Problem with Greta Thunberg is that she's literally cherry picking science on the issue.
There's no doubt that science absolutely supports climate change and human driven ecological problems, including species extinction.
But the science DOESN'T support Greta's mass extinction narrative. It simply doesn't support her impending doom narrative at all.
Since Greta Thunberg openly admits she wants people to literally feel fear because she feels fear, we can conclude she believes that an apocalyptic message will help in her quest to help the environment.
But she's very wrong on that.
"Results indicate that stories with a solution focus were more effective in motivating proenvironmental intentions than catastrophic stories."
And:
"Some readers were motivated by catastrophic stories to engage in climate change mitigation behaviors, but many reported feelings of futility and low self-efficacy and “switched off” from catastrophic stories due to their negativity."
www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/eco.2019.0023?journalCode=eco
Not only is it counterproductive to do, but it's blatantly manipulative as well. Especially when the science doesn't support her mass extinction narrative in the first place.
Promote environmental responsibility by all means.
But don't lie or distort the science into something it doesn't even support. It's that simple.
Governments and the scientific community have been doing many great things from an environmental point of view. Problem is some like Greta want things to move a lot faster than is actually possible because she personally is fearful.
Fear filled messages usually end up with people feeling like it's too futile to do anything and others switched off from the constant negativity.
To add to the above and to make people think:
“The constant barrage of news that the world is ending takes a toll.” - Van Susteren, the climate psychiatrist.
www.nbcnews.com/health/mental-health/climate-grief-growing-emotional-toll-climate-change-n946751
Yep, a climate psychiatrist is a thing now as are grieving groups dealing with grief over the climate or Armageddon.
The more people talk, the better able they are to deal with challenges. But that doesn't justify scaring the shit out of people.
The more people research climate change, the more they'll realise that the subject is extremely complicated. And, crucially, that Armageddon is NOT upon us.
Doom and gloom such as Greta Thunberg's simply does nothing to advance the cause of environmental responsibility.
It paralyses people. It turns them off. Demoralises them. Saps them off energy.
Exactly what you don't want to have happen. Especially in a much touted emergency situation.
It's really sad to hear about adults and children suffering mentally due to irresponsible Armageddon rhetoric being popularised by the likes of Greta Thunberg.
An example of Greta Thunberg's rhetoric which she gave at the UN:
"We are in the beginning of a mass extinction."
And here's what an expert in mass extinction says:
“People who claim we’re in the sixth mass extinction don’t understand enough about mass extinctions to understand the logical flaw in their argument. To a certain extent they’re claiming it as a way of frightening people into action, when in fact, if it’s actually true we’re in a sixth mass extinction, then there’s no point in conservation biology.
If we’re really in a mass extinction—if we’re in the [End- Permian mass extinction 252 million years ago]—go get a case of scotch." - Smithsonian paleontologist Doug Erwin.
By the, Erwin is NOT saying we don't need to be more environmentally friendly. He believes rhetoric like Greta's is very unhelpful and scientists have a duty to be Greta is merely an activist who doesn't consider the bigger picture. Scientifically speaking, she hasnt changed a thing in relation to cloclimate change.
It is NOT protests that works for the issue of climate change.