"Green" policies are destroying this country

This graphic is from the IPCC AR6

And as you said, it ignores potential tipping points which I think is reckless and many climate scientists agree. (also the IPCC always uses out of date research as the cut off point for each report is several years before the publication of each synthesis report, AR6 cut off was Jan 2021, almost 3 years ago now)

And

An more importantly, there are studies to back that up

That's fine. Live your life, pay your taxes and let the people who actually see the bigger picture get on with resolving the problem.

The greens have lost a bit of momentum as all of the major parties except SF share their same commitment to tackling climate change (at least on paper)

Uh, no it isn't. It's from the World Resources Institute, as is actually written on it. Would be handy if you would provide links with your references like I always endeavour to do. I'm not saying it misrepresents AR6, just that is isn't actually the same source. Here's the link you should have provided:

First of all, that chart doesn't look that scary to me. Given that we're almost at 1.5C now, the extra increases for the additional scenarios are concerning but manageable. The extra context provided by the entire article is also important. It highlights the extra challenges faced by developing countries with unstable government. That's one of the things most people who fall for the green doom mongering don't seem to get, including the poster earlier who reckoned his "kids and grandkids are fk'd". Adaptation has reduced deaths from all natural disasters in developed countries to a tiny fraction of what it was a century ago. And that's even allowing for the fact that very many more people and more expensive resources are in harms way. Those of us living in the affluent parts of the world have much less to worry about.

For other parts of the planet this is an equity issue. And while I have little time for the deep red socialist types like Chief Doom Monger Guterres and assorted Greens, this really is the challenge of the 21st century. Development aid has not always been well targeted. Despite that, the UN Millennium Development Goal of reducing extreme poverty rates by half in the 25 years from 1990 were met five years ahead of target. Today that target has been greatly exceeded with a billion people lifted out of extreme poverty. That's 500 million of the 800 million in 1990, plus another 500 million people who didn't exist back then. Undernourishment has been reduced by half also.

Better living standards makes people more resilient to climate change. Drought and food security issues can easily be tackled with the right resources. Look how crop yields have improved in the past 60 years:

And note, these are yields per hectare, not total output. The good news is that there is vast scope for improving these yields despite climate change. One of the most important crops for sub-Saharan Africa is cassava. Yields nearly doubled from 1960 before falling back in the past decade. And no, it's not because of climate change, it's because of well known issues with land management. Efforts to fix this are ongoing. Under optimal conditions cassava can yield seven times the amount currently being achieved:

Of the other things in your graphic, fires and total burnt area have adaptive solutions that have been well set out in the literature at this stage. A great deal of modern burning is the result of Green and so-called "environmentalist" tampering with land use practices and controlled burning. Human and infrastructural losses are also due to encroachment of habitations on fire-prone areas. These are big challenges but a little common sense would go a long way. This is one of the areas where adaptation can easily reverse the negative effects of climate change.

Sea-level rise is a bit of a canard under most of the scenarios. The headlines always fail to note that 25cm per century is the baked in background level that we have been dealing with for the past seven thousand years! If your island nation is going to be swamped by a half metre rise then I'm sorry -- you might be gone in the year 2100 instead of 2200, but your goose is cooked one way or another. On the other hand if the prophets of doom are of the same calibre as the Maldives government (who are busy building new airports on islands that were supposed to be under water already), then you might just find that your demise has been somewhat exaggerated.

For extreme heat we have air conditioning. Remember, parts of the US south were considered barely habitable and not fit for industrialisation until the widespread availability of aircon starting just 60 years ago. Places like Atlanta (metro area population up 1000% since 1950) would be hell holes without it. 95% of households in Atlanta, Houston and Phoenix (and all of the offices and factories) have central air. Only 3% have no air conditioning. Does America deserve air conditioning more than the Maghreb? Maghrebians don't think so -- the air conditioning market there is growing at 30% per year. It's one of the reasons the world is going to demand vastly more energy by 2050. The Greens might prefer the hair shirt approach, but hair shirts don't help at lower latitudes. Again: we need to plan for lots more energy, not just eke out the same as current usage using windmills. Developing countries don't care about your first world problems.

Biodiversity loss is more of a problem of habitat destruction than climate change. Again, people need more energy and more affluence to ameliorate this. I've just watched a documentary study about the disappearing sand on the beaches of Cape Verde. The woman and children who dig it out with plastic buckets are not there for a seaside picnic. They sell it to truck drivers who pay about €25 per truck load before selling it on to the construction industry for about €120. Sea turtles, who take about 20 years to mature and return for egg laying to the beach where they themselves hatched, can be seen flopping around trying to dig in what is now only volcanic rock and shingle. Poverty is destroying the environment.

That leaves floods. Yes, there's going to be more of them. Storms aren't getting worse but there's more precipitation. There's no easy solution but we could start by not building on flood plains. Normalised losses from floods (taking into account more people and property) aren't much higher yet. But we're going to need more infrastructure for dealing with floods.

You love your tipping points, don't you. Fortunately the consensus is against you. I read your referenced paper and found it a bit up its own ass. "A Boolean approach founded on graph grammars"? As far as I can tell it's a fancy word for a decision table. Also this (emphasis mine):

So there is absolutely no quantitative analysis. Sorry mate, but it would take a lot more to convince me that we need to spend multiple trillions per year following a Green highway to hell -- one that could see us kill way more people than climate change is likely to by damaging our energy systems.

...definitely the bike, definitely.....

....greens will be around for a while yet, we may even see a greens spin off party, but they will get a big hit during the next election...

@Wanderer78

Outside of Dublin they have next to nothing to lose, so a few barrels of pork might tide them over.

They will be redundant for the next election cycle. Which likley means at least 3 or 4 years.

It would be easier for SF to work with the greens that FF or FG. If it took a few TDs of the Greens and a few of the socialist independent I could see them easily having a similar status in the next government.

I am sure some of our esteemed contributors will be having cold sweats over that prospect.

SF will need FF to get in. They wont have enough seats themselves to get anywhere near close enough.

The most liley outcpme is still that FG and FF close ranks again on SF and the current govt is returned. But probably without the greens as they will only have about 2 seats so can be ignored.

The Green Party isn't going anywhere. They may take a hit in the next election but could still end up holding all the cards and get back into government. I can also see a spin off of the more hardline greens who aren't happy with the current speed of change and approach.

The Saudis et al aren't pumping near as much as they could in order to keep prices high. Where did you read the Saudis pumping at cost? That's the first I've heard of that.

Depending solely on renewables leaves us equally vulnerable. Private companies will eek as much profit out of renewables as possible. There's every possibility they'd charge more than fossil fuel companies for the power generated. I don't get how/why people assume that with even 100% renewables that the consumer is suddenly going to have cheaper energy. Playing both off each other via competition is the only way, and even that is doubtful.

I'd say people are concerned, but only in so far as it doesn't affect them. You see people whinging about energy prices, rising food prices, etc. Wait till these prices go ever higher and the reason is "climate". A tipping point will eventually be reached and the kickback will begin in earnest

Yes.

I think most likley is FG/FF and Soc Dems.

Very true.

But as long as FF shut the door on SF. SF are ruled out.

FF and FG together wont be far away. If they sigm up a band of rouges, that should be enough to make up the numbers & get thek over the line.

Overall, although its not an exciting prospect at all, I do think FFG returning with a merry band of indies or the Soc Dems, will be the best outcome overall for the country.

SF getting in isnt going to do anyone any favours, bar perhaps the serial unemployed. Though I am not sure how much more they can be given in benefits anyway.

Housing and Healthcare arent in a great state. We all know that.

Yet 30k homes were built last year and similar number will be built this year. There simply isnt the capacity to build much more than that. Perhaps 40k tops.

And for those that want to see caps on immigration as we reach, as of April, 5.3 million population, SF are not going to change a thing on that front either.

What they will do is attack big business, reduce our tax take and force well paid jobs out of the country, meaning our youth wont have the same fantastic career opportunities we have today, especially in Dublin.

Be careful what you wish for, those folks in their twenties.

I think SF will increase taxes on higher earners, as they have already suggested, and that will force alot of higher tax payers out of the country.

jobs shall follow.

There is also the real risk that as corporate tax take reduces, SF start to up the tax rate to compensate and pay for their social welfare paradise.

Net result is that we lose the good jobs to lower tax countries.

Economically and in terms of private investment, the govts over the last 25 years have been exceptional. The amount of top jobs here vs the population size is unreal.

Compare Dublin to Belfast or even Birmingham or Manchester to see that.

In terms of a changing of the guard, we only need radical change if its beneficial.

Thats the point people are missing.

Trading your 15 year old car in down the local garage does not mean you will drive away in a Porsche :)

And there is a fair chance youll be leaving with a worse car than the one you arrived in.

We do need positive change, but we dont need change for the sake of it.