9 ms·

Greta Thunberg: 'How dare you? You have stolen my dreams and my childhood'

68 points by qgi 7y ago

Tepix 7y ago
I had the same reaction when the German government revealed their insufficient measures as part of the "Klimapaket" (climate pact) last Friday. Scientists are recommending a tax of 180€ per ton of CO2 to achieve the necessary reduction in emissions. The German coalition government decides to introduce a 10€ CO2 tax. How dare they?
- Hamuko 7y ago
  How do you prevent populists from gaining power and reducing it to 0€?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - lazyjones 7y ago
    By turning the EU into a dictatorship like the Soviet Union. Personally, I don't care about carbon taxes (I drive a Tesla, too). The poor people on the other hand, will have to suffer even more apparently. They are the main beneficiaries of cheap energy/pollution, since they buy a lot of stuff that's only cheap because it comes from countries like China and India and taxes on fossil fuels and meat will hit them hardest.
  - einpoklum 7y ago
    You campaign incessantly to increase public awareness of the climate crisis, so that a populist politician will have as much to gain from acting to curtail emissions than from reducing taxes. Also, instead of taxation - which is more more easily fungible - you aim for the phasing-out/banning of industrial processes which are overly polluting. With that, there's less of an immediate gain from careless de-regulation.
- papermachete 7y ago
  This doesn't apply to regular citizens, right?
  - voisin 7y ago
    I can’t tell if this is /s or not but carbon taxes fall on the end user to the extent of elasticity of demand and relative cost of alternatives.
- thrower123 7y ago
  How dare the Germans shut down multiple perfectly fine nuclear plants, so they have to burn brown coal instead?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
cartercole 7y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuhHI5AFOeg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuhHI5AFOeg I just saw this video talking about her
lazyjones 7y ago
The EU and USA are really doing quite well. She should be telling the rest of the world it's not enough: https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Fossil-fuel-CO2-emissions-in-the-worlds-major-economies-1960-2018b-1024x683.jpg https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Fossi... I like it warmer though, where's my lobby? ;-)
- Tepix 7y ago
  Pretty much noone is doing "quite well". The goals of the Paris agreement are not within reach with the current measures. We need to half our emissions every 10 years! Saying "I like it warmer" just shows how poorly informed you are. Are you ok with all of the world's coral reefs dying? That's what were are going. These reefs are home to 25% of all species in the oceans!
  - lazyjones 7y ago
    > The goals of the Paris agreement are not within reach with the current measures Are you interested in reduction of global emissions or in the goals of the Paris agreement? Decide and then inform yourself about the difference. The Paris agreement is responsible for China and India emitting CO2 recklessly, because it treats them as developing nations and their goals are defined in terms of GDP while "ours" aren't. A 5% reduction in China would be worth more than a 10% reduction in the EU, if you're just looking at total emissions. > Are you ok with all of the world's coral reefs dying? That's what were are going. Yes, I'd risk that if the world becomes greener and more fertile at that cost. It's probably not due to CO2 though: https://www.npr.org/2019/07/16/742050975/floridas-corals-are-dying-off-but-it-s-not-all-due-to-climate-change-study-says https://www.npr.org/2019/07/16/742050975/floridas-corals-are...
    - Tepix 7y ago
      That article about Florida's reefs is interesting. But reefs are dying due to coral bleaching all over the planet, even in areas with no fertilizer such as the Maldives. And rising temperatures are the leading cause (source: https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/invertebrates/corals-and-coral-reefs https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/invertebrates/corals-and-cor... ) > the world becomes greener and more fertile That's not what the science says. Some areas may see improvements, but globally harvests will go down and we will see a lot of refugees and hunger as a result.
Tepix 7y ago
It's interesting to see how some factions are now claiming that Greta is merely a puppet, following some hidden power's agenda. That's obviously nonsense. Listen to her! All she asks is that the politicians listen to the scientists.
- tobib 7y ago
  That, and that governments do what they promised they would do in the Paris agreement. It should really not be that controversial.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- fromthestart 7y ago
  >It's interesting to see how some factions are now claiming that Greta is merely a puppet, following some hidden power's agenda Please. She's a 16 year old child with no evidence of any particularly exemplary understanding of climate change or its impact on the world. She clearly has support from people with deep pockets, and the fact that they've chosen an approximately average child to deliver this message shows that they're elevating appeal to pathos over logos. You may agree with what she's advocating for, but that doesn't change the fact that this is literally propaganda, and choosing such a condescending messenger is going to turn off a lot of the people whose minds you're trying to change - and rightly so, I don't think adults should allow themselves to be shamed by children into making decisions.
  - Hamuko 7y ago
    Oh no, a 16-year-old child with a basic understanding of climate change. This must be the work of the fucking Freemasons!
    - papermachete 7y ago
      Why listen to a child, specifically, and not the scientists themselves? Unless it is another attempt to portrey kids as the symbol of purity and truth.
sunseb 7y ago
Just a quick question: why Greta is not talking about world overpopulation? I think it's a huge problem. The more we are on this planet, the more mess we make. And by the way, it's too easy to shame western countries to be the root of all evil in this world.
- thelazydogsback 7y ago
