Global warming

You are right, it isnt 2% or 4%, it's more, but ehy dont you provide a link to where you get your info. When I go to Galway, there is plenty traffic trying to get through the city and more trying to find a way around it, so it is a lot more. And why don't you tell us what the waste is that you are on about is. To me, the waste is vehicles trying to get through the city, spending time spewing exhaust into the air from vehicles that have business in the city and from vehicles that have no business in the city except to get to the other side.

Anyone that has worked with data will realise how much fudging goes on, throwing stuff out one doesnt like and making adjustments/guesses/assumptions here and there. the idea that "we know" the temp of the planet and can go back thousands of years to a fraction of a degree seems like fantasy.

like even to take a simple example, would anyone bet their house that they know the temp at Dublin Airport (weather station) to a fraction of a degree going back 100 years? no human error, no tech/measurement changes over 100 years, no heat island effect with buildings/wind etc. and logically only one pin prick is measured not a continuous area of the whole region at all heights and thats only one measuring point.

the hubris is comical

Your life on earth (the one that should matter to you) is not adapted to 420ppm and your species has never seen that level of CO2. Your not remotely adapted to survive at the temps this is causing of +50C so the consequence is that without technology you would literally die from the consequences of 420ppm and rising.

cute but 2000 years of history would suggest not betting the house on a single idea going back to Jesus coming back within a generation ;-) , we are going to run out of food -panic, we are going to run out of oil -panic, the world is going to freeze -panic….see where Im going?

What it suggests is that we shouldn't take the hunch of a guy on the internet over the analysis of scientists. The data is robust and the problems you point to are known and accounted for in the analysis. Your complacency is a requirement of your political outlook.

Looking at that, traffic from outside the city that crosses the corrib, which would benefit from a ring road, is 15% of the total

or leaving out 'city traffic' It's 37.5%

And that's only private car, what's the numbers for commercial vehicles I wonder...

A slow moving vehicle will generally use less fuel than a fast moving vehicle. The reason is basic physics - wind drag increases with speed and in an exponential relationship.

Depends on the engine revs more so than speed. 2000rpm @50kmh would use more fuel than 2000rpm@100kmh to cover the same distance.

unfortunately the reality IMHO is we lack the ability to change our consumption or activity to lower CO2 output. I would be increasingly pessimist on our outlook. I agree the Greens are annoying and sanctimonious, but deep down somewhere I know they are right. We are probably too far along the road and wedded to our habits to turn things around. Hope I’m wrong but am a realist.

The reality is that the majority of people know what needs to be done and most of us are doing what we can as we can and as we can afford to. I know several people who would love the go EV, but the vehicles themselves are too expensive for most and then we have the the Greens adding tax after tax, making it more difficult to save for, or pay back loans on these vehicles.

Same goes for the likes of Solar panels and heat pumps and Insulating of houses and so on....and before anybody starts up on grants, the rigmarole you need to go through is so long winded and complicated, it would turn anyone from applying. Same goes for the likes of the introduction of the DRS, when we had a perfectly good system of recycling already in place and we cannot even cancel that if we wanted to because DRS does not take every type of container, so we still need the recycling bin collections.

Then, as you said, throw in the sanctimonious attitude and straight off you turn people against you and what you stand for. If they spent their time stream lining things like the grant applications instead of trying to influence through taxation and levies, and not spending millions replacing perfectly good procedures, they might be seen in better light. As the saying goes, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

All the Green Party are doing at the moment is damaging the Green movement.

To paraphrase Frankie Boyle, becoming a vegan won't help with climate change but becoming a cannibal would. If you eat another human, you'll have reduced your carbon footprint by 100%. If you really want to make a difference, eat a pilot.

:P

Except we didn't have a perfectly good system of recycling already in place - we are missing targets.

The reality, which you are choosing to ignore, is that we are all going to have to change our behaviour in order to save the planet. Changing behaviour isn't easy, and the carrot doesn't always work, it sometimes needs the stick. The levies and the taxation are necessary, there is no easy way to save the planet.

There are a thousand things we could be doing better, in terms of looking to keep the planet as inhabitable for as many humans and other species as possible - I think most people could agree that this is a good goal?

Take one small example. Plastic children's toys. Can anyone defend the continued production of these knowing that they will eventually and inevitably end up in our food and water, poisoning us and future generations (and other species).

Just look at the plastic party bags given out at children's parties, full of useless plastic shrapnel, which go almost straight into the bin. How did they ever become a thing? Who still does that?