Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

"Green" policies are destroying this country

Options
110611062106310651067

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,405 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    Oh you think that's unique to the developed world?



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,949 ✭✭✭Dr Turk Turkelton


    You literally just said our pubs have never been busier.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,548 ✭✭✭roosterman71


    True, but what drove the economy growth? Was it due to the emissions cut, or the handful of massive payers of corporation tax?



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,104 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    We imported 9.1% of our electricity for just the first 9 months of last year. Source SEAI, who also noted in their report that imported electricity significantly reduced Ireland`s emission. Not great for our energy security, which is more or less none existent anyway with Eamon Ryan having spent the last 4 years ignoring Eirgrid, the Regulator and even his own commissioned reports on LNG, but even outside of that I thought you were interested in reducing global emmissions, not fobbing them off to some other country ?

    The IDA has said they are having difficulty in attracting foreign companies to set up here due to energy uncertanities and price and this offshore/hydrogen plan will not only not come close to meeting our projected future needs, it will result in even higher prices, and this green religion is not doing much for farm incomes

    The smoking ban was the first nail in the coffin for pubs. Then the drink driving laws and price hikes have ben killing them off gradually since.

    From Ernest Hemingway`s The Sun Also Rises : "How did you go bankrupt" Bill asked. "Two ways", Mike said, "Gradually and then suddenly"



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,589 ✭✭✭Pa ElGrande


    What is your point? Humans have been behaving that way even before prerecorded history (~6,000 years), anything prior, our ancestors rubbish, broken tools, broken weapons, are all that's left to provide clues for archaeologists to gain any insights as to how they might once have lived.

    There are > 8 billion people in the world today, we don't live on fresh air, we all need food, shelter and clothing. Since you mention the developed world, you probably have particular geographies in mind, do people in the undeveloped world not practice consumption, disposal and replacement of resources available to them? Are they somehow better stewards than the people in the developed world?

    Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,462 ✭✭✭Gloomtastic!


    Not to the extent that countries with burgeoning middle classes, like ours, do.

    Justifying it by claiming that as we are only a little country, that it doesn’t make any difference, is wrong.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,589 ✭✭✭Pa ElGrande


    What point are you trying to make? Countries with much greater populations and lesser per head incomes than Ireland have greater footprints, The Irish population does a much better job at managing pollution than they do.

    Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,462 ✭✭✭Gloomtastic!


    The point I’m trying to make is I believe it is up to each of us, individually and collectively, to do our best to avoid excessive consumption therefore depleting the earth’s resources faster than we really need to.

    Unfortunately, it seems the majority of people here believe impressing their peers with their newer, bigger, flashier houses and cars is much more important.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,166 ✭✭✭✭Furze99


    Some chap from Climate Committee on RTE earlier saying we all need to installing heat pumps and that 70%+ of housing is suitable. Load of bollix I was thinking. And no skin off his nose if loads people are left shivering and paying high bills after substantial installation costs. Not elected and won't affect their pay & perks. Heat pumps might work in new passive house designs but for most of us, an expensive delusion.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,166 ✭✭✭✭Furze99


    Some chap from Climate Committee on RTE earlier saying we all need to installing heat pumps and that 70%+ of housing is suitable. Load of bollix I was thinking. And no skin off his nose if loads people are left shivering and paying high bills after substantial installation costs. Not elected and won't affect their pay & perks. Heat pumps might work in new passive house designs but for most of us, an expensive delusion.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,607 ✭✭✭ps200306


    A quick google says Ireland's greenhouse gas emissions are in the
    region of about 6 metric tonnes and the total planetary emissions are in
    the region of 37 billion metric tons so Ireland going carbon zero would
    be worth about 6/37bn or 0.000000016216216%

    All found from a quick google search

    Were you wearing your glasses during that quick Google search? You're off by seven zeros!🤣

    A large car or small van emits 6 metric tonnes of CO2 per year. Ireland emits 60 million tonnes. It's about 0.1% of global emissions. Regardless, if Ireland disappeared in a puff of CO2-free smoke it would make no detectable difference to global warming.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,607 ✭✭✭ps200306


    The link between extreme weather and the warmer planet is well documented.

