Showing posts sorted by date for query KARABAKH. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query KARABAKH. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Monday, November 18, 2024

Palestine against an eco-apartheid world

In coming years, eco-apartheid will become more prominent worldwide as colonial violence is used to maintain and safeguard Western interests and profits. We are seeing this future in Gaza today.

By Vijay Kolinjivadi and Asmaa Ashraf
November 17, 2024 
MONDOWEISS
general view of the destruction in the vicinity of al-Shifa Hospital, following a two-week Israel military operation in Gaza City, on April 2, 2024. 
(Credit Image: © Omar Ishaq/dpa via ZUMA Press APA Images)

Editor’s Note: The following is the fourth in a series of articles co-published by Mondoweiss and the Transnational Institute that places Palestine in the long trajectory of anti-colonial struggles, from Haiti to Vietnam to Algeria and South Africa.

Gaza is currently experiencing the largest slaughter of men, women and children in decades and a destruction rate that has produced over 40 million tonnes of rubble that will take over a decade to clear. The near 100,000 tonnes of bombs dropped on the Gaza Strip since October 2023 surpasses the World War II bombings of London, Dresden, and Hamburg combined. Gaza is the site of one of the largest engineered mass starvations this century. For over a year, a day has not passed by in which a child has not been dismembered by the US-backed Israeli army. Gaza has seen its hospitals, universities, markets, and essential services blown to pieces, and its waterways, air, and soils polluted to highly toxic levels by chemical residues from carpet-bombing. The destructive force with which the Gaza Strip has been bombarded is equivalent to several times that of the nuclear bomb that the United States dropped on Hiroshima. And yet, the tens of thousands of Palestinian children dying due to mutilation and incineration, and from infection resulting from amputation, count for absolutely nothing in the eyes of the West, in stark contrast to how it reacts when an Israeli is held hostage, or an ultra-wealthy American is trapped in an undersea submersible on a pleasure trip to view the Titanic. It is breathtakingly clear that Palestinian lives do not matter to Imperial powers and their interests.

The complete dismissal of entire populations as sub-human, or not equivalent to European or Euro-American bodies, is a stark reminder that the horrors of the transatlantic slave trade and colonial genocide of indigenous populations by Western empires have never left us. It is also a frightening reflection of the priorities of the world’s rulers as we watch the planet’s life-support systems erode due to ecological collapse. The ruling class’s desire to preserve a liberal democratic society that is free from ecological breakdown extends only to a future reserved for themselves – an ever-decreasing minority of multi-millionaires and billionaires. Meanwhile, what we are witnessing in Gaza is a sign of what is to come in an era of growing ecological breakdown brought on by a capitalist world order that is no longer fit for purpose – if it ever was. As Colombian president Gustavo Petro declared at the COP28 climate conference in Dubai last year: “Gaza is the mirror of our immediate future”.

The word genocide is woefully insufficient to describe the deliberately engineered annihilation of people and of the ecological relations that sustain their life. What we are witnessing in Palestine is the monstrous intent to do away with an entire people and a whole environment in order to consolidate US-led imperial interests in the face of anti-colonial resistance, and to capitalise on oil and gas projects and “waterfront property” on Gaza’s shore. With a rising mobilisation of demonic far-right factions and a general shift towards authoritarian capitalism around the world, the future might very well see more such instances of the annihilation of the social and ecological fabric of places, in a last ditch effort to continue to extract profit and to remove “surplus populations” – but with less of a liberal and progressive pretence regarding morals, human rights, and “win win” solutions. These acts of annihilation will instead be framed as situations in which “civilised” victors conquer barbarian “bad guys” (in the words of erstwhile US Democratic vice-president candidate Tim Walz) – dehumanising innocent populations whose sacrifice will be deemed necessary in order to maintain a dying and utterly catastrophic world order.


The combined ecocide and genocide in Gaza is an expression of eco-apartheid – a violent racialising phenomenon that advances the colonial frontier of land occupation and resource plunder to funnel wealth to a privileged few at the expense of the vast majority of people.

In this essay, we explain why the combined ecocide and genocide in Gaza is an expression of eco-apartheid – a violent racialising phenomenon that advances the colonial frontier of land occupation and resource plunder to funnel wealth to a privileged few at the expense of the vast majority of people. Within the racial imperialist order of eco-apartheid, the destruction of the “wretched of the earth”, of brown, black, and Indigenous people, and the erasure of their environments, cultures, and knowledges, is seen as completely banal, a system that functions as it is supposed to. It is for this reason that genocide and ecocide should be considered two sides of the same coin. Both are defined by an attempted annihilation of an entire people and the living environments they are a part of. Climate change is the outcome of centuries of colonial occupation and exploitation of racialised people and their lands as “resources”. What distinguishes genocide from ecocide is the pace of the murdering – fast in some places, slower in others.

The process of funnelling wealth to a handful of people involves the creation of both geopolitical and geophysical sacrifice zones of varying severity. These sacrifice zones can occur both in the Global South and in the heartlands of the empire. For instance, while working class Americans in parts of North Carolina received no more than $750 in relief funds after the destruction caused by Hurricane Helene, which was super-charged by climate change, the US government has given over $22.7 billion in aid to Israel to bomb Gaza and Lebanon (equal to over $2,300 per Israeli citizen) since 7 October 2023.

While the consequences of the ecocide-genocide nexus are deadly for humanity, we argue in this essay that eco-apartheid is necessary in order to maintain the capitalist imperialist system for decades to come, and to secure a white supremacist settler future. In this future, the niceties of a liberal rules-based order will be done away with: the myths of multilateralism, multiculturalism, international law and human rights will no longer be expedient for the ruling class in the face of overwhelming economic and ecological contradictions. As Nesrine Malik writes, the unfathomable assault on Gaza without moving a hair on the head of Western political leaders is an indication that our world is still one where might is right. The “look the other way” attitude of Western powers who are actively supporting and encouraging the genocide of Gazans, and the orchestrated silencing of voices in opposition, foreshadow the coming normalisation and collective gaslighting of unimaginable violence as climate catastrophe continues unfolding.

In the following sections we highlight some facets of the regime of eco-apartheid, in which increasing numbers of people are dehumanised and deliberately cast out to face the wrath of climate change and social precarity, including through violent military occupation. At the same time, the elite will continue to deflect responsibility and shield themselves through so-called “sustainability”-branded living. In preparing this essay, we talked with anti-imperialist land defenders and community organisers who offered advice on building the power needed to organise and fight in an historical moment in which dependence on existing institutions is glaringly futile.
Palestine in the world ecology

The Zionist project is but a modern iteration of the West’s savage settler colonial history. Starting from the British Balfour declaration and violent repression of the 1936–1939 Great Arab Revolt, to France’s heavy arms supply in the mid-twentieth century, and now the United States’ unceasing military aid, Israel has always been viewed as the central bulwark for imperialist domination in the region. It is considered an outpost of Europe’s civilising mission among the “backwards” Arabs and their arid landscapes, and the antidote to expressions of Arab self-determination and progressive Arab movements.

Like the British empire before it, which legitimised and facilitated the Zionist project, the US empire is not interested in democracy, human rights, or fighting anti-Semitism. These, like marketable “sustainability”, are merely convenient narratives that serve to leverage social concerns for the purposes of re-branding the US empire’s military and economic projects. The intent of these projects is to subdue territories and people and push them into circuits of accumulation around labour, land, and new forms of debt. As a consequence, already wealthy people maintain and enhance their water- and energy-intensive lifestyles through eco-modernist automation that is branded as climate-resilient. In essence, ecomodernist lifestyles are nothing but the top 10% making a killing (literally and metaphorically) on their investments. The colonial quest for resources also gives the white supremacist coloniser exalted status, especially when it is Arabs, Muslims, and lower-income brown or black people who suffer – upon the whims of Western interests whether in Haiti, Lebanon, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Cuba, Sudan, or domestically within the United States or other Western countries.

Israel is the most important outpost of the US empire, not because of inter-religious conflicts or the influence of the “pro-Zionist lobby” in North America and Western Europe, but because of the Middle East’s central position in the capitalist world system. After the 1967 war with Nasser’s Egypt, in which Israel proved itself as a dependable partner of US imperialism, the US assumed the position of the primary sponsor of the Zionist regime, supplying arms and financial support to the settler state. The US’s interests in the region focus on the fossil fuel oil economy and guaranteeing the stable supply of oil, within the US hegemonic global order. This involves a vicious positive feedback cycle, in which petrodollars beget more petrodollars, by way of military campaigns, resource exploitation, wars and ecocide. Only Israel, with its strategically situated settler population, vulnerable borders, militarised society and repressive forces can be wholly relied upon by the US to help entrench the US-based order in the region.

The Zionist lobby’s brandishing of anti-Semitism as a geopolitical moral weapon does play a role in propping up Israel and its exalted status for US interests. Meanwhile, the extreme-right Zionist entity is also entirely dependent on the US for survival: financially, militarily, and politically. In fact, Israel’s survival is key to the survival of the global capitalist order, which is based on US imperialism and Western European hegemony. A threat to Israel is therefore a threat to US imperial domination. It is only through this dialectic that we can understand both the unconditional support afforded to Israel’s genocide in Gaza and the absolute normalisation of genocide in Western society. It also explains the scale of the tyranny and holocaust perpetrated by Israel in response to Palestinian acts of resistance: a holocaust that is rationalised and rebranded as “routine” or as constituting a series of “limited ground operations”.

Palestinian resistance is the stone lodged in the throat of US imperialism. Well before October 2023, outgoing US President Joe Biden’s Middle East strategy had been very clear: normalising ties between Israel and Saudi Arabia, opening new formal investment markets in the region, and further stabilising imperial relations. With a Saudi–Israeli normalisation deal on the cusp of being announced as winter 2023 approached, the question of Palestinian national sovereignty was brought back into sharp relief through popular resistance. And so, we must remember that the US-backed Israeli obliteration of Gaza is not simply a way to open up new real estate markets or to seize land for capital. Palestine, Lebanon and Yemen are being punished for their role in thwarting uneven capital accumulation and value drain from the Middle East. The Palestinian resistance is currently articulating the clearest expression of anti-colonial dissent, of a national liberation movement that refuses to have its humanity cancelled, and its populations erased and sacrificed for the imperial core.

This scale of Israel’s annihilation of Gaza, where the social, ecological and political fabrics are torn apart by megatons of military arsenal that leave limbs scattered will become increasingly commonplace as crises of global capital accumulation intensify, under the stresses of an altered climate, severe geopolitical tensions, and social and economic inequality. The bulldozers devastating Gaza’s ecology are no different from the bulldozers that rip apart primary rainforests for agri-business expansion, precipitating the sixth mass extinction. The artificial intelligence (AI) technologies that refine weapons used to murder civilians in Gaza’s hospitals and schools are the very same AI technologies that require new energy sources like coal, oil and gas, renewable, and even nuclear power. This appetite for energy of Big Tech overlords like OpenAI, Microsoft, Alphabet, and Meta, among others, not only cancels out environmental gains from renewable energy use, but also reinforces ecologically devastating extractive practices and toxic waste dumps on communities of people considered unworthy and sub-human elsewhere. What we are witnessing is a vicious cycle of genocidal and ecocidal violence.

In his speech at the COP28 summit in Dubai, Colombian president Gustavo Petro stated:


“The unleashing of genocide and barbarism on the Palestinian people is what awaits the exodus of the peoples of the South unleashed by the climate crisis.”

Those who dissent in the North will be gaslit and repressed. Those who organise to resist in the South will be met with violence and barbarism. The history of modern Western civilisation has been one of savage colonisation, dispossession, enslavement, and genocide, but this fact has been obscured by recourse to high morality. This brutality characterised the Euro-American colonisation of the “New World” from the period in which European settlers killed over 55 million Indigenous people in North, Central and South America over a 100-year span, to the “civilising period” of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, during which the West carried out the most brutal and savage mutilation and extermination campaigns across the world under the banner of modernity and development – including within its own borders. Brutality has also characterised the twentieth century and early twenty-first century, an era marked by the wars waged by US imperialism, involving the brutalisation of populations in Vietnam, Angola, Iraq and Afghanistan and US support for tyrannical proxy leaders in places like Chile, Argentina, and Indonesia – just to name a few. These massacres across the last several centuries are not footnotes or case studies: entire life-worlds were exterminated for the survival of the colonial order. In short, they are fundamental to understanding the ecological crises we are experiencing today. They show us that, though all civilisations throughout history have had their wars and conflicts, only the white supremacist Euro-American empire, with its racialising technologies, has so sharply perfected a social and ecological infrastructure premised upon genocide and ecocide. While the massacres in Gaza and Lebanon have shaken the sleeping conscience of the masses, they are an unsurprising and highly consistent reflection of the West’s moral character as demonstrated over the past 500 years.
For the ruling class, climate change just means more bodies to sacrifice

What then is new in our current conjuncture? What characterises this renewed era of US imperialism that we have entered? The answer is the abandonment of even the most modest pretences to a rules-based international order: a situation in which the rules apply to everyone except the colonial powers that have inflicted 500 years of violence on the planet and its people, and whose modus operandi of fragmenting humanity to extract labour and resources is based on the idea of white supremacy. Historian Enzo Traverso argues that this state of exception for the colonising powers is an implicit admission of immorality. It implies the selective transgression of laws, in which all civil liberties and freedoms, as well as basic rules of law and order, can be dismantled in the name of safeguarding the future of the empire as it counteracts its own decline.

The implications of this selective exercising of immorality is absolutely terrifying in an era in which the earth’s life-support systems are at risk of crumbling due to ecological collapse. And therein lies the key to understanding eco-apartheid, as we witness the horrors unfold in Gaza. Long gone is the era of Western claims to humanity, sustainability and civil rights (if they were ever valid): instead we see an acknowledgement that those rights only belong to a few, and that the “other” must be sacrificed to save this dying order.

Gustavo Petro and others who have drawn parallels between the ongoing genocide in Gaza and an unfolding global system of “eco-apartheid” are not making a simplistic comparison. The summer of 2024 saw unprecedented global heat records, crossing the 50°C mark in large parts of the Global South, including Egypt and Mexico. Floods and fires have ravaged vast portions of the world, including in the heart of the empire in the US South, disproportionately harming those racialised, as well as white working class, people whose lifetimes of labour have been exploited with little in the way of compensation or safety nets. A world in which large amounts of people are displaced by climate change is not a distant hypothetical but is our “immediate future” (in the words of Gustavo Petro) if fossil fuel production continues unabated, as per the wishes of the Saudi energy minister, who has promised that “every molecule of hydrocarbon will come out”. The scale of exodus of people as a result of extreme heat, droughts, and famine has led some scientists to raise the clarion call between social and ecological breakdown (Xu et al., 2020). These climate-displaced people are already being met with anti-immigration laws by an emboldened right-wing agenda across the world, from Turkey to India, and from the Philippines to the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. These laws are materially enacted via militarised borders that are designed to kill, let drown, let starve, and then scapegoat migrants and refugees for all the ills of capitalism.

The violence of this immediate future is already underway, and is increasingly being legitimised by discourses that frame climate change as a matter of national security. As Western nations continue to fortify their borders against migrants and climate refugees, they simultaneously continue to exceed their fair share of the carbon budget. If the global carbon budget were to be divided equally among the global population, then the United States, considering its historically high per capita emissions, would have exceeded its fair share by a factor of 4 to 10 (Fanning and Hickel, 2023). Meanwhile, the poor nations of the Global South will likely never even reach 100% of their national carbon budgets. Yet it is upon their bodies that the most barbaric impacts of climate change and scarcity-imposed ecological policies will be felt.

No population, rich or poor, chooses refugeehood over sovereignty and autonomy over their lands, their culture, and their way of knowing the world. The pressure to leave one’s home due to war, forced dispossession during agricultural land grabs or mining projects, or other climate-induced crises is a condition forced upon those viewed by the colonial powers as “surplus populations” of the world. They are trapped within sacrifice zones and super-exploited as a reserve army labour (if they are lucky). But when colonised nations form a front of anti-colonial resistance, when they attempt to delink their economies from the imperialist world system, when they express their right to resist the exploitation of their labour and natural resources, the West “is ready to respond with death” as Gustavo Petro stated. We see this in Palestine, across Abya Yala, in Lebanon, in Iran, and throughout the African continent, where national liberation struggles are demonised and undermined. In the case of Palestine, resistance has been met with more than a year of carpet-bombing.
A nail in the coffin of Western “morality”

In January 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a provisional ruling ordering Israel to take measures to “prevent acts of genocide” after a robust case had been put forward by South Africa. Almost one year on, the ruling has become a symbol of the subordination of all institutions of multilateral governance to the interests and will of the United States. It has demonstrated their abject failure as instruments of global democracy. The United Nations’ position and efforts amidst the genocide have been woefully insufficient at best. Fifty eight days after the indiscriminate slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza began, Antonio Guterres, the Secretary General of the UN, invoked Article 99 – a tool that has not been used since 1989 – to call a meeting of the Security Council “to avert a humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza”. Notably, Gutierres continued to frame the situation as a humanitarian catastrophe, rather than a deliberate genocide by a Western-backed occupying force against a native population. Since October 2023, the United States has vetoed four ceasefire resolutions at the UN security council. The first two of these actually fell short of calling for a full ceasefire and simply called for pauses in the fighting to deliver humanitarian aid. The ability of a single state, due to its military and economic hegemony, to veto ceasefire resolutions that aim to – at least symbolically – condemn an ongoing genocide demonstrates clearly the utter impotence of the UN, and, by extension, shows the categorical failure of multilateralism in a world system defined by US-led imperialism.

Even starker is the way in which UN General Assembly Resolution No. 3103 of 1973, regarding people’s right to resist occupation and oppression, is ignored and denied. After 76 years of occupation, ethnic cleansing, and dehumanising and sustained conditions of violent apartheid, Palestinians are expected to be docile and subservient in the face of their oppressors. Similar to the expectation that those living in deprived ghettos and subjected to religious or racialised pogroms, or those forced onto slave ships or reservations, plantations, or concentration camps, should never aspire to overcome the shackles of their oppression, Palestinians are expected to surrender to the “mission civilisatrice” and accept their fate as “human animal” barbarians. In May 2024, the Prosecutor for the International Criminal Court filed applications for arrest warrants for both Hamas leaders and Israeli war criminals Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant. The equivalence inherent in comparing Israeli colonial violence with Palestinian resistance to decades of ethnic cleansing, apartheid, repeated bombings, land grabs, water restrictions, and murders with impunity invokes a false sense that the law is neutral. It completely masks the scale of continuous death and terror that the Zionist state has imposed on Palestinians since – and even before – 1948. And yet, even this attempt at false neutrality, with all its unspeakable flaws, has failed to lead to the arrest of the Israeli war criminals (as at the time of writing, the Court has not issued arrest warrants for them).

The brutal slaughter of tens of thousands of people in the course of a year, in what is the most televised and recorded genocide in human history, is simply seen as the cost of doing business as regards maintaining the terrorising regime of US and Western European-sponsored apartheid, ecological devastation, and genocide, represented by the state of Israel. The combined normalisation of genocide and the criminalisation of protestors in universities and institutions around the world demanding divestment from the genocidal war machine renders null and void any redeeming effect of Western societies’ action on other moral and social causes – whether relating to human rights, justice, feminism, sustainability, or equality. In other words, it is impossible to make claims regarding supporting diversity, equity or inclusion when you are developing AI technology that enables snipers to more accurately target the bodies of children and when you are shipping weapons to murder 100 Palestinians a day. The false conflation of criticism of a state’s policy with criticism of a people or a religion, amplified by the instrumentalisation of the historic pain and trauma of Jewish people as a result of the Western European Holocaust to permit genocide in Palestine, are grotesque tactics of manipulation that justify the utterly demonic pretense that murdering Palestinian people by the tens of thousands is somehow self defence. Meanwhile, the white supremacists and far-right fascists in Europe and North America who perpetuate acts of anti-Semitism are having a field day, having found their perfect ambassador in the Zionist project to shield them from accusations, while deflecting the blame on Palestinians and Palestinian supporters.

The acceptance – and encouragement and support – of the present genocide in Gaza crucially and painfully showcases how the untold pain and suffering from bombing schools, hospitals, murdering children en masse, among other depravities are viewed as badges of honour for Team America. The implications are significant. If the depravity we are seeing in Gaza is accepted – and even glorified, including by those who claim to be “progressive” – it is very unlikely that the much longer and slower violence experienced by the global majority as a result of ecological collapse and climate change will invoke any kind of sympathy from the ruling class. Oil and gas companies, Big Tech companies, weapons manufacturers, and real estate speculators stand to make windfall profits from new claims and sales in and around the Gaza Strip. It is precisely these interests that form part of the backbone of a global economy that is trashing the planet to sell the spoils to the highest bidder. In this context, the refusal of Western countries to accept the ICJ’s ruling on the risk of genocide in Gaza demonstrates that nothing will stand in the way of profit and domination – certainly not human rights, ecological breakdown and climate catastrophe.

Gaza has therefore driven home the eternal truth that international law and Western morality can never be called upon to relieve our crises –political, socio-economic or ecological. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), its Conference of the Parties (COPs), and agreements advanced by the major global economies, have long been framed as the sole legitimate avenues for addressing climate change at a global level. But the era of Western claims to democracy, multilateralism and international collaboration is over: their complete failure to halt the slaughter of the Palestinian people, and to make crucial links between genocide and ecocide, have terminated it. The world is bearing witness to the myth of an international rules-based order going down in flames, eradicated by Israel’s destruction of Gaza and in the face of the Palestinian people’s insistence on their own humanity.
The settler future of eco-apartheid

The annihilation of the population of the Gaza Strip as the banal backdrop to business-as-usual productivity and vacation plans for North Americans, Western Europeans, those in Gulf countries, and others who profit from the Euro-American imperial order offers a taste of what is to come in a situation of global ecological breakdown. We have already seen this deeply blasé attitude during the Covid-19 pandemic lockdowns, when millions of poor and racialised people were deliberately put in harm’s way both internally in Western countries and in the Global South to provide the essential services for white and white-adjacent middle classes and elites in order to maintain their comfortable lifestyles and to provide them with their dream vacations in the post-pandemic period. The planet is reeling from the impacts of the ever-accelerating global orchestration of resource extraction and labour exploitation, aligned to lightning-speed computer clicks, linked to machine learning that increasingly dictates global supply chains. The Global Circularity Report 2024 highlights that between 2016 and 2021 alone, the global economy consumed 582 billion tonnes of materials, roughly 75% of all the materials it had consumed in the entire 20th century (740 billion tonnes)! Rather than tempering this gargantuan acceleration of material and energy use to halt ecological breakdown for the benefit of humanity, the ruling classes are framing the consequences of this completely untenable growth as multiplying “security threats” that need managing, including movements of unskilled migrants and asylum seekers and geopolitical invasions by the enemies of Western imperial order. They will do anything to funnel this enormous acceleration of material consumption to themselves at all costs.

In recent years, climate scientists have increasingly made reference to the consolidation of polycrisis – a conjuncture of economic and socioecological contradictions that converge and are difficult to disentangle. The polycrisis is being framed by the ruling class as a security risk, in which the various threats that disrupt the status quo, and upon which financial growth forecasts rest, are mutually amplifying each other. Together, threats that are often understood as being “external” to economic activity, or unintended negative consequences of growth – such as the over-exploitation of soils and underground aquifers, extreme income inequality, zoonotic spillovers leading to pandemics, rising sea levels, and worsening droughts, floods and fires – are at risk of disrupting the uninterrupted operation of business-as-usual. Yet, these consequences are never perceived as warning signs about the system itself. Instead, they are only viewed as threats to be managed by a political and economic order that has zero intention of modifying course or adequately responding to its own contradictions. These include runaway climate change associated with the illusion that growth can be decoupled from environmental impact on a global scale, permanently rising costs of living, and an emboldened far-right.

Yet global ecological breakdown – ranging from a sixth mass extinction to the melting of the Arctic permafrost, to the depletion of soil organic matter that is crucial for food production, to the enormous changes in ocean temperature and acidity, and of course climate change on a scale that previously took more than a million years occurring in just a half-century – all reflect the culmination of five centuries of funnelling resources and exploiting labour to benefit an elite few. This ecological fallout is what scholar Farhana Sultana has termed “climate coloniality” (Sultana, 2022). If we can imagine 500 years of colonial conquest sucking out the vitality from exploited human bodies for labour and from the land as extractable resources that are transferred to a privileged few, leaving only barren land, bones, and limbs strewn across the generated wastelands, we might imagine climate change as an ultra-concentrated raining down in geologic time (or perhaps vomiting up) of these consequences, burning, flooding and suffocating those very lands and those people whose vitality was initially sucked up by this process.

While it might appear that the so-called “progressive” elite within the ruling class is at odds with an emboldened far-right on how to manage this vomitous rainfall of polycrises, the two are much closer in attitudes and approach than they might appear to be. The ruling class defends the interests of capital and settler colonialism, regardless of whether the outcome is authoritarian fascist or feel-good and fuzzy branded fascism. It doesn’t care. From the perspective of sustaining the structure of the US imperialist order, centre-moderate liberals and the far-right alike have systematically dismantled democratic decision-making and planning through financialisation, fuelled global militarism and war-mongering, and empowered sociopathic billionaires to run society. They differ only in the political branding or packaging they sell to the public through the circus of electoral politics. The loss of Democratic candidate Kamala Harris in the US election is the outcome of a smug and decrepit liberal order that lauds having a “lethal” military force, incarcerating black and immigrant children, and telling people to just accept the equivalent of mindfulness sessions as they are robbed of affordable food and housing in a world of ecological collapse- all while claiming to be the morally upstanding murderer of Palestinian children. The hypocrisy has ultimately become too much to stomach.

Both centrists and the far-right promise populations the ability to avoid the worst of the impacts they have created, as perpetrators and progeny of the civilisational project that has created volumes of unspeakable violence. Crucially, though, these promises are actually assured only for the elite – regardless of the party in question. To ensure that the public goes along with the idea that benefits will be for all citizens, they are told that they need to accept certain sacrifices – including the removal of civil liberties, shipping migrants to other countries, drilling for more oil, controlling women’s bodies, price gauging of food, inflated real estate costs, and accumulating debt to support commodity futures and other forms of speculation (that generate further rounds of debt). In contrast, the very wealthy experience none of these sacrifices.

For the ruling class, renewable energy is an opportunity to sustain their primary business operations. They continuously convince the public that new energy solutions are welcome, because they provide a kind of niche top-up to ever-expanding oil and gas extraction and because they create new marketable goods and services (i.e. false climate solutions) like climate resilience bonds, carbon offsets, and geoengineering technologies. Enormously water and energy-intensive machine learning is given carte blanche in the name of economic efficiency, despite its existential risks to the last lifelines of democracy, human rights, and life-support systems. Similarly, the public has to accept that billions of dollars of investment in militarisation is needed to “counter terrorism”, while private security and more funds to the police are needed to “remove criminal agents” – a category which can be extended to anyone opposed to the murder of surplus populations and who stands in the way of eco-tourism resorts, international airports, and waterfront property.

One of the most perverse responses to the polycrises facing the planet is the intersection between the “green” and “sustainability” discourse and the expansion of settler colonial and resource imperialism around the world. By window-dressing the genocidal erasure of populations through, for example, new solar panels, eco-tourism resorts that allow visitors to get closer to wildlife, wind turbines, and “climate-smart” buildings (which are essentially surveillance experiments), those with the blood of empire on their hands get to present themselves as lovers and protectors of the natural world. In actual fact, their sanitised “ecologies” are real aspirations – it is just that they are not meant for ordinary people. Indeed, ordinary people are to be forcibly removed, left to deal with increasingly ferocious hurricanes, excruciating droughts and crop failures, burned up in wildfires (just as the children of Gaza are burned to death by Israel), or made to work outside in temperatures rarely seen on this planet (among other forms of torture). In short, they are discardable, burnable, drown-able, and bomb-able – whether resulting from climate change or white phosphorus munitions – as part of the process of erasing populations to make way for “green” and “climate-smart” real estate or for other speculative land grabs.

Sanitised “ecologies” that discard unwanted people and nature are nothing new. Heavily fortified white spaces in cities across the United States were built on the backs of black, brown, and Indigenous urban labour, while systematically denying those labourers a living wage, a say in public affairs, and control of land. As black abolitionist scholars Ashanté Reese and Symone Johnson write, the resources that could have provided public services, decent schools, food, transport, and housing for these people were re-routed to inflated police budgets and prisons institutionally designed to surveil and oppress black bodies (Reese and Johnson, 2022). Elsewhere, as The Red Nation, a coalition of Native and non-Native activists, educators, students, and community organisers describes, whole countries, like so-called Canada, were brought into being by invading and occupying the land of Indigenous nations, who were then forced to give up their languages and knowledges through brutal residential schooling, until the racialised “Indian” in them was erased and made palatable to the Euro-American coloniser – with disastrous effects (The Red Nation, 2021). Apartheid, in the United States, South Africa, Israel, and elsewhere, created and continues to entrench a legalised institutional order of segregation that privilege certain people, based on racial or other ethnic and religious lines of perceived purity, over others – who were deliberately subjected to physical and psychological oppression, violation, and exploitation.


As political ecologist Kai Heron writes, eco-apartheid makes it permissible for certain people to die “so that capitalism may live.”

Eco-apartheid leverages imaginaries like “sustainability” and “eco-friendliness” to buttress the future of a minority, while institutionalising a legal, political, and economic structure built around the idea of “national security”. It does this in the face of the collapse of life-support systems on earth, with the aim of deliberately casting out unwanted people and nature, or putting them directly in harm’s way. As political ecologist Kai Heron writes, eco-apartheid makes it permissible for certain people to die “so that capitalism may live” (Heron, 2024). It feigns innocence by taking actions that are discursively framed as “difficult decisions” that need to be taken in order to secure society from threats that are of its own making.

Eco-apartheid mimics the enclosure of unwanted people through ghettos, townships, plantation plots, or reservations that reflect the legacies of colonialism, racial capitalism, and genocide of Indigenous peoples. However, what is specific about eco-apartheid is that it leverages imaginaries of “nature” – like conservation, tree planting, solar and wind energy, and electrification – as status symbols to funnel the remaining food, water, transport, and other resources to a few, while depending on climate and ecological disasters and war to manage surplus populations. Together, this form of apartheid, which separates the ruling class who live in elite enclaves from the vast majority of the population, in the face of increasing climate dislocations, is framed in terms of national security interests – it is said to be in “everyone’s best interests.” Gaza, as a site of anti-colonial struggle that has ruptured and exposed the enduring violence of racial capitalism, brings into sharp relief the extent to which so-called progressives in the West who espouse concepts like equity, human rights, sustainability, and diversity, normalise mass slaughter when the systems that uphold their privileges are at risk. There is no limit to the kinds of violence that are possible when language and cultural moves to innocence fail to secure strategic geopolitical interests.
Greenwashing, gaslighting, and repression

As new forms of class fragmentation separate the worthy from the unworthy, middle class people will need to obtain sufficient access to capital (both financial and social) to avoid falling into the category of disposable: for example, white working class workers, and especially brown and black migrant workers, whose main “value” for capital is the cheapness of their labour. In a world of growing inequality and ecological fallout, maintaining the status quo will require ever more fantastical illusions of “sustainability”, to justify the genocide-ecocide nexus. These illusions will continue to maintain “peace of mind” for those living in “climate-resilient” condos in luxury zones, characterised by lush greenery, retail and commerce establishments, and 24-hour private security. The gap between these fantastical dystopias of “sustainable” lifestyles and the miserable lived experience of the vast majority of humanity will require absurd levels of myth-making about the planet we all live on.

The upcoming host of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP29) in Azerbaijan, for instance, is allowing delegations and the private sector to tour its “liberated” territory in the recently ethnically-cleansed Nagorno-Karabakh region for new speculative renewable energy projects. It is an exemplar of the ecocide-genocide nexus that is unfolding, in which “green” and environmental discourse is co-opted from the bodies of undesirable people and their natural environments viewed as unsuitable for capital investment in (greenwashed) oil and gas exploration. If the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) can be met by ethnic cleansing compensated by attractive investments of solar panel farms and eco-tourism resorts, there is something rotten at the core of what sustainability has come to mean.


In an eco-apartheid future, the notions of “national security” and “climate emergency” will be deployed to justify a race to the bottom.

Another example of these absurd myths of sustainability is Netanyahu’s vision for Gaza laid out in a 3-step plan to be achieved by year 2035. The plan aims to “green” death and destruction with what Ognian Kassabov calls an “urban dystopia built on mass graves”: a futuristic free-trade zone with public relations focusing on sustainability and modern civilisation. As upwards of 1 billion people face climate disaster, famine, rising storms and deadly heat waves, making vast areas of the planet unliveable, such projects, marked by gross negligence as regards the rest of humanity, as well as glaring contradictions, will continue to trample the earth to dust with complete impunity. With all possibilities for aspiration and social mobility defunct, these dystopias built on mass graves will continue to be violently defended, with militarised border walls that serve to fence off the unwanted and preserve the interests of the ultra-wealthy. The ruling class do not believe that their charade of maintaining and growing their power amidst ecological collapse is going to end anytime soon. Their aim is maximising profits even as the planet burns. But in a context of declining birth rates, increased migration, and serious climatic effects that are creating chokepoints in supply chains, they remain anxious about certain wild cards: increasing labour shortages, declining labour productivity, and the closure of avenues for investing their liquid capital. They are compensating by rushing to grab vast areas of potential agricultural land, mineral deposits, fossil fuels, and other so-called critical resources. As soils are eroded, prime agricultural land is destroyed in fires and floods, and populations are displaced by war and climate disasters, new rounds of resource imperialism await. The ruling classes need “excuses” to justify these resource incursions. Such excuses are frequently found in geopolitical narratives of security – security against those who resist the continuous incursions – and in strategic normalisation, in which “peace” is defined as obedience to capital. The Arab Gulf States provide an example of this, in their relationship with Israel. Thus, in an eco-apartheid future, the notions of “national security” and “climate emergency” will be deployed to justify a race to the bottom, in a mad dash to accumulate geopolitical power through the extraction of “green” minerals for low-carbon technologies.

One casualty of this deployment of national security threats will be what is left of democratic spaces in society. As the unwanted (asylum seekers, Indigenous peoples, pastoralist communities, smallholder farmers, forest-dwelling communities, and working class people in their billions) are ghettoised, bussed away, or simply murdered, those still left to criticise this violent spectacle will also be treated as a security risk. And as they continue to protest, the spaces for dissent will be sanitised through “inclusive dialogues” that are blind to the power dynamics between oppressor and oppressed. The perpetrators of crimes will continue to be cast as victims, or at best “stakeholders.”

The second Nakba we are witnessing in Gaza demonstrates just how extreme gaslighting can be: journalists and human rights defenders who painstakingly document the unthinkable violence taking place are either disregarded by the ruling classes, or blamed as part of the problem, and even killed. The strategy is to “shoot the messenger.” Hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens who stand up against Israel’s blatant disregard for international law and order are rebranded as anti-nationals or terrorists, and as creating “unsafe” environments on campuses, while their administrations continue to invest in murdering innocent people and hiring private security guards to wield batons and target students with tear gas. In the eco-apartheid world in the making, “freedom of speech” is only reserved for those who defend the empire, not for those who voice their dissent against it.

In short, the eco-apartheid world is one that has no room for morality. It involves grotesque justifications for the dehumanisation of vast portions of humanity so that the ruling classes can proclaim they are serving the public interest by defending against national security threats they are wholly responsible for generating. Security and the creation of public “safe spaces” are the excuses used to justify their horrendous crimes while they double down to ensure the world is liveable only for a privileged minority.
Ecological strategy in an eco-apartheid world

The televised genocide in Gaza is intended as a subconscious lesson from the ruling classes to all oppressed people around the world, warning them that their resistance to eco-apartheid will be met with a military onslaught that has been in preparation for many years. This departure from any policy of reconciliation has immense implications that social movements have not yet comprehended. Nevertheless, one thing is clear: it should only strengthen our resolve to build both a strategic and expansive resistance. This means that while we uplift the anti-colonial fronts fighting against military and economic imperialism in the Global South, and the South-South solidarities now emerging in our increasingly multipolar world, we must also fortify the ability of people on the ground to resist. We also have an important battle to wage in the imperial core against capitalist imperialism, via our social movements and organisations. These are already in motion; we need to strengthen and make connections between them. In the paragraphs below, we discuss some of the ideological obstacles facing our movements, and what a united ecological strategy against eco-apartheid might look like.

Amidst this genocide, as the bodies of Palestinian martyrs have piled up, the Western climate movement has continued to focus its advocacy on the impact of the Israeli aggression on the natural world: the loss of olive trees in Palestine, the carbon emissions of the bombs, the disruption to non-human life. Even when extending solidarity to anti-colonial struggles, the climate movement tends to consider violence against the natural world as somehow separate from violence against humanity. This is climate reductionism because it sees the crisis as the loss of natural life in itself, rather than a crisis that results from the loss of the socio-ecological fabric that sustains human and non-human life, in Palestine and elsewhere, and which amounts to both ecocide and genocide.


What should the climate movement do differently? Firstly, it must entirely abandon reductionist approaches to the ecological crisis that reduce it to the issues of carbon emissions and impacts on the natural world.

What should the climate movement do differently? Firstly, it must entirely abandon reductionist approaches to the ecological crisis that reduce it to the issues of carbon emissions and impacts on the natural world. Climate reductionism is often manifested in the hierarchisation of urgent struggles, with climate change at the top. Not only does this approach separate the ecological crisis from its political-historical drivers, it also suggests that the extreme weather events brought on by climate change will be felt purely in an environmental sense, unrelated to gendered, racialized, and classed stratifications or how climate change effects will be leveraged by far-right groups to victimise themselves and enact new forms of violence on already marginalised groups (Seymour, 2024). “Climate justice” organisations too often only identify themselves with a narrowing niche of struggles related to matters having to do with the natural world. The false distinction made between “nature” and “people” is a continuation of colonial and settler environmentalism, in which people and unwanted natures are subdued and subjugated for the purposes of beautification, recreation, and – ultimately – economic activity. As conservationist Fiore Longo writes, in this approach, “nature” is viewed as separate from the vital and diverse human societies that it has produced, and which have continued to protect it since time immemorial (Longo, 2023)..

One class of climate reductionism that separates the protection or restoration of an abstract environment from people, and its subsequent violent consequences, is the growing interest in large-scale tree planting schemes to supposedly respond to habitat loss, increase carbon sequestration, or protect soils. Tree-planting has, in some cases, fit perfectly within the intersection of the ecocidal and genocidal outcomes of eco-apartheid. The use of “trees as soldiers” to facilitate ethnic cleansing, as Rania Masri of the North Carolina Environmental Justice Network puts it, when discussing Israel’s planting of trees in the West Bank is one example. She argues that Israel plants trees to whitewash its crimes and to violently dispossess Palestinians of their generations-old plots, presenting itself as a “green” saviour, even as the homogenous tree plantations it is creating become fodder for climate-induced wildfires. For instance, for decades initiatives of the Jewish National Fund (JNF) have involved planting trees atop depopulated Palestinian villages and using trees as a weapon to annex and enclose more land in the West Bank and the Naqab. This afforestation drive criminalises Palestinian residents and their diverse ecologies of carob, olive, and fruit, replacing them with exotic European pines that demand significant groundwater, increase soil acidity (making it impossible to grow anything else), and immobilise and guard the territory from return by its dispossessed communities. Indeed, JNF Chairman from 2020-2022 Avraham Duvdevani explicitly stated that JNF’s aim with tree planting is to “seize the open spaces near Bedouin settlements through afforestation, designed to block land takeover.” As Rania stresses: “the very ecological model of the Zionist project is one based on homogeneity, as much for the same tree as with their model of statehood and politics: one politic, one nation and we’ll erase everyone else.”

For Nadya Tannous, co-director of Honour the Earth and a leader in the Palestinian Youth Movement, the answer is “not to dismiss environmental movements”, which in many instances have been a powerful progressive force in the West and an entry point for young people with anti-establishment sentiments. Nadya argues that if we fail to push the climate movement to adopt more anti-imperialist and internationalist currents, we risk handing it over to ideologically liberal institutions who will use it to further strengthen their normalisation of the status quo, including through effects on the psyche and consciousness of young people.

Mainstream environmentalism’s take on progressive politics merely expands the diversity of the ecocidal and genocidal order, and increases acceptance of it, instead of doing something to change it. When the moral high standard of pretense to care and have empathy for people and ecology is displayed publicly, while doubling down on the violence of the military industrial complex, a particularly devious and deceptive form of fascism emerges, one that differs from outright fascism only in the fact that it does not openly and explicitly announce its racist, misogynist and violent rhetoric. It is therefore of paramount importance to present a strong liberatory framework that can cut through the myths of liberal environmentalism and climate reductionism.

While mainstream narratives continue to push for the isolation of climate issues and to exceptionalise the climate crisis as one of singular horror, we must emphasise the fact that the ecological dimension has always been a constitutive part of national liberation movements, and that anti-imperialism must be the compass guiding our struggle. The end of the imperialist capitalist system will deliver justice, and that includes land justice and a transition towards more ecologically sustainable forms of living within planetary boundaries. On this point, Nadya Tannous of Honour the Earth gives the example of environmental leftists who condemn Morales’ extractivism in Bolivia, without accounting for the country’s internal needs for development, and the protection of their national socialist project in the face of US military and economic imperialism. Tannous stresses that “national liberation of Global South nations must be the north star” of our current movements. This does not imply defending the nation state, but rather defending liberation from colonial extraction, oppression, and violence, as the first step towards building a world in which many worlds fit.


It is also the duty of social movements in the imperial core, amongst them the Palestine movement, to understand that their own fight constitutes ecological resistance, and is one thread in the tapestry of freedom-making and liberation from ecocide and genocide.

It is also the duty of social movements in the imperial core, amongst them the Palestine movement, to understand that their own fight constitutes ecological resistance, and is one thread in the tapestry of freedom-making and liberation from ecocide and genocide. This does not involve reinventing the wheel. Ecological anti-imperialism is a rich and generative tradition that we must bring to the forefront of our movements and draw on in order to highlight the limitations and contradictions in liberal environmentalism. For example, Thomas Sankara, the revolutionary leader of Burkina Faso in the 1980s who was assassinated in a foreign-backed coup d’état, was a champion of political ecology. During his four years in power, he rolled out a feminist, socialist development programme that liberated millions from illiteracy, patriarchal customs, and medical underdevelopment. In an impassioned speech given at the First International Silva Conference on Trees and Forests in Paris in 1986, Sankara located the roots of the ecological crisis in imperialism, stating: “The struggle to defend the trees and forests is above all a struggle against imperialism. Because imperialism is the arsonist setting fire to our forests and savannas.” Unlike planting trees in order to dispossess others of their land, or to compensate for carbon releases taking place elsewhere, Sankara’s tree planting schemes sought to protect the land from resource imperialism and racial capital, through applying embodied cultural knowledge of the territory involved.

There are other examples of liberation ecologies. One is the marooning practices of once-captive slaves on colonial plantations, who grew food and sustained their communities by drawing on the intimate relationships they had with the land (Stennett, 2020). Another is guerilla warfare, which is a mainstay of many anti-colonial liberation wars. In guerilla warfare the native fights on ecological terrain, using their knowledge of the territory to outsmart the settler, who is only capable of relating to the land as another objectified substrate to manage, manipulate, or conquer. In Palestine, collective steadfastness involves maintaining the connection to the land, not for sentimental reasons alone but to assert one’s presence or existence (wujud) on the land, as a form of resistance in itself (Taher, 2024). Even in the belly of the empire, the creation of social and solidarity economies that are outside the control of both the market and the state offer new environment-making possibilities. In all of these cases, the practice of making freedom collectively and outside of colonial and imperialist systems of oppression generates new ecological relationships that replenish and restore the conditions for life.

While acts of collective resistance can generate alternative ecologies that can liberate humanity and our non-human relations from the violence of “sustainability” solutions being sold to us, an anti-imperialist politic must also demand the rebirth of a united anti-war movement. Imperialism is nothing without militarism, as theorised by the late Arab Marxist Samir Amin (2017), who said that imperialism walks on two legs: economic (through a globalised neoliberal policy that is forced upon the countries of the world) and political (including military interventions against those who resist). Equally, the military industrial complex is one of the largest emitters, polluters, and drivers of climate change – a wasteful industry that produces no value vis-à-vis human life. The Pentagon is the most carbon-intensive institution in the world, responsible for more annual emissions than most countries (Crawford, 2022). Ali Kadri emphasises, war is not an unintentional side product of capitalism; rather, the waste and destruction produced by war stimulates the capitalist economy, and likewise, environmental degradation is the “structural waste” of capitalist imperialism (Kadri, 2023). The US empire requires a constant state of war to reproduce itself and impose its interests on the populations of the Global South. Thus, the military industrial complex simply has no place in a future free from eco-apartheid. Understanding this is of crucial importance amidst climate and ecological breakdown because the capitalist green transition is also a war of extraction. This is true not only in the Global South, but also in the North, where sacrifice zones for lithium extraction are created in areas where Indigenous and racialised populations live.

In parallel, we would add that one of the greatest ecological risks occurs when racialised and Indigenous people side with the oppressor to become ambassadors of the Euro-American colonising imaginary, and submit to the dominant cultural ideologies of individualism, meritocracy and a nihilistic attitude towards social transformation. White supremacy, which is necessary for planetary eco-apartheid to take shape, is increasingly being represented by diverse multicultural faces. Those who take part in this process are throwing members of their own communities under the bus to “make it” to appear positively for the white gaze of approval. Their actions also embolden the centre-right and far-right alike, by bringing more diverse faces into their ranks, precipitating an ever-faster plunge into the abyss. Pulling the brakes on this demands an anti-imperialist anti-war movement that leverages cultural diversity to empower a shared humanity against the ecocidal and genocidal ravages of racial capitalism. At this juncture, in the face of impending catastrophe, “thinking ecologically” cannot afford to involve anything less.

Even if solar panels and wind turbines are erected on an unprecedented scale, it is likely too late to stop the catastrophes that will be unleashed by runaway climate change. As the Covid pandemic showed, the crises will always be experienced through the very social processes that concentrate harm on poor and Indigenous peoples, who desperately require reparative justice, rather than once again being scapegoated as collateral damage. As Potawatomi scholar Kyle Powys Whyte claims, climate change only intensifies the effects of colonialism – expanding its violence to new populations across the planet (Whyte, 2020). Unless colonial power is tackled, climate change can never be addressed. This bears repeating, and it has direct relevance to the obliteration of Gaza, which is supported by the same governments that are charged with addressing climate change, and which continue to propose “green” solutions that line the pockets of oil companies and Big Tech firms, who bankroll arms shipments to the Zionist entity. If the constant bombardments, white phosphorus attacks, cultural erasure, and refined AI-targeted destruction of Gaza are “mirrors” of an immediate future rooted in eco-apartheid, the liberation of Palestine is the north star in imagining reparative, ecological modes of living.

How so? First and foremost, the call to “Free Palestine” reclaims the humanity of billions of people who are engaged in resistance, not only in Palestine, Lebanon and Yemen, but also elsewhere across the Global South, whose lives do count, as real human beings with values and dreams, imaginations, fears, joys, and flaws – equal to anyone in Western Europe, North America, Israel, Australia, and the rest of the Western world. Reclaiming the humanity of this huge share of the world’s population is a bare minimum demand for a just and liveable world. The words and especially (in)actions of those who still need to be convinced of this basic truth of our shared humanity, and who continue to privilege some human lives over others, will forever be anti-ecological, no matter the nature of their climate analysis. Only by stopping the dehumanisation of people and their subjection to decades of repression and overt violence can ecological relationships of reciprocity and respect be restored, nurtured and made to thrive.

While the rise of solidarities across movements that put Palestine liberation at the heart and soul of their efforts is just beginning, this is a crucial first step that is absolutely necessary to prevent an eco-apartheid future. In spite of attempts to ignore its recommendations, South Africa’s case against Israel at the ICJ has sent shockwaves around the world, forging global solidarities across working class and grassroots efforts in sometimes unexpected places, and across the North/South divide. These solidarities include dock workers in Belgium, Italy, Greece, and India refusing to ship arms to Israel; consumers in Malaysia and Indonesia engaging in boycotts that have caused major financial losses for Western companies with ties to Israel; and students on university campuses around the world refusing to give an inch in their efforts to expose the hypocrisy of their institutions until their demands are met. Beyond these fronts, our challenge is connecting the struggles of brutalised workers across the world with the resistance of the Palestinian people against common systems which disregard life everywhere. Our challenge is organising workers from all domains to strike for Palestine, to prevent more shipments of arms and hard-earned tax dollars going to murder innocent people. It is this ecology of resistance that will liberate working people everywhere.

Like all indigènes who suffer at the hands of oppressors, the Palestinian people and all colonised people will continue to resist the demolition of their homes, the occupation of their land, the redirection of rivers, the poisoning of soils, the killing of their non-human kin, the erasure of their culture, and the genocide of their communities. This represents an existential truth: there is something deeply ingrained in the human spirit that refuses to be dominated perpetually. Facing the reality of our apocalyptic conditions does not mean that we have lost: rather, it gives us the vision we need to fight back. Make no mistake: resistance against imperialism and its Zionist proxy represents the strongest ecological force of our times. Building an anti-war, anti-imperialist and ecological mass movement is our duty, in order to extend the resistance of the Palestinians to all corners of the world. The coloniser believes that with enough brutalisation they can lock us into an indefinite state of repression, but history has always bent towards justice: not by chance, but as a result of the inevitable and relentless resistance of people against the forces of genocide, for dignity for everyone on the earth. The liberation of Palestine represents the linchpin of our collective survival in the face of ecological collapse, it pulls forth a bright light from the black hole of a looming eco-apartheid future.

Vijay Kolinjivadi
Vijay Kolinjivadi is a professor teaching community economic development. He is also a writer and researcher of political ecology and ecological economics. He is based in Tio’tià:ke (or Montreal).

Asmaa Ashraf
Asmaa Ashraf works in community energy, and is a writer and researcher of political ecology. She is also an organiser based in London within both the Palestine and climate movements.
References

Amin, S. (2017). Contemporary imperialism. In Mapping a New World Order (pp. 181-195). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Crawford, N.C. (2022). The Pentagon, Climate Change, and War: Charting the Rise and Fall of U.S. Military Emissions. The MIT Press.

Fanning, A.L., and Hickel, J. (2023). Compensation for atmospheric appropriation. Nature Sustainability 6: 1077-1086.

Heron, K. (2024). Capitalist catastrophism and eco-apartheid. Geoforum 153: 103874.

Kadri, A. (2023). The Accumulation of Waste: A Political Economy of Systemic Destruction, Volume 3, Brill.

Longo, F. (2023). Decolonizing Conservation. In: Decolonizing Conservation: Global Voices for Indigenous Self-Determination, Land, and a World in Common. A Dawson, F. Longo, and Survival International (Eds.) Common Notions.

Reese, A.M., and Johnson, S.A. (2022). We All We Got: Urban Black Ecologies of Care and Mutual Aid. Environment and Society: Advances in Research 13: 27-42.

Seymour, R. (2024). Disaster Nationalism: The Downfall of Liberal Civilization. Verso, London.

Stennett, L. (2020). An exploration of agency within Maroon ecological praxis: Unearthing the histories of Maroon ecology in Jamaica and Brazil from 1630 to 1780. Decolonial Subversions: 99-119.

Sultana, F. (2022). The unbearable heaviness of climate coloniality. Political Geography 99: 102638.

Taher, T. (2024). Practicing wujud: A Constellation of sumud in the Fragmented Palestinian Present. Middle East Critique 33(2): 263-281.

The Red Nation (2011). The Red Deal: Indigenous Action to Save Our Earth. Common Notions.

Whyte, K.P. (2020). Chapter 4: Against crisis epistemology. In: Handbook of Critical Indigenous Studies (Eds: B. Hokowhitu, A. Moreton-Robinson, L. Tuhiwai-Smith, C. Andersen, and S. Larkin). Routledge.

Xu, C., Kohler, T.A., Lenton, T.M., Svenning, J-C., and Scheffer, M. (2020). “Future of the human climate niche.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) 117(21): 11350-11355.

Saturday, November 16, 2024

COP29 and the quest for an accord acceptable to all

Zaki Abbas in Baku
Published November 16, 2024 
DAWN

At COP29, every day is a ‘leg day’, at least for journalists, who have to run from one block to another, trying to keep up with the various sessions going on simultaneously, all the while trying to get hold of their respective countries’ delegations.

The negotiations, on the other hand, are going nowhere, as the developed and developing worlds bicker over the new climate finance goal, aka the New Collective Quantified Goal.

COP29 was off to a bumpy start since the very first day, and the little headway that has been made is on standards to boost the global carbon market under Article 6.4 of the historic Paris Agreement signed in 2015.

Some of the countries were unhappy with how these guidelines were rushed through without any debate, which may pose a problem at a later stage.

There is, however, little progress on what the carbon markets will look like and how countries will evolve a consensus on carbon credits, which supposedly provide solutions to climate problems.

Controversial carbon markets, non-operationalisation of Loss and Damage fund among key sticking points

By the evening, after a delay of several hours, parties managed to agree in principle on a draft for the new finance goal, but it will be a long time before any final agreement is reached.

Supposedly, the money earned from carbon markets will be part of climate finance — a contentious issue between the North and South — as even after over a decade, its modalities still need to be hammered out.

Interestingly, some Latin American countries such as Venezuela and Ecuador who had opposed such schemes at every climate conference, seemingly gave in this time.

Activists and civil society members at COP29 see these credits as ‘false solutions’, which are not acceptable to them.
Whither loss and damage?

Let’s set aside this controversial topic for a minute. Even the Loss and Damage (L&D) Fund — which was operationalised at COP28 in Dubai — has not picked up steam.

Out of over $700 million in pledges made at the last COP, only $10 million materialised which came from Japan, according to the Loss and Damage Collaboration.

The fund was established at COP27 after 31 years of “inaction, delay and obfuscation by developed country parties since the first proposal for a Loss and Damage finance mechanism was tabled by Vanuatu on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) in 1991”.

At present, the fund is empty.

The World Bank, which maintains the secretariat of this fund, says it has no control over the money supposed to be contributed to the account.

Arif Goheer, executive director of the Global Change Impact Study Centre, told Dawn at the Pakistan Pavilion there were losses to the tune of trillions, and the L&D Fund was not equipped to deal with that.

“Loss and Damage does not have even procedures,” Mr Goheer, who is privy to negotiations, said, adding that the fund should be topped up with ample amount of money keeping in view of vulnerabilities of different, especially the most-affected states with no coping capacities.

According to Mr Goheer, since the L&D Fund is for emergencies and natural disasters, it should be given instantly to help the countries cope with it instead of linking it to the project-based funding.

About the negotiations, he said G-77 and China block, which also includes Pakistan, want easy to climate funds as well as easy procedures for accessing them. The talks to agree on a climate finance goal will continue on Saturday, the official added.
Global Stocktake

Similarly, in the first week of COP29, the countries have failed to take the Global Stocktake, which could potentially delay the new NDCs (Nationally Determined Contributions) which all parties are expected to submit by February 2025.

The global stocktake takes a look at the performance of countries with regard to their NDCs as well as set the stage for the more ambitious ones.

The Adaptation Fund has also hit a stonewall due to significant disagreements between developed and developing countries on adaptation-related matters, particularly the provision of Means of Implem­entation (MOI).

Concerns have been expressed by activist groups at COP29, who believe the presence of fossil fuel lobbyists at the venue is counterproductive as they step up their campaign ‘Weed Out the Snakes’ and ‘Let’s Kick Big Polluters Out’.

According to Rachel Ross, there are almost 1,700 fossil fuel lobbyists at the venue who are “poisoning” climate action.

On the third day of COP29, the Argentine delegation was abruptly pulled out of the conference on the orders of its president, who is a climate denier.

Its neighbour, COP30 host Brazil, has submitted its NDCs and is poised to host the next conference, which is evident from the massive pavilion in Baku.

On Monday, the conference enters its second phase with ministers from different countries coming together to hammer out an agreement acceptable to all.

Produced as part of the 2024 Climate Change Media Partnership, a journalism fellowship organised by Internews’ Earth Journalism Network and the Stanley Centre for Peace and Security.

Published in Dawn, November 16th, 2024


Oil execs work COP29 as NGOs slam lobbyist presence

By AFP
November 15, 2024

The presence of oil, gas and coal interests at the climate talks has long been a source of controversy - Copyright AFP/File Alexander NEMENOV


Delphine Paysant with Kelly Macnamara in Paris

Oil executives descended on the COP29 talks in Baku for “energy day” on Friday as environmental groups denounced the presence of fossil fuel industry lobbyists at the UN climate talks.

While negotiators haggle behind closed doors on the key task of increasing climate funds for developing nations, the executives from top oil firms including France’s TotalEnergies are holding events.

The “Kick the Big Polluters Out” (KBPO) coalition of NGOs analysed accreditations at the annual climate confab, calculating that more than 1,700 people linked to fossil fuel interests are in attendance.

“It’s like tobacco lobbyists at a conference on lung cancer,” David Tong from campaign group Oil Change International told AFP.

The presence of oil, gas and coal interests at the climate talks has long been a source of controversy.

The appointment of UAE state oil firm head Sultan Al Jaber to the presidency of last year’s negotiations in Dubai was a lightning rod for criticism.

And this year’s host, energy-rich Azerbaijan, launched a defence of planet-heating fossil fuels, with President Ilham Aliyev on Tuesday repeating his insistence that oil, gas and other natural resources are a “gift of God”.

“It’s unfortunate that the fossil fuel industry and the petrostates have seized control of the COP process to an unhealthy degree,” former US vice president and leading climate activist Al Gore said Thursday.

While the Dubai summit produced a global agreement on “transitioning away” from fossil fuels, the follow-up commitment “has been very weak” and the issue “is hardly even mentioned” at COP29, he said.

“I have to think that one of the reasons for that is that the petrostates have too much control over the process,” he said.



– Wrangling on finance –



KBPO said Japan brought employees of coal giant Sumitomo as part of its delegation, Canada included oil producers Suncor and Tourmaline and Italy brought employees of energy giants Eni and Enel.

However, some of those on the NGO list work for companies that are not primarily fossil fuel-related, including Danish offshore wind champion Orsted.

Some 53,000 people have registered to participate in COP29 in Baku, not including technical and support staff, according to the UN.

The top priority at the talks is to agree a new figure for climate finance to help developing countries adapt to climate change and transition their economies away from fossil fuels.

Rich nations are reluctant to spend much more than the $100-billion a year already committed, conscious of domestic publics angry about inflation and stuttering economies.

But developing countries warn they need at least $1 trillion to defend against the ravages of climate change and meet commitments to reach net-zero emissions.

Negotiators are struggling to wrangle a draft text into workable form before ministers arrive next week to start nailing down a deal.

Hanging over proceedings is the question of what role the United States will play on climate action and funding after Trump returns to the White House in January.

He has pledged to again withdraw from the landmark Paris agreement, raising questions about how much US negotiators can really promise and deliver in Baku.

But Gore insisted that “there is so much more momentum that even a new Trump administration is not going to be able to slow it down much,” echoed the line from other Americans at the talks.

“I hope I’m right about that,” he added.



Gore says ‘absurd’ to hold UN climate talks in petrostates


By  AFP
November 15, 2024


Former US vice president Al Gore told AFP fossil fuel industry representatives should go through a 'test' to be allowed to attend UN climate talks - Copyright AFP Kate GILLAM
Julien MIVIELLE

US vice president Al Gore told AFP Friday it was “absurd” for petrostates such as Azerbaijan to host UN climate talks, saying the selection process should be overhauled.

Mukhtar Babayev, a former oil executive who now serves as Azerbaijan’s ecology minister, chairs COP29 in Baku while the country’s leader, Ilham Aliyev, caused a stir this week by calling fossil fuels a “gift of the God”.

It comes after last year’s climate talks in the oil-dependent United Arab Emirates — presided over by the head of its state oil company — also raised hackles among activists.

“I think it is absurd to have these petrostates that are so dependent on continuing the sale of oil and gas be the hosts of these COPs, because it’s hard to miss the fact that they have a direct conflict of interest,” Gore told AFP.

