Greta Thunberg is just awesome

[Soubriquet]

First of, she starts with this.

Then Andrew starts to get cocky…and gets arrested

link

Worldgonecrazy

You mean you want her to mask and fit into an NT world. Exactly what causes women and girls to end up with late diagnosed autism which can be hugely damaging.

No she needs to be herself which she is and managing just fine doing so.YANBU op I think she’s awesome too.

That says more about you than her. Very childish to react in that manner to what someone says. Andrew Tate could say that smoking is bad for my health, I wouldn't ho amd buy a pack juat because I can't stand the misogynistic rapist

I do as they're greasy I only put " clean " cardboard in the recycling.

Its the poor billions that will benefit from halting some practices that are accelerating climate change. Its the comfortable middle class that would have to adjust.

She talks crap, not sure why you value her so much.

Comfortable middle class in the West will be fine.

It’s the global poor that overwhelmingly lose from reduced access to investment in cheap fossil fuels. They need coal plants, not your trite sermons.

We are not allowed to put takeaway pizza boxes in our recycling bin so it has to go in the general waste one.

It's a circus in a clown world of social media. She isn't awesome and he is vile.

This!

Scary how so many people have been taken in by Thunberg's totally non-scientific ranting.

Her response to Tate was funny, but to credit her in any way with that arrest is verging on insanity.

So true! There are some furious saddos posting here, hilarious! Greta’s take down of Tate and his subsequent arrest are just priceless. Bet he regrets his smalldickenergy tweets now, hahahahahahahaha!

I'm a big fan of Greta. She manages to cut through with her message where so many others have failed. Long may she continue

Your toxic bile isn't even accurate. Climate change will hit the poorest, most vulnerable members of the global community. Look at how flooding and water shortages take the lives of those who couldn't leave.

I wonder if you'd still think that if you weren't going to benefit from a coal plant.

You were desperately worried about the mental impact of lockdown on children in another thread with just a passing reference to the economy but your callous attitude there towards CEV people made me wonder if it was more about the economics than vulnerable people groups. Now you've decided the vulnerable people groups who will benefit from a coal plant need protecting, but presumably not those who will die from Easter shortages, famine, flood or air pollution.

I think you make any argument that will line your pocket under a smokescreen of virtue signalling

water

Blimey, who pissed on your chips? All that anger at strangers can’t be good for you.

Deaths from environmental-related causes have gone down dramatically over the last century or so because our ability to protect ourselves from the environment is pretty directly linked to availability of energy.

"Callously" caring about "the economy", i.e. people's ability to make a living and feed their children, is also quite reasonable in my books!

Why do people see themselves as distinct from the circles/cycles of life? We aren't a something separate from either the environment or the economy. We are an integral part of both and can't be separated. It's not possible for us to have zero impact on the world around us because we are of it and in it. I don't personally consider GT "ghoulish" or anything like that but you have to admit she has quite an idealistic view of the world.

but you have to admit she has quite an idealistic view of the world.

Good for her. We need a lot more of that. Where are we without idealism?

Most of the global poor live in the Global South which is bearing the brunt of climate change more than us. They don't want trite sermons or coal plants they want proper help in the form of reduced CO2 emissions and money to deal with the catastrophic droughts and floods that overconsumption by the global North has caused.

I don't see a massive cull of the world's poorest through flooding and water shortages as the cycle of life, sorry. I doubt you would either if pushed.

Over dependence on fossil fuels is not going to aid our relationship with energy but I can see it's something that would benefit a group of people in the short term, some more than others.

Our economy will be badly hit by climate change and as with everything, the poor will suffer most. There's no protect the poor by screwing the Earth argument to make. It doesn't stand up. Much easier to address the rich poor gap if the plight of the poor is worrying you.

Greta has ideals. How idealistic that makes her depends on how much you think she's also being practical. Which depends on what you think really matters, now and fifty years from now.

I have no doubt that plenty of people think a massive cull of the world's poorest isn't a bad thing. However people do not sit still and starve, they migrate.

You were desperately worried about the mental impact of lockdown on children in another thread with just a passing reference to the economy but your callous attitude there towards CEV people made me wonder if it was more about the economics than vulnerable people groups

Tens of millions of Africans fell into poverty due to lockdowns. You want to tell me that I don’t care about vulnerable people? You don’t see the bigger picture because you presumably live in a safe Western country.

I don’t come from that. I have lived much of my life in a third world country.

Now you've decided the vulnerable people groups who will benefit from a coal plant need protecting

Would you rather them not have electricity at all? Cook food on dung fires? Have no roads to get anywhere during emergencies, climate or otherwise? You take ALL of that for granted

presumably not those who will die from Easter shortages, famine, flood or air pollution

Deaths in the developing world due to famine and floods have dropped precipitously in the modern age. This despite the explosion in population numbers. Stats don’t lie.

Much of this is due to better infrastructure which is only made possible by building it with fossil fuels btw.

You want to talk about air pollution in countries that cook using dung or untreated wood, often inside their homes? Just …. staggering.

Yiu want to talk shortages? Look what happened in Sri Lanka when people tried sustainable agriculture: foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/05/sri-lanka-organic-farming-crisis/

Imagine this on a global scale. It will literally kill us faster than climate change ever could. It would cause a massive famine—but comfy Westerners won’t hear it.

I think you make any argument that will line your pocket under a smokescreen of virtue signalling

Nah, you just go ahead and continue to impoverish the global poor. Well done

We're seeing that already, aren't we. It's not going well so far.

You don't know what I take for granted. I'm not even getting into your appallingly biased links. I've seen your endless appetite for controversy on other threads and I'm not getting sucked in as unlike you I don't have all day, every day to debate inane points.

There's no point harking back to justify your behaviour going forward. The planet is changing and if that would line your pocket, we both know you'd be all about it. A lovely infrastructure from the halcyon days when we had a functional Earth means absolutely nothing if your country is flooded. The idea that sustainable farming should be scrapped is laughable. You're full of.... questionable theories..ahem. I dearly hope you're not in a position of influence but maybe you're married to Jacob Rees Mog, who knows. I couldn't care less as long as no one reads and believes this insanity.

That’s a very thought provoking post @MintyFreshOne, thank you. You are right that it is hugely unfair that we in the West have all the benefits and it is entirely unjust to prevent the development of third world countries to the level that we enjoy due to the damage that we have caused.

However the environmental impacts are also devastating, impacting particularly on poorer nations and also must be addressed.

Neither argument is wrong and the balance must be struck. I don’t know what the answer is, but I agree that holding back the global poor from improving their lives because of the damage that we have caused is not the answer. A compromise must be found.

I also think the post above from @Forthelast is unnecessarily rude and blinkered. A balance must be struck between these 2 equally valid objectives, and suggesting that a poster is married to JRM etc is just childish, as is the refusal to engage in debate to find the balance because @MintyFreshOne has raised some inconvenient truths that don’t fit your stance.

ps Forthelast - why do you accuse the other poster of “harking back to justify your behaviour”. They have nothing to justify, and certainly nobody needs to justify themselves to you. They made good points - if you are too blinkered to see the complex wider picture then that’s your problem. However note that I’m not asking you to justify your rudeness or tunnel vision, because I don’t think I have all the answers, unlike you apparently.

You don't know what I take for granted

Obviously you do as you want to deny other people the right to live as you do in the West.

I'm not getting sucked in as unlike you I don't have all day, every day to debate inane points

Shall I assume you won’t be replying to this post? Perhaps for the best 😊

A lovely infrastructure from the halcyon days when we had a functional Earth means absolutely nothing if your country is flooded

Tens of millions used to die in China when floods happened, the worst in 1931 when at least a half a million people died—some estimated over two million people died at that time. This is when China had far less people too.

You don’t see numbers like that anymore anywhere in this world. Because of good infrastructure, built by fossil fuels.

The idea that sustainable farming should be scrapped is laughable. You're full of.... questionable theories..ahem

Did you not know what happened in Sri Lanka at all? If you don’t want to read Foreign Policy then perhaps the Guardian is more your speed:

theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/20/sri-lanka-fertiliser-ban-president-rajapaksa-farmers-harvests-collapse

(chemical fertilisers are made from natural gas and are pretty much the reason why we don’t suffer from famines nearly as much as we used to)