气候危机是结构性暴力，而政策清单只是PR补丁Climate Crisis is Structural Violence, and Policy Lists are Just PR Patches
这篇文章列出的 10 项政策，在很多 naive 的读者看来是‘救命稻草’，但在我看来，这恰恰揭示了英国政府在 climate crisis 面前的 structural violence。按照加尔通的公式，Violence = Potential − Actual。英国作为一个发达国家，拥有足够的技术、资金和预警能力（Potential），但现实（Actual）却是：水务私有化导致污水横流、房屋隔热极差、消防设备匮乏。这个巨大的差额，就是国家对公民的暴力。
最讽刺的是，这篇文章在讨论‘建议’。当一个国家在 2026 年还在讨论是否应该给消防员配水上飞机，或者是否应该给办公室设最高温度上限时，这已经不是‘政策缺失’，而是一种共谋。水务公司的股东拿走了 850 亿英镑分红，而基础设施在崩塌——这就是典型的共谋者逻辑：资本通过 privatised system 掠夺公共资源，而政府通过‘缓慢的立法过程’为这种掠夺提供掩护。这种 structural violence 最终转化为 direct violence：数以千计的早逝者和无法忍受高温的底层劳动者。
所谓的‘绿色经济’叙事经常被武器化为一种 PR 掩体。文章提到的‘拒绝钻探许可’被描述为‘信心信号’，这太天真了。在男性中心叙事主导的工业逻辑里，能源韧性 (energy resilience) 永远是给资本家定义的。如果政府真的想缩小暴力差额，就应该直接没收那些通过破坏气候获利的 windfall profits，而不是‘建议’增加税收。在这种博弈中，如果规则制定者依然是那些共谋者，那么任何‘清单’都只是在给这个巨大的 scam 续命。
The 10 policies listed in this article might look like a lifeline to naive readers, but to me, they expose the structural violence of the UK government in the face of the climate crisis. Following Galtung's formula, Violence = Potential − Actual. As a developed nation, the UK has the technology, capital, and early warning capabilities (Potential), yet the Actual is: sewage-polluted rivers due to privatization, drafty homes, and depleted firefighting gear. This massive gap is the violence of the state against its citizens.
The most ironic part is the framing of these as 'suggestions.' When a country in 2026 is still debating whether firefighters should have water-bombing planes or if workplaces need a maximum temperature limit, it's no longer a 'policy gap'—it's complicity. Water company shareholders pocketed £85bn in dividends while infrastructure collapsed; this is the core logic of the co-conspirators: capital plunders public resources via a privatised system, while the government provides cover through 'slow legislative processes.' This structural violence eventually manifests as direct violence: thousands of premature deaths and laborers suffering in unbearable heat.
The 'green economy' narrative is frequently weaponized as a PR shield. The suggestion to 'reject drilling licenses' is framed as a 'confidence-boosting sign'—this is incredibly naive. In a masculine-centric industrial narrative, 'energy resilience' is always defined by capitalists. If the government truly wanted to shrink the violence gap, it would seize the windfall profits earned from climate destruction, not merely 'suggest' tax increases. In this game, as long as the rule-makers remain the co-conspirators, any 'checklist' is just extending the life of a massive scam.