to be chafoin wrote: What are the decisions that Greta defends?
Seriously ???
Are you really impervious to scientific information or even just information in the post?
If you're here, I do not see why Greta's speech disturbs you, since you do not hear it?
Catch-up:
Effectively fight against CR maybe?
Not to say it at COP but ACT efficacement against the CR.
Meetings and the blah, that's all there is, and no meaningful action to fight the CR (GHG emissions).
If you want me to list solutions, I could do it, was it at that level that you wanted an answer?
I confess I do not really listen to Greta, since I already feel concerned by her cries of alarm, she teaches me nothing.
If my name was Greta and I had quilts, I would add: preserve resources, make an economy based on resources and not on money (market).
The most typical example is oil: The economy only works with oil between 40 $ and 80 $ a barrel (ladle).
At 150 $, the economy no longer works, the economy collapses.
The oil suppliers who want to sell, then lower their price and it "starts again". With a blow in the wing, but it starts again.
All this even if the price had increased following a contraction in volume (demand greater than supply, flow). The supply / demand regulation is not smooth linearly, everything "stops" and it starts again from below. It regulates in an undulating but damn undulating plateau, with significant impacts on people's lives between each roller coaster.
This is why liberal economists who believe in the virtues of the market are wrong. The price of oil will remain more or less constant until the "last drop". providers want their annuities, so sell.
The economy could run on oil at 150 $, if all bank loans and business forecasts were based on this parameter but as they are based implicitly on an oil between 40 $ or 80 $, as soon as price rises, the financial profitability is no longer there and all the house of cards collapses.
I do not know who said that oil is for 50% of GDP and not the few% of its purchase price.
This is why it would be reasonable to make a resource-based economy: Do we have the resources to do this or that? Is what "we" do really useful?
I proposed it here, the big technological innovations could be democratically ratified by a vote.
Certainly would be a world that would have some uniformity, everyone the same smartphone (basically where are the differences ???)
Sorry but mentally I must not be so far away from Greta (asperger), there is in my family: I do not understand that when we see something important, we do not act.
That's why the speeches Ahmed, sen no sen bristle my hair.
Hair that they cut in 4 to demolish any desire of action under the pretext that it is imperfect, incomplete (it misses a comma ...) it literally kills me to a point that they can not imagine.
Between those who are financially interested in inaction (corrupted by the truth of urgency) and those who play the perfectionists / defeatists and who will always find a good reason not to act or even discourage those who would like to act because that would return to their own inaction, those who are ideologically convinced that acting on the climate will hurt their individual freedom and it is wrong (as if the climate would care about it), those who are convinced that the RC is not human, it blablates and the warming continues.
The Greta in me is for a sustainable world as far as possible and that we act Actually in this direction.
in essence, fuck the economy! it's not the right level to solve the problems we face.
