• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Greta Thunberg - brave campaigner or deeply disturbed?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Please tell me you didn't just compare the US to Germany

The US is about 10 x larger with things like deserts that have no viable renewable energy sources.
Deserts don’t need electricity, people do. The majority of the people live in urbanized areas just like in Germany, not in the desert.
 
San Francisco, a city that prides itself on its eco-consciousness, will soon have a giant likeness of Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg gazing upon its downtown, reminding residents to respect the planet.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/08/greta-thunberg-mural-san-francisco

At the age of 16, Thunberg has already reached the exalted status of Nobel peace prize nominee, leader of a movement to reclaim the planet for future generations, focus of Donald Trump’s mockery, and hero among progressives and young people.
 
Why are you so easy on governments? Germany closed coal and gas fired power plants. Why can’t the US? This would make a massive difference to carbon emissions.

Your broken record request is for each individual to reduce their personal footprint. Yeah, good. I agree. But governments can do much more. And deserved to be blamed for not doing so.

I've been on renewable energy (hydroelectric) my whole life so the whole wind/solar issue is rather moot. I could jump on board with it but I'd be basically telling other people, other governments what to do and I'd be firmly in the "what about China, India ? etc." camp which is kind of boring, TBH.

We had our climate strike, our Greta might be coming moment, our bridge blocking by Extinction Rebellion yet getting any sort of meaningful answer to the question "What do you want your government to do ?" is rather challenging.

I get weird things like make shore power hook ups for cruise ships mandatory. Sounds like a good idea on the surface however a cruise shp is in port for, on average, about 5 hours and given that it takes 45 minutes to power down one of these things and another 45 minutes to power one up that means it will only be on renewables for about 3 hours.

If we express those three hours as a percentage of the total time a cruise ship is in operation over a one week cruise period wh have one of those nice sounding but ( in the grand scheme of things ) band-aid on a brain tumor solutions I mentioned earlier.

I pay a carbon tax every time I fill up my tank...I suppose they could raise that but it won't affect anyone's gas consumption do ay significant degree.

I have a no idling bylaw, I can't let my car sit, running and immobile for more than three minutes. Fair enough, I don't do that anyway, no need to.
 
Don't agree with this.

I find the way she comes across is irritating in some of her speeches, but that is due to bad acting and the people that write the script.

She should be in school in some capacity though

not sure why you think people want her to live in a cave.


Just not causing 6 trans-Atlantic flights to not cause 4 would be handy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Sweden

Education in Sweden is mandatory for children between ages 6 and 15.

She's 16. It's her choice.

'Greta Thunberg effect' ?

I thought her big audience was high school and younger, age kids..

Is the argument, that they are talking their parents into investing in carbon-reducing projects?

As I believe I pointed out earlier in the thread, research has shown that parents' views can be changed by their children.

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...parents-change-their-minds-on-climate-change/

Maybe Greta should start a GoFundMe to raise money to pay for her carbon offsets, so that she can fly around the world carrying her important message. Surely 16 years old isn't too young to start reasoning through these kinds of problems.

That may have been the case for you. Maybe her reasoning skills are more developed than yours were/are.

Do you mind just giving an example of what Greta says, people at a massive climate change summit including some of the best climate change scientists may not have already heard.

Sent from my SM-J111M using Tapatalk

So you believe that only people at the conference will be able to see what she says? Will the media not report on it? Will there be no videos of it?

It's also not just about spreading her message. She will have the opportunity to meet "the best climate change scientists". Networking can be a very important feature of conferences.
 
Please tell me you didn't just compare the US to Germany

The US is about 10 x larger with things like deserts that have no viable renewable energy sources.

I'm just going to continue with the piling on here. I mean, I live in the western U.S., having spent a decade in the deserts of the American Southwest, and now more recently in Colorado. I spend a fair bit of time in Lower Saxony (Germany) as well.

The U.S. has vastly more potential for renewable energy than Germany. Vastly more, a whole lot more, much more. More sun, more wind - a whole lot more of both. The U.S. has not even begun to tap that significantly. In the Southwest, rooftop solar alone could probably generate most of the power needed during the day. Further north, Wyoming is known for its never-ending winds (the Interstate Highways have gates that close when the wind starts to knock the 18-wheeler trucks/articulated lorries over). Yet there are currently few wind towers there. Colorado has relatively less sun than the Mojave Desert where I spent ten years, but even here we get about 300 sunny days a year. Yet one sees few solar cells or wind towers around here or in the places I lived in the deserts of Utah, Southeastern California, or Nevada.

