"Green" policies are destroying this country

Funny the amount of stories on boards about people who can't seem to get the system working

In reality millions of bottles are getting recycled daily.

The issues seem to be limited to boards users, plus people on TikTok who think it is funny to act like an idiot and can't work out how to use the machines. That has to be a success so with such limited issies

Facebook 😂 find a topic on facebook that people don't complain about

No the scheme wasn't, the usual people who find fault with everything found fault with it.

The odd person had some issue

The majority just got on with it and used it, hence why the numbers are so big and the trash is down

That is my point, those are not the only place both Luas lines run through.

Messing with computers again, If they want to play computer games they should stick to GTA V

No we don't need to get used to it. We had a perfectly good system until the Greens decided to foist this on us, with the usual palaver of EU regulations.

The public do have a choice.

This is the only part of the article you need to pay attention too

"To develop our statistical model, we used a combination of weather station data and climate model information. This approach allowed us to address issues of missing station data while using the detailed physics captured by climate models. Our combination of these data sources means we are able to produce a comprehensive analysis of extreme temperature events."

Without hesitation you can completely disregard what they are saying. Anyone that understands computer modelling knows that the results are not too be trusted. It's guesswork layered on top of assumptions and sold to the general population as fact.

I read this post last night and obviously shook my head because I disagreed with it completely, but I was trying to think of a response that would make sense to you but I'm not sure that that is possible. I mean, this is an article based on the work of scientists and the details of their process and experience, with links is there for you already to see if you are so inclined. And patently you're not.

But let me try to explain it this way. Imagine when you were in your early 20's, a summers Saturday evening and you and friends are heading out for the night. Ye're driving to a bar or nightclub or something and the radio is on, the windows down, and form is good. And ye're speeding, its exciting, exhilarating! All around the country and beyond, every Saturday night millions more are doing the same thing and for the vast majority, it's safe and there's no issues. But every so often, something happens, the car flips, rolls, or whatever and there's a tragic incident. Now imagine that you don't just drive like that on a weekend evening every so often, but more and more during the week as well, and on dark nights in winter. And so too does everyone else. What do you think will happen? More incidents, more tragedy, more death, more suffering.

To look at the vast amount of information relation to climate change and to cherry pick the incidental warmer weather as a positive without looking at the bigger picture is phenomenally stupid. What will come with that odd occasion of you thinking this is class, is people at the same time suffering with heat stroke, dehydration, fatigue and other symptoms that can and will be fatal to some. It comes with extremes at the other end of the scale as well in more frequent flash floods, more violent storms and the food supply and safety issues that these events can bring.

A lot of us won't be around to see the worst of this, but our descendants will be, and not like 10 layers removed or anything but likely our children, definitely our grandchildren at this rate. The climate is a behemoth, it has take decades of abuse to bring it to flipping, it will take much longer to bring it back.

The Greens weren't wonderful, but look at the environment (pun intended) in which they were and continue to operate. FG/FF signed Ireland up to the Paris Accord and the emission reduction targets contained within that, but since then, it has been left to the Greens to advocate for any sort of policy to help meet those targets and all they, and Eamonn Ryan, have gotten for the effort is ridicule and abuse. A lot of people will read this final sentence and say 'So fu*king what' but I no longer think humans can manage the climate change issue, I think we'll see the outcome of this issue impact billions worldwide which will lead to conflict, war and the associated problems as literally tens of millions from the global south look to migrate to safer locations. Anyone who spends any amount of time talking about stopping migration should be the ones demanding action on the climate, it is likely going to be the biggest cause of forced migration the world has ever seen.

Whatever happens you are getting taxed plebs

You're free to disagree and I will continue to point out the futility of these studies.

And not to point out the obvious but the weather is not the climate (unless I've missed the memo). Even with all the resources and compute power available we still can't tell what the weather will be like in a certain area more than a day or two out and even then it has a margin for error.

I don't think I will change yourind but having experience with computer modelling over a long time I can tell you it's extremely sensitive to even the smallest of input parameter changes. Take a CFD study for a large building, which is a closed system and a hell of a lot easier to model than our climate, and even then the results all come with huge caveats based on the input variables. Oh, the corridor widths are off by 5%, need to redo the study. Didn't account for those extra inlets, need to redo the study. The exhaust fans are actually 3% more powerful, yep, you guessed it, redo the study.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, can accurately model our climate because we still don't fully understand how all the variables play out. Water vapour? Yeah, we'll ig ore that because we don't understand it. You starting to gety point now?

You starting to gety point now?

No.

We trust scientific rigor to develop all sorts of products, equipment and processes that we use every day. Often with a degree of inaccuracy within constituent parts. I'm an engineer, I don't claim to know the specifics of climate science, in fact I'm totally fine admitting I don't, neither do you (either claim it, or know it) but I know that those that do, say that action is needed.

I trust the process when I eat food, take medication, get in a car or on an airplane as do most people (although sadly we saw a pushback during Covid which was massively led by those uneducated in the field also), the climate topic will probably be more impactful and be harder to resolve.

The Greens have generally acted with the best intentions and with the most qualified guidance. For them to be ridiculed as they experience on places such as this thread is just counter intuitive from people who also claim to hate parish pump and reactionary politics.

That is not exactly how it works though. The E.U. is not ruled by a federal government in Brussels that can dictate legislation for all E.U. states based on a simple majority vote of the E.U. parliament.

The final decision on what becomes E.U. policy, or not, comes down to the Council which consists of a government minister from each state. Depending on the proposed policy area some of these decisions require a unanimous vote to pass, while others require a qualified majority. A case in point being the E.U. parliament voting to ban ICEs after 2035 which Germany`s delegates voted in favour of not being accepted by the Germany government, or the Italian government among others, resulting in ICEs being allowed after 2035 if they use e-fuel.

It`s one of the checks and balances that the E.U. trumpets as being a democratic safeguard, but has now been shown as a sham thanks in no small measure to our own greens of Ryan and Noonan on the Nature Restoration Law that was withdrawn at Council level during the old parliament because it was not going to get the qualified majority required with them trying to push it through before a new parliament was formed as they knew it would have even less chance of passing.

That resulted in the E.U. disgracing itself accepting a vote from an Austrian green minister, who not only had no authority from the Austrian government to vote in favour, who along with the Belgian chairperson of the Council been informed by the Austrian government as not having the authority, still had her vote accepted by the Belgian green minister chairing that Council meeting.

''

Grangegorman is transformed, Dominic is beginning to get there, with new building going up, the whole area around Hawkins Street. Before that, when the Green line was built, you saw the start of the revival around Harcourt which has exponentially grown. Not all of it can be transformed immediately.

A bit of perspective from the 2024 Statistical Review of World Energy.

Global CO₂ equivalent emissions grew by 2.1% in 2023, crossing 40 billion metric tons for the first time. (source)

That's an increase of 840 million tonnes, or 14 times Ireland's total emissions. If we slashed our emissions to zero, it would be less than the global monthly increase.

Carbon emissions in the U.S. declined by 2.7% from 2022, and emissions in the European Union fell by 6.6%. But, across Asia Pacific, emissions jumped 4.9%, an increase equivalent to triple the combined decline in the U.S. and EU.

Much of the reduction in the West over recent decades is the result of switching from coal to natural gas. 92% of emissions increases since 1990 have come from the Asia Pacific region. If you look at economic growth in India compared to China over that period, India has barely gotten started. And a lot of Africa hasn't got started at all. India and Africa contain a third of the world's population and could drive energy demand increases in the 21st century.

Renewables continue to increase at a rapid clip, growing nearly 60% between 2012 and 2022 (source). But they are not even keeping up with demand increase. Overall energy demand increased by 16% and 65% of that was met by fossil fuels. Even in the renewables category 55% is accounted for by biomass which is arguably not very "green".

It's obvious that renewables are not going to get us to net zero. Global net zero by 2050 would involve the equivalent of closing one or two large natural gas power plants every day from now until then. We would have to install the equivalent of Ireland's entire current wind generation every day (and, of course, shut down the fossil fuel equivalent since merely adding renewables doesn't reduce emissions).

Hydrocarbons continue to be the cheapest, most accessible sources of energy. They are the obvious choice for developing countries. The world really needs a breakthrough in cheap low-carbon energy for any inroads to be made.

Has Carbon tax worked? It was introduced as part of budget 2010, in the last 14 years there hasn't been any major reduction in our carbon emissions. Also there's a direct link between the carbon tax and the cost of heating homes so there's a good reason to at least abolish it on that