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.
More from: Keyah Hanwi
Keep reading:
Global Echoes of Resistance:
Artists Harnessing Art, Culture, and Ancestry
Chris Cook
{
"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" : "Mercy Over Speed: Revolutionizing Our Political Imagination",
"author" : "Sue Ariza",
"category" : "essays",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/mercy-over-speed",
"date" : "2025-12-11 13:40:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/Cover_EIP_Mercy_Speed.jpg",
"excerpt" : "2025 was a masterclass in haste.",
"content" : "2025 was a masterclass in haste.Policies rushed to enact a merciless agenda that benefit only the few—President Donald Trump scrapped Biden’s AI executive order within hours of taking office, wiping out safety and transparency requirements as we enter a new digital age. Immigration officials were ordered to quadruple immigration arrests overnight. Food assistance was frozen while billions in relief funds sat unused; hunger used as a pawn in the longest government shutdown in American history. Entire communities pushed not just to autopilot, but to survival—by algorithms that cannot see them, by bureaucracies that cannot pause long enough to understand them, by political actors who confuse immediacy with leadership.Of course, the real crisis isn’t speed on its own. It’s what speed erases: attention, nuance, reflection, and the fundamental truth that human beings are not statistics or administrative burdens. Perhaps nowhere was this clearer than in the State Department’s human rights reports earlier this year. In the name of “streamlining,” references to prison abuse, LGBTQIA+ persecution, and attacks on human rights defenders were quietly removed. The language was technocratic—reduce redundancy, tidy up the narrative—but the effect was ideological: whole communities and categories of suffering erased from national memory.Because the truth is, what speed strategically, ruthlessly, obliterates is the one crucial political practice we need most: mercy.Our world has taught us to think of mercy in opposition to speed, too soft for our lived realities, though it’s anything but that: Mercy is the commitment to respond to harm, conflict, or complexity with clarity rather than panic—with discernment instead of reflex. Mercy is the refusal to collapse a person, an idea, or a crisis into something smaller than it is. Mercy is political imagination: the capacity to see beyond what urgency allows and stay with one another long enough to resist the reflexes that turn disagreement into instant judgment—so we can listen before we attack or defend.But what does mercy actually demand of us? For us to reclaim it politically, we first must understand what it means and how it offers a counter-rhythm to our frantic culture of speed and instant gratification.The word itself tells a story. Mercy comes from the Latin merces—wages, payment, the price of goods. Ancient Romans understood it as a transaction. But early Christians shifted the word toward the sacred: the spiritual reward for showing kindness where cruelty was expected. They moved a word about the marketplace into a vocabulary of grace.Judaism’s rachamim, Islam’s rahma, Buddhism’s karuṇā, and Hinduism’s dayā all insist on the same truth: mercy is a way of recognizing the sacredness in others.That transformation mirrors what mercy asks of us now: to move beyond the logic of exchange, beyond what is earned or owed. It asks us to look at someone who has caused pain, and instead of asking What do they deserve? ask, What does healing require here? It is seeing beyond someone’s worst moment and choosing curiosity over condemnation.But mercy is more than individual forgiveness. It is a way of moving through the world that assumes people are larger than their failures; that redemption remains possible; that, importantly, time is not a scarce resource, but something we can afford to give. Mercy requires attention—what French philosopher Simone Weil called “the rarest and purest form of generosity.” It is why American novelist James Baldwin described love as an active emotion: the daily labor of truly seeing another person, especially when the systems around us tell us to look away.The problem, however, is that attention is precisely what our culture has made almost impossible to give. We are overstimulated, overextended, algorithmically hijacked, not only bearing witness to incredible amounts of suffering, but scrolling past it. We don’t refuse mercy because we’re cruel. We refuse it because we’ve built a world that makes stopping feel unimaginable—impractical.This is why mercy is not opposed to speed; it is opposed to false urgency. There are moments when mercy requires swift, decisive intervention. The problem is not action—it’s reaction: the unexamined acceleration that mistakes immediacy for moral clarity and treats nuance as an inconvenience.Consider how the culture