Share/Save

THE leaders of Brazil, Russia, India and China, the BRIC countries, are  starting today a two-day summit meeting in the Brazilian capital, Brasília. That´s the second time the four developing-market giants hold a summit. The first was in Russia last year. Economic and financial issues Discussions are expected to be held on  the need for changes in global institutions, including the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, and on updating the regulation of financial markets to avoid another global crisis. In Yekaterinburg, 2009, they discussed the possibility of creating a new global reserve currency to replace the dollar.  President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva is the host of the meeting attended by Chinese President Hu Jintao, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

Share/Save

The heads of state of Brazil, Rússia, India and China will meet again on April 16^th, in Brasília, the Brazilian capital. They first met in the Russian city of Yekaterinburg last year to discuss the international financial crisis. The agenda for the April summit is still being discussed. The meeting comes as Brazil, Latin America’s largest economy, tries to take a more prominent role on the world stage. It has become an important member of the G20 group of nations – now a key forum for global economic and financial discussions. The BRIC group summit will be preceded on April 15th by a meeting of heads of states from Brazil, India and South Africa, also in Brasilia.

Share/Save

Countdown to Copenhagen, Parque do Ibirapuera, São Paulo, Brazil

By TOM ZELLER Jr. – The New York Times

With the scientific consensus more or less settled that human activity — the burning of fossil fuels, torching of forests, and so forth — is contributing to a warmer and less hospitable planet, one might reasonably ask, why is it so hard to agree on a plan to curb those activities?

The answer lies with the many fault lines that cut through the debate over climate change. Those deep divisions will be on display beginning this week as representatives of 192 nations gather in Copenhagen for a United Nations conference on the issue.

Organizers had hoped to emerge with an international compact to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help countries most threatened by rising sea waters and temperatures. But the divisions between nations are such that world leaders agreed last month to put off resolving the most contentious issues until next year. They will try instead to reach a nonbinding interim agreement in Copenhagen, then work toward a binding treaty in 2010.

Just what will happen, of course, remains to be seen. Here’s a primer on some of the major themes and fissures:

RICH NATIONS VS. POOR NATIONS

Who should pay whom for what — and how much?

The Bolivias and Chads and Mauritanias of the world argue that they are more vulnerable to changes in temperature, and have little or no resources to adapt to changes in the growing seasons or increased rainfall or — worst case — to relocate large numbers of people.

They want the rich world to commit to far deeper emissions cuts than they already have, and to provide them with cash and technology so they can prepare for the worst and develop a clean energy infrastructure for themselves.

The rich world, meanwhile, is busy trying to figure out just how to calculate the cost of all this (estimates run into the trillions of dollars), and how to divvy up the bill.

DEVELOPED VS. DEVELOPING ECONOMIES

This is where postindustrial economies like the United States and Europe, which became prosperous by burning carbon-dioxide-spewing fossil fuels, face off against industrializing economies like China, Brazil and India, which resent pressure to decarbonize their energy systems now that they are growing.

The standoff between China and the United States underscores the issues. The global trade rivals were reluctant to commit to emissions targets until each had an idea of what the other planned. The two countries together are responsible for 40 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. But all players have been eyeing each other warily.

In recent weeks, bidding has begun, with Brazil, then the United States, followed by China and, last week, India, offering up individual emissions goals. But they have used different baselines against which to measure their reductions, making it difficult to determine whether there is parity.

ISLAND AND COASTAL NATIONS VS. THE CLOCK

In mid-October, ministers of the government of the Maldives, a low-lying island nation in the Indian Ocean, donned scuba gear and held a 30-minute cabinet meeting underwater off the coast of the capital, Malé.

The stunt was designed to highlight the nation’s plight — and that of three-dozen or so other small island and coastal countries — should global warming raise sea levels in the coming decades. Even a modest increase could leave a number of low-lying nations uninhabitable.

As a bloc, these countries have been lobbying for an international agreement to keep average temperatures from rising beyond 1.5 degrees Celsius — or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit. They also want global emissions scaled back by as much as 85 percent by midcentury.

The bloc, which includes a wide range of economies, from relatively well-to-do Singapore to strugglers like Haiti, wins points for being at the front lines of a planetary problem, but its political clout at the negotiating table is uncertain.

EUROPE VS. EUROPE

Even though the European Union has been at the vanguard of renewable energy development and emissions reduction through its carbon trading scheme, it is struggling internally over each nation’s carbon quotas, assistance to developing countries and fidelity to the emissions reductions agreed to in 1997 under the Kyoto Protocol.

While Europe as a whole is on track to meet its goal of an 8 percent reduction over 1990 emissions levels by 2012, not every country has pulled its weight. Nations unlikely to meet their individual Kyoto targets include Italy, Spain and, yes, Denmark, host of the Copenhagen talks.

Poland and Estonia, meanwhile, have been bickering with the European Commission over the amount of carbon dioxide the two countries should be allowed to emit. Both rely heavily on coal for electricity.

Oil-producing nations are worried about the impact of a global climate deal, and they have increasingly argued that any agreement that would reduce reliance on fossil fuels should include compensation for their lost revenues.

Saudi Arabia has spearheaded this argument, and while environmental groups and other stakeholders have dismissed the notion as a stunt, oil producers are not without the ability to muddle negotiations if push comes to shove.

