ChatterBank2 mins ago
Greta’S Zero Carbon Journey
Isn’t actually zero carbon.
The boat she sails in has a lot of carbon foot print just to make it.
But let’s not let that get in the way of a good story.
https:/
Although I think it pointless to make such publicity stunts it does show up the hypocrisy of all the other ‘good and great’ that jet in and out on their private planes.
But I suppose they have much busier lives than dear Greta.
The boat she sails in has a lot of carbon foot print just to make it.
But let’s not let that get in the way of a good story.
https:/
Although I think it pointless to make such publicity stunts it does show up the hypocrisy of all the other ‘good and great’ that jet in and out on their private planes.
But I suppose they have much busier lives than dear Greta.
Answers
Well, as an autistic girl who hates socialising, she is doing pretty well! Am actually somewhat fed up with hearing about her. She was asked what she proposes to do about it. Her answer was that it is for adults and governments to decide, not teenagers. Shouldn't teenagers be informed that their mobile phones and communicatio
12:41 Tue 13th Aug 2019
gness, being indirectly or directly called 'foolish' over this is a very naive and narrow comment. Yes, she has brought the issue to the fore and that is good, but with potential solutions and then she ducks under these big time and this is not good in terms of her ability to influence thinking and her term credibility.
This stunt has not been fully thought through in terms of its publicity; that boat, from a capital carbon point of view, must have seriously added to the balance in its manufacturing, kitting out and equipping, yes with some offset from underwater turbines and solar on board - but still.... if she had argued on the basis of a carbon 'lesser' alternative to a 747 crossing the Pond, then she would have had a far stronger argument.
She's in a highly tech racing boat and there is a risk factor in her crossing, forget the comfort factor that the Press have seized on and possibly part of her message - I hope that we don't see carbon 'burn' through any rescue services needed - as she is setting out when the weather forecast for the next ten days is distinctly 'nervous' from a maritime aspect.
I can't prove it but I bet her footprint would have been even better if she crossed with a conventional transatlantic liner - given the huge number of customers that would serve as a divisor to both capital and operational carbon costs. If she had come out and say 'look I am bringing yo your attention keel turbine and solar use as a means of cutting seabound carbon footprints', then I would give her much more credit than I do now.
This stunt has not been fully thought through in terms of its publicity; that boat, from a capital carbon point of view, must have seriously added to the balance in its manufacturing, kitting out and equipping, yes with some offset from underwater turbines and solar on board - but still.... if she had argued on the basis of a carbon 'lesser' alternative to a 747 crossing the Pond, then she would have had a far stronger argument.
She's in a highly tech racing boat and there is a risk factor in her crossing, forget the comfort factor that the Press have seized on and possibly part of her message - I hope that we don't see carbon 'burn' through any rescue services needed - as she is setting out when the weather forecast for the next ten days is distinctly 'nervous' from a maritime aspect.
I can't prove it but I bet her footprint would have been even better if she crossed with a conventional transatlantic liner - given the huge number of customers that would serve as a divisor to both capital and operational carbon costs. If she had come out and say 'look I am bringing yo your attention keel turbine and solar use as a means of cutting seabound carbon footprints', then I would give her much more credit than I do now.
Well Jim:
#1 – I neither know nor care
#2 – I neither know nor care (especially as it will make no difference anyway).
#3 – They will and whether we’re screwed is debatable.
#4 – Agreed. I don’t care where my energy comes from so long as its source is reliable.
#5 – I’m not ignoring the evidence. I simply don’t agree that the measures proposed here in the UK will make the slightest difference whatsoever. Whether or not I believe the evidence and the prognosis is immaterial. It’s the futility of the measures that are said to combat the perceived problem with which I take issue. It is irritating to hear people continually harp on about something which I believe is futile. It’s particularly irritating when it comes from a sixteen year old.
//Greta us a truly incredible and inspirational person, what she has done has really touched me and made me reflect on my own life choices, that's all I can say.//
I respect your view and opinion, Tim. Mine is that she is an irritating child who should be in school and who has no place on a racing yacht crossing the Atlantic. She and her message rubs me up the wrong way every time I see her. I hope you can respect mine.
//New Judge’s ‘trick’ of pretending to be his name, and thus gaining unwarranted credibility, wears very thin.//
I have never pretended to be a judge – either new or old – any more than anybody on here, as far as I know, has pretended to be anything associated with their username. Why you should assume that I have is anybody’s guess. But let’s not descend into personal insults just because you don’t like what I say. It’s unwarranted.
#1 – I neither know nor care
#2 – I neither know nor care (especially as it will make no difference anyway).
#3 – They will and whether we’re screwed is debatable.
#4 – Agreed. I don’t care where my energy comes from so long as its source is reliable.
#5 – I’m not ignoring the evidence. I simply don’t agree that the measures proposed here in the UK will make the slightest difference whatsoever. Whether or not I believe the evidence and the prognosis is immaterial. It’s the futility of the measures that are said to combat the perceived problem with which I take issue. It is irritating to hear people continually harp on about something which I believe is futile. It’s particularly irritating when it comes from a sixteen year old.
