Reader TTS

My family, the Johnsons, have had numerous debates over dinner, not least about climate change and Greta Thunberg. Two thoughtful pieces have appeared in _TheArticle_ by two generations: my

father, Daniel, and youngest sister, Agatha; you can find them here and here. He is 62, she is 21 and I am 29 — so I feel almost duty bound to comment. Both articles represent, in

well-written form, the healthy idealism and hope of the young and the world-weary, wise yet cautious approach of the middle-aged. Since changing the mind of anyone over fifty is especially

arduous, I will mostly be addressing Agatha Johnson’s article in this piece. Full disclosure, I started reading it not expecting much at all. I was wrong. In her article, she very accurately

identifies the problem: a mindset of never-ending consumption and a completely atomised populace, incapable of any kind of collective achievement. To my surprise, I found myself agreeing

with 90 per cent of Agatha’s piece. While I can’t speak for others, it certainly touched on a lot of deep truths that I’ve held for a while. Our societies struggle immensely with

sustainability in a variety of different ways. In many respects, Greta Thunberg and other young people representing this fundamental truth that previous generations have ignored is

undoubtedly a _good _thing. Someone’s got to take care of things, after all. I also thought that my sister brilliantly illustrated the spiritual yearning felt by many. There is a revolt

against the modern world here, a rejection of false identities, empty beliefs and nihilism, a desire for greater meaning and purpose. One only needs to glance at the rise in mental health

ailments in the West to realise that something is deeply wrong here. And in many respects honest Leftists like my sister are doing exactly that: calling us to find our higher purpose, a

cause I fully support. So is that it? Am I about to start blocking motorways alongside Extinction Rebellion, while brandishing an “end is nigh” climate change sign? Well, not quite. While I

agreed with the spirit of the article, I didn’t agree with her conclusion. Agatha fundamentally misunderstands the motivation behind more libertarian or conservative people such as my

father. In her mind, the world is full of problems and ideology is designed to fix those problems. In the mind of a typical libertarian, the world is full of problems and ideology is

designed to exacerbate them. Of course, there are some libertarians out there who actually think ideology _d__oes_ solve problems, as long as it is their own. (These people are best

ignored). But the vast majority of ordinary people who believe what my father believes do so because of a healthy scepticism of human nature and of government itself. Many young people

cannot understand this mindset, as they haven’t yet lost hope in others. This is particularly true of middle-class people in general. I work in a school with young people from extremely

varied backgrounds and the ones who care about climate change tend to be from well-off backgrounds. The poorer students are simply more sceptical about humanity. When they see Greta

Thunberg, they wonder how this weird girl got on TV and who is paying for it, or they simply ignore her and focus on the tangible problems of their own. For the young person who has faced no

challenges, their purpose often becomes that of the challenge-seeker. They devote themselves to ever larger, global issues, while perhaps neglecting their own personal ones. For the

sceptic, actions always speak louder than words, and so it must be for Greta Thunberg and her supporters. Both Greta and Agatha may have a genuine motivation to save the planet, but before

you can save the planet you must first save humanity. On a purely practical basis, the older generations have reason to doubt this youngest one. With younger generations’ increasing reliance

upon electrical devices and the constant need for travel, why would generations who in some cases have memories of wartime rationing or at least the Cold War expect the young to start

living like monks? Greta Thunberg can talk about sustainability as much as she likes. She can even cross the Atlantic by boat. But the young people I know can’t even comprehend suffering

slight travel complications post-Brexit, or going for a week without access to Netflix. The only practical examples of environmentalism I’ve seen were veganism, which seems to require

obscene quantities of imported quinoa or other exotic vegetables, and the desire not to have children. But if your solution to climate change is to end the human race, then I’m not on board

with your religion. All of this is not to say that we shouldn’t save the planet. But it’s time that those who profess to do so get serious. This means that they must begin to discuss global

trade and migration. Is it sustainable for countries to allow their manufacturing and food production to move offshore? Should we be buying food we could grow locally from half-way across

the world? What about free movement of people, an idea beloved by many environmentalists? We have already seen in the West a growth of a “citizen of the world” elite class, with high rates

of consumption, while the poor, who _are_ tied to the land, have lost their place in society, either due to their jobs moving overseas or cheap labour deflating the market at home. The

rumblings of this conflict have already appeared in France. The yellow vests were mostly people from the poorer rural parts of France who had seen new environmental legislation imposed on

them by urban elites, largely immune to the effects. Their anger was not at the idea of saving the planet; it was at hypocrisy and political aloofness. The cost of bad environmentalism is

extremely high, not only in economic terms, but also in the damage it does to the cause itself, making political action even more difficult next time. “But wait,” I hear someone say. “The

problem is capitalism! Under socialism, we can save the planet _and_ help the poor!” This person has sadly been infected by “ideology”, a horrible disease which convinces people that

political ideas can solve spiritual problems. Unfortunately, I don’t think Greta Thunberg would be given nearly as much prominence if she criticised globalisation, which in turn makes me

think that she is indeed being used for political ends. For the young, for those who have hope for the future, my message is simple. Demonstrate your commitment through genuine sacrifice,

telling the truth and real-world practical actions. To my father’s generation, I know my words are almost entirely pointless, but you should stop running away from political power. Stop

basing your politics on _The Lord of the Rings_; you are not Frodo, the Ring is not political power and anyway Mount Doom doesn’t exist. If we don’t use political power, other people damn

well will. Let’s save the environment, and let’s stop other people from messing it up.