Greta Thunberg Syndrome and the Question of Global Warming

This is a forum for discussing philosophical theories of government and social structure. It is not a venue for partisan rants or plugging favored candidates.

Greta Thunberg Syndrome and the Question of Global Warming

Postby Hendrick Laursen on February 19th, 2020, 11:26 am 

Few have missed Greta Thunberg, some praising her as a future leader and providing her with opportunities to deliver her "message", while others blaming her as a poster-girl for some non-realistic environmental Armageddon, some accusing her of being part of a greater maybe heinous scheme, others noting her advocacy, and a thousand shades of grey in between.

But, then what is a Greta Thunberg syndrome? Being born in Sweden, had a lot to do with Greta's success. Why? Because most of her peers elsewhere suffer greatly and no one pays the slightest amount of attention. This is the Iron Curtain that has divided the world into the rich, the poor and the poorest. Could a child from let's assume Angola or Cambodia reach Greta's status, advocating for something? Would he/she be given such attention, and the opportunity to deliver her message?

Apart from climate change deniers, little have any doubt that let's say at least it's possible. That it's devastating effects may strike all of us. But what's the solution? Stop polluting the air?!

So why anybody in their sane mind are polluting the environment? Some countries use fossil fuels like coal because that energy source is pretty much easily handled and obtainable. But some use fossil fuels, because they don't have the necessary infrastructure for sustainable development. When the old colonial powers like UK and France, oppressed their colonies intentionally, plundering their natural resources and installing puppet governments to effectively silence all pleas for development, they were actually polluting the air. The UK that is now appealing to underdeveloped countries to stop polluting the air, had started polluting it long before.

So, the actual debate I'm proposing on this thread is, should underdeveloped countries join the global alliance against climate change? Are they entitled to ask for state-of-the-art energy technology, like nuclear reactors? Is it just another touch of old colonialism?
User avatar
Hendrick Laursen
Member
 
Posts: 576
Joined: 12 Mar 2014
Location: God's Green Earth
Blog: View Blog (6)


Re: Greta Thunberg Syndrome and the Question of Global Warmi

Postby Serpent on February 19th, 2020, 1:53 pm 

Hendrick Laursen » February 19th, 2020, 10:26 am wrote:But, then what is a Greta Thunberg syndrome? Being born in Sweden, had a lot to do with Greta's success. Why? Because most of her peers elsewhere suffer greatly and no one pays the slightest amount of attention. This is the Iron Curtain that has divided the world into the rich, the poor and the poorest. Could a child from let's assume Angola or Cambodia reach Greta's status, advocating for something? Would he/she be given such attention, and the opportunity to deliver her message?

Very possibly. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/08/these-7-young-female-leaders-are-changing-the-world.html There are some boys, too. https://www.complex.com/life/young-activists-who-are-changing-the-world/
They are not a syndrome: they are the generation who want to mitigate the messes they must inherit from us. It may skip a couple of generations, but kids are back on the front lines - in style!

Apart from climate change deniers, little have any doubt that let's say at least it's possible. That it's devastating effects may strike all of us. But what's the solution? Stop polluting the air?!

That would be a good start.

So why anybody in their sane mind are polluting the environment?

Profit.
Some countries use fossil fuels like coal because that energy source is pretty much easily handled and obtainable. But some use fossil fuels, because they don't have the necessary infrastructure for sustainable development. When the old colonial powers like UK and France, oppressed their colonies intentionally, plundering their natural resources and installing puppet governments to effectively silence all pleas for development, they were actually polluting the air. The UK that is now appealing to underdeveloped countries to stop polluting the air, had started polluting it long before.

Of course, and we're still plundering, one way and another, as well as exporting our pollution.

So, the actual debate I'm proposing on this thread is, should underdeveloped countries join the global alliance against climate change?

Abso-bloody-lutely! Not only are they more vulnerable to the ravages of climate change, they are its earliest and most devastated victims.
Are they entitled to ask for state-of-the-art energy technology,

Yes!
like nuclear reactors?

No. That's the wrong way to go. That would simply deepen and perpetuate their economic dependency on 'developed' nations, and put them in further harm's way on the geopolitical chess-board. The technologies they need to continue developing are those that rely on local resources, are cheap and easy to maintain, and remain under local control.
Is it just another touch of old colonialism?

Certainly, all patronage is. According to the Munroe Doctrine, the USA was supposed to keep out of Europe and European colonies in Asia and Africa -- but of course, that policy has long been abandoned. However, the only part abandoned in the Western Hemisphere was non-intervention. Once US business interests are at stake, the US invariably back them up with diplomatic and military support.
You do not want to become a small nation borrowing anything from Uncle Sam - his interest rates make Anthony Salernohttps://marketbusinessnews.com/financial-glossary/loan-shark/anthony-salerno-loan-shark/ look like a.. godfather.
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=cfd6f24e40a34b8691c6589bdfedde64
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Greta Thunberg Syndrome and the Question of Global Warmi

Postby TheVat on February 19th, 2020, 1:54 pm 

[typed this before I saw Serpent's new post]

Greta was successful because both parents are well-known public performers and knew how to provide her a public forum. Being from a developed country with advanced telecommunications and connections to international media also helped, as you point out.

Is there really much debate, given the science (see the Enviro forum for several threads on this), that ALL nations will have to develop sustainable energy and means of production? Developed countries generate the most greenhouse gas emissions, while poorer countries suffer the most from the consequences. They certainly don't want to emulate OUR path towards development and prosperity (look where that's got us), and it would seem obvious that their best option would be, with considerable investment from all of us, to go straight for wind/solar/tidal and other green methods of power generation. Nations like the USA should be leading the world in the conversion to green technologies, and help develop them everywhere, not regressing as we have been the past few years.

Infrastructure for coal is not cheap. Power plants are quite expensive to build. IF you are looking at lower initial investment of capital in a developing country, wind/solar is actually much cheaper to build and you can scale it up or down easily. You can even have small-scale projects that are not on a power grid, also greatly reducing infrastructure cost. (that's something they're doing in Puerto Rico, as I write this) Even with a regressive President trying to promote coal here, we are having a boom in wind and solar construction, simply because of its superior economics.

It would also help for countries like ours to stop exporting a culture and an ethos of high consumption and consumerism. Having lots of "stuff" is not really the point of life. Capitalism is an economic system, not a moral imperative, despite the absurd kinds of virtue that some people try to peddle along with it. Capitalism needs to be tamed and made to serve the good of all human beings rather than just shareholders in a corporation.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7406
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Greta Thunberg Syndrome and the Question of Global Warmi

Postby Hendrick Laursen on February 19th, 2020, 3:28 pm 

So, @TheVat, what exactly is Capitalism when you extract it's teeth?
User avatar
Hendrick Laursen
Member
 
Posts: 576
Joined: 12 Mar 2014
Location: God's Green Earth
Blog: View Blog (6)


Re: Greta Thunberg Syndrome and the Question of Global Warmi

Postby Hendrick Laursen on February 19th, 2020, 3:33 pm 

@Serpent, can you please elaborate more on how the underdeveloped are hit harder when the climate catastrophe happens? When I compare Mongolia and the US or the Netherlands, I guess the latter ones are hit harder. Am I wrong? What am I missing?
User avatar
Hendrick Laursen
Member
 
Posts: 576
Joined: 12 Mar 2014
Location: God's Green Earth
Blog: View Blog (6)


Re: Greta Thunberg Syndrome and the Question of Global Warmi

Postby Serpent on February 19th, 2020, 4:37 pm 

Hendrick Laursen » February 19th, 2020, 2:33 pm wrote: When I compare Mongolia and the US or the Netherlands, I guess the latter ones are hit harder.

On what basis do you guess that? The US has an enormous, well equipped army to back up the civil defence, paramedics, police, hospitals, trained personnel, large public buildings and fleets of vehicles, for emergency response, plus enormous resources, insurance and tax-collection agencies for victim relief; enormous technical and financial capacity for mitigation and amelioration; an enormously diverse and dispersed and robust economy to rebuild the infrastructure and industry; to absorb the displaced citizens.
Netherlands is more trouble, because it's small and flat and vulnerable to flooding. But, if I remember correctly, they've also done quite a bit with floating architecture, tide-power and wind generation. Ans they have some recourse as to relocation and deployment of people: high standard of living and education, skills, etc.
Mongolia's got no resilience, no reserves and no fall-back. https://www.france24.com/en/20190315-reporters-video-mongolia-climate-change-forces-nomads-herders-move-city-capital-ulaanbaatar

Am I wrong?

That depends on your terms of reference.

What am I missing?

Apparently some basic information about geography, climate and demographics.
I could point you to some sources, https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=displaced+populations+climate+change&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart
but if I can Google it, so can you.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Greta Thunberg Syndrome and the Question of Global Warmi

Postby TheVat on February 19th, 2020, 9:15 pm 

Hendrick Laursen » February 19th, 2020, 12:28 pm wrote:So, @TheVat, what exactly is Capitalism when you extract it's teeth?


Whole threads have puzzled over that, you may recall. Various models, like the nordic model, are often cited as steps towards a more egalitarian and less corporate-run system. Sometimes called democratic socialism, it covers a range of ideas that are evolving regarding regulated capitalism. The question is often, it seems to me, how to keep healthy competition without exploiting and devaluing the workers or abusing the planetary ecosystems. I think keeping oligarch power down, and corporate control of media down, will be steps in the right direction. Worker-owned businesses, also a part of the Nordic model, is another.



PS - I miss Owleye, too. He lived not too far from me (in neighboring Minnesota) and I was sorry I never had the chance to visit. (I was Braininvat, back in those times) A true scholar.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7406
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills
Hendrick Laursen liked this post


Re: Greta Thunberg Syndrome and the Question of Global Warmi

Postby Hendrick Laursen on February 19th, 2020, 9:27 pm 

Serpent » February 19th, 2020, 10:37 am wrote:
Hendrick Laursen » February 19th, 2020, 2:33 pm wrote: When I compare Mongolia and the US or the Netherlands, I guess the latter ones are hit harder.

On what basis do you guess that? The US has an enormous, well equipped army to back up the civil defence, paramedics, police, hospitals, trained personnel, large public buildings and fleets of vehicles, for emergency response, plus enormous resources, insurance and tax-collection agencies for victim relief; enormous technical and financial capacity for mitigation and amelioration; an enormously diverse and dispersed and robust economy to rebuild the infrastructure and industry; to absorb the displaced citizens.
Netherlands is more trouble, because it's small and flat and vulnerable to flooding. But, if I remember correctly, they've also done quite a bit with floating architecture, tide-power and wind generation. Ans they have some recourse as to relocation and deployment of people: high standard of living and education, skills, etc.
Mongolia's got no resilience, no reserves and no fall-back. https://www.france24.com/en/20190315-reporters-video-mongolia-climate-change-forces-nomads-herders-move-city-capital-ulaanbaatar

Am I wrong?

That depends on your terms of reference.

What am I missing?

Apparently some basic information about geography, climate and demographics.
I could point you to some sources, https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=displaced+populations+climate+change&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart
but if I can Google it, so can you.


I think I couldn't explain myself well. The article from France 24 provided rudimentary explanation about these so-called "dzuds". The financial loss, is of course much greater when a country like the US gets hit by a hurricane. Not all the world get hurricanes. Some underdeveloped countries have quite harsh climate, perhaps that's why they have survived it through the history, otherwise their country could have been divided and not in their current form. So is it a way of coercing other countries that since, "this comes after all of us", we act united against it?

The reason I make the comparison is, not every natural disaster is attributable to climate change or global warming. As humankind, we have populated a very slim chunk of this planet through it's existence. Periods of Ice ages have happened, apparently without human intervention. Some natural catastrophes have triggered grand major extinction events, at times eradicating 85-96% of all life forms. Climatology as a science per se, is quite young, and has limited studies and experiments and mathematical models to model after the reality. To deduce and extract actual and repeatable scientific data and conclusions. The line between normal climatological processes and abnormal processed can get very hazy, sometimes non-existent.
User avatar
Hendrick Laursen
Member
 
Posts: 576
Joined: 12 Mar 2014
Location: God's Green Earth
Blog: View Blog (6)


Re: Greta Thunberg Syndrome and the Question of Global Warmi

Postby Hendrick Laursen on February 19th, 2020, 9:30 pm 

@TheVat, besides the obvious clue in the "vat", I almost instantaneously recognized you when I read some posts. Well, I hope all's well since we're here once again!
User avatar
Hendrick Laursen
Member
 
Posts: 576
Joined: 12 Mar 2014
Location: God's Green Earth
Blog: View Blog (6)


Re: Greta Thunberg Syndrome and the Question of Global Warmi

Postby Serpent on February 19th, 2020, 11:33 pm 

Hendrick Laursen » February 19th, 2020, 8:27 pm wrote:The reason I make the comparison is, not every natural disaster is attributable to climate change or global warming.

That makes no difference to the people injured, bereaved and disposessed by one.
If your terms of reference are financial, then, yes, the rich have more to lose than the poor. However, they're also better placed and better equipped to recover what they've lost.
We may have inhabited a relatively narrow band of planet, but the distribution of wealth certainly isn't natural, any more than the national borders are.
We have invaded, exploited, destabilized and messed up pretty much all of it. I'm not aware the US is coercing anyone to help combat climate change - the present administration is doing everything to hasten planetary destruction except start lobbing nukes - so far, but don't uncross your fingers.
You can't selectively retard an extinction event - we're all in the effort or we all suffer the consequences.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Greta Thunberg Syndrome and the Question of Global Warmi

Postby Hendrick Laursen on February 20th, 2020, 7:11 am 

I don't agree with your last sentence. The argument behind it is an emotional one

"You can't selectively retard an extinction event - we're all in the effort or we all suffer the consequences."

This might just be technically and statistically incorrect, in order to avert certain greenhouse effect, we need to lower greenhouse gases lower than a certain level. If for example top 20 industrial polluting makers halve their CO2 production, we might just have the numbers to avert it. Human interventions aren't the sole mechanism of CO2 production, though have risen out of proportion.

So, if the top 20 industries intervene, I don't think the collaboration of Solomon Islands or Micronesia would make any meaningful difference. And I have to emphasize once more, not all countries would be hit in the same proportion, or manner.
User avatar
Hendrick Laursen
Member
 
Posts: 576
Joined: 12 Mar 2014
Location: God's Green Earth
Blog: View Blog (6)


Re: Greta Thunberg Syndrome and the Question of Global Warmi

Postby Serpent on February 20th, 2020, 10:48 am 

Hendrick Laursen » February 20th, 2020, 6:11 am wrote:I don't agree with your last sentence. The argument behind it is an emotional one

"You can't selectively retard an extinction event - we're all in the effort or we all suffer the consequences."

This might just be technically and statistically incorrect, in order to avert certain greenhouse effect,

So, then, which - emotional and inaccurate or statistically correct but wrong?

So, if the top 20 industries intervene,

I take this to mean, lower their own CO2 output, not get between something and somebody,
I don't think the collaboration of Solomon Islands or Micronesia would make any meaningful difference.

Okay. But would it be helpful if the Solomon Islands and Micronesia increased their polluting industry while the UK and Spain decreased theirs?
And I have to emphasize once more, not all countries would be hit in the same proportion, or manner.

True. Oceania is far more vulnerable, physically, than Europe.
It's also true that the most vulnerable, as well as the poorest, nations need and deserve all the help they can get from the nations that became powerful through the colonization and/or exploitation of those that are, as a result, poor now.
But you certainly have not made a case for the US being more at risk than Mongolia, unless you're talking about loss in terms of $$$ - which, in my estimation, is the very least important of all the effects we're already experiencing and can anticipate.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: 24 Dec 2011



Return to Political Theory

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests