It is often presented as a noble cause that unites humanity under a common goal: saving the planet.

But behind the slogans and solar panels, a harsher truth is unfolding, one where the costs of " going green " are unevenly distributed and, in many cases, borne by those who are already marginalised, colonised, and silenced.

This article sheds light on a critical yet underdiscussed question: What happens when the sustainability movement forgets the people it was intended to protect? From displaced indigenous Africans to Palestinians locked out of their land by so-called environmental barriers, the green movement has, in some cases, become a tool of exclusion and exploitation.

GREEN COLONIALISM

The legacy of colonialism persists in today ' s sustainability agenda. " Green colonialism " is a term that describes how environmental initiatives, often led by powerful nations or international organisations, end up imposing their will on the Global South in the name of conservation.

Take, for example, the creation of protected areas in Africa. In theory, these conservation zones are established to preserve biodiversity and combat climate change. In practice, however, they often involve the mass eviction of indigenous peoples who have lived on and sustainably managed that land for centuries.

The Maasai people in Tanzania and Kenya have been repeatedly displaced to make way for tourism-driven conservation initiatives, including luxury safari lodges and wildlife corridors. Their ancestral grazing lands are now rebranded as eco-tourism destinations, while the Maasai themselves are denied access, criminalised, or even violently removed.

Tanzania ' s conservation-driven evictions of Maasai communities in Ngorongoro have been confirmed by a Human Rights Watch report, which describes displacement, loss of livestock, and legal violations undermining indigenous rights, despite legal protections under Tanzanian law( Human Rights Watch, 2024).

These actions not only violate human rights but also undermine the Toyyiban principle, which emphasises justice, dignity, and ethical

BY MUHAMAD SHIRWAN ABDULLAH SANI

International Institute of Halal Training and Research( INHART) International Islamic University Malaysia

“ The wealth generated from these green technologies often benefits large corporations, while local communities frequently face environmental degradation, poor health, and economic

dependency. "

- Muhamad Shirwan Abdullah

Sani

treatment of all people as part of a truly wholesome and sustainable world.

This prompts a key question: Why isn ' t global capital able to compensate indigenous communities for their stewardship or enable their co-management of these lands, rather than seizing them under the pretext of " green development "?

LAND GRABS IN AFRICA

Carbon offsetting is a key aspect of international climate efforts, enabling companies and governments to offset their emissions by funding " green projects " such as planting trees or conserving forests. While this approach is ideally mutually beneficial, it can, in practice, lead to harmful land grabbing.

In several African countries, such as Mozambique and Uganda, land once cultivated by local farmers has been seized or restricted for carbon credit projects. These lands are often leased to foreign companies for decades under vague promises of reforestation or carbon capture.

Meanwhile, the local population loses access to the farmland and forest resources they depend on for survival. The climate benefits accrue to multinational polluters; the social and economic costs are borne by communities already living on the edge. Conflicts and community grievances are consistently reported in follow-up analyses of these projects( Schmid, 2023).

This injustice stems from a larger system: a capitalist structure that views the Global South not as an equal partner in climate initiatives, but as a cheap source for carbon storage. Instead of investing in local economies or compensating farmers for their contributions to sustainability, corporations exploit land value and leave communities behind.

ENVIRONMENTALISM AS AN OCCUPATION

In Palestine, the green movement assumes an even more contentious dimension. Under the guise of environmentalism, Israel has implemented policies that further restrict Palestinian land use.

Green zones and forestation projects in the West Bank have been strategically placed to prevent Palestinian construction and expansion, while simultaneously legalising Israeli settlements.

The Jewish National Fund( JNF) has cultivated forests on the sites of destroyed Palestinian

villages, effectively erasing historical memory while promoting ecological benefits. This action cites explicitly contracts that present tree-planting as a strategic tool to exclude Bedouin communities, cloaked in ecological rhetoric( Sasa, 2023).

A well-known example is Ayn al-Zaytoun, where pine trees were planted atop homes demolished in 1948. These forests are presented as carbon sinks and recreational parks, yet they also function as mechanisms of land control and cultural erasure.

Palestinians simultaneously face strict limits on water access, waste management, and renewable energy initiatives. The green movement, often controlled by State authorities, is exploited to mask ongoing oppression and apartheid practices.

It raises the critical question: Why isn ' t environmental funding directed toward empowering Palestinians, such as supplying clean water, establishing solar energy systems, and ensuring food security, instead of being used to justify land confiscation under the pretence of environmentalism?

GREEN TECHNOLOGIES, DIRTY LABOUR

The push for electric vehicles, solar panels, and rechargeable batteries is fuelling demand for rare minerals such as lithium, cobalt, and nickel. Much of this mining takes place in politically unstable or economically exploited regions, especially in the Democratic Republic of Congo( DRC)( AP News, 2023).

In the DRC, over 70 per cent of the world ' s cobalt supply is mined, often under horrific conditions. Children as young as seven work in unregulated mines with little safety, digging for minerals that end up in smartphones and electric cars marketed as " clean " or sustainable ".

The wealth generated from these green technologies often benefits large corporations, while local communities frequently face environmental degradation, poor health, and economic dependency. Electric vehicle production and clean tech industries rely heavily on cobalt from the DRC, where mining often involves child labour and unsafe conditions.

This condition is an affront to the ethical foundations of sustainability. And here lies the bitter irony: Why can ' t the tech giants and clean energy multinationals, flush with billions in profits, pay African labourers fair wages and provide safe working conditions? The answer