Technojuggernaut sprayed green or technocivilizational greenwashing

I am thinking of the present technological civilization and most of its environmental interventions as civilizational greenwashing, too little too late. A figurative image that came to mind is a technological juggernaout that someone is trying to spray green. I asked Google Gemini to create an image for me and here it is:

I am not quite happy with the image, but it is perhaps tolerable as an idea. It is interesting how Gemini thinks of what a juggernaout is. 

Why technojuggernaut instead of technological juggernaut? Something happens psychologically when open syntactic construction turns into a signle word, with fewer syllables. The phrase "technological juggernaut" (and the accompaying image) is well attested in use in the literature. I must have first met the phrase in Pirsig 1974 (Pirsig implausibly claims that technology is solving the eco-problems). A Czech translation could be "technický moloch" or "technologický moloch", but I found nothing in Google Books.

What is civilizational greenwashing? Greenwashing usually refers to the practice of individual  corporations of presenting themself as more eco-friendly than they really are. I intend the term to point to the whole civilization acting like an agent presenting itself as caring about the environment and the terrestrial nature when it fact it cares not so much (after us, deluge). The civilizational media run all the Gejammer and Geraunze (Popper), all the litany (Lomborg), all the complaining and wailing, about the evil civlization harming the environment, while not much is being done. From that perspective, I can understand that a young Swedish girl could feel distressed (whether she is a professional activist who does not like to do any real work is a separate question).

I apply the same trick to life, to speak of biojuggernaut. I can then create a rhetorical figure or image, of the biojuggernaut facing a menace, the technojuggernaut. I prefer this language over "life" vs: "technology", since these words do not evoke a juggernaut image and are ontologically intransparent.

Some of the environmentalist interventions:

• Electric cars: even if widely adopted, they will reduce the global GHG by merely a fraction, while requiring additional mining of raw resources.
• Paper recycling: that is fine, but it does very little to make the whole economy circular. And paper, if burned, can easily become part of new trees (which pick CO2 from the air), which makes paper recycling stand in contrast to metal recycling, I think.
• Plastic recycling: a little different from the above. I am not convinced this is unequivocally a good thing, in the present implementation, but I don't know. 

Some of the fundamental substainability problems:

• Energy: where to get the energy from once the fossil fuels are gone. Proposed solutions include solar, wind, hydro and nuclear.
• Recycling/circular economy: how to make sure man-made things get recycled. Recycling will be more energy demanding than mining and processing ores. And the objects/artifacts required to produce wind and solar also pose a recycling problem.
• Etc. 

The above does not mention the global climate change since it is less easily epistemically accessible/verifiable by relatively unaided intution.

See also my article at Wikiverity, Technology as a threat or promise for life and its forms.

As an aside, I got some of these ideas when I saw in IKEA how they are presenting themselves as eco-friendly. I thought, well, if you want to save the environment, keep your old, not so well looking furniture, and do not buy new items in IKEA. I have not noticed any messaging along these lines in IKEA. And, in IKEA, you could save the environment at least a little if you replaced your meat balls and potato mash with plain meat and plain potatoes since reducing the amount of processing would surely reduce the amount of energy needed. And then, IKEA presented something to the following effect: if we do nothing (as for eco), we will help nothing; but if we do a little, little by little, perhaps we change everything. Well, no! The first statement is true; the second is patently absurd. I found a related post in LinkedIn. These greenwashing corporations are a joke.