How lovely about Greta

The 16-year-old Swedish climate change activist, who left Plymouth aboard Malizia II on Wednesday on a two-week voyage to New York, where she will speak at a UN climate change meeting, had vowed not to fly to cut her carbon footprint and set an example.

However, Team Malizia, which operates the 60ft yacht, said two of her crew would be flying to New York to bring the yacht back to Europe.

In addition, the two sailors travelling across the Atlantic with Greta and her father, Svante, an actor, may fly home, a spokeswoman said.

Well, yes, but this is great:

Miss Thunberg’s team had gone to great lengths to ensure that her trip would be seen as zero emission, with electric-powered rigid inflatable boats taken to Plymouth to ferry her to the yacht.

“Taken” eh? And the emissions from that being higher or lower than just using an outboard to get out to the thing?

64 comments on “How lovely about Greta

  1. But she is “raising awareness”. So any cost or logical inconsistency is permitted.
    Did you really not know this?

  2. DocBud,

    Onward/return travel arrangements are not currently known.

    For anyone else that would be grounds for inadmissibility to the USA, wouldn’t it? They almost always ask how long you are staying and when/how you expect to leave, if you already have a ticket etc. I assume a negative answer at least prompts more detailed inquiries.

    Still, it’s all OK because they are buying carbon indulgences.

  3. “Miss Thunberg’s team had gone to great lengths to ensure that her trip would be seen as zero emission”

    ‘Would be seen as’ zero emission. Not ‘was’ zero emission. Tells you all you need to know.

  4. This is just like any other emission reducing scheme that hasn’t been properly thought through. Trillions spent on reducing emissions leaving them the same or higher than they would have been had they done nothing.

    Some say that this farce has been a spectacular own goal. I think that they may be underestimating the stupidity of St. Greta’s acolytes.

  5. I’m sure I read somewhere that she and her entourage were flying back and that it was 5 crew members being flown out to sail it back.

    with electric-powered rigid inflatable boats taken to Plymouth to ferry her to the yacht

    This is taking virtue signalling in to the ludicrous. Modern outboards are really efficient and it would probably have been nothing more than a litre of petrol get her to the yacht.

  6. Incidentally, my weather forecaster has something on his website today about how the waves in the N Atlantic west of Ireland are going to be 6 and half metres by noon today, due to the trailing winds following the low pressure system thats just passed over the UK. And will continue to be around 3-4m for all of Sunday. Hope St Greta’s having a lovely time!

  7. Modern outboards are really efficient and it would probably have been nothing more than a litre of petrol get her to the yacht.

    Rowing is even cheaper and greener.

  8. with electric-powered rigid inflatable boats taken to Plymouth to ferry her to the yacht

    Couldn’t they just have rowed her? Better still, the autistic freakazoid could have swum the distance.

  9. “Miss Thunberg’s team”: ah!

    It might be vulgar abuse to call them child abusers. It would be wearying to have to explain that “child abuse” need not imply sexual abuse.

  10. Many blogs are now covering the return journey aspect (if she ever gets there in the first place).

    Paul Homewood has a post up: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2019/08/16/crew-of-five-are-flying-to-new-york-to-bring-gretas-boat-back/

    “When asked if it would not have been more climate-friendly if Thunberg had travelled on a container ship, Kling replied: “This is a thought that is actually being considered for the return to Europe.””

    @ Jim – look at weather the site which is covering her journey:
    https://www.windy.com/track-team-malizia-and-greta-on-their-journey-across-the-atlantic?46.815,-11.580,5,i:pressure

    They’re presently making a miserable 3.5kts into what looks like some very changeable weather!

  11. I heard she was going to fly to South America afterwards.

    “‘Would be seen as’ zero emission. Not ‘was’ zero emission.”

    People with the intellect to believe in Anthropogenic Climate Change have the intellect to believe it will be zero emission.

  12. It would be a salutary lesson, as well as amusing, for her to get becalmed and miss the opportunity to lecture the great and good at the UN.

  13. Electric powered RIB doesn’t sound green
    How did she get from Sweden to Plymouth?

    Anyone done the sums on how much longer this entire trip has taken?

    Instead of flying directly on a scheduled flight sharing the dreaded poison gas output among her fellow travellers and taking 8 hours she has taken a circuitous route on bespoke, very expensive and non green transport

    Truly an example to us all

  14. I think we’re taking the wrong strategy in mocking her for the hypocrisy of this trip. We should be saying how wonderfully green and inspiring it is so that there’s immense pressure on dimwit liberal luvvies like Emma Thompson to do the same.

  15. According to the Times article she will travel from the US to Chile (by train and bus) in order to address a UN shindig. She’ll be the only speaker at that event not to fly there in first.

    No reports on how she’s getting home from Chile.

  16. Remember eco-freakery is a nasty plant grown in marxist shite. Logic and facts have zero effect on the pukes. Orwell didn’t invent doublethink–he just noticed what the left-scum hypo-scrotes around him did instead of thinking with reason. The Thompsons of the Earth likely do not see or can easily dismiss the unreason and the two-faced action of condemning everyone else flying but doing it herself.

  17. Jim

    Incidentally, my weather forecaster has something on his website today

    You have your own weather forecaster? Nice.

  18. Anybody know who’s bankrolling Joan of Aut? This all sounds incredibly expensive, and I assume she also has press agents, etc.

  19. Have they calculated the embedded carbon emissions in the sattelite tracking system? The carbon emissions of all the people who worked to develop and build those systems? The carbon footprint of all the internet usage of the impressionable devotees tracking the (now 0.8 knot) progress 24/7?

    After all, the internet spews more evil carbon into the atmosphere than the entirety of commercial aviation. I think they should give up their smartphones.

  20. It’s ok the marginal emissions for the flight would be minimal if it were not full. A bit for the additional fuel for the extra weight of the passengers. Which of course would have been the same for St Greta had she flown.

  21. Well, her trip to Chile will be a bit of an eye-opener – Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador (chat with MS-13!), Nicaragua, Colombia. Is there a bus through the Darien Gap? The Pan-American Highway seems to stop there.

  22. Ah, Jim – the sainted Dr Keeling. He doesn’t have much with ClimateDisasterWe’reAllDoomed(TM), either.

  23. `’No reports on how she’s getting home from Chile.“`’

    Fabricate a large bottle, put her in it and throw it into the sea. Gaia will ensure it gets to Sweden.

  24. @Tractor Gent
    You can travel through the Darian Gap. People do it all the time. There’s people live there. But they’re poor people. Bunch of affluent first worlders might come to the attention of some element of FARC not totally behind the peace agreement. Or of the anti-FARC militias looking for a little lucrative employment. So we may well be reading about the ransom demands and St Greta crossing the gap in instalments. Finger or an ear at a time. Unless the government down there puts a sizeable military presence on the ground.

  25. BiS, if you’re right about the military presence … that’s a hell of a carbon footprint all by itself.

    The longer and more ludicrous this trip becomes, the more it makes the opposite point from the one intended.

  26. ” the sainted Dr Keeling. He doesn’t have much with ClimateDisasterWe’reAllDoomed(TM)”

    No he’s about as sceptical as one can be as a weather forecaster these days without bringing the usual suspects down on ones head. He quite often has a rant about the wilder excesses of the We’re All Doomed Brigade, without ever quite coming out and saying its all nonsense.

  27. It will be interesting to see how much of an own goal it turns out to be. Over the Xmas period of 2013 there was an expedition to Antarctica to observe the catastrophic meltdown that was supposedly happening there. The ship was loaded with BBC and Guardian journalists. The assembled morons were taken by surprise by the fact that it was really really cold and the ship spent a couple of weeks stuck in the ice. Only the followers of the climate blogs got to hear about it, followers of the Guardian and the BBC certainly didn’t. How many people get to be aware of the Greta farce may be a reflection on how much the blogsphere has advanced on the old media.

  28. Don’t forget, Greta can literally see carbon dioxide. Presumably such a great seer will be able, on her journey, to literally feel the great increase in the level of dihydrogen monoxide in the sea. All that increase in deadly dihydrogen monoxide in the sea which has remained resolutely undetectable to the instruments of science for the last century.

  29. @Steve

    Bankrolling – see:

    An establishment rebellion – Why the elite loves the eco-warriors.

    …The establishment only seems to care about ‘pollution’ when it is ordinary people doing the polluting. It is always cheap flights, cheap food and cheap fashion which cause the most consternation among environmentalists. In turn, climate change presents the establishment with an opportunity to manage the little people’s habits, tastes and aspirations…

    Exactly – I’ve been saying this for years.

  30. @Jim

    ‘Would be seen as’ zero emission. Not ‘was’ zero emission. Tells you all you need to know.

    Spot on

    .
    @Stonyground August 17, 2019 at 6:14 pm

    Didn’t they end up having to send another ship to Antart to rescue those on the stuck ship?

  31. @ DocBud August 17, 2019 at 8:41 am

    “Is she coming back on the same boat?”

    They are flying the first boat home and flying another one out to bring her back.

    Or something.

    DP

  32. I recall a prophet travelling the oceans in a whale. It made great PR for whales. Wasn’t that good enough St G?

  33. The thing that I found most interesting about the whole ship of fools episode was that the Guardian and the BBC sent numerous journalists to cover the event. Had they encountered the catastrophic melting ice that they were expecting, we would never have heard the end of it. As it turned out, Antarctica turned out to be just as cold as the evil deniers said it was.Real journalists would have reported the facts as they had found them. Instead we got silence.

  34. Sailing the Atalntic is a seriously dangerous business.
    Only for consenting adults with extensive salt-walter sailing experience, just like Greta hasn’t.
    Even as dead-weight passenger, her life will depend on cool response to any minor crisis that may occur, or more serious ones like capsizing.
    At which point it all becomes clear.
    Poor litte Tintin hasn’t realised that the primary feature of a religious martyr is the being dead part.
    So if she survives this trip, sending her overland to Chile makes sense too.
    How dare anyone then contradict the Sainted One!

  35. Question. Seriousish.

    Trains are not zero carbon. I understand they are lower carbon per journey than planes hence she likes to take trains instead of planes. But she doesn’t refuse all mechanical propulsion whatsoever even though trains are not zero carbon.

    So what is going on with this “solar powered inflatables” thing? To me this makes no sense. She hasn’t replaced her train trips with a solar-powered car, or donkey-back.

  36. You’re being too niaive.

    It has nothing to do with pollution or anything like that.

    It has nothing to do with her understanding of such issues.

    It has everything in the world to do with the well-founded assumption among power grabbers that their cause will be advanced by having a 16 year-old girl pennanted on the tip of their spear.

  37. NYT:

    ‘Both meetings are to be attended by world leaders, all of whom have agreed, under the Paris Agreement, to keep global temperatures from rising to levels that would produce climate catastrophes.’

    World leaders have agreed. Wow. What a powerful force. Mother Nature is fvcking quaking.

    ‘Still, global emissions continue to grow, and the world as a whole is not on track to meet the targets of the Paris Agreement.’

    So, in fact, this is all totally fake, fake, fake. Plastic flamingos in the yard.

  38. @Grist August 16, 2019 at 4:34 pm

    Does anyone know whether Gail is going to the US? Could be that she’s moving on from this scam on to a new one as I think Greta has peaked.

    Don’t know about Gail’s plans, but Matilda is

    Look upon this Greta and despair: Every move you make. Every breath you take. Every bond you break. Every step you take. I’ll be thwarting you.

  39. @Gamecock

    World leaders have agreed. Wow. What a powerful force. Mother Nature is fvcking quaking.

    World leaders respond by clucking and quacking, snake oil salesmen profit.

  40. They can’t control our borders. Or stop itinerants and immigrants maiming, murdering and immiserating the populace. They cannot balance a budget. Or (facilitate the) build (ing of) homes. Or utter the words, “tomorrow at midday we leave the EU”. They cannot prevent fly-tipping. They cannot even prevent hunting with hounds or the taking and selling of drugs (which they wish to do). Or prevent the deaths of thousands at the hands of the state monopoly in health “care”. Or the deaths and molestations of hundreds of others at the hands of the state monopoly in “social” “care”. They cannot maintain the roads. Despite being one of the richest nations in the richest era ever known, thousands of children routinely leave their tens of thousands of pounds’ worth of schooling scarcely able to read and write. They can scarcely maintain a standing army. And the navy is a threadbare joke. At every turn they institute policy, breaches of which are punishable with criminal sanction, explicitly designed to tear apart the delicate thread of a millenium’s sociable development.

    But they can control the planet’s temperature.

    This needs Dickens.

  41. @MBE
    The answer to your question’s out there somewhere.
    There is or was a blog style website where a guy who seem to know what he’s talking about shows the math. Unfortunately I lost the link. Maybe someone recalls it. Over a certain minimum distance, a jet airliner at cruise altitude is about the most efficient form of transport going. If I remember rightly,, has to do with friction. All vehicles have to overcome friction to achieve movement. The high altitude atmosphere is the medium with the least friction. The minimum distance is governed by aircraft needing to expend a large amount of its energy potential to achieve altitude. So the break point is when the energy saving on the total trip exceeds the expenditure on the climb. If I recall correctly, for a state-of-the-art modern jet, that’s about 350-400 miles.
    It makes sense if you think about it. A ship, for instance, has to constantly push aside a mass of water equivalent its displacement to travel the ocean. Plus the air encountered by the vessel above the waterline. A train has to displace air corresponding to its cross sectional area plus the friction inherent in the interaction of the wheels with the track. etc etc \the mass of air at sea level is about 1.22kg/m3 At 40, 000 ft about a quarter of that.

  42. BiS: but a boat extends no energy staying afloat, whereas staying up is the biggest part of the energy cost for a plane.

    Which is why bulk shipping is so vastly cheaper than bulk airfreight.

    The problem with travelling by sea is the lost time. Not the cost.

  43. BIS,

    This is the whole problem with the journey of St Greta. Its not How much energy is her journey, its the total amount to get there.

    There’s the energy cost of a sodding great, but little used sailing boat, media crews on boats, no doubt a safety ship. Flying people too and fro.

    It’s like that thing about shipping winter flowers from Kenya being more energy efficient than from Netherlands. Sure, its worse for transport, but Dutch greenhouses need lots of heating.

  44. @ Edward Lud,

    Great rant, although I take issue with this:

    They cannot prevent fly-tipping.

    Its not that they can’t prevent it, the idiots incentivise it.

  45. @Chester
    Which is why bulk shipping is so vastly cheaper than bulk airfreight.

    It’s at least as much the result of economies of scale – a 747-8 can carry 140t or 850m³, whereas a large container ship (20,000 TEU) can carry ~1,000x that. So all the overheads of staff, port fees etc become negligible.

  46. Chester–The planes need to keepy-up is what gives it the speed advantage. Also–while air accidents are pretty deadly– they are less common than sea accidents . Indeed a lot more ships have vanished for ever without so much as a postcard than have aircraft. Even just comparing the period since air travel began. For passenger transport ships take much longer and need more concentration of travellers.

  47. @ Chester Draws
    A ship moves through the ocean by pushing aside a mass of water equivalent to the mass of the ship. An aircraft stays aloft by deflecting downwards a mass of air equivalent to the mass of the aircraft. Referred to as lift. But with the air at high altitude having a low density, it covers a great distance very fast doing that.
    If you could build 20,000t aircraft they’d be more efficient than 20,000t container ships. But where would you land it?

  48. “If you could build 20,000t aircraft they’d be more efficient than 20,000t container ships. But where would you land it?”
    Norfolk?

  49. MC – thanks!

    Pcar – “we don’t want more people from Sheffield flying away on cheap holidays” – millionaire twat Oliver Letwin

  50. Comprehensive background on the sainted Greta and her Swedish green industry backers in the Sunday Times today.

  51. @Edward Lud August 18, 2019 at 12:20 am

    Excellent post, unfortunatetly the GCSE examiners say you fail – truth telling verbotten

  52. I know a few hardy yachties (i.e. lunatics) who would be quite open to the idea of taking turns shuttling rich eco loons back and forth across the Atlantic on a fast yacht in exchange for some generous beer money. It’s the sort of thing some folks do for fun.
    There’s a business opportunity for the right sort of opportunist there.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.