Her voyage has however sparked controversy after a spokesman for Herrmann, the yacht's co-skipper, told Berlin newspaper TAZ that several people would fly into New York to help take the yacht back to Europe.
Mr Hermann himself will also return by plane, according to the spokesman.
Greta has meanwhile said that she doesn't yet know how she will return to Europe when the time comes.
Overheal wrote: » MS can’t be used to enrich weapons grade material apparently.
xckjoo wrote: » "relatively" being the key word there. Is this being done anywhere? Can't find much info about it
Limpy wrote: » Could they transport waste to outerspace, or send it on its way and detonate it as to not effect the earth?
Limpy wrote: » Why are the Greens against nuclear power?
Jimmy Garlic wrote: » Plastic is relatively easily converted into diesel and other grades of fuel. One plant in Ireland could convert the bulk of the plastic waste produced in ireland but the short sighted, quazi religious, CO2 obsessed eco lobby would never allow such a thing, they are perfectly happy for it to be sent to east Asia.Landfills in more practical minded countries will probably be mined in the future to retrieve plastic.
recedite wrote: » Fusion power would also be a game changer.The ITER experiment rumbles on, but it seems to be very slow at getting any practical results. This all based on the Tokamak reactor invented in the USSR decades ago. There is also the molten salt type reactor, which is nuclear fission but less prone to a runaway reaction than the older and more infamous type. The main obstacle to all these is the Green lobby, ironically.
Kimsang wrote: » What really would be a game changer for climate change is when someone (possibly the chinese) invent a new battery that can make better use of the clean energy that we can harvest. Then we can really start producing wind farms/solar cells etc.. Also I heard James Dyson bought out a company developing a new solid state battery and has been working on it for a few years now. Quite a considerable amount of cash invested in the project.
KyussB wrote: » Australia and France's efforts are pissing in the wind - they're "to be seen as doing something" effort - not a genuine effort of proportional enough scale, for actually arresting climate change. We need to have the entire worlds infrastructure transformed by 2030 at the latest, to be carbon neutral. Even that is too late to avoid significant climate change damage/costs. Hell, even today would be too late. We simply aren't taking the scale of this task seriously, today. We need wartime style government economic policy. If a country is under existential threat, there's no worry about "how to pay for it" at wartime - the countries full resources get mobilized and it gets done - "how to pay" restrictions only get invented when powerful groups are jockying for control/power within peacetime economies.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » We're producing more and more plastic by the day, apparently the amount is going to double in the coming years too. We're drowning ourselves in the stuff.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » The recent podcast on the environment in Eamon Dunphy"s show was frankly terrifying. I mean all you climate change deniers surely know the earth is finite and everything is disappearing rapidly? Forests, wildlife etc.
Pa ElGrande wrote: » You can listen to it on soundcloud here (45 minutes). Initial thoughts: It's an interview with a nuclear industry lobbyist masquerading as an NGO and Irish medias go to talking person for climate alarmism - John Gibbons. I'll finish listening when I have the time later. Have to laugh at the 180 degree backflip from the greens.Global Warming: How It All Began Richard Courtney
KyussB wrote: » Australia and France's efforts are pissing in the wind...
Thelonious Monk wrote: » Nah, there is no answer, we're too inherently greedy and don't think in the long term. The best thing you can do is not have kids at this stage.
Kimsang wrote: » Australia introduced a carbon tax and had to repeal it. France had a progressive carbon tax to reduce reliability on hydrocarbons, they have been protesting since 18 Nov 2018. What do you propose to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, that doesn't take food out of people's mouths? Aoc's Green new deal reads like less of a real resolution and more like day-care musings from a grievance studies student. This just means everyone except rich white men. AOC is hilarious. The problem is the intermittent availability of clean energy. Its nearly impossible to have more than a certain amount of the grid dependent on 'clean' power, depending on the region it's about 30-40%. As soon as it goes over , the price vastly increases because the supply of clean energy is intermittent. What really would be a game changer for climate change is when someone (possibly the chinese) invent a new battery that can make better use of the clean energy that we can harvest. Then we can really start producing wind farms/solar cells etc.. Also I heard James Dyson bought out a company developing a new solid state battery and has been working on it for a few years now. Quite a considerable amount of cash invested in the project.
The hypothesis of man-made global warming has existed since the 1880s. It was an obscure scientific hypothesis that burning fossil fuels would increase CO2 in the air to enhance the greenhouse effect and thus cause global warming. Before the 1980s this hypothesis was usually regarded as a curiosity because the nineteenth century calculations indicated that mean global temperature should have risen more than 1°C by 1940, and it had not. Then, in 1979, Mrs Margaret Thatcher (now Lady Thatcher) became Prime Minister of the UK, and she elevated the hypothesis to the status of a major international policy issue. <snip> Overseas politicians began to take notice of Mrs Thatcher’s campaign if only to try to stop her disrupting summit meetings. They brought the matter to the attention of their civil servants for assessment, and they reported that - although scientifically dubious - ‘global warming’ could be economically important. The USA is the world’s most powerful economy and is the most intensive energy user. If all countries adopted ‘carbon taxes’, or other universal proportionate reductions in industrial activity, each non-US industrialised country would gain economic benefit over the United States. So, many politicians from many countries joined with Mrs Thatcher in expressing concern at global warming and a political bandwagon began to roll. Mrs Thatcher had raised an international policy issue and thus become an influential international politician. Mrs Thatcher could not have promoted the global warming issue without the support of her UK political party. And they were willing to give it. Following the General Election of 1979, most of the incoming Cabinet had been members of the government which lost office in 1974. They blamed the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) for their 1974 defeat. They, therefore, desired an excuse for reducing the UK coal industry and, thus, the NUM’s power. Coal-fired power stations emit CO2 but nuclear power stations don’t. Global warming provided an excuse for reducing the UK’s dependence on coal by replacing it with nuclear power. And the Conservative Party wanted a large UK nuclear power industry for another reason. That industry’s large nuclear processing facilities were required for the UK’s nuclear weapons programme and the opposition Labour Party was then opposing the Conservative Party’s plans to upgrade the UK’s nuclear deterrent with Trident missiles and submarines. Unfortunately, the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents had damaged public confidence in nuclear technology. Then, privatisation of the UK’s electricity supply industry exposed the secret that UK nuclear electricity cost four times more than UK coal-fired electricity. Global warming became the only remaining excuse for the unpopular nuclear power facilities needed for nuclear weapons. Mrs Thatcher had to be seen to spend money at home if her international campaign was to be credible. So, early in her global warming campaign - and at her personal instigation - the UK’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research was established, and the science and engineering research councils were encouraged to place priority in funding climate-related research. This cost nothing because the UK’s total research budget was not increased; indeed, it fell because of cuts elsewhere. But the Hadley Centre sustained its importance and is now the operating agency for the IPCC’s scientific working group (Working Group 1). Most scientists’ work depends on funds fully or partly provided by governments. Also, all scientists compete to obtain their share of this limited resource. Available research funds were shrinking, and global warming had become the ‘scientific’ issue of most interest to governments. Hence, any case for funding support tended to include reference to global warming whenever possible. Much science in many fields may be conducted under the guise of a relationship to global warming. Activities which have obtained funds by this method include biology, meteorology, computer science, physics, chemistry, climatology, oceanography, civil engineering, process engineering, forestry, astronomy, and several other disciplines. Now, funds for this work are provided to most UK Universities and several commercial research establishments.source
