she is keeping the topic of climate change in the news as much as she can. That’s better than what most are doing with their lives. She’s not a scientist. She’s 17.
That's basically modern society in a nutshell.Yes but she’s not DOING anything. Is she? Lance Armstrong did more than any human being to raise Cancer awareness. It’s still not really ‘Doing’ though.
I don’t think she’s a net positive for being the face of climate change as she antagonises the people we need to win over to actually achieve something.
It’s a weird situation.
Except it isn't an individual taking a flight. It's paying to fly people out to crew a boat so that an individual can say they didn't fly. It is possible to find the conduct of oil firms an enormous issue and still appreciate the hypocrisy in this. They aren't mutually exclusive and it doesn't make someone a cnut of give them an inferiority complex.
Yes but she’s not DOING anything. Is she? Lance Armstrong did more than any human being to raise Cancer awareness. It’s still not really ‘Doing’ though.
I don’t think she’s a net positive for being the face of climate change as she antagonises the people we need to win over to actually achieve something.
It’s a weird situation.
She’s literally only famous because she’s a kid it’s a novelty effect, as she gets older she will fade away as nobody wants to hear a 20 year old Swedish woman throwing a tantrum.
She’s said absolutely nothing that people aren’t already aware of and she’s offering no solutions. Ironically leaving a bigger carbon footprint than most people.
you say it's possible for them not to be mutually exclusive yet greta weirdly gets more vitriol from middle aged men than the heads of the big oil companies do. why is that? why is her supposed hypocracy (which is so incredibly and utterly unimportant in comparison to what big business is doing to the world) worthy of even 1/1000th of the attention? because it shouldn't be. yet here we are.
I don’t think she’s a net positive for being the face of climate change as she antagonises the people we need to win over to actually achieve something.
I do say that, and your following clause has no baring on the validity of what I said. I know this is an internet forum, and theres a need for this to invariably devolve into an 'us vs them' discussion, but I find your logic here pretty flawed. Those 'middle age men' are wankers, but that group doesn't include everyone who acknowledges this hypocrisy.you say it's possible for them not to be mutually exclusive yet greta weirdly gets more vitriol from middle aged men than the heads of the big oil companies do. why is that? why is her supposed hypocracy (which is so incredibly and utterly unimportant in comparison to what big business is doing to the world) worthy of even 1/1000th of the attention? because it shouldn't be. yet here we are.
You're telling me people were about to care about climate and the planet, but then they listened to a young girl and decided "nah feck the planet"?
People who get angry at Greta never gave a shit and would never give a shit. They're lost causes. People (mostly young) who were indifferent or oblivious to the problem may pay attention because of her. For me that's a net positive.
she's protesting. she's a protester. she's not a scientist. she's not qualified to come up with answers. does that make her opinion worthless? of course not. i have no fecking idea how to solve the problem. but i can still have a vested interest in not polluting and destroying the fecking world. and yes that means i'm still allowed to travel on an airplane from time to time.
Because the heads of big oil firms aren't telling people they need to change their comfy lives to save the planet for future generations. People do not are about the planet. Or future generations.
You're telling me people were about to care about climate and the planet, but then they listened to a young girl and decided "nah feck the planet"?
People who get angry at Greta never gave a shit and would never give a shit. They're lost causes. People (mostly young) who were indifferent or oblivious to the problem may pay attention because of her. For me that's a net positive.
No. You know I’m not.
But to change a global attitude you need to bring everyone along on the same vehicle.
She’s the other side of the Trump coin. It’s not “Join us. We can do this I promise”. It’s “You’re either with us or you’re an enemy”.
It’s a myopic view of the world that gets nothing done.
So you can't think of any controversial issues that couldn't be solved by simply persuading the other side of the right way to do things, and subsequently some more dramatic, confrontational approach was deemed necessary? The first phase was tried. Not enough people wanted to "join" in, and the existing power structures were the driving force behind that. This isn't one of those problems that we can take generations to resolve.
You're looking at it the wrong way. The MAJORITY of people want to do something not the minority.
However, a scorched earth view of people in the middle that don’t really know how to action change. Turning that middle into an enemy to fight..... That’s absolutely self-defeating. Her tactics leave too many people behind.
Telling someone that works 6 days a week to afford an annual holiday that planes are bad and that the essential vehicle miles they drive annually are bad.... It’s moronic and hopelessly short sighted
Her messages are off putting. The messages are wrong.
A message delivered by a talented orator that boiled down to: “Working Class People: Your governments are letting you down. They should enable your efforts to do better for the Planet year on year”. That stands a chance. She’s not going to change humanity.
She’s shouting into the wind and we’re allowing it to be packaged into entertainment.
The Governments in place were elected by the people they rule. If she thinks she’s going to change government policy by having less public support than those ruling parties.... Good Luck. She’s not likeable. She’s preachy. She antagonises. She’s sanctimonious. She’s not pulling the people that matter in the direction that they need to go.
There’s a groundswell of environmental change that will have nothing like the impact that’s necessary. It’s a tiny group that will not make a dent in the real world. Anyone that thinks it will, needs to open their eyes a lot wider.
She's the Glastonspur of climate change.
It's not the message that grates. It's the delivery.
I find your attitude very ironic. Yes I agree that her approach has the potential to do more harm than good, because it's so uncompromising, and because it gives off the impression she's speaking down to people from a position of wisdom and moral superiority. That's also how your points come across.
Well there’s clearly a difference between her and I then isn’t there? Because you like her, but still see my point about her. Whereas she’s just leaving behind people with differing views.
The key point is; I’ve given her plenty of credit for what she believes and what she wants to do. I don’t have to portray her as bad, in order to say she’s doing so much wrong.
I’m also sensible enough to point out it’s not doing all that much to change the patterns of the people it needs to.
I don’t wear my understanding of her message as a warm blanket that lets me believe she’s changing anything.
The whole situation saddens me. I’m not anti Thunberg. I pity the poor girl. She has a big dream that’s being turned into eco-capitalism against her will. But she’s brought it on herself.
Yes but she’s not DOING anything. Is she? Lance Armstrong did more than any human being to raise Cancer awareness. It’s still not really ‘Doing’ though.
I don’t think she’s a net positive for being the face of climate change as she antagonises the people we need to win over to actually achieve something.
It’s a weird situation.
Any good that Lance Armstrong did was way overturned by him being a drug cheat.
To me there is no comparison between the two.
I have a huge amount of respect for anyone who has the courage of their convictions and has the guts to stand up for what they believe.
Like her or not, she has raised the profile of this important subject to a level that policies are being changed.
One small example. Bristol Airport wants to expand to allow it to take up to 12million passengers.
Historically that would have been accepted for commercial reasons.
But 2days ago, the Council rejected the application.
And the primary reason given was the damage to the environment by additional CO2 emissions.
Any good that Lance Armstrong did was way overturned by him being a drug cheat.
To me there is no comparison between the two.
I have a huge amount of respect for anyone who has the courage of their convictions and has the guts to stand up for what they believe.
Like her or not, she has raised the profile of this important subject to a level that policies are being changed.
One small example. Bristol Airport wants to expand to allow it to take up to 12million passengers.
Historically that would have been accepted for commercial reasons.
But 2days ago, the Council rejected the application.
And the primary reason given was the damage to the environment by additional CO2 emissions.
I don't find her very likable, and personally I don't think you need to be likable to drive societal change. Undoubtedly it helps, but every iconic figure had gross flaws that sceptics, critics and others were all too happy to point out at the time. There's mountains of evidence of that. This idea that a flawed character is an unsuitable leader on a moral cause is a thoroughly modern notion, and while many iconic figures were likable and leveraged that to further their objectives, many of them weren't.
Beyond that, no I don't agree with how you distinguish yourself from her. Principally I disagree with the notion that you "don't have to portray her as bad". You don't portray her as evil, sure, but you portray her as bad in all sorts of ways. And then you use the "I'm not against her, I merely pity her" as cover for that. That pity, and the arguments you use to justify it, are what portray her as bad. The flaws she points out in other people and the flaws you point out in her are different, sure. But what makes them good or bad is simply your definition of it, which of course is always going to weighted in your favour. It's not an objective truth, and it's not a view I share. I think you do very much the same thing, from different positions, for similar reasons. And I don't think there's an issue with that, I just think it's a weird stick to beat her with in that context.
Really hope that Greta doesn’t cheat in a bike race. You’re flaky.
Armstrong has done more good for humans than Greta ever will.
I can’t stand the guy really, but Greta will never impact the world at the level that he did.
I haven't read through the whole thread, but some where saying about a kid being the front for climate change activism and her actually knowing nothing and not offering any solutions.
I am more inclined to listen to Attenborough, who uses up huge amounts of CO2 making lavish documentaries, but at least he is highlighting the issue by showing the actual effects and he does have at least part of a clue what he's talking about.
Also, he doesn't get hysterical about stuff.
What did Lance Armstrong ACTUALLY DO to cure cancer though? It's still not cured and he doesn't give any solutions.
The guy is going to die pretty soon though. It's not him that's gonna inherit a inhabitable wasteland.
What relevance is that?
I often follow your posts and in the main agree with you.
But on this I certainly don't. So we will have to agree to disagree.
What did Lance Armstrong ACTUALLY DO to cure cancer though? It's still not cured and he doesn't give any solutions.
Might explain why Greta gets more hysterical. She and her generation are facing deep shit.
Seriously?
That's your addition to the argument?
Don't listen to the old man because he's going to die soon? Wow!
There's no clean cyclists, there's just the ones that have way better drugs than the one testing them.Good question...
He has done more than anyone else to taint the sport of cycling.
Not only did he cheat hundreds of clean cyclists but he continued to deny any wrong doing.
I am not saying he was the only one. Far from it. But he is one of the highest profile cheats.
Fair play mate.
I spent a couple of hours with Lance after his career had long finished. We were in a bar at a stage finish on the tour. Sat. Drank beer. Ate a huge pile of nuts (the irony). He’s just a regular dude. Psychotic drive and will to win. Flawed human. Entirely normal though. At his absolute centre he’s a salt of the earth Texan, exposed to things he wasn’t built to handle.
But he’s still a net good on humanity. The sheer number of people he got Cycling in America sees that be true.
I don’t see anything on the Thunberg scale that sees a shift towards her. Respect your standpoint though.
Good question...
He has done more than anyone else to taint the sport of cycling.
Not only did he cheat hundreds of clean cyclists but he continued to deny any wrong doing.
I am not saying he was the only one. Far from it. But he is one of the highest profile cheats.
I know what she is. I know what she doesn’t do.
She doesn’t actually do anything.
She’s been packaged to be the face of a movement. Whisked off to Davos, sends a few tweets. Gives the odd speech.
The media dramatises and monetises the whole thing. It’s the emperors new clothes. By putting her on the odd magazine cover the Western World can pretend they’re effecting change. When in reality, nothing is changing. She’s not driving change. She wants everyone to stop flying and using cars. The world responds by using paper straws.
I don’t doubt her desire to make things different. She’s having no effect though. None. It’s all make believe smoke and mirrors. Pretending she’s making a genuine difference is part of the problem.
Do you worry that she may be exploited behind the scenes in any way though ? used as a voice for other peoples ideas etc ? who writes her speeches , who decides where to go , who to be interviewed by ? Did she finish school for example ?sounds like your issue isn't with greta but with the media itself, or something. she didn't ask to be the poster child of the movement, she just wants to protest and try and make change in the world she is growing up in. she's fecking awesome.
