Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

AutoModerator t1_ja8n841 wrote

Hi p4177y. Your submission from reuters.com is behind a registration wall. A registration wall limits the number of free articles users can access before they are required to register an account to log in to continue reading it. While your submission was not removed, users are discouraged from upvoting it or commenting on it.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

LoomisFin t1_ja8v44p wrote

This is why she's great "hundreds of other activists" would not reach the news.

0

Voltas t1_ja92w0a wrote

If the climate is the top priority then it looks pretty silly to be campaigning for alternative priorities that conflict with pro-climate action.

34

hamsamith t1_ja93a7z wrote

Wait I thought we liked wind farms?! I'm so confused

19

highprinter t1_ja93tn9 wrote

Why is it news every time this woman farts?

24

Riff316 t1_ja98zcc wrote

Replying to hamsamith (#2,068,221)

Nuance can be difficult sometimes. Wind farms are good for the environment because they can reduce a country’s use of fossil fuels, which lead to pollution in the air and all that comes with it, especially warming characteristics. However, if a wind farm causes harm to a wildlife population that is essential to the lifestyle of an indigenous population, then it doesn’t seem to help the environment that much, does it? So, if we instead put it somewhere where it doesn’t have this effect, it should provide a net good, as is the purpose of building wind farms in the first place. “We” still think wind farms are generally good, because “we” can think situationally and not treat every scenario as a black and white issue. “We” are capable of reading articles and allowing new evidence to enter our brains and modify our conclusions to be more accurate.

25

Skrewrussia t1_ja9gcji wrote

I know she stands for the right things, and i do respect that, but at the same time, I wish she'd just sort of fuck off.

29

Riff316 t1_ja9k9nz wrote

Replying to Froticlias (#2,072,206)

This one isn’t even hard to think of with nuance. It’s actually right in line with what Thunberg usually espouses: Protect the environment. Usually renewable energy sources are a means to that end. In this particular instance, this particular renewable effort doesn’t achieve that goal, so don’t do it. Unfortunately, people like u/hamsamith will attempt to use it as a gotcha, without realizing that it both undermines their empty efforts at “discourse” (by showing that they don’t read the sources and don’t fully understand the issue) and strengthens Thunberg’s position by showing that she is nuanced in her message and efforts by actually considering the people and environments that renewables affect directly.

−3

hamsamith t1_ja9kwy3 wrote

Replying to Riff316 (#2,072,886)

I will fully admit to not reading the article and will also admit to genuinely not caring about this woman in any way. The climate is fucked and quite honestly I can't care any more. Do what you gotta do, but don't be surprised at people using this against you when it comes. Nuance means nothing to those who are your enemies.

−9

Riff316 t1_ja9md0z wrote

Replying to hamsamith (#2,073,056)

Not sure what “this” is or how someone would use “this” against me and for what reason. I’m providing context to an admittedly unenlightened comment from an admittedly checked-out human being on an admittedly suffering planet. Your irreverence holds as much weight and impact as any one of the tiny internet comments we’ve traded back and forth, yet it is still important to note that the next generation has not given up, nearly as much as either of us, on the sick planet with which we are burdening them while we retreat to the back halves of our lives here. If we’re going to do this to them, we can at least pretend that we cared or tried to help in even the smallest way. Otherwise, I’m sure they will cherish your sardonic wit, as that’s how you seem to want to be remembered. Your aloofness is not noble, though I do understand the mental/emotional self-preservation that it comes from.

3

urkish t1_ja9o5ja wrote

This seems a little more effectively targeted than gluing yourself to a random road.

0

DevoidHT t1_ja9osv2 wrote

Replying to Voltas (#2,068,113)

Right. I’d be like if as an example American hunters protested a wind farm b/c it made deer less common in an area. Maintaining ecosystems are important to regional diversity, but at some point you’re going to have to draw the line with what’s necessary to transition a green energy and what is essentially performative.(culture/traditions are important but not a necessity when it comes to saving the planet).

7

F5PPu6kGqj t1_jaaeybx wrote

> Norway's supreme court in 2021 ruled that two wind farms built at Fosen in central Norway violated Sami rights under international conventions, but the turbines remain in operation more than 16 months later.

Does this court ruling mean anything?

1

Riff316 t1_jaagiry wrote

Replying to walkandtalkk (#2,081,886)

Because I feel no need to be polite to people who consider other groups of people less human than I do, consider planet scale phenomena to be trivialities, and consider everyone else to be guilty of the heinous misdeeds they perpetrate. My arrogance will not change facts. My conceit will not change the fact that one side tends to prioritize logic, fact, and compassion. I have no patience, and honestly no sympathy, for a group of people who deny science and humanity on a daily basis and then have the gall to call me condescending. Their every remark is how they know better than the experts. They use condescension like other artists use oils. They constantly point out which groups are coming for them because they’re so jealous and threatened by how great they are. If it’s unclear, I’m talking about the right. Condescending enough for you?

−6

Riff316 t1_jaao5g1 wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#2,083,763)

“This is why your father slapped you.” Is this like some sort of idiom that I’m ignorant of? Or are you using my familial abuse as a witty retort? What a strange thing to say to someone, even anonymously.

2

Intelligent_Lack6480 t1_jaaqdej wrote

She should build clean energy facilities instead of crying about our current energy producing methods.

5

PaulPaul4 t1_jaasmvy wrote

Hydroelectricity also causes harm to the environment. So is she pushing for more nuclear reactors? Serious question here and not being sarcastic

9

KelbyGInsall t1_jaczob1 wrote

Replying to pk10534 (#2,086,035)

How can you know a person’s whole personality based on this interaction? Condescending to the condescending for being condescending about condescension? Very odd. Tough stuff, tone policing.

−1

Flat_Plant5660 t1_jadbvf4 wrote

Replying to Riff316 (#2,069,772)

Keep in mind that when advocating for any proposed action, you will always be infringing on another groups desire. It's just that "we" have decided to give merit to one groups desires over another groups' desires. It's not nuanced as you point out, it's just you value others demands more than another's and you think to make snide comments as if the other commenter doesn't understand your level of "nuanced".

In sum, it's not nuanced. It's "not in my back yard", at its finest.

2

Riff316 t1_jaddmew wrote

Replying to Flat_Plant5660 (#2,112,065)

  1. Are you drawing a distinction between “desire” and rights? That might be an important one.

  2. I love the insinuation that indigenous tribes are the same as suburban nimbys. Why don’t we just put wind farms on land that’s already been zoned away from indigenous populations? We have plenty of those here in Ohio and they haven’t harmed wildlife or farming efforts. People still act like they do, but again, not a lot of evidence.

1