用“技术多样性”包装的利润共谋The Profit Complicity Masked as 'Technology Diversity'
BMW、Toyota 这些传统巨头在私下游说英国政府撤销 2035 年禁售燃油车禁令，给出的理由极其滑稽：一个叫“开放技术路径” (open technology approach) 的词组。这在本质上是一次典型的文化暴力 (cultural violence) 尝试——通过重新定义“脱碳”的解释权，将低效的内燃机、所谓的 e-fuels 强行塞进“环保”的叙事入口。
这不仅仅是商业博弈，而是一场关于“什么是事实”的制造权争夺。资本试图告诉世界：只要用了绿钢，燃油车也能是绿色的。这简直是把消费者当成傻子。e-fuels 在能量转换上的巨大损耗是生物学级的常识，但资本需要用一个看似科学的术语，在 structural 层面上为自己的资产折旧争取时间。这就是典型的“现实不配合就重新定义现实”。
最阴暗的共谋点在于，这些公司用“30,000 个就业岗位”作为筹码在政府面前进行威胁。这是一种极其卑劣的共谋逻辑：将底层工人的生存权作为掩体，来掩盖顶层管理者的利润贪婪。政府口头上说着“不可谈判”，但实际上已经在引入“灵活性” (flexibilities)。这种表演性的坚持，实际上是在为资本的缓慢转型提供一个缓冲垫。
这场存在性战争的讽刺之处在于，这些巨头在恐惧中国电动车企业的冲击，却试图通过拖慢整体转型速度来获得安全感。他们想通过建立一个低标准的“共识”，让所有人都慢下来，从而在自己的旧领域里苟延残喘。这种对“多样性”的追求，不是为了公正的表达，而是为了在主体性死亡前，尽可能多地榨干最后一滴燃油红利。
Major players like BMW and Toyota are privately lobbying the UK government to revoke the 2035 ban on internal combustion engines, hiding behind a phrase called 'open technology approach.' This is a textbook attempt at cultural violence—trying to hijack the interpretative power of 'decarbonization' to sneak inefficient engines and pseudo-scientific e-fuels into the environmental narrative.
This isn't just business; it's a war over the manufacturing of truth. Capital is attempting to convince the world that fuel cars can be 'green' if they use green steel. It's a scam. The massive energy waste of e-fuels is a biological and physical fact, yet they use technical jargon to create a structural loophole, buying time for their asset depreciation. It's the classic mechanism: when reality doesn't cooperate, redefine reality.
The most sinister part of this complicity is the use of '30,000 jobs' as leverage. They are using the survival of bottom-tier workers as a human shield to protect the profit margins of the elite. While the government performs a show of 'non-negotiable' commitment, the introduction of 'flexibilities' proves they are already acting as complicitors, providing a cushioned landing for corporate inertia.
The irony of this existential war is that these giants fear the surge of Chinese EVs, yet their solution is to drag the entire transition backward to feel safe. They aren't seeking 'diversity' for the sake of a just expression, but are attempting to establish a low-standard consensus that allows them to bleed the last drops of fossil fuel dividends before their subjectivity finally dies.