Greta Thunberg will Sail to Climate Conference in US

August 13, 2019


52 Responses to “Greta Thunberg will Sail to Climate Conference in US”

  1. Manny Good Says:

    Sailing on a boat made of fiberglass from oil wells.

    • More than offset by the carbon not emitted by avoiding air travel.

      I’m more puzzled by the description of the boat: “Climate change activist Greta Thunberg will spend two weeks travelling across the North Atlantic on a boat with no toilets, kitchens or privacy.”

      I assume no refrigeration, either. So what are she and the crew eating for two weeks? Pop Tarts and canned tuna?

    • rhymeswithgoalie Says:

      The issue, of course, is how much oil was burned making the thing.

      • Manny Good Says:

        My sister and her husband used to have a 50 ft sail boat. It required a ton of upkeep, new sails, new lead paint etc . all the time to keep it in condition. All that takes oil fo make the new sails, paint, mine the lead , transport it etc. The idea the tens of millions of people who travel around the world can somehow do it on a boat with a ticket price in the thousands if she actually paid her way is simply ridiculous. BS. In her life she uses a ton of fossil fuels from her cloths to everything she uses to live much less travel.

        She represents what is wrong with the movement, it is all about a false belief that the world saving movement depends on getting rid of fossil fuels when the real actual issue is population and how to stop the explosion in the population.

        She distracts from the actual issue. We can feed the 10 billion due in a few decades, we cannot feed the billions more at the end of this century, with or without fossil fuels unless we turn the whole planet in the equivalent of the giant bee hive and completely destroy everything else. Example, in Yahoo the other day they were taking about a congressional representative whose mother had 14 children. If every mother did the same thing, that 10 billion, assuming half are mothers would be 70 billion in a single generation. That is simply impossible to support.

        • indy222 Says:

          This is exactly why it’s a losing strategy for Progressives to finger-wag about personal carbon footprints. It makes NO DIFFERENCE, and you just set yourself up for the mealy Manny’s of the world. Don’t take that bait. Legally enforced policy is the only chance there is. Yeah. BIG government. Can you handle it, Manny?
          Education to those willing to think, even if to do it you must take jets to get there. Your jet seat taken or not taken won’t make a single bean, let alone a hill of beans, difference to climate. STOP TAKING THE BAIT!

        • redskylite Says:

          The post war population bulge and modern medicine have had an effect:

          “There are now more people over age 65 than under five—what that means

          People are living longer and having fewer kids, presenting new challenges and opportunities.”

        • Gingerbaker Says:

          ” a false belief that the world saving movement depends on getting rid of fossil fuels when the real actual issue is population and how to stop the explosion in the population.”

          Such nonsense here.

          AGW is because of CO2 and other GHG’s building up in the atmosphere, and is due almost exclusively to the burning of fossil fuels. It IS the existential problem, and we have a window of opportunity of only a few years to limit its damage. Which will last for 5000 to 10,000 years and will end civilization as we know it.

          Overpopulation is a completely different problem that is, in fact, self-limiting, and has a 100 year window of opportunity.

          IOW, you have it exactly backwards. Which ain’t helping.

        • rhymeswithgoalie Says:

          Your comment was about the fiberglass made from petroleum products. The carbon footprint of an activity isn’t (or shouldn’t be) calculated regarding noncombustion of petrochemicals, but on the CO2 emissions that go into processing them.

          That said, producing petrochemicals—including auto fuel—itself uses a lot of energy. In effect, if an EV is a “coal-powered car” so is a car run on petrochemical fuel, which has a high carbon footprint even before it comes out of the gas pump.

    • redskylite Says:

      That’s bit petty and nit-picking, yes! – Malizia II’s fiberglass hull is a petrochemical product, the builders used recycled fiberglass in the building of this craft. The point is the 60 foot yacht – is one of the fastest ocean SAILING boats on the planet.

      Even WUWT did not nit pick on this building material in their indignant and bellicose critique of the young lady’s venture.

      How dare she make a symbolic point against fuel spent on travel. The audacity of the girl.

      So here is some soothing music to calm the nerves – or not.

    • rsmurf Says:

      You have yammered on quite a bit, but really haven’t said anything other that slamming things others have done or do. WHAT HAVE YOU DONE OTHER THAN RUN YOUR YAP! And don’t even start with the FOSSIL FUELS are not the problem. Population is a problem but not the only. But really have you set an example other than running your mouth?

    • Andy Lee Robinson Says:

      What a moronic comment.
      It was already built, made of carbon fiber and thereafter makes no emissions.
      Unlike aircraft that irreversibly burn tens of thousands of tons of fossil fuels every day.

  2. Manny Good Says:

    She is making a point on something that has zero purpose. She makes money and gets fame by putting her face in the news. The Kardashians do the same thing, Neither do anything to actually make the world better.

    People need to travel, they cannot do it on yachts made from recycled fiberglass or not. We need planes.

    I have a pretty strong suspicion having built things in fiberglass that the fiberglass is not actually recycled given the specifications on new fiberglass matt. Once something is made in fiberglass the glass is in the matrix and nobody actually takes it out as that requires a bunch of fossil fuel chemicals to dissolve the resin. Once out you would need to clean the product using more fossil fuel chemicals and finally dry it out. To get it into new mat you need to use more fossil fuels to reweave the fibers into matt assuming the fibers are long enough to do so. All that processing would tend to break them into shorter pieces thereby affecting the strength of the material.

    Unless you want to be a serf in 2060, we need to fix the worlds problems which do not include people traveling on or off boats made or not made from fiberglass recycled or not.

    • redskylite Says:

      Tom, Terry sorry I mean Manny – For heavens sake Greta is a 16 year old schoolgirl, who started protesting at the age of 15. She is not comparable to Kim Kardashian in any way at all.

      Shame on you for for thinking she is making piles of money. She is a symbol of her generation because ours have failed miserably.

      Sailing to the U.S is an adventure that many teens would love to take – I would have jumped at the chance at that age. Obviously it is not a blueprint to cure AGW.

      She is a motivation and peer figure to a different generation to you, she is not a money fixated T.V personality.

      • redskylite Says:

        And her purpose is to stop this repetition of record global highs – how many more do you think life as we know it can support ?

        Five Warmest Years (Anomalies)
        1st. 2019,2016(+0.43°C), 3rd. 2017(+0.41°C), 4th. 2015(+0.38°C), 5th. 2018(+0.31°C)

        The monthly anomaly of the global average surface temperature in July 2019 (i.e. the average of the near-surface air temperature over land and the SST) was +0.43°C above the 1981-2010 average (+0.77°C above the 20th century average), and tied with 2016 as the warmest since 1891. On a longer time scale, global average surface temperatures have risen at a rate of about 0.70°C per century.

    • Gingerbaker Says:

      ” She makes money and gets fame by putting her face in the news. The Kardashians do the same thing, Neither do anything to actually make the world better.”

      Well, that is about the most disgusting take on virtually any topic I have ever seen. Good grief – you really need help.

    • rsmurf Says:

      It appears you might be jealous of her?!?!?!

    • rhymeswithgoalie Says:

      “People need to travel.”

      Another red herring. People don’t need to fly as much as they do.

      Cutting down on unnecessary flying would save a lot on emissions. In terms of using capitalism to address the problem, flying should have its external costs factored into its consumer cost.

  3. Bill Ramsay Says:

    In my part of the world, we would say that this criticism of Ms. Thunberg, “is playing the player and not the ball”. It’s a deflection/distraction from the main point.

    People who get exercised over these things, viz, that the boat is made out of fibreglass, need to take a step back. Good on her for what she’s doing.

  4. Brent Jensen-Schmidt Says:

    Greta the chick has brought insight and activism to the ‘worlds’ youth. GREAT!
    In short, she can fly solo in a Concorde and it would still be worthwhile.

  5. mboli Says:

    This is just stupid. What is important is to stabilize greenhouse gasses. It is a systems problem, what it is NOT is simply eliminating all sources of GHGs. For heaven’s sake, we will all keep breathing.

    This will be accomplished by combining a lot of changes, starting with the simplest and most economically advantageous. Air travel is a tiny percentage of the GHGs, and usually there aren’t any convenient or similar cost alternatives. Deciding, for example, to eat less meat will diminish GHGs with little inconvenience or diminution of quality of life. Deciding that the next furnace replacement will be a heat pump has more cost, but ultimately it isn’t less convenient and potentially accomplishes a great deal down the road.

    Deciding to replace an airline trip with something inconvenient and expensive sends the message: “we will diminish everybody’s quality of life by eliminating airline travel.” Which is entirely unnecessary and untrue. After electric generation becomes mostly carbon-free, and food habits have changed, and reforestation has progressed, it may turn out that air travel doesn’t need to change in order to achieve the desired overall result. Or it may turn out that electric airplanes are used for shorter routes. We don’t know.

