The entire Green argument for Ireland decreasing its C02 emissions is bogus

SomeGuyCalledMi

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Their entire argument for decreasing emissions (7% annually is now sacrosanct) is completely based on a misunderstanding (or deliberate misunderstanding) of statistics.


I've made this point before but Colm McCarthy does well in the Indo:


https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/climate-and-covid-19-heed-no-borders-39194001.html


The EU per capita emissions statistics are flawed for two major reasons:


1) They include agriculture. This is a production activity. Ireland produces good produce, and essentially the Greens want to penalize us for this. This would be equivalent to penalizing Saudi Arabia because they produce a lot of oil. Incidentally, oil production is not included in Saudi Arabia's C02 emissions. The C02 emissions of the oil produce of Saudi ARabia is correctly allocated to the countires who actually consume the oil. This is how it should be done. Consumption, not production. Any reduction in Irish production will simply be shifted to other countries, because we certainly won't be eating less.


2) Agriculture is included in the EU stats but there's no taking account of population density. Essentially the EU punishes countries with low population density, because they will have a large amount of agricultural land relative to fewer people. This is madness because surely the Greens want fewer consumers in the world and more open spaces so we should be rewarding low population density!!!


The overall point is little clean and Green Ireland is going to absolutely castrate itself to get the Greens into government on the basis of a complete lie and subtle misunderstanding of the numbers.

China could argue the same thing for all the iPhones and TVs they make for us.

Ireland is not going to castrate itself. Countries that have invested in renewable energy have created jobs and wealth.

About 6000 Irish people a year die from air pollution. And who knows how many tens of thousands get asthma or lung cancer for the same reason. The cost of taxpayers must be huge. Maybe we should be a country that tries to do something about this.

Shefwedfan

One of our big problems is the lack of trees in Ireland...even by planting tree it would help

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_countries_by_forest_area

Thelonious Monk

SomeGuyCalledMi wrote: »

China could argue the same thing for all the iPhones and TVs they make for us.

Exactly. That's why I hate the what about China and India argument. Who's fuelling all of their factories? Rich countries like us.

Thelonious Monk

Shefwedfan wrote: »

One of our big problems is the lack of trees in Ireland...even by planting tree it would help

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_countries_by_forest_area

We grew to 11% cover or something in the last 30 years but 8 or 9% of that is sitka spruce which is poisonous for the environment. So in reality we have some toxic tree farms and 2 or 3% natural tree cover.

Shefwedfan

I said this on the other Green bashing thread

We could actually turn the green agenda into a positive. We have some of the World leader in green energy. mainstream are one of the top companies who are irish owned but do little to nothing here. Kingsman etc are going green

If we could get below our requirements then we can sell our surplus Credit in a name your price and actually get money back instead of fines

I did say before and would say it now, before throwing out the Green 7% has anyone seen the full manifesto on how they will achieve?

Shefwedfan

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

We grew to 11% cover or something in the last 30 years but 8 or 9% of that is sitka spruce which is poisonous for the environment. So in reality we have some toxic tree farms and 2 or 3% natural tree cover.

Exactly, why not grow traditional Irish trees, I know our area we got loads from county council and have planted all around, ash etc

Thelonious Monk

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Exactly, why not grow traditional Irish trees, I know our area we got loads from county council and have planted all around, ash etc

I have a big ash tree and rowan tree in my small front garden of a terrace house. Everyone else has paved most of their front gardens in the area and no trees. Even in cities people should be encouraged to plant them.

BarryD2

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

We grew to 11% cover or something in the last 30 years but 8 or 9% of that is sitka spruce which is poisonous for the environment. So in reality we have some toxic tree farms and 2 or 3% natural tree cover.

Why do you like to shift the point? Sitka Spruce may increase acidity but this thread is about carbon and since Sitka grow very quickly, they are surely an excellent species if you want to put carbon into timber??? They are also very fine trees if allowed to mature, which is a different matter.

I don't like farmer bashing but I do find their protestations a bit wearisome. The national herd particularly in dairy increased substantially when quotas were abolished. Many farmers are indeed custodians of the land and conscious of environmental matters and their impacts but I invite anyone to take a tour of Google Earth and look at some of the industrial dairy farming that goes on. These are the big boys, the lobbyists for the market and the status quo or whatever suits their business model at any particular time.

jackboy

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

We grew to 11% cover or something in the last 30 years but 8 or 9% of that is sitka spruce which is poisonous for the environment. So in reality we have some toxic tree farms and 2 or 3% natural tree cover.

I haven’t heard the greens talk about tackling this. If they got into power and did nothing other than bring in a law that at least 50% of any plantation must be native, then they would be hugely successful for the environment.

It seems all their policies are just really vague notions rather than anything concrete.

Thelonious Monk

BarryD2 wrote: »

Why do you like to shift the point? Sitka Spruce may increase acidity but this thread is about carbon and since Sitka grow very quickly, they are surely an excellent species if you want to put carbon into timber??? They are also very fine trees if allowed to mature, which is a different matter.

These tree farms are not native to Ireland and don't support our biodiversity, the opposite in fact. Take a walk around one of these forests and then take a walk around one of the few patches of natural forest that we have and you'll see what I mean. So I'm pointing out the fact that the only reason we've seen a growth in forest cover percentage in Ireland is because of these tree farms. They may soak up CO2 but they don't offer much to wildlife and biodiversity.

Thelonious Monk

jackboy wrote: »

I haven’t heard the greens talk about tackling this. If they got into power and did nothing other than bring in a law that at least 50% of any plantation must be native, then they would be hugely successful for the environment.

It seems all their policies are just really vague notions rather than anything concrete.

https://www.greenparty.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Green-Party-Forestry-Policy-2014.pdf

They talk about forestry and trees quite a bit.

Shefwedfan

https://www.greenparty.ie/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/GREEN_PARTY_TOWARDS_2030-WEB-VERSION.pdf

I think people really need to actually read the manifesto for the Green party. It is not hard going.

But the tree remark above, look at point 12
Restore our peatland and expand our native forests to capture carbon and protect nature through a National Land Use Plan. This will begin with a scheme to pay farmers to plant one hectare of native woodland on their farms

Fred Cryton

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

You're making a lot of assumptions here about the population. I don't agree with what you're getting at anyway, just because we've less people doesn't mean we should have the island covered in farms and no nature. Every country needs to clean up its back yard and if that means producing less meat so be it, we shouldn't be worrying about where it might be produced if we don't do it.

We won't be eating less meat, trust me. If anything, all the evidence points to increased global consumption of meat. As poor countries become richer and enter the middle class, one of the first things that happens is their meat consumption goes way up. Once they can afford it, turns out they like it!


So production will happen, you seem to just want to transfer production off this island, which is insane.

Thelonious Monk

Fred Cryton wrote: »

We won't be eating less meat, trust me. If anything, all the evidence points to increased global consumption of meat. As poor countries become richer and enter the middle class, one of the first things that happens is their meat consumption goes way up. Once they can afford it, turns out they like it!


So production will happen, you seem to just want to transfer production off this island, which is insane.

Well that's the fatalistic view and the most likely really. We'll chop down the amazon and every last tree on the planet to facilitate our consumption if it's the most profitable, but as I live in Ireland I can only focus on here and vote Green here and hope others in other countries put in measures to stop the destruction of nature.

jackboy

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

https://www.greenparty.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Green-Party-Forestry-Policy-2014.pdf

They talk about forestry and trees quite a bit.

There is lots of good stuff there that I haven’t heard them discuss in the media. Although from the document it seems that these are just ideas that they advocate for. I would like to believe that they will really try to implement a lot of this, I just find it hard to trust them after their last stint in power. With unlimited funding they did next to nothing.

Thelonious Monk

jackboy wrote: »

There is lots of good stuff there that I haven’t heard them discuss in the media. Although from the document it seems that these are just ideas that they advocate for. I would like to believe that they will really try to implement a lot of this, I just find it hard to trust them after their last stint in power. With unlimited funding they did next to nothing.

Do you trust any party after their last stint in power?

