An international court in France on Tuesday ruled Switzerland’s failure to adequately tackle the climate crisis was in violation of human rights, in a landmark climate judgment that could have a ripple effect across the globe.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg, France delivered its ruling in a case brought by more than 2,000 Swiss women, the majority of whom are in their 70s, against Switzerland’s government. They argued that climate change-fueled heat waves undermined their health and quality of life, and put them at risk of dying.
The court ruled that the Swiss government had violated some of the women’s human rights due to “critical gaps” in its national legislation to reduce planet-heating emissions, as well as a failure to meet past climate targets.
In the span of any given week, Greta will do more to fight for meaningful action on the climate crisis, than you will accomplish over the span of your lifetime.
Maybe sit this one out.
This given week, Greta is in out-processing (assuming she’s being released immediately). So all have to do is take out the recycling.
I’m not going to repeat your mistake of assuming someone I know nothing about doesn’t contribute to the fight against climate change. Apart from the change I make as an individual, my efforts are centered in education. Similar to the fight against climate change, the fight against ignorance is a fight that me and my kind are apparently losing. And comments like yours don’t offer any reassurance.
But I’m not going to give up just because it feels hopeless. I owe it to my children to fight for a world that isn’t run by idiots and will still hopefully be habitable when they reach my age. That’s not going to happen by standing outside a schoolhouse with a bullhorn or tying myself to a school bus. At some point you have to stop demonstrating and actually put in the hours, like the heroes in this article.
Sit what out, exactly? Climate reform? Calling out the things that distract from the real issues? Supporting the things that actually do make a difference? I will sit none of that out. I’d rather be hated by stans who feel compelled to defend the honor of someone who will never know they even exist than shy away from issues that are making an already insurmountable problem that much harder.
The smear campaign against Greta Thunberg.
If you understood optics, you’d understand how you yourself, and your specific angle of attack here is a net detriment to addressing the climate crisis.
Absolutely none of this is useful to anyone.
Your “contribution” to the discussion here would be looked on fondly by the fossil fuel industry.
So far you have baselessly concluded that I personally do nothing to combat climate change, that I am attacking someone for pointing out that getting arrested over and over again is not a meaningful substitute for challenging government inaction on the international stage, and that I am (in)advertently some kind of ally to fossil fuel companies.
The very definition of a smear campaign.
Also, what’s the point of quoting something I wrote if you’re not going to address it?
Then ignore it. Just like I’m ignoring all the personal attacks and actual hate that pointing out how climate change doesn’t need a pop star to be properly addressed is generating.
This was the only reference to Greta Thunberg that I could see attached to the CNN story. It appears as though she enthusiastically endorses the ruling, and is in favor of ongoing use of legal action for fighting the climate crisis.
So far, on the basis of what you’ve said, I have concluded that you are a part of the drag coefficient on progress.
Quite literally, if this is you trying to be helpful, maybe sit this one out.
…and that’s the definition of a non sequitur.
If it was your intention to have civil discussion about the court ruling or Greta’s (lack of) involvement in it, that’s what you would have led with.
But you believe the way you’ve been treating me isn’t?
No.
At least I can disagree and be critical without slandering other people.
Here’s you being smarmy and condescending as fuck. Greta endorsed the action and the ruling, and there is no signaling from the legal team stating that Greta Thunberg interfered or detracted from anything that they were striving for. They’re on the same page, and the same team. Meanwhile, you’re being divisive, and heavily implying that protesting is not an effective means of resistance.
Do you seriously not grasp why you’re getting no traction here?
Removed by mod
You have made zero difference here.