Skip to content

Mexican winds and the need for community alternatives

Wind is a localised common resource, as copper or coal is. Its extraction should respect the property and institutions of the indigenous communities in the territory. Español.

Published:
Indigenous women at protest against corporate wind in Isthmus of Tehuantepec, Oaxaca, Mexico, from website of 'Asamblea de los pueblos indígenas del Istmo de Tehuantepec en Defensa de la Tierra y el Territorio'.
Indigenous women at protest against corporate wind in Isthmus of Tehuantepec, Oaxaca, Mexico, from website of 'Asamblea de los pueblos indígenas del Istmo de Tehuantepec en Defensa de la Tierra y el Territorio'.

In theory, renewable energy should enable democratic, local ownership and control; almost any community has some kind of renewable capacity. This logical fallacy was made legitimate through the almost fabled Danish 1970s anti-nuclear movement that promoted renewable energies as ‘peaceful’ alternatives and that successfully forced the government to support community renewables.[i]  However, across the world, the growth of the renewable sector has not followed Denmark’s lead, but instead has expanded through neoliberal and imperialistic ideology. Wind should be thought of as a resource in a particular place in the same way we might think about copper or coal, the extraction of which impacts local communities.

Nowhere can this be seen more clearly than in the corporate wind power projects of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, Oaxaca, South Mexico where, particularly since 2008, private (overwhelmingly foreign) companies have developed approximately 20 projects, a total of 1,751.47 MW or 10m Mexicans. The wind resources were divided up between the energy companies behind closed doors a long time ago, (see map produced by the Mexican Wind Energy Association) and land has continued to be designated to companies year on year[ii]. Basically, the winds in this part of Mexico are exceptional, so companies can sell their wind to the grid at a profit without need for a subsidy[iii], generating carbon credits for Coca Cola and Walmart to continue with more of the same.