Home | About | Donate

To Critics Who Say Climate Action Is 'Too Expensive,' Greta Thunberg Responds: 'If We Can Save the Banks, We Can Save the World'

…and, we’re all dying too, at a pace sooner than previous generations.

'If We Can Save the Banks, We Can Save the World" (Greta Thunberg) ~

Classic Greta !

2 Likes

Joan, I can’t believe you cited MMT. Honestly, MMT is the biggest disgrace to human intelligence that I have seen from the modern left in some time. It literally is an excuse to spend to infinity with no consequences. All history dating back thousands of years on hyperinflation disagree with the theory, but to no avail. It’s sad.

But to your other points. No, the science is not with you…at least not to the level you are claiming. The IPCC has warned that if we did nothing, global GDP in 2100 would be slightly lower than it otherwise would be, but still much higher than today either way. There’s no impending catastrophe necessary to compare climate change to an asteroid strike. That’s nonsense and pure fear mongering.

There’s also a difference between disagreeing with the progressive left’s views on climate change and being a total “science denier.” Many libertarians believe that climate change exists and that humans are partially the cause. And yet they wildly disagree on the impact to the global economy and the proposed deliberate-growth-halting solutions.

For example, it seems a bit ridiculous to be move nuclear energy and fracking off the table when both are great cost-effective means to reduce our carbon footprint.

So, yes, Joan. If an actual asteroid were on its way, we’d have to mobilize like WWII to save ourselves. But equating climate change to an asteroid strike is a sad way to make your argument.

Shantiananda, the entire US military budget is just under $700 billion. That’s far far less than what Bernie’s GND is proposing. And I don’t think you’d support cutting the military to $0, would you? So your response is a nice talking point but void of actual logic.

LOL! Surely you know that this claim is in no way an argument, and if you studied MMT you would know their discussion of inflation. They have explained this many times, and have said that if too much money is created (most money is created by private banks), inflation can become an issue. The editor of the Financial Times said recently that, paraphrasing, of course MMT accurately describes how money is created and is correct, but if we acknowledge that it is correct bad policies will ensue. You work backwards from your own conclusions, and it’s silly and not serious.

You’re a hack. For one, we have a few years to do something substantial on climate change or a series of things will be set in motion that will cascade out of control. This is what the science says. Beyond that, the environmental crisis is far beyond carbon emissions. The species extinction rate is thousands of times the natural rate, there dead zones in the gulf (massive), the Baltic Sea, and elsewhere. Phytoplankton are in danger of dying off, and they produce most of our oxygen. The ocean, at current rates, could be largely free of fish by the end of the century. There are massive issues in regards to soil erosion, deforestation, as I said above biodiversity, plastic and nuclear pollution, etc. The Stockholm Resilience Centre says we have surpassed or are approaching most planetary boundaries. The Pentagon over a decade ago now aid that the 21st century will be unlike the 20th century, in that wars will increasingly be fought over natural resources, access to clean water and other environmental concerns. They called these things the “coming resource wars”, and the State Department sees the same thing. I could go on and on, but you are full of it.

I have to ask, do you just lie to others, or yourself? Like, you know things are much worse than you admit here but you maybe are older and don’t care? Or, do you delude yourself to ignore anything that doesn’t allow you to hold on to fantasies? Naomi Klein talks about attending a right wing conference on global warming, and she said at the time that most of the conference was not at all about the science. Most of the conference was on the impact of the crisis on capitalism. It was the impact the crisis was going to have on capitalism that led them all to reject the science and to fund industry related hack science. It is obviously the same with you. The scale of the environmental crisis, which is again far beyond carbon emissions, cannot be denied, but since it means the end of your beloved capitalist system, you must lie and gaslight about what the science clearly shows.

Don’t bother responding if you are going to post more bullshit. I come here to get away from nonsense like the stuff you are posting.

3 Likes

Because you are too lazy to study what you don’t like:

https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-boundaries/planetary-boundaries/about-the-research/the-nine-planetary-boundaries.html

Plenty more. The ones above are easy to digest, countless studies on this stuff. You can also read The End of Ice by Dahr Jamail.

2 Likes

Everything you cite is required, and is also exactly why nothing even close will occur. I know I should say well at least we must try, but honestly, I’m done. I give up. Those with the real power will never act if anything necessary to save the planet cuts into profits. Money is the strongest most addictive substance in existence.

2 Likes

It’s sad, Joan. It’s sad that you spend every day thinking the world is going to end, while human prosperity improves around us every day. That must be really stressful for you. It’s sad.

1 Like

If Bernie is not the nominee, then I will write in Greta Thunberg for President—and yes, I know some will say that I am wasting my vote, but America is famous for wasting its votes. I just like that Greta at 16 , is able to speak so plainly and clearly about solvable problems. ; )

3 Likes

Great post. And even at this late hour on the time clock, they still don’t want to do anything at all.

1 Like

Ah, no. At the rate we’re going, to supply the number of people on earth right now without degrading our world (think eating your seed corn), we would need more than two earths.

1 Like

At what cost? Most of the oceans are so overfished they aren’t going to return. Deforestation is accelerating. Plastic is being found everywhere including at the bottom of the Mariana Trench. As mentioned, more than half the world’s animals have been killed and the insect population on which we depend is crashing. Pollution of our rivers, oceans and ground water is increasing so that drinking water is becoming scarce. You claim things are improving, but that’s happening at the expense of mankind’s future survival.

Ignoring reality has psychological benefits, but you get kicked in the butt eventually a lot harder than if you attacked the problems early on.

2 Likes

We spent about $800 billion on utility bills and gasoline last year. At a 2% compounded rate of growth, that would be about $16 trillion total for the 15 years 2022 through 2036. If the govt. essentially owned all the green power used for buildings and transportation and charged the current fossil fuel rates for 15 years, it could recoup all $16 trillion (without raising anything additional in tax revenue)…after that electricity for buildings and transportation could be, basically, free.

4 Likes

Should the question be: “is it too expensive?” or should it be: “is it too late?”.
The relatively simple changes that would have been required to slow the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to a manageable level could have been implemented 50 years ago with some financial pain. The problem is now so huge that avoiding human extinction will require much more than reducing emissions. We will also have to increase the Earth’s albedo, increase global dimming, reverse population growth, and perhaps even take on projects to limit the amount of sunlight reaching earth.
These projects cannot be done to good effect as long as financial cost is permitted to be the determining factor.

2 Likes

Well said; "linguistic and conceptual manipulation to IMPLEMENT THE INTERNALIZATION of LOYALTY to an external object " Mission accomplished by the dark masters of the universe.

I wonder if some of Greta’s power is the innocent and honest declaration of truths that adults seek to hide and deny. The ‘child’ has caught out the adults with their hypocrisy, contradiction and evil.
Shame on the decepticons flashing their mean-spirited weapons and the power of lies. Praise and success to Greta!

1 Like

Yeah, I am just giddy that my young kids will inherent this mess. None of us are happy that the science is what it is. I am just dealing with reality, whereas you are floating somewhere in outer space, with the other ridiculous libertarians, and you seem to lie to everyone you encounter (and yourself) to remain in your little cocoon. But you don’t make very good arguments, so you won’t sway anyone. Why waste your time? There are better propagists than you, so let them lie to everyone. You aren’t helping the cause.

4 Likes

Nothing wrong with sex. Environmentally healthy, (if you use preventative measures), stress reliever, organic, natural, cost free, (that might be dubious), rewarding, fantasy inducing: what more do we need? -
Barry White:

1 Like

Dovey,

You always seem to have the answer. I suppose that I was just trying to get a rise out of someone who looks for the positives, rather than the negatives.

Thanks for answering the call. And the Barry White.

1 Like

Not positive or negative. Just realistic. I dont know that song though. But thankyou. Barry white is my favourite.

1 Like