Global warming

My point is how it is Venus' CO2 level kept climbing and is the main cause of why it is as hot as it is…. basically saying this argument of CO2 saturation and it's lessening affect on Heat capture is wrong and Venus is the proof of it.

That one Green Party member that did, happened to be a Senator, not a Councilor, and also the Chairperson of the Party. There were several other Green organizations supported her, and the permission for the bypass was over turned due to being in contravention of the climate action plan 2021, not for the several hundred other objections that went in from homeowners, land owners and businesses, who were objecting to the Compulsory Purchase orders, that would have been issued on their properties based on the proposed routing, which by the way, did include part of the horse racing industry as the bypass was being routed through Ballybrit….

"Quite amazing that life on earth has thrived with far higher average global temperatures and a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere than there is at present."

Thrived? By what metric? And remember there have never been as many humans as there are right now.

True enough, and the only way they could do that is to introduce an ICE ban today and hope that sales get massively boosted.

The metric being the sheer amount of living things on the planet in tonnage, most of it being plant life. The cult of climageddon has consistently used lies - it is a religion, after all - to paint a picture of do as the priests say or you are all doomed.

First we had 'if we don't contain the rising temperature to 1.5°C, it's over' and then when that looked like happening fairly soon, they switched it to 2°C, which on the current trajectory also will be blown past irrespective of action taken to limit CO2 output.

Life on Earth is powered by nuclear energy from the sun. Only plants can harness this energy directly. To do this they need CO2 and water. We are living in an anomolous epoch that is frigidly cold with near catastrophically low levels of the mega plant fertiliser - CO2. There are actual permanent ice-caps at the poles, which for most of the time life has existed on earth, there haven't been. In the previous inter glacial period, CO2 levels got so low that at higher altitudes where trees and plants currently thrive, it's concentration in the thinner atmosphere became so low there was a mass die off of plants due to CO2 starvation.

The currently most accepted theory is that all the fossil fuels we exploit are the result of decomposition of mind-boggling amounts of vegetation that existed on Earth in the past, when Earth-normal conditions favoured them. Earth normal is an average global temperature of around 25°C, CO2 levels of 2000-3000 ppm and obviously no ice caps at the poles. It's likely no coincidence that the optimum temperature for the process of photosynthesis is around 24°C.

There was so much plant life on Earth that the oxygen concentration in the atmosphere increased so much that insects, which 'breathe' via diffusion of gasses along spiracles, could get enough oxygen they could grow to giant proportions - dragonflies with 2m wing spans, being an example. Fires caused by lightning strikes likely were rather intense.

And of course it wasn't just insects, but the animals that ate the plants, and insects and each other, the mega-fauna - dinosaurs.

So being told we are going to turn Earth into Venus, unless we stop releasing CO2 from fossil fuels is utter ignorance and a lie of huge proportions. Life on Earth thrives more when it's 25°C and atmospheric CO2 concentrations are 6 times what they currently are than it does at our current 15°C and ~490 ppm CO2. If we don't contain the global average temperature rise to 1.5° C - sorry, 2°C - we are doomed - is scare mongering. Meanwhile all the plants are rubbng their little leaves together whispering 'oh-please - bring it on!'

Personally I suspect the plants will once again be hugely dissappointed and the current rising temperature will cease, this benign holocene interglacial will end and then the Earth will be plunged into yet another glacial period for the next 80k - 100K years like the last ones.

Ireland is swapping out the Catholic priesthood for the Climageddon priesthood, and so far it seems the new lot are going to get just as easy a time of it as the last lot, with one of the world's most easily lead populations - baaaaa…

More like it will be great if you are more Neanderthal than homo sapien and like getting about with snow-shoes.

Deny it all you want, the planning permission for the Galway bypass was overturned on the grounds that it was in contravention to the Government Climate Plan 2021, which was published a month prior to the granting of the planning permission, by the Department for the Enviroment.

So anyone who objected to it on non-environmental grounds, in reality just got lucky.

At the end of the day it was the Climate Plan 2021 that sounded the death knell for the Galway bypass, and the more we discuss it the more I'm beginning to think it was more than just coincidence it was published a bare month before the announcement of the planning permission decision…..after all, that had been in the works for at least 6 years at that stage.

the actual mean global surface temperature:

yeah, as you can see it's risen by about 2 degrees

But only officially published a month before hand. The documents you quoted are for consultation reasons, and by no means are they official policies. Had CAP2021 been published after the granting of the planning permission, the courts would have had no basis to overturn it. Looks like the Greens Party put a push on it though, now didn't they?

So yes, whatever way you look at it, the Green Party put a stop to the Galway bypass.

BTW, maybe you can explain what was wrong with CAP 2019, the one ABP took into account, that the greens had to replace it with their version so soon.

Already refuted your argument concerning the emissions or had you forgotten. But here we go again:

An E10 petrol engine creates 2.1 kg CO2 per litre regardless of where the engine is, be it stuck in an unbypassed town or city goin nowhere or on a motor way travelling 120 kph. the same amount of traffic is there. if you can't under stand that, I give you the real world examples of Limerick, Ennis, and Croom. Total bottlenecks in the days before they were bypassed. The only cause of increase being the increase in population. but the most of the traffic in the bypassed towns and on the bypassed roads is what needs to be there as the traffic whose only reason to be in the town was to go through it can now get around it. This increases the MPG on all counts, as both types of traffic are no longer stuck for long periods of time behind the other type of traffic type which means for their 2.1 kg of CO2 generated per litre, the vehicle can travel further. the same goes for engines that run on Electricity, diesel, biodiesel, full blown petrol, e85, even poitin if it came to it. I know how I prefer my 2.1 kg of CO2 is being used and stuck in traffic for an hour per unbypassed town or city is not it

Concerning CAP2021, I never denied it predated the planning permission, but most policies take a few years to go through and this was pushed through in 6 months, just in time to stop some badly needed road developments. As to the differences between to 2 CAPs you doing a good job at being a Green Party spokes person.

As to what the road planners claims of increased emissions, they either did not realise how ICEs work or they failed to account for the traffic that would be removed from the bypassed towns and bypassed roads. What I do see in real life are towns like Ennis and Limerick and Croom are much better since being bypassed. I'm not going over the whole thing again with you, the simple fact is that as MPG goes up, you travel further for your generated carbon emission be they directly from a car engine or indirectly in the case of EVs. In fact it's the whole basis of Nissan's e-power vehicle…engines running at optimal RPM. In the case of full ICE powered car, that is the slowest it can go in top gear without the engine beginning to labour, not in first gear stuck in traffic.

Remember, 2.1 kg of CO2 per litre E10 burned.

Bypasses increase average speed which increases average fuel consumption. A vehicle travelling at 30mph through a town is far more efficient than the same vehicle travelling at 70mph on a bypass. Also by the very nature of a bypass the average journey length increases.

Since most town have relatively free flowing traffic most of the time, the net result is higher consumption of fuel on the bypass.

This is how it is calculated that more faster roads lead directly to higher fuel consumption - and that is not even accounting for the overall increase in road usage that bypasses create.

There maybe perfectly good reasons to bypass towns - but fuel economy is not one of them.