Climate change is one of the most critical problems we face. If we cannot reduce CO2 emissions quickly, living conditions in the world will be much more difficult. The root of the problem is our ever-increasing appetite for commodities and energy. The solutions presented are nothing more than a battle of strife for the chance to win world domination and tax others. Green concepts may seem innocent, but when politicized, nothing can preserve their innocence.
A huge transformation awaits us. Our energy system, agricultural system, lifestyle must change. Unilateral actions will not be enough. It is imperative to take coordinated steps. This coordination problem cannot be solved overnight. However, some political blocs try to market their policies to others as "the only way," threatening others with complex trade rules to force others to follow their leadership or to "get them on track."
In the Covid crisis, which is perhaps a rehearsal of the climate crisis, we have once again seen that these complex rule systems and the fight against the crisis do not work in the EU's own covid vaccination problems. Neither could they reach the pace of other countries in vaccination. On the contrary, they created trade barriers with vaccine protection, and they had to start closing again with endless meetings behind the rules. They have transformed what seemed like solutions into barbed wires that encapsulate deadlocks.
Another interesting aspect of the work is that the advocates of the ideas of establishing "climate clubs" within the developed countries are also political blocs with egalitarian and justice discourses; However, it is very significant that these ideas are not accepted. Although neither China, the USA, Russia, nor any other country in the near geography accepts these ideas, they have turned into a green complex of winning the appreciation of the white masters who always repeat in geographies where copy-paste culture prevails.
As China claims, most developed countries already peaked in their emissions years ago. In other words, their conversion from the highest emissions to zero can be done in 30 years. However, the energy demand of developing countries has not stopped. But they have to make the same transformation in the same period. While a developed country citizen moves from a diesel SUV vehicle to an electric SUV, many Asian motorcycles will continue to pollute the world with their transportation facilities. Do you think this situation is fair?
Large budgets are needed to finance the energy transformation. Each of the developed countries explains the amount of investment larger than the GDP of many developing countries. To achieve the goals, you need to invest in new infrastructure, new skills, innovation, and tax breaks. However, most of the world does not have these deep budgets. Since there is no economic situation to print money for their investment, every investment will be a burden to their citizens. A citizen of a developed country may see a small effect, but this effect will be much higher for the rest of the world. A 10% increase in an EU citizen's bill is the difference between life and death in Asia and Africa. These increases can even block access to energy in these poor countries.
Because developing countries are riskier than others, financing costs are higher. This increases investment costs and costs shared by citizens. Being a developing country means you have to pay the developed world for equipment and interest, commission, consultancy fees. So we have to ask who is the winner, who is the loser.
For example, suppose the transition to a hydrogen-based economy is aimed. In this case, some countries have the finance to spend enormous amounts of money on electrolyzers, infrastructure, new equipment, and fuel cells. What about a developing country? It cannot finance them. An international organization will charge a higher interest rate for the loan than developed countries, the rich country will sell the equipment, its engineers will be consulted, and the poor country will be the user and payer of this energy transformation.
In addition to all these burdens, the developing country has to pay extra taxes if it cannot manage this unfair energy transition anyway. Most of the developing world needs money and finance to grow. The main source of this money is export. When you tax the exports of these countries, you destroy the wages of workers, the source of the extra investment costs that industries need to transform, and the general well-being of these countries. The developed countries win, and the rest lose as planned.
Only green tyrants can defend such a transition. He taxes the poor and gives to the rich. It forces the poor for rapid "green development" and bills for interest, technology, and advice. In short, the whole system finances the New Green Imperialism.
Advocated green policies will make banks richer than ever. The poor will pay for the green, but developed countries with advanced accounting systems will be green in everything with a few certificates based on fake calculations. More rules and green bureaucracy will result in encircled state institutions and institutions that developing countries could never be a part of except to monitor. They will pay for standards, certificates, technologies, but they will be poorer than ever. The new green imperialism cannot go beyond an illusion that will ensure that the rich richer the poor remain poorer in the current world order. Although puppets play games of justice, equality, and freedom, it is always the puppet player who collects the money at the end of the show.