- cross-posted to:
- southasia@lemmygrad.ml
- cross-posted to:
- southasia@lemmygrad.ml
Remembered Malala, the girl who fought for basic human rights for little girls so they could go to school? She still exists, the media just stopped talking about her once they found out she had “extreme” beliefs ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Nah Greta is 100% a performative, pro-imperialism liberal. She supported the HK color revolution attempt among various other things. She might have good intentions but her handlers and the ideology she clothes herself in means she is effectively helping them get away with continuing to destroy the planet. Her actions and activities, affiliations are all sus, just nothing but liberal do-nothing environmentalism via vooooting and a few meaningless, badly organized (no bail funds, protestors fed to police to be heavily prosecuted) public “actions”. She subscribes to and pushes the same toothless, defanged, fed and capital subverted environmentalism that has existed since all real radical groups were systemically infiltrated and subverted to either perform very extreme and unpopular actions to turn the public against them or to engage in meaningless performance art protest that gets a few headlines but does nothing but make those doing it feel a little better.
That makes sense. Especially since one of the articles I came across said she addressed the EU lawmakers and said something along the lines of “nuclear isn’t realistic”. I have plenty of critique on grid energy itself not being realistic, but in the context of replacing plants in a grid for different kinds of plants, nuclear absolutely is a realistic solution.
Nuclear is realistic if you would like to cut all our carbon needs in a short time frame imo.
Basically what I meant. Plant lifetimes, of the best designs are 100 years plus. And if you are amortizing costs, cutting it short 30-50 years (pessimistic, 5-10 years optimistic) later with a better solution is a “bad investment”, but we are in triage mode here, and cost benefit analysis should reflect that.
Put more colloquially, building nuclear plants gets shit to shoe level, and buys us time to fix the whole mess. Even if in the end it will cost an arm and a leg.
Is it expensive to build? I just know there is stuff we are going to need lots of cheap energy for like desalination plants, maybe even futuristic recycling plants.
It is very expensive. Dasalinization plants that don’t use direct energy from the sun, are dumb and bad designs, meant to further grid dependence. You put salt water in the sun and it evaporates the water leaving the salt behind. All you have to do is capture the water vapor. No electricity required.
that sounds preferable to nuclear but you would need more space to do it right? although it would be cheaper/easier to implement. why don’t I see more people doing it? would be fun to buy a kit or something
I’m very curious where your idea that nuclear and desalination are connected came from?
It does require more land if at first you are moving all of the saltwater to land. That too is energy intensive. It makes more sense to desalinate in the ocean then only transport pure water back.
Individuals? I’m not sure I understand the context. There are probably kits, but I’d need to understand more about your circumstances.
Well I had the idea myself and I mostly kept it to myself. Then during the California recall election a twenty something year old guy was running and said he’d do that if he were elected. So I thought maybe it’s not a bad idea.
Well how much water do you think you can get given a meter^2 of sun vaporization over the course of an hour.
Then we can compare to nuclear pushing water through some type of high tech filter mesh or something.
Edit: he had a submissive and breedible shirt
She’s still a kid though. Maybe she’ll learn.
And maybe tomorrow Vaush will wake up, realize he was wrong, start reading Lenin to his listeners and urging them to join a vanguard party and uphold anti-imperialism? But I wouldn’t count on it nor spend a moment of time considering the possibility in my evaluation or public statements about him. He is incentivized against doing that as is she.
She’s over 18 now afaik. I’m pretty sure she’s in university now or something. Not that you’re not a kid in your early 20s buuut she’s not some young child like she was when she started at 15. Anyways I really doubt she’ll learn, she’s insulated and surrounded by people with a certain liberal activist worldview including her parents who are giving her a career and platform by behaving a certain way, they’re excuse the term (though it is correct here to describe this) grooming her to be a liberal relief valve for the climate emergency, one of many.
Statistically very few people in her position escape the ideology so it’s unwise to count on it. And if she did and started talking like Malala about socialism she’d be instantly dumped, silenced and have nothing but her twitter account to use, no organizations, no real power as it would be pulled like a rug out from under her feet by the bourgeoisie, corporations, cops, who control in one way or another most modern environmental movements.
She is an enemy of Marxism, an enemy of saving the planet. Not maliciously or intentionally so but she is an insufferable, ignorant liberal and on the balance rather than buying into the bourgeois hype around her and praying for her redemption like she’s a character on our favorite TV show we should acknowledge that overwhelming probability that she is a liberal in 10 years from now and will not change. For all we know she could be an open fascist in 10 years, it’s pointless to speculate except to say her politics are bad, she’s being used by bad people and there’s no reason to celebrate nor waste time on regarding her.
There is no reason to give her the benefit of the doubt. There’s also no reason to go out of the way to actively attack her (other than pointing out to others what she is) as she’s largely unimportant and the liberal “activism” around climate has died down a bit since covid and with the Ukraine situation and Russia sanctions liberals in Europe are unabashedly turning to coal and shunning climate commitments so it really hardly matters as climate activism is in the worst place it’s been in two decades probably with this Russia/China containment stuff and the EU openly choosing fascism and being an American tool to the detriment of their own citizens and indeed to the detriment of much of their financial interests I just don’t see her mattering one way or the other. The EU has chosen suicide for their master the US, they’ve chosen fascism, environmental catastrophe for upholding their order.
True. I don’t really pay attention to her or care what she thinks. I just noticed a lot of right wingers saying really nasty stuff about her when she was like 13.