  Agreed. At some point we have to realize that as a species we don't all have the "right" to reproduce as much as we want. Technically the earth together with technology should be able to support quite a bit more population, but given that we're not willing to make any sacrifices in the behavior of the living, limiting growth until we do is the other option. But telling someone they can't make babies is the only thing worse for a politician than saying you can't drive your big-ass car around or consume and throw away all the crap you like...
  - monkeynotes 7y ago
    At least telling people not to drive big cars and consume leaves increasingly more people feeling good about themselves.
- monkeynotes 7y ago
  Probably because the subject attacks the fundamental instinct to procreate. How do you tell a couple that they legally can't have children? Many of my friends define their lives around having a family, it gives people a deep, and rewarding purpose.
  - sunseb 7y ago
    You are right and I must say it's ok to have kids in the US or in Europa (because population growth is declining here), but I am talking about Africa or South Asia, as they are having more and more kids there, and all these kids end up living in extreme poverty and having no hope for the future. For example, each year, Nigeria has 6 millions more people to feed (Nigerian women have an average of 5.5 children).
forgotmypw 7y ago
Unfortunately, we've built and set in motion a machine that we are no longer in control of, and there is very little we can do. Look at all the environmental damage and habitat destruction (our habitat) that went into this conference as an example.
- Tepix 7y ago
  > there is very little we can do Science suggests otherwise. Have you read the IPCC report?
Mikeb85 7y ago
I think the people who have coerced her into being a propaganda piece are the ones who have stolen her childhood. It's not like the earth is on fire right now. In fact, living conditions are better than they ever have been. There's more food security worldwide than at any point in human history. Less war than ever. Less poverty than ever before. Yes, climate change will cause issues. Then again, the last glacial maximum was fairly recent, only ~20k years ago. Climate change has happened and will happen. And the world won't end. Either the Earth's systems will adapt, or we'll find a technological solution. Or maybe everyone will simply move to Canada, Russia, Greenland and Antarctica. I'm all for solutions, but at the end of the day, people will keep on living and I suggest this girl do the same (then again, she's probably being bankrolled by someone so maybe she is actually living her dreams).
- qnsi 7y ago
  Do you believe mass migration from whole world to Canada Russia Greenland and Antarctica would work out without war?
  - Mikeb85 7y ago
    Well it's not going to happen in our lifetime (half those places are still covered in ice), and if it does happen, will do so gradually, and based on the world becoming more and more peaceful over the centuries I believe yes, it probably can happen without war. A couple centuries ago there were wars all over Europe, Asia, Africa, in the US alone the Revolutionary war and Civil war, wars with the Spanish, natives, etc... Yes, I think over the timeframe where global warming will actually force true mass migration (if we don't reverse it first), it'll probably be peaceful.
    - AlexandrB 7y ago
      To paraphrase: "This is going to happen a long time from now, so it's not my problem and I'm sure humanity will have fundamentally changed by then." This is outright utopianism. Look around you. The backlash to even modest immigration has become increasingly violent and reactionary (see: Brexit, Trump). Do you honestly think that at some point everyone will be OK with just opening their borders to billions of people? And how many do you think will die trying to make that journey?
whydoyoucare 7y ago
Was her message to (failing to) act imply actual technical steps and commitment to reduce certain variables in certain years or increase taxes? I am confused here. sarcasm And yes, of course, global warming is the biggest existential threat to humanity. Poverty, hunger, addiction, homelessness, open defecation, and other trivial issues aren't really the ones Governments' should prioritize, it should be protecting humpback whales and ecosystems! sarcasm Realize there are finite amount of resources any Government can direct towards any problem. If all attention and resources go to global warming (which is open ended problem as compared to poverty), then we will end up with disastrous consequences, both to humans and to the planet.
- thelazydogsback 7y ago
  > Poverty, hunger, addiction, homelessness Most of which get worse w/climate change
  - whydoyoucare 7y ago
    Any reliable references indicating a causal effect? Thanks.
    - viklove 7y ago
      https://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3241.short https://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3241.short You're welcome!
- AlexandrB 7y ago
  Poverty, hunger, homelessness are all going to get worse in a warming world. Either due to houses being wiped out (e.e Florida). Loss of arable land and consequent food price increases. Or loss of entire industries (fishing). But sure. Global warming is about saving humpback whales...
- ball_of_lint 7y ago
  This is a straw man. No one thinks climate change is the only thing a government should spend money on. Many do think it has not been taken as seriously as it ought to be given the significance of the harms it leads to.
wrnr 7y ago
There was a post on HN a week ago that was agreeing with some statements Greta made about climate change, it has flagged and removed. I don't always agree with everything she says but found little objectionable about the article. Strange that it was taken down, it seems like HN does not respect any opinion unless it was mined by a block of cryptocurrency enthusiasts.
- Tepix 7y ago
  This post is now also flagged.
- papermachete 7y ago
  Considering a climate change spokesperson has nothing to do with technology on a technology-oriented forum.
- tomhoward 7y ago
  Cryptocurrency topics routinely get mocked, flagged or ignored here. Very rarely does one get serious attention. "HN" is a diverse community that represents a distribution of points of view. When controversial topics get flagged, it's often not because people disagree with the opinion expressed, but rather that people expect the discussion will be of low quality - i.e., a flamewar dominated by a small number of ideological zealots, in which the loudest participants just stick to their preconceived point of view, and nobody really learns anything new.

68 points by qgi 7y ago

I had the same reaction when the German government revealed their insufficient measures as part of the "Klimapaket" (climate pact) last Friday. Scientists are recommending a tax of 180€ per ton of CO2 to achieve the necessary reduction in emissions. The German coalition government decides to introduce a 10€ CO2 tax. How dare they?

Hamuko 7y ago
How do you prevent populists from gaining power and reducing it to 0€?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- lazyjones 7y ago
  By turning the EU into a dictatorship like the Soviet Union. Personally, I don't care about carbon taxes (I drive a Tesla, too). The poor people on the other hand, will have to suffer even more apparently. They are the main beneficiaries of cheap energy/pollution, since they buy a lot of stuff that's only cheap because it comes from countries like China and India and taxes on fossil fuels and meat will hit them hardest.
- einpoklum 7y ago
  You campaign incessantly to increase public awareness of the climate crisis, so that a populist politician will have as much to gain from acting to curtail emissions than from reducing taxes. Also, instead of taxation - which is more more easily fungible - you aim for the phasing-out/banning of industrial processes which are overly polluting. With that, there's less of an immediate gain from careless de-regulation.
papermachete 7y ago
This doesn't apply to regular citizens, right?
- voisin 7y ago
  I can’t tell if this is /s or not but carbon taxes fall on the end user to the extent of elasticity of demand and relative cost of alternatives.
thrower123 7y ago
How dare the Germans shut down multiple perfectly fine nuclear plants, so they have to burn brown coal instead?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

cartercole 7y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuhHI5AFOeg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuhHI5AFOeg I just saw this video talking about her

lazyjones 7y ago

The EU and USA are really doing quite well. She should be telling the rest of the world it's not enough: https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Fossil-fuel-CO2-emissions-in-the-worlds-major-economies-1960-2018b-1024x683.jpg https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Fossi... I like it warmer though, where's my lobby? ;-)

Tepix 7y ago
Pretty much noone is doing "quite well". The goals of the Paris agreement are not within reach with the current measures. We need to half our emissions every 10 years! Saying "I like it warmer" just shows how poorly informed you are. Are you ok with all of the world's coral reefs dying? That's what were are going. These reefs are home to 25% of all species in the oceans!
- lazyjones 7y ago
  > The goals of the Paris agreement are not within reach with the current measures Are you interested in reduction of global emissions or in the goals of the Paris agreement? Decide and then inform yourself about the difference. The Paris agreement is responsible for China and India emitting CO2 recklessly, because it treats them as developing nations and their goals are defined in terms of GDP while "ours" aren't. A 5% reduction in China would be worth more than a 10% reduction in the EU, if you're just looking at total emissions. > Are you ok with all of the world's coral reefs dying? That's what were are going. Yes, I'd risk that if the world becomes greener and more fertile at that cost. It's probably not due to CO2 though: https://www.npr.org/2019/07/16/742050975/floridas-corals-are-dying-off-but-it-s-not-all-due-to-climate-change-study-says https://www.npr.org/2019/07/16/742050975/floridas-corals-are...
  - Tepix 7y ago
    That article about Florida's reefs is interesting. But reefs are dying due to coral bleaching all over the planet, even in areas with no fertilizer such as the Maldives. And rising temperatures are the leading cause (source: https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/invertebrates/corals-and-coral-reefs https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/invertebrates/corals-and-cor... ) > the world becomes greener and more fertile That's not what the science says. Some areas may see improvements, but globally harvests will go down and we will see a lot of refugees and hunger as a result.

Tepix 7y ago

It's interesting to see how some factions are now claiming that Greta is merely a puppet, following some hidden power's agenda. That's obviously nonsense. Listen to her! All she asks is that the politicians listen to the scientists.

tobib 7y ago
That, and that governments do what they promised they would do in the Paris agreement. It should really not be that controversial.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
fromthestart 7y ago
>It's interesting to see how some factions are now claiming that Greta is merely a puppet, following some hidden power's agenda Please. She's a 16 year old child with no evidence of any particularly exemplary understanding of climate change or its impact on the world. She clearly has support from people with deep pockets, and the fact that they've chosen an approximately average child to deliver this message shows that they're elevating appeal to pathos over logos. You may agree with what she's advocating for, but that doesn't change the fact that this is literally propaganda, and choosing such a condescending messenger is going to turn off a lot of the people whose minds you're trying to change - and rightly so, I don't think adults should allow themselves to be shamed by children into making decisions.
- Hamuko 7y ago
  Oh no, a 16-year-old child with a basic understanding of climate change. This must be the work of the fucking Freemasons!
  - papermachete 7y ago
    Why listen to a child, specifically, and not the scientists themselves? Unless it is another attempt to portrey kids as the symbol of purity and truth.

sunseb 7y ago

Just a quick question: why Greta is not talking about world overpopulation? I think it's a huge problem. The more we are on this planet, the more mess we make. And by the way, it's too easy to shame western countries to be the root of all evil in this world.

thelazydogsback 7y ago
Agreed. At some point we have to realize that as a species we don't all have the "right" to reproduce as much as we want. Technically the earth together with technology should be able to support quite a bit more population, but given that we're not willing to make any sacrifices in the behavior of the living, limiting growth until we do is the other option. But telling someone they can't make babies is the only thing worse for a politician than saying you can't drive your big-ass car around or consume and throw away all the crap you like...
- monkeynotes 7y ago
  At least telling people not to drive big cars and consume leaves increasingly more people feeling good about themselves.
monkeynotes 7y ago
Probably because the subject attacks the fundamental instinct to procreate. How do you tell a couple that they legally can't have children? Many of my friends define their lives around having a family, it gives people a deep, and rewarding purpose.
- sunseb 7y ago
  You are right and I must say it's ok to have kids in the US or in Europa (because population growth is declining here), but I am talking about Africa or South Asia, as they are having more and more kids there, and all these kids end up living in extreme poverty and having no hope for the future. For example, each year, Nigeria has 6 millions more people to feed (Nigerian women have an average of 5.5 children).

forgotmypw 7y ago

Unfortunately, we've built and set in motion a machine that we are no longer in control of, and there is very little we can do. Look at all the environmental damage and habitat destruction (our habitat) that went into this conference as an example.

Tepix 7y ago
> there is very little we can do Science suggests otherwise. Have you read the IPCC report?

Mikeb85 7y ago

I think the people who have coerced her into being a propaganda piece are the ones who have stolen her childhood. It's not like the earth is on fire right now. In fact, living conditions are better than they ever have been. There's more food security worldwide than at any point in human history. Less war than ever. Less poverty than ever before. Yes, climate change will cause issues. Then again, the last glacial maximum was fairly recent, only ~20k years ago. Climate change has happened and will happen. And the world won't end. Either the Earth's systems will adapt, or we'll find a technological solution. Or maybe everyone will simply move to Canada, Russia, Greenland and Antarctica. I'm all for solutions, but at the end of the day, people will keep on living and I suggest this girl do the same (then again, she's probably being bankrolled by someone so maybe she is actually living her dreams).

qnsi 7y ago
Do you believe mass migration from whole world to Canada Russia Greenland and Antarctica would work out without war?
- Mikeb85 7y ago
  Well it's not going to happen in our lifetime (half those places are still covered in ice), and if it does happen, will do so gradually, and based on the world becoming more and more peaceful over the centuries I believe yes, it probably can happen without war. A couple centuries ago there were wars all over Europe, Asia, Africa, in the US alone the Revolutionary war and Civil war, wars with the Spanish, natives, etc... Yes, I think over the timeframe where global warming will actually force true mass migration (if we don't reverse it first), it'll probably be peaceful.
  - AlexandrB 7y ago
    To paraphrase: "This is going to happen a long time from now, so it's not my problem and I'm sure humanity will have fundamentally changed by then." This is outright utopianism. Look around you. The backlash to even modest immigration has become increasingly violent and reactionary (see: Brexit, Trump). Do you honestly think that at some point everyone will be OK with just opening their borders to billions of people? And how many do you think will die trying to make that journey?

whydoyoucare 7y ago

Was her message to (failing to) act imply actual technical steps and commitment to reduce certain variables in certain years or increase taxes? I am confused here. sarcasm And yes, of course, global warming is the biggest existential threat to humanity. Poverty, hunger, addiction, homelessness, open defecation, and other trivial issues aren't really the ones Governments' should prioritize, it should be protecting humpback whales and ecosystems! sarcasm Realize there are finite amount of resources any Government can direct towards any problem. If all attention and resources go to global warming (which is open ended problem as compared to poverty), then we will end up with disastrous consequences, both to humans and to the planet.

thelazydogsback 7y ago
> Poverty, hunger, addiction, homelessness Most of which get worse w/climate change
- whydoyoucare 7y ago
  Any reliable references indicating a causal effect? Thanks.
  - viklove 7y ago
    https://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3241.short https://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3241.short You're welcome!
AlexandrB 7y ago
Poverty, hunger, homelessness are all going to get worse in a warming world. Either due to houses being wiped out (e.e Florida). Loss of arable land and consequent food price increases. Or loss of entire industries (fishing). But sure. Global warming is about saving humpback whales...
ball_of_lint 7y ago
This is a straw man. No one thinks climate change is the only thing a government should spend money on. Many do think it has not been taken as seriously as it ought to be given the significance of the harms it leads to.

wrnr 7y ago

There was a post on HN a week ago that was agreeing with some statements Greta made about climate change, it has flagged and removed. I don't always agree with everything she says but found little objectionable about the article. Strange that it was taken down, it seems like HN does not respect any opinion unless it was mined by a block of cryptocurrency enthusiasts.

Tepix 7y ago
This post is now also flagged.
papermachete 7y ago
Considering a climate change spokesperson has nothing to do with technology on a technology-oriented forum.
tomhoward 7y ago
Cryptocurrency topics routinely get mocked, flagged or ignored here. Very rarely does one get serious attention. "HN" is a diverse community that represents a distribution of points of view. When controversial topics get flagged, it's often not because people disagree with the opinion expressed, but rather that people expect the discussion will be of low quality - i.e., a flamewar dominated by a small number of ideological zealots, in which the loudest participants just stick to their preconceived point of view, and nobody really learns anything new.