Grande Mastere Dreade

boy is this girl in for a surprise..

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, kent_island_sailor said:

What you are saying is modern travel has become too cheap and people move around more because of it. ...if I am going all the way to Florida. A to B travel I am quite willing to spend more to go faster.

 

 

50 minutes ago, Mozzy Sails said:

... We can all make choices about where we go. The trouble is people (like you did) will excuse air travel and not address the real issue. ..

But yes, rationing of flights or taxation so the cost goes up and use reflects necessity could be options to...

 

20 minutes ago, Crash said:

Do you have any idea of the size of the negative economic impact reducing travel will have?  Not just to the airline industry,  or the airline manufacturers, or the tourist industry, or the local industries that support and supply all those airlines and manufacturers, etc, etc?

...

Yes we have to address impacts to the climate and planet.  But we need to understand the total cost of the solutions we are "proposing" and look for all the unintended consequences...

Forgive me for cheery picking comments. I’m not trying to misrepresent what’s been posted.

It seems to me in one way or another various posters have touched tangentially on the most powerful decision making tool homo sapiens ever came up with – THE MARKET ECONOMY.

Assuming there is agreement that greenhouse gasses are pollutants that generate real costs then the fastest and most effective way of addressing these costs is through pricing the pollutants.

There is little in life that is more educational and behaviour modifying than seeing the price of something rise.

There are few things that are more creative than an entrepreneur trying get rich in a market economy.

Electric cars are starting to approach market competitiveness with internal combustion.

The Solar Impulse 2 is not yet a threat to traditional airliners but a little more market incentive might bring electric flight into competition at least for certain routes...

solar-impulse-2.jpg

(As an amusing aside one of the biggest contributors to electric planes – Burt Rutan – is also one of the biggest sceptics of Anthropocene climate change)

Yes, there are big issues around how do you price “pollution” but I’d rather there was an engaged debate about that than governments using clumsy regulation to solve a problem that requires billions of people to change their behavior.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, inneedofadvice said:

It'd be funny it it weren't sad. The icecaps melt on the poles, the water rises around us, pretty much unanimous consent among scientists who spent their life studying it and yet denial based on the oil industries 'studies' that say it just ain't so.

Now a bunch of predominately middle aged males call a 16 year old girl who has accomplished more in her life already than they likely ever will, a quote 'opinionated, preachy, ignorant, PITA teenaged girl'. 

Sorry - load of crap that post is.

First off - the science of climate change is not even vaguely related to this girl's stunt. Maybe someone on this thread started going off on "fake news no warming", but if they did I missed it or ignored it.

Second - WTF! A 16 year old playing on the internet is an accomplishment? Maybe I should quit my job that helps real people in real life and make a cat video :rolleyes: 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, KC375 said:

Electric cars are starting to approach market competitiveness with internal combustion.

Nothing is free and without impact however...

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environment-impact

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/aug/24/nickel-mining-hidden-environmental-cost-electric-cars-batteries

https://waste-management-world.com/a/in-depth-lithium-battery-recycling-the-clean-energy-clean-up

We trade one set of challenges for another...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Electric cars are still powered by something.

I read an interesting summary  of this where if you have nuke/hydro/wind/solar, the car is polluting like a 99 MPG car and if your electricity comes from coal it is more like 30 MPG. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since my side business is teaching people to fly, does anyone have any advice for my clientele?

"Have you looked into walking to Cape May" maybe :P

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Crash said:

I completely agree nothing is without impact...I'm just arguing for using the market to make those trade offs rather than some all knowing bureaucrate. Instead we have insanity like corn based ethanol added to gasoline...

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, inneedofadvice said:

girl who has accomplished more in her life already than they likely ever will.

Apart from a load of attention seeking, albeit for a good cause, getting kids to walk out of school and giving them a few days off and giving those hippies from extinction rebellion a reason to paralyze Central London,  can you quantify in real terms what she has 'achieved'? (apart from saving a trans-Atlantic plane ticket and she isn't there yet)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Since my side business is teaching people to fly, does anyone have any advice for my clientele?

"Have you looked into walking to Cape May" maybe :P

 

 

I love flying. I did my first solo in 1988 and would not want to give up the opportunity to get to lakes by plane in a couple of hours that would take days by other means - i.e. I'd never go. If green house gases (and other pollutants) were priced appropriately to reflect their real cost then aviation would get more expensive - but maybe not as much as you fear. It might be that feedlots, and oil well gas flares, and heavy oil burning ships take a bigger hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, inneedofadvice said:

It'd be funny it it weren't sad. The icecaps melt on the poles, the water rises around us, pretty much unanimous consent among scientists who spent their life studying it and yet denial based on the oil industries 'studies' that say it just ain't so.

Now a bunch of predominately middle aged males call a 16 year old girl who has accomplished more in her life already than they likely ever will, a quote 'opinionated, preachy, ignorant, PITA teenaged girl'. 

You left out the part where they are WHITE men; you should be ashamed for not implying at the whole white supremacist thing as a part of your argument; you missed a great opportunity to demonstrate your moral superiority! Shame on you.

You sound like this:

Global Warming Panic Explained

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, KC375 said:

I love flying. I did my first solo in 1988 and would not want to give up the opportunity to get to lakes by plane in a couple of hours that would take days by other means - i.e. I'd never go. If green house gases (and other pollutants) were priced appropriately to reflect their real cost then aviation would get more expensive - but maybe not as much as you fear. It might be that feedlots, and oil well gas flares, and heavy oil burning ships take a bigger hit.

$4.99/gallon is plenty expensive NOW! (for me at least)

All the greenies can rest easy, flying and sailing both look headed to demographic extinction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/13/2019 at 11:47 AM, Parma said:

Again, it's the journey, not the boat or the equipment or the food or anything else. It's the journey, the voyage, the movement only that she is talking about.

But even that is BS as there will certainly be some motoring at each end.

This is much more, maybe 100%, about her values validating in front of her equally wacko peers: "Lookit me!! I am sooooo much better'n you!"

If anyone wants to show her up ask her how racial diversity is demonstrated by her voyage and doesn't that just clearly demonstrate her white nationalist tendencies?

If it has been said further down I appopogize, but jesus christ, You are litterally bashing a child on the internet because she is trying to draw attention to something that is the #1 issue on this planet.  You right wing nut jobs have no shame.  Go crawl back in your hole and let the adults talk.  

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Electric cars are still powered by something.

I read an interesting summary  of this where if you have nuke/hydro/wind/solar, the car is polluting like a 99 MPG car and if your electricity comes from coal it is more like 30 MPG. 

I completely agree. All energy sources are dirty in some way. The challenge is to put a relative price on the dirtiness. No pricing mechanism is perfect. No cost is clearly the wrong price as that definitely leads to over production/consumption. Right now in some countries pollution is not only underpriced it is indirectly subsidised through fuel subsidies.

For sure it’s challenging to establish relative dirtiness. With greenhouse gases there are some reasonable approaches that weigh life span of the gas and its relative impact. Clearly gases like methane are much more problematic than carbon dioxide and should be priced accordingly.

Even very clumsy pricing schemes would quickly do away with corn based ethanol – an environmental disaster cloaked in the virtue of “renewable”.

It get’s more challenging when looking at trade offs across types of “dirty”. Hydro power can have devastating impact on river ecosystems...

I’m not suggesting there are any magic wands, I’m just advocating for working transparently with the market rather than semi arbitrarily through fiat and regulation...but I’m probably in my own way as naive as Greta...

But I'll stop as this is getting a long way from sailing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

$4.99/gallon is plenty expensive NOW! (for me at least)

All the greenies can rest easy, flying and sailing both look headed to demographic extinction.

Oh how I wish fuel was the largest or dominant cost of flying (at least for GA). For commercial fuel cost drives everything. That the most interesting/affordable GA planes these days seem to be on the experimental / kit side suggest the heavy hand of government may have pushed up commercial production costs excessively. But maybe not...when a plane falls out of the sky it creates some very expensive externalities depending on where it hits - swamp in Florida no so much, major city pretty expensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The heavy hand did wreck GA pretty well when Reagan got rid of all the tax breaks for buying an airplane. Prior to 1980 or so a relatively well off person could buy an airplane almost for "free" as in the money would have gone to taxes otherwise. These became older and cheaper used airplanes for the unwashed masses to buy eventually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Malizia has left Plymouth, bound for NY. Possibly the most important voyage ever to New World. 

Looks like a good weather pattern for the trip.

Both Azores, and Bermuda high are well positioned for a mid latitude crossing.

Good luck, Greta!

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/13/2019 at 7:53 PM, Laurent said:

It's a single-handed offshore race boat : the galley is most likely a Jetboil stove and the head a carbon fiber (weigh-savings...) bucket. Deal with it!

 

Eventhough it is not the same boat, here is a video on another IMOCA 60. The "galley" is shown at 3:30... Malizia must be pretty close to that...

 

 

I would say it's the same boat, more or less

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, shaggy said:

If it has been said further down I appopogize, but jesus christ, You are litterally bashing a child on the internet because she is trying to draw attention to something that is the #1 issue on this planet.  You right wing nut jobs have no shame.  Go crawl back in your hole and let the adults talk.  

Apology accepted.

But really, it's a self promotional publicity stunt, pure & simple. If she really wanted to have an impact she would focus on population reduction because that's really the only way to have any real effect on the true source of the problem.

I know I'm going to sound boringly repetitive, but

The solution

To pollution

Is population.

Anything else is intellectual dishonesty.

Right wing nut job? Yeah sure: you think the right wing is out there advocating for population reduction every day?

What?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, inneedofadvice said:

It'd be funny it it weren't sad. The icecaps melt on the poles, the water rises around us, pretty much unanimous consent among scientists who spent their life studying it and yet denial based on the oil industries 'studies' that say it just ain't so.

Now a bunch of predominately middle aged males call a 16 year old girl who has accomplished more in her life already than they likely ever will, a quote 'opinionated, preachy, ignorant, PITA teenaged girl'. 

This.

And then we all go post all over threads about why "sailing is dying" and "kids don't go sailing".   I wouldn't want to spend time with half of SA, either, if I were 16.

I realize that the actual world of sailing is not reflected here at Sailing. Anarchy. ----but STILL.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Crash said:

Do you have any idea of the size of the negative economic impact reducing travel will have?  Not just to the airline industry,  or the airline manufacturers, or the tourist industry, or the local industries that support and supply all those airlines and manufacturers, etc, etc?

The 4 days of no flying in the US after 9/11 are estimated to have cost just the airline industry between 1 and 2 billion dollars...nevermind the cost to all the other "related" industries...

Yes we have to address impacts to the climate and planet.  But we need to understand the total cost of the solutions we are "proposing" and look for all the unintended consequences...

Have you any idea the size of negative impact increasing temperature will have? Not just to the airline industry, or manufactures, or tourism, or local industries etc etc..

We need to be respectful of the industries that exist and ensure that change is as manageable as possible. The airline industry can no doubt innovate, and if people don't fly for holiday then money will get spent at destinations closer to home and on regional transport. The world won't end. 

The problem with the airlines industry, is the cost of the product they are selling is not born solely by themselves. Sure, they buy the fuel, the planes, the gate fees, the upkeep, the staff, but the damage to the environment they don't pay for. Who bears that cost and how does a market economy account for it? The next generation does, pays for it, but we don't yet know the cost. But it's likely to be significantly more than any profits the airline are turning over now. They're making profit at their children's expense. 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mozzy Sails said:

Have you any idea the size of negative impact increasing temperature will have? Not just to the airline industry, or manufactures, or tourism, or local industries etc etc..

We need to be respectful of the industries that exist and ensure that change is as manageable as possible. The airline industry can no doubt innovate, and if people don't fly for holiday then money will get spent at destinations closer to home and on regional transport. The world won't end. 

The problem with the airlines industry, is the cost of the product they are selling is not born solely by themselves. Sure, they buy the fuel, the planes, the gate fees, the upkeep, the staff, but the damage to the environment they don't pay for. Who bears that cost and how does a market economy account for it? The next generation does, pays for it, but we don't yet know the cost. But it's likely to be significantly more than any profits the airline are turning over now. They're making profit at their children's expense. 

 

Why are you picking on airlines?
If I have 10 gallons of gas, I can:

1. Drive to the beach and back.

2. Go waterskiing for a bit.

3. Drive to a B&B in the Appalachians and back.

4. Get two jet-skis out for a cruise

5. Ride an ATV around in the woods all day.

6. Fly to Cape May and back.

7. Fly to Tangier Island for lunch and back.

8. Go on a 747 round trip about 700-1,000 miles for my share if the plane is full.

No government can go picking and choosing which fun activities are "acceptable" and which are not in a way any first world citizen would not revolt at. Why not just tax motor fuels for their impact and let the users decide what to use them for ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm also bewildered by some folks..SOME folks insistence on measuring everything in dollars.

"The airlines will suffer, they'll lose money"....and so on.  Or "Chevron will lose money, do you have any idea of the economic impact....."

