Interesting notes on funding for XR.

[Baron von Lotsov]

Why though? I knew my father used to spend three weeks sailing a yacht each year to Gibraltar, and he flew back when he had finished because the yacht was moored there for the whole summer. There you go, a bit of reason. So perhaps it was medical. They might have been wimps and got over-exhausted. Does the yacht have electric winches to aid muesli-eating greens?

[Major Sinic]

I normally prefer to deal in facts and reasoned opinions, preferably supported with facts. However on this occasion and, for what it is worth, I am repeating a story which is rife in the ocean going yachting world, of which a close friend of my son's is an eminent member.



The Swedish 'creation' Greta Thunberg sailed across the Atlantic to the USA, taking some two weeks, in an ocean going yacht to save energy. However apparently two of the four accompanying crew/team then flew back to Europe before flying back out to rejoin the yacht some days later. I can't prove it, but it seems to be widely accepted as the truth by many who live in that world.



It certainly wouldn't surprise me bearing in mind the levels of lies, distortions, disingenuity, obfuscation by so many in public life along with the false and biased reporting by all forms of the media.

[Borchester]

I suspect XR are not well liked.

These protests are all very well in places such as Trafalgar and Parliament Square where they are pretty much part of the scenery, but not when they stop commuters on their way home. :hattip

[Barry]

I suspect XR are not well liked.

Ha ha ha.

 :kikass:

 :hattip

[Baron von Lotsov]

I can't see why it can't be regarded as an act of terrorism.

Nor can I, but perhaps it needs to be the kind of terror where someone is threatening to bomb someone else rather than this kind of terror where they reckon the earth will kill you.

[patman post]

In 2000, the IPCC gathered the available evidence for a special report which concluded that tree-planting could sequester (remove from the atmosphere) around 1.1–1.6 GT of CO2 per year. That compares to total global greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to 50 GT of CO2 in 2004.

IPCC would have to be wrong by almost a factor of 50 for your insistence that tree planting is the answer to reducing CO2 in the atmosphere. Tree planting is one useful action, and is already underway, but substantial additional/other measures are needed. Who provides them seems a secondary consideration...

Based on how much tree planting?  Is there a limit on this?

No idea. There are reports that Kyoto-suggested measures to reduce deforestation, tree planting and reforestation restricted the scale and scope of these activities. As a result, projects have struggled to get off the ground and the carbon sequestered has been almost negligible. Other tree-planting projects established to absorb CO2 have turned out to be nonviable due to the cost of acquiring inputs or protecting young trees from fire, drought, pests or diseases. Land cost is another barrier to widespread tree-planting, especially where there is competition with other land uses such as food or bio-fuel production.

Another study says planting a billion trees is the best suggestion today, but acknowledges forests need decades to mature. So if other means of also reducing CO2 are found in the meantime, what's not to welcome...?

https://www.livescience.com/65880-planting-trees-fights-climate-change.html">https://www.livescience.com/65880-plant ... hange.html">https://www.livescience.com/65880-planting-trees-fights-climate-change.html

[Scott777]

I'm happy for corporations to produce food, too.  I'm not happy for taxes to be paid to them to produce machines that extract CO2, or any other dumb idea, when planting trees will do.

In 2000, the IPCC gathered the available evidence for a special report which concluded that tree-planting could sequester (remove from the atmosphere) around 1.1–1.6 GT of CO2 per year. That compares to total global greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to 50 GT of CO2 in 2004.

IPCC would have to be wrong by almost a factor of 50 for your insistence that tree planting is the answer to reducing CO2 in the atmosphere. Tree planting is one useful action, and is already underway, but substantial additional/other measures are needed. Who provides them seems a secondary consideration...

Based on how much tree planting?  Is there a limit on this?

[Scott777]

I see they have changed the staff now and got the spelling right. What do you reckon she will get? I read up on criminal damage a while back. It's criminal if you intend it to be damage, like not an accident or under duress say. There's a chance her high-power lawyer friends could pull a few tricks. I think she deserves a stint in the slammer myself. The girl has completely lost her head!

I can't see why it can't be regarded as an act of terrorism.

[patman post]

Planting trees is one action, but will it employ/feed/fuel/etc the world? No reason why companies and individuals shouldn't use their abilities and attributes (yes, and wealth) to produce stuff we need. If you're jealous that private organisations are taking up the challenge rather than nationalised industries, why not challenge governments to be as efficient...?

I'm happy for corporations to produce food, too.  I'm not happy for taxes to be paid to them to produce machines that extract CO2, or any other dumb idea, when planting trees will do.

In 2000, the IPCC gathered the available evidence for a special report which concluded that tree-planting could sequester (remove from the atmosphere) around 1.1–1.6 GT of CO2 per year. That compares to total global greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to 50 GT of CO2 in 2004.

IPCC would have to be wrong by almost a factor of 50 for your insistence that tree planting is the answer to reducing CO2 in the atmosphere. Tree planting is one useful action, and is already underway, but substantial additional/other measures are needed. Who provides them seems a secondary consideration...

[Scott777]

I suspect XR are not well liked.

[Baron von Lotsov]

Oh dear, she's gone and got herself nicked for criminal damage, which she was videoed in the act!

https://news.sky.com/video/extinction-rebellion-co-founder-gail-barbrook-arrested-11836291">//https://news.sky.com/video/extinction-rebellion-co-founder-gail-barbrook-arrested-11836291

I thought her name was Bradbrook, not Barbook, Sky News can't get the staff, either.

I see they have changed the staff now and got the spelling right. What do you reckon she will get? I read up on criminal damage a while back. It's criminal if you intend it to be damage, like not an accident or under duress say. There's a chance her high-power lawyer friends could pull a few tricks. I think she deserves a stint in the slammer myself. The girl has completely lost her head!

[patman post]

Planting trees is one action, but will it employ/feed/fuel/etc the world? No reason why companies and individuals shouldn't use their abilities and attributes (yes, and wealth) to produce stuff we need. If you're jealous that private organisations are taking up the challenge rather than nationalised industries, why not challenge governments to be as efficient...?

I'm happy for corporations to produce food, too.  I'm not happy for taxes to be paid to them to produce machines that extract CO2, or any other dumb idea, when planting trees will do.

Carrot and stick. You too can get subsidised environment friendly products, and be penalised for indulging in polluting activities...

[Scott777]

Planting trees is one action, but will it employ/feed/fuel/etc the world? No reason why companies and individuals shouldn't use their abilities and attributes (yes, and wealth) to produce stuff we need. If you're jealous that private organisations are taking up the challenge rather than nationalised industries, why not challenge governments to be as efficient...?

I'm happy for corporations to produce food, too.  I'm not happy for taxes to be paid to them to produce machines that extract CO2, or any other dumb idea, when planting trees will do.

[patman post]

^^^^

Planting trees is one action, but will it employ/feed/fuel/etc the world? No reason why companies and individuals shouldn't use their abilities and attributes (yes, and wealth) to produce stuff we need. If you're jealous that private organisations are taking up the challenge rather than nationalised industries, why not challenge governments to be as efficient...?

[Scott777]

As explained already, much of the funding (Emergency Climate Fund) got money from Aileen Getty, whose granddad got rich from petrol.  So the money comes from oil.  The object is to push government into funding green technology.  That will make a profit for the corporations.

Thanks for the explanation, was a bit slow on making a connection there. But personally I have no problems with established corporations (or individuals) with money seeing the light and funding green technology R&D and making more money out of activities and products that enhance the environment and give more-agreeable lives to me, mine and the world in general...

"Corporations seeing the light"?  That's a funny one.  The primary objective of any profit-making organisation is to maximise profit.  So, are you sure they're seen the light?  Why not just plant trees?