# Talk:Greta Thunberg

Given the dialect variance of English as well as Swedish, it might be better to not give informal phonetics.  Swedes pronounce her name something like “Tune-berry” “Tune-barry” “tune buy ee”, depending, of course, both on what variety of Swedish the speaker is using, and what flavor of English the recipient speaks. Qwirkle (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Done. I went with TOON-berry, but no strong preference. Einsof (talk) 02:05, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
I’m not familiar with Swedish phonetics, so I can’t comment on the IPA transcription.
But I don’t think including an English respelling of the Swedish pronunciation is a good idea. Especially if it doesn’t match the IPA.
It [respelling] should not be used for representing non-English words or an approximation thereof. SpelunkerOfMine (talk) 09:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
There is no well-defined category of "non-English words", especially so with proper names. The name "Greta Thunberg" now appears often enough in English discourse that large numbers of English speakers need some way to pronounce it, which is the point of the respelling. Arnold Schwarzenegger gets a respelling for the same reason; so does Amerigo Vespucci, Golda Meir, Alois Alzheimer, Albrecht Dürer, Benoit Mandelbrot, and hundreds (possibly thousands) of others. Are you proposing some kind of process here to determine which names are "non-English words" and then purge the respell template from those articles? Einsof (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
I’m not suggesting such a new process. I’m still a fairly new user, so it’s entirely possible I’ve misunderstood something.
All the articles you linked to had respellings for the English IPA transcriptions (unless I’m misinterpreting the formatting). This article currently only has a Swedish pronunciation. My primary concern with respelling the Swedish transcription is that the Swedish pronunciation: [ʉ̂ː] sound is not present in the repelling key.
I’m not sure of the process for establishing which pronunciation(s) to include for someone’s name, but could we add an English IPA pronunciation and respell that? SpelunkerOfMine (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Got it, I misunderstood before, thanks. I've added an English IPA pronunciation to precede the respelling. If it's too cluttered we may want to stick all the pronunciation information into a footnote. Einsof (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
I disagree with your English IPA transcriptions. Having searched on YouGlish (a site that lets you search for YouTube videos in which people say a given word/phrase) for utterances of Greta Thunberg, the only speaker I could find in the first hundred or so results who pronounced it with a “y”-like sound at the end was David Suzuki in a CBC podcast (YouTube link).
Most people pronounced it with a “g”-like sound at the end.
The first consonant had a lot of variation - split between /t/ and /θ/.
The first vowel, similarly had a lot of variation. Most speakers pronounced it /u/, /ʊ/, or /ʌ/, with a few also pronouncing it /ɜːr/.
But WP:NOR would imply we’d need an actual source for this if I understand correctly. SpelunkerOfMine (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
I've now added a source from The Guardian. Einsof (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Her last name is pronounced Toonberg, as far as I’m aware
The way I read the source you added was as expressing confusion as to the pronunciation. I’m not convinced we can use that as a source for a single pronunciation.
Equally, I can’t find any better sources, especially for the other pronunciations I heard on YouGlish. WP:NOTFINISHED as I understand it says it’s ok to stick with what we’ve got. SpelunkerOfMine (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
There are two separate blotter entries (both linked in footnote 1) that need to be read in conjunction in order to understand what this source is saying. Einsof (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Oops, I missed that, thanks for pointing it out.
Given the sources available, I think the transcription that’s there currently is the best we can do. SpelunkerOfMine (talk) 10:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
 I've removed the "English pronunciation" altogether, as I don't find the sourcing convincing and we don't really need to have such a thing in this article anyway. Neither the "official" nor the "commonly" variant is cited to any reliable source, only a Guardian live blog which mentions it in passing based on comments by readers; the Swedish pronunciation is the correct one and we should stick with that. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Well done. The surname according to normal English phonetics, which readers and speakers of English always should be allowed to use, is Thun (rhymes with done and fun) plus berg as in Goldberg. The Swedish pronunciarion is very difficult for speakers of English to handle, since the Swedish sound of the vowel u does not exist in English at all. Tibnberry would be the closest we could come. But why bother? SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:04, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Nobody ever claimed that English speakers were disallowed from pronouncing it according to English phonetics; that's something you invented in your head. Einsof (talk) 02:16, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I removed the See also link to Svante Arrhenius. First of all, he is not in the source given, because the Svante in the source is Svante Thunberg, Greta's father. Second, a Swedish site that checks sources says: "Svante Arrhenius was not Greta's great-grandfather, but such a distant relative that even they themselves have difficulty figuring out whether they are related at all." Friendly, Lova Falk (talk) 08:42, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

According to this discussion, Arrhenius is her second cousin thrice removed. That sounds a bit awkward, so I figured "distant relative" works better for the article. ~ Enix150 (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Greta Thunberg is not descended from Arrhenius (and neither was her grandfather Olof), so you will find no reliable source claiming she is.
From what I can see on the genealogy website I link to below, Greta's great-great-grandmother was a 2nd cousin of Arrhenius, so they are descended from common ancestors.
I don't know though if there are any WP:RELIABLE sources for stating the above in an article.

Arrhenius's mother was born Carolina Christina Thunberg. Here is a genealogy page for Carolina Christina's grandfather Petter Johansson, who together with his wife appears to be the last common ancestor of Arrhenius and Greta:
https://www.geni.com/people/Petter-Johansson/6000000087609005072
According to that genealogy site, Svante Arrhenius's 2nd cousin (on the branch of Petter's daughter Catharina Elisabeth Pettersdotter) Augusta Margareta Thunberg was the great-grandmother of Greta's father Svante, who in the Thunberg family's book Our House Is on Fire is said to be named after his distant relative Arrhenius. --Fyrisdal (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Fyrisdal, very interesting! I asked ChatGPT and Gemini Pro: "For a person A in Sweden, if A’s great-great-grandmother was a second cousin of person B, approximately how many people would have the same or a closer genetic relationship to A?" Chat-GPT 5 said "A typical Swedish-born person today likely has 30,000–70,000 living Swedes at least that closely related" and Gemini said: "The final estimate of 20,000 to 70,000 accounts for the exponential growth in relatives while being tempered by the realities of a stable, national population." So there are a lot of Swedes as closely related to Greta as Svante Arrhenius is! Lova Falk (talk) 09:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
But, obviously, among those tens of thousands of distant relatives, Arrhenius is a distant relative whom Greta is aware of, and I won't revert it again if somebody adds him. Lova Falk (talk) 09:14, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Yeah but not many are literally named after him, like Greta’s father is. Slomo666 (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
The talk page is about the article. Svante Arrhenius has been added as a See also link and I did not revert it, nor did anybody else. So no need for further discussing this.🙂 Lova Falk (talk) 07:33, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Carbon free in regards to a yacht or almost anything at all in this planet is not a scientifically valid term. The yacht certainly has carbon in it. It most certainly produces carbon output from anything from cooking to even limited engine use pulling into port or mooring to even human beings breathing to winch lines. So no it is not “carbon free”. Low carbon output? Still a dumb term but ok. Less than a conveyance powered by internal combustion yes 129.222.102.184 (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

You are pedantically correct, but I'm sorry to have to tell you that the English language is often imprecise in its terminology, but we manage. HiLo48 (talk) 00:49, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Last I checked, Thunberg is a Honorary Fellow of the Royal Scottish Geographical Society. This entitles her to the “FRSGS” post-nominal at the end of her name. In terms of presentation on Wikipedia articles, it would go right underneath her name, on the central (right side on desktop) placard.
It used to be present on the article. Anybody know why it was removed? ZachM097 (talk) 07:26, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Because it's just an Honorary Fellowship - see all the others listed at Royal Scottish Geographical Society#Honorary Fellows? The award is still mentioned, with a source, in the text. 2A00:23C7:549:5F01:CDB:B916:F02C:B4DB (talk) 07:35, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I have updated the lead to include recent, well-sourced developments in Thunberg’s activism, including her 2025 participation in the Gaza flotilla. This addition complies with WP:LEAD by summarizing significant aspects of her ongoing public activity that have received extensive, reliable coverage. The revision improves chronological balance and reflects her continued relevance beyond environmental issues, while maintaining a neutral and verifiable tone in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:V.
The inclusion of the 2025 flotilla event is proportionate to its prominence in international reporting and does not give it undue weight, consistent with WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENT.
The "old" version has tons of unnecessary citations, which are supposed to be added in the lead if it is not verified in the body of the article. This clears up thousands of bytes of  information and just looks a whole of a lot better, in my opinion.
If you have any opinion, thoughts or objections, please comment and let it be known. I appreciate all yall's thoughts and ideas---even those that might disagree with me; I'm still relatively new to this (despite having been editing on Wikipedia for over four centuries).
U4ick (talk) 04:01, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, but where did the pronunciation /ˈɡreɪtə ˈtuːnbɜːrɡ/ come from? Einsof (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
U4ick, please adhere to MOS:LEADLENGTH. This lead is too long. The old lead doesn't look great at a glance so I did not revert to previous. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
@Muboshgu That's sorta weird cause I was editing it down before I even saw this. I guess I just thought the one before it was so short and didn't include anything from the last two years let alone much of anything shes accomplished before then that I figured "go big or go home..." But I read MOS:LENGTH about an hour ago and decided that I should try to shorten it up.
I think it looks better now but that's not up to me to decide. Thank you for pointing it out though. I really do listen to criticism and try to learn from it (as long as it's not blatantly disrespectful or rude). Thank you.
U4ick (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for shortening it. Whether it was at my behest or your own. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:42, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for getting the ball rolling. I just gave the lead a tight haircut. It was still super long imho. Olamina (talk) 09:15, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
I’d like to suggest a brief revision to the  newstlead to better capture Thunberg’s recent activism and the range of reactions to it. Per WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV, the mention of her flotilla protests could be worked in more naturally, and the growing polarization around her activism, with both strong support and notable criticism, could be acknowledged. These tweaks would keep the lead concise while making it more balanced and current. What do ya'll think? Everyone's input is very helpful for me to become a better editor, so thank you to all who chime in.
"Greta Tintin Eleonora Ernman Thunberg (Swedish: [ˈɡreːta ˈtʉːnbærj] ; born 3 January 2003) is a Swedish activist best known for pressuring governments to address climate change. She gained global attention in 2018, at age 15, after launching a solo school strike outside the Swedish parliament, which inspired the worldwide Fridays for Future movement. Since then, she has expanded her activism to include human rights and global justice, and in 2025, participating in two humanitarian efforts intended to challenge the Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip and draw attention to the Gaza war.
Thunberg’s activism has drawn both praise and criticism from political leaders, media commentators, and online detractors. Despite the mixed reception, her efforts have been credited with inspiring the "Greta effect," a global surge in environmental awareness and youth participation in climate activism. Reflecting her international influence, she has received numerous honors, including being listed among Time's 100 Most Influential People and named its Person of the Year in 2019." U4ick (talk) 14:29, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
U4ick I think you wrote a very good lead. 👍 Lova Falk (talk) 06:20, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
@Lova Falk Thank you!
U4ick (talk) 11:58, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

used at the beginning of the article. It’s really not the appropriate term and I know some folks (including myself) consider it offensive given Asperger himself who it was named for was a Nazi eugenicist.
I’d like to sit down later and revise those mentions.
Dvallin (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I have heard Greta say "Aspergers" numerous times (on TV), so I think it can stay, unless you find a recent source in which she says autism. Lova Falk (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia follows the DSM-5 and ICD-11—the two major medical classification systems. Both have merged Asperger syndrome into Autism spectrum disorder (ASD).
The DSM-5 officially removed Asperger syndrome as a separate diagnosis in 2013, and the ICD-11 (used internationally by the WHO) did the same in 2022.
Per WP:MEDRS and Wikipedia’s medical style guidance, articles about living people should therefore use autism spectrum disorder (ASD) for modern references, while still reflecting historical or self-stated usage where relevant.
There are three appropriate contexts for keeping the term:
a) Historical or diagnostic accuracy – Thunberg has said she was diagnosed with “Asperger’s syndrome”. To follow MEDRS and preserve clarity, the lead could read:
“Thunberg has said she was diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome, which is now considered part of the autism spectrum.”
This keeps the sourced wording but clarifies that the term is no longer current medical terminology.
b) Direct self-identification – In November 2018, Thunberg stated:
“I was diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome, OCD and selective mutism. That basically means I only speak when I think it’s necessary. Now is one of those moments.”
We should never alter quoted material to “update” terminology; that would be a misquotation and violate WP:BLP and WP:V. If editors feel a different quotation would serve better, the solution is to replace it with another reliably sourced quote, not to rewrite the existing one.
c) Historical or encyclopedic context – In articles such as Asperger syndrome itself or older biographies, the original term should remain for accuracy, accompanied by a note that it was subsumed into ASD under the DSM-5 (2013) and ICD-11 (2022).
I understand the wish to remove a term that now carries negative connotations, and I share the discomfort, but in this case keeping the historically accurate wording—paired with clear modern context—is more encyclopedic than erasing it.
U4ick (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

The article currently lists in the infobox Greta Thunberg's occupation as a "climate activist". Occupation normally means that the person is getting paid to do whatever it is that they are doing, and as far as I know, being an activist is not a paying job.
Am I missing someting? Or should we remove the occupation field from the infobox? Green Montanan (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
I suppose if she's getting paid, then she should be called a "climate advocate", rather than a "climate activist", but I don't think she's been doing much climate advocacy for the past two years. Green Montanan (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

The last thing I know is that she started studying a year ago: https://www.expressen.se/nyheter/greta-thunbergs-nya-vagval-pluggar-dubbelt/ So "student" should be her occupation. However, I don't know if she still studies when she is not busy with her activism. I cannot find anything more recent in the Swedish media about her studies. Lova Falk (talk) 07:31, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
She has a foundation to create a transparent way of distributing funds from awards, royalties or donations linked to the Foundation’s activities and Greta’s activism to organisations and individuals working for a just and sustainable world. But she is not earning a living doing this in the sense of employment, though the time she spends (or has spent) doing it qualifies it for an occupation in my mind. I like the word avocation myself (it's how I think of my Wikipedia activities) but that isn't a template parameter and doesn't do justice to the time she puts in, or the impact she has. Maybe the best think is to use the known_for parameter, with climate activism as the descriptor. It is entirely accurate without giving the impression that she's getting rich doing it. Xan747 (talk) 04:45, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
I think that it is very strange that we have climate activist, and then: Movement: Climate movement-Fridays for Future and Gaza war protests - Global Sumud Flotilla. Shall we just change it to activist, also because there is a quote in which she says,  "For me, it hasn't been solely about the climate at all." Lova Falk (talk) 09:35, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
I was bold and changed the template parameter from occupation to known_for, and made that field Climate change and anti-war activism. If that is not acceptable, please feel free to revert, or change to something different. Xan747 (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Israeli authorities deny the allegations. → Israeli authorities denied the allegations. 2804:388:411C:C84A:20A1:ED93:813B:86E0 (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Per MOS:TENSE, articles should be written in present tense by default. Even then, Israel still continues to deny the allegations. - Umby 🌕🐶 (talk · contribs) 22:52, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
That rule also says: "use past tense only for past events", and the article about Greta is brimming with past events: this happened, that happened, this happened, that happened. Lova Falk (talk) 06:33, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

An edit asking for personal information was just removed, but it could have been a request to add some personal information to the article. Anyway, I read a short article about Greta the other day, about her studies this past year, (she has started a Bachelor's Program in Global Development) and I found there was nowhere in this article to add that information. Maybe we should have Personal section? Lova Falk (talk) 06:39, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Agree. Burrobert (talk) 11:17, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
There is also content in Early life dated from after she became known for her activism that could also go in a Personal section, at the possible expense of disrupting the thematic flow. Xan747 (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
