Across the ocean

 

"Greta" (called "I am Greta" internationally) is a documentary by Nathan Grossman. It follows teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg from Sweden as she addresses or scolds world leaders, joins protest marches, talks to Arnold Schwarzenegger, meets the Pope of Rome, sails across the Atlantic, and fights her private depressions and anxiety. "Greta" also features the girl´s parents, her father Svante in particular, who seems to be her constant companion and thus something of an activist in his own right.

The documentary is interesting, after a fashion, and I don´t doubt Greta´s sincerity (or that of the others). However, I nevertheless have a problem with it. It´s, ahem, not a documentary sensu stricto. 

In Swedish mainstream media, "Greta" has been heavily promoted as an extremely revealing tell-it-all, and Grossman´s role as silent observer is said to be downright sensational. Except, of course, that it isn´t. Already in 2018, Greta´s mother Malena Ernman published an entire book, "Scener ur hjärtat", which revealed pretty much every problem the family has struggled with for the past 10 years or so. The whole concept of a little girl with emotional problems nevertheless being able to challenge the powerful is part and parcel of the campaign itself. The media likes Greta´s "precocious" and "intelligent" criticism of the world leaders, and her "insight" that they don´t really mean what they say, but this too is part of the campaign, a campaign the purpose of which is to scold the masters of the universe precisely for being insincere, and so on. (Note also that the scolding simply continues, even after the leaders have been "exposed".)

In other words, "Greta" isn´t sensational objective reporting. *It is PR material from the climate change campaign itself*. Which may or may not rub you the wrong way, presumably depending on your political inclinations.

My own inclination when it comes to the climate change campaigns are pretty pessimistic. The demand to simply stop using fossil fuel (or cut it by half) is clearly utopian. It simply won´t happen, since it would turn planet Earth into a pretty good imitation of a low budget zombie flick faster than you can say "Anuna de Wever". The problem, of course, is that *not* stopping fossil fuels will eventually *also* turn this rock into a hard place (unless our scientists have some *really* good solution up their sleeves - let them now step forward). Add to that overpopulation and diminishing resources, including (ironically enough) oil. 

The perspective is one of more resource wars, perhaps even some kind of eco-wars, super-exploitation of remaining resources, refugee crises, pandemics, and illiberal regimes demanding that the people "tighten their belts" because of the crisis. It´s very difficult to see how a left-liberal reform campaign for more wind turbines can possibly stop this avalanche. But then, it´s difficult to see how anything else can possibly stop it either, short of the Second Coming of Christ!

And, of course, that´s just a myth. 

If humanity solves the problem of climate change, it will be solved in the bumbling, fumbling, messy, imperfect way in which humanity always solves its problems...until the next crisis. Nazi Germany and the Axis weren´t defeated by the Quakers, the White Rose or even Herschel Grynszpan. They were smashed by terror bombings and nuclear bombs, administered by an alliance of the world´s largest colonial empire, a butcher almost worse than Hitler, a nation with race segregation over a large portion of its territory, and a whole bunch of fascist turncoats. Otherwise known as "the Allies". And this was actually a pretty neat scenario, all things considered. Don´t get me started on how Communism was defeated...

On the basis of the above, you can probably make out how climate change might be taken care of.