex-fuel, right? It could be, you can, you put 30%of gasoline, 27%, 30%of gasoline is alcohol, right?
And besides that, you can stop at the gas station and fill up. The choice is on the consumer's side, right? You choose one or choose the other.
Even so, today in Brazil, half of the consumption is still people choosing to use gasoline, right? There are several myths associated with it and so on. So, uh, but it is a it is a it is a solution, it's a solution that works well in Brazil today, and in few countries, because not many countries have the capacity to produce biofuel.
And biofuel will not be a solution for the world in the energy transition, because the amount of biofuel you would need is very large. You would basically have to occupy the agricultural area we have on the planet today to produce this. And then there's an impact on the issue of food, right?
So, but as a transition fuel, yes. But do you know where the same ethanol we use today or the biomass we use to produce this type of fuel will be used? It does need to exist to be able to replace other byproducts, those I was talking about, such as polymers, solvents, right, fertilizers, everything that we call petrochemicals, right?
You have a refinery that produces petrochemical products. In the future, we will have something that would be a biorefinery. You put biomass in there and what comes out the other side, right, are plastics , polymers, etc.
, because it's all carbon chains, right? So I understand that Brazil has this role, right, of us making, you know, plastic with biomass, so I think there is a vast, vast path ahead. Well, thank you very much for the interview.
M.
