If the forest perishes, the fauna may go with it as a metaphor that refers how global warming is affecting to our planet and how its consequences will affect to its inhabitants, that is us. It was 50 years ago when the Stanford Research Institute reported the impacts of CO2 and warned about the climatic changes such as temperature increases, melting of ice caps and sea level rise. Since then, and especially over the last few years we’ve been warned on the news and campaigns about this issue, the consequences and how to possibly prevent them. However, we’ve got to a point where there’s no way we can’t stop global warming consequences, but there are ways to reduce its impact. “How to” has never been a secret but it seems like the message doesn’t get across very efficiency. Skeptics and deniers are a good amount of the population but they exist are also in our governments. On the post true era, conspiranoia is on agenda. It may be easier to blame old bad politics, or to simply blink an eye and keep behaving without taking responsibility to an actual existing problem as it is global warming. Information has been pumped to us everyday. New generations are being raised with catastrophic images and stories. We suffer from intoxication and our brain has get used to fear, plus we don’t really live the direct consequences on western Europe, apart from extreme weather, but not as much as in other parts of the planet.

In his article; The Ecosocial Crisis Requires Neither Apocalyptic Catastrophism nor Techno-optimism, Luis Prádanos (2010) denies that social and ecological issues are due to the fact that human being is inevitably bad, selfish, competitive or idiotic by nature and argues how thinking so only encourages, on his own words, ‘passivity, cynicism, fear, sad hedonism and political nihilism that - obsessed with personal security, risk and individual protection - ends up polarizing society and exacerbating the conditions for its collapse’. On the other hand, also defends that such social and ecological issues can’t be solved only with technological improvements as it means that an instrument can solve structural problems without the need to change the structure and also it leads to conspiracy and paranoia state and it’s nothing but helpless within the crisis. Not to fully rely on technologies, but at least use it with responsibility and for good causes. Forbes (2017) has published an article that listed 11 ways how new technologies can help solving social problems. For example making electric cars mainstream and building alternative sources of energy to replace coal to creating more efficient buildings, non-polluting air conditioning systems and desalination systems. So we can’t neither fully rely on technology nor blame our current behavior as if it is our human nature.

In conclusion, we can’t neither fully rely on technology nor blame our current behavior as if it is our human nature as it’s a passive way of facing the issue. And for those who see themselves dragged into endless debates with skeptics about the veracity of climate change, Will McCallum (2018) have some words for them on the article Living the consequences. As the truth is, he writes, that we are already experiencing and suffering the consequences we have to stop try to convince the mentioned skeptics and act and focus on how to cope with the changes ahead us. McCallum adverts how the challenge is to adapt to an already world and that we now have to take action against it getting worse and to learn how to make difficult decisions as society. There’s an urge to re-think about the actual situation so to re-imagine and re-design a better future. Not to keep making new thinks for a future, but to stop and see what we have and start from there.

The goal is to build a more egalitarian and fair social model society, defends Crisina Narbona (2018) in Ecofeminism and Socialism. Narbona believes and presents a more equal and sustainable future in this article. Citing Alicia Puleo, Narbona writes how nature has already warned us about global warming issue and so we need to go towards a more austere and less consumerist society. As citizens we are used to certain commodities and to get things fast and for little money. But it’s time to rethink the worthiness of our life style in exchange of the future of our planet.

Big part of the skepticism on sustainable movements, ways of making and specially green energies is about money as there is a general concern about the high price of them. Pradanos explains how, in fact, this more sustainable future that includes non uninhabitable, convivial, encouragement of agreocological models that facilitate soil regeneration and inner peace require less investment than the present dominant inertia system. It also reduces the public debt and generates socially virtuous spirals.

We’ve been taught, as if it was the final solution, to recycle also as if by recycling everything will be solved so we can keep buying everything wrapped. But the truth is that recycling is far for being the solution to this crisis, it is in fact a way to calm our conscious. And while only one third of the UK’s plastic food packaging is recycled, being that 169,145 tones out of 525,000 tones, the rest goes to the landfill. The way most of us recycle is not even right. It can be very confusing. Not all the plastic can be recycled as the components may vary. The solution is not to recycle, as it is a finite process and at some point, the plastic will end up in the landfill. But the solution is to rethink about the choice of materials used when manufacturing.

If we keep on consuming certain products manufacturers will keep on producing them. The solution it is not to stop recycling of course but to stop consuming so many stuff that its materials will end up on the landfill or the sea and will remain there longer than us. As an example; a single water bottle will remain on the planet for a minimum of 450 years. So when there is a notable decrease on plastic consumption, companies and factories will noticed it and then will have to rethink. But as well as stop consuming certain products, we have to ask to those companies to change their policies into more sustainable and ethic ones. A change it is already happening and some companies are applying green policies on their products. There are already many eco friendly products in the market from non single used plastic packaging for fruits and vegetables, bulk shops, toiletries, clothes, electronics and so on, but the access to them tend to be time consuming and expensive. A sustainable live style has been seen as a way of living for the privilege but it should be accessible for us all. Many of the existing platforms that promote a zero waste or more sustainable way of living are addressed to a specific public. Presenting an alternative way of living, well curated and even fun. Offering products that are eco friendly so inciting consumerism, a sustainable consumerism, but consumerism at the end. A sustainable life can’t be an alternative or a choice; it should be the only way of living.

The situation is critical so for that we need to adapt our current way of living, making and consuming.