Gormley's Climate Change Bill

ART6 · 12-01-2011 6:09pm #1

I'n not sure if this should be in the environment forum, but my point is not an environmental one. Gormley and his Green frog counters have published their Climate Change Bill, and one comment from the famous JG that interests me is the following:

"Key provisions include national greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for 2020, 2030 and 2050; a new national planning process encompassing both mitigation and adaptation; a new annual process on reporting to the Oireachtas; and a new Expert Advisory Body to advise government on policy and implementation".

A "new expert advisory body"? We have somewhere between 800 and 1000 quangos. For God's sake, do we really need another of them? Is this new quango supposed to stuff it's nose in the public trough until at least 2050? Perhaps I am being a cynic, but I wonder that if you think you might lose your seat in the next election, setting up a quango that you could chair might be a good career plan?

Mods this is not supposed to be a rant, but I do feel strongly about it and I would be interested to hear other opinions.

ei.sdraob · 12-01-2011 6:22pm

Never mind the new quanqo (its just a place where certain Greens can move on past their sell by date and continue milking the state for nice salaries)

The proposed ~30% reduction by 2020 (as opposed to the EU target of ~20%) is very ambitious, this will hit hard small businesses and agriculture and tourism leading to more job losses.
Where is the impact study(ies) and the cost/benefit analysis of (not)implementing this? Why are we rushing headlong yet again without stopping for a second to think into yet another commitment we can not afford to make.

jimmycrackcorm · 12-01-2011 7:40pm

As soon as the Greens are out the next government should reverse the climate bill and teach them a lesson

flutered · 12-01-2011 9:33pm

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

As soon as the Greens are out the next government should reverse the climate bill and teach them a lesson

they are so thick that they cannot be thought.

Minister Boyce · 12-01-2011 9:35pm

Interesting but irrelevent as the Greens will be put out to pasture after the pending General Election... its only my personal opinion, of course I dont know what might happen, I not sherlock holmes you know..

5live · 13-01-2011 9:20pm

I thought John Bryan hit the nail on the Last Word this evening when he called it the bull rather than the bill. Only months ago the greens agreed Food Harvest 2020 with FF where there is a target of 50% increase in milk output. It would be most enlightening if JG can enlighten us how to increase output by 50 % with 30 % less cows. Or has he a loaves and fishes solution in the (non bituminous coal) fire. In short, i cannot see FF backbenchers in mainly rural constituencies backing this (bull)bill with an election 2 months away

RichardAnd · 13-01-2011 9:46pm

Generally, most green policies can be summed up as follows:

Burning the corn field to save it from blight.

flutered · 13-01-2011 10:25pm

they propped up the failures while my country was being raped, now the shoe is on the other foot, this time it is the gomgreens who are attempting to rape,

ei.sdraob · 14-01-2011 12:28pm

debate from this morning

Ciar&#225 wrote: »

Our temperate climate is seldom acknowledged as a national asset but the recent cold spell acted as a timely reminder of its importance to us as a society and an economy.

So now a cold winter are a result of climate change, sigh (despite all the models predicting warmer and wetter winters...)
If its warm blame climate change, if its cold blame climate change, if its wet blame climate change, if its dry blame climate change

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael) wrote:

We are saying there is no need to go outside the current EU guideline of 20% as it might be foolhardy and tie our hands unnecessarily. I say that not from a flat earth or negative position or from a nihilistic effort to mess up what the Minister of State is doing, but from a sensible, realistic perspective. The 20% European guideline should be the realistic target

spot on Joe

Macha · 14-01-2011 12:33pm

ART6, Is your only issue with the Bill the fact that there's an Expert Advisory Board or is it with climate change legislation in general?

RichardAnd · 14-01-2011 1:42pm

So now a cold winter are a result of climate change, sigh (despite all the models predicting warmer and wetter winters...)
If its warm blame climate change, if its cold blame climate change, if its wet blame climate change, if its dry blame climate change

I believe that's why the old slogan of "global warming" was dropped for the wondrously vague mantra that is "Climate Change". It started drizzling yesterday morning and that hasn't happened yet this year, is this climate change? By the logic of the green rangers, who claim that a unusually warm summer's day is because of burning oil, it is!

Here's a few things the climate nazis don't want us to know.

The ice caps on mars are melting, yes mars. Is this being caused humans? Alex Jones put this to a climate change guru and he replied, in a quite conceited manner, "it's cause MArs is closer to the sun"

Further, has anyone ever heard of the medieval warm period? How about the Little Ice Age that followed? I wouldn't imagine so, these fine examples of how earth's climate changed without "carbon emissions" are generally conspicuously absent from general knowledge.

The lesson in this? Never readily believe anything so called experts have to say without looking into it yourself. When everyone has an agenda, the truth is invariably skewed.

Sources:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/07aug_southpole/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

ei.sdraob · 14-01-2011 1:48pm

some more observations on todays debate

ei.sdraob wrote: »

From today's debate on the climate change bill which will tie us to a 30% target

Mark Dearey (Green Party) wrote:

“Some would argue that we should not be setting targets here that exceed our obligations, but this is being done in part in anticipation of the 30% EU target coming into effect in time.
…
The Confederation of British Industry chairman, Sir Richard Lambert, has stated that the CBI will not allow uncertainty of global targets to stop British industry from moving ahead. We cannot be left trailing behind Great Britain and Northern Ireland in our readiness for the low carbon future with which this Bill provides us.”

Paudie Coffey (Fine Gael) wrote:

“They have nuclear energy.”

We should embrace nuclear, just as UK are doing since its the cheapest and fastest way to reduce carbon emissions. UK are already well on their way to meeting their 30% target thanks in part to nuclear with more plants being planned.

Basically the true Green colors are showing now, they want these targets so they look good to their UK friends when it comes to comparing green credentials down the pub.
No analysis or studies have been done, and the only justification is the British are doing it, while ignoring the fact that UK can meet their targets due to a more realistic approach to CO2 reductions, and are not afraid to use technology to achieve the aims.

DoesNotCompute · 14-01-2011 3:34pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

some more observations on todays debate

Basically the true Green colors are showing now, they want these targets so they look good to their UK friends when it comes to comparing green credentials down the pub.
No analysis or studies have been done, and the only justification is the British are doing it, while ignoring the fact that UK can meet their targets due to a more realistic approach to CO2 reductions, and are not afraid to use technology to achieve the aims.

So the Greens want Ireland to start using nuclear power? Anyone else see something inherently wrong with that?

RichardAnd · 14-01-2011 3:44pm

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

So the Greens want Ireland to start using nuclear power? Anyone else see something inherently wrong with that?

There's something about the words "Ireland" and "Nuclear Power" appearing in the same sentence that makes me some what concerned.

However, I'd imagine that our first nuclear plan would look something like this:

http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/3/33281/1027489-300px_nuclear_power_plant_super.jpg

Amhran Nua · 14-01-2011 4:01pm

RichardAnd wrote: »

There's something about the words "Ireland" and "Nuclear Power" appearing in the same sentence that makes me some what concerned.

Why, because you don't run a major pharmaceutical multinational corporation and would be quite happy with the precision work and research done by Irish people here if you were?

A quick word on global warming - Where I'm sitting now was buried under two kilometers of ice around ten thousand years ago. Now clearly I'm not under two kilometers of ice at the moment, rumours about the secret AN Antarctic base notwithstanding, so there is indeed a global warming trend.

Is it an imminent danger? Not really, we won't notice any changes in sea level rises at their current rate for eight hundred years or so, and we won't be facing catastrophic sea level rises for approximately five thousand years.

With that said, I see no reason why we shouldn't cut down on pollution - it's not healthy, and if you wanted to just act the bean counter about it, the health services already cost enough without having to mop up after industrial pollutants. This is a worthy goal. The main issue and where most of the debate rages therefore seems to be the neccessary pace of pollution reduction. Or perhaps in the context of Ireland and the Irish economy, the better question might be can we develop techniques and technology to reduce emissions and sell them to other people.

I don't think we need to exceed EU guidelines on emission reduction, especially if it's going to harm the economy - the country isn't going to fall under the dark waters of the Atlantic anytime soon, we still have plenty of legroom. Our best bet now is to figure out how best to ride the wave, if you will excuse the pun, and make a profit from it.

