The hypocrisy of climate activists

In the field of climate activism, it is easy to be swayed by fiery speeches of government inaction and impending climate catastrophe. But how much of what is said is true and how much is being done about it remains in the shadows. There is an urgent need to know the people behind the prominent figures in this movement and to be better informed about the ones we listen to. From the hotshots and their incompetence to the unsung heroes, the public must know the big names in climate activism

The field of climate activism is buzzing with activity. The rising awareness of climate threats is inspiring ever more youth to come out in support of climate justice. Spearheading this movement is Greta Thunberg, the teenage sensation from Sweden. Greta first came into the spotlight by refusing to go to school, choosing rather to spend her time protesting in front of government buildings. This act of defiance gave her stage in the UN to talk to the world leaders. Her speech at the UN made her a celebrity overnight, earning her an army of fans as well as critics.

While her supporters think her brave for expressing herself vividly and openly ridiculing world leaders, critics are not impressed. Questions have been raised on the ability to understand the depth of the problems concerning climate change. There is a notion amongst critics that Thunberg is overhyped and under informed. Critics claim that she should not be taken seriously, citing that the teen leader has not yet presented any viable solutions and has instead devoted her time to meet celebrities and pop sensations.

To argue further, critics point to the aptly named ‘Yacht controversy’. Greta had reportedly chosen not to fly to the US for her big UN speech, citing high carbon emissions in the aviation industry. Rather she had opted to travel from Sweden to the US on a ‘Low carbon emission’ yacht. This move was widely regarded as a visual representation of leading by example and practicing what one preaches.

It was only later that the full picture came into light. On paper, the ‘Low carbon emissions’ yacht, donated by a Russian billionaire, used a fraction of the fuel consumed by an airliner. But when fuel consumption per person per mile is considered, the airplane with the clear winner. Moreover, to bring the Yacht back from America, team of 7 people had to be flown all the way from Europe to the US. The result was that nearly eight to ten times carbon had been admitted to fuel this publicity stunt than would have been admitted, had Thunberg taken a flight.

Despite these revelations and mounting disagreements with her statements by notable experts, Greta enjoys ever-increasing support from her loyal followers.

As her popularity grows, Greta’s Twitter handle sees less tweets about climate change, and more tweets on social and political issues. Her tweets have been observed to mirror those of left-wing media outlets- dividing opinion on her further.

Since her field of work is politically and ideological inclined with mainstream left-wing thought, it must come as no surprise that she has been approached by many far-left organisations. One of these organisations affiliated with Thunberg happened to be ‘Fridays for Future’. The now infamous NGO, which took part in creation of ‘Toolkit’ had been at the centre of everyone’s attention in February. The toolkit accidentally shared by Greta on Twitter revealed plans on attacking big business and supporting farmers protest in India.

Greta’s support for this movement has raised some eyebrows and has been hailed by her critics to be a concrete example of her lack of understanding of climate issues. Greta apparently supports the maintaining of status quo in Indian agricultural sector. The climate activist, through her tweet essentially support the wasteful agricultural practices which have led to the decimation of the water table in Punjab. It would seem that she is either unaware on concerned with the fact that stubble burning in Haryana and Punjab result in a smog blanket across North India for nearly two months at the year. Both instances being examples of gross violation of environmental codes; and regardless to state, highly detrimental to the environment.

As the climate activist and an influential voice for the same, Thunberg’s lack of knowledge on basic agricultural and industrial practices are the reason enough not to take a seriously. Heavy reliance on emotions and rhetoric to drive her point across indicates an inherent immaturity that she simply does not seem able to get rid of.

 The argument that her accomplishments at a young age compensate for her lack of practical knowledge also runs aground at the mention of lesser known young climate change innovators. Taking Fionn Ferreira for example, who at 17 discovered a new way of removing microplastics from the ocean using ferrofluids. Or Niel Deshmukh, another 17 year old, who created AI based Apps to help farmers detect and diagnose various crop diseases- significantly reducing the risk and impact of Crop failures or even Param Jaggi, who, at 17 form the way to reduce carbon emissions from Car emissions and turn it into oxygen.

These individuals are among many who are over shadowed by loud climate activists. None of the abovementioned heroes have been in public light, despite being the ones who bring about actual change through their work. This is in part because the field of climate activism is dominated by obstructive political interest groups. Protests, sit-ins, public demonstrations and thought-provoking speeches constitutes the majority of activities in these circles. And in this Labyrinth the people who do real work in the field are often overlooked or pushed aside to give way to the revolutionary speech to gain public support and create hype over their cause.

It would be wrong to claim that political movements towards climate change is baseless. No movement can succeed without strong political support. However, it must be acknowledged that in the long run, disruptive activism leads to erosion of political weight and legitimacy. What the movement desperately needs is on-ground action and real and practical solution. Unchecked rhetoric will eventually result in loss of interest of the populace. It is high time that the Climate Change lobby lay the foundation for an objective approach to fighting the problem, with tangible results. As Thunberg so eloquently put it, “You must unite behind science. You must take action. You must do the impossible. Because giving up can never be an option.”