zlacker

It's healthy to be skeptical about the fearmongering and narrative control, while also promoting ecological policies.

A recent example: Nordstream bombing was the "worst case of environmental terrorism in modern history". US govt blames Ukrainian actors[1]. Yet Greta Thunberg hasn't made a peep about it, and recently did a photo op with the Ukrainian govt, which also hasn't spoke out about it.

It's unbelievably cynical. For some people, environmentalism is just a means to power.

[1] - https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/us-intelligence-suggest...

>>pphysc+(OP)
> US govt blames Ukrainian actors

pretty sure it doesnt, but the russian one does - maybe youve confused them?

>>pphysc+(OP)
What shocked me even more is that many people didn't even broke a sweat when they destroyed that dam, which by itself is a climate disaster. They're also threatening blowing up a nuclear plant.

>>pphysc+(OP)
How? (Serious question I don’t really understand the environmental effects blowing up the pipeline had).

Can’t Russia just turn off the tap?

>>ffhhtt+J3
Russia might have done it in order of causing pressure in Europe and to blame Ukraine.

They blew up the dam and also blamed the Ukrainians. They're also apparently rigging a NPP they control to blow up and are already trying to put the blame on Ukrainians as well.

It's a tendency, but we went a bit off-topic here.

>>martin+R1
Is Reuters Russian propaganda now? Good Lord.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/us-intelligence-suggest...

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-had-intelligence-ukrainian-...

>>martin+R1
Last I knew the motives behind the bombing wasn't even known. There's a lot of pretty large leaps being taken here.

>>pphysc+V4
From your first link:

> There was no evidence that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy or other Ukrainian government officials were behind the attacks which spewed natural gas into the Baltic Sea, the newspaper reported, citing U.S. officials.

I'm not really following why Greta should be condemning the Ukrainian government if there's no evidence they had anything to do with it.

>>pphysc+(OP)
You are still going on about that delusional idea, that some party used a tiny yacht to load it with tonnes explosives to get thru the giant pile of stones and mud above the pipes, and then manually put it in 3 or 4 separate places precisely on top of the pipes? And then nobody say the ship in highly controlled sea, and nobody found any explosives debris afterwards, not even the "offended" party with quite capable fleet?

And all that with what motivation? To harm themselves? Harm own economy? Or as KGB likes to say "to frame poor ruzzians"? As opposed to the country who had clear motive (avoid financial sanctions for stopping gas supply, which they actually did already)? And which had an easy and non sci-fi tool to do it? (maintenance payloads inside the pipes)

Come on, stop with the propaganda. Or at least find some fresh one. I have an idea for you - that Ukraine actually bought Prigozhyn wholesale. How's that for a delusional idea? Great, right? Better than cocaine used at Ostankino.

>>Volund+C6
Where did I suggest that Greta should condemn him? She should simply not run PR for the government most proximal to the worst act of environmental terrorism in history, until more is figured out.

Imagine if Barack Obama did a photo op with the Saudi King in 2002, with the purpose of promoting the Saudi regime, just a year after a dozen Saudi nationals perpetrated 9/11. "Tone-deaf" would be putting it mildly.

I'm saying that Greta Thunberg, figurehead of environmentalism, is being unbelievably tone-deaf and it reflects very poorly on the integrity of her movement.

>>pphysc+(OP)
If I search for your quotation — "worst case of environmental terrorism in modern history" — Google only surfaces this thread. Whose assessment were you citing, and what did they actually say?

>>pohl+vc
Paraphrasing, I've heard similar phrases used.

Do you have a better candidate for worst act of environmental terrorism? I'm open to amending that wording, or dropping the quotes if they are causing distress.

>>pphysc+Rc
Yeah, using quotation marks when paraphrasing is super confusing. Still, paraphrasing what or whom?

I guess I'd need to know a working definition for environmental terrorism. I've heard of eco-terrorism before, but that's generally thought to be the use of violence to further environmental policy change, which isn't want happened in the case in question.

After we have that working definition, I'd like to know why it's important that one particular young private citizen not connected with the incident be held accountable to having a statement about it.

>>travel+A3
They is russia, not “environmental terrorists”. Take your Russian propaganda elsewhere.

>>pphysc+z8
You keep calling it "environmental terrorism". How are you making that leap without even knowing who did it. Assuming for a moment the Ukraine government is involved (unproven), it seems far more likely they saw an opportunity to sabotage Russian infrastructure rather than an environmental motivation. You know the country that invaded them and they are currently at war with?

> Greta Thunberg, figurehead of environmentalism

Yuck. Greta is a 20-year old woman who happened to find the spotlight at 15 because a young person being so outspoken captured the public imagination. She's not some patron saint of environmentalism she's one young person who will enjoy making a great many bad decisions in her life (it's not clear to me that this is one). Taking her every action or inaction and using it to paint the entire environmental movement is nonsense.

> Imagine if Barack Obama did a photo op with the Saudi King in 2002, with the purpose of promoting the Saudi regime, just a year after a dozen Saudi nationals perpetrated 9/11. "Tone-deaf" would be putting it mildly.

Comparing Nord Stream to 9/11, especially if it was an act of war by Ukraine, feels like quite a reach.