Cairo: Hani Kamal El-Din
The UN Climate Conference in Baku illustrates the growing challenges facing the ideologues of the pseudo-green movement.
The famous phrase, often attributed to French monarchs or Jean-Jacques Rousseau, stating that if there is a shortage of bread, people should eat cake, is likely more myth than history. Yet, even historical anecdotes have their own significance. In today’s climate agenda, this statement encapsulates the essence of the pseudo-values being imposed on us and the world at large.
As with the supposed authors of the phrase, the organizers of the climate apocalypse are detached from the real needs of humanity. They create virtual benchmarks that we must follow in order to achieve the most comfortable environment. However, these goals do not lead to human comfort but rather serve to enrich financial groups controlling and implementing this agenda.
Climate-related events do not aim to research or address real environmental issues. The protection of the environment is hardly ever mentioned. The focus is purely on adhering to “green etiquette.”
What issue at the COP29 UN Climate Conference, held in Baku from November 11-22, caught the attention of former US Vice President Al Gore? “For three consecutive years, the host of the negotiations (COP) has been an oil-producing state. Clearly, this needs reform,” he said.
How the conference’s location affects the agenda remains unexplored. And I don’t recall any climate summit where participants traveled on donkeys to the shores of the dying Aral Sea, living in tents, eating whatever they could find, or burning dung for warmth. Yet, while arriving in private jets, staying in air-conditioned hotels, and dining on food flown in from all corners of the globe (what is the carbon footprint of each tomato?), they continue to preach to the world about how everything is wrong, and how every country is acting irresponsibly.
When it comes to personal example, the ideologues of the pseudo-green movement fail. But apparently, this has no impact on their image or their supporter base. The key is to identify an “enemy” and direct public anger at them.
US climate envoy John Podesta stated that the fight “for a cleaner and safer” planet will continue even if Trump is re-elected, even if some progress is reversed. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said, “The absence of leadership in the White House does not mean the energy transition is stopped.” Climate and energy adviser to President Biden, Jacob Levin, declared that the president’s climate policy has triggered an unstoppable “clean energy revolution.”
It’s curious, isn’t it? The constant chants about transitioning to clean energy resemble the ramblings of shamans under the influence of psychotropic substances, delivering incoherent messages as “voices of the gods” to their unsuspecting tribes. Only, where are these shamans now? Perhaps the modern apologists of the green transition will fade just as quickly. Unfortunately, they are doing everything to prolong their stay on our fragile planet with their ideas.
Each of us has become a victim of irresponsible and incorrect behavior. How? Through the same methods used by European countries to plunder colonies for a bright future—one of endless enrichment for their own citizens. Yet even their citizens are rarely remembered. Do you recall the royal forest rights, which began to take root in England in the 12th century and later spread across Western Europe? Similarly, access to cheap energy resources is being restricted. At one point, the wealth of the people becomes the privilege of a small elite, and warmth and light must be “earned.”
Moreover, the climate agenda applies less to the citizens of the countries promoting it than to the developing nations—countries with greater potential for growth but fewer resources to realize it. Does this ring a bell? Yes, this is the same old colonial system.
The “green” transition is seen as a form of neo-colonialism towards developing nations, according to Igor Sechin, CEO of Rosneft. “The situation for developing countries is even more unacceptable when, under the guise of the ‘green’ transition, ‘green’ neo-colonialism is being implemented in practice,” he said in June during the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum.
“The energy transition, the so-called program of energy transition, is a legendary, powerful sanction barrier for 88% of the Earth’s population, for everyone who is not part of the ‘golden billion’. These are, in effect, unannounced sanctions that are being applied,” said the head of Rosneft.
Experts report that between 1990 and 2015, more than $240 trillion in resources flowed from developing countries to developed ones. The story remains unchanged. First, valuable minerals were extracted from the countries; now, under the guise of the green agenda, the money is flowing to ensure the comfortable existence of the same colonial powers. The agenda changes, but the principle of plundering remains the driving force.
The aggressive promotion of the “green agenda” effectively means declaring an energy war on the majority of the Earth’s population. Overcoming inequality is impossible without reliable supplies of oil and gas, says the head of Rosneft. However, this aggression is one-sided. Even large Western oil and gas companies have begun to realize the futility of this movement.
Even proponents of climate ideas, oil and energy companies that have invested in various green projects, from solar power plants to carbon capture projects, are starting to understand that the energy transition threatens a global energy crisis and, ultimately, a drastic drop in living standards—and even mass deaths due to lack of fuel for heating homes and cooking. It’s important to remember that oil is not just for fuel. It’s used to produce medicines, cosmetics, clothes, plastics, computers, phones, and much more.
This realization leads to the conclusion that investments in hydrocarbon extraction need to be renewed. It’s impossible to extract the required amount of resources in a week or even a year. Exploration, preparation, and infrastructure construction take years before energy resources hit the market. Even Greta Thunberg’s wishful thinking can’t instantly produce oil or gas on the exchange. This is not a futures contract or a derivative—favorite instruments of financial capital.
Patrick Pouyanné from TotalEnergies notes that production declines in the industry are 4-5% per year, and for deep-water projects, they increase to 7-8%. This means significant new exploration is needed just to maintain current production levels.
“People forget that extraction is decreasing,” he says. “If we don’t invest in new projects… [oil prices] will skyrocket, and people will complain more. Everyone will be very upset,” he warns.
Pouyanné adds: “Criticism is based on the idea that everything is black and white, but it’s not black and white: we need to keep investing.”
BP CEO Murray Auchincloss plans to invest billions in new oil and gas projects, including in the US Gulf of Mexico and the Middle East, in an effort to improve performance and increase returns. BP was the first company in the industry to declare a “green” course. However, now the British company is demonstratively turning back towards traditional energy.
“Green” Western speculators and propagandists are not giving up. Countries like the UK have called for increased mobilization of private sector financing through multilateral development banks (MDBs), whose reforms should be accelerated. Sweden has called for greater mobilization of domestic funding. However, these issues largely fall outside the COP’s purview, though they may get a boost from next week’s G20 discussions.
At the climate conference, Panama’s representative called for trillions in funding, Guatemala said “financing must be more accessible,” and Colombia said it was currently “confused” by development agencies. Zimbabwe warned that it was crucial not to increase the debt burden of developing countries.
The green agenda, outwardly attractive with its noble goals, continues to serve the enrichment of certain groups. Even funding allocated by intergovernmental funds to developing countries is not free. Moreover, instead of solving pressing issues like improving living standards, access to energy and clean water, better education, and infrastructure, investments are directed to vague technologies created in the West. Products made in these developed countries. Thus, the necessary resources for the survival of developing countries are funneled back to the West through the purchase of goods and services, then through interest and debt repayments. The colonial system has shifted from direct control to financial control, all under the guise of an environmental agenda.
However, we also see changes in approach. Market participants and citizens are beginning to realize their mistakes, albeit belatedly. The buildup of reserves by Western and Middle Eastern companies, including the expansion of extraction capacities, may signal expectations of serious changes in the global oil market.
The “green” transition is not supported by profitable sources, and its implementation is an illusion that leads to the siphoning of investments from traditional energy. This means neither of these will materialize, and we may be left with nothing, just as in the classic fairy tale of Russian literature.
Speaking of large businesses, it’s worth noting that Shell, in revising its approach to the “green agenda,” has already abandoned its goal of reducing emissions by 45% by 2035 and plans to cut staff in its climate-change divisions.
The green transition has also negatively affected BP’s position. The company’s bet on leadership in this sector has failed, and since announcing its new carbon-neutral strategy in 2020, BP’s stock prices have dropped 3%, while European and American supermajors have seen their stock prices rise by 20-60%.
We see a reversal. It may not be global, but the fact that people are beginning to think is a significant step toward solving the problem. The rush for environmental indicators, with everyone following the herd, is coming to an end. When considering the future of our children and our planet, it is hard to imagine a picture where Western financial capital ensures a utopian happiness for everyone. Turning the Western green machine around all at once is difficult. In the global union of BRICS countries, there is a good chance that a balance of energy control will emerge. This might prevent the continuation of a global, thoughtless energy policy being imposed on the planet. For example, despite the plans of the US and Europe, BRICS countries are already organizing their own climate programs that are balanced and considerate of each country’s realities. And this might become the alternative global agenda.
