"Green" policies are destroying this country

roosterman71

https://twitter.com/JamesHu29812484/status/1647325620446142473?s=20

Should someone tell them that increasing or using land for agriculture is a no no?

prunudo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120629395#Comment_120629395

Ridiculous, trying to do the impossible with land that will take up scarce resources while places that can support good production are being forced to stop. The world is fucked up.

Pa ElGrande

There has been a lot of propaganda in Irish media lately driven by computer models with no demonstrated skill in prediction. The news media don't bother keep tracking of their lies, whether it is going to be warmer or colder, it's all about the clicks.

May 05 Newstalk: 'Almost the only exception' - Ireland may see colder weather due to climate change

May 17 Newstalk: Ireland will soon have a 'Mediterranean style climate'

The gulf stream scare is largely the product of Stefan Rahmstorf of PIK (Potsdam institut für klimafolgenforschung). Maynooth University echo this fiction in Irish academia. They never offer proof, the basis of their scare are computer model simulations (garbage in, garbage out) and they always couch their paragraphs with weasel words.

Furze99

Nearly choked on my cornflakes! Just heard that the average price of a new EV in Ireland over last year is €64,000!!!!!!!!! WTF

What sort of nonsense is this?

antoinolachtnai

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120629972#Comment_120629972

That’s the nature of introducing volatility surely? It makes old certainties uncertain and new predictions very difficult indeed.

Larbre34

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120630030#Comment_120630030

You're obviously not keeping up with the car market.

A mid-spec petrol Ford Focus is about €40,000 now and if you were so minded, you could buy a perfectly good five seater EV for €27,500.

The fact remains that most EVs on the market have been launched either by luxury brands or at the upper end of volume ranges.

Those prices will come down and a huge number of cheaper small and mid-size EVs are already in the pipeline.

patnor1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120611925#Comment_120611925

Good bye dolphins... Good bye sizeable portion of marine life...

Not every "green solution" appears to be green.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/analysis-the-true-cost-of-energy-generated-from-wind-turbines_5280274.html

Article is premium so in case it cant be opened here it is...

ANALYSIS: The True Cost of Energy Generated From Wind Turbines

Contrary to mainstream belief, wind turbines are neither effective nor, in many cases, good for the environment

Claims of wind power being pro-environment often do not consider the damaging effects these projects can have on wildlife and ecosystems, thus hiding the “true cost” of such initiatives.

Wind power projects can threaten birds that fly within their vicinity and trigger a decline in their population; it can harm marine life due to noise pollution, and affect the growth of plants in the region where it is located. Driven by subsidies granted by the federal government, the growth of wind projects has triggered concerns about the cumulative impacts they have on the environment.

There have been growing protests against wind power projects across the world. In the United States, people have opposed setting up wind turbines in Lake Erie due to concerns about the environmental impact of the project.

In New Jersey, protestors have asked to pause the development of an offshore wind farm which they claim has led to dolphins and whales washing ashore.

In Norway, climate activist Greta Thunberg has protested against a proposal to build two wind farms on the Sami reindeer grazing grounds. The Sami are the only indigenous people recognized within the EU and say that their tradition of herding reindeer will be put in danger due to the wind farms.

Danger to Birds and Whales

The blades of wind turbines can be fatal to birds. When the first commercial wind power plants were established in the United States, they had not considered the impact the project would have on birds and other flying creatures like bats. Not only are birds harmed by colliding with the wind blades but flying bats can be affected by changes in the air pressure resulting from blade rotations.

The proliferation of wind turbines is believed to pose a significant danger to the population of golden eagles which are already said to be in decline in certain regions.

An Associated Press analysis found that a significant number of eagles were dying while fewer criminal cases were being pursued—suggesting an intentional “trade-off” between bird deaths and implementing of clean power generation.

“They are rolling over backwards for wind companies,” said Mike Lockhart, a former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologist, according to the outlet. “I think they are killing a hell of a lot more eagles than they ever anticipated.”

Dozens of permits for wind projects that are either approved or pending are estimated to result in around 6,000 eagles getting killed off over multiple decades.

A 2013 paper estimated the mean bird annual deaths in the United States due to collision at wind facilities to be 234,000. With roughly 50,000 megawatts of installed capacity in the country, this comes to around 4.68 bird deaths per megawatt.