Then I go to Lower Saxony, where is it cloudy and not very windy, and there are solar cells on all the old farm buildings, and wind towers on many ridgelines and in many fields. It is hard to find a spot where no wind towers are visible.


And? Which country has the greater capacity for solar power but continues to use coal?

Just back out of this thread slowly and quietly.

Given the logistics, probably Germany

No, not even close.

Have a think about geography

You will need to spell that out more clearly, my perception is that the geography in America is better suited to wind and solar power generation than Germany. This is based on my travels in both nations.

Deserts don’t need electricity, people do. The majority of the people live in urbanized areas just like in Germany, not in the desert.

I think we might be getting somewhere. The catch being, a good many of those urbanized areas are in the desert. People live in urbanized areas in the desert. Los Angeles, San Diego, Palm Springs, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Tuscon, Albuquerque, Santa Fe, Lubbock, Amarillo, San Bernardino. That tens and tens of millions of people, all living in desert areas with better than 330 days of sunshine per year. Nice spread out American cities with big rooftops and parking lots just waiting to have solar panels installed over them.

And that completely leaves out the wind power potential of the states in the northern part of the west. Southern Wyoming is installing some wind, but that's slated to run power to Las Vegas through DC powerlines that are currently under construction (but behind schedule). They could easily put in more to run power to Denver and the Colorado front range with its four or five million people, it is not that far, or turn them east towards Omaha. Even St. Louis is little further from that part of Wyoming than Las Vegas is, if they can run power to southwest to Vegas, they can run it east to St. Louis and Kansas City.

Then if you go further East in the U.S. you get to climates that more closely resemble a certain European country named "Germany". I would thing if that nation, with its climate and geography can do it, then so can those parts of America that have similar climates and geographic features.


America has not picked the low hanging fruit in renewable energy. Half of our political apparatus seems focused on denying the existence of that low hanging fruit or of the need to use it. If Greta can focus more public perception on the problem and thereby get people to apply political pressure, then I am supportive of that. She's not a scientist, she's a communicator and an advocate which is a role she seems suited for and is doing effectively. She draws attention, gets the younguns' motivated to be prepared to vote until they come of age and to pressure the views and opinions of their parents until then. That's good. She is doing good.
 
Last edited:
If "the" thrust of a political solution is primarily electricity generation through wind/solar/etc then why did Thunberg spend so much time and energy traveling around Canada which has 67% of it's electricity generated by renewables ?

Seems to me she'd be more effective addressing those countries that are behind the curve rather than preaching to the converted.
 
If "the" thrust of a political solution is primarily electricity generation through wind/solar/etc then why did Thunberg spend so much time and energy traveling around Canada which has 67% of it's electricity generated by renewables ?

Seems to me she'd be more effective addressing those countries that are behind the curve rather than preaching to the converted.

She spent most of her time here in America. Which is very far behind the curve.

She is not perfect. But perfection is not the enemy.
 
Care to comment on #2587?

You mean apart from me apparently being utterly wrong in figuring the logistics of such a massive country would make renewables more difficult?

Not really, apart from saying I am apparently wrong.

Apologies
 
Do you mind just giving an example of what Greta says, people at a massive climate change summit including some of the best climate change scientists may not have already heard.

Sent from my SM-J111M using Tapatalk
Scientists have been saying the same things to themselves and the general public for decades now, in the hope it may penetrate the skulls of the general public and motivate them to take action. Greta seems to be able to reach out to people more effectively.
 
Scientists have been saying the same things to themselves and the general public for decades now, in the hope it may penetrate the skulls of the general public and motivate them to take action. Greta seems to be able to reach out to people more effectively.

That is awesome, but bares zero relation to answering my question
 
Greta writes:

On Monday my book “No One Is Too Small To Make A Difference” will be released in the United States. This is an updated edition with more speeches, which will be released in other countries and languages soon as well. And all my earnings will go to charity.
 
Do you mind just giving an example of what Greta says, people at a massive climate change summit including some of the best climate change scientists may not have already heard.

What does that have to do with any ******* thing? People go to rallies, summits, conferences, meetings, etc., and no one expects invited speakers to say anything attendees haven't already heard . . . except you when it comes to Greta Thunberg.

People go to these events specifically to hear people give their take on the topic. Greta did that. There were actually 5 summits that week. Climate, universal healthcare, sustainable development,financing and development, and small island development. Do you think the people attending those summits had never heard what the speakers talked about?

t makes me wonder why you hold a 16 year old girl to higher standards than you hold anyone else? . . . No, actually, I know why. Your hatred is shining through.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom