• 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? Part II.

Status
Not open for further replies.
arthwollipot said:
I think some of them do. I think politics is littered with people who initially got into it for what they thought were good reasons. But it's a difficult job and sometimes you have to make difficult and unpopular decisions for reasons that are unrelated to whether you intended to be altruistic or not.
Click to expand...

That can happen when you land a high paying, do nothing job, and you start worrying about getting those donations to get re-elected..

Call me cynical.. It's OK.
 
arthwollipot said:
Wondering what Greta Thunberg has been doing recently?

For a start, she's published a book.
Click to expand...
She has, and called for the end of capitalism no less.

Interspersed among the usual directives about the need to pressure political leaders, her message was more radical and more militant than it has been in the past. There is no “back to normal”, she told us. “Normal” was the “system” which gave us the climate crisis, a system of “colonialism, imperialism, oppression, genocide”, of “racist, oppressive extractionism”. Climate justice is part of all justice; you can’t have one without the others. We can’t trust the elites produced by this system to confront its flaws — that’s why she, much like Rishi Sunak, won’t be bothering with the COP meeting this year. COP itself is little more than a “scam” which facilitates “greenwashing, lying and cheating”. Only overthrow of “the whole capitalist system” will suffice.

So now we are finally seeing the contours of Thunbergism. Run your eye down the contributors to The Climate Book and you can see who she’s been reading: Jason Hickel, Kate Raworth, Naomi Klein. For these people the climate crisis isn’t man-made. It’s made by capitalism, as are the other forms of social injustice which plague society. There’s no GDP growth — especially of the capitalist sort — without increasing carbon emissions. The only solution to this state of emergency is for rich countries to immediately abandon economic expansion as a social goal.
Click to expand...
From https://unherd.com/thepost/greta-th...ist-left/?mc_cid=92ce4edde1&mc_eid=bd49f7bfa5

My quick google couldn't find more details of what she is proposing as an alternative (if she has firm proposals).
 
arthwollipot said:
Wondering what Greta Thunberg has been doing recently?

For a start, she's published a book.

The Climate Book

It appears to be a collection of essays by a group of experts in a variety of fields. I might pick up a copy.
Click to expand...
Let us know if any of them turn out to be experts in convincing world leaders to take immediate and drastic measures to curtail GHG emissions on a global scale. We already have plenty of experts in saying such measures are necessary, and plenty of experts in prompting other measures that while nice enough are absolutely useless for meeting the stated need.
 
Capitalism is the human default mode. On every scale from personal finances to international industrial levels everyone is out to turn what they have into more, somehow.

Even the Thunbergs.
Now she is truly tilting at the windmills of society.
It she offers any exceptions to anyone for this her ideals have to fail. If entire segments of broader society reject this as realistic it will fail.
 
Exactly. People like having personal property. People like being able to put their property to work and get a personal profit from it. People like doing it individually. People like doing it large groups. People like doing it so much that when it's banned as a matter of ideological principle, they'll do it anyway.

Now, unbridled capitalism by itself is a terrible system for ordering a civil society. That's why it works best when paired with something like liberal democracy, rather than kleptocracy or oligarchy.
 
theprestige said:
Let us know if any of them turn out to be experts in convincing world leaders to take immediate and drastic measures to curtail GHG emissions on a global scale. We already have plenty of experts in saying such measures are necessary, and plenty of experts in prompting other measures that while nice enough are absolutely useless for meeting the stated need.
Click to expand...

Thunberg's always been like that. The author of that article is a noob to Thunbergism. Thunberg and her supporters have always been about tearing down western society and replacing it with some sort of imagined utopia where...Tear down western society, something, something, profit! is the name of the game only her supports are only able to hover around the Greta Good stage as they know the reality of reducing emissions to Thunberg acceptable levels will lead to the end of life as we know it.

In B4 somebody makes some stupid mud huts comment. It's a developing nation lifestyle Thunberg and her supporters are wanting us to live You know, like the "average Kenyan" they're so enamored with. This is also why Thunberg only speaks in huge generalities like "the politicians need to do something". If she started getting specific, her support would just melt away because her supporters are too fat and comfortable eating their foodie diet, driving around in their cars, taking vacations and staying warm/cool in their homes as they gobble up resources and emit carbon like there's no tomorrow.

This winter, Europe might prove to be a useful social experiment on the reduction of western excesses.

Just for fun. I suppose everybody's heard the Izzy Cook interview if not, give it a listen, it's hilarious. 2 minutes.
 
Not safe to project on this. In the highly conservative area I grew up in we were a reflection of our parents, if not very vocal about it.
It was the earlier 1980's version of conservative, not what horrors came 30 years later.

Socialism was a word used to describe tin horn dictators and the USSR. Something one didn't say out loud they approved of.
 
lionking said:
Come on, who at her age wasn’t a communist or socialist? I certainly was.
Click to expand...

Does she ever say she is a communist or socialist? I can't find anything where she says she does, or even where she advocates for any political system. She seems to be now "anti-capitalist", but not pro anything in particular apart from producing less CO2.

She must know that communist states have often been worse polluters, especially as they lack any democratic oversight. Anyway, those systems play exactly the same game as capitalist ones - they want to grow their economies as quickly as possible and brush any externalities under the carpet.

I think when you are 15 you can just about get away with saying: "Hey, I don't know how to fix it, I'm just a child. You adults find the solution". However as she becomes an adult that stance becomes increasingly untenable, in my opinion.

Maybe agrarian-feudalism is the answer - that seemed pretty sustainable. Or possibly an anarcho-syndicalist commune?
 
Last edited:
Ecological Leninism perhaps? Thunberg is good at using rhetoric to communicate the big idea but she's very shy on any sort of specifics. I wouldn't doubt she's got a team of BBC handlers not only managing her interviews/interviewers but telling what she can and cannot say. Anybody who's seen her three part series would come to the conclusion that it wasn't just Greta and her dad driving around in that loaner Tesla like we were led to believe, they had a BBC film crew and handlers along for the ride.

Ecological Leninism

Thunberg may have bone a good job of scaring children and boosting climate anxiety but this discounting individual efforts that the far left is so fond of really isn't getting anybody anywhere except, maybe, the child psychologist industry.

Check this out, from Climate Emergency Fund, which funds Just Stop Oil.

Feelings of grief and terror are healthy and normal responses to the climate emergency. Let them motivate you to get heroically involved!
Click to expand...

Oh really, healthy and normal are they? OK now. Cue conversations about online radicalization and stochastic terrorism.

Just for fun:

A news article came across my feed this morning. It seems that in order to combat climate change this city council has decided to spend $700K on countertop food scraps treaters. Yep, &700K for something that a home compost pile or a tub of red wigglers can do for free. It grinds the food scraps then heats them up to sterilize them all the while using energy that just may have come from burning fossil fuels.

Lol, high tech solution. How long before this thing ends up in the landfill?
 
In the long term it doesn't matter what Greta demands. She and the people behind her are getting what they want now. Attention, income and a bit of fame.
It is all a show using an exceptional actress in the lead role and a made for TV plot.

It is very important we all do something to reduce the damage we do. No doubts.
It has to be measures and changes we can make real now, with what we have. Later we can do better with new technology and resources.
It's also important we live with a certain level of comfort and adequate resources to meet our real needs.
Luxurious events and items can be curbed to make a big part of the difference in how much environmental impact each has.

Health care is a large part of the waste and energy use that nobody mentioned. Bio waste has to be burned. Almost none of the materials can be reused. Nor recycled.

So much farther to go but no need for silly fear mongering.
 
FatherLukeduke said:
Does she ever say she is a communist or socialist? I can't find anything where she says she does, or even where she advocates for any political system. She seems to be now "anti-capitalist", but not pro anything in particular apart from producing less CO2.

She must know that communist states have often been worse polluters, especially as they lack any democratic oversight. Anyway, those systems play exactly the same game as capitalist ones - they want to grow their economies as quickly as possible and brush any externalities under the carpet.

I think when you are 15 you can just about get away with saying: "Hey, I don't know how to fix it, I'm just a child. You adults find the solution". However as she becomes an adult that stance becomes increasingly untenable, in my opinion.

Maybe agrarian-feudalism is the answer - that seemed pretty sustainable. Or possibly an anarcho-syndicalist commune?
Click to expand...

Agrarian feudalism probably is the right answer. A high king/emperor/central committee that accounts for all the externalities and receives all the fruits of labor to allocate as they see fit for the continuation of the empire. Divide the planet into production regions and assign each one to a trusted king or other overlord. They're then responsible for making sure their region is producing as expected. They hold back enough of what they produce for day to day upkeep of their region, and remit the rest up to the emperor. The regions themselves are divided into productivity districts, each managed by a lord or baron, on the same pay your taxes up the line basis. Excepting the bureaucracy and security classes, everyone else is a peasant working the land and remitting the fruits of their labor to their local lord. This eliminates the perverse incentives of capitalism, to ignore externalities. Meanwhile, corruption and incompetence are handled structurally. The emperor will notice when remittances are down, and discover the reason why.
 
That sounds suspiciously like the worker's paradise of Nicaragua, where you can hear the women singing as they stand waist deep in a muddy river handwashing the family's laundry while the men are joyously working in the sugar cane fields so we can have some delicious Flor de Caña rum. The best part? Nicaraguans only emit 0.8MT C02 per capita. :)

Excited about the upcoming Thunbergless COP27? It should be a wild ride because rumors on social media have it that China if going to fly in Trump to reshame Germany for
not only making themselves Russia's energy bitch, but actually tearing down a windfarm so they can expand a coal mine.
 
Stout said:
In B4 somebody makes some stupid mud huts comment. It's a developing nation lifestyle Thunberg and her supporters are wanting us to live You know, like the "average Kenyan" they're so enamored with. This is also why Thunberg only speaks in huge generalities like "the politicians need to do something". If she started getting specific, her support would just melt away because her supporters are too fat and comfortable eating their foodie diet, driving around in their cars, taking vacations and staying warm/cool in their homes as they gobble up resources and emit carbon like there's no tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Nobody managed to get in ahead of your stupid comments. The idea that cutting emissions means low living standards is utterly stupid from the get go. It's really just something advanced by gullible would be Libertarians who can't understand what a free market is or how it works.


Stout said:
This winter, Europe might prove to be a useful social experiment on the reduction of western excesses.
Click to expand...
Over the last 2 decades Europe has proven that you can maintain a high standard of living even while cutting CO2 emissions.
 
Stout said:
That sounds suspiciously like the worker's paradise of Nicaragua, where you can hear the women singing as they stand waist deep in a muddy river handwashing the family's laundry while the men are joyously working in the sugar cane fields so we can have some delicious Flor de Caña rum. The best part? Nicaraguans only emit 0.8MT C02 per capita. : )
Click to expand...
Nothing suspicious about it at all! I honestly believe post-industrial feudalism is probably the only way to really ensure that natural resources are being extracted and consumed in a clean, sustainable way that accounts for all externalities.

One world government, central planning, and nationalization of all the means of production. It'll be a regional governor's paradise rather than a worker's paradise, but you can't have everything. The important thing is to make sure that local peasants don't divert their local capital and labor to frivolous, polluting, unsustainable outputs.
 
lomiller said:
Nobody managed to get in ahead of your stupid comments. The idea that cutting emissions means low living standards is utterly stupid from the get go. It's really just something advanced by gullible would be Libertarians who can't understand what a free market is or how it works.
Click to expand...

Oh really? Then explain how carbon emissions keep increasing and how we're supposed to get even close to averting the 1.5C warming in the next 6 years, 260 days that would be SJWs are all stressed out about. Don't forget Climate Jesus is making this all about G7 nations somehow magically, by transforming their systems of government into something that not even Thunberg can, or will, articulate. Majick, maybe?

I know that Kool-Aid was delicious back in September 2019 and some people take a little longer o come to the realization that Thunberg's activism, like regular Kool-Aid is all bright colors and empty calories.

Unless you're Running a Climate Psychology business, then Thunberg's activism is good for business. Really good for business.

Over the last 2 decades Europe has proven that you can maintain a high standard of living even while cutting CO2 emissions.
Click to expand...

Oh well, there we go. No need for Europe to do anything differently now is there? Keep up the status quo and everything will be peachy keen. Maybe Thunberg needs to get back on a sailboat and start haranguing Americans again. Remember..."we are at the beginning of a mass extinction".

Also.


“We are never going back to normal again because ‘normal’ was already a crisis. What we refer to as normal is an extreme system built on the exploitation of people and the planet.

“It is a system defined by colonialism, imperialism, oppression and genocide by the so-called global North to accumulate wealth that still shapes our current world order.”

“If economic growth is our only priority, then what we are experiencing now should be exactly what we should be expecting.”
Click to expand...

Europe isn't getting anywhere near the pass you feel they should be getting.
 
lomiller said:
Over the last 2 decades Europe has proven that you can maintain a high standard of living even while cutting CO2 emissions.
Click to expand...
Over the last 20 years Europe has gone from 10% of it's energy from renewables to 22%. The right direction, but hardly a revolution. The rest of our carbon reduction has come from sucking on Putin's gas teat (how's that working out?), exporting our manufacturing (and therefore carbon emissions) and sleight of hand.

These marginal gains are nothing like the wholesale changes Thunberg advocates for, in fact she is furious at them. Current energy strategy across Europe will never get anywhere near the level of carbon reduction she says we need to avoid disaster.

As a nasty recession and sky high hydrocarbon prices bite in we are likely to see significant drops in CO2 output, as the poorer you are the less you generate. We just need to keep that up.
 
Maybe we should try for a "Herd Immunity" approach by doing nothing until the consequences kill a lot of us, reducing CO2 emissions dramatically. /s
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom