Never say you haven’t been warned. Greta Thunberg could be that one butterfly flapping her wings to cause a blitz somewhere.
Swedish environmental activist Greta, now at 16, made an impassioned speech before world leaders in the recent United Nations Climate Action Summit. “You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words,” the emphatic Greta told the policymakers.
She was eight when she first heard about climate change in school. Last year, she walked out of class to demonstrate outside the Swedish parliament, calling for intense climate action. The act resonated in many parts of the world; students engaged in similar protests in their communities.
Shortly after her emphatic rebuke in the summit, she along with 15 other children filed a complaint with the UN against five of the world’s major economies: Germany, France, Brazil, Argentina and Turkey. They said these countries, signatories to the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, are singled out for failing to reduce greenhouse gases adequately. The United States and China declined to sign the climate treaty and thus could not be petitioned.
The Philippines has never been far behind in producing her own Greta. In July 1993, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a group of children who acted on behalf of the future generations. They asked Government to cancel timber licenses on grounds that they violate their basic constitutional right to a healthy ecology. The landmark decision brought to light the doctrine of “intergenerational responsibility.” The court found that the children can very well file a class suit on behalf of the future generations of children who will have to bear the brunt of oblivious cutting of trees.
The case was the Filipino children’s contribution to the development of international environmental laws.
The lesson here is that, yes, something can be done. The cultural impact of children’s actions in environmental advocacy cannot be denied. Policymakers and industry officials should better take heed.