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

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/18628816

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

  • solo@slrpnk.netEnglish
    12·
    9 hours ago

    Just keep in mind that renewable energy is not really implemented for sustainability, but mainly for profit. Also, due to capitalism the energy consumption keeps increasing. Take a look at this chart. Oil energy consumption keeps increasing, coal has not plateaued yet - none of them is decreasing for sure. So far, there is no renewable energy transition because renewable energy is just being added, it does not replace energy coming from extractive industries.

    It is equally important to keep our eyes open to how renewable projects are legislated and executed, and in the same time continue to evolve them. This evolution should take into consideration things like habitat disruptions (earth, sea, air), mining, wastes produced, to name just a few.

    • nahostdeutschland@feddit.orgEnglish
      3·
      7 hours ago

      Try searching for the correct charts. You are talking about global prime energy consumption and it makes sense that this is growing in a world with a growing population, enormous economic growth in China and India and so on.

      But if you take a look at Europe: Primary energy consumption has been sinking since 2006 from 18,997 TWh to 15,662TWh in 2023:

      https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/primary-energy-cons?tab=chart&country=OWID_EU27~OWID_AFR

      The share of fossil fuels is also decreasing:

      https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/fossil-fuels-share-energy?tab=chart&country=~OWID_EU27

      So this does work.

        • nahostdeutschland@feddit.orgEnglish
          3·
          6 hours ago

          I’ve actually read the Greenpeace report the article is based on and that doesn’t mention your point.

          https://www.greenpeace.org/static/planet4-mena-stateless/2025/02/ce97182f-beyond-extractivism_-towards-a-feminist-and-just-economic-transition-in-morocco-and-egypt-report-eng.pdf

          It is actually really a strange report:

          In the context of the greentransition,green colonialism- the continuationof colonialrelationsof plunderand dispossessionin the era of renewableenergies. Europeaninvestmentsin renewableenergy,greenhydrogenandagriculturemeet Europe’sresourcedemandsandmaintainthe growth-basedWesternlifestyle,while imposingecologicaland socialsacrificeson GlobalSouthcountries.Thisdynamic creates"sacrificezones",where local populationsbear the impactsof Europe’s energyandconsumptionneedswith little benefi

          I’m not sure why Greenpeace came to this while talking about projects that are building solar farms in the desert.

          • solo@slrpnk.netEnglish
            13·
            6 hours ago

            Ok. Well, I suppose if you read this summary and still wonder, I don’t think I can say something in a few sentences to make its content more clear.

            • nahostdeutschland@feddit.orgEnglish
              3·
              6 hours ago

              I know what they are saying. I just don’t think that building a solar farm in Morocco is really colonialist and would push them to still use fossil fuels as claimed. Go to google maps, search for those projects mentioned in the Guardian article and they are being build in the literal desert with enough space around:

              https://www.google.com/maps/search/Noor+3+solar+power+station,+Ouarzazate/@31.0343835,-6.8871281,12839m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDIxOS4xIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

              However the article is claiming:

              European countries are extracting renewable energy from Morocco and Egypt to “greenwash” their own economies, while leaving north Africans reliant on dirty imported fuels and paying the environmental costs, a Greenpeace report says.

              But why?

              • solo@slrpnk.netEnglish
                13·
                4 hours ago

                I asked you to read the article to make obvious why some charts for Europe are actually kinda rigged. (Edit: Energy consumption from fossil fuel may look “good” for europe, but at what cost for other places) And btw, it was not by mistake that I used the global chart. So from the article:

                both Egypt and Morocco also remain net importers of fossil fuel energy, buying in large quantities of oil and gas to fuel their own economies, while selling their cleaner energy to Europe,

                I thought I would be clear why it is so bad to do these projects where water is scarce. From the article

                Greenpeace’s report argues that European-backed renewable and lower-carbon projects producing energy for export are hampering the two countries’ ability to decarbonise their own economies, displacing local populations and consuming millions of litres of fresh water, in some cases in environments where it was already scarce.

                In relation to your question but why?, for me the answer is the rest of the article and from the summary you mentioned in the following sections which I will not copy-paste:

                • Extractivism and Neocolonialism in the Global South

                • Morocco and Egypt: From extractivism to green colonialism

                I’m sorry, I don’t know what else to say.

                • nahostdeutschland@feddit.orgEnglish
                  1·
                  4 hours ago

                  Yeah, and I’m talking about solar farms, which do not use any water at all. Maybe some to clean the panels, but that is exactly my issue here: The article is throwing stuff together that really doesn’t belong together. Buying gas from Egypt is different than building a solar farm or building industrial hydrogen plants or importing agricultural products.

    • Hotznplotzn@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
      2·
      5 hours ago

      Just keep in mind that renewable energy is not really implemented for sustainability, but mainly for profit. Also, due to capitalism the energy consumption keeps increasing.

      What do you understand by capitalism? China -a self-defined socialist country- is almost a role model for what goes wrong in the fight for climate change in the way you are describing. China’s fossil fuel production and consumption are outpacing its increase in renewable energy and that is the reason why the country is -contrary what Beijing’s propaganda wants the world make to believe- desperately failing in its climate policy.

      I don’t know of these particular European/African projects’ environmental impacts, but I don’t question them either. But this has nothing to do with ‘capitalism’ or any perceived societal model.

      Edit: This world map gives a first view where our global fight against climate change stands. (Hint: ‘Capitalist’ Europe is not good and must do a lot more, but we are far ahead in the path compared to others.)

      Second edit: After a closer look into the study itself, I have to revise my opinion from above and say it is quite generic at best. The study authors are citing exclusively secondary sources, there appear to be no own research, and even the report says that European investments in the African countries are -though substantial- only a fraction of the total foreign direct investments (in case of Egypt, for example, it is 25%). They don’t even say where the rest comes from. Europe can always do better, sure, but this whole study is just a sequence of mostly web sources assembled to foster a certain narrative imo.

      • solo@slrpnk.netEnglish
        11·
        6 hours ago

        What do you understand by capitalism?

        Briefly, an economic system that is based on private entities controlling the production. Infinite growth is part of it. The role of government differs depending from one school of thought to an other but the tendencies are from minimal to none interventions of the government. Of course I could go on, but I thought of keeping it short.

        China -a self-defined socialist country-

        Well, to my knowledge, for several decades now they have been calling it, Socialist Market Economy and the rest of the world knows it’s just a market economy.

        Btw what is socialism to you?