As climate protests are taking center stage in today’s political stage, emotional, passionate calls for radical change are dominating the discourse. Greta Thunberg, the 16-year-old climate activist phenomenon, as well as many other climate activists, were sounding alarms last weekend at a convention on dealing with climate change. Thunberg blasted politicians and pundits who are ruining hers and many others’ lives by complaining about economic concerns and financial costs. Thunberg, filled with passion, claimed that older generations had ruined her childhood and forced her and the younger generation to solve the issues of climate change and the consequences of its growth.
As talks on climate change have increased in both volume and intensity, radical climate alarmism has increased along with it. There is no disputing that climate change is a real problem facing humanity, but on the list of problems that need immediate, severe solutions, climate change doesn’t make the list. Despite this fact, the radical left has continually ramped up the rhetoric on climate change, starting earlier this year with the introduction of the Green New Deal. The GND started a national discussion on how to find tangible solutions to combat climate change. Conservatives have pointed to rising emissions in developing countries like China, as well as exposing the impact of radical climate plans, both on the national and world economies, and the financial impossibilities of the plan. Democrats, however, haven’t been so concerned with such problems.
Greta Thunberg is just the newest in a long line of climate alarmists used to steer the narrative by both the Democratic Party and the media. This is the inherent problem with climate alarmism. It first fails to provide actual logical solutions and poisons the discourse with emotional pleas rather than probable empirical data and solutions. Intrinsic in climate alarmism is the idea that, if you are passionate about a subject, you must be right, regardless of the amount of actual information you possess. By making it about who cares the most, conservative opinions can be painted as callous and unfeeling.
This is a dangerous trend that has infiltrated our political system and creates toxic debates between the opposing sides. By determining who is right based solely on the arbitrary and subjective idea of who cares the most, steers the discourse from finding solutions to sniping at the other side through carefully worded virtue-signalling and political grandstanding. The left has the clear advantage in this type of political combat. As the left and the media push for headline driven discussions, isolating and removing empirical and statistical data, actors like Greta Thunberg will become even more common.
The louder climate alarmists shout about the indiscretions of past generations, the nastier the debate will get. Already, the left makes claims that the Earth will be uninhabitable in less than 15 years and that sea levels will rise and disperse hundreds of millions of people, causing mass starvation and global destruction. Such claims are allowed as long as you shout loudly and with passion. This type of dangerous rhetoric has to be removed from the discussion on climate change.
Without removing radical climate alarmism and the passionate cries it fosters, the discourse on climate change will remain increasingly divisive.
The views expressed in this article are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Lone Conservative staff.