By Juan Carlos Pereira (UFPA/CFC-GS)
So-called climate colonialism expresses a new configuration of global domination, in which economically powerful nations use environmental discourse to maintain their exploitation of countries in the Global South. According to Martinez (2014), this logic is based on the justification of reducing the impacts of global warming, while Táíwò (2019) interprets the phenomenon as the continuation of foreign control over peripheral territories through environmental policies that favor the interests of the Global North.
Although developing nations are the most affected by climate change, their historical contribution to carbon emissions is low. Since 1850, for example, North America has been responsible for 27% of emissions and Europe for 22%, while Latin America has contributed only 6% (Chancel et al., 2022; Alckmin, 2023).
However, decarbonization measures imposed or encouraged by developed countries often compromise the environmental autonomy and natural resources of the Global South. The advance of biofuel production and the expansion of lithium and cobalt mining exemplify this process, transforming countries such as Bolivia into veritable “Green Sacrifice Zones,” marked by significant social and ecological damage (Lee, 2022; Zografos; Robbins, 2020). This proves that, although the global South is not the main cause of the climate crisis, it is the region that suffers most from environmental impacts and new colonial perspectives. Thus, policies that appear to seek sustainable solutions end up reinforcing the imbalance of power and favoring the concentration of wealth in Northern countries.
In this scenario, neoliberal logic and the financialization of nature transform vital elements—such as carbon, water, and biodiversity—into economic assets. Mechanisms such as Payments for Environmental Services (PES) and carbon markets exemplify this commodification, assigning monetary values to ecological functions. Although presented as conservation tools, these mechanisms reproduce contradictions, as they allow the wealthiest to continue polluting by paying for or purchasing environmental credits. This process constitutes what Harvey (2013) calls “carbon colonialism,” in which environmental responsibility is transformed into a commodity, perpetuating a logic of exploitation disguised as ecological commitment.
REFERENCES
ALKMIN, Fábio Márcio. Climate colonialism and carbon financialization: Reflections on REDD+ and the socio-territorial autonomy of indigenous peoples in the Amazon. Ambientes: Revista de Geografia e Ecologia Política, v. 5, n. 2, 2023.
CHANCEL, Lucas; PIKETTY, Thomaz; SAEZ, Emmanuel; ZUCMAN, Gabriel. World Inequality Report 2022. World Inequality Lab. Harvard University Press, 2022.
CONTIPELLI, Ernani. From the governance of the commons to polycentrism: considerations on Elinor Ostrom and climate change. Revista Jurídica (FURB), v. 24, n. 53, p. e8142-e8142, 2020.
HARVEY, David. The limits of capital. São Paulo: Boitempo, 2013.
LEE, Chermaine. Understanding climate colonialism. Fairplanet. 2022. Available at: <https://www.fairplanet.org/story/understanding-climate-colonialism/>. Accessed on Nov. 6, 2025.
MARTINEZ, Doreen E. The right to be free of fear: indigeneity and the United Nations. Wicazo Sa Review, v. 29, no. 2, pp. 63-87, 2014.
TÁÍWÒ, Olúfẹ́mi O. The Green New Deal and the Danger of Climate Colonialism. Slate, 2019. Available at: <https://slate.com/technology/2019/03/green-new-deal-climate-colonialism-energy-land.html>. Accessed on: Nov. 6, 2025.
ZOGRAFOS, Christos; ROBBINS, Paul. Green sacrifice zones, or why a green new deal cannot ignore the cost shifts of just transitions. One Earth, v. 3, no. 5, pp. 543-546, 2020.
