I really didn’t think her speech was so complicated, but to people who want to shoot the messenger, and ignore the message, it seems it’s still possible to mischaracterize what was said:
The point about her childhood being stolen came right after saying that right now she should be in school.
In other words, it’s very obviously not saying she thinks she’s materially worse off because of fossil fuels. Rolleyes.
It is saying that she feels she must dedicate much of her time, maybe the rest of her life, to this cause, instead of being in school, dating and whatever else.
Who knows, maybe she would have liked to have been a doctor or whatever, but instead she feels obligated to try to shame governments and the public into doing something about a growing threat that so many are complacent about.
Well done Greta, you’re not just a very brave, intelligent, passionate 16-year old, but one of the bravest people I know, period. But I’m afraid things are only going to get harder going forwards. There will be many people that will do all that they can to attack you personally, and ignore the actual message.
What?
In my experience, most people get nervous about giving a speech even in a friendly environment of just a few colleagues or relatives.
You really don’t think it takes bravery to stand in front of millions of people, including the world’s leaders right in front of you, and including millions of people who are likely to be hostile to you personally?
Or is your position so entrenched, that you cannot even say one positive word about this girl, even if it means fighting the English language and all common sense?
Cite? Or perhaps write a very brief essay on how your observation applies to, for example, the Revolution of 1776. In the essay, discuss the fact that after the Revolution the U.S.A. had, for many decades, an unprecedented low level of income inequality, as estimated by economic historians.
Who spoke of “unilateral”? It’s only a first step, but Google “Paris Agreement (Accord de Paris).”
Start a new thread if you have a sincere interest in this difficult topic. If, OTOH, your thesis is “Anything difficult is also impossible,” start a thread asking for counterexamples.
And not doing anything to address AGW is going to cost poor people as much or more than it does rich people. In many cases, it may cost them their lives.
ETA: the solution to that, to the extent that there is a solution, is for richer areas to assist the poorer areas. The richer areas got richer in large part by messing up the place, and quite reasonably should pay more to try to fix it. Is that going to impact you and me and a lot of people who don’t think they’re rich? Sure; but so will continuing merrily along a road that’s headed off a cliff.
Sure, it can do. Some others take to it like to a duck to water and bravery doesn’t come into it. I don’t know which camp she falls in to. In any case I really don’t think it makes her “one of the bravest people I know”. I suspect we just set the bar a little differently.
I mentioned earlier another young woman, Malala Yousafzai, who I think is magnificently impressive and a great speaker, powerful, thoughtful and insightful, far beyond what I hear from Greta. She is exceptional and exceptionally brave. She has taken a bullet and lives with the ever-present risk of death from religious extremists.
I’m neither positive nor negative on her, I don’t *have *a position on her personally and really just concern myself with what benefit, if any, her activism brings. She and I are on the same side and I have no doubt she is honestly committed and driven. Her drive and commitment is admirable. Does that count as a positive?
When we talk about bravery, we normally just look at the action and consider it brave if it is something that would take bravery for most people. We don’t try to second guess “oh, maybe it comes naturally for him?”, why would we start doing that now.
Furthermore, i didn’t just say it took bravery because of the fear of public speaking (and again, this is as public as it gets, many famous figures have confessed to throwing up before much smaller forums than this), but also hostility and even threats to her safety. If you think that’s not bravery then i don’t know what more i can say since i think you are not even being honest with yourself.
I think they are both brave. I don’t see any need to compare them.
I think she is having a positive effect for 2 reasons:
We’re talking about climate change again. I think a lot of people just tune out The UN is meeting about climate change again.
As mentioned, climate change deniers will often try to attack the man and not the message. A teenage girl is a slightly harder target. I’ve been surprised how many are still willing to hold their nose and proceed to the gutter, but I bet millions more are reluctant to do so or at least feel bad about it.
(This is not to say I think she’s being used in any way. There is no evidence of that and she certainly appears to have a lot of internal drive. I’m just talking about the positives / negatives of someone so young becoming a figurehead)
I think I probably do precisely that. An arachnophobe handling a little money spider is a far braver person that me handling a tarantula. A non-swimmer diving in to rescue a child would be a far braver person than I doing the same. Like I said, we are probably using the word in different ways.
OK, if she’s in direct danger from what she says and still continues to do it then I’d agree that would be brave.
Sure, and frankly I think I am using the word in the more standard way.
We cannot look inside people’s heads and know whether they are scared or not. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we assume that if someone does something that the vast majority of people would find terrifying, that they also found it terrifying, and give them credit for that.
If she does this kind of speech many times in the future, sure I can start to speculate that maybe she’s used to it and/or has unusual psychology, and ha no need for bravery.
This is going to sound mean, but I thought Asperger’s was doing the bravery for her. As I understand it people with Asperger syndrome have trouble interpreting facial expressions, understanding social cues, and changing topic. Bravery involves overcoming a challenge, such as the anxiety of public speaking. Due to her disorder, she may not mentally approach the state of anxiety associated with public speaking. If she never approached the challenge, let alone overcome it, I hesitate to call that bravery.
Her unusual focus on this single issue also appears to me to be a result of Asperger’s. “Normal” children will not sit at home feeling sick and depressed and unable to eat for days because they must go to school instead of protesting climate change.
This isn’t to say I take any ethos points away from Ms. Thunberg on account of her Asperger syndrome; I do not count that against her. I just do not give her credit in some places where I would have done so for a neurotypical child, and I am unpersuaded by some of her claims that would have been persuasive from the mouths of other children.
I invited the board to fight my ignorance before but nobody has taken me up, and I make the same request here.
This one is brave like the everyone gets a ribbon BRAVE! It takes bravery to stand up to our oppressors. It takes bravery to take on a job. It takes bravery to walk down the street. It takes bravery to cook dinner.
Novelty was right, the way you are using it, devalues the word.
Oil is so important that it is even used for renewable energy, e.g., mining, manufacturing, and shipping across thousands of km. But because of peak oil, more have to resort to other energy sources, all of which have low returns and quantity.
If the tipping point is above 300 ppm, then it is possible that even with lower fossil fuel use due to combinations of a resource crunch and financial collapse, the effects of global warming will continue for several decades.
Let me just say that you are the only person I know who beats the nuclear drum, especially in a quasi-polemical way, like you do. I read your OP, I have read your posts previously in a similar vein about nuclear power, and now I am trying to digest it. My post was thinking out loud by typing. When I’m doing that, generally I make more sense as I go.
Some of the questions this thread has me confronting are 1. How to quantify the lost opportunity that is nuclear power? 2. Does the credit/blame really lie with liberals on this?
Thinking about #1 gets me thinking about other things that mitigate climate change to make a comparison. If I compare it to this country’s lost opportunity wrt mass public transportation, it brings up what Jasmine was saying about the opposition of some private interests to solar power and addressing climate change in general. At one time we were moving towards widespread public mass transportation, but that basically got killed by auto and oil elites so they could sell more product. But everyone driving a personal car is a stinky, expensive, congested mess. There are more public benefits to public transportation than just being far lower in emissions. But to realize it, it may have to be literally over the dead bodies of the auto and oil elites. “It’s not the government’s role to enact such ambitious public works projects.” “They’re going to harm our businesses. The Evil Government, picking winners and losers. Socialist nightmare!” Well, the private interests got their way, there is only so much public transportation in this country, and the much vaunted but never acted on “infrastructure” issue languishes.
Kind of brings me to #2. Without having really studied it, I believe there was effectively an anti-nuclear propaganda campaign waged by… ‘the Left’? ‘Hippies’? ‘Liberals’? I’m not sure how to peg it, ‘environmental activists’ is maybe the best I can do. Yup, some people did make a huge stink about the dangers of nuclear power. But are they the ones that really stopped it?
Because, consider: the same objection Jasmine’s economic elites have to public transportation applies to nuclear power. It will undermine their business interests in coal, natural gas, that kind of thing. They have a powerful incentive to kill nuclear power. Maybe it was really them that did the deed? Because, consider: while a bunch of longhairs were smoking dope and making signs out of cardboard admonishing the government to basically ban nuclear power, there was no countervailing (and like you say, probably better grounded in empirical information) pro-nuclear propaganda campaign out of our government like what GIGO describes in France. If it is so clearly in the public interest, why not? Did the economic elites pull their strings to ensure the government shut their yaps? That’s certainly happened in other cases, for example the GOP’s climate change gag rules in Congress and elsewhere.
I’m just chewing on the thread. ISTM anything “public interest” these days gets branded “SOCIALISM”, not because it actually is socialism but because it is bad for certain entrenched interests. These entrenched interests seem to have gone so far as to sabotage the economic stability of the United States by driving it ridiculously into debt, curtailing the government’s ability to do much of anything big for reasons beyond rhetoric, ideology or private interest.
And that brings us to the young woman at the UN. She looked the world leaders in the eye and wanted to know, “Why have you idiots been such fuckups on climate change over the last 40 years? Even a kid can understand the issue. Can’t you see that you are ruining the futures of me and my friends? Don’t you care?” Thing is, the private interests have only been so successful. Most of the leaders at the UN were representing countries that do want to get serious about the issue, if maybe a little belatedly. It is this country that has the stupidest, most nakedly corrupted public policies.
Is it because government officials are themselves corrupt? Well, if they were self-sacrificing men of honor they would have taken the necessary steps to do what was necessary, even at the cost of their careers, and they’d have slept soundly at night under the overpasses with their cardboard pillows and their cat food and their barrel fires and those knit gloves with the fingers cut off, content in the knowledge that they did the right thing. Thing is, this kind of self-sacrifice is something you find in old stories that also include talking snakes, pillars of fire, people floating up into the air or being raised from the dead and so on, but not so much in the real world. Is it because these politicians are inherently more corrupt than other men? I don’t really think so, I think they are more corrupted than corrupt.
By the economic elites. They make an offer that GOPers, at least, can’t refuse. They corrupt our elections, they allow foreign countries to participate in their programme of snowing the public on every damn thing, and they make voting and democracy mostly meaningless by helping gerrymander their guys into power, who go on to weaken the government by burdening it with impossible debts, and also undermining its institutions, destroying our prestige by presenting us as the buffoon nation on the world stage with our stooge leader, and more.
What do you think- if democracy itself is corrupted, broken and ineffective, are we going to have to get out the guillotine? How long do you think we have left to decide? Please don’t give me that, “It isn’t going to be literally Armageddon so drop the hyperbole (and maybe the whole issue with it)” Climate change accelerates every year, and the future looks bleaker all the time. Can we accept not addressing it because a few captains of industry prefer it that way? Since the obvious answer is “no”, what is it going to take,** XT**?
Well, if you want my take on both of these, I’d say that the first one it depends on what you are defining as opportunity. I don’t think that, no matter what, the US would ever have had 70+% of our energy production as nuclear. Even without all of the anti-nuclear interference and a public turned against nuclear at every opportunity, nuclear was and is expensive. It’s a huge upfront capital investment, and doesn’t make sense everywhere, regardless. In some regions, coal would have still happened because there is local availability and the threat of global warming wasn’t as pervasive 30 years ago as it is today…such as it is, even today.
What I think is realistic is that we could have, today, say double the amount of nuclear as we currently have, and the nuclear energy industry could be a stable, if not growing part of our energy mix, perhaps with innovations and new, safer and smaller plant designs, making it potentially more affordable and scalable than the reality of what we have. So, what would it mean if we had, oh, say 40% of our energy coming from long term nuclear plants that were going to live through their full life cycle, instead of a slowly dying 20% of plants that almost certainly won’t? I’d say that, alone, would have cut our CO2 emissions substantially. Couple that with just the rise in natural gas, pushing out coal, and I think we’d be well below any targets for GhG emissions that were set for us in Paris. Hell, we aren’t THAT far off the targets NOW. Personally, I think we’d be in a really good place…a better place than we are today wrt needing to substantially lower CO2 emissions. And this leaves aside all the other unhealthy stuff that’s happened because we’ve been burning so much coal for so long.
Obviously MMV…this is all just speculation, as we can’t go back and change history.
As for the second part, I don’t blame liberals, per se, for the mess we are in wrt nuclear. Or, I should say, I blame them as much as conservatives on this, as conservatives haven’t exactly been pushing for nuclear the whole time. On both their parts it’s more apathy (broadly, wrt the groups as a whole, not individually) than active undercutting. Who I DO blame is the anti-nuclear groups, which I basically associate with more radical left wing organizations. Those groups, who generated fear and systematic opposition are the ones who screwed us (not just in the US), and have removed tool that would have been VERY helpful for fighting CO2 emissions world wide. On top of that, their push for solar was, IMHO, especially in the past, misguided, as I think we now HAVE tons of solar, and it’s causing problems of it’s own, since we don’t have the other things needed to really make it work the way we need it too. It’s actually costing us money, in some places, because there is too much energy during the day (forcing some companies to actually have to dump energy, unused, because there just isn’t any where to ship it too and no one who needs it right now, when it’s available) and not enough when folks actually use the stuff in the early evening and night, after work.
No, I don’t think we need to toss the baby out with the bath water. We don’t need a revolution. Those are, IMHO, the opposite of what is needed. I’m not sure how to fix our current political issues, except that, historically, when the political parties were going off the rails, and the political factions at each others throats, eventually some event or series of events managed to right the ship. The fallout was, several times, one of the major political parties going down and being replaces by a new one. This hasn’t happened in a while, but perhaps that’s where things are going. I THINK that’s what will happen…to me, the Republican party is on the cusp, and if they continue to hang their coat tails on Trump I think this is the eventual outcome. Maybe faster than people think, though that might be wishful thinking on my part.
As for climate change, I don’t think the future is as bleak as many make it out to be. Oh, I think it’s going to be bad, but I think we will survive. It’s just going to be harder times than we have gotten used too. I think that we, collectively are already doing things to start to mitigate the issue. Wind and solar are now mature technologies, costing a fraction of what they once did…and I expect that trend to continue. Distributed storage systems exist, and while expensive, I think those costs are also falling. It’s why I have a Tesla powerwall (2 actually) for my house to go with my own solar generation system. I’m in the optimal area for it, and I worked with the vendor to give me great coverage from mid-morning into the late afternoon, when the battery is able to take over for a good percentage of the night. My actual energy bills are below $20 a month…some months (late spring, summer and early fall) I actually get a check (well, a rebate or credit I guess) from the energy company and don’t pay anything. I’ll have the whole system paid off in less than 8 years at the rate I’m going. The cost to benefit still wasn’t really there, as the ROI was fairly long, but it was close…and I think over the next 5-10 years it will hit the sweet spot for affordability to a much wider audience. I can tell you in my neighborhood maybe half of the homes have solar now.
I also think that AEV are a coming thing. I was unconvinced for years, but in 2016 they crossed the 1 million production mark, world wide, which I think was a huge deal, and I expect that figure to continue to rise as the vehicles become more affordable and available and as their performance envelops curve to meet those of ICE vehicles. I think the car I have now will be my last ICE car…maybe my last fully manual driving vehicle as well, but we shall see.
All of this doesn’t mean we still aren’t going to get hammered by global climate change. Simply put, we are. We are going to have much more energetic storms, we are going to have much more flooding and many more droughts. The seas will rise…the temperature alone is going to make that happen, let alone an ice free arctic. So, those things are going to happen, and more. We will probably lose a lot more species as well…coral for sure is probably going to go mostly extinct, but a lot more in the oceans as the oceans absorb more and more CO2 and become increasingly more acidic. But we aren’t going to go extinct. Our civilization isn’t going to die and we go into some Mad Max dystonian world. We will get through this, and in a century or 2 (or 5 :() I think things will start to recover. In the mean time, we are starting to deal with this. I don’t think that we can deal with it much differently than we have been because I don’t believe anyone has the power to just force through the things that folks who are talking draconian measures want. It’s not possible, politically, do do that across the board. Oh, in a small country you could, if your people are mostly on board, but not in the really large ones, and not globally. Basically, you have to convince people there is a long term threat and that they are going to have to make personal sacrifices to address that threat. That’s really, REALLY difficult to do. And the reality is, it takes time. It’s taken decades so far, and we aren’t there yet wrt the threat.
Circling back to the nuclear, I’ll just say that if all sides REALLY thought there was a threat, if we REALLY thought we needed draconian measures, then we’d be building nuclear power plants like crazy, we’d be approving some of the new designs for testing and evaluation, and we’d have been doing thing for at least a decade at this point. There are, currently only around 60 nuclear power plants in the US with something like 100 total reactors…a number that is slowly dwindling. If we had 120 power plants and 200 reactors, something that would cost between $1-4 trillion, then 40% we’d have substantially less CO2 generation happening today than we do. If global climate change was REALLY seen as a threat by all sides, this is low hanging fruit, as $1-4 trillion…or even $10 trillion…over a decade or two isn’t that much. It’s doable.
But, politically, it’s really not in the environment we have. Pretty much from every angle, it doesn’t make sense. Politically, economically…it’s a non-starter.
It would be cheaper to work to mitigate climate change to the extent that that is possible than it will be to deal with the effects. At least if the sea level rise predictions are true. Plus the spread of tropical disease is going to be slightly problematic.
The lack of nuclear is distressing. I wonder how much was foolish hippies and how much was foolish NIMBYs.
I’m inclined to give NIMBYs most of the blame for that, particularly in the wake of TMI and The China Syndrome, which made nuclear power seem a scary thing. After that, nobody wanted a plant anywhere near them.
It also doesn’t help, however, that we’ve not really come up with a good solution to the waste problem.
Cite? Or perhaps write a very brief essay on how your observation applies to, for example, the Revolution of 1776. In the essay, discuss the fact that after the Revolution the U.S.A. had, for many decades, an unprecedented low level of income inequality, as estimated by economic historians.