placeholder

Using carbon in a way that doesn't turn it into greenhouse gases it is exactly the opposite of what is meant by a 'carbon footprint"

You think that this escaped the donors' attention? What is your point?

It costs less and pollutes less than continuously mining the earth for fuel. Rare earths don't get burned up and they are eminently recyclable: Renewables Are as Green as You'd Expect Despite all the metals and raw materials that go into making solar cells and wind turbines, these sources of low-carbon renewable electrify will have a low climate and environmental impact through 2050 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/renewables-are-as-green-as-you-d-expect/ Rare Earth Recycling https://energyindustryreview.com/metals-mining/rare-earth-recycling/#:~:text=Rare earths – an ideal candidate,an ideal candidate for recycling. Electric vehicles make debut in agriculture No longer an idea only, electric tractors are making a quiet start in vegetable farms, vineyards and orchards. Innovation and out-of-the-box thinking seek to outfit farmers and especially specialty crop growers interested in automation and alternative energy solutions. https://fruitgrowersnews.com/article/electric-vehicles-make-debut-in-ag/ As for the working life of the battery, it's clear that you are unfamiliar with information on that score: How long do electric car batteries last? [Dec 2022 updated] According to current industry expectations, EV batteries are projected to last between 100,000 and 200,000 miles, or about 15 to 20 years. However, even when EV batteries do age, their large initial capacity combined with minor losses in battery capacity means the aging is nearly imperceptible to drivers. Indeed, EVs are currently estimated to lose an average of 2.3% of their battery capacity per year. https://blog.evbox.com/ev-battery-longevity For obvious reasons, at least obvious to me, your vicious cycle claim makes no sense. Are you seriously claiming that the more charging stations and recycling stations that are created, the greater the deficit will be. That they consume so much power that it makes no sense to use them? Is that the case today? Why would it be the case tomorrow. Usually, as technologies develop, costs go down, not up. What is different about renewables?

Sure. Nothing much is happening on that front at all... Renewable power’s growth is being turbocharged as countries seek to strengthen energy security The global energy crisis has triggered unprecedented momentum behind renewables, with the world set to add as much renewable power in the next 5 years as it did in the past 20... The global energy crisis is driving a sharp acceleration in installations of renewable power, with total capacity growth worldwide set to almost double in the next five years, overtaking coal as the largest source of electricity generation along the way and helping keep alive the possibility of limiting global warming to 1.5 °C, the IEA says in a new report... The report finds that renewables are set to account for over 90% of global electricity expansion over the next five years, overtaking coal to become the largest source of global electricity by early 2025. https://www.iea.org/news/renewable-power-s-growth-is-being-turbocharged-as-countries-seek-to-strengthen-energy-security

Generally, protests are a pain in the butt to somebody. If not, those in power could just ignore them. Gandhi, Martin Luther KIng, Lech Walesa were all pains in the butt. This has nothing to do with the personal insults you've directed at her.

This is your idea of evidence? A non-scientist's assertion. Moreover, he's a proven liar: Patrick Moore Did Not Found Greenpeace Patrick Moore frequently portrays himself as a founder or co-founder of Greenpeace, and many news outlets have repeated this characterization. Although Mr. Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not found Greenpeace. ... A copy of his application letter and Greenpeace's response are available here (PDF). http://web.archive.org/web/20110827151509/http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/nuclear/patric-moore-background-inform/

More empty insults.

You're asking questions but you're not interested in the answers? That makes it clear that you're here just to engage in libel.

Just another empty, unbacked insult from you. You've got nothing.

If If you're really interested in where the money goes, I suggest you avail yourself of something called google and do a search with it. I did and it took all of a minute to find this: https://thegretathunbergfoundation.org/where-the-money-goes/

What media questions would those be? That one video where a reporter basically asks her how to better promote public awareness of climate change? What has that got to do with the science of climate change and climate change's consequences for humanity? You've got nothing.

Usually, maybe always?, in cars with 3 rows of seats the last row at least is foldable We actually removed the last row to give us even more space in our ICE vehicle.

Do you understand that there are 2 ways to increase debt? One is by more spending and the other is by slashing revenue.

Yes, all those lying blinkered climatologists. What you're denying is basically an established fact since the mid 19th century when the eminent Irish physicist, John Tindall, discovered what is popularly known as the greenhouse effect. It only became controversial when its application threatened certain economic interests Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago A new investigation shows the oil company understood the science before it became a public issue and spent millions to promote misinformation https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

You need "wonder' no more. Electrifying transportation reduces emissions AND saves massive amounts of energy "Even if the grid were entirely fueled by coal, 31% less energy would be needed to charge EVs than to fuel gasoline cars. If EVs were charged by natural gas, the total energy demand for highway transportation would fall by nearly half. Add in hydropower or other renewables, and the result gets even better, saving up to three-fourths of the energy currently used by gasoline-powered vehicles." https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2022/08/electrifying-transportation-reduces-emissions-and-saves-massive-amounts-of-energy/

In case you haven't heard, there's a war going on. Wars usually generate all kinds of unpleasant consequences. One of the positive consequences of this dreadful war is that it has accelerated Germany's plans for renewables.

Someone else who doesn't understand the difference between "climate" and "weather".

Thanks not producing a link. It makes your contention so convincing. In fact, there were some ridiculous criticisms directed at a previous survey. The gist of them was that only a fraction of climatological papers referenced global warming. This is true. But it's about as valid as denying the theory of evolution is valid because most research in biology doesn't reference Darwin or his successors. Whenever global warming or climate change is referenced in climatological research, it's now virtually always that it either is based on the fact of human caused climate change or is actively researching its mechanisms. https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm

It's really not that simple. You have to take into account how much the average consumption of those people are vs. the average consumption in developed economies. And then there's the question of how much the wealthy contribute to environmental degradation: Carbon emissions of richest 1 percent more than double the emissions of the poorest half of humanity https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/carbon-emissions-richest-1-percent-more-double-emissions-poorest-half-humanity

And even thought it's a wild guess, you decided it would be a good idea to pollute the discussion with it.

That you think meeting someone is determinative rather than what they wrote and said , says all we need to know about your standards for evidence.

Even if the nonsense you claim here was valid, it's apparently irrelevant to you that what they are saying in this case is scientifically valid.

Not by the standards you have cited. You claim that Greta is just repeating what science has established. How does this differ from what Huxley did? By your logic he was just Darwin's marionette or sock puppet.

"other's stuff"? Nobody owns science. Subscribing to the science and popularizing it is not about obedience to a person or persons.

So Thomas Huxley, the great populiser of the Theory of Evolution was also a puppet? Subscribing to the overwhelming scientific evidence makes one a puppet? Denying that overwhelming evidence means that one is free? If that's the case, then you are about as free as someone can be. I guess as a corollary to Knowledge is Power, you would have us believe that Ignorance is Freedom.