Which claim best characterizes Bruna's critique of climate policy in 2022?

Which claim best characterizes Bruna's critique of climate policy in 2022?

• A. Renewable transitions eliminate environmental harms.
• B. Green extractivism reproduces extractivist logics and harm.
• C. Climate policies are neutral regarding inequality.
• D. Green technology solves all social issues.

Answer: (B)

The main idea here is that climate policy can reproduce harm through its underlying approach to resource use. Bruna’s critique in 2022 argues that efforts to shift to renewable energy and decarbonization often depend on extensive material extraction—minerals like lithium, cobalt, nickel, and rare earths—so the transition becomes driven by mining and related processes rather than truly reducing harm. This is called green extractivism: it treats the extraction of resources as an essential part of solving climate change, but it continues to deploy extractive practices that cause environmental damage, dispossession, and social injustice. In other words, the policy’s climate benefits can be hollow if they come at the cost of new harms to communities and ecosystems, especially those already marginalized. That’s why the best answer is the one that says green extractivism reproduces extractivist logics and harm. The other statements imagine that renewables automatically erase harm, or that climate policy is neutral about inequality, or that green technology fixes all social issues. Bruna’s point is that the transition can reproduce the same unequal and harmful dynamics unless it changes how resources are produced, who bears the costs, and how power is distributed.

The main idea here is that climate policy can reproduce harm through its underlying approach to resource use. Bruna’s critique in 2022 argues that efforts to shift to renewable energy and decarbonization often depend on extensive material extraction—minerals like lithium, cobalt, nickel, and rare earths—so the transition becomes driven by mining and related processes rather than truly reducing harm. This is called green extractivism: it treats the extraction of resources as an essential part of solving climate change, but it continues to deploy extractive practices that cause environmental damage, dispossession, and social injustice. In other words, the policy’s climate benefits can be hollow if they come at the cost of new harms to communities and ecosystems, especially those already marginalized.

That’s why the best answer is the one that says green extractivism reproduces extractivist logics and harm. The other statements imagine that renewables automatically erase harm, or that climate policy is neutral about inequality, or that green technology fixes all social issues. Bruna’s point is that the transition can reproduce the same unequal and harmful dynamics unless it changes how resources are produced, who bears the costs, and how power is distributed.