CLIMATE GOVERNANCE FROM THE GROUND UP

  

It’s time to think beyond the thermostat.

 

 

By  Antonio Fernando Pinheiro Pedro 

 

 

Sumary:

 Are we mitigating the climate — or surrendering sovereignty?

In a world where carbon reduction targets often mask geopolitical agendas, Brazil stands at a crossroads. This thought-provoking article challenges the dogmas of “climate consensus,” exposes the bureaucratic traps of mitigation diplomacy, and argues for a pragmatic, sovereign approach to resilience and adaptation.

From the contradictions of the Paris Agreement to São Paulo’s real-world climate governance, the author pulls back the curtain on a system where ideology too often eclipses science — and where dignity may be our greatest source of strength.

 It’s time to think beyond the thermostat.

 

 

We are a key player in the geopolitics of climate. Therefore, we must change our posture.

We need an effective framework that serves human resilience, rejects geopolitical proselytism, and safeguards national interests in the climate agenda.

 

 

Introduction

 

This article seeks to contextualize and guide the reader through the maze of debates, facts, and narratives that make up the current framework of the so-called “fight against climate change.” An essential read for those truly looking to implement governance worthy of the name regarding the preservation of human life on a planet whose climate has changed for billions of years…

 

 

The Scenario

 

There is a global effort underway to confer resilience upon humanity and mitigate human activity in response to climate shifts on the planet. Obviously, this implies a shift in paradigms within governance and international relations.

Earth’s climate has always undergone profound changes. The difference today is our awareness of the phenomenon.

From the 20th century onwards, our knowledge of climate and our interaction with the geoclimatic process has expanded quantumly. Advances in physics, geology, meteorology, astronomy, engineering, and biological sciences are occurring disruptively with each new research cycle—from the role of solar winds to marine microbiology.

However, the ideologization of the phenomenon has also advanced, as the process of understanding facts collides with geopolitical interests. Climate discussions have moved from the scientific platform to the board game of narratives and the economic convenience of government authorities.

The understanding that we are facing a planetary climate change process reached an international arrangement level during the 1970s and 1980s. This culminated in the formulation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), signed in 1992 amid intense geopolitical conflict (fall of the Berlin Wall, economic globalization, redrawing of political geography, etc.).

 

 

The UNFCCC

 

The treaty is structured around three spheres:

1. The broadest is the Framework Convention itself—its premises, principles, and general objectives;
2. Within it, two dynamic and interconnected spheres operate: the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), which provides scientific information; and the COPs (annual Conferences of the Parties), which set norms and protocols based on IPCC findings.

The UNFCCC acts as a “framework” filled in by protocols, procedural agreements, and commitments made by member countries. These agreements are guided by the assessment reports issued by the scientific panel. The core idea: to protect food production, population safety, and adapt our lifestyles in the face of extreme climate changes.

But it’s important to remember that Earth’s atmosphere has changed for billions of years. The arrangements we experience today are the result of our growing awareness of our fragility and temporality within this thin crust of the planet.

 

 

The Political Bias

 

In international law, diffuse interests—by definition intrinsically conflicting—demand norms that can accommodate multiple socio-political and economic asymmetries.

The “anthropic factor” in the climate change process is the premise that, logically, supports the concept of “common but differentiated responsibilities” among signatory nations. This premise is based on the idea that the concentration of greenhouse gases (primarily CO₂), resulting from human activities such as pollution, fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, and large-scale methane emissions, are capable of altering climate patterns—posing risks to humanity, especially food and energy security.

Therefore, the anthropic factor politically guides the efforts prescribed in protocols derived from the UNFCCC, concentrating efforts on the “mitigation of human presence and its economy” in Earth’s atmosphere.

However, this premise has been hijacked by ideological agendas and geopolitical biases—especially Eurocentric and “progressive” ones—due to the variety of strategic, social, environmental, and economic interests involved in the global resilience effort. Hence, mitigation and compensation strategies are imposed disproportionately, fostering technological dependency and generating emergencies under asymmetric circumstances, with major impacts on national economies.

