Digital & Print Membership
Yearly + Receive 8 free printed back issues
$420 Annually
Monthly + Receive 3 free printed back issues
$40 Monthly
Who is COP for, really?
For thirty years, the world has looked at COP as the path to climate progress. But the reality is different. COP isn’t failing; it’s working exactly as it was designed: protecting and further producing capital.
COP has made promises it never intended to keep. It is not about saving the planet, but about protecting profit and power. COP3 was the beginning of the Global North making broken promises. At COP3, the Kyoto Protocol was proposed as a plan to target emissions cuts from industrialized countries. The agreement paved the way for carbon markets, allowing countries and corporations to trade pollution credits instead of actually cutting emissions. The U.S. signed but never ratified it (source), Canada later withdrew (source). Europe met targets in part by outsourcing oil emissions through offsets, often harming and displacing frontline communities (source). What came out of COP3 was not climate justice but a system that let the Global North maintain its power and profit while exporting the consequences.
The broken promises of Kyoto set the blueprint for decades of destructive extraction and dispossession that followed. The Global South is not a side note; it is the beating heart of the climate crisis and the first to bleed. While wealthy countries build their prosperity on fossil fuels, the Global South faces devastating man-made ‘natural disasters’ floods, fires, and droughts. These communities continue to fight to protect land, water, and futures, even as rich nations push “net zero by 2050” while backing fossil fuel interests. Promised climate finance remains late, insufficient, and often deepens debt, while Indigenous leaders and frontline activists are routinely excluded from decision-making.
Decades later, those same dynamics played out in Glasgow during COP26, which ignited a surge of fossil fuel industry influence and greenwashing. While earlier COPs like COP3 set the foundation, COP26 made it impossible to ignore who these summits are really for. Over 500 fossil fuel lobbyists were present, more than any country’s single delegation, and more than the total number of representatives from the most climate vulnerable nations combined (source).
This was not a flaw in the process. This was the process. Inside the Blue Zone, oil executives and carbon traders ran panels while Indigenous people were shut out. The industries fueling climate collapse were prioritized. Frontline communities were left with surveillance, side events, or silence. COP26 didn’t just accommodate fossil fuel power, it handed it a badge and a microphone. Oil companies secured deeper access through sponsorships and side events, pushing carbon markets and voluntary commitments instead of binding action.
At COP28, there were approximately 2,456 fossil fuel lobbyists, over 900 more than the total number of delegates from the ten most climate vulnerable countries, which numbered around 1,500 (source). Indigenous people and other climate activists made up only a small fraction of that number. The UAE’s state oil company had access to summit emails (source), while COP28 president Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber used his power to pursue $100 billion in oil and gas deals (source).
During COP29 the fossil fuel industry dominated the conversation. They bought access by sponsoring events, and shaped the entire agenda. Chevron, BP, ExxonMobil, Shell, Glencore and TotalEnergies pushed carbon trading schemes and false climate solutions while the planet burned (source). This was never about protecting the environment. Indigenous and frontline activists were pushed aside and silenced. COP29 made it clear: these summits serve capital, not people. COP30 is accelerating the greenwashing that is central to COP.
As the international spotlight shines on the Amazon, the greenwashing only intensifies. From November 10-21 COP30 will take place in Belém, the capital of Pará, Brazil in the heart of the Amazon. The summit is being presented as a milestone for climate action while politicians fast track the destruction of the environment. During a visit to Pará in August 2023, President Lula said: “I leave Pará with the certainty that we are going to hold the best COP in history (source). But what is the reality? What does COP30 mean for the people actually living in the Amazon? Who is it really for?
As COP30 draws attention to the Amazon, corporate greenwashing takes many forms. On September 17th, the mining company Vale S.A. and Rock in Rio hosted the music festival “Amazon Forever” (source). The festival was a thinly veiled attempt to sanitize the image of a mining giant with a legacy of poisoning and displacing Indigenous communities in Indonesia (source) and the Brazilian Amazon. In February 2025, Brazil’s Federal Prosecutor’s Office filed a lawsuit against Vale, the Brazilian government, and the state of Pará over heavy metal contamination found in the Xikrin Indigenous people. A Federal University of Pará study revealed dangerously high levels of lead, mercury, and nickel in the hair of nearly all 720 individuals surveyed in the Xikrin do Cateté Indigenous Territory.
This contamination is linked to Vale’s nickel mining operations at Onça-Puma, which polluted the Cateté River, a vital water source for the community. Despite an agreement in 2022 for monthly compensation, health concerns were unaddressed, prompting legal action demanding a permanent health monitoring program and environmental oversight. Vale disputes responsibility, claiming its operations aren’t to blame and that it monitors water quality around its sites (source).
In Pará, a COP30 project called Nova Doca dumps waste in poor Black neighborhoods while sewage systems serve the rich. Untreated sewage flows into local waters. This is environmental racism masked by greenwashing (source).
The contradictions run so deep that even sacred guardians are being turned into COP30’s mascot. Curupira, a forest guardian whose feet face backwards to mislead hunters and invaders, has been chosen as the official mascot for COP30 (source). This choice feels like a mockery of Curupira. The government is pushing laws opening the door for land grabs, extraction, and displacement. Forests continue to burn. Curupira is not a mascot. Curupira does not forgive those who harm the forest. He takes revenge, and many attending COP30 would be the exact people he would take revenge on.
COP30 is sold as a celebration of the Amazon, but the laws and destructive projects being pushed through tell a different story. The government fast tracked construction of Avenida Liberdade, a four lane highway that will cut through Indigenous and Quilombola territories (source).
Quilombola are descendants of enslaved Africans who made Brazil their home, preserving their culture and freedom in remote areas. They have distinct identities and legal rights to their lands, which are constantly threatened by land grabs and development. They have stood in mutual solidarity with Indigenous peoples in Brazil, fighting together to defend their territories and cultures against exploitation.
In Brazil, highways often cut through these lands. BR-163 cuts through Pará and Mato Grosso, built to move soy and used by land grabbers and illegal loggers. BR-319, set to be repaved through the Amazon, threatens dozens of communities with invasion and displacement. These roads don’t bring protection or progress, they bring violence and destruction. One recent incident occurred in December 2024, when Guarani Kaiowá and Terena communities protesting for basic access to drinking water faced violent repression by police forces who could quickly mobilize thanks to these roads (source). Such infrastructure facilitates state violence against Indigenous resistance, widening the threats faced by these communities.
As a Lakota, seeing brutalization of Guarani Kaiowá and Terena at the hands of military police for protesting for water painfully echoed the fight at Standing Rock. Water is sacred. Water is life. Violence is no accident, it’s embedded into law.
Indigenous and Quilombola territories remain under threat and await proper demarcation. The Brazilian Senate passed bills that threaten land rights. In May, they approved PL 2159/21, the Devastation Bill, which dismantles Brazil’s environmental licensing system, making it easier for corporations to push through destructive projects. It accelerates deforestation, putting 32.6% of Indigenous lands and 80.1% of Quilombola territories at risk. On the final day permitted by law, President Lula vetoed 63 of the bill’s nearly 400 provisions, including clauses that would have allowed medium-impact projects to bypass full environmental review and provisions that would have excluded Indigenous and Quilombola communities from consultation. While these vetoes preserve some environmental protections, the law still allows the federal government to accelerate certain ‘strategic’ projects, leaving communities and ecosystems at continued risk (source).
Lula recently approved an offshore oil drilling project near the mouth of the Amazon River, signaling continued support for fossil fuel extraction even as COP30 approaches (source). This decision highlights the tension between Brazil’s role as host of a major climate summit and its ongoing promotion of environmentally destructive projects. Days after the Senate approved the Devastation Bill, PL 717/24 was approved (source). If it becomes law, it would suspend the demarcation of Indigenous and Quilombola lands, including Imbuh and Morro dos Cavalos.
In April, after decades of struggle, the Guarani Mbya finally had Morro dos Cavalos officially recognized, but that recognition is already under threat.
Helder Barbalho, Governor of Pará, is a driving force behind many issues linked to COP30. Under his administration, public funds are funneled into symbolic projects like fake metal trees in Belém, while forests are cleared for the Avenida Liberdade highway, which cuts through Indigenous and Quilombola territories. He inherited a political machine built to protect elites and reward exploitation from his father.
Barbalho is using the summit to push the lie of his self-proclaimed title of “Green Governor.” In September 2024, during New York Climate Week, he made a $180 million carbon credit deal with the LEAF Coalition, involving Amazon and the Walmart Foundation. Helder claimed Indigenous participation, but 38 organizations from Pará publicly denounced the lack of consultation. The deal, aiming to sell 12 million tons of credits, faces legal challenges for violating Brazilian law and pre-selling carbon without consulting them (source).
Barbalho drapes himself in the image of the Amazon while pushing its destruction through agribusiness, mining, logging, and infrastructure. His inherited corruption fuels land grabbing and deforestation. According to his 2022 disclosure, he owns over 6,000 head of cattle valued at about $2.87 million (combining $2.5 million for cattle and $370,000 share in Agropecuária Rio Branco), with total assets near $3.9 million (source).
The hypocrisy of politicians like Barbalho, who present themselves as champions of the environment, mirrors what happens on the global stage, just as what Txai Suruí, an Indigenous leader and activist from Brazil experienced during COP16, the United Nations Biodiversity Conference held in Cali, Colombia in 2024. While COP16 focused on biodiversity under the Convention on Biological Diversity process, COP30 continues that agenda under a different frame. Both are UN environmental summits addressing overlapping and inseparable issues.
At COP16, Txai Suruí was protesting against Marco Temporal, a dangerous, anti-Indigenous legal argument in Brazil that threatens Indigenous land rights by claiming only lands occupied before 1988 should be recognized. All of Brazil is, and always has been Indigenous land. During the protest, she described how a UN security guard grabbed her arm. “She grabbed me by the arm and my hands are painted red, which symbolizes our blood. And she said: you got me dirty. Then she twisted my arm. That’s when I started screaming for help. I was scared, I didn’t expect it.” According to Txai, she and other activists had their badges forcibly removed and they were detained in a COP security room (source). Txai and other protesters complied with demands, but they were still met with violence and detained, having their badges temporarily stripped. This violence and repression illustrate the ongoing struggles Indigenous peoples face, not only politically with attacks like Marco Temporal but also physically, even within international forums that claim to protect biodiversity and the climate.
As Indigenous leaders continue to resist the corporate and political forces shaping COP30, their frustration is expressed in clear and uncompromising words. Auricélia Arapiuns, president of COIAB (Coordenação das Organizações Indígenas da Amazônia Brasileira), stated:
“COP30 is as much a farce as the Governor of this state, who is a farce. And it’s a farce that attacks the rights of Indigenous peoples and nature every day.”
