Greta Thunberg

[anndelise]

All of that is just perception and appearances. Which is why I called it a stunt. It's about looking good, and it's not about actually being rational. How much energy was used in the manufacture of her boat? It can't be recycled either. . . Silly stuff like that people can still nitpick and they'd technically be right about it, so might as well do something that doesn't actually create additional waste and is already headed the same way. Unless you're running an emotional campaign which is all about getting people on your side. If you want to really avoid waste, arrange not to be there in person, but via video or something. . . but that just wouldn't have the same emotional impact would it?

Edit: Sigh, politics politics, it's all politics.

The boat wasn't made just for this trip, it already existed. However, it may have been specially outfitted for the trip. But again, that serves a purpose of demonstrating that alternative transportation options exist. Outfitting and using a boat to be zero carbon emissions isn't any more of a stunt than putting solar panels on one's home and using the resulting solar power.

As for really avoiding waste and arranging not to be somewhere in person, Greta's previously declined an award because accepting it would have required finalists to fly to the ceremony and meeting. So NOT flying was more important to her than the perception and appearance of receiving an award.

 

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greta_Thunberg

In November 2018, about three months into her school climate strike, Thunberg was nominated for the Children's Climate Prize, which is awarded by the Swedish electricity company Telge Energi. However, Thunberg declined to accept the award because many of the finalists would have to fly to Stockholm for the ceremony and a required meeting with one another.

Sitting at home, making video calls doesn't do much to demonstrate one's passion for a cause. So in that sense, yeah we can call it a stunt. But then we'd pretty much have to call ANY explicit activist action 'a stunt'. Kneeling during the national anthem to bring awareness to black lives being shot? a stunt. Marching from Selma to Montgomery? a stunt. Pride Parade? just stunts. Impassioned pleas during video taped interviews? stunts.

And we know, psychologically speaking, that there is so much more meaning when a person is physically present vs written argument, still-shots, or even video. There is more meaning found in the communications from the physical presence of the communicator. And when we consider something so important, especially something that affects our very life, we're more likely to try to achieve the change in person. For example, if a judge and jury who were discussing matters and making decisions that would affect the lives of your children, would you prefer to make calls and go to the court house yourself to be part of that discussion? Or would you simply settle for a letter...or for having your face on a laptop screen? The more important something is to us, the more likely we'll want to by physically present for it.


And yes, it IS all about politics...because it's all about policies. The UN meeting effects policy decisions. Being present vs writing a letter effects policy decisions. Greta's whole purpose of the trip was to try to influence policies regarding Climate Change perceptions and responses. The March from Selma to Montgomery was to bring attention, awareness, and influence to the policies of its time. Pride Parades do that. Kneeling during the national anthem attempts to do that. As do any impassioned pleas to policy makers.

And we know her "stunt" is working...because her "stunt" brought awareness to her cause, and now people are talking a little more about it. Not just about her, but about Climate Change and what needs to be done.