Saving the Planet Without Destroying Society

Environmental policy has long been regarded as a noble endeavor, promising to improve humanity's living conditions, conserve the planet's resources, and avert climate catastrophe. However, the reality reveals that some aspects of this struggle are far from straightforward. Instead of fostering harmony between nature and society, we often witness economic losses, social conflicts, and even the rise of authoritarian regimes. Why does this happen, and is it possible to strike a balance between environmental goals and society's real needs?

How the U.S. and russia Exploit Environmental Narratives

Environmental issues have become a battleground for political maneuvers and corporate interests. The U.S. and russia, two key players in global climate policy, frequently use environmental narratives to further their agendas.

The U.S.: Lobbying and Carbon Capture Technologies

Prominent American corporations such as ExxonMobil, Chevron, and BP have long funded research downplaying the risks of climate change. Investigations in 2020 revealed that ExxonMobil had knowingly concealed the dangers of global warming, despite its scientists warning of the critical impacts of fossil fuels as early as the 1980s.
Beyond spreading misinformation, these companies heavily promote carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies. While CCS appears to be a breakthrough in combating climate change, it allows companies to avoid reducing fossil fuel extraction. Investments in CCS may seem environmentally responsible but primarily aim to maintain the traditional energy structure.

russia: Gas as "Green Fuel" and an Energy Leverage

russia offers the world its "preserved" path — natural gas, which the kremlin markets as the cleanest fossil fuel. Behind this rhetoric lies the objective of preserving Europe’s dependence on russian resources.

In 2019, independent experts uncovered that russia had funded European anti-nuclear organizations to strengthen the position of russian gas. Shunning nuclear energy left Europe reliant on gas imports.

Domestically, renewable energy development in russia is stifled. With the oil and gas sector contributing approximately 40% of budget revenues, any policy reducing reliance on fossil fuels is seen as a national security threat. Investments are directed toward hydrocarbon projects rather than solar or wind energy.

Global Impact

The policies of major powers create uneven conditions in combating climate crises. Oil and gas lobbying groups hinder international initiatives aimed at limiting their influence. For example, at the 2021 COP26 climate summit, countries like India, China, and Saudi Arabia, supported by industry lobbyists, watered down commitments to "phase down coal."

The Economic Costs of Environmental Reforms

Government initiatives targeting climate change often overlook societal needs. Let’s explore their consequences in different countries.

Netherlands: Farmers Bear the Brunt of Emission Cuts

In 2019, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled existing nitrogen emission policies ineffective, prompting stringent measures targeting agriculture, responsible for 80% of emissions.

Negative Impacts:

• Farm Closures: Thousands of farmers faced shutting down or selling family businesses due to unattainable requirements.
• Social Protests: Distrust in the government led to widespread demonstrations, with farmers blocking roads and staging rallies.
• Economic Losses: The Netherlands, the world’s second-largest agricultural exporter, saw a decline in competitiveness.

After waves of protests, the government announced a willingness to revise policies. However, skepticism persists, as financial losses remain unaddressed.

Germany: The Costly Energy Transition

In response to the 2011 Fukushima disaster, Germany pledged to phase out nuclear power in favor of renewable energy sources like solar and wind.

Negative Impacts:

• Increased CO₂ Emissions: Nuclear shutdowns drove reliance on coal-fired plants, among the most polluting energy sources.
• High Electricity Costs: Rising production expenses made Germany one of Europe’s costliest electricity markets, affecting households and industries alike.
• Business Exodus: Major firms like BASF relocated to countries with cheaper energy, leading to job losses.

Germany now recognizes the importance of nuclear energy in achieving climate goals, with the European Commission designating nuclear power as "green," signaling potential policy shifts.

Canada: Challenges in Achieving Net-Zero Emissions

In 2021, Canada enacted a law mandating net-zero emissions by 2050 to align with the Paris Agreement. The plan emphasized reducing fossil fuel reliance and transitioning to renewables.

Negative Impacts:

• Decline of the Oil and Gas Sector: Provinces like Alberta faced tens of thousands of job losses.
• Rising Costs: Households experienced higher energy, housing, and transportation expenses.
• Insufficient Subsidies: Government assistance fell short of covering infrastructure modernization, burdening citizens.

Despite resistance from affected regions, Canada continues its strategy, though experts advocate for a gradual transition to mitigate adverse effects.

Spain: A Crisis in Solar Energy

In 2007, Spain launched an ambitious solar energy program, promising favorable tariffs for panel installations. The initiative aimed to reduce fossil fuel dependency and create jobs in high-unemployment regions.

Negative Impacts:

• Funding Shortfalls: Demand exceeded expectations, leaving the government unable to fulfill tariff commitments.
• Bankruptcies: Thousands of households that took loans for solar panels faced financial ruin as subsidies were cut.
• Factory Closures: Regions relying on solar manufacturing saw mass layoffs and economic decline.

While Spain has resumed solar energy support, the primary beneficiaries are now large corporations, leaving early investors sidelined.

Social Consequences of Environmental Policy: Radicalization, Distrust, and Conflicts

Environmental policies addressing global issues often neglect local realities, leading to social unrest, protests, and political instability. The haste in implementing "green" reforms fosters public perceptions of injustice, eroding trust in governments and institutions.

France: Yellow Vest Protests Over Fuel Taxes

In 2018, Emmanuel Macron's government decided to raise fuel taxes as part of its environmental policy. The aim was to reduce CO₂ emissions and fulfill France's obligations under the Paris Agreement. It also had political overtones: Macron sought to win the support of the Green Party in parliament.

Negative Impacts:

• Social Explosion: The tax increase hit hardest the people in rural areas who depended on cars due to the lack of public transportation. People took to the streets wearing the yellow vests mandatory in every car. Protests quickly spread across the country.
• Radicalization of society. Peaceful demonstrations turned into acts of vandalism, clashes with police and blockades of key sites. Protesters even damaged the Arc de Triomphe in Paris.
• Loss of confidence in the government. Most French people supported the protesters, even in spite of the violence. People felt that the government did not take into account their real problems and cared only about the interests of the elites.
  

What now?

After months of protests, the government was forced to abolish the fuel tax. Macron admitted that he had not taken into account the interests of less wealthy citizens. The lesson for France was the need to discuss such initiatives more thoroughly with society.

How do you avoid mistakes and achieve balance?

Environmental policy has the noble goal of preserving the planet for future generations. However, its implementation often causes economic losses, social conflicts and manipulation. The U.S. and russian examples show how climate rhetoric has become a tool of political and corporate interests: U.S. corporations hide their dependence on fossil fuels through “green” technologies, while russia uses environmental rhetoric to consolidate its energy influence. Such manipulation not only discredits the environmental struggle, but also undermines the credibility of climate initiatives.

The economic and social consequences are also a major concern. Closing farms in the Netherlands, nuclear power plants in Germany or downsizing the oil and gas sector in Canada lead to job losses, protests and social tensions. People who suffer because of ill-conceived reforms feel betrayed, pushing radicalization and deepening inequality.

A harmonized approach is needed to make environmental policy really work. Gradual reforms, transparency, inclusiveness and access to green technologies will help avoid social and economic crises. A balance between nature, economy and society is the only way to a sustainable future where people's interests are not sacrificed to global goals.