Has Greta Thunberg Gone Bonkers?
Giggling fits and a refusal to discuss solutions isn’t a great look
As Greta Thunberg promotes her new book, she’s declaring war on capitalism. You may or may not agree with that stance. I personally think too many people love our capitalist, consumerist, society and toppling it isn’t going to happen, regardless of what ideologies some of us come up with.
I’ve tried convincing people to buy less stuff. Consumerism plays to the capitalist culture that so many people seem to hate in principle but cannot wait to participate in as soon as they see ‘stuff’ they like. Capitalism dies when there are no customers. Nonetheless, I’m on a losing battle when I suggest we need less stuff. People disagree.
So, we need to find other solutions that are more acceptable to the masses…
What’s the solution? Green energy is a good start. Reforestation. Carbon capture? Air travel quotas? Meat and dairy rations? Maximum insulation on all buildings? More efficient heating systems? Forcing shops to shut their doors when the heating’s on? We have numerous options, many of which our governments aren’t even considering.
Beyond those fundamental ideas, I don’t know what the correct solutions are. Neither does Greta, but the weird thing is, she won’t talk about them. I am, at least, interested in hearing about solutions and talking them through.
But when asked about possible solutions in a recent BBC interview, Greta was remarkably defiant. Apparently, solutions aren’t something she’s interested in discussing. She categorically refused to discuss solutions, as if she had no interest in actually solving the problem. That seemed a bit odd — and counterproductive to us dealing with the problem.
I have a lot of respect for Greta and her work. She’s opened up a discussion with people who weren’t engaged in the climate debate at all. That’s a fantastic achievement.
So, perhaps I’m expecting too much, but during this BBC interview, I was disappointed to see her falling around in fits of laughter. Why was she laughing? We don’t really know. The interviewer literally said nothing funny. It was bonkers!
When questioned as to why she was laughing, she made a remark about a private joke, which she declined to share, before continuing the interview, still in fits of laughter. The BBC later edited the footage to cut those bits out before putting it online.
Maybe I was in a bad mood, but I wasn’t amused. I’m concerned about the future of the planet and I watched the interview for that reason. Some of us take it seriously. Yet Greta seemed hellbent on busting the ‘myth’ that she’s an angry teenager, by giggling. I was perplexed.
To be fair, the rest of the interview was OK. I was interested in the book and keen to hear the discussion. We heard that she’s “lots of fun!” Jolly good. She doesn’t want to get into politics, because it’s “toxic”. I can understand that.
So, why did she refuse to discuss solutions with the interviewer?
“It distracts from the crisis itself”
It detracts from the crisis itself, and finding solutions is up to the politicians. OK, I don’t entirely disagree with that, but there’s no point in any of this if we don’t engage with solutions.
I understand the need to raise awareness of the crisis, but once you’ve made your case — and she’s been making her case for, what, about 4 years — there’s a time to talk about what we should being doing about it.
She’s got people listening, so let’s hear about something that actually helps. Let’s talk about those barriers to actually solving the problem and how we can remove the barriers.
Think about your boss at work. They’re not interested in you moaning about problems. They want to hear what you propose to do about it. That’s how you get people’s respect. That’s how you get promoted.
Ranting and raving only goes so far. Insulting world leaders is great theatre, but it’s a shame to dismiss the most important conversation of all!
Perhaps that debate is too much like politics for someone who really doesn’t want to be a politician. I just know that we cannot move forward without focusing on the solutions.
On the upside, Greta has a hell of a position of influence so I hope she continues to use it wisely. I am interested in what her book has to say, although my immediate reaction is that books have a huge carbon footprint! That doesn’t seem very ‘Greta’.
I wonder if her aversion to discussing solutions is because she’ll get out of her depth quickly. She might tie herself up in knots, getting into arguments about barriers to those solutions that detract from her central message. It’s the only reason I can think of to explain why she’s so averse to focusing on solving the problem, rather than just complaining about it.
Complaining makes good theatre — but focusing on solutions makes greater sense.
End note: Your comments and criticisms have been taken on board. ‘Bonkers’ is a term of endearment for eccentric behaviour — I expect she’s heard worse.
© Susie Kearley 2022. All Rights Reserved.
More from me…
