Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
The bit I don’t understand is if as all the protesters say, quite rightly, that the planet is going to hell in a handcart from the perspective of human life why do they want to bring new life into the planet to enjoy the ride into oblivion?
Because having kids is one of the most important things to many people. The idea is that if we do radically change our lifestyles the planet won't get destroyed and we can still have kids.
But what really is the difference between one person wanting a child and someone else an suv? Both are objectively unnecessary both are bad for the environment. In fact having a child is about the worst thing you can you from a climate change perspective.
Personally I would rather keep my lifestyle and not have kids which is exactly what we have done.
I’ve got a 3l petrol SUV, I like it.
Personally I would rather keep my lifestyle and not have kids which is exactly what we have done.
Agree. Having children is still on the sliding scale of choice for the majority of people.
The whole debate falls apart when you just target one type of vehicle which in itself is not really one type of vehicle. An SUV can be many different shapes, sizes, weights, ages and engines.
It's not one thing.
If we're really really bothered then stop tinkering around the seems and reconfigure society so people don't have to travel so far to work! Another lovely by-product of neolibralism.
I've a kodiaq - it's got 2000 litres of space for my job to carry kit. My miles are reduced as much as I can to about 6000 PA. With the rest on a cycling commute.
I'm happy that my footprint is tiny compared to a family, with or without an SUV.
I'm pretty sure I could find issues with non-suv driving families lifestyles too if I really wanted to.
Hmmm, while I'm sure there are some people who choose not to reproduce entirely on environmental grounds, I don't think it's the overiding reason is it?
Some people just like their life child free, and enjoy the quality of life that comes with not having all the extra costs and considerations that inevitably follow with children. Which is fine, especially in a world where having kids is an often the unchallenged norm. But don't fool yourselves that it was for entirely unselfish reasons.
The people I know who've opted out of kids mostly talk about the relative freedom they see themselves having compared to their child rearing contemporaries. I really don't think any of them would be claiming they did it to save Mother Earth, in fact a good chunk tend to exploit that freedom by consuming/polluting a fair bit extra in their own right, more (plane) travel, more powerful cars (purchased more frequently), using that disposable income to buy more stuff...
I do wonder just how true the "family footprint" point is, it's trotted out every time one of these discussions comes up, but in all honesty I've no idea if it's science based or just something that seems logical in the context of environmental impact...
I'm sure someone will put us straight.
chrismac
Full Member
But what really is the difference between one person wanting a child and someone else an suv?
I suppose the fact it doesn't meet the basic definition of sustainability?
Also, whataboutism and the fact it's doesn't have to be either/or.
We will need children in the future, if only to pay our pensions and wipe our bottoms when we're too old to do it ourselves, if we collectively make it that far. The best thing to do if you've got them is to educate them to not grow up to become another generation of mindless consumers, amongst other things. The most reassuring thing from the whole Cop thing has been how switched-on the young generation are, eloquent, informed and angry. They may get angrier if change doesn't come fast enough, and that may not just stop at letting your tyres down.
@endoverend:
No need. Plenty of migrants.
In general, this thread reinforces our need to re-establish a train link between Glasgow and the Trossachs.
Some people will say “och, there’s only a handful of pharmacists who would utilise that line”.
But the potential demand from tourists…phew!
I can understand the pharmacists need to get there under his own steam. But, not to deliver prescriptions. He’s a bit overqualified for that kind of donkey-work, and he’d be better off sub-contracting that work to some kid named Deliveroo so that he/ she can pay off their e-bike.
As for the perceived safety angle of suv sales. With rising prosperity, once every road user owns one, any advantage is diminished and we’re all back to square one. Ford escort mk2 vs 1968 Mini Cooper, etc.
It’s been said that if the weather is really that bad, then a motorbike and side-car will get through almost anything.
If the people who own the SUV’s have the space in their garage, why not own a ‘regular’ (light) car and a quiver of motorbikes, e-bikes, e-scooters, etc?
Can't the robots wipe our arses? Someone must be working on it.
We will need children in the future, if only to pay our pensions and wipe our bottoms when we’re too old to do it ourselves
We could re organise ourselves but I take your point But that has nothing to do with the environmental impact.
do wonder just how true the “family footprint” point is, it’s trotted out every time one of these discussions comes up, but in all honesty I’ve no idea if it’s science based or just something that seems logical in the context of environmental impact…
It’s simple logic reall,y which is going to generate a bigger carbon footprint 80+ years life a new baby born now is likely to live versus one that is never born?
The simple solution is not to have and kids. You will then have a lower carbon footprint than anyone who has.
If you're that bothered about your carbon footprint then there is a simple way of reducing it.
I’ve got a 3l petrol SUV, I like it.
I've got a child. I like it.
We have an SUV and looking at our emissions we generate about 1.7 tonnes of CO2 per year. We don’t do a lot of miles in it now as our circumstances have changed.
As used prices have risen so much and there is no equivalent model on sale at the moment, I could sell it and easily pay off the loan we have for it and have reasonable excess.
I can also lease an electric car through work as I’m higher rate tax payer the equivalent payment to our current car would allow me £600 per month that should get a nice electric car.
So i could be better off have lower emissions and lower fuel bill and have a nice new car. However I’d create at least 20 tonnes of CO2 in make the switch by creating a new car. So although its financially for me to switch it makes no sense environmentally to change unless I’m missing something.
So do i deserve my tires let down for doing the right thing even though it’s costing me money, if our mileage were higher it would be different.
LET HIS TYRES DOWN! You could sell it and buy a second hand non-suv which is more efficient? Buying a new ev isn't the only option.
But what really is the difference between one person wanting a child and someone else an suv?
Excellent point. Anyone fancy a swap?
("Now kids, we need a new twitmobile, so one of you needs to volunteer...")
You could sell it and buy a second hand non-suv which is more efficient?
Read what he wrote
Children have no inherent carbon footprint whatsever.
You only assume they have one because
- we've already built world which uses fossil fuels
- people assume children will live the same as the generation before
Children have no inherent carbon footprint whatsever.
Well, only unless they are brought up as beasts and would effectively be sub-human. Since the Neanderthals and fire, we've been creating a carbon footprint. Not to create one would make us the same as gorillas.
Raising children as sub-human beasts, now there's an idea!
Its not like there's enough information out there on the subject, all the analysis points in the same direction... here's a great report from Transport & Environment
I like this quote from above:
It is tempting to blame car-buyers for the rising CO2 but the market for SUVs has to a large extent been created by carmakers’ skilful marketing and pursuit of higher profits. Carmakers have been aware of 2020/1 CO2 targets since 2009 and could, and should, have factored their growth into their compliance plans ensuring a higher proportion of these vehicles were equipped with hybrid systems that would greatly increase efficiency. Instead carmakers have benefited from strong sales in this market segment without taking responsibility for their greater environmental footprint and higher emissions. The lack of progress in recent years in reducing emissions as a result of the shift to SUVs is therefore carmakers’ own responsibility due to their own poor planning.
or if TLDR from the Gruadrian:
How SUV's conquered the world- at the expense of its climate
Some people just like their life child free, and enjoy the quality of life that comes with not having all the extra costs and considerations that inevitably follow with children. Which is fine, especially in a world where having kids is an often the unchallenged norm. But don’t fool yourselves that it was for entirely unselfish reasons.
Does the reason matter? If they aren't having children then they are doing much less damage to the environment than some who does, regardless of why.
The analogy here may be being an epileptic who can't drive, he is doing much less harm than someone driving about in the SUV even though he isn't not driving for environmental reasons.
You could sell it and buy a second hand non-suv which is more efficient? Buying a new ev isn’t the only option.
Yeah, but the suv doesn’t magically disappear in that scenario. Someone else doing more mileage could buy it and we’d be worse off. I’ll admit I’m kind of in that same position. I have one because I liked it at the time and I also have a frontline nhs job that I HAVE to get to in rural parts of Scotland. It may only be one week a year when it’s really needed but when it is, it’s vital. Having said that, my driving habits and social attitude have changed since I bought it and not sure I’ll replace it. Had it 5 years and only done 44000 miles. Needed nothing done at mot, so decided to keep it. Thought about buying a smaller car for everyday but real world I’d save 60 gallon of fuel a year. I accept all the evidence about suv excess inherent co2 but the car is built now and that can’t be change. Better to properly maintain a single car and use it as responsibly as possible.
As for future sales, that either needs to be legislated against or make them more difficult to buy. Same goes for Hot Hatches, M series BMW, AMG Mercs etc. I’ve had fast cars in the past and loved them but their time has come. I’d like to see a ban on PCP and lease deals on more polluting new car sales. IMO it’s the rise of these that have made cars in those bracket more achievable. Small increases in monthly payment can get you much more in terms of full cash price. It also reinforces the cycle of you “needing” a new car every three years.
Yeah if you don't do a lot of miles then I agree there's little point changing. My older petrol focus only does 38mpg but I do so few miles it wouldn't make financial sense to buy something more efficient. LET MY TYRES DOWN!
So i could be better off have lower emissions and lower fuel bill and have a nice new car. However I’d create at least 20 tonnes of CO2 in make the switch by creating a new car.
Not necessarily. A new EV will come into the world, and at the bottom of the chain an old possibly inefficient ICE will leave it. So you could still be contributing to reduced emissions overall, after the 3-4 year payback period. And you'll be contributing the economies of scale that are driving down prices which will lead to more cheaper EVs.
I’d like to see a ban on PCP and lease deals on more polluting new car sales.
TBH there should be a ban on that sort of credit altogether – they make shiny new cars so much more affordable to so many more people. In fact I was out walking my dog yesterday and went past some new build houses – all quite small 2 and 3 bed semis or townhouses (ie, terraced). Almost all of the houses had very new (and often very high value) cars parked outside. It struck me as a bit odd as I was thinking 'why are they buying such modest houses when they can afford such cars' then it occurred to me that they will most likely be on leases with relatively low monthly repayments and I can see the attraction for many people.
For example, borrowing £10,000 over 24 months costs £431 a month (HSBC current rate) and what can you get for that? A four year old Fiesta. Alternatively, you could get a brand new shiny BMW 2 Series Gran Coupe M235i xDrive 4dr Step Auto Pro Pack on a lease for very similar money. And two years later? Just get another brand new shiny thing.
I read somewhere that the CO2 produced in making a new car in some cases is as much as the CO2 the car emits over its lifetime - is it therefore better to keep running an old car than buy a new EV? I also hear that once EVs are widespread, and because the running costs are so much lower - it is expected that people will be driving literally everywhere - much more so than currently, so we'll need more roads and infrastructure to fit all this extra driving in - all of which will be CO2 footprint heavy. Our complete inability to give up the car for all of our even most basic mobility requirements means we are, as a race, are ****ed and cooked - hot planet here we come. So the argument about SUV vs normal car is fairly inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. It should be a question of reducing how much we drive significantly to the point of exception rather than norm, regardless of what we drive.
This is the best image to answer the above question:
One would hope that the switch to EV's will lead to less unnecessary journeys as drivers will need to think about the range more carefully. But I don't underestimate peoples capacity to do the wrong thing.
Does the reason matter? If they aren’t having children then they are doing much less damage to the environment than some who does, regardless of why.
I'm Greta Thunbergs dad & I have issues with that statement.
Our complete inability to give up the car for all of our even most basic mobility requirements means we are, as a race, are **** and cooked – hot planet here we come.
Add in the inability to give up meat, stop going on holidays, buying a continuous stream of shit from all over the world and yes we are indeed ****ed.
Worrying about SUVs vs slightly more efficient equivalent cars seems futile to say the least.
Through choice I live in a medium-sized town, close (1K) to the town centre, where everything is 10 minutes walk, work is a 10-minute bike ride, kids walk to school, and kids after school sports are all within 1/2 mile from the house and now we both work predominantly from home. This makes a massive difference to our carbon footprint even with an SUV hence its low emissions (25K miles in 5 years), compared to if we lived a few miles further out with EV, as every journey would have to be driven.
