Gormley's Climate Change Bill

Macha

ei.sdraob wrote: »

The guy raises interesting points and you cant accuse him of not being "Green"

What is "Green" and what's it got to do with this?

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Considering that the minister can block any publication, remove and appoint any member, and not being independent

... yes it will endup being useless

I agree with you there completely.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

IBEC also released a report linked to earlier showing 400 million a year losses to the economy

We are yet to see an impact assessment from the Greens, just more babbling

And does it have any merit? Does anyone remember the Stern Report and the economic analysis it presented? Here's the executive summary:

The benefits of strong, early action on climate change outweigh the costs
The effects of our actions now on future changes in the climate have long lead times. What we do now can have only a limited effect on the climate over the next 40 or 50 years. On the other hand what we do in the next 10 or 20 years can have a profound effect on the climate in the second half of this century and in the next.

No-one can predict the consequences of climate change with complete certainty; but we now know enough to understand the risks. Mitigation - taking strong action to reduce emissions - must be viewed as an investment, a cost incurred now and in the coming few decades to avoid the risks of very severe consequences in the future. If these investments are made wisely, the costs will be manageable, and there will be a wide range of opportunities for growth and development along the way. For this to work well, policy must promote sound market signals, overcome market failures and have equity and risk mitigation at its core. That essentially is the conceptual framework of this Review.

The Review considers the economic costs of the impacts of climate change, and the costs and benefits of action to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) that cause it, in three different ways:

• Using disaggregated techniques, in other words considering the physical
impacts of climate change on the economy, on human life and on the
environment, and examining the resource costs of different technologies and strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions;
• Using economic models, including integrated assessment models that
estimate the economic impacts of climate change, and macro-economic
models that represent the costs and effects of the transition to low-carbon
energy systems for the economy as a whole;
• Using comparisons of the current level and future trajectories of the ‘social cost of carbon’ (the cost of impacts associated with an additional unit of greenhouse gas emissions) with the marginal abatement cost (the costs associated with incremental reductions in units of emissions).
From all of these perspectives, the evidence gathered by the Review leads to a simple conclusion: the benefits of strong, early action considerably outweigh the
costs.

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTINDONESIA/Resources/226271-1170911056314/3428109-1174614780539/SternReviewEng.pdf

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Sure don't the Greens excel at scaremongering? Sealevel rising, climate havoc, dead polar bears ... ... Jesus wept

I think that's called "the scientific consensus".

micro_dot

No matter who's in power, there will be some form of carbon tax, just because it's another form of revenue. One way or the other, I don't see the future being cheaper, as we are addicted to oil. To me, the Western recovery seems based on adjusting to new and higher, international, oil prices. Like the way American cars got skinny recently. It's all going to hurt the economy, as we are addicted to oil like crack, and Bush thought at least once about invading Niger.

Dunno about Tol, didn't the ESRI not see a massive property bubble?

goat2

micro_dot wrote: »

No matter who's in power, there will be some form of carbon tax, just because it's another form of revenue. One way or the other, I don't see the future being cheaper, as we are addicted to oil. To me, the Western recovery seems based on adjusting to new and higher, international, oil prices. Like the way American cars got skinny recently. It's all going to hurt the economy, as we are addicted to oil like crack, and Bush thought at least once about invading Niger.

Dunno about Tol, didn't the ESRI not see a massive property bubble?

we live in a great place, it is the greens who are making ****e of the lot, they should be seeing to it that green energy is affordable to all, in that way there would be great job creation, i would love to be able to afford to install the solar water heaters, solar lights outside, as it is i changed all bulbs to those supposed to be long life but alot of the time are not and costing a bomb replacing, i use the composter which i do find brilliant, i will be installing one of those water tubs to collect water from downpipe that come from roof,

the green party have done nothing to help in any way, i just dispise them

ei.sdraob

Macha wrote: »

I think that's called "the scientific consensus".

I am sorry but seems you are not aware much of how science operates,
a good theory (which could have all the consensus at the time) could be replaced by a better theory (happened many times during 20th century, so called scientific revolutions such as Einsteins theories turning physics world in a new direction) which has predicts more precisely outcomes that can be observed, and against which one can make repeatable experiments, and most importantly when every other theory has shown to be less likely to be true.

The latest climate models (scientists have to use models, models which are far from modelling complex systems involved, since they don't have another earth to experiment on) predicted warm wet winters around this part of the world, instead we had yet another very cold snap
this means someone somewhere is back to tweaking their models, which is a good thing, and how science operates


Anyways I asked for a cost benefit analysis of implementing this Bill for Ireland in the case of Irish economy not yet another generic research on climate change like the report you linked to,
so far we have two reports which show that this Bill will cost the country alot of money and the data was collected and reported on by scientists,
if like the Stern Report says "the benefits of strong, early action considerably outweigh the costs." then why is the green movement so against decades old technologies such as nuclear plants to help bring us into a carbon free future? the UK has a 30% target which we want to copy so not to look bad, but they also are using all technologies available to get there and more importantly are already on the way to meeting these targets.

God knows if we spend that 20 billion odd of research money that went into climate change research into fusion power we would have been sorted by now.
instead we follow yet another quasi religious ideology who try to wrap themselves in scientific banners, yet ignore the same scientists and engineers when they point that there is science and technologies (that might not be in fashion with ideologists) such genetic modification and nuclear power and geo-engineering which can help mankind address this problem

Macha

Two points:

1) As a scientist, I am aware of the scientific process and my comment in relation to the current scientific consensus is correct. You seem to be pinning your hopes on the future disproving of the current scientific consensus, which is akin to betting on the theory of gravity being refuted.

Did I claim that we know everything about climate change? No. Should that stop us from acting on the best available knowledge? No. If we didn't take that approach, we would never do anything.

2) In the tradition of your good self, I'll answer a question with a question: where is the economic analysis of the failure to implement this legislation?

More generally, please try to distinguish between various strands within the green movement. It's like talking about all Irish people thinking X or Y - a generalization so wide as to be quite useless.

RichardAnd

Macha wrote: »

Two points:

1) As a scientist, I am aware of the scientific process and my comment in relation to the current scientific consensus is correct. You seem to be pinning your hopes on the future disproving of the current scientific consensus, which is akin to betting on the theory of gravity being refuted.

Did I claim that we know everything about climate change? No. Should that stop us from acting on the best available knowledge? No. If we didn't take that approach, we would never do anything.

2) In the tradition of your good self, I'll answer a question with a question: where is the economic analysis of the failure to implement this legislation?

More generally, please try to distinguish between various strands within the green movement. It's like talking about all Irish people thinking X or Y - a generalization so wide as to be quite useless.

You're making another generalisation, the scientific consensus that you speak of. Many thousands of scientist do not buy into the climate change theory but, as their views would not allow carbon taxes to be levied on X, Y and Z, we tend not to hear from them

ei.sdraob

@Macha

1) That is not what I mean, just because there is "consensus" does not mean "shutup end of conversation do as we say", nowhere do these scientists say we need to reduce Y by X% and build Z windmills or whatever, thats a political course of action decided on by politicians (backed by industrial lobby seeking guaranteed profits).

As someone who holds both a Science degree and Engineering postrgrad degree, I strongly feel that the decision making on how to reduce (or for that matter replace) should be made by companies competing who employ scientists and more importantly engineers implementing/researching technologies based on said science, not politicians and definitely not economists who have such a dismal record at predicting anything :P
If the Green Party or any other party with "green" streaks wants to be more "green" for whatever reasons (be it scientific or political or beuracrats comparing their d*** sizes emission cut sizes :P) then they should be doing everything to facilitate companies (make it easier) solving these problems, for example by cutting taxes + redtape and more importantly building an infrastructure and even more importantly sorting out planning (alot of windfarms are bogged down for years in the planning system for example)

The only area of science which concerns itself with carbon taxes/trading are economists and I dont see a "consensus" between on this particular approach them since economists are firmly split among ideological lines themselves.




2a) this question should be answered by the people proposing the legislation or they should fund someone else to do the research, the Climate Change bill is being rushed for purely political reasons by the Greens
Please dont forget that the current government has rushed this country into other disastrous policy decisions such as Bank Guarantee, Nama and Croke Park, with such a track record one has to try to examine their new bright ideas!

2b) The green movement is firmly split into two now:
The airy hippy idealists with a Luddite streak
and
The realists who realise we need to embrace all technologies at our disposal and now is not the time to be picky
I recommend you watch this documentary and the follow on debate to see this split in action > http://www.channel4.com/programmes/what-the-green-movement-got-wrong

I care about the environment but not questioning the policies proposed and following them blindly is no different to following an organised religion, thats another thing that really ticks me off about the green movement, too much religious overtones with the whole "repent now or be damned" and Armageddon style imagery. Instead of trusting people they need to be led like sheep. Thats just wrong! I am afraid the Greens in Ireland have done alot of damage to their cause and worse made alot of people very sceptical.

Danno

How much power did the windfarms produce during December's cold weather? Hardly any, they were all frozen and could not turn! So when we have the greatest need for power to produce heating, these green machines let us down. An even more twisted reality of these green machines is when the wind blows strongest we are most likely not to reap the benifets because alot of power transmission lines will blow down in strong winds!

On a more serious note... It is amazing to hear about reports from a few years back claiming that snow was now a thing of the past... another great prediction gone wrong.
They also harp on about the melting arctic sea ice, but ignore the increasing Antarctic sea ice.

Fourteen All Time COLD records were broken in 2010 and another one tied... yet very little coverage about it. If these were all time hot records then we'd have it shoved down our throats along with more carbon tax.

1945 and 1949 were the warmest years of the 1900s in Ireland, yet one of the coldest winters (1947) occurred between them. This shows that the climate/weather is ever changing and will do so regardless of how much CO2 is in the air.

Further back in history there are records of settlement in Greenland a few years BEFORE industrialisation and CO2 emissions. Were horseback responsible for climate change then?

ei.sdraob

Danno wrote: »

How much power did the windfarms produce during December's cold weather?

I downloaded eirgrid data for december here
* The average generated at any time (I believe its in half hour intervals) is 294MW

The installed wind capacity at end of 2010 was ~1900MW

Thats 15% availability :eek:

For the billions sunk into this and subsidised by everyone in the economy, we cant even power a small town when we need it most :rolleyes:

MalteseBarry

I thought this thread was about the politics of Gormless's bill? This is teh last chance the greens will have here for the forseeable future, and no wonder they are trying to rush through as much as they can. Of course the bill is flawed and of course its based on nonsense. Which pretty accurately acts as a reminder that the greens, also, are flawed and based on nonsense.

RichieC

Hi.

This channel on youtube is entitled "climate denial crock of the week".
It is extremely well presented, easily to follow and well cited.

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610?blend=1&ob=5#p/u


I suggest the deniers take a good look at the videos, perhaps take one of the statements made uncited by yourselves and search through his videos for one dealing with that topic.

Taking a stand against things you do not understand can lead to unforeseen consequences.

Remember, a good economy is a rather useless thing to a country facing flooding and extreme weather conditions year in year out. A stitch in time saves nine.

Also, contrary to the well used meme by the right, you do not need to be an "eco freak" to worry about consequences of pumping 26 gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere per year.

Thank you

Richie.

PS I am not affiliated in any way with the aforementioned channel.

RichardAnd

RichieC wrote: »

Hi.

This channel on youtube is entitled "climate denial crock of the week".
It is extremely well presented, easily to follow and well cited.

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610?blend=1&ob=5#p/u


I suggest the deniers take a good look at the videos, perhaps take one of the statements made uncited by yourselves and search through his videos for one dealing with that topic.

Taking a stand against things you do not understand can lead to unforeseen consequences.

Remember, a good economy is a rather useless thing to a country facing flooding and extreme weather conditions year in year out. A stitch in time saves nine.

Also, contrary to the well used meme by the right, you do not need to be an "eco freak" to worry about consequences of pumping 26 gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere per year.

Thank you

Richie.

PS I am not affiliated in any way with the aforementioned channel.

Thank you for this video, I will watch it once I get some time to spare (probably lunch time). Once I have, I will offer my opinion on the matter.

For now though, I will say that I agree with you fully that acting without being properly informed on a matter is a folly.

ei.sdraob

RichardAnd wrote: »

I will say that I agree with you fully that acting without being properly informed on a matter is a folly.

Considering that the Bill is being rushed without the pros/cons being researched and considered, then it is a "folly"

mgmt

Hopefully this 'Climate Change' Bill will be scrapped now.

The Oireachtas Committee on Agriculture has called for the Climate Change Bill to be deferred.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0119/climate.html

micro_dot

I'm facing my payslip, which isn't what it used to be. I see follies everywhere, pass one every morning on the way to work. The last ten years was where we believed there wasn't a recession coming, coz the data was lying, right. What I would like is a strategy for the next few years, so that we don't do something like raid the college fund to shore up lying banks which gave false data. And private developers who enjoyed all the party, but for whom we must share the pain. We were all there, and the problem was, who do we believe? If you bought face cream, ye'd be more used to science and spin. You like the aloe vera, but know there's something nastier pumping up the skin. That's science x money x spin (daily in the Daily Mail).

If there was anything that could be done to undo the last decade, I'd do it. That's my obsessive hate. The truth is never in the marketing blurb, it's in the move two or three steps down the line. I am not crying over electricity bills, but I did previously. And I think I will be again. Gormless Gormless or Glorious Gilmore, the future will be a very unequal place, whether it's a cow's arse at the end of the line or a human being. We are obsessed with control as a species, whether it's imagined or real. Anyone that can come up with a blueprint for a more equal future (which fewer resources rarely means) then okay, I'll back that and I don't believe in perfection or skin cream. You know, Tom Parlon came from the IFA and I'm beginning to itch. But yes, I am worried too about signing up to an expensive folly. Just no bull, either side.

nice_guy80

Its cheerio to the Climate Change Bill

Hurrah!!!

Kristopherus

nice_guy80 wrote: »

Its cheerio to the Climate Change Bill

Hurrah!!!

+1:D:D:D