Opinion of Greta Thunberg

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Her parents are 100% behind this whole thing

     I find it very curious how a movement that purports the benefits of education frequently looks to children as leading figures. I'm not a fan of hers and I voted HP, but I also have sympathy as I see that she's being used by adults.

The idea that’s now being peddled that fifteen year-olds are incable of having thoughts of their own is indredibly stupid. If she was, say, nine or something you might have a point, but at 15 most people who have defined political views are far beyond being carbon copies of their parents.

For myself, I see no reason to question the sincerity of her convictions and her motivation as completely her own.  I do wonder whether the adults in her life are serving her well by going along with all of this, just as more generally I question the wisdom of the rhetoric surrounding this issue as it is presented to children, who have been told both that they have a responsibility to save the planet and that by the time they are adults it will be too late.

[HisGrace]

I think she's an example of how the left turns environmental stuff into a losing issue when it could be a winning issue. Their proposition on climate change is that excessive emissions are going to have very negative consequences down the line. The excessive emissions are being caused by a tiny number of very rich people who live extravagant life styles. It would be an easy case to make that a tiny number of rich people are being wasteful and hurting everyone else. Lots of people could get hind that. But instead they harass middle and lower class people about eating meat and driving when that stuff is a tiny drop in the bucket and any effort you make in those areas is just going to be counteracted by some CEO flying around in his private jet.

Something I've observed about the left and right is that the right likes to narrow social problems down and find a scapegoat, while the left likes to expand social problems and usually end up talking about how everything is "society's" (AKA everyone's) fault. The right's approach is much smarter and a much easier argument to make.

A lot of this is that some people are very distressed that nothing they do personally is going to have any impact on climate change and stuff like Thunberg's campaign is just an attempt to feel like they have control over it.

People saying nasty stuff about her is awful, though. There's no reason to be angry with her.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I think she's an example of how the left turns environmental stuff into a losing issue when it could be a winning issue. Their proposition on climate change is that excessive emissions are going to have very negative consequences down the line. The excessive emissions are being caused by a tiny number of very rich people who live extravagant life styles. It would be an easy case to make that a tiny number of rich people are being wasteful and hurting everyone else. Lots of people could get hind that. But instead they harass middle and lower class people about eating meat and driving when that stuff is a tiny drop in the bucket and any effort you make in those areas is just going to be counteracted by some CEO flying around in his private jet.

Something I've observed about the left and right is that the right likes to narrow social problems down and find a scapegoat, while the left likes to expand social problems and usually end up talking about how everything is "society's" (AKA everyone's) fault. The right's approach is much smarter and a much easier argument to make.

A lot of this is that some people are very distressed that nothing they do personally is going to have any impact on climate change and stuff like Thunberg's campaign is just an attempt to feel like they have control over it.

People saying nasty stuff about her is awful, though. There's no reason to be angry with her.

Except it isn't true that the emissions problem is being caused by a very few rich people.  It has more to do with billions of people moving into a global industrial economy.  If it were just a few fat cats, it would be an easy fix: we wouldn't have to conserve or change our lifestyles or even pay a bit more for energy in order to transition to more sustainable sources.  Warren, trying to pin the blame for climate change on a few corporations to make it sound easy to fix, claimed most of it is from "three industries."  The problem is those three sources - transportation, energy and ... industry - implicate our lifestyles, our landscape, our  economy.
Dramatic, swift action on this would more complicated than what Thurnburg assumes. The problem is not just a lack of willpower or compassion, as important as those are.  There are hard choices involved, and it's not just good versus evil & people versus profit. 

[GoTfan]

I think she's an example of how the left turns environmental stuff into a losing issue when it could be a winning issue. Their proposition on climate change is that excessive emissions are going to have very negative consequences down the line. The excessive emissions are being caused by a tiny number of very rich people who live extravagant life styles. It would be an easy case to make that a tiny number of rich people are being wasteful and hurting everyone else. Lots of people could get hind that. But instead they harass middle and lower class people about eating meat and driving when that stuff is a tiny drop in the bucket and any effort you make in those areas is just going to be counteracted by some CEO flying around in his private jet.

Something I've observed about the left and right is that the right likes to narrow social problems down and find a scapegoat, while the left likes to expand social problems and usually end up talking about how everything is "society's" (AKA everyone's) fault. The right's approach is much smarter and a much easier argument to make.

A lot of this is that some people are very distressed that nothing they do personally is going to have any impact on climate change and stuff like Thunberg's campaign is just an attempt to feel like they have control over it.

People saying nasty stuff about her is awful, though. There's no reason to be angry with her.

Except it isn't true that the emissions problem is being caused by a very few rich people.  It has more to do with billions of people moving into a global industrial economy.  If it were just a few fat cats, it would be an easy fix: we wouldn't have to conserve or change our lifestyles or even pay a bit more for energy in order to transition to more sustainable sources.  Warren, trying to pin the blame for climate change on a few corporations to make it sound easy to fix, claimed most of it is from "three industries."  The problem is those three sources - transportation, energy and ... industry - implicate our lifestyles, our landscape, our  economy.
Dramatic, swift action on this would more complicated than what Thurnburg assumes. The problem is not just a lack of willpower or compassion, as important as those are.  There are hard choices involved, and it's not just good versus evil & people versus profit. 

Except this is a black and white issue. If you pursue profit at the expense of the planet and feel no remorse, you're just a psychopath.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

A sickening manifestation of our culture's bizarre worship of youth. 

[Sumner 1868]

I have no idea why this recent trend of corporations taking random suburban kids and making them "activists" has become a thing. Who thinks something like this up?

[Yellowhammer]

Hiding your agenda behind children as human shields in an attempt to shut down opposition is a sickening and cowardly tactic.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The excessive emissions are being caused by a tiny number of very rich people who live extravagant life styles.

The consumers are to blame more than the Fossil Fuel Companies

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

Petulant, spoiled, obnoxious brat with basically good intentions.

[John Dule]

I think she's an example of how the left turns environmental stuff into a losing issue when it could be a winning issue. Their proposition on climate change is that excessive emissions are going to have very negative consequences down the line. The excessive emissions are being caused by a tiny number of very rich people who live extravagant life styles. It would be an easy case to make that a tiny number of rich people are being wasteful and hurting everyone else. Lots of people could get hind that. But instead they harass middle and lower class people about eating meat and driving when that stuff is a tiny drop in the bucket and any effort you make in those areas is just going to be counteracted by some CEO flying around in his private jet.

Something I've observed about the left and right is that the right likes to narrow social problems down and find a scapegoat, while the left likes to expand social problems and usually end up talking about how everything is "society's" (AKA everyone's) fault. The right's approach is much smarter and a much easier argument to make.

A lot of this is that some people are very distressed that nothing they do personally is going to have any impact on climate change and stuff like Thunberg's campaign is just an attempt to feel like they have control over it.

People saying nasty stuff about her is awful, though. There's no reason to be angry with her.

Except it isn't true that the emissions problem is being caused by a very few rich people.  It has more to do with billions of people moving into a global industrial economy.  If it were just a few fat cats, it would be an easy fix: we wouldn't have to conserve or change our lifestyles or even pay a bit more for energy in order to transition to more sustainable sources.  Warren, trying to pin the blame for climate change on a few corporations to make it sound easy to fix, claimed most of it is from "three industries."  The problem is those three sources - transportation, energy and ... industry - implicate our lifestyles, our landscape, our  economy.
Dramatic, swift action on this would more complicated than what Thurnburg assumes. The problem is not just a lack of willpower or compassion, as important as those are.  There are hard choices involved, and it's not just good versus evil & people versus profit. 

Except this is a black and white issue. If you pursue profit at the expense of the planet and feel no remorse, you're just a psychopath.

I'm so sick of the left trying to make "profit" a dirty word. Profits are people's rewards for providing products and services that society deems valuable. "Putting people above profits" is a nonsense term; profits exist because people have been helped. That's how capitalism works.

[GoTfan]

I think she's an example of how the left turns environmental stuff into a losing issue when it could be a winning issue. Their proposition on climate change is that excessive emissions are going to have very negative consequences down the line. The excessive emissions are being caused by a tiny number of very rich people who live extravagant life styles. It would be an easy case to make that a tiny number of rich people are being wasteful and hurting everyone else. Lots of people could get hind that. But instead they harass middle and lower class people about eating meat and driving when that stuff is a tiny drop in the bucket and any effort you make in those areas is just going to be counteracted by some CEO flying around in his private jet.

Something I've observed about the left and right is that the right likes to narrow social problems down and find a scapegoat, while the left likes to expand social problems and usually end up talking about how everything is "society's" (AKA everyone's) fault. The right's approach is much smarter and a much easier argument to make.

A lot of this is that some people are very distressed that nothing they do personally is going to have any impact on climate change and stuff like Thunberg's campaign is just an attempt to feel like they have control over it.

People saying nasty stuff about her is awful, though. There's no reason to be angry with her.

Except it isn't true that the emissions problem is being caused by a very few rich people.  It has more to do with billions of people moving into a global industrial economy.  If it were just a few fat cats, it would be an easy fix: we wouldn't have to conserve or change our lifestyles or even pay a bit more for energy in order to transition to more sustainable sources.  Warren, trying to pin the blame for climate change on a few corporations to make it sound easy to fix, claimed most of it is from "three industries."  The problem is those three sources - transportation, energy and ... industry - implicate our lifestyles, our landscape, our  economy.
Dramatic, swift action on this would more complicated than what Thurnburg assumes. The problem is not just a lack of willpower or compassion, as important as those are.  There are hard choices involved, and it's not just good versus evil & people versus profit. 

Except this is a black and white issue. If you pursue profit at the expense of the planet and feel no remorse, you're just a psychopath.

I'm so sick of the left trying to make "profit" a dirty word. Profits are people's rewards for providing products and services that society deems valuable. "Putting people above profits" is a nonsense term; profits exist because people have been helped. That's how capitalism works.

I had to bold the part you missed. Pretty convenient how you did.

[Beet]

A sickening manifestation of our culture's bizarre worship of youth. 

If we worship youth that much, perhaps we could help the nearly 1 in 6 children who live in poverty.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

A sickening manifestation of our culture's bizarre worship of youth. 

If we worship youth that much, perhaps we could help the nearly 1 in 6 children who live in poverty.

I can assure you from many years' experience as a bona fide Religious Person™ that worshiping something does not always mean treating it the way you know you should.

[Gustaf]

Just a few notes here:

1. She's not really middle class, her mother is like Sweden's leading opera singer.
2. She hasn't appropriated autism, what a stupid thing to say.
3. There is no evidence for the popular conspiracy theory that she's controlled or whatever.

I don't particularly sympathize with her brand of environmentalism and I'm no fan of her mother's political activism either. But she's clearly well-meaning and while I can find the worship of her a bit grating it's nowhere near as disturbing as the vicious hatred directed at a little girl coming from the right.

[afleitch]

I have Aspergers like Greta. When I was 16 I was deeply political and involved in the movement to abolish Section 28 which prohibited the discuss of differing sexualities in schools. I was vocal, in public, in school, in Church. I confronted 'adults' politicians and priests. I was better equipped to speak than the gatekeepers of the status quo. I wrote to newspapers (when that was a thing). I did this myself because I cared about it and being comfortably gay and using some of the blessings of being on the spectrum I was pretty fact ready and experience rich. I wasn't a puppet. I wasn't being used. Why do people forget themselves at that age? She's smart and she believes it. And she's embarrassing the rest of us leading people to be flippant and personal about her.

[parochial boy]

I mean yeah, the fact that the attacks tend to focus on her as a person rather than the fundamental message that climate change is an emergency that up until now has been swept under the rug, is a pretty damning indication of where the contemporary right is, intellectually speaking.

Also, the movement she spawned has arguably helped the European left come back from what felt like a death spiral only two years ago. So I'm not complaining.

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

1. She's not really middle class, her mother is like Sweden's leading opera singer.

Here is an extremely creepy video of her mother Malena Ernman-Thunberg:

https://twitter.com/manny_ottawa/status/1175715798373019649

And here is her scary performance at the ESC 2009, where she came fifth place:

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

A massive FF for telling world leaders that they suck.

[RaphaelDLG]

So many morons in this thread. 

She is obviously regardless of flaws a gigantic net positive for attracting attention our self-inflicted demise-in-progress and galvanizing politically dormant youth.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Trump appears to be mocking Thunberg on Twitter.


https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1176339522113679360


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/sep/24/she-seems-very-happy-trump-appears-to-mock-greta-thunbergs-emotional-speech


I'm a bit conflicted over this, actually. On one hand, this tweet obviously helps making Thunberg and her cause better known to the American public. On the other hand, it also increases the likelihood that some crackpot is gonna stab or shoot her in the future.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I think she's an example of how the left turns environmental stuff into a losing issue when it could be a winning issue. Their proposition on climate change is that excessive emissions are going to have very negative consequences down the line. The excessive emissions are being caused by a tiny number of very rich people who live extravagant life styles. It would be an easy case to make that a tiny number of rich people are being wasteful and hurting everyone else. Lots of people could get hind that. But instead they harass middle and lower class people about eating meat and driving when that stuff is a tiny drop in the bucket and any effort you make in those areas is just going to be counteracted by some CEO flying around in his private jet.

Something I've observed about the left and right is that the right likes to narrow social problems down and find a scapegoat, while the left likes to expand social problems and usually end up talking about how everything is "society's" (AKA everyone's) fault. The right's approach is much smarter and a much easier argument to make.

A lot of this is that some people are very distressed that nothing they do personally is going to have any impact on climate change and stuff like Thunberg's campaign is just an attempt to feel like they have control over it.

People saying nasty stuff about her is awful, though. There's no reason to be angry with her.

Except it isn't true that the emissions problem is being caused by a very few rich people.  It has more to do with billions of people moving into a global industrial economy.  If it were just a few fat cats, it would be an easy fix: we wouldn't have to conserve or change our lifestyles or even pay a bit more for energy in order to transition to more sustainable sources.  Warren, trying to pin the blame for climate change on a few corporations to make it sound easy to fix, claimed most of it is from "three industries."  The problem is those three sources - transportation, energy and ... industry - implicate our lifestyles, our landscape, our  economy.
Dramatic, swift action on this would more complicated than what Thurnburg assumes. The problem is not just a lack of willpower or compassion, as important as those are.  There are hard choices involved, and it's not just good versus evil & people versus profit. 

Except this is a black and white issue. If you pursue profit at the expense of the planet and feel no remorse, you're just a psychopath.

"pursue profit at the expense of the planet"   Who does this include?   Oil producers?  Power companies? Car dealers?  Electronics manufacturers?  Farmers?  What about the people who buy these products - why not include them in your indictment as well?   

What role does feeling remorse play in saving the planet?   If you do these things but feel bad while you do it, does that mean climate change is no longer a problem?

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

The message is important, yes, but fearmongering isn't going to get us far. What we need to talk about is HOW we are going to avert this disaster, or at least diminish its effects.

[Lambsbread]

The message is important, yes, but fearmongering isn't going to get us far. What we need to talk about is HOW we are going to avert this disaster, or at least diminish its effects.

I think climate change is one of the things we should be fearmongering on. People have to be aware of the literal life-and-death consequences of inaction or lack of sufficient action on this issue. Also, the public's distrust in science is alarming and that's something we need to restore. Yes, we should be talking about plans and solutions, but the public will only take those solutions seriously if they have a vested interest in doing so.

[Ban my account ffs!]

You only make a little kid the centerpiece of your movement when you've run out of arguments.

Or when nobody's willing to listen to arguments. (Not that they're willing to listen to Thunberg either so far.)

Yeah...nothing so far...not even climate change itself...has sparked any real action.  So Here...have this autistic teenaged daughter of wealthy, famous Swedes who claims she can see the co2 in the air ride a rich prince’s sailboat to America right to the UN so she can scold the world for ‘ruining her future’...that’ll finally be the tactic that works!

Oh..and be sure to use the autism, small stature, and gender as a cudgel for anyone who criticizes her message...which seems to be “shame on you and f**k you...*you*, poor starving child in the dark...ruined *my* (inheritance from famous parents...Swedish climate...friends in royalty...no Kamala Harris from California to lock up her white parents for her skipping school to protest the system...) future, she says.

The whole thing is all just so sad and lame at the same time.

[NeverAgainsSock]

Like her ideas and urgency. Genuinely do not care about her as a person.