I think Greta thunberg hate is a PsyOP

Like Does any one who dislikes Greta thunberg, remember why exactly they do?

Why does the whole world hate this girl?

It's as if the Internet told us to and we just did.

I remember when she was loved by the world, why the switch up?

Everytime I hear someone going on about her it's either that cringe clip from when she was like 12 or something she has never said.

In fact when you ask a Greta thunberg hater what exactly she did it always boils down to the same exact lines as if they were given it by a teleprompter

"She's a highschool dropout" "she's an attention wh\\\*re" "she's a grifter".

But noone I have ever talked to can give me a reason why based on what she talks about, not ad hominem.

I am a Chinese writer and social activist currently living in Europe. China is one of the world’s most important carbon-emitting countries and, like other countries around the world, is facing the impacts of climate change. China has experienced droughts, heatstroke, floods, epidemics, and other disasters closely related to climate change, causing many people to die or fall ill and suffer property losses.

I am a Chinese writer and social activist currently living in Europe. China is one of the world’s most significant carbon emitters and, like other countries around the world, is facing the impacts of climate change. China has experienced droughts, heatstroke, floods, epidemics, and other disasters closely related to climate change, causing many people to die or fall ill and suffer property losses.

However, because of China’s political system and educational model, the public lacks the awareness and capacity to pay attention to and participate in issues concerning the climate crisis. Many people are completely unaware of the relationship between the climate crisis and the disasters occurring around them. Some also believe that climate change is false, or that it is a natural phenomenon rather than something caused by human activity.

In this article, I discuss the real dangers of the climate crisis, China’s situation and role in climate change, and the psychology and attitudes of Chinese people in confronting the climate crisis. I have also carried out some in-person advocacy in Germany, where I live, to raise awareness of climate issues related to China. However, as an individual with very limited influence, what I have been able to achieve has been extremely limited, and there has been little response. As the climate crisis intensifies, alongside increasingly severe political and ethnic conflicts around the world, I have become increasingly pessimistic.

Nevertheless, I am still publishing this article in the hope that more people around the world will understand China’s severely overlooked role and situation in the climate crisis, as well as its rights and responsibilities and its future fate.

Thank you.

Wang Qingmin

Because the article is quite long, I am posting it in several parts. A link to the full article is available in the comments. The following is Part One.

China and Its People Under the Climate Change Crisis 1
ㅤ
The Harms of Global Warming and the Responses 1
ㅤ
The Rights and Wrongs Concerning “Chai Jing Interviews Ding Zhongli” 3
ㅤ
The Fallacies of Ding Zhongli 6
ㅤ
The Interpretations, Reactions, and Paradoxes of the Chinese People Toward Climate Issues and Related Western Criticisms 8
ㅤ
What China Should Not Do and Should Do Regarding Climate Issues 9
ㅤ
From the Chinese Public’s Mockery of Greta Thunberg to an Examination of Mindsets and Values 11
ㅤ
Is it really so necessary and urgent to curb global warming? 19
ㅤ
Climate Issues and the Human Condition under Climate Policy 20
ㅤ
In recent years, the issue of climate change has become a global hotspot. Climate change refers to the rapid rise of Earth’s temperature and the increasing frequency of extreme weather since the Industrial Revolution, especially in recent decades.
ㅤ
As for the causes of this climate change, they almost unanimously point to human activities. To quote this definitional statement from Wikipedia (of course, this is not to say that Wikipedia itself is authoritative, but that its sources are authoritative—the following words come from the Tampa Bay Times, winner of 13 Pulitzer Prizes, and NASA), and the content is verifiable, concise, and highly summarizing: there is currently a strong scientific consensus that human economic activity has caused global warming in recent decades, and on the fact that “in recent decades, human-caused global warming exists and is occurring,” there is no dispute in the academic community. More than 97% of climate scientists believe that “global warming exists, and human activities are very likely the main cause of the global warming phenomenon observed in the past half century.”
ㅤ
The Harms of Global Warming and the Responses
ㅤ
The harms of this climate change are also very clear. Increasingly frequent extreme heat, rising sea levels submerging low-altitude areas due to melting glaciers, more frequent heavy rainfall and floods, the spread of infectious diseases into higher latitudes, drought areas becoming drier and more desertified, loss of biodiversity, ecological damage in extremely high latitudes due to melting snow and ice, an increase in epidemics, reduced crop yields, and stronger and more frequent typhoons and tropical cyclones. All of these pose severe harms and threats to the survival of humanity and all living beings on Earth. If the worsening of global warming cannot be stopped in time, humanity will suffer extremely painful natural disasters and induced human-made disasters in the future, and humans may even perish because of it.
ㅤ
Global warming (global warming is the mainstream and key aspect of this round of climate change, and the main subject of discussion in this article, so unless otherwise specified, “global warming” will be used rather than “climate change.” Also, “global warming” not only refers to a natural phenomenon caused by human factors, but also represents a climate crisis that will cause disasters) is mainly caused by human activities, including industrial and agricultural activities as well as various aspects of daily consumption. To curb global warming, industrial and agricultural production and personal consumption must be restricted, reducing production, supply, and use associated with greenhouse gas emissions. This will greatly affect the economic development, employment, quality of life, and social stability of nations and their people. Moreover, curbing global warming requires broad international cooperation, but the impacts of global warming differ across countries, as do their levels of development, industrial structures, and quality of life. Thus, their responses also differ. Therefore, the climate issue is not only a scientific and environmental problem but also a political problem, an economic problem, a human rights problem, a livelihood problem, an international relations problem, and many other important and thorny issues for humanity. Behind these issues are massive conflicts of interest, affecting the rise and fall of nations and peoples, and relating to the livelihood, life, survival, and death of countless people.
ㅤ
In addition, there is also the widespread influence of “climate change denial.” Due to factors such as religion, social trust, the spread and quality of education, values and culture, and most importantly, interests and positions, the forces denying or questioning global warming are very powerful. These include many politicians, social activists, and huge numbers of ordinary people, all holding to climate change denial. The main points of denial are nothing more than: “Global warming is a normal natural variation, not caused by humans or humans have little influence,” “The climate is not necessarily warming, it may even be cooling,” “Global warming is a scam fabricated by some politicians and scientists for power or profit,” etc. (and derived versions like “Global warming will not necessarily lead to disasters,” or “xx disaster is not caused by global warming but has always been a natural phenomenon,” and so on). These doubts can all actually be refuted and negated with large amounts of facts and clear evidence, but belief in these views remains very widespread. (On the fallacies of “climate change denial,” from academic journals to well-known media to experts in various countries, there are clear and credible criticisms. Because of space, they will not be reproduced here one by one. Those interested can consult reliable sources online or offline.)
ㅤ
Thus, both nations and peoples have produced numerous disputes over whether global warming needs to be curbed and how to curb it. These disputes involve interests, values, and more often the intertwining of the two. And as the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, China’s related disputes are also very fierce. The impact of global warming on China, the reactions from the government to the public, their influence on policymaking, and the domestic and foreign relations issues reflected in these reactions and disputes are all very complex and sharp, deserving of analysis, discussion, and perhaps some possible suggestions.
ㅤ
First of all, the Chinese government acknowledges the existence of global warming and its real threat to China, and has conducted massive research, analysis, and predictions on this. But regarding how exactly to solve global warming, and how much responsibility to bear in international emission reduction cooperation, there is great controversy with other countries, and China’s own policies are constantly changing.
ㅤ
What is of more analytical and discussion value, however, is the attitude and behavior of the Chinese people (of course here “the people” also includes elites and vested interests).
ㅤ
Among the Chinese people (hereinafter referred to as “the people”), the majority are actually skeptical of or even deny global warming. Their reasons are no more than the same arguments used by denialists in other countries, and their views and questions can similarly be refuted with vast and solid facts and data.
ㅤ
However, these people who hold to climate change denial cannot determine China’s climate policy, and their skepticism has little discussion value in terms of scientific validity itself. What is truly worth discussing is the stance and attitude of the mainstream populace—including both believers and deniers of global warming—toward how China treats global warming, and the values, interests, and even more complex factors reflected behind this.
ㅤ
Among the people, there is no shortage of those who agree with the reality of global warming, especially among the elite groups of Chinese society. Although their scientific literacy is not high, at least compared with those religiously devout “elites” in the United States, they are more able to understand and accept the conclusions reached by science. But this does not mean they have a correct understanding or attitude toward the role and responsibility China should assume in global warming, nor does it mean they are enthusiastic about environmental protection and curbing global warming. On the contrary, their stance is precisely one of strongly resisting global efforts to improve the climate issue, opposing China taking appropriate responsibility and making corresponding sacrifices.
ㅤ
The Rights and Wrongs Concerning “Chai Jing Interviews Ding Zhongli”
ㅤ
This stance and attitude are very typically and centrally reflected in the public’s reaction to former CCTV journalist Chai Jing’s interview with Ding Zhongli, a climate expert at the Chinese Academy of Sciences. In the interview, Chai Jing emphasized the urgency of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the significant efforts made by developed countries to cut emissions, and advocated addressing global emission reduction and China’s responsibilities in a professional rather than political way. Ding Zhongli, on the other hand, emphasized the struggle over national interests (political factors) behind the division of climate responsibilities, the need for developed countries to bear more responsibility, the idea that China as a developing country should have more space for industrial development, and that the Chinese people have the right to the same per capita emission allowances as citizens of developed countries. Ding also specifically mentioned that developed countries industrialized earlier and had longer periods of unrestricted greenhouse gas emissions, and stressed that China, disregarding the past, only demanded the right to per capita emissions equal to 80% of that of developed countries in the future, which would be sufficient.
ㅤ
On the surface, both Chai Jing and Ding Zhongli appear to have valid points (though those attacking Chai Jing do not believe she had any), and Ding’s words seemed more aligned with the interests of the Chinese people. In particular, Ding’s defense of Chinese people having emission rights equal to those of developed countries—phrased as “Are Chinese people not human?”—made the public feel stirred with nationalistic passion, calling him a “peerless national hero” and a “true expert.” Meanwhile, Chai Jing was seen as a traitor standing on the side of American and foreign interest groups, accused of lacking professional knowledge and disrespecting experts and scholars. She was vilified with slurs such as “public intellectual,” “American lapdog,” “holy whore,” and “traitor.” On platforms like Zhihu, Bilibili, and Weibo, one can find comments about this interview filled with vicious insults and defamation against Chai Jing.
ㅤ
But is the truth really what the audience believes? Was everything Ding Zhongli said the whole truth (and similarly, was everything Chai Jing said the whole truth)? What role should China really play in global emission reduction, and how much responsibility should it bear?
ㅤ
First, what Ding Zhongli said was factual, but only partially so, and clearly selectively presented. Indeed, as a late-industrializing nation, China’s level of economic development, per capita GDP, and standard of living are far below those of Europe and the U.S. For present-day China, economic development, employment, and raising national income are more urgent and tangible than tackling climate issues. Developed countries, with their first-mover advantage and relatively prosperous living conditions, do have greater responsibility and comparatively lighter pressure to cut emissions. This is precisely why developed and developing countries established the consensus of “common but differentiated responsibilities” in international climate negotiations, and why China participates in international cooperation to curb global warming on the basis of this principle.
ㅤ
On the other hand, however, the Chinese public—intentionally or not—has ignored the greater sacrifices borne by developed countries and the necessity for China to make greater efforts. It is true that, per capita, even after reductions, developed countries’ carbon emissions remain higher. Yet, as Chai Jing and the background video pointed out, under the agreements, developed countries would reduce emissions by up to 80% (possibly even 95%), while developing countries would not cut as much, and could reach net-zero emissions later. Ding himself mentioned that developed countries’ emissions would then be 2.3 times those of developing countries, whereas before it had been 7.54 times. These figures show that the absolute cost and relative cost (compared with their original emissions) borne by developed countries far exceed those of developing countries. This means developed countries must make proactive sacrifices, including giving up many industrial achievements already attained, facing higher unemployment among traditional industrial workers, and further disrupting existing social orders.
ㅤ
True, even so, developed countries would still have a per capita emission advantage and a historical debt. But for vested interests to willingly give up such a large portion of their existing and expected gains already constitutes a very considerable sacrifice. While it is right that they should pay more, it is unrealistic to demand that they reduce to the same per capita level as underdeveloped countries. This is like redistribution and taxation: vested interests must indeed surrender some income to subsidize the poor and maintain social fairness, but they cannot be required to reduce their income to the average wage or even minimum wage level. China’s top personal income tax rate is 45%, America’s is 35%, and in some European countries it reaches 75%. Even with a 75% tax, the remaining 25% for the wealthy is still many times greater than the average or minimum wage. Can they be required to reduce down to the average wage? Such complete “equalization of wealth” may be an ideal, but it is neither possible nor desirable in today’s world. Similarly, Bill Gates, even after donating most of his money to charity, still has wealth and consumption far above ordinary people. Must he eat, dress, and live exactly like a common worker or office clerk to be considered perfect?
ㅤ
The carbon emission issue is the same. For developed countries, their industrialization is already very advanced, with high agricultural intensification and per capita output. Although the share of the tertiary sector has risen in recent years, their per capita industrial and agricultural output remains many times higher than that of developing countries. While some of this may come from unjust income (such as colonial accumulation and inequalities created by today’s international division of labor), the mainstream of their achievements still comes from hard work and innovation. Cutting emissions so drastically would bring huge economic and employment shocks. Even with industrial transformation and job resettlement, significant costs remain, and some vested interests will inevitably lose. In fact, such sacrifices have already triggered backlash from stakeholders—from oil companies to ordinary industrial workers—causing unrest within countries (as in the U.S.). Developed countries are already willing to make much greater sacrifices in both total and per capita terms for carbon reduction; must they also be forced to match developing countries’ per capita emissions levels, which are tightly tied to their much lower per capita industrial output and GDP? Is that realistic? Ding himself said dividing the cake is a “huge interest.” Are developed countries’ “interests” blown in by the wind? If developed countries are willing to make such concessions, should China and other developing countries not also make corresponding concessions?
ㅤ
Some Chinese may know this deep down but still insist on absolute equality, and may accuse my words of siding with the rich, worrying about vested interests, or being a “traitor” standing with foreigners. But think: in China’s domestic emission reduction efforts, should Shanghai’s per capita emissions be cut down to Qinghai’s level to be fair (even though Shanghai is more affected by global warming and should contribute more)? Should Zhengzhou city’s per capita emissions be reduced to match the province’s rural areas? Even if developed regions and major cities grew partly by exploiting privileges and consuming more resources, is it fair to forcibly impose one standard of emissions? Would that benefit China’s overall development, including its underdeveloped regions? Everyone knows China’s wealth gap is huge, but in future redistribution, can or should China’s top elites and ordinary white-collar workers have the same income, white-collar workers equal to farmers, everyone exactly the same?
ㅤ
If that were done, it would fit the principle of complete equality (even retroactively) advocated by Ding and his supporters. This is the ideal image of a utopian society, but in reality it is impossible. Many Ding supporters on platforms like Zhihu are themselves somewhat educated and above average income. Do they truly support such “equalization of wealth”? Do graduates of elite universities support having the same income as Foxconn assembly line workers (even when the latter often sweat more and come from poorer families more in need of compensatory welfare)? In terms of per capita emissions, are well-off Chinese willing to reduce their own industrial and consumer goods–related emissions down to the level of ordinary people? If their past consumption-based emissions were 10 times those of poor households, are they willing to reduce to twice as much through lower consumption?
ㅤ
So, Ding’s position, seen in a completely idealized light, is indeed correct, but it is impossible to realize and unreasonable in practice. Humanity has not reached the conditions required for such absolute equality. Supporters themselves cannot equalize with those beneath them. Even within China, per capita emissions differ vastly by region. What right, then, is there to demand developed and developing countries have identical per capita emission levels?
ㅤ
Developed countries drastically cutting emissions but still remaining higher per capita, developing countries cutting less both absolutely and relatively but still remaining lower, and the per capita gap narrowing greatly, with both sides reducing emissions under the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities to curb global warming—that is already the best possible solution at present.
ㅤ
The Fallacies of Ding Zhongli
ㅤ
In addition, Ding mentioned in the interview that as a geologist, he believed human activity had little impact on temperature, and later even said it cannot be absolutely certain that global warming is caused by human activity, and raised the idea that “is there really such a thing as mainstream science?” This was quite misleading. His words resembled those of climate change denialists. Originally, I did not intend to comment in detail on the long-debunked claims of climate denialism, but since Ding’s words are raised here, they must be judged specifically.
ㅤ
Indeed, on the scale of geological time, a few decades or centuries of warming is not unique (the scientific community has shown natural cycles of tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years, the “Milankovitch cycles”), and today’s warming is but a tiny fluctuation in Earth’s extremely long history. The Earth has had periods where the average temperature was more than 10°C higher than now. But such “tiny” fluctuations from a macro-historical perspective have devastating impacts on humanity today. And this time it is not natural but man-made, not irresistible but preventable. For humans, fluctuations on the scale of tens of thousands or millions of years must and can be ignored. Just as the Sun will die in billions of years and Earth with it, this does not mean we should stop building, developing, or fighting natural disasters and climate problems. In normal conditions, humanity still has thousands, tens of thousands, even millions of years left to live. Should we strive to extend survival and make life better for future generations, or give up and ignore looming destruction, condemning billions to suffering and death? By a simpler analogy: everyone will die, but does that mean we should stop treating illnesses or striving to live longer once we are born?
ㅤ
Furthermore, Ding’s words also subconsciously (let’s assume not deliberately) ignore the relationship between constants and variables. The warming value caused by human greenhouse gas emissions is indeed a small proportion of Earth’s total temperature, but that small increase is fatal. Like the human body: normal temperature is 36–37°C, fever is 38–39°C, severe at 42°C. The increase seems small, but it is enough to cause serious illness. Above 40°C may cause fainting, 42°C can cause death in hours. The earlier 36°C posed no problem, but the extra 6°C is deadly. Climate works the same: the added increase is a small proportion but enough to destroy ecosystems and habitability, even leading to extinction. (Similarly with sea-level rise: though Earth’s altitude differences span nearly 20,000 meters, just a few meters’ rise can submerge major cities; 15 meters would drown the Yangtze and Pearl River Deltas. The rise is tiny compared to total altitude variation, but devastating in effect.)
ㅤ
As for “climate change cannot be absolutely proven to be caused by humans,” this is just exploiting scientific and logical loopholes. Regardless of the overwhelming evidence that human activity is the main cause, logic alone rebuts it. Scientific theories are never “100% certain,” but many can be treated as effectively certain. Geology itself, Ding’s field, is built on inference from evidence, not direct observation of ancient eras. Yet such inferences produce valid, valuable results. Science must “boldly hypothesize, carefully verify.” Reports avoid absolute language for rigor, but recent reports explicitly state human activity as the main cause of current warming, to prevent deniers from exploiting loopholes.
ㅤ
Moreover, even if not 100% certain, if 90% certain, should we not act? Like a medical diagnosis: even “confirmed” cases may later be overturned, but does that mean diagnosis and treatment are unnecessary? Or surgery: without it, 90% chance of death within a year, 10% chance of recovery; with it, severe pain and 10% risk of failure. Should one do it? Individually one may refuse, but for humanity as a whole, no one has the right to refuse action on behalf of all.
ㅤ
As for “is there really a mainstream in science,” it sounds scientific but is sophistry. Science is not about numbers deciding truth. But probability is part of science, and consensus emerges when a vast majority of experts agree. When 95% of scientists conclude climate change is man-made and extremely harmful, should we side with the 5%? If the 95% were coerced or baseless and the 5% free and well-grounded, then yes, but the opposite is true. The vast majority of climate scientists are free, well-trained, and provide robust evidence, with countless reports and papers. The small minority often have dubious ties—to oil companies, politics, or denialist agendas—and many of them don’t even outright deny warming, but hedge by saying it “cannot be absolutely certain.” So, whom should we believe? (By that logic, since most Chinese deny climate change and supported Ding after Chai’s interview, does that make them right? Clearly not—this is just muddying the waters.)
ㅤ
As for Chai Jing, of course her scientific literacy and expertise cannot match Ding Zhongli’s. Her other work on environmental issues has also exposed gaps in her knowledge and rigor. For instance, her documentary Under the Dome was criticized for errors, including by noted science writer Fang Zhouzi. But mistakes aside, she did not deliberately mislead nor make grave errors. As a journalist, her knowledge was sufficient to conduct interviews, her questions were factual and necessary. Especially as Ding stressed China’s stance of politics and interests, her counterbalancing with human common interests and depoliticized professionalism was valuable. Similar “oppositions” in the interview made for a fuller truth, more like a debate. If the interview had only agreement, it would have failed. She was a qualified journalist, and the program was competent. Her past work also shows her to be someone concerned for her country and people. We may critique her errors, but not smear her with conspiracies.
ㅤ
(Ironically, in recent years China has pledged a “carbon neutrality” plan, essentially acknowledging the international mainstream’s correctness on climate issues and solutions—contrary to Ding’s past views. Yet now, online, people both support carbon neutrality (or at least not oppose it publicly) and still strongly support Ding’s statements—even though his remarks predate China’s carbon neutrality pledge. This shows they do not even understand the basic facts, nor think independently. They have no grasp of what carbon neutrality policy entails or what Ding actually said. They have only positions, not principles—and positions can turn 180 degrees at any time. They claim to revere science, yet lack even basic scientific literacy or spirit.)

Sixth Mass Extinction

The likely Sixth Mass Extinction is fundamentally anthropogenic—that is, driven primarily by human activities. Unlike previous mass extinctions, which were caused by natural events such as asteroid impacts, massive volcanism, or major climatic shifts, the present biodiversity crisis is being produced by the rapid expansion and intensification of human activity. Population growth, agriculture, industrialization, resource extraction, urbanization, transportation, and global commerce have transformed ecosystems and accelerated the movement of species and pathogens around the planet. These activities collectively drive habitat loss, overexploitation, climate change, invasive species, and pollution— major drivers of contemporary biodiversity loss.

The probability that human activities will cause a sixth mass extinction cannot currently be expressed as a reliable percentage. However, the biological conditions that could produce one are already evident: extinction rates are elevated, populations are declining, and multiple human-driven pressures are acting simultaneously on ecosystems worldwide. Whether the present biodiversity crisis ultimately qualifies as a sixth mass extinction will depend largely on the magnitude and duration of future biodiversity losses.

Five Primary Drivers of the Sixth Mass Extinction:

Habitat Loss

• Destruction, conversion, and fragmentation of natural habitats
• Deforestation and agricultural expansion
• Urbanization, roads, mining, and infrastructure
• Coastal development
• Dams, river alteration, and other changes to freshwater systems
• Destruction of wetlands, coral reefs, mangroves, and seagrass beds

Overexploitation

• Overfishing
• Hunting and poaching
• Unsustainable logging
• Bycatch and other unintended mortality
• Removal of species faster than populations can reproduce

Climate Change

• Rising temperatures
• Changing precipitation patterns
• Increasing droughts, floods, fires, and other climatic extremes
• Ocean warming
• Sea-level rise
• Ocean acidification
• Shifts in the geographic ranges and timing of biological processes

Invasive Species

• Introduction of non-native species
• Predation and competition by invasive species
• Introduction of new parasites and pathogens
• Diseases transferred between wildlife, livestock, and humans
• Disruption of native ecological communities

Pollution

• Pesticides and herbicides
• Fertilizers and nutrient pollution
• Industrial chemicals and heavy metals
• Plastics and microplastics
• Oil and other petroleum products
• Pharmaceuticals and other emerging contaminants
• Air pollution and atmospheric deposition
• Light and noise pollution