Green Colonialism: A New Form of Exploitation

Green colonialism refers to the extension of exploitative colonial practices into the era of renewable energy. It highlights how the transition to cleaner energy sources continues to burden peripheral nations and communities, furthering their disenfranchisement under the guise of environmentalism.

There are four key dimensions in which green colonialism manifests between the Global North and South, particularly within the Decarbonization Consensus:

• Unlimited Raw Materials and Resource Security
  • The Global North’s relentless quest for resource security often translates into a claim on unlimited raw materials from the South. This “green” extractivism continues under the label of sustainability but masks the same exploitative structures of the past.
• Conservation Imposition and Carbon Offsets
  • Northern economies frequently impose rigid conservation models on Southern nations, ostensibly to offset carbon emissions. These initiatives allow the North to delay making necessary changes to their own polluting production systems, while Southern communities face restrictions on land use.
• Dumping of Toxic and Electronic Waste
  • Peripheral nations, particularly in the Global South, serve as dumping grounds for the hazardous byproducts of renewable energy production and electronic waste from the North. This practice perpetuates environmental degradation in these already vulnerable regions.
• Market Expansion and Unequal Exchange
  • The North profits from selling expensive renewable technologies to the South, reinforcing economic asymmetry. This maintains the unequal structure of global trade, where the North enjoys high-margin sales and the South remains dependent.

Historical Roots: Colonial Exploitation Rebranded as Sustainability

In the colonial era, natural resources in colonized regions were exploited for economic gain. Today, the rhetoric has shifted to “protecting ecosystems” or promoting “green” initiatives, but the dynamics of control and extraction remain unchanged. For example, in southern India, British colonialists blamed local populations for forest destruction, but later justified taking over forest management in the name of climate control and national well-being.

The Modern Face of Green Colonialism

The adoption of renewable technologies by the Global North is not coupled with a significant reduction in fossil fuel consumption, reinforcing existing global power imbalances. The extraction of critical resources like lithium, cobalt, and copper for renewable energy technologies leads to severe environmental and social impacts in the Global South, particularly in the mining regions of South America and Africa..

Specific Case Studies and Impacts

• Territorial Displacement
  • Indigenous communities are often displaced in the name of green initiatives:
    • Maasai in Tanzania: Displaced to create Serengeti National Park, where wildlife protection and tourism were prioritized over the rights of indigenous peoples.
    • South Africa’s Hydrogen Plants: The development of clean energy infrastructure threatens the livelihoods of local fishing and agricultural communities.
    • Maghreb Solar Farms: Vast solar farms in North Africa, aimed at powering European markets, reduce access to land and water for pastoralist communities.

• Biofuels and Land Grabs:
  • The demand for biofuels has led to land grabs in developing countries, where large tracts of land are converted to monocultures for biofuel production. For instance, in Brazil and Indonesia, this has resulted in deforestation and displacement of local populations.
  •  While certain renewable energy projects in Morocco, such as solar plants, might be considered “green grabbing” due to their appropriation of land and resources, renewable projects in the occupied territories of Western Sahara are more accurately labeled “green colonialism.” These projects are being implemented against the wishes of the Saharawi people and on their occupied land.
  • The Midelt solar project(Morocco) threatens the livelihoods of pastoralist communities, especially amid ongoing droughts and wealth concentration. The Soulaliyate women’s movement, representing tribal women in Morocco, has also demanded compensation for their ancestral lands used for the solar plant. This movement emerged in response to the privatization of collective lands, advocating for equal rights and justice despite facing intimidation and arrests.
• Carbon Offsetting and Market Mechanisms
  • The REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) initiative has led to instances where indigenous communities in countries like Indonesia have been excluded from their traditional forests, which are now controlled by entities aiming to earn carbon credits.
  • Carbon Offsets: Under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, developed countries can purchase carbon offsets from renewable energy projects in developing countries. While this can help reduce global emissions, it can also shift the burden of pollution to developing nations.
    • Carbon trading emerged with the Kyoto Protocol (1997), incorporating market mechanisms like the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). These mechanisms allowed industrialized nations to meet emission reduction targets by carrying out projects in the Global South.
    • The idea originated from US policy on trading pollution permits, essentially allowing companies to pollute within set limits, with emissions rights traded in the market to promote compliance with regulations.
    •   UAE’s Blue Carbon LLC: Accused of “colonialism,” the company has been criticized for acquiring large tracts of African forest, such as signing a memorandum of understanding with the Liberian government to control around 10% of the country’s area for carbon credits.

•  Green Energy Extraction and Resource Appropriation
  • Ecuadorian Tropical Forest: Deforestation is being driven by China’s demand for the light balsa wood tree, which is essential for building wind turbines. This has led to the loss of tropical forest cover, affecting local biodiversity and indigenous lands. It describes how industrialized nations, under the guise of decarbonization, push the negative environmental impacts of extractivism to the Global South.
  • South American Lithium Triangle
    • Differing strategies of Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile in exploiting their lithium resources, which are concentrated in the Lithium Triangle, an area home to indigenous communities.
      • Chile focuses on becoming the world’s largest lithium exporter through a privatized model, facilitating unrestricted mining but with limited value addition. Attempts at community engagement and sustainability have seen mixed results.
      • Bolivia views lithium as a strategic asset, emphasizing state control and industrialization but facing challenges in technology transfer and conflicts over royalties. Evo Morales’ ambitious lithium industrialization efforts were interrupted by his overthrow, stalling progress.
      • Argentina has rapidly increased lithium exports but lacks a proper regulatory framework, leading to eco territorial conflicts with indigenous communities. Water use is a key concern, and the government has focused on attracting foreign investors through favorable policies.
  • Case Study – Copper Mining in Peru:
    • Transnational Corporations: Large-scale industrial copper mining is primarily conducted by transnational companies, such as MMG at the Las Bambas mine. This production model is capital-intensive but offers little employment to the local indigenous populations, leading to displacement without adequate compensation.
    • Resistance: Communities have fought back against the destruction of livelihoods and demand fair compensation, infrastructure investments, and an end to environmental degradation.

Each country faces challenges such as water consumption, community opposition, and balancing economic growth with environmental and social concerns.

Greenwashing and the Legitimization of Exploitation

• Practices labeled as “green” are used to justify the appropriation of resources and displacement of local communities. By framing these activities within the context of global environmental goals, such as renewable energy or carbon neutrality, they gain a legitimacy that can obscure their negative impacts on local livelihoods and territories.
• Greenwashing and Cement Industry Example
  • Companies are using superficial measures to appear environmentally responsible. For instance, Ecuadorian cement companies, despite being part of a highly polluting industry, receive green credentials simply for quantifying emissions.
  • Globally, the cement industry contributes to around 8% of carbon emissions, but is still able to market itself as environmentally conscious.

• Carbon colonialism refers to the practice where developed nations transfer their carbon emissions to developing nations by outsourcing manufacturing and other polluting industries. This often results in environmental degradation and health issues in the developing countries, while the developed nations appear to meet their emission reduction targets.
  •    Fast Fashion Industry: Many developed countries, like the UK, and the US, outsource their textile manufacturing to countries like India, Bangladesh, and Cambodia. These countries have less stringent environmental regulations, leading to significant pollution and carbon emissions in these regions
• Commodification of Nature: ‘Coloniality of Nature
  • Ecotourism projects in places like Costa Rica have commercialized natural areas, often at the expense of local autonomy and the environment. While marketed as sustainable, these projects can lead to the erosion of traditional livelihoods and cultural practices.

 Africa’s Role in Europe’s Energy Strategy:

• EU’s Hydrogen Strategy (2020) & Africa
  • EU Roadmap: Green hydrogen production, aimed at using renewable energy sources by 2050, with significant reliance on North Africa.
  • Plan: EU’s 40GW of electrolyser capacity in Europe, and another 40GW imported from regions like North Africa (using existing gas pipelines).
  • Focus: Europe’s energy security, prioritizing its renewable energy needs while using African resources.
• Germany’s Hydrogen Efforts in Africa
  • Partnerships:
    • Germany collaborated with countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo, Morocco, and South Africa to export decarbonized fuel (green hydrogen) to Europe.
    • Morocco’s partnership with Germany in building Africa’s first green hydrogen plant.
  • Neoliberal Policies: Countries like Morocco praised for business-friendly environments conducive to foreign investment, but with little emphasis on local benefits.
• Desertec Project
  • Objective: Create a European energy system using 50% renewable electricity and 50% green hydrogen by 2050, with much of the hydrogen imported from North Africa.
  • Hidden Motives:
    • While promoting economic development and clean energy, Desertec’s real focus is on securing European energy needs.
    • Proposals include using the existing gas pipelines from Algeria and Libya, potentially destabilizing the region as Europe transitions away from fossil fuels.
    • Migration Argument: Desertec proponents argue that it could reduce economic migration from North Africa, reflecting a Euro-centric agenda that ties energy projects with border control and migration reduction.
• Environmental and Economic Impacts
  • Resource Use: Exploiting rare resources like water to produce green hydrogen exacerbates environmental stress in North Africa.
  • Energy Colonialism: Europe’s focus on securing its own green energy supplies shifts the environmental and economic costs to Africa, echoing imperialist patterns.
  • Blue Hydrogen: Some initial hydrogen production involves converting natural gas to hydrogen (blue hydrogen) while storing CO2 emissions in gas/oil fields—effectively exporting pollution to the Global South.

Digital Control and Threats to Territories and Rights

• Indigenous Agreements: A 2022 deal between Ecuador’s FICSH and ONE AMAZON highlights the growing business trend of digitizing indigenous land data in the Amazon.
• Digitization of Forests: Data from forests (via satellite images, sensors, etc.) is financialized as “digital assets” (e.g., NFTs, tokens) using blockchain technology.
• NFTs and Cryptocurrencies: NFTs are tied to specific forest hectares but don’t grant direct land ownership, raising concerns about speculative bubbles, money laundering, and land grabbing.
• Companies Involved: Examples include Bit-CO2 (cryptocurrency for carbon conservation) and Nemus (forest NFTs in Brazil).
• Monetizing Forest Data: The “Internet of Forests” collects data on forests for companies to monetize, possibly linked to environmental services sold as pollution rights.
• Risks: Data collection could harm indigenous self-governance and empower states or corporations for synthetic biology or debt swap plans, thus perpetuating exploitation and territorial control.
• Criticism: This “decarbonization” process allows corporations to offset environmental destruction, violating rights while promoting financial and climate inequities.

The New Climate Governance

Directions of New Climate Governance

• “Decarbonisation” and “Net Zero” are central to how big polluters rebrand themselves, signifying a shared future and historical horizon under global climate governance.
• Since the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, climate has become a central issue, coinciding with neoliberal globalization. The 2015 Paris Agreement integrated climate with development agendas, supported by the UN’s 2030 SDGs.
• Green Economy Paradigm: The 2006 Stern Report introduced the idea of internalizing environmental costs by incorporating natural capital into national accounts (environmental services), aligning nature with capital.
• National Integration: International climate policies are embedded into national frameworks (Forest Codes, Mining Codes, etc.), providing legal foundations for commodifying natural capital.
• Territorial Impact: The green economy requires new forms of expropriation, settling in territories (forests, mangroves), and influencing mental frameworks with terms like “decarbonisation” and “Net Zero.”
•  Decarbonisation and Digitisation: Decarbonisation, along with digitisation, forms the core of climate governance, guiding Green New Deals and just transition initiatives.
• No Clear Definition: Despite three decades of multilateral climate efforts, there is no universally agreed-upon definition of “decarbonisation.”

The New Green Colonialism

• Continued Fossil Fuel Use: The Global North is adopting renewable technologies (solar, wind, electric vehicles) without reducing fossil fuel consumption or overall energy use, reinforcing a neocolonial power imbalance with the Global South.
  • Resource Exploitation: Technologies like solar panels, wind turbines, and lithium-ion batteries require significant inputs from the South (e.g., copper, lithium, cobalt), while maintaining high-consumption lifestyles in the North, leading to environmental harm in the South.
  • Unsustainable Frameworks: The North promotes decarbonisation as compatible with current consumption levels, relying on finite resources like lithium and cobalt, questioning the sustainability of “clean energy.”
  •  Environmental and Social Costs: The focus on decarbonisation overlooks other crises like deforestation, biodiversity loss, and water access, disproportionately affecting the Global South, which also faces increased environmental degradation from mining and land-use changes for renewable energy.
  • Decarbonisation’s Flaws: Carbon markets and the Paris Agreement’s mechanisms allow emissions trading without absolute reduction, shifting the burden onto the South while protecting Northern economic interests.
• Modern Colonialism: The North continues to exploit nature and labor from the South to sustain unsustainable lifestyles, akin to old colonial models.
  •  A true Global Green New Deal must address growth, consumption, and equity globally to avoid perpetuating this imbalance

Additional view: –

Natural Disasters and Colonialism’s Legacy in the Caribbean

1. Pre-Colonial Resilience: Indigenous groups like the Taino and Kalinago had sustainable practices to coexist with hurricanes, including storm-resistant crops and strategic settlement locations.
2. Impact of Colonialism:
   • Colonial powers disrupted these systems, focusing on exploitative cash crops (e.g., sugar, tobacco) and coastal settlements for trade, making communities vulnerable to hurricanes and floods.
   • These exploitative land use and settlement patterns continue to leave over 70% of the Caribbean population living in highly exposed coastal areas.
3. Slave-based Land Policies:
   • Colonial land policies concentrated land ownership among a few, leaving the majority of the population without legal rights to land.
   • Even post-independence attempts to redistribute land largely failed, perpetuating economic inequality and disaster vulnerability.