She’s gotten the issue of climate change to be a major issue with young voters
It’s really not her fault that the people in power have a vested interest in ignoring climate change.
Also she got Andrew Tate arrested so there’s that.
How to you figure the people in power have a vested interest in ignoring climate change? Seems like everyone has a vested interest in acknowledging any risk to our civilization.
Because they get a lot of money from fossil fuel companies.
And the others are just ignoring climate change to “own the libs”.
Not if they believe it won’t affect them, and if they can turn their power into connections with rich people willing to part with their wealth in exchange for the promise their civilisational-risk-increasing industries can press on unabated.
They haven’t shown much interest in practice.
Actions, not words.
OK now ask what word leaders and companies that hold power have actually achieved so far in the same period.
Speaking from a German perspective I feel like the Fridays for future movement has significantly affected (parts of) her generation. I have many colleagues whose kids are focusing on a diet with less environmental impact and also asking their parents to change.
It is impressive that it has been such a long running and wide spreading movement and I am sure that there will be many politicians, activists and entrepreneurs coming out of this movement in the future.
It is hard to expect anything more from a child who has been belittled constantly. I wish I would be standing up for my believes as strongly as she does.
Thunberg’s style is her best asset. She keeps making a simple point, without trying to complexify it. When people try to complexify it, she brings them back to the simple point:
- this is a major problem
- it will lead to death and destruction if not addressed
- we have a tendency to ignore it that needs to be counteracted
She uses the simplest possible language and stays on point. Which for some odd reason nobody else seems to be capable of.
Some will say she’s just a “cheerleader” but that’s kind of what we need if we’re going to address this. Political will is the constraining factor in our climate change response.
If your parents were multimillionaires and hired publicists and boat crews and built a brand around those beliefs, I’m sure you would have too.
I think if my parents were multimillionaires I would be even more busy enjoying my life than fighting a fight with uneven odds.
Of course coming from a stable background makes it easier to be an activist, but it is still far from easy to devote your life to one cause.
A lot of rich kids just become spoiled and rich. What Greta did was special.
Awareness
conservatives made a whole smear campaign against her to try and silence her and demoralize her, and she’s only stood up even more for it. Can’t say she’s done nothing if they’re trying so hard to discredit her
deleted by creator
At bare minimum its to show that there are still groups willing to oppose mass pollution, in the hopes that at some point someone with power will make the right call and safe the planet.
Is it naive? Quite a bit, but sad complacency isn’t helping much either. As many of these groups are quite young many including Greta may also go into actual politics later in life (if she isnt yet) then these past incidents serve as proof of authenticity, similar to the pic of Bernie Sanders getting carried away.
Think it was very brave of her to stand up and say that, to say she wants the right to life, to not be forced to inherit a dead planet, and that’s a very bold and self aware statement for a teenager to make. It’s one that obviously made a lot of people uncomfortable because it shoves what we’ve all been complacent in in our faces. To have a child tell us to our faces that we’re all responsible for killing the planet (and especially those in charge) and that it’s their lives we’ve ruined - well that takes a lot of guts. (and it needs to be said)
This site quickly turned into reddit-style bandwagoning and downvoting stuff you disagree with, huh
deleted by creator
We’re way beyond saving by planting trees. We’re way beyond saving by picking up trash on the streets. This is a worldwide systemic issue that can NOT be solved by individuals reducing their carbon footprint, we as a species need a negative carbon footprint to survive this century, or even these next few decades, or even these next few years. We have a transport problem, we have a factories problem, we have an affluence problem, a conglomerates problem, we have a capitalism problem, we have a “progress” problem.
It’s ridiculous to get angry at a child that sees all this and cries out in desperation, most of us will die before she and her generation does, and they’re going to be left with a mess beyond repair. And it’s not because Timmy ate a burger or because Anne didn’t pick up trash in a park, nor is it because Bob commutes using a car, it’s because our economic system demands “progress” at all cost right this moment. It’s because our cities around the world prioritize cars and cheap individualistic transportation. It’s because prices need to be stable, so let’s throw products away to create a limit on supply. It’s because it’s more profitable to implement planned obsolescence than it is to implement renewability and durability into products. This is clearly not something that can be solved by a single person, whether that person is an everyday anon who does his or her best to reduce their carbon footpront, or whether that is a kid addressing the world leaders while in distress about her future life in this world. The change that needs to happen is revolution, and the world is too complacent and too scared of taking such actions to save itself, and I can’t really blame people for it, even if we should.
deleted by creator
She opened my eyes to something that should have been obvious.
Eternal economic growth is a fairy tale that’s killing us.
What did you achieve since 2018?
Main things is that Gen Z is ashamed of travelling by plane
They do it anyway though.
A full plane is still greener than a car with 1-2 passengers.
I was thinking about doing the math awhile ago, because a full A320 Neon only uses 1,5l per passenger for 100 km. They just don’t burn the same fuel and at different altitudes.
A full plane is still greener than a car with 1-2 passengers.
That may be true if you’re going the same distance, but planes go a lot farther. A lot of plane trips are unnecessary, and wouldn’t be made at all if the plane wasn’t an option. Many car trips are also unnecessary, but given modern infrastructure, they tend to be more necessary than plane trips.
Per kg-km flying is higher carbon impact than driving, no matter how full the plane is.
It just isn’t. A car would need at least 2 passengers to beat a plane, maybe 3-4 depending on the car. Jet engines are incredibly efficient and planes carry a lot of people. If they all hopped in cars, the planet would turn into a smog hellscape.
If you care about personal emissions so much, take a train.
Sorry - I don’t expect you to change your own habits or something, this isn’t personal. I work in this space, so to me it’s just a fact and not a matter of opinion. Air travel results in higher carbon emissions per kg-km than road travel by about an order of magnitude. Even for long haul flights.
The GREET model: https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/articles/greet-greenhouse-gases-regulated-emissions-and-energy-use-transportation
It’s been five whole years and this teenager hasn’t defeated all of global capitalism, what’s she even doing?
What have you achieved in the past 5 years?
What she (and other climate activists) have done and do is spread awareness about this issue. As you can imagine, it’s important to keep important topics (arguably even the most important topic humanity faces, yes even more important than soccer (lol)) present in media and in people’s heads for them to not be forgotten soon after again. People need to be constantly reminded that our current way of life currently destroys our planet, especially considering that not much happened to steer against this problem within the last couple of years after the Paris agreement. And we don’t even know many of the tipping points that could accelerate disaster even further. When some ecosystems stop existing and food chains become disrupted, for example.
In a way, she’s like a PR person for the most important topic in science currently. And she (and other climate actrivists) is successful at it, considering it’s so often in the news and so many of the polluters hate her and try to discredit her and others.
Always remember though: it’s about the problem, not specific people. Of course we like talking about people, and the media does it as well, but as the saying goes, “small minds discuss people, great minds discuss ideas”. It’s about the problem at hand, irrelevant of Greta or other activists. She’s just trying to bring the point across to a mass audience, that’s all. We (as in: the whole humanity, no exceptions) need to take action against the problem, not talk about Greta. This “ad hominem” strategy is sometimes deliberately used as a distraction away from the issue at hand. When articles talk about Greta or try to discredit her or whatever, then the debate is shifted away from the actual problem at hand. Even articles about her in a positive light are, in the end, irrelevant. It’s not about her, or other climate activists. She even says that herself. If the activists didn’t exist, we’d still face the exact same problem.
Five years later this is a relevant question. So her awareness campaign is at least as effective as Susan G. Komen.
Hopefully Greta’s legacy is more then just a non-profit that steals from desperate cancer patients but given the genesis of her brand, I doubt it.
She has achieved nothing because we’re so far past words on these issues.
Most humans must die.
I think its true that we must reduce the population before earth does it for us. But theres no way anyone (in a significant amount) would agree to do it by willingly die (or having people they know die) for it.
So we’re left with birth control. Which we never gonna be able to do globally because so many think of birth rate as a way to win a culture war.
Are you going to volunteer?
Holy fuck im so sick of these comments. How about you volunteer instead?
deleted by creator
Why should I volunteer to die for someone elses ideas? Do you support conscription or something? Or are you just angry for no reason and lashing out?
I’m doing my part to ensure I die at a respectably young age by my own hand, yes.
Edgy. And stupid.
Keep going, I’m almost there
