Greta’s show. This is the titled Cristian Valenzuela’s opinion column, published in La Tercera on 25 September. It slides various ratings of the performance of this remarkable Swedish girl, such as “stage”, “acting”. It is safeguarded, as it says that it is political suicide to oppose Greta’s postulates “and the Paris agreements”; the latter, not less, because it seems to attribute to Greta’s genius these “new” environmental positions.
In any case, such expressions and intentions expressed by the columnist are not the most striking, in my view.
Indeed, the most surprising thing is that later questions are asked that seem to give the line of waterway to the Gretan posture, not without first claiming that climate change, however evidence, cannot be used as an argument for “accepting without further ado the obligations that the world hierarchy wants to impose on us, especially on developing countries…”. As can be seen, some twists are missing from the reasoning spilled by the columnist.
Cristian wonders the following question: Why should Chile commit itself to the pair of developed countries that, today and historically, have issued many more tons of pollutants into the atmosphere and whose industrialization and development achieved at the expense of the future of the rest of the planet’s inhabitants? Why do we have to give up plastic light bulbs, coal-power plants, beef or the energy expenditure of a nation that is on the doorstep of development, to exchange it for cleaner but costly solutions for our economies , and that indefinitely postpone better living conditions for many Chileans who are nowhere near living in the conditions of their European peers?
As you can see, two fundamental questions, which at first glance seem to be easy to answer: We do not have to sacrifice our development; developed countries achieved such status at the expense of the rest of the world and now (imagine, now!), come to ask us to sacrifice our development to save the planet.
Well, like I said before, giving the whole thing a couple more turns. Indeed, the countries of the world, 80 years ago, were developing, more, which is the least, at the expense of the environment. It’s true. And this is because 80 years ago, without prejudice to the voices that rose along the way, there was no awareness of the magnitude of the damage that was done to the Earth.
The columnist says that we have no responsibility for the disaster, that this responsibility is from Sweden, a polluting country that sickened entire populations in Chile (the precise fact does not provide it; if it exists, it would be interesting if he had pointed out it). One more turn to the statement would have allowed her to realize that Greta is not a representative of Sweden, so we cannot blame her for such responsibility; In addition, it is 16 years old…
So, says Cristian, we don’t have to welcome Greta’s cry, of her show, because, she seems to say, we have the right to contribute our share of disaster to the massive environmental crisis that the world is experiencing. In other words, it seems to say that as long as we don’t reach development, we can destroy glaciers, pollute air and sea, raze forests, etc.
The answer to the questions Cristian asks is simple: we cannot afford to act as developed countries did, because the world, the Earth, will not resist it and we will condemn ourselves to extinction. If we do not act today, the “best living conditions” he claims for our compatriots simply will not come because there will be no place on Earth to house life. True, developed countries have advanced at the expense of the environment; Unfortunately today the damage is so severe that we cannot afford to do the same. That’s why, Cristian, we must stop using plastic bulbs, build coal-based power plants, because if we go down that path, the Earth is going to die. If so, I ask christian, where are we going to live?
Finally, it seems that Cristian feels challenged by Greta; he hasn’t destroyed anyone’s dreams except Greta’s. Cristian, the appeal was for world leaders, including the Swedes, not you; you and we have a moral duty to assume “so much responsibility in solutions,” because tomorrow your children, mine, everyone else’s, are going to have nowhere to live.
The content poured into this opinion column is the sole responsibility of its author, and does not necessarily reflect the editorial line or position of El Mostrador.