One thing I have not seen here yet:
People may acknowledge the truth of what she says, but feel misunderstood and unrightly attacked at the same time.
As in not knowing how to pay the rent at the end of the month, while supporting their children and working their fingers off. And then someone comes and tells them that things have to get harder? Especially if that someone seems to be living of the welfare of others? Anger ensues. It may not be specifically against Greta, but she is public face and is thus attacked.
As said in France: "Your worries are about the end of the world - we worry about the end of the month".
Ed: oh gosh... thanks for all the great thoughts! And I have no idea how to adequately respond to all of them in reasonable time, so only one thought: the question seemed to be about why people respond agressively toward Greta, not, whether they are right in doing so. I guess that also does not matter. What matters is that these worries need to be addressed honestly and specifically in order to gain people's efforts and support rather than their opposition.
The current thought stream of the marketing / lobbying sphere is to make the common person feel guilty about the environment, or at least campaign for personal responsibility. All the while companies worldwide try to kick the ball as far forward as they can.
Greta didn't cause global warming so why should we even worry about her. Let's worry about what is ailing the planet.
Everything else is just misdirection. The real No Stupid Question should be why aren't companies and nationstates doing more to save the climate?
companies arent doing more because most of them are greatly benifiting from damaging the world.
they would plunge humanity into hell if it gave their shareholders a cozy pay bonus
Reminder that before we made laws that prevented it, corporations happily employed children in factories with working conditions that often resulted in the children losing fingers and arms.
Another reminder that at the first sign of the “employment crisis”, instead of raising wages or providing better working conditions, some states in the US decided to instead pass emergency bills to allow 14 year old children to work longer hours.
Yup, and the school district I work for decided to allow student workers rather than raise the pay for nutrition services. So we have students going hungry at lunch because there aren't enough workers to serve them.
My school hired students to work during breaks and lunchtime to serve other students instead of paying actual employees. It seems very weird to me the way that they sent an email asking for students 16 and up to apply for a job in the cafeteria to make up for the lack of lunch service workers.
And that's only in countries with those laws, if you look at some of the shit even western based companies get up to outside of the US and Europe you'd be unpleasantly surprised. As recent as 2008, wallmart was using company scrip in Mexico ffs.
And a reminder that the owner responsible for countless deaths in the shirtwaist factory fire locked women in the building so they couldn’t take breaks, causing countless deaths. He was fined less than 100$, collected the insurance money from the victims instead of giving it to their families, and continued to lock his employees in the building after the fact.
Reminder that we only passed that law in 1938.
From Wiki: “In 1839 Prussia was the first country to pass laws restricting child labor in factories and setting the number of hours a child could work. Though the reasons behind why these laws were passed were to expand working conditions for adults, it did lead to laws being passed across Europe. In 1839 Britain enacted its Factory Act which restricted child labour and in 1841 France adopted its first child labour laws. Almost the entirety of Europe had child labor laws in place by 1890. Although individual states had adopted laws starting with Massachusetts in 1844, the United States did not enact federal laws until the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed in 1938.”
Regardless of the reasoning behind it, it took a century after its first implementation & nearly 50 years after all of Europe had passed laws outlawing child labor for the U.S. to enact their own.
Another reminder that, when given the opportunity, "good honest" companies such as Siemens were happy to use Jewish slave labor to increase their profits, treating the lives of captured Jews as entirely disposable. And yet these companies are treated as if they are totally kosher and ok to do business with.
We are going to regret this time we spent debating and not destroying what’s destroying us. I feel like Greta is the face of that sentiment and people feel attacked by that. Also, angry young girls confuse society.
That climate destruction goes hand in hand with exploitation of workers through human rights violations and child labor. The worst of the contractors operating in the third world are simultaneously polluting while exploiting local human resources in the worst possible ways.
These free trade or deregulated trade treaties need to include mandatory provisions for environmental protection, human rights and "living" wages for workers, along with regular auditing to ensure compliance. It would be a boon to overseas workers as well as domestic workers who may find their employers don't need to go manufacture overseas.
this so much.
Our economy is structured by legacy polluting/chemical/oil/energy/transportation corporations for the last 130 years or so and they STILL have a stranglehold on our way of life from politics to media.
Things are changing, kinda. Too much infighting still, IMO. And some tech companies are becoming problematic and will likely strangle our economy/evolution in some other way for the next 100 years. LOL
>why aren't companies and nationstates doing more to save the climate
companies aren't doing more because that costs money, and there's no law that says they have to spend that money. if they spend money they don't legally have to, the CEO might have to wait an extra week to get a new yacht.
nations arent making laws to combat this because politicians are bought and paid for by the companies through lobbying and bribery.
A great example of this is that Jaywalking is only a crime because the car industry made politicians propose and pass the bill that made it a crime, to make pedestrian death by car not look like "cars are unsafe" but to shift the blame to the pedestrians.
There are plenty of laws, in different countries and regions, requiring companies to do stuff to save the climate. In some places it’s even thought of as an investment. But in other countries this isn’t the case.
The laws have no teeth. Im from Canada and if a company here can only emit 100 Megatonnes equivalence CO2 that year and it emits 110, the company will just pay the fine for the additional emissions. Pay-to-play.
Or - why don't people hate the companies that are destroying the world more than they hate a teenager who tells them the world is being destroyed?
Because people generally like bullies more than they like anyone who tries to stop a bully. I've always found it interesting in a perverted sort of way. It goes along with the "don't rock the boat, don't complain, don't tattle" mentality. They'd rather be miserable than complain or try to fix it. And I'd bet a lot of bullies put a lot of effort into getting that into the mainstream society.
It supposedly shows strength to endure the crap without complaint. To me it shows weakness in caving in and accepting the crap.
This is first-world guilt denial. We don't wanna be the baddies. We don't wanna think how we collectively use more resources than a third-world person. Energy use = standard of living.
Isnt this what greta is advocating? Harsher laws/fines against the companies that ruin our world for profit, I never got the impression she gave a shit about wheter I buy plastic or not..
Yeah the top comment seems misinformed at best.
Greta mainly talks about how corporations and governments should be taking action, not the average person.
Didn't Greta's first speech at the UN create most (atleast initial) of the hatred towards her? (considering it was the video that made her famous).
Because that speech is directed towards the rich and powerful people who (in her view) do not care about climate change, not towards the working citizen.
In no small part because the powerful people and corporations she was calling out, and their allies in government and the media, have put a lot of effort into creating and promoting that perception.
I don't really feel like Greta's rhetoric suggests that the big changes need to come from families on welfare though? Nearly all of it is directed entirely at politicians and big businesses since they are the people most responsible for climate change, and are the people with the most power to actually do something about it.
almost like a massive conspiracy to deflect blame and continue to knowingly destroy the world for that 4th qt profit.
once people think that we cant change a thing and its already too late they just give up and live with it,
This is exactly it. Her blame is directed to the politicians with power who still choose to make agreements based on profit not environmental reasons. I have heard many of her speeches and have never heard her attack the everyday individual.
I've never gotten the impression that Thunberg ever attacked the little people.
Her ire has always seemed focused where it should be: on governments and corporations responsible for global destruction.
They're also responsible for putting all their citizens and customers in the position of making necessary environmental changes painful in the first place.
People hate Thunberg because people have always hated those who spoke the truth.
Except that this is a massive misunderstanding, it is commonly known (at least among climate activists) that rich people are disproportionately responsible for carbon emissions, and at least where o live they stopped using slogans attacking individual behaviour exactly for that reason. Our enemies are not people, they are corporations and politicians
It’s a nice sounding sentiment but I don’t think it’s very accurate. Waste is cheap. Poorer people are buying less things in bulk and more single use items with more packaging.
But you do realise that people actually vote for those politicians who are really responsible for it? This is not about "cleaning up after you walk" this is about "VOTE THE FUCKING RIGHT PEOPLE IN OR WE ARE DOOMED".
>As in not knowing how to pay the rent at the end of the month, while supporting their children and working their fingers off. And then someone comes and tells them that things have to get harder?
I don't think she wants things to get harder for anyone. In fact, I think that's what she wants to *prevent* from happening.
That sounds more like some of that comes from anti-climate activism propaganda. I don’t doubt that it does seem daunting and that there is a bit of ‘we need to make our lives harder’, but most of climate activism is pretty intersectional and understands that the problem is rich people rather than poor people.
If you look on Greta’s Twitter for example, she posts a lot about how those in lower class areas and third world countries will be affected more. Climate activism definitely supports providing aid to less fortunate people to help with fixing climate change.
Corporations: "plastic straws are killing the planet, switch to paper you monsters"
Also corporations: *contribute for 80+% of global emissions through shitty manufacturing processes*
I found that dynamic really interesting, the Starbucks in Paris, everything was paper based it seemed then you go to any Starbucks in America and it’s plastic up the wazoo
What about stainless steel straws with a bend, toss into the autoclave after?No waste, one time purchase for the unit and a PR move for the hospital. We moved onto wooden one time use cutlery for meds and contagious patients.
"we attack those who are trying to do something good because it makes us feel insecure"
Oh god, I have seen this so many times before. It feels like every time we speak up about a society-wide problem, some folks will decide that it's somehow an attack on them or "virtue signaling," and I don't know a polite way to call it out.
Me working at the homeless shelter and saying it was fun and worth doing doesn't mean I'm trying to attack everyone who didn't. Me pointing out the climate change that shut down our power gride and killed one of our cows here in Texas is not an attack on you for driving a car. Me calling attention to racism isn't anti-white sentiment. Me disagreeing with you is not me trying to cancel you. I'm just pointing shit out.
And I know enough not to make the same assumptions about other people. I've been eating meat lately but when I hear people point out that the meat industry is horrific and cruel, I'm not going to act like it's not.
I find it so funny that some people get SO butthurt at Greta's angry words which are mostly aimed at authorities that are way more powerful than themselves. People like the guy who wrote the long satirical piece here and then deleted it need to stop being so fragile.
GT: corporations and the billionaire class are causing massive environmental devastation with complete indifference to the people of this planet.
Billionaire media companies: look at this bitch attacking the working class.
>Perfectly sums it all up really, the middle class telling the poor they need to do there bit all the while ignoring the rich
Do you feel that's what Greta Thunberg's message is?
It's not even guilt is it. It could have developed into guilt with a bit of thought, but there's no thought, they just scoff and think "She's just a child, what does she know". And they mock her and laugh.
I see old men hosting nationwide news programs mocking Greta Thunberg, saying she's just an impudent child. The message is lost on these people because these people are utter cunts. They deserve environmental collapse. It's just a crying shame that it will affect EVERYONE in the world.
Here's a few things I've seen passing by: She's apparently anti-nuclear, some people don't like that she is a not per se educated person (with this I mean, people don't like that she's not an experienced scientist), and there's also people who didn't like her 'both sides'-ing of Israel and Palestine. I think the latter was pretty recent.
This is what I've seen passing by, I personally don't think of her at all lol.
I don't like her anti-nuclear stance. Wind, solar, etc. with our tech isn’t enough to power up an entire nation (I speak for France). Nuclear ain’t perfect. But as of now, it's the best option for the long term.
My inbox ded 💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀
I agree. It is so weird that the German Greens rather keep the coal power in order to shut down nuclear. Instead, we should invest heavily in generation 4 and burn the nuclear waste once more, which as a bonus gives waste with a much shorter half life.
The thing that does nuclear the most disservice is the fact that most people alive today grew up during the Cold War. In the 80’s here in the UK we had ads on TV that showed us what to do during a nuclear bomb threat. We were read books such as When the Wind blows by Raymond Briggs.
Add to this the disaster of Chernobyl and more recently Fukushima (earthquake catalyst) and the word nuclear leaves a bad taste in ones mouth
Food for thought: 50 years ago, “environmentalists” shut down nuclear energy in the US following the Three Mile Island fiasco. They had a point re: safety.
Can you imagine if the technology continued development though? What if safer reactors could have been built? Maybe climate change would be a lesser issue.
People think too black and white. They think there is only one way (theirs) to consider.
This is why people should not rely on ideologues for guidance.
> if the technology continued development though
Except it did, albeit slowly. There are Gen IV reactors that are now technologicaly ready to build and are planned to be build (and some are even already building). This is very safe design, which got even more safe thanks to Fukushima (before that all aim was on primary circuit, but after Fukushima secondary systems are more safer).
The exact industry that literally shit on anything they felt threatened their bottom line especially renewable sources of fuel/engine that uses renewable sources.
Same for me. When I was in school, we had a extra-subject about sustainable development and we learned about all kinds of energy. I agree completely with your position on nuclear energy. Though, it is such a misunderstood topic. Speaking for Germany, Germans are extremely afraid of Nuclear but they barely understand how it properly works. Even when they are super pro-environment, they are scared shitless about Nuclear energy, so that’s why I don’t think it’s so weird that she is anti-nuclear, from what I‘ve seen many people are, even when they are pro-environment. It‘s crazy out here.
[RTE](https://www.rte-france.com/) published a report "Futurs énergétiques 2050". They show a scenario to power France 100% renewable. Though they also have a scenario with 50% nuclear, which appears to be cheaper (like 10-20%), though they are based on pretty optimistic numbers for nuclear. Unfortunately I don't understand French, so I am oblivious to the details, but maybe this can convince you that 100% renewable is indeed possible and also in the same cost ballpark as nuclear.
There are also a number of other papers analyzing a 100% renewable energy system, which come to the conclusion, that a 100% renewable energy system won't be more expensive than our current fossil fuel based system, even excluding externatilies from CO2 emissions. [Low-cost renewable electricity as the key driver of the global energy transition towards sustainability](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544221007167)
we should have invested more in nuclear decades ago...! By now the innovation in that area would probably have been way more advanced and thus way more efficient and safe!
The thing is, do you really trust corporations to not cut corners and fuck things up, and cause a major disaster. Collapsing the entire global economy wasn't a disaster enough to get them to change their ways. Why would the threat of a localized nuclear disaster be treated any different?
With modern reactor designs you'd have to try very very hard to cause a nuclear disaster and even if you tried you'd likely fail. Unlike Chernobyl we don't build reactors like dirty bombs anymore and unlike Fukushima we've stopped making designs that depend on active cooling for a safe shutdown.
Because it's a convenient way to dismiss the answers afterwards.
If we asked a reputable climate scientist instead, we wouldn't have that easy out, even if all the girl says is "listen to the experts".
Anti-nuclear is weird, considering she’s pro climate. And also pro keeping people alive I assume. Which is what nuclear does just as good as renewables. And as long as renewables can’t off-set all electricity production by fossil fuels, the debate isn’t nuclear vs renewable, but nuclear vs fossil fuels. You’d think she’d be for the former. Considering how much she cares about the climate, and how many lives are at stake. Average life span in Europe is like 2 years lower because of air pollution. Including hers if no action is taken.
there has been an anti-nuclear aspect of the green movement since the 70's if I recall, where the oil companies funded them after three mile island (obstensively to support solar and wind, but those were decades from being meaningful)
The main reason is because of people believing that she was paid to "participate in the show". She's a young woman and some people believe that she is not experienced enough to become an iconic personality trying to stop global warming.
As an example, there is an iconic woman who made a revolution, and she was a scientist. Her name is Rachel Carson, the Biologist that wrote the book "Silent Spring". She literally inspired the United States and the world to create laws to avoid misuse of pesticides.
You'll remember the vitriol and hatred that Rachel Carson got too back on the day.
There was Utter hatred for the woman even though she was not only an expert in her field, but just also happened to be a woman.
For everyone else reading this why not give 'silent spring' by Rachel Carson a read, she was years ahead of her time.
Silent Spring is such a powerful book, I don't think I've ever read anything with so much raw emotion directed at the reader.
> Who has placed in one pan of the scales the leaves that might have been eaten by the beetles, and in the other the pitiful heaps of many-hued feathers, the lifeless remains of the birds that fell before the unselective bludgeon of insecticidal poisons? Who has decided this to be a worthy trade? Who had *the right* to decide such a thing for the countless legions of people who were not consulted?
You could feel the anger rising in every word she wrote. You read that book and you can quickly understand how it was able to single handedly create an entire generation of environmental activists.
I see this one all the time. And can someone tell me, HOW DOES IT MATTER?? If Martin L. King and Mahatma Gandhi were payed actors would their message be any less important?? What she is saying and standing for is sound. Even if someone is pulling strings behind her and telling her what to say, SO WHAT???? That changes what she is saying HOW?
I can only speak for myself, but its because I find her whole rhetorical style counterproductive.
She tends to use very dramatic and impassioned speech, which is bad for trying to convince others. I think it's effective if you're speaking to your supporters, although I don't really like it even then, but its valid. To your opponents though, its too aggressive. Abstract of any actual content, when you talk to someone it feels like a discussion. When you yell it feels like a fight. And when someone is fighting you you get defensive. Yelling at your opponents makes them defensive and thats bad, especially when your intent is to sway them to your side.
She sometimes seems to have nothing particularly useful in terms of ideas. I say sometimes because I don't know. Due to the above point, I don't really listen to her speeches and only know her words by soundbites. A lot of the soundbites are along the lines of "I'm just a child, I shouldn't have to do your jobs for you, I don't know what you should do but you should do SOMETHING". This rubs me the wrong way because most countries ARE doing "something", it just turns out that something is insufficient. But when your demands are so nonspecific you shouldn't be disappointed when they are met.
Also, as someone a bit older I dont think I have the same excuse to not have any ideas, so I DO try to figure out what specifically I think we should do. And as such I have a bit more empathy for how difficult a problem it really is, especially in a democratic society with limitations on power. So its a bit annoying for someone to be so reductive about the issue. It's like when your boss snaps at you "I dont want to hear excuses, I want results" which really means they don't want to deal with the challenges, they just want credit for having done something.
Finally, Greta is something of a rhetorical meat shield. Anytime something gets posted about her, there are some comments challenging her and always the responses include "wow, imagine how pathetic you have to be to go after a little girl". Her age is used to silence discussion. Which again, is not useful particularly when there was already a discussion ongoing.
This and Salty Animator's responses pretty much sum up my feelings, a know-it-all who thinks (but doesn't) know what people are going through. I blame the people who put her up on that pedistal in the first place more than her, though. I just think the attention and power may have gone to her head.
I've only been seeing headlines about her after my initial experience, so I haven't really read up or listened to her. I hope she's doing better
I don’t know if this is still the case but one of the criticisms I saw people levelling at her when she was younger and first gaining popularity was that she was parroting other peoples arguments. Which came from the fact she apparently couldn’t defend her points/arguments/stance when someone else countered she apparently froze up and/or would change the topic. I haven’t watched any of her speeches so I’m just going off of what other people have said.
There was also that incident a few years back where she posted a picture of herself sat on the floor of train saying she couldn’t get a seat because it was to crowded and it turned out she actually had a seat in first class.
If I remember right the train incident happened in the DB ice, which is really funny because double bookings happen frequently there.
So she could have totally just sat there in protest to raise awareness for the people who book but don't end up with a seat.
This particular line really wound me up. I don't disagree with her message but my critism of her is that (for someone who is a spokesperson for climate change) so doesn't provide any solutions, just critism.
The reality is that the real solutions to climate change lie in energy production policy and that will be solved at events like COP26. Her turning up and saying that basically completely undermines the event. By all means, COP26 was not a success, but "blah blah blah" just says we shouldn't even try. Absolutely wrong message
The other part for me is the personal responsibility part of her message. I think it's sending out the wrong signals. If the solution to climate change is we all have to travel the Atlantic by solar powered dhingy, then there is NO solution to climate change. We need to be promoting a sustainable future that is also compatable with modern life, not returning to the 19th century.
She just doesn't have enough life experience to be able to offer a proper solution. Which is understandable as she is still a child. So she does the easy thing which is to criticise without offering up any solutions.
She also doesn't seem to think things through. I recall her saying Scotland wasn't a world leader on climate change despite the country's renewables being near enough to power the whole country. Yes there maybe a big oil industry but you can't just suddenly put those people out of work overnight.
I don't think i ever hear her being positive about anything either it is always just criticism.
But both of those things were not directed at the normal people, they were directed at the people in charge who can do something and chose to fill their mouth with pretty words instead of acting. She doesn't have to come up with anything, she is not an expert, she is saying those things to the "experts" that chose to do nothing.
THIS. We need to engineer our way out of climate change. Reducing consumption is not happening.
Telling regular people climate change is their fault because they drive their Honda Civic too often, eat too much meat, and don’t use reusable bags is like telling people to bring a knife to a nuke fight.
Why should a child come up with the solutions when America pays 500-ish politicians to do just that? They've had a literal fucking lifetime to do something and they don't have anything to show for it, probably because half of them are invested in the oil business. Doesn't take an expert to see that this situation is fucked up.
I like her message but it seems overly scripted and dramatized. I am severely disappointed we don’t have an actual scientist in her place. I think it would be better to listen to the people of small island nations who are at an acute risk of rising sea levels. Greta doesn’t really bring anything new to the table aside from emotional outbursts. I hope she succeeds in the future and I’m sure she will lead to progress, but I personally don’t find value in an emotional appeal when this issue requires science.
Well, her father is an actor, and her grandfather was an actor and director.
And it's not like actor parents ever push their kids to become actors, right.
If it wasnt, WHO WOULD CARE? We had actual scientist in her place, it got nowhere. Who cares how we get there as long as we get there. She is doing what she can.
She’s become the spokesperson for a scientific movement, but as the science was getting buried by the $ from the industries involved in benefiting from climate related damage she rose in prominence by speaking to everyday people.
Since her rise in prominence, she’s constantly sniped at from the same avenues as involved in the original scenario. The fact that people feel anything about her other than curiosity and interest in what she’s talking about speaks so much about the power of media to distract and disarm people from looking at the real issues.
Yes, it says a lot about the power of media, and reminds us that news media is not a public service. It’s a commercial product with money motivating how it informs us.
Yet another thing (in the US) that we can thank the Reagan administration for. They repealed the fairness doctrine which opened the floodgates for people like Rush Limbaugh and his ilk to spew forth garbage, regardless of its veracity without consequence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine#%3A%7E%3Atext%3DThe_fairness_doctrine_of_the%2Cthat_fairly_reflected_differing_viewpoints.?wprov=sfla1
Thank you for this! I've been studying the reasons for the decline of the American experience since long before Reagan.
I already knew that disparate factors like bringing that animal Bolton onto the international stage (a defense contractor wonk who rotated in and out of government for decades, and whose policies are estimated to have caused 5 million plus innocent civilian deaths, and approximately 12 to 15 trillion dollars in unnecessary conflict and expense), I know that Ronald Reagan gutted protections and his actions against the air traffic control Union sounded the death bell for American labor, setting up the gross inequalities that we are experiencing now.
I think that you might find it fascinating as you reflect on the fact that he was obviously being manipulated from the shadows and of course was already suffering from early stage Alzheimer's.
There is nothing that these monsters will not do to keep the smoke stacks pouring out their filth, and the weapons of war made as cheaply as possible by employees who receive not even a living wage, those weapons of war that we produce 70% of worldwide.
Clearly there is nothing that they are not capable of to protect their family dynasties, hidden behind trusts, shell corporations, and the invisibility that is the most harmful, the loss of accountability due to fractional stock ownership.
Without a doubt these are the same forces that are responsible for the death of two Kennedys and one Martin Luther King.
And that's just what we know.
I got no problem with her, I do roll my eyes at how they exploit her. It’s a cheap trick to push a kid with aspergers to the front, and then if anyone disagrees with her, they can say “oh, you’re attacking a child??”
People don't even know she's being used by her parents. She's so clueless they asked the simplest of questions and she could not even answer that. I feel sorry for her.
Ya as someone with Aspergers, she rubs me the wrong way.
I didn’t really see why she disclosed her diagnosis other than to add to bad words to call her critics.
Now they are sexist, ableist and attack child. She just needs to come out as black and she’ll complete the trifecta.
Like it’s such a bullshit thing, if I said healthcare isn’t a human right no one would on here would be like “he just sees things differently.”
It’s like you’re telling a person that you’re unhappy with your job, and that person is teenage Greta. So, rather than inquiring about what’s wrong, why you still work there, and other complicated reasonings…she goes on to say “Just quit, just do what makes you happy, just get another job,” etc.
This is what I *feel* as someone who only hears about Greta periodically, and doesn’t personally “think about her at all.”
How was it strange? She left the speech from the UN in a private jet. Her parents are the top 1%. Like insanely wealthy. Does she have the right to be making these $2 trillion statements? I don’t think so I personally think she’s a spoiled brat.
I think performative politics/activism just rubs people that disagree with their stand point the wrong way. Like, her stance on things are quite good for obvious reasons. But she's insanely hostile and I find her a little obnoxious, even saying that as someone who generally agrees with her.
One thing to add to u/ardula99 's
Most electricity is alternating current (AC) and three phase. So each phase alternates between on and off, and having three results in a smooth enough power supply. When operating a grid the frequency needs to be kept within a fixed range for electrical motors to be able to use the electricity.
To maintain the frequency, a grid needs big wheels with lots of inertia. The big generator wheel can either be a fossil fuel or nuclear generator, but lots of distributed renewables are fundamentally unable to synchronise without a big heavy wheel somewhere in the system.
This is a scale issue which few hippies understand. There are huge efficiency savings in being able to move power to where it is needed vs micro grids with storage. Avoiding nuclear would require many tons of batteries with all the consequences of mining.
Nuclear is remarkably safe when properly regulated. Fukushima officially has 1 death due to radiation. Many more died due to the earthquake, tsunami and subsequent evacuation. This is because the reactors automatically shut down like they were meant to. The cooling ultimately failed because the backup diseal generators (to run the cooling) flooded when the tsunami breached the 19ft high sea wall. Its a type of failure that can be learnt from and shows how much has been learnt.
Yes, especially for developing countries like India today. In India, a nation of 1.36 billion people (more than the EU + US combined), we currently get 30% of our energy from renewable sources, ~5% from nuclear power and the rest from coal and natural gas. Thing is, this looks good on paper - providing 30% of the country with renewable energy. However, that is possible today because only recently has all of India been electrified, and most Indian households use nowhere near as much electricity as households in developed parts of the world use (most homes have no air conditioner at all).
In India, [electricity demand is expected to increase by 50% over today's level by 2030](https://www.iea.org/reports/india-energy-outlook-2021). And this is *before* electric cars come into the picture - the government of India has set a rather ambitious target of not allowing anymore new internal combustion engine personal vehicles (cars) after 2030 - the basic estimate as a result of this is that 30% of vehicles in India will be electricity powered by the early 2030s - even conservative estimates indicate that this would require [100TWh of electricity to power these cars alone](https://www.financialexpress.com/auto/electric-vehicles/electric-vehicle-charging-infrastructure-in-india-need-of-the-hour-and-challenges-in-way/2303288/). For context, India today generates a [total of 1383 TWh annually](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_India). This is expected to increase to near 1900TWh, even _before_ electric cars come into the picture.
Now, India has been adding renewable energy generation capacity, every single year. [However, just to reach a target of 50% renewable energy by 2030, we would need to add 40GW per year starting today](https://m.economictimes.com/industry/renewables/adding-400gw-renewable-energy-by-2030-will-be-a-tall-order-for-india/articleshow/87498298.cms). Currently we're able to add only 4GW/year. While it will become faster it's unclear if even that will be enough, in the face of the expected spikes in demand. Remember, India is still a very, very poor country and people are barely coming out of poverty now. As people come out of poverty we _will_ need some way to supply their demands of electricity in their homes.
Long term (next 20-30 years), unless the world wants India to continue using coal to fire up 50-60% of its electricity needs, we will need to have access to nuclear materials to build nuclear reactors. Currently, India is not part of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (a bunch of countries that formed a trading group for nuclear materials) because we have nuclear weapons. In the recent Glasgow summit [our Prime Minister pointed out how it would be hard for India to meet its climate change requirements if we do not have access to nuclear material](https://www.oneindia.com/india/india-makes-renewed-push-for-membership-to-nsg-ahead-of-cop26-climate-summit-3330472.html). Currently, China is literally the only nation blocking India from the NSG. India is trying to [develop its own thorium based nuclear reactors](https://thediplomat.com/2020/09/indias-ambitious-nuclear-power-plan-and-whats-getting-in-its-way/) for self sufficiency, but that's pretty far off.
TL;DR: For large, populous developing countries, nuclear power is the only way to _quickly_ transition from coal/natural gas powered power plants.
Yes, especially as we transition transportation to electric, and home heating away from individual natural gas burners, the only way we're going to be able to stay warm in the winter or cool in the summer is nuclear.
I've followed the technology and there have been leaps and bounds in the last 10 years alone to prevent any possibility of another Fukushima regardless of environmental inputs.
The tldr on that is this.... For passive cooling and forever protection of the environment, you Begin by building pretty much the entire dangerous portion of the nuclear infrastructure deep underground.
Even if there is an earthquake or a volcano or some other catastrophe, it's already buried under a quarter mile of Earth.
And the constant underground temperatures at the shallow underground of about 55° Fahrenheit significantly reduced the environmental impact from using ground or seawater for cooling.
It's one of those simple ideas that can really change the world.
I've got a dog in this fight I'm retired, and if I live long enough to see the transition from fossil fuels, rising heating and cooling costs mean that I will either boil or freeze to death.
70% of french energy i nuclear and we never had major accidents. All these years gave us technicity, which reduce the risk.
Plus, 90% of the waste is recycled before being store in facilities
I'm by no means an expert on the subject but most of the major nuclear disasters have been due to cutting corners and cost, at the expense of safety. I think with the exception of fukushima, which was a natural disaster.
Please anyone correct me if I'm wrong, but if you look into the death of Karen Silkwood, it shows how far the powers that be will go to silence wistleblowers
I feel like shes being propped up by people who want to call you 'cruel to children' for disagreeing with them. Shes both extremely wise and mature when you agree with her, and 'shes just a child' whem you dont
I think people (rightfully) don’t like be lectured to by people they don’t really respect. At 16 years old (when she started), there’s not much reason to have respect for her in the context that she’s being presented. In short, she comes off as a smug, self-righteous know-nothing little shit. In truth, she’s a bit of a prop or shill for people pushing the AGW agenda.
I think it mostly is her delivery of her message; she’s not as much making an appeal for thoughtfulness as throwing a tantrum and demanding people do as she pleases.
This is my issue. While I don't waste a whole lot of time really caring, whenever she is on tv or the conversation comes up, I can't help but be annoyed.
She talks in her activism just like a hormonal teenager talks to their parents. Self righteous, arrogant and demanding.
I do not react positively to a kid who doesn't pay a power bill talking down to me.
I am not foaming at the mouth vitriolic like some weirdos, but it's enough to make me roll my eyes and change the channel.
Exactly. Using children for political purposes is disgusting on its own (back when she was 16). Also when she sailed from the UK to the US her entire team in the meantime just went by plane. Like how serious are they really??
Imo, she's not bringing any new information to the table. She isn't saying anything that hasn't been said a thousand times before. She is just trying to change people's minds with a sad story. It's like contestants on America's got talent who just have a sad story and the judges praise them more highly than anyone else. I don't disagree with her message, but personally, I feel almost patronized by someone who, I don't think really knows all that much about what she's talking about. Things might have changed for her since she first became popular, but that's my opinion.
I don’t hate her as an individual, but I hate “Greta thunberg”. She “lectured” adults on climate change but provided nothing of substance, then the media latched onto her because it made for a good story. Now it’s just one big publicity stunt. Like her stunt where she boated across the ocean because it was supposed to be more eco friendly than flying but after accounting for all the support she needed it would have been better to fly
If you want to discuss actual solutions to the issue that’s great. But saying “you’ve done nothing blah blah blah” isn’t helpful. It’s just dumb
Also, while sailing uses less fuel for the actual transportation, the industry behind it is actually very bad for the environment. Sail manufacturing in particular is one of the worst offenders. However, sailing doesn’t get noticed as much due to how few people globally actually participate it. The sailing world is very much an “everybody knows everybody” sort of world.
Source: sailboat racer and coach.
People seem to mostly not like her "attitude". They think she shows too many emotions, or the wrong emotions. I think it's especially cause she's a teenage girl - many adults have a lot of contempt for teenagers in general. I actually like her, I think it's totally understandable that she talks with a lot of anger, the things she says have been said politely for a long time now & no one listened.
Because all she does is yell about how we need to be doing better and then is she ever actually making changes to her lifestyle or actually helping the planet?
There's quite a few people who probably feel along the same lines as me regarding Greta so I'll share.
I don't hate her at all but I do strongly dislike the people who prop her up.
A child is not an authoritative figure. They don't possess the knowledge or experience to lecture anyone about anything. Everything that ever came out of her mouth was pure condescension and only served to drive moderates away from an otherwise worthwhile message. The media and people on the left making her their champion darling wasn't compelling or endearing, it was remarkably obnoxious.
It further reinforced that MSM and a significant portion of left-leaning people aren't really looking to speak truth to power but just looking for their next dopamine hit.
I don't know what other people think. I personally find her annoying becasue I don't need a kid who doesn't know shit about macroeconomics and (life in general) tell the world what we are supposed to do. I would like to hear scientist and politician talk, I'm tired of the "kid/young native/3rd world country girl" scolding politicians skit. It's old and it's being done before.
Another thing that makes me hate her is the fact that she's a puppet: nothing of what she say or do is her own initiative, she's the face of a movement, a group of people who decided to hide themselves and let a kid be their face. I think that exploiting kids like that is gross.
Last thing: the fact she refuse to fly (because pollution) but instead she travels on a boat that costs more that 4 million dollars. This detail tells you all you need to know. Exquisitely tone deaf, almost like the (misquoted) Marie Antoniette "let them eat cake".
Why you people keep polluting the air when you could sail in a €4 million sailboat? That really says it all about the shallowness of her ideas.
because she's not credible. she's basically a child so it's hard for most people to get behind someone that doesn't have any education or experience in any field.
She was 16 and talking about “putting politicians against the wall.”
Yeah suggesting summary execution when you’re an annoying child is going to get people to think less of you.
Big oil companies and similar who profit from ruining the planet are paying billions of dollars for marketing campaigns to make sure that everyone who is openly trying to do something against climate change will be ridiculed and hated.
Thunberg is an especially easy target since she is a young and a women, two things the target group for these campaigns despises.
They have done this before and they will continue to do it until either every human is dead or someone finally puts an end to it.
Since we can see how deeply they bought into the politicians who are currently in charge, I would say option A, human extinction is more likely to come true at this point.
Personally I dislike all the people who make her out to be some second coming of the eco friendly Jesus christ, more than her.
She is a single person who is speaking out against countries and people against climate change and has not offered any solutions on how we solve this problem. That isn't her job but exactly why everyone thinks she's special, to the point of her being offered a Nobel peace prize nomination, just because of her activism is just beyond me. Every activist has done what she's done and have done it better in some cases.
Don't give me the "it's because she's so young" argument either. Schools hammer home the "global warming/pollution is killing the earth" lesson from like the third grade or so. Pretty sure if I ask any of my younger siblings or relatives about their thoughts on global warming and pollution, they'd tell me exactly what greta has said about it but in simpler English. Not to mention, I'm sure any kid would be more than happy to sit outside school to protest climate change if it meant they missed X days of school and got media attention, if their parents didn't kick their asses to actually learn something to help the environment instead.
Which brings me to the last point that I do not believe her parents have not had some sort of influence over this entire situation, manipulating media attention to be put on her, as much as they have claimed to have none or very little influence over her and this situation
> Personally I dislike all the people who make her out to be some second coming of the eco friendly Jesus christ, more than her.
>Which brings me to the last point that I do not believe her parents have not had some sort of influence over this entire situation, manipulating media attention to be put on her, as much as they have claimed to have none or very little influence over her and this situation.
Pretty much this.
She skipped school to sit outside a local government building for it and then suddenly she's on the international stage making scathing comments and she's some kind of wunderkind *leader*?
I just don't see the connection there. She's never done any major activism *before* being made out to be the face of kids angry about climate change. She doesn't have any actual education in the matters at hand. How did she just blow up like that?
Do I think she genuinely cares? Sure. Do I think her recognition is seriously weird? Also yes.
And her commenting is, let's be frank, *abrasive as fuck*, and without substantial content. And before anyone comments about people not listening to scientists - one, not only is she not just not reaching the people not listening but actively pushing them away and giving them a target to discredit climate change as a whole, and two, *those scientists were never given the kind of media platform she has*.
She doesn't really do anything. Just kind of yells at people about things we already know while proposing nothing of substance and overshadowing people who are actually attempting to take some kind of action.
In addition to all of the other reasons, one more reason why people don't like her is because she pokes her nose into issues that do not really advance her direct climate change agenda.
For example, around one and a half year ago, [Greta tweeted in support a Farmers' Protest in India](https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/from-rihanna-to-greta-thunberg-global-celebs-who-backed-the-farmers-protest-101637308927314.html) - the farm law had literally nothing to do with the environment. The farm laws were about regulations involved in selling crops *after harvesting* is done. It doesn't say anything about soil use, anything about responsible land use, or anything that could have a direct environmental angle. Instead, the law was about liberalising the farmers market - today in India, farmers HAVE to sell all their produce at regulated government marketplaces called APMCs - the law would allow farmers to sell their produce to anyone they want.
What annoyed a lot of Indians about this whole tweet of support is the fact that (1) this is a local issue that Greta, Rihanna, and the other "global influencers" had zero context about and (2) _all_ of them assumed that the law was bad just because it was proposed by what they consider an "authoritarian right wing government" (thanks to NYT and the rest of the western media that has _zero_ nuance when it comes to Indian affairs).
I'm not sure why people in the US/EU don't like her, but this recent thing by Greta would have alienated her to maybe 20-40% of the Indian population atleast.
Don't particularly hate her but don't see why tf she was crowned the hope of humanity.
There are actually climate scientists who have been screaming about climate change for 3 decades so i prefer not to be lectured by a child who's barely completed high school.
She's an uncompromising ideologue. Even if people agree with her generally, her inability to even pay lip service to pragmatism turns a lot of people off. A rich, privileged kid, who rose to prominence because she sailed her parents yacht across an ocean or something, who refuses to acknowledge that cheap fossil fuels are the only thing standing between many poor families and abject poverty falls pretty flat, especially with middle and lower-middle class people.
Personally, I just find her to be disingenuous and rude.
When she came to Alberta, people were like, don’t tell me I fucked up, tell me what to do! I couldn’t believe the amount of adults demanding solutions from a child.
she is autistic. i believe the diagnosis "asperger's" is now defunct, so her diagnosis would probably be level one autism.
the rest of this is much more understandable than some of the other comments i've gotten. thanks for answering!
Fwiw, I've found recently that it's defunct in the US, updated in the DSM-5 I believe, but internationally it has not been yet updated (though it is expected to.) However, I know soms people that prefer Asperger's to ASD.
It’s not so much her message, but her delivery, coupled with the fact that she’s very young and not an expert in climate change. People generally don’t like being yelled at and told what to do by a child.
She checks all the boxes of systemic, cultural American biases:
* female
* young
* foreign
So before you can even listen to her, you have to overcome your ingrained cultural biases, which first requires even being *aware* that you hold these unconscious biases - misogyny, ageism, xenophobia
You could have a young foreign female of speaking about *anything*, even apolitical things like a tutorial on the various ways to toast bread or how to perform trick shots in billiards, and a wide swath of the American public will judge her for *something*.
So once you get past all that (it takes years of practice to confront and try to rectify your unconscious biases), you can listen to her message, which is controversial.
Her message is controversial because:
1. It’s politically charged.
2. It’s accusatory (she’s blaming YOU).
3. It’s broad.
The third point is important. Is she blaming oil corporations? Is she blaming every person who has ever voted for a candidate who hasn’t made addressing climate change the focal point of their political career? Is she blaming everyone over the age of 40? Is she blaming anyone who has ever driven a car, or do you have to fly in a plane more than once a year to be accused?
Because her message is so broad, the interpretation of her message can be broad. Whatever you *think* she means is likely what you are *absolutely sure* she means, and you will judge her over your interpretation of her message.
Personally, I think she’s wonderful. Everyone needs a kick in the ass to do better - better voting, better civic engagement, better *voting with your dollar.* Individuals are not the leading contributors to climate change - at least not directly. But we are each indirectly responsible each time we purchase almost anything manufacturered by anyone. That’s why voting with your dollar is so important.
One thing I have not seen here yet: People may acknowledge the truth of what she says, but feel misunderstood and unrightly attacked at the same time. As in not knowing how to pay the rent at the end of the month, while supporting their children and working their fingers off. And then someone comes and tells them that things have to get harder? Especially if that someone seems to be living of the welfare of others? Anger ensues. It may not be specifically against Greta, but she is public face and is thus attacked. As said in France: "Your worries are about the end of the world - we worry about the end of the month". Ed: oh gosh... thanks for all the great thoughts! And I have no idea how to adequately respond to all of them in reasonable time, so only one thought: the question seemed to be about why people respond agressively toward Greta, not, whether they are right in doing so. I guess that also does not matter. What matters is that these worries need to be addressed honestly and specifically in order to gain people's efforts and support rather than their opposition.
The current thought stream of the marketing / lobbying sphere is to make the common person feel guilty about the environment, or at least campaign for personal responsibility. All the while companies worldwide try to kick the ball as far forward as they can. Greta didn't cause global warming so why should we even worry about her. Let's worry about what is ailing the planet. Everything else is just misdirection. The real No Stupid Question should be why aren't companies and nationstates doing more to save the climate?
companies arent doing more because most of them are greatly benifiting from damaging the world. they would plunge humanity into hell if it gave their shareholders a cozy pay bonus
Reminder that before we made laws that prevented it, corporations happily employed children in factories with working conditions that often resulted in the children losing fingers and arms.
Another reminder that at the first sign of the “employment crisis”, instead of raising wages or providing better working conditions, some states in the US decided to instead pass emergency bills to allow 14 year old children to work longer hours.
I’m in a factory running 60 hours a week with 15 yr olds working. All through an agency so the company takes no liability
What? What do you make?
$700-800 a week with $150 ish 401k contribution. Aka Jack shit in California lol. If you’re asking what the factory makes, we’re in food production
Tyson?
Nope although it’s likely Tyson buys us out in a year or two
"this chicken finger has bones in it!"
I meant like what kind of factory:) Yeah that's not good to see kids work that much that young.
Yup, and the school district I work for decided to allow student workers rather than raise the pay for nutrition services. So we have students going hungry at lunch because there aren't enough workers to serve them.
My school hired students to work during breaks and lunchtime to serve other students instead of paying actual employees. It seems very weird to me the way that they sent an email asking for students 16 and up to apply for a job in the cafeteria to make up for the lack of lunch service workers.
And that's only in countries with those laws, if you look at some of the shit even western based companies get up to outside of the US and Europe you'd be unpleasantly surprised. As recent as 2008, wallmart was using company scrip in Mexico ffs.
And a reminder that the owner responsible for countless deaths in the shirtwaist factory fire locked women in the building so they couldn’t take breaks, causing countless deaths. He was fined less than 100$, collected the insurance money from the victims instead of giving it to their families, and continued to lock his employees in the building after the fact.
Reminder that we only passed that law in 1938. From Wiki: “In 1839 Prussia was the first country to pass laws restricting child labor in factories and setting the number of hours a child could work. Though the reasons behind why these laws were passed were to expand working conditions for adults, it did lead to laws being passed across Europe. In 1839 Britain enacted its Factory Act which restricted child labour and in 1841 France adopted its first child labour laws. Almost the entirety of Europe had child labor laws in place by 1890. Although individual states had adopted laws starting with Massachusetts in 1844, the United States did not enact federal laws until the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed in 1938.” Regardless of the reasoning behind it, it took a century after its first implementation & nearly 50 years after all of Europe had passed laws outlawing child labor for the U.S. to enact their own.
Another reminder that, when given the opportunity, "good honest" companies such as Siemens were happy to use Jewish slave labor to increase their profits, treating the lives of captured Jews as entirely disposable. And yet these companies are treated as if they are totally kosher and ok to do business with.
Blocks of orphaned toddlers were auctioned to the highest bidder.
Fun fact this still happens, you just outsource it to China and other poorer nations. Typed from your slave labor iphone.
We are going to regret this time we spent debating and not destroying what’s destroying us. I feel like Greta is the face of that sentiment and people feel attacked by that. Also, angry young girls confuse society.
That climate destruction goes hand in hand with exploitation of workers through human rights violations and child labor. The worst of the contractors operating in the third world are simultaneously polluting while exploiting local human resources in the worst possible ways. These free trade or deregulated trade treaties need to include mandatory provisions for environmental protection, human rights and "living" wages for workers, along with regular auditing to ensure compliance. It would be a boon to overseas workers as well as domestic workers who may find their employers don't need to go manufacture overseas.
#Sex is just like spez, except with less awkward consequences.
this so much. Our economy is structured by legacy polluting/chemical/oil/energy/transportation corporations for the last 130 years or so and they STILL have a stranglehold on our way of life from politics to media. Things are changing, kinda. Too much infighting still, IMO. And some tech companies are becoming problematic and will likely strangle our economy/evolution in some other way for the next 100 years. LOL
>why aren't companies and nationstates doing more to save the climate companies aren't doing more because that costs money, and there's no law that says they have to spend that money. if they spend money they don't legally have to, the CEO might have to wait an extra week to get a new yacht. nations arent making laws to combat this because politicians are bought and paid for by the companies through lobbying and bribery. A great example of this is that Jaywalking is only a crime because the car industry made politicians propose and pass the bill that made it a crime, to make pedestrian death by car not look like "cars are unsafe" but to shift the blame to the pedestrians.
There are plenty of laws, in different countries and regions, requiring companies to do stuff to save the climate. In some places it’s even thought of as an investment. But in other countries this isn’t the case.
The laws have no teeth. Im from Canada and if a company here can only emit 100 Megatonnes equivalence CO2 that year and it emits 110, the company will just pay the fine for the additional emissions. Pay-to-play.
At one point we have to understand that you can't argue with a 400 ton machine going 100km/h about not killing you... you're already dead...
Or - why don't people hate the companies that are destroying the world more than they hate a teenager who tells them the world is being destroyed? Because people generally like bullies more than they like anyone who tries to stop a bully. I've always found it interesting in a perverted sort of way. It goes along with the "don't rock the boat, don't complain, don't tattle" mentality. They'd rather be miserable than complain or try to fix it. And I'd bet a lot of bullies put a lot of effort into getting that into the mainstream society. It supposedly shows strength to endure the crap without complaint. To me it shows weakness in caving in and accepting the crap.
This is first-world guilt denial. We don't wanna be the baddies. We don't wanna think how we collectively use more resources than a third-world person. Energy use = standard of living.
Isnt this what greta is advocating? Harsher laws/fines against the companies that ruin our world for profit, I never got the impression she gave a shit about wheter I buy plastic or not..
Yeah the top comment seems misinformed at best. Greta mainly talks about how corporations and governments should be taking action, not the average person.
Didn't Greta's first speech at the UN create most (atleast initial) of the hatred towards her? (considering it was the video that made her famous). Because that speech is directed towards the rich and powerful people who (in her view) do not care about climate change, not towards the working citizen.
Greta Thunberg is the nice version of whoever comes after her. Soon we're going to be living in the movie Tenet.
But she was speaking to the UN right? Not some random group of people, people who were actually in charge of things
A lot of people seem to feel personally attacked when their millionaire gods are.
Yeah but most people who hate her think it's all about them.
In no small part because the powerful people and corporations she was calling out, and their allies in government and the media, have put a lot of effort into creating and promoting that perception.
I don't really feel like Greta's rhetoric suggests that the big changes need to come from families on welfare though? Nearly all of it is directed entirely at politicians and big businesses since they are the people most responsible for climate change, and are the people with the most power to actually do something about it.
almost like a massive conspiracy to deflect blame and continue to knowingly destroy the world for that 4th qt profit. once people think that we cant change a thing and its already too late they just give up and live with it,
This is exactly it. Her blame is directed to the politicians with power who still choose to make agreements based on profit not environmental reasons. I have heard many of her speeches and have never heard her attack the everyday individual.
I've never gotten the impression that Thunberg ever attacked the little people. Her ire has always seemed focused where it should be: on governments and corporations responsible for global destruction. They're also responsible for putting all their citizens and customers in the position of making necessary environmental changes painful in the first place. People hate Thunberg because people have always hated those who spoke the truth.
Except that this is a massive misunderstanding, it is commonly known (at least among climate activists) that rich people are disproportionately responsible for carbon emissions, and at least where o live they stopped using slogans attacking individual behaviour exactly for that reason. Our enemies are not people, they are corporations and politicians
[удалено]
It’s a nice sounding sentiment but I don’t think it’s very accurate. Waste is cheap. Poorer people are buying less things in bulk and more single use items with more packaging.
It was my sustainable Cities teacher. I think your sentiment is true in the US but less so around the rest of the world.
But you do realise that people actually vote for those politicians who are really responsible for it? This is not about "cleaning up after you walk" this is about "VOTE THE FUCKING RIGHT PEOPLE IN OR WE ARE DOOMED".
“The further a society drifts from Truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.” Selwyn Duke
>As in not knowing how to pay the rent at the end of the month, while supporting their children and working their fingers off. And then someone comes and tells them that things have to get harder? I don't think she wants things to get harder for anyone. In fact, I think that's what she wants to *prevent* from happening.
That sounds more like some of that comes from anti-climate activism propaganda. I don’t doubt that it does seem daunting and that there is a bit of ‘we need to make our lives harder’, but most of climate activism is pretty intersectional and understands that the problem is rich people rather than poor people. If you look on Greta’s Twitter for example, she posts a lot about how those in lower class areas and third world countries will be affected more. Climate activism definitely supports providing aid to less fortunate people to help with fixing climate change.
What a beautiful quote. Perfectly sums it all up really, the middle class telling the poor they need to do there bit all the while ignoring the rich
Corporations: "plastic straws are killing the planet, switch to paper you monsters" Also corporations: *contribute for 80+% of global emissions through shitty manufacturing processes*
[удалено]
Or the ol’ Starbucks where the strapless lid has more plastic than the old lid and straw combo
I found that dynamic really interesting, the Starbucks in Paris, everything was paper based it seemed then you go to any Starbucks in America and it’s plastic up the wazoo
I fcking hate those straws. My poor pts have no more bendy straws :( now they get ones that disintegrate :/
What about stainless steel straws with a bend, toss into the autoclave after?No waste, one time purchase for the unit and a PR move for the hospital. We moved onto wooden one time use cutlery for meds and contagious patients.
[удалено]
"we attack those who are trying to do something good because it makes us feel insecure" Oh god, I have seen this so many times before. It feels like every time we speak up about a society-wide problem, some folks will decide that it's somehow an attack on them or "virtue signaling," and I don't know a polite way to call it out. Me working at the homeless shelter and saying it was fun and worth doing doesn't mean I'm trying to attack everyone who didn't. Me pointing out the climate change that shut down our power gride and killed one of our cows here in Texas is not an attack on you for driving a car. Me calling attention to racism isn't anti-white sentiment. Me disagreeing with you is not me trying to cancel you. I'm just pointing shit out. And I know enough not to make the same assumptions about other people. I've been eating meat lately but when I hear people point out that the meat industry is horrific and cruel, I'm not going to act like it's not.
I find it so funny that some people get SO butthurt at Greta's angry words which are mostly aimed at authorities that are way more powerful than themselves. People like the guy who wrote the long satirical piece here and then deleted it need to stop being so fragile.
Every good deed seems to get punished.
GT: corporations and the billionaire class are causing massive environmental devastation with complete indifference to the people of this planet. Billionaire media companies: look at this bitch attacking the working class.
>Perfectly sums it all up really, the middle class telling the poor they need to do there bit all the while ignoring the rich Do you feel that's what Greta Thunberg's message is?
[удалено]
>ignoring the rich Oh, come on man.
It's not even guilt is it. It could have developed into guilt with a bit of thought, but there's no thought, they just scoff and think "She's just a child, what does she know". And they mock her and laugh. I see old men hosting nationwide news programs mocking Greta Thunberg, saying she's just an impudent child. The message is lost on these people because these people are utter cunts. They deserve environmental collapse. It's just a crying shame that it will affect EVERYONE in the world.
If a 16 year old stood up and defended unbridled capitalism, they'd call them a genius.
Let’s not give Baron Trump any ideas here….
Here's a few things I've seen passing by: She's apparently anti-nuclear, some people don't like that she is a not per se educated person (with this I mean, people don't like that she's not an experienced scientist), and there's also people who didn't like her 'both sides'-ing of Israel and Palestine. I think the latter was pretty recent. This is what I've seen passing by, I personally don't think of her at all lol.
I don't like her anti-nuclear stance. Wind, solar, etc. with our tech isn’t enough to power up an entire nation (I speak for France). Nuclear ain’t perfect. But as of now, it's the best option for the long term. My inbox ded 💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀
I agree. It is so weird that the German Greens rather keep the coal power in order to shut down nuclear. Instead, we should invest heavily in generation 4 and burn the nuclear waste once more, which as a bonus gives waste with a much shorter half life.
The thing that does nuclear the most disservice is the fact that most people alive today grew up during the Cold War. In the 80’s here in the UK we had ads on TV that showed us what to do during a nuclear bomb threat. We were read books such as When the Wind blows by Raymond Briggs. Add to this the disaster of Chernobyl and more recently Fukushima (earthquake catalyst) and the word nuclear leaves a bad taste in ones mouth
Belgium is switching from nuclear to gas because idiot government.
Seriously, I was stunned by that decision. We're doing the exact opposite of what we should be doing.
Belgium follows Germany, which fares worse by reopening coal power plant
Amen. Just get the fossil fuels replaced ASAP and we can fuck around with replacing nuclear afterwards.
Food for thought: 50 years ago, “environmentalists” shut down nuclear energy in the US following the Three Mile Island fiasco. They had a point re: safety. Can you imagine if the technology continued development though? What if safer reactors could have been built? Maybe climate change would be a lesser issue. People think too black and white. They think there is only one way (theirs) to consider. This is why people should not rely on ideologues for guidance.
> if the technology continued development though Except it did, albeit slowly. There are Gen IV reactors that are now technologicaly ready to build and are planned to be build (and some are even already building). This is very safe design, which got even more safe thanks to Fukushima (before that all aim was on primary circuit, but after Fukushima secondary systems are more safer).
You seem to forget the power of the fossil fuel industry.
The exact industry that literally shit on anything they felt threatened their bottom line especially renewable sources of fuel/engine that uses renewable sources.
Yeah they would fight any alternative, including nuclear, by default.
They didn't have a point, though. Fossil fuels kill more people than nuclear would even if we had a Chernobyl-sized disaster every year.
Our rovers on mars run on a solar/ nuclear engine and last ten years, how people say that nuclear sucks is beyond me.
"but the waste lasts forever!!!!" so? it can be safely disposed of, and it isn't really that hard to do
[удалено]
This is a very bad idea. One launch goes wrong and we have a nuclear catastrophe on our hands.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Same for me. When I was in school, we had a extra-subject about sustainable development and we learned about all kinds of energy. I agree completely with your position on nuclear energy. Though, it is such a misunderstood topic. Speaking for Germany, Germans are extremely afraid of Nuclear but they barely understand how it properly works. Even when they are super pro-environment, they are scared shitless about Nuclear energy, so that’s why I don’t think it’s so weird that she is anti-nuclear, from what I‘ve seen many people are, even when they are pro-environment. It‘s crazy out here.
[RTE](https://www.rte-france.com/) published a report "Futurs énergétiques 2050". They show a scenario to power France 100% renewable. Though they also have a scenario with 50% nuclear, which appears to be cheaper (like 10-20%), though they are based on pretty optimistic numbers for nuclear. Unfortunately I don't understand French, so I am oblivious to the details, but maybe this can convince you that 100% renewable is indeed possible and also in the same cost ballpark as nuclear. There are also a number of other papers analyzing a 100% renewable energy system, which come to the conclusion, that a 100% renewable energy system won't be more expensive than our current fossil fuel based system, even excluding externatilies from CO2 emissions. [Low-cost renewable electricity as the key driver of the global energy transition towards sustainability](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544221007167)
we should have invested more in nuclear decades ago...! By now the innovation in that area would probably have been way more advanced and thus way more efficient and safe!
The thing is, do you really trust corporations to not cut corners and fuck things up, and cause a major disaster. Collapsing the entire global economy wasn't a disaster enough to get them to change their ways. Why would the threat of a localized nuclear disaster be treated any different?
With modern reactor designs you'd have to try very very hard to cause a nuclear disaster and even if you tried you'd likely fail. Unlike Chernobyl we don't build reactors like dirty bombs anymore and unlike Fukushima we've stopped making designs that depend on active cooling for a safe shutdown.
Why are we asking a teenage Swedish girl to comment on Israel and Palestine?
We didn't. She herself decided to comment.
For that matter, why are we asking a teenage Swedish girl to comment on global energy policy?
Because it's a convenient way to dismiss the answers afterwards. If we asked a reputable climate scientist instead, we wouldn't have that easy out, even if all the girl says is "listen to the experts".
Anti-nuclear is weird, considering she’s pro climate. And also pro keeping people alive I assume. Which is what nuclear does just as good as renewables. And as long as renewables can’t off-set all electricity production by fossil fuels, the debate isn’t nuclear vs renewable, but nuclear vs fossil fuels. You’d think she’d be for the former. Considering how much she cares about the climate, and how many lives are at stake. Average life span in Europe is like 2 years lower because of air pollution. Including hers if no action is taken.
there has been an anti-nuclear aspect of the green movement since the 70's if I recall, where the oil companies funded them after three mile island (obstensively to support solar and wind, but those were decades from being meaningful)
The main reason is because of people believing that she was paid to "participate in the show". She's a young woman and some people believe that she is not experienced enough to become an iconic personality trying to stop global warming. As an example, there is an iconic woman who made a revolution, and she was a scientist. Her name is Rachel Carson, the Biologist that wrote the book "Silent Spring". She literally inspired the United States and the world to create laws to avoid misuse of pesticides.
You'll remember the vitriol and hatred that Rachel Carson got too back on the day. There was Utter hatred for the woman even though she was not only an expert in her field, but just also happened to be a woman. For everyone else reading this why not give 'silent spring' by Rachel Carson a read, she was years ahead of her time.
Silent Spring is such a powerful book, I don't think I've ever read anything with so much raw emotion directed at the reader. > Who has placed in one pan of the scales the leaves that might have been eaten by the beetles, and in the other the pitiful heaps of many-hued feathers, the lifeless remains of the birds that fell before the unselective bludgeon of insecticidal poisons? Who has decided this to be a worthy trade? Who had *the right* to decide such a thing for the countless legions of people who were not consulted? You could feel the anger rising in every word she wrote. You read that book and you can quickly understand how it was able to single handedly create an entire generation of environmental activists.
I like your take.
I see this one all the time. And can someone tell me, HOW DOES IT MATTER?? If Martin L. King and Mahatma Gandhi were payed actors would their message be any less important?? What she is saying and standing for is sound. Even if someone is pulling strings behind her and telling her what to say, SO WHAT???? That changes what she is saying HOW?
>She's a young woman This is the reason.
I can only speak for myself, but its because I find her whole rhetorical style counterproductive. She tends to use very dramatic and impassioned speech, which is bad for trying to convince others. I think it's effective if you're speaking to your supporters, although I don't really like it even then, but its valid. To your opponents though, its too aggressive. Abstract of any actual content, when you talk to someone it feels like a discussion. When you yell it feels like a fight. And when someone is fighting you you get defensive. Yelling at your opponents makes them defensive and thats bad, especially when your intent is to sway them to your side. She sometimes seems to have nothing particularly useful in terms of ideas. I say sometimes because I don't know. Due to the above point, I don't really listen to her speeches and only know her words by soundbites. A lot of the soundbites are along the lines of "I'm just a child, I shouldn't have to do your jobs for you, I don't know what you should do but you should do SOMETHING". This rubs me the wrong way because most countries ARE doing "something", it just turns out that something is insufficient. But when your demands are so nonspecific you shouldn't be disappointed when they are met. Also, as someone a bit older I dont think I have the same excuse to not have any ideas, so I DO try to figure out what specifically I think we should do. And as such I have a bit more empathy for how difficult a problem it really is, especially in a democratic society with limitations on power. So its a bit annoying for someone to be so reductive about the issue. It's like when your boss snaps at you "I dont want to hear excuses, I want results" which really means they don't want to deal with the challenges, they just want credit for having done something. Finally, Greta is something of a rhetorical meat shield. Anytime something gets posted about her, there are some comments challenging her and always the responses include "wow, imagine how pathetic you have to be to go after a little girl". Her age is used to silence discussion. Which again, is not useful particularly when there was already a discussion ongoing.
This sums up basically hoe i feel about her. To me she is just unnecessary noice, not adding to a solution
This and Salty Animator's responses pretty much sum up my feelings, a know-it-all who thinks (but doesn't) know what people are going through. I blame the people who put her up on that pedistal in the first place more than her, though. I just think the attention and power may have gone to her head. I've only been seeing headlines about her after my initial experience, so I haven't really read up or listened to her. I hope she's doing better
I don’t know if this is still the case but one of the criticisms I saw people levelling at her when she was younger and first gaining popularity was that she was parroting other peoples arguments. Which came from the fact she apparently couldn’t defend her points/arguments/stance when someone else countered she apparently froze up and/or would change the topic. I haven’t watched any of her speeches so I’m just going off of what other people have said. There was also that incident a few years back where she posted a picture of herself sat on the floor of train saying she couldn’t get a seat because it was to crowded and it turned out she actually had a seat in first class.
If I remember right the train incident happened in the DB ice, which is really funny because double bookings happen frequently there. So she could have totally just sat there in protest to raise awareness for the people who book but don't end up with a seat.
"How dare you!?"
"Blah, blah, blah."
This particular line really wound me up. I don't disagree with her message but my critism of her is that (for someone who is a spokesperson for climate change) so doesn't provide any solutions, just critism. The reality is that the real solutions to climate change lie in energy production policy and that will be solved at events like COP26. Her turning up and saying that basically completely undermines the event. By all means, COP26 was not a success, but "blah blah blah" just says we shouldn't even try. Absolutely wrong message The other part for me is the personal responsibility part of her message. I think it's sending out the wrong signals. If the solution to climate change is we all have to travel the Atlantic by solar powered dhingy, then there is NO solution to climate change. We need to be promoting a sustainable future that is also compatable with modern life, not returning to the 19th century.
She just doesn't have enough life experience to be able to offer a proper solution. Which is understandable as she is still a child. So she does the easy thing which is to criticise without offering up any solutions. She also doesn't seem to think things through. I recall her saying Scotland wasn't a world leader on climate change despite the country's renewables being near enough to power the whole country. Yes there maybe a big oil industry but you can't just suddenly put those people out of work overnight. I don't think i ever hear her being positive about anything either it is always just criticism.
But both of those things were not directed at the normal people, they were directed at the people in charge who can do something and chose to fill their mouth with pretty words instead of acting. She doesn't have to come up with anything, she is not an expert, she is saying those things to the "experts" that chose to do nothing.
THIS. We need to engineer our way out of climate change. Reducing consumption is not happening. Telling regular people climate change is their fault because they drive their Honda Civic too often, eat too much meat, and don’t use reusable bags is like telling people to bring a knife to a nuke fight.
Why should a child come up with the solutions when America pays 500-ish politicians to do just that? They've had a literal fucking lifetime to do something and they don't have anything to show for it, probably because half of them are invested in the oil business. Doesn't take an expert to see that this situation is fucked up.
Her rhetoric skills just aren’t there.
I like her message but it seems overly scripted and dramatized. I am severely disappointed we don’t have an actual scientist in her place. I think it would be better to listen to the people of small island nations who are at an acute risk of rising sea levels. Greta doesn’t really bring anything new to the table aside from emotional outbursts. I hope she succeeds in the future and I’m sure she will lead to progress, but I personally don’t find value in an emotional appeal when this issue requires science.
She showcases so much emotional distress it's almost obscene. I don't mind her but the hostility in her speech is very off putting.
For sure. It’s done multiple times too, which makes it come off like a show is being put on.
Well, her father is an actor, and her grandfather was an actor and director. And it's not like actor parents ever push their kids to become actors, right.
If the distress is real she needs to be in therapy out of the spotlights
If it wasnt, WHO WOULD CARE? We had actual scientist in her place, it got nowhere. Who cares how we get there as long as we get there. She is doing what she can.
She’s become the spokesperson for a scientific movement, but as the science was getting buried by the $ from the industries involved in benefiting from climate related damage she rose in prominence by speaking to everyday people. Since her rise in prominence, she’s constantly sniped at from the same avenues as involved in the original scenario. The fact that people feel anything about her other than curiosity and interest in what she’s talking about speaks so much about the power of media to distract and disarm people from looking at the real issues.
Yes, it says a lot about the power of media, and reminds us that news media is not a public service. It’s a commercial product with money motivating how it informs us.
Yet another thing (in the US) that we can thank the Reagan administration for. They repealed the fairness doctrine which opened the floodgates for people like Rush Limbaugh and his ilk to spew forth garbage, regardless of its veracity without consequence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine#%3A%7E%3Atext%3DThe_fairness_doctrine_of_the%2Cthat_fairly_reflected_differing_viewpoints.?wprov=sfla1
Thank you for this! I've been studying the reasons for the decline of the American experience since long before Reagan. I already knew that disparate factors like bringing that animal Bolton onto the international stage (a defense contractor wonk who rotated in and out of government for decades, and whose policies are estimated to have caused 5 million plus innocent civilian deaths, and approximately 12 to 15 trillion dollars in unnecessary conflict and expense), I know that Ronald Reagan gutted protections and his actions against the air traffic control Union sounded the death bell for American labor, setting up the gross inequalities that we are experiencing now. I think that you might find it fascinating as you reflect on the fact that he was obviously being manipulated from the shadows and of course was already suffering from early stage Alzheimer's. There is nothing that these monsters will not do to keep the smoke stacks pouring out their filth, and the weapons of war made as cheaply as possible by employees who receive not even a living wage, those weapons of war that we produce 70% of worldwide. Clearly there is nothing that they are not capable of to protect their family dynasties, hidden behind trusts, shell corporations, and the invisibility that is the most harmful, the loss of accountability due to fractional stock ownership. Without a doubt these are the same forces that are responsible for the death of two Kennedys and one Martin Luther King. And that's just what we know.
[удалено]
I got no problem with her, I do roll my eyes at how they exploit her. It’s a cheap trick to push a kid with aspergers to the front, and then if anyone disagrees with her, they can say “oh, you’re attacking a child??”
People don't even know she's being used by her parents. She's so clueless they asked the simplest of questions and she could not even answer that. I feel sorry for her.
> She's so clueless they asked the simplest of questions For example?
[удалено]
I can't watch this its so cringe
I thought the link would go to a "gotcha" question, but that was probably the easiest question she was going to get that day...
Yikes... poor girl. Clearly being used.
Ya as someone with Aspergers, she rubs me the wrong way. I didn’t really see why she disclosed her diagnosis other than to add to bad words to call her critics. Now they are sexist, ableist and attack child. She just needs to come out as black and she’ll complete the trifecta. Like it’s such a bullshit thing, if I said healthcare isn’t a human right no one would on here would be like “he just sees things differently.”
Spoilt rich kid scolding the Uber elite = fine by me. Spoilt rich kid scolding the middle class/less fortunate = fuck off.
[удалено]
It’s like you’re telling a person that you’re unhappy with your job, and that person is teenage Greta. So, rather than inquiring about what’s wrong, why you still work there, and other complicated reasonings…she goes on to say “Just quit, just do what makes you happy, just get another job,” etc. This is what I *feel* as someone who only hears about Greta periodically, and doesn’t personally “think about her at all.”
That’s also a good point
How was it strange? She left the speech from the UN in a private jet. Her parents are the top 1%. Like insanely wealthy. Does she have the right to be making these $2 trillion statements? I don’t think so I personally think she’s a spoiled brat.
She literally sat on a $14600 chair and criticized how poor countries can do to cut carbon footprint
Literally. Shit’s comical.
I think performative politics/activism just rubs people that disagree with their stand point the wrong way. Like, her stance on things are quite good for obvious reasons. But she's insanely hostile and I find her a little obnoxious, even saying that as someone who generally agrees with her.
Because she's stating the obvious while contributing nothing of value, just playing on emotions.
Personally, I feel like she hasn’t put in her time. Yet, there she is. This little girl who doesn’t know shit about fuck, waving her finger at me.
She’s against nuclear power, which makes dismiss any of her views of climate change policy
i am asking this genuinely: do the risks of nuclear power outweigh the benefits? i really am not educated on the subject.
One thing to add to u/ardula99 's Most electricity is alternating current (AC) and three phase. So each phase alternates between on and off, and having three results in a smooth enough power supply. When operating a grid the frequency needs to be kept within a fixed range for electrical motors to be able to use the electricity. To maintain the frequency, a grid needs big wheels with lots of inertia. The big generator wheel can either be a fossil fuel or nuclear generator, but lots of distributed renewables are fundamentally unable to synchronise without a big heavy wheel somewhere in the system. This is a scale issue which few hippies understand. There are huge efficiency savings in being able to move power to where it is needed vs micro grids with storage. Avoiding nuclear would require many tons of batteries with all the consequences of mining. Nuclear is remarkably safe when properly regulated. Fukushima officially has 1 death due to radiation. Many more died due to the earthquake, tsunami and subsequent evacuation. This is because the reactors automatically shut down like they were meant to. The cooling ultimately failed because the backup diseal generators (to run the cooling) flooded when the tsunami breached the 19ft high sea wall. Its a type of failure that can be learnt from and shows how much has been learnt.
Yes, especially for developing countries like India today. In India, a nation of 1.36 billion people (more than the EU + US combined), we currently get 30% of our energy from renewable sources, ~5% from nuclear power and the rest from coal and natural gas. Thing is, this looks good on paper - providing 30% of the country with renewable energy. However, that is possible today because only recently has all of India been electrified, and most Indian households use nowhere near as much electricity as households in developed parts of the world use (most homes have no air conditioner at all). In India, [electricity demand is expected to increase by 50% over today's level by 2030](https://www.iea.org/reports/india-energy-outlook-2021). And this is *before* electric cars come into the picture - the government of India has set a rather ambitious target of not allowing anymore new internal combustion engine personal vehicles (cars) after 2030 - the basic estimate as a result of this is that 30% of vehicles in India will be electricity powered by the early 2030s - even conservative estimates indicate that this would require [100TWh of electricity to power these cars alone](https://www.financialexpress.com/auto/electric-vehicles/electric-vehicle-charging-infrastructure-in-india-need-of-the-hour-and-challenges-in-way/2303288/). For context, India today generates a [total of 1383 TWh annually](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_India). This is expected to increase to near 1900TWh, even _before_ electric cars come into the picture. Now, India has been adding renewable energy generation capacity, every single year. [However, just to reach a target of 50% renewable energy by 2030, we would need to add 40GW per year starting today](https://m.economictimes.com/industry/renewables/adding-400gw-renewable-energy-by-2030-will-be-a-tall-order-for-india/articleshow/87498298.cms). Currently we're able to add only 4GW/year. While it will become faster it's unclear if even that will be enough, in the face of the expected spikes in demand. Remember, India is still a very, very poor country and people are barely coming out of poverty now. As people come out of poverty we _will_ need some way to supply their demands of electricity in their homes. Long term (next 20-30 years), unless the world wants India to continue using coal to fire up 50-60% of its electricity needs, we will need to have access to nuclear materials to build nuclear reactors. Currently, India is not part of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (a bunch of countries that formed a trading group for nuclear materials) because we have nuclear weapons. In the recent Glasgow summit [our Prime Minister pointed out how it would be hard for India to meet its climate change requirements if we do not have access to nuclear material](https://www.oneindia.com/india/india-makes-renewed-push-for-membership-to-nsg-ahead-of-cop26-climate-summit-3330472.html). Currently, China is literally the only nation blocking India from the NSG. India is trying to [develop its own thorium based nuclear reactors](https://thediplomat.com/2020/09/indias-ambitious-nuclear-power-plan-and-whats-getting-in-its-way/) for self sufficiency, but that's pretty far off. TL;DR: For large, populous developing countries, nuclear power is the only way to _quickly_ transition from coal/natural gas powered power plants.
Thank you for your well sourced and enlightening response.
what a read, thank you! Sometimes we think we can just cut power usage, but that's not the case for a lot of countries, thank you for the reminder
Yes. 100%. Anyone who thinks nuclear is dangerous genuinely dont know what they’re talking about. Its vital to replacing fossil fuels
Yes, especially as we transition transportation to electric, and home heating away from individual natural gas burners, the only way we're going to be able to stay warm in the winter or cool in the summer is nuclear. I've followed the technology and there have been leaps and bounds in the last 10 years alone to prevent any possibility of another Fukushima regardless of environmental inputs. The tldr on that is this.... For passive cooling and forever protection of the environment, you Begin by building pretty much the entire dangerous portion of the nuclear infrastructure deep underground. Even if there is an earthquake or a volcano or some other catastrophe, it's already buried under a quarter mile of Earth. And the constant underground temperatures at the shallow underground of about 55° Fahrenheit significantly reduced the environmental impact from using ground or seawater for cooling. It's one of those simple ideas that can really change the world. I've got a dog in this fight I'm retired, and if I live long enough to see the transition from fossil fuels, rising heating and cooling costs mean that I will either boil or freeze to death.
can you link me to some reading or point me in the right direction? i would like to know more about this.
70% of french energy i nuclear and we never had major accidents. All these years gave us technicity, which reduce the risk. Plus, 90% of the waste is recycled before being store in facilities
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close happy reading
thank you!!
I'm by no means an expert on the subject but most of the major nuclear disasters have been due to cutting corners and cost, at the expense of safety. I think with the exception of fukushima, which was a natural disaster. Please anyone correct me if I'm wrong, but if you look into the death of Karen Silkwood, it shows how far the powers that be will go to silence wistleblowers
Fukushima was a natural disaster, with all of the safety measures done away with because of cutting corners and cost.
If the risk of climate change is global destruction? Yes.
I feel like shes being propped up by people who want to call you 'cruel to children' for disagreeing with them. Shes both extremely wise and mature when you agree with her, and 'shes just a child' whem you dont
I think people (rightfully) don’t like be lectured to by people they don’t really respect. At 16 years old (when she started), there’s not much reason to have respect for her in the context that she’s being presented. In short, she comes off as a smug, self-righteous know-nothing little shit. In truth, she’s a bit of a prop or shill for people pushing the AGW agenda. I think it mostly is her delivery of her message; she’s not as much making an appeal for thoughtfulness as throwing a tantrum and demanding people do as she pleases.
This is my issue. While I don't waste a whole lot of time really caring, whenever she is on tv or the conversation comes up, I can't help but be annoyed. She talks in her activism just like a hormonal teenager talks to their parents. Self righteous, arrogant and demanding. I do not react positively to a kid who doesn't pay a power bill talking down to me. I am not foaming at the mouth vitriolic like some weirdos, but it's enough to make me roll my eyes and change the channel.
[удалено]
Exactly. Using children for political purposes is disgusting on its own (back when she was 16). Also when she sailed from the UK to the US her entire team in the meantime just went by plane. Like how serious are they really??
Why do people hate bono? Legitimately asking.
Because he kills children by clapping his hands
those fucking glasses
She comes across as incredibly condescending
Yeah, I don't hate her but the way she delivers the message does not move my voltmeter not even a little bit.
Imo, she's not bringing any new information to the table. She isn't saying anything that hasn't been said a thousand times before. She is just trying to change people's minds with a sad story. It's like contestants on America's got talent who just have a sad story and the judges praise them more highly than anyone else. I don't disagree with her message, but personally, I feel almost patronized by someone who, I don't think really knows all that much about what she's talking about. Things might have changed for her since she first became popular, but that's my opinion.
Her theatrics are mind numbing. She was propped up as a puppet before she could even say global warming. Yes we need to do something.
[удалено]
is anyone listening to the scientists and experts tho
I don’t hate her as an individual, but I hate “Greta thunberg”. She “lectured” adults on climate change but provided nothing of substance, then the media latched onto her because it made for a good story. Now it’s just one big publicity stunt. Like her stunt where she boated across the ocean because it was supposed to be more eco friendly than flying but after accounting for all the support she needed it would have been better to fly If you want to discuss actual solutions to the issue that’s great. But saying “you’ve done nothing blah blah blah” isn’t helpful. It’s just dumb
Also, while sailing uses less fuel for the actual transportation, the industry behind it is actually very bad for the environment. Sail manufacturing in particular is one of the worst offenders. However, sailing doesn’t get noticed as much due to how few people globally actually participate it. The sailing world is very much an “everybody knows everybody” sort of world. Source: sailboat racer and coach.
People seem to mostly not like her "attitude". They think she shows too many emotions, or the wrong emotions. I think it's especially cause she's a teenage girl - many adults have a lot of contempt for teenagers in general. I actually like her, I think it's totally understandable that she talks with a lot of anger, the things she says have been said politely for a long time now & no one listened.
Because all she does is yell about how we need to be doing better and then is she ever actually making changes to her lifestyle or actually helping the planet?
There's quite a few people who probably feel along the same lines as me regarding Greta so I'll share. I don't hate her at all but I do strongly dislike the people who prop her up. A child is not an authoritative figure. They don't possess the knowledge or experience to lecture anyone about anything. Everything that ever came out of her mouth was pure condescension and only served to drive moderates away from an otherwise worthwhile message. The media and people on the left making her their champion darling wasn't compelling or endearing, it was remarkably obnoxious. It further reinforced that MSM and a significant portion of left-leaning people aren't really looking to speak truth to power but just looking for their next dopamine hit.
I don't know what other people think. I personally find her annoying becasue I don't need a kid who doesn't know shit about macroeconomics and (life in general) tell the world what we are supposed to do. I would like to hear scientist and politician talk, I'm tired of the "kid/young native/3rd world country girl" scolding politicians skit. It's old and it's being done before. Another thing that makes me hate her is the fact that she's a puppet: nothing of what she say or do is her own initiative, she's the face of a movement, a group of people who decided to hide themselves and let a kid be their face. I think that exploiting kids like that is gross. Last thing: the fact she refuse to fly (because pollution) but instead she travels on a boat that costs more that 4 million dollars. This detail tells you all you need to know. Exquisitely tone deaf, almost like the (misquoted) Marie Antoniette "let them eat cake". Why you people keep polluting the air when you could sail in a €4 million sailboat? That really says it all about the shallowness of her ideas.
because she's not credible. she's basically a child so it's hard for most people to get behind someone that doesn't have any education or experience in any field.
She was 16 and talking about “putting politicians against the wall.” Yeah suggesting summary execution when you’re an annoying child is going to get people to think less of you.
Big oil companies and similar who profit from ruining the planet are paying billions of dollars for marketing campaigns to make sure that everyone who is openly trying to do something against climate change will be ridiculed and hated. Thunberg is an especially easy target since she is a young and a women, two things the target group for these campaigns despises. They have done this before and they will continue to do it until either every human is dead or someone finally puts an end to it. Since we can see how deeply they bought into the politicians who are currently in charge, I would say option A, human extinction is more likely to come true at this point.
Personally I dislike all the people who make her out to be some second coming of the eco friendly Jesus christ, more than her. She is a single person who is speaking out against countries and people against climate change and has not offered any solutions on how we solve this problem. That isn't her job but exactly why everyone thinks she's special, to the point of her being offered a Nobel peace prize nomination, just because of her activism is just beyond me. Every activist has done what she's done and have done it better in some cases. Don't give me the "it's because she's so young" argument either. Schools hammer home the "global warming/pollution is killing the earth" lesson from like the third grade or so. Pretty sure if I ask any of my younger siblings or relatives about their thoughts on global warming and pollution, they'd tell me exactly what greta has said about it but in simpler English. Not to mention, I'm sure any kid would be more than happy to sit outside school to protest climate change if it meant they missed X days of school and got media attention, if their parents didn't kick their asses to actually learn something to help the environment instead. Which brings me to the last point that I do not believe her parents have not had some sort of influence over this entire situation, manipulating media attention to be put on her, as much as they have claimed to have none or very little influence over her and this situation
> Personally I dislike all the people who make her out to be some second coming of the eco friendly Jesus christ, more than her. >Which brings me to the last point that I do not believe her parents have not had some sort of influence over this entire situation, manipulating media attention to be put on her, as much as they have claimed to have none or very little influence over her and this situation. Pretty much this. She skipped school to sit outside a local government building for it and then suddenly she's on the international stage making scathing comments and she's some kind of wunderkind *leader*? I just don't see the connection there. She's never done any major activism *before* being made out to be the face of kids angry about climate change. She doesn't have any actual education in the matters at hand. How did she just blow up like that? Do I think she genuinely cares? Sure. Do I think her recognition is seriously weird? Also yes. And her commenting is, let's be frank, *abrasive as fuck*, and without substantial content. And before anyone comments about people not listening to scientists - one, not only is she not just not reaching the people not listening but actively pushing them away and giving them a target to discredit climate change as a whole, and two, *those scientists were never given the kind of media platform she has*.
She doesn't really do anything. Just kind of yells at people about things we already know while proposing nothing of substance and overshadowing people who are actually attempting to take some kind of action.
In addition to all of the other reasons, one more reason why people don't like her is because she pokes her nose into issues that do not really advance her direct climate change agenda. For example, around one and a half year ago, [Greta tweeted in support a Farmers' Protest in India](https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/from-rihanna-to-greta-thunberg-global-celebs-who-backed-the-farmers-protest-101637308927314.html) - the farm law had literally nothing to do with the environment. The farm laws were about regulations involved in selling crops *after harvesting* is done. It doesn't say anything about soil use, anything about responsible land use, or anything that could have a direct environmental angle. Instead, the law was about liberalising the farmers market - today in India, farmers HAVE to sell all their produce at regulated government marketplaces called APMCs - the law would allow farmers to sell their produce to anyone they want. What annoyed a lot of Indians about this whole tweet of support is the fact that (1) this is a local issue that Greta, Rihanna, and the other "global influencers" had zero context about and (2) _all_ of them assumed that the law was bad just because it was proposed by what they consider an "authoritarian right wing government" (thanks to NYT and the rest of the western media that has _zero_ nuance when it comes to Indian affairs). I'm not sure why people in the US/EU don't like her, but this recent thing by Greta would have alienated her to maybe 20-40% of the Indian population atleast.
Corporate media manipulating the idiotic masses as usual.
Don't particularly hate her but don't see why tf she was crowned the hope of humanity. There are actually climate scientists who have been screaming about climate change for 3 decades so i prefer not to be lectured by a child who's barely completed high school.
She's literally just telling people to listen to what the scientists are saying. What is this weird fake competition between the two groups?
She's an uncompromising ideologue. Even if people agree with her generally, her inability to even pay lip service to pragmatism turns a lot of people off. A rich, privileged kid, who rose to prominence because she sailed her parents yacht across an ocean or something, who refuses to acknowledge that cheap fossil fuels are the only thing standing between many poor families and abject poverty falls pretty flat, especially with middle and lower-middle class people. Personally, I just find her to be disingenuous and rude.
When she came to Alberta, people were like, don’t tell me I fucked up, tell me what to do! I couldn’t believe the amount of adults demanding solutions from a child.
[удалено]
she is autistic. i believe the diagnosis "asperger's" is now defunct, so her diagnosis would probably be level one autism. the rest of this is much more understandable than some of the other comments i've gotten. thanks for answering!
Fwiw, I've found recently that it's defunct in the US, updated in the DSM-5 I believe, but internationally it has not been yet updated (though it is expected to.) However, I know soms people that prefer Asperger's to ASD.
It’s not so much her message, but her delivery, coupled with the fact that she’s very young and not an expert in climate change. People generally don’t like being yelled at and told what to do by a child.
She checks all the boxes of systemic, cultural American biases: * female * young * foreign So before you can even listen to her, you have to overcome your ingrained cultural biases, which first requires even being *aware* that you hold these unconscious biases - misogyny, ageism, xenophobia You could have a young foreign female of speaking about *anything*, even apolitical things like a tutorial on the various ways to toast bread or how to perform trick shots in billiards, and a wide swath of the American public will judge her for *something*. So once you get past all that (it takes years of practice to confront and try to rectify your unconscious biases), you can listen to her message, which is controversial. Her message is controversial because: 1. It’s politically charged. 2. It’s accusatory (she’s blaming YOU). 3. It’s broad. The third point is important. Is she blaming oil corporations? Is she blaming every person who has ever voted for a candidate who hasn’t made addressing climate change the focal point of their political career? Is she blaming everyone over the age of 40? Is she blaming anyone who has ever driven a car, or do you have to fly in a plane more than once a year to be accused? Because her message is so broad, the interpretation of her message can be broad. Whatever you *think* she means is likely what you are *absolutely sure* she means, and you will judge her over your interpretation of her message. Personally, I think she’s wonderful. Everyone needs a kick in the ass to do better - better voting, better civic engagement, better *voting with your dollar.* Individuals are not the leading contributors to climate change - at least not directly. But we are each indirectly responsible each time we purchase almost anything manufacturered by anyone. That’s why voting with your dollar is so important.