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

weldoninhio

171170 wrote: »

To raise awareness of her or of her cause?

Because every time that I see her incredibly slappable face in the media, I get an almost unstoppable urge to throw another couple of tractor tyres on the bonfire.

Every time I see her she reminds me of Zed from Police Academy

Tuisceanch

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

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.

I agree with the observations you have made regarding the reality of the challenges we face. I don't agree that Greta Thunberg's activism,however, is as relevant as you suggest.

https://www.dccae.gov.ie/en-ie/climate-action/topics/eu-and-international-climate-action/2020-eu-targets/pages/default.aspx

Ireland’s 2020 target is to achieve a 20% reduction of non-ETS sector emissions on 2005 levels with annual binding limits set for each year over the period 2013-2020.

The EU Effort Sharing Decision (ESD) established binding annual greenhouse gas emission targets for Member States for the period 2013–2020. These targets concern emissions from most sectors not included in the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), such as transport, buildings, agriculture and waste.

In relation to that a very recent article in the Irish Times comments:

Reaching the 2020 goal is a lost cause and the State is not on course to meet more demanding 2030 targets, or even the “net zero” target in 2050.

Ireland has a notorious and long-established record, encapsulated in emission figures that don’t lie
Missing targets matters and from next year it will come with a cost: hundreds of millions a year in fines for not living up to our promises to the EU.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/q-a-why-is-ireland-failing-to-meet-its-environmental-targets-1.4062886

Not only that but:

Ireland’s obligations under the Effort Sharing Decision will finish in 2020, at which point it will be followed up by the Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR). This Regulation, which was adopted on 30 May 2018, sets out binding annual greenhouse gas emission targets for Member States for the period 2021–2030 inclusive.

Ireland will contribute to the Paris Agreement via the Nationally Determined Commitment tabled by the EU in March 2015 on behalf of Member States, which commits to at least a 40% reduction in EU-wide emissions by 2030 (compared to 1990 levels); this is based on reductions in the ETS and non-ETS sectors of 43% and 30% respectively (compared to 2005).

At the moment we seem to be paralysed by ineffective action commited instead to paying fines. Is this going to be sustainable? Should we leave the EU?

Winning_Stroke

She's a very brave young lady and we can learn a lot from her past year and a bit.

Tuisceanch

Winning_Stroke wrote: »

She's a very brave young lady and we can learn a lot from her past year and a bit.

Her actions have generated awareness of the opinions of the overwhelming majority of Scientists as well as the actions of other less celebrated activists. That a 16th year old should be subjected to such scorn and ridicule for doing so is, in my opinion, symptomatic of the corruption of genuine political debate. The fact that she is able to rise above it and remain calm speaks of great character and courage so perhaps indeed there are lessons to be learned.

hetuzozaho

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.

Gas to think a chunk of this is so we can feed an animal grass so we can milk it

You'd wonder if in a hundred years will society be like, what were we thinking haha

Tell me how

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

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.

Well, no one is saying you have yo develop a global solution but given the comments you made, it is interesting to know if you have ideas or are just eager to take the Ian Paisley line of 'No. No. No.'

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

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).

............................................

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).

Just because foreign companies such as those in the Med Tech, Pharma and Technology sectors are non Irish founded, that does not imply that we do not have those industries in the country. They are in Ireland, in a big way.

Also, is it really a good way to participate in such a discussion while admitting you are pulling figures out of thin air which no one has indicated have a basis in reality?

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

"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?

...................

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.

Well, you started out agree with Gozunda that you shouldn't have to offer solutions (which you didn't, to be fair) but now you are focusing on Ireland and Gozunda has been at pains to point out this is a thread about Greta.

The reason I mention this is because Greta's message is both that someone needs to be done, and that she acknowledges the solutions are not in front of us right now. She said recently she understands, for example, that it is not feasible that people only sail to the US.

But something needs to be done, you have not denied that.

It has been discussed several times on thread that while Ireland is indeed a small country, the idea of countries grouping together, committing to efforts and then holding each other to account has been proven to be the best way to enact change on a global level.

There's all this talk of taxes, taxes, taxes and now Leo when the evidence has shown that Leo/FG has been hesitant to introduce taxes in this space.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Well, no one is saying you have yo develop a global solution but given the comments you made, it is interesting to know if you have ideas or are just eager to take the Ian Paisley line of 'No. No. No.'
Just because foreign companies such as those in the Med Tech, Pharma and Technology sectors are non Irish founded, that does not imply that we do not have those industries in the country. They are in Ireland, in a big way.
Also, is it really a good way to participate in such a discussion while admitting you are pulling figures out of thin air which no one has indicated have a basis in reality?
Well, you started out agree with Gozunda that you shouldn't have to offer solutions (which you didn't, to be fair) but now you are focusing on Ireland and Gozunda has been at pains to point out this is a thread about Greta.
The reason I mention this is because Greta's message is both that someone needs to be done, and that she acknowledges the solutions are not in front of us right now. She said recently she understands, for example, that it is not feasible that people only sail to the US. But something needs to be done, you have not denied that. It has been discussed several times on thread that while Ireland is indeed a small country, the idea of countries grouping together, committing to efforts and then holding each other to account has been proven to be the best way to enact change on a global level.
There's all this talk of taxes, taxes, taxes and now Leo when the evidence has shown that Leo/FG has been hesitant to introduce taxes in this space.

Ahh I think you may be misquoting me with a bit of old contextomy there again. Indeed the thread as inspired by the OP is about gretas travels across the world etc. I think we all know that as it's in the thread title. Though we have also recently learned on here that greta has indeed been Invited here - Cork if I remember correctly? So even more travels? Anyway cant wait! Should be a hoot eitherway.

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

Ahh I think you may be misquoting me with a bit of old contextomy there again. Indeed the thread as inspired by the OP is about gretas travels across the world etc. I think we all know that as it's in the thread title. Though we have also recently learned on here that greta has indeed been Invited here - Cork if I remember correctly? So even more travels? Anyway cant wait! Should be a hoot eitherway.

Well, I could quote the x number of posts where you have pointed this out to prove there's no misquoting here, but, you and I both have been here long enough to know that that is the case without me going to the trouble of doing so.

Clarence Boddiker

The idea that reducing Irelands emissions through drastically reducing the number of cattle and beef farming in general has nothing whatsoever to do with the environment.

Its a trade deal in which Europe will sell the South Americans cars, machinery, chemicals, pharma etc and in return the Eu will buy South American beef.
Someone in Europe has to take a major hit in order to make room for the imported beef and it has been decided that Irish beef farmers will be sacrificed. Wrapping up the targeted destruction of the Irish beef sector in environmental reasons is a lie and a fraud.
If emissions were the real concern then why would the EU want to import 100k tonnes a year of beef from South America?

hetuzozaho

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

The idea that reducing Irelands emissions through drastically reducing the number of cattle and beef farming in general has nothing whatsoever to do with the environment.

Where would someone read more on this theory?

Thelonious Monk

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

The idea that reducing Irelands emissions through drastically reducing the number of cattle and beef farming in general has nothing whatsoever to do with the environment.

Its a trade deal in which Europe will sell the South Americans cars, machinery, chemicals, pharma etc and in return the Eu will buy South American beef.
Someone in Europe has to take a major hit in order to make room for the imported beef and it has been decided that Irish beef farmers will be sacrificed. Wrapping up the targeted destruction of the Irish beef sector in environmental reasons is a lie and a fraud.
If emissions were the real concern then why would the EU want to import 100k tonnes a year of beef from South America?

What on earth makes you think we will reduce the number of cattle in Ireland? No politician would ever dare suggest this.

Tuisceanch

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

The idea that reducing Irelands emissions through drastically reducing the number of cattle and beef farming in general has nothing whatsoever to do with the environment.

Its a trade deal in which Europe will sell the South Americans cars, machinery, chemicals, pharma etc and in return the Eu will buy South American beef.
Someone in Europe has to take a major hit in order to make room for the imported beef and it has been decided that Irish beef farmers will be sacrificed. Wrapping up the targeted destruction of the Irish beef sector in environmental reasons is a lie and a fraud.
If emissions were the real concern then why would the EU want to import 100k tonnes a year of beef from South America?

Fair Point.

Clarence Boddiker

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Where would someone read more on this theory?

Look up the Mercosur trade deal.
If emissions were the problem then why would we be looking to import 100k tonnes of cattle a year, cattle which will cause emissions (over there) Massive swathes of forest will be cleared in order to rear the cattle. Enormous amounts of C02 output, fuel consumption, energy consumption will occur along the process of bringing this beef from farms halfway across the world to European dinner plates.

Tell me how

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

The idea that reducing Irelands emissions through drastically reducing the number of cattle and beef farming in general has nothing whatsoever to do with the environment.

Its a trade deal in which Europe will sell the South Americans cars, machinery, chemicals, pharma etc and in return the Eu will buy South American beef.
Someone in Europe has to take a major hit in order to make room for the imported beef and it has been decided that Irish beef farmers will be sacrificed. Wrapping up the targeted destruction of the Irish beef sector in environmental reasons is a lie and a fraud.
If emissions were the real concern then why would the EU want to import 100k tonnes a year of beef from South America?

You're mixing up the 2 things.

The EU and South America is a conventional trade deal. That's how they work. Ireland will likely benefit from the sale of other products to the region while, yes, the idea of 100k tonnes coming in to the EU could impact them. But, Chinese officials recently approved several processing plants for processing Beef for delivery in to their market. So, that could offset losses associated with the trade deal.

Conversation on herd numbers is brought up given that we are yet to meet our CO2 targets and the contribution from this industry towards this.

Tuisceanch

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Where would someone read more on this theory?

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/06/eu-south-america-trade-deal-a-dark-moment-for-farmers/

European farmers and environmentalists have denounced a historic trade deal signed between the EU and South American countries as a “dark moment”, warning of unfair competition and dire consequences for the climate.

I don't know much if anything at all about this subject so I'll add this link I found for anybody else who is also unfamiliar with the subject.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Well, I could quote the x number of posts where you have pointed this out to prove there's no misquoting here, but, you and I both have been here long enough to know that that is the case without me going to the trouble of doing so.

Ah I see a little humour lol? No worries Yup plenty of examples indeed where this is detailed. Plus its also thread title btw here, here, here and most recently here.

hetuzozaho

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

Look up the Mercosur trade deal.

Ah interesting. I see it is being discussed today from 3pm.

Sounds like many others have the same concerns as yourself regarding emissions involved if deal does go through.

Here's hoping it won't..?

Thelonious Monk

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

Look up the Mercosur trade deal.
If emissions were the problem then why would we be looking to import 100k tonnes of cattle a year, cattle which will cause emissions (over there) Massive swathes of forest will be cleared in order to rear the cattle. Enormous amounts of C02 output, fuel consumption, energy consumption will occur along the process of bringing this beef from farms halfway across the world to European dinner plates.

In fairness we should also stop importing feed from south america that also clears forest. And we export our beef all over the world too.

Tuisceanch

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Ah interesting. I see it is being discussed today from 3pm.

Sounds like many others have the same concerns as yourself regarding emissions involved if deal does go through.

Here's hoping it won't..?

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/en/plenary/video?date=18-12-2019

Clarence Boddiker

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

In fairness we should also stop importing feed from south america that also clears forest. And we export our beef all over the world too.

True, but it still doesn't make sense from an environmental point of view. It looks like it will actually add to all of the environmental issues rather than reduce them.

There's also the issue of the likes of Brazilian beef having far less restrictions in terms of rearing them, so health wise we will be importing a considerably inferior product.

Winning_Stroke

With less cattle, we can improve Ireland's rewilding efforts though

Thelonious Monk

Winning_Stroke wrote: »

With less cattle, we can improve Ireland's rewilding efforts though

Rewilding is never going to happen in Ireland. People look around and see green and think it's a wild clean country already. Apart from Malta we have the least tree coverage in Europe.

Clarence Boddiker

Winning_Stroke wrote: »

With less cattle, we can improve Ireland's rewilding efforts though

I fear our 'rewilding' will consist solely of the wonderful botanical diversity of Sitka Spruce!

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

You're mixing up the 2 things. The EU and South America is a conventional trade deal. That's how they work. Ireland will likely benefit from the sale of other products to the region while, yes, the idea of 100k tonnes coming in to the EU could impact them. But, Chinese officials recently approved several processing plants for processing Beef for delivery in to their market. So, that could offset losses associated with the trade deal.
Conversation on herd numbers is brought up given that we are yet to meet our CO2 targets and the contribution from this industry towards this.

You will be delighted to know that overall cattle numbers are down from the time when we first joined the EU.

A big issue is to do with how emissions are accounted for. The bulk of Irish beef is exported to our European Trading partners - so stays within the EU and consumed there. However we as the producer end up with the emissions on our books here. Now the various EU countries could supply their own beef etc but that would mean they would have to account for those emissions themselves. Plus it is acknowledged that Ireland is already one of the world’s most efficient food producers, in terms of carbon footprint per unit of output. Making Ireland a good place for our EU partners to import beef from unlike places such as South America.

Anyhow it's interesting to note that the consumption of energy accounts "for 60% of Ireland’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2017. With Transport, residential and industry accounted for the highest shares"

"Transport is by far the largest source of energy-related CO2 emissions in Ireland. In 2017 it was responsible for 39%. It is also the sector where CO2 emissions are growing the fastest."

Anyway looks like reductions across the board are required.

"For Ireland to reduce our non-ETS emissions and meet our targets for 2030, we need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions from transport and homes, as well as agriculture."

https://www.seai.ie/data-and-insights/seai-statistics/key-statistics/co2/

Indeed the conversation is ongoing with "The All of Government Climate Action Plan" which aims of an emissions reduction target of 10% to 15% for agriculture, bringing emissions to be between 17.5 and 19 Mt in 2030. 

Winning_Stroke

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Rewilding is never going to happen in Ireland. People look around and see green and think it's a wild clean country already. Apart from Malta we have the least tree coverage in Europe.

I know. We need more trees, wildlife and all that. Less of a meat diet and cheaper South American meat should kill off our cattle industry and I think that's good.

Thelonious Monk

Winning_Stroke wrote: »

I know. We need more trees, wildlife and all that. Less of a meat diet and cheaper South American meat should kill off our cattle industry and I think that's good.

Less cattle worldwide maybe, no trees or wildlife in ireland or brazil are both bad

is_that_so

Winning_Stroke wrote: »

I know. We need more trees, wildlife and all that. Less of a meat diet and cheaper South American meat should kill off our cattle industry and I think that's good.

There is a plan, announced sometime recently, to make tree planting native varieties. The numbers are huge but we're still a little short on the how. As for cattle, the Chinese are hungry for quality beef and there's all that huge potential for milk derived products so I wouldn't be writing it off anytime soon.

Thelonious Monk

is_that_so wrote: »

There is a plan, announced sometime recently, to make tree planting native varieties. The numbers are huge but we're still a little short on the how. As for cattle, the Chinese are hungry for quality beef and there's all that huge potential for milk derived products so I wouldn't be writing it off anytime soon.

Its not much of a plan, just greenwashing. They also announced overall increase in fishing quotas in the EU today. Business and politics have no interest in conservation or the future. Money talks.

Winning_Stroke

is_that_so wrote: »

There is a plan, announced sometime recently, to make tree planting native varieties. The numbers are huge but we're still a little short on the how. As for cattle, the Chinese are hungry for quality beef and there's all that huge potential for milk derived products so I wouldn't be writing it off anytime soon.

Much like countries with vast fossil fuel reserves must give it up, we have to end our farming.

Thelonious Monk

Winning_Stroke wrote: »

Much like countries with vast fossil fuel reserves must give it up, we have to end our farming.

Well we don't but some rewilding and diversity would be nice. It's funny though, the likes of Norway are green nowadays but only because they made so much money exporting a dirty product, highest EV ownership in the world etc.