CO2 levels in exhaled breath,

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
11,219
Twitter
Deiscirt
& what might these "policies" be.
Carbon taxes. Incentives for renewables. Power being more expensive than it needs to be. That sort of thing.
 


mangaire2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
9,559
Yes, yes, this is the unknown, but same goes, you would never fly if you took into account all the risks.

The infamous "burps of death" of yesteryear could happen again, and so on.



An unknown possible and very future risk is not a sound basis for taxation.

I am all in favour of solar and wind to make us more self reliant. I also welcome a warmer island, sorry bout that.
I explained to you how you were incorrect in your claim that "exhaled breath" contributed to GW.
I also addressed a number of other incorrect claims that you made here.
as you have not contested any of my claims, I expect that you accept them & that you are now a little bit better informed than you were when you started this thread, & that is progress.

re your latest comment -
"you would never fly if you took into account all the risks."
sorry - more BS from you.
I don't know what the risk of losing your life is, in commercial air travel, but it must be several million to one.
I have a better chance of losing my life in a car accident rather than in a plane crash.
now if I was to fly from Shannon to New York with Aer Lingus, & they told me that there was a problem with the aircraft that they were unable to identify, & there was a one in ten chance of the aircraft crashing - do you think that I would set a foot on that plane ?
I would in my arse.
so, as I said - more of your BS.

as for your -
" An unknown possible and very future risk is not a sound basis for taxation."
when it comes to "risk" the odds are only half the story.
the consequences are the other half.
the consequences of a 3C or 4C or 5C increase in global temperature would be disastrous for mankind, although unlikely to be in your or my lifetime.

you say -
"I also welcome a warmer island,"
so do I - especially the milder winters ( apart from one) the we have been getting for the past couple of decades.
I don't however welcome the unprecedented week or two we got last Summer when native plant growth ceased for a week or two as a result of high temperatures & drought - I certainly don't welcome that situation becoming more frequent & more severe in the future.
& I certainly do not welcome the higher temperatures in the regions of the world that are already barely habitable due to high temperature, drought & extreme climatic events.

& by the way - when it comes to the consequences of GW - we have seen nothing yet.
 

mangaire2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
9,559
Can you explain your reasoning (I'm assuming you support it) behind Ireland implementing policies which will harm the economy and quality of life and do nothing to address AGW?
Carbon taxes. Incentives for renewables. Power being more expensive than it needs to be. That sort of thing.
No - I don't support AGW policies "which will harm the economy and quality of life and do nothing to address AGW".

AGW harms the economy & "quality of life" & the harm is only beginning.
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
11,219
Twitter
Deiscirt
No - I don't support AGW policies "which will harm the economy and quality of life and do nothing to address AGW".

AGW harms the economy & "quality of life" & the harm is only beginning.
I think what you mean here is you don't think AGW policies which harm the economy and quality of life and do nothing to address AGW harm the economy and do address AGW. Am I right?
 

mangaire2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
9,559
I think what you mean here is you don't think AGW policies which harm the economy and quality of life and do nothing to address AGW harm the economy and do address AGW. Am I right?
not too sure what you are trying to say there.
I do not support AGW policies that "do nothing to address AGW".
sadly, there is no painless way of attempting to limit the consequences of AGW, - unless you have some ideas ?
but doing nothing is likely to be disastrous.
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
11,219
Twitter
Deiscirt
Well, my point was that Ireland is facing energy costs that are higher than they need to be because of our commitment to "tackle" AGW. And the problem with that is that nothing that Ireland can do would make a difference. We're a rounding error in the grand scheme of things. No country in the EU is even in the top 10 emitters.

So, my claim is that we're suppressing our own economic efficiency and quality of life (disposable income side of it anyway) for no actual tangible benefit.
 

mangaire2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
9,559
Well, my point was that Ireland is facing energy costs that are higher than they need to be because of our commitment to "tackle" AGW. And the problem with that is that nothing that Ireland can do would make a difference. We're a rounding error in the grand scheme of things. No country in the EU is even in the top 10 emitters.

So, my claim is that we're suppressing our own economic efficiency and quality of life (disposable income side of it anyway) for no actual tangible benefit.
but so is every other country (apart perhaps from the USA) to a greater or lesser extent "facing energy costs that are higher than they need to be because of their commitment to "tackle" AGW".

is it your claim that a country must have a certain population before they 'tackle' AGW' ??
if so, what is that population ?
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
11,219
Twitter
Deiscirt
but so is every other country (apart perhaps from the USA) to a greater or lesser extent "facing energy costs that are higher than they need to be because of their commitment to "tackle" AGW".
Except the great ecological Satan eh?


is it your claim that a country must have a certain population before they 'tackle' AGW' ??
if so, what is that population ?
My claim is that the pain inflicted should be commensurate with the actual reductions achieved. Ireland cannot meaningfully even nudge the needle. So what is the argument for inflicting pain when it won't achieve any measurable result? Is it because we are moral leaders? You think Indonesia or China give a flying feck what Europe does never mind Ireland?

