The Healy Raes

Citroen2cv

John_Rambo wrote: »

Fixed that for you.

Have you ever been in an irish city during school run hour?

Sharpyshoot

SlowBlowin wrote: »

No way will the covid get you with those turf lungs...

Couldn’t keep up with me in the battery tractor.

SlowBlowin

John_Rambo wrote: »

I didn't say that. How are you off grid, do you have electricity?

Yes I make it myself.

John_Rambo

SlowBlowin wrote: »

Yes I make it myself.

OK, that's admirable. And very rare. You're average rural person I'm referring to doesn't have any connection with the land and doesn't make their own electricity.

You know exactly the type of people I'm talking about.

If you're that way inclined, innovative, creative, engineering and give a hoot, I'm confident you'll make alternative and better arrangements to burning peat.

mr potato head

SlowBlowin wrote: »

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116991790&postcount=1791

Edit: Do supporters of the peat ban believe carry home fuels should be allowed for the 100,000 homes that are heated this way, and if yes what fuel. If no what do they do instead ?

Since Turf is so damaging in both it's harvesting and burning of course we should remove it. I would suggest a transition strategy of biomass briquettes with a time-limited transition to alternative fuels.
While damaging in itself, biomass can at least be produced in Ireland and from semi-sustainable sources.

• Peat/Turf - 13.1-18.6 MJ/kg Energy and 1.4-1.9 kg CO2/kg
• Biomass (From renewable and sustainable source) - ~14-17 MJ/kg Energy and 0.018-0.108 kg CO2/kg

As I mentioned previously, the transition process would need to increase grants for those solely dependent on solid fuel. This could take the form of a 0% loan or rent to buyout scheme.

FYI, our urban household produced 1.811 Tonnes of CO2 in energy, including all light, heat and transport as we drive an EV. Based on average CO2/kWh in Ireland, we buy power from Airtricity so that will actually be far lower. This is the same as 90 bales of briquettes and has no other emissions or smoke.

I'll choose to say that the embedded CO2 (CO2e) is next to 0 on my bike as it's over 10 years old, in a normal year I cycle ~4000km commuting, which's about 16g/km additional CO2 or 64 kg, that's equivalent to driving 320km in an ICE car.

We did buy a new car which is ~7.5 Tonnes of CO2e so I will have to keep that for a while to offset it. But it replaces an older and larger diesel, 40,000km will offset the extra CO2e over and ICE and save ~150-200g CO2/km after that.

Data Source: Comparative performance of six carbon footprint models for use in Ireland, Kenny & Gray, Environmental Impact Assessment Review Volume 29, Issue 1, January 2009, Pages 1–6

SlowBlowin

John_Rambo wrote: »

OK, that's admirable. And very rare. You're average rural person I'm referring to doesn't have any connection with the land and doesn't make their own electricity.

You know exactly the type of people I'm talking about.

If you're that way inclined, innovative, creative, engineering and give a hoot, I'm confident you'll make alternative and better arrangements to burning peat.

Rare - but I know several locally.

Here you go:

power.jpg

I just don't have time to innovate I have an ill wife, I like 100,000 others need a carry in fuel.

John_Rambo

SlowBlowin wrote: »

Rare - but I know several locally.

Here you go:

power.jpg

I just don't have time to innovate I have an ill wife, I like 100,000 others need a carry in fuel.

Listen carefully SlowBlowin, there's no need to get personal with veiled threats, I'm going to presume that was just a joke and you forgot to add an emoji or any other sign of humour or fun. You had enough time to come up with that picture of some sort of mace like weapon with my name on it with your lack of time. I'm sure you can direct your efforts to better projects.

I know people like you... you're creative with engineering skills, and I'm pretty sure when the peat is gone you'll come up with something. I can see you posting here in five years time with and innovative and environmentally friendly creative way to replace your peat addiction.

SlowBlowin

mr potato head wrote: »

Since Turf is so damaging in both it's harvesting and burning of course we should remove it. I would suggest a transition strategy of biomass briquettes with a time-limited transition to alternative fuels.
While damaging in itself, biomass can at least be produced in Ireland and from semi-sustainable sources.

• Peat/Turf - 13.1-18.6 MJ/kg Energy and 1.4-1.9 kg CO2/kg
• Biomass (From renewable and sustainable source) - ~14-17 MJ/kg Energy and 0.018-0.108 kg CO2/kg

As I mentioned previously, the transition process would need to increase grants for those solely dependent on solid fuel. This could take the form of a 0% loan or rent to buyout scheme.

FYI, our urban household produced 1.811 Tonnes of CO2 in energy, including all light, heat and transport as we drive an EV. Based on average CO2/kWh in Ireland, we buy power from Airtricity so that will actually be far lower. This is the same as 90 bales of briquettes and has no other emissions or smoke.

I'll choose to say that the embedded CO2 (CO2e) is next to 0 on my bike as it's over 10 years old, in a normal year I cycle ~4000km commuting, which's about 16g/km additional CO2 or 64 kg, that's equivalent to driving 320km in an ICE car.

We did by a new car which is ~7.5 Tonnes of CO2e so I will have to keep that for a while to offset it. But it replaces an older and larger diesel, 40,000km will offset the extra CO2e over and ICE and save ~150-200g CO2/km after that.

Data Source: Comparative performance of six carbon footprint models for use in Ireland, Kenny & Gray, Environmental Impact Assessment Review Volume 29, Issue 1, January 2009, Pages 1–6

Thats the sort plan that should have been put forward, but as it stands peat is no longer easy to get. Given that such a plan was never implemented and the ban is now here people will need to burn something there is no other short term option now.

Another question regarding turf, I have turf cutting bog, that has not been cut for decades. I looks identical, but a bit lower, than the bog next to it. It has sundew fly traps, and butterwort growing, everything seems the same. Why is a forest sustainable and a well cut turf bog is not ?

SlowBlowin

John_Rambo wrote: »

Listen carefully SlowBlowin, there's no need to get personal with veiled threats, I'm going to presume that was just a joke and you forgot to add an emoji or any other sign of humour or fun. You had enough time to come up with that picture of some sort of mace like weapon with my name on it with your lack of time. I'm sure you can direct your efforts to better projects.

I know people like you... you're creative with engineering skills, and I'm pretty sure when the peat is gone you'll come up with something. I can see you posting here in five years time with and innovative and environmentally friendly creative way to replace your peat addiction.

No threats at all. The mace is there as the top is not screwed down at the moment. I put the sign up so you could see that it was a current image, no threats intended at all.

SlowBlowin

John_Rambo wrote: »

Listen carefully SlowBlowin

You do sound like Rambo though...

As I said I don't have time to innovate now, and even if I did the majority don't have that skill set. A carry home fuel is needed, I like the biomass briquette suggestion, but its too late now so people are burning coal, imported coal.

SlowBlowin

This is an interesting read, and explains the infrastructure thing better than I can.

Its not about Ireland, but the methods I was suggesting are the same.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-myth-of-the-sustainable-city/

RulesOfNature

riemann wrote: »

Surely a walking argument against democracy?

I don't think I've ever heard any of them say anything that displayed any kind of education or knowledge on a subject.

The amount of air time they get is scandalous.

The biggest argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter.

mr potato head

SlowBlowin wrote: »

Another question regarding turf, I have turf cutting bog, that has not been cut for decades. I looks identical, but a bit lower, than the bog next to it. It has sundew fly traps, and butterwort growing, everything seems the same. Why is a forest sustainable and a well cut turf bog is not ?

I'll preface this with the fact that I'm an Engineer, not an Ecologist or Climate Scientist.

Peatland is a huge carbon store of CO2, it takes very specific conditions to create and from what I can find, it's growth rate is ~1mm per year.
So once cut and burned, the CO2 released CO2 trapped for potentially hundreds or thousands of years.

Forest on the other hand absorbs CO2 already in the atmosphere during growth, which is also a much faster rate.

Burning fossil fuels uses ‘‘old’’ biomass and converts it into ‘‘new’’ CO2; which contributes to the ‘‘greenhouse’’ effect and depletes a non-renewable resource. Burning new biomass contributes no new carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, because replanting harvested biomass ensures that CO2 is ab-
sorbed and returned for a cycle of new growth. - Energy production from biomass (part 1): overview of biomass, McKendry, 2002, Bioresource Technology

From the paper above, Poplar and Willow can produce 173-280 GJ/ha.
Teagasc release a report in 2015 called "Short Rotation Coppice Willow Best Practice Guidelines" which looks at the Economic and Environmental factors of Willow as a biomass crop in an Irish context.

