|
The devil is in the details. It's not enough to say we have to do something about climate change. What to do, and the ramifications of doing that action are important. There's no getting around the fact that the only 2 ways to massively reduce consumption are to either reduce the planetary human population, or to reduce per capita wealth/consumption.
What is implied in her message is that a particular group of people (climate activists) should wield the power necessary to accomplish their objectives. It assumes they have the most complete understanding of the world and our place in it.
I consider myself to be an environmentalists, but the thing that concerns me the most about "activists" is that many seem to place a greater value on mother earth, nature, or creatures other than humans; as if nature is virtuous, humans are not, and we're also somehow not of nature. The reason I'm an environmentalist is because I'm a humanist, not for "environments" sake.
So, any action we take now must be primarily in consideration of people living now, but also in consideration of future generations. The reason people that exist are more important than those that don't should be obvious; it's along the lines of "a bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush".
|