4.6.5 Winners and losers: sacrifice zones

PTP interventions that succeed in accelerating a reduction in GHG emissions by, for example, a switch to renewable electricity using batteries that require rare earth metals, or by expanding natural carbon sinks, could reduce access to food, livelihoods and land for vulnerable communities (Mehrabi et al., 2018). The tendency for PTPs to benefit some people while (intentionally or unintentionally) excluding others creates sacrifice zones. Well-intentioned interventions have the potential to put severe pressure on lands held by Indigenous and marginalised communities and reshape their ecologies into ‘green sacrifice zones’ by reproducing a form of climate colonialism in the name of just transitions Zografos and Robbins, 2020

Climate colonialism involves addressing the climate crisis through the continued domination of less powerful countries and peoples through initiatives that intensify foreign exploitation of their resources or undermine the sovereignty of Indigenous peoples and local communities (Sultana, 2022). Green sacrifice zones refer to ecologies, places and populations that will be severely affected by the sourcing, transportation, installation and operation of solutions for powering low-carbon transitions, as well as end-of-life treatment of related material waste (Zografos and Robbins, 2020). Such sacrifice zones are not random, but carefully chosen within a power dynamic of colonial paradigms, worldviews and technologies that reduce life by equating it to a mere capitalist resource (Gómez-Barris, 2017). 

The root causes of harm are often obscured when Western knowledge and technocratic interventions are prioritised over others, but there is an emerging governance of the impacts of loss and damage that need to be taken up by decision makers (Jackson et al., 2023). One critical aspect is to shift the focus away from individual action (Newell, Twena & Daley, 2021) that places responsibility for change on those with least agency, and towards tackling the ‘polluter elite’ (Kenner, 2019; Wiedmann et al., 2020) and the infrastructure of high-impact sectors such as food and energy production, transport and housing that, combined, comprise about 75 per cent of total carbon footprints (Newell, Twena & Daley, 2021). In this, the PTP agenda could have a significant impact if it maintains reflection on who is being asked to change and why in order to drive nonlinear change.