The kids have friends that live up in the peak, it's over 1 hour round trip to school, football training, shopping, etc. For many of them, it's a 10 mile round trip for a pint of milk. Living out there is a lifestyle choice for most of them with a massive environmental impact. On the other hand, I grew in the suburbs of Leeds again you had to drive to go anywhere unless you were going into the city centre or as public transport around the city was dreadful, it was great getting into Leeds ( i know because we didn't have a car). For me, town planning has to be more sustainable.
From my house, we can manage everything if we wanted on foot or by bike this is a deliberate choice and we've built our lifestyle around this. It also maximises our free time as we are not spending huge chunks of the day in cars. These things are not black and white, it's easy to point figures as I said I think the best option for the environment, which actually costs me money, is to keep the SUV as it delays another car being created for probably another 9-10 years rather than getting an EV which will sit on the drive.
From my house:
Boys football training 50m
The nearest pub, the garage where a car is serviced, van hire, timber yard, chippy 100m.
Hospital, Coop convenience store, park for kids to play in, primary school 500m
Sainsbury's, Dance studio ( we are there several times a night) 700m
B & Q, Halfords, town centre, favourite pub 1k
Train, Station Aldi (where do most of my shopping) 1.2K
Kids high school and kids home football ground, swimming pool 1.6K
Work 4K
One would hope that the switch to EV’s will lead to less unnecessary journeys as drivers will need to think about the range more carefully.
I had to have a word with myself earlier this year when we got our 1st electric car (a Leaf), because I noticed the opposite was true. I'd nip to the shops more readily in the Leaf, thinking that it's eco-acceptable. Previously, I would have walked rather than take the ICE car.
The range thing isn't relevant for small journeys when you can always make sure it's 'brimmed' by plugging in at home.
Worrying about SUVs vs slightly more efficient equivalent cars seems futile to say the least.
Got to start somewhere though.
Just don’t have a coffee while you’re thinking about it.
https://circularcoffee.org/manifesto/
Whilst we are worrying about SUVs, I don't see much parallel evidence of people worrying about horses. Great big gas bag, methane emitting resource gobbling beasties whose owners consume vast amounts of resources just to keep and move their hefty pet around. A bit like children*.
I'd just ban horse ownership for anything other than genuine working arrangements:- Farm work, forestry, RDA centres. Horse racing and gambling are a horribly toxic mix anyway. Hunting is completely indefensible. Eventing, showjumping etc etc are vastly resource intensive and harmful on most levels. Killing two birds with one stone; eat the horses and watch the SUV ownership subside. And as for the it's not-an-HGV horse boxes....
*Disclaimer. My wife & I decided not to have kids, for environmental reasons, about 30 years ago. Even back then it was quite clear that there were already far, far too many rich, resource intensive, greedy westerners on the planet and it's a whole lot worse now.
Worrying about SUVs vs slightly more efficient equivalent cars seems futile to say the least.
The details of numerous studies show that it is worth tackling though. Which we need to do alongside everything else. Not sure about the horses thing yet...
SUVs were the second largest cause of the global rise in carbon dioxide emissions over the past decade, eclipsing all shipping, aviation, heavy industry and even trucks, usually the only vehicles to loom larger than them on the road. Each year, SUVs belch out 700 megatonnes of CO2, about the entire output of the UK and Netherlands combined. If all SUV drivers banded together to form their own country, it would rank as the seventh largest emitter in the world.
from that Graudrian article above
greedy westerners
Wait til you see what happens to Easterners when they reach the same levels of affluence.
This makes a massive difference to our carbon footprint even with an SUV hence its low emissions (25K miles in 5 years), compared to if we lived a few miles further out with EV, as every journey would have to be driven.
Why would you have to move a few miles further out if you had an EV?
What if you only did 5k a year but in an EV?
We seem to get wrapped up in the Co2 created when producing a brand new EV, and seem to forget that at street level they don't produce any fumes, NOX etc, thus giving us cleaner air in our towns etc.
Running your diesel for umpteen years might be better for the environment on one hand, but on the other.......
Whilst we are worrying about SUVs, I don’t see much parallel evidence of people worrying about horses.
Have you been looking hard?
Maybe write to your local paper about it? Preferably in green ink.
it is expected that people will be driving literally everywhere
They already do! There are cars pouring into our local supermarket every second of the day (well, when it's open anyway). There's usually about two or three people at the bus stop with shopping at any given time, and when I walk there (virtue signalling mode activated) I might see one other person shopping on foot.
*Disclaimer. My wife & I decided not to have kids, for environmental reasons, about 30 years ago. Even back then it was quite clear that there were already far, far too many rich, resource intensive, greedy westerners on the planet and it’s a whole lot worse now.
This may have been a bad choice - your child could have been the one who had the insight to solve the problem of nuclear fusion or some other thing that resulted in their existence having a massively negative impact on the carbon footprint of humankind.
People are not necessarily like dogs/horses which will just consume stuff then die. Sure, some people are like that but do you think humankind's carbon footprint would be higher in 2030 if Greta Thunberg had never been born or lower?
Greta Thunberg had never been born or lower
Exactly the same because she hasn’t actually done anything to reduce emissions. She has traveled allot, silken, shouted and ranted allot. But she hasn’t actually achieved anything in reality
That's a bit like saying the marketing department of coca cola never made any difference to sales.
This thread is equally hilarious and depressing.
Stop looking at other people and judging them. Start looking at yourself and try to minimise your impact. Pressure (vote) our politicians to enforce rules which gently guide people to make better choices (better rules for new cars increasing energy efficiency, making more sustainable and less polluting fuels more viable economic, better infrastructure and public transport). Bitching at someone because they chose something that you find wrong, without understanding their or your impact is just stupid.
Slight tangent, but the govt could send out a clear message by prioritising supermarket delivery vehicles over regular traffic by allowing them into the designated bus, taxi and cycle lanes.
I can understand the attraction of being able to ‘click and collect’ your groceries from the supermarket.
Ideally, we should still be walking or cycling to the shops, if only for the perishables.
This fulfils our hunter/ gatherer needs (it’s what we’re designed for).
Stop looking at other people and judging them. Start looking at yourself and try to minimise your impact. Pressure (vote) our politicians to enforce rules which gently guide people to make better choices
Not sure who you are talking to but they are not listening. And as for pressuring our politicians, have you seen the governments the UK votes into power?
My impact is pretty low (low car use of very efficient car, vegetarian for 40 years, buy most food from from shop which sources mostly locally etc,.) and I vote Green. What do I do next please?
But she hasn’t actually achieved anything in reality
Strongly disagree.
What do I do next please?
Sacrifice yourself and your family for the greater good according to some on here 😏
She's only the most famous climate change protester in the world, inspiring millions of young and old people to take up the cause, so to suggest she's had no impact is misconceived.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49918719
Strongly disagree.
Agreed - she has brought climate change into focus for so many, especially the younger generation. To say she has done nothing shows an incredible misunderstanding of what she has done and is continuing to do – she is an incredible person.
Ideally, we should still be walking or cycling to the shops, if only for the perishables.
This fulfils our hunter/ gatherer needs (it’s what we’re designed for).
I know I say this on every thread where this comes up, but what incredibly energy dense products are you guys eating and drinking? A weekly to a week and a halfly shop* for me and the missus fills a small trolley and subsequently the boot of my admittedly small car. I almost always go on the way home from work, so about 0.5miles extra.
I would need to go on a near daily basis and have a very well thought out rota for buying the larger items if we were limited to a backpack. And that removes the ability to buy some items in bulk for reduced packaging and manufacturer transportation costs.
*we waste almost no food, only the offcuts/cores/skins of vegetables really gets thrown out; ignore useby dates unless there is visible mold or smell.
To say she has done nothing shows an incredible misunderstanding of what she has done and is continuing to do – she is an incredible person.
Very much. Even at a minimum she is that annoying person that the world leaders and others don't want to have to deal with as they know she is right.
Talking to a lot of people recently Greta is
seen as so deeply annoying and whiny that I think she has turned off more people to doing something than she has persuaded. She is a deeply decisive character and makes it easy for the unwilling majority to dismiss people campaigning for the environment as tree huggers, swampies and whiny children.
In my opinion a more grown up and less emoting/emotive figurehead for the environmental movement would be much more useful.
In my opinion a more grown up and less emoting/emotive figurehead for the environmental movement would be much more useful.
Like all of those other less emoting/emotive figureheads we have all never heard of?
Yes, like them.
Yes, like them.
Well I guess they won't divide opinion if no-one ever hears their opinions...
Talking to a lot of people recently Greta is
seen as so deeply annoying and whiny that I think she has turned off more people to doing something than she has persuaded.
Personally I've observed (mostly) the opposite.
She's a fantastic figurehead precisely because she's "annoying". Someone with less strength and persistence would have given up.
She's only annoying because the kind of people who find her annoying know she's right and personal attacks on her just seem to bounce off.
There is a minority (the Boomer-Gammon demographic) that just don't like being told what to do by an autistic teenage girl who's still better at public speaking in a 2nd language than they are in their 1st. But they're becoming ever easier to ignore themselves.
Greta is great. Raising awareness, engaging with a generation that typically avoids politics and speaking truth to power.
Not only that you can use people's reactions to her as an almost fool proof arsehole detector.
I don't think they are a minority though. There are huge swathes of people across the country who just want to work, drive about, have children, and go on holiday and not "be made to feel guilty for it" and won't accept any change to their lifestyle being "forced" upon them. You might not be speaking to them but they are all out there.
thisisnotaspoon has hit the nail on the head with what they think though.
One of the biggest challenges I think there is with regard to public opinion is that many people have flipped straight from not being worried about the environment to thinking we are all doomed so why change.
It's not my opinion and it depresses me, but I hear it a lot. Just wanted to provide an alternative narrative.
And I don't have an answer to jondoh about who should be the figurehead. The potential candidates might all be getting on with driving policy, quite glad that wee Greta is taking the flack and being the butt of all the jokes.
I know I say this on every thread where this comes up, but what incredibly energy dense products are you guys eating and drinking?
Mostly ‘Cup-a-soup’.
Just kidding. What I meant was, get your bulky, staple foods delivered and pop round to the supermarket for the fruit and veg.
In my opinion a more grown up and less emoting/emotive figurehead for the environmental movement would be much more useful.
Attenborough grown up enough for you? If the answer is yes, then remember he thinks Thunberg is fantastic.
They're both right.
There are huge swathes of people across the country who just want to work, drive about, have children, and go on holiday and not “be made to feel guilty for it” and won’t accept any change to their lifestyle being “forced” upon them. You might not be speaking to them but they are all out there.
Equally there are people out there who just want to go around murdering people. etc etc
Personally I think the bigger problem demographic is the "Politicians need to do something" middle ground. The ones that have convinced themselves it's someone else problem to solve. Just read through this thread at them "but my SUV is no worse than [straw man's] T5/Ferrari/flight to Spain". They're the ones that will sign up to Octopus energy and put a green border on their facebook page for earth day, but they wouldn't support adding fuel duty on their half term ski trip to Tignes, putting a CO2 tax on meat and dairy food, or making petrol £2/litre. They'd argue that it's "too much", possibly days after arguing that something has to be done (to someone else).
[yes this is a hypothetical mix of various opinions expressed by people on this forum mashed together, less straw man, more Frankenstein's Gen-X monster]
The people who find her annoying are the ones who can't see past their own selfish noses on any topic. We know they exist because their voting habits have saddled us with our current shambles of a govt. To them, climate change is great because it means beaches in Marbella will be hot year round.
I don’t think they are a minority though. There are huge swathes of people across the country who just want to work, drive about, have children, and go on holiday and not “be made to feel guilty for it” and won’t accept any change to their lifestyle being “forced” upon them. You might not be speaking to them but they are all out there.
But that isn't what she is doing though – she is challenging world leaders to do something about climate change. I might be wrong but I don't recall any specific attacks made by her on individuals' choices to go on holiday, buy a car or have children.
Attenborough grown up enough for you?
He can think Greta is great all he wants, it won't change people's opinion of her! There isn't an easy answer here, but there are a huge amount of people who need a lot of convincing to make even the most basic lifestyle change, or to vote for people who are going to change the wider system, and it's not happening yet.
Maybe you are hanging around mostly with people who are making changes and voting for changes, but look around at all the SUVs, the poorly insulated new-builds, the endless disposable coffee cups, the throngs still buying tat at Christmas and queuing up for fast fashion, all the folk driving to work every day, refusing to consider it a meal unless it has meat in it, and you'll see we are a long way from any obvious societal change.
Equally there are people out there who just want to go around murdering people.
Not really equally, the murderers aren't a core part of the current economic set-up!
I don’t recall any specific attacks made by her on individuals’ choices to go on holiday, buy a car or have children.
I know. But that's what people are hearing. They are wrong, and they are selfish, but they need to be convinced, and right now they aren't, and they are voting conservative.
but there are a huge amount of people who need a lot of convincing to make even the most basic lifestyle change, or to vote for people who are going to change the wider system, and it’s not happening yet.
You aren't getting it are you? She isn't trying to stop you going to Marbella on holiday, she is trying to reach out to the world's governments to make them do something so reducing the effects of climate change can be brought about from the top down, not just because Mary from Dagenham has gone vegan.
She doesn't even claim to have the answers, she just wants to make such a fuss that she demands to be heard at the top table and just maybe real change may come about because of it.
You aren’t getting it are you? She isn’t trying to stop you going to Marbella on holiday
I'm not sure why you are trying to make out as if I am in opposition to you. I was just talking about the reactions to her that people I have spoken to recently have had. Not my opinions. Can't stress that enough.
Top down change doesn't happen unless it's demanded from the bottom up. I think that's how democracy works. That needs people en-masse to recognise the problem and vote and demand change. I think Greta puts off a lot of people. That was the start and end of my point.
Top down change doesn’t happen unless it’s demanded from the bottom up.
That is exactly what she is doing!!!
He can think Greta is great all he wants, it won’t change people’s opinion of her!
It does though. She is an important part of the picture. If enough people spread the word then eventually the right sort of person will get through to the people who need it. There are lots of grumpy reactionaries who just don't like being told what to do, but they only have so much energy for that, generally. We'll have young upstarts saying the same thing as old establishment figures and politicians of both sides, and singers, sportspeople, musicians, YouTubers etc etc. This is how the message gets across.
the poorly insulated new-builds
My relatively new build house is poorly constructed but it's pretty well insulated. Warmest house I've ever lived in.
she is challenging world leaders to do something about climate change
That may well be her intention but as cop26 showed world leaders are just ignoring her. Nothing real has actually changed because of her and her supporters
That may well be her intention but as cop26 showed world leaders are just ignoring her.
So what is her alternative? Stay at home and watch TikToks? At least she is trying and is continuing to make herself heard globally.
So what is her alternative?
try a different approach. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is at best foolish. I’ve no idea what that is, I’m not protesting
There’s been a COP meeting every year since 1995 apparently.
This one is the first that I was aware of. The media must be doing something right, finally and slowly.
That may well be her intention but as cop26 showed world leaders are just ignoring her. Nothing real has actually changed because of her and her supporters
It is changing, and it's changing because of people like Thunberg and thousands of others before. It's not really fast enough though, which is why people are still unhappy.
Greta has had an impact whether she annoys some people or not and regardless of what STW thinks of her. Everyone knows who she is and therefore everyone will have been exposed to climate change issues. Some won’t listen but may will. Loads of young people have obviously listened.
She says herself that one day people will stop listening to her but until that day she will carry on.
It is changing, and it’s changing because of people like Thunberg and thousands of others before
I don’t see any evidence of that. The cop26 outcome shows how little is actually changing in the real world.
^^^ and that mentality shows exactly why we are ****ed as a species.
People not understanding that it's happening isn't the same as it not happening
I don’t see any evidence of that.
I'm not saying we're there, I'm not saying we're doing enough, but we are doing some.
For starters:
