We’re (Mostly) All “Anti-Greta”s, Sorry Seibt
On Feb. 23, the Washington Post profiled the so-called “anti-Greta”, a 19-year-old from Germany who supposedly stands as a counter to Greta Thunberg, the now famous climate activist from Sweden.
Naomi Seibt, the German young adult at the heart of the WaPo piece, rallies against what she calls “climate alarmism” and has even called environmental awareness “a despicably anti-human ideology”, according to the piece.
Perhaps not surprisingly, Seibt has the vocal support of various conservative and libertarian think tanks and political groups in the U.S.
This support has catapulted her right to the center of one of American conservatism's biggest events: the Conservative Political Action Conference, better known as the acronym CPAC.
Seibt does not argue that greenhouse gases are warming the planet. Instead, she claims that the scientific community, and activists like Thunberg, have overstated and exaggerated the problem at hand.
This puts Seibt in an interesting position. She is not blatantly denying scientific fact, so one cannot make the argument that she is actively spreading disinformation.
That said, she does actively refute the notion that human activity is drastically and irreversibly destroying the planet.
This is incredibly problematic, as it gives those against climate policy a voice that some conservative thinkers believe rivals that of Greta Thunberg.
It is obvious even to climate skeptics that Thunberg’s popularity has spurred a variety of people to take and demand action from elected officials.
If there is someone rivaling that, who will win out?
And, at the end of the day, why does this really matter?
It matters because our history up until this point shows that the anti-Greta attitude has always won out.
We are in the global crisis we are in now precisely because so many people did (and continue to) not listen to the scientists and activists who raised warning signs about the climate dilemna.
Our continued hesitancy to make sweeping policy changes of any kind shows that we, as a collective society, are much more like Seibt than we are like Thunberg in our actions.
And yet, conservative think tanks still felt the need to recruit a hero of their own, a similarly-aged young woman from Europe to be their talking point at CPAC and beyond.
Seibt even has a profile in the Washington Post. She’s gaining traction and quickly gaining notoriety as well.
But why must we fight Greta with an anti-Greta?
Why can’t we just say that this young woman argues against climate action. And why does arguing against climate action still warrant international profile?
It seems an easy way to distance our own actions from the problems at hand.
When bestowing the “anti-Greta” title on one person, we absolve ourselves of our own faults and problems.
In reality, Seibt is not truly worthy of the title she has been granted.
One person is not the “anti-Greta.”
The truth is, a large part of human society acts in a way entirely antithetical to the goals of not just Thunberg, but the entire scientific community who has advocated for drastic changes.
The title cannot just be given to one 19-year-old with a YouTube channel and a think tank support group.
We all deserve to bear the title, and we should all have to shoulder the consequences that come with it.
