Today, Explained - UN-for-Greta-ble

Episode Date: September 27, 2019

In just one week, she inspired global protests, mean-mugged President Trump, and chastised world leaders at the United Nations. David Wallace-Wells, editor at New York magazine, explains the rise of Greta Thunberg. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This was a real banner week for President Donald Trump. He spent most of it denying any wrongdoing, then released a White House record of himself doing something that looked quite wrong, then he casually praised how, in another time, the people who complained about his wrongdoing might have been executed. With all the whistleblowing and impeachment talk, it's easy to forget that the president also made fun of a 16-year-old girl this week. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money

and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you? Responding to a tweet that contained a long clip of that speech, President Trump seemingly mocked Thunberg. He tweeted the following. He said, she seems like a very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future. So nice to see the president.

And it wasn't just him. Laura Ingraham at Fox News compared Greta Thunberg to children of the corn. I can't wait for Stephen King's sequel, Children of the Climate. And a guest on another Fox News show just... Well... But none of that matters because the climate hysteria movement is not about science.

If it were about science, it would be led by scientists rather than by politicians and a mentally ill Swedish child who is being exploited by her parents and by the international left. How dare you? If you, a person who doesn't make fun of children, find yourself wondering, what could make all of these grown people want to dunk on a kid? David Wallace-Wells has a theory. She is the most powerful teenager living on the planet today. David wrote about Greta for a New York magazine where he's an editor.

She's a Swedish teenager. She's 16 years old. Last August, when she was just 15, she decided to start a climate strike. We are outside the Swedish parliament. I sit here every Friday. I am not a scientist. I don't have the proper education. I am only a messenger. ways, the inaction of the global community of business people and policy leaders in combating what this generation, I think, rightly sees as the existential challenge of climate change. How does this become her mission in life so early in life? Basically, Greta came home from school, having learned about climate change at the age of eight or nine. They showed us films and pictures, and I just thought it was very worrying.

I was very scared of it. I thought that it was very strange that there was such an existential threat that would threaten our very existence and our civilization, and yet that wasn't our first priority. And starting at about age 11, Greta fell into a really deep depression. I stopped talking, and I stopped eating. In two months, I lost about 10 kilos of weight. Later on, I was diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome, OCD, and selective mutism. And a family friend who I spoke to a few weeks ago told me that her father,

who is a sort of close presence in her life, nursed her back to health, the person said one yuki at a time. So that was just a few years ago. I mean, but it was a period of time that was protracted enough that it actually, at least according to Greta, had a meaningful impact on her physical health. I mean, one of the things that really makes her stand out is that while she is 16, she actually looks quite a bit younger than that. And I think that's one of the keys to her power, her rhetorical power, is that she's speaking with the wisdom of an informed teenager, but sort of through the figure of a wise child. That makes you different, that makes you think differently. And especially in

such a big crisis like this, when we need to think outside the box, we need to think outside our current system, that we need people who think outside the box and who aren't like everyone else. She basically wasn't a real activist until last August when she started the school strike in Stockholm. And at the time, you know, she was 15. She basically didn't have any friends. She was unhappy. She felt socially isolated, uncomfortable around other people. And it really was a kind of crusade that she was launching, the kind of thing that, you know, occasionally you see on social media, somebody making a kind of noble protest, but you don't necessarily assume that it's going to amount to much. And this really took off. In December, she was giving a speech at a

UN climate conference that sort of went especially viral. The year 2078, I will celebrate my 75th birthday. If I have children, maybe they will spend that day with me. Maybe they will ask me about you. Maybe they will ask why you didn't do anything, while there still was time to act. You say you love your children above all else, and yet you are stealing climate strike in which about one and a half million people marched in the streets around the world, everywhere from Africa to Asia to the US and all throughout Europe. She had just turned 16. Of course, she wasn't done. She continued speaking. She gave a series of speeches. She gave one notable one at Davos. But her profile seemed to move up an additional notch beyond just the person who had inspired a global school strike numbering in the millions, when she announced that she would be coming to this UN summit in New York

and that she would be doing so by boat. I might feel a bit seasick and it's not going to be comfortable, but that I can live with. And if it's really hard, then I just have to think it's only for two weeks, then I can go back to as usual. It showed people on the left that some of these choices that we thought were impossible to make were at least for some people like her possible to make that one could travel across the Atlantic without imposing a carbon footprint on the world. It also really irritated people on the right who took it as a kind of trolling and took that as the opportunity to really cut into her. I mean, none of the other moments in her trajectory really produced much pushback. And the boat trip really changed that and made her a kind of lightning rod for both sides of the issue.

