Yesterday we posted on our Instagram account what we thought was a simple recognition of a young woman who we admire for her courage and determination in bringing light to a subject that apparently she feels is important. Really, more about a young person inspiring her generation than any specific position on climate change. We have people in our own office that don’t agree but we encourage open, civil debate on all controversial subjects, and that hopefully we can do that with respect to each other’s opinions.

However, in light of the comments in our feed, we thought we would address a few things.

First and foremost, it is completely unknown to us how or why this young lady can create so much fear and hate. Even if you completely disagree with her position on anything, including climate change, to feel the need to stoop so low so as to personally disparage her is such a poor reflection on our society today. Hey, disagree with her if you want and use all the facts available if you feel strongly about making a point, but trotting out the same sad bullshit about her or her family really only reflects on the user of such desperate nonsense. 

Second, climate change may indeed be a naturally occurring event with zero impact or cause from human sources. God knows we have no idea, we just run a little media company. That said, it would seem like a good idea, regardless, to do all kinds of things to lessen the human impact on the environment like reducing single-use plastics, overfishing our oceans, and yes, burning less fossil fuel. Unless you are actually pumping crude or digging up coal for a paycheck, why wouldn’t we all agree on at least some part of individually trying to be better stewards of our planet?

That would seem like a no-brainer.

But to be fair, let’s flip the argument. Yes, the global petrochemical industries are huge and many jobs are at stake. Yes, it’s possible that sustainable energy systems may not supply enough power so we will need to continue to burn some fossil fuels. It’s quite possible, even probable, that wealthy people are supplying funding to BOTH sides of the climate change argument. And yes, Ms. Thunberg uses transportation methods of which could be deemed hypocritical to her causes. Even if we assume all of those things are true, and more, does that mean we should just throw our rubbish about, stop creating low-emission cars and trucks, allow industrial chemicals into our drinking water, and any number of other horrible habits we as humans commit every day? Of course not.

But it doesn’t have to be “all or nothing”.

Most of what is suggested to curb the man-made effects of climate change are longer-term solutions or goals which are partially designed to lessen the economic impacts. And that it’s probably not a crazy concept that the larger industrial countries have a responsibility to lead the world. However, all the tin hat, conspiratorial BS is way over our heads. Maybe it’s a nieve observation on our part but don’t you have to ask yourself who even benefits from so much of this nonsense? Who could possibly have more to gain than the protectors of the status quo? If you’re on either side of things, that’s cool. Just own it and argue why you think so. No need to create fear and hate of those you disagree with. Much of the back and forth in the comments was a rather sad commentary on where we are today.

Simply, we think people like Greta Thunberg are rad because they challenge the status quo, regardless of what or why, and she has inspired a generation on a subject that she feels strongly about. 

Does that scare you?