That would actually be a good idea, because information from 2021 is hardly early life. Or, we could keep the section as it is, but instead call it Personal background, so we can add recent information that is not activism. Lova Falk (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
It's a difficult balance to find. As an aside, I am often annoyed that the Early Life and Personal Life sections are separated by Career in such BLPs, as it breaks apart the who they are from what they do. But this is not really the forum for that discussion. Xan747 (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
All the more reason to have one section called Personal life, which includes early life. 🙂 Lova Falk (talk) 09:19, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
The tradition of keeping the personal life separate from professional or career-oriented biographies arose because it was difficult to write about them both in the same sections.  Not all bios are the same.  There's no rule requiring that you keep them separate. There are many examples of a hybrid approach, for example. The bio on Jules Rabin interweaves the personal and the political throughout the bio, using the personal life section only to highlight character traits and familial connections that aren't easy to mention within the larger bio. Viriditas (talk) 03:33, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I would like to see this moved from the see also into the body and discussed. Viriditas (talk) 03:28, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. See our discussion above. According to the genealogy site, Svante Arrhenius's 2nd cousin (on the branch of Petter's daughter Catharina Elisabeth Pettersdotter) Augusta Margareta Thunberg was the great-grandmother of Greta's father Svante. It is simply way too distant to be of any importance beyond a peculiarity, nothing that has any bearing on who Greta is. Lova Falk (talk) 06:38, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for clearing that up.  I missed the discussion on my first read. Viriditas (talk) 09:30, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

What is the exact reason for the inclusion of the following passage in this article:
”Volta Solar estimated that the Sumud Flotilla’s five-week voyage emitted about 165 tons of CO₂, around 50 tons of which will be absorbed by the sea and harm marine life.” (source: article in Jerusalem Post)
Thank you. Maleviziotis (talk) 12:35, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Ping User:Lynngol, you are the one who added it.Lova Falk (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
The reason I thought that it was important to add this was that Greta is an environmentalist (most of the wikipedia article is about her efforts) and inspired many people to care about this topic, yet here she is polluting the Mediterranean Sea and causing lasting damage to the sea life. Doesn't it seem a bit hypocritical? Lynngol (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps it is important to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which can be defined as a “collection of synthesized knowledge presented from a neutral point of view” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Purpose#cite_note-8).
We can hopefully agree that any personal discussion regarding the credibility of the actions a particular article's subject are outside the realm of this very clearly defined purpose. If not, why?
There is still space for an answer to my original question. Maleviziotis (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
That is why I did not add that sentence. However, if the objective of the Flotilla was to help Gaza, whose entire coastline is along the Mediterranean, how does polluting its waters help it? That is the question that readers should be asking and why this was added. Lynngol (talk) 15:00, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
J Post readers should also be asking if such carbon-inefficient means might have been averted had normal overland shipping routes been available, or why the "study" written by a rooftop solar installation company--which makes dubious, possibly misleading, outright wrong claims--wasn't linked to anywhere in the article so readers could evaluate its sources, methods and authors. I am removing the remaining sentence from the article. Please seek consensus before restoring it. Xan747 (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
This is the diff showing the content I removed. I am preparing a rebuttal to the problematic claims made in the JPost article. Xan747 (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Volta Solar pointed out that the flotilla’s trip to Gaza was equivalent to 206 flights from Tel Aviv to London in terms of air pollution.
There are too many unstated assumptions in this calculation to know exactly the comparison being made here, but I am guessing the divisor is based on the CO₂ emissions for single passenger round-trip between the two airports, and the dividend is the claimed 144 metric tonnes emitted by the flotilla from its engines alone. A reasonable estimate for CO₂ emitted per quantity of jet fuel burned is 2.5 kg/L. The worst-case fuel efficiency for a long haul route is 3.34 L/100 km, and the round-trip is 7,100 km. Putting it all together:
7,100 km/trip * 3.34 L/100 km = 237 L/pax
237 L * 2.52 kg CO₂/L = 597 kg CO₂/pax (0.597 t)
144 t CO₂ / 0.597 t CO₂/pax = 241 trips/pax
The best-case scenario is 2.02 L/100 km for 143 L/pax, giving 400 trips/pax. How these impressively large numbers are supposed to relate to anything is unclear.
The metric we want is tonnes of aid delivered per distance traveled, and this isn't that. An average adult human weighs 70 kg, so best case is 0.727 kg CO₂/(t cargo * km), and worst is 1.202. We know the flotilla originated in Barcelona, about 3,000 km distance by sea to Gaza. According to Times of Israel, the flotilla was transporting 250 t of aid, while Israel National News claimed it carried under 2. The high-end estimate works out to 144,000 kg / (250 t × 3,000 km) = 0.192 kg CO₂/(t cargo * km), which is competitive with air transport. I'm going to reject the 2 t of aid delivered as non-credible. So actually they could have done just as well flying it in, but I doubt it would have made it out of customs in Tel Aviv.
Which brings me to this table:
Mode of Transport 	kg of CO₂ per Ton-Mile
Air cargo 	0.8063
Truck 	0.1693
Train 	0.1048
Sea freight 	0.0403
Were not Israel blockading the Port of Gaza, regular sea transport could have delivered that aid for an order of magnitude less environmental impact. More to come. Xan747 (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
EDIT: I missed that the the distances in the above table were given in miles instead of kilometres even though weight was given in metric tonnes ... something only British Wikipedia editors would ever do when writing an article of global relevance, but I digress. The corrected values in proper units are:
Mode of Transport kg of CO₂ per Tonne-Kilometre
Air cargo 0.50
Truck 0.105
Train 0.065
Sea freight 0.025
The corrected air cargo figure now falls below the 0.727–1.202 kg CO₂/(t cargo * km) estimate we backed into above, a discrepancy we might be able to explain if our solar company had provided more of its underlying assumptions.
TL;DR: 0.192/0.025 = 7.7, which is the multiplier of damage that could have been avoided if Greta had been allowed to send that 250 tonnes of aid to Gaza on a regular container ship instead of her small boat flotilla. Xan747 (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
“About 30% of the CO₂ emitted by humans is absorbed by the sea, causing an increase of about 26% in the acidity of ocean water,” they explain and add, “Of the 165 tons, about 50 tons will be absorbed by the sea over time: this impact damages the ability of corals, oysters and krill to build skeletons, and endangers the marine food chain and fish.”
This is not even wrong. While the 30% absorption figure is correct, the 26% increase in acidity is misleading because it lacks context. In the same IAEA citation we read:
Prior to the Industrial Revolution of the 18th to 19th centuries, the ocean’s average pH was about 8.2. Today, the ocean’s average pH is 8.1. This means that the ocean today is about 30 per cent more acidic than in pre-industrial times.
To give some actual perspective, since 1751, we've emitted 1.5 trillion tonnes of CO₂, which is 9,000,000,000 times the carbon cost of Greta's 165 tonne aid delivery. Or for a more local spatiotemporal context, Israel emitted 61 million tonnes CO₂ equivalent in 2023. In the week it should have taken the flotilla to reach Gaza, Israel would have emitted 1.17 million tonnes of CO₂, meaning during that week of transit, the country did roughly 7,000 times more environmental damage to the Mediterranean ocean than Greta's flotilla did over the same period.
That is all. Xan747 (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
The politically motivated accusations by Israeli companies and media should be removed per WP:WEIGHT. It's a clear case of whataboutism designed to deflect negative press regarding Israel's repeated attacks on resident Palestinians. A WP:TROUT for Lynngol who thought this was a good idea. Binksternet (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Seems WP:UNDUE if the only mention is in a single source attributing it to a random solar company. While biased sources like this can be used, their bias has to be taken into account when assessing weight; and this certainly isn't something with much intrinsic weight. --Aquillion (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2025 (UTC)