Due to the move of the blog to Wordpress posts from Jan 2012 onward will have commenting disabled (when I remember to do it)
Cheers - AE

Thursday, 7 May 2009

Delicious Irony

H/T to Watt's Up With That for my laughs for this evening even though it's not really a laughing matter. Maybe they're a bunch of publicity seeking eco-pretenders but that doesn't mean they deserve to the misfortune of having a storm beat the shit out of their boat, and if they were plain old fashioned adventurer types (which they probably are even if they do use 'the cause' as a reason to go) or regular yachties I'd simply be glad they got out of the situation alive. But publicity seeking eco-pretenders being picked up by an oil tanker? Now that bit is funny. I'm still glad they're not being processed into fish shit but this is like the chief exec of a speed camera company being nicked for speeding... which has also happened.

And in case you're wondering why "publicity seeking eco-pretenders" it's because after Googling the names of the three men named in the article I found the website, and having found the bit about the Greenland expedition I read that they have:
... four main objectives:

* To make the first carbon neutral, double crossing of Greenland by sailing across the North Atlantic and then completing a return ski traverse of the ice cap. (over 550 miles)
* To inspire young people to work towards their goals and develop their full potential.
* To raise awareness of climate change to over 25,000 pupils in partner schools around the UK and Jersey.
* To raise money for Teenage Cancer Trust.
Now they can inspire young people as much as they like and raise money for teenage cancer charities all day and night, but I'm going to nitpick about the other two aims.

First, as I've said about Earth Hour, anyone who needs this bullshit to "raise their awareness of climate change" has either been in a cave or a coma for the last 30 years, or is too fucking poor to make any difference even if every scare story about the issue for the last three decades is actually true. This is the principle reason why any green charity that wants my money had better come to my door armed to the fucking teeth if it wants a contribution out of me, because I won't give a cent to any mob who want to raise awareness of something that's in nearly every fucking paper every fucking week, and has been for longer than some of the twats have been alive. I'd love to give money to environmental charities, but I don't know of any that isn't constantly beating this fucking drum at the expense of doing something fucking useful with the money. We're all aware, okay? Now will you all kindly shut the cunting fuck up about it.

Secondly I noticed that in spite of being called Carbon Neutral Expeditions and their first, and presumably foremost, stated aim is to achieve the first carbon neutral crossing of Greenland they're not actually being carbon neutral. They admit that:
...there will be some direct emissions that just can’t be avoided (such as using the boat’s engine to get into harbour). From the Arctic to the other extreme CNE will be working with For Ethiopia, a highly effective local charity as an offset.
So there you go. Obviously the great explorers of the Age of Discovery didn't go anywhere without a fucking marine diesel to get them into harbour, and the poor fools weren't able to offset their emissions back then. Absolute world class bollocks. It's perfectly possible not to use the engine to get into harbour. Not easy perhaps, and probably relies a lot on conditions being right for it, but it can be done. I've seen it done when a yacht with engine failure sailed up to a jetty I was standing on. I don't know how and barely know the difference between one end of a boat and the other, but it's clear that it can be done. So Carbon Neutral Expeditions could have been a bit more fucking carbon neutral if they'd really wanted to, but offsetting is the easy way out (my main criticism of warming believers who offset is that they're not actually reducing their personal emissions - don't just talk the talk, walk the walk you fucking hypocrites).

But even if you accept that and the offset bullshit they go on to say that:
There are also carbon emissions associated with the manufacture and materials of the equipment that we will use on the expedition. These indirect emissions are fiendishly difficult to calculate and therefore we will not be trying to offset these. However, where possible we will try to source secondhand or recycled equipment.
Can't be arsed in other words. I'll give them credit for buying used kit, which does fit in with the warmist mantra - or at least as much as a luxuries like a yacht can fit in. But because the indirect emissions are "fiendishly difficult" they can't be bothered to even come up with a best guess back-of-an-envelope figure for the offset. The easy option is simply to ignore it and pretend it doesn't count, though at least they've got the balls to admit that's what they're doing. Even so, by their own admission Carbon Neutral Expeditions' trip to Greenland was never going to be genuinely carbon neutral. That and the predictable "raise awareness" aim make them, in my view, a bunch of publicity seeking eco-pretenders. Which is still a more favourable term than the one I'd use for Tom Riall, the speeding boss of the speed camera firm, who I'd call a loathsome and hypocritical cunt who deserves to have a speed gun jammed up his arse until the radar fries his kidneys.

For the last word I'll go back to Anthony Watts, who is wondering (not for the first time) if the abandoned yacht
... becomes eco-pollution on the high sea now.
Good question. Offset that you smart arses.
Related Posts with Thumbnails