Greta Thunberg - brave campaigner or deeply disturbed?

[Giordano]

Unless you're super-rich your lifestyle choices don't make one iota of a difference anyway.

Actually we each do and can make precisely an iota of difference, and the iota add up. It is silly to suggest that we each need do nothing when it is exactly the sum of what we all do that has the impact.

Why is there this idea that one has to take an action that completely solves the emissions, or not do anything at all? Drive less when possible, combine trips, drive a more fuel efficient vehicle, improve the insulation in one's house, get a more efficienct refrigerator, air conditioner, heater, set the house temperature a little bit warmer in the summer and a little bit cooler in the winter, turn off stuff you aren't using, etc. Eat less beef and more vegetables; if you want meat have chicken, turkey, etc.

It is remarkable how much energy one can save in just these ways. If you can't do all of this do what you can.

And people in the US do not get a free pass because China burns a lot of coal. We in the USs have a huge impact on total emissions too. And China actually is trying to move away from this and need to be pressured to do so faster.

Oops, this is really the wrong thread for discussing climate change itself. Sorry, I'll stop here.

 

[8enotto]

We do need to take a good look at what each scientist says before we decide to act. Not a 40 year study each but a feasibility and practical approach to what we really can act on.

Stuff like plastic is more a pollution problem, the island of plastic ans sea critters issue, not a direct Greta thing. It's been a product that made miracles and also huge problems for improper disposal.
We are going to be needing it a long time to come.

Vegan on a worldwide scale isn't going to happen. Whether it really has impact or not. Entire cultures need a really long time to change, that won't be in 11 years.
If it makes you feel better, kudos. But take a look at the impact of fresh water and fuel used in increased agriculture and transport of bulk veggies. It's a force to come if vegan works.


Thinking people need to make intelligent changes. Knee jerk protest driven changes could have as much negative impact as good. They could be unsustainable.
Like mandatory recycling, cities choke on huge quantity of materials that have no end user.

A solution is find and employ a product using them that can be made locally, jobs and reduced transport costs. One product that has long useful life and sensible disposal at the end.

Hope is driven by smart choices.

 

[caveman1917]

Actually we each do and can make precisely an iota of difference, and the iota add up. It is silly to suggest that we each need do nothing when it is exactly the sum of what we all do that has the impact.

No we don't. Lifestyle carbon emissions are almost entirely predicted by wealth, how "green" your lifestyle is barely even registers as a factor. Furthermore, most lifestyle carbon emissions are concentrated in the top few percent wealthiest.

Why is there this idea that one has to take an action that completely solves the emissions, or not do anything at all? Drive less when possible, combine trips, drive a more fuel efficient vehicle, improve the insulation in one's house, get a more efficienct refrigerator, air conditioner, heater, set the house temperature a little bit warmer in the summer and a little bit cooler in the winter, turn off stuff you aren't using, etc. Eat less beef and more vegetables; if you want meat have chicken, turkey, etc.

If half of the world population (the poorest half) were to instantly kill themselves, and thereby not perform any activity whatsoever anymore that could lead to carbon emissions, then global carbon emissions would be reduced by less than 10%, practically nothing. If, on the other hand, a mere 10% of the world population (the richest 10%) were to do the same then global carbon emissions would be reduced by over 50%.

In other words, no, it is anything but the case that "we each do and make precisely an iota of difference." Some of us, the super-rich, make a whole alphabet of a difference and the rest of us, the vast majority, don't even make one iota of a difference. Your advice is useless to anyone who actually wants to do something about climate change. It's only good for people who want to feel good about themselves - or even feel morally superior - while doing jack **** about the actual problem.

ETA: Which is, incidentally, also why I find Greta's show with the sailboat while simultaneously chumming up with the super-rich such as Leonardo di Caprio to be more than a little laughable. Slave morality par excellence.

 

[Stout]

You don't need to go vegan, just vegetarian. Going vegan is too much of a self righteous wankfest for most people however cutting down or eliminating meat is a much more manageable goal.

What ? no red Smarties, no Worchestershire sauce ? Vegan is way to restrictive.

Speaking of Thunberg..Has young Greta found a benefactor to hget her back home yet ? I know those activists who sailed to Brazil were in a similar boat with a few of them saying that they're probably going to hitch a ride on a cargo ship. Maybe Greta could do the same ?

All of this traveling around with the aid of royalty and celebrities is just going to put her out of touch with how real people live.

 

[Stout]

If half of the world population (the poorest half) were to instantly kill themselves, and thereby not perform any activity whatsoever anymore that could lead to carbon emissions, then global carbon emissions would be reduced by less than 10%, practically nothing. If, on the other hand, a mere 10% of the world population (the richest 10%) were to do the same then global carbon emissions would be reduced by over 50%.

<respectfully snipped>

Agreed but...

I don't think anybody is asking the worlds poor, the people who are cooking over charcoal and washing their clothes by hand in a river to do any cutting back. The focus here is more on the over consuming English speaking world, the territory that Thunberg works in.

As an aside...Locally, we have a brand new luxury yacht marina purpose built for yachts 65-175'. This is on land covered by water that's managed by government, the same government(s) that Thunberg is imploring us to rely on to solve climate change. To make matters even more hilarious the marina has a whole section of their website dedicated to sustainability.

Eventually, we may have to eat the rich but for now it's fair to offer them the opportunity to change their ways.

 

[Thermal]

No we don't. Lifestyle carbon emissions are almost entirely predicted by wealth, how "green" your lifestyle is barely even registers as a factor. Furthermore, most lifestyle carbon emissions are concentrated in the top few percent wealthiest.



If half of the world population (the poorest half) were to instantly kill themselves, and thereby not perform any activity whatsoever anymore that could lead to carbon emissions, then global carbon emissions would be reduced by less than 10%, practically nothing. If, on the other hand, a mere 10% of the world population (the richest 10%) were to do the same then global carbon emissions would be reduced by over 50%.

In other words, no, it is anything but the case that "we each do and make precisely an iota of difference." Some of us, the super-rich, make a whole alphabet of a difference and the rest of us, the vast majority, don't even make one iota of a difference. Your advice is useless to anyone who actually wants to do something about climate change. It's only good for people who want to feel good about themselves - or even feel morally superior - while doing jack **** about the actual problem.

ETA: Which is, incidentally, also why I find Greta's show with the sailboat while simultaneously chumming up with the super-rich such as Leonardo di Caprio to be more than a little laughable. Slave morality par excellence.

The linked paper requires some kind of account registration to read, so not sure how they came about with those findings. Does the upper 10% include industrial and manufacturing consumption, used by all? How are utilities factored in, such as electricity and transportation, the big contributors? And of course, if the lower half of the population was not here, that super 10% would not be wealthy anymore, and would not even be able to pollute.

The equation is complex. But even if your stats were taken as representative, those of us in the middle 40% can modify behaviors to drop our own footprint, and by simply buying less force industry to make less, which forces lower output on the upper percentage.

 

[caveman1917]

I don't think anybody is asking the worlds poor, the people who are cooking over charcoal and washing their clothes by hand in a river to do any cutting back.

That description is only for the poorest of the poor though, the median human doesn't wash their clothes by hand in a river or cook over charcoal.

The focus here is more on the over consuming English speaking world, the territory that Thunberg works in.

The thing is that the distribution doesn't really change even if you restrict it to a single country or to the English speaking world. Sure, a rich American pollutes more than a rich Kenyan and a poor American pollutes more than a poor Kenyan (perhaps even a rich Kenyan) but the shape of the distribution doesn't change even if you restrict it to America, most of the pollution produced in America is due to the richest few percent of Americans and not the vast majority of (relatively) poor Americans.

 

[Giordano]

No we don't. Lifestyle carbon emissions are almost entirely predicted by wealth, how "green" your lifestyle is barely even registers as a factor. Furthermore, most lifestyle carbon emissions are concentrated in the top few percent wealthiest.



If half of the world population (the poorest half) were to instantly kill themselves, and thereby not perform any activity whatsoever anymore that could lead to carbon emissions, then global carbon emissions would be reduced by less than 10%, practically nothing. If, on the other hand, a mere 10% of the world population (the richest 10%) were to do the same then global carbon emissions would be reduced by over 50%.

In other words, no, it is anything but the case that "we each do and make precisely an iota of difference." Some of us, the super-rich, make a whole alphabet of a difference and the rest of us, the vast majority, don't even make one iota of a difference. Your advice is useless to anyone who actually wants to do something about climate change. It's only good for people who want to feel good about themselves - or even feel morally superior - while doing jack **** about the actual problem.

ETA: Which is, incidentally, also why I find Greta's show with the sailboat while simultaneously chumming up with the super-rich such as Leonardo di Caprio to be more than a little laughable. Slave morality par excellence.

I am assuming you and I are are among the 50% of the world for whom it makes a difference. Probably among the richest 10% of the world population in fact just because we are in developed countries. The poorest in the world are already leading life styles with only tiny impacts on climate change and I didn't feel the need to point that out. Look at what I urged: I was not addressing herdsmen in Mongolia. I was addressing the majority on this forum.

