Teenage Climate Change Activist "I want you to panic"

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

https://womenintheworld.com/2019/01/29/ ... d-leaders/

“Adults keep saying we owe it to the young people, to give them hope,” Thunberg said, “But I don’t want your hope. I don’t want you to be hopeful. I want you to panic. I want you to feel the fear I feel every day. I want you to act.

[Yukaphile]

At the same time, is there any truth to the claims we only have 11 years to the live? The far left were the same ones claiming the TPP would sell us into quite literal slavery.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

I don't know about the precise timeline, but it's like...the point stands?

[Yukaphile]

I'm 31, bro. I won't be here to see the worst damage unfold regardless of what we did. Like, we're destined for another ice age in 50,000 years anyway. Can't change things. Might as well just live for the moment.

[MixedDrops]

At the same time, is there any truth to the claims we only have 11 years to the live? The far left were the same ones claiming the TPP would sell us into quite literal slavery.

Not sure where that claim comes from. It will take decades, even centuries, for a lot of the predicted effects of climate change to occur. However, there will be plenty we will see even within our lifetimes. Don't fall into the trap of "I won't see it, therefore why care". It's that kind of thinking that got us here to begin with (and is the mindset of so many of the big businesses you so hate).

"A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit."

Also while there was a lot of FUD surrounding the TPP, I don't think I heard anyone other than crazies saying anything about slavery. It was definitely very favorable to big businesses in the US (which, of course, the US themselves added into the agreement during the negotiations that the other countries relented on), but it was a bipartisan bill until populists hijacked our political system because there were basically no other proposed solutions to trying to limit China's economic influence (which anybody who read up on the damn thing knew what it was all about, even if people want to tiptoe around it).

[Darth Wedgius]

A few rich people are responsible for most of the climate change? How, by making cars the rest of the world drive? By making electricity the rest of the world uses? By suppressing the secret of Tesla's free energy generator, the plans for which I can sell you for only $999.99, but don't let anyone know because the government will stop me? And then there's that "either we stop the emissions or we don’t" stupidity.

Teens can do a lot to help climate change. Refuse to drive, use electricity, buy things made with electricity, etc., and in less than a century we'll have no emissions. And if it's "either we stop the emissions or we don't," well, a teen's gotta do what a teen's gotta do.

Global warming in an important problem, and things like this, IMHO, don't help. What I think Fuzzy sees as inspiring, I see as grandstanding.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Consumer choices are not a viable way to stop or reduce climate change.

A few rich people are causing it by pushing for laws that subsidize fossil fuels and slashing pollution regulation. A few rich people are doing it because it's easier to dump mercury in the drinking water than it is to take a profit cut. A few rich people are doing it by breeding pesticide-resistant cash crops instead of pest-resistant cash crops, because that way you can still make more money selling pesticides. A few rich people are doing it by appointing EPAs who say radiation is good for you and the air is too clean.

She never claimed there's some secret water-powered engine, nor did I, but if you think that pollution and climate change have nothing to do with a few powerful, rich people deciding that they would rather decrease the quality of life for everyone else than make a little less money, then you are a fool.

[MixedDrops]

Teen advocates are always going to be wrong about something. You can either nitpick at their claims all day to give yourself an excuse to do nothing, or ignore those parts and actually take their concerns seriously. Intellectually dishonest people always choose the former, because the point isn't that they got stuff wrong, the point is that they can then not need to do anything.

And really? You're going to propose that lower-to-middle class individuals not drive and turn their lights off as some kind of solution to emissions? I'm not saying they shouldn't be doing those things, but that's immaterial to what she's asking for. Even if it was, we all know that the emissions are spread across multiple industries. Transportation accounts for like 15% of that.

[Darth Wedgius]

Teen advocates are always going to be wrong about something. You can either nitpick at their claims all day to give yourself an excuse to do nothing, or ignore those parts and actually take their concerns seriously. Intellectually dishonest people always choose the former, because the point isn't that they got stuff wrong, the point is that they can then not need to do anything.

And really? You're going to propose that lower-to-middle class individuals not drive and turn their lights off as some kind of solution to emissions? I'm not saying they shouldn't be doing those things, but that's immaterial to what she's asking for. Even if it was, we all know that the emissions are spread across multiple industries. Transportation accounts for like 15% of that.

I didn't say anything about not fighting climate change, did I? Nor did I say anything about lower or middle class anybody.

I'm saying she's either irrational, stupid, ignorant, or dishonest. I said teens could eliminate emissions by not creating any emissions as they replace adults. That seems as sensible as "there's a problem, I don'y know what the solution is, but everyone else is a terrible person for not having a solution." I said the whole thing was grandstanding and doesn't actually accomplish anything.

[Darth Wedgius]

Consumer choices are not a viable way to stop or reduce climate change.

A few rich people are causing it by pushing for laws that subsidize fossil fuels and slashing pollution regulation. A few rich people are doing it because it's easier to dump mercury in the drinking water than it is to take a profit cut. A few rich people are doing it by breeding pesticide-resistant cash crops instead of pest-resistant cash crops, because that way you can still make more money selling pesticides. A few rich people are doing it by appointing EPAs who say radiation is good for you and the air is too clean.

She never claimed there's some secret water-powered engine, nor did I, but if you think that pollution and climate change have nothing to do with a few powerful, rich people deciding that they would rather decrease the quality of life for everyone else than make a little less money, then you are a fool.

Sure consumer choices can fight climate change. Consumers could choose not to consume. Consumers could all buy hybrid cars, or, for those unable to afford those, could share them. Consumers can refuse to use artificial lighting. Cooperative utilities could go all-solar. The reason none of this happens isn't because some rich dudes with all the power are trying to get a role on Captain Planet, it's because of the tragedy of the commons. Sure, the rich and powerful have a disproportionate effect, but in most cases the consumers are the ones with the actual power, spent one dollar at a time.

We won't fight global warming by demanding someone else do it for us. But we like our air conditioners on, we like SUVs, and we like our suburbs.

And my comments didn't address mercury, radiation, or any form of air pollution other than greenhouse gases. If you want to try breeding pest-resistant crops that's fine, but the efforts I've heard of didn't work so well.