    Really? More frequent extreme heat has been detected. Most of what people consider to be extreme weather events are not predicted to show detectable increases this century, even under the implausibly bad RCP8.5 scenario. My source: Table 12.12 of AR6. Happy to look at yours, if you have any.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,055 ✭✭✭patnor1011


    Oh. So solution is easy. Make everyone dirt poor so they "consume" less. Half will die off starvation and the planet is saved for future generations of dirt poor starving peasants and their overlords. Let us get away with burgeoning middle class altogether.

    Green thinking there for you.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,462 ✭✭✭Gloomtastic!


    No. Just common sense. If you’re running out of something you need but that can’t be replaced. Do you use more of it or try and save it?



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,858 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Except Ireland isn't reducing emissions just by itself. Ireland is reducing emissions in concert with its partners in the EU.

    Are you the one saying that the EU reducing emissions will not have an impact? Ireland is playing its rightful part in those efforts.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,589 ✭✭✭Pa ElGrande


    I hate to break it to you, the planet is running out of oxygen, we should all stop breathing now to conserve it. As the Saudi minister said, The stone age did not end because the world ran out of stones, the oil age will not end because we run out of oil. Careful, you are veering into Malthusian thinking, this is the root of the modern environmental movement (Late 60's/early 70s Club of Romes Limits to Growth, complete with unskilled computer models generating forecasts and Paul Ehrlich), prior to that period "the science" the great and the good in society bought into and promoted was eugenics, World War II happened, "the science" was memory holed and morphed into the environmental movement.

    Everything you see around you today, did not exist in its current form 1 million years ago, not even 100,000 years ago, in another million years all that you see today will be wiped out as happened in the past, all of it, the buildings, the landscape, even the climate will be different. The island we call Ireland, will have moved from its current location on earth. The planet will be fine, all the materials we have used to date will be recycled back into the ground. Will there still be humans? I will leave that question in the hands of God. Nothing we do today, will change that outcome. Nothing in life is static, we adapt using the resources available to us.

    The consumption model set out by green policy central planning and in the time frames envisaged can only happen with the greatest known expansion of mining across the planet. The quantities of material needed, especially materials like copper are staggering. Despite their King Canute like attempts, no politician can create legislation that overrides the laws of physics, this is one of several reasons the European green deal is failing. The capital structure that exists to support our standard of living must be maintained, otherwise we run down capital reserves, go bankrupt and must rebuild it again. Think of it this way, to grow food you need to maintain seed stock, without those reserves you have nothing to plant each season. The governments in both Britain and Ireland have set us on a future of energy scarcity by preventing us retrieving new oil and gas and limiting our access in future to this primary energy, once the reserves are run down we become even more dependent on countries such as Russia.

    Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,605 ✭✭✭✭Francie Barrett


    The outrageous part of this report is that the ESRI seriously think is that people are going to die en masse in this country because of temperatures that are slightly above room temperature (22-25C).



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,589 ✭✭✭Pa ElGrande


    ESRI don't believe that, they are guns for hire, they should be criticized for their sloppy work. It is much worse, they took the lazy option and used an alarmist template that has been used by several other groups pushing the same narrative, they got paid and the eNGO got their headlines. Here is something from the lancet: Mortality risk attributable to high and low ambient temperature: a multicountry observational study showing the fraction of all-cause mortality attributable to moderate and extreme hot and cold temperature by country. Tuns out moderate cold is not good for extended life expectancy.


    There are many reasons to call bullsh!t on this junk from the ESRI. How many people form Northern Europe take vacations in the Mediterranean region every year? Is the eNGO suggesting Irish people not take holidays in the Canary Islands to reduce their mortality risk?


    Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,993 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    I love it when one of these climate alarmists gets pulled up for posting nonsense. Scary sounding headline until you actually understand what it means.

    "Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,357 ✭✭✭Silentcorner


    You can see why the Greens are pushing for hate speech laws in fairness…..they've been peddling a loooot of porkies!!!



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,589 ✭✭✭Pa ElGrande


    It's an annual event in the alarmist calendar, around July/August Greenland makes the headlines. Who knew, it's Summer in Greenland, some of the ice melts, cue media package with dramatic pictures of water flowing in Greenland. They won't tell you much about mass balance and they certainly won't show you Greenland in Winter.


    Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,607 ✭✭✭ps200306


    Except Ireland isn't reducing emissions just by itself. Ireland is reducing emissions in concert with its partners in the EU.

    Are you the one saying that the EU reducing emissions will not have an impact? Ireland is playing its rightful part in those efforts.

    Yes, that's the correct. Neither Ireland nor the EU will have any impact.

    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.

    (source).

    Irelands emissions have decreased by 1.2% since 1990 (source). Not bad given a 45% population increase, but it is not contributing meaningfully to global emissions reductions. More to the point, our targets for further decreases are being missed left, right and centre, and will be shambolic by 2030 let alone 2050. The problem is that we and the EU, led by the Germans, have set off on a path of pure folly if we were actually serious about curbing emissions with all the tools available.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,151 ✭✭✭Red Silurian


    We had a huge drop last year because farmers have largely reduced their use of nitrogen based fertilisers. It's a great example of how a small change can make a huge difference.

    but it is not contributing meaningfully to global emissions reductions

    If we can do it, anybody can. Our figures mentioned above should serve as a blueprint for other larger countries to adopt similar solutions the changes then can be huge.

    It's like the smoking ban that our small little nation introduced in 2004. Within 10 years nearly every other country on the planet had adopted a similar ban. Going first on climate action measures could yield similar results



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,151 ✭✭✭Red Silurian


    I love those responses as well, really shows a lack of understanding among some people

    Scientists: The ice sheet is melting at a faster rate than we predicted

    Random X'er: Yeah but if it stops melting faster and instead starts melting at this new rate we will be fine so we should continue to burn the oil. Also the greenland ice sheet is the only one on the planet so what's the problem?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,730 ✭✭✭ginger22


    And food production is down as a result. If as you wish for, every country follows suit the result will be mass starvation, especially in third world countries. But shure the greens don't care.



  • Registered Users Posts: 59 ✭✭thatsdaft


    Mass starvation would reduce the global carbon footprint

    So all is going according to plan



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,151 ✭✭✭Red Silurian


    Has our food production reduced as a result of the nitrogen fertiliser reduction? You'd think the farmers would have said something along those lines if that was true



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,151 ✭✭✭Red Silurian


    Assuming that the statistic of reduced food output is true, important to note that no proof of this was provided, if we allow climate change to continue along the current trajectory there won't be any people left to eat the food so the point is moot



  • Registered Users Posts: 59 ✭✭thatsdaft


    All those people that will die on fiery hell halls of Armageddon /s

    Pro tip: turn down the religious rhetoric when it comes to climate change it only drives people away



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,548 ✭✭✭roosterman71


    That's not all good. The impact of reduced fertiliser use over the last few years (cost, changes to regulations, fertiliser database in place) is a reduction in yields. Grass growth is down across the country (not directly linked to just fertiliser, but the shambolic weather for the last 12 months too). The result is farmers feeding harvested crops in places already that should be kept for the winter. The second round of grass harvests are yielding poorly (as the first round did) and there's already talk of a fodder deficit this winter. A push to sow more clover and reduce chemical N has also happened, but that too now is proving problematic as the weather impacts how clover is working. This will lead to culling of animals that wouldn't have been planned for, and leads to reduced output next year and the year after. On a macro scale, this will lead to a value reduction of our exports in this area. Tillage crops haven't begun to be harvested yet bar a few odd spots of winter cereals. Yields there are expected to be below average. Too early to tell how spring cops will fare.

    Reducing N is good to meet targets, but bad in other aspects. A balance needs to be found.



Advertisement