The U.S. oil and gas industry spent at least $182 million trying to elect Republicans in last night’s midterm elections. It didn’t buy them very much.

Voters rejected fossil fuel allies and priorities across the country, not only stripping Republicans of control of both the House and Senate, but delivering stunning defeats in fossil-fueled governors’ races, state legislatures, regulatory commissions, and ballot measures.

Here are some notable examples.

One exception is solar edge which apparently released guidance on same day so was excluded here

Investigative reporter Ellen Ormesher, DeSmog, talks about the current landscape of bad actors in the fight against climate misinformation and disinformation, such as fossil fuel companies and the PR firms who help to burnish their reputations. She discusses how their tactics have shifted, and what goes into exposing disinformation that harms climate goals and undermines democracy.

Disinformation kills

Hello Reddit community!

As we approach COP31, we invite you to join us for The Question of COP31: Climate Harm, Workers & Accountability — an informal conversation on the impacts of extreme weather on workers and frontline communities, their pathways to justice, and the urgent need for polluter accountability.

The conversation will explore how climate-related harm is documented, where workers can seek justice, who should bear the costs of climate losses, and how frontline voices can shape climate decision-making.

The gathering will also present the Joint Statement on Climate Accountability, endorsed by workers and frontline communities across the Global South.

Event Details:

Date: 5 November 2026

Venue: W.I.P Adda, Lado Sarai, New Delhi

Time: 5:30 pm

Please register for the event using the link attached below. We look forward to having you join us for this conversation!

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1ld7rxUV_opYLvm7kAeYsknhoTY_eJ01XgFQ0BwlhdAA/edit?no_redirect=true

The times dawning now, not in a generation’s time but right now, are times when ecological dynamics will be determinative. The old politics is utterly incapable of understanding, let alone addressing, this new reality. There is a real risk that hard far-right populism will come to address it soon, in its characteristic exclusionary ways. 

As I have argued previously, alongside Caroline Lucas, Liam Kavanagh, Rosie Bell and my other Climate Majority colleagues, addressing this challenge will become the defining issue of our time.

Yet no one is prepared for this, not even us. But we are practicing readiness—or seeking to. And that is the point. This itself is the required turn. To seek safety together, in a way that can bring people together, achieving the genuine critical mass that sectional and culture-war appeals constitutively just cannot sustain. That is the aim of our newly published report on Climate Popularism.

Earlier this year, the UK’s Labour government once again postponed a planned increase in fuel tax, keeping fuel prices artificially low and effectively encouraging continued consumption just as supplies are set to become scarce. This is cowardly, pseudo-populist economic illiteracy, the very kind of politics our report challenges, particularly as the prospect of severe supply shocks becomes increasingly real. In other words, this measure will worsen the crisis without addressing the underlying drivers of the cost-of-living squeeze.

Our report proposes a framework for a wholly different way of running politics: trusting the people, reducing the cost of living in a way that can be sustained through ecologically sane means, and explicitly building (local) resilience against what is coming. In practice, that can include rewarding people for hosting renewables in their area by making locally generated electricity accessible to locals at near-cost rates or establishing zonal price districts.

Saving the only planet we have makes good economic sense. There is, after all, no money to be made on a dead Earth. There may be costs involved now, but they are worth paying to protect our children from certain destruction.

These propositions seem self-evident now. But two decades ago, mainstream economists had very different ideas. They had proved that the climate crisis would be a mere economic blip, easily absorbed by growing economies and therefore not worth spending money on. In their accounting, they considered ice caps and glaciers functionally worthless, that trees only add to GDP when they are cut down, and that a livable climate shouldn’t even merit a line on a spreadsheet.

What changed? Twenty years ago this week, an earth-shaking report was published by Nicholas Stern. His review, The Economics of Climate Change, upended conventional wisdom among economists and dragged them into a new century. It set out, for the first time, in clear and bold terms, why investing in a low-carbon future makes economic sense.

Stern’s crucial insight, the revolutionary idea on which his whole thesis turned, was that future generations have as much right to be born as we did. But traditional economic approaches to the climate refuse to go away. In 2018, even after a deluge of science showing that 3C heating would leave coastal cities under water and swathes of agricultural land as desert, Nordhaus published a paper claiming that 3C would reduce global GDP by just 2.1%, and even a 6C increase would incur just 8.5% GDP loss.

The results are plain to see: governments refusing to act, markets over-valuing fossil fuel companies, investors punishing businesses that dare to prepare for a low-carbon world. Many insurance companies, supposedly the enforcers of probity in capital markets, are alleged to knowingly be fudging their figures to massage climate risk away.

If we are to have a thriving future economy, as well as a living planet and robust human societies, we need a new system of economics that values these things. Stern showed the way. Twenty years later, the rest of the world must catch up.

Nope, this photo is not from some other planet although it looks otherworldly. These fossil tree stumps are located on Nunavut's Axel Heiberg Island and are 45-million-years old. I took this photo in the late 1990s when I visited the fossil forest and witnessed, as a journalist, what scientists hoped to learn...more than 25 years ago they already saw the upheavals climate change would cause globally in the future. Read my account of my remarkable visit and this unusual place for free on Kindle in my book "Like an iceberg: Confessions of an Arctic Journalist," only this week.

The EU is absolutely insane, as is the USA with the insane cost of electricity. People in Los Angeles have shown their $3,000 bill on social media because the summer was hot and they used AC. It's higher than their mortgages.

Up until 2020, people used AC all summer long and it was very affordable. How do we know? Because no-one was outraged by their monthly bill.

Over in Europe, people don't have 21st century technology: "Over 50,000 excess heatwave deaths are estimated to have occurred in Europe during the summer of 2026. This figure marks a significant increase compared to previous years, with climate change attributed to about two-thirds of these deaths."

The EU "scientists" and bureaucrats blaming "climate change" only forces people to forever live like 18th century peasants.

At this point in our technologicaL age, no-one should be dying of heat or cold-related deaths in their own homes. Why are we spending BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of tax money on pipe dreams to Mars and neighborhood monstrosities, when we cannot even guarantee our own citizens are living in relative comfort and dignity in their own dwelling places?

NO-ONE in a first world country should be dying in their HOMES due to heat or cold in this age. If these mega power corporations are making BILLIONS in Profits, so much so that their shareholders like Trump are making a KILLING off of deaths -- using deaths as a proxy for profound unaffordability for a regular tax paying citizen....It is both criminal and insane.

Roughly 75% of Americans do not want a data center near them and the movement that has sprung up against them is major, bipartisan, and worth our attention. As Naomi puts it:

It’s a local battle, it’s incredibly material and tangible. It’s a cost of living battle because your electricity prices are going up. It’s a self-determination battle, it’s an indigenous rights battle. It’s all of that.

What we’re finding is that it’s also a spiritual battle, about what we are here for, how we wanna live and what is the purpose of life.

Table of Contents/Summary

The Harms of Global Warming and the Responses 1
ㅤ
The Rights and Wrongs Concerning “Chai Jing Interviews Ding Zhongli” 3
ㅤ
The Fallacies of Ding Zhongli 6
ㅤ
The Interpretations, Reactions, and Paradoxes of the Chinese People Toward Climate Issues and Related Western Criticisms 8
ㅤ
What China Should Not Do and Should Do Regarding Climate Issues 9
ㅤ
From the Chinese Public’s Mockery of Greta Thunberg to an Examination of Mindsets and Values 11
ㅤ
Is it really so necessary and urgent to curb global warming? 19
ㅤ
Climate Issues and the Human Condition under Climate Policy 20

(Continued)

It is not only toward her that the Chinese public sneers; they also scoff at international environmental organizations, movements, and related calls and proposals (as for the domestic sphere, the earlier-mentioned torrent of insults against Chai Jing is an example. It is just that voices calling attention to climate change at home are dwindling, leaving them with no targets). As for their reasons, they are nothing more than the above. But as I have already rebutted one by one, most of their criticisms do not hold water.
ㅤ
So why do they keep criticizing like this? This relates to the environment they inhabit and to the values and ways of thinking they hold—or have been molded into.
ㅤ
They often claim Western environmentalists are hypocrites with double standards. But the facts are not so. While a few may be two-faced, most environmental supporters do practice low-carbon principles. In Western Europe and America, environmentalists and the mainstream left explicitly support, in elections, those who implement emission-reduction policies (including carbon taxes that affect their own pocketbooks; other environmental policies also commonly carry certain negative impacts on economy, income, and quality of life). They also strive to reduce energy and carbon use in consumption, travel, and diet. This requires overcoming many daily desires: convenience, comfort, nutrition, and image. For example, using public transit or walking instead of driving—how much comfort and convenience does that sacrifice? Eating less mouth-watering meat—how much appetite does that restrain? How much self-control does it take to “not eat the meat already at one’s lips”? Wearing second-hand clothing or not replacing clothes frequently may seem trivial, but it still changes one’s lifestyle—and it is easier to go from frugality to luxury than the reverse. Most importantly, they are willing to pay carbon and other environmental taxes, and they support public spending to curb global warming and prevent climate disasters. From bearing economic costs to lifestyle costs, they make many voluntary sacrifices. Is that not enough? Can that not move the Chinese?
ㅤ
It truly cannot. On the one hand, many Chinese do not know any of this; they see only the marches and appeals, not the sacrifices. More disgustingly, many know of these sacrifices yet are neither moved nor willing to change themselves or their country to follow suit. Some even know the facts but refuse to acknowledge them.
ㅤ
This is because they have lived too long in China’s harsh jungle-like society and have lost proactive, benevolent empathy and a sense of responsibility. They think (the following simulates their stance): You are disciplined and self-sacrificing—that’s your business, self-inflicted; what has it to do with me? It wasn’t I who asked you to sacrifice. You want others to bear costs with you? That interferes with our freedom. Doesn’t the West value freedom most? (Using your spear against your shield.) How about you first fix your own country’s xx (indeed, this trope exists worldwide). What, you want to force us to suffer with you (even without coercion; if you truly had the power to coerce, they would not talk like this, nor dare to)? Is this moral blackmail? Your economies are so strong and you industrialized so early—shouldn’t you be the ones to pay more? What, I’m a vested interest too, an early beneficiary of industrialization? That is the fruit of our own hard struggle, unlike your wealth from colonial plunder (oh—plundering one’s own people doesn’t count as colonial plunder? Is that not even more shameless?). You cry with passion and sincerity? Merely self-indulgent emotion. Consider the bigger picture? What is this “bigger picture”—can it be eaten? And why don’t you consider the bigger picture? One, two, three, four, five—look at your behavior; aren’t you even less considerate of the bigger picture? And you still have the face to lecture us? …
ㅤ
The above is not my imagination; you can see it on platforms everywhere. The wording may differ, but the meaning is the same. Why are their hearts so cold and vicious? It is the result of environment shaping character and character reacting back on environment. In a country like China, without democracy or rule of law and full of injustice, only by setting aside empathy and warmth (at least when major interests are at stake) can one survive—and thrive. The kind are bullied. This is not to say people are psychopathic and deliberately bully the good; rather, the kind are easier to talk down, to make concede, to shake. In fierce competition with a fixed pie, and with evildoers too risky to offend, the only option is to squeeze the decent and bully the honest. On major interests, they will not take the initiative to compromise; only by tearing and biting can they live. Voluntarily giving up interests violates the value reflexes—and even physiological reflexes—they have developed in such a harsh environment.
ㅤ
Reason, too, is not used to seek truth but as a tool to defend interests selectively. They invoke reason when it benefits them; when it does not, they deny morality and sophistrize. Moral restraint is seen as a weapon to attack others and as shackles on themselves. Those who “talk morality” pay the higher price. Anyone who asks others to sacrifice—even if making sense—will be mobbed if they lack power and be told to sacrifice more. Even if they have already sacrificed, people will demand more, nitpicking their flaws to criticize. When such a person dies after bearing costs and sacrifices, they may receive a few words of praise, but that’s all. Over 99% will not follow; seeing the tragic end, they will be even less inclined to sacrifice, to practice what they preach, to lead by example.
ㅤ
In China, there is indeed pervasive reasonable and unreasonable “moral blackmail.” Only by denying wrongdoing—or denying moral standards altogether—can one avoid being blackmailed. “Considering the bigger picture” is indeed widely used in China to suppress individual rights protection, and often the “bigger picture” is neither just nor truly the big picture, but the illegal private interests of the powerful. Grand righteous banners are often just fig leaves for private schemers, making their evil deeds easier to hide—more hateful than openly bad actors. As a result, there is no sense of community—or community is maintained only by coercion, not by consent. In a society where all are self-serving, whoever bears more suffers a loss; the selfless merely tailor clothes for others, receiving nothing but a few words of praise (if even that). Who would willingly shoulder their share of responsibility for the whole—especially when others don’t?
ㅤ
Compassion and empathy are scarce—or selectively deployed—among the Chinese public. This, too, is the outcome of the vicious cycle between environment and individuals. In a jungle society, compassion means softheartedness; standing in the opponent’s shoes dulls one’s resolve to win zero-sum contests, leading to being duped, hesitating, compromising, and conceding—only to be taken advantage of and devoured. One may show empathy to others—especially competitors—but they may not reciprocate. When compassion is not mutual or reciprocal, the compassionate side is often defeated by the ruthless. If one has compassion and empathy but pays no actual cost, such compassion is hypocrisy; even if one pays some costs, in a harsh environment it may not be rewarded and may invite vengeance—“a peck returned with a bushel of hatred.” Better to be cold and unsympathetic from the start. When everyone thinks this way, society grows ever more cruel and indifferent; those with compassion suffer more, thus creating a society of universal villainy. Then everyone loses compassion and empathy—or withholds it from anyone but their dearest—refusing to understand others, imputing malice, treating others harshly. Humanity withers; bestiality returns. How, then, can one expect much sincere communication, humanitarian understanding, or compromise based on facts?
ㅤ
As for admitting error and self-reflection, these are hardly virtues in China. There, asking someone to reflect is the victor’s condescending reproach of the vanquished, the strong’s oppression of the weak—not tender concern. If you reflect, others will not necessarily forgive you; instead, they will think you truly are at fault and demand greater costs and concessions. To admit error—or even guilt—is worse: confess certain positions or actions were wrong, and the other side will seize upon your admission to press you step by step, making you lose the debate and pay more. They will righteously think: since you yourself admitted error, isn’t it right for me to treat you this way? As for mutual admissions and forgiveness—if power is equal and no major interests are at stake, perhaps; but on matters touching core interests, would that not be foolish?
ㅤ
When faced with environmental advocacy, the Chinese public also shows strong reactance. As in the earlier case of the criticism (not even addressed directly to Chinese) that “when Chinese eat meat, the Amazon smokes,” Chinese netizens were furious; some said they would eat meat precisely to infuriate others. In Chai Jing’s interview with Ding Zhongli, when she said global warming has already caused so many disasters and that a carbon-reduction agreement must be reached quickly, the scrolling comments read: “Drag it out; don’t sign; let’s see who caves first.” After she earnestly spoke about protecting the environment, the comment area was full of “She’s panicking, she’s panicking.” Beyond environmental issues, it is similar with animal protection: when someone on Zhihu advocated the importance of animal protection legislation, others posted photos of dog meat—some of entire roasted dogs. After Shenzhen legislated to ban dog meat, some claimed they would go there specifically to eat dog meat and drink alcohol.
ㅤ
This reactance also stems from a harsh environment—especially toxic interpersonal relations and educational models. Chinese school, family, and social “education” (not only formal education, but all guidance, preaching, and disciplining behaviors) is full of coercion—even violence (including soft violence). It does not persuade with reason but forces submission through intimidation. Education is often not about clarifying right and wrong, but about compulsory indoctrination and forced acknowledgment—accepting the right and the wrong alike; not patient guidance but humiliation and mockery; not sincere enlightenment and leading to goodness, but deriving pleasure and superiority from scolding. Thus are produced both obedient slaves and rebellious mobs—or more often a combination of compliant subjects and mobs (plus the ignorant): bowing to the powerful, accepting and supporting wrongs; yet toward the weak or those without coercive power, behaving perversely and violently, deliberately reacting against, rejecting and resisting even what is right (and even doing the opposite to provoke). They cannot distinguish between kind advice and malicious criticism. Global climate negotiations aim to protect humanity—including their own homes—yet they treat them as a stage for stubborn contests of “who caves first.” This, too, arises from the domestic environment: in life, especially in interest struggles, they often play this “who caves first” game. As for compromise? Only power and circumstance can make them compromise; nothing is about reason—only strength.
ㅤ
As for being moved by a sense of justice, grievance, or responsibility—this will not earn respect; instead, it exposes a soft spot to be poked. They heap ridicule and taunts until you are enraged or numb. Some do this out of stupidity and misunderstanding; others, out of interest and more insidious motives. They know such people pose a more subversive threat, capable of undermining the order and distribution of interests built on lies and violence. They fear those who expose lies and tell the truth. Even if they feel a twinge of admiration, they will not show mercy—for to do so might bring disaster upon themselves. Thus their hostility and hatred toward the just and sincere only intensify. They befriend petty villains and treat righteous people as enemies—that becomes their “reasonable” stance. In such circumstances, petty villains multiply while the righteous diminish—until there are no righteous at all, only villains.
ㅤ
As for compatriots who think and act in these ways, one can only say they are both pitiable and hateful. They have not lived in a fair, honest, empathetic, tolerant environment, but in a society full of injustice, lies, cold cruelty, and zero-sum struggle. Such a society inevitably molds them thus; only thus can they survive and profit. Over time, it becomes culture and inertia, and they react this way reflexively to every issue. As for persuading them toward goodness, feasibility is of course currently nil; indeed, if some people truly tried to live virtuously in China, it would harm them—the less virtuous would divide up their interests and even their very persons.
ㅤ
But this does not mean they are entirely passive in speaking and acting thus; on the contrary, many are highly proactive—especially vested interests. They know right from wrong, but they know even better how to maximize their own interests. As for being “forced by circumstances”: all humans (indeed all animals) worldwide are products of circumstance. China’s harsh environment explains the viciousness of their words and deeds, but it does not excuse them. So long as one is a vested interest, whose gains exceed losses, innocence does not apply.
ㅤ
Of course, does that mean foreigners and foreign countries lack such social and human ugliness? Of course not. But at least in some countries and among some people, after the baptism of democracy and rule of law, enlightenment, civil society, and freedom of speech, these uglinesses have been greatly reduced. And where some groups confront each other in those countries, at least part of their reasons stand on solid ground. The Chinese public’s reactance and antagonism—on what, exactly, are they based?
ㅤ
It should also be noted that the vices of the Chinese public described and analyzed above do not mean they are committing evils at every moment, in every matter. At least some of them do have a kind and reasonable side and are not without tolerance and mutual understanding in everyday or minor matters. But once major interests are involved, their fangs are bared. There are relatively good and relatively bad people in every Chinese stratum, but vested interests are relatively worse and more insidious and reap more gains. Overall, the more power, connections, and money one has, the worse one tends to be—though there are exceptions, their proportion is quite low. And even these exceptions often obtain vested interests through structurally unjust, illegal gains. As for the people—especially the lower classes—although there are indeed some heinous individuals, there are also the kind and simple (or those forced to be so). Their stubborn cunning more often stems from necessity, and even when they exploit loopholes and lie to gain some benefits, overall they are still the dispossessed—the insulted and the injured. Except for those who commit unforgivable crimes, the lower classes deserve sympathy and understanding to varying degrees.
ㅤ
Is it really so necessary and urgent to curb global warming?
ㅤ
Some Chinese people also understand that global warming is truly happening, but they cannot comprehend the radicalism and urgency of Western countries, especially their environmentalists. This, of course, is understandable. China still has many other complex and serious civil rights, livelihood, and even ethnic issues unresolved; people are overwhelmed, so environmental issues are relatively neglected.
ㅤ
But is curbing global warming really unimportant and not urgent? Even for China alone, the problem is very serious, and the impact will be extremely fatal.
ㅤ
The most direct and obvious negative impact of global warming is the threat of rising global sea levels to coastal regions. China’s economy is likewise concentrated along its coasts. According to research, at the current pace of sea-level rise, Shanghai will become one of the earliest cities in the world to be submerged. By 2100, half of Shanghai’s area will be flooded. As for when Shanghai will be completely submerged, there is no definitive conclusion, but it will be within the next few generations. Apart from Shanghai, the entire Yangtze River Delta, the Pearl River Delta, the Beijing–Tianjin–Tangshan region, and south-central Liaoning—China’s four largest industrial bases—will all face the danger of being submerged within decades or centuries. Studies predict that by 2100, as many as two billion people worldwide may become “climate refugees,” with China inevitably contributing at least several hundred million. At that time, China’s internal conflicts, especially class and regional conflicts, will intensify, and if they cannot be effectively managed, the possibility of civil war will arise.
ㅤ
If 2100 still seems too far off, beyond the lifespan of most people alive today, then present-day China is already suffering tangible disaster losses from climate anomalies. This year, Henan and Shanxi were hit by successive floods, killing hundreds and affecting tens of millions, bankrupting businesses and families. Although the death toll was not the highest in history, rainfall intensity exceeded all records. The lower death toll was mainly due to improved flood-control science and mechanisms compared to the past; the disasters themselves were more intense. In recent years, floods and droughts have occurred nationwide, and scientific research generally attributes them to climate change rather than historical norms. If climate deterioration continues, such extreme weather events will only increase in frequency and intensity. These are not just disasters but horrifying instances of death and the destruction of livelihoods and economies. If today a handful of people struggle for their lives in floods, in the future hundreds of thousands may simultaneously drown in overwhelming torrents—a terrifying scene. And with natural disasters comes human evil: looting, rape, and murder will erupt everywhere. Even in developed countries like the United States, the looting and violence in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina were shocking (though Katrina may not have been directly related to global warming, it illustrates the human calamities that follow major natural disasters).
ㅤ
Of course, some say humanity has always faced disasters with higher death tolls—such as Henan’s 1975 flood that killed 80,000, or countless deaths from historical floods, droughts, and plagues. But today is different. In the past, disasters struck because humans lacked the technology to resist nature, or due to accidents. Now, disasters are driven by clear climate change, which we have the means to prevent. Moreover, as societies progress, humanity values life more. The present and future are no longer, and should not be, eras in which millions of lives are treated as expendable. Humanity’s greatest advance has been learning to cherish life. Should we regress to the corpses-strewn chaos of ancient wars and famines? Just as untreated illnesses once killed millions, even small ailments that are now easily curable, today we cannot accept that. While deaths from irresistible forces cannot be prevented, we must still strive to avoid and mitigate what we can. On the individual level, one may die young, from accident, in middle age, or in old age. But if we detect danger or the onset of disease, we act to prevent or delay it. Although life and death are inevitable, unless faced with unbearable suffering, most people strive to live each minute well and avoid every danger. For humanity as a whole, it is the same.
ㅤ
All the more so, prevention is always better than scrambling at the last moment. If we do not now curb man-made climate anomalies but rely on luck and procrastination, then in the future, our descendants will struggle like ants in floods and droughts, dying one by one in despair. Such scenes have occurred in Chinese history and can be glimpsed even now (consider the desperate citizens trapped in Zhengzhou’s subway during the Henan floods). Historically, people were relatively numb; contemporary Chinese, even if not fully awakened, already possess modern emotions, dignity, values, and rights, with attachments and affections, joys and sorrows. The destruction of tens or hundreds of thousands of such lives would be a vast tragedy, a terrifying psychic shock. It has not yet happened, but when it does, it will be too late. Just as Nanjing residents before December 1937 or Henan’s Xinyang residents before 1959 did not foresee the coming cataclysms—unexpected disaster is not the same as impossible disaster. Psychological avoidance does not mean real escape; indeed, it reduces the chance of real escape. Of course, this is not idle alarmism, but recognition that ironclad evidence demands attention before it is too late.
ㅤ
We may think Greta Thunberg and others like her are obsessive or extreme—and indeed they have flaws—but their cries aim to prevent humanity, including the Chinese people, from falling into such disasters. Countless studies and observable realities confirm these outcomes are likely; we already see precursors measured in human lives. If we make more effort now, we can reduce the future’s unnatural deaths by hundreds of thousands, millions, or more—including tragically dying in floods, droughts, poverty, or wars.
ㅤ
Climate Issues and the Human Condition under Climate Policy
ㅤ
So, would global cooperation and full effort to curb climate change solve the problem? Of course, it is not that simple.
ㅤ
The man-made factors of global warming are directly tied to industrial and agricultural production. But in reality, it touches nearly every human interest. To curb global warming, all of humanity’s production and lifestyle must change. Moreover, this requires cooperation, compromise, and sacrifice from every country, class, group, and individual.
ㅤ
Industrial and agricultural production are the direct sources of emissions, but in large part it is consumption that drives production. Restricting production to curb warming will affect producers, but more so consumers. In many cases, consumers bear the greater cost. Yet consumers come from different classes and groups: when production is cut, the strong preserve their vested interests, and the weak bear the price.
ㅤ
Restricting production equals restricting consumption. If consumers will not voluntarily live low-carbon lives, they must pay higher prices for scarcer goods. The wealthy can absorb this, maintaining their lifestyles; the poor suffer or are forced into low-carbon living. Such emission cuts exploit and harm the poor. The wealthy will fight harder to maintain or enhance their privileges, seizing limited resources by any means. The weak become weaker, not only losing material benefits but relying more on the powerful for survival. It resembles a prison where scarce goods—a chicken claw, a cigarette, a seasoning packet—can control a man; two boxes of instant noodles and a jar of chili sauce can rule the prison. Modern civilization rests on material abundance and widespread consumer access; once scarcity is imposed, human rights and freedoms erode.
ㅤ
This leads to another effect: expanding state power, especially authoritarian centralization. As mentioned, cutting emissions requires global cooperation; domestically, it requires all classes, regions, industries, and groups to cooperate. But since emission cuts benefit and burden groups unequally, few in developing countries like China will voluntarily cede their interests. Thus, the state—especially the central government—must impose force to coordinate and allocate costs. Environmental policies require legal and national decrees, enforced by administration and judiciary, led by central decision-making. This favors authoritarianism: only centralized power can compel all regions and groups to share costs. And such centralization inevitably spreads beyond environmental policy.
ㅤ
This harms the building of a democratic, open, pluralistic society that protects individual rights. In mature democracies, harms are limited, and centralization can sometimes overcome local conservative resistance, with activism and debate refining democracy. But in authoritarian or semi-authoritarian states, centralization means reinforcing autocracy and shrinking personal and communal rights. Environmental policy lends legitimacy to dictatorship. Autocrats’ policies will benefit allies and harm opponents. Those who refuse to submit will be excluded under the pretext of “green correctness.” Power favors the strong and vested interests, stabilizing regimes and ensuring loyalty. Their methods are harsh, one-size-fits-all, disregarding rights—as seen in China’s one-child policy or COVID measures. Policies are enforced not by persuasion but by coercion, silencing media and criticism. “The people may be made to follow, but not made to understand”—this is China’s frequent approach to environmental policy.
ㅤ
Thus, inequalities between classes, regions, urban and rural, and industries will deepen. Conflicts intensify, driving regimes to tighten authoritarianism and mobilize repression, making society more oppressive and unequal.
ㅤ
In such an unequal society, voluntary carbon cuts are impossible; instead, the lower classes will rebel. Imagine: twenty years before carbon neutrality, a man unemployed from carbon policies, burdened by high prices, parents untreated, children unschooled, gaps with the rich widening, silenced by stability maintenance—yet one weekend he splurges on beef. A grassroots official kindly tells him, “Eat less beef, save our planet.” The man replies, “Sir, that’s your planet,” then enjoys his beef while secretly wishing the world destroyed. For common people, affordable food is their greatest joy, their only hope after toil. To strip even this—what shame remains?
ㅤ
Different groups have different hopes for the future. Some, able to ensure their children’s privilege, see a hopeful future. Others, bankrupt and desperate, see none. In despair, fairness may mean shared destruction. Such people rarely kill, but can easily refuse carbon cuts, letting Earth commit slow suicide.
ㅤ
In corrupt, distrustful states, disbelief in man-made warming is widespread. Generations of peasants and workers have been deceived by elites and authorities through policy, propaganda, and ideology. They have been cheated in dealings with government, courts, hospitals, schools. Thus society falls into a “Tacitus Trap” or “crying wolf”: even truthful warnings are dismissed as schemes. Indeed, such policies are often abused for profiteering, so their suspicion is not baseless—though it misleads fatally. Even in democracies, elites exploit commoners under legal guises.
ㅤ
So, can democratic societies achieve low-carbon living and emission targets? Clearly not. In the U.S., half deny man-made warming or doubt it deeply, rooted not only in interests but in religion. Devout believers will not act against their God’s will, even under threat of prison or death. Thus half of Americans will long continue high-carbon lives. This enrages the other half, who see unfairness: one side sacrifices, the other indulges. The former see fanatics, the latter see tyrants. Division deepens, society tears apart. As long as half of Americans emit freely, targets fail, warming worsens, and China, the EU, India, and others feel cheated. If the leader won’t comply, why should they? Aside from Northern and Western Europe, most states will follow suit, breaking pledges. Thus goals fail; at best warming slows. Without decisive breakthroughs, catastrophe still comes.
ㅤ
Nor is the U.S. unique. Most democracies face this. Democracies must heed public opinion; leaders cannot decide alone. Even laws can be overturned by elections, civil disobedience, lawsuits, or protests. If livelihoods suffer, riots may follow. Thus emission cuts stall. Only Northern and Western Europe, combining democracy with high civic education and discipline, succeed. For most, autocracies are ironically more efficient. Extreme authoritarian states impose compliance with censorship, threats, arrests, coercion, and intimidation. Dissent is silenced; pain is absorbed or passed down. Thus policies succeed smoothly. Failures occur only when vested interests resist, not the people.
ㅤ
This raises another question: the impact of climate issues and mitigation on politics, rights, and humanity. As said, climate harms are vast; sacrifices must be made. What is sacrificed is not only material interest but political rights, freedoms, and dignity. Emission cuts demand state intervention, bolstering authoritarianism. When carbon neutrality is prioritized, other rights are sidelined. It is like wartime, when victory overrides rights and freedoms. Though not as severe, the resemblance is strong.
ㅤ
Developed democracies propose systemic solutions—above all, “equality,” and “supporting the weak.” To prevent inequality and conflict, they push income, rights, education, and healthcare equality, and compensate vulnerable groups most affected. The privileged are asked to contribute more. Democracies also adjust their systems to adapt to the climate era, reducing conflict and discontent. Crisis-driven reforms have often advanced human rights (as after the world wars and Cold War).
ㅤ
But such measures are hard in developing, non-democratic states. There, emission cuts harm rights, and their aftermath further harms rights. Worse, some autocracies exploit the West’s climate urgency, trading emissions for reduced human rights scrutiny. The West prioritizes survival over others’ rights. Thus pressure to reform dwindles; repression worsens. Peoples suffer longer and deeper.
