Mixed metaphors can be fun. Me, I’d love to see an image depicting our society plummetting towards the edge of a cliff like lemmings in headless chicken mode. I’m almost tempted to take up the art of, err, ‘cartooning’ — see, I don’t even what it’s called, so that road would be a long, uphill one for me!
There are numerous people who support the destruction of our climate (I’m sorry, I means free enterprise and “cheap abundant energy”) and spend millions on adds and politicians to get what they want. Where are our rich influential people?
I am often tempted to believe that greed is so powerful that it makes the urge to acquire override all other considerations. As in ‘the love of money is the root of all evil.’
But, surely, it can’t be the case that the ability to accumulate wealth really is inconsistent with an ethical, moral, environmental conscience.
If that is true, then the answer to the question is simply that there are no rich influential ‘green’ people; and, worse, those who appear to be are simply giving us two-faced lip service.
But if it is true, then the only way we can possibly find the means to fund realistic efforts to turn aside from the cliffs ahead is by sharing the load. Crowdsourcing. If, for whatever reason, we’re unable to take action ourselves, maybe we could be kicking a few more of our precious pennies to those organisations whose hearts are in the right place and who are actually doing something. Greenpeace. Friends of the Earth. The World Wildlife Fund.
I wonder if there are any Kickstarter ‘save humanity from itself’ projects? (and if not: why not?).
The more of us who act, the less we each have to contribute. (I actually think this is the basic idea behind taxation, although that has become a dirty word because of the way in which our governments spend our money). The ‘1%’ may hold an increasingly unfair proportion of the funds, but ‘we the 99%’ have more wealth available to us in total.