The Big Oil profit conspiracy is the corruption created by big oil corporations through lobbyism to maximize their profitable sales of oil. Contrary to the claim that Big Oil have only captured specific political parties "on the right", the support for economic "stimulation" that effectively increases CO2 emissions again at every dip from both sides of all polarized political debates show that all political parties with power today are captured by Big Oil. The graphs of what so-called "progressives" call "improvements" demonstrably follow CO2 emission graphs, every time CO2 emissions dip so-called "progressives" say that the world is "temporarily regressing in its progress". You can superimpose Hans Rosling's or Steven Pinker's graphs of "progress" on a CO2 emission graph and see it for yourself.
Planned obsolescence in "green" infrastructure increase oil use[]
Lobbyism for the so-called "green deal" claims that while the construction of so-called "green" infrastructure temporarily increase CO2 emissions when it is built, it will decrease CO2 emissions later. That claim misses the point that the increasingly rapid degradation of infrastructure caused by the infrastructural equivalent of the Light bulb conspiracy by the name of "new public management" means that the new roads will not last very long. Therefore their net effect on CO2 emissions will be an increase and not a decrease, making lobbyism for so-called "green" infrastructure profitable for big oil corporations. The same goes for the infrastructure and machinery in mining of metals to solar cells and powerful batteries.
Corporate mind capture, zombie politicians and bailout[]
Politicians regardless of left-right classification refuse to do anything that can really destroy the biggest corporations, and their claim that it would be "system threatening" misses the point that the system is the threat to the climate. If the political institutions bail the biggest corporations out every time they lose "economic growth" for any reason including regulations and fines, the cost of paying a fine becomes an investment rather than a loss for the corporations classified as "too big to fail", since political institutions will pay the corporations in question more in "economic stimulation" than they fined them. Since politicians on both sides of polarization are brainwashed to believe that the corporations "must" grow economically, the fines cannot even punish the corporations with stasis, and the corporate capture of politics is complete.
This means that it is a myth that oil corporations want deregulation. Regulations hampering physical persons and small corporations are profitable to big corporations, as shown by the regulations on how solar cells and wind turbines must be built to be legal which outlaws homemade versions and therefore increases fossil fuel use. The same goes for vehicle laws. The big corporations do not have to be formally exempt from the regulations to profit from them, as the effective exemption a la "too big to fail" shown above gives the biggest corporations all the "freedom" their profit formulas want. If you are a physical person it gives you no personal freedom, but the restrictions do not hurt Big Oil or any Big Business.
The purported "discovery" of a link between institutions and "wealth" in comparisons between countries rewarded with the false "Nobel" prize in economy in 2024 (not a real Nobel prize since economy was not in Alfred Nobel's will) is obvious Big Oil lobbyism. The so-called "research" used the example of the United States being "wealthier" than Mexico, remember that the United States has much higher per capita CO2 emissions than Mexico? The prize being awarded to "research" saying that "poor" countries should "get help" to "develop" their institutions (i.e. become more like high CO2 emission countries) is exactly what Big Oil wants. Compare 2018, when the economy prize was awarded to global warming trivialization by Nordhaus. The economy prize should be renamed the Big Oil prize. What the correlation really shows is that the institutions facilitate global warming as opposed to fighting it, regardless of what they say in words, just as predicted by the theory that institutions are cronies of Big Oil.
So if the plan is to reduce CO2 emissions, institutions should not be "developed". Destroying institutions is a way of reducing CO2 emissions that work. Even more efficient than merely reducing the institutions in the United States to the degree of institutions in Mexico is to totally eradicate institutions, making it like when not even kings were safe from starvation. That is a completely different situation from the incompetent kleptocracies in many "poor" countries today, since incompetent rulers starving to death and not being able to buy themselves out of the starvation caused by their incompetence weeds the incompetent out of power.
The claim that China, Russia and Iran wants to destroy institutions in the West is nonsense. China is communist in name only, its economy being capitalist. The Chinese regime prioritizes economic growth, that includes both domestic consumtion and international trade (it is not domestic consumtion or export as if they were opposites as the smoke curtains in Western discourse claims). Therefore China has no interest in collapsing the West, as that would mean fewer trade partners for China's economic growth. Russia's infrastructure is falling apart from the inside. Since Russia cannot even maintain its own infrastructure, Russia cannot absorb the ruins of a collapsed West, as establishing effective control over a societally collapsed region requires construction of functioning infrastructure in the area.
While official media at least admits that Iran does not have the resources to completely collapse Western civilization (and would hardly profit from it, as it would reduce their oil export markets), media still claims that Iran has an interest in favoring Republicans in American elections. Why they would is unexplained by media, as both Democrats and Republicans support Israel to different extents. The only difference is that the Democratic Party demands that Israel follows the Geneva conventions as a condition for the support, while the Republican Party is willing to overlook Israeli war crimes. That means that a Democratic victory at least would give Iran a chance of the United States stopping its support for Israel, while a Republican victory would inevitably doom Iran to continued American support for Israel.
What kind of brain can create non-corporatocratic policies?[]
To resist zombification, you need a brain neurologically above association fallacies such as "if most people who say one thing also say another, the two views or words must be linked". Without that resistence, your mind is captured by corporations by false flag operations as shown here. Politicians believing that it is "necessary" to distort reality to "sell" politics, by definition, lack that ability and are therefore corporate puppets regardless of whether they intend it or not. The difference between "democracies" and the kind of "autocracies" in which the "autocrat" was originally elected and then abolished "democracy" does not matter, since the competent brains resistent to being captured by corporations have already been filtered out of both state types and all shades between them including "populism" by the election system.
What competent climate management (or any politics outside puppetry under corporations) takes are rulers who never even came close to winning an election on their way to power. Since the election system keeps anyone capable of resisting the corporate mind virus (including all its variants, extending in a radius around the last common memetic ancestor of the woke variant and the trumpist variant of four to five times the memetic distance between the two aforementioned variants) at a safe distance from winning elections, it does not matter if the candidate legally got 60% of the votes or cheated the vote percentage up from 40% to 60%. This is because a sapient would not even be allowed by the system to get 40% of votes. The possibility that someone may at some point have been a political candidate in an election system and still be sapient is only meaningful in cases such as a person creating a joke party to test the system and getting something like 0,5% of the votes. It is in such cases that it is important to not allege the joke tester to "be a hypocrite because he or she have been a political candidate too". In a two party system or in a system with a second election round where only the two biggest candidates participate, both candidates in the final election are certainly non-sapient.
Politicians are zombies as shown by the observation that they support "economical stimulation" to increase consumtion every time it decreases even if they claim to work to decrease global warming. Every time consumtion increases, CO2 emissions increase with it. The claim that "you must vote for the least bad politician because a lower amount of global warming is less bad even if it cannot be completely avoided" misses the point that all politicians anywhere near power completely obey the big corporations. A difference in the choice of words between depicting a building project of a road that will emit lots of CO2 during its construction and then degrade into potholes within a few years and complete uselessness a few years later as a "deregulation" or as an "investment in future decreases of car traffic" will not affect the amount of CO2 actually emitted. A "choice of sides" between different semantics, such as a difference between motivating the same "temporary" increases of emissions with pies in the sky about later decreases or with flat out denial of global warming, will not even decrease the final amount of warming from 2,51 degrees to 2,49 degrees.
Just in time economics and non-sapient billionaires[]
While planning self-reliant survival under natural disasters takes intelligence, just in time economics that patches local disruptions with deliveries from elsewhere allows idiots to become rich. In such a system, those not understanding long term consequences can maximize their profit the fastest since they do not divert resources to back-up plans. Genuine non-understanding has an upper hand over the evolutionarily absurd alleged "psychopathy" of understanding the consequences but not caring about them since understanding that is not acted on would cost the organism energy without functional effects on the decisions which would fail both evolvability and power struggles, at least in systems with metabolisms, which includes physical persons.
The theory that billionaires are genuinely stupid does not preclude them profiting from conspiracies since their behavior is guided by corporate board rules. Those rules have been memetically selected like viruses to maximize profit, and it is the circumstance that they are rule-based that allows them to undergo memetic evolution as shown here. Far from being a check on greed, rule-based institutions create next level greed far beyond what any physical person or group of physical persons following behaviors they would have had without rule-based institutions would ever be capable of!
The fact that corporate super-greed is for money to the corporation itself and not to investors outside the corporation, as it is the money in the corporation itself that is under the direct control of the corporate rules, is worth noting. That means that the alleged "argument" against the theory that corporations are selected for greed, that corporations that give fast and big payments to their investors are the ones that most often collapse, does not disprove the theory at all. Giving much money to outside investors is contrary to maximizing the amount of profit the corporation gets, and is therefore not found in the corporations that grow so big they can lobby-control the institutions into believing them to be "too big to fail".
Billionaires claiming to be preppers does not prove that billionaires are preppers or even cognitively capable of prepping. They may merely imitate rules parroting prepping that have been selected for by corporate memetics as a smoke curtain. Such a smoke curtain is profitable to big corporations by tricking as many as possible into believing the personalities of rich physical persons instead of the corporate rules to be the root of extreme greed, to aim regulations at physical persons instead of at big corporations as legal persons. Regulations that target physical persons are profitable to big corporations by outlawing lifestyles that consume fewer products, while regulations that target the biggest corporations as systems would reduce their profit if they were functionally applied without "too big to fail" toothlessness. Given that corporatocrats incessantly ask "how does that help me market a product to consumers?", why would corporatocrats think of prepping plans to build things that physically work in a world with hardly any customers left to market them to?
The allegation that considering corporatocrats non-sapient would "excuse" them or prevent the struggle against them is absurd. Such a "human nature" does not exist since no species can coevolve both a characteristic and a sense of that characteristic being a basis for blameability, as shown here. Actual struggle against capitalism draws inspiration from ideas of before lobbyist corruption, including ecoshogunism and other examples of the fact that there are more alternatives than capitalism and the capitalistically controlled "communist" oppositions alleged to be the "only alternative to capitalism" shown here. The fact that capitalism set "communist" systems up to fail means that their CO2 emissions cannot be used as an argument against purely non-capitalist systems with other inspiration.
Executions of animals in pre-enlightenment civilizations can serve as inspiration for system-execution of corporations as systems. Just as animal executions does not require splitting of the atoms in the animals, execution of a corporation does not require execution of the physical persons in it, not even the CEO. It does, however, require destruction of the corporate rules that held the corporation together as a rule-based institution and made it super-greedy. Destruction of corporate rules as a cure for capitalism amounts to curing an infection by destroying the pathogen's genetic material.
To claim that "psychopathic bosses are the problem" is to buy the fossil economy's worldview, and therefore to be unable to fight the fossil economy. The concept of empathy as a psychological mechanism was made up in the 1700s, at the beginning of the fossil fuel economy, and the concept of emotional empathy and cognitive empathy as separate psychological mechanisms was made up during the acceleration of CO2 emissions, "the hockey club", in the 1900s. The latter is further demonstrated by the fact that psychiatry created the first autism diagnosis a few years after corporations started using Likert scales shoehorned into nonsensical "normal distributions" as "customer satisfaction" surveys. Psychiatry did explicitly draw on corporate assumptions about "subjective experiences" (that reveal the "customer satisfaction" surveys in the 1930s as proto-woke on the memetic tree) when it (mis)framed the question of "courtesy persuading others" (as if "customer choice" ever was in "human nature" instead of a capitalist construct as it really is) as a question of "ability".
This is no coincidence, as it was fossil fuels that gave a false appearance of it being possible to save everyone by "economically growing out" of scarcity instead of having to choose whom to save as one must within the scarcity of renewable energy sources (yes, wind and water was used as energy sources for mechanized work long before industrialism and its fossil fuel economy). The falseness of the appearance is obvious from the fact that the material wealth the fossil economy gives to those alive when the fuels are burned becomes climate change that hits later generations.
The claim that "people in the past were brutal without being psychopaths, but if you advocate such behavior today you are a psychopath because we know better today" misses the point that institutions have become increasingly captured by capitalism and that today's alleged "better knowledge" is therefore capitalist brainwashing and not "better knowledge" at all. The claim's link to capitalism is demonstrated even further by the fact that the allegation of people doing things that are not capitalistically profitable "because they enjoy hurting others" is derived directly from capitalist consumer profiling. The allegation that anything that is not economically profitable "must" be about consuming short-term experiences is a symptom of capitalist stupidity and inability to understand higher goals than profit, as shown here.
Capitalism uses the claim of specialized psychological mechanisms for empathy in the same way today as it did in the 1700s, to depict consumerist inability to understand scarcity that cannot be grown out of on one planet as an "ability" that those criticizing fossil fuel intoxication allegedly lack. Brutal enforcement of intelligently thought out environmental policies can save environments, as shown by the example of forestation during the Tokugawa shogunate in Japan. To fight the fossil fuel economy you must learn from the wisdom of non-fossil fuel civilizations, not buy the claim that fossil fuel civilizations "know better" than non-fossil fuel civilizations!
The claim that "it may as well be the current system that becomes brutal against you" misses the point that the current system is the cause of CO2 emissions, not the solution. It also misses the point that the current system self-destructs and that the self-destruction would repeat faster on a smaller scale in those acting like the current system after the big collapse, eliminating them from any potential post-apocalyptic power. Environmental repairs, including the Tokugawa-style brutal protection of habitats used in the restauration (why uncreatively assume that CO2 capture must bury it underground, when it can be incorporated into modified mutant organisms created by simple cell fusion?) can therefore only be done by types thinking fundamentally differently from today's institutionalists. The demise of today's bureaucracy will give an opportunity to use such environmental repair methods without being stopped by regulations, debunking the pseudoargument "if it was possible, it would already have been done".
These differences include rejection of both sides in American discourse on brutality. Functioning protection of a restauration habitat requires a hard no to all attempts to overexploit the habitat. Both sides in American polarization between one side advocating protecting of "groups" said to de disporoportionally victimized by brutality and one side advocating brutality only against "groups" claimed to be disproportionally criminal are incapable of doing the necessary colorblind hard guarding against all overexploitation of a habitat. The good news is that since both sides in the stupid American debate base their forgrantedtakings on the same inability to imagine an end to capitalism, they will both perish when the system collapses due to their inability to think of ways to live without money and supply chains, and therefore free the world from their nonsense.
Getting real about carrying capacity[]
The Earth's decreasing carrying capacity in terms of human nutrition is about much more than the direct effects of currently observable climate trends on harvests. For instance, the maximum population that can be supported by ecological agriculture was exceeded in the 1800s, which was patched by mining guano and comparable "ready to use" fertilizers to depletion until de novo production of artificial fertilizers such as the Haber-Bosch process was invented in the early 1900s. That, however, did not solve the issue that manufacturing of artificial fertilizers, along with that of pesticides and of both the agricultural machines themselves and their propulsion, costs energy.
That use of energy leads to more CO2 emissions, which further reduces carrying capacity. Renewable fuels and solar cell parks take up surface area, so it does not solve the problem. The extraction of the metals required to make solar cells is in itself environmentally hazardous, especially in the case of high efficiency solar cells that require rare metals that not enough of have been mined to this day to recycle what has already been mined into the copious amounts of solar cells that a "solar economy" would require. Furthermore, exponential economic growth on one planet, even with solar energy, would eventually require concentrating more solar energy from space to keep up the exponential growth. That would boil the planet anyway, and it would happen fast since exponential growth is, well, exponential.
And since space colonies must be self-reliant, capitalism is hostile to space colonization. This is not disproved by capitalists claiming to advocate space colonization, since that may be advertising for temporary space tourism that relies on supplies from Earth with no plan to pull of actual, permanent space colonization. Do not let that trick you into hating genuine space colonization plans by false association with capitalist space tourism and pseudo-advocacy of space colonization.
Purported "research" claiming that crop yields keep increasing even with reduced use of artificial fertilizers misses the point that with enough fertilizers already being ploughed into the soil, the amount the crops can use can be saturated for a number of seasons until the uptake have reduced the amount in the soil. Plants can only grow so fast even if the amount of fertilizer increases further, since photosynthesis must provide the energy required for growth in order for the fertilizers to be used. How much leaves and photosynthesis is prioritized during growth makes the saturation limit somewhat different for different types of plants, with weeds that focus their fast growth on leaves being able to take advantage of fertilizers somewhat above the saturation limit for grain-bearing domesticated crops.
So on the most overfertilized fields, a few years of reduced application of fertilizers may appear to favor the crops since the weeds start growing slightly slower before the decrease impacts the crops, which also account for lower amounts of pesticides temporarily being enough. But after years of the crops taking up more fertilizers than is added, the amount in the soil will drop below the saturation limit and the yields will decrease. The reality of ecological agriculture being insufficient to feed the Earth's current population manifests itself.
The reductions of population achievable by the "education and women's rights" approach are far too slow to keep up with the reduction of carrying capacity caused by continued overexploitation of soil and modern agriculture using energy that contributes to global warming. The approach also selects for resistence, as women with an aversion against abortions have more children than women without such an aversion. Since selection on already existing genetic variation can go fast on the scale of a few generations (compare caterpillars in London during industrialization), this gives a genetic explanation of why more women than men oppose abortions in countries with liberal abortion laws such as Sweden, as male anti-abortionists have no reproductive advantage over other men in the same jurisdiction. The claim that "women who oppose abortions do so to be liked by men" misses the point that men who oppose abortion are few and marginalized in such countries. If the approach continues, natality will increase again driven by a genetic wave of women who hate abortions.
The claim that a meatless diet can free pastureland to farming crops as human food misses the point that plants suitable as food for humans are more sensitive to the environment than rough vegetation that it takes a completely different (specialized herbivore) digestive tract to eat. That is why the distinction between areas with crop farming and areas specialized on livestock ranching follows climate and soil differences. For example, crop farming is common in the fertile eastern parts of North America, but the drier Western parts specialized on ranching. Contrary to what stupid corporatocrats claim when they blah blah blah about "food security depending on making people want to eat the available alternatives", it was not for any kind of unwillingness to eat vegetables in the West. Ranchers in the West sold animal products to buy vegetables for human consumption from the East for crying out loud!
Nor was it for lack of trying to grow crop fields in the West. Attempts were made, and resulted in dust bowls since the dry soil blew away when it was exposed by ploughing. That will happen again if (or, given the horrid track record of corporatocracy, when) corporations decide to plough dry soils in the West out of a false belief that the land will produce what the market department claims that the customers "want" as if advertising would be profitable if "what people want" was a valid category. The same goes for attempts to keep up crop cultivation in areas that become too harsh for the tender kind of plants that humans can eat as climate change roughens the climate.
Why "ethics" against food limit information misses the point[]
The claim that "if predictions of a future without enough food for everyone to survive spreads, it will lead to the very rich hoarding food for themselves" misses the point that the very rich are too stupid for prepping explained above here. The claim that "thinking about food insufficiency would lead to racism" misses the point that the carrying capacity will decrease so much when the system collapses that there will not even be enough food for all members of one so-called "race". Especially not if the all too inclusive American definitions of race are used.
Definitions that are symptoms of the culturelessness of the country with the world's highest per capita burning of fossil fuels. The allegation that such definitions are "an inevitable consequence of multiculture" is debunked by the fact that the Roman Empire was multicultural without a census bureau imposing a Roman-created "color line". Even Romans who, during the late stages of the Roman Empire, complained about too many foreigners in Rome mentioned Celts and Germanic persons literally in the same sentence as Nubians. It is part of a general pattern, not only among the complaining ones, of the Roman Empire acknowledging cultures for what they were even before being incorporated into the Roman Empire as opposed to imposing politically created definitions of ethnicity that the new subjects had never heard of before as the United States does.
The very existence of the Roman complaints show that people from lots of different cultures were living in the same cities in the Roman Empire, debunking the allegation that it was "not a real multiculture because they lived in different provinces". And even if the allegation was true, it would not have been an adequate explanation of why politically created definitions of "culture" were not "necessitated" by Roman soldier brutality in the provinces, in contrast to the United States in which color-based identity politics refer to police brutality by white police officers in towns that were assigned to black people during segregation as "necessitators". It is time to abandon the notion that multiculture itself was the reason why the United States but not the Roman Empire overrode the actual cultures with politically created definitions, and seek the key difference between the Roman Empire and the United States elsewhere. And why not in the fossil fuel economy?
The so-called "american lifestyle" was disconnected at an early stage from the actual cultures that the immigrants came from, in large part because of the booming use of fossil fuels in the United States. While the practice of putting slaves from different cultures together to prevent them from speaking any other common language than English played a major role in disconnecting what Americans call "black culture" from actual African cultures, the comparably far removal of so-called "white culture" in the United States from actual European cultures cannot be explained by slavery. It can, however, be explained by dragging immigrants into a lumping fossil lifestyle removed from all cultures they ever knew. The Americans claiming to "defend their cultures" fail to understand that any culture they had have already been genocidized by the American system, that their "definition agreements" have no substance capable of being passed on after the demise of the American Empire.
Even Christianity cannot link American "culture" to European cultures since American religion centers around fiscally created definitions of religion lumping Scientology together with Catholicism (or Islam, for that matter) but leaving Pastafari out, in contrast to European churches focused on one particular faith as opposed to "agreeing" on an arbitrary definition of what is religion and what is not. For that matter, African civilizations (yes, civilizations with agriculture, cities, metallurgy and in some places even empires, not mere tribes as Americans including those purportedly advocating black rights claim when dismissing that Africa has any meaningful pre-colonial history not defined by "experiences of oppression") did not fiscally lump different religions together in an "agreed definition" separating religion from non-religion either. They were not as excluding as the Bible's First Commandment, they did exchange elements of beliefs, but they did not have court trials to decide whether or not a worldview was a religion. Nor did civilizations in Asia or pre-Columbian Native American civilizations.
In the Roman Empire, the cultures had something to exchange, ideas that were not mere copies of definitions laid down by the Roman state and could therefore survive the fall of the Roman Empire. But Americans mistaking a politically created color line for a definition of "culture" to the point of dismissing the actual cultural exchange in multicultural empires as so-called "cultural appropriation" carry no culture to exchange or pass on to the world after the United States. American claims about money as "socially constructed metarealities" as an analogy for their alleged "cultures" only confirm this point, since currencies too are decided top down by authorities. When old bills are demonetized and replaced by new bills, the old bills cease to buy anything at dates defined by authorities, not gradually or with generational differences. The United States will be a cultureless hole in cultural history and remembered only for its waste of natural resources and destruction of the environment.
The incompetence of those believing that everyone can be saved makes the crash of carrying capacity even harder. One example is the United Nations promoting digitalization of agriculture all over the world out of a false belief that it will "improve food security", missing the point that digitalized society will collapse soon as shown here. This means that the United Nations extend the coming sudden collapse of agriculture that would otherwise only have hit "rich" countries so that it is going to hit the entire world. That is, the United Nations causes a mass famine that could otherwise have been avoided in exactly the countries it claims to "need help", all courtesy of the United Nations being an official institution and therefore a crony of big corporations such as Big Tech that profits from selling the stupid computers.
The claim that "stupid people are needed because they can come up with different ideas" misses the point that stupidity in a meaningful sense does not equal low scores on tests distorted by "normal distribution" methodology, see here for more information about the fatal flaws in that methodology. The masses of uncreative idiots claiming that critical thinking means listening to specific institutions and that statistics "average out errors" merely repeat the same institutional bullshit that have already been tried many times and increased CO2 emissions every time, and even misses the point that they repeat the same bullshit as the institutions by saying "I did not repeat myself" as if the repetition had to come through the same mouth on the many million-mouthed institution to be repetitive, have no novel ideas to come up with.
Their reliance on institutions to tell what they consider right from what they consider wrong means that they will be completely without compass in a world without institutions, while their track record of claiming that "there are no other alternatives" than that or that clearly shows their lack of creativity to be underlying and therefore bound to persist even after the collapse of institutions. They would not be able to make any useful survival inventions or decisions, they would only try to stop such useful things with their nonsense about "agreement on patents as a measure of solutions" and allegations of "defense mechanisms". Those fools are not worth wasting the postapocalyptic food supply on keeping alive, which does not contradict the possibility that a person who formally scored low on an IQ test may be useful and worth the food.
Condensing knowledge about the lessons of history[]
To avoid repetition of the institutional complexity that led to fossil fuel hell, future civilizations that rebuild after the apocalypse need to condense knowledge, including the lessons of history, into simple universal principles. Today's academic practices of making up massive quantities of specific information and dismissing anyone who cannot list answer all those specific questions that the universities do not even try to reduce to a few general principles as "uneducated" runs contrary to the search for universal principles that led to the great unifications of science. That is capitalist repression of actual novel inventions, since it leads to demonization of those who pursue other projects that can actually produce new solutions instead of keeping up with every pseudo-distinction the institutions spew out in masses.
The number of patents do not measure actual technical solutions, since definitions of patents are largely determined by laws instead of actual technical solutions. Corporate staff specialized at meaningless tinkering that the law considers to make a product different enough from a previous product to be classified as a new patent instead of as an infringement on a previous patent do not solve actual technical problems, they only fiddle with laws. In the last few decades, actual novel technical solutions have rarely been patented and virtually never been put into wider use, most have been either kep quiet about or at most been published in a few "nerdish" books or websites. The only significant technical "progress" in the last few decades, that of computer processing power, have all been about quantitatively shrinking the components to fit more components into the circuits and not about qualitatively new inventions. The underlying inventions, Boolean logic and the transistor, were both made long before the profitable, purely formal patents such as those of Bill Gates.
Institutional exclusion of those making actual new technical solutions means that the institutions cannot produce technical solutions to the climate crisis. It is not equivalent to intersectional nonsense about "oppression making inventors lose interest in technology", since this theory does not claim that the excluded inventors lose technical interest at all. It is perfectly possible that the inventors keep thinking of new inventions but, being currently prevented by bureaucracy and stingy corporations and institutions (often linked as many corporations sell certain products only to institutions and the institutions give corporations privileges over physical persons) from applying them beyond small test models, will be able to scale them up when the system with all its institutional inertia collapses. The claim that inventors were repressed before institutions existed is nonsense.
The fact that many technical solutions were made per capita before fossil fuels also means that it is absurd to blame invention ability for the last decades of increasing CO2 emissions. To avoid a complex system claiming to "enlighten people" about huge unreduced masses of information, postapocalyptic lessons from history must take a more elegant approach than today's academia demonizing anyone pursuing scientific projects outside quantitatively huge masses of information flow about so-called "distinctions" between "universal grammar" and the ability to use words, between gender identity and gender expression, between cognitive and emotional empathy and other made-up distinctions. Listing academically named "distinctions" like a parrot is not a hallmark of the actual ability to make high resolution distinctions in the brain, which is a biological ability that can be measured by metronoms and has nothing to do with education, so accusing people who prioritize other projects than keeping up with unreduced information quantity of "confusing things" misses the biological point of what confusion is.
One more elegant approach is to concentrate the lessons of history to condensed key knowledge instead of putting lots of specific events on institutional lists of what you "must" know to not be demonized. Instead of listing corporations that caused the CO2 emissions, or genocides counted by an institution, or who won what election, or who started what war, it is better to condense historical lessons into simple principle cautionary tales with universal applicability.