Greta Thunberg rejects Nordic Council environmental award

Greta Thunberg has turned down an environmental award and prize money because “the climate movement does not need any more awards”.

She said the offer was a “great honour” and thanked the Nordic Council, which said it respected her decision.

But, she said, “politicians and the people in power” need to listen to the “current, best-available science”.

Ms Thunberg was this year’s favourite to win the Nobel Peace Prize, but the award went to Ethiopia’s Abiy Ahmed.

In an Instagram post explaining her decision to turn down the prize money of 500,000 Swedish kronor (£40,000; €46,000), Ms Thunberg said: “The Nordic countries have a great reputation around the world when it comes to climate and environmental issues.

“There is no lack of bragging about this. There is no lack of beautiful words.”

But she said Nordic energy consumption told “a whole other story”.

She referenced a report from from WWF and the Global Footprint Network, which says Sweden, along with most of the Nordic region, lives as if the world has the resources of four planets.

The gap between what science said was needed to limit a global temperature increase and what was being implemented was “gigantic”, said Ms Thunberg.

“We belong to the countries that have the possibility to do the most. And yet our countries still basically do nothing,” she added.

The president of the Nordic Council, Hans Wallmark, said the organisation respected Greta Thunberg’s decision and called her movement “a good cause for everyone”.

He said the council – which encourages co-operation between parliaments in countries including Denmark, Finland and Ms Thunberg’s home country Sweden – would think carefully about what to do with the prize money.

© BBC International

Advertising

15 comments

    • Electricity is not the most efficient means to heat homes. A lot depends on the energy source to genetate the electricity. Each exchange of energy introduces a loss. Transformers to step up and step down voltage also introduce losses. If some carbon source fuel is used, you still have carbon emissions. Burning wood chips to fuel a generator that would normally be burnt in logging operations, introduces a cleaner burn along with the byproduct of electric power.
      There is way more at stake than what the greenies are selling.

What is your opinion?