Eamon Ryan hoping to stop cheap flights to sunny destinations

RandomViewer

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

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.

What do you consider dirty industries, I get the notion you are anti-employment of any kind,

Thelonious Monk

RandomViewer wrote: »

What do you consider dirty industries, I get the notion you are anti-employment of any kind,

Bringing industry back to Europe, where it could be regulated in line with EU environmental laws, would create jobs.
Clothing, for e.g., is one of the most polluting industries on the planet. There's too much of it and it's too cheap.
You seem to be anti-doing anything differently for the sake of the planet from what I can tell.

RandomViewer

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Bringing industry back to Europe, where it could be regulated in line with EU environmental laws, would create jobs.
Clothing, for e.g., is one of the most polluting industries on the planet. There's too much of it and it's too cheap.
You seem to be anti-doing anything differently for the sake of the planet from what I can tell.

Fruit of the Loom had huge factories up here and in Derry in the nineties, there were no issues with pollution of any kind, when they moved to Tunisia thousands of jobs were lost, Planet is fine ,manufactured crisis to take money off the easily led

Lockheed

I think the negative implications of sub 20 euro flights for local communities and the environment vastly outweigh the positives. We've seen what airBnB does to communities when it's allowed to become the primary means of renting out properties.

Aviation professionals and interest groups often tote endless upward sloping graphs as if aviation transport can grow indefinitely but we've seen what it does to rent-pressured communities and the environment. On that basis though Eamon Ryan is way too extreme for me.

There should be nothing stopping people who can save up and pay for the ticket as well as their carbon - its really easy to track the carbon footprint on flights, there's no reason a system of progressive taxation on carbon can't work. Two flights a year exempt then from three upwards you pay a percentage to cover your carbon emission

jmayo

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

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/

It stated 17 thousand litres for England but elsewhere it states 15 thousand litres.
Alos does that include the amounts used to grow feedcrops?

And being honest it is not as if the UK or Ireland suffer from water shortages now is it, bar the odd week in summer ?

BTW do you drink Australian wines by any chance ?

It takes something like 960 litres of water to make 1 litre of wine.
Now the kicker is places like Australia are sucking rivers dry, the arsteian basin dry to grow vines.
And even worse they are growing totally wrong crops like cotton and rice.

It would be like us soaking up every ounce of electricity to grow oranges in hothouses.

Spain and parts of USA are also high users or irrigation to grow crops.

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

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.

Now you're sucking diesel and speaking some sense.

Too many people have gotten used to cheap clothing, cheap consumer items.
And might I add cheap food.

Growing up my parents had an old Hoover Fridge that lasted nigh on 25 years.
Nowadays Samsung and the likes are knocking out fridges that are meant to last less than 10.

The only ones that benefit out of the consumerism are the corporations.
Yeah eventually some workers in some far off land benefit to a little degree but as as soon as they begin to cost too much the corporation is off to the next sweatshop location to guarantee their massive margins.

The likes of Nike are detestable.
Pay hundreds of millions to some entitled sports knobends and pay your workers, or the workers of your contracted manufacturer, a pittance.

Eric Cartman

RandomViewer wrote: »

Fruit of the Loom had huge factories up here and in Derry in the nineties, there were no issues with pollution of any kind, when they moved to Tunisia thousands of jobs were lost, Planet is fine ,manufactured crisis to take money off the easily led

If we wanted manufacturing back we’d have to basically put the unions into the sea and make social welfare a lit less generous

Banana Republic 1

Eric Cartman wrote: »

If we wanted manufacturing back we’d have to basically put the unions into the sea and make social welfare a lit less generous

Or else just pay people better, the reason why manufacturing moved east was cost savings. Share holder capitalism has driven this and we in the global north are happy enough to pay less for stuff even if whoever made the yoke is burnt alive in the textile factory.

gozunda

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

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/

Facts eh? Did you read that link?

It details that on average the production of one kilogram of beef uses just 4% blue water ie   ‘tapwater’ (piped water sources)

The remainder water used - approx 96% comes from rainwater (green) sources. ie water coming direcly from rainfall falling on pasture and stored in the soil and evaporated, transpired or incorporated by plants and then eaten by livestock.

With regard to figures for Ireland- that figure is even lower. We feed more cattle here from pasture with the result that - on average the production of one kilogram of beef uses just 2% blue water ie   ‘tapwater'. With approx 98% coming from (green) rainwater water sources.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.teagasc.ie/media/website/publications/2018/6190_TechnologyUpdae_JohnUpton_WaterConservation.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwif4OKY5bvhAhUoSBUIHUOhDosQFjANegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw0tHNJ7PwynTsJHBR51aOTC

And as explained by that article - its our maritime climate which give us the potential to grow great grass with abundant green water, rather than using (blue) water taken out of the tap that could reasonably been used for other purposes.

And don't get me started about that much loved staple of vegans - Almonds production has been shown to be responsible for massive water use in California where Almonds are known as water-guzzlers, needing up to 4 liters of irrigated water for each kernel. California now produces some 83% of the world's almonds. Compared to many of the other food crops that could be grown in the region, almonds have a much higher water footprint. But more importantly the production of almonds uses water which is increasingly in short supply there.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/140421-california-almonds-drought-central-valley-groundwater

Ash.J.Williams

Pork is 110 % tap water

gozunda

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Pork is 110 % tap water

Not my pork it isnt

No farmer here either but clearly worrying about the water cost of a kilo of beef is absurd if most of it is rainwater. That water is going to fall anyway. Other countries have issues with dilution of water tables but Ireland the U.K. by and large don’t.

Pastoral land can’t be replaced so easily by arable land either and it is gentler on the soil. George monbiot argues against beef production and against high intensive agricultural production - which is contradictory. Eliminate the 50 million people fed by dense calorie beef protein exported from Ireland and you need to replace that with crops grown on arable land. Yet only 6.4% of land is arable and 60% is grassland. And Ireland has been pastoral for thousands of years.

Thelonious Monk

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

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.

First of all “we” don’t export our dirty industries. This was a decision taken by the capitalist classes at the expense of western workers. And not all cheap labour leads to cheap products. Cheap labour benefits companies but they don’t necessarily pass the savings on. Plenty of high end devices and fashion are made in China. This is in fact why western wages have not tracked western profits.

Once again you want to blame the common guy for the excesses of the elite.

And not all countries have exported their industries - we didn’t have industry to begin with and Germany has kept its industry. Seems a bit unfair to add the carbon costs of western manufacturing to the evil west and the cost of manufacturing in China to the evil west. It’s not like Chinese people don’t consume, in fact the country is a major consumer of western goods. The largest market for German cars is China, for instance.

Fandymo

How about a tax on stupid Green Party ideas?? We'd be richer than the Arabs and the Chinese combined.

Thelonious Monk

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Bringing industry back to Europe, where it could be regulated in line with EU environmental laws, would create jobs.
Clothing, for e.g., is one of the most polluting industries on the planet. There's too much of it and it's too cheap.
You seem to be anti-doing anything differently for the sake of the planet from what I can tell.

Quick question. Did you protest globalisation at any point in the last few years. I did as a student. However opposition to trade deals is easier before they happen, otherwise some kind of trade war ensues. Also right on opinion tends to oppose “fortress Europe” or western protectionism, then when the deals are made opinion blames the masses for consuming imports from these countries.

I suggest writing to your TD or MEP in opposition to the EU deal with mercosur, which opens up Europe to South American beef, which is almost certainly a disaster for climate policy and even Irish farmers.

You might be on the side of Gozunda on that one.

RandomViewer

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Or else just pay people better, the reason why manufacturing moved east was cost savings. Share holder capitalism has driven this and we in the global north are happy enough to pay less for stuff even if whoever made the yoke is burnt alive in the textile factory.

Nobody could afford to buy our products, wages are dictated by how much someone is willing to pay

RandomViewer

RandomViewer wrote: »

Nobody could afford to buy our products, wages are dictated by how much someone is willing to pay

That’s not true. Obviously if globalisation never opened up to China some products would be more expensive but most people’s wages would be higher. This basically describes the US pre the globalisation era.

gozunda

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

And thats* yet another piece of rubbish

The actual claim was that "what you eat is far more important than where your food comes from, sometimes local food is even worse for the environment". A claim simply not borne out by the information presented in that article

The claim is taken from data from a meta-analysis study on 'food's environmental impact' by Poore and Nemacek using aggregated global data from 119 countries.

What it does not show is 'local' data for food production.

The aggregated global data for 'greenhouse gas emissions across food supply chain' was detailed as follows:

1. Above ground changes in biomass from deforestation and below ground changes in soil carbon
2. Farm
3. Animal feed
4. Processing
5. Transport
6. Retail
7. Packaging

Looking at no 1. that list - for example - the percentages of ghg emissions for beef comes from 119 countries and are taken to be 'global average values' - and those emissions therefore do not represent 'local' data - but rather aggregated data of many different regions and different production systems worldwide.

Not only does it use aggregated data instead of actual localised data - it also to fails to demarcate beef production in those countries where cattle are fed mainly forage on existing grasslands or production which does not involve ongoing deforestation and also appears to omit the very important role that grassland plays in carbon sequestration and which has recently been highlighted by the European Environment Agency

The other significant issue with Hannan Ritchies take on the data is that - it is from a study about other studies.

Whilst it is certainly true that such meta-analysis represents a useful way to summarize data - it remains this type of reseach comes with a host of recognised problems - including the fact that  such reseach may be little more than "an analysis of analyses' and that any findings may not derive from objective study but rather the cherry picking of selected data

And unfortunately that is what that article is.

Ash.J.Williams

We don’t need baby corn and magetout

harrylittle

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

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.

I wouldn't blame the people all the time as the communists like to portray. industry is more to blame .. producing goods designed with a short lifespan for profit motives

harrylittle

Deleted User wrote: »

No farmer here either but clearly worrying about the water cost of a kilo of beef is absurd if most of it is rainwater. That water is going to fall anyway. Other countries have issues with dilution of water tables but Ireland the U.K. by and large don’t.

Pastoral land can’t be replaced so easily by arable land either and it is gentler on the soil. George monbiot argues against beef production and against high intensive agricultural production - which is contradictory. Eliminate the 50 million people fed by dense calorie beef protein exported from Ireland and you need to replace that with crops grown on arable land. Yet only 6.4% of land is arable and 60% is grassland. And Ireland has been pastoral for thousands of years.

Its good to hear common sense ...

.. not all land is suitable for growing crops .. take mountain or bog land or most of the west ..wouldnt grow a head of cabbage .. but yet animals can do well there providing an important food source

timeToLive

how long until he is out of power?

RandomViewer

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That’s not true. Obviously if globalisation never opened up to China some products would be more expensive but most people’s wages would be higher. This basically describes the US pre the globalisation era.

So keep the third world down? Buying power pre-Euro was much higher, €50 basically replaced £20 overnight,