@gretathunberg if you look at what you are doing you are destroying systems that have brought prosperity and allow for innovations to help the environment in favour of stopping innovation and reducing prosperity.
Even if the problem was as dire as you put it your way of working de facto means mass famine/less people to "safe the climate".
I'd rather have people die of climate change then due to policy change. Let nature kill us off and be done with it.
@DerGretist @gretathunberg even worse: if there is no economic development in 3rd world countries they will be stuck on wood and coal for heat. They will also be very susceptible for the whims of 1st world countries when it comes to natural resources.
Lithium for our great "eco friendly" cars is very polluting, mined by lot's of forced (child) labour and thus not "sustainable".
Also co2 emissions in the EU have declined significantly. I would look at China on this one.
@DerGretist @gretathunberg ant last but not least: what do we think will happen if the predicted co2 levels _are_ reached?
There is no causal connection between co2 and temperature. And even if there where: a rise in global temp of 2 degrees would mean way more fertile land. It would actually be beneficial to wild life and plant life alike.
Not withstanding increased flooding, etc.. Do you know deaths due to climate have decreased in the past 100 years? By a LOT?
Alarmism is not good.