Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Greens enemies of liberty

13»

Comments

  • #102
    auerillo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭auerillo


    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.

    AS long as there are people on this planet, they will virtually all want the same thing - and that is an improved standard of living. Bigger houses, better cars, better food, more leisure time, better entertainment and so on. I am not sure who the "we" is you refer to who should stop economic growth, but I just don't see it happening.

    Virtually every human activity has a carbon footprint, either it is eating meat, copulating or turning on the electric lights or keeping food fresh in a fridge to drinking water. It's not just us in the wicked west who leave a carbon footprint, and the expected increase in the population by 3 billion by 2050 will have a huge impact.


  • #103
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    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.

    On the other hand, the sheer amount of loss and waste in our industry, transport, transmission, and lifestyles strongly suggests that we have a lot of room for carbon-neutral growth.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #104
    Húrin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    Deleted User wrote: »
    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.
    Endless population growth is impossible. Endless economic growth is also impossible because the limit to efficiency improvement is well before infinity. In many technologies (e.g. hydroelectricity) we have already attained the most efficiency permitted by the laws of physics.

    Also, increasing efficiency does not result in less resource consumption. People just use the spare cash that's been freed up to consume some extra stuff. For example energy saving heating systems have been abused to construct a rake of glass-fronted buildings all over the world.

    Ryanair boasts about the fact that its aircraft have some of the most efficient engines in the world, but this simply affords them to operate more flights than anyone else.
    auerillo wrote: »
    AS long as there are people on this planet, they will virtually all want the same thing - and that is an improved standard of living. Bigger houses, better cars, better food, more leisure time, better entertainment and so on. I am not sure who the "we" is you refer to who should stop economic growth, but I just don't see it happening.
    Contraction and convergence. Carbon rationing. There are a number of available models. But strong political leadership is lacking.

    Just because everyone wants a car (not that they do) doesn't mean that everyone will or should get one.

    The problem is also cultural, and yes there is a lack of recognition in the west that we've reached the metaphorical promised land in terms of material consumption. But there is a growing awareness that further increases in consumption will not make us any happier.
    Virtually every human activity has a carbon footprint, either it is eating meat, copulating or turning on the electric lights or keeping food fresh in a fridge to drinking water. It's not just us in the wicked west who leave a carbon footprint, and the expected increase in the population by 3 billion by 2050 will have a huge impact.
    It will mostly be in the countries with the lowest carbon footprints that this pop growth will occur. If the west manages to reduce its consumption and briskly roll out the necessary technologies, this population growth's impact could be offset.
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    On the other hand, the sheer amount of loss and waste in our industry, transport, transmission, and lifestyles strongly suggests that we have a lot of room for carbon-neutral growth.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    For you and all the others waving the magical wand of technology, remember that it typically takes decades for new technologies to replace old ones all over the world. Remember also that we, as a species, have eight years to peak our CO2 emissions before we seriously risk climate freefall.

    The consequences of runaway climate change would be severe.


  • #105
    Húrin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    On the other hand, the sheer amount of loss and waste in our industry, transport, transmission, and lifestyles strongly suggests that we have a lot of room for carbon-neutral growth.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw
    OK, let's take an example. How would you advise on the 'sustainable growth' of air travel?


  • #106
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Húrin wrote: »
    On the other hand, the sheer amount of loss and waste in our industry, transport, transmission, and lifestyles strongly suggests that we have a lot of room for carbon-neutral growth.
    OK, let's take an example. How would you advise on the 'sustainable growth' of air travel?

    Most air travel is wasteful. A lot of it could be replaced by slower travel or technologies like video-conferencing.

    There are a lot of specific examples of this type one can choose, and ask how we can keep doing whatever it is. In some cases the answer is going to be "we can't - or at least not without making greater savings elsewhere".

    Does that mean that the only option is 'contraction and convergence'? Obviously not. C&C is an option - population reduction is another (specifically in the high-footprint countries).
    H&#250 wrote: »
    For you and all the others waving the magical wand of technology, remember that it typically takes decades for new technologies to replace old ones all over the world. Remember also that we, as a species, have eight years to peak our CO2 emissions before we seriously risk climate freefall.

    Yes, but then...
    H&#250 wrote: »
    If the west manages to reduce its consumption and briskly roll out the necessary technologies, this population growth's impact could be offset.

    ...are you not also waving the magical wand of technology?

    We are wasteful - maybe 20-30% or more of what we "use" is just being thrown away (in addition to inherently wasteful methods like air travel). And we have a mechanism already for punishing such waste - pricing.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #107
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    auerillo wrote: »
    ...the expected increase in the population by 3 billion by 2050 will have a huge impact.
    Impact on what?
    Húrin wrote: »
    In many technologies (e.g. hydroelectricity) we have already attained the most efficiency permitted by the laws of physics.
    Hydroelectric generation is 100% efficient? Really?


  • #108
    auerillo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭auerillo


    The IPCC is often thought of as consisting of 2500 of the world's leading scientists. Further , it is often thought that they are there to impartially weigh up al the evidence and give a balanced and impartial view, as expressed in their various reports. The truth is a little different.

    In fact, the IPCC is as much a political organisition and it accepts, without question, that global warming is happening, and is all mans fault. it is not an impartial body looking for evidence, but a biased body looking to conceal any evidence to the contrary. Of the 53 contributors to chapter 9 of their latest report, 37 belong to a network of academics, many of whose careers are dependant on actively promoting the official line. Additionally, their reports are written by a small group and some governments are allowed to have a serious input into the text before publication.

    We only have to consider the by now infamous hockey stick graph which they produced and which attempted to conceal the inconvenient fact that the world was much hotter about 1000 years ago than it is today. .

    The only "evidence" that have offered that the world will get warmer and warmer comes from their own computer models, which are at best guesses and which have already been shown to be hopelessly muddled & biased.

    There is a considerable body of scientists who have asked awkward questions of the IPCC, (for example how come their predictions, based on their computer models, have got it so wrong so far, and how can we put any faith in their computer modelling, when it is the same information which has got it so wrong, on which they are still relying).

    Roger Cohen, (a senior US scientist who used to be involved with the IPCC) says he is "appalled at how flimsy the case is. I was also appalled at the behaviour of many of those who helped produce the IPCC reports and by many of those who promote it. In particular I am referring to the arrogance, the activities aimed at shutting down debate; the outright fabrications; the mindless defence of bogus science; and the politicisation of the IPCC process and the science process itself."

    Indeed there is a growing consensus in the scientific community that the IPCC is pre-programmed to produce reports to support the hypotheses of anthropogenic warming and the control of greenhouse gases. Of course there will still be those who think it is almost akin to blasphemy to question anything the IPCC does or says, but the evidence is growing that they have based their whole argument on flimsy science, they have ignored and hidden any science which disagrees with them, and their predictions, so far, have been the opposite of that which their computer models predicted. More and more scientists, and other interested parties, are becoming increasingly embarrassed to align themselves with the IPCC.


  • #109
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    auerillo wrote: »
    In fact, the IPCC is as much a political organisition and it accepts, without question, that global warming is happening, and is all mans fault.
    No, they don’t. This is the position of the IPCC according to their latest report:
    • Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
    • Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.
    • The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.
    auerillo wrote: »
    it is not an impartial body looking for evidence, but a biased body looking to conceal any evidence to the contrary.
    Really? You have some “evidence to the contrary” that the IPCC is overlooking, do you?
    auerillo wrote: »
    Of the 53 contributors to chapter 9 of their latest report, 37 belong to a network of academics, many of whose careers are dependant on actively promoting the official line.
    Dependent in what way?
    auerillo wrote: »
    We only have to consider the by now infamous hockey stick graph which they produced and which attempted to conceal the inconvenient fact that the world was much hotter about 1000 years ago than it is today. .
    Nobody’s concealing anything – Mann’s graph has been more-or-less reproduced by several other researchers:
    http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
    auerillo wrote: »
    The only "evidence" that have offered that the world will get warmer and warmer comes from their own computer models, which are at best guesses and which have already been shown to be hopelessly muddled & biased.
    Perhaps you could demonstrate the “hopelessly muddled and biased” nature of these computer models?
    auerillo wrote: »
    There is a considerable body of scientists who have asked awkward questions of the IPCC, (for example how come their predictions, based on their computer models, have got it so wrong so far, and how can we put any faith in their computer modelling, when it is the same information which has got it so wrong, on which they are still relying).
    Who are these scientists and what are their “awkward questions”? Also, can you show that the IPCC’s predictions “have got it so wrong”?
    auerillo wrote: »
    Roger Cohen, (a senior US scientist who used to be involved with the IPCC)...
    I can't find much on this guy's background, but...
    Roger Cohen wrote:
    I have been involved in climate change for nearly 30 years. In 1980, a few of us in the research organization of a large multinational energy corporation realized that the climate issue was likely to affect our future business environment.
    So academics are biased but this guy is not?
    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/commentaries/Roger_Cohen-On_IPCCs_view_of_AGW.pdf
    auerillo wrote: »
    ...the evidence is growing that they have based their whole argument on flimsy science, they have ignored and hidden any science which disagrees with them, and their predictions, so far, have been the opposite of that which their computer models predicted.
    Evidence?
    auerillo wrote: »
    More and more scientists, and other interested parties, are becoming increasingly embarrassed to align themselves with the IPCC.
    Can you provide examples of these scientists?


  • #110
    auerillo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭auerillo


    djpbarry wrote: »
    No, they don’t. This is the position of the IPCC according to their latest report:
    • Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
    • Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.
    • The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.
    Really? You have some “evidence to the contrary” that the IPCC is overlooking, do you?
    Dependent in what way?
    Nobody’s concealing anything – Mann’s graph has been more-or-less reproduced by several other researchers:
    http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
    Perhaps you could demonstrate the “hopelessly muddled and biased” nature of these computer models?
    Who are these scientists and what are their “awkward questions”? Also, can you show that the IPCC’s predictions “have got it so wrong”?
    I can't find much on this guy's background, but...
    So academics are biased but this guy is not?
    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/commentaries/Roger_Cohen-On_IPCCs_view_of_AGW.pdf
    Evidence?
    Can you provide examples of these scientists?

    It's kind of you to have read my post, although it seems obvious that you seem to have read it with an agenda to proving me "wrong".

    I am not saying the IPCC will not be proven right eventually, or that they are necessarily wrong, but I am making the point that their predictions to date have not come true (the opposite of what they had predicted has happened).

    Given that track record, many scientists are less sure than they were about the credibility of the IPCC, and are less sure about the quality of their computer modelling. Further, when they look at how they operate, it is not quite what they lead us to believe insofar, for example, that it is independant work of 2500 scientists.

    If your argument is that the IPCC computer prediction have got it right over the past 10 years, then make that argument.

    If your argument is that I am wrong and more and more scientists are coming around to agree with the IPCC, then make that argument too.

    It is sad to note that your reply is hostile in a similar way that many believers in the theory are critical of anyone who produces evidence which does not support them. Rather than engage and discuss, you seem to prefer to poo poo and rubbish.


  • #111
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    auerillo wrote: »
    I am not saying the IPCC will not be proven right eventually, or that they are necessarily wrong, but I am making the point that their predictions to date have not come true (the opposite of what they had predicted has happened).
    Prove it; back up your argument with some evidence.
    auerillo wrote: »
    Given that track record, many scientists are less sure than they were about the credibility of the IPCC, and are less sure about the quality of their computer modelling.
    Just because the IPCC has its critics (as any organisation does), it does not mean that their findings are not based on sound research (all of which is clearly cited in the reports).
    auerillo wrote: »
    Further, when they look at how they operate, it is not quite what they lead us to believe insofar, for example, that it is independant work of 2500 scientists.
    I don’t know what you mean.
    auerillo wrote: »
    If your argument is that the IPCC computer prediction have got it right over the past 10 years, then make that argument.
    It’s been pretty accurate, yes. Here is an analysis of the predictions from Prof. Roger Pielke of the University of Colorado.
    auerillo wrote: »
    If your argument is that I am wrong and more and more scientists are coming around to agree with the IPCC, then make that argument too.
    I’m asking you to provide some evidence that scientists are distancing themselves from the IPCC; I’m guessing you can’t?
    auerillo wrote: »
    Rather than engage and discuss, you seem to prefer to poo poo and rubbish.
    Eh, I AM engaging and I AM attempting to discuss your arguments. You’re the one who does not seem to be willing to engage; you’re avoiding questions on the specifics.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    bonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Húrin wrote: »
    Endless population growth is impossible. Endless economic growth is also impossible because the limit to efficiency improvement is well before infinity.

    Indeed.

    By this line of reasoning, however, one must also concede that endless survival of the species is also impossible and so we must conclude that no matter what we do, mankind is doomed.


  • #113
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    bonkey wrote: »
    Indeed.

    By this line of reasoning, however, one must also concede that endless survival of the species is also impossible and so we must conclude that no matter what we do, mankind is doomed.

    That's crazy logic. How did we survive for thousands of years without "economic growth" and the incredible rates of population growth that we have seen since the beginning of the 20th century?

    What is needed is sustainable development, that is just what it says on the tin. Development that does not take away the ability of future generations to meet their own needs and treats social, environmental and economic issues equally (not putting economic issues over everything else, as is the case today).

    There also needs to be an acceptance that what we have now in the "West" is not sustainable, nor is it entirely desirable. In other words, we cannot continue on as we have done for the past 20 years (or longer). Unfortunately, people just don't get that. They have short memories & fail to realise that the lifestyle we "enjoy" at the moment, is not the norm, and is inherently unsustainable as it relies on barrels and barrels and barrels (and barrels) of oil.

    Just take our food system for example. A farmer plants corn seeds, using a tractor (oil), spreads pesticides (oil). Then collects the crop using a harvester (oil), sends the corn off to a warehouse (more oil-based transportation). The grain is then processed using machinery (more oil) and then shipped off (more oil!) to regional distributers. It is then packaged (oil-derived plastics, normally) and then sent (oil) to the supermarket to be put on display in a supermarket, the heating and lighting and electrics system of which is entirely based on oil. Then we get in our cars (more oil), buy the corn, bring it home, and use more oil or gas either by heating up the kettle/oven/stove to cook it!!

    I haven't even started talking about the disposal of the packaging, the oil used by the workers to get to the supermarket, processing plant and distribution centre. This.is.insane.


  • #114
    Húrin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Most air travel is wasteful. A lot of it could be replaced by slower travel or technologies like video-conferencing.

    There are a lot of specific examples of this type one can choose, and ask how we can keep doing whatever it is. In some cases the answer is going to be "we can't - or at least not without making greater savings elsewhere".
    But greater economic growth surely means more travelling, yes? And most people want to travel as fast as technology allows, hence the growth in flights.
    Does that mean that the only option is 'contraction and convergence'? Obviously not. C&C is an option - population reduction is another (specifically in the high-footprint countries).
    C and C wasn't the only choice i mentioned. I think that reducing economic growth to nil is more achievable than significantly reducing the population of the world (and remember it's not just the west we're talking about here) within the necessary time frame.

    Yes, but then...

    ...are you not also waving the magical wand of technology?
    No, I'm demonstrating that I think new technology does have a part to play. But it must be realistic, which many people are not when discussing techno-fixes to climate change.
    We are wasteful - maybe 20-30% or more of what we "use" is just being thrown away (in addition to inherently wasteful methods like air travel). And we have a mechanism already for punishing such waste - pricing.
    But more economic growth means that more people can afford to pay the price of polluting. The problem with a lot of things is not that they're thrown away, but that they're made in the first place. Have you noticed that carbon emissions are soaring in spite of the increased availibility of "green products"? That's because these have created a parallel market without making much of a dent in sales of their less ecological counterparts.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Impact on what?
    Hydroelectric generation is 100% efficient? Really?
    Yes, in a sense. The maximum amount of electrical energy you can get out of a water turbine is 50% of the kinetic energy invloved. In most hydro stations they're getting 45%-49% of it. Not much room for improvement.
    auerillo wrote: »
    In fact, the IPCC is as much a political organisition and it accepts, without question, that global warming is happening, and is all mans fault. it is not an impartial body looking for evidence, but a biased body looking to conceal any evidence to the contrary. Of the 53 contributors to chapter 9 of their latest report, 37 belong to a network of academics, many of whose careers are dependant on actively promoting the official line. Additionally, their reports are written by a small group and some governments are allowed to have a serious input into the text before publication.

    Oh yeah and by the way the moon landing was faked, and 9/11 was an inside job. :rolleyes:


  • #115
    auerillo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭auerillo


    taconnol wrote: »
    That's crazy logic. How did we survive for thousands of years without "economic growth" and the incredible rates of population growth that we have seen since the beginning of the 20th century?

    What is needed is sustainable development, that is just what it says on the tin. Development that does not take away the ability of future generations to meet their own needs and treats social, environmental and economic issues equally (not putting economic issues over everything else, as is the case today).

    There also needs to be an acceptance that what we have now in the "West" is not sustainable, nor is it entirely desirable. In other words, we cannot continue on as we have done for the past 20 years (or longer). Unfortunately, people just don't get that. They have short memories & fail to realise that the lifestyle we "enjoy" at the moment, is not the norm, and is inherently unsustainable as it relies on barrels and barrels and barrels (and barrels) of oil.

    Just take our food system for example. A farmer plants corn seeds, using a tractor (oil), spreads pesticides (oil). Then collects the crop using a harvester (oil), sends the corn off to a warehouse (more oil-based transportation). The grain is then processed using machinery (more oil) and then shipped off (more oil!) to regional distributers. It is then packaged (oil-derived plastics, normally) and then sent (oil) to the supermarket to be put on display in a supermarket, the heating and lighting and electrics system of which is entirely based on oil. Then we get in our cars (more oil), buy the corn, bring it home, and use more oil or gas either by heating up the kettle/oven/stove to cook it!!

    I haven't even started talking about the disposal of the packaging, the oil used by the workers to get to the supermarket, processing plant and distribution centre. This.is.insane.

    Lol. that's one of the funniest posts I have read on this issue and appears to confirm that view that those for whom climate change belief has replaced religious belief, climate change is seen as a means of introducing socialism and draconian population control by the back door.

    It is nonsense to claim that we survived for thousand of years without economic growth. Man has always progressed and has always had the desire to progress. From living in caves and eating berries, he progressed to living is houses and eating protein. Indeed, it is this desire to better himself and his children which is the engine and why man has advanced so far, when compared to the other animals.

    AS to the
    taconnol wrote: »

    There also needs to be an acceptance that what we have now in the "West" is not sustainable, nor is it entirely desirable...Just take our food system for example.

    I think as we live in the west is entirely desirable when considered to how people live in India or Africa. That you don't is your choice, and in our free world you are entirely at liberty to choose wherever in teh world it is you want to live if you don't think it desirable to live in the west.

    As to our food system in the "west" which you seem to also despise, surely you don't have to be reminded that our food system has ensured we are the best fed we have ever been in the history of the world.

    You don't mention whether or not you think other advances, such as those in medicine, made by the "west", are a good thing or a bad thing? Why are you living in the "west" if you despise it so much?


  • #116
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    auerillo wrote: »
    Lol. that's one of the funniest posts I have read on this issue and appears to confirm that view that those for whom climate change belief has replaced religious belief, climate change is seen as a means of introducing socialism and draconian population control by the back door.
    Nice try on the strawman argument. You're going to have to brush up on your logic skills. I never said that we need to introduce socialism or draconian population control. Actually, if you look back at my previous posts, I point out that population growth is not the problem. The aim of my post was to explain how utterly dependent the current system is on oil. Well done on completely missing the point. But that's how you argue with a post, isn't it?
    auerillo wrote: »
    It is nonsense to claim that we survived for thousand of years without economic growth. Man has always progressed and has always had the desire to progress. From living in caves and eating berries, he progressed to living is houses and eating protein. Indeed, it is this desire to better himself and his children which is the engine and why man has advanced so far, when compared to the other animals.
    Ok we won't go into the historical inaccuracies here. I think you're misunderstanding what economic growth is. Economics is essentially the sharing out of a finite resource. What you're talking about is progress through inventions and innovation that has improved human's quality of life. Today, economic growth refers to increasing a country's output, with no reference to improving quality of life. As we have seen in Ireland, if you just chase the numbers and ignore everything else (is social & environmental issues), it will come back to haunt you. When I talked about economic growth earlier, I was referring to it in this sense.
    auerillo wrote: »
    I think as we live in the west is entirely desirable when considered to how people live in India or Africa. That you don't is your choice, and in our free world you are entirely at liberty to choose wherever in teh world it is you want to live if you don't think it desirable to live in the west.
    I think this is a very narrow-minded opinion. You think everyone in India & Africa is totally miserable and wants to come live in Ireland? Many do. But many don't. It must also be pointed out that it is a the current global economic system that keep us where we are, and Africa where they are.
    auerillo wrote: »
    As to our food system in the "west" which you seem to also despise, surely you don't have to be reminded that our food system has ensured we are the best fed we have ever been in the history of the world.
    Don't you get it? Our food system is unsustainable. And it comes at the expense of food in other countries. I recommend you read a book called "Stuffed and starved". There are the same amount of people living in food-poverty as there are obese. Something is rotton...

    And again, please drop the strawman thing. I didn't say I despise the West. So now you equate criticising something with despising it? :rolleyes:
    auerillo wrote: »
    You don't mention whether or not you think other advances, such as those in medicine, made by the "west", are a good thing or a bad thing? Why are you living in the "west" if you despise it so much?
    *sigh* Your radical jumps in logic that make me defend myself from something I never said are getting quite tiring. Medicine has nothing to do with what I am talking about. Technology is nothing more than power and potential. Some is good, some is bad. And no, science is not value-free, depsite the claims of many scientists.

    Unlike most people here, I have lived in the 3rd world and it wasn't the horrible-scary place that people like to think of here. Where I lived, nobody went hungry, most kids got an education and there was an extremely strong sense of community. And? People were very very happy with their lot. Those are a few things that are lacking to a greater or lesser degree in Ireland.


  • #117
    Kama
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,027 ✭✭✭Kama


    Conflating growth and progress seems evidently wrong, but delinking them entirely is a trick no one seems to have been able to pull. Energy use also seems highly correlated with growth, unsurprisingly. There's a definite question around how long this can be sustained, and if it can be in the short-term, whether this is a 'moral hazard' for the future, pushing the debt and responsibility onto our descendants.
    By this line of reasoning, however, one must also concede that endless survival of the species is also impossible and so we must conclude that no matter what we do, mankind is doomed.

    In the long run, we are all dead; the question is how long a run you want to talk about...

    'Endless' growth with a finite energy substrate does seem impossible, love to see a refutation of this which doesn't violate thermodynamics tbh, can't help thinking you hit a hard constraint limit at some point, or a 'softer' one of negative feedback from our waste output. This is the old 'are we smarter than yeast?' question beloved of Steady-State economics.

    If we want to grow endlessly, we need to get new planets (and avoid heat death somehow hehe). If we have only this one, and want to maintain our population, we need to capture more energy as continuous flows on the renewable model, rather than just continuously draw down natural capital on an extractive-mining model. Civilizations tend to collapse when they exceed available resources; its quite possible we have already done so, and a decrease in complexity and resource use will be enforced by physics rather than a ecofacist conspiracy of some kind.


  • #118
    auerillo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭auerillo


    taconnol wrote: »
    Nice try on the strawman argument. You're going to have to brush up on your logic skills....Ok we won't go into the historical inaccuracies here. I think you're misunderstanding what economic growth is...I think this is a very narrow-minded opinion. You think everyone in India & Africa is totally miserable and wants to come live in Ireland?...Don't you get it? And again, please drop the strawman thing... So now you equate criticising something with despising it? :rolleyes:...*sigh* Your radical jumps in logic...

    Its hard to discuss something when I am accused of many things which are inaccurate and untrue. How do you know, for example, what i think about many people in Africa and India? And how do you know what my connections and experience about India and Africa are? And even if I have lived in Africa and/or India for longer and more recently than you have, that doesn't necessarily make my opinion any more or less valuable than yours.

    Just because you hold a view, apparantly quite strongly, that our food system will be unsustainable in the future, doesn't mean that you are right, and anyone who holds a different view is wrong. You may well be proved right in the future, (whatever that entails), although I suspect the development of our food chain in the future will not be as dramatic as your "unsustainable" belief suggests, and suspect that it will not only be sustainable but will develop further to give us more choice and better value.


  • #119
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Your connections or experiences with Africa are irrelevant. Stop going off on tangents. Please don't be so hypocritical as to complain about being accused of things that are untrue.

    Our food system IS unsustainable. My original analogy explained quite clearly how the whole system is seriously dependent at every stage on oil. Oil is a finite source. I can't really make it more simple than that. Ah yes, so you're expecting the magical technical bullet will come along and save us. Nothing new there. God forbid WE change.

    Edit: "Better choice and value"? Is your idea of a sustainable food system is one that flies kiwis from New Zealand and Pumpkins from Peru because we're so pampered, we can't just live with seasonal food, as we did for thousands of years? Seriously, people need to stop thinking that everything that has been done in the last century is somehow inherently good. Blind faith in progress is a large part of what's wrong with this world.

    I don't consider a food system that is totally dependent on petrochemicals, encourages monocrops and thus is bad for biodiversity, uses pesticides and has a seriously negative impact on our invertebrate populations, pushes out smaller farmers, thinks nothing of flying food from half way round the world when we have perfectly good food right here and concentrates power in the hands of a few multi-nationals "good". I find it stupid and reckless that people go a long with this, all in the name of "choice and value".

    We don't realise we're paying a huge price for that kiwi, in more than just monetary terms, and is it really worth it?? Ah yes of course because its 20c cheaper!!


  • #120
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    auerillo wrote: »
    How do you know, for example, what i think about many people in Africa and India?
    You just said “I think as we live in the west is entirely desirable when considered to how people live in India or Africa.” I think that’s pretty clear.
    auerillo wrote: »
    …I suspect the development of our food chain in the future will not be as dramatic as your "unsustainable" belief suggests, and suspect that it will not only be sustainable but will develop further to give us more choice and better value.
    Is that just blind faith or is there a rational behind it?

    I also notice you ignored my last post.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Húrin wrote: »
    Most air travel is wasteful. A lot of it could be replaced by slower travel or technologies like video-conferencing.

    There are a lot of specific examples of this type one can choose, and ask how we can keep doing whatever it is. In some cases the answer is going to be "we can't - or at least not without making greater savings elsewhere".
    But greater economic growth surely means more travelling, yes? And most people want to travel as fast as technology allows, hence the growth in flights.

    So? Air travel is neither a requirement for economic growth, nor a requirement of economic growth. As such, it really doesn't constitute an argument against anything but itself.
    Húrin wrote: »
    C and C wasn't the only choice i mentioned. I think that reducing economic growth to nil is more achievable than significantly reducing the population of the world (and remember it's not just the west we're talking about here) within the necessary time frame.

    With the exception, alas, of the US most Western countries have reached steady state or declining populations quite some time ago. As other countries have become richer, and in particular as women become more educated, population growth levels off and then declines.

    Zero economic growth would probably be as hard to achieve as zero population growth - and contraction would be really difficult and slow, whereas any form of discouragement of breeding (remove child subsidies in the west, encourage female education and contraception elsewhere) would rapidly lead to population contraction, and is fast - and economic contraction automatically follows. Granted, it's not as fast as war or plague, but what is?

    Further, it's probably easier to persuade people to have fewer kids, or not to have them, than it is to persuade them to get poorer. Most people who want kids aren't aiming for a record.
    Húrin wrote: »
    No, I'm demonstrating that I think new technology does have a part to play. But it must be realistic, which many people are not when discussing techno-fixes to climate change.

    Ah - you assumed because I mentioned technology, I was claiming technology would sort out all the problems, whereas you know that you were only thinking of it as having a part to play. Let me cure you of your assumption - I don't claim there is any technical panacea, and you shouldn't jump to conclusions like that.
    Húrin wrote: »
    But more economic growth means that more people can afford to pay the price of polluting. The problem with a lot of things is not that they're thrown away, but that they're made in the first place. Have you noticed that carbon emissions are soaring in spite of the increased availibility of "green products"? That's because these have created a parallel market without making much of a dent in sales of their less ecological counterparts.

    That is because the carbon cost of the "non-green" products is not factored into their price - and people are not, therefore, paying the price of their polluting.

    Pricing can be used in any environmental context, but only if the environmental 'externalities' of all products are costed. Sadly, this is upsetting to a lot of knee-jerk 'spiritual' Greens - and of course using a market mechanism is anathema to a lot of left-wing Greens.

    If you price pollution high enough, only the rich can afford pollution. This seems unethical, but that's utterly irrelevant as long as it works.
    Húrin wrote: »
    Oh yeah and by the way the moon landing was faked, and 9/11 was an inside job. :rolleyes:

    I wouldn't worry about Auerillo. Libertarians are necessarily climate change deniers.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #122
    auerillo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭auerillo


    taconnol wrote: »
    Your connections or experiences with Africa are irrelevant. Stop going off on tangents. Please don't be so hypocritical as to complain about being accused of things that are untrue.

    I agree, which is why I madethe point as I was not sure why you were talking about having lived in the third world, as if that gave you a monopoly on having opinions regarding it.
    taconnol wrote: »

    Our food system IS unsustainable. My original analogy explained quite clearly how the whole system is seriously dependent at every stage on oil. Oil is a finite source. I can't really make it more simple than that. Ah yes, so you're expecting the magical technical bullet will come along and save us. Nothing new there. God forbid WE change.

    Of course we have to change all the time and man would not have progressed to the stage we have if we did not have the ability to change. I agree oil in a finite resource. Where we disagree is that, because oil is a finite resource, I don't think that definitely means our food system is unsustainable. It may be, or we may find another means of transport. Only time will tell.
    taconnol wrote: »

    Edit: "Better choice and value"? Is your idea of a sustainable food system is one that flies kiwis from New Zealand and Pumpkins from Peru because we're so pampered, we can't just live with seasonal food, as we did for thousands of years? Seriously, people need to stop thinking that everything that has been done in the last century is somehow inherently good. Blind faith in progress is a large part of what's wrong with this world.

    I'm with you on this one and I rarely buy food which out of season, unless its frozen, like frozen peas, for example. (My particular favourite are beans from kenya, which often cause a moral dilemma as they have lots of airmiles, but they are also going to support Kenyan farmers who need our money. I never end up buying them because i think its stupid flying beans from kenya). We have beef from Botswana and Brazil, and even at this stage 80% of the worlds cut flowers from from Kenya. Even all the oil we use has to travel large distances to get to us!

    I am a libertarian and believe that if people want to buy kiwi fruit and cut flowers and pineapples and oranges and lemons, then they should be free to do so. I think to ban anything other than local seasonal food might be boring if we were to rigidly enforce that. For instance, from where would we get the lemon for our gin and tonic? And does that mean that we could no longer export guinness made in ireland, and the locals elsewhere be made to drink only their local beer, because we have to transport guinness to, say, New Zealand, just as they export their Kiwi's to us?


  • #123
    auerillo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭auerillo


    I can't help noticing that there was no reply to my post, where I expressed surprise that taconnol was advocating that we only eat locally produced foods. In fact he seemed t be advocating that all the worlds people should only eat locally produced food and, inter alia, that food exports would then become a thing of the past. This would mean no guinness outside ireland, no more exports of kerrygold butter and so, on, and would also mean we would no longer be able to have lemon in our gin and tonics. Superficially, it may be an attractive idea, but it would also mean job losses as ireland, as a big food exporter, would be hard hit.

    I think thats the problem I have with many approaches to a "solution" for global warming. So much of it is not properly thought through or, while it si superficially attractive, is impractical or just plain wrong.

    For instance, there is a group called the "Polar Defence project" ( http://polardefenseproject.org/ ). Recently they made a big hullabaloo and organsied a publicity stunt where two individuals said they were going to kyack as far north as they could, to get as close to the north pole, to highlinght how thin the ice had become.

    Unfortunately, they ( and their diesel powered back up ship!! - you have to laugh at the irony) had to turn back due to .... the ice being too thick! Indeed they still claim the ice is getting thinner and in "rapid decline" and its all hysterical hyperbole from them. (No doubt its all good for fundraising, but that's just the way my wicked mind works!)

    In fact, as the site run by Anthony Watts http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/polar-defense-project-deletes-the-tough-questions/ points out, (a respected american meterologist), in 1922 Eskimos were canoing much further north. So much for the "Polar Defense Project" who just blithely ignore that evidence, and keep shouting louder and louder that the ice is getting thinner than ever before and catastrophe looms. CAtastrophe seemed to be averted in 1922, but thats inconvenient so they ignore it, and they still claim to have kyaked further north than anyone ever has before, even though they have been shown the evidence that that is not correct.

    Maybe there really is a problem and we are getting warmer, although the University of Alabama, which boasts one of the 4 recognised sources of temperature data, has analysed the latest NASA satellite readings and has concluded that August 2008 was the 4th month in 2008 where temperatures fell below a 30 year average ( which is when satellite recordings began).


  • #124
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    I didn't reply because I felt I had already adequately put across my points of view on the matter. You agreed with some, didn't with others, that was it.

    I didn't say people just eat ONLY Irish food. I see this as a big problem with my arguments. I say something, another person takes it to the extreme and then points out how extreme that point of view is - classic strawman argument. What I did say was that yes, people should stop eating so much imported food.

    For example, I just spent the morning picking blackberries and will be making a crumble with them later. The sugar I will be using will not even be from Europe but the flour and butter and oats well, plus of course the blackberries will be Irish. Now compare the ecological footprint of this dish, with someone who went to Tesco, bought 2 punnets of blackberries from Holland, butter, flour and oats from the UK with the same sugar. Less carbon, less packaging and more support for the local economy!

    Your are right about reduced global trading as probably being bad for the economy but the whole point of sustainable development is that we also have to consider the social and environmental effects of our actions. You've just done the usual thing of saying "Oh but its bad for the economy so don't do it". I just need to talk to a member of the government to hear that shpiel.

    And I'm female. Grr..


  • #125
    auerillo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭auerillo


    taconnol wrote: »
    I didn't reply because I felt I had already adequately put across my points of view on the matter. You agreed with some, didn't with others, that was it.

    I didn't say people just eat ONLY Irish food. I see this as a big problem with my arguments. I say something, another person takes it to the extreme and then points out how extreme that point of view is - classic strawman argument. What I did say was that yes, people should stop eating so much imported food.

    For example, I just spent the morning picking blackberries and will be making a crumble with them later. The sugar I will be using will not even be from Europe but the flour and butter and oats well, plus of course the blackberries will be Irish. Now compare the ecological footprint of this dish, with someone who went to Tesco, bought 2 punnets of blackberries from Holland, butter, flour and oats from the UK with the same sugar. Less carbon, less packaging and more support for the local economy!

    Your are right about reduced global trading as probably being bad for the economy but the whole point of sustainable development is that we also have to consider the social and environmental effects of our actions. You've just done the usual thing of saying "Oh but its bad for the economy so don't do it". I just need to talk to a member of the government to hear that shpiel.

    And I'm female. Grr..

    I'm afraid I have no idea what a strawman is. is it aa term of abuse or endearment? I suspect the former.

    It's easy to say what you don't like and how dreadful it is currently. Its more difficult to actually propose how to change it in a way which works. For me thats largely the problem with the green issues thread discussions,. in that its full of people saying how wicked and wasteful we are, but very few of them have workable sulutions.


  • #126
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    auerillo wrote: »
    I'm afraid I have no idea what a strawman is. is it aa term of abuse or endearment? I suspect the former.

    It's easy to say what you don't like and how dreadful it is currently. Its more difficult to actually propose how to change it in a way which works. For me thats largely the problem with the green issues thread discussions,. in that its full of people saying how wicked and wasteful we are, but very few of them have workable sulutions.

    Please don't add laziness to your list of attributes:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

    Workable solutions:

    -pedestrianize central sections of urban areas
    -provide parking close to these areas
    -remove on-street parking
    -double the number of locations to park bikes
    -introduce cycling lessons in transition year
    -improve orbital public transport so that it is possible to go from one suburb to another without going through the centre.
    -block off some of the superfluous exits on the M50 so that it is actually used for its original purpose: non-local traffic.
    -build properly sized apartments, that are decent sizes for families
    -provide sufficient public facilities for these apartment dwellers, for example parks, childrens play areas, sports facilities.
    -improve the road surfaces and keep the crap off the roads (ie glass swept into the cycle lanes)
    -when a new area is being developed, invest in District heating
    -make people more aware of where their food comes from
    -Educate kids, starting in schools about issues such as recycling, etc
    -change all public bins to multiple fraction bins so that more can be recycled
    -set up RVMS (reverse vending machines) that are very effective in encouraging household recycling.
    -increase the walkability of housing estates.
    -bring in an obligatory annual check for septic tanks
    -introduce a carbon tax
    -introduce water charges, starting with a very low price for initial standard amounts, but rising rapidly after that.
    -move Dublin port to Balbriggan where there are rail facitiles
    -move freight off trucks and onto rail
    -remove electricity grid obstacles to alternative sources of generation
    -re-open closed rail lines for freight and passenger trains.
    -stop spending the majority of the money earmarked in the NDP for transport on roads, instead of public transport and rail.

    Jeez that is just want comes off the top of my head.

    I just remembered another reason why I didn't reply - you pick and choose what you want to reply to and never actually address any of the points other posters make. Waste of time!


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    auerillo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭auerillo


    taconnol wrote: »
    Workable solutions:

    -pedestrianize central sections of urban areas
    -provide parking close to these areas
    -remove on-street parking
    -double the number of locations to park bikes
    -introduce cycling lessons in transition year
    -improve orbital public transport so that it is possible to go from one suburb to another without going through the centre.
    -block off some of the superfluous exits on the M50 so that it is actually used for its original purpose: non-local traffic.
    -build properly sized apartments, that are decent sizes for families
    -provide sufficient public facilities for these apartment dwellers, for example parks, childrens play areas, sports facilities.
    -improve the road surfaces and keep the crap off the roads (ie glass swept into the cycle lanes)
    -when a new area is being developed, invest in District heating
    -make people more aware of where their food comes from
    -Educate kids, starting in schools about issues such as recycling, etc
    -change all public bins to multiple fraction bins so that more can be recycled
    -set up RVMS (reverse vending machines) that are very effective in encouraging household recycling.
    -increase the walkability of housing estates.
    -bring in an obligatory annual check for septic tanks
    -introduce a carbon tax
    -introduce water charges, starting with a very low price for initial standard amounts, but rising rapidly after that.
    -move Dublin port to Balbriggan where there are rail facitiles
    -move freight off trucks and onto rail
    -remove electricity grid obstacles to alternative sources of generation
    -re-open closed rail lines for freight and passenger trains.
    -stop spending the majority of the money earmarked in the NDP for transport on roads, instead of public transport and rail.

    Jeez that is just want comes off the top of my head.

    I just remembered another reason why I didn't reply - you pick and choose what you want to reply to and never actually address any of the points other posters make. Waste of time!

    I guess I was wondering about workable solutions to the problem of global warming. You seem to have come up with a list which makes suggestions to a different problem. How will " build properly sized apartments", for example, have any bearing on global warming? A list isn't an argument.

    Have you an explanation as to why temperatures are not rising?


  • #128
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    auerillo wrote: »
    I guess I was wondering about workable solutions to the problem of global warming. You seem to have come up with a list which makes suggestions to a different problem. How will " build properly sized apartments", for example, have any bearing on global warming? A list isn't an argument.

    OK you know what? This is my last post in response to you because really, you've just betrayed your own ignorance about sustainability issues. In addition, you have, quite possibly, the worst and most annoying arguing skills of anyone in this forum. You ask for workable measures. I give you workable options, so you complain that I didn't create an argument and that none of my actions have any impact on climate change. I'm going to explain the one you pointed out:

    Properly sized apartments are a good idea and solve many problems that aren't in any way related to climate change. But just on climate change: by their very nature, apartments have fewer external walls and thus are easier to heat, reducing energy bills. There is also the element of shared heat, whereby the heat from one apartment will seep into adjacent apartments.

    Well sized apartments also remove the need that growing families feel to move to larger residences (normally less energy-efficient houses) in the suburbs. This, in turn, leads to increased private car-use. Finally, the increased density of residential areas improves the walkability of these areas and increases the viability of public transport, two factors that can reduce private car-use.

    And in dealing with the effects of climate change, apartments are better than urban sprawl because they result in less land cover conversion to impermeable surfaces.

    You need to stop looking at things in isolation and see them as connected. A solution that can address climate change can also address other issues.

    On your temperature question, I suggest you stop calling it global warming and instead, use the phrase climate change. It might help you stop simplifying the issue.


  • #129
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    auerillo wrote: »
    I can't help noticing that there was no reply to my post...
    I can't help noticing that you ignore most posts that question your own contributions.
    auerillo wrote: »
    In fact, as the site run by Anthony Watts http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/polar-defense-project-deletes-the-tough-questions/ points out, (a respected american meterologist), in 1922 Eskimos were canoing much further north.
    So some anecdotal evidence form 1922 (that's four years before the first successful expedition to The North Pole) proves that the Arctic is not currently melting?
    auerillo wrote: »
    Have you an explanation as to why temperatures are not rising?
    Aren't they?


  • #130
    Pgibson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 406 ✭✭Pgibson


    "Greens enemies of Liberty" sounds like something you would hear coming from the mouth of a gun-toting bible waving redneck from the back end of the American Deep South.(Some of whom are scientists.)

    Utterly Un-European and......Comical.

    .


  • #131
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    taconnol wrote: »
    Please don't add laziness to your list of attributes:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

    Workable solutions:

    -pedestrianize central sections of urban areas
    -provide parking close to these areas
    -remove on-street parking
    -double the number of locations to park bikes
    -introduce cycling lessons in transition year
    -improve orbital public transport so that it is possible to go from one suburb to another without going through the centre.
    -block off some of the superfluous exits on the M50 so that it is actually used for its original purpose: non-local traffic.
    -build properly sized apartments, that are decent sizes for families
    -provide sufficient public facilities for these apartment dwellers, for example parks, childrens play areas, sports facilities.
    -improve the road surfaces and keep the crap off the roads (ie glass swept into the cycle lanes)
    -when a new area is being developed, invest in District heating
    -make people more aware of where their food comes from
    -Educate kids, starting in schools about issues such as recycling, etc
    -change all public bins to multiple fraction bins so that more can be recycled
    -set up RVMS (reverse vending machines) that are very effective in encouraging household recycling.
    -increase the walkability of housing estates.
    -bring in an obligatory annual check for septic tanks
    -introduce a carbon tax
    -introduce water charges, starting with a very low price for initial standard amounts, but rising rapidly after that.
    -move Dublin port to Balbriggan where there are rail facitiles
    -move freight off trucks and onto rail
    -remove electricity grid obstacles to alternative sources of generation
    -re-open closed rail lines for freight and passenger trains.
    -stop spending the majority of the money earmarked in the NDP for transport on roads, instead of public transport and rail.

    Jeez that is just want comes off the top of my head.

    I just remembered another reason why I didn't reply - you pick and choose what you want to reply to and never actually address any of the points other posters make. Waste of time!

    pretty good list for off the top of your head, the only things I would argue would be

    -introduce water charges,
    and
    -block off some of the superfluous exits on the M50 so that it is actually used for its original purpose: non-local traffic.

    the reasons I would give for this is that the water we drink isnt filtered as we all know for free. I know you know this and Im not being smart, its just important that we highlight that and if we pay water charges then we must reduce taxes elsewhere (all theoretical of course). I think a paper trail is important here.

    Also re the M50. I would argue that due to the expansion of the city during the past 10 plus years that a new outer ring road would be needed to properly take non local traffic away. How about we take a leaf from the Western Australians and build a 4 lanes in each direction highway with train lines in the middle and seperate bike lanes.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    auerillo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭auerillo


    djpbarry wrote: »
    So some anecdotal evidence form 1922 (that's four years before the first successful expedition to The North Pole) proves that the Arctic is not currently melting?
    Aren't they?

    Perhaps it is melting at an alarming rate. The example I gave was more to highlight that the organisation styling itself the Polar Defence project seems more interested in highlighting itself rather than coming up with evidence, certainly in the example I gave.

    Again, according to the example I gave, no, they aren't.


  • #133
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Deleted User wrote: »
    the reasons I would give for this is that the water we drink isnt filtered as we all know for free. I know you know this and Im not being smart, its just important that we highlight that and if we pay water charges then we must reduce taxes elsewhere (all theoretical of course). I think a paper trail is important here.

    Also re the M50. I would argue that due to the expansion of the city during the past 10 plus years that a new outer ring road would be needed to properly take non local traffic away. How about we take a leaf from the Western Australians and build a 4 lanes in each direction highway with train lines in the middle and seperate bike lanes.

    Ok I appreciate the aversion to double taxation

    I disagree on the M50. At what stage, then, do we stop building roads? We have practised the philospophy of "predict and provide", copying the americans, since the early 1990s and where has it gotten us? More cars, more pollution, more traffic jams. Traffic is not like a liquid, it's like a gas. It's not a question of displacing it, if you remove the area it has to move around it will shrink. Fortunately, the government has decided not to increase road capacity within the M50 - thank god.

    No, the reason the M50 doesn't work, apart from all the bad urban planning, urban sprawl blah blah, is that every developer got the exit he wanted close to his land and so the M50 is used for local traffic. The really annoying thing is that they encountered these problems with the M25 in the UK 20 years ago. But we have to make the same mistake 20 years later. We have ridiculously low population densities - how do other countries like the Netherlands survive without these continuous orbital rings? I mean where do we stop? In 20 years, we build another and another??


  • #134
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    auerillo wrote: »
    Perhaps it is melting at an alarming rate.
    There's no 'perhaps' about it:
    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/06/19/20071001_septembertrend.png
    auerillo wrote: »
    Again, according to the example I gave, no, they aren't.
    Sorry, which example was this?


  • #135
    ChocolateSauce
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ChocolateSauce


    taconnol wrote: »
    Ok I appreciate the aversion to double taxation

    I disagree on the M50. At what stage, then, do we stop building roads? We have practised the philospophy of "predict and provide", copying the americans, since the early 1990s and where has it gotten us? More cars, more pollution, more traffic jams. Traffic is not like a liquid, it's like a gas. It's not a question of displacing it, if you remove the area it has to move around it will shrink. Fortunately, the government has decided not to increase road capacity within the M50 - thank god.

    No, the reason the M50 doesn't work, apart from all the bad urban planning, urban sprawl blah blah, is that every developer got the exit he wanted close to his land and so the M50 is used for local traffic. The really annoying thing is that they encountered these problems with the M25 in the UK 20 years ago. But we have to make the same mistake 20 years later. We have ridiculously low population densities - how do other countries like the Netherlands survive without these continuous orbital rings? I mean where do we stop? In 20 years, we build another and another??

    The M50 needs more exits, not less. It's insane to have a road that long with so few exists. American roads are the best in the world and they have exits all over the place. Also, Dublin is densely populated, and the M50 exists only in Dublin, ergo your population density argument doesn't hold. The Netherlands is very densely populated, and unlike Ireland they also have international through-traffic. They do have roads like you imiagine they don't-bigger and better than the M50.

    It should have been 4 lanes on each side from the start.


  • #136
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    ChocolateSauce wrote: »
    The M50 needs more exits, not less. It's insane to have a road that long with so few exists. American roads are the best in the world and they have exits all over the place. Also, Dublin is densely populated, and the M50 exists only in Dublin, ergo your population density argument doesn't hold. The Netherlands is very densely populated, and unlike Ireland they also have international through-traffic. They do have roads like you imiagine they don't-bigger and better than the M50.

    It should have been 4 lanes on each side from the start.

    You're right that it should have been 4 lanes from each side. But I think you're missing the point of a motorway. It is so that transit traffic can by-pass a built-up urban area. Put on too many exits and local-traffic starts using it, cue: traffic jams.

    The M50 was not supposed to be used for local people in Dublin going from Sandyford to Dundrum, but those are the sort of trips that are making up most of the usage. The worst thing that could happen would be more exits on the M50.

    Dublin is not densely populated. We come 80th out of a global ranking of 125 cities: http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-cities-density-125.html

    And dear lord, I hope you're not holding up the mess that is the US road system as something to aspire to. A lot of roads does not = a good road system. It's a bit more complicated than that.


  • #137
    auerillo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭auerillo


    taconnol wrote: »
    You're right that it should have been 4 lanes from each side. But I think you're missing the point of a motorway. It is so that transit traffic can by-pass a built-up urban area. Put on too many exits and local-traffic starts using it, cue: traffic jams.

    The M50 was not supposed to be used for local people in Dublin going from Sandyford to Dundrum, but those are the sort of trips that are making up most of the usage. The worst thing that could happen would be more exits on the M50.

    Dublin is not densely populated. We come 80th out of a global ranking of 125 cities: http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-cities-density-125.html

    And dear lord, I hope you're not holding up the mess that is the US road system as something to aspire to. A lot of roads does not = a good road system. It's a bit more complicated than that.

    I think we have to realise that the M50 is not really a motorway at all, and is more like the main street of Dublin in 2008, just as O'Connell street was in 1950.

    It may well be that it wasn't originally intended for short journeys, but in the 30 or so years it took to plan it, Dublin changed and, if the quickest way from Dundrum to Sandyford is on the M50, why should individuals choose to take a longer route, with traffic, traffic lights etc etc.

    Thats not to speculate that the emissions of a car doing 5 minutes on a motorway between sandyfors and dundrum are, probably, far less than a car taking perhaps 25 minutes on a slower route.


  • #138
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    auerillo wrote: »
    I think we have to realise that the M50 is not really a motorway at all, and is more like the main street of Dublin in 2008, just as O'Connell street was in 1950.

    It may well be that it wasn't originally intended for short journeys, but in the 30 or so years it took to plan it, Dublin changed and, if the quickest way from Dundrum to Sandyford is on the M50, why should individuals choose to take a longer route, with traffic, traffic lights etc etc.

    Thats not to speculate that the emissions of a car doing 5 minutes on a motorway between sandyfors and dundrum are, probably, far less than a car taking perhaps 25 minutes on a slower route.

    Hey, I'm not blaming the people who use it. People are people and if you put too many exits on a motorway, local traffic will start using it. The blame lies with the government and any relevant planning authorities, not with the people using it.


  • #139
    Húrin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    auerillo wrote: »
    Lol. that's one of the funniest posts I have read on this issue and appears to confirm that view that those for whom climate change belief has replaced religious belief, climate change is seen as a means of introducing socialism and draconian population control by the back door.
    As a Christian who is also a climate campaigner, your claims are laughable.

    There's a lot more evidence in your post to suggest that industrial capitalism has replaced religious belief in the minds of yourself and many others.


  • #140
    Pgibson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 406 ✭✭Pgibson


    Húrin wrote: »
    There's a lot more evidence in your post to suggest that industrial capitalism has replaced religious belief in the minds of yourself and many others.

    That's very funny.

    Move over Father Ted.

    I myself worship the famous "Bull on Wall Street" (Representing the Bull Market.)

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/95/Charging_Bull_at_Bowling_Green_060621.jpg

    (He's a bit angry at the moment...He's left Wall Street in Tatters.)

    .


  • #141
    ChocolateSauce
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ChocolateSauce


    taconnol wrote: »
    You're right that it should have been 4 lanes from each side. But I think you're missing the point of a motorway. It is so that transit traffic can by-pass a built-up urban area. Put on too many exits and local-traffic starts using it, cue: traffic jams.

    The M50 was not supposed to be used for local people in Dublin going from Sandyford to Dundrum, but those are the sort of trips that are making up most of the usage. The worst thing that could happen would be more exits on the M50.

    Dublin is not densely populated. We come 80th out of a global ranking of 125 cities: http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-cities-density-125.html

    And dear lord, I hope you're not holding up the mess that is the US road system as something to aspire to. A lot of roads does not = a good road system. It's a bit more complicated than that.

    I'll have to disagree about the American roads. I can only speak for the California road system personally, but it is extremely good. Having motorways run through cities is of critical importance for removing traffic from cities. Berlin also has a similar layout- dual carriageways are everywhere and they funnel traffic into motorways. This way if you have a person wanting to get from Dundrum to Tallaght, they use the motorway instead of making a ratrun through residential areas. It is the layout of the city and the dfficulty in making motorways that make it unviable in Dublin to a large extent; in the places where it is done properly, it provides an extraordinarily good system of roads.

    The point of the M50 may have been to bypass Dublin, but the point of a motorway in general is to take traffic off small roads. If it were feasible, I'd support an 8 lane motorway that ran from Graystones to Swords in a straight line with exits every mile. I was shocked myself when I first saw the roads of Germany and California, but I was so impressed with their logical and practical value that I was envious of them.

    Regarding Dublin density, I was comparing it to the Irish countryside.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    Húrin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    ChocolateSauce wrote: »
    I'll have to disagree about the American roads. I can only speak for the California road system personally, but it is extremely good. Having motorways run through cities is of critical importance for removing traffic from cities.
    Cars and trucks cause traffic congestion. Not lack of motorways. Get rid of most of the former and you won't need the latter.


Advertisement