Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

"Green" policies are destroying this country

Options
12862872892912921062

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 15,069 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Then you appear to be in the same boat as RTE and some of our major print media in that you are unquestionably accepting a report from Maynooth University that the accumulated Dublin rise of 130ml over the last 20 years, almost twice the global average of 70ml, is due to nothing other than climate change.



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,408 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Windfall taxes are a reasonable approach to address the increased cost of energy due to the geopolitics of the moment, this can be done while maintaining the current pricing policy and the revenue from the windfall taxes could used to subsidise energy costs

    These are options that are available to governments within the EU.

    I don't particularly care if we use the Marginal Pricing Policy and tax profits, or if we abandon it and then subsidise new generation capacity. As long as the overall goal is to wind down fossil fuels, and ramp up renewables as quickly as possible



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,408 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Will you just link to the study please? I don't have time for these cryptic 'he said/she said' comments



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,069 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    The Netherlands also has the tallest population in Europe. As a population we are small enough, and being from Ulster where we traditionally suffer from having smallish GAA footballers, I would look at coastal defenses similar to the Netherlands as money well spent as it looks to have given evolution a gee-up.

    Obviously those defense would exclude Dublin. There tall enough already.😎



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,408 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Is this version 1 of the 'Snorkles for All' policy to mitigate coastal flooding?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 15,069 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Windfall taxes are not going to lower the unit price of electricity for householders. Far as I know Spain considered it and dropped the idea. Not surprised as legally the E.U. while suggesting countries follow that approach would not have left them a leg to stand on legally by following that suggestion as it was, and still is, the E.U. whose marginal pricing policy are the cause of those excess profits.

    Not much point in greens attempting to tell us that the increase in electricity prices is entirely down to the price of fossil fuels while supporting a marginal pricing policy that will have us paying the unit price for gas even if we have 99% renewable energy.

    All it is doing is taking money out of peoples pockets and handing it over to energy renewable companies to excessively benefit their shareholders. It would be interesting to see how many dedicated green warriors are actual shareholders in these companies.

    Post edited by charlie14 on


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,069 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    I thought it was obvious it was meant to be humorous.

    A bit of light relief from the constant doom and gloom suppositions similar to Dublin about to sink underneath the waves any day now jumped on at every opportunity by greens.



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,408 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia




  • Registered Users Posts: 15,069 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Just shows there is no accounting for one mans meat being another mans poison when it comes to humour.

    Snorkels for all, from what I have seen at least, has been a general put-down remark by greens to imply that those they are addressing are climate deniers.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 15,069 ✭✭✭✭charlie14




  • Registered Users Posts: 2,049 ✭✭✭Mecanudo


    Well to be fair the only 'snark' was yours, where you ignored that I'd already linked to the other posters EPA's source of that estimate. But don't change Akrasia.

    Btw where you say "And the EEA and EPA specifically identified pollution from solid fuel heating as the primary cause for these deaths, not just 'all deaths due to poor air quality'"

    I was quoting your previous comment to that where you stated that

    "The 1300 people a year is an estimate of how many premature deaths are caused by poor air quality in ireland each year."

    But that's the thing about estimates like this one - they're estimates. Its also worth pointing out that the EPA report isn't a scientific paper, hence the figure seems to be at best what is called colloquially a "guesstimate" especially considering the epa doesn't list any "valid scientific methods" which can be verified one way or the other. The other thing is the graphic you clipped detailing "poor air quality sources" shows an approx 50/50 split between transport and solid fuels but then the same graphic oddly enough goes on to detail that "Ireland was above World Health Organisation guidelines for air quality mostly due to the burning of solid fuels in cities towns and villages" Those two bits don't seem to add up.

    With regard to the estimate of "1300 deaths" - that first bit section details "1300 premature deaths in Ireland due to P25 air pollution".

    It is a known fact that sources of P2.5 air pollution comes from all types of combustion including car engines, fireplaces, coal or natural gas fired power plants and not just people burning solid fuel.

    Oddly the infographic then seems to ignore those other sources and moves from the initial claim of "1300 premature deaths in Ireland due to P25 air pollution" to laying all blame solely on just one source of particulates where "particulate matter from the burning of solid fuel is estimated to cause premature 1300 deaths per year"

    Doesn't seem to add up one way or the other tbh.

    The conclusion of the report however although still using the same estimate, does seem to be a bit clearer stating that:

    Air pollution is a major environmental health risk (WHO 2018). The European Environment Agency estimates that there were 1,300 premature deaths in Ireland due to fine dust particles (PM2.5) air pollution in 2017 . Air quality in Ireland is generally good, however there are localised issues across the country with several air pollutants, in particular fine particulate matter.

    So I checked the above two contradictory statements with another EPA study undertaken in the greater Dublin area which indeed showed that Sources of PM 2.5 are highly variable.

    "Finer particles are released from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, especially from diesel motor vehicles, electricity power stations and industrial operations. These particles are known as primary PM because they are emitted directly to the air as particles or in the form of vapours that rapidly condense to form ultrafine particles. Particulate air pollution in the urban atmosphere is known to originate from sources such as sea salt, petrol and diesel vehicles, biomass burning, soil, secondary nitrate and sulfate, and industrial sources (Hasheminassab et al., 2014). Major sources of BC include vehicles (particularly diesel-powered road vehicles), non-road mobile machinery (e.g. forest machines), ships, residential heating (e.g. small coal or wood burning stoves) and open biomass burning (e.g. forest fires or burning of agricultural waste) (EEA, 2013).

    As for solid fuel and P2.5 particulates. Sampling undertaken as part of the study showed that solid fuel burning contributed approx 46-50% of the total mass of particulates recorded. The 2nd largest contributor at a roadside site was diesel vehicle emissions (22%) followed closely by road dust (19%). The 2nd largest source at a suburban site was soil (20%) followed closely by sea spray (14%).

    So from that it would seem to be incorrect to try and claim that solid fuel is the sole cause of the (estimated) 1,300 premature deaths in Ireland due to P2.5 air pollution viz

    "particulate matter from the burning of solid fuel is estimated to cause premature 1300 deaths per year"

    Where the first EPA statement (from the report you linked) ie

    "1300 premature deaths in Ireland due to P25 air pollution"

    better matches the EPAs own data that solid fuel is the source of only half of airborne P 2.5 particulates.

    Don't particularly "hate" anyone Akrasia. The things I generally don't like are poorly written reports, the use of estimates like the one above used out of context and politicians who talk bollox regardless of whether they're green, orange or otherwise.

    Post edited by Mecanudo on


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,884 ✭✭✭SlowBlowin


    The best way to measure sea levels is from space, its the most logical way to do it, as you say some land is sinking and other land is rising, this leads to confusion and sensational headlines, like the one you are defending. By the same logic you could say the Titanic disaster was caused by rising sea levels.

    Measuring the sea level from space removes the local variations which reference the local coast, thus providing an accurate figure of sea level rise.

    Sea level rise and land movement are two entirely different things, the NZ Sea Rise project makes a big effort to point this out:

    "To check out how Vertical Land Movement (VLM) increases or reduces the rate of sea-level rise under different climate change scenarios, click on a single dot."




  • Registered Users Posts: 22,408 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    You linked, several pages back to a press release, which wasn't the source of the figure, and you then went on to speculate about where the actual 1300 deaths figure came from. , which I linked to and included some details for how they use that 1300 deaths figure. The figure actually came from an EEA Air Quality report that assessed 400k excess deaths in Europe due to air qualty issues and then broke those deaths down into the different types of pollution and what amounts of deaths they contributed to

    The figures can also be seen here https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/air/country-fact-sheets/2021-country-fact-sheets/ireland


    Its a fairly comprehensive analysis that you simply hand wave away as a 'Guestimate'

    Do you accept that it is a legitimate claim for Eamon Ryan to quote this figure as support for the need for Ireland to pollution from PM2.5 pollutants (Which i already showed relate mostly to solid fuel heating in urban Ireland and in residential settings

    As for the rest of your post, the excerpts that I posted are not the entire report. If you read it, you'll see analysis that attributes most of the PM2.5 pollution to solid fuel burning with only a few isolated parts of the road network that exceed the EEA limits



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,049 ✭✭✭Mecanudo


    Incorrect. I linked to another posters comment. Which detailed a link for that figure and the EPA report it was taken from.

    It remains a guesstimate or best guess because it is based on extrapolated figures. The 1,300 premature deaths estimate is given for premature deaths not only from Particulate matter from solid fuels but also car emissions and other sources.


    Do you accept that it is a legitimate claim for Eamon Ryan to quote this figure as support for the need for Ireland to pollution from PM2.5 pollutants (Which i already showed relate mostly to solid fuel heating in urban Ireland and in residential setting.

    Lol. Ah I see the old debating tactic of demanding agreement as a rhetorical device.

    Do I "accept that it is a legitimate claim for Eamon Ryan to quote this figure as support for the need for Ireland to pollution from PM2.5 pollutants (Which i already showed relate mostly to solid fuel heating in urban Ireland and in residential settings"?

    No. Because as detailed the EPAs own research shows that Particulate Matter comes from a number of different sources and not just solid fuel as is being touted. Again

    As for solid fuel and P2.5 particulates. Sampling undertaken as part of the study showed that solid fuel burning contributed approx 46-50% of the total mass of particulates recorded. The 2nd largest contributor at a roadside site was diesel vehicle emissions (22%) followed closely by road dust (19%). The 2nd largest source at a suburban site was soil (20%) followed closely by sea spray (14%).

    So from that it would seem to be incorrect to try and claim that solid fuel is the sole cause of the (estimated) 1,300 premature deaths in Ireland due to P2.5 air pollution viz

    "particulate matter from the burning of solid fuel is estimated to cause premature 1300 deaths per year"

    Where the first EPA statement (from the report you linked) ie

    "1300 premature deaths in Ireland due to P25 air pollution"

    better matches the EPAs own data that solid fuel is the source of only half of airborne P 2.5 particulates.

    So if we're going to ban turf as a solid fuel because it produces P2.5 particulates, then we need to ban all solid fuels which do so and not just turf. And not only solid fuels but also most of the ICE vehicular traffic on the roads and all other activities which produce particulate matter which may be a risk of health.

    The peculiar thing about all this is that the latest EEA report on air quality shows that Ireland air quality is good with

    "concentrations above the PM10 annual limit value in 2019 were monitored in 0.5 % (10 stations) of allthe reporting stations, located in four countries: North Macedonia (five), Poland (three), Bulgaria (one) and Italy (one). The stricter value of the WHO AQG for PM10 annual mean was exceeded at 37 % of the stations in all the reporting countries, except in Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Ireland and Luxembourg.

    In "2019, the PM2.5 concentrations were provisionally higher than the annual limit value in four Member States and two other reporting countries. These concentrations above the limit value were registered in 2 % of all the reporting stations and occurred primarily (87 % of cases) in urban (67%) and suburban (20 %) areas. The WHO guideline for PM2.5 annual mean was exceeded at 58 % of the stations, located in 20 of the 27 countries reporting PM2.5 UTD data. Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Norway and Sweden did not report any UTD concentrations above the WHO AQG for PM2.5.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Its amazing how some manage to find sources to information yet display complete lack of comprehension of said sources and use this lack of understanding as a basis for an argument.

    I believe its called the Dunning Kruger effect




  • Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    I`m not playing the game of answering a question with a question. There has been way to much of that on this thread imo.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,049 ✭✭✭Mecanudo


    No! Never in the history of the Internet has that nugget of bs been dredged up before! 😅

    And anyone trying that much used and abused ad-hominem can only be referring to their own contributions hillariously enough


    Post edited by Mecanudo on


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    The vid below examines the various price increases of oil over the years and why the current situation is different.

    It looks at why we're not likely to see prices drop by any significant amount from now on.

    It seems logical that what stands for oil, also stands for other fossil fuels




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,884 ✭✭✭SlowBlowin


    Coming back to the NZ sea levels, and the RTE climate story, if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases would the land stop sinking ?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,191 ✭✭✭RandomViewer


    Irelands death rate is way lower than average,

    Ryan doesn't like people using materials that he isn't getting a cut from, wouldn't be surprised if Pascal the parsnip sent him on his mission, its a win for Ryan's twisted ideology and the parsnip is unlikely to be around next election



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,408 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Sea levels are measured from space and the average sea level rise globally is about 2mm per year (and rising)

    Some places are below this average other places are higher



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,569 ✭✭✭Pa ElGrande


    All the way back in 1989 the UN chicken little followed a trend they continue to the present day. What happened? 30 years later we are still here and no country or island has been wiped out. Given the track record of predictions, the observed data, and the disparity of the observed data compared to climate model predictions, there no impending "alarming" crisis of sea level rise. 37mm rise in a decade is being being generous, there is no acceleration in trend. In fact no one agrees what the measurement is, though Dmitry Kiselyov says he can outdo the UN apocalyptic forecasts.

    U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked (1989)

    Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.

    He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.

    As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday.

    Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt’s arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply, according to a joint UNEP and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study.

    ″Ecological refugees will become a major concern, and what’s worse is you may find that people can move to drier ground, but the soils and the natural resources may not support life. Africa doesn’t have to worry about land, but would you want to live in the Sahara?″ he said.


    Sea-level Rise in the Indian Ocean Differs by Region and Low-lying Pacific Reef Islands can Grow or Shrink in Size Depending on Conditions (2012)

    Another study related to sea-level rise (Webb and Kench 2010) appears to contradict the general anticipation that the impacts of climate change will eventually make low-lying reef islands unable to support human occupation. It uses aerial and satellite images taken over the past 60 years, a time during which there is evidence that sea levels have risen, to compare the landform dynamics of 27 atoll islands in the central Pacific Ocean. The study found that as a whole, instead of declining, the islands grew in land area by a total of 63 ha or seven percent.

    The research findings show that although sea level in the central Pacific Ocean rose by about 2.0 mm/yr over the study period and that all 27 islands changed physically during that time, there is considerable variation in the amount and style of change between and among the islands, with an overall net increase in land area; 86 percent of the islands remained relatively stable or their outline or shape increased in size. Twelve of the 27 islands increased in size by more than three percent but only four islands reduced in area by more than three percent.


    Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,277 ✭✭✭paddyisreal




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,884 ✭✭✭SlowBlowin


    Why are you repeating the facts from my post back to me ??????

    Is it because you have no logical answer or you have only just looked up the facts ?

    Do you still defend RTE for publishing the story in the climate change section saying that sea level rise has doubled around NZ, please bear in mind that sat data shows it has not doubled ?

    If you are happy with the RTE story, would you be happy with the next story showing that the rate of sea level rise is falling in areas where the land is rising ?

    This is typical of your posts, and the GP in general, ignoring basic science in favour of the headline, and when questioned you ignore the facts and try and move on.

    Both you and the GP demonstrate a very poor understanding of science basics.



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,408 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Theres more to it than just linking to a thing that links to a source. You have not demonstrated any understanding of how the figure was derived, and the more you talk about it, the more obvious it is that you haven't properly read or understood any of the sources. I specifically posted a graphic from the EPA stating that the relevant pollution is Mostly from burning solid fuels. (which is detailed in full in the actual report, and in the EEA report that the EPA are basing their figures on)

    The images I posted were only a small portion of the report, if you read the report, you'll see where they break down the different types of pollution, their sources, and their impact on excess deaths.

    Your insistence that this figure is a 'guestimate' betrays a complete dismissal of how statistics and science works and its yet another red herring.

    The exact number of people who die as a result of solid fuel heating in Ireland is not a number that we can know, but we can know the scale of the problem, and it's about 1300 people per year.

    All of this came from you claiming that Ryan is scaremongering or disengenuous when using this figure to support his position on Turf sales

    That figure is perfectly legitimate to use when supporting a policy aimed at reducing PM 2.5 pollution



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,138 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    Dalkey and Killiney are covered in houses so I doubt they'd build any there, they're building loads of them off the coast of there though. Hopefully no one in "Rural Ireland" will be able to see them though.




  • Registered Users Posts: 29,296 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    yup, off shore is the way to go with this one, far less problematic, far more costly though, but costs are dropping like a stone, so now is the time to pull the trigger!



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,069 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    More a case of you still not having a clue on the E.U. marginal pricing policy and your bluff being called. But no matter.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 22,408 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    No, the land is sinking for reasons unrelated to CO2 emissions, this is a separate problem but it is Compounded by rising seas caused by climate change



Advertisement