My apologies if I am wrong and you are a small subsistence farmer off the grid with a near zero carbon footprint; if so you are living a suitable life style to minimize climate change now. Great you get good internet! But for most of us here our iotas are larger than many in the world. Each trying to do something in our own lives does have a substantial effect on the sum.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I really, really think like we're making this harder then it is.

"Adults generally don't like children telling them what to do" shouldn't need 60 pages of debate.

The Left's embracing of children spokespeople (Greta, the various school shooting survivors, etc) builds more resentment then support.

 

[qayak]

You don't need to go vegan, just vegetarian. Going vegan is too much of a self righteous wankfest for most people however cutting down or eliminating meat is a much more manageable goal.

This is the exact reason nothing changes. Dawkins is too militant! Going full renewable is too militant! Going vegan is too militant?

The best way to do this is for you to do things the way you want and STFU about other people doing things the way they want. Veganism are no more a wankfest that you merely cutting back on meat but you want to be right and have all the right answers so you throw shade on those who you see as more committed than you. As long as people are moving in the right direction STFU.

The simple fact is that the more you do the better the results no matter how much you want to claim otherwise. If all you can do is cut back meat, do it. If you can go full vegan, do it. That way everyone gets to enjoy their wankfest.

 

[caveman1917]

The linked paper requires some kind of account registration to read, so not sure how they came about with those findings.

Here is a pdf, which I quickly found by just doing a google search for the paper's title with "pdf" added to the search terms, I'm sure you can do this too

Does the upper 10% include industrial and manufacturing consumption, used by all? How are utilities factored in, such as electricity and transportation, the big contributors?

I'm not sure what you mean by "used by all"? Everyone uses electricity but some, the rich, use a whole lot more of it than the poor. The same goes for transportation.

The equation is complex. But even if your stats were taken as representative, those of us in the middle 40% can modify behaviors to drop our own footprint, and by simply buying less force industry to make less, which forces lower output on the upper percentage.

Why would you choosing to consume less stop the upper percentage from consuming as much as they do now? That doesn't seem to follow.

 

[qayak]

I really, really think like we're making this harder then it is.

"Adults generally don't like children telling them what to do" shouldn't need 60 pages of debate.

The Left's embracing of children spokespeople (Greta, the various school shooting survivors, etc) builds more resentment then support.

That resentment is going to come anyway. The resentment comes every time the alt-right sees any movement for change and it comes from the group of people who would ruin the environment, shoot children in schools, etc.

If you don't think Greta has built support for the environment, you are living in a fantasy world. We know that because the backlash has been so great.

 

[Stout]

That description is only for the poorest of the poor though, the median human doesn't wash their clothes by hand in a river or cook over charcoal.



The thing is that the distribution doesn't really change even if you restrict it to a single country or to the English speaking world. Sure, a rich American pollutes more than a rich Kenyan and a poor American pollutes more than a poor Kenyan (perhaps even a rich Kenyan) but the shape of the distribution doesn't change even if you restrict it to America, most of the pollution produced in America is due to the richest few percent of Americans and not the vast majority of (relatively) poor Americans.

I guess it all comes down to what you mean by median human but if we do restrict it to median American then, yes the median American has enough personal power to affect climate change, especially when acting en masse.

As a for instance. My next door neighbours casually mentioned that they walk around their house naked, they say they're a naked family. My first thought was you keep that 100 year old house with the crappy insulation and single pane windows THAT warm in the winter ? Heck, I'm sitting here wearing two pairs of track pants and a fleece jacket.

Ain't no naked happening around here in the winter.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I haven't had any kids nor will I. I'll eat steak for every meal and drive a Hummer that runs on spotted owl tears and run my air conditioner and heater at the same time year round and I'll still put my environmental impact up against anyone who's brought another human into the world.

 

[Stout]

This is the exact reason nothing changes. Dawkins is too militant! Going full renewable is too militant! Going vegan is too militant?

The best way to do this is for you to do things the way you want and STFU about other people doing things the way they want. Veganism are no more a wankfest that you merely cutting back on meat but you want to be right and have all the right answers so you throw shade on those who you see as more committed than you. As long as people are moving in the right direction STFU.

The simple fact is that the more you do the better the results no matter how much you want to claim otherwise. If all you can do is cut back meat, do it. If you can go full vegan, do it. That way everyone gets to enjoy their wankfest.

Maybe you missed the bit where Greta Thunberg lambasted pretty much everyone over 20 for doing what they wanted and havit leading to today's climate emergency. Its' s possible, I suppose.

Point is, going vegan is a tough sell, it's an even tougher sell than trying to convince people to mitigate their fossil fuel usage. Just because you go vegan doesn't mean you get a pass to fly to the Bahamas every weekend.

