Greens enemies of liberty

egan007

That's all bull...the society he asks ue to imagine can be seen by simply opening your eyes....You are Free - Ha ha
Try doing something really radical like smoking in a pub - see what happens freeman.

auerillo

Pgibson wrote: »

Weaning ourselves off petroleum is at the core of the solution.

There are already plans being developed in the USA (where else?) to turn an area in the Arizona deserts bigger than Ireland into vast "solar collectors" to power the USA economy. Storing the energy in vast vats of liquid sodium by day for use when needed by night.

"If necessity is the mother of invention then desperation will be the mother of the cure for climate change."


.

Where did you read that weaning ourselves ( by ourselves do you mean the whole world) of petroleum is the core of the solution?

How will that be balanced by, for example, China's opening of one new coal fired power plant per week?

And even if it is the core to the solution, how will it be achieved? And how will we get all countries in the world to agree to it simultaneously?

Do you have a link to the project to turn the arizona desert into a big solar power collector - it sound interesting and I'd like to find out more.

I definitely agree that the solution to this problem is not to all revert to living in caves, but will be found in technological advances.

Pgibson

I meant to say "Petroleum AND COAL ETC."

My error.

This article in Scientific American magazine points the way forward in my opinion:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan

The proposed action is on a scale of Second World War proportions..

Desperation will succeed when mere "necessity" does not.

.

bk

Pgibson wrote: »

I meant to say "Petroleum AND COAL ETC."

My error.

This article in Scientific American magazine points the way forward in my opinion:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan

The proposed action is on a scale of Second World War proportions..

Desperation will succeed when mere "necessity" does not.

.

Err, wouldn't it be easier and cheaper just to build a shiny new Nuclear Power plant?

Me puts on my flame retardant suit

Pgibson

bk wrote: »

Err, wouldn't it be easier and cheaper just to build a shiny new Nuclear Power plant?

NO.

Thousands of shiny new nuclear power plants maybe.


.

djpbarry

auerillo wrote: »

I'd have thought that, as living standards are raised, that more or less means that the emissions are also raised.

That would depend on the standard of living (and/or lifestyle) that is reached.

auerillo wrote: »

Even if Ireland reduced it's emissions to zero, it wouldn't make a jot of difference towards a solution.

You don’t think that if Ireland managed to obtain "carbon neutral" status that everybody else on the planet would take notice?

auerillo wrote: »

Unilateral action might be a good idea, but it's not going to solve the problem, as its the whole worlds emissions which are the problem.

Fine; you tell us then, what should we do?

auerillo

djpbarry wrote: »

You don’t think that if Ireland managed to obtain "carbon neutral" status that everybody else on the planet would take notice?
Fine; you tell us then, what should we do?

I'm really not sure that many people on the planet take very much notice of Ireland and its Carbon Status, whether its neutral or otherwise. Sure, if someone has something to contribute then I'm sure if its a good idea others will consider it.

I have no suggestions to make as to what to do. I have asked that question so many times of others, and have never had a practical response which makes any sense. It seems to me that unilateral action is pointless and, at best, of insignificant value, and so any action has to be taken universally, or else technology will provide us with the solutions.

Macha

auerillo wrote: »

I'm really not sure that many people on the planet take very much notice of Ireland and its Carbon Status, whether its neutral or otherwise. Sure, if someone has something to contribute then I'm sure if its a good idea others will consider it.

I have no suggestions to make as to what to do. I have asked that question so many times of others, and have never had a practical response which makes any sense. It seems to me that unilateral action is pointless and, at best, of insignificant value, and so any action has to be taken universally, or else technology will provide us with the solutions.

Well Sweden is hoping to be oil free by..2010 I think? That should make countries like ours (96% dependent on imported fuel) sit up and pay attention.

What do you mean in your 2nd paragraph, that you don't know how a society can become carbon netural or become sustainable in general?

djpbarry

auerillo wrote: »

I'm really not sure that many people on the planet take very much notice of Ireland and its Carbon Status, whether its neutral or otherwise. Sure, if someone has something to contribute then I'm sure if its a good idea others will consider it.

You do realise you've totally contradicted yourself there (yet again)?

auerillo wrote: »

It seems to me that unilateral action is pointless and, at best, of insignificant value, and so any action has to be taken universally, or else technology will provide us with the solutions.

Is it at all possible that this "technological solution" may be developed unilaterally?

Macha

djpbarry wrote: »

Is it at all possible that this "technological solution" may be developed unilaterally?

Do you (or anyone else) think that it will be solely a technological solution that changes it or behaviour modification as well?
And what about the tools we already have in our tool box, like building efficient houses, putting in public transport...actually I think we kinda missed the boat on those two..

auerillo

djpbarry wrote: »

You do realise you've totally contradicted yourself there (yet again)?
Is it at all possible that this "technological solution" may be developed unilaterally?

I guess I am full of contradictions, but then so is the whole subject. I don't actually think its a contradiction to suggest that not many people in China or India or the USA or Brazil and so on pay much heed to Iireland's carbon status, while at the same time saying that people will heed a good idea. In any case, let's not split hairs and argue semantics as there are plenty of guys here who thrive on that.

I think it more likely that technological solutions will be developed by individuals, but will be used widely if they are good enough.

ChocolateSauce

Hmm...not without some truth, but perhaps about a generation ahead of its time?

It does remind me of a green-nut I was debating with. I was explaining benefits of GM food and nuclear power, and he wouldn't even listen as I explained the science behind it. He also said that "people should be forced to recycle". Forced? I quipped with a raised eyebrow. He replied that the planet was more important than liberty. I'd rather destroy the planet than be in shackles, myself.

Surely if he ever got into power an act of civil disobedience would be putting paper into the plastics?

Macha

theozster wrote: »

I'd rather destroy the planet than be in shackles, myself.

I personally find this point of view very odd.

Pgibson

theozster wrote: »

I'd rather destroy the planet than be in shackles, myself.

Me too.
Proper attitude there theozster.
Shackles must be very uncomfortable.

Mind you,if they were "made-to-measure" shackles with soft lining I mightn't go to the bother of destroying the planet because of them.

.

taconnol

taconnol wrote: »

Have to come in on the other side and say that environmental issues will never be resolved through simply allowing people to do whatever they want. We've had a liberal democracy for the last 80 years and look what damage has been done to the environment. For example:
-everyone who wanted a one-off house in Ireland got it
-everyone who wanted a big car got it
-everyone who wanted to fly everywhere and anywhere did.

one off housing? Estates where your garden isnt big enough for a compost heap
and not a thing wrong with one off housing they can be environmentally friendly through passive systems.
Big cars? How about a V8? http://www.autotrader.co.uk/EDITORIAL/CARS/news/hot_200mph_british_sportscar_with_70mpg.html

70mpg if you dont check the link

Whats wrong with flying everywhere? The US air force:

"We can get ourselves very close to a zero carbon footprint," said Anderson ahead of talks on the issue with counterparts in Britain and France next month.

"Not today. Not tomorrow. But maybe a decade or so down the road," he told a briefing at the State Department's Foreign Press Center.

http://www.enn.com/pollution/article/24117


People like you with your :

environmental issues will never be resolved through simply allowing people to do whatever they want

Would rather hold back progress by dictating peoples lives to them.

There are enough people like ME to counter people like YOU!
If it ever ever came down to something like the greens telling people to move into cities from rural one off housing there would be civil war.

Macha

Deleted User wrote: »

one off housing? Estates where your garden isnt big enough for a compost heap
and not a thing wrong with one off housing they can be environmentally friendly through passive systems.
Big cars? How about a V8? http://www.autotrader.co.uk/EDITORIAL/CARS/news/hot_200mph_british_sportscar_with_70mpg.html

Yes everyone had to live in a HOUSE. :rolleyes: Ever heard of apartment living? They're quite successful at it in..well the rest of Europe actually. We are going to have to get a lot better at it in future.

Too many one off houses are bad for the environment. Not only in terms of the increase in travel that they generate, they also increase the amount of septic tanks in use, which are known to contribute to ground water pollution because

1) they are not properly maintained
2) they are installed incorrectly (eg washing mashine out pipe connected)
3) they are built in unsuitable areas.

Look here at the latest water indicators report by the EPA:
http://www.epa.ie/downloads/pubs/water/indicators/name,23540,en.html
60% of our groundwater is polluted. Reasons given?

1)agricultural run-off and
2)municipal discharges (ie septic tanks)

It is EU law that all of our water has to be of good or better quality by 2015 (WFD). And a recent study has surmised that if current land uses continue unchanged, it will be very difficult to meet the demands of the WFD. Not bothered? Good luck paying the well-deserved fines.

Read this and educate yourself:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/05/30/marooned-in-the-suburbs/

This article also talks about sprawling housing estates - again because everyone had to have a house. Are we too good for apartment living? Do we really think we're that special.

Passive housing systems? I know a hell of a lot about passive housing systems and while they definitely are good for one off houses, guess what? You can make passive apartment blocks! By the way, do you know how much it costs to build a passive one off house? LOL you make me laugh.

Deleted User wrote: »

70mpg if you dont check the link

Ugh I know what you're saying but if you read what I wrote, my problem is that EVERYONE had to have it. Not just a few, but a lot of people. This is where the problem arises. It isn't one person with a big car, its the general trend of more and more people getting them.

Deleted User wrote: »

Whats wrong with flying everywhere? The US air force:

http://www.enn.com/pollution/article/24117

Great. And how much longer til it comes into civilian fleets? And at that it's only a 50% reduction. And then how long until the atmosphere reacts to the reduced C02 emissions, provided they haven't been cancelled out with increase elsewhere? So they're hoping to be carbon neutral in about a decade - at a time when we are being told we have to act urgently.

Deleted User wrote: »

People like you with your :

Would rather hold back progress by dictating peoples lives to them.

There are enough people like ME to counter people like YOU!
If it ever ever came down to something like the greens telling people to move into cities from rural one off housing there would be civil war.

Jesus there aren't enough rolleyes smileys for this post. First off, I really can't stand when people use phrases like "people like you". I am an individual with opinions that may or may not be shared by other people. I don't represent anyone here but myself. The us/them attitude is extremely childish.

And well done on the strawman argument. Did I say that people had to moce from rural one-off housing into the cities? Did I? Please show me. I am not against people buying one-off houses but we cannot keep building them at the same rate that we have over the past 15 years.

And this is what really pisses me off. Wake up!! Your life is being dictated to you already! You have to pay taxes, you have to stop at lights! Get over your illusion that you are somehow this free little person, running around in perfect liberty. You're not.

But I'll tell you somethings that actually restricts people's freedoms:

-pumping up the housing market so that people can't afford to buy a property
-building impermeable sprawling housing estates that are unwalkable & force people to drive just to buy a pint of milk
-failing to put in proper public transport, forcing people to buy cars, whether they can afford them or not.
-building cities that very strongly exclude those people that don't have a car & must rely on crappy transport or not even be able to get there at all. Old people, kids, people with disabilities. It's truly ****ty to be one of these people & living in Dublin's suburbs.
-failure to build decent family-sized apartments, forcing families to move out of afore-mentioned suburbs.
-failing to regulate water pollution and having to put up many, many water boil notices. Remember Galway? Isn't there one on in Kerry at the moment? Hope they're all enjoying the consequences of their freedom down there.
-living in a crappily planned apartment block with no public space for the kids to play outside.
-having ****ty, ****ty cycle lanes that result in sore arses and endless punctures.
-an M50 that gave an exit to every developer who wanted an exit and is now overused by local traffic. Do you want to go and ask those people who spend hours of their lives on the M50 if they're enjoying their freedom?

I have lived in Scandanavia and experienced the freedom of never even having to consider buying a car, knowing that the chance of me having to boil my water is about 0, knowing that I live in a clean, environment and a well-planned city with excellent public transport & leisure facilities.

And the 'price' I have to pay? The terrible burden on my "freedom"? Bringing a few cans & bottles down to the store when I'm doing my shopping. Oh how do they bear it? I just don't know

I'll be heading in that general direction once I finish my MSc to enjoy the kind of freedom that actually IMPROVES a person's quality of life, not the kind of freedom that results in the shoddy mess we have at the moment.

taconnol

taconnol wrote: »

But I'll tell you somethings that actually restricts people's freedoms:

-pumping up the housing market so that people can't afford to buy a property
-building impermeable sprawling housing estates that are unwalkable & force people to drive just to buy a pint of milk
-failing to put in proper public transport, forcing people to buy cars, whether they can afford them or not.
-building cities that very strongly exclude those people that don't have a car & must rely on crappy transport or not even be able to get there at all. Old people, kids, people with disabilities. It's truly ****ty to be one of these people & living in Dublin's suburbs.
-failure to build decent family-sized apartments, forcing families to move out of afore-mentioned suburbs.
-failing to regulate water pollution and having to put up many, many water boil notices. Remember Galway? Isn't there one on in Kerry at the moment? Hope they're all enjoying the consequences of their freedom down there.
-living in a crappily planned apartment block with no public space for the kids to play outside.
-having ****ty, ****ty cycle lanes that result in sore arses and endless punctures.
-an M50 that gave an exit to every developer who wanted an exit and is now overused by local traffic. Do you want to go and ask those people who spend hours of their lives on the M50 if they're enjoying their freedom?

I have lived in Scandanavia and experienced the freedom of never even having to consider buying a car, knowing that the chance of me having to boil my water is about 0, knowing that I live in a clean, environment and a well-planned city with excellent public transport & leisure facilities.

And the 'price' I have to pay? The terrible burden on my "freedom"? Bringing a few cans & bottles down to the store when I'm doing my shopping. Oh how do they bear it? I just don't know

I'll be heading in that general direction once I finish my MSc to enjoy the kind of freedom that actually IMPROVES a person's quality of life, not the kind of freedom that results in the shoddy mess we have at the moment.

Completely agree with the above. Only difference is I`ll be off to Australia,
In Oz people have estates full of detached houses with great differences among them all. Not the lego houses of here all the same.

taconnol wrote: »

Yes everyone had to live in a HOUSE. :rolleyes: Ever heard of apartment living? They're quite successful at it in..well the rest of Europe actually. We are going to have to get a lot better at it in future.

Too many one off houses are bad for the environment. Not only in terms of the increase in travel that they generate, they also increase the amount of septic tanks in use, which are known to contribute to ground water pollution because

1) they are not properly maintained
2) they are installed incorrectly (eg washing mashine out pipe connected)
3) they are built in unsuitable areas.

Look here at the latest water indicators report by the EPA:
http://www.epa.ie/downloads/pubs/water/indicators/name,23540,en.html
60% of our groundwater is polluted. Reasons given?

1)agricultural run-off and
2)municipal discharges (ie septic tanks)

It is EU law that all of our water has to be of good or better quality by 2015 (WFD). And a recent study has surmised that if current land uses continue unchanged, it will be very difficult to meet the demands of the WFD. Not bothered? Good luck paying the well-deserved fines.

Read this and educate yourself:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/05/30/marooned-in-the-suburbs/

This article also talks about sprawling housing estates - again because everyone had to have a house. Are we too good for apartment living? Do we really think we're that special.

Passive housing systems? I know a hell of a lot about passive housing systems and while they definitely are good for one off houses, guess what? You can make passive apartment blocks! By the way, do you know how much it costs to build a passive one off house? LOL you make me laugh.


Ugh I know what you're saying but if you read what I wrote, my problem is that EVERYONE had to have it. Not just a few, but a lot of people. This is where the problem arises. It isn't one person with a big car, its the general trend of more and more people getting them.


Great. And how much longer til it comes into civilian fleets? And at that it's only a 50% reduction. And then how long until the atmosphere reacts to the reduced C02 emissions, provided they haven't been cancelled out with increase elsewhere? So they're hoping to be carbon neutral in about a decade - at a time when we are being told we have to act urgently.



Jesus there aren't enough rolleyes smileys for this post. First off, I really can't stand when people use phrases like "people like you". I am an individual with opinions that may or may not be shared by other people. I don't represent anyone here but myself. The us/them attitude is extremely childish.

And well done on the strawman argument. Did I say that people had to moce from rural one-off housing into the cities? Did I? Please show me. I am not against people buying one-off houses but we cannot keep building them at the same rate that we have over the past 15 years.

And this is what really pisses me off. Wake up!! Your life is being dictated to you already! You have to pay taxes, you have to stop at lights! Get over your illusion that you are somehow this free little person, running around in perfect liberty. You're not.

About the one off housing. Limit it and it becomes only something the rich can afford. Limit it and you reduce the incentive to innovate to make environmentally friendly living on one off housing more easily attainable.

Re the water supply, I would rather my own well, I had one before and it was noticeably nicer ! I dont fancy boiling water because of human shi8te because the council wont maintain the supplies. I also dont fancy payin water charges. I would rather take the responsibilty myself.

I think where we differ most is when you say we wont get anywhere by allowing people "do what they want". They should be allowed do exactly that. But be smart and use the market to influence things. Lead by example.
And then we agree completely on things like creating a proper public transport alternative.

Macha

Thanks for reading my really long, rant of a post!

Well I see what you're saying about one-off houses but I think that's just the way it has to be. Some things are always going to be the preserve of the wealthy and to be honest, part of our problem is assuming that we all deserve everything that the "rich" have.

My problems with one off housing are 4-fold:

1) Septic tanks and damage to ground water
2) Extra cost to council to install services (I could be corrected on this one)
3) That person will probably drive everywhere
4) They can be a serious blot on the landscape (just look at what as been done to Achill Island)

Actually this reminds me of a story one of my lectueres told us. Basically they were talking about the housing in Achill & how it had destroyed the scenery. A guy rang in to rant and rave about it all. He said "And I'm standing here in my bedroom window and I can see the mess of houses around me!". The presenter responded: "Well if you can see them from your bedroom window, that means your house is part of the problem" Cue: silence. Hah!! NIMBYism of the highest order.

As for the water supply, studies show (I think its in the same water report by the EPA) that a significantly higher percentage of council-managed water supplies are of good quality, than privately-run schemes. Just saying, a lot of people moan about tap water but when you put it down to a blind taste test, they can't tell the difference (not saying this is the case with you)

Ah yes the invisible guiding magical hand of the market. It has been proven time and time again that the laissez-faire market mechanism does not work as perfectly as people like to think. Ireland and the US are two countries with more extreme versions of this economic system and look at both of our environmental records. Now look at Scandanavia, where they have a more interventionist, regulatory approach. Better environmental records all around.

Bottom line: humans are not robots and don't always act in their own self interest and the concept of having perfect information rarely exists in the real world. I'm not saying the market is all bad. It is vital and I'm all for it but I believe that we control the market, the market does not control us.

lostinsuperfunk

I'm not a fan of the one-off houses myself but there is no reason why they should negatively impact water quality. All that is needed is a rigorous programme of building inspections for new septic tanks and inspections of existing tanks, combined with enforcement of regulations and big penalties for non-compliance. Countries like France can manage this, there is no reason why we can't do it here.

Water charges also shouldn't really be necessary here. In Ireland, we have plenty of rainfall to recharge groundwater and refill reservoirs (with the possible exception of the Dublin region). Charging might be useful to prevent wastage, i.e. give everyone a generous free water allowance, then charge heavily for exceeding it, but I would be wary about introducing such a regime as it would in time become a target for revenue generation. When it comes to water resources, Australia is in serious trouble, you'd be a lot better off staying here

Apartment living, Irish style, has loads of associated environmental problems, some of them mentioned above. The necessity of using a tumble drier because of clotheslines being disallowed is just one of them.

Húrin

CJhaughey wrote: »

A recent article in the Guardian has more than a ring of truth about it.
I have personally come across many of the type of behaviours written about, and although I would consider myself to be environmentally aware the type of language used in many green circles makes me uncomfortable.
has anyone else had experience with this?

Mr Haughey, meet Brendan O'Neill. Every article that Mr O'Neill has written in the last three years is like this, and on the same topic. And he's still no closer to making a persuasive argument.

Pgibson

taconnol wrote: »

Do you (or anyone else) think that it will be solely a technological solution that changes it or behaviour modification as well?
..

Has to be technological primarily.

The plan the Americans are most probably about to announce involves transforming an area larger than Ireland into one large solar collector.
(All Ireland= 32,000 square miles. Plan= 40,000 square miles of the USA.)

The Sahara and other places are even better suited for this.

Ironically oil rich Sauidi Arabia has one of the best places,the "Rub al Khali" ,the "Empty Quarter".
The Rub al Khali is one of the hottest,driest,sunniest,most god-forsaken and inhospitable places on the planet.
Perfect for solar power generation.

.

Macha

lostinsuperfunk wrote: »

I'm not a fan of the one-off houses myself but there is no reason why they should negatively impact water quality. All that is needed is a rigorous programme of building inspections for new septic tanks and inspections of existing tanks, combined with enforcement of regulations and big penalties for non-compliance. Countries like France can manage this, there is no reason why we can't do it here.

Well, a large part of the problem is mr X winging & complaining that he doesn't get permission for his one-off house because the soil is unsuitable for a septic tank. A bit of wrangling with the council & ta-daa! permission is granted. Basically, if the ground is unsuitable, the septic tanks have to be built above ground. So yes, I agree that this problem is avoidable.

And yes you're right, we need an inspection system for septic tanks. I mean your car gets an NCT every 3(?) years but you never have to look at your tank. People use those "kills 99.9% of all known bacteria" when cleaning & destroy the bacteria in the tank, hook up their washing machines so that a flood of water goes through too fast...These are things that can be avoided.

lostinsuperfunk wrote: »

Water charges also shouldn't really be necessary here. In Ireland, we have plenty of rainfall to recharge groundwater and refill reservoirs (with the possible exception of the Dublin region). Charging might be useful to prevent wastage, i.e. give everyone a generous free water allowance, then charge heavily for exceeding it, but I would be wary about introducing such a regime as it would in time become a target for revenue generation. When it comes to water resources, Australia is in serious trouble, you'd be a lot better off staying here

I support water charges for the same reason I support electricity charges. I'm not paying for someone else who wastes it. Plus Ireland has a lot of water resources but they are all in the West and most of us live..in the East. I agree with your idea of a flat rate & then steep increases once you get into silly territory. And yes, Australia is screwed!! They have seriously low agricultural activity, have destroyed their fisheries and have to get most of their food imported. I wouldn't want to be living there in 20 years time.

lostinsuperfunk wrote: »

Apartment living, Irish style, has loads of associated environmental problems, some of them mentioned above. The necessity of using a tumble drier because of clotheslines being disallowed is just one of them.

What do you mean about apartment living, Irish style? Do you mean problems that result from the way in which we have built ours (eg small) and/or laws, like the one you just mentioned (that I'd never heard of..)?

Pgibson wrote: »

Has to be technological primarily.

The plan the Americans are most probably about to announce involves transforming an area larger than Ireland into one large solar collector.
(All Ireland= 32,000 square miles. Plan= 40,000 square miles of the USA.)

Yes. And we must also look at increasing efficiencies, in every area we can.

Pgibson

taconnol wrote: »

Yes. And we must also look at increasing efficiencies, in every area we can.

That WOULD be nice. But people just don't.

If you fly in over Dublin at night the view of the energy wastage is staggering.

Glaring advertising lights left on until dawn so that the rats crawling out of the River Liffey can admire them at 4am.

The Dept. of the Environment Headquarters ablaze with floodlights all night long.
The riff-raff inside that building lecture us about wasting energy.

Every single publicly owned building I have seen is now floodlight all night long.

(Floodlights were invented to pick out enemy aircraft during the 1930s. Nowadays they merely waste energy.)

Have you seen the new Eircom Headquarters?
It lights up the night sky for miles in every direction while the riff-raff who run Eircom claim it is "Eco-friendly."

The "Green Goblins" who themselves waste energy at prodigious rates are too tiny minded and "local" minded to see that this is a global problem of gargantuan proportions.

.

SeanW

Well, it's been revealed not so long ago that Al Gore's family has a "carbon footprint" 20 (that's right twenty) times the U.S. national average. Like when he was making a speech and left his Lincoln Towncar idling out front for 20 minutes.

Some greens openly admit they are on the side of illiberalism. George Monbiot describes environmentalism as "a campaign not for more freedom but for less".

I've always known the George Monbiot is a twat. He posted some lame ass rant on his blog or something a few years ago, where he basically painted the owners of biofuel powered vehicles as "rich Western drivers snatching food from the hungry mouths of starving African children." An analysis which I recall tearing to shreds here at the time. He holds a similar view on nuclear energy. So when you discount two key planks in a coherent anti-global warming strategy and take no account of possible new technologies, it only goes to follow that you have to severly curtail peoples freedoms and/or induce a global economic collapse to achieve the staggering CO2 reduction figures Mr. Monbiot wants. (90% by 2020 in the UK, IIRC)

Thanks, but no thanks.

When advocating nuclear energy on these forums, as many know me for doing, I frequently refer to a positon taken by the left-wing SPD coalition party. They insist on a phase out of German nuclear energy by 2020, all to be replaced by an insane Coal plant bonanza. The result of this will be a massive increase in carbon dioxide emissions, mercury, arsenic and radiotoxins, and the increased acid rain compounds will no doubt add a few million to Norways NOK100,000,000 ANNUAL lake and river lime treatment bill.
I view this kind of policy making to be irresponsible in the extreme.
Yet when it comes to transport, the SPD wants to impose speed limits on Germany's legendary unlimited speed (and very safe I might add) Autobahn network, about half of which doesn't have any at the moment.

Given that these positions are logically irreconcilable, one could make the case that they just want to impose an authoritarian stance on Germans. On the road, with a 130kph speed limit, and at the power outlet ("remember we're using filthy fossil fuels so don't waste electricity").

If I were a German, I'd be telling the SPD to piss off, but we have our own paralell in Ireland, with Dan Boyle looking to slap 80km limits nationwide and maybe be generous and allow us to drive 100kph on the few bits of motorway here and there that his buddies didn't stop us from building.
And of course our own Greens are showing no leadership in the electricity side of things either.

djpbarry

taconnol wrote: »

Do you (or anyone else) think that it will be solely a technological solution that changes it or behaviour modification as well?

I think it will have to be both – no point increasing efficiency if people are just going to become even more wasteful as a result.

auerillo wrote: »

…not many people in China or India or the USA or Brazil and so on pay much heed to Ireland’s carbon status…

I couldn’t disagree more. If Ireland became carbon neutral tomorrow, people the world over would know about it.

Pgibson

SeanW wrote: »

Well, it's been revealed not so long ago that Al Gore's family has a "carbon footprint" 20 (that's right twenty) times the U.S. national average..

That statement is just PATHETIC.

Do you expect him to SWIM around the world giving the message about Global Warming?

You sound like one of those smokers whinging about THEIR freedoms when we civilised people booted them out of our pubs so that we could enjoy OUR FREEDOM to breathe non-poisoned air.

GROW UP.

.

djpbarry

Pgibson wrote: »

That statement is just PATHETIC.

Do you expect him to SWIM around the world giving the message about Global Warming?

It is not at all pathetic to expect him to practice what he preaches.

Pgibson

djpbarry wrote: »

It is not at all pathetic to expect him to practice what he preaches.

In other words ...Stay at home Al Gore,live in a cave eating lintels, and don't be heard.

Equally PATHETIC.

.

Macha

djpbarry wrote: »

It is not at all pathetic to expect him to practice what he preaches.

But at the same time, if by flying around the world and giving speeches, he can foment some sort of change on a national level, surely that is worth it? I'm only referring to the travel, etc not to the house/cars etc!

Also, arguments like this get away from the point at hand. I always say, a cause cannot choose its followers. Hitler was a vegetarian - does that make vegetarianism inherently evil? No. It was like the argument about Glen of the Downs & everyone rabbiting on about the people there & they were all forners & unemployed. People who attack an idea/theory/movement/cause on the basis of its followers clearly don't want to discuss the issue itself and discredit themselves in my eyes.

SeanW

Pgibson wrote: »

In other words ...Stay at home Al Gore,live in a cave eating lintels, and don't be heard.

Is that what he preaches?

I notice you didn't address the rest of my post.

Pgibson

SeanW wrote: »

Is that what he preaches?

I notice you didn't address the rest of my post.

Read it.

Feeble Right Wing political ranting blaming BAD LEFTIES for all the world's troubles.

Lame stuff we all heard a million times before.

"That Red Traffic Light is Curtailing my Freedom to Drive where I like."

Yawn.

.

djpbarry

Pgibson wrote: »

In other words ...Stay at home Al Gore,live in a cave eating lintels, and don't be heard.

:rolleyes:

I could have sworn he was talking about the whole global-warming-climate-changing-ice-melting-storm-brewing thingymabob, no? I don’t recall him saying much about the benefits of cave-dwelling?

Pgibson wrote: »

Equally PATHETIC.

Not as pathetic as your debating skills.

taconnol wrote: »

I'm only referring to the travel, etc not to the house/cars etc!

It is the latter I am referring to. It is somewhat hypocritical of him to draw attention to the problem of carbon dioxide emissions when he is needlessly contributing far more to the problem than the average person.

taconnol wrote: »

Hitler was a vegetarian - does that make vegetarianism inherently evil?

Yes; in some extreme cases, it can lead to genocide.

Macha

djpbarry wrote: »

It is the latter I am referring to. It is somewhat hypocritical of him to draw attention to the problem of carbon dioxide emissions when he is needlessly contributing far more to the problem than the average person.

Well of course any sane person would have to agree with you there. Him getting the Nobel prize was a bit of a joke.

djpbarry wrote: »

Yes; in some extreme cases, it can lead to genocide.

Well, yes, I suppose you're right! LOL. I wonder what Mugabe eats for breakfast?

djpbarry

taconnol wrote: »

I wonder what Mugabe eats for breakfast?

White babies.

SeanW

Pgibson wrote: »

Feeble .... Lame
"That Red Traffic Light is Curtailing my Freedom to Drive where I like."

???

With all due respect, the only thing feeble and lame here is your rebuttal. I never said changes to peoples behaviour were not necessary. I simply question whether the environmental-left relies too heavily on the extreme level of such changes, and whether the environmental-left's own policies are part of the problem, not the solution. I asserted that based on the policies of the Irish Green Party, German SPD, etc, that one might be lead to believe the environmental-left was more interested in telling people what to do than fixing environmental problems. I never actually said that was the case - that would delve into conspiracy and be difficult to prove. That they're genuine but misguided is a more plausible explanation.

If you can only respond by calling my post pathetic and misdirecting the debate by bringing in references to smoking in pubs and driving through red lights (I oppose both) then you should be asking if your own stance is logically defensible - as should anyone reading your 'contributions.'

oscarBravo

taconnol wrote: »

60% of our groundwater is polluted. Reasons given?

1)agricultural run-off and
2)municipal discharges (ie septic tanks)

Um. To me, the phrase "municipal discharge" indicates the outflow from a municipal waste-water treatment plant, not from septic tanks. I'm open to correction on that.

I note also that the linked report indicates that agricultural run-off is the biggest problem.

Macha

Well municipal in this sense meanse "household". A bit like municipal waste, except in this feckin country we mess all the stats up by adding in other stuff. But that's another story. But yes it does include sources other than septic tanks. Sorry I meant to put EG not IE.Yes agricultural waste is the biggest problem and municipal waste comes in a close second. It also speaks volumes that those two factors were highlighted in the report.

It has been estimated that there are over 500,000 septic tanks in Ireland. Now how many of those do you think are regularly maintained? I have no idea but a friend of mine is doing his disseration on it now as we speak. But I would imagine that aside from the septic tanks that have just been fecked into unsuitable soils, or have been mis-installed there are many, many tanks that are never looked at from one end of the year to the other.

Pgibson

SeanW wrote: »

???
the environmental-left .'

What is this "Environmental-Left" phenomenon?

It sounds like something out of the Cold War.

This is a global technical problem that has to be solved.

If Gore jets around the world trying to warn people about it
that's fair enough.(Perhaps he can't swim fast enough).

Even those who disagree with him would agree that jibing about his,or his family's, "Personal Carbon Footprint" is just plain silly.(He who hath no sin cast the first stone etc..)

Measuring "My Personal Carbon Footprint" is just a Green Joke anyway.
Like "Going to Confessions" it probably makes some people feel good.


Anyway,"Ireland Inc." is just an insignificant minnow in this problem which can only be solved by massive governmental led technological innovations spanning all continents.

Much like a new internationally funded "Moon Race".

.

djpbarry

Pgibson wrote: »

If Gore jets around the world trying to warn people about it
that's fair enough.(Perhaps he can't swim fast enough).

Even those who disagree with him would agree that jibing about his,or his family's, "Personal Carbon Footprint" is just plain silly.(He who hath no sin cast the first stone etc..)

Measuring "My Personal Carbon Footprint" is just a Green Joke anyway.
Like "Going to Confessions" it probably makes some people feel good.

So presumably, you'd be perfectly ok with everyone else on the planet following Gore's example and living the same sort of lifestyle he does, complete with massive carbon emissions?

Pgibson

djpbarry wrote: »

So presumably, you'd be perfectly ok with everyone else on the planet following Gore's example and living the same sort of lifestyle he does, complete with massive carbon emissions?

Criticizing Gore for his carbon emissions while he jets around the world warning about carbon emissions comes under one headline:

SHOOT THE MESSENGER.

Grow Up.

djpbarry

Pgibson wrote: »

Criticizing Gore for his carbon emissions while he jets around the world warning about carbon emissions comes under one headline:

SHOOT THE MESSENGER.

:rolleyes:

Actually, I was referring to his rather large house. But, come to think of it, is it really necessary for him to be jet-setting around the world?

Pgibson

djpbarry wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Actually, I was referring to his rather large house. But, come to think of it, is it really necessary for him to be jet-setting around the world?

It probably is,if he wants to get his message across.

Ask any American Presidential Candidate about the importance of standing in front of REAL people.

"Family Carbon Footprints" are a daft concept anyway.

Rich people have lived in big houses for thousands of years.

Of the hundreds of thousands of rich families in the USA to pick on and personalize it is ironic that it is the "conservation guru" Gore's family who are picked on.

"Take aim at the messenger".

(Wonder what the Kennedy family's "Carbon Footprint" is?
Or the Pope's?)

.

djpbarry

Pgibson wrote: »

Of the hundreds of thousands of rich families in the USA to pick on and personalize it is ironic that it is the "conservation guru" Gore's family who are picked on.

Well that's precisely the point, isn't it - he's not much of a "conservation guru" at all, is he?

You didn't answer my earlier question:

djpbarry wrote: »

So presumably, you'd be perfectly ok with everyone else on the planet following Gore's example and living the same sort of lifestyle he does, complete with massive carbon emissions?

Pgibson

djpbarry wrote: »

Well that's precisely the point, isn't it - he's not much of a "conservation guru" at all, is he?

You didn't answer my earlier question:

What you are really saying is "Gore should live like a Pauper so no one can hear him?".

Gore has the POWER to be heard precisely because he is rich.

I answered you when I said "Grow Up."

.

djpbarry

Pgibson wrote: »

Gore has the POWER to be heard precisely because he is rich.

Oh, I see; Gore can do whatever the hell he wants because he's rich? Presumably, the same applies to other rich people? So everyone has to reduce carbon emissions, as per Gore's advice, except the rich people?

Macha

Lads seriously...?

Pgibson

djpbarry wrote: »

Oh, I see; Gore can do whatever the hell he wants because he's rich?

Bullseye.

You got it in one djpbarry !

You've grown up.

"The rich are different".....................F.Scott Fitzgerald.

"Yes,they have more money"...........Ernest Hemmingway.


.

SeanW

Pgibson wrote: »

Bullseye.

You got it in one djpbarry !

You've grown up.

"The rich are different".....................F.Scott Fitzgerald.

"Yes,they have more money"...........Ernest Hemmingway.

And you called ME right wing ...

Húrin

auerillo wrote: »

The other problem, the elephant in the room, is population control. The real problem is overpopulation, and while that is politically incorrect to mention, I think its unlikely we will stop emissions increasing ( whatever about reversing them) until we tackle overpopulation and, particularly, the massive increase in population expected by 2050.

No, the real problem is economic growth. Until we stop economic growth we can never survive sustainably. I agree however that stopping economic growth is much easier if we also stop population growth. But there is no mistaking that economic growth is the bigger problem.

Climate change has been created by the west because of its relentless march towards ever greater economic growth over the past 200 years.

Húrin

Húrin wrote: »

No, the real problem is economic growth. Until we stop economic growth we can never survive sustainably. I agree however that stopping economic growth is much easier if we also stop population growth. But there is no mistaking that economic growth is the bigger problem.

Climate change has been created by the west because of its relentless march towards ever greater economic growth over the past 200 years.

Economic growth is still attainable through technological advances that increase efficiency. However endless population growth will no doubt eat up all of the earths resources. If some population models are correct then populations level off as nations advance econmically. A good example of an exception to this model would be Saudi Arabia. A wealthy nation but with an increasing population. Im no expert on Saudi Arabia but believe there is a larger gap between rich and poor than compared with the West. Does anyone know the facts re this?