Before diving in, I want to address a concern raised by a few readers. Some fear my critique of Green Left politics might be co-opted by far-right voices. Let me be clear: I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I worry about political extremism in all its forms. This article is not an endorsement of reactionary politics, but rather a call to examine how parts of the modern Green movement—especially the far-left iteration—are moving away from constructive engagement and potentially undermining the environmental cause they claim to champion.
The Disappearing Pragmatic Greens
The pragmatic Greens—those centre-left reformists who sought balance between environmental protection and industrial progress—have all but disappeared. In their place, a strain of Green Marxism has emerged, driven by anti-industry, anti-trade activists. This movement has pushed traditional socialist parties further left, making it increasingly difficult to build coalitions with industry or farmers to develop workable environmental solutions.
Instead of compromise and collaboration, we now see confrontation and purism. The irony? By rejecting the input of the very industries capable of implementing green solutions, this radical wing is stifling progress and—in a very real sense—choking Mother Nature.
The Flawed Heroism of Greta and the Green Left
Greta Thunberg is a passionate young climate activist who believes governments can fix climate change. Her disappointment in their failure is understandable. But the belief that top-down government reform alone will solve this complex challenge is, unfortunately, naive.
Compare that with Donald Trump, who infamously pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Accord. Ironically, American industry was already well on its way to achieving the accord’s goals—without additional regulation. Neither Greta nor Trump seem to grasp a fundamental truth: solutions rarely come from governments alone.
Roman Krznaric and the Fantasy of Reinvented Democracy
Take Roman Krznaric, a well-known progressive philosopher. He argues that because democracies have failed to prevent environmental degradation, they should be restructured—replaced even—by mechanisms like citizen panels or representatives for future generations.
He echoes David Suzuki’s idea of replacing elected governments with randomly selected citizen assemblies and supports legal activism like Our Children’s Trust that sues governments on behalf of the unborn. These ideas, while emotionally compelling, are fundamentally flawed. They assume government is not just a vehicle for change—but the only one.
Government Isn’t the Solution—It’s the Arena
Government should be the referee, not the player. It can regulate, incentivize, and guide—but real innovation and implementation come from industry. The European Union may spend billions on public research, but this is only a fraction of the private sector’s long-term investment in sustainable innovation.
Unfortunately, thinkers like Krznaric can’t see this because their worldview excludes industry from the equation. They ignore 25 years of corporate sustainability efforts, CSR strategies, and green tech innovation.
They forget that electric vehicles, renewable energy, low-emission materials, and global food logistics are not government inventions—they’re industrial achievements. Governments can fund pilot programs, but they don’t manufacture wind turbines, improve packaging waste systems, or optimize agriculture. Industry does that.
Demonizing the Real Problem-Solvers
What’s most troubling is how Green Marxists treat industry as the villain. They cherry-pick scandals and mishaps, ignoring decades of ethical standards, compliance programs, and scientific achievement. NGOs and activist groups like Corporate Europe Observatory now push for the complete exclusion of industry from regulatory discussions—as if banning the baker will improve the quality of bread.
Their goal seems to be to remove experts and innovators from the conversation entirely. If they can’t demonize a company, they’ll sue it into paralysis or legislate it out of existence. In doing so, they’re not advancing environmental protection—they’re kneecapping it.
The Dangerous Rise of the Precautionary Principle
One of the tools used by this new Green Left is the overuse of the precautionary principle: the idea that if something might be harmful, we should ban it—regardless of actual risk or evidence.
This might sound wise, but it ignores the trade-offs. If we ban herbicides, how will we grow enough food? If we outlaw plastics, how will we preserve medical supplies or food? If we reject nuclear and fossil fuels before alternatives are ready, how will we keep the lights on?
The precautionary principle, applied without nuance, doesn’t protect us—it paralyzes us. It kills innovation. And it leaves us more vulnerable in the long run.
Mother Earth Needs Solutions, Not Slogans
The environmental movement has become a battlefield of extremes. While the media focuses on the far-right’s climate skepticism, it largely ignores how the far-left’s eco-radicalism is equally destructive.
Where are the centrists who once worked with industry to green its practices? Where are the reformers who believed in progress through partnership?
As we head into the European elections, Green parties may enjoy a surge. But without a return to pragmatism, the price of their ideological purity will be paid by future generations—the very people they claim to protect.
Final Thought: Hope Beyond Extremes
Greta wonders what the world will look like when she turns 70. I hope by then, this current radical wave will have passed. I hope a new generation of leaders will understand that real environmental change comes not from utopian idealism or authoritarian “citizen panels,” but from a pragmatic alliance between science, business, and civil society.
We cannot afford to keep sidelining the very forces that are best equipped to build the future we all want to see.
BY Risk Monger
