Channels, Fall 2018

Page 118 Thompson • Seeing Green average occurrence of the words per page is roughly similar in the categories of environment and sustainable development. There is a large discrepancy with the usage of climate and moderate differences with the discussion of energy efficiency and pollution. Brazil contained 204 recorded usages of the word “environment” or “environmental”. A significant number of these occurrences were “socio-environmental” concerns, which addressed both local populations and environmental areas (page 81). The idea of environmental protection is intricately connected with energy efficiency (page 246) and energy security (page 251). These ties suggest the Brazilian government elevates concern for the environment within its energy policy. Mentions of the Ministry of the Environment (page 83) and UN environmental acts (page 187) are frequent, noting their influences on energy strategies. Similar to the Russian energy document, Brazil also distinguishes between its natural resources. Concern for the environment is addressed with its petroleum industry (page 123), its natural gas (page 140), and biomass fuels (page 155). One particular area highlighted within the energy report of Brazil is its ethanol usage. The Brazilian government highlights its use of ethanol in opposition to natural gas as a means of reducing its environmental impact (page 29). Compared to the Russian report, there is a greater connection between the environment and hydroelectric power (page 82) and the implementation of solar plants (page 190). As noted earlier, the term “climate” in the Brazilian strategy is mentioned nearly four times more frequently than in the Russian strategy. There is also a prevalent focus on the topic of climate change with the Brazilian national plan (pages 48-51). Furthermore, when discussing the issue of pollution, the words “emissions”, “pollutants”, and “GHG” occur much more frequently than the word “waste”, at a ratio of 23:9. There were significant more mentions of energy efficiency and sustainable development in the Brazilian report compared to the Russian report. There are various potential explanations to a divergence in the frequency of such topics. As noted in the UNFCCC data, the Russian Federation is already considered a developed state and significantly more advanced in its industry than Brazil’s current level of development. An emphasis on sustainable development and energy efficiency may be in reference to their classification of developing state and their progress towards improving their energy industries to meet the standards already attained by more advanced states. Having used a model of triangulation and comparing independent data from three sources it now remains to develop a coherent picture of the actual relation between the government, NOC, and environmental protection, specifically GHG emissions. The Russian Federation has managed to stay within the international framework established by the UNFCCC as seen through its decrease in GHG emissions from 1990 until 2015. This international standard is further emphasized within the Russian energy strategy with its focus on enforcing stricter local policy to match international standards. Yet despite these achievements and aims, the New York Times only mentions Russia’s and Gazprom in a positive environmental light in four articles. There is an increased emphasis on the use of energy as a means for achieving foreign policy objectives. Not only seen with the pipeline crisis between Ukraine and Gazprom, but Gazprom’s other interactions with Europe and its