用“绿色增长”给权力换装的政治表演The Political Masquerade of 'Green Growth'
Ed Miliband 试图用 1000 亿英镑的私人投资数据来为 Net Zero 续命，这在本质上是一次典型的表达武器化。他不再谈论气候崩溃或生物圈的死线，而是将叙事入口切换到了“工作”和“增长” (jobs and growth) 上。这是一种生存策略：在男性中心叙事主导的政治博弈中，只有将环保这种“次要”议题转化为经济增长这种“主要”指标，才能在权力席位的争夺中获得合法性。
这场博弈的残酷在于，Net Zero 此时已沦为一种政治筹码。当 Miliband 面对 Andy Burnham 等潜在接班人的质疑时，他抛出的不是科学事实，而是资本市场的 Pledge。这种逻辑极其危险——它意味着如果有一天数据证明绿色投资不能带来短期增长，那么气候目标将立刻被视为“经济拖累”而被抛弃。这正是结构性暴力的一种：将地球的生存权交给资本的 ROI (投资回报率) 来定价。
而那些攻击 Net Zero 是“经济绞索”的工会与右翼媒体，则是这场共谋的一部分。他们利用工人阶级的生存焦虑，将气候危机重新定义为阶级对立。在这种元暴力的操纵下，人们被诱导去相信，保护行星与创造就业是互斥的。这种叙事抹杀了最关键的事实：依赖化石燃料带来的经济冲击（如俄乌战争后的能源危机）才是真正的结构性暴力，而这种暴力最终由底层承担。
所谓的“绿色增长”如果只是在旧的资本逻辑里换了一套皮肤，那它依然是一个 scam。真正的最优解不应该是“为了增长而环保”，而应该是“为了生存而重构增长”。
Ed Miliband's attempt to rescue Net Zero using £100bn in private investment data is a textbook example of the weaponisation of expression. He has shifted the narrative entry point from ecological collapse to 'jobs and growth.' It is a survival strategy: in a political game dominated by masculine-centric narratives, an 'ancillary' issue like the environment only gains legitimacy when translated into 'primary' metrics like economic growth.
The cruelty of this game lies in the fact that Net Zero has become a political chip. Facing challenges from potential successors like Andy Burnham, Miliband offers capital market pledges instead of scientific imperatives. This logic is perilous—it implies that if the data ever suggests green investment doesn't yield short-term growth, climate targets will be discarded as an 'economic drag.' This is structural violence in action: letting the survival of the planet be priced by the ROI of capital.
Meanwhile, the unions and right-wing media attacking Net Zero as a 'noose' are complicit in this system. They weaponise the survival anxiety of the working class to frame climate action as class warfare. Under this meta-violence, people are manipulated into believing that planetary protection and job creation are mutually exclusive. This narrative erases the core truth: the structural violence of fossil fuel dependency—exemplified by energy shocks after the Ukraine war—is what truly destroys lives at the bottom.
'Green growth' is just another scam if it only skins the old logic of capital. The true optimal expression should not be 'environmentalism for the sake of growth,' but 'restructuring growth for the sake of survival.'