Greta Thunberg

[okeydokey]

Am I the only one who is rather indifferent to the climate change debate? Look I wish more was being done but at the end of the day, I will be long gone before any of the repercussions are felt. I just can't see spending what little time I have on this Earth worried about that which I cannot control.

Well Paco, I just can't live like this. I feel we have a responsibility to those that come after me. Maybe it's my faith, but I was raised to be concerned about other people.

 

[VandVsmama]

I do not think that she is admirable. I think that she is a naïve young lady whose parents are taking advantage of her 15 minutes of fame. I acknowledge her passion for her cause. But it's foolish and, frankly, stupid, for uber-environmentalists to propose that we ditch almost all forms of transportation and go back to boats and bicycles.

Also, the odds are pretty good that a fair number of products that she, her friends, or her countrymen/women/people use are made in China. And China has some of the worst pollution around. So unless you're going to boycott everything made in China, then, well, I don't know what to say.

She acts like Armageddon is coming. Get a grip.

 

[okeydokey]

How will a hot summer or cold winter impact your life?

Hurricanes are stronger, drought brings more devastating fires, Blizzards knock out power, growing seasons change, there are funguses and diseases that are emerging. The list is endless. Climate change is already effecting people and will continue to do in more alarming ways.

 

[LSUmiss]

1) Not sure what you are saying with this point? It's okay to ignore climate change because it's the younger generations that will have to deal with it? (Maybe that's the attitude that kids and young adults like Greta are upset about) (Also, we're already feeling it and dealing with it ... natural disaster relief spending increased 9x from the 5 year period in the early 80s to the past 5 year period, in inflation adjusted dollars).

2) Yes, there is natural climate variability that can be attributed to the Milankovitch cycles - the tilt of Earth's axis, the wobble, and the changes in the elliptical route around the sun. However, the current global average temperature anomalies can not be explained by natural variation alone. In fact, according to where we are in the Milankovitch cycles, we should be in a very stable climate right now, which is not the case.

3) This is not correct. We are not in a long term cooling trend.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

But there are other factors that have contributed to the amount spent on natural disasters including more development so more places to damage & less natural drainage.

 

[LSUmiss]

Well Paco, I just can't live like this. I feel we have a responsibility to those that come after me. Maybe it's my faith, but I was raised to be concerned about other people.

“Other ppl” who don’t even exist yet. Like I said in. pp, I’m concerned with the ppl I try to help NOW who do exist. For me, I’m not saying that change isn’t a good thing, but it’s not something I concern myself with on a regular basis especially when I know I have little control on the outcomes.

 

[RamblingMad]

Yet!

You gotta love the short sighted view. And the Fox News perspective is also crazy.

I’m visiting GNP this year to see the glaciers before they’re gone. Glaciers only make up a huge amount of our fresh drinking water. What could possibly go wrong?

The reality is that the climate conditions in the US have only made the disease carrying mosquitoes more prevalent. But who cares about Lyme disease or malaria?

 

[okeydokey]

“Other ppl” who don’t even exist yet. Like I said in. pp, I’m concerned with the ppl I try to help NOW who do exist. For me, I’m not saying that change isn’t a good thing, but it’s not something I concern myself with on a regular basis especially when I know I have little control on the outcomes.

Yes, I have the ability to be concerned about current people and future generations.

 

[LSUmiss]

Yes, I have the ability to be concerned about current people and future generations.

I suppose good for you. But being concerned & actively doing something are 2 different things & I’m busy trying to do something even if it’s not climate change related.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

But it's foolish and, frankly, stupid, for uber-environmentalists to propose that we ditch almost all forms of transportation and go back to boats and bicycles.

It might help with the obesity problem, though.

 

[RamblingMad]

It might help with the obesity problem, though.

It’s gotten out of control.

I wonder how much of this problem is due to growth hormones in beef. And of course, the sugar drink obsession doesn’t help either.

Current research suggests that a calorie restrictive diet increases the chance of a longer life.

 

[b2k1121]

I do not think that she is admirable. I think that she is a naïve young lady whose parents are taking advantage of her 15 minutes of fame. I acknowledge her passion for her cause. But it's foolish and, frankly, stupid, for uber-environmentalists to propose that we ditch almost all forms of transportation and go back to boats and bicycles.

Also, the odds are pretty good that a fair number of products that she, her friends, or her countrymen/women/people use are made in China. And China has some of the worst pollution around. So unless you're going to boycott everything made in China, then, well, I don't know what to say.

She acts like Armageddon is coming. Get a grip.

 

[Colleen27]

So I'll preface this by saying that I support her cause in a broad sense, however...

I'm distinctly not impressed by her activism, and I think she is doing more harm than good with frankly elitist publicity stunts like sailing across the Atlantic to attend the U.N. or even skipping school once a week in protest (a move that would get less privileged kids and their families in trouble with truancy officials). Nothing hampers the consensus building needed to force real change like that sort of backhanded guilt trip/demand that average people who can't afford a six-figure sailing voyage simply give up traveling for the sake of the environment, or the display of privilege inherent in flouting rules others are expected to live by for the sake of a cause. And putting a young, uneducated voice center stage rather than finding someone who can speak with both expertise and passion detracts from the seriousness of the issue.

I respect what she's trying to do, and I lay a lot of the "blame" (which doesn't quite feel like the right word) for the poor way her activism is being handled at the feet of her parents (if anyone has "stolen her childhood", it is the parents who encourage/enable her obsession with this particular issue rather than pushing her to find balance between activism and joy, and children in teens involved in environmental programs all over the developed world somehow manage to do). But I believe that when it comes to matters of science, we should be listening to the scientific community. Not to spoiled children.

 

[RamblingMad]

So I'll preface this by saying that I support her cause in a broad sense, however...

I'm distinctly not impressed by her activism, and I think she is doing more harm than good with frankly elitist publicity stunts like sailing across the Atlantic to attend the U.N. or even skipping school once a week in protest (a move that would get less privileged kids and their families in trouble with truancy officials). Nothing hampers the consensus building needed to force real change like that sort of backhanded guilt trip/demand that average people who can't afford a six-figure sailing voyage simply give up traveling for the sake of the environment, or the display of privilege inherent in flouting rules others are expected to live by for the sake of a cause. And putting a young, uneducated voice center stage rather than finding someone who can speak with both expertise and passion detracts from the seriousness of the issue.

I respect what she's trying to do, and I lay a lot of the "blame" (which doesn't quite feel like the right word) for the poor way her activism is being handled at the feet of her parents (if anyone has "stolen her childhood", it is the parents who encourage/enable her obsession with this particular issue rather than pushing her to find balance between activism and joy, and children in teens involved in environmental programs all over the developed world somehow manage to do). But I believe that when it comes to matters of science, we should be listening to the scientific community. Not to spoiled children.

She’s influencing the electoral in her home country. That’s pretty damn powerful.

I see far more questionable behavior from parents who try to prep their kids for sports.

 

[Searc]

Hurricanes are stronger, drought brings more devastating fires, Blizzards knock out power, growing seasons change, there are funguses and diseases that are emerging. The list is endless. Climate change is already effecting people and will continue to do in more alarming ways.

Ask the farmers in WI how weather impacts the food supply. (Yes, I realize food is grown world-wide, but local things are right in front of me and what I am most familiar with right now).

 

[DisneyKoyote]

She's courageous, she knows how to get attention, but she's really preaching to the wrong people here...the audience her speech was directed at already believe climate change is real (what they don't agree on is the severity). But the real question is HOW do we fix it. If you need trillions of dollars to do it, what other programs do we skimp on? Does it make sense to ban air travel, should we tax 'environmentally unfriendly' activities more, etc. It's like she's telling us "guys cancer is bad!". Thanks we know...now give us some possible/realistic solutions...

 

[VandVsmama]

I think that if you're going to cut class one day a week and stay home in order to do your own environmental protest at home, then you should not use anything that requires electricity, coal, natural gas, etc. So this would mean:

• no heating your home with a heater in winter. Fireplace only.
• no cooking or baking anything using your stove unless it's a wood stove
• no traveling anywhere by car, bus, or train. Only on foot, bicycle, or horse.
• no using your cell phone, computer, or any electronic devices at home whatsoever
• no turning on the lights. Candles or oil lamps only. Extra 20 points if you harvested the oil yourself. Oh wait, if you're in Scandinavia, that would require you to hunt whales because, well, before global warming that's what they used for oil, right? But whale hunting is usually outlawed. What about olive oil? That's a no go, too, because olive trees won't grow in Sweden. Must only use olive oil that gets delivered to Sweden by sailing ship.

Etc., etc.

I mean, if you're going to go all purist like Greta says she wants to, you'd really have to go to extremes. It's really foolish and impractical.

 

[LSUmiss]

So I'll preface this by saying that I support her cause in a broad sense, however...

I'm distinctly not impressed by her activism, and I think she is doing more harm than good with frankly elitist publicity stunts like sailing across the Atlantic to attend the U.N. or even skipping school once a week in protest (a move that would get less privileged kids and their families in trouble with truancy officials). Nothing hampers the consensus building needed to force real change like that sort of backhanded guilt trip/demand that average people who can't afford a six-figure sailing voyage simply give up traveling for the sake of the environment, or the display of privilege inherent in flouting rules others are expected to live by for the sake of a cause. And putting a young, uneducated voice center stage rather than finding someone who can speak with both expertise and passion detracts from the seriousness of the issue.

I respect what she's trying to do, and I lay a lot of the "blame" (which doesn't quite feel like the right word) for the poor way her activism is being handled at the feet of her parents (if anyone has "stolen her childhood", it is the parents who encourage/enable her obsession with this particular issue rather than pushing her to find balance between activism and joy, and children in teens involved in environmental programs all over the developed world somehow manage to do). But I believe that when it comes to matters of science, we should be listening to the scientific community. Not to spoiled children.

I think this is perfectly said!

 

[b2k1121]

So I'll preface this by saying that I support her cause in a broad sense, however...

I'm distinctly not impressed by her activism, and I think she is doing more harm than good with frankly elitist publicity stunts like sailing across the Atlantic to attend the U.N. or even skipping school once a week in protest (a move that would get less privileged kids and their families in trouble with truancy officials). Nothing hampers the consensus building needed to force real change like that sort of backhanded guilt trip/demand that average people who can't afford a six-figure sailing voyage simply give up traveling for the sake of the environment, or the display of privilege inherent in flouting rules others are expected to live by for the sake of a cause. And putting a young, uneducated voice center stage rather than finding someone who can speak with both expertise and passion detracts from the seriousness of the issue.

I respect what she's trying to do, and I lay a lot of the "blame" (which doesn't quite feel like the right word) for the poor way her activism is being handled at the feet of her parents (if anyone has "stolen her childhood", it is the parents who encourage/enable her obsession with this particular issue rather than pushing her to find balance between activism and joy, and children in teens involved in environmental programs all over the developed world somehow manage to do). But I believe that when it comes to matters of science, we should be listening to the scientific community. Not to spoiled children.

Scientists have been warning about the dangers of climate change for a very long time. The same people that hate Greta for speaking out aren't listening to them either.

 

[RamblingMad]

She's courageous, she knows how to get attention, but she's really preaching to the wrong people here...the audience her speech was directed at already believe climate change is real (what they don't agree on is the severity). But the real question is HOW do we fix it. If you need trillions of dollars to do it, what other programs do we skimp on? Does it make sense to ban air travel, should we tax 'environmentally unfriendly' activities more, etc. It's like she's telling us "guys cancer is bad!". Thanks we know...now give us some possible/realistic solutions...

This is the crazy nonsense that Fox News spews.

What she is asking for is regulations to make countries and industries accountable for their carbon foot print. The media obviously has to spin this to make it more dramatic.

By me businesses are trying to discourage straw usage and encourage reusable grocery bags. This is really because no one knows the impact of long term consumption of plastic. It’s definitely in sea salt.

 

[jamescanuck2001]

There are alarmists on both sides, but I don't see Greta as one of them. Greta is speaking out because our leaders are not doing enough to deal with the issue, which is true. We need more like Greta, not less.

Dealing with climate change does not mean a complete change in ways of life. Nice homes, convenient travel, large variety of goods are not mutually exclusive with changes to combat climate change. In any event, most of the changes will have secondary benefits:

Consumption = less meat for example = better health
Behavioural = walk/bike/transit/work from home = better health
Clean energy sources = cleaner air and water = better health

I see climate change as an opportunity for human civilization to evolve to the next level, moving on from dirty, dirty fossil fuels.