Connect with us



Teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg has reemerged into the public view with a series of new, viral videos chiding Americans that they must profoundly alter virtually every aspect of their lives, or the world will run out of resources before turning into a scorched wasteland. They must also change the food they eat because, after all, it has feelings, too.

Thunberg made global headlines when she delivered a bitter indictment of global leaders at the United Nations in September 2019. “All you can talk about is money and fairytales of eternal economic growth,” she said. “How dare you!”

The Swedish climate change activist has brought her pessimistic message back to the internet for NowThis News.

“Let’s face it, if we don’t change, we’re f***ed,” she says in a new video, which has garnered more than 117,000 views as of this writing.

We can’t fact-check her sense of existential doom, but we can examine a few of her statements.

What is the claim?

Thunberg tied several contemporary social crises into her apocalyptic view of climate change, including the spread of disease, the possible starvation of the human race, and the mass slaughter of what she apparently views as thoughtful and emotional fish. “What they all come down to is the way we treat nature,” she said, because we ignore the fact that “we are part of nature.”

Thunberg said that deforestation speeds the spread of diseases from animals to humans. “Millions have died from COVID-19, Zika, Ebola, Swine Flu, Mad Cow Disease, West Nile Fever, COVID-19, SARS, MERS, [and] HIV-AIDS. Up to 75% of all new diseases come from other animals,” she said.

She also virtually equated the death of lower lifeforms with that of humans. “Every year we kill more than 60 billion animals, excluding fish, whose numbers are so great that we only measure their lives by weight. What about their thoughts and feelings?” she asked.

Thunberg sounded a more familiar argument when she argued that the prosperous lifestyle of the West will soon cause the entire world to run out of resources. She pinpointed the consumption of meat as a source of carbon dioxide emissions, as well as a huge use of land.

“If we continue, we will run out of land and food,” she said. “If we change toward a plant-based diet, we could save up to 8 billion tons of CO2 every single year. We could feed ourselves on much less land, and nature could recover.”

What are the facts?

The most easily verifiable claim we can check is a common one: that higher levels of prosperity mean the world will run out of resources, in this case, food and farmland. The extreme environmentalist movement, especially its population control wing, has made the same, baseless argument for decades. Population control guru Paul Ehrlich wrote in 1970 that overpopulation will “completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make” — which would trigger a “great die-off,” where 65 million Americans will starve to death in the 1980s together with 4 billion people around the world.

Obviously, that didn’t happen. Ehrlich made a common mistake: He ignored the fact that technological progress lets the world sustain life more effectively with fewer resources.

The world is not running out of farmland, because advances in productivity have made it possible to grow more food on less land. People globally consume more calories, pay less for food, and use less land for cultivating food than in decades past. “Between 1961 and 2014, global cereal yields per unit of land increased by 154%,” according to the invaluable website Erosion fell by 43% between 1982 and 2007.

But what about meat? The same process is at work for every kind of livestock, which have gotten larger over the decades without taking up more space. Cows, chickens, and pigs produced 150-169% more meat per carcass in 2018 than in 1961. And this trend will continue.

We’re in no danger of running out of meat. Over the next 10 years, the global supply of meat will outpace global demand by 15 million tons (megatons, or “Mt” for short), driving down real prices. Demand for meat will increase to 350 million tons (or megatons, “Mt”), while the supply will increase to 365 Mt, according to an estimate from the OECD.

It’s true that, if we made no technological progress, the world could not live on the same kind of diet as the average American does today. Greta’s beef with beef is a red herring, because most global demand is for chicken and pork, which takes less land. And it’s not clear that the current American diet is healthy for Americans, either.

Her claim of animal-to-human disease transfer rests on better ground. “At least 61% of all human pathogens are zoonotic, and have represented 75% of all emerging pathogens during the past decade,” according to the World Health Organization. But it doesn’t help Thunberg’s case to raise this just as public authorities are finally beginning to investigate the possibility that COVID-19 originated inside a lab like the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

The weak link is the idea that human beings are simply another part of nature, so the “thoughts and feelings” of fish are equal to those of your relatives. Scientists have not established definitively that fish possess intelligence or emotions comparable to humans. Some researchers like biologist Victoria Braithwaite of Penn State University have claimed to find evidence that fish feel pain, have thoughts, or have some form of rudimentary emotions. Others, like Brian Key of Australia’s University of Queensland, have concluded, “While mammals and birds possess the prerequisite neural architecture for phenomenal consciousness, it is concluded that fish lack these essential characteristics and hence do not feel pain,” much less do they experience higher emotions.

Most importantly, Western civilization built itself upon the notion that human beings possess special, innate human dignity that sets us apart from the rest of creation. The Judeo-Christian tradition, harkening back to the Bible, finds this in the creation of all humanity in the image of God (imago Dei) and the commandment to “replenish the earth and subdue it” (Genesis 1:28).

What’s the bottom line?

Greta Thunberg stretches the truth at times, bends or breaks it at others, and downgrades the unique place of human beings in creation. Her overblown claims might provoke greater cases of “eco-anxiety,” but they don’t point the way to a brighter or more sustainable future.

  • Please explain to me how a person with “her” Level of Education and Life Experience (KNOWS) the World will end because of the HUMAN EATING OF FISH, OR ANY MEAT? But that Plant Based foods will be the Saver of “everything” EARTHLY? How will the “Farmers” plant and Grow, and Harvest, process and take to market any of the (PLANT BASED FOOD) without any equipment ran by an Oil Based FUEL! Maybe they will start using the People that SHE SEEMS TO BE “RE-EDUCATION” In the Schools of the savior “Greta”!
    Little TWIT, needs to eat nothing but plant based food Grown from HER OWN FARM! For Life!

  • Bluewren says:

    Isn’t it time this idiot was locked away in a psychiatric ward and undergoing therapy?Lest we forget her bl**dy stupid parents as well?Just the sight of her is stomach turning without having to listen to her bull shite.

  • Brian says:

    What about plants rights? There is scientific evidence that plants feel pain. You going to stop eating plants too? No meat, no plants, guess you will die of starvation huh?

  • Fred says:

    To be reasonable, Greta is correct about some things. The earth only has the capacity to support a finite number of people. Our economic systems appear to require continued financial growth to support them, since people spend more money through their governments to produce, so borrow and print more. Her solutions are unworkable. People will not sacrifice comfort, conveniences, standard of living or adopt a vegetable diet Soylent Green to circumvent future problems. It is not human nature to do so. The only possible path forward to prevent her view of the future is innovation. Governments, particularly ours, are not capable of proposing workable solutions to the simplest of problems.

  • CF


    Federal Judge Halts Biden’s $4B Plan to Compensate Farmers Based on Race



    A federal judge took the extraordinary rare step of issuing a temporary restraining order halting President Joe Biden’s $4 billion loan forgiveness program for minority farmers, saying the plan replaced one form of discrimination with another because white farmers are excluded.

    Wisconsin Judge William Griesbach, a George W. Bush appointee, also claimed the plan did not give adequate examples of recent hardships imposed on minority farmers.

    “The obvious response to a government agency that claims it continues to discriminate against farmers because of their race or national origin is to direct it to stop: it is not to direct it to intentionally discriminate against others on the basis of their race and national origin,” Griesbach wrote.

    “Indeed, Congress can implement race-neutral programs to help farmers and ranchers in need of financial assistance, such as requiring individual determinations of disadvantaged status or giving priority to loans of farmers and ranchers that were left out of the previous pandemic relief funding,” Griesbach wrote. “It can also provide better outreach, education, and other resources. But it cannot discriminate on the basis of race.”

    The money for farmers is part of Biden’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan that directs $4 billion to offer loan forgiveness through the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and would be used to pay up to 120 percent of direct or guaranteed farm loan balances for black, American Indian, Hispanic, Asian American, or Pacific Islander farmers.

    The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported on the lawsuit:

    The group is representing 12 farmers, two of whom live in Wisconsin. Calumet County dairy farmer Adam Faust, who farms with both legs amputated after being born with spina bifida, and Christopher Baird, who owns a dairy farm near Ferryville in Crawford County.

    “There should absolutely be no federal dollars going anywhere just based on race,” Faust said.

    “The Court recognized that the federal government’s plan to condition and allocate benefits on the basis of race raises grave constitutional concerns and threatens our clients with irreparable harm,” said Rick Esenberg, president and general counsel for Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL). “The Biden administration is radically undermining bedrock principles of equality under the law.”

    The Sentinel reported the USDA is still implementing the program but is reviewing what the restraining order means for its future.

    ”We respectfully disagree with this temporary order and USDA will continue to forcefully defend our ability to carry out this act of Congress and deliver debt relief to socially disadvantaged borrowers,” a USDA spokesperson said. ”When the temporary order is lifted, USDA will be prepared to provide the debt relief authorized by Congress.”

    Some 17,000 farmers and ranchers from all 50 states qualify for the assistance, according to the Sentinel.

    The case in Faust v. Vilsack, No. 1:21-cv-528 for the U.S. District Court Eastern District of Wisconsin.

    Continue Reading


    Police Investigating The ‘Suicide’ Of A Reporter Who Broke Clinton Tarmac Story



    Law enforcement officials in Alabama are investigating an apparent “suicide” by the reporter who broke the bombshell story in 2016 that former President Bill Clinton secretly met with then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch on a Phoenix tarmac in the run up to the presidential election while his wife, then-candidate Hillary Clinton, was under federal criminal investigation.

    “At 8:13 a.m. Saturday, the Hoover 911 center received a call of a person down at a residence on Scout Trace. Hoover police and fire personnel arrived to find the 45-year-old [Christopher] Sign dead,” reported. “Hoover police Lt. Keith Czeskleba said the death is being investigated as a suicide.”

    Sign, who played football at the University of Alabama, moved to a local ABC News station in Alabama in 2017 after working at a news station in Pheonix.

    The New York Post reported:

    While there, Sign broke the major 2016 presidential campaign news that Bill Clinton met with Lynch on the tarmac of Phoenix’s Sky Harbor Airport while the then-AG was investigating the use of a private e-mail server by Hillary Clinton, the former president’s wife and the Democratic presidential candidate at the time.

    Sign went on to write a book about the encounter titled “Secret on the Tarmac.”

    Sign told Fox News last year that he “knew something had occurred that was a bit unusual” on the tarmac.

    “It was a planned meeting,” Sign said. “It was not a coincidence.”

    “[The book] details everything that they don’t want you to know and everything they think you forgot, but Bill Clinton was on that plane for 20 minutes and it wasn’t just about golf, grandkids, and Brexit. There’s so much that doesn’t add up,” he said. “He then sat and waited in his car with the motorcade, her airstairs come down, most of her staff gets off, he then gets on as the Secret Service and FBI are figuring out ‘How in the world are we supposed to handle this? What are we supposed to do?’”

    Sign, who said that he received death threats over his reporting, said that the story “isn’t about right or left, Republican or Democrat, it’s about right and wrong and journalism.”

    “My family received significant death threats shortly after breaking this story,” he said. “Credit cards hacked. You know, my children, we have code words. We have secret code words that they know what to do.”

    Continue Reading


    Biden Reveals Why He Won’t Hold a Joint Press Conference With Putin



    President Joe Biden revealed on June 13 why he decided to avoid a joint press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Switzerland next week.

    “I always found, and I don’t mean to suggest the press should not know, but this is not a contest about who can do better in front of a press conference or try to embarrass each other,” Biden told reporters at a press conference at the Cornwall Airport Newquay in England.

    “It’s about making myself very clear what the conditions are to get a better relationship are with Russia.”

    In 2018, when President Donald Trump met with Putin in person and held a joint news conference, corporate media outlets launched attacks against Trump and suggested the joint appearance meant the two had a cozy relationship. It came amid then-special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into whether Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia during the 2016 election. Mueller, after a 22-month investigation, ultimately turned up “insufficient evidence” to support the allegations.

    “I think the best way to deal with this is for he and I to meet, he and I to have our discussion. I know you don’t doubt that I’ll be very straightforward with him about our concerns, and I will make clear my view of how that meeting turned out and he’ll make clear from his perspective how it turned out,” Biden said.

    Biden then seemed to make reference to the possibility that the meeting would trigger rampant speculation from the press.

