One of the reasons why I post my blogs to my facebook is because I hope my friends interact with me so I can get feedback and build consensus. Usually people just opt out. But sometimes some get involved. And regardless who’s right or wrong I strongly believe any discussion around these blogs is useful and contribute to positive outcomes. I think there’s a tonne of ignorance around the topic of the environment. On all sides of the debate. I suspect the conversation I had on my facebook is probably similar to other conversations people have had so maybe it would serve useful to someone somewhere if they may learn how to find common ground with others they engage with. If nothing helps maybe you’ll find the videos I shout out here to be as useful as I found them to be.
Me: My take on all of this is that it is absolutely wrong to attack this girl on any superficial level. She is asking for debate, so contend with her ideas. Leave out the comments about her appearance or her gender or age. We can all appreciate young people becoming more engaged politically than ever before. But it is equally as uncivilized to refuse to participate in the debate she is literally asking for. To disqualify any argument or opinion as nothing more than attacking a minor is a lazy response to genuine reaction.
You can’t treat Greta like an adult when she wants to speak and then infantilize her when it’s her turn to listen. The only way we’re going to navigate our way through this culture war is by doing as much listening as we do talking. Questioning climate activism isn’t climate denial and propping up children to take the place of science only hurts climate initiatives. A child can never be the face of the public relations battle for trust. And by hurting real conversations around actual change, we are working against Greta’s ambitions, not towards them.
Trudeau’s blackface isn’t a question about racism but of integrity. The concerns around Greta Thunberg doesn’t actually revolve around the environment. And in hypocrisy the only thing you will ever find is comedy and that’s why hypocrisy hurts trust. I disagree with Greta that the environment is our number one issue. Not because the environment isn’t an issue. Because she claims we are doing nothing about it. We are. At least here in Ontario, Canada where we currently have more forestry today than we did two hundred years ago. These issues aren’t solved overnight and as long as you keep demanding they are, we’ll never find a solution.
I disagree with Greta but I do admire her. I am glad people are becoming more engaged with issues that impact our daily lives. I just hope Greta can live a happy life. You know how it goes, childhood celebrities never ever develop any issues into their adulthood.
Friend 1: Having more forestry here in Ontario for one doesn’t help the REST of the world, let alone even all the damage done to just our province. Our world is literally at a point of no return, at this point everyone needs to stop taking this personally and start thinking about the future. Who the fuck cares about money, politics, global issues, the economy, etc if we aren’t going to have a planet we can even live on most likely within our lifetime.
Maybe we have done a few things, but not enough. A call to action is needed.
Me: i guess pointing fingers and screeching is the best approach for the environment then. All hail Greta! this is why so many people look at progressivism as a cult. because there is no questioning, there is no pursuit of truth, there is just conformity.
ok. if I had my choice of who I would make the face of climate initiatives I would choose Bjorn Lomborg. Now I know what you’re thinking, “but he’s just a white male! I want the 16 year old autistic girl!” lol i’m kidding, just poking the bear. but Lomborg has written many books on environmentalism since something like 1998. But back around 2015 the UN wanted to set some climate goals so it took proposals from the global community. They ended up with something like 170 proposals. But instead of prioritizing the list and determining which goals were most attainable, most efficient and most effective, their emphasis was on just making sure everyone had equal say in the proposal process. because to prioritize one goal over another would be to discriminate. Shout out to the woke equity crowd. That’s the much desired equality of outcome hard at work.
unfortunately what that means is while doing some good everywhere you’re failing to do the most good in the right places. He asserts that the best way to tackle the environment as a whole would be to address global poverty and extreme poverty. he demonstrates that for a billion dollars you can save a million children a year from malnutrition and disease which translates into them spending more time in school and making more money in adulthood. This helps their community and if we can lift tariffs on trade and expand trade to encompass these communities then we empower the helpless and the vulnerable. This means giving every community the ability to tackle environmental issues around them. If you think poverty isn’t linked to the environment then you need to just watch this short documentary from vice:
Lomborg treats people as problem solving machines so we want to empower as many people as possible. fossil fuel taxes at the end of the day only hurt poor people. back in the 1860s we almost finished whales into extinction for lantern oil in North America and Europe. By using the logic of today’s climate activists they would’ve said hey you need to turn your lights down and use less fat. And that may have helped but it wouldn’t have saved the whales. What did was the discovery of oil. Cheaper, more efficient and better for the environment. A product of human innovation and technological advance. What has always solved every crisis in human existence has been innovation. And we will solve more problems by enabling more innovation.
We don’t actually have infinite resources to tackle these issues. we all agree that asteroids can be a massive existential crisis to us so we spend money on tracking asteroids. But even then we only spend enough to track 90% of asteroids. Because the other 10% is considered just too expensive. That’s not a result of a dude on a yacht in Florida, it’s because sometimes there are just more important and more effective use of resources.
Allan Savory has spent his life working on desertification where grasslands rich with plant life turns to desert. He points out that we all know that desertification is caused by livestock. Mostly cattle, sheep and goats. They over graze the plants, leaving soil bare and giving off methane. Everybody knows this. Except it’s entirely wrong. In Savory’s attempt to turn african farms into national parks. Only when they did the lands turned from lush grasslands to desert. While trying to understand what was going on they ended up killing 40 000 elephants because they thought the elephants were damaging the lands by trampling it with their tusks. The problem got worse.
They discovered that livestock farming actually cultivates grasslands. They act as little gardeners. Their hooves turn the soil, their poop fertilizes the ground and when it rains it stores carbon and breaks down methane. Now it’s not just any farming that will work, he’s developed an approach he calls holistic management and planned grazing. Much of our attitudes towards the environment today will be looked at in the future in the same way we look back to when everyone believed the world was flat. (let’s leave the flat earthers for another conversation).
But listen to what I’m saying. Capitalism, livestock farming and a booming population is good for the environment. Do you think anyone in the cult of progressivism would ever allow anyone to push those ideas? Progressive politics hurts progress. But don’t take my word for it, my grammar is shit. Steven Pinker touches on this in his latest book enlightenment now. He does a chapter on environmentalism and showcases many graphs to give a real context of the problems and contributing factors. By far the largest contributor of emissions is China. There are lots of reasons and that is largely an entire discussion in it’s own right. Yes, we can have both conversations about here at home and about China. But we aren’t having a conversation about China at all. Not even while Hong Kong loses it’s liberty.
The point I’m making is there is real progress to be made but the only thing this neo-marxist, intersectional, pc culture bullshit breeds is self hatred and it’s only goal is to destroy western civilization. It’s embedded itself in feminism, in the LGBT community, in politics, in environmentalism and it’s propped up by governments like our Liberal one here in Canada, over in the UK and through the UN. It only prioritizes initiatives that further it’s political agenda of anti-capitalism, anti-christianity, anti-tradition, etc etc. And there are more than a few people willing to prop up these toxic, regressive ideas. Whether that’s Greta Thunberg using climate alarmism to make people hysterical, or the mainstream media like the new york times or washington post writing editorials fantasizing about the benefits of human extinction.
The culture war is breeding apathy and cynicism and counter-enlightenment sentiments that are regressive, not progressive. We have broadcasters reducing human life to nothing more than the carbon footprint they represent. You can’t minimize the value of human life anymore than that. That’s like saying it’s just not worth buying a house because of the debt it represents. And there is no comparing the value of a house to that of an actual human life. And Greta’s approach to climate change is like looking at people being hit by cars and reducing that entire multi-variable issue to just “let’s get rid of all the cars!” without any discussion over the implications of that. Apathy doesn’t make people want to read books on these issues. It just makes people want to see the world burn.
I don’t blame her for not appreciating the gravity of her words… she’s 16. I blame everyone around her propping her up. She should have some kind of TV show or youtube channel or participate in some kind of group. That would foster a healthier dialogue and be more inviting to others to get on board. Probably healthier and safer for her too. Right now all that I see with Greta is people getting off on the self flagellation of her harsh critique. Collective Munchausen. It’s not healthy.
I said I admired Greta for caring about real world issues and wish more people were engaged. But with the insanity that’s being peddled by activist based narratives, people are largely better off just ignoring it all and just living their lives. I’m not saying i’m “right”. This isn’t an issue about right or wrong. These are not two opposing sides of good and evil. It’s just about truth, dialogue and a path forward. And a defence for enlightenment values and the sacred foundation that our western world was built on.
