Eamon Ryan hoping to stop cheap flights to sunny destinations

bb1234567

nullzero wrote: »

Making air travel expensive for people in western countries in a bid to tackle climate change whilst saying nothing about the greatest source of carbon production in the shape of countries like China and India is such a mesmerising display of double think that it would leave anyone with any common sense wondering what exactly the point of groups like the green party in this and other similar countries actually is.

Let's make sure to get a sticking plaster on that grazed knee instead of tackling the issue of the ruptured carotid artery.

God it'd sicken you to your hole seeing this infantile argument over and over and over. We will literally never see any improvements to environments globally when nobody wants to take account for their lifestyle or any resposibility for the damage they know the excess is doing.

Have you never stopped to wonder why this power house China, pumps out massive amounts of carbon, while it's citizens enjoy much worse quality of life than Europeans on average? What do you think they are producing, making, and concentrating that energy on. Why is the massive amounts of energy used not becoming evident in terms of high quality of life for local citizens, proportionate to that. Have you thought maybe, it's because they manufacture much of the products and good that requires that energy, and then ship it to Europe where it is bought and consumed , as local Chinese do not have the money to afford those products that are desired in the West, for the most part, or not to the same scale of appetite for it at least.

And you want to blame China and developing countries for this practice of outsourced manufacturing which enables sickening levels of over consumption and material excess in the West? Why is this so hard for people to comprehend? Yes people in the developed world are the biggest problems, Ireland is small but we produce many many many times more carbon per capita than an equivalent 5 million Brazilians, Indian, Indonesians, Nigerians...etc. So yes, it is extremely important that green parties in countries like Ireland exist and have a strong voice. It is completely right and fair that the greenwashing propaganda is loudest and has most influence in countries like Ireland who proportionately do the most damage. Your analogy is pure nonsense.

makeorbrake

Ronaldinho wrote: »

Maybe stop bitcoin mining first. What an utter waste of resources it is.

Youtube and gaming both burn up more energy than bitcoin. Other than that, bitcoin mining tends to locate at source - as a buyer of last resort of waste renewable energy. Is there even a commercial bitcoin mining operation in Ireland? If there is (or there's going to be in the future), likely it will be located at some wind farm - using waste energy at times of higher output than the grid requires.

Pa ElGrande

Deleted User wrote: »

I’ll come back to the absurd claim that normal people took flights commonly in the 80s later.

In a country and time where unemployment levels reached 17% with a 68% marginal tax rate and mass emigration where Aer Lingus, a government sponsored enterprise (aka civil service) (we used to call them semi-states back then) had the overhead of ~6,000 people on it's books. Back then if you wanted cheap flights you had to have a relative in Aer Lingus, otherwise you took the bus via boat to England (remember B&I line), if you wanted to go further you took the family car to the continent. Today you can fly to your destination and hire a car.

Eric Cartman

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I’ll come back to the absurd claim that normal people took flights commonly in the 80s later.

I was absolutely prepared to agree, as it seems like that timeframe of poverty in Ireland but then I discovered this :

https://www.rte.ie/archives/2013/0801/465820-holiday-plans-in-1973/

According to the CSO, nominal weekly takehome pay was 58 pounds a week in the mid 70s , in the video nobody gives exact prices but 200 pounds is bandied around a bit, 4 weeks wages for a foreign holiday , its not unachievable if you had it booked for 9 months paying it off weekly

Then I found this destination video for summer 1980 for JWT : https://ifiplayer.ie/jwt-holidays-1980-destinations/
So JWT appears to really have been the travel agency of the average person, heres a blog post discussing how staff went on foreign holidays with the company and how the ads went out on stephens day to get everyone to book in january : http://barbarascully.blogspot.com/2011/09/rejoining-jwt-set.html?m=1

Its really hard to find pricing but it certainly seems that from the late 70s a middle class family and working couples going abroad once a year wasnt that uncommon

bb1234567

bb1234567 wrote: »

God it'd sicken you to your hole seeing this infantile argument over and over and over. We will literally never see any improvements to environments globally when nobody wants to take account for their lifestyle or any resposibility for the damage they know the excess is doing.

Have you never stopped to wonder why this power house China, pumps out massive amounts of carbon, while it's citizens enjoy much worse quality of life than Europeans on average? What do you think they are producing, making, and concentrating that energy on. Why is the massive amounts of energy used not becoming evident in terms of high quality of life for local citizens, proportionate to that. Have you thought maybe, it's because they manufacture much of the products and good that requires that energy, and then ship it to Europe where it is bought and consumed , as local Chinese do not have the money to afford those products that are desired in the West, for the most part, or not to the same scale of appetite for it at least.

And you want to blame China and developing countries for this practice of outsourced manufacturing which enables sickening levels of over consumption and material excess in the West? Why is this so hard for people to comprehend? Yes people in the developed world are the biggest problems, Ireland is small but we produce many many many times more carbon per capita than an equivalent 5 million Brazilians, Indian, Indonesians, Nigerians...etc. So yes, it is extremely important that green parties in countries like Ireland exist and have a strong voice. It is completely right and fair that the greenwashing propaganda is loudest and has most influence in countries like Ireland who proportionately do the most damage. Your analogy is pure nonsense.

There are 400m Chinese people who are about as rich as westerners on average. There are more millionaires in China than anywhere else. Plenty of rich Brazilians as well. And the Chinese are getting richer. By the way it wasn’t the choice of the ordinary guy that manufacturing be outsourced to China.

The carbon cost of flying is dominated by an elite class of frequent flyers who come from anywhere. Meanwhile while nearly everybody does fly sometime in their life in the UK only 50% do it every year. Increasing taxes will probably stop these guys from flying at all but have no effect on the top 1% of flyers.

Kivaro

Deleted User wrote: »

Some sensible suggestions in the guardian page there.

The new findings bolster calls for a frequent flyer levy, a proposal under which each citizen would be allowed one tax-free flight per year but would pay progressively higher taxes on each additional flight taken.

What a ridiculous suggestion. It's just another example of Green policies inflicting pain on "regular" people in the form of punitive taxes. Will the Greens also decide where we can go on this one flight per year? Will they also decide when we can go? And since it is stated as above that we will be "allowed" one tax-free flight per year, I am sure that the Greens will hammer us with taxes for the return flight home (since two flights are required per trip). Wonder if they actually think these things out.

Thelonious Monk

Deleted User wrote: »

I’ll come back to the absurd claim that normal people took flights commonly in the 80s later.

Don't know who said that, but a normal working family of 4 could afford to go on holidays once a year if they put their mind to it.

Thelonious Monk

Kivaro wrote: »

What a ridiculous suggestion. It's just another example of Green policies inflicting pain on "regular" people in the form of punitive taxes. Will the Greens also decide where we can go on this one flight per year? Will they also decide when we can go? And since it is stated as above that we will be "allowed" one tax-free flight per year, I am sure that the Greens will hammer us with taxes for the return flight home (since two flights are required per trip). Wonder if they actually think these things out.

The Greens haven't really said anything yet. An EU council of transport ministers met and the subject off too many too cheap flights came up, from what I can gather.
They'll probably put more taxes on flights but I don't think it will be enough to affect number of passengers or available routes.

Bass Reeves

bb1234567 wrote: »

God it'd sicken you to your hole seeing this infantile argument over and over and over. We will literally never see any improvements to environments globally when nobody wants to take account for their lifestyle or any resposibility for the damage they know the excess is doing.

Have you never stopped to wonder why this power house China, pumps out massive amounts of carbon, while it's citizens enjoy much worse quality of life than Europeans on average? What do you think they are producing, making, and concentrating that energy on. Why is the massive amounts of energy used not becoming evident in terms of high quality of life for local citizens, proportionate to that. Have you thought maybe, it's because they manufacture much of the products and good that requires that energy, and then ship it to Europe where it is bought and consumed , as local Chinese do not have the money to afford those products that are desired in the West, for the most part, or not to the same scale of appetite for it at least.

And you want to blame China and developing countries for this practice of outsourced manufacturing which enables sickening levels of over consumption and material excess in the West? Why is this so hard for people to comprehend? Yes people in the developed world are the biggest problems, Ireland is small but we produce many many many times more carbon per capita than an equivalent 5 million Brazilians, Indian, Indonesians, Nigerians...etc. So yes, it is extremely important that green parties in countries like Ireland exist and have a strong voice. It is completely right and fair that the greenwashing propaganda is loudest and has most influence in countries like Ireland who proportionately do the most damage. Your analogy is pure nonsense.

The problem is that is most green (and with this I mean environmental as opposed to green party) thinking is flawed. There policy towards energy is hugely flawed. Wind energy is not a zero emissions solution. The amount of energy used to produce electricity is substantial. It takes about 200 cubic meters of concrete to form a base for a 1 megawatt wind turbine. That the equivalent to the concrete that goes into 10 semi detached houses. This for a. Energy source that is inflexible and needs a quick fire backup source such as gas in vast quanties.

The Irish green party then pushed s policy if no gas exploration in Irish waters. Neither will we consider nuclear. The Irish green party has just copied and pasted green policy from other countries and applied it to Ireland. Take water we do not have an issue like other countries with water as a resource. We have an abundance of it. Equating Irish people water use to a person in France or Saudi Arabia has little effect on climate change. The FP obession with water metering and the Labour party afraid to be caught offside on it lead to the debacle of water charges. If we had bought in a flat water charge in 2010 we would all be metered now.

The green agenda has been partially hijacked by vegans. The anti meat agenda is seriously damaging it in people's eyes. In Ireland dairy beef and lamb produced hare has no worse a footprint than chicken or pork.

Blaming meat production on the soya and maize production issue is being blind. The problem especially with soya is its production for its oil whether it is used in bio diesel or for human consumption leaves behind a high protein product a lot of which is unsuitable for human consumption. Maize is similar, while it is used for some food production it is not a popular choice by people.

The green agenda needs to look at solutions not the problem. If we had opted for grain as an energy source 15-20 years ago rather than biodiesel we would have eliminated heating oil and coal as a heat source in domestic situations in a lot of the developed world. It would have required very little retrofitting only changing a boiler or a burner. It would not have required massive subsidities unlike bio diesel and glyco production. It was so efficient we could have taxed the grain going to heat and subsidized the grain going to food production. As there would be no byproduct it would not be used to subsidize feedlot production of beef, chicken and pork

With grain burners and nuclear electricity we be along way if the way now instead of being obessed about the amount of water used in an Irish persons house or the lamb chop he is having for dinner.

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I was absolutely prepared to agree, as it seems like that timeframe of poverty in Ireland but then I discovered this :

https://www.rte.ie/archives/2013/0801/465820-holiday-plans-in-1973/

According to the CSO, nominal weekly takehome pay was 58 pounds a week in the mid 70s , in the video nobody gives exact prices but 200 pounds is bandied around a bit, 4 weeks wages for a foreign holiday , its not unachievable if you had it booked for 9 months paying it off weekly

Then I found this destination video for summer 1980 for JWT : https://ifiplayer.ie/jwt-holidays-1980-destinations/
So JWT appears to really have been the travel agency of the average person, heres a blog post discussing how staff went on foreign holidays with the company and how the ads went out on stephens day to get everyone to book in january : http://barbarascully.blogspot.com/2011/09/rejoining-jwt-set.html?m=1

Its really hard to find pricing but it certainly seems that from the late 70s a middle class family and working couples going abroad once a year wasnt that uncommon

£200 sounds if anything too high. But let’s go with it.

That is, as you said approximately four weeks post tax wages. Families were bigger then, having just two kids was unusual. So for a family of 5 earning the average industrial wage the cost would have been 20 weeks post tax wages. Almost half a year of post tax income.

Individuals and couples probably did fly, and occasionally there were deals, but even then it would take some savings.

Ash.J.Williams

Amirani wrote: »

Airlines should absolutely not continue to receive exemptions from fuel and carbon taxation. They don't pay for their emissions, unlike many industries, and that should change.

Unfortunately, that will lead to some increase in fares, but the current model of large corporations polluting the environment for free needs to stop.

So essentially he’s correct , but as he seems to have the communication skills of a weetabix, cannot get his message accross

Thelonious Monk

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Don't know who said that, but a normal working family of 4 could afford to go on holidays once a year if they put their mind to it.

God almighty. You are full of nonsense.

Thelonious Monk

Deleted User wrote: »

God almighty. You are full of nonsense.

Great contribution.

Thelonious Monk

Deleted User wrote: »

£200 sounds if anything too high. But let’s go with it.

That is, as you said approximately four weeks post tax wages. Families were bigger then, having just two kids was unusual. So for a family of 5 earning the average industrial wage the cost would have been 20 weeks post tax wages. Almost half a year of post tax income.

Individuals and couples probably did fly, and occasionally there were deals, but even then it would take some savings.

Of course it would take savings. So people didn't fly often. That's my point. Pretty much everything is too cheap nowadays and that's why we are consuming at completely unsustainable rates. This exponential growth of everything can't continue.

Thelonious Monk

Bass Reeves wrote: »

In Ireland dairy beef and lamb produced hare has no worse a footprint than chicken or pork.

The fact you believe and say these things is very worrying, and this lie will be backed up by other farmers on here.

Bass Reeves

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

The fact you believe and say these things is very worrying, and this lie will be backed up by other farmers on here.

And the fact that you believe I am wrong indicate's why the solution to preventing climate change will be a massive struggle

YFlyer

Amirani wrote: »

Airlines should absolutely not continue to receive exemptions from fuel and carbon taxation. They don't pay for their emissions, unlike many industries, and that should change.

Unfortunately, that will lead to some increase in fares, but the current model of large corporations polluting the environment for free needs to stop.

Ships burn all kinds of sh.it.

Calahonda52

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56723560

The wealthiest 5% alone – the so-called “polluter elite” - contributed 37% of emissions growth between 1990 and 2015.

jmayo

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Meat, plastics, clothes, all of this stuff pollutes heavily and shouldn't be as cheap as they are. When you have the government and lobbyists backing things like the expansion of dairy, which has led to our water quality decreasing greatly in recent years, Eamon can hardly stop this. Greater powers are at play.
I find it funny how people think because the Greens are in power, they can suddenly stop littering, polluting our waterways, and every other green issue that has been a problem for decades. The same people who want them out at the next election.

Ah yes back to blaming farmers.
Didn't take long to drag them into it.

PuddingBreath wrote: »

can the producer of the meat not pay and then pass the cost on ? why are farmers not made limit their dairy and beef production? say they have to do 50/50 tillage/beef or 50/50 dairy/tillage as in they MUST produce veg AND meat.



im not a farmer, but having observed from a distance it seems unhealthy to me to have cows locked in sheds during the winter months.

Yes it is patently obvious you are not a farmer because you know sweet fook all about farming in this country.

Half the country is not suited to growing tillage.

And yes they should let the cows out to stand in the mud, freezing their teats off all the while they have feck all to eat.

Some people keep their mouths shut lest they show their ignorance, but you on the other hand ...

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Don't know who said that, but a normal working family of 4 could afford to go on holidays once a year if they put their mind to it.

Jaysus christ on a bike.

For a start in the 70s and 80s there were probably were not that many 4 person families.
Families were larger. Yet they managed to fit them all into Morris Minors, Minis, Escorts and Cortinas.

Yes there were package deals to resorts in Spain or the likes, but the amount of people that could afford them were few and most people had to save a lot for them.
And there were ones like my teachers that could afford to take the ferry to France. Mind you they brought a caravan so no gite or hotel accommodation for them.

Even the ones emigrating to UK had to take bus and ferry.
It was only from mid 80s onwards that flying became more prevalent.

And we have to thank O'Leary's Ryanair very much for being able to fly off this rock for a reasonable amount.
Aer Lingus had existed primarily for it's employees and their families.


As for the subject at hand, aviation does pollute greatly.
But here is also an issue with our shipping, shipping also pollutes and we require huge amounts of goods to be shipped right round the world.
See how many massive ships were held up by the cockup in the Suez.

Western consumerism and wastage is a huge problem.
It never ceases to amaze me how you will have the very same ones that are whining on about environmental issues, demanding stop to low cost flying or cutting agriculture at the same time eating exotic or out of season foods that are shipped half way across the world or sporting the very latest edition of some smart phone or other that is produced in East Asian sweatshop.

Thelonious Monk

jmayo wrote: »

It never ceases to amaze me how you will have the very same ones that are whining on about environmental issues, demanding stop to low cost flying or cutting agriculture at the same time eating exotic or out of season foods that are shipped half way across the world or sporting the very latest edition of some smart phone or other.

Everyone in Ireland eats imported out of season foods from our supermarkets, whether vegan or meat eater, or whether they care about the environment or not.
Greenhouse gas emissions from transportation make up a very small amount of the emissions from food and what you eat is far more important than where your food traveled from.

https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local

Pa ElGrande

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

The Greens haven't really said anything yet. An EU council of transport ministers met and the subject off too many too cheap flights came up, from what I can gather.
They'll probably put more taxes on flights but I don't think it will be enough to affect number of passengers or available routes.

National carrier bailouts are are in vogue all underwritten by the taxpayer and to the detriment of their competition.

Economic reality dictates the countries around the Mediterranean need tourists, if flights are more expensive then the tourists from the Northern states have much less money to spend at these destinations. EU governments motivation is new taxation revenue and new protectionist measures, changing the weather is virtue signalling.

For the Green party environmentalism is the religion of choice for urban atheists who are their core vote. It's a messianic movement that relies on indoctrination, guilt trips and scapegoats to motivate the faithful.

Pa ElGrande

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Everyone in Ireland eats imported out of season foods from our supermarkets, whether vegan or meat eater, or whether they care about the environment or not.
Greenhouse gas emissions from transportation make up a very small amount of the emissions from food and what you eat is far more important than where your food traveled from.

https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local

Perhaps you might revisit hypotheses anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is not that human impacts cause global warming. It is specifically that the combustion of human fuels by humans since the industrial revolution causes warming.

It is specific to the impact of the industrial economy that dug up fossil fuels loaded with carbon from carbon cycles that are millions of years old. This is EXTERNAL CARBON. It is not part of the current account of the carbon cycle that people talk about with net zero.

The Earth has a natural carbon cycle, cattle,sheep and pigs are part of that cycle, CO2 removed from the atmosphere by plant photosynthesis is returned to the atmosphere when the plant dies (or by animal respiration when the plant or its fruit is eaten). Therefore the crusade against meat eating by vegans is yet another example of a group jumping on the climate crusade bandwagon to advance their cause.

Thelonious Monk

Pa ElGrande I gave up on your posts a long time ago they are impossible to follow

So let’s get back to the topic at hand. As the dude once said. New information has come to light.

bb1234567

Deleted User wrote: »

There are 400m Chinese people who are about as rich as westerners on average. There are more millionaires in China than anywhere else. Plenty of rich Brazilians as well. And the Chinese are getting richer. By the way it wasn’t the choice of the ordinary guy that manufacturing be outsourced to China.

The carbon cost of flying is dominated by an elite class of frequent flyers who come from anywhere. Meanwhile while nearly everybody does fly sometime in their life in the UK only 50% do it every year. Increasing taxes will probably stop these guys from flying at all but have no effect on the top 1% of flyers.

Yes, you're right obviously my post was a bit of a generlisation. But I think we are in agreement, people who use to excess in any country worldwide should be trying to reduce that burden it is causing. But the point stands, if a country has a massive carbon footprint that is not proportionate to the quality of life that the local popilation enjoys, it means the environemtally destructive processes are laregly occurring for the benefit of wealthier people in another region of the world. So, climate action cannot be analysed strictly within borders based on carbon output, but probably by looking at the lifestyles of people across the worldwide and understanding what is needed and used both domestically + internationally to support that lifestyle.

And we all indirectly support the outsourcing to countries like China, environemental goals here are more easily met by companies in Ireland if they outsource big industry to other places with less strict environmental impact laws..so they do that, and local people in Ireland obviously will prefer cleaner water and air here, and the products will also be cheaper for us in the West as production will be cheaper in the developing world because of cheaper labour and material, so obviously we also support cheaper products here in Ireland too. We don't say explicitely we prefer those industries are based in developing countries, but our preference for the ramifications of that decision make it so.

Banana Republic 1

RandomViewer wrote: »

Large dole hike just makes ordinary work less attractive, some young lad living at home with mammy isn't going to get up for work for €350-60 a week when he can get €260 and HAP, pour that money into apprenticeships for early school leavers and single parents

you mean work that pays a pittance.

Banana Republic 1

Bass Reeves wrote: »

The problem is that is most green (and with this I mean environmental as opposed to green party) thinking is flawed. There policy towards energy is hugely flawed. Wind energy is not a zero emissions solution. The amount of energy used to produce electricity is substantial. It takes about 200 cubic meters of concrete to form a base for a 1 megawatt wind turbine. That the equivalent to the concrete that goes into 10 semi detached houses. This for a. Energy source that is inflexible and needs a quick fire backup source such as gas in vast quanties.

The Irish green party then pushed s policy if no gas exploration in Irish waters. Neither will we consider nuclear. The Irish green party has just copied and pasted green policy from other countries and applied it to Ireland. Take water we do not have an issue like other countries with water as a resource. We have an abundance of it. Equating Irish people water use to a person in France or Saudi Arabia has little effect on climate change. The FP obession with water metering and the Labour party afraid to be caught offside on it lead to the debacle of water charges. If we had bought in a flat water charge in 2010 we would all be metered now.

The green agenda has been partially hijacked by vegans. The anti meat agenda is seriously damaging it in people's eyes. In Ireland dairy beef and lamb produced hare has no worse a footprint than chicken or pork.

Blaming meat production on the soya and maize production issue is being blind. The problem especially with soya is its production for its oil whether it is used in bio diesel or for human consumption leaves behind a high protein product a lot of which is unsuitable for human consumption. Maize is similar, while it is used for some food production it is not a popular choice by people.

The green agenda needs to look at solutions not the problem. If we had opted for grain as an energy source 15-20 years ago rather than biodiesel we would have eliminated heating oil and coal as a heat source in domestic situations in a lot of the developed world. It would have required very little retrofitting only changing a boiler or a burner. It would not have required massive subsidities unlike bio diesel and glyco production. It was so efficient we could have taxed the grain going to heat and subsidized the grain going to food production. As there would be no byproduct it would not be used to subsidize feedlot production of beef, chicken and pork

With grain burners and nuclear electricity we be along way if the way now instead of being obessed about the amount of water used in an Irish persons house or the lamb chop he is having for dinner.

Im not a vegan but the facts are the facts.

"in England, it takes over 17 thousand litres to produce a kilo of beef"
https://www.nfuonline.com/sectors/livestock/livestock-news/water-use-and-beef-what-we-know/

Bass Reeves

bb1234567 wrote: »

Yes, you're right obviously my post was a bit of a generlisation. But I think we are in agreement, people who use to excess in any country worldwide should be trying to reduce that burden it is causing. But the point stands, if a country has a massive carbon footprint that is not proportionate to the quality of life that the local popilation enjoys, it means the environemtally destructive processes are laregly occurring for the benefit of wealthier people in another region of the world. So, climate action cannot be analysed strictly within borders based on carbon output, but probably by looking at the lifestyles of people across the worldwide and understanding what is needed and used both domestically + internationally to support that lifestyle.

And we all indirectly support the outsourcing to countries like China, environemental goals here are more easily met by companies in Ireland if they outsource big industry to other places with less strict environmental impact laws..so they do that, and local people in Ireland obviously will prefer cleaner water and air here, and the products will also be cheaper for us in the West as production will be cheaper in the developing world because of cheaper labour and material, so obviously we also support cheaper products here in Ireland too. We don't say explicitely we prefer those industries are based in developing countries, but our preference for the ramifications of that decision make it so.

Part of what you say is right but it entails giving the Chinese a free ride. We did not encourage the Chinese to start building Coal fired power stations. For every coal power station we decommission the Chinese are building and commissioning 30 new ones between China and Africa. They are using this to create a economic and political bloc to counteract the west.

The Chinese navy is now physically larger than the US navy, the US probably have the edge on technology for another 20-30 years. There army outnumbers nearly all the west combined armies and there airforce is probably only behind on technology as well.

Until China, the US, Australia, middle Eastern countries buy into combatting climate change we are only using s bucket against the sea. Not only that we aid and abett them. We fill the transport ships that bring there tat with recycled rubbish and pay to haul it over there and for them to sort the usefull stuff and burn the that which is the majority of it. Bit climate change advocate's are against incinerating the majority of it in Ireland.

Bio Diesel and glyco used in petrol are the same. They cause of he excess production of soya and maize and these feedstuffs are then used to produce the Chicken and Pork that the Chinese use. This again subsidize's the cheap tat that the Chinese produce.

Now to be fair some of that is no longer tat. There quality has proved and the west hast outsourced a lot of it production of clothes, electronic's, electrical goods and engineering to China.

But the climate change agenda refuses to consider the way to really change it. Until the price of a litre of petr or diesel is 1.5 euro accross the whole world we are trying to prevent the tide coming in with a sweeping brush and a bucket that is more than likely produced in China

Banana Republic 1

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Part of what you say is right but it entails giving the Chinese a free ride. We did not encourage the Chinese to start building Coal fired power stations. For every coal power station we decommission the Chinese are building and commissioning 30 new ones between China and Africa. They are using this to create a economic and political bloc to counteract the west.

The Chinese navy is now physically larger than the US navy, the US probably have the edge on technology for another 20-30 years. There army outnumbers nearly all the west combined armies and there airforce is probably only behind on technology as well.

Until China, the US, Australia, middle Eastern countries buy into combatting climate change we are only using s bucket against the sea. Not only that we aid and abett them. We fill the transport ships that bring there tat with recycled rubbish and pay to haul it over there and for them to sort the usefull stuff and burn the that which is the majority of it. Bit climate change advocate's are against incinerating the majority of it in Ireland.

Bio Diesel and glyco used in petrol are the same. They cause of he excess production of soya and maize and these feedstuffs are then used to produce the Chicken and Pork that the Chinese use. This again subsidize's the cheap tat that the Chinese produce.

Now to be fair some of that is no longer tat. There quality has proved and the west hast outsourced a lot of it production of clothes, electronic's, electrical goods and engineering to China.

But the climate change agenda refuses to consider the way to really change it. Until the price of a litre of petr or diesel is 1.5 euro accross the whole world we are trying to prevent the tide coming in with a sweeping brush and a bucket that is more than likely produced in China

The west placed the order for a cheap brush and bucket in he first place.

Thelonious Monk

If we stopped outsourcing our dirty industries, people would suddenly realise they don't need new items all the time and don't need to replace everything in their house every 2 years. Same with clothing, it's far too cheap. We brought this tide of rubbish on ourselves by taking advantage of cheap labour.