Her words capture the deep mistrust many Indigenous peoples hold toward a summit that claims to protect the Amazon while allowing continued exploitation.
Aílton Krenak, Indigenous leader and philosopher, has criticized the use of the Amazon as symbolic cover for climate inaction. In an interview with Cenarium in February 2025, he stated: “The Amazon cannot be the symbol of COP30. It is the territory where this global event will take place, but it will very likely come at a high social cost. I do not imagine that local communities will receive direct benefits from this event.” He warned that turning the Amazon into a symbol erases the lives, cultures, and resistance of its peoples, substituting deep structural justice with superficial branding. For Krenak, framing the Amazon as a symbol while extractive policies continue is not just cynical. It is a betrayal of the forest’s living communities and ancestral knowledge.
Alessandra Korap Munduruku has called COP30 what it is: a violation and a betrayal of land and people. At TEDxAmazônia in Belém, she denounced COP30 and the empty promises behind the summit:
“We realize that we, Indigenous peoples, are sick because of mining, because of mercury. Every time we sit with researchers, they say women’s breast milk is contaminated with mercury, women’s wombs are contaminated with mercury. This shouldn’t exist. But what solution will they bring? Will COP bring this solution?”
“We know it’s 30 years of COP, but what we see is a COP of business, agreements, parties, festivals, not solving the problems happening in the territory. They are trying to erase us, but we keep fighting, speaking, shouting, so they hear the needs of Indigenous peoples, Quilombola peoples, and traditional peoples. It is our duty to shout, and their obligation to act.” Korap is not just rejecting commodification. She is naming the lie: the Amazon is being used to sell the illusion of climate justice, while the people who have defended it for generations are silenced, sidelined, or sold out.
COP30, like its predecessors, must be scrutinized through this lens. Indigenous peoples continue to resist both political and physical violence while fighting to protect their territories and ways of life. You cannot talk about climate justice while threatening the rights of the people who have protected these ecosystems for centuries. You cannot continue to exploit and exclude the Global South while pushing false solutions, deepening debt, and criminalizing resistance.
{
"article":
{
"title" : "Who is COP for, really?",
"author" : "Keyah Hanwi",
"category" : "essays",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/who-is-cop-for-really",
"date" : "2025-11-10 09:00:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/Cover_EIP_COP.jpg",
"excerpt" : "For thirty years, the world has looked at COP as the path to climate progress. But the reality is different. COP isn’t failing; it’s working exactly as it was designed: protecting and further producing capital.",
"content" : "For thirty years, the world has looked at COP as the path to climate progress. But the reality is different. COP isn’t failing; it’s working exactly as it was designed: protecting and further producing capital.COP has made promises it never intended to keep. It is not about saving the planet, but about protecting profit and power. COP3 was the beginning of the Global North making broken promises. At COP3, the Kyoto Protocol was proposed as a plan to target emissions cuts from industrialized countries. The agreement paved the way for carbon markets, allowing countries and corporations to trade pollution credits instead of actually cutting emissions. The U.S. signed but never ratified it (source), Canada later withdrew (source). Europe met targets in part by outsourcing oil emissions through offsets, often harming and displacing frontline communities (source). What came out of COP3 was not climate justice but a system that let the Global North maintain its power and profit while exporting the consequences.The broken promises of Kyoto set the blueprint for decades of destructive extraction and dispossession that followed. The Global South is not a side note; it is the beating heart of the climate crisis and the first to bleed. While wealthy countries build their prosperity on fossil fuels, the Global South faces devastating man-made ‘natural disasters’ floods, fires, and droughts. These communities continue to fight to protect land, water, and futures, even as rich nations push “net zero by 2050” while backing fossil fuel interests. Promised climate finance remains late, insufficient, and often deepens debt, while Indigenous leaders and frontline activists are routinely excluded from decision-making.Decades later, those same dynamics played out in Glasgow during COP26, which ignited a surge of fossil fuel industry influence and greenwashing. While earlier COPs like COP3 set the foundation, COP26 made it impossible to ignore who these summits are really for. Over 500 fossil fuel lobbyists were present, more than any country’s single delegation, and more than the total number of representatives from the most climate vulnerable nations combined (source).This was not a flaw in the process. This was the process. Inside the Blue Zone, oil executives and carbon traders ran panels while Indigenous people were shut out. The industries fueling climate collapse were prioritized. Frontline communities were left with surveillance, side events, or silence. COP26 didn’t just accommodate fossil fuel power, it handed it a badge and a microphone. Oil companies secured deeper access through sponsorships and side events, pushing carbon markets and voluntary commitments instead of binding action.At COP28, there were approximately 2,456 fossil fuel lobbyists, over 900 more than the total number of delegates from the ten most climate vulnerable countries, which numbered around 1,500 (source). Indigenous people and other climate activists made up only a small fraction of that number. The UAE’s state oil company had access to summit emails (source), while COP28 president Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber used his power to pursue $100 billion in