A sustainable future is not built on fear or empty symbols, but on responsible mining, proven technologies, and decisions based on evidence, not on alarmist narratives designed to raise funds. The author is a professional geologist. The Amazon is valuable for its biodiversity, its role in the water cycle, and the indigenous peoples who inhabit it; there are more than enough reasons to protect it without needing to attribute functions it does not perform. Plastic straws, stirrers, or reeds illustrate the problem of purely symbolic activism. Many end up disconnecting completely, losing the ability to distinguish between real problems and fabricated narratives. Environmentalism needs to recover the credibility it has lost. It is easier to ban straws than to regulate the international fishing industry, and certainly more attractive for social media. Even more serious is the ideological opposition to science-backed technological solutions. Fear sells, and the organizations that best exploit it tend to attract more resources. It is repeated ad nauseam that the Amazon is the “lung of the world,” producing 20% of the planet's oxygen. Mining, for example, is frequently demonized without nuance or recognition of its strategic importance. But straws represent less than 1% of ocean plastic, while abandoned fishing nets constitute up to 46% of that pollution, a problem rarely mentioned in campaigns. We forget that without the responsible extraction of minerals, we would not have solar panels, batteries for electric vehicles, or the technological infrastructure that makes modern communication possible. The question is not whether mining should exist, but how it should be done: with responsible standards, communities benefiting, and ecosystems respected. Scientists from National Geographic and other institutions have repeatedly debunked this: mature tropical forests produce approximately as much oxygen as they consume, and most of the atmospheric oxygen comes from marine algae and cyanobacteria. We have been hearing for years that a compact mass of debris the size of France floats in the ocean, an image so powerful that it has motivated million-dollar donations and global campaigns. The simplistic demonization closes the door to constructive dialogue and limits the possibility of generating employment and economic development, leaving us without tools to address real challenges. Environmental organizations move billions of dollars annually. The result is that viable solutions are blocked, while the problems they could solve continue to worsen. This selective indignation also splashes sectors necessary for human development. Lithium, copper, cobalt, and dozens of minerals are indispensable for the energy transition that the same environmental organizations promote. We need minerals extracted with environmental and social responsibility, and technologies like Waste-to-Energy that solve concrete waste management problems. These organizations, funded by philanthropic channels without clear accountability mechanisms, prioritize ideology over scientific data, opposing a technology that the European Union itself recognizes as essential for waste management. The answer is no, because it does not exist. Have you ever seen a satellite photo of the famous “Pacific garbage patch”? The reality, according to the NOAA, is very different: the so-called garbage patch is not an island, but a region where currents concentrate microplastics at a density of just four particles per cubic meter. After a viral video of a turtle with a straw in its nose, entire cities banned them and corporations announced their elimination. Invisible from space, but extraordinarily useful for raising funds. The Amazon offers another revealing example. We cannot afford to block scientifically-backed solutions with ideological dogmas while the real world faces challenges that require pragmatic responses. The cost of this alarmism is twofold: it erodes the credibility of the movement when exaggerations are exposed and generates fatigue when the constant message is imminent apocalypse. The organization ABREN has documented how a “powerful network of international NGOs” finances studies and campaigns against the Waste-to-Energy (WtE) technology, which transforms non-recyclable waste into energy.
