It’s been entertaining watching activists on Twitter arrange their circular firing squads~ctm
Nives Dolsak and Aseem Prakash
We write on environmental issues, climate politics and NGOs.
The climate debate has taken a nasty turn. It is no longer a shouting match between climate affirmers and climate deniers. Now the finger-wagging is taking place among climate affirmers on the subject of personal responsibility for combating climate change.
There are two key actors in this unfolding saga. One embraces the importance of individual responsibility while the other derides it.
Greta Thunberg, the new climate icon, does not fly. She is a vegan and subscribes to the stop-shop philosophy, which means that “you don’t buy new things, consume new things, unless you absolutely have to.” In a recent interview, Greta said, “I want to walk the talk, and to practice as I preach. So that is what I’m trying to do.”
In contrast, Michael Mann, a prominent climate scientist, suggests that any talk of behavioral changes and personal responsibility reflects a soft form of climate denial. Although he did not mention Greta by name, he said: “First of all, there is an attempt being made by them to deflect attention away from finding policy solutions to global warming towards promoting individual behaviour changes that affect people’s diets, travel choices and other personal behaviour…. This approach is a softer form of denial and in many ways it is more pernicious.”
Thunberg v. Mann is now the debate to watch!
Mann’s thesis: The case against personal responsibility
Climate change is a complex problem because it involves moving away from the basic pillar of the modern industrial economy: fossil fuels. The shift requires that governments enact new climate laws and build a renewable energy infrastructure.
Because these are massive, system-wide changes, individual-level actions to become climate virtuous will not suffice. We can buy electric cars, but without charging stations, they are quite useless. And a national network of charging stations can be provided only by the government.
But, as per Mann’s thesis, individual-level actions delay the transition because they allow the fossil fuel industry to blame consumers for the climate crisis. The industry will claim that they are in business because people like their modern lifestyles. For example, people like driving cars: there are over a billion cars in the world today. And as the recent International Energy Agency’s report shows, consumers seem to want bigger and less fuel-efficient cars.
Contrary to the industry claim, the Mann thesis would suggest that people drive cars because governments do not invest in mass transit. People are trapped in their behaviors because of bad public policies, not personal choices.
Thunberg’s thesis: The case for personal responsibility
Climate change is a symptom of overconsumption. If we want to address the climate crisis, we need to demand policy action and change our consumption habits. This is why Greta, the climate activist, does not fly, is a vegan, and adopts a stop-shop philosophy.
But the Greta approach is sending a more profound message: policy advocacy is effective if one walks the climate talk. This is especially relevant for climate scientists who know the seriousness of the climate crisis. Across universities, there is widespread support for Climate Strikes and the Extinction Rebellion. The issue then is how have universities changed their work habits. Have they put themselves on a strict carbon diet?
In spite of federal inaction, states and cities are moving ahead on climate action. Should then universities and individuals not follow the same approach?
It’s interesting that Mann so clearly reveals himself as a statist here, and prefers the state force its will upon citizens rather than the citizens actually accomplishing the same ends though personal choice. Amazing insight into his politics.
The EU passed a law that limits vampire power to 0.3watts per device. It used to be 1 watt or greater.
Doing this EU wide saves the output of a couple of 1GW power stations. If you had a choice of 0.3watt or 1watt standby (at lower price) which would you chose.
We have tried to cut back on plastic usage. One example item is cling film. use 1-2 rolls per year. This is totally insignificant compared to use for shrink wrapping pallets. So who will force shrink wrap from pallets? Legislation.! Plastic carrier bags – legislation. plastic coke bottles? legislation.
Our car does 65 mpg (uk). How do you stop idiots driving their kids to school in a 20mpg Chelsea taxi (suv). Legislation.
Too many people have no knowledge of the damage they do to the environment by their lifestyle choice. The damage will eventually become visible to their blinkered vision. But to correct the problem will take generations. Action on pollution and co2 is needed as soon as possible not when it becomes evident that we should have done it before.
You are assuming that Man’s CO2 actually is causing a “climate crisis” that only BIG Government can solve.
Massive waste of energy,heating and lighting building to house nonfunctional government employees?
Dear Halfrunt,have you factored in the CO2 production and wastage caused by your solution,Legislation…?
The hot air and pollution caused by your beloved legislators is greater than leaving people alone.
In fact,as the whole CAGW meme is a product of government, all of the costs and consequences of this mass hysteria must be blamed on legislation.
Catastrophic manmade global warming is the creation of government,thus to prevent this “great doom” we must abandon government.
So we can reduce unnecessary CO2 emissions immediately and markedly by shutting down the bureaus and closing their offices.
I am good with that fire 50% today and then 50% every sixth month,until done.
Keeping the most officious until the end, of course.
