"Green" policies are destroying this country

JRant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122343954#Comment_122343954

It's been proven in study after study they if you want to have a sustainable population and care about the climate then you need to take as many people out of poverty as possible. The only way to do this is cheap reliable energy. So here's the conundrum we face, to get to the point where enough of the world's population actually care about the climate we are going to need a lot more energy. Wind and solar ain't gonna cut it so what then?

As I said earlier, the Malthusian undercurrent prevalent is for all too see. Too many poor people, hmmm how do we combat that? It's either population reduction through force or through economic growth.

Rosahane

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122345216#Comment_122345216

You’re like my grandmother who never heard about contraception 😂

Pa ElGrande

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122344345#Comment_122344345

A billionaire, Jeremy Grantham via his tax efficient foundation is the person underwriting weather attribution studies. I have outlined previously the activities of Friederike Otto and World Weather Attribution that is often cited after various weather events claiming said event using their computer model is caused by climate change. The goal is to put this "data" (sic) in front of a judge in the various lawfare actions the activists undertake against taxpayers.

All they are doing is confusing people. My elderly mother phoned me the other evening to tell me that there was a 30C heatwave on the way, it was on the evening news. I asked her who was saying that? George Lee, she replied. I would not worry about it says I, not going to happen, it's July and you have the heating on in the evening.

Essentially there are so many false claims that they have little credibility with the public. Those surveys we get are simply most people parroting the message and feeding the socially expected answer back to the agency gathering the details.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117665777#Comment_117665777

Kincora2017

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122345466#Comment_122345466

Do you find any of the following confusing?

• Earth’s temperature has risen by an average of 0.11° Fahrenheit (0.06° Celsius) per decade since 1850, or about 2° F in total.
  • The rate of warming since 1982 is more than three times as fast: 0.36° F (0.20° C) per decade.

• 2023 was the warmest year since global records began in 1850 by a wide margin.
  • It was 2.12 °F (1.18 °C) above the 20th-century average of 57.0°F (13.9°C).
  • It was 2.43 °F (1.35 °C) above the pre-industrial average (1850-1900).

The 10 warmest years in the historical record have all occurred in the past decade (2014-2023). 
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

ginger22

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122345683#Comment_122345683

And have you considired how things have improved in the meantime. The world has managed to support a vastly increased population, life expentancy has increased, standards of living have improved, and all due to "fossil fuels" the very thing you despise.

Kincora2017

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122345830#Comment_122345830

who said I despise them? I certainly didn’t. What I did was point out that there’s nothing confusing about what’s happening, in response to a poster who was implying that it’s confusing for people, when it really isn’t. The earth is warming at a rate we’ve never seen before, and will possibly change outside of the range of temperatures that has seen humans flourish.
so do I despise fossils fuels - no. Do I think we should be moving away from them faster than we currently are - absolutely.

Pa ElGrande

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122345683#Comment_122345683

Do you know how NOAA make their sausage? Do pay attention to the y axis and the units and scales used in your links, question are you actually looking at. Do you know the margin of error in output you look at?

Why are you using temperature as a proxy to measure climate change?

Why did you pick 1982? Why did you not pick 1962 or 1942 or any another year for that matter?

Take a look at how NASA adjusts Valentia in their dataset, why does the past become cooler?

Homogenization adjustments . . . what's that?

ps200306

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122343954#Comment_122343954

The two biggest root causes of climate change are unsustainable population growth in the "third world" and pollution from fossil fuel use by China.

What's being done about them? …SFA!

This is wrong. The "third world", a.k.a. "least developed countries" contribute almost none of the growth in CO2 emissions in spite of a considerable contribution to population increase.

Low income countries' share of emissions has gone down. It is middle income countries with growing economies who contribute the most to emissions increases:

This is the conundrum of emissions increases. Nobody wants to be poorer. Everyone wants to be better off. Only the very richest countries have made the transition to services economies where wealth can increase without emissions increases. But that can only happen where someone else does the "dirty" jobs. In those middle income countries, wealth and CO2 emissions are directly correlated. Chinese emissions increase while the population has been stagnant for years and is now falling.

Rosahane

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122348158#Comment_122348158

I don't disagree with your analysis. Spot on about China and Asia, but surely the massive deforestation and habitat loss consequent on the increase in population in Africa (doubling every 20 years since 1950) has to have an impact on weather patterns?

InAtFullBack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122329202#Comment_122329202

If this scheme wasn't designed for the well connected to coin it, then it would have been set up so that the single-purchase can or bottle would be targeted for the DRS. Single-purchase cans and bottles were the issue as unfortunately some louts thought it be fine to toss them out a car window.

Multi-packs should have been exempt. In most houses multi-packs are consumed at home and were already recycled via the blue bin (could be different colour recycling bins in other areas). Primary schools tend to send home all lunch-waste with the student, these were going to the home recycling. Most secondary schools have recycling facilities.

Those products should have been left be. As for your machine - no, you don't get your money back. You get a voucher which you must then go in-store to redeem cash or use it against purchases. The machines certainly don't dispense money.