#OKBoomer

Greta Thunberg forces the politicians to mumble some semblance of interest in the future of humanity. But they still can’t rethink the models (economic, social), because GDP is nice. I say bravo, Greta. Let’s be consequential and recognize that this fight has a lot more muzzle than those in favour of free trade (of wealth, no lives).

Haroun Tazieff warned in 1979, and he probably wasn’t the only one. Despite everything, the decision-makers let slip, under the pretext of infinite growth, the mistress of all our misfortunes (climatic, but also social). The root of the problem is human activity. What has been man’s ambition these last few centuries apart amassing wealth? While this was the primary motivation of private interests, the (democratic) states followed suit, deregulating everything and anything, opening the way to ever more profits, to an increase in GDP. I am one of those who think that this utopia is the leading cause of our climate peril. And to see how lightly decision-makers take this danger is irritating. Greta Thunberg has shouted out her anger, in a beautiful dramatic setting (but it’s on TV!) and we can’t ignore what she said. She is only a messenger. The substance of the message is what scientists say for forty years.

Awareness is in the air. The hashtags #OKBoomer and #OKVroomer point the finger at conservatism. But I am stunned by the denial speeches of many. For them, the apparent lack of scientific consensus on the reasons for global warming shows that everything is a conspiracy. Green terrorists, led by Greta Thunberg, have only one ambition: to destroy our magnificent world of productivism and consumption. Their postulate is false since they claim that there is no indisputable proof. We’re screwed, I’m one of those who think so.

My opinion is that the preservation of our environment will not be a concern in the medium term. The political classes are not on the right track and will always favour the short term, election time. I imagine that a higher chamber should sanction this kind of behaviour. An authority made up of scientists and sociologists should have the power to control the directions taken by governments. To what extent can this type of body be compatible with democracies as they exist today? I have no idea. I will repeat it: we are screwed.