‘Enlighten me’: Greta Thunberg has brutal comeback to Andrew Tate after failed social media callout

Environmental campaigner had some choice words for the controversial influencer

Greta Thunberg has delighted her online followers with her brutal response to Andrew Tate.

Tate, a social media influencer who is often mired in controversy, sent a message to the environmental campaigner on Tuesday (27 December).

Over Twitter, he asked Thunberg to offer her comments on the carbon emissions of his cars.

“I have 33 cars,” he began, before listing the specifications for his Bugatti and Ferraris.

“This is just the start,” Tate, 36, continued. “Please provide your email address so I can send a complete list of my car collection and their respective enormous emissions.”

Tate’s apparent attempt to bait Thunberg, 17, into a conversation about the impact that his vehicles have on the environment resulted in the climate campaigner responding publicly on Wednesday (28 December).

On Twitter, she replied: “Yes, please do enlighten me. email me at smalld***energy@getalife.com.”

The interaction has proved entertaining for many people on Twitter, with Thunberg’s response receiving over 100,000 likes within its first hour of being posted.

“I thought I’d never see a greater tweet than ‘me and my friends would have killed ET with hammers’ and yet here we are,” comedian Sooz Kempner noted.

Similarly entertained, journalist James Copley joked: “Hello. Yes, police please. I’d like to report the murder of Andrew Tate,” while another simply declared the tweet as “murder… in broad daylight”.

Thunberg’s response has been hailed as “Twitter at its best” by many. One user wrote: “Who’d have thought 2022 Twitter would peak so late in the day?”

Tate has been criticised for peddling “misogynistic views” and “negative presentations of masculinity”. Earlier this year, he was banned from Twitter for his content.

However, he rejoined the social media platform in November after Elon Musk took over the company and announced a new policy that promotes “freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach”.