I hate talk about environmental policy. I’m being silent when people say “climate”. It is not because I don’t care. I care a little too much. I’m generation Kykkelikokos. We had recycling as entertainment on lørdagsmorgenen. I grew up with a story about that “væla was a balloon that we æille lived on” and took for granted that when I was big, we would have fixed it miljøkrisa.
Now I have gone from “engaged miljøfantom” to the “sour bitch”. Was it during the first present coalition government when it was clear that oljeboringen continued (almost) as before? I went from thinking: “Klimakrisa, our times main kampsak!” to “Klimakrisa, the thing that stirs me with panikkangst that I completely have given up that we’ll get fixed.” Because no matter how knallgrønt and knallrødt I vote and how much I bikes returstasjonen and buy used and use menskopp, so it’s not. We need to kline about it to have any actual effect. But it is difficult.
the environmental movement has arrived in a rhetorical backwater where we need to suggest large and radical changes, at the same time as we have to promise that everything is going to continue as before. “Yes, the water is rising, but we must be careful ourselves to not hear out that dommedagsprofeter when we say it, that is! And so we must say that we should resolve the crisis in a manner that preserves the current economy and jobs and consumption, at least almost! No scary changes here!”
It makes me sour and resigned. I wish the economic crisis, but if I have to choose between “trouble in the economy” and “continue to have a north Pole”, so I know what I choose. We have had trouble in the economy before. We don’t know the consequences of that north Pole is melting, and we don’t get frozen down again. There should be a “no-brainer”. We have come to a point where all of the residents in this country know that we are in a klimakrise and that it is serious. (Even if you are one of them on “non-anthropogenic”-run, you know just as well as me that it is not the sun that makes that muslingene is full of plastpartikler.) So why is environmental policy our dinky somling? Perhaps, because they are the least scary suggestions everyone can agree on also has the mist effect.
When I weighed 100 kg, I tried to switch Jappen I ate it with a protein bar. I was hoping that the healthier option would make me less fat. Proteinbaren tasted admittedly as chocolate, looked like a chocolate and had about as many calories as a chocolate bar. It fit very well, since I didn’t want to stop with the chocolate. Sjokoladespisingen my was to keep the number of industries in time. Someone makes and sells chocolate. We know that it is not good for us. Therefore, it is also someone who makes and sells cheat-chocolate. I felt that I “took grip” by replacing the product, but I remained just as thick. It helped against the flesh, there was no one who earned money: I stopped eating between meals.
Chocolate-the situation regards in miljøland, also. We have a polluting option some serve on. And so we have a pretend eco-friendly option any also earn. Will we actually get results, we must cut out something. It means that someone loses money. It means that some must end with something nice they liked to have. I think that some of the suksesskriteriet trails miljødebatt is to be honest about that we actually have to make real cuts. It is better to be honest about the priorities than to try to make it a sexy & green shift.
the car parks, engangsbestikket, plane ticket to $ 1, and fresh raspberries in December is more easy and delicious than a bike with studs, lunchbox, bus for high-speed trains and local kale no matter how we sell it. But we all do it – at the macro level – for the same reason that I actually didn’t bother to slim me: Because we only have one planet, in the same way as I only have one body. And when are the cuts worth it.
It is not racist to point out that people are different Comment
