Submitted by Willitical_On_Utube t3_zudpg7 in Futurology
[removed]
Comments
Willitical_On_Utube OP t1_j1iks4h wrote
I absolutely agree with you. I actually love her passion and conviction. But her solutions aren't possible, at least not right now. Its annoying to me that no one seems to ask her the importance questions. So you traveled via a sail boat and stopped flying in planes. Do you not see that everyone else literally depend on those things to get back and forth to work, and just ditching those things would cripple the economy. Both sides of the argument are very important, and should be addressed together. My opinion is that the majority of people would use clean energy if they could afford it. Credit checks, down payments, and monthly payments are the problem. I think these are the issues that could benefit tons of people while also helping the planet at the same time. Just imagine if the middle and lower class were all the sudden able to get electric cars. That would be a lot less gas engines in the roads every day. And that would he without banning anything.
DocWsky t1_j1ih87i wrote
If you fall on the side of climate change not being real/a problem, then any solution to it is going to seem superfluous.
If you do believe it, then you recognize that it’s a significant issue that doesn’t affect everyone equally. That inequality of consequences is where the difficulty in solutions lie.
Ms. Thunberg has an outsized role in the discussion, but is using her position to advocate for change.
What solutions of hers OP do you not agree with? You’ve danced around it, what are your solutions? What do you find unpalatable/unreasonable about hers?
Willitical_On_Utube OP t1_j1ij8vz wrote
I think the ideal of banning anything is a bad idea. Most people won't be on board with that. But i think if they were to introduce electric cars that most people could affect, even with bad credit and minimum wage. That would be something a lot of people would support, especially with the high gas prices. I think If climate activists were to spend there's time looking into clean energy and making it more affordable then what we have now, then they could accomplish a lot more. But to say that we need to ban all fossil fuels right now, is only gonna make people stop listening.
Vishap82 t1_j1ijj28 wrote
I would suggest you research Bjorn Lomborg’s work instead. He doesn’t deny climate change, but instead recognizes there are more and less effective/realistic solutions to make progress for humanity without the self loathing. His team of researchers are extremely balanced in their approach.
Willitical_On_Utube OP t1_j1ilefz wrote
Ok great, is there some YouTube videos i could watch
Vishap82 t1_j1imwgn wrote
Tons, just search for him and you’ll find loads of interviews about his work
blackthornjohn t1_j1ihedo wrote
She published paper books, I feel that's more than enough to know.
yanbu t1_j1ih6tg wrote
While I can appreciate her passion for the subject, I think the main points against her are that turning environmentalism into a religion isn’t a good idea. Telling everyone to repent and suffer to appease the climate isn’t really a great way to actually accomplish change.
We need technological solutions that are economically viable and don’t require reducing consumption to actually make reducing climate change sustainable. We’re getting there rapidly between the rise of the electric car, renewable energy becoming cheaper than fossil fuels, and fusion power breakthroughs. Her fire and brimstone approach is counterproductive IMO.