Theme 22 of 43

Climate, Wildfires & Temperature Variation

The Amazon has already warmed 1.2°C, but it was the Cerrado — not the world's most famous forest — that lost the most native vegetation.

PRODES, INPE's satellite monitoring system, tracks deforestation by biome year after year; SEEG measures greenhouse-gas emissions by municipality, sector and economic activity; and Sicar, the rural environmental registry, records the land status and environmental compliance of every rural property in the country. Together, the three systems show environmental destruction that has already surpassed international warming limits and continues to grow in sectors off the public radar, like waste and agribusiness.

Cumulative deforestation in the Amazon (2015-2023)

The cumulative deforested area in the Amazon grew from 701,149 km² in 2015 to 775,493 km² in 2023 — steady growth, year after year, with no reversal of trend. In nine years, the forest lost 74,344 km² of vegetation, an area equivalent to three states of Sergipe combined. The pace of loss, though it varies year to year, never stopped advancing over the decade observed.

The Amazon lost 74,344 km² of vegetation in nine years — an area equivalent to three states of Sergipe swallowed by deforestation.

Deforestation by biome (2020-2023)

The Cerrado accounts for 35% of all deforested area recorded between 2020 and 2023, surpassing the Amazon itself, which holds 26.6% of the total. It's a counterintuitive figure for anyone following the environmental debate through international coverage: the biome losing the most native vegetation in the country isn't the one most talked about in global headlines — it's the one producing soy and beef for export.

The Cerrado lost more native vegetation than the Amazon itself — but continues to receive a fraction of the international visibility the Amazon rainforest gets.

Deforested area vs. preserved vegetation

The Amazon still preserves 72.5% of its total native-vegetation area. The Atlantic Forest and Cerrado no longer have that cushion: both biomes have accumulated, over the full monitoring history, more deforestation than their current total area — which means a large part of what shows up as "new deforestation" today occurs on territory that was already deforested and regenerated or reclassified before.

The Atlantic Forest and the Cerrado have already lost, over time, more area than they hold today — the deforestation showing up now is recurrence on land already altered by human activity.

Sicar: environmental compliance of rural properties

The Rural Environmental Registry already covers millions of properties, but a significant share remains without full regularization, and a Legal Reserve deficit — the area every rural property should keep under native vegetation by law — is common among registered properties. This means a large share of Brazilian rural property operates outside what environmental law requires, without that necessarily leading to effective sanction.

Most Brazilian rural properties don't fully comply with environmental law — non-compliance is the rule, not the exception.

Temperature: change by biome (last 50 years)

Over the past fifty years, the Amazon has warmed 1.2°C — already above the 1.5°C limit the Paris Agreement set as the safe ceiling for global warming, given the narrow margin that still remains. The Pantanal, with a 1.3°C increase, appears as the most warming-vulnerable biome among those assessed, which is particularly concerning given the biome's role in regulating water for the entire Plata basin.

The Amazon has already warmed 1.2°C — bordering the 1.5°C limit the Paris Agreement set as the planet's safe boundary.

Wildfires: area vs. CO₂ emissions

The Amazon, Cerrado and Pantanal combined burn more than 100,000 km² a year, releasing 1,200 megatons of CO₂ equivalent into the atmosphere — a volume comparable to Brazil's total emissions from all other sources combined. Wildfires aren't a side effect of climate — on their own, they're one of the country's biggest greenhouse-gas emitters.

Wildfires emit 1,200 megatons of CO₂ equivalent a year — a volume comparable to Brazil's total emissions combined.

Climate targets: promise vs. reality

Brazil's 2020 target called for reducing emissions 43% relative to 2005; the country delivered 35%. For 2030, the -50% target remains on a trajectory of non-compliance, and for 2050, the promise of carbon neutrality still has no concrete plan attached to it. The pattern is always the same: ambitious targets announced, partial delivery, and the next target adopted before the previous one has been met.

Brazil doesn't meet its own climate targets — it promises a 43% reduction and delivers 35%, and still has no concrete plan for the carbon neutrality promised for 2050.

SEEG: sectoral trajectory

Between 2000 and 2022, only the energy sector reduced its emissions, dropping 15%. Industry stayed flat. Agribusiness rose 10%, and waste, the fastest-growing sector, increased 20% over the period. Progress in a single sector doesn't offset sustained growth in the others — Brazil's overall emissions trajectory remains far from any consistent decarbonization path.

Only the energy sector cut emissions over the last two decades — agribusiness and waste keep rising with no effective control.

Explanatory hypotheses

Global demand for commodities — soy, beef, iron ore — directly or indirectly finances a large part of the deforestation recorded in the Cerrado and the Amazon. Tragedy-of-the-commons theory explains the overexploitation: each rural producer individually benefits from deforestation, but the environmental cost — in climate, biodiversity and rainfall patterns — is socialized across the entire country and the planet. International buyers, especially China and the European Union, indirectly finance this destruction by absorbing agricultural production without demanding rigorous traceability. And the recurring failure to meet climate targets shows that Brazil's green environmental rhetoric remains detached from its usual practice.

Policy implications

Effective enforcement of the Forest Code, with proportional fines and real embargo of illegally deforested areas, can slow the pace of destruction. Payment for Environmental Services tends to give the standing forest economic value, creating a financial incentive for preservation. Traceability of commodities like soy and beef can cut off financing for those who deforest to produce. Binding climate targets, with real penalties for non-compliance, would give credibility to the country's international commitments. And a solid-waste policy — with recycling and composting at scale — would help slow the sector with the fastest-growing emissions.