Channels, Fall 2018

Channels • 2018 • Volume 3 • Number 1 Page 119 projected South Stream pipeline illustrate the government’s use of the NOC for exerting its power and influence. Also of considerable notice is the lack of references to climate change and its prevention. When compared with news stories of Russia’s ambition of Arctic exploration and energy development, one identifies Russia’s greater priority on utilizing changes within the environment for developing its energy industries. Whilst comparing data from the UNFCCC, it was noted Brazil’s status as a developing state and an emphasis on developing these technologies. Furthermore, its GHG emissions has greatly increased from 1990 until 2012. When analyzing observations from the New York Times , one finds an emphasis on some limited environmental concern by Petrobras and other major Brazilian energy companies. Yet there is also a noted disconnect between the development of renewable energy and the development of oil production, illustrating the Brazilian focus on energy production and development over concern for green energy. Furthermore, it is interesting to note Brazil’s emphasis on energy efficiency and sustainable development. The use of these terms would be expected considering Brazil’s status as a non-Annex I participatory state. Based on the data and reports analyzed, I conclude that protection of the natural environment is an area of lesser importance because Russia has more predominant goals of energy development and foreign policy agendas, leveraging the state’s energy capabilities towards its neighbors, as seen by the predominantly negative perception of the New York Times . Russia has achieved the required international standards set by the UNFCCC and largely seeks to remain within its framework. The UNFCCC has set the standard for Russia to decrease its GHG emissions, which it has done with 29.63% decrease from 1990 to 2015. This conclusion is also supported by Russia’s increased focus on pollution within its strategy report with a 4.69 page frequency as compared to Brazil’s 8.25 page frequency. In contrast, as a developing state, Brazil uses strong environmental protection rhetoric as it continually develops its energy industry and leaves a greater GHG and carbon footprint. UNFCCC data shows Brazil increased its GHG emissions by 78.75% from 1990 to 2012. Brazil’s discovery of the pre-salt fields forces the government and Petrobras to seek novel strategies for environmental protection as well continued emphasis on its use and development of biomass fuels, specifically ethanol, as legitimization for its concern for the environment. We see this challenge described by Bevins (2011) in his article Renewables Hit a Wall in South America , as well as through the 204 usages of the word “environment” and 156 usages of the word “energy efficiency” within Brazil’s energy strategy. Both countries and their NOCs seek environmental protection, yet they often hold it to a lesser degree of importance or use it to justify other governmental concerns of energy development and foreign policy objectives, seen through Russia’s development of the Arctic (Kramer, 2011) and allegations of Petrobras being used by the government to increase its popularity (Romero, 2013). Conclusion In this research article the case studies of Gazprom and Petrobras were used to compare the interaction and relation between NOCs, the state government, and environmental policy. I sought to specifically answer the question of how the policy and interaction between the state government and the NOCs affect sustainable development of the