The Sift Here’s what we’re Sifting today

Young climate activists protest around the world

by Onize Ohikere
Posted 9/20/19, 10:58 am

Millions of students around the world skipped school on Friday for a global climate change strike. The movement included more than 5,000 demonstrations in 156 countries, including Germany, Nigeria, and Tokyo. Young demonstrators held signs that read, “You are destroying our future,” and “There is no planet B.” In the United States, organizers expect more than 800 events. New York City Public Schools said parents could excuse their students to participate in the strike.

What spurred the demonstrations? Swedish teen Greta Thunberg started a smaller movement last year to encourage her peers to demand action from their leaders. This year’s protests precede a United Nations Climate Action Summit that kicks off Monday in New York.

Dig deeper: Read more about Thunberg, who has become the face of teenage climate activism.

Read more from The Sift Sign up for The Sift email
Onize Ohikere

Onize is a reporter for WORLD Digital based in Abuja, Nigeria.

Read more from this writer


You must be a WORLD Member and logged in to the website to comment.
    Posted: Fri, 09/20/2019 07:19 pm

    How many of the kids who are protesting have been doing their part to help the planet? Do they bike? Walk? Recycle? Buy unrecycleable stuff? Are they trashing the areas they protest? Or are they cleaning it up? 

    I hope they are walking their talk.

  • Cyborg3's picture
    Posted: Fri, 09/20/2019 08:47 pm

    Democrats and liberals used to never have a compelling cause until they came upon the global warming dogma. Now they have faithful devout followers who propagate the faith evangelizing to save the earth. Look at the millions who follow this religion, but unfortunately it is a false gospel! 

  • not silent
    Posted: Sat, 09/21/2019 02:32 pm

     The climate is obviously going through changes. I'm not a scientist, but it's clear that climate is very complicated and is affected by many factors.  I can believe that humans are part of the mix, but I doubt we are the cause of ALL changes.  Unfortunately, it has become harder and harder to discern between alarmist speculation and scientific fact. 

    I understand why kids are afraid, but I don't see how promoting information that is speculative at best and blatantly alarmist at worst will help the nation or the planet.  People who are in a state of panic can be malleable, but they do not necessarily make the best decisions.  Besides, exploiting kids by making them afraid and then using that fear for political ends is reprehensible to me.  

    For something as important as saving the planet, I would think we would want to use all the science, reason, and wisdom that is available.  It does not make sense to me that the US is singled out as if we are the worst offenders.  Not only are we not the worst, we are actually using some of our wealth and knowledge to try to HELP the environment.  It also does not make sense to focus almost exclusively on carbon emissions while practically ignoring issues like water pollution, ground pollution, toxic waste, overdevelopment, etc. 

    Some of the solutions being proposed seem ridiculous and even offensive: i.e. promoting abortion in developing nations and getting rid of cows.  First of all, I can hardly believe anyone would actually be in favor of allowing industrialized nations to push for population control in developing nations.  Second, according to, several nations in Africa depend on agriculture as a huge part of their GDP; and for many of them the most common agricultural activity is raising livestock (i.e., cows).  Livestock in Africa serve many roles besides just providing meat and milk-they also provide manure and labor for farming.  So, about the cows, I have to ask: are these measures only aimed at well-fed people in industrialized nations or do well-fed people in industrialized nations think they can tell livestock farmers on another continent to abandon their livelihood?

    This is my bottom line: regardless of how much we are contributing to climate change, it seems logical that we should take reasonable steps to limit emissions, clean up water and ground pollution, limit agricultural/industrial runoff, deal with toxic waste, and anything else I haven't mentioned. It also seems reasonable to develop sources of renewable energy like solar, wind, geothermal, etc.  If the loudest voices promoting change want me to get on board with more drastic measures, however, they need to stop attributing every environmental problem to climate change (while ignoring toxic waste, water pollution, runoff, etc-all of which are significant problems), they need to use climate scientists to present peer reviewed data instead of alarmist quotes by politicians and kids that have been frightened out of their minds (BOTH sides of the political aisle are guilty of making this poltical, and I already addressed the use of kids and their fears), and they need to propose general measures that actually make sense for the entire planet.    

  • Steve Shive
    Posted: Sun, 09/22/2019 06:37 am

    You make some excellent points. It is a shame that we do not seem capable of actually discussing controversial issues. The human condition seems to be predicated on polarizing perspectives. I think this tends to be more in the group think, political and leadership realm than day to day life. It seems odd that on the individual level we can often discuss or at least not be confrontational on issues such as these. But the moment we are organized into political parties or organizations the sparks begin to fly. Maybe there are too many competing, pet, interests? Maybe we don't want answers but thrive on drawing up skirmish lines and firing muskets back and forth? But this has been going on as far as recorded history, and I'm sure before that. Mob rule, or pack rule, seems to be able to evoke the emotions that then over rule our common sense. We seem to enjoy walking on the razor's edge of revolution and communal insanity.

    This is not to say we cannot try to bring reason and compromise and some sanity to the town square. And I do see that. But unfortunately this does not seem to be the way we typically settle these issues.

    Thanks again for your input on this topic. Discussing evolution vs creation, young earth old earth, intelligent design, climate change: manmade vs cyclical vs not happening, abortion, adoption, prolife vs "choice", vaccines or anti-vaccines, strong central federal government vs States rights vs individual autonomy, sexual affinity and identity And maybe part of the issue there is the Bible as authoritative where it clearly speaks on these issues let alone pedobaptism vs pouring vs immersion, pre-post-mid trib and on and on it goes. Our love hate relationship with anything other than pure and simple kneeling at the cross and confessing that he is King of Kings and Lord of Lords persist in every culture. Oh come Lord Jesus. Save us from ourselves and the roaring lion.

    And this reply still seems lacking somehow...