Greta Thunberg my opinion

She is protesting to make the world a healthier and a more sustainable place to live for herself and future generations. What is wrong with that? I really don't understand people who actively try and discourage people from doing the same.
Even if she did take a private jet, the potential environmental benefits of her actions will far out weigh her carbon footprint. Do you expect her to live in a mud hut in the dark and eat grass because she is an environmental activist?

The world naturally heats up and cools down. What is not natural is the rapid rate at which climate change is being accelerated by industry. Both are scientific facts. You can not pick and choose when to use science to suit your opinion. The majority of global emissions are produced by a small number of companies. If they weren't so profit driven, or if governments were more willing to impose sanctions on those companies or if more investment was made into renewable energy sources, it would have massive beneficial impacts on the environment. It would definitely have more of an impact than the average person recycling yogurt pots and cycling to work. But money talks.

The emphasis the younger generations are putting into sustainability is urgently needed and will only be a good thing in the long run. If you feel that change is not needed and are perfectly happy for companies to burn fossil fuels, pump massive amounts of CO2 into the environment and to cut down rainforests for massive profit then you are part of the problem and are the reason why she is blaming the older generations for not doing enough.

Of all the things you see in the news at the moment that make you angry, I don't think a child protesting for sustainability should be at the top of the list.

The environmental benefits of her actions?

Which actions are these? given a president a deathly stare?

Yes mate. The ultimate aim of her environmental campaign was to do that. Absolute tool. Have a read what she stands for and how it would benefit the environment. Don’t think too hard though, don’t hurt yourself.

You cant argue with stupid, all these people see is someone younger than them telling them they're wrong and they're the problem and they dont like it, its hilarious how older people get riled up like this.

That Divide and conquer hmmm ever heard of that ? Yep the establishment have helped turn the young against old, races against races, Men against Women, When we are all fighting each other they can do what the hell they like.
Are you getting it yet ?

She is protesting to make the world a healthier and a more sustainable place to live for herself and future generations. What is wrong with that? I really don't understand people who actively try and discourage people from doing the same.
Even if she did take a private jet, the potential environmental benefits of her actions will far out weigh her carbon footprint. Do you expect her to live in a mud hut in the dark and eat grass because she is an environmental activist?

The world naturally heats up and cools down. What is not natural is the rapid rate at which climate change is being accelerated by industry. Both are scientific facts. You can not pick and choose when to use science to suit your opinion. The majority of global emissions are produced by a small number of companies. If they weren't so profit driven, or if governments were more willing to impose sanctions on those companies or if more investment was made into renewable energy sources, it would have massive beneficial impacts on the environment. It would definitely have more of an impact than the average person recycling yogurt pots and cycling to work. But money talks.

The emphasis the younger generations are putting into sustainability is urgently needed and will only be a good thing in the long run. If you feel that change is not needed and are perfectly happy for companies to burn fossil fuels, pump massive amounts of CO2 into the environment and to cut down rainforests for massive profit then you are part of the problem and are the reason why she is blaming the older generations for not doing enough.

Of all the things you see in the news at the moment that make you angry, I don't think a child protesting for sustainability should be at the top of the list.

The environmental benefits of her actions?

Which actions are these? given a president a deathly stare?

Yes mate. The ultimate aim of her environmental campaign was to do that. Absolute tool. Have a read what she stands for and how it would benefit the environment. Don’t think too hard though, don’t hurt yourself.

You cant argue with stupid, all these people see is someone younger than them telling them they're wrong and they're the problem and they dont like it, its hilarious how older people get riled up like this.

The ultimate aim of extinction rebellion or whatever they’re called is to replace capitalism with Marxism.
The leftist filth in our education system have polluted the minds of their students, it’s quite Orwellian what’s happening.

Did someone forget to put their tin foil hat on today

Did someone forget to put their glasses on ?

The amount of doublethink in this thread is incredible

'how dare you criticize this 16 year old child' and in the same breath 'we should listen to this 16 year old child and follow her inexperienced advice on geo-global politics to the letter'

Either she is old and wise enough for us to listen to and therefore open to criticism or she is too young for us too criticize and therefore her opinion is not as robust as it should be and should be treated as such.

Ultimately, it should be the idea that is open to criticism not the delivery. But in this case the delivery of the message - which is very, very stage managed to my eye, seems to be glossing over a significant lack of substance in the actual message.

And with all of those getting upset about the Nazi comparison, first of all Nukes point as I read it is more about the use of innocent young girls in propaganda rather than the ideologies behind it.

However, eco-fascism is a very real thing supported by both the Christchurch and El Paso shooters recently - so let's not get all offended by the suggestion that Nukes has made some previously never seen before link between environmentalism and fascism.

Thunberg is just a media friendly face of the same movement giving it mass legitimacy. Read the policy recommendations in line with her movement and think critically about them. Climate Justice is just the new centre piece to coerce the masses into submission to cede more control to government. Same as fascism, same as Nazism same as communism. Same meat different gravy is all.

Its the classic Hegalian dialectic. Manufacture the enemy and problem, then ride in with panacea to save the world. We've seen it so often throughout history its incredible that 90% of people still fall for it.

Nukes is absolutely correct to see the echoes of the past in the way Thunberg is presented.

Final point is I genuinely feel for Greta as a person. She is a girl whose childhood has been stolen by the ideology of her parents and is now being weaponized.

Enjoyed Reading That And Thank you for the back up

The amount of doublethink in this thread is incredible

'how dare you criticize this 16 year old child' and in the same breath 'we should listen to this 16 year old child and follow her inexperienced advice on geo-global politics to the letter'

Either she is old and wise enough for us to listen to and therefore open to criticism or she is too young for us too criticize and therefore her opinion is not as robust as it should be and should be treated as such.

Ultimately, it should be the idea that is open to criticism not the delivery. But in this case the delivery of the message - which is very, very stage managed to my eye, seems to be glossing over a significant lack of substance in the actual message.

And with all of those getting upset about the Nazi comparison, first of all Nukes point as I read it is more about the use of innocent young girls in propaganda rather than the ideologies behind it.

However, eco-fascism is a very real thing supported by both the Christchurch and El Paso shooters recently - so let's not get all offended by the suggestion that Nukes has made some previously never seen before link between environmentalism and fascism.

Thunberg is just a media friendly face of the same movement giving it mass legitimacy. Read the policy recommendations in line with her movement and think critically about them. Climate Justice is just the new centre piece to coerce the masses into submission to cede more control to government. Same as fascism, same as Nazism same as communism. Same meat different gravy is all.

Its the classic Hegalian dialectic. Manufacture the enemy and problem, then ride in with panacea to save the world. We've seen it so often throughout history its incredible that 90% of people still fall for it.

Nukes is absolutely correct to see the echoes of the past in the way Thunberg is presented.

Final point is I genuinely feel for Greta as a person. She is a girl whose childhood has been stolen by the ideology of her parents and is now being weaponized.

Enjoyed Reading That And Thank you for the back up

Cheers mate and your very welcome. Your spot on with your OP from where I'm standing.

She is protesting to make the world a healthier and a more sustainable place to live for herself and future generations. What is wrong with that? I really don't understand people who actively try and discourage people from doing the same.
Even if she did take a private jet, the potential environmental benefits of her actions will far out weigh her carbon footprint. Do you expect her to live in a mud hut in the dark and eat grass because she is an environmental activist?

The world naturally heats up and cools down. What is not natural is the rapid rate at which climate change is being accelerated by industry. Both are scientific facts. You can not pick and choose when to use science to suit your opinion. The majority of global emissions are produced by a small number of companies. If they weren't so profit driven, or if governments were more willing to impose sanctions on those companies or if more investment was made into renewable energy sources, it would have massive beneficial impacts on the environment. It would definitely have more of an impact than the average person recycling yogurt pots and cycling to work. But money talks.

The emphasis the younger generations are putting into sustainability is urgently needed and will only be a good thing in the long run. If you feel that change is not needed and are perfectly happy for companies to burn fossil fuels, pump massive amounts of CO2 into the environment and to cut down rainforests for massive profit then you are part of the problem and are the reason why she is blaming the older generations for not doing enough.

Of all the things you see in the news at the moment that make you angry, I don't think a child protesting for sustainability should be at the top of the list.

The environmental benefits of her actions?

Which actions are these? given a president a deathly stare?

Yes mate. The ultimate aim of her environmental campaign was to do that. Absolute tool. Have a read what she stands for and how it would benefit the environment. Don’t think too hard though, don’t hurt yourself.

You cant argue with stupid, all these people see is someone younger than them telling them they're wrong and they're the problem and they dont like it, its hilarious how older people get riled up like this.

I'm on the cusp of Gen X and Millenial. The one thing that has been lost between the two generations is the ability to think critically. Thank f**k the Millenials aren't breeding and Gen Z is coming to burn all there bulshit down. The generation that follows you will right all your wrongs. My only fear is you screw the world up so royally that their job is almost impossible.

One last post on this then I'm done. But just a quick question that highlights the cognitive dissonance around all this.

So of Greta is right and the world is about to burn due to human neglect, and the blame of this lies at the door of the developed west, then isn't Sweden (and Germany) fundamentally at fault for opening their doors to mass immigration of populations who reproduce at a far higher rate than the native population? They are essentially moving expanding populations from lower carbon producing areas per head to areas where that population footprint will have a bigger impact on global climate change are they not?

Surely the need for global reduction of CO2 is therefore at direct odds with global open borders.

Just one more example of the holes in leftist thinking that simple application of logic blows wide open.

So which is it - open borders or saving the planet? I'll leave that to all the clever folks on the left to work out as it's way above my pay grade.

Attenborough is a hypocrite.
David Attenborough - "We're running out of time to save the planet."

A personal message to Sir David: You've spent the past half a century amassing a £27M fortune, how have you done this? By jetting all over the world dragging an entourage of cameramen, sound recordists, producers, etc. with you. You are personally accountable for burning hundreds of tons of jet fuel! Factor in the quadrillions of hours that your programmes have clocked up on hundreds of millions of TV sets all across the world and this electricity usage would have taken the contents of several coal mines to generate.

David Attenborough (Productions) Ltd is a gross polluter, easily outstripping the pollution generated by some small undeveloped nations. Prince Charles & the rest of the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas. are always lecturing us about climate change whilst driving Aston Martins, Rollers, Range Rovers and taking up entire jumbo jets or super yachts for pleasure. You're a bit brighter than them Sir David, can't you smell the hypocrisy on yourself? You reek of it!

Because what all these over privileged parasites want is to carry on as they are but stop ordinary people flying to Benidorm or Albuferia once a year.

Co2 in the atmosphere is actually at a low point taking into account the history of the Earth. There's been no marked increase of temperature either. Global warming is an attempt to push through an agenda to squeeze more money out of the public, and enforce legislation that benefits the 0.1%. I read an article this morning suggesting a new tax being added onto the already highly taxed airline industry. Because paying extra for flights will fix this mythical global warming

This post has shown who the idiots are.
Sorry but you're a special kind of stupid if you dont think there's a problem with how polluted the planet is and i can guarantee the ones here denying its having an effect on the planet are 40+ year olds that made the problems worse and are continuing to do so.

Lord give me strength.

Chief all the strength in the world won’t help you with these deluded fools. Obviously he didn’t get someone to read my OP to him so he might understand what I put.I think I did point out that we were a lot more environmentally friendly than these self righteous people ever will be.

You do realise that the examples you gave are not really the fault of younger generations though don't you? The use of plastic was imposed on everyone with very little option for alternatives by older generations. Since then, younger and older people quite often don't have a choice not to buy plastics just like older people didnt have the option to buy plastics. You can't say one generation is more eco friendly than the other when their choices are forced. It is only recently that the public have become aware of the extent of the problem plastic pollution is causing hence the massive shift in its use in recent years. Which is good.

Like it or not, the attitude of the public towards the environment is changing and in general (obviously not in all cases) that push for change is by younger generations. It is the resistance/reluctance to change generally by older generations (again, obviously not in all cases) which is why younger generations are blaming older ones. Especially when the reason there is an unwillingness to change boils down to money and profit. Personally, I feel that, regardless of age, it is the manufacturers, producers and governments that are the ones to blame, not the average person. They have the power to make little changes that could potentially have massive environmental impacts. Yet they don't because that would reduce profit. So the responsibility is put on the consumer to do their bit which is only effective when collectively done by everyone and even then you're only looking at small benefits.

But it goes back to the point I made in my first post though, I really don't understand why anyone would actively appose a move towards a cleaner and more circular economy. Which effectively is what these people are pushing for. Even if you don't believe there is currently a climate crisis, why would anyone be happy to continue to pollute the world and continue to cut down rainforests when there are potential alternatives available?

