>>488025>Fascism historically has lead to greater ecological exploitation, so has marxism leninism for that matter.This is somewhat disingenuous, you can never bring socialism into ideological proximity of fascism. Fascism caused ecological damage because they caused massive wars. ML states increased ecological exploitation to expand the productive forces. What the fascists did was completely pointless destruction, while the ML states embarked on a calculated trajectory of technological advances that would eventually raise the technical level to the point where the industrial base can be used to regenerate damage done to the biosphere.
There is fascist ecological thinking and it's main purpose is an ideological instrument to deny workers any kind of consumption of nice things.
Productivism is a necessary element of any kind of viable politics, anything else is a rehash of pseudo feudal eternal steady state politics that died with agrarianism, and is now a political dead end. Consider that the bourgoisie doesn't want workers to lay claim on the productive forces, therefore it is somewhat likely that they would push ideological subversion in the form of anti-industrial ecologism.
That is not to say that we do not have to worry about the biosphere of the planet, after-all it is the life-support system that keeps us alive. And climate change is probably worse than stated by the "officialdom". But large scale industrial technology is bound to be a useful power that can be used to fix problems too.
The conclusion is:
Industrial power in the hands of workers = good
industrial power in the hands of the bourgoisie = potentially hazardous
The primary factor are class interests. Super wealthy capitalists do not want to do anything to fix or mitigate damage done to the biosphere because they believe that their enormous wealth insulates them from the consequences (which might prove to be a false believe). While workers are definitely not insulated, and hence have a strong interests to preserve the biosphere. Many workers reject eco-austerity because they correctly perceive it as a false pretext to lower their living standards without actually doing much to fix the biosphere.
We also have to be realistic people do not love nature, it's full of nasty and very deadly shit. What people like is sanitized parks and gardens, where everything is harmless, decorative and or edible/useful. If we want to save nature as means to generate life-support, we have to conceptualize it as a giant biological machine, where only some parts like parks and gardens are suitable for human interaction.