LaChatteGitane

magicbastarder wrote: »

anecdote warning. i'll compare my parents in law (rural location) with my own parents (suburban)
the road i grew up on has a house approx every 5m (houses take up roughly 10m, but there are houses on both sides of the road). the road my wife grew up on, for several km, has roughly one house every 400m at a guess.
if my father wants to pick up the paper, it's a 1km round trip, so he usually walks it. if my father in law wants to pick up the paper, it's an 8km round trip, i don't think he's walked that in 30 or 40 years.

provision of pretty much every single service to my parents is cheaper. electricity; post; phone/broadband; road infrastructure.
if they want to go into the city, they hop on the train (ten minute walk from the house).
my parents in law can do nothing without driving.

This thread is about the HR's, and let me get this out of the way first : I very much dislike them and their 'policies' and would never vote for them or anyone like them. Fortunately I don't have to deal with such politics anymore since I moved away from Ireland.

I've lived in the countryside all my life and would die, releasing a lot of CO2 in the process, in an urban or suburban setting. :pac:

Joking aside, we're all individuals and some people wouldn't survive in cities or clusters of urbanised settings. There is something to be said about mental well-being too.
Living in the countryside doesn't mean one can't do anything about one's eco-footprint. It's a fallacy thinking that we use our cars every day. We (that's us and most of the country bumpkins I know) do our shopping once a forthnight (if that), not every single day. We have room for a pantry, you know.
Our houses have always been very well insulated and we used to have solar panels (yes, even in Ireland).
We've taken care of nature around us and planted loads of trees wherever we've lived. Growing our own vegetables if possible, chickens for meat and eggs, etc etc. It's imperative we eat seasonal

Now about the peat. I never burnt peat in my life. We used briquettes, pressed from wood chippings. These wood chippings came from cuttings from the bushes and shrubs along motorways, which were clipped once a year. It is a highly renewable source. Peat should stay were it is, in the ground as a fantastic carbon sink, with an abundance of flora and fauna. There are plenty of things we can do to offset our impact on this earth, and we all need to do our bit.
The HR's should stop being populists and encourage their voters to become more aware of the ecological disaster we're heading for, in stead of being obtuse and trying to boycot every step being taken to help everyone on this earth.

Rows Grower

LaChatteGitane wrote: »

This thread is about the HR's, and let me get this out of the way first : I very much dislike them and their 'policies' and would never vote for them or anyone like them. Fortunately I don't have to deal with such politics anymore since I moved away from Ireland.

I've lived in the countryside all my life and would die, releasing a lot of CO2 in the process, in an urban or suburban setting. :pac:

Joking aside, we're all individuals and some people wouldn't survive in cities or clusters of urbanised settings. There is something to be said about mental well-being too.
Living in the countryside doesn't mean one can't do anything about one's eco-footprint. It's a fallacy thinking that we use our cars every day. We (that's us and most of the country bumpkins I know) do our shopping once a forthnight (if that), not every single day. We have room for a pantry, you know.
Our houses have always been very well insulated and we used to have solar panels (yes, even in Ireland).
We've taken care of nature around us and planted loads of trees wherever we've lived. Growing our own vegetables if possible, chickens for meat and eggs, etc etc. It's imperative we eat seasonal

Now about the peat. I never burnt peat in my life. We used briquettes, pressed from wood chippings. These wood chippings came from cuttings from the bushes and shrubs along motorways, which were clipped once a year. It is a highly renewable source. Peat should stay were it is, in the ground as a fantastic carbon sink, with an abundance of flora and fauna. There are plenty of things we can do to offset our impact on this earth, and we all need to do our bit.
The HR's should stop being populists and encourage their voters to become more aware of the ecological disaster we're heading for, in stead of being obtuse and trying to boycot every step being taken to help everyone on this earth.

Absolutely agree with the bold print, I used to live in the city and it might take me and the hundreds in front and behind me 20 minutes to travel a mile in busy traffic. I was one of the lucky ones as the drivers commuting the opposite way wouldn't be moving nearly as fast.

Living in the country my car might not be started for a few days a week, if I need to travel in any direction from the end of our lane I'm averaging about a mile every minute and a half.

Thelonious Monk

So if we are concerned with our carbon footprint we should move to a one off house somewhere rural? Is that the message here?
The HRs haven't said a peep RE Killarney burning down over the weekend, but I'm pretty sure they were arguing to have burning season extended in the past.

magicbastarder

Rows Grower wrote: »

Absolutely agree with the bold print, I used to live in the city and it might take me and the hundreds in front and behind me 20 minutes to travel a mile in busy traffic. I was one of the lucky ones as the drivers commuting the opposite way wouldn't be moving nearly as fast.

Living in the country my car might not be started for a few days a week, if I need to travel in any direction from the end of our lane I'm averaging about a mile every minute and a half.

you're comparing apples and oranges there though.
you seem to have needed to commute every day in the city, but not need to commute in the country.
actually *needing* to commute and actually *commuting* are not inherent to the question, it's what that commute is like once you do it.

regarding heavy traffic, my car uses approx 0.6 or 0.7l/h idling (once warm). it uses nearly ten times that while moving. so one hour stationary is worth about 8 minutes of driving.

Yellow_Fern

The MHRs are true independent thinkers, they were one of the very few voted against minimum unit price of alcohol.

Thelonious Monk

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

The MHRs are true independent thinkers, they were one of the very few voted against minimum unit price of alcohol.

Pretty sure not one TD voted against the MUP measures.

magicbastarder

odd, MUP is a stupid idea.

Sharpyshoot

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

The MHRs are true independent thinkers, they were one of the very few voted against minimum unit price of alcohol.

MHR owns a off licence.

magicbastarder

MUP is a godsend to people making/selling cheap drink.

Rows Grower

magicbastarder wrote: »

you're comparing apples and oranges there though.
you seem to have needed to commute every day in the city, but not need to commute in the country.
actually *needing* to commute and actually *commuting* are not inherent to the question, it's what that commute is like once you do it.

regarding heavy traffic, my car uses approx 0.6 or 0.7l/h idling (once warm). it uses nearly ten times that while moving. so one hour stationary is worth about 8 minutes of driving.

If you can't deduct that from what I wrote I can't help you I'm afraid.

mr potato head

SlowBlowin wrote: »

Rare - but I know several locally.

Here you go:

power.jpg

I just don't have time to innovate I have an ill wife, I like 100,000 others need a carry in fuel.

That's a nice setup and sorry to hear your wife is ill.

There was a response from Bord na Móna to MHRs comments:

"Bord na Móna will continue to manufacture peat briquettes well into 2024 and are investing in and developing a wider range of sustainable home heating products for our customers who look to us to supply them with quality Irish solid fuel products"

I would guess that this includes biomass briquettes, so hopefully that will ease the transition for many like yourself.

LaChatteGitane wrote: »

I've lived in the countryside all my life and would die, releasing a lot of CO2 in the process, in an urban or suburban setting. :pac:

Joking aside, we're all individuals and some people wouldn't survive in cities or clusters of urbanised settings. There is something to be said about mental well-being too.

LaChatteGitane wrote: »

We've taken care of nature around us and planted loads of trees wherever we've lived. Growing our own vegetables if possible, chickens for meat and eggs, etc etc. It's imperative we eat seasonal

It's probably the biggest mental stress of lockdown for me, we would regularly get out of the city to family and friends.

The original conversation came from the discussion of people reliant on solid fuels, unlike SlowBlowin and yourself, the ones at risk don't have solar or live in well-insulated houses. I wish I had enough roof space to install a larger solar system, there is huge potential in rural areas to generate and feed into the grid.

I also agree that there needs to be more effort to educate urban populations about where their food comes from and what impact seasonal and imported food has (some imports can have a lower impact than tunnel/artificial light grown veg.)

LaChatteGitane wrote: »

The HR's should stop being populists and encourage their voters to become more aware of the ecological disaster we're heading for, in stead of being obtuse and trying to boycot every step being taken to help everyone on this earth.

Agreed, a science and data-led approach is key to the future of areas like Kerry.
No matter who started the fires in Killarney, the area will be more and more at risk of this sort of disaster as the climate changes, the HRs should be up in arms trying to protect the natural gems that they have in the county.

Yellow_Fern

mr potato head wrote: »

I'll preface this with the fact that I'm an Engineer, not an Ecologist or Climate Scientist.

Peatland is a huge carbon store of CO2, it takes very specific conditions to create and from what I can find, it's growth rate is ~1mm per year.
So once cut and burned, the CO2 released CO2 trapped for potentially hundreds or thousands of years.

Forest on the other hand absorbs CO2 already in the atmosphere during growth, which is also a much faster rate.

