The ProPublica story about climate grief ends as a martyr story.

The hero has awoken to a great injustice, tries valiantly to save everyone, and he and his family presents options on just how "heroic" we can each choose to be.

He offers his own life if it would save the planet.

The way this is presented and the way it was offered is what I have issues with; not with the extremes the hero goes to.

Many many people in the environmental *justice* movement suffer with the same knowledge and live with much higher burdens. We all know that.

But this story is not a story about climate violence as inevitable, which it is if you live next to a power plant; on a busy highway corridor; in poorly maintained rental housing.

It's about "opting in"-maybe for the first time-to the policy, investment & human choices at work.

This story could have unpacked what is good or bad about the savior complex, but stops with a more simple presentation.

Then, derision of the hero's actions has tried to place him on an extreme, which marginalizes the way people living directly in harms way can't opt *out*.

That derision feels like it trivializes how people in the environmental justice movement have been and are dedicating their lives to save their communities.

"Whoa, whoa, we all know it's serious but not need to take it *that* seriously, bud."

This deserves even more reflection.

And there are some healthy nuggets in there:

Setting real boundaries is essential to stay in this work for the long haul, to treasure our relationships, to take care of one another.

But what I think the hero and others can learn most from is the example that our movement has set and continues to practice.

A bedrock idea in the environmental justice movement is that it demands moving more, together - not going alone as a "hero" - for our collective good.

The work towards environmental justice is about *saving* life not giving it up. We have already given up too much.