2 –
First question:
why get into the fight?

The first question, unlike the ones that follow, requires few additional observations. The new movement expresses a remarkable clarity of views. In a document dated March 15, 2019 - the beginning of the FfF demonstrations - and signed by Greta Thunberg and seven other activists, all the reasons that led to a "movement that was to be born" are illustrated. The climate crisis is mentioned by reviewing the events that testify to its dramatic evolution: anomalous fires, floods, droughts. And then the collapse of entire ecosystems whose function, for millions of years, has been to regulate the stability of the Earth. In short, what is prefigured is an authentic apocalyptic scenario.

In this context, the States do nothing but periodically establish climate negotiations that conclude, each time, with agreements and protocols. However, every encounter leads to nothing. The activists noted "how fossil fuel companies have been given free hand in gutting our lands, drilling holes in the soil and burning our future for their profit" clearly demonstrating the subordination of states to the interests of oil companies and multinationals unscrupulous to achieve the formation of colossal profits.

We are not faced with superficial young people. Scientists from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represent the engine of the new awareness. The alarm cry that, like an avalanche, is producing great effects of collective awareness is due to the work of these scholars. The insistence on the consequences that would derive from temperature increases of more than 2 ° C arises within science. The work of climate scholars - a work that has years of research behind it - has created that widespread, though still insufficient, sensitivity that underlies the work of environmental movements.

Therefore, we believe that the question "why fight" must be answered: "to create the conditions for reproducing life in a universal climate that guarantees peace between every people and their environments, and among the peoples themselves". But at this point we should ask ourselves whether a destructive industry like that of weapons which, in addition to being criminal in itself, has an immense impact on the environment and on the production of CO2 should not be progressively, and as quickly as possible, dismantled. In addition, attention must jump to nuclear weapons. Weapons that can erase life on Earth, not once, but hundreds of times, aren't they another unbearable threat to future generations? Here, yes, could open a very harsh judgment on past generations! Only a few lucid people have always fought to the point of exhaustion for peace, for disarmament and for the cancellation of weapons that only paranoid mentalities have been able to conceive. And then we should ask ourselves how past generations have been able to accept to live with such monstrous tools to date without experiencing the slightest concern. The revocation of the nuclear-powered missile treaty signed in 1987 increases the risk of a misadventure that, once started, would not stop until after the total destruction of the Earth. There are too many Strangelove around, to be able to live in peace! If the increase in CO2 produces a lethal effect on the climate, the use of nuclear weapons, which silently wait for their moment of glory in the silos, would have even more tragic and definitive effects.

And then, an extraordinary mobilization cannot be the occasion to start a universal revolution capable of changing life on Earth forever? Wouldn't it be fundamental to free life from the danger of its definitive shutdown?