Climate Strike September 20

[guido]

Trump is an arrogant loudmouth. I wouldn't meet with him either.

[ides1056]

I'd like to see a demonstration of her pomposity, instead of mere allegation.

[bcm119]

Greta Thunberg is polarizing. People choose whether they love her or hate her based on identity politics. Can't she be somewhere in between? I think she's both arrogant and right. She is way too confident at that age for me to stomach. But she's also very courageous and probably correct. We should listen to the scientists, and we should call for swift action. But she is also loving this attention and will probably have multiple job offers from prestigious environmental institutions when she graduates. Life is complicated. Have another child if you miss having a baby in the house, but don't forget to recycle that yogurt cup.

[ides1056]

Arrogant?

Do you have children on the spectrum?

Greta Thunberg responds to Asperger's critics: 'It's a superpower' | Environment | The Guardian

[davids]

You guys are getting sucked into Blue Jay's "argument": His strategy is to ignore the issue and change the conversation to criticizing an individual.

In other words, it's a nasty spurious attack.

[Corso]

Interesting young lady. It all sounds so simple when she says it.

I wonder who writes her speeches...

That aside, good for her.

[Blue Jays]

"...In other words, it's a nasty spurious attack..."

Incorrect.

Greta Thunberg ostensibly wishes a clean planet. Everyone desires Earth to be clean. Is anyone against pure air and water?
When groundwork was being set to potentially orchestrate meeting with the President of the United States, she refused.

The United States does a pretty darn good job of being responsible global citizens. This country is not the big problem.
She would be more impactful and helpful spending her efforts engaging with decision and policy makers in China and India.

[bcm119]

Blue Jays argument may be a spurious attack, but I'm sure he's not alone in the way he feels, and we're better off recognizing that and maybe finding some common ground than dismissing his opinion as objectively wrong. His reaction may be a very human one, one that I can empathize with, but disagree with. I'm not going to pretend her confidence doesn't induce a gut level distaste in myself, and I'd rather admit that, empathize with people like Blue Jays, and then move on to her message, which is what counts. I believe we will never make any progress if we continue alienating each other. Climate change will not respond to moral outrage, only cleaner energy technology that makes economic sense for everyone, not just those of us in a position to choose to lower our carbon footprint.

[Blue Jays]

"...I believe we will never make any progress if we continue alienating each other. Climate change will not respond to moral outrage, only cleaner energy technology that makes economic sense for everyone, not just those of us in a position to choose to lower our carbon footprint..."

Classy and well-spoken, bcm119. Thanks. The overwhelming majority of United States citizens utilize good practices.
Greta Thunberg would do the globe more good by embracing some humility and working in areas with rampant pollution.

[thollandpe]

The United States does a pretty darn good job of being responsible global citizens. This country is not the big problem.
She would be more impactful and helpful spending her efforts engaging with decision and policy makers in China and India.

Using the numbers from the Paris Agreement, these are the top 10 emitters and their share of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions:

China…….….20.1%
US…………….17.9%
Russia…………7.5%
India……………4.1%
Japan………….3.8%
Germany…….2.6%
Brazil…………..2.5%
Canada…..…..2.0%
S. Korea……..1.9%

Our greenhouse gas emissions are greater than those of India, Japan, Germany, Brazil, Canada, and South Korea combined. The US is the only nation to reject the Paris Agreement. I think that she is in the right place, doing the right thing.

[Cookietruck]

Using the numbers from the Paris Agreement, these are the top 10 emitters and their share of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions:

China…….….20.1%
US…………….17.9%
Russia…………7.5%
India……………4.1%
Japan………….3.8%
Germany…….2.6%
Brazil…………..2.5%
Canada…..…..2.0%
S. Korea……..1.9%

Our greenhouse gas emissions are greater than those of India, Japan, Germany, Brazil, Canada, and South Korea combined. The US is the only nation to reject the Paris Agreement. I think that she is in the right place, doing the right thing.

China also seems to be taking the issue seriously.
The U.S. left a hole in leadership on climate. China is filling it. - POLITICO

[sine]

According to some studies, Canada is the worlds top polluter......on a per capita basis.

Canadians produce three times more greenhouse gas emissions than G2 average - The Globe and Mail

[King Of Dirk]

Those of you who have hiked the Appalachian Trial should have some appreciation for humankind's inability to influence sea levels in a meaningful way. There are a lot of seashells up there.

Those of you who have visited West Texas/Eastern New Mexico may be appalled at all of the oil and gas development in the Permian Basin, but should realize the area is so prolific because it was once under several hundred feet of water.

I support efforts to reduce the degree to which human use of hydrocarbons will accelerate the inevitable. There's no sense in being wasteful, and every single person on this forum could use less - a lot less. I mean a lot a lot less. And I think we should. And I think I will.

The sea levels are going to change. They did before we existed, so too they shall after we've gone. Miami, New York City, New Orleans, Houston, Atlantic City, Charleston, Boston - just to name a few - are going to be underwater. We are powerless to stop it. But just because a car is headed off a cliff is no reason to stomp the accelerator.

[marley]

Those of you who have hiked the Appalachian Trial should have some appreciation for humankind's inability to influence sea levels in a meaningful way. There are a lot of seashells up there.

Those of you who have visited West Texas/Eastern New Mexico may be appalled at all of the oil and gas development in the Permian Basin, but should realize the area is so prolific because it was once under several hundred feet of water.

I support efforts to reduce the degree to which human use of hydrocarbons will accelerate the inevitable. There's no sense in being wasteful, and every single person on this forum could use less - a lot less. I mean a lot a lot less. And I think we should. And I think I will.

The sea levels are going to change. They did before we existed, so too they shall after we've gone. Miami, New York City, New Orleans, Houston, Atlantic City, Charleston, Boston - just to name a few - are going to be underwater. We are powerless to stop it. But just because a car is headed off a cliff is no reason to stomp the accelerator.

You are correct -= we should sit back and watch it happen - thank myself that - I do not live in the South - living in the North and inland will give me and my family another few years...I can not wait until we build a wall on the Mason Dixon Line to keep the southern climate refugees out. Good luck when summer temps in TX hit 120 and you get washed away every hurricane season but you have oil/gas and seashells so you knew it was coming :)

[Blue Jays]

President Barack Obama seeks to convince us climate change will imminently destroy our coasts and consume our cities.
If he TRULY believed so, why did he and First Lady Michelle Obama buy a $15 million waterfront home in Martha’s Vineyard?

[caleb]

Climate change will not respond to moral outrage, only cleaner energy technology that makes economic sense for everyone

There are three constructions of the climate change problem that I don't think work.

The first is that climate change is happening, but it's inevitable so we shouldn't fight it, and there will be up-sides that we're discounting. Even if we make an assumption that the amount of productive land in the world remains the same (it just shifts toward the poles), the mass dislocation and destroyed infrastructure are extremely serious problems.

The second is the idea that climate change is purely an engineering problem, i.e. that through technology we'll create a solution that will not disrupt the status quo. Effective environmental change has historically been led by regulation, which often then incentivizes technology as a response. But the regulation leads the way.

And third is this idea that climate change can be addressed purely through voluntary action. The individual incentives against change are too great to expect everyone to make them voluntarily when their neighbors aren't. And the major issues are rooted in public infrastructure, utilities, and the composition of school districts that individuals don't control. Looking to individual voluntary actions leads to a world where people worry about packing reusable straws and silverware along in their Suburbans for the 40 mile commute.

The only way we do anything meaningful about climate change is to lead the way with regulations that change incentives for innovation, penalize harmful behavior, and incentivize behavior in the public interest. The rest is just coupon clipping.

[King Of Dirk]

I can not wait until we build a wall on the Mason Dixon Line to keep the southern climate refugees out.

Don't worry, the only folks headed up there will be the dirty carpetbaggers that shouldn't have been down here in the first place.

I'll join with you to reduce our collective carbon footprint: when you're heating your home this winter, don't bother sending us a thank you card. None of us know how to read anyway!

[thollandpe]

The US has decreased it's greenhouse gas emissions since 2015 (mostly from the shift to natural gas for energy)

Bill, that’s not good enough. If the US has trimmed its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions lately, it’s a very minor reduction that’s imperiled by recent deregulation.

Like you say, we have shifted a bunch of our electricity generation to natural gas and this is an apparent reduction. But it may be an illusion, as the emissions factor for natural gas may be revised, and by no small margin. How about double?

Burning natural gas (methane) creates carbon dioxide, but unburned methane is a very potent greenhouse gas – it does 80 to 100 times more damage than carbon dioxide. Methane leakage is estimated at something like 2.4% (EPA, 2009) but it could be as high as 4%. Now multiply that additional percentage by 80 and boom, your GHG emissions reduction from fuel switching was actually an increase.

And what is our government doing? Rolling back regulations that limit methane leakage from pipelines and wells.

[Corso]

President Barack Obama seeks to convince us climate change will imminently destroy our coasts and consume our cities.
If he TRULY believed so, why did he and First Lady Michelle Obama buy a $15 million waterfront home in Martha’s Vineyard?

Because President "you can only have so much money" now has the means to do so.

[Matthew J]

The United States does a pretty darn good job of being responsible global citizens. This country is not the big problem.
She would be more impactful and helpful spending her efforts engaging with decision and policy makers in China and India.

Incorrect. As recently as 2014, the United States was the largest CO2 emitter per capita. Global Emissions | Center for Climate and Energy Solutions It is now third, well above China and India Each Country's Share of CO2 Emissions | Union of Concerned Scientists

And unlike China and India, the US has a lot of low hanging fruit - single family home sprawl - people driving SUVs as daily commuters - people driving when there is accessible mass transit, cycle or even walk options.