Negative perception about COP30 grows after endorsement of Petrobras in the Equatorial Margin

A survey carried out by Quaest shows that the authorization for oil exploration in the Equatorial Margin of the Amazon is being seen by internet users as a contradiction to the environmental agenda of COP30 and has generated a worsening of the perception of the event.

The survey, carried out between October 15th and 21st, recorded an increase from 28% to 31% in negative mentions of the meeting, at the same time that positive posts fell from 26% to 22%. Neutral and informative references remained at 47% in relation to the survey carried out the previous week.

“Quaest’s monitoring demonstrates that the growing trend of positive sentiment towards COP30 that we observed in recent weeks has been interrupted. Environmentalists, technicians, academics and part of society issued severe criticisms about the contradictions between the event’s objectives and the internal environmental agenda, after the vote for the presidential veto on the General Environmental Licensing Law and the authorization granted by Ibama for Petrobras to advance in research on oil exploration in Foz do Amazonas”, says Marina Siqueira, Sustainability director at Quaest.

COP-30

COP30 will be held in Belém between the 6th and 21st of November and marks a historic moment by bringing the main UN conference on climate change to the heart of the Amazon.

According to the Quaest survey – the fourth of five that will be carried out – the volume of citations made to COP30 totaled 105 thousand in the period researched, with a daily average of 15 thousand. The number of unique authors stood at 46 thousand.

The research also showed that the events leading up to COP30 provoked the greatest number of posts. International meetings with figures such as King Charles, Anitta and Cacique Raoni stand out, reinforcing Brazil’s symbolic and diplomatic role in the global climate agenda.

According to the survey, at the moment the digital debate is beginning to “reflect less enthusiasm and greater demand, marking the beginning of the critical phase of analysis on the coherence between environmental discourse and political practices”.

Still on the perceptions gathered on social media, the Quaest report points out that the topic of energy transition – which consists of the search for clean and renewable energy solutions to replace fossil fuels (oil, coal and gas) – was the most prominent during the period analyzed.

However, the discussion is polarized, marked by criticism of non-renewable energy sources, as opposed to fears that a short-term socioeconomic collapse will occur in the event of an abrupt abandonment of oil.

Among the positive mentions of COP30 on the networks, initiatives from productive sectors for decarbonization and dialogues on technological advances regarding new clean energy matrices, electric cars, as well as plans to gradually reduce dependence on fossil fuels, stand out.

Negative mentions about the global energy transition focused, firstly, on the catastrophic effects of the continued use of fossil fuels on the increase in the global temperature.

This scenario has been worsened by the persistent policies of key nations, such as the United States, which still encourage the use of fossil sources. Also noteworthy was the authorization for research by Petrobras in Foz do Amazonas.

This issue is seen as a high-risk environmental setback. In addition, there was widespread criticism of the delay and insufficiency in articulating and encouraging an effective global agenda for decarbonization.

Regarding climate financing, a topic that will be among the priorities of COP30, there were positive mentions in relation to international articulations, such as, for example, the meeting between the Minister of Finance, Fernando Haddad, and the Minister of Finance of China, in addition to discussions within the scope of the BRICS, which defended a trillion-dollar contribution to climate actions.

There was also emphasis on the creation of the Tropical Forests Forever Fund (TFFF), seen as a promising initiative to encourage preservation.

Among the negative mentions, criticism of the economic inequalities that hinder the advancement of climate financing and the absence of the United States in multilateral agreements stood out.