[Jim Moonan]

x
I am aware of her reputation in some quarters as being "manipulated".

I don't worship the ground she walks on or view her as a savior of the environment. She is just one more cog in the wheel.

I don’t mean to distract this conversation away from the climate events unfolding in Australia. We have thoughtlessly, cruelly, greedily engaged in waging war against the environment for too long and the environment is responding to those attacks by going to war against us, the aggressors. Nature is a living organism that is collectively infinitely more robust than any single living thing and will kill us if it has to to survive.

Jan, Andrew, you both sound convoluted in your thinking about her. Yet both of you are among the most articulate thinkers and writers I know. So why can't I decipher what you are saying? Do you appreciate the contributions of Greta Thonberg or not? She is without doubt being “handled” by others. And I do see your point about using the word “panic” as a descriptor / motivator. “Panic” as a word and an action is problematic. But she used the term in a broader context than the narrow definition inion of the word. I’ve personally “panicked” more than a few times about issues close to me. It (the “panic”) always seems to represent a kind of awakening to reality. It has always led to more reasoned, more rational, more constructive action. It spurs and awakes me to resolution.

I don’t fawn over her or consider her a “leader” or an “expert” in climate / environmental issues. I see her as more of an educational tool for the young. She is an emblematic figure that signals a further awakening of societies to what is happening. But there are other equally / more important fronts where positive change is beginning to take root: increased innovation in green technologies / energy to create green economies, political "green" platforms that have gained traction here in the US (albeit tenuous), etc. etc. Greta Thonberg represents a rather superficial aspect of global environmental awareness that is useful because it is easily digestible to the general public across all cultures. That can only help.
Is she the “brains” behind the solutions to the world’s environmental crises? No.
Is she the child screaming in the room of adult idiots until she is heard? Yes.
Does what she say make sense? Yes.
Does what she represents provide other children with ways to constructively engage? Yes.

She is the child who, annoyingly, won’t go away. She is, in some ways, an apparition of the future. She is herself a victim of nature’s randomness and indifference to its own creation. She suffers from aspergers/ASD which ironically uniquely equips her with the ability to focus relentlessly on a single subject/topic. What better role model can you point to for children to emulate? It we are lucky and if she survives these formative years between childhood and adulthood she may very well turn into a bonafide catalyst in her own right for positive environmental change. Like Malala Yousafzai. She has matured into a real force for change and hope for women around the world suffering from oppression and abuse in so many ways.
Will she and what she stands for make a positive difference going forward? Let's not throw cold water on her. Let's praise her efforts and guard her from being negatively manipulated.
x
x