Should we restrict ourselves to save the planet?



In the green family, the main preposition has long been “against”. Against pollution, against pesticides, against the automobile… Lately, it is “without” which seems to prevail. Without what ? Without everything that emits huge amounts of greenhouse gases and disrupts the climate. In fact, more and more citizens are now deciding to “do without”: they limit or even stop meat, boycott plastic packaging, do without their car, as far as possible, refuse all air travel., offer themselves the opportunity rather than the new, and, in the case of the Ginks (green inclined, no kids), give up parenthood for the good of the planet.

“L’Obs” in 2049 Register for the meeting dedicated to climate, May 20, in Paris

But what good are these “small gestures” of a minority if the overwhelming majority of the population continues, in all carelessness, to vomit tons of CO?2 ? The “hummingbird fable”, very popular with fans of the peasant ecologist Pierre Rabhi, seems to have a blow in the wing: this comforting idea according to which the hummingbird will not put out the “big fire” by carrying a small drop in his beak, but will have the satisfaction of do your part is only a small consolation.

“An imposed decrease”

A new idea is therefore emerging, which looks a little like a question of the philo bac: should we demand from States that they oblige us to co

To read the remaining 82%,
test the offer at 1 € without obligation.



About the author

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *