Greta Thunberg - brave campaigner or deeply disturbed? Part II.

[Ryan O'Dine]

Let's try a different tack. For those who only find fault with Thunberg, how would you go about motivating people -- especially legislators -- to take significant, urgent action on the climate?

Let's say you have Thunberg's audience and cache -- what are your goals and how do you go about getting them enacted? If Thunberg is doing everything wrong, what concrete steps would you take in her place?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I don't think she's doing anything wrong.

All legislators care about is getting re-elected.

if Greta's not getting out the votes, I can't think of anything else that would work any better.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

I don't think she's doing anything wrong.

All legislators care about is getting re-elected.

if Greta's not getting out the votes, I can't think of anything else that would work any better.

Thank you, I appreciate that.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Just for fun.

Celebrity Who Travels On Private Jets And Collects Luxury Sports Cars Says You’re The Reason For Climate Change

Babylon Bee link.

It should go without saying that the Babylon Bee has their head up their own ass, but I guess it doesn't.

It wouldn't be hypocritical to reject many facets of the modern agricultural system, while still eating food. One doesn't have to starve to death or eat nothing but home-grown food in order to criticize the current system in place.

It wouldn't be hypocritical to criticize how textile workers around the world are treated just because one wore an imported piece of clothing. Sometimes you're forced to exist in a system you don't like.

You can criticize the system you live in, while still interacting with the institutions within that system. You're not a hypocrite just because you're trying to change things, and aren't immediately successful in completely changing the world. I would think anyone older than a teenager would be able to grasp this, if not most teenagers.

 

[mgidm86]

Okay, cool, thanks for that.

Followup: Do you think that this response is in any way achievable, by any one person? Second followup: Do you think that anybody thinks that it is?

You have taken oratory and rhetoric, reinterpreted it as a deeply unrealistic target that would be impossible to achieve, even in principle, and labelled it as an abject failure. And you can't see why I have a problem with that?

The Right doesn't have a lot going for it now, maybe Greta is just an easy target?

There is no rational argument to be found by her detractors here which makes me suspect her accomplishments, or lack of, aren't really the problem.

She is attacking one of the things many of them deny actually exists. That is the problem with Greta.

She has also exposed a lot of hate from the right which is one accomplishment she may not have planned on. And she's a woman. What's there to like about her?

That's what's going on here, but we know that already.

If nations are not heeding her advice then whose fault is that? I guess all the people complaining about gun violence in the US are failures because so many other people in this country are stupid and won't budge? Again, who are the real dummies? Who is the problem?

Who needs an analogy though, it's all laid out in this thread for all to see. I have never once peeked into this thread and thought to myself, "Ya her detractors make sense"

All I ever think is, "These people got issues man"

 

[gnome]

It should go without saying that the Babylon Bee has their head up their own ass, but I guess it doesn't.

It wouldn't be hypocritical to reject many facets of the modern agricultural system, while still eating food. One doesn't have to starve to death or eat nothing but home-grown food in order to criticize the current system in place.

It wouldn't be hypocritical to criticize how textile workers around the world are treated just because one wore an imported piece of clothing. Sometimes you're forced to exist in a system you don't like.

You can criticize the system you live in, while still interacting with the institutions within that system. You're not a hypocrite just because you're trying to change things, and aren't immediately successful in completely changing the world. I would think anyone older than a teenager would be able to grasp this, if not most teenagers.

When your ability to avoid questioning your reactions, and sometimes your paycheck, depends on not grasping it, it's surprising how even otherwise intelligent people can fail to understand nuances.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

The Right doesn't have a lot going for it now... snip

I can understand why the Left might feel that way..

Yes, you can ignore any thread by... Ignoring it.

 

[Stout]

It should go without saying that the Babylon Bee has their head up their own ass, but I guess it doesn't.

Ellen DeGeneres doesn't fly private, doesn't collect gas guzzling soprtscars, doesn't live in a huge mansion and didn't make a video ending in “Mother Nature is not happy with us. We all need to do our part”? Who knew?

It wouldn't be hypocritical to reject many facets of the modern agricultural system, while still eating food. One doesn't have to starve to death or eat nothing but home-grown food in order to criticize the current system in place.

No it wouldn't however do you need to eat meat, do you need to cook with ingredients that come from more than 100 miles from your house?

It wouldn't be hypocritical to criticize how textile workers around the world are treated just because one wore an imported piece of clothing. Sometimes you're forced to exist in a system you don't like.

Probably not, depending on how much sweatshop clothing you buy in lieu of trying to find local manufacturers but yes, fast fashion is part of the problem and under the Thunberg plan, we'd be demanding our governments outlaw it in favor of locally made sustainable clothing.

You can criticize the system you live in, while still interacting with the institutions within that system. You're not a hypocrite just because you're trying to change things, and aren't immediately successful in completely changing the world. I would think anyone older than a teenager would be able to grasp this, if not most teenagers.

You very much are if you enjoying the conveniences and luxuries burning fossil fuels provide while supporting an activist who's telling you to demand you government make you stop doing those things.

Waving the Thunberg flag is the easy part.

 

[Matthew Best]

As you probably know, Thunberg has been in Germany, joining in a protest about the expansion of a coalmine at Luetzerath. Police moved in to clear the protestors. Unfortunately, it was a bit muddy, so this happened:

https://twitter.com/_maxgranger/status/1614450397359538176

(Before you ask, somebody has already sped the footage up and added the Benny Hill theme to it, if you look further down the replies.)

 

[Stout]

But but but...

Germany brought in all these ground breaking super progressive energy saving measures.. Looks like they were nowhere near enough to avoid the need to dig up coal.

It's to be expected though. Regardless of protests the general consensus appears to be.

“Everyone is keeping their climate targets, but it’s true that when you face the dilemma to keep the lights on or decrease carbon emissions, the choice is to keep the lights on,” said Carlos Fernandez Alvarez, the acting head of gas, coal and power at the International Energy Agency.

Link

Which is something most people, even super progressive Thunberg supporters can sympathize with.

 

[mgidm86]

The Right doesn't have a lot going for it now, maybe Greta is just an easy target?

There is no rational argument to be found by her detractors here which makes me suspect her accomplishments, or lack of, aren't really the problem.

She is attacking one of the things many of them deny actually exists. That is the problem with Greta.

She has also exposed a lot of hate from the right which is one accomplishment she may not have planned on. And she's a woman. What's there to like about her?

That's what's going on here, but we know that already.

If nations are not heeding her advice then whose fault is that? I guess all the people complaining about gun violence in the US are failures because so many other people in this country are stupid and won't budge? Again, who are the real dummies? Who is the problem?

Who needs an analogy though, it's all laid out in this thread for all to see. I have never once peeked into this thread and thought to myself, "Ya her detractors make sense"

All I ever think is, "These people got issues man"

Seriously, I can't even mention the "word that shall not be named" when using it on a thread and not a specific user?

Howz about: I guess I will utilize a known forum feature to relieve myself from further being reminded of the existence of this stupid hateful thread.

m'kay?

 

[The Don]

But but but...

Germany brought in all these ground breaking super progressive energy saving measures.. Looks like they were nowhere near enough to avoid the need to dig up coal.

It's to be expected though. Regardless of protests the general consensus appears to be.



Link

Which is something most people, even super progressive Thunberg supporters can sympathize with.

Maybe if they were further along their decarbonisation journey, the loss of Russian oil and gas supplies would have been barely a blip in the road.

 

[Roboramma]

No it wouldn't however do you need to eat meat, do you need to cook with ingredients that come from more than 100 miles from your house?

Eating local really isn't a great way to lower your carbon footprint. Transport accounts for only about 5% of the carbon footprint of your food, so completely shifting your diet to only local foods would give you at most something less than a 5% reduction in the carbon footprint of your food (even local foods will still have some transport costs).

ETA: This (by the same author) is probably a better and more in depth source: https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local

 

[Stout]

Maybe if they were further along their decarbonisation journey, the loss of Russian oil and gas supplies would have been barely a blip in the road.

Maybe. Germany is on the same net zero by 2050 program that "everybody" else is and their renewed interest on coal shows that their energy saving measures are at the most, superficial. If anybody is even remotely interested in living the Greta Thunberg plan, then those cuts will have to be substantially more meaningful than they are now.

On the upside, Germany has shaved off 8 years on their plan to eliminate coal. Whether this actually comes true or remains a case of politicians writing down big numbers on pieces of paper remains to be seen.

 

[Stout]

Eating local really isn't a great way to lower your carbon footprint. Transport accounts for only about 5% of the carbon footprint of your food, so completely shifting your diet to only local foods would give you at most something less than a 5% reduction in the carbon footprint of your food (even local foods will still have some transport costs).

ETA: This (by the same author) is probably a better and more in depth source: https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local

Cheers, thanks for that. The upside to looking seriously at that diet serves to illustrate just how reliant most people are on global shipping for their food. Just how long distance food transportation figures in to the Greta Thunberg plan of "we need real zero, not net zero" is unclear. Assuming her supporters her actually serious about following her demands, buying local isn't really to much of an ask.

 

[Roboramma]

Cheers, thanks for that. The upside to looking seriously at that diet serves to illustrate just how reliant most people are on global shipping for their food. Just how long distance food transportation figures in to the Greta Thunberg plan of "we need real zero, not net zero" is unclear. Assuming her supporters her actually serious about following her demands, buying local isn't really to much of an ask.

Yeah, if you're already doing all of the more effective things, then even 5% isn't meaningless. But on the list of priorities for things to change, it seems low. Just making dietary shifts (from beef to chicken and fish, or from meats to plant based alternatives) is more effective and probably easier.

It may make sense to target which foods you try to buy locally. Buying your beef locally will have almost zero effect on it's carbon footprint (I think she gave a figure of 0.5%), but for some foods that number does become significant. The article does suggest that food that's shipped by air does have a high carbon footprint due to transport, and while food isn't labelled as such, does offer a good heuristic to avoid them: don't buy food that needs to be extremely fresh that's shipped from abroad (berries, for instance). Since country of origin is often listed, that seems possible.

 

[The Don]

Cheers, thanks for that. The upside to looking seriously at that diet serves to illustrate just how reliant most people are on global shipping for their food. Just how long distance food transportation figures in to the Greta Thunberg plan of "we need real zero, not net zero" is unclear. Assuming her supporters her actually serious about following her demands, buying local isn't really to much of an ask.

My takeaway from this is that if you want to make a significant difference to your carbon footprint through diet then become vegan and accept that although there may be more transportation carbon as a result, the total is a fraction of the carbon from an omnivorous diet, even a local one.

The lowest carbon does come from a locally sourced vegan diet but that's not possible for large parts of the developed world - but then again neither is a locally sourced omnivorous diet.

tl;dr "my" air-freighted green beans from Kenya still have a tiny carbon footprint compared to "your" locally sourced meat.

 

[Stout]

Agreed, the single most important thing you can do, dietarywise, is to switch to a vegetarian diet. There's no real need to go full vegan as that's unnecessarily limiting. When I think of just the sauces and beer in my fridge and the thousands of miles they traveled to get there it's rather mind boggling.

Point being, of course, if you're going to follow and celebrate an extremist like Thunberg there's a lot to think about outside of the typical somebody needs to do something philosophy.

Why is it when Paul Ehrlich says we're in a mass extinction he's widely derided and debunked but when Thunberg says the same thing, she's the best thing since sliced bread?

 

[The Don]

Agreed, the single most important thing you can do, dietarywise, is to switch to a vegetarian diet. There's no real need to go full vegan as that's unnecessarily limiting. When I think of just the sauces and beer in my fridge and the thousands of miles they traveled to get there it's rather mind boggling.

That depends on your motivation, but even if it's just from a carbon footprint perspective, dairy products are comparatively high up the list. If you factor in animal welfare considerations then vegan would appear to be the ethical choice.

Regarding your beer and sauces. These will likely have been surface-shipped and so would have had a smaller carbon footprint than if they had been air freighted and still a tiny footprint compared to meat - transport is a tiny fraction of the overall but by all means obsess about it.

 

[arthwollipot]

I guess this hasn't made it to this thread, because it's barely news:

Greta Thunberg briefly detained at coal protest in Germany

Thunberg was held at the Garzweiler 2 mine near the village of Lützerath, but released after an identity check

It could be said that you're not protesting properly unless you've been detained by cops at some point.