There’s a one-in-a-million chance global warming is not caused by humans. The evidence pertaining to manmade global warming has reached the ‘gold standard,’ which is not something take lightly in the scientific community. For example, this ‘gold standard’ was applied in 2012 in the discovery of the subatomic particle, which is a basic building block of modern science and the universe. The idea that scientists are uncertain of the source of climate change or that climate science is supported by consensus and not data is both untrue and dangerous. The almost completely certain nature of human influence on climate change further emphasizes climate statistics pertaining to mitigation efforts. The world’s leading climate scientists have warned that there is only twelve years left to keep global warming at a maximum of 1.5 degrees Celsius. Even half of a degree past this will significantly worsen the risks of drought, flood, extreme heat, and global poverty. Authors of the report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirms that urgent and unprecedented changes are required, but the efforts are affordable and feasible. However, senior scientist at the Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research in Norway, Robbie Andrew, said on Twitter that
Global mitigation curves for 1.5C. [is] “geophysically feasible”, but can we do this? Mitigation is hard, but even heroic efforts simply won’t be sufficient. Removing massive amounts of CO2 from the air is really our only hope of holding temperature rises under 1.5C.
Andrew is referring to this data, showing the necessary percentage of carbon dioxide removal per year depending on the start year to achieve temperatures of 1.5 degrees Celsius of global warming.
Keeping the global warming temperature within 1.5 degrees Celsius is crucial in keeping our environment, economy, and society functional as we know it. The half a degree difference from 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius could also ease pressure on Arctic and oceanic ecosystems and prevent a complete eradication of coral reefs. According to a United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) study, the world’s coal reefs are in danger of completely dying out by the mid-century unless carbon emissions are reduced enough to slow ocean warming and coral bleaching. The death of the planet’s coral reefs would not only have a dramatic effect on the oceanic diversity supported by these organisms, but millions of people will feel the effects. Certain communities are already experiencing protein shortages from a drop in fish population coupled with overfishing and consequences of rising tides without the natural barrier. This study is the first global examination of the vulnerability of the entire planet’s reef system. It concludes that of the 29 World Heritage reef areas, at least 25 will experience severe bleaching twice every decade by 2040, which is frequency that will rapidly kill most coral reef and prevent successful reproduction of the organism. In some areas this is already happening. According to Mark Eakin, a reef expert with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and a lead author of the report explained,
These are spectacular places, many of which I’ve visited. Seeing the damage being wrought has just been heartbreaking… We’re to the point now where action is essential. It’s urgent.
Carbon dioxide levels, a known greenhouse gas that traps and emits thermal energy in a positive feedback loop leading to global warming, are at the highest they have been in 3 000 000 years. The climatic conditions associated with this level of carbon dioxide, which is caused by humans, has never been experience in human history. Last time carbon dioxide levels were this high, sea levels were up 20 meters and trees grew in Antartica. Researchers at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) in Germany used a computer simulation to find that carbon dioxide levels should be at 280 parts per million, but today, levels have reached 410 parts per million and rising. The effects of these levels is unchartered territory by the human population, and there is almost nothing we can do to survive the effects; all we can do is stop the process.
So, what is the world doing to stop the process. Scientists have been releasing revolutionary studies pertaining to human’s effect on the climate and the future of our world. However, climate change and science deniers, particularly in the government and in businesses who thrive off of activities that harm the environment has meant that these studies have had little concrete effect in enacting change. It seems that the main vessel of change and action is youth and young adults, armed with modern science and a passion for the future. The Juliana plaintiffs are an example of the youthful breath of fresh air bringing voice to the climate change crisis.
The Juliana plaintiffs are a group of youth who filed a landmark lawsuit against the United States government: Juliana v. United States. On their website is a quote from U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken, which summarizes their case,
Exercising my ‘reasoned judgment,’ I have no doubt that the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society.
Youth filed the constitutional climate lawsuit against the United States government in the U.S. District Court of Oregon in 2015. Their case asserts that the government’s affirmative actions that cause climate change have violated the youngest generations constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property. The youth led fight for climate justice has experienced major setbacks from fossil fuel companies and the Trump administration, but they have also received diverse support, with many youth showing legal support to the cause. The 21 youth suing the government has gained the support of eight members of congress, as well as over 30 000 youth who signed onto a legal brief asking an appeals court to allow the long-delayed case to go to trial. The ‘Young People’s Brief’ was one of fifteen amicus (friend of the court) briefs filed by environmentalists, women’s groups, business leaders, and eight members of Congress all in support of the case being tried in court. The youth filing was particularly noteworthy because it highlights a growing movement of young people calling on political leaders to act urgently. Miko Vergun, a 17 year old of Beaverton Oregon said,
I’m part of an amazing group of plaintiffs who won’t put up with adults jeopardizing our futures any longer… The amount of young people, in the United States and around the world, who added their names to support this brief is a representation of all the youth who know that their futures and their planet are at stake.
The plaintiffs are aged 11 to 23 and include a diverse group of young peoples. Many of the plaintiffs are indigenous youth advocating for the land loss experienced by their people through climate change inaction and colonization. Mani Wanji ‘Journey” is a plaintiff from South Dakota and a member of the Yankton Sioux Nation. He now lives in Kapaa, Hawaii, which due to climate change, will be mostly underwater by the end of the century; he has already seen the impact on his island with shrinking beaches, dying coral reefs, and drought. Many of the plaintiffs are like Mani Wanji and live in high risk areas. Levi Draheim, the youngest plaintiff at 11 years old lives on a barrier island in Florida, which is just thirteen feet above sea level. His island has been impacted by environmental issues like red algae blooms and increasing storms due to climate change. After Hurricane Matthew, Levi replanted dunes at the beach and continued litter clean up. The work of the Juliana plaintiffs has been profound in their respective community, and they have done tremendous work in bringing the realistic implications of climate change inaction to the public through their monumental lawsuit, which is still waiting to be heard.
In the American government, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a young, 29 year old has been making waves in Congress. Her Democratic primary victory in New York’s 14th Congressional District was truly remarkable, as her grassroots campaign beat the ten term congressman, Joe Crowley. In the press, Ocasio-Cortez, who also goes by her initials, AOC, pointed out that tabloids consistently refused to say her name, largely referring to her as Crowley’s ‘primary opponent.’
She was later elected as the youngest women to serve in Congress after beating out the Republican, Anthony Pappas, in her district. She has been recognized for her large social media presence and socialist ideas. For many young people, she represents their desires and adds a unique and important voice to the United States government. AOC emphasized that her campaign reached doors not usually ‘knocked on,’ specifying that her grassroots campaign and policies focus on,
Young people … communities of colour, people who speak English as a second language, working class people, people with two jobs that are usually too ‘busy’ to vote.
When she campaigned, she had a clear and progressive agenda, including ‘Medicare for all,’ the abolition of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and legislation to take big money out of American politics. Included in her agenda was climate change action.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a cosponsor of the ‘Green New Deal,’ with democratic Massachusetts Senator, Ed Markey. The economic blueprint is designed to save the planet from climate catastrophe with bold and immediate action. Opinions are diverse surrounding the Green New Deal, with even progressives and Democrats split over the embrace of the bill. Republicans have been particularly gleeful to paint Democrats as nutty idealists, with individuals like Ted Cruz saying,
I think there is a technical description for what’s going on, which is that Democrats have gone bat-crap crazy… They are getting more and more and more extreme on every issue.
While this statement holds little factual evidence considering the asymmetrical polarization of Republicans in American politics, it is a point of view shared by many Americans. Regardless of the controversy, AOC’s Green New Deal is gaining attention and thrusting climate change into the national conversation, which is desperately necessary. Overall, the Green New Deal aims to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and wean the United States off fossil fuels, though it doesn’t call for a complete elimination. It also aims to fix ‘systemic injustices,’ like deeply entrenched conditions that disproportionately affect low-income communities, people of colour, women, the elderly population, and people with disabilities. The draft intertwines climate issues with social justice intentions by aiming to convert the national power demand to renewable energy, invest in clean-energy jobs and technologies, and support sustainable farming, while tackling the infrastructure that puts marginalized people at risk, which includes brining universal, quality health care to all Americans. It also calls for jobs with a family sustaining wage and tuition-free public education. Further, it would clean up environmentally hazardous areas that have consistently and unfairly affected communities of colour and low-income families. Particularly, young Democrats in Congress have viewed the Green New Deal as a bold vision. Polls have shown that young people favour drastic action to tackle climate change.
The Green New Deal also has an urgent ten year timeline, which affirms the landmark report from the United Nations (IPCC). It argues that the U.S. could take a lead now, as the world’s second largest emitter of carbon dioxide, before warming has a negative transformative effect on human civilization. Critics are tacking the Green New Deal by calling it impractical and juvenile. President Donald Trump at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) spoke about socialism and the Green New Deal, calling it ‘the craziest plan.’ Frankly, much of criticism is not scientific or factual and severely light-hearted for such a serious and dire topic. Donald Trump claimed the proposal aims to ‘end air travel,’ adding sarcastically,
But you’ll get on a train; don’t worry about it.
