Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
[flagged] Greta Thunberg: 'How dare you? You have stolen my dreams and my childhood' (youtube.com)
68 points by qgi 23 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 89 comments



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?


How dare the Germans shut down multiple perfectly fine nuclear plants, so they have to burn brown coal instead?


How do you prevent populists from gaining power and reducing it to 0€?


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.


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.


This doesn't apply to regular citizens, right?


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.


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.


That, and that governments do what they promised they would do in the Paris agreement. It should really not be that controversial.


[flagged]


Oh no, a 16-year-old child with a basic understanding of climate change. This must be the work of the fucking Freemasons!


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.


Are we only able to listen to one or the other?


There's nothing she can teach me about climate change over scientists.


She is literally saying that people should listen to the scientists. Like come on, you can't be serious.


But I am serious and I consider affirmative action on children child abuse.


Regular or irregular?


"I don't think adults should allow themselves to be shamed by children into making decisions"

She might be right but I am older so it doesn't matter. /s

The truth is that you don't need any exemplary understanding or expertise to understand that if 99% of the scientific population in the whole world are screaming about climate change, backed by literally decades of research, you might just accept that, instead of living in your barricaded fragile ego because children are smarter than you.

Also, support from people with deep pockets? All institutions with deep pockets lose money by reducing their emissions. That is the most illogical backwards conspiracy i've ever heard.


If what you're saying is true, isn't it crazier that no major media outlet is stating who her backers are?


Most of the times, the ones with the fundamental understanding are the most sensible. KISS principle - Keep it simple, stupid!


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.


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.


So why would the government spend a single dollar on climate change when other more serious and more immediate problems are on fire?


Poverty, hunger, addiction, homelessness, etc, are all bad, but they are bad on an individual level, with secondary negative societal effects.

Global warming is an existential threat to modern civilization. If we allow it to continue unchecked, it will result in catastrophic changes in prevailing weather patterns, sea level, and animal and plant life. These might not be enough to wipe out all human life on the planet—we might very well even be able to recover from it, eventually—but it is likely to create enough instability worldwide to cause many major governments to topple.

Now, again, this is if we let it go completely unchecked, and none of this is stuff that would happen within a year or two. But we're already seeing some of the effects, and there's nothing to suggest we won't see the rest if we just shrug our shoulders and say, "Eh, there are other important things, too."


> Poverty, hunger, addiction, homelessness

Most of which get worse w/climate change


Any reliable references indicating a causal effect? Thanks.



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...


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.


Because there is no world overpopulation. People talk about overpopulation since ancient times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_overpopulation#History_o...

Currently standard of living are growing almost all over the world and human population is predicted to pick and stabilize at around 11 billion.

I really recommend "DON'T PANIC — Hans Rosling showing the facts about population" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FACK2knC08E

What's also interesting in his video is the fact that people tend to be very misinformed about state of the world affairs. E.g. when asked questions about certain statistics, they do worse than random. And the better educated you are the more misinformed you may be.


What would be "overpopulation" by your definition? No way to grow enough food, resulting in mass famines? No physical space for people, even after tiling the planet with skyscrapers?

Or would "unsustainable carbon emissions and ecological damage" be enough? And if that's enough, aren't we already there today?


I would accept decline in more than 1% of world population over 10 year time span caused by ecological collapse as overpopulation.

But the important question is what would you do about possibility of overpopulation however it is defined?

If you want to invest in health care and education in Africa - awesome! You have my full support. For example educating woman has excellent side effect of reducing fertility rate.

If you think about enforcing population restrictions, then you should think harder. How do you imagine that would look like on a global scale if you can't get USA to stick to Paris Climate accord? Some country with nuclear weapons threatening mutual assured destruction if some other country doesn't stick to 1 kid policy? Ridiculous.


If the global population was still 2 billion as in the early 1900s, I'm certain we wouldn't have a climate crisis anywhere near the scale we're seeing today. We should be panicking, and I don't understand why our population should be allowed to grow until the Earth literally cannot sustain it. We're an intelligent and evolved species, and we'd all be better off exercising some self-control and keeping our population in check.

And yes, I would gladly give up my right to procreate. I have no interest in having children, primarily because I believe it's a terrible thing to do in today's world.


Predicted population growth will have little to do with emission growth, because most of population growth will be happening in places where people don't have even access to electricity.

We, you and I, the top 10% richest people in the world are responsible for 50% of global emissions. Population of my home country is declining rapidly, I bet yours home country is as well.

Also let me ask you a nasty question, why should your right to exists trump someone else right to have children? Why don't you leave and make space for 10 children that will be born somewhere in Africa, that will probably emit less CO2 during their whole life than you already did?


> why should your right to exists

I'm not claiming I have a right to exist. In fact, that was the thesis of my comment, so you may want to work on your reading comprehension. You're the only one claiming anyone has a right to exist (or a right to be born). In my opinion your rights only exist after you are born, meaning no person should have the right to procreate.


You missed the second part of my question, but let's put that aside. As I said it's a nasty question.

So, I think more productive question would be: How would you take away people right to procreate?

How do you imagine doing that if you can't get USA to stick to Paris Climate accord?

If you want to invest in health care and education in Africa - awesome! You have my full support. For example educating woman has excellent side effect of reducing fertility rate without taking any of their rights.


I'm not claiming I have a good way to implement my proposition, I'm just trying to convince people that my proposition would be in the best interest of the human species. Maybe if we can convince enough people we can find a politician/leader who can make it happen :)


If we're going the totalitarian route, why not designate kids and force them to grow up to be scientists. Make them work for minimal wage on what are today billion dollar R&D, all for finding a solution to the so-called crisis? After all, human procreation is a naturally occuring event and it is the failure of science to produce a solution for the consequences and politicians - to adopt it.


> After all, human procreation is a naturally occuring event and it is the failure of science to produce a solution for the consequences and politicians - to adopt it.

Yes, the solution is to stop thinking of procreation as a naturally occurring event and to instead limit each person to 1 living offspring (so each couple can produce 2 children). By the way, science doesn't provide solutions (that's engineering). Science only provides explanations.


First: I question that you have the authority to "limit" people in this way.

Second: How do you propose to enforce your limitation?


>the solution is

I'm sorry are you a politician or an authority figure?

>1

How did you measure the optimal number to be 1? And how would you value an ethnic minority to be just as valuable as the majority? Don't you support greater minority birth rates at the expense of the majority?

>explanations

No, that's philosophy. Granted, I haven't encountered a reproducible study on climate change, the scientific method proves or disproves hypotheses to provide a baseline of knowledge. The scientific method is how scientists develop early-stage solutions to climate change, not building contraptions.


> Don't you support greater minority birth rates at the expense of the majority?

Frankly, I don't care what the relative birth rates are between "minorities" and "majorities." By the way, which metric are you using to define minority? Is it height? Nose size? Personality type? I'm guessing it's just race, which is a very narrow criteria, but that's the only the criteria respected by the modern definition of "diversity."

> No, that's philosophy.

Erm... no. Science can give us an explanation for what is causing climate change, and even how quickly climate change is occurring, but designing a solution to it is firmly in the domain of engineering.

Anyway, that's all semantics. As to how I came up with the "1" number is really pretty straightforward though. That number will prevent the population from growing or shrinking -- it will maintain the current number. Isn't that obvious?


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.


>Many of my friends define their lives around having a family, it gives people a deep, and rewarding purpose.

Speaking as bluntly as I can here : if you want to have kids to gain a 'deep and rewarding purpose' because you somehow feel lacking in purpose, please don't have children.

It's analogous to a teenager that joins the military out of high school because "they don't know what they want to do.".

Figure things out, then make a decision. Don't make some big brash decision in order to figure things out. The only 'depth' that might added to your life may actually just be unenjoyable complexity and nuance.


The deep and rewarding purpose necessarily must be separated from the carrying capacity of the world. There are plenty of families with 12+ kids, but this clearly isn't something that would be possible to sustain for all couples.

This is a fundamental tragedy of the commons. I feel guilty about even wanting to have two kids at some point due to the climate impact. Everywhere I look I see people having large families without caring. This has to be balanced long term for our species (and others) to survive centuries from now.


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).


Most of the world is having only 2 kids per family. The most consistent way to reduce the number of children per family is to increase the income of that family.

https://www.gapminder.org/answers/will-saving-poor-children-...

https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#$state$marker$axis_x$domain...


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...


At least telling people not to drive big cars and consume leaves increasingly more people feeling good about themselves.


> ... not talking about world overpopulation?

Because its not an issue any more. The world wide population is stabilizing. Most countries of the earth will face a population collapse in the next 30 years.


Sorry, this is bullshit. Even the UN estimates slowing growth for the next 80 years, but not a "collapse" or anything near that. And historically growth projections have been to low, so there is a fair chance the world population will continue to grow substantially for the next 100 years.


It's certainly possible to keep population growing at the rate it is and still end global warming.

Is it harder? Sure. But it's possible. More people is more labor to fix things. The labor just needs to be used correctly, and consumption needs to be reduced and changed.

Talking about overpopulation and "shaming Western countries" sounds a bit like a Trojan horse for some racist policies, considering that population is growing the most in non-western countries.


The labor just needs to be used correctly, and consumption needs to be reduced and changed.

IMHO the opposite is happening. Former developing countries are raising their living standards dramatically, which inevitably results in a larger economic footprint per capita. Also, migration to developed countries usually increases the living standard of the migrants, but this also increases their economic footprint. I just do not see where consumption is being reduced.


"How dare you have more than two children?" It's easier to blame capitalism and lecture to politicians instead of poor third-world families.


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).


> It's not like the earth is on fire right now.

Sure. Fires in the arctic are normal things [1]. 100+ degree summers in Germany and France are totes the norm. [2].

Reality has a climate-crisis bias.

> In fact, living conditions are better than they ever have been.

This is a false dichotomy - that improved worldwide living conditions don't indicate a looming climate crisis. It could be argued that it all gets better until it starts falling apart rapidly.

[1] http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190822-why-is-the-arctic-o... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_2019_European_heat_wave


Your first statement makes sense. I don't agree with the rest though.

>> 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

There is a limit to the rate at which the ecological systems can cope up with the damage we are doing. We have no right to go on abusing the Earth's systems just because humans can save themselves using technology.


You argue that climate change is "normal". However, the rate at which it is happening is the problem. And moving the entire population "to Canada, Russia, Greenland and Antarctica" doesn't seem desirable. So we need to fight climate change to minimize it.


Mostly likely scenario: all-out war for resource or land.

> Or maybe everyone will simply move to Canada, Russia, Greenland and Antarctica.

So, which country is going to invade Canada to force them to allow in all these migrants? Or do you think they'll just do it willingly when people were screaming about 10,000 Syrian refugees? At the rate that global warming is progressing, there's no time for this kind of massive re-settlement without equally massive geopolitical upheaval.

> Either the Earth's systems will adapt...

I mean - duh - of course they will. The danger is not that global warming wipes out life on earth. It's that it sends human civilization back to the Stone Age or wipes it out completely (if Stone Age technology doesn't allow for survival). The idea that there's a technological solution assumes that we can manufacture and power such a thing without using even more fossils fuels to do so. I'm not convinced.


Nobody coerced her. She is autistic in a way that makes her unable to ignore the truth. Without the same filters of ignorance and denial that most of us have she is suffering more than most people.

I think we are all suffering somewhat trying to deal with this truth and work out how to find our place in the solution.


>Nobody coerced her. She is autistic in a way that makes her unable to ignore the truth.

does being autistic in that manner (your diagnosis, not mine) also give oneself free access to the worlds' media outlets and financial support to trot the globe at 16 years old, or could that be one of the so-called coercers'?