    What we know is that decarbonizing will be driven by what changes that high results for lesser expense, by changes that improve lifestyle or only slightly diminish lifestyle.

    Thunberg is modeling climate change behavior by picking the most expensive and least convenient change, addressing a system which is only a small part of the problem. Yes she is making a statement. Her statement is “I’m a freaking masochist and you all are going to have to suffer too. So there!”

    If our goal is to influence the attitudes and behaviors of the general public it is a toxic mistake of a message. It feeds the denialist fear-mongering. and it sends the message that the easier more productive changes are worthless.

    • jfon Says:

      How about deciding to replace an airline trip with a staycation ?

    • Gingerbaker Says:

      “Yes she is making a statement. Her statement is “I’m a freaking masochist and you all are going to have to suffer too. So there!””

      That is pretty harsh. She is making a symbolic statement here, not recommending anyone else follow her example.

      • mboli Says:

        Yap, that was unfairly hyperbolic. I shouldn’t have said it that way.

        I claim, however, that Thunberg is consciously modeling behavior.

        The carbon-free yacht is clearly a publicity stunt of course, she isn’t suggesting everybody find one of those. But she and some other professional activists make a big public deal of eschewing air travel. Flight-shaming has become a thing.

        And I claim this is terrible messaging. It tells people that in a carbon-neutral world they will have to give up air travel. It tells people that quite a bit of personal sacrifice will be needed. Neither of these is true. And it does nothing to get the broader public on board with the effort.

        • Gingerbaker Says:

          I’m not going to go as far as criticize this outstanding young lady, but I will say that I agree with you wholeheartedly about the false idea that our green future must mean sacrifice and hardship.

          The opposite is almost certainly true – our lives will be 10,000 times better because of reduced pollution, minimized AGW, huge energy cost savings (more money in our pockets), and an increase in the QOL of most people on the planet because of the luxuries of a surfeit of dirt-cheap energy.

    • rsmurf Says:

      How does NOT FLYING make you suffer? And really not sure where its written that “thou shall not suffer”. And what if what you do makes ME suffer even if you don’t. You don’t get to get off scot free.

      • mboli Says:

        Not flying would entail a notable diminution of quality of life for many people. The alternatives are often very inconvenient or expensive.

        The systemic changes to our physical and social culture that will stabilize greenhouse gasses will concentrate on areas which give a much bigger bang for the buck.

        The good news is that after this all shakes out, we will have a cleaner nicer world. Consider the following, from the past hundred years or so.

        — It became untenable to heat structures with coal, the pollution was too much.

        — It became untenable to let human waste contaminate our water and our streets.

        Addressing these environmental problems entailed substantial investment: digging up all the streets to install water and sewer, large water treatment projects. Digging up the streets again to install natural gas and electricity, and the infrastructure to supply them. They also involved social / behavioral changes, people needed to be taught to wash their hands.

        But in the end we have a cleaner, better world. Addressing these environmental problems didn’t involve taking away anything. They involved doing things differently, and ultimately better. This is @gingerbaker’s point above.

        The message of the flight-shamers (I’ll add Eric Holthaus to the list) is that we have to take away useful things.

        And that feeds the message of the deniers: “Those climate change people want to take away your nice lifestyle.”

        • rsmurf Says:

          Poor baby it might be “inconvenient”. Again I don’t recall CONVENIENCE being written down as a right. And again what have YOU done to make this a better place? I’m sure it’s nothing if inconvenience is what you make decisions on.

          • mboli Says:

            FWIW: I’ve kept a spreadsheet of assorted components of my carbon footprint for over a decade. Not everything, mostly stuff that is easily measured I have control over. And I’ve been working on it.

            It was really dumb to assume that the average person who reads and posts to Climate crocks isn’t trying to address climate change.

            Over and out. I’m not engaging further.

          • rsmurf Says:

            Gee a spreadsheet, your a real environmental pioneer. And great way to turn tail, since all you are is blabber.

        • Keith Omelvena Says:

          “a notable diminution of quality of life for many people.” I suppose I could shed a tear for those too important to “diminish” their lives by not flying? But nah. Arrogant arseholes are too special to need sympathy!

          • Gingerbaker Says:


            Aviation is 3.3% of US GHG-eq emissions:


            Aviation is 1.5% of global GHG-eq emissions:

            In 2014 alone, there were 3.3 billion (estimated) aviation passengers – 44% of of global population

            So, a person taking a flight in 2014 was putting up one 3.3 billionth of the 1.5% of global GHG emissions. Now, subtract from that the GHG-eq emissions of their alternative travel. I probably fart that much methane from eating organic garbanzo beans every year.

            Now, tell me how you justify how such a contribution qualifies as making someone (almost half of the human race) an “arrogant asshole” who is “too special”.

            Stop being an arrogant prick yourself, stop pointing fingers, and start doing more to help us ALL to change this system so we can eliminate fossil fuels.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            GB is OD’ing on the fumes from his garbanzo bean flatulence—-open a freaking window, GB!

            I will say once again that the GHG number from air travel is NOT insignificant, especially when coupled with all the other “tourist” emissions from cruise ships, trains, tour buses, and personal vehicles. There are some folks who must fly for work, but the “tourists” ARE selfishly increasing GHG without producing ANY benefits for society at large.

            Case in point—-the WashPost had an recent article about a picturesque Austrian village of 800 people that had ONE MILLION tourists visit each year, most of them from Asia. This village is so popular that they built a replica in a Chinese theme park (which hasn’t cut down on the numbers visiting the real thing). Add in the people cruising to Antarctica and the Arctic and climbing Mount Everest if you really want to go to the extremes of useless tourism.

            Looking at GB”s graphs, I wonder why he seems blind to the fact that ANY decrease in fossil fuel use in ANY sector has to be helpful. Or is he a “travel junkie” that wants to protect his own “habit”?

          • mboli Says:

            An excellent thought, @DOG! We can put you in charge of the new Office of ITTN: Is This Trip Necessary? Nobody will be allowed to travel by airplane without applying to ITTN with an explanation for the trip and receiving requisite approval. Your office will also maintain the ITDN approval list: Is This Destination Necessary, since you are able to rule out whole destinations.
            After pissing off much of the populace, you will have achieve a whole 1% reduction in GHG emissions. Pretty good!

            Or we could find policies which push the whole economy, including air travel, in the right direction. Discourage air travel and encourage alternatives, as well as encouraging the development of lower-carbon air transport. Encourage investment which achieves the best improvement for the buck. Encourage the changes which the populace find the most palatable.
            A sane policy might include a carbon tax. It might include changes to building codes, for example phasing out gas furnaces. It might include scaling up of renewable energy mandates, stricter requirements on average automobile emissions, changes to the farm price supports.

    • rhymeswithgoalie Says:

      This is a “gimmick” with a message: Flying emits a lot of CO2 in the upper atmosphere

      If our goal is to influence the attitudes and behaviors of the general public it is a toxic mistake of a message. It feeds the denialist fear-mongering.

      Rubbish. If she had flown, the denialists would have simply whined about that. If you promote vegetarianism, the denialists will claim you’re trying to criminalize meat. If you promote smaller houses, the denialists will claim you’re trying to outlaw private property. The denialists are just a bunch of mechanical spouters of talking points, with no desire to address the complex problems at hand.

      As Buttigieg pointed out in one debate, no matter who gets the nomination for the Democrats, the GOP will still label that person a hard-core socialist. Don’t soften the message to appease the ideologues.

  6. mike thefordprefect Says:

    it’s not about how much energy she has personally used for this trip. It’s more to do with getting the rest of the world to engage with climate protection.

    Her trip across the Atlantic has already generated headline news.

    If she makes it across then more headlines. should it all go wrong then the rescue will be headline news. And this news will engage with the populous.

    Just how many headlines do climate scientists make with their reports. How many non scientists bother listening?

    How many people see headlines like this and think climate?
    “Heavy rains and flooding swamped several southern China provinces over the past week.
    At least 49 people have died and several others remain missing.
    Hundreds of homes have been destroyed and at least 4.5 million people have been impacted.”

  7. jfon Says:

    While I greatly admire Greta, and fully support her choice of travel, I’m reminded that, a few years ago, a group of people who I believe were involved in the Green party in New Zealand decided to take the green route to Australia. A storm came up, and the yacht they were on went missing. A New Zealand Airforce Orion spent hundreds of hours searching for them, burning way more avgas than their share of a jet ticket, but no trace was found.
    For an alternative option, here’s the ship ‘ 50 Years of Victory ‘, with a load of cruise passengers, a swimming pool, and a gym, smashing through metre-thick ice on the way to the North Pole. No smokestack required.

    • rsmurf Says:

      Its always fun to find a one off to make a stupid point!

      • jfon Says:

        Are you talking about nuclear powered ships being a one-off ? There are about a hundred and forty – mostly submarines, aircraft carriers, and icebreakers. There are a handful of merchant vessels that use kitesails or Flettner rotors as auxilliary power, but in all cases about 70 to 80 percent of their go is diesel. There are a few battery powered ferries or river craft, but nothing with anywhere near enough range to cross an ocean. The port where I live has just ordered the world’s first electric tugboat, to meet their emissions goals, but that won’t stop the huge cruise vessels that berth here leaving their marine diesels running the whole time they’re in port.
        There were only a handful of jet aircraft in 1945, all military or government test vehicles. Within a decade, they’d made inroads into civil aviation, and in two, dominated it. Marine nuclear power, and related land based small reactors, are comparatively more mature. Uranium fuel is much cheaper per watt/hour than even high sulfur sludge oil. Biofuels for land transport have been disastrous for the climate, and will be no better for ships and aircraft.

  8. dumboldguy Says:

    WOW! This post has generated way more trail-chasing and stupidity than it warranted. Kardashians, recycling fiberglass and moronic maunderings from Manny waste our time. Leave Greta alone and be thankful for the good publicity she generates.

    Air travel is NOT an insubstantial source of GHG, and needs to be dealt with. Latest figures are that one passenger on a round trip flight from NYC to London is responsible for one metric ton (2200 pounds) of GHG in just 14 hours (157 lb per hour). And air travel is increasing rather dramatically, NOT decreasing (at least in the U.S.) Long live flight shaming!

    The population problem exists because our use of fossil fuels allowed the development of our “modern civilization” with all its life-extending benefits. We will NEVER see 10 billion humans on this planet—-Mother Nature will take charge long before then and do what she has always done to creatures who exceeded the carrying capacity of their habitat—-kill off a bunch until balance is restored. It is a waste of time to yammer on about whether there are too many people OR we use too much fossil fuel—-both are true and either one will get us before too long (speaking in terms of geologic time).

  9. rsmurf Says:

    If you are not part of the solution you are the PROBLEM. Slamming someone that is trying while you sit back and complain about being INCONVENIENCED is a folly. Do something but don’t tell the ones that are doing something that what they are doing does not matter. That means all of you!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Gingerbaker Says:

      We are not on your lawn. Get over yourself.

      • rsmurf Says:

        Actually you ARE ON MY LAWN. Unless your wasteful and destructive co2 emissions are kept ENTIRELY in your space, and ill give you 6 inches all around your body. Otherwise they contribute to the destruction of MY planet the only one that we can survive on. So get over yourself and do something other than yammering. And that doesn’t mean making it worse for everyone!

        • mboli Says:

          @gingerbaker contributes some of the most thoughtful engagement and sharpest ideas on this comment board, and is a good writer to boot.
          If you find yourself flinging rhetorical feces at @ginger, you might want to stop and take a good look at yourself.

          • rsmurf Says:

            NO! But thanks for regurgitating! CLEAN UP ON AISLE 6.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Smurfy is incapable of “taking a good look” at himself or much else that gets posted on Crock. He is either a rather slow middle-school student or a seriously intellectually inadequate adult with too much time on his hands and little to say.

            It should be self-evident that no commenter on Crock needs to be defended from smurfy’s inane horseshit.

          • mboli Says:

            Righto, @DOG!
            And not only is it meaningless to defend people from “smurfy”, it was dumb of me to feed the troll.

  10. J4Zonian Says:

    Short version: Tu quoque scapegoating fracking fluid. Don’t let the trolling morons hijack the discussion.

    Slightly less short version: Anecdotal cherry picking. Straw people galore–red, herring-scented scapegoating ones at that. Impossible expectations. False dichotomies. All in a convenient variation on the familiar circular firing squad theme–a Battle of Blair Mountain/30 Years War combo with everybody on their own side, shooting at everybody else from individual musical foxholes.

    And above all, an overlong, overheated argument spreading nothing but reaction and darkness over a ridiculous tu quoque potshot from a fool who has nothing to contribute except overused denying delayalist coal sludge. Still, s/he’s gotten everyone to react to utter nonsense blaming climate catastrophe on poor people of color and personal actions by activists–neither of which is to blame. It’s caused by warped psychology and the resulting society of warped structural complexes that even otherwise intelligent people on the left refuse to face honestly and intelligently. And it’s caused overwhelmingly by the rich, who are a small percentage of people not growing in numbers.

    Has no one here had a course in logic or rhetoric? (Even Denial 101 offered by John Cook et al at U of Q?)

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: