Is the Global Green New Deal too eurocentric?

Though colonialism is no longer exercised, imperialism still persists in underdeveloped and developing countries to some extent. Colonialists are expanding their hegemony by leveraging the deficient government structure, weak economies, and domestic unrest that are prevalent in their former colonies, to control those countries' politics, economies and markets.

The planet's integrity and adaptability are in jeopardy for climate change. The neoliberal expansion of the global market and subsequent hyper-industrialisation led to the creation of artificial demands, increasing the emission of CO2 by industries; leading to climate change. It is putting human lives at risk, through more frequent and destructive natural disasters.

To resolve the climate crisis, achieving net zero emissions was highlighted in the Paris Agreement. 196 countries agreed upon reducing greenhouse gas emissions and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. 

President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen recently announced their $270Bn green deal

Then there is the Global Green New Deal (GGND). As noted economist Robert Pollin said,  the Global Green New Deal describes the promotion of a global effort to achieve key IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) objectives in a manner which also increases access to decent professions and improves the quality of living for the world's struggling classes and marginalised people.

The GGND's goal is to decarbonise the global economy as quickly as possible by investing substantially in green technologies and making vast quantities of renewables available, all the while addressing racial, class, and gender barriers. It would change energy, food, and political economies. 

GGND is now an important phenomenon influencing climate change debate and politics, inspiring panic, curiosity, distress, or opportunity. With its promises of a solution to address the socioeconomic and ecological issues plaguing the North, the GGND has replaced the previous climate narrative, which included Southern demands for climate reparations and developmental rights. That is, the GGND has developed into a green platform for the Eurocentric social democratic renaissance.

Targeting net-zero emissions is still not being seen as achievable due to the high cost and potential disruption of eliminating existing sources of emissions. Alongside, while populist climate mobilisations gain velocity every day, the bourgeois hegemony is also thriving. Consequently, the potential for a fair transition to a carbon-negative world seems unlikely. 

Importers are encouraging RMG exporting countries to switch to greener production practices. Despite encouraging green factories and leveraging their brand to attract more consumers, they are reluctant to pay the additional cost of RMGs. That seems unethical, as well as hegemonic

For example, what Goodman and Salleh described in 2013, capitalism has seen an opportunity in the "climate crisis," it aims to co-opt the emerging "green economy" to save the collapsing financial sector. Notably, several multinational companies have offered technological solutions to the climate crisis. 

The global West emits the largest volume of carbon while the East is the most damaged by climate catastrophe. Again, while developed countries have undertaken initiatives to limit emissions, less developed countries are struggling to confront the situation.

That is, countries being disproportionately affected by climate change also lack the financial capability as well as expertise and capacity in terms of technology and infrastructure development that is necessary to mitigate and adapt to the climate crisis. 

On the other hand, the West is becoming a new-tech powerhouse thanks to increased interconnectivity, trade, and transfer of technology, knowledge, products, capital, and services, making them a worldwide frontrunner in climate change action.  

When occidental corporations take charge of the renewable energy sector this would add a layer of complexities towards the transformation of GGND. Inadequate technologies, lack of skilled technologists and technical knowledge remain commonplace in vulnerable states, notably amongst the world's smallest states. As a direct consequence of this, the hegemony of monopoly capital may readily develop in their marketplace.

To withstand natural catastrophes, countries which are desperately poor often seek to borrow funds from bourgeois countries. Accordingly, they are at risk of slipping into the debt trap, which imposes perpetual stress both on their economy and security.

Furthermore, to lessen their carbon footprint, Westerners are reportedly relocating ecologically damaging industries, notably Ready-Made Garments (RMG) and manufacturing factories, to underdeveloped countries. This may create scope for more job facilities but would also result in environmental degradation and increased carbon emissions within those underdeveloped countries.

After the European Union and European Parliament decided to set up the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) for carbon neutrality by the end of 2022, low-capital countries found themselves in a tricky situation.

According to CBAM, imported products' carbon content calculations will include indirect emissions from energy generation. Thus, Western importers are encouraging RMG exporting countries to switch to greener production practices. Despite encouraging green factories and leveraging their brand to attract more consumers, they are however reluctant to pay the additional cost of RMGs, which seems unethical, as well as hegemonic.

Furthermore, how will vulnerable countries move from fossil fuel to carbon-free energy and advancements without capital?

First, the GGND has to recognise that capitalist solutions to capitalist problems are unrealistic. The net-zero approach would necessitate a yearly rise of $3.5 trillion in expenses on tangible assets, which would equate to about $275 trillion by 2050. 

The GGND will fail to avert global ecological and socioeconomic collapse if it screws up the inherent challenges. These challenges include the hegemony of growth-led "development" and the non-linearity of rationalist "Western" ways of life, which should be replaced by social activism and struggles for political change. 

The GGND cannot guarantee peace and stability, equality, and ecological sustainability without systemic transformation. It cannot become a vision without an economic structure wherein equality is regarded more seriously than authority. 

Countries that are responsible for global warming must establish compensation requirements for nations based on their fossil fuel consumption. The wealthier nations, for instance, promised to pay $100 billion by 2020 to tackle climate change. Although some countries had agreed upon loss and damage-based funds for vulnerable countries in COP27, it is not good enough. 

In conclusion, hegemony is thriving, and government and international agencies should adopt people-centric policies against this backdrop. Furthermore, corporations involved in the production of fossil fuels as well as other greenhouse gases ought to be subject to carbon tax. 

Most importantly, we must work selflessly together to end our reliance on fossil fuels and instead embrace renewable energy sources and carbon neutrality, by putting in practice the actual Global Green New Deal.

Sauid Ahmed Khan is a freelance contributor and a graduate of the Department of Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Dhaka.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard.