Green Grift

From capitalistManifesto
  • Green investments.
  • Government subsidy.

Biomass is sold to us as renewable energy, advertised as versions of burning dung and other detritus. Transforming the useless into the useful. Bullshit. Biomass just means burning forests and minced-up animals. Many of the forests are ancient. Many of the animals are dropped into the grinding jaws of mechanized animal fat mincers still alive and kicking. This is not progress. It's just another grift for profit. Biomass is not renewable energy. Its inclusion in the "green" energy data is gross misrepresentation. Media and corporate regulators are guilty of wilfully conflating these terms; in service of profit, not the safety of the planet.


The environmentalist movement is a growing demographic, particularly among younger people who're more likely to live in the world created by the resource exploitation of today. Unfortunately, the momentum of this well-meaning grassroots movement has been somewhat hijacked by corporate capitalists.


As public opinion presses government to subsidize and fund "Green New Deal" business enterprise, the opportunity for grift has become irresistible. Government regulation has already been compromised by the corporate oligarchy so it wasn't a great stretch to coerce the right blend of de-regulation, investment and compliance to allow big business to get its teeth into the trillions of dollars easy profit. It needn't be this way; but while self-interest and the profit motive are ubiquitous (and why shouldn't they be?) there needs to be a similarly committed popular focus on regulation of "market forces" and long-term conservatism (towards the planet's well-being, our own children, grandchildren, etc).


America and Britain have the natural good fortune to be able to potentially produce all its fixed electricity needs from wind power - offshore - if there's a will to do so. Onshore wind at scale is unwise but in any case should be a local matter.

Three angles to keep an eye on:

  1. battery storage (to keep the electricity flowing when there's less wind, and charge up when there's more);
  2. turbine construction and longevity (how long do they last, what resources are used up making them);
  3. corporate/government grift (e.g. profiteering from dodgy biomass energy - especially in the USA - being classed as "green" when it's mostly just burning down forests and mincing animals).

Energy supply CAN be from 100% non-organic renewables, satisfying environmentalists and long-term profitable to capitalists. Short-term cash grab is the main obstacle, as always. Corporations exist to make money and pay out fat dividends. Governments are supposed to regulate corporate energy so as to protect against blind exploitation and short-term greed while facilitating innovation and healthy profits.

Let's hope - whoever is in power - they do a better job of protecting the country from the grift and the greed than previous corporation-serving governments. Hard to see why they'd bother, though, given how much money they can make from the green energy sector and how little accountability they have to worry about when elections roll around.


Environmentalists were upset by this Michael Moore sponsored film. Or so it was widely reported in the national mainstream media. The environmentalists' reasons for anger aren't the same as the corporate profiteers furious about being exposed; which they deserve to be, loudly, repeatedly, until they come 'clean'. The environmentalists will be upset by the crude manipulation of presented information - possibly a disingenuous agenda of the film makers, certainly an irresponsible one. For instance, citing renewable energy sources as equivalent to fossil fuels, damaging the planet, largely because they're both subordinated to America's amoral perpetual corporate profit model, is to misrepresent wind and solar for the sake of crusading against over-consumption. The crusade is valid. The diagnosis is reasonable. But the film's cod philosophy and lowest common denominator message risks doing more harm then good.

As a footnote: the conceit of radicalism is one of the most subtle, most corrosive examples of white privilege.