Nothing Against the Climate!

Adaptation to climate change is a civilization necessity. Belief in human's ability to stop and direct climate change is a mix of civilization's pride and naivety, and thus precisely a doctrine that tries to become an ideology. After all, the simplest, but also the most fundamental question is: would the climate stop to change even if we manage to achieve “Net Zero Target”?

New (?) Totalitarianism

For decades ecological content has been considered an innocent entertainment for young people, sensitizing them to the problems of environmental protection. And an opportunity to do business, such as “let's get a directive to replace the competitors' light bulbs with ours”. On the right (or actually Neocon) side there were at most the typical arrogant snorts throwing all the green hints into the (recycling) bag labelled “leftism”. In turn, typical DemoLiberal circles truly saw in Ecologists their own left wing, which can be calmed down with further declarations and assurances that yes, once, something… In this way, it was (un)consistently missed when more and more money and more expressive doctrinal claims began to be involved in these trends (otherwise in many respects quite sympathetic). And because of that combination, in the West this is already second generation which grew up sincerely convinced that “the Earth will die during our lifetime - and it is the fault of humanity!”.

So, everything and everyone must be submitted to the overarching goal of reversing this unquestioning situation, no matter what the cost. This attitude determines that the prevailing present post-ecological position, the Climatism has all the features of totalitarianism. And this is not an invective, but a simple statement of the fact, when probably average believer of the new dominant ideology would enthusiastically support such a travesty declaration:

Everything within the Climate.

Nothing outside the Climate.

Nothing against the Climate!

Green guard of the plutocracy

And one would be wrong to see in the changes currently implemented a new symptom of classical leftism, and much less the Marxism, sometimes anachronistically invoked. After all, the revolution did not demolish the palaces - but “the people were brought into them”, at least declaratively. And today the new revolution is to begin, and in practice only to be limited to throw away the people from their Khrushchyovkas and council houses… Both the Traditionalists and orthodox Leftists observing the obvious crisis of capitalism and the weakness of the liberal response given to this phenomenon have announced coming world, where excessive consumption would be limited, but its equality would be preserved. Today, however, something opposite happens. Consumption will still be excessive – but again only a few will be allowed to consume.

Interesting, that present Latte-Left fights almost only with the middle class (which in fact is not middle class at all, being only more consuming proles) and completely ignores the question of the upper classes, oligarchy and its interests. Well, in theory it seems to be similar to the classic practice of Bolshevism, when it was easier to arouse class hatred towards this member of bourgeoisie living lived a floor above and having only a wee more - than to rise people against the one plutocrat in the palace, because his position was too abstract and unshakeable... But historically the Bolsheviks knew well that elites exist and they have not planned to omit them within the final solution. And in the case of Climatists we can have more than doubts about it. Of course, they pretend to be Tercerists, and sometimes in fact also some more perfect form of Marxism. But they are just another natural stage of capitalism and corporate liberalism indeed. They are plutocracy officers, regime chain dogs, only on bicycles.

What is funny – they treat each of their critics as a conservative liberal, on the basis of “…and your Trump ...!”. They do not have prepared message for criticism from any other directions, including those genuinely interested in true environmental protection. No, any polemicist must surely be a selfish capitalist driving his SUV over poor seals on the way to a lake where he washes oil barrels. And that they themselves serve only the interests of the great financiers – those who take part in the systemically based “Schools 4 Climate Actions” will never believe at all…!

Business is always just a business

And so, it is even in the most obvious cases. Let us take the simplest example – the waste market. Exactly – the market ... At some stage, with increasing consumption, it became obvious that increasing amount of waste changes its management from a burdensome and cost-intensive social service into a potentially profitable business. However, it was not possible to simply tell people that someone would earn money from their rubbish, usually leaving on the public side the most burdensome part of the entire project, i.e. waste disposal, landfill sites etc. So, there was a need to create whole legend to deregulate and privatise the market of handling, segregation, and trade/export of surplus waste. Of course, this story is also illustrated with heart-touching pictures, such as turtles in plastic nets, pelicans swallowing polyethylene drinking straws etc. It was also ensured that a certain part of the work is performed by consumers doing pre-selection as an act of communitarian engagement. What is in fact as well economically as especially ecologically insignificant, because in reality recycling does not exceed 10%. mass of waste, supposedly destined for recovery. However, forcing people to go through all that garbage themselves is focused on achieving awareness effect. That means the certainty that no one would ask about the great business goals and poor environmental effects of the entire undertaking.

It is not even worth to mention that whatever fans of metal straws believe - it is not up to consumers in their mass to choose even the packaging of goods. It is realistically dictated by supply, a ready-made culture of consumption, and a price policy that is insensitive to consumer pressure as it triggers and shapes it by herself, mostly for competitive and sales purposes. And so on. The bicycle industry is not an industry, the capital involved in renewable energy technologies is not capital, Climatist propaganda is not propaganda. And energy imperialism is imperialism only depending on against whom. What do we still not understand?

Civilisational transition

This apparent dissonance is primarily the result of a change in strategic goals. Despite the external similarity, formal and often personal continuity, contemporary Climatists do not have much in common with former ecologists, who often rightly fought numerous pathologies of industrialization in both the capitalist and real-socialist versions. However, the EU (and global) climate agenda has nothing to do with environment protection today. These are not ‘80s nor '90s anymore. On the other hand, it probably started even earlier. The turning point was the crisis of 1973 and the fuel blackmail of Arab countries. That was when regardless of the strategy of “energy security” – the United States with own sphere of influence intensified work on energy technologies alternative to those based on fossil fuels. In turn, the Climatism itself, as an ideology, covers many more issues than just the methods of obtaining and using energy. It is no longer the question of “living the same way, just without coal and oil” It is a civilization change of which the infamous zero-emission is only an element, not to say a tool. Because the question is not whether the climate is changing, but whether, for example, even achieving this Net Zero Target (whatever it is) – will it reverse, stop or at least slow down the changes? And at what cost.

Of course, such questions must not be asked. And it is no surprise that we have not heard them during the Glasgow Climate Summit (COP26), incidentally with the significant absence of Chinese and Russian leaders. This assembly organised before the next stage of COVIDlockdown politics was obviously only a media-democratic decoration for truly decision-making bodies. Not all solutions are and will be given straight to so-called the public. Not so much to avoid resistance, because it is already well known that there will be none – but just to leave space for “anti-system Climatists”, so that they could shout how disappointed they are and how they demand further destruction. Oh, and to set a margin for further speculation and interests.

Because the fact that business is global does not mean that it is not a business. And in the case of the Climatism – in the full sense of the word: Total Business!