She told Swedish media that she will not be appealing the verdict.

  • nothingcorporate@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    238
    ·
    1 year ago

    Let me get this straight:

    • Destroying the planet for profit: LEGAL
    • Peacefully suggesting they shouldn’t: ILLEGAL

    The law has nothing to do with morality, no matter what anyone tells you.

    • raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      I am afraid you have this very straight :/ I am so sick of our corporate-fascist world order. Big corporations are basically the worst dictator you can imagine, but with money dedicated to a PR department.

    • Spzi@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, imagine a 2D graph with axes going from legal to illegal, and legitimate to illegitimate.

      Some things are legal although they are illegitimate (like ‘Destroying the planet’), and others are illegal although they are legitimate (like some forms of civil disobedience or sabotage).

      In an ideal world the two are aligned, but ours is not ideal. Also worth noting legal-illegal is rather objective, while legitimate-illegitimate is rather subjective.

      I found Thoreau interesting on the topic, who commented being jailed for withholding taxes to not support the war: “The bars are meant to separate bad from good people”.

    • letsgo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      /me does that unusual thing of actually reading the article … ah, here we go “Protestors physically blocked oil tankers in the harbour… When the protestors were ordered to move to allow vehicles to pass, Greta was among those who refused. She was then dragged away by police.”

      So she wasn’t peacefully protesting, which by the way IS legal in most places; she was being obstructive, somewhat like those Just Stop Oil muppets who glue themselves to roads. It’s fine to protest. It’s not fine to prevent others from living their lives, and that’s why she was prosecuted.

      We can stop oil when we have a better choice.

      • scutiger@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        She was peacefully protesting. There was no violence involved. She refused to move. She didn’t hurt or threaten anyone.

        There’s no dichotomy between peaceful and obstructive.

  • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    98
    ·
    1 year ago

    her punishment was a 2500 SEK fine? They’ve just told the entire country that we can pay the equivalent of a new bicycle to block oil tankers, this is amazing.

    • boonhet@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Where the hell do you get a new bicycle for 2500 SEK? I paid 2 or 3 times that for a midrange bike (in Estonia, admittedly). 2500 SEK is good used bike territory.

        • boonhet@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Eh maybe if you only want to cycle slowly around town, sure. For me, a bicycle is more for exercise than transportation.

          It’s kinda the same as saying 8k EUR gets you a new car. I mean yeah, it’s technically true, it gets you a Dacia Sandero, but most people will still go for something they can actually enjoy.

          • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            17
            ·
            1 year ago

            what? this is a standard bike that anyone here would consider a proper bicycle, perfectly usable.

            Like, the netherlands (where almost everyone rides a bike on the regular) is known for largely consisting of this kind of bike, it’s all you need and buying something more expensive just poses a risk of theft or damage.

            • boonhet@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Difference in cycling cultures I suppose. Around here this would be considered an old lady bike. It’s great for slowly cruising around the city, but I just wouldn’t feel comfortable at high speeds, or on trails, etc. I prefer to get everywhere fast like a bat out of hell (an ADHD trait, going anything but my full speed, full-on anaerobic on my commute even, feels wrong and tedious) and need a single bicycle to work on roads, streets and trails, so I got this low-mid range hybrid. This is the most common type of bike here (well actually now fatbikes are more common, but that’s a stupid trend. And I suppose full-on mountain bikes are very popular too).

              • tchotchony@mander.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                12
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Well, you’re right, this is a bike meant for transportation, not sports. Still counts as a bike though, so original comment is right too. Everybody in the Netherlands and Belgium has one of these (and if you wanna do cyclocross or bmx or fast road cycling, you have a second, third, … bike)

                • boonhet@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Ah yeah Estonia is not rich enough for everyone to buy 5 bikes so we buy one that can do everything.

            • boonhet@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s what THAT bike is for. A good bike can be used to actually get to places in time. Hence why I didn’t know people under 60 get those in other countries.

              I’m just saying it’s weird to call the bare minimum “the price of a new X” in a comparison.

          • Hildegarde@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Bicycles for commuting are fundamentally different from bicycles for sport. Some languages literally have different words for the two.

  • Ghallo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    96
    ·
    1 year ago

    Harriet Tubman was also a criminal. Just about every single hero was technically a criminal.

    • MercuryUprising@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m sure if Harriet Tubman was active today, she would be facing the same sort of bullshit as Greta. Probably worse thanks to her complexion.

        • CmdrShepard
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          1 year ago

          If all she’s done is ‘obstruct traffic’ then how do you even know her name?

          • jj4211@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Here, I’d say the point is the point at which they face legal consequences to what specific immediate end.

            Harriet Tubman faced death as a consequence for directly freeing slaves, after suffering enslavement and terrible ongoing physical abuse that left her permanently brain damaged.

            Greta taking things to the level of Civil Disobedience faces a slap on the wrist for the somewhat less impactful goal of delaying oil tankers for a while.

            Greta is known for speaking loudly and publicly about climate change. Her level of effort and commitment is commendable, though I’m still not sure why she is held above the chorus of many many others saying the same stuff.

            However elevating her to the level of people who faced literal torture and death seems to be a bit much, in some ways diminishing the efforts of those that did risk everything. I can see how some folks might roll their eyes when people start comparing efforts of protesters largely doing safe protests with low risk versus people who risked and sometimes gave everything for immediate dramatic result.

        • vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Read the OP again. He did not make a direct comparison between the women or their actions. He said the public reaction would be the same.

          Which you can agree or disagree with, but it’s a pretty inane thing to get insulted by.

    • Cyo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Complaining about climate change will not make governments move nor civil disobedience, only when we get more than 100+ deaths due to hot temperatures per day and food shortage governments will react.
      Sadly that’s how our species work on a global scale, something must go really wrong to make the world do something about it.

        • Cyo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sometimes I wonder how bad things must get to make the whole world actually do something? probably we’ll know soon.

      • joostjakob@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        No they won’t. Adressing climate change does not fix short term issues. When there’s immediate issues (say flooding), we’ll invest in solutions to those issues (like an upriver dam).

  • HiddenLayer5@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Sweden found guilty of failing to obey world’s leading scientists and researchers’ calls for immediate drastic action against climate change.

  • TwoGems@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 year ago

    Leave it to our moronic governments to blame the people for climate change then punish them for protesting against the horrors of climate change. The rich think they’ll go into their cute little bunkers to wait it out, like we won’t eat them or something.

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s rather silly. She broke the law and was found guilty of doing so. Big deal.

      Look, I think she’s doing great things, but that doesn’t give her immunity to the law. If anything, this conviction keeps her name in the news, so it may be a positive after all.

      • MasterOBee Master/King@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh it definitely feels like publicity stunt to me, I only know her name, don’t really buy into either side deifying her or hating her. From what I’ve seen, she’s someone who may not be qualified, but has a platform and is using it for something she believes in.

        • KeyserSoze@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          deifying her

          Yeah man, before we start a climate protest, we first pray to our savior goddess Greta Thunberg. We post up a ginormous picture of her and bow, sometimes even prostrate to it. We repeat her mantra “How dare you!” a hundred times before starting anything else, because this all is about creating a personality cult, not actually protesting our meagerness when fighting climate change.

          /s

          • MasterOBee Master/King@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            There are plenty of other scientists to get behind, but you guys chose a teenager without any real qualifications.

            Sounds like she was your ‘chosen’ one.

  • hahattpro@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    This girl just follow get famous quick scheme.

    If you want to protect environment, prove it by action, not acting.

    • Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      She already took all the actions she needs and more. Now she is teaching clueless meeks like you that they need to take actions too.
      And I’m not talking about recycling and not using plastic straws, I’m talking collectively making elites accountable.
      You, of course, will side with the elites that are killing you, but other people might not

      • MercuryUprising@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s never enough for these people. She could literally be pulling carbon out of the environment with her bare hands, and people would say something like “wow, look at her doing it to get all the attention for herself”

    • vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If you hate climate change get out and do something about it WAIT NOT LIKE THAT!!!

      You sound like my grandpa.

  • Pengui@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    She broke the law and was fined. Honestly, that’s a pretty mild punishment. She could’ve probably been sentenced to prison, at least that would have been possible in Denmark (neighboring country). She should consider herself pretty lucky IMO that she got a get out of jail card just on the basis that she’s a public figure known for disobeying the rules.

    • boonhet@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I don’t think you read your article. And Steve Forbes himself doesn’t seem to have basic logic capabilities.

      2023 was the supposed deadline for stopping the usage of fossil fuels, not the exact time humanity will be wiped out. Did you think this was going to happen in as little as one year?

      It will take decades. But with every year we keep using fossil fuels, we’re ensuring that it’ll be worse.

      • TIEPilot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The way the climate alarmist make it sound it will. Or maybe there is other factors in play but you can’t waste a good way to scare the populous into fear.

        Not like we havent have had climate change before industrialization… Those glaciers melted just out of fun, hell we were told the late 70’s it was a “micro ice age”. Been around the block, this is a ploy for control. If these elites really cared about it they would scrape their G5’s jets… Never gonna happen.

        Plastic pollution in the sea, yeah thats on us. R22 eating the ozone, yeah again us. But CO2 is a natural compound, some man made, mostly naturally made. So I’m keeping w/ the status quo.

        • boonhet@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          ploy for control

          I mean one might want to consider that oil production is also controlled by elites and brings them a lot of money, so it might be why media outlets like Forbes are being paid to call it “climate alarmism” lol

          But CO2 is a natural compound, some man made, mostly naturally made

          Natural CO2 is part of a mostly balanced cycle. That balance is no longer there. We’re at a level that hasn’t been seen before in human history. Higher CO2 levels have been seen on Earth before, but that was before our species.

          The temperatures are going to be high enough that there will be no “going out” in many areas, you’re restricted to air conditioned buildings and cars. If your AC breaks at the wrong time, you’re fucked.

            • CmdrShepard
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              Why do you assume climate change simply means ‘it’ll get a couple degrees hotter everywhere?’ Will this ancient air conditioner allow Florida residents to continue living in their homes under 6 feet of water?

              What it means is more energy in the atmosphere which will be unleased in things like hurricanes, tornados, blizzards, floods, and yes, hotter weather. It isn’t going to change the entire planet into a desert climate, but it will make lots of areas uninhabitable.

            • morphballganon@mtgzone.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Every summer there are some who die of heat stroke. Yes, there are survivors, but that doesn’t mean the heat isn’t dangerous; it just means you’ve decided you’re comfortable with what you perceive to be a low risk. But each summer that heat stroke death toll will get higher. What happens when you decide you’re no longer comfortable with the risk? By then we will have missed several key opportunities in reducing CO2 levels. Better to stem the tide now, no?

        • hikaru755@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          The little ice age was not an actual ice age, and it was a tiny blip on the global average temperature charts compared to where we’re headed right now. Have you seen any of those charts? I have no idea how you could still claim “this is normal and has happened before” after you’ve seen them.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

          If you think this is a ploy for control, please tell me, who do you think is attempting to control who here? Because the people usually accused of that kind of thing (governments and billionaires) are the ones doing frustratingly little to admit and tackle the problem, and they are the only ones who actually could produce meaningful change.

              • TIEPilot@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                “China and India don’t pollute much per person”

                Not accurate, its easy to divide up the industrial waste on the common folk (per person). Ive been to China, its horrid. Makes Buffalo in the late 1970’s seem green.

                Nuclear, then batteries that are made from more common and easier materials that can be safely recycled.

                • Move to lemm.ee@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  What is the per capita carbon emissions in China and what is it per capita in your country?

                  I’ll help, it’s 7.8metric tonnes per capita in China.

                  What country are you from?

                  EDIT: Oh and it’s a paltry 1.74metric tonnes per capita in India.

            • CmdrShepard
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Previously you said CO2 isn’t an issue so why are you even bringing up India and China’s pollution levels if you don’t think pollution is to blame for any of this?

              Furthermore how can you claim the current trend is a ‘nano blip’ while we’re still in the ‘blip?’ This is like being able to predict when a stock is at its lowest or at its peak, which requires you to know the future.

    • steakmeout@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      No she didn’t. Even her tweet quoted a climate scientist. Here, let me read the article you clearly didn’t.

      In June 2018, climate activist Greta Thunberg fired off an urgent tweet: “A top climate scientist is warning that climate change will wipe out all of humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels over the next five years.”

      Here’s some context that isn’t just Steve “human ballsack” Forbes complaining about something that didn’t happen.

    • Platomus@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Even that article doesn’t say that.

      If you think it does, pull the quote from it that proves it instead of linking an article that you clearly didn’t read.