Is Fine Gael in climate change denial

Macha

Why are you still discussing where the emissions are accounted? It's getting extremely tedious and smacks of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Unless you don't actually think the ship is sinking?

Also it's a bit tiring to read you repeatedly refer to anyone who wants climate action as a carbon tax lobbyist. I mentioned other interesting policies and evidence of the economic benefits of climate action and you ignored them.

James Brown

dense wrote: »

You've just said nobody trusts the government to do the right thing and spend our money on carbon taxes competently.

Are you not being a little inconsistent on this?

How can we build the trust that you said was needed if we can't ask questions relevant to our spending?

No, you can see the need and acknowledge it might likely be abused.
I also stated that we need to act and suggested how any government might build trust. Yes people will likely take advantage but unless they want it to go the protest route, they need be clear and open about any moves.

dense

oscarBravo wrote: »

I suspect you differ in that you don't see climate change as a big problem.

Two questions for you: do you accept that Ireland's greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to climate change? And do you accept in full the conclusions of the IPCC reports you quote in your signature, or are you quote-mining?

I'm not sure this is the appropriate forum to discuss my opinions, they shouldn't be a major concern to anyone.

Suffice to say that having studied and cross checked much of the published climate literature I personally don't see climate change as being a major issue, but, YMMV.

-We ostensibly are discussing Fine Gael's climate denial, as per the thread title.

blanch152

dense wrote: »

Emissions not being emitted in Luxembourg by the Luxembourgish are being counted as being CO2 emitted in or by Luxembourg.

It's the reason their CO2 emissions are so high apparently.

Luxembourg's emissions rate would be lower if the emissions from "fuel tourists" was not added in.

Do you think we should use the same reasoning?

We could say they're not our CO2 emissions, they belong to whoever we bought the fuel from.

That is what is being said about Luxembourg - the emissions from the fuel they sell is theirs.

You seem to think it is a legitimate position so why not?

You said they are double-counting, they are not, yet you continue to repeat that there is something wrong, when there is not. If Luxembourg's are higher because of fuel sales, then some other country is lower. Simple as.

blanch152

dense wrote: »

I'm not sure this is the appropriate forum to discuss my opinions, they shouldn't be a major concern to anyone.

Suffice to say that having studied and cross checked much of the published climate literature I personally don't see climate change as being a major issue, but, YMMV.

-We ostensibly are discussing Fine Gael's climate denial, as per the thread title.

We have already seen that you don't understand the mathematical concepts of proportionality and double-counting. Wouldn't that lead us to conclude that your interpretation and opinions of climate change (which depends to a large extent on even more complicated mathematics) are flawed?

dense

Matt Barrett wrote: »

No, you can see the need and acknowledge it might likely be abused.
I also stated that we need to act and suggested how any government might build trust. Yes people will likely take advantage but unless they want it to go the protest route, they need be clear and open about any moves.

People took to the streets for a hundred euros!

Do you think a rigourous cost/benefit analysis shouldn't be undertaken here where climate finance is concerned?

Surely that would be unwise and go against accepted due diligence concerning major expenditure of public funds?

dense

blanch152 wrote: »

We have already seen that you don't understand the mathematical concepts of proportionality and double-counting. Wouldn't that lead us to conclude that your interpretation and opinions of climate change (which depends to a large extent on even more complicated mathematics) are flawed?

Your opinion of my opinion is irrelevant, please stop making this personal.

Thank you.

dense

blanch152 wrote: »

If Luxembourg's are higher because of fuel sales, then some other country is lower.

Source to back up your assertion please, specifically mentioning Luxembourg.

blanch152

dense wrote: »

Source to back up your assertion please, specifically mentioning Luxembourg.

Simple common sense.

Fuel sales are used to calculate carbon emissions.

If a French person is buying fuel in Luxembourg then Luxembourg's carbon emissions are higher while France's are lower.

Didn't think this needed any explanation.

oscarBravo

dense wrote: »

I'm not sure this is the appropriate forum to discuss my opinions, they shouldn't be a major concern to anyone.

Your opinions are of concern because they inform your contribution to the discussion, and - with respect - your contribution to the discussion has been to attempt continuously to derail it.

Suffice to say that having studied and cross checked much of the published climate literature I personally don't see climate change as being a major issue, but, YMMV.

No. I don't buy it. You're attempting to present a facade of reasonableness, but if you've studied the literature and have come to the conclusion that climate change isn't a problem then you frankly haven't understood what you've read, or are projecting your prejudices onto what you read.

We ostensibly are discussing Fine Gael's climate denial, as per the thread title.

We were discussing that, until you came in with your non-stop attempts to Gish gallop the thread with denialism masquerading as skepticism.

If you're coming at this discussion from the perspective that there isn't a problem to be solved, then you are the problem, and those of us who actually give a rat's ass about the future of the planet would rather you stopped trying to derail the conversation.

dense

Macha wrote: »

Why are you still discussing where the emissions are accounted? It's getting extremely tedious and smacks of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Unless you don't actually think the ship is sinking?

Also it's a bit tiring to read you repeatedly refer to anyone who wants climate action as a carbon tax lobbyist. I mentioned other interesting policies and evidence of the economic benefits of climate action and you ignored them.

I don't think the ship is sinking, but that's neither here nor there!

I'm not sure Fine Gael can pretend to be making meaningful "climate action" without carbon taxes.

This is what the thread is about after all.

I doubt the members of lobby groups lobbying for carbon taxes mind if they are described as lobbyists.

Here is one, on the Lobby Register, called Stop Climate Chaos:

https://www.lobbying.ie/organisation/1049/stop-climate-chaos-coalition

It lobbys for carbon taxes and other things.
It is not a "bad word" it is simply a title.

"Environmental coalition group Stop Climate Chaos has said Ireland has cemented its position as a "climate laggard" by failing to introduce a carbon tax in today's Budget"

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/lack-of-carbon-tax-in-budget-2019-a-disaster-says-eco-coalition-874683.html

L1011

dense wrote: »

Your opinion of my opinion is irrelevant, please stop making this personal.

Thank you.

Opinions can be completely (factually and otherways) wrong, you know. That something is an opinion doesn't protect it from being wrong, having the holes pointed out, and so on. They aren't sacrosanct despite what people seem to have decided in recent years.

dense

L1011 wrote: »

Opinions can be completely (factually and otherways) wrong, you know. That something is an opinion doesn't protect it from being wrong, having the holes pointed out, and so on. They aren't sacrosanct despite what people seem to have decided in recent years.

Of course, but it's not as if I'm claiming the earth is flat or that homeopathy cures cancer.


Let's look at some of my opinions to see if they are "wrong".

They're not terribly radical.

One of my opinions is that Ireland's affect on the climate via its use of fossil fuels has not been determined nor has our potential to avert global warming been determined.

Why is it "wrong" for me to hold and post that opinion?

Another is that climate lobbyists came up with the imaginary annual €600m fines for not reducing emissions.

Is it "wrong" to say that also?
Why?

I don't believe in role playing in order to satisfy convention in the sense that it is often heard that "Ireland must play it's role in fighting climate change" when it's role in climate change cannot be established.

Is it wrong to hold that opinion?

I am of the opinion that independent cost/benefit analyses should be undertaken prior to any commitment to invest unprecedented amounts of taxpayers money on climate finance projects proposed by lobbyists here or elsewhere.

Is it similarly "wrong" to hold that opinion?

These are quite rational opinions by any standard.

dense

blanch152 wrote: »

Simple common sense.

Fuel sales are used to calculate carbon emissions.

If a French person is buying fuel in Luxembourg then Luxembourg's carbon emissions are higher while France's are lower.

Didn't think this needed any explanation.

Fair enough, Luxembourg could put its prices up and lower it's CO2 emissions ratings to everyone's relief, whilst France's emissions increase as a result, with no actual emissions reduction on foot of the price rise in Luxembourg.

Rearranging the chairs on the Titanic as someone said earlier.

We'll leave that at that.

dense

oscarBravo wrote: »

No. I don't buy it. You're attempting to present a facade of reasonableness, but if you've studied the literature and have come to the conclusion that climate change isn't a problem then you frankly haven't understood what you've read, or are projecting your prejudices onto what you read. We were discussing that, until you came in with your non-stop attempts to Gish gallop the thread with denialism masquerading as skepticism.

If you're coming at this discussion from the perspective that there isn't a problem to be solved, then you are the problem, and those of us who actually give a rat's ass about the future of the planet would rather you stopped trying to derail the conversation.

I, as a single individual posting here, am hardly "the problem".

The "problem" you are purporting to be concerned with is not me, it is global warming.

For your information, because you presume to be some sort of FBI mental profiler from Quantico, I am involved in overseeing many local environmental initiatives, from hedgerow cleaning to recycling and put a lot of energy into teaching young people about our obligation to care for the environment whilst reminding them that natural resources are there to be used, provided by nature, to provide energy which provides them with the means to pursue a better life, a better education and more prospects than their predecessors.

Maybe you think it would have been best to keep mankind not evolving and not using fossil fuels to attain the standards in healthcare for example, that we now have, and that an alternative, reliable, storable renewable energy source that has not yet been invented could have done the same job.

And yeah, I know, some put forth the conspiracy theory that "big oil" interests assassinated all the inventors of amazing and worthwhile energy alternatives, and that's why the world is still reliant on fossil fuels.

Edit: From observations on coast clean ups, it is evident that the majority of plastic waste is not the latest fad of "single use plastics" such as the epidemic of plastic straws, rather it is plastic junk that comes from the fishing industry, our custodians of the seas, from fishing boxes, floats, lines and nets along with expended oil and coolant containers and related detritus.

20silkcut

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Is the agricultural sector not the giant elephant in the room?

Meat farming has to be huge in Ireland, surely. Meat consumption is a huge contributor to climate change. I come from this background myself and eat meat regularly and so understand the difficulty involved in improving things here. A lot of people rely on dairy and meat farming for their livelihoods and the only way I see that changing is brave policymaking from the government which seems unlikely in tandem with a rise in people going vegan which seems much more plausible.

The Colombian coal burning power plant in money point is the biggest elephant in the room. 25% of our carbon in this country comes from that plant.
The throwaway society and inbuilt obsolescence in most white appliances and electronic goods is another big elephant in the room.

We are well on the way to shutting down peat burning energy production.
Tackling both those issues above would vastly improve our efforts to tackle climate change in this country without having to go attacking the hardworking people of rural Ireland.
It is constant attack after attack on rural life in this country it’s relentless.

dense

20silkcut wrote: »

The Colombian coal burning power plant in money point is the biggest elephant in the room. 25% of our carbon in this country comes from that plant. .

No it doesn't emit 25% of "our carbon".

Moneypoint emits just around 5 million tons of CO2 out of a total of approximately 60 million tons of CO2.

Ryanair even emits more CO2 than Moneypoint does;

https://greennews.ie/ireland-industry-emissions-down-2017/


https://www.clareecho.ie/moneypoint-co2-emissions-buck-national-greenhouse-gas-trend/


https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/greenhouse-gas-emissions-in-ireland-rise-36-in-a-year-882653.html

dense

blanch152 wrote: »

https://www.greenparty.ie/policies/climate-action/

"Preventing climate change is at the heart of the Green Party’s principles"

The Green Party has no mandate here because of it's policies.

All political parties have a similar line though, as do any businesses that want to appear green, such as oil companies.

“A new all of government plan to ensure Ireland is a leader in responding to climate change will be developed."

Fine Gael's promise about us going to be good at "responding" to climate change and become world leaders at it.

https://www.finegael.ie/area/

Best responders in the world.

Pa ElGrande

Governments in Ireland that can't manage to build a hospital for sick children on time and on budget and yet we trust them to build a electricity system based on wind and solar . . . . like everything they touch it will eventually become be an expensive oversubscribed and unreliable mess and once they are forced to withdraw the subsidies the vested interests will no longer throw good money after bad, the entire schemes will be exposed for what it is a wealth transfer to the vested interests aligned with political power. For those who think the interconnects to the continental electricity infrastructure are the answer, they should check the service levels to repair line faults and capacity of lines of the current projects to date.

Who ends up paying? You should know the answer to that by now.


That Which Is Seen and that Which Is Not Seen

The road is begun. A thousand workmen come every morning, leave every evening, and take their wages - this is certain. If the road had not been decreed, if the supplies had not been voted, these good people would have had neither work nor salary there; this also is certain.

But is this all? does not the operation, as a whole, contain something else? At the moment when M. Dupin pronounces the emphatic words, "The Assembly has adopted," do the millions descend miraculously on a moon-beam into the coffers of MM. Fould and Bineau? In order that the evolution may be complete, as it is said, must not the State organise the receipts as well as the expenditure? must it not set its tax-gatherers and tax-payers to work, the former to gather, and the latter to pay? Study the question, now, in both its elements. While you state the destination given by the State to the millions voted, do not neglect to state also the destination which the taxpayer would have given, bat cannot now give, to the same. Then you will understand that a public enterprise is a coin with two sides. Upon one is engraved a labourer at work, with this device, that which is seen; on the other is a labourer out of work, with the device, that which is not seen.

source

German power grid exposed to major turbulences in June

BERLIN, July 2 (Xinhua) -- The German power grid was overloaded several times in June as electricity demand was much higher than production, the transmission system operators (TSOs) announced on Tuesday.

"The situation was very tense and could only be mastered with the support of the European partners," said the four German grid operators Amprion, Tennet, 50Herz and TransnetBW.

On three days in June, the average demand for balancing energy in Germany, which helps make up for unforeseen power fluctuations, amounted to 6 gigawatts or roughly five nuclear power plants, according to the German TSOs.

Additional electricity had to be acquired from other European countries in order to prevent a shutdown of the German electricity grid, TSO added.

source

‘Merkel deceived us on climate’, says Germany’s Energiewende godfather

The energy transition, known as ‘Energiewende’ in Germany, is the country’s planned transition to a low-carbon, nuclear-free economy. It grew from a grassroots environmental movement into a vast national project.

At the heart of the Energiewende is the law Hans Josef Fell designed in 2000 – the Renewable Energy Act, which granted grid priority and guaranteed feed-in tariffs for renewable energies.

In 2000, the SPD-Green government and utilities also agreed to a nuclear phase-out, leading to a boom of wind and solar power in Germany up until 2012, Fell explained.

“Up to 2012, Germany did very, very good in terms of expanding the renewables industry and bringing the energy transition forward,” Fell said.

“But then, the federal government started to introduce a series of legislation that were detrimental to the energy transition,” he continued, describing these measures as legal “attacks” against the EEG and the Energiewende.

Those attacks took the form of steep cuts to the guaranteed tariffs for solar energy. “You can do that when an industry is strong enough but not when it starts,” he said.

Then, around 2012, the introduction of the auction mechanisms for renewables followed. “This happened in response to the pressure of the European Commission, but Berlin channelled this pressure to modify the EEG,” Fell explained.

source

Is the Long Renewables Honeymoon Over?

The European renewables industry press, which is usually unequivocally upbeat in its assessments, is currently reporting a broad spectrum of substantial problems in the sector, ranging from bankruptcies and technical problems to tepid policy support and increasing public resistance.
<snip>
Elsewhere in the offshore wind universe, two large and relatively new projects are in the midst of what must be costly repairs involving significant downtime. Having received regulatory approval, the Danish mega-developer Orsted is about to start removing and renovating all 324 blades on the 108-turbine, 389 MW, Duddon Sands wind farm in the UK part of the Irish Sea, a year after problems first became apparent. The machines used, the Siemens 3.6–120, have suffered leading edge erosion, a problem that affects perhaps some 500 turbines in Europe (See “Type Failure or Wear and Tear in European Offshore Wind?”), and requiring the application of a remedial covering to each blade.


there is more

Green Mega-Flop: Germany’s Solar Industry Crashes And Burns

Almost every single major German producer of solar systems has gone insolvent. Investors are flocking away in droves because of cancelled subsidies. New additional installations are hardly taking place. The first installations are now being taken offline and the share of solar power in Germany has fallen below 6 percent.

Michael Kruger at German skeptic site Science Skeptical here writes about how solar energy industry in Germany has disintegrated spectacularly.

What follows are 4 charts that show us some shocking trends, and how in reality the German solar industry has seen a bloodbath that can be rated as one of the worst in a long time. The reality is that Germany’s green revolution is far from being a model for the world.

source

eire4

troyzer wrote: »

So anything that affects the rural people of one of the wealthiest countries in the world is unfair but making Africa (where most of the most impoverished countries are) change its ways is fair.

Ireland is one of the worst pollutants in the world per capita. We need to get our **** together.

It can also be a great opportunity as well as a threat.

You make a great point about it being a great opportunity. I think countries that get it together on renewable energy and moving to a green economy quickly will be at a significant economic advantage in the not too distant future.

eire4

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Is the agricultural sector not the giant elephant in the room?

Meat farming has to be huge in Ireland, surely. Meat consumption is a huge contributor to climate change. I come from this background myself and eat meat regularly and so understand the difficulty involved in improving things here. A lot of people rely on dairy and meat farming for their livelihoods and the only way I see that changing is brave policymaking from the government which seems unlikely in tandem with a rise in people going vegan which seems much more plausible.

No question farming is a part of our issues in terms of carbon but it is not as if we have to reach a state of zero carbon emissions.
Clearly farming being so important to our economy we have to find ways to make things work overall so as to affect farming as little as possible. Having said that there is no excuse for us been so pathetic when it comes to renewables generating our energy. We need to get to 100% of our electricity coming from renewables asap. That should be a real priority at governmental level Fine Gale or not.

eire4

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

With all the other potential renewable sources we have available to us here, do we really need nuclear?

I would say no and of course there is thankfully no way that would even be a starter politically. But we need our government to take getting to 100% electricity from renewables as a priority and it needs to happen yesterday so to speak.