Green transition built on human suffering

International aid organization Oxfam has published a report examining electrification more closely. The report highlights that the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy is occurring through human suffering, with the wealthiest profiting from the poorest.

“The warning signals are clear. The path that rich countries’ green transition has taken comes at the expense of the environment and human rights, particularly in low-income countries,” says Hanna Nelson, Policy Director at Oxfam Sweden.

The report reveals that only 3 percent of global investments in fossil-free energy went to Latin America. Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and Africa each received just 2 percent in 2024, despite these regions having the greatest need for electricity.

A full 85 percent of those without electricity live in sub-Saharan Africa.

Profits go to the wealthiest

The report also finds that 70 percent of reserves of critical minerals for electrification are located in the Global South. Despite this, the majority of renewable energy investments go to the Global North (46 percent) and China (29 percent).

The profits then largely end up in the pockets of the world’s richest 1 percent of individuals.

“It’s naive to believe that the world can simply transition from fossil to electric while continuing to consume and trade as usual. A greater systemic shift is required that puts justice first. Energy should primarily serve human life, not profit,” says Hanna Nelson.

“Deepens inequalities”

As a case study, the report uses electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla. The company earned $3,150 per electric vehicle sold—321 times more than what the entire Democratic Republic of Congo received in compensation for delivering the amount of cobalt required.

Had the country retained this value, it would have generated more than $4 billion annually, which could have provided half the population with renewable energy.

“The green transition risks deepening and exacerbating inequalities and injustices between countries when it could instead have been a catalyst for development,” says Hanna Nelson, continuing:

“If energy consumption were redistributed, the energy consumed by the richest 1 percent would be sufficient to meet the basic energy needs of people who currently lack access to electricity seven times over.”