Teen climate activist Greta Thunberg has in many ways stolen the show with her angry words and scathing speech at the UN this week.
“I shouldn’t be up here. I should be back at school on the other side of the ocean,” the 16-year-old from Sweden told the United Nations Climate Action Summit. “Yet you all come to us young people for hope. How dare you! You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words.”
Ms. Thunberg may be the most outspoken of these new generation of activists, but she is hardly alone. The youth of the world are worried and they have every right to be.
A 2018 Gallup analysis found that there was a generation gap on global warming awareness, although it is not nearly as large as it seems at times. Seventy percent of adults aged 18 to 34 say they worry about global warming, compared to 56 percent of those aged 55 or older. Sixty-two percent of those of us in the 34 to 54 range believe the same thing.
There is a gap there and the concern increases as you get to younger generations, but it is not as overwhelming as you might think.
This summer, The Nation magazine had a feature on the efforts of the younger generation to force politicians to grapple with this issue.
“While I am not a lawyer nor a climate scientist, and I only recently came of voting age,” Aji Piper said with quiet poise as he leaned in to the microphone to address the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis last April, “I know from studying climate science and living with the consequences of climate change today that my health, my community, and my future—and that of my generation—is at stake.”
Four years ago, The Nation reports, Ms. Piper “joined a group of plaintiffs in a still ongoing lawsuit, Juliana v. United States, that argues that the federal government has violated his generation’s constitutional rights by failing to do anything meaningful to reduce the threat of climate change. At the time the lawsuit was filed, Piper and most of his peers weren’t yet old enough 
to cast ballots. The only way they could directly influence national politics was via the courts.”
When the Climate Strike movement emerged, a number of commenters on the Vanguard and elsewhere suggested that the youth were put up by their parents, but the evidence suggests that it might be the opposite – the students care more about this issue than their parents.
I have read the disparaging comments about the youths locally, as well as about Ms. Thunberg, and it makes me cringe because this is a way to negate their views. The reality is, this generation is scared about their future. They are scared about the future of the world.
And frankly, as the parent of still young children aged eight and nine, I really worry about their future.
The climate emergency resolution supported by Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, among others, says: “The global warming caused by human activities, which increase emissions of greenhouse gases, has resulted in a climate emergency” that “severely and urgently impacts the economic and social well-being, health and safety, and national security of the United States.”
It then goes on to say that Congress “demands a national, social, industrial, and economic mobilization of the resources and labor of the United States at a massive-scale.”
The Trump administration continues to downplay what their own studies have found is a growing crisis.
Americans have been slow to respond, though a recent poll found that two-thirds of Americans believe that climate change is either a crisis or a serious problem, with a majority wanting immediate action.
More than a quarter of Americans questioned in the new CBS News poll consider climate change a “crisis,” with a further 36 percent defining it as a “serious problem.” Two in 10 respondents said it was a minor problem, with just 16 percent considering it not worrisome at all.
I worry a lot about the future my children will have.
Every day it is a new report and it’s exceedingly bad news. This week it’s fish.
“Since the 1970s, the climate crisis has made our oceans warmer and more acidic, reducing the number of fish we rely on for our food and putting the future of fish in peril,” according to a major UN report out Wednesday.
I am glad to see the younger generation take the lead on this. It is not that my generation hasn’t done anything – it’s simply that we have not done enough.
On Tuesday six students came out pushing for action.
“So we, the youth of Davis, California, our parents, and our earth, demand that the adults running our community, our state, and our country step up and face the greatest challenge of our time – climate destruction,” read 16-year-old Amber Crenna-Armstrong Tuesday night.
She added, “Our youth cannot understand why the adults and our leaders are not stepping in and making changes.”
After reading the comments on the Vanguard over the weekend and then hearing these young people Tuesday night, I was transformed to a song from years past.
From David Bowie’s “Changes”: “And these children that you spit on – As they try to change their worlds – Are immune to your consultations – They’re quite aware of what they’re goin’ through.”
Those who are around my age might be aware that John Hughes used that line in the opening of the iconic Gen X movie, “The Breakfast Club.” Back in those days, though, it seems we were far more concerned with the mundane rather than the catastrophic.
