Although students actively strive to engage in activism, it’s vital to assess whether these forms of advocacy feed into a performative matrix that may even harm the very same campaigns same they claim to support. Corporations have adopted the mantle of faux activists, blaming consumers for fueling them rather than looking inward.

There is no greater example of faux activism than everyday climate action. Constantly, Americans strive to “solve” climate change through individual, miniscule choices that do little to impact the overall issue. Climate awareness was previously about changing the world for the better, however, it’s evident that the topic has devolved into a more culture-based issue as of late. On Feb 10, 2025, Trump issued an executive order banning the use of paper straws within federal agencies. Obviously, this ban will have virtually no consequences, but what it does represent is the culture war that has been staged to protect real environmental criminals. 

If you’ve ever sat through a school assembly or doom scrolled enough on Instagram, you’ve been force-fed the same guilt trip: your carbon footprint. The term is meant to reflect one’s personal lifestyle and its effect on the climate, but what these “activists” never seem to mention, though, is that “Carbon Footprint” was invented by British Petroleum (BP), one of the world’s worst oil polluters. According to a study conducted by the CDP in 2017, 71% of greenhouse emissions have been traced back to just a hundred corporate and state producers. In all reality, the decision to be a “climate-friendly consumer” is useless when you consider that even if everybody completely cut their emissions, we wouldn’t lessen the issue by even a third.  BP’s campaign sought to shift blame from their pipelines to your UberEats orders. Think about that. The same company dumping millions of gallons of oil into the ocean wants you to feel terrible about using plastic water bottles. 

Cherry Creek is no stranger to this scam either. Part of our science curriculum is taking one of these “carbon footprint calculators”, most of which are funded or created by oil companies (this one has since been deleted). When I took the test, I was told that the demise of the planet would come about from my family eating steak. Not oil, not drilling, not fires, but red meat. Meanwhile, British Petroleum was drilling in the Amazon and lobbying to kill climate laws. That’s the point; they want you sweating over paper straws while they burn countries to the ground in the name of profit. Your reusable water bottles won’t stop them. 

The environment is only a fraction of the same overarching issue that plagues the modern progressive movement: bowing to billionaire tyranny. In the same way that paper straws signal virtue and imply moral superiority,  Democratic politicians have milked Trump’s era of oppression to get their flashy photoshoots and wear pretty pink suits. Rather than actual resistance, the response of congressional dems has been what is effectively a cosmetic opposition defined by appearances rather than legitimate pushback. On March 27, 2025, a letter to the Trump Administration—expressing concerns about ICE abductions and disappearances—was signed by just 34 Democratic lawmakers. That’s fewer than 15% of the over 250 Democrats in Congress right now. Even before the election, Kamala Harris paraded around with Republican congresswoman Liz Cheney, promised to strengthen Trump’s wall at the southern border, and most importantly, remained hopelessly stubborn on Palestine. Rather than addressing the concerns of their ever-growing doubters, Democrats have doubled down on the same establishment politics that have repeatedly failed time and time again. Why? Because the democratic party isn’t, and never has been, built to dismantle oppression- it’s built to manage it. To perform outrage while keeping the machinery of exploitation well-oiled. To ritualize resistance without ever risking real confrontation with the wealthy.
This issue isn’t exclusive to Congress either. The response of everyday establishment democrats to Trump’s authoritarian turn hasn’t been resistance – it’s been performative grief and slacktivist stunts. The “Nothing on the 28th” boycott blew up on Instagram and TikTok, where dems urged “fellow activists” to freeze spending for a single day – as if Wall Street would crumble under one less Starbucks sale. The campaign’s own organizers admitted it was a symbolic “wake-up call”, but wake-up calls don’t work when the house is already on fire. The S&P 500 won’t collapse because you boycotted Amazon for 24 hours; Exxon won’t notice your reusable tote. These gestures exist to launder guilt, not power.

The underlying message here is that everyday activism, whether through clothes, random hashtags, or reusable bags, won’t cut it in the fight against fascism. The truth is, these forms of diet resistance aren’t an accident, they’re a strategy. Corporations and politicians want you stuck in a loop of consumer guilt and symbolic gestures because it keeps you from asking the real questions: who is actually responsible for the climate crisis? What would it actually take to dismantle their power? The answer isn’t found in carbon footprint quizzes or one-day “boycotts”. It’s found in the moments that history remembers: labor strikes, mass protests, and organized disruption. The “Nothing on 28th” boycott represents a crumb of what’s possible – a collective force that actually could frighten the ultra-wealthy. Until then, polite consumer choices are useless. The cronies at the top aren’t scared of your recycling bin or coexist bumper sticker, they’re scared of what happens when you stop asking, and start fighting.