Shefwedfan

jackboy wrote: »

There is lots of good stuff there that I haven’t heard them discuss in the media. Although from the document it seems that these are just ideas that they advocate for. I would like to believe that they will really try to implement a lot of this, I just find it hard to trust them after their last stint in power. With unlimited funding they did next to nothing.

It went into government with FF in 2007. The crash happened in 2008. Where was the unlimited funding?

Shefwedfan

Fred Cryton wrote: »

We won't be eating less meat, trust me. If anything, all the evidence points to increased global consumption of meat. As poor countries become richer and enter the middle class, one of the first things that happens is their meat consumption goes way up. Once they can afford it, turns out they like it!


So production will happen, you seem to just want to transfer production off this island, which is insane.

Veggies are on the increase around the World. Vegan as well. The younger population is less tied to meat than ever before.

jackboy

Shefwedfan wrote: »

It went into government with FF in 2007. The crash happened in 2008. Where was the unlimited funding?

They could have negotiated a lot of that forestry stuff going into government that time. I suspect the bulk of the negotiations were for high levels jobs for the lads. A lot of the stuff in their policy document would not even cost the tax payer much. There was unlimited money when they got into power. They didn’t even try to do anything.

I’m not saying other parties would be better, just that as a Green Party they are disappointing.

Shefwedfan

jackboy wrote: »

They could have negotiated a lot of that forestry stuff going into government that time. I suspect the bulk of the negotiations were for high levels jobs for the lads. A lot of the stuff in their policy document would not even cost the tax payer much. There was unlimited money when they got into power. They didn’t even try to do anything.

I’m not saying other parties would be better, just that as a Green Party they are disappointing.

They changed the whole car tax system. Which was supposed to help clean up environment apart from the car companies lying.

Bike to Work scheme was introduced, ban on older bulbs. Increased renewable and did get a carbon tax introduced.

Then the ass fell out of Ireland....not sure what else anyone could do after that.

This is the manifesto from 2007: http://michaelpidgeon.com/manifestos/docs/green/Green%20Party%20GE%202007.pdf

Interesting if you look at the topics in discussion. Health, childcare, housing, transport.....maybe we would have been better keeping them around a bit longer.

This bit I do like: Set the mobile phone operators, cable companies and Eircom into direct competition to get cheaper, faster and more integrated broadband service

That was in 2007, maybe if they got to introduce that we wouldnt be spending 3 billion now

Grab All Association

These wouldn’t happen to be the same Greens that encouraged people in urban Ireland doing local mileage to give up their 1.0 litre Toyota Yaris/1.4ltr VW Golfs for a 1.6+ diesel that is cheaper to tax? increasing their fuel consumption considerably and killing 1000s of people with respiratory problems with nitrous oxide. Probably done more environmental damage than any other government party in the history of the state.

jackboy

Shefwedfan wrote: »

They changed the whole car tax system. Which was supposed to help clean up environment apart from the car companies lying.



Bike to Work scheme was introduced, ban on older bulbs. Increased renewable and did get a carbon tax introduced.



Then the ass fell out of Ireland....not sure what else anyone could do after that.

Fair enough. I just think focusing on taxes is very lazy and the wrong approach. I don’t even think we should be focusing on carbon. I think we should focus on policies which directly improve the environment such as forestry, preservation of habitats, improvement of air and water quality. This will indirectly improve the carbon situation.

In my opinion the introduction of a carbon tax demonstrates that they have no ambition and are not really committed to improving he environment in a serious way.

Shefwedfan

Grab All Association wrote: »

These wouldn’t happen to be the same Greens that encouraged people in urban Ireland doing local mileage to give up their 1.0 litre Toyota Yaris/1.4ltr VW Golfs for a 1.6+ diesel that is cheaper to tax? increasing their fuel consumption considerably and killing 1000s of people with respiratory problems with nitrous oxide. Probably done more environmental damage than any other government party in the history of the state.

They changed the tax system based on the research at that time which aid that diesel was better for environment etc. What they didn't do was force people to dump perfect cars at the costs of thousands so they could get cheap tax.



Its worth nothing most countries followed a similar patern and only after dieselgate has this changed. Really the issue was with the NEDC and not with the Green party.

Shefwedfan

jackboy wrote: »

Fair enough. I just think focusing on taxes is very lazy and the wrong approach. I don’t even think we should be focusing on carbon. I think we should focus on policies which directly improve the environment such as forestry, preservation of habitats, improvement of air and water quality. This will indirectly improve the carbon situation.

In my opinion the introduction of a carbon tax demonstrates that they have no ambition and are not really committed to improving he environment in a serious way.

Did you listen to the radio interview on Pat Kenny show the other morning?

The carbon tax introduced on 1st May was FG. Nothing to do with Green Party

jackboy

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Did you listen to the radio interview on Pat Kenny show the other morning?

The carbon tax introduced on 1st May was FG. Nothing to do with Green Party

No didn’t hear it.

FG are another party not interested in the environment in a serious way so carbon taxes would be right down their line. I’m pretty sure I have heard Green Party members supporting carbon taxes in the media, unless I am mistaken. Are they against them? I would be impressed if that is the case.

Harry Palmr

Sikka plantations are a dead zone very little can live in the shade and acid. They need to be phased out in favour of native species, which can be harvested in a managed programme over the decades. This wood can then be used in building etc.

As for the national herd, that looks unsustainable when the input costs v the factory gate are totted up. Add in the generational shift away from beef towards white meat and no meat, it's not a future to invest in.

Shefwedfan

jackboy wrote: »

No didn’t hear it.

FG are another party not interested in the environment in a serious way so carbon taxes would be right down their line. I’m pretty sure I have heard Green Party members supporting carbon taxes in the media, unless I am mistaken. Are they against them? I would be impressed if that is the case.

I dont see how any party can be against carbon taxs, SF stuck it in at the end of manifesto but they had no real thought or alternative


What is the alternative? for years people have been told to try to move to renewal and nothing happened.



THe main points of the Green discussion was about what could be done. It wasnt a discussion about how to tax the crap out of people.

REBELSAFC

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

if that means producing less meat so be it, we shouldn't be worrying about where it might be produced if we don't do it.

I'm sorry but it is much better to be producing food locally than importing food produced from former rain forest land in Brazil

jackboy

Shefwedfan wrote: »

I dont see how any party can be against carbon taxs, SF stuck it in at the end of manifesto but they had no real thought or alternative


What is the alternative? for years people have been told to try to move to renewal and nothing happened.



THe main points of the Green discussion was about what could be done. It wasnt a discussion about how to tax the crap out of people.

Good. I don’t trust them but I hope they prove me wrong.

With the massive recession coming, putting carbon taxes through the roof will be a massive temptation. Whoever gets into power will be faced with few good choices. It will take politicians of great ambition and talent to get us through this in a reasonable period of time.

n97 mini

Markcheese wrote: »

Into what exactly ? If the money is in diversification Irish farmers will move ....just telling them move or even hitting them with a stick ain't gonna work. .

You make it sound like there is no alternative. I did notice that a lot of the veg we get in supermarkets is grown in Holland. Tomatoes, onions, carrots etc. The climate here is pretty much the same, so why are we importing so much Dutch veg? (The Dutch are probably scratching their heads when they see Irish beef on the shelves too). I'm all for incentives to change btw.

Fred Cryton wrote: »

It doesn't seem fair, because it's not fair.


If they want to include agriculture, fine. Allocate the C02 emissions to the consumers.

You haven't thought that through. At the moment the emissions fines are being covered by our government, so the price of beef isn't going up. If that cost is placed on consumers in other countries, boom, price of Irish beef skyrockets and the market collapses.

SomeGuyCalledMi wrote: »

Many farmers are beef farmers because that is what their father did and what they have done their whole lives.

But beef prices tell is there is no future in it. The average Irish family beef farm makes 10k a year!

Farmers need serious help to diversify.

I know a few small beef farmers. They're basically surviving on the dole with the farming aspect just about breaking even. It's more about maintaining a public face by saying they're farmers, rather than saying they're on the dole.