What and where are the grassroots movements and alternative visions that challenge green colonialism and offer ‘ecosocial transition’ pathways toward equitable and ecological futures? This question is at the heart of ‘The Geopolitics of Green Colonialism: Global Justice and Ecosocial Transitions’, an open access book which critiques the promoted solutions to the climate polycrisis while also exploring alternatives.
This is a transcript of a webinar co-organized by the Global Working Group Beyond Development, the Pacto Ecosocial e Intercultural del Sur and the Global Tapestry of Alternatives in conversation with Miriam Lang, Mary Ann Manahan, and Breno Bringel (the editors of the book) exploring the key arguments, ideas, and examples in the book. The full webinar can be accessed here.
Madhuresh Kumar: Welcome, everyone. I am Madhuresh, part of the Global Working Group Beyond Development, Global Tapestry of Alternatives, and an ally of the Ecosocial and Intercultural Pact of the South. I am an Indian activist, based in Paris, France, and have worked for years challenging destructive development.
This is one of our first public collaborations, though the three organizers have collaborated over the years. These initiatives are rooted in the critique of development, but also fundamentally in the quest for alternatives, believing that these alternatives already exist at the level of ideas and practice.They are rooted in territories occupied by workers, indigenous people, nature-resource dependent communities, and those who identify with nature. Because these alternatives are not rooted in capitalist logic, cannot generate profit, or fit the green growth narrative, they are often not brought to the forefront.
We are gathered today to discuss a new book, “Geopolitics of Green Colonialism,” which critiques the promoted solutions to the climate polycrisis and also explores alternatives. The book is freely available as an open-access publication by Pluto, and we are working on translations into Spanish, French, and other languages. We have three editors and two commentators for this discussion: Mary Ann Manahan, Miriam Lang, and Breno Bringel, who have edited this volume, and Vasna Ramasar and Carlos Tornel, who are part of the Global Tapestry of Alternatives.
I would like to start by asking Miriam about the origin of this book and how it builds on the past work of the Global Working Group.
Miriam Lang: Thank you very much, Madhuresh. I am very happy to share this space with all of you, with the Global Tapestry of Alternatives, of which I am an endorser, and with everyone who has joined. It is time to make our confluences visible between the several collective processes this book is an outcome of, as we believe knowledge results from interaction, debate, and exchange.
This book is a result of several collective processes that constitute an alliance around systemic, radical alternatives, which is also the purpose of the Global Tapestry of Alternatives (GTA). On one hand, as Madhuresh mentioned, there is the Global Working Group Beyond Development, existing since 2016, dedicated to generating knowledge around systemic, radical, multi-dimensional alternatives to neoliberal capitalism through a broad dialogue of knowledge. This group works by having long, in-person meetings on crucial topics, followed by discussion and writing. This is the third book from the Global Working Group, with previous titles “Alternatives in a World of Crisis” (2018) and “Cities of Dignity” (on urban alternatives), both available for free on BeyondDevelopment.net. The impetus for “Geopolitics of Green Colonialism” came from a meeting in June 2022 in Senegal, where we debated the term “just transition” from a critical perspective.
Another collective process involved is the “Ecosocial and Intercultural Pact of the South”, a propositional and non-partisan Latin American political platform animated by people from 10 countries, of which Breno and Carlos are a part. In 2022, this alliance teamed up with the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington D.C. to organize South-South dialogues beyond Latin America, involving people from Africa, Asia, and Latin America, also on the just transition topic. A tangible result of these initiatives was a Manifesto of the Peoples of the South for a just energy transition and the piece of music in the beginning. These processes form the basis of the book.
We (the three editors) have one foot in the Global South and one in the North, and we have witnessed debates on ecological collapse. In discussions, especially in the United States and Europe, we were struck by the continued invisibility of the Global South and the assumption that critical minerals and land for “green growth” initiatives would simply come from “somewhere”. Living in this “somewhere,” we were concerned that official documents, like those from the European Commission, focus on “green alliances” and “sustainable raw materials” without explaining how extractivism would become sustainable or how North-South relations would become less asymmetrical. It seemed to be more a concern about supply chains. Therefore, we decided to invite researchers and activists from our collective processes to write this book, deliberately taking a perspective from the Global South on pervasive debates about energy transition and ecosocial transformation.
Madhuresh: Thank you, Miriam. Just to add to the context, when we met in Senegal, from where this book idea came, it was just after the Ukraine war began, and the German Chancellor was going around different places looking for gas. It was in Senegal where they had just signed a contract. I think there are still explorations going on about how they can have more gas wells.
Moving on from there, can you tell us more about why you organized the book into three parts and what was the logic behind it?
