"Green" policies are destroying this country

Really ?

There are quite a few renewable energy companies that have been doing financially very nicely out of this green ideology at the expense of the ordinary Joe and Josephine Soap`s.

Quite a few countries as well that have shown that where their economies are concerned, catering to green ideology tech is their priority rather than following Ryan`s naive example and wrecking them.

But you are correct in one sense. It is a crazy batshit upside down world. But one that has been rendered so by the narrow mindset of green ideology.

Oh i agree. I actually meant right here on the forum. There are some classic examples who are the most frequent posters as well..

40cm of rainwater in a few hours in Italy is supposed to be an extremely rare event

Those nasty greens being mean to your beloved fossil fuel sector. You can't bring yourself to say a negative word against them....

A case of choose your battles perhaps? Irish cement Ltd, is owned by Cement Roadstone Holdings (CRH). CRH PLC is Irelands largest indigenous public company, many members of the Irish establishment own shares in this company.

Unlike you not everyone gazes at the world through magic green glasses and sees imaginary money trees.

We are going to need fossil fuels for a long time to come, so grow a pair and except it. While you are doing that at least attempt to get a basic understanding of economics, budgets and design for worst case scenarios rather than vague hopium.

Why are you so mysterious? Why not post the link to your findings? I searched for Italian flash flood 1992 and nothing came back

In the Italian flooding a few days ago, up to 420mm of rain fell in between 2 and 4 hours.

There was a flood in France in 1992 where 220mm of rain fell in 3 hours which was responsible for severe flooding, but this event in Italy was another level above that in terms of intensity of rainfall.

And to those who think climate scientists are making it up as they go, or that activists and environmentalists just attribute everything to climate change

Here's a study from 5 years ago that states in no uncertain terms that as climate change continues to warm the planet, Rainstorms will get more intense at an almost exponential rate (at very extreme temperatures, this will tail off, but by then we'll be fairly comprehensively screwed so it doesn't matter anymore)

Here's a 2021 open access paper from nature focusing on Japan but the same principle applies

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-021-00184-9

You can see the flood risk for each area here

The banks may not be directly looking at flood risk, but insurance companies definitely are.

The banks don't care as long as the house is insured, if you can't get insurance, you'll likely not be able to get a mortgage. If your insurance cover lapses, you'll be in breach of the terms of your mortgage and may attract fees or penalties

Uh, I did address it ... by pointing out that increased rainfall is not at the root of the issue in Pakistan. Lack of infrastructure, preparedness, and resilience are at the root of the issue as pointed out in the multiple articles I referenced. (Did you bother to read them?). Are you telling me that a richer country couldn't deal with these problems? China spent well over a hundred billion dollars on flood preparedness in 2017 alone. In any case, if they can't deal with floods by adaptation, they can't deal with them full stop. Their biggest loss of life from a flooding event was over seventy years ago. The most lethal event (flooding plus tropical cyclone) was sixty years ago. Deaths per capita from flooding events are way down in recent years when you consider that the population has increased five-fold in 75 years.

Your use of Pakistan's woes as a battering ram are noted, and sickening. Your claims that those woes must be solved by mitigating climate change globally are pathetic. They would be incomparably better off if they burned a billion tonnes of coal annually and put the energy to good use. I'm not suggesting they should (there are better things to burn than coal), just that energy use and affluence are inextricably linked. Poor people don't give a rats ass about climate change mitigation -- they have bigger problems on their hands. They particularly don't care about Ireland's virtue signalling to the world, which will reduce global warming by 0.0°C. Ireland is not helping Pakistan or itself.

Some day you will realise that the only thing that is going to reduce GHG emissions is low-carbon energy that is better than what we have now. (Hint: it isn't windmills).

I saw that reported on the BBC a few days ago. Thanks for the link to the actual study.

Yes, if it holds water it would be very significant. A few things give pause for caution. The "experience" curve for wind (Figure 2) shows the cost per MWh in 2020 being about a tenth of the price we just paid in our RESS 2 auction. How does that make sense? Also our costs are up 30% in two years, which is a long way from the "Moore's Law" they propose, in fact it's going the wrong direction. They say they've factored in commodity costs but I don't see anything that deals with the current run up in copper prices to which renewables are particularly sensitive. I believe they are over-optimistic about batteries, and their fast transition involves whole new economies for hydrogen, ammonia, and PEM which look crazy optimistic to me. In short, it's a purely statistical model which is only as good as its assumptions, and some of them already look dodgy. That said, I will absolutely keep an open mind on this and look out for further analyses. Hopefully you will keep an eye on what's actually happening on the ground (e.g. our local costs going up).