In the first case, they are mainly food products, hydrocarbons and minerals such as copper, gold, silver, tin, bauxite and zinc, while in the second, in addition to the minerals mentioned, the focus of interest falls in the so-called critical minerals for the energy transition such as lithium, cobalt, graphite, indium, among others, and rare earths.
In both cases, the extraction and export of
Phone Number List materials have catastrophic consequences in terms of ecological destruction and generation of dependency. However, as German sociologist Kristina Dietz argues22, a key aspect that differentiates green extractivism from neo-extractivism is the discourse used to legitimize the former, since the actors who promote it claim that it is sustainable and that it is the only possible way to confront the climate emergency.

Decarbonize yes, but with geopolitical justice For decarbonization to emerge from this perverse logic, it is necessary to decommodify and decolonize it through a structural contestation. Any hypothesis of a just and comprehensive ecosocial transition must face this challenge and cannot be anchored only in the local level as is often the case but must also consider the geopolitical level as a priority. This implies incorporating the imperative of degrowth on the part of the global North, as well as the ecological debt it owes to the people of the South, seeking to generate bridges between actors and critical diagnoses in pursuit of global ecological justice.