My biggest question is did she walk or cycle to the border and swim to England to not harm the environment? There are levels. I get that we need to be kinder to the environment, but most of that...
My biggest question is did she walk or cycle to the border and swim to England to not harm the environment?
There are levels. I get that we need to be kinder to the environment, but most of that is on industry, not the consumer. We'd all use the alternatives if they were financially viable, easy to obtain, and didn't make life harder. I'd take a plane made from recycled plastic, fuelled by month old spaghetti, if it was viable and scientifically proven. Industry cannot put on us EVERYTHING and say it's our fault for buying/using it. If they don't make it, we cannot buy it. Change it to something else that doesn't destroy the planet. Change the fuel. Change the process. Campaigners like HRH Harry saying about saving the environment then jumping on his private jet kill me.
Before you berate me, I know we're multiplying and eating more, destroying more to make space to live, and we travel more which uses more damaging fuels. My argument is still that if industry changed their behaviour it would change ours and me recycling a magazine is nothing compared to the absolute horrors of waste in the industrial world, let alone standard commercial businesses.
Edit: My opening statement was partially in jest, please calm down, I am light-hearted and humoured. The statement about people getting on their high-horses about environmental impact humans are having, then flying around the world on their private jet is valid. It shouldn't be for consumers to change the way industry works, industry should change to stop the world caving in, else we all lose out. That's all I was trying to get at.
I don't understand your comment. She was there protesting for what you say you support, systemic change. The place for the protest was not at random to rally or annoy against regular people: Even...
I don't understand your comment. She was there protesting for what you say you support, systemic change. The place for the protest was not at random to rally or annoy against regular people:
The Swedish climate campaigner had joined other activists outside the InterContinental Hotel on Park Lane where oil executives were meeting.
Even her statement in the article is saying the same things as you:
"People all over the world are suffering and dying from the consequences of the climate crisis caused by these industries who we allow to meet with our politicians and have privileged access to."
She is literally there trying to argue for industries to change their behaviour, which supposedly is your argument.
My arguement is still that if industry changed their behaviour it would change ours
Why would her means of travel be important? Everyone living in modern western society is harming the environment, either directly or indirectly, Greta moving to the middle of the woods and living a complete net zero life would do absolutely nothing about climate change.
She does however have a platform and is a face of a movement, protesting and trying to raise awareness of what is happening (in this case oil executives meeting with the government officials) is at least something positive, even if she had to sit on a plane on her way there.
Climate Activist Greta Thunberg, 16, Arrives in New York After Sailing Across the Atlantic - Time Transatlantic voyages of Greta Thunberg - Wikipedia I'm not certain how she traveled to London,...
You actually answered my question, lame as you find it. I'm fed up with news articles about activists that then go against what they are fighting for in their day to day lives.
You actually answered my question, lame as you find it.
I'm fed up with news articles about activists that then go against what they are fighting for in their day to day lives.
How is that a reasonable position? That only perfect people or absolutists may ever advocate for any kind of systemic change? When talking about systemic issues, it's often the case that the...
How is that a reasonable position? That only perfect people or absolutists may ever advocate for any kind of systemic change? When talking about systemic issues, it's often the case that the status quo places an undue burden on everybody living within that system to act in society's best interests; if only the most abstinent among us had the right to speak on these issues, there'd be no one left to argue for them.
I've seen this sort of absolutism bear out in other leftist areas as well. People don't want to be corrupted by power or be seen to be desirous of being in a position of power, and so they don't...
I've seen this sort of absolutism bear out in other leftist areas as well. People don't want to be corrupted by power or be seen to be desirous of being in a position of power, and so they don't try as hard to rise to positions of influence that would let them make changes. That leaves the decisionmakers being people who wanted power for their own ends or who didn't care about the optics of being powerful, and so went for the opportunity wholeheartedly.
It's the same nonsense you hear when anyone protests the status quo. "Oh, you hate capitalism yet to you partake in it? How curious!" - Yes, well done. The alternative is not paying taxes or...
It's the same nonsense you hear when anyone protests the status quo.
"Oh, you hate capitalism yet to you partake in it? How curious!" - Yes, well done. The alternative is not paying taxes or functioning in this society.
The above is an example and it happens every time someone throws shade at the Establishment as it stands.
Some people will be mollified by nothing short of suicide with a note saying "now I'm not harming the environment". Anything less than that and they will use it as ammunition for the "How...
Some people will be mollified by nothing short of suicide with a note saying "now I'm not harming the environment". Anything less than that and they will use it as ammunition for the "How curious!" reaction you pointed out. It's ridiculous. If Thunberg had sat in a road, they'll hate her, if she protests a conference for fossil fuel bigwigs, they'll hate her. There's literally nothing she could do that will make them happy, so we may as well ignore that kind of criticism.
Criticism for the sake of criticism should just be flat out ignored. It's just people moaning from a place of their own unhappiness, not from a place of challenge or change. So, agreed!
Criticism for the sake of criticism should just be flat out ignored. It's just people moaning from a place of their own unhappiness, not from a place of challenge or change.
You're right that our primary criticism should be aimed at industry, not the consumer, whose power to effect change directly is limited. Thunberg is on your side: her criticism was aimed at...
There's levels. I get that we need to be kinder to the environment but most of that is on industry, not the consumer.
You're right that our primary criticism should be aimed at industry, not the consumer, whose power to effect change directly is limited.
Thunberg is on your side: her criticism was aimed at politicians and lobbyists:
Speaking at the rally, Ms Thunberg said: "Behind these closed doors at the Oil and Money conference, spineless politicians are making deals and compromises with lobbyists from destructive industries - the fossil fuel industry.
"People all over the world are suffering and dying from the consequences of the climate crisis caused by these industries who we allow to meet with our politicians and have privileged access to."
She added: "That is why we have to take direct action to stop this and to kick oily money out of politics."
I never quite understand this. "Industry" does not exist in a vacuum. People buy the things the industries make. If people didn't financially support environmentally damaging industries, they...
but most of that is on industry, not the consumer
I never quite understand this. "Industry" does not exist in a vacuum. People buy the things the industries make. If people didn't financially support environmentally damaging industries, they would go away. If people lived more sustainable lifestyles, there would be less need for industry. It's all connected.
I'm not saying this is what you're saying in this instance, but that "it's not us, it's industry/rich people" is so often used an excuse for people to not make an effort. Oh, this one flight doesn't matter because Taylor Swift. I can have these £5 fast-fashion trousers because so do millions of other people. And yet if all those people stopped doing those things, Taylor's flight wouldn't matter and the "disposable" clothing industry wouldn't exist.
What’s easier, regulating a single company/industry, or politely asking and convincing 50 million people? Reminds me of the good old war on drugs, where we targeted consumers of drugs rather than...
What’s easier, regulating a single company/industry, or politely asking and convincing 50 million people?
Reminds me of the good old war on drugs, where we targeted consumers of drugs rather than the producers and distributors. That didn’t turn out too well in the end.
True, industries do not exist in vacuums. It is rarely so easy to just choose another option, though. Let's assume that you make the singular decision to stop using products produced by "the oil...
True, industries do not exist in vacuums. It is rarely so easy to just choose another option, though.
Let's assume that you make the singular decision to stop using products produced by "the oil industry". That eliminates the vast majority of modern clothing, which is made of polymers derived from crude oil. Now you're looking at clothing that is only produced from natural fibers - most likely cotton, wool, or silk. None of those come cheap these days - and what's more, they are almost certainly produced on farms that utilize crude oil, either by powering machines and factories or due to the use of modern fertilizers, which derive their phosphorus and other compounds from crude oil.
Your decision is, thus, as much an economic one as it is an ethical choice. Your ethics have guided you down a path that is likely far more expensive; what else can you give up?
Now, let's turn our attention to transportation. That's easy - just use a bicycle! However, if you're in the United States you're not likely to find much infrastructure to support that decision, outside of some key cities and locations. Even then, you'll be riding on pavement and asphalt - which are, you guessed it, derived from crude oil. Various components of your bicycle are also derived from crude oil - the carbon in the steel frame is likely derived from the same asphaltines that your roadway is. Any plastic component on the bike is derived from crude oil. The rubber of the tires is likely synthesized from crude oil compounds.
I could go on, but I won't belabor the point. It is very easy to insist that you can just "not buy" a product from an industry and make wide-sweeping changes. Modern capitalism has ensured that your individual decisions don't really have much of an impact. The oil industry in particular has its roots in a number of other industries - farming, food production, modern materials, the list goes on and on.
The sorts of changes we need will likely be born of structural societal changes and incentives towards other industries, rather than from individual consumer decisions. We need to make non-crude derived materials more available and cheaper to use, such that larger industries can be incentivized to use them.
My biggest question is did she walk or cycle to the border and swim to England to not harm the environment?
There are levels. I get that we need to be kinder to the environment, but most of that is on industry, not the consumer. We'd all use the alternatives if they were financially viable, easy to obtain, and didn't make life harder. I'd take a plane made from recycled plastic, fuelled by month old spaghetti, if it was viable and scientifically proven. Industry cannot put on us EVERYTHING and say it's our fault for buying/using it. If they don't make it, we cannot buy it. Change it to something else that doesn't destroy the planet. Change the fuel. Change the process. Campaigners like HRH Harry saying about saving the environment then jumping on his private jet kill me.
Before you berate me, I know we're multiplying and eating more, destroying more to make space to live, and we travel more which uses more damaging fuels. My argument is still that if industry changed their behaviour it would change ours and me recycling a magazine is nothing compared to the absolute horrors of waste in the industrial world, let alone standard commercial businesses.
Edit: My opening statement was partially in jest, please calm down, I am light-hearted and humoured. The statement about people getting on their high-horses about environmental impact humans are having, then flying around the world on their private jet is valid. It shouldn't be for consumers to change the way industry works, industry should change to stop the world caving in, else we all lose out. That's all I was trying to get at.
I don't understand your comment. She was there protesting for what you say you support, systemic change. The place for the protest was not at random to rally or annoy against regular people:
Even her statement in the article is saying the same things as you:
She is literally there trying to argue for industries to change their behaviour, which supposedly is your argument.
Why would her means of travel be important? Everyone living in modern western society is harming the environment, either directly or indirectly, Greta moving to the middle of the woods and living a complete net zero life would do absolutely nothing about climate change.
She does however have a platform and is a face of a movement, protesting and trying to raise awareness of what is happening (in this case oil executives meeting with the government officials) is at least something positive, even if she had to sit on a plane on her way there.
Climate Activist Greta Thunberg, 16, Arrives in New York After Sailing Across the Atlantic - Time
Transatlantic voyages of Greta Thunberg - Wikipedia
I'm not certain how she traveled to London, but your "biggest question" is pretty lame.
Edit: I should add that her trips aren't entirely without criticism, but a real effort is being made.
You actually answered my question, lame as you find it.
I'm fed up with news articles about activists that then go against what they are fighting for in their day to day lives.
How is that a reasonable position? That only perfect people or absolutists may ever advocate for any kind of systemic change? When talking about systemic issues, it's often the case that the status quo places an undue burden on everybody living within that system to act in society's best interests; if only the most abstinent among us had the right to speak on these issues, there'd be no one left to argue for them.
I've seen this sort of absolutism bear out in other leftist areas as well. People don't want to be corrupted by power or be seen to be desirous of being in a position of power, and so they don't try as hard to rise to positions of influence that would let them make changes. That leaves the decisionmakers being people who wanted power for their own ends or who didn't care about the optics of being powerful, and so went for the opportunity wholeheartedly.
It's the same nonsense you hear when anyone protests the status quo.
"Oh, you hate capitalism yet to you partake in it? How curious!" - Yes, well done. The alternative is not paying taxes or functioning in this society.
The above is an example and it happens every time someone throws shade at the Establishment as it stands.
Some people will be mollified by nothing short of suicide with a note saying "now I'm not harming the environment". Anything less than that and they will use it as ammunition for the "How curious!" reaction you pointed out. It's ridiculous. If Thunberg had sat in a road, they'll hate her, if she protests a conference for fossil fuel bigwigs, they'll hate her. There's literally nothing she could do that will make them happy, so we may as well ignore that kind of criticism.
Criticism for the sake of criticism should just be flat out ignored. It's just people moaning from a place of their own unhappiness, not from a place of challenge or change.
So, agreed!
You're right that our primary criticism should be aimed at industry, not the consumer, whose power to effect change directly is limited.
Thunberg is on your side: her criticism was aimed at politicians and lobbyists:
I never quite understand this. "Industry" does not exist in a vacuum. People buy the things the industries make. If people didn't financially support environmentally damaging industries, they would go away. If people lived more sustainable lifestyles, there would be less need for industry. It's all connected.
I'm not saying this is what you're saying in this instance, but that "it's not us, it's industry/rich people" is so often used an excuse for people to not make an effort. Oh, this one flight doesn't matter because Taylor Swift. I can have these £5 fast-fashion trousers because so do millions of other people. And yet if all those people stopped doing those things, Taylor's flight wouldn't matter and the "disposable" clothing industry wouldn't exist.
What’s easier, regulating a single company/industry, or politely asking and convincing 50 million people?
Reminds me of the good old war on drugs, where we targeted consumers of drugs rather than the producers and distributors. That didn’t turn out too well in the end.
True, industries do not exist in vacuums. It is rarely so easy to just choose another option, though.
Let's assume that you make the singular decision to stop using products produced by "the oil industry". That eliminates the vast majority of modern clothing, which is made of polymers derived from crude oil. Now you're looking at clothing that is only produced from natural fibers - most likely cotton, wool, or silk. None of those come cheap these days - and what's more, they are almost certainly produced on farms that utilize crude oil, either by powering machines and factories or due to the use of modern fertilizers, which derive their phosphorus and other compounds from crude oil.
Your decision is, thus, as much an economic one as it is an ethical choice. Your ethics have guided you down a path that is likely far more expensive; what else can you give up?
Now, let's turn our attention to transportation. That's easy - just use a bicycle! However, if you're in the United States you're not likely to find much infrastructure to support that decision, outside of some key cities and locations. Even then, you'll be riding on pavement and asphalt - which are, you guessed it, derived from crude oil. Various components of your bicycle are also derived from crude oil - the carbon in the steel frame is likely derived from the same asphaltines that your roadway is. Any plastic component on the bike is derived from crude oil. The rubber of the tires is likely synthesized from crude oil compounds.
I could go on, but I won't belabor the point. It is very easy to insist that you can just "not buy" a product from an industry and make wide-sweeping changes. Modern capitalism has ensured that your individual decisions don't really have much of an impact. The oil industry in particular has its roots in a number of other industries - farming, food production, modern materials, the list goes on and on.
The sorts of changes we need will likely be born of structural societal changes and incentives towards other industries, rather than from individual consumer decisions. We need to make non-crude derived materials more available and cheaper to use, such that larger industries can be incentivized to use them.