"Green" policies are destroying this country

Another example of utterly unrealistic policies from a group who really don't know what they're talking about.

Irelands climate and soils are inherently suitable for growing grass for livestock. That fact goes far back in history with early Irish society having based large portions of its agricultural production on cattle in the form of meat and dairy products. The gradual destruction of traditional Irish agriculture through invasion, colonisation resulted in a large-scale reduction of agriculture to growing root crops in the form of potatoes and eventual crop failure on a monumental scale via plant disease of which all to many readily thrive in our humid overcast climate

As for 'diversification' - much of our soils are simply not suitable for arable or horticultural produce. With the added downside that ploughing and cultivation of grassland is known to result in significant release of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

That said we can and do grow limited amounts of grain, vegetables fruit etc in the parts of the country suitable to do so already. However there is only limited room for expansion in these sectors due to the physical constraints detailed.

Some daft notion of getting rid or severely curtailing animal agricultural in favour of some hipsters idea of what they'd like for breakfast is not a realistic policy for agriculture in this country. The last people who should be advising anyone on agriculture here are the greens who let's face it - don't have a bulls notion about the subject.

I don't know what group I'm a part of and I don't think it's a hipster view to think we should diversify what we produce here given crop failures are definitely going to happen worldwide due to climate change in the coming years. We import most of our potatoes ffs. The worldwide situation will also affect meat and dairy anyway given we are reliant on imported feed.

70 metres in 40 years??? 😲😀😀

That would be 5 mm per day! The current rate of sea level rise is 3.5 mm per year.

I think you got the wrong end of the stick. 70m is the sea level rise if the all the icecaps and glaciers on Earth melted. That cannot happen in less than several thousand years in the worst case.

Yeah seen a few YouTube videos on that. Seems to be the most efficient usage of space.

Although I’m sure there must be some inputs.

AL gore spelled it out in 2006 with his An Inconvenient Truth and it was jumped all over by greens, and still is by some as a truth. It was a complete load of bollix. His prediction that "in the near future" sea levels would rise by 20 feet. The average rise in sea levels since has been around 3mm a year. At that level we would not be at 10 ft by 3006,a millennium later, never mind 20 ft the "near future".

Like all prediction, especially those that come with a policy or an agenda being sold, best to take them with a very large pinch of salt

Excuse me!😝

to solve this issue, there needs to be a proper study undertaken. a worldwide breakdown of emissions by country and by industry. that way you can pinpoint where the problems are, and where the easy wins are.

you cant solve a problem without 1st identifying it.

for example, ireland going full electric on transport will have what % impact on global emissions? i would say less than .00001%. thats not an easy win.

I wouldn`t say we are reliant on imported animal feed. It`s more a case of you cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs. Figures are difficult to nail down on a quid pro quo basis but for 2017 we imported 800 Million worth of animal feed and exported 13 Billion worth of agricultural produce. That is a quid pro quo ratio of over 1:16, and that as Mecanudo has pointed out is for all imported animal feeds, both domestic and export, with beef and dairy exportss being at the lower end, so the ratio in reality is much greater than 1:16.

I would much rather we didn`t have to import any animal feed, but one of the main animal feeds we import is soybean because of it`s high protein content, and it cannot be grown here because of our climate. There was an E.U. funded protein aid scheme introduced in 2015 for bean, pea and lupin growing to lower the need to import such high protein feeds, but for whatever reason it does not appear to have had the desired effect. There is another alternative to the provision of protein in animal feed, but if you know anything about BSE or CJD it really isn`t a road we want to be going down, but there are others out there that have no great qualms on that who would be more than happy to fill any gap left by our exports as a result of the Irish Green Party demands.

I’m soooooo scared … what are we going to do ? Ahhh it was soooo hot this week. It MUST been as a result of “man made” climate change . Sure what else could it possibly be ?

George Lee says it’s climate change ( the Rte economic reporter until he was magically transformed into a weather forecasting dooms day’er “SCIENTIST”) .

Now where’s my solar panels ?

I have to pay the exorbitant wages of anyone who is not connected to those evil evil bold oil people because they’re friends of a little girl from Sweden who loves travelling by fuel independent yacht. (Not her yacht btw….. don’t ask who owns it though…. hint ….. it’s a wizard who owns it)

now - let’s all knuckle down to CONTROL the weather . Ooh sorry I mean global warming ,,, ohh I’ll get there eventually , climate . Yeah . Everyone chill out. Have a Kit Kat.

The entire thing is a 100% hoax and anyone that spends one second worrying about climate change is a buffoon who should be living in Ricky gervais’s movie “the invention of lying” .

you’ve been had

By the way . Anyone who is brave enough to challenge me on NATURAL science then go right ahead. This man made climate change myth is solely dependent on the very essence of natural science , ergo 100% reliant on following the natural scientific method. (Hint …. There’s not a shred of scientific evidence of such a thing)

so

natural phenomenon observed please ….. ?????

Get your dependant and independent variables ready to test your hypothesis to determine cause and effect (remember testing

if you don’t follow the steps to the letter of “natural scientific method” of natural science you have about as much credibility as mystic Meg or psychic Susan.

FACT …….. the steps for natural science

How Science Works

The scientific method has four steps.

OBSERVATION

Before we make any assumptions about the phenomenon we need to observe and describe the phenomena clearly.

HYPOTHESIS

Once we have identified a phenomena that needs explanation, the next step is to think about how the phenomena can happen either by a causal mechanism, or mathematical relation pehaps even an educated guess. In technical language, we form an hypothesis. In forming an hypothesis we may perform tests by gathering data and performing experiments.

If the result of our tests agrees with our hypothesis, the results add weight to our initial hypothesis it does not mean that our hypothesis is true. If the results of the experiments disagree with our hypothesis, the initial hypothesis is WRONG. The initial hypothesis must be modified or rejected. This one statement sums up the power of the scientific method. It doesn't matter how smart you are or how elegant the theory. If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. This one statement sums up the power of the scientific method over other systems of reasoning such as faith or belief.

PREDICTION

Our theory attains more credibility when it is used it to predict the result of another related phenomena or explain observed results the test against reality agrees with prediction.

REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS

The final stage of the scientific method is to ensure that the predicted results are reproducible by several independent experimenters with properly performed experiments. The point about experiments is that the results should be repeatable which is why scientists go to great pains to explain what equipment was used, how the experiment was performed along with the results we obtained and a conclusion about the results obtained.

As more evidence is gathered in support of a theory in time it may become regarded as a theory, model or even a law. It may become established to the point that it becomes an accepted scientific fact. Even when an idea is taken as fact, new evidence may require that the range of application over which it agrees with reality to be changed. A good example of this is Newton's laws of motion. While Newton's laws work fine when applied to the world of our everyday experience, these laws break down at speeds close to the speed of light. Einstein's, theory of relativity refined the existing laws of motion to work at speeds close to the speed of light. The new theory also had to agree with Newton's laws at low speeds. Even with all the weight of evidence from experiments and predictions, a scientific theory is never proven. It can only ever be disproved.”

The debate is over alright .

Game , set , and match . For sanity .

sanity 1 .

Communist / easily lead 0

And how much of this "sustainable" food do you grow ?

Would you suggest any other indigenous industry close down or be restricted because it provides exports and domestic needs?

Not only that but It's a sector which produces income, employs people and contributes to the countries economy.

I posted this previously about agriculture and its contributions to the exchequer

A quick look at the agriculture sector and that sectors importance to the Irish economy

"In economic terms, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine estimates that in 2019 the agri-food sector in Ireland contributed €14.4 billion to the national economy, generated 4.3% of gross value added and provided 7.1% of national employment (Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine, 2020)"

The agriculture and food industry is Ireland’s largest indigenous sector. It is of major importance to the economic welfare and development of the Nation and central to the socio-economic vitality of rural communities. It accounts for over half of the country’s indigenous exports and almost one-tenth of the economy.(www.teagasc.ie)

As for reductions of emissions- that's already in progress. More to do and should be done but the important thing is that contrary to what is too often pushed by the greens and splashed all over headlines - agriculture is not the leading cause of ghgs emissions in this country or even close. That award goes Energy consumption accounted for 59% of Ireland’s greenhouse gas emissions, with agriculture (which includes forestry and other landuse change) accounting for approx 34%.

So if were going to start making drastic changes because of our emissions - we better all start walking before we start shooting cows.

"Much of the marginal land which used to rear cattle has now gone over to sheep, so the expansion of the dairy herd has expanded onto lands with arable potential"

where you getting this rubbish?

Animal farming is part and parcel of food production and with cattle, it uses what grows well ie grass to produce a range of high quality nutritional foodstuffs which are very much part of a recommended diet. This often repeated nonsense that we have to cut out animal farming because some don't like meat and dairy is rubbish. We import food we dont produce and we export food which can be produced well here. That fact is not going to change because some might think everyone should just eat vegetables. Good luck with that.

Sheep numbers were in decline until 2010 and are again increasing in traditional sheep rearing areas. Beef cattle numbers are also down due to the market being squeezed by a few operators within the beef processing sector. Any increases in dairy production have mainly been in existing beef / dairy enterprises.

Marginal land is no good for arable or the type of grass growth needed for cattle. These areas have largely been traditional sheep rearing areas.

We have significant physical constraints to growing horticultural and arable produce in this country. No amount of green washing is going to change that.

"Lack of strategic thinking caused this agricultural crisis."

I presume you mean lack of strategic thinking on the part of the government. In the last three years Ireland's emissions policy has evolved from significant amounts of "carrot" to mostly "stick" under Eamon Ryan's auspices. The 2019 Climate Action Plan committed us to 55% renewables by 2030, 500k EVs on the roads, and significant carve outs for the agricultural sector with EU recognition that Ireland's agriculture contributed 33% of national emissions compared to 10% for the EU as a whole. Accordingly: "The EU has recognised the limited mitigation potential within agriculture in its climate policy framework for 2021 to 2030, and will also recognise a more holistic approach to land use policies in climate mitigation".

The 2019 plan was full of soft-focus terminology about citizen's assemblies, the people's wishes, community engagement and support etc. Roll on 2022 and now we are turning the screws. Ryan has bitten off more than he can chew, and signed us up to a strategy that is going to cause serious economic self harm. It's inevitable we're going to miss the new unachievable targets by a significant amount but, unlike countries like Germany where pragmatism will ultimately prevail, Ryan is willing to sacrifice the economy trying. I expect the mutiny against these policies will start in the agricultural sector, just like they have done in the Netherlands.