- Aug 4, 2019
UNCUT: Greta Thunberg's unedited encounter
Globalist Soros Puppet.
Globalist Soros Puppet.
Maybe uhm...You know, she could..like stay? We reeeeally would rather see her stay in your country than ours. /Love, Swedenhttps://nationalpost.com/news/world/after-her-american-tour-how-is-greta-thunberg-getting-home
After her American tour, how is Greta Thunberg getting home?
The 60-foot yacht she chartered to get her to New York has returned to Europe, and Thunberg says she does not know how she will return to Sweden
Greta Thunberg arrives in New York after her 15 day boat trip across the Atlantic Ocean.
October 18, 2019
8:15 PM EDT
Greta Thunberg, the 16-year-old Swedish climate activist, has been making waves the world over with powerful speeches and appearances in climate strikes.
Since late August, she’s been on a tour of North America, attending rallies, meeting with world leaders, and speaking at the United Nations Climate Action Summit in New York City. She’s set to march in a climate strike in Edmonton on Friday, Oct. 18.
Thunberg has said she received many requests to speak at events internationally, but declined due to the extensive travel it would require. But she decided to make an exception to attend the UN climate summit as well as a major UN climate change conference in Santiago, Chile, where her trip is scheduled to end.
I don't know yet how I will get home
Her trip to North America is well-documented — she sailed for 15 days from England to New York on a carbon-neutral racing yacht to avoid the huge impact air travel has on carbon emissions.
But now that she’s finally here, some have begun to wonder: how is she getting back home to Sweden?
Before she left England in August, she said “I don’t know yet how I will get home,” according to the Daily Mail.
For starters, the boat she took to get to New York, the Malizia II, has returned to Europe. Despite trying to avoid carbon emissions, her organization has seen some criticism because the crew returned by plane — her team said the emissions were offset.
Which means that Thunberg is left with either chartering a plane, which she refuses to do, hopping on a commercial cruise line, which she’s also spoken out against because of the emissions, or chartering another carbon neutral boat to come pick her up.
“Greta doesn’t take airplanes so she’ll have to get to both Chile and back to Sweden using other modes of transportation,” a spokesperson for Thunberg’s team told Vox.
“The details are not confirmed yet.”
I watched about 2 minutes of this..... the "journalist" is a joke and got handled by the kid. If this guy is so concerned about children, perhaps he can investigate Rebel News' Epstein connections......UNCUT: Greta Thunberg's unedited encounter
Globalist Soros Puppet.
It's so obvious that it's time to consider that a good portion of the population is just dumb as rocks. Others think Greta is just an idealistic and naive girl and just ignores whatever she says. As you've said, Greta is the face of a sinister agenda.It's pretty obvious that she's just a puppet on a string, hurts my head how more people can't work this out. Who her benefactors are and what their agenda is is the question that should really be getting asked. Instead the few media outlets who're critical of her just focus on her tone and the way she says things, never actually trying to get to the bottom of who's putting her up. The agenda behind her and this whole 'climate change' thing is very sinister in any case.
They seem to have succeeded in winning over people to their cause..https://reason.com/2019/10/25/environmentalists-torment-rather-than-convince-california/
Why Do Environmentalists Seem Determined To Torment, Rather Than Convince?
From plastic bag bans to plastic straw bans to bans on shampoo bottles in hotels, California is adopting supposedly environmental policies that won't save the environment but will piss off residents.
STEVEN GREENHUT | 10.25.2019 8:00 AM
Grocery shopping had never been one of my favorite activities, but it never used to be as cumbersome as it is now. I'd fill up the cart with food, wait in line at the check-out counter and kibitz with the cashier as the bagger loaded up—and double-bagged—my groceries. Now, the lines are much slower because bagging has become an ordeal thanks to the "Earth-protecting" plastic-bag ban the state had passed a few years ago.
Consider what happens now. Store employees can't simply place your food in the needed bags. They have to ask how many bags shoppers want to buy. "As many as needed," I always say, given that I don't really care if the $150 transaction costs another buck. It's basically just another tax we pay to live in a former paradise. But that's not how it works now. The employees dispense bags parsimoniously. Who can blame cashiers given the guff they might get if they sell someone an unnecessary bag?
Bagging used to be an artform, where baggers carefully separated, say, the eggs from the bottle of Chivas Regal. Now they cram as much stuff as possible in a single bag. Heaven forbid you get stuck behind someone who pulls out a trove of bacteria-laden, reusable sacks. I put the new thick bags they sell right into the garbage, whereas I used to reuse the lightweight "single use" bags to pick up dog poo and line the bathroom waste baskets. Now I have to order those thinner ones online.
This has not improved the environment one iota, even though it has added to our daily annoyance. There always was plenty of evidence to debunk the push for the bag ban. Those bags comprised an infinitesimal portion of the waste stream.
But grocery stores supported it because, well, they can now charge for something they previously gave away. You can always count on a coalition of true believers and profit-seekers—the "Baptists and bootleggers" from Prohibition lore—to unite behind such edicts. And voters, who are easily swayed by uplifting ballot nonsense, rejected a referendum that would have overturned the ban. Those who promote these laws don't view shoppers' inconvenience as a downside. They often view it as a self-healing and education process.
"If we live in an environment that's wounded … it hurts us, chipping away at our health and creating injuries at a physical, psychological, and spiritual level," wrote Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Wangari Maathai in a 2011 Huffington Post column. "(I)f we help reclaim or save what is lost…the planet will help us in our self-healing and indeed survival."
I'm not suggesting that California's progressive lawmakers sit around the campfire, venerating crystals and reading poetry about the wounded Earth. But they aren't doing much research before proposing an endless stream of these "let's annoy the public" proposals. They certainly aren't looking at cost-benefit analyses, either. For instance, Gov. Gavin Newsom recently signed Assembly Bill 1162, which bans larger hotel operators from giving out those little, convenient bottles of shampoo, conditioner and hand lotion.
"The proliferation of plastic waste is having a devastating impact on our environment and overwhelming landfills," said Assemblyman Ash Kalra (D–San Jose), the bill's author. That may be true, but it has virtually nothing to do with hotel guests. "What activists fail to mention is that approximately 60 percent of plastic trash in the ocean comes from just five countries – China, Indonesia, The Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam—which have notoriously inefficient waste management systems," explained Billy Binion in Reason. "America, meanwhile, contributes less than 1 percent."
It would be nice if, for a change, lawmakers who promote these ideas at least wrestled with such rebuttals or with the latest facts. Recycling, for instance, is a great idea—provided there's an actual market for the recyclables. But as the Orange County Register reported in May, a declining percentage of trash is recycled despite all the new recycling mandates the state keeps passing. The article's headline notes that, "Your recyclables are heading to the dump." I pondered that as I stood over a multi-bin recycling center at the airport trying to figure out which portion of my trash should go into which portion of the container.
But at least we can learn about our wastefulness in the process. Regarding shampoo bottles, Kalra argues the ban will "increase consumer awareness of our use of plastic." He essentially admits that a main reason for the law is what this skeptic argued above: to reform and educate us. The California Hotel and Lodging Association supports the measure, but that's not a surprise. Hotels will save money, while the rest of us bring along contraband bottles or use those big dispensers—and hope that no previous guest has tampered with them.
Earth to environmentalists: Improving the environment is a noble calling, but you'll have far more success incentivizing it rather than tormenting us.
She was recently here in my city and when she left her hotel room still had all their lights on not to mention the gigantic diesel generator they used for her speech.
....note the 'single eye' framing of the image, as well.... needs to go in the "I see eyes everywhere thread" also!