oil and gas deals (source).During COP29 the fossil fuel industry dominated the conversation. They bought access by sponsoring events, and shaped the entire agenda. Chevron, BP, ExxonMobil, Shell, Glencore and TotalEnergies pushed carbon trading schemes and false climate solutions while the planet burned (source). This was never about protecting the environment. Indigenous and frontline activists were pushed aside and silenced. COP29 made it clear: these summits serve capital, not people. COP30 is accelerating the greenwashing that is central to COP.As the international spotlight shines on the Amazon, the greenwashing only intensifies. From November 10-21 COP30 will take place in Belém, the capital of Pará, Brazil in the heart of the Amazon. The summit is being presented as a milestone for climate action while politicians fast track the destruction of the environment. During a visit to Pará in August 2023, President Lula said: “I leave Pará with the certainty that we are going to hold the best COP in history (source). But what is the reality? What does COP30 mean for the people actually living in the Amazon? Who is it really for?As COP30 draws attention to the Amazon, corporate greenwashing takes many forms. On September 17th, the mining company Vale S.A. and Rock in Rio hosted the music festival “Amazon Forever” (source). The festival was a thinly veiled attempt to sanitize the image of a mining giant with a legacy of poisoning and displacing Indigenous communities in Indonesia (source) and the Brazilian Amazon. In February 2025, Brazil’s Federal Prosecutor’s Office filed a lawsuit against Vale, the Brazilian government, and the state of Pará over heavy metal contamination found in the Xikrin Indigenous people. A Federal University of Pará study revealed dangerously high levels of lead, mercury, and nickel in the hair of nearly all 720 individuals surveyed in the Xikrin do Cateté Indigenous Territory.This contamination is linked to Vale’s nickel mining operations at Onça-Puma, which polluted the Cateté River, a vital water source for the community. Despite an agreement in 2022 for monthly compensation, health concerns were unaddressed, prompting legal action demanding a permanent health monitoring program and environmental oversight. Vale disputes responsibility, claiming its operations aren’t to blame and that it monitors water quality around its sites (source).In Pará, a COP30 project called Nova Doca dumps waste in poor Black neighborhoods while sewage systems serve the rich. Untreated sewage flows into local waters. This is environmental racism masked by greenwashing (source).The contradictions run so deep that even sacred guardians are being turned into COP30’s mascot. Curupira, a forest guardian whose feet face backwards to mislead hunters and invaders, has been chosen as the official mascot for COP30 (source). This choice feels like a mockery of Curupira. The government is pushing laws opening the door for land grabs, extraction, and displacement. Forests continue to burn. Curupira is not a mascot. Curupira does not forgive those who harm the forest. He takes revenge, and many attending COP30 would be the exact people he would take revenge on.COP30 is sold as a celebration of the Amazon, but the laws and destructive projects being pushed through tell a different story. The government fast tracked construction of Avenida Liberdade, a four lane highway that will cut through Indigenous and Quilombola territories (source).Quilombola are descendants of enslaved Africans who made Brazil their home, preserving their culture and freedom in remote areas. They have distinct identities and legal rights to their lands, which are constantly threatened by land grabs and development. They have stood in mutual solidarity with Indigenous peoples in Brazil, fighting together to defend their territories and cultures against exploitation.In Brazil, highways often cut through these lands. BR-163 cuts through Pará and Mato Grosso, built to move soy and used by land grabbers and illegal loggers. BR-319, set to be repaved through the Amazon, threatens dozens of communities with invasion and displacement. These roads don’t bring protection or progress, they bring violence and destruction. One recent incident occurred in December 2024, when Guarani Kaiowá and Terena communities protesting for basic access to drinking water faced violent repression by police forces who could quickly mobilize thanks to these roads (source). Such infrastructure facilitates state violence against Indigenous resistance, widening the threats faced by these communities.As a Lakota, seeing brutalization of Guarani Kaiowá and Terena at the hands of military police for protesting for water painfully echoed the fight at Standing Rock. Water is sacred. Water is life. Violence is no accident, it’s embedded into law.Indigenous and Quilombola territories remain under threat and await proper demarcation. The Brazilian Senate passed bills that threaten land rights. In May, they approved PL 2159/21, the Devastation Bill, which dismantles Brazil’s environmental licensing system, making it easier for corporations to push through destructive projects. It accelerates deforestation, putting 32.6% of Indigenous lands and 80.1% of Quilombola territories at risk. On the final day permitted by law, President Lula vetoed 63 of the bill’s nearly 400 provisions, including clauses that would have allowed medium-impact projects to bypass full environmental review and provisions that would have excluded Indigenous and Quilombola communities from consultation. While these vetoes preserve some environmental protections, the law still allows the federal government to accelerate certain ‘strategic’ projects, leaving communities and ecosystems at continued risk (source).Lula recently approved an offshore oil drilling project near the mouth of the Amazon River, signaling continued support for fossil fuel extraction even as COP30 approaches (source). This decision highlights the tension between Brazil’s role as host of a major climate summit and its ongoing promotion of environmentally destructive projects. Days after the Senate approved the Devastation Bill, PL 717/24 was approved (source). If it becomes law, it would suspend the demarcation of Indigenous and Quilombola lands, including Imbuh and Morro dos Cavalos.In April, after decades of struggle, the Guarani Mbya finally had Morro dos Cavalos officially recognized, but that recognition is already under threat.Helder Barbalho, Governor of Pará, is a driving force behind many issues linked to COP30. Under his administration, public funds are funneled into symbolic projects like fake metal trees in Belém, while forests are cleared for the Avenida Liberdade highway, which cuts through Indigenous and Quilombola territories. He inherited a political machine built to protect elites and reward exploitation from his father.Barbalho is using the summit to push the lie of his self-proclaimed title of “Green Governor.” In September 2024, during New York Climate Week, he made a $180 million carbon credit deal with the LEAF Coalition, involving Amazon and the Walmart Foundation. Helder claimed Indigenous participation, but 38 organizations from Pará publicly denounced the lack of consultation. The deal, aiming to sell 12 million tons of credits, faces legal challenges for violating Brazilian law and pre-selling carbon without consulting them (source).Barbalho drapes himself in the image of the Amazon while pushing its destruction through agribusiness, mining, logging, and infrastructure. His inherited corruption fuels land grabbing and deforestation. According to his 2022 disclosure, he owns over 6,000 head of cattle valued at about $2.87 million (combining $2.5 million for cattle and $370,000 share in Agropecuária Rio Branco), with total assets near $3.9 million (source).The hypocrisy of politicians like Barbalho, who present themselves as champions of the environment, mirrors what happens on the global stage, just as what Txai Suruí, an Indigenous leader and activist from Brazil experienced during COP16, the United Nations Biodiversity Conference held in Cali, Colombia in 2024. While COP16 focused on biodiversity under the Convention on Biological Diversity process, COP30 continues that agenda under a different frame. Both are UN environmental summits addressing overlapping and inseparable issues.At COP16, Txai Suruí was protesting against Marco Temporal, a dangerous, anti-Indigenous legal argument in Brazil that threatens Indigenous land rights by claiming only lands occupied before 1988 should be recognized. All of Brazil is, and always has been Indigenous land. During the protest, she described how a UN security guard grabbed her arm. “She grabbed me by the arm and my hands are painted red, which symbolizes our blood. And she said: you got me dirty. Then she twisted my arm. That’s when I started screaming for help. I was scared, I didn’t expect it.” According to Txai, she and other activists had their badges forcibly removed and they were detained in a COP security room (source). Txai and other protesters complied with demands, but they were still met with violence and detained, having their badges temporarily stripped. This violence and repression illustrate the ongoing struggles Indigenous peoples face, not only politically with attacks like Marco Temporal but also physically, even within international forums that claim to protect biodiversity and the climate.As Indigenous leaders continue to resist the corporate and political forces shaping COP30, their frustration is expressed in clear and uncompromising words. Auricélia Arapiuns, president of COIAB (Coordenação das Organizações Indígenas da Amazônia Brasileira), stated:“COP30 is as much a farce as the Governor of this state, who is a farce. And it’s a farce that attacks the rights of Indigenous peoples and nature every day.”Her words capture the deep mistrust many Indigenous peoples hold toward a summit that claims to protect the Amazon while allowing continued exploitation.Aílton Krenak, Indigenous leader and philosopher, has criticized the use of the Amazon as symbolic cover for climate inaction. In an interview with Cenarium in February 2025, he stated: “The Amazon cannot be the symbol of COP30. It is the territory where this global event will take place, but it will very likely come at a high social cost. I do not imagine that local communities will receive direct benefits from this event.” He warned that turning the Amazon into a symbol erases the lives, cultures, and resistance of its peoples, substituting deep structural justice with superficial branding. For Krenak, framing the Amazon as a symbol while extractive policies continue is not just cynical. It is a betrayal of the forest’s living communities and ancestral knowledge.Alessandra Korap Munduruku has called COP30 what it is: a violation and a betrayal of land and people. At TEDxAmazônia in Belém, she denounced COP30 and the empty promises behind the summit:“We realize that we, Indigenous peoples, are sick because of mining, because of mercury. Every time we sit with researchers, they say women’s breast milk is contaminated with mercury, women’s wombs are contaminated with mercury. This shouldn’t exist. But what solution will they bring? Will COP bring this solution?”“We know it’s 30 years of COP, but what we see is a COP of business, agreements, parties, festivals, not solving the problems happening in the territory. They are trying to erase us, but we keep fighting, speaking, shouting, so they hear the needs of Indigenous peoples, Quilombola peoples, and traditional peoples. It is our duty to shout, and their obligation to act.” Korap is not just rejecting commodification. She is naming the lie: the Amazon is being used to sell the illusion of climate justice, while the people who have defended it for generations are silenced, sidelined, or sold out.COP30, like its predecessors, must be scrutinized through this lens. Indigenous peoples continue to resist both political and physical violence while fighting to protect their territories and ways of life. You cannot talk about climate justice while threatening the rights of the people who have protected these ecosystems for centuries. You cannot continue to exploit and exclude the Global South while pushing false solutions, deepening debt, and criminalizing resistance."
}
,
"relatedposts": [
{
"title" : "The Aesthetics of Atrocity:: Lockheed Martin’s Streetwear Pivot",
"author" : "Louis Pisano",
"category" : "",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/the-aesthetics-of-atrocity",
"date" : "2025-12-20 10:30:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/Cover_EIP_Lockheed_StreetWar.jpg",
"excerpt" : "On December 12, The Business of Fashion published an article titled “The Unlikely Rise and Uncertain Future of Lockheed Martin Streetwear,” detailing the world’s largest arms manufacturer’s entrance into casual apparel.",
"content" : "On December 12, The Business of Fashion published an article titled “The Unlikely Rise and Uncertain Future of Lockheed Martin Streetwear,” detailing the world’s largest arms manufacturer’s entrance into casual apparel.Through a licensing deal with South Korea’s Doojin Yanghang Corp., Lockheed turns fighter jet graphics, corporate slogans, and its star logo into gorpcore staples. Oversized outerwear, tactical pants, and advanced synthetic fabrics sell out at Seoul pop-ups like the Hyundai department store with young Korean consumers chasing the edgy, functional vibe. Andy Koh, a Seoul-based content creator, tells BoF that while arms manufacturing is, in theory, political, he has never encountered widespread discomfort among Korean consumers. “As long as it looks cool and the product functions as expected,” he says, “they seem okay with it.”This trend aligns with a broader South Korean fashion phenomenon: licensing logos from global non-fashion brands to create popular streetwear lines. Examples include National Geographic puffers, Yale crewnecks, Kodak retro tees, CNN hoodies, Discovery jackets, Jeep outdoor wear, and university apparel from institutions like Harvard and UCLA. These licensed collections, often featuring media, academia, sports leagues, or adventure themes, have become staples on online retailers like Musinsa and in brick-and-mortar stores, propelled by K-pop influence and a tech-savvy youth market that make these odd crossovers multimillion-dollar successes.Lockheed, however, is categorically different. Its core business is not exploration, education, or journalism. It is industrialized death, and its arrival in fashion forces a reckoning with how far commodification can stretch.Having spent years in the military, maybe I’m the wrong person to critique this. Or maybe I’m exactly the right one. I know what weapons are for, how they’re used, and the human cost they carry. Lockheed manufactures F-16 and F-35 fighter jets, Hellfire missiles, and precision-guided systems that human rights organizations have repeatedly linked to civilian casualties across multiple conflicts. In Yemen, U.S.-supplied weapons incorporating Lockheed technology contributed to thousands of civilian deaths since 2015, most notoriously the 2018 airstrike on a school bus in Saada that killed dozens of children. In Gaza, since October 2023, Lockheed-supplied F-35s and munitions have formed the backbone of air operations that Amnesty International and other watchdogs have flagged for potential violations of international humanitarian law, cases now under examination by the International Court of Justice.In 2024, the company reported $71 billion in revenue, almost entirely from military contracts, with more than 1,100 F-35s already delivered worldwide and production lines running hotter than ever. That staggering scale is the reality lurking beneath a logo now casually printed on everyday apparel.So why does the planet’s largest arms manufacturer license its brand to streetwear? The answer seems to be twofold: easy money and sophisticated image laundering. Licensing delivers low-risk royalties from Korea’s reported $35-40 billion apparel market with virtually no operational headache. Lockheed simply collects checks while a third-party manufacturer handles design, production, distribution, and deals with all the mess of retail.The far more ambitious goal, however, is reputational refurbishment. Doojin deliberately markets the line around “future-oriented technical aesthetics” and “aerospace innovation,” leaning on cutting-edge fabrics to conjure high-tech futurism instead of battlefield carnage. By late 2025, as U.S. favorability in South Korea continued to slide amid trade tensions and regional geopolitical shifts, the brand quietly de-emphasized its American roots, according to Lockheed representatives. The strategy clearly tries to sever the logo from political controversy and plant it firmly in youth culture, where aesthetic appeal routinely outmuscles ethical concern.Lockheed has honed this kind of rebranding for decades. Their corporate brochures overflow with talk of “driving innovation” and “advancing scientific discovery,” spotlighting STEM scholarships, veteran hiring initiatives, and rapid-response disaster aid. The clothing itself carries the same sanitized messaging. One prominent slogan reads “Ensuring those we serve always stay ahead of ready”, euphemistic corporate-speak that sounds heroic until you remember that “those we serve” includes forces deploying Hellfire missiles against civilian targets. Other pieces feature F-35 graphics paired with copy declaring the jet “strengthens national security, enhances global partnerships, and powers economic growth”. It’s textbook PR varnish. Instruments designed for lethal efficiency, now rebranded as symbols of progress and prosperity.We’ve also seen this trick before: Fast fashion brands that slap “sustainable” labels on sweatshop products. Tech giants that fund glamorous art installations while they harvest user data. Oil companies that rebrand themselves as forward-thinking “energy” players as the Earth’s climate burns. Lockheed, though, traffics in something uniquely irreversible: export-grade death. By licensing its identity to apparel, multibillion-dollar arms contracts are reduced to mere intellectual property; civilian casualties dissolved into, simply, background static.In other words, vibes overpower victims. And when those vibes are stamped with the logo of the planet’s preeminent death merchant, resistance feels futile.Gorpcore has always drawn from military surplus for its rugged utility: endless cargo pockets, indestructible nylons, tactical silhouettes born in combat and repurposed for city streets. Brands like Arc’teryx, The North Face, and Supreme mine that heritage for authenticity and performance. After World War II, army fatigues became symbols of genuine rebellion, worn by anti-war protesters as an act of defiance against the establishment. Today, the dynamic threatens to invert entirely. The establishment itself, the world’s preeminent arms dealer, now supplies the “authentic” merchandise, turning subversion into subtle endorsement.Streetwear grew out of skate culture, hip-hop, and grassroots rebellion against mainstream norms. Importing the aesthetics of atrocity risks converting that legacy into compliance, rendering militarism the newest version of mainstream cool. For a generation immersed in filtered feeds and rapid trend cycles, Lockheed’s logo can sit comfortably beside NASA patches or National Geographic emblems, conveniently severed from the charred wreckage in Saada or the devastation in Gaza. Research on “ethical fading” demonstrates how strong visual design can mute moral alarms, a phenomenon intensified in Korea’s hyper-trendy ecosystem, where mandatory military service may further desensitize young consumers to defense branding while K-pop’s global engine drives relentless consumption.If the line proves durable, escalation feels inevitable. Palantir, another cornerstone of the defense-tech world, has already gone there, hyping limited merch drops that sell out in hours: $99 athletic shorts stamped “PLTR—TECH,” $119 nylon totes, hoodies emblazoned with CEO Alex Karp’s likeness or slogans about “dominating” threats. What’s to stop Northrop Grumman from launching its own techwear line? Or BAE Systems from dropping high-end collaborations?Lockheed already licenses merchandise worldwide through various agencies; broader international rollouts beyond Korea seem only a matter of time. Backlash is possible, boycotts from ethically minded buyers, perhaps even regulatory scrutiny as anti-militarism sentiment swells. Gorpcore’s longstanding flirtation with military aesthetics could calcify into outright fetish, obliterating whatever daylight remained between practical function and state-sanctioned propaganda.Yet, history suggests that in oversaturated markets, “cool” almost always trumps conscience. Lockheed’s streetwear pivot is a stark illustration of how fashion and culture launder raw power, enabling the machinery of war to conceal itself among hype, hoodies, and sold-out drops."
}
,
{
"title" : "Our Era of Insecurity: How Unaffordability and Uncertainty Became Our Monoculture",
"author" : "Alissa Quart",
"category" : "essays",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/our-era-of-insecurity",
"date" : "2025-12-16 11:56:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/Cover_EIP_Unaffordability.jpg",
"excerpt" : "In 2025, I’ve interviewed a number of people who saw themselves as living in “survival mode.” At first, their professions might surprise you. They are government contractors, public broadcasters, and tech workers, formerly safe professions. And some of their jobs disappeared this year due to DOGE “efficiency” cuts, the dismantling of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and AI acceleration. They are among the millions now living through an experience that I call terra infirma, a new level of economic and social uncertainty.",
"content" : "In 2025, I’ve interviewed a number of people who saw themselves as living in “survival mode.” At first, their professions might surprise you. They are government contractors, public broadcasters, and tech workers, formerly safe professions. And some of their jobs disappeared this year due to DOGE “efficiency” cuts, the dismantling of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and AI acceleration. They are among the millions now living through an experience that I call terra infirma, a new level of economic and social uncertainty.It’s the mood that encapsulates so much of Trump 2.0. A November 2025 Pew study found that almost half of U.S. adults are uncertain about having enough retirement income. When it comes to health insurance, they may be waiting for their ACA health subsidies to sunset or for their partner’s premiums to skyrocket. Addressing unaffordability and uncertainty is even the newest theme song in politics, most recently in the Maine campaign of gubernatorial candidate, oyster farmer and military veteran Graham Platner.Seventy years ago, the critic Raymond Williams used the term “structure of feeling” to describe a collective emotion that is tied to a time and place, as well as social and economic conditions. Today, our “structure of feeling” is uncertainty. You could even take it further, and call “precarity” the last monoculture as it’s a condition shared by so many Americans. As Astra Taylor, author of The Age of Insecurity: Coming Together as Things Fall Apart, says, insecurity is a “defining feature of our time.”As far as mass moods go, “insecurity” is certainly a disconcerting one. The economist Pranab Bardhan writes in A World of Insecurity, that “insecurity, more than inequality, agitates people.” What makes 2025 different from other years, however, is the degree to which we all experienced this precarity. The usual uncertainty level has been turned up from a whine to a 135-decibel air raid scream.What’s happened? Tariffs have raised our costs. Medicaid will be scaled back over the next decade by a trillion dollars. Meanwhile, dozens of Venezuelan fishermen have been exploded by our armed forces. And while two-thirds of Americans are already living with economic insecurity, their feelings about it don’t necessarily involve the discrepancy between their lot and those of the very rich. As Steven Semler, the co-founder of Security Policy Reform Institute (SPRI), explains it to me, these Americans have a mindset that “is more fearful of poverty than aspirations of being a millionaire.”The people of terra infirma do describe such fears. In the words of one, they’ve experienced a “mental health decline and a loss of purpose” and in another, “a serious financial pinch”, because they are their family’s main breadwinner. Uncertainty is the common refrain of the growing number of laid-off software workers, according to Human-Centered Design scholar Samuel So. In addition to feeling destabilized about their professional security for the first time, software workers have experienced disillusionment and alienation from the technology industry’s “military and police partnerships.” Jobs themselves are part of this insecurity, with never-ending hiring processes, the race of automation, and ghost jobs, the twisted contemporary version of the perished Russian serfs of Nikolai Gogol’s Dead Souls, except now professional opportunities are offered that don’t actually exist. People are also nervous about their future, because insecurity is a temporal emotion, as much about the future as the present. Many of us wonder how our security will further erode, as our health plan premiums soar, or as our subways catch on fire, or as ICE comes to our cities. This causes not only stress in the moment, but discomfort about what lies ahead.Of course, it’s not just Trump 2.0 alone that has caused this. The forces behind Trump’s win in 2024—and the anger at the traditional Democratic party—have something to do with this disposition, as well. In the weeks leading up to Trump’s election, people surveyed by the Federal Reserve Board ranked one of their top concerns as pricing and their top concern as inflation. Disparate phenomena—AI slop, job cuts, relentless and confusing cutbacks in crucial academic research—are entwined. It’s as if they were all figures in a paranoiac Thomas Pynchon novel. In a “world of insecurity,” as economist Bardhan writes, instabilities interlink. In other words, what I think of as “informational insecurity”—bots, false ads, fake news—often joins up with economic instability.These different instances of confusion and instability blend into a gnarly color wheel of distress. Economic distress, sure—that is also accentuated by societal, cultural, environmental, and physical examples of insecurity we see all around us, every day.How do we pick apart these knotted-together insecurities? For starters, we can embrace candidates who address economic uncertainty head-on, including New York’s new mayor, Zohran Mamdani, Seattle’s new mayor, Katie Wilson, and Virginia’s governor-elect Abigail Spanberger. These politicians, as Nicholas Jacobs has written of Maine candidate Platner, are “speaking to grievances that are real, measurable, and decades in the making.”Another line of defense is being brave and grasping for community in any way we can. I think of the ordinary people blowing whistles near Chicago to alert their neighbors when ICE showed up in their suburban towns: they were accidental upstanders, refusing to be part of manufactured uncertainty and instability.One traditional definition of security is “freedom from fear.” And while we are unlikely to experience that freedom from fear as long as the populist American Right continues its goosestep, it’s also important to remember that uncertainty, like any “structure of feeling,” is an unfinished emotion.Yes, insecurity shapes us now. But we, as a collective, are so much more than it. Because even if we are living in a time of such negative uncertainty, it won’t necessarily stay that way. We can still redefine ourselves and, most importantly, recognize we are not alone."
}
,
{
"title" : "On the Failures of Mainstream Media: The Rise of Independent Newsrooms",
"author" : "Céline Semaan",
"category" : "essays",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/on-the-failures-of-mainstream-media",
"date" : "2025-12-15 15:53:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/B417273E-EA4A-4BB8-9245-081928282D6D.jpeg",
"excerpt" : "Has it become immoral to be featured in the New York Times? I remember when I first saw my face in the iconic newspaper that for decades was regarded as a global standard‑bearer of mainstream journalism, I felt vindicated. Vindicated because, finally, my Lebanese family stopped asking if I had a real career. Vindicated because they would maybe stop worrying that I had blown my chances (and their immense sacrifices getting me an education), devoting my life instead to art and endless revolution. The New York Times’ legitimacy, now long gone, was regarded as the highest badge of honor, in particular, for immigrant kids who chose a different path than the usual career options afforded to us, and despite their rebellion, found a way to be recognized for it.",
"content" : "Has it become immoral to be featured in the New York Times? I remember when I first saw my face in the iconic newspaper that for decades was regarded as a global standard‑bearer of mainstream journalism, I felt vindicated. Vindicated because, finally, my Lebanese family stopped asking if I had a real career. Vindicated because they would maybe stop worrying that I had blown my chances (and their immense sacrifices getting me an education), devoting my life instead to art and endless revolution. The New York Times’ legitimacy, now long gone, was regarded as the highest badge of honor, in particular, for immigrant kids who chose a different path than the usual career options afforded to us, and despite their rebellion, found a way to be recognized for it.When the headline for the piece read “Refugee Designer Shines a Light on Global Issues,” my mother called me that day, not to congratulate me, but to demand I contact the editor and have them remove the word “refugee” before the word “designer.” I tried, in vain. Little did I know that this form of belittling, discrediting, and choice of words designed to incite disdain and eventually violence was core to the New York Times’ ethos.Over the past two years, increasingly immoral headlines and editorial choices in its Opinion section have eroded that credibility among many readers and contributors, particularly around coverage of the war in Gaza. A growing number of scholars, writers, and public intellectuals have publicly criticized the Times for framing geopolitical violence in ways that align with oppressive power structures rather than interrogate them — a criticism that raises deep concerns about misinformation and manufactured consent of dangerous ideologies.Headlines like “Bondi Beach Is What ‘Globalize the Intifada’ Looks Like” and “No, Israel Is Not Committing Genocide in Gaza” are editorial strategies designed to reshape public understanding of systemic violence to support far-right narratives and the interests of the global military-industrial complex. What happens when mainstream media becomes a mouthpiece for fascism and arms dealers? Where “objectivity” is marketed as truth, but really serves as a code for “obey the rulers” and “ask no questions.”This editorial leadership at the New York Times has sparked significant backlash within the intellectual community and among independent journalists. More than 300 writers, scholars, and former contributors have pledged a boycott of the Times’ Opinion pages, accusing the paper of anti‑Palestinian bias and demanding editorial accountability, including a re‑evaluation of its coverage and calls for a U.S. arms embargo on Israel. Alongside this, peace and justice organizations have condemned their editorial decisions, such as rejecting advertising that simply described Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide.The larger consequence of these controversies is not simply a reputational dispute; it reflects a broader shift in public trust away from legacy media toward people‑driven platforms that prioritize accountability, lived experience, and political context over corporate interests or geopolitical alignment. As mainstream outlets retreat from confronting systemic violence in favor of the bottom line, audiences — especially younger and more globally connected readers — are turning to independent media for context and truth‑telling that legacy institutions increasingly fail to provide.That’s where platforms like Everything is Political come in. I started this platform because I was fed up with pitching stories to mainstream media platforms and receiving bogus rejections, only to later read the most outrageous takes in their Opinion section, exposing racism and deliberate calls for violence that had real consequences for my people back home. Rather than treating opinion as a commodity or a battleground for corporate narratives, independent media like EIP can center historically grounded analysis, intersectional understanding, and ethical engagement with stories that cover conflict and power. In an age of globalization and hypermediated conflict, how media frames violence matters deeply — not just to who lives or dies on the ground, but also whose stories are amplified, whose suffering is recognized, and whose futures are imagined. Platforms accountable to audiences rather than corporate advertisers and shareholders must emerge to fill a vacuum created by a legacy press that too often places power over people. Outlets like Democracy Now!, The Intercept, BTNews, and countless others are leading the way, reporting accurate news without ever compromising their moral compass."
}
]
}