Greta Thunberg.
I don't often get into conjoint topics, but why not do it this time. I listened carefully to Greta Thunberg's speech at the UN climate summit and did not like it very much. I found it overly pathetic, a little theatrical and actually a little ridiculous. However, it did not take too long before I realised that I was impressed by her emotional message. I became alert. I still stand by my first impression in terms of form, but I understood that the content had come through to me, precisely because of the form chosen. Ms Thunberg is a really good symbol of the issues presented. Swedish origin, pale face, hair in a braid and, above all, a family ancestor with a Nobel Prize in chemistry. Without any doubt, the "Greta effect" is so significant that to dismiss it with a sneer, a sneer or a wave of the hand is belated. Across generations, the shame syndrome of flying has already emerged and compensation for the carbon footprint caused by air travel has skyrocketed. Philanthropists and investors have increased their contributions to the Climate Rescue Fund and young people have become more engaged with environmentalism, zero waste lifestyles and the issue of saving the planet. Greta's inspiration, especially for young people around the world, is unquestionable. One example is Luisa Neubauer, a twenty-three-year-old German activist who, on somewhat more difficult ground in neighbouring Germany, is putting considerable pressure on politicians and making her voice heard. The criticism that Greta and Luisa are coming up with is mainly directed at climate change deniers and their political supporters. At a time when the Mont Blanc glacier is on the move and threatening local people, the important long-term average ocean temperature has been proven to be rising, and the world's sea levels are rising (6.9 mm from 1993 to 2017), it is not easy for climate sceptics to hold their ground. That humans are contributing to environmental trends through their activities is obvious and indisputable, and that it is more or less a negative effect is quite likely. Proposed and forthcoming climate interventions resembling a false desire to beat the wind and rain have little hope of being implemented because of their vague side effects and gigantic financial cost. Placing the blame for the state of the planet on the generation of our parents and grandparents is not constructive and, moreover, is unfair in view of completely different problems that were objectively prioritised by our ancestors fifty to a hundred years ago. The unanswered question is therefore a recipe that will ensure a healthier and more controllable evolution of the state of the environment, or at least reduce the interest on the repayment of the virtual eco-debt. If we accept that there is a solution at all, and that it is not a natural and irreversible attempt by nature to intervene in the evolutionary process and settle accounts with us over time, we should try to define it. Greta does not offer a solution, and no one of any judgement expects her to.