ART6 · 14-01-2011 4:12pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Basically the true Green colors are showing now, they want these targets so they look good to their UK friends when it comes to comparing green credentials down the pub.
No analysis or studies have been done, and the only justification is the British are doing it, while ignoring the fact that UK can meet their targets due to a more realistic approach to CO2 reductions, and are not afraid to use technology to achieve the aims.

I doubt if it has anything much to do with their UK friends frankly. It's more in the nature of fanatics, particularly of the "holier than thou" brigade (Taliban and Islam as an extreme example). Being quietly concerned about the environment and the poor little frogs and bats without becoming hysterical about it is not a Green attribute.

Scofflaw · 14-01-2011 4:15pm

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Why, because you don't run a major pharmaceutical multinational corporation and would be quite happy with the precision work and research done by Irish people here if you were?

A quick word on global warming - Where I'm sitting now was buried under two kilometers of ice around ten thousand years ago. Now clearly I'm not under two kilometers of ice at the moment, rumours about the secret AN Antarctic base notwithstanding, so there is indeed a global warming trend.

Is it an imminent danger? Not really, we won't notice any changes in sea level rises at their current rate for eight hundred years or so, and we won't be facing catastrophic sea level rises for approximately five thousand years.

With that said, I see no reason why we shouldn't cut down on pollution - it's not healthy, and if you wanted to just act the bean counter about it, the health services already cost enough without having to mop up after industrial pollutants. This is a worthy goal. The main issue and where most of the debate rages therefore seems to be the neccessary pace of pollution reduction. Or perhaps in the context of Ireland and the Irish economy, the better question might be can we develop techniques and technology to reduce emissions and sell them to other people.

I don't think we need to exceed EU guidelines on emission reduction, especially if it's going to harm the economy - the country isn't going to fall under the dark waters of the Atlantic anytime soon, we still have plenty of legroom. Our best bet now is to figure out how best to ride the wave, if you will excuse the pun, and make a profit from it.

And perhaps do so on the basis of the current scientific consensus, which completely contradicts the incredibly optimistic timeline you believe applies to climate change. The current expected sea level rise by 2050 is half a metre, and the rise by 2100 is a metre - and those are the relatively conservative IPCC estimates, which don't factor in any ice sheet collapse.

If you're going to make policy, it's worth doing it on the basis of the available science rather than one's own notions. That way, you don't have to make your Dáil speeches wearing wellies.

Out of interest, how many other people objecting to the proposed legislation here are doing so on the basis of disagreeing with (or being unaware of) the scientific consensus on climate change?

cordially,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob · 14-01-2011 4:22pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

And perhaps do so on the basis of the current scientific consensus, which completely contradicts the incredibly optimistic timeline you believe applies to climate change. The current expected sea level rise by 2050 is half a metre, and the rise by 2100 is a metre.

If you're going to make policy, it's worth doing it on the basis of the available science rather than one's own notions.

Out of interest, how many other people objecting to the proposed legislation here are doing so on the basis of disagreeing with (or being unaware of) the scientific consensus on climate change?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Didn't the scientific models predict that British Isles will be warmer and wetter in winter? Instead we have a Green deputy earlier in the dail telling us that the recent cold snap is a result of climate change.

Successful scientific theories make predictions that come true, and more importantly are easy to replicate in experiments. Now considering that we dont have another Earth to run experiments on that means we need to use computer models, seeing that we now have an opposite observed result to what these models predicted, that means that someone somewhere has to go back to the drawing board (which happens often in science and is a good thing!).

Anyways enough about science theories 101

Where is the economic impact analysis of implementing (or not) this bill and its targets? What is the reason for this bill?? and please dont say "because the Brits are doing it" or the "its 30% or the polar bear gets it"

Amhran Nua · 14-01-2011 4:38pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

And perhaps do so on the basis of the current scientific consensus, which completely contradicts the incredibly optimistic timeline you believe applies to climate change. The current expected sea level rise by 2050 is half a metre, and the rise by 2100 is a metre.

If you're going to make policy, it's worth doing it on the basis of the available science rather than one's own notions.

What makes you think this is based on assumptions or notions? To give a brief overview:

Values for predicted sea level rise over the course of this century typically range from 90 to 880 mm, with a central value of 480 mm. Models of glacier mass balance (the difference between melting and accumulation of snow and ice on a glacier) give a theoretical maximum value for sea level rise in the current century of 2 metres (and a "more plausible" one of 0.8 metres), based on limitations on how quickly glaciers can melt.

Your estimation is on the extreme end of the scale, and that's still assuming a severe acceleration of sea level rises. By the central value it will be around 2200 by the time we see a meter rise. And even if it does go that far that fast, its not the end of the world, its barely a nuisance, I direct you to this excellent site for some coastal recession estimates.

The ability to make successful predictions is one of the hallmarks of good science, not the ability to point a quivering finger at Queensland and say that's the wrath of Mother Nature taking us to school. Climate change science has in fact made some good predictions, but there are still a lot of question marks over the finer details, which I'm unwilling to go into in an economy thread.

The bottom line is that I've advocated vociferously here and elsewhere for green technology, because its the long term best option. Call it sustainable technology if the green sobriquet upsets. I think Ireland can position itself better than many countries still half chained to their industrial revolution roots, to take advantage of this trend, and become a European if not global leader in the field. Under no circumstances could I be accused of being a climate change denialist. I would advocate caution however, and point out that we can effect these changes in a manner that doesn't unduly jeopardise the economy, fragile as it is.

ART6 · 14-01-2011 5:45pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

D

Where is the economic impact analysis of implementing (or not) this bill and its targets? What is the reason for this bill?? and please dont say "because the Brits are doing it" or the "its 30% or the polar bear gets it"

In thirty years as a director of several waste disposal companies I have had many run-ins with environmental activists and can honestly say that I have yet to encounter one that is prepared to take economics into account. As an example, my present company designs, owns, and operates fully automated plants that make biofuels from mixed wastes (including household). We have to date built six of them, and they don't need the wastes to be separated at source by the householders -- the plants do it in enclosed machinery at a rate of hundreds of tonnes an hour with no human contact with the wastes.

Instead of taking advantage of such private-sector funded facilities the environmental lobby demanded separate bin collections that dramatically increased the collection and disposal costs for local authorities and waste companies, and as a result, for the taxpayer. They were prepared to ignore the obvious health hazards of collecting a food waste bin only every three weeks (flies and rats have rights too you know), and they conveniently ignored the fact that almost all of the low value collected "recyclables" have to be transported over extended distances that have their own environmental impact -- in the case of Ireland mainly to the UK.

None of that matters to a "Green". What is much more important is the rosy glow of satisfaction that results from having forced people to do something pointless in the name of environmental protection.

This bill, I suspect, is simply another such case. These people are not helping the environment by damaging the economy as it is the economy that provides the funds for environmental protection. They are just not interested in that argument.

RichardAnd · 14-01-2011 5:49pm

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Why, because you don't run a major pharmaceutical multinational corporation and would be quite happy with the precision work and research done by Irish people here if you were?

A quick word on global warming - Where I'm sitting now was buried under two kilometers of ice around ten thousand years ago. Now clearly I'm not under two kilometers of ice at the moment, rumours about the secret AN Antarctic base notwithstanding, so there is indeed a global warming trend.

Is it an imminent danger? Not really, we won't notice any changes in sea level rises at their current rate for eight hundred years or so, and we won't be facing catastrophic sea level rises for approximately five thousand years.

With that said, I see no reason why we shouldn't cut down on pollution - it's not healthy, and if you wanted to just act the bean counter about it, the health services already cost enough without having to mop up after industrial pollutants. This is a worthy goal. The main issue and where most of the debate rages therefore seems to be the neccessary pace of pollution reduction. Or perhaps in the context of Ireland and the Irish economy, the better question might be can we develop techniques and technology to reduce emissions and sell them to other people.

I don't think we need to exceed EU guidelines on emission reduction, especially if it's going to harm the economy - the country isn't going to fall under the dark waters of the Atlantic anytime soon, we still have plenty of legroom. Our best bet now is to figure out how best to ride the wave, if you will excuse the pun, and make a profit from it.

I wasn't suggesting we dump toxic waste in Cavan. What I was getting at in my post was how climate change and all that jazz is being used as an excuse to invent taxes. Don't get me wrong though, I never pollute not have I any wish to but this save the planet stuff has been bastardised beyond belief.

Einhard · 14-01-2011 6:01pm

ART6 wrote: »

I doubt if it has anything much to do with their UK friends frankly. It's more in the nature of fanatics, particularly of the "holier than thou" brigade (Taliban and Islam as an extreme example). Being quietly concerned about the environment and the poor little frogs and bats without becoming hysterical about it is not a Green attribute.

It's a bit silly, and frankly disingenuous, to go on about the Greens as if they are a party solely concerned with saving little critters at the expense of progress. Over the course of the Celtic Tiger, hundreds of thousands of homes and commercial buildings were built with appalling energy retention capacity. When the Greens came into power, they immediately brought in far stricter energy standards for new builds, and also insisted that all homes for sale receive an energy rating. Were those simple and cost effective measures in place up to 2007, we'd have one the most energy efficent housing stocks in the world, and the savings, both per household, and on a national level would be very significant. There are many reasons to criticise the Greens, and I agree, their CC Bill is rushed, and seems more of an election plank than a well thought out strategy, but to rubbish the Greens as wooly headed, hemp wearing environmental zealots, with their heads in the clouds and incapable of adressing wider national needs, is a gross and unwarranted stereotype, and by exposing your own prejudices on the matter, inclines anyone reading your posts on the matter to dismiss them.

Einhard · 14-01-2011 6:03pm

RichardAnd wrote: »

I wasn't suggesting we dump toxic waste in Cavan. What I was getting at in my post was how climate change and all that jazz is being used as an excuse to invent taxes. Don't get me wrong though, I never pollute not have I any wish to but this save the planet stuff has been bastardised beyond belief.

You don't believe in climate change?

mossyc123 · 14-01-2011 6:17pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

Out of interest, how many other people objecting to the proposed legislation here are doing so on the basis of disagreeing with (or being unaware of) the scientific consensus on climate change?

Put me on the "denier" list.
In my opinion it's utter horseh!t that normal progressive human activity is going to lead to a catastrophic climate endgame.
The nonsense thats been shoved down our throats these last few years is simply a reason to create new taxes.
We'll look back and laugh in 20/30 years at the utter nonsense being spouted about this issue these days.
By all means look at alternative sources of energy and be as good to the environment as possible but DON'T believe that what we are doing is in anyway affecting the weather!!!

ei.sdraob · 14-01-2011 6:17pm

Climate Change Bill will cost the economy 400 million per year Says IBEC study

These estimates are very conservative, this is also being debated over on irisheconomy.ie

That cost estimate is exceedingly optimistic for the following reasons:

IBEC assumes that emissions from land use are accounted for according to the yet-to-be-enacted EU rules.
IBEC takes the EPA’s with-additional-measures scenario as its starting point. That scenario is rich in wishful thinking, and IBEC does not count the costs of the “additional measures”.
IBEC’s numbers are based on an engineering model. Such models are notorious for underestimating the costs of emission reduction.
IBEC assumes that the marginal cost of -30% by 2030 is the same as the marginal cost of -30% by 2020. This would be true if the capital stock has an average life time of one year.
The cost estimate assumes that the emission reduction burden is shared optimally between ETS and non-ETS. As I’ve argued before, the extra burden would fall on the non-ETS.
The model covers emissions from energy only. The IBEC estimate therefore omits the costs of reducing non-energy emissions (methane from cattle).
Even so, IBEC reckons that the cost will run to €400 million per year. I do not know what the cost would be, but it would certainly be much higher than that.

As I mentioned in previous threads on the subject where is the official cost/benefit analysis of this bill? why is it being rushed?? Now that IBEC released this document the estimates are even worse than I feared.
Taking 400 million+ out of the economy each and every year while the main polluters on the same planet we share continue ignoring carbon, is a mistake.

Why is this large cost being imposed on the economy on ideological grounds without proper economic analyses and studies being produce first? Yet again the country is being rushed into by FF/Greens into another expensive commitment.

RichardAnd · 14-01-2011 6:18pm

Einhard wrote: »

You don't believe in climate change?

I believe in climate change. Earth's climate changes constantly and has ever done so. What I do not believe in is the populist notion of climate change, that is to say, that every slightly cold winter is a result of cars burning petrol.

Climate change happens allright but it takes hundreds of years to occur and, I dare say, putting more and more tax on petrol will not prevent a big freeze next winter. We are at the mercy of mother earth, it's not the other way round.

ei.sdraob · 14-01-2011 6:27pm

Einhard wrote: »

It's a bit silly, and frankly disingenuous, to go on about the Greens

True FF are (as usual) involved in messing up this country, and Labour are even more fanatical about supporting this Bill it seems than the Greens and want to go further!

Einhard wrote: »

You don't believe in climate change?

I wasn't aware that "Climate Change" (or is it Global warming?) is now a religion
If this theory is correct and the models and predictions prove true then it will stand on its own legs without requiring the type of fanatical religious support as displayed by some environmentalists, so far there is a growing body evidence to support man made climate change but the models are far from perfect, predicting warmer winters in Ireland/UK and ending up with record freezing conditions for example.

Anyways "belief" in climate change is not the topic of the discussion its the new quango and the lack of restraint being shown and lack scientific analysis being acted on.

mossyc123 wrote: »

Put me on the "denier" list.

Here we have an example of the Greens alienating people with their half-arsed policies, why the rush to implement more half arsed policies?

Amhran Nua · 14-01-2011 6:34pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

why the rush to implement more half arsed policies?

They know they will be vapourised in the next election, and want to make a gesture that might salvage some of the hardcore votes, after the parade of travesties they presided over in association with FF.

ART6 · 14-01-2011 6:58pm

Einhard wrote: »

It's a bit silly, and frankly disingenuous, to go on about the Greens as if they are a party solely concerned with saving little critters at the expense of progress. Over the course of the Celtic Tiger, hundreds of thousands of homes and commercial buildings were built with appalling energy retention capacity. When the Greens came into power, they immediately brought in far stricter energy standards for new builds, and also insisted that all homes for sale receive an energy rating. Were those simple and cost effective measures in place up to 2007, we'd have one the most energy efficent housing stocks in the world, and the savings, both per household, and on a national level would be very significant. There are many reasons to criticise the Greens, and I agree, their CC Bill is rushed, and seems more of an election plank than a well thought out strategy, but to rubbish the Greens as wooly headed, hemp wearing environmental zealots, with their heads in the clouds and incapable of adressing wider national needs, is a gross and unwarranted stereotype, and by exposing your own prejudices on the matter, inclines anyone reading your posts on the matter to dismiss them.

OK, I accept your criticism. However, I was addressing the green movement rather that the Green party directly. I suppose I have become somewhat disenchanted with the environmental lobby over the years as I have spoken at a number of public meetings and have been shouted down by people who are not prepared to consider science or economics.

I don't doubt that environmentalists (and I consider myself to be one -- I have spent half my career doing it) have made improvements in the human condition. What I would argue, however, is that the people who did it were engineers and scientists, and yes, economists, not hysterical fanatics. Every human development should be prefaced by the questions (a) is it essential (b) is it desirable (c) Can we afford it and (b) what happens if we don't?

nice_guy80 · 14-01-2011 7:37pm

i've been so disappointed with the Greens in government

all they seem to have done is put carbon taxes on everything

i expected to see big changes in our recycling targets
a better stimulus for small businesses and micro enterprise
promoting Ireland hugely abroad in terms of fruit, veg, high quality foods and farming produce

manic mailman · 14-01-2011 8:07pm

Wow I never thought that it's be such a huge expense. It's a long term commitment aswell. My opinion is that the greens are only attempting to rush this through so that people have something to remember them by because, come election day, they will most likely be going bye-bye!

How far along are they of actually getting this legislation through by the way can anyone tell me?

Gormley's Climate Change Bill

Comments