Agree, that is how I understood this divide. Force vrs Freedom.
LiarMann has his own particular brand of Climate Religion/Ideology, and his uber delusional, dino-sized ego doesn’t allow anything counter to that. All that lies outside of his brand is then, in his fevered imagination, a form of “climate denial”. Greta’s activist, moralising brand of Climate Faith is perhaps analagous to Calvinism, with LiarMann’s brand being more akin to the traditional Roman Catholic Church.
There’s Mickey’s “cause”, BIG Government.
If there was a demand for them, the free market would provide the charging stations.
There isn’t a demand so BIG Government must force them on us.
And again, Mickey assumes his Hockey Stick and the rest of CAGW is the axiom of climate science.
Charging stations aren’t necessary if the cars are hybrid – charge themselves.
Battery gets low, switch to gas.
Their goal isn’t hybrid cars and that’s not what mickey was talking about.
“We can buy electric cars, but without charging stations, they are quite useless.”
“We can buy electric cars, but without charging stations, they are quite useless.”
Indeed. and back in the day, you could buy Henry Ford’s automobile but without filling stations, they are quite useless. So what happened? Private businesses (Standard Oil, Gulf, etc) and *not* government built filling stations to meet the demands of all the people buying Henry Ford’s new car. And the difference between EVs now and Ford’s car then is that EVs aren’t “quite useless” without charging stations, you can still charge it up at home (or if you are lucky at work) even is no charging stations were ever built, whereas Ford’s car truly was “quite useless” without a place to fill it up with gasoline (there was no pre-existing “gasoline tap” at people’s homes for filling it with).
Greta is at least consistent in her approach. Let’s hope she will start seriously embarrassing her fellow climateers by calling out Green vanity projects such as climate conferences. Could be entertaining.
So they’re saying the Unabomber had it right all along.
Got it.
Why does the government need to build anything? The entire economy was built by individuals free to buy and sell to suit themselves.
Governments buy $800 toilet seats and $500 hammers. Individuals recognize that it takes real work to earn real money, so they don’t waste money. Government spend money like lottery winners. Easy come easy go.
When young people lose hope, they risk death. Nobody is a better example of tho than Greta Thunberg. She was about to starve herself to death before she started her activism and probably got therapy /medication. This could be the case for many young people who believe in global climate change. As many as 50% of young Australians believe that the world may come to an end in 15 years. As many as 3 % of youth suffer from OCD like Thunberg. Typical for these young people is that they overreact to small possibilities. Some may pull out all electrical cords to prevent fire, some wash their hands for hours to make sure they don’t get sick from contaminants on their hands.
GT is a typical example of this. She hears about a potential risk, and starts acting like a typical OCD sufferer, by taking extreme action. She is unstoppable, just like the OCD sufferer who showers for 4 hours to get clean , 3 last hours in ice cold water, or another who put her hands in almost boiling water to get completely clean. Greta will not stop. She is driven by her OCD, and she will not stop, however many reassurances she gets that the world is not ending. She calls her Asperger syndrome a super power, and I admire her for that. This does a lot og good for many who have been labeled in the same way and may have felt that it was a deficit. Gretha profits on it in making her focus even narrower and more single minded than her OCD does, and by not understanding the reactions of others to what she is doing.
But as a therapist for young people with her combination of problems, I feel sorry for her. Her compulsion that drives away her fears, is to be extremely active thinking she is saving the planet. Just like the hand washer thinks she is protecting herself and her family by putting in another hour of hand washing. The problem with compulsions is that they are all- consuming. They take away the possibility of doing other things. In Gretha’s case we think it is admirable that she just goes on and on telling about her extreme fears, but for those familiar with OCD, she is exhausting herself and just barely keeping a lid on the anxiety. She is probably numbed a bit by the standard medication for OCD, SSRI. These drugs will delay her puberty, and may make her not be able to have sexual feelings. The media profits on this. She is 16, but looks like a little fragile girl. This makes her message stronger. It is coming from a child! She seems more intelligent since she looks like a 12 year old.
It makes sense, now I better understand her bitterness and immature behavior at the UN some time ago. One cannot avoid feeling bad about all the hard criticism we apply to her, where the hard criticism should me directed towards the parents for not acting responsibly and journalists for never ever fail not to do real journalistic investigation and politicians for listening to activists like Mann while ignoring 31,000 scientists.
Sadly I think propaganda through the youth is a well established factor, as we saw with Hitler Jugend, which on the surface served a noble purpose but was used as a persuasive political propaganda.
She did go on a motorcycle ride with Arnold the Terminator. And how is she getting around from place to place by ox cart? Is she living in modern homes or hotels or in stone cottages with thatched roof.
Greta, a child, has been sold on an agenda that will shorten her life if she lives it as in medieval times. If everyone followed her example the economy would collapse with companies dependent on sales going out of business and mass unemployment. That is a big price to pay to prevent something that is not happening.
How many time can people buy into predictions that never happen. At some point they should get a clue or a life.
Let’s see how long Greta and her useful idiots last without a few other conveniences of modern life–like vaccinations, antibiotics, refrigeration, and sanitary sewers. Show us, Greta, show us!
This is the sad case of a child being exploited for a PR circus. But what’s really disturbing are the sheer numbers of morons who think it’s real!
I think a lake in Hades is ready for skating! I actually (partially) agree with MM. LOL. 2 words for everyone. China India.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-coal-power-plants
“Since 2000, the world has doubled its coal-fired power capacity to around 2,000 gigawatts (GW) after explosive growth in China and India. A further 236GW is being built and 336GW is planned.”
Greta the D-Nye-er! ha ha ha ha ha ha, too funny! But she told us we have to listen to the scientists, so by her own command, now we must think so, too. I guess that will show her not to trust certain “scientists.” Maybe Greta has an out if she also agrees with me that Michael Mann is no kind of scientist, but only a “scientist” with scare quotes, or a scientivist (a cross between a climate scientist and a SJW activist), or a Climate Scientologist.
I use pronouns she and her with respect to Greta, by assumption. I don’t know if she’s a woman or a man. If she is a he, please let us all know through your celebrity, saintly publicist, and I will stop using the wrong pronouns. And same goes for Michael Mann. Are you he or she or it? I hate to be insensitive.
Hey, if Greta objects to Mann’s characterization of her, maybe one of these overly solicitous sailors could haul both Greta and Michael Mann out to a desert island, using wind power alone, and leave them there to duke it out, mano a mano [1] in a battle to the death? The winner could eat the body of the loser to help them survive. After a year, some other solicitous sailor could go pick up the winner, and bring her back to her parents for ongoing indoctrination. Again, apologies for the use of the pronoun her.
[1] In Spanish mano (pronounced mahn-oh) is the word for “hand.” Hombre (pronounced ohm-bray) is the word for “man.” Ergo, the phrase mano a mano means hand to hand. In the context of combat, it means hand to hand combat, NOT man to man combat. I was NOT suggesting Mann and Thunberg should engage in a man to man battle to the death. That would have been insensitive. I don’t know if Mann is a man, or a woman. I don’t know if Greta is a man or a woman. They have not told me their preferences or their pronouns. My use of the phrase is correct, meaning hand to hand, and so was not insensitive. BTW, it is one of my pet peeves when people think mano a mano sounds cool and then use the phrase incorrectly to mean man to man. And it drives me crazy when people in the public eye DON’T properly notify us whether they are men or women or furbies, or whatever they prefer, thereby leaving us to guess. We immediately need an online database, like IMDB, for celebrities to register their preferred gender and pronouns. There is no excuse that this does not exist. I’m looking at YOU, WIKIPEDIA!
It also drives me crazy that people think there is a feminine equivalent to El Nino. El Nino means Christ-child, aka Jesus. There simply is no La Nina. Of course, there is an “el nino” (not capitalized) which means (the boy child) and “la nina” (the girl child), but the capitalized version is reserved for Him (ie. the son of God). By the way, the abbreviation ‘ie’ means, “in other words,” whereas ‘eg’ means “for example” which is another pet peeve when people get it wrong. But I begin to digress. In Spanish, this primitive language, which forces all nouns to have one of only two possible genders, and which has failed to evolve to incorporate all of our modern wisdom, context becomes supreme. Like El Nino, the Spanish word for the Pope (El Papa) is capitalized, whereas the lower case use (la papa) means “the potato.” Imagine the difference between an Argentinian Socialist and a tuber plucked from the ground and sliced into French fries (do we still capitalize the F in French fries?) Oh, but in a sentence that begins with the phrase, Papas fritas, that would still mean fried potatoes, not fried Pope, only because the ‘p’ is capitalized in that case because it’s at the beginning of a sentence. Again, context is everything. But I digress again.
There was never such a thing as La Nina (capitalized). There is NO female equivalent of The Christ child. Christ was born before there was a pronoun battle to the death. So we call him Him or He, and the capitalization implies the godly uniqueness of Him, never generalized, always specific. Given our current gender sensitivity battles, it is nevertheless too late to retrofit our presumed preferences onto God, as it is written in the Bible. Except now there is because climate Scientologists effed up and decided there is an opposite gender to Christ, we are stuck with La Nina, just like when they did created silly misnomers “greenhouse gas” and “greenhouse effect” which we also can’t get rid of it. Leave it to friggin climate “scientists” to mess things up without even knowing it. It’s typical of their actual level of understanding.
Anyway, don’t BE an idiot and PROVE you’re an idiot in the same sentence, by using “mano a mano” as if it means man to man. Or by calling a woman with a penis a man (or an hombre). And to Michael Mann and Greta Thunberg, please get us your pronouns at the earliest possible point in your battle to the death, so we will know how to address you, and to remember the loser. Oh, yeah, that’s another one of my pet peeves, people who think LOOSE means lose and LOOSER means loser. Michael Mann, I’m looking at you (check out some of the ClimateGate e-mails for examples). Loose and lose are two completely different words. Wake up and stop being an idiot and get your lose/loose, loser/looser, him/her, Him/(no opposite), El Nino/(no opposite, except in climate science), mano a mano/man to man, El Papa/(no opposite) usages correct, at least they will be correct until we get our first female Pope or the second coming arrives and the Son of God has turned into the Daughter of God, or Michael Mann’s prediction that humanity will be wiped out by CAGW comes true and this will all become moot (NOT MUTE!). Ah, but what are the chances that the predictions of an idiot will actually happen? Damn close to zero.
attacking a 16 year old Autistic iconoclast – not a good look.
recommend that climate change deniers just ignore Greta.
Using a anxiety ridden and depressed young teen (made so by the constant doom porn pushed irresponsibly by the media, governements, CAGW scientists and education system) – Not a good look.
Recommend that climate change “believers” get her the psychological help she needs.
FIFY
Why the author like any journalist calls leftist extremists “activists” ?
I’m just waiting for the inevitable reports that Thunberg has gone bat-bleep crazy after a few months at sea. Or better yet, that she’s gone *sane*.
Or for somebody to show her this.
In the final stage of the Cultural Revolution the various Red Guard factions were killing each other over who was the most pure follower of Mao Tse Dong Thought. They finally called in the Army.
The Thunberg girl (and why is she dressed as an 8 year old?) is nothing more than an ignorant abused parrot with a smorgasbord of neurological problems. Presently, she is shirking school in a major way and is unlikely to ever develop any sort of intellect which would lead her to independent thinking and an understanding of the philosophy of science.
Do the Swedish education authorities condone her parents’ neglect? Or has the resulting chaos of open borders immobilised Swedish order and responsibility?
The slosh of her silly pronouncements and her avoidance of any mature questioning by responsible adults are truly appalling.
“Climate affirmers”? That’s a new one. Even the spellchecker chokes on that. 😉
First Mann creates a convenient scary temperature hockey stick using very selective wood and when a school girl gets afraid of his blade he lambasts her…
Is she disturbing the gravy train? She is not materialistic, so yes. Much as I disagree with both, I’d side with an honest but naive girl anytime over a dishonest megalomaniac carpenter.
And a national network of charging stations can be provided only by the government.
And yet, Mikey, the national network of gasoline filling stations was not provided by the government. Private business built it. See that’s the difference between a product the people want (their demand will prompt business to supply that demand) and a product the government forces on the people (the lack of demand requires government to provide what no one was wanting in the first place).
Mann is a typical lefty elitist. He doesn’t want to be called out for failing to live as if he actually believes what he’s selling because he doesn’t expect to ever have to.
He fully believes that the governmental policies that are put into place to reduce carbon won’t have any personal impact on him…he’ll be exempted from the restrictions as one of the “elite”.
No different than the left supporting welfare and food stamps etc while they have significantly lower rates of personal charitable giving than the right. They don’t want to have to give themselves to support their policies, they want the government to take other people’s money for it.
I have to admire Greta for her commitment even as I recognize that she’s nothing more than a dupe – a gullible, naive child being exploited for a cause she doesn’t really even understand…but at least she walks the walk and doesn’t just talk the talk as so many on her side do.
They curse all who do not worship the Great Enviromental Death Fairy. Bow down and stop questioning the Great Enviromental Death Fairy, The Great Death Fairy wants to make all things perfect. Just believe what you are told , Give up everything you have to those who worship The Great Death Fairy , Get on the train, and stop crying while they gas you. It’s for the children……… Just not your children.
And a national network of charging stations can be provided only by the government. —> And a national network of charging stations is the business of whoever benefits from Windelecs and PV.
And a national network of charging stations can be provided only by the government.
Boloney. The government had nothing to do with the brand-name gas stations which popped up universally to serve the newfangled automobiles, and a direct parallel could operate with charging stations, if State and local governments would retract their greed for power and control and encourage private enterprise in their building.
Likewise, the necessary beefing up of transmission facilities could parallel the dozens of cellphone networks which sprang up on the success of cellphones. And if you listen to the political savants who blather about the savings from large-scale conversion to ‘renewable’ power, some of that beefing would never be necessary.