Green chemistry’s systemic limits: Why ‘sustainable’ innovation alone cannot dismantle extractive resource regimes
Original framing: “We’re ‘green chemists’ – why we think this emerging science can transform the way the world uses its resources” — The Conversation - Global
Cross-culturally, circularity is not an innovation but a cultural norm—from the Japanese *mottainai* (regret for waste) to the African *ubuntu* ethic of interdependence. Western green chemistry’s individualistic, techno-utopian framing contrasts with communal models like India’s *vasudhaiva kutumbakam* (the world is one family), which prioritizes collective well-being over market-driven solutions. These paradigms reveal that ‘green’ is not a universal value but a contested terrain shaped by cultural worldviews.
The green chemistry narrative exemplifies how technological solutions can become complicit in perpetuating extractive regimes when divorced from structural critique.
Historically, industrial chemistry has been a tool of colonial extraction, and its ‘green’ iteration risks repeating this pattern by centering Western scientific authority while sidelining Indigenous circular economies and Global South stewardship. The rebound effect and greenwashing demonstrate that efficiency alone cannot address overconsumption, as the problem is not technical but political—rooted in a growth-obsessed economic system that treats nature as a resource to be optimized rather than a kin to be respected. True transformation requires democratizing material governance, instituting absolute caps on resource use, and decolonizing the very frameworks of innovation. Actors like the Māori *kaitiaki*, the Yoruba *babalawo*, and Global South communities resisting extractive industries are not just case studies but essential partners in redefining sustainability. The trickster’s laughter lies in recognizing that ‘green chemistry’ is not a revolution but a revelation of how deeply our systems are broken—and how much work remains to mend them.