of speed is destabilizing basic public systems. Take the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) that feeds more than 42 million Americans. This year, households faced unprecedented threats to their benefits—not because their needs had changed, not because the money didn’t exist, but because the administration chose to let billions in contingency funds sit untouched. The crisis wasn’t a failure of capacity. It was a political choice dressed up as inevitability.Or look at the rush to implement AI—a race happening not because anyone has thought deeply about what these systems are for, but because companies fear being the last to adopt them. Across industries, AI is being plugged into hiring platforms, healthcare systems, education tools, corporate workflows, and crisis-response mechanisms, often with little understanding of the consequences. “Innovation” has become a justification to move faster than ethics, oversight, or even common sense can keep up. In that scramble to avoid falling behind, speed becomes a substitute for understanding what people actually need and for the mercy that governance requires.A merciful politics would insist that deliberation is not inefficiency but protection, and that slowing down is an ethical requirement. Because the stakes of leadership and governance without it are real: if AI systems are going to help determine who gets hired, who gets healthcare, who receives support, which students get flagged for discipline, then refusing to slow down is not neutrality—it is a political choice with human costs.Our addiction to speed also shapes how we respond to political disagreement. Our culture no longer rewards thinking or meaningful conversation. Instead, it rewards reacting. Watch how career Democrats responded to New York Assembly member Zohran Mamdani’s mayoral campaign in November. Rather than engaging with his proposals on housing, healthcare, or municipal governance, establishment voices moved immediately to demonization. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer withheld his endorsement entirely. His ideas required discussion, which takes time and attention. His vision challenged party orthodoxy, which requires deliberation to refute or incorporate. Instead of dialogue, we see instant censure, moral panic, and swift punishment.The speed of the response is the point. It signals that dissent is tolerable only when it can be quickly absorbed or quickly dismissed. Ideas that require conversation are treated as threats simply because they resist rapid processing. The issue isn’t whether Mamdani’s proposals are correct (and of course, it remains to be seen how they will actually be implemented); it’s that the reflex to demonize rather than debate reveals a political culture that has forgotten how to think collectively.We see this punitive speed logic everywhere. Students disciplined for language before conversations can happen. Social movements judged by headlines rather than the work. Communities criminalized in real time by social media cycles that flatten context into consumable outrage. We’ve built a society quicker to punish than to understand, quicker to condemn than to contextualize.But mercy could help us move differently. Mercy would refuse to relegate a person or an idea to a caricature simply because the truth requires time. Mercy asks us to hold uncertainty long enough to respond with discernment rather than reflex. It asks us to think—together.Legal scholar Matthias Mahlmann writes that dignity is “subversive,” an insistence that every human life carries irreducible worth. But dignity has a temporal requirement: you cannot witness another person’s humanity at speed. You cannot attend to the complexity of a life if you’re only interested in the fastest possible outcome.This is why systems built around optimization always feel so violent. Algorithmic welfare reviews, automated policing, real-time public shaming—all of them demand that human beings be compressed into categories that can be processed quickly. The violence isn’t just in the outcome; it’s in the refusal of attention itself.Mercy and dignity are inseparable. Dignity names the inherent worth that every person carries; mercy is the discipline that protects that worth in practice. Dignity says there is something unbreakable in each of us. Mercy is how we honor that unbreakable thing, especially when harm or conflict tempts us to forget it. What would shift if our reflex wasn’t How fast can we react?, but How deeply can we understand? What becomes possible when we refuse to hurry past another person’s humanity?Mercy is not sentiment. It is resistance. It is the refusal of dignity fatigue. It is the discipline of witnessing: in political policy, in the conversations we have, in how we treat each other’s failures and hopes. 2025 taught us what haste can destroy. The question now is whether we’re willing to build something slower—and more human—in its place."