I'm absolutely against climate change, and on her side of the opinion, but to ignore the fact that she's being propped up as a media object is silly. Could you have had her impact at 16 without support from others? I bet not, unless you're really extraordinary.


>I think the people who have coerced her into being a propaganda piece are the ones who have stolen her childhood.

Do you have a list of names?


> Malena Ernman and actor Svante Thunberg ... her "fame-seeking", "stage-parents", particularly her "fading opera starlet mother" who performed internationally, were "pimp(ing) her out" without regard for Thunberg's alleged mental problems, which included Lowe's long list of disabilities, by which Greta and her sister were claimed to be handicapped. By so doing, Lowe wrote, they were subjecting her to "child abuse."[0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greta_Thunberg#Criticism_and_r...


Yea I've been aware of this for a while, and it's odd how no one brings this up. It's very clear she's from an extremely privileged background with ardent, political parents. The idea that "this is just a concerned child" is far from reality.


People are dying right now as a result of climate change.


Do you believe mass migration from whole world to Canada Russia Greenland and Antarctica would work out without war?


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.


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?


200 years ago slavery was still rampant, war was everywhere, and the vast majority of people were serfs/peasants under the yoke of various tyrants/monarchs. We didn't have electricity, motorised vehicles, etc...

Given everything that's happened since, forgive me for being optimistic about our future.


Yeah I'm sure Canada will welcome a billion people moving from India without any issues.


India isn't going to be uninhabitable tomorrow. They're not even on the equator. It's doubtful it'll ever be uninhabitable and if it does happen, it won't be overnight nor within this century.


I'm not going to retire tomorrow, but I do have a retirement fund.



A reactionary news piece on a local site called 'Click Orlando', who'd have thought?


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.


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.


This post is now also flagged.


Considering a climate change spokesperson has nothing to do with technology on a technology-oriented forum.


[flagged]


"I like it warmer though, where's my lobby? ;-)"

You have a ton? They kind of dwarf climate change lobbyists in size and influence? They've been wildly successful at breaking the Paris agreement?


> They've been wildly successful at breaking the Paris agreement?

Would you kindly elaborate on that, what exactly did "they" break? Can you point me to some TV interviews or documentaries on MSM showing their superior influence compared to "climate change activists"?


I mean, given that there is no carbon tax, carbon use has been increasing, and the federal government of my nation is stripping a state's stricter gas emissions laws for vehicles, I think lobbyists against climate change activism have been wildly successful.

And "they" means "your lobbyists". "They" is a pronoun referring to an arbitrary number of people for which have already been declared in English grammar.


> given that there is no carbon tax

There is in some countries and more and more are considering one.

> carbon use has been increasing

Where? Not in the EU and USA if you mean emissions and not something like paper use...

> I think lobbyists against climate change activism have been wildly successful.

But why are they practically invisible? How can the news / the MSM report on climate change every day despite all that lobbying and not a single authoritative voice against it is heard? Except Trump, sometimes and other politicians shunned by the media.


For example EU not implementing carbon tax in the 90s because of the lobbyists


Do you have a source for this ("because of the lobbyists") except the Wikipedia page, which links/refers to an article that doesn't seem to address the claim? (http://www.oecd.org/unitedkingdom/34512257.pdf)

FWIW, pretty much everything in the EU is dictated by lobbyists: https://transparency.eu/lobbyistsinbrussels/


[flagged]


> 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...


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-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.


> globally harvests will go down and we will see a lot of refugees and hunger as a result.

The science predicts these with some degree of uncertainty but surely in the past 100 years of warming we should have seen some of that already? Harvests are up lately, hunger is very much down and the regions where population growth is highest are among the hottest in the world, closest to the equator.


I don't live on a coral reef.


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.


> there is very little we can do

Science suggests otherwise. Have you read the IPCC report?




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: