By Lucas Cunha (CFC-GS/UFPA)
The national economic infrastructure is a fundamental pillar for the development and growth of the public and private sectors in Brazil (Garcia, 1996). However, in contemporary times, this discussion cannot ignore an integrated analysis of environmental issues, especially in view of the global climate emergency and the consolidation of the carbon market as an instrument of environmental and economic policy.
The actions of the state, beyond its clear and constitutionally defined executive role, require the establishment of clear, concrete, and comprehensive general rules capable of enabling the expansion of the private sector and, consequently, the generation of jobs, income, and sustainable economic growth (Medeiros; Oliveira, 2020).
In this context, the Brazilian regulatory framework has advanced significantly with the establishment of the Brazilian Emissions Trading System (SBCE), regulated by Law No. 15,042/2024, which lays the foundations for carbon pricing in the country.
From a macroeconomic perspective, there is growing concern about the country’s competitiveness on the international stage, which supports the premise that it is not advisable to export taxes. The Federal Constitution itself provides for exemptions from export taxes on certain operations destined for abroad, with a view to preserving the international competitiveness of the national economy (Brazil, 1988).
Similarly, the carbon credit market emerges as a mechanism that can strengthen Brazil’s competitive position, considering its potential to generate credits from forest preservation and renewable energy projects.
In order to strengthen opportunities for economic growth, both in the public and private spheres, government action aimed at promoting a clear regulatory environment must be associated with strengthening contractual credibility, ensuring that legal transactions are duly honored (Garcia, 1996).
In the environmental sphere, this premise becomes even more important when we consider carbon credit purchase and sale contracts, which require legal certainty in order to attract international investment.
Similarly, the appropriate allocation of risks to the party with the greatest capacity to bear them is an essential mechanism for infrastructure development, as it prevents the state and, consequently, society from assuming the costs arising from the insolvency of private agents (Garcia, 1996).
Nevertheless, an exclusively economic analysis of funding sources proves insufficient, as it tends to minimize the practical scenario and the multiple social realities of the Brazilian people, marked by profound socioeconomic inequalities (Medeiros; Oliveira, 2020).
The impacts of infrastructure investments are directly linked to income distribution, which is why such investments must prioritize collective well-being, a fundamental objective enshrined in the Federal Constitution of 1988 (Brazil, 1988).
In this sense, it can be observed that the increase in poverty is intrinsically related to the absence or precariousness of infrastructure, a circumstance that prevents full access to basic services, which is particularly evident in the North and Northeast regions of the country (Medeiros; Oliveira, 2020).
Paradoxically, these regions concentrate a significant portion of Brazil’s biodiversity and potential for generating carbon credits, which highlights the need for policies that reconcile environmental preservation with local socioeconomic development.
Infrastructure models are subdivided between the Upper Circuit, corresponding to the modernization of services for the wealthiest strata of the metropolis, and the Lower Circuit, manifested by the precariousness and limited access to essential services for the poorest segments of society (Montenegro; Contel, 2016 apud Santos, 1975).
This duality is reproduced in the environmental debate: while large corporations structure highly sophisticated financial carbon projects, traditional communities often remain on the margins of the economic benefits resulting from the preservation they have historically practiced.
The separation between the state and the private sector is not a viable alternative, but the prioritization of financially profitable projects tends to direct private investment toward large urban developments at the expense of the structural demands of the most vulnerable segments of the population.
This dynamic reinforces a process of financialization of national infrastructure, requiring that the complementarity between public and private investments be guided by social function, with the maintenance of state regulatory control (Rufino, 2021).
In the carbon market, this tension manifests itself in the need to ensure that the resources from the sale of credits are effectively directed to local communities and environmental conservation, preventing them from becoming mere instruments of corporate greenwashing.
Brazilian climate governance must, therefore, articulate the development of sustainable infrastructure with mechanisms for the equitable distribution of the economic benefits resulting from the transition to a low-carbon economy.
In summary, the notion that public and private investments are mutually exclusive is inadequate; on the contrary, both should complement each other in the provision of social services and the promotion of environmental sustainability.
However, the State cannot assume a merely supporting role, lest its regulatory function be subjugated by strictly business interests, whether in traditional infrastructure or in emerging environmental asset markets.
References
BRASIL. Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil de 1988. Brasília, DF. Disponível em: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/constituicao.htm. Acesso em: 29 jan. 2026.
BRASIL. Lei nº 15.042, de 11 de dezembro de 2024. Institui o Sistema Brasileiro de Comércio de Emissões de Gases de Efeito Estufa (SBCE); e altera as Leis nºs 12.187, de 29 de dezembro de 2009, 12.651, de 25 de maio de 2012 (Código Florestal), 6.385, de 7 de dezembro de 1976 (Lei da Comissão de Valores Mobiliários), e 6.015, de 31 de dezembro de 1973 (Lei de Registros Públicos). Diário Oficial da União: seção 1, Brasília, DF, 12 dez. 2024, p. 4. Disponível em: https://www.in.gov.br/en/web/dou/-/lei-n-15.042-de-11-de-dezembro-de-2024-601124199. Acesso em: 29 jan. 2026.
GARCIA, Márcio G. P. O financiamento à infraestrutura e a retomada do crescimento econômico sustentado. Revista de Economia Política, v. 16, n. 3 (63), p. 331-347, jul./set. 1996.
MEDEIROS, Victor; OLIVEIRA, Ana Maria Hermeto Camilo de. O acesso à infraestrutura e a pobreza no Brasil: uma investigação empírica. Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural, v. 58, 2020.
MONTENEGRO, Marina; CONTEL, Fabio. Financeirização do território e novos nexos entre pobreza e consumo na metrópole de São Paulo. EURE, v. 43, n. 130, p. 115-139, set. 2017.
RUFINO, Beatriz. Privatização e financeirização de infraestruturas no Brasil: agentes e estratégias rentistas no pós-crise mundial de 2008. Revista Brasileira de Gestão Urbana, v. 13, 2021.