Mary Ann Manahan: Yeah, thank you very much, Madhuresh. I am very thankful to the GTA, the Ecosocial and Intercultural Pact of the South, and of course, the Global Working Group Beyond Development for organizing this wonderful launch and dialogue, and for everyone who has joined us. We have organized the book in three parts, but before explaining the logic, I will describe what those three parts are.
The first part is entitled “Hegemonic Transitions and the Geopolitics of Power”. This section is dedicated to the critique of colonialism and coloniality that prevails in green transition policy, with examples from Latin America, Africa, and a critical analysis of the green deals of the US, EU, and China.
The second part delves into “Analysing Green Colonialism: Global Interdependencies and Entanglements”. This part explores how every possible alternative to green colonialism is shaped by structural conditions institutionalized at different levels within the neoliberal world system. For example, it highlights how over a quarter of the North’s GDP from 1990 to 2020 was directly based on the plundering of the Global South’s resources, raw materials, and labour, as discussed by Austrian scholar Christian Dorninger. You can also read the chapter by Rachmi Hertanti, an Indonesian lawyer, on how free trade and bilateral investment agreements, especially with the European Union, have served as obstacles for countries like Indonesia to direct their own ecosocial transformation. Another section also considers the role of the state in ecosocial transition, and a chapter co-written by Miriam, Alberto Acosta, and Esperanza Martínez offers an intersectional analysis of debt (foreign, ecological, climate, colonial, and reproductive debts) and how these must be confronted to open systemic, radical, transformative paths.
The third section focuses on alternatives and is perhaps the most important part of our book. Entitled “Horizons Towards a Dignified and Habitable Future,” it gathers voices, experiments, and actual ongoing alternatives. Examples include agroecology, women-led SID sovereignty movement in Bangladesh, national energy transition process in Colombia, eco-feminist alternatives in Africa, reimagining degrowth from a feminist perspective, and reimagining the world of work and labour in ecosocial transitions.
The last chapter, with Sabrina Fernandes, discusses what a new eco-internationalism constitutes. To a huge extent, the book combines what Arturo Escobar calls “resistance and reexistence,” and Walden Bello’s “deconstruction and reconstruction,” by including a second section that emphasizes understanding the global and regional architectures, institutions, and actors shaping this new phase of environmental politics and decarbonization consensus. Without this understanding, including new global environmental governance like multistakeholderism, we cannot devise policies and practices that challenge them and pave the way for a truly ecosocial transition and global justice.
From left to right (top)- Miriam Lang, Madhuresh Kumar, Mary Ann Manahan, (below) Carlos Tornel, Vasna Ramasar, Brent Bringel
Madhuresh: Thanks, Mary Ann. For me personally, what stands out here is the geopolitics and the breadth you have tried to cover in the book. Just for those participating who don’t know the authors, two contributors, Tatiana Roa and Farida Akhter, have since joined governments—one as Deputy Minister of Environment and the other as energy advisor in the Bangladesh government. So, this book is also coming out of lived experiences and trying to shape policy; it’s not only a criticism. Moving on, how could you summarize some of the key arguments in the book and also explain a bit about what you mean when you say ‘green colonialism’?
Breno: Of course, thank you, Madhuresh. Hello everyone, I would also like to thank everyone who made this meeting possible, and I’m very happy to share this conversation with all of you, and to see many people connected from different world regions.
I think the most important arguments in the book are organized around a general diagnosis: environmental politics are mainly marketed by the accumulation of capital and by a colonial logic. Our starting point is that the dominant energy transition, driven by big corporations and Global North governments towards supposedly clean energy, is increasing pressure on the Global South. For China, the US, and Europe to move towards de-fossilization, new sacrifice zones are being created in our countries, which is why we talk about green colonialism. This presents the Global South as a subordinate space that can be exploited, destroyed, and reconfigured according to the needs of dominant regimes of accumulation. This implies a new dynamic of extraction and appropriation of raw materials, natural goods, and labour in the name of the green energy transition.
Behind all of this is the emergence of a new capitalist consensus, which our friend from the Ecosocial Pact of the South, Miriam, and I call the decarbonization consensus. This is a new global agreement advocating a shift from fossil fuels to a carbon-free system based on renewable energies. The stated motive is to fight global warming and stimulate energy transition. However, the problem is that this decarbonization is seen as an end in itself, not part of a broader process of changing society’s metabolic profile. The aims do not include de-concentration of the energy system, care for nature, or environmental justice, but rather attracting new financial incentives, reducing energy dependence of some Global North countries, expanding market niches, and improving corporate images. Our book approaches and analyses these issues, highlighting how profitability is at the core of environmental politics, aiming to unmask green extractivism, green colonialism, and the hypocrisy behind them.
I would like to highlight key ideas of the book:
- There are no ecosocial transitions without global justice. Ecosocial transitions without global justice only reproduce imperial ways of thinking and living in the Global North and expressions of green colonialism and environmental dispossession in the Global South. We offer a deep critique of contemporary capitalism and analyse “fossil gateardism” – the practice of changing everything so that nothing really changes. In the energy transition, “saving the climate” and “decarbonizing the economy” become mantras, recognizing climate emergency but maintaining economic growth, expanding energy demand, and increasing hydrocarbon extraction simultaneously. This fossil ‘gateardism’ creates a kind of climate nationalism within national security frameworks in the North, demanding raw materials from the Global South.
- The push for decarbonization has generated strong geopolitical tensions. We analyse this through inter-imperial disputes, geopolitical injustice (e.g., multiple dimensions of debt), and transformative geopolitics (grassroots alternatives perceived as localist).
- Green colonialism is not new. We must understand it as a socio-political process associated with a historical pattern of colonial power and capitalist expansion. We use a quote from Kwame Nkrumah, who said new colonialism would be the last stage of imperialism. We suggest that the energy and climate coloniality marked by the decarbonization consensus is the latest stage of green colonialism. It’s crucial to understand green colonialism both historically and in its new social legitimation of decarbonization.
- Alternatives for the dominant perspectives. Ecological transition and transformation are often presented as future promises (e.g., decarbonizing by 2050). However, looking at the experiences and alternatives analysed in the book, from communities and grassroots movements, we see that the equally valid lives of thousands of people are linked to processes of resistance, community energy, agroecological projects, and alternative economies.
Madhuresh: Thank you, Breno, for taking us through that broad logic. I think something you have tried addressing throughout the book is also the notion of false solutions, how they continue to be pushed by the fossil fuel industry, from climate denial to misinformation, and even forcing state funds into unproven technology, which then becomes the model. One example is carbon capture and storage, which is mentioned. This cuts across left and right governments, as beautifully shown in the book. for instance, the Labour Party in the UK sanctioned 22 billion pounds for unproven carbon capture storage projects.
Moving on, Vasna, you are with GTA and were not involved in the book’s production. I’d like to ask you, while reading the book, what stood out for you? Do you think it missed something, or what are the highlights from GTA’s perspective?
Vasna Ramasar: Thank you, Madhuresh, and hello everyone. I’m delighted that the Working Group Beyond Development and members of Pact are having this conversation with GTA. This is an important space for collaboration, and what is most critical for me is that this is an intellectual contribution coming strongly from the Global South, from the majority world, and that perspective is really important. I will touch on what has excited me about this book from my roles as a researcher, teacher, and activist with the Global Tapestry of Alternatives.
Firstly, this book is incredibly impressive in its breadth and depth, bringing in voices from around the world. Often we see regional contributions, but the working group has sought to make it a global project. As Breno said, it highlights the logics of capital, making green colonialism an inevitable extension of ongoing colonial practices and histories, which needs to be centred.
The book is also very timely, given the accelerated push for extractivism and sacrifice zones in the majority world, and the climate delay discourse. It brings realities to the table, not just through case studies but also through theorizing and conceptualization, which is important for decolonial and feminist scholars. As a teacher, it provides intellectually rigorous material for students. I particularly like Mary Ann’s description of the three parts: the importance of resistance and re-existence in part three, and part two’s exploration of entanglements and voices from the majority world. This aligns with GTA’s view that resistance and building regenerative alternatives must go hand in hand, which the book demonstrates regarding energy and climate change, moving beyond just carbon. It opens space for other voices and draws from “built realities” that cannot be denied.
Regarding questions I had:
- A book like this inevitably has a limited number of chapters. I’m curious about whose voices might be missing, and what that tells us about movement building with less heard parts of the world? I recognize many familiar authors, but would be interested in the process of thinking about who’s missing and how to build better alliances.
- I’m curious about how to reconcile the state-centred critique with the transformative potentials raised in part three. What does this mean for scalar politics, given that we’re not trying to “scale up” solutions, but rather build the pluriverse that Escobar talks about?
- Miriam, could you elaborate on the notion of ecosocial transitions rather than “just transitions”? You mentioned “just transition” has become over-subscribed. What is the value of these conceptualizations, and what role might they play in building allegiances with labour and workers in the Global North? This also touches on your work on degrowth.
- The book, coming from a working group “beyond development,” has a taken-for-granted critique of development. I’d love to hear more thoughts on whether you considered tackling head-on more examples of how development itself is implicated in green colonialism.
Overall, the question of green colonialism is central to our work. It is a foundation for building in the face of this challenge. As Madhuresh said, it brings light to false solutions and addresses the invisibilization of the Global South in rhetoric and policy. I am grateful to the editors and authors. This book, along with “Dismantling Green Colonialism,“ is an important starting point for conversations and negotiations around energy transition. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
Madhuresh Thank you, Vasna. I hope the authors will try to address some of your questions.
Mary Ann, I’ve known you for close to two decades, challenging water privatization, multistakeholderism, and more. Specifically, in this case, what aspects of green colonialism would you like to highlight from Asia, the continent you belong to?
Mary Ann: Yeah, thanks for the question. I’ll probably answer from where I am, Southeast Asia. I’d like to highlight two things regarding debates around green colonialism in the region. One is drawn from Rachmi Hertanti’s chapter, an Indonesian lawyer following green colonialism. The decarbonization consensus has permeated nation-states and grassroots communities through a rush to be key players in the critical raw materials scramble, particularly for producing electric car batteries. This includes nickel, cobalt, and copper, as seen in Indonesia and the Philippines. Geopolitical powers like the EU, US, and China drive this scramble. We try to complicate the notion of Global South and Global North, not just as geographic categories, but also as geo-epistemic and social-historical constructions, recognizing many Norths in the South and Souths in the North. Rachmi Hertanti’s chapter, linked to Vasna’s question on critiquing development, ties this well. New generations of free trade agreements (FTAs) and bilateral investment agreements (BIAs) now include chapters on energy and raw materials. For example, the Indonesia-EU Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement pushes for market access and non-discrimination for foreign companies by eliminating export restrictions on raw materials and energy. This isn’t new, but its new flavour comes from the “green” rationale—climate change and shifting to “technofixes” in the decarbonization consensus. However, governments like Indonesia are trying to revive their green industrial policy by nationalizing the mining industry and ending detrimental BIAs. This presents a geopolitics of green colonialism not just between North and South, but also as resource nationalism, economic nationalism, or climate nationalism. This is partly due to constitutional provisions in countries like Indonesia and the Philippines to develop their own industry. Yet, it’s a “double whammy”: while governments stand up against big geopolitical powers, it also colonizes nature and people, as many raw materials come from farming and indigenous communities. This creates new forms of extractivism in the name of a “greening” logic. Alberto Acosta has argued that economic nationalism can perpetuate dependence and new forms of colonialism in the green economic transition.
Linking to Vasna’s point about development critique, it’s subtle in the book. There’s a debate in the region where countries and even progressive movements assert their right to develop, industrialize, and grow to catch up. But we ask: what does this do to nature and people? It breaks apart communities and territories. So, why pursue energy transition at the expense of nature and people? Secondly, this links to our overlap with GTA. One challenge is how to collectively build processes in Southeast Asia for policies and practices that embody a truly ecosocial transition. We prefer “ecosocial transition” over “just transition” because the latter has become an empty container concept that can include anything, even if not beneficial. “Ecosocial transition” centres the question of rethinking relations with nature and captures both ecological and social aspects. In the region, we contribute to ongoing processes envisioning a post-extractivist future, involving decolonization, curbing corporate power, building alternatives, and reclaiming democratic policymaking around critical raw materials.
Madhuresh Thanks, Mary Ann. I think there are questions around extractivism. I agree that there is a need for shifting the frame in which we see things, as our minds are so captured by extractivist development processes that we can’t imagine beyond that. So, the “ecosocial transition” perhaps is the way to shift the debate, and the use of terms matters.
Moving on to Miriam, many of us listening would want to know about policy options. Can you tell us about concrete examples discussed in the book that have been used to resist green colonialism or the decarbonization consensus? Is it really possible to have alternatives that promote multi-dimensional alternatives and global justice, especially concerning the state’s centrality to alternatives? Thank you.
Miriam: That’s a huge question, so I will be able to address it only partially. There is a lot going on already in the world regarding alternatives, but we are used to seeing the world through a lens that makes that invisible to us. The dominant discourse insists that anything local, or driven by indigenous peoples or peasants, is irrelevant, backward, or not innovative. So, we ignore a whole set of knowledges and technologies barred out by a narrow vision focused on profitability and growth, and the equation of economic growth with good living, which is a fundamental error.
Exploring alternatives in the book (Presentation by Miriam Lang)
Feminists and indigenous worldviews have long discussed the quality of relations for a good life. I would like to give an example from Colombia, as I think it shows some of the most interesting dynamics going on regarding energy transition. All these processes are obviously contradictory and difficult, facing a lot of opposition. The Colombian government is an alliance of left-wing people, liberals, and even conservatives, but there are many aspects of policy and energy politics that do move beyond the decarbonization consensus by addressing energy from a multi-dimensional, multi-scale, and multi-actor perspective.
First, we have a very organized, mobilized, and active society in Colombia. The environmentalist movement has promoted “community energies” (energias communitarias), which are transformative processes around territorial self-government (granted by the constitution), and in poor urban neighbourhoods, around the generation, distribution, and consumption of renewable energy promoted by and for the people, generating collective income and control. This has been adopted by Gustavo Petro’s government in the Ministry of Energy and Mining through a policy called “energy communities,” aiming to strengthen these grassroots processes. There is a focus on distributed energy generation, which contrasts with huge solar and wind parks, although those are also present in official policy. This program allows a significant democratization of energy access, storage, and consumption, with sustainability being only one dimension. They have received 18,000 requests from communities wanting to join this public-communitarian partnership, a figure interesting because it contrasts with public-private partnerships that primarily serve corporate interests. This is a step towards more democracy. At the national level, there is a trans-sectoral and coordinated policy and an inspiring discourse by the government to move away from fossil fuels and take the environmental crisis seriously. Petro has stated that NDCs (Nationally Determined Contributions) won’t suffice; the whole economy in all sectors (industrial production, transport, fossil fuel extraction, consumption) must be transformed comprehensively. They organize “fairs of economy for life” where sectors converge to discuss coordination. This is embedded in a hostile world that does not easily allow a Global South country to move in this direction, but mobilization from below and ongoing debates in Colombia and Latin America are backing these attempts.
What is missing is how to achieve global justice. This is not solely Colombia’s task, although there are Global South accomplices in green colonialism and resource transfer. But the main responsibility still lies in the Global North and big world powers, including China. One unavoidable aspect is that we have to degrow—shrink our social metabolism, energy, and material throughput, and stop desiring the “imperial mode of living” that takes plundering other parts of the world for granted. The book addresses in its second part the deep changes in global frameworks regarding trade, debt, finance, and global governance institutions (like dispute settlements, WTO, financial institutions), which are aligned with corporate interests. We need a different framework for global governance, centred on sustaining life, and this requires a very deep shift that must be debated and pressed for globally.
An important issue discussed in our last working group meeting is reparations. Climate debt, ecological debt, or colonial debt are not just phrases; they are material realities causing harm and death. We must claim a transfer of wealth back to the Global South, but also view reparations structurally – changing unjust, asymmetrical global structures. We must also repair ecosystems (such as the Amazon) and acknowledge symbolic harm to restore dignity. Finally, I am particularly fond of trying to create prefigurative practices that demonstrate it is possible to address ecological collapse through direct, solidary action between communities in different parts of the world. I call these “people-to-people translocal alliances,” focused on sharing appropriate technology and knowledge to build horizontal, non-asymmetric communities, not motivated by charity. I believe people in the Global North need to learn from the Global South how to involve people in local policy, motivate them to get active and organized, and build resilient communities against false promises of authoritarianism in these uncertain times.
Towards global justice (presentation by Miriam Lang)
Madhuresh Thank you, Miriam. I’m glad you brought in the local and global dimensions, and the challenges and contradictions within Colombian policy. This is something one needs to talk about, as some countries like Colombia or Ecuador have openly attempted to move away from fossil fuel dependence, but it’s difficult due to the international financial architecture and global governance.
I will turn to Breno and mention that in the book’s last chapter, you introduce a very interesting dimension: eco-territorial internationalism. To me, this was very new, though I understand the words separately. Can you elaborate on what it means for us?
Breno: Yes, of course, thank you, Madhuresh. In this last chapter of the book, Sabrina and I discuss two major issues related to contemporary transnational alliances and internationalism. Firstly, we analyse different trends and transformations of internationalism over the last three decades. Since the Zapatista uprising in 1994, there have been many changes in internationalism compared to the period of “internationals” or state-articulated solidarities. After the fall of the Berlin Wall and with the Zapatista uprising, there has been a progressive denationalization of internationalism, built mainly around territorial community experiences and social movements, like the Zapatistas and land movements in Brazil. In our text, we analyse both “internationalism of convergence” (e.g., anti-globalization movement, World Social Forum) and “internationalism of resonance,” which spread after the 2010 protests in squares worldwide.
With “internationalism of resonance,” we try to think about diverse community and territorial experiences doing similar things but not organically connected. An important issue for us was discussing the lessons learned from these experiences, both positive and negative. With this in mind, we suggest that given the current global scenario of ecological crisis and climate emergence, we need a new kind of internationalism that puts life and nature at the centre. This internationalism needs to critique global asymmetries and challenge the international division of labour, green colonialism, ecological imperialism, and the dominant discourse. Rather than focusing solely on top-down change advocacy and campaigning, we say we need an eco-territorial approach to internationalism. The central focus here is on the articulations and convergence of conflicts and all the territorialized experiences from different regions and continents. We need to avoid both very strict localist perspectives and solely macro approaches. This is what Sabrina and I have called eco-territorial internationalism. We understand this idea as a social practice that is ongoing in the world, and also as a form of transnational articulation between experiences linked by the impact of socio-environmental conflicts and the construction of concrete alternatives working on socio-ecological transformation around diverse topics like housing, food, and energy.
To conclude, I think what is distinctive about this perspective is the commitment to build alternatives to development, to construct radical systemic transformations, and to put care at the centre. This includes care for each other, for the political process, and for nature. This implies a practical commitment to conviviality, active listening, and respect for all forms of being.
There are different ways to build this eco-territorial internationalism, from more formal or informal networks to localized experiences that have diverse meanings of what “global” means. Some platforms are regional or global in themselves. So, I think it’s quite important to pay attention to these processes. I hope the book can help in this direction, and I’m very happy that we are all walking together in that direction as well.
Madhuresh: Thanks, Breno, and I think really what I understand is that while it’s eco-territorial internationalism, it’s rooted in the territories, and without that, it’s not possible. In that regard, I’d love to mention that the Rojava struggle has managed to show us that cutting across nation boundaries, they have created their own nation, irrespective of the boundaries, because they are between three different countries, but they still don’t respect that, and they have come up with the principle of democratic federalism.
That brings me to the question of alternatives, and Carlos, thank you for patiently listening while all this debate has been going on. You are rooted in Mexico, and your work is with Crianza Mutua México and with Global Tapestry of Alternatives.
The book has roughly six or seven chapters on alternatives in part three. Does any of that resonate with you? Do they feature in your work? And from GTA’s perspective, do you think some of the ideas we are talking about get reflected, or one could build on those to have some hope for the crisis we are in? Carlos, over to you.
Carlos Tornel: Indeed. Thank you very much, Madhuresh, and thank you everybody. It’s great to be here and to be listening to you.
First of all, let me just say that yesterday I finished the book. I read it all cover to cover— it felt like a gateway drug because it just opens all these many possibilities, platforms, and ideas that push you to move into alternatives. I think the book is a nice provocation and it is also very accessible, timely, purposeful and useful. In terms of the general structure of how the book is organized, it’s very important to say that when we think about this new geopolitical reconfiguration around green colonialism, the book says that there’s nothing new under the sun here; it’s a continuation of the same processes of colonial occupation, imperialism, etc., just reformulated. What changes is maybe the discourse, which is very interesting because the benevolent discourse of development, sustainable development, green growth, and just transitions needs to be questioned and challenged. In that sense, it’s a wonderful provocation to challenge us to think about how we deal with these concepts and how we operationalize them in each country. This is useful; we need a very clear understanding of what we mean by green colonialism and why this is fundamental to capitalism.
Ten years ago, Nancy Fraser said that patriarchy, coloniality, and extractivism are key to capital, not just a productionist idea that capitalism is an economic system. Now, I think this is a given, and it’s wonderful because we can understand that these are the layers on which capital continues to operate. Hence, if we do not understand this, it’s very difficult for us to build a movement that truly challenges this form of operation. We need to think that we cannot isolate our struggles into particular identities, problems, or concepts. We need to create, as Miriam was saying, this peer-to-peer movement from below, a horizontal, counter-hegemonic process and allows us to rethink how we deal with this. In another sense, the book is a wonderful stepping stone because it pushes us to understand the bankruptcy and absolute rupture of the idea of development and how it’s operationalized. Mary Ann said it beautifully: this idea that people in the South can develop, grow, and catch up with those who have already developed is impossible. Gustavo Esteva and other post-development thinkers in the 80s already said that, but now we have the data to prove it’s completely impossible.
The book draws on the material aspects, and that’s very important. If we do not discuss degrowth, if we do not discuss the problems of the material aspects of the transition and transformation we need, then we’ll just be dropping concepts, ideas, recreating epistemic extractivism from the South and repurposing ideas to sustain academic knowledge and jobs. The chapters on ecological and equal exchange, degrowth in the South, and how we deal with this in material terms are fundamental. For example, I’ve heard people say degrowth is only for the North, and we shouldn’t talk about it in the South. I think this needs to be put to rest. As Miriam just said, there are things in the economy in the South that are completely useless to continue to grow. They only benefit a small elite of the Global South who profit from that process, such as individual transportation and industrial production, which are in the service of capitalism. If we do not think in those terms, that’s one of the problems we’ll have. We will always reach this conceptual, epistemic problem where we are not talking about the material aspects of the transition as well. To wrap it up, in the “accumulation by decarbonization” chapter, the authors put it wonderfully: we need to think or keep walking with the past ahead. Taking this from struggles in the South, from communities, what it means is that we need to recreate the commons, acknowledge their past existence, and then provide a path to move into what Breno was already saying: this network-to-network structure of multiple alternatives converging into dialogue. So, that’s where I see the strategies of transformation, not coming from above.
I also think that pointing out these localized things are limited, I understand that, because sometimes when we talk about autonomist transformations and alternatives, it romanticizes smallness (“small is beautiful”). What needs to happen now is to challenge this and say yes, there is a radical pedagogical possibility for dialogue between these alternatives. There is a dialogue happening; these transnational movements exist and sometimes offer very schizophrenic or different approximations to challenge global capitalism. Trade unions, feminist movements, ecosocial transformations from below, peasant alternatives—putting them into dialogue creates the possibility of another world or pluriverse.
I’ll say two things are important. One is that the discussion of the state is central to energy transition. I don’t think we can do the same for example with food sovereignty, where transformation can happen from below, but with energy, it becomes trickier because the state is very involved in energy production. So, how we deal with the state in that context is a very interesting challenge. Miriam and Breno position that in their discussion when they say the state is different in the South and in the North; we have to account for that coloniality in its position. But I think for example, the critique that Ivan Illich made around institutions and their overproduction, how they become counterproductive, is something that could push our discussion about the state way forward. We need to think about the limits of how we deal with the state: when can we go into the state, and when should we say no, stop? The perverse lure of the state that we sometimes miss and don’t account for.
The second point, which is more for the authors who are not here, is that when we talk about making energy a right, what do we mean by that? Are we creating a dependency on the state for access to energy, equity, or sustainability, or are we creating the basis of what Tatiana and Pablo are saying—prefiguring the state, allowing us to be independent and create the possibility of energy on ourselves? It’s one of those nomenclature things that I think is important to point out. We cannot simply say “energy is a right, let’s give a right to everybody to access energy”. That is way too problematic and completely impossible because there are not enough minerals in the world, not fossil fuels. We are living in this context, so I think that’s one of the things we really need to go into the weeds and open up for debate and discussion. What does “right to energy” mean? I think it’s more like creating, prefiguring the state to allow for autonomous energy possibilities or something like that.
Madhuresh: Thanks, Carlos. There are some questions which are still there, and I think one of the things which has emerged is about the question which Carlos was raising towards the end, that’s the centrality of the state and the capitalist system. We can do a final round of reflections, perhaps two minutes from each speaker.
Miriam: Okay, I will just pick up Vasna’s question about who is missing in the book. Just to pay tribute, for example, to all the indigenous struggles in the world, which are not in this book. This is because we have had long difficulties in the Global Working Group to include indigenous voices in a sustained way. I think there are lots of contributions there, also youth voices, organized youth, which I think is very important, and trade unions as a partner, with whom we always have tensions but who are still important in this world. Regarding this, yes, everything we talk about here is about moving toward overcoming capitalism as a civilization, not only as an economic system. But I think it’s very important to not say, “Okay, first we have to do the system change and then we will be able to address all those things,” but just the other way around. The problems are pressing; they affect our lives, and we have to address them, as I said, and now I will move to the scalar politics, somehow ignoring the colonial and administrative borders that have been drawn in our world. So, I think when we talk about scale, the bioregional, the transborder, and the geopolitical (regional) scales are those I deem most interesting for transformation. Taking a whole region like West Africa or Latin America and making it partially independent from global trade and global pressure would be a really bold step. It has been discussed and is still being discussed in those two regions, for example, so it’s not impossible, and we have lots of history there.
I am also longing for a sort of ethnography of state politics and what happens to people when they enter these institutions, and really call out what are the obstacles that make it so difficult to change things from that location where power supposedly lies, and then we find out it doesn’t. What I have learned is that we have to transform those institutions thoroughly; we have to decolonize them, we have to depatriarchalize them. We have to put a lot and lot of pressure on them from civil society because the state is a social relation of forces in the end. Yes, so have put institutions and have taken them away.
Madhuresh: Thank you, Miriam. Breno, do you have anything you would like to add to this?
Breno: Yeah, maybe just a brief thought about this question about the state. I think the problem with this discussion on the state and just transition is that it has appeared mainly as a kind of synonym for green new deals, and the idea of a green new deal has a specific historical and semantic meaning which does not help. That’s why I think it would be better to speak of green pacts (pactos verdes), a term commonly used in the Spanish and Latin American debate, because this helps move away from the usual framework of discussion generated from the US and Europe to propose a kind of global dialogue.
The critical question always is with whom we are making a pact, right? And the dominant green new deals are making pacts mainly with large corporations and the actors of financial capitalism, and this is what is behind the book as well. In the Ecosocial Pact of the South, we propose a pact with the earth from the South for the South, understood as a commitment to other ways of being in the world. In that sense, we really need a more systematic discussion on the state’s role in just transitions. We are starting the Ecosocial Pact of the South discussion about the idea of an ecosocial state. But I really believe that we still have a huge challenge that is related to the possibility of creating a kind of ecological theory of the state. Without that, I think we lack theoretical and political bases for rethinking other types of green new deals or different ways of rethinking our political communities in a non-anthropocentric way, seriously and radically confronting all the urgencies are currently facing.
Madhuresh: Thanks, Breno, and I think this really needs to be brought in that the capitalist system and the state, but also a state which reproduces imperialism or imperialist mode of production, cannot actually get to the real solution. So I think we really have to focus on that as well, that’s why the right and the left somewhere both end up reproducing extractivism. Mary Ann?
Mary Ann: To build on what Breno and Miriam have mentioned: if we look at the state as a confluence of different social relations, then we can look at it as both a target of our advocacies and the bane of our existence. We should also look at the state not as a monolithic structure. For example, in my experience as an activist in the Philippines, we know there are individuals in the state who can be champions or allies. But looking at it as an epistemic construction that reproduces imperialism and these green new deals and transitions, then we have to target the state in that way. In the Beyond Development Global Working Group, we do have different positions about the state, and this has always been a point of debate because, as in the book, there are differences in how the state has developed in the Global South compared to the Global North. But I do agree with Breno’s last point that we need to really do some thinking and perhaps develop what you call an ecosocial theorizing around the state, but also an ethnography of state politics. Because what I’m seeing right now, at the very least in Southeast Asia, is a return of the centrality of the state as an actor to push for green industrial policy. It’s a reinvention and revival of the 70s, where the state targeted key economic sectors for growth, but now under the guise of an energy transition and the decarbonization consensus. And that, I think, is really quite problematic. So we’re kind of also developing a practice and critique, but at the same time, how do we address this return of the state in ways that are very extractivist and not good for both the people and nature?
Vasna: I’ll make two quick points. First, within the Global Tapestry of Alternatives, we are taking very seriously the idea of radical democracy and actually rethinking democracy itself, and I think this is something that we need to engage on for an ecosocial transition. The second point is that this book has laid a foundation for understanding the true nature and analysis of the current crisis we’re in, going back to the fundamental problems and issues at stake here. I think then we need to use that to build up part three, expand that, and build movements and alliances beyond. There’s a lot of work already happening. It’s an invitation to everyone here to join us.
Madhuresh: Thanks, Mary Ann and Vasna. Carlos, you have the last word.
Carlos: Thank you, Madhuresh and everybody for your wonderful comments. I think this has been a very, very interesting discussion. Just to say two things: one, again, I think this book is a wonderful contribution to continue this discussion, to think from below what we can do and from where. I think it should be read widely.
I’ll just put two more things that I think are relevant, but I won’t develop them much. The first one is that what we have seen in Latin America is a confluence between extractivism and the military, or the “military of extraction,” which again re-centers the state in a very problematic position. I think that is something we should definitely account for, again echoing Breno’s idea of an ecological conceptualization of the state. I think this is a key point that we should take into account. And the last one is labour. Labour is also something that is very present in the book. I couldn’t actually go into that, but again, that pushes us to think about energy. If we think of the origins of energy, we can think of it as a way of equalizing labour between different spheres: nature, reproductive sphere, productive sphere. We have to address the imperial context of labour that is embedded in ideas.
I think a challenge would be not to reconceptualize labour but to think of how labour continues to operate in this colonial organization of capitalism. The Zapatistas would be a good example there. How do we think or transform this dependency of labour in our everyday lives? It’s embedded into our quotidian reality. So from there, I think the challenge would be to reconfigure that in how we reproduce it in everyday life: abstract labour, money, commodity fetishism, etc.. The essence of capital should be questioned, and I think labour and energy from there are a stepping stone to that. Anyway, these are some of the things that I was thinking about while reading this book. Thanks everybody for this wonderful discussion.
Madhuresh: Thank you everyone, and I think a big thanks to the people who have given their wonderful time to be in this webinar and to listen to this rich diversity of presentations. Again, the book is available for you to use, and all three organizations’ websites have amazing material on the same issues on state capitalism and several others. Thank you!
The Geopolitics of Green Colonialism was published by Pluto Press in 2024. You can access the book for free here.
This transcript was edited by Aagam Shah. If you want to watch the full conversation, including Q&A with participants, the recording is available on the GTA website.
Teaser image credit: Author supplied.