As a result, this framework involves a considerable degree of conflict, biased scientific “consensus,” and an asymmetry of values masked as “climate interests”—that, truthfully, often only go skin deep.

 

 

The “Milton” Case

 

The case of “Hurricane Milton,” which struck Florida via the Gulf of Mexico, revealed just how damaging climate politicization can be for democracy—potentially more so than the weather event itself.

Used as a “tool for political mobilization and mitigation-oriented climate proselytism” during the 2024 U.S. presidential campaign, the hurricane was labeled by “experts” and authorities in mainstream American media as the “worst in 100 years”—with speculation it could reach category 6… on a scale that only goes up to 5.

In reality, it struck Florida as a category 3, then made landfall as a category 1, after causing global panic and sparking a blame game between Republicans and Democrats.

> “While presidential candidates might seek an advantage in the aftermath of a disaster, there’s a risk of appearing too focused on electoral impact during a time that should be traditionally apolitical,” > said historian Tevi Troy, author of “Shall We Wake the President? Two Centuries of Disaster Management from the Oval Office”. > “If you’re seen as politicizing the disaster, the backlash could be significant.”

In the end, Milton left 17 dead and millions in damages—but infrastructure in Florida remained largely intact and was restored quickly. This was because the Republican-led state government prioritized prevention, contingency, resilience, and adaptation—steering clear of the climate proselytism pushed by the then Democratic federal government. Ironically and tragically, that same federal government would later fail disastrously in responding to wildfires in California, under the “woke” administrations of the state and Los Angeles.

In the same period, the São Paulo Metropolitan Region was hit by a short but powerful storm, with winds reaching 78 km/h. Despite accurate meteorological forecasting and a functioning summer rain emergency system, the city suffered a major blackout, material damage, toppled trees (mostly due to lack of pruning), dozens left homeless, and 8 deaths—half the toll from a massive hurricane in the U.S.

After years of managing São Paulo’s Summer Rain Plan and achieving the lowest damage index in 18 years over two consecutive years, governance declined sharply once I left office—and crisis management was practically handed off to the state government.

As the city’s first Secretary of Climate and advocate for advancing emergency prevention and monitoring systems, I can say firsthand: in Brazil, proselytism often outweighs safety and human life.

 

 

The “Consensus”

 

This manufactured “consensus” has created a dysfunctional alarmism that does not unite—it fragments.

Consensus is fundamentally a political concept. It describes a type of agreement reached by mutual consent among all members of a group, or between multiple groups. It implies a shared judgment, opinion, or sentiment among the majority—or entirety—of a collective.

Included in consensus are notions like acquiescence, approval, and consent—all voluntary and circumstantial decisions.

Some even confuse consensus with common sense. But common sense relates to wisdom and reasonableness. It involves sound judgment and fair choices grounded in social, natural, and human realities—as well as moral, legal, and customary norms. Importantly, common sense allows for dissent.

Science embraces common sense but, by nature, does not endorse consensus. Its driving force is questioning, never conformity. So “embracing a thesis to build consensus” is to adopt what seems convenient, not what is necessarily true.

The scientific method relies on inquiry: observe, question, hypothesize, experiment, validate, reject, and reformulate. In science, skepticism is the soul of progress.

Hence, the politically consensus-based mechanism used in climate conferences pressures the IPCC to “adapt” the scientific method in order to “build” agreement.

Understandable? Perhaps. Acceptable? Not always.

When dissenters are excluded from negotiations for being “politically inconvenient,” science is shelved. I say this from personal experience—as a declared skeptic.

Thus, if consensus is a political tool, its application to climate decisions generates significant geopolitical, technological, and socioeconomic effects, distorting science to serve ideological interests embedded in globalist and progressive agendas.

 

 

The Globalist Trap

 

As mentioned, the diplomatic consensus-seeking mechanism behind the COPs taints the conclusions of the IPCC, creating a bureaucratic elite in governance and academia that self-sustains through the very discourse it promotes—economically included.

At this point, it’s not about scientific research, but defending the prevailing thesis that justifies their position.

“Politically agreed positions” within the scientific domain produce a contradictory scenario—and certainly don’t eliminate the inherent conflicts of diffuse interests.

Faced with these contradictions, climate diplomacy clings to a catastrophist and dysfunctional narrative, hampering scientific debate—especially in light of advances in geology and empirical knowledge.

The debate gets drowned in shallow proselytism. Decentralized planning, prevention, and resilience are abandoned. Structural actions and engineering-based solutions give way to costly “goals” for mitigation and energy adaptation—which, in turn, cause economic downturns and fuel neocolonialism.

In the realm of democratic debate, the new “climate mitigation bureaucracy” resorts to militant jargon that pollutes the technical focus of climate governance.

Petty insults and absurdities (seemingly lifted from student-union banter) form a toxic cocktail: labels like “denialism,” “scientific certainty,” “climate heresy”, and so on—fabricated to disguise outright censorship.

> “The Plague,” by Camus, captures this mood well…

It’s all a masquerade to conceal unspoken geopolitical interests.

The climate agenda—just like pandemic management or the global financial information market—has been co-opted by the aristocratic elite gathered in Davos and Brussels. They control more than half the world’s economy and are, for obvious reasons, keen on expanding their global governance by promoting identity campaigns, fringe activism, and “libertarian” cultural trends—conveniently wrapped in liberty-crushing policies.

Hence the term “progressive globalism.”

Administered globalization, driven by ideologically captured multilateral organizations, seeks to replace the “chaos” of pluralistic democratic regimes (still present in sovereign states) with a “new world order”. This order aims to manage the masses through aid programs, keep capital in the hands of its sponsors, and oversee the rest of the economy through bureaucratic castes. The strategic goal is clear: eliminate the “risk” of free elections and suppress both Popular and National Sovereignty.

Thus, global emergencies become the justification for elite governance.

As Aesop said: “Every tyrant uses just pretexts to impose their tyranny.”

 

 

Climate Catastrophism

 

The catastrophic dysfunction labels as a “denier” any manager or scientist who seeks rationality in prevention and climate resilience. This is a cognitive strategy.

Let’s look at the facts:

I. The Earth has faced climate shifts since its formation. It has, it does, and it will continue undergoing extreme changes—some of which have already caused mass extinctions in the past and may do so again in the future. Many of these shifts stem from geological and geophysical causes.

The Sun, for example, affects Earth’s geology, drives life-giving energy, powers photosynthesis, ocean tides, defines seasons, influences atmospheric behavior, and governs cosmic cycles.

It is the planet’s most important energy source.

II. Life on Earth interacts with and is affected by climate change—yet humans are the first species to be fully aware of this interaction.

III. Humans are political beings. Therefore, conclusions within climate diplomacy have scientific bases only up to a point—after which they become political, as is human nature.

So, while the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement may be grounded in material facts, they also reflect a universe of contradictions, shaped by geopolitics. Like any agreement made by political entities, they must be open to criticism, revision, and correction.

A major criticism is the catastrophist tone adopted by the Paris Agreement. This so-called “climate emergency” ignores vast geological and astrophysical realities and is instead used to serve geopolitical interests. Worse, catastrophism gives rise to salvationism—a prerequisite for populism.

The outlook in the Paris Agreement has, in practice, forced environmental commodity-producing countries to swallow impractical external agendas, misaligned with the economic conditions of their sovereign territories.

Clear examples of this neo-colonialist intent include the 2030, 2045, and 2060 climate agendas and ESG taxonomies—when used without consideration of local reality. These have created economic instability, even affecting European agribusiness.

We now face unsustainable economic cycles:

• Unwanted electric vehicles with lithium-ion batteries
• Abandonment of biofuel policies
• Collapse of combustion engine industries
• Roadblocks to oil and gas development in emerging economies

Consensus has thus become a pretext to support a vast geopolitical trap.

 

 

Climate Indulgence

 

Beyond all this, the planetary-sized ambition to control global temperature through human mitigation efforts has spawned an extremely dangerous utopia: a thermostat powered by indulgences and tithes.

This salvationist, almost religious, bias turns consensus into dogma—and imposes guilt for sins to be redeemed through mitigation. A mirage has been built, one that diverts global efforts much like in medieval times, when—amid plague—medicine was sidelined, rats roamed cities, and preachers peddled redemption while demanding indulgences.

Today, a new religion consumes our resources in search of so-called climate indulgences, undermining structural, effective measures aimed at enhancing resilience and adapting to local and planetary changes.

This diplomatic thermostat, based on the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (2014), laid the groundwork for the 2015 Paris Agreement at COP21. It planted the idea that we can stabilize global climate within a specific temperature range through human effort—coining absurd phrases like “combat climate change,” as if we could literally battle natural forces (ignoring the overwhelming Earth-Sun interactions we should actually be protecting ourselves from… unless we’ve gained the power to manipulate tectonic plates, solar flares, volcanoes, hurricanes, and earthquakes).

Let’s be honest: the goal set by the Paris Agreement is staggeringly ambitious... and its foundation even more so. It promotes humanity to divine status, capable of reversing geoclimatic cycles through behavioral and economic reform.

The agreement even created a “point of no return”—as if we could fully control the climate system by simply managing our emissions, and as if nation-states held the power to orchestrate symmetric disruption amid an asymmetric global reality.

These premises inspired the term “thermostat diplomacy” or “thermostat agreement”, which I coined in a 2015 article during the Paris COP.³

The main points of that agreement include:

1. Begin reducing greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible and achieve net balance by the second half of this century;
2. Keep global temperature increase well below 2°C and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5°C;
3. Review progress every five years;
4. Allocate $100 billion annually in climate finance for developing countries, with a commitment to scale up.

Even though these consensus-based goals are pursued by signatory nations, mitigation efforts resemble the purchase of indulgences—producing economic inefficiencies and disproportionately benefiting European powers, opportunistic Asian “tigers,” and peripheral adherents.

And worse: there’s a massive distraction at play. Global climate efforts should be focused on the phenomena themselves, wherever they originate. The strategic objective should be prevention, resilience, and structural adaptation.

Yet, the entrenched climate bureaucracy within globalist governance funnels vast resources into mitigation—because this also serves international financial speculation, valuing derivatives through mandatory compensation schemes.

The result? Economic distortion and sovereignty loss.

Oddly enough, a linguistic quirk emerged in globalist circles: activists now speak of “fighting climate change”, instead of promoting human resilience or adaptability to climate phenomena. The phrase alone sounds... positively quixotic.

 

 

The Syndrome of Human Protagonism

 

The “paper thermostat” syndrome presumes a level of human protagonism incompatible with the nature that surrounds us. This “Captain Planet” mentality has polluted how we interact with climate science—even within the IPCC and global academia.

We must cultivate humility in the face of facts.

If climate cycles are larger than human activity—even when we factor ourselves in—we must recognize that the phenomenon includes thermogeological, atmospheric, meteorological, and cosmic processes that remain beyond our reach, many of which we’re only now beginning to understand.

We are mere dots on a thin surface, breathing a fragile atmosphere over an immense planet. We still know little of the deep layers beneath us—magma, Earth’s core—and we are just starting to grasp how Earth behaves geologically within a stellar system.

So, there are four factors to consider:

1. The Sun delivers each day 17,000 times the energy we produce annually. That’s why we’ve launched 114 solar observation satellites—to monitor sunspots, solar storms, plasma flows, and electromagnetic emissions. Ignoring the Sun’s effects is like ignoring the reason we exist within the solar system.
2. Given how much greenhouse gas we emit through human activity, we resemble a colossal volcano—constantly active for the past few centuries. Yet real volcanoes, in mere seconds, can alter global temperatures dramatically, as with Pinatubo in the ’90s (cooling the Earth) or Hunga Tonga (potentially warming it for years). A chain eruption could reshape all climate metrics instantly.
3. The arrogance of reducing complex systems into tidy numbers and goals, without considering the previous two points, injects a political bias—a kind of economic dirigisme that disregards both scientific method and geopolitical context.
4. Finally, the geopolitical factor: European, Chinese, Korean, and Japanese players strategically push for a global energy context that frees them from fossil fuel dependence (since they don’t produce it), while keeping producing nations—like Brazil—technologically and economically dependent.

And this is precisely where sovereign political strategy matters—for both nation-states and large subnational entities like São Paulo.

 

 

Attention to the Circumstances

 

The most recent IPCC Assessment Report (AR6), reviewed by 721 representatives, compiled prior reports and followed the line of AR5, which informed the Paris Agreement.

Naturally, it contains undeniable truths. I agree, for instance, that we are experiencing a synergistic advance in climate change. I also agree that technology must pull us out of the fossil fuel era as quickly as possible—this aligns with the long-standing agenda to combat pollution.

However, I do not believe that creating economic dysfunction through restrictive legal frameworks, clearly Eurocentric in nature, will halt this process.

Nor do I accept the inquisitorial tone and accusatory posture directed at our civilizational and industrial development—forcing us to adopt agendas that produce economic inefficiencies in the name of a neo-Marxist discourse.

Were it not for our so-called “succession of sins,” we wouldn’t have the scientific and technological maturity we do today to meet the climate challenge.

We are human—not divine. We live through contradictions. Therefore, I insist: we must focus our efforts on building resilient infrastructure, optimizing predictive capacity, and developing effective adaptation strategies.

Of course, we are part of the problem for life on Earth—not just regarding climate, but also through our impact on biodiversity and the depletion of natural resources.

Still, we cannot ignore the geological, cosmic, and solar factors that have no connection to our Julian calendar. We must understand these interactions and act accordingly to enhance prevention, adaptation, and resilience.

To mitigate and compensate as a rule is to fuel speculation and economic dysfunction.

We are, climatically speaking, an anthropic volcano spewing greenhouse gases and disturbing the subsurface, releasing harmful elements into the atmosphere, and clearing vast forests.

But we must approach this issue with humility. We will not reverse these processes on paper—much less with hollow proselytism. The problem is far bigger than we imagined—and under circumstances we’re only just beginning to discover.

We must pursue a transition policy without surrendering to catastrophist rhetoric or succumbing to Euro-Asian economic pressures.

A telling example of this misguided approach is the blind push for battery-based vehicle electrification, imposed at any cost—without considering the enormous environmental impact of the technology’s full life cycle.

 

 

Economic Sovereignty

 

To meet the Paris Agreement goals, governments committed to developing their own action plans—called Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). Through these NDCs, each country sets its emission-reduction targets based on its own social and economic context.

The Brazilian NDC, however, is bold and irresponsible. It pledges a 37% reduction in national greenhouse gas emissions (compared to 2005 levels) by 2025—meaning, right now—with an additional target of 43% by 2030.

To achieve this, the country committed to:

• increasing sustainable bioenergy in its energy mix to about 18% by 2030,
• restoring and reforesting 12 million hectares of forests, and
• ensuring about 45% renewable sources in its energy matrix by 2030.

While Brazil’s robust agribusiness blockchain efforts and renewable initiatives could potentially meet those goals, there’s a hidden brake within the targets.

The 2009 National Climate Change Policy Law (Law 12.187/2009) exists, yet the country has failed to build an autonomous, effective governance system capable of asserting sovereignty and reviewing these targets democratically.

And by “democracy,” we don’t mean activist assemblies—but a meaningful concert between public bodies, producers, academia, and engaged citizens.

Lost in environmental populism and nationalist pageantry, Brazil has not developed dedicated financial mechanisms to operationalize carbon reduction markets. Existing federal initiatives are fragmented across regulatory decrees and scattered funds—either under disguised environmental governance or uncoordinated energy management.

 

 

Anti-National Context

 

Brazil has the cleanest energy matrix in the world, yet it's still insufficient to support the economic growth we need.

Our energy potential—from sovereign control over water to uranium—is privileged. We have the largest remaining forests and the richest biodiversity on Earth.

Given this, our national climate targets, when compared to other countries’ NDCs, impact us disproportionately, because we've already outperformed most targets in practice.

Developed nations, historically responsible for most emissions, were supposed to contribute $100 billion annually, starting in 2020, under the Paris Agreement. But the pandemic and geopolitical asymmetries allowed European and Chinese interests to skew global trade in their favor.

As such, Brazil must manage its emissions targets without compromising economic sovereignty, taking a firm stance for equal treatment within the NDC framework.

Naivety here is deadly. Climate colonialism is already acting to build non-tariff barriers and undercut Brazil’s competitiveness.

Brazil is under pressure to downplay its natural assets and further restrict production. Instead, it must shift its posture from debtor to creditor—demanding fulfillment of prior financial commitments, including those from the Kyoto era.

Diplomatic missteps by populist and submissive administrations have made Brazil overlook the value of its unique, historic contributions, made long before the current climate framework was even created.

 

 

The Path from the Ground Up

 

Professor Aziz Ab’Saber, who generously collaborated with me during the review of the National Climate Change Policy bill, always emphasized the need to consider air basins and microclimates when designing serious climate policy in Brazil.

In practical economic terms, this would require a regulated system of emissions compensation between geographically distributed activities—a robust and measurable domestic carbon market that is environmentally effective and anchored in Brazil’s own economic activities.

Such a system, however, has not materialized—largely due to interference from speculative interests linked to stock exchanges, investment funds, and large real estate-backed corporations.

During a consulting project commissioned by the World Bank for FINEP and BM&FBovespa, our team proposed a domestic emissions compensation market. It was applauded—but shelved.

Some of those recommendations recently reappeared in draft legislation to regulate Brazil’s carbon market—ten years after our original work.

At times, I’ve wondered if Brazil’s climate policy failing might paradoxically be a solution. During the Bolsonaro administration, there was a real opportunity to reframe the system—but hesitation and a lack of vision let that window close.

Now, with extreme events knocking at our door, we must return to resilience and adaptation—built from local governance and microclimate-based planning.

We must connect local actors to meteorological and ecological corridors, while prioritizing urban resilience plans, food security, emergency management, sanitation, and territorial control—all with a clear focus on the climate vector and national sovereignty.

 

 

The São Paulo City Example

 

We implemented such measures in São Paulo, starting with the creation of a dedicated Climate Secretariat within City Hall in 2021.

Under Mayor Ricardo Nunes, I had the honor of designing and leading the first dedicated climate governance body in Latin America’s largest metropolis. In just two years:

• We launched São Paulo’s Climate Plan with public reports and metrics.
• We reactivated official climate committees and added a new advisory council with experts, policymakers, and civil society voices.
• We created dozens of working groups in transport, urban forestry, water defense, and more.
• We expanded tree coverage from 48.2% to 54%.
• We drove the largest urban electric bus fleet transition in the Western Hemisphere (over 2,000 units ordered).
• We carried out 54 operations to protect water sources, with unprecedented inter-agency coordination.
• And despite record rainfall, we achieved the lowest damage rate in 18 years—with minimal casualties, thanks to our Summer Rain Plan.

This work proved that climate governance can deliver results without empty proselytism.

But our success disturbed those who thrive in political theater, and soon, the administration lost direction to ideology and inaction.

Still, the legacy stands—recorded and documented. And maybe, from the ground up, we can correct the distortions imposed from above.

 

 

Final Words

 

We can produce results. We can govern locally. We can drop the rhetoric.

The biggest lesson I learned from this journey was this: never surrender your independence, and never retreat into the comfort zone of cheap political theater.

The cost is high—but dignity has no price.

 

 Keywords:

·  Climate Governance

·  National Sovereignty

·  Climate Change

·  Thermostat Diplomacy

·  Scientific Consensus vs. Scientific Method

·  Climate Catastrophism

·  Resilience and Adaptation

·  Mitigation and Compensation

·  Climate Geopolitics

·  Progressive Globalism

 

 

This article has a portuguese version in https://www.theeagleview.com.br/2023/03/o-clima-pela-base.html

Notes

"CONSENSO." Dicionário Priberam da Língua Portuguesa. Lisboa: Priberam Informática, 2008–2024. Disponível em: https://dicionario.priberam.org/consenso. . Acesso em: 18 jun. 2025.

