(Illustration by Raffi Marhaba, The Dream Collective)
“We realized that in order to guarantee the future of the Amazon we had to find a way to preserve the forest while at the same time developing the region’s economy. … We accepted that the Amazon could not be turned into some kind of sanctuary that nobody could touch. On the other hand, we knew it was important to stop the deforestation that is threatening the Amazon and all human life on the planet. We felt our alternative should involve preserving the forest, but it should also include a plan to develop the economy.”
This perspective may sound modern, but the rubber tapper, union leader, and environmental and agrarian activist Chico Mendes said these words more than 35 years ago in an interview with environmentalist Tony Gross. Documented in the book Fight for the Forest: Chico Mendes in His Own Words, the 1988 interview would be his last. Weeks later, land grabbers and cattle ranchers in Acre’s Xapuri area ordered him to be killed.
)
The Global Pursuit of Equity
Mendes died having attained international recognition, including the United Nations’ Global 500 Award and the Better World Society Environment Award. A visionary, he organized the fight for sustainable, inclusive exploration of the Amazon rainforest and inspired generations of environmental activists throughout the Global South.
The basic tenet of his thinking—that socioeconomic equity is the political core of the fight for environmental justice—can guide us today in assessing effective, transformative actions that address climate-related challenges. The equitable allocation of burdens and benefits must underpin the fight for environmental justice, including local solutions (like creating extraction reserves in Xapuri) and global ones (like establishing carbon emission controls).
If we want to find solutions to the unique climate challenge facing our generation, the lessons of Chico Mendes and, in particular, the central role of equity, can serve as a reference for evaluating effective and transformative actions. Mendes’ ideas and the current theory of climate justice highlight three distinct but equally important dimensions of this struggle: the existence of differentiated intergenerational responsibilities, the recognition of global justice obligations, and respect for the right of local populations to participate. Carefully considering these aspects and the potential consequences of ignoring them is essential to developing compatible interventions.
Intergenerational Responsibilities
Our generation—those of us currently living on the planet—has the unique opportunity to prevent a climate catastrophe as it relates to both our way of life and biodiversity. However, solutions such as transitioning to renewable energy have yet to succeed. Part of the problem stems from a misguided assessment of our moral situation. From a climate justice perspective, this is our last chance to avoid dozens of climate tipping points, including maintaining not only the Amazon’s climate regulation system (which supports the biodiversity and livelihood of those who rely on the forest’s resources), but also the entire South American rain cycle. If we fail to act, the region stands to become a tropical savannah with apocalyptic impacts on local populations, the national agricultural output, and the Earth’s overall warming dynamics.
Finding a path to a global, carbon-free energy system will require an unprecedented level of collective human action and difficult institutional learning. However, seemingly insoluble political problems start to become more feasible as soon as we establish basic rights and responsibilities for all parties involved. It is also clear that some populations have more historical and political responsibility than others to make headway. Given that a considerable share of the carbon dioxide emissions that have built up in the atmosphere stems from industrial development in the Global North, those who have benefitted and continue to benefit from that development have a greater duty to help balance the world’s uneven and inequitable energy system.
Global Justice
In addition to not benefitting equally from the current energy system, many of the first victims of environmental disruption—people who depend on threatened ecosystems most—have virtually no impact on emissions.
Discussing climate justice without taking into consideration intergenerational responsibilities on the one hand and social injustices on the other has the potential to foster normatively oppressive and therefore politically unstable socioenvironmental systems. Emission mitigation policies therefore must follow political philosopher Darrell Moellendorf’s antipoverty principle: “Policy efforts to avoid dangerous climate change must allow for the differential capacities of states to absorb the costs of protection, or such efforts risk creating poverty traps of their own.” In other words, the burden of climate obligations should not be on populations that rely on cheap energy sources to ensure their survival and social participation.
Local Knowledge and Participation
The third realm of equity relates to the epistemic and political inclusion of populations directly affected by environmental change. Rubber tappers and extraction workers like Chico Mendes have driven the quest for fair and sustainable solutions in the Amazon. “Our fight is the fight of all the peoples of the forest,” said Mendes in his final interview. As such, he did not aim to make his fight homogeneous, nor to impose a paternalist logic on the different communities impacted by deforestation. On the contrary, he meant to highlight the fact that only once all parties involved were able to articulate their interests in their own terms could they forge equitable, stable political alliances.
As we have learned from Amartya Sen and other economists and philosophers, justice entails empowering people and groups, and ensuring that they are free to choose what they want to be and do. Climate justice indicators and metrics must always focus on people and their desires. Listening to local populations matters not only because they stand to lose the most, but also because they can help find new answers to problems they’ve inherited.
Environmental Justice Innovations
Perhaps the most enduring legacy in the fight for environmental justice in the Amazon has been the intellectual daring and institutional innovation behind extraction reserves and sustainable development reserves. The creation of locally managed, socioenvironmental reserves on public land has promoted an ecologically responsible, economically inclusive, politically participative development model within the global ecological agenda. Between 1990 and 2018, 94 extraction reserves, which guarantee the livelihoods of local populations (based on extractivism, subsistence farming, and small animal husbandry), and 36 sustainable development reserves, or natural areas that are home to native populations, entered the National System of Nature Conservation Units. This achievement was the result of work by environmental social movements, including activists and scientists working in tandem with different government coalitions. Today, the reserves span approximately 64 million acres of public land and waters, or some 4.73 percent of the Amazon’s total area. Alongside indigenous reservations, these areas serve as the frontline defense against the predatory economic exploitation of ecological resources.
