No, I Don’t Want To Eat Cockroaches
It’s time for environmentalists to change message.
In recent years, the environmental movement has begun getting more aggressive.
It’s common knowledge that carbon emissions will pass a point of no return by 2030, and given we only have 10 years left before that date, environmental advocates have justifiably become nervous. They’ve gotten more upfront with their demands, starting global climate strikes and trying to rally everyone around the issue of climate change.
All of this is well and good, as we need solid climate activism, however there have been some questionable things that have spawned as a result.
Prime examples are environmentalists who focus on lifestyle over political advocacy. These advocates are telling consumers they need to take matters into their own hands and make personal changes to minimize their impact on the environment, which sounds fine until you dig deeper.
There are some okay ideas, such as using public transportation more or getting your power from companies who use renewable energy sources, but there are also some pretty insane ones.
For example, there’s a large push for people to begin eating “alternative food” like bugs and even roadkill, because it’s supposed to be more environmentally friendly than normal food.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I think the environment is the most important issue we face. Climate change is a looming threat, and we need to take bold action to cut carbon emissions and stop it, however the advocates proposing changes like this one are taking it too far.
I mean, seriously, when you think of a futuristic, eco-conscious lifestyle, living in a society of prosperity and hope, do you imagine drinking cockroach shakes for dinner and riding a dim, drafty subway to work? Because that’s what many environmentalists seem to be picturing when they imagine a “sustainable future”.
There is this constant focus on what we are going to lose in the name of helping the environment. The way it seems, we won’t be able to do things like drive cars, fly in planes, or even eat real meat, as those things all affect the environment too greatly, and instead we have to settle for suboptimal alternatives.
Obviously this isn’t what climate activists are imagining — sure, there will be some things we’ll have to give up, but there’s also a lot we can gain.
By cutting down on fossil fuels, we’ll also be transitioning to better energy sources that are more efficient and won’t be depleted before the end of the century. By eating less meat, we’ll also switch to diets that are healthier for us. By switching to public transit, we’ll also create more robust public infrastructure, and we’ll build a society that’s more interconnected and capable of global competitiveness.
These are just a few societal benefits that will come from instating climate solutions, but environmental advocates aren’t jumping on this. Instead, there’s just a focus on keeping us below 2°C of warming, and limiting carbon emissions, with all kinds of seemingly restrictive solutions being named as the means to do so.
The solution to this is very straightforward: expand the scope of the environmental movement.
When presenting these ideas, don’t just discuss how they’ll limit carbon emissions, make sure to also mention how they’ll benefit society. Discuss how they’ll connect us, make us more independent, make us healthier, make us more modern, because those things will make the ideas stick, and will take credibility away from critics who say these climate solutions will only serve to make life worse.
And also, stop telling us to eat bugs. Because none of us want to.
