She has strong ideals and good morals. Nothing incredible, just good upbringing.
Anybody with a little brains and education would share her same beliefs, like the vast majority of people on the planet does.
Yet, out of more than 7 billions, she's the only one courageous enough to put this much effort behind it and try to make a difference.
I think she's just AWESOME!
She's not the only person who's putting a tremendous effort forward for these causes. She's just the one getting the most media attention. It's decent of her to use that in a good cause, but to say that she's the only one courageous enough to put this much effort behind it is to do a disservice to all of the people who lay it on the line but who we just can't see because they didn't get to speak at the UN.
shareShe's not the only one doing it but she really is. She's a nobody that started her strike and kept it going for a couple of years with no hope to get any attention whatsoever, yet she did it and managed to get enough attention to speak to the UN and start a worldwide strike.
Of course there are many others like her, but it's easier to embrace a good cause if you're Jeff Bezos or Al Gore or even just DiCaprio, aint' it?
I was mostly responding to, "...out of more than 7 billions, she is the only one courageous enough to put this much effort behind it and try to make a difference."
I think there are a lot of people who aren't as visible as Thunberg (or Dicaprio) putting this amount of effort in and just not getting the same results because of media attention. And I'm not begrudging Thunberg or putting her down. I'm not saying her efforts aren't laudable or that we shouldn't applaud her conviction and celebrate her results, I'm just saying it's not fair to say that the other 7 billion people on the planet contains no one putting as much on the line as Thunberg.
Ace I would agree with you, but I cannot think of anybody else who put herself as much as she did.
I agree that there's many others putting A LOT of effort.
I don't know if somebody is doing even more than her but the media just prefers her, I guess it's difficult to know that for certain.
Anyway, I don't mean to sound like she's supergirl nor she's the only one, I'm just pointing out how amazing it is to see a kid try to change the world.
I know people who put everything they have on the line for these causes. They just toil on very local levels, often screaming into a hurricane for all the noise they create.
It is amazing to see somebody still so young fighting so hard for this.
She's only getting more coverage than other activists because she's a novelty due to her age. The media loves a good story, and a cranky kid reading a prewritten script but acting like it's a new raw emotion when she's reading it, is gold to a 24 hour news cycle that constantly needs new content.If she was a 30 year old woman, you wouldn't even know her name.
share[deleted]
I know of many of the worlds' premiere alpinists who have been sounding the alarm about the melting going on on the highest peaks such as Everest, K2, Kanchenjunga, Annapurna and many others. Men and women who through their constant support of environmental causes go unsung because the truest heroes do their work in silence. She's an over glorified kewpie doll. A Hitler propaganda poster at it's worst.
share"She's an over glorified kewpie doll. A Hitler propaganda poster at it's worst."
I think that we can all see who the propagandist is around here, pally.
yo pally
greta is an empty kid, find yourself another idol
https://youtu.be/0bwLt_5t73g
You're missing the point. The message needs to be delivered and who gets the praise for that is not important.
shareNo, I think you're missing the point. I am what is called an "armchair alpinist" in that I love watching and listening to mountain climbers as they reminisce or talk about their climbs. I've researched George Mallory and Sandy Irvine from the 1924 Mount Everest attempt where both lost their lives. I've read up on some of the most amazing in the field including Reinhold Messner, Conrad Anker, Alex Lowe, Andy McLean, etc. Conrad Anker and Jon Krakauer along with PBS's Leisel Clarke went to Antarctica to document the Anker and Krakauer's assent of The Vinson Massif. While they were there they were also doing some geology research with some climatologists and scientists who were taking core samples from the ice shelf. What they found was that we've had very similar flash freezes and melt downs where the core samples showed significant "change" throughout the many millennia. Anker also does work on behalf of the Serpas in the Himalayan and Karakorums where Everest and K2 are. He's been documenting the receding glaciers and has said this is nothing new for the planet. We've already had five extinction level events in which the earth has died and been reborn. But the difference is we didn't have 24/7/52 coverage with a bunch of Chicken Littles crowing about it.
Thunberg is no different than those three children who claimed they saw the Virgin Mary and was delivered of three "secrets" of Fatima. She's good at acting and delivering a "fateful" message of doom and gloom. If she's had nightmares I'd love to see what children not brought up in the lap of luxury she was, dream of. She's nothing but a passing fad. There will be another only younger. And you'll be saying the same thing about her/him. I think it's time Pipi Longstocking went home and shut up now.
The point is while we're not doing ourselves any favours with using plastics, we've been on the brink of destruction for oh say, the last thirty years. It still hasn't happened. Thunberg's parents are actors. This girl is mentally unstable. Her parents have done her no good with allowing this.
She began suffering from depression as a child, by her own admission, in part because she learned about climate change at age 8. She was later diagnosed with autism and obsessive compulsive disorder and gradually became despondent as she obsessed over her fear of climate change. She developed mutism and an eating disorder so severe that she once went two months without food, and she stopped going to school. Her only sibling, a sister named Beata, also suffers from Asperger's and OCD, as well as ADHD.
Off hand I'd say she's a little bit touched. Her message coming from that narrative for a past makes her in my book, not valid. Also why isn't she going to China or Russia were the largest poluters are? Answer: She wouldn't get as much publicity. So there's that. And here's the question, if the deliverer was a black boy from Africa, would he be held to the same high regard as this little white Scandinavian girl? Oh, and most of her pronouncements are completely narcissistic. It's all about "her" future "her" nightmares "her" fears. It's not about us or we.
She just met DiCaprio and Arnold. I wish more celebrities would join the cause.
shareSo you're into little girls with mental handicap, aren't you?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not judging, there's worse fetishes.
If this is your way to make a pass at me, sorry but I'm not interested in you kuku.
shareIf this is your way to make a pass at me, sorry but I'm not interested in you kuku.
Kuku, you sick puppy. Leave the screen alone for a while.
shareThat's the dumbest comment I've ever heard on this site.
shareHis name was well chosen. :)
shareC'mon, that's the best you can do?
I understand that SJWs, you just can't argue without insulting. But at least, and given that insulting is mostly what you do in an argument, I'd expect something a bit better than 'aaah!, you're dumb! you're nick is dumb! hahaaa!'.
You just told someone that they're a pedo with absolutely no evidence and you can't take even a little insult. Seriously?
shareRead my comment again. I don't care about you insulting me, it's not like I'd expect anything else. But at least, I would expect something better than 'you're dumb, hahaaa'. It's not the fact that you're insulting what's disappointing. It's the fact that you can't do any better than 'you're dumb'. It's disappointing to be insulted with such a lack of wit.
Whatever.
Nothing about your comment wasn't disappointing. You attacked someone for no reason. Why should you get a smart comment in return?
And I did read your comment again. You literally used the word "insulting".
I didn't say that I had to get some smart comment in return. I just pointed out that was an insult, and wasn't even some smart insult, and encouraged you to make better insults.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to attack you because you're not smart. That's fine. That's OK. This is not any kind of attack. Please don't get offended. I just encouraged you to make smarter comments, but I understand that's not always possible. So again, that's OK. You're OK. We're OK. Please, chill down.
You:
I didn't say that I had to get some smart comment in return
I'd expect something a bit better than 'aaah!, you're dumb! you're nick is dumb! hahaaa!'.
I just encouraged you to make smarter comments
share
So you're into little girls with mental handicap, aren't you?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not judging, there's worse fetishes.
Chill down, dude.
I can 'expect' better comments from you, meaning I was trying to encourage you, which I was doing, and at the same time I shouldn't 'expect' it, meaning I don't think encouraging you is enough if you lack the necessary intelligence, which I think.
The meaning of a word is clear inside its context, it's not a lookup table with one single entrance. Clarification can be needed if the meaning is not obvious. That was not the case here, and it shouldn't be necessary to have to explain this.
Just as someone doesn't have to explain that they're not a pedo just because they feel inspired by a young activist.
shareYOU HOPPED IN HERE WITH INSULTS AND RIDICULOUS SEXUALIZING OF A NON SEXUAL TOPIC LIKE A PSYCHO.NOW YOURE ACCUSING OTHER OF INSULTING...JEEZ DUDE,INSTIGATE MUCH?
shareShe stands up for her beliefs. I don't agree with her wild rhetoric, as well as much of what she says, but I still respect her.
shareTHATS A VERY FAIR COMMENT.
shareMassive declines are occurring in almost all plant and animal species. Since 1970 the total number of fish in the ocean has been cut in half, the total number of birds by 29%, nearly 40% of all insect species are in danger of extinction within the next decade and the situation is rapidly growing worse. Toxic chemicals have been building up in the environment over the last century, to the point where some of them can be found in literally the most isolated places on Earth. One precursor in the manufacture of teflon for example - which can cause neurological development issues in the young of many species including ours - has been found in the tissue of polar bears, and is literally in the blood of every living human now. Yours included.
The oceans are filling up with trash. Forests are burning and being deliberately cleared at record rates. We are at the beginning of a mass extinction. It's happening now, as we speak. I worry about how bad things will get in my own lifetime. For my kids, who are only a few years younger than Greta, I'm worried a lot. There's a valid time to panic. And we're getting close to it. More people need to abandon lukewarm language and start telling it like it is, while we still (barely) have enough time to get a grip on the situation.
Assuming that she is correct about AGW, and that time to act is so short, the question then becomes one of why is she lecturing the West when we in the West are doing the most to combat AGW?
The people she should lecturing are the Chinese and the Indians. They put more greenhouse gasses out than anyone else.
Personally, I try to live as green as I can, and I am a skeptic on AGW, not denier, but skeptic.
You shouldn't be. It's rare to have such a massive amount of data, and the greenhouse effect has been well understood for centuries. There were warnings about the eventual consequences of coal burning on atmospheric greenhouse gases as far back as the 19th century. Of course they assumed it would take far longer than it has, and drastically underestimated its consequences.
My point is that the basic physics are simple even if precise forecasts of the timetable of ice meltage, shifting weather patterns, etc., is complicated. What we have is a massive disinformation campaign being waged by the fossil fuel industry (people like the Kochs) very much in the same style as Big Tobacco's decades-long campaign to discredit the connection between smoking and cancer in the eyes of the public, long after the medical community had no remaining doubt.
As of 2017, China was the highest emitter, followed by the United States, the European Union, India, Russia, and Japan. Almost 75% of all world emissions are coming from these countries. So you're partly right. The Chinese put out more than anyone else. But the US and EU both generate more than India. The United States alone spews out almost three times as much carbon pollution as they do. It may be more now, since our total has been going up for the last several years.
A major portion of the argument from the AGW advocates seems to be that we can't believe the skeptics because they are in the pay of the energy companies, therefore what they say is corrupted by the money that comes from people like the Kochs.
On the other hand, we can believe the AGW advocates because they have no interest other than science.
Is that a fair statement of what you think?
we can believe the AGW advocates because they have no interest other than science.
"Anyone who believes this is quite naive. To get funding (and keep their career) scientists are pressured to obtain a certain result on "climate change," aka GloBULL Warming.
See this 12-minute video for ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE disproving human-made "climate change" and why alarmists USE kids/teens to convey their propaganda: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8455KEDitpU&feature=youtu.be "
Actually that is not my belief; my post was an attempt to draw out what the other poster thinks. Just needed him/her to clarify.
Also, I understand that many of the more vocal AGW advocates seem to have much much larger 'carbon footprints' than do the vast majority of people. I have said earlier that I try to be as green as I can. Besides saving me money, I try to be a good steward of what I have.
And I am still a skeptic.
Besides saving me money, I try to be a good steward of what I have.
On the other hand, we can believe the AGW advocates because they have no interest other than science.
I guess I'm not as trusting in the objectivity of scientists as you seem to be.
shareThen I guess the industry shills have done their job of muddying the waters.
Who are you going to trust? The people who are the architects of our entire modern world, or the billionaires and politicians who are the architects of nothing but power, influence, and wealth for themselves at everyone else's expense? If scientists and doctors were in charge of how knowledge and technology was used (instead of the money people making those choices now) we would be infinitely better off!
The 'people who are the architects of our entire modern world' are already dead or retired. Western World hasn't seen world-changing advances in the last decades.
shareWestern World hasn't seen world-changing advances in the last decades.
You don't consider the internet and mobile communications to be world changing? There have also been plenty of developments in medicine, artificial intelligence, and nanotechnology in recent years
Then I guess the industry shills have done their job of muddying the waters.
Who are you going to trust? The people who are the architects of our entire modern world, or the billionaires and politicians who are the architects of nothing but power, influence, and wealth for themselves at everyone else's expense? If scientists and doctors were in charge of how knowledge and technology was used (instead of the money people making those choices now) we would be infinitely better off!
What I think is that climate change is unquestionably real. It's just a fact. Science isn't politics or opinion. Everyone's point of view isn't equally valid. There's a definite right answer, and we know what it is.
There hasn't been a genuine "debate" over the reality of global warming for many years now. Just a concerted campaign of disinformation, reminiscent of Big Tobacco's decades-long crusade to discredit the link between smoking and cancer long after there was no remaining doubt in the medical community.
Big Oil takes advantage of the fact that not everyone is scientifically literate to advance positions that sound good but anybody familiar with the issues could shoot down in a second. They don't have to convince all the people. Just create enough doubt that it leads to gridlock and inaction. When your message is "all's well" many people are going to want to believe it - whether it's true or not.
So, the skeptics have a conflict of interest then and are not to be believed but the AGW proponents have none because the science is settled and all of the objective studies show AGW to be established science.
Is this your position? Please answer the question yes or no. You can explain your answer of course but I'd be very grateful for a direct answer.
Close.
The purveyors of climate denial have massive conflicts of interest, absolutely. Members of the public who buy into it are usually just ignorant of the science. They're getting fewer and fewer in number every year though.
And yes, reality is what it is. AGW has been established science for a while now. What you see a lot in the current political environment is a focus on alleged biases and conspiracy theories positing ulterior motives - smoke blowing tactics that try to bring the other side down to their level of sleaziness, and obscure the only question that matters: who's telling the truth?
Close.
The purveyors of climate denial have massive conflicts of interest, absolutely. Members of the public who buy into it are usually just ignorant of the science. They're getting fewer and fewer in number every year though.
And yes, reality is what it is. AGW has been established science for a while now. What you see a lot in the current political environment is a focus on alleged biases and conspiracy theories positing ulterior motives - smoke blowing tactics that try to bring the other side down to their level of sleaziness, and obscure the only question that matters: who's telling the truth?
No, I said the people putting it out are sleazy and blowing smoke. Many of those who fall for it simply don't have the scientific background to see through it. And industry propaganda is designed to take advantage of that.
I'm a scientist myself. A physicist, not a climatologist, but I have a pretty good grasp of the overall situation. You simply cannot look at the vast mountains of data accumulated over the past few decades and reach an opposite conclusion. There's a spread of possible future scenarios, very much like the cone of uncertainty with the path of a hurricane. The important takeaway though: all of them are quite bad. It's just a question of how bad, how soon.
The CO₂ concentrations in the atmosphere presently are at the highest level they've been in about 800,000 years. Our entire recorded history is around 5,000 years. This is 160 times longer. Homo sapiens has only existed as a species for 200,000 years. Neanderthals first appeared about 450,000 years ago. Just to put this in historical/geological context.
The closest thing to what's beginning to happen now was a warming period called the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) about 55 million years ago. The polar ice caps melted completely and the sea levels rose about 300 feet above where they are now. A level that would inundate virtually all coastal cities worldwide. The state of Florida, and countries like Bangladesh, would become shallow seas. Parts of the tropics and the Middle East would become so hot they'd be uninhabitable. We would have (as there was then) palm trees growing above the Arctic Circle. Not only are we on track for this type of warming if we do nothing, we've managed to bump up greenhouse gases as much in 150 years as occurred naturally before the PETM in 20,000. Read up on it if you doubt what I'm saying. The situation is that dire.
Had we begun to act in the 1980's or 90's, when we were already well aware of the problem of global warming, most of what we're already experiencing could have been avoided. But money was more important. So now we're doing damage control. We can stop another PETM from happening if we commit to lowering emissions to zero as quickly as possible. When I hear people talking about the economics of changing our whole infrastructure, and oh my god how much will that cost, what about my job, I just want to tell them they really, really don't get it. If we don't do it we'll be facing disaster on a scale they've never imagined. None of that will matter. And the truth is, innovation and new technology is pretty much the best driver of the economy. It's only the people who are making money hand over fist under the existing system who might stand to lose.
I'm a scientist myself. A physicist, not a climatologist, but I have a pretty good grasp of the overall situation. You simply cannot look at the vast mountains of data accumulated over the past few decades and reach an opposite conclusion. There's a spread of possible future scenarios, very much like the cone of uncertainty with the path of a hurricane. The important takeaway though: all of them are quite bad. It's just a question of how bad, how soon.
Because I have a reasonably solid understanding of the science, and the details of finite element computer modeling. That's why I brought it up. I don't have to take anyone else's word for what the data means. And I'm sorry to keep repeating myself, but the denier position is completely untenable at this point. There's a reason why 97+% of all working climate scientists - people whose entire expertise is climate - concur on that. Honestly, when do you ever get that kind of agreement even on the most trivial of subjects?
Do you not think carbon dioxide is at the highest level of the past 800,000 years? Ice core data proves it is. Do you not believe the recent spike matches the curve of human greenhouse emissions? Because a pair of simple graphs will show you that it does. Do you not believe that nine of the ten hottest years on record are since 2000, with the tenth being 1998? Because that's ... well, a matter of record.
Do you think ice is not melting back around the world? Because it is. New records for minimum ice cover are being set all the time these days. Do you think there's some other mysterious source of greenhouse gases besides humanity? Enlighten us. Because those two curves, human fuel consumption and greenhouse gas concentrations as functions of time, match almost exactly. They even have a common inflection point around 1960. What an amazing coincidence!
The idea that this is some kind of natural cycle - pretty much a given the Big Oil narrative was going to shift there once they could no longer deny the warming itself - is highly implausible. To put it mildly. We've been watching this unfold for decades by satellite. It's one of the most exhaustively studied phenomena in the history of modern science.
You keep repeating the word 'denier', apparently hoping that the label will stick. I am not a denier. I am a skeptic, and my skepticism comes in large part due to the apocalyptic viewpoint and the hysteria of the AGW crowd.
Plus, the peer-review process, while it might sound good on paper, is just a means of suppressing views that threaten the majority opinion and the reputations of the people holding to it. In other words, there is a lot of pressure to conform to the ACW hypothesis. If you don't conform, you don't get published. This strikes me as a massive conflict of interest
The same thing with grants to study the climate shift. The more dire the predictions are, the more money is released to study it. This creates another conflict of interest, as big as the one that you claim for the studies arising from the energy companies.
It is not as cut and dried as you think it is.
When a situation is dire, saying so is just being realistic. If anything most climate activists are understating reality in order to avoid the accusation of being "too extreme". Which is sad. I on the other hand feel no such constraint.
All you have to do is look at the satellite data, look at the data collected on the ground, the stuff that's not in dispute. That alone should scare the hell out of anyone whether they really understand the science or not.
But the fact is, AGW is not just a hypothesis at this point. You can believe whatever you want, but there's no such thing as a right to be right. What do you want me to say? Should I patronize you so you don't get mad at me and write a scathing response?
Too many people are lost in the fact free zone and have forgotten that an objective truth exists independent of what's going on inside their own skulls. All this stuff about money going into climate change is a weak argument. The kind of thing that's put out by fossil fuel companies to try and tar scientists and make them seem just as filthy and corrupt as politicians and the executives of Big Oil. And they just ... aren't. It's a lot more cut and dried than you seem to think it is.
Note: I'm not saying everyone who subscribes to the oil industry misinformation is corrupt. They're just being misled by stories that sound sensible from their POV.
Believe it or not, I am not influenced by the bogeyman that you insist ion calling 'Big Oil' I came to these conclusions a long time ago all by my lonesome.
Further, as I said before, I try to to be as green as I can be and my carbon footprint is a lot smaller than most people in the US. I do this just in case I'm wrong plus it is less expensive.
I actually agree with you in that we need alternative forms of energy. I'd like to get an electric vehicle as it would be cheaper for short trips to and from town and it would be less polluting as well. I'd keep my gasoline-powered vehicles but restrict their use to longer tripos. I agree with you that we should reduce single-use bottles when we can.
So, there is much that we actually agree on.
But I still don't accept much of the hype surrounding AGW.
The purveyors of climate denial have massive conflicts of interest, absolutely. Members of the public who buy into it are usually just ignorant of the science. They're getting fewer and fewer in number every year though.
You want the truth? Climate change is very, very real and the deniers are wrong. Whether they're being deliberately deceitful or are just ignorant they are wrong. At the end of the day nothing else really matters. But if you want to believe all is well and there's nothing to worry about, knock yourself out.
shareYou want the truth? Climate change is very, very real and the deniers are wrong [...]if you want to believe all is well and there's nothing to worry about
Big difference between science and religion, oil industry shill. Read up on it.
sharekuku, do you really work for oil industry as a shill?
Seriously do you detect a little bit of emotion in chrisjdel's last response to you?
What beliefs? The doomsday cult ones? She's no different than the rabid Evangelicals who rant and rave about the second coming and keeping the Holy Land sacred only to the true believers. I don't respect her because she stands there like a silly little puppet. The Swedes call her a Demented Pipi Longstocking. She also with her braided pigtails resembles a Hitlarian propaganda poster. Her parents are doing her no favors.
shareShe also with her braided pigtails resembles a Hitlarian propaganda poster. Her parents are doing her no favors.
This guy’s tweet makes no sense. Since when are Nazis and Goebbels Left?!
“today’s progressive left is still learning it’s game from the earlier left in 1930’s” 🤦🏻♀️
Ok, if he mentioned some communist propaganda from the 30’s they were the left and also had propaganda.
But saying Nazis were left, he looses any credibility, he should learn some history first and then tweet about it. 😂
Who is that guy anyway?
If the "vast majority" of the 7 billion people believed what they claimed and put their ideas on the matter into action then there would be no more threat. The people who claim to believe in climate change, by and large, think that buying an EV and the stroke of a government pen is going to magically fix things. This is foolishness. A serious reduction in consumption and birthrate is what it's going to take. The whole thing is a joke until the so called "vast majority" start living by these environmental principles.
shareI know, that's part of the problem, and the solutions are not easy, but at least more consiousness on this matter is being risen.
shareNo. Don't act like you're agreeing with me because you obviously aren't seeing the same thing that I'm saying. If the "vast majority" of people really believe that this is a crisis that needs addressed immediately then this "vast majority" needs to ante up by 1. not having kids 2. stop eating meat 3. not traveling on vacations 4. moving closer to their jobs 5. moving to smaller housing.
Basically, I don't give a damn what you think if you're not living your ideals. No one, and I mean no one, is going to tell me that I'm somehow obligated to vote for some party or send my money to people I don't know until they clean up their own back yard. It is that easy. Either they step up and live the lifestyle that they're talking about or they can STFU and keep out of my way.
I watched the environmentalist movement ebb and flow for decades now and it seems that people are happy to politicize it but when it comes down to them doing what they say needs to be done they're not interested. We don't need the government to legislate what we can be doing by ourselves today. You'll find "the vast majority" becomes a very small number very quickly when you ask them to sacrifice for the greater good.
Hear Hear. People don´t need awareness. Global warming and climate change has been a thing for decades. People need to start walking the walk. Not sharing a video of Greta on Facebook, getting a few likes to feel good about themselves while they literally do nothing to change their carbon footprint. I´m sure her intentions are good but she is nothing more than a liberal pawn.
shareestcst, I totally agree with you, and so does the vastest majority of the people on the planet.
But it boils down to who's in charge making the policies, and who's in charge acts according to who's keeping them in that position.
So, until there's enough awareness that these issues are crucial and need to be addressed NOW with some serious life changes, you're gonna see only mild adjustements in societies, like people driving a EV thinking they are saving the world. And laws passed with this in mind.
But being negative doesn't change minds.
People need positive reinforcement and peer pressure to change their habits.
A kid like Greta being so gung-ho about these issues is a good place to start: she's dead serious and tries to give the good example by putting herself on the line.
If this only starts changing the way people VOTE, we'll be able to see some real change.
"so does the vastest majority of the people on the planet."
No. Again, you're missing the point and I can only think it's intentional at this point.
"But it boils down to who's in charge making the policies, and who's in charge acts according to who's keeping them in that position."
If it were such a big deal people would be changing their own policies to make a difference. They're not so they don't believe as much as they claim to believe.
"If this only starts changing the way people VOTE, we'll be able to see some real change."
Tell that to China.
Again, if people who VOTED the way that you're thinking just took it on themselves to change what they can right now then there would be a change without a need to vote. These fools are thinking that they're just going to vote this problem away without changing their lives. This is bullshit and we both know it. In fact, voting has done damn little so far. People need to create cultures and markets by their actions, not their lip service.
What the hell are you talking about?
If the GOVERNMENTS don't do something about this, no one will.
People cannot change the way energy is made or consumed, that's the number one polluter in the planet.
They can merely control their consumption, but rest assured that if you need to go 3000 km away you're not gonna take a bike.
So, untill the POLICIES are changed (like punishing the polluters and awarding the clean ones, for food, energy etc) nothing is gonna happen for real.
People can change the way energy is made. At least here they can. Through investing and consuming from green electricity producers. They can also AS I'VE SAID BEFORE (BUT YOU CONTINUE TO IGNORE) "1. not having kids 2. stop eating meat 3. not traveling on vacations 4. moving closer to their jobs 5. moving to smaller housing."
shareSome things are unavoidable, like the need to travel by air, but there are plenty of things that a person can do to reduce their carbon footprint, the reality is most people aren´t actually willing to make personal sacrifices for the sake of the environment and you can´t just keep blaming that on the government.
shareShe's a mentally disturbed child who is being exploited by a cult that promotes ideologically motivated, pseudo-scientific bullshit. It's a new religion, and she's their puppet messiah. The entire spectacle is repulsive.
shareShe's a tool for her ACTOR parents and for a movement that is largely discredited by the fact that old mother Earth has been in these cycles for millennia. They just didn't have CNN, MSNBC, and the like back the last time we had a huge heat up. Core samples taken from Antarctica dispute Greta's contention. Oh, and she had a fevered dream about the apocalypse after she'd been on a hunger strike for a month in which her parents couldn't get her to eat. And she stopped speaking too. So they're using a delusional dream to put her on a global stage where she makes contentions she can't back up and for which science has already said we cannot help. So yeah, okay.
shareI think she’s awesome too. The Parkland students too. Gen Zs are a very impressive generation. They care and they act.
sharelol
shareIf she had more brains and even a marginal education she would realize that global warming is a hoax and she is just being used by the liberal idiots to push their cause... Then again if you had the brains of a piss ant you would know the same thing and not be so smitten with Gollum's uglier sister.
share