The Financial Times, not an outlet one would have considered a vanguard of the working class, runs a headline “Far right and centre right unite in EU parliament to undermine green rules” and immediately explains that “Legislation marks definitive proof that ‘cordon sanitaire’ to prevent far-right forces from shaping policy no longer works”. Boo far right. No such thing as far left. And no headline “Leftwing parties so stubborn about failed climate policies that politics shifts dramatically”. Heck no. Just boo Trump and so forth. Not for them such bitter doses of reality as “Sweden’s Pension Funds Face Eye-Watering Losses After Investing Heavily in Net Zero Projects”. Just a temporary failure of political will.

The Financial Times story actually doesn’t contain the word “left” at all, let alone “far left” or “hard left” or “dogmatic left” or “loony left” or “left behind.” But it does say that:

“Conservatives in the European parliament joined forces with the far right to vote to weaken corporate sustainability reporting rules, the strongest signal yet of the EU’s rightward shift from climate ambition to deregulation. The vote is a win for the deregulatory drive pushed by US President Donald Trump, who has pressed the EU to water down environmental laws.”

Well, that or a win for hard-pressed European consumers and businesses being crushed by high energy prices and excessive regulations, both driven in large part by an Establishment obsession with “carbon pollution.” Just maybe Members of the European Parliament are responding to European voters not the orange climate demon.

Imagine you live in Britain, for instance, and you can’t afford your heating bill, jobs are scarce and there are nightmare waiting lists for health care under the crumbling National Health Service (NHS). And then you read this Telegraph story:

“The NHS has spent at least £1.4bn of taxpayers’ money on net zero schemes without reducing its carbon footprint at all, The Telegraph can reveal. The health service has ploughed millions into green initiatives, such as rolling out electric ambulances, adopting ‘climate-friendly pain relief’ that does not contain greenhouse gases, and putting environmental credentials at the heart of decisions around medicines and supplies. But despite these efforts, the total carbon emissions from the health service are the same as they were five years ago when the ‘Greener NHS’ project was launched.”

Just possibly you’d start losing faith in the green energy transition, painless Net Zero and the political parties that can’t seem to face basic facts. Especially if you also read the Telegraph’s coverage of the irresponsible exposure of Swedish pension funds and its warning that:

“The challenges in Sweden serve as a stark warning to Rachel Reeves, the UK’s Chancellor, who is considering forcing large pension funds to invest in national assets in a bid to boost Britain’s struggling economy. Industry leaders have warned that the move would put the Government’s objectives of the day ahead of the retirement prospects of millions of savers. Sweden helped pioneer the strategy of mobilising deep capital markets and pension funds to help finance government development goals. Unlike in Britain, a portion of Swedish workers’ state pension contributions are invested in government-controlled funds. In the run up to the Paris Agreement, Stefan Löfven – the former Social Democrat prime minister who led a coalition government with the Greens – promised a ‘new green industrial revolution’ that would be ‘as transformative as the one 250 years ago’.”

The arrogance of politicians as ignorant of economics as of their own limitations looks so egregious in retrospect that one wonders why more people didn’t ask pointedly “Who are you to make such a promise?” at the time. Especially as the costs of such credulity mount and mount.

Across the Channel from Britain, as Bjorn Lomborg just pointed out, about a different Financial Times article headlined “Can anything halt the decline of German industry?” it’s no better and one reason why is that much of the commentariat seems as witless as the politicians they cover:

“Decline: German industrial production down to the level of 2005/ Yet, the FT journalists studiously avoid mentioning the elephant in the room:/ Extremely high energy prices, mostly because of climate policy”.

As for the specific issue, on which it is conceivable that Donald J. Trump is not as well-informed as MEPs or even the author of the first Financial Times piece:

“The EPP’s first attempt last month to pass laws as part of the European Commission’s ‘simplification’ drive to slash red tape fell through, when some social democrats and liberal MEPs voted against the centrist majority. They said the proposed changes went too far in watering down requirements for big companies to police supply chains.”

Now it is easy for someone to sit at their computer and write “police supply chains”. But for an actual company, faced with a profit squeeze, a gloomy economic picture and an out-of-touch political class, the prospect of being sued by some activist outfit because someone somewhere else fibbed about carbon offsets unless you relocate to somewhere else is a very real problem.

As Reuters “Sustainable Switch” emailed on Sept. 19 (and do we need to keep saying they think they can fix the world but don’t manage to post their newsletters online?):

“Today’s focus is all about the power of oil lobbying as ExxonMobil is ramping up its fight against the EU’s corporate sustainability due diligence law, warning it will push businesses out of Europe. The directive, adopted last year, forces companies to address human rights and environmental issues in their supply chains or face fines of at least 5% of global turnover. Brussels has proposed easing the rules after pushback from businesses and leaders in France and Germany.”

Well, duh. Imagine being fined “at least” 5% of global sales because some policy you only adopted because of political pressure turns out to be unworkable and then the lawfare starts… unless you leave. Now imagine being a political establishment that reacts to that situation by going yeah, go broke or leave you stinking companies and your stinking lobbying.

The Financial Times instead moans that:

“The vote is seen as definitive proof that the ‘cordon sanitaire’ to deny far-right forces the ability to shape policy no longer works.”

Yes. Because this “cordon sanitaire” was drawn around parties in parliament by smug insiders who forgot that even in the democracy-deficient EU, it is ultimately voters who decide.

So if “some social democrats and liberal MEPs” won’t even concede on a point like that in the middle of a productivity and cost-of-living crisis, is it really surprising that voters are turning to the hard mega-poly-giga right such as the “far-right Patriots for Europe and the rightwing European Conservatives and Reformists, the third and fourth-largest parliamentary groups, respectively”?

It is to some people, apparently. The same ones who think it’s all fun and games for some otherwise undistinguished politician to redo the Industrial Revolution and get it better this time… until someone loses a pension fund.