Submitted by Web_Automatic t3_10mybgc in worldnews
MeNamIzGraephen t1_j662ptb wrote
G. Thunberg put in one headline with the UN makes UN seem as relevant as a 19yo activist popstar, who's anti-nuclear and holds a lot of anti-science views herself. This is bad, as it aims to polarize and divide instead of getting right-wing people to consider their stance on climate change-related issues.
I'd slam these journalists.
LiliNotACult t1_j66im1p wrote
That's because they're about equally as effective.
MeNamIzGraephen t1_j67na00 wrote
The UN is more of a communication platform - it has no way of enforcing anything, so I agree.
avoidanttt t1_j685i2e wrote
I've heard of her anti-nuclear position before, but what other unscientific views does she hold?
Grower0fGrass t1_j66lrc6 wrote
The right wing don’t change their stance. Not any more. Our only hope is dying boomers being replaced by the Thunberg generation in the polls.
And that is exactly what is happening.
By the way, anyone with any knowledge at all about energy systems is not anti-nuclear, but see nuclear as a slow, curious, expensive and politically unviable side-project to the main game - baseload renewables and battery tech.
[deleted] t1_j67sx2y wrote
[deleted]
The-Entity t1_j6874gy wrote
My mother finally agreed that climate change is happening, after 4 years of VERY mild Midwest winters. That was pretty huge.
GigaLlama t1_j66xdtg wrote
Thunberg generation? Why are you all brainless? No one is listening to this fool.
Grower0fGrass t1_j66xrkl wrote
Except for the UN, government officials, the world media, tens of millions of voting age or near voting age young people, and the fossil fuel companies who paid PR firms to get you to this opinion.
[deleted] t1_j66y95a wrote
[removed]
Nose-Nuggets t1_j672i2y wrote
Young voters maybe. Everyone else is pandering.
GigaLlama t1_j66xxli wrote
What? You make no sense, are you ok?
Grower0fGrass t1_j66zncu wrote
Oh sorry.
I said “Except for the UN, government officials, the world media, tens of millions of voting age or near voting age young people, and the fossil fuel companies who paid PR firms to get you to this opinion.”
GigaLlama t1_j68ajvl wrote
Thunberg has no pull with anyone. She's just a media puppet to generate clicks.
Your repetitious nonsense ignores the reality that PR firms brought you Greta in the first place. She has no real influence. She brings nothing to the table.
doubled240 t1_j66yuea wrote
+1000
doubled240 t1_j66yt6n wrote
Thats all we need, the free shit army running things. And its really helping the planet surface mining all the minerals involved in making batteries. No wind no power cloudy day no power. Pipe dreams.
Grower0fGrass t1_j66zet9 wrote
There are trillions of dollars being invested in this renewables pipe dream by hippie investors like major banks, the ADB, sovereign wealth funds and medium risk private equity.
The renewables investment trajectory alone - ALONE - makes nuclear a wasted proposition, and that’s before the battery tech revolution removes the periodicity problem in the next decade.
MeNamIzGraephen t1_j67n43l wrote
Wind and Solar are 'support' sources of energy at best. Viable for houses facing a certain direction, viable to power small companies, viable for expeditions, or to power a coastal village.
They will NOT work, if you want to power a multi-milion city, an industrial park, a huge port, or a science project. Nuclear, both fission and fusion are necessary green energy projects until we find a smarter way of producing renewable energy, which is NOT solar farms the size of a small city or engulfing entire coasts and hills in wind turbines, that constantly break down and kill birds. And both require massive amounts of lithium for batteries, mining of which is toxic and has a huge carbon footprint.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments