I agree with the article's denunciations of the ER as a form of bourgeois reformism disguising itself as some kind of revolutionary politics, but I fear it may be even worse than that. Whatever the political legacy of the Spiked! crowd, they may be closer to the reality when they denounce it as a kind of cultish middle-class anti-working class politics. In any event, the hyperbolic claims emanating from the radical environmental movement today, do deserve some scruitny. Climate change is obviously very real, there can be little denying that while remaining within the bounds of scientific reason, but the ferocity with which these movements push extravangant claims about the imminent destruction of the planet and existential threats to humanity and the idea that there "no time" to raise the issue of capitalism seem to emanate from a political agenda rooted in a kind of austerity politics. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's rheotric legitimating the idea of a "birth-strike," (is that like's Knight's "sex strike"?), the idea that it may be irresponsible to reproduce, seems a depressing example of that. On the one hand, it is true that many young people simply feel as if having children is an expensive burden they cannot afford, but linking the choice to not have children to a kind of moral concern for the environment seems a modern version of Maoist China's one child policy. Should one feel guilty for having children?
In any event, the idea that there are "real concerns" about the envrionment that are being recuperated into political dead-ends by various bourgeois movments today is obviously true, but it doesn't seem like we can develop an alterantive without wrestling with the substance of some of the claims they put forward. How imminent is the demise of the planet? Obviously, science can't provide an exact number years, but that won't stop these movements from raising alarmist, catastrophist fears about it being 12 years from now. If that is the case, then they are probably right--there is no time to worry about capitalism and if the working-class is an obstacle to addressing the "emergency," out of its short-term focus on its own material "interests," then it will have to be defeated, as surely as the right-wing climate change deniers.
Having "real concerns" about an issue is one thing, but how rational and legitimate are those conerns? Many people have "real concerns' about immigration (In fact, some envrionmentalists are immigration restrictionists). Is it really rational to think it is necessary to stop reproducing the species in order to save it? What other claims emanating from these movements--although, its not just these movements that make them anymore, any slightly left of center bourgeois politican will use the climate emergency, existential threat language regularly these days, need closer examination of their reasonableness?