Slashdot Mirror


Kids From At Least 112 Countries, Including the US, Go on Strike To Protest Climate Change

It started 29 weeks ago when 16-year-old Swede Greta Thunberg began skipping school on Fridays to protest climate change by standing outside of her nation's parliament building. Today, kids from more than 110 countries, including the United States, are following Thunberg's lead and will play hooky from classes for something they think is ultimately more important: preventing the warming of their planet. Live updates, from The Guardian. Further reading: Thousands of scientists are backing the kids striking for climate change.

193 of 339 comments (clear)

  1. Hell, yes! by Joce640k · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Time to stop creating climate policies based on the personal opinions of old people with only a few more years to live.

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:Hell, yes! by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Instead, let's base policy on the personal opinion of kids who only believe what they heard somewhere? Sounds reasonable.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Hell, yes! by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Go watch this: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/... then go ahead and tell us all about how global climate change and the human role in it is just bullshit. Rhetorical on my part of course you Dominionist types are practically begging for the End Of The World anyway, and anything you can do to hurry that along is all to the good so far as you're concerned.

    3. Re: Hell, yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is about climate change, not about pollution.

    4. Re:Hell, yes! by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Informative

      I like to get my science from papers and reports, not emotion-provoking film documentaries. If you actually want to understand climate change, start here (warning: pdf).

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:Hell, yes! by alvinrod · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Let’s see if the kids will give up the conveniences in their lives that are necessitated by what they propose. Skipping out of school is viewed as a perk as far as kids go (I don’t suspect that today’s youth are any different from my generation) so right now I don’t place much value on their actions. It’s similar to the Kony 2012 slacktivism that’s easy to subscribe to because it carries no personal cost. I wonder how many would start walking to school instead of driving, hold on to their four year old phone for another four years because it’s still good, or not go on their family ski trip that they fly cross-country to every year.

    6. Re:Hell, yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Activism is good. The GND, though, has a lot of bad policy items in it.

      The core message is wonderful, proactive reform to tackle the human impacts of human driven climate change.

      There are too many lefties trying to use the GND as a vehicle to push an anti capitalist manifesto - Which is both disingenuous and will doom the whole idea to failure. It contains language an policy ideas based on discredited economic ideas that will not, and will never work.

      Replace the loony shit with market based reforms. Carbon taxes, for one, are a ridiculously simple concept that will properly price energy sources according to their externalized costs. This will accelerate the adoption of cleaner and carbon neutral energies. (And they already have broad support among all political stripes, save lefties who think money is evil and oil companies who will obviously see demand reduced)

      The environmental movement has been a huge boon for our world. It's brought awareness of how we affect all life on our planet, and how we affect each other in our home. Some, though, have taken the ideas that were at the genesis of the moment and blindly adhere to them as if they were religious gospel. Cargo cult environmentalism. We've learned more. The world has changed. Anti-technology luddisim and anti-capitalist ideas will ultimately harm our planet more than anything else.

      Look no further to the environmental nightmare that was the Soviet Union for proof.

    7. Re:Hell, yes! by penandpaper · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What are you afraid of, economic catastrophe?

      Yes. I am afraid of economic catastrophe and you should be too. If you think that is something not to be afraid of speaks volumes. Everything is secondary when the economy is crashing down and people are unemployed. Every high ideal you can think of will be put on hold and forgotten when people are feeling economic pain.

      Cheap energy has helped poor people. Nearly every solution I have seen to climate change will in some way increase the cost of energy which will be mostly felt by the poor. That is not a good solution for the poor. Would you care about what happens in 100 years if you go to bed hungry every night? It reminds me of conservation biology. Using endangered species for food is like burning the Mona Lisa for warmth. It's tragic but anyone would do it if they had to feed a family.

      Please do not disregard economic concerns because you are affluent and extrapolate what you can personally afford with what others can afford. Taxes are not the fix all to every problem and raising taxes can backfire. Every solution must have an economic understanding.

    8. Re:Hell, yes! by phantomfive · · Score: 2, Insightful
      btw, I already replied to you, but this misconception of yours is so wrong that it deserves to be addressed specifically:

      policy that basically every informed expert on the planet agrees must be undertaken

      No, you are wrong. There is no consensus among experts about what we should do to stop climate change. Some want to build nuclear power plants immediately to replace coal, some want to fund clean energy technology research, some want to transfer money to developing nations, some experts think we should do nothing and wait for solar to become cheap enough, some experts want to keep burning coal and invent ways to counter the effects of CO2 (like injecting aerosols directly into the atmosphere), others want to let the free-market solve the problem by creating carbon exchanges (these experts tend to be bankers).

      We know that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will have some effect on global temperatures. We have absolutely no consensus on what to do about it.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    9. Re: Hell, yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What. As opposed to the majority of scientists out there. Which, by the way, agrees with these kids. Your contribution to society does not depend on age

    10. Re:Hell, yes! by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Carbon consumption and sprawl went down in the last recession. States started looking at their criminal justice and drug policies and examining the costs of mass incarceration. The economic stimulus program started funding transit projects like electric trains and light rail. Manufacturers started putting out smaller cars (sadly, the US is back on the fucking SUV wagon now), and electric cars started taking off. Recession = reform.

    11. Re:Hell, yes! by lgw · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Policies that limit pollution. What are you afraid of, economic catastrophe? Mommy telling you what to do?

      My college roommate was an environmental engineer. The actual tenet of the field is: "there is no such thing as too little pollution, but there is such a thing as too little production".

      Something to consider. If it's free of hard tradeoffs, it's not engineering.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    12. Re:Hell, yes! by whitroth · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yeah, economic catastrophe... like 2008? You don't *like* lots of new jobs being created in renewable energy... as opposed to, say, coal[1]?

      And what do you think the economy's going to do, when bad weather screws the US heartland, and there are worldwide food shortages[2]?

      Or maybe those climate changes, like overuse of water and drought are some of what's causing conflict around the globe, and mass migration?[3]

      Gee, think of all the folks who'll lose their job in the buggy whip factories.

      1. 1972, the coal industry employed about 780,000 miners; coal output rose until about 15 years ago... but employs about 78,000 as of 5-10 years ago, due to strip mining and mountaintop removal.
      2. I don't suppose you know about the food riots in Mexico and Central America, when too much of US corn production was diverted to ethanol, and there were shortages for bread and tortillas.
      3. Do you have any clue about how major subsurface water, in the Central Valley of California, in the midwest, are being played out, not refilling, because of current weather, location, and agribusiness techniques?
       

    13. Re:Hell, yes! by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why not start somewhere? Nuclear and renewables are existing technology. Building more of them is an engineering problem. More doing, less talking.

    14. Re:Hell, yes! by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Also, the majority of coal jobs sucked -- no one wants the jobs from the 50s back. Crawling around in a coal seam underground, coming out with black lung? Running a steam train sounds romantic until you realize it's probably 130 degrees in the cab and some poor bastige needs to shovel coal into the boilers.

    15. Re: Hell, yes! by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is about climate change, not about pollution.

      Anonymous Coward, the definition of pollution is "the presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects."

      So yes, dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is pollution.

    16. Re:Hell, yes! by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes. I am afraid of economic catastrophe

      Then why not do something about climate change? The economic catastrophe that climate change with wreak upon the earth is unfathomable.

    17. Re:Hell, yes! by Joce640k · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have some friends who joined this protest. The kid quoted in the article said, "my life is literally on the line." It's not

      Their physical life may not be on the line but the potential quality of their future life definitely is.

      They don't want to spend their lives dealing with the consequences of the current policies.

      --
      No sig today...
    18. Re:Hell, yes! by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      We know that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will have some effect on global temperatures. We have absolutely no consensus on what to do about it.

      We can try a bit of each of the proposed solutions, see what works best (or maybe a combination is the correct answer).

      Sitting on your hands and going "neener neener" runtil there's a 100% guaranteed solution down to the last detail never fixed anything in the past and it sure as hell won't fix this.

      --
      No sig today...
    19. Re:Hell, yes! by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      Yep. Standing outside parliament all day long is every schoolkid's dream day off.

      --
      No sig today...
    20. Re:Hell, yes! by whitroth · · Score: 1

      So, would you say the same of my generation, when we were teens... who were out in the streets protesting 'Nam and the draft?

      Or the kids a bit older than me, who literally risked their lives to protest in the South for voting and other civil rights?

      Go back to watching sportsball, and stay off the 'Net.

    21. Re:Hell, yes! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because he'll be dead by then, duh. Today's climate obstructionists are simply putting the pain of taking action onto future generations, multiplied many times over by the delay.

      They're basically stealing shit from the future, in a very inefficient but cheap way, for their own personal gain.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    22. Re:Hell, yes! by danbert8 · · Score: 1, Troll

      So they'd rather spend their lives dealing with the consequences of new policies? Namely, a possibly slightly cooler planet with extreme levels of national debt to pay for the potential mitigating policies that have been proposed?

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    23. Re:Hell, yes! by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      "Flamebait" for speaking the truth that the last recession lead to constructive reforms? (Not even mentioning healthcare.) Seems like the mods are the real trolls here.

    24. Re:Hell, yes! by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2

      That's why we should be building newer, safer nuclear plants. This would be like banning construction of cars because of the Model T's crash safety record.

    25. Re:Hell, yes! by danbert8 · · Score: 2

      Based on whose projections? There is a known and guaranteed cost today of mitigating potential future climate change. The costs of the future are unknown and unknowable. So yes, they could be an economic catastrophe, but they could also be an economic boom. Maybe a warmer climate will increase valuable oceanfront property? Maybe a warmer climate will reduce cold weather costs like snow removal and ice melting? Maybe a warmer climate will make areas of current tundra open to agriculture? Maybe a warmer climate will increase fresh water resources due to more rain on average?

      If you believe that a warmer climate only has negative effects on life, economics, and prosperity, than you have drank the Kool Aid.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    26. Re:Hell, yes! by danbert8 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But we don't have scientific consensus that the cost of mitigating it today is lower than the cost of dealing with it in the future. From an economic and human prosperity standpoint it's entirely possible that doing nothing today is the best course of action because it lifts the most people out of poverty and advancing technology will allow us to live in a warmer global climate more comfortably than we live today.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    27. Re:Hell, yes! by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Debt is just a number on a computer screen. What's worse -- making our planet more hostile to life or shirking some made-up debt? Nothing wrong with defaulting.

    28. Re:Hell, yes! by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      When life gives you lemons you make lemon-aid. That doesn't mean you purposefully make life hard for people to push a specific agenda.

    29. Re:Hell, yes! by danbert8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So your plan is to promise to pay people for their work and then stiff them in the future? That sure sounds like a great way to save humanity... Debt isn't made up, it's owed to somebody. It's not just on a computer screen. If that's all debt is and it can be canceled out with no consequences, I hope you have a lot of physical resources at home because all your savings and assets are just numbers on a computer screen too.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    30. Re:Hell, yes! by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      I am not sure what you are saying. Purposefully manufacture economic crisis and disregard economic impacts of solutions because it may push toward a goal you want? Do you understand how unethical and fucked up that is?

    31. Re:Hell, yes! by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Then why not do something about climate change? The economic catastrophe that climate change with wreak upon the earth is unfathomable.

      It's easy to say that hunting Bushmeat is bad. It's easy to say that the damage is unfathomable. Now put yourself in the shoes of the people that do hunt Bushmeat and then show me it is easy to see your family go hungry because some affluent westerner wants to virtue signal on the internet.

    32. Re:Hell, yes! by fred6666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The whole point of reducing greenhouse gases emissions is that it is cheaper than the consequences of not doing it. Which will, by the way, affect the poor.

      The real poor (as in under developed countries) use very little energy by the way. It's us, the rich (and you don't need to be that rich as long as you live in a rich country), with heated + air conditioned homes, hot water, green lawn, driving 20+ km to work in alone in their SUV and flying for vacations who do.

    33. Re:Hell, yes! by fred6666 · · Score: 2

      Something to consider. If it's free of hard tradeoffs, it's not engineering.

      The problem is that many people wants pollution to be free.

      It should be a trade off. You emit X tons of CO2. You pay $Y.

    34. Re:Hell, yes! by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      No, you are wrong. There is no consensus among experts about what we should do to stop climate change.

      What are you talking about? The overwhelming consensus among climate scientists is to reduce the combustion of fossil fuels. But don't ask a climate scientist whether nuclear or solar should win because he or she wouldn't be an expert on that.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    35. Re:Hell, yes! by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      The real poor (as in under developed countries) use very little energy by the way. It's us, the rich

      Which kind of undermines the whole point of "Then why not do something about climate change?". Those developing nations have every right to get electricity and for the cheapest possible price. Nothing I can do will change the outcome of that fact. The only thing that will change the amount of CO2 those developing nations will produce is if the economics change enough to make clean technologies cheaper than fossil fuels without government regulation. A developing nations government is under no obligation to artificially inflate the cost of energy because rich countries do so.

    36. Re:Hell, yes! by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      You live a cushy and luxurious life because of cheap energy. Why is it wrong to recognize that others want that life too? Why is it wrong to recognize that if your solution impacts the well being of others then it is not a good solution?

    37. Re:Hell, yes! by Pascoea · · Score: 1

      But we don't have scientific consensus that the cost of mitigating it today is lower than the cost of dealing with it in the future.

      That wasn't what I was discussing. I realize that there is an economic impact that is in dispute, but I was referring to the consensus that we are causing our climate to change.

      From an economic and human prosperity standpoint it's entirely possible that doing nothing today is the best course of action because it lifts the most people out of poverty and advancing technology will allow us to live in a warmer global climate more comfortably than we live today.

      Sure, it's entirely possible that we "learn to live with it". It's also entirely possible that a drastically changing climate wipes out the human species. And I bet you wouldn't have to look too long to find an expert that can make convincing arguments for both sides. Again though, how we pay for it wasn't my point.

    38. Re:Hell, yes! by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Encourage oil companies to invest in government debt, then bankrupt them through green programs. Voila! Debt erased...

    39. Re:Hell, yes! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Well you're being quite presumptuous to think that I have a cushy and luxurious life or access to cheap energy, but clean energy doesn't have to be more expensive. Renewables plus storage are already at the heels of the price of fossil fuels, and that's with fossil fuel production being subsidized in many countries officially, and unofficially through "defense" spending. And again that fossil energy isn't even as cheap as it appears - part of the price is being left to accrue compound interest for future generations to pay in the form of negative climate effects.

      Price isn't really the problem anymore. At this point there's more economic catastrophe in all but the most near-term on the path of fossil fuels than renewables. It's just a few entrenched interests worried about the money going through different hands.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    40. Re:Hell, yes! by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You mean, based on kids going on strike because their schools are forcing them to? A bunch of schools in Belgium have turned these protests into an extracurricular activity, with mandatory attendance. I kid you not (in Dutch)

      Something similar happened in the Netherlands when schools allowed children to attend. One of the school's principals was interviewed, and stated that it's good to encourage children to demonstrate and voice their opinion in this manner. Then, in an unbelievably rare case of a journalist actually asking a good follow-up question, he was asked if he would be just as happy with the kids skipping school in order to demonstrate against the effects of mass migration. (He wouldn't be ok with that, of course...)

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    41. Re:Hell, yes! by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      Namely, a possibly slightly cooler planet with extreme levels of national debt to pay for the potential mitigating policies that have been proposed?

      How will a carbon fee and dividend increase national debt?

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    42. Re:Hell, yes! by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      I presume that you are from a western nation. Meaning you probably live in an affluent nation where the poorest live very comfortably compared to the world and historical averages. I stand by that unless you want to prove otherwise.

      Renewables plus storage are already at the heels of the price of fossil fuels, ... Price isn't really the problem anymore

      At the heels means still not as cheap. It maybe close but not there yet. That means price is still a problem. Price is always a problem. But if the economics changed such that renewables can compete on their own then there is nothing that I or my government needs to do. Those interests will change as soon as investments meet their expected returns.

      But I am not convinced it is cheaper without government regulation. If your alternative energy source requires government regulation to compete against other cheaper sources of energy then it tells me that developing won't use your preferred source. Developing nations are under no obligation to regulate fossil fuels the way rich nations do.

    43. Re:Hell, yes! by fred6666 · · Score: 1

      But what we can do is to reduce the amount of CO2 produced by rich countries. As long as we produce more per capita than developing countries, they should even expect us to do so.

      Nothing I can do will change the outcome of that fact.

      Not technically true. If we drastically reduced our energy demand, the prices would fall, and then the poor could get it for cheaper. So yes, you can do something. Plus, it would reduce greenhouse gases emissions at the same time.

    44. Re:Hell, yes! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Well then good, absent any new artificial political hurdles, soon renewables will be cheaper (even including fossil fuel subsidies) and fossil fuels will be phased out, enjoy.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    45. Re:Hell, yes! by Altus · · Score: 1

      While this would be ideal there is actually another impact. If your electricity costs from coal went up because we charged them for the externalized environmental damage that they do then the cost of coal power would be a lot closer to the cost of other, cleaner methods of power production... maybe even higher than some cleaner methods.... and people would be more likely to choose the cleaner methods for supplying their power.

      Certainly spending that money on mitigating the impact would be great, but raising the price of things tends to impact the demand for them.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    46. Re:Hell, yes! by Pascoea · · Score: 1

      Wow, didn't realize "-1, I disagree with you" was a thing. Oh, wait, it's slashdot. Nevermind.

    47. Re:Hell, yes! by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Cheap energy has helped poor people.

      Indeed it has. It has helped weed them out of the gene pool. After all there's a massive disparity in how both changing climate and pollution affects the rich and the poor. The poor are more likely to suffer in extreme weather events. The poor are more likely to suffer from pollution primarily from that cheap thing that is supporting them.

      Yay for cheap energy. /sarcasm

    48. Re:Hell, yes! by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      what we can do is to reduce the amount of CO2 produced by rich countries

      If every rich country reduced their CO2 to zero it would not solve the problem.

      Not sure why a per capita measure would be relevant/useful when discussing climate change. Especially when you say "you can do something". Nothing I do can affect per capita.

      reduced our energy demand , the prices would fall

      I don't think demand can reasonably go down. As more get access to the accommodations of modern civilization demand for energy will grow. You can "reduce" it by efficiencies but that isn't affecting the economic demand for energy. You can reduce demand by economic sabotage (like others above were suggesting by bringing up 2008 crisis reduced CO2 emissions). Fundamentally energy is the bedrock of modern civilization.

      So yes, you can do something. ,

      I want a bigger home. Does that mean I shouldn't get it because my energy usage will go up? I have already done what I can afford. I want a better life. It sounds like you are saying that I should forfeit that because I should share in an obscure sense of collective guilt (per capita).
       

    49. Re:Hell, yes! by chapstercni · · Score: 1

      The problem is that we always think we are safer(ist).

      In no scenario of a Model T failure would it devastate the environment.

      What is going on in Japan and subsequently in the Pacific Ocean is a travesty.

      I absolutely LOVE the idea and concept of Nuclear. But that damn radiation......

    50. Re:Hell, yes! by archer,+the · · Score: 1

      Watch it. You'll see that the problem is humanity adding insulation to the atmosphere. Just like adding insulation to your house would keep more heat in, adding more insulation to the earth keeps more heat in.

      Unfortunately, unlike your home furnace, the sun isn't connected to a thermostat,

    51. Re:Hell, yes! by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      I see the Republicans and science-hating religious types have mod points to spend today and have vandalized my comment: https://slashdot.org/comments.... screw you people politicizing everything. Disagreeing with me doesn't make me a troll it makes me INCONVENIENT TO YOU and that's all.

    52. Re:Hell, yes! by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Yeah sure let's have the Average Person wade through tons of whitepapers that they won't have a clue how to understand or interpret so they throw up their hands and just forget all about it, I'm sure that serves your agenda very well.

    53. Re:Hell, yes! by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      You're full of shit. We are contributing to it. Watch the goddamned video.

    54. Re:Hell, yes! by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Myopic ass.

    55. Re:Hell, yes! by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      If you actually believe money needs to be the primary concern here then I invite you to shoot yourself in your stupid head right now.

    56. Re:Hell, yes! by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      So your plan is "fuck the future, I'll be dead, it's someone else's problem, so long as I can buy hookers and booze while I'm alive"?

    57. Re:Hell, yes! by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      Why not start somewhere? Nuclear and renewables are existing technology. Building more of them is an engineering problem. More doing, less talking.

      There's this funny thing called "cost" which you seem to ignore. I'd be the first one to champion a return to building nuclear plants and, if and when their costs become competitive enough, renewables. However, environmental groups come out of the woodwork anytime anyone proposes building a nuclear plant anywhere. It takes billions of dollars and roughly a decade to get even one plant approved and built, largely because of stuff like this.

      So, how about less protesting and obstructing and more doing?

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    58. Re:Hell, yes! by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      The $7 trillion we have spent on military homicide sprees since 9/11 would have built about a thousand nuclear plants, if not more (economies of scale). Time for the US to stop throwing money down the drain on military scumbaggery and start cleaning its own environmental house.

    59. Re:Hell, yes! by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      It has helped weed them out of the gene pool.

      You are insane.

      The poor are more likely to suffer from pollution primarily from that cheap thing that is supporting them.

      Are you saying that people should have to choose between heating or eating? Good god woman have you every had to make a choice like that in your life?

      You say that the people that heat their homes today are going to suffer or are suffering now because some day at some point in time that no one can predict they might be harmed by the very energy that keeps them warm today. Do you understand how insane you sound? Do you understand why I brought up the analogy of conservation biology?

      Yay for cheap energy.

      Yes. Cheap energy makes the lives of the poorest of society better. They get to heat their homes. Cook their food. Access the internet and other goodies of modern life. You are insane if you think cheap energy is some kind of bad thing.

    60. Re:Hell, yes! by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Why not start somewhere? Nuclear and renewables are existing technology.

      It's just a matter of building consensus that we should spend our money on that.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    61. Re:Hell, yes! by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      If you can't understand scientific papers, maybe you should go somewhere else. I hear Reddit is a good place for people who want to talk without being willing to put in the effort to read scientific papers.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    62. Re: Hell, yes! by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      That's been our attitude for the last 100,000 years at least. Why change now?

    63. Re: Hell, yes! by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Great, then why is there even a debate about this, let alone protests and grandstanding politicians? If the technological solution is just around the corner then everyone can just STFU and let it happen.

    64. Re: Hell, yes! by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      In no scenario of a Model T failure would it devastate the environment.

      What is going on in Japan and subsequently in the Pacific Ocean is a travesty.

      If what's going on in Japan is "devastation" and "a tavesty", then those words have lost all meaning.

    65. Re: Hell, yes! by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      It should be a trade off. You emit X tons of CO2. You pay $Y.

      I've heard that the left loves their taxes, but a tax on breathing seems a bit much ....

    66. Re: Hell, yes! by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      People don't really choose where their power comes from; they just connect to a grid, and the grid is powered by whatever mix of power sources is available. It's not like I can say "OK, I only want solar electricity sent to my house!".

      If your goal is to eliminate coal power, then skip the stupid tax and just pass a law banning coal power. It's a lot more honest, and wastes a lot less money than adding more bureaucracy to collect more taxes.

      In cases of things like gasoline, where people do have a choice in the type of vehicle they buy, a tax might make more sense .... if there were enough vehicles and infrastructure for people to actually be able to make the switch in huge numbers. Right now there isn't. Even if some minimum-wage single mother wanted to go out and buy a new Tesla Model S, she would have to wait in line to get it. You add a tax into the mix, and suddenly you have millions of people waiting in a much longer line. Meanwhile all of them are being penalized by being forced to pay higher prices to fuel their existing vehicles.

    67. Re: Hell, yes! by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      So, would you say the same of my generation, when we were teens... who were out in the streets protesting 'Nam and the draft?

      Why would anyone say that those of you protesting 'Nam need to hang on to your iphones longer? That's stupid.

      No, what we would have said is that - if it were practical - you should go spend a year living in the USSR so you can see the joys of communism firsthand. Failing that, you could have gone and talked to some ex-soviet citizens who escaped that shithole. You know, learn a little bit about the thing which your military was opposing before deciding to get high and spit on them.

    68. Re:Hell, yes! by archer,+the · · Score: 1

      We're headed for extreme levels of national debt anyway: who do you think is going to pay to repair all the property damage caused by climate change? All those "lazy" folks "choosing" to make only minimum wage? We're already losing hundreds of billions each year due to health problems caused by climate change, and Trump is trying to reduce environmental protections.

    69. Re:Hell, yes! by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      STFU jackass. Take a look above; is my name 'Average Person'? No? Then We're not talking about me are we? STFU.

    70. Re: Hell, yes! by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Because maybe, just maybe, we can manage to evolve past this selfish baby-stage, where we just exploit the crap out of everything and everyone around us, destroying everything in our wake, and actually survive, as a species, to the point where we're actually enlightened? You know, not cause our own extinction-level event? At least long enough to GTFO of this planet and have a permanent presence elsewhere? Seriously, if all we're going to do is just fuck ourselves over and die off as a species anyway then we may as well just push the gods-be-damned Big Red Button and launch all the missiles now and get it over with.

    71. Re: Hell, yes! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Trouble is that it could be a self-defeating prophecy. Also that it's a worst-case scenario for renewable adoption - we shouldn't have waited for renewables to win over subsidized fossil fuels through sheer cheapness.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    72. Re:Hell, yes! by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I'd rather that than have them watch ideologically biased movies and develop a distorted view that they then impose on the rest of us.

    73. Re:Hell, yes! by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Then We're not talking about me are we? STFU.

      Good, welcome.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    74. Re: Hell, yes! by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      I don't plan on causing any extinction level events. The thing is, people like you have been making all sorts of gloom and doom predictions for centuries, and yet we've always avoided them. Not through any extensive global effort but rather via new technology and pure self-interest.

      And whenever I point this out people invariably fall back on "but this time will be different", which has been the refrain of every doomsayer throughout history.

    75. Re: Hell, yes! by fred6666 · · Score: 1

      right, so just because we emit CO2 while breathing means we shouldn't tax cars or coal plants emitting many orders of magnitude more, right?

    76. Re:Hell, yes! by fred6666 · · Score: 1

      That only works if $Y goes directly into some process that undoes the damage.

      Nope. It doesn't even need to. It's more environementally efficient to do it, but it's not required. The added cost alone will discourage some polluters to pollute and that's exactly what we want.

    77. Re: Hell, yes! by fred6666 · · Score: 1

      People don't really choose where their power comes from; they just connect to a grid, and the grid is powered by whatever mix of power sources is available.

      Of course. But the producers choose from various methods. Some pollute far more than others. If polluting is free, why would they choose the less polluting, more expensive option?

      If your goal is to eliminate coal power, then skip the stupid tax and just pass a law banning coal power.

      You prefer market planning over free market?
      The goal is not to eliminate coal. If somehow they can make it clean (say, by capturing the CO2) then why not. Let's have the market find the most optimal solution to the problem. But allowing them to pollute for free is stupid.

      It's a lot more honest, and wastes a lot less money than adding more bureaucracy to collect more taxes.

      The good news is that you could reduce other taxes instead and reduce bureaucracy instead of increasing it like you are suggesting with your ban.

      if there were enough vehicles and infrastructure for people to actually be able to make the switch in huge numbers. Right now there isn't.

