Watch "Dear Greta, Are Trees Worth More Than Babies?" on YouTube

[Usagi]

With a few notably nutty exceptions, Greta and others like her aren’t worried about the well-being of trees as an end in itself. They are concerned about what unusually fast changes in the climate will do to human populations, which notably include both born and unborn babies. People Greta’s age are concerned they will be adults in a world of dying crops, mass refugee populations, and resource wars. It’s not a pleasant prospect.

 

[Annie]

They didn’t. They laughed at her.

I can find no evidence of a reaction of laughter in either of two different videos that come up as Greta Thunberg UN speech. In both, the audience seemed to be clapping fairly enthusiasically

 

[Annie]

Using doomsday predictions to push through leftist policies absolutely is bad.

First, we have been dealing with doomsdays around the corner for decades, still hasn’t happened. We haven’t run out of food, we haven’t frozen the world, we haven’t run out of oil, we haven’t blown it up in a nuclear war, and we haven’t caused massive deaths by pollution.

Scaring people to get what you want is a bad thing to do.

Moreover, if this is the only way leftists can get their policies in place, it is tyrannical. The policies end up in place because of emotional manipulation, not because of reasoned discourse in which people can agree or disagree or consider different alternatives.

The interesting thing about the Green New Deal, is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all. Do you guys think of it as a climate thing? Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing. —Saikat Chakrabarti, former Chief of Staff for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

 

[Annie]

People Greta’s age are concerned they will be adults in a world of dying crops, mass refugee populations, and resource wars. It’s not a pleasant prospect.

For decades, people Greta’s age have been worried: the Depression, WW2, nuclear armageddon and the Cold War, nuclear energy breakdowns, running out of food, global cooling, running out of oil, Y2K.

Each of the past few generations has had its scenario for the destruction of the world-as-we-know-it.

And yet the main changes in the world as we knew it have been positive.

 

[Sarcelle]

I’ve been a conservative since I realized what the nature of the world actually was.

Okay.

I try to go beyond the words liberal and conservative, which means different things to other people.

What I try to be is Christian.

 

[TK421]

Usagi:

People Greta’s age are concerned they will be adults in a world of dying crops, mass refugee populations, and resource wars. It’s not a pleasant prospect.

For decades, people Greta’s age have been worried: the Depression, WW2, nuclear armageddon and the Cold War, nuclear energy breakdowns, running out of food, global cooling, running out of oil, Y2K.

Each of the past few generations has had its scenario for the destruction of the world-as-we-know-it.

And yet the main changes in the world as we knew it have been positive.

Many of those fears were perfectly justified though. Maybe not ‘fear’ but ‘concern’. The world came very close to a nuclear exchange between superpowers. WW2 was a devastating war and it could have turned out even worse. The economy is always a valid issue (the upcoming 4th industrial revolution, for example, and how to cope with it). If nobody bothered being concerned about any of those things in the past they probably wouldn’t have prevented them or at least been able to decrease their damage. If nobody bothered caring about the ozone layer it would probably be a lot worse.

 

[Annie]

Maybe not ‘fear’ but ‘concern’.

Exactly. A concern which causes people to do something, but not the fear-mongering doomsday rhetoric which causes some young people to do things which are not helpful and under cover of which politicians try to institute unrelated policies.

The scientists who went into studying how to manage agriculture for higher yields accomplished a lot more than all the protesters getting themselves on the news.

 

[TK421]

Exactly. A concern which causes people to do something, but not the fear-mongering doomsday rhetoric which causes some young people to do things which are not helpful and under cover of which politicians try to institute unrelated policies.

The scientists who went into studying how to manage agriculture for higher yields accomplished a lot more than all the protesters getting themselves on the news.

Politics is and always will be messy. It’s a natural product of people representing millions of people with conflicting interests and worldviews. That doesn’t mean extremely valuable fruit can’t come from it.

I will confess here: I’ve never actually sat down and watched a speech by Greta. It’s not something that interests me anymore than Dr. Phil interests me. It’s just not my cup of tea. I prefer to watch education videos on Youtube, or read articles from websites, or read books on my Kindle. But broadly speaking and not just talking specifically about Greta: raising awareness of issues is a valid and useful thing. You can’t just have people who only work and get their hands dirty on farms or shops or labs or office spaces and zero people that raise awareness of an issue. A society is a lot like a body and you need all of the parts in order for it to work properly: the feet, the hands, the mouth, the head, the heart, etc.

I also think it’s a cop out for anybody to bring up her age or her mental health. People with mental health conditions can have some of the best insights and perspectives. As far as age: young people are accused of being naive and old people are accused of being senile. I don’t believe in a world where only people in their prime are allowed to have an opinion.

 

[GKMotley]

I think that’s a good idea.

 

[ATraveller]

Exactly. A concern which causes people to do something, but not the fear-mongering doomsday rhetoric which causes some young people to do things which are not helpful and under cover of which politicians try to institute unrelated policies.