The Biden administration has set a target of deploying 30,000 megawatts of offshore wind capacity by 2030. At 4.68 bird deaths per megawatt, this could result in 140,000 additional birds dying annually.

The installation of wind turbines as well as the noise created by their operation can have a harmful effect on whales.

Last year, an official from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) warned against setting up wind projects off the coast of New England because it would threaten the population of right whales in the region.

In 2011, there were around 478 of these creatures, a number that came down to 350 in 2022. In January, Rep Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.) demanded an end to offshore wind activity in New Jersey after an “unprecedented” number of whales washed ashore in the region.

Climatic and Environmental Changes

Wind projects alter the habitats where they are located, changing the vegetation and other landscape features of the region. Setting up a wind farm necessitates the creation of open spaces. Vast open spaces tend to raise the speed of wind. Such minute changes can result in an uptick in temperatures and a reduction in humidity levels.

Higher temperatures at night can cause plants to release more CO2 than usual. This carbon dioxide is essential for the growth of the plants. By releasing the CO2, plant growth can thus get affected. In farming areas where wind turbines are established, this could mean lower crop yields.

A 2018 study found that wind power can impact the climate by altering the atmospheric boundary layer. “We find that generating today’s US electricity demand with wind power would warm Continental US surface temperatures by 0.24 degrees Celsius,” it said.

Warming effect was found to be strongest at night, with the nighttime warming effect observed at 28 operational US wind farms.

A study from 2010 discovered that “impacts from wind turbines on surface meteorological conditions are likely to affect agricultural practices as well as communities living in residential area around the farms,” it said.

Neither Cheap Nor Reliable

In addition to the huge environmental costs, wind power is not as cheap as usually claimed. Wind power electricity is said to be cheaper than alternatives like coal and gas by usually citing a measurement known as the levelized costs of energy (LCOE).

However, LCOE does not tell the full story. It only calculates the cost of electricity generation when the power source is actually generating electricity. LCOE does not include all the costs involved in producing electricity 24×7 continuously, which is necessary for an electric grid to be reliable.

For instance, wind power plants do not generate electricity when windy conditions are absent or their power generation reduces when winds are slow.

In such situations, coal and gas-powered plants have to cover for the lack of output. Gas and coal power plants that are kept at stand-by tend to have higher operational costs than if they were to run 24×7. As such, these expenses have to be taken into consideration when calculating the true cost of wind power.

In a 2023 paper, Wade Allison, a mathematician and physicist at Oxford University, calculated the cost of wind power electricity generation at 100 percent efficiency. He found that if the wind blows at 10 meters per second (about 22 mph), the power generated comes to 600 watts per square meter.

As such, to deliver 3,200 million watts of electricity, the same output as Hinkley Point C, which is a planned zero-carbon nuclear power station in England, there would be a need for 5.5 million square meters of turbine swept area.

However, the actual performance of wind power is much worse since the calculations are based on 100 percent efficiency, he stated. The average wind efficiency of turbines is only between 35 to 45 percent. This means that wind power turbines, on average, can only convert 35 to 45 percent of the trapped kinetic energy to electricity.

“If the wind drops to half speed, the power available drops by a factor of 8. Almost worse, if the wind speed doubles, the power delivered goes up 8 times, and as a result the turbine has to be turned off for its own protection,” the paper states.

Pa ElGrande

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120630104#Comment_120630104

No. It's garbage in, garbage out with pretty colours on the screen, does not matter how expensive the system is, how many CPU cores, all it does is faster number crunching. i.e you get the answer you wanted quicker. The predictive skill of climate models has been negative, therefore the output can be dismissed when it comes to projections about future climate patterns. If the model output produced no change, it would not be newsworthy and their funding would be cut, therefore the output of the models must be finessed to reflect the theory and prevailing narrative.

The output of these models is used by the activists and the media to generate scary headlines like this, Terrifying future flood map of Dublin as Minister warns people 'will have to leave their homes'. Politicians and activists use the garbage output to grand stand. They never check empirical reality against the model output, they are never held to account for the useless results, but they are quite happy to take the money.

DownByTheGarden

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120630291#Comment_120630291

We do lots of different reports where I work (not environmental reports). But sometimes the result is requested, or the boss knows the result the client needs, so the inputs and calculations are, shall we say, massaged to get that result.

If you dont get the result required you just change the algorithm. You might put something else in, you might take something out that isnt going your way.

And in the odd case where you cant arrive at the required result that particular report is buried like it never happened.

I would be very surprised if many reports that are commissioned are not massaged in this way too.

antoinolachtnai

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120630291#Comment_120630291

If your theory is true about following a prevailing narrative and models are so open to manipulation, why is there not more consensus amongst scientists on this particular issue?

Do you think changes in ocean temperature have no significance whatsoever?

Or do you accept that ocean temperatures are rising at all?

roosterman71

One of the issues with climate modelling is the vast vast amounts of data that needs to be processed, with very complex algorithms needed to be designed to try model it. We find it hard to accurately forecast weather beyond 2/3 days. Then trying to model the climate is next to impossible to do accurately. To aid this, when models predict something they should also state the level of expected accuracy of this model being right. Be that 5%, 20% or 100%

roosterman71

https://twitter.com/CBeaune/status/1660884781519847426?s=20

This is a good one. No flights between places where there's a train that takes less than 2.5 hours

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120631434#Comment_120631434

Something similar happened in Italy, where, with the introduction of a north/south rail line that offered comparable times, a load of internal flights became unviable

https://youtu.be/IbFGG4T3_Yo

There's a load of work ongoing at an EU level as well to make train travel much faster and seamless in terms of booking systems too. Still a long way to go yet but they're working on it

Beta Ray Bill

Greens look set to oppose expansion of Dublin Port as part of the 2040 master plan.

Ciaran Cuffe was Newstalk today suggesting the expansion was not compatible with climate targets and would go on to state the area would be better used for housing.

Interestingly Dublin Port is acutely aware of the issues around road logistics to and from Dublin port, And as such is attempting to move at least 30% of it's freight serviced to rail and/or (where applicable) port to port via the sea.

Sea and Rail are way more environmentally friendly than roads.

It's gas... this is nearly the only infra entity that's making real plans for the future and the Greens are actively out to undermine them.

I'd love to see a federal government system in Ireland where by if an area didn't vote in Greens, they wouldn't have to suffer them.... There policies aren't even green, they're cycling and nimby

ednwireland

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120631434#Comment_120631434

I've done gdansk to warsaw and warsaw to krakow on the train and a hell of a lot more pleasant than a ryanair flight.

ginger22

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120631434#Comment_120631434

And how is that relevant to Ireland.

Pa ElGrande

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120630770#Comment_120630770

The reputable scientists tell you outright . . . .

. . . . In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. source

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120629395#Comment_120629395

Libya built a Great Man Made River to carry water underground from prehistoric aquifers under the desert. One of the biggest construction projects at the time. Lots of European companies involved but none from the UK or US due to politics.

In China they transport water to the desert to grow food in deserts. Saudi and India have bought land in Africa to grow food there and send it home.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120631969#Comment_120631969

I love the way you can just wander up 2 minutes before departure and be in the city centre a few minutes after arrival.

roosterman71

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120632050#Comment_120632050

It's not directly I guess but nevertheless, a good move for an emissions point of view in the overall. Now, if any of those flights that are no banned, were run by airlines registered in Ireland, our emissions will be lowered!

eire23

https://www.arc2020.eu/agri-meps-vote-to-reject-the-nature-restoration-law-whats-next/

One bit of good news anyways.

eire23

https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/rewetting-targets-could-be-met-entirely-by-state-owned-land-minister/

more positve news👍

Barryroe shares tumble as news reaches shareholders, at one point they dropped to 0.95 of a penny. Imagine being able to buy 1,000 shares in Barryroe for a tenner lol.

It also impacted on Lansdowne Oil & Gas, which owns 20% of Barryroe, as their own shares dropped 52% 

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2023/0522/1385007-barryroe-shares-plummet-over-permission-set-back/

Barryroe are now "considering their options". Probably going to court. I mean, what else can they do. Its either that or wind up the company as they've let almost all their other leases expire and gone with an "eggs in one basket" strategy

The Spanish govt are expected to release a new climate action plan which will increase their emission reduction target by 2030 from 25% of 1990 levels to 30%

https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/spain-set-more-ambitious-2030-emissions-reduction-target-source-says-2023-05-23/

