The idea that the plan can help the poor depoliticizes violence and legitimizes violence against the poor.

Aspiring to bring the poor into the fold of the global economy, in the way that inclusive green growth advocates, detracts from the deeper issue of how, in the first instance, the poor are unequally incorporated into the free market economy as casualties of the principle of competition driving economic relations. Add into the mix the aims of the inclusive green growth paradigm (developing new green technologies or a free market in carbon offsets) to solve environmental harms by commercializing or putting a price on them and we are left with a potent, albeit misplaced gesture of inclusive governance that sets out to solve the twofold problems of poverty and environmental injustice in one fell swoop whereby the source of the problem is used as the solution. Inclusive green growth extends the power and reach of the free market (competition, privatization, commodification) that establishes the unequal location of people and the exploitative situation of the environment in the global economy, hereby reproducing the self-same political rationality and system of power relations. Capital accumulation and the logic of competition driving social and environmental injustices are no longer viewed through a political lens as the cause of these injustices; rather, using an economic frame that views capital and competition as the solution to injustice simply depoliticizes the economic practice of accumulation and competition. When the principle of competition reappears as part of another discourse around resiliency the biopolitical character of inclusive green growth is exposed. On the one hand, inclusive green growth policies and actions are endorsed as promoting more resilient economies. On the other hand, resilience 'has emerged as an important reference point when discussing appropriate responses to the increasing levels of risk faced by societies and economies'.42 In this way, the model of inclusive green growth neatly aligns with the growing popularity around producing resilient subjects who are better positioned to fend off the catastrophic effects of climate change, environmental degradation, and impoverishment.43 A resilient subject is flexible and better equipped to adapt to the variegated landscape of threats, crises and emergencies. Brad Evans and Julian Reid uncover the political implications of resilience theory, skilfully describing how it places the responsibility for security squarely back in the court of the world's most vulnerable subjects, who it should be noted are unequally impacted by environmental harms and the cycle of economic boom and bust.44