School of Social & Political Sciences

The pursuit of new “green” technologies like electric vehicles for consumers in the Global North can reinforce inequalities and brutal patterns of resource extraction elsewhere.

Today, we are always told to be ‘greener’. Renewable energy and electric vehicles are promised to revolutionise sustainability, but this narrative of collective ‘green’ advancement feels misguided, hiding the true costs and promoting an important question, whose sustainability is being sacrificed for our benefit? The extraction of critical minerals, like lithium, that power these advancements in sustainability are environmentally and socially damaging. The effects of this on communities near sites of extraction is something we as consumers rarely consider. A recent news article from Dialogue Earth reveals that Latin America’s new tide of ‘green extractivism’ exposes a fundamental flaw in Latin American democracy, the significant gap between formal citizenship rights and political power.  

The democratic transition of many Latin American countries in the 1980s and 90s was celebrated internationally, with many adopting progressive constitutions that recognised the rights of indigenous communities and their territorial autonomy. So why have these formal political rights not been realised? 

Through analysing ‘Green Extractivism’, I suggest that profound citizenship inequality persists throughout the region. Extractivism has produced a tiered social structure, where communities in zones of extraction have their political freedoms repressed to maintain the flow of resources. This occurs at a multi-stage process, firstly, Latin America’s subordinate position in global value chains creates economic pressures which leads to the exclusion of indigenous communities’ political rights. This produces geographically differentiated citizenship where rights are dependent on location, a pattern which even progressive governments cannot escape due to the reliance on extractivism. As consumers in the Global North, our ‘green’ choices sustain this pattern of citizenship inequality by funding companies and their practises that rely on this exploitation. 

The Dialogue Earth article examines lithium mining in Latin America’s lithium triangle and the interest of the Global North in this sector. It reports that 23% of foreign investment targets the projects surrounding critical minerals, with demand set to increase forty-fold by 2040. It documents how the value of these minerals is typically captured elsewhere with 50% of the refining projected to occur in China. The environmental impact of these practises is noted as being particularly damaging, especially the vast water consumption they require which has strained relationships with adjacent communities. The article documents there has been 284 conflicts as result of inadequate consultation and environmental harm. It outlines how the region can use the importance of these minerals to develop with respect to human rights but pressures from the Global North are likely to reinforce similar problematic patterns as they continue to benefit from the exploitation of these resources.  

To understand why citizenship inequality has persisted despite democratisation we must identify the international pressures that support it. As Raul Prebisch argued with dependency theory, the capitalist global economy is structured around an industrialised core whose needs are served by the developing periphery. This is illustrated by the article’s description of ‘green extractivism’ since the lithium triangle in Latin America holds 60% of world’s total reserves but 50% of the refining happens in China, demonstrating how the value is captured elsewhere. This system is sustained through institutionalised dependencies, not direct force, since Latin American countries rely on extractivism to fund integral sectors like healthcare and education.  

Countries who try to break from this system are met with resistance from the Global North as they wish to continue to benefit from the unequal global economy. Bolivia’s failed domestic battery industry is revealing as it highlights how the Global North restricts Latin American countries industrialising, reinforcing dependence on raw material export. Here's where citizenship exclusion becomes necessary, if indigenous communities wielded territorial autonomy, they could resist extraction. States that are dependent on resource revenues cannot afford this outcome since it is often their primary source of funding. This relates to rent theory, where the ‘rents’ of extraction (the profit) facilitate limited social change but not structural, meaning they become seductive as states ignore the negative impacts. In this situation, international subordination requires citizenship exclusion. States rely on extractivism so focus on guaranteeing investor security rather than citizen’s rights, which means limiting the territorial autonomy of indigenous communities so extraction can continue. We as consumers in the Global North support this system with our purchases of lithium powered technologies, helping to reproduce unequal citizenship across the globe.  

Latin American citizenship has often been described as unequal, with Guillermo O’Donnell arguing that it is geographically uneven. He contended there were ‘brown zones’, which featured a low state presence and the restriction of political rights, versus ‘blue zones’ where the people enjoy a high-quality citizenship. ‘Green Extractivism’ directly supports this since indigenous communities adjacent to extraction have their constitutional rights suspended. This contrast is best shown by the political repression in Argentina’s Jujuy province, where indigenous protestors faced arbitrary detentions and illegal uses of force by Police when protesting mining in the region. The quality of citizenship is thus dependent on geographical location, but this is not a mere correlation, states repress those who disrupt the extractive industries they economically rely on.  

So, democratisation only provided formal rights, but without substance. For example, Ecuador’s 2008 constitutional reforms declared it plurinational and aimed to align meaningful development with environmental protection, enshrining the indigenous principle of ‘Buen Vivir’. So why do colonial legacies of repression persist? The article documents how communities at sites of extraction were not adequately consulted prior to extraction beginning despite constitutional requirements, suggesting a form of conditional citizenship. Rights apply when they’re deemed to not matter, but when they’re inclined to threaten extraction, they stop. The articles discussion of the 284 conflicts over mining indicates that their opposition is not seen as a legitimate democratic voice. So, if democracy claims to represent the people it appears to suggest that the indigenous communities are not seen as a part of this. ‘Green extractivism’ is intended to serve national development, but its harm on indigenous communities’ highlights they’re not viewed as equal citizens of the state. Extractivism demonstrates that citizenship quality is highly unequal, dependent on your position in the extractive economy.  

Examining how extractivism produces inequality urges the issue of government inaction, especially under more progressive leaders. Rafael Correa’s constitutional shift to ‘Buen Vivir’ was intended to protect the environment and indigenous communities but extraction and its damage has only persevered. The answer to this lies in the region’s institutional dependency. Svampa describes how the reprimarisation of Latin American economies around extractivism means it becomes central to development, refusing to extract means a lack of welfare funding. Respecting the citizenship rights of indigenous communities, which would block extraction, is thus perceived as economically unviable. So Latin American governments are structurally constrained by the global political economy, forced to choose between respecting the constitutional rights of indigenous communities or continuing to extraction to fund welfare. Unequal quality of citizenship is thus a product of the extractive economy.  

‘Green extractivism’ therefore reveals that in Latin American politics democratisation is incomplete as citizenship equality remains profoundly unequal. The subordinate position of the region in global value chains actively produces systematic exclusion. This results in unequal citizenship where the rights of indigenous communities are seen as a threat to economic develop. Governments, even the most liberal, cannot progress since investment from the Global North maintains the system. Resulting in geographically differentiated citizenship, dependent on proximity to sites of extraction. As consumer in the global north, we must confront our position in this system since our consumption perpetuates citizenship inequality and the repression of indigenous communities political and territorial rights.  

To support citizenship equality, the Global North should confront the extractive model that it benefits so greatly from. Supporting sustainable development in Latin America would help it to progress beyond its subordination in global supply chains, which would allow governments to focus on political and social equality. We as consumers must acknowledge how are purchase choices directly support the repressive current system to facilitate change.

---

This blog is part of the SPS Student Academic Blog series. You can read more contributions from the series here.

First published: 3 June 2026