Greenwashing, Sportswashing, and Who is Deemed Worthy of Sacrifice
Photo by Davi Mendes on Unsplash
This year, in the span of just a few months, two major international events are taking place that seem to hold little in common: The UN Climate Change Conference of Parties (COP) and the FIFA World Cup. Indeed, while most of the public does not follow climate politics and has little knowledge of COPs, the World Cup gathers the attention of millions. COPs involve political leaders, lobbyists, and activists, while the World Cup involves footballers and fans.
And yet, there is at least one clear similarity between them: they both illustrate how powerful institutions, including governments and private organizations, deem some groups worthy of protection, and others, sacrifice. Very often, the latter are migrants, mostly from low-income countries in the Global South, poor, or standing up for justice. Both events also bring together large corporations and millions of dollars (in fact, in this year’s COP27 fossil fuel lobbyists outnumbered almost every national delegation).
In the climate world, sacrifice zones are labeled as such because “the health and safety of people in these communities is being effectively sacrificed for the economic gains and prosperity of others.” In the United States, “sacrifice zones” are located near pollution hot spots and are usually communities of color.
At the international level, it is at COPs that decisions are made that affect who is going to bear the brunt of climate change, decisions framed by the reality that those most impacted are the least responsible. Last year, a grouping of nations known as ‘G77 plus China’, representing 85% of the world’s population, urged the COP to establish a Loss and Damage Facility (this article explains loss and damages, more below). It was blocked by the US and Europe.
As my colleagues at the Othering & Belonging Institute put it, “our glocal (global & local) economy requires the creation of local and global sacrifice zones and disposable communities. This means some people, places and ecosystems are othered and treated as worthy of sacrifice in the name of profit. Overwhelmingly, these sacrifice zones and their burdens follow lines of colonial history, anti-Black and anti-Indigenous prejudice, poverty, and patriarchy.” (see OBI’s principles for the Climate Crisis here).
Sacrifice zones, or rather, decisions and processes by which certain people are deemed disposable, extend beyond the climate space, as this year’s COP27 and the World Cup illustrate. The World Cup may not be an “environmental event” (although it does have environmental impacts), yet for it to take place thousands of people have been abandoned or exploited, people coming from other countries from the Global South.
The COP (COP27) is taking place in Egypt, an autocratic state, where crackdowns on civil society and activists are well documented. According to Human Rights Watch, “authorities harass and detain relatives of dissidents abroad and use vague “morality” charges to prosecute LGBT people, female social media influencers, and survivors of sexual violence.” Human rights violations range from arbitrary detention to extrajudicial killings. While Egypt has relaxed some of its censoring and tight grip on human rights defenders and activists for the COP, as Naomi Klein warned us in October, we are witnessing a greenwashing of a police state. In fact, crackdown targeting “anyone the authorities accuse of seeking to join demonstrations” has continued during the COP, and civil society organizations report increased surveillance and intimidation by the Egyptian authorities.
The World Cup will take place in Qatar, a semi-constitutional monarchy regarded as not free by Freedom House (Qatar’s hereditary emir holds all executive and legislative authority, and ultimately controls the judiciary as well). According to Amnesty International, in Qatar “migrant workers continued to face labor abuses and struggled to change jobs freely. Curtailment of freedom of expression increased in the run-up to FIFA World Cup 2022. Women and LGBTI people continued to face discrimination in law and practice.” As this article in the NYTimes puts it, it is migrant workers “who fuel the ruthlessly capitalist business of supply and demand that does much of the daily and dangerous work in searing heat of the Persian Gulf [...] It is a group so anonymous that, to this day, no one is able to agree on how many of its members died to get the World Cup across the finish line.”
Many are putting the spotlight on gross human rights violations and on the hypocrisy and moral dilemmas that accompany large international conferences and sports events. These occasions also present an opportunity to reflect on who we are leaving behind, how, and why. Oftentimes these human rights violations are not arbitrary or at random, are not just towards specific individuals.
