I said this some time before on some other post but I think it deserves its own post: the shift from "protecting the environment" to "saving the climate" is nothing but greenwashing and a psyop to kill actual environmentalism.
Environmental protection is a threat to the capital. You can't build a new factory on old growth forest, you have to modernize your old factory, etc etc. There are limitations, even on the consumer lifestyle layer (right to repair, reuse recycle etc)
In "climate action" you only produce more. You tell your customer: by buying our new fridge you're saving the planet. And they do. The capital wins and the consumer is happy thinking his new car that uses 0.0001l less gas is a way to save the planet. It's maddening.
this came up in my architecture course and i 100% stopped taking it seriously the moment i saw this hypocrisy.
they told us that the construction industry is the biggest pollutant on the planet (fair enough) so the logical answer would be to make buildings out of natural materials like stone and wood in an ageless vernacular style that is suited for the local environment and the bigger more important buildings something pretty nobody would want to tear down like a neoclassical style, right?
nope, they wanted us to design the ugliest shit possible with "recycled concrete" and bricks made out of sawdust to deliberately limit the building's life to 30 years so it would be "easy to take down when trends change"
not to mention how they were big on the "oooh no the climate is heating up" but prevented us from designing buildings inspired by mediterran designs because they had to be airtight for "insulation and energy performance". if it's getting warmer then insulated buildings won't do shit
i also spent my dissertation looking into who is pushing those ugly modernist trends and contradictory regulations and they really didn't like that
Higher education is rotted through by corporate influence and it's not even controversial