However its a pretty low bar so Greenpeace have lodged a case with the courts to basically do what FIE did here in Ireland where the Irish govt had to go back to the drawing board and completely redo the climate action plans as the courts ruled they were insufficient. Its very possible we'll see a similar outcome in the Spanish case. One to watch!

antoinolachtnai

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120633176#Comment_120633176

Our emissions might be lowered but it would not make any difference to us meeting national targets. (Aviation isn’t part of the national target.)

roosterman71

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120633387#Comment_120633387

Educate me here but what laws are the courts using to determine the plans are/aren't sufficent

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120633432#Comment_120633432

I can't speak to the Spanish one, but the Irish case is covered in detail at the link below. The Irish Supreme Court said the original plan did not meet the requirements set out by the govts own act, and was so vague as to be meaningless

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Case_Ireland

The Supreme Court quashed the Government of Ireland's 2017 National Mitigation Plan on the grounds that it lacked the specificity required by the Irish Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015 (the 2015 Climate Act). The Supreme Court ordered the government to create a new plan which was compliant with the 2015 Climate Act.

The Supreme Court had quashed the Plan, finding it to be ultra vires the government because it did not conform with the requirement of the 2015 Climate Act as it did not provide specific details as to how the national transition objective would be achieved. The Court found that the Plan fell "well short" of the level of detail required under the 2015 Climate Act. Clarke CJ called parts of the Plan "excessively vague or aspirational". He explained that the Plan should have sufficient information to enable an interested member of the public to understand and assess how the government intends to meet its climate objectives.

Because the Court quashed the Plan, the government was obligated, under the 2015 Act, to make a new plan which complied with the Act, and covered the full period remaining to 2050. The Court also noted that, in line with its judgement, "it follows that an identical plan cannot be made in the future".

What resulted was the current climate action plan and its many, many associated pieces of legislation

Other cases have mostly focused on legal requirements specific to the country/region in question but some called out EU level requirements.

The Irish case was important in that it was one of 3 in a very short time period on the topic in EU countries:  the Urgenda case (Dec 2019), taken in the Netherlands, the FIE case here (Jul 2020) and Neubauer et al in Germany (Apr 2021). These 3 judgements, over such a short period, showed, despite the variations in legal systems and traditions, the emergence of a strong interventionist trend in the approach of domestic courts in Europe to the issue of climate change.

So going back to your original question, looking at the German case, that was taken in relation a constitutional question.

A group of youth complainants challenged the constitutionality of emissions reduction targets contained in the Federal Climate Change Act 2019. They argued that the targets violated Article 20a of the German Basic Law – the German Constitution – which guarantees the natural foundations of life for future generations. 

It was claimed that by introducing a legal requirement to meet the overall goals of the Paris Agreement, while setting insufficiently specific emissions reduction targets post 2030, the law violated the rights of the youth plaintiffs by irreversibly offloading emission reduction burdens onto the future.

Again, wishy-washy climate plans were struck down and the govt in question had to do up a proper one, with legit actions, goals, measurements, progress reports, etc etc.

So the next time you see someone claiming "this will all be fixed when the Greens are thrown out" you now know why that won't be the case.

If you're curious about this topic in general, you can take a look at the site below. It has details on the hundreds of climate related cases being taken across the world against govts and corporations

http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-climate-change-litigation/

ps200306

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120633224#Comment_120633224

I see the bauld Luke Ming Flanagan voted with the greens on the Nature Restoration Law. This is Ming who got elected on the basis of his support for turf cutting. I think his turf cutter fan base disowned him a long time back, though.

ps200306

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120622872#Comment_120622872

More on that degrowth conference and the rise of powerful unelected and hugely well funded climate activist groups. It's debatable if they're even climate activists as opposed to autocratic socialists. (I am no conspiracy theorist by any stretch, and nor is Pielke. However it is a truism that birds of a feather flock together, especially when there is money, power and prestige at stake).

https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/planetary-boundaries-and-the-rise

ps200306

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120629972#Comment_120629972

I have also observed over the past few weeks that the BBC (who were bad already) now have an absolutely mandatory paragraph about climate change in every weather-related article, no matter how irrelevant. Was particularly galling last week to see them quote the IPCC about increased intensity of hurricanes having been observed, when the IPCC themselves have now admitted that this was a mistake in AR6 that evaded their own peer review process. In fact, no hurricane intensification has been observed and there is no increase in adjusted economic losses due to any aspect of climate change or natural disasters in general.