Teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg nominated for Nobel Peace Prize
COPENHAEN, Denmark — Two lawmakers in Sweden have nominated Swedish teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg for the 2020 Nobel Peace Prize.
Jens Holm and Hakan Svenneling, who are both members of Sweden’s Left Party, said Monday that Thunberg “has worked hard to make politicians open their eyes to the climate crisis” and “action for reducing our emissions and complying with the Paris Agreement is therefore also an act of making peace.”
This is a mockery of the Nobel Peace Prize. What has she done to further the cause of peace? Reducing emissions is peace? I guess Orwell was right when he predicted the future in 1984; now fighting climate change is peace!
Can the left-wing insanity and takeover of our cultural institutions be stopped?
Spoiler:
Welcome!
You have made it to the actual post.
I don’t care that two Swedish lawmakers have nominated Thunberg. Thousands of politicians and university professors are solicited for nominations each year and the fact that Thunberg, a high-profile individual, appeared in them shouldn’t surprise or bother anybody.
But that does not stop the media, even wire services, from burying the relevant information about the nomination process further down in the article when people have already made up their minds after reading the headline.
My real question is: do headlines and stories like this try to ruin our ability to have informed opinions? Is there any way to stop it?
Yes. We need new media regulations. Unfortunately, the first amendment puts severe restrictions on legitimate efforts to curtail this and worse offenses of journalistic malpractice.
Yes. We need new media regulations. Unfortunately, the first amendment puts severe restrictions on legitimate efforts to curtail this and worse offenses of journalistic malpractice.
Literally anyone can be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize and it would be more surprising if a prominent activist on an extremely serious issue hadn't been nominated by someone.
I'm going to address the part of the OP that was not in spoiler code.
If your location information is accurate, you can sit back and look down your nose at the people from countries where parts of it are literally sinking into the ocean. We've got that problem in Canada, as areas of the Arctic permafrost are melting and people's homes are literally sinking into the ocean (but they're only Inuit, so who cares, right? ).
Canada gets tens of thousands of refugees/asylum seekers every year, mostly for political reasons (thanks, Trump, for making Muslim and Central American people too afraid to stay in the U.S.). We're starting to think about and discuss WTH we're going to do when tens of thousands of climate refugees show up because of floods and drought that are not merely temporary things that go away after a few months. Canada is a huge country, but most of it isn't very productive in terms of arable farmland, and quite a bit of what we do have is being lost to fracking and other sources of contamination. So what are we going to do with these extra people?
Get enough displaced people from anywhere, irrespective of religion or ethnicity, and you get the potential for conflict. The common denominator in this instance would be climate change-related issues.
So yes, stopping/mitigating the effects of climate change very definitely has to do with peace.
But in a very indirect way. Seems strange to say that her actions prevented a counterfactual future in which certain bad events had a side-effect of ethnic tension and conflict, hence she deserves to be recognized for creating peace.
That being said, I hope they give it to her. The Nobel Peace Prize has always been a mockery and this will make that even more evident.
The Nobel Peace Prize has been a garbage popularity contest for a long time, its fine, its just not the Nobel Prize in Physics or Medicine or anything.
I have to say this kind of story is right in my wheelhouse to troll family members with, they will ***** and ***** and ***** about it, meanwhile they have hated the Nobel Peace Prize their whole adult lives so why it matters to them so much is beyond me.
Stopping sensationalism in journalism is akin to stopping an elephant from eating. It will die if you take its calories away, stares across to British tabloid media. The trick is to raise children who understand the difference between garbage and good journalism.
Well, we made it six posts before someone tried to shoehorn in their own opinion on climate change, that's good right?
Anyhow, I have no idea how deserving she is compared to the other candidates, so I have no comment there. I'd imagine as good as I personally consider her cause to be there will be people working on things for longer that deserve similar recognition. On the angle of the media, I'm with hobbsyoyo, and despite the media being an international phenomenon, a lot of these things unfortunately come down to US law as that's where a lot of the companies themselves reside. There's also seemingly very little pressure from the current UK government to curb the dramatic and outright harmful aspects of our news cycle, so I don't have much hope there either.
Get enough displaced people from anywhere, irrespective of religion or ethnicity, and you get the potential for conflict. The common denominator in this instance would be climate change-related issues.
So yes, stopping/mitigating the effects of climate change very definitely has to do with peace.
This insightful comment changed my opinion. Initially I took the view that peace means peace. Valka points out that, without ecological stability, there can be no peace.
I don't like her much, but how is this nomination a mockery? Let me remind you the nobel for peace has been won in the past by (not yet acting president...) Obama, and the Eu. Greta, if she actually wins, won't be as ridiculous as those two.
There is a direct line from climate change/global warming to increased conflict and war. Warmer temperatures cause it, resource shortages cause it, mass migration will cause it. This is the opposite of a stretch to say it's a massive peace inducing movement to promote rapid, revolutionary responses to global warming.
There is a direct line from climate change/global warming to increased conflict and war. Warmer temperatures cause it, resource shortages cause it, mass migration will cause it. This is the opposite of a stretch to say it's a massive peace inducing movement to promote rapid, revolutionary responses to global warming.
While I think its a bit of a stretch, many in the past were also, so what the heck. Go Girl.
Especially if it irritates those that are in climate denial.
I'm not entirely sure that i would. The example in the OP is something I don't think needs to be regulated. I was speaking more in general terms about the massive editorializing of all news sources (especially those based on cable), the consolidation of news networks into mega-corporations and the massive amount of blatant disinformation being put out there.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
).
Initially I took the view that peace means peace. Valka points out that, without ecological stability, there can be no peace. 
