Greta Thunberg - brave campaigner or deeply disturbed?

[cullennz]

One more try to get you to understand. She hitched a ride on a sailboat. No extra carbon footprint. She did not affect the owner's subsequent crewing of that boat for it's future voyages.

Whereas I've thought deeply about your concept that flying standby on a plane means one has zero carbon footprint because the plane was going to fly nonetheless. Somehow magically only the prior booked passengers incur a carbon footprint, rather than all share. Ultimately I find it curious, but not convincing. Particularly, as I noted upthread, lifting the extra passenger does cost some 20 to 30 extra liters of fuel per 1000 kilometers.

Yes there is

She "chose" to use the fancy boat which meant either 5 flights or 6, rather than 4

She did affect it, because it wasn't going to NY with them on it.

In fact I don't think it was even going to NY, they just offered to take a massive trip as a favour, which she "chose" to use, presumably without asking how they were getting back

See this is called making things up someone hasn't said.

What I said was I am not going to feel guilty about it and that the plane would fly any way

I never said I make no carbon footprint

Your depth of thought was a tad shallow

 

[lomiller]

I think the biggest way would be not having China burning mass coal which makes up 18 odd % global carbon emissions and the US and India not dis-similar.

The US emits 16 tonnes of CO2 per person per year, and that does include CO2 used to produces the products it imports for elsewhere

China emits 8 tonnes of CO2 per person per year. This does include the CO2 used to produce products consumed elsewhere.

India emits 1.9 tonnes of CO2 per person per year

There is no equivalency here. The US is a far worse offender. In fact ~25% of the extra CO2 currently in the atmosphere was emitted by the US. China has a role to play as well, but the notion that they need to be the first to start reducing CO2 emissions is ridiculous.

 

[newyorkguy]

Where else to put this? Anyway, here goes:

It's November 5th and in northwest NY City most of the leaves have yet to turn colors. When does Fall begin nowadays? I mentioned this to one of my co-workers and he said, "Yeah, well summer lasts a lot longer nowadays." I have a backyard and I haven't even had to rake any leaves yet. According to a map I saw [click to enlarge], by mid-October this part of New York State should have been 'peak.' But it's early November and its just begun.

 

[lomiller]

No we don't. Lifestyle carbon emissions are almost entirely predicted by wealth, how "green" your lifestyle is barely even registers as a factor. Furthermore, most lifestyle carbon emissions are concentrated in the top few percent wealthiest.

France and the UK are both relatively wealthy countries, and on a per person base they emit ~31% and 35% as much CO2 as The US, Canada or Australia and emissions in France and the UK are still dropping. Wealth matters, but it’s eminently possible for wealthy nations to make substantial reductions in CO2 emissions.

 

[Thermal]

She was offered a ride, and she took it.

I wonder how long after she disembarked she is going to continue to be held responsible for the boat owner's crew-logistics decisions which were made independently of her input.

This is a good point. The Thurbergs likely would not have anticipated that crew would have to be flown all over the place. Not reasonably foreseeable; you assume the available crew jumps on the boat and sails it back.

Two things though: low impact travel accommodations should have been logistically worked out by Daddy Thurberg prior to going anywhere, including plans B and C if things went wrong or changed.

The use of a $4mil yacht is a high luxury waste of resources. I would think they should have avoided that too on principle. Not important in the big picture I guess

 

[theprestige]

She was offered a ride, and she took it.

Getting a ride from a prince of Monaco on his luxury yacht is not a scalable solution. Not everybody who needs to get somewhere gets the loan a luxury automobile from a movie star. Thunberg's transportation choices send a strong signal that climate change activism is a luxury the 1% and their friends can afford to indulge in. But what about the rest of us? When do I get to borrow Ahnold's Tesla?

 

[lomiller]

The biggest carbon emissions on the planet are actually from concrete and construction.

The most harmful greenhouse gases are methane and nitrous oxide.

No, the real problem is the release of fossil carbon and carbon that has been sequestered for a long time in forests etc.

Carbon that was already part of the carbon cycle is almost a non-issue in the larger scheme of things. In the real disaster scenarios the issue is fossil carbon we are emitting. At some point we also get feedback effects from CO2 emitted as permafrost and methane hydrates melt, but we can get ourselves into trouble with fossil carbon even without this kicking in.

 

[lomiller]

Why

All of us need to live in the world as it’s currently constructed. This does not conflict with calls to change how things currently work. Claims there is some conflict between saying the way things work now need to change and living in the world as it is amount to “I don’t wanna change so I’m going to throw out diversions and attach the messenger instead”. It’s just more climate denial from the usual suspect, and like most of the crap on they fling on the wall it’s inane and not really worth discussing.

 

[cullennz]

I’m going to throw out diversions and attach the messenger instead”.

That indeed seems to be what you like doing



Sent from my SM-J111M using Tapatalk

 

[Thermal]

One more try to get you to understand. She hitched a ride on a sailboat. No extra carbon footprint. She did not affect the owner's subsequent crewing of that boat for it's future voyages.

She didn't hitch a ride, though. It was essentially a private charter for her. The return trip, including the crew arrangements, we're 100% part of her charter to return the yacht to port, much like hiring an Uber or taxi for a long one way trip, where the driver factors in his return trip time and gas.

Whereas I've thought deeply about your concept that flying standby on a plane means one has zero carbon footprint because the plane was going to fly nonetheless. Somehow magically only the prior booked passengers incur a carbon footprint, rather than all share. Ultimately I find it curious, but not convincing. Particularly, as I noted upthread, lifting the extra passenger does cost some 20 to 30 extra liters of fuel per 1000 kilometers.

Commercial airlines are mass transit, not much different than a train. Would you refuse to enter a subway car that was otherwise empty, because disproportionate resources were being used to propel only you? It is going anyway, so on balance, it may very well be the lowest impact to use existing mass air transit. As we saw, it would have been so in this case.

If the message is to reduce unnecessary consumption of resources and lower pollution, that's great. But sometimes luxury yachts and new Teslas (the manufacture of each being a huge contributor to pollution) are not a viable option. Nor is the financial luxury of weeks sailing. If Greta et al want to make a statement, the move should likely be to research the best practical ways to travel, and lead by example. The whole Prince's yacht and Gov Schwartzenegger's new car ended up being a bad joke.

 

[Matthew Best]

Greta writes:

“The world’s people face “untold suffering due to the climate crisis” unless there are major transformations to global society, according to a stark warning from more than 11,000 scientists.”

She links to this story:

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...2GypT0vHjsURL59RTJfCt4E_4_ESdxsiR6gLLStOQBhSk

 

[theprestige]

Greta writes:

“The world’s people face “untold suffering due to the climate crisis” unless there are major transformations to global society, according to a stark warning from more than 11,000 scientists.”

She links to this story:

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...2GypT0vHjsURL59RTJfCt4E_4_ESdxsiR6gLLStOQBhSk

Matthew says Greta says the Guardian says scientists say.

Why not cut out the middlemen and post what the scientists say? What value does Thunberg add to this report, except to drive traffic to the Guardian? I bet they're loving her over there.

 

[Stout]

No, the real problem is the release of fossil carbon and carbon that has been sequestered for a long time in forests etc.

Carbon that was already part of the carbon cycle is almost a non-issue in the larger scheme of things. In the real disaster scenarios the issue is fossil carbon we are emitting. At some point we also get feedback effects from CO2 emitted as permafrost and methane hydrates melt, but we can get ourselves into trouble with fossil carbon even without this kicking in.

Planting trees is good, for sure but those extra trees will only help to reabsorb the carbon that's dissolved in the world's oceans, hopefully.

The carbon we're putting into the atmosphere today, the carbon that's causing AGW is effectively brand new carbon in that it's been sequestered away below ground for 10s of millions of years.

 

[cullennz]

Matthew says Greta says the Guardian says scientists say.

Why not cut out the middlemen and post what the scientists say? What value does Thunberg add to this report, except to drive traffic to the Guardian? I bet they're loving her over there.

Lol

Thank god for Greta

Without who this news would have completely under the radar!

 

[theprestige]

Lol



Thank god for Greta



Without who this news would have completely under the radar!

Those eleven thousand scientists would never have found their voice, if Miss Thung weren't here to tell us to read the Guardian.

 

[lionking]

Those eleven thousand scientists would never have found their voice, if Miss Thung weren't here to tell us to read the Guardian.

Seriously? When you run out of arguments, just demean your target. Some here will applaud you.

 

[arthwollipot]

Seriously? When you run out of arguments, just demean your target. Some here will applaud you.

Why are you surprised? This entire thread is about shooting the messenger.

 

[theprestige]

Seriously? When you run out of arguments, just demean your target. Some here will applaud you.

I haven't run out of arguments yet. In fact, you just ignored one, consumed by outrage that I'm not showing Saint Greta proper respect.

Doesn't the whole "Matthew says that Greta says that the Guardian says that scientists say" strike you as silly?

Don't you think that all your talk about Greta is somewhat beside the point you're actually trying to make?

 

[theprestige]

Why are you surprised? This entire thread is about shooting the messenger.

For me, it's more about skewering the messenger's fan club.

Can you explain why Greta Thunberg doesn't know how to book transatlantic passage on a freighter?

 

[arthwollipot]

Can you explain why Greta Thunberg doesn't know how to book transatlantic passage on a freighter?

I don't know why I should be obligated to explain jack. You just want to paint her and her actions in as bad a light as possible - like I said, shoot the messenger - and I won't be drawn into that.