The stunning hypocrisy of the PR machine behind Greta Thunberg

blinding

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
18,850
Greta is being abused . I hope some authorities are keeping records of this abuse .
 


Dorcha

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
3,931
Why did GT not go in a rowing boat if she really wanted to make a point. She could still have experienced sailors with her to do the rowing and kept in radio contact for safety's sake. But I suppose all that deep breathing and emission of carbon dioxide from the rowers' breathing would contribute to the carbon footprint. This was just a stunt to catch attention. It's notable that every time someone wants to make a point like this the people who support it start throwing around their "haters" and "deniers" slogans like religious fundamentalists shouting “Blasphemy!”
 

mangaire2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
9,709
The stunning hypocrisy of the PR machine behind Greta Thunberg

I have re-read your OP.
you appear to have included a proportion of the CO2 emissions involved in the manufacture of the boat to Greta.
the boat appears to have been manufactured in 2014/5 ?, so any CO2 involved in its manufacture was emitted back then.
so nothing to do with 2019 & Greta.
I raise this point, only in the interest of accuracy.
 

riven

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
2,394
The stunning hypocrisy of the PR machine behind Greta Thunberg

I have re-read your OP.
you appear to have included a proportion of the CO2 emissions involved in the manufacture of the boat to Greta.
the boat appears to have been manufactured in 2014/5 ?, so any CO2 involved in its manufacture was emitted back then.
so nothing to do with 2019 & Greta.
I raise this point, only in the interest of accuracy.

No, You raise this point only to highlight that you don't understand the topic at hand. Just like Greta and her team. Thus your "accuracy", is flawed.

If you buy a car, whether it is first or second or third hand, there will be two emissions values
1. The g/km associated (mainly) with the fuel burn. the day to day operational emissions.
2. The embedded emissions, which also have a g/km value, but one that is usually unseen - emissions over the lifetime of the product primarily due to the materials of construction and production/disposal methods.

You are responsible for both depending on the number of miles/km that you travel. My OP simply expanded this obvious and simple calculation for the case of Greta and her PR team. Those emissions may have been emitted "once" (well over the years required to build the boat), but the users take responsibility for their portion of those emissions over the lifetime use of the boat. Greta traveled ~5,000 km in that boat, so she and her team are responsible for 5,000 km worth of embedded emissions.

But thanks for finally reading the OP. I find it wondrous that people came make claims about others, without reading their core content, and displaying stunning ignorance. If you continue to excuse the responsibility for embedded emissions, you truly have no concern for reducing emissions.

Here is the UNEP talking about embedded emissions in the building sector
 
Last edited:

riven

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
2,394
Greta's folly.

To sum up the car leg, see map below. The final statistics:
Distance: ~10,000 miles
Fuel emissions: ~ 1 TCO2e
Embedded emissions: ~ 1.3 TCO2e

Stunningly, the performance above is only slightly better than if they used something like a Ford Puma 1.0 ecoboost hybrid. I will note that the new model of the Puma just released, (a better equivalent to the 2019 Model 3 they used) would outperform the Model 3. This is because much of the USAs grid is carbon intensive.

But of course the trip is described as a carbon free trip. A carbon folly more like.
Capture.PNG
 

RasherHash

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
25,653

truthisfree

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
6,351

mangaire2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
9,709
No, You raise this point only to highlight that you don't understand the topic at hand. Just like Greta and her team. Thus your "accuracy", is flawed.

If you buy a car, whether it is first or second or third hand, there will be two emissions values
1. The g/km associated (mainly) with the fuel burn. the day to day operational emissions.
2. The embedded emissions, which also have a g/km value, but one that is usually unseen - emissions over the lifetime of the product primarily due to the materials of construction and production/disposal methods.

You are responsible for both depending on the number of miles/km that you travel. My OP simply expanded this obvious and simple calculation for the case of Greta and her PR team. Those emissions may have been emitted "once" (well over the years required to build the boat), but the users take responsibility for their portion of those emissions over the lifetime use of the boat. Greta traveled ~5,000 km in that boat, so she and her team are responsible for 5,000 km worth of embedded emissions.

But thanks for finally reading the OP. I find it wondrous that people came make claims about others, without reading their core content, and displaying stunning ignorance. If you continue to excuse the responsibility for embedded emissions, you truly have no concern for reducing emissions.

Here is the UNEP talking about embedded emissions in the building sector
WRONG - I "understand the topic at hand" perfectly well,
& as I said i "raise this point" of the CO2 emitted in the manufacture of the boat solely 'in the interest of accuracy'.
it does not impact on any of my arguments previously made.

the geezer who commissioned the manufacture of the boat back in 2014 or whenever, is responsible for the CO2 emissions involved in it's manufacture.
whether the boat is sailing 24/7 or tied up at port 24/7 doesn't matter - no additional CO2 is emitted as long as it's powered by the wind.

as to your analogy - "If you buy a car, ……… "
if I buy a car or a sailing boat, I am indeed responsible for the emissions involved in the manufacture of the car or the sailing boat.
but Greta did not buy the sailing boat, so your analogy, like so much of your arguments is -
……………….….. ahem …………………..….. flawed.

& as for your "If you continue to excuse the responsibility for embedded emissions, you truly have no concern for reducing emissions."
WRONG yet again - I do not "excuse the responsibility for embedded emissions"
rather than excuse the responsibility, I place the responsibility where it belongs.
& as you argument here is based on a false premise, your conclusion re my "concern for reducing emissions." is worthless.
 

RasherHash

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
25,653
More stunning hypocrisy, this sort of absurdity should sicken any right thinking person...

