The person selected was Greta Thunberg. I think that’s a decent choice. She certainly had an impact.
Do you think Time made the right choice? Who would you rather have been selected if not?
I think another strong possibility would have been the whistleblower that started the Trump impeachment process. Although they kind of did that in general in 2017.
They’ve done non-people in the past, so another option would have been “The Climate Crisis”. However, they’ve done so many non-people lately, I kind of understand why they chose not to go that route. Greta kind of represents the climate crisis (for good or bad) at the moment in the mainstream.
She’s had no impact, nothing has changed, a year from now few people will remember her name. At best she’ll end up as a trivia game answer. Also note that Time selected her as an outstanding teenager or something like that last year, this is just lazy self-promotion on their part.
I disagree. Climate change isn’t going anywhere. This isn’t just an issue of the day that will fade away as times change. Rather, climate change is going to be with us for a very long time and getting progressively worse as time goes on. I can see her being a major player on the side of reversing AGW for a long time to come. I see no reason to think she’s just looking for her 5 minutes of fame. Even if she personally does fade into obscurity there are people out there her age who are going to be the leaders on this issue 20-30 years from now, and in a sense her selection is representative for all future leaders on the side of reversing AGW.
Obviously she’s the most famous new face of 2019; in that sense Time made a logical choice. It’s a bet, I guess. If she does change anything they’ll look like geniuses.
I agree, though, that she almost certainly won’t, and there is a grossness to a kid with significant psychological problems being thrust into the spotlight, and now Time is part of that.
I think the broader impact of Greta is the “speaking truth to power.” People feel more emboldened to stand up to the established power structures. I think it is important to remind those in power that they are in power at our sufferance.
Not much directly given who the current leaders are of the nations who are able to most do something positive about the issue. Her impact is in getting people to realize that the issue is not going to go away. If Bolsonaro is addressing her, it’s because he has to realize at some level that his side is bound to lose either way. Even if they win politically today, they (admittedly along with the rest of us) will lose a stable environment favorable to humans in the future.
Yeah, when you have world leaders calling you a brat (among other things), then you know you’ve had an impact of some sort. Although I think the reaction is only 50% about the climate crisis. I think people in power are simply not used to having the common folk expressing their outrage so directly and publically. Frankly, her message on climate change is only ok, because some of the rhetoric she uses is unhelpful. But she’s passionate, like I get it, but it gives holes through which opponents to attack, and try to diminish the entire message. But, as I posted above, I think the broader impact is in the speaking truth to power. The powerful elite cannot simply hide behind their ingrained power structures as much. So in that sense, I think her actions were important and a real sign of the times. I still think Hong Kong protestors probably should have had the win. I wonder if Time was afraid of the Chinese government’s reaction?
Clearly a person has had no impact when the so-called president of the United States decides to take potshots on Twitter. Maybe very painful imaginary bone spurs make a person lash out when a flareup occurs.
