Greta and the aristocrat sail the high seas to save the planet.

Thelonious Monk

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Nope, not convinced!

It's obvious this girl is being used and manipulated to make an ideological statement by others. That's the real issue here.

But asking us in the West (or even just Ireland) to adopt some sort of climate guilt complex and live like we're in some third world backwater, while nations like China and others do a lot more ecological damage than we ever could for twitter "feels" and kudos? Pass!

It's nonsense. It's a distraction, and I for one am not buying into it.

You might have to buy into it whether you like it or not, when taxes are raised on fuel and flying and plastics etc!
Also look into ecological damage in Ireland, there's a lot of bad stuff going on, the recent report on our waterways and how polluted they are was shocking.

gozunda

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

You might have to buy into it whether you like it or not, when taxes are raised on fuel and flying and plastics etc!Also look into ecological damage in Ireland, there's a lot of bad stuff going on, the recent report on our waterways and how polluted they are was shocking.

And the major changes is that population in Ireland us up 46% since joined the EU with urbanisation, water use, sewage disposal, road building, state sponsored drainage, industrialisation, production etc. What to do eh?

mikeym

http://www.redfm.ie/news/cork/climate-activist-greta-thunberg-to-be-invited-cork/?fbclid=IwAR1vBwyxGyCejxoD3UjeK1g0cW8al_GVZxkNlz48GG24fkwoTmtzO0VnHW4


Greta to come to Cork.


I highly doubt it.

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

And the major changes is that population in Ireland us up 46% since joined the EU with urbanisation, water use, sewage disposal, road building, state sponsored drainage, industrialisation, production etc. What to do eh?

See, this is something which I could mention tomorrow, or in a few days but you would say that I was misquoting you or something.

You have previously said that you are not going to offer any solutions to what is going on with the climate.

Can I take it, your position now is that over population in Ireland is an issue and you feel something should be done about it?

If this is the issue, what do you think should be done?
What happened to the 'We are too small to make a difference here' position held previously?

Tell me how

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

It's nonsense. It's a distraction, and I for one am not buying into it.

A distraction from what?

What do you think should be done instead?

KyussB

Gozunda: Being a farmer I assume, do you view many of the oft-spoken policies for arresting climate change contributions, as being against your business interests?

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

See, this is something which I could mention tomorrow, or in a few days but you would say that I was misquoting you or something. You have previously said that you are not going to offer any solutions to what is going on with the climate. Can I take it, your position now is that over population in Ireland is an issue and you feel something should be done about it?
If this is the issue, what do you think should be done?What happened to the 'We are too small to make a difference here' position held previously?

Ah indeed spot on exactly that. More misquoting and attribution. Well done - I'd expected no less.

Ok lets go over this very slowly. As has been proven previously this is a (humourous) thread about gretas travels etc. Hence the odd joke humour etc thrown in by various posters.

And separately as explained previously - just because anyone doesn't worship greta - does not mean they have to provide solutions to global problems by way of compensation as was insisted upon by some.

And nope I do not refer to Ireland and 'over population' in the above comment. Certainly Ireland has experienced a fairly rapid population growth and the consequent impacts of same. Not that hard to understand really.

Now for the the bit in quotation marks detailed which you claim a 'position held previously' which you seem to be attributing to myself viz.

'We are too small to make a difference here'

Well no - I have never written that phrase in relation to any discussion here. So once again you're making up what you want to believe others are saying. Problem with that it's simply more rubbish. But there we go...

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Gozunda: Being a farmer I assume, do you view many of the oft-spoken policies for arresting climate change contributions, as being against your business interests?

Nope.

Same question to you

KyussB: Being a programmer I assume? do you view many of the oft-spoken policies for arresting climate change contributions, as being against your business interests?

MrMusician18

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

You might have to buy into it whether you like it or not, when taxes are raised on fuel and flying and plastics etc!
Also look into ecological damage in Ireland, there's a lot of bad stuff going on, the recent report on our waterways and how polluted they are was shocking.

I absolutely find it hard to believe that Irish rivers are now more polluted than ever when most towns were discharging semi raw sewage at best into rivers up until the 80s

gozunda

MrMusician18 wrote: »

I absolutely find it hard to believe that Irish rivers are now more polluted than ever when most towns were discharging semi raw sewage at best into rivers up until the 80s

It still happens ...

https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/1113/1090470-waste-water/

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

Nope.

Same question to you

KyussB: Being a programmer I assume? do you view many of the oft-spoken policies for arresting climate change contributions, as being against your business interests?

Nope - I could easily see everything I'm involved in working on, and my own workstuff, running entirely off renewable energy - the infrastructure in between (Internet) being outside the scope of control. The industries behind the hardware would need a lot of reform, mind.