 

[qayak]

Maybe you missed the bit where Greta Thunberg lambasted pretty much everyone over 20 for doing what they wanted and havit leading to today's climate emergency. Its' s possible, I suppose.

Point is, going vegan is a tough sell, it's an even tougher sell than trying to convince people to mitigate their fossil fuel usage. Just because you go vegan doesn't mean you get a pass to fly to the Bahamas every weekend.

Just because you don't go vegan, or fully renewable energy, doesn't mean you get a pass to trash talk those who do.

As for Greta calling out those over 20, she's pretty accurate. I was taught all this stuff back in the early 1970's. It was part of the school curriculum and yet the raping of the environment continued to the point we are at now. We didn't do enough. And this new generation won't unless they are reminded because short term individual issues get in the way if long term world issues. That's the way it's set up.

Greta is young and idealistic which is what moves things along. But the idea that people don't want to listen because she is an irritating child is a cop out. People didn't listen when it was adult scientists with the same message.

The issue is that adults lose their ideals as they age and join the status quo. Society is set up like that. Most people become working drones with their own problems.

The real sad thing in all this is that the irritating child is right regardless of what her detractors say.

 

[Stout]

Yes, I know Thunberg is right the problem is that she's offering nothing new. It's the same old protest, complain and hope that somebody does something. It hasn't worked for the past 30 years and there's very little reason to believe that it will work today.

We, the royal we, need to work on this together. At the very lease we need to be thinking in terms of waste. How much energy we waste due to luxury or convenience.

As for the rest of your post, you're totally right and it will be interesting to see if these young people who are behind Thunberg can actually walk the talk once they're out there in the world trying to get it done. For instance will these birth strikers actually stick the reproduction flounce or will that just get tossed aside as youthful exuberance ?

 

[cullennz]

Cullenz has a habit of simply lying about what she has said and he has been shown the quotes that show he is lying.

Where?

 

[lionking]

I haven't had any kids nor will I. I'll eat steak for every meal and drive a Hummer that runs on spotted owl tears and run my air conditioner and heater at the same time year round and I'll still put my environmental impact up against anyone who's brought another human into the world.

Well you will be on the debit side I’ll bet. Children today are well aware of the damage climate change will cause and when baby boomers die off and they take the reins, politics will change and the problem will be treated seriously. Your Hummer will among the cars banned and your heating and air conditioning and heating will be powered by renewables.

You do know that the world’s population is almost certain to reduce in the second half of this century (hopefully earlier) and this will happen regardless of climate change. The challenge is to leave the planet in a manageable state for a more sustainable population. Young people will make this happen I believe.

On a personal level, one child is vegan and two are almost total vegetarians. All are politically aware and will play their part in some way.

 

[Steve]

Yes, I know Thunberg is right the problem is that she's offering nothing new. It's the same old protest, complain and hope that somebody does something. It hasn't worked for the past 30 years and there's very little reason to believe that it will work today.

We, the royal we, need to work on this together. At the very lease we need to be thinking in terms of waste. How much energy we waste due to luxury or convenience.

As for the rest of your post, you're totally right and it will be interesting to see if these young people who are behind Thunberg can actually walk the talk once they're out there in the world trying to get it done. For instance will these birth strikers actually stick the reproduction flounce or will that just get tossed aside as youthful exuberance ?

Your first paragraph is very, very wrong. It is not necessary for her to offer anything new. The problems and solutions are well known. What Thunberg is doing is keeping the issues on the front page and getting more and more people to agree with her and publicize the positive actions they are taking. The impact she is having is very evident in this thread with people pathetically trying to discredit her. Even the thread title offers a false dichotomy implying that her efforts to resolve climate issues are because she is “disturbed”. All these things, and many more similar have been written in this thread as if they somehow discredit her message:
- she is a child
- she is autistic
- her parents are putting her up to it
- she doesn’t speak out against forest fire retardants
- she should be in school
- her voice is irritating
- sometimes she uses an incorrect word
- people find her annoying
- she is out of touch with how real people live
- she says everyone should panic
- she does not say anything new
- her choice to turn down an award deserves criticism
- etc

You can’t be serious that climate activists have had no impact in the past 30 years. 30 years ago electric cars were a novelty. Architects and engineers were not designing energy efficient buildings and their clients were not requesting them. Building codes did not have energy efficiency requirements. Public transit vehicles were not running on alternative cleaner fuels. CFC’s were still common in industry. These changes, and many more, all came about because of publicity initiated by climate activists. Seems you may not have first hand knowledge of life 30 years ago.