Jump to content

Teenager Thunberg angrily tells U.N. climate summit 'you have stolen my dreams'


webfact

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
2 minutes ago, DrTuner said:

Now is a good time to think about that, unless you're lucky enough to croak before it really does collapse. It's inevitable.

Well,in many countries of EU you're supposed to work now until 67, and there are insistent rumours of an imminent collapse of the pension system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/24/2019 at 6:14 AM, luckyluke said:

And first of all make her shut up. 

true.... she has speeches written for her and sh just reads them out. 

"you have stolen my dreams" she is still a kid growing up....all her dreams still have to materialise !!!

when I was 16 my dream was to get to 17 to get my driving licence and  learn how to drive a car.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, essox essox said:

true.... she has speeches written for her and sh just reads them out. 

"you have stolen my dreams" she is still a kid growing up....all her dreams still have to materialise !!!

when I was 16 my dream was to get to 17 to get my driving licence and  learn how to drive a car.

 

 

Who wrote her speeches?

 

Edit - and for that matter, do you also get upset when leaders and politicians read speeches which are written for them? Or do you somehow believe they are all naturally eloquent?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, ivor bigun said:

So Bleuspunk are you going to start by dumping your mobile and going to stop posting,when you do and go live in a yurt and grow your own veg and walk everywhere,i for one will listen,until then. WellI

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Nope but i don’t drive, never learned to do so-never will, I walk most places or take public transport, don’t fly when can use boats, am vegan, don’t use plastic bags, don’t buy food wrapped in plastic. 
 

As much as possible avoid new devices but repair those that break down until are beyond repair (my last phone lasted 10 years-I still have it and waiting for day it can be safely disposed of or death, whichever comes first. My MacBook is entering its second decade and is the only one I have ever owned. They are the only devices I own). However if society giving them up is the cost of tackling climate change, then bring it on. 
 

Only drink coffee and water (water comes in 5 gallon bottles that are reusable, buy coffee beans loose and grind myself). Again will gladly give up coffee if that stops climate change. No big loss to me. 

 

Make my own washing up liquid and use toothpaste powder that comes in tins.

 

Do all I can to reduce my footprint- how ‘bout you?

 

However this thread isn’t about me is it or you for sure. Not me you need to listen too but Greta. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

 

Do all I can to reduce my footprint- how ‘bout you?

All your choices are commendable, but, as far as you use money, you depend on a system which is quite less commendable.

If that system collapsed you'd be in trouble as much as anybody else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mauGR1 said:

All your choices are commendable, but, as far as you use money, you depend on a system which is quite less commendable.

If that system collapsed you'd be in trouble as much as anybody else.

You really think that there is a danger of societal collapse because we make changes?

 

I just don’t believe that is the case and is nothing more than alarmist speculation.  

 

The danger is the impending environmental collapse if we don’t change our behaviour. 
 

That’s when society will collapse. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope but i don’t drive, never learned to do so-never will, I walk most places or take public transport, don’t fly when can use boats, am vegan, don’t use plastic bags, don’t buy food wrapped in plastic. 
 
As much as possible avoid new devices but repair those that break down until are beyond repair (my last phone lasted 10 years-I still have it and waiting for day it can be safely disposed of or death, whichever comes first. My MacBook is entering its second decade and is the only one I have ever owned. They are the only devices I own). However if society giving them up is the cost of tackling climate change, then bring it on. 
 
Only drink coffee and water (water comes in 5 gallon bottles that are reusable, buy coffee beans loose and grind myself). Again will gladly give up coffee if that stops climate change. No big loss to me. 
 
Make my own washing up liquid and use toothpaste powder that comes in tins.
 
Do all I can to reduce my footprint- how ‘bout you?
 
However this thread isn’t about me is it or you for sure. Not me you need to listen too but Greta. 
How about,me? Well just uprated my computer,we have 3 in the house,we all have mobiles the wife and i have a car ,so does our son ,his girlfriend has one too,we fly,drive and generally have a large carbon footprint, have lots of friends ,eat meat,use some plastic bags(the wife prefers not to) and generaly enjoy life,but then i am not " holier than thou" your Vegan you say? Sorry but you do sound a bit boreing,and believe me i really am not trying to be rude,just saying what i think ,anyway its lunch time and we have just been to the vegatarian market here in Pattaya ,so no pork sausages for me today[emoji3]

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bluespunk said:

You really think that there is a danger of societal collapse because we make changes?

 

I just don’t believe that is the case and is nothing more than alarmist speculation.  

 

The danger is the impending environmental collapse if we don’t change our behaviour. 
 

That’s when society will collapse. 

It would be funny to call me an alarmist, actually it's the opposite.

I am asking questions because i hope to hear somebody coming out with some feasible solution.

Hiding behind rhetoric doesn't solve global climate issues.

Change "our behaviour" sounds like a nice slogan, just a bit too simplistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ivor bigun said:

How about,me? Well just uprated my computer,we have 3 in the house,we all have mobiles the wife and i have a car ,so does our son ,his girlfriend has one too,we fly,drive and generally have a large carbon footprint, have lots of friends ,eat meat,use some plastic bags(the wife prefers not to) and generaly enjoy life,but then i am not " holier than thou" your Vegan you say? Sorry but you do sound a bit boreing,and believe me i really am not trying to be rude,just saying what i think ,anyway its lunch time and we have just been to the vegatarian market here in Pattaya ,so no pork sausages for me todayemoji3.png

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

You are without doubt trying to be rude, otherwise you would leave out the personal comments. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mauGR1 said:

It would be funny to call me an alarmist, actually it's the opposite.

I am asking questions because i hope to hear somebody coming out with some feasible solution.

Hiding behind rhetoric doesn't solve global climate issues.

Change "our behaviour" sounds like a nice slogan, just a bit too simplistic.

Completely disagree and I did not say it was the only solution. 
 

Govts need to start imposing legislation that will tackle climate change as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

You really think that there is a danger of societal collapse because we make changes?

 

I just don’t believe that is the case and is nothing more than alarmist speculation.  

 

The danger is the impending environmental collapse if we don’t change our behaviour. 
 

That’s when society will collapse. 

 

Introducing major changes to any complex system might lead to collapse, or at least - adverse effects. All the more so when said changes seem to be partially motivated by emotion rather than being well thought out.

 

So yes, cutting down air traffic to the extreme example of young Greta will have a massive effect on many things and many people - not all of it positive.

 

That said, ignoring ongoing damage to the environment and long term consequences is daft.

 

Seems like a lot of the trouble is finding realistic ways to address issues, with advocates of whichever position touting extreme answers and solutions instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

Introducing major changes to any complex system might lead to collapse, or at least - adverse effects. All the more so when said changes seem to be partially motivated by emotion rather than being well thought out.

 

So yes, cutting down air traffic to the extreme example of young Greta will have a massive effect on many things and many people - not all of it positive.

 

That said, ignoring ongoing damage to the environment and long term consequences is daft.

 

Seems like a lot of the trouble is finding realistic ways to address issues, with advocates of whichever position touting extreme answers and solutions instead.

What did I suggest that was extreme?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

What did I suggest that was extreme?

 

Well, the personal example you cited is extreme. Not in a bad way, as it doesn't effect or impose on others. But extreme as in most people do not, can not or will not live that way. What Greta is on (like the anti-flight thing) goes beyond that, and IMO, with little regard for consequences outside of the agenda pushed.

 

Making some things mandatory through legislation - guess it would depends what this covers, and who gets to call the shots. When it comes to government level decisions, hard to imagine interests and personal gain not being part of the decision processes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Completely disagree and I did not say it was the only solution. 
 

Govts need to start imposing legislation that will tackle climate change as well. 

Governments know very well, or at least they think they know, that "imposing legislation" could bring bigger problems than the ones we already have.

Otherwise they would have done that already.

So how would you do to convince everyone to become vegan, give up fuel economy, and eliminate plastic and all pollutants ?

Honestly, i'm not holding my breath for a feasible social engineering plan, at least not yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Well, the personal example you cited is extreme. Not in a bad way, as it doesn't effect or impose on others. But extreme as in most people do not, can not or will not live that way. What Greta is on (like the anti-flight thing) goes beyond that, and IMO, with little regard for consequences outside of the agenda pushed.

 

Making some things mandatory through legislation - guess it would depends what this covers, and who gets to call the shots. When it comes to government level decisions, hard to imagine interests and personal gain not being part of the decision processes.

Then Greta is right to be angry. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Then Greta is right to be angry. 

 

I don't know whether, how or why "right" comes into it.

 

And being angry is no substitute for thinking things through. Granted, she's a kid, hence presently exempt.

 

Seeing one side of the argument while totally ignoring the other is something we see all too often even on  forum discussions dealing with lesser issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Governments know very well, or at least they think they know, that "imposing legislation" could bring bigger problems than the ones we already have.

Otherwise they would have done that already.

So how would you do to convince everyone to become vegan, give up fuel economy, and eliminate plastic and all pollutants ?

Honestly, i'm not holding my breath for a feasible social engineering plan, at least not yet.

Never said people should be vegan or give up using vehicles (I assume that’s what you mean by fuel economy) or make the changes I have.
 

That’s a personal choice and one I take to avoid hypocrisy when I advocate for strict legislation on environmentally damaging practices. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I don't know whether, how or why "right" comes into it.

 

And being angry is no substitute for thinking things through. Granted, she's a kid, hence presently exempt.

 

Seeing one side of the argument while totally ignoring the other is something we see all too often even on  forum discussions dealing with lesser issues.

I agree with and share her concerns with how we are destroying our environment. 
 

I completely understand her anger. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Then Greta is right to be angry. 

Nope, anger clouds one's judgement, and is bad for the liver :sorry:

Jokes apart, she could be right to be angry, but our politicians and ruling class are simply the product of our society and civilisation.

If there is someone to blame, we have to share that blame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bluespunk said:

I agree and share her concerns with how we are destroying our environment. 
 

I completely understand her anger. 

 

And still, sharing her concerns and understanding her anger are no substitute for an informed course of action. Informed as in including the wider effects of suggested solutions, rather than focusing solely on the environmental aspects and impact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Never said people should be vegan or give up using vehicles (I assume that’s what you mean by fuel economy) or make the changes I have.
 

That’s a personal choice and one I take to avoid hypocrisy when I advocate for strict legislation on environmentally damaging practices. 

Fair answer, but you're still ignoring my question.

Clearly me and you being vegan and not owning a car is not enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

And still, sharing her concerns and understanding her anger are no substitute for an informed course of action. Informed as in including the wider effects of suggested solutions, rather than focusing solely on the environmental aspects and impact.

Have to disagree in that I think our primary concern should be the impact of our behaviour on the environment. 

 

Other consequences will have to be managed and ameliorated as much as possible but ultimately tackling human made climate change has to be the priority. 
 

If that means a less comfortable life, then so be it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Have to disagree in that I think our primary concern should be the impact of our behaviour on the environment. 

 

Other consequences will have to be managed and ameliorated as much as possible but ultimately tackling human made climate change has to be the priority. 
 

If that means a less comfortable life, then so be it. 

 

It's not about "less comfortable life".

Less industry, less commerce, less communication - they all have significant effects on people's lives, on politics, on international relations, on societies. Going on a single issue campaign, while disregarding the possible effects or relegating them to a mere inconvenience is off mark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Have to disagree in that I think our primary concern should be the impact of our behaviour on the environment. 

 

Other consequences will have to be managed and ameliorated as much as possible but ultimately tackling human made climate change has to be the priority. 
 

If that means a less comfortable life, then so be it. 

You mean close Bentley, RR, all the gas guzzler stuff. All shops, malls and hotels to not use heating or A/C. One car per household, holiday in your own country resorts...Is this what you mean...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

It's not about "less comfortable life".

Less industry, less commerce, less communication - they all have significant effects on people's lives, on politics, on international relations, on societies. Going on a single issue campaign, while disregarding the possible effects or relegating them to a mere inconvenience is off mark.

Change has to be made. There will be consequences but they will not be as catastrophic as irreparable environmental collapse. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...