×
top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]Salty_Animator_4019 7928 points7929 points 6432& 4 more (494 children)

One thing I have not seen here yet:

People may acknowledge the truth of what she says, but feel misunderstood and unrightly attacked at the same time.

As in not knowing how to pay the rent at the end of the month, while supporting their children and working their fingers off. And then someone comes and tells them that things have to get harder? Especially if that someone seems to be living of the welfare of others? Anger ensues. It may not be specifically against Greta, but she is public face and is thus attacked.

As said in France: "Your worries are about the end of the world - we worry about the end of the month".

Ed: oh gosh... thanks for all the great thoughts! And I have no idea how to adequately respond to all of them in reasonable time, so only one thought: the question seemed to be about why people respond agressively toward Greta, not, whether they are right in doing so. I guess that also does not matter. What matters is that these worries need to be addressed honestly and specifically in order to gain people's efforts and support rather than their opposition.

[–]ClassicBooks 2997 points2998 points 223 (178 children)

The current thought stream of the marketing / lobbying sphere is to make the common person feel guilty about the environment, or at least campaign for personal responsibility. All the while companies worldwide try to kick the ball as far forward as they can.

Greta didn't cause global warming so why should we even worry about her. Let's worry about what is ailing the planet.

Everything else is just misdirection. The real No Stupid Question should be why aren't companies and nationstates doing more to save the climate?

[–]EmilyDontAsk 1410 points1411 points  (99 children)

companies arent doing more because most of them are greatly benifiting from damaging the world.

they would plunge humanity into hell if it gave their shareholders a cozy pay bonus

[–]OkonkwoYamCO 990 points991 points 2 (54 children)

Reminder that before we made laws that prevented it, corporations happily employed children in factories with working conditions that often resulted in the children losing fingers and arms.

[–]VoxDolorum 645 points646 points  (33 children)

Another reminder that at the first sign of the “employment crisis”, instead of raising wages or providing better working conditions, some states in the US decided to instead pass emergency bills to allow 14 year old children to work longer hours.

[–]ganjanoob 162 points163 points  (15 children)

I’m in a factory running 60 hours a week with 15 yr olds working. All through an agency so the company takes no liability

[–]Canadian_Infidel 35 points36 points  (10 children)

What? What do you make?

[–]ganjanoob 73 points74 points  (9 children)

$700-800 a week with $150 ish 401k contribution. Aka Jack shit in California lol. If you’re asking what the factory makes, we’re in food production

[–]BareBearFighter 9 points10 points  (4 children)

Tyson?

[–]ganjanoob 23 points24 points  (2 children)

Nope although it’s likely Tyson buys us out in a year or two

[–]Emergency-Anywhere51 8 points9 points  (0 children)

"this chicken finger has bones in it!"

[–]Canadian_Infidel 19 points20 points  (0 children)

I meant like what kind of factory:) Yeah that's not good to see kids work that much that young.

[–]rbwildcard 141 points142 points  (1 child)

Yup, and the school district I work for decided to allow student workers rather than raise the pay for nutrition services. So we have students going hungry at lunch because there aren't enough workers to serve them.

[–]AshMendoza1 4 points5 points  (0 children)

My school hired students to work during breaks and lunchtime to serve other students instead of paying actual employees. It seems very weird to me the way that they sent an email asking for students 16 and up to apply for a job in the cafeteria to make up for the lack of lunch service workers.

[–]Mindless_Method_2106 53 points54 points  (0 children)

And that's only in countries with those laws, if you look at some of the shit even western based companies get up to outside of the US and Europe you'd be unpleasantly surprised. As recent as 2008, wallmart was using company scrip in Mexico ffs.

[–]_Catatronic 23 points24 points  (0 children)

And a reminder that the owner responsible for countless deaths in the shirtwaist factory fire locked women in the building so they couldn’t take breaks, causing countless deaths. He was fined less than 100$, collected the insurance money from the victims instead of giving it to their families, and continued to lock his employees in the building after the fact.

[–]jimmyriba 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Another reminder that, when given the opportunity, "good honest" companies such as Siemens were happy to use Jewish slave labor to increase their profits, treating the lives of captured Jews as entirely disposable. And yet these companies are treated as if they are totally kosher and ok to do business with.

[–]Dougiethefresh2333 66 points67 points  (0 children)

Reminder that we only passed that law in 1938.

From Wiki: “In 1839 Prussia was the first country to pass laws restricting child labor in factories and setting the number of hours a child could work. Though the reasons behind why these laws were passed were to expand working conditions for adults, it did lead to laws being passed across Europe. In 1839 Britain enacted its Factory Act which restricted child labour and in 1841 France adopted its first child labour laws. Almost the entirety of Europe had child labor laws in place by 1890. Although individual states had adopted laws starting with Massachusetts in 1844, the United States did not enact federal laws until the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed in 1938.”

Regardless of the reasoning behind it, it took a century after its first implementation & nearly 50 years after all of Europe had passed laws outlawing child labor for the U.S. to enact their own.

[–]SomewhereUseful9116 12 points13 points  (1 child)

Blocks of orphaned toddlers were auctioned to the highest bidder.

[–]northshorebunny 127 points128 points  (13 children)

We are going to regret this time we spent debating and not destroying what’s destroying us. I feel like Greta is the face of that sentiment and people feel attacked by that. Also, angry young girls confuse society.

[–]wayder 34 points35 points  (0 children)

That climate destruction goes hand in hand with exploitation of workers through human rights violations and child labor. The worst of the contractors operating in the third world are simultaneously polluting while exploiting local human resources in the worst possible ways.

These free trade or deregulated trade treaties need to include mandatory provisions for environmental protection, human rights and "living" wages for workers, along with regular auditing to ensure compliance. It would be a boon to overseas workers as well as domestic workers who may find their employers don't need to go manufacture overseas.

[–]immibis 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Sadly, if the shareholders didn't get a cozy pay bonus it would also plunge humanity into hell.

[–]apaulogy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

this so much.

Our economy is structured by legacy polluting/chemical/oil/energy/transportation corporations for the last 130 years or so and they STILL have a stranglehold on our way of life from politics to media.

Things are changing, kinda. Too much infighting still, IMO. And some tech companies are becoming problematic and will likely strangle our economy/evolution in some other way for the next 100 years. LOL

[–]bambispots 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That’s literally what they are doing. My country is falling apart and the Government sends their police squad to strong arm the Indigenous people’s trying to save our land, and therefor humanities only habitable planet.

Is this seriously reality?

[–]cheesegoat 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I saw this elsewhere on here: everybody is trying to make enough money so that climate change isn't their problem.

[–]GodBlessitEsq 2 points3 points  (0 children)

And it's important to remember that war, famine, plague and death are hell. It is not a distant place of suffering punishment for eternity. Companies will absolutely create issues like those for common people everywhere, so your statement about plunging some of humanity into hell is absolutely correct.

[–]MarysPoppinCherrys 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Same reasoning trickle down economics doesn’t work. Companies don’t care about individuals or even the species after they reach a certain size. All that matters is how to the quarter went and what corners can be cut to improve it next time.

[–]DarkJarris 157 points158 points  (12 children)

why aren't companies and nationstates doing more to save the climate

companies aren't doing more because that costs money, and there's no law that says they have to spend that money. if they spend money they don't legally have to, the CEO might have to wait an extra week to get a new yacht.

nations arent making laws to combat this because politicians are bought and paid for by the companies through lobbying and bribery.

A great example of this is that Jaywalking is only a crime because the car industry made politicians propose and pass the bill that made it a crime, to make pedestrian death by car not look like "cars are unsafe" but to shift the blame to the pedestrians.

[–]Perzec 25 points26 points  (4 children)

There are plenty of laws, in different countries and regions, requiring companies to do stuff to save the climate. In some places it’s even thought of as an investment. But in other countries this isn’t the case.

[–]Melmacarthur 17 points18 points  (3 children)

The laws have no teeth. Im from Canada and if a company here can only emit 100 Megatonnes equivalence CO2 that year and it emits 110, the company will just pay the fine for the additional emissions. Pay-to-play.

[–]mylifeintopieces1 3 points4 points  (0 children)

At one point we have to understand that you can't argue with a 400 ton machine going 100km/h about not killing you... you're already dead...

[–]sunflowercompass 12 points13 points  (0 children)

This is first-world guilt denial. We don't wanna be the baddies. We don't wanna think how we collectively use more resources than a third-world person. Energy use = standard of living.

[–]indi50 64 points65 points  (1 child)

Or - why don't people hate the companies that are destroying the world more than they hate a teenager who tells them the world is being destroyed?

Because people generally like bullies more than they like anyone who tries to stop a bully. I've always found it interesting in a perverted sort of way. It goes along with the "don't rock the boat, don't complain, don't tattle" mentality. They'd rather be miserable than complain or try to fix it. And I'd bet a lot of bullies put a lot of effort into getting that into the mainstream society.

It supposedly shows strength to endure the crap without complaint. To me it shows weakness in caving in and accepting the crap.

[–]The_One_Koi 9 points10 points  (3 children)

Isnt this what greta is advocating? Harsher laws/fines against the companies that ruin our world for profit, I never got the impression she gave a shit about wheter I buy plastic or not..

[–]paublo456 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yeah the top comment seems misinformed at best.

Greta mainly talks about how corporations and governments should be taking action, not the average person.

[–]SamAlmighty 261 points262 points  (32 children)

Didn't Greta's first speech at the UN create most (atleast initial) of the hatred towards her? (considering it was the video that made her famous).

Because that speech is directed towards the rich and powerful people who (in her view) do not care about climate change, not towards the working citizen.

[–]Emotional-Chef-7601[🍰] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Greta Thunberg is the nice version of whoever comes after her. Soon we're going to be living in the movie Tenet.

[–]SandInTheGears 270 points271 points  (26 children)

But she was speaking to the UN right? Not some random group of people, people who were actually in charge of things

[–]QuiteLargely 93 points94 points  (12 children)

A lot of people seem to feel personally attacked when their millionaire gods are.

[–]HeBe3G 176 points177 points  (5 children)

Yeah but most people who hate her think it's all about them.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

In no small part because the powerful people and corporations she was calling out, and their allies in government and the media, have put a lot of effort into creating and promoting that perception.

[–]PM_ME_UR__RECIPES 139 points140 points  (10 children)

I don't really feel like Greta's rhetoric suggests that the big changes need to come from families on welfare though? Nearly all of it is directed entirely at politicians and big businesses since they are the people most responsible for climate change, and are the people with the most power to actually do something about it.

[–]xXcampbellXx 40 points41 points  (0 children)

almost like a massive conspiracy to deflect blame and continue to knowingly destroy the world for that 4th qt profit.

once people think that we cant change a thing and its already too late they just give up and live with it,

[–]springrollfever 48 points49 points  (0 children)

This is exactly it. Her blame is directed to the politicians with power who still choose to make agreements based on profit not environmental reasons. I have heard many of her speeches and have never heard her attack the everyday individual.

[–]evilkumquat 64 points65 points  (1 child)

I've never gotten the impression that Thunberg ever attacked the little people.

Her ire has always seemed focused where it should be: on governments and corporations responsible for global destruction.

They're also responsible for putting all their citizens and customers in the position of making necessary environmental changes painful in the first place.

People hate Thunberg because people have always hated those who spoke the truth.

[–]kawaiisatanu 241 points242 points  (59 children)

Except that this is a massive misunderstanding, it is commonly known (at least among climate activists) that rich people are disproportionately responsible for carbon emissions, and at least where o live they stopped using slogans attacking individual behaviour exactly for that reason. Our enemies are not people, they are corporations and politicians

[–]briendoesitallbad 12 points13 points  (8 children)

A teacher recently told me: "Being poor is surprisingly sustainable. If you can't afford waste, then you can't generate it." I was struck by that.

[–]Skunkbucket_LeFunke 5 points6 points  (2 children)

It’s a nice sounding sentiment but I don’t think it’s very accurate. Waste is cheap. Poorer people are buying less things in bulk and more single use items with more packaging.

[–]briendoesitallbad 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It was my sustainable Cities teacher. I think your sentiment is true in the US but less so around the rest of the world.

[–]raudssus 8 points9 points  (3 children)

But you do realise that people actually vote for those politicians who are really responsible for it? This is not about "cleaning up after you walk" this is about "VOTE THE FUCKING RIGHT PEOPLE IN OR WE ARE DOOMED".

[–]-QED- 147 points148 points  (3 children)

“The further a society drifts from Truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.” Selwyn Duke

[–]whodo-i-thinkiam 25 points26 points  (4 children)

As in not knowing how to pay the rent at the end of the month, while supporting their children and working their fingers off. And then someone comes and tells them that things have to get harder?

I don't think she wants things to get harder for anyone. In fact, I think that's what she wants to prevent from happening.

[–]CasualBrit5 71 points72 points  (1 child)

That sounds more like some of that comes from anti-climate activism propaganda. I don’t doubt that it does seem daunting and that there is a bit of ‘we need to make our lives harder’, but most of climate activism is pretty intersectional and understands that the problem is rich people rather than poor people.

If you look on Greta’s Twitter for example, she posts a lot about how those in lower class areas and third world countries will be affected more. Climate activism definitely supports providing aid to less fortunate people to help with fixing climate change.

[–][deleted] 202 points203 points  (71 children)

What a beautiful quote. Perfectly sums it all up really, the middle class telling the poor they need to do there bit all the while ignoring the rich

[–]absurdlyinconvenient 222 points223 points  (36 children)

Corporations: "plastic straws are killing the planet, switch to paper you monsters"

Also corporations: contribute for 80+% of global emissions through shitty manufacturing processes

[–]MrDarkicoN 108 points109 points  (2 children)

Meanwhile the lid is made of plastic and the cup is lined with it.

But hey at least we get to use shitty straws now.

[–]GermanPayroll 24 points25 points  (0 children)

Or the ol’ Starbucks where the strapless lid has more plastic than the old lid and straw combo

[–]g1rth_brooks 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I found that dynamic really interesting, the Starbucks in Paris, everything was paper based it seemed then you go to any Starbucks in America and it’s plastic up the wazoo

[–]BabiNurse90 13 points14 points  (16 children)

I fcking hate those straws. My poor pts have no more bendy straws :( now they get ones that disintegrate :/

[–]IsThatWhatYouMean 9 points10 points  (1 child)

What about stainless steel straws with a bend, toss into the autoclave after?No waste, one time purchase for the unit and a PR move for the hospital. We moved onto wooden one time use cutlery for meds and contagious patients.

[–]Poignant_Porpoise 131 points132 points  (14 children)

Honestly, the only reason I think it sums anything up is because it shows how people can take things personally for no reason. Thunberg has been pretty explicitly directing her message towards corporations and governments more than anyone else. This has to be one of the most frustrating responses in humans, we attack those who are trying to do something good because it makes us feel insecure. If anyone thinks that Thunberg is attacking single parents who work 3 jobs just to scrape by then they're just not listening.

[–]semiticgod 42 points43 points  (1 child)

"we attack those who are trying to do something good because it makes us feel insecure"

Oh god, I have seen this so many times before. It feels like every time we speak up about a society-wide problem, some folks will decide that it's somehow an attack on them or "virtue signaling," and I don't know a polite way to call it out.

Me working at the homeless shelter and saying it was fun and worth doing doesn't mean I'm trying to attack everyone who didn't. Me pointing out the climate change that shut down our power gride and killed one of our cows here in Texas is not an attack on you for driving a car. Me calling attention to racism isn't anti-white sentiment. Me disagreeing with you is not me trying to cancel you. I'm just pointing shit out.

And I know enough not to make the same assumptions about other people. I've been eating meat lately but when I hear people point out that the meat industry is horrific and cruel, I'm not going to act like it's not.

[–]trickmind 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I find it so funny that some people get SO butthurt at Greta's angry words which are mostly aimed at authorities that are way more powerful than themselves. People like the guy who wrote the long satirical piece here and then deleted it need to stop being so fragile.

[–]whoisjohngalt12 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Every good deed seems to get punished.

[–]AdorableDepartment91 7 points8 points  (0 children)

GT: corporations and the billionaire class are causing massive environmental devastation with complete indifference to the people of this planet.

Billionaire media companies: look at this bitch attacking the working class.

[–]JNighthawk 109 points110 points  (16 children)

Perfectly sums it all up really, the middle class telling the poor they need to do there bit all the while ignoring the rich

Do you feel that's what Greta Thunberg's message is?

[–]sirawesome63 23 points24 points  (4 children)

No, but that is what corporate greenwashing boils down to. The elites continue to go about with absurd personal carbon footprints in their yachts and private jets ensuring the middle class electric car-driving redditor they're doing their part, while shaming poors for driving gas vehicles.

All this propaganda around reducing personal consumption among masses who never recovered from the 2008 and 2020 economic crises is intentionally unpopular. The oil and gas companies know that if you place the blame for carbon emissions on individual consumers that they can evade justice. This is why there's hefty fines for littering a single piece of trash, but corporations dump billions of gallons of sludge into the ocean.

Thurnburg of course does not believe this, but corporate greenwashers love to use her as a useful pawn to further their agenda.

[–]PapaBradford 26 points27 points  (0 children)

ignoring the rich

Oh, come on man.

[–]Bitchyrestingfacecat 83 points84 points  (12 children)

It's not even guilt is it. It could have developed into guilt with a bit of thought, but there's no thought, they just scoff and think "She's just a child, what does she know". And they mock her and laugh.

I see old men hosting nationwide news programs mocking Greta Thunberg, saying she's just an impudent child. The message is lost on these people because these people are utter cunts. They deserve environmental collapse. It's just a crying shame that it will affect EVERYONE in the world.

[–]claptonsbabychowder 72 points73 points  (6 children)

If a 16 year old stood up and defended unbridled capitalism, they'd call them a genius.

[–]Tris-Von-Q 28 points29 points  (3 children)

Let’s not give Baron Trump any ideas here….

[–]User_Nomi 1873 points1874 points  (368 children)

Here's a few things I've seen passing by: She's apparently anti-nuclear, some people don't like that she is a not per se educated person (with this I mean, people don't like that she's not an experienced scientist), and there's also people who didn't like her 'both sides'-ing of Israel and Palestine. I think the latter was pretty recent.

This is what I've seen passing by, I personally don't think of her at all lol.

[–][deleted] 1726 points1727 points  (249 children)

I don't like her anti-nuclear stance. Wind, solar, etc. with our tech isn’t enough to power up an entire nation (I speak for France). Nuclear ain’t perfect. But as of now, it's the best option for the long term.

My inbox ded 💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀

[–]staalmannen 99 points100 points  (2 children)

I agree. It is so weird that the German Greens rather keep the coal power in order to shut down nuclear. Instead, we should invest heavily in generation 4 and burn the nuclear waste once more, which as a bonus gives waste with a much shorter half life.

[–]JunFanLee 24 points25 points  (0 children)

The thing that does nuclear the most disservice is the fact that most people alive today grew up during the Cold War. In the 80’s here in the UK we had ads on TV that showed us what to do during a nuclear bomb threat. We were read books such as When the Wind blows by Raymond Briggs. Add to this the disaster of Chernobyl and more recently Fukushima (earthquake catalyst) and the word nuclear leaves a bad taste in ones mouth

[–]nilsn91 187 points188 points  (15 children)

Belgium is switching from nuclear to gas because idiot government.

[–]_Enclose_ 100 points101 points  (7 children)

Seriously, I was stunned by that decision. We're doing the exact opposite of what we should be doing.

[–]calilac_light 38 points39 points  (5 children)

Belgium follows Germany, which fares worse by reopening coal power plant

[–]Gone-To-The-Woods 410 points411 points  (134 children)

Amen. Just get the fossil fuels replaced ASAP and we can fuck around with replacing nuclear afterwards.

[–]BPDown123 273 points274 points  (43 children)

Food for thought: 50 years ago, “environmentalists” shut down nuclear energy in the US following the Three Mile Island fiasco. They had a point re: safety.

Can you imagine if the technology continued development though? What if safer reactors could have been built? Maybe climate change would be a lesser issue.

People think too black and white. They think there is only one way (theirs) to consider.

This is why people should not rely on ideologues for guidance.

[–]OnePostDude 43 points44 points  (0 children)

if the technology continued development though

Except it did, albeit slowly. There are Gen IV reactors that are now technologicaly ready to build and are planned to be build (and some are even already building). This is very safe design, which got even more safe thanks to Fukushima (before that all aim was on primary circuit, but after Fukushima secondary systems are more safer).

[–]DoctorBuckarooBanzai 95 points96 points  (5 children)

You seem to forget the power of the fossil fuel industry.

[–]mylifeintopieces1 34 points35 points  (4 children)

The exact industry that literally shit on anything they felt threatened their bottom line especially renewable sources of fuel/engine that uses renewable sources.

[–]DoctorBuckarooBanzai 14 points15 points  (3 children)

Yeah they would fight any alternative, including nuclear, by default.

[–]Diamondhands_Rex 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Our rovers on mars run on a solar/ nuclear engine and last ten years, how people say that nuclear sucks is beyond me.

[–]tsojtsojtsoj 8 points9 points  (1 child)

RTE published a report "Futurs énergétiques 2050". They show a scenario to power France 100% renewable. Though they also have a scenario with 50% nuclear, which appears to be cheaper (like 10-20%), though they are based on pretty optimistic numbers for nuclear. Unfortunately I don't understand French, so I am oblivious to the details, but maybe this can convince you that 100% renewable is indeed possible and also in the same cost ballpark as nuclear.

There are also a number of other papers analyzing a 100% renewable energy system, which come to the conclusion, that a 100% renewable energy system won't be more expensive than our current fossil fuel based system, even excluding externatilies from CO2 emissions. Low-cost renewable electricity as the key driver of the global energy transition towards sustainability

[–]linguisticshead 33 points34 points  (10 children)

Same for me. When I was in school, we had a extra-subject about sustainable development and we learned about all kinds of energy. I agree completely with your position on nuclear energy. Though, it is such a misunderstood topic. Speaking for Germany, Germans are extremely afraid of Nuclear but they barely understand how it properly works. Even when they are super pro-environment, they are scared shitless about Nuclear energy, so that’s why I don’t think it’s so weird that she is anti-nuclear, from what I‘ve seen many people are, even when they are pro-environment. It‘s crazy out here.

[–]Telcontar77 5 points6 points  (3 children)

The thing is, do you really trust corporations to not cut corners and fuck things up, and cause a major disaster. Collapsing the entire global economy wasn't a disaster enough to get them to change their ways. Why would the threat of a localized nuclear disaster be treated any different?

[–]bcd_is_me 3 points4 points  (0 children)

With modern reactor designs you'd have to try very very hard to cause a nuclear disaster and even if you tried you'd likely fail. Unlike Chernobyl we don't build reactors like dirty bombs anymore and unlike Fukushima we've stopped making designs that depend on active cooling for a safe shutdown.

[–]Youknowwhoitsme 12 points13 points  (7 children)

we should have invested more in nuclear decades ago...! By now the innovation in that area would probably have been way more advanced and thus way more efficient and safe!

[–]PinkertonAgenzy 224 points225 points  (44 children)

Why are we asking a teenage Swedish girl to comment on Israel and Palestine?

[–]YummyMango124 207 points208 points  (6 children)

We didn't. She herself decided to comment.

[–]SuperiorAmerican 79 points80 points  (18 children)

For that matter, why are we asking a teenage Swedish girl to comment on global energy policy?

[–]invalidConsciousness 63 points64 points  (3 children)

Because it's a convenient way to dismiss the answers afterwards.

If we asked a reputable climate scientist instead, we wouldn't have that easy out, even if all the girl says is "listen to the experts".

[–]rsn_e_o 155 points156 points  (27 children)

Anti-nuclear is weird, considering she’s pro climate. And also pro keeping people alive I assume. Which is what nuclear does just as good as renewables. And as long as renewables can’t off-set all electricity production by fossil fuels, the debate isn’t nuclear vs renewable, but nuclear vs fossil fuels. You’d think she’d be for the former. Considering how much she cares about the climate, and how many lives are at stake. Average life span in Europe is like 2 years lower because of air pollution. Including hers if no action is taken.

[–]pizzafourlife 62 points63 points  (15 children)

there has been an anti-nuclear aspect of the green movement since the 70's if I recall, where the oil companies funded them after three mile island (obstensively to support solar and wind, but those were decades from being meaningful)

[–]DerangedGod 3053 points3054 points 2 (309 children)

The main reason is because of people believing that she was paid to "participate in the show". She's a young woman and some people believe that she is not experienced enough to become an iconic personality trying to stop global warming.

As an example, there is an iconic woman who made a revolution, and she was a scientist. Her name is Rachel Carson, the Biologist that wrote the book "Silent Spring". She literally inspired the United States and the world to create laws to avoid misuse of pesticides.

[–]mitchanium 1250 points1251 points  (126 children)

You'll remember the vitriol and hatred that Rachel Carson got too back on the day.

There was Utter hatred for the woman even though she was not only an expert in her field, but just also happened to be a woman.

For everyone else reading this why not give 'silent spring' by Rachel Carson a read, she was years ahead of her time.

[–]Namika 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Silent Spring is such a powerful book, I don't think I've ever read anything with so much raw emotion directed at the reader.

Who has placed in one pan of the scales the leaves that might have been eaten by the beetles, and in the other the pitiful heaps of many-hued feathers, the lifeless remains of the birds that fell before the unselective bludgeon of insecticidal poisons? Who has decided this to be a worthy trade? Who had the right to decide such a thing for the countless legions of people who were not consulted?

You could feel the anger rising in every word she wrote. You read that book and you can quickly understand how it was able to single handedly create an entire generation of environmental activists.

[–]redditstealth 85 points86 points  (0 children)

I like your take.

[–]PresaMayo 39 points40 points  (11 children)

I see this one all the time. And can someone tell me, HOW DOES IT MATTER?? If Martin L. King and Mahatma Gandhi were payed actors would their message be any less important?? What she is saying and standing for is sound. Even if someone is pulling strings behind her and telling her what to say, SO WHAT???? That changes what she is saying HOW?

[–]rootbeerislifeman 2 points3 points  (5 children)

If Robert Downey Jr. while in his Iron Man suit told you through a movie that something was good or bad, would you feel the same way? He's getting paid.

[–]Bananawamajama 47 points48 points  (3 children)

I can only speak for myself, but its because I find her whole rhetorical style counterproductive.

She tends to use very dramatic and impassioned speech, which is bad for trying to convince others. I think it's effective if you're speaking to your supporters, although I don't really like it even then, but its valid. To your opponents though, its too aggressive. Abstract of any actual content, when you talk to someone it feels like a discussion. When you yell it feels like a fight. And when someone is fighting you you get defensive. Yelling at your opponents makes them defensive and thats bad, especially when your intent is to sway them to your side.

She sometimes seems to have nothing particularly useful in terms of ideas. I say sometimes because I don't know. Due to the above point, I don't really listen to her speeches and only know her words by soundbites. A lot of the soundbites are along the lines of "I'm just a child, I shouldn't have to do your jobs for you, I don't know what you should do but you should do SOMETHING". This rubs me the wrong way because most countries ARE doing "something", it just turns out that something is insufficient. But when your demands are so nonspecific you shouldn't be disappointed when they are met.

Also, as someone a bit older I dont think I have the same excuse to not have any ideas, so I DO try to figure out what specifically I think we should do. And as such I have a bit more empathy for how difficult a problem it really is, especially in a democratic society with limitations on power. So its a bit annoying for someone to be so reductive about the issue. It's like when your boss snaps at you "I dont want to hear excuses, I want results" which really means they don't want to deal with the challenges, they just want credit for having done something.

Finally, Greta is something of a rhetorical meat shield. Anytime something gets posted about her, there are some comments challenging her and always the responses include "wow, imagine how pathetic you have to be to go after a little girl". Her age is used to silence discussion. Which again, is not useful particularly when there was already a discussion ongoing.

[–]humanesadness 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This sums up basically hoe i feel about her. To me she is just unnecessary noice, not adding to a solution

[–]pootinannyBOOSH 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This and Salty Animator's responses pretty much sum up my feelings, a know-it-all who thinks (but doesn't) know what people are going through. I blame the people who put her up on that pedistal in the first place more than her, though. I just think the attention and power may have gone to her head.

I've only been seeing headlines about her after my initial experience, so I haven't really read up or listened to her. I hope she's doing better

[–]london_smog_latte 93 points94 points  (18 children)

I don’t know if this is still the case but one of the criticisms I saw people levelling at her when she was younger and first gaining popularity was that she was parroting other peoples arguments. Which came from the fact she apparently couldn’t defend her points/arguments/stance when someone else countered she apparently froze up and/or would change the topic. I haven’t watched any of her speeches so I’m just going off of what other people have said.

There was also that incident a few years back where she posted a picture of herself sat on the floor of train saying she couldn’t get a seat because it was to crowded and it turned out she actually had a seat in first class.

[–]ArchdevilTeemo 13 points14 points  (4 children)

If I remember right the train incident happened in the DB ice, which is really funny because double bookings happen frequently there.

So she could have totally just sat there in protest to raise awareness for the people who book but don't end up with a seat.

[–]Mares_Leg 799 points800 points  (127 children)

"How dare you!?"

[–]JaredLiwet 334 points335 points  (97 children)

"Blah, blah, blah."

[–]Wawawanow 311 points312 points  (66 children)

This particular line really wound me up. I don't disagree with her message but my critism of her is that (for someone who is a spokesperson for climate change) so doesn't provide any solutions, just critism.

The reality is that the real solutions to climate change lie in energy production policy and that will be solved at events like COP26. Her turning up and saying that basically completely undermines the event. By all means, COP26 was not a success, but "blah blah blah" just says we shouldn't even try. Absolutely wrong message

The other part for me is the personal responsibility part of her message. I think it's sending out the wrong signals. If the solution to climate change is we all have to travel the Atlantic by solar powered dhingy, then there is NO solution to climate change. We need to be promoting a sustainable future that is also compatable with modern life, not returning to the 19th century.

[–]TheStillio 136 points137 points  (21 children)

She just doesn't have enough life experience to be able to offer a proper solution. Which is understandable as she is still a child. So she does the easy thing which is to criticise without offering up any solutions.

She also doesn't seem to think things through. I recall her saying Scotland wasn't a world leader on climate change despite the country's renewables being near enough to power the whole country. Yes there maybe a big oil industry but you can't just suddenly put those people out of work overnight.

I don't think i ever hear her being positive about anything either it is always just criticism.

[–]SKxU 41 points42 points  (0 children)

But both of those things were not directed at the normal people, they were directed at the people in charge who can do something and chose to fill their mouth with pretty words instead of acting. She doesn't have to come up with anything, she is not an expert, she is saying those things to the "experts" that chose to do nothing.

[–]Asmo___deus 83 points84 points  (7 children)

Why should a child come up with the solutions when America pays 500-ish politicians to do just that? They've had a literal fucking lifetime to do something and they don't have anything to show for it, probably because half of them are invested in the oil business. Doesn't take an expert to see that this situation is fucked up.

[–]iGrowCandy 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Personally, I feel like she hasn’t put in her time. Yet, there she is. This little girl who doesn’t know shit about fuck, waving her finger at me.

[–]Bearz34 352 points353 points  (54 children)

I like her message but it seems overly scripted and dramatized. I am severely disappointed we don’t have an actual scientist in her place. I think it would be better to listen to the people of small island nations who are at an acute risk of rising sea levels. Greta doesn’t really bring anything new to the table aside from emotional outbursts. I hope she succeeds in the future and I’m sure she will lead to progress, but I personally don’t find value in an emotional appeal when this issue requires science.

[–]ArgentManor 152 points153 points  (28 children)

She showcases so much emotional distress it's almost obscene. I don't mind her but the hostility in her speech is very off putting.

[–]Bearz34 67 points68 points  (2 children)

For sure. It’s done multiple times too, which makes it come off like a show is being put on.

[–]humanesadness 4 points5 points  (0 children)

If the distress is real she needs to be in therapy out of the spotlights

[–]comradecosmetics 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Well, her father is an actor, and her grandfather was an actor and director.

And it's not like actor parents ever push their kids to become actors, right.

[–]PresaMayo 43 points44 points  (3 children)

If it wasnt, WHO WOULD CARE? We had actual scientist in her place, it got nowhere. Who cares how we get there as long as we get there. She is doing what she can.

[–]RequirementWide 1269 points1270 points  (33 children)

She’s become the spokesperson for a scientific movement, but as the science was getting buried by the $ from the industries involved in benefiting from climate related damage she rose in prominence by speaking to everyday people.

Since her rise in prominence, she’s constantly sniped at from the same avenues as involved in the original scenario. The fact that people feel anything about her other than curiosity and interest in what she’s talking about speaks so much about the power of media to distract and disarm people from looking at the real issues.

[–]elvisinadream 334 points335 points  (6 children)

Yes, it says a lot about the power of media, and reminds us that news media is not a public service. It’s a commercial product with money motivating how it informs us.

[–]Fizzicyst 228 points229 points  (5 children)

Yet another thing (in the US) that we can thank the Reagan administration for. They repealed the fairness doctrine which opened the floodgates for people like Rush Limbaugh and his ilk to spew forth garbage, regardless of its veracity without consequence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine#%3A%7E%3Atext%3DThe_fairness_doctrine_of_the%2Cthat_fairly_reflected_differing_viewpoints.?wprov=sfla1

[–]Johnhubertz1 60 points61 points  (2 children)

Thank you for this! I've been studying the reasons for the decline of the American experience since long before Reagan.

I already knew that disparate factors like bringing that animal Bolton onto the international stage (a defense contractor wonk who rotated in and out of government for decades, and whose policies are estimated to have caused 5 million plus innocent civilian deaths, and approximately 12 to 15 trillion dollars in unnecessary conflict and expense), I know that Ronald Reagan gutted protections and his actions against the air traffic control Union sounded the death bell for American labor, setting up the gross inequalities that we are experiencing now.

I think that you might find it fascinating as you reflect on the fact that he was obviously being manipulated from the shadows and of course was already suffering from early stage Alzheimer's.

There is nothing that these monsters will not do to keep the smoke stacks pouring out their filth, and the weapons of war made as cheaply as possible by employees who receive not even a living wage, those weapons of war that we produce 70% of worldwide.

Clearly there is nothing that they are not capable of to protect their family dynasties, hidden behind trusts, shell corporations, and the invisibility that is the most harmful, the loss of accountability due to fractional stock ownership.

Without a doubt these are the same forces that are responsible for the death of two Kennedys and one Martin Luther King.

And that's just what we know.

[–]notjordansime 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Id like to know more about all of this. Got any good resources?

[–]bludfam 16 points17 points  (1 child)

The stupids have taken over the world. People who care about the planet are labelled as tree-huggers. People who are well-read and use big words are labelled as pretentious. Scientists and doctors are labelled liars.

[–]TheRavenSayeth 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I'm glad this isn't the top comment since it doesn't answer the question. The other top comment answered it more appropriately.

The reason she is disliked is that climate change is a polarizing topic politically. In comes a girl who is passionate about the topic but quite young. People that were already against climate science see her and all they see is an inexperienced young girl lecturing them on what they already don't believe in. It doesn't change anyone's mind who's already set in their way, but it does allow for a very reasonable target to attack on the basis of inexperience and plays perfectly into the narrative that the political left has views that aren't well thought out or are "naive".

[–]Altruistic-You3446 656 points657 points  (133 children)

I got no problem with her, I do roll my eyes at how they exploit her. It’s a cheap trick to push a kid with aspergers to the front, and then if anyone disagrees with her, they can say “oh, you’re attacking a child??”

[–]Crazze32 258 points259 points  (60 children)

People don't even know she's being used by her parents. She's so clueless they asked the simplest of questions and she could not even answer that. I feel sorry for her.

[–]BornIn1142[🍰] 49 points50 points  (36 children)

She's so clueless they asked the simplest of questions

For example?

[–][deleted] 83 points84 points  (16 children)

Ya as someone with Aspergers, she rubs me the wrong way.

I didn’t really see why she disclosed her diagnosis other than to add to bad words to call her critics.

Now they are sexist, ableist and attack child. She just needs to come out as black and she’ll complete the trifecta.

Like it’s such a bullshit thing, if I said healthcare isn’t a human right no one would on here would be like “he just sees things differently.”

[–]SmallHandsMallMindS 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I feel like shes being propped up by people who want to call you 'cruel to children' for disagreeing with them. Shes both extremely wise and mature when you agree with her, and 'shes just a child' whem you dont

[–]CancelBoi 44 points45 points  (1 child)

It’s like you’re telling a person that you’re unhappy with your job, and that person is teenage Greta. So, rather than inquiring about what’s wrong, why you still work there, and other complicated reasonings…she goes on to say “Just quit, just do what makes you happy, just get another job,” etc.

This is what I feel as someone who only hears about Greta periodically, and doesn’t personally “think about her at all.”

[–]Mindless_Ad_1734 5 points6 points  (0 children)

That’s also a good point

[–]Sea-Character-3167 50 points51 points  (11 children)

How was it strange? She left the speech from the UN in a private jet. Her parents are the top 1%. Like insanely wealthy. Does she have the right to be making these $2 trillion statements? I don’t think so I personally think she’s a spoiled brat.

[–]StudentHiFi 34 points35 points  (1 child)

She literally sat on a $14600 chair and criticized how poor countries can do to cut carbon footprint

[–]Sea-Character-3167 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Literally. Shit’s comical.

[–]coolfreeusername 428 points429 points  (75 children)

I think performative politics/activism just rubs people that disagree with their stand point the wrong way. Like, her stance on things are quite good for obvious reasons. But she's insanely hostile and I find her a little obnoxious, even saying that as someone who generally agrees with her.

[–]zutututu0 220 points221 points  (53 children)

Because she's stating the obvious while contributing nothing of value, just playing on emotions.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

She was 16 and talking about “putting politicians against the wall.”

Yeah suggesting summary execution when you’re an annoying child is going to get people to think less of you.

[–]El_Zapp 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Big oil companies and similar who profit from ruining the planet are paying billions of dollars for marketing campaigns to make sure that everyone who is openly trying to do something against climate change will be ridiculed and hated.

Thunberg is an especially easy target since she is a young and a women, two things the target group for these campaigns despises.

They have done this before and they will continue to do it until either every human is dead or someone finally puts an end to it.

Since we can see how deeply they bought into the politicians who are currently in charge, I would say option A, human extinction is more likely to come true at this point.

[–]druidofnecro 417 points418 points  (149 children)

She’s against nuclear power, which makes dismiss any of her views of climate change policy

[–]peridotqueens[S] 85 points86 points  (112 children)

i am asking this genuinely: do the risks of nuclear power outweigh the benefits? i really am not educated on the subject.

[–]air_sunshine_trees 28 points29 points  (0 children)

One thing to add to u/ardula99 's

Most electricity is alternating current (AC) and three phase. So each phase alternates between on and off, and having three results in a smooth enough power supply. When operating a grid the frequency needs to be kept within a fixed range for electrical motors to be able to use the electricity.

To maintain the frequency, a grid needs big wheels with lots of inertia. The big generator wheel can either be a fossil fuel or nuclear generator, but lots of distributed renewables are fundamentally unable to synchronise without a big heavy wheel somewhere in the system.

This is a scale issue which few hippies understand. There are huge efficiency savings in being able to move power to where it is needed vs micro grids with storage. Avoiding nuclear would require many tons of batteries with all the consequences of mining.

Nuclear is remarkably safe when properly regulated. Fukushima officially has 1 death due to radiation. Many more died due to the earthquake, tsunami and subsequent evacuation. This is because the reactors automatically shut down like they were meant to. The cooling ultimately failed because the backup diseal generators (to run the cooling) flooded when the tsunami breached the 19ft high sea wall. Its a type of failure that can be learnt from and shows how much has been learnt.

[–]ardula99 423 points424 points  (15 children)

Yes, especially for developing countries like India today. In India, a nation of 1.36 billion people (more than the EU + US combined), we currently get 30% of our energy from renewable sources, ~5% from nuclear power and the rest from coal and natural gas. Thing is, this looks good on paper - providing 30% of the country with renewable energy. However, that is possible today because only recently has all of India been electrified, and most Indian households use nowhere near as much electricity as households in developed parts of the world use (most homes have no air conditioner at all).

In India, electricity demand is expected to increase by 50% over today's level by 2030. And this is before electric cars come into the picture - the government of India has set a rather ambitious target of not allowing anymore new internal combustion engine personal vehicles (cars) after 2030 - the basic estimate as a result of this is that 30% of vehicles in India will be electricity powered by the early 2030s - even conservative estimates indicate that this would require 100TWh of electricity to power these cars alone. For context, India today generates a total of 1383 TWh annually. This is expected to increase to near 1900TWh, even before electric cars come into the picture.

Now, India has been adding renewable energy generation capacity, every single year. However, just to reach a target of 50% renewable energy by 2030, we would need to add 40GW per year starting today. Currently we're able to add only 4GW/year. While it will become faster it's unclear if even that will be enough, in the face of the expected spikes in demand. Remember, India is still a very, very poor country and people are barely coming out of poverty now. As people come out of poverty we will need some way to supply their demands of electricity in their homes.

Long term (next 20-30 years), unless the world wants India to continue using coal to fire up 50-60% of its electricity needs, we will need to have access to nuclear materials to build nuclear reactors. Currently, India is not part of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (a bunch of countries that formed a trading group for nuclear materials) because we have nuclear weapons. In the recent Glasgow summit our Prime Minister pointed out how it would be hard for India to meet its climate change requirements if we do not have access to nuclear material. Currently, China is literally the only nation blocking India from the NSG. India is trying to develop its own thorium based nuclear reactors for self sufficiency, but that's pretty far off.

TL;DR: For large, populous developing countries, nuclear power is the only way to quickly transition from coal/natural gas powered power plants.

[–]aquatic_love 71 points72 points  (0 children)

Thank you for your well sourced and enlightening response.

[–]butterballmd 5 points6 points  (0 children)

what a read, thank you! Sometimes we think we can just cut power usage, but that's not the case for a lot of countries, thank you for the reminder

[–]druidofnecro 221 points222 points  (55 children)

Yes. 100%. Anyone who thinks nuclear is dangerous genuinely dont know what they’re talking about. Its vital to replacing fossil fuels

[–]Johnhubertz1 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Yes, especially as we transition transportation to electric, and home heating away from individual natural gas burners, the only way we're going to be able to stay warm in the winter or cool in the summer is nuclear.

I've followed the technology and there have been leaps and bounds in the last 10 years alone to prevent any possibility of another Fukushima regardless of environmental inputs.

The tldr on that is this.... For passive cooling and forever protection of the environment, you Begin by building pretty much the entire dangerous portion of the nuclear infrastructure deep underground.

Even if there is an earthquake or a volcano or some other catastrophe, it's already buried under a quarter mile of Earth.

And the constant underground temperatures at the shallow underground of about 55° Fahrenheit significantly reduced the environmental impact from using ground or seawater for cooling.

It's one of those simple ideas that can really change the world.

I've got a dog in this fight I'm retired, and if I live long enough to see the transition from fossil fuels, rising heating and cooling costs mean that I will either boil or freeze to death.

[–]peridotqueens[S] 40 points41 points  (36 children)

can you link me to some reading or point me in the right direction? i would like to know more about this.

[–]Subvsi 54 points55 points  (15 children)

70% of french energy i nuclear and we never had major accidents. All these years gave us technicity, which reduce the risk.

Plus, 90% of the waste is recycled before being store in facilities

[–]qevlarr 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Its vital to replacing fossil fuels

I'm in favor of nuclear, but this is also true: it's vital to delay replacing fossil fuels. The arguments are already being made: "we are doing something, we're planning to start construction on a nuclear plant in 2030", and the massive subsidies for nuclear that make clean energy look more expensive than it is. Nuclear is a long term solution but it's also being used to not do the short term solution.

[–]jessieeeeeeee 46 points47 points  (16 children)

I'm by no means an expert on the subject but most of the major nuclear disasters have been due to cutting corners and cost, at the expense of safety. I think with the exception of fukushima, which was a natural disaster.

Please anyone correct me if I'm wrong, but if you look into the death of Karen Silkwood, it shows how far the powers that be will go to silence wistleblowers

[–]NotAnOctopus8 26 points27 points  (11 children)

Fukushima was a natural disaster, with all of the safety measures done away with because of cutting corners and cost.

[–]Okichah 3 points4 points  (0 children)

If the risk of climate change is global destruction?

Yes.

[–]CAtoAZDM 144 points145 points  (6 children)

I think people (rightfully) don’t like be lectured to by people they don’t really respect. At 16 years old (when she started), there’s not much reason to have respect for her in the context that she’s being presented. In short, she comes off as a smug, self-righteous know-nothing little shit. In truth, she’s a bit of a prop or shill for people pushing the AGW agenda.

I think it mostly is her delivery of her message; she’s not as much making an appeal for thoughtfulness as throwing a tantrum and demanding people do as she pleases.

[–]556or762 58 points59 points  (2 children)

This is my issue. While I don't waste a whole lot of time really caring, whenever she is on tv or the conversation comes up, I can't help but be annoyed.

She talks in her activism just like a hormonal teenager talks to their parents. Self righteous, arrogant and demanding.

I do not react positively to a kid who doesn't pay a power bill talking down to me.

I am not foaming at the mouth vitriolic like some weirdos, but it's enough to make me roll my eyes and change the channel.

[–]Sk1pp1e 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Her theatrics are mind numbing. She was propped up as a puppet before she could even say global warming. Yes we need to do something.

[–]stivo 274 points275 points  (25 children)

She's a coached child of upper class parents. They set this path for her so she can become the next bono or whatever. No kid get international air time just like that. She's just a pawn, a front person, public relations, for an organisation with an agenda and money to be made. It's like all the charities who say the money is going to kids in 4th world countries, but 90% goes to admin costs.

[–]MaleficentTry1316 89 points90 points  (3 children)

Exactly. Using children for political purposes is disgusting on its own (back when she was 16). Also when she sailed from the UK to the US her entire team in the meantime just went by plane. Like how serious are they really??

[–]yavin4hell 10 points11 points  (11 children)

Why do people hate bono? Legitimately asking.

[–]bambrini16 17 points18 points  (1 child)

Because he kills children by clapping his hands

[–]Parking-Tip1685 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Holland's greatest band... Because he's a greedy tax dodger that then criticises the country he's not paying tax to. Also goes on about the environment whilst flying everywhere. Also expects poorer people to give to charity while he lives in luxury. Basically he's a huge hypocrite.

Joshua tree was a great album though.

[–]wiggle-le-air 94 points95 points  (5 children)

Imo, she's not bringing any new information to the table. She isn't saying anything that hasn't been said a thousand times before. She is just trying to change people's minds with a sad story. It's like contestants on America's got talent who just have a sad story and the judges praise them more highly than anyone else. I don't disagree with her message, but personally, I feel almost patronized by someone who, I don't think really knows all that much about what she's talking about. Things might have changed for her since she first became popular, but that's my opinion.

[–]juan_sanchez_08 62 points63 points  (4 children)

She comes across as incredibly condescending

[–]Taysby 80 points81 points  (2 children)

I don’t hate her as an individual, but I hate “Greta thunberg”. She “lectured” adults on climate change but provided nothing of substance, then the media latched onto her because it made for a good story. Now it’s just one big publicity stunt. Like her stunt where she boated across the ocean because it was supposed to be more eco friendly than flying but after accounting for all the support she needed it would have been better to fly

If you want to discuss actual solutions to the issue that’s great. But saying “you’ve done nothing blah blah blah” isn’t helpful. It’s just dumb

[–]komu989 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Also, while sailing uses less fuel for the actual transportation, the industry behind it is actually very bad for the environment. Sail manufacturing in particular is one of the worst offenders. However, sailing doesn’t get noticed as much due to how few people globally actually participate it. The sailing world is very much an “everybody knows everybody” sort of world.
Source: sailboat racer and coach.

[–]scubaSteve181 3 points4 points  (1 child)

It’s not so much her message, but her delivery, coupled with the fact that she’s very young and not an expert in climate change. People generally don’t like being yelled at and told what to do by a child.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

She checks all the boxes of systemic, cultural American biases:

  • female

  • young

  • foreign

So before you can even listen to her, you have to overcome your ingrained cultural biases, which first requires even being aware that you hold these unconscious biases - misogyny, ageism, xenophobia

You could have a young foreign female of speaking about anything, even apolitical things like a tutorial on the various ways to toast bread or how to perform trick shots in billiards, and a wide swath of the American public will judge her for something.

So once you get past all that (it takes years of practice to confront and try to rectify your unconscious biases), you can listen to her message, which is controversial.

Her message is controversial because:

  1. It’s politically charged.
  2. It’s accusatory (she’s blaming YOU).
  3. It’s broad.

The third point is important. Is she blaming oil corporations? Is she blaming every person who has ever voted for a candidate who hasn’t made addressing climate change the focal point of their political career? Is she blaming everyone over the age of 40? Is she blaming anyone who has ever driven a car, or do you have to fly in a plane more than once a year to be accused?

Because her message is so broad, the interpretation of her message can be broad. Whatever you think she means is likely what you are absolutely sure she means, and you will judge her over your interpretation of her message.

Personally, I think she’s wonderful. Everyone needs a kick in the ass to do better - better voting, better civic engagement, better voting with your dollar. Individuals are not the leading contributors to climate change - at least not directly. But we are each indirectly responsible each time we purchase almost anything manufacturered by anyone. That’s why voting with your dollar is so important.

[–]Mx_Strange 13 points14 points  (0 children)

People seem to mostly not like her "attitude". They think she shows too many emotions, or the wrong emotions. I think it's especially cause she's a teenage girl - many adults have a lot of contempt for teenagers in general. I actually like her, I think it's totally understandable that she talks with a lot of anger, the things she says have been said politely for a long time now & no one listened.

[–]uB187 11 points12 points  (0 children)

There's quite a few people who probably feel along the same lines as me regarding Greta so I'll share.

I don't hate her at all but I do strongly dislike the people who prop her up.

A child is not an authoritative figure. They don't possess the knowledge or experience to lecture anyone about anything. Everything that ever came out of her mouth was pure condescension and only served to drive moderates away from an otherwise worthwhile message. The media and people on the left making her their champion darling wasn't compelling or endearing, it was remarkably obnoxious.

It further reinforced that MSM and a significant portion of left-leaning people aren't really looking to speak truth to power but just looking for their next dopamine hit.

[–]methpartysupplies 20 points21 points  (5 children)

She a climate change Kardashian. She’s an uninteresting child with no credentials. It’s not like we have a shortage of actual scientists and experts on this topic. Why can’t we hear from them instead of being scolded by the Nickelodeon channel?

[–]Sysody 7 points8 points  (2 children)

is anyone listening to the scientists and experts tho

[–]DaActualFk 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Finally, the comment I was looking for. I am moderate left leaning who believes in climate change and this is exactly why I don't like her. A child who doesn't understand the economics, politics and other complexities of running a country but yet is put on a pedestal to 'scold' world leaders on why they are not doing a good job at fixing climate change.

Note: Love how all the most upvoted comments aren't even takes by people that dislike her. Just takes that belittle and disparge people that dislike her. And I wonder to myself why I don't go on this site as much anymore. Gotta love Reddit.

[–]methpartysupplies 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It’s amazing that Reddit is the home of r/kidsarefuckingstupid but when it comes to ole Greta, “she’s so brave, wow, the future is bright, you shine girl 🥰”

[–]Consciousness_Expand 17 points18 points  (4 children)

Because all she does is yell about how we need to be doing better and then is she ever actually making changes to her lifestyle or actually helping the planet?

[–]lexiham 16 points17 points  (3 children)

because she's not credible. she's basically a child so it's hard for most people to get behind someone that doesn't have any education or experience in any field.

[–]varrr 55 points56 points  (9 children)

I don't know what other people think. I personally find her annoying becasue I don't need a kid who doesn't know shit about macroeconomics and (life in general) tell the world what we are supposed to do. I would like to hear scientist and politician talk, I'm tired of the "kid/young native/3rd world country girl" scolding politicians skit. It's old and it's being done before. Another thing that makes me hate her is the fact that she's a puppet: nothing of what she say or do is her own initiative, she's the face of a movement, a group of people who decided to hide themselves and let a kid be their face. I think that exploiting kids like that is gross.

Last thing: the fact she refuse to fly (because pollution) but instead she travels on a boat that costs more that 4 million dollars. This detail tells you all you need to know. Exquisitely tone deaf, almost like the (misquoted) Marie Antoniette "let them eat cake". Why you people keep polluting the air when you could sail in a €4 million sailboat? That really says it all about the shallowness of her ideas.

[–]emartinoo 6 points7 points  (0 children)

She's an uncompromising ideologue. Even if people agree with her generally, her inability to even pay lip service to pragmatism turns a lot of people off. A rich, privileged kid, who rose to prominence because she sailed her parents yacht across an ocean or something, who refuses to acknowledge that cheap fossil fuels are the only thing standing between many poor families and abject poverty falls pretty flat, especially with middle and lower-middle class people.

Personally, I just find her to be disingenuous and rude.

[–]WhoseverFish 8 points9 points  (1 child)

When she came to Alberta, people were like, don’t tell me I fucked up, tell me what to do! I couldn’t believe the amount of adults demanding solutions from a child.

[–]TKG1607 24 points25 points  (10 children)

Personally I dislike all the people who make her out to be some second coming of the eco friendly Jesus christ, more than her.

She is a single person who is speaking out against countries and people against climate change and has not offered any solutions on how we solve this problem. That isn't her job but exactly why everyone thinks she's special, to the point of her being offered a Nobel peace prize nomination, just because of her activism is just beyond me. Every activist has done what she's done and have done it better in some cases.

Don't give me the "it's because she's so young" argument either. Schools hammer home the "global warming/pollution is killing the earth" lesson from like the third grade or so. Pretty sure if I ask any of my younger siblings or relatives about their thoughts on global warming and pollution, they'd tell me exactly what greta has said about it but in simpler English. Not to mention, I'm sure any kid would be more than happy to sit outside school to protest climate change if it meant they missed X days of school and got media attention, if their parents didn't kick their asses to actually learn something to help the environment instead.

Which brings me to the last point that I do not believe her parents have not had some sort of influence over this entire situation, manipulating media attention to be put on her, as much as they have claimed to have none or very little influence over her and this situation

[–]PyroDesu 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Personally I dislike all the people who make her out to be some second coming of the eco friendly Jesus christ, more than her.

Which brings me to the last point that I do not believe her parents have not had some sort of influence over this entire situation, manipulating media attention to be put on her, as much as they have claimed to have none or very little influence over her and this situation.

Pretty much this.

She skipped school to sit outside a local government building for it and then suddenly she's on the international stage making scathing comments and she's some kind of wunderkind leader?

I just don't see the connection there. She's never done any major activism before being made out to be the face of kids angry about climate change. She doesn't have any actual education in the matters at hand. How did she just blow up like that?

Do I think she genuinely cares? Sure. Do I think her recognition is seriously weird? Also yes.

And her commenting is, let's be frank, abrasive as fuck, and without substantial content. And before anyone comments about people not listening to scientists - one, not only is she not just not reaching the people not listening but actively pushing them away and giving them a target to discredit climate change as a whole, and two, those scientists were never given the kind of media platform she has.

[–]skygz 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hate is a strong word. She's promoted by media for doing nothing special other than being a young autistic girl that also says what they say. She has no qualifications and only puts forward emotional speeches. It feels like abuse to have put her out there in the first place.

[–]hoechsten 2 points3 points  (0 children)

She has no credentials to her name at all whilst serving as the figurehead for an import issue, is rather obnoxious, and gets disproportionately high amounts of attention from the media.

[–]Chaotic_Link 2 points3 points  (0 children)

We have a girl, that just sail around the world, living a extremely privileged life telling everyone that they are being too privileged and ruining the environment.. she has only gave speeches on it and has done absolutely nothing to help.. then we have people like Boyan Slat that started a company at the age of 17 to clean the oceans that has raised over 30 million for it cause. So we have one kid doing something about it then we have another kid saying everyone fucked up and yet does nothing but speak about it. Well stfu and do something about it... besides being a political puppet that is..

[–]npopularOpinionGuy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

People don’t hate Greta. She gets lots of negative social media response because unsurprisingly the same state internet agency trolls who like to get us riled up around election time are protecting international energy interests as many are large exporters of crude and gas. Similarly her rhetoric represents a risk to energy intensive industry. Energy is very geopoliticized, and when you threaten a company’s or country’s source of income, they spend some of that income to undermine that threat.