}
,
{
"title" : "What We Can Learn from the Inuit Mapping of the Arctic",
"author" : "William Rankin",
"category" : "excerpts",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/inuit-mapping-arctic",
"date" : "2025-12-02 12:49:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/Cover_EIP_Template-Inuit_Map.jpg",
"excerpt" : "This excerpt is from RADICAL CARTOGRAPHY by William Rankin, published by Viking, an imprint of Penguin Publishing Group, a division of Penguin Random House, LLC. Copyright © 2025 by William Rankin.",
"content" : "This excerpt is from RADICAL CARTOGRAPHY by William Rankin, published by Viking, an imprint of Penguin Publishing Group, a division of Penguin Random House, LLC. Copyright © 2025 by William Rankin.In 1994, the Berkeley geographer Bernard Nietschmann made a famous claim about the power of mapping in the global struggle for Indigenous rights. It was a claim about how the tools of historical oppression could be reclaimed by the oppressed: “More Indigenous territory has been claimed by maps than by guns. This assertion has its corollary: more Indigenous territory can be defended and reclaimed by maps than by guns.” The idea was that by putting themselves on the map—documenting their lives and their communities—Indigenous peoples would not be so easy to erase. Nietschmann was working in Central America, often heroically, during a time of violence and displacement, and he inspired a generation of researchers and activists interested in flipping the power structure of state-centric cartography on its head.But despite the spread of bottom-up mapping projects in the past 30 years, perhaps the most successful example of Indigenous mapping actually predates Nietschmann’s call to action. Just one year prior, in 1993, the Inuit of northern Canada signed a treaty creating the territory of Nunavut—the largest self-governing Indigenous territory in the world—and mapping was central to both the negotiation and the outcome. It remains one of the rare cases of Indigenous geographic knowledge decolonizing the world map.So why hasn’t the Inuit project been replicable elsewhere, despite decades more work on Indigenous mapping? The answer lies in the very idea of territory itself, and in particular in one of the most threatened parts of the Inuit landscape today: ice. The winter extent of Arctic sea ice reached a record low earlier this year, and a new low is predicted for the winter ahead. Yet the shrinking ice isn’t just an unshakable sign of Arctic warming; it’s also a poignant reminder of what Nietschmann got right—and what he missed—about the relationship between cartography and power. In particular, it shows how Inuit conceptions of space, place, and belonging are rooted in a dynamic, seasonal geography that’s often completely invisible on Western-style maps.The story begins in the 1970s, when the young Inuit leader Tagak Curley, today considered a “living father” of Nunavut, hired the Arctic anthropologist Milton Freeman to lead a collaborative mapping project of unprecedented scope and ambition. Freeman taught at McMaster University about an hour outside Toronto; he was white, but his wife, Mini Aodla Freeman, was Inuit (she was a translator and later a celebrated writer). Freeman assembled a team of other anthropologists and Arctic geographers—also white—to split the mapping into regions. They called their method the “map biography.” The goal was to capture the life history of every Inuit hunter in cartographic form, recording each person’s memories of where, at any point in their life, they had found roughly three dozen species of wildlife—from caribou and ptarmigan to beluga, narwhal, and seaweed. Each map biography would be a testimony of personal experience.After the mapping was split into regions, about 150 field-workers—almost all Inuit—traveled between 33 northern settlements with a stack of government-issued topographic maps to conduct interviews. Each hunter was asked to draw lines or shapes directly on the maps with colored pens or pencils. The interviewers stayed about 10 weeks in each settlement, visiting most hunters in their own homes, and the final participation rate was an astonishing 85 percent of all adult Inuit men. They collected 1,600 biographies in total, some on maps as large as 10 feet square.Then came the cartographers, back in Ontario: one professor and a team of about 15 students. The first map below (Figure 1) shows how the individual map biographies were transformed into summary maps, one for each community. For every species, the overlap of all hunters’ testimony became a single blob, and then blobs for all species were overlaid to make a complete map. The second map (Figure 2) shows one of the finished atlas pages along the Northwest Passage. The