6.Jones wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 8:10 am
While you make some fair points, she's a teenaged girl in piggy-tails. Not a seasoned polemisist. I don't see that the world should be relying on a 16yo autistic girl to come up with all the solutions! I think she's fantastic, I wish there were more like her, and I applaud her.
But no, she is not solving the problem. I don't think we will solve the problem. I think the bimbots will win, driven by fear and selfishness and having their head filled full of nonsense on the Internet - the greatest source of anti-scientific misinformation in human history. In the 70s we were making plans to take our first baby steps to colonize the solar system. Fast forward to 2020 and we're trying to convince people the earth is not flat. We're f--ked. Greta may not be the solution, but she's appluadable, and at least on the right side of history.
+1. I'm squarely in the Thunberg fan club too, but she won't win. Emissions are increasing. We're socially and politically unequipped to handle this crisis. The only possibility is geoengineering, with its attendant risks. We can only hope that politicians will decide on the best geoengineering solutions, and not the most profitable ones.
Nah, the Republican party were speaking shite about Global Warming before the internet became such a vehicle for disinformation.
I'd call the politicalisation of the environmental cause 50% of the disinformation problem. I think Al Gore meant well but when he released an 'Inconvenient Truth' which is 50% good presentation and 50% digs at the Republicans, he polarised natural political leanings much further making it a Dem vs Republican issue, which then wins over no one else. Compare that with the UK were all political sides since Thatcher have agreed Global Warming is a n issue that must be tackled with Boris Johnsen this week making a big announcement about wind energy. But then Europe's approach to Climate Change has been good overall. I've sometimes been shocked at how much worse the USA and Australia have been in how much they pollute. But no coincidence their global warming debates are much more framed in left vs right political stances.
IMO to approach the 'right wings resistance' to Global Warming (plenty on the left too as Piers Corbyn shows) is to present the whole case for moving to 'clean energy'. Not just CO2 being unprofitable, but the fact fossil fuel resourced will run out in our lives, we are going to have to shift to renewables anyway. Early adopters make the best profits. Promote the angle all sides are winners if we do this some way or another rather than "You're to blame we'll all die, do as I say or else" when we really won't. On the other side encourage governments to subsided fossil fuels less and renewables more. Not to reject Nuclear power. Grow trees in the right way which is relatively cheap.