Burning fossil fuels uses ‘‘old’’ biomass and converts it into ‘‘new’’ CO2; which contributes to the ‘‘greenhouse’’ effect and depletes a non-renewable resource. Burning new biomass contributes no new carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, because replanting harvested biomass ensures that CO2 is ab-
sorbed and returned for a cycle of new growth. - Energy production from biomass (part 1): overview of biomass, McKendry, 2002, Bioresource Technology

From the paper above, Poplar and Willow can produce 173-280 GJ/ha.
Teagasc release a report in 2015 called "Short Rotation Coppice Willow Best Practice Guidelines" which looks at the Economic and Environmental factors of Willow as a biomass crop in an Irish context.

When you cut down forest a lot of the carbon is released. If you burn the timber Id imagine most of the carbon is released. Everytime a tree falls down in a national park carbon is released. People overestimate forest as a carbon store. It is true that bogs and lakes are particularly good carbon stores.

PMBC

mr potato head wrote: »

Since Turf is so damaging in both it's harvesting and burning of course we should remove it. I would suggest a transition strategy of biomass briquettes with a time-limited transition to alternative fuels.
While damaging in itself, biomass can at least be produced in Ireland and from semi-sustainable sources.

• Peat/Turf - 13.1-18.6 MJ/kg Energy and 1.4-1.9 kg CO2/kg
• Biomass (From renewable and sustainable source) - ~14-17 MJ/kg Energy and 0.018-0.108 kg CO2/kg

As I mentioned previously, the transition process would need to increase grants for those solely dependent on solid fuel. This could take the form of a 0% loan or rent to buyout scheme.

FYI, our urban household produced 1.811 Tonnes of CO2 in energy, including all light, heat and transport as we drive an EV. Based on average CO2/kWh in Ireland, we buy power from Airtricity so that will actually be far lower. This is the same as 90 bales of briquettes and has no other emissions or smoke.

I'll choose to say that the embedded CO2 (CO2e) is next to 0 on my bike as it's over 10 years old, in a normal year I cycle ~4000km commuting, which's about 16g/km additional CO2 or 64 kg, that's equivalent to driving 320km in an ICE car.

We did buy a new car which is ~7.5 Tonnes of CO2e so I will have to keep that for a while to offset it. But it replaces an older and larger diesel, 40,000km will offset the extra CO2e over and ICE and save ~150-200g CO2/km after that.

Data Source: Comparative performance of six carbon footprint models for use in Ireland, Kenny & Gray, Environmental Impact Assessment Review Volume 29, Issue 1, January 2009, Pages 1–6

I learned a little reading your post or at least I think I did. You psted latrer about the sustainability issue and using/burning biomass. Since Im touching 70 I dont feel stupid asking the following question of you.
If I burn x kg of biomass, I will produce x by 0.018-0.108 kg of CO2 and extract slightly more energy than the same mass of peat or turf. If biomass is planted over the same period to yield x kg, is my usage carbon neutral.
Hope you get what Im asking! How is the issue affected by the time between planting and harvesting the biomass?
Thanks

TaurenDruid

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

When you cut down forest a lot of the carbon is released.

Only if you burn the resulting wood.

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

If you burn the timber Id imagine most of the carbon is released. Everytime a tree falls down in a national park carbon is released. People overestimate forest as a carbon store.

No, no CO2 is released if tree falls down. How would it be?

"People" generally have no clue as to what is a good carbon store and what isn't, but luckily for us, there are experts who can advise us. In essence, peat bogland and forests are great carbon stores - so long as we're not burning the wood or peat.

magicbastarder

TaurenDruid wrote: »

No, no CO2 is released if tree falls down. How would it be?

if you prevent the wood from rotting, yes, no CO2 is released.

Yellow_Fern

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Only if you burn the resulting wood.

No, much of the tree isnt used and decays. The land is disturbed and releases carbon before new growth can start accumulating carbon
Some argue that Irish forestry is a net emitter. I guess it depends on if you count new land or measure it solely with existing forestry.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/irish-forestry-net-emitter-of-greenhouse-gases-1.4394707

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Only if you burn the resulting wood.
No, no CO2 is released if tree falls down. How would it be?

The tree dies and falls. Of course more trees grow in its place

There are many other issues with tree. Trees can help improve soils and drainage which reduces carbon storage.

magicbastarder

Rows Grower wrote: »

If you can't deduct that from what I wrote I can't help you I'm afraid.

'living in the country my car might not be started a few days a week', which even if unintentional, strongly implies that moving to the country implictly means you needed your car less.
my point was that moving to the country does *not* implicitly mean you need your car less.

mr potato head

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

When you cut down forest a lot of the carbon is released. If you burn the timber Id imagine most of the carbon is released. Everytime a tree falls down in a national park carbon is released. People overestimate forest as a carbon store. It is true that bogs and lakes are particularly good carbon stores.

Cutting down mature trees like in a national park would be a terrible waste. As you mentioned, even if a tree falls down naturally some carbon is released in decompositions, but some gets trapped in the soil too.

The difference is the cyclic nature of biomass like willow as fuel, as it grows it captures carbon and as it's burned it releases it, the difference or net CO2 and is very low in comparison to burning a fossil fuel like turf, it's mostly due to the energy used in farming and processing the materials.

Take a look at the Teagasc report it's fairly open about the pros and cons of the practice. It's not perfect but it's a lower impact and I was suggesting it as a stop-gap for those transitioning from a reliance on turf for heating, not as a long term solution.

Banana Republic 1

Danny Healy Rae is stone cold ignorant!

mr potato head

PMBC wrote: »

I learned a little reading your post or at least I think I did. You psted latrer about the sustainability issue and using/burning biomass. Since Im touching 70 I dont feel stupid asking the following question of you.
If I burn x kg of biomass, I will produce x by 0.018-0.108 kg of CO2 and extract slightly more energy than the same mass of peat or turf. If biomass is planted over the same period to yield x kg, is my usage carbon neutral.
Hope you get what Im asking! How is the issue affected by the time between planting and harvesting the biomass?
Thanks

Not a problem asking me questions, it helps me learn too.

The 0.018-0.108 kg of CO2 is the net emissions from 1kg biomass and according to the paper I got the data from, it takes account of the CO2 absorbed by an equivalent number of trees planted to replace the ones cut down.

"This approach assumes that all wood products come from a renewable and sustainable source; that for every tree cut down and burnt a new tree is planted in its place. However, this does not take into account of non-recyclable GHG emissions of CH4 and N2O which were calculated in this study as 0.108 and 0.019 kg CO2e kg− 1 respectively." Comparative performance of six carbon footprint models for use in Ireland. T. Kenny & N.F. Gray, Environmental Impact Assessment Review Volume 29, Issue 1, January 2009, Pages 1–6.

I don't know if that number also includes the Green House Gases (GHG) from fuel and energy used to tend, harvest and process the crops either. So it's not carbon-neutral due to those factors, but far better than fossil fuels. I guess you could plant more trees than you cut each cycle to make up for the extra CO2, but that has limits.
On the time between planting, I'm afraid I've no idea.

In fairness, everything we make/use has some footprint even wind turbines and solar panels.

mr potato head

Oh and it turns out that on the Rural vs Urban "whos worse" competition, we are all wrong and all right at the same time.
Turns out we all need to improve in our own ways:

On average, carbon footprints are 7% lower in cities than in rural areas when income and household characteristics are controlled. However, this is compensated by the 6% higher average income in cities. The patterns are not uniform in all countries. In Eastern Europe, the pattern is similar to other developing regions. In some Western European countries, both the income level and the carbon footprints are lower in urban areas than in rural areas. In the rest of Europe, the differences in income level between rural and urban areas are small, but they still largely compensate for the efficiency benefits of urban areas.
Source: Household carbon footprint patterns by the degree of urbanisation in Europe, Ottelin et al, 2019

From the data, it looks like areas like towns and suburbs (100–499 inhabitants km−2) are the worst (marginally). City and Rural come out about the same impact.

Rows Grower

Just listening to some environmentalist on Good Morning Britain there who has worked out that a dog has the same carbon footprint as two large cars, cats are nearly as bad.

No one should have pet dogs or cats if they care about the planet.

Do the Healy Rae's have any pet dogs or cats? If they do it's all their fault.

Why aren't they raising this important issue in the Dáil?

Thelonious Monk

Rows Grower wrote: »

Just listening to some environmentalist on Good Morning Britain there who has worked out that a dog has the same carbon footprint as two large cars, cats are nearly as bad.

No one should have pet dogs or cats if they care about the planet.

Do the Healy Rae's have any pet dogs or cats? If they do it's all their fault.

Why aren't they raising this important issue in the Dáil?

I think there are a couple of billion dogs on the planet yes, they are a problem, as they have to be fed meat, and now they have superstores full of plastic devoted to them.
And there are plastic bags full of sh*te everywhere.
Just one of the many things we'd need to look at if we are to take living sustainably seriously although I can't see curtailing dog ownership ever gaining traction.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dogs-environment-cats-pets-food-meat_n_5be94743e4b0e84388999f40

SlowBlowin

mr potato head wrote: »

Oh and it turns out that on the Rural vs Urban "whos worse" competition, we are all wrong and all right at the same time.
Turns out we all need to improve in our own ways:

On average, carbon footprints are 7% lower in cities than in rural areas when income and household characteristics are controlled. However, this is compensated by the 6% higher average income in cities. The patterns are not uniform in all countries. In Eastern Europe, the pattern is similar to other developing regions. In some Western European countries, both the income level and the carbon footprints are lower in urban areas than in rural areas. In the rest of Europe, the differences in income level between rural and urban areas are small, but they still largely compensate for the efficiency benefits of urban areas.
Source: Household carbon footprint patterns by the degree of urbanisation in Europe, Ottelin et al, 2019

From the data, it looks like areas like towns and suburbs (100–499 inhabitants km−2) are the worst (marginally). City and Rural come out about the same impact.

Excellent - that means the accusations made against rural life earlier on this thread were all wrong - thats what I was responding too.

I will have a read.

By the way I bought a 3Pk of Phillips 10watt LED bulbs in Supavalue yesterday, modded them as per Big Clive and they are perfect !

SlowBlowin

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I think there are a couple of billion dogs on the planet yes, they are a problem, as they have to be fed meat, and now they have superstores full of plastic devoted to them.
And there are plastic bags full of sh*te everywhere.
Just one of the many things we'd need to look at if we are to take living sustainably seriously although I can't see curtailing dog ownership ever gaining traction.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dogs-environment-cats-pets-food-meat_n_5be94743e4b0e84388999f40

I guess the Koreans are really Green in your mind as they eat dogs ?

Thelonious Monk

SlowBlowin wrote: »

I guess the Koreans are really Green in your mind as they eat dogs ?

It's no worse than eating a pig or cow to me, but we should all be cutting down on meat consumption in my opinion.

SlowBlowin

Shame, I like sharing my bacon sandwiches with the dog sitting next to the peat stove.

mr potato head

SlowBlowin wrote: »

Excellent - that means the accusations made against rural life earlier on this thread were all wrong - thats what I was responding too.

I will have a read.

By the way I bought a 3Pk of Phillips 10watt LED bulbs in Supavalue yesterday, modded them as per Big Clive and they are perfect !

I don't know if they were all wrong, it shows that carbon footprints are 7% lower in cities as long as people don't live a consumerist (high income) lifestyle, so I'd see it as everyone was arguing a correct point, they happen to result in a draw.

I think what's more interesting is that the worst offenders are those living in big houses in the rural townlands and the commuter belt of cities, commuting to work by car etc.

Our public policies drive this behaviour via poor alternative transport options and rural cycle/public transport networks, lack of urban housing and high house prices in cities driving people to the commuter belts.

It also doesn't address the area of farming impacts (direct and indirect), it only looks at the household footprint.

SlowBlowin

mr potato head wrote: »

I don't know if they were all wrong, it shows that carbon footprints are 7% lower in cities as long as people don't live a consumerist (high income) lifestyle, so I'd see it as everyone was arguing a correct point, they happen to result in a draw.

I think what's more interesting is that the worst offenders are those living in big houses in the rural townlands and the commuter belt of cities, commuting to work by car etc.

Our public policies drive this behaviour via poor alternative transport options and rural cycle/public transport networks, lack of urban housing and high house prices in cities driving people to the commuter belts.

It also doesn't address the area of farming impacts (direct and indirect), it only looks at the household footprint.

You could argue that farming should be treated like power production and its emissions be divided up by the population and then added to each area as per the population density. This would probably make a big difference to the result of the equation..

Rows Grower

mr potato head wrote: »

I don't know if they were all wrong, it shows that carbon footprints are 7% lower in cities as long as people don't live a consumerist (high income) lifestyle, so I'd see it as everyone was arguing a correct point, they happen to result in a draw.

I think what's more interesting is that the worst offenders are those living in big houses in the rural townlands and the commuter belt of cities, commuting to work by car etc.

Our public policies drive this behaviour via poor alternative transport options and rural cycle/public transport networks, lack of urban housing and high house prices in cities driving people to the commuter belts.

It also doesn't address the area of farming impacts (direct and indirect), it only looks at the household footprint.

Do you think it’s right that people should be allowed keep as many pet dogs or cats as they like in light of the new findings?

I do.

Thelonious Monk

SlowBlowin wrote: »

You could argue that farming should be treated like power production and its emissions be divided up by the population and then added to each area as per the population density. This would probably make a big difference to the result of the equation..

Why would it be divided among the population?

SlowBlowin

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Why would it be divided among the population?

Where does your food come from ?

Thelonious Monk

SlowBlowin wrote: »

Where does your food come from ?

I don't eat beef or dairy, which is what nearly all our land is used for, and 90% of that is exported.
So why should food not eaten here be divided among everyone?

SlowBlowin

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I don't eat beef or dairy, which is what nearly all our land is used for, and 90% of that is exported.
So why should food not eaten here be divided among everyone?

So to break this to you but a lot of Irish people do eat beef and dairy.

Thelonious Monk

SlowBlowin wrote: »

So to break this to you but a lot of Irish people do eat beef and dairy.

Hardly any of what is produced though, almost all of it goes abroad, wouldn't make sense to divide that among the population.

TaurenDruid

SlowBlowin wrote: »

So to break this to you but a lot of Irish people do eat beef and dairy.

Sure continue on this vein, why not. Let's discount all the fishing fleet, too, sure most is exported and we all eat fish and chips. Divide up the emissions from pharma, too, all exported, apart from a little bit of viagra. The data centres? Sure the cloud is international, without borders! Why should we have to count the CO2 generated in our emissions when it could be storing porn for some dude in, I dunno, Texas.

Before long, we'll find Ireland is actually a net storer of GHG, and for every person living here, we take out 2 tonnes of carbon from the atmosphere every year! Be grand, like!

We'll still be ****ed when temperatures rise above the barely sustainable two degrees, but it'll be everyone else's fault, so that'll make it ok! :rolleyes:

mr potato head

Rows Grower wrote: »

Do you think it’s right that people should be allowed keep as many pet dogs or cats as they like in light of the new findings?

I do.

The tone of your questions are exactly the type of deflective, intentionally divisive, obtuse and tribal tone I was accusing the HRs of. It's a valid question veiled in a tone of mockery and leaves no space for a constructive robust discussion as it assumes absolutes in a world of grey.

Like everything, there is a balance of environmental and societal damage. We are in a transition to reduce one as fast as we can and minimise the impact on the other. One thing is clear, the status quo can not be maintained in many industries and societal practices.
There is no way that I could go to an engineering firm tomorrow, that had the same impact as farming, and have it be acceptable for them to carry on regardless or only offer a 10% CO2 reduction.

I don't want to destroy the livelihoods of farmers, my grandfather was a tillage farmer and another uncle a dairy farmer, I spent many summers doing everything from milking and harvesting to clearing around saplings. I have close friends and relatives still farming, one is elderly, lives in a stone house heated by an AGA running solid fuel and relies on farm income and I have no wish to see him suffer.

No one is asking to ban all farming, we need food after all. But farming practices along with the balance of meat and plants we eat need to be addressed, there is overwhelming evidence that we can supply food in a less damaging way.
If farmers don't come to the table with solutions they will have them forced on them through taxation and other policy changes just like the auto industry, manufacturing, power generation etc.

We have to address other impacts too:

• Monocultures
• Effluent Runoff
• Forestry Clearing and Scrub Burning
• Meat/Dairy Production CO2 and Methane Production
• Destruction of Hedgerows
• Killing of Raptors
• Antibiotic resistance through poor dosing practices
• Inhumain treatment and housing of animals

The vast majority of farmers are hard-working and conscientious, but the community often shields those who are responsible for damage and bad practice and has been resistant to change or acknowledgement of its impacts for a long time.
It needs to be give as well as take, in return we need to pay farmers a fair price for their goods, reward innovation and support transition.

Likewise, with cats and dogs, there is a balance to be found. Cats and dogs can provide social, physical and mental health benefits so I wouldn't advocate for a ban, I wouldn't have an issue with taxing their CO2/Environmental footprint.
You could argue that since cats killed more birds than all other human-related causes combined in 2016/2017. So there's a stronger case for banning them, a more logical step for the moment is for owners to put a bell on them!