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
17577587607627631067

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 15,110 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Did you per chance read my post before jumping in to reply.

    If you did perhaps you could point out where the EU Commissioner for Agriculture agreed with the Irish greens on culling over a million cattle here, something that would not make one iota of difference to glodal emissiona as Brazil alone are increasing their herds by 20X that amount ? Do we have some super-duper methane emitting bovines compared to the rest of the worlds bovines and if we do, is it a secret know only to Irish greens ?

    Right now the EU Parliament, (especially after the Netherlands vote and EU elections coming around next year) are not that enamoured with green driven Eu packages. The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development voted a total rejection of the proposed Nature Restoration Law because of what it would do to farming and thus food security.

    Do you really know how global trade works ?

    It operates on the basis that whoever produces what the market requires at the cheapest price gets the lions share. China and India know that with a combined population of close to 3 billion. Japan are also well aware of it with a population of 125 million. All three have told the world that when it comes to their economies cheap energy is their concern, not emissions. Far as they are concerned if the EU wants to shoot itself in the foot, similar to Irish green thinking on cattle just like Brazil, Argentina and Australia etc they are more than happy to take up the slack with emissions being the least of their concerns.

    The hilarious part of all this green mumbo jumbo is that China has cornered the market for so much of this green tech loved by greens, and are predicted to corner even more of it using the dirtiest source of energy known to man, coal.

    The Bible may say that the meek shall inherit the earth, but the reality is that meekness would just result in them being face down in it. A reality that has totally escaped Irish and EU greens when it comes to global trade, and both energy and food security..



  • Registered Users Posts: 24,057 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Very well said.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,787 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    I did read it. It made me smile. You forgot to remind us of those statistics I asked you about.

    You think Europe should lead the a full speed headlong race to the bottom?

    i am still waiting for practical alternative proposals for how global emissions can be reduced.



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,419 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    The EU are banning beef or any other products coming from deforested areas

    Better late than never, but these are the kinds of muscles that the EU can flex globally, and Ireland as part of the EU can push for even stronger restrictions of unsustainable economic activity.

    Of course, that will only be acceptable if EU countries are also doing our part to improve our own sustainability

    Importers will have to have documentation to prove that their produce was not produced in areas that were not deforested.

    This will introduce additional checks and balances on the traceability of imported food that will also make the quality and safety of that food better.

    60% of the Brazillian imports of beef will be affected by these new regulations.. It also affects any third countries using Brazillian beef as ingredients through European Single Market rules of Origin regulations



  • Registered Users Posts: 483 ✭✭hymenelectra


    The silence on the environmental disaster of internet technology sure is a mystery.

    It's almost like money is more important than actual ideology.

    These data centres, for example, are practically terra-forming units. But let's put a tax on shoelaces and scold the population about that instead.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,787 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    These are penalized and subject to quotas through cap-and-trade/ETS, the same as other industrial activity. Just because it wasn’t on the front of the Daily Express doesn’t mean there major restrictions and controls haven’t been put in place over the last 20 years.



  • Registered Users Posts: 483 ✭✭hymenelectra


    Not nearly good enough. We should be joining the pushback on these data centres like other countries. Not encouraging them to set up shop to destroy environmental and societal infrastructure.



  • Registered Users Posts: 483 ✭✭hymenelectra


    Just to add, where is the information campaign from the government's on the environmental impact of internet use?


    for example " According to Berners Lee's book, The Carbon Footprint of Everything, a normal email has a footprint equivalent to 0.3 g of CO2 emissions. This can rise to 50g, however, with the addition of a large attachment."

    Are children being taught about the impact of looking at an hour of youtube?

    It's all supremely obvious as to where the bias comes from: money. We are a tax loophole for internet mega corporations and a soft touch for building and enabling their "business" to the detriment of our country.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,787 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    What’s ‘not nearly good enough’ about it, compared to treatment of a car factory or a meat processing plant or bauxite processing?



  • Registered Users Posts: 483 ✭✭hymenelectra


    The big difference is that those other industries have a direct and tangible reason to exist.

    Transporting goods from a to b. People eat food. Pretty important.

    Versus the ethereal nonsense of the likes of social media, a plethora of useless information, stored away ad infinitum, where it requires huge amounts of water and electricity to maintain.

    I know it's a particular example, but some picture of a car from 15 years ago needs to have x amount of natural resources continually used to keep it accessible. It's madness. Using actual, finite planetary resource to keep something that essentially doesn't exist at all.

    Here's another interesting, adjacent tidbit.

    "Data released in 2021 revealed that global smartphone charging is responsible for 8,088,324 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent every year. This figure is also the equivalent of providing a barbeque for around 1 and a half billion people."

    Yet the culling of hundreds of thousands of cows is put forward as a great idea, while the stuff above is practically kept a secret.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 15,110 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    There are times your naivety has a certain child like innocence about it.

    Brazil are past master of getting around the agriculture rules and regulation of others. Be it from brucellosis to FMD and everything in between by moving cattle from infected areas to uninfected areas. Often not even bothering to move the animals just the paper work on origin.

    Even if the EU sent vets to sit on them it would make no difference. With world demand projected to increase by 14% between now and 2030, if the EU followed Irish Green Pary policy on culling cattle to reduce methane emissions there would be an even bigger gap in the market for the Brazilians, Argentinians, Australians etc. to fill and it would not make the slightest difference in reducing emissions.

    It really does show the complete messed up thinking from greens at EU level. Just a few years ago the EU abolished milk qoutas as it was preventing EU farmers competing in the market place. Now greens somehow believe that farmers should blindly trust them on every mad scheme they come up.

    Post edited by charlie14 on


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,110 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Well if you read it you don`t appear to have understood it as you still do not appear to know the connection between global trade and economics where the vast percentage of governments representing practically 94% of the world`s population have prioritised trade and their economies.

    If you want statistics, here you go, fill your boots.

    2021 China consumed 54% of coal globally. 2022 A total of 106GW of new coal burning plants for 83 sites were permitted. Many of them fast tracked and moved to construction in a matter of months. Source: Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air. This year, 2023, China has approved more new coal for the first 3 months of the year than it did for all of 2021. Source: Greenpeace. They are also opening coal burning smelting plants to beat the band. Any idea as what they need those for. Any connection to green tech by any chance ?

    India with a population as large as China is merrily burning away at coal while they like China are taking advantage of cut price Russian oil. India even remarking it as home roduced and exporting it even to the E.U.

    Japan, one of the richest nations on the planet, has 5 new coal burning plants either planned or under construction. 3 with a 650MW capacity and two with a 500MW capacity.

    Germany, another not noted for hiding behind the curtains where their economy is concerned, are back mining and burning coal as well as importing it from the largest open-cast mine in Latin America that guzzles its way through 34 million liters of water daily. The salve to the third leg of their government stool, the greens, on that was the closure of their remaining nuclear plants. A head scratcher for even Greta Thunberg.

    As to what I think. I think at this stage both Eamon Ryan and his supporters here, as well as those in the EU, should have at the very least recognised that this idea of wrecking economies for the sake of the planet would make others see the error of their ways and follow their example are really not listening, and if they are they do not give a toss.

    My solution goes somewhat along the lines of a lad in my home place whose girlfriend was playing away behind his back believing he had no idea, answered her question on her telling him she was pregnant of "What are you going to do about it" with " I`ll do whatever the rest are going to do about it"



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,419 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia




  • Registered Users Posts: 22,419 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    The EU takes the Single Market and food tracability very seriously

    Are you suggesting that every single container of beef from Brazil will just lie on their import documents, and that the EU will accept this?

    You don't know anything about EU customs.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,787 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    You are just picking out statistics that are about everywhere else except the EU.

    The sad story of a German coal plant is pure, irrelevant waffle really. The operation of this plant makes no difference whatsoever to overall global emissions as you well know.

    I am still waiting for your proposals for reducing global emissions.

    The lad in the story, what did his other girlfriends think?



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Do you really know how global trade works ?


    It operates on the basis that whoever produces what the market requires at the cheapest price gets the lions share.

    Hence the reason for CBAM

    China and India know that with a combined population of close to 3 billion. Japan are also well aware of it with a population of 125 million. All three have told the world that when it comes to their economies cheap energy is their concern, not emissions.

    It certainly seems that way given the rapid expansion of renewables in those countries

    Interesting stats. I note you don't link to any evidence for any of them but thats grand the likes of the IEA and Ember reports fill in the blanks. I also note that you ignore renewable energy production growth in the 4 countries you listed. You also ignore what the rollout looked like over the last, say 5 years, and what the plans are out to 2050. As an example, Germany, sure they ramped up coal when Putin cocked things up for them as an interim emergency measure, however they've pulled in the retirement of it from 2038 to 2030 and have colossal investment going into renewables getting to 80% by 2030 and 100% by 2035.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    We already knew a lot of the costs of climate change, now the insurance industry are coming out saying a lot of things will be uninsurable in the future due to it

    Last month, insurance companies warned that climate change will lead to significant rises in the cost of home and commercial property insurance, as the current model for assessing flood risk is no longer tenable. 

    Significantly, there were warnings that the Government may have to plan ahead for sectors which may not get insurance cover in the future, the Alliance for Insurance Reform observing that “this may well become the case in Ireland, as it is in the UK, but not just for flood insurance, as insurers are jettisoning multiple sectors that they deem to be uncommercial, as the trend of micro-sectoring becomes more prevalent”. 




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,732 ✭✭✭ginger22


    Why dont we just march the entire population of Ireland into the Atlantic. That should solve the "green's" problems with Irish emissions. LOL



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,551 ✭✭✭roosterman71


    That's not knew. Previously I lived in a 4th floor apartment in Athlone. Could never get insurance because the place was deemed a flood risk. 4th floor I was on! The complex was built on a flood plain. I guess though if the rewetting targets go ahead then the people in there now will have to move out and let the waters back in. Can't see that going down well.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,551 ✭✭✭roosterman71


    Plenty of bogs around Athlone. Down Clonown direction and across towards Ballinasloe. Otherside of town behind Blyry. No one knows where will be rewetted yet. Word is state land, primarily peat land. Lots of that in and around Athlone



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    The utterly depressing state of Irish waterways was recently highlighted in the latest EPA report on the matter




  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    The bog behind Blyry has been extracted at industrial scale. I don't know that any form of restoration is possible with that, maybe though, but I can't see rewetting being used there. I guess it depends on what remains.

    But as you say there is not enough detail yet



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,551 ✭✭✭roosterman71


    I see that has a dig at dairy too, yet the area with the highest N is around Athy - tillage country.

    As an aside, the diagrams in the article are a disgrace due to their use of colours and labels being misleading



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]




  • Registered Users Posts: 15,110 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    THey do indeed. Within the single Market with Ireland having some of the most robust regulations. Outside of the Single Market not so much. It has been well documented that Brazil has been playing fast and loose with tracability for years and I don`t see where there is anything the EU can do in practice to stop them doing so in the future.

    Some here appear to have the naive view that just because the EU passes some regulation in regards to another country that somehow it`s then a done deal. While the EU is now talking about legislation to prevent further deforestation in Brazil, just two weeks ago Brazil`s Lower House passed Bill 490 by a majority of 337 to 127. It reduces the area of indigenous land and opens it to mining and infrastucture projects, i.e. Brazil`s agri-business.

    Does that sound like a country that gives a toss about what the EU wants ?



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,110 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    I really am beginning to believe you have serious comprehension difficulties. Where in that story was there any mention of the lad having other girlfriends ?

    Gemany back mining and burning coal and importing it from from the largest open-cast mine in Latin America covering an area of 69,000 hectares using 34 million litres of water daily to extract that coal and then shipped to Germany makes no differnece to global emission or has no environmental effect. Good to know. So why don`t we all go back to burning coal, buying it from Cerrejon, colloquially refered to as "the Beast"?

    Are you somehow of the opinion that the EU has it`s own biosphere where statistics from the rest of the world have no bearing on emissions ?

    I`m also still waiting on realistic proposals from Irish and EU greens on reducing global emissions. THe EU can come up with all the rules and regulations they wish endangering energy security, food security, and it`s economies, but with governments representing close to 94% of the global population not particularly pushed they are just pissing into the wind. See my last post regarding Brazil, the EU and deforestation if you want an example other than coal burning.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Unsurprising, yet again, to see cherry picking while ignoring other developments

    Indeed, deforestation in Brazil is an issue, but one that is finally being tackled

    And there are plans to reduce it further with an aim to halting it

    They had been making good progress until Bolsonaro mucked things (many things) up

    Good to see positive moves in this area again



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,110 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    You really do need to take a reality check on the likes of the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism.

    Within it`s own borders the E.U regard biomass which supplies 60% of it`s "green energy" as carbon neutral. Something even you recognise as a con. It really does appear to be making China that supplies the EU with so much green tech sit up and take notice. Last year they permitted a further 106GW of coal burning power plants and for the first 3 months of this year more than it did for the whole of 2021.You might also care to take a look at the finding of Carbon Market Watch on corpoations use of net zero pledges. Their findings were that the amounted to nothing more than greenwashing where they were making "disingenuous net zero" and "carbon neutral" claims based on dubious emission practices rather than actual cuts.

    As to the rest, we have been through this before so I don`t feel the need to go to the trouble of repeating it as you are already well aware that Of that four the two economic heavyweights are China and Japan. China is placing much more emphasis on nuclear than on renewables. Japan are also re-opening their nuclear plants and plan to add to them. An energy source you and some greens - not all as there is a growing awareness within the green movement of lifes realities - are totally opposed too.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 15,110 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Comprehension problems seem to be catching here,

    Did you read that post and the vote of Brazil`s Lower House on Bill 490 that was approved by a large majority, 337 votes to 125, and what it actually mean for deforestation in Brazil ?



Advertisement