Countries like the UK are seeking further trade deals to gain unfettered access to parts of the green technology supply chain that cannot be brought domestically, such as critical minerals such as lithium, cobalt and copper. This serves to externalize the severe human and ecological costs of critical mineral extraction to the lands and communities already most affected by the climate crisis.
weaponization
These metals and minerals are the core of the new dual world transformation. Trade liberalization may be imposed on the resource-rich poor, while large countries may be exempted from liberalization. However, the new status quo has not yet taken hold.
Some countries in the Global South have decided to rise up and control the terms of access to mineral resources. Indonesia banned exports of raw materials to expand local processing, Mexico nationalized its lithium sector and Panama closed a copper mine that sparked outrage over land grabbing. and the destruction of ecosystems.
In response, rich countries are relying on poorer resource-rich countries to export raw materials, rather than coordinating fair and equitable global governance for the resources we all need to face the challenges of global climate change. It uses trade rules as a weapon to bind itself to its role as a country.
To protect the latter, we need to expose the very real mechanisms of colonialism, the logic of exploitation, and corporate capture of the “green transition” within the cocoon of trade agreements.
We are confident that the new Critical Minerals Agreement, which governments are calling for, will contain and use the same old provisions that have historically devastated nascent industries in poor countries: export restrictions, subsidies, and bans on domestic product requirements. It is necessary to oppose banning. It is a policy tool that they are using for the domestic green industry.
deprivation
We need to force governments to abandon ISDS in all agreements. Because it is being used by mining giants not only to prevent the phasing out of fossil fuels, but also to deter or punish countries seeking resource sovereignty and to force companies to reap the sole benefits of the transition. .
And they must deal with intellectual property rules that mean countries have to pay ransoms to wealthy patent owners to access critical green technologies.
The demilitarization of trade must proceed in parallel with other major economic changes, such as taxes, debt, and finance. Better distribution of the profits from critical mineral extraction alone has limitations in addressing the capture of local elites, ecological damage, and dispossession of indigenous land.
But pulling teeth from the looming new deal will help level the global playing field, and countries like the UK will see significant reductions in material usage, energy efficiency and a mobility revolution. It will force an urgent debate on demand-side solutions such as a transport revolution. Circular economy.
There are realities in the global economy that need to be dismantled through a web of trade rules to make space for this radical ecological future.
this author
Cleodie Rickard is Policy and Campaigns Manager at Global Justice Now.