Too reductionist.
Thunberg is just the 'Joan of Arc' for the masses. (If I had a dime for every time I heard a current time philospher say 'finally - something that worked').
Doesnt mean, that the issue is bogus.
Doesnt mean, that what Thunberg said was bogus (one of her main 'science advisers' also is on a board that advices Merkel f.e. (but Merkel didn't listen to more recently..
).
How it works is basically as follows: Everything goes. In love, in war, and PR.
Thunberg is a child, therefore climate change cant be real - doesnt work as an argument.
Thats just... something you say, because it makes you feel good.
Why do you need a 'Joan of Arc' figure for the masses? Because you have to induce political change to 'curb' corporate and economic interests in general, at first. So you need political action. So you need the masses to agree that this is a relevant cause.
And because - arguably, you have to change peoples 'models' of what a desirable living in the future would consist of (growth?). So people have to vote for a state that reduces their own economic outlook eventually (around 2030, 2035), for a more long term goal.
Issue: This impacts the poorest people most. (F.e. moving away from fossile fuel subsidies. (No cars for poor people?))
Issue: Growth will only kick back in (probably at a lower level) at a later stage. (Probably too late for Millennials.)
Issue: Feels like a religion (goal future orientated, tendencies contra economic growth, why is someone (pretty much actually) indoctrinating the children?!). And features boomer warcries like 'For our grandchildren!'. (While boomers still dont invest in climate action, in large numbers, as long as they are living, because they need that money to make their children do as they please. (Carrot on a stick.) Roughly spoken. So boomers now demand that the state should whip everyone, just enough.
(At least in Europe.) So that they dont have to do something personally.
)
edit: Wanted to post a source for 'Greta science advisor' (one of them - mainly called that way by the press, because he himself mentioned it..
), but it turns out, that some more extreme corners of the web were busy doing a hitjob on him, and grabbing the google search terms for "Stefan Rahmstorf advisor greta". So to sum up - according to probably the same people, Greta makes that stuff up, so you cant believe her, and gets fed by an ultra radical climate alarmist, that made a businessmodel out of predicting... (Hes a scientist. That gets public grants.)
edit: Here is at least the social media post:
https://www.facebook.com/gretathunb...-for-climate-impact-research/800773206957168/
edit2: Oh, and my personal issue with it, of course: It gives Boomers an excuse to dictate their childrens behavior pretty much to their grave (as a generation they also are larger in numbers, so politically...). It gives intellectual elites a reason to advocate for international cooperation, the need for an ethicality that pretty mich cant do much for the little person, because they always would decide against what was áctually needed. An excuse for not having to deal with the outcomes of globalization in the west. An excuse to intermingle with at least one sort of activist again. (Which then give an impression of societal progress.) A reason to push people faster into whatever gets designated as needed change. A reason not to talk about further cuts in social spending (if you also need to spend for climate action, and are reducing GDP you are lacking funds).
A reason to feel good for investing in developing countries mainly (the argument there is actually solid - but doing that while you are facing a political backlash because of the impacts of globalization is - something).
While indoctrinating children in mass events. ('Politicizing them' to say exactly the same thing, out loud, all choir boy/girl in appearance.)
Making them think, that they are active to make a difference - which wile true, doest eliminate the fact, that all of this has been on the UN agenda from even before the Greta hype started, was manufactured to get public support behind ongoing UN level action. Was top down in organization structure. (At least from a certain point forward (when you hear Guterres tauting more financing opportunities prior to the NY summit, ... when in my country the popular movement was founded by...)
All of this basically could warrant social revolt - which is exactly what you cant have, because then climate change would even be more catastrophic. Great. So shut up and take it?
