• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    367 days ago

    The whole article is wild, but in a bad way: They are comparing a bigger ferry with a smaller one? They are claiming that LNG from fucking Qatar is “green”? They are calculating upstream emissions from LNG into the footprint of one ferry, but don’t include the upstream emissions of the diesel fuel?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      137 days ago

      The person who posted this to [email protected] is someone who’s spent some small amount of time defending articles which are clearly propaganda designed to make people mistrustful of anything “green.”

      I think there’s a pretty good chance that the whole reason for the article’s framing, which as you point out is pretty wild and nonsensical, is that it lets them make it sound like “green” is bad and fake, and that’s the goal of the article. I definitely think there’s a good chance that it getting posted on Lemmy is happening for that reason.

      • federal reverseOPM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        17 days ago

        someone who’s spent some small amount of time defending articles which are clearly propaganda designed to make people mistrustful of anything “green”

        Fwiw, that’s not the reason I crossposted it. I don’t know the motivations of the original poster.

        that’s the goal of the article.

        While granted, the headline is baity, the final section of the article seems fairly solution-oriented.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          47 days ago

          Yeah, I wasn’t trying to attack your motivations specifically. The other poster was the one with a small history of suspicious postings.

          It’s not just the headline that’s baity… the whole framing is a little weird. I don’t think anyone in the modern day thinks of LNG as a “green” fuel. It’s just a fossil fuel. I did look into the ship a little bit, and apparently this crap about LNG being a “low-emission” fuel as compared with diesel was supposed to be a big deal for constructing it, so maybe the article is pointing out a fair counterargument. It just raises my hackles a little bit whenever I see an article which if you glance at it quickly could leave you with an impression, “And that’s why green is fake!”

    • federal reverseOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      9
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      They are claiming that LNG from fucking Qatar is “green”?

      The BBC are putting “green” in scare quotes. I.e., this is what politicians/owners claimed about the ship.

      They are calculating upstream emissions from LNG into the footprint of one ferry, but don’t include the upstream emissions of the diesel fuel?

      Upstream emissions from LNG tend to be higher than either petrol, diesel or pipeline gas.

      US LNG is likely more damaging to climate than even coal.