immediate impression is that the Arctic is in no way an empty expanse of barren land and unclaimed mineral riches. It is dense with human activity, necessary for personal and collective survival. The community maps combined to show almost uninterrupted Inuit presence stretching from northern Labrador to the Alaska border.Figure 1: Top left is a simplified version of a “map biography” from a single Inuit hunter, showing his birthplace and the places he hunted caribou, fox, wolf, grizzly bear, moose, and fish at various points in his life. (The original biography would have been drawn over a familiar government-issued topographic map.) The other three maps show how multiple biographies were then combined into patterned blobs for all hunters and all species. (Map courtesy of William Rankin/ Penguin Random House LLC.)Figure 2: A two-page spread from the finished atlas showing the seven kinds of animals hunted from the settlements of Igloolik and Hall Beach, in an area about 500 by 300 miles: caribou, polar bear, walrus, whale, fish, seal, and waterfowl. (Because of the large number of individual species recorded in the map biographies, some species were grouped together in the final maps.) The blobs are a strong, even overpowering figure atop an unusually subtle ground. Notice in particular how difficult it is to distinguish land and water areas, since the dark shading extends beyond coastlines even for individual species. This map in fact includes the Northwest Passage—the famous sea route around the tip of North America—but the crucial Fury and Hecla Strait (named after the two British ships that first learned of, but did not navigate, the passage in 1822) is almost entirely obscured. (Map courtesy of William Rankin/ Penguin Random House LLC.)Nothing about the cartography was meant to be subversive—or even controversial. For the cartographers, the only message was that the Inuit hunted a variety of species over large areas. But look again at the finished map in Figure 2. Yes, a foreground is layered over a background in the usual way, but the visual argument is strikingly different from a typical layered map in, say, a census atlas, where the foreground data doesn’t stray beyond crisp pre-existing borders. Here, in contrast, even the basic distinction between land and water is often obscure. The maps’ content is the facts of species and area; the maps’ argument is that Inuit culture is grounded in a substantially different understanding of territory than the one Western cartography was designed to show.As a result, this new atlas shifted the negotiations between the Inuit and the Canadian government decisively. Not only did the maps provide a legal claim to the Inuit-used land, documenting 750,000 square miles—an area the size of Mexico—but also a claim to the sea, showing an additional 325,000 square miles offshore.It took many years for the full implications to play out, but the erosion of the land–water boundary became central to the Inuit vision. At the time, wildlife on land was managed by the regional Northwest Territories government, while offshore marine species were the responsibility of centralized federal agencies. The Inuit used the atlas to win agreement for a new agency with equal responsibility over both. At the same time, the Inuit also improved their position by offering their offshore claims as evidence the Canadian government would use—not just in the 1980s, but even as recently as 2024—to resist foreign encroachment in the Northwest Passage. The final agreement in 1993 granted the Inuit $1.15 billion in cash, title to about 17 percent of the land in the “settlement area,” representation on several new management agencies, a share of all natural-resource revenue, broad hunting and fishing rights, and a promise that the territory of Nunavut would come into being on April 1, 1999.It’s easy to count this project as a success story, but it’s also important to remember that it depended both on the government’s own interest in negotiation and on the willingness of Indigenous peoples, or at least their leadership, to translate their sense of space onto a map, solidifying what had previously been fluid. It also meant abandoning claims to ancestral lands that had not been used in living experience and provoking new boundary disputes with neighboring, and previously amicable, Indigenous groups. These tradeoffs have led some scholars to critique mapping as only “drawing Indigenous peoples into a modern capitalist economy while maintaining the centrality of state power.” But for the Inuit, the alternatives seemed quite a bit worse.With the more recent proliferation of Indigenous mapping initiatives elsewhere—in Latin America, Africa, and Asia—the tradeoffs have been harder to evaluate. Most