More than 2 million trees have been cut down in South Korea over the last three years to make space for solar panels, according to opposition lawmakers who argue that the government’s renewable push should not be a replacement of nuclear energy.

Since the government strongly pushed for solar power business in 2017, 4,407 hectares of forest have been damaged, 15 times the space of the Yeouido area of Seoul, according to Rep. Yoon Sang-jin of the main opposition Liberty Korea Party on Thursday.

2 million trees cut down to make way for solar panels in 3 years: lawmaker
 

truthisfree

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
6,351
I'm
How so?
Greta is protesting against 'climate change' and so is Rog...
I was paraphrasing what someone else would say to you. 😂
It is a fascinating link and the more exposure it gets the better.

Just noticed that 'Global Warming' is being replaced by 'Global Heating' What next? Global Roasting!
 
Last edited:

RasherHash

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
25,653

Turbinator

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
1,903
More stunning hypocrisy, this sort of absurdity should sicken any right thinking person...

More than 2 million trees have been cut down in South Korea over the last three years to make space for solar panels, according to opposition lawmakers who argue that the government’s renewable push should not be a replacement of nuclear energy.

Since the government strongly pushed for solar power business in 2017, 4,407 hectares of forest have been damaged, 15 times the space of the Yeouido area of Seoul, according to Rep. Yoon Sang-jin of the main opposition Liberty Korea Party on Thursday.

2 million trees cut down to make way for solar panels in 3 years: lawmaker
Same thing happening in India - an already over crowded country that can ill afford to lose anymore of its wild spaces:(
 

soubresauts

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2007
Messages
3,232
Same thing happening in India - an already over crowded country that can ill afford to lose anymore of its wild spaces:(
The more shocking thing that happened in India is the dams. India has a huge number of river valleys, and these used to be inhabited by hundreds of millions of people who lived simple but happy lives. India's river valleys were heavily forested and were abundant in all the basic necessities of life -- fresh water, game, river fish, fruit, vegetables, healing herbs, firewood, healthy toilet facilities...

However, all that stood in the way of "progress" and modernization. The Indian government wanted water supplies and electricity for its cities and factories. So all the rivers had to be dammed and the valleys flooded. Look at this list:
List of dams and reservoirs in India - Wikipedia

So all the valley people had to be rehoused. Ha! Of course they got nothing (except condemnation for standing in the way of "progress" if they objected) and had nowhere to go.

Inevitably those who survived the great eviction ended up in slums in the cities. That's basically why many, maybe most Indians nowadays live in abject poverty in cities while the country invests in a ridiculous high-tech future.

Perhaps the greatest untold story of human suffering in modern times.

When you think hydroelectric is wonderful, clean energy, think of those valley people in India.
 

Pyewacket

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 24, 2019
Messages
3,623
She put the wind right up your knickers.

None of those scientists and their entire consensus mattered a damn to the climate-denying morons, but once they saw a teenage girls they really did let rip. Foaming at the mouth, jerking off in multiple directions.

You don't think we have not noticed this? :)
 

RasherHash

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
25,653
She put the wind right up your knickers.

None of those scientists and their entire consensus mattered a damn to the climate-denying morons, but once they saw a teenage girls they really did let rip. Foaming at the mouth, jerking off in multiple directions.

You don't think we have not noticed this? :)
You're ignoring that the consensus has been debunked.

In one 'consensus' petition of 11,000 'scientists' anyone could sign, so you had Micky Mouse and Dumbledore among many other characters signing up to the 'consensus'.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
29,617
Twitter
No
I've started using references to Thunberg at work. 'Less paper please or we'll have Greta on our ass'. It is a nice way to link current affairs and a bit more thought when it comes to wasting reams of treeware.
 

riven

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
2,394
WRONG - I "understand the topic at hand" perfectly well,
& as I said i "raise this point" of the CO2 emitted in the manufacture of the boat solely 'in the interest of accuracy'.
it does not impact on any of my arguments previously made.

the geezer who commissioned the manufacture of the boat back in 2014 or whenever, is responsible for the CO2 emissions involved in it's manufacture.
whether the boat is sailing 24/7 or tied up at port 24/7 doesn't matter - no additional CO2 is emitted as long as it's powered by the wind.

as to your analogy - "If you buy a car, ……… "
if I buy a car or a sailing boat, I am indeed responsible for the emissions involved in the manufacture of the car or the sailing boat.
but Greta did not buy the sailing boat, so your analogy, like so much of your arguments is -
……………….….. ahem …………………..….. flawed.

& as for your "If you continue to excuse the responsibility for embedded emissions, you truly have no concern for reducing emissions."
WRONG yet again - I do not "excuse the responsibility for embedded emissions"
rather than excuse the responsibility, I place the responsibility where it belongs.
& as you argument here is based on a false premise, your conclusion re my "concern for reducing emissions." is worthless.
By your argument, nobody who uses a car or train are responsible for the embedded emissions. Yet the calculations clearly show that users and consumers are responsible for embedded emissions. I am responsible for a small amount of m embedded emissions of say a train journey that I take. The methodology of any carbon calculator makes allowances for embedded emissions.

This is in line with the guidelines. The statement you are making runs contrary to the guidance of the UNEP, IPCC,, eia, iea, ecn, Vito, sintef, Irena et Al. Embedded emissions are accounted for over the lifetime and use of the product or unit.

It is your ignorance that is shining through. That, and your willingness for unfounded personal abuse.

Consumers and users are responsible for embedded emissions.
 
Last edited:


Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top