DiamondEcho wrote:Meanwhile what did St Greta do to get back from the US to Sweden, walk on water perhaps?
See above. She hitched a ride on the catamaran La Vagabonde to Spain. Onward travel was by train.
Scott.
Thanks to Anonymous,bruncher,niord,gvonge,Shelford, for Donating to support the site
DiamondEcho wrote:Meanwhile what did St Greta do to get back from the US to Sweden, walk on water perhaps?
dspp wrote:DiamondEcho wrote:dspp wrote:There is something rather odd in the way some people feel the need to spread malicious lies about a young girl.
It seems obvious to me, the weird anger at the world of the squinted-eye multi-mullionaire pre-teen savant as she sails the world on a mega-carbon yacht (and flies back business class avec entire crew, of course) to er... protest againt, well carbon emissions. Hot air indeed, but very profitable it seems. She's been quiet of late; did she retire by 16?
I'm sorry DE, but please provide specific proof that GT flew back, business class or economy. Actual proof wrt to GT herself.
Absent proof, please stop spreading malicious lies.
Lootman wrote:dspp wrote:DiamondEcho wrote:It seems obvious to me, the weird anger at the world of the squinted-eye multi-mullionaire pre-teen savant as she sails the world on a mega-carbon yacht (and flies back business class avec entire crew, of course) to er... protest againt, well carbon emissions. Hot air indeed, but very profitable it seems. She's been quiet of late; did she retire by 16?
I'm sorry DE, but please provide specific proof that GT flew back, business class or economy. Actual proof wrt to GT herself.
Absent proof, please stop spreading malicious lies.
I do not know whether Greta, or some of her entourage, took that flight. But can we say with absolute certainty that none of her "team" have ever taken a flight?
Not that I care if they have because I am not hung up on flying. But if they are claiming that flying is evil and should never be done, then she would lose a lot of credibility if in fact she or they have used flights and then kept quiet about it.
I suspect that anyone who creates a media storm is indirectly contributing to a lot of carbon emissions, e.g. journalists flying to where she is protesting, politicians flying to have meetings with her, and so on. And I am fairly sure she turned up at the UN in a limo and not on a bicycle.
88V8 wrote:No one needs to fly. Leave aside military applications of course.
If all commercial flight stopped tomorrow, the world would still turn and we could still travel.
88V8 wrote:But I wonder how the comparative carbon footprint would be if all holiday trips were by ship.
88V8 wrote:But I wonder how the comparative carbon footprint would be if all holiday trips were by ship
gryffron wrote:88V8 wrote:But I wonder how the comparative carbon footprint would be if all holiday trips were by ship
Here we go. Got the figures from the web.
London to New York. 3500 miles.
Queen Mary 2 - 4 1/2 days @ 430 tons/day = 1950 tons fuel / 2620 passengers = 0.75 tons fuel/passenger
Jumbo jet.. 8 hours @ 11 tons/hour = 88 tons fuel / 366 passengers = 0.25 tons fuel/passenger.
So travel by cruise ship 3x worse than flying. Ballpark.
Gryff
Midsmartin wrote:I also get a bit annoyed about cries of 'hypocrisy' pointing at climatologists or campaigners who've traveled while trying to make the world better. 1) it's a crude distraction from engaging with the actual environmental problem, by those who want to ignore it and 2) they couldn't achieve anything if they never left their house except by bicycle
dspp wrote:However large shipping economic motoring speeds are typically approximately 12-knots, going up to maximum 20-knots for fast commercial traffic.
gryffron wrote:dspp wrote:However large shipping economic motoring speeds are typically approximately 12-knots, going up to maximum 20-knots for fast commercial traffic.
Internet quotes 29kts cruising speed as "typical" for QM2. I guess cruise ships generally go faster than bulk cargo cos they have places to get, and aren't ultimately guided by fuel cost.
You could equally quote that I picked a jumbo jet which is pretty ancient design and isn't the most efficient of modern aircraft.
But regardless. Even using your numbers, I think the conclusion we should take here is that even if we could encourage tourists to use "bulk" passenger shipping, the impact isn't going to be much different from aircraft.
Gryff
dspp wrote:You are confusing a "cruise" liner with a fast passenger liner.
gryffron wrote: So the conclusion is the same: Moving passengers from aircraft to ships doesn't help solve the emissions problem.
vrdiver wrote:gryffron wrote: So the conclusion is the same: Moving passengers from aircraft to ships doesn't help solve the emissions problem.
But an alternative conclusion might be "limiting aircraft passengers would discourage more people from travelling long distances". Now that would help to solve the emissions problem!
VRD
Mike4 wrote:vrdiver wrote:gryffron wrote: So the conclusion is the same: Moving passengers from aircraft to ships doesn't help solve the emissions problem.
But an alternative conclusion might be "limiting aircraft passengers would discourage more people from travelling long distances". Now that would help to solve the emissions problem!
VRD
Indeed. There seems to be an implicit assumption in recent posts that people collectively are entitled to travel around the globe regardless of the environmental damage being caused. Limiting (then reducing) the number of carbon-fueled passenger miles travelled by the human race in total seems to me to be the obvious way to make progress, whatever the method of transport used.
dspp wrote:I'm sorry DE, but please provide specific proof that GT flew back, business class or economy. Actual proof wrt to GT herself.
Absent proof, please stop spreading malicious lies.
- dspp
Mike4 wrote:Limiting (then reducing) the number of carbon-fueled passenger miles travelled by the human race in total seems to me to be the obvious way to make progress, whatever the method of transport used.
dealtn wrote:
Should we also limit, or stop, international trade, eating food grown overseas, eating meat products, non-international transport, ... ? They all contribute to similar problems. Isn't this about deciding where the "line is drawn". We won't all agree on where that should be.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests