Boomers’ Biggest Fear on Climate: Our Sincerity

In a coming-together of the world’s political and business leaders, the most recent World Economic Forum focused on climate change and sustainability, topics which not all attendees considered worthwhile to discuss.

Although 17-year-old climate activist Greta Thunberg called for adherence to commitments made under the Paris Agreement, condemned the elites’ pattern of empty promises to reform, and demanded immediate climate action, her speech came after President Trump’s denunciation of climate activism as “alarmist” and “radical.” By urging the rejection of “perennial prophets of doom,” Trump made clear his skepticism toward the threat posed by climate change, emphasizing instead the strength of the American economy and its status as the number one exporter of oil and natural gas.

President Trump and Greta Thunberg have a history of antagonism, as seen in their December Twitter exchange in which the president claimed Thunberg should watch “a good old fashioned movie with a friend” in order to “work on her anger management problem.” In response, Thunberg then changed her Twitter biography to mockingly mimic the president’s complaint. The two did not clash outright at the forum; instead, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin dismissively commented on Thunberg’s lack of expertise, saying “after she goes and studies economics at college, she can come back and explain to us.”

As anyone who has taken introductory economics would know, however, the cost of pollution and climate change is not accounted for by businesses unless an external force like the government compels them to consider it. There is no disincentive for businesses to produce environmentally-harmful products, not while such products remain profitable, unless governmental action is taken to make those goods more costly to produce. In other words, if the government doesn’t force businesses to adhere to environmental regulations, then no one will. Thunberg is right, and most economists agree with her.

Mnuchin’s commentary is indicative of the Trump administration’s contemptuous attitude toward climate change and follows a more widespread pattern in which the older generation scoffs at the younger, emanating signals which proclaim you’re too young to be here and why don’t we leave this to the real adults, sweetie. But while intergenerational spats are certainly nothing new and those in power frequently sneer at others who would claim to do their job more effectively, the disdain toward the younger generation’s climate activism is nearly always forcefully harsh. The boomers probably know they created and escalated the climate crisis, and don’t want to admit it. The politicians probably shy away from implementing policies that don’t market well to their base, caring more about re-election than pursuing the morally required solution to a crisis that’s already arrived.

Also probable is that fear permeates the hearts of those wealthy world businessmen and politicians—fear at the outright sincerity with which the young organize in response to climate change. The vast majority of us aren’t marching in a vain attempt to go viral or as a self-absorbed excuse to post on social media. We don’t demand change in order to advance our careers or make money. We protest because we are truly angry and afraid. We’ve inherited this completely unsolved existential threat everyone’s known about for decades, while those in power did nothing to stop it and even contributed to it. Despite our action, our voting, our undeniable expression within the democratic system, the same complacent, money-corrupted dirtbags remain in power. It’s not a small thing, what we ask for—we know that. But here’s one you may have heard before, boomers: you can’t write this essay the night before it’s due. And you’ve known about this one for a long time.

Overwhelming fear permeates the hearts of those wealthy world businessmen and politicians—fear at the outright sincerity with which the young organize in response to climate change. 

Mnuchin’s comments toward Thunberg exemplify the position politicians take on problems they don’t want to take responsibility for solving. The issue’s more complicated than it seems. It’ll take years—not worth our precious time. The irony becomes obvious when other topics supposedly have plain-and-simple solutions, only prevented from realization by the stonewalling of the other side. Policy is simple, except when you don’t want to do it. Then it becomes too complicated for the average citizen to understand, much less for a 17-year-old girl to lecture world leaders about.

This is not to claim all political problems possess clear and obvious solutions. But the climate crisis is one area in which the expert opinion points to the clearest consensus science can provide. The effects of climate change are here. There will be irreversible environmental damage if the 1.5 degree threshold is surpassed. And governmental intervention is the only way to effectively enforce environmental regulations. It doesn’t take an economics degree to see that.

The urgent sincerity of the young’s voice on climate change is the necessary reflection of the situation’s direness. In the words of Greta Thunberg, “We don’t want these things done by 2050, 2030 or even 2021. We want this done now.”