NATURAL disasters complicate tumultuous political landscape. The Washington Post, Washington, D.C., 10 out. 2024. p. A-8.

PEDRO, Antonio Fernando Pinheiro. Mudanças Climáticas de Biquíni – O maior inimigo do IPCC – Painel Intergovernamental para Mudanças Climáticas é a soberba... e a tentação de se tornar “fashion”. Blog The Eagle View, 12 dez. 2015. Disponível em: http://www.theeagleview.com.br/2014/04/mudancas-climaticas-de-biquini.html. . Acesso em: 18 jun. 2025.

PEDRO, Antonio Fernando Pinheiro. Período Antropoceno? Seriam os humanos deuses ou dinossauros? Blog The Eagle View, 12 dez. 2015. Disponível em: https://www.theeagleview.com.br/2013/02/periodo-antropoceno-seriam-os-humanos.html. . Acesso em: 18 jun. 2025.

PEDRO, Antonio Fernando Pinheiro. Mudanças Climáticas: O Acordo “Termostato” de Paris – A diplomacia do termostato do Acordo de Paris não resolve o problema crucial da mudança do clima no planeta. Blog The Eagle View, 18 jun. 2019. Disponível em: https://www.theeagleview.com.br/2015/12/mudancas-climaticas-o-acordo-termostato.html. . Acesso em: 18 jun. 2025.

PEDRO, Antonio Fernando Pinheiro. É Preciso Mudar o Clima da Política de Mudanças Climáticas – Em meio ao naufrágio das negociações sobre o clima, o Brasil precisa reestruturar sua política e criar um sistema que gerencie o problema. Blog The Eagle View, 18 jun. 2019. Disponível em: https://www.theeagleview.com.br/2013/11/e-preciso-mudar-o-clima-da-politica-de.html. . Acesso em: 18 jun. 2025.

PEDRO, Antonio Fernando Pinheiro. A Crise no Mercado de Carbono – A crise do REDD+ não é equatoriana, é conceitual. Blog The Eagle View, 18 jun. 2019. Disponível em: https://www.theeagleview.com.br/2013/09/a-crise-no-mercado-de-carbono.html. . Acesso em: 18 jun. 2025.

PEDRO, Antonio Fernando Pinheiro. A Organização do Mercado de Créditos de Carbono no Brasil – Por um Mercado Nacional de Compensação de Emissões. Blog The Eagle View, 18 jun. 2019. Disponível em: https://www.theeagleview.com.br/2015/05/a-organizacao-do-mercado-de-creditos-de.html. . Acesso em: 18 jun. 2025.

 

 

About the Author

 

Antonio Fernando Pinheiro Pedro is a lawyer (University of São Paulo), journalist, and environmental consultant. He served as the first-ever Executive Secretary for Climate Change of the City of São Paulo (June 2021–July 2023). He is the founding partner of the law firm Pinheiro Pedro Advogados, director of AICA – Corporate and Environmental Intelligence Agency, and a member of the Brazilian Institute of Lawyers (IAB). He is Vice-President of the São Paulo Press Association (API), former President of the Environment Commission of the OAB/SP, President of the Legislative Chamber of CEBDS, and chaired the Environment Committee of AMCHAM. He led the drafting of the bill that became Brazil’s National Climate Change Policy Law, and has been a consultant to the Brazilian government, the World Bank, the United Nations, and numerous organizations working to enhance the country’s legal and institutional frameworks. He is a member of the Strategic Studies Center at Think Tank Iniciativa DEX, sits on the Superior Council for National Studies and Policy at FIESP, serves as President of the University of Water Association (UNIÁGUA), and is Editor-in-Chief of Portal Ambiente Legal and author of the blog The Eagle View.