Meanwhile, developers of wind, solar and other renewable technologies anticipate a windfall if the community of nations — including mega-polluters like the United States — agree to a binding climate treaty. So, too, do global banks, which would presumably do handsomely through an expanded carbon trading market.

Lobbyists from all sides will be wining and dining delegates over the next two weeks.

CARBON TAXERS VS. CARBON TRADERS

Many experts argue that the only way to tackle climate change is to put a price on carbon. Some say the best way to do that is to create a cap-and-trade system, in which industries are issued permits to emit carbon dioxide up to a certain level, or cap. Companies that emit below the cap can then sell their permits on a carbon market, where companies exceeding the cap will, presumably, buy them so they can continue to pollute. The total number of permits would not exceed an overall emissions target.

Europe has had an emissions trading scheme since 2005. Some critics argue, however, that such systems are unnecessarily complicated and prone to manipulation. A simpler solution would be a tax on carbon, they say.

But with a cap-and-trade scheme forming the bedrock of negotiations in Copenhagen, and among legislators in Congress seeking to pass national climate legislation, the carbon-tax camp has been increasingly marginalized.

EMERGENCY VS. WE’LL FIGURE IT OUT

The idea that human beings are nudging the planet’s thermostat upward is widely accepted among climatologists. But just how rapidly things are changing, to what extent and where — and at what threshold, if any, should we abandon all hope — are far less settled questions.

In 2008, the NASA scientist and global warming guru James Hansen identified 350 parts per million as the upper limit for safe atmospheric carbon concentration. Current levels are approaching 390 parts per million.

Others argue that there is no reason for panic — nor for what they say is an economy-crushing global climate treaty. They are putting their faith in human ingenuity, arguing that planetary-scale engineering projects like blasting seawater into the atmosphere to increase the heat reflectivity of certain clouds (yes, that’s a real idea), will eventually solve the problem.

Share/Save

Brazil’s official statement, pronounced in the gathering of finance ministers and CB presidents from the world’s 20 top economies in London, defended that emerging nations should play a significantly larger role in economic decisions, “to reflect the changes in the world economy”.

Before the meeting started, Bric countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China)  proposed an agreement in which developed nations would give 7% of their share in IMF and 6% of the share they have of the World Bank. Once this was accepted, developing nations would together detain half of the global amount of shares.

Currently, rich countries have 60% of vote both in IMF and in the World Bank. The battle for vote power is the main topic on Brazil’s agenda for the third G-20 meeting in only ten months.

Share/Save

The research heard more than 240 multinationals. From these, 50% plan to invest more in 2011 than they have invested in 2008 – between the Asian companies, the number rose to 57% and, between Americans, it achieved 71%.

The result indicates that the process of internationalization will be resumed, yet in a slower and different format where there will be a higher preference for the emerging countries. According to Unctad, the economic crisis gave fresh impetus to this trend. Rich countries will still attract investments, but the role developing countries have will rise in the multinationals’ strategies.

Share/Save

Launched two weeks ago, a 104-unit residential project directed at middle-income families in Sao Paulo’s Vila Carrao area is the best example of that, Thomas Shapiro, president of GoldenTree InSite Partners, said at the Reuters Global Real Estate Summit. “We sold every unit in four hours,” Shapiro said, adding that the company has recently raised around $500 million to invest there.

When crises arrive, Brazilians traditionally prefer to invest in hard assets

Brazil has kept a low profile internationally in the past few months, he added. That was good for his company to identify good investment opportunities, as local listed real estate companies like Cyrella and Gafisa were suffering with the stock market debacle.

Shapiro said the fundamentals of the Brazilian economy looked better than expected for the year ahead and a stimulus package from the government has helped the real estate market heat up.

He also stated that the upper class in Brazil traditionally prefers to invest in hard assets when crises arrive, but discarded signs of a real estate bubble forming in the South American country, like the one that hit countries like the U.S. and Spain.

High demand in Sao Paulo

Due to a lack of available buildings, it is getting harder to find an apartment or a house to rent in Sao Paulo. In many areas of the city, the number of people searching for a home has more than doubled in some real estate agencies. For low-priced buildings, the waiting time can last four months.

The most sought properties of Sao Paulo have one and two bedrooms, with monthly rent between 1,000 and 1,600 reais – but the increasing demand makes rent prices constantly higher. According a research of the Habitation Syndicate of Sao Paulo (Secovi-SP), rent prices in the city rose around 11,1% between last June and this year’s May.

Share/Save

With the world’s 10th-biggest economy, Brazil has surpassed the United States as the biggest producer of iron ore and coffee. It’s become the world’s biggest exporter of beef, poultry, biofuels and orange-juice concentrate, and is rapidly gaining in soybeans, corn and pork.

Brazil also has accumulated $200 billion in foreign reserves, almost as much as the rest of Latin America combined. That money will help cushion the global meltdown. Now, Brazil wants to be recognized for its fiscal track record and to avoid the risks that come with a global economic crisis.

“Brazil has new standing in the world,” said Rubens Barbosa, a private consultant in Brazil who’s served as the ambassador to the United States. “We think we can contribute more.” Quietly, Brazil already has become the most powerful country in Latin America.

Share/Save