Greenpeace argues European-backed projects hamper countries’ ability to decarbonise their own economies

“The global north must take responsibility for reducing its own consumption and building domestic renewable capacity, instead of externalising socio-environmental costs to the global south. We must continue to fight to decolonise and transform the global financial architecture.”

  • keepthepace@slrpnk.net
    1·
    3 days ago

    I know that during the Victorian era, women had more rights in Islamic countries than in UK. Women-initiated divorce was possible in some MENA countries long before it was possible in many European countries. Repudiation (male-initiated divorce) was also way easier and easier than the costly female-initiated one (where they had to repay their dowry)

    That’s an extremely low feminist standard for 2025 to say “well we are not worse than the worst part of history”.

    It does talk quite a lot about renewable energy.

    It never talks about the positive impact it has on CO2 emission. Which is the whole point. Talking about the negative externalities of this effort is like focusing on all the side effects of a life-saving surgery without ever mentioning the life saving aspects!

    I feel the criticism is not at all in renewables. It is in the relationships between rich countries and former colonies, whether they are trading oil, electricity or cocoa.

    I’d rather live in a world without exploitation or coercion in our production system but I’d also rather live in a world where this system is used to transition out of fossil fuels than not.

    • solo@slrpnk.netOPEnglish
      1·
      3 days ago

      Just to be clear, of course I believe green energy should be implemented more. Still, I believe there is room for criticism and this is what this report does (btw I’m definitely not a fan of Greenpeace). Actually, I believe this sort of criticism is necessary because we live under capitalism.

      A kinda similar example I could give from Europe would be in relation to some protected areas called Natura 2000. Briefly, in some of these places wind turbines are installed by the thousands and the locals are protesting against that and they say stuff like “No to wind turbines”. I would not expect, nor need from these people to talk about the benefits of wind turbines.

      • keepthepace@slrpnk.net
        1·
        3 days ago

        I agree that capitalism needs to be criticized and neo-colonialism as well, but not under the guise of ecology. You can transition out of fossils while remaining in capitalism, you can get out of capitalism without getting out of fossils. These problems are important but perpendicular.

        I would not expect, nor need from these people to talk about the benefits of wind turbines.

        Why not? In the countryside I used to live in, I had the same person ask me to sign a petition against nuclear power plants and 3 weeks later against a solar farm project that would cut down trees. That militant activist was not aware of the amount of fossils that was going into the local electricity mix. She was genuinely surprised when I showed her that she is actively lobbying against a transition out of fossil fuels.

        Locals are not dumber than centralized powers but they are not smarter either.