167
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2023
167 points (86.5% liked)
Asklemmy
43755 readers
1253 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
We had awareness in the 70's but we had action then too. We had the clean-air act passed, the clean water act, the EPA created and I'm sure around the same time coutnry's in the rest of the world also did similar things. Spreading "awareness" today is just self-aggrandizing and benefits no-one but yourself as the figurehead.
Are you implying that she was doing it for the fame? She missed out on school and a lot of normal teenager activities because she prioritised spreading awareness on climate change. Regardless of the reasons why she or anyone is doing it, her impact is undeniable. I think assuming the worst isn't fair. It's not like she has been in scandals related to corruption. Many celebrities and politicians are way more full of shit. She is consistently doing what she can for the environment.
To address your other point: Yes, there has been some actions taken in the past. Yes, there has been some awareness on it spread in the past. No one is saying she's the first one to do so. The point is those actions and bits of awareness wasn't enough. That's why we are where we are. That's why polar caps are melting at record speed. Amazon forest is the smallest it has ever been. (90+% of the space is used for animal farming). That's why our global climate is hotter and wilder than ever (record high global average temps last month).
If you don't think these things are an issue then I can see why spreading awareness would feel like a waste of time. However, if that's the case then I would strongly recommend looking up the effects and potential dangers of the direction we're headed regarding climate change. Our future generations are fucked.
I mostly agree with your point, but I’m not sure if “awareness” is the right term here. She is helping to spread commitment. She’s more like a coach than she is like a reporter. She helps people who already know about climate change decide to take responsibility for it and do something about it.
You are making an assumption that lack of "awareness" is the problem that needs to be solved. Meanwhile icecaps are melting and mass extinction is occurring, we are already aware of it! Multiple European Governments and energy industries are enabling it! But instead of asking why Germany is still building Coal plants, she is staging fake protests where she "gets arrested" for a photo-op.
That's exactly why there needs to be enough people to vote for the environment focused government party, if any. There's no downside to raising awareness when there are still people out there who are in denial of climate change. I did not know about the fake protest arrests. Imo, no one can be perfect in the way their convey their message. Convincing the mass is a difficult thing to do. People will have various opinions on what's the right way to protest/spread the message. The important thing is that effort is spent, and it's having an impact. Lastly, we don't need to focus on one issue at a time as a society. Different groups of people can be responsible for different tasks.
Yeah as much as I hate to use this term, I think a small committee is better suited to handle a complex topic than the entirety of society.
That’s not to say I think committees are great ways of handling things, but that I think a small committee is better at handling things than a large committee.
IMO the only workable solutions to global problems are going to be ones only a few people understand. And not from lack of access to the information, but from lack of time to educate everyone on every problem.
I think I've beaten this horse enough. So I'll just say that while you and I are certainly both environmentalists, I disagree that people like Greta doing what she has been doing, is very useful since it takes a fatal systematic problem and individualizes it for, imo, dubious reasons.
Maybe even if the individual responses are futile in their direct effect, they can still help build a sense of commitment to the eventual solution.
Say a person gives up eating meat. That itself might not fix the problem, even when summed across all the people who make that choice, but the act of sacrificing something in their life helps to establish their identity as someone willing to put forward effort.
IMO the right solution is centrally-imposed taxes on carbon extraction, subsidies on sequestration, and modulation of those financial incentives to whatever numbers necessary to actively manage atmospheric greenhouse gas levels.
I think that individual solutions are a waste of time and can even be dangerous because they can create a sense of complacency. But I think psychologically, they could possibly be part of the path toward people doing all the hard work to get that system of taxes and subsidies in place.
Kinda like how punching a bag can get you trained up to punch out an opponent. Giving up meat becomes an exercise, rather than the work itself.
Why is Germany building more coal plants?
My sources tell me it’s because of anti-nuclear sentiment, (and also because of sudden lack of access to Russian gas), but I’ve got source bias and my sources haven’t done an in-depth analysis it’s always mentioned offhand in some bigger message context.
I don't know. I assume because they needed to make up the gap from shutting down their nuclear plants and coal is cheap and pretty fast to get going, plus doesn't require any "exotic" manufacturing like solar/wind need. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts