"Green" policies are destroying this country

That's the way it is sure. No one said otherwise. Then, why, as part of that should trillions of dollars be sent to those countries, both of whom are high polluters themselves and in now way short of a few bob. What's the rational?

See ps200306's post. It details Ryan's initial inaction and subsequent bespoke action only applied to this project.

For a person so concerned with Climate change you are doing your very best to contribute to emissions by spamming biased links and then promoting multiple unnecessary posts asking for responses, whilst choosing to ignore direct questions, shirking answering anything posed to you and repeatedly ignoring when you've been called out as wrong. Prove the same criterion was applied to all offshore wind developments.

They are that way because of a) huge population and b) dodgy leaders. Pumping trillions into them is very unlikely to up the standards for those livin there bar the top %. Both of these countries receive trillions iin investment and purchases from "the west" every year. Are we saying we stop buying from them and just give the money instead? This of course would bring down emissions as we buy and sell too much tat. We could easily do that without sending trillions over that direction

I don't know how you came to that conclusion. We need to reduce emissions across the board. Some countries more than others. China being one of those.

They have emitted less than everybody else when you look at it per capita (and have a far lower standard of living to match). So how is it fair that they should they reduce emissions faster than us?

Because they are terrible polluters. If we upped our population does that mean we need to reduce emissions by less as our per capita would be lower? That logic has no place in emission conversations. Biggest polluters should reduce the most, in particular those who pollute for little to no social benefit (making tat from plastics, energy generation (I'm thinking Turkmenistan here more than China))

The new Finnish nuke at Olkiluoto went online last month. Finnish electricity prices went negative as a result ... or maybe not.

The discussion is basically a rehash of arguments had on this thread. Yes, the negative prices are probably because of the meltwater driving excess hydro at this time of year. But it's interesting that Finland can't even give away its excess power in spite of having way more interconnectors than Ireland will ever have -- an AC connection to Norway, two HVDC connections to Estonia, two AC links and 2 HVDC links to Sweden, and via Sweden to Germany, Poland and Lithuania, a total of around two gigawatts.

The guy from the "Nuclear Consulting Group" is a scream. What's with this new fad for naming groups after the thing that they are diametrically opposed to? (Are they all taking after the "European Research Group"?). He basically takes the same line as some on here, that nuclear is too expensive, too late, and the cost of renewables is now just too cheap for there to be any other option.

He seems to have missed the news that renewables costs are going up. Probably because the renewable economy will need 500% of current copper reserves, 1000% of current nickel reserves, and 3000% each of current cobalt, graphite and vanadium reserves (source).

Or the fact that the headline capex cost of renewables is not their actual cost. Ask anyone whose electricity prices have soared after implementing all these "cheap" renewables. Or ask the "Renewable Energy Foundation" -- yes you've guessed it, they're against renewables. They say that in spite of falling solar panel costs "the combination of rising opex costs and declining performance means that existing solar plants are unlikely to cover their operating costs once their period of eligibility for subsidy comes to an end after 20 years and they move to operating as merchant generators" (source).

Whoa! Hold up.

Turkmenistan is poor, again because of leaderhsip. It's got massive natural resources, so much so that they haven't bothered their hole to stop one of the worlds biggest methane producing holes

Or is methane only a problem when it comes to cows? Are you saying plugigng this methane hole won't affect the climate because there's a minority with loud voices preaching armageddon if a few cows aren't culled

Don't think I changed the subject. I say it's a waste sending trillions to big polluters of the world.

I don't understand this. If plugging this brings us to zero (zero what?), why is that bad or not the same as leaving it open. Genuinly, what's the logic here.

It's in one of the government reports about the need to cull. Wasn't auld Elon himself twittering about the stupidity of it there a week or two ago. I don't have answers on how to cut emissions, no more than many have. There's proposals and ideas and ambitions but I can't say for definite which would work or not. Though I'll say culling cows here will make no difference to worldwide emissions due to the likes of Brazil, Australia, elsewhere taking up the slack. By 2060 we'll need 70% more food than we have now to feed the world while over 2 billioin in the world are malnourished. We need to promote Ireland as an agri producer as it's one of, if not the best in class at it.

Classic deflection. Please explicity quote the precise statement where all offshore wind has been subject to the same requirements, not "will be" , "may be" or some other vague future commitment but where it has actually happened. Otherwise, we can draw our own conclusions as to what hole you are talking out of. There's a consistent theme throughout the thread asking you for direct evidence and all you do is ignore or deflect with long vaguely related linked documents. Perhaps it's merely covering the fact that you haven't read them yourself and are blindly hoping it's in there. Perhaps it's just because you know that no one will follow up and you can believe you've pulled off another great deflection.

Ultimately, what you have done in terms of providing information wouldn't stack up in court, in an audit or quite frankly in any meaningful debate.

You literally supplied nothing. I've seen no evidence of anything having been done within.

Here your honour, based on these links to the Road Traffic Acts and Amendments, alongside the Rules of the Road, you can clearly see that I had nothing to do with those slashed (sorry deflated) tyres. The evidence is right inside those thousands of pages of what you should do, it's up to you to find it.

I’m in this constituency and I can guarantee she won’t be getting my vote.