Friend 1: Lol dude I seriously don’t care. You have written 4 comments to my one.
Typical right wing, takes everything personally. I’m not even a liberal, I just care about my planet surviving more than I care about you.
Me: lol there’s nothing personal here. I appreciate your willingness to engage. that’s all i’m doing. is engaging. I care about the environment too. I think i’ve demonstrated that here. Nothing I’m talking about here is conservative or right wing. But it’s interesting that that’s the only way you’re able to frame this discussion. so is it really the environment we’re talking about or is this just more liberal vs conservative, good vs evil, right vs wrong, black vs white populism that’s tearing society apart? I posted here to talk about the environment, that’s what i’m doing.
yeah i mean i dunno why you keep thinking i’m taking personally a discussion about the environment. I really dunno what to say at this point. this is a complicated issue and needs more than a handful of sentences. But it needs to be one we all better educate ourselves about first of all. Me included. Because the problem is there are multiple options to consider but it’s super hard to build consensus around which approach is the best and most effective. Because we just don’t have the ability to implement ALL possible options to address climate change.
And Greta is actually wrong about most of what she talks about. she’s actually inaccurate when she talks about the facts. Sure we can all get on board with the sentiment of change but we don’t need more ignorance on this issue, we need less.
for example, I think nuclear power is the only real answer. We have the technology now, today. and if we all invest in research we may be able to innovate a way of dealing with the waste and minimize the risks associated with nuclear. that’s a clearly superior alternative to any and all renewables combined.
Renewables all around the world all need to be supplemented in order to supply a sufficient amount of energy to its cities. Most of which are the burning of fossil fuels. but ppl are opposed to nuclear in the same way vaxxers are opposed to vaccines. We misunderstand nuclear the same way we all seem to misunderstand GMOs in our food.
It’s money and resources and politics that is literally the only thing that CAN actually make a difference here. the fact alone that you say this world is at the “point of no return” is pretty fucked up to me. The public figures who peddle this apocalyptic narrative don’t back up anything they say with any scientific explanation. The next time you hear someone use the words “we all know _______ is true” then just do yourself a favour and stop listening. Because what they’re really saying is “i’m hoping you agree with me despite my lack of argument”.
Like politicians in the US calling on a ban to all cows and air planes. Most of the people advocating for change are like Leonardo Dicaprio who use their own private jets. The environment is nothing more than a social trend to a lot of these pseudo intellectuals who are just trying to capitalize on the environment for their own personal branding.
It just breeds ignorance and an unhealthy hysteria, anxiety, helplessness and a sense of impending doom. How hard are you actually willing to work towards a better future if you literally do not believe we have one? There’s actually a trend of young people sterilizing themselves and actually believe they’re helping the environment by doing so. That’s derangement. Would we all still be cheering Greta on if she sterilized herself? It’s like watching everyone drink the kool aid oh but this time it’s ok.
I don’t actually believe the world will end in 12 years and day by day it feels like I’m actually in the minority of those who believe this. While we all sneer at the Jesus folk for preaching their end of days doctrine. Just slap some wokeness on the Bible and we’d ALL be christians apparently.
There’s no harm in Greta caring about these issues and raising awareness to it but I worry if we prop her up for the wrong reasons we could actually hurt the cause more than help it. Like I said, a child cannot be the face of the public relations battle for trust. You wouldn’t take financial advice from a 16 year old so if you believe the environment is more important than money then don’t let a 16 year old lecture you about that either.
but if we really want change we need to look at what EXACTLY would result in the most change and get behind it. Like nuclear. Sorry I used so many words lol I dunno what else to say. 🤷♂️
Friend 2: Jesus Jonn no one is going to read all of that. My initial comment with the doctor Phil gif was because the paragraph I quoted makes no sense.
I almost guarantee that more than half of what you write doesn’t even get read.It’s like if I made a bad song with no effort, and wanted people to listen, or made a terrible movie with no effort and wanted people to watch …. they wouldn’t. Why should they if I didn’t bother to put any effort in?
If you want to ramble on like a crazy person and have nobody listen, that’s fine, but if you want people to listen and take you seriously — put some effort in, edit your writing, organize your ideas, don’t have typos and grammar problems, etc.
Rule #8 