I was watching Prime Time the other night and I had to laugh (or was it cry) at the complete bullshít being spun by Denis Naughten in relation to climate change.
It was pointed out to him that the taxpayer subsidises every job in Bord Na Mona to the tune of €100,000 per year.
But the average pay in Bord Na Mona is only €50,000 per year.
We could close down BNM in the morning, reduce the subsidy by half, and still pay all the workers the same salary as they are getting today.If the peat-fired power stations were closed tomorrow, and the workers involved continued to be employed on their current wages, subsidising these jobs would only cost €50 million, not €100 million. Electricity consumers would pay less to subsidise these jobs, and Ireland’s greenhouse gas emissions would fall substantially as a result of discontinuing this polluting fuel use.
Not only that, but we would reduce the emissions from an exceptionally polluting fuel - shutting down the turf fired power stations would reduce our climate change emissions by 4% -as well as create a carbon sink by re-wetting the bogs (wet bogs take CO2 out of the air and store it in the bog).
Naughten's response (using Martin Cullen standard trigger words - must have used the same PR company for media training) was to waffle on about how these emissions are accounted for. To him it doesn't matter whether we reduce emissions, as long as he gets credit for it. The way these (massive) emissions from burning peat are accounted for wouldn't give him any credit, so he isn't interested.“Once the bog is wet, the live mosses which build the bog will return in force. In locations like this, when the live mosses are active again the bog can return to being a carbon sink.
“We hear a lot about the effectiveness of rainforests in this regard but Irish bogs can be just as effective in drawing down and storing carbon.
But this isn't the only time he has played this game.
When Ireland was reported to be the second most useless Country in Europe when it came to reducing climate change emissions, Naughten "rejected" it (Martin Cullen's favourite phrase when called out on his bullshítting was "I reject that").
Naughten waffled on about all the things the Government are talking about doing.
But he offered no immediate solutions to try and reverse the growth in climate change emissions - it's not that we are failing to reduce emissions fast enough. Ireland is actually increasing emissions year on year.Mr Naughten cited key investment priorities that will have an impact on Ireland’s climate targets including:
Transitioning Moneypoint power station away from coal by 2025;
Energy efficiency upgrades of 45,000 homes a year from 2021 and providing support for a rollout of heat pump technologies;
Delivering energy upgrades to all public buildings and a minimum of one-third of commercial buildings;
Implementing a Renewable Electricity Support Scheme to deliver an additional 3,000-4,500mw of renewable energy with initial focus on “shovel-ready projects”;
Rollout of a support scheme for renewable heat energy and a national smart metering programme;
At least 500,000 electric vehicles on the road by 2030; and
A €500 million climate action fund to leverage investment by public and private bodies in climate actions.
But when it comes to actually reversing the trend of increasing pollution, nada.Mr Naughten said the conclusions failed to reflect Ireland’s stated ambition on climate action.
“We are, as a country, playing catch-up on our obligations in relation to climate change. This is as much our opportunity as our obligation. In any event it is a moral necessity and a vital national interest. Addressing climate change and our climate targets out to 2030 and beyond is at the top of the policy agenda for the Government.”
Sweet F**k All.
Another example of Naughten's comlete and utter incompetence lies in the area of plastic pollution.
He has rubbished a plan to introduce a returnable deposit scheme for plastic bottles.
No it wouldn't cost €116 million of taxpayers money.There was just one issue which would not allow me to ensure that this Bill went to the next stage and that was the compulsory nature of introducing a Deposit and Return Scheme (DRS). I am not opposed to a deposit and return scheme in principle, but because it would cost approximately €116 million of taxpayers’ money to implement, I need to be absolutely positive that it would work and be effective.
It would cost €116 million (or probably a lot less) of REPAK's money.
Put the onus on industry to fix the problem/
They make money out of causing the problem.
Let them find a way to make money out of fixing the problem.
This is a lie.But instead of agreeing to this, opposition members wanted to force the spending of €116 million on a scheme to improve recycling rates by 1% while imposing a cost of an extra €1 per lift on a families’ recycling bin.
This is a lie.Furthermore when such a model was looked at in Spain they found that the extra transport involved in a deposit and return scheme would lead to a carbon negative footprint which is something identified by Environmental Protection Agencies across the EU.
But the best part of this debate was when he talked on radio recently (Today SOR) about a deposit scheme that was run at a music festival. He noted that kids made a fortune going around picking up waste and bringing it back to claim the deposit.
He thought (or pretended to think) that this showed the failure of the system.
In fact, this showed the potential success of the system.
Imagine if people were to go out and pick up the litter on the beaches, or on the side of the road, and were able to get paid for it (by REPAK, not the taxpayer).
Think how little litter there would be.
Naughten is an incompetent.
Needs a P45.