Greta Thunberg - brave campaigner or deeply disturbed? Part II.

[Doghouse Reilly]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

I've just completed one week of being vegan. Lots more to come as we all learn together.

That's awesome, I love the fact that more and more people are doing this. I've eaten a vegan diet for the past 25 years and have never regretted it or experienced anything other than benefit. Lots of ways to do it wrong, and lots of ways to do it right, so hang in there if you ever have a time where you think it's not working. Most likely you'd just need to tweak things a bit.

I find it extremely hypocritical that more of the people who express such alarm and concern about climate change are not giving up meat and animal products.

[Giordano]

Originally Posted by Doghouse Reilly

I live near the ocean, haven't noticed any difference in sea level since I was a child. When will I start to notice? When will it begin to cause problems? I was told decades ago that I would have already noticed. This is a serious question, by the way. I'm not trying to make a snarky point.

This really belongs in the thread devoted to climate change itself, rather than Thunberg. But like tides changes in sea level can vary with location, and median changes over multiple years are hard to observe casually given waves and tides have much more second to second and hour to hour effects.

But the median changes in sea level are already have big observable effects on the impact of high tides in a lot of regions in Florida, the coast of Louisiana, Florence,

[Giordano]

Originally Posted by Doghouse Reilly

Actually I still see them fairly regularly in Los Angeles.

Up in Northern California it depends on gas prices. They appear when gas is cheaper; disappear when gas becomes more expensive.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Doghouse Reilly

I live near the ocean, haven't noticed any difference in sea level since I was a child. When will I start to notice? When will it begin to cause problems? I was told decades ago that I would have already noticed. This is a serious question, by the way. I'm not trying to make a snarky point.

Well, depends what you mean by "near"

From early childhood to my early twenties I lived within a short walk of the beach. I had a couple of close friends who lived literally right across the street. Much of my teenage years social life was spent around that beach. The beach is very flat with a very gradual slope. At high tide the beach is 30 to 50 meters wide, at a guess. At low tide it is maybe 500 meters to the waters edge. I now live about an hour's drive from that beach but I am still interested in the goings on in that area.

For more than 40 years of my past the ocean always stayed where it belonged at that beach and high tides always occurred well within the sand areas. There have been several instances in the past few years (less than 10 years) where high tides accompanied by winter storms have made it necessary for the city to sandbag the area to prevent the ocean from flooding the beach front road and the houses across the street. This is very occasionally, but it does seem to indicate the beginnings of a change from past norms when such actions were never even contemplated. So changes in sea level are definitely being noticed in some locations. Perhaps your turn will come soon.

[crescent]

Originally Posted by Doghouse Reilly

When will I start to notice?

That's not really a question we can answer here. I mean, would you notice a one-inch increase? Two inches, three? Would it have to be few feet before you would notice?

Median sea level has risen about two and a half inches in the past 25 years, so it would not be super noticeable yet in most places (the actual increase varies from place to place). It seems to be rising faster.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by lomiller

Set a suitable price on Carbon emissions and let market forces deal with it. Free markets are actually really good at this type of thing. If we wanted to minimize the economic pain we should have started 25 years ago, but what’s done is done. The pain economic pain gets worse the longer we wait so we may as well get started.

How do you intend to see that they are forced to pay a suitable price?

Again, you are talking about government action that no influential government is willing to take..

The people most likely to be devastated by climate change, are the people less likely to be able to influence government..

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

GT

... My long term goal is that the gap between what science is saying and what is actually being done is made so clear that it can no longer be ignored.

Admirable goal, but politicians will ignore anything that does not concern their next election..

So, the voters have to be convinced to give up their gas guzzlers, and other plastic goodies that are dependent upon fossil fuel ..

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by IsThisTheLife

I keep reading this attempt at a putdown, it seems to be all the fan boys and girls have got.

But it's not as if anyone has a choice about "listening" to the brat - the noise she and they are making is inescapable.

The "brat". I see. Well, that tells me everything I need to know about you.

Originally Posted by theprestige

And I would like to see your answer. What's the actual plan, from the scientists, that meets the hard cap on emissions targets, in the necessary time frame, without destroying the world's economy?

Have you given up on locking in a <1.5 degree increase over the next 100 years? Or is there still something we can do about it? If so, what?

Isn't that what the conference is trying to decide?

[cullennz]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

How do you intend to see that they are forced to pay a suitable price?

Again, you are talking about government action that no influential government is willing to take..

The people most likely to be devastated by climate change, are the people less likely to be able to influence government..

Indeed

Also

Charge crappy companies carbon fines, this just gets passed onto the consumer. The crappier the company, the more likely the poorer the consumer, and the spiral continues.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Isn't that what the conference is trying to decide?

I don't know. Is it?

[Giordano]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

How do you intend to see that they are forced to pay a suitable price?

Again, you are talking about government action that no influential government is willing to take..

The people most likely to be devastated by climate change, are the people less likely to be able to influence government..

Almost all governments use some form of taxes or tariffs to push/encourage parts of the commercial sphere in directions the governments seek to achieve. These appear to be particularly more in much of Europe and Asia. Many influential governments are willing to take these actions and, for example very high taxes on gasoline, do result in domination of high gas mileage cars in many of these countries.

Government incentives also are used and help: e.g. rebates for ultra low emission/electric cars..

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Giordano

Almost all governments use some form of taxes or tariffs to push/encourage parts of the commercial sphere in directions the governments seek to achieve. These appear to be particularly more in much of Europe and Asia. Many influential governments are willing to take these actions and, for example very high taxes on gasoline, do result in domination of high gas mileage cars in many of these countries.

Government incentives also are used and help: e.g. rebates for ultra low emission/electric cars..

Government rebates are paid out of money collected from the more wildly successful parts of the industrial economy.

The solution to global climate change is the radical reduction of overall industrial activity. Government rebates disappear in such a regime. Or... They are unsustainable.

You're asking people to cut their own throats, and promising to keep them on life support. But that life support is going to to run out pretty quick, and your promise is worth nothing.

[Stout]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Isn't that what the conference is trying to decide?

No. It's all about LDCs and how much cash the developed world should give the but the high-level segment starts today. so there's that.

The tapas are reported to be wonderful.

ETA: Oh yea, an 8-year old climbed a pole.

[Giordano]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Government rebates are paid out of money collected from the more wildly successful parts of the industrial economy.

The solution to global climate change is the radical reduction of overall industrial activity. Government rebates disappear in such a regime. Or... They are unsustainable.

You're asking people to cut their own throats, and promising to keep them on life support. But that life support is going to to run out pretty quick, and your promise is worth nothing.

Really? All forms of industrial activity? All have comparable negative impacts? All successful industries only add to the problem, none help? There is nothing we can do that helps counter climate change without destroying our industrial economy and cutting our own throats?

And people don’t live sustainable and pleasant lives in much of the world today, including the first world, while emitting a fraction of the greenhouse gases that other people still emit? The production and use of gas guzzling cars, SUVs, and trucks are key to our wonderful lives? Of high wattage light bulbs? Living in poorly insulated homes and using inefficient refrigerators, heaters, air conditioners?

A lot of questions I admit (emit?), maybe even rhetorical questions, but you inspired me.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Giordano

Really? All forms of industrial activity? All have comparable negative impacts? All successful industries only add to the problem, none help? There is nothing we can do that helps counter climate change without destroying our industrial economy and cutting our own throats?

And people don’t live sustainable and pleasant lives in much of the world today, including the first world, while emitting a fraction of the greenhouse gases that other people still emit? The production and use of gas guzzling cars, SUVs, and trucks are key to our wonderful lives? Of high wattage light bulbs? Living in poorly insulated homes and using inefficient refrigerators, heaters, air conditioners?

A lot of questions I admit (emit?), maybe even rhetorical questions, but you inspired me.

The steel and concrete industries are both massive producers of CO2. They're materials that it's going to be pretty hard to do without.

[Giordano]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

The steel and concrete industries are both massive producers of CO2. They're materials that it's going to be pretty hard to do without.

There are a number of promising efforts to significantly reduce CO2 emissions from concrete curing, although which strategy might actually work well in large scale commercial practice is not yet clear. But I do think substantial gains are possible. Same idea in capturing CO2 in steel production.

More generally I see reducing greenhouses gases where one can. If that is only 20% for concrete, 22% for steel manufacture, etc. plus 90% for commercial and home lighting, 40% for heating and cooling, etc overall you have made worthwhile progress, with hopes of even better improvements in the more distant future. One certainly has no need to gut all manufacturing to help deal with climate change as proposed by theprestige

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Giordano

There are a number of promising efforts to significantly reduce CO2 emissions from concrete curing, although which strategy might actually work well in large scale commercial practice is not yet clear. But I do think substantial gains are possible. Same idea in capturing CO2 in steel production.

Yes, but those promises are based on future tech. While certain predictions can be confidently made, future tech is notoriously unreliable, and we can't wait for something that's 40 years away and always will be.

Originally Posted by Giordano

More generally I see reducing greenhouses gases where one can. If that is only 20% for concrete, 32% for steel manufacture, 90% for lighting, 40% for heating and cooling, etc overall you have made worthwhile progress, with hopes of even better improvements in the more distant future. One certainly has no need to gut all manufacturing to help deal with climate change as proposed by theprestige

Energy efficiencies will help, yes, and this is one of the areas where great progress is being made. Does anyone here still use incandescent light bulbs? Don't. LED bulbs are cheaper, last longer, and are far more energy-efficient.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Makes sense to me. Minor quibbles: Setting a suitable price normally happens through market forces. If you're going to set a price outside of what the market would set on its own, how do you figure out what a suitable price is?

Markets set a price, only an idealized perfectly competitive market sets the pareto optimal price. Since these markets usually do not exist in the real world economists already have a whole toolbox full of techniques at their disposal to deal with the difference.

In the case of carbon the leading candidate are a tax on carbon emissions. Once the tax is large enough to get emissions down to the target level you know you are at the right price. The other leading candidate was used successfully to deal with CFC’s, so called “Cap and trade” in this case you create a market for trading emissions credits and have the market set the correct price for you.

Either way, once the cost of CO2 emissions get priced into the our everyday lives people will make the decisions that best suit their priorities so there is no single “you must do this, this and that” rule that everyone is being forced to follow.

[Giordano]

It strikes me that one sub- theme of this thread is how to respond to the urgency of the threat of climate change, One response I’ve seen is that the short time frame to terrible consequences (and a short time is cited by Thunberg) makes any effective response impossible. There is no hope. So why even try; enjoy our Hummers while we can.

Well, whatever the chances of success I’d rather go out fighting than rollover and give up. Do what we can - and there is much we can do to counter climate change and still live good lives. Many people and countries have already made progress. Yes, climate change is already having significant negative impacts and will have more and more in the future; we can’ t prevent all of the consequences. But we can reduce them. And whatever disasters still occur at least I will know I did my best and fought to the end.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Giordano

There are a number of promising efforts to significantly reduce CO2 emissions from concrete curing, although which strategy might actually work well in large scale commercial practice is not yet clear. But I do think substantial gains are possible. Same idea in capturing CO2 in steel production.

More generally I see reducing greenhouses gases where one can. If that is only 20% for concrete, 22% for steel manufacture, etc. plus 90% for commercial and home lighting, 40% for heating and cooling, etc overall you have made worthwhile progress, with hopes of even better improvements in the more distant future. One certainly has no need to gut all manufacturing to help deal with climate change as proposed by theprestige

I agree that we have to do what we can. But without the measures cited by theprestige, we are almost certainly headed for the point of no return without missing a beat. Maybe a quarter of a degree cooler as a result of buying home LED light bulbs and the rest, but the major pollutants will do their evil work unhindered.

So yeah, we need to do the major overhaul to have substantial effect. We were probably on the expressway to doom long before the whistle was blown.

eta: not saying don't try. I think the best solution is to do damage control, while technologies to replace fossil fuels catch up and get implemented. I see stories once in a while about new strains bacteria that eat ocean borne CO2, and other mitigating possibilities.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

... Does anyone here still use incandescent light bulbs? Don't. LED bulbs are cheaper, last longer, and are far more energy-efficient.

In the States (mine anyway), it is hard to even find incandescents, and LEDs tend to cost much more. Like 3 or four times more.

I have customers occasionally complaining that they spent $30 for a high performance LED that burned out in a year or two.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by IsThisTheLife

FFS - GT parroting the word "science" over and over doesn't mean she has the first effing clue about actual science beyond what's taught to her in her secondary-school classes.

Her grasp of the “actual science” is impressive. In most of the quotes I’ve seen she has clearly chosen her words carefully make an accurate reflection of the current state of the published science. This is only possible if you have a strong underlying grasp of the science.

The contrast between her and the pseudo-science of her detractors is stark.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by Doghouse Reilly

I live near the ocean, haven't noticed any difference in sea level since I was a child. When will I start to notice? When will it begin to cause problems?

Maybe you just aren’t very observant. In Miami, the high rent Miami Beach area floods regularly and predictably on certain high tides. No precipitation required the water just seeps up out of the ground flooding the whole area. It happens about 10-15 times a year now but that will be up to 80 times a year in a few decades. Miami is the largest most vulnerable city, but cities all along the east coast of the US have the same issue.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Again, you are talking about government action that no influential government is willing to take..

This is where activists like Greta come in. They make it difficult for governments to continue to ignore the problem and push them towards much needed action

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by cullennz

Indeed


Charge crappy companies carbon fines, this just gets passed onto the consumer.

Making high emission products more expensive for the consumer is kind of the point.

Free markets 101. The consumer needs to be presented with the real cost of the items they buy so they can make informed choice about what really matters to them, where they can use low carbon alternatives, etc. Carbon pricing can easily be structured to rebate any money collected so consumers are not out of pocket.

Originally Posted by theprestige

Government rebates are paid out of money collected from the more wildly successful parts of the industrial economy.

If these parts of the economy are “wildly successful” due to subsidized CO2 emissions, they are not successful at all in free market terms. I can run a “wildly successful” waste disposal company by dumping everting in my neighbors yard and letting them pay all the costs of actually dealing with the waste.

Markets don’t work unless everyone is paying for all the costs associated with their product/service. Companies can still be very successful outside this model, but it’s no longer a free market model if companies are socializing their business costs.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by lomiller

This is where activists like Greta come in. They make it difficult for governments to continue to ignore the problem and push them towards much needed action

In theory. COP25 is upon us. We'll know soon if any much needed government action results from Greta's activism.

Remember, one of her most recent challenges to governments is to come up with a sustainable global mass transit alternative to airplanes. Personally, I don't think this is a much needed action at all, but it does lend itself to the process of theoretical prediction and experiment.

[Giordano]

Originally Posted by lomiller

Making high emission products more expensive for the consumer is kind of the point.

Free markets 101. The consumer needs to be presented with the real cost of the items they buy so they can make informed choice about what really matters to them, where they can use low carbon alternatives, etc. Carbon pricing can easily be structured to rebate any money collected so consumers are not out of pocket.




If these parts of the economy are “wildly successful” due to subsidized CO2 emissions, they are not successful at all in free market terms. I can run a “wildly successful” waste disposal company by dumping everting in my neighbors yard and letting them pay all the costs of actually dealing with the waste.

Markets don’t work unless everyone is paying for all the costs associated with their product/service. Companies can still be very successful outside this model, but it’s no longer a free market model if companies are socializing their business costs.

Exactly! The irony is that many people claiming to be free market capitalists are actually supporting subsidizing large companies through the government and the citizens paying these costs. Look at the coal industry: from land use rights, local pollution at the mines, long term health costs for the miners, through to air pollution at the sites of use, coal mine owners have huge amounts of the cost of coal paid by others.

And most of coal use is an easy target for greenhouse gas reduction. In the USA the government is instead encouraging it.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by IsThisTheLife

But it's not as if anyone has a choice about "listening" to the brat - the noise she and they are making is inescapable.

Oh, please. I actually agree with her position, and I've literally never even heard her voice. If you find it impossible to ignore her, that says more about you than it does her being "inescapable".

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Giordano

There are a number of promising efforts to significantly reduce CO2 emissions from concrete curing, although which strategy might actually work well in large scale commercial practice is not yet clear. But I do think substantial gains are possible. Same idea in capturing CO2 in steel production.

More generally I see reducing greenhouses gases where one can. If that is only 20% for concrete, 22% for steel manufacture, etc. plus 90% for commercial and home lighting, 40% for heating and cooling, etc overall you have made worthwhile progress, with hopes of even better improvements in the more distant future. One certainly has no need to gut all manufacturing to help deal with climate change as proposed by theprestige

It depends what your goals are. I've been talking about the 8-year deadline and the 300-something ton global emissions cap, because this thread is about Greta and her future, and that's the most concrete measure of her future that's come up in discussion so far.

If you've given up on that goal, it's understandable, but does raise questions about how important Greta's activism actually is. If her future is already 3 degrees warmer and ten feet under water, is she actually making a difference? Or just pissing into the wind?

It's not like she needs to tell us to do the easy, incremental stuff, and leave the difficult stuff for her and her descendants to figure out. We're already doing that. Kyoto happened without Greta. Paris happened without Greta. COPs 1 through 24 happened without Greta. If we're already on the course we're going to be on, with or without her, then what's her point?

Her point is that we're not doing enough, fast enough, to save her future. She's calling on the governments of the world to do more, sooner. Is it working? It doesn't seem like it. Is this something we can predict and measure? Is there a baseline prediction for how COP25 is going to play out, and a prediction of what we should see if Greta has an effect there?

[Giordano]

Originally Posted by theprestige

It depends what your goals are. I've been talking about the 8-year deadline and the 300-something ton global emissions cap, because this thread is about Greta and her future, and that's the most concrete measure of her future that's come up in discussion so far.

If you've given up on that goal, it's understandable, but does raise questions about how important Greta's activism actually is. If her future is already 3 degrees warmer and ten feet under water, is she actually making a difference? Or just pissing into the wind?

It's not like she needs to tell us to do the easy, incremental stuff, and leave the difficult stuff for her and her descendants to figure out. We're already doing that. Kyoto happened without Greta. Paris happened without Greta. COPs 1 through 24 happened without Greta. If we're already on the course we're going to be on, with or without her, then what's her point?

Her point is that we're not doing enough, fast enough, to save her future. She's calling on the governments of the world to do more, sooner. Is it working? It doesn't seem like it. Is this something we can predict and measure? Is there a baseline prediction for how COP25 is going to play out, and a prediction of what we should see if Greta has an effect there?

I have a recent post up thread explaining my views on this. Basically do what we can rather than just give up. It may not eliminate all dire consequences but it will help reduce others. And what we “can” does not include destroying peoples ability to eat and have a reasonable life. There are already examples of people able to substantially reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and lead reasonable lives.

Even if doomed I’d rather go out fighting and resisting than roll into a fetal position -or as some do buy a Hummer to stick my finger on the eyes of people at least trying to do something productive.

Thunberg’s point? The conferences you point to have been less than effective, especially in terms of USA policies. There are many who still deny climate change. She wants to get people’s attention to change opinion, to further pressure their governments to do what they promised - and more. And for people to do more in their own lives if they haven’t already reduced their own carbon profile. Pay attention to the science.

Some posters have complained she is ineffective. Yet they have also complained she has a huge following. Her following can help bring the pressures and make the changes she is advocating.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Giordano

I have a recent post up thread explaining my views on this. Basically do what we can rather than just give up. It may not eliminate all dire consequences but it will help reduce others. And what we “can” does not include destroying peoples ability to eat and have a reasonable life. There are already examples of people able to substantially reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and lead reasonable lives.

Yep. I agree with all of that. My only quibble is that we already have threads for these subjects.

This thread is about Greta Thunberg. Her activism. Her stolen future. Her call to action, more action, and faster. Your message about fighting the good fight is, I think, well received.

Greta's message is that it's too well received. Greta's message is that your idea of fighting the good fight is not enough. You need to do more, and you need to do it faster. And what you can't do yourself, you need to push your governments to force you to do, more and faster.

Quote:

Even if doomed i’d Rather go out fighting and resisting than roll into a fetal position -or as some do buy a Hummer to stick my finger on the eyes of people at least trying to do something productive,

Greta's message is that your idea of fighting and resisting is really just a finger stuck in the eyes of generations whose future has been stolen by your half-measures.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by theprestige

In theory. COP25 is upon us. We'll know soon if any much needed government action results from Greta's activism.

How are you going to evaluate that? Do you have access to some alternate reality where she doesn’t go so we can compare government action with/without her existence?

Greta is obviously resonating with at least one group, but activism is never about a single voice single speech or single conference. What’s needed are more voices and more pressure on governments to do something about climate change. What the people complaining about Greta want is for there to be fewer voices which is why they target every one that shows up with hatred, pseudoscience and generally do whatever they can to marginalize anyone who advocates for the science that is challenging their belief system .

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Giordano

Exactly! The irony is that many people claiming to be free market capitalists are actually supporting subsidizing large companies through the government and the citizens paying these costs. Look at the coal industry: from land use rights, local pollution at the mines, long term health costs for the miners, through to air pollution at the sites of use, coal mine owners have huge amounts of the cost of coal paid by others.

And most of coal use is an easy target for greenhouse gas reduction. In the USA the government is instead encouraging it.

This goes back to your question about industrial activity.

The fact is that any kind of industrial or commercial activity requires energy. Modern civilization, it requires a *lot* of energy. Renewables simply can't keep up. Either you keep extracting energy from fossil fuels to make up the difference, or you cut back substantially on energy consumption across the board until you figure out a sustainable alternative.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by lomiller

How are you going to evaluate that? Do you have access to some alternate reality where she doesn’t go so we can compare government action with/without her existence?

I have no idea. More to the point, the people saying Greta is doing important work and making a real difference have no idea either.

[ceptimus]

What organizations/bodies will collect all the carbon tax money, and what will they do with that money?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

What organizations/bodies will collect all the carbon tax money, and what will they do with that money?

Send it to the developing economies, so they can continue to develop. The developed economies decline, the developing economies accelerate. Global emissions actually increase over time. The problem keeps getting worse.

[crescent]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

What organizations/bodies will collect all the carbon tax money, and what will they do with that money?

Two suggestions that I have heard:

1) Use the tax to fund the construction of renewable energy including revamping the grid to get energy from areas with lots of renewable energy potential to where it is needed, such as the Transwest Express project currently under construction. Related to that, use the money to build out low-carbon transit, such as electric commuter trains. Green power.

2) Use the money on social services for poorer people, reflecting the idea that such a tax cannot be graduated based on income (are we going to needed to enter our tax returns to buy a gallon of gas?) and the people who can least afford to make choices on where to live and work might get hit hardest with this, so they can benefit from it as well. Social services.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

What organizations/bodies will collect all the carbon tax money, and what will they do with that money?

What organizations/bodies collects your other taxes?

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I have no idea. More to the point, the people saying Greta is doing important work and making a real difference have no idea either.

You are the one claiming she has to be successful in stopping climate change in order to justify her activism. This makes it yours to prove. TBH even if you could prove it I think your underlying premises is still nonsense. Should skeptics stop debunking claims of the paranormal just because they will never be successful in making those claims stop? No, they shouldn’t. Why then should Greta stop talking about the consequences of climate change just because some people will never listen?

Most of us are judging her success by her ability to reach people and communicate her message effectively. She is clearly reaching a lot of people therefor she has already been wildly successfully communicated her message.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by lomiller

You are the one claiming she has to be successful in stopping climate change in order to justify her activism.

No.

I don't think her activism needs to be justified. It's her choice, to speak out about her concerns.

I think the celebration of her activism as important work that makes a difference needs to be able to point to some important difference her activism has made, otherwise it's just cargo-cult fan-club stuff.

Her making an important difference doesn't mean she has to single-handedly stop climate change. But it does mean that her activism has to do something.

Quote:

Most of us are judging her success by her ability to reach people and communicate her message effectively. She is clearly reaching a lot of people therefor she has already been wildly successfully communicated her message.

This is exactly the cargo-cult celebration of her activism that I'm talking about. Real policy change is a success. Real emissions reductions is a success. "Communicating a message" is not a success. Children skipping school to march in the streets is not a success, unless it somehow results in policy changes or emissions reductions, or something else that actually rescues Thunberg's future.

Greta Thunberg has successfully communicated to me that her future has been stolen. What she has not successfully done is convince anyone to do anything meaningful to restore it.

Celebrate her "success" if you like. But emissions are increasing. Global temperature is going up. Sea levels are rising and arctic ice is melting. At some point you need to stop patting Greta on the back for getting her message out, and actually take it to the next level of doing something about it. And so does Greta.