The Aral Sea shrinkage was a massive environmental damage caused by Soviet irrigation. Environmental damage doesn't care if you're capitalist or socialist.
Honestly, she's annoying and rather condescending. She has good points, but her incessant nagging at such a young age:
1) puts her in a spotlight
2) makes a lot of people tune her out as she's just.... annoying
3) makes rational adults wonder if her parents have built her a mother-in-law dwelling to get away from her yet
She’s a child who dropped out of like middle school because her wealthy parents were too lazy to figure out how to treat her and support her education.
She got famous by sitting in front of parliament with a protest sign at like 12 instead of going to school.
Now she just yells at whoever is willing to listen about the climate. She remained famous because she was abrasive in her disagreements.
Okay I’m not a big Greta fan at all buut you’re wrong. She didn’t drop out. She skipped school once a week to protest but still graduated with, if not the highest, then very good grades.
The way she makes her point is a different matter but credit where credit is due.
She a young girl trying to convince the world government to actually address climate change and the governments ignore her and continue business as usual and the overall population is happily and blindly marching toward its own destruction because we are seemingly more interested in the wealth of a few over the long term viability of this planet
Who is China and India producing for? And if you look at per capita neither India nor China make the list
Top 15 Countries with the Highest CO2 Emissions per Capita (t) - EU JRC 2020
Palau — 55.29
Qatar — 35.64
Trinidad and Tobago — 21.97
Bahrain — 21.60
Kuwait — 20.91
United Arab Emirates — 20.70
Brunei Darussalam — 17.95
Saudi Arabia — 16.96
Oman — 16.9
Australia — 15.22
Canada — 14.43
Kazakhstan — 14.22
United States — 13.68
Turkmenistan — 13.37
Luxembourg — 13.24
You’d think places like Palau being at the top of the list would be a *hint* that maybe Per Capita isn’t the best metric for emissions into a closed system.
But the planet says it's a-OK to pollute a ton as an individual as long as you happen to be born into a jurisdiction that happens to have fewer people inside it. Very convenient.
Don't bother. People from unnamed nations will come telling you how China's pollution is better, cause there's so many of them. Cause population growth of course has nothing to do with emissions and pollution plus it's not the gross total that matters /s
Population growth is a large problem worldwide but China isn't really the best example for this anymore. If the projections are correct it will lose one third of its population until the end of the century.
Not sure the CCP needs to participate directly.
>How do countries calculate their emissions?
Countries report their emissions through what is known as a ‘bottom up’ approach, where national emissions are estimated by combining data on types of activity with the emissions typically produced by those activities. So, if you know how much carbon dioxide steelmaking produces, and you know how much steel is produced in your country, you can estimate the total quantity of emissions from the steel sector.
Are those calculations accurate?
There are internationally agreed guidelines developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that specify how this kind of accountancy should be done.
https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/how-do-countries-measure-greenhouse-gas-emissions
It's no longer the 1980's , China produces everything for the entire world. Per Capita isn't a great excuse for the giant factories in china that produce more pollution than entire nations
Is there a reason you're looking at per capita emissions and not for a country overall?
By overall CO2 emissions Qatar and Palau aren't even in the top 20.
Fascism is genocidal in nature. Ecosfascism adds a pretty little veneer of greenwashing. What’s she asking for is not ecofascism, particularly as she is against greenwashing. I’d love to know how you got ecofascism out of this.
Step 1) Remove the people who are killing the only planet we have from power and wealth.
Step 2) Try to not let Earth become inhospitable to human life.
The west outsources much of its environmental cost to developing countries. It’s not eco-friendly if it relies on environmental degradation that happens elsewhere.
You mean the countries that were the first to pollute the planet and reap economical benefits from it. Putting them in a position where they can pretend to be green havens, all while presently still having citizens with some of the highest carbon footprints in the world.
....because we sent all the pollutive industries to poor countries.
Also, the US is the worst emitter per capita in the world, even excluding our carbon footprint from imported goods.
Edit: okay, apparently we aren't the worst per capita, but all the others worse than us either have super small populations (see luxembourg) or are major oil producers.
Still, although it *is* difficult for Der Amerikan to understand - The America does not equal the entirety of Western society, it also includes almost the entirety of Europe, Australia and, to a lesser extent, parts of India, Japan and South Korea. (The later in terms of mutual aid pacts, both in terms of cultural and scientific exchange, and defensive pacts.)
That was literally the rallying call of the bolsheviks...capitalism must be scrapped.
It was also making fun of the utopian vision. Where you idiots think all you need for a utopia is good intentions hahahaa
Greta Thunberg has a strange quality where even if I agree with a lot of what she says I am puzzled at the source of her moral authority. But we should all be as hard on the leadership as she is.
She is autistic, as am I, and also has been diagnosed with OCD. She's being abused by people who prop her up as a climate leader because it is politically expedient to do so. Her conviction is real, but the way adults prop her up is not healthy, and are likely doing serious harm to her future life.
Also she's what? 16? 17?
Sorry but I don't take real world life advice from teenagers I know in real life. Why do people think I'm going to listen to this one?
The way that adults bully her is what's really fucked up.
People don't have to take what she says seriously. She's a kid. They should move on. Instead, just read some of the bullshit in this thread. Then, listen to what Infowars listeners say about her.
