Greta Thunberg’s sailing won’t help the climate at all

[Dashinka 24,747]

Wouldn't using a video conference to address the UN be more carbon neutral?

 

 

Greta Thunberg’s sailing won’t help the

climate at all

Greta Thunberg, the 16-year-old climate activist and accidental musician, has arrived in New York via solar-powered yacht.

 

This is exciting news for many climate activists, since Thunberg made waves by choosing to travel to the U.S., where she will attend the United Nations climate summit, by taking a carbon-neutral yacht across the Atlantic.

At least, unlike other supposed climate activists, she follows through on her eco-friendly directives. Right?

Well, not exactly.

According to a report from the Associated Press, this maritime stunt will actually require flying people to the U.S. just to sail the boat back. All on its own, that renders Thunberg’s trip pretty much useless. The Sun explains:

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/greta-thunbergs-sailing-wont-help-the-climate-at-all

[luckytxn 2,265]

42 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Wouldn't using a video conference to address the UN be more carbon neutral?

 

 

Greta Thunberg’s sailing won’t help the

climate at all

Greta Thunberg, the 16-year-old climate activist and accidental musician, has arrived in New York via solar-powered yacht.

 

This is exciting news for many climate activists, since Thunberg made waves by choosing to travel to the U.S., where she will attend the United Nations climate summit, by taking a carbon-neutral yacht across the Atlantic.

At least, unlike other supposed climate activists, she follows through on her eco-friendly directives. Right?

Well, not exactly.

According to a report from the Associated Press, this maritime stunt will actually require flying people to the U.S. just to sail the boat back. All on its own, that renders Thunberg’s trip pretty much useless. The Sun explains:

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/greta-thunbergs-sailing-wont-help-the-climate-at-all

I am guessing that manufacturing the boat wasn't carbon neutral but maybe they waved a magic wand. Also I am sure they had to have eaten and so on which does have to be produced and takes a less than carbon neutral vehicle to have serviced the boat. Again maybe a magic wand was waved and voila...

[Dashinka 24,747]

16 minutes ago, luckytxn said:

I am guessing that manufacturing the boat wasn't carbon neutral but maybe they waved a magic wand. Also I am sure they had to have eaten and so on which does have to be produced and takes a less than carbon neutral vehicle to have serviced the boat. Again maybe a magic wand was waved and voila...

It is amazing how blind folks are to the big picture.  But at least she will feel good when she boards the plane back to Sweden.

[Boiler 45,982]

I think she is going to South America, AOC is probably providing the train ticket.

[millefleur 5,047]

For me, the climate debate is just about 2 differing businesses. One business being fossil fuels, the other being clean energy. At the end of the day, they both just want to sell their product. It's capitalism. They're just trying to compete. Since oil/gas is easy money and the current dominating system, the other side has to try a lot harder to sell their products so they resort to super gimmicky things like this Greta girl and her cute adventures.

 

People have multiple reasons to believe in alternative energy: the fact that oil/gas based economies are often corrupt and authoritarian and many nations have to depend on them (Saudi Arabia, Russia, Brazil, China, etc) and also that fossil fuels are non-renewable - one day that gravy train WILL run out, it's not a matter of "if" but "when". There's nothing wrong with folks who look at the big picture trying to pitch a market solution for when that time comes. Also the fact that whether you believe in global warming/climate change or not, fossil fuels pollute more than other energy alternatives.

 

There is also little innovation when it comes to fossil fuel (apart from just finding news ways to extract). For people who are optimistic about the future, it's much more exciting and innovative to imagine alternatives to fossil fuels because it pushes scientists to be creative. I'm sure the horse-and-carriage industry didn't like oil and car companies at first either. Change is hard but it happens because humans have to evolve. One day, some generation in the future will be forced to evolve because fossil fuels are not forever. I think this is kind of the big picture here. 

 

Oil companies also repeatedly try to market themselves as being sustainable, helping the earth, doing stuff to offset and it's a pure marketing gimmick. BP changing their logo to be a green flower is one of the more obvious ones. Most oil companies spend tons of money on sustainability reports and marketing to make their product seem less harmful - same thing, it's just marketing. Go to any major Western-based oil company website and you'll see "the environment", "sustainability" and "reduce emissions" plastered all over their homepages. Even oil companies are aware they have the address the elephant in the room of the fact that green energy is cleaner than what they are selling. They're both trying to sell a product and that's what this comes down to at the end of the day.

Edited September 19, 2019 by millefleur

[Steeleballz 7,550]

11 minutes ago, millefleur said:

For me, the climate debate is just about 2 differing businesses. One business being fossil fuels, the other being clean energy. At the end of the day, they both just want to sell their product. It's capitalism. They're just trying to compete. Since oil/gas is easy money and the current dominating system, the other side has to try a lot harder to sell their products so they resort to super gimmicky things like this Greta girl and her cute adventures.

 

People have multiple reasons to believe in alternative energy: the fact that oil/gas based economies are often corrupt and authoritarian and many nations have to depend on them (Saudi Arabia, Russia, Brazil, China, etc) and also that fossil fuels are non-renewable - one day that gravy train WILL run out, it's not a matter of "if" but "when". There's nothing wrong with folks who look at the big picture trying to pitch a market solution for when that time comes. Also the fact that whether you believe in global warming/climate change or not, fossil fuels pollute more than other energy alternatives.

 

There is also little innovation when it comes to fossil fuel (apart from just finding news ways to extract). For people who are optimistic about the future, it's much more exciting and innovative to imagine alternatives to fossil fuels because it pushes scientists to be creative. I'm sure the horse-and-carriage industry didn't like oil and car companies at first either. Change is hard but it happens because humans have to evolve. One day, some generation in the future will be forced to evolve because fossil fuels are not forever. I think this is kind of the big picture here. 

 

Oil companies also repeatedly try to market themselves as being sustainable, helping the earth, doing stuff to offset and it's a pure marketing gimmick. BP changing their logo to be a green flower is one of the more obvious ones. Most oil companies spend tons of money on sustainability reports and marketing to make their product seem less harmful - same thing, it's just marketing. Go to any major Western-based oil company website and you'll see "the environment", "sustainability" and "reduce emissions" plastered all over their homepages. Even oil companies are aware they have the address the elephant in the room of the fact that green energy is cleaner than what they are selling. They're both trying to sell a product and that's what this comes down to at the end of the day.

 

  According to the big oil companies, solar energy is also non renewable. The sun is going to run out too one day.

[Dashinka 24,747]

7 minutes ago, millefleur said:

For me, the climate debate is just about 2 differing businesses. One business being fossil fuels, the other being clean energy. At the end of the day, they both just want to sell their product. It's capitalism. They're just trying to compete. Since oil/gas is easy money and the current dominating system, the other side has to try a lot harder to sell their products so they resort to super gimmicky things like this Greta girl and her cute adventures.

 

People have multiple reasons to believe in alternative energy: the fact that oil/gas based economies are often corrupt and authoritarian and many nations have to depend on them (Saudi Arabia, Russia, Brazil, China, etc) and also that fossil fuels are non-renewable - one day that gravy train WILL run out, it's not a matter of "if" but "when". There's nothing wrong with folks who look at the big picture trying to pitch a market solution for when that time comes. Also the fact that whether you believe in global warming/climate change or not, fossil fuels pollute more than other energy alternatives.

 

There is also little innovation when it comes to fossil fuel (apart from just finding news ways to extract). For people who are optimistic about the future, it's much more exciting and innovative to imagine alternatives to fossil fuels because it pushes scientists to be creative. I'm sure the horse-and-carriage industry didn't like oil and car companies at first either. Change is hard but it happens because humans have to evolve. One day, some generation in the future will be forced to evolve because fossil fuels are not forever. I think this is kind of the big picture here. 

 

Oil companies also repeatedly try to market themselves as being sustainable, helping the earth, doing stuff to offset and it's a pure marketing gimmick. BP changing their logo to be green one of the more obvious ones. Most oil companies spend tons of money on sustainability reports and marketing to make their product seem less harmful - same thing, it's just marketing. Go to any major Western-based oil company website and you'll see "the environment", "sustainability" and "reduce emissions" plastered all over their homepages. Even oil companies are aware they have the address the elephant in the room of the fact that green energy is cleaner than what they are selling. They're both trying to sell a product and that's what this comes down to at the end of the day.

You do realize a lot of the “clean energy” products out there come from oil right?  From the plastics used to make PVs, or electronic devices in windmills, to the oil used to run the machinery to mine the rare earths necessary for these products, oil will still be needed.  Overall, I am fine with a nice mix of energy sources, and it seems we are moving in that direction.  One thing that is interesting is that if we follow these spokespeople such a Ms. Thunberg, or AOC, there will be no more intercontinental travel, so very little immigration in the future.

2 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  According to the big oil companies, solar energy is also non renewable. The sun is going to run out too one day.

Reference please.

[luckytxn 2,265]

12 minutes ago, millefleur said:

For me, the climate debate is just about 2 differing businesses. One business being fossil fuels, the other being clean energy. At the end of the day, they both just want to sell their product. It's capitalism. They're just trying to compete. Since oil/gas is easy money and the current dominating system, the other side has to try a lot harder to sell their products so they resort to super gimmicky things like this Greta girl and her cute adventures.

 

People have multiple reasons to believe in alternative energy: the fact that oil/gas based economies are often corrupt and authoritarian and many nations have to depend on them (Saudi Arabia, Russia, Brazil, China, etc) and also that fossil fuels are non-renewable - one day that gravy train WILL run out, it's not a matter of "if" but "when". There's nothing wrong with folks who look at the big picture trying to pitch a market solution for when that time comes. Also the fact that whether you believe in global warming/climate change or not, fossil fuels pollute more than other energy alternatives.

 

There is also little innovation when it comes to fossil fuel (apart from just finding news ways to extract). For people who are optimistic about the future, it's much more exciting and innovative to imagine alternatives to fossil fuels because it pushes scientists to be creative. I'm sure the horse-and-carriage industry didn't like oil and car companies at first either. Change is hard but it happens because humans have to evolve. One day, some generation in the future will be forced to evolve because fossil fuels are not forever. I think this is kind of the big picture here. 

 

Oil companies also repeatedly try to market themselves as being sustainable, helping the earth, doing stuff to offset and it's a pure marketing gimmick. BP changing their logo to be green one of the more obvious ones. Most oil companies spend tons of money on sustainability reports and marketing to make their product seem less harmful - same thing, it's just marketing. Go to any major Western-based oil company website and you'll see "the environment", "sustainability" and "reduce emissions" plastered all over their homepages. Even oil companies are aware they have the address the elephant in the room of the fact that green energy is cleaner than what they are selling. They're both trying to sell a product and that's what this comes down to at the end of the day.

Sounds good and all but why not discuss the cons of clean energy also and not just the cons of petroleum? The so called clean energy is not clean and may be even more dirty than petroleum. If we want to talk bad about petroleum fuels then let's also talk about the bad parts of what clean energy entails. So far it all about the money and the transfer of wealth so let's be reasonable and just agree it is about money. Also clean energy is not very efficient yet and the costs is nowhere near what it costs us to use existing fuels. Forcing us to use an inefficient and expensive source of energy is only making new millionaires and even billionaires and they in turn around and fund the politicians that force the people to do what is desired of their new rich masters.

 

 

[Boiler 45,982]

What is clean energy?

[luckytxn 2,265]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

It is amazing how blind folks are to the big picture.  But at least she will feel good when she boards the plane back to Sweden.

She will feel extra good if she flies 1st class.

[TBoneTX 46,003]

22 hours ago, Boiler said:

What is clean energy?

I keep seeing signs that advertise "clean dirt."

Maybe clean energy is used to yield clean dirt.