Eamon Ryan hoping to stop cheap flights to sunny destinations

frozenfrozen

that's the problem with green thinking. the guy hasn't bought any clothes during the pandemic so thinks we should just stop buying clothes.

Same as people who live in dublin and cycle in the rain sometimes when they're not getting tesco home delivery or deliveroo think "yeah fcuk it why don't we just ban cars? I never use them"

tayto lover

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

The closure of clothes shops for the last year just goes to show how most are not needed. Most of us probably have enough garments already to last the rest of our lives if we had them repaired etc when required.

Maybe we should live in tents too and maybe ear nuts and berries.
The Greens really are a madcap party.

Beechwoodspark

tayto lover wrote: »

Maybe we should live in tents too and maybe ear nuts and berries.
The Greens really are a madcap party.

Google the hockey stick graph

Thelonious Monk

tayto lover wrote: »

Maybe we should live in tents too and maybe ear nuts and berries.
The Greens really are a madcap party.

But the Greens never mentioned anything to do with clothing??

whisky_galore

tom1ie wrote: »

What?
Surely it’s a good thing to cut down our carbon footprint, generate cleaner electricity, improve our health through cycling walking etc.
Climate change don’t give a damn if your from Ireland or Nepal, it’s gonna ****e on everyone.

Tell that to the lads cutting down forests to farm or hunting rhino horn and tiger bone for the Chinese markets. I'm sure they'd have great time for Greta.

Tell me how

tayto lover wrote: »

Maybe we should live in tents too and maybe ear nuts and berries.
The Greens really are a madcap party.

They are the only party listening to the scientists in terms of humankind's impact on our environment.

What's madcap about that?

Tell me how

whisky_galore wrote: »

Tell that to the lads cutting down forests to farm or hunting rhino horn and tiger bone for the Chinese markets. I'm sure they'd have great time for Greta.

Yeah and there's people selling cocaine and heroin in places too. That doesn't mean we do away with the concept of prescriptions for pharmaceutical drugs.

Banana Republic 1

tayto lover wrote: »

Ryan’s stupid idea will seriously impact tourism into Ireland.
Another silly idea.
Now back the wolves Eamonn.

Apex predators control species that would otherwise reproduce out of control and destroy the natural environment, such as deer there problem with deer in Kerry Donegal and even in the Phoenix park.

tommybrees

I think prices were going to rise anyway, but government really need to keep there nose out of everything that's happening these days.
What next, make diesel tolls and tax more expensive so people stop buying unnecessary items?
They have a proud proven track record of making a balls of most things they interfere with.
There's other ways of making a bigger and better difference to the environment other than TAXES.

Thelonious Monk

whisky_galore wrote: »

Tell that to the lads cutting down forests to farm or hunting rhino horn and tiger bone for the Chinese markets. I'm sure they'd have great time for Greta.

Look at our own backyard, lowest tree coverage in Europe and nothing being done about it. Gas how everyone wants to blame everyone else instead of making any changes.

Pussyhands

Tell me how wrote: »

They are the only party listening to the scientists in terms of humankind's impact on our environment.

What's madcap about that?

Where are the scientists saying banning cheap flights will save the planet?

As a brother in law of mine said about the greens if a child was hungry on the street and there was a tree in the corner needed nourishing they would look after the tree first they dont have a clue about ordinary people life going around on push bikes .

Tell me how

Pussyhands wrote: »

Where are the scientists saying banning cheap flights will save the planet?

Your question is a leading one, it proposes that scientists must have definitively said that cutting cheap travel is the only solution.

Here's just one link on the topic

Reducing the Carbon Footprint of Academic Travel

That aside, do you not understand the link between needing to cut emissions and not doing something which produces emissions so much?

Beechwoodspark

Google the hockey stick graph and then come back to us. This problem is getting worse on a daily basis

Thelonious Monk

Fred Daly wrote: »

As a brother in law of mine said about the greens if a child was hungry on the street and there was a tree in the corner needed nourishing they would look after the tree first they dont have a clue about ordinary people life going around on push bikes .

Your brother in law said that, wow. And do ordinary people not use bikes?

Amirani

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.

You earned a lot of thanks for that comment but it is not correct.
You should read about the EU ETS system. There is even a nice video to explain how the scheme works.
https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets_en

The Low Cost Carriers are covering their carbon emissions, the Legacy carriers are not.

Also, Ryanair and the other Low Cost Carriers emit the least emissions per passenger kilometre travelled because they have the highest passenger loads and use modern fuel efficient airplanes.
The likes of Air France/KLM, BA and Lufthansa are the Villains of the piece.
https://cleantechnica.com/2021/04/06/lufthansa-british-airways-air-france-were-europes-most-polluting-airlines-pre-covid/

Of course the Eamonn Ryan doesn't know anything about anything so good luck even trying to educate him.

Ryanair and Aer Lingus are in the ETS system, run at high occupancy and run modern planes. Some here would like to ground them.

tom1ie

whisky_galore wrote: »

Tell that to the lads cutting down forests to farm or hunting rhino horn and tiger bone for the Chinese markets. I'm sure they'd have great time for Greta.

Agreed. However “the lads” cutting down forests are supplying timber to developed markets and clearing the forest to rare cattle for meat for developed markets of which we are one.
So the more we demand, the more we damage the earth.
The resources will run out at some stage and will get scarce before than. When they get scarce that’s what leads to conflict.

99nsr125

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think Ryan is going a great job so far with his climate action bill, probably putting time pressure on the ESB to make the Moneypoint announcement, further investment in public transport.

He also annoys exactly the right people, so bonus points for that.

And when the wind doesn't blow ?

tom1ie

Pussyhands wrote: »

Where are the scientists saying banning cheap flights will save the planet?

It’ll help reduce carbon output which leads to climate change.
That’s the link.

tom1ie

99nsr125 wrote: »

And when the wind doesn't blow ?

Interconnectors and gas turbine back up.

Pussyhands

Tell me how wrote: »

Your question is a leading one, it proposes that scientists must have definitively said that cutting cheap travel is the only solution.

Here's just one link on the topic

Reducing the Carbon Footprint of Academic Travel

That aside, do you not understand the link between needing to cut emissions and not doing something which produces emissions so much?

How much did emissions drop during the pandemic where there was virtually 0 travel?

eggy81

Jack Carter wrote: »

Well let them close their factories so. We're shutting our power stations and making our own people unemployed.

Let the Chinese do their bit.

It’s fine. There’ll be a living wage and free housing soon once we work out Covid.

It’s the future. And the 4 day week too if you are needed to work. Can’t wait.

seenitall

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

And the opposite is trashing the planet until everything is gone, or maybe try to find some equilibrium where we might all be able to buy less stuff and have less choices and fly less etc.
You all needn't worry, nothing will change significantly and we'll carry on till lack of resources means war famine etc.
I still admire the Greens for trying to suggest there might be a different way to suicidal economic growth and capitalism.

That’s right. Because you can’t change human nature, no more than you can change the nature of any other animal. It is selfish and greedy and grasping and always wanting to consume more and more of everything (this is why capitalism prospered and communism collapsed). Especially those parts of humanity living in poverty or relative poverty, which is about 70-80% of it, and still growing in number. So the environmentalists are insanely idealistic and fighting a battle that was lost before it was even started - the battle against man’s own nature. It’s just like wishing for peace on earth. It can never happen, war belongs to the cycle of human history just like photosynthesis belongs to the cycle of natural processes. All the bellyaching and summitting and WWF or UN meetings won’t change it. Absolutely pointless.

Yes, wars and famines take care of all these problems, as far as humans are concerned. Always have, always will.

tom1ie

Jack Carter wrote: »

Well let them close their factories so. We're shutting our power stations and making our own people unemployed.

Let the Chinese do their bit.

Those people being made unemployed are being retrained to protect the carbon sink that is the bogs.
At least give the full picture.

eggy81

tom1ie wrote: »

Agreed. However “the lads” cutting down forests are supplying timber to developed markets and clearing the forest to rare cattle for meat for developed markets of which we are one.
So the more we demand, the more we damage the earth.
The resources will run out at some stage and will get scarce before than. When they get scarce that’s what leads to conflict.

Are they all vegan in the developing world?

RandomViewer

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Look at our own backyard, lowest tree coverage in Europe and nothing being done about it. Gas how everyone wants to blame everyone else instead of making any changes.

Dirty big semistate called Coillte, they haven't planted anything worth in years, huge work during the 80s and 90s and then it dwindled off, there tens of thousands of acres lying unused with nothing but heather and whin bushes

tom1ie

seenitall wrote: »

That’s right. Because you can’t change human nature, no more than you can change the nature of any other animal. It is selfish and greedy and grasping and always wanting to consume more and more of everything (this is why capitalism prospered and communism collapsed). Especially those parts of humanity living in poverty or relative poverty, which is about 70-80% of it, and still growing in number. So the environmentalists are insanely idealistic and fighting a battle that was lost before it was even started - the battle against man’s own nature. It’s just like wishing for peace on earth. It can never happen, war belongs to the cycle of human history just like photosynthesis belongs to the cycle of natural processes. All the bellyaching and summitting and WWF or UN meetings won’t change it. Absolutely pointless.

Yes, wars and famines take care of all these problems, as far as humans are concerned. Always have, always will.

So using your logic (not saying I disagree) it’ll be inevitable we run out of resources.

Jack Carter

Jack Carter wrote: »

I hope yer joking. How will Ireland make up for lost tourism revenue?

Beechwoodpark is a green fundaMENTALIST. He has been banned from diverting topics in the Aviation forum to suggestions for introduction of additional taxes of any and every description on travel. He has an especial bee in his bonnet about Ryanair whose emissions per passenger per km is about the lowest there is.

tom1ie

eggy81 wrote: »

Are they all vegan in the developing world?

Probably a higher percentage of vegetarians in India than Ireland, but I’m just guessing and couldn’t be arsed proving that point.
Are you saying forests aren’t being cleared to feed and resource the developed world?

tom1ie

Jack Carter wrote: »

Sure they are. Tell them to 'learn 2 code' while you're at it.

Yeah they are. What’s your argument?