The actual resolution makes no mention of trying to make air travel obsolete. Trump’s chief economic adviser, Larry Kudlow, warned that “the Green New Deal will literally destroy the economy.” Further, the House Republican Conference has claimed the Green New Deal is “a Trojan horse for socialism.” The American Action Forum, a Washington think-tank known for advocating centre-right policies, projected the plan could potentially cost $93 trillion U.S. over ten years. Criticisms of the bold goals of the Green New Deal, largely pertaining to the economy, have led to some explanations by AOC. In January, Ocasio-Cortez faced more criticism when she floated an income tax rate as high as 70% for the richest Americans. However, that’s not unheard of, as the top U.S. federal tax rate never reached below 70% from the 1950s to the 1960s. She suggested that the extremely wealthy might begin to be taxed at a high rate on the 10 millionth dollar, those below that threshold would be taxed at the normal lower rate. A tax analysis by the Washington Post found that over a decade, that theoretical 70% tax bracket for people earning $10 million or more a year would add $720 billion in tax revenue in a decade. Mark Jacobson led a Stanford University research team that created a plant to change each of the 50 states to 100% wind, water, and solar energy for all sectors. Jacobson explained that,
it’s technically and economically feasible,
to get to nearly 100% renewable energy for all purposes in the U.S. by 2030. He continued,
You really want to know what’s the cost of the system versus the fossil fuel system… To do that, you have to account for the fuel cost over time. And in the case of renewables, there’s no fuel cost
By his calculations, transitioning to net zero-carbon energy systems would mean an upfront cost of $9.5 trillion (one-tenth of the American Action Forum’s projections). As well, a clean power system would use half the energy as a fossil fuel system in the long run. Jacobson estimates consumer cost savings and air pollution and climate benefits would total 4.9 trillion dollars annually. Further, the upfront cost could pay itself off from electricity sales. Jacobson believes that critics of the Green New Deal have it backwards,
Not transitioning to a clean energy system is unaffordable and uneconomical.
Unfortunately, Ocasio-Cortez and the Green New Deal has been flooded with misinformation and criticism, leading some to believe that it won’t survive a vote in Congress. Part of the reason the Green New Deal has been suffering from misinformation, is that most Americans are not energy policy experts or economists, neither are most politicians, and the Green New Deal as it is presented can’t be immediately understood by most people, which is true for a lot of policy proposals. Therefore, what is contained in the Green New Deal is largely up the interpretation of politicians and news networks. In the media, the news pertaining to the Green New Deal never really explains the key points. Instead, the news networks have been focusing on the politics, like will it pass, what does the president think of it, who’s against it, but nothing explains if it is a good idea. This type of news coverage is known as tactical framing, and it makes the average person cynical when dealing with issues like the environment. Tactical framing focuses on political strategy rather than substance, asking questions like is it popular? Can it pass? And how will it effect the next election? Kathleen Hall Jamieson, who coined the phrase tactical framing, explained that with tactical framing,
The discussion is focused on the players and the implications for them and their political careers. Not the policy or its capacity to solve a problem.
Jamieson argues that this obsession with strategy makes it hard for the population to understand big policy. The news coverage barely explains what is actually contained within the Green new Deal, rather what individuals think about it. Not only does this make individuals less informed, it also makes the average person much more cynical. Jamieson ran an experiment that gave individuals news about a mayoral race. One focused on the major problems that each candidate wanted to solve, another only talked about the politics and how each candidate was attempting to win, and the final piece of information mixed the two by starting with tactical framing and then talking about policy. They found the last two, which involved tactical framing, increased cynicism. They were more likely to say that the candidates were making unrealistic promises, that the situation was hopeless and impossible, and they were less likely to remember basic information about the policy, even with good policy analysis presented to them. This matches very closely with the phenomenon experienced by the Green New Deal. Jamieson presented the research in a book entitled, ‘Spiral of Cynicism.’ In the book, Jamieson and her partner further argue that the cynicism created by tactical framing lingers. A week later, the same individuals in the experiment were asked to react to excerpts from the mayoral debate of the candidates. Those exposed to any degree of tactical framing continued to react cynically. This cynicism is dangerous because it causes people to activate they’re partisanship unnecessarily.
If the only real information that most Americans have about the Green New Deal is that Democrats love it and Republicans hate it, they’re more likely to react along their party lines regardless of how they would actually feel about it if the policy was presented to them factually. The knowledge and ability to make personal decisions is being taken away from voters and is left up to partisan interpretation. Sadly, the Green New Deal isn’t being covered on its merit or lack of, it’s being covered on its political popularity, deeply affecting the governments ability to enact change for the climate, and diminishing the likelihood that it will even be given the opportunity to pass. There needs to be more journalism that snaps the public out of cynicism and presents the options to the major issues affecting our planet. Regardless of the diverse and polarizing opinions about the Green New Deal, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has made major strides in being a voice for young people’s future, while living that reality herself. AOC has experienced criticism from all over, with many of the claims pointing to her age. A study found that she was mentioned 3,181 times on Fox News Channel and Fox Business Network during the six-week period of Feb. 25 to April 7. Just about 76 times a day; not a day went by when she wasn’t spoken about on Fox. Her handling of this unprecedented influx of criticism has been handled well. AOC said in an interview with Reshma Saujani, the CEO of Girls Who Code,
I just introduced the Green New Deal two weeks ago and it’s creating all this conversation. Why? Because no one else has even tried.
Ocasio-Cortex conceded that the proposal may not address every detail, but she explained that there’s something to be said for trying to solve the climate crisis. Firing back at critics, she said, proposal may not address every detail, she conceded, but there’s something to be said for merely trying.
Until you do it, I’m the boss. How ’bout that?
It’s clear that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is an exciting, young voice in the fight against climate change, and it’s evident that she is fighting for young people and their future.
Another huge voice for young people and climate action is Greta Thunberg. Last summer, when Thunberg was 15, she skipped school and sat outside Swedish parliament. Without even knowing it, she began a global movement. Last August when she began protesting outside of Parliament, her parents tried to dissuade her, classmates declined to join, and people passing by expressed pity at the site of the young girl sitting with a hand painted sign. Eight months from that point, the picture is extremely different. This teenager has become a model of determination and youth voice. Her skolstrejk för klimatet (school strike for climate) banner has been translated into dozens of languages.
Almost every Friday, regardless of the weather, Greta Thunberg skipped school to protest government inaction of climate change. On March 15, Greta Thunberg returned to the cobblestone of the Parliament building as a figure head for the largest youth climate change protest in history. Thunberg explained her excitement leading up the event exclaiming,
It’s amazing. It’s more than 71 countries and more than 700 places, and counting. It’s increasing very much now, and that’s very, very fun.
A year ago for Thunberg leading a protest was unimaginable for her. She was introverted, waking at 6AM to prepare for school and heading home at 3PM. She recalls,
Nothing really was happening in my life. I have always been that girl in the back who doesn’t say anything. I thought I couldn’t make a difference because I was too small.
Greta Thunberg was always different from her other students. She was exceptionally bright; her mother, Malena Ernman, is one of Sweden’s most celebrated opera singers, and her father, Svante Thunberg, is an actor and author, named after Svante Arrhenius, the Nobel prize-winning scientist who in 1896, first calculated how carbon dioxide emissions could lead to the greenhouse effect. Greta Thunberg was exceptionally bright, and four years ago, she was diagnosed with Asperger’s. Great explained,
I overthink. Some people can just let things go, but I can’t, especially if there’s something that worries me or makes me sad. I remember when I was younger, and in school, our teachers showed us films of plastic in the ocean, starving polar bears and so on. I cried through all the movies. My classmates were concerned when they watched the film, but when it stopped, they started thinking about other things. I couldn’t do that. Those pictures were stuck in my head.
Thunberg overcame and accepted this part of who she is, making it a motivating force, instead of a source of depression, which it once was. Like many youth, when she learnt about climate change, at about the age of 8, she was shocked about how little adults were doing to solve the problem. It eventually became a significant factor to her depression a few years later. Greta was paralyzed by her fear that she wouldn’t have a future. Eventually, she started to open up about her worries to her parents, and as she showed them pictures, graphs, and reports, they started to actually listen to what she had to say.
That’s when I kind of realized I could make a difference. And how I got out of that depression was that I thought: it is just a waste of time feeling this way because I can do so much good with my life. I am trying to do that still now.
