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.
Yer on the wrong thread Rasher...that's pure trolling!Extremist Roger Hallam, co-founder of Extinction Rebellion, calls Holocaust "more shit" and describes German attitude to the Holocaust as "paralyzing"
For Roger Hallam, genocide is historically "an almost normal event". The German attitude to the Holocaust he described in the ZEIT as "paralyzing".t.co
WRONG - I "understand the topic at hand" perfectly well,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
I was paraphrasing what someone else would say to you.How so?
Greta is protesting against 'climate change' and so is Rog...
Same thing happening in India - an already over crowded country that can ill afford to lose anymore of its wild spacesMore 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
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...Same thing happening in India - an already over crowded country that can ill afford to lose anymore of its wild spaces
You're ignoring that the consensus has been debunked.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?
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.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.