Greta Thunberg - brave campaigner or deeply disturbed?

[theprestige]

Coastal cities don't have to actually be flooded and uninhabitable for the crisis to have arrived. The crisis can occur at the point where it's necessary to take urgent action now to avoid the flooding in the future.



(for example)

Is this a hypothetical example, or an example of a real crisis we currently face or could face in the near future?

 

[GlennB]

Is this a hypothetical example, or an example of a real crisis we currently face or could face in the near future?

"Extreme sea level events that used to occur once a century will strike every year on many coasts by 2050, no matter whether climate heating emissions are curbed or not, according to a landmark report by the world’s scientists.

The stark assessment of the climate crisis in the world’s oceans and ice caps concludes that many serious impacts are already inevitable, from more intense storms to melting permafrost and dwindling marine life.

But far worse impacts will hit without urgent action to cut fossil fuel emissions, including eventual sea level rise of more than 4 metres in the worst case, an outcome that would redraw the map of the world and harm billions of people." link

My highlight. When things will get that bad, even if we take action now, then I'd say the word crisis is justified.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Coastal cities don't have to actually be flooded and uninhabitable for the crisis to have arrived. The crisis can occur at the point where it's necessary to take urgent action now to avoid the flooding in the future.

(for example)

The only realistic immediate action to avoid flooding is to live above the flood plain.


That said, what is the urgent action you have in mind to avoid flooding in the future?

I would be interested in doable plans, that have measurable actions, that can be shown to have measurable results within a generation or two..

 

[Myriad]

...and who knows, maybe she'll convince some people to tear up their drivers licences, refust to fly, get themselves on the 100 mile diet but unless she can convince a lot of people ( and I mean a lot ) to make these changes to their lifestyle then she's really nothing more than theater.

I know a few people who are actually doing those things (none of them persuaded to that course by Thunberg, but she's very recent in this scene and hasn't actually voiced that suggestion, as far as I know). More and more, those are the people who seem most worth listening to.

There are other options. The government could, for instance, fund effectual public transportation systems, which are far more environmentally friendly. But that would make working class people less dependent on the oligarchy, increasing their options and wages, so it's not going to happen. Agricultural policies and practices remain largely government-controlled, and so could be vastly improved. But that would jeopardize some of the wealth of some of the wealthy, so never mind.

If malefic systems can't be reformed, removing oneself from them is the option that remains. At some point, that option becomes a necessity.

 

[applecorped]

It's a hell of a thing living your life in constant fear and worry. It's also a choice.

 

[luchog]

My highlight. When things will get that bad, even if we take action now, then I'd say the word crisis is justified.

The acidification of the ocean by high carbon dioxide levels is already having substantial impacts. Shellfish growers in Puget Sound are seeing widespread failures, as oyster larvae are being killed off en masse, and those baby oysters that survive are unable to form proper shells.

Baby oysters can't build healthy shells in Washington's acidified waters

Excerpt:

“In the first 48 hours of life, that baby oyster has got to do two things: it’s got to build a shell and it’s got to build this organ that it feeds with and swims with called a vellum," Dewey said.

When the water is too acidic, the egg becomes deformed and dies. It's used up its limited energy building a shell, and there’s none left to build its vellum.

When they realized that their baby oysters were dying, growers sounded the alarm. Lawmakers in Olympia took notice. Before Governor Chris Gregoire left office in 2011, she created a Blue Ribbon Panel to address the problem. The group’s work has since been expanded.

Jennifer Hennessey, senior policy advisor to Governor Jay Inslee, says ocean acidification is happening faster here than in other parts of the country.

“Because we have upwelling on the West Coast of the United States, that brings up corrosive waters that mix with the surface waters. So we are seeing those changes quicker than say the East Coast of the United States or the Gulf of Mexico.”

Hennessey said projections show that changes are coming even more rapidly in the next 30 years, so there’s a small window to address these problems.

 

[GlennB]

The only realistic immediate action to avoid flooding is to live above the flood plain.

Yes, but the flood plain (as you describe it) changes according to the action we take in the next few generations. The good outcome is more frequent storm damage - which might be manageable for a particular location, or might not - whereas a 4m general sea level rise 'rewrites the maps'.

That said, what is the urgent action you have in mind to avoid flooding in the future?

I would be interested in doable plans, that have measurable actions, that can be shown to have measurable results within a generation or two..

Measurable results compared to what? Immediate urgent action to measurably reduce CO2 emissions is an obvious answer, but it isn't precise.

What would you consider 'measurable' and how long would you allow to make those measurements?

 

[Stout]

Or convince people to make the piddling effort to get solar panels on the roof of their houses - we looking into that, it is no cost to us. Or convince people to keep the SUV at home and use the little plug-in hybrid to commute. Convince people to pressure their electrical suppliers to accelerate plans to phase out coal and replace it with renewables. Convince people to push their politicians on the issue.

To me at least, her campaign is not about converting people to the belief that climate change is real and is bad. It is not about changing minds. Disbelief in human-caused climate change or on the severity of the threat is a pseudo-religious belief, facts and reality will not change minds on that. She probably knows that as well as any of us.

What her campaign does, what she's good at, if motivating people who already have a good understanding of the issue. Much of that motivation is among the younger set (teens and young adults), who in turn whine and nag and push their parents to be better on the issue. And anyone who has ever raised idealistic teenagers knows that they can have a pretty strong impact on the beliefs and actions of their parents.

Free solar panels would definatly help for sure ( depending on where you live of course ) but in the absence of such a program or while you're waiting for such a program to be implemented in your area it should be a simple matter to estimate the amount of KWH solar panels would generate over the course of a year and cut your energy electricity consumption NOW to equal those benefits.

Maybe this meand getting rid of your clothes dryer and hanging your laundry to dry. Maybe using less hot water. Maybe adjusting the thermostat and living a little less comfortably.....

Phase out coal ? Sure, but we've only got 11 years, remember. 11 years to wait for somebody to do something and even then, other energy sources come with their own set of complaints ( See "site C dam protests" for an example ) with wind and solar being, of course, somewhat unreliable for constant energy production.

So will Thunberg actually influence her target audience to take meaningful action ? That remains to be seen and I'm expecting these concerned teens to put their money where their mouth is, so to speak and walk their talk by adjusting their lifestyles to reduce the demand for energy while we wait for our governments to take meaningful action. So far, obviously, this hasn't happened.

It's a shame really, this reliance on "other people" to fix our problems for us when the solution is at our fingertips and my inner cynic says the reliance on those "other people" is merely an excuse to go on pigging back as much energy as your lifestyle allows you to while pretending to be "doing something".

Take this thread as an example. We have lots and lots of shrieking and wailing about right wing climate change deniers, see post # 1057 for a stellar example, yet very few commitments to actually doing anything to reduce energy demand. Want to save the planet ? Then cancel that flight to Machu Picchu, it's that easy.

Or just continue on business as usual and expect the same results that we've gotten over the past 30 years.

 

[3point14]

that would jeopardize some of the wealth of some of the wealthy, so never mind.

The actual reason it's come to this some 50 years after it was first noted.

I don't believe this equation has changed i the last 50 years.

I believe we're screwed.

 

[3point14]

Free solar panels would definatly help for sure ( depending on where you live of course ) but in the absence of such a program or while you're waiting for such a program to be implemented in your area it should be a simple matter to estimate the amount of KWH solar panels would generate over the course of a year and cut your energy electricity consumption NOW to equal those benefits.

Maybe this meand getting rid of your clothes dryer and hanging your laundry to dry. Maybe using less hot water. Maybe adjusting the thermostat and living a little less comfortably.....

Phase out coal ? Sure, but we've only got 11 years, remember. 11 years to wait for somebody to do something and even then, other energy sources come with their own set of complaints ( See "site C dam protests" for an example ) with wind and solar being, of course, somewhat unreliable for constant energy production.

So will Thunberg actually influence her target audience to take meaningful action ? That remains to be seen and I'm expecting these concerned teens to put their money where their mouth is, so to speak and walk their talk by adjusting their lifestyles to reduce the demand for energy while we wait for our governments to take meaningful action. So far, obviously, this hasn't happened.

It's a shame really, this reliance on "other people" to fix our problems for us when the solution is at our fingertips and my inner cynic says the reliance on those "other people" is merely an excuse to go on pigging back as much energy as your lifestyle allows you to while pretending to be "doing something".

Take this thread as an example. We have lots and lots of shrieking and wailing about right wing climate change deniers, see post # 1057 for a stellar example, yet very few commitments to actually doing anything to reduce energy demand. Want to save the planet ? Then cancel that flight to Machu Picchu, it's that easy.

Or just continue on business as usual and expect the same results that we've gotten over the past 30 years.

One person cancelling one flight or tearing up their driving license does one thing, it lowers the lifestyle of the person doing it. If we're going to screw the planet anyway, why bother.

No, what's required is mandated action by governments. I will vote for the most extreme climate action plan available because that's what's required. Individual action cannot change this.

 

[theprestige]

No, what's required is mandated action by governments. I will vote for the most extreme climate action plan available because that's what's required.

My question for a long time has been along the lines of, what's the least extreme action plan that's required for whatever the desired result is? Also, what exactly is the desired result?*

Earlier GlennB proposed that cities would be flooded and uninhabitable. Preventing that seems like a desirable result. So what's the action plan? Is there a specific emissions target estimate we need to shoot for, to avoid flooded and uninhabitable cities? Are there numbers (even just SWAGs at this point) we can figure out - tonnage of emissions reduced correlating to number of cities saved from flooding and uninhabitability? Are there plans proposed for achieving these reductions?

Do you have a specific plan or range of plans in mind that you would vote for, and you're looking for an elected official or candidate who's willing to implement one of those plans? Or is more a question of waiting to see what kinds of plans your elected officials and candidates will come up with, and then voting for whichever one seems best to you at the time?

---
*Not in the sense of "what's the least amount of effort we can give, and still tell ourselves we're 'making a difference'?" But in the sense of, "in order for this to have any hope of success, we need to do at least this much, but really a whole lot more!" My question of, what's the "at least this much" target we need to be shooting for. Do we even know?

 

[3point14]

My question for a long time has been along the lines of, what's the least extreme action plan that's required for whatever the desired result is? Also, what exactly is the desired result?*

Earlier GlennB proposed that cities would be flooded and uninhabitable. Preventing that seems like a desirable result. So what's the action plan? Is there a specific emissions target estimate we need to shoot for, to avoid flooded and uninhabitable cities? Are there numbers (even just SWAGs at this point) we can figure out - tonnage of emissions reduced correlating to number of cities saved from flooding and uninhabitability? Are there plans proposed for achieving these reductions?

Do you have a specific plan or range of plans in mind that you would vote for, and you're looking for an elected official or candidate who's willing to implement one of those plans? Or is more a question of waiting to see what kinds of plans your elected officials and candidates will come up with, and then voting for whichever one seems best to you at the time?

---
*Not in the sense of "what's the least amount of effort we can give, and still tell ourselves we're 'making a difference'?" But in the sense of, "in order for this to have any hope of success, we need to do at least this much, but really a whole lot more!" My question of, what's the "at least this much" target we need to be shooting for. Do we even know?

Oh, I don't actually think there's any hope of success.

I would guess that any plan extreme enough to have an effect would have voters running from it in droves.

It's not something that any politician needs to worry about. People are simply not capable of thinking in timescales beyond a few decades, maybe a century at most.


As to your questions, I don't know the answers. 50 years of muddying the waters by the Koch's and others has meant that:

1 - We have **** all time left.

2 - Everything has been questioned by a paid shill for the express purpose of ensuring vested interests don't lose money.


Nothing's changed.


As to the actual answers to your questions - - I don't know. You can probably find them here:

https://www.ipcc.ch/

 

[luchog]

So will Thunberg actually influence her target audience to take meaningful action ? That remains to be seen and I'm expecting these concerned teens to put their money where their mouth is, so to speak and walk their talk by adjusting their lifestyles to reduce the demand for energy while we wait for our governments to take meaningful action. So far, obviously, this hasn't happened.

It's a shame really, this reliance on "other people" to fix our problems for us when the solution is at our fingertips and my inner cynic says the reliance on those "other people" is merely an excuse to go on pigging back as much energy as your lifestyle allows you to while pretending to be "doing something".

You're being grossly dismissive here, and completely ignoring the most important problems.

Yes, there are things that everyone can do to reduce their imprint on the environment; but the overwhelming majority of things that individuals can do are little more effective than pissing on a wildfire. Yeah, it will help a bit, and if you get enough people pissing in a particular place it might hold back the fire there; but compared to the fact that the bulk of carbon emissions come from industrial sources and rampant deforestation, it's a bit disingenuous to apportion blame the way you're doing.

It's far more important to have the world's governments clamp down on those sources, since the megacorps clearly have no interest in doing so on their own; and encourage the wholesale replacement of fossil fuel use by subsidizing development and implementation of cleaner energy sources. Unfortunately, it may already be too late for that.

 

[Dr. Keith]

It's a hell of a thing living your life in constant fear and worry. It's also a choice.

That's why we need the wall now!

 

[Skeptical Greg]

....


Measurable results compared to what? Immediate urgent action to measurably reduce CO2 emissions is an obvious answer, but it isn't precise.


What would you consider 'measurable' and how long would you allow to make those measurements?

How long would make a difference to Thunberg's generation..


What would you consider measurable?

You were the one commenting on the crisis of increased flooding.

How soon will reducing CO2 emissions reduce the risk of increased flooding?


I offered the most realistic option. Anything else would be wait and see; - " I'll give you some measurements when I have them.."

 

[Myriad]

It's a hell of a thing living your life in constant fear and worry. It's also a choice.

Feckless dread and feckless denial aren't the only choices. Acknowledging reality is not giving in to fear and worry, it's acknowledging reality.

I don't know if your post was a response to me, but a year ago I moved to a new home on an estuary about two meters above mean sea level. No amount of activism will prevent this place from being part of the ocean in a few decades. But there will be coastline somewhere, and the life there will descend from the life that's now here, so I'll do what I can to take care of it.

There's no point in fear or worry. If there's something you want to see preserved into the future, and you honestly believe it's something that can and should be preserved, then do what you can to help preserve it.

 

[lomiller]

For what it is worth I do believe that not believing in AGW would be pretty blimmin dim

I just question the level of what is natural compared to man.

That is just as dim. The following are VERY well established in the climate literature:

- The underlying natural trend without human actions is that the earth should be cooling.
- Instead of cooling, the earth is warming due to increases in greenhouse gases
- The greenhouse gasses responsible for this warming are entirely produced by humans.

And I certainly question the CRISIS!!!!!

This is nearly as dim as the other two.

- There is good scientific agreement on the threshold for greenhouse gas concentrations that is reasonably safe. Without major cuts to emissions, we will cross these thresholds in 2 decades.
- The scientific literature documents that current warming rates are 10X greater than normal natural change. The only the periods in the earths history we see such rapid changes are during mass extinction events.
- If we continue current emission patterns by 2100 we will experience warming that is comparable in both rate and magnitude to major mass extinctions.

 

[lionking]

One of

Darat kept hassling me to give a scientists name of which I listen to. I gave two of them.

For what it is worth I do believe that not believing in AGW would be pretty blimmin dim

I just question the level of what is natural compared to man.

And I certainly question the CRISIS!!!!!

You are a climate change denier then, by definition. We finally got there.

 

[BobTheCoward]

That is just as dim. The following are VERY well established in the climate literature:

- The underlying natural trend without human actions is that the earth should be cooling.
- Instead of cooling, the earth is warming due to increases in greenhouse gases
- The greenhouse gasses responsible for this warming are entirely produced by humans.


This is nearly as dim as the other two.

- There is good scientific agreement on the threshold for greenhouse gas concentrations that is reasonably safe. Without major cuts to emissions, we will cross these thresholds in 2 decades.
- The scientific literature documents that current warming rates are 10X greater than normal natural change. The only the periods in the earths history we see such rapid changes are during mass extinction events.
- If we continue current emission patterns by 2100 we will experience warming that is comparable in both rate and magnitude to major mass extinctions.

How is human activity not natural trend? Are we aliens?

 

[3point14]

You are a climate change denier then, by definition. We finally got there.

Yeah, there's a whole new breed of them with a new denial.

"Yes, it's AGW, but it's not that bad. The place I am is fine and nothing bad's happened to me. Can you show me the crisis?"