Greta Thunberg is just awesome

[Soubriquet]

First of, she starts with this.

Then Andrew starts to get cocky…and gets arrested

link

Well said @MintyFreshOne , totally agree. I also grew up in a third world country. Life without reliable energy is so much more of a struggle than people imagine. It's not just about having to put a jumper on if it's a bit cold.

The answer to economic growth is not fossil fuels. It will be renewables and nuclear. The burning of fossil fuel has become too expensive/damaging to people. All of us.

Only profiteers and luddites are clinging to it. Fossil fuel dependence is detrimental to our security, stability, economy and health. As well as the environment.

Fossil fuels are not a long term reliable source of energy but they will reliably cause havoc and devastation to the global poor in the years to come. The only people thinking otherwise are those with a finger in the pie

That's true. Nice to hear some sense.

Oh Minty. You don't actually speak to the catastrophe caused by fossil fuels at all, do you. Thank goodness we have scientists who do actual science to sound a rational note of alarm.

Zorro, the global poor need solutions that will not screw them over in the longer term. Don't lose sight of that. Minty will not be around dragging people out of floods or offering fresh drinking water. I expect he/she also thinks we shouldn't let those being forced out of their homes by climate change into Britain. Advocating against the changes desperately needed to avoid catastrophe that will hit the poor hardest is obscene. They need so much more than a coal plant. And no, we in the west should not have one either. But not much point in infrastructure if it's under water and your crops are scorched. Other ways to help must be employed but I doubt they'll be as personally beneficial to Minty.

@Forthelast, you seem to have some inside information on @MintyFreshOne's personal financial investments in the fossil fuel industry, perhaps you'd like to share with the class?

If you read a cross section of Minty's posts, you will find they consistently advocate for any vulnerable section of society of the argument just happens to also benefit the economy in a manner that would just happen to also benefit the wealthy. Vulnerable groups who would be screwed over by whatever action Minty is advocating for do not interest this poster - in fact they are shockingly pragmatic about their fate. The common theme is economic benefit but spun as concern for cherry picked vulnerable groups.

“finger in the pie”? You are incredibly naive if you think that way of thinking only applies to the fossil fuel industry and not so called “green” tech where plenty of big and rich powerful businesses do have a vested interest and plenty fingers in pies, making them richer and more powerful while the poorest will suffer.

(how many poor people do you see driving hybrid cars?) rhetorical question.

I don’t like the way you responded to @MintyFreshOne ‘s post above by remarking they had plenty of time to be online, searching past posts to find comments to suit your stance on this thread, not engage with their post about life in the third world without access to reliable power and finally, accuse them of being married/related/conflate them with JRM. Very very disingenuous of you.

but not altogether unusual for those with your stance.

Right?! 🤷🏻‍♀️

I didn't search. They're a prolific poster-hard to avoid seeing a common thread. Of course they're disingenuous and they can expect to be called out on it. They consistently failed to engage with the real effects of climate change on the global poor and I can't say I'm surprised. Yes there's some money to be made in green energy and I can only hope Minty decides in to get involved, for the sake of those who will be devastated by the impact of climate change.

I don’t know the history of any of the posters on this thread @Forthelast and it was you I was calling disingenuous for the way you’ve posted and responded to that poster in particular.

sounds like a personal attack/vendetta you have there which I don’t think is allowed. And you shouldn’t need to resort to if your own argument stood up.

Can someone please enlighten me as to what exactly it is that Greta has actually done for climate change? What changes has she actually effected?

He is a creepy, repulsive misogynist and I hope he is locked up.

But if you genuinely believe that it was Greta that brought him down over a pizza box, I have a bridge to sell you.

Greta recently responded to a tweet from a transactivist boasting that they had physically prevented women in Edinburgh from attending a film screening with a series of love hearts. Hard to believe that anyone who approves of censoring women in this way is some great champion of women's rights and against misogyny, to be honest.

I also think that she does as much harm as she does good with her delivery. For everyone who she already has on side nodding along with her message, she entrenches those who are not on board with the fight against climate change with her spoiled, petulant outbursts. And I do my best to play my part in saving the environment, but it's no thanks to her.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4698965-greta-thunberg-the-edinburgh-bullyboys

The argument that climate change will greatly impact the global poor stands up - it's not an argument that needs a defence. It's self evident and I don't choose to waste my time setting out a case for a concept that only far right crazies would take issue with. I can't quite believe you're really suggesting there are people who don't know what's coming down the line for them, in this day and age. I've seen posters get sucked in to arguing with Minty. They pretend to take each point in turn while overlooking the human suffering that would be the result of their policies becoming reality. There is no point getting into details with that disingenuous behaviour as they continue to gaslight with a plethora of assertions and a fine disregard for inconvenient truths. Disingenuousness at its finest. Not having all day to waste in this fashion I choose to observe the common theme and the virtue signaling. Sorry if that doesn't play into your hands!

@Twicebakedroastpotatoes if GT's delivery puts you off, there are other environmentalists and climate scientists to listen to. There are even other teenage activists who are brilliant.

I don't need to listen, though. I am fully, fully on board and have been for years. It's not me that Greta is trying to win over, it's the climate denialists who unfortunately also are in positions of power and who we need to listen, and who are not going to respond well to her tantrumming "how dare you!" and claiming they have stolen her childhood.

As a general comment, I think people tend to misunderstand the principled arguments against particular interventions and policies (e.g. net zero) as being against science or against the concept of climate change.

Person A think the argument goes

(1) Science shows a specific measurement, e.g. temperatures rising > (2) this is changing the climate > (3) this is bad > (4) we need to stop it at all costs > (5) XYZ policy (e.g., ban new coal power stations or oil extraction projects) will fix it > (6) we should do XYZ policy.

Person B comes along and says "I don't think we should do XYZ policy", i.e. disagreeing with (6).

And A assumes that means that B disagrees with (1) and is scientifically illiterate and anti-science, because obviously if you accept (1) then you are forced to also accept conclusions (2) through (6).

But a lot of the time the disagreement arises at later points, because B adds another factor: how does this intervention/policy impact other aspects of human well-being, e.g. food security, shelter, etc? Could it be better to have more shelter from a more volatile environment? Is this policy actually going to meaningfully have an effect on global climate change anyway?

These are important issues to get right and we need to have the conversation at the right level to really understand people's objections and find actual workable solutions instead of just assuming people's motivations.

Apologies for the long post but this is a bugbear of mine.

I'm fully on board too. But I'm human and prone to complacency. So every now and again I need inspiration/a kick up the arse, that's what activists do.

But I get that not everyone needs it.

Good lord, I am not that prolific.

I just happen to have a different POV on certain topics. I suppose you did not care for my anti-lockdown stances either but it dovetails with this one, in that both lockdowns and the green movement have unintentionally thrown loads of people into poverty (and I do think it for the most part it is unintentional).

People need to fully understand how much our modern lives depend on access to plentiful fossil fuels—even if you can use nuclear for electricity (which I am totally in favour of), you cannot replace FF for agriculture, construction, mining, shipping, plastics, pharmaceuticals … I could go on.

The personal attacks are a bit 🤔 and isn’t a good look tbh.

Agriculture, construction, mining, pharmaceuticals and shipping have existed for a long time. Long before our reliance on FF.

Nobody wants to live like a medieval peasant. Or … more to the point, die like one.

I love this new breed of young woman who won't smile nicely, sit down, shut up, and do as they are told.

We have a few of them here is Oz and they take my breathe away.

I wish I had been braver in my youth. I don't have to agree with everything one of their points to support their outspokenness and to be behind them.

The young are right to be furious at the mess we have created, instead of telling them to hush. Perhaps we should get off our fucking arses and do something about it?

Between medieval peasant and FF reliance we had an industrial revolution powered by steam. Clinging to FF is like clinging to steam in a world of the internal combustion engine.