But, I've had an interest in geopolitics for about 2 years now. So, I've been reading and watching what's been going on at the UN a bit. Especially this week since it's general assembly week. At the end, this is nothing special.
If you've listened to one "we need to save the planet due to climate" speech, you have heard them all. After listening to about five hours worth of different people, including thunberg, no one really stood out. Yesterday, she was not the only one talking about climate change at the UN. Macron, Merkel, hell even Harrison Ford was there. But he at least hit the problem on the nose, "Sting held a concert here about climate change 30 years ago. And we're still talking about it today." Plus, he needs to number his note cards. He shuffled them and lost his place too many times.
It's not like I'm against making fossil fuels a footnote in history. That'll be a good thing on so many levels. But all these "climate talks" are just talk.
We're all fired up the past few weeks due to the Amazon burning. Which is terrible. But all these talks act like the end game to those fires is to twirl a mustache. It's to clear land so Brazil becomes more of a world player. Which! Mind you! Was a huge part of yesterday's talks. Peru, for example, had some of their indigenous groups in talking about inclusion into the world market.
You have two "positive" ideals that are currently in conflict and no one is figuring out how to rectify that. How do developing countries still compete in the highly competitive world market without using cheaper fossil fuel options? How do they do it if they can't use their sovereign land due to international rhetoric? I'm not saying this as being apologetic for coal or Amazon burning. I'm just saying these "save the trees" talks are a waste of time. Figuring out how to redirect the causes into cleaner alternatives or more environmentally friendly methods is the real goal. Not crying about "my future". Which, to be honest, was the most cringe first world cry fit ever. For someone who got on the UN stage, she should probably take a gander at some UN programs where they try helping children with barely an immediate future before she cries about her distant future. That's why when people say she's "brave"... eh... the UN has a ton of youth programs that introduce teens to the UN functions. Not like she's the only kid giving a talk they've ever dealt with... this week alone.
I'm just sick of the rhetoric and people thinking that the virtue signalling is enough to save the planet. What about all the CO2 generated due to travel and resource use to mobilize all these folks from across the world due to the talks?
Like, here's a quick example, as I have the UN live stream playing. Palm Oil, I think most of you know, is shitty for the environment in different parts of the supply chain. The EU wants to ban palm oil. Knee jerk morally righteous action. Malaysia exports a lot of it. Small to mid size country wanting to be relevant in a world economy. They cut down lots of forests to grow and process palm oil. Well, let's say the same farmers now switch over to a different cash crop. There's no cash crop they can grow to make the same amount of money in the same amount of farm land. Soybeans, for example, requires about 4-5 times more land compared to palm oil to make the same amount of revenue. Thus, more forest cutting for farm land to sustain the people.
Ban palm oil to save the forests... but leads to more forests being cut because smaller countries want to have an export to be apart of the world market. This is why I hate politicians and "talks". I'm worried that some short sighted policy is going to spring up due to this girl. And that short sighted policy is going to make our climate issues worse.