    “I don’t want to get into being diverted by, did they shake hands, who talked the most, and the rest,” he said.

    During the Group of Seven (G-7) summit on June 13, the president said he would raise concerns during his meeting with Putin.

    “We are not looking for conflict. We are looking to resolve those actions which we think are inconsistent with international norms, number one,” Biden said. “Number two, where we can work together. We may be able to do that in terms of some strategic doctrine that may be able to be worked together. We’re ready to do it.”

    When asked about whether he believes that U.S.–Russia relations are at a low point—something Putin had said in recent days—Biden agreed.

    “I think he’s right, it’s at a low point,” he said.

    “It depends on how he responds to acting consistent with international norms, which in many cases he has not.”

    But Biden said the poor relationship was the fault of Russia, and again alleged that Moscow engaged in malign behavior during U.S. elections, as well as cyberattacks against American infrastructure and industries. Biden also claimed, without providing details, that Putin was directly responsible for an unspecified cyberattack.

    “I checked it out. I had access to all the intelligence. He was engaged in those activities—I can respond to that,” Biden told reporters on June 13. “This is not a contest about who can do better in a press conference, embarrass each other. It’s about making myself very clear what the conditions of our relationship are.”

    The White House placed new sanctions on Russia following the sweeping SolarWinds breach and for alleged interference during the 2020 election. The FBI said that Russia-based groups were behind the SolarWinds cyberattack, which affected several federal agencies.

    Biden said in a March interview with ABC News that he agreed with the claim that Putin is “a killer,” which prompted criticism from Russian officials. Putin in an interview with NBC last week brushed off the comments.

    Putin, according to a Russian-to-English translation, attempted to tie Biden’s remarks in March to “some deep things in Hollywood” and “macho behavior” that can be “treated as cinematic.”

    “So, as far as harsh rhetoric, I think that this is an expression of overall U.S. culture,” Putin said. “But that is part of U.S. political culture, where it’s considered normal. By the way, not here [in Russia]. … It is not considered normal here.”

    The Department of Defense authorized $150 million in defense aid to Ukraine on June 11, amid renewed tensions between Kyiv and Moscow over the Donbas region.

    Earlier this year, there were large military movements of Russian troops and armor toward the eastern Ukraine border and into Crimea, sparking fears of a wider war, although in April the Kremlin signaled that it would attempt to deescalate tensions by withdrawing some of its forces.

    Continue Reading


    World Leaders Laugh At Biden After Boris Johnson Has To Remind Biden Of Something That Just Happened



    World leaders laughed at President Joe Biden during a roundtable event at the G7 over the weekend after British Prime Minister Boris Johnson had to remind Biden of something that had just happened moments before.

    Sky News posted the clip on social media, which showed Johnson introducing world leaders who had just joined the event. In the clip, Johnson introduced South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, who was the only black leader in the room, and, after Johnson introduced him, Biden introduced the president of South Africa and pointed at him in a manner that suggested that he did not know that he had just been introduced.

    “…to say how pleased I am to welcome those who have just joined us in some pretty spectacular weather,” Johnson said. “With them, Prime Minister Modi, President Ramaphosa, President Moon…”

    “And the president of South Africa,” Biden interjected.

    “And the president of South Africa as I said early on,” Johnson responded.

    “Oh, you did?” Biden asked.

    The room erupted in laughter.


    Biden was widely mocked online after the incident, with many describing it as an embarrassing moment for the United States.

    It was not the only moment during the G7 that Biden appeared to struggle as he repeatedly referred to Libya as he spoke to the press.

    Biden said [emphasis added]:

    And so, there’s a lot going on where we can work together with Russia. For example, in Libya, we should be opening up the passes to be able to go through and provide — provide food assistance and economic — I mean, vital assistance to a population that’s in real trouble.

    I think I’m going to try very much — hard to — it is — and, by the way, there’s places where — I shouldn’t be starting off on negotiating in public here. But let me say it this way: Russia has engaged in activities which are — we believe are contrary to international norms, but they have also bitten off some real problems they’re going to have trouble chewing on.

    And, for example, the rebuilding of — of Syria, of Libya, of — you know, this is — they’re there. And as long as they’re there without the ability to bring about some order in the — in the region, and you can’t do that very well without providing for the basic economic needs of people.

    So I’m hopeful that we can find an accommodation that — where we can save the lives of people in — for example, in — in Libya, that — consistent with the interest of — maybe for different reasons — but reached it for the same reason — the same result.

    Bloomberg News reporter Jennifer Jacobs tweeted that aides told her that Biden meant to say Syria instead of Libya.

    Continue Reading


    Teen Influencer With 26 Million Followers Tells Fans He’s Pro-Life: Abortion Is ‘Killing Someone’



    A 19-year-old Spanish TikTok influencer with a massive following told fans last month that he’s pro-life, emphasizing that an abortion is “killing someone” — a far cry from leftist language that categorizes abortion procedures as “health care.”

    “In a series of videos responding to questions from his followers, Naim Darrechi, 19, who is a musician and author of a book, gave his opinions and thoughts on abortion,” LiveAction reported Friday. “He knew that what he had to say about the controversial topic could cause a stir, but he decided to say it anyway.”

    “An abortion is interrupting a life,” Darrechi said on video, addressing his 26 million followers. “When a woman is pregnant, if she doesn’t take anything, if she doesn’t abort, the natural cycle is going to make a life emerge.”

    “But here one of the biggest arguments of the people who are in favor of abortion, which is: ‘no, but the fetus does not suffer, that is something that has nothing there, is that it does not suffer,’” the teen added. “Here the question is not whether he suffers or not. The question here is that a life is being taken.”

    Darrechi noted that he believes abortion “should not be legal or free, period,” LiveAction reported, “Because it is killing someone.”

    Responding to a fan in a follow-up video, Darrechi said he would take on fatherhood “without hesitation” if his girlfriend were to become pregnant unexpectedly. “I would be a father without hesitation. You give me a child and I’ll fall in love with it,” he said. “Giving life to someone and on top of having the responsibility of educating him and being able to teach and guide him is the most beautiful and most precious thing in the world.”

    Liberal states like New York have sanctioned abortion until birth, and pro-abortion Democratic politicians have cheered permitting such a gruesome procedure.

    Dr. Anthony Levatino, a practicing obstetrician-gynecologist who performed over 1,200 abortions before he became pro-life, spoke to LiveAction in 2016 to describe late-term abortion. The Daily Wire reported:

    “At this point, the baby is almost fully developed and viable, meaning he or she could survive outside the womb if the mother were to go into labor prematurely. Because the baby is so large and developed, the procedure takes three or four days to complete,” says Levatino.

    “On day one, the abortionist uses a large needle to inject a drug called Digoxin,” he continues. The drug will be used to cause fatal cardiac arrest, killing the baby. The Digoxin is injected into the baby’s head, torso, or heart via a needle to the mother’s abdomen.

    “The baby will feel it,” Levatino says. “Babies at this stage feel pain.”

    The mother’s cervix is then opened with sticks of seaweed called laminaria so the woman can give birth to the dead baby.

    “While the woman waits for the laminaria to dilate her cervix, she carries her dead baby inside of her for two to three days,” the doctor explains. “On day two, the abortionist replaces the laminaria and may perform a second ultrasound to ensure the baby is dead. If the child is still alive, he administers another lethal dose of Digoxin.”

    If the woman cannot make it to the clinic to give birth to the murdered baby, she might be advised to give birth to the child on a toilet, Levatino says. If the woman does make it to the clinic, but the baby does not fully come out, a dilation and evacuation procedure must be performed, meaning “the abortionist will use clamps and forceps to dismember the baby piece by piece.”

    “Once the placenta and all the body parts have been removed, the abortion is complete,” he says.

    Dr. Levatino has spoken openly about what sparked his dramatic transformation from abortionist to pro-life advocate: specifically, the tragic death of his daughter Heather. After Heather was hit by a car and died in Levatino’s arms, his perspective about the unborn he was aborting changed. It was no longer medical waste on the table, he said, it was somebody’s child. Levatino has vowed to never perform an abortion again and has made it his mission to inform the public about the reality of the heavily-euphemized procedure.

    Continue Reading

    Trending Today