Co2 in the atmosphere is actually at a low point taking into account the history of the Earth. There's been no marked increase of temperature either. Global warming is an attempt to push through an agenda to squeeze more money out of the public, and enforce legislation that benefits the 0.1%. I read an article this morning suggesting a new tax being added onto the already highly taxed airline industry. Because paying extra for flights will fix this mythical global warming

Are you saying this is a natural cycle then?

It is a natural cycle. What study was your graph taken from?

It is a natural cycle. What study was your graph taken from?

The spike correlates to the industrial revolution. That is not a natural process

That particular graph was taken off a nasa article. But I have seen it in research that has been published and peer reviewed though. You would have come across it as well if you have read papers on climate change as it simply shows CO2 levels over the last 800,000 years.

This post has shown who the idiots are.
Sorry but you're a special kind of stupid if you dont think there's a problem with how polluted the planet is and i can guarantee the ones here denying its having an effect on the planet are 40+ year olds that made the problems worse and are continuing to do so.

Lord give me strength.

Chief all the strength in the world won’t help you with these deluded fools. Obviously he didn’t get someone to read my OP to him so he might understand what I put.I think I did point out that we were a lot more environmentally friendly than these self righteous people ever will be.

You do realise that the examples you gave are not really the fault of younger generations though don't you? The use of plastic was imposed on everyone with very little option for alternatives by older generations. Since then, younger and older people quite often don't have a choice not to buy plastics just like older people didnt have the option to buy plastics. You can't say one generation is more eco friendly than the other when their choices are forced. It is only recently that the public have become aware of the extent of the problem plastic pollution is causing hence the massive shift in its use in recent years. Which is good.

Like it or not, the attitude of the public towards the environment is changing and in general (obviously not in all cases) that push for change is by younger generations. It is the resistance/reluctance to change generally by older generations (again, obviously not in all cases) which is why younger generations are blaming older ones. Especially when the reason there is an unwillingness to change boils down to money and profit. Personally, I feel that, regardless of age, it is the manufacturers, producers and governments that are the ones to blame, not the average person. They have the power to make little changes that could potentially have massive environmental impacts. Yet they don't because that would reduce profit. So the responsibility is put on the consumer to do their bit which is only effective when collectively done by everyone and even then you're only looking at small benefits.

But it goes back to the point I made in my first post though, I really don't understand why anyone would actively appose a move towards a cleaner and more circular economy. Which effectively is what these people are pushing for. Even if you don't believe there is currently a climate crisis, why would anyone be happy to continue to pollute the world and continue to cut down rainforests when there are potential alternatives available?

Of coarse isn't the fault of our younger generation just a response that they blame us. It’s the establishments fault that they impose on us then blame us, then they use divide and conquer. I don’t blame the youngsters same if you properly read my OP I don’t blame Greta I just feel she has been brainwashed and they are using her without regard to her well being

This post has shown who the idiots are.
Sorry but you're a special kind of stupid if you dont think there's a problem with how polluted the planet is and i can guarantee the ones here denying its having an effect on the planet are 40+ year olds that made the problems worse and are continuing to do so.

Lord give me strength.

Chief all the strength in the world won’t help you with these deluded fools. Obviously he didn’t get someone to read my OP to him so he might understand what I put.I think I did point out that we were a lot more environmentally friendly than these self righteous people ever will be.

You do realise that the examples you gave are not really the fault of younger generations though don't you? The use of plastic was imposed on everyone with very little option for alternatives by older generations. Since then, younger and older people quite often don't have a choice not to buy plastics just like older people didnt have the option to buy plastics. You can't say one generation is more eco friendly than the other when their choices are forced. It is only recently that the public have become aware of the extent of the problem plastic pollution is causing hence the massive shift in its use in recent years. Which is good.

Like it or not, the attitude of the public towards the environment is changing and in general (obviously not in all cases) that push for change is by younger generations. It is the resistance/reluctance to change generally by older generations (again, obviously not in all cases) which is why younger generations are blaming older ones. Especially when the reason there is an unwillingness to change boils down to money and profit. Personally, I feel that, regardless of age, it is the manufacturers, producers and governments that are the ones to blame, not the average person. They have the power to make little changes that could potentially have massive environmental impacts. Yet they don't because that would reduce profit. So the responsibility is put on the consumer to do their bit which is only effective when collectively done by everyone and even then you're only looking at small benefits.

