The purpose of the trip was to get to the USA in the most environmentally friendly manner. Flying there would have been far more effective than the chosen solution. That is all I am saying.
Greta
- Thread starter EvaOdland
- Start date
- Banned
- #23
why bother, Random just takes a position that suits trolling.
She probably could achieved more by doing conference calls from home rather than any sort of travel. Business travel makes up 30-40% of miles flown and these days much of what is done on trips can be done remotely with video calls, shared desktops etc.. She should be setting an example to business leaders....
" I know this the world is not the same as it was 40 some years ago, but can anyone say it has gotten better? "
Sure, there's actually lots of data to support that broadly speaking, the world is in fact becoming a better place. to help frame the thought, I'll quote Steven Pinker below,
Partly, it’s a discrepancy that comes from a worldview that we get from data and a worldview we get from journalism. Journalism has a built-in bias towards the negative, in that it covers events and it is easier for something to go wrong very quickly rather than right very quickly.
An explosion, a terrorist attack, a shooting, an epidemic can all break out quickly. Whereas improvements in well-being such as fewer wars, lower rates of crime, increasing longevity, literacy, prosperity, creep up a few percentage points of time. There is never a Thursday in October in which they happen all at once and therefore could be worthy of a news report.
Data in a sense aggregates all of these events and non-events. When you’re counting up the number of crimes, the number of wars, people killed in war, the number of people who live below the line of extreme poverty as well as the happy non-events the view of the world that you get is not only different but as it happens, quite a bit more positive.
There’s a second reason and that is there is a bias among journalists and intellectuals generally toward accentuating the negative as a way of appearing wise and not naive.
It is a moral stance that journalists and intellectuals tend to adopt where they feel like gulls if they point to positive events and appear like prophets. If they remind people of all the ways in which they may be doomed, that is a dynamic that goes back to the Old Testament.
It is an increasing theme within journalism, and many journalists are quite upfront about it. They believe that any positive development is not serious journalism but is corporate public relations or government propaganda.
Of course, my argument is that I think people have to be aware of the threats and the dangers, the injustices and sufferings. No one would argue that those should be minimised. But if the improvements, success and developments are not reported I believe that is as bad as complacency, namely fatalism. "
https://www.52-insights.com/interview-politics-enlightenment-steven-pinker-why-our-world-is-getting-better/
You'll catch more flies with honey. Cut the doom-saying, cut the "you're with us or you're against us" false binary and I'm confidant you'll get better outcomes.
Sure, there's actually lots of data to support that broadly speaking, the world is in fact becoming a better place. to help frame the thought, I'll quote Steven Pinker below,
Partly, it’s a discrepancy that comes from a worldview that we get from data and a worldview we get from journalism. Journalism has a built-in bias towards the negative, in that it covers events and it is easier for something to go wrong very quickly rather than right very quickly.
An explosion, a terrorist attack, a shooting, an epidemic can all break out quickly. Whereas improvements in well-being such as fewer wars, lower rates of crime, increasing longevity, literacy, prosperity, creep up a few percentage points of time. There is never a Thursday in October in which they happen all at once and therefore could be worthy of a news report.
Data in a sense aggregates all of these events and non-events. When you’re counting up the number of crimes, the number of wars, people killed in war, the number of people who live below the line of extreme poverty as well as the happy non-events the view of the world that you get is not only different but as it happens, quite a bit more positive.
There’s a second reason and that is there is a bias among journalists and intellectuals generally toward accentuating the negative as a way of appearing wise and not naive.
It is a moral stance that journalists and intellectuals tend to adopt where they feel like gulls if they point to positive events and appear like prophets. If they remind people of all the ways in which they may be doomed, that is a dynamic that goes back to the Old Testament.
It is an increasing theme within journalism, and many journalists are quite upfront about it. They believe that any positive development is not serious journalism but is corporate public relations or government propaganda.
