Green Re-Fragmentation

/4 min read
Who will be successful in transition, and on what terms?
Green Re-Fragmentation
 Credits: Vijay Soni

In 2025, the world faces a watershed moment: rapid decarbonization, renewable expansion, and reduced reliance on fossil fuels. Despite leaders' commitment to achieving net-zero emissions, governments approve new coal mines, expand oil fields, and deepen gas pipelines. The irony is obvious: the same governments that support climate summits are also funding the fossil future. The contradiction is not just a temporary bug. It reflects fundamental structural contradictions between global climate goals and national energy security, efficiency, equality, technological integration, and resource sovereignty.

Fossil Fuels: The Survival of the  Old Order

 Despite years of climate diplomacy, coal, oil, and gas remain deeply entrenched. According to recent research, at least 20 countries intend to boost fossil fuel production by 2030, with India and China increasing coal production for energy security, while the United States and the Middle East focus on oil and gas exports. This is the first conflict in the transition: fossil rents are politically necessary. They contribute to the state’s budget, support jobs, and assure the reliability of electricity. No government wants to face shortages, inflation, or political backlash. The climatic urgency collides with the fossil lock-in, and for the time being, security typically prevails.

 For India, the dilemma is especially grave. Coal generates more than 70% of electricity. Renewables are rapidly increasing, with ambitious targets of 500 GW of non-fossil capacity by 2030, but the grid remains heavily reliant on coal. Policymakers argue that development and poverty alleviation are impossible without inexpensive and reliable energy. While this evolutionary logic is sound, it raises a disturbing question: who suffers the cost of delayed transition—the poor, who face pollution and climate shocks, or the wealthy, who profit from fossil fuel expansion?

 Minerals: the New Oil?

Even in countries pushing for green energy, new dependencies are forming. Solar panels, wind turbines, electric vehicles, and batteries are all mineral-intensive. Lithium, cobalt, nickel, copper, and rare earths are increasingly part of the green economy. However, unlike oil, their supply systems are more complex, concentrated, and politically unstable.

Open Magazine Latest Edition is Out Now!

Wealth Issue 2025

17 Oct 2025 - Vol 04 | Issue 43

Daring to dream - Portraits of young entrepreneurs

Read Now

The International Renewable Energy Agency warns that geopolitics over essential resources may perpetuate colonial traditions. The Democratic Republic of Congo, which contains more than 60% of the world’s cobalt reserves, is plagued by child labor, hazardous mining, and poor government. Water shortages and indigenous resistance to extractive industries affect Latin America’s lithium triangle (Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile). Mining growth in India’s Odisha and Jharkhand endangers the Adivasi people, who rely on forests.

The threat is clear: the world may decarbonize, but at the expense of the most vulnerable. The term "green growth" may hide a fresh wave of dispossession. Instead of oil warfare, the future may bring "lithium wars" or "cobalt conflicts."

Energy sovereignty versus global integration.

The other cause of stress is the malfunctioning of institutional structures. The energy transition necessitates global cooperation, including technological transfer, cross-border infrastructure, and open trade in sustainable technologies. However, states are heading in opposite directions. The US and EU encourage domestic green enterprises through industrial policies such as the Inflation Reduction Act and the Green Deal. China dominates solar and battery manufacturing, and export restrictions on graphite reflecting how supply chains may be militarized.

India promotes "Aatmanirbhar Bharat" by prohibiting imported solar modules from government projects. This represents a change from global integration to “green sovereignty,” in which nations want autonomy over their clean energy future. While sensible, such protectionism may hamper global adoption and increase prices. The Global South, which requires the most affordable technology, may face escalating costs.

Justice: The Forgotten Dimension.

The most common theories about change focus on gigawatts installed and billions spent. But things are much more complicated for people who live in those areas. Residents in Jharkhand who were previously displaced by coal extraction are now facing new displacement from solar projects.

Locals in Ladakh oppose large-scale renewable energy projects that damage sensitive environments and neglect local livelihoods. Indigenous organizations around the world are warning that the transition is turning into yet another top-down project that will silence their voices while exploiting their land. This poses a crucial question: who will be successful in transition, and on what terms?

Without justice at its cornerstone, the green transition risks repeating imbalances from the fossil era. Clean energy does not automatically guarantee egalitarian energy. A solar park built on seized land or a wind farm imposed without permission may reduce emissions but worsen inequality.

India's Crossroads

The Indian condition symbolizes the contradictions of the transition. On the one hand, it is a renewable energy pioneer, with ambitious climate targets, decreased solar costs, and increasing global influence in climate diplomacy. On the other hand, it remains the world’s third-largest emitter, as coal production rises and industrial decarbonization slows. For India, the path forward entails balancing numerous imperatives. Millions of people continue to lack access to energy and sustainable development that aims to prevent ecological catastrophe. Further, justice for communities suffering from fossil fuel exploitation and renewable energy development is another crucial point. This balancing task is not easy. However, if India can demonstrate an equitable and inclusive reform, it has the potential to serve as an example for the Global South. If not, it risks falling into a double crisis: continued dependency on fossil fuels and rising environmental injustice.

The Global Scenarios Ahead

 

Two distinct avenues for the global energy transition are emerging. One potential is a Centralized Green Order, in which a few powerful states and organizations dominate clean technologies, driving deployment but strengthening dependency and inequality. Another is the rise of fragmented energy blocs, with regions building their own clean energy clusters with distinct standards and supply chains.

The clean energy transition is frequently presented as a straight progression from fossil fuels to renewables. In truth, it is a battleground for contradictions—between climate urgency and fossil lock-in, efficiency and fairness, and global integration and state fragmentation. Little will change if the world merely replaces oil with lithium, coal with solar parks on Adivasi territory, and gas pipelines with hydrogen corridors that cut off people. Emissions may reduce, but inequity and environmental degradation will continue.

The actual problem is to make the transition fair, inclusive, and democratic. This includes investing in decentralized solutions such as community solar, advocating for fair resource governance, safeguarding ecosystems, and amplifying the voices of those most affected.

Finally, the green transition focuses on power rather than just energy. Who controls it, profits from it, and faces the consequences will determine whether humanity progresses toward a more sustainable future or simply greenwashes the current system.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)
Anusreeta Dutta is a columnist and political ecology researcher with prior experience as an ESG analyst