[ Post a Response | da Brooklyn Stoop ]
Re: Greta and climate change.
I'm not faulting the messenger, I'm faulting those who are using her. We are obviously seeing climate change but nature has been changing since recorded time. When I was a kid, the word was we were heading toward an Ice Age. Are any paltry efforts that we can do going to change nature's course? Of the three countries who emit the most carbon monoxide, we can certainly do more to minimize our share but the other two who rely on the use of fossil fuels to a greater extent, China and India, are far less able to. Not only is the use of fossil fuels a contributor but the loss of trees and forestry, that take in carbon monoxide, to habitation clearing. Then there are anomalies in examples given, such as the active underwater volcanos in the Artic that could be causing losses of its shoreline ice. NASA has no way of measuring the snowfall inland. If the movers and shakers of the world are more informed than the rest of us, why would they be interested in investing in properties that are threatened with being under water in a few short years such as the rumored but unconfirmed Obama purchase of a $15 million waterfront estate in Martha's Vineyard?
If the threat is as real and imminent as being touted, there is little we can do fast and preventative enough globally to influence nature. A greater threat to the current population is pollution, which we might be able to do something about. Instilling catastrophic fear in children is about as helpful as the hiding under desks and wearing plastic ID's around our necks was to survive an atomic attack as we did when kids.
I think that giving Greta the platform she's been given, solidifies her obsession and will only lead her to a melt down ahead.
Message Thread | This response ↓|