For the google-istically challenged: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_era

Now back to the subject of the self-contradictory ethics characteristic of modernity and post-modernity, specifically its expression in climate discourse. Both sides of the climate debate share the belief that "we" have practically infinite reserves of fossil fuels and minerals. Their disagreements about the threat/s posed by climate change occur within the context of that overarching belief in the viability of the current globalized society. So climate politics as a whole are completely oblivious to reality i.e both resource depletion and climate change are interdetermined existential threats springing from the same (also interdetermined) causes.

Religion and politics are both mechanisms for the denial of reality. All hierarchical and exploitative social structures require some form of religion and politics in order to function. The creation of a globalized economy based on scientific production under capitalism subordinated the religious aspect of irrationality to the political one. Religious belief can no longer function as a proxy for the denial of socio-economic contradictions, so it has to launder itself through the more advanced form of denial characteristic of politics. Thus "morality" which used to be a subset of religion is now almost exclusively the domain of politics.

Neither side of the climate debate can deny the patently obvious reality of the structural crisis of capital - not just capitalism but Das Kapital, the rule of alienated wealth over society. What they can do however is deny some aspects of the crisis while acknowledging others, and then moralize the politics that emerges from this "customised" form of denial. The purpose of doing so is to preserve the legitimacy of the overall system while attempting to mitigate its bad effects in limited contexts.

It is not enough for manmade climate catastrophe deniers to deny its, by now palpable, reality. They also have to characterize their opponents as sinister agents of the "globalist elite" who are hostile to progress and prosperity. Likewise, climate "activists" cannot simply believe that wind and solar powered electricity can replace fossil fuels, which it self-evidently can't. They also have to believe that there are plenty of fossil fuels which society has to morally abstain from, and that refusal to do so is immoral.

What do the globalist elites have to gain from disrupting fossil fuel based prosperity? Why did they need to invent green tech to do so, instead of just using their apparently godlike powers to kill the surplus human population and enslave the rest? Why would people choose to continue using fossil fuels if renewables are not only a viable but better alternative? Why are fossil fuel companies part of the same capitalist ecosystem as green tech, invest in it and promote it etc, if they are responsible for suppressing it? No one knows, no one cares. We are at a point where even the basic terms of debate about societal problems are located in cloud cuckoo land.