What's your take on Greta Thunberg?

[SeriousSam]

I think Galant hit the nail on the head. The underlying problem is the "listen to young people" notion that is coming from various quarters. One could liken it to the not punching down tactic that is also used to try and stifle debate. Often coming from a position of assumed moral superiority and righteousness. All it does is exacerbate the division between the opposite sides, leaving those of us that want an informed debate frustrated.

So in answer to the original questions;

1. She's not helping
2. By dint of being high profile she will 'make a difference' just not the one she expects
3. Directly manipulated is questionable, but she is clearly being used

[watercooled]

I'll admit upfront I only know a little so could be getting the wrong impression from what I have seen, but to me it seems to fall into the same category of passionate ramblings without offering realistic alternatives as people who would strap themselves to gas-fired power stations, often leading to greater consumption of coal during that period, or the fracking NIMBY crowd who would rather see gas imported and whom I doubt do any real research into local environmental effects of those mining sites.

Likewise the ones who make a big song and dance about the collective damage we're doing to the planet, after travelling half-way across the world in a private jet to the meeting, sitting down to a steak meal then going back home and carrying on their energy-intensive life as usual. It's always someone else's problem. Naivety, hypocrisy or ignorance, you decide. So many such people do claim the moral high-ground though. I tend to have far more respect for those offering real solutions or alternatives, whether through technology or otherwise.

Also I seem to recall some complaints about the validity of the specific claims she makes?

I don't think it really helps much in real terms, besides perhaps raising awareness, but with awareness often comes a load of misinformation which people need to be very careful of. I've overheard more than a couple of conversations about how bad fracking is, and catastrophising how it's going to cause destructive earthquakes or tsunamis. And of course the seemingly fairly popular viewpoint that there's some magical free energy device being suppressed by 'THE GOVERNMENT', oil companies or a combination of the two depending on who you listen to.

So yeah, awareness is good, provided it's supported by real data, and that data is properly portrayed by media outlets rather than twisting the story or adding their own, completely false, slant on the story to make more interesting/terrifying headlines.

Edit: Also agree with Galant - and argument presented by a child presents a sort of situation where arguing with her directly would have the opposition immediately portrayed as the enemy. It's quite a clever political tactic to prevent intelligent discussion and to align people against any opposition by default, and creates a sort of false dichotomy - you either wholly agree or you're the enemy.

[Saracen999]

.... and that data is properly portrayed by media outlets rather than twisting the story or adding their own, completely false, slant on the story to make more interesting/terrifying headlines.

.....

I'm sure you won't disagree with this but .... good luck with that. Is anyone aware of a "newspaper" that actually deserves the name, rather than "agendapaper"? And TV supposedly-news isn't much (if any) better.

There used to be a clear demarcation between news and editorial, between impartial reporting of what happened, and op-ed pieces with either the "reporter's" own slant, or more likely, that of the editor, which is that of the owner or publisher. These days both print and TV media seem to always be full of talking heads always trying to explain what this or that event means, and what might hzppen next, rather thsn just reporting.

So "impartial reporting"? I'd suggest looking for it in the great dustbin of history, filed between Dodo and "grassy knoll".

Cynic? Wot, me?

[Macman]

What about the boat that she sailed in? Wouldn't that of contributed towards the pollution when that was being built? And she certainly didn't sail back, iirc she flew back from her intended destination.

[BobF64]

What about the boat that she sailed in? Wouldn't that of contributed towards the pollution when that was being built?

Probably. All the "saviour" plans involve hidden pollution somewhere.

Be it the chemicals used to make electric car batteries, to the pollution in making the car itself.

Carbon "offsetting" was the daftest idea, right after being able to trade the credits...

Either reduce your carbon footprint, or don't and be labelled a polluter, don't just shift your shame to somewhere else.

[pp05]

I saw the clip on YT, the grown ups were laughing. Which implies the grown ups were not very grown up.

As far as what she said, she didn't say anything but the truth. Which is that those in positions of power have sat on their hands because what needs to be done is uncomfortable. It's uncomfortable because they have no vision for the future. Nationalism doesn't help either.

[watercooled]

I mean I ain't no economics expert but this is the way I see it. Fossil fuels are comparatively cheap (monetarily), and low-carbon alternatives are relatively expensive (though getting better over time). An economy unilaterally committing to low-carbon energy production across the board may be putting themselves at a significant economic disadvantage compared to the rest of the world. Even if a majority do it, there's always the risk of a greedy/selfish economy profiteering by continuing to exploit the relative cheapness of fossil fuels.

So with that said, I can't see it realistically being an overnight fix. Sabotaging one's own economy probably isn't conducive to continued, expensive low-carbon living in the long term. The private sector aren't really adopting low-carbon because of the cost, and while some governments are taking steps to improve matters either through state aid or other incentives, it's the reducing cost of low-carbon energy sources that appear to be correlating with mass adoption. Different countries have different renewable resources available and it's important that all are explored where viable, but it could be more difficult for those countries without those capabilities. FWIW I seem to recall reading (yep I did) that wind is becoming cheaper than gas in some areas, per kWh at least (and yeah I'm aware that's not necessarily reflective of the challenges posed by variations in supply).

I imagine with the roll-out of low-carbon generation, countries will be doing their best to be self-sufficient where possible, too, and for that reason I believe nuclear can't continue to be overlooked when the realistic alternative is still fossil fuels. Likewise in countries with ample renewable generation on average - in lieu of a realistic energy storage system, nuclear offers an option for consistent baseload, though that still isn't perfect given nuclear stations are far better off economically when run at 100% whenever possible rather than load following. But, unless we get used to blackouts, or enough people adopt electric cars for them to be used for demand response on the grid, I can't think of much of an alternative? Larger electricity grid interconnects are another idea but that poses significant challenges in itself.

Oh and just while I'm reeling off thoughts, synthetic fuels (i.e. creating hydrocarbons or similar from airborne CO2 and excess electricity production, hence carbon neutral in theory) are something I see as very promising if they scale up well.

[spacein_vader]

I've no idea if what she's saying stacks up, but she's coming at it from a different angle to most other environmental commentators.

In truth I don't have much of an opinion on her either way, the same cannot be said of those who insist on criticising her for who she is rather than what she says however.

[badass]

I mean I ain't no economics expert but this is the way I see it. Fossil fuels are comparatively cheap (monetarily), and low-carbon alternatives are relatively expensive (though getting better over time). An economy unilaterally committing to low-carbon energy production across the board may be putting themselves at a significant economic disadvantage compared to the rest of the world. Even if a majority do it, there's always the risk of a greedy/selfish economy profiteering by continuing to exploit the relative cheapness of fossil fuels.

So with that said, I can't see it realistically being an overnight fix. Sabotaging one's own economy probably isn't conducive to continued, expensive low-carbon living in the long term. The private sector aren't really adopting low-carbon because of the cost, and while some governments are taking steps to improve matters either through state aid or other incentives, it's the reducing cost of low-carbon energy sources that appear to be correlating with mass adoption. Different countries have different renewable resources available and it's important that all are explored where viable, but it could be more difficult for those countries without those capabilities. FWIW I seem to recall reading (yep I did) that wind is becoming cheaper than gas in some areas, per kWh at least (and yeah I'm aware that's not necessarily reflective of the challenges posed by variations in supply).

I imagine with the roll-out of low-carbon generation, countries will be doing their best to be self-sufficient where possible, too, and for that reason I believe nuclear can't continue to be overlooked when the realistic alternative is still fossil fuels. Likewise in countries with ample renewable generation on average - in lieu of a realistic energy storage system, nuclear offers an option for consistent baseload, though that still isn't perfect given nuclear stations are far better off economically when run at 100% whenever possible rather than load following. But, unless we get used to blackouts, or enough people adopt electric cars for them to be used for demand response on the grid, I can't think of much of an alternative? Larger electricity grid interconnects are another idea but that poses significant challenges in itself.

Oh and just while I'm reeling off thoughts, synthetic fuels (i.e. creating hydrocarbons or similar from airborne CO2 and excess electricity production, hence carbon neutral in theory) are something I see as very promising if they scale up well.

The problem with nuclear is it's really, really expensive. The synthetic fuels thing as you say is promising though. I believe some german car manufacturers are playing with it. If for the grid rather than to power cars I'd imagine Electrolysis of water and storage of the H2 and O2 being a pretty effective and dense energy store. Storing Hydrogen is really difficult but I'd imagine it's easier to store in "scale up" situation rather than "scale out" like with tanks on vehicles.

[watercooled]

New nuclear is expensive vs fossil fuels largely because of the lack of an established supply chain and lack of economies of scale. There are some promising, more economical reactor designs for new builds than the likes of the EPR but as with anything in that industry it takes time. I just think it's important to keep options open and not dismiss nuclear out of hand when considering realistic low-carbon options.

Something you also have to factor in, but which isn't as simple to calculate, is availability. Price per kWh for renewables are dropping nicely but it's important to also consider whether they will be able to meet demand at any given time on the grid. As it currently stands, they blend in fairly well with e.g. CCGT plants which can vary output relatively quickly but when aiming for a fossil-fuel-free grid there are challenges to resolve. Storage being one potential solution, of course.

WRT hydrogen for grid storage, maybe cryogenic storage would be a good option? LNG is a thing anyway, which is also stored cryogenically, though of course there's a fair difference in temperature.

[TooNice]

I've been changing my reply for a few days but this is mainly because I don't really feel strongly about the topic. So a couple of points:

1. Her message doesn't seem to resonate much the Hexus members. I think this can be attributed to the fact that we are a more critical, I might even say cynical bunch overall. This means that we are more likely question everything she says. However it is very unusual for a person to have universal appeal anyway and she must strongly resonate with certain demographic to reach where she is.

2. I can't really fault someone for wanting more to be done for the environment. The approach ("Us young people have to suffer for your decisions" etc.) and lack solution offered may be questionable, but I also find it understandable. If -anyone- is going to find a solution and be able to implement it, it sure won't be a single minor (as in, not an adult) activists. It is going to take all the brilliant mind that we have, and a lot of political will.

3. Her approach also remind of a certain populist movement currently taking place in the UK which shall not be named. In common is the divisive us vs them, lack of solutions to the issue raised yet passionate and seemingly willing to turn everthing we take for granted upside down.

4. If her followers share the kind of, hmm, zeal that follower of this populist movement taking place, it may well be that there -are- people in that group who would be willing to "get it done" at any and all cost. If she can build af cult of personality for a couple more years, I could kind of see certain group really change their lifestyle and even pledge not to have children if she declare it a necessary step (as long as she doesn't declare "cull all adults over 40" or something along those lines).

5. I actually don't think that anyone is pulling her strings. I can certainly see some people reading various information online and decide (rightly or otherwise) that humanity is in peril (or some other things). Some may view it as their calling to do -something- about it, and social media has made it much easier for someone without very special privileges to be heard with some luck. It might be that certain organisation with vested interest has decided to give her additional platforms to perform her activities, but I think that she does believe in her cause.

6. Some people have commented she should be back in school, but this is something that she used in her speech (paraphrasing: I should be in school not doing this) and I personally think that even if this all fizzle out for one reason or another, she would still have gained valuable experience that she wouldn't have gained at school and may be useful even if she ends up doing something completely different in the future.

[SeriousSam]

I'd argue that the approach is more in line with the critical theory section of the left... only they don't completely disregard science, just the bits that don't fit their narrative. The us / them bit you can apply to just about everything and on both sides, as per my previous post.

[WildMonkey]

Sad that people feel threaten by a little girl, says a lot about that person.