Do you see your business being carbon neutral anytime in the next decade or two? (including stuff like emissions from any livestock or indirectly through fertilizer/N2O?)

If no, would targeting major (50+%) reductions in those emissions, be a threat to your business?

MrMusician18

gozunda wrote: »

It still happens ...

https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/1113/1090470-waste-water/

Indeed it does, but the extent of that particular problem is vastly reduced thankfully.

This is why I'm having a hard time understanding why the EPA are saying so few of our rivers are unpolluted compared to yesteryear. Unless of course they are referring to the invasive species that's taking over our rivers. Some sort of clam iirc

MrMusician18

KyussB wrote: »

Nope - I could easily see everything I'm involved in working on, and my own workstuff, running entirely off renewable energy - the infrastructure in between (Internet) being outside the scope of control. The industries behind the hardware would need a lot of reform, mind.

Do you see your business being carbon neutral anytime in the next decade or two? (including stuff like emissions from any livestock or indirectly through fertilizer/N2O?)

If no, would targeting major (50+%) reductions in those emissions, be a threat to your business?

If course it's a threat to his business, precisely for the reasons why most people oppose these measures - that is not everyone, globally, is going to follow them and those that don't will undercut those that do in the global market.

If every farmer could reduce their carbon inputs by half and retain the same income, there would be little to no resistance to the change. The problem is that the effective changes being sought will make them uncompetitive, and to rub salt in the wound: not actually achieving anything as the problem hasn't gone away, just shipped out of sight.

gozunda

MrMusician18 wrote: »

If course it's a threat to his business, precisely for the reasons why most people oppose these measures - that is not everyone, globally, is going to follow them and those that don't will undercut those that do in the global market.

If every farmer could reduce their carbon inputs by half and retain the same income, there would be little to no resistance to the change. The problem is that the effective changes being sought will make them uncompetitive, and to rub salt in the wound: not actually achieving anything as the problem hasn't gone away, just shipped out of sight.

Kind of going way off course here ....

True to a degree but the principal 'threats' depends on what the sector of agriculture any particular farmer was engaged in.

Currently the main issues relate to changes in greenhouse gas emissions regarding methane and the emerging science of carbon sequestration.

With regard to known emissions it would appear that the science is changing its focus with grassland now being viewed as a major carbon sink

According to the European Environmental Agency one of the best ways to sequester carbon is to utilise existing grasslands (this would also require continued grazing with animals btw)

Climate change mitigation. 
The most carbon-rich soils are peatlands, mostly found in northern Europe, the UK and Ireland. Grassland soils also store a lot of carbon per hectare...The fastest way to increase organic carbon in farmed soil is to convert arable land to grassland...

https://www.eea.europa.eu/signals/signals-2015/articles/soil-and-climate-change

In addition to carbon sequestration - we have new research which points to ruminant agriculture helping to deliver reduced emissions within agriculture

https://www.bva.co.uk/news-and-blog/blog-article/ruminant-agriculture-can-help-us-deliver-net-zero-emissions/?fbclid=IwAR3diwroAtnVtYrYCLNSoA0OwwqLKcOdpp3HQbI3GbRn3NBP599bC6JvBbY

Much of the previous data regarding greenhouse gasses and agriculture was found to be incorrect regarding agriculture's contributions to climate change. A report initially used by the UN claimed agriculture was responsible for 18 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions globally – more than transport. That research was found to be seriously flawed - with the figure for agriculture having been reached by adding all greenhouse gas emissions associated with production, including fertiliser production, land clearance, methane emissions and vehicle use on farms, whereas the transport figure had only included the burning of fossil fuels.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/7509978/UN-admits-flaw-in-report-on-meat-and-climate-change.html

These flawed findings were flagged by the UN as incorrect. Unfortunately these same figures still get regularly trotted out to this day by various websites.

It would also appear that there is a movement within Europe towards rewarding farmers for carbon sequestration and miminal carbon footprint farming practises.

Like KyussBs industry - there is potential for increasing the use of renewable energy within agriculture to further lower any environmental impacts.

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

True to a degree but the principal 'threats' depends on what the sector of agriculture any particular farmer was engaged in.

Currently the main issues relate to changes in greenhouse gas emissions regarding methane and the emerging science of carbon sequestration.