Nevertheless, the sanctimonious lecturing I have seen directed toward the Davis youth and Greta Thunberg who originated the strike earlier this year not only disgusts me, but misses the urgency of the children’s pleas. They don’t need adults to lecture them that their actions are futile. This is the start. I’m sure the student protestors in 1967 France did not believe they would bring the government down, and it’s doubtful that Rosa Parks believed that her simple protest in Montgomery would lead to the end of Jim Crow.
For our children, this crisis is every bit as real as the Civil Rights movement and Vietnam in the 1960s – maybe even more so.
Contrary to what some have argued, the climate crisis keeps our kids up at night and makes them worry about their future.
We should be encouraging their activism and foresight as they desperately attempt to make up for our own lack of vision.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
In the late 50’s early 60’s, youth was taught to be afraid or nuclear war… with some justification… as a youth, we had frequent ‘drills’ where at school, we were told to get away from the windows, crouch under the desks, clench our hands behind out necks (a very ‘submissive’ posture, if you think about it)… in the late 40’s, to late 50’s, it was the fear of Communism (better dead than ‘Red’)… in the 70’s it was ‘ozone depletion’, air /water quality, loss of condors due to pesticides… all “crises”…
Now, “GHG and global climate change”… work needs to be done… but to frame it as a “crisis”? Draconian measures to address the ‘crisis du jour’?
Condors fly in California, after being brought back from “the brink”… no one talks about the ozone layer… chlordane is not used… air is much cleaner than in the 70’s… rivers are not burning… change, yes, but ‘crisis’?
Also please note graphic, showing a professionally created ‘Green New Deal’ logo on T-shirt (trademark, some political factions, which includes economic issues) being worn by a student, completely of their own thoughts/convictions… really?
Good eye!
Thx… I try (actually, certain things ‘jump out’ to me)… or as spouse says, sometimes,”I’m trying”… not sure how to parse that… I try not to…
Didn’t mention the MARLEN sash… unclear what the referent is… the one that came up on the “net” was a bit spooky…
I think Marlen is her name, as I believe the other young woman with an “AM . . .” sash has spoke at council meetings and is named Amber. Nothing more nefarious than a hippie name.
Looking more closely, there are two such T-shirts in the picture, at least one banner with a ‘Green New Deal’ logo, an “Abolish Borders” sign, and a “Science – Defend the Earth” sign. No chance this isn’t a youthful mini-version of a typical Berkeley all-issue, left-wing, rent-a-mob protest. I’d really like to hear from the kids who DIDN’T participate, especially now that we hear that a party of six youth are now speaking for “youth” and “our Earth”.
Actually, the sash’s with their names is a positive sign, and quite the antithesis of how Antifa does business — not only anonymously, but with black facial cover.
When a debate is framed by extremists on both sides, the public tends to tune out. This is an issue best addressed by technocrats, advised by scientists.
I don’t see the public likely to be mobilized by scientists and technocrats. Also would argue that the more extreme people turned out to be correct.
Obama’s Climate Action Plan, and the Clean Power Plan put forth by the EPA, are good examples of climate policies that were based on scientific evidence and crafted by technocrats. Gina McCarthy argued tirelessly for the Clean Power Plan and the Obama administration was supportive of the Paris agreement.
The issue is that both policies were overturned by the Trump administration, and Trump withdrew us from the Paris accords. The simplest way to get us back on track is to vote this administration out of office.
I see no particular reason to believe this, but I don’t know who you prefer to read on the issues of climate change.
The problem is in your second paragraph – Trump overturned the progress and part of the reason he was able to do so, is the public was not mobilized. Look at the reaction to the immigration issue versus the climate issue and you see the point, I think David is making.
The reason he was able to do so is that they were executive orders. If you want them to be less vulnerable, Congress needs to act. The Obama administration recognized that Congress would not pass climate change legislation. There is a major political party in the United States (and Australia, and Canada, and other countries have similar situations) that does not support climate change legislation. In order for it to pass, we will need a Democratic party majority in the House and the Senate and a President who would sign the legislation.
Proposals like the Green New Deal make those majorities less likely, not more likely, because of the risk they pose to representatives from swing districts. Incrementalism is the way to go in effecting climate change policies. Alarmism is probably counterproductive.
There is a useful lesson in Australian elections over the last few years. The most recent election was billed as the “climate change election.” Given the choice, in the face of dire warnings about the impact of changing climate in Australia, the voters chose the conservatives. Likewise when their government imposed a carbon tax in 2012.
Polling data here: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/28/u-s-concern-about-climate-change-is-rising-but-mainly-among-democrats/
The other interesting divide is between young and old Republicans…
“According to a YouGov/Huffpost poll, about half of Republicans are either “somewhat” or “very” concerned about climate change. Younger members of the GOP were much more likely to be worried — 69 percent of Republicans under the age of 45 reported concern over the climate, but only 38 percent of those over 45 did.”
Proposals like the Green New Deal make those majorities less likely, not more likely, because of the risk they pose to representatives from swing districts. Incrementalism is the way to go in effecting climate change policies. Alarmism is probably counterproductive.
Alarmist rhetoric, much, Greta?
Why not? Weren’t they the ones who raised toxics in water/air, ozone depletion, climate change, etc.? Was/were not the public mobilized? Earth Day? etc., etc., etc.?
And no, the most extreme people were incorrect… at both ends of the ‘bell curve’… the two extremes have been definitely been proven “el wrongo”… how can you even say that…
That means (arguably) that the deniers and the alarmists are both correct. Think! Put brain in gear before proceeding… otherwise, gears may grind…
Like the gears in my transmission. No literally. It’s at AAMCO.
“What, me worry?” — Alfred E. Neuman
It should probably be noted that younger generations are primarily learning about this issue from scientists in older generations.
From baby boomers, most likely. The same generation that elevated environmental and social awareness issues, and launched the digital age.
Boomers rule! (Tongue-in-cheek.) 😉 Yay Al Gore!
Not sure the point but guessing most of the climate scientists are not boomers at the point
Your article (including the title) implies that only young people are concerned about the issue. Given the timeframe that the issue started arising, I’m quite certain that baby boomer scientists were heavily involved.
My article cites polling that contradicts your comment
Of course, each generation builds upon the knowledge of previous generations. (While perhaps losing some skills, as well. Anyone know how to make a basket similar to what Native Americans were able to create?)
It also seems that younger generations are consistently the activists of change, but that they (themselves) change as they get older (and realize that they can’t totally change the world). And then, another new generation comes along and wonders why the older generation isn’t doing enough about concerns that actually originated in the previous generation.
Wash, rinse, repeat.
(Yes – the polling you cite doesn’t quite match the title. But, perhaps not in the same “league” as another recent title/subject matter mismatch.) 😉
The other thing that each generation does is leave their dirty laundry for the next one to clean up.
True, although there has been progress made on some fronts.
It will be interesting to see if younger generations (worldwide) actually change the path we’re on. Of course, such efforts ultimately won’t matter if population keeps increasing. There simply won’t be enough natural environment (and its systems) left in place, to keep the planet livable.
Witness the recent fires in South America, caused by clearing the land for farming. Global climate change is (also) apparently causing a lot of the recent immigration flow into the U.S. from South America, as farming becomes less viable in some areas.
Ultimately, I suspect that the earth will “solve” the problems for us, as I don’t think there will ever be enough worldwide cooperation to voluntarily address the concern. (But, not in a manner that we like.)
“Ultimately, I suspect that the earth will “solve” the problems for us. But, not in a manner that we like.”
I think I found something I agree with Ron on.
Yeah – you’ve acknowledged this before, as well.
I suspect that humans will survive, though. It would take quite a bit to cause that complete extinction.
Seems to me that perhaps even Trump realizes that global warming is occurring, as demonstrated by his interest in Greenland.
You’ve got to wonder if everything will just shift further north. Hey, maybe Canada will build a wall to keep us out. (We can just say that we’re “on our way” to Alaska, as an excuse.)
I think I found something I agree with both of you on.
Does it? Please present this evidence.
Rather, by using children, some believe one cannot speak opposing their views lest one comes off as an arsehole, when the views are the views no matter who speaks them. Children are sometimes tried as adults. When someone goes before a body and speaks before the U.N. and city council, their views are out there and just as valid as an an adults — and no more protected from criticism. One should not of course verbally attack local children on an individual and personal level, in the way that Vanguard commenters attack other Vanguard commenters, before their comments are removed by the Moderator.
The reality is — some of them are. And I’ll bet the more left-leaning their parents are, the more scared they are.
such as . . . ?
Six students speak for the youth of Davis, all youth’s parents and our Earth . . . ??? That’s some pretty big britches that one may be too big for.
My goal has not been to state myself as morally superior to the activist children, my goal has been to disgust you. Mission accomplished.
Please cite your evidence for the above claim. Please include in your evidence how well are the children of non-climate-activist parents are sleeping, relative to the children of climate-activist parents.
We all stopped beating our spouses last Thursday, thank you . . .
And for the children of Davis and Greta Thunberg, remember these words:
look out, you rock ‘n’ rollersTurn and face the strangePretty soon now you’re gonna get older
— David Bowie
Alan: Too late for apologies or justifications, you initially criticized a child! Shame on you! 😉
I really should be ashamed of myself 😐
I’m sure many will be ashamed for me on my behalf. And I’m pretty sure I can name them.
look out, you rock ‘n’ rollers
Turn and face the strange
Pretty soon now you’re gonna get older
— David Bowie
Better parsing than first attempt..
Another Comment Editing Timer failure.
Someone needs to figure out a way to document how and when it happens because the tech people have not been able to recreate it
Yeah, that’s (4:31 post) real, big time… sometimes fine, other times, far from… seems like a random number generator…
You, I, and others continue to experience it…
Have your tech people considered the political leanings of the commenters experiencing this?
By the way, anyone who believes that the recent rainforest fires in the Amazon were “caused” by global warming are simply wrong. However, the fires were a “contributor” to global warming. The actual cause is simply another example of the reach of an ever-expanding, industrialized world reaching into wild areas (beyond its actual urban footprint), driven by population growth and modern lifestyles.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/22/americas/amazon-fires-humans-intl-hnk-trnd/index.html
The actual cause is the complete collapse of enforcement of environmental and fire-prohibition laws by the current and previous administrations in Brazil, especially the Bolsonaro administration. The impact of denialists achieving political power is significant. Farmers burn things there so they can make a living. It’s up to the government to prevent what’s happening, and the rhetoric and policies of their leaders — like ours — are counterproductive to the goal of curbing greenhouse emissions.
A nuance… the actual cause is the farmers… the former and current governments in Brazil are collaborators, not the cause… unless you can document that the government(s) ordered, compelled, the farmers to ignite the fires…
Government leaders are not the cause of bigoted racial violence, either… but some are collaborators…
Every individual, 96.378% of the time, is personally responsible for their behavior… IMNSHO
That is SO Twentieth Century!
Sorry, Alan, I was conceived and born in the middle of that century… to parents who were conceived and born at the near beginning of that century… so, yes, a dinosaur of the ‘be responsible for what you do’ epoch of that ancient age. Mea culpa…
To provide a “complete” picture, you’d have to know who is purchasing the resulting products, and why they’re doing so. If one were to examine that, you’d see that it completely supports my statement.
If there wasn’t an increasing market demand for the product, the farmers, ranchers, and miners wouldn’t be cutting down and burning the rainforest in the first place.
And, if that supply is cut-off via tighter regulations, then the question would turn to what the “substitute” would be, to meet that increasing, global market demand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_Brazil#Soybean_production
And for that matter, what would happen to those economies and workers who are (now) dependent upon those industries. (Maybe another mass migration to the U.S.?)
It really is a sign of an unsustainable system, one way or another. Starting with increased global demand as a result of increasing population combined with more modern lifestyles.
“The birth rate in Brazil has dropped a great deal since the 1970s, when women had an average of over 4 children. Today, the birth rate is 1.77 births per woman, which is lower than the U.S. rate. It’s estimated this rate will fall to 1.5 by 2034 and remain at that level through 2060. For now, Brazil has an estimated 2019 population of 211.05 million, up from less than 200 million just six years prior.”
http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/brazil-population/
What makes you think the resulting products are being primarily consumed in Brazil?
I started looking at the link you (initially) posted, which suggests something entirely different (as I already knew).
Truth be told, the Vanguard could examine issues like this at length, if it chose to do so. But, it’s ultimately global in nature.
In any case, I’m kind of surprised that some people apparently believed that the rainforests were burning due to global warming, when that’s clearly not the case. It’s not any less significant, though.
I don’t. Not sure why you think I think that. The soy increase is for the global market.
Exactly, so I’m not sure why you were quoting population statistics regarding Brazil, in your response to me.
Regarding the wikipedia link that Don posted above, the following might be the most significant cause of all:
I wasn’t previously aware of this disastrous policy.
Honestly, what result would any sane person expect from this?