Ok I see how I may have written it was off, at no time did I want to appear wider than everyone/ anyone else, I certainly know im not.
I would still say that she gathered more attention, support and followers due to her age though, would you not?
Yes and no. This fundamental truth is clear to everyone:
No older person likes to be admonished by someone younger. Older siblings being corrected by younger siblings, Sons and fathers, Mothers and daughters.
That clearly counts against her. Many, many, many people reject her on that basis alone. We can debate about the legitimacy of that but it's just the reality. So while it's an obvious truth that she has energised people her age and younger, and that could accelerate a societal revolution when they step into the workforce, find a place in politics, etc., it also comes at a significant cost.
I don't know how many people are "unaware" of climate change at this point, but I suspect it's very small. So I don't think raising awareness is very important. Keeping it in the conversation and converting thought to action is what is required, and the unknown for me is whether she has the opposite effect among people much older than her. They know all these problems exist, and they think the only solutions provided to them are completely unrealistic, so they're resigned to letting the world slowly destroy itself, waiting on technology to be a heroic saviour, or they don't think the effects will be that bad. She might make people in the latter camp think differently, but in the two other camps, it's entirely possible she just hardens those views. She is idealistic, and she just represent a perspective that many people can't relate to. You can see that in this thread.
Personally I think we still live in a world strongly influenced by the Baby Boomer phenomenon, when demographic and cultural shifts dictated that "young people" were the most influential portion of the population. The demographic shifts are going in completely the opposite direction now, but most of us are passively ignorant of that, and many people are actively fighting against that reality. "If only old people would just die already, the world would be so much better". I think that's one of the primary underlying causes of Brexit and many other significant political shifts in recent times, personally.
The reality is that young people are less important now than they were half a century ago. For the first time in human history, the "working population" (25-54 year olds) will not be the largest portion of the population - that's just a couple of a decades away. By 2065, the 55+ population will be twice as large as it was in 1965, and it will be much more important than the young generation. In 2065, 15-34 year olds represented 27% of the population while those aged 55+ represented 19%. In 2015, they represented 27% of the population each, and by 2065 15-34s will represent 23% of the population while 55+ will represent 36% of the population.
We're right in the middle of that demographic shift and we're watching the political divide between younger and older generations grow, and no-one's having a serious conversation about it. They're just demonising the other, patronising the other. So while on the one hand that means that young people now will be more important in their latter years than their parents were, and it's essential to drive change among those same people now so that they act upon it throughout the rest of their long lives, the focus of political, economic and social policies and discussions will need to shift at some point to respond to the needs of the population in the here and now, or things start to breakdown.
Young, idealistic, and yes ignorant people have been at the forefront of many, many important movements in society that have made the world a better place, and older generations fought harshly against that in the past, but ultimately were persuaded or overpowered. There's nothing new about that particular problem here. The difference is older generations have a larger say, that say will only continue to get larger, and ageism in society is influencing how people respond to some of the larger challenges of our time - at both ends of the spectrum.
So to me it's entirely possible that she does more harm than good, because the people she's connecting with have less power, and she's not connecting with the people who have the most power. And so someone else occupying her position may have gotten more attention, support and followers. But then I don't buy into this idea that someone put her in that place. Most people in her situation just fall into it, due to factors entirely outside of her or any individual's control. So it might well be that someone like her is the only person that could fall into that place.