Alexis, an active member of the MARE, is also a columnist for FREE ENTRANCE, a Sherbrooke community newspaper. In this article taken up by the‘Quebec Community Written Media Association (AMECQ) as well as by the’Pressenza international press agency, he shares his questions about “post-Greta”.

The 27 September 2019, we were half a million people walking the streets of Montreal, making history, heart full of hope, handmade placard, chanting environmental slogans by the thousands. No overflow to report. Much to the chagrin of some commentators, the streets were even cleaner when the demonstrators left than when they arrived. A perfect manifestation indeed. At the same time, nearly ten thousand others demonstrated, same here, in Sherbrooke.

In response to the resounding cry of alarm from an entire generation who mobilized alongside parents and grandparents, the federal government has proposed to plant trees. They are still waiting. No change of course on the horizon. We heard you young people, it will be business as usual, but with a few more trees.

Then, the pandemic has slowed down the international momentum of citizen mobilization for environmental and climate justice. Today, even while trying to be optimistic, I doubt we will be able to do much better as a show of force. Greta and all her entourage will obviously not have been enough. I have often wondered what would have happened if the pandemic had not interrupted this movement. What would have been the next steps??

Faced with government inaction regarding the most significant crisis in human history, to what extent is it legitimate to continue the escalation of pressure tactics? Some groups advocate non-violent civil disobedience, many refuse, and others believe that it is now legitimate to go even further. I'll let you answer this question for yourself.. What I would like to focus on however, This is what we want to change. What do we want to get rid of, and especially, what do we want to replace it with? The question may seem simple, but answering them is generally more difficult than it seems.

More and more people seem to agree that the dominant socioeconomic system, capitalist and neoliberal, East, in its current form, dangerous for the environment, since it fuels overconsumption. Let us recall in passing that we are not simply dependent on this environment whose resources are being plundered., but that we are indeed part of it, as thick will be the walls of our houses. In environmental movements particularly, a considerable proportion of people will tell you that the capitalist system and its insatiable appetite for natural resource extraction are the source of the crisis. However, this is where things get tough. What do we aspire to, if not for this system? Many will talk to you about local commerce, active transport or even sober and carbon-free consumption. The most radical will dare to use the word “degrowth” and propose a more participatory form of democracy. These are credible ideas and laudable goals., but which do not represent a form of replacement socio-economic system. The words that once served to define alternatives to capitalism have been confiscated from us. If I say “anarchy”, we think “chaos”, if I talk about communism, I will be referred to the Chinese system and if I risked talking about socialism, I would probably get some references to Venezuela or Russia with a bit of luck. I doubt that one can seriously envision the desired society with just one path in mind., a unique system that we wrongly imagine has existed since the dawn of time.

If we want a more substantial change than a few more or fewer trees, perhaps it is time to really look at the alternatives. When the next Greta comes back to demonstrate here, alongside a huge crowd, will we know more about what we aspire to as a society?

Alexis Legault