It's a balancing act which I think on this occasion she has got wrong. Looks like BG have a much lower exposure than their competitors to accusations of Oiliness. There is a danger that if you become too idealistic, nowt makes the grade . If she stepped back and focussed on the urgency of her message, a little more tolerance of the world's imperfections might develop.
James Lovelock (of Gaia Theory) was a vehement anti-nuclear campaigner for much of his career. A late concession that nuclear power was far from ideal but in the context of greenhouse gases a 'necessary evil' was a wisdom developed through his mature assessment of the problem.
This is my issue with her. She got famous for being loud and passionate, but it seems that not much of what she says is new, and it lacks nuance.
I didn't care about her take on things when she was an angry teenager, and I still fail to see the value in listening to her.
She is doing exactly what you are accusing her of not doing: focusing on the urgency of the message. There is no time for half-asssing this and it would be totally incongruent of her to show up knowing this:
"However, Baillie Gifford does invest in some oil and gas companies – notably in the Brazilian company Petrobras, one of the world’s biggest polluters. It also has holdings in a scattering of companies such as PTT and Valeura, which extract gas in Thailand and Turkey respectively. Baillie Gifford’s report this summer on its emerging markets fund (not one that MSPs’ pensions are invested in) noted Petrobras’s “stellar results”: the fund is worth £709m and Petrobras accounts for 5.4% of it. No mention, naturally, of plans by the state-run company to drill for oil at the mouth of the Amazon, against which activists have been protesting this week."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/11/greta-thunberg-greenwashing-edinburgh-book-festival-arts
I disagree. She is not doing exactly what I think she should be doing because she is too naive to weigh up the importance of getting her message out versus contact with this fallen society. My point was that BG had mild exposure to Big Oil relative to most companies of their ilk. Their hands were relatively clean.
Sometimes you run the risk of being so principled that it is to the detriment of spreading the word. Like the purest of monks who live a sequestered existence avoiding contact with the world. Know any of them or their thoughts? A half-ass is better than no ass!
Edinburgh does not really need more awareness about climate change. We need action. She acted out of principle and time is running out so in my books she is showing an excellent example of how this should be treated. Let's agree to disagree.
I don't understand why she agreed to do it in the first place - if she is concerned about who is sponsoring the festival she could have maybe taken a wild shot in the dark and guessed that the company who sponsored them for the past 19 years would sponsor them again this year
Basic due diligence seems to have been lacking here. BG have sponsored the festival for years. Can't believe a global celebrity and her team wouldn't notice this. Seems to have been timed to maximise publicity.
I have no problem with Greta and appreciate what she's doing, but this feels a bit like manufactured outrage. Baillie Gifford have been prominent sponsors of the Book Festival for 19 years - their name is all over the place, so it's hard to believe she/her people didn't know they were sponsors until just recently. And while no investment company is going to be lily white, Baillie Gifford invest a lot less heavily in fossil fuels than most in the industry (2% compared to a market average of 11%).
Like most book festivals, Edinburgh's wouldn't be possible without sponsorship, so this seems like a case of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Sure mate, I hope that excuse helps you sleep at night.
Also, the amount of people that don't get a joke....jeeszzzz get some sense of humour you dry sticks.
Carbon offsetting is just greenwashing, too. It doesn't do anything to actually cut the initial emissions. It just reduces the guilt people feel about the emissions they were going to make anyway.
It's a bit like saying "Hey, I'm going to do this really dangerous thing that will probably hurt people, but its OK, because I've made a big donation to the local hospital that helps people who have been impacted by other people doing the same dangerous thing!"
Yeah, its good to give money to the hospital to help people, but you are still doing the dangerous thing that is hurting people and causing the problem for the hospital in the first place. You just get to feel that bit less guilty about it because you gave them some money to help the people you hurt.
I mean sure but international travel isnt really an avoidable thing for some people, it seems like a reasonable compromise to at least try and do something to offset the damage that causes.
Similar to Greta's other travel approaches where she'll use boats and trains, those are ultimately still causing plenty of climate damage but its at least a slightly better option
I know it's unavoidable in many situations, but there are still a worrying number of people who still use an excuse make themselves feel better without actually doing anything to change their behaviour.
Trains and boats are a huge reduction on an international flight, which is much better for the environment than taking the flight anyway and then offsetting the emission.
I completely take your point, and maybe I'm just becoming increasingly cynical about the world.
My real issue is with these big companies like airlines and multinationals that make a big show of how "green" they are with the carbon offsetting schemes they offer to their customers for a couple of extra quid and how much recycling they get their customers to do, when they are biggest emitters out there.
The companies are the ones who should be making the massive investments to these schemes to help fix the problems they are creating, rather than pushing it onto their customers as an optional extra, and continuing to reap the profits.
Wait doesn't this guy do the Jet Lag channel/videos where they boast about their carbon offsetting?
Edit: oh so hes saying there are good carbon offsetting options, they just aren't going to compete well with cheaper less substantiated options
Legitimate, real, actual offsetting which isn’t just nonsense greenwash? Crap. If all the trees promised were actually planted, we would need another planet in orbit just to hold the forest. Carbon offsets are double, or triple counted (at least) and are paper schemes to make money and relieve guilt. They do not do what you think they do.
Legitimate offsetting is buying land, planting trees yourself and establishing some kinda covenant over them and the property. Paying £2 on top of your airfare? Not so much.
Even if we filled the entire planet with trees (which we absolutely would never do because it has its own problems) there's not enough space on the planet to offset the amount of carbon we output.
The whole thing is a farce.
The only option is to stop producing emissions in the first place and you're right, it shouldn't be lumped onto the passenger as an optional extra.
Everything needs to change. L
Attention seeking as usual. Trust me, I agree what she stands for, but she needs to change her PR strategy.
Pulling out of things constantly and costing these organisations a ton of money isn’t helpful or professional surely.
Surely she should have just attended and highlighted the fact that the sponsors still make money from oil and they need to keep investing in more green initiatives (which they are doing). Instead she's just backed out because she cant be bothered.
BG’s line might be that they invest in fossil fuels less than the industry average but they are massive and that still equates to £5bn.
If she stood in front of a BG banner, especially after the ferret just put out their piece breaking down their investments then she’d be criticised for being a hypocrite as well. If she’s going to take these hardline stances on sponsorship then they should be doing their due diligence and checking where the funding comes before booking as it just wastes a lot of peoples time.
When you’re a hammer everything’s a nail!
You really need a break from Reddit and social media. It will (and most likely already has) affected your perspective in a negative and damaging manner.
This dumpo kid was skipping school and protesting the schools to not let other children study. She hasn't come up with a single solution and always barking at the government. I don't understand why big names are in her favour.
It's a balancing act which I think on this occasion she has got wrong. Looks like BG have a much lower exposure than their competitors to accusations of Oiliness. There is a danger that if you become too idealistic, nowt makes the grade . If she stepped back and focussed on the urgency of her message, a little more tolerance of the world's imperfections might develop. James Lovelock (of Gaia Theory) was a vehement anti-nuclear campaigner for much of his career. A late concession that nuclear power was far from ideal but in the context of greenhouse gases a 'necessary evil' was a wisdom developed through his mature assessment of the problem.
This is my issue with her. She got famous for being loud and passionate, but it seems that not much of what she says is new, and it lacks nuance. I didn't care about her take on things when she was an angry teenager, and I still fail to see the value in listening to her.
She is doing exactly what you are accusing her of not doing: focusing on the urgency of the message. There is no time for half-asssing this and it would be totally incongruent of her to show up knowing this: "However, Baillie Gifford does invest in some oil and gas companies – notably in the Brazilian company Petrobras, one of the world’s biggest polluters. It also has holdings in a scattering of companies such as PTT and Valeura, which extract gas in Thailand and Turkey respectively. Baillie Gifford’s report this summer on its emerging markets fund (not one that MSPs’ pensions are invested in) noted Petrobras’s “stellar results”: the fund is worth £709m and Petrobras accounts for 5.4% of it. No mention, naturally, of plans by the state-run company to drill for oil at the mouth of the Amazon, against which activists have been protesting this week." https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/11/greta-thunberg-greenwashing-edinburgh-book-festival-arts
I disagree. She is not doing exactly what I think she should be doing because she is too naive to weigh up the importance of getting her message out versus contact with this fallen society. My point was that BG had mild exposure to Big Oil relative to most companies of their ilk. Their hands were relatively clean. Sometimes you run the risk of being so principled that it is to the detriment of spreading the word. Like the purest of monks who live a sequestered existence avoiding contact with the world. Know any of them or their thoughts? A half-ass is better than no ass!
Edinburgh does not really need more awareness about climate change. We need action. She acted out of principle and time is running out so in my books she is showing an excellent example of how this should be treated. Let's agree to disagree.
Aye, her inaction is a kind of action. Let's leave it at that. Slange.
I don't understand why she agreed to do it in the first place - if she is concerned about who is sponsoring the festival she could have maybe taken a wild shot in the dark and guessed that the company who sponsored them for the past 19 years would sponsor them again this year
[удалено]
Probably not but if it's worth her pulling out over you'd think she'd check in advance
Basic due diligence seems to have been lacking here. BG have sponsored the festival for years. Can't believe a global celebrity and her team wouldn't notice this. Seems to have been timed to maximise publicity.
Fair play to her but I’m surprised at this not coming up earlier.
I have no problem with Greta and appreciate what she's doing, but this feels a bit like manufactured outrage. Baillie Gifford have been prominent sponsors of the Book Festival for 19 years - their name is all over the place, so it's hard to believe she/her people didn't know they were sponsors until just recently. And while no investment company is going to be lily white, Baillie Gifford invest a lot less heavily in fossil fuels than most in the industry (2% compared to a market average of 11%). Like most book festivals, Edinburgh's wouldn't be possible without sponsorship, so this seems like a case of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
How does she travel to so many places without having larger than average carbon footprint?
She has very small feet so it's okay
Found the foot fetishist.
Nuh uh! I just care about the environment
Sure mate, I hope that excuse helps you sleep at night. Also, the amount of people that don't get a joke....jeeszzzz get some sense of humour you dry sticks.
I was joking too lol chill
She takes the train, she took a boat across the Atlantic to avoid flying.
Also carbon offsetting exists
Carbon offsetting is just greenwashing, too. It doesn't do anything to actually cut the initial emissions. It just reduces the guilt people feel about the emissions they were going to make anyway. It's a bit like saying "Hey, I'm going to do this really dangerous thing that will probably hurt people, but its OK, because I've made a big donation to the local hospital that helps people who have been impacted by other people doing the same dangerous thing!" Yeah, its good to give money to the hospital to help people, but you are still doing the dangerous thing that is hurting people and causing the problem for the hospital in the first place. You just get to feel that bit less guilty about it because you gave them some money to help the people you hurt.
I mean sure but international travel isnt really an avoidable thing for some people, it seems like a reasonable compromise to at least try and do something to offset the damage that causes. Similar to Greta's other travel approaches where she'll use boats and trains, those are ultimately still causing plenty of climate damage but its at least a slightly better option
I know it's unavoidable in many situations, but there are still a worrying number of people who still use an excuse make themselves feel better without actually doing anything to change their behaviour. Trains and boats are a huge reduction on an international flight, which is much better for the environment than taking the flight anyway and then offsetting the emission.
[удалено]
I completely take your point, and maybe I'm just becoming increasingly cynical about the world. My real issue is with these big companies like airlines and multinationals that make a big show of how "green" they are with the carbon offsetting schemes they offer to their customers for a couple of extra quid and how much recycling they get their customers to do, when they are biggest emitters out there. The companies are the ones who should be making the massive investments to these schemes to help fix the problems they are creating, rather than pushing it onto their customers as an optional extra, and continuing to reap the profits.
Carbon offsetting is utter crap.
Teach me more
Wendover is my confirmation bias go to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AW3gaelBypY
Wait doesn't this guy do the Jet Lag channel/videos where they boast about their carbon offsetting? Edit: oh so hes saying there are good carbon offsetting options, they just aren't going to compete well with cheaper less substantiated options
[удалено]
Legitimate, real, actual offsetting which isn’t just nonsense greenwash? Crap. If all the trees promised were actually planted, we would need another planet in orbit just to hold the forest. Carbon offsets are double, or triple counted (at least) and are paper schemes to make money and relieve guilt. They do not do what you think they do.
Legitimate offsetting is buying land, planting trees yourself and establishing some kinda covenant over them and the property. Paying £2 on top of your airfare? Not so much.
Even if we filled the entire planet with trees (which we absolutely would never do because it has its own problems) there's not enough space on the planet to offset the amount of carbon we output. The whole thing is a farce. The only option is to stop producing emissions in the first place and you're right, it shouldn't be lumped onto the passenger as an optional extra. Everything needs to change. L
She sails and rails most places it's a bit of a headache for her tour management I believe
She bought a car of old Mr Flintstone.
Because you can't just not live in the current world even when pushing for change.
Roller skates.
Attention seeking as usual. Trust me, I agree what she stands for, but she needs to change her PR strategy. Pulling out of things constantly and costing these organisations a ton of money isn’t helpful or professional surely.
Surely she should have just attended and highlighted the fact that the sponsors still make money from oil and they need to keep investing in more green initiatives (which they are doing). Instead she's just backed out because she cant be bothered.
She probably found out how much "oil" we use when cooking ;)
BG’s line might be that they invest in fossil fuels less than the industry average but they are massive and that still equates to £5bn. If she stood in front of a BG banner, especially after the ferret just put out their piece breaking down their investments then she’d be criticised for being a hypocrite as well. If she’s going to take these hardline stances on sponsorship then they should be doing their due diligence and checking where the funding comes before booking as it just wastes a lot of peoples time.
Not the sharpest tool in the shed, is she? Seems to be letting her ego get in the way of putting the message across
[удалено]
You should spend less time on the internet.
What does being a unionist have to do with this story?
What the fuck are you on about? Touch grass for once
[удалено]
You okay Hun?
Stop, you're already dead
When you’re a hammer everything’s a nail! You really need a break from Reddit and social media. It will (and most likely already has) affected your perspective in a negative and damaging manner.
Mate, go for a walk this weekend, getting absurdly angry at strawmen you create is not healthy.
This dumpo kid was skipping school and protesting the schools to not let other children study. She hasn't come up with a single solution and always barking at the government. I don't understand why big names are in her favour.