When Narratives Collide: the War in Ukraine meets Climate Change

If 'climate change' is an existential threat, then why won't the West push for peace in Ukraine? War is the most toxic polluter and a leading source of greenhouse gases.

Site of the Nord Stream terror attack and environmental disaster

Joe Biden’s aggressive foreign policy is a rash departure from all previous presidents. In just 18 months, he has led the West to dangerous confrontation with the two other superpowers, China and Russia, bringing human civilization to the brink of nuclear war — the ultimate and most final form of ‘climate change’.

In order to punish Russia and to hold Europe hostage through energy supplies, last year Biden ordered the destruction of the Nord Stream undersea natural gas pipeline. The brazen terrorist attack is now recognized as one of the most devastating environmental crimes in modern history.

The discharge of noxious methane into the Baltic Sea and atmosphere was five times greater than the previous largest methane release, the Aliso Canyon disaster in late 2015. “Whoever ordered [the Nord Stream attack] should be prosecuted for war crimes,” said Rob Jackson, a Stanford University climate scientist.

While the West’s highly corrupt judicial system is unable to prosecute Biden, the fact remains that the global community no longer trusts the U.S. Why should they trust a government that causes massive environmental devastation and then lectures the world that ‘climate change’ is an existential threat?

Not giving peace a chance

If ‘climate change’ is truly a threat, then Biden should do everything possible to reach a peace agreement with Russia, and guarantee the human rights of the ethnic Russians of Donbass. Their brutal persecution by Kiev’s nationalist regime since 2014 is what triggered the war in Ukraine. (Though, the war’s most fundamental root cause is NATO’s eastward expansion over the past 25 years).

NATO’s war against Russia, which is fought by using Ukraine as a proxy, has caused enormous environmental damage. Both Ukraine and Russia now face devastated infrastructure, farmland, forests and national parks. Both sides are especially keen to target the other’s oil facilities. Such damage has polluted the air, water and soil, exposing animal and plant life in the region to toxic chemicals that will have an impact for many years.

Oil facility burns in the aftermath of an attack

Even more disturbing is the threat of a nuclear disaster that could surpass Ukraine’s Chernobyl in 1987. NATO provides the Kiev regime with precision weapons and real-time battlefield intelligence to help Ukrainian forces bomb the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant, which is under Russian control. These outrageous attacks could cause an environmental disaster that would certainly alter the planet’s climate.

In order to deflect attention from its attacks against a nuclear installation, NATO has a disinformation campaign to confuse the public. Over the past nine months major media, such as the New York Times, consistently report that Moscow shells its own people at the Zaporozhye plant.

How effective is such bizarre and absurd disinformation? Sadly, quite effective. Since these lies are repeated often in powerful media companies, many people in the West believe them. However, the main purpose of western disinformation isn’t only to deceive the public — in fact, those in power really don’t care what the public thinks.

Rather, the goal is to give western politicians a veneer of legitimacy on which to base their aggressive policies. By citing ‘authoritative’ media outlets, officials can justify their talking points at government meetings when discussing and formulating military and economic policy towards Russia.

The headlines are weaponized. And as we know, most people only read the headlines. Without providing evidence, or explaining the absurdity of the situation, the headlines might, for example, claim that Moscow is bombing its own people at the Zaporozhye plant. And the West must respond to this ‘Russian aggression’.

Climate cult and the love of war

When it comes to climate change, once again, the truth is easy to discern. If all the major media repeat the same talking points, and if dissenters are harassed and censored, then certainly a dubious narrative has been concocted to justify a government and/or corporate agenda.

When they say that “the Science is settled” regarding climate change, you know they’re lying. Science doesn’t work like that. Real Science is about continuous research, discussion and debate; as well as a strong sense of modesty that we puny humans are unable to fully understand the mysteries of Nature.

The ‘climate change’ narrative has little to do with protecting Nature and more to do with raiding state coffers and seizing power on a global scale. International agreements on combating climate change give western elites enormous power over major decisions in the global economy.

The transition away from fossil fuels to so-called ‘clean energy’ is at the center of the effort to concentrate global power in the hands of a small group of powerful western corporations and their allies in the halls of political power.

Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant

I want to be very clear — like most sensible people, I want clean air and water; I want to protect biodiversity and forests; and I’d like for people to consume less resources and live modestly so that we can minimize our impact on this planet.

But I can’t accept a fanatical movement which preaches that the world will end if the average global temperature rises a mere 2°C over the next half century. Their crusade is especially galling because the climate cultists are the same people who push for a devastating, pollution-spewing war with Russia and China, even risking a nuclear war that could end human civilization.

What happens when carefully fabricated narratives collide? It gets messy and embarrassing. Spin doctors have to work overtime. Reluctant media bosses must be strong-armed into supporting the narrative, such as through lawsuits and the firing of popular journalists who point out the ruling elite’s lies regarding Russia, climate change, and more.

If the White House cared about the environment then it would foster good relations with Russia and China. Instead, Washington has designated both countries as “enemies” and wages hybrid war against them, leading to the emission of vast amounts of pollution. And without the cooperation of those two global powers, we will never achieve our much hyped ‘climate goals’ by 2050.

Reaching ‘climate goals’, however, is not the goal. As we’ve seen with the Middle Eastern wars, the overarching goal is not to succeed in winning the war; and in this case, it’s not to end ‘climate change’.

Rather, the true goal is to create more chaos and conflict so that globalist elites in western capitals can offer a ‘solution’ and centralize power in their hands, secure control over key assets in the economy, print money and distribute it to their cronies, and finally, strip away the freedoms of We The People.