However, the urgent need to address the climate crisis and navigate diverse economic, social, and ecological contexts requires the development of new, transformational political practices tailored to distinct environmental and economic contexts. Indeed, the true theoretical legacy of Mendes resides in the political audacity of equitable environmental protections, not in the mindless reproduction of existing approaches.
Two successful instances of expansion and diversification of socioenvironmental solutions include the recovery of degraded ecosystems through regenerative commercial farming projects
and local energy transition programs such as the installation of photovoltaic panels in working-class suburbs. Environmental justice principles drive both of these social innovations.
Regenerative Farming
Regenerative farming projects are based on the idea that the best way to ensure a diversified, sustainable, resilient agricultural output in the face of climate volatility is to mimic native ecosystems through agroforestry—for instance, by rehabilitating areas of Brazil’s Atlantic Forest that have been damaged by agricultural overexploitation and the disorderly expansion of urban infrastructure in major farming areas. Integrating supply chains across agroforestry and urban zones enables the rehabilitation of forest areas degraded by monoculture production, provides sustainable economic gains for local producers, and favors traditional knowledge systems in harmony with the region’s diversity and true ecological potential.
In an attempt to conquer the logistical and financial challenges of regenerative farming, projects such as the agroforestry intelligence hub Pretaterra
aim to establish local production and distribution chains of fruits, vegetables, and organic cotton and fibers near major urban centers, and move global distribution chains toward agroecological standards through strategic partnerships. Another example of a successful agroecological policy is Frente Alimenta, an initiative focused on promoting ecologically adaptive agricultural production near urban centers to increase food security. In the first half of 2024, Frente Alimenta donated more than 80 tons of food while providing financial aid to local cooks for investment in infrastructure and equipment.
Agroecology efforts are currently underway across some 32 million acres and have considerable potential to expand; new geospatial data tools and in-depth agricultural censuses can provide information to aid public policymaking and targeted investments. Moreover, The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and other organizations are providing a wealth of detailed, geographically referenced data and training activities to help identify degraded areas, select appropriate restoration techniques, monitor progress, optimize resource allocation, and engage with local communities.
Local Energy Transition
Meanwhile, the creation of solar power cooperatives in working-class suburban communities caters to a two-pronged demand. It meets energy transition requirements and contributes to historical reparations related to energy access for marginalized urban populations, providing them with stable, safe, and most importantly, affordable services.
Two ongoing initiatives in Rio de Janeiro successfully illustrate this combination of renewable energy and energy independence. Resident associations in the poor urban communities of Chapéu Mangueira and Babilônia are organizing solar power implementation, production, and surplus sales. By installing solar panels on houses and local business, they aim to reduce energy costs and promote sustainability in the community. The system is designed to be energy self-sufficient, allowing residents to either consume excess power or sell it back to the grid.
As the sixth largest producer of solar energy in the world, Brazil has more than 2,500 solar energy cooperatives, with a combined installed capacity of about 500 megawatts. This production is still meager compared to the amount of energy generated by all energy sources in the country and even in relation to non-cooperative solar energy production (37.4 gigawatts). However, the benefits of cooperatives like those in Rio go far beyond total capacity. They secure basic rights through public utilities historically denied to certain social groups, as well as transfer technology and knowledge to populations often excluded from the formal labor market. Indeed, funding for local sustainable energy production can support the expansion of knowledge among economically vulnerable, politically marginalized populations.
Because they enroll people who live in the area and value local knowledge, cooperatives also generate jobs and income. They also reduce energy poverty—a persistent problem across the Global South, especially in rural communities and in the periphery of big cities. In Brazil, up to 11 percent of households suffer from some form of extreme energy poverty, while countless more struggle with unstable power supplies and high costs. What’s more, climate vulnerability directly correlates with energy poverty; communities with inadequate access to energy are less capable of adapting and responding to extreme weather events. The challenge of equitable energy inclusion around the world, in the context of carbon mitigation, is regrettably denied by mainstream climate policy. Cooperative-based energy transitions in poor regions can mitigate carbon, create wealth, and improve electricity resilience in the same stroke.
A stable climate system is indispensable for planetary life, economic prosperity, poverty reduction, and universal well-being. To achieve these goals, environmental financing policies must prioritize social innovation and draw inspiration from the rich tapestry of local environmental struggles. By centering equity and championing transformative, bottom-up approaches, these policies can unlock the full potential of community-led solutions, fostering a resilient and just future for all. The vanguard of climate and environmental justice movements has already incorporated these insights. It is now incumbent on the mainstream green politics to catch up.
Support SSIR’s coverage of cross-sector solutions to global challenges.
Help us further the reach of innovative ideas. Donate today.
Read more stories by Lucas Petroni & Marcos Paulo de Lucca-Silveira.