'How dare you': Greta Thunberg tears into world leaders over inaction at U.N. climate summit

Fact?
She is NOT "being exploited for the purpose of presenting a political narrative"; that's your own invention. She believes AGW is real, and is doing something about it.

OTOH, do YOU merely desire the filthy fossil industry to continue, for self-interested financial reasons?

For my part, regardless of whether AGW - CO2 is real, I think we should exit the filthy fossil industry, because of the harm quoted in a previous post:
"….and deaths caused by local air pollution (from burning fossil fuels) amounted to a social cost of about $12 billion per year according to Akshaya Jha, an economist at Carnegie Mellon and an author of the study. “It’s also clear that people don’t realize the cost of local air pollution is pretty severe. It’s a silent killer.”

Read Jeremy Rifkin's new book: "The Green New Deal", in which he argues the globe has the opportunity to usher in a "Third Industrial Revolution" based on zero marginal-cost energy.

Certainly, Thunberg is rebuked and mocked by Trump, who at Davos claimed the world has "never had it so good"; and Mnuchin who said "Thunberg should study economics".

In fact, economics is a significant factor in the climate change debate, since the issue of "how will we pay for it" (ie, exit from filthy fossil, and transit to clean green) comes up again and again.

bricklayer says:

More snide Conservative invention; here's what some of the top echelons of the investment world
are thinking:

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-financial-crash-say-worlds-biggest-investors

"Global investors managing $32tn issued a stark warning to governments at the UN climate summit on Monday, demanding urgent cuts in carbon emissions and the phasing out of all coal burning. Without these, the world faces a financial crash several times worse than the 2008 crisis, they said.

The investors include some of the world’s biggest pension funds, insurers and asset managers and marks the largest such intervention to date. They say fossil fuel subsidies must end and substantial taxes on carbon be introduced.

"Childish" asset managers...doesn't quite fit the image....

btw, a test court-case regarding superannuation fund responsibilities in relation to investments in the fossil industry, and related risks of financial losses due to climate change, is currently being run in Australia.

 

And she is being exploited based on that belief, to push a political narrative that is not her own.

 

What exactly is "the political narrative that is not her own"?

 

That first world, industrialized nations are destroying the world through the process of industrialization, and that paying higher taxes can help fix such.

If this individual truly believed man-made climate change were destroying the world, she would take her message to the nation of China and other locations responsible for the greatest degree of pollution, rather than limiting her message to the whitest and safest of locations to travel where she will not be killed for speaking against the establishment.

 

But that IS her political narrative, eg, "How dare you destroy the world with your fantasies of endless growth..."(said in her speech at the UN)

[QUOTEIf this individual truly believed man-made climate change were destroying the world, she would take her message to the nation of China and other locations responsible for the greatest degree of pollution, rather than limiting her message to the whitest and safest of locations to travel where she will not be killed for speaking against the establishment.[/QUOTE]

And the US is the 2nd largest emitter of CO2....but more importantly, I see you are actually hung up on the <taxation to pay for the transition from filthy fossil to clean green>

Actually the BIS said last week that central banks might have to buy the coal industry, if financial losses due to climate change keep increasing. And do you know how central banks can do that?

 

Well said.

 

And who exactly is she saying that to? The people actually responsible for that endless growth, or the patsies who merely respond to the demand?

Clearly, she's castigating the wrong people. Why do you think that is?

 

Second largest. To what degree, exactly? Which nation is the largest emitter of green house gasses, and what is the degree of difference between first and second? Is it a one percent different in terms of annual volume? Two percent? Five percent? Ten percent? Twenty percent? Do be sure to be specific on the matter, rather than speaking in vague and general terms meant to convey an idea without providing facts and evidence.

 

Who in the US is forbidden from participating in the US economy?

Well, your vision is nothing to brag about. You're using a poverty threshold that does not include other sources of in-kind or non-cash gifts from public or private sources, including:

• Benefits from anti-poverty programs such as food stamps, federal housing subsidies, school lunches and Medicaid.
• Tax advantages such as the Earned Income and Child Tax Credits.

Adding these sources of income reduced the poverty numbers considerably.

Families reported as living in poverty are not poor in the ordinary sense or as understood by most Americans. Impoverished families often have household appliances and adequate food, and live in adequate shelter — a higher standard of living than even middle class families maintained several decades ago.

By omitting this, you are not measuring actual material deprivation and are greatly overstating the extent of poverty in the United States.

The federal poverty line is a relic. Almost any economist would agree. Although the way Americans live and spend has changed considerably over the years, the standard that currently determines eligibility for food assistance is still based on the same formula it was when the Social Security Administration created Medicare in 1965: how much Americans spent on groceries in 1955.

You are using an old outdated measure that doesn't even bother to account for differences in costs of living across the U.S. A family living in Mississippi, one of the country's poorest states, used the same threshold as one in New York and San Francisco.

When you omit programs like SNAP or the earned income tax credit, not counting what we're doing to fight poverty, it gives you the impression we're spending a bunch of money for nothing, and it's quite unfortunate that folks do that.

There's plenty of evidence that federal programs used to fight poverty and food insecurity are working, but you won't find it in the official measurement.

That's the question everyone with a brain asks, as money doesn't grow on trees.

Oh, I comprehend it fine. You think you the government can simply print money: I have listed a few sensible objections that you have not yet responded to:

1. Money is a draw on labor, printing more money does not create more labor, it merely gives the ability of those with the printing presses to outbid the private sector for goods and services.
2. In our system OUR government is dependent on us for resources. This gives us the ability to keep the government from escaping the control of We The People.

Hyperinflation is always the result of excessive money printing. But even at printing rates below those that produce hyperinflation, you are still "taking" from those that use the currency by devaluing the currency they hold. You are pretending that you are adding free money, when what you are actually doing is increasing the ability of those with the ability to print money to out compete the private sector for goods and services. We The People would be out of our minds to surrender this power to anyone. Those able to freely print money could take whatever they wish from us as we could never out bid them, because our ability to raise money is limited and theirs is infinite.

I've simply noted the problems with what you are proposing and given you a fair opportunity to respond.

Yes, who is the source that claims they heard Trump say this first hand? I've asked you this simple question five times now and you seem lost.

That is simply a well known fact, that if the obligations are denominated in dollars, that the US can print the money to meet the obligations in order to avoid default, but, that does not avoid that fact that in so doing, they could also reduce the value of the dollars in our pockets to essentially zero. You seem to be unable to comprehend this rather obvious point. Are you sure you should be critiquing the comprehension skills of your interlocutor? It seems that perhaps your time might be better spent grasping the painfully obvious.

I simply asked for the name of the person who claimed to have heard this first hand from Trump. It's a perfectly rational question, why are you responding to it like a dental exam?

My comprehension skills are fine, your tap-dancing skills are probably a bit better than mediocre, so there's that.

 

Is she going corporate:

 

https://www.investopedia.com/articl...countries-produce-most-carbon-dioxide-co2.asp

The U.S. was the largest CO2 producer until 2006 when China took over the top spot

Now (2017 figures)) 1. China c 9.8 billion tons CO2/year,
2. US c. 5 billion tons/year.
3. India c. 2.5 billion tons/year.

So Greta's point is correct: if CO2 emissions are responsible for climate change (and she believes they are) then the whole globe must act now in a coordinated fashion.

 

Those who suffer involuntary un/underemployment, around 10% of the working age population when you include those who are not even counted in U6 because they have given up looking for work.

Guaranteed above poverty participation in the economy - a basic right; people prefer to be engaged in economic activity ie contribute to society) - will eliminate much of the welfare you mention; and here are the facts on poverty:

https://4thworldmovement.org/overco...Grqb1dMntuD-gzVjjhy8Tkwl2Iuvl-RkaAnG3EALw_wcB

1 in 6 Americans are living below the poverty level.

Poverty isn’t $24,300 a year for a family of four. Poverty isn’t 14.5% of Americans. Poverty is the constant stress of not having enough to eat, of not knowing where you’re going to sleep tonight, of knowing you are one emergency away from sleeping on the streets.

All standard Conservative mythology, as noted in the article above.

Refuted above

Refuted above.

Refuted above

People ought not be in the situation where they need SNAP etc.

Ah yes....Poverty Myth #4:

For a country that sees itself as the “richest nation in the world” this is one of the most intransigent poverty myths. The truth is the US regularly ranks near the bottom on rankings of developed countries for both adult and child poverty. When it comes to inequality the situation is even worse.

Everyone with a brain?

Fact: money is not limited like real resources ARE limited. But I don't intend to teach you about MMT here, beecause the people who matter eg central bankers ARE taking note; and recently even the BIS said central banks might have to buy the coal industry....(to deal with increasing financial losses due to climate change)

You don't comprehend anything about MMT, nor the policy options open to a currency-issuing sovereign government.

See...you proved my point; the government CANNOT simply print money, it has a real resource constraint.

1. ?? labour is rewarded in money, in our monetary system.

Now - apart from the "creating more labour" bit (I think you probably mean creating more work) - this is a sensible comment; indeed the government cannot buy anything that is not available for sale, but the point about a JG is: the private sector NEVER fully employs all available resources including all available labour of working age.

No, government establishes the regulations and infrastructure to enable orderly commerce amongst citizens.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution..."

Depends on one's interpretation.....

..when the resources the money is intended to buy are NOT available..

No this is merely the false quantity theory of money. Keynes debunked it in the 1930's.

False; already addressed above.

The power of good government to manage the available resources and know how and labour, for the benefit of all with minimum above poverty reward for contributing to the community? I'll have you clambering for it, before this debate ends (...OK, a tad optimistic, perhaps…)

Addressd above, I can't help it if you are incapable of learning new concepts.

The editor's names are in the articles. "Trump told CNN...."

At last you admit that what Trump told CNN is happening......

Now you are off with your own constructs; if the productive capacity of the nation is maintained (or more likely increases with technological advance) the value of the dollars in relation to available goods and services will be maintained over time, obviously.

On the contrary - I hope I have now disabused you of your confusion over this point.

Already addressed: the reporter told CNN (I accept that fact, you don't), but apart from your comprehension skills, you really need to abandon your obsolete quantity theory of money, to avoid being associated with outdated ideas that will soon enough be relegated to the dustbin of history.

 

The BIS is going to "purchase" the Coal Industry?

Sure they are.



So, you're a big fan of government taking over the means of production? And having the ability to simply print the money they need to take everything over? And you think folks are going to support this massive take over of our Freedom and Liberty?

 

I reported that the BIS said (during the Davos conference) that central banks might have to buy the coal industry (if in fact climate change-CO2 proves to be real).

You can google it.

Now ideology is raising its ugly head, as if implementing an above-poverty JG has anything to do with "this massive take over of our Freedom and Liberty?[/QUOTE]

See the ridiculous statements your quantity theory of money leads you to make?

 

Meaning the united states has already done far more than the nation of China to clean itself up. That, or the nation of China is simply far inferior to the united states in terms of modern industrialization.

If Greta Thunberg were truly convinced in her beliefs, she would travel to the nation of China and yell at its leaders in an attempt to shame them into changing how it does business. Instead she is limiting her travel exclusively to locations that have prominently white, english-speaking populations, and are regarded as being safe for travel.

 

she believes it's real because she has been first brainwashed then exploited.

 

They like to sound important.

Our government is funded by us. All you are claiming is that if they can assume dictatorial powers that they will do nice things with their power, every tyrant trying to gain power claims that. We are never going to authorize our government to freely print money so they can take control of the means of production.

Everyone with a brain has a "quantity theory of money", excessive money printing destroys societies.

You also claimed that life expectancy was falling due to poverty. You were wrong on both counts:


GOOD NEWS! Trump’s Drug Policies Have Resulted in US Life Expectancy Increasing for FIRST TIME Since 2014

US life expectancy is rising not falling.

The increase was as a result of reduced opioid deaths.

Opioid deaths were down 13% in 2018 and that contributed to the overall national life expectancy.

Office of National Drug Control Policy Director Jim Carroll, and Assistant HHS Sec of Public Health Adm. Brett Giroir say that Pres Trump’s drug policies have resulted in US life expectancy increasing for first time since 2014.

 

All nonsense, already refuted. Your ideological blindness makes your knowledge of economics irrelevant to the real world (which is why failed mainstream economics is causing central bankers everywhere to look at MMT).

Your can't see a relationship between unemployment, drug (opioid) addiction and poverty....and life-expectancy?

So if your report is correct, that's good news, but no excuse to allow ANY involuntary unemployment which still results in poverty.

And like I said: you are EXTREMELY fortunate Trump ignores mainstream nonsense about government debt and deficits, like this nonsense based on your quantity theory of money:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/29/opinion/budget-deficit-republicans.html

 

Virtue Posing.

The Times of London today:

How do you respond when placard-waving students occupy your 15th-century quadrangle and refuse to leave until you sell the college’s shares in oil companies? As this is Oxford, naturally you present them with a philosophical dilemma.​

Two students at St John’s College wrote to Andrew Parker, the principal bursar, this week requesting a meeting to discuss the protesters’ demands, which are that the college “declares a climate emergency and immediately divests from fossil fuels”. They say that the college, the richest in Oxford, has £8 million of its £551 million endowment fund invested in BP and Shell.​

Professor Parker responded with a provocative offer. “I am not able to arrange any divestment at short notice,” he wrote. “But I can arrange for the gas central heating in college to be switched off.”​

Do it!

 

If the world leaders are not the right people then who are?

 

And this proves??

 

And the thousands of scientists who contributed free time and effort to writing the ipcc reports - they have been “brainwashed and exploited?

 

Stop building hyperbolic straw men and look at the science please

 

I love it! (Prof. Parker made me laugh......)

However, as a teacher, he should explain to his students that if they are going to close a coal plant, they must first build a solar/wind farm backed by pumped hydro storage; though I suspect they already know that... and our dear professor, or maybe "The Times of London" is merely being obstructive...

 

"Aw....it's not fair....you're dirtier than me....." (even though both China and the US are dirtier than any other country on the planet.