“The president said they’re a gift from God, and I understand his sentiment, but in my opinion we should reform this process,” the Nobel Peace Prize laureate said.

Azerbaijan was picked to host COP29 after Bulgaria dropped out due to Russian objections to having the conference held in a European Union country.

It was Eastern Europe’s turn to host this year’s Conference of the Parties.

Speaking on the sidelines of the talks in Baku, Gore said the United Nations secretary general should be able to participate in the selection process for cities and COP presidents.

The current process “meant that Russia vetoed everyone except Azerbaijan. And of course, they’re a petrostate also,” said Gore, who is chairman of The Climate Reality Project, a non-profit.



– Trump can’t stop ‘revolution’ –



Gore’s criticism echoed a letter Friday by a group of leading climate activists and scientists, including former UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon, who warned that the COP process was “no longer fit for purpose”.

They urged smaller, more frequent meetings, strict criteria for host countries and rules to ensure companies showed clear climate commitments before being allowed to send lobbyists to the talks.

“I think that there should be a test for who is qualified to be a delegate to these COPs. Are they coming to try to find a solution or are they coming in order to block a solution?” Gore said.

Oil and gas industry representatives should be scrutinised to see if they are committed to phasing out fossil fuels, and if they are “truth tellers” or “have a record of lying about the climate crisis”, he said.

His comments came as a coalition of NGOs, “Kick the Big Polluters Out”, said it calculated that more than 1,700 people linked to fossil fuel interests are in attendance at COP29.

“Why should representatives of the biggest polluters in the world have more delegates than the largest national delegation, more delegates than the 10 most affected countries in the world?” Gore said.

“I think it’s absurd. And I do think that the whole process needs to be reformed.”

COP29 attendees are also worried about the future of US climate efforts as Trump has vowed to withdraw from the Paris agreement again.

But Gore downplayed concerns, saying his return to the White House would not “meaningfully slow” the clean energy “revolution”.

“The election of Trump may slow things slightly,” Gore said, but the energy transition is “unstoppable”.

Trump’s Republican allies tread lightly on Paris pact at COP29


By AFP
November 16, 2024

Texas Congressman August Pfluger said US voters had given Trump a mandate to bring costs down - Copyright AFP/File Alexander NEMENOV, Ting Shen

Laurent Thomet and Ivan Couronne

Donald Trump’s Republican allies in Congress showed up at UN climate talks to tout natural gas and nuclear energy, but they tiptoed around the elephant in the room: a looming US withdrawal from the Paris agreement.

President Joe Biden’s climate envoys have sought to reassure delegates in Baku this week, telling them that Trump’s planned pullout from the pact would have little impact on the global battle against climate change.

The handful of Republican lawmakers who made the trip to Azerbaijan’s capital on Saturday represent states that are home to oil fields, coal mines and auto manufacturing.

Morgan Griffith, a congressman from Ohio and member of the House energy committee, told AFP that he has supported the Paris agreement in the past.

Asked if he would back a withdrawal, he said: “We don’t want get in front of the president.

“It just depends on, you know, what we deem is in the best interest of the United States,” he added.

Under the Paris agreement, signatories aim to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 in the hope of reaching the ideal target of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial levels.

The Republicans, with their backing of the oil and gas sectors, offered a contrasting vision of the fight against climate change to many of the delegates and activists attending the COP29 conference.



– Restore US ‘energy dominance’ –



“In our country there’s a blind rush just to eliminate all fossil fuels and I don’t think that’s practical for the developing world or the already industrialised world,” Griffith said.

Texas Congressman August Pfluger, who led the House energy committee delegation, said the US election had sent a clear signal.

“The people in the United States overwhelmingly supported President Donald Trump and his promise to restore American energy dominance,” Pfluger said at a news conference.

When asked about the Paris agreement, Pfluger said American voters “spoke very loud and clear” about their desire to see inflation come under control when they elected Trump on November 5.

“Energy is the foundation of that,” he added.

“If an agreement is going to hurt, if something is going to actually decrease our ability to do that, then we would want to look at that. But that’s for the president to say.”



– ‘Protect’ tax credits –



At the US pavilion in the cavernous stadium housing the conference, Griffith and two other congressmen, including a Democrat, sang the praises of nuclear energy as part of the solutions to lowering global emissions.

Heather Reams, president of the Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions, a conservative non-profit that engages Republicans on climate policy, moderated the panel.

She told AFP that her organisation wants the United States to remain in the Paris agreement as it was “symbolic in a lot of ways for the United States to be a leader” on climate.

US officials and Democrats told COP29 delegates that the hundreds of billions of dollars in tax credits and clean energy investments in Biden’s signature climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act, would cushion the blow from Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris pact.

“We are very supportive of those tax credits,” Reams said.

“We intend to try to protect them and make the case to… the new administration and with Republicans in Congress.”

Pfluger said any parts of the IRA incompatible with the goal of lowering prices for Americans would be “looked at” by the next Republican-led Congress in January.


– ‘Negative’ impact –


On the other side of the US political divide, Democratic Senator Ed Markey said the Biden administration could “get as much of the IRA money out the door as it can” before handing the White House keys to Trump in January.

Fellow Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse said the United States could also deliver its new emissions-reduction target for 2035 to the United Nations before Trump takes office.

But Trump will still have a “negative” impact on climate, the senator told reporters.

Democrats in Congress will have a hard time blocking Trump’s nominees for energy and environment posts as the minority party.

“A good deal of it is out of our hands,” Whitehouse said.



Fragile countries make $20bn climate finance push at COP29, letter says

Reuters Published November 15, 2024 
Emergency physician Joe Vipond, a member of Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE), poses for photographers with a model of the globe as he stands for support of climate agenda during the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP29), in Baku, Azerbaijan on November 15. — Reuters

A group of conflict-affected countries is pushing at COP29 to double financial aid to more than $20 billion a year and combat the natural disaster and security crises facing their populations, a letter seen by Reuters showed.

The group is one of several pitching at the climate talks in Azerbaijan this week for funds to better prepare for the impacts of extreme weather as countries seek to agree to a new annual target on financing.

Island nations, for example, argue climate change threatens their very existence as seas rise, while rainforest nations say they need more money to protect their vast carbon sinks.

Countries mired in conflict and its aftermath say they have struggled to access private investment, as they are seen as too risky. That means UN funds are even more critical to their populations, many of whom have been displaced by war and weather.


In response, the COP29 Azerbaijan Presidency on Friday will launch a new ‘Network of Climate-vulnerable Countries’, including a number of countries that belong to the g7+, an intergovernmental group of fragile countries, which first sent the appeal.

The network aims to advocate as a group with climate finance institutions; build capacity in member states so they can absorb more finance; and create country platforms so investors can more easily find high-impact projects in which to invest, said think tank ODI Global, which helped the countries create the network.

Burundi, Chad, Iraq, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Timor-Leste and Yemen have already joined the initiative, but all 20 members of the g7+ have been invited. “My hope is it will create a real platform for the countries in need,” said Abdullahi Khalif, chief climate negotiator for Somalia on the sidelines of the Baku talks.

The move follows a letter sent by the g7+ to the United Nations, World Bank Group, International Monetary Fund and COP presidencies last month, and shared exclusively with Reuters, asking for more support.

In it, the group demanded an explicit commitment in any final deal on finance at COP29 that would double financing to help them adapt to climate change to at least a collective $20 billion per year by 2026.

While 45 of the world’s least developed countries have their own UN negotiating group, which includes some of the g7+ countries, conflict-affected states face distinct struggles, advocates said.

“A flood situation in South Sudan or Somalia creates more catastrophe than it would in any other developing country,” said Habib Mayar, g7+ deputy general secretary, who helped coordinate the letter.

A child born in South Sudan, which has been mired in war since 2013, was 38 times more likely in 2022 to be internally displaced by climate-related disasters than a European or North American child, according to Unicef data.

Yet conflict-affected countries received only $8.4bn in climate funding in 2022 about a quarter of what was needed, according to a 2024 analysis by ODI Global.

“It’s clear that climate funds aren’t doing enough to support the world’s most climate vulnerable people,” said Mauricio Vazquez, ODI Global’s head of policy for global risks and resilience, said.

Climate ambition gap
Published November 15, 2024 
DAWN

AS the world inches closer to catastrophe, all eyes are on the Conference of Parties (COP) taking place in Baku, Azerbaijan.

The opening speeches from the COP28 UAE presidency, COP29 Azer presidency, and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) executive secretary all made the links between climate action and finance needs.

Climate finance was at the heart of the agenda, with parties eager to discuss means of implementation to support delivery of the Global Stock-take outcome. Political engagement to break the gridlock on the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) will be crucial for countries to enhance ambition on Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) 3.0 to meet mitigation and adaptation targets.

The NDC announcements from the UAE and Brazil are welcome signals from two of the COP troika on their commitments to multilateral climate action. However, the troika countries collectively plan to expand oil and gas production by 32 per cent by 2035 (Brazil 36pc, UAE 34pc, and Azerbaijan 14pc).

With a packed agenda and only two weeks to move the needle on critical and contentious issues, it is important to reflect on facts and figures to develop a better understanding of the state of play and what’s at stake.

It is important to reflect on facts and figures to develop a better understanding of the state of play and what’s at stake.

The report on Doubling Adaptation Finance, released by the developed countries, states that the developed countries provided and mobilised a total of $32.4 billion in adaptation finance in 2022, including a total of $28.9bn in international public finance, an increase of nearly 23pc over 2021 levels and 54pc over 2019 levels. According to the report, significant progress has been made towards doubling adaptation finance from 2019 levels in the first three years of available data, and efforts are on track to reach $40bn by 2025.

The International Energy Agency acknowledges the momentum on decarbonisation, with record rollout of renewable energy and a scaling-up of electric vehicles, but expresses concern that the progress is not enough to keep the 1.5 degrees Celsius threshold alive. The IEA finds that governments are still responsible for around $1 trillion of energy sector investment today and will need to increase net-zero investments by about 40pc by 2035.

The World Meteorological Organisation report outlines that CO2 concentrations have increased 11.4pc in just 20 years, with the long lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere locking in future temperature increase.

The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development reports that in 2022, developed countries provided and mobilised a total of $115.9bn in climate finance for developing countries. This occurred with a delay of two years from the original 2020 target, but public finance accounted for close to 80pc of the total in 2022, and increased from $38bn in 2013 to $91.6bn in 2022. Mitigation continued to account for 60pc of the total and public climate finance grew by 52pc following several years of stagnation.

The Biennial Assessment of Climate Finance Flows prepared by the UNFCCC Standing Committee on Finance states that global climate finance flows in 2021-2022 increased by 63pc compared to those in 2019-2020, reaching an annual average of $1.3tr, and tracked adaptation finance increased by 28pc to an annual average of $63bn in 2021-2022. The report acknowledges that more than half of the global climate finance was provided in the form of debt instruments, while grant finance more than doubled in absolute terms but still accounted for only 6pc of the total flow.

The UN Trade and Development report on the NCQG outlines the climate finance needed from the developed countries to developing countries to meet the Paris Agreement goals. It concludes that the developing countries require $1.1tr in climate finance from 2025, rising to around $1.8tr by 2030. Based on these numbers, developed countries should anticipate a funding equivalent of three quarters of the investments needed in developing countries for climate mitigation and adaptation, as well as supporting response to climate-induced loss and damage.

Accordingly, the NCQG contribution target for developed countries should be around $0.89tr in 2025, reaching up to $1.46tr by the fifth year of implementation. This would imply a target for around 1.4pc of developed countries’ GDP per year from 2025 until 2030, and then reviewed to make it equivalent to around 2pc of developing countries’ GDP.

And finally, the United Nations Environment Programme’s Emissions Gap Report 2024 raises alarm with its findings that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions grew by 1.3pc year-on-year to 57.1 gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2023. The mitigation pledges for 2030-2035 are not on track and need to be 26 gigatons of carbon dioxide lower for a warming limit of 1.5ºC.

Clearly, the ambition gap is widening, the need gap growing and the window of opportunity shrinking. GHG emissions are dangerously high and cash flows dismally small and slow. It is unlikely that COP29 will succeed in issuing a declaration that satisfies everyone. However, the goal of 1.5 still remains within reach but delay in action is not an option.

For Pakistan, the current temperature trends mean an increase in climate-induced hazards, more loss and damage, and a higher risk of sinking deeper into a debt and poverty trap.

It is time to reconcile with reality and accept the fact that total reliance on external support for succour is not a gamble that the country can afford.

Pakistan needs to reset its priorities and align them with the national security policy, making geo-economics and governance reforms its top action agenda. Now is perhaps the last opportunity for making long-term strategic choices to prepare the country for a future with a new socioeconomic and political climate.

The writer is the chief executive of the Civil Society Coalition for Climate Change.
aisha@csccc.org.pk

Published in Dawn, November 15th, 2024

Optimising COP29
Published November 14, 2024 
DAWN

THE global demand for skilled workers in green technologies is growing. This is important for Pakistan, where climate change and environmental degradation are urgent concerns. Green Technical and Vocational Education and Training is vital for developing skills needed to make key industries sustainable. However, substantial challenges remain in fully integrating Green TVET into the national development framework.

With COP29 in Baku focused on climate action and sustainable workforce development, Pakistan has an opportunity to formalise Green TVET strategies. Indeed, the country’s vulnerability to climate change underscores the need for Green TVET. Pakistan is among the top 10 countries most affected by the impact of climate change. It accrues an annual loss of $3.8 billion due to extreme weather events. The industrial and agricultural sectors, contributing more than 40 per cent of GDP and employing over 60pc of the workforce, are heavily reliant on obsolete, environmentally damaging practices, thus making it critical to transition to eco-friendly methods.

However, in adopting Green TVT, Pakistan will face several structural and economic hurdles, one challenge being the absence of a comprehensive national policy connecting green economic goals to vocational training. Although environmental concerns have been partially addressed in the National Climate Change Policy, the latter does not prioritise workforce development for green sectors. This indicates an institutional disconnect with organisations that are attempting to bridge the gap by integrating green skills into their programmes.

Incorporating green skills requires strategic focus and institutional coordination. For instance, the National Vocational and Technical Training Commission has introduced some foundational green skills, aimed at building awareness of sustainable practices. However, these efforts require substantial expansion.


Industry demand for green skills remains low in Pakistan.

At COP29, where global leaders are discussing climate action and workforce development, Pakistan can advocate for Green TVET on an international platform. Efforts of organisations, such as the NAVTTC, could benefit from aligning with frameworks emerging from the climate conference, potentially securing commitments for funding and support from international partners. Such alliances could enable them to expand Green TVET programming and help Pakistan achieve both its climate and economic objectives.

There is also not much awareness of or demand for green skills among employers. Many industries lack an understanding of the benefits of green skills; their motivation to adopt sustainable practices is thus reduced. Critical sectors, including the construction industry and agriculture, still depend on resource-intensive methods, as they perceive the transition costs to be high. For instance, the construction sector, which contributes over 2pc to GDP, often resorts to energy-inefficient practices, while agriculture — the largest employment sector — has been slow to adopt climate-smart techniques.

These challenges deter TVET institutions from investing in green training programmes as industry demand for these skills remains low. Creating awareness and a demand for green skills within industries requires focused outreach and partnerships to educate employers on the long-term economic benefits of sustainable practices.

Many vocational institutions also lack modern equipment, which is essential for teaching technologies, such as those related to solar panel installation or sustainable agriculture practices. Nearly half our TVET institutions are under-resour­c­­ed, highlighting an immediate need to upgrade facilities to meet the demands of a green economy. Securing these up­­grades is challenging as budget allocations are limited. Pakistan’s TVET se­­­ctor receives around 2.5pc of the national education budget, which would need to be scaled up in order to match countries that prioritise vocational training. Private sector investment in green skills training is also minimal, and although international funding options, such as the Green Climate Fund, exist, Pakistan has to do much more to access these resources.

Investing in Green TVET can speed up both economic growth and environmental resilience. By establishing cohesive policies, raising industry awareness, securing funding, and promoting TVET, Pakistan can build a workforce capable of supporting sustainable development in core sectors of the economy. This shift will not only reduce Pakistan’s environmental footprint but also position the country as a proactive participant in the global green economy, aligning with COP29’s objectives and working towards a more sustainable future.

The writer is the chairperson of the National Vocational and Technical Training Commission.

chairperson@navttc.gov.pk

Published in Dawn, November 14th, 2024




COP29 host tries to calm waters after diplomatic turmoil

By AFP
November 14, 2024

Azerbaijan's lead negotiator at COP29 said 'our doors are still open' after France's environment minister cancelled her trip - Copyright AFP/File Alexander NEMENOV


Delphine PAYSANT, Laurent THOMET

Host Azerbaijan tried to bring down the diplomatic temperature in Baku on Thursday after a French minister cancelled her trip to the UN climate talks and Argentina withdrew its delegation.

While negotiators work behind closed doors at the COP29 talks to trash out a climate finance deal, the spotlight has been largely stolen by diplomatic turmoil.

France’s Environment Minister Agnes Pannier-Runacher said Wednesday she would not travel to Baku after Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev accused Paris of colonial “crimes” and “human rights violations” in its overseas territories.

Pannier-Runacher called his speech “unacceptable… and beneath the dignity of the presidency of the COP.”

It was also a “flagrant violation of the code of conduct” for running United Nations climate talks, she added.

Attempting to calm the waters on Thursday, COP29 lead negotiator Yalchin Rafiyev insisted that Azerbaijan had fostered “an inclusive process”.

“We have opened our doors to everybody to come to engage in very constructive, fruitful discussions,” he told reporters.

“Our doors are still open.”

Relations between Paris and Baku have long been tense over France’s support for Azerbaijan’s arch-rival Armenia.

Azerbaijan defeated Armenia in a lightning offensive last year when it retook the breakaway Armenian-populated region of Nagorno-Karabakh — leading to an exodus of more than 100,000 Armenians.



– ‘Diplomatic matter’ –



Aliyev has hailed the victory in remarks to delegates and also raised eyebrows by insisting natural resources including carbon-emitting fossil fuels were a “gift from God”.

The EU’s climate commissioner said the climate talks “should be a place where all parties feel at liberty to come and negotiate.”

“The COP Presidency has a particular responsibility to enable and enhance that,” Wopke Hoekstra posted on X.

Compounding the diplomatic turmoil, Argentina’s delegation was abruptly pulled from the talks.

An environment ministry source confirmed the departure but declined to offer more detail.

Argentina’s anti-establishment President Javier Milei has made no secret of his scepticism of climate change and is an ally of newly reelected former US president Donald Trump.

While Argentina’s delegation was small, its departure “is unprecedented in the country’s diplomatic history”, said Oscar Soria, an Argentine environmental activist and director of the Common Initiative.

Rafiyev declined to be drawn on the departure, terming it a “diplomatic matter between Argentina and the UN”.

“We hope that all who are attending here have only one intention, to come to join us in this collective effort to get an outcome that is positive,” he added.



– ‘Some uncertainty’ –



But progress on the key goal of the talks — a new climate finance deal — is proving grindingly slow.

The main fault line is clear: how much should developed countries pay to help poorer nations adapt to climate change and transition away from fossil fuels.

Rich nations are reluctant to spend much more than the $100-billion a year already committed, conscious of domestic publics angry about inflation and stuttering economies.

But developing countries warn they need at least $1 trillion to defend against the ravages of climate change and meet commitments to reach net-zero emissions.

Sources described ongoing discussions as difficult, with negotiators struggling to wrestle a draft text into a reasonable form before ministers arrive in a few days to start nailing down a deal.

“At this pace we won’t be able to deliver something meaningful by Saturday as initially requested by the presidency,” warned Fernanda de Carvalho, climate policy lead at WWF.

Hanging over proceedings is the question of what role the United States will play on climate action and funding after Trump returns to the White House in January.

He has pledged to again withdraw from the landmark Paris agreement, raising questions about how much US negotiators can really promise and deliver in Baku.

“I think it’s fair to say that there’s some uncertainty in the next administration,” conceded Jake Levine, the White House’s senior director for climate and energy.

But the need to “project American values” would be a powerful driver for continued climate funding and action despite Trump’s return, he added.

“We cannot cede the playing field to China, to our competitors… So I think that you will see a continued American presence.”