a man came onto the stage and told her: “I have come here for a climate demonstration, not a political view,” before he was ushered off the stage.
This seems like the way it always goes.
Anytime it’s something the person (any person) complaining doesn’t like, it’s exclaimed that it is “politics”, and shouldn’t be said.
One could argue that no one should be talking about climate change because it’s all politics and political, i.e. pertaining to making decisions in groups, and distribution of resources.
This was probably said because, Greta gave the microphone to someone giving a speech about the Palestina Israeli war. And the were speeches about the Dutch housing crisis and racism, which are ofcourse important topics but not really relevante on the topic of climate change.
Everything is political if it’s convinient enough
We were all ready to discuss the politics of climate and climate justice. A talk about the justice of support for countries in Africa dealing with natural disasters while they are responsible for less than 4% of emissions was very well received. The “politics” was someone asking to free palestine and telling us not to vote for the biggest green social party because they are not doing enough for oppressed people. I think we can rightfully say that was too off-topic for this march.
I was there and the interruption happened only a short while after she said everyone deserves a voice. All the guy did was ask to put the focus back from polarizing views to the main goal of the day, a march for a better and more just climate policy. Let’s hope this message comes across with at least 70.000 people marching!
Agreed, I don’t say you as a person can’t hold multiple views on things, but marches and strikes should have a very well defined focus.
I love Greta and agree with what she’s doing.
That said, I don’t think there’s a chance in hell any major power forks over cheap energy while other major powers continue to use it.
It’s about economic development. It’s not even about you or me willing to live without cars or other dependencies on fossil fuels. It’s about dependence on fossil fuel allowing nations to progress faster than those without it.
The powers that be will continue to pull the strings to make sure they have as much control as possible. It’s not about Americans competing with Americans. It’s about Americans (the west) competing with the Chinese and Russians, militarily and economically.
None of them will give up fossil fuels so long as it remains the cheapest option.
I see many people saying this, and claiming that therefore any protest or attempt at doing anything for the environment is futile. But although it will be hard, protest and change is also necessary. In the Netherlands, aggresive protests have already ensured that fossil subsidies (38 billion euros of subsidies to companies that work with fossil fuels) are a major talking point for the upcoming election. Doing nothing isn’t an option anymore.
Bingo. Well said.
So, what’s your proposed solution? Because at the moment protests like this are working and simply throwing up our hands and saying ‘it’s impossible’ isn’t an option. So what to do? I’d argue we keep doing things like this until a better solution is found, what about you?
I never said to stop. Just that I don’t expect these problems to be solved.
What makes you think protests are working?
Governments only forego oil when it is no longer the cheapest option.
I think people like you need to accept that some problems are so deeply rooted in global society that we will not be able to solve them without a global shift in culture.
As long as most people think ‘progress as fast as possible at any cost,’ that’s what we’re going to do.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230421-earth-day-the-science-of-climate-change-protest
https://www.dw.com/en/disruptive-climate-protests-do-they-help-or-hinder/a-61379793
Of course they work. Not as quickly and as well as we might hope, but they do work. You say that a global shift in culture is needed. I agree and these protests are an essential part of shift.
Also, support for wide ranging global change is more wide spread than you might think, and these protests are a example of that: https://www.undp.org/press-releases/worlds-largest-survey-public-opinion-climate-change-majority-people-call-wide-ranging-action
I understand that none of this is easy, but again what are you proposing we do instead? If you believe protests are not enough on their own then what, in your opinion, is the solution? Genuine question. You mention a global shift in culture is required. How? Let’s talk.
That’s not ‘working.’ If they were working, then we can expect nations to stop using oil even when it’s the cheapest option.
That’s not happening, so my point remains that the only thing to stop nations from using oil is for it to no longer be the cheapest option.
We are not going to stop using oil until it becomes too expensive.
but again what are you proposing we do instead
You keep asking me this as though there is a viable solution. I said just said “I think people like you need to accept that some problems are so deeply rooted in global society that we will not be able to solve them without a global shift in culture.”
It would take a global shift in culture that doesn’t even have to do with oil. It has to do with greed and foregoing progressing as fast as possible to beat out the competition. Until that happens, nations will not stop using oil.
All the promises you see are just posturing by governments to push the problem down the line so they’re not responsible for it.
Heck, this was just posed on /c/news today: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/nov/09/alaska-willow-oil-drilling-environment
Unfortunately, it’s possible that doing something will have the same effect as doing nothing. Can you understand that?
Underrated comment. There’s some deep understanding. Thanks.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Before Thunberg took the stage, the event was briefly interrupted as a small group of activists at the front of the crowd waved Palestinian flags and chanted pro-Palestinian slogans.
The incident came after tens of thousands of people marched through the streets of Amsterdam calling for more action to tackle climate change, in a mass protest just 10 days before a national election.
Organizers claimed that 70,000 people took part in the march and called it the biggest climate protest ever in the Netherlands.
Political leaders including former European Union climate chief Frans Timmermans, who now leads a center-left, two-party bloc in the election campaign, later addressed the crowd gathered on a square behind the landmark Rijksmuseum.
Tackling climate change is one of the key policy areas for political parties contesting the Nov. 22 general election.
“It is time for us to protest about government decisions,” said Margje Weijs, a Spanish teacher and youth coach.
The original article contains 490 words, the summary contains 155 words. Saved 68%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Greta stays winning
Compare this to what happenned in the UK were they arrested her and charged her with a Public Order Offense for demonstrating.
