51吃瓜

In a fit of madness, or just plain desperation, you鈥檝e enrolled in a get-rich-quick scheme. All you have to do is sell some products, sign up some friends, make some phone calls. Follow that simple formula and you鈥檒l soon be pulling in tens of thousands of dollars a month 鈥� or so you鈥檝e been promised anyway. And if you sell enough products, you鈥檒l be invited into the Golden Circle, which offers yet more perks like free concert tickets and trips to Las Vegas.

Still, I鈥檓 sure you won鈥檛 be surprised to learn that there鈥檚 a catch. If you don鈥檛 sell a pile of products or sign up a ton of friends to do the same, the odds are that you鈥檒l end up losing money, no matter how hard you work, especially if you take out loans to build your 鈥渂usiness.鈥�

The founders of multi-level marketing schemes always make a lot of money. Some of their friends become wealthy, too. But of those who sell the products, whether cosmetics or dietary supplements, lose money. That鈥檚 worse than a conventional pyramid scam, which fleeces only nine out of every 10 people involved.

Now, imagine that you鈥檙e a poor country. The international financial institutions (IFIs) promise that, if you follow a simple formula, you, too, will become a wealthy nation. In a fit of desperation or madness, you take out loans from those same IFIs and commercial banks, invest in building up your export industries and cut back on government regulations. Then you wait for the good news.

But of course, there鈥檚 a catch. You have to sell a staggering number of exports to actually make money. Meanwhile, you have to repay those loans, while covering the compounding interest payments that accompany them. Soon you鈥檙e caught in a debt trap and falling ever further behind the wealthy countries of the Global North. The main winners? The corporations that flooded into your country in search of tax incentives, cheap labor and lax manufacturing and mining regulations.

The nation-states that founded the modern global economy have indeed made tons of money, as have some of their friends and allies. Despite the devastation of World War II, for instance, Japan was able to scramble up the ladder again to join the treehouse club of powerful nations. Meanwhile, in a single generation, South Korea鈥檚 economy was transformed from the per capita of a Ghana or Haiti in 1960 into one of the world鈥檚 most powerful by the 1980s. In Latin America, Chile, Colombia and Costa Rica all managed to join South Korea in the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, a collection of the planet鈥檚 38 most prosperous countries.

But in 2023, there鈥檚 a catch to climbing that ladder into the industrialized world. As the board of directors of the club of the wealthy points out, the classic ladder of development, industrialization itself, has become rickety and ever more dangerous. After all, it requires energy traditionally supplied by fossil fuels, now known to radically heat up the planet and endanger the very survival of humanity. Today, countries aspiring to join the charmed circle of the wealthy can no longer hope to climb that ladder in any usual fashion, thanks in part to the carbon-neutrality pledges virtually all nations made as part of the Paris climate accord.

The Global South is divided on how to respond. For instance, as the world鈥檚 consumer of coal and consumer of oil, India wants to grow in the old-fashioned fossil-fuelized way, becoming the last one up that ladder, even as its rungs are disintegrating. Other countries, like renewables-reliant and carbon-neutral , are exploring more sustainable paths to progress.

Either way, with global temperatures setting ever more extreme and inequality worsening, poor countries face their last shot at following South Korea and Qatar into the ranks of the 鈥渄eveloped鈥� world. They may fail, along with the rest of us on this overheating planet, or perhaps one or two might get lucky and make it into the club. However, with some clever negotiating, judicious leveraging of resources and a lot of solidarity, it鈥檚 just possible that they could team up to rewrite the very rules of the global economy and achieve a measure of prosperity for all.

Growing inequality

The boosters of globalization point to a of inequality among nations between 1980 and 2020, largely because of the explosive economic growth of China and other Asian countries like Vietnam. However, those boosters often fail to mention two important facts: in 2020, such inequality was still as it had been in 1900 when colonialism was in full swing. Meanwhile, in recent decades, inequality within countries has skyrocketed. Since 1995, in fact, the top 1% of the wealthiest among us have accumulated that of the bottom 50%.

The Covid pandemic only made matters worse. According to one estimate, it threw into extreme poverty, while increasing the wealth of billionaires more rapidly in just two pandemic years than in the previous combined.

And mind you, the super-rich no longer reside only in the prosperous 鈥淣orth.鈥� China and India now have after the United States. The consolidation of obscene wealth alongside abject poverty is one reason inequality has risen more rapidly within countries than between them.

But something else strange is happening. In addition to making the ladder of fossil-fuelized industrialization more difficult to climb, climate change has been pushing the architects of the global economy to rethink their animus toward state intervention. Accelerating as it is due to a fundamentalist faith in markets, climate change may also be delivering the to neoliberalism.

Climate debts

During the Industrial Revolution and the ensuing century and a half of global economic expansion, the countries of the North grew wealthy by exploiting oil, natural gas and coal. In doing so, they pumped trillions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Poorer countries generally supplied the raw materials for that 鈥渕iracle of progress鈥� 鈥� at first involuntarily, thanks to colonialism, and then more-or-less voluntarily through trade.

From 1751 to 2021, the United States was responsible for fully of all carbon emissions, with the members of the European Union in second place at 22% (followed by China, India, Japan, Russia and other major powers). On the other hand, Africa, Latin America, Southeast Asia and Oceania have collectively contributed only a of those emissions over time. Of the existing carbon budget 鈥� the amount the world can emit without crossing the 1.5 掳C red line set by the Paris climate accord 鈥� only remain. That鈥檚 approximately what had emitted by 2021 while muscling its way into the clubhouse of the rich and powerful.

The wealthy club members have all now embarked on transitions to 鈥渃lean energy.鈥� The European Union鈥檚 鈥溾�� aims to reduce its carbon emissions by 55% by 2030. The Biden administration pushed through the deceptively named Inflation Reduction Act to incentivize states, corporations and individuals to move away from fossil fuels, so that the United States could become carbon-neutral by 2050. In both cases, the state is playing a much more active role in guiding the transition than would have been tolerated in the heyday of Thatcherism or Reaganism (or, today, Trumpism).

The Global South, which bears little responsibility for the climate mess the planet faces, doesn鈥檛 have the necessary billions of dollars to devote to 鈥渃lean energy transitions.鈥� So, because climate change knows no borders, in 2010, the richer countries promised to contribute $100 billion a year to fund 鈥渕itigation鈥� (emissions reductions) in the Global South. However, that promise has proved to be 鈥� the perfect image for our overheated moment 鈥� mostly hot air. Ten years later, according to Oxfam, the wealthy nations have managed to mobilize at most in real assistance annually.

Meanwhile, climate change is wreaking havoc in the here and now. Though Canadian wildfires and European heat waves have dominated the climate headlines in the North this summer, the effects of climate change are actually being disproportionately felt of the equator. According to one estimate, by 2030, developing countries will be hit with climate bills of between annually.

Last year, rich countries made another pledge of money, this time to a 鈥渓oss and damage fund鈥� to compensate poor nations for the ongoing impacts of climate change. Those funds, however, have yet to come into existence, while the desperately poor countries of the Global South the next round of climate negotiations 鈥� in oil-rich Dubai of all places 鈥� to find out how much is involved, from whom and for whom.

Promises, promises.

So far, the poorer countries have been shaking their tin cups outside the meetings of the powerful, hoping that some loose change will eventually trickle down to them. But there may be another way.

Global just transition

The fossil-fuel-free future the Global North is touting depends on critical materials like lithium, cobalt and rare earth elements to build electric batteries, solar panels and windmills. Most of these essential assets are located in the South. In one of those ironies of history, the economic development of the North once again depends significantly on what lies beneath the ground (and ) south of the equator. In this brave new world of 鈥�,鈥� the North is maneuvering to grab such needed resources at the lowest price possible, in part by perpetuating for the poor the very neoliberal model of 鈥渓ess government鈥� that it鈥檚 begun to abandon itself.

There鈥檚 also a Cold War twist to this tale. According to policymakers in Brussels and Washington, the 鈥渃lean energy鈥� transition shouldn鈥檛 be held hostage by China, which mines and processes many of its critical minerals (producing and processing of all rare earth elements). China might one day decide to shut down the supply chain of such critical minerals, a foreshadowing of which took place this summer when Beijing imposed on gallium and germanium in response to a Dutch ban on certain high-tech exports to China. The Chinese leadership will undoubtedly continue out-negotiating the West to gain privileged access to what it needs for its own high-tech industries.

A new 鈥渕ineral rush鈥� is underway. The European Union is now debating a 鈥淐ritical Raw Materials Act鈥� meant to reduce dependency on Chinese inputs through more mining closer to home, from to , not to speak of more 鈥渦rban mining鈥� (that is, recycling materials from used batteries and old solar panels).

Europe is also locking in deals with mineral-rich countries in the Global South. The EU typically negotiated a trade agreement with Chile that ensures EU access to that country鈥檚 lithium supplies, while for Chile鈥檚 government to supply its own manufacturers with cheaper inputs.

Washington, meanwhile, put a provision in the Inflation Reduction Act to ensure that electric car manufacturers source at least of their batteries鈥� mineral content from the United States or US allies (read: not China). That percentage is to rise to 80% by 2027. Washington is not only scrambling to secure its own critical minerals, but to cut ties with China and compete for sources elsewhere in the world.

Such an effort to 鈥渟ecure supply chains,鈥� while a blow to China, represents a possible boon for the Global South. A country like Chile, which commands so much of the lithium market, can theoretically negotiate more than just a good price for its product. It could leverage its mineral riches to acquire valuable technology, intellectual property or greater control over the overall supply chain. Collectively, those mineral suppliers could also take a page from the playbook of the oil producers. Indonesia, for instance, has already floated the idea of a .

How Latin America Should Handle the Lithium Boom

Such strategies, however, face a threefold challenge. The United States and Europe are already mining at home to become more self-sufficient. Then there鈥檚 the prospect that such minerals will be rendered obsolete by technological advances, much as the United States created a synthetic for rubber when supplies became tight during World War II. Scientists are now racing to invent electric batteries that on lithium or cobalt.

Even more worrisome are the environmental consequences of such mining. The countries of the Global South could indeed use 鈥渓adders鈥� made of lithium, cobalt or nickel to climb into the club of the wealthy. But they would be hard-pressed to do so without creating 鈥�,鈥� destroying communities and ecosystems around mineral extraction sites.

So, let鈥檚 take a fresh look at the cartel idea. Venezuela originally proposed the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (or OPEC) as a method of . The problem Venezuela grasped 70 years ago was not just the low price of what the then-Venezuelan oil minister called 鈥渢he devil鈥檚 excrement鈥� but the unsustainable nature of a global dependency on fossil fuels. OPEC was to help conserve resources. Could a mineral cartel serve that very purpose?

Breaking the cycle

The central problem facing the planet is not just carbon emissions and climate change. They鈥檙e both, in their own fashion, symptoms of an even larger crisis of the overconsumption of resources, including energy. Consider one minor example: the amount of stuff Americans buy at Christmas and then return without using amounts to . That鈥檚 more than the of Finland, Peru or Kenya.

That gives 鈥渟hop 鈥檛il you drop鈥� a new meaning.

Rather than building a different ladder to climb into prosperity, the countries of the Global South could take the unprecedented challenge of human-induced climate change as an opportunity to rewrite the rules of the global economy. Instead of dreaming of consuming at the same rate as the Global North 鈥� inconceivable given the planet鈥檚 shrinking resource base 鈥� the Global South could use its mineral leverage to effectively lessen inequality on a planet-wide basis. In practice, that would mean forcing the North鈥檚 middle class to begin trimming its consumption by reducing the supply of fossil-fuel energy to the addicted.

In a referendum in Ecuador last month, citizens to keep the oil in the Yasuni National Park beneath the ground. A number of countries in Oceania 鈥� Fiji, the Solomon Islands, Tonga 鈥� have similarly endorsed a 鈥溾�� for fossil fuels that would phase out oil, gas and coal production. Great Britain and the EU have considered for fossil fuel.

Nor can the rich be allowed to sit on their billions while the planet burns. The wealth taxes that some countries 鈥� and others, like the United States, are now 鈥� would go a long way toward shifting funds from the super-rich to the greatest victims of climate change and biodiversity loss. Consider this slogan for our changing times: more butterflies, fewer billionaires.

The global economy is essentially on a downward debt spiral for the poor and an upward consumption spiral for the rich. In short, it鈥檚 a rigged game. The solution is not to usher a few lucky countries into the world of unsustainable excess, which would just be a new version of green colonialism.

Rather, it鈥檚 time to flip the game upside down and end that very green colonialism by requiring a southernization of the North 鈥� forcing the latter to reduce its consumption of energy and other resources to that of the Global South. The inequality of industrialization got us into this crisis. is the only way out.

[ first published this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author鈥檚 own and do not necessarily reflect 51吃瓜鈥檚 editorial policy.