Environmentalism or Neo-colonialism?

There is a constant debate about whether environmentalism is the new form of colonialism of the South. This is with good reason as the two share similar qualities and their goals may also seem the same. However, their goals are quite different.

The opponents of the globalization of environmentalism consistently use arguments comparing environmentalists to colonizers like Columbus, the French, or the British. This is true to an extent, as modern environmentalism is a western ideal.

The movement started in the late 19th/early 20th century in America. It was a movement developed by the upper-class, white males, most notably Theodore Roosevelt. However, this wasn’t about cutting down on waste like the environmentalism we know. This idea was mostly conservationist; keeping forest spaces thriving so that men could get away from society and hunt and be free. The movement transformed in the 1960s with events like Earth Day and ideas like Sustainability, which promoted cutting out our waste rather than focusing on conserving small spaces for the environment.

When Climate Change started to become a prevalent issue the original blame was put on the developed countries as they were the ones who produced. The first-world nations made strides to cut down their emissions and trying to halt climate change. This eventually led to developing countries becoming the producers of goods and most pollutants. Developing countries also have a lot of traditional people who live off the land, and these people are beginning to have a significant effect on their countries ecosystem. Now, these developing countries are facing pressure to stop emitting GHGs and become environmentally friendly. The issue with this is that these nations are economically dependent on these modes of production, or have no other option than living off the land.

This is where we start to see the parallels between colonialism and modern environmentalism. On one side we have individuals who are used to a certain way of life or need their surroundings to simply survive. On the other side we have a group that are trying to impose their ideals and way of life on another culture because they feel it is their duty. This white man’s burden was the primary force driving colonialism behind Africa. This idea of saving a culture from itself is what many believe led to the decimation of the African people and their traditional culture. Westerners are trying to imprint their ideals onto the people of developing nations, and many deem that as unfair. An example of this can be seen in Giles-Vernick’s book. She tells the story of how kids have educational programs that are teaching them forest conservation. Despite this, she believes that it will have no effect as the older generations still follow the same practices that are harmful to wildlife and the environment. There’s also a sense of irony of developing nations being forced to stop exploiting resources by developed nations, as they are the ones who colonized these southern countries and forced them to develop modes of production.

While it may seem unfair for Western, developed nations to pressure developing countries to adopt these environmental values, it’s beneficial in the long run. It may seem unfair that developed countries became successful through environmental harmful means, but it makes sense. If the world allowed all nations to develop through industrialization the rate of climate change would increase significantly. We need to teach these people more sustainable ways so that the world can continue to thrive environmentally and economically.

Instead of telling developing nations to stop harming the environment, we developing nations need to offer them alternatives. With safer modes of production, alternative forms of energy, and more sustainable exports we can hope to reduce global emissions and halt climate change.