With regard to known emissions it would appear that the science is changing its focus with grassland now being viewed as a major carbon sink

According to the European Environmental Agency one of the best ways to sequester carbon is to utilise existing grasslands (this would also require continued grazing with animals btw)



https://www.eea.europa.eu/signals/signals-2015/articles/soil-and-climate-change

In addition to carbon sequestration - we have new research which points to ruminant agriculture helping to deliver reduced emissions within agriculture

https://www.bva.co.uk/news-and-blog/blog-article/ruminant-agriculture-can-help-us-deliver-net-zero-emissions/?fbclid=IwAR3diwroAtnVtYrYCLNSoA0OwwqLKcOdpp3HQbI3GbRn3NBP599bC6JvBbY

Much of the previous data regarding greenhouse gasses and agriculture was found to be incorrect regarding agriculture's contributions to climate change. A report initially used by the UN claimed agriculture was responsible for 18 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions globally – more than transport. That research was found to be seriously flawed - with the figure for agriculture having been reached by adding all greenhouse gas emissions associated with production, including fertiliser production, land clearance, methane emissions and vehicle use on farms, whereas the transport figure had only included the burning of fossil fuels.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/7509978/UN-admits-flaw-in-report-on-meat-and-climate-change.html

These flawed findings were flagged by the UN as incorrect. Unfortunately these same figures still get regularly trotted out to this day by various websites.

It would also appear that there is a movement within Europe to a move to rewarding farmers for carbon sequestration and miminal carbon footprint farming practises.


Like KyussBs industry - there is potential for increasing tte use of renewable energy within agriculture to further lower any environmental impact.

Still saying it's a humours thread are you?

You post an argument in some posts without any hint of joking but then when more of your arguments are challenged or you're asked to defend or clarify it you say 'oh it's a humourous thread'....

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Still saying it's a humours thread are you?You post an argument in some posts without any hint of joking but then when more of your arguments are challenged or you're asked to defend or clarify it you say 'oh it's a humourous thread'....

Again check what your quoting. Indeed it's a 'humourous' thread - that's a fact - See thread title! But nope incorrect re. 'challenged' 'defend' 'clarify' etc etc etc

'

hetuzozaho

gozunda wrote: »

'Humours'? Ah you mean 'humerous'!

I think that might be wrong too?

You guys should go easy on each other

gozunda

hetuzozaho wrote: »

I think that might be wrong too?
You guys should go easy on each other

Yup just a small joke! Well spotted

hetuzozaho

gozunda wrote: »

Yup just a small joke! Well spotted

Bah I can't take the kudos.. I didn't spot it, what's the joke?

gozunda

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Bah I can't take the kudos.. I didn't spot it, what's the joke?

Nah you're right. I've changed that. Probably wouldn't work in context. Joke was a play on words humerus / humourous
= funny bone. Sorry my bad

hetuzozaho

gozunda wrote: »

Nah you're right. I've changed that. Probably wouldn't work in context. Joke was a play on words humerous / humerous = funny bone. Sorry my bad

Humerus you probably mean.

gozunda

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Humerus you probably mean.

Yes that...;) T'is late

Beechwoodspark

As someone who is passionate about climate action I am delighted to see GT is getting through to boardsies and the message is being taken in

_Kaiser_

Tell me how wrote: »

A distraction from what?

What do you think should be done instead?

As gozunda rightly points out, it's not on me to develop a global solution here just because I don't buy into the cynical and obvious manipulation of a child to further ideological crusading.

I've said this before in relation to other things, but here in Ireland we have a population less than most major cities (almost all of which are in the developing East incidentally). We have limited resources, no heavy industry, and are almost entirely dependent on foreign trade and investment to drive our economy. We have really only one major centre of employment and activity in the country and a dispersed rural population outside it and the 2/3 other "cities" (large towns really).

Our impact is negligible compared to those other places, but we do have that instinctive need for approval and validation to consider, so of course we will always be among the first to jump on board the latest trendy crusade.

Even if we made the massive infrastructural and lifestyle changes needed to hit some of these goals, the impact will be miniscule overall (who's going to pay for it by the way? Considering we can't even build a hospital without it turning into a financial black hole l struggle with the concept of us making these changes on a national scale).

The one industry we have (farming) is already under pressure they say (hence the blockades in Dublin again this week). Let's see what happens when they're told to halve production (number picked out of the air) to meet some notional target signed by already out of touch politicians like Leo Varadkar (who no doubt already has his eye on his next job once FG find themselves in opposition again).

"But but... We'll be doing our part to save the planet!" I hear the crusaders say. Yep, I'm sure that'll be great comfort to the already squeezed taxpayer who will be hit with higher taxes, higher costs of living, more stress and pressure in their daily lives....... For what? So the vocal social media types can post feel good "yay we did it!" nonsense to each other and like each other's comments?

As always with this stuff, the reality of their proposals is a secondary concern if it figures at all. People need to be conscious of how they dispose of their rubbish and reduce waste there (and moves are already afoot to reduce packaging at source).

The moves towards cleaner petrol and diesel cars are now already supplemented by electric where it makes sense. Public transport of course remains a disaster but I don't think there's any real will to change that - just like renting it's seen as something you endure rather than a viable sustainable option in itself.

There's other initiatives too but in short we are already doing our part given the reality in this country and resources and finances we have (don't forget about our existing massive debt and budget commitments either).

Signing up to global plans might look good for a photo op and some twitter comments, but trying to push us to living like we're in the Third World to hit some target isn't the answer and will soon be forgotten once the next major economic crisis hits.

jackboy

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Indeed it does, but the extent of that particular problem is vastly reduced thankfully.

This is why I'm having a hard time understanding why the EPA are saying so few of our rivers are unpolluted compared to yesteryear. Unless of course they are referring to the invasive species that's taking over our rivers. Some sort of clam iirc

The use of slatted houses on farms has massively increased. The slurry from these are destroying our river systems. So human sewerage is less of an issue now but slurry a much increased issue.

gozunda

jackboy wrote: »

The use of slatted houses on farms has massively increased. The slurry from these are destroying our river systems. So human sewerage is less of an issue now but slurry a much increased issue.

Certainly point sources may be an issue. Re slatted houses - these are always constructed with storage for run off and slurry - designed to hold the waste. A bigger issue though seems to be nitrates

https://amp.independent.ie/business/farming/forestry-enviro/environment/citizen-scientists-find-high-fertiliser-levels-in-our-rivers-and-lakes-38648253.html

Problem there is that these can accidentally get washed into rivers in very wet weather. That said fertiliser use overall has declined. Not a bad thing imo. Some good work been done with regards to all forms off aquatic pollution at present.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/call-for-funds-for-environmentally-friendly-farmers-to-protect-rivers-and-lakes-1.4111396

There is also very strict controls on what can be used on farm etc

https://www.housing.gov.ie/water/water-quality/nitrates/nitrates-directive

jackboy

gozunda wrote: »

Certainly point sources may be an issue. Re slated houses - these are always constructed with storage for run off and slurry - designed to hold the waste. A bigger issue though seems to be nitrates

https://amp.independent.ie/business/farming/forestry-enviro/environment/citizen-scientists-find-high-fertiliser-levels-in-our-rivers-and-lakes-38648253.html

Problem there is that these can accidentally get washed into rivers in very wet weather. That said fertiliser use overall has declined. Not a bad thing imo. Some good work been done with regards to all forms off aquatic pollution at present.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/call-for-funds-for-environmentally-friendly-farmers-to-protect-rivers-and-lakes-1.4111396

There is also very strict controls on what can be used on farm etc

https://www.housing.gov.ie/water/water-quality/nitrates/nitrates-directive

The issue with slatted houses is the accumulation of slurry. The issues are caused when this is spread on the land in Spring. Because of the unpredictable weather we get, large amounts of this ends up washed into the rivers.

I see locally if one farmer times the spreading of slurry wrong, the river can be destroyed for miles downstream.

I’m not sure if this system of collecting slurry and then spreading in one go can ever work in Ireland with our climate.

gozunda

jackboy wrote: »

The issue with slatted houses is the accumulation of slurry. The issues are caused when this is spread on the land in Spring. Because of the unpredictable weather we get, large amounts of this ends up washed into the rivers.I see locally if one farmer times the spreading of slurry wrong, the river can be destroyed for miles downstream.
I’m not sure if this system of collecting slurry and then spreading in one go can ever work in Ireland with our climate.

The reason for storage is livestock manures cannot be spread during the winter months and by law must be stored.

There are also strict controls on what can be spread and when. I'd agree though the system cannot be perfect given some weather conditions

https://www.housing.gov.ie/water/water-quality/nitrates/nitrates-directive

Currently - all land spreading activity is conditional on weather and ground conditions being suitable.  With livestock manures or any chemical fertilisers 'not be applied to land when waterlogged, flooded or likely to flood, frozen or if heavy rain is forecasted within 48 hours'

Where is an issue locally then Local Authorities are responsible for enforcing the Nitrates Regulations. The oversee any possible breaches and will investigate and or prosecute if necessary. Round here inspections are a regular occurrence. Luckily though river water quality is good.

jackboy

gozunda wrote: »

With livestock manures or any chemical fertilisers 'not be applied to land when waterlogged, flooded or likely to flood, frozen or if heavy rain is forecasted within 48 hours'

This part is the problem. In areas with poor land, some years it is very hard to meet these criteria. Very few inspections around here. I wonder if the inspections are focused on the parts of the country with more prime productive farmland.

gozunda

jackboy wrote: »

This part is the problem. In areas with poor land, some years it is very hard to meet these criteria. Very few inspections around here. I wonder if the inspections are focused on the parts of the country with more prime productive farmland.

I dont think so tbh - each local authority has a remit farms for nitrates inspection compliance and are chosen based on risk selection, whilst others are chosen at random. Thres Department of Agriculture also reviews LA reports and inspections. Penalties for non compliance can be significant.