At the heart of many of the COP negotiations lie decisions that impact who bears the brunt of the climate crisis. According to the IPCC report, West, Central and East Africa, South Asia, Central and South America, Small Island Developing States and the Arctic are the regions that will experience the most adverse impacts of climate change (and populations living in informal settlements the most impacted.)
In order to confront that reality, many nations and activists—spearheaded by the Global South—are arguing for financial mechanisms that include loss and damages. Loss and damages refer to the physical and economic costs that developing countries – which have least contributed to climate change – are suffering. Loss and damages are akin to reparations and are intended to flow from the Global North to the Global South and recognize the uneven responsibilities for the climate crisis (for an excellent podcast on loss and damages this one by Outrage & Optimism). Expectations on the outcomes (and implementation) of agreements at COPs are low, but there are some reasons for optimism.
The energy transition presents many challenges, as Egyptian filmmaker and writer Omar Robert Hamilton asks, “the question of the energy transition becomes far more complicated for those living under authoritarian regimes. If the world is to transition to new systems of energy power, can it also transition to new systems of political power? Seen in this way, the energy transition becomes both a tremendous political opportunity and a terrifying prospect. A rapid transition away from fossil fuels could collapse authoritarian regimes from Angola to Algeria to Azerbaijan. Or, it could be the foundation of an era of plentiful, centrally controlled, domestic, renewable power for the governments and corporations that are fast enough to adapt.”
As COP27 draws to a close and the World Cup is almost upon us, as it becomes increasingly clear that we will miss the 1.5°C climate target (read this for more on this topic), one dreams that notions of belonging inform the actions and discussions, that the circle of human concern is encompassing in a way that does not contemplate any people or places as worthy of sacrifice. That as we move forward, and sans naiveté or utopian thinking, enact an analytic lens in policymaking that ensures that no groups, particularly those most marginalized, are made disposable for the health, wealth, and enjoyment of others, and that considers how we integrate belonging in the events, laws, and policies that are advanced.
In other news…
Horrible displays of racism at the French parliament from the Rassemblement National. For all of their rebranding and whitewashing, authoritarian populists are who they are.
Public Agenda has just released its Political Alienation Barometer. According to this study, nearly one in three Americans are completely politically alienated.
This wonderful report by Africa Climate Mobility Initiative (let me emphasize that it is worth checking, even the visuals are stunning) shines light on what climate change means in terms of mobility for the continent. Based on these data, “The number of people moving to seek protection and better livelihoods will increase from 1.5% of Africa’s population today to as many as 5% by 2050. This amounts to about 113 million people.” Movement across borders is expected to be minimal in comparison to absolute numbers.
We are now 8 billion people in the world, this article discusses overpopulation and why low-income countries are not the problem, “Overall, the world’s wealthiest 1% account for 15% of the world’s carbon emissions. That’s more than double the emissions of the poorest 50% of the planet – who are the most vulnerable to climate change. Prince William, for instance, has linked African population growth to wildlife loss – even though he has three children and comes from a family with a carbon footprint almost 1,600 times higher than the average Nigerian family”.
A new survey reveals that European countries are likely to fall short on its 2030 goals to reduce poverty amongst the Roma community.
And for the soul…
Molly Joyce is a …, in her new album, she layers “spoken interviews about the experience of disability with pulsing minimalist fugues, Perspective is a powerful work of love and empathy that underscores the poison of ableism in American culture.”
Tender Photo is a newsletter on African photography. Each week, it features “one photograph and the photographer who took it. You’ll read a short introductory note from me, and more importantly, a statement from the photographer.”
Connecting the Dots: Musings on Bridging and Belonging is a bi-monthly column by Míriam Juan-Torres. In it, Míriam reflects on current events, connecting the trends and considering the specificities across countries, applying a bridging and belonging lens and translating concepts from academia for a wider audience. In Connecting the Dots, Míriam carefully curates readings and resources to further expand our understanding and shed light on the complexities of our time. Join our mailing list to stay up to date on the latest of the Democracy & Belonging Forum's curated analysis from Miriam and more.
Editor's note: The ideas expressed in this blog are not necessarily those of the Othering & Belonging Institute or UC Berkeley, but belong to the authors.