And I think that's ultimately only elevated her stature more. I think she is being manipulated. I think she is being manipulated. I think she's being exploited. I think she's being pushed to the forefront of a very misanthropic, depressing form of the politics of fear. I think that's bad for her because we know that she is a rather mentally fragile young girl. And I think it's bad for political debate

because the end result is that anyone who raises any criticisms of this campaign is shouted down as someone who hates children and who hates Greta Thunberg. It's become one of the themes of this conversation that she is being stage managed by people around her. In general, my experience with those people has been that they're just protective over her because she's quite fragile. She's uncomfortable in crowds. She's not really happy being the center of attention in general. And while she feels that there's sort of an urgent need to continue speaking, it's not easy for her.

And again, she's just a teenager. I think it's easy to look at a teenager who struck a chord and like the March for Our Lives comes to mind as well and say like, oh, these kids are smart and they speak truth to power and they're good at social media and they built an audience. But it sounds like that's not quite the case with Greta. Is it just her words and her image that have so struck a chord with the entire planet? Or is it some sort of greater social media savvy and media prowess or something like that? Well, she actually was inspired by the Parkland kids. That's why she went out on strike for the first time. So there is a kind of a continuity there. Well, it started with a couple of youth in the United States refused to go to school because of the school shootings.

And then someone I knew said, what if children did that before the climate? I also do think that she is pretty savvy on social media. I think almost anyone who's a the school shootings. And then someone I knew said, what if children did that before the climate? I also do think that she is pretty savvy on social media. I think almost anyone who's a teenager now is, but she wrote a series of posts about her own disabilities and the way that they were being used to target her among right-wing critics. That was also, I think, quite powerful. But in general, I think that those factors are less central to understanding exactly what's happening here than the simple fact that the science of climate change is terrifying. And there are those people who are sort of activists and advocates who take that science seriously and talk about it in urgent, honest terms. But they're also, they're activists. And so to the world, they seem like, you know, maybe a little hysterical, maybe a little

alarmist. Greta is so cool. Why are we not reducing our emissions? Why are they in fact still increasing? Are we knowingly causing a mass extinction? Are we evil? No, of course not. People keep doing what they do because the vast majority doesn't have a clue about the actual consequences of our everyday life. Her affect is always so flat and direct that it really does

seem like she's just presenting the incredibly harrowing facts of the matter to the public. And I think there's something powerful about that. I think that that is the scale of the crisis that we're facing. And just being direct about it is incredibly eye-opening. Does Greta have any policy proposals? Did she endorse any particular ideas at the UN this week? I think for the most part, she's done an incredibly savvy job of avoiding making particular policy asks. In the climate world, once you get into particular agendas or particular programs, there are always going to be some people who have objections, who think you're being unreasonable, or think you're focusing on the wrong thing. At the moment, two big areas of disagreement in the climate world are about the fate of nuclear power and of what's called carbon capture technology,

which could allow us to take carbon out of the atmosphere, but which activists see as sort of a moral hazard because it'll encourage fossil fuel businesses to keep operating. She hasn't taken a position on those things exactly. She's made some gestures about them. But in general, she's just saying very clearly, I read the science. The science says the world is about to change very dramatically if we don't change course very dramatically. The science says we need to do that immediately. And the science says that something like all of civilization is at stake if we don't. And I look at the world and I see nobody acting as though that's the case. And I'm confused and I'm frustrated and I'm angry. And I want you to know what I know about the scale of the crisis, because I can't understand if you did understand it, how you would be doing anything but what I'm doing, which is devoting my entire life to this challenge. David, you've met with Greta. You've talked to her in person. I wonder, how is she handling all of this insane attention for her voyage across the Atlantic, meeting Barack Obama, you know, going to the U.N. to be the sort of marquee speaker of this climate summit?

How does that weigh on a 16-year-old like her? I mean, it seems to me like she's tired. And it's been a really crazy couple of weeks for her. I think she feels gratified that all of these people are out with her sort of in, you know, speaking in unison about the urgency of the crisis. But I don't think it's something that she relishes. In the one-on-one interview, I think it was easier for her to kind of focus and have a kind of direct exchange. The sort of impression I had of her then was that she was the most teenager-like that I've seen her in any context. She was self-deprecating.

You know, she made a few cracks about other people in the room and that kind of thing, which is not something I've seen from her in any of her public statements. But I think that you see the speech that she gave at the UN during this climate summit, someone who is a bit being pushed to a sort of breaking point. I mean, for the first time, she was speaking in much more heated tones, much more emotionally. I shouldn't be up here. I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean. Yet you all come to us young people for hope. How dare you? You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words. And yet I'm one of the lucky ones.

People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the world who have invited her into the sanctum to talk to them about how they're doing, and she's basically cursing them out and saying, don't patronize me with your compliments for giving you hope. Do something! In a minute, what did they do?

This is Today Explained. Thank you. National Museum of American History, like Fonzie's jacket or Dorothy's ruby slippers, and he's joined by the museum's curators and special celebrity guests. Now, when Amina Alsati heard that producer on the show, she immediately thought, Nicolas Cage, who's known to drop by some of the national institutions here on the mall and steal things, at least in one or two of his movies, wouldn't it be amazing if Asif books Nick Cage to talk about Fonzie's leather jacket, or Dorothy's red slippers, or like Kermit the Frog? He could talk to Nick Cage about a water fountain in the Smithsonian, and I would listen. If you, like me and Amina, would like to hear Nick Cage on Lost at the Smithsonian with Asif Manvi. I think what you're going to have to do first is subscribe to the show, make sure he's not already on the show,

and then if he's not, you'll have to tweet at Asif or DM him and say, what's with this glaring omission? It's available wherever you listen to your podcast now. Let's get Nick Cage on Lost at the Smithsonian. Greta Thunberg delivered her powerful speech you heard earlier at the United Nations Climate Summit this week. The summit itself was something of a special occasion, and towards the end of it, I spoke with Vox's Umair Irfan to find out how it went. He was standing on the lawn of the UN. This is the quietest place I could find. It's very loud inside the building. There's a lot of

chatter. The hallways echo. The press tent is just buzzing with all sorts of activity. I'm sitting under a tree right now next to a small pond and trying to find a little bit of silence in this commotion. It sounds like there's been a lot going on, especially with regard to the environment. Is the UN General Assembly like that every year? Does it always have a climate summit? It does not always have a climate summit. And this was kind of a special occasion. It was preceded last week by some of the largest environmental protests we've ever seen. These school strikes led by young people from all over the world.

Then on Monday, the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres convened the Climate Action Summit. And the function of that is in the name. He specifically said this is not a summit for discussion. This is not for flowery speeches. This is where we want countries to come to the table with definite plans to fight climate change. And it turns out that a lot of countries are behind on some of their existing plans. Did Greta's speech or any of those protests inspire countries to take this more seriously? We did hear leaders acknowledge Greta or directly or indirectly.

You know, French President Emmanuel Macron talked about the youth activism that had helped inspire the summit. But a lot of countries had already decided what they were going to bring to the table ahead of time. The U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres said at the outset of the summit he's only letting countries speak if they're promising significant action and would deny the microphone to anybody who really didn't have anything new to bring to the table. So everybody who did speak committed to something new or announced some new partnerships or new deployments of green energy or committed to getting rid of coal. But a lot of the commitments came from many of the smaller countries. And the biggest greenhouse gas emitters in the world

didn't really move that much in terms of reducing their own emissions. Who are we talking about outside the United States, I assume? Well, the three largest greenhouse gas emitters in the world are, in order, China, the United States, and India. Now, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi did speak, and he announced that India was going to drastically ramp up its renewable energy deployment. But he didn't commit to phasing out coal or reducing fossil fuel use. And similarly, the Chinese representative who spoke also talked about China's deployment of clean energy and increasing its forested area and some of its conservation tactics.

But he also didn't commit to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Now, greenhouse gas emissions are rising in all three countries, in the United States, in China, and in India. And if we have any hope of fighting climate change and limiting warming to less than two degrees Celsius, the target that was laid out in the Paris Agreement, we need all three of these countries to make drastic cuts. And so far, we have yet to see those cuts happening. So you're saying that the commitments that have come out of this climate summit

are essentially insignificant? I wouldn't say insignificant. Part of the reason I'm calling this summit was sort of to highlight the people that are ahead of the curve in order to sort of shame or prod the people that are behind the curve. And that might be a function that we're going to see later in the coming weeks and months that countries who didn't get to speak may be a little bit more motivated now to do more. But we saw that some of the countries that did ramp up their commitments under the Paris Agreement, there was about 70 of them now who have agreed to come forward with more ambitious plans to fight climate change.

Together, though, they only account for about 7% of global greenhouse gas emissions. So while they are planning to do more in terms of the overall climate change picture, they aren't doing enough. Is this why these kids got together and filed a lawsuit against the UN? What exactly happened there? Well, a group of activists, including Greta Thunberg, filed a complaint with the United Nations Committee on the Rights of a Child, essentially arguing that their rights as children have been violated by countries that are contributing to

climate change. And they named several countries in the complaint as the particular actors they want targeted and they want a remedy from them. Now, this isn't a lawsuit because it's not filed in court, but this is a tactic for them to sort of pressure these countries even more aggressively to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. And they singled out Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany, and Turkey. Why just these five? If you look at this list of countries, you'll realize that they're not necessarily the largest greenhouse gas emitters in the world. However, these are major economies and they also have a high public profile and there's sort of a strategic decision among these activists that they want to name and shame these high profile countries and they think that they can sway them by calling them on the mat for their actions or lack thereof on limiting greenhouse gas emissions. Does it feel like Greta kind of

has a point that having a bunch of kids come to the UN climate summit and shame Argentina and Brazil and France and Germany and Turkey like she shouldn't have to do this they should be doing it themselves and it doesn't sound like there was a big commitment from anyone really to do all that much at this climate summit like does the whole thing feel kind of futile i wouldn't say it's futile but it is disappointing that this summit was convened to get countries to do more and very few of the biggest emitters vowed to do so i mean they did promise to fund more and very few of the biggest emitters vowed to do so. I mean, they did promise to fund more international climate initiatives. Some countries did commit to deploying more clean energy. But ultimately, the top line number is that they have to reduce CO2 emissions.

And the biggest contributors to those emissions are not making the big cuts that are necessary. Oftentimes, it's the smallest contributors to the emissions, the small island nations that are vulnerable to sea level rise. They're the ones making some of the loudest and most aggressive commitments to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but not the larger economies. And that's just been a constant source of disappointment here. And I guess I'm not putting it on the kids to come up with the solutions, but do you think anything changed as a result of all of the action that they inspired? I think there are some changes. Some countries are taking it a little bit more seriously.

I would highlight the United Kingdom. Earlier this year, they committed to going to net zero emissions by 2050. And it's one of the largest economies in the world to do so. And they're not a country that's particularly sunny or windy, and they use a lot of fossil energy right now. So they're actually making a pretty big transition. This is one of the most aggressive transitions towards clean energy in the world. And it's pretty significant to see a major economy stick to such a large commitment. Now, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson also came to the climate summit and announced that the United Kingdom is going to double its funding for international

climate programs. These are programs that help developing countries adapt to climate change and also limit their own greenhouse gas emissions. So the UK has kind of stepped up in a way that very few other major economies have done so. And I think it's worth highlighting that effort. So I guess while the rest of the world waits for India and China and the United States, these big three carbon emitters to do something, what are these kids going to do next? Do you have any idea? Well, I talked to a few of them at the climate strike, and many of them told me that this was their first protest. It was their first brush with activism. But they also vowed that it wouldn't be their last.

They're going to their local city councils and state leaders and telling them that they want bills and commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Many of them are also involved in climate justice acts to ensure that impoverished communities or communities of color or those that have been historically neglected and marginalized are also getting a share of the benefits of climate mitigation and aren't being overlooked with some of the impacts that are occurring like heat and extreme weather. So these

kids are definitely going to keep up, but the question is now whether the grown-ups will respond to that with anything more meaningful than what we've seen so far. Umair Irfan, thank you so much for speaking to us from the pond on the lawn of the United Nations headquarters in Manhattan. Thank you for having me, Sean. Umair Irfan writes about climate change for Vox. David Wallace-Wells writes about climate change too. You heard from him in the first half of the show. He's got a book called The Uninhabitable Earth Life After Warming.

It's out now. I'm Sean Ramos for him. This is Today Explained. The show is also made by Amina Alsadi, Bridget McCarthy, Halima Shah, and Noam Hassenfeld. Irene Noguchi is the executive producer. Afim Shapiro is the engineer. And we rock music from the mysterious Breakmaster Cylinder. Thank you. Four episodes in a row that take you from the initial revelations to the decision to open up an impeachment inquiry to the so-called transcript to the unclassified whistleblower complaint. If you're confused about any of it, listen to the four episodes that preceded this one. If you're still confused, we'll be back on Monday.

Today Explained is produced in association with Stitcher. We are part of the Vox Media Podcast Network.