2019 | London

The Crisis Is Already Here

Greta Thunberg wants her future back.

My name is Greta Thunberg. I am sixteen years old. I come from Sweden. And I speak on behalf of future generations.

I know many of you don’t want to listen to us—you say we are just children. But we’re only repeating the message of the united climate science.

Many of you appear concerned that we are wasting valuable lesson time, but I assure you we will go back to school the moment you start listening to science and give us a future. Is that really too much to ask?

In the year 2030 I will be twenty-six years old. My little sister, Beata, will be twenty-three. Just like many of your own children or grandchildren. That is a great age, we have been told. When you have all of your life ahead of you. But I am not so sure it will be that great for us.

I was fortunate to be born in a time and place where everyone told us to dream big; I could become whatever I wanted to. I could live wherever I wanted to. People like me had everything we needed and more. Things our grandparents could not even dream of. We had everything we could ever wish for, and yet now we may have nothing.

Now we probably don’t even have a future anymore, because that future was sold so that a small number of people could make unimaginable amounts of money. It was stolen from us every time you said that the sky was the limit, and that you only live once.

You lied to us. You gave us false hope. You told us that the future was something to look forward to. And the saddest thing is that most children are not even aware of the fate that awaits us. We will not understand it until it’s too late. And yet we are the lucky ones. Those who will be affected the hardest are already suffering the consequences. But their voices are not heard.

Globe divided into climate zones, miniature from a twelfth-century edition of Macrobius’ Commentary on the Dream of Scipio. © DeA Picture Library / Art Resource, NY.

Globe divided into climate zones, miniature from a twelfth-century edition of Macrobius’ Commentary on the Dream of Scipio. © DeA Picture Library / Art Resource, NY.

Around the year 2030—10 years, 252 days, and 10 hours away from now—we will be in a position where we set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control that will most likely lead to the end of our civilization as we know it. That is, unless in that time permanent and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society have taken place, including a reduction of CO2 emissions by at least 50 percent.

And please note that these calculations are depending on inventions that have not yet been invented at scale, inventions that are supposed to clear the atmosphere of astronomical amounts of carbon dioxide.

Furthermore, these calculations do not include unforeseen tipping points and feedback loops like the extremely powerful methane gas escaping from rapidly thawing Arctic permafrost.

Nor do these scientific calculations include already locked-in warming hidden by toxic air pollution. Nor the aspect of equity—or climate justice—clearly stated throughout the Paris Agreement, which is absolutely necessary to make it work on a global scale.

We must also bear in mind that these are just calculations. Estimations. That means that these “points of no return” may occur a bit sooner or later than 2030. No one can know for sure. We can, however, be certain that they will occur approximately in these timeframes, because these calculations are not opinions or wild guesses.

These projections are backed up by scientific facts, concluded by all nations through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Nearly every single major national scientific body around the world unreservedly supports the work and findings of the IPCC.

The earth is our existence, and our body is attached to the earth.

—Daulat Qazi, 1650

During the last six months, I have traveled around Europe for hundreds of hours in trains, electric cars, and buses, repeating these life-changing words over and over again. But no one seems to be talking about it, and nothing has changed. In fact, the emissions are still rising.

Perhaps the most dangerous misconception about the climate crisis is that we have to “lower” our emissions. Because that is far from enough. Our emissions have to stop if we are to stay below 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius of warming. The “lowering of emissions” is of course necessary, but it is only the beginning of a fast process that must lead to a stop within a couple of decades, or less. And by stop I mean net-zero—and then quickly on to negative figures. That rules out most of today’s politics.

The fact that we are speaking of “lowering” instead of “stopping” emissions is perhaps the greatest force behind the continuing business as usual. The UK’s active current support of new exploitation of fossil fuels—for example, the UK shale gas fracking industry, the expansion of its North Sea oil and gas fields, the expansion of airports as well as the planning permission for a brand-new coal mine—is beyond absurd.

This ongoing irresponsible behavior will no doubt be remembered in history as one of the greatest failures of humankind.

People always tell me and the other millions of school strikers that we should be proud of ourselves for what we have accomplished. But the only thing that we need to look at is the emission curve. And I’m sorry, but it’s still rising. That curve is the only thing we should look at.

Every time we make a decision, we should ask ourselves, “How will this decision affect that curve?” We should no longer measure our wealth and success in the graph that shows economic growth but in the curve that shows the emissions of greenhouse gases. We should no longer only ask, “Have we got enough money to go through with this?” but also “Have we got enough of the carbon budget to spare to go through with this?” That should and must become the center of our new currency.

Heritage, by Cai Guo-Qiang, 2013. Ninety-nine life-size polystyrene, gauze, resin, and hide replicas of animals; installed dimensions variable. © Cai Guo-Qiang, courtesy Queensland Art Gallery | Gallery of Modern Art. Commissioned 2013 with funds from the

Heritage, by Cai Guo-Qiang, 2013. Ninety-nine life-size polystyrene, gauze, resin, and hide replicas of animals; installed dimensions variable. © Cai Guo-Qiang, courtesy Queensland Art Gallery | Gallery of Modern Art. Commissioned 2013 with funds from the Josephine Ulrick and Win Schubert Diversity Foundation through and with the assistance of the Queensland Art Gallery | Gallery of Modern Art Foundation. Photograph: Jon Linkins.

Many people say that we don’t have any solutions to the climate crisis. And they are right. Because how could we? How do you “solve” the greatest crisis that humanity has ever faced? How do you “solve” a war? How do you “solve” going to the moon for the first time? How do you “solve” inventing new inventions?

The climate crisis is both the easiest and the hardest issue we have ever faced. The easiest because we know what we must do. We must stop the emissions of greenhouse gases. The hardest because our current economics are still totally dependent on burning fossil fuels, and thereby destroying ecosystems in order to create everlasting economic growth.

“So exactly how do we solve that?” you ask us—the schoolchildren striking for the climate.

And we say, “No one knows for sure. But we have to stop burning fossil fuels and restore nature and many other things that we may not have quite figured out yet.”

Then you say, “That’s not an answer!”

So we say, “We have to start treating the crisis like a crisis, and act even if we don’t have all the solutions.”

“That’s still not an answer,” you say.

Then we start talking about circular economy and rewilding nature and the need for a just transition. Then you don’t understand what we are talking about.

We say that all those solutions needed are not known to anyone and therefore we must unite behind the science and find them together along the way. But you do not listen to that. Because those answers are for solving a crisis that most of you don’t even fully understand. Or don’t want to understand.

You don’t listen to the science, because you are only interested in solutions that will enable you to carry on like before. Like now. And those answers don’t exist anymore. Because you did not act in time.

Noah’s ark, miniature from Seyyid Lokman’s The Cream of Histories, 1583. © Universal Images Group / Art Resource, NY.

Noah’s ark, miniature from Seyyid Lokman’s The Cream of Histories, 1583. © Universal Images Group / Art Resource, NY.

Avoiding climate breakdown will require cathedral thinking. We must lay the foundation while we may not know exactly how to build the ceiling.

Sometimes we just simply have to find a way. The moment we decide to fulfill something, we can do anything. And I’m sure that the moment we start behaving as if we were in an emergency, we can avoid climate and ecological catastrophe. Humans are very adaptable; we can still fix this. But the opportunity to do so will not last for long. We must start today. We have no more excuses.

We children are not sacrificing our education and our childhood for you to tell us what you consider is politically possible in the society that you have created. We have not taken to the streets for you to take selfies with us and tell us that you really admire what we do.

We children are doing this to wake the adults up. We children are doing this for you to put your differences aside and start acting as you would in a crisis. We children are doing this because we want our hopes and dreams back.

Contributor

Greta Thunberg

From a speech to the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The daughter of an opera singer and an actor, Thunberg was born in Stockholm in 2003. “I just wondered if I am going to have a future,” she recalled thinking when she learned about climate change at the age of eight. In August 2018, inspired by student walkouts organized by survivors of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, Thunberg began what she called a “school strike for climate” to pressure the Swedish Parliament into adopting the Paris Climate Agreement. Seven months later she was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize.