Felix the cat just knocked over my coffee cup and stared at me with that familiar look:
“Humans… seriously, what are you doing?”
And honestly, he has a point.
We say we want to save the planet, reduce CO₂ emissions, reach “net zero,” and secure a greener world for future generations. All in the name of humanity, they say.
Yet at the very same time… we continue fueling an unnecessary war.
How are these goals supposed to exist in the same universe?
The Contradiction
Europe has set ambitious climate targets. By 2050, the plan is to drastically cut CO₂ emissions, expand renewable energy, and reach a net-zero balance — supposedly improving people’s quality of life.
It sounds inspiring.
It sounds responsible.
It sounds… theoretical.
Because in practice?
The war in Ukraine has turned a massive stretch of Europe’s fertile, inhabited land into an active battlefield. The entire energy system has been flipped upside down.
To replace Russian oil and gas, countries are:
Burning more coal
Importing LNG from the other side of the planet
Restarting old, less efficient plants
Buying whatever is available, even if it pollutes more
All of which increase emissions — right now, today.
And while fighting climate change and saving humanity, we have:
caused the loss of millions of people in just three years of this conflict
watched Ukraine be annihilated
seen Europe’s major granary (Ukraine) being destroyed and deeply polluted, disrupting an important food chain
created environmental damage no “normal” source of emissions can even be compared to
And at the same time, new EU regulations are forcing animal farms to shut down.
Experts insist cows fart too much, so we’re now literally “poisoning them” with
additives like Bovaer to reduce methane — at the cost of farmers’ livelihoods,
food supply stability, and potentially human health.
Another food chain disrupted.
Meanwhile Felix keeps asking with his eyes:
How do cow farts compare to the environmental destruction of an active battlefield?
Spoiler:
One is measurable.
The other is a catastrophe off the scale.
So we’re trying to “save the planet” by making life harder for ordinary people, causing poverty, dismantling food chains, and refusing peace talks — all while continuing a conflict that increases fossil-fuel use, destroys ecosystems, and releases immeasurable amounts of toxic material into the air and soil.
As for the human pain and death toll… nothing in nature even comes close.
It’s like telling a cat not to knock over a plant while waving a string right in front of its face.
Confusing. Impossible. Destined to fail.
How CO₂ Emissions Are Actually Measured
A quick, human-friendly breakdown:
Energy: coal, gas, oil burned × carbon content
Transport: cars, planes, ships, trucks
Industry: cement, steel, plastics, chemicals
Agriculture: methane from cows, fertilizers, soil impacts
Land use: deforestation = more CO₂
Battlefields: enormous death toll, long-term land abandonment and contamination, catastrophic emissions, air and water toxic destruction
Offsets: trees, carbon capture, anything that “removes” or compensates
“Net zero” does not mean zero emissions.
It means balancing what we emit with what we remove.
But war makes that balance impossible.
Felix’s Perspective
Felix doesn’t debate policies.
He doesn’t read climate reports.
He doesn’t join political arguments.
He just sits, watches, and judges — silently, intensely.
And maybe there’s wisdom in that.
Humans complicate everything:
They want peace but persue war
Renewable energy but move towards fossil-fuel dependence
Moral high ground but orchistrate geopolitical chaos turning the blind eye to genocites and other atrocities
Nature protection but most decisions drive destruction
Clean natural environment but generate wars that cause unimaginable pollution, destruction and pain
All at once.
.
And somewhere in the chaos, they suddenly remember…
“Oh right, nature!”
.
Perhaps the first real step toward sanity is simply to “pause“, observe, and ask:
Does any of this make sense?
Felix says no.
And he’s rarely wrong.
Closing Question
Experts, institutions, and think tanks have built this entire contradictory maze — and ordinary people are expected to nod politely, pretend it all adds up, and be willing to be sacrificed for the “greater good.”
But what if it’s time for humane thinking and common sense — instead of pure “expertise” — to make a comeback?
What’s your favourite human contradiction — the one that makes you want to knock a cup off the table in disbelief, Felix-style?
Share it below.
Let’s observe the absurdity together.
Sense? Never Heard of it! 