7 ms·

I will see Greta in Denver Friday afternoon at a climate rally. She is young and a voice of her generation. Many future possibilities for her and repairing the

I will see Greta in Denver Friday afternoon at a climate rally. She is young and a voice of her generation. Many future possibilities for her and repairing the climate crisis. I respect the Nobels decision to award the prize to this peace broker. So many global issues that need attention.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
petters 7y ago
Yes, the prize is meant for actions during 2018. Greta rose to prominence this year.
phil_folrida 7y ago
Are you talking about Greta Thunberg, I would think so, I don't know enough about her, what do you recommend from her? I fail to see what or why she is important, we are past good speech in terms of ecology, what actions does she recommends?
- Tepix 7y ago
  Of course. She is creating a lot of attention for the mismatch between scientists' (in particular IPCC) insights and recommendations and politicians (in)actions and failure to reach the goals they set themselves. > what actions does she recommend She recommends we listen to the science. Nothing more, nothing less.
  - krona 7y ago
    She recommends we listen to the science. Consensus is a probability distribution. Greta talks about the 'findings' of approximately 4% of the IPCC scientists conclusions, on one extreme of the consensus. Obviously none of the models are available to examine, so we'll take their word for it, like a child would.
    - lonelappde 7y ago
      Care to explain what you are talking about? I'm going on a limb here to be charitable despite the anti-credibility marker in your last sentence.
      - garmaine 7y ago
        The world-ending alarmism she typifies is not the consensus view.
        protastus 7y ago
        How is it not? The IPCC models predict a > 4°C average temperature increase for the business-as-usual scenario. This is means billions of people migrating across national boundaries and/or dead, extinction of most species, a dramatic reduction in farm land, tropical rainforests ceasing to exist. I doubt humanity's technological advances can be sustained when we can't even feed ourselves. Even a 2°C average increase is very, very bad, with intense weather events every year, countries like India not being able to support their population density, tropical rainforests turning into savannahs. It is also a mass extinction scenario.
        garmaine 7y ago
        > The IPCC models predict a > 4°C average temperature increase for the business-as-usual scenario. “Business-as-usual” is not the most likely outcome. It completely neglects technological development trajectories which make something like 2.5 deg absolutely achievable by simple market forces without radical action. But in any case... > This is means billions of people migrating across national boundaries and/or dead, extinction of most species, a dramatic reduction in farm land, tropical rainforests ceasing to exist. I doubt humanity's technological advances can be sustained when we can't even feed ourselves. All of that is rampant speculation. THIS is what I’m calling out as non-consensus. > Even a 2°C average increase is very, very bad, with intense weather events every year, countries like India not being able to support their population density, tropical rainforests turning into savannahs. It is also a mass extinction scenario. That’s a strange thing to say. How do you reconcile that statement with the fact that higher temperatures mean more rainfall, higher CO2 levels mean better plant growth, and geologic record which indicates that when the earth was previously that much warmer it was covered pole-to-pole with lush tropical rainforests?
  - lone_haxx0r 7y ago
    > Of course. She is creating a lot of attention for the mismatch between scientists' (in particular IPCC) insights and recommendations and politicians (in)actions and failure to reach the goals they set themselves. Is she? I've only watched her "how dare you" speech and have read a couple of hit pieces about how she doesn't like Trump (granted, it's not necessarily her fault that journalists focus on this part), but I haven't been exposed to any actual content about climate change because of her.
- jansan 7y ago
  She recommends to panic.
  - nxpnsv 7y ago
    That's not really a truthful reading of what she is communicating.
    - jansan 7y ago
      "I want you to panic" is exactly what she said: https://youtu.be/RjsLm5PCdVQ?t=145 https://youtu.be/RjsLm5PCdVQ?t=145
      - draugadrotten 7y ago
        ...and 30 years earlier, another girl, 12 year old Severn Cullis-Suzuki, said the same thing in the UN: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOp5ATk_rlM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOp5ATk_rlM
        jansan 7y ago
        ...and 30 years ago this infamous news article was published: https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0 https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0 At that time we had only 10 years to fix the problem, now scientists graciously give us 12 years.
        lonelappde 7y ago
        10 years to start, not to finish, is what the article said. Fortunately, we did something in those 10 years, as the article pleaded. wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
      - nxpnsv 7y ago
        She said a whole lot more. You choose not to understand.
- tzm 7y ago
  Not sure on specific action, but her UN speech on climate change evokes a cultural of change https://time.com/5695968/fatboy-slim-greta-thunberg-united-nations-climate-speech/ https://time.com/5695968/fatboy-slim-greta-thunberg-united-n...
arrrg 7y ago
Up front I just have to say that this comment is not meant as a criticism of the choice. These are just my loose thoughts on the particulars of this prize. Without wanting to say anything about this year’s winner (if only because of a lack of my personal knowledge which, to be honest, is probably embarrasing): The prize has sometimes been awarded in a very aspirational way, i.e. not so much for past work, but more as an encouragement based on not so much past work. I view giving the award to Obama in that way, for example. I do think that’s a valid and potentially valuable approach to giving out the prize. I’m not sure giving the prize to someone decades after they did something important is very useful, especially for such an overtly political prize. I do think that the Nobel Peace Prize has to dare to be brave and also dare to be wrong. It should not pick safe choices where a wide consensus has already formed. Of course I also can see the other side, too: If you are wrong too often you risk becoming a joke and irrelevant, all encouragement is for nothing. So this is a hard problem to solve. But still: overall I think being daring is the right approach for a prize such as this. That the goal is to say with the prize: “We want to support the great work this person is doing right now, right in this moment!” In that light I’m quite tolerant to some missteps if the Peace Prize is willing to be brave and get right into the fray, also of things that are still hotly contested.
- mcv 7y ago
  Other Nobel Prizes sometimes do get awarded decades after the research they're rewarding, in order to see the impact of the result, whether it actually turned out to be true, etc. I wouldn't mind if they did something similar with the Peace Prize. Obama's prize, for example, was clearly too early. Although it would have worked if it had been given to the American voter instead. To elect a black president in a country with such a history of extreme racism against black people, that's a fantastic step forward. But it was the voters who did that. Awarding it for getting elected, or even for that nice speech that Obama made, it feels like that's a bit of a thin reason. Similarly, I know a lot of people would like to have seen it go to Greta Thunberg, and it would have been a lot more deserved than some other recipients, but I still think it's better to wait a year, to see the real impact she's had. I also imagined that if Greta had gotten it, she might have given an angry speech that she doesn't want awards, she wants people to act, and I would have agreed.
goatinaboat 7y ago
If she wants to make a difference her next speech will be delivered in Beijing, not Denver. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di... for why.
- mraison 7y ago
  I assume you're looking at overall CO2 emissions rather than per-capita emissions. The page you linked shows fossil CO2 emissions per capita: China: 7.7t CO2/cap/yr USA: 15.7t CO2/cap/yr Denver seems like a good place to give a speech. Of course, country size does matter, but it's unfair to simply compare total emissions when there's such a huge difference in population size.
  - yodon 7y ago
    Multiply the per-capita numbers by the sizes of the country and you see that in terms of total emissions China is the most critical player. Worse, per-capita emissions are strongly correlated with consumer buying power so the more China's economy grows the more it's per-capita and total emissions are likely to grow. It's important to reduce emissions everywhere, but China is the key player to watch.
  - goatinaboat 7y ago
    I assume you're looking at overall CO2 emissions rather than per-capita emissions. I’m looking at the page I linked. Per-capita is basically irrelevant, the issue is the total emissions under the control of any one government. Or should China not act until they match the US per-capita but with 3-4x the population? Further the US and European trends are already downwards. China’s is dramatically upwards.
    - mraison 7y ago
      > the issue is the total emissions under the control of any one government Total emissions definitely matter (no need to give speeches in Palau even if per-capita emissions are much greater than in the USA), but considering this number without regard to the population size is completely unrealistic and insensitive. For China's overall emissions to get to the same level as the USA, that means a Chinese citizen would be expected, on average, to emit less than half of what a US citizen emits. Would you expect a Chinese citizen to only eat half of what a US citizen eats, just because there are more people in their country ? Of course not. China's trend is dramatically upwards because a big chunk of the population is still getting out of poverty. Of course CO2 emissions are increasing.
Bantros 7y ago
Would be about as pointless her receiving it as when they handed it to Obama
jswizzy 7y ago
I don't think she really has done enough to deserve it. To me it seems like it is forced and just pushed to lend creditably to an obvious political puppet. The poor girl is being used and obvious is abused by her parents.
- tgv 7y ago
  I also think she hasn't done enough to deserve the Nobel peace prize, but used and abused? That's not a very honest frame.
- kyleblarson 7y ago
  This is spot on. She is like a vegan cat. You know who makes those choices.
Tenoke 7y ago
I am not denouncing her work in ecology activism, but in what way has she contributed to Peace specifically, except for second-order effects?
- Miner49er 7y ago
  Global Warming will cause war if not stopped. To fight to stop climate change is to fight for peace.
  - Tenoke 7y ago
    You have to admit that's very indirect. Most issues can lead to/exacerbate a war. Most technologies, too.
    - Miner49er 7y ago
      I don't think it's indirect at all. Climate change will very nearly directly cause war. It will and already is causing food shortages, flooding, drought, etc. This will cause mass migration and conflict for resources. It's about as close to directly causing war as a thing can be.
      - beokop 7y ago
        This might be true, however, I’m of the opinion that the prize should go to people that are making hard choices to de-escalate actual armed conflicts.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

petters 7y ago

Yes, the prize is meant for actions during 2018. Greta rose to prominence this year.

phil_folrida 7y ago

Are you talking about Greta Thunberg, I would think so, I don't know enough about her, what do you recommend from her? I fail to see what or why she is important, we are past good speech in terms of ecology, what actions does she recommends?

Tepix 7y ago
Of course. She is creating a lot of attention for the mismatch between scientists' (in particular IPCC) insights and recommendations and politicians (in)actions and failure to reach the goals they set themselves. > what actions does she recommend She recommends we listen to the science. Nothing more, nothing less.
- krona 7y ago
  She recommends we listen to the science. Consensus is a probability distribution. Greta talks about the 'findings' of approximately 4% of the IPCC scientists conclusions, on one extreme of the consensus. Obviously none of the models are available to examine, so we'll take their word for it, like a child would.
  - lonelappde 7y ago
    Care to explain what you are talking about? I'm going on a limb here to be charitable despite the anti-credibility marker in your last sentence.
    - garmaine 7y ago
      The world-ending alarmism she typifies is not the consensus view.
      - protastus 7y ago
        How is it not? The IPCC models predict a > 4°C average temperature increase for the business-as-usual scenario. This is means billions of people migrating across national boundaries and/or dead, extinction of most species, a dramatic reduction in farm land, tropical rainforests ceasing to exist. I doubt humanity's technological advances can be sustained when we can't even feed ourselves. Even a 2°C average increase is very, very bad, with intense weather events every year, countries like India not being able to support their population density, tropical rainforests turning into savannahs. It is also a mass extinction scenario.
        garmaine 7y ago
        > The IPCC models predict a > 4°C average temperature increase for the business-as-usual scenario. “Business-as-usual” is not the most likely outcome. It completely neglects technological development trajectories which make something like 2.5 deg absolutely achievable by simple market forces without radical action. But in any case... > This is means billions of people migrating across national boundaries and/or dead, extinction of most species, a dramatic reduction in farm land, tropical rainforests ceasing to exist. I doubt humanity's technological advances can be sustained when we can't even feed ourselves. All of that is rampant speculation. THIS is what I’m calling out as non-consensus. > Even a 2°C average increase is very, very bad, with intense weather events every year, countries like India not being able to support their population density, tropical rainforests turning into savannahs. It is also a mass extinction scenario. That’s a strange thing to say. How do you reconcile that statement with the fact that higher temperatures mean more rainfall, higher CO2 levels mean better plant growth, and geologic record which indicates that when the earth was previously that much warmer it was covered pole-to-pole with lush tropical rainforests?
- lone_haxx0r 7y ago
  > Of course. She is creating a lot of attention for the mismatch between scientists' (in particular IPCC) insights and recommendations and politicians (in)actions and failure to reach the goals they set themselves. Is she? I've only watched her "how dare you" speech and have read a couple of hit pieces about how she doesn't like Trump (granted, it's not necessarily her fault that journalists focus on this part), but I haven't been exposed to any actual content about climate change because of her.
jansan 7y ago
She recommends to panic.
- nxpnsv 7y ago
  That's not really a truthful reading of what she is communicating.
  - jansan 7y ago
    "I want you to panic" is exactly what she said: https://youtu.be/RjsLm5PCdVQ?t=145 https://youtu.be/RjsLm5PCdVQ?t=145
    - draugadrotten 7y ago
      ...and 30 years earlier, another girl, 12 year old Severn Cullis-Suzuki, said the same thing in the UN: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOp5ATk_rlM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOp5ATk_rlM
      - jansan 7y ago
        ...and 30 years ago this infamous news article was published: https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0 https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0 At that time we had only 10 years to fix the problem, now scientists graciously give us 12 years.
        lonelappde 7y ago
        10 years to start, not to finish, is what the article said. Fortunately, we did something in those 10 years, as the article pleaded. wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
    - nxpnsv 7y ago
      She said a whole lot more. You choose not to understand.
tzm 7y ago
Not sure on specific action, but her UN speech on climate change evokes a cultural of change https://time.com/5695968/fatboy-slim-greta-thunberg-united-nations-climate-speech/ https://time.com/5695968/fatboy-slim-greta-thunberg-united-n...

arrrg 7y ago

Up front I just have to say that this comment is not meant as a criticism of the choice. These are just my loose thoughts on the particulars of this prize. Without wanting to say anything about this year’s winner (if only because of a lack of my personal knowledge which, to be honest, is probably embarrasing): The prize has sometimes been awarded in a very aspirational way, i.e. not so much for past work, but more as an encouragement based on not so much past work. I view giving the award to Obama in that way, for example. I do think that’s a valid and potentially valuable approach to giving out the prize. I’m not sure giving the prize to someone decades after they did something important is very useful, especially for such an overtly political prize. I do think that the Nobel Peace Prize has to dare to be brave and also dare to be wrong. It should not pick safe choices where a wide consensus has already formed. Of course I also can see the other side, too: If you are wrong too often you risk becoming a joke and irrelevant, all encouragement is for nothing. So this is a hard problem to solve. But still: overall I think being daring is the right approach for a prize such as this. That the goal is to say with the prize: “We want to support the great work this person is doing right now, right in this moment!” In that light I’m quite tolerant to some missteps if the Peace Prize is willing to be brave and get right into the fray, also of things that are still hotly contested.

mcv 7y ago
Other Nobel Prizes sometimes do get awarded decades after the research they're rewarding, in order to see the impact of the result, whether it actually turned out to be true, etc. I wouldn't mind if they did something similar with the Peace Prize. Obama's prize, for example, was clearly too early. Although it would have worked if it had been given to the American voter instead. To elect a black president in a country with such a history of extreme racism against black people, that's a fantastic step forward. But it was the voters who did that. Awarding it for getting elected, or even for that nice speech that Obama made, it feels like that's a bit of a thin reason. Similarly, I know a lot of people would like to have seen it go to Greta Thunberg, and it would have been a lot more deserved than some other recipients, but I still think it's better to wait a year, to see the real impact she's had. I also imagined that if Greta had gotten it, she might have given an angry speech that she doesn't want awards, she wants people to act, and I would have agreed.

goatinaboat 7y ago

If she wants to make a difference her next speech will be delivered in Beijing, not Denver. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di... for why.

mraison 7y ago
I assume you're looking at overall CO2 emissions rather than per-capita emissions. The page you linked shows fossil CO2 emissions per capita: China: 7.7t CO2/cap/yr USA: 15.7t CO2/cap/yr Denver seems like a good place to give a speech. Of course, country size does matter, but it's unfair to simply compare total emissions when there's such a huge difference in population size.
- yodon 7y ago
  Multiply the per-capita numbers by the sizes of the country and you see that in terms of total emissions China is the most critical player. Worse, per-capita emissions are strongly correlated with consumer buying power so the more China's economy grows the more it's per-capita and total emissions are likely to grow. It's important to reduce emissions everywhere, but China is the key player to watch.
- goatinaboat 7y ago
  I assume you're looking at overall CO2 emissions rather than per-capita emissions. I’m looking at the page I linked. Per-capita is basically irrelevant, the issue is the total emissions under the control of any one government. Or should China not act until they match the US per-capita but with 3-4x the population? Further the US and European trends are already downwards. China’s is dramatically upwards.
  - mraison 7y ago
    > the issue is the total emissions under the control of any one government Total emissions definitely matter (no need to give speeches in Palau even if per-capita emissions are much greater than in the USA), but considering this number without regard to the population size is completely unrealistic and insensitive. For China's overall emissions to get to the same level as the USA, that means a Chinese citizen would be expected, on average, to emit less than half of what a US citizen emits. Would you expect a Chinese citizen to only eat half of what a US citizen eats, just because there are more people in their country ? Of course not. China's trend is dramatically upwards because a big chunk of the population is still getting out of poverty. Of course CO2 emissions are increasing.

Bantros 7y ago

Would be about as pointless her receiving it as when they handed it to Obama

jswizzy 7y ago

I don't think she really has done enough to deserve it. To me it seems like it is forced and just pushed to lend creditably to an obvious political puppet. The poor girl is being used and obvious is abused by her parents.

tgv 7y ago
I also think she hasn't done enough to deserve the Nobel peace prize, but used and abused? That's not a very honest frame.
kyleblarson 7y ago
This is spot on. She is like a vegan cat. You know who makes those choices.

Tenoke 7y ago

I am not denouncing her work in ecology activism, but in what way has she contributed to Peace specifically, except for second-order effects?

Miner49er 7y ago
Global Warming will cause war if not stopped. To fight to stop climate change is to fight for peace.
- Tenoke 7y ago
  You have to admit that's very indirect. Most issues can lead to/exacerbate a war. Most technologies, too.
  - Miner49er 7y ago
    I don't think it's indirect at all. Climate change will very nearly directly cause war. It will and already is causing food shortages, flooding, drought, etc. This will cause mass migration and conflict for resources. It's about as close to directly causing war as a thing can be.
    - beokop 7y ago
      This might be true, however, I’m of the opinion that the prize should go to people that are making hard choices to de-escalate actual armed conflicts.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]