Now, if every country was feeling the same pain, I'd say sure. But they're not. Are they?
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
11,219
Twitter
Deiscirt
Since 2005 annual U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have declined by 758 million metric tons. That is by far the largest decline of any country in the world over that timespan and is nearly as large as the 770 million metric ton decline for the entire European Union.



By comparison, the second largest decline during that period was registered by the United Kingdom, which reported a 170 million metric ton decline. At the same time, China's carbon dioxide emissions grew by 3 billion metric tons, and India's grew by 1 billion metric tons.
 

Stentor

Well-known member
Joined
May 14, 2012
Messages
2,123
Fact 1: Cutting carbon by penalizing its use puts significant costs on the Irish economy lowering the living standards of Irish people.

Fact 2: If Ireland were to cease all carbon output tomorrow the difference to the planetary environment would be literally undetectable.
Just about the most stupid and irrelevant comment I've ever read here.

Mega-Super-Pangloss strikes again.
 

Watcher2

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2010
Messages
34,129
Since 2005 annual U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have declined by 758 million metric tons. That is by far the largest decline of any country in the world over that timespan and is nearly as large as the 770 million metric ton decline for the entire European Union.



By comparison, the second largest decline during that period was registered by the United Kingdom, which reported a 170 million metric ton decline. At the same time, China's carbon dioxide emissions grew by 3 billion metric tons, and India's grew by 1 billion metric tons.
I don't believe any claims emanating from the Trump administration. How could any sane individual believe them? Maybe the claims are true, I simply don't believe them and that is because Trump is a unique bender of the truth. Its 'uge I tell you, 'UGE.

Also, you are attempting to equate the US with individual countries in Europe. For the purposes of what you are discuss, you really should view the United States of America with the United States of Europe. Otherwise, you are being entirely disingenuous.
 

mangaire2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
9,559


My claim is that the pain inflicted should be commensurate with the actual reductions achieved. Ireland cannot meaningfully even nudge the needle. So what is the argument for inflicting pain when it won't achieve any measurable result? Is it because we are moral leaders? You think Indonesia or China give a flying feck what Europe does never mind Ireland?

Now, if every country was feeling the same pain, I'd say sure. But they're not. Are they?
"Except the great ecological Satan eh?"
is it because the US has been more responsible than any other country for the CO2 emissions currently in the atmosphere, & that the US is the current leader (apart from a handful of insignificant, mainly oil producing countries) when it comes to emissions per capita, & that they have reneged under their commitments under Paris, that you term them "the great ecological Satan" ?
Ireland cannot meaningfully even nudge the needle. So what is the argument for inflicting pain when it won't achieve any measurable result?
much the same argument I would suggest, as to why you & I are required to suffer the pain of paying Income Tax ?
Is it because we are moral leaders? You think Indonesia or China give a flying feck what Europe does never mind Ireland?
we definitely are NOT moral leaders when it comes to action in reducing our GHG emissions.
Indonesia & China can't think, but i'm sure that there very many in both nations who would strongly object to the countries of Europe not been required to play their part in reducing their emissions.
Now, if every country was feeling the same pain, I'd say sure. But they're not. Are they?
countries can't feel pain, people feel pain.
& as regards GW, the people that will most likely feel the most pain, initially at least, are the people inhabiting the regions of the planet that are barely inhabitable at present, due to high temperature, drought or extreme climatic events.
& it of course be the poor of all countries, developed or undeveloped who will endure the most pain.
 

middleground

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 30, 2014
Messages
906
Since 2005 annual U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have declined by 758 million metric tons. That is by far the largest decline of any country in the world over that timespan and is nearly as large as the 770 million metric ton decline for the entire European Union.



By comparison, the second largest decline during that period was registered by the United Kingdom, which reported a 170 million metric ton decline. At the same time, China's carbon dioxide emissions grew by 3 billion metric tons, and India's grew by 1 billion metric tons.
Very risky to just compare two periods in time. For example, you could equally have said that EU28 emissions decreased by one billion tonnes since the early 1990s whereas the USA emissions were unchanged in the same period i.e. around 2005 was a high point for the USA whereas the EU28 high occurred at least 15 years earlier..
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
11,219
Twitter
Deiscirt
Very risky to just compare two periods in time. For example, you could equally have said that EU28 emissions decreased by one billion tonnes since the early 1990s whereas the USA emissions were unchanged in the same period i.e. around 2005 was a high point for the USA whereas the EU28 high occurred at least 15 years earlier..
Yes, there are many ways to slice and dice it. I posted that because it is popular amongst many to regard the US as uniquely evil when it comes to climate. Like its some sort of Western Original Sin.
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
11,219
Twitter
Deiscirt
Conspicuously, no Chinese city has had the urge, despite China’s greenhouse gas emissions growing at the fastest pace in seven years and outpacing the US and EU combined. No Indian city has either, despite faster emissions growth than any other major energy-consuming nation.

Meanwhile, Britain, France, Canada and Ireland have capitulated. Britain has introduced legislation to become CO2 neutral by 2050. It will mean a change to almost every aspect of life and carries an estimated cost of more than £1 trillion ($1.8 trillion). Ireland, having missed both domestic and EU emissions targets, is simply virtue signalling.


This virtue signalling hysteria will cost Irish people billions and will do nothing to alleviate the problem. What rot.
 

mangaire2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
9,559
...…… it is popular amongst many to regard the US as uniquely evil when it comes to climate. Like its some sort of Western Original Sin.
the US has been more responsible than any other country for the CO2 emissions currently in the atmosphere, & the US is the current leader (apart from a handful of insignificant, mainly oil producing countries) when it comes to emissions per capita, & they have reneged under their commitments under Paris,
on the positive side a number of states are ignoring Trump, & reducing emissions.
& of course a huge amount of valuable Climate research is being carried out by US institutions.
Conspicuously, no Chinese city has had the urge, despite China’s greenhouse gas emissions growing at the fastest pace in seven years and outpacing the US and EU combined. No Indian city has either, despite faster emissions growth than any other major energy-consuming nation.

ten times or more people inhabit the regions of the plant, known as China & India, as inhabit the region known as the USA, but their emissions are way, way lower than ten times that of the of the USA.

Meanwhile, Britain, France, Canada and Ireland have capitulated. Britain has introduced legislation to become CO2 neutral by 2050. It will mean a change to almost every aspect of life and carries an estimated cost of more than £1 trillion ($1.8 trillion). Ireland, having missed both domestic and EU emissions targets, is simply virtue signalling.
Britain has very ambitious targets for CO2 reduction, & all of the main political parties support these targets.
sadly however, Boris Johnson appears to be eager & willing to be Trump's poodle, so there must now be a large question mark over the UK CO2 targets.

BTW you appear to have thrown in the towel in our earlier debate.
you made a number of assertions that did not stand up.
I challenged you on them & you crawled away.
you also avoided answering a number of straight questions that I posed to you.

your fellow AGW Denier McTell who started this conversation, appears to have thrown in the towel too.
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
11,219
Twitter
Deiscirt
the US has been more responsible than any other country for the CO2 emissions currently in the atmosphere, & the US is the current leader (apart from a handful of insignificant, mainly oil producing countries) when it comes to emissions per capita, & they have reneged under their commitments under Paris,
on the positive side a number of states are ignoring Trump, & reducing emissions.
& of course a huge amount of valuable Climate research is being carried out by US institutions.

ten times or more people inhabit the regions of the plant, known as China & India, as inhabit the region known as the USA, but their emissions are way, way lower than ten times that of the of the USA.


Britain has very ambitious targets for CO2 reduction, & all of the main political parties support these targets.
sadly however, Boris Johnson appears to be eager & willing to be Trump's poodle, so there must now be a large question mark over the UK CO2 targets.

BTW you appear to have thrown in the towel in our earlier debate.
you made a number of assertions that did not stand up.
I challenged you on them & you crawled away.
you also avoided answering a number of straight questions that I posed to you.

your fellow AGW Denier McTell who started this conversation, appears to have thrown in the towel too.
Mind your manners. I didn't "crawl" away and I am not a denier.
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
11,219
Twitter
Deiscirt
the US has been more responsible than any other country for the CO2 emissions currently in the atmosphere, & the US is the current leader (apart from a handful of insignificant, mainly oil producing countries) when it comes to emissions per capita, & they have reneged under their commitments under Paris,
on the positive side a number of states are ignoring Trump, & reducing emissions.
& of course a huge amount of valuable Climate research is being carried out by US institutions.
And yet here we remain with the inconvenient fact of the US having reduced its CO2 more than anywhere else.

ten times or more people inhabit the regions of the plant, known as China & India, as inhabit the region known as the USA, but their emissions are way, way lower than ten times that of the of the USA.
The Earth doesn't care how many people produced the CO2. Some leeway should be allowed for them to catch up - that's only fair but it underlies the lunacy of Ireland inflicting pain on itself.


Britain has very ambitious targets for CO2 reduction, & all of the main political parties support these targets.
sadly however, Boris Johnson appears to be eager & willing to be Trump's poodle, so there must now be a large question mark over the UK CO2 targets.
You're a real black and white person, aren't you. "DON'T LIKE MASSIVE REDUCTIONS THAT WILL HARM THE ECONOMY AND DO BUGGER ALL TO CHANGE ANYTHING? YOU'RE TRUMP'S POODLE!"

BTW you appear to have thrown in the towel in our earlier debate.
you made a number of assertions that did not stand up.
I challenged you on them & you crawled away.
you also avoided answering a number of straight questions that I posed to you.

your fellow AGW Denier McTell who started this conversation, appears to have thrown in the towel too.
Link? I've lost track.
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
6,413
Twitter
No
//

your fellow AGW Denier McTell who started this conversation, appears to have thrown in the towel too.

Haha, no, I'd made my point by, y'know, starting the thread.

It seems that when we've dumped the church and various other vital wind-ups in our national life, some of us need to get wound up anyway, and climate change looks as trendy as anything.

In terms of Gaia theory, more CO2 is not a problem.

In terms of a political class staying in control of 7 billion, it could be a problem.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top