Of course, my argument is that I think people have to be aware of the threats and the dangers, the injustices and sufferings. No one would argue that those should be minimised. But if the improvements, success and developments are not reported I believe that is as bad as complacency, namely fatalism. "
https://www.52-insights.com/interview-politics-enlightenment-steven-pinker-why-our-world-is-getting-better/
You'll catch more flies with honey. Cut the doom-saying, cut the "you're with us or you're against us" false binary and I'm confidant you'll get better outcomes.
Coolerking
Member
Step one.....get her and all the other folks who want a better world to PICK UP THE FUCKING TRASH BEFORE IT REACHES THE SEA....
When you are done, call me, i'll get you going on step 2.
Seriously, I see people walk right by stuff floating in the harbors, laying on the ground, I see the kids that live in the house a few blocks away come home late, and dump the fast food trash right out of the car into the street, then step over it on the way back in the morning.
Makes me want to kick them in the ….
PICK IT UP YOU LAZY FUCKERS!!
Ok whew...
She is doing good work, keep it up kid,
When you are done, call me, i'll get you going on step 2.
Seriously, I see people walk right by stuff floating in the harbors, laying on the ground, I see the kids that live in the house a few blocks away come home late, and dump the fast food trash right out of the car into the street, then step over it on the way back in the morning.
Makes me want to kick them in the ….
PICK IT UP YOU LAZY FUCKERS!!
Ok whew...
She is doing good work, keep it up kid,
- Banned
- #27
To follow on from my point...
If there was a big cut in business travellers, there will be a flow on affect to leisure travellers. With less business travellers buying higher value ticket, airlines will suffer heavily on the popular business routes reducing flights and increasing leisure fares on those routes. Airlines may then reduce the size of their fleets which will in turn reduce the availability of aircraft to run to the holiday destinations over summer. and so on.
Swimsailor
Super Anarchist
Swimsailor
Super Anarchist
The purpose of the trip was to send a message and for HER travel to be true to the message. I'm quite sure you would have called her a hypocrite for flying as well.
Innocent Bystander
Super Anarchist
We should all do better in caring for the environment and as sailors be passionate about the seas. What's too often missed in the conversation (shit storm?) is that on an individual basis, we have made dramatic improvements since the 60's. Cars are putting out less than 1% of the pollution than cars made in the 60's with the exception of NOX and a few other components that are "only" down by 75% from then. Despite the significant increase in the number of automobiles, urban air quality is significantly better than it was 60 years ago. Water quality is equally better with harbors and rivers generally much healthier.
Not good enough, though. The climate is changing and by all measurements much quicker than historical cycles. We are now more aware of other pollutants(?) that appear to be driving climate change, not just polluting our environment. The press of 7.7 Billion people (as compared to 3B in 1960) means that individual reductions can only do so much. On the positive side, annual population growth was 2.5% in 1960 and around 1% today.
The rapid shift to a "throwaway society" is overwhelming the capacity to cope. Recycling is failing because there is just too damn much. Intensive development in the watershed means more runoff, more turbidity in inland and coastal waters and more pollutants. We have done the "easy stuff" and addressed many point sources. Now it's the hard stuff and that's a tougher issue becasue it means society needs to change, not just individuals. We aren't going to replace all internal combustion engines tomorrow and a consumer society is demanding more - faster and cheaper. That drives source increases when we need source reductions.
If Greta's actions do as little as focus a bit more attention on what we are doing to the environment, then great. It's more about her message than her specific actions. Yes, we all know that making a carbon Open class boat and outfitting it with synthetic sails, cordage and the rest isn't very "green" but the message to 99% of the population (the non sailors) stands.
Unfortunately, the nature of SA is for any reasonable conversation to be quickly reduced to partisan bickering and some will immediately jump in and identify all who disagree with them in any manner to be cunts and fuckwits, eliminating any chance of civil discourse.
Not good enough, though. The climate is changing and by all measurements much quicker than historical cycles. We are now more aware of other pollutants(?) that appear to be driving climate change, not just polluting our environment. The press of 7.7 Billion people (as compared to 3B in 1960) means that individual reductions can only do so much. On the positive side, annual population growth was 2.5% in 1960 and around 1% today.
The rapid shift to a "throwaway society" is overwhelming the capacity to cope. Recycling is failing because there is just too damn much. Intensive development in the watershed means more runoff, more turbidity in inland and coastal waters and more pollutants. We have done the "easy stuff" and addressed many point sources. Now it's the hard stuff and that's a tougher issue becasue it means society needs to change, not just individuals. We aren't going to replace all internal combustion engines tomorrow and a consumer society is demanding more - faster and cheaper. That drives source increases when we need source reductions.
If Greta's actions do as little as focus a bit more attention on what we are doing to the environment, then great. It's more about her message than her specific actions. Yes, we all know that making a carbon Open class boat and outfitting it with synthetic sails, cordage and the rest isn't very "green" but the message to 99% of the population (the non sailors) stands.
Unfortunately, the nature of SA is for any reasonable conversation to be quickly reduced to partisan bickering and some will immediately jump in and identify all who disagree with them in any manner to be cunts and fuckwits, eliminating any chance of civil discourse.
Generally agreed.
The general public may not know it but within the AEC Design / Construction industry, within Westernized countries, in the last 20 years has seen a massive shift in both technology and approach to the problems at hand. Given that buildings account for about a third of GHG emissions its encouraging. However general public ignorance and constant doom-saying by media and activists wildly skews people's perception of the scope and scale of the problems and the progress being made. It's not without tradeoffs, things have become quite a bit more expensive to accomplish due to both red tape and increased base costs of purchase and install / implementation.
We now have less energy consumption from both the creation and operation of buildings in general and the possibility of end of life recycling is greatly improved. Less toxic chemicals are much more broadly used and a well integrated approach to green design is emerging. But again, you wouldn't know it to read the paper, you'd be more likely to come away feeling guilty and throwing your hands in the air and saying to yourself, "fuck it, there's not much I can do". Which would not be an unreasonable response.
little changes with big multiples can add up substantially over time. But it cannot be done with radical action, e.g. blowing up the existing systems and starting anew. Changes take a very long time so many factors can be reconciled. Human behavior does not change quickly and for good reason. Proposing radical change is self defeating. It can feel good in the moment but if it alienates a huge swath of the population its not even remotely useful.
Also look at where you have the greatest leverage for action. You want plastic out of the Pacific? Stretch a net across ten specific rivers abutting the Pacific in Asia and filter the crap before it gets to the ocean. For probably $10BN-$20BN per year, which is small change relative to the scope of the problem, you could deal with 80% of the problem. Paying $2BN per year per river would be vastly easier than getting the 2 Billion people who live upstream on those rivers to change their behavior. Does it have moral hazard? For sure, but it would be effective as anything being proposed so far.
So the message I got was that publicity and pretending to do the right thing was more important. Lead by example and be true to the cause. That isn’t what I see here. Why not refuse to go and insist on doing a video call instead?
that would have been far more eco friendly and set the right example rather than bullshitting everyone like s politician.
- Banned
- #35
yeah because talking about her sailing trip is soooooo effective at reducing the human population.
Innocent Bystander
Super Anarchist
Israel Hands
Super Anarchist
I hope that every single one of you who has said "move this to PA" has also made the same post on Brexit WTF.
If you haven't, why not?
If you haven't, why not?
Left Shift
Super Anarchist
well, your childless (I assume) self is certainly aware of her, her concerns, her efforts and the issue of our changing climate...so I guess she is being successful.
That you have picked one aspect of the many causes of climate change to espouse is fine. It would be a great achievement for you to get out and get millions of people out on the street to support population control.
But don't at the same time denigrate the efforts of others not so finely focused as you.
Recidivist
Super Anarchist
I personally applaud young people who are willing to get involved, make statements through their actions, draw attention to issues and make people think.
If more of the fat old fuckers occupying this place had done anything like as much when it was their turn, maybe some of the world's problems would have been solved already.
The world belongs to our children. Get ready to hand it over, or die and get and out of the way.
If more of the fat old fuckers occupying this place had done anything like as much when it was their turn, maybe some of the world's problems would have been solved already.
The world belongs to our children. Get ready to hand it over, or die and get and out of the way.