Recently, there has been an active discussion of the prospects for the introduction of a cross-border tax on carbon dioxide emissions by the EU.

Unfortunately, a myth has formed around this topic, which has completely replaced reality. The participants in the discussion seem to remember what lies at the heart of this notorious problem, but at the same time act as if under hypnosis of rhetoric.

So there is the problem of climate change. Within this problem, two hypotheses compete. The first claims that the planet is gradually warming up, and the reason is human activity. This hypothesis is based on data accumulated over the past 200 years as a result of direct climate observations (mainly in Europe). Proponents of this hypothesis say that due to the increased planetary temperatures, glaciers will melt and coastal cities will be flooded. Thus, the main enemy is CO2; in order to prevent global warming, the burning of fossil fuels must be greatly reduced, or better altogether.

At the same time, it remains behind the scenes that carbon dioxide is needed for plants. Many researchers write with surprise that the green mass of plants on the planet has been increasing recently. This is happening despite stream of constant screams of environmentalists about the massive destruction of forests.

The second hypothesis is based on paleoclimate data obtained from the analysis of Antarctic ice cores, as well as on geology. These experts argue that the Earth's climate itself, without human influence, is subject to severe fluctuations. During the Jurassic period, the planet's average temperatures were much higher than today, as is the CO2 content. Moreover, in the last millions of years, a tendency towards a global cooling prevails. The intervals between glaciations are becoming shorter, and the warming itself is less and less pronounced. The last "glaciation" was observed in the XVI-XVII centuries. We are living in an era of warming after this cold snap. According to forecasts of many scientists, in the next millennium there will be a new cold snap. The glacier will first cover the United States, and then the north of Eurasia.

It would be good for these hypotheses to remain within the framework of science for some time and be the subject of discussions among specialists. Nevertheless, politicians have already made their choice. The global warming hypothesis has become a subject of global action. Why did it happen? The point is not only that for politicians a thousand years is an irrelevant period, because they will not have to live at this time. The reasons lie in the economy, and only in it.

The EU countries do not have their own significant reserves of fossil fuels. Those deposits that exist are already almost exhausted, and there are practically no chances to discover new ones. Accordingly, energy imports are growing, which is bad for the economy: you give the funds that your companies could earn to someone on the side. In response to this challenge, the concept of green European energy was born. In the beginning, it looked attractive. The EU is one of the world's technological leaders. Of course, Europeans can develop any technology. At the same time, the import of hydrocarbons into the EU will be difficult, which will keep the importing countries in good shape.

It quickly became clear that the plan had essentially failed. First, the production of wind turbines requires rare earth metals. China is a monopolist (with a share of about 80%) in the supply of such metals. China quickly set up production of solar panels. As a result, the overwhelming share of “green” equipment used in Europe is made in China. So, they fought with importers of hydrocarbons, and fell into dependence on China.

Meanwhile, the countries that are leaders in the share of "green" energy (in the EU it is Germany and Denmark) have received a natural result - they have the most expensive electricity in Europe. This is a huge challenge to the competitiveness of enterprises. The government is trying to solve this problem by shifting the tariff burden from industrial consumers to the private sector. The consumer doesn't like it. They already have enough problems. Real disposable incomes are falling, the retirement age has to be raised, and pension savings are also melting. This poses risks to social stability. What to do?

The solution suggests itself. “The Kingdom needs money,” as the Danish medieval king used to say, and we will take it, but not in the domestic market, but there! Abroad. We will tax imports, and there will be funds to fulfill social obligations. We would like to especially emphasize this very moment, which for some reason often escapes discussions. While many in Europe sincerely believe in global warming and would not want to allow climate collapse, the main goal of European politicians is to find money to fulfill social obligations to their citizens.

Who will suffer the most? Of course, China. After all, this country is the leader in carbon dioxide emissions. The PRC annually burns as much coal as all other countries combined. In response, this country will begin to impose taxes, duties and other sanctions against European partners. To be honest, the only thing that matters for this story is how Europe and China agree, if they do.

Paradoxically, this is even good for Mordor. Europe has "nothing personal" against Mordor. And - Europe needs to warm up. In winter, it suddenly got colder in Europe. Contrary to hypotheses, it got colder than expected. It turned out that there are not enough solar panels and wind turbines for heating. Europe began to buy more fossil fuels, and, horror, dirty coal. Mordor fuel will continue to be required by the EU countries. What will happen in the end? Mordor will negotiate with Europe, we will seek compromises. Gas is not Chinese coal; it is the cleanest type of fossil fuel. And Europe needs it. Moreover, it is much cheaper to obtain hydrogen from natural gas than from water. Namely, hydrogen has become the new love of European politicians.

Materialism rules!