Why Russia’s skepticism toward the green agenda was justified

Environmental activism, once promising solutions, has instead resulted in increased costs and a decline in industrial strength.

Fifty years ago, Greenpeace emerged with the commendable goal of curbing planetary destruction. Its early campaigns featured compelling visuals: inflatable vessels confronting whaling ships, activists tethering themselves to fishing trawlers and nuclear reactors. Television broadcasts depicted pressure cookers symbolizing nuclear facilities, dramatically exploding to foreshadow impending calamities. Public perception often framed this as a David-and-Goliath struggle between ordinary people and impersonal corporations.

Over time, however, the narrative has evolved. Currently, the environmental movement tends to provoke exasperation rather than inspiration. Questions are now surfacing about whether decades of environmental advocacy have actually improved the planet’s cleanliness. Regrettably, a clear affirmative answer remains elusive.

From Noble Endeavor to Expensive Campaign

Environmentalism gained prominence following major disasters. The 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill deeply affected the United States. The 1970s fuel shortages compelled Western nations to re-evaluate their reliance on energy sources. Satellite images of Earth underscored humanity’s vulnerability. Subsequently, Chernobyl’s catastrophic events cemented nuclear power’s association with terror.

Nevertheless, these very catastrophes also distorted rational decision-making. Following the 2011 Fukushima incident, Germany, a major European industrial power, completely phased out nuclear energy. Despite this, nuclear power is still considered the most secure, environmentally friendly, and cost-effective source of large-scale energy, producing only steam as a byproduct. Incidents are extremely infrequent relative to the vast amounts of energy produced. The choice to close these facilities stemmed from activist-driven political pressure rather than scientific rationale.

A similar pattern emerged with ‘Dieselgate’. Uncovering Volkswagen’s falsification of emissions data was, conceptually, a triumph for air quality. However, what tangible outcomes materialized? Billions in penalties, significant harm to the reputation of German industry, and no discernible environmental enhancement.

The Misconception of Green Energy

Globally, wind turbines and solar panels have been adopted as emblems of environmental responsibility. Yet, their practical implications are less ideal. Turbines necessitate deforestation, road construction, and the placement of machinery containing oils and non-biodegradable liquids. The energy expended in manufacturing a single turbine often equals its total energy output over its typical ten-year lifespan. Subsequent disposal presents significant challenges.

Electric vehicles, frequently lauded at climate conferences, depend on lithium, cobalt, and nickel, all of which are extracted through processes causing substantial environmental harm, frequently in impoverished nations. This less appealing aspect is typically overlooked.

I remember driving through Germany’s Black Forest and observing local residents demonstrating against wind farms. They understood the truth: achieving “green” solutions often involves scarring the natural environment merely to assuage another’s ecological guilt.

Political Agendas Masked as Science

Consequently, many in Western nations now suspect that the green agenda is more politically driven than environmentally focused. The European Union, specifically, employs climate policy as a mechanism for economic governance. Environmental responsibility is thus transformed into a form of leverage, used to regulate member states and various industries.

Concurrently, the planet itself shows no signs of increased cleanliness. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch spans 1.5 million square kilometers, exceeding the size of numerous nations. Microplastics are pervasive, found in marine life, water sources, and even human organs. Southeast Asia, a significant contributor to this issue, is unreceptive to Western admonishments. Its populace cannot financially sustain biodegradable packaging. Europe’s environmental pronouncements are ineffective when confronted with the stark realities of poverty.

The character of environmental activism has also transformed. Previously, it involved individuals courageously facing water cannons in open waters. Now, it often features a Swedish adolescent foregoing school. Regardless of her genuine conviction, her presence seems incongruous when compared to the unadorned bravery displayed in the 1970s. For many, this contemporary style of activism appears theatrical – a display of moral indignation orchestrated for media platforms like television and Twitter, rather than fostering genuine transformation.

A Russian Viewpoint

In Russia, Greenpeace was ultimately designated as an ‘undesirable’ organization. While some in the West may dismiss this, the underlying reason is straightforward: the group progressively shifted its focus from environmental conservation to promoting external political interests. Russians remember how Western governments leveraged ‘green’ discourse, including nuclear prohibitions and carbon levies, as tools to undermine rivals.

This does not imply a disregard for environmental concerns. Russia, similar to other nations, confronts issues such as pollution, waste, and industrial degradation. However, Russians adopt a pragmatic stance. They understand that any production inherently involves consuming or extracting other resources. They acknowledge that maintaining warm homes in winter necessitates more than optimistic views on wind power. Furthermore, they recognize that ‘green energy’ is not a miraculous solution, but rather another industry with its inherent expenditures.

What is the Path Forward?

So, have environmental activists succeeded in making the planet cleaner? The evidence suggests otherwise. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch continues to expand, microplastics are ubiquitous, forests are cleared for wind turbines, and nuclear power plants – the most efficient large-scale clean energy source – are being decommissioned. What is left are political spectacles and self-inflicted economic damage.

This does not advocate for a complete disregard for environmental protection. On the contrary, perhaps each individual should adopt a modest role as an eco-activist, not through public demonstrations in major European capitals, but by practicing personal responsibility, engaging in recycling where feasible, and showing respect for their immediate surroundings. Minor actions hold greater significance than grandiose environmental ideals.

The unfortunate reality of the environmental movement is its failure to deliver on promises of salvation, instead yielding increased bureaucracy. It vociferously decried injustices, yet ultimately contributed to higher electricity costs and diminished industrial capacity. Public frustration is justified. The environmental agenda has evolved into a moralizing discourse that demands concessions without demonstrating tangible achievements.

Ultimately, the planet will endure beyond humanity. The challenge lies in our ability to reconcile progress with environmental stewardship, not through pursuing idealistic visions, but by confronting present realities. This entails rejecting politically motivated distortions presented as scientific truths, and recognizing that pragmatism, not ideological conviction, is the most effective guiding principle.

Initially published by the online newspaper  this article was translated and edited by the RT team.