Must they? This sounds rather authoritarian
Parenting must be political in the shadow of climate change and the planet our children will inherit
In 2016, I became a mother for the first time. Many first-time mothers experience a profound shift in perspective and concern for the health and wellbeing of their new baby, which can become an intense focus on their child’s health, safety and nutrition.
My “new mother” anxiety became fixated on climate change and the degradation of the planet she would inherit. I spent the first few years of her life becoming increasingly preoccupied with the subject, endeavouring to change every aspect of my lifestyle to limit the impact I believed I was having on her future and on the planet.
Sounds like she went full cult and probably ignored her child and husband
Those years were a desperately anxious time for me, but in the process I became increasingly knowledgeable about the subject. I soon realised whatever individual changes I made would have virtually no impact on a planetary phenomenon of this scale.
Through deep dives into the science, I came to understand climate change was itself a symptom of the way we have organised our societies and economies. What was required was change at a societal, economic and global level.
Why, because you say so? Get f*cked
As a result, I turned my focus towards politics, because I saw political action as one of the principal means through which change could happen at national and international level.
My growing awareness coincided with the emergence of Greta Thunberg and Extinction Rebellion, and the rise of Green parties across Europe in the latter part of the 2010s. There seemed to be a rapidly growing public awareness of the climate crisis, reflected in the ‘Green Wave’ in Irish politics at the time.
So, wackos being wackos
Too often, people are presented with the absurdity of small individual behavioural changes as an adequate response to a crisis they are simultaneously told is structural, economic and global in scale.
Ultimately, one of the most effective things any of us can do is engage in our communities and political system, and push relentlessly for change at national and international level.
As we strive for meaningful change, we should be attuned to our concerns being mocked, dismissed or shamed. Shame is one of the most powerful and corrosive emotions for a socially attuned species. It can be an extraordinarily effective and manipulative weapon.
Really, this kind of crap is pre-COVID thought, where fewer people want government involved in forcing them to live a certain life, drive certain vehicles, eat certain things, etc. People may Believe in theory, but, these days people are backing away from the cult in government
There is nothing shameful about demanding that governments act quickly and effectively in response to climate change. There is nothing irrational about being frightened by what the science is telling us. And there is nothing extreme about demanding that the scale of the political response reflect the scale of the threat.
I’m not sure how many times I have written and said it, but, why is it that the cult members always want government to force Everyone Else to live a certain life while never talking about how they’ve changed their own lives?
Teach everyone HAS changed their ways. Each year Americans have decreased their carbon footprint by 1% now totaling about a 25% decrease. This will continue with big drops in the transportation sector as electrification of continues. Lol even you have chosen to drive a partially electrified car. By 2035 the carbon footprint of average American will have been reduced by 40%.
Do you really think that BIG GOVERNMENT forced that consortium of shoppers to place Tesla’s largest single order of 2500 class 8 trucks? Or do you think they ordered them because they reduce fuel costs by 2/3s ?
Once again, the guy using an alias has mistaken correlation for causality:
The government banned the production and sale of incandescent bulbs, and a lot of people were pissed off, because the only replacements were the awful CFL bulbs. But then LED bulbs were improved, and the costs came down, and people, including me, gladly adopted them because they were an improved and much more practical choice. I installed a solar-and-wind-powered clothes dryer not to save electricity, but because my wife liked the way clothes smelled after being line-dried.
Our esteemed host’s article was about our good friends on the left trying to use politics to force people to do things. The Pyrite State and the bumbling Biden Administration tried to put regulations which would have required all new vehicles sold after 2035 to be plug-in electric; our host chose a hybrid, because he decided that such a vehicle best fit his needs.
But it’s also true that Americans have mostly abandoned smaller sedans in favor of SUVs, and full-sized trucks now seem to dominate the passenger vehicle market; the Ford F-150 has been the best selling vehicle on the road for decades now, and Chevy and Dodge pickups — Chevy and Dodge make pickups, but Ford builds trucks! — are also selling well. It’s amusing: as families have gotten smaller, vehicles have gotten bigger. This is the result of the free choices made by consumers.
It’s simple: if you present the American people with better options, they will adopt those options. If you try to force people to do as you say, you’ll get resistance.
“I’m not sure how many times I have written and said it, but, why is it that the cult members always want government to force Everyone Else to live a certain life while never talking about how they’ve changed their own lives?”
That’s what cults DO.
“Lol even you have chosen to drive a partially electrified car.”
Key word there is “chosen”.
“Do you really think that BIG GOVERNMENT forced that consortium of shoppers to place Tesla’s largest single order of 2500 class 8 trucks?”
If ‘that consortium’ (what consortium? not defined, but I’m pretty sure that individual consumers weren’t the buyers) chooses to do that, that’s their problem.
It’s sad – but typical of liberals – that you don’t get the difference between choice and government mandates. Government mandates promoted by ignorant liberals being the point of the article.
Willy needs to cut down on coffee!!
He accuses the author of neglecting her family (as if an incel knows anything about “family”).
He then tells her to “get fucked” (as if…).
He calls a mother concerned about her children’s future “a wacko” (what does Willy even know about chlldren?)
Unless you have a child, you should shut the fuck up about global warming.
Our socialist simp from St Louis goes on the personal attack mode:
First of all, coffee is proof that God loves us!
Does our esteemed host not have a family? If he has a ‘nuclear family’ at home in Raleigh, he hasn’t told us, but that does not mean he knows nothing about a family. The distinguished Mr Dowd calls him an “incel,” or involuntarily celibate, without knowing whether Mr Teach is celibate, or whether if so, it’s involuntarily.
Has our esteemed host ever said that he has no “chlldren”? He’s old enough to have ‘grandchlldren’ if he has, in the past, fathered “chlldren” about whom he’s kept private.
Well, I guess that excludes me, since I do have now-adult children.
I get it: the thin-skinned Mr Dowd loves to make personal attacks on those he sees as having personally attacked him. Yet Mr Teach only rarely comments on his own articles, and even then it’s usually on his music pieces; if some have called Mr Dowd unpleasant names, our host has not been among them.
Introducing an AMAZING Editorial Page – Issues and Insights:
https://commoncts.blogspot.com/2026/09/introducing-amazing-editorial-page.html