"Green" policies are destroying this country

C - The 'Chinese' angle on this discussion is something I have no interest in being dragged in to. In an ideal world something like the Paris accord and the likes of the UN would bring countries together for the greater good, we're along way from that (and not just because of the Chinese) but it is more of a political discussion than a Green policies one so I'm not going there on this thread.

That's a bizarre cop out, especially since your very next post was to accuse others of having their heads in the sand. How can you discuss solutions to global warming without discussing global politics? And how can you discuss Green policies without reference to their implications for the global political order.

China has a stranglehold on global supply chains for both refined energy minerals and finished products connected to the so-called energy transition. The largest battery manufacturer in Europe has 6,000 employees. The largest in China (and the world) has 18,000 employees … in its R&D department. China is streets ahead on batteries, EVs, solar panels. But not in a good way. Price reductions on all those things are the result of gluts in a market that has been over-stimulated by Chinese government largesse. Now the EU and US are concerned about the contagion spreading to their own manufacturing base.

The Volkswagen news is seismic. So is the Trump campaign promise of tariffs on Chinese imports. Greens were quick to leap on the folly of fossil fuel dependence on Russia, but silent on renewables dependence on the equally despotic CCP regime. If we are to have an energy transition it can only be within the constraints of what is technically, economically and politically achievable.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/sep/04/europe-farming-lobbies-recognise-need-eat-less-meat-report

thought this was some kind of wind up when i saw the headline but no, farming lobbies recognise the fact that we may need to eat less meat for the good of the planet

Did they?

Copa and Cogeca, the biggest farming lobby in Brussels, appeared to question the findings around meat after publication of the report. It called for “swift and coherent actions” but asked for “vigilance” on the place of livestock farming.

They sure did. Your carnivorous days are over amigo.

I am still trying to wrap my head around the logic of green policies in Ireland to solve “global” climate change should not be examined or discussed in context of what other countries on the same globe we all share are doing (or not)

Look at the thread title. Green Policies, this country.

There's absolutely cause for concern about Global practices with respect to the climate, this isn't the thread for it.

And why is it the tone I see in this thread every time I drop in is 'here's why we should stick with fossil fuels' rather than here's how we improve things.

This attitude is baffling to me. To be sure, there are "green issues" other than climate change, but that's the one primarily discussed on this on this thread. The related policies are those concerned with electric power generation, industrial and residential energy use, transport, agriculture and land use.

Country-specific policy is local, climate change as an issue is global. It is an absolute certifiable fact that Ireland — with it's 0.1% of global emissions — can do nothing on policy that will make one whit of difference to global climate change. The green counterarguments are generally that "we have to start somewhere, if everybody took that attitude nothing would get done, Ireland can be a world leader in showing the way to net zero". The last of those points is pure vainglory: every country says the same thing. The other two points would be fine if all other things were equal. And by that I mean if the energy transition was a slam dunk, with a demonstrable path to net zero and no negative consequences for the economy. Neither of those things is true. Therefore it is perfectly possible to agree that there is an issue to address, while vehemently disagreeing with Green policies which will both fail to fix anything and will send the economy to hell in a handbasket.

the stuff that pigs and chickens and cows eat that's imported from brazil and beyond is also sprayed with all sorts though

Society and the economy is going to be impacted by severe climate events

This is incorrect and you have no evidence to support that claim.

It's a cop out for too many to want to focus on China so as to absolve themselves of any action. Or to consider having to change the lifestyle which they think they are entitled to.

Firstly, I didn't say anything about China's emissions. I mentioned its precarious political situation. China is a leading supplier of crucial energy minerals as well as solar panels, wind turbines and EVs. China is needed for other countries to decarbonise. However, it stands accused of market manipulation and dumping. Coupled with tensions over Taiwan and the South China Sea, China could (and probably should) become a political outcast. This has implications for global emissions.

But since you bring it up, yes, there is no point in discussing emissions without noting that China has to be a major player in its own right. There's nothing controversial about saying this. The IMF says that binding agreements between G20 countries would be required (Black, de Mooij, Gaspar, Parry, and Zhunussova: "Fiscal Implications of Global Decarbonization", IMF, March 2024). The Paris "agreement" is not binding.

The pewnise (sic, premise?) of the Paris accords were that each country would make a commitment and strive to achieve it, because that is what is necessary. Our societies have evolved with this general approach.

Have you checked how the Paris signatories have been doing? It's not pretty. No country comes close to the 8%+ required annual decarbonisation rate. In fact, the decarbonisation rate is essentially unchanged when comparing the eight years pre-Paris to the eight years post-Paris. There doesn't seem to be a lot of striving going on.

And talk of sending the economy to help in a handbasket is being dramatic for effect. Society and the economy is going to be impacted by severe climate events, talking about the cure being worse than the cause is just scaremongering.

I believe a very strong case can be made for Ireland's economy going to hell in a handbasket if we try to implement the proposed energy transition to 100% renewables backed by green hydrogen. Fortunately, sanity is likely to prevail before we commit total hara-kiri, as you can only hide the true cost from the public for so long. Unfortunately we'll probably suffer in the interim regardless, as we fail to build and maintain sufficient thermal generation — we can't even get emergency generation going at present.

Another IMF paper from a few years back (sorry, don't have the reference to hand) says that climate change impact will be a tiny fraction of the increase in global GDP by 2100. We'll be slightly less fantastically better off than we would be without climate change. So who's doing the scaremongering?

Sprayed with weed killer

Fertiliser is put onto it, all types of other products as well to make the grass grow faster and stronger. Why you think no weeds exist on those lovely grass fields?

In terms of what dairy and beef are fed, look into how ad cow disease was started.

All shops sell meat with preservatives. So which shop do you use which doesn't have them? (see link)

https://www.fsai.ie/business-advice/running-a-food-business/butchers/additives-butchers

https://www.cafre.ac.uk/2020/05/11/grassland-weed-control-on-dairy-farms/

Saying one food is better than another is just blinkered

Also wait till you see what happens to meat not sourced in Ireland, the meat most people will pick up and not bother paying for the quality Irish meat

How much is sprayed with weed killer? The main grass weeds are docks and usually 2 applications will solve that for a few years. Spraying grassland takes it out of production for a while and also stunts growth. Not good for a country depnding on growing grass. Tillage is by far and away the biggest user of *icides in Ireland agriculture (note too that councils and the public account for more *icide use than agriculture, plus agriculture use is highly regulated as part of various schemes and inspections, whereas you or I could walk into Woodies and buy glyphosphate based chemicals and pour them down the drain outside without as much as a boo by autorities)

Fertiliser, namely N, is used to encourage growth. N fertiliser is what sustains food production worldwide and without it, well, lots of hungry people. Other fertiliser (P&K) are for soil health to promote crop growth and reduce N. Organic manures help here but ironically, reducing limits on organic fertiliser leads to more chemical fertiliser.

How much of the products leading to the mad cow outbreak are still permitted and in use? You're talking about historically stuff there when asked what are they being fed now.

Many shops and butchers don't use additives. Just read the labels, or get a fresh cut in the butchers.

Why are you sending links about weed control and additives? One is an explanation of additives, the other is something tat can be done to control weeds. Neither show anything related to what was asked only that it happens but we know that.

Some foods are better than others. For example, a roast is better than say a ready meal.

The last point I agree with, but mainly on stuff sourced outside the EU. People are stupid when it comes to food