Well, yeah. They will.  That's kind of how the world operates. The manufacturers of steam engines lost market share in the early 1900's when other kinds of engines appeared.  It doesn't break my heart if Delta Airlines, or Chevron, or  Ford  loses money.

And yes, I understand that if Delta Airlines loses money then Delta employees will lose jobs and there's a human cost to it.  I got that. But things change when they need to and for every Delta employee that loses their job, a job can open up in another sector, that requires different skills.

Finally, since when is money the only measurement that's of any value?
OMG, Delta airlines will lose money!  OK..OK...  but are dollars the only thing that matter?  Why are dollars the ONLY criteria used to measure value by some people?

I feel like some people can't think about any other form of value.

***Hey, how big is your penis?***

Oh, about thirty-six dollars and forty cents.

I don't understand why people think this way. Dollars....dollars...dollars.... and nothing else.

Dollars and "economic value" are NOT the only measure of what matters in the world.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jhc said:

Malizia has left Plymouth, bound for NY. Possibly the most important voyage ever to New World. 

Looks like a good weather pattern for the trip.

Both Azores, and Bermuda high are well positioned for a mid latitude crossing.

Good luck, Greta!

 

Which weather pattern are you looking at? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Parma said:

...

I know I'm going to sound boringly repetitive, but

The solution

To pollution

Is population.

Anything else is intellectual dishonesty.

Right wing nut job? Yeah sure: you think the right wing is out there advocating for population reduction every day?

What?

I do agree that eliminating humans will eliminate greenhouse gases generated by or for humans. If you accept the more dire prediction of the climate catastrophists this may be a self-limiting event – climate becomes uninhabitable, humans die or go away, humans stop being a problem. My undergrad was a dual major in Geology with Physics so I do take a bit of a Geological view – so far humans are a rounding error on a geological time frame...but we’ve graduated to having a (self assigned) geological age named after us so who knows some future species may study our fossils and carefully analyze sedimentary rocks to learn more about the Anthropocene climate layer.

However, I think the extinction of humans may not be the most nuanced or creative way to address pollution. Putting aside plastics and all sorts of other pollutants to just look at greenhouse gases we can imagine alternatives to Armageddon.

There are all sorts of reasons that drive per capita production from negligible levels (well less than .1 metric tons per capita) all the way to Qatar at 45+ tons per capita – clearly much of the variation is driven by wealth/consumption.

However if you focus on relatively affluent countries like Switzerland and Sweden they produce ~4.4 tons per capita. Comparing this with large high output countries like China (7.5) and the US(16.5)...that suggests it should be possible to dramatically reduce green house gases by sharing best practices. Living like the Swiss or the Swedes doesn’t sound like an excessively painful outcome, certainly not when compared to extinction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw a news article about this earlier today and dropped in to see if there was a thread for it yet.  Couldn't decide if it belonged in PA, SA, GA, or ORA... Finally decided it really should be in the LONQR thread of GA.  But then found this thread, not that I have any problem with it being in SA.

The news article aggravated me, but not because she's doing this or even that she's doing it for publicity.  That much is fine.  The thing that irritated me was that the new article was playing it up to make it seem really dramatic.  The first 70% of the article made it sound like she'd be singlehanding an IMOCA 60 with no experience.  So my natural reaction was "if she doesn't die, she'll be looking for rescue soon, for being a dumbass".  After reading most of it, and reading about how various people are worried about her safety, etc...  I finally get to the end where it mentions the skipper (Boris Hermann), and I'm thinking...  wait...  skipper?  And haven't I heard of that guy?  So then I look him up and realize he owns the boat and is plenty experienced to do this trip alone on that boat.  Then it mentions her dad and one other crew will be aboard.  So...  ok...  she's a f'ing passenger.  The fact that she's a 16-year-old girl suddenly produces no drama under those circumstances.  She'll have a great experience, and I hope she uses the experience to learn and grow as a person.  But she isn't doing anything particularly dangerous or challenging, other than needing to poop her vegan diet into a bucket for a couple weeks.

So the thing that bothers me isn't what she's doing or why or whether or not it's a good idea or safe, etc.  It's just that the press is presenting it as a big deal and then sneaking the fact that she's just a passenger in at the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Alan H said:

I'm also bewildered by some folks..SOME folks insistence on measuring everything in dollars.

"The airlines will suffer, they'll lose money"....and so on.  Or "Chevron will lose money, do you have any idea of the economic impact....."

Well, yeah. They will.  That's kind of how the world operates. The manufacturers of steam engines lost market share in the early 1900's when other kinds of engines appeared.  It doesn't break my heart if Delta Airlines, or Chevron, or  Ford  loses money.

And yes, I understand that if Delta Airlines loses money then Delta employees will lose jobs and there's a human cost to it.  I got that. But things change when they need to and for every Delta employee that loses their job, a job can open up in another sector, that requires different skills.

Finally, since when is money the only measurement that's of any value?
OMG, Delta airlines will lose money!  OK..OK...  but are dollars the only thing that matter?  Why are dollars the ONLY criteria used to measure value by some people?

I feel like some people can't think about any other form of value.

***Hey, how big is your penis?***

Oh, about thirty-six dollars and forty cents.

I don't understand why people think this way. Dollars....dollars...dollars.... and nothing else.

Dollars and "economic value" are NOT the only measure of what matters in the world.

 

This is how things work in the 1st world liberal democracies.

You can do things two ways:

1. Decide to tax avgas $2/gal more than it is now. I might decide I really don't want to fly to Tangier Island for lunch or I might decide to use a more economical airplane or maybe only go to Easton or maybe just take a sail instead.

2. Have a gatekeeper at the airport to decide who deserves to go where. Well Mr. ManBearPig over there wants to interview Tangier Island residents on how modern pan-sexual pronouns interface with their Elizabethan era speech patterns and I only want to sunbath nude and destroy the view from the beach with your hairy ass, so we vote Mr. ManBearPig gets the plane today and you can go home.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Well Mr. ManBearPig over there wants to interview Tangier Island residents on how modern pan-sexual pronouns interface with their Elizabethan era speech patterns and you only want to sunbath nude and destroy the view from the beach with your hairy ass, so we vote Mr. ManBearPig gets the plane today and you can go home.

Hey, you're a closet Southpark watcher!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

This is how things work in the 1st world liberal democracies.

You can do things two ways:

1. Decide to tax avgas $2/gal more than it is now. I might decide I really don't want to fly to Tangier Island for lunch or I might decide to use a more economical airplane or maybe only go to Easton or maybe just take a sail instead.

2. Have a gatekeeper at the airport to decide who deserves to go where. Well Mr. ManBearPig over there wants to interview Tangier Island residents on how modern pan-sexual pronouns interface with their Elizabethan era speech patterns and you only want to sunbath nude and destroy the view from the beach with your hairy ass, so we vote Mr. ManBearPig gets the plane today and you can go home.

KIS, well your absence of tan lines may be important to you and those close to you, that the broader world be exposed to the wonderfull and historic diction of Tangier is priceless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

modern pan-sexual pronouns

Now this is something I hope we can all agree on - using the word "they" as a substitute for he or she is just plain bad English.  You don't use a plural pronoun when referring to a singular thing. That just plain pisses me off when I see it!  :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Alan H said:

I'm also bewildered by some folks..SOME folks insistence on measuring everything in dollars.

...

I don't understand why people think this way. Dollars....dollars...dollars.... and nothing else.

Dollars and "economic value" are NOT the only measure of what matters in the world.

 

Alan you are absolutely right not everything can be measured in dollars. Especially not things that are not offered up for ready exchange. Do I know how to price my love for my children, no and I don’t need to, its not for sale. Do I know how much I’m willing to pay to be together as a family for thanksgiving – I’m not sure but fortunately the cost of them flying in is less than the limit I’d pay. But at some price I’d have to say, much as I love my children, I’d rather pay off their student loans.

Dollars or some other measure and store of economic value like the florin or pieces of eight, or  shekel, gold, silver, paper money (invented by the Chinese a thousand years ago) are really useful.

A common unit of exchange greatly facilitates a market economy which has really been one of the greatest tools for advancement. Market economies have all sorts of imperfections but as the number of people involved grows it becomes hard to beat as a way to organize activities. So imperfect as they are dollars (or other convertible currencies) are a really useful way to value things, especially things that involve coordinating with many others.

Horrifying as it may be, priceless things are regularly priced as an input to decision making, especially were no input would produce a worse decision. Apparently the value of quality year of human life in 2008 was $129,000 according to Stanford economists. At the time Medicaid was using $50,000 in planning therefore underinvesting in things like dialysis. On the other hand if Medicaid valued a year of human life at $1.29 million then it would invest much more starving tax dollars from things like primary education.

Dollars are useful even when making decisions about things that at first blush can’t and shouldn’t be valued...except in the real world of limited resources, decision and trade-offs have to take place

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Why are you picking on airlines?
If I have 10 gallons of gas, I can:

1. Drive to the beach and back.

2. Go waterskiing for a bit.

3. Drive to a B&B in the Appalachians and back.

4. Get two jet-skis out for a cruise

5. Ride an ATV around in the woods all day.

6. Fly to Cape May and back.

7. Fly to Tangier Island for lunch and back.

8. Go on a 747 round trip about 700-1,000 miles for my share if the plane is full.

No government can go picking and choosing which fun activities are "acceptable" and which are not in a way any first world citizen would not revolt at. Why not just tax motor fuels for their impact and let the users decide what to use them for ;)

On the plane you are burning your 10 gallons in two hours.  In a car it might take you 10 hours. Burning 10 gallons of fuel per day is not ideal, whatever your chosen method. 

A 10 hour drive is enough to make most people think whether the journey is really needed, but they will take a 2 hour flight quite happily.  

It's not just how much fuel we are using which is the issue, it's the rate. 

Government can and do limit behaviour which is excessive and as a result detriments wider society.  Maybe if they add on the true cost of burning that fuel we'd think twice. But, people can also ask themselves whether it's needed to burn chunks of fuel in this way. 

I get the feeling you want to debate big government, rather than whether cheap flight have been or will be good for the environment.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, KC375 said:

Alan you are absolutely right not everything can be measured in dollars. Especially not things that are not offered up for ready exchange. Do I know how to price my love for my children, no and I don’t need to, its not for sale. Do I know how.....

A common unit of exchange greatly facilitates a market economy which has really been one of the greatest tools for advancement......

Horrifying as it may be, priceless things are regularly priced as an input to decision making,......

Dollars are useful even when making decisions about things that at first blush can’t and shouldn’t be valued...except in the real world of limited resources, decision and trade-offs have to take place

What bothers me is things like  an article I saw recently that basically said... "If unchecked, global climate change could cost the United States forty billion dollars in the next ten years, or  one thousand, five hundred blah blah dollars for every person...."  or whatever the numbers actually were.

It was written as if the writer couldn't think of any other unit of measure, and as if the only unit of measure that mattered in any way at all, or that anybody could understand, was money.  I understand that maybe that person was trying to drive home a point and used a common unit of measure that we all understand  to do it, but it just bugs me.

There are things which are more important than money, and I wish people would realize it and talk about the world that way.  Leaving a fucked-up world for our kids and grandkids to inherit is NOT quantifiable in terms of money.  Leaving a fucked-up world for all the OTHER species to deal with is no less fucked-up, because  sloths and caterpillars  don't engage in currency-driven economics.    Driving thousands of species extinct is not something that can be summed up by the amount of dollars lost to the pharmaceutical industry by the loss of biochemical diversity that can no longer be explored.

But do those values ever get talked about?  Well, yes. yes they do....and lots of people just point and laugh, as if their lives and senses of what's fundamentally right,  are defined by  some Harvard or Stanford economists graph points.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is pretty far afield from one young womans trip across the Atlantic to go to a conference, so I won't scream and shout any more about world-views.

 

However, our/my earlier points that:

1.) Greta has energized how many millions of kids to make a stand and start screaming about why the fucking adults can't get their shit together


2.) Greta is on a SAILBOAT...never mind what sailboat, she's on a bloody boat for God's sake

3.) and maybe, as sailors, we should be talking about how to somehow turn this opportunity into some way to reach kids and teach them something about sailing, instead of pissing on Sailing Anarchy about whether it takes more petroleum to build an open 60, or fly across the Atlantic

still stands.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Alan H said:

 

1.) Greta has energized how many millions of kids to make a stand and start screaming about why the fucking adults can't get their shit together

Nothing new here. Kids have been screaming about adults since the beginning of time. Why is this lot so special?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sailing to the conference is good for PR but will she sail home after her 15 minutes of fame has finished?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, KC375 said:

I completely agree nothing is without impact...I'm just arguing for using the market to make those trade offs rather than some all knowing bureaucrate. Instead we have insanity like corn based ethanol added to gasoline...

 

The challenge is, of course, that market pricing cannot adjust for the tragedy of the commons. That's where taxes must come into effect. A carbon tax is a good proxy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Alan H said:

What bothers me is things like  an article I saw recently that basically said... "If unchecked, global climate change could cost the United States forty billion dollars in the next ten years, or  one thousand, five hundred blah blah dollars for every person...."  or whatever the numbers actually were.

