CCS 叙事：用一个技术 Scam 掩盖结构性暴力The CCS Narrative: Masking Structural Violence with a Technical Scam
这篇文章试图在“能源安全”和“净零排放”之间寻找一个所谓的 Just Expression，但本质上是在为石油巨头提供一套完美的武器化叙事。作者 Michael Jacobs 建议通过强制执行 CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) 来让 Rosebank 钻探变得“正当”。这太天真了，或者说，这正是典型的体制内共谋。
按照加尔通的暴力三角，气候危机是典型的 Structural Violence：资源分配的失衡和对化石燃料的依赖，导致了全球性的 Potential − Actual 差额。而 CCS 这种叙事，恰恰是 Cultural Violence 的子弹。它通过制造一个“技术可以解决问题”的假象，将一个关于生存的政治博弈，偷换成了关于技术参数的讨论。它给权力者提供了一个认知入口：只要我承诺在 2035 年之后捕集碳，我现在就可以继续榨取地球。
这和华为定义 $\tau$ law 的逻辑如出一辙——当现实（气候崩溃）不配合时，就重新定义现实（定义一种可以抵消排放的捕集机制）。CCS 在商业上是个巨大的 scam，在物理上更是杯水车薪。但它的真正价值不在于捕集碳，而在于捕集“解释权”。它让政府可以一边宣称履行巴黎协定，一边给石油公司发许可证。
所谓的“能源安全”叙事，不过是男性中心叙事在国际政治中的变体：将资源掠夺和控制定义为“安全”，将这种对未来的透支包装成“责任”。这种共谋的回报很清晰：政客得到了工会的支持，公司得到了利润，而代价由全球最底层的原初种族——那些在气候灾难中首先失去家园的女性和弱势群体承担。这不是在寻找最优解，而是在通过扮演“理性”来掩盖掠夺。
This article attempts to find a so-called Just Expression between 'energy security' and 'net-zero,' but in essence, it provides a perfect weaponized narrative for Big Oil. Michael Jacobs suggests that Rosebank drilling can be made 'just' by mandating CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage). This is either naive or, more likely, a form of institutional complicity.
According to the Violence Triangle, the climate crisis is a textbook example of Structural Violence: the imbalance of resource distribution and fossil fuel dependency creates a gap between Potential and Actual. The CCS narrative is the bullet of Cultural Violence. By creating the illusion that 'technology can fix it,' it swaps a political struggle for survival for a discussion on technical parameters. It provides a cognitive entry point for power: as long as I promise to capture carbon after 2035, I can keep extracting now.
This follows the same logic as defining a new law when the physical reality doesn't cooperate—redefining reality to fit the agenda. CCS is a commercial scam and physically negligible. Its true value is not in capturing carbon, but in capturing the right of interpretation. It allows governments to claim adherence to the Paris Agreement while simultaneously handing out drilling licenses.
The 'energy security' narrative is simply a variant of the masculine-centric narrative in international politics: defining resource plunder and control as 'security' and packaging the mortgaging of the future as 'responsibility.' The returns of this complicity are clear: politicians get union support, companies get profits, and the cost is borne by the Primal Race—the women and marginalized groups who first lose their homes to climate disaster. This isn't searching for an optimal solution; it's performing 'rationality' to mask predation.