Do politicians like green and ecology, or is it about the green with presidents' faces on it? How developed countries cleverly delegated production and waste to poorer nations, just powdering a corpse. Is giving up consumerism even possible?
On the Bluesky platform, Prof. Szymon Malinowski rightly points out that without reducing resource consumption, a climate transition is an illusion. But his chart shows something deeper: a structural trap from which the system has no good exit. I believe one must be aware of this problem to consciously choose between the path of adaptation, as shown by Elisabeth Kolbert in her latest book, and the path of rebellion and making unrealistic demands, chosen by the activists of the Last Generation.
A Game of Appearances
For the last 20 years, the countries of the Global North—the USA and Europe—have been playing a perfect game of appearances. Official statistics show a decline in production emissions because coal and heavy industry have disappeared from their territories. On paper, it looks like a success and “decarbonization.”
The problem? Consumption hasn’t dropped. Instead, the West has outsourced its production to Asia. Today, Asian factories produce what we once made at home, and the emissions are counted in China’s balance sheet, not America’s or Europe’s.
When you look at the global energy consumption chart, everything is growing. Renewables are growing too, but slower than the global appetite for energy. Coal and gas still dominate. The business hasn’t changed—only the address has moved.
Why It Will Never Work
A real transformation would require what is politically impossible: a systemic reduction of consumption in the West. Fewer cars, fewer clothes, less flying, less plastic. Less of everything.
This means the end of the economic growth model that is the foundation of modern liberal democracies. A politician who proposed this would lose the election. The system does not tolerate limits. Hence the game of offsets, CO₂ certificates, “green” bonds, and other paperwork. It looks like action is being taken, but structurally, nothing is changing.
Camouflaged Responsibility
Globalization has allowed for an elegant trick: rich countries pretend to be “green,” while poorer countries get factories and their associated emissions. Everyone is seemingly satisfied—the West has a clear conscience, and Asia has jobs. The global emissions balance? It’s growing. It has always been growing.
This isn’t just hypocrisy—it’s the logic of the system. Capitalism must grow. Transformation requires limits. These two things are fundamentally incompatible.
The End of Globalization, the Return of Emissions
Now the scenario gets complicated. The EU is forcing the reshoring of production (Critical Raw Materials Act, semiconductor independence). The US is stifling imports with tariffs. China is restricting the export of rare earth metals and strategic materials. The globalization we knew is falling apart.
Does this mean production is returning to rich countries? Emissions are too, because they can no longer be outsourced. The system will then face three options:
- A real reduction in consumption – politically impossible (the option of radicals from the Last Generation faction).
- Building renewables at a frantic pace – expensive, slow, and logistically difficult.
- Deregulation and hoping for an AI rescue at an ever-increasing CO2 cost – the most likely path.
Of course, this is just a thought experiment. We will see how it plays out in the coming years. The shift in sentiment in the US towards climate policy, served up by the MAGA movement, already shows the likely direction of the popular vote. And here we get to the core of the issue.
Systemic Irrationality: From Rationality to Conspiracy Theories
The thesis that people will come to their senses in the face of the climate crisis is based on the false assumption that humans are rational beings. History and social mechanisms suggest otherwise. As the crisis deepens, we should not expect reflection, but the projection of blame. Politicians are already working on the narratives: it’s the fault of previous generations, other nations, global elites. The media and conspiracy theories amplify this message, speaking of a “green agenda” as an attack on freedom or a “Great Reset.”
The question of whether we will limit consumption in the name of ideals will crash against hard reality. Will the wealthy West give up the annual iPhone premiere? Will people stop exercising their “right to see the world” through Instagram tourism, where the post matters, not the carbon footprint?
As you can see, the economy in every aspect is currently based on constantly creating new needs and driving consumption. This is no accident; it’s the business model of every corporation, every media outlet, and every influencer. The system cannot be changed without dismantling this fundamental mechanism. This will not happen voluntarily. The catastrophe will be rationalized, and the blame will be shifted onto others, until it’s too late.
The Fiction of Change, or What Kind of Green Politicians Like
It seems to me that politicians are indeed fans of green, but mostly the kind with the faces of US presidents on it. This is a cynical but accurate summary of the structural trap we are in. It’s no accident; this is how the system we built works—a system that does not tolerate radical changes that undermine its foundations. Transformation requires what capitalism cannot give: limits.
As long as this model survives, global emissions will not fall. They will only be shifted, masked, and relocated in a never-ending festival of hypocrisy. It’s just powdering a corpse. Real change will only be possible when a catastrophe forces it upon us. By then, however, it may be too late to choose between Kolbert-style adaptation and rebellion. We will be left with a Mad Max-like vision of the world, where hunger and mass migrations fuel wars, and human rights, including the right to Instagram tourism, mean little. I write this not as some fixated neo-Marxist, but as a realist.
Data: Our World in Data (Primary Energy Consumption), Global Carbon Project (2024), Emission Charts: Asia, Europa, USA