...

There are things which are more important than money, and I wish people would realize it and talk about the world that way.  Leaving a fucked-up world for our kids and grandkids to inherit is NOT quantifiable in terms of money.  ...

But do those values ever get talked about?  Well, yes. yes they do....and lots of people just point and laugh, as if their lives and senses of what's fundamentally right,  are defined by  some Harvard or Stanford economists graph points.

I agree that somethings should just be “values”. I used to take my daughters on canoe trips into the backcountry. We always left a clean camp site with at most footprints to show we’d been there. No one payed us to do that. No one fined us if we didn’t. It’s just what we feel is right. Similarly in the city we never drop our trash, we carry it until we can find an appropriate disposal.

If you go back 50 years people were a lot more comfortable just dropping their liter. There’s a Madmen episode where Don, Betty and the kids have a roadside picknick at the end of which they just abandon their trash. That’s glaring by today's values but pretty true to the time (early 60s).

Hopefully more and more people will adopt the clean campsite view and try to leave their grandkids a clean planet. But in a world were leaving a clean planet involves a lot of complicated trade-offs I’d find it helpful if pollution were priced in rather than left as an externality. By pricing in pollution it helps make sensible trade-offs ...cleaner energy sources all things equal should cost less and or have a higher profit margin encouraging increased supply. Electric vehicles should include the costs of pollution from manufacturing the batteries....maybe the pollute least answer is those who drive little should us gasoline to avoid batteries while those who drive a lot should use electricity for lower polluting energy...it would be great if pricing could help deliver the right outcome.

As for the cost of global warming...well that depends on 1. Do you believe the predictions and 2. Are you the citizen of a country or a member of the human race. I’ll leave 1. for debate over in PA. As for 2. If you live in Bangladesh or some Pacific Islands the cost of projected global warming and sea level rise is pretty high. If you live in Canada its probably a net benefit. So if we act as a common race rather than competing nations then the pacific islanders should move to Canada (just don’t tell them about what happens between December and March).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Mozzy Sails said:

On the plane you are burning your 10 gallons in two hours.  In a car it might take you 10 hours. Burning 10 gallons of fuel per day is not ideal, whatever your chosen method. 

A 10 hour drive is enough to make most people think whether the journey is really needed, but they will take a 2 hour flight quite happily.  

It's not just how much fuel we are using which is the issue, it's the rate. 

Government can and do limit behaviour which is excessive and as a result detriments wider society.  Maybe if they add on the true cost of burning that fuel we'd think twice. But, people can also ask themselves whether it's needed to burn chunks of fuel in this way. 

I get the feeling you want to debate big government, rather than whether cheap flight have been or will be good for the environment.  

The issue is then that either:

1. Gas is too cheap, so people indulge in fuel-intensive activities because it doesn't cost much

OR

2. Modern turbofan aircraft have become too efficient. They carry people a long way quickly on relatively small amounts of fuel. A DC-3 at 160 knots configured for 30 people is about 50 some SMPG. A modern turbofan is almost 4 times as fast and probably in the 70-90 SMG area.

To solve #1 you tax gas more and let people do what they will.

To solve #2 you need to hobble the airlines somehow. You could do something like make landing slots very expensive, make them fly slower - say make the 250 knot limit extend all the way to FL600, ration total tickets sold, or tax fuel specifically only for Part 121 Airlines and no one else.

The issue with all the "hobble the airlines" ideas is the airlines will quite rightly complain why THEY got to be the ones to take the hit. Why not tax Winnebagos or make giant pick up trucks illegal or something.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

The issue is then that either:

1. Gas is too cheap, so people indulge in fuel-intensive activities because it doesn't cost much

OR

2. Modern turbofan aircraft have become too efficient. They carry people a long way quickly on relatively small amounts of fuel. A DC-3 at 160 knots configured for 30 people is about 50 some SMPG. A modern turbofan is almost 4 times as fast and probably in the 70-90 SMG area.

To solve #1 you tax gas more and let people do what they will.

To solve #2 you need to hobble the airlines somehow. You could do something like make landing slots very expensive, make them fly slower - say make the 250 knot limit extend all the way to FL600, ration total tickets sold, or tax fuel specifically only for Part 121 Airlines and no one else.

The issue with all the "hobble the airlines" ideas is the airlines will quite rightly complain why THEY got to be the ones to take the hit. Why not tax Winnebagos or make giant pick up trucks illegal or something.

carbon tax....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are two problems

The lack of a test run before(!) publicly committing to the trip on the IMOCA.
The political cost of backing out now, in case it turns out to be a bad idea.

Not exactly the best combination. Not necessary either.
That said there is no reason to belief that they wont make it to NYC with Greta in good spirits. Good team, good support. As always a good dose of sheer stubbornness helps to make it to the finish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alan H said:

I'm also bewildered by some folks..SOME folks insistence on measuring everything in dollars.

"The airlines will suffer, they'll lose money"....and so on.  Or "Chevron will lose money, do you have any idea of the economic impact....."

Well, yeah. They will.  That's kind of how the world operates. The manufacturers of steam engines lost market share in the early 1900's when other kinds of engines appeared.  It doesn't break my heart if Delta Airlines, or Chevron, or  Ford  loses money.

And yes, I understand that if Delta Airlines loses money then Delta employees will lose jobs and there's a human cost to it.  I got that. But things change when they need to and for every Delta employee that loses their job, a job can open up in another sector, that requires different skills.

 

But if travel becomes significantly more expensive, then who flys to the Caribbean to charter sailboats?  No or greatly reduced tourism would have a huge impact on those Islands/countries .  Worse by far then the hurricanes did. 

With no tourists traveling to Costa Rica, that economy also dies on the vine.  No eco tourists, means no more compelling reason to protect their rain forests, etc.  same for many African Countries and their game preserves to protect animals from poachers, etc. All funded from tourist dollars.  

Its easy to say you don’t care if someone from the “bad” industries lose their jobs, if it doesn’t threaten your ability to provide for your family.

I’m not suggesting do nothing. I’m suggesting the cost and pain of greatly reduced air travel is much larger than you have articulated, and will in negatively impact (other areas) of the environment.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Laser1 said:

Apart from a load of attention seeking, albeit for a good cause, getting kids to walk out of school and giving them a few days off and giving those hippies from extinction rebellion a reason to paralyze Central London,  can you quantify in real terms what she has 'achieved'? (apart from saving a trans-Atlantic plane ticket and she isn't there yet)

At least in Europe those kids skipping school achieved to put the fight against climate change and trying to achieve the promises made in Paris solidly back as topic number one on the agenda of most political parties. So yes, she and the movement have already achieved more than any other activists in the past years.

4 hours ago, KC375 said:

Oh how I wish fuel was the largest or dominant cost of flying (at least for GA). For commercial fuel cost drives everything.

And with airplane fuel being mostly tax free for commercial flying lies the main problem. If a flight of 400km/~250miles is cheaper than a train ride while taking the same time if you include waiting times (time you need to be at the check-in/security check/gate before departure) something is fundamentally wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Crash said:

But if travel becomes significantly more expensive, then who flys to the Caribbean to charter sailboats?  No or greatly reduced tourism would have a huge impact on those Islands/countries .  Worse by far then the hurricanes did. 

With no tourists traveling to Costa Rica, that economy also dies on the vine.  No eco tourists, means no more compelling reason to protect their rain forests, etc.  same for many African Countries and their game preserves to protect animals from poachers, etc. All funded from tourist dollars.  

Its easy to say you don’t care if someone from the “bad” industries lose their jobs, if it doesn’t threaten your ability to provide for your family.

I’m not suggesting do nothing. I’m suggesting the cost and pain of greatly reduced air travel is much larger than you have articulated, and will in negatively impact (other areas) of the environment.  

There is no question that addressing greenhouse gases creates costs for some (or has them pay their fair share) will generating benefits or reducing costs for others.

For the purpose of debate let’s accept the climate change projections for Anthropocene global warming.

If so we are faced with trade offs like no reduction in travel and other greenhouse gas generating activity means the inhabitants of places like Kiribati will need to find a new home. So you have a choice of maintaining tourism in place like the Caribbean and losing not just tourism in Kiribati but the ability to sustain life in Kiribati.

IF you accept the need to reduce green house gases then it becomes a question of how. Charging for greenhouse gas emission (carbon tax) reduces emissions, encourages lower emission substitutes, ensures emissions come from the most valuable activities, and it generates revenue to offset the cost of emissions. In a rational/fair world that revenue would be invested in or spent on things that offset the harm of the emissions. Be that buying up the most vulnerable real estate (like the island Bangladesh is putting the Rohingya on) and paying to move the inhabitants to less affected countries or even countries benefiting from global warmings. Redistributing “pollution income” would allow investment in carbon sinks. All that farmland in Europe that the common agricultural policy pays to keep fallow should be reforested...

If you really want to get controversial with carbon sinks all the mature forests of the world should be harvested for construction (not for burning) and replanted. Mature forests are big stocks of carbon but about neutral in sink vs source. Regenerating forests are a significant sink. Yes clear cutting the amazon raises other issues so maybe not a good idea.

One of the challenges of global warming is that the losing countries are already the losing countries and the winning countries are the ones who have made a multi-century habit of extracting value from the losing countries. Will western Europe, the US and Canada be willing to help out the rest of the world?

climate-change-map.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Marty6 said:

At least in Europe those kids skipping school achieved to put the fight against climate change and trying to achieve the promises made in Paris solidly back as topic number one on the agenda of most political parties. So yes, she and the movement have already achieved more than any other activists in the past years.

And with airplane fuel being mostly tax free for commercial flying lies the main problem. If a flight of 400km/~250miles is cheaper than a train ride while taking the same time if you include waiting times (time you need to be at the check-in/security check/gate before departure) something is fundamentally wrong.

Why do we assume that the train's environmental impact is less than an airplanes?  Besides how much fuel each burns, the train tracks themselves have to cross all kinds of environments, cause all sorts of disruptions to animal migration paths, etc, etc.  At least when the jet is at flight level, it is not impacting animals, wetlands, etc directly by it's presence...the train track is, the noise of the train is...

Not saying trains are bad, or are not a valid (in Europe) alternative.  Only that they too have a negative environmental impact....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, KC375 said:

There is no question that addressing greenhouse gases creates costs for some (or has them pay their fair share) will generating benefits or reducing costs for others.

For the purpose of debate let’s accept the climate change projections for Anthropocene global warming.

If so we are faced with trade offs like no reduction in travel and other greenhouse gas generating activity means the inhabitants of places like Kiribati will need to find a new home. So you have a choice of maintaining tourism in place like the Caribbean and losing not just tourism in Kiribati but the ability to sustain life in Kiribati.

IF you accept the need to reduce green house gases then it becomes a question of how. Charging for greenhouse gas emission (carbon tax) reduces emissions, encourages lower emission substitutes, ensures emissions come from the most valuable activities, and it generates revenue to offset the cost of emissions. In a rational/fair world that revenue would be invested in or spent on things that offset the harm of the emissions. Be that buying up the most vulnerable real estate (like the island Bangladesh is putting the Rohingya on) and paying to move the inhabitants to less affected countries or even countries benefiting from global warmings. Redistributing “pollution income” would allow investment in carbon sinks. All that farmland in Europe that the common agricultural policy pays to keep fallow should be reforested...

If you really want to get controversial with carbon sinks all the mature forests of the world should be harvested for construction (not for burning) and replanted. Mature forests are big stocks of carbon but about neutral in sink vs source. Regenerating forests are a significant sink. Yes clear cutting the amazon raises other issues so maybe not a good idea.

One of the challenges of global warming is that the losing countries are already the losing countries and the winning countries are the ones who have made a multi-century habit of extracting value from the losing countries. Will western Europe, the US and Canada be willing to help out the rest of the world?

climate-change-map.jpg

While I generally am not a fan of taxing as the answer to everything, I am something of a fan (convert?) of "consumption" taxes.  So I actually like the idea of a carbon tax.  I think it should be graduated, starting out to be relatively modest, and growing over time, to allow time for adjustment and change.  But to address a global issue like climate change, it needs to be a "global tax" where in everyone pays the same tax per unit of carbon generated. And therein lies the challenge.   I also think the "buying of carbon credits" must be done away with.  If you use a unit of carbon, you pay the tax.  Period.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Marty6 said:

...

And with airplane fuel being mostly tax free for commercial flying lies the main problem. ...

Current fiscal policy on greenhouse gas generating activities make no sense (at least from the point of view of pollution limitation). Most/many fuel taxes are styled "road use fees" or some approximation. So more or less the same fuel with the same environmental impact will have a relatively high tax rate when used in a truck, and very low rate when used in a tractor, or as heating fuel, or as Jet fuel or in a ship. Yet the all have about the same greenhouse gas emission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Crash said:

Why do we assume that the train's environmental impact is less than an airplanes?  Besides how much fuel each burns, the train tracks themselves have to cross all kinds of environments, cause all sorts of disruptions to animal migration paths, etc, etc.  At least when the jet is at flight level, it is not impacting animals, wetlands, etc directly by it's presence...the train track is, the noise of the train is...

Because trains can and should be powered by renewable energy (wind, solar), if electrified, and not finite fossil energy like gasoline and therefore the CO2 impact is much less. The main thing we need to talk about is not environmental impact overall (that's what slows us down so dramatically at the moment) but about climate impact because if we don't fix the climate component every other environmental impact won't matter since there are some irreversible milestones/tipping points which will change the world so dramatically.

 

The same is true regarding arguments in the direction "what will this do to this or that industry". We have to finally accept that infinite growth is a pipe dream/bubble sure to blast and the consequence e.g. in the area of people migration is going to be horrendous. The current migrations discussions/problems in countries are peanuts compared to the migration problems the industrial nations are going to phase through to climate change. That's the main reason why a financial perspective won't help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Raz'r said:

The challenge is, of course, that market pricing cannot adjust for the tragedy of the commons. That's where taxes must come into effect. A carbon tax is a good proxy.

and while people like you worry about a projected temperature rise which we can easily adapt to, the third world is dying of things like preventable disease and lack of access to clean water.

There is no cost-benefit analysis going on with regard to CO2 reduction.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Gissie said:

Nothing new here. Kids have been screaming about adults since the beginning of time. Why is this lot so special?

Maybe ask the folks who nominated her for a Nobel prize?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, dash34 said:

Maybe ask the folks who nominated her for a Nobel prize?

If I asked them do you think they would give an honest answer? They are all wanting to jump on the PR wagon being generated for their own selfish purposes. 

As for these millions around the world screaming we do something, maybe  should set examples rather than making noise. Don’t get driven to school, don’t eat food that has to be trucked or flown in for consumption, stop buying stuff not manufactured nearby. You know, the stuff that would make a difference but hurt at the same time. A trip on a carbon beast with piles of the latest gadgetry is just showboating. Even turning up to all these meetings is showboating if you are serious. A big screen and a phone would suffice. Greta could pontificate from her home all around the world with very little carbon being expended. 

But that would remove the photo ops and media glory from all those that you seem to take seriously just because they nominated her for a peace prize. The ones that are now using this girl for their own promotion. Paying lip service whilst being just more attention whores. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Rushman said:

Sailing to the conference is good for PR but will she sail home after her 15 minutes of fame has finished?

She started almost a year ago. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

The issue is then that either:

1. Gas is too cheap, so people indulge in fuel-intensive activities because it doesn't cost much

OR

2. Modern turbofan aircraft have become too efficient. They carry people a long way quickly on relatively small amounts of fuel. A DC-3 at 160 knots configured for 30 people is about 50 some SMPG. A modern turbofan is almost 4 times as fast and probably in the 70-90 SMG area.

To solve #1 you tax gas more and let people do what they will.

To solve #2 you need to hobble the airlines somehow. You could do something like make landing slots very expensive, make them fly slower - say make the 250 knot limit extend all the way to FL600, ration total tickets sold, or tax fuel specifically only for Part 121 Airlines and no one else.

The issue with all the "hobble the airlines" ideas is the airlines will quite rightly complain why THEY got to be the ones to take the hit. Why not tax Winnebagos or make giant pick up trucks illegal or something.

Yes, Gas is probably too cheap because the people selling it, or selling activities that burn it aren't paying the full cost. And there is difficulty in how this should be priced in considering the impact increase exponentially with the rate at which fuel burnt. 

But I wouldn't say that planes are too efficient.  Unless by efficient you mean efficient at facilitating people burning fuel quickly. I.e. they have lowered the time cost for the consumer of burning fuel. If a person on a plane burnt the same gallons per hour as a person in a (decent efficiency) car then there wouldn't be the same problem. I think that's a fair measure to hold the airline industry to, it's not beating on them.  In that case we shouldn't care whether people go to Greece or the seaside an hours drive away. 

In the UK giant winnebagos and giant pick up trucks are taxed more.

But it's a cultural thing that low cost high carbon travel has got us too. Everyone owns a car, people think nothing of living 30 miles from work and commuting everyday, with maybe 1 day a week in head office, which is a 2 hour flight away. People should either live closer to work and use public transport, or cycle, or work from home. We've spent the post war era around cars and planes rather than trains and bikes and it's now hard to back out of. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think shes the greatest. She persists in fighting a fight shes unlikely to win, but shes sure starting to get some people moving, and who knows, maybe in her lifetime she will be responsible for some real change. I am all for it, we need about 1000 more Gretas in the world. And who the fuck cares if the boat is made of plastic. If it was a wooden boat, the naysayer climate change deniers would say "but they cut down trees to build it and the paint is made of oil products", whatever. Im not doing the research but im willing to bet the distance traveled/emission ratio even on an open60 is pretty good.

On 8/13/2019 at 11:49 AM, Israel Hands said:

And even if everyone says she's looney...

Everyone? You mean a bunch of north american morons whove decided not to "believe" in science because its inconvenient to their obnoxious lifestyle?

 

On 8/13/2019 at 11:58 AM, Parma said:

I thought that China or India was the most polluting?

Well you thought wrong.1024px-Co2_emissions_per_capita_our_worl

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Mozzy Sails said:

People should either live closer to work and use public transport, or cycle, or work from home. We've spent the post war era around cars and planes rather than trains and bikes and it's now hard to back out of. 

Excuse me but that is f8acking easy for you to say from behind your keyboard.

In the UK public transport in rural areas - well everything outside the axis London/Birmingham - has been cut to the bone and what is running is late, takes too f8cking long, is falling to bits and is hugely expensive.  Also you may be surprised to hear in this day & age and hyper connected world how many bosses still expect you to be on the doorstep of the office at 8 sharp.

People should .......  my arse!!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, xonk1 said:

Just what is this " crucial climate change conference " in New York? Is her attendance crucial? If so. how? Hope she makes a difference.

Well, just maybe she is getting some Fuckwits around the world to take their heads out of the sand and discuss the shithole that they are leaving for their kids to sort out.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Laser1 said:

Excuse me but that is f8acking easy for you to say from behind your keyboard.

In the UK public transport in rural areas - well everything outside the axis London/Birmingham - has been cut to the bone and what is running is late, takes too f8cking long, is falling to bits and is hugely expensive.  Also you may be surprised to hear in this day & age and hyper connected world how many bosses still expect you to be on the doorstep of the office at 8 sharp.

People should .......  my arse!!

 

 

I've lived in deepest Wiltshire, the outer hebridies and coastal Norfolk amoungst many other places. There never has been good rural transport..

I did live close to work, then we got taken over and they halved the staff, so now I have to travel 25 miles each way a day to and from work.. The site i'm working at now has been taken over twice, the current parent company, is renown for taking over other companies, and "rationalising " sites. There is no way i can afford to keep moving house.

 If I want to use public transport, I have to walk 1.5 miles to the nearest bus stop an hour, before I finish work the day before, in order to get here..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2019 at 6:57 AM, The Q said:

Or alternatively she got 1.4 million students to take a day off school illegally, I doubt many were interested in climate change most would have gone home to use their games machine..

Wrong. She's the poster child for Extinction Rebellion which in the UK has been the biggest civil disobedience movement in decades and has had an significant and likely irreversible effect on the seriousness with with mainstream parties take climate change. It's become pretty much impossible for parties to duck the issue, nobody wants to be seen to be telling millions of kids they are mistaken. As a pragmatist interested in actual solutions I find the impossible demand for zero emissions by 2025 irritating as hell but the effectiveness of the campaign is undeniable. And now she is on the way to the USA. Just possibly, this will get interesting. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Laser1 said:

Excuse me but that is f8acking easy for you to say from behind your keyboard.

In the UK public transport in rural areas - well everything outside the axis London/Birmingham - has been cut to the bone and what is running is late, takes too f8cking long, is falling to bits and is hugely expensive.  Also you may be surprised to hear in this day & age and hyper connected world how many bosses still expect you to be on the doorstep of the office at 8 sharp.

People should .......  my arse!!

 

 

Excuse me, but I'm from teh UK and outside of the London Birmingham axis.

I'm not saying people should but aren't because they just don't fancy it. I'm saying people should but aren't because we've built our culture around the car and plane and working expectations of commuter office life. 

The problem is that we haven't invested enough to make public transport a competitive option. 

The problem is we have bosses that expect workers to turn up at 8, when there is really no need other than wanting to exercise power over employees. 

The problem is people feel  guilty that if colleagues can't see them working in an office then the job isn't valid.

The problem is if a client call a meeting the other side of the country it's seen as 'cheap' to suggest doing it via conference call. 

The problem is that people will take high paid jobs miles away from home, but won't be prepared to move their family. 

The problem is bikes are seen as second class form of transport.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Parma said:

I know I'm going to sound boringly repetitive, but

The solution

To pollution

Is population.

So which one of you claiming this is The Solution will throw yourselves off a cliff first?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, perioecus said:

So which one of you claiming this is The Solution will throw yourselves off a cliff first?

I think the ancient greeks might suggest a solution of hemlock as the solution to pollution

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, perioecus said:
15 hours ago, Parma said:

I know I'm going to sound boringly repetitive, but

The solution

To pollution

Is population.

So which one of you claiming this is The Solution will throw yourselves off a cliff first?

It dossentte halve to be so violentte, cane be done onnerabley.......

:)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, KC375 said:

I think the ancient greeks might suggest a solution of hemlock as the solution to pollution

Thet shit cleanes evereythinge!                                                  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Crash said:

Funny, not sure I've read a single post here that contained a denial of climate change....can you show me one?  I think you've missed the point of the discussion (which is broadly based around the question of: does this publicity stunt help or hurt?)

Well this is just peachy.  When corporations fly in in jets they complain about the hypocrisy.

When someone sails the Atlantic not to fly in, they complain.

Funni as fuck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the sailing side of things - not going anywhere fast @ 8 knots and a bit.

 

GT.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, perioecus said:

So which one of you claiming this is The Solution will throw yourselves off a cliff first?

All we're talking about is snippin' and tyin' tubes after one child for awhile until this map looks like Europe and Japan worldwide:

Image result for population growth map world

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks to me like the girl has a lot of Rich White Cunts upset.

Funni as fuck to watch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, random said:

Looks to me like the girl have a lot of Rich White Cunts upset.

Funni as fuck to watch.

Jealous indeed.  As am I.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Israel Hands said:

Sock doesn't know when he's been trolled

Troll doesn't know when he's been socked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, perioecus said:

Cunts will be cunts.

Socks will be socks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2019 at 10:12 AM, TUBBY said:

It would have been there somewhere.  Not as a room that you or the wife may have recognised,  but there needs to be one for IRC.  That doesn't mean it has to be truly accessible or useable.  In the old days of IOR one of the boats I sailed had it Jubilee clipped to the base of the mast,  all plumbing attached & working but impossible to sit on.

1:50 head

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, batkinmok said:

I think shes the greatest. She persists in fighting a fight shes unlikely to win, but shes sure starting to get some people moving, and who knows, maybe in her lifetime she will be responsible for some real change. I am all for it, we need about 1000 more Gretas in the world. And who the fuck cares if the boat is made of plastic. If it was a wooden boat, the naysayer climate change deniers would say "but they cut down trees to build it and the paint is made of oil products", whatever. Im not doing the research but im willing to bet the distance traveled/emission ratio even on an open60 is pretty good.

Everyone? You mean a bunch of north american morons whove decided not to "believe" in science because its inconvenient to their obnoxious lifestyle?

 

Well you thought wrong.1024px-Co2_emissions_per_capita_our_worl

But we're getting better:

https://eidclimate.org/u-s-per-capita-carbon-emissions-at-lowest-levels-since-1950-thanks-to-natural-gas/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, batkinmok said:

I think shes the greatest. She persists in fighting a fight shes unlikely to win, but shes sure starting to get some people moving, and who knows, maybe in her lifetime she will be responsible for some real change. I am all for it, we need about 1000 more Gretas in the world. And who the fuck cares if the boat is made of plastic. If it was a wooden boat, the naysayer climate change deniers would say "but they cut down trees to build it and the paint is made of oil products", whatever. Im not doing the research but im willing to bet the distance traveled/emission ratio even on an open60 is pretty good.

Everyone? You mean a bunch of north american morons whove decided not to "believe" in science because its inconvenient to their obnoxious lifestyle?

 

Well you thought wrong.1024px-Co2_emissions_per_capita_our_worl

Also, to clarify-  China is the "most polluting" overall, while the US is the most polluting "per capita."  Meaning, China pollutes more by virtue of the fact that their population greatly exceeds the United States, while each person in the United States pollutes more on an individual basis by consuming more energy and generating more municipal waste.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Snaggletooth said:

Thet shit cleanes evereythinge!                                                  :)

It sure cleaned out Socrates - can't have people spreading dangerous ideas, it makes a mess

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites