'Global leaders are to blame'...a(nother) discussion about climate change

[XT]

So, I’m sure everyone has heard or read about Greta Thunberg, blasting ‘global leaders’ and telling them that they are to blame for the lack of progress on climate change. Here is a CNN article on it, though if you don’t like them here is the BBC one.

Some quotes from the CNN article:

(CNN)Greta Thunberg doesn’t mince words. Not even when addressing the world’s most powerful people.

“We are in the beginning of a mass extinction and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth,” the Swedish climate activist told the United Nations General Assembly on Monday. “How dare you?”

Speaking during the UN Climate Action Summit in New York, the 16-year was visibly frustrated with her audience and at times appeared to be holding back tears of anger.

From the BBC:

“You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words,” she told a UN climate summit in New York.

To me, this is the crux of what I want to discuss/debate (back to the CNN article):

Thunberg’s message to the leaders was clear. Like many times in the past, she accused them of not doing enough to mitigate climate change. “For more than 30 years, the science has been crystal clear, how dare do you continue to look away?”

So, for debate let’s start off with…do you agree? HAVE the global leaders stolen her childhood and her dreams? Has the global leadership failed to do what they could to mitigate climate change? Is it their fault that we are where we are?

To head off the poster(s) who always seems to start off in these debates by coyly asking the OP what s/he thinks (and then never really answers the OP but uses that as a spring board to just attack said OP), I’ll say…no, I don’t think her childhood has been stolen. Not sure about her dreams, of course. Can’t speak to that. But IMHO she hit the birth lottery. Born in a 1st world country, in the golden age of our species, she has benefited from fossil fuels in every aspect of her life. There is no aspect of her stolen life that hasn’t benefited hugely from humanities use of fossil fuels for the last 150 years. Were she a very poor person living in a 3rd world country threatened by rising sea levels and the ramping up impact due to human caused climate change, THEN she’d have a case for the outrage and tears. Of course, then she wouldn’t have access to all of the things that allowed her to step on the world stage in all her outrage. The very things that she decries are what let her do what she’s done…hell, to even really be connected and know about them, let alone to have her voice heard.

So, has the global leadership failed her and everyone else in mitigating global climate change? I’d say…sort of, but not in the way she means. I think, especially in Europe, they HAVE tried, to the extent possible (and perhaps even more than they should have) to do so, despite the cost to their own economies and their own people. Prices for energy are high in much of Europe BECAUSE they have done so much to try and mitigate the issue. But the failing, IMHO, of the ‘global leadership’ has been in pushing for solar and wind, and either ignoring or actively pushing against nuclear energy. 30 years ago, this was the only REAL, viable option. Even today, I think it is, but 30 years ago? What else was there? Electric cars are only just recently becoming really viable…and they STILL aren’t quite there yet, though they are certainly closing the gap. Give it another 10 or maybe 20 years and they will be there. But they certainly weren’t 30 years ago. So, I’m unsure what she thinks the ‘global leadership’ COULD have actually done that they didn’t do 30 years ago.

To me, this is a naked appeal to emotion with this girl. With a lot of underlying left wing talking points tossed in (not quite as much as the New Green Deal™). IMHO of course. It’s especially galling, to me, that a privileged white girl from Sweden is the poster child and given such a platform. It underscores, to me, the growing hysteria about global climate change being the apocalypse (now), the end of all civilization and perhaps the species. I’ve seen this build up on this board in these threads. Maybe it will be…but that isn’t a sure thing by any stretch. It’s also just wrong that ‘global leadership’ has done nothing to try and mitigate this for the last 30 years.

Even in the US this isn’t the case. Hell, even in China it’s not (I’d be willing to concede that in Russia…yeah, they really haven’t done much and have even talked about the supposed benefits, to Russia, of climate change)…not completely, though I think their focus isn’t on climate chance so much as other environmental issues. Simply put, however, we CAN’T…CAN NOT…just wave this issue away. There isn’t some silver bullet fix for this in the real world. We can’t stop using fossil fuels, or even seriously cut them back…not yet. We are moving towards stuff that COULD seriously take a bite out of it. Electric cars, solar and wind coupled with some sort of energy storage system, even just moving from coal to natural gas will help. Nuclear COULD have been something that ‘global leaders’ could have and should have pushed for 30 years ago, but, realistically, no…they couldn’t. Because at the time, and certainly today, there is huge public push back on it.

Anyway, thoughts? Do you think that the global leadership has failed on mitigation strategies for the last 30 years? If so, what do you think they should have done? Do you think that Greta is a good poster child for this issue? Were you emotionally engaged by her tearful appeal and castigation of the world leadership?

[begbert2]

It’s pretty obvious that most world leaders could have done more to mitigate climate change. There are even things they could have done that wouldn’t have promptly resulted in them being deposed. And if they were willing to flirt with being deposed they could probably have done even more, possibly with dire effects on various industries.

It really comes down to how many eggs you want to break while making your omelette. Had I had strong emotions as a sixteen year old, I probably would have been willing to break a lot of eggs.

[XT]

@begbert2

It’s pretty obvious that most world leaders could have done more to mitigate climate change. There are even things they could have done that wouldn’t have promptly resulted in them being deposed. And if they were willing to flirt with being deposed they could probably have done even more, possibly with dire effects on various industries.

It really comes down to how many eggs you want to break while making your omelette. Had I had strong emotions as a sixteen year old, I probably would have been willing to break a lot of eggs.

Can you name some? I mean, realistic things they could do without being in complete control of their countries from a President for Life Xi or President By Huge Margin Putin perspective? To me, the real issue is that they really can’t just do anything they want…and, frankly, the public is the reason. All those rights and say and all. I mean, with what they have done there is some indication that the public is starting to balk in several countries. Even in Europe, let alone in the US where you have so many who out and out deny that there is even an issue or that human emissions are to blame.

[begbert2]

@XT

Can you name some? I mean, realistic things they could do without being in complete control of their countries from a President for Life Xi or President By Huge Margin Putin perspective? To me, the real issue is that they really can’t just do anything they want…and, frankly, the public is the reason. All those rights and say and all. I mean, with what they have done there is some indication that the public is starting to balk in several countries. Even in Europe, let alone in the US where you have so many who out and out deny that there is even an issue or that human emissions are to blame.

The one that lunges to mind is building nuclear reactors. Like, all over the place. In your backyard! Then decommission coal power plants, followed by natural gas.

Next, on the “get thrown out” side, take a long hard look at the beef industry, and see how well they could get along without things like “cows”.

Tax the living hell out of gasoline, and put the money towards electric car research. It’s not like the concept of an electric car is new - the first one was built in the early 1800s.

If you happen to be leading one of those countries where they’re burning down the rainforest for farmland, send out the army.

Stuff like that.

[Velocity]

In a certain sense, it’s the voters and people to blame, not the leaders. The voters would vote against any sweeping climate-change legislation that would hurt their pocketbooks badly. And in a place like China, which emits vast quantities of carbon, the very legitimacy of the Communist Party depends on economic growth and the affluence of the people. Beijing couldn’t sign off of anything that reduces carbon meaningfully but inflicts major harm on its economy. The people won’t allow it.

[XT]

@begbert2

The one that lunges to mind is building nuclear reactors. Like, all over the place. In your backyard! Then decommission coal power plants, followed by natural gas.

Next, on the “get thrown out” side, take a long hard look at the beef industry, and see how well they could get along without things like “cows”.

Tax the living hell out of gasoline, and put the money towards electric car research. It’s not like the concept of an electric car is new - the first one was built in the early 1800s.

If you happen to be leading one of those countries where they’re burning down the rainforest for farmland, send out the army.

Stuff like that.

I totally agree with you. All of those would help (well, not sure about the electric car one wrt 30 years ago). But I don’t think that ‘global leaders’ COULD have just done those by fiat, and they would have gotten a lot of push back over trying. Certainly, some countries can and have. France, for instance, basically just told it’s public they WOULD have nuclear, so shut up and cope. And Europe, as a whole, HAS done really good with taxing the crap out of gasoline, FWIW. But globally and on a macro scale, you just couldn’t do any of those. The US was not going to build a ton of nuclear plants, even though it would be a huge benefit, especially now, today, towards global CO2 emissions. We aren’t doing it NOW, when a large percentage of the population knows more about climate change than they did 30 years ago and you have real inroads on public opinion. If we can’t do it today, there is no way we could have done it in the past. Same goes for the rest. Meat, especially, is going to be tough, as is just convincing the nations in the Amazon that, perhaps it’s not such a great idea to burn the place down.

[enipla]

So, for debate let’s start off with…do you agree? HAVE the global leaders stolen her childhood and her dreams? Has the global leadership failed to do what they could to mitigate climate change? Is it their fault that we are where we are?

Thoughts you ask? OK. Under Trump, the US is quickly losing it’s global leadership role. That’s troubling. I think that comiting to a cause such as climate change, could do wonders for the world in many ways. Cooperation, common goals and a better life for all is quite a motivator IMHO.

It doesn’t mean you (or I) can’t have your pick up truck. It means making everything better. From better insulation to solar power. It’s not going to happen overnight, but we need to move in the right direction.

Perhaps we need more people like Greta. Yes, a little over the top perhaps, we have all had those moments. Are we in dire trouble? Not sure. But things look bad. Working to make the world a better place be it pollution or race relations or whatever should be applauded.

We have been taking action since Nixon and the EPA. It is being turned back. Do you remember the 70’s? A hell of a lot of progress has been made in only 50 years.

And now Trump wants to turn the clock back They only reason I can see is because it would roll back Obama administration policy. Yes, he is that small of a man.

The Trump admin claims this will make cars safer. This is what I would like explained.

They also say it will make them cheaper. More fuel burned brings up the price of gas on your car that gets less gas mileage. But such is Trumps understanding of economics.

Car companies aren’t going to re-tool and turn back the clock to make less efficient cars. He wants to sue them and CA for that.

We now have the most reliable, safest, fuel efficient and yes more bang for the buck under the hood as well as better handling cars we have ever had.

Gretta’s childhood has been stolen because a 9 year old should have to worry about this stuff.

[XT]

@Velocity

In a certain sense, it’s the voters and people to blame, not the leaders. The voters would vote against any sweeping climate-change legislation that would hurt their pocketbooks badly. And in a place like China, which emits vast quantities of carbon, the very legitimacy of the Communist Party depends on economic growth and the affluence of the people. Beijing couldn’t sign off of anything that reduces carbon meaningfully but inflicts major harm on its economy. The people won’t allow it.

I just disagree with the last part…sort of. Beijing (i.e. the CCP and, more specifically Xi and his faction) COULD do it. They won’t, of course, because it would be cutting their economic throat, and certainly part of their concern would be with their own public. They can, of course, push their public around quite a bit…but there are limits, and I think that this would cross a huge line for them (as would telling their people they can’t eat meat…man, I can just imagine the reaction to THAT being handed down by fiat from the CCP :p). But overall…yeah. We, the public, are to blame. But, realistically, it’s difficult to blame the public as I don’t see a lot that could be viably done that wouldn’t be a huge, even cataclysmic disruption. This isn’t just about rich fat cats and corporations. It’s about reality and the actual impact of fossil fuels on our civilization, and the continuation of said civilization. Viable options are just starting to become available (aside from the already mentioned nuclear…which isn’t actually viable from a political perspective). They MIGHT be ready for prime time in the next 10 years, on the sorts of scales we are talking about. If our leadership TODAY pushes hard. Energy storage solutions have been tested, but they just aren’t ready to scale up to the task to make wind and solar complete systems. Electric cars are just now starting to cross over to becoming viable mainstream products that every day folks could and would chose instead of ICE fossil fuel burners. In another 10 or 20 years we’ll even have some depth wrt a secondary market for used ones, I think, especially since from what I’ve seen the battery life for the new cars stays viable for a lot longer, as well as coming down in price. But those are things that we have BECAUSE there has been a push, especially in at least some of the ‘world leadership’ for this stuff. Corporations are on board BECAUSE of things like government subsidies or tax breaks or other incentives to buy them. It’s one of the major reasons why solar has become so cheap. The trouble is, we pushed for wind and solar without the other things we need to make them viable systems when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing. So, we are still on the hook for having to use fossil fuels until we fix that gap because nuclear really is a fading thing, we have mainly used up the hydro areas, and geothermal is also limited in where it can be used.

[Wesley_Clark]

@Velocity

In a certain sense, it’s the voters and people to blame, not the leaders. The voters would vote against any sweeping climate-change legislation that would hurt their pocketbooks badly. And in a place like China, which emits vast quantities of carbon, the very legitimacy of the Communist Party depends on economic growth and the affluence of the people. Beijing couldn’t sign off of anything that reduces carbon meaningfully but inflicts major harm on its economy. The people won’t allow it.

Yup. Its really our fault. THe biggest polluters (other than China) are all democracies.

I’ve seen polls how the majority of people support action on climate change, unless it costs them money. Then they don’t.

It wouldn’t even cost ‘that’ much money to address climate change. If the US government devoted 1/2 of 1% of GDP to public funds to combat it, that is $100 billion a year. That money in the form of subsidies, R&D, tax credits, etc. would probably lead to an additional $200+ billion in private spending a year.

[Max_S]

I’m not too well informed about climate change or energy conservation, despite being a young-ish person. So I guess I’m part of the problem. It probably reflects poorly on me that I consider climate change and energy conservation to be in the same category. I don’t even know if the major contributors (to either problem) are individual or industrial - although I suspect it is agricultural.

When I was her age (six years ago) there was talk that Florida will be underwater before my hair turned grey. I still don’t know what to think about that, but we already turn off all the lights and machines lest mosquitoes descend upon our home. They don’t bite, but if I leave one (1) light on they will pile up against the door and windows in such force as to suffocate themselves to death and coat the porch in about a centimeter of dead mosquito. And it’s so hot here that I usually leave the water all the way cool - about 72 degrees from the mains. I reuse grocery bags if I buy enough groceries to need a bag. Driving individual cars isn’t optional because I don’t live in a big city and work is about fifteen miles away, and my car is older than I am because… money. We have a mix of LED and fluorescent lightbulbs and I think three incandescent lamps that are never used anyways.

But at the local level nobody cares about global warming or ecological issues except for the citizens who want their local lake purged of algae. We don’t have heavy industry or agriculture in my area… except maybe sand and orange exports. Even the citrus groves are a rare sight compared to my childhood.

And so in school, the extent of my learning about the ecology was limited to testing water quality. I don’t think Sweden has too much of a say in the global climate anyways. I think the politics are far too intertwined with the economics and public opinion for activists to effect change through scientific argument. Ironically, I think she would make a bigger impact by making guest appearances at schools - if waiting two generations results in irreparable harm, then in my opinion the harm is already unavoidable. The only significant changes I see happening in the near-future are inadequate reactions to direct and tragic events.

~Max

[HurricaneDitka]

@XT

So, for debate let’s start off with…do you agree? HAVE the global leaders stolen her childhood and her dreams? …

No. She’s a rich girl, and now famous too. She’ll almost certainly live a fine life and have very little to complain about (which probably won’t keep her from complaining about every imagined slight / offense).

@XT

… To me, this is a naked appeal to emotion with this girl. With a lot of underlying left wing talking points tossed in (not quite as much as the New Green Deal™). IMHO of course. …

I agree. I’d call it ‘climate theater’. It was a bit of performance art, and I didn’t find it the least bit convincing.

@XT

… It’s especially galling, to me, that a privileged white girl from Sweden is the poster child and given such a platform. …

When I heard she would be speaking to the UN, I wondered how many 16-year-old girls have addressed the UN. Is this a common thing? Has it ever happened before?

@XT

… It underscores, to me, the growing hysteria about global climate change being the apocalypse (now), the end of all civilization and perhaps the species. I’ve seen this build up on this board in these threads. …

“Hysteria” is a good word for it. Kind of reminds me of this story:

@"Zach

You and your friends will die of old age and I’m going to die from climate change. You and your friends let this happen, which is going to cut 40 years off my life expectancy.

Wrong.

[Max_S]

@HurricaneDitka

When I heard she would be speaking to the UN, I wondered how many 16-year-old girls have addressed the UN. Is this a common thing? Has it ever happened before?

Malala Yousafzai appeared before the United Nations on her sixteenth birthday, July 12, 2013. She had long been a voice for girls in the Swat District of Pakistan through the BBC, and the Taliban shot her in the head in 2012. She would go on to receive the Nobel Peace Prize in 2014 at age 17.

~Max

[XT]

Good responses so far…appreciate it. Thought I’d get a lot more heat, to be honest.

@enipla

Thoughts you ask? OK. Under Trump, the US is quickly losing it’s global leadership role. That’s troubling. I think that comiting to a cause such as climate change, could do wonders for the world in many ways. Cooperation, common goals and a better life for all is quite a motivator IMHO.

I agree…Trump has done a lot of bad things wrt the environment. Hell, he’s actually fighting AGAINST the market wrt coal. I’m not sure why America has to be the leader on all this stuff. Well…ok, I DO know why we need to, but I’m not sure it’s our job too. We are actually doing quite a bit already wrt pushing and developing technology.

Here’s the thing about Trump, though. He’s only been in office for 3 years. I know it SEEMS like 3 decades, which is what the OP is talking about as that was the figure used, but it’s really only 3 years. So, this issue, assuming it is one, has been on going for quite a while. In addition, despite what seems to be popular wisdom, Trump doesn’t work in a vacuum. He actually did win the presidency by getting more folks in the right states with the right number of EC votes to vote for him. And he’s got quite a following on climate issues. Unlike his Chinese or Russian counter parts, he IS actually answerable to the electorate, and he’s not above the law, despite threads arguing he is.

It doesn’t mean you (or I) can’t have your pick up truck. It means making everything better. From better insulation to solar power. It’s not going to happen overnight, but we need to move in the right direction.

I agree. Hell, I’ll go one better…I think we already are, despite Trump et al. The market is already shifting, and not just in the US (or mainly in the US). It’s shifting world wide. It actually makes economic sense to go green, as in some cases it actually saves money in the medium term. I think electric cars are going to be an increasing thing…and this, AFTER the subsidies are gone. Just become of the huge investment by industry in the technology, as well as acceptance by the public. Solar and wind are already here. Solar, especially, is going like gang busters. The problem is that a lot of the early solar push was done by the government, and they didn’t think through the implications…especially the implications of doing that at the same time you are trying to cut out fossil fuels like coal AND get rid of nuclear. That’s the problem with government mandated solutions, they are top down and don’t really take all the implications and ramifications into account. The people deciding or making the unilateral decision on what is ‘the right direction’ don’t always have all the information or understanding/knowledge. They have feelings, emotions and energy. It’s why command economies do so poorly.

Perhaps we need more people like Greta. Yes, a little over the top perhaps, we have all had those moments. Are we in dire trouble? Not sure. But things look bad. Working to make the world a better place be it pollution or race relations or whatever should be applauded.

Totally disagree, though I don’t disagree that she should speak her mind. Perhaps not to the UN and ‘world leaders’, however. But what we REALLY need (beside someone to make the public understand that after 30 years of propaganda, nuclear really isn’t as dangerous as they have been lead to believe) is engineers and scientists to make some modest break throughs in energy storage, AI and lossless (or at least less loss) energy transport systems. And I think we have that. It’s happening.

The real issue is, we are going to have to suck it up for a few decades or centuries because it will get a lot worse before it gets better. Maybe some Asimov tech will come along that allows us to seriously reverse green house gasses that are already in the atmosphere and roll that back, but that’s a big maybe. But what we need is to face that, instead of telling folks it’s the end of the world and everyone is going to die or civilization is going to end due to climate change. It WILL be bad. But it won’t be as bad as, apparently, the kids today are being told it would. We aren’t going to, tomorrow, stop using fossil fuels. We are already moving towards a greener energy system (well, most of us are), and greener transport system…but these things are going to, realistically, take time to propagate. I don’t think that ‘world leaders’ CAN do much more. We can’t force China (or the US or Russia) to drastically cut their CO2 emissions in the short term. We can’t force Germany to stop decommissioning their nuclear plants and replacing them with coal because of the short term issues. It’s not possible to do. It won’t happen. No matter how much wishful thinking, or how many impassioned 16 year olds berate the UN, it’s not possible without disruptions that WOULD really crush this young girls hopes and dreams, as well as her future. So, we need to suck it up.

Doesn’t mean there isn’t anything we can do. We can and should push. Push for energy storage solutions. Subsides that to a great extent and see the market solutions pour in, just like they did with wind and solar and all EVs. I doubt, at this late date, that nuclear is possible, unless there is some sort of major breakthrough, which is unfortunate. We COULD be in a really good place today, with wind and solar on stream and nuclear there for peak and baseline load. But we aren’t, and we aren’t going to be, so we need to work with what we have. Part of that is accepting that we ARE doing things about this, and we ARE making an effort, and we HAVE come a long way. And that we are still going to have some bad times ahead, that we need to prepare ourselves for, economically as well as politically and from an emergency response perspective. But telling the kids they have no future, and all is lost if we don’t do all this drastic, unrealistic stuff? No, I don’t think we need that. YMMV of course.

Gretta’s childhood has been stolen because a 9 year old should have to worry about this stuff.

You know, this is actually a bit offensive, coming from my perspective. Why shouldn’t she have to worry about this stuff at 9, or 16? you realize that, at those ages, the majority of humans DO have to worry about stuff all the time, including both the weather and the climate…right? When I was a kid, I had to worry about a LOT of things that Gretta doesn’t. And my folks were a LOT worse off. And we were the lucky ones, the ones who got to come to the US so that our kids wouldn’t have to worry (as much) about stuff. But my childhood wasn’t stolen because I had to worry about shit…and neither is hers. She will live a live that a lot of humans can’t even dream about. And, frankly, that’s BECAUSE of the two edged sword that is fossil fuels. The other side of the coin is, fossil fuels and their use has brought more folks out of poverty and helped our civilization more than anything else in our history. At the same time, it’s ALSO become a serious issue that we now need to fix. And, I think we already are.

More can be done, no doubt. But we are and have been doing as much as, IMHO, could be done without a totalitarian government driving it. And even WITH a complete Chinese or North Korean totalitarian system I don’t think we could do that much more, as people just aren’t going to go along. It’s not ‘world leaders’…it’s us. All of us. And changing the perceptions of not only Americans, not only Europeans, but all humans is just not something that you can do in a year…or even a decade. Or even 3. Not to an extent more than we already have. At least, again, not IMHO.

[octopus]

I don’t think her childhood or dreams were stolen. I also don’t see any human led solution to climate change. We are biological and have a preference to the survival and prosperity of our families and tribe/nation as opposed to self sacrifice for the globe. Even a critical mass of altruistic folks will in time be replaced.

There are policies that could make a difference but at the expense of deliberate, strategic self-handicapping what nation can afford to unilaterally make enact them?

[Chronos]

In a democracy, we are the leaders. We’re to blame.

HurricaneDitka, how many millions of lives lost does it take before it stops being “hysteria”? How many trillions of dollars of damage?

[XT]

@Max_S

Malala Yousafzai appeared before the United Nations on her sixteenth birthday, July 12, 2013. She had long been a voice for girls in the Swat District of Pakistan through the BBC, and the Taliban shot her in the head in 2012. She would go on to receive the Nobel Peace Prize in 2014 at age 17.

~Max

Now THAT is a time when a 16 year old’s voice needed and should be heard, and it was the right message. Sadly, I don’t think it’s really helped that much wrt the Taliban and their various depredations, but it is something that the UN needed to hear about.

I don’t have an issue with a 16 year old person giving an impassioned speech to the UN assembly. I don’t think this was the right message by the right person at this time, but I freely concede that MMV. Some may be totally inspired by the message and the messenger as well as the delivery. I wasn’t, but I’m…odd. So, grain of salt.

[GIGObuster]

@octopus

I don’t think her childhood or dreams were stolen. I also don’t see any human led solution to climate change. We are biological and have a preference to the survival and prosperity of our families and tribe/nation as opposed to self sacrifice for the globe. Even a critical mass of altruistic folks will in time be replaced.

There are policies that could make a difference but at the expense of deliberate, strategic self-handicapping what nation can afford to unilaterally make enact them?

One overall argument that I see that is flawed: assuming that other nations that do not answer to their people will not do much about this issue. It misses the point that they also love their children too; and if not that, the coming unrest as a result of not doing the proper thing by less democratic nations is bound to lead to the end of their governments.

[XT]

@GIGObuster

One overall argument that I see that is flawed: assuming that other nations that do not answer to their people will not do much about this issue. It misses the point that they also love their children too; and if not that, the coming unrest as a result of not doing the proper thing by less democratic nations is bound to lead to the end of their governments.

This is a really good point. We can actually look at China and what they are actually doing (as opposed to what they SAY they are doing) wrt the environment as a good example of this. They are a totalitarian government. Yet, that same government does see the climate disaster they are in, and is actually taking steps to fix some of the systemic issues they are having with water and food quality, as well as of course air quality.

[Max_S]

@enipla

Gretta’s childhood has been stolen because a 9 year old should have to worry about this stuff.

I don’t mean to offend with my ignorance, but it was my understanding that Ms. Thunberg has Asperger’s Syndrome, and that this - not the issue itself - contributes to her unusual and singular focus on climate change as compared with other children. I think it’s a good thing for her to be an activist if it makes her and her family happy, but I don’t know for sure if she can enjoy a “normal childhood” without pursuing such advocacy.

I am way out of my area of expertise to talk about autism so please do let me know if I have it all wrong.

~Max

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Chronos

In a democracy, we are the leaders. We’re to blame.

Aye.

Leaders by definition lead. Many people have led many people other people to believe that climate change is a hoax. Yes, those so-called leaders are, among others, to blame.