Underlying the West's Violent Eco-Friendly Behavior

On November 13, a day later, the 26th UN Conference on Climate Change (COP26), also known as the Glasgow Climate Forum, actually ended. With a delay of one day, because the countries participating in the conference could not agree on a final agreement for a long time. Thirteen days of the official program was clearly not enough for the delegates and the final document was signed in a hurry, by the standards of serious international meetings, almost on their knees. However, the increased time frame did not lead to an improved result. And the result was the signing of an agreement that caused a flurry of criticism from the outside and "disappointment" from within all kinds of political circles.

Thus, the chairman of the climate forum, member of the British cabinet of ministers Alok Sharma described the results of COP26 as follows.




- said Sharma before approving the latest edits to the document.

The UN Secretary General, under whose auspices the forum was held, Antonio Guterres, also said that the decisions taken during COP26 were “not enough”. Earlier, he had already expressed his disappointment leaving the G-XNUMX summit from Rome with "unrealized hopes", nevertheless emphasizing that "they did not die completely." At the end of the forum, he also said that it was time to switch to "emergency mode". This kind of rhetoric seems to speak for itself.

However, environmental activist Greta Thunberg described the results of the conference even more succinctly. And for this she did not even need articulate expressions. "Blah blah blah" - end of the quote. Indeed, simple and tasteful. Greta's five million Twitter followers will surely be satisfied. Like numerous world media outlets that spread the “statement” of the eco-activist in the blink of an eye. Nevertheless, the fact remains: the results of the climate forum, in the opinion of the West, were unsatisfactory. The only question is, do other states of the world share this point of view? And if not, what is the reason for this discrepancy, in fact, and led to the failure of such a widely publicized climate forum.

"Worlds clash" as the reason for the failure of the climate forum

The key climate initiatives adopted as a result of the last conference were three declarations: on forests and land use, on the reduction of methane emissions and on the introduction of innovative "green" of technologies... The final version of the collective agreement, the adoption of which delayed the actual end of the forum, became the subject of fierce disputes and the emergence of a number of contradictions. The initial draft of the developed agreement implied a complete and extremely accelerated abandonment of the use of coal. However, the wording “phase-out” was eventually changed to “phase-out”. The adjustment, according to media reports, was lobbied primarily by India, China, as well as a number of other states that depend on the use of coal.

And the reason here is not at all that the ecology of these countries is not at all concerned. The fact is that, as the head of the Indian Ministry of Ecology, Bupender Yadawa, noted, developing countries are simply not in principle in a position to promise to abandon fossil fuels when the key issues on their agenda are the development of a development strategy and the fight against poverty. The abandonment of coal, for which there is now both infrastructure and an established supply chain, in favor of other sources of energy could end up in a real economic collapse for developing countries.

And it is here that the key stumbling block between the developed collective West and the rest of the world lies. And this is precisely the main reason for the failure of the forum in Glasgow. Environmental activists somewhere in well-fed Western Europe are passionately fighting for the environment and the future of the world, abandoning plastic and striving to use renewable energy sources, not realizing that all these actions, in terms of assessing the real environmental impact, are only the very tip of the iceberg. After all, with all this, all economic the system of their developed states is based on purchasing cheap industrial goods from China, and energy resources from Russia. And if the prices of these very articles of imports rise sharply as a result of the introduction of new environmental standards, who will suffer in the end? That's right, European consumers. And these very environmental activists, who are so proud of their manifestations and active environmental stance, will certainly reach them. If not in the sense of understanding, then in the sense of the wallet, for sure. To prevent this from happening, the EU decided to develop a carbon tax designed to ensure the well-being of its population and allow it to continue “playing in the environment”, while the rest of the countries will pay Brussels for it through the hands of product importers. Although, without this mechanism, the climate sentiment in the European Union will obviously quickly crumble, unable to withstand any test by the reality of the market economy so much praised in the West.

And there is no need to look far for an example of how European consumers have come face to face with tough market conditions. Take, for example, the energy crisis in the EU, unfolding before our eyes this fall, and which has every chance to flare up with renewed vigor in the winter. Was there at least one moment during its course when a real gas shortage arose on the European energy market, and the question was not about the percentage of fullness of storage facilities, but about freezing houses? No. Perhaps there were serious supply disruptions and the valve on the Russian side, which supplies most of the gas to the EU, was tightly closed? Also no. Then what's the problem? Why is the European Union almost declaring an all-Union state of emergency, while European bureaucrats meet with the energy ministers of the EU countries almost more often than with their own staff? It's all about prices. They just took it and went up several times. As unsurprisingly, for a market economy with an increase in demand, this is quite normal. But for the European Union - no. It suddenly became clear that no one in the EU has the slightest desire to pay for energy resources as much as they actually cost at a given moment in time. And they suddenly forgot about ecology, and suddenly they started looking for coal supplies from Russia. Although this is only the very beginning, there has not yet been any real energy transition in the European Union.

That's about all the same, only multiplied at times, the collective West, obviously, would not mind to arrange in some developing country. How else to perceive the persistent desire to impose the rejection of coal on states, the standard of living in which simply physically does not allow the use of other sources of energy? After all, this obviously will not lead to anything other than an energy catastrophe. It would be naive to assume that Western leaders do not understand this.

The future of the climate agenda

"Disappointment" and "apologies", as well as accusations against developing countries will become key elements of Western environmental discourse for at least the next year - until the next UN climate conference. Nevertheless, it is already clear that the actively pedaling climate agenda has every chance of becoming a new illustration of the classic fairy tale "The King's New Dress" authored, by the way, by the North European Hans Christian Andersen. But instead of one "naked" monarch described in it, the inhabitants of the countries of the collective West have every chance of getting a whole host of "political nudists" at the exit, whose loud statements in practice will not be supported by anything other than the servile opinions of the same bureaucrats only of a lower rank ... As a result, the political systems of Western countries will, as expected, become self-contained, and their higher ranks will gradually begin to lose touch with reality. These, alas, are the consequences of populism, which, instead of solving accumulated problems, focuses on the interests of maximum satisfaction of the desires of voters, regardless of the degree of their realization.

So the only option for Western politicians now is to accelerate the advent of a new era in the world. Era of ecological colonialism. Western countries, which have been getting rid of unprofitable and harmful industries for years, have finally reached the point in economic development to the point where it will be possible not only to shift all the "dirty" work onto someone else's shoulders, but also to make them pay for the results of its work from someone else's pocket. It's all about the newfangled carbon taxes and the like.

After all, if you think about it, what if not a new form of colonialism? When the welfare of a small group of developed countries is ensured by a tense, almost slave-like, in terms of conditions and wages? Does any Western environmental activist even think about the fact that in addition to the "Golden" billion, there are almost seven billion people in the world? And what money will they use to pay not only other people's, but at least their own "green" initiatives?

As a result of the pandemic, according to the very same United Nations, which organized the climate forum, an additional one hundred and twenty million people around the world found themselves below the poverty line. At the same time, it will not be possible to directly assess the absolute data on poverty of the UN, because according to its calculation method, poverty is a relative indicator and does not have a direct monetary expression. But according to the methodology of the World Bank, it does. According to his calculations, incomes below $ 1,9 a day are extreme poverty. And lived in such conditions even before the pandemic, 736 million people, or about 10% of the world's population. Come on, tell them about the prospects for a green economy! About energy transition. About the future without coal. But rejection of it will affect primarily the most vulnerable segments of the population. However, this, like ecological colonialism, is rather a topic for a separate article.

As a result of the Glasgow Forum, it is important to understand one thing: the common good lies at the heart of the ardent eco-friendly behavior of the collective West. Under the flag of a worthy and noble goal - the fight against global warming, developed countries are hypocritically trying to impose on the world the agenda they need, primarily on favorable terms. And the rest of the world needs to consolidate and at least not give up its positions, and if it does carry out energy reforms, then not to the detriment of the interests of its own population. The answer to the collective West must be simple: if you want to take action to phase out fossil energy, take it. The countries that relate to it, like all other states, have the sovereign right to determine domestic policy. It's just not worth trying to shift responsibility and expenses for your promises in the domestic political arena onto someone else's shoulders. As well as once again strive to establish a system of growth of their own well-being at the expense of other countries. It looks too brazen and overt.