By Alejandro A. Tagliavini *

 

Beyond the ridiculous proposal of this girl – who looks like a television bestseller – since, among other things, I don’t see how all transoceanic flights could be replaced by boat trips, it is very dangerous the level of violence and potential conflicts proposed.

A column from the ABC of Madrid tells us that, after more than 20 days of traveling on the «La Vagabonde» catamaran, the girl has to travel the route from Lisbon to Madrid to reach the Climate Summit, COP25. The options were the train or the electric car and the Government of Extremadura offered the second, but the young woman preferred the train.

In any case, the Platform Save the Mountain of Cáceres, which opposes the construction of a lithium mine, asked to reject the car because it carries the polluting lithium battery. Greta would travel in the electric Train Hotel Lusitania, but it turns out that on a 100 kilometer stretch it uses a diesel locomotive.

Thus, the best thing this girl could do is to stay at home and dedicate herself to her family, work and study instead of proposing young people to leave schools, jobs and their families to “demonstrate” in the streets asking for more violence .

Let’s see, there are three versions about the “climate change”. Nonexistent. The most credible, that it is true but, as Susan Allan Block – who has studied permaculture and belongs to an old family of farmers – points out it is not new, but rather the earth has always warmed up – glaciers melted, dinosaurs disappeared- and seems very egocentric to pretend that human beings can jeopardize the immense and wise nature.

And finally the official “scientific” affirmation – of the UN – that Greta assumes and that ensures that climate change is serious and caused by human beings. Like any arrogant attitude, which insists that it is “scientific” precisely because it is not, it does not accept other versions and not even “the benefit of the doubt.” What they say is the “only truth” and, therefore, must be imposed violently, using the armed forces of the States.

That is, they propose to create conflicts and violently overwhelm those who oppose their proposals. Immorality is undeniable. Adam Ferguson wrote in Institutes of Moral Philosophy that “The fundamental law of morality … is prohibitive and outlaws bad behavior.” That is, even if the officials had the “only truth” violent imposition is not acceptable, violence is not acceptable.

“It is never lawful, even for very serious reasons, to do evil, so that good may come … even if it is done with the intention of safeguarding … individual, family or social goods,” says Paul VI in Humanae vitae. And John Paul II, in Veritatis Splendor, denounces the theory of lesser evil: “For some, behavior … would be right or wrong depending on whether or not it could produce a better state of affairs … therefore would be right if it is capable of ‘maximizing’ the goods and ‘minimize’ the evils … ” underlining that evil is always evil and can never be justified to the point that this “finds a particularly eloquent confirmation in the fact of Christian martyrdom, which has always accompanied … the life of the Church.”

To top it off, ironically, the armed forces with which they would impose “actions against climate change,” as specialist Jorge Amador assures, are the most polluting corporations on the planet.

 

* Member of the Advisory Board of the Center on Global Prosperity, of Oakland, California

@alextagliavini

www.alejandrotagliavini.com