Climate and individual guilt: the debate no one wants to have anymore

The climate sacrifice dilemma: personal responsibility or smokescreen?

The formula sounds simple: less meat, less driving, fewer children. The calculation, however, hides a trap that advocates of climate policy prefer not to look at. A photograph of the Matterhorn, taken on 25 June by a 78-year-old mountain guide, shows waterfalls pouring down its north face: the freezing level sat between 4,400 and 4,800 metres. Something never seen in four decades. The image, falsely accused of being AI-generated, captures both the urgency of the phenomenon and the distrust towards those who call for sacrifices while, according to their critics, keeping their own lifestyles untouched.

The historical argument that makes people uncomfortable

Another recurring data point: 11,000 years ago, with no industry or cars, sea level was 150 metres lower than today. Those who bring it up do not deny climate change, but rather the narrative that attributes all responsibility to recent human activity. The conclusion, as uncomfortable as it is politically incorrect, is that even if all of humanity returned to the Stone Age, the climate would keep trinc its own rhythm.

The gap between words and deeds

The parties that most promote the green agenda – IU, Podemos, Sumar (left-wing Spanish parties) – do not always practise what they preach, the harshest critics point out. While calling for restrictions on meat consumption and air travel, their leaders do not give up ham or transatlantic flights. The result is growing scepticism: emissions-saving measures are perceived as a tax on the middle classes, not as a shared effort.

How much is each of us willing to sacrifice? The question remains open, and the answer will come neither from science nor from politicians, but from the tension between what is said and what is done.