At a time when the French are quietly acquiring the official status of climatologists, a few years after that of epidemiologists skillfully obtained during the pandemic, the subject of ecology is now firmly anchored at the heart of our conversations during our family dinners, between friends or colleagues.

Conversations… between experts, therefore. There is always the one who wants to ban flying, the one whose beef tartare is not about to be taken away by the ecologists, the one who is angry with those who do not make an effort, the one who is angry with those who exaggerate, those who say “fucked for fucked up”, those who think that sorting things out is already a lot…

Arguments flare up, groups form. On the one hand, the early ecologists who are becoming radicalized, terrorized by a future that they already know is largely uncertain. On the other, the skeptics, those who don’t believe in it, or not really, and who are starting to get seriously annoyed by the low-carbon gesticulations of their one-night adversaries.

And in the middle of this noise, a little lost, there are those who are just starting out. Environmentalists convinced but still in the making. Those who, after understanding the orders of magnitude, begin to act on their scale. Those who take their first actions that count. You know, those gestures that hurt a little. Not really bad yet, but already a little.

I have a special affection for these people. Those who, in the middle of this trench warfare proper to debates without nuance, are vilified by everyone. They do too much for some, not enough for others. They don’t ask anyone for anything. Do not encourage those who are not doing enough to do more. Don’t ask those who are doing too much to calm down. But still…

Since they decided to stop flying in Europe, purists have criticized them for continuing to fly when they travel, even less, elsewhere in the world. As if it was of no use. The others tell them that they have traveled before and that it is a bit easy to stop now, or praise their spouse who manages the children during their long business trips… by train. As if their exhausted backs from night trains were only there to remind them of their family selfishness and not this famous little gesture which hurts a little. Not too bad, but already a little (if they knew how good this little pain does for their morale…).

Since they decided to significantly reduce their consumption of red meat, the most radical have criticized them for ultimately not being able to stop completely. As if it was of no use. As if each monthly bite of steak, no matter how sustainable, was a gesture of honor to the planet. The others receive them for dinner, smiles on their faces, with a magnificent prime rib. Like the smoker who quits and whose friends offer him a cigarette every time they meet him.

So discouraging.

When I speak with a radical environmentalist who tries to make me feel guilty for not doing more, who tells me that I use the fact of not taking a plane in France as a “positive credit” to give me the right to pollute elsewhere, I want to become a radical skeptic. To stop these efforts that hurt my back, to return earlier from a trip, to arrive more quickly on vacation. I want to have a beef delivered to me from Argentina by private jet to be sure to have it tomorrow…

When I speak with a radical skeptic who doesn’t care about climate change and who openly mocks me for my efforts, which he finds excessive, I want to become a radical environmentalist. To scream with them against this collective, political, societal unconsciousness, which is leading us straight into the wall. I want to leave everything overnight, to isolate myself to live a more sober life in contact with nature, far from this dangerously contagious skepticism…

So alienating.

These new ecologists who, when they started out, thought they would become these famous hummingbirds who do their part, dear to Pierre Rabhi, ultimately find themselves confined to the role of insects whose part is useless for some or oversized Canadairs whose part is disproportionate for the others.

To reconcile everyone, perhaps we should return to the universal definition of ecology. That of a doctrine aimed at a better balance between man and his environment. A simple balance. A fragile balance that the followers of “all or nothing”, on one side or the other, should keep in mind in order not to discourage by their radicalism the new ecologists, initially followers of “not everything but… not Nothing “.

Philippe Marty, Toulouse