EU climate plan raises 'serious issues' for Ireland

[Destiny's Soldier]

Cows belch methane. We have a lot of cows. For this to work, our cattle herd would have to be cut by more than 200,000. Bang go most of our farmers, the rural economy based on them, and a fair share of our exports.

However every week the Chinese open a new coal-burning power station that is the equivalent of about 50,000 cows.

The time has come for enlightened self-interest, which means dropping some large bombs on China.

You see months ago I was saying that by making the West feel the pain of Global Taxes on CO2, the finger would ultimately be pointed at China which would justify in the mind of the public for the US squaring up to them. Already people are at the embryonic stages of justifying a fight with China (however tongue in cheek it is written above.)

[Destiny's Soldier]

Robinson A. R., Robinson N. E. and Soon W. (2007): “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 12, 79-90

Abstract: A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth’s weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth.
Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor greenhouse gases
like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge.

[Trampas]

This is nonsense on stilts. If we are that concerned about future generations then we would be better employed in giving some inexpensive thought to the type of society that we are leaving for them.

[ibis]

[quote=Destiny's Soldier]

Cows belch methane. We have a lot of cows. For this to work, our cattle herd would have to be cut by more than 200,000. Bang go most of our farmers, the rural economy based on them, and a fair share of our exports.

However every week the Chinese open a new coal-burning power station that is the equivalent of about 50,000 cows.

The time has come for enlightened self-interest, which means dropping some large bombs on China.

You see months ago I was saying that by making the West feel the pain of Global Taxes on CO2, the finger would ultimately be pointed at China which would justify in the mind of the public for the US squaring up to them. Already people are at the embryonic stages of justifying a fight with China (however tongue in cheek it is written above.)[/quote:242y53ie]

Yeah, because it's so difficult for the US to pick fights with people. Just look at Iraq. Or Afghanistan. Or Vietnam. Or Korea. Or...well, anyway, China does have WMD. Real ones.

[Auditor #9]

Cows belch methane. We have a lot of cows. For this to work, our cattle herd would have to be cut by more than 200,000. Bang go most of our farmers, the rural economy based on them, and a fair share of our exports.

However every week the Chinese open a new coal-burning power station that is the equivalent of about 50,000 cows.

The time has come for enlightened self-interest, which means dropping some large bombs on China.

Mother of God. There must be a full moon tonight.

[Wide-eyed Skeptic]

well, from a more personal viewpoint i spend my days reading papers on the different aspects of the climate change arguement. im convinced that its the right idea. the arguement makes sense to me, and the effects are increasingly evident to me in every day life, as i walk down the street and give a few moments out of my day to notice whats happening (and WHEN) outside my kitchen window.

I dont mind personally paying the price of two pints a week in possibly remedial measures. im saving my liver as well as staving off the possibility of something really bad happening in my lifetime (it costs less than my pension!!!)

Furthermore, the arguements proposed here (albeit made by distnguished scientists and choice selected) are those concerning the smaller details of the anthropogenically induced climate change theory. Not once has anyone managed to catagorically disprove the theory, which is why it still stands (are people really so naieve think that scientists arnt working flat out to get the fame of being that one person who disproved the climate change theory... scientists are people too!). It is accepted by the overwhelming MAJORITY of scientists (inherently trained to think critically and evaluate everything they read or hear!), and so far as ive read, every arguement and shred of evidence against the cc theory, has had a sensible counterarguement within 3 years (time taken for some phd student to get his doctorate gettting the relevant paper published).

Some people say its too much (the majority of them posting here!), many say too little (alas in frightful absence here to balance the arguement). Both are looking at the tiny details and not the big picture.
I'd argue it's just the right amount.

20% reduction provides a powerful stimulus for social and economic change (sorely needed by our nation given by what i see every saturday night and on the bus home), and staves off the possibility of far worse things happening (even the possibility is unacceptable). 16% renewable generation increases our nations energy security (woefully inadequate at the moment!). I think it is achievable and i will vote for those that endorse it and actually do the work to achieve it. Those who dont, frankly will not get my vote.

p.s.... there no "wacky loonies", only people with very strong opinions.

[paddygreenman]

Didnt expect there to be such questioning of whether global warming actually exists. I mean when one considers that last year the likes of America and Saudi Arabia acknowledged that it is happening and it is man made, that for me is the clincher along with the latest IPCC reports themselves.

I also dont like the way this billion a year figure is been thrown into the mix, without any costings whatsoever, wheres that coming from. I acknowledge that it will cost something, but i would like to see detailed analysis before a figure like that is bandied about. I have calculated a figure that we will benefit to tune of 22.34billion by the year 2020 due to the less oil dependency, better public transport system, more efficient houses etc that the likely appropriate measures will entail. My back of the envelope CBA analysis also included non-quantitive assessments like quality of life and cleaner air as well as a comprehensive insight into the costings with regard to flights, private cars, heating etc.

What is our governments position on climate change? Bertie and co have stated that it is real and is man made and that Ireland are doing something about it. Why just tell us about the issues with the costing of global warming mitigation. Why dont they focus on the serious and economic consequences of global warming as outlined in the IPCC reports (in which global emissions rates of these years are even beyond the worse case scenario). All we hear is how Ireland strives to be sustainable, but maybe the governments main objection is that this will force them to do something in their lifetime, greens or no greens.

Is our current climate strategy not already aimed at reducing Irelands CO2 emissions by 2 or 3% a year (correct me if i am wrong) so this EU level new plan shouldnt make a difference to our current position and goals on global warming. Or is it that the national climate plan is just rhetoric beyond the lifetime of the government and the EU plan will actually force action on the issue.

All I have seen so far, is negativity from the plan, that its gonna to cost us, but personally i feel that this could also be an opportunity as it may force us to look at quality of life issues like public transport provision and proper planning seriously. I feel it is a pity that the Building Energy Regulations are not going to be brought in till next year (God knows how that is going to affect many houses for sale in the near future, especially with the amount of shoddy houses that were thrown up in the bubble)

With relation to the green party who are mainly in government to combat the issue of global warming and to prioritise it over other certain principles, I wonder how they feel about the following.

"the Government is expected to mount a strong lobbying campaign to try to reduce the 20 per cut in Ireland's greenhouse gas emissions proposed by the European Commission yesterday".

I expect nothing less from FF, but surely the greens will oppose even the mere attempt at lobbying? How can they be part of a government that lobbies to reduce climate change measures?


http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/frontp ... 75064.html

[Quartz]

Eh - the thread has gotten a little off topic. At the end of the day, no matter how many people believe the scientific consensus on climate change - there will people who won't. Reading through the posts I'll admit that I do get a bit frustrated at some of the stuff posted here (and in other places). I'm directly involved in climate change research and do believe that it is a very serious problem. But whether you believe that or not is irrelevant as there is a lot to be gained by a more sustainable lifestyle, economy and environment.

The "serious issues" raised in the thread title are not of the European Commission's making - they are of our own making - and in particular Fianna Fáil. FF have, as they put it, presided over the Celtic Tiger; but look at what they've achieved in the Transport, Environment and Energy departments. Those 3 departments, the various Ministers, high-ranking Civil Servants and FF policy are the route cause of our present enormous per capita CO2 emissions.

[qtman]

Cows belch methane. We have a lot of cows. For this to work, our cattle herd would have to be cut by more than 200,000. Bang go most of our farmers, the rural economy based on them, and a fair share of our exports.

OFFS...

I love these people who claim to be advocates for rural Ireland and then demonstrate a complete ignorance of rural affairs.

Our National Herd will not have to be cut. Our National Herd has been declining for years, and will continue to decline in response to competition from South America.

This decline will not be as rapid as once thought, due to increased demand for beef and dairy products, but we should easily be able to maintain the size of the National herd as it currently exists and meet these targets. The size of our national herd is broadly the same now as it was in the 1990s, when our emissions levels were well within what is required by the EU.

And the rural economy is not based on agriculture, and hasn't been for years. Agriculture accounts for less than 3% of GDP, and less than 10% of GNP. The rural economy is primarily sustained by construction, the Public Sector and wealth transfer.

[/quote]

[riven]

I second the OFFS

Even if you forget the climate issue (we are in an unusual period of the earths history with 2 polar caps) lets look at the other benifits of cutting back emissions
1 Less waste. In steel manufacturing, 20% of your plant energy could go into remediation of wastes. So dont produce that waste and save 20%
2. Sustainability. In 20 years, Germany may not be a water stable country. they currently have a medium stress on water supply. The only way for them to combat this is to act green and reduce their water usage,
3. Less raw materials are used. Applying green principles would be very useful in oil. Looking at the production process, (distillation trains), 10% of usuable product (refined oil/petrol, organics etc) is lost in the train and never recovered. 10% of the total oil is a lot. Further, there is no saying what efficiencies are like in 3 world countries.

So forget climate and still there are many resaons to cut emissions.