Greendoing Instead of Greenwishing, By Izabella Teixeira
Izabella Teixeira is the former Brazilian minister for the environment (2010 - 2016) and co-chair of the International Resource Panel at the United Nations Environment Programme. - foto por IEA-USP
As the superpowers lack consensus, environmental influencers are needed
By Izabella Teixeira
The climate crisis is no longer a scenario - it is a global reality. Humanity is in a destructive relationship with nature. This is particularly evident in certain processes. The loss of natural resources is accelerating, their depletion is announced and extreme weather events are becoming much more frequent.
This destructive perspective also applies to the ruthless exercise of power. The world lacks leaders who do not define themselves but emerge as providers of solutions. These solutions can be shared but not hegemonic, and they should not create dependence. This is a challenge for international cooperation and calls for action from countries
with a bilateral tradition, such as Brazil and Germany. These countries should create innovative spaces where the private and financial sectors can also be solution providers. There is no room anymore for business-as-usual models.
The political vision of the world we live in is out of date. We need to build a new global one that
welcomes diversity and national singularities. Technological and political inclusion and sustainability should deal with social and environmental inequalities. Growing fairly with nature is no trivial task. Yet, these are times of 'greenwishing', not 'greendoing'.
Decarbonisation and carbon neutralisation projects with timeframes between 2050 and 2070 show that we are still hostage to short-term ideals. However, we need them to overcome the complexity of dealing with organized crime and
its links to environmental crimes, such as illegal deforestation and the heavy dependence on fossil fuels.
Science is emerging as a political actor, heralding new environmental, climate and technological frontiers. These frontiers reveal the limits of the planet's resilience. We are not currently inclusive by nature but, on the contrary, continue to promote a society that is increasingly exposed to risks and vulnerabilities. Meanwhile, technological innovation is creating virtual realities and tools that are changing behaviours, lifestyles and political, economic and social dynamics.
Society discloses other frontiers such as gender, social inequalities and democracy. For example, inequalities and racism are being challenged by new dynamics of power shifts and climate justice. These agendas determine new dynamics and interests for environmental politics. The world is now on the move, driven by geopolitical realignments. The fierce rivalry between China and the United States and the search for a multipolar geopolitical order have become commonplace as we grapple with the complexity of uncertainties created by the climate crisis.
We should not stop demanding geopolitical solutions to the global environmental crisis because of the bipolarity between two superpowers. Multipolarity enables diverse processes of convergence of interests and does not divide the world while pursuing common and universal goals.
The transitional world is divided. Blocs are being formed, reshaped or expanded to meet the challenges of the modern age and to promote shared interests. The singularities of countries, such as the Amazon for Brazil, must be taken into account.
The G20, the BRICS+ or the Global South, guided by the dynamics of Western and non-Western global cooperation, reflect this. They must modernise the multilateral system because it is the only universal system of international cooperation.
It remains to be seen whether these groups will act within the architecture of inclusive, transparent and measurable decision-making processes, and be driven by a pacifist, humanist and democratic vision, or by authoritarian and populist nationalism.
Countries such as China, India, and the United States are seeking geopolitical power based on political, economic and technological pathways to decarbonisation and emissions neutrality. Other mega-biodiverse countries, such as Brazil, have environmental assets and they want to influence and seek positive narratives of political and social inclusion. Few have short-term solutions to accelerate the urgently needed transformations beyond international solidarity.
The challenge of cooperation must be met. We need to move forward and immerse ourselves in global climate governance, leading to a new vision of multilateralism, because the world has changed since 1945. Today, countries with peace, security, nature and democracy can accelerate change.
New stories need to be told about the future; for example, about carbon traded at fair prices by developing countries, not undercut by developed countries like Europe. This cannot be done without inclusive alliances and partnerships. Brazil and Germany must see transformation as a common goal, without mistrust. This requires work and humility on both sides. Bilateral understanding is essential for multilateral progress.
New Powers, New Ports
The climate crisis is no longer a scenario - it is a global reality. Humanity is in a destructive relationship with nature. This is particularly evident in certain processes. The loss of natural resources is accelerating, their depletion is announced and extreme weather events are becoming much more frequent.
This destructive perspective also applies to the ruthless exercise of power. The world lacks leaders who do not define themselves but emerge as providers of solutions. These solutions can be shared but not hegemonic, and they should not create dependence. This is a challenge for international cooperation and calls for action from countries
with a bilateral tradition, such as Brazil and Germany. These countries should create innovative spaces where the private and financial sectors can also be solution providers. There is no room anymore for business-as-usual models.
Hostage to short-term ideals
The political vision of the world we live in is out of date. We need to build a new global one that
welcomes diversity and national singularities. Technological and political inclusion and sustainability should deal with social and environmental inequalities. Growing fairly with nature is no trivial task. Yet, these are times of 'greenwishing', not 'greendoing'.
Decarbonisation and carbon neutralisation projects with timeframes between 2050 and 2070 show that we are still hostage to short-term ideals. However, we need them to overcome the complexity of dealing with organized crime and
its links to environmental crimes, such as illegal deforestation and the heavy dependence on fossil fuels.
Science is emerging as a political actor, heralding new environmental, climate and technological frontiers. These frontiers reveal the limits of the planet's resilience. We are not currently inclusive by nature but, on the contrary, continue to promote a society that is increasingly exposed to risks and vulnerabilities. Meanwhile, technological innovation is creating virtual realities and tools that are changing behaviours, lifestyles and political, economic and social dynamics.
Great-power competition threatens climate protection
Society discloses other frontiers such as gender, social inequalities and democracy. For example, inequalities and racism are being challenged by new dynamics of power shifts and climate justice. These agendas determine new dynamics and interests for environmental politics. The world is now on the move, driven by geopolitical realignments. The fierce rivalry between China and the United States and the search for a multipolar geopolitical order have become commonplace as we grapple with the complexity of uncertainties created by the climate crisis.
We should not stop demanding geopolitical solutions to the global environmental crisis because of the bipolarity between two superpowers. Multipolarity enables diverse processes of convergence of interests and does not divide the world while pursuing common and universal goals.
Transparency instead of populism
The transitional world is divided. Blocs are being formed, reshaped or expanded to meet the challenges of the modern age and to promote shared interests. The singularities of countries, such as the Amazon for Brazil, must be taken into account.
The G20, the BRICS+ or the Global South, guided by the dynamics of Western and non-Western global cooperation, reflect this. They must modernise the multilateral system because it is the only universal system of international cooperation.
It remains to be seen whether these groups will act within the architecture of inclusive, transparent and measurable decision-making processes, and be driven by a pacifist, humanist and democratic vision, or by authoritarian and populist nationalism.
Countries such as China, India, and the United States are seeking geopolitical power based on political, economic and technological pathways to decarbonisation and emissions neutrality. Other mega-biodiverse countries, such as Brazil, have environmental assets and they want to influence and seek positive narratives of political and social inclusion. Few have short-term solutions to accelerate the urgently needed transformations beyond international solidarity.
We need carbon trading by developing countries
The challenge of cooperation must be met. We need to move forward and immerse ourselves in global climate governance, leading to a new vision of multilateralism, because the world has changed since 1945. Today, countries with peace, security, nature and democracy can accelerate change.
New stories need to be told about the future; for example, about carbon traded at fair prices by developing countries, not undercut by developed countries like Europe. This cannot be done without inclusive alliances and partnerships. Brazil and Germany must see transformation as a common goal, without mistrust. This requires work and humility on both sides. Bilateral understanding is essential for multilateral progress.
New Powers, New Ports