But it goes back to the point I made in my first post though, I really don't understand why anyone would actively appose a move towards a cleaner and more circular economy. Which effectively is what these people are pushing for. Even if you don't believe there is currently a climate crisis, why would anyone be happy to continue to pollute the world and continue to cut down rainforests when there are potential alternatives available?

Well said.

Co2 in the atmosphere is actually at a low point taking into account the history of the Earth. There's been no marked increase of temperature either. Global warming is an attempt to push through an agenda to squeeze more money out of the public, and enforce legislation that benefits the 0.1%. I read an article this morning suggesting a new tax being added onto the already highly taxed airline industry. Because paying extra for flights will fix this mythical global warming

Absolute nonsense.

Just like everything else passed off as 'new' these days turns out Greta is just a reboot of something exactly the same from the 90s
https://youtu.be/fRT9KO7vt08

Oh for those that dont think she is being coached/scripted here is what she sounds like off script
https://youtu.be/0bwLt_5t73g

Here’s something worth watching for those on here:
https://twitter.com/markhumphries/statu ... 65440?s=21

Oh for those that dont think she is being coached/scripted here is what she sounds like off script
https://youtu.be/0bwLt_5t73g

It’s already been mentioned on here. Doesn’t really matter if she is being coached the message is still the same. Do you believe politicians arnt coached and don’t have scripts written for them to answer certain questions? What she is doing is no different to what you see politicians do everyday on the news.

I think you need to read the last paragraph in my previous post and ask yourself the question.

Oh for those that dont think she is being coached/scripted here is what she sounds like off script
https://youtu.be/0bwLt_5t73g

Wow groundbreaking shit right there cheers for that.

Co2 in the atmosphere is actually at a low point taking into account the history of the Earth. There's been no marked increase of temperature either. Global warming is an attempt to push through an agenda to squeeze more money out of the public, and enforce legislation that benefits the 0.1%. I read an article this morning suggesting a new tax being added onto the already highly taxed airline industry. Because paying extra for flights will fix this mythical global warming

Absolute nonsense.

Oh dear, we have a science denier everyone

Enjoy

Enjoy

"The earth was really hot 1000000 years ago so I'm not sure why everyone is worrying"

"The earth was really hot 1000000 years ago so I'm not sure why everyone is worrying"

I wouldn't say everyone, it's just a few gullible ones

One last post on this then I'm done. But just a quick question that highlights the cognitive dissonance around all this.

So of Greta is right and the world is about to burn due to human neglect, and the blame of this lies at the door of the developed west, then isn't Sweden (and Germany) fundamentally at fault for opening their doors to mass immigration of populations who reproduce at a far higher rate than the native population? They are essentially moving expanding populations from lower carbon producing areas per head to areas where that population footprint will have a bigger impact on global climate change are they not?

Surely the need for global reduction of CO2 is therefore at direct odds with global open borders.

Just one more example of the holes in leftist thinking that simple application of logic blows wide open.

So which is it - open borders or saving the planet? I'll leave that to all the clever folks on the left to work out as it's way above my pay grade.

So you leave refugees to the mercy of war or persecution by their own government because it may be helpful to global warming? Bizarre!

"The earth was really hot 1000000 years ago so I'm not sure why everyone is worrying"

I wouldn't say everyone, it's just a few gullible ones

Call someone out for not believing in science in one post and call people gullible for believing in science in the next.

One last post on this then I'm done. But just a quick question that highlights the cognitive dissonance around all this.

So of Greta is right and the world is about to burn due to human neglect, and the blame of this lies at the door of the developed west, then isn't Sweden (and Germany) fundamentally at fault for opening their doors to mass immigration of populations who reproduce at a far higher rate than the native population? They are essentially moving expanding populations from lower carbon producing areas per head to areas where that population footprint will have a bigger impact on global climate change are they not?

Surely the need for global reduction of CO2 is therefore at direct odds with global open borders.

Just one more example of the holes in leftist thinking that simple application of logic blows wide open.

So which is it - open borders or saving the planet? I'll leave that to all the clever folks on the left to work out as it's way above my pay grade.

So you leave refugees to the mercy of war or persecution by their own government because it may be helpful to global warming? Bizarre!

Well, your referring to refugees wheras I've mentioned mass immigration and although the Marrakesh accord has tried to remove this distinction they are still two seperate things in reality.

That's said, and to be clear, what I posted isn't necessarily my belief, i'm just highlighting it's just a natural logical conclusion of the thought process around climate justice.

You follow it to a logical conclusion and the developing world will suffer and population control, which is a fundamental aspect of the equation will have to be focused on those populations growing fastest. In addition, to be in line with climate justice beliefs, logically it makes sense to restrict movement of populations which are increasing above the accepted rate to areas where the carbon footprint per head is higher.

Again, I'm not endorsing it nor condemning it. Just pointing out the logical conclusions of the movement of climate justice.

All I'm saying is that if we're going to consider these concepts to the extremes that the likes of extinction rebellion and Greta Thunberg etc are encouraging us to, we should absolutely be honest about what such measures actually mean.

I think this is the final paragraph you suggested I read back and ask myself the question?

But it goes back to the point I made in my first post though, I really don't understand why anyone would actively appose a move towards a cleaner and more circular economy. Which effectively is what these people are pushing for. Even if you don't believe there is currently a climate crisis, why would anyone be happy to continue to pollute the world and continue to cut down rainforests when there are potential alternatives available?

Having done so I think I can see both common ground and also where we are at odds in this discussion.

You're right to ask why wouldn't we want to move to cleaner options where available. In my work I write about servitization a lot which is a fundamental driver towards a circular economy within manufacturing and I am a big proponent of the trend not just for ecological reason but also it delivers big commercial gains and improved customer service levels.

I also cover the energy sector to a lesser degree and as I've gone into on other posts dont think solar and wind are effective enough to be viable but am a big advocate of nuclear and hydro.

I am vehemently against the overuse of plastic.

So at its core point I agree with you that we should and can do more as custodians of the planet.

Where we differ though is your assertion that this is all the likes of Thunberg and Extinction Rebellion are pushing for. To my eye they are pushing forward an ideology far more extreme than that.

It is the same as the green new deal AOC put forwards in my eyes, which is a push for ever greater governmental control using environmentalism as an easy shield to hide behind.

Thunberg and most of extinction rebellion for that matter are little more than easily manipulated puppets and it is those pulling the strings that scare me as I dont think their motives are as wholesome as they might have you believe.

You may think I'm a tin hat wearing fool of this opinion, likewise I may think some folks are naive for not seeing the wider picture.

However, on the initial point of why shouldn't we do what we can in our personal lives to make some difference, then we can find common ground so I'll leave it whilst we are on that.

I think this is the final paragraph you suggested I read back and ask myself the question?

But it goes back to the point I made in my first post though, I really don't understand why anyone would actively appose a move towards a cleaner and more circular economy. Which effectively is what these people are pushing for. Even if you don't believe there is currently a climate crisis, why would anyone be happy to continue to pollute the world and continue to cut down rainforests when there are potential alternatives available?

Having done so I think I can see both common ground and also where we are at odds in this discussion.

You're right to ask why wouldn't we want to move to cleaner options where available. In my work I write about servitization a lot which is a fundamental driver towards a circular economy within manufacturing and I am a big proponent of the trend not just for ecological reason but also it delivers big commercial gains and improved customer service levels.

I also cover the energy sector to a lesser degree and as I've gone into on other posts dont think solar and wind are effective enough to be viable but am a big advocate of nuclear and hydro.

I am vehemently against the overuse of plastic.

So at its core point I agree with you that we should and can do more as custodians of the planet.

Where we differ though is your assertion that this is all the likes of Thunberg and Extinction Rebellion are pushing for. To my eye they are pushing forward an ideology far more extreme than that.

It is the same as the green new deal AOC put forwards in my eyes, which is a push for ever greater governmental control using environmentalism as an easy shield to hide behind.

Thunberg and most of extinction rebellion for that matter are little more than easily manipulated puppets and it is those pulling the strings that scare me as I dont think their motives are as wholesome as they might have you believe.

You may think I'm a tin hat wearing fool of this opinion, likewise I may think some folks are naive for not seeing the wider picture.

However, on the initial point of why shouldn't we do what we can in our personal lives to make some difference, then we can find common ground so I'll leave it whilst we are on that.

There is only so much we can do as individuals though and there is only so much small companies can do to become more efficient. Billions are spent each year on fossil fuel and companies spend hundreds of millions lobbying against legislation that will improve the environment but reduce their profits. If a fraction of that sum of money was invested in renewable energy then the things we are currently doing would be much more efficient and could be relied upon more. There might be a bigger agenda behind these groups but they are realistically the only people who can put enough pressure on governments and industry to force change. If you don't want to support that because you have your own personal theory of a potential hidden motive then that is your choice.

I think this is the final paragraph you suggested I read back and ask myself the question?

But it goes back to the point I made in my first post though, I really don't understand why anyone would actively appose a move towards a cleaner and more circular economy. Which effectively is what these people are pushing for. Even if you don't believe there is currently a climate crisis, why would anyone be happy to continue to pollute the world and continue to cut down rainforests when there are potential alternatives available?

Having done so I think I can see both common ground and also where we are at odds in this discussion.

You're right to ask why wouldn't we want to move to cleaner options where available. In my work I write about servitization a lot which is a fundamental driver towards a circular economy within manufacturing and I am a big proponent of the trend not just for ecological reason but also it delivers big commercial gains and improved customer service levels.

I also cover the energy sector to a lesser degree and as I've gone into on other posts dont think solar and wind are effective enough to be viable but am a big advocate of nuclear and hydro.

I am vehemently against the overuse of plastic.

So at its core point I agree with you that we should and can do more as custodians of the planet.

Where we differ though is your assertion that this is all the likes of Thunberg and Extinction Rebellion are pushing for. To my eye they are pushing forward an ideology far more extreme than that.

It is the same as the green new deal AOC put forwards in my eyes, which is a push for ever greater governmental control using environmentalism as an easy shield to hide behind.

Thunberg and most of extinction rebellion for that matter are little more than easily manipulated puppets and it is those pulling the strings that scare me as I dont think their motives are as wholesome as they might have you believe.

You may think I'm a tin hat wearing fool of this opinion, likewise I may think some folks are naive for not seeing the wider picture.

However, on the initial point of why shouldn't we do what we can in our personal lives to make some difference, then we can find common ground so I'll leave it whilst we are on that.

There is only so much we can do as individuals though and there is only so much small companies can do to become more efficient. Billions are spent each year on fossil fuel and companies spend hundreds of millions lobbying against legislation that will improve the environment but reduce their profits. If a fraction of that sum of money was invested in renewable energy then the things we are currently doing would be much more efficient and could be relied upon more. There might be a bigger agenda behind these groups but they are realistically the only people who can put enough pressure on governments and industry to force change. If you don't want to support that because you have your own personal theory of a potential hidden motive then that is your choice.

I referenced servitization in my earlier post. I've covered major, major organizations adopting this approach within many sectors including heavy industry sectors such as mining and construction. These are not small organizations we are talking about here, these are multi-billion-pound organizations such as Metso, ABB, GE etc etc.

All (and many more) are moving towards a servitized business strategies which is one of the most foundational pillars of a circular economy being adopted at a global scale.

This is not some small organisations making little difference it is a major paradigm shift within industry that will have huge societal impact across the coming decades and within that will be a more sustainable approach to manufacturing. Trust me I know my apples on this particular topic and it is far more complex than the Evil Corp vs The Planet rhetoric that is becoming popular again.

Same goes for conversations around renewables - it is far more complex than let's just invest in renewables and it'll save the day. OK which renewables because Germany has royally screwed up by betting big on Solar and Wind and have seen cost of power increase alongside their carbon footprint. France, on the other hand, is doing well with Nuclear and Hydro - which are both clean and efficient.

Again it is more complex than renewables good, fossil fuel bad.

Put global restrictions on fossil fuel consumption onto developing nations and they have no means of developing the infrastructure to lead them towards developed nation status - trapping billions of people in poverty. Or how about California who is throwing up solar panels like nobodies business but currently has zero legislation for how they are going to deal with the waste in 30 years time. Solar panels are considered to be made of hazardous waste according to their own interpretation. So shouldn't a careful plan of recycling have been considered before they were thrown up in every corner of the state?

Maybe, maybe not - but again the conversation is far more nuanced and complex than the binary options of Renewables Good vs Fossil Fuels Evil that climate activists would have us believe.

Finally, I wouldn't personally be arrogant enough to say any of the above is my own personal theory, I'm not sure if that was meant as a compliment or a backhanded jibe but I'll take it as the former - seeing as my response was intended in a similarly conciliatory tone.


However, there are a lot more people out there, most of them far, far smarter than me, who have come to similar conclusions by simply following the logical trail, paying attention to historical precedents and being able to apply a wee bit of critical thinking.