Greta Thunberg - brave campaigner or deeply disturbed?

[Stout]

I mentioned this before. "Around here" the legal age of majority is 16. We'd be letting her vote, get married and inherit property without the need for a trustee, and trying her as an adult if she committed a crime. I'm honestly not sure what the age of majority is in Sweden, but considering that there are countries in which someone of her age is considered to be a legal adult, describing her as a "child" seems perverse.

The reason I should change the legal definition of a word from where I work and live to the definition you use where you work and live is what, exactly ?

Thunberg might be able to walk into a UK pub and order herself a pint but there's no way, no how that she's pulling that off here.

 

[theprestige]

"Under her name" is an odd way of putting it

I thought it was the entire premise for celebrating her brave activism: all of the kids she's inspired to protest.

 

[Checkmite]

If I could make one point before going back

Yousafzai has done more for her fellow women than Geta could dream of.

This might be true; but again, Thunberg has been doing this for a matter of months, whereas Yousafzai has been active for a solid decade. It's not really a fair comparison.

 

[Robin]

There is a guy in Sydney who started a campaign to help save the orangutan from extinction. He started at a much earlier age than Thurnberg and it gained international attention and served as an inspiration for other school kids to take action.

No-one called it child abuse, nor called him a "pawn", nor said he was trying to "cash in" nor made sneering references to his disabilities nor any of the other bonkers stuff being hurled at Thurnberg.

Funny that.

 

[theprestige]

There is a guy in Sydney who started a campaign to help save the orangutan from extinction. He started at a much earlier age than Thurnberg and it gained international attention and served as an inspiration for other school kids to take action.

No-one called it child abuse, nor called him a "pawn", nor said he was trying to "cash in" nor made sneering references to his disabilities nor any of the other bonkers stuff being hurled at Thurnberg.

Funny that.

How much of that is actually true, let alone funny?

 

[Stout]

There is a guy in Sydney who started a campaign to help save the orangutan from extinction. He started at a much earlier age than Thurnberg and it gained international attention and served as an inspiration for other school kids to take action.

No-one called it child abuse, nor called him a "pawn", nor said he was trying to "cash in" nor made sneering references to his disabilities nor any of the other bonkers stuff being hurled at Thurnberg.

Funny that.

That's because saving orangutans is easy, really easy. Write a check, vow to never eat orangutan meat and bob's your uncle, you've made a difference.

Climate change OTOH, is a completely different animal. People KNOW that they have to make lifestyle changes that will compromise their quality of life. They KNOW that they have to cut back on their travel and energy usage but they simply don't want to.

So they become climate change deniers or support useless git's like Thunberg with her government-will-save-you message in effort to avoid doing what they KNOW has to be done.

We have a protest coming up Monday, a bunch of wankers from Extinction Rebellion plan on shutting down a bridge" to force government to act". They're going to cause thousands of cars to get stuck idling in gridlock just like last Fridays student protest, MORE Co2 is going to get emitted due to all those idling cars and the planet will die just that much quicker.

I'm sure thousands of selfies will be takes, lots of hashtags created. There will be be pats on the back, probably high fives then they'll all run home to see themselves on the news.

There will be ZERO change.

 

[Robin]

How much of that is actually true, let alone funny?

Funny as in, strange that he doesn't get those bonkers attitudes thrown at him.

 

[EHocking]

How much of that is actually true, let alone funny?

True.
https://tearsinthejungle.com/about-us/

We all understand what Robin meant when s/he said it was funny.

 

[a_unique_person]

That's because saving orangutans is easy, really easy. Write a check, vow to never eat orangutan meat and bob's your uncle, you've made a difference.

Climate change OTOH, is a completely different animal. People KNOW that they have to make lifestyle changes that will compromise their quality of life. They KNOW that they have to cut back on their travel and energy usage but they simply don't want to.

So they become climate change deniers or support useless git's like Thunberg with her government-will-save-you message in effort to avoid doing what they KNOW has to be done.

We have a protest coming up Monday, a bunch of wankers from Extinction Rebellion plan on shutting down a bridge" to force government to act". They're going to cause thousands of cars to get stuck idling in gridlock just like last Fridays student protest, MORE Co2 is going to get emitted due to all those idling cars and the planet will die just that much quicker.

I'm sure thousands of selfies will be takes, lots of hashtags created. There will be be pats on the back, probably high fives then they'll all run home to see themselves on the news.

There will be ZERO change.

No. One of the easiest ways to do that is to collectively agree to a price on CO2. Australia did that and the amount of CO2 created started dropping. It's easy. There was a small price rise but it was barely noticeable. So it can be done.



The conservative opposition then started vicious campaign against the price on carbon, vowed to cut energy prices, and the the government was kicked out. The conservatives came into power and the price of power has skyrocketed and CO2 production has risen.

 

[lionking]

No. One of the easiest ways to do that is to collectively agree to a price on CO2. Australia did that and the amount of CO2 created started dropping. It's easy. There was a small price rise but it was barely noticeable. So it can be done.



The conservative opposition then started vicious campaign against the price on carbon, vowed to cut energy prices, and the the government was kicked out. The conservatives came into power and the price of power has skyrocketed and CO2 production has risen.

And the sad thing about this whole story is that Labor will not go anywhere near a carbon pricing scheme. Which is why I’ll be voting Green at future elections. Greta’s campaign has played a major part in my decision.

 

[Myriad]

That's because saving orangutans is easy, really easy. Write a check, vow to never eat orangutan meat and bob's your uncle, you've made a difference.

Climate change OTOH, is a completely different animal. People KNOW that they have to make lifestyle changes that will compromise their quality of life. They KNOW that they have to cut back on their travel and energy usage but they simply don't want to.

So they become climate change deniers or support useless git's like Thunberg with her government-will-save-you message in effort to avoid doing what they KNOW has to be done.

We have a protest coming up Monday, a bunch of wankers from Extinction Rebellion plan on shutting down a bridge" to force government to act". They're going to cause thousands of cars to get stuck idling in gridlock just like last Fridays student protest, MORE Co2 is going to get emitted due to all those idling cars and the planet will die just that much quicker.

I'm sure thousands of selfies will be takes, lots of hashtags created. There will be be pats on the back, probably high fives then they'll all run home to see themselves on the news.

There will be ZERO change.

I've been a little slow to grasp this, but you're pointing to something about Greta's cause that needs to be spelled out explicitly. There are three distinct "sides" to the reactions, not two.

There are outright climate deniers.

There are supporters who generally agree with the messages of listening to the scientists and support the types of government action she's suggesting.

And there are people who agree that climate change is an issue but disagree for various reasons with the measures she's suggesting, on the grounds that they'd be ineffective, politically impossible (e.g. banning air travel), or oppressive (e.g. banning ICEs, denying transportation and therefore employment to people who can't afford an electric vehicle).

I'm not having an easy time deciding between the latter two views. I can understand a fair amount of skepticism about whether elaborate carbon quota trading schemes will actually reduce emissions, or will just create new ways to make the poor poorer while the rich get richer manipulating that market too.

There are measures the U.S. or state governments could probably manage to enact, to help people make or adjust to needed changes. But they're not ones Greta would be aware of, as they're largely U.S. specific. For instance: banning local ordinances and HOA rules against vegetable garden plots in yards, outdoor clotheslines, and small livestock keeping. Funding public transit instead of more highway lanes would be another.

 

[theprestige]

There are measures the U.S. or state governments could probably manage to enact, to help people make or adjust to needed changes. But they're not ones Greta would be aware of, as they're largely U.S. specific.

I find this insight ironic, as it's been claimed elsewhere in this thread that she sees the US as the problem (as opposed to China, or India).

So it's ironic to me that, having launched a global climate change movement, urging prompt and significant policy change, and focused on the US as the real problem, she would not actually be aware of any climate change policy the US might enact.

 

[lionking]

I find this insight ironic, as it's been claimed elsewhere in this thread that she sees the US as the problem (as opposed to China, or India).

So it's ironic to me that, having launched a global climate change movement, urging prompt and significant policy change, and focused on the US as the real problem, she would not actually be aware of any climate change policy the US might enact.

Under Trump, the US will not even try.

The US is a very legitimate target for protesters.

 

[EHocking]

I find this insight ironic, as it's been claimed elsewhere in this thread that she sees the US as the problem (as opposed to China, or India).

So it's ironic to me that, having launched a global climate change movement, urging prompt and significant policy change, and focused on the US as the real problem, she would not actually be aware of any climate change policy the US might enact.

The claim, unsurprisingly, is merely her detractors misrepresenting her, e.g.,

Greta Thunberg & Allies File Climate Complaint Against 5 Countries (Not China)
The complaint was filed through the Third Optional Protocol, a mechanism which allows children to formally request the U.N. take action regarding the petitioner’s cause of choice.

The complaint does not name China, which accounts for 30 percent of global emissions, because it has not signed the part of the Convention on the Rights of the Child treaty allowing children to seek justice for breaching the agreement.​

Somewhere in this thread I do recall that in a retort to a reporter at a press conference where she was asked about China, she said something to the effect, “in Sweden we say, “look at the USA”.”

Perhaps that’s what you’re remembering?

 

[Steve]

True.
https://tearsinthejungle.com/about-us/

We almost all understand what Robin meant when s/he said it was funny.

Sorry but I had to fix that. Understanding is quite beyond some here.

 

[Stout]

Three sides ? I suppose you could look at it that way. I always chuck the outright deniers out of the equation as, frankly, they're hopeless. Can't say I've ever met one. Well once, but that was my 19 year old niece, turns out she'd been reading some dodgy websites and used that info to justify the emissions on her around the world trip. No idea if she's still a denier and if she comes out this way again, I'll ask her.

What I just don't get is why people are so reluctant to make the needed changes willingly in favour of asking, nay demanding that their governments force those changes on them.

A carbon tax ? Sure, I've been paying one for years, every time I fill up my gas tank, yet emissions are still going up. The tax really only effects poor people, the upper middle class and rich just pay it, they can afford it.

Thunberg doesn't have much in the way of suggestions outside of "listen to the scientists". She's taking the safe route. I've see a lot of suggestions in other places, suggestions on what other people should do suggestions like ban cruise ships which are obviously made by people who don't go on cruise ships.

I am encouraging all individuals to take personal responsibility for walking the talk, thinking critically and to ask questions before joining any group(s) or jumping on the protest bandwagon.

 

[Stout]

Just for fun

A Modest Proposal ?

 

[Robin]

Thunberg with her government-will-save-you message ...

She has a "government-will-save-you" message?

Are we talking about the same person?

 

[Elagabalus]

I hereby call upon everyone here at the ISF and across the internet, to apologize, unreservedly, to Greta Thunberg for any damage that their hateful, hurtful, comments may have caused and to furthermore, pledge fealty to her (Greta Thunberg) by tomorrow 12:00 GMT. That is all.

 

[cullennz]

I hereby call upon everyone here at the ISF and across the internet, to apologize, unreservedly, to Greta Thunberg for any damage that their hateful, hurtful, comments may have caused and to furthermore, pledge fealty to her (Greta Thunberg) by tomorrow 12:00 GMT. That is all.

May I be the first to apologise as an adult for stealing her dreams and her childhood?

Thanks

I feel better now