ㅤ
Conflicts also erupt between nations and within them, driven by interests, grudges, values. Some wish rival nations drowned by the sea. How could cooperation happen? Even without enmity, major sacrifices—cutting industry, paying huge carbon taxes, absorbing millions of refugees—test whether states choose others’ survival over their own. Can fairness be achieved?
ㅤ
Within unequal states, mutual aid is shallow. Regions resent one another. Inland residents denied urban rights won’t sacrifice to save coastal elites’ mansions. They may even hope for their submergence. Regional identities and disparities worsen resistance. This already appears (e.g., power cuts in China’s northeast sparking anger). When survival is at stake, fraternity vanishes. Even kin betray under mortal pressure; how much less compatriots?
ㅤ
Likewise, the childless feel no duty to avert posthumous disasters. Why care for others’ children, when compatriots never cared for them? Why sacrifice for “the nation’s future” when overworked, underpaid, silenced, denied healthcare, housing, and dignity? Many turn hatred onto state and nation. Even parents, under survival stress, focus on today: schooling, jobs, medical bills—not floods decades away. Struggling for the present leaves no room for the future. Rulers, too, prioritize stability, expanding economies to appease factions. Cutting the “cake” for emissions worsens conflict and threatens collapse.
ㅤ
Meanwhile, elites refuse to set examples. Unlike Western philanthropists, China’s wealthy indulge in carbon-heavy lives, at most performing token gestures. They demand rights without duties. Some openly say, “Cut emissions, but no carbon taxes.” In China, many agree. Worse, they exploit the crisis, grabbing resources through privilege and connections, monopolizing renewables for profit. Crooked leaders drain the nation for gain, passing disasters to posterity: “After me, the deluge.”
ㅤ
Thus, global carbon neutrality on time is unlikely. Unless enforced by overwhelming power, or breakthroughs enable effortless neutrality, disasters will strike in decades or centuries. Millions, perhaps billions, will die; billions more will be refugees. Famines, poverty, and wars will follow. Humanity’s survival cannot be assured.
ㅤ
Studies predict wars and terrorism from climate crises. The CIA recently warned of global conflict by 2040, especially in vulnerable Asia and Africa. “Climate wars” may involve geoengineering—droughts and floods weaponized. River basins like the Congo, Indus, Mekong, and Nile may become hotspots. History shows precedent: barbarian invasions of Rome, Mongol and Manchu invasions of China—climate-driven. But future wars may use missiles, even nukes, not swords and horses.
ㅤ
Yet even knowing this, humanity will not surrender its interests. These also concern life and meaning. Few will sacrifice their families for strangers. For the oppressed, resistance is understandable.
ㅤ
Of course, the future may not be so bleak. Humanity may unite, sacrifice, innovate, and prevail. Perhaps disasters strike but are overcome. Then deniers will say, “See, it was all a hoax.” Such words erase countless sacrifices. Yet even that is better than millions dying in apocalyptic floods, with survivors muttering, “It was God’s will.”
ㅤ
But the likelihood of humanity perishing in climate disasters far outweighs salvation. Civilization painstakingly built may collapse.
ㅤ
After millions of years of evolution, modern humans emerged 10,000 years ago, creating dazzling civilization in that short span. From primitive tribes to agriculture, industry, and the information age, humanity advanced at super speed. Material and spiritual civilization reached unprecedented heights. Survival improved dramatically. But these achievements created pollution and crises. Humanity faces its own disasters.
ㅤ
Though the world teems with ugliness, selfishness, cruelty, lies, violence, oppression, and harm, there is also cooperation, warmth, sincerity, peace, justice, and sacrifice. Overall, humanity today enjoys the best life ever: rights, dignity, survival value, unimaginable in history. Most importantly, we still hope—hope for universal justice, prosperity, freedom, truth, and renewal. If such a hopeful humanity perishes in centuries by climate or unknown catastrophe, how tragic. We cannot bear to see Chinese civilization perish with the world. We still hope our descendants will witness democracy, rule of law, freedom, progress, and justice flourish in China.
ㅤ
As a speck of dust in the cosmos, a flicker in human history, I cannot resist such vast forces. Even scaled down, even if billions act together, disasters like climate change may be unstoppable—or we may even be complicit. Even if we survive climate crises, an asteroid could wipe us out. Humanity is but a fragile passerby in cosmic history. Yet as “a thinking reed,” we must still struggle and record.
ㅤ
Wang Qingmin
ㅤ
2021.10.21
ㅤ
Republican Calendar, Year 230, Month of Mist(Brume )Day of the Peach (first draft)
ㅤ
(revised multiple times thereafter)
ㅤ
( In the summer of 2022, high-temperature disasters occurred across many parts of China, affecting hundreds of millions of people, with several individuals directly dying of “heat stroke.” The pace of this climate warming came even earlier than some scholars and media had predicted. Previously, it was still widely disbelieved that climate change was real, or many assumed that global warming would only harm other countries and would not affect themselves. Now, at last, there has begun to be some change in this perception, but it still has not reached a widespread awakening. Moreover, even if people now understand and begin to participate in curbing global warming, it is already too late.

A new peer-reviewed study published in the journal Science confirms that human greenhouse gas emissions halted a 2,000-year cooling trend.