Latin America and the Caribbean is a region shaped by multiple transitions. While the term has traditionally been used to refer to transitions toward democracy, today the notion extends far beyond the political sphere. We speak of energy, ecosocial, urban, and digital transitions, among others, to underscore that change entails not only new resources or technologies, but also the transformation of productive models, consumption patterns, and worldviews. In the most unequal region on the planet, one expression that has gained increasing prominence and urgency is that of a just transition. According to the Development Bank of Latin America (CAF), the richest 10 percent concentrate 77 percent of the region’s wealth. In this context, any process of change faces a central challenge: ensuring that transitions do not deepen historical inequalities but rather pave the way for a truly equitable transformation.
Why speak of just transitions today?
The climate crisis we are confronting is also a crisis of inequality. According to a 2025 Oxfam report, ultra-wealthy individuals and large corporations contribute disproportionately to global warming due to their high emission levels and their economic and political power. Indeed, 86 percent of the wealthiest 0.1 percent of the world’s population reside in the Global North, while climate change disproportionately affects countries in the Global South and historically marginalized groups such as indigenous peoples, afro-descendants, and women. In this sense, the climate crisis functions as a multiplier of inequalities.
In light of this scenario, it is urgent to articulate diverse forms of knowledge and rethink the organization of our societies within planetary boundaries. Although many sectors argue that the energy transition and so-called green capitalism offer comprehensive solutions, in practice these labels often mask a new race, driven largely by governments and corporations in the Global North, for rare earths, strategic minerals, and renewable energy sources to produce batteries, electric vehicles, and power technologies such as artificial intelligence.
The paradox is evident: manufacturing these “green” solutions requires vast amounts of energy and minerals extracted from the Global South, intensifying socio-environmental impacts and conflicts while reproducing historical dependencies. Rather than overcoming asymmetries, current energy transition proposals, as they are being implemented, tend to deepen inequalities and consolidate new forms of green colonialism.
Amid rising geopolitical tensions and competition for strategic resources, Latin America, rich in lithium, oil, copper, and rare earths, has become a contested territory among major powers, reinforcing its peripheral role as an exporter of natural resources to China and the United States. Forebodingly, the recent U.S. military intervention in Venezuela and control over the country’s oil reserves, in blatant violation of the UN Charter and international law, sets a troubling precedent for the region.
At the same time, despite the severe impacts of the climate crisis, climate denialism, disinformation, and efforts to delay or obstruct effective action against global warming persist. The United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and environmental and climate deregulation processes promoted by countries such as India, Argentina, and Ecuador jeopardize the ecological advances achieved in recent decades. To avert a deeper catastrophe, it is imperative to advance toward an economic, political, and social model that is genuinely sustainable.
Implications of a Just Transition in Latin America and the Caribbean
The concept of a “just transition” originates in labor movement struggles and emerged in the 1980s, when U.S. unions in fossil fuel–dependent industries used the term to defend workers affected by or losing their jobs due to new environmental regulations. The concept emphasizes the need to consider who wins and who loses in a transition process, as well as the benefits and negative impacts it generates.
In recent years, the concept has gained centrality in global climate debates, highlighting that the path toward decarbonization must place society as a whole: communities, workers, and historically marginalized groups, at its core. Although its interpretation varies across countries and regions, the principle is clear: no transformation process will be legitimate if it leaves entire sectors behind.
In Latin America and the Caribbean, addressing the climate crisis and advancing toward a sustainable, low-carbon economy will require annual investments ranging from US$470 billion to US$1.3 trillion (equivalent to 7–19 percent of regional GDP) in infrastructure and social spending, an undertaking with profound economic and social implications. Among other effects, this shift will entail the closure of fossil fuel–related companies, geographic changes in production patterns, and job losses in certain sectors, while generating new opportunities in areas such as renewable energy. It will also require higher levels of training and the development of new worker competencies.
Phasing out fossil fuels will affect regional infrastructure and production systems, as well as the cost of living, potentially increasing food and transportation prices. At the same time, it may reduce fiscal revenues available to finance social investments, posing additional challenges for states.
In this context, countries in the region must ensure that these processes are carefully planned, participatory, and just, and that their benefits are equitably distributed. Simultaneously, it is crucial to anticipate negative impacts and adopt measures to mitigate and compensate for them through social protection, redistributive, and employment policies, particularly targeting low-income households and historically marginalized groups.
Far from being merely an ideal, concrete proposals have emerged from Latin America and the Caribbean. One such initiative is the Ecosocial and Intercultural Pact of the South, which argues that a genuine transition must be more than energy or technological change; it must constitute a comprehensive transformation of the socioecological regime aimed at guaranteeing dignified living conditions, placing social justice and the fight against inequality at the center. Without this commitment, the transition will be incomplete and ineffective.
Autor
Political scientist. Professor of International Relations and of the Postgraduate Program in Social Sciences in Development, Agriculture and Society (CPDA) at the Federal Rural University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRRJ). PhD in Political Science from the Complutense University of Madrid.
