A weary Gaia might ask herself: “With friends like wrongkindofgreen.org, who needs enemies?”

Along with the big oil funded conspiracy theories and predictable lunacy from the usual suspects on the right, including the disingenuous or insane suggestions that because Greta has blonde pigtails and there also exists Nazi propaganda featuring blonde girls with pigtails this phenomenon is a fascist attempt at world hegemony, has been this conspicuous attack from what is ostensibly the left, the people who are supposed to care about the environment (because accepting science has become political sadly).

What’s the charge? What’s the evidence that this is “manufactured" and suspect?

Greta was promoted by a Tweet by the guy who runs We Don’t Have Time. A social media business who seek to promote green busineses. And make a living doing so. That’s it.

"Those organizations and their projects which operate under false slogans of humanity in order to prop up the hierarchy of money and violence are fast becoming some of the most crucial elements of the invisible cage of corporatism, colonialism and militarism".

This is the charge. That the existential purpose of Greta and of any 'green' business is to prop up violence and so on.

This is ludicrous.

What it is really saying is we have identified capitalist energies working with this.

It's a charge of a lack of purity.

Any business that exists in this world with a profit motive is likewise tainted. Pretty much all of them then.

If it is sincere and not a sneakier version of the usual big oil propaganda it’s a critique of capitalism from those who wish for something else.

Fair enough. I sympathise.

But the sea we currently swim in is capitalist. The wrongkindofgreen.org webpage is found mainly through use of capitalist tools such as Google. Does that mean it is part of the system? That it is complicit in the worst excesses of capitalism? Or that this is simply the sea in which we currently swim, the air that we breathe?

"These agreements and policies include carbon capture and storage (CCS), enhanced oil recovery (EOR), bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), rapid total decarbonisation, payments for ecosystem services (referred to as “natural capital”), nuclear energy and fission, and a host of other “solutions” that are hostile to an already devastated planet. What is going on – is a rebooting of a stagnant capitalist economy, that needs new markets – new growth – in order to save itself."

We Don’t Have Time will promote such businesses.

That's the charge.

I don't know the complete manifesto of this writer or site. I'd guess it is to completely dismantle capitalism.

I think that is simply utopian. Though perhaps the climate crisis will do that job.

But the idea that anyone who works with existing systems, or is associated with politicians who are not, I don’t know, anarcho-marxists is thereby suspect is silly to me.

Great to have the purity of these ideas but egotistical and delusional to think that your 'purity' can simply replace the 'disease' or another without an organic mixing and probably incremental change.

So in short, Corey Morningstar, the writer, is a fundamentalist and in my opinion is making charges about Greta that don’t stand up and thus are damaging to the cause of changing capitalism so we don’t destroy the planet.

It’s essentially not unlike the Marxist position that democracy will never give a fair society because it is tainted by capitalism (especially in media ownership). Again, I sympathize. But what you going to do instead? Overthrow it by force? Violent revolution? If not then you need incremental change with requires working with the existing, highly imperfect system.

The site’s writers mean well, presumably. And seem to have relevant expertise and experience.

But they are fundamentalists and make hysterical, baseless charges which don’t add up.

In another article they attack George Monbiot and the concept of rewilding.



They claim that George Monbiot’s advocacy (along with Greta now) of rewilding as A solution (that is, one of many) means stopping demand for other solutions.

"Volume II, Act V]

“It all sounds so simple and reassuring. No one needs to change anything. The airline industry can continue to expand. The oil industry can continue drilling. We can stop worrying and leave it to the experts. Just a few techno-fixes, and nature will solve climate change for us. Obviously, this is bullshit. It’s a form of climate denial – pretending that we can address climate breakdown without even talking about keeping fossil fuels in the ground.”

As well as meaning, inevitability the 'privatisation of nature’.

This is simply dishonest.

Monbiot himself doesn’t fly. He asks us to leave fossils in the ground. He argues passionately in defence of the Commons. He isn’t saying rewilding is the ONLY solution.

That’s simply untrue.

Why are they making things up and being divisive when we are reaching crucial tipping points when we need solidarity and focus?

The website also reports on the lack of transparency and appropriate action in reponse and even cover-up of atrocities committed by WWF employed conservation guards. This was also in for example The Guardian.

It’s a disgusting crime and WWF’s failure to properly deal with it is absolutely disgraceful.

But the page makes the charge that WWF’s purpose is to exploit and terrorise. Rather than it is simply too big to see always what is going on on the ground and that it has failed to hold itself accountable to that.

Pages like this are necessary to hold other more mainstream activitists accountable.

But IF people use them to discredit the CAUSE that for example Greta is promoting - that the governments of the world are not acting as they need to - then it is totally counterproductive.

Likewise the charge that Greta is a puppet of imperialism is without foundation and does a huge disservice to the cause we're all working for.

If this site is sincere it is totally misguided. As long as they undermine the central cause of getting governments to take action they may as well be working for Exxon.

They’re not serving our planet.