• 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.
Skeptical Greg said:
I wouldn't take that bet..

Typically 'those same people' i.e. the right/climate change deniers ( according to you ), are not often concerned about the rights of indigenous peoples, so why would you make such a bet?
Click to expand...

Because they are attacking her for perceived (as opposed to actual) hypocrisy.

One could say that they are not worried about wind farms, but it didn't stop them trying to misuse that.
 
Skeptical Greg said:
I wouldn't take that bet..

Typically 'those same people' i.e. the right/climate change deniers ( according to you ), are not often concerned about the rights of indigenous peoples, so why would you make such a bet?
Click to expand...

It’s for the same reason that many right-wingers suddenly care about the poor in their country when it comes to providing military aid for Ukraine. They don’t actually want to spend the money on the poor but it is a good idea to rile up a larger base by getting other people upset about it too.
 
Plunking a whole bunch of anything really onto what bits of land have not yet been stolen from natives is nothing more than another theft of natural resources. Sure, wind or solar isn't 'taking' anything from anyone, but it sure is *leaving* a lot of stuff lying around that the people who are supposed to have control over the land don't get a choice in.
 
Skeptical Greg said:
I wouldn't take that bet..

Typically 'those same people' i.e. the right/climate change deniers ( according to you ), are not often concerned about the rights of indigenous peoples, so why would you make such a bet?
Click to expand...

I never suggested they care about anyone's rights, they don't. What I an saying is that they have a deranged obsession with a teenage girl, and will attack her regardless of the stance she take.

Gretta supports indigenous rights over wing farms! Bad Gretta!!!
Gretta supports wind farms over indigenous rights! Bad Gretta!!!
Gretta silent on wind farms vs indigenous rights! Bad Gretta!!!
 
I'd have thought the Sami would be just the people Thunberg would champion - hunter gatherer/herders, minimal effect on nature, no technology to speak of - perfect.
 
Lplus said:
I'd have thought the Sami would be just the people Thunberg would champion - hunter gatherer/herders, minimal effect on nature, no technology to speak of - perfect.
Click to expand...


Exactly. And they've got all this land that could be exploited for oil drilling, fracking, and strip-mining.
 
jimbob said:
Because they are attacking her for perceived (as opposed to actual) hypocrisy.

One could say that they are not worried about wind farms, but it didn't stop them trying to misuse that.
Click to expand...

It's no about hypocrisy as we've seen time and time again it's not possible for climate activists to engage in hypocrisy as the talking it the thing they're most valued for, it's the sheer ironic hilarity of the world's most popular climate change activist actively protesting the one thing, renewable energy, that's supposed to save humanity from this supposed mass extinction.

Valuing the talking is the reason why there's no answers, ever to questions like "What do you think Thunberg's new world order would look like?" or "How would you expect to achieve a reduction on GHG emissions in developed nations only, a reduction to equal a 7% reduction in GHG emissions globally, to actually play out?"

Sure someone mayy start a discussion about green hydrogen, or bring up a link to a laboratory scale (or pilot project scale) example of carbon capture and sequestration, or even talk about their electric car but we ALL know, deep down, these "solutions" are either far off in the future or feeble and useless enough as to have next to zero impact in the realization of the Thunberg climate utopia she and her followers are begging for.

I hear Cuba, with it's 2.29 t/pp emissions is an eco paradise, maybe Cuba could be a role model?
 
jimbob said:
Because they are attacking her for perceived (as opposed to actual) hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
I don't think there is hypocrisy on Greta's part, not if you understand what what she wants. She doesn't just want to re-tool current economic systems and societies from fossil fuels to renewable. She wants something far more radical: that we drastically reduce our energy consumption. In fact drastically reduce all our consumption and live far simpler lives.

So within this, opposing certain renewable projects isn't necessarily hypocrisy. It does, however, highlight the tensions and contradictions at the heart of the "renewable revolution". We are moving from very high density energy production using fossil fuels, to very low density using wind, solar and tidal. The footprint our energy production occupies is going to get much bigger - we will industrialise far more of our countryside and pristine environments. These turbines don't exist on their own - they need connecting the to the grid, they needs roads built to build and access them.

The Sami are one of the very few remaining traditional cultures left in Europe and that's only the case because they live on the literal fringes of the continent and their land has been considered largely worthless for industrialisation, living space and agriculture. Now it turns out there now is an industrialisation that makes sense: wind turbines can generate a constant stream of money electricity that will benefit us capitalist consumers in our cities. Not to mention the fortunes it could make the new energy barons (who I suspect are often the same people as the old ones).

To reduce our CO2 output and increase our energy security, Europe has to go down the renewables path. However this doesn't mean it is a "green" revolution - it could well lead to increased degradation of our natural environments to benefit the built ones. Saving the global environment could destroy local ones at an increasing rate - I understand why Ms. Thunberg would like to save both, but I don't know how we do that....well apart from radically changing our lifestyles, which I suspect most of us won't vote for.
 
Last edited:
FatherLukeduke said:
I don't think there is hypocrisy on Greta's part, not if you understand what what she wants. She doesn't just want to re-tool current economic systems and societies from fossil fuels to renewable. She wants something far more radical: that we drastically reduce our energy consumption. In fact drastically reduce all our consumption and live far simpler lives.

So within this, opposing certain renewable projects isn't necessarily hypocrisy. It does, however, highlight the tensions and contradictions at the heart of the "renewable revolution". We are moving from very high density energy production using fossil fuels, to very low density using wind, solar and tidal. The footprint our energy production occupies is going to get much bigger - we will industrialise far more of our countryside and pristine environments. These turbines don't exist on their own - they need connecting the to the grid, they needs roads built to build and access them.

The Sami are one of the very few remaining traditional cultures left in Europe and that's only the case because they live on the literal fringes of the continent and their land has been considered largely worthless for industrialisation, living space and agriculture. How it turns out there now is an industrialisation that makes sense: wind turbines can generate a constant stream of money electricity that will benefit us capitalist consumers in our cities. Not to mention the fortunes it could make the new energy barons (who I suspect are often the same people as the old ones).

To reduce our CO2 output and increase our energy security, Europe has to go down the renewables path. However this doesn't mean it is a "green" revolution - it could well lead to increased degradation of our natural environments to benefit the built ones. Saving the global environment could destroy local ones at an increasing rate - I understand why Ms. Thunberg would like to save both, but I don't know how we do that....well apart from radically changing our lifestyles, which I suspect most of us won't vote for.
Click to expand...

Indeed not, lomiller put it better than me:

The hypocrisy was entirely imagined, possibly coupled with an insistence on simplistic answers, ignoring nuance and context.




lomiller said:
I never suggested they care about anyone's rights, they don't. What I an saying is that they have a deranged obsession with a teenage girl, and will attack her regardless of the stance she take.

Gretta supports indigenous rights over wing farms! Bad Gretta!!!
Gretta supports wind farms over indigenous rights! Bad Gretta!!!
Gretta silent on wind farms vs indigenous rights! Bad Gretta!!!
Click to expand...
 
jimbob said:
Indeed not, lomiller put it better than me:

The hypocrisy was entirely imagined, possibly coupled with an insistence on simplistic answers, ignoring nuance and context.
Click to expand...

That's actually just bog standard culture wars gibberish which is only good for signalling how liberal someone is but it does have that added advantage of providing insight into why climate change activism has, and will continue to be a miserable failure.

The only way to enter Greta's World is through massive continent wide climate lockdowns.
 
FatherLukeduke said:
I don't think there is hypocrisy on Greta's part, not if you understand what what she wants. She doesn't just want to re-tool current economic systems and societies from fossil fuels to renewable. She wants something far more radical: that we drastically reduce our energy consumption. In fact drastically reduce all our consumption and live far simpler lives.
Click to expand...

So just like the Sami. I suspect that without the Gulf Stream the entire NW europe would be populated by the local equivalent of the Sami, at around the same population density.
So within this, opposing certain renewable projects isn't necessarily hypocrisy. It does, however, highlight the tensions and contradictions at the heart of the "renewable revolution". We are moving from very high density energy production using fossil fuels, to very low density using wind, solar and tidal. The footprint our energy production occupies is going to get much bigger - we will industrialise far more of our countryside and pristine environments. These turbines don't exist on their own - they need connecting the to the grid, they needs roads built to build and access them.
Click to expand...

What about Nuclear power, including small modular reactors?
The Sami are one of the very few remaining traditional cultures left in Europe and that's only the case because they live on the literal fringes of the continent and their land has been considered largely worthless for industrialisation, living space and agriculture. Now it turns out there now is an industrialisation that makes sense: wind turbines can generate a constant stream of money electricity that will benefit us capitalist consumers in our cities. Not to mention the fortunes it could make the new energy barons (who I suspect are often the same people as the old ones).

To reduce our CO2 output and increase our energy security, Europe has to go down the renewables path. However this doesn't mean it is a "green" revolution - it could well lead to increased degradation of our natural environments to benefit the built ones. Saving the global environment could destroy local ones at an increasing rate - I understand why Ms. Thunberg would like to save both, but I don't know how we do that....well apart from radically changing our lifestyles, which I suspect most of us won't vote for.
Click to expand...

Most of us would need to die to provide the necessary population density that would allow a truly pastoral lifestyle.
 
Darat said:
And reset ... again
Click to expand...

Of course, because hyperbole is the only way for people who are wedded to never, ever changing in the slightest can justify not making small changes that could have a big cumulative effect.

As I've pointed out elsewhere, Mrs Don and I have made entirely achievable (for us) changes which have reduced our travel CO2by more than 90%, our heating oil and electricity use by more than 25% and dietary changes that significantly reduce out carbon footprint without having to revert to some pre-industrial standard of living.
 
The Don said:
Of course, because hyperbole is the only way for people who are wedded to never, ever changing in the slightest can justify not making small changes that could have a big cumulative effect.

As I've pointed out elsewhere, Mrs Don and I have made entirely achievable (for us) changes which have reduced our travel CO2by more than 90%, our heating oil and electricity use by more than 25% and dietary changes that significantly reduce out carbon footprint without having to revert to some pre-industrial standard of living.
Click to expand...

Hyperbole? Maybe. But when held up against statements like "We are at the beginning of a mass extinction" then maybe a little hyperbole is called for.

You've been one of the few posters ITT who've detailed their willing cutbacks with most others not wanting to even hear about that approach preferring instead some sort of fantasy scenario where we'll all follow Thunberg's vision with zero compromise to lifestyle or income.
 
Lplus said:
What about Nuclear power, including small modular reactors?
Click to expand...
Nuclear power seems to be mired in lots of issues, mainly economic. The modular reactors sound great on paper - but they've been around since the 1950s and I don't see one at the end of my street yet.

Most of us would need to die to provide the necessary population density that would allow a truly pastoral lifestyle.
Click to expand...
Well, there are parts of Africa and Asia with high population densities and significantly lower carbon output per capita. Not sure we'd like those lifestyles however, the people living them generally don't. In fact that is the one guaranteed way to have a low carbon output - be really poor.
 
FatherLukeduke said:
Nuclear power seems to be mired in lots of issues, mainly economic. The modular reactors sound great on paper - but they've been around since the 1950s and I don't see one at the end of my street yet.
Click to expand...
Thank the anti nuclear protestors for that. For them nuclear means weapons and nothing else.
Well, there are parts of Africa and Asia with high population densities and significantly lower carbon output per capita. Not sure we'd like those lifestyles however, the people living them generally don't. In fact that is the one guaranteed way to have a low carbon output - be really poor.
Click to expand...

I'd bet a fair amount that those areas don't have any need to heat their dwellings -quite the reverse - and I don't class those lifestyles as pastoral either.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom