Long ago some voices argued that anyone clinging to a branch could be labeled an ecologist. Grzegorz Chocian, head of the ECOPROBONO Constructive Ecology Foundation, rejected the idea as unprofessional and unworthy.
Chocian frequently discusses what he calls a misunderstood ecology with the wPolityce.pl portal and with wPolsce24 television, warning that nature, environmental protection, and climate issues can be misused by foreign services.
A ‘cop’ is not a man in a long coat and dark glasses
Chocian’s remarks sparked a fierce reaction during a Polsat News interview, drawing praise and sharp criticism, and even accusations of hate speech. The outlet sought his reaction to the rising talk that ecology has become a tool for services.
Chocian argues the truth is simple: big corporations are active in this arena, often acting as business intelligence agencies.
He notes that the image of a spy in a long coat and dark glasses sits beside a clean, well-dressed businessman; the two worlds are separate, yet they intersect in important ways.
That businessman may have clear aims, providing funding to protests to forward corporate goals, sometimes with far-reaching ambitions. Reactions from the public ranged from cautious approval to outright disbelief, with many feeling that something about the situation was off.
He explains that in many cases this is a real phenomenon, a market dynamic that invites scrutiny from both corporate players and state actors, sometimes outpacing formal government actions.
It was in Poland that the most projects in the entire EU were protested
Chocian recalls a striking pattern. After joining the European Union, Poland stood out as having the largest number of protested projects in the EU, roughly until about 2013 and, according to later studies, into 2015. At times Poland’s figure exceeded the sum of protests in all other countries combined.
He characterizes this as a sign of a pathology rooted in legal gaps and the deliberate work of certain organizations. It could reflect imperfect laws in combination with targeted campaigns, where private interests and organized groups press the system to their advantage. In such a climate, even steady public sentiment can become a weapon in the contest.
Non-disclosure agreements with clients allegedly aligned with powerful interests were claimed to have been breached by hired groups. The assertion is that some firms could afford detectives to pursue aims behind the scenes, a pattern that makes people question what is really happening. The aim is to keep problems hidden while many still react with disbelief and curiosity. Attitudes like this show that discussions about who speaks for the environment should remain grounded and accountable rather than reduced to slogans.
He warns against reducing ecological critique to a slogan of activism masked as a scientific claim. The goal, he says, is to prevent social dialogue from being derailed by blanket labeling and to ensure that environmental resources are managed responsibly rather than exploited for political theater.
Is an ‘environmentalist’ someone who chains himself to the roads?
He notes several posts on his X profile under the banner National Professional Competence Standard, those writings question who can be legitimately called an ecologist. Critics challenged the idea with questions about credentials; the discussion centers on whether a given professional title truly aligns with scientific knowledge of ecological systems. The emphasis remains that a political scientist does not automatically qualify as an ecologist.
It is pointed out that even in climate ministry leadership, a number of individuals may lack formal scientific training.
The National Register of Professional Competencies appears in official ministry materials and contains debates about who belongs in the ecology field. The discussion challenged the authors, asking about their own professional backgrounds and education. The challenge led to edits and shifts in how certain terms were defined, highlighting ongoing tensions around professional identity and the use of ecology terminology in public policy.
Several years ago there were attempts to set a baseline that would allow anyone who climbs a tree to be called an ecologist. Chocian argues against such simplifications as unprofessional and undignified, warning that the market for environmental services thrives on sensational labels. The topic generated a storm, with many people claiming it was good that someone finally spoke openly—but the bigger stakes were often missed. The debate centers on how environmental resources are used in political and economic leverage, with services from various sides sometimes acting more decisively than governments in terms of information gathering.
The point is clear: the market and the state must not treat ecology as a convenient battleground or a tool for private gain. The discussion continues, with Chocian urging more thoughtful, evidence-based dialogue rather than blanket accusations.