- Jan 21, 2015
Don't think I have 'demanded consensus'. If so, please do show me where that is the case.It find it funny the Nobel Manguire and Lumpy Talbot demand consensus but when that very consensus is used, in the form of carbon accounting, they shriek, as it does not agree with their uninformed viewpoint.
I'm not sure what your point is here.Business is business, corrupt governments in Africa are normal.
You need to put the blame where it belongs.
Why?You'll have to work a lot harder on that attempt at equivalence, no matter how much off-balance sheet accounting you try.
Interesting if inaccurate attempt to put words in my mouth. If you think a jet flying across the atlantic is the equivalent or better than a wind-powered boat on the sea below in terms of carbon emissions you shouldn't be talking at all.Why?
All your attempts to say that these emissions don't exist (something you now seem to accept as false), or that the responsibility lies elsewhere, fly in the face of emissions accounting and therefore disagree with the UNEP and IPCC's methods of carbon accounting. You have yet to come up with a reasoned response as to why embodied/embedded emissions are accounted for by consumers, but not Greta.
I can only assume at this stage that you reject the opinions of the UNEP and IPCC, and are thus an uneducated "denier". Ciao.
I think his point is about agency and the waycism of low expectations.Read my post again: I asked you a question, I didn't put words in your mouth.
Whatever about her boat ride it would be good to see the hypocrites in governments taking her lead and giving up air travel.The current trip is turning into a bit of a disaster from an environmental perspective. The boat is currently doing 3 knots, meaning all the diesel is gone.
That is not a surprise given that over the last 3 days, they were facing headwinds and were not tacking the wind, rather going straight through at a rate of knots. So that is 700L of diesel at 2640 g CO2/L. This is certainly not insignificant and puts environmentalism on a back seat to expedience (i.e. get to the destination).
As I already stated, I am willing to give the embodied/embedded emissions on this boat a miss, as the materials of construction are much less intensive as compared to the Malizia 2. I previously estimated that the embodied emissions of this boat were 50 times less than the Malizia 2.
But this diesel burn coupled with the first/business class fights of the sailor, leads to some significant emissions.