I am not in the least blaming Attenborough, whose message is correct - simply pointing out the irony of someone who has made his living from flying round the world becoming the mouthpiece for environmental change. Nor am I blaming Greta T. Indeed the whole point of my post was to say that I am not blaming anyone at all!
So often the important message about biodiversity and about global warming is couched in terms that place nature at odds with us (and us at odds with nature), as if we ourselves are not part of that nature. There are not two things here, but simply one.
In nature often one species tries to dispose of another - mainly by eating it, but also killing it to defend territory - just as we do. Are grey squirrels to be blamed for swamping red by taking over their territory; are lions to be blamed for killing their prey; are cats to be blamed for killing birds? No - they are simply doing what comes naturally, as we as a human species have.
We have sought to kill bacteria and viruses; we have fought over territory; we have instituted agriculture, which has destroyed many habitats for other creatures that share this planet. All these things are simply part of nature, are what all creatures do - prioritise their survival. And, as we are part of nature, it is to be expected.
This huge shift that we now have to make from following our nature to going against that in order to ensure global survival is an unimaginable and revolutionary step.
My point is that it is not about blame, and that this needs to be removed from the message. When we are blamed, we tend to dig in our heels.
The equivalent of survival in human terms is profit and the accumulation of wealth, which in its turn brings health and well-being. Clearly it is not doing so for many fellow species, not for our fellow humans. But, make no mistake, if the disadvantaged humans in the world had the chance to get rich, they would surely take it: survival instinct at work.
In order to get out of this mess, we have to reign in our natural instincts. It is very hard indeed, hence the denials from the likes of Trump, who needs people to vote for him. Why would people reduce their own well-being when pursuing that is hard-wired? He is certainly not going to suggest they should as he would be out on his ear. And this applies to all national leaders. And so the problem persists.
The message needs to ditch the guilt and talk about our own self-interest; to get the message across that making sacrifices and changes is for us, not for some obscure species we have not even heard of - i.e. it is a survival mechanism, which we are naturally programmed to pursue. We are not trying to save the planet; we are trying to save US.
The message needs to be very strong indeed for humans to change - no other animal would give up its pleasures in order to save the planet. We, as fellow animals, are going to find this extremely hard. But we must do it.