RESPOND TO EMMAS POST ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE:
EMMAS POST: This article was extremely well written. It made a clear analysis of the current climate justice movement in comparison to the older generation’s climate movement. The most important topic that the article addressed was the intersectionality of issues that the current “climate generation” is addressing. I thought it was particularly insightful that the article examined how Greta Thunberg has become the face of the climate movement, but she is just one of many youth activists. Many youth activists are people of color or people from the global south that are facing the effects of climate change today in their communities. The evidence is clear and it has been clear for a long time that poor people, and people of color, will be the first to experience the consequences of climate change. This is mentioned in the article by addressing the links between pesticide use and biodiversity loss, in addition with the illnesses that migrant farm workers experience as a result of pesticide exposure.
I really liked that the reading explained the clear difference between previous generations of climate activists and today’s climate activists. It was interesting to see how the author analyzed the older generation as “doomers” because they were looking into the far future and warning people of the doom to come. The older generation truly had the privilege of worrying about the long term fate of the planet, because immediate needs were covered. However, the new Gen Z generation of climate activists are not solely focused on the ecological impacts of climate change, but the social and economic underpinnings that are directly affecting people and the planet. This is a key difference: that climate justice is the focus for the new movement. Drastic economic and social change is necessary to fight climate change. The author writes that “The structural injustices that create human suffering, unregulated global capitalism, and colonialism are the same structures that degrade ecosystems.” This was very well written and concise in the way that it pointed out that all these global social issues and climate issues are the same problem and have the same enemy. It is right to politicize this issue in the sense of social justice, because social justice is entwined in climate justice. I think the reading was trying to argue that the youth have the power and the motivation to completely structurally change the world and it’s current systems to build a future for themselves, and also argue that we should not get in their way. I think the author did a great job of arguing their point.
I would like to ask my classmates how far they think radical idealism can take us. I think we need a generation of optimists that will use our climate anxiety and rage to dismantle the destructive systems we have been raised in. I think we can take radical idealism very far. I think it is our only option. I would also like to ask if they think it’s better that we politicize the climate movement more to make a climate justice movement? Do they think the Republican party will pivot its current position on addressing climate change to accommodate for the incoming generation? How can we stop older generations from getting in our way? How is climate change personal to you?
This reading was not like the other reading about deep time. It was very different. The other article argued for using the perspective of deep time to ease anxiety over the short term, however, this article is about how youth are looking into the long term future and seeing all the problems we are going to face soon. People want to survive and looking to deep time can ease some anxiety, but looking into deep time from our current trajectory is to look into a future with minimal life on earth, and certainly no humans.
Questions to ask yourself: Do you agree or diagree with emma’s post? What feedback can you give her? If you can, elaborate from her thoughts.