DF Brasília Brazil
The Democratic Labor Party (PDT) filed a Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (ADI) with Brazil's Supreme Federal Court against several articles of Federal Law No. 13,576/2017, which established the National Biofuels Policy (RenovaBio). The party argues that the law is formally and materially unconstitutional. Formally, it alleges a flaw in the legislative process, claiming that the initiative was driven by private interests, particularly to benefit the sugar and ethanol agro-industrial sector, rather than as a genuine public policy for environmental or climate protection. According to the PDT, the law was incorporated into the National Energy Policy, not into environmental or climate policies, demonstrating a deviation from its intended purpose. From a practical standpoint, the party argues that the carbon market created by RenovaBio lacks climate additionality; that is, the Decarbonization Credits (CBIOs) do not represent real or measurable reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In practice, these credits only reflect the difference between the carbon intensity of biofuels and that of the fossil fuels they replace, but they do not imply effective mitigation. Therefore, RenovaBio, far from contributing to the commitments of the Paris Agreement, constitutes a speculative state intervention in the economic market that selectively benefits biofuel producers and importers, without any positive environmental impact. The PDT characterizes this situation as a form of institutional greenwashing, presenting a financial stimulus policy as if it were climate mitigation. The party requests a partial declaration of unconstitutionality, without reducing the text, of the challenged articles of the law, in order to align their interpretation with the Federal Constitution, especially Article 225, which enshrines the right to a balanced environment. Although the party attempted to withdraw the action, the Supreme Federal Court rejected the withdrawal, citing the principle of the non-disposability of actions for concentrated constitutional review.
In this lawsuit, the party used climate arguments to challenge the environmental and climate effectiveness of the public policy. The PDT maintained that RenovaBio, although presented as a climate change mitigation tool, does not produce real reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. According to the lawsuit, the Decarbonization Credits (CBIOs), the program's central component, lack climate additionality, as they do not generate new or measurable environmental benefits. The credits merely reflect the difference in carbon intensity between biofuels and fossil fuels, without ensuring the effective removal of CO₂ or a verifiable reduction in emissions. The party asserted that this structure transforms RenovaBio into a market mechanism without environmental justification, promoting a "fictitious carbon market" that hides behind the rhetoric of sustainable development but does not contribute concretely to mitigating the climate crisis. Thus, the law would violate the precautionary principle and the State's duty to protect the environment and climate, as stipulated in Article 225 of the Federal Constitution. Furthermore, the PDT denounced the program for prioritizing the economic interests of the agribusiness sector, particularly biofuel producers and importers, transforming an environmental policy into a form of indirect subsidy for industry. According to the party, this approach contradicts the principle of the socio-environmental function of property and the principle of non-regression in environmental matters, by diverting public resources toward activities that do not reduce emissions and may even exacerbate the environmental impacts associated with monoculture and intensive land use. The legal action also invoked Brazil's international commitments under the Paris Agreement, arguing that RenovaBio does not contribute to the country's Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) nor align with its climate mitigation obligations. In summary, the PDT questioned that RenovaBio uses climate discourse as justification, but in reality reinforces economic practices incompatible with a just ecological transition, configuring a policy of "greenwashing" that distorts the purpose of genuine state climate action.
- Democratic Labour Party (PDT)
- National Congress
The action is not directed at a specific territory, but rather challenges a broad national policy, the National Biofuels Policy (RenovaBio), applicable throughout Brazil. However, the environmental and climate effects associated with its implementation primarily impact the biofuel-producing regions located in South-Central Brazil, especially in the states of São Paulo, Goiás, Mato Grosso, Minas Gerais, and Paraná. These areas concentrate extensive monocultures of sugarcane, soy, and corn, destined for the production of ethanol and biodiesel. The expansion of these activities has generated significant socio-environmental impacts, such as the deforestation of the Cerrado and the degradation of the Atlantic Forest, the intensive use of water and agrochemicals, the emission of greenhouse gases during industrial processing, and pressure on rural and traditional communities. Among the potentially affected communities are Indigenous peoples, quilombola communities, small-scale farmers, and rural workers, who face land grabbing, biodiversity loss, and socio-environmental conflicts linked to the agro-energy model. The conversion of natural ecosystems into agricultural areas also reduces the territory's capacity to regulate the climate and conserve water resources, directly impacting populations that depend on ecological balance for their livelihoods. Therefore, although the PDT's action has a national legal focus, it seeks to protect the ecosystems and communities impacted by the biofuel expansion model, promoted under the RenovaBio framework, in the name of a supposed climate mitigation policy.
International agreements/treaties
- Paris Agreement
National laws
- Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil of 1988
- National Biofuel Policy - RenovaBio (Federal Law 13,576/2017)
Beginning
- Principle of prevention
- Precautionary principle
- Principle of non-regression
This record was created using publicly available information. If you have information about this case or would like to suggest updates or corrections, please click here .