Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Irony - Greenies saved by supertanker!

Discussion in 'The Pub' at netrider.net.au started by Farab, May 7, 2009.

  1. Eco-sailors rescued by oil tanker


    Its not the fact that someone got into trouble that I find funny, but that this lot had to be saved by what they consider to be the devil incarnate. If they felt /feel so strong about their convictions, should they have accepted the rescue from a supertanker (or any fuel burning ship)?

    Also, how much fuel did the tanker have to burn to save their sorry butts? How much carbon went towards their rescue?

    What would have happened in a world were the technology (100+ years ago - a large supertanker to save them from a rough sea) did not exist that those of the green persuasion detest so much, would they have perished? Is this not hyprocrocy of the highest order?

    How are they planning to get home, a 747?

  2. Unfair assessment I think Farab. You don't know which kind of greenies they were, the rational kind who want to inspire a move in the "right" direction, or the irrational kind who think we should all be driving pedal cars. At face value, all that is said is that they were "promoting climate change awareness", a far cry from what you're claiming them to be.

  3. I hear what you are saying, but I think it safe to say (also looking at rs101's links) that they are in the "anti-carbon emissions" and "CO2 causes climate change" camp - still ironic, yes?

    Thanks for those additional links rsS101
  4. And I'm sure the yachties would have saved the tanker crew had the situation been reversed.

  5. Not relevant! Not what this is about.
  6. Yes it is, you just don't want it to be because it doesn't fit your viewpoint.
    In an open discussion such as this anyone can give an alternative viewpoint.
    Just because 2up made his point doesn't make it irrelevant unless you stipulate in your original post you only want the conversation to follow YOUR guidelines.
    Suck it up princess
  7. I'm sure the yachties would have rescued the crew of the tanker, or any one else for that matter. The crew or captain of the tanker I am sure did not hesitate to go to their rescue, its not about if the rescue should have taken place, but more about the fact that a bunch of anti-carbon types have been rescued by a supertanker, exactly the type of thing that they stand against.

    I did ask if their rescue would have been possible if the "luxury" of having a huge supertanker in proximity (surely the pinnacle of the type of thing that they are campaigning against) did not exist?
  8. I would reckon then that you see the irony of what happened which would have been a better topic if you stated it rather than calling it poetic justice.
  9. Fair call, topic changed.
  10. How much carbon is used to manufacture all the solar panels on their sailboat ????
  11. A decreasing amount of energy is required to produce solar panels as quantity increases and technology improves. 'Early Adopters' of technology are a crucial step in the lifecycle of those products. Not only do they provide a vehicle for real-world operational testing, but they help to promote the tech through the generated exposure.

    We use a helluva lot of solar powered equipment at work, it provides stable power for long-term field applications and reduces the time spent driving to/from a remote location with replacement batteries. Those additional batteries also cost energy to produce, and contain many toxic substances that take further energy to dispose of when their life is up.

    At present, the return on energy investment (ROEI) of photovoltaics is better than that of crude oil. Note that ROEI is improving for solar and degrading for fossil.
  12. +1

  13. Of course, for 90+% of the history of widespread open water navigation, all vessels were a low or zero carbon emission proposition.

    Well, if we ignore the almost complete deforestation of southern England to build the vast naval and merchant fleets which established, serviced and defended the British Empire anyway. No doubt other navally active countries saw similar destruction.
  14. The Kentish Oak forests are still there... They've just moved slightly south to the bottom of the channel is all...
  15. There was a massive planting of oaks through the late 18th & early 19th centuries for that very reason. There was a real fear for British shipbuilding during the Napoleonic wars. That's the main reason for many of the larger oak forests in many of the historic estates.
  16. Hmmmm…
    Generally I am a big believer that if you want to do something “adventurous†like this you do the training and preparation so that you are more likely than not to succeed.
    If the wind generator had not been stowed under these conditions I wonder WTF they were doing.
    Also in anything but the
    biggest sailing vessels(Well it was good until they snapped it in half)
    You stay above deck in a storm. It is much safer on deck even if you are being capsized.
    This starts to indicate they didn’t really know there stuff
  17. I tend to agree with F-L. The weather described, whilst very unpleasant, should have been perfectly survivable for a properly prepared boat and crew.

    Of course, any report on a specialist subject by mainstream media should be treated with suspicion. After all, has anyone ever seen them get a bike story complete or correct?
  18. Why are we referring to people who are trying to find alternative fuel sources as greenies?? Oil is a finite fuel, trying to find alternatives is just common sense.

    I thought this was going to be about whalers or something getting picked up! I'd dare say these guys are engineers first, sailors second!
  19. Any real Engineer should be able to grasp the art of sailing fairly easily. Unless they are leckies, civies, or enviros... of course.