Yes! How dare you?!

Greta Thunberg has been getting more than a fair share of flak for putting herself out there—more than most in quantity. Let's leave aside the patronization she gets for being just a kid, having a "mental disorder" or any other right-wing narrative. Those arguments don't deserve any credit. They're just toeing the line because the people who scream them are just dissonant with how the views in their head don't line up with what their eyes actually see in the world. Sadly enough, that how most people pick up and perceive with their views these days. Moving on.

Most people, the opposing inspiration of whom are worth a ear, are irritated with her tone, but don't disagree with her message. Some say that she has said nothing new, nor she offered new and better solutions. Why can't she be a Boyan Slat or Sharon Barak? They, and others like them, have designed actual solutions and did R&D about the problem. Actually, there's a perfectly good reason why being like them isn't necessarily better.

Let's understand why. Case in point: In India, people are in love with throwing their garbage anywhere, as long as it's convenient. If someone did a Greta Thunberg, they would rally for awareness and 'how dare you' everyone of us who is brainless enough to do this. They'd be saying the right thing while pissing people off for her tone. Most of us will think that she's more than just a tad bit self righteous, and be put off from her actual message. If someone 'actually did something', they'd be setting up garbage bins, and easily comprehendable and followable ecosystems so that the garbage stays off the streets and goes where it should. Or even better come up with solutions where most of what we throw away is decompostable, and long term reusability solutions for what isn't.

With the first case, they'd be labelled another kind of arm chair activist. The second could possibly be more welcomed as it doesn't push anyone's buttons which is what those opposing her don't want. Anything closer to keeping the peace of status quo will do, ironically when that's the exact thing that got us here in the first place! I want to prick the thick status quo deeper and talk about the real issue: Policy vs. Practice, or as it can be better understood Individual vs. Government.

We pride ourselves in using cloth bags, decomposing at home, reusing instead of throwing away, sticking to public transport and eco-friendly cars... all cute and all needed. But these practices will never match up to the impact of policy—when this cute intention is given a full armour multiplies the effect by infinity when done right. Leave alone match up, our little acts of charity won't ever add up to any good unless it is the prevailing culture. If it already is, Government codifies it and gives it infrastructure that works. If it isn't, Government needs to lay down the law and bring it into culture. With no action from them, we see no action that translates into results—just noble acts of environmental martyrdom that are frameable.

So when Greta Thunberg says, "How dare you?", she's saying, "How dare you sit down on all this opportunity, when you hold the keys to the biggest door of change possible?". There are people who have done a lot more like Saalumarada Thimmakka, Jadav Payeng, Sebastião Salgado and many more. They are like the people who, in our case in point above, set up garbage bins and gently push at the status quo so that they don't cause a ruckus. They get their applause and may even be effective but they haven't yet hit the core of the issue. But as long as we have people who still refuse to use them, put their waste around it like rangoli instead, don't segregate, choose their dumping spots at will, and governments who simply don't have the will to pave the way, lay down the law and set the ground work for a better handling and disposal of our garbage, you're going to need a Greta Thunberg to ask them, "How dare you?", in their face.

There is no softer way around to a better world with a lot of issues and some of them are clearly more important than others. Some people have claimed that she is privileged to even have that opinion and some of the people and country she's accusing have bigger fish to fry at home like poverty and economy—that her view is single focused and "narrow minded". Could it not only be that if they were not as narrow minded to think of these issues as separate ones, or drive their nations and economy with a closes view, they would wouldn't have these problems in the first place? Yes, these are connected, as is how we think about planet, pollution and green, sustainable living. If we wait a few more years or decades to solve them, an increasingly inhabitable world will await us then. And if this is our response now, and we are ready to respond only then, imagine how the Earth will be tied for hope (when we actually want to do something about it).

We will never solve problems with the attitude that gave them to us in the first place. If the attitude is really that bad, what we need is a paradigm shift. If it is indeed that bad that we are are drowning in it that we can't see beyond, what we need the likes of Greta Thunberg to rudely wake you up just the way they do. The least we could do is engage and counter instead of discounting it—for our own good. But if we think the world is fine and dandy, enough to swipe left on a fresh, bright, albeit a bit in-your-face idea we need, it just shows what unrealistic privilege we ourselves think we should be entitled to.