Share
6,045 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 28
clock Created with Sketch.
25/09/19
07:33
Share
Originally posted by madamswer:
↑
I twice a week take evening walks with two gentlemen (both are professionals and both in their late 40s, and are near neighbours down my street), and on these walks we have great philosophical discussions about all manner of things. These two gents are quite libertine in their views, and are concerned about the lack of action on climate change and believe that part of the reason for this is because the general narrative around the subject is unnecessarily invective. They are of the view that broader - not narrower - consensus and collaboration is required if any meaningful progress is going to be made without conservative classes stalling the transition to renewable energy. During our walk tonight, the inevitable subject of this young girl came up. The unequivocal view of both my ambling associates was that this "publicity stunt" (their phrase, not mine) is unlikely to serve the cause well at all because it presented a real risk of being perceived by much of the middle-ground to be "a bit too theatrical and hysterical" (again, not my phrasing). One of the men said (almost verbatim): "Geez, that's the kind of "help" [he did the inverted commas gesture using his fingers] that we can really do without. I mean, of all the young people that could have stood up and presented the case for urgent action... and we ended up with that performance? Not too flash, I have to say." They were discernibly disappointed by the turn of events and my clear sense is that they felt it was not something that added to the sum total of credibility around the climate change mission because all it did was provide "a larger target for those looking for something at which to aim". .
Expand
A young girl who sat outside parliament the year before by herself, and only a year later was the face of a climate strike by millions of young people worldwide, somehow damaged the credibility of climate change?