//Greta us a truly incredible and inspirational person, what she has done has really touched me and made me reflect on my own life choices, that's all I can say.//
I respect your view and opinion, Tim. Mine is that she is an irritating child who should be in school and who has no place on a racing yacht crossing the Atlantic. She and her message rubs me up the wrong way every time I see her. I hope you can respect mine.
//New Judge’s ‘trick’ of pretending to be his name, and thus gaining unwarranted credibility, wears very thin.//
I have never pretended to be a judge – either new or old – any more than anybody on here, as far as I know, has pretended to be anything associated with their username. Why you should assume that I have is anybody’s guess. But let’s not descend into personal insults just because you don’t like what I say. It’s unwarranted.
Funny that the economic impact of the carbon-free target will have (initially as it's being pursued, and finally when it's been achieved) is never discussed.
All the financial "experts" (by which I mean professional economists and Remainstream media commentators) assessed the advantages of Brexit solely in economic terms, and have spent over three years "analysing" and "predicting".
Their interest in dissecting the data and forecasting the financial effects of the democratic decision to leave, and our eventual departure from the EU was driven (they tell us) by a genuine concern: how will Brexit affect ordinary people, their lives, their finances, their jobs?
That's a very reasonable and obvious question to ask. Why is it not being asked about the zero carbon target?
All the financial "experts" (by which I mean professional economists and Remainstream media commentators) assessed the advantages of Brexit solely in economic terms, and have spent over three years "analysing" and "predicting".
Their interest in dissecting the data and forecasting the financial effects of the democratic decision to leave, and our eventual departure from the EU was driven (they tell us) by a genuine concern: how will Brexit affect ordinary people, their lives, their finances, their jobs?
That's a very reasonable and obvious question to ask. Why is it not being asked about the zero carbon target?
Firstly, it is. Secondly, it's manifestly obvious that if* the predictions are true and the planet's climate is materially changed, then the economic damage -- due to lost land, loss of crops, further extreme weather damage, etc etc -- would be more or less off the scale.
Besides which, it depends on how you implement the change. A switch to a greener economy isn't necessarily a loss, is can be an investment too. In the skilled jobs you need to design, build, install, manage various renewable energy sources, for example. I am not going to claim to have done a full cost-benefit analysis, and I have little doubt that if we were to change at the rate needed then it would be a, potentially huge, short-term economic hit -- but, this time at least, it would have been worth it.
*or perhaps more accurately, when they come true.
Besides which, it depends on how you implement the change. A switch to a greener economy isn't necessarily a loss, is can be an investment too. In the skilled jobs you need to design, build, install, manage various renewable energy sources, for example. I am not going to claim to have done a full cost-benefit analysis, and I have little doubt that if we were to change at the rate needed then it would be a, potentially huge, short-term economic hit -- but, this time at least, it would have been worth it.
*or perhaps more accurately, when they come true.
Incidentally, it's not actually clear what the carbon set-up cost of the boat is, but it has been made from recycled materials and is being powered mainly by wind and solar energy. It's very difficult to remove CO2 emissions altogether -- indeed, it's impossible: even breathing has a CO2 cost -- so the main point is to minimise the emissions during transit. If you only pay a start-up cost for building something, but thereafter it gives you more or less no further costs, it's still a fine investment.
Treading well-worn ground yet again, Jim.
If the problem is man-made carbon emissions then it is solved globally or not at all. Our acting unilaterally is a symbol of noble intent, but falls in the category of.. Well, can you remember the Monty Python sketch (was it they?)
"this point of the war...", "all looking bad...", "Carruthers, we need an heroic, but pointless sacrifice to raise morale"...."So, it's 'goodbye', then, sir. Or is 'au revoir'?", "No, it's goodbye, Carruthers."
If the problem is man-made carbon emissions then it is solved globally or not at all. Our acting unilaterally is a symbol of noble intent, but falls in the category of.. Well, can you remember the Monty Python sketch (was it they?)
"this point of the war...", "all looking bad...", "Carruthers, we need an heroic, but pointless sacrifice to raise morale"...."So, it's 'goodbye', then, sir. Or is 'au revoir'?", "No, it's goodbye, Carruthers."
//funny how Brexit will once again make Britain a great power in the world while at the same time it is helpless as a kitten before the might of China. Ah, sovereignty.//
One of the more egregious (and hilarious) non sequiturs I've seen on AB, as I'm sure the poster's roll-model troll would point out if somebody in the "other" camp had used similar.
One of the more egregious (and hilarious) non sequiturs I've seen on AB, as I'm sure the poster's roll-model troll would point out if somebody in the "other" camp had used similar.
Latest Posts
Assisted Dying, Here's Where It...
News2 mins ago
Jobs & Education2 mins ago
ChatterBank2 mins ago
News5 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.