Jump to content
IGNORED

Why do you think people reject the need to act on the climate crisis, even in the face of evidence.


unsafetydancer

Recommended Posts

So, in the Brexit thread I expressed infuriation with the fact that, at least in my country, people often treat the idea of protecting our environment as a joke.

I have some ideas as to why this is. Obviously, the overwhelming resistance from the people currently in power who massively benefit from the fossil fuel and motor industries as well as lax anti-pollution laws. It's like every time there is a step forwards the media will rush to portray the scientists and activists as pessimists or doom-sayers. It's annoying that people won't look at the evidence on their own and think beyond "it's annoying to have to separate my household waste" and see that we have to take this all the way to the very top to even begin to make a difference. People feel powerless and just give up when it's pretty bloody imperative to not give up in the face of mass extinction events and environmental collapse.

I also wonder if it's down to science, nature and other connected topics being portrayed as "geeky" and "uncool". I think my generation suffered from a very aggressive kind of anti-intellectualism where we were taught that it was only "cool" to know just enough to get yourself into uni/a good job. This was especially true among girls in my age group. My father always valued education just for the sake of learning something so I was in a pretty small minority in my town (but then again, it had a large number of oil workers) in that I enjoyed learning about the world and how it all fits together. I remember being laughed at by a group of girls in my school because I asked for a recycling bin to put our bottles and cans in. Apparently, it's not cool to care.

I think it's great that we now have young women like Greta Thunberg standing up and talking about all this in a very eloquent and well-informed way but they also come in for a horrific amount of abuse as a result. Some of this is possibly down to sexism and the idea that teenage girls should somehow be only interested in boys and other "acceptable" interests. I have also experienced first hand the reaction adults have to being questioned by young people when I was her age, equal parts horror and a sort of rage that you would even dare. I love the fact that young people, in general, seem to be starting to question adults more. Now all we need is to take these young people seriously and encourage them. This might be a very long time coming but I hope that my generation will at least be better at it than my parents'.

I think a big part of the issue is fear of change. The fact is that everyone will have to make changes to their lifestyle to make this work. Even when you suggest to people that towns and cities be structured to prioritise public vehicles like buses and trams then you are met with a bunch of people telling you why it will never work. They are unable to imagine the idea that better and more available public transport might make cars obsolete in cities because they have always needed to take a car to get around or have never bothered to use public transport at all. Also, the idea of becoming a less wasteful society seems to make people angry or pessimistic.

The biggest elephant in the room seems to be that our entire civilisation is now structured around cheap, replaceable stuff that we often only use once or twice then throw away. Everything from the fashion industry to electronics needs to make us want to just buy more and more stuff just so that their (terrible) business models can remain intact. On one hand, people will usually admit that it is utterly bonkers that Primark will sell you a shirt for £3 that will disintegrate after a few washes but on the other they will just shrug and head right out to buy more shirts that can only be worn a couple of times. 

Then right at the top, everything seems so impossible to change that people end up just bickering over the minutiae like plastic straws rather than campaigning for things like an end to fossil fuels. It's like how people in cities KNOW that diesel-fuelled engines are contributing to conditions like asthma and lung cancers but they don't see the point in putting pressure on the government to completely ban these vehicles. I once ended up talking to a taxi driver about how he knows the polluted air around city centre taxi ranks is damaging his health but he won't ever swap his diesel car and neither will any other taxi driver because then he will have to get used to a new car. It makes my head spin.

I would like to believe that there is hope but it honestly feels like a losing battle. I know that in other European countries the environment is taken a little more seriously. Is this an education thing or is there something more to it? 

  • Upvote 12
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for starting this topic, @unsafetydancer.

If you want, you could boil the answer to your question down to one little two word phrase:

Capitalism Rules.

Everything has to bow before the need to make bigger and better profits, and consequences be damned. And this sentiment it helped along by the human predisposition to disregard the longterm -- rather half a cookie today than wait for tomorrow so you can have two. I can see that half cookie now, but don't see the two cookies you promise for tomorrow yet. The future is vague and nebulous, and the further into the future something is projected, the more amorphous it gets in their minds. Climate change having consequences in 2030 is so far away people simply can't see it yet. 

People are hopelessly myopic. They can't see past their own noses, as the saying in my country goes. 

It's been calculated that a cow can feed a man for half a year. But the very food that cow needs, if eaten by that man instead, could feed them for seventeen years. Yes, years. And yet, two thirds of the planet is being used to grow feed for meat. The environment is being destroyed in order to maintain feeding the bio-industry. But people don't see it. They go to the grocery store and see the meat is on sale today and buy it anyway. Yum!

53 minutes ago, unsafetydancer said:

The biggest elephant in the room seems to be that our entire civilisation is now structured around cheap, replaceable stuff that we often only use once or twice then throw away. Everything from the fashion industry to electronics needs to make us want to just buy more and more stuff just so that their (terrible) business models can remain intact. On one hand, people will usually admit that it is utterly bonkers that Primark will sell you a shirt for £3 that will disintegrate after a few washes but on the other they will just shrug and head right out to buy more shirts that can only be worn a couple of times. 

Yesterday, the planet used up the resources for its human population for the year. We are literally eating into our future resources as of right now. But people still can't look further than that juicy piece of meat on their dinner plates. Because it tastes good. Because they've been indoctrinated by the bio-industry for decades that humans need to eat meat and dairy products daily in order to survive, even though that is scientifically proven to be untrue. They continue to use plastic straws, disposable plates and sporks, plastic containers, plastic bags, disposable anything and everything, disintegrating clothing made by child labor in a third world country because it's cheap and easy. It's there, you don't have to pay much to get it, and you don't have to think about it. It saves time. Time is too precious, because people have to work hard to make money, and that takes a lot of time and effort. There is no time left to worry about the nebulous future.

Because capitalism rules.

55 minutes ago, unsafetydancer said:

I think it's great that we now have young women like Greta Thunberg standing up and talking about all this in a very eloquent and well-informed way but they also come in for a horrific amount of abuse as a result. Some of this is possibly down to sexism and the idea that teenage girls should somehow be only interested in boys and other "acceptable" interests. I have also experienced first hand the reaction adults have to being questioned by young people when I was her age, equal parts horror and a sort of rage that you would even dare. I love the fact that young people, in general, seem to be starting to question adults more. Now all we need is to take these young people seriously and encourage them. This might be a very long time coming but I hope that my generation will at least be better at it than my parents'.

From a young age we have been spoon-fed that boys act this way, and girls another. Boys are from Mars, and girls are from Venus. Boys, blue, girls pink. Boys strong, girls sweet. Boys want to work, girls want to marry and have babies. The sexes are different, and in a society based in patriarchy, boys are still perceived as somehow being 'better' than girls. 

But apart from the pervasive sexism in society, there is also very strong bias against ages. If you are older than 55, you are passed your prime and in many cases considered too old for your opinion to matter. You are too set in your ways, and can't keep up with the times. If you are younger than 30, you are too young for your opinion to matter. You lack experience, and don't know anything yet. And if you lack certain dangly bits, then you are doubly useless, no matter what your age is.

These ideas are constantly being reinforced by all kinds of marketing. And it's not limited to trucks for boys, and dolls for girls. There are the obvious differences in clothing, menswear vs female clothes. Shampoo for women, for men, for grey hair, red-heads, curls, frizzy hair or straight, blond or brunette, for young people or older. Deodorant for men, deodorant for women. Shoes, hats, accessories are different if you are man or woman, young or old or in between. Heck, there are even different types and colors of furniture and home decorations aimed at women or men.

All of this shores up the belief that there is more difference than commonality between us. All of this is differentiation means more products. More products sold, means more profit.

Because capitalism rules.

These long-held beliefs, the sexism and ageism, are being held under scrutiny though. And changes are happening, slowly but surely. And not only by the younger generation. I'm part of the older one, and have very different ideas about sex and age and environment and society in general than a lot of my peers. All it takes, I think, is the ability to question common held beliefs and hold them up for scrutiny against your personal values. 

1 hour ago, unsafetydancer said:

I would like to believe that there is hope but it honestly feels like a losing battle. I know that in other European countries the environment is taken a little more seriously. Is this an education thing or is there something more to it? 

I don't think it has to do with education so much as it does.. capitalism. I live in a town that aims to be the most sustainable in the country (and so far are successful in that attempt, but there are others yipping at our heels). I don't think that's because of some altruistic, environmental need in all those towns and cities though. It's because it's profitable to do it. We (as a country) make money off innovations. We market those innovations, not only nationally, but internationally. So it's in our (financial) best interests to be more environmentally active.

Because capitalism rules.

We are brought up to believe that making money is the ultimate goal. The more you have, the more you can buy, the more accomplished you are in the eyes of society. We are taught that working hard and earning money (the more the better) is the very purpose of life. And the better you are at it, the more esteemed you are. Just look at how rich people are looked up to -- almost revered in some cases. 

It is going to be incredibly difficult to change people's perspectives. To make them look up from their plates, as it were, and see the world around them, and the impact they are having on it. But don't despair. It can be done. It starts with a few people, and then more and more people coming to the realization of what is happening and acting upon it, like the Diffusion of Innovations theory by Everett Rogers tells us. 

We are the innovators, and the early adaptors are following slowly. Soon the awareness will start spreading to the majority. 

The question is, will it be in time?

 

  • Upvote 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anti-intellectuallism and anti-science sentiment coming from the very top and percolating downward. I am referring to here in the United Stated (presently the Disunited States).

Edited by SilverBeach
  • Upvote 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@fraurosena I agree with most of this. Sexism and gender norms are huge obstacles for society in general to overcome. As is ageism. Capitalism has to go.

I support a Universal Basic Income model. Basically, everyone is given enough to live properly on, including learning and leisure activities. This would free everyone up to become involved in their communities. The limited studies done have shown that this strategy leads to more people in work so you can't even use the old "people will just be lazy" argument against it.

The one thing I disagree with you on is veganism. I inhabit a body that will find it nearly impossible to be fully vegan. While I believe we should limit our meat intake, we're also omnivorous creatures that need the amino acids provided in meat and dairy to produce proteins for growth and repair, especially young people and children.

I would like to see better regulated, sustainable farming. My grandfather was a dairy farmer on a small farm in rural Scotland. Every single cow was precious to them. No animals were allowed to become sick through negligence and all the animals were treated well, right up until the ends of their lives. Overbreeding the cattle or allowing them to become ill might have meant the farm went bankrupt! Making a mess of the environment meant no grazing next year and dead cows and no income!

I would like this idea of farming, that considers all aspects of how it impacts the world. I would also love to see people growing their own veggies and herbs, which encourage bees into areas. Admittedly, I live in a tenement with no garden so it's not practical for me!

I have personally never viewed money as an ultimate goal. Money enables me to take care of my family, to see my girlfriend or to make more art but it has no value to me other than this. I had a pretty unconventional upbringing in some ways though. I hope that we can move away from the culture of productivity over all and towards one where we value things that have some wider meaning. Your words have given me hope that I am not wholly alone!

  • Upvote 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Universal Basic Income will eventually become necessary, as eventually most of our lives will become automated. There will be no need for people in many sectors and many jobs will go away. More and more of our lives will be spend online. The gap between the haves and the have nots will become insurmountable, and it will be almost impossible to better your lot in life once a Universal Basic Income is rolled out. The middle class will cease to exist.

I don't want to be a farmer or a rancher or have anything to do with food production. Factory farms have their place in the world, as they are the most effective and efficient in manufacturing the food for the rest of the world. Organic is just a marketing buzzword. GMOs are good. Roundup is not evil.

I'm kind of a fatalist. We're fucked as a species. Humanity as we know it is waning. We are headed towards a mass extinction event- maybe not in my lifetime- but it's inevitable.

  • Upvote 2
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, unsafetydancer said:

The one thing I disagree with you on is veganism. I inhabit a body that will find it nearly impossible to be fully vegan. While I believe we should limit our meat intake, we're also omnivorous creatures that need the amino acids provided in meat and dairy to produce proteins for growth and repair, especially young people and children.

Let me start with saying that I'm not trying to 'convert' you to veganism, and what I'm going to say is not meant to do that at all. Going vegan is a very personal choice, and should be yours and yours alone, without feeling pressure from anyone, let alone a stranger on the internet.

That said, I would like to point out that there are various scientific studies disproving your statement about needing amino acids from meat and dairy to produce proteins for growth and repair in anyone, not even young people and children. These necessary proteins can be gleaned just as well from a combination of nuts and legumes and vegetables. Don't take my word for it though. Here's an article on the subject that you might find interesting. 

Like I said, I am not trying to get you to go vegan. But I believe one's choice should be made based on facts and not on misconceptions. 

/lecture :pb_wink:

  • Upvote 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@keen23 I worry this is somewhat pessimistic. My understanding of where UBI has been trialled so far is that it removes people from the constant need to be "productive" under all circumstances and at all costs which frees us all up to become more involved with our families and communities. If I had more time and needed to work less then I would certainly spend more time in my community, I think most people would so it doesn't necessarily mean living more alone. 

One suggestion that has been put forward is much higher taxes for the "super rich" to both fund UBI and also tackle inequality. Maybe I'm an idealist but I would like to see this work.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that some of the far right Christians (at least in the US) who have influence on at least the republican lawmakers feel that climate change doesn't matter because Jesus will save them. Oh, and that humans (at least rich white males) are in charge, the hell with other species or the planet. I don't understand how anyone can think that way, but I know more than one climate change denier. They just think that the increasingly awful things going on, climate-wise, are part of a "bigger picture" that will somehow magically work itself out (because Jesus).

It is difficult to make changes and I admit I throw away more than I should, but I've become more aware and make more of an effort to purchase fewer throwaway items and live responsibly. In some cases, they are small things, like using wood dryer balls instead of dryer sheets, but some are larger.  I would love to consume less meat and other animal products, but I've struggled with that for a long time.

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Change is hard and we tend to be lazy. People would have to learn to live with less, to eat way less animal product, to pay more for items and then have them repaired instead of replaced, to either do without straws or take reusable ones with them, to always have reusable bags at the grocery store, to eat more local foods. This is a world that people lived in not too long ago, we could do it again, but people are used to this new life and tend not to want to give it up. 

Plus we have the rabid religious nuts who are anti-doing anything because Jesus is coming back soon and this Earth is here for us to exploit. Then we have the anti-science people who can look at facts and claim they are fake. 

The republicans aren't going to do shit and the Dems tend to be scared to really push for change lest they drive off voters. 

People will have to start making radical changes because we can't rely on the government to do it. I doubt people will do that, though. 

  • Upvote 6
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, formergothardite said:

People would have to learn to live with less, to eat way less animal product, to pay more for items and then have them repaired instead of replaced, to either do without straws or take reusable ones with them, to always have reusable bags at the grocery store, to eat more local foods. This is a world that people lived in not too long ago, we could do it again, but people are used to this new life and tend not to want to give it up.

In the 60's, we took our shoes to get taps on the heel when new so they would wear longer. We also took shoes in to be repaired. Plus, we didn't own dozens of pairs of shoes. Pop bottles were returned to the store for deposit credit. Meals were prepared and consumed at home, no zillions of takeout containers creating tons of trash. Of course, no plastic water bottles existed. Life was definitely more economical. I don't live this way now, although I am concious of reduce/reuse/recycle, I still buy too much.  I do use reusable grocery bags as much as I can and definitely recycle a lot. Modern American life is full of waste (especially food, which is something I cannot stand), and radical cultural change would be needed to change this in any meaningful way. I don't think it will happen.

  • Upvote 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@unsafetydancer, I found a very interesting scientific article that gives an answer to your question about why people deny the climate crisis and fail to support environmentalism. As most scientific articles, it's extremely lengthy, so I've put the gist of the argument the article makes in the quote. 

The influence of social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism on environmentalism

Quote

Research on the psychological foundations of climate change denial have highlighted the important role of two ideological attitudes: Social dominance orientation (SDO) and right-wing authoritarianism (RWA). People who endorse SDO want society to be structured hierarchically, with some groups at the top dominating over ‘lower status’ social groups, who are relegated to the bottom of the social hierarchy [1]. Right-wing authoritarians are those who prefer to conform to group norms and the orders of authority figures, while punishing those who do not conform [2]. SDO and RWA were initially developed to help explain attitudes towards social groups, with both Social Dominants and Authoritarians showing a preference for groups of people similar to themselves, and hostility towards those who are different [3]

[...] However, the ideological attitudes broaden to predict attitudes towards the environment. Specifically, Social Dominants are more likely to oppose environmental policies [4], support environmental exploitation [5, 6], and deny climate change and its human causes [7–11]. Similarly, Authoritarians are less concerned about the environment [12], perceive climate change as less of a risk [13], and support punishing environmental activists—and not polluters [14].

[...] 

Pratto et al. [4] present possibly the first analysis of the relationship between SDO and attitudes towards issues that are not solely focused on social groups, including attitudes towards environmental policies. They predicted that SDO would correlate with opposition to any policy that reduces inequality between humans and other species. Indeed, they found modest negative correlations between SDO and support for environmental policy. This is perhaps the first hint that for those endorsing SDO, nature might be another ‘outgroup’ to assert dominance over.

This idea of human dominance over nature is evident in anthropocentric depictions of our relationship with the natural environment, a belief that is at the core of the dominant social paradigm (DSP) [16]. The DSP indexes endorsement of ideological systems favouring growth and prosperity. Individuals invested in the DSP position themselves to dominate and exploit the environment, and are unmoved by appeals to protect resources [17]. Milfont et al. [10] argue that Social Dominants’ propensity for environmental exploitation exists “because SDO promotes human hierarchical dominance over nature” (p. 1127)

Irrespective of why the relationship exists, a growing number of studies have provided evidence for the association between SDO and environmentalism, which paint a somewhat dismal picture for climate change mitigation. Social Dominants are less likely to believe in climate change and its human causes [7–10], prompting researchers to urge caution not to portray environmental action as threatening to the social hierarchy [7]. Milfont et al. [10] showed that Social Dominants are less concerned about the environment (Study 1), while also more accepting of exploitation of natural resources (Study 3). Moreover, greater average country-level SDO is associated with poorer environmental performance (Study 2). Social Dominants are more supportive of making use of natural resources, and hold generally more negative attitudes towards the environment [18]. Across nations, the SDO-environmentalism link is small but robust, with the association strengthened in areas with greater social inequality [11].

Alongside this research on SDO, Peterson, Doty and Winter [14] similarly found that RWA was related to statements that conceptualise environmental issues as overstated, environmental action as detrimental to the country, and environmentalists as deserving of punishment. Hoffarth and Hodson [19] similarly showed that Authoritarians view environmentalists as posing a threat to society, tradition, and the economy. Furthermore, and perhaps consistent with their denial of climate change [15, 19], Authoritarians are less likely to assume responsibility for acting on global warming, or intention to mitigate the problem [20]. 

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Thank You 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting and depressing reading. I hope that these two particular attitudes are becoming less popular with time, but then I look at the media in my country and see that they are still alive and well :(

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think people are just scared of change. Learning new skills, finding a new job... that takes effort, which a lot of people don't want to put forth. And a lot of people lack imagination, so until they actually see the world on fire, they won't believe it. They also can't see how a 'green new deal' could *possibly* work. Personally, I think Faux News has been brainwashing people into believing those 'liberal ideas' would destroy America... so obviously, anything that comes from liberals is bad! ?

Oh yeah, and some don't consider the change all that bad. I'm from Michigan. We always had a white Christmas (except one or two years, when I was growing up). 20+ years of snowy Christmases. I moved away in 2011... haven't had a white Christmas since. But that's okay, because snow is annoying and inconvenient!

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there's also a sense of "it's too big, we can't make any noticeable change" as well. I hear that and the variation of "it doesn't matter if we reduce emissions because China/India/Indonesia/[insert lower income country] are increasing emissions" - ignoring that our emissions are still extremely high.

One interesting theory I read somewhere is that there's a sense of disbelief thst it can happen - nuclear war didn't, so climate change won't. This kind of misses an important point in that we had a lot more control over firing missiles than we do once climate change has started.

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Interesting, quick read about "the useless class." The people who will be all but unemployable as more and more jobs are automated and how it compares to ultra orthodox men in Israel who have never worked and receive what is universal basic income so they can get by. Virtual reality will become reality for the unemployable.

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-meaning-of-life-in-a-world-without-work?utm_source=pocket-newtab

  • Thank You 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Can I just say how much I admire this young lady? The way she takes the world to task is so inspiring. Here's how she dressed down the UN today:

This is the text in full, bolding mine.

Quote

This is all wrong. I shouldn’t be standing here. I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean. Yet you all come to me for hope? How dare you! You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words. And yet I’m one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction. And all you can talk about is money and fairytales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!

For more than 30 years the science has been crystal clear. How dare you continue to look away, and come here saying that you are doing enough, when the politics and solutions needed are still nowhere in sight.

You say you “hear” us and that you understand the urgency. But no matter how sad and angry I am, I don’t want to believe that. Because if you fully understood the situation and still kept on failing to act, then you would be evil. And I refuse to believe that.

The popular idea of cutting our emissions in half in 10 years only gives us a 50% chance of staying below 1.5C degrees, and the risk of setting off irreversible chain reactions beyond human control.

Maybe 50% is acceptable to you. But those numbers don’t include tipping points, most feedback loops, additional warming hidden by toxic air pollution or the aspects of justice and equity. They also rely on my and my children’s generation sucking hundreds of billions of tonnes of your CO2 out of the air with technologies that barely exist. So a 50% risk is simply not acceptable to us – we who have to live with the consequences.

To have a 67% chance of staying below a 1.5C global temperature rise – the best odds given by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – the world had 420 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide left to emit back on 1 January 2018. Today that figure is already down to less than 350 gigatonnes. How dare you pretend that this can be solved with business-as-usual and some technical solutions. With today’s emissions levels, that remaining CO2 budget will be entirely gone in less than eight and a half years.

There will not be any solutions or plans presented in line with these figures today. Because these numbers are too uncomfortable. And you are still not mature enough to tell it like it is.

You are failing us. But the young people are starting to understand your betrayal. The eyes of all future generations are upon you. And if you choose to fail us I say we will never forgive you. We will not let you get away with this. Right here, right now is where we draw the line. The world is waking up. And change is coming, whether you like it or not.

 

  • Upvote 6
  • I Agree 3
  • Thank You 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think all the things some of you have pointed to are very true. It is a mix of issues for sure (petrol industry, changing our way of living, capitalism, consumerism, etc.), which makes the political class look away or not take actions.

But I trust the youth. It is weird because I am still young (late 20's) but I realized it is not the millenials' fight. The kids I see take actions are very young teenagers (some as young as 13 years old)(I think they are called Gen Z). These kids are very aware of this issue and I think it will become their generation's true calling. At least here in my country, most of the marches have been organized kids in high school. I will be joining them this friday in Montreal to march with Greta. ??

What I find refreshing is that a lot of these kids are lucid about it too. They are aware that the smart phone they use are made with very polluting materials, and not all of them are vegans. But at least they try to shake the status quo. They realize that our system is not perfect and they are the product of that system. Just like I am a product of that system too. But there is still room to try to do little changes in our lifes. Not to mention that the kids are not afraid to do political pressure on our governing bodies.

Not to mention that if this generation grows up to be responsible adults, maybe they'll be able to get into politics and change things. In my country I see a HUGE generational devide. And I don't say this to paint a gross picture of course. My mom is a babyboomer and she is much more diligent than I in reducing her plastic use! But a year ago, Quebecers elected a government with NO environment platform at all. Younger voters pointed this out as problematic during the campaign, but to no use. The results showed that the government was massively elected by older voters (again these are the stats. I know their are youths that are not aware of the environment issue and vice versa). So the implication of the younger generation is probably the only thing that makes me not loose hope. Because when I hear about the predictions of scientists, I am DAMN scared. So I try to hold on to a bit of hope. And these protests, the fact that the younger generation is not idle, at least is uplifting. Which is why I'll march with them this week.

I want to see hope.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, fraurosena said:

Can I just say how much I admire this young lady? The way she takes the world to task is so inspiring. Here's how she dressed down the UN today:

This is the text in full, bolding mine.

 

And the right-wing commentariat here are painting her as an hysterical, frightened little girl terrified that the world will end being "enabled by the reprobates at the UN". (That last bit was so bizarre I had to quote it). 

It is so far from how she appeared that I am starting to wonder what drugs they are on - or whether they are screaming at her because she is the face of change and they can see their loss of power. I hope.

  • Upvote 5
  • I Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ozlsn said:

they are screaming at her because she is the face of change and they can see their loss of power.

It's this. Very much this. The loss of power is their ultimate fear. So they are frightened of a young girl who is not afraid to tell it like it is and take them to task for their inaction with regards to climate change, and who by her courage and refusal to back down is mobilizing people all around the world.

Did you see her reaction when she saw Trump? Her face says everything.

 

  • Upvote 1
  • I Agree 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/24/2019 at 8:43 AM, Vivi_music said:

But I trust the youth. It is weird because I am still young (late 20's) but I realized it is not the millenials' fight.

I disagree with this. It is everyone's fight. I may not live to see the end, but I have a child with a disability and I fight because I need a world to exist after I die where he is cared for and not murdered or left to starve because there are too few resources and he cannot fight for himself. I fight because I have nieces and nephews who I want to have the best possible lives - and that for me means a stable society, with equitable distribution of resources. It is more immediate for youth because they will be the ones dealing with a lot of this, but their parents and grandparents fight too.

As to why the resistance - I just read an opinion piece by Andrew Bolt  (right-wing commentator in the Murdoch press) where he reassures everyone that there's no problem, no need to worry, just hysterical women and a sycophantic UN giving them a platform. Nothing to see here folks, go back to sleep.

Also She doesn't giggle or pout. Behind men's discomfort with Greta Thunberg.  She treats them like she is equal, with an equal right to be heard, and they really don't like it.

On 7/31/2019 at 6:59 AM, unsafetydancer said:

One suggestion that has been put forward is much higher taxes for the "super rich" to both fund UBI and also tackle inequality. Maybe I'm an idealist but I would like to see this work.

Oh hell yeah. When individuals accumulate more weath than small nations there is a serious problem. Whst got me was Mackenzie Bezos pledged to give away half of her $36 billion dollar fortune (nice troll of her ex btw) and I realised she could give away 99% and still have $36 million left. That is bloody ridiculous. Tax these people ffs.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ozlsn said:

I disagree with this. It is everyone's fight.

I didn't mean to say that you can't be part of the movement because of generations or age. Probably didn't phrase my first sentence well. I'm an ''older'' millenial and I try to do my part. I also want politicans to act. Not to mention I want to have children one day and I wish them to live in an sustainable world. I just meant that from my anecdotal experience, most of the kids in the forefront (organising protests, asking to meet the provincial premier, etc.) are younger. They are the one leading the movement, at least where I am from. The protests started since at least last spring (archives from last spring in links below)

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-environmental-protest-in-is-14-week-1.5141274

https://globalnews.ca/news/5315354/students-meeting-premier-legualt-caq-convention-kicks-off-in-montreal/

Each generation is marked by some social issues or activism. I know when I was in college, it was the 2012 student fees strike. Being vegan or reducing meat consumption was not as mainstream. People weren't ''woke'' on these issues. Some were but they were marginal. Now it is starting to be on a broader scale. I think that the environmental cause will certainly be the core activism of the Gen Z and I am glad it is.

Edited by Vivi_music
  • Upvote 3
  • Thank You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

500 000 people in Montréal! I was somewhere in there. Beautiful day and full of people from all walks of life. Greta was there too and was able to hear her speech on the speakers. The crowd came from all walks of life. Young, old, families, parents with kids in strollers, people of different origins and faith, the beautiful diversity of Montreal showed its face today. A lot of people were in full-on protest-gear (costumes, body-painting and signs). But a lot were people just like me, with nothing special in hands. Just my little self, who decided to walk-off work and live this historic moment so our world leaders know it is important to act and change our system.

On another subject: I know a lot of members of the Catholic church were present. Some of the nuns I work with were present and I saw a few young catholic groups with banners (and priests). It made me wonder why fundies aren't involved more in action against climate change? Or they are and I don't follow the right families? Because clearly I don't think wanting to protect the Earth is against Christian values. I mean... if they believe the Earth is God's creation, then humans should cherish and take care of it. No?

Edited by Vivi_music
Typos
  • Upvote 3
  • Love 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You would think so. :(

(I don’t know how widespread it is, but there seems to be an attitude among some fundies that “Jesus is coming soon, and He’s going to give us a new heaven and a new earth, so we don’t have to worry about saving this one.”)

  • Upvote 1
  • WTF 1
  • I Agree 1
  • Thank You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@smittykins that attitude is really common among fundies.   My parents are reformed Calvinist, and they are strongly capitalist, believing the earth is to be used and subdued, and God will take care of them, so screw environmental protections. Somehow they also are extremely nutty and health conscious, so there is some serious disconnect going on there that makes my head spin.  Unfortunately that belief is widely shared amongst others in their social circles. 

  • Upvote 1
  • WTF 1
  • Thank You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.