      And there will never be as long as you can chose a cheaper, but more polluting gasoline car. Let's include the pollution cost in gas and let the market decide whether it's more efficient to use gas or electric cars.

    78. Re: Hell, yes! by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Not through any extensive global effort but rather via new technology and pure self-interest.
      Sure. But too many people don't want to embrace any new technologies, they want to keep burning fossil fuels, and they want them to be cheap, even if it takes subsidies to do it. Basically people in general pay lip service to climate change and environmental concerns in general but when comes down to doing something about it nobody wants to be inconvenienced in any way shape or form so nothing gets done. You can sit there and say "oh, well, it's never happened in the past and I really don't think it'll happen in the future it's all Gloom and Doom and you're all just spreading FUD" but hear this: what the entire goddamned science community is saying only has to be right ONCE for us to be PERMANENTLY FUCKED. You can call that "gloom and doom" and FUD all you want but you cannot refute my logic: It can fail to happen infinite times, but it only has to be correct ONCE. You really want to risk everything getting fucked permanently just so you can keep driving a gasoline-powered car and having cheap electricity from coal-burning power plants, and all the other polluting shit we do that's old and cheap right now? If you say 'yes' then consider yourself punched in the face because people that say 'yes' to the above have outlived my patience with them.

    79. Re: Hell, yes! by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      That's basically a slightly modified version of Pascal's Wager. "If god does exist then not believing would be really really bad, and you have nothing to lose by believing, therefore you should believe". Your version is dumb for all the same reasons why Pascal's Wager is dumb.

      I can make up a doomsday scenario right now which is absolutely horrible, and tell you that the only way to prevent is by sending me 50 million dollars. And then you would tell me you have no reason to believe my prediction, and I would yell back "BUT I ONLY HAVE TO BE RIGHT ONCE!!!".

      So, yeah. Send me 50 million dollars.

    80. Re:Hell, yes! by Deef · · Score: 1

      Everything is secondary when the economy is crashing down and people are unemployed. Every high ideal you can think of will be put on hold and forgotten when people are feeling economic pain.

      You know what is worse than being poor and/or jobless? Literally dying because the temperature and humidity are so high that human life (actually, mammalian life) becomes impossible: You need to sweat to bring your temperature down to something that won't kill you, but the humidity is so high that sweating doesn't work to cool you. So you die. This will happen in MAJOR POPULATED AREAS in the 2070's range. Lack of air conditioning (or a power failure due to everybody trying to use their air conditioners at once) will become a death sentence: Thousands will die.

      How do you think the people affected by THAT kind of problem will feel about the fact that some poor, middle-class, and wealthy Americans decided that it was inconvenient to save their lives because doing so might have involved making some sacrifices to their lifestyles (which are already far, far above the global average)?

      Do you think that people whose lives are literally threatened from this kind of problem will consider the comfort and very lives of Americans more valuable than their own? What do you think they will do about the situation? (What would Americans do if the roles were reversed?)

      Think on that for a bit.

    81. Re: Hell, yes! by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Blow me.

    82. Re: Hell, yes! by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      And now you see how retarded your argument was.

    83. Re:Hell, yes! by fred6666 · · Score: 1

      what we can do is to reduce the amount of CO2 produced by rich countries

      If every rich country reduced their CO2 to zero it would not solve the problem.

      well not sure if it would "solve" it or not but it would be a damn good start.
      It's not a binary thing which is solved or not. A 5C raise is worse than a 4C raise which is worse than a 3C raise which is, guess what, worse than a 2C raise. So if that reduce the temperature increase from 5 to 3C, it's a very good start.

      Not sure why a per capita measure would be relevant/useful when discussing climate change. Especially when you say "you can do something". Nothing I do can affect per capita.

      We can stop talking about per capita and talk about your own personal emissions if you prefer. Both are way too high to be sustainable. There are two ways to solve this issue.

      1. We forbid you from emitting that much (market planing)
      2. We make you pay for your emissions, and let you decide wether it's worth it or not to continue emitting that much

      I prefer #2. You prefer to be able to continue to emit as much as you can for free, I get that. You can count yourself lucky the rest of the world allowed you to do that so far. Polluting their air without having any consequence.

      reduced our energy demand , the prices would fall

      I don't think demand can reasonably go down.

      Well of course it can. But you don't want to. You (and others) are not willing to make the sacrifices required voluntarily.
      That's why we won't solve the problem with good faith. We need to force it.

      I want a bigger home. Does that mean I shouldn't get it because my energy usage will go up?

      From my point of view, you should only get it if you are willing to pay for the additionnal pollution cost of your new home. Your call.

      I have already done what I can afford. I want a better life. It sounds like you are saying that I should forfeit that because I should share in an obscure sense of collective guilt (per capita).

      It's not a collective guilt it's a personal guilt. You (as most people on this web site) are likely emitting way to much CO2. That wouldn't be so bad if you were paying for it, but you aren't.

    84. Re: Hell, yes! by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Likelihood you're Just Another Internet Troll: HIGH.
      Likelihood you're a Republican: HIGH.
      Likelihood you're a Trump supporter: HIGH.
      Likelihood you're fundamentalist Christian and science-hating: HIGH.
      Likelihood I've already wasted more time on the likes of you: VERY HIGH.
      Eat shit and die. Preferably before you've reproduced so no future generation of children are infected by your wilful ignorance (and likely authoritarian abuse), and thank whatever Powes-That-Be that you're not the one making the decisions for the rest of us, otherwise we really would all be doomed.

    85. Re: Hell, yes! by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      That's pretty funny, actually, since every one of the "high probability" events you named is wrong.

      Given your inability to predict absolutely anything else, I'm going to say that the probability of you being wrong about AGW is pretty damn high. And the likelihood of you being an ignorant buffoon is 100%.

  2. Fat drunk and stupid is no way to go through life by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Go to school, kids. If you want to protest, do it in more productive ways--like cornering Diane Feinstein and asking her why she hates puppies.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  3. kids love having an excuse to cut classes by magzteel · · Score: 1

    School administrations are not going to get in the way of the cause du jour. The ensuing recreational outrage will not be worth it.

    1. Re:kids love having an excuse to cut classes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Using kids for political gain is called pedophrasty

  4. Fridays off by The-Ixian · · Score: 4, Funny

    3 day weekends in the name of justice!

    Hmmmm..... I may need to implement this policy for myself....

    --
    My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
  5. Brave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How brave... As they dab at home playing Fortnite and eating hot pockets.

  6. Are those kids willing to sacrifice something? by reanjr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It doesn't take much to get a kid to decide not to go to school. But are they willing to make real sacrifices for the environment? Probably not. You have to give up meat. You can't buy electronics devices. You can't use plastics. Can't drink milk or consume many other animal products unless they are expensive sustainable varieties. You have to give up on shopping at the mall and do all your clothes shopping at thrift stores buying only highly durable clothing that lasts more than a season. Give up any sports or extracurriculars that require you to travel by bus.

    When kids do those things, they will be standing on firm moral ground.

    1. Re:Are those kids willing to sacrifice something? by magzteel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It doesn't take much to get a kid to decide not to go to school. But are they willing to make real sacrifices for the environment? Probably not. You have to give up meat. You can't buy electronics devices. You can't use plastics. Can't drink milk or consume many other animal products unless they are expensive sustainable varieties. You have to give up on shopping at the mall and do all your clothes shopping at thrift stores buying only highly durable clothing that lasts more than a season. Give up any sports or extracurriculars that require you to travel by bus.

      When kids do those things, they will be standing on firm moral ground.

      I've had similar conversations with my kids. They are just as willing to give up their conveniences as wealthy people are willing to give up the private jets they use to get to the next climate junket.

    2. Re:Are those kids willing to sacrifice something? by x0ra · · Score: 1

      Given the calories density of meat and its nutritional value, it's actually pretty green... so is nuclear energy. But sure, let's go back 200 backward. [tip: not much of the current population will survive]

    3. Re:Are those kids willing to sacrifice something? by fred6666 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The problem of meat is not its energy density, but the amount of energy required to grow, especially beef and lamp. Pork and chicken are much better for the environment.

    4. Re:Are those kids willing to sacrifice something? by Kohath · · Score: 1, Insightful

      They'll sacrifice you and your lifestyle, as long as they get to keep theirs.

    5. Re:Are those kids willing to sacrifice something? by butchersong · · Score: 1

      It's actually the exact opposite. The input cost on beef is the feedlots but you can get beef to slaughter weight on pasture... I even manage it with finicky sickly holstein calves discarded from dairies and they are some of the worst breeds to raise on pasture. Sheep and decent cattle breeds can be run in ways that are positive for the environment. At least soil and water retention.

    6. Re:Are those kids willing to sacrifice something? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      That's stupid. Look, if everyone else is willing to join me in doing things to prevent global warming, I am too. But I'm not going to deprive myself if the world is on fire anyway. See also, I'm willing to pay higher taxes, but only if everyone else does.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    7. Re:Are those kids willing to sacrifice something? by kenai_alpenglow · · Score: 1

      Bingo. Substitute socialists for kids and you still have a true statement. Citation: Daughter of chavez, one of the wealthiest females in the world much less just Venezuela, A. Occasionally Coherent (example: DON'T EAT HAMBURGERS, while one of her organization's big-wigs is eating one right across from her). Ask google or The Duck, there's plenty of other examples.

    8. Re:Are those kids willing to sacrifice something? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      We'd all be healthier if we ate meat once a day, only a few times a week. Electronic devices are actually quite green, provided they're durable and designed to be repaired. A laptop or phone can access more than a million times its own weight in books. Yeah: clothing should last more than a year -- that's the way it was done until the "fast fashion" stupidity of the 2000s. School bus travel is actually pretty green. A school bus gets about 4 mpg. Times 50 students, that's about 200 mpg. It's helichopper parents dropping off Audrey and Blains at school that we should be worrying about. Let the kids walk or take the bus, ideally the first option if possible.

    9. Re:Are those kids willing to sacrifice something? by ilguido · · Score: 1

      You have to give up meat.

      And vegetables too. Not just palm oil, I mean, huge swaths of land once were forests and swamps, but they are now agricultural land full of pesticides. If someone doesn't want to hurt nature too much, he/she should get back to the hunter-gatherer lifestyle (and if he/she REALLY cares, just gatherer, you know).

    10. Re:Are those kids willing to sacrifice something? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      But are they willing to make real sacrifices for the environment? Probably not.

      They are doing what they can which is voicing their opinions to those who actually make decisions for them. After all you did correctly identify they are kids. What are they going to do? Vote out governments?

      You have to give up meat. You can't buy electronics devices. You can't use plastics. Can't drink milk or consume many other animal products unless they are expensive sustainable varieties.

      Man cut the hyperbole. There's metric shit-ton of stuff you can do for the environment that doesn't involve any of that and has far more impact than any of the things you just mentioned.

      Give up any sports or extracurriculars that require you to travel by bus.

      Their parents could learn a lot by example of people using a bus. That alone would be a good for the environment.

      When kids do those things, they will be standing on firm moral ground.

      They are standing on much higher moral ground than you after you just wasted electricity to post your declaration of being an arsehole.

    11. Re:Are those kids willing to sacrifice something? by lgw · · Score: 2

      Substitute socialists for kids and you still have a true statement.

      Most kids are socialists, and rightly so: they've only lived in a way where an authority provides for their every need. Socialism is the only thing they've known. And that's fine, but eventually one should grow up.

      A. Occasionally Coherent

      That's pronounced "occasional cortex".

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    12. Re:Are those kids willing to sacrifice something? by del_diablo · · Score: 1

      Thats true to some extent.
      But the reality of the matter is that you need to argue for what is wrong with the usage of agriculture when you are importing human edible food to be used as livestock food, when the entire animal is most likely not going to be served as human food. Or go for breeds that isn't good at diary.
      For lamb its even weirder, since they are a livestock species that thrives on harsh terrain, which generally is not competes for. And suddenly you are importing human edible food to food those too. And they still give out milk and wool.

      The entire debate is one gigantic land mine, because different lobbies with different agenda's are not capable of realize parts of their narrative is cancerous to society at large.
      Land usage, grassing, forest/shrub growth is never a topic, meaning there is never a clear cut angle to even pick a side.

    13. Re:Are those kids willing to sacrifice something? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      No one gives a rats ass what a kids opinion is because they don't have the knowledge, life experience, or maturity to take part in politics. (not to say that adults are any better)

      The fact that you think politics is in any way made up of knowledge, life experience, of maturity (I literally spat coffee on my screen at this one) is just golden.

      Good post. +5 funny. Would read again.

    14. Re:Are those kids willing to sacrifice something? by Klaxton · · Score: 1

      Individual actions don't do much, those kids could all have a carbon footprint of zero and it wouldn't make a dent. But real change would occur if governments stop subsidizing fossil fuel production and start taxing pollution.

    15. Re:Are those kids willing to sacrifice something? by sfcat · · Score: 1

      It's actually the exact opposite. The input cost on beef is the feedlots but you can get beef to slaughter weight on pasture... I even manage it with finicky sickly holstein calves discarded from dairies and they are some of the worst breeds to raise on pasture. Sheep and decent cattle breeds can be run in ways that are positive for the environment. At least soil and water retention.

      Holsteins are dairy cows (hence coming from dairies). You don't raise them for meat. Also, I grew up on a dairy farm, with Holsteins which were raised on pasture. We never had a problem and our family farm was in business for over 70 years. Not sure why you think they are so bad on a pasture other than they are so often seen on feedlots because of their high milk production. That's only because they are the highest producing breed overall, not because they don't do well on pasture. And the input cost on beef cattle is mostly feed, not land when raised on feedlots. The input cost is land when raised on pasture. So it all depends on how high intensity your operation is. In the western US, its almost all feedlots because good land is at a premium due to low rainfall. This isn't true for most of the world but it is true for the western US.

      --
      "Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
    16. Re:Are those kids willing to sacrifice something? by Mousit · · Score: 2

      It doesn't take much to get a kid to decide not to go to school. But are they willing to make real sacrifices for the environment? Probably not. You have to give up meat. You can't buy electronics devices. You can't use plastics. Can't drink milk or consume many other animal products unless they are expensive sustainable varieties. You have to give up on shopping at the mall and do all your clothes shopping at thrift stores buying only highly durable clothing that lasts more than a season. Give up any sports or extracurriculars that require you to travel by bus.

      When kids do those things, they will be standing on firm moral ground.

      I wish TFS had bothered to link another Guardian article from earlier this week, that was specifically about Greta herself. Because.. yes, she did do those things. And not only did she make those sacrifices, she convinced her parents to as well. She even got her mother to give up flying, which had a severe impact on her career, for example.

      So yeah, at least in Greta's case, she's practicing what she preaches. Her whole family is.

    17. Re:Are those kids willing to sacrifice something? by lgw · · Score: 1

      Please, use your ammosexual fuckery

      ammosexual

      Made of win.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    18. Re:Are those kids willing to sacrifice something? by david-bo · · Score: 1

      You are wrong. They only have to use contraceptives

      http://iopscience.iop.org/arti...

      We recommend four widely applicable high-impact (i.e. low emissions) actions with the potential to contribute to systemic change and substantially reduce annual personal emissions: having one fewer child (an average for developed countries of 58.6tonnes CO2-equivalent (tCO2e) emission reductions per year), living car-free (2.4 tCO2e saved per year), avoiding airplane travel (1.6 tCO2e saved per roundtrip transatlantic flight) and eating a plant-based diet (0.8 tCO2e saved per year).

    19. Re: Are those kids willing to sacrifice something? by reanjr · · Score: 1

      Waiting for government enforcement? Then you're falling into the logical and moral trap of using violence to spread your beliefs.

      Remember all taxation is perfectly equivalent to being robbed at gunpoint by a Robin Hood like mercenary who is going to give your shit away. When we decide to tax people, we must weigh the taxation against the reality that we are willing to murder people because of our economic ideas.

      If you are trying to make a moral argument for saving the climate, you can't legitimately make one by standing on the backs of murdered taxpayers. You can only make a moral argument by ponying up regardless of if everyone else is doing it.

      If you aren't abandoning a semblance of modern life, you have no moral standing to tell others to save the climate.

  7. Kids believe in stories by Kohath · · Score: 2, Informative

    Someone told these kids a story about the future and they believed it. Childrens' belief in stories about the future is not a reason to do anything one way or another.

    People should stop pretending they know the future. They don’t.

    1. Re:Kids believe in stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Scientists don't pretend to know the future. What they do know is that through repeated testing they can accurately determine the probabilities of certain scenarios occurring. If you question the word "accurately" in that sentence, consider that corporations make huge amounts of money by employing scientists and actuaries to accurately determine the probabilities of certain climate scenarios occurring.

    2. Re:Kids believe in stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The one of the major role of science is to predict future. You know the t you find in so many equation. And yes, the climate model are predicting a not very nice future.

    3. Re:Kids believe in stories by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Scientists don't pretend to know the future.

      Which children talked to which scientists?

      We don't get to talk to scientists. We get edited videos and media reports that turn everything into a story.

    4. Re:Kids believe in stories by Ichijo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Do you contribute to a retirement account? Why do you do it if past performance is no guarantee of future results?

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    5. Re:Kids believe in stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      True enough, however you can't dump ~40 GIGATONS of CO2 alone into the atmosphere and expect nothing bad to happen. We should be scaling back our usage of fossil fuels for that reason alone. That said these protests aren't about climate change, they're about politics, a reason to skip school and/or chic activism. I doubt most of the kids participating spend so much as 10 minutes a week prepping recyclables, limit trips to decrease fuel consumption or limit buying single serve items (water bottles, small snack packages, etc) to avoid their increased environmental toll.

    6. Re:Kids believe in stories by turp182 · · Score: 1

      Religion shows this to be case for many adults as well. Every single word actually.

      I like the comment, I am not disparaging.

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    7. Re:Kids believe in stories by Kohath · · Score: 2

      It's tax free.

  8. Screw that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm just thinking how envious we should be that a kid found a way to play hooky that has the publicity and backing to keep them out of detention.

    Wish I'd thought of this when I was in high school (the assholes in charge would never have let it fly though!)

    1. Re:Screw that... by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm just thinking how envious we should be that a kid found a way to play hooky that has the publicity and backing to keep them out of detention.

      Wish I'd thought of this when I was in high school (the assholes in charge would never have let it fly though!)

      Huh?

      Standing outside parliament all day long would be a dream day off school for you.

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re: Screw that... by TimMD909 · · Score: 1

      I missed about 50% of my senior year. All I needed was a doctor note saying that I bad anxiety and depression, and suddenly I was unpunishable. That strategy failed miserably in the real world, but made high school bearable. Classes were easy enough that I still graduated.

    3. Re:Screw that... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      As long as permission was obtained from the parents of those children fine. There is no age too early to learn some political activism, schools should promote it. The problem here is the quite public lack of listening demonstrated by greed obsessed corporate controlled government. Running on the psychopathic principle of privatise the profits and socialise the losses.

      It would be better if government listened but all they can hear is money and they are filthy animals with a total disregard for the harm they cause as long as they gain power and profit. Keep in mind they are the ones who will be paying for those losses, with their lives and their future.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    4. Re:Screw that... by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Yes, the Government should offer to start tackling global warming by address its route causes, starting with the kids.

      No more clothes made in other countries. No more imported food. No more electronics. No more public transport and definitely no cars.

      Lets see how those kids like living Amish, because that's what they're fucking asking for.

  9. In other news by steak · · Score: 2

    Wind up toy jitters around after key is turned.

  10. Re:Fat drunk and stupid is no way to go through li by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah sure because every gods-be-damned thing has to be about DEMOCRATS and REPUBLICANS and nothing else matters. Who cares about anything that's going to happen 100 years from now? Only what happens the next election, or the next fiscal year, or the next gods-be-damned news cycle has any relevance whatsoever to anyone anywhere.

    Go see your optometrist, myopian; apparently your prescription is so out-of-date that you can't see past your own nose anymore.

  11. Disgusting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's disgusting how adults manipulate children to promote their own agendas. How on earth is this legal?

  12. I don't get it by TimMD909 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Missing 20% of your school days doesn't seem like a good way to achieving their goals. If you don't have a good education, how do you expect to be able to effect positive change in the world? Fixing things takes more than good intentions.

    1. Re:I don't get it by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't have noticed. Frankly, I spent 80% of my time in classes drawing and daydreaming -- the books were good enough to study for tests from. I still did well on all of my exams. The main parts of high school that were enjoyable were some class discussions, running cross country, pretty girls, and science labs after school.

    2. Re:I don't get it by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Missing 20% of your school days doesn't seem like a good way to achieving their goals. If you don't have a good education, how do you expect to be able to effect positive change in the world? Fixing things takes more than good intentions.

      If your education being good depends on 20% of attendance you've already lost.

      Speaking of good intentions you are absolutely right. The problem is most of the stupid shits running the world don't have the least bit of good intentions.

    3. Re:I don't get it by siriuskase · · Score: 2

      You must have gone to my public school. When my parents figured out how a little I did to get my A's, and how poorly I was being prepared for college, they pulled me out and sent me to a top prep school for the last two years. Those were a very hard two years, I started so far behind my classmates, I couldn't afford to not pay attention in class. I was still into extracurriculars at the prep school, in fact they were required, but my classes were worth going to and participating in. I never regretted changing schools. I also learned what it means to have public schools for the masses and private schools for the elites.

      --
      If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
  13. So woke! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Last week they protested bedtimes, and the week before that, having to brush their teeth.

  14. The world keeps on spinning by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Kids aren't doing this because they genuinely give a damn about Climate Change.
    They're doing it because it's a convenient excuse to get out of school.

    Fail those who exceed the maximum number of days they can miss in a School Year.

    Once you introduce consequences into the equation, you'll figure out who is serious and who isn't.
    ( Those who are willing to watch their friends move on to the next grade level while they repeat it are the serious ones )

    Adult lesson of the day:
    It isn't much of a strike / protest unless you risk something in return.

    1. Re:The world keeps on spinning by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why fail anyone so long as they do their assigned homework and pass their exams? Why is listening to a teacher yammer and yap on and on about something that's in a book or online necessary? The culture (both at school and work) should change from "show up x hours per day and pretend to be busy" to "if you can do the assigned work, it doesn't matter how you do it, as long as you don't cheat."

    2. Re: The world keeps on spinning by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      You are an imbecile and 4 idiots should have been never given a chance to mod again. Die, asshole, die

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    3. Re:The world keeps on spinning by rastos1 · · Score: 1

      Kids aren't doing this because they genuinely give a damn about Climate Change.
      They're doing it because it's a convenient excuse to get out of school.

      So you think students are too stupid to make a change in the world? Ever heard of International Students' Day? What about Velvet revolution?

    4. Re: The world keeps on spinning by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Why am I an imbecile -- as long as the material is learned, what difference does it make whether a kid shows up 160 days a year or 180? BTW - that's the way it works at university. Attendance at lectures isn't taken, but doing well on exams and assigned work is the student's responsibility. Sounds like you're the idiot, punk.

  15. Who's coordinating this? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Who's coordinating this behind the scenes? Who are the adults in charge of this? "Get a free day off school if you just go with our political program" is too good to be true. Our investigative journalists are asleep at the wheel. This is big, very big. There's a Pulitzer Prize waiting for the one who busts this open.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:Who's coordinating this? by skam240 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      ....Or the more likely scenario that there is no massive conspiracy waiting to be broken open here.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    2. Re:Who's coordinating this? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

      So you're one of those weirdo coincidence theorists, huh? It is far more likely that this is being conducted with adult supervision, but whom? Youth have extended childhoods today, often going on until well into their 20s. You're going to tell me they can do complicated political activism, the kind that most adults can't get right, without any expert assistance?

      Even if it's not there, I would feel more comfortable if this is thoroughly investigated by people we trust the most: journalists. In fact, that sounds like an even better story, children working alone successfully coordinate an extremely multi-country political activism campaign. This sort of thing is beyond the ability of most nation-states. Either way, it's a Pulitzer waiting to be won.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    3. Re:Who's coordinating this? by tomhath · · Score: 1

      When Nancy Pelosi wanted to fly to Brussels on that junket during the government shutdown, did you happen to notice what was going there on that day?

      By some amazing coincidence there was a major children's march to raise climate change awareness among political leaders around the world on the day she scheduled a layover in Brussels. Nancy wanted to just happen to be there to stand in front of the cameras posturing as if she's a leader of some sort. Then Trump took away her plane ticket.

    4. Re:Who's coordinating this? by skam240 · · Score: 2

      "It is far more likely that this is being conducted with adult supervision"

      No it's not. Kids don't need adult supervision to ditch school.

      " You're going to tell me they can do complicated political activism, the kind that most adults can't get right, without any expert assistance?"

      Not at all. What I will tell you is that they will ditch school and/or take advantage of an excuse to be self righteous on a whim. It should surprise no one that a bunch of kids acted on perfectly open social media calls to ditch school.

      "Either way, it's a Pulitzer waiting to be won."

      No. No one will be talking about this in a week because it really doesn't matter much at all.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    5. Re:Who's coordinating this? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      How did a bunch of school children know the schedule of a major world leader like that? Don't they keep those schedules secret for security purposes? This is even more remarkable if the kids did this on their own. I mean, well-funded foreign government intelligence operations can't even do this but a bunch of kids with no security clearances and no access can?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  16. Re:Really think human-affected climate change is B by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    Bite me, myopian. Now go to your priest and tell them the Bad Bad Science People are trying to tempt you with Satan's lies again. Or whatever your problem is.

  17. Re:Fat drunk and stupid is no way to go through li by kenai_alpenglow · · Score: 2

    Who KNOWS for sure what's going to happen in 100 years? I've listened to too many sky-is-falling proclamations from scientists and politicians alike in the last 30 years. I have no faith that they can predict that far in advance. In fact, according to 10+ years ago we only had 10 years to fix things or we're done for. When they quit flying to their "climate change conferences", when they start practicing what they preach, until they come up with solutions other than "Give me money" "Give me power" then I'll believe them. Until then, this whole thing is too politicized to believe EITHER side as having the gospel truth.

  18. I'll just leave this here by sproketboy · · Score: 1

    Why renewables can’t save the planet | Michael Shellenberger | TEDxDanubia

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Why we base public policy on what 14 year olds think is part of the problem.

  19. Re:Fat drunk and stupid is no way to go through li by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Skipping school (e.g. skipping knowledge) to protest something that requires a lot of knowledge to understand is not productive.
    He's not wrong. You're shelling out insults as usual though.

  20. Re:Life on Earth Depends on CO2 by whitroth · · Score: 1, Troll

    Well, obviously a liberal education lets people actually learn how to spell... which suggests that, based on your post, anyone should trust you about as much as a drunken bum on a corner selling Rolex watches.

  21. Re:Fat drunk and stupid is no way to go through li by mrlinux11 · · Score: 1

    Try going back and watching some episodes of All in the Family (Show from the 70's) and Archie and Mike get into about our government, I bet you believe the show was made now. It is the same arguments Democrats/Republicans and Climate

  22. Re:Fat drunk and stupid is no way to go through li by pgmrdlm · · Score: 2

    Well, maybe if she was informed by more then one source(like most adults). She would know that people are trying to do things.
    Myself, I think pollution is where we should start. Most pollution is plastic(fossil). It has clogged our rivers and oceans. It seeps into our ground water through either our land fills or trash left on land.
    If we were to move away from plastic products, don't you think our co2 or what ever other pollutant that contributes to global warming would decrease?
    Most western nations have already moved away from coal for producing electricity. Gas, wind, geo, Hydroelectric, nuclear. All of these has ALREADY contributed to lowering the effects of Global Warming. Research has already shown that people are moving away from everyone must own a car. People are again finding ways to survive without driving everywhere. At the very least, only driving when it is long distance.
    The research into finding other methods of energy, that do not contribute to global warming has never stopped.

    for her to say that we don't care shows that she really doesn't understand what has been done, what currently is being done, and what is trying to be done. In other words, she should stay in school so she can help intellectually to solving the problem.

    Bull shit, she is ABSOLUTELY wrong that "we don't care". Again, bull shit. Uninformed, brain washed.

    --
    Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
  23. Re:kids being manipulated by Scarletdown · · Score: 2

    They are probably being trained by whoever it is trying to get the voting age lowered to 16 so children can dictate adult policy.

    --
    This space unintentionally left blank.
  24. Re:kids being manipulated by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

    Do it. Maybe we'll end up with sensible policies like a drinking age of 18 and a military age of 25. Having a beer is a less life-critical decision than signing up to die and kill for the megacorporations...

  25. Re:Fat drunk and stupid is no way to go through li by lgw · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Who cares about anything that's going to happen 100 years from now? Only what happens the next election,

    100 years from now? The world's going to end in 20 years! Or so I hear every few years. Nuclear war between the US and Russia was a real threat to all humanity. Everything panic after is at most "meh".

    But. yeah, the Dems and GOP are both almost-entirely owned by the .01%. They only actually disagree about things that don't matter to the economy. Everything else is for show (e.g., Republicans crossing the aisle to stop the wall being built - can't let the economy be affected by that pesky democracy!).

    I'm not sure we can vote our way out of problems with economic consequences any more in America. Pity.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  26. Re:Really think human-affected climate change is B by sfcat · · Score: 1

    Do you? Go watch this: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/... if you really think that's 2 hours of lies and bullshit and so-called 'libtards' and their 'liberal agenda' then you don't belong on slashdot or in any science or technology-based career, go to seminary and become a goddamned priest.

    Great, so you know there is a problem. Now how about a science based solution...as in nuclear...anything else is just a rounding error and a feel good solution that does nothing. The first step is knowing there is a problem. But that's not the stage we are at right now. We know there is a problem, we just can't get anyone to invest in a realistic solution. Instead we get feel good solutions that do nothing to solve the core problems and likely make things worse in the long run. Until you (and your side) goes all the way to a realistic science based solution...stop using science as your sword. Because its only a sword if you use it to find a solution too. Otherwise, you are a fake using the word science to give yourself credibility while you try to amass more control of others.

    --
    "Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
  27. How shameful by pecosdave · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Manipulating kids on a global scale to push a political interest while pretending it's grass-roots and then reporting it that way in the news.

    It's time we call this what it is every time we see it. It's all about consolidated control.

    The people in charge of these movements don't give a rats ass about the environment, in fact they intentionally trigger and prolong real environmental disasters to justify more regulation. That's why the BP disaster in the gulf took so long to plug and rivers in Indian reservations were intentionally polluted by the EPA.

    They have to make each of us feel guilty in an individual basis too push their agenda. That's why stuff like this news article gets published.

    You want to really clean up the environment on a personal basis? Bring back deposit bottles, less manufacturing overhead and it gives kids and homeless something to make some money with. Stop the single use craze by buying in bulk and from farmers markets. Intentionally but things with less packaging.

    Want to address the larger scale? Legalize newer nuclear reactors that are less dangerous, like pebble bed reactors. Recycle the existing spent full no matter how Jimmy Carter feels about it. Get the ethanol out of our has engines. Start making Sterling Engines that run in ethanol to keep the corn lobby happy and to fuel local backup power and even supplement the grid. Use it to purify water while you're at it.

    This is propaganda people, recognize it, shine a light on it.

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    1. Re:How shameful by _merlin · · Score: 1

      Pebble-bed reactors have been tried, and the results weren't too good. These advanced reactor designs are great in theory, but they seem to fall over in practice. Fast breeder reactors have had their fair share of issues. Pretty much any reactor that uses liquid metal as coolant seems to turn into expensive dead weight after an unexpected shutdown. The "generation 3+" reactors seem to be our best bet at the moment.

  28. Re:Really think human-affected climate change is B by Solandri · · Score: 2
    It's a foggy day. Your car is approaching a bridge. Someone standing besides the road waves his arms and yells that the bridge has collapsed. You continue driving. You pass more people waving at you trying to get you to stop, exclaiming the bridge is out. You continue driving. Eventually you get close enough that you can kinda see the bridge, and indeed it does seem to be out. Do you:
    • A. Ignore the warnings and continue driving at full speed.
    • B. Step on the brakes and stop.
    • C. Refuse to use the brakes because they generate harmful brake dust, and decide some new technology for stopping cars needs to be developed to prevent you from hurtling off the collapsed bridge. You always thought it would be a neat idea to construct a giant fan connected to a generator and a battery to slow down cars by recapturing its kinetic energy, without generating brake dust, so you immediately get all the passengers in your car to begin construction of a giant fan. Some of the passengers yell at you to just hit the brakes, we can build the fan later. But you yell back that they're stupid and that'll just kill everyone anyway through brake dust. Meanwhile the car is getting closer and closer to the bridge (which now definitely appears to be out) and the preliminary fan construction is barely slowing you down.

    If you really, truly believed the bridge was out, you'd obviously pick B. Environmentalists have forced us to pick C. We've had a solution to man-made climate change for over half a century - nuclear power. The only reason we haven't switched from fossil fuels to nuclear power is because of opposition by environmentalists. They suffer what I call just right-itis. To them there's just the right amount of global warming going on. Enough that we need to ditch fossil fuels and switch to renewable power to ensure the survival of the human race, but not enough that we need to switch immediately to nuclear power to buy us more time to work on developing renewable power technologies.

    If you really, truly believed global warming was a threat to the human race, you'd accept that nuclear power was the lesser of two evils, and that the obvious smartest course of action is to switch immediately from fossil fuels to nuclear power. Thus giving ourselves decades if not centuries to work on developing renewable power technology to replace nuclear power. That these environmentalists and liberals completely reject nuclear power suggests that they themselves don't really believe global warming is a real threat, and instead they just see it as a way to pressure others into implementing their preferred power solution faster.

  29. The reality tends to be different by Laxator2 · · Score: 1

    In my country of birth there were no tornadoes in the recorded history. Until a few years ago.
    Sure people have heard of them and seen them on TV, but never experienced them, so the first time one happened, they did not know what it was.
    Yes, and kids in that same country did hear the story about the Wizard of Oz.
    Do you think they believed that they were about to meet the Tin Man and his friends?
    Or that global warming may have something to do with what they experienced ?

    1. Re:The reality tends to be different by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      In my country of birth there were no tornadoes in the recorded history.

      Just curious - how long is "recorded history" for that sort of thing where you were born? In the USA, "recorded history" for tornadoes in Kansas only goes back about 150 years, for instance....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:The reality tends to be different by Laxator2 · · Score: 1

      Well, the Romans did record the history for a couple of hundred of yearrs.
      Then the Dark Ages followed until historical records re-started around 800 years ago.
      That is from before the Mini Ice Age. During the Mini Ice Age a lot of battles took place simply because armies could cross frozen rivers.

      That particular sort of thing I was born in had many natural distasters recorded in it history.
      Said recorder hstory started before the establishment of the Emirate of Granada, and runs until today.
      The USA by contrast has as much history (1776 - today) since its declaration of independence as the Emirate of Granada had at its fall (1230 - 1492, the year America was discovered).

  30. Eh, Manchester kids are blocking the trams by Ecuador · · Score: 1

    Eh, Manchester (UK) kids are protesting by blocking the trams, one of the friendliest to the environment mode of transportation available for the city. If they don't realize the stupidity of that now, they sure won't in the future by missing more school...

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
  31. Did they? by argStyopa · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...or should the title really be "Kids skipping school opportunistically use some current cultural thing as excuse to avoid punishment"?

    I'm not sure I'm going to really follow the 'moral leadership' of a group who had to be repeatedly told to STOP EATING TIDE PODS.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Did they? by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure they're going to really follow the 'moral leadership' of a group that repeatedly fell for the claim that they were eating Tide pods.

    2. Re:Did they? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Kids skipping school opportunistically

      To go stand in front of parliament? What the hell kind of weird kids do you know?

    3. Re:Did they? by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Someone tell the NYT, then.
      https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0...

      I know you're trying to be all morally superior but 1) it does seem to have been a thing briefly and 2) it wasn't really meant to be taken as a serious comment you humorless toad.

      --
      -Styopa
    4. Re:Did they? by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      And what % went and "stood in front of parliament" or any meaningful government entity?

      1%?

      0.0001%?

      You're not going to persuade me that this was some sort of motivated Children's Crusade when I'm guessing 99%+ basically just skipped school because it'd be fun and they had a righteous excuse not to get in trouble this time.

      --
      -Styopa
    5. Re:Did they? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      So because a few kids skipped school you're vilifying the cause which showed a turnout larger than what Trump would define "the biggest ever"?

      You have a shithouse attitude towards humanity.

    6. Re:Did they? by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      I've had a half-century of experience: yes, humanity is largely shitty.

      And frankly, I wouldn't use anything that dipshit said as any sort of justification, but that's me?

      --
      -Styopa
    7. Re:Did they? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I've had a half-century of experience: yes, humanity is largely shitty.

      Half? You sound like you're a lawn short of telling kids to get off the lawn.

      Me, I also have half a century experience. It definitely sounds like you hang out with a shitty crowd. Humanity is just fine.

    8. Re:Did they? by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Day before yesterday I'd opined in a thread on gizmodo (in response to someone saying that the 2nd Amendment wasn't written in an era of machine guns and assault weapons, and thus this meant they didn't apply) that the 1st Amendment was ALSO written in an era before telephone, radio, email, facebook, etc so all those should, by the same logic, no longer be covered by freedom of speech.

      Within 24 hours I had twelve (ostensibly) different people tell me "KILL YOURSELF" with various colorful adjectives and descriptions. One then looked up my username, and in 6 other (irrelevant) threads where I'd posted variously about cars, Superhero movies, etc he (?) proceeded to post repeated replies to those posts of "KILL YOURSELF".

      Yeah, humanity is just a wonderful bunch of folks. Oh, there are certainly a lot of good people. Just...I'm doubting "most".

      cf Trevor Moore's Ballad of Billy John https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      -Styopa
  32. Re:kids being manipulated by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    I say why the hell not, plenty of old people vote like children anyway.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  33. So Stupid by Paxtez · · Score: 1

    Ugh. Sooo stupid. I don't have words.

    1. Kids don't produce anything, striking saves resources
    2. Education is for their benefit
    3. Their parents may be liable for them not going to school
    4. This is obviously mostly done because of they want to skip class. That is why it is a Friday.
    5. Who are they are they trying to influence? You protest at a bank because of the policies of the bank. Schools are not causing CC
    6. Are they doing "productive" things during the time? Or just playing games or whatever?

    Ok. I lied, I guess I do have words.

  34. My head hurts by MBGMorden · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Half the arguments these days tend to go something like:

    Employee: "I'm taking Fridays off to protest global warming!"
    Boss: "How is that related to global warming?"
    Employee: "I can't believe you'd say something so racist!?!?!"
    Boss: "That had nothing to do with racism, and if you don't come in Friday you won't get paid."
    Employee: "How could you try to deny my existence!?"

    I'm not going to deny that global warming exists, but to speak bluntly: it doesn't much matter if we dump X amount of CO2 into the atmosphere in 100 years or 8000 years. On a global/geologic timescale they are approximately equal. Regardless of how fast we do it, every single fossil fuel on this planet will be used up and burned. All we can really do is cross our fingers and hope that however much CO2 that happens to be isn't so much that it kills everyone.

    If it's below that threshold, then we'll eventually create renewable energy sources out of necessity - essentially that will be our way of evolving through this change. If it's not, then whatever does survive will evolve to live in whatever new climate the planet settles into.

    --
    "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    1. Re:My head hurts by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Rick Sanchez is that you?

  35. Participation is not voluntary by CAHutch · · Score: 1

    It's not really "playing hookey" if the teachers are giving the kids extra credit to participate.

  36. Ok so there is a Climate Change Issue, so...... by 3seas · · Score: 1

    The few (some fraction of 1% or the 7.5 + billion population) who are controlling the correction of the climate issue need to get their ass in gear and get it done instead of just talking about it all the time. For certainly they are not allowing the rest of us, the mass majority of the population to participate, otherwise http://3seas.org/Voice_of_Glob... would happen. Isn't it Obvious?

  37. I am shocked! Kids can by oldgraybeard · · Score: 1

    cook up a reason to skip school! We can all feel secure that some day these enlighten/educated?/smart individuals will be running things.

    Just my 2 cents ;)

  38. Re:kids being manipulated by Kohath · · Score: 1

    I say why the hell not, plenty of old people vote like children anyway.

    People who never did anything for anyone want to decide things. If you want every institution in society to be even less legitimate, that's how you achieve that.

    When there's a crisis and you need people to come together to achieve a common goal, they won't. Better hope nothing ever goes wrong.

  39. Re:kids being manipulated by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    People who never did anything for anyone want to decide things.

    What does that have to do with 16-year-olds voting in particular?

    When there's a crisis and you need people to come together to achieve a common goal, they won't. Better hope nothing ever goes wrong.

    As opposed to the status quo? Again, show me a downside of letting 16-year-olds vote compared to not letting them vote.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  40. Like boycotting school is actually going to help.. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

    The carbon problem will be solved by people who stay in school, get themselves a solid STEM education, and manage to get energy and sequestration projects going in places where the student activists can't "deplatform" them.

  41. Re:Really think human-affected climate change is B by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    I'm a registered Democrat (only recent; was Independent) and I'm an advocate of nuclear power. We can make it safer and it solves the majority of our problems in one fell swoop. Now if we can convince everyone else...

  42. Re:Really think human-affected climate change is B by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    See: https://slashdot.org/comments....
    Don't assume that 'climate change believers' and 'anti-nuclear power' always go together. :-)

  43. Re:Really think human-affected climate change is B by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    hurr durr triggered

    You're impessing me less and less. Get lost.

  44. Strike for tidal change? by WoodstockJeff · · Score: 1

    It's a more immediate threat.

    Oh, and protest storm surges.

    On the bright side, they're skipping classes that don't teach them much.

    Now, if they were striking by NOT using their phones and other things that use electricity generated from non-renewable sources...

  45. You have no idea by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    if they actually strike then yeah, this is a real sacrifice.

    First off, 7 companies are responsible for the bulk of carbon emissions. Climate Change is an industrial problem. We need to get mega business to clean up and we need to switch to clean renewables. Not eating hamberders isn't going to help. The companies making those hamburgers will just pollute the same with vegetables. Cow Farts are overrated to make climate change sound silly.

    As for the Kids, I don't know about the rest of the world but the kids in my high school were terrified to miss school. They're painfully aware of how competitive life is. They see how shitting their parents lives are and they're scared of that. This is by design, btw. Putting pressure on your working class is a great way to keep them under control.

    So yeah, it does take quite a bit to make kids skip these days. Times have changed old man. Seeing your mom and dad spend 10 months looking for work and constantly hearing "We can't afford that son" changes things.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  46. Impressive by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    We need more kids to do this. It is their future that old fogies are destroying.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  47. Protesting guns all over again? by Daralantan · · Score: 1

    I wonder if some of them even know why they are skipping? Several that skipped for the gun restriction stuff didn't even know why, they just didn't want to be in class. My fiancé had to report 2 kids fighting and one saying they were going to get a gun and shoot the other. These were 2 kids that were supposedly protesting guns. Another kid at her school in the protest was pretending to shoot a machine gun at people.

    Not that I don't think some are legitimately doing it. I just wonder how many are just having fun skipping?

  48. Re: Really think human-affected climate change is by Just+Another+Poster · · Score: 1

    Believers in âoeconsensusâ and âoepeer reviewâ are priests:

    http://dresdencodak.com/2011/0...

  49. Re: Sfcat you need a truth tune-up, punk by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    You should respect the fact that the MARKET has decided nuclear power sold at market rates IS NO LONGER ECONOMICALLY VIABLE without government monies put in, essentially socializing it.

    Imagine that; an industry massively overburdened by government regulation needs government money to make it cost competitive. I'm shocked.

    You're a moron who has never worked in a nuclear reactor. I actually have.

    Even Homer Simpson wasn't stupid enough to work in a reactor ... it's nice of you to spend your last few minutes of life telling us about your experience, though.

  50. Re: Fat drunk and stupid is no way to go through l by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    If you think being wrong once in the past makes a person wrong now, then you are an easy person to manipulate. You should learn to be more skeptical!

    Quite.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

  51. children are the lowest trick in propaganda by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    Whoever us using them, is a total piece of shits. Any oarent qho drags their kids to a demo is a total garbage and there is nothing to be proud of when that garbage pool ia the size of that garbage island in Pacific

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  52. Re:Really think human-affected climate change is B by PurplePhase · · Score: 1

    > The only reason we haven't switched from fossil fuels to nuclear power is because of opposition by environmentalists.

    And politicians. And everyone refusing to having the nuclear waste transported near them. Or put into long-term storage near them. Or be near a Chernobyl/3-Mile Island/Fukushima/whatever-who-cares.

    There are plenty of fearful people out there - you don't have to go blaming environmentalists for everything.

    And I for one am waiting for estimates as to when the Pacific Ocean will lose the rest of its new radioactive glow so people in Hawaii can once again eat their local seafood. Or, y'know, go swimming safely.

  53. Yawn.... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    Hey kids, skip school....ya....OMG...look how many kids are skipping school to support the environment.

    Okay kids, can you spell the world "environment"...

    ***
    Now if they showed up at school on a Saturday or showed up an hour early. That would really be something. Teacher supported and sponsored skipping of classes. Oh gee, how many of these kids skipped and just went home....