The Global Climate Strike Refuses To Be Heard But Not Heeded

The Global Climate Strike was not simply a protest. It was, in my opinion, the greatest example of democracy I have ever had the privilege of participating in. Those who have promised to uphold this system to the best of their abilities have, for the most part, heard what was said. However, there is a difference between being heard and being listened to. It was easy to hear us. I heard the cries of distant chants and felt the ground shake ever so slightly with the heavy steps of the 315,000 climate strikers at Fulton Square before I even left Chambers Street. The difficulty is the message being listened to—our warning heeded. It only takes a louder volume to overcome an ear hard of hearing, but to overcome an ear purposely plugged requires persistence. Luckily, the activists have that in spades. The message of the six million protesters worldwide is clear: Our planet will endure, but our extinction is promised unless we change. It’s simply up to the elected officials to listen and then act.

The original purpose of the Global Climate Strike was to draw politicians’ attention to the public’s demand for climate justice, though this was lost upon many, including myself, until arriving at the march. Not to mention, the original purpose of the march was muddled with the various agendas of different marchers. It was meant to be a day for the citizens of the 150 different countries that participated to tell their governments that they are, as the NYC protesters put it, “embarrassments.” Yet despite the overwhelming turnout, the response by the United Nations (U.N.) at the 2019 Climate Summit the next day was more than lackluster. It was downright shameful. Hundreds of youth activists chose to spend the Saturday at the U.N.’s New York headquarters in hopes of speaking to powerful adults who could enact the “real change” that skeptics believe protesting cannot achieve. What happened instead was hours of waiting due to poor organization and adult-led workshops intended to teach media-literacy to teenagers. Whether or not the U.N. will ever recognize the irony of this, we may never know. Nonetheless, it would not be a stretch to say that the politicians and their rudimentary seminars were condescending toward very capable teenagers. Though hard to admit, our representatives have made it abundantly clear the cries of millions fell more or less on deaf ears at a time when change is no longer a matter of preference but necessity.

It is no overstatement that we are the final generation that can end climate change before the catastrophic consequences of our collective actions fall upon us. Studies from NASA, NOAA, the Japan Meteorological Agency, and the U.K.’s Met Office Hadley Centre all come to the same conclusion: the Earth has been rapidly warming in the past few decades, with no signs of stopping as the global temperature rises 1.4 ̊ F annually. The long-term effects of climate change include coastal flooding, heat waves, and intense precipitation. Studies from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America theorize that if greenhouse gas emissions continue on their current trajectory, crop yields could fall 35 percent by 2100. As much as some would love to wash their hands of guilt by claiming these statistics are just caused by natural variability, the facts sing a different tune. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states that there’s more than a 95 percent probability that our activities over the last half century have caused this warming.

Despite the overwhelming facts, change has not occurred on its own. In fact, the situation becomes more dire. President Donald J. Trump has cut funding from the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, as well as millions of dollars from other EPA programs. Overall, the officials we have elected into office are twiddling their thumbs as we hurdle into the bright future they promised us but in the sense that the world is on fire.

In this regard, the skeptics are right. The Global Climate Strike did not have the tangible results we aimed for. However, I refuse to believe that the contrarians have an answer to the issues at hand. The arguments I heard while engaging with my peers who were not in support of the march centered around civil disobedience, patriotism, and practicality. Contrary to my original thoughts, being against the Global Climate Strike does not necessarily mean that one is not progressive in their opinions on climate change and climate justice. Some see the strike as too weak to make an impact and therefore a waste of time because of it being co-opted by the government. These “anti-strikers” see the New York public school system allowing students to strike as long as they provide a permission slip as an act of nullifying the strike’s impact.

Comparisons to the National School Walkout Against Gun Violence were often made. I can understand this frustration as I, too, was against the gun violence walkout because it was co-opted by the D.O.E. The comparison falls flat, though, when considering who was in opposition to the protest. The gun violence walkout was intended to be a protest against poor gun legislation. Therefore, when the cause became controlled by the school system, it lost its bite. The Global Climate Strike is not between students and the school system but between the activists trying to protect the Earth and those who sit idly by as our planet is exploited.

There is something powerful to be said about the largest public school district in the nation allowing their students to miss a day of education to participate in a battle worth fighting for. Henry David Thoreau, the political thinker who coined the term “civil disobedience,” despised, more than anything, political passivity. We, the morally inclined public, are obligated to resist when our representatives veer away from the path best for humanity and the Earth. If one wishes to complain, complain with us on the streets about the problem at our doorstep, as opposed to complaining about us attempting to help solve the problem for you. Only one option can instigate change.

Be that as it may, there are those anti-strikers that disagree simply by principle. These people find that the march is inherently unpatriotic, a sentiment I understand. It would be a lie to say that I was less than uncomfortable as small factions of the march began chanting maliciously about America as a whole. As someone who finds a great deal of pride in being an American despite the country’s many flaws, I can certainly understand why the Global Climate Strike can be seen as anti-American. In response to these sentiments, however, patriotism is not blindly following America’s administration. It is the civic duty of an American citizen to think on their own accord every day in order to improve America. We wish not to have no American government but to have a better American government. By following elected officials for no reason other than their government status does a disservice to one’s country.

For those who argue about the “practicality” of the march, bear in mind that a day spent protesting is not some fun hangout with friends. The youth are often berated for pretending to be grown up but do not actually enjoy having to make the change the adults should have done by themselves. We do this not for the sake of being self-righteous but because it simply must be done, and we can no longer trust the adults in the room to do so. We must all face the reality that, as NYC’s Global Strike Director and senior Grace Goldstein put it, “Nothing has ever been changed by sitting at home. Participation is not simply important but is the sole driving force of revolution.”

President Trump may sarcastically refer to the heroes that lead the movement against mass extinction as “very happy young girl[s] looking forward to a bright and wonderful future” as much as he pleases. This movement is too powerful to acknowledge snide remarks from grown men. Wherever we are not received, we shall shake the dust off our feet as a protest against them.

I believe that I speak for The Spectator when I say that the cost of negligence is too great. Admittedly, I have hidden my true feelings through bravura. I am afraid. I write this piece from a deep fear that I will leave Stuyvesant and later regret never speaking up on a day where the only thing we can do is regret. The politicians can afford to be condescending to the youth activists and be negligent of the catastrophe hovering above our heads because it will not be their future. It will be my future and it will be yours. Whether or not you are of the mindset that the Global Climate Strike was effective or not, we must all be wary of the change that is happening. My only wish is to wake up one morning and look back to see that we were capable of changing with it.