Forget unrelated policies. In Europe, in a rush to lower CO2 emissions they promoted diesel cars because cars using gas (or petrol as they call it) produce more CO2. The problem they didn’t consider was diesel produced toxic NOx compounds. NOx causes damage to tissues and react with other compounds to make toxins. Now they’re trying to curb the use of diesel cars. Panicking is what causes bad decision making.
Another one is tree planting. China is planting the wrong types of trees in the wrong places. That’s damaging biodiversity. But they don’t care because of who they are and yet many on the left in the West praise China for their “efforts” in helping the environment when they’re winding up causing a new problem.

The scientists who went into studying how to manage agriculture for higher yields accomplished a lot more than all the protesters getting themselves on the news.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[TK421]

@ATraveller

That’s not panicking. That’s human error. If something has bad consequences, they fix them, like how farming practices evolved after the Dust Bowl.

This reminds me of how people made fun of all the people throughout history who tried to fly and failed, sometimes miserably. Well, guess what: eventually we could fly.

 

[ATraveller]

That’s not panicking. That’s human error.

A terrible error that was made because the policymakers chose to listen to one group of scientists over another instead of balancing them.

This reminds me of how people made fun of all the people throughout history who tried to fly and failed, sometimes miserably. Well, guess what: eventually we could fly.

I don’t think this comparison is a good one.

It’s not having a vision that’s the problem but fear mongering and distortion of the facts. The 2050 goal is achievable but it has to be done responsibly and based on reality and done with persuasion rather than coercing segments of the population that are considered OK to be sacrificed.

The bulk of the resistance is due to the fact there’s no plan for the mass layoffs. If they had some sort of security and those making the promises can’t back out, then there wouldn’t be so much resistance. But as we’ve seen with coal mines being shut, few policymakers bothered to care for those affected after the closures. Today, there are vague mentions of green jobs but no concrete details because they don’t want to spend the time thinking about “lesser” working class people who work in “dirty” industries. That frightens people who work in industries that are going to face cuts. It’s easy to tell them to make sacrifices for everyone else but do people know what that sacrifice will look like? Suicides and drug addiction. We know these go up in places with mass layoffs.

 

[TK421]

Nobody likes having their job security taken away but I don’t see much notion that that is where the bulk of the resistance comes from. Coal makes up a pretty tiny percentage of employment. I have nothing against trying harder to find replacement jobs for these people and their families, but job sectors come and go and it has been this way for a long time. Many of the layoffs in the USA have more to do with international competition than it does with climate policies.

A significantly large percentage of people don’t believe in climate change, and that coincidentally (or not coincidentally) largely coincides with the same people who don’t want nutritional guidelines to change, or for actual science to be taught in biology class, or a number of other things. It fits in with a broader agenda of wanting to be treated like miniature gods instead of having to cooperate with society in order to achieve a goal. It is masqueraded behind things like liberty or small government, but many of these leaders in actuality are anything but small government. The GOP definitely is not small government.

 

[yankeesouth]

But how dare you, those on the political right who talk about saving babies, yet pass laws that hurt the most vulnerable of society, the poor.

Mother Teresa, if she had a vote, would have voted for Pro Life President Trump.

It’s a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Using doomsday predictions to push through leftist policies absolutely is bad.

First, we have been dealing with doomsdays around the corner for decades, still hasn’t happened. We haven’t run out of food, we haven’t frozen the world, we haven’t run out of oil, we haven’t blown it up in a nuclear war, and we haven’t caused massive deaths by pollution.

There have been doomsday predictions by tiny groups, but none of them have been as consistent as what climate scientists are predicting. And they aren’t exactly predicting doomsday either, so that is a strawman. Take a few of what you cited: Peak Oil: we have not run out, but what there is left is harder and more expensive to extract, which is what the sensible predictions said. As for a frozen world, or even global cooling, there was one cover story on Time magazine about some scientists who predicting a coming ice age. Their ideas were by no means mainstream and were definitely not taken seriously by the public. We haven’t blown up in a nuclear war, but the threat of that happening has not disappeared. As for pollution, yes there already have been significant health impacts. So that one was not far off. In short, there is no reason to dismiss warnings about the climate out of hand.

Scaring people to get what you want is a bad thing to do.

Even if what you want is the welfare of those very people? I think not.

Moreover, if this is the only way leftists can get their policies in place, it is tyrannical.

Tyranny is forcing people against their will. Convincing people to do something for their own good is not tyranny.

The policies end up in place because of emotional manipulation, not because of reasoned discourse

I disagree. There has been a lot of reasoned discourse, much of it in the global climate conferences.

in which people can agree or disagree or consider different alternatives.

That is happening too.

The scientists who went into studying how to manage agriculture for higher yields accomplished a lot more than all the protesters getting themselves on the news.

Higher yields are a good accomplishment, but they are not in same field. Humanity can and should work on several problems at once,

 

[ATraveller]

A significantly large percentage of people don’t believe in climate change, and that coincidentally (or not coincidentally) largely coincides with the same people who don’t want nutritional guidelines to change, or for actual science to be taught in biology class, or a number of other things.

There are many who don’t think excess greenhouse gases are shifting and they happen to be in places where fossil fuels are dominant. Acceptance of the climate models is higher in places where the economy isn’t reliant on them.

Coal makes up a pretty tiny percentage of employment.

This maybe true but jobs are tied. A mining town may have a few workers but these towns will need doctors and real estate agents and so on.

It fits in with a broader agenda of wanting to be treated like miniature gods instead of having to cooperate with society in order to achieve a goal.

I don’t disagree. Many in North America get upset when people are advised to go vegetarian for one day of the week. You don’t even see this type of complaining with Christian fundamentalists in the Netherlands who might find it to be a Catholic conspiracy to legitimize Friday penance .
What I find fascinating is even a Dutch fundamentalist party with elected politicians agrees CO2 emissions need to be cut. IIRC, they support tax incentives and tougher regulations on car standards.

It is masqueraded behind things like liberty or small government, but many of these leaders in actuality are anything but small government. The GOP definitely is not small government

Agreed. Sports stadiums. Billions have been spent on them but they bring no economic growth. And don’t forget useless wars they claim will maintain peace in the Middle East (how’s that working out?).
Of course, I don’t think government intervention is always a bad thing even as a conservative. It’s not always a dirty word for those of us outside of America. Instead of spending billions on useless stadiums and wars, let’s spend that money on renewables in old mining towns and etc. and ensuring companies build solar panels or whatever there and people are retrained to monitor and maintain them. How often do you hear details at this level like this (or better) from any politician or candidates? I certainly haven’t in Canada. Instead, they just called people whose jobs are at risk names for being concerned. They did nothing to court them or tried to reach out.

 

[BornInMarch]

I’m missing some context. Who is Greta and what did she say?

Countering with “what about the babies?” might be a valid rebuttal if Greta complained about overpopulation, or advocated for population control or abortifacient birth control, but otherwise it strikes me as being whataboutism.

 

[blackforest]

And yet the main changes in the world as we knew it have been positive.

I heard a great piece on NPR a couple of years ago, (wish I could remember the Ted Talk guy’s name). We’re living in an age in which Saudi Arabia extracts oil (carbon emissions) to make a plastic toy in China, (more carbon emissions), to ship to the U.S. (more carbon emissions), to be briefly enjoyed by a child before it is “recycled,” i.e. shipped back to China (emissions). Lather, rinse, repeat.

This age is relatively recent in history. For centuries, civilizations learned to get by and even thrive before such a system was in place. The speaker’s point is that our era must necessarily come to an end, with a greater focus on more localized and sustainable options.

That we feel so entitled to our consumerism and our toys, what His Holiness aptly refers to as “throwaway culture,” is largely what got us into this mess in the first place. Catholics can play a powerful role in creating a more sustainable culture. First, however, we must acknowledge the need to do so.

The scientists who went into studying how to manage agriculture for higher yields accomplished a lot more than all the protesters getting themselves on the news.

You realize . . . the movement to stem climate change is led by hard-working scientists conducting relevant research into topics like renewable resources and alternative energy.

I’m missing some context. Who is Greta and what did she say?

Greta Thunberg is a teenage activist who has become famous for speaking to the U.N. about stemming climate change. For whatever reasons, she can trigger an emotional reaction among her opponents, as the video demonstrates.

She has never mentioned abortion or her position on the issue. The video indeed demonstrates whataboutism and poses a false dilemma of choosing between babies and “trees.”

 

[TK421]

@ATraveller

There is (or at least there was) little incentive to court more conservative groups in Canada or much of Western Europe because leftist ideologies enjoyed a dominance of power there. They called the opposition names because they could get away with it. That has changed in recent years and leftist parties have partially collapsed so I’m assuming the language will become more conciliatory if it hasn’t already. I know Labour in the UK will need to rethink themselves because the recent election seems to have gone very badly for them.

Trump was successful in the Rust Belt for the same reason. Democrats were preaching to minorities and socialist-flavored members of the party while aging white moderates in key parts of the country did an exodus from the party.

 

[TK421]

I’m missing some context. Who is Greta and what did she say?

Countering with “what about the babies?” might be a valid rebuttal if Greta complained about overpopulation, or advocated for population control or abortifacient birth control, but otherwise it strikes me as being whataboutism.

That’s because it is a whataboutism. A condescending one. Greta is an activist who talks about climate change and the video goes on an entirely arbitrary message about pro-life.

I can do the same thing right now: “Dear Popeye’s Chicken, I understand that you like to sell buttermilk chicken sandwiches to eager customers, but 5G wireless networks are also very important. Please consider the consumer’s desire for 5G because we believe that is more important than chicken sandwiches.”