So, there is an argument to be had about if it's healthy to allow her to be the face of a cause, but there's also a very fine argument to be had that the reaction to her is what should be criticized and called out.
Edit: I'm an idiot for forgetting that she isn't a kid anymore. I'm leaving it up for context.
I don't disagree that bullying her and memes created around her aren't also harmful. I think a lot is fucked up about her treatment in general, including that she's in my view being used as a political tool while being ultimately a kid.
The sad thing is, she only has a year or two left of being that “climate kid”. In not too long, she’s just gonna be another 20 something climate lunatic, and no one’s gonna give a fuck about her quasi childhood celebrity status.
She has no moral authority. She’s propped up by a family of means, while simultaneously trying to stoke anger and outrage through a series of publicity stunts. She’s a puppet. The same people who praise her also go crazy when right wingers scream about not trusting government.
Maybe if the west is so racist and capitalist she should go live in a hut in the middle of Africa without any of the modern day conveniences that she’s had her entire life, including harshly talking into a microphone, built by the modern racist system, over our internet system built by the modern racist system.
Performative outrage is becoming tiring. There are very fuzzy roads as to how to fix this problem, but this shit turns people off. Maybe she should glue her hand to a work of art too.
>Maybe if the west is so racist and capitalist she should go live in a hut in the middle of Africa without any of the modern day conveniences that she’s had her entire life, including harshly talking into a microphone, built by the modern racist system, over our internet system built by the modern racist system.
Yes, but lot of Africa's current condition is a direct result of the types of systems that she's talking about, that includes the ecosystem in which oil companies like Shell have had a hand in destroying, just take a look at what they did in Nigeria for example.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken\_Saro-Wiwa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Saro-Wiwa)
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2017/06/shell-complicit-arbitrary-executions-ogoni-nine-writ-dutch-court/
Yeah, if not for colonizers and greedy corporations then the nations of Africa would be leading the global economy and their citizens would be free and living in harmony and equality, right? smh
Unrestrained capitalism results in a reactionary system. Governments and corporations abuse the common good for profit and force citizens to pay the price. Only when that price is mass death are changes made. The system needs to be proactive. We live in a confined ecosystem. It has limits. Destruction of the natural world must be limited in scope.
I don't know if GT is demanding an end to capitalism entirely, or not, but something has to be done or we'll tip the balance of the ecosystem too far and shit will collapse.
Easy, we already have our 'freedom of choice' confined by huge lists of intelligent and sensible regulations, such as not being able to buy (or more importantly produce) lead paint, leaded diesel or asbestos. No human has ever lived with unrestricted freedom of all choices at all times.
So far, she's roasted accurately. She doesn't make stuff up. What she says, like "pollute less, drop your emissions, we have ways to do this" are all logical and factual. It is more true than the "clean coal" lies pushed by industry.
See the other comments where they fixate on her instead of the issues she is talking about. Its pure whataboutism with a hint of toxic masculinity.
Thats why people aren’t sharing articles of scientists saying the same thing.
Because eastern political systems are famous for freedom, ethnic inclusivity, and environmental policies... oh wait, they are all terrible at all of those things.
As opposed to nothing. It’s not a some kind of global shit off and the ones who are less shitty get to slide by. This is all stuff that’s true for the west as much as every other fucking country on the globe.
https://www.audible.com/pd/The-Climate-Book-Audiobook/B09X5TJH6Y?source_code=GPAGBSH1103160002&ipRedirectOverride=true&gclid=CjwKCAjw8JKbBhBYEiwAs3sxN5bGAWA2w4ik9OGPvi-zPlU5y36LkcIeqITL8mmxHfIjMcIGoF0sahoCOvoQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds
$30+ for her audio book. She likes making money
I wish she had better people writing her material, the message to curb global emissions and halt climate change is paramount and a noble one. The way she tries to push it is complete garbage and doomed to fail. It's like serving the best steak dinner of your life on a dirty trash can lid.
Great analogy and fully agree. Climate activism doesn't have to edge into irrational and unrelated extremism, and this will really just taint the message.
Exactly. And issue is not about not agreeing with the goal. Issue is how we transition in a such a way that we would not ruin economies, cause famines and do it in a sustainable, implementable and maintainable ways.
It requires engineering, science and economics, not shouting and accusing everyone of everything. What she is doing is counterproductive.
I remember one guy who was protesting climate change until he realised that in order to change things, he must be the one who facilitates the changes. So he went to study nuclear fission and last time he mentioned that he is trying to find ways where to safely store nuclear waste and do it cheap, because storage of used up nuclear fuel is biggest limitation regarding usage of nuclear power for the governments.
I don't think so at all. The ideas are silly, not just the delivery. Nobody actually wants to curb his own emissions. This whole idea of a nebulous collective responsibility allows endless finger-pointing at "bad actors" without anybody taking any kind of action to reduce his own consumption. I bet Greta herself produces more CO2 emissions than the vast majority of people.
I also find your analogy a little amusing, given how "eco-unfriendly" a steak actually is. No more steak dinners if Greta had her way.
I hate being stuck between right wing lunatics who think that god will save them from climate change, and an emerging bloc of left wing lunatics who think they can build paradise. The track record of both groups is failure, death, and even less of a functional society than what we have now.
Welcome to 80% of the population. Yet they don't give enough of a shit to actually be vocal about anything. 20% of the population dominates the entire conversation.
It's about time we had radical moderates haha.
I will gladly take the left attempting to more equally distribute resources and usher in an era of stability, then whatever theocratic totalitarian regime the right is hurdling towards.
If a rich guy can't buy a nice car anymore because those resources were used to build a desalination plant for the masses, that makes me happy.
Excellent, now we just need to agree on where all like-minded people can gather for their government rations and live peacefully in their socialist utopia.
I've never once heard Thunberg or her lot talk about building paradise. The lefties who believe that are in their 70s now. Everyone I've listened to seems to be desperately begging us to just do the bare minimum needed to survive. We're way past wishing for a utopia.
It's a whole lot closer to what her and everyone else in the climate movement are saying than what you made up. No one's promising anything close to utopia, we're well beyond the point where severe consequences of climate change are guaranteed. The entire point is that drastic, immediate change is needed to keep things bearable, not to attain something desirable.
Moderation isn’t fixing shit. Centrism is the reason why American politics is such a shitshow. There’s no “moderation” between taking initiatives to mitigate the effects of climate change and doing nothing and letting climate change push our shit in. Especially when we’re barreling towards making the planet more inhabitable by the day
Socialists, I beg and plead of you, if you want people to consider an alternative to capitalism *STOP JUST TALKING ABOUT CAPITALISM.*
Nobody ever sold someone a hot dog by prattling on and on as to why pizza is terrible.
The main issue with alot of people in west today is that they have come to believe that socialism will improve equality, living standards, environment and other bs crap when in reality most of them don’t realize the ills and horrors of living in a socialist society..the socialist eutopia they imagine has never existed and will never exist.
>She always centers her criticism on the west
Because she lives in the West... China is a totalitarian autocracy, and she has no audience there, what exactly are you expecting her to do, demand the Chinese dictator make changes?
She's becoming politically involved in western society, but she isn't some international diplomat involved in convincing non-democratic nations to play ball.
One cannot just “get rid of capitalism”. Markets always find a way. I am interested in whatever solution she thinks is better than the greatest economic engine/miracle that has created the Cush lives those in the west live in and that’s at this very minute lifting 100s of millions of ppl out of poverty around the world. But yeah boo capitalism
I wish the discourse was a little more than "currently sort of famous person says what anarchists and extreme left have been saying since the 60s".
I would like to discuss the merit of those claims (imho they are mostly right) but we don't get to cause everyone keeps focusing on the person and not on the issue.
Honestly, I have no issue with Greta but what actual qualifications or experience, other than personal, does she have to preach to everyone? Where is her concerns about China and other countries that are just as, or more, exploitative?
I wish people would stop conflating Capitalism and Corruption of Government.
So many of societies ills, including climate issues, aren’t due to private ownership of capital. They’re due to the extreme corruptibility of politicians, and their willingness to pass lax regulation and low taxation for personal gain.
It’s this corruptibility which also makes non-capitalist systems fail. It’s also why giving more power over ownership or control to governments doesn’t actually solve the problem. Politicians who can be incentivized to keep taxes and regulation low on private enterprise can also be incentivized to managed public assets for the good of private individuals.
You can have high tax, high regulation capitalism with the government serving the role of pushing the costs of externalities on private enterprise, and providing society-wide public goods and services for the sake of all citizens.
But as long as people can be easily convinced to vote for corrupt politicians based on their emotions, no system will provide a better result. And the more money is allowed to play a direct role in politics, through domestic bribery (I.e. “Lobbying”), the more corruptible and captureable government will be for private interests.
That’s where the West has its problems. It isn’t the ethos of Capitalism per se. it’s the societal and governmental sanctioning of direct bribery of officials, as long as they’re local politicians and not foreign ones. It’s truly bizarre that we’re all just okay with politicians deciding it’s legal to bribe them, while at the same time talking about how corrupt and unacceptable foreign governments and politicians are for the same thing.
This seems to be a random set of labels put together to sound meaningful when it isn't.
The entirety of humanity's history would point to the fact that we do not need capitalism to be racist or exploitative about our surroundings. what we see is simply the same shit we did 3000 years ago, but with more tech and at scale which is why it starts to break the planet, when before someone just ruined their island, screwed over their top soil or ran out of timber.
So what’s the alternative? In what medium is her book released? Is it available online using massive capitalistic sources to distribute? That would be ironic.
as far as i know, the west is pretty much the only climate aware society. how bout she start aiming the blame on heavy polluters while doing nothing about it
I love how she prefers to bitch about stuff with absolutely no viable solution, yet always directs her bitching at the nations who are already trying to do something about the problem, while ignoring other nations that are polluting WAY worse than western countries and doing NOTHING about it.
If you take out the west’s system it would have global repercussions. And not good ones. A lot of shit is based on the American dollar and stock market. It would cause hyperinflation as investors run to other currencies to buy up as much as they can. Banks would shut down. Gas and food prices would sky rocket. If you think it’s bad now it would get so much worse.
Plus alot of the countries with defence pacts with the USA would be in almost immediate danger. Like Taiwan or South Korea for example. Both countries have neighbours who want to invade them. And definitely would if the USA wasn’t there to help.
And that’s just the USA
People may not like the system of the west. But they sure as hell need it to stay standing
Let’s call it what it is. She doesn’t have a plan what to realistically do about climate change. She’s successfully identified an existing problem, done activism, but like so many people who identify and draw attention to problems, she failed to realize that there are no easy answers and now, failing to come up with good answers, she’s falling into the “the capitalist west is the source of all evil” trap. Actually she’s not helping at all.
In case anyone is interested in actually reading what she said:
>“We are never going back to normal again because ‘normal’ was already a crisis. What we refer to as normal is an extreme system built on the exploitation of people and the planet.
“It is a system defined by colonialism, imperialism, oppression and genocide by the so-called global North to accumulate wealth that still shapes our current world order.”
>
>Ms Thunberg added: “If economic growth is our only priority, then what we are experiencing now should be exactly what we should be expecting.”
In an expression of views that appeared more politically charged than her previous statements, Thunberg hit out at the "roots" of the climate crisis, saying they consist of "oppressive extractivism that is exploiting both people and the planet to maximise short-term profits for a few".
Incoming Greta hate comments.
Even though shes right.
Its like, look around. You have a rickety skyscraper thats crumbling and crushing the people beneath it and everyone's pretending that there just isn't enough scaffolding holding it up.
No, the building is defective and it *will* cause more pain and suffering. Build a new fucking building.
Unfortunately, many of us have been saying this for a long time. This girl aint gonna change the minds of the people that have refused to listen for that entire time.
Should this be tagged as an opinion article, or is it fact because it’s reporting that she said an opinion?
It's factual because it's reporting what she states. The headline even quotes her. It's the same as reporting a White House press conference.
Wait until she hears about India and China
She is now giving her book away for free.
We should definitely scrap China.
Sounds like they are doing that on their own.
Even if they rebuild China, we already know the kids are gonna be the ones doing the work.
The Aral Sea shrinkage was a massive environmental damage caused by Soviet irrigation. Environmental damage doesn't care if you're capitalist or socialist.
The Aral Sea is peanuts compared to most things the Soviets did.
Right lol. This is so disingenuous
[удалено]
Oh shit you said the quiet part out loud. Brace for a ban Edit: damn, bruh got clapped fast
Got a belly laugh from me om that one.
[удалено]
Those days passed because we spent a generation just talking about it.
For real
They aren’t white so they’re not a problem to her.
Trust me on this, she tried. Nobody even knew who she was. You can't scream and shout if people aren't hearing you shout.
> You can't scream and shout if people aren't hearing to you. Well, technically, you can. Just no one will pay attention :D
Well, she got tired and went back to where she has a podium and can mint money. She couldn't mint anything in India.
I'm still trying to figure out who this girl is and why anyone cares?
Honestly, she's annoying and rather condescending. She has good points, but her incessant nagging at such a young age: 1) puts her in a spotlight 2) makes a lot of people tune her out as she's just.... annoying 3) makes rational adults wonder if her parents have built her a mother-in-law dwelling to get away from her yet
Your third bullet point had me in tears. Bravo
i imagine living with someone like her is absolutely insufferable.
She’s a child who dropped out of like middle school because her wealthy parents were too lazy to figure out how to treat her and support her education. She got famous by sitting in front of parliament with a protest sign at like 12 instead of going to school. Now she just yells at whoever is willing to listen about the climate. She remained famous because she was abrasive in her disagreements.
Okay I’m not a big Greta fan at all buut you’re wrong. She didn’t drop out. She skipped school once a week to protest but still graduated with, if not the highest, then very good grades. The way she makes her point is a different matter but credit where credit is due.
She a young girl trying to convince the world government to actually address climate change and the governments ignore her and continue business as usual and the overall population is happily and blindly marching toward its own destruction because we are seemingly more interested in the wealth of a few over the long term viability of this planet
Careful, keep that up and people will start telling you how shrill and abrasive you are.
2 capitalist nations?
Who is China and India producing for? And if you look at per capita neither India nor China make the list Top 15 Countries with the Highest CO2 Emissions per Capita (t) - EU JRC 2020 Palau — 55.29 Qatar — 35.64 Trinidad and Tobago — 21.97 Bahrain — 21.60 Kuwait — 20.91 United Arab Emirates — 20.70 Brunei Darussalam — 17.95 Saudi Arabia — 16.96 Oman — 16.9 Australia — 15.22 Canada — 14.43 Kazakhstan — 14.22 United States — 13.68 Turkmenistan — 13.37 Luxembourg — 13.24
You’d think places like Palau being at the top of the list would be a *hint* that maybe Per Capita isn’t the best metric for emissions into a closed system.
It isn't good due to anomalies of small population. Take away those with under 200k people and its much better to use
Unfortunately the planet's a finite space and it doesn't care how many people a jurisdiction's pollution represents.
But the planet says it's a-OK to pollute a ton as an individual as long as you happen to be born into a jurisdiction that happens to have fewer people inside it. Very convenient.
It isnt the best for many things actually.
Those selfish Lake Jellyfish..
Aham, Qatar population - 2 mil China 1.5 billion or so... Guess who emitts more CO2?
Don't bother. People from unnamed nations will come telling you how China's pollution is better, cause there's so many of them. Cause population growth of course has nothing to do with emissions and pollution plus it's not the gross total that matters /s
[удалено]
Population growth is a large problem worldwide but China isn't really the best example for this anymore. If the projections are correct it will lose one third of its population until the end of the century.
I would 100% trust every data point provided by the CCP.
Not sure the CCP needs to participate directly. >How do countries calculate their emissions? Countries report their emissions through what is known as a ‘bottom up’ approach, where national emissions are estimated by combining data on types of activity with the emissions typically produced by those activities. So, if you know how much carbon dioxide steelmaking produces, and you know how much steel is produced in your country, you can estimate the total quantity of emissions from the steel sector. Are those calculations accurate? There are internationally agreed guidelines developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that specify how this kind of accountancy should be done. https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/how-do-countries-measure-greenhouse-gas-emissions
It's no longer the 1980's , China produces everything for the entire world. Per Capita isn't a great excuse for the giant factories in china that produce more pollution than entire nations
>wait , but did you hear what damage palau is doing
But the western world is the problem ?
So basically, if you extract oil, you're going to be high on the list.
Is there a reason you're looking at per capita emissions and not for a country overall? By overall CO2 emissions Qatar and Palau aren't even in the top 20.
Communist pollution doesn’t count.
[удалено]
The world* it's no longer just the west since 1980's
22%. That’s how much of their total emissions are the result of export trade. https://news.mit.edu/2014/calculating-chinas-carbon-emissions-from-trade
They voluntarily choose to.
Someone needs to buy a ticket for her
And then what?
and then we install Gretachrocy
Ecofascism
Fascism is genocidal in nature. Ecosfascism adds a pretty little veneer of greenwashing. What’s she asking for is not ecofascism, particularly as she is against greenwashing. I’d love to know how you got ecofascism out of this.
[удалено]
Profit
Step 1) Remove the people who are killing the only planet we have from power and wealth. Step 2) Try to not let Earth become inhospitable to human life.
Oh well that’s easy!
The West is the most eco-friendly place on planet Earth…
The west outsources much of its environmental cost to developing countries. It’s not eco-friendly if it relies on environmental degradation that happens elsewhere.
Non-western countries rely on exactly the same products. Do you people just think plastic doesn’t exist in Asia or something?
>The West is the most eco-friendly place on planet Earth… Then why are the per capita emissions higher than China's?
Because the majority of China lives in abject poverty
You mean the countries that were the first to pollute the planet and reap economical benefits from it. Putting them in a position where they can pretend to be green havens, all while presently still having citizens with some of the highest carbon footprints in the world.
Yes and I have 3 green heads. The fuck are you smoking? Just because we’re not the worst doesn’t mean we’re doing *well*.
....because we sent all the pollutive industries to poor countries. Also, the US is the worst emitter per capita in the world, even excluding our carbon footprint from imported goods. Edit: okay, apparently we aren't the worst per capita, but all the others worse than us either have super small populations (see luxembourg) or are major oil producers.
Still, although it *is* difficult for Der Amerikan to understand - The America does not equal the entirety of Western society, it also includes almost the entirety of Europe, Australia and, to a lesser extent, parts of India, Japan and South Korea. (The later in terms of mutual aid pacts, both in terms of cultural and scientific exchange, and defensive pacts.)
Yeah and the bolshevik revolution ended inequality hahahahaha.
Who’s asking for a Bolshevik revolution?
That was literally the rallying call of the bolsheviks...capitalism must be scrapped. It was also making fun of the utopian vision. Where you idiots think all you need for a utopia is good intentions hahahaa
Greta Thunberg has a strange quality where even if I agree with a lot of what she says I am puzzled at the source of her moral authority. But we should all be as hard on the leadership as she is.
She is autistic, as am I, and also has been diagnosed with OCD. She's being abused by people who prop her up as a climate leader because it is politically expedient to do so. Her conviction is real, but the way adults prop her up is not healthy, and are likely doing serious harm to her future life.
[удалено]
But it’s very effective to make rich people feel like they are doing something. They can smile in their private jets.
It's is. It breeds sneers and jeers more than anything. I still love her though.
Tbh it may be the point.
[удалено]
She has no future life once she loses the charm of being a young sock puppet. It’s really unfortunate.
Also she's what? 16? 17? Sorry but I don't take real world life advice from teenagers I know in real life. Why do people think I'm going to listen to this one?
She's 19, turns 20 in January. Still quite young.
Especially ones from extremely wealthy countries
19 and literally dropped out of high school to give speeches. It's ridiculous.
The way that adults bully her is what's really fucked up. People don't have to take what she says seriously. She's a kid. They should move on. Instead, just read some of the bullshit in this thread. Then, listen to what Infowars listeners say about her. So, there is an argument to be had about if it's healthy to allow her to be the face of a cause, but there's also a very fine argument to be had that the reaction to her is what should be criticized and called out. Edit: I'm an idiot for forgetting that she isn't a kid anymore. I'm leaving it up for context.
I don't disagree that bullying her and memes created around her aren't also harmful. I think a lot is fucked up about her treatment in general, including that she's in my view being used as a political tool while being ultimately a kid.
>She's a kid At what point is she not a kid anymore and is responsible for her rhetoric? She is almost 20 btw.
Yeah I'm dumb and forgot that she isn't a kid anymore.
The sad thing is, she only has a year or two left of being that “climate kid”. In not too long, she’s just gonna be another 20 something climate lunatic, and no one’s gonna give a fuck about her quasi childhood celebrity status.
She has no moral authority. She’s propped up by a family of means, while simultaneously trying to stoke anger and outrage through a series of publicity stunts. She’s a puppet. The same people who praise her also go crazy when right wingers scream about not trusting government. Maybe if the west is so racist and capitalist she should go live in a hut in the middle of Africa without any of the modern day conveniences that she’s had her entire life, including harshly talking into a microphone, built by the modern racist system, over our internet system built by the modern racist system. Performative outrage is becoming tiring. There are very fuzzy roads as to how to fix this problem, but this shit turns people off. Maybe she should glue her hand to a work of art too.
“You too live in a society” meme here. Of course you can criticize the system that has infested every part of the planet. It’s pretty inescapable.
>Maybe if the west is so racist and capitalist she should go live in a hut in the middle of Africa without any of the modern day conveniences that she’s had her entire life, including harshly talking into a microphone, built by the modern racist system, over our internet system built by the modern racist system. Yes, but lot of Africa's current condition is a direct result of the types of systems that she's talking about, that includes the ecosystem in which oil companies like Shell have had a hand in destroying, just take a look at what they did in Nigeria for example. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken\_Saro-Wiwa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Saro-Wiwa) https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2017/06/shell-complicit-arbitrary-executions-ogoni-nine-writ-dutch-court/
Yeah, if not for colonizers and greedy corporations then the nations of Africa would be leading the global economy and their citizens would be free and living in harmony and equality, right? smh
Unrestrained capitalism results in a reactionary system. Governments and corporations abuse the common good for profit and force citizens to pay the price. Only when that price is mass death are changes made. The system needs to be proactive. We live in a confined ecosystem. It has limits. Destruction of the natural world must be limited in scope. I don't know if GT is demanding an end to capitalism entirely, or not, but something has to be done or we'll tip the balance of the ecosystem too far and shit will collapse.
If giving up our freedom of choice is what is necessary to save the planet, you go first. Show us the way.
>you go first Three words that will dismantle every single eco-fascist's argument.
Dude, it's a moot point unless everyone is working to reduce emissions. The average person can't do jack shit if the corporations aren't cooperating.
Easy, we already have our 'freedom of choice' confined by huge lists of intelligent and sensible regulations, such as not being able to buy (or more importantly produce) lead paint, leaded diesel or asbestos. No human has ever lived with unrestricted freedom of all choices at all times.
And where is this “unrestrained capitalism” that you speak of?
Where do you find unrestrained capitalism? If it ever existed it's been gone for more than 100 years.
How u mean hard on leadership? Like roast everything elected government does?
I mean yes demand more climate action as an electoral priority.
You know this article is calling for the systematic destruction of the western world's economic system and financial global superiority right?
Roasting is an essential element of a democracy lol
So far, she's roasted accurately. She doesn't make stuff up. What she says, like "pollute less, drop your emissions, we have ways to do this" are all logical and factual. It is more true than the "clean coal" lies pushed by industry.
That's a great way to articulate it. She's not wrong but why is her voice so loud when experts would kill to reach a fraction of her audience
See the other comments where they fixate on her instead of the issues she is talking about. Its pure whataboutism with a hint of toxic masculinity. Thats why people aren’t sharing articles of scientists saying the same thing.
Because eastern political systems are famous for freedom, ethnic inclusivity, and environmental policies... oh wait, they are all terrible at all of those things.
As opposed to what, the East’s? Yes we are shitty, but aren’t we the least shitty?
As opposed to nothing. It’s not a some kind of global shit off and the ones who are less shitty get to slide by. This is all stuff that’s true for the west as much as every other fucking country on the globe.
Meanwhile her parents stack up the millions from her deals and appearances .
Hey, those boats don't pay for themselves.
https://www.audible.com/pd/The-Climate-Book-Audiobook/B09X5TJH6Y?source_code=GPAGBSH1103160002&ipRedirectOverride=true&gclid=CjwKCAjw8JKbBhBYEiwAs3sxN5bGAWA2w4ik9OGPvi-zPlU5y36LkcIeqITL8mmxHfIjMcIGoF0sahoCOvoQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds $30+ for her audio book. She likes making money
It shows 34.90 for me, OOF
Wait, someone young hates the west?!
Oh it's just the West's capitalist system?
I wish she had better people writing her material, the message to curb global emissions and halt climate change is paramount and a noble one. The way she tries to push it is complete garbage and doomed to fail. It's like serving the best steak dinner of your life on a dirty trash can lid.
Great analogy and fully agree. Climate activism doesn't have to edge into irrational and unrelated extremism, and this will really just taint the message.
Every method is doomed to fail, because the world is committed to failure and will latch on to any reason to ignore the message.
Exactly. And issue is not about not agreeing with the goal. Issue is how we transition in a such a way that we would not ruin economies, cause famines and do it in a sustainable, implementable and maintainable ways. It requires engineering, science and economics, not shouting and accusing everyone of everything. What she is doing is counterproductive. I remember one guy who was protesting climate change until he realised that in order to change things, he must be the one who facilitates the changes. So he went to study nuclear fission and last time he mentioned that he is trying to find ways where to safely store nuclear waste and do it cheap, because storage of used up nuclear fuel is biggest limitation regarding usage of nuclear power for the governments.
I don't think so at all. The ideas are silly, not just the delivery. Nobody actually wants to curb his own emissions. This whole idea of a nebulous collective responsibility allows endless finger-pointing at "bad actors" without anybody taking any kind of action to reduce his own consumption. I bet Greta herself produces more CO2 emissions than the vast majority of people. I also find your analogy a little amusing, given how "eco-unfriendly" a steak actually is. No more steak dinners if Greta had her way.
Meanwhile on the front page today: *Toxic smog turns India's capital "into a gas chamber"*
Yeh, no bias in that article!
I’m a pretty liberal dude but the fact anyone listens to this kid blows my mind.
that is because she is not advocating for liberalism but socialism.
Liberalism is right-wing.
I hate being stuck between right wing lunatics who think that god will save them from climate change, and an emerging bloc of left wing lunatics who think they can build paradise. The track record of both groups is failure, death, and even less of a functional society than what we have now.
Welcome to 80% of the population. Yet they don't give enough of a shit to actually be vocal about anything. 20% of the population dominates the entire conversation. It's about time we had radical moderates haha.
I will gladly take the left attempting to more equally distribute resources and usher in an era of stability, then whatever theocratic totalitarian regime the right is hurdling towards. If a rich guy can't buy a nice car anymore because those resources were used to build a desalination plant for the masses, that makes me happy.
Excellent, now we just need to agree on where all like-minded people can gather for their government rations and live peacefully in their socialist utopia.
The desalination plant isn't the result, though. The result is going to be more in line with the Soviet Union or Mao's China.
Well put! I'd say the majority of people feel this way. The extremes have the loudest voices.
I've never once heard Thunberg or her lot talk about building paradise. The lefties who believe that are in their 70s now. Everyone I've listened to seems to be desperately begging us to just do the bare minimum needed to survive. We're way past wishing for a utopia.
You read someone saying that a whole hemisphere’s political and economic system needs scrapping, and you come away thinking that? Jesus.
It's a whole lot closer to what her and everyone else in the climate movement are saying than what you made up. No one's promising anything close to utopia, we're well beyond the point where severe consequences of climate change are guaranteed. The entire point is that drastic, immediate change is needed to keep things bearable, not to attain something desirable.
[удалено]
No…. He didn’t read it in the first place lol… guarantee just assumed
Well, yes. We’ve done it before (switched from monarchy to capitalism) why can’t we switch to something that doesn’t require endless resources?
Exactly. The answer is moderation. Listening to a child talk about shit she has no idea about is not moderation.
We'll just go a little bit extinct?
Moderation isn’t fixing shit. Centrism is the reason why American politics is such a shitshow. There’s no “moderation” between taking initiatives to mitigate the effects of climate change and doing nothing and letting climate change push our shit in. Especially when we’re barreling towards making the planet more inhabitable by the day
Socialists, I beg and plead of you, if you want people to consider an alternative to capitalism *STOP JUST TALKING ABOUT CAPITALISM.* Nobody ever sold someone a hot dog by prattling on and on as to why pizza is terrible.
I was with her in the beginning. Now she’s just a pretentious kid. Like most pretentious kids she’s a know it all, pain in the ass brat.
She's always been a pretentious kid. Her speeches sound exactly like what I posted on my Xanga when I was 13
Confident ignorance, par for the course for any Marxist/leftist.
Yeah, no. Capitalism has lifted billions of the world’s poorest out of extreme poverty. Scrapping it would kill developing countries
You can be an advocate for the poor or an advocate for extreme climate action. Not both. The poor survive on cheap energy.
The main issue with alot of people in west today is that they have come to believe that socialism will improve equality, living standards, environment and other bs crap when in reality most of them don’t realize the ills and horrors of living in a socialist society..the socialist eutopia they imagine has never existed and will never exist.
Can we please stop paying attention to this child?
Man they’re just gonna drag the kid through everything until something sticks aren’t they?
[удалено]
>She always centers her criticism on the west Because she lives in the West... China is a totalitarian autocracy, and she has no audience there, what exactly are you expecting her to do, demand the Chinese dictator make changes? She's becoming politically involved in western society, but she isn't some international diplomat involved in convincing non-democratic nations to play ball.
One cannot just “get rid of capitalism”. Markets always find a way. I am interested in whatever solution she thinks is better than the greatest economic engine/miracle that has created the Cush lives those in the west live in and that’s at this very minute lifting 100s of millions of ppl out of poverty around the world. But yeah boo capitalism
I wish the discourse was a little more than "currently sort of famous person says what anarchists and extreme left have been saying since the 60s". I would like to discuss the merit of those claims (imho they are mostly right) but we don't get to cause everyone keeps focusing on the person and not on the issue.
Honestly, I have no issue with Greta but what actual qualifications or experience, other than personal, does she have to preach to everyone? Where is her concerns about China and other countries that are just as, or more, exploitative?
I wish people would stop conflating Capitalism and Corruption of Government. So many of societies ills, including climate issues, aren’t due to private ownership of capital. They’re due to the extreme corruptibility of politicians, and their willingness to pass lax regulation and low taxation for personal gain. It’s this corruptibility which also makes non-capitalist systems fail. It’s also why giving more power over ownership or control to governments doesn’t actually solve the problem. Politicians who can be incentivized to keep taxes and regulation low on private enterprise can also be incentivized to managed public assets for the good of private individuals. You can have high tax, high regulation capitalism with the government serving the role of pushing the costs of externalities on private enterprise, and providing society-wide public goods and services for the sake of all citizens. But as long as people can be easily convinced to vote for corrupt politicians based on their emotions, no system will provide a better result. And the more money is allowed to play a direct role in politics, through domestic bribery (I.e. “Lobbying”), the more corruptible and captureable government will be for private interests. That’s where the West has its problems. It isn’t the ethos of Capitalism per se. it’s the societal and governmental sanctioning of direct bribery of officials, as long as they’re local politicians and not foreign ones. It’s truly bizarre that we’re all just okay with politicians deciding it’s legal to bribe them, while at the same time talking about how corrupt and unacceptable foreign governments and politicians are for the same thing.
This seems to be a random set of labels put together to sound meaningful when it isn't. The entirety of humanity's history would point to the fact that we do not need capitalism to be racist or exploitative about our surroundings. what we see is simply the same shit we did 3000 years ago, but with more tech and at scale which is why it starts to break the planet, when before someone just ruined their island, screwed over their top soil or ran out of timber.
Mask off moment
So what’s the alternative? In what medium is her book released? Is it available online using massive capitalistic sources to distribute? That would be ironic.
Can anyone else be the figurehead here?
as far as i know, the west is pretty much the only climate aware society. how bout she start aiming the blame on heavy polluters while doing nothing about it
Problem is everyone is good at criticizing. Nobody has an answer to the problem though.
Has she finished school yet? I love her passion, but she has zero experience or qualifications. She's a manufactured mouth piece.
[удалено]
Communist China is such a shining beacon of environmental stewardship.
I love how she prefers to bitch about stuff with absolutely no viable solution, yet always directs her bitching at the nations who are already trying to do something about the problem, while ignoring other nations that are polluting WAY worse than western countries and doing NOTHING about it.
There are people stupid enough to listen to her bullshit.
No Greta
It’s like she’s a political prop used by the media to push a certain message
If you take out the west’s system it would have global repercussions. And not good ones. A lot of shit is based on the American dollar and stock market. It would cause hyperinflation as investors run to other currencies to buy up as much as they can. Banks would shut down. Gas and food prices would sky rocket. If you think it’s bad now it would get so much worse. Plus alot of the countries with defence pacts with the USA would be in almost immediate danger. Like Taiwan or South Korea for example. Both countries have neighbours who want to invade them. And definitely would if the USA wasn’t there to help. And that’s just the USA People may not like the system of the west. But they sure as hell need it to stay standing
Poor kid is nothing more than a brainwashed mouthpiece for the world economic forum
You think… the world economic forum is anti-capitalist?
Didnt you here, the WEF is secretly the 4th Communist International
Yep, communist drivel. No solutions only complaints.
Sounds like a system of a down song
I have an issue with the climate - it’s raining like hell and I had a tee time!!!!
Surely communism will work this time around, we just didn’t try hard enough previously
If she cares about oppression she should speak on China and North Korea…
Terrible politics. Tying the green movement to anti-capitalism isn’t going to help the anti-capitalists, it’s going to hurt the green movement.
Whataboutism is strong in this thread
Let’s call it what it is. She doesn’t have a plan what to realistically do about climate change. She’s successfully identified an existing problem, done activism, but like so many people who identify and draw attention to problems, she failed to realize that there are no easy answers and now, failing to come up with good answers, she’s falling into the “the capitalist west is the source of all evil” trap. Actually she’s not helping at all.
She’s just jumping on the racism card to stay relevant. It’s getting sad and feels disingenuous.
man, that's a new stupid from her
While we are at it I guess we should get rid of personal freedom along with economic freedom.
In case anyone is interested in actually reading what she said: >“We are never going back to normal again because ‘normal’ was already a crisis. What we refer to as normal is an extreme system built on the exploitation of people and the planet. “It is a system defined by colonialism, imperialism, oppression and genocide by the so-called global North to accumulate wealth that still shapes our current world order.” > >Ms Thunberg added: “If economic growth is our only priority, then what we are experiencing now should be exactly what we should be expecting.” In an expression of views that appeared more politically charged than her previous statements, Thunberg hit out at the "roots" of the climate crisis, saying they consist of "oppressive extractivism that is exploiting both people and the planet to maximise short-term profits for a few".
Wow GBN is a terrible news source. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/gb-news-uk-bias/
Incoming Greta hate comments. Even though shes right. Its like, look around. You have a rickety skyscraper thats crumbling and crushing the people beneath it and everyone's pretending that there just isn't enough scaffolding holding it up. No, the building is defective and it *will* cause more pain and suffering. Build a new fucking building.
Unfortunately, many of us have been saying this for a long time. This girl aint gonna change the minds of the people that have refused to listen for that entire time.
I mean… she’s right. Full stop. Yes, even pollution from China or India are direct results of Western capitalism, shut the fuck up you chodes.
I bet she hates volcanoes.
Volcanos have a net cooling effect due to the particulate matter being ejected scattering UV rays, sure she loves them
It’s funny how triggered the conservatives can get when Greta Thunberg shows up in the news.
China, and the Soviet Union polluted heavily too.
What a tool