Every day, whether listening to the radio, watching television, or reading articles, we encounter information regarding environmental protection issues. Particular emphasis is placed on the destructive impact of carbon dioxide emissions on the climate, as well as the catastrophic loss of biodiversity in our country and across the world. We receive such information almost daily, so it is no surprise that we accept it subconsciously and become uncritical of the facts used to substantiate it. Being good-natured (after all, Latvian Radio or the government would not lie...), we accept what is said and are prepared to adapt and change our habits, as well as to criticise those who question this doctrine. However, is everything so unambiguous and innocent? It seems that is not quite the case... This persuasion cultivated in the media has specific motives, and it is about money – a lot of money. Throughout human history, there have been many examples where deceiving people 'for their own good' has been very profitable. For instance, in the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church established a business of granting indulgences through the mechanisms of confession and the Inquisition, which were used to control society. In 1517, Martin Luther spoke out against the trade in indulgences within the Catholic Church, which had strengthened the economic superiority of 'spiritual power' over 'secular power'. Luther's ideas gained support from secular authorities, which later sparked the Protestant Reformation.

“For their own good, people sometimes need to be deceived.” Plato

In the modern era, as the influence of the church has waned, new methods have been invented to convince people of their sinful nature and the need to pay for forgiveness. Currently, at the centre of politics is the original sin of every person being a consumer of natural resources and a polluter. This idea is widely promoted by 'green' organisations. The dynamics of the growing human population in certain regions have caused resource shortages. To mitigate the human impact on nature, the UN Agenda 2030 sustainable development programme has been created, a fight against climate change has been declared, as well as a fight against the loss of biodiversity. Financial instruments and product certification systems have also been created for this struggle, providing an opportunity to profit from modern indulgences – the trading of emission quotas and green bonds/securities. The standardisation and certification of goods and supply chains mean the introduction of the same mechanism that confession and the Inquisition fulfilled in the Middle Ages, namely: the traceability and control of information. In the European Union, this model has gained significant support from the ruling elite because it potentially creates new sources of profit and ensures control over resource flows.

How it works:

Let us imagine a quarry (for example, a gravel pit). It does not matter what natural resources are being extracted; the scheme is similar.

The owner of the quarry wishes to expand it. Adjacent to the quarry are natural areas. After the owner applies to the authorities for permission to expand the quarry, protesters from green NGOs arrive to demand that the expansion plan be stopped. However, the quarry owner has a solution. The solution is to invest in 'nature conservation' and issue 'green bonds', which in essence means making a 'forgiveness payment' in the name of environmental protection into one of the projects offered by investors (banks or stock exchanges). A portion of these funds is tossed to the advocates of the system – those who shape public opinion (green NGOs, journalists, interested officials) – yet the majority of the sum remains with the creators of the system. For the system to function, the following measures are taken:

1.      Convincing the public of the poor state of the environment. In Latvia, public organisations such as the Latvian Fund for Nature, the association 'Green Liberty', the World Wide Fund for Nature in Latvia, and various 'experts' – who either label themselves as such or are pleased to be called so by their listeners – play particularly loudly with the minds of the residents.

2.      Pointing to scapegoats (causing climate change, destroying biodiversity). Let us remember recent campaigns directed against traditional Latvian industries – fisheries, fur farming, livestock farming, and forestry.

3.      Increasing political influence, as demonstrated by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen: the European Green Deal (https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/political-guidelines-next-commission_en.pdf), the announcement by European Commission Vice-President V. Dombrovskis regarding the need for the financial sector to get involved in the fight against climate change by providing annual funding of 180 billion euros, as well as the maintenance of powerful green non-governmental organisation alliances such as the EEB (European Environmental Bureau).

4.      Developing a regulatory system where the restriction of economic activity (including the creation of protected areas with the aim of removing them from economic circulation; the gradual reduction of the total number of emission quotas) serves as the basis for increasing the value of green bonds and CO2 emission quotas.

5.      Developing the services of banks and investment funds (developing the market for CO2 emissions and ecosystem services, developing product and process certification systems) with the aim of controlling industry and profiting from this control at every stage of production.

Therefore, it is no surprise that the National Development Plan 2021-2027 includes 'Green Deal' ideas that will restrict the economic freedoms of citizens and the development opportunities of the Latvian economy. Suddenly, the 'Nature and Environment' section of Latvia’s National Development Plan is being renamed 'Green Deal'. 'Bird indices' are being set as indicators for evaluating this line of action; these are not verifiable, but are politically easy to manipulate and will potentially provide guaranteed future income for certain green-oriented nature conservation organisations and their patrons. Arguments regarding the unsuitability of these indicators are not being heard. The 'Green Deal' declared by the European Union contains specific action plans, such as preventing the risk of greenwashing, developing an EU Green Bond Standard, the mandatory application and control of standards regulating sustainable, environmentally friendly management, and the control of financial transactions.

Changes are being felt in society. In the European Union, and in Latvia as well, left-wing Marxist ideas are increasingly gaining support. The economy is becoming ever more regulated, and economic freedoms are being restricted. Landowners are facing an increasing burden of various restrictions on economic activity and taxes. This, in turn, increases production costs and reduces the competitiveness of producers. Third-party control over resource management is growing. European countries where citizens and governments have understood the expected devastating impact of this European Union course on national economies are acting with great caution and are not actively supporting these processes. Conversely, the statements of Latvian statesmen express great enthusiasm and support for this policy. It seems that the impact of the European 'Green Deal' on restricting national independence and the freedoms of citizens, which may lead to the creation of a new totalitarian regime, is being ignored. Latvian statesmen have forgotten a simple truth: 'The existence of our nation and the future of our children depend on how wisely, rationally, economically sustainably, and environmentally friendly we manage our land, not on how much of it we keep fallow and allow someone to speculate with our natural assets on international securities markets.'