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
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.
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.
She's caused every conservative to despise a teenager so much that they send her death threats. Seeing tiny brains be threatened by a young girl is pretty impressive IMO.
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.
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.
You need to think more long term, next generation level. Because of her and others, kids will be born and raised with the mindset that the planet needs saving.
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.
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.