[the_cramer]

I agree for some of us, Greta is not doing good PR for this topic. I like the more calm, scientific approach. That being said i think that many people really don't care UNTIL it hurts them directly.

Until then i am on the Kepp calm and carry on boat, but i share my practices of ressourcefulness to others. That starts with how i wash my hands over better planning my food logistics to reduce spoilage/waste to driving around unnecessarily.

I think small things multiplied by thousands of people go a long way and it's really the only thing i can do.

[karmakurtisaani]

I love how Greta annoys some predominantly 30+ men. "You're supposed to be talking about climate change, but not like that!"

How to say you're an aging white man without saying it explicitly.

[the_cramer]

I've been thinking a lot about what my problem is. It's the talking itself. and talking and talking. It's this instagram-twitter good-riddance "i spread the message for karma" thing that's so hip today. Everybody presents the message, and only the corpos are to blame.

Where's the leverage the consumer has with their behaviour? Why don't we use that? Because it's uncomfortable. People want to travel 2 times a year, they want infinite stock in the supermarket, they want more, now, fast.

I don't mind people talking. But at the end it's useless if these people don't act also until we're fully renewable (or near that)

[karmakurtisaani]

We still need the talking before anything an happen. In the past 3 years a lot in the public discourse has changed, and climate change is no longer a fringe alarmist issue. It's not enough, but it's one of the few ways to sway the public opinion.

[gettodachoppa]

You're low-key confirming the belief that this whole climate change hysteria is more about reducing the economy and quality of life in the west out of racial hatred than anything else. The men at climate change protests are almost exclusively white when I see them, but facts be damned, huh?

If you had said this about any other race your comment would be flagged right now and you might even lose your job if your employer got wind of it. But as things stand, you'd probably be showered with praise if your employer is a big tech, mainstream media, or academia institution.

[karmakurtisaani]

Eh. I'm not terribly interested in starting a flame war, so you do you.

FWIW, I'm a mid-age white man myself, so no need to be offended for me.

[gettodachoppa]

I get it, your mind has been under constant assault for a decade to make you buy into a certain narrative and beliefs, to the point where you think it's OK (virtuous, even! Proclaim it as loud as you can on social media for good boy points! Self-hatred is the most virtuous of hatred after all.) to be racist, because it's against a target deemed valid.

Damn, the shit you've let the establishment feed you...

[karmakurtisaani]

Man, you know me better than I do, and from 2 internet comments!

[neilalexander]

The calm scientific approach has been failing to make a meaningful impact for the last couple decades. I am grateful that Greta gets people talking.

[NoZebra120vClip]

I think part of the problem is that "the calm scientific approach" may be apparent to people who work with scientists, read original research study reports, sometimes listen to NPR for entertainment, and generally move in egghead circles.

However, to the general public, science looks like the mild hysteria or sensations attached to every new study by the mainstream media that reports on them. The mainstream media is how the general public consumes their science, and so it's through a deliberately ignorant and sensationalistic filter that wants their engagement and enragement, not their thoughtful and curious discussion.

But hey, it's been about the same for a long time. Remember Greenpeace, and the rainforest controversies in the 70s and 80s? Remember the hole in the ozone layer? There's always room to panic over the environment, calm scentific approach be damned.