governments have shown little interest in addressing Indigenous claims, and when bottom-up mapping has been pushed instead by international nonprofits interested in environmental conservation, the downsides of mapping have often come without any of the upsides.Yet it’s not just the attitude of the state that’s been different; it’s also the cartography. In nearly all these other cases, the finished maps have shown none of the territorial inversion of the Inuit atlas. Instead, Indigenous knowledge is either overlaid on an existing base map in perfectly legible form, or it’s used to construct a new base map of a remarkably conventional sort, using the same visual vocabulary as Western maps.Did the Inuit project just show the data so clearly that its deeper implications were immediately apparent? No, not really, since the great irony here is that the cartographers were in fact quite dissatisfied. Follow-up surveys reached the conclusion that the atlas was only “moderately successful” by their usual mapmaking standards.The Inuit atlas was a kind of happy accident—one that doesn’t conform to any of the usual stories about Indigenous mapping, in Canada or elsewhere. The lesson here isn’t that maps should be as Indigenous as possible, or that they should be as orthodox as possible. These maps were neither. My take is simpler: the atlas shows that maps can, in fact, support alternative conceptions of space—and that showing space in a different way is crucial.The possibilities aren’t endless, but they’re broader than we might think. Plotting different sorts of data is a necessary step, but no less important are the relationships between that data and the assumptions of what lies below. For the Inuit, these assumptions were about land, water, and territory. These were in the background both visually and politically, and they were upstaged by an unexpectedly provocative foreground. The layers did not behave as they were meant to, and despite the tradeoffs, they allowed an Indigenous community to fight for their home and their way of life."
}
,
{
"title" : "Malcolm X and Islam: U.S. Islamophobia Didn’t Start with 9/11",
"author" : "Collis Browne",
"category" : "essays",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/malcolm-x-and-islam",
"date" : "2025-11-27 14:58:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/life-malcolm-3.jpg",
"excerpt" : "",
"content" : "Anti-Muslim hate has been deeply engrained and intertwined with anti-Black racism in the United States for well over 60 years, far longer than most of us are taught or are aware.As the EIP team dug into design research for the new magazine format of our first anniversary issue, we revisited 1960s issues of LIFE magazine—and landed on the March 1965 edition, published just after the assassination of Malcolm X.The reporting is staggering in its openness: blatantly anti-Black and anti-Muslim in a way that normalizes white supremacy at its most fundamental level. The anti-Blackness, while horrifying, is not surprising. This was a moment when, despite the formal dismantling of Jim Crow, more than 10,000 “sundown towns” still existed across the country, segregation remained the norm, and racial terror structured daily life.What shocked our team was the nakedness of the anti-Muslim propaganda.This was not yet framed as anti-Arab in the way Western Islamophobia is often framed today. Arab and Middle Eastern people were not present in the narrative at all. Instead, what was being targeted was organized resistance to white supremacy—specifically, the adoption of Islam by Black communities as a source of political power, dignity, and self-determination. From this moment, we can trace a clear ideological line from anti-Muslim sentiment rooted in anti-Black racism in the 1960s to the anti-Arab, anti-MENA, and anti-SWANA racism that saturates Western culture today.The reporting leaned heavily on familiar colonial tropes: the implication of “inter-tribal” violence, the suggestion that resistance to white supremacy is itself a form of reverse racism or inherent aggression, and the detached, almost smug tone surrounding the violent death of a cultural leader.Of course, the Nation of Islam and Elijah Muhammad represent only expressions within an immense and diverse global Muslim world—spanning Morocco, Sudan, the Gulf, Iraq, Pakistan, Indonesia, and far beyond. Yet U.S. cultural and military power has long blurred these distinctions, collapsing complexity into a singular enemy image.It is worth naming this history clearly and connecting the dots: U.S. Islamophobia did not begin with 9/11. It is rooted in a much older racial project—one that has always braided anti-Blackness and anti-Muslim sentiment together in service of white supremacy, at home and abroad."
}
]
}