Greta used her parents to see how individuals can impact climate change. She was able to persuade her mother to give up flying, even though it had severe impacts on her career, and her father became a vegetarian. Her parents explained that eventually, they ran out of arguments for why they could just sit back. The school climate strike was inspired by the Parkland school in Florida. They walked out of classes to protest against the lack of gun laws that enabled the massacre on their campus. Greta Thunberg was a part of a group of youth that wanted to do something similar to raise awareness about climate change. After a record heatwave in northern Europe and forest fires that burned through Swedish land up to the Arctic, Greta decided to go alone. Her first protest was on August 20, 2018. Greta recalled the school strikes,
I painted the sign on a piece of wood and, for the flyers, wrote down some facts I thought everyone should know. And then I took my bike to the parliament and just sat there. The first day, I sat alone from about 8.30am to 3pm – the regular school day. And then on the second day, people started joining me. After that, there were people there all the time.
Greta promised to strike every day until the Swedish national election, and she kept her promise. Later, she agreed to make a speech at a People’s Climate March rally. Her parents were reluctant however, as she was previously diagnosed with selective mutism. Greta Thunberg had made up her mind, and despite her family’s concerns, she delivered the speech in flawless English, inviting the crowd to film her on their phones and spread the message through social media. Her dad cried. People with selective mutism tend to worry more than others. When speaking with political leaders and billionaire entrepreneurs in Davos, Greta told them,
I don’t want you to be hopeful. I want you to panic. I want you to feel the fear I feel every day. And then I want you to act.
This speech went viral, with many politicians applauding her candidness. However, Thunberg still isn’t seeing enough progress, and she’s been condemning inaction from leaders in the U.S., U.K., and Australia, particularly those who have criticized the students around the world who have been skipping school to protest climate change. Greta explained,
They are desperately trying to change the subject whenever the school strikes come up. They know they can’t win this fight because they haven’t done anything.
The blunt nature of Greta Thunberg’s speeches and activism has attracted a broad audience of individuals, particularly youth, jaded by empty promises and eager to find a climate leader. The young girl who was once disheartened by the climate landscape has become a beacon of hope for so many youth. She has done a lot of work for the movement; Thunberg has been lauded at the UN, met the French president, and has been endorsed by the German chancellor, Angela Merkel. Yet, she still says,
No, I am not more hopeful than when I started. The emissions are increasing
Thunberg isn’t protesting for hope, she’s protesting because she has to. Her family views her Asperger’s as a blessing because she is able to strip away distractions and focus with absolute clarity. Thunberg believes that political action far outweighs individual changes to consumer habits. In the 1980s, the fossil fuel companies Shell and Exxon were aware of the global damage their products and emissions caused. Through internal assessments of carbon dioxide released by fossil fuels, they forecasted that by 2060, level would reach 560 parts per million (double the preindustrial level) and this would warm the planet’s average temperature by 2 degrees Celsius.
Later that decade, in 1988, a report by Shell projected similar effects, but they also found that carbon dioxide could double even earlier, by 2030. Privately, these companies did not dispute the links between their products, global warming, and ecological calamity. On the contrary, their research confirmed the connections. However, in the public, they released science to distract from these findings, and kept it hidden until unbiased studies found made similar predictions. The damage was done, year’s of lobbying and tendentious research pushed the dangers of fossil fuels and climate change under the rug and away from public concern. Today, the Carbon Majors Report found that just 100 companies have been the source of 70% of greenhouse gas emissions since 1988. The report found that over half of global industrial emissions since 1988, which is the year the IPCC was established, can be traced to just 25 corporate and state-owned entities. A few companies and their shareholders are the key to systemic environmental change, but these companies are hesitant and doing everything in their power to lobby against accountability, as it would impact their profits. Further, a new report, Banking on Climate Change 2019, which is endorsed by over 160 organizations globally and was released by Rainforest Action Network, BankTrack, Indigenous Environmental Network, Oil Change International, Sierra Club, and Honour the Earth, found that 33 global banks provided 1.9 trillion dollars to fossil fuel companies, since the adoption of the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015. The amount of fossil fuel financing has increased in the past two years. It is the first ever analysis of funding from the world’s major private banks for the fossil fuel sector as a whole. This ‘business as usual’ practice is further confirmed by the fact that 600 billion dollars went to the 100 companies that are most aggressively expanding fossil fuels. Not to mention, another large polluter of greenhouse gases is the farming industry, which goes relatively unnoticed when looking at the effects of fossil fuels. Yet, the world’s biggest farms pollute more than the largest oil company, Exxon. A report by the nonprofit Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) showed that the top five animal agriculture companies emit more greenhouse gases than Exxon-Mobil, Shell, or BP.
All of this adds to large emissions on a national like in Canada, where farming and fossil fuels are major resources. Canadians produced over 720 megatons of greenhouse gases in 2015, in a huge part due to oil and gas.
On average, Canada has been experiencing warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world, and Northern Canada has been heating at almost three times that rate. The study, Canada’s Changing Climate Report, was commissioned by Environment and Climate Change Canada, authored by university experts and government scientists from the ministries of Environment and Climate Change, Fisheries and Oceans and Natural Resources. It found that since 1948, Canada’s average land temperature warmed by 1.7 degrees Celsius, with higher rates seen in the North, the Prairies, and northern British Columbia. In Northern Canada, the annual average temperature increased by 2.3 degrees Celsius. The results of these changes has led to increasing precipitation, especially in winter, ‘extreme fire weather,’ according to the report, and water supply shortages in the summer, with higher risk of coastal flooding. The document noted that while warming in Canada has been a result of human activity and natural climate variation, the human factor is dominant, particularly when looking at greenhouse gas emissions.
However, even with the main factor in climate change being corporations and governments, Greta Thunberg has lowered her consumption by going vegan and only travelling abroad by train. The brilliance of Thunberg’s delivery to some of these major polluting states is the word choice and tone that cut through debate and sting. She yields no reassurance, just frankness, which is desperately needed in the conversation. When she was asked is she became an optimist as the climate issue has risen on the political agenda, she honestly replied,
No, I am not more hopeful than when I started. The emissions are increasing and that is the only thing that matters. I think that needs to be our focus. We cannot talk about anything else.
Greta Thunberg’s intentions are to strike outside parliament every Friday until the Swedish government’s policy have aligned with the Paris climate agreement. Greta Thunberg has inspired an international movement, and she’s been nominated by three Norwegian Member’s of Parliament as a candidate for this year’s Nobel Peace Prize. If she wins, she will be the youngest recipient of the award. This recognition and her fight has led to interesting contrast in her life; balancing homework and trying to save the world; school lessons and decrying the immaturity of global leaders; deciding what she wants to due in the future, while trying to save it. She holds a profound maturity with the excitement of a teenager, balancing her life and fighting for change, which has left her and so many others no longer lonely, silent, or depressed. Yet, the fight continues and Greta Thunberg is as passionate as ever.
Sources-
Images-
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Speech
Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Canada’s Predicted Precipitation
A Note from the Author:
An interesting side effect of these environmental protests being run by youth for youth, which is something a really appreciate, is a humour existentialism, bitterness, and bluntness. The signs of students protesting climate inaction are bleak, humorous, and current, but at the same time, extremely successful. I think part of that comes from being forced into political action. Many of these young people protesting aren’t environmentalists by choice, instead its by fear of Armageddon. The frustration associated with that has led to very direct callouts of perpetrators of climate change. This youthful addition to environmental protesters is truly refreshing and fun to watch, but it reveals an unforgivable aspect of current governments and corporations. Many of the youth protesting can’t vote and won’t be able to vote before the twelve year time limit is up. This is a cause of deep frustration for so many young protestors because its belittling to be the most effected by the crisis, but literally have no democratic say in it. I believe its this minimizing attitude that is driving so many young people to protest, whether it be for climate change or other social issues. Its inspiring to watch this phenomenon, but its also worrying. The individuals who have no democratic say in society are doing more work towards fixing the climate change crisis than governments, corporations, and the voting population. This reeks of inaction. Now more than ever youth need to make their voice heard. I’ve been committing myself to not silencing the facts about the climate change crisis for the sake of not creating friction. If friction is what it takes to enact change in the democratically influential population, than I’m going to be blunt, rough, and frankly, annoying to fix this problem. I truly believe that a government being inactive towards climate change is undemocratic. By being unwilling to solve the emissions crisis, whether due to the economy of whatever reason, these individuals are taking away a future: one where our freedoms are being upheld, we have a livable climate, and we have the right to pursue life and happiness. These fundamental freedoms are inherently rejected by the corporations and governments that are complicit and contributing to the extinction of the human population. The blood is on their hands, and it’s frustrating that the young people, those who have very little democratic influence, are the ones that have to point out the murder weapon when its been dangling in front of everyones face before I was even born. Its this obscure role reversal that is making the protests so blunt and bleak, and its both comforting and scary to note that the youth who will be most affected by climate change are doing everything to save their future because the generations in the position to enact change won’t.
