"We demand at this year's World Economic Forum, participants from all companies, banks, institutions and governments:immediately and completelydivest from fossil fuels," said Greta.
Even if you are convinced man and not the sun is the overwhelming force in climate change, the idea that we can immediately divest from fossil fuels and have "real zero" emissions is economic nonsense.
Such statements do not merit praise, they merit ridicule. And her parents deserve scorn for putting her on stage to be used in this way.
The media treats Greta like she is some sort of saint. Actually, she is little but a pawn in someone else's game on a fool's mission to achieve the impossible.
Ironically, Greta's message is so absurd that if we did what she asked, there would be panic and a global economic collapse.
Among other things, food production would collapse. Of course, if 90% of the people died from starvation from her idiotic proposal, we would come close to her goal of "success".
Meanwhile, Greta travels the world to preach her silly message wearing shoes and clothes with a high carbon footprint. Worse yet is the carbon footprint of her travels.
Greta's Carbon Footprint
Greta sometimes travels by an alleged zero-emission sailboat.
She most recently traveled to the United States, and is now about to embark on a whirlwind tour as part of her global climate strike, and won't return to Europe for nine months. She'll now be heading to Canada, then Mexico, and then in December Greta will head to Chile for the UN climate conference. That's a lot of traveling.
So how does Greta get around to all her speaking engagements on behalf of the planet?
You might be surprised to learn that Greta didn't come to the US by air. No, Greta came by boat. And not just any boat-we're talking about a zero-emissions sailboat called the Malizia II, which took her weeks. Malizia II has solar panels and underwater turbines that generate electricity onboard. Experts say that the Malizia II offers the lowest-carbon way to cross the Atlantic. Fantastic!
That's the picture that Greta supporters would like you to focus on. But there's another side to this eco-friendly journey: Two crewmembers had to fly across the Atlantic to New York to bring the boat back, and two of the crewmembers that made the original voyage had to fly across the Atlantic from the US to return home. That's four flights to keep Greta from making two.
We won't even mention the train trip Greta took to get to Plymouth, England, in order to set sail, nor will we mention the numerous freeze-dried meals, which we assume are encased in some single-use plastic product, which by our estimations, the two-man crew, Greta, her father, and some cameraman documenting the experience equated to over 200 meals. We also won't talk about how Greta will return home, since the boat has since returned to Europe.
In a nutshell, the 5,337-kilometer flight times four people generated 2,134,800 grams of C02 by our calculations, just for the flights alone.
Trump Threatens Retaliation On Proposed Carbon Taxes
The EU and Germany in particular is committing economic suicide to battle a non-problem. This is too absurd for words; of course, politicians in Europe never let an opportunity to raise taxes pass them by - and they try to make others pay as well now, because they know Europe is losing on every front in terms of tax and regulatory competition. I'm opposed to Trump's trade war, but in this case his threat of retaliation actually deserves to be supported, if only because it may lead to the EU thinking twice about imposing yet another layer of taxes for absolutely nothing.
In Germany electricity prices have gone through the roof, and for what? We hear that global temperatures continue to rise (based on highly dubious, very likely outright fraudulent data) and CO2 in the atmosphere also continues to rise inexorably year after year. What exactly are Germany's citizens making this sacrifice for? 100ds of thousands are living in "energy poverty" by now and can no longer afford to heat their homes properly in the winter. Germany used to export electricity to the rest of Europe - today it is now dependent on imports to prevent its grid from collapsing when there is not enough wind or sunlight. And all of this happened under the "conservatives" of Merkel!!
The above accurate comments from Pater Tenebrarum at the Acting Man Blog.
The problem with T-shirts, even those purporting to promote climate action, is they're especially hard on the environment. Just growing the cotton that goes into one can take 2,700 liters of water - enough for a person to drink for two-and-a-half years - and, if it isn't farmed organically, a third of a pound of pesticides and other agricultural chemicals.T-shirts, particularly those with "heathered" yarns of mixed colors, may contain polyester and other synthetic fibers, which are derived from crude oil and emit greenhouse-gas emissions from extraction to disposal. They're also linked to the production of microplastics: minuscule fragments of plastic, tinier than one-fifth of an inch, that slough off during laundering to pollute the oceans, tap water, table salt and the guts of every species of sea turtle.
Greta might not be able to control T-Shirts with her name on them, so cut her some slack for that, but not the fools buying them in her name.
The important point is Greta cruises and jet sets accompanied with a film crew in the name of zero emissions while having a carbon footprint greater than nearly everyone else on the planet.
She demands we do as she says, not what she does, knowing full well if we actually did what she asked, there would be a global economic collapse.