(Translated from Finnish)

zemeunvalsts.lv note

The author of the article has assessed the situation by using the geographical division of the Earth into the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. This perspective criticises the thinking and lifestyle of the population of the Northern Hemisphere, to which Europe also belongs. At whose expense are the necessary and highly needed changes being planned? The questions of "who will have to pay for it" and "at whose expense will it happen" remain relevant in Latvia as well.

Researchers (please see the article below for names), who believe that human actions in climate change mitigation activities in poor countries are intensifying the oppression of local people and increasing emissions, argue: ”There is no such thing as renewable energy”. “For instance, poor southern countries are often used as a base for solar panel factories and protected areas for the needs of the wealthier northern countries.”

Climate policy (or the reduction of the intensity of climate change) has been discussed for a long time now at international meetings, gatherings, and conferences of various levels, with protected natural areas being planned in Africa and the Amazon basin, and investments in renewable energy increasing rapidly, etc. Stopping climate change is one of the most important topics in international politics, while at the same time, criticism of the methods chosen to achieve this goal is intensifying.

Professor Barry Gills of the University of Helsinki's Centre for International Development Research (Barry Gills) and Alexander Dunlap, a researcher at the Centre for Development and the Environment at the University of Oslo (Alexander Dunlap), belong to a group of specialists who believe that climate and environmental policy has become yet another area where wealthy northern countries subject southerners, creating industries that exacerbate existing pollution.

”Nature conservation can also be used as a means of oppressing people,” A. Dunlap remarks. ”The transition to green energy is based on a Western colonial perception of the world.” In A. Dunlap's opinion, most people do not see that and how a huge proportion of "green" solutions in the world recreate unequal structures and production chains, sometimes even worsening the situation.

For example, the transition to green energy, according to Dunlap, is currently being implemented like any other capitalist project: the raw materials for solar panels and electric vehicle batteries used in the European Union and the USA are produced in Africa and South America, with the production process using fossil fuels and being organised under extremely poor working conditions.

A. Dunlap's views can also be read in an EEB (European Environmental Bureau) report (1, 2), which has calculated (summed up) the volume of mining and production required globally for so-called renewable energy technologies.

”This volume is enormous. In terms of industry, the transition to wind and solar energy requires very large volumes of mining. Furthermore, no one is even promising to maintain energy consumption at the current level – the goal remains economic growth. This, in turn, means more and more solar and wind power plants,” adds A. Dunlap.

”I refuse to use the term “renewable energy””

According to Alexander Dunlap, the idea of a transition to renewable energy as a way to solve the climate crisis is ridiculous. ”I personally refuse to use the term “renewable energy” because there is no such thing. It is perfectly clear that fossil fuels are used at every stage of the production of wind turbines and solar panels.”

According to Barry Gills, Professor at the University of Helsinki’s Centre for Research on Global Development, in low-cost industry (low-wage) countries, renewable energy and green development projects often mean the same polluting factories for local people as other production. For us living in the north, this other side remains invisible.

”Our imagined and invented “solutions” to the climate crisis contribute significantly to mining and are a cause of human rights violations and conflicts in many parts of the world,” he says.

“Finland and the Finns should particularly consider their place here,” says B. Gills. Why? ”Finland is one of those countries in the world that is very dependent on international production chains. The environmental damage caused by the Finnish lifestyle is significant.”

According to both researchers, a colonial perception of the world is also clearly visible in nature conservation projects, where wealthy northern countries are now turning their attention to the ”wild south”. ”The rest of the world is perceived as a stage on which we can act to achieve our own goals,” B. Gills argues.

The US-backed UN plan to make 30% of the Earth's land area a protected territory by 2030 has also drawn much criticism. It sounds great initially, but if you look at the map of the areas recommended for protection, it is clear that they are mostly located in the Southern Hemisphere.

”The creation of protected areas is ultimately led by northern organisations and governments, it is financed by northern funds, and it is supported, primarily, by the middle class living and voting in northern latitudes. Actions in the south serve our (northerners') needs.”

Usually, designating a protected area means that access to a specific part of the country is restricted and it begins to be managed by supervisors, guards, or the army. The idea sounds good: to supposedly preserve a specific natural environment and animal and/or plant species. However, the guardians often forget that people live in these protected areas.

For example, in a protected nature area in Africa, hunting is prohibited. It should not be forgotten that some of the hunters are locals who have lived and hunted in this area for generations. Proclaiming the territory a protected nature area gives state institutions a justification to put an end to the usual lifestyle of those living there. ”There is no thought given to local people at all, as if people were not part of nature,” B. Gills assesses the situation. ”Often they have to move to live elsewhere and give up their way of life. We must not address climate change in this way.”

According to Alexander Dunlap, actions organised for the purpose of nature conservation in Africa can be seen as a continuation of how protected areas were created and what purposes they were used for in the history of North America, as settlers took over territories inhabited by indigenous people (Native Americans).

”Nature conservation also has a violent side. Human rights violations in protected nature areas in Africa are very serious,” A. Dunlap says. ”The ideology of pure and untouched nature is a radically colonial idea.”
1.https://eeb.org/green-mining-is-a-myth-eu-must-slash-resource-consumption-by-two-thirds-new-study/
2. https://eeb.org/library/green-mining-is-a-myth/